The Instigator
AHUGECAT
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
RoyLatham
Con (against)
Winning
43 Points

The homicdal gas chamber at Auschwitz are not gas chambers

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/14/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 27,170 times Debate No: 15374
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (64)
Votes (10)

 

AHUGECAT

Pro

I believe that I can prove the alleged homicidal gas chamber at Auschwitz was not a gas chamber used to murder people but was an air raid shelter.

There is no blue Zyklon-B residue on the walls, which would happen if there was repeated Zyklon-B use. The delousing chambers on the other side of the camp still have the blue residue. The excuse for this is that the residue "weathered away" eventually. However, the resultant compound that the massive cyanide exposure would create is virtually impervious to weather as can be seen by the outside walls of the real delousing facilities, and there are also large areas that remain in the alleged gas chambers which are protected from severe weather, yet there is no residue there.

Picture of alleged homicidal gas chamber at Auschwitz: http://ml3167.k12.sd.us...

Now compare to the delousing chamber at Auschwitz: http://img198.imageshack.us...

Clear Prussian blue staining on the walls. If the homicidal gas chamber at Auschwitz was used to murder thousands of people continuously, then there would be Prussian Blue residue. There is not.

If you look inside the gas chamber, you clearly see that the Soviets ripped walls apart in there to make it look like a gas chamber. The "four holes" on the roof, were Zyklon-B was alleged to be poured down were also added after WWII by the Soviets. There are also holes in the floor showing there were once bathrooms in there.

http://i40.tinypic.com...

This is an outside view of the "homicidal" gas chamber at Auschwitz. It looks just like an air raid shelter (because that is what it is), and it is located directly across the street from the camp commandants office.

The big chimney behind it was built after the war to give it that gas chamber look. It isn't attached to the building, it has no function at all other than to give the "gas chamber" an ominous look. It must have been a pain getting all those dead people out through that little door too, especially maneuvering around the tight entry way. (Source:
http://www.scrapbookpages.com... uschwitz08B.html)

Here are some more pictures of the alleged "gas chamber" at Auschwitz:

http://www.historiography-project.com...
http://www.historiography-project.com...

There are glass windows and a wooden door. That's not exactly gas chamber quality if you ask me. Also, why are there no locks in these gas chambers?

http://www.historiography-project.com...

This is another doorway in the alleged gas chamber - yet there is no door, and even if there was, it leads right to the crematorium. This is very dangerous considering explosive HCN gas is right next door, literally. The Nazis would not have been that dumb. (Source: http://www.historiography-project.com...)

What is it then? Simple: It's an air raid shelter.

Gas chamber door: http://gallerydriver.com...
Air raid shelter door: http://www.scrapbookpages.com... .GIF
Auschwitz alleged "gas chamber" door: http://z.about.com...
Here is a gas chamber from the 50's in Baltimore (using 30's technology): http://i39.tinypic.com... Notice the the special construction, sturdy materials, and elaborate latching system.
Here is the alleged Auschwitz gas chamber door: http://i42.tinypic.com...

Notice how this one appears to be made out of wood, is not air tight (see the keyhole), and has a regular hatch and no special seal.

This room has been presented to thousands - maybe millions - as a functional homicidal gas chamber.

Auschwitz was a labor camp that was picked because it was a railway center. It produced synthetic rubber, medical and armament supplies.

No one was gassed at Auschwitz.
RoyLatham

Con

Pro raises an important topic. Most DDO members are bound to run into Pro's arguments, if they have not done so already.

Doubt over the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz began after the War. Historians had not systematically collected physical evidence, testimony, or documents proving the existence of the gas chambers and establishing how they were used. Doubters seized upon inconsistencies in early accounts. The full and accurate account was not assembled until the late 1980s. Pro and others rely upon claims now conclusively disproved.

"At Auschwitz seven buildings existed which were used as gas chambers. In addition, two other sites were also used as gas chambers but only for a few gassing actions: the cellar of Block 11 in the Stammlager, where the first test gassings were carried out in August 1941, and a delousing barrack at the Main Economic Area near the Stammlager, called "Kanada I", where 200 members of the Sonderkommando were killed with "Zyklon B" gas on 23 September 1944." [1]

Pro has focused on the gas chamber reconstructed after the War.

"The gas chamber was installed in the mortuary of the crematory, and could contain between 700 and 800 persons (17 x 4.5 m). The Zyklon B was poured into the gas chamber through openings in the roof. This gas chamber had no dummy shower fittings on the ceiling. The use of the mortuary had an additional benefit in that it possessed a strong ventilation system, in contrast to the cellar of Block 11.

The gas chamber was put into operation in autumn 1941. The last killings were carried out in December 1942 when the Sonderkommando, which had removed the corpses of the first mass graves in Birkenau, was gassed.

...

"The number of victims who perished in this gas chamber is unknown. Filip M�ller, who belonged to the Sonderkommando of Crematory I for about one year, estimated the number of victims at some ten thousand while Jean-Claude Pressac calculated a maximum of 10,000.

"After its use as a gas chamber the SS used the building as an execution site. Following completion of the four large crematories at Birkenau the gas chamber was used for other purposes, and in 1944 it was converted into an air-raid bunker.

"After the liberation of Auschwitz the building was partly re-constructed into its original state. So today's visitor sees a re-construction with original parts. [1]

Pro is correct, in part, that the last use of this gas chamber was an air raid shelter. It was originally built as a mortuary, with plumbing for that purpose. The rebuilt structure is fitted with an air raid style door. The gasketed gas chamber doors are described in recovered documents.

Zyklon B is basically potassium cyanide. Pro introduced the notion that any exposure of a surface to cyanide gas produces an indelible blue stain. In fact, the amount of stain depends upon the concentration of gas, the duration of exposure, the nature of the surface, and subsequent exposure to weathering.

The fundamental error made by Pro and his sources is in assuming that the delousing chambers at Auschwitz provide an example of standard use of the gas. Delousing chambers were used to kill bugs in clothing. Bugs are much more resistant to cyanide than humans. The delousing process used high concentrations of gas for 24 hours. Humans die with low concentrations in at most twenty minutes. Consequently 95% of the Zyklon B used at Auschwitz was for delousing.

"Zyklon B was used in the concentration camps also for delousing to control typhus. The chemical used in the gas chambers was deliberately made without the warning odorant. In quantitative terms, more than 95% of the Zyklon B delivered to Auschwitz was used for delousing and less than 5% in the gas chambers." [2]

Killing 10,000 people in the subject gas chamber would require 20 mass killings at 20 minutes each, less than seven hours of exposure to low-concentrations of cyanide. A single delousing cycle took three times the the time of the total exposure of the subject gas chamber. There were probably hundreds of cycles of the delousing chamber. Factoring in the gas concentration, the exposure of the delousing was at least a thousand times that of the gas chamber. Clearly, the claim that the gas chamber should be stained like the delousing chamber is unfounded.

The gas chamber residues were studied scientifically by the Institute for Forensic Research, based in Poland. The subject gas chamber is the basement of Block 11.

