It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Challenge Match: Truth4Hire v. NYK537 Did the Holocaust Happen?
page: 117
share:
The topic for this debate is "The Holocaust is a Myth".
Truth4Hire will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
nyk537 will argue the con position.
The debate will commence as soon as Truth4Hire is awarded fighter status. The standard debate rules will apply. This is a controversial topic. ATS Terms and Conditions apply as anywhere else on the board and will be enforced. No point of view is outlawed, however intelligent and mature treatment of the subject is expected.
Per the rules of the new challenge system, Truth4Hire is awarded 2 ranking points. The loser will forfeit 2 ranking points. The will recieve two ranking points (If truth 4 hire wins, he already has gained 2 points and will simply retain those, but nyk537 will still have to forfeit two points)
Standard rules are as follow:
Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.
A post may not be any longer than 5,500 characters, using the ATS character counter.
Closing posts may not be any longer than 3,500 characters.
This character limit includes all board code, links, etc.
Extra characters will be deleted from the end of your post.
Please notice that the character counter counts backwards. If for some reason your character counter won't let you post a full 5,500 characters in one post, make a second post to finish your 5,500, and then u2u me and let me know.
Editing is strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted. This prevents cheating. If you make an honest mistake which needs fixing, you must U2U me. I will do a limited amount of editing for good cause. Please use spell check before you post.
Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references. Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post.
Responses should be made within 24 hours, if people are late with their replies, they run the risk of forfeiting their reply and possibly the debate. Limited grace periods may be allowed if I am notified in advance.
Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.
Truth4Hire will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
nyk537 will argue the con position.
The debate will commence as soon as Truth4Hire is awarded fighter status. The standard debate rules will apply. This is a controversial topic. ATS Terms and Conditions apply as anywhere else on the board and will be enforced. No point of view is outlawed, however intelligent and mature treatment of the subject is expected.
Per the rules of the new challenge system, Truth4Hire is awarded 2 ranking points. The loser will forfeit 2 ranking points. The will recieve two ranking points (If truth 4 hire wins, he already has gained 2 points and will simply retain those, but nyk537 will still have to forfeit two points)
Standard rules are as follow:
Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.
A post may not be any longer than 5,500 characters, using the ATS character counter.
Closing posts may not be any longer than 3,500 characters.
This character limit includes all board code, links, etc.
Extra characters will be deleted from the end of your post.
Please notice that the character counter counts backwards. If for some reason your character counter won't let you post a full 5,500 characters in one post, make a second post to finish your 5,500, and then u2u me and let me know.
Editing is strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted. This prevents cheating. If you make an honest mistake which needs fixing, you must U2U me. I will do a limited amount of editing for good cause. Please use spell check before you post.
Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references. Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post.
Responses should be made within 24 hours, if people are late with their replies, they run the risk of forfeiting their reply and possibly the debate. Limited grace periods may be allowed if I am notified in advance.
Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.
First off many thanks for The Vagabond and A.T.S. to even allow this debate, given the sensitive nature of the subject.
Many thanks to nyk537 for suggesting it and accepting the challenge.
To question the Holocaust, or the planned and executed mass-extermination of the Jewish population during WWII seems like an outrageous thing to do, especially when there is such abundance of evidence available affirming this most heinous crime of contemporary human history. As to why I personally starting having doubts about the official stories and testimonies: hopefully I can shed some light on the reasons during this debate.
First a few definitions:
What is the Holocaust?
Holocaust comes from the Greek language and means "burnt, sacrificed". The Holocaust is alse called by the Hebrew name "Shoah", which means "Catastrophe". The short definition is the covert plan by the National Socialist regime under Adolf Hitler to transport, imprison and exterminate all the Jewish individuals in areas under German control. I am excluding other ethnic groups as the Holocaust specifically pertains to the Jews. Killing methods used fot the mass-exterminations were among others:
o Gas chambers cloaked as shower rooms
o Mobile gas vans
o Executions by firing squads
Materials used for gassing were among other things:
o The fumegant Zyklon-B in crystalline powdered form (cans)
o Carbon Monoxide from Diesel engine fumes
Number of Jewish persons killed under German control: 6 million.
What is a revisionist?
Someone who does not accept the Holocaust as it is presented, and who researches the Holocaust by critically examining the available evidence and established history in order to test the validity of the claims made.
What do revisionists believe?
o That Jewish populations under German control were persecuted
o They were stripped from their citizenships and civil rights
o They were captured, forced from their homes and placed in Ghettos, Work camps & Concentration camps
o There were crematoria in concentration and work camps
o There were a lot of other ethnic groups interned in concentration and work camps
o A lot of Jewish prisoners died in the concentration and work camps for various reasons
What do revisionists conclude?
o There was no order given for the mass-extermination of the Jewish population under German control
o There was no plan or budget for the mass-extermination
o There was no infrastructure available in the concentration camps for the mass-extermination
o Apart from standard delousing facilities, there were no gas chambers used for (mass)-extermination
o There were no sufficient means to dispose of the remains of the victims of mass-extermination
Why it is important which way prisoners died
What is the difference if someone was gassed, shot or died from Typhoid? Dead is dead. Very true, but in the case most victims died from other causes than deliberate extermination, this would make a huge difference with regards how the world sees the events which took place, and the impact the deaths of the Jews under "The Holocaust" have had on public views, world politics and germany´s heredetary guilt.
Revisionists must be all Neo-Nazi´s and Hitler worshippers
Unfortunatly, some revisionists obviously are. This I will conceed right off the bat, but Revisionists are not a group who share the same religious and ethnic background at all. Their ranks include Christians, Jews, Muslims and Atheïsts. Some revisionists were interned in German concentration camps themselves for years. Take Professor Paul Rassinier, a French resistance member who was interned in Buchenwald. Many revisionists are scholars holding titles in engineering, chemistry or physics. The revisionist ranks holds individuals with various backgrounds ranging from veterans to school teachers to historians.
How about revisionists political views? They are ranging from the left to liberal to right, including Communists, Socialists and National Socialists. I must emphasize that National Socialism does not equal revisionism and vice versa.
In this debate I will argue the following revisionist standpoints:
o There was no plan, budget nor order for the mass-extermination of the Jewish population under German control
o There were no means to execute a plan of mass-extermination
o There were no means to dispose of the victims of mass-extermination
o There is no forensic evidece for mass-extermination but for eye-witness testimony and heresay
o The Nuremberg trial was not handled correctly, maybe even illegal
o Crucial confessions were obtained under duress of torture and threaths against family members
o Eye-witness testimony to mass-extermination is exaggerated and in some cases completely fabricated
o Scientific evidence exists which shows that mass-extermination did not take place, and that witnesses actually lied or claimed heresay as their own experience
Any statement I make to clarify these standpoints I will show sources which I accept as legitimate and accurate.
I wish nyk537 good luck.
Many thanks to nyk537 for suggesting it and accepting the challenge.
To question the Holocaust, or the planned and executed mass-extermination of the Jewish population during WWII seems like an outrageous thing to do, especially when there is such abundance of evidence available affirming this most heinous crime of contemporary human history. As to why I personally starting having doubts about the official stories and testimonies: hopefully I can shed some light on the reasons during this debate.
First a few definitions:
What is the Holocaust?
Holocaust comes from the Greek language and means "burnt, sacrificed". The Holocaust is alse called by the Hebrew name "Shoah", which means "Catastrophe". The short definition is the covert plan by the National Socialist regime under Adolf Hitler to transport, imprison and exterminate all the Jewish individuals in areas under German control. I am excluding other ethnic groups as the Holocaust specifically pertains to the Jews. Killing methods used fot the mass-exterminations were among others:
o Gas chambers cloaked as shower rooms
o Mobile gas vans
o Executions by firing squads
Materials used for gassing were among other things:
o The fumegant Zyklon-B in crystalline powdered form (cans)
o Carbon Monoxide from Diesel engine fumes
Number of Jewish persons killed under German control: 6 million.
What is a revisionist?
Someone who does not accept the Holocaust as it is presented, and who researches the Holocaust by critically examining the available evidence and established history in order to test the validity of the claims made.
What do revisionists believe?
o That Jewish populations under German control were persecuted
o They were stripped from their citizenships and civil rights
o They were captured, forced from their homes and placed in Ghettos, Work camps & Concentration camps
o There were crematoria in concentration and work camps
o There were a lot of other ethnic groups interned in concentration and work camps
o A lot of Jewish prisoners died in the concentration and work camps for various reasons
What do revisionists conclude?
o There was no order given for the mass-extermination of the Jewish population under German control
o There was no plan or budget for the mass-extermination
o There was no infrastructure available in the concentration camps for the mass-extermination
o Apart from standard delousing facilities, there were no gas chambers used for (mass)-extermination
o There were no sufficient means to dispose of the remains of the victims of mass-extermination
Why it is important which way prisoners died
What is the difference if someone was gassed, shot or died from Typhoid? Dead is dead. Very true, but in the case most victims died from other causes than deliberate extermination, this would make a huge difference with regards how the world sees the events which took place, and the impact the deaths of the Jews under "The Holocaust" have had on public views, world politics and germany´s heredetary guilt.
Revisionists must be all Neo-Nazi´s and Hitler worshippers
Unfortunatly, some revisionists obviously are. This I will conceed right off the bat, but Revisionists are not a group who share the same religious and ethnic background at all. Their ranks include Christians, Jews, Muslims and Atheïsts. Some revisionists were interned in German concentration camps themselves for years. Take Professor Paul Rassinier, a French resistance member who was interned in Buchenwald. Many revisionists are scholars holding titles in engineering, chemistry or physics. The revisionist ranks holds individuals with various backgrounds ranging from veterans to school teachers to historians.
How about revisionists political views? They are ranging from the left to liberal to right, including Communists, Socialists and National Socialists. I must emphasize that National Socialism does not equal revisionism and vice versa.
In this debate I will argue the following revisionist standpoints:
o There was no plan, budget nor order for the mass-extermination of the Jewish population under German control
o There were no means to execute a plan of mass-extermination
o There were no means to dispose of the victims of mass-extermination
o There is no forensic evidece for mass-extermination but for eye-witness testimony and heresay
o The Nuremberg trial was not handled correctly, maybe even illegal
o Crucial confessions were obtained under duress of torture and threaths against family members
o Eye-witness testimony to mass-extermination is exaggerated and in some cases completely fabricated
o Scientific evidence exists which shows that mass-extermination did not take place, and that witnesses actually lied or claimed heresay as their own experience
Any statement I make to clarify these standpoints I will show sources which I accept as legitimate and accurate.
I wish nyk537 good luck.
Good afternoon. I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the Vagabond for scheduling this debate and allowing us to have an intelligent discussion
on this very controversial topic. Where else but ATS could such a debate take place in a purely academic environment? I wish the best of luck to my
opponent, Truth4hire.
My opponent has presented several points on which he will base his assertion that the Holocaust did not occur as it is historically reported. Some of these claims include the point that the Nazi’s had no official policy or intention of exterminating Jews, or that the Nazi’s did not use gas chambers to mass murder Jews. My opponent will also attempt to argue that the figure of 5-6 million Jewish deaths is a gross exaggeration, and that the actual number is much lower. He will even go so far as to say that survivor testimonies are filled with errors, and are thus unreliable.
I will show that the existence and nature of the Holocaust was very well documented by the extremely bureaucratic German government itself. It was also witnessed by allied forces that entered Germany during then end of World War II. The Holocaust was a massive undertaking that lasted for years and was implemented across several countries with its own command and control infrastructure that left a large trail of documentation. Some of the documentation and other evidence I will present includes:
• Written Documents – hundreds of thousands of letters, memos, blueprints, orders, bills, speeches, articles, memoirs, and confessions.
