Saturday, September 01, 2018

Ron Unz comes out as a Holocaust denier, fails even at that.

Author: Sergey Romanov
Ron Unz has come out as a Holocaust denier in this article.

No surprise there, we've already pointed out the signs before.

I'll just comment on a few factual points.

Unz is obsessed with various important WWII figures allegedly not mentioning the Holocaust. There is no logical argument here, so this shows the irrationality of his denial.

See here on the memoirs of Churchill et al., it's a common denier meme.

Unz then complains about the historians not paying much attention to Milch's Jewish roots. The argument is of course sheer nonsense since Milch's exception doesn't somehow disprove the rule.

He doesn't fail to mention Rigg's book about Hitler's "Jewish" soldiers. Actually the absolute majority were not Jewish by the Nazi laws, but Mischlinge ("mongrels"). The majority of the "half-Jews" were dismissed from the Wehrmacht in 1940.

Here are some citations from the book Lives of Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers: The Untold Story of Nazi Racial Laws and Men of Jewish Descent in the German Military:
The reader will therefore not find it surprising that the Nazis deported countless converted parents, grandparents, and other relatives of the Mischlinge documented in this study to Hitler’s death camps, even though, as Martin Gilbert wrote, “tens of thousands of German Jews were not Jews at all in their own eyes.”
[...]
People often ask, “How could those affected by these laws serve?” Most Mischlinge served because they were drafted by the Wehrmacht, which, until 1940, required half-Jews to serve. However, they could not become NCOs or officers without Hitler’s personal approval.
In April 1940 Hitler decided to order the discharge of half-Jews from the armed forces because their presence created problems. Many came home after the Poland campaign in 1939 to find that the authorities had severely persecuted their relatives. Hitler did not want to protect Jewish parents and grandparents because of the service of their children and grandchildren, so he discharged the half-Jewish soldiers. Many, however, remained on active duty, with exemptions from Hitler or because they had hidden their Jewish ancestry. Also, several stayed with their units for months after this discharge order, due to the war with Norway in April and the invasion of France in May 1940, which slowed the bureaucratic process of discharging them.
The authorities did not widely enforce this discharge order until late summer 1940, and even then, many officers ignored it. In addition, the search for half-Jews in the service often consisted solely of requiring soldiers to sign ancestry declarations stating they were not Jews. Many Mischlinge signed this statement in good faith, since they were not Jews according to their understanding. Others just lied and remained with their units. Known half-Jews who had won combat medals or battlefield promotions could apply for an exemption from the racial laws, enabling them to remain in the Wehrmacht because of their valor. Thousands submitted applications. Even before 1940 several half-Jewish officers had received exemptions from Hitler and obtained high ranks.
The military also drafted quarter-Jews. Unlike the half-Jews, they had to serve throughout the entire war. Yet they, like their half-Jewish counterparts, could not become NCOs or officers without Hitler’s approval.
[...]
The passionate patriotism felt by many Mischlinge is ironic. When drafted, most thought it their duty to obey, even though the Nazis persecuted them and their families. As half-Jew Dieter Bergman said, “I loved my Fatherland, and most half-Jews I knew all believed they were fulfilling their duty to Germany. We loved Germany and wanted to see her become great again. Unfortunately, we were lied to and were abused by the very country we held so dear.” Nazi policy toward Mischlinge gradually worsened and pushed them toward the world of the Holocaust.
Hitler refused to use these patriotic citizens to help win the war. This demonstrates how Hitler valued racial purity over military victory.
[...]
Hitler had discharged tens of thousands of half-Jews from military service by late 1942, when Germany encountered severe setbacks at Stalingrad. He could have recalled these men, and most would have fought bravely. Did Hitler have nothing better to do at the height of the battle of Stalingrad than to examine applications from Mischlinge to see if they were worthy of Aryanization? Only he could grant such an exemption, since he believed only he, like God, could discern a person’s true racial makeup. Hitler’s racial policies turned most Mischlinge against him and his government. The majority of them looked forward to the day of Hitler’s demise. KrĂŒger admitted that had Hitler not discriminated against him, he probably would have become a Nazi. When asked why, he simply explained how difficult it is today for people to understand how attractive the movement was to young men. In front of “the evil goals of the Nazis stood the wonderful activities for young men of camping, war games, and community. It all just felt so good.”
Unz then complains that some authors do not extensively examine the Nazi myth of the Jewish Bolshevism. Well, what do you know, Unz actually accepts this myth.

He even repeats Putin's ignorant claim about 80-85% of the first Soviet government having been Jewish and mentions Robert Wilton.

Too bad that Putin's claim is pure bunk because there was only 1 Jew in the first Soviet government, Trotsky. Official pic of the first Soviet government with the official list:

Putin relied on no other than Robert Wilton (most likely indirectly, though Andrey Dikiy), who was a known fraud who simply made up his lists. Those will be the subject of a more detailed study, but it will suffice to mention for the time being that he made up non-existent commissariats and lied about non-Jewish commissars being Jews, to wit: Lurye-Larin was never a commissar; Shlikhter was fully non-Jewish (German and Polish ancestry); Karl Lander came from a family of Latvian peasants; no "Kaufman", "Spitsberg" or "Lilina" has ever been a commissar; Shmidt was an ethnic German; Zinoviev was Jewish but never a commissar; no "hygiene" commissariat ever existed; Anvelt was an ethnic Estonian; Volodarski and Uritski Jewish but never SNK commissars; Shteinberg indeed Jewish, albeit not a Bolshevik; no "refugee" commissariat existed. So much for Wilton and Putin.

In between his Holocaust denial rants Unz takes some time to go full neo-Nazi, to wit:
Anyone who reads serious history books knows that Jews have generally enjoyed a reputation for producing many of the world’s greatest swindlers and frauds, hardly surprising given their notorious tendency to lie and dissemble. 
[...] 
But combine them together with the relatively tiny size of worldwide Jewry, around 16 million prior to World War II, and the inescapable conclusion is that in per capita terms Jews were the greatest mass-murderers of the twentieth century, holding that unfortunate distinction by an enormous margin and with no other nationality coming even remotely close. And yet, by the astonishing alchemy of Hollywood, the greatest killers of the last one hundred years have somehow been transmuted into being seen as the greatest victims, a transformation so seemingly implausible that future generations will surely be left gasping in awe. 
Unz complains about some Holocaust fakes - obviously, every huge and significant event produces those, only a primitive mind would claim that those prove anything. Extensively addressed here.

He also repeats the debunked Auschwitz death toll canard:
...sudden reduction in the official Holocaust body-count by 3 million has had so little impact...
In fact he liked it so much, that he repeated that debunked nonsense twice:
Indeed, so much space was devoted to those issues that he was forced to entirely skip over the official reduction of the Auschwitz body-count by 3 million just a few years earlier, thus avoiding any need to explain why this large shift had had no impact on the canonical Holocaust figure of Six Million.
The Holocaust body count was not reduced since Communists did not claim all those 4 million were Jews in the first place. Most deniers fail at basic math, and Unz is not an exception.

Unz promotes the hoaxer Butz, who denied the extremely documented deportation of the Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz basically for the sole reason that he couldn't explain where most of them went afterwards. Needless to say, the modern denier gurus like Mattogno and Graf accept these deportations (though they are just as at a loss to explain the fate of the 320,000 Jews not selected for work and not registered in the camp).

Unz promotes the fraud Sanning, fully debunked here, and Fred Leuchter, a proven liar.

Unz promotes the hapless liar Faurisson, whose lies have been documented here in French and here in English. Here's a small demonstration of Fauri's level of "scholarship".

Unz mentions the denier claims about the Anne Frank diary, forgetting to mention that they were decisively refuted by a full forensic testing of the diary.

He repeats the usual denier nonsense about Anne's fate. Actually she fell ill with typhus only in Belsen, in Auschwitz she was not sent to the gas chamber since she was old enough and thus could join the slave labor pool. Scabies were not a reason for a gassing at that time.

Unz promotes the proven liar Irving, without bothering to address the evidence that he's a liar.

He also promotes Rudolf, fraudulently calling him a "Dr." despite him not having a PhD (his chemical nonsense is debunked here, among other places).

Unz promotes Kollerstrom,, who repeatedly and shamelessly lied about the Red Cross report, as shown here and here. And through him Unz regurgitates the denier meme about the British decodes, debunked here.

He then reveals his absolute ignorance and cluelessness by saying he was shocked to learn the well-known and uncontroversial fact that Zyklon B was a delousing agent.

One would think he would blame his ignorance on himself, but hey, that's "personal responsibility" for you.

In the end he confesses his Holocaust denial:
However, as an outsider exploring this contentious topic I think it far more likely than not that the standard Holocaust narrative is at least substantially false, and quite possibly, almost entirely so.
Well, no surprises there.

Too bad it is completely based on lies, as we've already seen.

And, being a neo-Nazi that he is, he adds this cherry on top of his pyramid of lies:
Then one day, a gust of wind came along, and the entire gigantic structure collapsed. I wouldn’t be surprised if our current Holocaust narrative eventually suffers that same fate, perhaps with unfortunate consequences for those too closely associated with having maintained it.
So much for Unz, who has repeated the most low-brow denier arguments (and never even mentioned the most "academic" denier). He has failed not only at basic history (that's a given), but even at basic denial.

149 comments:

Thinker M said...

Regarding Germar Rudolf, I recommend that you read this Codoh thread.
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=7664
Jansson provides some very revealing insights, wouldn't you agree? This is not of topic, since you mention Rudolf's report.

Harry Gindi said...

The codoh thread is playing around with the numerator without changing the denominator. Suppose Jansson is correct and to kill within ten minutes of exposure, one truly needs 3000 ppm. Two problems: First, 3000ppm is not sufficient to kill all lice on clothing within ten minutes. It requires a great deal more time at a constant level of exposure, so cyanide compounds have a much longer time to form on the walls of the delousing chambers relative to the homicidal chambers. Consider also that the homicidal chambers, if they did reach a concentration of 3000ppm in order to kill in 10 minutes, would have also been ventilated in much shorter order.

The shorter the period of time over which the homicidal chambers were designed to kill, the less time of exposure for cyanide compounds to form on the walls.

Harry Gindi said...

To clarify: The reaction velocity will be higher when the concentration is higher, but the total product of the reaction is the integral of the reaction velocity with respect to an interval of time. Increasing the velocity while shortening the interval could either decrease or increase the overall reaction product relative to the original velocity and time, but if we use Jansson's numbers, we can give an apples-to-apples comparison w the disinfestation chambers, both at 3000ppm, but where the homicidal chambers ran for 10 minutes but the disinfestation chambers ran for 10 hours, assuming constant velocity, meaning 60 times the concentration.

blake121666 said...

Those Bletchley Park decodes were only up to February of 1943. This is before Birkenau came online. How many are alleged to have been gassed before then? I think the number is pretty small, isn't it? Like 10,000 to maybe 20,000?

Nicholas Terry said...

You're forgetting Bunkers 1 and 2 - by the time Krema II was operational, close to 250,000 victims had been gassed in them, including 10s of 1000s of registered inmates who had been selected inside the camp. There were very few victims of the Krema I gas chamber in the same time-frame, some thousands at most.

blake121666 said...

Here is how I've been roughly figuring it:

1942: Tens of thousands
1943: Probably about 350,000
1944: Probably about 450,000

Can someone revise this to match better the standard narrative?

BTW, the "4 million Auschwitz reduced to 1.1 million" is of course a very bad argument; but Lipstadt wrote in the 80s that at least 2 million of the 4 million who died at Auschwitz were Jews! LOL

https://www.quora.com/Since-the-plaque-at-Auschwitz-has-been-changed-multiple-times-from-4-million-down-to-1-1-million-why-is-it-that-the-number-of-deaths-overall-hasnt-been-adjusted

Nicholas Terry said...

