The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
10 Points

Our greatest taboo should be permitted for investigation and debate

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/29/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,721 times Debate No: 24496
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (68)
Votes (2)




This debate will be about whether or not there is significant justification for free speech and inquiry pertaining to a particular historical event.

Of the various taboos present in Western and European society, discussion of the Holocaust is often regarded as the most significant. It being part of the curriculum for nearly every school in America and abroad, it is no wonder why this event has such a major impact on us, particularly when we hear details of the oppression that occurred during this time.

But what exactly is the Holocaust, to most people? Six million Jews were killed, indiscriminately, and primarily in gas chambers by the order of Adolf Hitler who had an ambition to exterminate all Jews because he believed them to be an inferior race. Most of us would agree that there is little debate to this-- but what if there were? How would we know? Currently, open debate on this issue is illegal in 13 European countries and is condemned by various institutions, elsewhere. Should open debate on any historical issue be made illegal and chastised, in perpetuity?

The primary justification for such an impediment on free speech is that any inquisition into the extent of intended malevolence on behalf of the Germans may be regarded as antisemitic. Certainly, there are antisemites who would not hesitate to belittle Jewish suffering for any reason, but does an inaccurate or partially exaggerated account of such a significant historical event not potentially also reflect as racism except, in this case, against the Germans? To justify such a claim, I would need to demonstrate significant evidence that might, with scientific and empirical credibility, provide a sustaining platform against specific details of the mainstream storyline. With respect to victims of the era, it is important to consider all possibilities.

Below are listed a comprehensive forensic investigation by advanced chemist Germar Rudolf, a statistical population analysis by former UN Statistician Professor H. Hankins and a critique by Dr. Robert Faurisson, all of which will be subsequently addressed:

The Rudolf Report:

Professor Hankins:

Dr. Faurisson's "Impact and Future of Revisionism":

To be aware of any potentially guiding bias, despite being irrelevant to empirical evidence, let's consider each of the authors cited above:

According to IHR, Professor Hankins:
"Besides being a renowned sociologist and historian (at one time president of the American Sociological Society and editor of the American Sociological Review), Hankins was an expert demographer with a world-wide reputation. He was a fellow and president (1945) of the American Population Association, a member of the American committee of the International Population Union, the National Committee for Planned Parenthood, the editorial board of Birth Control Review, and the Association for Research in Human Heredity. He was the author of Adolphe Quetelet as Statistician, The Racial Basis of Civilization (a liberal book of 1928 attacking the Nordic supremacist sentiments then in vogue), An Introduction to the Study of Society, and a contributor to many other books, including Biology in Human Affairs, Contemporary Social Theory, and History and Prospects of the Social Sciences."

Similar redeeming qualities can be observed in Dr. Faurisson:
"Robert Faurisson is Europe's foremost Holocaust revisionist scholar. Born in 1929, he was educated at the Paris Sorbonne, and served as a professor at the University of Lyon in France from 1974 until 1990. He was a specialist of text and document analysis. After years of private research and study, Dr. Faurisson first made public his skeptical views about the Holocaust extermination story in articles published in 1978 and 1979 in the French daily Le Monde. His writings on the Holocaust issue have appeared in several books and numerous scholarly articles..."

Germar Rudolf is also a well-established scholar:
"...studied chemistry at Bonn University, where he graduated in 1989 as a Diplom-Chemist. From 1990-1993 he prepared a PhD thesis at the Max Planck Institute for Solid State research in conjunction with the University of Stuttgart. Parallel to this and in his spare time, Rudolf prepared an expert report on chemical and technical questions of the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz, the The Rudolf Report. Even though this book on Auschwitz was scientific in nature and utterly apolitical ... in 1994/1995 he was charged and tried in Germany for his expert report. As a scientist, he found the 'gassing' claims to be scientifically untenable [but was charged with 'disturbing the peace' and 'hate speech']. Rudolf was found guilty and convicted to 14 month imprisonment. As a result, the University of Stuttgart denied him to pass his final PhD exam."

Despite the lengthy list of qualifications and observably academic intent of the works published by these authors, Rudolf and Faurisson are among the dozens of scientists, researchers and historians that have been persecuted for a controversial stance on the Holocaust; simply for stating academic observations that there has been no evidence of buildings that could have functioned as 'gas chambers', that 6 million is a number of Jewish casualties much greater than what would have been possible according to any reliable population data, that there was never any credible documentation nor spoken intent of an 'extermination plan' and that there were significant political motives for the storyline we've seen propagatated throughout recent history.

In addition to the pursuit of intellectuals, the widely-accepted account of the Holocaust has led to billions in reparations from Germany to Israel (the newly-founded Jewish nation) by which Palestinians have suffered a great deal as a result of post-war UN initiatives influenced by the Holocaust storyline. Furthermore, any critique of the modern social influence of Jewish organized interest groups of any nature is inherently villified by the notion that Jews have faced an indisputable genocide in recent history. This leads to a social bias against uniform criticism (and, therefore, equal treatment) of all mankind.

Burden of proof lies on my opponent to show one of the following:
1) That evidence in favor of the mainstream account of the Holocaust is too conclusive and consistent for dissenting opinions to be regarded as genuine intellectual pursuit.
2) That free speech, in this regard, will contribute to an overall greater amount of social distress than dissenters remaining silent.

- "Holocaust" is generally in reference to the time period of Jewish internment under German rule during WWII.
- Standard debate conventions apply.
- Focus less on semantics/technicalities, more on relevant argumentative content.
- No new arguments in Round 5.
- No new arguments in comments section.


Pro says that I must prove one of two things. I choose to prove this:

"That evidence in favor of the mainstream account of the Holocaust is too conclusive and consistent for dissenting opinions to be regarded as genuine intellectual pursuit."

This particular proof does not require me to argue censorship. It does imply soft censorship, that Holocaust deniers should not be given intellectual credence; we should ignore them and brand them as "fringe crazies." Soft censorship would be censorship through social censure. But it does not imply hard censorship (imprisonment).

The sources my opponent cites are all Holocaust deniers. My opponent's appeal to "alternate viewpoints" is akin to saying that all of the following are "genuine intellectual pursuits": investigating Big Foot sightings/alien abductions, the 9/11 Truth movement – "9/11 was an inside job", and the moon-landing denial movement. Like all new-age fringe movements, Holocaust denial is grounded in pseudo-science. This makes it no more legitimate.

== My case: The Holocaust Happened ==

1) Perpetrator testimony from the Nuremburg Trials

The perpetrators of the Holocaust were put on trial at Nuremberg for crimes against humanity. Many of them were on trial for their lives. Yet, not a single perpetrator denied the Holocaust, not even as a legal strategy. "The Allies interrogated many of those [Nazis] who were still alive in preparation for the [Nuremberg] trial. None of the perpetrators denied the Holocaust. Most just tried to deflect their responsibility for the killings." [1] Of the people with the most incentive to lie, not a *single one* denied the Holocaust. This is quite telling.

Rudolph Hoess, the commander of Auschwitz, testified to the process of gassing, in detail. [2] Hoess testified, "[The prisoners] were there examined by two SS medical officers as to their fitness for work. The internees capable of work at once marched to Auschwitz or to the camp at Birkenau and those incapable of work were at first taken to the provisional installations, then later to the newly constructed crematoria … The majority of them did not [know what was about to happen to them], for steps were taken to keep them in doubt about it and suspicion would not arise that they were to go to their death. For instance, all doors and all walls bore inscriptions to the effect that they were going to undergo a delousing operation or take a shower … death by gassing set in within a period of 3 to 15 minutes." [2] Hoess testified that 70-80% of the prisoners that arrived at Auschwitz were killed, while the rest were used for slave labor. [2] Hoess carried out the killings on Himmler's orders. [2] Hoess testified that he and Himmler personally witnessed one gassing procedure, from beginning to end. [2]

Others all testified to the same effect. Hans Stark admitted that he was once ordered to pour Zyklon B into a gas chamber, and did so, killing 250 Jews. [3] SS private Hoeblinger admitted that it was his job to drive the prisoner's to the gas chambers; he said, "It always proceeded quietly and without them suspecting anything. It happened very quickly." [3] SS private Boeck discussed witnessing one gassing; he concludes, "After that I didn't look at my wife for four weeks." [3] There are 9 more first-hand accounts from low-level Nazis listed on this site, [3] but thousands of Nazis testified about the Holocaust during the Nuremburg trials. Not a single one denied the Holocaust.

