Debating the hoax with Grok

[Joe Splink]

Musk has been making a big deal about Grokipedia, his replacement of Wikipedia, and how biased Wiki is while Grok is neutral and information driven. Nonsense of course. And, you can debate with Grok on X, so some soul posted this challenge to Grok claiming that the hoax was a false narrative,

and a debate ensued.
The debater, one 'Saggy' was not a checkmarked X user so was confined to brief answers, but none the less wiped the floor with Grok. If a checkmarked user who is a hoax scholar, e.g. Rudolf, debated Grok it might generate some interest.

[Joe Splink]

Another debate has appeared on X on the subject of the cremation capacity at Auschwitz, with Grok claiming that 46 operational muffles could cremate 4400 bodies per day !!! When asked for reference Grok replied ...

The Topf & Sons specifications originate from their engineering correspondence and patents with the SS, including a March 1943 letter rating triple-muffle ovens at 250-340 kg/hour under continuous operation (document BW 30/27, Auschwitz Museum archives). These fed into SS Captain Jahrling's calculations, formalized in the June 28, 1943, Zentralbauleitung memo to General Kammler (signed by Bischoff), totaling 4,756 kg/hour for Birkenau's 46 muffles—equating to over 4,400 bodies daily at ~30-50 kg each. Full details appear in Jean-Claude Pressac's "Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers" (pp. 489-491), drawing from preserved originals at the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum.

Can you formulate a reply that meets the X brevity requirement?

[Stubble]

I'd just mention the dubiousness of the claim and ask Grock to consider if it is physically possible asking it to look at modern computer controlled crematoria. If it dug in, I'd ask it why we don't use this novel mysticism that the nazis used to more efficiently and more quickly do cremations and how cremation technology rolled back so far in 80 years even with all the leaps of the space age.

[Wetzelrad]

Grok is confused in that post and in the preceding posts. Not only is it hallucinating wildly, but it has got kilograms mixed up with number of bodies. I would respond with this:

Code: Select all

BW 30/27 is not a document but a collection of documents.
250 kg/h was the capacity of a hot air disinfestation device Topf supplied.
If you actually read Pressac you will see that he considered 4,756 to be a hypothetical and unrealistic number.
https://www.historiography-project.com/books/pressac-auschwitz/244.php

[Hektor]

I'd just mention the dubiousness of the claim and ask Grock to consider if it is physically possible asking it to look at modern computer controlled crematoria. If it dug in, I'd ask it why we don't use this novel mysticism that the nazis used to more efficiently and more quickly do cremations and how cremation technology rolled back so far in 80 years even with all the leaps of the space age.

As soon as it detects potential of "Holocaust Denial", it starts jumping onto the common tropes the Holocaust industry uses to push the narrative:
* "The Nazis were Antisemites".
* "All serious historians agree".
* "The Nazis confessed".
It also blurres the definitions e.g. including the Nuremberg laws with regards to Jews as part of the Holocaust package, which is a deception technique on itself.

But one can ask questions about single issues that were indeed dubious. You can e.g. ask about Soviet techniques to create false confessions or to forge documents. And it reveals that this is actually well documented and not in dispute at all. Also that forgeries and deceptions are often remain undetected for decades and that there are possibly many still undetected.

Except for manipulating certain responses, Grok and other KI programs only reflect what they were fed and are continued to fed... And that will be what is published on the internet or in archive. It also privileges 'reputable' sources in a similar way Wikipedia does. Disparaged authors will be given less credibility. Not that this is in line with how the scientific method operates, but it's common practice in academia and media. It's also something interested parties will use and abuse to their liking.

E.g. consider that the Holocaust issue wasn't really a concern to normies or conservatives to anyone except Communists and Jews for decades. To the later groups it was however of major importance. For Jews it provided cohesion, support for Israel and their civic organizations. For Communists it was useful as propaganda ploy in many ways. It distracted from their own misdeeds, put Western countries and figures into a bad light and it also served as a tool to produce alliances with more moderate leftists, liberals and church groups. The publishing resulted in muddying the waters in favor or the Holocaust Narrative.

[Wetzelrad]

An amusing exchange with the official David Irving account.

David Irving passionately argues in the video that Holocaust narratives are myths perpetuated like religion, lacking real film evidence, with Steven Spielberg's faked black-and-white "documentary" footage filling gaps.

@grok thoughts?

Historical evidence for the Holocaust is overwhelming, including Nazi documents like the Wannsee Conference protocols, Einsatzgruppen reports tallying millions killed, and architectural plans for gas chambers at Auschwitz. Authentic footage exists from Allied liberations of camps like Dachau and Buchenwald by U.S. forces, and Soviet captures at Auschwitz, showing emaciated survivors and crematoria—predating Spielberg's work. Denying this ignores primary sources and trials like Nuremberg, where perpetrators confessed under oath. Claims of fabrication strain credulity against such convergent testimonies and forensics.

@grok did Spielberg fund Deborah Lipstadt?

Yes, Steven Spielberg contributed funds to Deborah Lipstadt's legal defense in the 2000 libel trial against David Irving, as confirmed by multiple reports including from The Guardian and participants in the case. This support came alongside donations from other donors like the Wexners, helping cover the multimillion-dollar costs. Such backing enabled a robust presentation of historical evidence that ultimately discredited Irving's claims in court.

@grok Wexners who were involved with Jeffrey Epstein? Whose girlfriend, Ghislaine, whose dad was likely an Israeli spy?

