Sunday, May 21, 2017

Rebutting the "Twitter denial": the most popular denier memes debunked

Author: Sergey Romanov
Let's face it, maybe a few thousand people have read more than a couple of Mattogno's books. In contrast, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, see the stupid "Red Cross stats" and "Auschwitz plaque" memes online. "Twitter denial" (this includes Facebook and other social networks, of course), as primitive as it is, is the main form of denial today. So it may be useful to compile a list of rebuttals to the most common memes. One such meme repository I found in one neo-Nazi twitter account, and the tweets from the account are being responded to here. With time this post may be updated with further meme rebuttals, as necessary.

If you want to translate this text into another language, you're hereby given permission to do so as long as you link this this original posting and give credit where credit is due.

Warning: this post is very image-heavy.

If you want to copy a link to a particular argument to post on Twitter or elsewhere, please use the table below. The links are anchored to specific items.

1. Revision of the Auschwitz plaque.
2. Detached Krema I chimney?
3. Leuchter's report.
4. Alleged lies by the British government.
5. The First Holocaust canard.
6. Auschwitz swimming pool, hospital etc.
7. Arbeit macht frei.
8. The World Almanac canard.
9. The Red Cross stats canard.
10. Gas chambers not mentioned in the memoirs of Churchill, Eisenhower, de Gaulle?
11. Elie Wiesel did not mention gas chambers?
12. Elie Wiesel an impostor?
13. Auschwitz decodes.
14. Survivors did not see or hear about gas chambers?
15. Anne Frank diary.
16. Red Cross inspected the death camps?
17. Rassinier denied Auschwitz gas chambers. Or was that Thies Christophersen?
18. The Larson canard.
19. Fake, unreliable or mistaken witnesses.
20. Scratched gas chamber walls?
21. Dachau gas chamber.
22. Survivor Lieberman and the Auschwitz ovens.
23. More Wiesel stuff.
24. The Lachout document.
25. Fake Holocaust photos?
26. Science debunks Holocaust?
27. Flimsy gas chamber door with a window?
28. No Britannica mention of gas chambers?
29. Dr. Listojewski?
30. Small children and people unfit for work in Auschwitz?
31. Jews lie about the Holocaust?
32. Predetermined death toll?
33. Hilberg and famous witnesses shown to be liars, impostors during the Zündel trial?
34. Schindler's list a tale of fiction?
35. Bruno Baum admitted that false propaganda was created in Auschwitz?
36. Changing camp death tolls?
37. Death camps found only by the Soviets?

1. Revision of the Auschwitz plaque.

Short debunking: the plaque never said those were 4 million Jews. So there is no mathematical contradiction whatsoever.

Further comments: the Communists never claimed that all Auschwitz victims were Jewish; the Soviet Auschwitz report didn't mention this, there was an oblique reference to "not less than 4,000,000 citizens of the USSR, Poland, France, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Rumania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Holland, Belgium, and other countries", but that's it.

Also, history is not written by plaques. While some survivors did accept the exaggerated Soviet figures, most Western historians didn't. While initially Rudolf Höss claimed higher figures, in the end he settled on a crude estimate of 1.1 million Jewish victims, which more or less corresponds to what we know today.

The exaggerated Soviet Auschwitz estimate was never a part of the Jewish death toll estimates arriving at between 5 and 6 million victims.

The claim that this death toll was considered "the truth" for 50 years is a lie. It was so considered in the Communist Poland, but even there the literature usually quoted the "2.5-4 million" range. Hilberg's estimate, for example, was 1 million. He was an authoritative Holocaust historian and yet did not accept this as the "truth".

Conclusion: the meme is deceptive and irrelevant.

Further reading: The Auschwitz Gambit: The Four Million Variant.

2. Detached Krema I chimney?

Short debunking: this is the crematorium 1 in the so-called main camp; during the war the crematorium (including the morgue that served as a gas chamber) was converted into an air-raid shelter; after the war it was restored by the authorities to represent the original state, including the chimney. The attempt was partially symbolic and partially botched. That said, the chimney always looked "detached" because it was connected to the crematorium by underground flues.

Further comments: it is not clear what the argument is supposed to prove. That there was no crematorium there? This is debunked by numerous documents acknowledged by all leading deniers. No leading denier denies that the crematorium with a functioning chimney actually existed there during the war. They only deny its homicidal function. So this meme is doubly deceptive because it goes even against the leading deniers, not to mention proven history. The author of the meme acts as if they're the first person ever to have noticed that the chimney is detached. This sort of argumentation may work on simple, naive rubes but not on someone willing to do some basic research.

Pressac explains about the chimneys of the crematorium before the conversion into an air-raid shelter: "[t]he initial chimney was of circular section, but as the result of damage it was replaced by one of square section. ... Between the furnace room and the chimney there was a shed housing the motor for the collective forced draught installation for the three furnaces" (Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers, p. 131).

That is, the chimneys - the unreconstructed ones - had always looked "detached", especially the second one. Because they were connected to the crematorium by the underground flues. (This was due to the standard cremation oven design which allowed for (optional) recuperation of heat of the combustion gases, which were sucked out of the incineration muffle in the downward direction due to chimney draft while giving off the heat to the neighboring ducts with the combustion air streaming upwards, into the incineration chamber.)

Here's a German wartime plan of the crematorium (dated 03.08.1942) showing both chimneys: the old one (the taller one) and the new one (doc. 8 in Pressac, Die Krematorien von Auschwitz):

Numerous plans show the "detached" chimney and the underground flues, like this one from 25.09.1941:

As a side note: there were relatively few gassings in Auschwitz I as opposed to Birkenau (Auschwitz II), it is unlikely that the number of the people gassed in this small gas chamber exceeded 10000, so the "non-stop" comment, if it has ever been uttered, must have referred to the Birkenau crematoria, not to this Krema that played a truly secondary role in the Auschwitz Holocaust.

Further reading: Pressac's Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers, pp. 132, 133.

3. Leuchter's report.

Short debunking: Leuchter has been debunked numerous times over the years. It will suffice to read the following:

Nizkor on Leuchter
Harry Mazal, "A Documented Analysis of the Speech given by Fred A. Leuchter on November 10, 1991".
Richard Green (PhD in chemistry), "Leuchter, Rudolf and the Iron Blues".
Robert Jan van Pelt on the Leuchter report.

Further comments:  Leuchter is so outdated even by the denier standards that it's always weird to see him brought up on twitter as if he still had any relevance. I mean, I could at least understand the deniers relying on Germar Rudolf, an updated version of Leuchter (though as thoroughly refuted as Leuchter). But it seems that most of them are stuck in the 1980s.

As it happens, some deniers also didn't fall for Leuchter's fraudulent assertions.

