Grok denies the gas chambers at Auschwitz.

[Stubble]

[...] They obviously targeted around 10 air exchanges for all of these rooms. This is not incriminating whatsoever. Quite the opposite.

Hence the verdict in the engineers trial in Vienna...

Austrian courts were reluctant to prosecute Nazis.

I challenge this. I request proof of the veracity of your claim Sir.

As a riposte, I offer the prosecution of the Engineers at the Trial in Vienna.

[Nessie]

Hence the verdict in the engineers trial in Vienna...

Austrian courts were reluctant to prosecute Nazis.

I challenge this. I request proof of the veracity of your claim Sir.

As a riposte, I offer the prosecution of the Engineers at the Trial in Vienna.

https://www.mauthausen-memorial.org/en/ ... the-Courts

"At the same time as the Allied trials, thousands of trials took place in special courts in Austria between 1945 and 1955, the so-called People’s Court Trials....On 12 February 1975 the last Austrian trial against a former SS man, Johann Gogl, for crimes committed in the Mauthausen and Ebensee concentration camps ended in acquittal.
While in Austria hardly any trials of Nazi war criminals were held after the withdrawal of the Allied powers, there were a remarkable number of convictions in West and East Germany."

[Stubble]

Austrian courts were reluctant to prosecute Nazis.

I challenge this. I request proof of the veracity of your claim Sir.

As a riposte, I offer the prosecution of the Engineers at the Trial in Vienna.

https://www.mauthausen-memorial.org/en/ ... the-Courts

"At the same time as the Allied trials, thousands of trials took place in special courts in Austria between 1945 and 1955, the so-called People’s Court Trials....On 12 February 1975 the last Austrian trial against a former SS man, Johann Gogl, for crimes committed in the Mauthausen and Ebensee concentration camps ended in acquittal.
While in Austria hardly any trials of Nazi war criminals were held after the withdrawal of the Allied powers, there were a remarkable number of convictions in West and East Germany."

You should retract

[Nessie]

I challenge this. I request proof of the veracity of your claim Sir.

As a riposte, I offer the prosecution of the Engineers at the Trial in Vienna.

https://www.mauthausen-memorial.org/en/ ... the-Courts

"At the same time as the Allied trials, thousands of trials took place in special courts in Austria between 1945 and 1955, the so-called People’s Court Trials....On 12 February 1975 the last Austrian trial against a former SS man, Johann Gogl, for crimes committed in the Mauthausen and Ebensee concentration camps ended in acquittal.
While in Austria hardly any trials of Nazi war criminals were held after the withdrawal of the Allied powers, there were a remarkable number of convictions in West and East Germany."

You should retract

I should have been clearer, when Austria was split and run by the occupying powers after the war, in the way Germany was, there were prosecutions, as the Allies were in charge. As soon as the Allies handed control back to the Austrians, the prosecutions largely stopped. It was different in Germany, where prosecutions continued.

[Archie]

[...]

A 10 ACH for the gas chambers, as described by Karl Schultze, the man who designed it, worked. I know that, because of all of the corroborating evidence it worked and was used to gas people, 1943-4.

You can illogically argue it was not possible, based on what ever calculations you want to make, or believe, all you want. Since it is evidenced and proven to have happened, then logically, it was possible. I call you a so-called revisionist, because you cannot evidentially revise what Krema II was used for, 1943-4. You cannot provide witnesses, documents or anything else to prove, say, it was used to store corpses, or for people to take a shower and provide dates and a chronology of use for the building. Instead, you attempt to revise the history, by denying gassings by arguing that you think they were impossible as described. That is not how history is revised.

Sadly, you will not learn, so you are doomed to keep on making the same, repeated mistake, time and time again. Grok, thankfully, is a smart and quick learner and should not make that mistake again.

You're still dodging.

-You can't explain why 10 air exchanges is incriminating
-You can't explain why the non-gas chamber rooms also have 10 air exchanges or why LK2 had a bigger ventilation fan than LK1

Schultze was correct in his statements about the air exchanges (which we can calculate independently) but the reality is that the ventilation system was designed and calibrated for use as a morgue. He spun it as being for the "gas chamber" only because that was the only interpretation his Russian interrogators would accept. That system was not designed for use as a Zyklon gas chamber. No chance.