2) Documentation

The Germans destroyed a lot of their official records on the Holocaust. [1] However, many documents still survived. The Jager Report was written by a commander of the Einsatzgruppe, a mobile extermination unit, in the USSR. The report is titled "Secret Reich Business!" and consists of a five month period, in which Jager lists the date, the location, and the number of people killed. For example, he writes, "9/7/41, Wendziogala, 32 Jews, 2 Jewesses, 1 Lithuanian, 2 Lithuanian commanders, 1 Russian commander." Jager totals the numbers in each column, and then writes the grand total at the end of the report. "Prior to EK 3 taking over security police duties, Jews liquidated by pogroms and executions (including partisans): Total: 137,346."[4]

There were *many* other such documents. "Report No. 51 of SS Heinrich Himmler": "Jews Executed: August, 31,246; September, 165,282; October, 95,735; November, 70,948." [5] "Letter from SS Major-General Stahlecker to SS General Heydrich": "The complete removal of Jewry from the eastern territories has been substantially attained … as a result of the execution up to the present time of 229,052 Jews." [5]

When I said "there were *many* other documents," I wasn't exaggerating. "Allied prosecutors submitted some 3,000 tons of records at the Nuremberg trial." [1] That means 6,000,000 pounds (lbs) of records corroborate the Holocaust.

3) Photos/video footage

The Nazis filmed a great deal of footage at the camps for potential inclusion in propaganda pieces; these videos and photos were used as evidence at Nuremburg. [1] The prosecutors used the Nazis own footage against them. [1] An hour long video, created by the Nuremberg prosecutor, uses Nazi footage and footage taken by the Americans when they liberated the camps, to show the horrors of the Holocaust. I'll give you one example. Here is *2 minutes* of footage, from 44:20 to 46:20 of all of the piles and piles of *fresh* dead at the Dachau camp. [6]

4) Survivor testimony

There is a lot more survivor testimony and survivor artwork from certain camps. This is because some camps were concentration camps, used only for slave labor, some camps were combination concentration/death, and some camps were used only for extermination. [7] As you can imagine, there is little to no artwork from death camps because most prisoners only lived there for a handful of minutes. There are few survivor stories from death camps because there are far fewer survivors.

Shimon Srebrnik was a rare exception: spared at the Chelmno death camp because he was only 13 years old. The Nazis took pity on him, allowing him to live in order to extract the gold teeth from people's mouths. His testimony appears here, on Youtube. [8] Sadly, his mother was not so lucky.

Yad Vashem has attempted to document as many survivor stories as possible, for posterity. All in all, they have 132 survivor stories posted on Youtube, alone, including Shimon Srebnik's story. [9] Holocaust Denial attempts to argue that these Holocaust survivors are all lying. For example, the Rudolph Report, which my opponent cites, argues that there were no "death chambers"; it argues that when the Nazis referred to "gas chambers", they were always referring to delousing showers, which used the same chemical agents. However, this contradicts all eyewitness testimony of both perpetrators and survivors. And it is tantamount to calling all of these survivors "liars."

By no means is my list of survivor testimony exhaustive. There were as many as 900,000 survivors, each with their own story.

== A Note on My Opponent's Sources ==

I'll rebut specific claims my opponent makes and his sources in the next round. But a quick note: IHR, which my opponent cites frequently in his author qualifications, is the Institute for Historical Review. Oliver Kamm, who writes for The Times of London, describes them as an organization in California devoted to pseudo-science in the quest for Holocaust denial. [10] The group has many links to neo-Nazi organizations and its chief purpose is to paint Nazism in a more favorable light and deny key facts about the genocide of the Jews. [11]

Debate Round No. 1


Thank you, Con, for that well-thought argument. I'd also like to express my thanks to the audience for taking an interest in this topic. This isn't going to be as easy as I had initially thought.

My opponent saturates his rebuttal with some of the same methods of psychological influence as those put forth by the mainstream media to propagate the evidently questionable Holocaust storyline. He attributes any dispute to the widely-accepted account to "alien abductions" and "Big Foot sightings", despite the fact that the popular Holocaust storyline is far more resemblant of fantasy-based conspiracy than the claims made by revisionists. Con demonstrates his inadequate education regarding modern events by citing the "9/11 Truth movement" as a reference for absurdity. Clearly, he is not aware of the thousands of qualified architects and engineers who have petitioned against the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission [1], due to the unrealistic conclusions pertaining to WTC7, in favor of an independent investigation-- hardly the mark of "fringe crazies".

Con's initial argument is one of ad hominem attack against anyone who disputes the Holocaust storyline, as being a "Holocaust denier", regardless of which aspects and to what extent these individuals challenge the proclaimed events (bear in mind, the same is being applied now with the term "9/11 denier"). Throughout his rebuttal, Con makes repeated accusations of "pseudo-science" being the method of influence by revisionist scholars, ignoring the fact that the same accusation holds equal ground against Holocaust affirmationists, even going as far as to cite one author's personal opinion of the Institute for Historical Review and one proclaimed revisionist as purported evidence to the illegitimacy of revisionist studies.

1) In Response to: The Nuremberg Trials

The first objective argument made by Con is in reference to the Nuremberg Trials, where more than a dozen SS members testified to having witnessed some aspect of the alleged 'extermination plan', primary emphasis being on Rudolf Hoess. According to both Hoess, himself, and an anti-Nazi publication, Hoess' wife and children were given death threats to disclose his whereabouts [2], and Hoess was subsequently tortured by British soldiers upon capture [3]. Furthermore, according to Senator Thomas Dodd, a US Representative at the Trials, the Nuremberg staff is about "seventy-five percent Jewish" [4]-- hardly the environment for a fair trial.

My opponent believes that the Nazis who were on trial "had the most incentive to lie" and that it would have been a good legal strategy to do so. Let's consider that in any case where death is a potential penalty, a stated confession is often a way to escape such a fate. It is worth mentioning that the majority of SS who had 'confessed' to their crimes escaped a death sentence, several of them even being set free for being 'good' Nazis. Either way, testimony is worthless in any trial if it does not correspond to empirical evidence. Consider that nearly half of these Nazi testimonies contain references to Diesel exhaust gas chambers or 'gas vans'-- the plausibility of which has since been thoroughly demolished [5]. Hoess' testimony contains some of the most fundamental impossibilities regarding details of the administration of Zyklon-B as a method for execution, claiming it took only "3 to 15 minutes" to kill everyone in a gas chamber. This is, of course, a demonstrably impossible claim with any reasonable scrutiny as Zyklon-B pellets continue to outgas for several hours and there has never been any sustaining explanation for how these fatally-toxic pellets could have been disarmed to permit body removal between gassings. Most importantly, there is no significant iron-cyanide residue in the walls of any alleged gas chamber [6].

As a motive for influencing Nazis to lie in favor of a 'Holocaust', it's important to understand what had been gained post-war as a direct result of the alleged storyline being solidified by the Nuremberg Trials for the Jewish movement known as "Zionism". As a reparation for alleged Nazi atrocities, half of the country of Palestine was awarded to the Zionist movement as a "Jewish homeland" by the UN Partition Plan in 1947 [7].

2. In Response to: Documentation

My opponent makes the unfounded claim that there are many documents that support the alleged 'extermination plan' by citing no more than a link with half a dozen pieces of proclaimed "documentary evidence", several of which are now regarded by both sides of the Holocaust debate to be forgeries, and two entirely untraceable documents that have received critical acclaim by 'extermination' propagators without any physical evidence to back up the alleged implications.

The 'Jaeger Report' was 'discovered' more than a decade after the war and is one of the only publicly-available documents in reference to the alleged "Einsatzgruppen" executions. The storyline, according to the tortured testimony at Nuremberg, is that nearly 2 million Jews were shot in various cities and then buried in mass graves. That could be 100 graves of 20,000 bodies or 1,000 graves of 2,000 bodies. Of course, no mass grave of any kind has ever been found that would fit this description, nor that of any other genocidal 'mass grave' as alleged by any of these reports.

The alleged 'Himmler Report' is even more insubstantiated. It contains no official stationary, no signatures, initials that could be easily added, no filing or reference number, has shown no forensic confirmation via mass graves of any kind for numbers given and could have been typed by anyone.

To be absolutely clear, there has been no physical evidence to support the claims made in any of these unverifiable documents.

Con's next assertion illustrates his lack of familiarity with this topic:

"When I said 'there were *many* other documents,' I wasn't exaggerating. 'Allied prosecutors submitted some 3,000 tons of records at the Nuremberg trial.' ... That means 6,000,000 pounds (lbs) of records corroborate the Holocaust."