The hardcore Holocaust denier and neo-Nazi antisemite Robert Frenz, of FAEM infamy, who also happened to be a professional chemist, left nothing of Leuchter's arguments in Liberty Bell, Feb. 1993, pp. 32ff. To quote a small part:
The latest Journal of Historical Review, Winter 92-93 has been "Leuchterized". Fred Leuchter was the fellow who left occupied America to visit occupied Poland. While there, he stole some Polish property in the form of bricks, mortar, dust, roach droppings and such, and brought them home as souvenirs of Auschwitz. Fred then rushed the samples to a laboratory for an analysis of the "cyanide" content. By the beard of the Holocaust, the findings were blown into a gigantic whoopee. Lotsa cyanide in some bricks. Notta lotsa cyanide in other bricks. Conclusion: No one died from being "gassed" at Auschwitz. Ain't science grand - and simple? Imagine visiting kitchen "A" and finding spaghetti sauce all over the walls. Following that, you visit kitchen "B" and find no spaghetti sauce on the walls. Would you conclude that there were no spaghetti suppers in kitchen "B"? A revisionist would.
I mentioned the above for a good reason. From what I have read in Mr. Leuchter's report, I would never get too excited until I had some other questions answered. Were the chemical compositions of the pieces of stone identical? Did the "gas chambers" have the identical building material as the "disinfection chambers" (disinfestation chambers)? Are you sure that the wall the samples came from were the identical walls which existed in 1944? Were the time, temperatures, humidity, light and hydrogen cyanide concentrations identical in both sites. In other words, were the fumigation chambers and the "extermination" chambers identically used? If not, then how can you make such a definitive conclusion, Fred? Did enthusiasm cloud your reason?
The boiling point of hydrogen cyanide is 78 degrees Fahrenheit - right out of a book. The poo-plah about this or that because HCN (gas) would condense below this temperature occurs in most of the revisionist twaddle in an attempt to "prove" that "gassing" was impossible without heat and a full moon. (Are American gas chambers heated?) If these people would "get a life" they would soon learn that a little knowledge is dangerous. Water boils (change of state - liquid to gas) at 212 degrees. Below this temperature, if Mr. Grubach's view of the earth is valid, there shouldn't be any water in the atmosphere. Ever hear of huimidity? If your body temperature is normal, your lungs are full of water vapor (gas) which is not itching to condense anywhere or at anytime even though it exists as a gas below the boiling pointy Water remains as a gas, when evaporated, and never condenses until the "dew point" is reached and then, only a fraction of it. Hydrogen cyanide gas also has its own dew point and that is why Mr. Leuchter's surmise is all gas.
It's too bad that Mr. Grubach (follower) and Mr. Leuchter (the leader) never got into the blueprint business. They'd soon discover (hopefully) that in the formation of Prussian blue, the blue is initially a quite stable SOLUBLE substance. (The precipitate is not technically "soluble" but is actually an easily dispersed colloid.) In this state, one can rinse the substance away. In the blueprint section of Taylor-Sybron, excess Prussian blue, on week-old prints, was bleached away, as a matter of course, with nothing more sophisticated than a 4 to 10 percent solution of washing soda (sodium carbonate). (Perhaps Nazi chemicals operate with a different set of rules.) Hydrated chromous oxide, and countless other insolubles, also exhibit the same property. Since the "gassing" took place with all of that sweating, urinating, and vomiting within a chamber that was already damp, one could easily develop a scenario by which the lack of accumulated Auschwitz blue could be legitimately explained. Did the Nazis rinse the chambers after each use? If they used washing potash, then that would explain where all of that potassium came from. Were the chambers ever cleaned with any type of alkali? If so, the "blue" could have been drastically reduced. During a clothes fumigation process the articles are never fumigated in a wet state. Therefore, this chamber would have "unused" HCN all over the place. When gassing people, the great quantities of moisture present on and in the bodies would absorb large quantities of HCN leaving a lesser amount to react with whatever hematite, siderite or magnetite that was present in the stone walls. Hydrogen cyanide has a very strong attraction to water. It dissolves in all proportions which leads to the strange term "infinitely soluble".
If the walls were such that Prussian blue could be formed, then the walls of the chamber containing the cloth would be more blue. Another question which should be answered is in regard to the frequency. Where the "gas" chambers used to the same extent as the fumigation chambers? Also, if the disinfestation chambers were indeed warmer than the "execution" chambers, then another reason is found for the evidence of a greater concentration of reaction products (blue stuff).
Mr. Leuchter is also strung out on this 78 degree temperature bit. To Fred, hydrogen cyanide would be condensing all over the place. Not so. (How's your dew point?) Under the temperatures and pressures being considered, the hydrogen cyanide molecule has a greater affinity for the water molecule than it does for its own kind. It is a molecular race-mixer. This means that hydrocyanic acid would be formed in preference to the liquid hydrogen cyanide because water is not exactly rare. Moreover, every fumigator knows that it takes very much higher concentrations of HCN to kill fleas than it does people. Here again we have another reason (if you need one) for one chamber having bluer walls than another. Higher concentrations of HCN are needed to kill fleas, bedbugs (they need a lot of gassing!) and lice than would be necessary for human beings or Bushbunnies. So there. My blue is bluer than your blue. Mr. Leuchter also overlooks the fact that crowded rooms get very warm. People are actually radiant heaters and so are the cows which heat up cow barns. Revisionists spend too much time in isolation to know this.
The problem with all revisionists is that while they CLAIM to be scientific, they fail to ACT in a scientific manner.
Frenz hit the nail on the head with most points. Delousing chambers and homicidal chambers used different concentrations and gassing times, the walls did get washed after gassings (see Dr. Green's expert report linked to above), HCN does evaporate quickly below the boiling point, and so on.

Frenz continued his attack in the April issue, pp. 22ff, listing many specific mistakes and contradictions, and pointing out that "internally, the LR has many serious flaws which tend to diminish its technical acceptability", "the LR has been called a "forensic" report, that is, admissible in a debate or court of law which adheres to some set of pre-established rules. In courts of law, evidence obtained illegally (rule breaking) is not admitted", "the LR is full of mind-boggling roa poo", "the LR report is full of foolish material which could be used as grist for a "refuter's" mill" and "the LR contains so many internal contradictions that outside help isn't really necessary".

So much for Leuchter.

4. Alleged lies by the British government.

Short debunking: Funnily enough it was the twitter user who actually lied: the quotation marks indicate a literal quote, but nothing like this can be found in the text.

While the letter calls for spreading atrocity propaganda to distract from the Red Army atrocities, nowhere in the letter it is claimed or hinted at that such propaganda would be based on lies or invented from whole cloth.

Since historians don't rely on the Ministry's propaganda, this whole document is irrelevant to the historicity of the Holocaust. Moreover, the letter is relatively late, the big picture of the Nazi atrocities had already been known by that time.

Further reading: for some general historical context it is useful to read this part of van Pelt's report.

5. The First Holocaust canard.

Short debunking: there is no historical or logical connection between various uses of "holocaust" and "six million" and the historicity of the Holocaust, or that of the recognized Jewish death toll of between 5 and 6 million Jews, so the meme is simply irrelevant.

Further comments: the whole argument, if there is one, is incoherent. The established death toll of between 5 and 6 million Jews is based on demographic data which is not dependent on what can or cannot be found in the newspapers. Not to mention that the whole argument is based on cherrypicking. The deniers search for "holocaust" and "six million" and sure enough, found some mentions. What happens when we search for "five million"? Right, we find mentions of five million.

The use of the word "holocaust" in connection with the Jewish persecution in the early reports is expected, since it was a normal word widely used to describe things both catastrophic and mundane:
"... the loss of population in the holocaust of 1914-1918." (American Historical Review, January 1931, p. 477)
"There are women ... whose household labours resounds [with] the constant ringing of crashing china and glasses ... Those glasses that escape the holocaust of housework ..." (Palestine Post, 26 July 1946, p. 8, cols. 1-2)
Its use in such a context is thus absolutely unsurprising and expected. The conventional meaning referring to the Nazi genocide of Jews became popular only in the 1960s-1970s. So, as before, there is no connection whatsoever and no coherent argument to be made.

Further reading: here is a book in which actual specialists (as opposed to amateur neo-Nazis and proven liars), go country by country and, based on reliable sources, arrive at the Holocaust estimates; that's how real scholarship looks like, not the mind-numbingly stupid nonsense above:

W. Benz (ed.), Dimension des Völkermords. Die Zahl der jüdischen Opfer des Nationalsozialismus.

The articles about the countries, with the authors listed:
Deutsches Reich (Arndt, Ino / Boberach, Heinz)
Österreich (Moser, Jonny)
Luxemburg (Arndt, Ino)
Frankreich und Belgien (Wetzel, Juliane)
Niederlande (Hirschfeld, Gerhard)
Dänemark (Weiß, Hermann)
Norwegen (Mendelsohn, Oskar)
Italien (Picciotto Fargion, Liliana)
Albanien (Grimm, Gerhard)
Griechenland (Fleischer, Hagen)
Bulgarien (Hoppe, Hans-Joachim)
Jugoslawien (Sundhaussen, Holm)
Ungarn (Varga, László)
Tschechoslowakei (Schmidt-Hartmann, Eva)
Rumänien (Zach, Κrista)
Polen (Golczewski, Frank)
Sowjetunion (Röbel, Gert)
Also see Germar Rudolf destroys Don Heddesheimer in a single sentence.

Jon Petrie, "The Secular Word "HOLOCAUST": Scholarly Sacralization, Twentieth Century Meanings"

6. Auschwitz swimming pool, hospital etc.

Short debunking: Auschwitz consisted of numerous sub-camps and served many functions, among them: a POW camp, a labor camp, a detention camp, an extermination camp. There were tens of thousands of non-Jewish inmates in Auschwitz and its sub-camps too, who as a rule were subjected to a different treatment than Jews. Therefore there is no contradiction whatsoever between the camp having facilities the laymen may not associate with an extermination camp and the Holocaust.

Further comments: once again the leap of logic here is as big, as the argument as a whole is  deceptive. Let's take the swimming pool, for example (which was merely a modified firefighting water reservoir). Who said in the first place that it was for the Jews and not for the non-Jewish prisoners, like Poles and Germans?

There was a brothel in the Auschwitz main camp strictly for the non-Jewish prisoners (and of course with strictly non-Jewish women; "race-mixing").

There was a sports association, as is evidenced by this photo:

On which Pressac comments:
As for the fencing competition, the swastika on the flag and the badge worn by the fencer on the right, the presence among the spectators of SS and SA officers, members of the party in uniform and of policemen, show that this is a meeting for “Reichsdeutschen”, exclusively for "sound" elements and no others. 
Indeed, it was a sports association run by IG Auschwitz/IG Farben. For example on 23.07.1944 it organized an athletics competition to which "the whole German staff of the construction site" was invited. Lying deniers of course would like people to believe that the sports association was for the prisoners.

But even when some of the facilities touted by the deniers were used by the Jewish workers, where exactly is the contradiction? It was after all the Jews permanently unable to work who were as a rule exterminated upon arrival, the rest lived and worked in the camp until they were unable to work (and killed), and in the meantime could have used some of those facilities (like hospitals) because the Nazis were not against increasing their slaves' work productivity, especially as the war progressed and more slave labor became necessary. Again, not a single of these facilities or activities is inconsistent with the Holocaust. And of course they are mentioned by the mainstream sources. Like this mention of the orchestra in Danuta Czech's Auschwitz Chronicle (p. 175):

And the so-called Auschwitz soccer team was, strictly speaking, none of the sort. Its members were not Auschwitz inmates. They were British POWs from the camp E715, which was administered not by KL Auschwitz but by Stalag VIII-B in Lamsdorf. Very different rules applied to these POWs who, to repeat, were not Auschwitz inmates.

Those who make arguments of this type are out to deceive unsuspecting people.

7. Arbeit macht frei.

Short debunking: It was both. See the previous item. There is documentary evidence for mass killings of Jews in Auschwitz. And all other kinds of evidence.

8. The World Almanac canard.

Short debunking: World Almanac is not a reliable source of demographic data.