[Hektor]

....
-You can't explain why 10 air exchanges is incriminating
-You can't explain why the non-gas chamber rooms also have 10 air exchanges or why LK2 had a bigger ventilation fan than LK1

Schultze was correct in his statements about the air exchanges (which we can calculate independently) but the reality is that the ventilation system was designed and calibrated for use as a morgue. He spun it as being for the "gas chamber" only because that was the only interpretation his Russian interrogators would accept. That system was not designed for use as a Zyklon gas chamber. No chance.

For some strange reason exterminationists think that ventilation systems can only be used in homicidal gas chambers. They also ignore the enormous ventilation requirements a ventilation system would have, if it was indeed a homicidal gas chamber...

Well, obviously morgues will also need some ventilation system, even a good one.

[Wetzelrad]

Yes, and quite correctly, because the supposed eyewitnesses claim the room was clear of gas long before it was physically possible. They often claimed that the gassing room was ventilated for just a few minutes instead of the requisite one to two hours. For example Rudolf Höss claimed the ventilation was only turned on when the doors were opened for bodies to be removed, which would obviously have poisoned all the laborers and himself.

You have cherry-picked one eyewitness, what about the rest? What about eyewitnesses describing having to wear gas masks to clear the chambers and pockets of gas being trapped between the corpses? When you cherry-pick only certain witnesses and you take their claims about how long something took literally, you mislead yourself. You need to take into account how they will forget or get details wrong.

If you want to say that I've cherrypicked Rudolf Höss, arguably the most important witness for the Holocaust, fine. An explanation has to be given for why you cherrypick the parts of Höss that you like but ignore when he contradicts your theory. Höss said they "did not need" or use gas masks, and the wooden door to LK1 was "iron doors" plural, and that Zyklon immediately "numbed" or "anaesthetized" its victims. His various interrogations, affidavits, and testimonies are just loaded with errors and contradictions like these.

Likewise for other witnesses. If gas masks were used, why did the majority of eyewitnesses not mention gas masks? Or pockets of gas? Why did the majority of eyewitnesses not mention Kula's Zyklon insertion columns, but instead described Zyklon thrown, dropped, or emitted through shower heads? Why did the majority of eyewitnesses make up cremation times and procedures totally out of step with reality and each other? Where is the eyewitness that in your judgement gave an accurate time for ventilation? I'm not sure I've seen one.

This problem includes Karl Schultze by the way. Schultze described LK1 as "completely empty inside", i.e. no Kula columns. He said cremation took place at a rate of 1 body/muffle/hour. He made a number of errors around dates, one of which would have had him put the Crema II ventilation system "into operation" long after the first gassings are alleged to have occurred there. You have to ignore all of this to mold what was obviously a false confession into the shape of the orthodox gassing theory.

The gassing theory is built on isolated quotes from separate witnesses, read without consideration for their full statements, i.e. actual cherrypicking. The above contradictions are what appear when we begin reading their statements in full and comparing them, i.e. the opposite of cherrypicking. Cherrypicking is a requisite part of the gassing theory because none of the witnesses' stories hold up individually.

Also, my explanation for those contradictions is simple: they were lying. Your explanation is convoluted and illogical.

What about how Block 11, Krema I, the two farm house bunker and Krema IV and V gas chambers were vented?

Indeed. Not a single one of these supposed gas chambers had a ventilation system built to-purpose. The consensus for Crematoria IV and V is that they were ventilated naturally, without fans. Pretty strange that this crucial feature was missing in what should have been the most well-developed gas chambers in the camp.

People who think that gas came out of the shower heads, do so because they are not familiar with the evidence. They have either got their information from an inaccurate source, or they have conflated gassings with gas chambers made to look like showers and incorrectly put 2 and 2 together. Or, they have watched a dishonest denier video on X.