"Systematic research, involving most sensitive analytical methods, undertaken by the Institute confirmed the presence of cyanide compounds in all kinds of gas chamber ruins, even in the basement of Block 11 in Auschwitz, where first, experimental gassing of victims by means of Zyklon B had been carried out. The analysis of control samples, taken from other places (especially from living quarters) yielded unequivocally negative results." [3]

The Institute carried out experiments to determine the levels of residue and staining to be expected, and the levels that were observed were consistent with the experiments. Understand that the other gas chambers at Auschwitz were demolished, but traces of cyanide were found in the remnants of rubble.

Additional evidence for the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz is contained in an important book by Jean-Claude Pressac. The book is posted on the web [4] with this introduction:

"Although Pressac was at one time a revisionist, and associated with the denier Robert Faurisson, he saw the light after undertaking an in-depth examination of almost everything to do with Auschwitz. He tells the story of his conversion in a Postface beginning at page 537 of his book.

Pressac's analysis is at once exhaustive and convincing. It is based on primary documents and testimonies, original architectural plans, photographs, drawings, worksheets, and schematics. A particularly powerful analysis is found in Chapter 8 of Part Two, entitled "One proof ... one single proof". Thirty nine criminal traces, beginning at page 429. Pressac's book is a definitive proof of the use of poison gas to murder Jews at Auschwitz and it is based on primary sources from the Nazis. There is no doubt."

1. The seven Gas Chambers at Auschwitz http://www.deathcamps.org...

2. Zyklon B http://en.wikipedia.org...

3. Study of the Cyanide Compounds Content In The Walls Of The Gas Chambers in the Former Auschwitz and Birkenau Concentration Camps by Jan Markiewicz, Wojciech Gubala, Jerzy Labedz, Institute of Forensic Research, Cracow http://www.holocaust-history.org...

4. AUSCHWITZ: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers A systematic study of the delousing and homicidal gas chambers of Bunkers 1 and 2 and of Krematorien I, II, III, IV and V of the former KL Auschwitz Birkenau, and an investigation of the remaining traces of criminal activity.�http://www.holocaust-history.org...
Debate Round No. 1
AHUGECAT

Pro

""After the liberation of Auschwitz the building was partly re-constructed into its original state. So today's visitor sees a re-construction with original parts."

If this was true, then why doesn't the chimney connect to the building? The chimney does not date to the war - it was added after the war.

The fundamental error made by Pro and his sources is in assuming that the delousing chambers at Auschwitz provide an example of standard use of the gas. Delousing chambers were used to kill bugs in clothing. Bugs are much more resistant to cyanide than humans. The delousing process used high concentrations of gas for 24 hours. Humans die with low concentrations in at most twenty minutes. Consequently 95% of the Zyklon B used at Auschwitz was for delousing.

There is a problem with this - a HUMAN does indeed die fast by HCN (the gas Zyklon-B holds) - 300PPM to be exact. But this is for only ONE human - not hundreds as described as happening in the gas chamber.

300PPM of HCN is enough to kill one human, but not a group full of humans. Good luck spreading 300PPM of cyanide to kill over a hundred humans! United States gas chambers used to use 3200PPM for just ONE human, because even though 300PPM could kill one human, it wouldn't be fast enough. Also in comparison with United States gas chambers the HCN the Nazis (allegedly) used came from Zyklon-B, which is an even SLOWER process.

"The lethal dose 100%, LD100, which gives the concentration or quantity of poison required to kill all (100%) individuals of an observed species. This value is used to make sure that all individuals are successfully killed.
The lethal dose 1%, LD1, which gives the concentration or quantity of poison required to kill 1% of all individuals of an observed species. This value is used to mark a threshold beyond which an exposition to that poison is definitively dangerous."[1]

Also, why does the alleged Majdanek homicidal gas chamber have Prussian Blue staining? http://img684.imageshack.us...

If this was used to kill humans, then shouldn't it NOT have as much staining

The gas chamber residues were studied scientifically by the Institute for Forensic Research, based in Poland. The subject gas chamber is the basement of Block 11.

The Krakow investigation was so thoroughly debunked by Germar Rudolf that the investigators made no further response.

". These results seemed to confirm Leuchter's findings. Hence, in their 1994 paper, the Krakow investigators suppressed any information about their initial results. Normally, researchers guilty of such unethical conduct are expelled from the scientific community."[2] Also, in 1990 the Krakow Institut for Forensic Research confirmed Leutcher's findings:

"Consistent with Leuchter's investigation, the Institute's specialists detected absolutely no traces of cyanide (or ferro-ferri-cyanide compound) in most of the plaster and brick samples taken from the alleged extermination gas chambers. Traces of cyanides were detected in eight samples, seven of which were rooms in Block 3 of Auschwitz main camp where -as the Institute's experts acknowledge - inmate clothing was disinfected by "gassing" with Zyklon.

[...]

Wall plaster samples were also removed from Block 11 in Auschwitz [main camp] in the presence of Piotr Setkiewicz, M.S., an employee of the Museum."

Additional evidence for the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz is contained in an important book by Jean-Claude Pressac. The book is posted on the web [4] with this introduction:

Pressac never supplies documents and gives false footnotes. He isn't a reliable source at all. For example: "Pressac also apparently believes that cyanide gas travels horizontally, then vertically, like sewer water filling a basement (p. 473). " [4]

He also tried to use an unrelated picture from the Auschwitz Album as proof of a gas method being used six times and noticed how ineffetive that method was. A photo could NOT of course show something happening six times or someone noticing how ineffective something is, yet Pressac put it it anyway. [5]

1. http://www.vho.org... by Germar Rudolf
2. http://www.ihr.org...
3. http://www.ihr.org...
4. http://www.codoh.com...
5. http://www.geniebusters.org...

RoyLatham

Con

Analysis of Blue Stains

The blue stain from hydrogen cyanide is called Prussian blue, Fe7(CN)18⋅14H2O. [1] Hydrogen cyanide (with the historical common name of Prussic acid) is achemical compound with chemical formula HCN. [2] Zykon B was made by absorbing pure hydrogen cyanide in wood chips, so when the chip were exposed to air the gas would diffuse out the chips into the air. To get a blue stain, there must be iron or a reactive iron compound in the environment to react with the gas.

The photos of the delousing chambers show blue stains on brick. Brick is red because it contains iron oxide. There are also some paints that contain iron compounds. Plaster, cement, and stucco, however, are compounds of lime (CaO) and sand (SiO2), [3] sometimes with other calcium compounds. Its possible that there might be some trace impurities of iron, but that is to my knowledge never claimed. So why would anyone expect to find any staining on plaster or cement regardless of the concentrations of HCN present?

Tiny traces of cyanide were found in some plaster samples, but not in others. From this we can conclude that some samples of plaster had some iron impurities, but not having any cyanide is not disproof of cyanide ever being present. The norm would be to expect to find nothing.

Concentration of HCN

Pro argues that 300 PPM is sufficient to kill one human, but not many humans. That argument is obviously wrong, because the concentration is a fraction of the air that is cyanide gas. The physical quantity of cyanide needed to reach 300 PPM depends upon the quantity of air, but the concentration is not affected. For example, a room 5 m x 10 m x 3 m (150 cu m) contains roughly 150 kg of air, and would require (150,000 grams x 300)/ 1,000,000 = 45 grams (1.6 oz) of hydrogen cyanide to achieve a lethal concentration.