1942: >200,000
1943: 250,000
1944: >450,000 (max. 320,000 Hungarian Jews on arrival)

excluding 'normal' camp deaths but including selections inside the camp. very roughly estimated of course. There were peaks in 1943 in January and August, but the autumn dropped off significantly, as did the first part of 1944, until the Hungarian Action.

blake121666 said...

Why would the Korherr Report NOT show so many as having been killed in 1942. The Korherr Report has 1.8 million Jews as having been killed in Reinhard camps. And it has 0.6 million as having been killed in the East. And it concludes that about 2.5 million were killed up to 1943 (with 50,000 of those having been done in the first quarter of '43). Your 200,00 at Auschwitz doesn't fit into the KR numbers.

Give me some justification for this ">200,000" for Auschwitz in 1942. That doesn't fit well into ANY figuring of Jewish deaths throughout the war. Who claims that so many were killed in the bunkers? How many were Jews? There weren't even that many Jews sent to Auschwitz in 1942.

blake121666 said...

Oops, the KR has 1.5 million killed in the Reinhard camps. So you must be alleging that the others in section V were killed in the Auschwitz bunkers, eh?

blake121666 said...

On page 63 of Mattogno's DTBOA

http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/11-dtboa.pdf

"... some 92,800 Jews had been deported to Auschwitz up to September 30,1942, of whom some 43,200 were registered, that is: not gassed even according to orthodox historiography." And cites Danuta Czech's Kalendarium for this.

Who other than you thinks over 200,000 Jews were gassed in the Auschwitz bunkers in 1942?

Nicholas Terry said...

I did actually calculate this properly many years ago, revisited it only a couple of months ago, and now my memory is playing tricks on me. The 250,000 for the Bunkers is a minimum for the entire lifespan of the camp, my bad.

See here for lists and stats
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/holocaustcontroversies/deportations-to-auschwitz-1942-to-1944-long-form-t1806.html

1940-41: 21,000 camp deaths
1942: 46,000 camp deaths
1943: 38,000 camp deaths = 105,000

1942: 103,000 gassed on arrival, up to 22,000 selected inside the camp
Jan to March 13, 1943: 66,000 gassed on arrival, all in the Bunkers
March-Dec 1943: 110,000 gassed on arrival, 37,000 in August 1943
1943 total: 176,000 gassed on arrival, up to 52,000 selected inside the camp

1942-3: 279,000 gassed on arrival, up to 74,000 selected inside the camp

The 1943 internal camp selections figure is distorted because camp deaths of Jews no longer received death certificates from March 1943.

Piper calculated 197,000 Jews deported to Auschwitz in 1942.

He also calculated 200,000 registered-inmate deaths; along with 865,000 unregistered Jews and 15,000 unregistered Poles, Soviet POWs and gypsies. The 865,000 figure has to come down by around 80,000 due to not considering the 'Depot' camps in the Hungarian action; an overall death toll of plus/minus 1 million, rather than Piper's 1.1 million, is more probable.

Nicholas Terry said...

Re: Korherr, a third or so of the 1942 deportees to Auschwitz were Polish Jews from the 'annexed territories', which aren't showing up properly in his stats.

I misremembered the Bunkers total to March 1943, which is nearly 200,000 including selections, and from there my numbers went all out of whack.

bhigr said...

He also promotes Rudolf, fraudulently calling him a "Dr." despite him not having a PhD (his chemical nonsense is debunked here, among other places).

Let me quote from the paper:

"Rudolf would like to claim a pH of around 10. Note that at such a pH, the concentration of cyanide ions would be about 80% of the initial HCN concentration. If the pH is 6-7 as measured by Markiewicz et al., it is about 1% of the initial hydrogen cyanide concentration. Above, I show that assuming Rudolf's overestimate of the gas phase concentration the concentration of aqueous HCN before washing with the walls with water is on the order of 0.1 M:"

Unfortunately, Green has committed a huge blunder here. Green actually admitted this mistake here:

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/postscript.shtml

"Rudolf's claim that a measurement of the pH many years later may not be indicative of the pH at the time is valid."

Thus, the measurement results, on which he bases his assumption is wrong.

"Finally, he tells the reader the gist of his arguments:

Most importantly, Rudolf ignores the central points of our argument. Either he has not read our article carefully, did not understand it, or he is intentionally misrepresenting its findings. We find that the aqueous concentration of cyanide ions in the gas chambers was reduced by 1) the short gassing time, and 2) the washing of the walls with water after gassings,..."

The washing had no effect on the cyanide concentration, since there is no increase in the measured cyanide concentration on the ceilings of the morgues, which did not have to be washed. The short gassing times cannot be true for the gas chambers, which did not have any means of retreiving the cyclon-B pellets from the gas chambers. Thus, this argument has no relevance for morgues 1, 4 and 5. Finally, the shorter gassing time cannot explain that no increase in cyanide whatsoever could be measured since gassings occurred thousands of times.

The orthodox historians have not solved this problem.

Jonathan Harrison said...

On Churchill, this is arguably a somewhat partisan account but it does refute the denier meme well:

https://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Jews-Friendship-Martin-Gilbert/dp/0805088644

bhigr said...

Can expect any response from you guys or are you checkmate?

papasha408 said...

Reading the above posts has me realizing the length and depth of the propaganda barrages over the past 70 years about supposed gassings and the preposterous six million number. It is quite apparent that unscrupulous officers in the Heer and Waffen SS murdered thousands of Jews in the Eastern Territories. But, this was done without permission and there was never any Reich policy to murder the Jews of Europe. If you can find the documents to prove this, please show me. And don't give me this rubbish about secret language and secret handshakes and the rest of that nonsense. There is no forensic proof of gassings in any of the camps. The gassing stories are just as ridiculous as the electrocution stories or the steam chambers or the pedal-driven brain bashing machine for that matter. I have all 42 transcripts of the Nuremberg trials and if these idiotic charges were made today in an unbiased courtroom, they would be thrown out and the prosecutors charged with at least mischief.

Nicholas Terry said...

bhigr: "Can expect any response from you guys or are you checkmate?"

You snipped the point made in Green's responses to Rudolf:

"Rudolf makes a minor point. Rudolf's claim that a measurement of the pH many years later may not be indicative of the pH at the time is valid. Unfortunately we cannot go back in time and measure the pH. Notwithstanding that fact, our conclusions about Prussian blue formation simply do not hinge on the pH. Rudolf has argued for a high pH because it makes the possibility of reduction more likely. On the other hand a high pH makes the formation of a necessary precursor to Prussian blue less likely. In the end, even granting Rudolf his high pH, our conclusions are valid, and we point this fact out in the article."

So, not a major blunder, contrary to your claim.

Rest of your comment is random snippets. Not interested - others might be, but I know that most of the HC bloggers are busy and several are away right now or going away. Our silence doesn't equal a concession to bullshit denier arguments.

Nicholas Terry said...

papasha408: "If you can find the documents to prove this, please show me."

quick overview here re gassing
https://twitter.com/AgainstDenial/status/1030556157792997377

more detailed itemisations on gassing
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2012/10/index-of-published-evidence-on.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2015/11/rebuttal-of-alvarez-on-gas-vans-why.html

and for extermination
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2015/06/more-than-one-hundred-nazi.html
https://phdn.org/histgen/documents/nazisdoc.html (quotes in French)

Alternatively, fuck off to the library and learn to read properly.

It's not enough to cherrypick a few things you dislike or think aren't probative, you have to explain all of the sources together, and actually discuss them in a logical narrative order because this is, y'know, history. This hasn't been done by deniers.

bhigr said...

Sure, Green calls his major blunder a "minor point". However, his calculation is based on this false assumption.

"Unfortunately we cannot go back in time and measure the pH."

True, but we know the pH value for concrete shortly after its creation. Thus, we know the correct value.

"Rudolf has argued for a high pH because it makes the possibility of reduction more likely. On the other hand a high pH makes the formation of a necessary precursor to Prussian blue less likely."

Since the PH value drops gradually with time the high pH value at the onset is responsible for dissociation of HCN whereas the somewhat lower pH value that eventually occurs takes care of the change in the oxidation state of Iron. This is explained meticulously by Rudolf. Green even agrees that the measured cyanide values in the disinfectation chambers were due to HCN exposure and that the Rudolf's chemical explanation is essentially correct.

"..even granting Rudolf his high pH, our conclusions are valid, and we point this fact out in the article."

No, he does not point this out in the original article. He points this out in this final response. He explains his main points, which I cited and refuted in my post above.

So dear Nicholas, is that all you've got?

Nicholas Terry said...

I'll repeat from Green: "Notwithstanding that fact, our conclusions about Prussian blue formation simply do not hinge on the pH." It's pretty clear that PB formation is a complex mechanism which can be upset by a variety of factors.

Therefore tests conducted between 40-50 years after the fact simply are not a 'gunshot residue test' analogous to the tests that can rule out someone firing a pistol if conducted soon afterwards.

The more important point is this: if the chemical argument is correct, then there would be historical evidence to support an alternative explanation of the fate of Jews who were indisputably deported to Auschwitz, but vanished on arrival. Since there is no such evidence, either we have to hypothesise a massive cover-up that destroyed this historical evidence, or the chemical argument is flawed in some way. Since there is no evidence of a massive cover-up, the chemical argument is wrong.

False reports of west European or other Jews supposedly deported to places other than Auschwitz, which don't mention Auschwitz, do not, by the way, constitute historical evidence supporting an alternative explanation.

Thinker M said...

"Reading the above posts has me realizing the length and depth of the propaganda barrages over the past 70 years about supposed gassings and the preposterous six million number"

If you are implying that it is stated by mainstream historians that six million were gassed, then the discussion with you is over. It tells me that you need to sit down and actually read a book or do research on the web, since it becomes clear that you have no idea about what you're trying to refute.

Regarding electrocution, those were simply rumors, which is a simple concept that deniers can't seem to wrap their head around, which is unfortunate, since it answers all of their issues they have with the official narrative.

In general, reading these comments, it is cyrstal clear that Holocaust "revisionism" is not going to withstand the test of time and in a decade is going to be completely outdated, turning into a dusty old relic.

bhigr said...

I'll repeat from Green: "Notwithstanding that fact, our conclusions about Prussian blue formation simply do not hinge on the pH." It's pretty clear that PB formation is a complex mechanism which can be upset by a variety of factors.

Sure, you can repeat as often as you want. But, I addressed the substance of Green's arguments, the basis for his conclusions in his own words and refuted them.

"The more important point is this: if the chemical argument is correct, then there would be historical evidence "

No, if the chemical argument is correct, then there were no mass killings using HCN in the purported gas chambers. No piece of paper can refute the laws of nature.

Sure, you do not understand the Chemistry. So why don't you get an expert who can identify the imaginary "factors"? Green hasn't identified them.

Nicholas Terry said...

Uh, no you haven't refuted Green, since his argument is clearly based on more than pH levels.

Babbling about 'laws of nature' is no good if you cannot actually spell out those laws; since your hero Rudolf has failed to present a law of Prussian Blue formation, you fail.


Nicholas Terry said...

I don't think you realise just how heavily reliant Rudolf's argument is on getting the historical data right in the first place; if he makes incorrect assumptions regarding the conventional account by ignoring historical evidence for the gassings, *especially* regarding the number and frequency of gassings, then his model falls victim to the GIGO rule - Garbage In, Garbage Out.

And indeed, Rudolf did just that, relying on a raw estimate by Pressac in his 1989 book to state that the conventional account says 400,000 gassed in Krema II and 350,000 in Krema III. The problem is the conventional account also consists of the Kalendarium as well as work by Piper and others, which show that nowhere this many could have been gassed in these two Kremas; since the death toll is now down to 1 million or slightly less (due to better data re the Hungarian action), and since there were substantial numbers of non-gas chamber deaths plus hundreds of thousands killed in the Bunkers; indeed, all four Birkenau crematoria killed less than the 750,000 claimed by Pressac, which was then cited by Rudolf.

In order to refute the conventional account, it must be presented correctly and not misrepresented.

