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

The Holocaust happened

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: Judge Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/30/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,193 times Debate No: 78107
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (30)
Votes (2)




ADDENDUM: TheTroof has asked for a gas chambers only debate, so we'll do that instead. I am the most reasonable man in America.

TheTroof has been been debating the Holocaust with a couple of people with decent knowledge of the topic. It's been interesting to read. I'm interesting in seeing whether he's interested in trying his hand with something with years of experience debating this topic and with sufficient expertise to have taught the topic at the university level and to have published scholarly literature.

My terms are these
* I want as long a debate as possible since I am exceedingly busy. Since only five rounds are currently available, we should consider moving to new debate as old ones expire or run out of rounds. Leaving the debate is equivalent to forfeit.
* I want a judged debate. If possible, I would like an odd number of judges so that a clear majority must be convinced. I have added to this challenge the three top-rated judges.
* The first round is only for TheTroof's acceptance.
* The second round's opener will be determined by random number generation. The specifics can be discussed after acceptance.
* Each of us can use his side as he wishes. I.e., he can rebut, make a new argument, ignore an argument, etc. As such, the opponent has the right to indicate that an argument has been ignored, a rebuttal has been insufficient.
* Sources may be alleged within reason. I.e., if you cite a source, and that source is available online, you must provide a link. TheTroof is free to assume that I've read all the relevant literature. If I cite something that TheTroof does not have access to, I am happy to afford him additional time to consult that source if he needs it. Within reason, I am willing to provide him with offline sources, if possible. E.g., I have ebooks of most of the relevant texts which I'm happy to share provided that he deletes them after his use, per standard ebook copyright restrictions.

I'm here if you'd like to test your mettle, TheTroof. I await your response.


I accept. I will prove the Nazis didn't employ gas chambers for mass murder.

Hitler wasn't that kind of guy anyway!

Debate Round No. 1


How do we know anything ever happened? On the basis of what evidence do we consider something to be an established part of history vs something subject to debate? This is the question upon which this debate largely rests, and although the case here might be specific to the use by the Nazis of homicidal gas chambers, we should be able to generalize a bit.

I propose in this opening post to do two things. First, I propose to show how one should reasonably evaluate historical evidence. Second, I intend to make these principles specific to one gas chamber. Then I'll prove others and continue to do so until TheTroof concedes. I suspect that once it is conceded that a handful of these installations are sufficiently proved, the rest will be conceded more swiftly. After that, maybe we can move on to mass executions by shooting in the occupied USSR. His choice.

For the first point, let's consider a hypothetical scenario. A concentration camp that has been largely destroyed has been liberated, and several former inmates and SS guards are being interviewed by several interviewers. When the interviews are over, the interviewers compare notes. Among other testimonies, they find the following:

* One person says there were six gas chambers.
* One person says there were eight gas chambers.
* One person says the chambers used steam for executions.
* One person says the gas chambers were 50 feet by 75 feet.
* One person says the gas chambers were 65 feet by 100 feet.
* One person says there were no gas chambers.

And so on.

The historical method dictates that we would consider it likely that the camp had homicidal gas chambers. We might not know yet how many or how big, but we're going to consider gas chambers likely because the majority of witnesses have mentioned them.

A couple of important points must be noted. First, we're not going to throw out all of the testimonies because they contradict each other; rather, we'll disregard or emphasize less where the testimony disagrees, and we will consider as a working thesis where the testimonies agree in the main.

This is the first really big mistake that Holocaust deniers make. They believe inconsistencies require historians to disregard testimony. They do not. They require only that the historian proceed with caution.

Second, what we are not going to do is throw out all of the testimony that is in agreement because one piece of testimony is greatly at odds with the rest. Instead, we will disregard steam chambers because they're not corroborated by multiple sources, whereas gas chambers are. Conversely, we're not going to seize on what one person says that is at variance with all other testimony and adopt that as our new thesis. This is the deniers' second crucial error on testimony -- what might be called drawing conclusions based on a sample of one. You don't do that in science so you shouldn't do it in history. If one person says there were no gas chambers, we don't draw the same conclusion because far more people said that there were gas chambers.

Two final general points must be made, also related to points of failure by deniers. First, the idea that evidence, including testimony, is rigged is an assertion that requires evidence. Deniers have alleged conspiracy but never proved it. Nevertheless, dozens of testimonies in agreement with each other almost demand orchestration of some kind, and yet none is seen. Second, where the predominance of evidence indicates one solution, a coherent counter-argument must be made that accounts for the available evidence. On this point, as we'll see, the deniers similarly fail.

Now we can get specific. We know beyond the shadow of a doubt that a certain room existed in a building at Auschwitz-Birkenau. The building is Krema (crematorium) II, and the room is the one labeled on the blueprints for the building as Leichenkeller (morgue) 1.

