AI Insights on the 'Holocaust'

[WW2History]

You lie a lot about me supposedly making assumptions. I do not assume gassings, gassings are evidenced. You assume people were not gassed and left the camp, with no evidence as to what did happen to them inside the Kremas. You assume millions were not gassed, yet you cannot find any evidence of millions of Jews still alive in camps and ghettos in 1944. It is you, not me who does the assuming.

Wrong. You need to provide the substantial documentary and forensic evidence of such gassings. Especially when those on your same side of the isle admit that 95% were done for non-homicidal purposes, so where do you stand? What % were used for homicide? And if so, provide documentary or forensic evidence.

[Nessie]

You said

Name an SS guard who worked at an AR camp or Chelmno who states there were no gassings. Do the same for A-B, but remember it was a huge complex of camps, so only SS directly involved with the selection process and the Kremas are eyewitnesses.

Franz Suchomel was a Unterscharführer at Treblinka, directly involved in camp operations, including supervising prisoners.

In Claude Lanzmann’s Shoah (1985), Suchomel described Treblinka as a place where Jews were “processed,” but he never confirmed gas chambers in his own words.

Gustav Münzberger was an SS guard at Treblinka, worked near the alleged gas chambers supervising prisoner labor. During his 1961 trial in Düsseldorf, Münzberger claimed he “never entered the gas chamber area” and only saw prisoners working or being marched elsewhere. He didn’t affirm gassings. But surely he'd see the smoke of, well, 300,000 corpses in 5 weeks?

Münzberger’s testimony avoids confirming gassings directly—he didn’t deny them explicitly, but his silence on the killing process, despite proximity is suspect. Your “all agree” narrative falters here. An SS Does not need to be directly in the selection process? Surely you understand the amount of plomb that would come out from cremating 300,000 corpuses right?

The best defence used by many accused SS, was to claim that they had little to do with the gassings, they were under orders or even duress and they did not commit individual acts of cruelty or crimes whilst at the camps. Those three did not deny gassings took place and they did not offer any evidence of an alternative use for the camp. My claim stands as correct. Even when given the chance whilst on trial in West Germany, no camp staff diverged from the gassings.

You said

The documentary and forensic evidence corroborates the gassing narrative. It records mass arrivals, no corresponding mass departures and the mass theft of property that is inconsistent with resettlement, the construction of gas chambers in the Kremas and huge areas of buried cremated remains at the AR camps and Chelmno.

The 1943 “Vergasungskeller” memo mentions a “gassing cellar” in Krema II. But “Vergasung” means fumigation—Jean-Claude Pressac (Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, 1989) admits 95% of Zyklon B was for delousing vermin, not people (p. 15). Most chambers were for sanitation, not murder.

Yes, they built crematoria, but capacity claims are exaggerated. Disease deaths (typhus) explain high cremation needs, not genocide. I already provided you with the copious evidence on Typhus.

“Special Action”: Sonderbehandlung is vague—could mean delousing, quarantine, or execution, not gassing. No document explicitly says “kill Jews with gas.” Not to mention the vast majority of SS stated that there was no plan to do such.

You say mass arrivals with no departures prove gassing. Wrong. Anne Frank arrived at A-B, wasn’t registered, yet left for Bergen-Belsen. Subcamps and chaotic records account for others. Property theft? Consistent with labor camps—confiscation happened everywhere, not proof of murder.

The Documents are ambiguous—Pressac’s own work questions homicidal intent. Your “corroboration” is a leap, per usual.

I did not say mass arrivals and no departures prove gassings. You made that up. I said that is part of the circumstantial evidence. It is all the evidence from witnesses, documents, forensics and circumstances that prove gassings. No individual piece of evidence proves gassings.

The documentary evidence is of the Kremas being modified in preparation for a special action involving Jews, prisoners and Hungarians, which is to be kept secret and it required hundreds of workers on 12 hour shifts.

Those modifications involve the installation of heated undressing rooms, gas chambers, ovens for multiple corpse cremations and barracks for storing property. That is different from the normal operation of a crematorium.

There is then evidence of mass arrivals, selections and those not selected to work being sent to the Kremas. Those people drop off the doucmentary records kept by the Nazis, unlike the people who were registered to work at the camp.

Then 100% of the witnesses who worked there state the people not needed to work were gassed.

There is no leap, the evidencing is sound and when assessed together, the conclusion is obvious and inescapable. Revisionists have to jump through hoops, theorise and suspend all norms of evidencing, to make them think no gassings happened. My point about the strength of the evidence of gassings in the Kremas stands.

[Nessie]

....