Staining of surface only depends upon the concentration at the surface and the time of exposure, not on the size of the room. For example, if salt water corrodes a boat hull, another surface effect, the rate of corrosion only depends upon the concentration of salt and the length of time in the salt water, not the size of he ocean. In the case of cyanide, greater time provides greater diffusion into a rough surface. Pro's source claims diffusion to a depth of one-tenth the diameter of a human hair. Staining would require a significant amount of iron within that depth.

Delousing is used to kill lice and lice eggs deep within fur and padded clothing. The long exposure time at high concentrations allows the gas to diffuse into the porous material being deloused. It is 22 times the concentration, according to Pro, for 72 times as long, per extermination cycle. The walls therefore have 1584 times the staining exposure.

Lethal Dose

Pro notes execution chambers used in the U.S. employed ten times the lethal concentration, and goes on to claim that the high dose is required for quick lethality. Cyanide kills by binding hemoglobin so the hemoglobin will not carry oxygen. There is a finite amount of hemoglobin, so it will take only that amount of cyanide and any excess will have no effect. A person instantly totally deprived of oxygen takes about eight minutes to die. Pro offers no evidence that the death rate is significantly affected by the cyanide concentration. We would expect there to be no significant effect. A person does not drown any faster in deep water than in shallow.

Nazis would seek to conserve the Zyklon B material and to minimize the time needed to clear the gas from the chamber.

Pro asks why there was blue staining on the walls of a chamber at a different site. I suspect that's because the pain there had iron in it. Notice that the floor has no blue stain. Why is that? I would explain that as a consequence of there being no iron in the floor cement, and perhaps also some additional affect of cleaning akin to weathering. Prussian blue does not dissolve in water, but it enters into a colloidal suspension that can be washed away. [1]

Chimney

Pro asks why a chimney was constructed at Auschwitz when it was not part of the original gas chamber that was preserved. The answer is that the Auschwitz site is primarily a memorial site, not a historical reconstruction. The purpose is to evoke the emotions, and the chimney s an unrelated symbol of Auschwitz. [7] It is not claimed to be part of the Block 11 reconstruction. Pro errs in assuming that if a reconstruction is imperfect that it has no validity at all.

Rudolf Claims

Pro claims that Germar Rudolf "debunked" the Institute for Forensic Research report. Rudolf says that not finding stains in every claimed gas chamber site is convincing proof there was no cyanide. However, the IFR did find cyanide traces in some gas chamber sites, including the Block 11 site Pro held as certainly not a gas chamber, and no traces of cyanide in any of the living quarters. Rudolf makes no mention of the absolute requirement for iron to cause staining, and no mention of the effects of weathering in washing away minute quantities that might have been there. In other words, Rudolf convinces himself that lack of evidence is convincing evidence.

Pressac is dismissed entirely by Pro with the discovery of two mistakes in a book of five hundred pages having many hundreds of references. The first mistake was at one point implying that HCN was heavier than air rather than lighter than air. The source that Rudolf claims to be valid, Leutner, makes the same mistake. Also, Pressac is claimed to have misidentified a photograph. That's it.

The bulk of Pressac comprises references to documents. He found the plans for gas-tight doors fitted to "shower rooms" that has no plumbing connected to the showers. He found S correspondence referring to "gassing chambers." He found construction time sheets, documents, and plans referencing gas chamber construction. There is a telegram to a construction firm asking for ten gas detectors to check the efficiency of the ventilation system in a the gas chambers. There is long list. [4].

Rudolf disposes of the document evidence by claiming, without an proof, that they are all forgeries. He cites a couple examples of conflicting signature styles by the same person on different documents, but none forensically examined, Nearly all documents are discounted because they were referenced on microfilm. Pressac had searched Russian archives that were microfilmed. Also discounted is the redundant testimony from German officers and soldiers, and concentration camp survivors. He claims a vast conspiracy that included Cold War enemies of the Soviets cooperating with the Soviets.

Eye Witness Accounts

Among the many accounts, a German doctor, Johann Kremer, wrote in his diary of witnessing a mass gassing at Auschwitz,

"After driving all of them into the gas chamber, the door was closed and an SS man in gas-mask threw contents of Cyclon tin through an opening in the side wall. The shouting and screaming of the victims could be heard through the opening ... The shouts were hear for a very short while. I would say some minutes..." [5]

Other first person non-Jewish accounts of gas chamber use, two by Germans and two by Poles, are cited in [6].

--------------------

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. page references to Pressac are given in "Denying the Holocaust" by Deborah Libstadt, p. 226-8.
5. Martin Gilbert, "The Holocaust" p. 438
6 Ibid, p 439
7. http://books.google.com...

Debate Round No. 2
AHUGECAT

Pro

The photos of the delousing chambers show blue stains on brick. Brick is red because it contains iron oxide.

The Auschwitz "homicidal" gas chamber walls are also made of the same bricks the delousing chambers were. Here, you can see Prussian Blue staining of the stucco inside the delousing chamber:
http://img130.imageshack.us...

So I don't know what point you are trying to get to.

Pro argues that 300 PPM is sufficient to kill one human, but not many humans. That argument is obviously wrong,

I obtained the mean values for residual wall cyanide from the Leuchter and Rudolf data sets, and then divide them in three groups[1]:

1. Delousing chambers: 4960 ± 3800 (n=15) ppm
2. Alleged Homicidal chamber: 2.7 ± 2.7 (n=16) ppm
3. Controls (ie sampled from barracks, wash rooms, etc.): 1.7 ± 1.3 (n=11) ppm

This means that 15 samples from delousing chambers had nearly 5,000 PPM of residual wall cyanide, 16 from the alleged homicidal gas chamber averaged 3PPM, while the 11 from the "controls" averaged nearly 2 PPM.

Even the absurdly low value of 300 PPM asa lethal dose for hundreds of people you just cannot end up with no significant elevation of residual wall cyanide in such chambers, ESPECIALLY after repeated use... compared to the delousing cambers where you have several thousand times more residue!

Based on the 27 measured samples of wall iron cyanide, there was no significant difference between the samples from the alleged homicidal chambers and from the control samples.

Then there are many other points:

1. The official story alleges massive one after the other gassings, 500,000 people were allegedly gassed in Krema II alone, so that would mean at least 2,000 per gassing. For there to be no massive residue is unlikely.

2. Holocaust believers also say that Zyklon-B was inserted into the alleged gas chambers via wire-mesh insertion columns. Zyklon-B works most efficiently when it is heated and spread out over a large surface where air can reach it so the cyanide can be released from it. This however would not happen if it was restrained by these devices because the wire mesh contraptions would cause the Zyklon-B to be bunched together, therefore just making it a time consuming process.

3. Why even use Zyklon-B? The alleged diesel exhaust gas chambers at Treblinka were apparently more capable because in a years time it supposedly killed around 870,000 people, not to mention at Treblinka they managed to dispose of all these bodies without the use of expensive crematories by burying them in mass graves.... which of course do not exist (as gassings in Treblinka never happened).