To suggest that there are more than a handful of documents, forged or authentic, to fortify the mainstream Holocaust storyline is ludicrous. The ones cited here by my opponent are among the few that have ever been claimed to exist. Con asserts that "many" documents support the 'gas chamber' hypothesis and 'extermination plan'-- perhaps, he wouldn't mind referring me to a larger collection of such material? Perhaps, in these "6,000,000 pounds(lbs.)" of incriminating documentation, there might be a blueprint of any of the alleged 'chambers', a documentary depiction of any gassing procedure, an autopsy report of any 'gassed' victim, a signed 'extermination' document, or otherwise?


I will demonstrate the reality of Con's assertions regarding "Photos/video footage" and "Survivor testimony" in subsequent posts, while including any upcoming rebuttals, due to a limited character count per round.


1. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth,
2. "Legions of Death", Rupert Butler, 1983, Hamlyn Paperbacks, p. 235
3. "Commandant in Auschwitz", Rudolf Hoess, Weidenfeld and Nicolson,. 1959, p. 173-175.
4. "Letters from Nuremberg: My Father's Narrative of a Quest for Justice", Christopher Dodd, Random House, 2008, p. 135.
5. "The Diesel Gas Chambers: Ideal for Torture - Absurd for Murder", Friedrich Paul Berg,
6. The Rudolf Report, Section 6,
7. "The Zionist Story", Ronen Berelovich,


== Rebuttal ==

My opponent, in his intro, says I unfairly paint his authors as Holocaust deniers and horrible people. That's because they are. For example, Robert Faurisson traveled to Tehran in February 2012 to receive an award for his Holocaust denial from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. That is not exactly good company to find oneself in.

{{{ The Nuremberg Trials }}}

My opponent makes the classic Denier argument that Hoess was tortured and thus his testimony is worthless. There are a number of problems with this. First, Hoess never disavowed his testimony after the fact. Rather, he wrote, in detail, about the gas chambers and killings in his memoirs. [1] Second, he was only tortured – by Jewish sergeants in the British army – when he was first captured. They wanted revenge, not false testimony. [1] Third, Hoess says in his memoirs that he was treated well after being handed over to the Poles. [1] He testified at Nuremberg while in Polish custody.

In addition, his testimony is corroborated by hundreds of others, which my opponent makes no attempt to indict. Pery Broad, an SS officer at Auschwitz, also wrote about the gas chambers in his memoirs. [1] Johann Kremer wrote about the gas chambers in a diary he kept as an Auschwitz physician. [1] The testimony of the Auschwitz guards at the Belsen trial of 1947 all corroborates Hoess' testimony, as does the testimony of the 20 members of the SS who were tried in Frankfurt. [1] In addition, my opponent doesn't respond to the other testimony I posted last round.

If the entire case for the Holocaust rested on Hoess, we might doubt his motives. But when his account is corroborated by everything else, there's no reason to doubt him.

My opponent then claims that testimony was false because it contained things that cannot be true. I'll refute each claim specifically.

1) Gas trucks cannot exist

Gas trucks used carbon monoxide to kill their victims. Carbon monoxide (CO) binds to hemoglobin and prevents it from transporting oxygen, causing the victim to suffocate. My opponent's Denial website hinges on the claim that there is not enough CO in diesel exhaust to kill someone. News stories where people used their cars to kill themselves or their spouses disagree. [2] Before catalytic converters, CO made up 25% of diesel exhaust and leaving the car running with the garage door closed was a common method of suicide. [3] It was used often during the Great Depression.

Carbon monoxide was the preferred method of gassing in Treblinka, Belzec, Chelmno, and Sobibor. [1] A "Top Secret" memo from SS Lieutenant August Becker, dated May 16, 1942, confirms the use of trucks: "to come to an end as fast as possible, the driver presses the accelerator to the fullest extent. By doing that the persons to be executed suffer death from suffocation and not by dozing off as was planned." [1] Shimon Srebrnik, the survivor I cited last round from the Chelmno death camp, also discussed the use of gas trucks. A report from the Reich Main Security Office, dated June 5, 1942, said that in occupied Minsk, from December 1941 to June 1942, 3 gas vans were used to kill 97,000 civilians. [1] The report also mentions, "[i]n order to facilitate the rapid distribution of CO ... two slots ... will be bored at the top of the rear wall." [1]

2) Zyklon B kills in 3 to 15 minutes

This is consistent with times of death when the US still used the gas chamber. [4]

3) The guards would have died when removing the bodies

First, guards used gas masks when handling corpses. [4] Second, the dose makes the poison and Zyklon B would have dissipated as soon as the chamber was opened. Releasing cyanide gas into the open air doesn't kill people, whereas in an enclosed chamber it does. It's the same as with car exhaust.

4) There is no iron-cyanide residue in the gas chambers

Iron-cyanide residue formed in *some* delousing chambers (which were used to kill lice on clothing). The conditions for its formation are not fully known. Richard Green, who got his PhD in chemistry from Stanford, says that iron-cyanide likely formed blue residue in delousing chambers and not gas chambers because 1) the amount of Zyklon B needed to kill lice is *much* larger than the amount needed to kill humans, and 2) if proper delousing protocol were followed, the walls in delousing chambers were exposed to Zyklon B for 20 hours at a time, whereas the gas chambers enjoyed shorter exposure. [4] In addition, Jan Markiewicz, Wojciech Gubala, and Jerzy Labadz of the Institute of Forensic Research analyzed wall samples from the gas chambers at Auschwitz compared to control samples from the dormitories and found that only the gas chamber samples contained cyanide, meaning Zyklon B was used there. [4]

My opponent claims Zionism is a reason to lie, but the Jews could hardly have known that they would receive Israel as a Jewish state when survivors and perpetrators first started telling their stories. This lie would also require massive coordination, which again, makes Denial just another conspiracy theory.

{{{ Documentation }}}

My opponent makes a bunch of claims here. First of all, you have to remember that the Nazis tried to destroy all the documents relating to the genocide, as I mentioned last round. They knew they would stand trial. Documents found without cover pages or "years later" is not surprising since the main archives were destroyed.

1) The Jager report

It is false that both sides agree this is a forgery. My opponent continually asserts Denier claims as if they should be accepted fact. A search for "Jager report forgery" will yield only Denial websites.

2) Mass graves don't exist

The Nazis also tried to conceal the mass graves, even at the camps. At Treblinka, for example, they tore down the gas chambers. "They dismantled the buildings and planted trees. They then created a farmhouse and installed a Ukrainian farmer and his family there. It was a ruse." [5] New technology has discovered evidence, in 2012, of mass graves at Treblinka. [6] However, Jewish law prohibits exhumation of the dead. [6]

There are, also, numerous pictures of mass graves from the Nazi footage in the Nuremberg prosecution video I posted last round.

Digging up all of Europe searching for mass graves would be silly and disrespectful to the dead; it would be an attempt to satisfy Denialists, who like all fringe movements, simply move on to different tactics when one fails. Most mass graves were in isolated, non-populated parts of the countryside. People do, however, stumble upon mass graves from time to time, such as in Romania in 2010, in a forest. [7]

My opponent at one point claims that no blueprints of gas chambers were ever found. This isn't quite true. "An inventory list from the [Auschwitz] camp authorities for Corpse Cellar 1 of Crematorium III lists ‘14 showers' and one ‘gas tight door.' Deniers have had a difficult time explaining why a shower and a gas tight door would be in a corpse cellar." [1] "Kampfgruppe Auschwitz", a resistance group in Auschwitz, smuggled out photographs of the gas chambers and the Germans burning the dead bodies. [8] They were trying to convince the Allies, at the time, of the atrocities committed. Keep in mind that the Allies did not believe reports about the Concentration Camps, until they saw them with their own eyes. These photographs also serve as evidence. [8] Here is one such photo of the Nazis burning the dead after they were gassed.

In essence, my opponent's categorical response to all perpetrator testimony is: coerced. His response to all victim testimony is: they were lying to steal Israel. And his response to all documentation is: forgery. Utter nonsense.

Debate Round No. 2


My opponent begins yet another rebuttal with an indiscriminate attack on the character of anyone who disputes the mainstream storyline of the Holocaust:

"...I unfairly paint his authors as Holocaust deniers and horrible people. That's because they are."

How much longer will this argument be used as the forefront to the anti-revisionist movement? Con cites the example of Dr. Faurisson's acceptance of a national award from the country of Iran, a country that has been at the forefront of Zionist criticism over the years, also containing it's own aspects of religious extremism. Faurisson accepted this award in recognition of his own outstanding contributions to a more truthful society. He has never advocated any form of antisemitic speech nor action, even after being savagely beaten for his views by several Jewish thugs as a 60-year-old man [1].

