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

The Holocaust happened (cont.)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/10/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 318 times Debate No: 78556
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Extension of previous debate.


You're up, TheTroof
Debate Round No. 1


  • "Given everything I laid out in my original post about how an historical account is compiled, why should I dismiss two witnesses who both said that Leichenkeller 1 in Krema II was an HGC because they disagree on details?"
The first, Tauber, claims to have been tasked with cremating corpses for years, yet attributes a cremation capacity to his ovens three times greater than is scientifically possible. There's a big difference between his effective claim of 7 corpses per hour, and 1 (or 2 max) per hour. So either he has bad memory or he's simply a liar. Either way, his testimony is disqualified. The second supposed witness, Nyiszli, has demonstrably perjured himself on numerous occasions, so he's not reliable either.

Speaking of the so-called Bunker 2/V (as it's referred to in Holocaust literature), Tauber claims it was a gas chamber,(2) disagreeing with Nyiszli who says it was "no gas chamber" and "[m]erely a peasant house..."

Suddenly my opponent's proof of a gas chamber, based on two coinciding testimonies, isn't proof at all. Just because two witnesses agree on whether building A was a gas chamber doesn't mean it was, since the same two witnesses disagree whether building B was one too.

I am fully aware that my opponent will claim the witnesses are speaking of the same room at different times; e.g. Tauber saw it when it was a gas chamber, Nyiszli saw it later when it wasn't. But this is not proof of gas chambers, it's just an ad hoc excuse to reconcile the testimonies.

And it's not just ad hoc, it's desperately ad hoc, because it requires us to believe a farmhouse was converted to a gas chamber first, then later had all the gassing apparatus and modifications removed in order to change it to a dressing room. It defines common sense to hold that Nazis downgraded a gas chamber to an undressing room for Jews they wanted dead anyways.
  • "I say that it the testimony is inconsistent on minor points but highly consistent on the major point, i.e., that there were HGCs at Birkenau."
Yes, consistent in the affirmation there were homicidal gas chambers, but not consistent on where they were, how they worked, or how many people were killed in them. The only significant common denominator between the testimonies of Tauber and Nyiszli is that Nazis gassed rooms full of people with insecticides. It makes for great Allied propaganda, but fails miserably as reliable history since beyond that general thesis, the details are in severe conflict (with both eachother and with reality).
  • "Why are you right, while I'm wrong? And why can't you offer an argument with at least as much evidence for what else Leichenkeller 1 was? Any historian worth his/her salt would require both things of you, but you've done neither. So at least on the basis of historical methodology, you've failed badly here."
I will side with the blueprint here. Leichenkeller 1 was a morgue, and you can't use two conflicting claims from unreliable witnesses to prove otherwise.
  • "They are not in disagreement over whether there were cremations at all (and you haven't addressed why the cremation power was as high as it was)."
Of course there were cremations. Ovens containing bones exist onsite today. When you concentrate people in camps, you end up with diseased bodies that need to be gotten rid of to prevent an epidemic. That's what the ovens were for.
  • "why the cremation power was high as it was"
As high as what? Based on which testimony? That of the lying Dr. Nyiszli, or Tauber, or that fraduluent document? Remember they are all in contradiction. You should base your claims about cremation capacity and oven number on the number of actual ovens actually existing on the site today. Any argument to the effect of "the Nazis destroyed the evidence" exposes a serious flaw in your argument.
  • "We don't dismiss there being cremations because the witnesses disagree about the length of time required."
Slow down. The primary reason we don't dismiss there having been cremations is because there are actual ovens on site today with actual bones. What we do not have is hard evidence that any mass murders took place. Where are your autopsies of gassing victims with proven traces of gas as a cause of death? I suppose the Nazis destroyed all the evidence?
  • "While Auschwitz is indeed in Poland, between 1939 and 1944, it was in Reichsgau Oberschlesien, which was a territory in Poland that was annexed directly by Germany. To call it "Germany" therefore would be de facto correct if not de jure correct."
Nobody ever called that place "Germany" except for the perjured Nyizsli. I have established his novel as Allied propaganda; portraying the camp as being in Germany was obviously part of the anti-German smear campaign.
  • "According to the eyewitnesses, Zyklon-B was lowered into the HGCs in columns which carried it to the floor of the HGCs, at which point the Zyklon-B would outgas and go UP."
Yes, it would ascend to the roof immediately before diffusing to the extremities of the room and the floor. It would not fill the floor before rising, nor would it be composed of chlorine, as Nyiszli proposes in his fairy tale.
  • "Mueller was referring to a 25-man ash disposal team in the context of open pit burnings in 1944, when the Hungarian Aktion was taking place."
Which still leaves us with the scientific impossibility of Nyszli's 20 minute, bone-less cremations.
  • "To do so would both ignore the physical evidence (which we have discussed but can continue to discuss) and would belie our desire to protect a thesis of the non-existence of HGCs, which is intellectually dishonest."
What's intellectually dishonest is trusting a Communist version of history. That's right, ladies and gentlemen, Dr. Nyiszli was a Communist.(3) As we all know (hopefully), Communist is almost synonymous with liar.