4. "Obviously, both values differ enormously, i.e. the LD100 value is frequently much higher than the LD1 value. When talking about the quantity necessary to kill lice, the literature uses the LD100 value, because we want to make sure to kill all of them, whereas when dealing with security risks of humans, the LD1 or even lower values are used to make sure that no human is being killed. Therefore, it does not make sense to compare both values with each other: A louse in bad shape can be killed by only 0,03% hydrogen cyanide, as it is very well possible that a smart and healthy human can survive a 5 minute exposure to 1% of hydrogen cyanide. Finally, it is quite a difference if one has inhaled an amount of poison that is lethal, or if one has already died. Though the threshold value of some 100 mg of a soluble cyanide salt (or 300 ppm of HCN in the air) may most likely kill most people, it can actually take very long until one is dead. On the other hand, if one wants to kill or die quickly, one has to apply a big overdose to achieve that with certainty."[4]

Pro notes execution chambers used in the U.S. employed ten times the lethal concentration, and goes on to claim that the high dose is required for quick lethality

My point was is that it kills faster and more effectively.

Pro asks why there was blue staining on the walls of a chamber at a different site. I suspect that's because the pain there had iron in it. Notice that the floor has no blue stain. Why is that? I would explain that as a consequence of there being no iron in the floor cement, and perhaps also some additional affect of cleaning akin to weathering. Prussian blue does not dissolve in water, but it enters into a colloidal suspension that can be washed away.

Majdanek's gas chamber walls and Auschwitz alleged homicidal gas chamber walls are both of brick.

But my point is is that if the reason there isn't cyanide residue in Auschwitz because it takes less cyanide residue to kill humans than lice, then wh does the alleged homicidal gas chamber in Majdanek - which was used to (allegedly) kill humans - have Prussian blue saining?

The purpose is to evoke the emotions, and the chimney s an unrelated symbol of Auschwitz.

It's all about evoking emotions to get people to believe in the gas chamber myth. Emotional control is a very powerful method of control.

By the way, Auschwitz tour guides claim that the chimney + the homicidal gas chamber was NOT reconstructed after the war. It was only until David Cole had interviewed former Auschwitz curator Franciszek Piper that it was revealed it was renovated after the war.[5]

However, the IFR did find cyanide traces in some gas chamber sites, including the Block 11 site Pro held as certainly not a gas chamber, and no traces of cyanide in any of the living quarters.

For routine fumigations, not mass murder.

Rudolf refuted the IFR so much they didn't even respond to him - why is that? Not to mention Rudolf has been pretty much made a CRIMINAL because of his beliefs. He spent years in jail just because he said there was a lack of cyanide in the chamber. This means the people persecuting him have something to hide.

According to the UN Declaration of Human Rights Article 19: "
  • Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Of course, what the UN forgot to mention is the "Cannot Criticize Jews" clause. If you dare question the Holocaust, you go to jail in many European and non-European countries. This is the same as the Catholic Church putting Galileo under arrest for his discoveries.
Also, why did Auschwitz claim 4 million victims before 1989, then after 1989 claimed 1.5 milion (now down to 1.1 million)? http://img607.imageshack.us... You can see there

Rudolf Hoess also claimed 3 million victims - a far cry from 1.1 million. So why hasn't the official Jewish death toll went from 6 million to 3.1 million to 3.5 million?

I will be unable to respond in full to Pressac, due to my limitations of what I can say now, but I would like to see 3 of the documents you claim Pressac presents so I can see for myself, because I cannot comment on their legitimacy without seeing them. Thank you.

I am now out of space and can no longer reply, so I will try and go into more detail on Pressac and Kremer next time.

1. http://www.codoh.com...

2. http://www.codoh.info...

3. http://www.codoh.com...

4. http://www.vho.org...
The lethal dose 100%, LD100, which gives the concentration or quantity of poison required to kill all (100%) individuals of an observed species. This value is used to make sure that all individuals are successfully killed.
The lethal dose 1%, LD1, which gives the concentration or quantity of poison required to kill 1% of all individuals of an observed species. This value is used to mark a threshold beyond which an exposition to that poison is definitively dangerous."

5. http://www.vho.org...

RoyLatham

Con

Pro is confusing the concentration of cyanide detected in samples of walls with the concentrations of cyanide in air needed to produce fatalities. There is no straightforward way to derive the level of residue in the wall from the concentration in the air, although there are some rough relationships.

Let's start with the blue stains. A blue stain results from iron in the wall reacting with cyanide gas. If there is no iron in the wall, there will be no blue stain on the wall, ever; no matter how great the concentration of cyanide gas in the air. That's a simple consequence of the stain being a compound of iron, whereas the air and the cyanide gas has no iron.

From the Wikipedia article, " The main invention in Zyklon B consisted of the absorption of liquid hydrocyanic acid into a highly porous adsorbent. Initially, heated diatomite (diatomaceous earth) was used as an adsorbent. Later, high-porosity gypsum pellets called Erco-dice (described by eye witnesses as "crystals") as well as disks made from wood fibre were also used. The adsorbed hydrocyanic acid was very safe in handling and storage when placed in inexpensive airtight cans of various sizes." The photos in the article show that the pellets are not blue, despite the extreme concentration.

Note that while some of the walls of delousing chambers were stained blue, not all of walls of the delousing chambers were stained. It turns out that brick is not easily penetrated by cyanide ions, and the iron oxide in brick is not very reactive.

How much exposure to HCN does it take to form a visible, or otherwise detectable, blue stain on brick? I know of no data, but we do know that the one gas chamber at Auschwitz that was preserved and reconstructed received less than 1/1500 the exposure of a delousing chamber, and that small amounts of cyanide were detected in the gas chamber. None was detected by Leutner, because his samples included thick chunks of brick.

If there is no iron in the wall to capture the cyanide gas, how much cyanide should be expected to be retained in the wall? Pro has not explained any mechanism for cyanide being retained other than as a stain. Perhaps so trace impurities would retain a tiny amount, but its speculative.

Pro says all the gas chambers were made of brick, and provides one picture of some gas chamber. However, all the large gas chambers at Auschwitz were destroyed by the Germans at the end of the war. Bunker 1 was in a red building, but "Inside the gas chambers the walls were painted white," The IFR team originally found cyanide in only one of the ruins, which Rudolf proclaims t have confirmed Leutner's results. However, the IFR thereafter returned for a closer inspection. "We tried to take samples -- if at all possible -- from the places best sheltered and least exposed to rainfall, including also as far as possible -- fragments of the upper parts of the chambers (hydrogen cyanide is lighter than air) and also of the concrete floors, with which the gas from the spilled Zyklon B came into contract at rather high concentrations. Samples, about 1-2 g in weight, were taken by chipping pieces from bricks and concrete or scrapping off, particularly in the case of plaster and also mortar. " Note the references to materials other than bricks found in the construction.

The IFR samples "unequivocally show that the cyanide compounds occur in all the facilities that, according to the source data, were in contact with them. On the other hand, they do not occur in dwelling accommodations, which was shown by means of control samples. The concentrations of cyanide compounds in the samples collected from one and the same room or building show great differences. This indicates that the conditions that favour the formation of stable compounds as a result of the reaction of hydrogen cyanide with the components of the walls, occur locally. In this connection it takes quite a large number of samples from a given facility to give us a chance to come upon this sort of local accumulation of cyanide compounds." http://www.holocaust-history.org...