So what was this room? Piece of cake, right? It was a morgue -- says so right on the blueprint. And if this were the only piece of evidence, that would be a fair assumption. But it isn't.

Instead, we have three varieties of evidence indicating that this room was a homicidal gas chamber.

First, there is a ton of testimony. This testimony generally comes from two sources: SS men and members of the Sonderkommando, who were the men responsible for removing dead bodies from the gas chambers. Everyone that has provided testimony regarding that room has referred to it as a gas chamber. Every last one, over 70 years, on five continents, with not a single divergence. Not one.

One such testimony:

Second, there is physical evidence, mainly in the form of cyanide residues. Four separate investigations conducted over a period of fifty years found cyanide on the walls of the room. Two of the investigations, by Fred Leuchter and Germar Rudolf, claimed the levels of cyanide were insufficient to prove homicidal gassing. However, Leuchter lacks any expertise on the topic of chemistry. Rudolf, a trained chemist, has been refuted by other chemists -- a point we can take up if you like. Personally, I'm not a chemist. If you are, then perhaps you can make that particular case. I'd rather leave it to experts.

Third, there are documents. The most important document on Krema II (but there are others) dates from the period when the crematorium was under construction. Written by one SS man, Karl Bischoff, to another, Hans Kammler, it details that the roof of the morgue is not ready, but until it is ready, bodies can be stored in the Vergasungskeller, i.e., the gassing cellar.

Robert Jan van Pelt discusses this document here:

Forward to around 43 minutes into the film. He discusses this specific document at 46 minutes.

Actually, you should watch the whole movie if you haven't seen it, because it pretty much proves that Leuchter's report is sheer nonsense.

So we have testimony, physical evidence, and documents. I submit that, on the basis of the available evidence, it is fair to assume that this was a homicidal gas chamber. You might protest that this is a small amount of evidence, and indeed it is. But it's more evidence that exists for any other explanation.

You are free to dispute this conclusion; however, bear in mind the more general points about the historical method made above. Moreover, be prepared to tell me what this room actually was, and to provide evidence at least as numerous as dozens of witnesses to prove it, not to mention explanations for the cited document and for the cyanide tests. Extra points for coherence!


To prove the Nazis employed gas chambers to murder Jews, my opponent cites the testimony of Henryk 

Is Mr. Tauber credible? Allegedly speaking from personal experience, he stated:
    • "there were five furnaces in Krematorium II, each with three muffles for cremating the corpses"(1)
    • "On average, we incinerated 2500 corpses a day."(2)
This implies each muffle cremated 7 corpses per hour. 

According to, cremation today "usually takes from two to four hours. The cremated remains
are then pulverized to break up larger bone fragments to a granular texture." This means that if Mr.
Tauber is correct, Nazi cremation technology from over 70 years ago was over 1400% more efficient than

Literally incredible.

Pro's own source has this to say regarding the 2500 number:
    • "This figure is unrealistic (and is connected with the propaganda of the immediate post-war period)"(2)
So the website which hosts Pro's testimony, and which he linked us to himself, challenges the 
credibility of his witness. Now that his eye-witness has been utterly discredited, as well as having
been labeled a propagandist by Pro's own source, does Pro have any honest witnesses of his purported gas
chamber homocides?

The second piece of evidence Pro cites is a Nazi document referring to a "gassing cellar."(3) But this
is not proof of homocidal gas chambers; the Nazis referred to delousing (lice-killing) chambers as
"gassing rooms."(4) Why must we accept that this term must refer to homocidal gassing cellars, instead
of the more innocous delousing rooms which everyone acknowledges existed?

(4) Archiwum Państwowego Muzeum w Oswiecimiu, nr. neg. 1034/7, page 5.

Barely relevant Hitler photo:

Debate Round No. 2


I want to begin by stating that I really did try to prevent this type of response from TheTroof. I was clear about how an historical case is generally constructed. Apparently, rather than be mindful of this information, TheTroof just plowed right through it and addressed two of the pieces of evidence. Let's discuss.

Regarding Henryk Tauber's testimony concerning his experience as a Sonderkommando, TheTroof chooses to address only Tauber's allegations about cremation rates, which the cited source, he notes, concedes are unrealistic.

This requires some unpacking. First, to address TheTroof's counterargument, what today's commercial crematoria can or cannot do is wholly irrelevant. These crematoria do not have multiple muffles, and they are operated with care taken to recover cremains of a single decedent at a time. The crematoria at Birkenau had multiple muffles, and no one cared to separate the ashes of one corpse from the rest.

The editorial note that TheTroof cites on the unreliability of Tauber's numbers is that of Jean-Claude Pressac (whose book TheTroof would do well to read -- Notably, while Pressac clearly believed that Tauber's numbers were inflated, he nevertheless believed the key details of Tauber's testimony, i.e., that Tauber saw Jews gassed in Krema II. Here, TheTroof should refer to my original post: we don't throw out whole testimonies based on wrong details, particularly when that testimony is corroborated by other testimonies and other evidence. Sorry.