• Eyewitness Testimony – accounts from survivors, Jewish Sonderkommandos (who were forced to help load bodies from the gas chambers into the crematoria in exchange for the promise of survival, SS guards, and even high ranking Nazis who spoke openly about the mass murder of the Jews
• Photographs – including official military and press photographs, civilian photos, aerial photos, and German and Allied film footage.
• Inferential evidence – population demographics, reconstructed from the pre-World War II era; if six million Jews were not killed, what happened to them all?
Much of the controversy surrounding the claims of Holocaust deniers (or “revisionists”) centers on the methods used to present arguments that the Holocaust allegedly never happened as commonly accepted. Numerous accounts have been given by Holocaust “revisionists” (including evidence presented in court cases) of claimed “facts” and “evidence”; however, independent research has shown these claims to be based upon flawed research, biased statements, or even deliberately falsified evidence. Opponents of Holocaust denial have compiled detailed accounts of numerous instances where this evidence has been altered or manufactured. Evidence presented by Holocaust “revisionists” has consistently failed to stand up to scrutiny in courts of law, further calling into question its veracity.
I look forward to hearing my opponent’s positions on some of these basic facts of the Holocaust.
My opponent has presented several points on which he will base his assertion that the Holocaust did not occur as it is historically reported. Some of these claims include the point that the Nazi’s had no official policy or intention of exterminating Jews, or that the Nazi’s did not use gas chambers to mass murder Jews. My opponent will also attempt to argue that the figure of 5-6 million Jewish deaths is a gross exaggeration, and that the actual number is much lower. He will even go so far as to say that survivor testimonies are filled with errors, and are thus unreliable.
I will show that the existence and nature of the Holocaust was very well documented by the extremely bureaucratic German government itself. It was also witnessed by allied forces that entered Germany during then end of World War II. The Holocaust was a massive undertaking that lasted for years and was implemented across several countries with its own command and control infrastructure that left a large trail of documentation. Some of the documentation and other evidence I will present includes:
• Written Documents – hundreds of thousands of letters, memos, blueprints, orders, bills, speeches, articles, memoirs, and confessions.
• Eyewitness Testimony – accounts from survivors, Jewish Sonderkommandos (who were forced to help load bodies from the gas chambers into the crematoria in exchange for the promise of survival, SS guards, and even high ranking Nazis who spoke openly about the mass murder of the Jews
• Photographs – including official military and press photographs, civilian photos, aerial photos, and German and Allied film footage.
• Inferential evidence – population demographics, reconstructed from the pre-World War II era; if six million Jews were not killed, what happened to them all?
Much of the controversy surrounding the claims of Holocaust deniers (or “revisionists”) centers on the methods used to present arguments that the Holocaust allegedly never happened as commonly accepted. Numerous accounts have been given by Holocaust “revisionists” (including evidence presented in court cases) of claimed “facts” and “evidence”; however, independent research has shown these claims to be based upon flawed research, biased statements, or even deliberately falsified evidence. Opponents of Holocaust denial have compiled detailed accounts of numerous instances where this evidence has been altered or manufactured. Evidence presented by Holocaust “revisionists” has consistently failed to stand up to scrutiny in courts of law, further calling into question its veracity.
I look forward to hearing my opponent’s positions on some of these basic facts of the Holocaust.
I welcome my opponent to the debate, and am glad his delay was not a permanent one.
It is established in history that there were a total of 51 Prison, transit and concentration camps under the Nazi Regime.
Out of those 51 the following are claimed to have been extermination camps: (estimated deaths)
Auschwitz-Birkenau Poland Extermination and labour camp April 1940 – January 1945 (1,100,000–1,500,000)
Bełżec Poland Extermination camp March 1942 – June 1943 (600,000)
Kulmhof (Chełmno) Poland Extermination camp December 1941 – April 1943, April 1944 – January 1945 (320,000)
Jasenovac Croatia Extermination camp August 1941 – April 1945 (600,000-700,000)
Majdanek (KZ Lublin) Poland Extermination camp July 1941 – July 1944 (360,000)
Maly Trostenets Belarus Extermination camp July 1941 – June 1944 (65,000)
Sobibór Poland Extermination camp May 1942 - October 1943 (250,000)
Treblinka Poland Extermination camp July 1942 – November 1943 (870,000)
Warsaw Poland Labour and extermination camp 1942 –1944 (Up to 200,000)
Total casualties (maximum) in extermination camps: 5,615,000 (all ethnic groups including Jewry)
Please note that the following (in)famous camps in Germany have been proven not to have been extermination camps:
Bergen-Belsen Germany Collection point April 1943 – April 1945 (70,000)
Buchenwald Germany Labour camp July 1937 – April 1945 (56,000)
Dachau Germany Labour camp March 1933 – April 1945 200,000 (31,591)
Mauthausen-Gusen Austria Labour camp August 1938 – May 1945 (95,000)
Mittelbau-Dora Germany Labour camp September 1943 – April 1945 (20,000)
Neuengamme Germany Labour camp December 13, 1938 – May 4, 1945 (55,000)
Niederhagen Germany Prison and labour camp September 1941 – early 1943 (1,285)
Oranienburg Germany Collective point March 1933 – July 1934 (min. 16)
Ravensbrück Germany Labour camp for women May 1939 – April 1945 (min. 90,000)
Sachsenhausen Germany Labour camp July 1936 – April 1945 (100,000)
Stutthof Poland Labour camp September 1939 – May 1945 (65,000)
(Camp information)
Simon Wiesenthal: "there were no extermination camps on German soil" (Books and Bookmen (April 1975 issue) & Stars and Stripes (Januari 24, 1993)).
Given the limited space (40.000 chars) during this debate, I will address as much of the following camps as possible:
Auschwitz-Birkenau, Bełżec, Kulmhof (Chełmno), Majdanek (Lublin), Sobibór and Treblinka, all in Poland.
Auschwitz-Birkenau Wikipedia
An unnoticed revision?
According to converted revisionist and accepted Holocaust authority Jean-Claude Pressac, the actual number of total victims is revised from 1 - 1.5 million to 630,000 - 700,000 (Jean-Claude Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, New York, The Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, 1994 edition page 202)
Looking for the murder weapon
In Januari 1988, Barbara Kaluszka, Attorney of one Ernst Zündel wrote to the Department of corrections in the state of Missouri to ask for assistance in the form of expert testimonial on behalf of her client to show the workings of the Gas chambers. As a reply she was referred to one Fred A. Leuchter as being the best source for such a task.
Fred Leuchter accepted the assignment and left for Poland on February 25, 1988 together with his wife Carolyn, his draftsman, cinematographer and Polish language interpreter, Tijudar Rudolph.
The Leuchter Reports, page 83-84
That was public opinion before Mr. Leuchter´s findings about Auschwitz became widely known.
Leuchter´s findings
Same source as above (Ibid).
Truth be told, Fred Leuchter did make some mistakes as identified by Diplom-Chemiker (Chemist) Germar Rudolf and others. Leuchter was not even an official engineer, although he did have a college education. Due to the fact he was not a chemist, the report was not allowed into evidence, but he was allowed to give his opinion about his findings with regards to the gas chambers (Baluszka: E. Zündel trial Canada 1985 & 1988, pages 733-748).
Leuchter paid a severe penalty for his findings: he was buried by the media, imprisoned and lost his job.
Later in 1993, German Rudolf (who was qualified) did a more in depth technical study of the matter, went to Auschwitz and took samples of the walls of the structures which were the alleged gas-chambers, as well as of the delousing facilities and crematoria. His findings in brief:
The Rudolf Report, 2004 edition page 289
Germar Rudolf also paid a severe penalty for his writings and findings: he was dismissed from the Max-Planck institute, fled to the U.K. and later the U.S.A., was extradited (?) and is currently imprisoned in Germany in solitary confinement. It must be noted that Rudolf has had brief associations with the right wing party Republikaner which he later admitted a mistake.
The bottom line is that there were no sufficient amounts of cyanide residue found at the alleged crime scene for mass-gassings to have taken place. Furthermore the buildings were not suitable to be used with the highly toxic Zyklon-B according to the findings by Leuchter.
Crucial eye-witness report to Auschwitz gassings
Rudolf Vrba co-author of the Vrba-Wetzler report part of the Auschwitz Protocols: Vrba escaped from Auschwitz, and wrote this report together with a fellow inmate and two members of the Slovakian Jewish Council(...). This report basically first brought eye-witness proof of mass-gassings to the attention of the Allies, and describes in detail what Vrba had experienced in Auschwitz between June 30, 1942 and April 30, 1944 at which date he managed to escape.
This report, to all intent and purposes was the introduction of the gas-chambers to the world.
Rudolf Vrba has turned out to be not a very realiable witness when cross-examined by Doug Christie during the ´85 Zündel trial. E.g. Vrba insisted that he had seen 1,765,000 Jews disappear into the crematoria with his own eyes; this included 150,000 French Jews. This fact seems unclear, because there is agreement that around 75,000 Jews were transported from France.
At several points in his testimony he has claimed "poetic license", which I understand to be hearsay, where he first claimed "to have seen it with his own eyes". Entire testimony online.
The Auschwitz protocols stated that there were three crematoria in Birkenau with the capacity to incinerate 10,000 bodies daily, and that 30,000 people had been gassed in one day. The author wrote: "History knows no parallel of such destruction of human life." Raul Hilberg writes that the report was filed away with a note that there was no indication as
to the reliability of the source.
The three reports were accepted and filed into evidence under ID # 022-L in the Nuremberg trials.
Disposal of the victims using crematoria
If we conclude that indeed so many people perished there should at least be a way to explain how they were disposed of. According to Nuremberg evidence, some 10,000 bodies were burned per day in the three Birkenau crematoria, or 3,333 bodies per crematorium per day.
According to Ivan Lagacé, a crematory manager from Calgary, it takes around two hours to burn a single body, and Auschwitz-Birkenau could not have handled more than 184 bodies per day. Lagacé also commented that a "large amount" of fuel would be needed for open air incinerations. (Baluszka: E. Zündel trial Canada 1985 & 1988, pages 568-574)
Open air: Some 200 kg of wood per body which is important here and for Treblinka as I will show later.
Initial conclusion Auschwitz-Birkenau:
o No scientific or forensic proof for mass-gassings
o No sufficient means for disposal of hundreds of thousands of bodies
o Dubious main witness who has been shown to retract statements as "not his own"
It is established in history that there were a total of 51 Prison, transit and concentration camps under the Nazi Regime.
Out of those 51 the following are claimed to have been extermination camps: (estimated deaths)
Auschwitz-Birkenau Poland Extermination and labour camp April 1940 – January 1945 (1,100,000–1,500,000)
Bełżec Poland Extermination camp March 1942 – June 1943 (600,000)
Kulmhof (Chełmno) Poland Extermination camp December 1941 – April 1943, April 1944 – January 1945 (320,000)
Jasenovac Croatia Extermination camp August 1941 – April 1945 (600,000-700,000)
Majdanek (KZ Lublin) Poland Extermination camp July 1941 – July 1944 (360,000)
Maly Trostenets Belarus Extermination camp July 1941 – June 1944 (65,000)
Sobibór Poland Extermination camp May 1942 - October 1943 (250,000)
Treblinka Poland Extermination camp July 1942 – November 1943 (870,000)
Warsaw Poland Labour and extermination camp 1942 –1944 (Up to 200,000)
Total casualties (maximum) in extermination camps: 5,615,000 (all ethnic groups including Jewry)
Please note that the following (in)famous camps in Germany have been proven not to have been extermination camps:
Bergen-Belsen Germany Collection point April 1943 – April 1945 (70,000)
Buchenwald Germany Labour camp July 1937 – April 1945 (56,000)
Dachau Germany Labour camp March 1933 – April 1945 200,000 (31,591)
Mauthausen-Gusen Austria Labour camp August 1938 – May 1945 (95,000)
Mittelbau-Dora Germany Labour camp September 1943 – April 1945 (20,000)
Neuengamme Germany Labour camp December 13, 1938 – May 4, 1945 (55,000)
Niederhagen Germany Prison and labour camp September 1941 – early 1943 (1,285)
Oranienburg Germany Collective point March 1933 – July 1934 (min. 16)
Ravensbrück Germany Labour camp for women May 1939 – April 1945 (min. 90,000)
Sachsenhausen Germany Labour camp July 1936 – April 1945 (100,000)
Stutthof Poland Labour camp September 1939 – May 1945 (65,000)
(Camp information)
Simon Wiesenthal: "there were no extermination camps on German soil" (Books and Bookmen (April 1975 issue) & Stars and Stripes (Januari 24, 1993)).