Rudolf's alleged debunking was debunked by finding samples in the ruins that were better protected, using a large number of samples, and using more sensitive tests. The IFR did not respond directly to Rudolf, but many other experts did. .http://www.holocaust-history.org... Critics force Rudolf to retreat from his previous claims of certainty. "[Critic] Green's second prerequisite is that I have to "demonstrate rigorously" "that the kinetics involved with the formation of such pigments dictate that significant quantities should be formed in all of the homicidal gas chambers". I stated before that this is nearly impossible. Consequently we must conclude that chemistry is not a science with the power to prove or refute human gassings in Auschwitz "rigorously" [ibid]

Pro claims that Rudolf must be correct because the IFR didn't respond to him. One good reason for not responding directly to him is that it would be pointless. They ran additional tests, and many qualified chemists responded directly to him, forcing him to back down from his claims of certainty.

1. Large numbers of people were gassed in large rooms holding up to 2500. The residue depends on the gas concentration in contact with the wall, not the size of the room.

2. Usually the gas was dispensed through holes in the ceiling or walls. The mesh container no doubt slowed the process for that chamber. One of the chambers also did not have exhaust fans, requiring even more time. The Nazis improved their methods over time.

3. Zyklon-B was used because it was easier to store and transport, and it was readily available since the primary use (90%) was for delousing. http://www.nizkor.org... Carbon monoxide was inconvenient, being made with a diesel engine. Modern execution gas chambers used cyanide, not carbon monoxide for similar reasons of convenience.

I do not understand the point about Treblinka. The ashes and bone fragments from Auschwitz have been identified. http://en.auschwitz.org.pl...

4. the concentrations actually used for delousing and human extermination were known from observation. The Nazis did not care if all the humans were actually dead, so long as they were inanimate.

Pro claims that traces of cyanide were found in the gas chamber as a result of routine fumigation. If so, why were no traces found in the living quarters, which were routinely fumigated?

Pro claims that Rudolf and Leutner have a right of free speech. Sure they do, but that's irrelevant to our debate. Rudolf had a web site with all his results, and everything is available in the U.S. for discussion. Everything is available for this debate.

Pro says that some plaques show changed numbers of claimed victims. The numbers are subject to historical research. One important event, for example, was the opening up of the Russian archives c. 1992. The numbers are irrelevant to our debate.

There are many sources confirming the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz. They include multiple independent statements from Germans and Poles, as well as victims. There are confessions of Nazi officers, including Hoess. Documents contain discussions of gas chamber details. Pro has refuted noneof the testimony and document evidence. Rudolf tried to get rid of all the Russian archive material solely because it was on micofilm.

Can all the evidence be explained away? We shall see.
Debate Round No. 3
AHUGECAT

Pro

Thank you for this interesting debate, Con. It's been great so far.

See, you say the blue stains are caused by the iron in the wall reacting with cyanide gas (and you are correct in saying this), but as I have shown, the bricks in the alleged homicidal gas chamber at Auschwitz are the same type of bricks. However, because of some of the erratic quality of the bricks, some bricks do show more prussian blue staining than others, but at Krema 1, 2, and 3 with the same exact brick shows NO trace of blue staining anywhere.

Majdanek had plenty of blue staining: [url]http://img684.imageshack.us...[/url]

According to Holocaust scholars, that room was used to murder Jews, so if Krema I at Auschwitz doesn't have blue staining because it was used to kill humans, then neither should Majdanek. I should also mention that more Zyklon-B was allegedly used at Auschwitz than Majdanek. There has to be blue staining on this wall http://ml3167.k12.sd.us... in order for it to have been a homicidal gas chamber used to kill thousands.

as I said, compare Majdanek (which allegedly had less gassings) to that wall and see the difference.

Going back to U.S. execution gas chambers, in order for the victim to die fast, the victim (prisoner in this case) would have to inhale the cyanide deeply to make the death come quicker and easier. If the prisoner did not inhale deeply, then the suffering from the gas could last for more than 18 minutes. Even then, executions in U.S. gas chambers averaged 10 to 14 minutes.

The thing with Zyklon-B is that it releases its HCN very slowly, about 10% in the first 10 minutes. According to alleged "eyewitnesses," death was achieved in mere minutes, so this would necessitate extremely high amounts of Zyklon-B which would result in high levels of cyanide residue in the alleged gas chamber. Now there were no contraptions to make Zyklon-B distributed faster all over the room, so it would have been even more minutes for the victims to die.

"We must therefore assume that the minimum amount of Zyklon B to be introduced in these rooms would have been in the order of magnitude of ten times the amount normally used for delousing procedures, in order to reach a similar concentration already in the first 5 to 10 minutes of the execution even in the hindmost corner of that room.[39] This would have been the only way to make sure that all victims in such a room would have been killed in the first 10 minutes after the Zyklon B had started releasing its poison." [1]

Then you have the problem of ventilation. It takes up to 20 hours to ventilate a room after Zyklon-B use, yet "eyewitnesses" - even those such as Rudolf Hoess, said it took only 20-30 minutes (at the most) to clear out the room of the people and gas. To make matters worse, there would have been lots of small spaces inside the pile of corposes filled with HCN gas, thus making the ventilation procedure even more difficult. Not to mention the corpses falling all over the Zyklon-B pellets. There would still be lots of HCN in theme even after hours of ventilation.

Pro says all the gas chambers were made of brick, and provides one picture of some gas chamber. However, all the large gas chambers at Auschwitz were destroyed by the Germans at the end of the war.

Well, not really. Below is the underside of the alleged "gas chamber" ceiling of Krema II, that has no blue staining, no alleged openings or holes for Zyklon-B insertion, therefore no AUschwitz gassings. Remember, the standard storyline says that 2000 Jews per batch were gassed on a non-stop basis, about 20 minutes per batch according to some tales, four minutes as alleged by an 'eyewitness'.

See this photo: http://www.air-photo.com...

" The vent-less morgue roof looks exactly the same as it did in 1943, although it collapsed from the force of an explosion detonated by the Soviet Army between January 27 and February 18, 1945. Inspection at the locations of marks on the 1944 air photos showed no cement patches of previous holes, as any patches would have been visible along the straight line impressions left from the original 1943 cement forms. In 1944 this was what the inside of the ventless morgue roof looked like, before being tilted and partially collapsed from the winter 1945 explosion." [2]

HCN takes hours to outgas from its carrier material - Zyklon-B, hence when the NAzis opened the "gas chamber" doors after mere minutes, the contuining outgassing process would have released HCN gas onto the site as a whole, killing everything in its path (see above for ventilation problems). Then you have to believe that 2,000 dead Jews were lifted to the crematorium above via a miniscule 4' x 9' elevator before the alleged next batch of 2000 entered. All that done in mere minutes. Those magical Germans were truly something.

The IFR samples "unequivocally show that the cyanide compounds occur in all the facilities that, according to the source data, were in contact with them.

You mentioned the Block 11 cellar earlier, and that it averaged 14 parts per billion (according to the source). This though is several times lower than that which they found for Krema I, which averaged 70 parts per billion. (Your link: http://www.holocaust-history.org...)

What Zimmerman doesn't tell his readers is that other investigations (but not the Krakow one) have found 0.1-0.5% cyanide in the delousing chamber walls. Basically this means that the levels Zimmerman is claiming to be proof of homicidal gassings, are around 1 MILLION times lower concentration than the ones in the delousing chambers.

he IFR did not respond directly to Rudolf, but many other experts did.