Fewer gassings with less frequency/longer gaps between, compared to continuous fumigation in delousing chambers = blatantly obvious difference between gassing and delousing, even before other factors are considered.

bhigr said...

"Fewer gassings with less frequency/longer gaps between, compared to continuous fumigation in delousing chambers = blatantly obvious difference between gassing and delousing, even before other factors are considered."

So now you are beginning to revise the historical account by suggesting that fewer gassings occured. How ironic.

bhigr said...

So how much are you going to reduce the number of gassings given that a single fumigation leads to visible stains, i.e. considerable amounts of Prussian blue, in similar circumstances?

http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/02-tcoa.pdf

Read pages 27 to 30 and as well as table 40 on page 355.

No elevation of the measured cyanide concentration relative to normal buildings was measured

papasha408 said...

Nicholas Terry, If the amount of homicidal gassing took place which is purported by eyewitnesses there would be even at least some staining in the walls of the supposed homicidal gas chambers. In Auschwitz, this is the building with a wooden door and a window not to mention a door which opened inward making it very hard if not impossible to open it to remove the bodies. You asked me to fuck off and learn how to read properly. Maybe, you should do the same and get professional help which would allow you to distinguish between fantasy and reality.

bhigr said...

O.K. So let me give you guys the math:

The pH-value is important because HCN hardly disassociate in water into H+ and CN- Ions, if the pH is around 6 to 7. However, this is the first step in the creation of stable cyanides.This is where Green caves in. The pH value continuously drops to around 6 due to a process called carbonatation, which is epxlained here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonatation

But, this process takes several months or even years. The gas chambers in cremas 2 and 3 were put to use right after their construction. Wikipedia informs us that “the water in the pores of Portland cement concrete is normally alkaline with a pH in the range of 12.5 to 13.5.”

“Most importantly, Rudolf ignores the central points of our argument. Either he has not read our article carefully, did not understand it, or he is intentionally misrepresenting its findings. We find that the aqueous concentration of cyanide ions in the gas chambers was reduced by 1) the short gassing time, and 2) the washing of the walls with water after gassings, and that these processes would have reduced that concetration below the threshold identified by Alich et. al. to make Prussian blue formation in the gas chambers exceedingly unlikely relative to the delousing chambers.”

http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/postscript.shtml

So the threshold of CN- concentration in water was not reached due to the short gassing times and washing of the walls. This treshold must be reached for the formation of stable iron cyanides as proved by Alich et. al That’s his basic argument. We can find it explained in greater detail in the previous paper.

“Rudolf would like to claim a pH of around 10 (a claim that we shall examine in further detail). Note that if Rudolf were correct that the concentration of cyanide ions would be about 80% of the initial HCN concentration. If the pH is 6-7 as measured by Markiewicz et al., it is about 1% of the initial hydrogen cyanide concentration. Appendix 1 of “Leuchter, Rudolf, and the Iron Blues” shows that the concentration of aqueous HCN before washing with water is on the order of 0.1 M: 1% of this concentration is on the order of 10-3 M.

Alich et al. found that concentrations of cyanide ions that were less than about 3.3 x 10-4 M did not form Prussian blue even though an excess of CN- was still present (dilution with 13% water by volume). [56] Considering that the gas chambers were washed with water, it is no wonder that very little if any Prussian blue formed there. Even if Rudolf is correct that the pH was about 10, that would lead to concentrations of cyanide ions on the order of 0.1 M. A mere thousandfold dilution by washing with water would reduce this concentration to the same level.”

http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/index.shtml

Markiewicz et al. measured the pH value in the 1990s, thus decades after the supposed events. Therefore, these measurements are not indicative of the PH value in 1943 and 1944, when the gassing is supposed to have occured. That’s Green’s blunder.

bhigr said...

So the threshold is 3.3 x 10-4 M CN- Ions in one litre of water (M stands for moles per litre, 1 mole = 6.022 * 10^23). Green calculated that around 0.1 M are reached in water after exposure to HCN in the homicidal gas chambers. He admitted that pH 6 to 7 is wrong and Rudolf is right, so we have pH 10. According to Green, this means that 80% of HCN dissolved into H+ and CN- Ions. This leaves us with a concentration of 0.08 M well above the threshold of 0.0033 M. Then, Green assumes that the concentration was further diluted under the threshold due to washing the chamber with water. However, the blood and feces were not cleaned from the ceiling of the homicidal gas chamber. Gravity tells us that they dropp to the floor and do not rise to the ceiling.

The measured concentration in the ceiling is the same is on the floor. Thus, the washing had no measurable effect on the creation of stable cyanides. The washing theory must be discarded. We are left with the fact that the CN- concentration of 0.08 M was well above the threshold of 0.0033 M making the formation of iron cyanides exceedingly likely. However, they cannot be measured. Presently, the only explanation for the lack of cyanides is. “The homicidal gas chambers were not exposed to hydrogen cyanides in the manner described by the eye witnesses.”

Nicholas Terry said...

bhigr: "So now you are beginning to revise the historical account by suggesting that fewer gassings occured. How ironic."

No, that's normal historical revision, not your brand of 'revisionism'.

The overall Auschwitz death toll was calculated to be 1.1 million, by all methods and all groups, in 1991 by Franciszek Piper. This was after Hilberg estimated 1 million Jews dying there in 1961 and again in 1985.

We have better data from the early 2000s on the 1944 transports and their transfers to other concentration camps - it was already known that such transfers of unregistered inmates occurred, but the data allowed for a more precise quantification.

Also, Waclaw Dlugoborski, who like Piper worked for the Auschwitz museum, doubted Piper's calculation of 300,000 Polish Jews deported to Auschwitz, arguing it was lower by some tens of thousands.

Therefore the death toll is likely around 1 million, and there were indeed fewer gassings, not to mention fewer than 1 million Jews dying there from whatever means.

We also now have better data *increasing* deaths in other regions, but the probable death toll is likely still around 5.1 million, which was Hilberg's calculation/estimate already in 1961; the new information broken down by countries, regions and by camps through different calculations produce similar results, in the low end of the 5 million range.

Nicholas Terry said...

bhigr: "So how much are you going to reduce the number of gassings given that a single fumigation leads to visible stains, i.e. considerable amounts of Prussian blue, in similar circumstances?"

No, a single fumigation of a church led to visible stains, whereas many other buildings known to have been fumigated with Zyklon don't show any visible stains at all. The church case was known to be exceptional and unusual, and Rudolf admits this. If Zyklon automatically stained buildings after a single fumigation, it would not have been a commercial success already before WWII and would not have been used for fumigation, or available for homicidal gassing, in WWII.

All we know for sure is that rooms fumigated continuously and over prolonged periods of time - many months - with Zyklon frequently display Prussian Blue staining, as seen in the delousing chambers at Auschwitz, Majdanek and Stutthof.

Therefore the question which remains unanswered by Rudolf as well as yourself is establishing the threshold in between a single fumigation, which clearly does not produce Prussian Blue staining, whether overnight or after many years, except in unusual, possibly unique, circumstances, and the continuous fumigation over many months seen in delousing chambers.

Since everyone detected at least some cyanide traces in Kremas I-V, then clearly Zyklon was used. There are no witness statements nor any other historical evidence suggesting the morgues of Kremas I-V were deloused.

The historical evidence regarding gassings at Krema I suggests that there were very few gassings there; the standard estimate for the number of victims is 10,000, and this would mean not more than 20 gassings spread out over a period of a year or so. It could actually be half that number and a quarter of the number of actions - the evidence is not firm for this. Therefore, the number of gassings in Krema I is not critical to the overall death toll.

If you wish to debunk gassings in Krema I using Rudolf's arguments, then you are in effect arguing that maybe as few as 3-5 fumigations must *necessarily* lead to Prussian Blue formation. But this would be rather difficult for you to prove, either experimentally or by referring to historical evidence.

Indeed, neither you nor Rudolf have presented any arguments or models that demonstrate the threshold at which PB formation becomes inevitable, nor have you specified the probability that any one fumigation would cause overnight PB formation.

bhigr said...

" The church case was known to be exceptional and unusual, and Rudolf admits this.
No, a single fumigation of a church led to visible stains, whereas many other buildings known to have been fumigated with Zyklon don't show any visible stains at all. "

The church case is exceptional, because usually only old buildings are fumigated. Thus, the pH-Value has already dropped in these old buildings to levels which hardly permit the splitting of HCN into H+ and CN- ions.

In case of the church, new concrete and plaster had been used for reconstruction and repair. Shortly thereafter, the Church was fumigated and the new concrete turned blue. Therefore, it was exceptional.

The exact same situation for cremas 2 and 3 in Birkenau. Gassing occured right after construction.

Rudolf has explained this over and over again.

"Therefore the question which remains unanswered by Rudolf as well as yourself is establishing the threshold in between a single fumigation, which clearly does not produce Prussian Blue staining, whether overnight or after many years, except in unusual, possibly unique, circumstances, and the continuous fumigation over many months seen in delousing chambers. "

The answer is in the post above. Fumigations must occur shortly after the construction of the building. Then, a single fumigation suffices to create the blue staining.

Checkmate!

bhigr said...

"Since everyone detected at least some cyanide traces in Kremas I-V, then clearly Zyklon was used."

What a lame argument. The detected levels did not differ from the levels detected in regular buildings, which weren't fumigated at all. Thus, these levels have no significance and cannot prove any gassing.

Then, let me remind you of Mr. Green's calculations and arguments, which show that the pH threshold for the creation of prussian blue had been reached. Of course, no reaction from your side.

"So the threshold is 3.3 x 10-4 M CN- Ions in one litre of water (M stands for moles per litre, 1 mole = 6.022 * 10^23). Green calculated that around 0.1 M are reached in water after exposure to HCN in the homicidal gas chambers. He admitted that pH 6 to 7 is wrong and Rudolf is right, so we have pH 10. According to Green, this means that 80% of HCN dissolved into H+ and CN- Ions. This leaves us with a concentration of 0.08 M well above the threshold of 0.0033 M. Then, Green assumes that the concentration was further diluted under the threshold due to washing the chamber with water. However, the blood and feces were not cleaned from the ceiling of the homicidal gas chamber. Gravity tells us that they dropp to the floor and do not rise to the ceiling.

The measured concentration in the ceiling is the same is on the floor. Thus, the washing had no measurable effect on the creation of stable cyanides. The washing theory must be discarded. We are left with the fact that the CN- concentration of 0.08 M was well above the threshold of 0.0033 M making the formation of iron cyanides exceedingly likely. However, they cannot be measured. Presently, the only explanation for the lack of cyanides is. “The homicidal gas chambers were not exposed to hydrogen cyanides in the manner described by the eye witnesses."


"Therefore the question which remains unanswered by Rudolf as well as yourself is establishing the threshold in between a single fumigation, which clearly does not produce Prussian Blue staining,..." See, I actually used the threshold supplied by your advocate Dr. Green. But, you didn't even notice it.

Nicholas Terry said...

bhigr: "But, this process takes several months or even years. The gas chambers in cremas 2 and 3 were put to use right after their construction. Wikipedia informs us that “the water in the pores of Portland cement concrete is normally alkaline with a pH in the range of 12.5 to 13.5.”."

No, the basement cellars of Kremas II and III were constructed several months before the completion of the entire building.

The ceiling was concrete, but the walls were not only plastered but whitewashed; and whitewashing was repeated several more times during clean-ups after gassing. Rudolf's own tests make clear that the walls were plastered, as do photos in his report.


bhigr said...

A few months does not suffice in order to reduce the pH value in the concrete to 6 or lower. The evidence is here:

http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/02-tcoa.pdf

Thank you for this discussion. You have strengthened my scepticism in the holocaust narrative. I think anyone with an open mind who reads this exchange will agree with me.

bhigr said...