You said

The Final Solution and motive to exterminate the Jews is well evidenced, from the Wannsee Minutes to the Einsatzgruppen OSRs.

Come on, you've read the Wannsee conference, there's no reference to a mass extermination, it was clearly about deportation and relocation. The Einsatzgruppen Reports are much better though, although everyone they killed were not innocent. Leading soldiers into ambushes, arson, communists, 150 Ukrainians murdered by 11 Jews, etc are just few of the reports listed. To call it extermination for the sake of being Jewish would be such a gross misrepresentation.

I can provide the reports if you'd like?

From the Wannsee Minutes, January 1942.

"Under proper guidance, in the course of the final solution the Jews are to be allocated for appropriate labor in the East. 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.)"

The plan was to work Jews to death and those who did not die from work would otherwise be eliminated. How that would be done, was left vague by the very senior Nazis present. When they wrote that, the EG had been operating in the east for about 6 months. They had already shot hundreds of thousands of Jews, with the aim of making the east Jew free. Wannsee also references that, with the stated aim of "the expulsion of the Jews from the living space of the German people", the policy of Lebensraum.

The EG were not just shooting Jews who had ambushed soldiers, they were shooting all of them. Both the EG reports and Wannsee Minutes are clear, remove the Jews until none are left. There is evidence in the east that the Jewish population plummeted and that there was a lot of support from local people, such that many joined with the Nazis in shooting the Jews.
Entire populations were being shot, with EG reports differentiating Jews from partisans and Communists.

Your hypothesis that only Jews who faught back being shot and millions of Jews being resettled there, is contradicted by the evidence of what took place.

You said

Again, hearsay, as none were inside a Krema, or in Olszuk's case, inside TII. You are using the weakest form of evidence and you are merely evidencing that Nazi secrecy measures did help to keep what they were doing obscured even from people nearby to the killing centres.

Why are you ignoring what is being clearly stated? If upwards of 20,000 Jews were being killed a day they would have been witnessed. Joseph G. Burg literally interviewed hundreds of crematoria workers, and concluded: “No homicidal gas chambers existed.” If the operators didn’t know, secrecy wasn’t the issue.

Why are you ignoring this? You call these testimonies hearsay, implying they’re secondhand rumors? Hearsay is when someone repeats what they heard from someone else. These witnesses are giving firsthand accounts of what they personally saw—or didn’t see—while in or near the camps. Once again:

Maria van Herwaarden, a prisoner at Auschwitz I for two years, right next to Birkenau, she testified under oath: “I did not ever see any indication of a mass murder or extermination of Jews.” That’s her direct observation.

Marian Olszuk worked daily near Treblinka and said: “I never noticed any signs of homicidal activities.” He’s reporting what he saw with his own eyes.

Joseph G. Burg Interviewed crematoria workers at Auschwitz and Majdanek in 1945—people who were inside the facilities. They told him no homicidal gas chambers existed. Those workers were firsthand eyewitnesses.

Cremating thousands of bodies daily produces massive smoke and a stench you can’t miss. Van Herwaarden was a mile from Birkenau’s crematoria—if mass burnings happened, she’d have seen the sky darken and smelled the burning flesh. She didn’t. Treblinka was a tiny 20-acre camp with little cover. Olszuk worked right beside it. If 800,000 were burned on pyres, the smoke and glow would’ve been visible for miles. He saw nothing unusual. Mass murder means constant activity—trains rolling in, guards barking orders, fuel deliveries. Göckel, Belzec’s station master, handled train traffic. If 600,000 were exterminated, he’d have noticed trains arriving full and leaving empty. He called it a “transit camp” instead.

I am waiting for you to name, quote and link to a crematorium worker. You say there are hundreds of them and since they worked inside the Kremas, they are eyewitnesses.

The other witnesses are not eyewitnesses to what happened inside, they are witnesses to what happened outside, and are part of the circumstantial evidence. That they did not see much fits with the secrecy of the operation of those places.

Van Herwaarden was at the camp from December 1942 to January 1945. The Kremas operated for about 18 months 1943-4. Exactly where she was living and working during that period is unknown. As an Austrian criminal prisoner, she was not subject to the same conditions as the Jewish prisoners. She stated she was told she would be gassed on arrival, but with that not happening, and when she arrived, only very limited gassing operations had started, she would think of them as distant rumours. Her access to the Central Sauna and other care was because she was a privileged prisoner. She worked with other privileged prisoners, including some Jews.

https://www.ihr.org/books/kulaszka/21herwaarden.html

She was never at the Kremas, so she is a witness to conditions in the camp, which were very poor, many deaths from disease and rumours of gas chambers. That makes her little different to many other witnesses from the A-B camp complex, such as British POWs imprisoned there.