But this does allow us to bring in another important point. Tauber was not likely keeping tally of bodies or timing cremations with a stopwatch. Luckily, we have some idea of the cremation power at Birkenau. Among the pieces of evidence we have on this point is this document:

Translation here:

In short, in late 1942, the estimated capacity for all ovens combined in four crematorium buildings was more than 2,500 per day. This was sufficient cremation capacity to cremate the entire population of the camp in about six weeks. While this point doesn't prove gas chambers, it does raise the question of why so much cremation capacity was deemed necessary, doesn't it?

Regarding the Vergasungskeller, TheTroof maintains that this was in fact a delousing chamber. On this point, his source is apparently this: Archiwum Państwowego Muzeum w Oswiecimiu, nr. neg. 1034/7

I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that I don't think that TheTroof has actually seen this document. I gather, instead, that he is relying on Carlo Mattogno for this point. Specifically, Mattogno makes precisely this argument in his book on Auschwitz, page 64, with note 77 on page 99 here:

Rather than getting into a lengthy and largely off-topic discussion of Mattogno's abuse of source material, the allegation itself is worth examining in some detail. Here are the problems with Mattogno's allegation that the Vergasungskeller was a delousing chamber.

First, Mattogno concedes that he is talking about a different location in the camp, which is precisely the point. There were actual delousing chambers at Birkenau, except not in Krema II. Rather, he locates these at another location in the camp:

Krema II is at the upper left; the delousing chambers are in the building labeled "Sauna," over to the right.

Second, Mattogno is clearly hoping that, since "Vergasungsraum" is used to refer to delousing chambers at the Sauna, we will dismiss the Vergasungskeller as being the same sort of facility.

Here, the problems multiply:

* The room is labeled on the blueprint as a morgue.
* There is zero evidence of the room ever being used as either a delousing chamber or a morgue; there is, however, evidence of it being a gas chamber.
* The levels of cyanide on the walls of Krema II are inconsistent with it being used as a delousing chamber; the levels would be much higher if it were, since delousing requires 24 hours of exposure (in a room, by the way, much smaller than the room in Krema II). On this point, Rudolf agrees -- the levels would be much higher if the room were a delousing chamber.
* There are other instances of the verb "Vergasen" being used to refer to killing with gas, specifically this:
* The rooms Mattogno refers to here as Vergasungsraum are far more often referred to as Entlausungskammer.

So where do we stand? TheTroof has attempted to disprove Tauber but forgets the basic rules of treating testimony, heading full steam ahead instead into now having to explain the massive crematory capacity at Birkenau. TheTroof similarly attempts to explain that the Vergasungskeller was a delousing chamber, but this conclusion is clearly at odds with the cyanide levels, several documents, and all of the testimony -- all of it.

TheTroof can concede it was a gas chamber or I'll continue to supply evidence. I do expect him, if he insists that this room in Krema II was not a gas chamber, to provide a plausible explanation for what it was.

I'll help:

* An air-raid shelter? No documents and no testimony to that effect.
* A gas-production room? Ditto, not to mention the inherent danger of generating gas in a building with operating cremation ovens.

So what will it be?


Pro, do you have another eye-witness that can corroborate Mr. Tauber's testimony? You have thus far cited a singleperson to establish your claim of homocidal gas chambers. We already agree the Nazis employed gas chambers 
for delousing clothes, so proof of gas chambers is not proof of homocidal gas chambers.

You say the efficiency of commercial crematoria is "wholly irrelevant." I beg to differ. If the Nazis were reducing
seven corpses to ash every muffle-hour, and modern muffles can't finish a cremation in two hours, the Germans
must've been in possession of some highly advanced technology. Literally futuristic technology, since we are
presently in the year 2015 and have yet to achieve anwhere near such efficiency.

You say, "The crematoria at Birkenau had multiple muffles, and no one cared to separate the ashes of one corpse
from the rest."
But my calculations account for the multiple muffles, and I don't see what difference it makes how
much care is taken with modern cremations. Carelessness does not make a process more efficient. The Nazis
would not be able to increase their cremation rate by 1400% simply by taking less "care;" less care would result,
rather, in a gigantic pile of partially-cremated bodies. Where are the uncremated bones of the tens (hundreds?) of
thousands of poorly-cremated victims? Do you assert the Germans had a large-scale bone-pulverizing operation, in addition to their homocidal gassing?

Pro cites a document allegedly typed up by Prufer, an engineer who constructed the Auschwitz furnaces. The
document refers to future furnace installations of a suspiciously large capacity. Pro concludes this was for
disposing of the bodies of mass-gassing victims.