Further comments: it may come as a surprise to the people not acquainted with the historiographical methodology, but popular sources like general-purpose encyclopedias and almanacs are usually not considered reliable sources for writing history. The World Almanac is not an exception. It's just a compendium of numerous bits of information of differing reliability each of which needs to be analyzed before being taken seriously. (It was also not a Jewish publication, contrary to some denier claims.)

Indeed, the deniers would have to agree with this because in the relevant time-frame the World Almanac used the American Jewish Congress' demographic data, which the deniers would surely reject. Notably, up to and including 1948 these AJC stats are explicitly stated to be estimates for 1939 (e.g. 15,688,259 is given for 1939 in 1945-58) - this is sometimes misrepresented, including by the twitter user cited above, as the AJC admitting to there having been no Holocaust.

Some anti-denier sources claim that the figure 15,753,638, cited by the twitter user, does not appear in the Almanac. This is a mistake, it does, though not in the AJC data set. Sometimes the Almanac also published its own estimates, including some of those used by the deniers. The problem is that the Almanac never stated its source for these estimates so they are totally useless. Most probably they were purely hypothetical calculations made in absence of new censuses, based on pre-war data, failing to take into account the changed demographic situation.

As mentioned above, the actual demographic research based on a careful analysis of many sources shows between 5 and 6 million Jewish victims of the Nazi policies, see W. Benz (ed.), Dimension des Völkermords. Die Zahl der jüdischen Opfer des Nationalsozialismus.

Further reading: William Daffer's analysis.

9. The Red Cross stats canard.

Short debunking: the listed numbers are absolutely consistent with the Holocaust since they do not purport to be the total camp or Nazi victim death tolls; they don't stem from the wartime activities of the Red Cross.

Further comments:  this one counts as a pretty brazen lie. After all the document refers only to the "beurkundeten Sterbefälle" - i.e. the registered death cases. Since most Holocaust victims (and hence also their deaths) have never been claimed to have been registered in the camps, where is the contradiction?

Sometimes another document is also posted as evidence:

It stems from the same agency (more on that in a second) and explicitly says in German:
The registration numbers of the Special Registry Office do not allow for any conclusions about the actual numbers of the dead in the concentration camps.
What could be clearer?

Both documents are authentic, but contrary to the deniers they do not stem from the Red Cross. The deniers say they are from the Red Cross because they believe in yet another myth - that the Red Cross visited all the camps during the war and found nothing. Thus the claim is that since the Red Cross had an access to these stats during the war (again, false!), they therefore represent the most authentic information about the concentration camp deaths.

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. The Red Cross never had an access to the official camp stats during the war. Nor has it ever attempted to gather such stats. It was simply outside of the scope of its activities. The Red Cross said so itself in the numerous statements it issued throughout the years to address the denier misrepresentations, see for example "Red cross exposure of “false propaganda”", Patterns of Prejudice, 1978, vol. 12, issue 2, p. 11:
Consequently the ICRC considers it must make clear the fact that it has never published -- or even compiled - statistics of this kind which are being falsely attributed to it. The work of the ICRC is to help war victims, not to count them. In any case, how could its delegates have obtained data for such statistics? They were able to enter only a few concentration camps, and then only in the final days of the war. [...]
The same propaganda scheme has recently been making use of other figures, namely the number of deaths recorded by the International Tracing Service on the basis of documents found when the camps were closed. Obviously this number bears no relation - though the authors of the propaganda pretend otherwise - to the total deaths in concentration camps; firstly because a considerable quantity of documentary material was destroyed before the departure of the Nazi administration, and secondly because many deaths were never recorded, such as those which occurred in the extermination camps where records were generally not kept.
As already emphasized above, the Red Cross did not have access to all the camps:
On 27 September 1944, Dr Rossel went to Auschwitz. There he spoke to the commander of the camp, but he was not authorized to go inside it.
The documents stem from a German government institution, the Special Registry Office (SRO) in Bad Arolsen (Sonderstandesamt Bad Arolsen), since only such an official institution can lawfully issue death certificates. The SRO was created by the German government on the initiative of the International Tracing Service, which also supplies most of the information to the SRO. The connection with the Red Cross is that it administered the ITS from 1955 to 2012. The SRO, as a governmental institution, has, of course, never been a part of any international organization like the Red Cross. The data itself certainly does not stem from any of the wartime activities of the Red Cross. It was gathered by the ITS on the basis of the surviving German documents.

Moreover, the aim of the ITS and the SRO has never been to compile the complete mortality statistics for the camps. The numbers in the reports actually represent the numbers of people for whom the death certificates were issued by the SRO, as issuing such certificates is the SRO's raison d'être. The procedure was explained by the ITS director Charles Biedermann during one of the Zündel trials (as summarized by the denial-friendly Barbara Kulaszka):
The Special Registry Office was an agency of the Federal Republic of Germany, responsible directly to the Ministry of the Interior of the Province of Hesse and whose mandate was to certify deaths which occurred in concentration camps. (10 2407) The Special Registry Office consisted of two divisions: the preliminary investigation registry and the regular registry. The ICRC and the Special Registry Office were two separate institutions. (11-2498)
If dependents of former persecutees who had died during the war requested a death certificate, the ICRC passed the request together with any evidence it had concerning the individual to the Special Registry Office. Such death certificates were required in order to make restitution or pension claims. (11-2498, 2499) The latter organization decided whether the information was sufficient to certify a death. (10-2407, 2408)
Biedermann confirmed that as of December 31, 1983, the total number of deaths registered with the Special Registry Office and various other registry offices was 373,468. (11-2515) This figure represented death certificates issued pursuant to received applications and was based, with respect to the Special Registry Office, on camp records kept by the Nazis during the war. (11-2516, 2517) 
[...] He pointed out, however, that these figures resulted from applications. If an entire family had died, there was no one to make an application for a death certificate. Secondly, the ITS had complete documentation for only two of the twenty-two concentration camps. For the remainder, it had either partial or no documentation. Therefore, if an application was made for a person who had allegedly died in one of these camps, the ITS would not have the records to justify a request to the Special Registry Office for a death certificate. (12-2647)
This means that the data cannot be complete because, first of all, many documents simply did not survive. Second, because the data does not represent an attempt to count all the deaths but rather represents the number of the death certificates which depended on the number of applications.

The ITS director Albert de Cocatrix explained in 1977 that the following categories are not included in the SRO data:
(A) Death cases in extermination camps. The persons destined for destruction were brought into the gas chambers without registration. The same applies to the Jews deported to Auschwitz, who were destined for the gas chambers after the "selection".
(B) Death cases in part before or shortly after the liberation.
(C) Deaths in concentration camps for which no documents are available at the ITS.
(D) Deaths of persons transferred to the concentration camps for execution.
That the data is not complete is also evident to anyone not ignorant of the basic facts about the camp death toll statistics. For example, the death books of Auschwitz (which only contain the deaths of registered inmates and which are very incomplete, we have them only for 27.07.1941-31.12.1943) contain 68864 entries, more than the numbers given in both documents. For Majdanek the leading deniers Mattogno and Graf concede that "[m]ore than 40,000 Majdanek inmates died, primarily from disease, debilitation and malnutrition; an unknown number was executed". Whereas the SRO documents have around 7000 deaths (or more accurately, death certificates issued by the SRO).

And of course the pure extermination camps like Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor and Chelmno are not even on the list.

Despite such obvious falsity of the claim it remains one of the more popular denial memes. E.g. the loony James Fetzer cited the alleged stats as one of the reasons for why he now thinks the Holocaust was a hoax.

But all it shows is that the Holocaust denial is a big lie.

10. Gas chambers not mentioned in the memoirs of Churchill, Eisenhower, de Gaulle?

Short debunking: the logic here is not clear: suppose they didn't mention gas chambers in their books. And? Their books were not about the Nazi method of killings. They presumably also did not mention Auschwitz at all. Does that mean Auschwitz did not exist? They were writing about the war, not about camps. This factoid is simply irrelevant. The deniers should address the actual evidence.

Further comments:  hardly necessary. This is a type of a fallacious appeal to authority. Churchill, De Gaulle and Eisenhower are simply not historical sources on the Holocaust and nobody sane expects them to be. The interest in the Holocaust-as-such in the West came later anyway; these authors were writing about the military and military-political side of things.

And yes, Churchill did mention mass extermination in the German camps, even if he didn't use the word "Jewish". Funny how the deniers are silent about that. From the first chapter of The Gathering Storm:
Crimes were committed by the Germans under the Hitlerite domination to which they allowed themselves to be subjected which find no equal in scale and wickedness with any that have darkened the human record. The wholesale massacre by systematised processes of six or seven millions of men, women and children in the German execution camps exceeds in horror the rough-and-ready butcheries of Genghis Khan, and in scale reduces them to pygmy proportions.
So will the deniers accept this now? Obviously not.

De Gaulle and Eisenhower were military men writing about military matters. De Gaulle doesn't even mention the deportations of French Jews as such in his memoirs, does it mean they did not take place? For Eisenhower all Nazi camps were "camps of horror", as he names Ohrdruf in his memoir, in which his visit is briefly described. He specifically called for documenting Ohrdruf and other liberated camps in order to preclude some people at home saying that the stories of the Nazi brutality were propaganda. His understanding of the camp system was raw and naive, he wasn't a historian of genocide so expecting him to have written more about it than he himself experienced is simply unwarranted.

A stupid non-argument all-around: addressing what someone allegedly did not mention instead of addressing the actual evidence. (Side note: the quote attributed to Lynn is actually by Faurisson. The silly puppets can't even get their gurus straight.)