Both her and Olszuk are testimony to how the secrecy that the Nazis operated the camps under, worked at the time. They are witnesses who are relating what they knew and saw at the time, without adding information they subsequently found out about. Witnesses will do that, add information to their testimony as if they knew it at the time, when they found out about it later.

[Nessie]

...

You said

There are evidenced secrecy measures for the death camps, which means prisoners and even some staff not knowing what was happening is to be expected. Vrba and Wetzler gathered information, mostly hearsay and related that in their reports.

That’s nonsense. Mass murder of this magnitude couldn’t be concealed from those on the ground. Auschwitz-Birkenau was a huge complex. Prisoners and locals were all around. If 1.1 million were gassed and burned, the smoke would’ve choked the region. Van Herwaarden and others inside the camp saw no such thing.

Treblinka was barely 20 acres, surrounded by open fields. Olszuk passed daily—if pyres were blazing, he’d have seen it. He didn’t. hey documented deportations, built huge crematoria, and moved thousands of prisoners openly. If they wanted secrecy, they failed miserably—yet these witnesses noticed nothing suspicious.

Pery Broad, an SS officer at Auschwitz, provided detailed gassing descriptions, but British records note: "Perry Broad has recently given much useful information. He should therefore receive as good treatment as is possible within ALTONA Prison." This indicates his testimony was incentivized, not voluntary, blurring the line between coercion and cooperation.

This is only when we KNOW about it, we do not know, if not written, what other incentives were given for such, especially when others were treated brutally.

You are presenting evidence of how the secrecy of the operations worked, with two people who were nearby, but did not see anything at the time, that gave them reason to know about the mass killings. Both Van Herwaarden and Olszuk give very limited details about what they saw and when. Their interviews were very poorly done, leaving huge gaps, resulting in little information. Were they ever in a position to see transports? We do not even know that. Neither of them provide any information that contradicts other evidence about the operations of Birkenau and TII.

As for Broad, your complaint is he was incentivised, as opposed to coerced. You constantly seek excuses to disbelieve, rather than adopt a neutral approach and use corroboration. Broad is corroborated.

You said

You don't like corroboration, because it takes your opinion out of the equation, and you need your opinion to support your illogical argument from incredulity. Just because you believe a witness lied, no matter how valid your opinion is of their credibility and accuracy, you need evidence to prove they lied and you do not have any.

The documentary and forensic evidence, which we both agreed is superior evidence, proves them wrong. Fellow survivors caught in their lies add even more scrutiny, and then other survivors BEING there and denying it put the nail in the coffin. There was am alleged 800,000 deaths at Treblinka, but 1945 Soviet digs and later scans found minimal remains, far less than expected. Bełżec and Chełmno show limited bones and ash, not matching claimed scales.

This isn't just my opinion dude, read the reality of the situation and have a more nuance view instead of strictly sticking to this Holocaust Orthodoxy. Many SS accounts were extracted under duress, beaten by the British, admitting to 2.5 million gassed (later revised to 1.1 million). But some, like Richard Baer, denied knowledge in less coercive settings, dying before trial in 1963. Hans Aumeier initially denied gassings, only confessing under pressure. These cases show not all SS agreed, and coercion taints the narrative.

You don’t need to be inside a burning building to see the flames. Their proximity was enough, and their silence damns your narrative.

The documentary and forensic evidence corroborates the witnesses. Archaeological excavations have traced huge areas of disturbed ground containing cremated remains, making them the largest mass grave sites in history. No other mass death has produce that amount of disturbed ground for burials. You cherry-pick the most minimal dig, to suggest only minimal remains were found.

After complaining about incentivised testimony, you switch to complaining about coerced testimony. Both are wrong, but there is a way of determining whether the testimony is truthful or not and how accurate it is. Corroboration. You evidence that no matter the circumstances under which testimony was obtained, Nazis either denied knowledge of, responsibility for, or admitted to, gassings. No one ever came up with another process taking place, inside those places. That is why revisionists fall apart and end up with all sorts of competing theories, when asked to evidence and prove what happened.

You said

You then make a false analogy. Witches are a physical impossibility, Germans building gas chambers and transporting, gassing and cremating large numbers of people are not a physical impossibility.

It is a physical impossibility to cremate 500,000 corpses in 3 weeks.

Where is it claimed that happened?

[Nessie]

....

You said

Ironically and hypocritically, you then criticise witnesses as repeating hearsay and fading memories, as you rely heavily on witnesses who saw nothing and were not in the places where gassings actually took place, so their evidence is hearsay!