Too bad the paper is a hoax:
  • It is a recent "discovery," only arising out of obscurity (fraudulence) decades after the War's end.
  • It describes muffles capable of cremating over four corpses an hour. Bogus! That's several times more efficient than modern crematoria, and this was 70 years ago. It also contradicts its author's testimony at the Nuremberg Trials, where both he and a coworker agreed their ovens operated at a rate of one corpse per muffle-hour.(5)
  • The numbers make no sense, apparently having been fabricated out of whole cloth. One would expect an oven's cremation speed to fall with increased muffle count, since that's equivalent to keeping the number of heat sources constant while raising the number of things you're trying to burn with it. But there is absolutely no correlation between muffle count and muffle cremation rate:
    • Installed double-muffle ovens cremate five corpses per muffle-hour
    • Triple-muffle ovens (under construction) cremate two
    • Octo-muffle ovens (soon to arrive) cremate four

Equally bizarre, if not moreso, is the fact that each new oven, whether on the way or under construction, is less efficient than the ones already in use. We must conclude the document is fraudulent. The numbers were pulled out of thin air to substantiate the myth of mass gassings. The obscene cremation capacity was required to dispose of all those hypothetical bodies. That way, those who promote belief in the legend of the Holocaust can explain the lack of physical evidence (bodies) for mass extermination by accusing the crematories of destroying it all. How convenient! Too bad the fraudster didn't put any effort into coming up with numbers that make sense. The cremating capacity of Auschwitz was not, in reality, 2,500 bodies a day.

Pro has conceded delousing chambers were referred to as "gassing rooms." Good. This greatly undermines his assertion that the "gassing cellar" was necessarily a homocidal gas chamber.

Pro says it's a "problem" for my proposal that this "gassing cellar" was a delousing room because the blueprint calls it a "morgue." This is a bizarre claim, since it is Pro, not I, trying to argue the blueprint lied about the identity of the cellar.

If you click on Pro's link, you'll be in for a pleasant surprise. The argument is therein made that the reference to the "morgue" as a "gassing cellar" was an accident; a slip of the pen, exposing a Nazi conspiracy to never call the homocidal gas chamber by its true name. This is funny, becuase it means Pro is also a conspiracy theoriest (welcome to the club!) and moreover, implies the Nazis were complete idiots. After all, how could anyone seriously think it possible to keep underwraps a mass murder on the scale of millions of victims, simply by calling a "gas chamber" a "morgue?"

Pro says, "There is zero evidence of the room every being used as either a delousing chamber or a morgue; there is, however, evidence of it being a gas chamber." I take it he means no evidence of of being a gas chamber specifically for killing lice, since otherwise his statement is a contradiction; a gas chamber is a gas chamber whether it's used to kill lice or human beings.

Pro asserts traces of cyanide in the room would be higher if it were actually used for delousing and not gassing people, but this is a rash claim. Killing lice requires more gas than killing people, yes, but I assume Pro isn't proposing mass gassing took place in this room on only one occurence. Correct me if I'm misrepresenting your position, Pro, but isn't it true you would like us to accept hundreds of thousands of people were gassed in this "cellar?" If that's the case, the small quantity of cyanide you say was detected is certain disproof of your thesis.

Pro cites an instance of the German word "vergasen" used in reference to euthanasia, the insinuation being "vergasungkeller" must mean not merely gassing cellar, but homocidal gassing cellar. But this is an unfounded conclusion; in the early 1900s, Americans employed rooms for delousing called "gas chambers."(6) Using Pro's logic, we would have to conclude Americans were exterminating Mexican immigrants in these chambers just because it's possible to use the term "gas chamber" in the context of genocide.

Since Pro insists I identify the blueprint-labeled "morgue" room, I will oblige. The room was, I submit, a morgue. That was easy. Let's look at the controversial quote from Pro's document:

  • "The reinforced concrete ceiling of the morgue could not yet be eliminated due to the freezing weather. However, this is not significant, as the gassing cellar could be used for this purpose."

Maybe I'm missing something, but I see no indication that "morgue" and "gassing cellar" are considered one and the same in this quote.

(5) Search online: "In a crematorium with five furnaces and fifteen muffles, fifteen corpses were burned."

Debate Round No. 3


TheTroof has written up a more substantive response than before, so I'll number and label items here for greater coherence.

(1) Eyewitnesses beyond Tauber. Yes, of course there are other witnesses. Next is Miklos Nyiszli, who was a doctor under Josef Mengele in Krema II after being deported to Auschwitz in mid-1944. He published a memoir on his experiences there. A representative sample is here:

Longer, probably illegal excerpts here:

Importantly, Tauber and Nyiszli agree that Leichenkeller 1 in Krema II was a homicidal gas chamber. Of course, there are also others. Perhaps you could tell me how many eyewitnesses you'll need to hear from?