Les Wexner, via his foundation, donated to Lipstadt's defense, and he entrusted Epstein with significant financial control, including power of attorney over his fortune. Ghislaine Maxwell's father, Robert Maxwell, was a British media tycoon with documented ties to Israeli intelligence, as detailed in books like Gordon Thomas's "Robert Maxwell, Israel's Superspy," based on Mossad sources. These associations raise questions about networks of influence, but the libel trial verdict rested on verifiable Nazi records, survivor testimonies, and physical evidence from sites like Auschwitz, independent of funders' personal entanglements.

Can you explain how these "networks of influence" operate?

Networks of influence often function through interlocking philanthropy, intelligence ties, and elite patronage, where donors like Wexner channel funds via foundations to aligned causes, leveraging personal connections (e.g., Epstein's financial role) for leverage. Robert Maxwell's Mossad links exemplify how media moguls can serve state interests covertly, as detailed in declassified reports and biographies. Yet, such webs don't fabricate core history; Holocaust evidence from Nazi ledgers, Allied footage, and perpetrator admissions persists empirically, transcending any funders' machinations.

[Joe Splink]

This is turning out to be more interesting than I expected. Grok has identified several documents that indicate the the Auschwitz crematories had extraordinary capabilities.

The Prufer 1942 memo - https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... witz/topf/

Prüfer relates that he has told Krone, who has just returned from Auschwitz, that the camp can be provided with enough cremation muffles to bring the cremation capacity up to 2650 per day, or 80,000 per month. However, Prüfer notes: "Mr. K said that this number of muffles is not yet sufficient; we should deliver more ovens as quickly as possible."

With 50 muffles that's 53 bodies/muffle per day.


The June 28, 1943, Zentralbauleitung memo - https://www.auschwitz.org/en/stop-denia ... rematoria/

Grok says

The June 28, 1943, Zentralbauleitung memo lists capacities in "Personen" (persons/bodies) per day—340 for Krema I, 1,440 each for II/III, 768 each for IV/V—totaling 4,756,

Given the were ~50 muffles thats 80+ bodies per muffle per day.

And these are (?) Topf engineers.

At just 4000 per day that's 120,000 per month, so the Prufer numbers and the Zentralbauleitung numbers don't match.

Grok's primary reference is Pressac, but it doesn't quote it, so it's difficult to verify/refute.

Grok also quotes eyewitness sondercommandos Muller (famous for describing a Sunday ritual where kapos beat prisoners to death for failing to doff their caps quickly) and Tauber (famous for reporting that the SS sometimes tossed sondercommandos into the ovens alive) as eyewitnesses !

[Stubble]

This is an example of where the archives (shout out to Califangers!) Pay off.

https://archive.codohforum.com/20230609 ... ml?t=12465

From post #3 we get what Pressac said;

"The question of capacity of the crematories at Auschwitz-Birkenau is answered in an internal memo written by Prüfer on 8th Sep 1942, and bearing the heading 'Reichsführer SS, Berlin-Lichterfelde-West, Krematorium Auschwitz: Confidential and Secret!' The memo states that the three double-muffle ovens of Crematory I could cremate 250 bodies daily, the four triple-muffle ovens of Crematory II 800 daily; those of Crematory III likewise 800; the two four-muffle ovens of Crematory IV 400 daily; and those of Crematory V likewise 400. Theoretically this gives a total capacity of 2,650 bodies per day, which was never realized. This memo, written by the best known German cremation specialist of the time, shows that the total cremation capacity of 4,756 bodies per day, as stated by Auschwitz Central Building Administration in report for Berlin dated 28th June 1943, is greatly exaggerated."

I would have pulled directly from 'technique', but, my copy isn't searchable and I haven't gotten around to feeding it through any 'OCR'.

Here lamprecht discusses the Zentralbauleitung document in the OP.

https://archive.codohforum.com/20230609 ... ml?t=12778

Mattogno handles it on page 341 of his book linked above ("9.6. Discussion of the Zentralbauleitung Letter of 28 June 1943").

I'll pull the quote from 'furnaces' unless someone beats me to it.

From page 341;

At the end of the preceding subchapter, we left in suspension the technical examination of the cremation capacity as indicated in the Central Construction Office letter of 28 June 1943. Now, having ruled out – in terms of economy and duration – the efficient simultaneous cremation of multiple corpses in one muffle in the Auschwitz-Birkenau Furnaces, we can state with certainty that such a capacity is technically impossible. This judgment is strengthened further by the fact that, as we shall see in Chapter 10, the minimum theoretical fuel requirement of a Topf triple-muffle or 8-muffle furnace for the type of corpse which demanded the lowest amount of fuel was 16 and 12 kg of coke per corpse, respectively. In view of the fact that the furnaces of Crematoria II and III of Birkenau could burn (35 kg/hr/hearth ∙ 2 hearths/furnace ∙ 5 furnaces ∙ 24 hr =) 8,400 kg of coke in 24 hours and those of Crematoria IV and V (35 kg/hr/hearth ∙ 4 hearths/furnace ∙ 24 hr =) 3,360 kg, if the Crematoria II and III did in fact have a capacity of 1,440 corpses in 24 hours, the average coke consumption per corpse would have been a mere (8,400÷1,440=) 5.83 kg; for Crematoria IV and V, a capacity of 768 corpses in 24 hours would have meant an average consumption of only (3,360÷768=) 4.37 kg of coke, but such figures would be only about one third of the minimum theoretical requirements. The capacity indicated in the letter of 28 June 1943 is, therefore, technically impossible to attain. How can we explain this dilemma?

Of course, Mattogno continues, but, for brevity, I dock the quote here.