I'm using witnesses ONLY because you so heavily rely on them. And since you do, I provided you contradictory eyewitnesses, which by the way, you've clearly walked back significantly from your original statement you made that sparked this debate.

You have not provided contradictory witnesses, you have provided witnesses who said they did not see anything they regarded as suspect, in very poorly written testimony. A contradictory witness is one who says something that is opposite to the given narrative. Olszuk would be contradictory, if he talked about transports full of people leaving TII. Instead, he says nothing at all about the transports. Van Herwaarden would be contradictory if she said she saw people not selected to work, being marched back out of Birkenau.

I'd actually much rather ignore all witnesses and stick to the forensics and documentary evidence, why don't we do that then? That will not make it any easier for you.

That is what you like to think. But, there is forensic evidence of Zyklon B being used at the Kremas, huge areas of buried cremated remains at the AR camps and documents recording mass transports to those places and the construction of gas chambers inside the Kremas.

Again, you are revealing your ignorance of the field of witness testimony, memory and recollection. It is quite normal to ask 5 witnesses to estimate something and to get up to 5 different answers. I would be suspicious, if they all gave the same answer, as that would suggest collusion.

I am not sure if you have got your post layout correct, as that is something I would say.

Those witnesses all agree that there were gas chambers. They corroborate. If you spent time listening to be people give evidence in court, where they all describe the same incident, you would soon learn how much people can vary in the detail. Your ignorance has caused you to incorrectly assess the witness evidence.

The witnesses objectively are wrong. Especially those of the Sonderkommando.

Tauber said in his deposition

“Generally speaking, we burned four or five corpses at a time in one muffle, but sometimes we charged a greater number of corpses. It was possible to charge up to eight ‘muselmanns’. Such big charges were incinerated without the knowledge of the head of the crematorium during air-raid warnings in order to attract the attention of airmen by having a bigger fire emerging from the chimney. We imagined that in that way it might be possible to change our fate.”

This witness is objectively wrong. Crematorium chimneys do not emit flames, It is also impossible to push eight corpses into a cremation muffle whose door is just two feet wide and two feet high. Tauber and his co-workers would have been able to push eight corpses into each muffle and get a huge blaze going, any plane of whose approach they claim to have heard would have long since flown away. Such testimonies are, to use Pressac’s words, “nothing but downright lies and pure invention.”

Getting it wrong does not mean lying. Your incredulity about the witness descriptions has no evidential value.

Proximity Trumps Your “Inside Only” Obsession
You keep harping that my witnesses weren’t inside TII or Kremas, so their denials mean secrecy worked. Wrong. If gassings happened:
Smoke and Chaos: Cremating 25,000 daily at Birkenau or 800,000 at Treblinka would’ve filled the sky with smoke and noise. Van Herwaarden (near Birkenau) and Olszuk (near TII) would’ve noticed from outside. They didn’t.

Insider Denials: Burg’s crematoria workers—inside the Kremas—denied gassings. That’s not secrecy; that’s evidence against your claim.

We do not know how proximate Van Herwaarden was to the Kremas. We do know from documentary evidence that activity there was to be kept physically obscured from the rest of the camp and operations were not to be spoken about openly. Oslzuk did speak to hearing people in distress inside TII. As for smoke, the statements from those two are very limited, but Van Herwaarden did speak of smoking chimneys, but that may have been Monowitz and Olszuk spoke of clothing being burned. Regarding the supposed chaos, there is a lot of evidence of how the Nazis kept control of arrivals and how organised they were, to prevent chaos.

Maybe one day you will link to the crematory worker evidence, until then....

Answer this
Tauber also said in his testimony:

“Ober Capo August explained to us that, according to the calculations and plans for this crematorium, **five to seven minutes was allowed to burn one corpse** in a muffle.”

Burning a corpse to ash in only five to seven minutes is scientifically and technically impossible, even with advanced cremation technology. Let's pause here for a moment:

Do you believe Tauber, a firsthand account to these mass gassings, do you believe he cremated multiple corpses in 5-7 minutes?

I believe that multiple corpses were cremated at a time, but not constantly at that rate. The 5 to 7 minutes is an average of multiple corpse cremations, over half an hour, or longer, not a complete cremation to ash of one corpse.