(2) Terminology. I can see where TheTroof is going to go with this, which I suppose is to weigh us down in a semantics argument. To avoid thisin the future, I will use the term HGC (homicidal gas chamber), although it should be noted that I never use the term "gas chamber" to denote a delousing chamber. Thus, TheTroof ought not run himself aground on this point in the future.

(3) Cremation speed. It's a good thing that TheTroof and I aren't the first two people to have this argument. In fact, the argument is so old, that one of the better Web pages for information on the topic is no longer online. Luckily, we have the Internet Archive:

"The temperature at which cremations are done vary based upon the retort manufacturer, but most machines operate between 1,500 to 1,900 degrees F. The actual cremation time again varies depending upon the type of machine. Low capacity retorts take approximately 3 hours to complete a cremation while high capacity machines take less than one hour. In addition to the type of retort, the size of the individual and the number of cremations conducted during the day also affect the time. For example, in the retort we operate, the first cremation of the day takes about two hours and the second takes about an hour. That is because the retort already has a high internal temperature at the beginning of the second cremation."

So TheTroof is high-balling the figure; in fact, the process can take only an hour. And that's still including heating and cooling the oven to a sufficient extent that the ashes can be removed safely for further disposal, bearing in mind that ashes cannot be mingled among decedents. Plus, today's crematoria are generally gas-fed because it's cheaper and cleaner; these ovens burn at 1,500"F. The ovens at Birkenau were coke-fired, and coke burns at temperatures up to 40% higher than gas.

Now, consider the weight of the person being cremated. The average person being cremated at Birkenau wouldn't weigh the same amount as in a normal situation because the vast majority of people cremated at Birkenau were of four varieties: women, children, the elderly, and people who had already been working for weeks or months on a diet of 1,400 calories per day. Are these four types going to be more or less than average, do you think?

What does that come to? Well, first we jettison your one every seven minutes for something more realistic. As a back of the envelope calculation, let's say the 2,400 per day I cited in my last post is equivalent to 100 per hour, divided by four crematorium buildings at Birkenau for 25 per hour per building. With 15 muffles in Krema II, that's 1.7 bodies per muffle per hour, or a body every 36 minutes, which frankly seems perfectly reasonable to me given everything above.

By the way, all this was explained in detail years ago:

(4) Ash and bone disposal. One of the jobs of the Sonderkommando was to pulverize the larger bones among the cremains. The process was recounted by Filip M"ller, who was at Auschwitz between April 1942 and January 1945 and who worked on the Sonderkommando, first at the Auschwitz main camp and then at Birkenau. During the Hungarian Aktion of the spring and summer of 1944, when cremations reached their maximum, this was a team of 25 men.

Regarding where the ashes then went, here's a map of the area:

Look at how much water there is around, including the Vistula and Sola rivers where they meet. Bearing in mind that not until 1944 were the crematoria taxed to their limit, disposing of ashes posed no problem.

(5) Forgeries. TheTroof alleges the that memo from Kurt Pr"fer of Topf on the cremation capacity of Birkenau that I produced above is "a hoax." His reasons for this accusation are several, one of which is several lines of text which he blocked as if quoted. The sole source cited however, is this: "Search online:"'In a crematorium with five furnaces and fifteen muffles, fifteen corpses were burned.'"

That's not a source, and I hope TheTroof knows that. Moreover, the lines following in the block quote make the same disproved allegations already made by TheTroof. The one innovative argument -- that you'd expect cremation rates to decrease with number of muffles -- presumes that these ovens would use the same amount of fuel, which is an unfair assumption. In fact, without some information on the fuel capacity of the ovens being discussed, it's hard to draw any conclusions at all. However, when I crunched the numbers, then the cremation power increased with muffle number, as I intimate above: ~1.75 per hour in the first case; ~2.25 per hours in the second; and ~4.17 in the third.

His other reason for it being a "hoax" seems to be that the document wasn"t found until many years after the war. I'm uncertain why this proves it's a hoax. Apparently, TheTroof doesn't understand German, know Cold War history, and or appreciated how historians work. If he understood German, he's know that the Th"ringisches Hauptstaatarchiv is the state archive of Thuringia (of which Erfurt is capital). If he knew Cold War history, he'd know that Thuringia is in former East Germany and that many archives in that part of the world were closed to western historians until the 1990s. If he apprecited how historians work, he'd know that archives all over the world sit as dumping grounds for documents still waiting to be examined, classified, interpreted, etc. Doing these things is part of what historians actually do. Finally, if TheTroof wants to allege a hoax or forgery, then he should be prepared to state who perpetrated this hoax and, more importantly, prove it. An allegation without proof is worthless here.

(6) Preponderance of evidence. Again, had TheTroof put some energy into reading my introduction, he wouldn't waste time and energy on an argument such as "In one case, a fumigation chamber was called a 'Vergasungsraum,' so there were no HGCs."

