You said
There is no lack of corroborating evidence. There are SS camp staff who were never tortured and they still admit gassings took place. The West and unified German trials did give SS camp staff to set the record straight.
I already addressed this. First off, not all SS camp guards and survivors agree that they took place. The documentary and forensic evidence, which is superior evidence is against them, and we already have proven that witnesses can believe something false. The reliability of eyewitness testimony diminishes greatly after only a few days. In fact, more SS disagree with you than agree. 1,593 affidavits from SS members made it clear the Jewish problem was not to be solved by killing or the so-called ‘final solution,’
This is a higher sample size of SS compared to any you can present. Especially when monetary gain and social credibility are involved.
You said
None of those witnesses worked inside an A-B Krema, AR camp or Chelmno. That they say they did not hear about gassings at the time, is evidence that the operation's secrecy did keep many people in the dark.
What? Witnesses didn’t see gassings because they weren’t DIRECTLY inside the killing facilities? Their locations and roles put them so close to the alleged action that ignorance would be impossible if mass gassings were real.
Maria van Herwaarden was at Auschwitz I December 1942 to January 1945, right next to Birkenau where gassings supposedly peaked. She testified under oath in 1988: “I did not ever see any indication of a mass murder or extermination of Jews.” Two years near the epicenter of the alleged horror—smoke, stench, and chaos should’ve been inescapable. She saw nothing.
Marika Frank was actually IN Birkenau in July 1944, which is claimed that 25,000 Jews were gassed and cremated daily. She said: “I heard and saw nothing of gas chambers during the time I was interned at Auschwitz. I heard the gassing stories only later.” INSIDE Birkenau, not some distant camp, and she noticed no signs of mass murder.
Esther Grossman is another Birkenau prisoner, who stated: “I saw no gas chambers and did not hear of them until after the war.” Living in the camp where crematoria allegedly ran nonstop, she missed everything? Smoke, smells, screams. Secrecy can’t explain that.
Marian Olszuk worked daily near Treblinka, a small camp with little cover. 800,000 people gassed and massive cremation pits. Smoke would’ve filled the sky, yet he saw nothing.
Rudolf Göckel was the literal Station master at Belzec and saw with no signs of extermination. If 600,000 were gassed, he’d have seen the endless flow of victims and bodies. He didn’t.
Joseph G. Burg interviewed hundreds of crematoria workers, and concluded: “No homicidal gas chambers existed.”
If the operators didn’t know, secrecy wasn’t the issue.
You said
Why are you only considering credibility? Why not truthfulness or accuracy? A witness can be very credible and a complete liar, so determining that a witness is credible, does not mean that there are being truthful or accurate.
Credibleness and accuracy, both can be accounted for. In Auschwitz in particular, the claimed witnesses go against the documentary and forensic evidence. As well it's supported by the fact that crematorium I which had been taken into service on 15 March 1943 was already damaged after nine days, and the repair work only “neared completion” on 18 July, months without operation when supposedly thousands of Jews were being gassed daily.
You might dismiss these accounts, but their credibility is solid:
- Van Herwaarden: Testified under oath, cross-examined, and never wavered. No reason to lie.
- Burg: A Jew with no motive to defend Nazis, spoke to crematoria workers directly. His conclusion was clear.
- Pelckmann: A lawyer citing the highest sample size of SS affidavits at Nuremberg.
- Olszuk: A local worker with daily visibility. Simple observations.
None of these people had anything to gain, but instead lose social credibility.
You using secrecy as an excuse Is a convenient dodge. Why do you lean on secrecy to explain away their ignorance? If the gassings were so secret that prisoners inside Birkenau didn’t know, how did the Allies get detailed reports like Vrba-Wetzler in 1944? You can’t claim perfect secrecy and widespread knowledge simultaneously. The witnesses’ silence suggests there was nothing to know.
You've asserted mass gassings happened, but read our chat for your evidence. Coerced confessions (e.g., Rudolf Höss), contradictory survivor/few SS tales with everything to gain, and vague documents. The witnesses I provided contradict yours, with front-row seats, still saw no trace of your mass-gassings. If gassings were real, they’d have known. Their ignorance is your problem, not proof of your gas-chamber story.
You said
“corroboration is the best test of the truthfulness of witness recall and accuracy of memory.”