Let's see whether the claim that the cellar was constructed several months prior to the completion of Crema II is true:

"Concerning Auschwitz, on January 11, 1943, Kammler realized that
it was impossible for the construction of the crematoria to be terminated
on schedule66 and hence ordered Bischoff to keep him informed of the
progress by weekly telex reports.67 The first report was drawn up by
Bischoff and sent to Kammler on January 23. With respect to Crematorium
II it states"


66 Crematorium II started up on January 31st

“Cellar I. Plastering finished. Aeration and de-aeration channels
set into brickwork. Machinery parts from Messrs. Topf not yet arrived.”

"All later reports have been lost. As can be seen from its Bezug (reference),
Bischoff’s letter of January 29, 1943, was the reply to a telex no.
2648 from Kammler of the day before, which has also been lost."

Bericht Nr. 1 of Zentralbauleitung of January 23, 1943. RGVA, 502-1-313, p. 54.

So cellar I of crema II - the supposed gas chamber was completed on January 23, 1943. Crema II was started up on January 31, 1943. That's 8 days not months.

Oh well,...

http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/22-trcfa.pdf

Read pages 55 ff.

Nicholas Terry said...

bhigr: "Gassing occured right after construction."

No, it didn't. It certainly didn't in Krema I, which was built decades beforehand.

The construction history of Kremas II-V is clearly spelled out in the ZBL correspondence; Pressac presents this clearly enough to say for sure that the interiors had dried out long before.

Construction of the cellars in Krema II began in October 1942 once damp-proofing arrived; this is confirmed in the Baubericht for that month (RGVA 502-1-24, p.86). By November 1942, the 'Isolierungsmauerwerk' in cellar 1 (i.e. the gas chamber) had been completed and 'verputzt', i.e. already plastered. (RGVA 502-1-24, p.47)

Krema II's interior was definitely completed before 29 January 1943, including the roof of the gas chamber, only the roof of the undressing room remained incomplete at that time:
https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/pressac0212.shtml

So the interior of the gas chamber was complete in Krema II 2-4 months before the first gassing in mid-March 1943.

Since Krema III was being worked on at the same time, as were Kremas IV-V, but those came into operation later due to a variety of delays with different parts of the building, the same picture emerges: none of these buildings was 'freshly built' and thus liable to instant staining from a single fumigation.

Nicholas Terry said...

bhigr: " Crema II was started up on January 31, 1943. That's 8 days not months."

Um, nope. The first gassing was on March 14, 1943, so two and a half months later than the final moment for plastering in Krema II.

You're muddling this date up with details of the construction of the ovens upstairs.

bhigr said...

"Um, nope. The first gassing was on March 14, 1943, so two and a half months later than the final moment for plastering in Krema II. "

Great, perfect circumstances for prussian blue creation!

"You're muddling this date up with details of the construction of the ovens upstairs."

Not at all. I quoted from a brief report.

"The first report was drawn up by Bischoff and sent to Kammler on January 23. With respect to Crematorium II it states"


“Cellar I. Plastering finished. Aeration and de-aeration channels
set into brickwork. Machinery parts from Messrs. Topf not yet arrived.”"

However, you stated. "No, the basement cellars of Kremas II and III were constructed several months before the completion of the entire building."

I proved you wrong. But, I assume that this was not "intentional".

Bye bye believer. Thanks for making me doubt! ;-)

bhigr said...

So let's do the Math, January 23 to March 14, 1943. How many months?

January 23 to January 31 = 8 days
February 1 to February 28 = 28 days
March 1 to March 14 = 14 days

If you add that up, you get 40 days, not two and a half months. Two and a half months equals about 75 days, assuming 30 days per month.

Sergey Romanov said...

Explain how this proves anything and disproves the document cited by Nick.

Mattogno explains that Kammler ordered Bischoff to give him weekly progress reports and this was the first such report.

Logically then, Bischoff reported on the current state of LK1. This doesn't signify when exactly the cellar brickwork was finished.

Had it not been the first report, you would have a point. But it is.

bhigr said...

"This doesn't signify when exactly the cellar brickwork was finished." Aha, Sergey, so you are arguing for an even later date for the termination of the construction of cellar 1 of crema 2.

That's detrimental to your case.

Adam Harris said...

bhigr I wouldn't be too smug about your maths abilities

8 + 28 + 14 = 50 (not 40)

bhigr said...

A typo. Still less than two months let alone 2 and 1/2 😀

I really enjoyed this exchange because it proves that you have no legs to stand on!

Adam Harris said...

It proves nothing beyond the fact that you can be careless (or genuinely not do addition)

bhigr said...

Far Less careless than you guys! Two and a half months is way off the mark! You were 25 days off the mark, I was 10. So nobody should trust you!

bhigr said...

But thanks for correcting my inconsequential typo. Do you have anything substantial to add? Like an argument? Just asking 😊

bhigr said...

Final comments. Richard Green's last post was published on August 2, 2000.

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/postscript.shtml


These arguments are not new. You guys have had 18 years to come up with a rational response. But you still have nothing. How pathetic is that?

Nicholas Terry said...

Well, I tend to make mistakes with off-the-cuff calculations in BTL comments.

The point I was making still stands: there was a significant time lapse between the construction of the cellar and first use. Certainly we know that the concrete roof of the gas chamber had been set before 23 January 1943, i.e. at least fifty days before first use. The walls were in place by November 1942, and were evidently plastered at the latest also 50 days before first use, perhaps earlier.

Rudolf himself presents 1920s experimental data on the absorption of cyanide in different building materials, the higher numbers were seen with totally fresh construction, whereas there was a significant drop-off in absorption after a month for some materials - not all were tested, so we don't know for sure what the rates would be for all types of building material.

There is of course a problem with extrapolating from the 1920s data for cyanide absorption: the chamber was exposed to outgassing Zyklon for at most half an hour, before ventilation systems started to remove gas from the room. While the ventilation system was not applied to every surface inch of the walls like a vacuum cleaner to remove all traces of cyanide - otherwise there wouldn't have been any cyanide traces detectable 40-50 years later in the various tests - a mechanical ventilation of the room clearly would reduce the volume of cyanide that might remain in contact with the walls, since the 1920s experiments showed that levels of absorption fell naturally in subsequent days.

The 1920s experiments also discuss exposures for 24 hours without the interference of human beings exhaling CO2 in the first minutes of the gassing, or pissing and crapping themselves everywhere, all of which meant the room had to be hosed down. Using a hose also would be necessary to douse the still-outgassing Zyklon crystals as rapidly as possible so that clean-up could begin.

The infamous church in Bavaria which developed PB staining after one fumigation experienced a fumigation that was still 24 times the length of the outgassing seen in Krema II, with half of that outgassing time under mechanical ventilation and 5 minutes or so competing with exhaling victims, versus no such interference in the church fumigation.

Nicholas Terry said...

bhigr: "These arguments are not new."

Indeed, they're not; they go back 30 years to the Leuchter report and 25 years to Rudolf's first report.

"You guys have had 18 years to come up with a rational response"

Firstly, 'us guys' weren't around 18 years ago. Other people, like Richard Green, were. Green submitted reports in the appeal stage of the Irving vs Lipstadt trial aimed at refuting Rudolf's report as it stood in 2000; this report was then withdrawn from evidence by Irving. Rudolf's report has undergone two more editions since then, but at no time has he reworked the report into a format that responds as he goes to the objections raised in the 1990s.

It would be quite easy to add further objections to the report, starting with the biased sample sizes (only 4 from Krema II vs 17 from two delousing chambers!) through to ignoring historical data as mentioned above regarding the number of transports and thus, gassings, which could have taken place, and on to the most fundamental objection - nowhere does Rudolf model the effects of *repeated* gassings over time to show at what stage his claim of Prussian Blue formation would kick in.

Small wonder that the leading denier researcher, Carlo Mattogno, largely ignores the chemistry argument in his work. If even he doesn't think it's essential then why should anyone else?

Sergey Romanov said...

> Aha, Sergey, so you are arguing for an even later date for the termination of the construction of cellar 1 of crema 2.

Well, obviously not, the opposite, so you've shown that your reading comprehension is non-existent.

blake121666 said...

David Cole has waded into this Ron Unz crap:

http://takimag.com/article/holocaust-denial-triumphant/#axzz5QpMs6FI3
http://www.countercontempt.com/archives/5908

David Cole has weird interpretations of the Korherr Report. He thinks it was a "census"

[quote="David Cole"]

Completely untrue. Himmler commissioned a census to lay out, by the beginning of 1943, how many Jews were still living, how many had emigrated before the war, how many were in camps and ghettos, and how many had been “dispatched” in 1942 via “special treatment” in the camps in the East (Treblinka et al). This figure also included the number of “todesfĂ€llen” Jews killed by the Einsatzgruppen in ’41. Altogether, this figure of “dispatched” Jews came to 2.4 million by April 1943.

[/quote]

Look at his weird quoting of things that are not in the Korherr Report! "todesfallen"!
:eye-roll

Given that he acts as if he is being precise, you'd think he'd look over the KR to present it more properly.

Sergey Romanov said...

The KR does contain the word and in context it is clear that it refers to the figure cited.

papasha408 said...

What does the Korherr Report actually claim? Korherr who was a chief inspector of the Statistical Bureau of the SS wrote a report on the progress of how many Jews had been detained in all Concentration Camps over the Ten Year Period from 1933 til 1943 as being 73'417 while only 9'127 Jews were in camps in December 1942. this report also estimated that from 1937 till December 1942 the number of Jews in Europe had fallen by 4 million. Korherr stated the fall was due to 'emigration partly due to the excess mortality of Jews in Central and Western Europe. the reasons were the evacuations, especially in the more populous Eastern Territories, which he counted as ongoing. there are no mentions of Gas chambers or exterminations. It is especially interesting that after the war, Korherr denied all knowledge of the supposed Holocaust. He stated that he only heard about exterminations after the war in 1945. In a letter, Korherr sent to the German magazine 'Der Spiegel,' he wrote 'i must protest against the misinterpretation given to the words, 'Special Treatment.' 'I must protest to the word 'Died,' in this context. It was the very word 'Sonderbehandlung,' (Special Treatment)that led me to call the RSHA by phone and ask what these words meant. I was given the answer that these were the Jews who were settled in the Lublin district. (Der Spiegel, Nr. 31, 25 July 1977, S.12) Let's face it, there is nothing in this report which could substantiate the Holocaust fable. But, the revelation that there were only 9,127 Jews in all the Concentration Camps as of December 1942 serves more as an indictment against the holocaust Fable. construing anything else out of the Korherr report is nothing but drivel.

Sergey Romanov said...

You're not paying attention, like most deniers.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2007/04/richard-i-didnt-know-korherr.html

bhigr said...

"The infamous church in Bavaria which developed PB staining after one fumigation experienced a fumigation that was still 24 times the length of the outgassing seen in Krema II, with half of that outgassing time under mechanical ventilation and 5 minutes or so competing with exhaling victims, versus no such interference in the church fumigation."

My god! I can feel desparation reading these strange sentences

Yes, the length of this single fumigation in the Church was longer. This is more than compensated by the thousands of gassings supposedly carried out in Crema 2. Note that the threshold posited by Green is clearly exceeded by a single fumigation as proven above. I am using the cyanide concentration in the water calculated by Green himself.

I want to commend you for your attempt to defend the standard narrative. But, this is not enough. Green's theory has been refuted. You must find a competent Chemist who can help you.

bhigr said...

"..but at no time has he reworked the report into a format that responds as he goes to the objections raised in the 1990s..."

Well, I think you should reread the report. Starting from page 334 he deals with Mr. Green's objections.

http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/02-tcoa.pdf

Rudolf wrote a whole book that deals with supposed refutations of his report:

http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/18-al.pdf

"Small wonder that the leading denier researcher, Carlo Mattogno, largely ignores the chemistry argument in his work. If even he doesn't think it's essential then why should anyone else?"

Mattogno doesn't ignore Rudolf, he relies on Rudolf in matters of Chemistry. They have been working together for years.