Given the limited space (40.000 chars) during this debate, I will address as much of the following camps as possible:
Auschwitz-Birkenau, Bełżec, Kulmhof (Chełmno), Majdanek (Lublin), Sobibór and Treblinka, all in Poland.
Auschwitz-Birkenau Wikipedia
An unnoticed revision?
According to converted revisionist and accepted Holocaust authority Jean-Claude Pressac, the actual number of total victims is revised from 1 - 1.5 million to 630,000 - 700,000 (Jean-Claude Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, New York, The Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, 1994 edition page 202)
Looking for the murder weapon
In Januari 1988, Barbara Kaluszka, Attorney of one Ernst Zündel wrote to the Department of corrections in the state of Missouri to ask for assistance in the form of expert testimonial on behalf of her client to show the workings of the Gas chambers. As a reply she was referred to one Fred A. Leuchter as being the best source for such a task.
Fred Leuchter accepted the assignment and left for Poland on February 25, 1988 together with his wife Carolyn, his draftsman, cinematographer and Polish language interpreter, Tijudar Rudolph.
A lengthy New York Times article (October 13, 1990), complete with a front-page photo of Leuchter, called him “The nation’s leading adviser on capital punishment.” In his book about America’s capital punishment industry, Stephen Trombley confirms that Leuchter is: “America’s first and foremost supplier of execution hardware. His products include electric chairs, gas chambers, gallows, and lethal injection machines. He offers design, construction, installation, staff training and maintenance.” Thus, with Fred A. Leuchter we have the foremost, if not the only expert on execution technology in the U.S.
The Leuchter Reports, page 83-84
That was public opinion before Mr. Leuchter´s findings about Auschwitz became widely known.
Leuchter´s findings
After reviewing all of the material and inspecting all of the sites at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, your author finds the evidence to be overwhelming. There were no execution gas chambers at any of these locations. It is the best engineering opinion of this author that the alleged gas chambers at the inspected sites could not have then been, or now be, utilized or seriously considered to function as execution gas chambers.
Same source as above (Ibid).
Truth be told, Fred Leuchter did make some mistakes as identified by Diplom-Chemiker (Chemist) Germar Rudolf and others. Leuchter was not even an official engineer, although he did have a college education. Due to the fact he was not a chemist, the report was not allowed into evidence, but he was allowed to give his opinion about his findings with regards to the gas chambers (Baluszka: E. Zündel trial Canada 1985 & 1988, pages 733-748).
Leuchter paid a severe penalty for his findings: he was buried by the media, imprisoned and lost his job.
Later in 1993, German Rudolf (who was qualified) did a more in depth technical study of the matter, went to Auschwitz and took samples of the walls of the structures which were the alleged gas-chambers, as well as of the delousing facilities and crematoria. His findings in brief:
On physical-chemical grounds, the mass gassings with hydrogen cyanide (Zyklon B) in the supposed ‘gas chambers’ of Auschwitz claimed by witnesses did not take place.
The Rudolf Report, 2004 edition page 289
Germar Rudolf also paid a severe penalty for his writings and findings: he was dismissed from the Max-Planck institute, fled to the U.K. and later the U.S.A., was extradited (?) and is currently imprisoned in Germany in solitary confinement. It must be noted that Rudolf has had brief associations with the right wing party Republikaner which he later admitted a mistake.
The bottom line is that there were no sufficient amounts of cyanide residue found at the alleged crime scene for mass-gassings to have taken place. Furthermore the buildings were not suitable to be used with the highly toxic Zyklon-B according to the findings by Leuchter.
Crucial eye-witness report to Auschwitz gassings
Rudolf Vrba co-author of the Vrba-Wetzler report part of the Auschwitz Protocols: Vrba escaped from Auschwitz, and wrote this report together with a fellow inmate and two members of the Slovakian Jewish Council(...). This report basically first brought eye-witness proof of mass-gassings to the attention of the Allies, and describes in detail what Vrba had experienced in Auschwitz between June 30, 1942 and April 30, 1944 at which date he managed to escape.
This report, to all intent and purposes was the introduction of the gas-chambers to the world.
Rudolf Vrba has turned out to be not a very realiable witness when cross-examined by Doug Christie during the ´85 Zündel trial. E.g. Vrba insisted that he had seen 1,765,000 Jews disappear into the crematoria with his own eyes; this included 150,000 French Jews. This fact seems unclear, because there is agreement that around 75,000 Jews were transported from France.
At several points in his testimony he has claimed "poetic license", which I understand to be hearsay, where he first claimed "to have seen it with his own eyes". Entire testimony online.
The Auschwitz protocols stated that there were three crematoria in Birkenau with the capacity to incinerate 10,000 bodies daily, and that 30,000 people had been gassed in one day. The author wrote: "History knows no parallel of such destruction of human life." Raul Hilberg writes that the report was filed away with a note that there was no indication as
to the reliability of the source.
The three reports were accepted and filed into evidence under ID # 022-L in the Nuremberg trials.
Disposal of the victims using crematoria
If we conclude that indeed so many people perished there should at least be a way to explain how they were disposed of. According to Nuremberg evidence, some 10,000 bodies were burned per day in the three Birkenau crematoria, or 3,333 bodies per crematorium per day.
According to Ivan Lagacé, a crematory manager from Calgary, it takes around two hours to burn a single body, and Auschwitz-Birkenau could not have handled more than 184 bodies per day. Lagacé also commented that a "large amount" of fuel would be needed for open air incinerations. (Baluszka: E. Zündel trial Canada 1985 & 1988, pages 568-574)
Open air: Some 200 kg of wood per body which is important here and for Treblinka as I will show later.
Initial conclusion Auschwitz-Birkenau:
o No scientific or forensic proof for mass-gassings
o No sufficient means for disposal of hundreds of thousands of bodies
o Dubious main witness who has been shown to retract statements as "not his own"
I’ll begin here by approaching one of my opponents first comments; a comment which is widely used by the so called “revisionist” group. The
comment I am referring to is that of Simon Wiesenthal, who asserts, “there were no extermination camps on German soil”. I only take the time to
address this comment because it exposes how the “revisionists” manipulate truth through various ways.
Here is an excerpt from Wiesenthal’s 1975 letter to the editor:
“Because there were no extermination camps on German soil, the Neo-Nazis are using this as proof that these crimes did not happen […]”
How ironic that he was not only corrected, but that those very words were later misused in the manner he described. Wiesenthal did indeed indicate in 1975 and in 1993 that there were no extermination camps in what is now Germany. Innocuous as the change seems, it does lead one to assume that it is some kind of admission that the Holocaust was much more limited than has been maintained and that the truth is finally coming out. Statements like Wiesenthal’s are in fact the basis upon which “revisionist” such as my opponent claim that their pressure is forcing the truth out of reluctant historians.
The Nazis had two good reasons for building the death camps outside of Germany. First, they were easier to conceal from the German people. As Richard Brietman pointed out while writing about the so-called “euthanasia” killings:
“It was one thing to kill hundreds of thousands of East European Jews on site in the East – in inaccessible places, with police cordons preventing spectators from attending. It was quite another thing to murder Jews in Germany or Western European countries…”
Second, the vast majority of murdered Jews came from conquered territory to the east and south – why go to extra trouble to ship them back into Germany?
What is not given any recognition by the “revisionists” is that the latest “admission” by Wiesenthal is exactly what respectable historians have been saying for the past 45 years, starting perhaps with the Munich-based Institute for Contemporary History in 1950. This selectivity amounts to nothing less than lying by omission and innuendo.
One of my opponent’s next points is that after “inspection” it was found that sites such as Auschwitz were not home to execution gas chambers. He goes on to use a quote which states that not only were they not there; that in fact the “alleged” gas chambers could not have then been, or now be, utilized or seriously considered to function as execution gas chambers.
In fact, it was ruled by the Honorable Thomas T. Johnson, on October 9, 1981 that gassings did in fact take place at Auschwitz. Here is the statement made by the judge:
“Under Evidence Code Section 452(h), this court does take judicial notice of the fact that Jews were gassed to death at Auschwitz Concentration Camp in Poland during the summer of 1944
And
“It just simply is a fact that falls within the definition of Evidence Code Section 452(h). It is not reasonably subject to dispute. And it is capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy. It is simply a fact.”
Naturally the “revisionists” complain they were not given a chance to dispute this fact, but then the American court system is not meant to be a place for people to argue and try to prove their theories. No “credible evidence” was produced because there was no call for it – a courtroom is not the place to rehash the work of historians over the last fifty years.
My opponent’s next point is that the gassings could not have taken place because there were no sufficient amounts of the highly toxic Zyklon-B present at the “alleged” gas chambers.
First, Zyklon-B is the carrier of the gas, not the gas itself. Zyklon-B is the trademarked name for a substance, usually wood chips or diatomaceous earth, which has been impregnated with both the liquid form of hydrogen cyanide, and an irritant. Second, the gas in question is hydrogen cyanide (sometimes called prussic acid).
My opponent will almost assuredly make the point in the future that this mixture is manufactured for the extermination of the typhus-bearing louse; and that it was used to fumigate clothing and quarters.
While this is true, it was also used to kill human beings on a massive scale. HCN (hydrocyanic acid, the gas released by Zyklon-B) has a “side effect” which the SS found very useful: it kills human beings quite well. In fact, the same concentration kills humans and other mammals much faster than it kills lice and bugs. The concentration used for delousing, 8-10 grams per cubic meter, kills humans very quickly, though it takes up to 32 hours to get rid of bugs and clothes moths. Even when a lower amount is used, death comes very quickly.
So far we have taken a look as some irrefutable, historically accurate, and legally recorded data that renders my opponents first points useless. Unfortunately due to space constraints, I can not immediately address my opponent’s comments on the crematoria; although, if he insists on pressing the point, I would be more than happy to disprove that theory as well.
Here is an excerpt from Wiesenthal’s 1975 letter to the editor:
“Because there were no extermination camps on German soil, the Neo-Nazis are using this as proof that these crimes did not happen […]”
How ironic that he was not only corrected, but that those very words were later misused in the manner he described. Wiesenthal did indeed indicate in 1975 and in 1993 that there were no extermination camps in what is now Germany. Innocuous as the change seems, it does lead one to assume that it is some kind of admission that the Holocaust was much more limited than has been maintained and that the truth is finally coming out. Statements like Wiesenthal’s are in fact the basis upon which “revisionist” such as my opponent claim that their pressure is forcing the truth out of reluctant historians.
The Nazis had two good reasons for building the death camps outside of Germany. First, they were easier to conceal from the German people. As Richard Brietman pointed out while writing about the so-called “euthanasia” killings:
“It was one thing to kill hundreds of thousands of East European Jews on site in the East – in inaccessible places, with police cordons preventing spectators from attending. It was quite another thing to murder Jews in Germany or Western European countries…”
Second, the vast majority of murdered Jews came from conquered territory to the east and south – why go to extra trouble to ship them back into Germany?