Thanks for the debate. I will pull myself out now since researching this topic takes so much time and I have to look up everything up everytime I want to respond to an argument. I only got into this subject a few weeks ago.

Have fun voting.
  • "We had not been able to discover any trace of installations for exterminating civilian prisoners."(4)
  • International Red Cross after inspecting Auschwitz while still in operation under Nazi Germany
(4) ($3.95 paywall)


Once more with feeling: Let's hash out the points TheTroof makes in his last post.

(1) On the reliability of eyewitnesses: I've already been through this, including the cremation times, but no historian worth anything would dismiss two eyewitnesses on the basis you suggest. Moreover, your assertion that Nyiszli perjured himself is baseless.

(2) On Bunker 2/V: This is an entirely different building than Krema II. If we return to the Birkenau map provided in the last debate:

Remembering that Krema II is at top left, Bunker 2 was actually off the map -- way up above the label for Krema IV. It was used much earlier than Krema II, which is why the eyewitnesses are in disagreement about it. Tauber was there when it was used for gassing; Nyiszli arrived much later, when it was no longer being used. The time when they were both at Birkenau coincided, however, with the time during which Krema II was built and subsequently used -- i.e., it was built while Tauber was there and already operational by the time that Nyiszli arrived.

Again, Pressac's work on the topic is fundamental to understanding the timeline here:

This is not an ad hoc excuse, unless you'd like to allege a conspiracy by which I managed to arrange Nyiszli to be deported three years later than Tauber. And, of course, this would all be beside the point were there not more witnesses (see below).

Regarding the later use of Bunker 2, your opinion assumes a ton about Nazi gassing operations that simply weren't true. If you want to get a sense of how unbelievably ad hoc and experimental these programs generally were, I'd suggest you look at a book like Christopher's Browning's [i]Origins of the Final Solution.[/i] Do the work; the arguments you're making here are literally decades old.

(3) Preponderance of evidence: TheTroof writes, about Leichenkeller 1 in Krema II, "Leichenkeller 1 was a morgue, and you can't use two conflicting claims from unreliable witnesses to prove otherwise."

That would be a good argument if Tauber and Nyiszli were the only two eyewitnesses. They aren't. There are many, many more. Would you like to continue? I can give you an SS witness next, if you like.

(4) Cremations: TheTroof has yet to answer for why there was so much cremation power at a camp that could scarely hold 150,000 people. Just sayin'.

(5) Forgeries: This is an allegation that requires proof. Whether TheTroof likes it or not, no allegation without evidence goes beyond an allegation, and if he attempts to dismiss further evidence on those grounds, then he's begging the question big time.

(6) Destroyed evidence: If you dynamite the gas chambers and you've cremated the bodies and sent away the ashes, then yes, it's a fair assertion that the evidence has been destroyed. This is what's unique about discerning what happened during the Holocaust -- because so much of the evidence was either destroyed or compromised in serious ways, we have to rely on eyewitnesses overwhelmingly, which is hugely problematic, given how unreliable eyewitnesses generally are. Luckily, we have two kind of corroboration: internal -- i.e., eyewitnesses agree with each other with virtually no outliers; and external --- i.e., we have cyanide residues, documents, and other testimonies of other gassing programs that corroborate the eyewitneses further.

That's how we know what we know.

(7) Autopsies: You don't autopsy a body you just killed, considering that the purpose of an autopsy is to determine the cause of death. The entire request is a bit silly.

Now, suppose you were carrying out a small but purposeful gassing campaign, say in France, and medical purposes were playing a more prominent role in these gassings than in other gassings, generally speaking. Then, you might have an autopsy.

Kinda stepped in that one, you did.

(8) Where was Auschwitz? No, not only Nyiszli called where Auschwitz was Germany -- the entire German government did beginning in the fall of 1939. Here's a map of NS Germany's Reichsgaue:

See Oberschlesien in gray on the right, bordering the General Government. The capital of the Reichsgau was at Kattowitz (Katowice). Here's a map from Katowice to Oswie"im:

It's about 35 km SSW of Katowice, which leaves it right there in Oberschlesien. Compare the position of Krakow in both maps.

(9) Communists always lie? How silly. An imputation like that one gets one laughed out of history class.

Again, we don't take what they say as gospel either. Like we would any witness, we consider their testimony in light of other evidence, including other testimony.

Do yourself a favor and read my treatise on evidence sometime:
Debate Round No. 2


TheTroof forfeited this round.


ThamesDarwin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


TheTroof forfeited this round.


ThamesDarwin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


TheTroof forfeited this round.


ThamesDarwin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by TheTroof 1 year ago
Thanks, I appreciate it. You are indeed the most reasonable man in America xD I'll send you a PM before I post my argument (when it's ready).
Posted by ThamesDarwin 1 year ago
Take as much time as you need. I'll wait the full six days before accepting here. Let me know if you're ready earlier.
No votes have been placed for this debate.