"Photos/Video Footage" will be covered at the end of this rebuttal. More on "credibility of eyewitnesses" will be included in my next response.

1. "Nuremberg"

My opponent makes the claim that Hoess was tortured only by Jewish sergeants in the British military, although Hoess also endured several days of forced sleep deprivation according to Ken Jones, a private of the Fifth Royal Horse Artillery, stationed with Hoess [2]:

"He came in the winter of 1945/6 and was put in a small jail cell in the barracks... We sat in the cell with him, night and day, armed with axe handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to help break down his resistance."

Hoess was admittedly beaten for his first confession (which he says he had signed without reading), his wife and children had received death threats and, in all probability, there was no other option of personal interest but to avoid further torture and prevent any harm to his family. His memoirs were written in the months prior to his sentencing but did not dissuade the court decision for his impending death.

Regarding Hoess' original testimony, there are several outstanding inconsistencies; see references [4].

There are many other Nazi testimonies that are demonstrably false, in addition to the "confessional" claims about diesel exhaust gassings that will be addressed subsequently, including that of SS Kaltenbrunner who "confessed" that gas chambers were used to exterminate people at the Mauthausen [5].

2. "Gas trucks"

First and foremost, it is technically incorrect to refer to these devices as "gas vans" or "trucks", as they are alleged to have used Diesel, not gasoline, engines. Therein, of course, lies the fundamental problem with such a construction. As has been detailed in my previously cited work of Freidrich Paul Berg, a mechanical engineer graduate from Columbia University, diesel engines are an absolutely horrible choice for a carbon-monoxide introduction method and less than half as efficient as gasoline engines-- a mistake that the Germans, the world's best engineers at the time, would not have made [6].

3. "Zyklon B kills in 3 to 15 minutes" and "the guards would have died"

My opponent implies that I've made the claim that the "guards would have died", which I have not. The issue at hand is how these Zyklon-B pellets were disarmed, considering that the alleged storyline claims gassings were finished in a matter of minutes, while cyanide will release 10 times the concentration required for this purpose over the next several hours [7]. What was done with the fatally-toxic outgassing pellets?

My opponent cites the times of death pertaining to modern-day US gas chambers with no regard to the fact that, in the case of these alleged 'death camps', cyanide was released from pellets that distribute gas unevenly (not highly engineered introduction systems) and are dependent on a variety of environmental factors [7]. Furthermore, in Krema II in Auschwitz, for example, the Holocaust storyline dictates that gassings were done on a massive, sequential basis and depended substantially on the premise that the batch of approximately 2,000 Jews waiting in line to be 'gassed' next thought they were going for showers, otherwise non-cooperation would not have been manageable by the team of only 3-4 SS coordinating the death-sentenced mob of 2,000. How could this have been possible if 80-90% of the remaining cyanide that was required to kill 2,000 Jews is being released into the open air surrounding the building for several hours, with the next batch of Jews within line-of-sight and already lined up to go inside [8]?

4. The Jaeger Report

My opponent states: "It is false that both sides agree this is a forgery."

I would agree-- my original quote:

"half a dozen pieces of proclaimed 'documentary evidence', several of which are now regarded by both sides of the Holocaust debate to be forgeries, and two entirely untraceable documents ... without any physical evidence"

My opponent's citation contains some examples of the former, including the Lohse order. The "two entirely untraceable documents...without physical evidence" are in reference to the alleged 'reports' of Himmler and Jaeger which have no physical evidence to back even a fraction of their claims.

3. Photos/Video Footage

None of the atrocious photographs, video, or otherwise can effectively corroborate any aspect of the alleged 'extermination plan'. Con's video reference to the liberation of Dachau is a prime example of how Allied propaganda has been able to manipulate evidence to support a fraudulent storyline. My opponent implies that the victims in this video were killed by systematic mass murder.

Let's consider the evidence.

Dr. Charles Larson, one of America's leading forensic pathologists, performed autopsies at Dachau and more than twenty other German camps in 1945, some days examining more than 100 corpses [8]. In an 1980 newspaper interview he said: "What we've heard is that six million Jews were exterminated. Part of that is a hoax". Being the only forensic pathologist for Allied military operations in Europe, Larson confirmed there "never was a case of poison gas uncovered" [9].

The reason for these documented deaths is far less complicated than the 'extermination' theory would have us believe. Dr. John E. Gordon, M.D., Ph.D., a professor of preventive medicine and epidemiology at the Harvard University School of Public Health, was with US forces in Germany in 1945. He reported in 1948 that the "outbreaks in concentration camps and prisons made up the great bulk of typhus infection encountered in Germany" [10]. Dr. Gordon summarized the causes:

"Germany in the spring months of April and May [1945] was an astounding sight, a mixture of humanity travelling this way and that, homeless, often hungry and carrying typhus with them ... Germany was in chaos. The destruction of whole cities and the path left by advancing armies produced a disruption of living conditions contributing to the spread of the disease."

Corroborating Dr. Gordon's findings is Dr. Russell Barton, who entered the Bergen-Belsen camp with British forces in 1945. Barton testified under sworn oath that "Thousands of prisoners who died at the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp during World War II weren't deliberately starved to death but died from a rash of diseases."[11]

I challenge my opponent to show physical evidence to support any of his claims.

2. Ken Jones, Wrexham Leader. October 17, 1986
4. Lectures on the Holocaust, Ch. 4.5.4,
9. Jane Floerchinger, "Concentration Camp Conditions Killed Most Inmates, Doctor Says," The Wichita Eagle, April 1, 1980, p. 4C.
10. John E. Gordon, "Louse-Borne Typhus Fever in the European Theater of Operations, U.S. Army, 1945," Rickettsial Diseases of Man, pp. 16-27.
11. "Disease killed Nazis' prisoners, MD says," Toronto Star, Feb. 8, 1985, p. A2


I'm not going to bother explaining to my opponent why it's extremist to accept an award from Ahmadenijad. There's no convincing someone from a movement that would welcome back Hitler with open arms.

{{{ Nuremberg }}}

My opponent proves my point when he points out that Hoess was ultimately hanged for war crimes, after his trial. This means he received no special deal from the prosecution for his testimony. He wrote his memoirs in prison because he knew he was going to be hanged. He had no motive to lie.

His family received death threats in the mail because of the genocide that Hoess perpetrated. There's no reason to believe the truth would appease these people. In fact, it would have been preferable for Hoess, in regards to death threats, to deny his involvement in the Holocaust.

My opponent merely relies on his reference material, without advancing any arguments. I won't refute arguments that aren't made. Although footnote 5 never says SS Kaltenbrunner lied in his testimony, except to say that it was his job, when they were first captured, to create a lie to explain to the Red Cross why they had just executed 50 POWs. He initially claimed they were killed by Allied bombing. This seems to support the mainstream Holocaust narrative, which is that the Nazis initially tried very hard to hide their war crimes.

My opponent doesn't both refuting any other perpetrator testimony, except Hoess.

{{{ Gas trucks }}}

My opponent claims that gas trucks didn't exist because gasoline powered trucks are more efficient killing machines than diesel trucks. There are two main problems with this. 1) The Germans didn't necessarily use the most effective killing methods available to them. They started by rounding up and shooting as many Jews as possible. Only after soldiers complained of battle fatigue and psychological issues from shooting women and children did they seek alternate "solutions." 2) Heavy-duty trucks aren't equipped with gasoline engines. According to a report by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, the US still uses diesel engines in all heavy duty trucks today. [1] Diesel is used in heavy-duty trucks and ships because it is the most efficient internal combustion engine due to its high compression ratio, and it is even more efficient at low speeds. [2]

My opponent's response is pseudo-science at its worst. "Gasoline is better at killing than diesel. The Germans would have used the best method, therefore, no Holocaust." There are so many leaps in logic here it's not even funny. It's really not.

{{{ 3 to 15 minutes }}}

Firstly, when Hoess is referring to 3 to 15 minutes, he was asked a question about how long it took his victims to die, not how long it took between gassing sessions. Second, Richard Green (PhD in chemistry from Stanford) points out that the Denier claim that "Zyklon B takes a long time to evaporate" is based on figures from the manufacturer's (Degesch) manual, and it was referring to the required exposure time of lice, not evaporation times. [3] In addition, Gerhard Peters, who was the general director of Degesch, the company that made Zyklon B, has said that almost all of the hydrogen cyanide (HCN) would have evaporated after half an hour. [3]

My opponent objects by saying that the Jews waiting in line for "showers" would have seen the gas coming out of the chamber. Considering that HCN is colorless, [4] a better objection would be that they'd see the dead bodies being removed. But they were taken to a staging area where they couldn't see outside.