Although I generally agree with this sentiment, its a naive oversimplification. Corroboration can bolster a story, but it’s far from foolproof—especially when witnesses are compromised by coercion, stories, or shared delusions. The Salem Witch Trials come to mind, where dozens of witnesses “corroborated” tales of witchcraft, leading to executions. Hysteria and pressure shaped their stories, as did in the Holocaust with the Lampshades and Soaps, and steaming Jews like Lobsters Innocent people have confessed to crimes, matching others’ accounts, under duress. Agreement didn’t make it true. Jewish survivors were clearly steeped in postwar rumors, hearsay into their memories.
You said
That Nazi and Jewish witnesses who worked at the Kremas, AR camps and Chelmno all agree, is strong corroborating evidence.
Nazi and Jewish Witnesses Don’t “All Agree”. That’s a Lie.
Rudolf Höss “confessed” to gassing 2.5 million—a number historians now reject. He admitted: “I was treated terribly by the British. During the first interrogation, they beat me.” Höss confessed to overseeing gassings at Auschwitz’s crematoria. If torture inflated his numbers, what else was coerced?
Hans Aumeier Initially denied gassings, then gave a timeline (late 1942) that contradicts the official story (1941). Which version do you trust?
Pery BroadOffered detailed gassing accounts after British promises of “good treatment.”
Filip Müller was a Sonderkommando who later conceded in Eyewitness Auschwitz that parts of his gassing tales were hearsay, not eyewitness fact.
Rudolf Vrba in his 1944 report detailed Auschwitz, but in 1985, under oath, he admitted he never saw a gassing—just inferred it from rumors.
Kurt Gerstein (SS Officer, AR Camps) Gerstein described gassings at Bełżec and Treblinka, but his report is riddled with exaggerations, such as 25 million killed, a figure no historian accepts. He was a visitor of the camp.
These witnesses don’t “all agree.” Nazi testimonies were often coerced, Höss beaten, Broad incentivized, Aumeier inconsistent. Jewish accounts lean on hearsay (Müller/Vrba) or contain discrepancies (Bomba/Wiernik). Proximity to the Kremas, AR camps, and Chełmno doesn’t yield a unified story. Evidence is from pressured, secondhand, or contradictory claims. This isn’t corroboration... Have a bit of honesty.
You said
If a witness is corroborated by evidence that is independent of them, and the evidence is in general agreement, then we have a truthful and generally accurate.
Survivors disagree on gas chamber sizes, victim skin colors (blue? red? green?), and cremation times.
Dov Paisikovic, who as a member of the Sonderkommando claims to have taken part in the incineration of the corpses of gassed people in Crematory II of Auschwitz-Birkenau (Poliakov 1964, p. 162):
“Cremating a corpse lasts roughly four minutes.”
The cremation duration quoted by Poliakov is therefore approximately fifteen times less than the actual duration. This cannot be called an “error” or “exaggeration”; Paisikovic lied through his teeth. Frank Wallace accused by 11 people of being a Nazi murderer, but ultimately they were all lies… Moshe Peer, who claimed that in Bergen-Belsen (where according to the orthodox history no gas chamber existed) he survived no less than six gassings (Seidman 1993). Morris Hubert, who testified that, each day in Buchenwald, the Nazis had put a Jew into a cage containing a bear and an eagle, after which the bear had eaten the Jew and the eagle had minced his bones (Goldman 1988).
Question #1: Where was the gas chamber?
• In a fake shower room (Muller, Tauber, Nadjari, Venezia).
• In a room next to the fake shower room (Cohen).
Question #2: How many people could you fit into the chamber?
• 750 (Cohen).
• 2,500 (Nadjari).
• 3,000 (Muller).
Question #3: After throwing in the gas how long did you wait before opening the door?
• A few minutes (Muller).
• 10-12 minutes (Venezia).
• One hour (Nadjari).
• Two hours (Tauber, Cohen).
Question #4: Did you notice any unusual color on the corpses?
• No (Nadjari).
• Many had turned blue (Muller).
• Some were red, some were pale (Venezia).
• Pinkish, some were covered with green marks (Tauber).
• Black near the columns, pink away from them (Cohen).
Question #5: How many corpses could you cremate in 24 hours?
• 1,800 (Venezia).
• 2,500 (Nadjari, Tauber).
• 3,000 (Muller).
• 3,600 (Cohen).
Who is right here?
You said
“record the construction of gas chambers and mass transports.”
That’s a stretch. No document explicitly confirms homicidal gas chambers.