These obvious misrepresentations of Rudolf and Mattogno are astonishing to say the least. You don't win debates using flat out lies.

bhigr said...

This is how Mattogno relies on Rudolf's Chemistry arguments:

"Rudolf utterly refuted the thesis of blue wall paint with eleven pertinent
arguments in his expert report, which Trunk treats with silence, because the
findings radically contradict his thesis."; page 34


http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/25-itgc.pdf
67

papasha408 said...

O.K. Sergey, what am I not paying attention to. Please enlighten me with your exterminationist musings.

Nicholas Terry said...

bhigr:

1. Mattogno might well be published by Rudolf, but he does not foreground the arguments about chemistry in his studies of individual gas chambers. The fact that you had to drag up a minor point from one study confirms this.

2. appending rebuttals to a particular argument is not the same as reworking the main body of an argument in order to factor in criticisms and forestall such objections. In general, 'revisionist' writers are too addicted to polemic/rebuttal pieces, and produce rather a lot of them, but these critiques/responses have less value than a straightforward study, since the sequence of argument-criticism-counter-criticism becomes too confusing.

There are a number of basic objections which Rudolf's current edition doesn't anticipate, in addition to many problems with his handling of the historical evidence, and also conflation of different sites. He mixes up witness testimonies on the duration of gassings that were reported in Krema I as well as the Bunkers, Kremas II-III and Kremas IV-V, for example.

The argument about fresher construction materials is clearly irrelevant for Block 11 and Krema I, the munitions bunker there was many years old. Ventilation only applies to Kremas II-III, which were also the only chambers in basements. Kremas IV-V had no ventilation, but were above ground. And so on.

3. there were not "thousands" of gassings in Krema II, as explained previously. While the exact number of gassings in each chamber cannot be established precisely, the total number from mid-March 1943 to the end of October 1944 was not more than 670,000, which has to be divided across five sites - Kremas II-V, renumbered I-IV, and "Bunker V", which was used in August 1943 and during the Hungarian action

Basis for estimate: total death toll of 1 million, subtracted by 130,000 'normal' camp deaths and executions, which uses Mattogno's calculation and could be out either way by a small fraction, and subtracted by 200,000 dying in Bunkers 1 and 2 prior to Krema II becoming operational.

Given the information on usage and technical breakdowns for individual crematoria, we cannot say for sure exactly how many gassings took place in each of Kremas I-IV (new numbering) and Bunker V. Krema II would have seen most use, but the data on arriving transports indicates that there would have been at most hundreds of gassings, not thousands, with larger gaps in between gassings than is realised for most of March 1943-October 1944. Only during the Hungarian Action is it likely that there were prolonged periods of daily gassings, but even then, multiple gassings per day are rather unlikely as the numbers indicate they weren't usually needed.

Sergey Romanov said...

> O.K. Sergey, what am I not paying attention to. Please enlighten me with your exterminationist musings.


Already have, in the comment you're replying to.

Sergey Romanov said...

Bhigr, what's your comment on the document Nick referenced, that shows that Isolierungsmauerwerk of the gas chamber was ready and plastered in Nov. 1942, in light of your misuse of the Bischoff report?

bhigr said...

I recap that you have no rational arguments addressing the chemical issue and you lied about Rudolf and Mattogno. I don't think it makes sense to talk with you any longer about the topic. You have lost my respect.

papasha408 said...

In other words Sergey, you cannot answer my simple question. And no, you did not explain anything. You only insulted me with a personal attack. If you think I'm not reading something properly, tell me where my powers of observation have been shoddy.

Sergey Romanov said...

> I recap that you have no rational arguments addressing the chemical issue

I've addressed your particular argument at http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2018/09/ron-unz-comes-out-as-holocaust-denier.html?showComment=1536670002043&m=1#c1857554051705827782

No response from you so far.

> and you lied about Rudolf and Mattogno

Not a single time, so you're hereby exposed as a liar.

> I don't think it makes sense to talk with you any longer about the topic.

IOW you concede you don't have an answer.

> You have lost my respect

Pretty sure I've never had it in the first place, not that I would care about respect of a lying, nutty Holocaust denier

Now, how about you answer my question?

Sergey Romanov said...

> In other words Sergey, you cannot answer my simple question.

Your question has been answered, so you've been caught lying.

Let me repeat the original tweet:

"Wednesday, September 12, 2018 10:27:00 am
You're not paying attention, like most deniers.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2007/04/richard-i-didnt-know-korherr.html
"

papasha408 said...

Thanks for clearing things up for me.lol!! It's so wonderful that I'm in the presence of someone who has such explanatory powers,lol!! You're a real persuader Sergey and I may add a legend in your own mind.

bhigr said...

Sergey, my post was not addressed to you. I was talking to Nicholas.

Sergey Romanov said...

So still no reply to the debunking of your nonsense, Daddy?

Sergey Romanov said...

Cool, Bhigr, so you will now address my question, right?

bhigr said...

Which question? Could you state precisely what you want to know?

papasha408 said...

bhigr, Why even try. It is truly ridiculous dealing with this type of minutiae when the so-called homicidal gas chambers would be thoroughly stained with CO if any of the eye-witnesses had any semblance of honesty in them. This hoax was undone in the late 80's but, the deception wheel keeps on turning. Of course, being a multi-billion dollar business has everything to do with that.

Sergey Romanov said...

Bhigr, your squirming is entertaining, thanks.

I refer you back to http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2018/09/ron-unz-comes-out-as-holocaust-denier.html?showComment=1536771809531&m=1#c3895954827601248870

Sergey Romanov said...

"would be thoroughly stained with CO"

You poor thing.

bhigr said...

"Bhigr, what's your comment on the document Nick referenced, that shows that Isolierungsmauerwerk of the gas chamber was ready and plastered in Nov. 1942, in light of your misuse of the Bischoff report?"

It is inconsequential, since the plaster added in January 1943 would have turned blue.

Sergey Romanov said...

Who said plaster was added in Jan. 1943? As already pointed out, one cannot conclude from the Bischoff report when the plastering was finished. The Nov. 1942 report indicates the walls were plastered already back then.

bhigr said...

"The first report was drawn up by Bischoff and sent to Kammler on January 23. With respect to Crematorium II it states"


“Cellar I. Plastering finished. Aeration and de-aeration channels
set into brickwork. Machinery parts from Messrs. Topf not yet arrived.”"

Sergey Romanov said...

Your misuse of the document has already been exposed many posts ago and pointed out several times. http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2018/09/ron-unz-comes-out-as-holocaust-denier.html?showComment=1536670002043&m=1#c1857554051705827782

Your reposting of the same document without addressing the debunking of your misuse of it amply demonstrates your level of honesty.


Keep squirming.

bhigr said...

Ridiculous. i quote a document and you accuse me of "misuse" ;-9

You haven't debunked anything. Join Terry and search for a competent chemist who can make a reasonable argument. Mr. Green has been refuted. His washing theory has been refuted and his pH-theory has been. You have no legs to stand on.

Sergey Romanov said...

> You haven't debunked anything.

Note that saying this without providing a counterargument fully characterizes your level of intelligence and honesty.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2018/09/ron-unz-comes-out-as-holocaust-denier.html?showComment=1536670002043&m=1#c1857554051705827782

Your argument stands debunked for the time being, unless you do manage to come up with a counterargument.

Take your time.

bhigr said...

Argument? Level of intelligence? After Terry has been caught lying through is teeth.

Let me see: Report of January 23:

"Cellar I. Plastering finished."

Your response: "This doesn't signify when exactly the cellar brickwork was finished."

Ah yes, reporting that something has been finished does not signify that it has been finshed. Twisting words Sergey. Is that your level of intelligence and honesty Sergey ;-)

Why don't you do the math and prove to me that the threshold for the creation of stable cyanides was not exceeded. I proved to you that it was exceeded. Show me what is wrong with the calculation.

bhigr said...

This whole discussion about a few weeks earlier or not is moot since it takes years for the carbonatation process to reach the interior of the concrete. Carbonatation eventually leads to structural damage of the walls, since the rebars start to rust in a non-alcaline environment.

http://www.baustoffe.tu-berlin.de/uploads/media/_bung_21_01_2009.pdf

Sergey Romanov said...

The point was that the document Nick cited indicates that the plastering was done in Nov. 1942 and so far you have nothing to contradict this.

Sergey Romanov said...

> Ah yes, reporting that something has been finished does not signify that it has been finshed.

It signifies that it is finished. It does not say when it was finished. The other report indicates it was finished in Nov. 1942.

Nicholas Terry said...

Just going to return to one of bhigr's claims. I commented earlier that:

"Small wonder that the leading denier researcher, Carlo Mattogno, largely ignores the chemistry argument in his work. If even he doesn't think it's essential then why should anyone else?"

'largely ignores' does not mean 'totally ignores'. Mattogno has written innumerable polemics as well as his series of Auschwitz screeds, yet the chemical argument is less prominent in his writing than it is in similar works by other deniers.

This may be because Mattogno doesn't actually know how to argue properly, since he is pretty much incapable of summarising his arguments succinctly and is hopeless at constructing proper chapters - these often lack chapter conclusions.

bhigr said...

If you are tasked to report the progress of the construction of a building, then it signifies that it has been recently finished! Honesty? Intelligence?

bhigr said...

"Small wonder that the leading denier researcher, Carlo Mattogno, largely ignores the chemistry argument in his work. If even he doesn't think it's essential then why should anyone else?"

Trying to stick to your lies? ;-) Mattogno writes a whole chapter about the chemistry in the book that I cited and you claim that he "largely ignores" the chemistry? Weaseling your way out? Honesty? Intelligence?

Sergey Romanov said...

> If you are tasked to report the progress of the construction of a building, then it signifies that it has been recently finished!

No. Already addressed and deceptively ignored by you:

"Mattogno explains that Kammler ordered Bischoff to give him weekly progress reports and this was the first such report.

Logically then, Bischoff reported on the current state of LK1. This doesn't signify when exactly the cellar brickwork was finished.

Had it not been the first report, you would have a point. But it is."

> Honesty? Intelligence?

Obviously you possess none.

bhigr said...

"Mattogno explains that Kammler ordered Bischoff to give him weekly progress reports and this was the first such report."

"Logically then, Bischoff reported on the current state of LK1"

PROGRESS REPORTS!

So Bischoff didn't report on the progress of LK1 as he was ordered to do, he did something else!

Again, twisting words. Shame on you!

bhigr said...

This discussion is pointless. You won't convince anybody by using weasel words, twisting words and bold faced lies. Address the substance of the argument or recant.

Nicholas Terry said...

"whole chapter" = pp.24-30 on carbon monoxide, pp.30-37 on Zyklon, all of which 'responds' to a chapter by Achim Trunk in Morsch/Perz (eds.), Neue Studien.

Mattogno does not go into any significant detail regarding the Leuchter-Rudolf thesis on Prussian Blue, nor does he deal with the critiques of Leuchter/Rudolf which Achim Trunk cites in this chapter, so his response to Trunk is incomplete.

His main argument is to contrast Stutthof and Majdanek with Birkenau, but he fails to acknowledge at this point that the Stutthof delousing chamber was used for limited gassings, and that the blue-stained Majdanek chamber was also a delousing chamber - the identification of which chambers did what at Majdanek is more complex than he acknowledges at this point. So his apples-and-oranges comparison fails; he doesn't actually respond properly to Trunk or to the other critics of Leuchter-Rudolf that Trunk cites.

Inside the Gas Chambers is yet another polemic brochure or 'risposta' by Mattogno, where he responds - usually inconsistently or incompletely - to a published work rather than writing his own study. In the chapter on the lethal gases, he refers back to an earlier 'risposta' against Lipstadt and other 1990s critics of denial where he criticised Leuchter for hyping the danger of explosion from HCN gas.