What is not given any recognition by the “revisionists” is that the latest “admission” by Wiesenthal is exactly what respectable historians have been saying for the past 45 years, starting perhaps with the Munich-based Institute for Contemporary History in 1950. This selectivity amounts to nothing less than lying by omission and innuendo.
One of my opponent’s next points is that after “inspection” it was found that sites such as Auschwitz were not home to execution gas chambers. He goes on to use a quote which states that not only were they not there; that in fact the “alleged” gas chambers could not have then been, or now be, utilized or seriously considered to function as execution gas chambers.
In fact, it was ruled by the Honorable Thomas T. Johnson, on October 9, 1981 that gassings did in fact take place at Auschwitz. Here is the statement made by the judge:
“Under Evidence Code Section 452(h), this court does take judicial notice of the fact that Jews were gassed to death at Auschwitz Concentration Camp in Poland during the summer of 1944
And
“It just simply is a fact that falls within the definition of Evidence Code Section 452(h). It is not reasonably subject to dispute. And it is capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy. It is simply a fact.”
Naturally the “revisionists” complain they were not given a chance to dispute this fact, but then the American court system is not meant to be a place for people to argue and try to prove their theories. No “credible evidence” was produced because there was no call for it – a courtroom is not the place to rehash the work of historians over the last fifty years.
My opponent’s next point is that the gassings could not have taken place because there were no sufficient amounts of the highly toxic Zyklon-B present at the “alleged” gas chambers.
First, Zyklon-B is the carrier of the gas, not the gas itself. Zyklon-B is the trademarked name for a substance, usually wood chips or diatomaceous earth, which has been impregnated with both the liquid form of hydrogen cyanide, and an irritant. Second, the gas in question is hydrogen cyanide (sometimes called prussic acid).
My opponent will almost assuredly make the point in the future that this mixture is manufactured for the extermination of the typhus-bearing louse; and that it was used to fumigate clothing and quarters.
While this is true, it was also used to kill human beings on a massive scale. HCN (hydrocyanic acid, the gas released by Zyklon-B) has a “side effect” which the SS found very useful: it kills human beings quite well. In fact, the same concentration kills humans and other mammals much faster than it kills lice and bugs. The concentration used for delousing, 8-10 grams per cubic meter, kills humans very quickly, though it takes up to 32 hours to get rid of bugs and clothes moths. Even when a lower amount is used, death comes very quickly.
So far we have taken a look as some irrefutable, historically accurate, and legally recorded data that renders my opponents first points useless. Unfortunately due to space constraints, I can not immediately address my opponent’s comments on the crematoria; although, if he insists on pressing the point, I would be more than happy to disprove that theory as well.
In using the statement by Wiesenthal, I was merely adding credibility to the fact that there were no extermination camps on German soil. Because he is
easily recognizable, I used him in that statement. My opponent in quoting an article on nizkor.com, has probably not seen the entire article, where it
is stated:
Probably? Interesting way of bringing forth arguments.
(Source)
This anonymous author is reaching I would say in trying to prove Wiesenthal wrong. I would like my opponent to show where Wiesenthal was corrected for having stated there were no extermination camps on German soil. Some Holocaust sites keep trying to keep the e.g. Dachau mass-killings alive where as early as 1960:
(Source)
Brietman
As far as Brietman stating his reasons for having the extermination camps outside of Germany, with which my opponent underlines the fact that there were no extermination camps in Germany, I am puzzled as to what first of all inaccessible means.
In examining the locations on all the extermination camps, my opponent will find that the supposed death camps were almost all built in the direct vicinity of a village.
Auschwitz I was near the village of Oświęcim
Birkenau (Auschwitz II) was right near Brzezinka
Belzec was half a mile of Belzec train station
Chelmo was near the village Chełmno nad Nerem
Majdanek/Lublin was 2.5 miles from the city of Lublin
Sobibór might have been "inaccesible" but still in Stare Kolonia Sobibór
Jasenovac in Croatia might have been inaccesible
Treblinka I was a work camp
Treblinka II the alledged death camp where 870.000 died. Treblinka was 500 m from the Malkinia-Koskow highway, 2.5 km from the Treblinka railroad station.
(Source: Wikipedia)
Brietman also claims that there were "Police cordons" around the extermination camps, unfortunatly I have not been able to find any corroborating evidence as to support that argument. I´m sure my esteemed opponent can assist here.
Next he states as reason for no extermination camps in Germany the logistics of having to ship back Eastern Jewry to kill them in Germany. I thought it was pretty well established by contemporary historians that Hitler wanted Jewry out of Germany, so I declare this second argument null and void.
Jasenovac
Apropos Jasenovac, where according to history some 700.000 people perished: Why does this name not ring a bell? Jasenovac was a concentration camp run by the Croatian government during WWII. In his book Bespuca - Povjesne Zbiljnosti ("Historical Truth of the wastelands"),1988 , Former Croatian President Franjo Tudjman makes some rather serious statements about Jasenovac, here pointed to:
He mentions "probably" too yes.
Former U.N. deligate Vladimir Zerjavic trying to prove an entirely different matter writes about an even more telling source:
This also proves "only" 154,200 prisoners of which 13,055 Jews died in Jasenovac, if one holds Mr. Miletic as a reliable source. Wikipedia might need an extra reference on Jasenovac.
Judge Johnson
Johnson was the presiding Judge in the Mel Mermelstein v.s. IHR case, and with his ruling he basically absolved Mermelstein to bring evidence for the Auschwitz gassings. How interesting. Everyone knows it happened, so you do not have to prove it. It is simply a fact.
Since when is eye-witness testimony alone (do the research) enough to call something a fact? This is exactly what happened in Germany with the Germar Rudolf and Remer trial. He was not allowed to bring his report into evidence.
About Zyklon-B: this highly toxic fumigant was indeed used to delouse quarters and clothing, I am glad my opponent finds this "true". With regards to "it was also used to kill human beings on a massive scale." I beg to differ, please see my previous post with regards to Leuchter & Rudolf.
Why Zyklon-B?
It must be duly noted that Zyklon-B was not the optimal method at all to "kill human beings".
In closing I must beg to differ my opponent has brought forward any "irrefutable, historically accurate, and legally recorded data that renders my first points useless." I submit that my worthy opponent has done nothing at all to strenghten his position in any of the discussed arguments, and I will anxiously wait how my opponent is going to explain the capacity of the Auschwitz-Birkenau crematoria as being 10,000 a day and the alleged homocidal gas chamber capacity of 30,000 a day as testified to by S.S. members and survivors.
To this end I will leave him an article by Carlo Mattogno called The Crematoria Ovens of Auschwitz and Birkenau
I´m sure he should be able to point out clear reasons for such large discrepancies between expert testimony and eye-witness testimony.
Camp gassings in the Altreich probably claimed the lives of only a few thousand people, almost certainly under ten thousand. Aside from "small-scale" gassing in places like Dachau, Gusen, Neuengamme, Sachsenhausen, Stutthof, and Ravensbrück, and Brandenburg, the site of the first gas chamber, it was largely confined to the "euthanasia" program, which did claim the lives of over a hundred thousand people, mostly non-Jews.
Probably? Interesting way of bringing forth arguments.
(Source)
This anonymous author is reaching I would say in trying to prove Wiesenthal wrong. I would like my opponent to show where Wiesenthal was corrected for having stated there were no extermination camps on German soil. Some Holocaust sites keep trying to keep the e.g. Dachau mass-killings alive where as early as 1960:
She quotes a letter published in Die Zeit, written by Professor Broszat. Again, one wonders if she read this letter, for it is dated 19 August 1960, not 1962. It appears on page 16. This letter states quite clearly that there were no mass killings in "gas chambers" either in Dachau or anywhere else in the former Reich. May I remind you that up until 1960 we were supposed to have thousands of proofs, confessions, and eye-witness evidence, that there were mass killings at Dachau, Ravensbrück, Buchenwald, and so on. Therefore, we now have to acknowledge that the authors of such confessions (Suhren, Schwarzhuber, Dr. Treite ... ) must have been subjected to "persuasive questioning" on the part of their French, British, and American jailers. This should give food for thought, at least as far as the "confessions" are concerned.
(Source)
Brietman
As far as Brietman stating his reasons for having the extermination camps outside of Germany, with which my opponent underlines the fact that there were no extermination camps in Germany, I am puzzled as to what first of all inaccessible means.
In examining the locations on all the extermination camps, my opponent will find that the supposed death camps were almost all built in the direct vicinity of a village.
Auschwitz I was near the village of Oświęcim
Birkenau (Auschwitz II) was right near Brzezinka
Belzec was half a mile of Belzec train station
Chelmo was near the village Chełmno nad Nerem
Majdanek/Lublin was 2.5 miles from the city of Lublin
Sobibór might have been "inaccesible" but still in Stare Kolonia Sobibór
Jasenovac in Croatia might have been inaccesible
Treblinka I was a work camp
Treblinka II the alledged death camp where 870.000 died. Treblinka was 500 m from the Malkinia-Koskow highway, 2.5 km from the Treblinka railroad station.
(Source: Wikipedia)
Brietman also claims that there were "Police cordons" around the extermination camps, unfortunatly I have not been able to find any corroborating evidence as to support that argument. I´m sure my esteemed opponent can assist here.
Next he states as reason for no extermination camps in Germany the logistics of having to ship back Eastern Jewry to kill them in Germany. I thought it was pretty well established by contemporary historians that Hitler wanted Jewry out of Germany, so I declare this second argument null and void.
Jasenovac
Apropos Jasenovac, where according to history some 700.000 people perished: Why does this name not ring a bell? Jasenovac was a concentration camp run by the Croatian government during WWII. In his book Bespuca - Povjesne Zbiljnosti ("Historical Truth of the wastelands"),1988 , Former Croatian President Franjo Tudjman makes some rather serious statements about Jasenovac, here pointed to:
Orthodox historians have insisted for decades that "at least 700,000" people were killed there. According to an estimate cited by American Holocaust historian Nora Levin, for example, 770,000 Serbs, 40,000 Gypsies and 20,000 Jews were put to death in Jasenovac. (N. Levin, The Holocaust, 1973, p. 515.) Croats have long maintained that about 60,000 perished in the camp, but Tudjman reckons that even this figure is too high. The most probable figure, he maintains, is between 30,000 and 40,000. Moreover, he goes on, Jewish inmates were largely responsible for the killings there. (The New Republic, Nov. 25, 1991, pp. 16, 18.; Die Presse, Vienna, Jan. 28, 1992.)
He mentions "probably" too yes.
Former U.N. deligate Vladimir Zerjavic trying to prove an entirely different matter writes about an even more telling source:
Since Mr. Antun Miletic, Senior Military Researcher and President of the Association of Genocide and War Crime Stydies, on the International Conference at the Kingsborogh College New York on October (30), 1997 - which I personally also attended - stated in writing, that according to his investigation, in the camp Jasenovac have been killed total 77,200 victims of which 41,936 Serbs, Gypsies 17.500, Jews 13.055, Croats 3.400, Muslims 805 and other 304 - , this proves that more Croats have been killed after the war ended, than Serbs during the war in Jasenovac.
Source: Croation History Website
This also proves "only" 154,200 prisoners of which 13,055 Jews died in Jasenovac, if one holds Mr. Miletic as a reliable source. Wikipedia might need an extra reference on Jasenovac.
Judge Johnson
Johnson was the presiding Judge in the Mel Mermelstein v.s. IHR case, and with his ruling he basically absolved Mermelstein to bring evidence for the Auschwitz gassings. How interesting. Everyone knows it happened, so you do not have to prove it. It is simply a fact.
Since when is eye-witness testimony alone (do the research) enough to call something a fact? This is exactly what happened in Germany with the Germar Rudolf and Remer trial. He was not allowed to bring his report into evidence.
