Kula vs Tauber on "Kula columns"

[Archie]

I addressed this contradiction on the last page actually "when kula talks about the third part of the column being movable, this is the can."

Not really.

Van Pelt: "As we have seen Tauber had described them as three structures of ever finer mesh. Within the innermost column there was a removable can to pull after the gassing with the Zyklon "crystals," that is, the porous silica pellets that had absorbed the hydrocyanide." (pg. 206)

Kula:
"The third part of this column could be moved. It was an empty column with a square footprint of around 150 millimeters made of sheet zinc. At the top it was closed by a metal sheet, and at the bottom with a square base."

You are trying to say the movable column is the can, but I don't think it is. The can would not be described as an "empty column with a square footprint."

Plus then Kula says: "This mesh ended at the bottom of the column and from here ran in the [collection cup] of the screen a tin frame until the top of the column." The term in brackets that you left in German when you quoted it Van Pelt renders as "collection cup." That's the closest thing in Kula to the "can" in Tauber's version.

"After the evaporation of the gas the whole middle column was taken out."

I think that last part settles it. He clearly says the whole big ass column was taken out, not just the can (or collection cup).

Again, the diagram below is Van Pelt's harmonized version, based on BOTH Tauber and Kula. The removable can is the little thing in the middle. That comes from Tauber.



I think we really need to see this process dynamically. Like video simulations.

[HansHill]

According to Tauber, there were three columns and inside all three is where the "can" went.

"Inside this grid. (sic) there was another of finer mesh and inside that a third of very fine mesh. Inside this last mesh cage there was a removable can that was pulled out with a wire to recover the [inert] pellets from which the gas had evaporated."

So going by Tauber word for word and beat for beat, we are now talking about three columns + can. For Bombsaway's interpretation to be correct can = another column, this would be four columns which as far as I'm aware, he is alone in this and nobody else is arguing for four columns.

Pressac is happy to join us in reality and acknowledge Tauber is mistaken (one in a series of corrections throughout his work):

Tauber made a very slight mistake in saying that there was a third FIXED cage in the column.

- Technique and Operation, p 484

Strange how online debaters cannot make this same concession! BA in particular is taking this point to the mats and trying to enforce it into strict compliance with Kula where it obviously doesn't work. Maybe instead of challenging me all thread to explain why Tauber makes mistakes, he might take a leaf from Pressac and simply acknowledge his many mistakes were attributable to "the political climate" of 1945

The most transparent and light-of-day interpretation, and my personal interpretation, is that given his position as a stoker in the nearby crematory (not claiming to have partaken in any gassing), the very early advent of his account (predating Kula by 2 years, meaning the Kula column hadn't been conjured into existence yet), and given that Zyklon was stored and transported in cans so would be very natural to see Zyklon cans, he simply stated the can was put inside and lowered, as this might have felt normal to him.

So in conclusion, BA has stepped on quite the rake in introducing Tauber of all people to show us the stories "have always matched".

[Stubble]

Why didn't they use the Natzweiler-Struthof method and just mix hydrogen cyanide gas in a funnel on a garden spigot?

Seems simpler.

It was obviously something Kramer was familiar with since he confessed to doing it.

[bombsaway]

So you guys think Kula is saying literally they took out the entire 3 meter column? Seriously?

I would say that when he says "the whole middle column" he is not talking about the 3 meter column he described but something else, a smaller removable container, not the entire wire mesh rigging. Maybe it got lost in translation or he spoke imprecisely. Now your entire argument rests on this kind of ridiculous nitpick and assumption of literalism on the part of the witness.

[HansHill]

Because the Kula columns have never been found or demonstrated to exist, this is all we have to go on. And is is the exact point. People like Van Pelt display Herculean efforts to integrate the various divergent descriptions. Unfortunately for him and you, this means he must deviate from those descriptions, and even more unfortunately for you, you need to explain away the discrepancies with a series of maybes.

Kula's third column is given as 3m and 2.5 m in different accounts. As far as I can see, Tauber does not describe his can (or fourth column as you call it). Can implies something smaller, lets envision an actual Zyklon can, which makes sense.

HOWEVER - if you are now arguing for a smaller, more convenient device like a can to integrate Tauber into this, you are not only deviating from Kula, but defeating the entire point of the column. Kula needs the innermost column to be as big as possible:

This column was installed beneath this opening, the gas was poured directly onto the distribution cone. The cone was to uniformly distribute the gas into these four slots of 15 mm between the sheet metal and the netting, since that increased the gas evaporation surface. That way the victims could be killed more rapidly.