He also discusses HCN/Zyklon in his 'risposta' to Van Pelt, 'The Real Case for Auschwitz', and there you will find him briefly parrotting the Rudolf line, but simply by referring readers to Rudolf,not by incorporating the argument properly into his own, so this means his critique of Van Pelt is incomplete (indeed, Mattogno ignores many other points Van Pelt made in his report and book).

This is what I was alluding to; Mattogno doesn't discuss these issues very often in his own books, he does this peripherally in his 'risposti' and polemics, when responding to others who have brought the issue up. He doesn't bring it up himself in his own works very often. There are several dozen brochures and works by Mattogno produced since the Leuchter report and Rudolf report which deal with Auschwitz one way or another, and many of them simply don't mention the chemistry argument at all, whereas other 'revisionists' do so in equivalent contexts.

There is no mention of Leuchter's tests of Krema I in Mattogno's book on Krema I, for example (he cites Leuchter/Rudolf on an issue of Zyklon concentration but not on the key issue of physical traces)

Mattogno's critique of Hilberg (2008, Italian) doesn't mention either Leuchter or Rudolf at all, whereas Juergen Graf in The Giant with Feet of Clay, also about Hilberg, does mention Leuchter/Rudolf's argument.

So these are some examples of why I said 'largely ignores' - which contrary to your ranting cannot be a "lie", since I made the remark based on my memory of reading Mattogno's works (all of them) over many years.

It would not be correct to say that Mattogno entirely ignores or dismisses or never relies upon Rudolf, but his reticence on the argument on many occasions as well as his simplistic take on Stutthof/Majdanek vs Birkenau does not really indicate a great confidence on Mattogno's part that "chemistry is the science" to refute the Holocaust.

bhigr said...

"Concerning Auschwitz, on January 11, 1943, Kammler realized that
it was impossible for the construction of the crematoria to be terminated
on schedule and hence ordered Bischoff to keep him informed of the
progress by weekly telex reports. The first report was drawn up by
Bischoff and sent to Kammler on January 23. With respect to Crematorium
II it states"

“Cellar I. Plastering finished. Aeration and de-aeration channels
set into brickwork. Machinery parts from Messrs. Topf not yet arrived.”

But Sergey Romanov wants us to believe that this report does not signify that the plastering had recently been finished. Wow! You have got to make these things up in order to believe them.

bhigr said...

"This is what I was alluding to; Mattogno doesn't discuss these issues very often in his own books..."

Why should he? This is not his experties and they are discussed in detail by his Rudolf.

"So these are some examples of why I said 'largely ignores' - which contrary to your ranting cannot be a "lie", since I made the remark based on my memory of reading Mattogno's works (all of them) over many years."

No, to ignore something means to disregard it intentionally. He doesn't, he just deals with other topics. When it is a matter of concern, Mattogno does not ignore the chemistry. On the contrary, he discusses the topic in detail as proven by me and even by you!


bhigr said...

You guys are experts in twisting words and eisegesis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisegesis

Nicholas Terry said...

Nope, ignore also means 'fail to consider (something significant)'. Which is precisely the issue at stake here.

What is the significance of the argument?

If the chemistry argument is so significant, then it should be an integral part of every 'revisionist' argument about the Auschwitz-Birkenau gas chambers. The same for the 'no holes' argument (although that simply doesn't work on Kremas IV-V or the Bunkers), the crematoria oven capacity argument (although that also doesn't work on the Bunkers and open-air cremations), and so on.

'Revisionists' have overegged their cake by coming up with what they *claim* are decisive arguments, but then failing to establish which is the real bottleneck and the most crucial one. If the Prussian Blue argument was really provably, conclusively decisive, Mattogno wouldn't have to argue against the contemporary documents showing a perfectly sufficient cremation capacity. If Mattogno's arguments about cremation capacity were absolutely conclusive and persuasive, then there'd be no need for Rudolf's chemistry argument.

So it's a circular firing squad - it's not an elegant division of labour, because nobody among the 'revisionists' has explained clearly which one matters most, they're all simply competing to sell their different theories to their gullible audience.

The ultimate problem with all of these purely negative arguments is they don't establish *what actually happened*. All of the issues with Zyklon and cremation would be entirely immaterial if 'revisionists' could show that the hundreds of thousands of unregistered Jews were directed elsewhere and presented historical evidence to prove this. Since they cannot, they are reduced to coming up with this pseudoscientific bullshit, and ignore - that word again - the issue of what happened.

bhigr said...

"If the chemistry argument is so significant, then it should be an integral part of every 'revisionist' argument about the Auschwitz-Birkenau gas chambers. The same for the 'no holes' argument.."

Both are integral part of the known revisionist who deals with Auschwitz-Birkenau. All major revisionists use the argument when addressing Auschwitz: Rudolf, Mattogno, Faurisson, Leuchter, Kollerstrom, Dalton...

But, instead of addressing the argument, you want to talk about who has talked about it and how often. Ridiculous!

bhigr said...

"If the Prussian Blue argument was really provably, conclusively decisive, Mattogno wouldn't have to argue against the contemporary documents showing a perfectly sufficient cremation capacity. If Mattogno's arguments about cremation capacity were absolutely conclusive and persuasive, then there'd be no need for Rudolf's chemistry argument."

So an argument is inconclusive if there are additional arguments? The more arguments you have in favor of your thesis, the less supported it must be? For crying out loud! Where did you leave your brains? This is ridiculous beyond belief!

bhigr said...

I have never ever talked to people who are as irrational as you guys are. An argument is inconclusive because someone has an additional argument. Dear God let brain rain down on these guys!

Sergey Romanov said...

> So Bischoff didn't report on the progress of LK1 as he was ordered to do, he did something else!

Sure, since it was the first report, hence it was progress *so far*.
There had been no such reports before that, so it cannot be argued that he was reporting on what happened just last week.

It makes sense for the first report to describe the current state (progress so far) and the subsequent reports will contain the updates.

bhigr said...

"Concerning Auschwitz, on January 11, 1943, Kammler realized that
it was impossible for the construction of the crematoria to be terminated
on schedule and hence ordered Bischoff to keep him informed of the
progress by weekly telex reports. The first report was drawn up by
Bischoff and sent to Kammler on January 23."

What does dear Sergey conclude from this?

Bischoff wanted to know the "progress so far"!

Dear God, let brain rain down! I have never ever witnessed anybody as incompetent and irrational as Sergey and Nicholas.

Sergey Romanov said...

Kammler (sic) wanted information, this included the current state.

Nicholas Terry said...

"So an argument is inconclusive if there are additional arguments? The more arguments you have in favor of your thesis, the less supported it must be?"

You missed the implicit and explicit evaluations of the arguments. Also, you miss the points made about how they are all incomplete, which is a different matter to being inconclusive (although every sane person judges them to be inconclusive as well).

Firstly, all of the contentious ones (holes, cremation, Prussian Blue) are negative arguments, not positive arguments. But it should be obvious that the neatest, most elegant and most consilient way to revise the history of Auschwitz would be to locate convincing, comprehensive, positive evidence proving that the Jews deported there who were not registered there went somewhere else. If that had been done, then there would never have been any need for the pseudoscientific bullshit.

Secondly, the negative arguments are all *incomplete*, because they don't explain away *all* gassings at Auschwitz-Birkenau. This applies in particular to the Bunkers. They were levelled and were ignored by Leuchter and Rudolf when they did their tests. There can be no realistic expectation of finding Prussian Blue when the building walls were demolished down to the foundations. So the Prussian Blue argument fails with the Bunkers. The 'no holes' argument doesn't apply, either, for the same reason. Nor does Mattogno's argument about crematoria oven capacity, since the Bunkers used open-air cremation.

Kremas IV and V similarly cannot be debunked with 'no holes', since they, too, were demolished down to their walls (one has slightly more bricks left at ground level than the other). The blueprints additionally show windows/holes, so this argument is really not much help. Because the destruction was so extensive, then Prussian Blue arguments are also not especially convincing with Kremas IV and V. We also know that open-air pits were used near Krema V in 1944 because the ovens broke down - so Mattogno's cremation capacity argument has less bite with these anyway.

'No holes' ultimately failed because holes were located in the ruins of Krema II anyway. Deniers might dispute this (and do), but the counter-evidence makes 'no holes' a very weak argument. Since 'no holes' already fails to explain away the Bunkers and Kremas IV and V, then it's especially unimpressive and unconvincing.

Nicholas Terry said...

Mattogno's cremation capacity argument is directly contradicted by numerous contemporary SS documents specifying far higher cremation rates than he is willing to concede. Since Mattogno is not a qualified engineer but was trained in literary studies, he also has no relevant expertise that would make his endless witterings about cremation capacity at all credible. That isn't the decisive point, however. He has not proven that the documents are forgeries or offered a convincing explanation for why the SS claimed such high rates, therefore all of his 'thermotechnical analysis' is prima facie bullshit.
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2014/10/rebuttal-of-mattogno-on-auschwitz-part.html

His cremation argument also has the problem that the numbers are still fairly high, especially since open-air pits supplemented the crematoria in August 1943 and from May 1944 through the summer, meaning that the theoretical calculation of cremation capacity doesn't produce any positive results regarding the death toll. His argument is like the Soviet miscalculation/mis-justification of the Auschwitz death toll based on exaggerated cremation capacities, only in reverse. At best, the cremation argument might knock a few hundred thousand off the death toll, but this would imply that hundreds of thousands of unregistered Jews went somewhere else, for which there is no positive evidence.

The Leuchter-Rudolf argument might have the greatest potential coverage of the sites, but as mentioned above cannot realistically apply to the Bunkers. Also as mentioned above, there are good reasons to think that it doesn't help very much with Kremas IV-V, either, since the overwhelming bulk of the walls were removed, leaving the remainder exposed to the elements.

Previously I also noted how Krema I was a very poor target for the Leuchter/Rudolf argument, since very few gassings took place there, and it was also very old construction.

This is crucial, because you have been more or less claiming that more or less 1-2 gassings would automatically stain walls with Prussian Blue, when this is simply not demonstrated as an empirically observable phenomenon, nor has it been demonstrated theoretically in such a way that Rudolf could say with confidence that after x number of fumigations/gassings of y duration, Prussian Blue must necessarily form.

Since Rudolf hasn't done this, the chemical argument remains incomplete, inconclusive and unconvincing.

So all of the arguments fail - it's just funny to watch chimps claim that one or the other is conclusive when none of them are.

bhigr said...

This is crucial, because you have been more or less claiming that more or less 1-2 gassings would automatically stain walls with Prussian Blue, when this is simply not demonstrated as an empirically observable phenomenon, nor has it been demonstrated theoretically in such a way that Rudolf could say with confidence that after x number of fumigations/gassings of y duration, Prussian Blue must necessarily form.

"I explained clearly why buildings do not turn blue automatically and when they do. Then I proved that the circumstances in the gas chamber and the church were such that Prussian blue would be created."

"Since Rudolf hasn't done this, the chemical argument remains incomplete, inconclusive and unconvincing. "

Rudolf has done this but you choose to ignore it. You are like a religious fundamentalist. You have your dogma and have chosen to believe in it without any regard of the evidence.

Sergey Romanov said...

Not really. For example, the concrete or plaster must be really fresh as a necessary (not sufficient) condition, and we have already seen how you can't even prove this.

Sergey Romanov said...

As a side note: notably, Rudolf focuses specifically on Kremas II and III and on the conditions therein. It doesn't seem like he has developed his PB arguments in relation to Kremas IV-V and the Bunkers and their building materials. I've just skimmed through the report again and didn't find such an argumentation. I'm always glad to be corrected though.

Nicholas Terry said...

No, Rudolf hasn't done this. His report is decidedly short on empirical evidence of real-world Prussian Blue staining dynamics in the medium term, which is the issue being debated.

The simulations also lack any reference to actual historical data for Auschwitz; not only does Rudolf ignore Kremas I and IV-V, he doesn't consider the patterns of apparent use for Kremas II and III.