{{{ The Jager Report }}}

As far as I can tell, my opponent's only reason for doubting this report is that it wasn't signed by Jager. First off, people don't sign every piece of paper they produce. Second, the version of the report found was the 4th of 5 copies; the other copies had been destroyed. In an age before photocopiers, there would be no reason to ever sign more than the original.

His other objection seems to be based on us finding no mass graves from all the Jews who were shot. This claim isn't even true. This site has a compendium of pictures of mass graves, taken both immediately post-war and from captured Nazis. [5] There are: pictures of the mass graves at the Ponary killing site, pictures of the mass graves in Vinnitsa (Ukraine), pictures of: a mass grave discovered in Iwje (Poland), a mass grave in Drobitski Yar near Kharkov, a mass grave in Kragujevac (Serbia), a mass grave in the Polesye region, a mass grave in Kozin (discovered by a Soviet investigation), a mass grave in Taganrov (Russia) … there are photos of mass graves discovered in: Banjica, Yugoslavia; Zhmerinka, Ukraine; Siauliai, Lithuania; Lancut; Bialystok; Zolochev; Zbaraz; Kerch; Meina; Nowe Miasto; Mlawa; Czestochowa. [5] Many of the bodies were exhumed and given proper burials.

Mass graves weren't found at death camps because the bodies were cremated, and Himmler instructed his camp commandants to destroy records, crematoria, and other signs of mass extermination. [8]

{{{ Photos/Video Footage }}}

As far as I can tell, having searched the McClatchy database using Lexis, the Larson article doesn't exist.

IHR is clearly misrepresenting what Charles Larson said. Larson is talking about autopsies he performed in Dachau. Only a few experimental gassings were ever done at Dachau. [6] As I mentioned before, some camps were used only as concentration camps, not as death camps. I *do* believe the title of the article, "Concentration Camp Conditions Killed Most Inmates, Doctor Says." This would undoubtedly be true in Dachau, which only gassed small number prisoners, as a test. However, it makes no sense that autopsies performed in Dachau disprove gassings at Auschwitz.

Larson, himself, admitted to finding evidence of some gassings at Dachau, when he was deposed for trial; Larson said, "only relatively few of the inmates I personally examined at Dachau were murdered in this manner." [6]

My opponent makes the common Denier claim that all the Jews died of Typhus. There were Typhus outbreaks at some camps, like Bergen-Belsen. However, the Nazis spent so much time delousing clothing in order to prevent the spread of Typhus. There is no evidence that Typhus killed most of the Jews at Auschwitz. Typhus has a signature rash that would have been easy to identify. In addition, Typhus has a mortality rate below 20%. [7] Yet, 80% of the prisoners brought to Auschwitz died.

== Challenge: Alternate Narrative ==

I challenge my opponent to explain exactly what happened during the Holocaust, in his own words. If the Nazis didn't kill Jews, why round them up? Why did the Nazis call the Jews untermensch (sub-human), faulniserscheinung (untouchable rot), and blame all of Germany's problems on them if they didn't hate the Jews and want to see them scapegoated and killed? Where did all the Jews go? Demographic estimates by the World Almanac say that 5,376,520 Jews disappeared from the world population between 1938 and 1947; other demographic estimates by the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee and the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry found that post-war, only 3,642,000 Jews remained in Europe of the 9,740,000 pre-war population. [9] What happened to these Jews?

Furthermore, where did the gas chamber "lie" come from? How did all the survivors and perpetrators meet and decide to all tell the same lie?

How many Jews will my opponent concede were killed by the Nazis? Zero? One? 4.5 million?

Debate Round No. 3


Con continues sustaining his arguments with ad hominem attacks and unfounded claims.

1. Nuremberg

My opponent claims that Hoess "wrote his memoirs in prison because he knew he was going to be hanged" and that he "had no motive to lie". Clearly, he is not aware that Hoess completed his memoirs months before his sentencing on April 2, 1947 [1].

While I wasn't aware that Hoess' family had received mailed-in "death threats", the death threats I had referred to were those said to Hoess' family, in-person, as a means to Hoess' capture [2].

Consider an interesting quote from Iowa Supreme Court Justice Charles F. Wennerstrum, presiding judge in the Nuremburg Trials:

"The entire atmosphere here is unwholesome ... Lawyers, clerks, interpreters and researchers were employed who became Americans only in recent years, whose backgrounds were imbedded in Europe's hatreds and prejudices." [3]

In this environment, any Nazi "denying the Holocaust", once accused, would have been likely to face a death penalty.

2. "Gas vans"

Con has repeatedly misrepresented my arguments in order to attach his own implications to them: "Gasoline is better at killing than diesel. The Germans would have used the best method, therefore, no Holocaust". Of course, the burden of proof in any homicidal investigation lies upon the prosecutor. Yet, with all of the 'testimony' of the exact location, process and details of these "gas vans", there has yet to be a single shred of physical evidence; no bodies in the alleged 'grave' sites, no remnants of any "gas-mobiles". Furthermore, my opponent refers to these vehicles as "gas trucks" despite the fact that in all testimony and court proceedings they are referred to as "gas 'vans'". He most likely altered this detail to suit his argument that "diesel is more efficient for large trucks" in an attempt to diminish the obvious-- that the Germans would not have established a process for 'extermination' (the alleged primary purpose of Jewish internment) with such notable deficiency.

2. Mass graves

Contrary to the uninformed claims by my opponent, no forensic excavation has been performed at ANY of the alleged Holocaust mass graves, despite the exact locations of some being 'precisely known', and despite this allegedly being the greatest crime in recent history. The photographs on Con's link are admittedly of unknown sources. 60 million people died in WWII. How do we know where, when, by whom and of whom these photographs were taken? According to CIA expert Dino Brugioni, "it became immediately apparent to me... that the Soviets had embarked on a massive program of misinformation during the [WWII] war years" [4]. Consider an analysis that includes several of the photos cited by my opponent:

3. "Gas chambers"

To respond to both my opponents accusations of revisionist "pseudo-science" and the data collected by Markiewicz et al. within the 'gas chambers' at Auschwitz, let's consider the analytical methods employed by Markiewicz versus those employed by Rudolf, Leuchter and Ball.

First, let's consider that cyanide, alone, is very unstable and, due to environmental factors, would hardly be present after 50 years [5]. Iron-cyanide compounds, or "Iron Blue", on the other hand, are extraordinarily stable in acids and are not destroyed by the influences of weathering, even over decades [6]. Markiewicz used a microdiffusion process that did not account for iron-cyanide compounds. He concluded, therefore, that since the delousing chambers (which used cyanide to disinfect clothing) had similar levels (close to zero) as the alleged 'gas chambers', these buildings must have been used for 'gassings'. However, if we consider the data that includes iron-cyanide compounds that is corroborated by Leuchter, Rudolf and Ball, the total cyanide content in any delousing chambers is literally thousands of times higher than in any alleged 'gas chamber'. Furthermore, control samples taken from inmate barracks and elsewhere throughout the camps showed cyanide levels on the order of magnitude as any of the alleged 'chamber' locations. Trace cyanide content is most likely attributable to regular fumigation that was common in all camps during the war. Markiewicz's deliberate exclusion of iron-cyanides is not only an inaccurate representation of total cyanide content but calls into question his scientific credentials.

On a side note, Markiewicz's team was from the Jan Sehn Institute. Jan Sehn is the person who convinced Hoess to write his memoirs, which have been a critical focal-point in the mainstream storyline [1].

Con's claim that "almost all of the hydrogen cyanide would have evaporated [from Zyklon-B] after half an hour" is a mistranslation. The original quote by Peters is "der groste Teil der Blausaure" which translates directly to "the major part of the hydrocyanic acid" (as in, more than 50%). Furthermore, Richard Irmscher of DEGESCH corroborates this by reporting in 1942 that only 10% of the HCN would be outgassed after 5 minutes, 50% after a half hour and 90% after two hours [7]. What was done with the outgassing pellets (enough to kill 2,000 Jews) after the 3-15 minutes alleged by Hoess? If they were taken outside, and with a perceptible odor at only 2-5 ppm [7], how did the Jews waiting directly outside not become aware of the "shower" facade, particularly since it is known by both sides that there were "gas chamber/shower" rumors circulating at the time? That in mind, how did the alleged 3-4 SS guards manage to get all of the panicked prisoners into the 'chamber' without being overthrown?