To the contrary, you should familiarize yourself with the evidence:

• Kraj, August 29, 1942: "... unfortunately emit gas instead of water."
• Polish underground, December 1942: "... the showers distribute poison gas instead of water."
• Fraternité, May 1944: "... instead of showers of warm water... they received a spray of toxic gas"
• Sofia Schafranov: "... shower heads, which emitted poison gas instead of water."
• Ada Bimko: "... I noticed two pipes which I was told contained the gas."
• Rudolf Höss: "... instead of water, we turned on poison gas."
• Alfred Wetzler: "... the shower heads were emitting minute crystals instead of water."

[Nessie]

[...]

A 10 ACH for the gas chambers, as described by Karl Schultze, the man who designed it, worked. I know that, because of all of the corroborating evidence it worked and was used to gas people, 1943-4.

You can illogically argue it was not possible, based on what ever calculations you want to make, or believe, all you want. Since it is evidenced and proven to have happened, then logically, it was possible. I call you a so-called revisionist, because you cannot evidentially revise what Krema II was used for, 1943-4. You cannot provide witnesses, documents or anything else to prove, say, it was used to store corpses, or for people to take a shower and provide dates and a chronology of use for the building. Instead, you attempt to revise the history, by denying gassings by arguing that you think they were impossible as described. That is not how history is revised.

Sadly, you will not learn, so you are doomed to keep on making the same, repeated mistake, time and time again. Grok, thankfully, is a smart and quick learner and should not make that mistake again.

You're still dodging.

The issue is, the we approach evidence, especially witness evidence, differently.

-You can't explain why 10 air exchanges is incriminating
-You can't explain why the non-gas chamber rooms also have 10 air exchanges or why LK2 had a bigger ventilation fan than LK1

You are looking for details, that you can puzzle over, to support your illogical argument from incredulity. That is why you need such explanations and when you don't get them, you feel vindicated.

I do not see 10 ACH as being incriminating, I merely see it as a detail, within far more important evidence, that of an important eyewitness, the engineer who designed the ventilation system. Unlike you, because I take into account how witnesses behave when recollecting, I don't need, or expect him, to be spot on accurate and have everything explainable. Schultze could say it wad 5 ACH, or 22, it does not matter, because, in 1946, he was recollecting, to the Soviets, what he remembered about a design from 1943. He may have just said what is the normal ACH for a corpse store, during his interview and then later thought, hold on, I was wrong, it was designed to be 15. So, what? The detail is not incriminating or essential, as I do not expect witnesses to be spot on and for everything to make sense to me.

So-called revisionists need his testimony to make sense, to you, before you are prepared to believe it and in the case of the mass killings during the Holocaust, you are biased and have decided not to believe anything. You apply an artificial test, that 100% of the eyewitnesses are designed to fail. You will never find an eyewitness, who worked inside a Krema, who you will believe.

Historians, journalists etc, need his testimony to be corroborated and, since they are not looking to support personal beliefs, and, crutially, they understand witnesses better than so-called revisionsts, they do not need the testimony to make perfect sense. They all know, since they have dealt with and learned about witnesses, they often don't make sense. That is absolutely normal. They do not need an explanation as to why the ACH was 10 times and the same in rooms adjacent to the gas chambers. What is important to them, is that a German engineer from Topf & Sons, who is proven to have been working on and been to the Kremas, states it had a gas chamber and he knew it was to be used on people.

Schultze was correct in his statements about the air exchanges (which we can calculate independently) but the reality is that the ventilation system was designed and calibrated for use as a morgue. He spun it as being for the "gas chamber" only because that was the only interpretation his Russian interrogators would accept. That system was not designed for use as a Zyklon gas chamber. No chance.

He did not spin it. He is corroborated, by an absolute ton of evidence, starting with 100% of the eyewitnesses who worked inside the Kremas. He is also corroborated by documents that record the construction of gas chambers inside the Kremas and the circumstantial evidence around their usage, 1943-4. You would not normally dismiss that level, consistency and amount of evidence. But, since you are really a Holocaust denier, you will on this occasion and you will keep on making the same mistakes about the witnesses, repeatedly.