About Zyklon-B: this highly toxic fumigant was indeed used to delouse quarters and clothing, I am glad my opponent finds this "true". With regards to "it was also used to kill human beings on a massive scale." I beg to differ, please see my previous post with regards to Leuchter & Rudolf.
Why Zyklon-B?
It must be duly noted that Zyklon-B was not the optimal method at all to "kill human beings".
It is strange, indeed, that the Germans -- who were far more advanced than the Allies in the development of chemical weapons -- should rely upon Zyklon B, an insecticide and disinfectant, as their primary killing agent in these alleged exterminations by gas when they had much more efficient gases, which had been designed specifically as "man-killing" agents, to choose from. For example, as early as 1936, I.G. Farbenindustrie was producing Tabun, the first of a family of nerve gases which the Germans were to develop by the end of the Second World War. (By contrast, the best gas in the Allies' arsenal was an improved version of the World War I "mustard gas.") Tabun -- which was regarded as a "quick kill" agent of tremendous potency -- was followed by the development of Sarin (1938) and Soman (1944). Only about 140 mg/meter3/minute of Tabun is needed to induce severe convulsions which are almost immediately followed by collapse, paralysis, and death. Sarin is twice as deadly as Tabun and Soman is many times more potent than Sarin.
(See, Steven Rose, ed., CBW. Chemical & Biological Warfare, Boston: Beacon Press, 1968, pp. 23-24)
By the end of the war, the Germans had stockpiled nearly twelve tons of Tabun and more than 250,000 tons of the more conventional chemical warfare agents like phosgene gas. (See, Seymour M. Hersch, Chemical and Biological Warfare: America's Hidden Arsenal, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1968, pp. 7-12)]
In closing I must beg to differ my opponent has brought forward any "irrefutable, historically accurate, and legally recorded data that renders my first points useless." I submit that my worthy opponent has done nothing at all to strenghten his position in any of the discussed arguments, and I will anxiously wait how my opponent is going to explain the capacity of the Auschwitz-Birkenau crematoria as being 10,000 a day and the alleged homocidal gas chamber capacity of 30,000 a day as testified to by S.S. members and survivors.
To this end I will leave him an article by Carlo Mattogno called The Crematoria Ovens of Auschwitz and Birkenau
I´m sure he should be able to point out clear reasons for such large discrepancies between expert testimony and eye-witness testimony.
It looks as though my opponent has chosen to avoid debating my points in favor of offering more “expert” evidence on death tolls. What we have
here is a case of attempting to repeat the same statistics over and over in order to prove a point. Unfortunately there is much more than alleged
death counts that go into this debate. Aside from offering these “insightful” tidbits on things we already know, such as locations of camps and
breakdowns of “alleged” prisoner deaths, my opponent has offered little rebuttal.
In response to my claim that it made no sense to ship Jews back into Germany for extermination, my opponent offers that he declares the argument null and void. Apparently he holds the historical authority to void an argument with no factual data.
This approach is taken again in response to my claims about Zyklon-B. Simply because he “begs to differ”, we are supposed to accept his opinion. His only backing to this is the fact the he feels Zyklon-B was not the optimal method for killing. He would have us believe that it could not have been used simply because there were “better choices”. Would this not make sense? Considering the fact that the Nazis did not want their practices known, wouldn’t it make sense to use something that could be explained away as a simple pesticide? My opponent offers no real evidence to back his claims, other than his personal views. Instead of offering new insight or explaining his opinions, he continues to simply offer articles and external sources for my review.
Now, since my opponent is “anxiously awaiting” my breakdown of the crematoria system at Auschwitz, I will continue.
My opponent mentioned in his previous statement, that the crematoria at Auschwitz could not have possibly handled the load it would have needed to based on the opinion of a present day crematoria operator in Calgary. This presents a basic flaw in and of itself. Begin by taking a look at a photograph of the furnaces in Krema II (located at Auschwitz), to get some idea of the scale.
Now, there were five Krema in Auschwitz. Krema II and III had five huge furnaces, each of which had what is known as a “triple-muffle” that could burn three bodies simultaneously. They were designed to burn very efficiently and extremely quickly, especially when burning many bodies in a row. (Gutman et al., Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, 1994, pp. 185-186).
Although these furnaces were designed with three muffles, two to three bodies could almost always be placed in each muffle. The Nazis took 70 to 100 kg of animal remains as a “unit” that could be incinerated in one muffle; whether that was one large person or three small ones was irrelevant. (See Gutman et al,. op. cit., pp. 236, 166, 180n55).
Contrary to what “revisionists” like my opponent will argue, the furnaces would consume the bodies in anywhere from half an hour to 45 minutes maximum. This is not only verified by eyewitnesses, but by numerous Nazi memos concerning a variety of incineration jobs.
Now, in order to explain to my opponent how we can reach his number of “10,000” bodies burned daily, let’s do some arithmetic on just one single crematorium at Auschwitz, Krema II.
Five furnaces, each with three muffles, each muffle capable of holding two to three corpses simultaneously, and burning them in half an hour, could reduce 1440 bodies to ash in 24 working hours. 5x3x2 divided by ½, x24 = 1440.
A captured memo dated June 28, 1943, sent to SS General Kammler in Berlin, cites the number of bodies that can be disposed of in one day, at Aushwitz, as 4,756. This is apparently based on a 24 hour working period using the above figures, as it cites the capacity of Krema II as 1440. (See Pressac, Aushwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, 1989, p.247).
There is argument among historians and technical experts as to whether this represents a theoretical maximum that was never reached in reality except with the aid of additional cremation done in burning pits, or a figure that was reached and possibly exceeded during the worst of the extermination action. Either way, the figure of only being able to burn a couple hundred bodies a day is not even close to being correct.
Now, since my opponent has offered no new topics for rebuttal, I will rest my case until such a time arrives.
In response to my claim that it made no sense to ship Jews back into Germany for extermination, my opponent offers that he declares the argument null and void. Apparently he holds the historical authority to void an argument with no factual data.
This approach is taken again in response to my claims about Zyklon-B. Simply because he “begs to differ”, we are supposed to accept his opinion. His only backing to this is the fact the he feels Zyklon-B was not the optimal method for killing. He would have us believe that it could not have been used simply because there were “better choices”. Would this not make sense? Considering the fact that the Nazis did not want their practices known, wouldn’t it make sense to use something that could be explained away as a simple pesticide? My opponent offers no real evidence to back his claims, other than his personal views. Instead of offering new insight or explaining his opinions, he continues to simply offer articles and external sources for my review.
Now, since my opponent is “anxiously awaiting” my breakdown of the crematoria system at Auschwitz, I will continue.
My opponent mentioned in his previous statement, that the crematoria at Auschwitz could not have possibly handled the load it would have needed to based on the opinion of a present day crematoria operator in Calgary. This presents a basic flaw in and of itself. Begin by taking a look at a photograph of the furnaces in Krema II (located at Auschwitz), to get some idea of the scale.
Now, there were five Krema in Auschwitz. Krema II and III had five huge furnaces, each of which had what is known as a “triple-muffle” that could burn three bodies simultaneously. They were designed to burn very efficiently and extremely quickly, especially when burning many bodies in a row. (Gutman et al., Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, 1994, pp. 185-186).
Although these furnaces were designed with three muffles, two to three bodies could almost always be placed in each muffle. The Nazis took 70 to 100 kg of animal remains as a “unit” that could be incinerated in one muffle; whether that was one large person or three small ones was irrelevant. (See Gutman et al,. op. cit., pp. 236, 166, 180n55).
Contrary to what “revisionists” like my opponent will argue, the furnaces would consume the bodies in anywhere from half an hour to 45 minutes maximum. This is not only verified by eyewitnesses, but by numerous Nazi memos concerning a variety of incineration jobs.
Now, in order to explain to my opponent how we can reach his number of “10,000” bodies burned daily, let’s do some arithmetic on just one single crematorium at Auschwitz, Krema II.
Five furnaces, each with three muffles, each muffle capable of holding two to three corpses simultaneously, and burning them in half an hour, could reduce 1440 bodies to ash in 24 working hours. 5x3x2 divided by ½, x24 = 1440.
A captured memo dated June 28, 1943, sent to SS General Kammler in Berlin, cites the number of bodies that can be disposed of in one day, at Aushwitz, as 4,756. This is apparently based on a 24 hour working period using the above figures, as it cites the capacity of Krema II as 1440. (See Pressac, Aushwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, 1989, p.247).
There is argument among historians and technical experts as to whether this represents a theoretical maximum that was never reached in reality except with the aid of additional cremation done in burning pits, or a figure that was reached and possibly exceeded during the worst of the extermination action. Either way, the figure of only being able to burn a couple hundred bodies a day is not even close to being correct.
Now, since my opponent has offered no new topics for rebuttal, I will rest my case until such a time arrives.
As my opponent appearantly refuses to discuss the article I have left him with, I shall publish some quotes from it here to show he has been
misinformed with regards to the crematoria. I will remind him again Jean Claude Pressac is an accepted authority with regards to the Holocaust.
(Source)
Again, even the figure 3,540 cremations per day is not technically feasibly, even when double or triple using each furnace. How my opponent comes to the blatent conclusion that "because there were triple muffles" hence almost always two to three bodies could be placed in the furnace is showing disrespect for the facts and a feeble attempt to misdirect the unattentive reader in a wrong direction.
Furthermore I deem his statement "taking 70 to 100kg" as a unit which could be incinerated in a single muffle be it "one large person" or "three small ones". My opponent must be suggesting that the average weight of a single victim would be 50 kg (for double usage) and 33,33kg (for triple usage).
This is an outrageous argument, which only empasizes the lack of research and expertise of my opponent on the subject. As he seems to be completely clueless as to even how many muffles were in Auschwitz-Birkenau I will refer again to the source above.
The Oven Capacity for Normal Cremations at Auschwitz-Birkenau
Therefore, given the capacity of one body per hour and 20 hours operation per day, the actual maximum capacity of the Topf cremation ovens of Auschwitz and Birkenau per 24 hours was as follows:
Crematorium x Muffles x Operation = Capacity
Crematorium I x 6 x 20h/day = 120 normal bodies/day
Crematorium II x 15 x 20h/day = 300 normal bodies/day
Crematorium III x 15 x 20h/day = 300 normal bodies/day
Crematorium IV x 8 x 20h/day = 160 normal bodies/day
Crematorium V x 8 x 20h/day = 160 normal bodies/day
Giving a total of 52 muffles × 20 h/day = 1,040 normal bodies/day
This cremation capacity is, however, purely theoretical, because it ignores an important fact: according to the memo of March 17, 1943,(APMO, BW 30/7/34 page 54 - which is in the National Archives of the Museum of Auschwitz) the normal activity of the crematoria was only 12 hours per day, thus taking into consideration the inevitable occurring breakdowns of machinery. Hence, the actual capacity was only 60% of the values given above:
Crematorium x Muffles x Operation = Capacity
Crematorium I x 6 x 12h/day = 72 normal bodies/day
Crematorium II x 15 x 12h/day = 180 normal bodies/day
Crematorium III x 15 x 12h/day = 180 normal bodies/day
Crematorium IV x 8 x 12h/day = 96 normal bodies/day
Crematorium V x 8 x 12h/day = 96 normal bodies/day
Giving a total of 52 muffles × 12 h/day = 624 normal bodies/day
Even with triple occupation for all muffles it would be 1,872 (emaciated) bodies per day.
Not Kammler´s 4,756, not Pressac´s 3,540 and certainly not 10,000 as mentioned by the Auschwitz survivors in the protocols. As far as the standard cooling periods neccesary for preservation of the furnace , fire-proof tilings and chimney plus the standard grace periods for repairs which were well documented too, I can only guess why my opponent fails to even mention this argument, let alone debate it.