My opponent's claim that I've said "the Jews waiting in line for 'showers' would have SEEN the gas coming out of the chamber" is yet another blatant misrepresentation.

4. Documentation

The fact that my opponent ignores more than 40 million German documents that exhibit no 'extermination plan', and is surprised when a half-dozen completely unverifiable documents supporting an extraordinary claim with a strong motive and without any physical evidence, appearing post-war, are labeled "forgeries" illustrates how effectively these politically-oriented institutions have influenced the minds of so many followers.

5. Photos/Video

My opponent states that because he is unable to find a reference, it doesn't exist. My reference was originally cited on an article by Harvard historian and renowned author Theodore J. O'Keefe [8]. If Dr. Larson had conducted any autopsies that supported cyanide gassings, why were they not admitted into evidence at Nuremberg?

6. What really happened?

There was no 'extermination plan' [9]. The plan was "the emigration of all Jews living in the territory of the Reich" in response to the Jewish declaration of 'economic warfare' by utilization of German industries of media, finance and business [10]. The origin of the term "final solution" comes from a letter to SS Heydrich [9] in 1941, illustrating clearly that the desired "final solution of the Jewish question" is a solution by means of "emigration or evacuation". There are thousands of documents, records and quotes from Hitler, himself, that support this account. Not all Nazis disliked Jews. There were no Nazi gassings [5]. The Jewish deaths that were unaccounted for is likely to near 300,000 [11]-- a number that, although tragic, is not outstanding when compared to other groups during WWII.

To be clear, my opponent has yet to cite a single excavation, autopsy report, chemical analysis or physical evidence of any kind, relying solely on testimony. Where's the proof?

3. H. Foust, "Nazi Trial Judge Rips 'Injustice'," Chicago Tribune, Feb. 23, 1948, pp. 1,2
6. Section 6.6:


== Rebuttal ==


My opponent's source never says Hoess' family was threatened with death by the British. It mentions that they were monitored because in the last days of the war, Himmler told Hoess to disguise himself among German navy personnel. He evaded arrest for almost a year. His family needed to be monitored in case he tried to contact them.

Hoess undoubtedly knew that he would be sentenced to death, given that 12 prominent Nazis had already been hanged on October 16, 1946. Hoess also expressed regret for his war crimes 4 days before his hanging. [1] After he was sentenced to death, he could have easily recanted his testimony. There was nothing "worse than death" that they could have done to him. Instead, he chose to apologize for his crimes. "May the Lord God forgive one day what I have done." [1]

Justice Wennerstrum presided over some trials, although Francis Biddle was the main American judge at Nuremberg. Wennerstrum's criticism is supposedly that he found a few former European Jews among a staff of thousands. This doesn't invalidate any perpetrator testimony. My opponent claims that if a Nazi denied the Holocaust, a Jewish interpreter would have somehow ensured he was put to death. That is absurd. Many Germans were acquitted at Nuremberg. [2] And 136 of the defense attorneys were members of the Nazi party. [3] If someone denied the Holocaust, the burden of proof would be on the prosecution to prove that that person was involved. Denial would have been a decent legal strategy, yet no one denied the Holocaust.

My opponent still makes no attempt to refute anyone's testimony but Hoess'.

Gas vans

Gas vans have not been found because the Germans only had 12-16 in operation by the end of the war, at death camps like Chelmno, Sobibor, Belzec, and Treblinka, and Himmler ordered these destroyed. All these camps were razed to the ground and all evidence from them was burned or buried. There was a massive attempt by the Nazis to cover up evidence of their crimes.

The words "van" and "truck" are synonymous. I had no nefarious purposes in using the word truck, except to point out that anything larger than a "light truck" uses diesel because diesel fuel has a higher compression ratio. Given the number of Jews that the Germans fit in the back of the trucks, the trucks were undoubtedly heavy enough that they would have had to use a diesel engine for fuel efficiency.

Mass graves

Jewish law has very strong rules about respecting the dead. There were even questions about whether the Jewish dead could be exhumed in order to be given proper burials. [4] "Rabbi Weinberg proceeds to cite a number of statements in Chazal which compare desecration or humiliation of the dead to a form of murder." [4] Mass graves have not been dug up and subjected to forensic analysis out of respect for Jewish law.

My opponent's CIA source says that the Soviets used brush strokes to hide details about their weapons, and they staged fake battles in order to be seen in a more favorable light. It never says that they fabricated a story about the Holocaust during WWII.

My opponent shouldn't be surprised that propaganda existed. Even the US employed propaganda during this time period, e.g.

Gas chambers

According to Richard Green, who has a PhD in chemistry from Stanford, there are two main differences in methodology between the Rudolf/Leuchter "studies" and the Markiewicz et al study. The first difference is that Markiewicz got permission from the management of the Auschwitz-Birkenau museum to remove samples, but neither Rudolf nor Leuchter received permission. [5] Markiewicz was able to obtain better quality samples than either Rudolf or Leuchter, considering the latter two had to sneak samples out illegally. [5] HCN also degrades when exposed to puddles of rain water, which is significant because Markiewicz was able to take large samples from the walls of the gas chambers, whereas Rudolf and Leuchter would have had to take loose bricks off the floor. [5] The second major failing is that Rudolf and Leuchter did not use control samples. My opponent is lying when he says that Markiewicz found comparable levels of HCN in the control samples. Green says of the study, "The results from their control samples were negative indicating that their results were meaningful." [5] Rudolf/Leuchter ultimately compared Prussian blue samples from the delousing facilities (where they already *knew* they would find significant traces of HCN) to samples from the gas chambers that were unlikely to show traces of HCN. As my opponent pointed out, HCN degrades in non-Prussian blue samples. Rudolf and Leuchter already knew what conclusion their studies would draw. It is also noteworthy that both were paid tens of thousands of dollars –in advance – to perform these studies in defense of Holocaust deniers who were on trial in Europe. [5]

There were also two forensic analyses done right after the war. In 1945, Dr. Jan Z. Robel performed an analysis of scrapings from the 2 damaged ventilation orifices found in the ruins of Krematorium II, in which Robel established the presence of cyanide compounds. [5] Another analysis by the Institute of Judicial Expertise in Krakow – in 1945 – of hair samples and hair pins found on the dead at Auschwitz confirmed the presence of prussic acid, a basic component of Zyklon B. [5]

In regards to evaporation time, "der groste Teil" translates to "almost all." [5] But it doesn't matter whether all the HCN was dissipated when the chamber was opened, as long as the Germans wore gas masks. The Jews waiting in line were isolated from viewing the gas chamber exits, so it's unclear whether they could have smelled the gas. Regardless, HCN only has a *faint* almond smell, which could easily be misidentified as soap.

My opponent asks how a few guards could have handled thousands of prisoners, but that's how a prison works – a small number of people keep control over a much larger group of people.


No specific reason is given to doubt this source.


My opponent's response is absurd. There are hundreds of millions of American documents that don't mention the Japanese internment and only a handful of documents that do. Does this prove that the Japanese internment didn't happen? Obviously not. It proves that governments generate a lot of paperwork.

I already cited evidence showing that Himmler issued an order to destroy all evidence of genocide, including all paperwork both in the central government and in the camps. My opponent has no direct refutation to any of the documents I cited.


O'Keefe was an undergrad history major at Harvard, not a professor. He was hired by IHR shortly after graduation. I provided testimony from Larson that a small number of the bodies he examined at Dachau died of gassing, which is consistent with what happened at Dachau: only a few experimental gassings.

What really happened?

As far as I can tell, Denier websites claim the Jews "declared war on Germany" with the Anti-Nazi Boycott of 1933, during which people in the US, UK, and elsewhere protested anti-Semitic rhetoric and practices begun in Nazi Germany during the rise of Hitler by boycotting German goods. My opponent's account doesn't explain the Jewish Ghettos or why Hitler refused to let Jews leave Europe. It doesn't explain concentration camps. My opponent claimed Hitler never starved the Jews, but this doesn't explain why they were found bone-thin. It's just not true that thousands of documents from Hitler show that he never wanted to kill the Jews. In a public speech in 1939, Hitler said, "If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe."

My opponent's 300,000 figure is absurd. It flies in the face of the demographic estimates I already cited. Yad Vashem has identified the names and specific identities of 4 million victims. [6] I ask my opponent: what happened to all these people?

Debate Round No. 4


This will be my final round. Thanks for reading.