Grok will not, or I hope it will not. I hope it will realise that Rudolf's tactic is to find excuses to dismiss Schultze as lying. If he cannot get Schultze for an unexpected ACH, then he will get him for being interrogated by the Soviets, likely ignoring he has already been interrogated by the Americans. Rudolf, remarkably, despite his access to Auschwitz and its archives, could not produce an evidenced, chronological history of what happened at the Kremas, 1943-4. Therefore, as an investigator, he fails.

[Nessie]

....
-You can't explain why 10 air exchanges is incriminating
-You can't explain why the non-gas chamber rooms also have 10 air exchanges or why LK2 had a bigger ventilation fan than LK1

Schultze was correct in his statements about the air exchanges (which we can calculate independently) but the reality is that the ventilation system was designed and calibrated for use as a morgue. He spun it as being for the "gas chamber" only because that was the only interpretation his Russian interrogators would accept. That system was not designed for use as a Zyklon gas chamber. No chance.

For some strange reason exterminationists think that ventilation systems can only be used in homicidal gas chambers. They also ignore the enormous ventilation requirements a ventilation system would have, if it was indeed a homicidal gas chamber...

Well, obviously morgues will also need some ventilation system, even a good one.

That is a typical logically flawed argument. It is a straw man, a made up, false accusation. Indeed, it is a lie, as you know there is not one single historian who you can prove, who thinks that only gas chambers need ventilation systems.

[Nessie]

Yes, and quite correctly, because the supposed eyewitnesses claim the room was clear of gas long before it was physically possible. They often claimed that the gassing room was ventilated for just a few minutes instead of the requisite one to two hours. For example Rudolf Höss claimed the ventilation was only turned on when the doors were opened for bodies to be removed, which would obviously have poisoned all the laborers and himself.

You have cherry-picked one eyewitness, what about the rest? What about eyewitnesses describing having to wear gas masks to clear the chambers and pockets of gas being trapped between the corpses? When you cherry-pick only certain witnesses and you take their claims about how long something took literally, you mislead yourself. You need to take into account how they will forget or get details wrong.

If you want to say that I've cherrypicked Rudolf Höss, arguably the most important witness for the Holocaust, fine. An explanation has to be given for why you cherrypick the parts of Höss that you like but ignore when he contradicts your theory.

You do not undersand what I am doing. I am not cherry-picking, I am assessing. What parts of Hoess's testimony are corroborated? What parts are not? What parts are likely accurate and what parts are not? What parts did he say when under duress and what parts did he say when he was not? I am determining how good his memory and how accurate his recollection is.

It is not cherry-picking, to dismiss what is likely mistaken, or inaccurate, or even made up, over what is likely accurate.

Höss said they "did not need" or use gas masks, and the wooden door to LK1 was "iron doors" plural, and that Zyklon immediately "numbed" or "anaesthetized" its victims. His various interrogations, affidavits, and testimonies are just loaded with errors and contradictions like these.

Hoess's testimony is indeed inconsistent in the detail. Studies have found that the more witnesses are repeatedly interviewed, or otherwise give evidence, then the more inconsistencies creep in. Hoess was under immense pressure, and that was not just because, at times, he was beaten up. He was the Commandant, he knew he was likely to face execution and that, due to overwhelming evidence for mass murder at the camp, he was going to be found guilty. It would actually be remarkable, if he had not got things wrong.

Likewise for other witnesses. If gas masks were used, why did the majority of eyewitnesses not mention gas masks? Or pockets of gas? Why did the majority of eyewitnesses not mention Kula's Zyklon insertion columns, but instead described Zyklon thrown, dropped, or emitted through shower heads? Why did the majority of eyewitnesses make up cremation times and procedures totally out of step with reality and each other? Where is the eyewitness that in your judgement gave an accurate time for ventilation? I'm not sure I've seen one.