The “Vergasungskeller” Memo mentions a “gassing cellar” in Krema II. But “Vergasung” can mean fumigation or gasification—standard for delousing clothes against typhus. You ASSUME murder; the memo doesn’t.
Trains took Jews to camps... Yes we all know that. That proves deportation, not extermination. Labor camps existed, and survivors like Anne Frank were moved, not gassed. The Nazis documented deportations and executions (e.g., Einsatzgruppen reports) clearly. Where’s the paper trail for gassings? If they were so meticulous, why’s this a blank? it's muh secrecy! Of killing 4 million people?
Again, as I already mentioned, but I will say it again, in Pressac's Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers (1989), Pressac states:
“95% of the Zyklon B was used to exterminate vermin, which take time to kill, and less than 5 per cent to exterminate people, who are easy to kill” (p. 15).
Why did he come to this conclusion? Read the book for yourself and look how autistically he looks at doors and peepholes to figure out if it was a homicidal gas chamber or not. Pressac examined Auschwitz’s crematoria and concluded that many alleged gas chambers weren’t homicidal. He identified only a handful of structures as potential killing sites, and even those have issues—like inadequate ventilation for mass gassing. Most facilities, he admitted, were for sanitation, not homicide.
But you disagree with Pressac clearly.
You said
They were not a prime position to observe, as they were never inside a Krema or AR camp. That they did not notice anything suspect, is evidence of the relative success of the secrecy of the operations.
You’re obsessed with this idea that only someone standing inside a Krema or AR camp could spot mass murder. That’s a laughable. These witnesses were in or near the camps close enough to see, smell, or hear the chaos if your gassing story were true. Your dishonesty is frankly, getting annoying.
I expected a bit of honesty, but clearly that's impossible. Here’s the reality you are rejecting. Marian Olszuk literally worked daily near Treblinka, a tiny 20-acre camp. If 800,000 were gassed and incinerated, the smoke would’ve been a beacon for miles. Rudolf Göckel was the station master at Belzec, handling train logistics. If 600,000 were exterminated, he’d have seen trains arrive full and leave empty, with no survivors. He called it a “transit camp” with no hint of murder. Maria spent TWO YEARS at Auschwitz I, right beside Birkenau, where you claim thousands were gassed daily. If that were true, the sky would’ve been choked with smoke. She saw nothing. You don’t need to be inside a Krema to notice a literal genocide next door.
I want to dissect the secrecy nonsense. Cremating thousands daily—25,000 at Birkenau alone, would’ve turned the sky black and filled the air with the unmistakable smell of burning flesh. Van Herwaarden, Frank, and Grossman were there. They didn’t see or smell a thing. Gassing and burning that many people means constant trains, guards, fuel deliveries, and screaming victims. Göckel at Belzec and Olszuk near Treblinka would’ve noticed the nonstop chaos. They didn’t.
Treblinka’s a perfect example, a speck of a camp, less than 20 acres. Olszuk worked right there. If 800,000 were torched, the pyres would’ve been a blazing signal. He saw nothing. Your secrecy argument is just insane.
Joseph G. Burg visited Auschwitz and Majdanek in 1945 and interviewed hundreds of crematoria workers—people who serviced and operated the supposed death machines. His conclusion?
“No homicidal gas chambers existed and there had been no plan to exterminate the Jews of Europe.”
These were the ultimate insiders, the ones you say were “inside the Kremas.” If they denied it, your secrecy excuse is null.
You said
You are making the classic revisionist mistake of not being able to differentiate between hearsay and eyewitness evidence.
Maria van Herwaarden isn’t hearsay, she’s speaking from her own experience in the camp. Marian Olszuk worked near Treblinka and observed the camp daily. His statements are based on what he saw, not what someone told him, unlike your gas chamber stories. Anne Frank Known to have arrived at Auschwitz, she was later transferred to Bergen-Belsen, where she died. Her movement through the camp system is a documented fact, not hearsay. These are direct witness accounts, not secondhand stories. Yes, witnesses can make mistakes as memory fades, perceptions differ that doesn't automatically make their testimony hearsay.
As for Mistakes vs. Lying, Rudolf Höss, gave a confession with inflated numbers of deaths—later corrected by historians. He lied, that wasn't a mistake. The argument isn’t “mistakes equal lies”; it’s “mistakes or contradictions warrant scrutiny.”