"If you don't tell us [where your husband is] we'll turn you over to the Russians and they'll put you before a firing-squad. Your son will go to Siberia." - B. Clarke, British Sgt.[1]

My opponent claims that "12 prominent Nazis" were hanged in October, 1986, when it was actually 10, and fails to mention that 10 more Nazis were given a range of prison sentences or were set free at that very same sentencing [2]. Hoess didn't know what his fate would be. After being sentenced, in a letter to his wife, he writes [3]:

"...I was totally responsible for everything that happened there, whether I knew about it or not. Most of the terrible and horrible things that took place there I learned only during this investigation and during the trial itself."

Hoess' testimony was one of the greatest contributions to the Holocaust storyline, making the legal defense "I didn't know" or "it didn't happen" even less tenable for the accused.

As with the repeatedly-cited Jaeger Report, my opponent attempts to justify an absolute lack of physical evidence with questionable testimony. He claims the document contains no verifiable elements because it is a copy, not an original-- how do we know this? Even if it were an "original", how much weight would it be given if there exists not a single shred of physical evidence to support it?


My opponent claims that irrefutable evidence to Jewish extermination cannot be uncovered, despite several exact locations being known, because of "Jewish law". Yet, exhumations of Jewish graves are done regularly [4]:

"The Jewish Burial Society is responsible for exhumation of remains."

"...obtain the consent of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel for exhumation of the remains of persons of the Jewish faith."

Clearly, evidence can only be exhumed if Jewish institutions want it to be. Why wouldn't the buried victims and their descendents want to put an end to all of the "Denier" claims, not to mention giving these individuals a proper burial? The best we are said to have is radar images that show holes in the ground-- "no actual bodies were found and the graves were not excavated"-- shocking. Yet, the lead investigator, probably not to leave empty-handed, claims to have personally witnessed crushed bones in the soil, which conforms to the storyline that these 850,000 bodies were buried, then dug up out of the soil, burned on wooden pyres, just to have roughly 9 million pounds of apparently human remnants be re-buried in the same place. Of course, there were not many trees in the area surrounding Treblinka, meaning that roughly 10,000 boxcars of wood would have needed to be sent in by train (of which there is no evidence for)-- all so that the bodies could be burned before being re-buried again. These claims are incredible [5].


To fit the alleged fatal CO exposure time of less than 30 minutes in these 'gas vans', the concentration would need to remain at roughly 0.8%. Since diesel engines are capable of producing no more than 0.4%, witnesses such as Shimon Srebrnik, as cited by my opponent, claim that the throttle would be 'floored' to deprive victims of oxygen, rather than kill by CO "as planned". My opponent has still yet to suggest why 'producer gas'(up to 35% CO) or even plain gasoline (7% CO) engines were not used for this purpose. Producer gas vehicles were extremely common in military operations and abroad during WWII [6] and would have been quite efficient for heavy-duty tasks [7]. Furthermore, diesel engines are extremely complex to operate, even more difficult to repair and would have been prone to significant damage if used as alleged [8]. The technologically-brilliant Germans would not have compromised such a task with senseless design.


My opponent clearly doesn't understand the implications of my prior argument. Markiewicz measured only free-form cyanide-- he did not account for stable iron-cyanide compounds. Free-form cyanide is extremely susceptible to weathering, showing a significant decay over time, while iron-cyanide compounds are practically insoluble [9]. Moreover, according to Rudolf: "Care was taken to ensure that samples were only taken from material not exposed to weathering... exemplified by the deposition of spider webs many years old and the absence of any trace of lime precipitation on the concrete or mortar, which would be caused by rain water" [9].

Con's source shows only that soluble cyanide was extremely near-zero in all locations tested, yet below the limit of detection in the control samples. This is due to Markiewicz's irresponsible analysis method. In the data collected by Rudolf, Leuchter and Ball, who accounted for *total* cyanide, inmate barracks(serving as control samples) showed only slightly lower levels of cyanide concentration than any alleged 'gas chamber'(keep in mind, all buildings were fumigated for typhus with cyanide), while delousing chambers had concentrations thousands of times higher [9]. The slight variation between control and 'gas chamber' samples is probably due to the fact that the alleged 'chambers' were within a morgue-- a housing for dead typhus victims.


One would not expect such highly-regarded testimony to be so inconsistent. In addition to notable variations in detail, many witnesses have made claims that are too extravagant to be believed by anyone.

Consider this list of actual source-cited testimony from 'survivors' that is literally beyond words:

Here are the citations:

This excellent documentary further illustrates the manipulative effect of false testimony:

Not everyone lied, but some did (either as individuals, for revenge, or a collective motive such as Zionism), and those that didn't may not question the storyline propagated by others, potentially leading to an assumption that, for example, a relative that they have not seen since internment was 'gassed' or otherwise.

My opponent cited the Yad Vashem website as being 'evidence' of 4 million victims, despite the fact that this database can be manipulated by anyone [10]:

"...contributors can sit down at a computer... and click on 'submit new pages of testimony.' Up comes a form for the victim's name or names, place of birth, profession, wartime 'travails' (deportation, ghetto, camp, death march, hiding, escape, resistance), approximate age at death and other details."

Consider an "Adolf Hitler" entry submitted by a member of the CODOH Forum on this thread:

Are any of these listed names verifiable with tangible evidence? Of course not.


Jewish organizations dominated German industry and media to a similar disproportion of what is reflected in the US, today [11]. Once the German economy was at stake, Hitler attempted to emigrate the Jews out of the Reich with the Haavara Agreement [12], among other initiatives. Jews were used for slave labor. Allied bombing in Germany and elsewhere led to the Germans abandoning provisions at these camps nearing the end of the war.


Despite the fact that there exists no physical evidence of 'extermination', criticism of elite Jewish institutions is chastised heavily in the name of the "Holocaust", permitting free reign of Jewish dominance, void of any critique. I hope that the audience is able to agree that this discussion is not an "incitement of hatred"; it is a quest for uncompromising truth. Thank you for your consideration.



I would thank my opponent for the debate, but I think that what he is arguing is despicable.


My opponent finally proves that Hoess' family was threatened when he ran away. If anything, the fact that he felt the need to run away proves that he had a very guilty conscience.

My opponent keeps claiming that the entire Holocaust narrative collapses without Hoess' testimony. That is utterly ridiculous. Hoess is merely one person among hundreds of Nazis and thousands of survivors who have testified to the existence of gas chambers.

My opponent drops all of the other perpetrator testimony that proves the existence of gas chambers: SS Hoeblinger, SS Boeck, Hans Stark, Perry Broad, SS Schluch, Kurt Bolender, SS Oberhauser, Franz Stangl, Willi Mentz, Kurt Franz, Heinrich Matthes, Erich Fuchs, Johann Kremer, all the Auschwitz guards tried at Belsen, and the 20 SS men tried in Frankfurt.

My opponent also drops the evidence that during the many trials for war crimes, not a *single* perpetrator denied the Holocaust. If my opponent's narrative were correct, we would have expected at least *some* Denial to have occurred at the time.

Imagine this were a normal murder trial. If hundreds of people all testified that they saw the defendant murder the victim and not a single eyewitness claimed that no murder occurred, what would be the logical conclusion?

My opponent also fails to explain how hundreds of perpetrators and tens of thousands of survivors all sat down, before liberation, and agreed upon the same false narrative, including common elements like: gas chambers, the removal of gold teeth from the dead, etc. My opponent's narrative requires a massive conspiracy on the part of the Allies. Yet, not a *shred* of evidence for such a conspiracy has ever been uncovered.

The ultimate impact of this argument is that it proves that the gas chambers existed based on eyewitness testimony, that Denial is not a legitimate pursuit because it contradicts *all* the testimony, and that Denial calls thousands of Holocaust survivors "liars." As if living through the Holocaust wasn't bad enough. My opponent is no better than someone who goes around telling rape victims that he thinks they weren't actually raped.

Mass graves

I cited evidence that mass graves are uncovered all the time. People in Eastern Europe still stumble upon undiscovered mass graves even today. I cited JTA, a Jewish news source, to prove that "graves were not excavated, in keeping with Jewish law." My opponent cites a source which says that the state of Israel allows exhumation of Jews (mind you, under very specific conditions). However, Israel includes people of varying degrees of Jewish faith. The point is: why should a Holocaust museum allow researchers to do something that violates Orthodox Jewish law, in order to prove something that is already proven by thousands of eyewitnesses, in order to satisfy only Deniers, who would not be satisfied with any degree of evidence anyway? In a murder trial with 100 eyewitnesses to the murder, it would be silly to conclude that no murder occurred merely because you cannot find where the murderer dumped the body.