"Leuchter and Rudolf report a detection limit of about 1 mg/kg and in fact dispute the reliability of some of their own measurements showing cyanide concentrations above that. Recall that the bulk of the cyanides that they detected were in a form similar to Prussian blue. The IFFR used a much more sensitive method. Their sensitivity was 3-4µg/kg, i.e., 300 times more sensitive."[3]

However, the method used by Rudolf and that of the IFR have the SAME accuracy, so that Dr. Green's claim which is central to his whole argument is entirely false. The IFR based their method on Joseph Epstein's 1947 paper "Estimation of Microquantities of Cyanide" method. Rudolf used the more modern DIN protocol - so how is a 1947 method 300 times superior and accurate than a modern, German method? THat is what Green is implying. Only since 1980 have chemists been able to measure parts per billion; before that, you wouldn't be able to find a chemist to measure anything much below one part per million.

I won't be able to respond about Green in full detail, so I will go on with your points:

I do not understand the point about Treblinka.

There have been no mass graves found at Treblinka.

If so, why were no traces found in the living quarters, which were routinely fumigated?

There was: 3. Controls (ie sampled from barracks, wash rooms, etc.): 1.7 ± 1.3 (n=11) ppm[4]

Pro says that some plaques show changed numbers of claimed victims. The numbers are subject to historical research. One important event, for example, was the opening up of the Russian archives c. 1992. The numbers are irrelevant to our debate.

The numbers are very relevant, especially since Hoess said 3 million. How come the official number of dead Jews did not go from 6 million to 3.5 million after Auschwitz as winded down? Sounds like the "6 million" figure is more figurative than literal.

I am out of charcters, so this is all Ic an type. Debate.org HAS to really let us use unlimited characters.

1. http://www.vho.org...
2. http://www.air-photo.com...
3. http://www.holocaust-history.org...
4. http://www.codoh.com...

RoyLatham

Con

The Blue Stains

Pro's case is built on the premise that cyanide gas always produces substantial blue stains that are virtually indelible, and that the amount of staining is proportional to the amount of cyanide exposure. The grounds for that premise is that the delousing chambers left intact show blue staining.

The premise is wrong because:

1. Not all the brick walls of the delousing chambers show blue staining. Pro explains that by saying there must be some variation in the brick which enables some brick to resist staining while other brick stains readily. Yet Pro offers no evidence that brick used in the construction of gas chambers is the type that stains rather than the type that does not stain.

2. Staining absolutely requires iron in a surface for it to be subject to staining, and even then it may not stain, per the non-staining brick in the delousing chambers. Pro asserts that all the gas chambers were constructed with brick surfaces, but the pictures he shows clearly contradict that assertion.
  • His picture of the ceiling of Krema II shows a paint-like coating hanging loose in pieces. If there is no iron in the coating, the norm, it would not have stained.
  • The picture he shows of Majdanek clearly has plaster over the brick on the walls, because there are a few places where the plaster has recently come loose, exposing brick. The ceiling and beams are concrete. Plaster and concrete do not contain iron, so they don't stain.
  • Pro previously showed pictures of a delousing chamber with stained walls, but the concrete floor was not stained.
  • An historical account identified the walls in the gas chamber of Bunker 1 at Auschwitz as painted white.
  • The samples of rubble collected for testing were noted as comprising plaster.

Sources agree that if a stain layer exists it is extremely thin, one-tenth the diameter of a human hair. Hence even a thin coating of paint would obviate staining.

3. Pro offers no experimental evidence that brick or any other material is easily stained by cyanide. I cited sources that say it at best difficult to get staining on brick, because the iron in brick is tightly bound in an oxide. Pro offered no experimental evidence that staining is resistant to weathering. The gas chamber ruins had been exposed to rain flows for decades. Pro's examples of staining were intact delousing chambers.

4. Pro argues that exposure to cyanide gas must be relatively lengthy to guarantee death, contradicting the testimony that screams stopped quickly. I rebutted that it is unlikely that the Nazis would care if the victims were really dead, so long as they were immobilized long enough for cremation. Pro did not make a counter argument.

5. Analysis by the IFR showed traces of cyanide in all the gas chambers and ruins of gas chambers. Pro argues that the concentrations should have been greater, but the amount of retained cyanide depends critically upon the nature of the surfaces and the effects of weather, and those factors are ignored by deniers. The IFR found no traces of cyanide in the control samples from living quarters, but Rudolf said he found traces.

The complaint against the IFR report is that the Polish investigators did not find as much of a trace as deniers claim they should. The deniers' error is supposing that delousing chambers provide an accurate baseline. Pro makes much of the IFR failing to respond directly to Rudolf, a critic who would never be satisfied. Others, however, did thoroughly refute Rudolf.

Other physical evidence


Pro begins with the claim that the reconstructed gas chamber at Auschwitz was an air raid shelter. History shows that it was originally a mortuary, then was converted to a gas chamber, and finally to an air raid shelter.

References showed that the Auschwitz museum was designed as a monument to Poles, with the chimney being constructed as a symbol of the camp. No doubt is raised that chimneys were a prominent feature of the camp, hence they are appropriately symbolic.

It's inconsequential that some museum attendants do not know the full history of the reconstruction 50 years later.

Pro contends that there were no holes in the ceiling of Krema II. However, references state that holes in the walls were used in some gas chambers, and the Krema II walls were destroyed.

Pro contends that ventilating the gas chambers could not be done in the 20 to 30 minutes claimed by witnesses. The references indicated that powerful ventilation fans were sometimes used and that door arrangements were designed to facilitate ventilation. In early experiments ventilation was poor, and SS men wore gas masks to clear the bodies. Cyanide gas is lighter than air, so it is not going to be "trapped" under bodies as the spaces would not be gas tight. Imagine trying to casually "trap" hydrogen or helium.

I referenced sources explaining the use of cyanide rather than carbon monoxide was for convenience. The Nazis had a lot of Zyklon B, whereas generating carbon monoxide required running a diesel engine detuned for incomplete combustion.

Pro said that there were no mass graves found at Treblinka, an irrelevant claim I did not investigate. (Ashes were sometimes dumped in rivers, to be carried away.) However, substantial remains of ashes and bone fragments were found at Auschwitz.

Documentary Evidence

A large body of evidence for the existence of the gas chambers at Auschwitz was compiled by Pressac, which I referenced at length. "Pressac's analysis is at once exhaustive and convincing. It is based on primary documents and testimonies, original architectural plans, photographs, drawings, worksheets, and schematics. A particularly powerful analysis is found in Chapter 8 of Part Two, entitled "One proof ... one single proof". Thirty nine criminal traces, beginning at page 429. Pressac's book is a definitive proof of the use of poison gas to murder Jews at Auschwitz and it is based on primary sources from the Nazis. There is no doubt."

Pro cited only two trivial errors in 500+ pages assembled by Pressac. One of the two errors had also been made by denier Leutner. Pro claimed that Rudolf had refuted Pressac. Rudolf's "refutation" mainly was the claim that documents retrieved from Russian archives on microfilm were invalid solely because they were on microfilm. (Russians liberated the camp and had obtained most of the documents.) Rudolf's claim is denial without proof.

Rudolf was regretably denied free speech in Europe. However, everything was published in the United States and even posted on the web, so no data or arguments were suppressed.

Eye Witness Accounts

Among the many accounts, a German doctor, Johann Kremer, wrote in his diary of witnessing a mass gassing at Auschwitz,

"After driving all of them into the gas chamber, the door was closed and an SS man in gas-mask threw contents of Cyclon tin through an opening in the side wall. The shouting and screaming of the victims could be heard through the opening ... The shouts were hear for a very short while. I would say some minutes..."