What would be more useful would be to examine cases of use of the verb "vergasen" in situations in which we are unclear what was meant. Since many words in many languages can have more than one meaning, we should only hesitate when the word seems out of place. Were it the case that we have this Vergasungskeller document and no other proof of HGCs, it would indeed be reasonable to assume that the room was a delousing chamber. However, two factors lead us away from that conclusion: first, the delousing chambers far more often used "entlausen" (delouse) rather than "vergasen"; second, there's a ton of evidence that this room was an HGC.

So when we find a document that refers to "vergasen," we're gonna go with HGC. We don't assume it was a morgue, because the blueprint is literally the only time the room is referred to as a morgue. We don't assume it was a delousing chamber because the delousing chambers are in a different building and are often referred to with completely different terminology.

(7) Conspiracy. Yes, the Nazis conspired to keep knowledge of what they were doing limited, mainly from the intended victims, the Nazis' enemies, and the home front. This was pursued with varying levels of success. I'm not sure how this implies that they were "complete idiots," especially since it is hardly the claim that the subterfuge was the only one of its kind.

(8) Cyanide levels. If the room were used for delousing, it would look like this:

That's Germar Rudolf at Auschwitz standing in a delousing chamber. See how small? Also, see all that blue stuff? That's what happens when you allow hydrogen cyanide to contact brick for hours on end. If, however, you allow the gas to contact the brick for a half hour at most, then use a ventilation system to remove the gas (did I mention the ventilation system?), and then, after removing the bodies, wash down the room, then you're not going to get that blue staining.
That's how we know it wasn't a delousing chamber.

How do we know it wasn't a morgue, by the way, on this basis? I mean, as you point out, we do have a document -- and an important one at that, the blueprint -- that marks this room as a morgue. But again, there's no testimony to that effect.

Regarding the quote, it is very much not saying that the morgue and Vergasungskeller are the same thing. It's saying that one of the morgues is actually a HGC. Here's the blueprint in question:

See how there are two rooms labeled "Leichenkeller"? One of them was the Vergasungskeller. We know that from the document.

(9) A final question. You are aware that English and German are different languages, right?

So where are we? Ah yes, trying to prove there was a HGC in Krema II. We now know it wasn't a morgue or a delousing chamber.

Want to try again or do you want to concede this was a HGC and move onto the next?


To corroborate Tauber's claim of a homicidal gas chamber, Pro cites a novel written by Dr. Nyiszli, which purports to be an eye-witness account:
  • “I, the undersigned, a doctor of medicine, Nyiszli Miklo, ex-inmate of the concentration camp... in this book, which has just been published, a work which contains, in itself, the darkest pages of human history, free from all passion, without the slightest exaggeration, write as direct spectator and actor of the activities of the crematoria and funeral pyres of Auschwitz..."
With this affidavit, the lying doctor has, without a doubt, committed perjury. Let's check out a tiny sample of his numerous falsehoods.

On page 23, Auschwitz is said to be in Germany. But it's actually in Poland. This fictitious invention definitely takes the cake as the most damning, since it casts into doubt the main premise of the entire story: that Nyiszli was ever a prisoner of Auschwtiz.

The same page says the "nauseating odor" of "scorched hair" emanated from the crematoria chimneys, yet in chapter seven it is affirmed that bodies were shaved before cremation. This contradiction is made all the more ridiculous when Nyiszli alleges the hair was "precious" to the Nazis for its utility in bomb-making.

Another falsehood is the claim that ovens had automatic doors. They did not. Even Pressac calls this myth a "pure invention."(3)

Nyiszli claims cremation took 20 minutes, after which nothing but ashes remained. This directly contradicts Pro's cited testimony from Mueller, who claims to have been part of 25 man team whose job was disposing of leftover bones. This also contradicts Pro's proposed cremation time of 36 minutes. In fact, it contradicts Nyiszli's own numbers given at the end of chapter seven, where he alleges 20,000 corpses were cremated daily by sixty tri-muffle ovens. That would imply 13 minute cremations instead of 20. Pro will have to conjure up some potent mathemagic to explain these historically false, scientifically impossible and mutually contradictory numbers.

The fairy-tale goes on to say four elevators transported corpses to the crematorium, but the fact is there was only one. Pro's own authority, Jean-Claude Pressac, calls this claim "WRONG AND DELIBERATELY MISLEADING," and asks, "Whom is Dr Miklos Nyiszli trying to mislead and why?"(3) So much for Nyizli's promise to recount his experience "without the slightest exaggeration." Can Nyiszli's credibility suffer any further?