Intro: Treblinka
Pressac denounced the official account of the concentrations camps as being distinguished by "bungling, exaggeration, omission, and lies,"[91] and he determined that the concept of 'genocide' for the National Socialist policy against the Jewish is uncalled for.[92] He also posited a drastic reduction in the number of victims in the 'pure extermination camps,' among them Treblinka.[93]
(Source)
If even the likes of Jean Claude Pressac are now casting serious doubts over the official accounts with regards to Treblinka, who am I or anyone else to try to argue that?
As an example. the much hailed Kurt Gerstein confession, one of the principle witnesses to the Treblenka massacre says he attended a gassing himself, where according to him 700-800 people were packed into a gassing room of some 25 square meters. That is at least 28 and at most 32 people per square meter. I am challenging anyone with a large family to try and stand 28 people in a square meter.
Abraham Bomba (as seen in Lanzmann´s Shoa) claimed around 12 x 12 feet thus even reducing further this killing room. It is puzzling that Bomba persists on the fact that he was in the gas chamber together with sixteen other barbers cutting hair of 60-70 naked women at the same time together with S.S. guards watching, all in this 12 x 12 foot room. Bomba forgot to mention that this room according to other testimony was tiled an sloped, so that the victims would fall over each other towards to exit, making for an easier extraction of the bodies.
In 1974, the Hungarian-born British journalist Gitta Sereny published a book with the title Into that Darkness,[58] which is lauded to the present day as the standard work dealing with Treblinka.[59] Several times between April and June of 1971, Gitta Sereny had visited the second Kommandant of Treblinka Franz Stangl in prison and interviewed him. Stangl had been sentenced to life imprisonment by a Düsseldorf court in 1970. Sereny 's book is largely based upon these interviews (as well as upon those with three other SS-men who served at Treblinka during the war and with some former Jewish prisoners of the camp).
(...)
Lastly, with the repeated and very precise readings of the passages where Stangl 'confesses,' my amazement increased even more, for without exception they were written in indirect or ambiguous style, so that it became impossible to distinguish in these passages between what Stangl had said and what Gitta Sereny had said.'
I made some significant facial expressions and then, quietly looking my conversational partner in the eye and giving emphasis to every single word, I said: 'In brief: he did not confess!'
(Sereny) 'But of course not... he couldn't do it!'
Gitta Sereny was of the opinion that she had served a therapeutic and wholesome function with respect to Stangl, in that she was helping him to relieve his conscience by a confession, which was too terrible for him to have been able to make entirely alone. [...] Stangl, in fact, suddenly died in prison, very soon indeed after his 'confessions,' although he clearly enjoyed good health and had constantly denied the crimes imputed to him. He was awaiting his [appeal] trial, from which he - and his wife - were hoping for a favorable outcome."
How convenient Stangl decided to take his life while waiting for his appeal.
More examples of testimony:
"Information from the gravediggers (Jakob Rabinowicz), the Jews from Stoczek, who have escaped from the trains loaded with objects, gold, and cash. Congruent description of the 'bath,' the gravediggers with golden patches on the knees. Method of killing: gas, steam, electricity.[[124]] "
Until April 1943, the journalist Eugenia Szajn-Lewin lived in the Warsaw Ghetto and kept a diary during this time. With regard to Treblinka, she set down in this what was said about this camp in the ghetto until the end of 1942:[125] "The worst thing is death in Treblinka. By now, all know of Treblinka. There they cook people alive.
For more background on Treblinka testimony I refer to the above mentioned source as a starting point.
Finally:
US historian Mark Weber, together with US lawyer Andrew Allen, wrote an excellent article about Treblinka in 1992, in which the two authors summarized all the familiar arguments made to that point in time against the thesis of the 'extermination camp,' introduced new viewpoints in the field, and wrote concerning the actual nature of the camp:
"If Treblinka was not an extermination center, what was it? [...] the balance of evidence indicates that Treblinka II - along with Belzec and Sobibor - was a transit camp, where Jewish deportees were stripped of their property and valuables before being transferred eastwards into German-occupied Soviet territories."
Since Treblinka was much too small to be able to accommodate the large number of Jews deported there at the same time, the transit camp thesis is, in fact, the single plausible alternative to the conventional picture of the extermination camp.
(Same source)
Regarding the fact that no substanital mass-graves were found at Treblinka after the war, it leads one to think that some 868,000 were disposed of by fire. As Treblinka did not house crematoria, this allegedly happened in open air-pits, with wood as fuel. How much fuel?
150-200 kg of wood per body is needed (see first post)
To debate the fact that humans do not simply burn by themselves I would suggest Hindu funerals as a starting point.
Aside from the Revisionists, Jean-Claude Pressac is the only researcher to have approached the historical problem of the cremation of bodies in Auschwitz and Birkenau from a technical perspective. In his book Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers[8] he comes to the following conclusions:
The three double-muffle ovens in crematorium I of Main Camp Auschwitz had a capacity of 340 cremations in a 24-hour period.[9]
In 1993, he reduced this figure down to 200-250 per day.[10]
The five three-muffle ovens in crematoria II and III of Birkenau each had a maximum capacity of between 1,000 and 1,500 cremations per 24 hours,[11] but their normal capacity was 1,000 to 1,100 cremations each per 24 hours.[12]
In 1993, he reduced this figure down to 800-1,000 per day.[13]
The two eight-muffle ovens of crematoria IV and V each had a capacity of 500 cremations per 24 hours.[14]
Pressac thus puts the total capacity of the crematoria of Auschwitz and Birkenau at 3,540 cremations per day.
(Source)
Again, even the figure 3,540 cremations per day is not technically feasibly, even when double or triple using each furnace. How my opponent comes to the blatent conclusion that "because there were triple muffles" hence almost always two to three bodies could be placed in the furnace is showing disrespect for the facts and a feeble attempt to misdirect the unattentive reader in a wrong direction.
Furthermore I deem his statement "taking 70 to 100kg" as a unit which could be incinerated in a single muffle be it "one large person" or "three small ones". My opponent must be suggesting that the average weight of a single victim would be 50 kg (for double usage) and 33,33kg (for triple usage).
This is an outrageous argument, which only empasizes the lack of research and expertise of my opponent on the subject. As he seems to be completely clueless as to even how many muffles were in Auschwitz-Birkenau I will refer again to the source above.
The Oven Capacity for Normal Cremations at Auschwitz-Birkenau
Therefore, given the capacity of one body per hour and 20 hours operation per day, the actual maximum capacity of the Topf cremation ovens of Auschwitz and Birkenau per 24 hours was as follows:
Crematorium x Muffles x Operation = Capacity
Crematorium I x 6 x 20h/day = 120 normal bodies/day
Crematorium II x 15 x 20h/day = 300 normal bodies/day
Crematorium III x 15 x 20h/day = 300 normal bodies/day
Crematorium IV x 8 x 20h/day = 160 normal bodies/day
Crematorium V x 8 x 20h/day = 160 normal bodies/day
Giving a total of 52 muffles × 20 h/day = 1,040 normal bodies/day
This cremation capacity is, however, purely theoretical, because it ignores an important fact: according to the memo of March 17, 1943,(APMO, BW 30/7/34 page 54 - which is in the National Archives of the Museum of Auschwitz) the normal activity of the crematoria was only 12 hours per day, thus taking into consideration the inevitable occurring breakdowns of machinery. Hence, the actual capacity was only 60% of the values given above:
Crematorium x Muffles x Operation = Capacity
Crematorium I x 6 x 12h/day = 72 normal bodies/day
Crematorium II x 15 x 12h/day = 180 normal bodies/day
Crematorium III x 15 x 12h/day = 180 normal bodies/day
Crematorium IV x 8 x 12h/day = 96 normal bodies/day
Crematorium V x 8 x 12h/day = 96 normal bodies/day
Giving a total of 52 muffles × 12 h/day = 624 normal bodies/day
Even with triple occupation for all muffles it would be 1,872 (emaciated) bodies per day.
Not Kammler´s 4,756, not Pressac´s 3,540 and certainly not 10,000 as mentioned by the Auschwitz survivors in the protocols. As far as the standard cooling periods neccesary for preservation of the furnace , fire-proof tilings and chimney plus the standard grace periods for repairs which were well documented too, I can only guess why my opponent fails to even mention this argument, let alone debate it.
Intro: Treblinka
Pressac denounced the official account of the concentrations camps as being distinguished by "bungling, exaggeration, omission, and lies,"[91] and he determined that the concept of 'genocide' for the National Socialist policy against the Jewish is uncalled for.[92] He also posited a drastic reduction in the number of victims in the 'pure extermination camps,' among them Treblinka.[93]
(Source)
If even the likes of Jean Claude Pressac are now casting serious doubts over the official accounts with regards to Treblinka, who am I or anyone else to try to argue that?
As an example. the much hailed Kurt Gerstein confession, one of the principle witnesses to the Treblenka massacre says he attended a gassing himself, where according to him 700-800 people were packed into a gassing room of some 25 square meters. That is at least 28 and at most 32 people per square meter. I am challenging anyone with a large family to try and stand 28 people in a square meter.
Abraham Bomba (as seen in Lanzmann´s Shoa) claimed around 12 x 12 feet thus even reducing further this killing room. It is puzzling that Bomba persists on the fact that he was in the gas chamber together with sixteen other barbers cutting hair of 60-70 naked women at the same time together with S.S. guards watching, all in this 12 x 12 foot room. Bomba forgot to mention that this room according to other testimony was tiled an sloped, so that the victims would fall over each other towards to exit, making for an easier extraction of the bodies.
In 1974, the Hungarian-born British journalist Gitta Sereny published a book with the title Into that Darkness,[58] which is lauded to the present day as the standard work dealing with Treblinka.[59] Several times between April and June of 1971, Gitta Sereny had visited the second Kommandant of Treblinka Franz Stangl in prison and interviewed him. Stangl had been sentenced to life imprisonment by a Düsseldorf court in 1970. Sereny 's book is largely based upon these interviews (as well as upon those with three other SS-men who served at Treblinka during the war and with some former Jewish prisoners of the camp).
(...)
Lastly, with the repeated and very precise readings of the passages where Stangl 'confesses,' my amazement increased even more, for without exception they were written in indirect or ambiguous style, so that it became impossible to distinguish in these passages between what Stangl had said and what Gitta Sereny had said.'
I made some significant facial expressions and then, quietly looking my conversational partner in the eye and giving emphasis to every single word, I said: 'In brief: he did not confess!'
(Sereny) 'But of course not... he couldn't do it!'
Gitta Sereny was of the opinion that she had served a therapeutic and wholesome function with respect to Stangl, in that she was helping him to relieve his conscience by a confession, which was too terrible for him to have been able to make entirely alone. [...] Stangl, in fact, suddenly died in prison, very soon indeed after his 'confessions,' although he clearly enjoyed good health and had constantly denied the crimes imputed to him. He was awaiting his [appeal] trial, from which he - and his wife - were hoping for a favorable outcome."
How convenient Stangl decided to take his life while waiting for his appeal.
More examples of testimony:
"Information from the gravediggers (Jakob Rabinowicz), the Jews from Stoczek, who have escaped from the trains loaded with objects, gold, and cash. Congruent description of the 'bath,' the gravediggers with golden patches on the knees. Method of killing: gas, steam, electricity.[[124]] "
Until April 1943, the journalist Eugenia Szajn-Lewin lived in the Warsaw Ghetto and kept a diary during this time. With regard to Treblinka, she set down in this what was said about this camp in the ghetto until the end of 1942:[125] "The worst thing is death in Treblinka. By now, all know of Treblinka. There they cook people alive.