Kula is confirming the largeness of the size by explaining it needs to be as large as possible to aid with dispersion of gas.

[bombsaway]

You are saying that Kula did not mispeak or was mistranslated and his meaning was they lifted the entire 10 foot tall wire mesh column out of the chamber?

[HansHill]

Since he gave his deposition twice to two different courts, and on the second attempt he makes minor adjustments to the dimensions and adds some details indicating care and attention, and that the "mistranslation" was not caught or corrected by him or any third party, and persists to this day and so far as I can tell you are the only person on Earth arguing this then I will say.... no.

[Stubble]

We do accept that Kramer used a funnel and a garden spigot to mix hydrogen cyanide gas to kill 86 jews with no gas mask, right? I mean, he confessed.

Or, are we somehow missing what he meant when he said he did that? Is there, some doubt that we have as to what he meant when he confessed to that?

If I recall correctly he also said he opened the valve on the 'gas oven' at Auschwitz, didn't he?

We are over here talking about Kula and his columns when that has nothing to do with how the real killing was carried out, in the gas ovens. It also doesn't do anything for the gassings in the red house, the white house, and Kremas I, IV and V. It only applies to LK-1 at Kremas II and III.

[bombsaway]

Since he gave his deposition twice to two different courts, and on the second attempt he makes minor adjustments to the dimensions and adds some details indicating care and attention, and that the "mistranslation" was not caught or corrected by him or any third party, and persists to this day and so far as I can tell you are the only person on Earth arguing this then I will say.... no.

Actually Mattogno says Kula and Tauber's testimony agree

On the other hand, the description of the device for introducing Zyklon B
that was supplied by Henryk Tauber in his deposition of May 24, 1945, agrees
with that of Kula, as can be seen from the following translation made from the
original text:

“The vault of the gas chamber rested on concrete pillars along the center
of its length. On the left and on the right of these pillars there were four
columns. The outside part of these columns was made of grills of thick steel
wire that went up to the ceiling and into the exterior. Inside[108]
this part was a second net with smaller mesh and holes, and in its interior a third
[net] was planted. In this third net a box was moved by means of which, using a
steel wire, the powder – from which the gas had by now evaporated – was withdrawn.”

Pg 376
https://files.secure.website/wscfus/105 ... kmarks.pdf

I have a better theory about all of this, which is that you are insane. I am expecting a pivot pretty soon to a new argument about why the Kula columns cannot be.

[HansHill]

three structures of ever finer mesh. Within the innermost column there was a removable can to pull after the gassing the Zyklon

Tauber, 24 May - per Van Pelt (can remains, and is decidedly inside the third column)

In this third net a box was moved by means of which, using a steel wire

Tauber, 24 May per Mattogno via Polish translation (box replaces can, and is still inside the third column)

The third part of this column could be moved. It was an empty column with a square footprint of around 150 millimeters made of sheet zinc. At the top it was closed by a metal sheet

Kula, Hoss trial - Third column is the movable column and is described as empty, closed, and this is what the pellets were poured onto which acted as a distribution cone.

Perhaps Mattogno is referring specifically to the dimensions being in agreement (context clues from the surrounding passages), or he is mistaken if talking about funciton and form, but these accounts categorically do not agree.

As per Kula, the third column is what is moveable and removable (yes all 3m of it). As per Tauber, the can or box gets removed from inside the third column.

[Stubble]

I'm going to bold a section of this quote post and just leave it here;

An event that spans years and a continent, cannot be proved with one piece of evidence. You are being unrealistic. Even if a document ordering the mass gassing of Jews, signed by A Hitler, was found, it would be dismissed as fake.

Why do you always write ridiculous things like this? Yes, my very point was that it cannot be proved with one piece of evidence.

There is very little contemporaneous evidence to support revisionism. There are no eyewitnesses at all.

You are totally unserious. Nearly all revisionist material is contemporaneous. It is the exterminationists who rely heavily on increasingly late post-war materials as their proof.

Among the eyewitnesses that outright denied the Holocaust, there is Heinrich Himmler, Richard Baer, Josef Kramer, Joseph Mengele, Thies Christophersen, Paul Rassinier, Maria Van Herwaarden, Walter Schreiber, Marian Olszuk. There were so many deniers in 1946 that at the IMT prosecutor Fyfe declared outright that all of the defense's 102 witnesses and 312,022 affiants were "untrue". This is putting aside the many witnesses who pled ignorance to the Holocaust, many of whom could not actually have been ignorant of those events if they happened because of their own supposed role in them, and also the accusatory witnesses who have been caught in so many factual inaccuracies, contradictions, and lies that they demonstrate an unmistakable effort to fabricate. All of this comports very well with revisionism but not with exterminationism.