I cited confirming accounts of two other Germans and two Poles. Hoess, the Auschwitz commander, testified to the gassings. There are confirming accounts by camp survivors. Pro did not refute the testimony, nor did he provide any conflicting testimony.

Methodology

The basic methodology of conspiracy theory is to assert a premise, in this case that blue stains are an inevitable consequence of cyanide use, and then stick to that premise all evidence notwithstanding. Never mind that, for example, only some walls of the delousing chambers show staining or that the intact delousing chambers were never expose to weathering. Then all contradictory evidence, such as documents and testimony is casually dismissed as being "obviously" false. It doesn't work.

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 4
64 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Chrysippus 3 years ago
Chrysippus
AHUGECAT, you are wrong. You've got zero grounds for your contention, and you lost this debate.

I'm mildly curious why you are so desperate to pretend that there wasn't mass slaughter of the Jews in WWII, but not to the point that I'm willing to listen to your necro comments. This debate ended three years ago for you; for the thinking world, it never really took place. There's no room for doubt that millions of Jews we murdered in the Holocaust; only a few extreme bigots try to deny it.

You sound desperate and invested, and you are making up facts and lying about things the rest of us can read for ourselves. Just stop.

I'm disabling notifications for this, because you have nothing further to say.
Posted by SPF 3 years ago
SPF
"Oh and if the "treated accordingly" according to you is mass murder why were there so many children survivors?"
Roughly 1,500,000 people were deported to Auschwitz Birkenau. (And this was only one of the death camps). Roughly 70,000 people survived the camp; many of the survivors (including my grandmother) were relatively young because younger people are generally healthier, sturdier, and they often had quicker wits. 70,000 people is a lot of people, but then again, 70,000 is significantly less than 1/15th of 1,500,000.
"THEN you try to weasel you're way and "prove" murderous intent (even though it is clearly about deportations) is disgusting."
My point was that when you pack 70 people in a train car without giving them water - and if you do so expecting people to die in that situation, you are already guilty of murder.
The more crucial point, and something you did not address, is what the Nazis had in mind when they wrote that they wanted to prevent "the release of the seed of a new Jewish revival" - after they had already explicitly said which Jews were going to get sterilized - and omitted most Jews from sterilization.

"Until a document states "Vergasung von Juden" ("gassing of Jews") then there is no proof they gassed Jews." Really? So if a gangster were to write, "bumping [blank individual] off" that wouldn't be admissible evidence? He'd have to write, "going to shoot [blank individual]." People like euphemisms when they're talking about mass murders that they are involved in - and when documents openly refer to gassing cellars, de-aeration equipment, special operations, special actions etc. its ridiculous to pretend that those documents don't prove that atrocities took place.
Posted by SPF 3 years ago
SPF
AHUGECAT, you have failed to address several key points.
"1. That's not a blue print of a gas chamber you funny man! That's a "Leichenkeller" which means a MORGUE!" Yes, the blue print uses the euphemism Leichenkeller, meaning morgue. But if you actually bothered to read my explanation of what the blueprint shows, I never claimed that the blueprint has the word gas chamber; you would have noticed that the blueprint contains the words BELUFTUNG (AERATION) and ENLUFTUNGSKANAL (DE-AERATION CHANNEL). Enluftungskanal is the smoking gun here, and it's circled on the blue print (it ain't hard to find). http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. "Vergasungskeller" isn't he word the Germans would use - it would be "gaskammer."
A Holocaust denier conceded that, "The primary meaning of "Vergasung" is gas generation or carbureation." And indeed, when we open a dictionary, word sense, we find that Vergasungskeller means: "Vergasungskeller (masc.) (genitive Vergasungskeller, pl. Vergasungskeller)
gassing cellar. A subterraneous homicidal gas chamber. http://www.wordsense.eu...
Bischoff's letter also refers to aeration and de-aeration channels - a point that you ignore. In fact, (after mentioning gassing cellars) the letter says, "Due to the railway car prohibition, the company Topf and Sons could not deliver the aeration and deaeration equipment at the time demanded by the Zentralbauleitung. After the aeration and deaeration equipment arrive, however, installation will begin immediately, so that presumably by February 20, 1943, it will be completely ready for operation." Hmm. Once the aeration and de-aeration equipment arrives, the gassing cellar would be ready for operation. How do you deny this?
3. Prufer's memo shows that the Nazis wanted to be able to incinerate 80,000 bodies in a month. You didn't address this.
4. You completely ignore the video of mass shootings.
Posted by AHUGECAT 3 years ago
AHUGECAT
Oh and if the "treated accordingly" according to you is mass murder why were there so many children survivors?

http://www.yadvashem.org...
http://www.scrapbookpages.com...
http://finditgroup.org...

It seems like every day you're hearing about new Auschwitz "survivors." So much for being treated accordingly!

It is a shame that so many "Historians" can get a blue print of what is CLEARLY labelled a morgue and call it a "gas chamber" because they know no one (outside Holocaust revisionists) are going to question it and translate it. It's academic dishonesty of the HIGHEST order. It's outright FRAUD. And then to show me a long document as "proof" of extermination THEN admit it ISN'T about extermination THEN you try to weasel you're way and "prove" murderous intent (even though it is clearly about deportations) is disgusting.

This is why Holocaust revisionism is so important. Not only to expose Jewish Supremacism, but to expose the lies of which people have believed in for almost 70 years.
Posted by AHUGECAT 3 years ago
AHUGECAT
3. Yes, a lot of people died in the camps. Not evidence of mass murder. Prufer however he was interrogated by the Soviets (Source: Dissecting the Holocaust page 399)" . Pr"fer explained why the cremation lasted so long in the Birkenau crematoria:

Question: How many corpses would be cremated per hour in a crematorium in Auschwitz?

Answer: In a crematorium that had five ovens and fifteen muffles, one cremated fifteen corpses in an hour."

Of course, the Holocaust story - well - at least Michael Marrus in The Holocaust in History - that Auschwitz was incinerating about 12,000 per DAY! If you want, I can tell you why the Prufer letter is a bunch of BS.

"First, in regards to the Wannsee Protocol, the document does not directly refer to extermination. "

Then why use it as evidence of extermination!?!??!?!?

1. Yes some Jews will die from going to concentration camps, just like Palestinians will die from the land invasion of Gaza.

2. The Wannsee conference simply refers to the deportation of Jews to Europe. Just a note, many Holocaust scholars are dropping the Wannsee conference as "evidence" of extermination.

The thing is that Hoess "confessed" that in October 1941 the gassings in Auschwitz started and already started in Majdanek. The Wannsee conference took place in January 1942 yet is a "discussion" on what the Final Solution should be? The implications of your sentence are non-existent.

3. Or it means the seed of a new Jewish revival in Western Europe.

"One last point: 6 million Jews didn't vanish and then reappear in Israel."

Yes many went East (to Russia for example) before slowly immigrating to Israel. How else did Israel get its population? The extreme low birth rate of Jews (although somewhat high for Orthodox Jews)?
Posted by AHUGECAT 3 years ago
AHUGECAT
" Even though the Nazis made an effort to destroy as much of this sort of evidence as they could, plenty of evidence survived the Nazi coverup:"

What a convinient excuse! Of course, you ignore the fact that the Nazis during the Nuremberg trials immediately pled "guilty" so making the whole document burning pointless. Why burn documents if you're just going to plead guilty? Simple: YOU DON'T.