11. Elie Wiesel did not mention gas chambers?

Short debunking: the crematoria Wiesel did write about in a homicidal sense contained gas chambers. Another non-argument.

Further comments:  since Elie Wiesel is not any sort of a historiographically important Auschwitz witness (that he was an important cultural and political figure does not mean that his novel-memoir serves as a basis of history-writing), this is sort of a silly argument.

Most Auschwitz survivors including Wiesel never witnessed the gas chambers, which obviously were not out there in the open but were either inside the crematoria or just outside of the camp perimeter (the Bunkers). Since going to a gas chamber usually meant going to the crematorium, "he goes to the crematorium" and "he goes to the gas chamber" were in many cases interchangeable in the camp-speak and needed no further explanation. Only people like Faurisson, who are very poor at assessing the texts having to do with history, can find Wiesel's usage of "crematorium" problematic. Just one example:
We did not know, as yet, which was the better side, right or left, which road led to prison and which to the crematoria. Still, I was happy, I was near my father. Our procession continued slowly to move forward.
Another inmate came over to us:
"Yes," someone answered.
"Poor devils, you are heading for the crematorium."
He seemed to be telling the truth.
In fact, in the "prayer" episode Wiesel writes about gassing explicitly:
But look at these men whom You have betrayed, allowing them to be tortured, slaughtered, gassed, and burned, what do they do? They pray before You! They praise Your name!
But, to repeat, Elie Wiesel has never been presented as an eyewitness to the gas chambers so it's hard to understand what this argument is all about aside from the usual denier ignorance and illogic.

Further reading:
Sergey Romanov, "The Denial Fossil Faurisson Sounds Like a Broken Record (Again)"

12. Elie Wiesel an impostor?

Short debunking: Wiesel did have a tattoo, the claims by another survivor about Wiesel's identity can be debunked with the original documents and the survivor's own statements, the basis of the claims rests on provable clerical mistakes in the original documents.

Further comments:  I wrote a full-length article about all these issues with exhaustive documentation: Lying about Elie Wiesel.

13. Auschwitz decodes.

Short debunking: like in the case of the ITS stats discussed above, this refers solely to the registered prisoners and is fully compatible with the mass murder by gas in Auschwitz.

Further comments: here is how the denier author describes the content of the decodes:
As shown by the Bletchley Park documents, the commandant of Auschwitz had to file a report every single day. With the exception of Sunday, these messages consisted of daily reports on population [Bestand], arrivals [Zugänge], and departures [Abgänge] from the concentration camps.
He concedes:
Zugänge referred to the arrival of new inmates; Abgänge referred to deaths, executions, releases and inmates transferred to other camps.
Since most of the Jews who arrived in Auschwitz never became its inmates and were never registered, but rather were gassed upon arrival, the bulk of the gassings would never have appeared in these decodes at all since they only dealt with the registered inmates.

The gassings of the inmates after internal selections (quite small in numbers compared to the gassings of non-inmates upon arrival) would be given in the Abgänge but obviously nobody would have written "they were gassed".

So yes, it was entirely possible for non-inmates to have been gassed at a rate of 2000 per day (just as a theoretical illustration), and for them not to appear in the inmate statistics sent per telex. Did I say "possible"? I meant "inevitable".

The ignorant author claims this to be an ad hoc hypothesis, but this is of course hogwash - that it was mostly the unregistered prisoners who never became Zugänge (and, logically, also could not become Abgänge) that were gassed was claimed from the start by all the people in the know. The author is ignorant of basic history (or is simply being dishonest).

It is also important to note that the decoded messages were being sent to the the WVHA (to which Auschwitz was subordinated). Unlike, say, Himmler, the WVHA was concerned first and foremost with the camp population and labor force productivity, not with the non-inmate extermination statistics.

The author asks how the numbers of those murdered (which were surely kept) were otherwise reported. Maybe they were collected and, as highly sensitive, regularly (say, once a month) sent to the RSHA in Berlin with a courier. A very plausible hypothesis that the author can't debunk. What we do know though, despite the author's protestations, is that the decodes, to repeat, only referred to the registered inmates, i.e. to a small part of all the people who had arrived in Auschwitz. What the author can't explain is where the rest of the Jewish Auschwitz arrivals went (after we subtract the documented transfers to the other camps). That's about 900,000 Jews. They were obviously not "sent to the East". So where are they?

14. Survivors did not see or hear about gas chambers?

Short debunking: most survivors did not see the gas chambers, nor were they supposed to, so the argument is illogical as usual. Many, if not most, did hear at least generic information about the gas chambers (e.g. in form of rumors). If someone didn't, what does that prove? Nothing. And of course the deniers outright lie about some of these survivors.

Further comments: as usual, the text in the quotes posted by the twitter user is his own forgery - no survivor has ever uttered those words.

Let's take a look at the specific people in the meme.

Joseph Burg was never an Auschwitz inmate in the first place, so his opinion "as a survivor" on the Auschwitz gas chambers is irrelevant. Deniers lied, as usual.

An actual Auschwitz survivor Marika Frank (Maria Frank Abrams) did claim that she never heard about gas chambers while in Auschwitz. This might be seen as weird at first sight because everybody, including the leading deniers, accepts that at the very least the rumors about the gas chambers existed in the camp. Here is how Frank describes her experiences:
Let me explain that even though I had been in Auschwitz I did not know about the gas chambers. Can you imagine that? We thought, when we were there, that our parents and the children were taken to camps which were much better. We assumed that they couldn't live through the camp we were in. It was not until a large contingent from Auschwitz came to Bergen-Belsen that I had to give up that idea that they were safe. I met two women in their thirties who spoke Hungarian and they asked if it was true that the Hungarian transports were so severely selected people to the camps and the others to be gassed. I said, 'What are you saying?' And they looked at me as if I were foolish, but they didn't want to destroy my hope and so didn't try to explain.
I ran back to the tent and collapsed. I think I cried for weeks. I finally realized that everybody was killed.
However the level of knowledge about the extermination among the Hungarian Jews is often overestimated. On this see Hans Metzner's article "Knowledge of Mass Extermination Among Hungarian Jews Returning from Auschwitz".

Whether or not Frank heard anything about the gas chambers, we know that people did talk about them in the camp. She was eventually told about the gassings by other Auschwitz inmates, although already in Belsen. This point is also illustrated by another survivor quoted in the tweet - a non-Jewish inmate Maria Vanherwaarden. As quoted by the denier-friendly Barbara Kulaszka:
From Linz, Herwaarden was transported to Vienna and from there to Auschwitz. There were about twenty other women on the train travelling from Vienna to Auschwitz. She could not say if any were Jewish. They received food on the train. A gypsy told Herwaarden that they were going to be gassed when they arrived at Auschwitz. They arrived in the camp on 2 December in the afternoon. (25-6625, 6626, 6627)
That night the SS people came and took them to Birkenau. They were taken to a cold, windowless room and told that they had to take a cold shower. They handed over their clothes and all hair was shaved, both head and pubic. Herwaarden was "terribly scared" when she went into the shower room because "they said gas would be coming from the top but it was only water." They received soap, but the water was cold. When they finished, they received their numbers and prisoners clothing and were taken to the barracks. Herwaarden was listed as an Aryan. (25-6628, 6629)
Vanherwaarden did not see the gas chambers, but she did hear of them. So what does Frank's not hearing about the gas chambers prove? Only that she, personally, did not hear about them. Nothing else.

As for Vanherwaarden, let's quote further:
While gassings were talked about at the camp, she personally never saw anything of the sort. There was a terrible smell in the camp, however...
She wasn't supposed to have seen a gassing in the first place, obviously. So her never having seen one is fully compatible with everything. Not every Auschwitz inmate automatically became a gas chamber eyewitness. In fact, the absolute majority of the survivors didn't. Indeed, Vanherwaarden conceded that she "never saw a crematorium at Birkenau. It was a big place". Does Vanherwaarden never having seen the crematoria prove that they didn't exist? Obviously not, only that she personally didn't see them.

Basically, her testimony is also irrelevant to the gas chambers issue, which is why she is, of course, quoted by the deniers.

The reliability of the statement of an alleged survivor Esther Grassman quoted by the Holocaust denier M. R. Wright (obviously with an ideological agenda in mind) is in question. Wright never identifies his source so it can be rejected out of hand. But even if it were authentic, everything written about Marika Frank above would also apply to Grassman.

As for Kautsky, this is another brazen denier lie. Kautsky spent all of his time in Monowitz (Auschwitz III) where there were no gas chambers, so he wasn't supposed to personally see any. But the quote is a fake! And yes, he did write in his book that he learned about gas chambers even in Monowitz from sources he considered reliable. Deniers lied, as usual.

As for the alleged denial of the gas chambers by the French Resistance members, not a single quote or a source is given. Claim dismissed.

15. Anne Frank diary.

Short debunking: the diary was extensively forensically tested by the Netherlands Forensic Institute and is undoubtedly genuine.

Further comments: a very detailed summary of the forensic testing of the diary by the Netherlands Forensic Institute was published in The Diary of Anne Frank: The Revised Critical Edition (issued by the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation). The experts investigated the paper, the glue, the ink with the then latest technology. Then they analysed the handwriting, compared it to Anne Frank's handwriting from the other documents (e.g. letters she wrote). The diary was concluded to be authentic. The following discussion is based on this conclusive scholarly edition unless specified otherwise.