Indeed it can. Hear him describe the scene of a mass gassing:
  • "A horrible picture: the corpses aren't scattered in the room, but piled high on top of one another. That's easily explained: the Cyclon, which is thrown in from outside, releases its deadly gases at floor level first. It reaches the upper layers of air only gradually. That's why the victims trample one another, one climbing on the other. The higher they are, the later the gas reaches them."
The problem with this story is that the gas released by Zyklon B (which Nyiszli can't spell right) is lighter than air, so it would immediately rise and fill a room from top to bottom. Not bottom to top as Nyiszli alleges. How do we explain this damning falsehood? Simple. In chapter seven, Nyiszli claims Zyklon B produces Chlorine gas. Chlorine is heavier than air, so it sinks. But in the real world, Zyklon B releases cyanide gas, and cyanide gas floats.

You see, that's the problem with lies. There may be nothing on the surface to provoke suspicion, but they collapse when subjected to honest scrutiny. Those who pay homage to the mainstream Holocaust narrative with blind faith will never arrive at the truth of the matter.

One of the more blatant contradictions between the testimonies of Tauber and Nyiszli is where Tauber says an entire room was dedicated to storing Zyklon B,(1) while Nyiszli insists there was "never a stock."

Given that Nyiszli has absolutely no credibility, why should it matter that he agrees with Tauber that Leichenkeller 1 was a homicidal gas chamber? I maintain it was a morgue, as does the blueprint. Even Pressac, upon whose authority Pro heavily relies, exposes the absurdity of claiming it was a gas chamber (although ironically he sticks with the gas chamber theory):
  • "The ventilation system of Leichenkeller 1 had initially been designed for a morgue, with the fresh air entering near the ceiling and the cold unhealthy air being drawing out near the floor. Its use as a gas chamber really required the reverse situation, with fresh air coming in near the floor and warm air saturated with hydrocyanic gas being drawn out near the ceiling. But the SS and Prüfer chose to maintain the original “morgue” ventilation system in the gas chamber, hoping that it would be efficient enough."(2)
There we go again with those incompetent Nazis. For the purpose of systematically slaughtering countless human beings, the best they can come up with is a poorly improvised gas chamber converted from a morgue? They couldn't be bothered to construct a legit genocide cellar, preferring instead to just wing it?

Since Pro complained about my citation for Prufer's Nuremberg testimony; here's a better one:
  • Dissecting the Holocaust: The Growing Critique of Truth and Memory, Germar Rudolf, p. 398
Pro says, "when I crunched the numbers, then the cremation power increased with muffle number, as I intimate above: ~1.75 per hour in the first case; ~2.25 per hours in the second; and ~4.17 in the third."

How did you get these numbers? They contradict my very straightforward calculations, so I'd like to see the justification for yours.

Pro says, "if TheTroof wants to allege a hoax or forgery, then he should be prepared to state who perpetrated this hoax and, more importantly, prove it."

It matters not who created the forgery if it can be proven that it is indeed a forgery. And this has already been done. It's purported to be typed by Prufer, yet it wildly contradicts the statements of both himself and his coworker at the Nuremberg Trials, where he says cremation took an hour per corpse... not four, as the fake document would have us believe. It's very apparent the larger number was devised to add plausibility to the myth of mass gassings, and besides, Pro has already conceded the maximum cremation rate was three per hour (and even then, that's pushing it).

Pro says,
  • "Were it the case that we have this Vergasungskeller document and no other proof of HGCs, it would indeed be reasonable to assume that the room was a delousing chamber. However, two factors lead us away from that conclusion: first, the delousing chambers far more often used "entlausen" (delouse) rather than "vergasen"; second, there's a ton of evidence that this room was an HGC."
First, "vergasungskeller" has never been used to refer to a homicidal gas chamber outside of the allegations of Holocaust believers, so this entire argument is silly and moot. Second, there's not a "ton" of evidence the room was a homicidal gas chamber. There is precisely zero evidence, unless you count those three contradictory, absurd, and falsified testimonies.

Pro says,

  • "see all that blue stuff? That's what happens when you allow hydrogen cyanide to contact brick for hours on end. If, however, you allow the gas to contact the brick for a half hour at most, then use a ventilation system to remove the gas (did I mention the ventilation system?), and then, after removing the bodies, wash down the room, then you're not going to get that blue staining.
  • That's how we know it wasn't a delousing chamber."
I only proposed it was a delousing chamber as an equally plausible (if not moreso) alternative to a homicidal chamber. Your argument about how much blue staining should be present is completely meaningless without knowing how much gas you believe was employed. So let's hear it. How much gas was used how many times to kill how many people, in this particular room?

Pro says,"See how there are two rooms labeled "Leichenkeller"? One of them was the Vergasungskeller. We know that from the document."

No, we know no such thing from the document, and it is not apparent to me how you arrived at that interpretation. Mind explaining your exegesis?

Pro says, "You are aware that English and German are different languages, right?"