1. That's not a blue print of a gas chamber you funny man! That's a "Leichenkeller" which means a MORGUE! It says RIGHT there in big letters. I guess if I go to my local morgue it's also a gas chamber used to kill millions of Jews, right?
2. "Vergasungskeller" isn't he word the Germans would use - it would be "gaskammer." Vergasungkeller was a storage area for fumigation supplies. Of course even if I am wrong, this isn't even close to proof of homicidal gas chambers. Until a document states "Vergasung von Juden" ("gassing of Jews") then there is no proof they gassed Jews.
Posted by SPF 3 years ago
SPF
One last point: 6 million Jews didn't vanish and then reappear in Israel.
There were thousands of Jews who escaped Nazi Germany and tried to migrate to Palestine - but this was made very difficult by the White Paper. The White Paper was a British Policy that began in 1939 that limited Jewish immigration to Palestine to 75,000 over a 5 year period. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Morever, in 1947 - two years after the end of WWII, (two years in which many Jews immigrated to Palestine) it is estimated that there were roughly 630,000 Jews living in Palestine.
The population statistics alone demonstrate that roughly 6 million Jews who were alive in 1939 were dead by 1945 - they could not have immigrated to Palestine because a. immigration to Palestine was strictly controlled by the British and b. there weren't even 700,000 Jews living there two years AFTER WWII.
In conclusion, if:
1. Population statistics
2. Eyewitness testimony of survivors
3. Eyewitness testimony of the S.S.
4. The Wannsee Protocol (yes the Wannsee Protocol - see my explanation below).
5. The Blueprints - http://en.wikipedia.org...
6. The letter from the gas chamber's architect: http://www.holocaust-history.org...
7. Prufer's memo http://www.holocaust-history.org...
8. Many other documents.
9. This recording of Himmler's Posen speech: https://www.youtube.com...
10. Aerial photos such as this one: http://vho.org...
11. Photos of Nazis shooting large groups of Jews (the Holocaust didn't ONLY happen in gas chambers you know) https://www.youtube.com...
12. Videos of liberated camps: https://www.youtube.com... (Watch this video and you will see that your Nazi heroes were a depraved bunch. Look at what they reduced human beings to).

If you aren't convinc
Posted by SPF 3 years ago
SPF
"Funny SPF you mentioned the Wannsee Protocols - care to show me where they mention extermination? They don't. There is not ONE Nazi document which mentions gas chambers, or extermination. Not one."
First, in regards to the Wannsee Protocol, the document does not directly refer to extermination. However, let's take a look at one of the most revealing passages:

"Able-bodied Jews, separated according to sex, will be taken in
large work columns to these areas for work on roads, in the
course of which action doubtless a large portion will be
eliminated by natural causes.

The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly
consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated
accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and
would, if released, act as a the seed of a new Jewish revival
(see the experience of history.)"
1. The Nazis were implementing a policy - relocating people in crowded train cars, which they knew would cause many deaths from "natural causes". This alone shows murderous intent.
2. More importantly, the Nazis say that those who survive the train cars will have to be "treated accordingly" in order to prevent the release of the "seed of a new Jewish revival."
3. In context, through the process of elimination, here is what we find:
- Preventing the release of the "seed of a new Jewish revival" cannot only mean sterilization - since the Protocol already specifies which Jews are going to be sterilized.
- The only other way to prevent the release of the "seed of a new Jewish revival" is to physically exterminate Jews.
- The key word in this passage is entsprechend which means accordingly.
You claim that there isn't a single Nazi document that refers to gassing. In the comment below, I provided links to three documents which are far more explicit than the Protocol.
1. Blue prints
2. A letter from the architect; references a "Vergasungskeller" or gas chamber.
3. A memo about the targeted incineration
Posted by SPF 3 years ago
SPF
"With the gas chambers, there are expected to be documents about who ordered the gas chambers (the SS), the contractor, the engineering specifications for the gas chambers, the progress reports, invoices, etc. etc."

Even though the Nazis made an effort to destroy as much of this sort of evidence as they could, plenty of evidence survived the Nazi coverup:
1. Blue prints of the gas chamber: http://en.wikipedia.org... Note that in the blue prints, it says, beluftung - which means aeration in English, and Enluftungskanal. The latter word is a smoking gun - if you click the link you'll find that its circled for your benefit - Enluftungskanal means de-aeration channel.
2. A letter in which the architect of the gas chamber refers to a "Vergasungskeller" - gassing cellar. He also refers to aeration and de-aeration equipment. http://www.holocaust-history.org...
3. This is an internal memo by Prufer - an employee of Topf and Sons which was the firm that built the crematoria. Within the memo, Prufer writes that First Lieutenant Krone of the Works and Buildings section of the WVHA said that the crematorium was not able to burn enough bodies; Krone had said that the crematorium needed the capacity to burn roughly 80,000 bodies a month. http://www.holocaust-history.org...

This is only some of the documentary evidence that survived the Nazi cover-up.
Posted by AHUGECAT 3 years ago
AHUGECAT
Oops I said "Another World War I" I meant another World War
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by SPF 3 years ago
SPF
AHUGECATRoyLathamTied
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: Okay, granted, from the beginning I thought that Pro was arguing something ludicrous (and offensive). But I still read through the debate in as impartial a manner as I could - and I've got to say, Con had the best sources, the most convincing arguments, and most importantly, Con successfully debunked everything that Pro was saying. All in all, there is no question that con won this debate.
Vote Placed by jewgirl 5 years ago
jewgirl
AHUGECATRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made an interesting opening argument but con destroyed it.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
AHUGECATRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I disagree with Cliff on this topic...Roy proved that the 'homicidal gas chamber at Auschwitz' are gas chambers and attacked several of Ahugecat's points.
Vote Placed by XimenBao 6 years ago
XimenBao
AHUGECATRoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con won every point through superior sourcing and argumentation. Pro was factually wrong on several points of science and history required to make his case, and Con demonstrated that.
Vote Placed by TUF 6 years ago
TUF
AHUGECATRoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con Had better structure and sources.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
AHUGECATRoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con has a better argument... straight up. It's ridiculous that this kind of garbage revisionist history is even considered... thanks for taking out the trash on this one Roy.
Vote Placed by darkkermit 6 years ago
darkkermit
AHUGECATRoyLathamTied
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: CON uses science, and other evidence to bring doubts about AHUGECAT's claims. PRO does not fulfill the BOP, and it is thus negated.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
AHUGECATRoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro sets out to "prove" that a particular building was not used as a gas chamber; I wrote more, but the stupid RFD system lost it all. See comment.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
AHUGECATRoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Many dropped arguments by Con, and without proper refutation on others, special pleading was rampant where witness would be accepted if it supported and rejected when it was not. Much more detailed sourcing from Pro.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
AHUGECATRoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided what seemed like good arguments in the opening round, but those were taken down by Con very efficiently. In Pro's next round Pro began to fall apart and grasp at straws. He indicated that he did not know how concentrations work and compared a US gas chamber to the German gas chambers. It all started going down hill from there for Pro.