The claim about "portions" of the diary written in ballpoint pen not available until 1951 is of course false and rests on two scraps of papers with notes not made by Anne Frank (which found its way into the diary but do not constitute a part of the diary), as well as, possibly, on a few small postwar editorial corrections in the main text of the diary. The actual text of the diary - what Anne Frank wrote herself during the war - was not written in a ballpoint pen.

The claim originated with a terse report by the Bundeskriminalamt which also tested the diary and published a summary mentioning the ballpoint pen markings (and an improbability of them having been made before 1951) without being more specific as to what those markings were. The Bundeskriminalamt later issued a clarification:
The forensic report of 1980 does not justify any doubts about the authenticity of the Anne Frank diaries.
1. The report, according to the task set by the Hamburg district court, concerned only the question of whether the writing material used to record the diaries - writing paper and writing materials - was customary in the years of the Second World War. This is undoubtedly confirmed in the report.

2. On the other hand, according to the report, additional inscriptions found on the originals of the diary sheets, so-called corrections [Korrekturschriften], were applied with a ballpoint pen ink, which was customary only since 1951. Obviously, these are editorial remarks or corrections made by a further editor.
The BKA's report of 1980 concludes that paper and writing materials used for the actual text of the diaries were available in the relevant period and were customary.
No further findings, especially those on the diaries' authorship, were made in this report.
The BKA emphasizes that the expert report of the Institute for Criminal Investigations of 1980 cannot be called upon to question the authenticity of Anne Frank's diaries. The BKA distanced itself decisively from all speculation aimed in such a direction.
The Netherlands Forensic Institute disagrees with the BKA that it has been truly established that the small corrections were made in ballpoint pen ink. The NFI reports (p. 167):
In no more than six places do we find corrections and additions to the page numbers in black, which, considered morphologically, display the characteristics of ballpoint writing. [...] When analyzed chemically, however, the ink behaved differently from a series of reference ballpoint inks, including samples from an earlier date.
However, even if further investigation had brought to light a ballpoint with a similar chemical reaction, this discovery would not have detracted from the authenticity of the diary, for all we have here is the addition of page numbers for which there are indications that they were not written by Anne Frank.
As for the two loose scraps of paper with the ballpoint ink writing, they obviously do not bear Anne Frank's handwriting but most probably stem from the expert Dorothea Ockelmann who was a part of the court expert team investigating the diary in 1959-60 (her son recognized her handwriting). Here is how they look like:

These are the only pieces of paper found in the diary that have been established to have been written with a ballpoint pen beyond a reasonable doubt.

As for Meyer Levin being the author of the diary, this is an even older canard also exposed, among other places, in the Critical Edition. Otto Frank hired Meyer Levin in 1952 to write a play based on the diary (which, in an abridged form, had already been published in Dutch in 1947). He basically failed at his job, other authors were hired to write another version which turned out to be a critical success. Levin sued Frank for an alleged breach of contract and fraud, claiming he had been chosen to write the play, that the other authors (the Hacketts) used his ideas, etc., etc.

His claims of fraud and breach of contract were rejected by the court. His claim of the Hacketts having used his ideas was put before a jury which decided to award him $50,000 in damages. The court however set the jury verdict aside, ruling that the Hacketts' alleged plagiarism could not be proven since their inspiration came from the same source as Levin's - Anne Frank's diary. However new lawsuits from Levin were inevitable, so Frank, Bloomgarden and Levin signed an agreement that Levin would be paid $15,000 in exchange for dropping his royalties claim.

Not a single time during the various court and settlement proceedings has the authenticity of the diary been called in question. The only issue was the play that Levin wrote.

The quote that the twitter user ascribes to a decision of the "New York Supreme Court" actually comes not from any court decision but rather from an article in a Swedish far-right publication Fria Ord. The twitter user has thus engaged in outright fraud.

As mentioned above, Anne Frank's handwriting was comprehensively investigated by the experts, the diary was proven to have been written by one hand. Anne used two scripts - cursive and "handprinting", both in the diary and in the letters. Examples taken from the Revised Critical Edition follow.

Anne Frank's 30.07.1941 letter:

Anne Frank's entry in Jacqueline van Maarsen's autograph album, 23.03.1942:

A page from the diary with both kinds of handwriting:

As for the copyright/authorship issues, this is a purely legal fiction. The Swiss Anne Frank Fonds wanted a copyright extension to further be able to collect royalties, so it claimed, absurdly when it comes to the common sense, but apparently with some support from the law, that Otto Frank could be seen as a legal co-author of the edited version due to the work that he has done on the original text (editing, collating, etc.). It is important to understand that this applies only to the version edited by Otto Frank and first published as Het Achterhuis in 1947, not to the original text.

Such a move, which seems to be all about the money, hardly does justice to Anne Frank's memory, contrary to what the AFF claims. However even the AFF does not go so far as to claim that Otto Frank was an actual co-author:
At the same time, the Anne Frank Fonds would like to reiterate that Anne Frank was the only author of her original diaries. Since its establishment, the Anne Frank Fonds has, on the basis of forensic/scientific evidence, dismissed differing interpretations, accusations of forgery, or third-party co-authorship of Anne Frank’s original manuscripts.
That the AFF is playing right into the deniers' hands with its shady legal maneuvering is ironically sad.

The original text also remains protected due to other legal circumstances, as explained here:
In the Netherlands copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the author. And even though Anne Frank was killed in 1945, this doesn’t mean that the A and B versions of her diary are in the public domain under Dutch law. This is because the full manuscripts were first published in 1986, and the rule at that time said that works which were first published posthumously are protected for 50 years after the initial publication.
The 2013 Dutch copyright act implementing the 1991 term directive contained transitional provisions stipulating that rights which existed under the previous law continue to exist. This means that versions A and B of the Frank diary will remain under copyright in the Netherlands until 1 January 2037 (50 years after the 1986 publication).
Mind-boggling legal technicalities aside, the fact remains: Anne Frank is the sole author of her diary, which was fully forensically tested, found authentic and there is not a single fact to refute this.

Since this comes up in the discussions sometimes, it is also useful to mention that Anne Frank not being gassed in Auschwitz is not in any way strange or inconsistent with the Holocaust: she was 15 at the time and, arriving from the Netherlands, still in a relatively good health, hence she was selected as a potential part of the slave labor force. She arrived in September, the gassings of the Jews unfit for work stopped just 2 months after that. See more in item 30 on this.

Further reading: Dene Bebbington, "Rebuttal of Faurisson on the Anne Frank Diary"

16. Red Cross inspected the death camps?

Short debunking: the Red Cross did not visit the extermination camps. The "Red Cross stats" meme has already been debunked above.

Further comments: the Red Cross obviously never visited the pure extermination camps like Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor or Chelmno (which were not even concentration camps).

When a Red Cross representative tried to visit Auschwitz (Auschwitz I, not Auschwitz II Birkenau where the actual extermination camp was), all he was allowed to do is talk to the commandant for about half an hour. This is described in detail in the very ICRC report which the meme calls "document #9925" and which is, of course, fully distorted in the tweet.

The report is dated 29.09.1944 - not "June, 1946". The report does not contain any results of interrogating detainees after the war (obviously). Rather it contains the story of the aforementioned failed visit to Auschwitz. After describing how instead of being allowed to inspect the camp he could only talk to the commandant, the ICRC delegate described a talk he which had with a British POW (thus, apparently, at the British POW camp E715):
Spontaneously, the British main man of confidence in Teschen asked us if we knew about the 'shower room'. It is rumored that there is a very modern shower room in the camp, where the detainees would be gassed in series. The British man of confidence, through his Auschwitz Kommando, tried to obtain confirmation of this fact. It was impossible to prove anything. The protective custody prisoners themselves have not talked about it.
Once again, coming out of Auschwitz we have the impression that the mystery remains well guarded.
That's where the quote in the meme comes from. The ICRC delegate spoke to a British POW (who was not an Auschwitz inmate) who told him about his less than fruitful talks with some Auschwitz inmates. Another dud. Another denier lie.

PS: by the way, the reluctance of the inmates to talk about this to the outsiders like this British POW is easily explained. For example, Fiszel Szpiro (157291), who worked in commando 178 at Monowitz, was flogged 10 times for telling his civilian supervisor that a worker who did not appear for work became a "Muslim" (camp slang for exhausted people near death) and went to the crematorium (see NI-11019; also I. Strzelecka, "Kary i tortury", p. 282 in Auschwitz 1940-1945. Węzłowe zagadnienia z dziejów obozu, t. II, 1995; GARF f. 7021, op. 108, d. 33, l. 103).

Further reading:

Hans Metzner, "Kollerstrom's Deception on the Visit of the International Committee of the Red Cross to Auschwitz"

17. Rassinier denied Auschwitz gas chambers. Or was that Thies Christophersen?

Short debunking: Rassinier had never been an Auschwitz inmate. He had been imprisoned at Buchenwald where there were indeed no gas chambers. Another denier lie. Christophersen got caught on camera saying he did not tell the whole truth.

Further comments: the quote attributed to Rassinier is actually by the SS-man Thies Christophersen who had been stationed at an experimental farm in the area of Auschwitz. Once again, the twitter puppets cannot even get their deniers straight!

Rassinier's Auschwitz denial is thus irrelevant.

As for Christophersen, Hans Metzner characterized his account as follows:
Christophersen did not know there were four crematoria in Birkenau either, even though he is supposed to have visited the camp. He was only told there was “a crematorium…in Auschwitz”. He did not know anything about open air cremations in Birkenau, even though these were carried out in Auschwitz in summer 1944 according to aerial and Sonderkommando ground photographs. Therefore, either Christophersen was a poor observer and not much talented to obtain reliable hearsay information about Birkenau or suffered from severe memory fading at the time he wrote down his account.
Christophersen's account has been analyzed in detail by John Zimmerman and Wahrheit at CODOH and found wanting.