Like all so-called revisionists, you have zero experience of taking witness statements and you have done nothing to learn about witness behaviour. The reasons why the multiple eyewitnesses to the gassings give different descriptions are;

- there were 8 gas chambers, most of which operated differently. Ask an eyewitness to a gassing at Krema I and another at Krema II, how long did the gassing take, and you get two different answers.
- experiments have found that people are poor and inconsistent when estimating how long a task took. Ask two people how long the same task took, like cremation times, and you will likely get two different answers.
- people remember different details, hence some will remember the Kula columns and others will not. That could be because only Kremas II and III had them, so a witness to Krema IV, will not recollect a column inside the gas chamber, because there was none.
- people forget and make mistakes. A witness will think of a metal door on a delousing chamber and mistakenly apply it to the gas chambers, when asked to describe what they saw, 25 years after they left the camp.
- all the witnesses had different experiences. One witness, who was caught out by a pocket of gas, will remember it vividly, but another, who never had that problem, will not.

That is all perfectly normal behaviour from witnesses, that you know nothing about.

This problem includes Karl Schultze by the way. Schultze described LK1 as "completely empty inside", i.e. no Kula columns. He said cremation took place at a rate of 1 body/muffle/hour. He made a number of errors around dates, one of which would have had him put the Crema II ventilation system "into operation" long after the first gassings are alleged to have occurred there. You have to ignore all of this to mold what was obviously a false confession into the shape of the orthodox gassing theory.

What date did Schultze last see inside Krema II? Were the columns installed by then? Could he have just made a mistake and remembered the chambers, when they were still empty? Did he give the official cremation time, as per the original design, rather than what the Sonderkommandos were doing, which was speeding the process up? Why do you expect him to remember dates so well? No one can! We are all notoriously bad at remembering.

Your puzzlement, is due to you not bothering to learn about witness memory, or ability to recollect.

The gassing theory is built on isolated quotes from separate witnesses, read without consideration for their full statements, i.e. actual cherrypicking. The above contradictions are what appear when we begin reading their statements in full and comparing them, i.e. the opposite of cherrypicking. Cherrypicking is a requisite part of the gassing theory because none of the witnesses' stories hold up individually.

Historians look at the total testimony, in conjunction with the other evidence. They then highlight what is corroborated. For example, 100% of the eyewitnesses who worked at the Kremas, no matter their job, state they were used for gassings. There are documents recording the construction of gas chambers, so the witnesses are corroborated and the gas chambers are proven. That the witness vary in their descriptions of how the gas chambers worked, is to be expected. They do not contradict on the main event, gassings, they can contradict on the details, such as whether there was a column inside the chamber, but that variation often comes with a simple explanantion.

Also, my explanation for those contradictions is simple: they were lying. Your explanation is convoluted and illogical.

My explanation is based on multiple studies of witness behaviour, memory, recollection and estimation. Your explanation is based on your desire to write off 100% of the witnesses as liars.

What about how Block 11, Krema I, the two farm house bunker and Krema IV and V gas chambers were vented?

Indeed. Not a single one of these supposed gas chambers had a ventilation system built to-purpose. The consensus for Crematoria IV and V is that they were ventilated naturally, without fans. Pretty strange that this crucial feature was missing in what should have been the most well-developed gas chambers in the camp.

That we do not know how they vented, does not mean therefore they were not gas chambers. It is an evidential gap, to be expected when the Nazis were destroying evidence, rather than leaving buildings intact, which is what they did, for the majority of the camp.

People who think that gas came out of the shower heads, do so because they are not familiar with the evidence. They have either got their information from an inaccurate source, or they have conflated gassings with gas chambers made to look like showers and incorrectly put 2 and 2 together. Or, they have watched a dishonest denier video on X.

To the contrary, you should familiarize yourself with the evidence:

• Kraj, August 29, 1942: "... unfortunately emit gas instead of water."
• Polish underground, December 1942: "... the showers distribute poison gas instead of water."
• Fraternité, May 1944: "... instead of showers of warm water... they received a spray of toxic gas"
• Sofia Schafranov: "... shower heads, which emitted poison gas instead of water."
• Ada Bimko: "... I noticed two pipes which I was told contained the gas."
• Rudolf Höss: "... instead of water, we turned on poison gas."
• Alfred Wetzler: "... the shower heads were emitting minute crystals instead of water."