For more background on Treblinka testimony I refer to the above mentioned source as a starting point.
Finally:
US historian Mark Weber, together with US lawyer Andrew Allen, wrote an excellent article about Treblinka in 1992, in which the two authors summarized all the familiar arguments made to that point in time against the thesis of the 'extermination camp,' introduced new viewpoints in the field, and wrote concerning the actual nature of the camp:
"If Treblinka was not an extermination center, what was it? [...] the balance of evidence indicates that Treblinka II - along with Belzec and Sobibor - was a transit camp, where Jewish deportees were stripped of their property and valuables before being transferred eastwards into German-occupied Soviet territories."
Since Treblinka was much too small to be able to accommodate the large number of Jews deported there at the same time, the transit camp thesis is, in fact, the single plausible alternative to the conventional picture of the extermination camp.
(Same source)
Regarding the fact that no substanital mass-graves were found at Treblinka after the war, it leads one to think that some 868,000 were disposed of by fire. As Treblinka did not house crematoria, this allegedly happened in open air-pits, with wood as fuel. How much fuel?
150-200 kg of wood per body is needed (see first post)
To debate the fact that humans do not simply burn by themselves I would suggest Hindu funerals as a starting point.
I find myself at somewhat of a loss as to where to go from here. My opponent has once again favored providing more external sources and quotes as
opposed to introducing new debatable material. In response to his opening comments, I did not read the article he presented, as I felt that this was a
debate, not a reading seminar. If he had a point that was interesting enough to be made, he could have made it rather than presenting a link to an
article that did it for him. The only debatable remarks he made in his last statement were in regards to the bodies being burned, which I shall
address momentarily; the rest is a seemingly hodgepodge collection of quotes regarding Treblinka. I feel more as though I am being presented with a
pamphlet of propaganda, rather than participating in a debate; now, onwards and upwards…
My opponent made the remark that the burning of mass bodies at locations such as Treblinka happened in open air pits, with wood as fuel; he then proceeds to give you some statistics on how much wood would have been needed. Now, this obviously begs the question; who says wood was used?
Why use “only” a material such as wood when other cheap and relatively plentiful inflammables like motor oil and methanol could be used? In fact, Auschwitz commandant Rudolph Hoss even describes the open air burning process at Treblinka itself. (Bezwinska and Czech, KL Auschwitz Seen By The SS, 1984, p.133):
“[After the gassing] the gas-chambers were opened up and the bodies taken out, undressed and burnt on a framework made of railway lines. The bodies were stoked with wood, the bodies being sprayed every now and then with petrol refuse. “
He also describes the process at his own camp, Auschwitz (Kogon et al., Nazi Mass Murder, 1993, pp.168-169):
“As late as summer of 1942, the corpses were still carried to mass graves. It was only toward the end of the summer that cremation began to be used – first by means of a wood pyre with about two thousand corpses, and later in the ditches, with the corpses that had been buried there earlier and then been exhumed. Used motor oil was poured over them, and later methanol.”
Regardless of what “revisionists” like my opponent wish to be the case, the simple fact is that such burning did take place. There are even famous photographs such as the following that were smuggled out of Auschwitz-Birkenau.
The report of the archeological investigations at Belzec includes gruesome findings, including layers of blackened human fat, found in some of the 33 mass graves discovered during the investigation:
“The drill core brought to the surface putrid pieces of human remains, including pieces of skull with skin and hair still attached, and unidentifiable lumps of grayish, fatty human tissue. The bottom of the grave was lined with a layer of evil smelling black human fat, resembling black soap.”
Now, since I was offered no more debatable points by my opponent, I will proceed to take a look at another form of proof that the Nazis did in fact practice genocide.
One of my favorite topics of debate with “revisionists” is on their claim that the only real evidence of the Holocaust is, “the postwar testimony of individual survivors.” First, consider the implicit conspiracy theory this entails. The testimony of ever single inmate of every Nazi camp is automatically dismissed as unconvincing. This total dismissal of inmate’s testimony, along with the equally total dismissal of the Nazi’s own testimony, is the largest unspoken assumption of Holocaust “revisionism”.
This assumption, which is almost never spelled out, is that the attempted Jewish genocide never took place, but rather that a secret conspiracy of Jews, starting around 1941, planted and forged a myriad of documents to prove that it did; then, after the war, they rounded up all the survivors and told them what to say. It’s really quite absurd.
The conspirators also managed to hunt down and torture hundreds of key Nazis into confessing to crimes they never committed. Then they planted hundreds of documents in Nazi files which were never discovered until after the war. Goebbels’ diary, for example, was barley rescued from being sold as scrap paper; however, buried deep within its 7,000 pages were several telling entries (as translated in Lochner, The Goebbels Diaries, 1948, pp.86, 147-148):
“February 14, 1942: The Fuhrer once again expressed his determination to clean up the Jews in Europe pitilessly. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.”
“March 27, 1942: The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 percent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only 40 percent can be used for forced labor.”
In any case, most of the diary is fairly mundane, and interesting only to historians. Did the supposed Jewish conspiracy forge seven thousand pages just to insert a few lines? How did they manage to know Goebbels’ affairs well enough to avoid contradictions? Again, this is patently absurd!
Even the famous “revisionist” David Cole has admitted, “revisionists” have yet to provide a satisfactory explanation of this document.
To even argue that the Holocaust never happened is ludicrous. To claim straight faced that none of this proof even exists is beyond ludicrous, and it’s a clear example of “revisionist” dishonesty.
My opponent made the remark that the burning of mass bodies at locations such as Treblinka happened in open air pits, with wood as fuel; he then proceeds to give you some statistics on how much wood would have been needed. Now, this obviously begs the question; who says wood was used?
Why use “only” a material such as wood when other cheap and relatively plentiful inflammables like motor oil and methanol could be used? In fact, Auschwitz commandant Rudolph Hoss even describes the open air burning process at Treblinka itself. (Bezwinska and Czech, KL Auschwitz Seen By The SS, 1984, p.133):
“[After the gassing] the gas-chambers were opened up and the bodies taken out, undressed and burnt on a framework made of railway lines. The bodies were stoked with wood, the bodies being sprayed every now and then with petrol refuse. “
He also describes the process at his own camp, Auschwitz (Kogon et al., Nazi Mass Murder, 1993, pp.168-169):
“As late as summer of 1942, the corpses were still carried to mass graves. It was only toward the end of the summer that cremation began to be used – first by means of a wood pyre with about two thousand corpses, and later in the ditches, with the corpses that had been buried there earlier and then been exhumed. Used motor oil was poured over them, and later methanol.”
Regardless of what “revisionists” like my opponent wish to be the case, the simple fact is that such burning did take place. There are even famous photographs such as the following that were smuggled out of Auschwitz-Birkenau.
The report of the archeological investigations at Belzec includes gruesome findings, including layers of blackened human fat, found in some of the 33 mass graves discovered during the investigation:
“The drill core brought to the surface putrid pieces of human remains, including pieces of skull with skin and hair still attached, and unidentifiable lumps of grayish, fatty human tissue. The bottom of the grave was lined with a layer of evil smelling black human fat, resembling black soap.”
Now, since I was offered no more debatable points by my opponent, I will proceed to take a look at another form of proof that the Nazis did in fact practice genocide.
One of my favorite topics of debate with “revisionists” is on their claim that the only real evidence of the Holocaust is, “the postwar testimony of individual survivors.” First, consider the implicit conspiracy theory this entails. The testimony of ever single inmate of every Nazi camp is automatically dismissed as unconvincing. This total dismissal of inmate’s testimony, along with the equally total dismissal of the Nazi’s own testimony, is the largest unspoken assumption of Holocaust “revisionism”.
This assumption, which is almost never spelled out, is that the attempted Jewish genocide never took place, but rather that a secret conspiracy of Jews, starting around 1941, planted and forged a myriad of documents to prove that it did; then, after the war, they rounded up all the survivors and told them what to say. It’s really quite absurd.
The conspirators also managed to hunt down and torture hundreds of key Nazis into confessing to crimes they never committed. Then they planted hundreds of documents in Nazi files which were never discovered until after the war. Goebbels’ diary, for example, was barley rescued from being sold as scrap paper; however, buried deep within its 7,000 pages were several telling entries (as translated in Lochner, The Goebbels Diaries, 1948, pp.86, 147-148):
“February 14, 1942: The Fuhrer once again expressed his determination to clean up the Jews in Europe pitilessly. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.”
“March 27, 1942: The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 percent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only 40 percent can be used for forced labor.”
In any case, most of the diary is fairly mundane, and interesting only to historians. Did the supposed Jewish conspiracy forge seven thousand pages just to insert a few lines? How did they manage to know Goebbels’ affairs well enough to avoid contradictions? Again, this is patently absurd!
Even the famous “revisionist” David Cole has admitted, “revisionists” have yet to provide a satisfactory explanation of this document.
To even argue that the Holocaust never happened is ludicrous. To claim straight faced that none of this proof even exists is beyond ludicrous, and it’s a clear example of “revisionist” dishonesty.
It is somewhat disappointing to find that my opponent when presented with actual figures with regards to the crematoria in Auschwitz-Birkenau ends the
discussion claiming "this is not a reading seminar". I can only interpret this as a failure on his part to admit he was wrong in his earlier
assessments of the capacity of said crematoria.
With regards to the picture mentioned there is no contest whatsoever that open air burnings did take place, as the victims of typhoid had to be incinerated, and at times as the ovens were not able to perform such a task (i.e. for lack of cole or being under maintenance) bodies were indeed burned in pits. This does not consist of proof of any mass-extermination in gas chambers, whatever caption the pictures may read, nor does it prove mass-incinerations in pits (as Allied arial pictures clearly show the contrary). The scale of these burnings were far too small to account for disposal of the number of victims claimed!
I thank my opponent for showing that wood was indeed used as the principle fuel for incinerating corpses in Treblinka, he contradicts himself in asking "who says wood was used?". All reports clearly state wood, please see my previous post. One cannot simply pour some motor oil or methanol over corpses and turn them to ashes in the open air. The amounts of wood and supplements needed would have been far more than was available to the cremators.
With regards to the archealogical findings at Belzec, it would have been nice to get a reliable source quoted on that, because there is no mention whatsover of such findings ever to have been done in modern literature. The blatent reference made to soap is another indication that this is the real type of propaganda to be doubted.
With regards to testimony given by survivors and camp internees: I am all for striking any and all testimony by all sides in favor of a full scientific investigation by a team manned by revisionist scholars, Jewish scholars and an impartial comittee. Will we be then at last be free from the innuendo and propaganda? Testimony without scientific investigation is not admissible. That even goes for the infamous Goebbels diary whose authenticity cannot be confirmed nor denied.
The validity of Testimony in Nuremburg
Our investigators would put a black hood over the accused's head and then punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him, and beat him with rubber hose. Many of the German defendants had teeth knocked out. Some had their jaws broken. All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair.
(Judge van Roden: transcript Zündel trial)
This includes the testimony obtained from Höss. That´s not all, men were actually hoisted up and beaten until bloody. If they still refused to "confess" their families were threathened. It´s all in the transcript. Still, the "evidence" was accepted in all cases!
The Evian Conference
The world by all means had the chance to save at least 785,000 German and Austrian Jews from persecution... and did nothing.
In the summer of 1938, delegates from thirty-two countries met at the French resort of Evian. Roosevelt chose not to send a high-level official, such as the secretary of state, to Evian; instead, Myron C. Taylor, a businessman and close friend of Roosevelt's, represented the U.S. at the conference. During the nine-day meeting, delegate after delegate rose to express sympathy for the refugees. But most countries, including the United States and Britain, offered excuses for not letting in more refugees.