Worse, he got caught on film admitting that he did not tell the truth about Auschwitz. This can be seen in Michael Schmidt's documentary Wahrheit Macht Frei (here is a YouTube copy; scroll to 56:35):
Ich will uns entlasten und verteidigen, dann kann ich das nicht mit dem was wir tatsächlich getan haben. Ich leugne das nicht. Aber jeder Verteidiger, der etwas zu verteidigen hat, der wird doch nicht das Belastende aufführen. Aber alles das trifft mich nicht, ich mache weiter, ich käme mir vor als Verräter an meinen Freunden, wenn ich jetzt widerrufen würde. Das hab ich nie getan. 
I want to exonerate and defend us, then I can't do it with what we actually did. I don't deny it. However every defender, who has to defend something, will not present something that incriminates. However all that does not affect me, I carry on, I would see myself as a traitor to my friends if I would recant now. That I have never done.
So much for this "witness".

18. The Larson canard.

Short debunking: the absolute majority of the corpses of gassed people were incinerated anyway, so we wouldn't expect many such autopsies, if any; Larson did not visit any extermination camps anyway.

Further comments: Larson actually did imply that some autopsies indicated gassing as the cause of death. In the book Crime Doctor he claimed:
Outside the building, guards dropped in cyanide pellets. Then they'd blow the cyanide gas out and remove the bodies next door to the crematorium ovens. I think this is what happened to most of the truly psychotic prisoners and those they considered unruly and unmanageable and who, in the Gestapo's opinion, were incorrigibles. But, in my opinion, only relatively few of the inmates I personally examined at Dachau were murdered in this manner.
This is all the more curious since the gassings in Dachau have not been established beyond reasonable doubt. In any case, Larson does not quote any such autopsy report. In 1980 he was apparently interviewed for Wichita Eagle:
Larson said that in southern Germany, where he served, autopsies showed that death by gassing and shooting were rare. Never was a case of poisoning uncovered, he said.
Side note: the denier O'Keefe fraudulently misquoted this as saying "never was a case of poison gas uncovered".

(Also see this CODOH thread.)

So we see that Larson did not deny gassings. In any case, this whole Larson story is irrelevant to the historicity of the Holocaust since he never claimed to have examined victims of extermination camps like Auschwitz or Treblinka.

19. Fake, unreliable or mistaken witnesses.

Short debunking: the existence of fake or unreliable Holocaust witnesses no more disproves the Holocaust than the existence of the fake or exaggerating Vietnam war vets disproves the Vietnam war. Irrelevant.

Further comments: Joseph Hirt was exposed by a mainstream history teacher. Herman Rosenblat was exposed by a Holocaust historian. The story of Misha Defonseca (not Jewish) was also questioned by mainstream scholars, among others. The story of Binjamin Wilkomirski (not Jewish) was debunked by a mainstream journalist. Bernard "Holstein" Brougham (not Jewish) was exposed by a private investigator hired by his publisher and denounced as a faker by his family. And what have the deniers ever done, except lie?

Sure, there are some fake witnesses. Who ever doubted it? For almost any significant event such people are bound to appear. Their existence has no bearing on the historicity of the event itself.

One should also differentiate between outright fakes and, say, confused people misinterpreting their experiences (like several survivors who truly believe they survived the gas chambers through luck, misinterpreting their shower experience). Sometimes these people were misled by the others around them, including the Nazis.

Let's take Samuel Rajzman's testimony about air being pumped out of the Treblinka chambers. The exact method of murder (suffocation through gasoline exhaust) would be most securely known by the people who operated the murder weapon. Thus the engine operator Shalayev testified about the gasoline engine being the murder weapon.

The other witnesses wouldn't necessarily know such details. Thus many Nazis and Jewish inmates assumed that the engine was a diesel (there was a diesel engine in the same room to provide the camp with electricity, so it was an easy mistake to make). Yet others speculated on other methods of murder, including the air being sucked out of the room. Their speculations on the topic of the exact method of murder are of little value. Their observation of hundreds of thousands of Jews being deported to the camp and killed in the closed chambers (whatever method they thought was being used) and later incinerated is what is valuable.

Some testimonies are clearly flawed in places, but still betray the inside knowledge, see an analysis of Bendel's testimony, for example.

Some other survivors probably fell victim to false memories. This is especially plausible with the child survivors (Moshe Peer could be such a case).

There were also people who were true survivors who gilded the lily, exaggerated things intentionally. Yes, this also happens, like in any large group of people. And this also doesn't disprove the Holocaust.

But before even starting to critique the testimonies one should make sure that what one reads is what the alleged witness truly said. Let's take the item that supposedly retells an unknown comedienne Soocha Renay's story. It was taken from a newspaper column. The author of the column did not indicate where his descriptions came from. It is thus unknown if they actually fairly represent Soocha Renay's claims (if those were ever made) or are a result of "Chinese whispers". Knocking down this newspaper item achieves exactly nothing. It's not a historical source.

One should also take into account that survivors would sometimes report rumors they heard and believed in (like the "Jewish soap"). Believing in something false is not the same as being an unreliable witness. One can believe that the Earth is 6000 years old and still be a reliable witness about a specific murder.

In fact, when analyzing the testimonies one has to be very careful to differentiate between the first-hand parts of them and the hearsay parts. For example, deniers are fond of quoting an excerpt from a testimony of a survivor named Lieberman (analyzed in item 22) and some sort of a text with the obviously absurd description of the extermination process in Auschwitz from Eugene Aroneanu's book Inside the Concentration Camps: Eyewitness Accounts of Life in Hitler's Death Camps.

The former is simply hearsay (the denier memes lie about this by omission). The latter comes from a source that is not easily verifiable (Aroneanu specifies it simply as "AUSCHWITZ Report of the Russian Section" without further details). Until the source is verified, it is simply not known with whom the claim originates. Deniers even claim that it's a proof of "Jews" lying, but nowhere in the text is the ethnicity of the author indicated.

Also, nowhere in the text is there any indication that its author claims to have seen the absurd method of extermination - and only that would have made the author an alleged eyewitness. An appeal to the book's title ("eyewitness accounts") is a failed argument - only the content of the testimony can decide this, the person who collected these bits and pieces in one book could have easily been mistaken (or overgeneralizing; it's just a book title, not a precise mathematical treatise). So in the end the claim of an alleged eyewitness account describing an absurd method of extermination is simply unproven. But even if it were, everything written in the preceding paragraphs would apply to it. It would't somehow mean that all testimonies are unreliable. And that some are needs no further proof and hasn't been denied by anyone.

In conclusion: all kinds of evidence need to be checked against each other. And just because someone was in Auschwitz, for example, doesn't make them an eyewitness to the gas chambers - and they're, as a rule, not used in such a capacity by the historians. So finding some survivor telling implausible stories does not mean history should be rewritten - it was most probably not written in reliance on that survivor in the first place.

Further reading:
Sergey Romanov, "The Auschwitz Museum's instant factchecking of a "gas chamber survival" story"
Joachim Neander, "Irene Zisblatt, the "Diamond Girl" - Fact or Fiction?"

20. Scratched gas chamber walls?

Short debunking: these are merely marks left by the visitors.

Further comments: that these are victim fingernail marks may be a piece of folklore, but as the Auschwitz Museum's twitter account doesn't tire of pointing out, these are nothing but marks left by the visitors. One could even characterize this as vandalism.

Here is the wall of the gas chamber that was not accessible to the visitors:

21. Dachau gas chamber.

Short debunking: Dachau was not an extermination camp, so whether or not some gassings happened there is irrelevant to the historicity of the Holocaust.

Further comments: the homicidal gassings in Dachau have not been established beyond reasonable doubt. The door to the gas chamber before which a US soldier stands indeed belonged to a delousing gas chamber. The early reports in the aftermath of the liberation indeed contained a lot of nonsense - isn't that too often so? But history is not written based on such reports.

There was indeed, as far as we can tell, a homicidal gas chamber built in Dachau (not to be confused with the delousing ones). Whether it was used is hard to say on the available evidence. There were rumors about its use as well as an uncorroborated testimony.

Dachau was not an extermination camp like Treblinka or Auschwitz, so this is a secondary issue at best.

22. Survivor Lieberman and the Auschwitz ovens.

Short debunking: the denier failed to clarify that this was explicit hearsay; also: the existence of fake or unreliable Holocaust witnesses no more disproves the Holocaust than the existence of the fake Vietnam war vets disproves the Vietnam war. Irrelevant.

Further comments: in the typically mendacious denier fashion the twitter user omitted this part (NCA, vol. VI, p. 1101):
As already mentioned, I was one of a working party whose duty it was to unload potatoes at the station. We had at this time no contact with the prisoners of the big camp. We were separated in quarantine but housed together with another working party which was serving the crematorium and the gas chamber. It is due to this fact that I know how things occurred
So that's hearsay and basically a Chinese whispers game, possibly partially due to language differences. Irrelevant.

No historian has based anything on this particular hearsay claim by Lieberman. So the "calculations" are a typical strawman - nobody takes the claim seriously, so there is no reason to show the obvious absurdity.

We do have a bunch of the actual Nazi documents that help to establish the actual Auschwitz cremation capacities though. The capacities were significantly larger than 1 corpse per hour, not to mention 2-4 corpses per hour.