I will respond to this rhetorical question in kind. Is Pro aware that historically false, internally inconsistent and perjured testimony does not constitute evidence of his thesis?

Debate Round No. 4


It seems to me that we're left with two questions:

(1) Do you want to continue into five more rounds? If so, we should agree to it and I'll begin a new debate once you've posted your response here and re-invite the judges.

(2) 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? In fact, I can produce several more witnesses to this particular HGC and another several dozen all together for the four HGCs at Birkenau and the additional HGC at Auschwitz I. This doesn't even begin to scratch the surface for witnesses at the Reinhard camps, Chelmno, or Majdanek or to mass shootings in the occupied USSR. I'm sure, in return, that you could find details about their testimonies that are implausible or that are in disagreement with other testimonies, but you won't find ANY testimonies that these rooms weren't HGCs. That poses a serious problem for your point of view, whether you like it or not.

So the question is why your technique of analyzing the evidence is better than mine. You say, "historically false, internally inconsistent and perjured testimony does not constitute evidence of his thesis." Putting the issue of "perjury" aside, 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. 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.

Let me offer an example which might prove helpful. Yes, the eyewitnesses are frequently in disagreement over, e.g., how long cremations took. 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). We don't dismiss there being cremations because the witnesses disagree about the length of time required. Nor do we dismiss HGCs because the witnesses disagree, e.g., about the length of time a gassing took. 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. Combined with such disregard for the proper treatment of evidence, what we have is not so much an historical case as the placing of one's fingers in one's ears while chanting, "No, no, no."

That's all I got.


Minor points of correction:

(1) 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.

(2) 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.

(3) 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.

(4) The imputation that the Nazis should have had a concrete plan for how to gas people to death in HGCs or else they wouldn't have done it is a statement that demonstrates utter ignorance of how the Nazi power structure basically operated and how ad hoc in general most of these operations tended to be. You cited Hans Mommsen in an earlier post. Actually reading his work and that of the functionalists in general might prove helpful.

(5) If we continue the debate, I can lay out my math for my calculations, but I don't want to waste time on it here.


Could we postpone this debate? I need more time. If you find my offer agreeable, here's a link to the new debate (for judges):;
Debate Round No. 5
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Con, Use your character space more wisely, address your opponent's arguments and give the debate more energy. It's almost as if you just sat back and expected Pro to account for every single little criticism you have of his argument and if he failed to address all of it, it seemed you felt like that was a victory. However no argument is perfect and both of your arguments are being judged to see which holds up better.

You also didn't forward much of an argument. Your argument was more like a rebuttal and there seemed to be this expectation of just being able to undermine your opponent's arguments to win. Not only did you fail to undermine his arguments, had you undermined his arguments, you still would have lost. What you needed to do was actually forward your case. You need to either do the impossible task of proving a negative or do the smarter thing and just bombard your opponent with evidence that the gas chambers were for delousing, but instead of providing evidence for it, you merely just suggested it as an alternative theory.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Oh I'll judge it. I almost want to penalize conduct for the 180 day period, but I'll refrain because I have a conscience
Posted by ThamesDarwin 1 year ago
The last round is not a forfeit. We're bumping to a new debate to continue; TheTroof will have first go over there. If you're still interested in judging, please let us know.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Is that last round a forfeit? Wtf is with the retardedly long voting period also?
Posted by TheTroof 1 year ago
p.s. link to new debate won't work until/unless my opponent accepts it
Posted by TheTroof 1 year ago
I made a typo:

"where he says cremation took an hour per corpse... not four, as the fake document would have us believe"

Should read:

"where he says cremation took an hour per ONE corpse... not four CORPSES, as the fake document would have us believe"
Posted by TheTroof 1 year ago
Good, stay far away. I don't want you judging any of my debates.
Posted by YYW 1 year ago
No, I will not judge this. Write a topic that's worth my time, and you're more likely to get it. Otherwise, don't bother.
Posted by TheTroof 1 year ago
Posted by ThamesDarwin 1 year ago
I'll do you one better:

Regarding the legality, it's not my rip.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 1 year 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This is obviously a split burden of proof, though most judges would subconsciously force con to do more to prove his case, I suffer from no such bias. Con spent a lot of time asking pro to account for inconsistencies in the official narrative, which pro does a good job of handling, but it wasn't required. Con actually needed to do more to forward a case for his position and probably use his character space more wisely as well. The sole argument of con's that the gas chambers couldn't have done the job was refuted by pro's arguments that the numbers were exxagerated and that an industrial operation with no respect for the deceased will be quicker than a modern small operation who does respect the deceased. Pro's arguments about eye witness testimony and the historical method are almost completely ignored by con, except to point out that sometimes people get facts wrong, exxagerate and even lie. Con in the future please use your character space, (advice continued in comment section).
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate was moved to another debate. I'm voting this debate a draw as request. I would also like to judge again.