You said
The documentary evidence that gassings took place at A-B, comes from the camp's Construction Office and Topf & Sons. They record the construction of barracks for property, heated undressing rooms, gas chambers and ovens for multiple corpse cremations, for a special action/treatment of Jews, camp prisoners not needed for work and Hungarians.
“Gas Chambers” (Gaskammer) This term often referred to delousing chambers for clothing and bedding, not homicidal facilities. Jean-Claude Pressac estimated that 95% of Zyklon B was used for sanitation to combat typhus. The phrase “special action” or “special treatment” (Sonderbehandlung) is ambiguous—it could mean sanitation measures, not murder. For example, EM No. 156 of 16 January 1942 mentions “special treatment” (Mallmann 2014 _et al_., p. 89):
“The evangelical-Lutheran church is attempting to obtain special treatment from German authorities, which should manifest itself in the form of governmental support of a financial nature in particular.”
Topf & Sons designed crematoria, yes, their capacity and purpose are debated. High cremation are deaths from disease (typhus killed thousands at Auschwitz) rather than systematic gassing nonsense. Paul Kremer, who was stationed in Auschwitz from August 30 to November 18, 1942 and kept a diary, of which some sequences were interpreted as veiled references to gassing actions. He was describing the horrors of the typhus epidemic raging at that time in Auschwitz (cf. Section 3.3.).
Even guards were dying from disease, Herwaarden was transported to Vienna and from there to Auschwitz. They received food on the train. A gypsy told Herwaarden that they were going to be gassed when they arrived at Auschwitz. That night the SS came and took them to Birkenau. They were taken to a cold, windowless room and told that they had to take a cold shower. They handed over their clothes and all hair was shaved, both head and pubic. Herwaarden was "terribly scared" when she went into the shower room because "they said gas would be coming from the top but it was only water." They received soap, but the water was cold. When they finished, they received their numbers and prisoners' clothing and were taken to the barracks.
Notice how the hair is cut, and prisoners given clean deloused clothings to... what? Look pretty? No. To fight the Typhus epidemic. She saw very many prisoners die in the camp from diseases and also people who took their lives on the electric fence. But she never saw any prisoners killed by anyone in the camp.
Of 1,000 Germans who had arrived in March of 1942, there were only three left when Herwaarden arrived in December. They had all died of black fever.
- asd.png (208.78 KiB) Viewed 47 times
Dr. Charles P. Larson, a prominent American forensic pathologist, who performed autopsies at Dachau and some of its sub-camps. At Dachau Dr. Larson performed about 25 autopsies a day for 10 days and superficially examined another 300 to 1,000 bodies. He autopsied only those bodies that appeared to be questionable. Dr. Larson stated regarding these autopsies at Dachau:
“Many of them died from typhus. Dachau’s crematoriums couldn’t keep up with the burning of the bodies. They did not have enough oil to keep the incinerators going. I found that a number of the victims had also died from tuberculosis ...
A rumor going around Dachau after we got there was that many of the prisoners were poisoned. I did a lot of toxicological analysis to determine the facts and removed organs from a cross-section of about 30 to 40 bodies and sent them into Paris to the Army’s First Medical laboratory for analysis, since I lacked the proper facilities in the field. The reports came back negative. I could not find where any of these people had been poisoned. The majority died of natural diseases of one kind or another.”
Mass grave in Bergen-Belsen Concentration Camp with typhus victims, excavated and filled under the direction of British troops after the occupation of the camp in the spring of 1945.
The conditions in the camps are, of course, difficult. Many of my men have died from disease in these camps—typhus, dysentery... It’s a terrible burden to carry.
- Henrich Himmler
What happened to evidence all connecting together to give us the answer? The British, the "architect of the Holocaust" himself, SS personnel, Forensics, Documentary evidence ALL lead that most deaths, particularly in Auschwitz, were of natural causes.
That the Nazis did not keep, or they destroyed records of how many were gassed, is circumvented by the evidence of mass arrivals and how many were registered to work. Those for whom all records of their existence ends on their arrival at the camp, were gassed.
The logic is: people arrived, weren’t registered to work, and vanished—ergo, they were killed? We know for a fact some unregistered prisoners were transferred elsewhere. Anne Frank, for instance, arrived at Auschwitz, wasn’t registered as a worker there, yet ended up at Bergen-Belsen. Others were released or sent to subcamps without detailed records.
The Nazis’ administration, especially late in the war, left many records incomplete or destroyed, I agree. But the absence of evidence isn’t evidence of gassing, you are making an assumption filling the gap.