(...)Even efforts by some Americans to rescue children failed: the Wagner-Rogers bill, an effort to admit 20,000 endangered Jewish refugee children, was not supported by the Senate in 1939 and 1940. Widespread racial prejudices among Americans -- including antisemitic attitudes held by the U.S. State Department officials -- played a part in the failure to admit more refugees.
(Source)
Doesn´t it strike my opponent as odd, that at the time where reports came out of atrocities and heavy persecution of the Jews in Germany coming in as early as 1933, the largest democracies excused themselves in 1938 from taking in Jewish refugees, who were in fact strongly encouraged to leave Germany and free to do so as late as the start of WWII? If the ultimate goal by Hitler had been mass-extermination, one might stop and wonder as to why more than 150,000 Jews were allowed to leave Germany between 1933 and 1938?
If Hitler was determined to exterminate the Jews, it is inconceivable that he would have allowed more than 800,000 to leave Reich territory with the bulk of their wealth, much less considered plans for their mass emigration to Palestine or Madagascar.
To close with regards to a conspiracy: I for one conclude there is something fishy going on where freedom of speech is denied with regards to the Holocaust subject matter. If I say or publish "I doubt the mass-extermination of European Jewry as presented by historians" I am opening myself up to 5 years in prison in most European countries now. With the new hate-amendement in the U.S. you are probably on the verge of passing a similar law, outlawing free debate on the Holocaust.
To me that is the most telling proof of a global conspiracy. If there is nothing to hide, we need not be muted by law.
With regards to the picture mentioned there is no contest whatsoever that open air burnings did take place, as the victims of typhoid had to be incinerated, and at times as the ovens were not able to perform such a task (i.e. for lack of cole or being under maintenance) bodies were indeed burned in pits. This does not consist of proof of any mass-extermination in gas chambers, whatever caption the pictures may read, nor does it prove mass-incinerations in pits (as Allied arial pictures clearly show the contrary). The scale of these burnings were far too small to account for disposal of the number of victims claimed!
I thank my opponent for showing that wood was indeed used as the principle fuel for incinerating corpses in Treblinka, he contradicts himself in asking "who says wood was used?". All reports clearly state wood, please see my previous post. One cannot simply pour some motor oil or methanol over corpses and turn them to ashes in the open air. The amounts of wood and supplements needed would have been far more than was available to the cremators.
With regards to the archealogical findings at Belzec, it would have been nice to get a reliable source quoted on that, because there is no mention whatsover of such findings ever to have been done in modern literature. The blatent reference made to soap is another indication that this is the real type of propaganda to be doubted.
With regards to testimony given by survivors and camp internees: I am all for striking any and all testimony by all sides in favor of a full scientific investigation by a team manned by revisionist scholars, Jewish scholars and an impartial comittee. Will we be then at last be free from the innuendo and propaganda? Testimony without scientific investigation is not admissible. That even goes for the infamous Goebbels diary whose authenticity cannot be confirmed nor denied.
The validity of Testimony in Nuremburg
Our investigators would put a black hood over the accused's head and then punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him, and beat him with rubber hose. Many of the German defendants had teeth knocked out. Some had their jaws broken. All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair.
(Judge van Roden: transcript Zündel trial)
This includes the testimony obtained from Höss. That´s not all, men were actually hoisted up and beaten until bloody. If they still refused to "confess" their families were threathened. It´s all in the transcript. Still, the "evidence" was accepted in all cases!
The Evian Conference
The world by all means had the chance to save at least 785,000 German and Austrian Jews from persecution... and did nothing.
In the summer of 1938, delegates from thirty-two countries met at the French resort of Evian. Roosevelt chose not to send a high-level official, such as the secretary of state, to Evian; instead, Myron C. Taylor, a businessman and close friend of Roosevelt's, represented the U.S. at the conference. During the nine-day meeting, delegate after delegate rose to express sympathy for the refugees. But most countries, including the United States and Britain, offered excuses for not letting in more refugees.
(...)Even efforts by some Americans to rescue children failed: the Wagner-Rogers bill, an effort to admit 20,000 endangered Jewish refugee children, was not supported by the Senate in 1939 and 1940. Widespread racial prejudices among Americans -- including antisemitic attitudes held by the U.S. State Department officials -- played a part in the failure to admit more refugees.
(Source)
Doesn´t it strike my opponent as odd, that at the time where reports came out of atrocities and heavy persecution of the Jews in Germany coming in as early as 1933, the largest democracies excused themselves in 1938 from taking in Jewish refugees, who were in fact strongly encouraged to leave Germany and free to do so as late as the start of WWII? If the ultimate goal by Hitler had been mass-extermination, one might stop and wonder as to why more than 150,000 Jews were allowed to leave Germany between 1933 and 1938?
If Hitler was determined to exterminate the Jews, it is inconceivable that he would have allowed more than 800,000 to leave Reich territory with the bulk of their wealth, much less considered plans for their mass emigration to Palestine or Madagascar.
To close with regards to a conspiracy: I for one conclude there is something fishy going on where freedom of speech is denied with regards to the Holocaust subject matter. If I say or publish "I doubt the mass-extermination of European Jewry as presented by historians" I am opening myself up to 5 years in prison in most European countries now. With the new hate-amendement in the U.S. you are probably on the verge of passing a similar law, outlawing free debate on the Holocaust.
To me that is the most telling proof of a global conspiracy. If there is nothing to hide, we need not be muted by law.
I am beginning to wonder if my opponent even listens to my responses, or just blindly posts more quotes. If he would have been listening, he would
have heard that “this is not a reading seminar” was one of my opening remarks, and was made just moments “before” I continued to discuss how
so many bodies could be disposed of. Obviously though, since he has “interpreted” this to mean something, it is undoubtedly true, as all
“evidence” he has offered thus far has been backed up with claims that apparently make him a historical authority.
It is also interesting to see how my opponent is only willing to accept any and all testimony if it was fully investigated by a team manned of “revisionist scholars”. No doubt, this could never happen and appease him, because any findings that went against his views would obviously be explained away as being forced out of them by torture or bribery.
My opponent also explains away Goebbels diary simply because it can neither be confirmed nor denied. He openly states that his document can not and has not been disproved or discredited; must we not take it for what it is then?
However, as I have already shown, it was not only diaries that recorded what happened, but courts as well. The extermination effort was mentioned specifically in at least one official Nazi court verdict. In May 1943, a Munich court wrote in its decision against SS-Untersturmfuhrer Max Taubner that:
"The accused shall not be punished because of the actions against the Jews as such. The Jews have to be exterminated and none of the Jews that were killed is any great loss. Although the accused should have recognized that the extermination of the Jews was the duty of Kommandos which were set up especially for this purpose, he should be excused for considering himself to have the authority to take part in the extermination himself."
In closing, “revisionists” often claim, correctly, that the burden of proof is on historians. The proof, of course, has been a matter of public record since late 1945, and is available in libraries around the world. The burden has been met, many, many times over. What I’ve shown you in this debate is just a brief presentation of some of the highlights of that immense body of proof; much more is readily available to anyone interested.
Thank you for your time and patience. God bless.
nYk537
It is also interesting to see how my opponent is only willing to accept any and all testimony if it was fully investigated by a team manned of “revisionist scholars”. No doubt, this could never happen and appease him, because any findings that went against his views would obviously be explained away as being forced out of them by torture or bribery.
My opponent also explains away Goebbels diary simply because it can neither be confirmed nor denied. He openly states that his document can not and has not been disproved or discredited; must we not take it for what it is then?
However, as I have already shown, it was not only diaries that recorded what happened, but courts as well. The extermination effort was mentioned specifically in at least one official Nazi court verdict. In May 1943, a Munich court wrote in its decision against SS-Untersturmfuhrer Max Taubner that:
"The accused shall not be punished because of the actions against the Jews as such. The Jews have to be exterminated and none of the Jews that were killed is any great loss. Although the accused should have recognized that the extermination of the Jews was the duty of Kommandos which were set up especially for this purpose, he should be excused for considering himself to have the authority to take part in the extermination himself."
In closing, “revisionists” often claim, correctly, that the burden of proof is on historians. The proof, of course, has been a matter of public record since late 1945, and is available in libraries around the world. The burden has been met, many, many times over. What I’ve shown you in this debate is just a brief presentation of some of the highlights of that immense body of proof; much more is readily available to anyone interested.
Thank you for your time and patience. God bless.
nYk537
Looks like it's time to go to the judges. You should have results within a couple of days.
The results are in. nyk537 is the victor. Judges' comments follow:
"This was one tough debate to judge. I read the entire debate 4 times and reread portions several more.
Both Members did a fantastic job of staying on topic and presenting their side of the issue.
However when the entire debate is examined it becomes clear that NYK537 presented a better case.
Truth4hire presented good statistics and some evidence to support his proposition, but was unable to refute NYK537's empirical findings.
NYK537 stuck to the facts and was able to present a more complete picture of his topic that was left unchallenged in several areas by Truth4hire.
It was VERY close, but I have to give the debate to NYK537"
This was a very close and very tough debate. Each fighter managed to win a couple of contentious points as to the means and efficiency of the executions, but at the end of the day, the question is whether or not the Nazis had a program of extermination, and I think both sides of the debate made it fairly clear that there was.
Truth4hire spent a lot of time attacking unreliable witness testimony that wasn't vital to the issue. He proved that Auschwitz couldn't cremate 10,000 a day. That proves that Auschwitz couldn't single-handedly carry out the holocaust and dispose of all the bodies in 20 months, but it does nothing to prove that no genocide was attempted.
nyk537 engaged on a few issues that he probably would have been better off to find his way around, and although many would take one look at the topic and think his case should be a slam dunk, there never was the precise laying out of an airtight case that one would expect.
Long story short, there were points where it was hard to see the forest through the trees- a ton of evidence (far too much of it presented as links with insufficient commentary and external sources rather than interpretation) was dumped onto the table and picked over, and at the end it was up to he reader to try and weave it all together into a coherent story.
The story that emerged was that the Nazis rounded up and imprisoned a huge number of people for some purpose and for some reason managed that imprisonment in a manner that led to a large number of deaths. The most logical explanation that I can see is that the Nazis did intend to kill a large number of people and were concerned with cost-efficiency over speed.
new topics
-
Turns out, they planned to go after P-nut.
US Political Madness: 2 hours ago -
Sick sick sick
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 8 hours ago -
Comcast dumping MSNBC
Mainstream News: 11 hours ago
top topics
-
Comcast dumping MSNBC
Mainstream News: 11 hours ago, 18 flags -
President-elect TRUMP Picks MATT GAETZ for his ATTORNEY GENERAL - High Level PANIC Ensues.
2024 Elections: 15 hours ago, 16 flags -
Turns out, they planned to go after P-nut.
US Political Madness: 2 hours ago, 9 flags -
Sick sick sick
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 8 hours ago, 6 flags
active topics
-
How can you defend yourself when the police will not tell you what you did?
Posse Comitatus • 76 • : Oldcarpy2 -
WATCH LIVE: US Congress hearing on UFOs, unidentified anomalous phenomena
Aliens and UFOs • 42 • : putnam6 -
Turns out, they planned to go after P-nut.
US Political Madness • 12 • : PorkChop96 -
Sick sick sick
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 42 • : Oldcarpy2 -
Comcast dumping MSNBC
Mainstream News • 17 • : WeMustCare -
The Acronym Game .. Pt.4
General Chit Chat • 948 • : Encia22 -
President-elect TRUMP Picks MATT GAETZ for his ATTORNEY GENERAL - High Level PANIC Ensues.
2024 Elections • 53 • : WeMustCare -
Slap in the Face for Starmer - Trump Could / Should Block Chagos Islands Deal
Regional Politics • 5 • : gortex -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 3261 • : WeMustCare -
Alex Jones Reinstated on X
Education and Media • 84 • : WeMustCare
17