23. More Wiesel stuff.

Short debunking: Wiesel is not a crown witness for Auschwitz or the Holocaust, so what would debunking him prove vis a vis the historicity of the events in question? Irrelevant.

Further comments: Historians use many sources for writing the history of Auschwitz, and Wiesel's memoir-novel is not one of them in the absolute majority of cases. So debunking it proves exactly nothing. But let's take a look at the claims anyway.

Suppose the episode with dumping of the living babies into a firing pit didn't happen (I, for one, have doubts about it). Could be that Wiesel mistook a truck dumping corpses of children into such a pit with living children being dumped. Notably, there were other such claims.

That there were incineration pits in Auschwitz is a fact, they can be seen on the aerial and ground photos.

Wiesel was liberated from Buchenwald and never claimed otherwise. True, the articles sometimes make such claims, but when they do, they don't give Wiesel's direct words. E.g. JTA's article says:
But Wiesel, who noted that on April 11, 1945, he was one of the survivors liberated at Dachau by the U.S. Army...
This is not a direct quote. This is a rephrasing, and the reporter obviously made a mistake. Deniers can't prove Wiesel actually said "Dachau". Same applies to Auschwitz liberation.

Since this comes up in an occasional meme, let's also deal with the fake surprise over why the Wiesels chose to go with the Germans. Actually, this is clearly explained in the text of the book itself, so I'll just quote it and it will be enough to debunk the dishonest claim:
The camp had become a hive of activity. People were running, calling to one another. In every block, the inmates prepared for the journey ahead. I had forgotten about my lame foot. A doctor came into the room and announced:
"Tomorrow, right after nightfall, the camp will start on its march. Block by block. The sick can remain in the infirmary. They will not be evacuated."
That news made us wonder. Were the SS really going to leave hundreds of prisoners behind in the infirmaries, pending the arrival of their liberators? Were they really going to allow Jews to hear the clock strike twelve? Of course not."All the patients will be finished off on the spot," said the faceless one. "And in one last swoop, thrown into the furnaces.""Surely, the camp will be mined," said another. "Right after the evacuation, it will all blow up."As for me, I was thinking not about death but about not wanting to be separated from my father. We had already suffered so much, endured so much together. This was not the moment to separate.
I ran outside to look for him. The snow was piled high, the blocks' windows veiled in frost. Holding a shoe in my hand, for I could not put it on my right foot, I ran, feeling neither pain nor cold.
"What are we going to do?"
My father didn't answer.
"What are we going to do?"
He was lost in thought. The choice was in our hands. For once. We could decide our fate for ourselves. To stay, both of us, in the infirmary, where, thanks to my doctor, he could enter as either a patient or a medic.
I had made up my mind to accompany my father wherever he went.
"Well, Father, what do we do?"
He was silent.
"Let's be evacuated with the others," I said.
He didn't answer. He was looking at my foot.
"You think you'll be able to walk?"
"Yes, I think so."
"Let's hope we won't regret it, Eliezer."
After the war, I learned the fate of those who had remained at the infirmary. They were, quite simply, liberated by the Russians, two days after the evacuation.
24. The Lachout document.

Short debunking: the "document" is a proven fake. How typical for deniers to spread fake documents.

Further comments: this so-called document was concocted by Emil Lachout and ripped to shreds by the experts, but not before being swallowed by a bunch of deniers as a true document debunking gassings.

Holocaust deniers are suckers for forgeries.

Further reading:
Brigitte Bailer-Galanda, Wilhelm Lasek, Wolfgang Neugebauer, Gustav Spann, "The Lachout Document. Anatomy of a Forgery"
Sergey Romanov, "Holocaust "revisionism" and forgeries"
Item 21: Dachau gas chamber.
Item 37: Death camps found only by the Soviets?

25. Fake Holocaust photos?

Short debunking: the denier offers fake examples of fake photos. Fail.

Further comments: the first step in proving a photo falsification is to clearly specify the sources of both the original and the fake. The denier has failed to do this so his examples can be dismissed simply on that ground with the exception of the Buchenwald photo. Finding a random, unsourced doctored picture on the internet only proves that there are random, unsourced doctored pictures on the internet and nothing more than that. Nevertheless let's take a look.

The first image shows the famous post-liberation photo of Dachau prisoners demonstrating how a corpse could be pushed into an oven. Someone, probably a Holocaust denier, photoshopped the corpse out of the photo to "prove" that the original is fake, when the opposite is true. In fact the photo is a part of a series.

Second photo with many pictures is again a useless mish-mash without any sources, but it is clear that at least some photos are internet photoshops, possibly from some "erotic" or gore websites (like charonboat) or made by the deniers themselves as a provocation.

The claim about the Buchenwald photo is debunked here. Long story short, the New York Times Magazine deleted the standing guy from the picture. This in no way proves the original picture a fake. Contrary to the lie in the meme, the NYTM publication was not the first publication of this photo.

Deniers cannot prove that any of the fake photos above have been used in serious historical studies. The photoshopped photos usually come from websites like pinterest and finding them proves exactly nothing.

Since we are at it, let's take a look at the following "debunking" of a famous photo:

First of all, as the text under photo states, this photo was indeed taken in Ivangorod in 1942. Here is the back of the photo (the image was published in Świat - Tygodnik Ilustrowany, 1962):

Image courtesy of wm.
It says "Ukraine 1942"/"Judenaktion in Iwangorod" ("Ukraine 1942"/"Jewish action in Ivangorod"). So it does indeed depict a mass execution of Jews who are pictured on the right side of the uncropped photo (whether the woman with the child is one of them and whether any of the guns are aimed at her is not entirely clear). For context, the same photographer also made this photo (ibid.):

Image courtesy of wm.
The back of this photo says "Ukraine 1942"/"Judenerschießung in Gr. Sewastjanowka" ("Ukraine 1942"/"Shooting of Jews in Big Sevastyanovka"; this village is right next to Ivangorod by the way) written in the same hand as the Ivangorod photo inscription:
Image courtesy of wm.
So yes, those were photos made by murderers of Jews.

The author of the meme above is of course ignorant about basic history. He claims that the shooter does not wear a typical SS combat uniform, and he indeed doesn't, and nobody has claimed that he was an SS man in the first place. It is so typical for a denier to erect a strawman argument to beat it down without addressing the actual facts.

The shooter wears the uniform typical for the order police (Ordnungspolizei) that was responsible for shooting hundreds of thousands of Jews. Here are some photos made in context of the Lidice massacre for a comparison:


As for the rifle, pointing out a similarity to another rifle is not an argument, unless one knows for certain that only that particular model looked like this - something that the meme's author did not bother to establish.

Indeed, other Mauser models also looked like this. He could be holding the G24(t):
Photo credit: C&Rsenal

So both arguments are based on lazy ignorance.

The last meme asks why fakes are the only evidence presented, but they can't show any. In fact, the deniers often fall for forgeries themselves.

Further reading:

Andras Szilagyi, "A Charge of Forgery Supported by Forgery: The Smearing of a Genuine Auschwitz Photo"
Hans Metzner, "The Auschwitz Open Air Incineration Ground Photographs and Revisionist Forgery Allegations"
Brian Harmon, "See No Evil: John Ball's Blundering Air Photo Analysis"

26. Science debunks Holocaust?

Short debunking: the Krege report does not exist. It's a dud. Fail. The claims about the cyanide residue are just false.

Further comments: Richard Krege promised to publish a ground penetrating radar study of Treblinka. The promised report has never materialized. Krege has become an embarrassment for denial, so it's funny how his non-existent research is touted here. Twitter deniers are the most ignorant, dumb deniers.

The claims about no cyanide residue having been found or results withheld are a lie.

Markiewicz et al. have tested the gas chamber walls and have found the cyanide residues, the results have been published.

Just because the delousing chambers have the blue staining does not mean the homicidal gas chambers also have to have it. Delousing and homicidal gassings very simply took place under very different conditions, so comparing them is like comparing apples and oranges.

Leuchter has been debunked above, Rudolf has been debunked here.

27. Flimsy gas chamber door with a window?

Short debunking: it was not a gas chamber door, so all the arguments comparing it to the "real" gas chamber doors are irrelevant.

Further comments: first of all, some quick historical context. This small gas chamber was adapted from a morgue in the crematorium I of the main camp in late 1941. The gassings here were rare and occasional, it's unlikely that more than 10000 people were gassed in this chamber in total, the main killings took place in Birkenau since early 1942.

As already explained above, crematorium I was converted into an air-raid shelter by the Nazis in late 1944 (to repeat, the killings at that time took place in Birkenau and in late 1944 were coming to an end anyway). The main modifications were documented by the Nazis themselves, so we know that the morgue/gas chamber was divided into 4 smaller rooms. After the war the authorities tried to reconstruct the original look of the crematorium but botched the job in several ways. The most important mistake was knocking down one wall too many: as they were removing the recently installed air-raid shelter walls of the small inner rooms, they also removed the wall between the morgue and the former washroom (hence the visible toilet drains, which originally were in the washroom).

The door with a window (or a missing upper panel) is the door to the washroom, not to the morgue/gas chamber.

This, by the way, is clearly indicated in the modern on-site diagrams showing both the present state and the pre-air-raid-shelter state.

Photo credit: "Le Monde1" @flickr

A little bit of reading about the basics goes a long way.