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=82890

"...the incineration of this charge took about 40 minutes. In continuous operation, we could burn two charges per hour. According to the regulations, were supposed to charge the muffles every half hour. Ober Capo August explained to us that, according to the calculations and plans for this crematorium, 5 to 7 minutes was allowed to burn one corpse in a muffle. Because with that quantity we were obliged to work without interruption, for as soon as the last muffle was charged, the contents of the first had been consumed. In order to be able to take a pause during the work, we would charge 4 or 5 corpses in each muffle. The incineration of such a charge took longer, and after charging the last muffle, we had a few minutes' break until the first one was again available."

Tauber also estimated that 4 million people were gassed at Auschwitz/Birkenau:

“During my time in Auschwitz, I was able to talk to various prisoners who had worked in the Krematorien and the Bunkers before my arrival. They told me that I was not among the first to do this work, and that before I came another 2 million people had already been gassed in Bunkers 1 and 2 and Krematorium I. Adding up, the total number of people gassed in Auschwitz amounted to about 4 million.”

Who better would know the death count of Auschwitz? Probably Rudolf Hoss, and firsthand witnesses to the claimed mass gassings, yet both, objectively lied. Not even you believe this account, yet you choose to believe it when it suits you. You claimed I do the same thing, I do not care for the witnesses, you do, that is why I am using your own witnesses that directly go against what you state, so much so you've ran from your generalized argument and had to specify it so specifically.

Witnesses overestimated how many were killed. I would expect that. Those witnesses do not go against me! They give evidence that mass gassings took place!!!!!!!!

Answer this

He's not the only lying first-hand account witnesses of mass gassings. 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 has lied through his teeth.

Once again do you believe what he saying here?

Yes, as he, like Tauber, is averaging multiple corpse cremation times. If you cremate 4 corpses for 30 minutes, and say that is 7.5 minutes per corpse, that is wrong, it is 30 minutes per corpse. They are just breaking down the process, which was split between the corpse being placed into the top oven, then falling through to the ash box, allowing more corpses to be introduced. You think they mean it literally took minutes per corpse.

The rest of what you said is just nonsense and has no backing you've provided.

So you like to assert, but you are completely wrong. The evidence is for mass gassings and cremations, and not any other process.

[Nessie]

You lie a lot about me supposedly making assumptions. I do not assume gassings, gassings are evidenced. You assume people were not gassed and left the camp, with no evidence as to what did happen to them inside the Kremas. You assume millions were not gassed, yet you cannot find any evidence of millions of Jews still alive in camps and ghettos in 1944. It is you, not me who does the assuming.

Wrong. You need to provide the substantial documentary and forensic evidence of such gassings. Especially when those on your same side of the isle admit that 95% were done for non-homicidal purposes, so where do you stand? What % were used for homicide? And if so, provide documentary or forensic evidence.

I do not know what percentage of Zyklon B was used for gassing people. I have provided extensive documentary and forensic evidence, you just refuse to accept I have, as you deflect from your inability to evidence what did happen. You call yourself WW2History, but you fail in the basic task of any historian, you cannot evidence what happened.

[Nessie]

You need evidence he knowingly and willingly claimed something he knew to be untrue, to prove a lie. Where is your evidence he knew that figure to be false and he gave it willingly?

Well firstly, the fact that mainstream historians don't even accept his number as valid. And secondly, he said so?

Signatures of two witnesses and by Captain William Cross’s assertion that Höss had made this statement “voluntarily”!

Höss wrote about it in his Cracow notes:

“I do not know what is in the protocol, although I signed it.”

At Nuremberg, von Schirmeister was a witness to the defense and was about to be released soon. In the car carrying him, he sat in the backseat together with Höss, with whom he could speak freely during transit; in particular, he remembered Höss’s following outburst (Document 3):

“On the things he is accused of, he told me: ‘Certainly, I signed a statement that I killed two and a half million Jews. But I could just as well have said that it was five million Jews. There are certain methods by which any confession can be obtained, whether it is true or not.’”

The last part directly answers your question.

That is not evidence Hoess lied and there were no gassings at A-B. It is evidence he gave an inflated death toll to his British interrogators, under duress. That is not evidence of a lie. To prove a lie, you need to evidence what happened at the camp and that there were no gassings.

I do not think that you know enough about evidencing to be able to do that. Without evidence, you cannot prove a lie.

[Nazgul]

It is evidence he gave an inflated death toll to his British interrogators, under duress. That is not evidence of a lie. To prove a lie, you need to evidence what happened at the camp and that there were no gassings.

He gave what he thought they wanted to hear under torture; his son was held captive by the British. Confessions under torture, makes the investigators criminals. Nothing happened at the camp except invalid euthanasia. No matter what evidence is given, there are always gaps, this is what Nessie and his kind exploit, the Holocaust of the Gaps and of course the witnesses. There is nothing else.