Since he only tested Krema II, then it matters greatly that this chamber was in use from mid-March to May 22 1943 then down for repairs from May 22 to the start of September 1943. In the spring of 1943 it was not necessarily used every day since Krema IV was also available. There were just 26 large transports from mid-March to May 22, 1943, these were spread out over potentially 69 days (18 + 30 + 21). While some transports were large and could thus have been divided between Kremas II and IV, there were conspicuous gaps, e.g. no transports between 4-8, 14-16 and 23-25 April, i.e. gaps of 3-4 days, with other transports arriving every other day and rarely on consecutive days - only once did two transports arrive on the same day. It's unlikely that there was more than an average of one gassing every 48 hours in Krema II in this phase.

Then a long period of no gassings meant no exposure for just over three months, allowing a decrease in cyanide absorption as shown by 1920s research indicating significant drops after a month.

Once Krema II was operational again in the autumn of 1943, it alternated with Krema III and there were fewer transports until mid-May 1944, with no special transports at all between 20.12.43 and 12.1.44. Over 257 days from the start of September to May 15, 1944, there were not more than 80 special transports, with many of a rather small size. Gassings in either crematorium would not have taken place more than every 3-4 days, likely every 3 days once factoring in selections inside the camp.

From May 16 to July 11, 1944, during the 'Hungarian Action', then Krema II was likely used every day for 56 days, alongside Kremas III-V plus a Bunker.

After July 11, there were fewer transports, so Krema II would no longer have been used every day and would be back to every 2-3 days.

The historical data is spelled out perfectly clearly in the Kalendarium/Auschwitz Chronicle, which Rudolf knows because he attacked its compiler, Danuta Czech, ignoring how the information presented there is based on extensive sources which make the data on transports extremely reliable. Rudolf does not cite the Kalendarium at all anywhere else other than his attack on Danuta Czech.

So I will repeat from previous remarks: Rudolf doesn't model the scenarios correctly because he ignores the historical evidence.

And I will ask you to indicate in which phase Krema II must necessarily have been exposed to sufficient HCN to guarantee eventual Prussian Blue formation - was it between March 13 and May 22, 1943 after just 1-2 dozen gassings *at the very most*, was it betweeen September 1943 and mid-May 1944 after a long period of downtime and some gassings every three days or so, or was it during the 'Hungarian Action' when there were probably daily gassings? Make sure to refer to the historical data and cite some science other than Rudolf!







Nicholas Terry said...

Sergey: "As a side note: notably, Rudolf focuses specifically on Kremas II and III and on the conditions therein. It doesn't seem like he has developed his PB arguments in relation to Kremas IV-V and the Bunkers and their building materials. I've just skimmed through the report again and didn't find such an argumentation. I'm always glad to be corrected though."

You are correct; there are a few calculations based on the volume of Krema II/III's gas chamber, but none based on Kremas IV-V. Rudolf also did not take samples from Kremas IV/V.

bhigr said...

This is the explanation, which you chose to ignore. I just have to post it again, but a fundamentalist will probably believe in a flat earth, even when presented with pictures of the globe.

"" The church case was known to be exceptional and unusual, and Rudolf admits this.
No, a single fumigation of a church led to visible stains, whereas many other buildings known to have been fumigated with Zyklon don't show any visible stains at all. "

The church case is exceptional, because usually only old buildings are fumigated. Thus, the pH-Value has already dropped in these old buildings to levels which hardly permit the splitting of HCN into H+ and CN- ions.

In case of the church, new concrete and plaster had been used for reconstruction and repair. Shortly thereafter, the Church was fumigated and the new concrete turned blue. Therefore, it was exceptional.

The exact same situation for cremas 2 and 3 in Birkenau. Gassing occured right after construction.

Rudolf has explained this over and over again.

"Therefore the question which remains unanswered by Rudolf as well as yourself is establishing the threshold in between a single fumigation, which clearly does not produce Prussian Blue staining, whether overnight or after many years, except in unusual, possibly unique, circumstances, and the continuous fumigation over many months seen in delousing chambers. "

The answer is in the post above. Fumigations must occur shortly after the construction of the building. Then, a single fumigation suffices to create the blue staining.

Checkmate!"

;-)

bhigr said...

A few months is not enough for neutralizing the concrete in Crema II, I posted a linke above, if you want to repeat the argument about "right after construction".

But then, your minds appear to be turning in circles, since you just repeat refuted arguments and base your opinion on refuted papers, like Mr. Green's paper.

Nicholas Terry said...

I'm sorry, bhigr, but pointing over and over to the anomalous church case doesn't mean any certainty whatsoever that Krema II would have started displaying PB staining after a few gassings, or one gassing. Neither you nor Rudolf can specify or justify a number of gassings that would achieve this probable result.

The empirical evidence from real-world fumigations needs to be MUCH larger before either Rudolf or you can establish the probability that a single fumigation of specified duration (again this part is being ignored by you and obfuscated by Rudolf) might result in PB staining.

Frankly also, since the conditions described in a homicidal gassing, especially the exhalation of CO2 and the washing of the chamber with water promptly after a shortened outgassing, were so different to fumigations, including the overnight fumigation of the anomalous church, then until these factors are properly modelled and accounted for by Rudolf and you, then I will remain unconvinced.

What is needed are some percentages to show the probability of any one outgassing under the reported conditions resulting in Prussian Blue, and some quantification over time, also in relation to the total quantities of Zyklon used both in delousing chambers and which are reported as being used in the gas chambers.

Nowhere have either you or Rudolf justified saying that the probability of a single outgassing of Zyklon under the reported conditions is 100%. Nor has Rudolf said this, he is maddeningly vague on the questions I am asking. Nor is it clear whether the tipping point would occur after 2, 5, 10, 20 gassings and whether these have to be daily. Or if the tipping point would occur after the use of a certain quantity of Zyklon - in which case Rudolf and you should be able to point to more real-world examples of this. But you haven't, and apparently can't.

Sorry, bhigr, more data and quantification is needed from your side.

You seem blithely unconcerned with convincing a larger audience - imagine how much more effective the argument would be if Rudolf could model this kind of data!

You might well write me off as not someone who can be convinced, but I have been telling you for some time now the kind of work that would potentially convince me that there is something to the argument. It hasn't been done.

Nicholas Terry said...

BTW Rudolf suppresses the actual data on the Untergriesbach church fumigation which are given in Grosser/Rossmann 1974. The church was exposed to 112 kg of Zyklon B for *48 hours* before ventilators were brought in to air the space, which had a volume of 'around' 6000m3, meaning a concentration of 14g/m3 of Zyklon or 1.2% volume.

By contrast, Krema II's first gassing lasted a fraction of this time, and the ventilation was still running several hours after being switched on (according to Henryk Tauber's testimony), running after the entry of Sonderkommandos into the chamber (they still wore gas masks, according to Tauber, anyway). The concentration of HCN gas was dramatically reduced already within 30-45 minutes of the ventilators being switched on. Since the room was much smaller than the large church, ventilation would have likely been more efficient than in the case of the church.

So when exactly in the 48 hours fumigation of the Untergriesbach church was enough Zyklon outgassed to cause the staining? For this case to be comparable to Krema II, it would have to be in the first half hour or hour.

I don't see where Rudolf has demonstrated this - can you cite a page number of his report (specifying the edition - I have the German ones as well if you use those), please?

The table comparing building materials is irrelevant to *this* question, which concerns the rate of exposure and concentrations of HCN in the room.

bhigr said...

BTW Rudolf suppresses the actual data on the Untergriesbach church fumigation...

So what, Green's calculation proves that the threshold for building cyanides was reached after a single gassing. But, you cannot measure any elevation. ;-)

bhigr said...

I know who is in denial! You are. This whole discussion proves this beyond any reasonable doubt.

bhigr said...

"...and the washing of the chamber with water promptly after a shortened outgassing, ...."

had no effect whatsoever, since the ceiling was not washed and shows no elevation in cyanide. I have pointed this out numerous times. You cannot respond to this argument. But, you keep on repeat the same ridiculous crap over and over again instead of switching on your brain cells.

"...according to Henryk Tauber's testimony"

Oh yeah, the guy who testified to having cremated thousands of Jews but who didn't notice that the corpses do not burn on their own. That's your best "witness". ;-)

bhigr said...

You are the most irrational bunch of believers I have ever talked to. Yehova's witnesses are geniuses by comparison. I don't know about flat earthers, haven't talked to them, but I gather that they are pretty much on your level.

Nicholas Terry said...

So you can't point out the pages in Rudolf's report where he made clear that half an hour or an hour's exposure of a room to HCN outgassing necessarily leads to Prussian Blue formation.

Nicholas Terry said...

Unless you provide the page numbers in Rudolf's report where he makes clear that PB would form after just half an hour or an hour's exposure, this debate is over.

bhigr said...

Just read my post above! ;-) I used Green's threshold!

Nicholas Terry said...

You've still not provided page numbers in Rudolf's report. Answer the fucking question, or you're banned for the foreseeable future.

Sergey Romanov said...

You previously wrote about the carbonation:

"But, this process takes several months or even years. The gas chambers in cremas 2 and 3 were put to use right after their construction."

(Whether they were is the point of contention.)

And in another comment:

"This whole discussion about a few weeks earlier or not is moot since it takes years for the carbonatation process to reach the interior of the concrete."

Let's ignore your jump from "months or even years" to "years".

The PB forms only on the surface (as we know from the Au. delousing chambers), so how does it matter when the carbonation process reaches "the interior"? When does it reach the depth of, say, 0,1 mm? In a few months?

bhigr said...

"The PB forms only on the surface..."

Wrong, it also forms in the interior as proven in the Rudolf Report. Samples were taken in different depths and an elevated concentration could be measured in the interior.

Read page 309 for the sampling locations and depths of the samples. This false argument is refuted on pages 342 ff.

Nicholas Terry said...

bhigr, you still owe me page numbers from the Rudolf report (specifying the edition) for where Rudolf argues that Prussian Blue staining will automatically result from half an hour or an hour's exposure to HCN.

bhigr said...

Why should I? I proved it myself in a previous post. The threshold for the formation of Prussian Blue is exceeded during a homicidal gassing. You can do the reading above.

Sergey Romanov said...

> Wrong, it also forms in the interior as proven in the Rudolf Report. Samples were taken in different depths and an elevated concentration could be measured in the interior.

You are confusing cyanide concentrations with the blue staining.

The latter is only superficial:

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/leuchter-speech/leuchter-speech.shtml

"The blue pigment, ostensibly Prussian blue, only covers the surface of the plaster in the same manner that a coat of paint would. The plaster underneath the blue stain is white and the brick is red."

A photo is attached.

I found no photos in the RR to show that the staining is not superficial.

Sergey Romanov said...

BTW, while you are at it, can you also explain why the staining is extremely irregular and at times only appears in small patches? Shouldn't the whole room surface be blue?

bhigr said...

"You are confusing cyanide concentrations with the blue staining."

No I am not. I am talking about the cyanide concentration regardless of it is visible or not. That was the point of the discussion.

You stated: ""The PB forms only on the surface..."

That's wrong. Prussian Blue also forms in the interior.

Sergey Romanov said...

> No I am not. I am talking about the cyanide concentration regardless of it is visible or not. That was the point of the discussion.

No, the point is the staining. Since there is no evidence that the staining forms on the interior, the arguments about the interior are irrelevant.

> That's wrong. Prussian Blue also forms in the interior.

You have cited no evidence for this.

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/leuchter-speech/leuchter-speech.shtml

"The blue pigment, ostensibly Prussian blue, only covers the surface of the plaster in the same manner that a coat of paint would. The plaster underneath the blue stain is white and the brick is red."

A photo is attached.

I found no photos in the RR to show that the staining is not superficial.

bhigr said...

"You have cited no evidence for this."

sure, I have. You just didn't care to read the evidence.

"Read page 309 for the sampling locations and depths of the samples. This false argument is refuted on pages 342 ff."

http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/02-tcoa.pdf

Sergey Romanov said...