My opponent claims there is "not enough wood" to have burned all the bodies at Treblinka in order to conceal the camp. According to perpetrator testimony from Treblinka, gasoline was poured on the bodies in order to burn them and desiccated corpses burned even without the need for gasoline. [1] A dried corpse burns much more easily than a fresh one. [1]

Regardless, mass graves are unnecessary to prove the Holocaust. My opponent drops my evidence from 3 different sources that estimated that approximately 6 million Jews disappeared from the face of the Earth during the Holocaust. This is using simple demographic estimates from before and after the war. This is backed by other demographic estimates: "Polish historian Dr. Franciszek Piper did the most comprehensive demographic study of Auschwitz ever undertaken and traced 1.3 million prisoners to the camp. He found that 1.1 million had been killed. This includes 200,000 of the registered prisoners and 900,000 prisoners who never received a registration number because they were killed upon arrival." [2] This directly disproves my opponent's claim that no one in the camps was killed on arrival and that there were only 300,000 killed in the entire Holocaust.

Gas vans

My opponent uses uncited pseudo-science to claim that diesel can only produce 0.4% carbon monoxide in its exhaust. I assume his authors measured a modern diesel car engine, which comes equipped with a catalytic converter to remove CO. Older engines produced far more carbon monoxide, up to 25%, according to sources I already cited. My opponent asks why the Nazis didn't use "producer gas" vehicles like the Allies. His source (Wikipedia) says that producer gas, such as wood gas, is a synfuel that *can be used in diesel engines* and produces 35% carbon monoxide. My opponent answers his own question. The Nazis could very well have used this synfuel.

Gas vans are proven by massive amounts of eyewitness testimony and the letter to SS Rauff, which states that 97,000 people have been killed by the gas vans.

Gas chambers

My opponent continues to lie and say that his studies used control samples, when they didn't. And they tested only for the type of cyanide that they knew they would find in the Prussian blue stains that exist in the delousing facilities but not in the gas chambers (iron-cyanide). Markiewicz tested for types of cyanide that could be found anywhere.

As already explained, Prussian blue only formed in delousing facilities because the walls were exposed to larger concentrations of Zyklon B for longer periods of time.

It is difficult to believe Rudolf's claim that he was able to take good samples from high up the wall, given that he was removing samples illegally from a museum. He would have had to do so extremely surreptitiously. He could not have chiseled good pieces off the wall.

My opponent drops the forensic analyses done immediately after the war by Dr. Robel, which found large concentrations of cyanide in the gas vents of the broken gas chambers and found components of Zyklon B in the hair of dead bodies. My opponent also drops that an inventory list for Auschwitz proves that there were 14 showers and a "gas tight door" in a corpse cellar from Crematorium III. Obviously, this inventory list refers to a gas chamber. There would be no reason to give showers to dead bodies in an airtight room.


My opponent keeps claiming that typhus killed all the prisoners at Auschwitz. However, enough crematoria were built at Auschwitz to burn the entire camp's registered population five times over. [2] The death books at Auschwitz also show that of the 69,000 registered prisoners who died, only 2,060 died of Typhus. [2] My opponent denies that any unregistered prisoners were ever transferred to Auschwitz and gassed without being registered. However, there are simply too many crematoria for this to be true.


Some discrepancies in testimony do not prove that everyone is lying.


My opponent does nothing to refute the Himmler report or the letter to SS Rauff, which list the number of dead Jews at hundreds of thousands within a period of months. He doesn't cite any specific reason to doubt the Jager report.


My opponent advances a narrative that is demonstrably false. He accuses the Allies of an unsubstantiated and infeasible conspiracy in coordinating thousands of people's testimony. He accuses survivors of all lying. He claims Hitler never said he wanted to kill the Jews, which is contradicted by multiple speeches he gave. This is all utter hogwash and my opponent is a despicable human being.

Debate Round No. 5
68 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MassDebater69 3 years ago
@gordonjames - I have most certainly not denied the suffering of many Jews during this period in time. They were imprisoned, robbed of their possessions, many died from disease spread within the camps they had been forced into, and, yes, some were even executed unfairly, although primarily due to suspected partisanship. That is a *huge* difference from saying "it never happened", meaning that no suffering ever occurred.

I have gone through quite a bit of testimony regarding all aspects of the Holocaust. What one notices while doing this is the relative lack of either consistency or testimony pertaining to 'gas chambers' or other key aspects of the story. The reality is, countless Jews were separated from their families within the concentration camp system and emigrated to numerous locations around the world, following the war. Antisemitism was still present throughout Europe during this period, so many Jews changed their names, no longer affiliated as being Jewish, or other methods that would make it difficult for them to be located and identified. Lost relatives, when corroborated with 'gas chamber' and 'extermination' theory were, hence, commonly assumed to have been executed in this manner. However, the International Tracing Service at Bad Arolsen, even today, reunites an average of 30-50 Jewish families per year.

This wouldn't be quite so significant if we had any reliable evidence as to how many lived in Europe before and after the war, how the evidence was destroyed, and a reasonable explanation as to how this process might have been carried out. But, fortunately, we don't. This isn't bad news, Gordon. This is actually a really good thing. Because if 6 million Jews weren't gassed or executed, many living relatives thought to have been killed in this way might find peace knowing that their loved ones probably weren't killed so brutally and that many of them might have survived the war.
Posted by gordonjames 3 years ago
It is interesting that the debate seemed to move from
- Our greatest taboo should be permitted for investigation and debate
- The holocaust is a myth.

I am a big fan of freedom.
Debate should always be encouraged in the appropriate circles (Academic and historical)

There is another issue here -
If my daughter is raped and murdered,
I am not likely to be friendly to a person who says it never happened.
Same thing with the death of so many Jews.
I have met some who survived or lost loved ones.
Even in their elderly years they are broken and damaged by the experience.
I don't have much time for those who say it never happened.
People I trust were eye witnesses.
Posted by MassDebater69 4 years ago
@InVinoVeritas - LOL I know, right? Yet he has failed to provide a single argument that refutes anything I've put forth here.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
"To be honest, I found Pro's argument and position not only completely incoherent and retarded, but flat-out unethical and disgusting." HAHAHAHA, FourTrouble.
Posted by MassDebater69 4 years ago
All this aside, now that it appears I've made a pretty reasonable case, and despite the fact that I'm against any form of organized religion, I love Jewish people. I only think we should be more aware of the common interests among those in our most influential establishments and, certainly, we should be able to openly challenge and debate historical record if available evidence can account for multiple possibilities.

Thank you guys for the insight.
Posted by MassDebater69 4 years ago
As I was reading the Foreword, this stood out to me:

"How, indeed, can a people answer the charge that it has imagined or invented its greatest tragedy?"

This generalizes "a people", implying that any noted discrepancy with 'gas chambers', 'gas vans', evil doctors and human soap can be regarded as an all-out "denial" against the legitimate suffering of every Jew. This is the sort of "slanderous marginalization" I had referred to in my last comment. Injustices such as imprisonment, forced labor, stolen possessions, separation from family and increased exposure to disease, which may qualify as one's "greatest tragedy", have not been disputed.

I've read through several chapters and have seen very little 'evidence'; certainly nothing that refutes the premises of revisionism I've already put forth. I'd like you to refer me to just one of these arguments that proves the systematic extermination of Jews.

A scholarly review and a complete demolition of what appears to be the most significant arguments in the book has been conducted by Carlo Mattogno, see p.199:
Posted by LaissezFaire 4 years ago
Here's a link to a free download:
Posted by MassDebater69 4 years ago
@bluesteel - I am genuinely interested but, before I spend the $9.99 to download the e-book just to find out it consists of slanderous marginalization of anyone doubting a "6 million" figure, would you mind sharing some of the more forceful arguments within?
Posted by bluesteel 4 years ago
if you're really open to both sides, then read this book
Posted by MassDebater69 4 years ago
Neither of us know what happened to your great-great aunt and uncle. There were up to 500,000 Jewish deaths under German rule. While it can be demonstrated that none were a part of an 'extermination plan', this is still a significant number and a tragedy, nonetheless. Furthermore, there were sentiments of antisemitism existing in certain places in Europe that carried on, post-war, and many Jews changed their names and relocated to establish new identities. It would have been difficult to find any lost relatives. That doesn't mean they were 'gassed'.

Personally, I prefer the knowledge that any of my extended family that may have been interned in these camps was not 'exterminated' or had their 'babies used as target practice'. The truth is: we just don't know but the evidence (and common sense) strongly suggests otherwise.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FourTrouble 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was practically a non-starter. bluesteel provided an overwhelming amount of evidence to support his position. To be honest, I found Pro's argument and position not only completely incoherent and retarded, but flat-out unethical and disgusting.
Vote Placed by airmax1227 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.