To say that "there are no eyewitnesses at all" is such a gross distortion that it could only be done in bad faith. I won't waste any more time speaking to you on this.

I'd be interested to see and read the suppressed statements from the IMT, although I'm sure that will never happen.

I'd also like to point out that Kramer, after being tortured, 'confessed' to committing an act a Struthof that would have killed him deader than a door nail, and that shouldn't be in any way controversial to state.

To overlook this type of testimony, where you have absurdly impossible things attested to, and to try to rehabilitate it as proof of anything is asinine.

[bombsaway]

three structures of ever finer mesh. Within the innermost column there was a removable can to pull after the gassing the Zyklon

Tauber, 24 May - per Van Pelt (can remains, and is decidedly inside the third column)

In this third net a box was moved by means of which, using a steel wire

Tauber, 24 May per Mattogno via Polish translation (box replaces can, and is still inside the third column)

The third part of this column could be moved. It was an empty column with a square footprint of around 150 millimeters made of sheet zinc. At the top it was closed by a metal sheet

Kula, Hoss trial - Third column is the movable column and is described as empty, closed, and this is what the pellets were poured onto which acted as a distribution cone.

Perhaps Mattogno is referring specifically to the dimensions being in agreement (context clues from the surrounding passages), or he is mistaken if talking about funciton and form, but these accounts categorically do not agree.

As per Kula, the third column is what is moveable and removable (yes all 3m of it). As per Tauber, the can or box gets removed from inside the third column.

Ridiculous. He says they are in agreement repeatedly aside from the example I mentioned

"it remains to explain the concordance between the testimonies of Kula and Tauber."

"It is finally necessary to establish if the testimonies of Kula and Tauber on
this matter are independent of each other. Seeing that the descriptions of the
columns given by these two witnesses coincide and that these columns were
never constructed, it is clear that we are dealing with a concordance of falsehood"

This is a big part of his argument, that Tauber and Kula knew each other so the testimonies aren't independent. A gross discrepancy like the one you want to believe exists, would compromise the argument. Mattogno didn't see anything amiss, which at least suggests that your statement that my reading is unreasonable doesn't hold water. It is shared by the king of revisionism.

This whole matter I think speaks to a general inanity within revisionism, which is that you guys will believe whatever you want to believe. There's grey area in history, but you're drawn to the binaries, so even within the movement you can come to opposite conclusions.

[HansHill]

Explain it to me. ELI5, especially this part:

As per Kula, the third column is what is moveable and removable (yes all 3m of it). As per Tauber, the can or box gets removed from inside the third column.

[bombsaway]

Explain it to me. ELI5, especially this part:

As per Kula, the third column is what is moveable and removable (yes all 3m of it). As per Tauber, the can or box gets removed from inside the third column.

Be accurate with your quote. He says "The third part of this column could be moved." He also calls it the middle column. The description is simply unclear, and you are making a reading of it that supports the side of the binary you're on. Mattogno came to an opposite and more sensible conclusion, because from the perspective of a lying witness, raising a 10 foot column out of the chamber is not at all believable.

[Archie]

Ridiculous. He says they are in agreement repeatedly aside from the example I mentioned

"it remains to explain the concordance between the testimonies of Kula and Tauber."

"It is finally necessary to establish if the testimonies of Kula and Tauber on
this matter are independent of each other. Seeing that the descriptions of the
columns given by these two witnesses coincide and that these columns were
never constructed, it is clear that we are dealing with a concordance of falsehood"

This is a big part of his argument, that Tauber and Kula knew each other so the testimonies aren't independent. A gross discrepancy like the one you want to believe exists, would compromise the argument. Mattogno didn't see anything amiss, which at least suggests that your statement that my reading is unreasonable doesn't hold water. It is shared by the king of revisionism.

This whole matter I think speaks to a general inanity within revisionism, which is that you guys will believe whatever you want to believe. There's grey area in history, but you're drawn to the binaries, so even within the movement you can come to opposite conclusions.

Graf (HH36, pg 174): "Thus, while Tauber claimed that a can on a string was lowered into the inner column and then pulled out, Kula’s rendition was that Zyklon B had been poured into the inner column itself, which could be removed in its entirety at the end of the gassing."

I interpret the descriptions the same way Graf does. I would have to review Mattogno, but I suspect he's talking more generally. Mattogno is right that the statements are similar enough that we should suspect some dependence.