I have: "I found no photos in the RR to show that the staining is not superficial."

So, so far we only know that the PB formation is superficial.

Anything to contradict this?

BTW, while you are at it, can you also explain why the staining is extremely irregular and at times only appears in small patches? Shouldn't the whole room surface be blue?

bhigr said...

With regard to the execution time and exposure to hydrogen cyanide using Kula's columns, Rudolf has quite a lot to say about this:

1. There were no holes in the roof.
2. There were no columns in the chambers.
3. If there had been any columns, they wouldn't have worked.
4. The ventilation system was insufficient.

http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/ChemistryOfAuschwitz-1hr.mp4

Why? Start watching at around 1:30.

He concludes that the exposure to hydrogen cyanide would have been many hours.

Thus, the battle ship is finally sunk around minute 1:40.

bhigr said...

"So, so far we only know that the PB formation is superficial.

Anything to contradict this?"

Yes, "Read page 309 for the sampling locations and depths of the samples. This false argument is refuted on pages 342 ff."

http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/02-tcoa.pdf"

I have posted this now for the third time. If you ask this question once more, then I should be justified to declare you insane.

Nicholas Terry said...

bhigr: "Why should I?"

because you've been asked repeatedly for this information.

If you cannot cite Rudolf arguing that Prussian Blue would form within half an hour or an hour's gassing, then this is *your* claim, not sourced in Rudolf, and likely not a view held by Rudolf.

Sergey Romanov said...

> Yes, "Read page 309 for the sampling locations and depths of the samples. This false argument is refuted on pages 342 ff."

You are confusing cyanide concentrations with the blue staining.

The latter is only superficial:

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/leuchter-speech/leuchter-speech.shtml

"The blue pigment, ostensibly Prussian blue, only covers the surface of the plaster in the same manner that a coat of paint would. The plaster underneath the blue stain is white and the brick is red."

A photo is attached.

I found no photos in the RR to show that the staining is not superficial.

Sergey Romanov said...

> 1. There were no holes in the roof.
> 2. There were no columns in the chambers.

These two "arguments" further expose Rudolf as a fraud. If they were true, then no chemical arguments are necessary at all - the claims of gassings for these cremas would be simply false or at least unprovable.

In order to work, the chemical argument must proceed on the assumptions of the standard claims being true. This includes there being holes in the roof and the functioning columns. Deniers are free to argue as a *separate* argument that such did not exist, but if such assumption is a part of the *chemical* argument, then the argument only refutes the denier strawman, not the gassings claim as it was made.

BTW, while you are at it, can you also explain why the staining is extremely irregular and at times only appears in small patches? Shouldn't the whole room surface be blue?

Sergey Romanov said...

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/irving-david/rudolf/affweb.pdf

"As may be observed in the eight photographs above, penetration of Prussian Blue into either the wall material inside of the building, or the bricks on the exterior, is minimal, corroborating previous reports. It is possible that very porous materials such as plaster might permit a slightly greater penetration of the stain, but not to the degree claimed, without proof, by Holocaust deniers."

"There is an as-yet unsolved mystery of how Prussian Blue made its way through apparently solid brick walls leaving it's tell-tale blue stains on the exterior of both bath and delousing chambers in BIa and BIb in Birkenau. An answer might be found by looking carefully at Illus. 20."

"This close-up picture shows strong Prussian Blue staining on both mortar and brickwork. Two other facts are revealed: (1) The stain scarcely penetrates the mortar. The broken section reveals pristine, unstained material proving that Prussian Blue does not penetrate solids to any great degree; and (2) the stains on the bricks appear like a semi-transparent wash, suggesting that the bricks are not subject (as was shown in the illustrations above) to any great penetration by the pigment."

This photo shows the PB did not penetrate to any great degree:

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/~dkeren/auschwitz/trip-2000/prussian-blue-3.jpg

Cale B.T. said...

Interesting comment on debunking the claim that the first communist government was largely Jewish. There seems to be a tactic in far-right circles I've seen more recently to say that "The Holocaust didn't happen: the only *real* Holocaust was the largely Jewish-run Holodomor of the Gentile Ukrainians". Have any posts on this blog addressed this claim that the Holodomor specifically was run by Jews?

blake121666 said...

Holy guacamole, your still posting in this thread! Does anyone by any chance why David Cole quotes the Korherr Report as saying "dispatched"? I've not found this in the English translation nor in any German word in the original that I consider equivalent to "dispatched".

For instance, Cole says:

>>>... how many had been ‘dispatched’ in 1942 via ‘special treatment’ in the camps in the East

papasha408 said...

Cale B.T., You obviously haven't read any histories of the Bolshevik revolution or the Soviet Union if you don't understand that the Soviet Union was basically run by Jews from its inception until the mid-fifties at least. And it wasn't just the Holodomor when about 8 million Ukrainians were murdered in a savage manner, but, tens of millions of Russian Christians were tortured and murdered over a 40 year period. According to Solzhenitsyn 66 million Russian Christians were murdered by this Jewish led government. The Soviet Union was the only country on earth where anti-Semitism was punishable by death. Synagogues were allowed to stand when all Churches were pulled down or burned to the ground. A few were turned into government buildings.

Blake121666, Read my earlier post about the Korherr report. But, I believe you are right. The word dispatched was not used in the original. Though the word dispatched could be used as 'being sent to the east for re-settlement.

Sergey Romanov said...

> You obviously haven't read any histories of the Bolshevik revolution or the Soviet Union

You obviously haven't.

> Soviet Union was basically run by Jews from its inception until the mid-fifties at least

It obviously wasn't.

> when about 8 million Ukrainians were murdered in a savage manner

You mean 4 million.

> but, tens of millions of Russian Christians were tortured and murdered over a 40 year period

Made up number.

> According to Solzhenitsyn 66 million Russian Christians were murdered by this Jewish led government.

Made up number.

> The Soviet Union was the only country on earth where anti-Semitism was punishable by death

No such law existed. (The only mention of this in a letter by Stalin - obviously made up by him, since no such law existed and no one has ever found it.)

> Synagogues were allowed to stand when all Churches were pulled down or burned to the ground

No evidence of that.

papasha408 said...

Sergey Romanov, You obviously have made up rebuttals. You are truly in a world of your own. Every powerful position in the Soviet Union at its inception through the twenties and early thirties was owned by a Jewish personality. Those who were not Jewish had Jewish wives. Even Winston Churchill a Zionist admitted this through his career. Try reading Jiri Lina's book on the subject. You may learn something, though I doubt it.

Sergey Romanov said...

> Every powerful position in the Soviet Union at its inception through the twenties and early thirties was owned by a Jewish personality

You are simply making this up. It's an obvious lie.

Thinker M said...

"Every powerful position in the Soviet Union at its inception through the twenties and early thirties was owned by a Jewish personality"

I am not understanding the relevancy all this has to the historical record of the Holocaust. It is well known(at least among mainstream historians) that Jews role had a sizable in governing the Soviet Union

The problem is that it indicates precisely nothing. Deniers are bringing this up as though it is information hidden to the public. None of the information the deniers misrepresent to suit their agenda is kept secret.

"when about 8 million Ukrainians were murdered in a savage manner"

As Sergey pointed out the number was closer to 3-4 million. A huge crush away from 8 million.

The Juri Lina book, judging by the reviews, sounds like an interesting read. I will definitely check it out on my spare time.

I should also point out that judging by many reviews, that the book doesn't mention Jews. But then I will have to read the book itself to confirm.

bhigr said...

""Every powerful position in the Soviet Union at its inception through the twenties and early thirties was owned by a Jewish personality"

I am not understanding the relevancy all this has to the historical record of the Holocaust. It is well known(at least among mainstream historians) that Jews role had a sizable in governing the Soviet Union..."

Yes it is known, but it is denied by Romanov and Co. This denial is a testament to their "scholarship".

"I am not understanding the relevancy all this has to the historical record of the Holocaust.." It is part of the context of the "holocaust". That's the relevancy.

Nicholas Terry said...

Thinker M: "It is well known(at least among mainstream historians) that Jews role had a sizable in governing the Soviet Union"

Mainstream historians note that Jews were overrepresented in the Bolshevik Party and in leadership positions in the Soviet Union during the revolution, Civil War and 1920s. At no time was "every" powerful position in the USSR held by someone of Jewish origin, contrary to papasha408's hyperbole. Stalin's rise to sole dictatorship ejected the most prominent Jewish Bolsheviks from leadership positions, exiling some and eventually killing others. The 1930s saw a drastic fall in the number of Jews holding top leadership positions. By the 1940s and the war years, this share had fallen even further, and after 1945 in the late Stalinist phase, Jews were marginalised even further, culminating in a purge in 1952-3 with the Doctors' Plot and trial of the leadership of the Jewish Antifascist Committee.

Mainstream historians also note that during WWII and in the immediate postwar years, the standard Soviet line was to universalise Nazi atrocities and suppress or downplay the Jewishness of Nazi victims. There were countervailing trends, especially because of the Jewish Antifascist Committee's journalism aimed at Soviet Jews, and because of some prominent journalists like Ehrenburg and Grossman, but from 1943 onwards the Soviet political/propaganda apparatus started to block the careers of Jewish journalists. In 1945, the JAFC's plans to publish a Black Book of Soviet Jewry were blocked entirely, as drawing attention to genocide was seen as 'nationalistic'.

The key reporters covering events in 1944-46 like the liberation of Majdanek as well as the Nuremberg trials, journalists like Konstantin Simonov and Boris Polevoi, were non-Jews and cemented the universalisation narrative of 'peaceful Soviet citizens'. Ehrenburg and Grossman were still able to publish (eg reports on Treblinka and Sobibor), but were being marginalised.

So things were at the very least contradictory; Soviet politics was always more complicated than is popularly appreciated.

One crucial point, however, is this: local authorities in liberated Soviet republics, provinces (oblast level) and counties (rayon level) who conducted war crimes investigations for the Soviet Extraordinary Commission were now overwhelmingly non-Jewish, and had no incentive to fabricate Nazi atrocities against Jews. Instead they repeatedly obfuscated Jewish victimhood by exaggerating the numbers killed in specific cities and camps, effectively drowning out and obscuring the specificity of ghetto liquidations, death camps and extermination camps aimed at Jews. The scale and extent of Jewish victimhood in the USSR was confirmed by Nazi documents falling into western hands. The exaggerations weren't.

Sergey Romanov said...

> Yes it is known, but it is denied by Romanov and Co. This denial is a testament to their "scholarship".

That you would solidarize with such an obvious and basic lie that "every powerful position in the Soviet Union at its inception through the twenties and early thirties was owned by a Jewish personality" tells literally everything about both your level of scholarship and honesty. They're non-existent. Not that we didn't know that, but thanks for the confirmation.

bhigr said...

Please improve your reading comprehension. This is what I wrote:

"It is well known(at least among mainstream historians) that Jews role had a sizable in governing the Soviet Union..."

Yes it is known,..."

Sergey Romanov said...

No, here is what you actually wrote:

""Every powerful position in the Soviet Union at its inception through the twenties and early thirties was owned by a Jewish personality"

I am not understanding the relevancy all this has to the historical record of the Holocaust. It is well known(at least among mainstream historians) that Jews role had a sizable in governing the Soviet Union..."


Yes it is known, but it is denied by Romanov and Co. This denial is a testament to their "scholarship".


Since a merely "sizable" role has never been denied by us, you could only be referring to the only other point left, namely: "Every powerful position in the Soviet Union at its inception through the twenties and early thirties was owned by a Jewish personality".

But if you wish to argue that you instead lied about us denying a merely "sizable" role, be our guest.

Nicholas Terry said...

Comments locked.

Repeated attempts to spam "Talmud criticism" were deleted. Do not attempt to repost such material anywhere else as it will be off-topic everywhere - this is a blog about the Holocaust and Holocaust denial/revisionism, not a place for antisemites to spam their generic crap.