That is a mix of hearsay rumour and eyewitness evidence, which you need to learn to differentiate between. That is not cherry-picking, it is learning how to assess evidence, to see what is the most accurate. Hoess will have known that the chambers were made to look like showers and confuse people into thinking they would be showered. The rest are repeating rumour and providing hearsay descriptions, second or third hand, about the showering deception. That means they all corroborate on the main event and prove the gas chambers were made to look like showers.

[HansHill]

• Kraj, August 29, 1942: "... unfortunately emit gas instead of water."
• Polish underground, December 1942: "... the showers distribute poison gas instead of water."
• Fraternité, May 1944: "... instead of showers of warm water... they received a spray of toxic gas"
• Sofia Schafranov: "... shower heads, which emitted poison gas instead of water."
• Ada Bimko: "... I noticed two pipes which I was told contained the gas."
• Rudolf Höss: "... instead of water, we turned on poison gas."
• Alfred Wetzler: "... the shower heads were emitting minute crystals instead of water."

That is a mix of hearsay rumour and eyewitness evidence, which you need to learn to differentiate between. That is not cherry-picking, it is learning how to assess evidence, to see what is the most accurate. Hoess will have known that the chambers were made to look like showers and confuse people into thinking they would be showered. The rest are repeating rumour and providing hearsay descriptions, second or third hand, about the showering deception. That means they all corroborate on the main event and prove the gas chambers were made to look like showers.

Let's analyse this. I'll focus just on Wetzler for now. Here's is a snippet from a Wikipedia entry on Wetzler:

The 33-page Vrba–Wetzler report, as it became known, released in mid 1944, was the first detailed report about Auschwitz to reach the West that the Allies were ready to believe (in 1943, Polish officer Witold Pilecki had written and forwarded his own report to the Polish government in exile and, through it, to the British and other Allied governments).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfr%C3%A9d_Wetzler

The British, through Lord Cavendish-Bentinck, famously considered the all claims prior to the Wetler report as utter garbage. Which they were. This has been discussed ad naseaum here: viewtopic.php?p=14196#p14196

And here is your response to this:

That was in 1943. By 1945, Cavendich-Bentick was being made the UK's Ambassador to Poland, so he had clearly changed his mind about those early reports!

So very clearly, the claims being made by Wetzler, are not cherry-picked in any way shape or form, and are practically the singular most important piece of """"information"""" that you consider as relevant for the Allies to begin believing in the Holocaust claims as presented.

Yet by your own admission, its still not right. Wetzelrad's point remains. If some sucker was foolish enough to believe Wetzler's nonsense like, lets say, Cavendish-Bentinck as you so claim, then he was spoofed by dogshit war propaganda.

Your position is indefensible.

[Nessie]

• Kraj, August 29, 1942: "... unfortunately emit gas instead of water."
• Polish underground, December 1942: "... the showers distribute poison gas instead of water."
• Fraternité, May 1944: "... instead of showers of warm water... they received a spray of toxic gas"
• Sofia Schafranov: "... shower heads, which emitted poison gas instead of water."
• Ada Bimko: "... I noticed two pipes which I was told contained the gas."
• Rudolf Höss: "... instead of water, we turned on poison gas."
• Alfred Wetzler: "... the shower heads were emitting minute crystals instead of water."

That is a mix of hearsay rumour and eyewitness evidence, which you need to learn to differentiate between. That is not cherry-picking, it is learning how to assess evidence, to see what is the most accurate. Hoess will have known that the chambers were made to look like showers and confuse people into thinking they would be showered. The rest are repeating rumour and providing hearsay descriptions, second or third hand, about the showering deception. That means they all corroborate on the main event and prove the gas chambers were made to look like showers.

Let's analyse this. I'll focus just on Wetzler for now. Here's is a snippet from a Wikipedia entry on Wetzler:

The 33-page Vrba–Wetzler report, as it became known, released in mid 1944, was the first detailed report about Auschwitz to reach the West that the Allies were ready to believe (in 1943, Polish officer Witold Pilecki had written and forwarded his own report to the Polish government in exile and, through it, to the British and other Allied governments).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfr%C3%A9d_Wetzler

The British, through Lord Cavendish-Bentinck, famously considered the all claims prior to the Wetler report as utter garbage. Which they were. This has been discussed ad naseaum here: viewtopic.php?p=14196#p14196

And here is your response to this:

That was in 1943. By 1945, Cavendich-Bentick was being made the UK's Ambassador to Poland, so he had clearly changed his mind about those early reports!

So very clearly, the claims being made by Wetzler, are not cherry-picked in any way shape or form, and are practically the singular most important piece of """"information"""" that you consider as relevant for the Allies to begin believing in the Holocaust claims as presented.

Yet by your own admission, its still not right. Wetzelrad's point remains. If some sucker was foolish enough to believe Wetzler's nonsense like, lets say, Cavendish-Bentinck as you so claim, then he was spoofed by dogshit war propaganda.

Your position is indefensible.

Reports of mass killings started in late 1941, from the Polish intelligence services reporting back to London some Enigma interceptions about mass shootings. That followed with intelligence about mass gassings, which, as you correctly say, were initially not believed by British Intelligence in 1943. By 1944, the volume of evidence had increased. It was not just from the Witold Report, or even the Vrba-Wetzler Report, but from all the Polish Intelligence services reports, the Riegner Telegram, reports from The World Jewish Congress, the Raczynski Note, the Karski Report, Gerstein reporting to a Swedish diplomat and various other sources, some of which are here, in the UK national archives;

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/edu ... w=all#more

That intelligence, which was added to by the earliest reports from escaped prisoners from the AR camps, was corroborated by the circumstantial evidence of the mass arrests, transportation and missing Jews. From Norway to Greece, the Nazis were going after Jews, arresting them, taking them away and few were ever seen again. In 1945, only a few hundred thousand Jews, or the millions arrested, were liberated. Many of them gave eyewitness evidence about having to work in gas chambers and the evidence of mass transports, selections and those not needed for work being taken away, rarely to be seen again. Nazis were already admitting to the killings.

You just do not want to accept, that even in 1945, the evidence of mass murders, was overwhelming. The role Vrba-Wetzler played, was to add detail, to all the other reports. The specifics of what was happening inside the camps, came from escaped prisoners.

[HansHill]

You just do not want to accept, that even in 1945, the evidence of mass murders, was overwhelming. The role Vrba-Wetzler played, was to add detail, to all the other reports.

Not engaging materially with the points as presented. You are basically arguing that the 1945 reports were sufficient to convince 1943 skeptics (such as Lord C-B), despite the reports A) not being right, and in alot of cases, B) containing much the same dogshit claims, as the ones they were rightly skeptical about because they turned out to be fake.

Astounding.

[Nessie]

You just do not want to accept, that even in 1945, the evidence of mass murders, was overwhelming. The role Vrba-Wetzler played, was to add detail, to all the other reports.

Not engaging materially with the points as presented. You are basically arguing that the 1945 reports were sufficient to convince 1943 skeptics (such as Lord C-B), despite the reports A) not being right, and in alot of cases, B) containing much the same dogshit claims, as the ones they were rightly skeptical about because they turned out to be fake.

Astounding.

The point you made, was that in 1943 Cavendish-Bentinck had been correct in thinking reports of gassing at that time, were dog shit and that the Vrba-Wetzler should not have changed his mind. I have pointed out that in 1943, there was far more than just the Witold Report and by 1944, let alone 1945, the evidence of mass gassings, as part of a mass murder action, by the Nazis was overwhelming. You think the change of mind, 1943, to 1945, was wrong, because you are clearly not aware of the scale of the evidence.

[HansHill]

scale of the evidence.

There you have it gentlemen. The quality, veracity, accuracy, accountability, plausibility, or possibility of the claims don't matter; only their "scale" (ie how many times they get repeated).

Thank you Nessie, looks like i'm done with you here, and i'm sure i'll see you in a future thread.