The above applies also to the other door in that gas chamber as seen today. The tiny vestibule was added in 1944 to serve as an airlock for a newly added air-raid shelter entrance. Thus two new doors were added (entrance door and airlock door), which had not existed before that.

To repeat, originally there were only two doors in the original gas chamber - the door in the no longer existent wall between the washroom and the gas chamber and the door between the gas chamber and the furnace room.

Deniers sometimes point to the opening between the furnace room and the gas chamber, claiming there was never a door there. However even a normal morgue would have to have a doorway to the furnaces, and that doorway would have to have a door. And indeed, it existed according to the original documentation.

But that original door opening between the furnace room and the gas chamber was also sealed by the Nazis during the conversion into an air-raid shelter, and everything said above also applies to it. The current opening is simply not the original. In fact, if you look at the diagram above, it was reopened in the wrong place, and the original doorway is still sealed.

Yet other deniers acknowledge that there was a door between the furnace room and the gas chamber, but point out that in the German plans it's a swinging door (e.g. in the plan of April 1942) which allegedly could not be gas-tight or strong enough for the mass gassings.

The deniers make an assumption that the swinging door on the April 1942 plan was not a mistake. But it's clear that such plans did contain mistakes. Let's compare the April 1942 plan (left) with the with the November 1940 plan (right):

Notice the differences in the door locations and the way they open. It's very unlikely most of those were actual changes since they served no purpose (except for the opening direction of the door between the washroom and the gas chamber - the door had to open outwards indeed, so that the corpses would not have blocked it, so it's a very telling change - but also note the alleged change in the location), therefore one or both of the plans contain mistakes. That originally there was a swinging door there is a fact, but it's not a given that it wasn't replaced with a normal gas-tight door in late 1941, despite a later plan showing it, the draftsman quite possibly simply having copied it from an older plan.

Further evidence supporting this hypothesis comes from a 1944 plan of the crematorium turned into an air-raid shelter:

You will notice that the same swinging door is drawn here. Problem? There was no longer a door or even a door opening there! That's something even the deniers are forced to admit (e.g. Rudolf in Lectures on the Holocaust, 2005, p. 255: "But this door and the wall opening belonging to it were removed during the conversion of this building to an air raid shelter, so the floor plan in Ill. 72 is faulty in this regard"; the above illustration is taken from this book). So the deniers know that this very door was mindlessly copied by a draftsman from an old plan in 1944, when it not only no longer existed but also contradicted the very purpose of the air-raid shelter rooms to be gas-tight, yet they still insist that the April 1942 plan is absolutely correct in this regard! This is simply irrational.

What doors were actually used in the gas chambers of Auschwitz? The same as for the delousing chambers, i.e. the gas-tight ones. Among the mentions of these gas-tight doors in the Auschwitz documentation perhaps the most curious is the following one, in the 31.03.1943 letter from Karl Bischoff to DAW (see van Pelt, The Case for Auschwitz, pp. 314, 315), talking about the morgues no. 1 in crematoria 2 and 3 in Birkenau, the same rooms the witnesses described as homicidal gas chambers:
At this occasion we remind you of another order of March 6, 1943 for delivery of a gasdoor [Gastür] 100/192 for morgue 1 of crematorium 3, Bw 30 a, which must be equipped exactly in the form and size of the basement door of crematorium 2, located opposite, to be made with a spy-hole of double 8 mm glass with a rubber seal and metal fitting. This order must be considered as very urgent.

Not only were the doors to the gas chambers gas-tight, but also note that although the order was "very urgent", Bischoff specified that a "spy-hole of double 8 mm glass" was to be installed in the door in a gas-tight manner. While peepholes can sometimes be found in the delousing chamber doors (and this was not designated as a delousing chamber but as a morgue), they are not necessary there, so why make such an urgent order more difficult?

28. No Britannica mention of gas chambers?

Short debunking: it is simply irrelevant to the historicity of the Holocaust.

Further comments: first of all, of course there was no article on the "Holocaust" since the term became popular only in the 1960s-1970s.

Anyway, what is the logical argument here? Someone did not mention gas chambers in a popular encyclopedia (general-purpose encyclopedias aren't really scholarly sources) therefore there were no gas chambers? Surely even the most dumb denier should understand that this does not logically follow?

Suppose Marcus' article is indeed an example of sub-par scholarship. And? This might characterize the Britannica of those years, but this tells us exactly nothing about the historicity of the Holocaust and the gas chambers.

Anyway, the explanation of the lack of a mention in this article is most probably as follows: the article was repeated without updates (at least in what this part is concerned) from 1947 to at least 1956. It was, by the way, still the same 14th edition of the Britannica that first got published in 1929, revised in 1933 and got very slowly updated from time to time, but on the whole in those years the Britannica was pretty outdated. This eventually led to Harvey Einbinder's hard-hitting 1964 book The Myth of the Britannica, in which he showed that major parts of the encyclopedia didn't get updated for decades, and which served as an impetus for a major overhaul of the encyclopedia with the 15th edition in 1974 (!).

So, as far as I know, Marcus' article probably first got published in 1947, but considering the editing processes it could have been written a year or even two earlier. During that time the big picture was already clear, so Marcus wrote that:
national socialists set out deliberately to destroy large numbers of Polish and Russian-Jewish civilians. If but a fraction of the atrocities reported were accurate, then many thousands of defenseless Jewish non-combatants, men, women and children, were butchered after September 1939
However he could have reasoned that he might as well take a "wait and see" approach as to the details of how it happened, including methods and numbers. His article then got republished and republished and republished for years without updates (at least in this part), usual for the Britannica in those years.

In any case, to repeat, whatever the Britannica did or did not publish has no logical relation to the issue of the historicity of the Holocaust. The argument boils down to silly innuendo.

PS: at the same time the deniers complain about the exaggerated Holocaust death toll in the Britannica in the same time period, see item 36.

29. Dr. Listojewski?

Short debunking: not only a citation of an unknown "Dr." without any evidence doesn't prove anything, the citation originally comes from an antisemitic publication.

Further comments: one of the images cites the most probably imaginary "Dr. Listojewski" (whose alleged citation has been incestuously regurgitated by numerous denier publications) from Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the other is more honest - it cites The Broom (1952).

Now, The Broom was an antisemitic publication by a certain C. Leon de Aryan:
The Broom newspaper touted itself as a voice to the Christian Community of Southern California. The Broom was published by owner Fred de Aryan and his father and editor, C. Leon de Aryan, in East San Diego in 1932. The Broom was primarily dedicated to expounding reactionary theories on anti-Semitism, racial purity, war, and interpreting the word of Christ. Typical examples of article subjects are "Message of Holy Zarathushtra," "The Heroism of Peace in Wartime," "Synopsis of and Essay on the 'Race Problem'," "Slave-Laboring German Prisoners of War," and "Sanhedrin: 70 Anti-Christ Master Minds."
From the article "The San Diego Crack Pot":
His confrontational views drew the attention of the California Senate’s Un-American Activities Committee in April 1942. Testifying in Los Angeles, de Aryan proudly told the committee he had pursued an active anti-Communist policy in The Broom from “practically the first issue.” Because of this, he claimed, the Communists were after him and even threatened him on the telephone. Fortunately, he could identify the Reds on the telephone, explaining to the committee that all Communists have a “guttural sound” in their voices. Examining de Aryan’s testimony, a government attorney concluded that the publisher was a paranoid “crack pot” who would probably savor prosecution for the sake of publicity. 
He was also one of the defendants of the Great Sedition Trial of 1944 and battled against fluoride in water.

Most probably he just invented this "Dr. Listojewski" or got hoaxed by a fellow fascist.

In any case, to repeat, without any actual evidence the quote is useless.

Simon Wiesenthal's alleged quote is a double fabrication. The tweet cuts off the second part of the phrase as it is usually quoted by the deniers: "on German soil".

However even that quote is actually a falsification, as explained by William Daffer:
No, Simon Wiesenthal did not say "no gassings too place on any camp in German soil." The fact that those words are in quotes and an attribution given (Books and Bookmen, page 5, Apr 1975) means that this passage is meant as a quote. That's how one signifies quoting in the written word. Cramer may not understand this, but Fields assuredly does.
 But if you go to that page of that edition of Books and Bookmen, what you find Weisenthal *actually* said is
 'Because there were no _extermination camps_ on German soil the Neo-Nazis are using this as proof that these crimes did not  happen...'
 I'm hoping that you're intelligent enough to see the difference  between "no gassings on any camp on German soi" and "no  extermination camps on German soil" because Cramer couldn't. It's one of the reasons I call him an idiot.
So the twitter user took a falsified quote and falsified it further.

As for R. Lewis' book, its full name is The Thirteenth Stone - History Rewritten, the Jesus Myth Exploded and the Great Secret of the Knights Templar Revealed by the Dead Sea Scrolls. Wow. Sounds really serious!

30. Small children and people unfit for work in Auschwitz?

Short debunking: most Jewish children and Jews unfit for work were, of course, gassed in Auschwitz. That there were a few exceptions does not disprove the rule.

Further comments: first of all, with "small children" we mean someone younger than 14-15. Those around that age and older could be deemed fit for work depending on their condition (this happened to Anne Frank, for example). During periods of labor shortage children as young as 13 could be spared.

Extermination of Jews unfit for work (including children) is the big picture. Obviously, considering the numbers of people involved and the complicated history of the camp the big picture would also have some exceptions.

The general rule about killing off the people permanently unfit for work (incl. small children) applied mostly to Jews, especially after April 1943 (there were circumstances under which non-Jews also shared the same fate before April of 1943 and some in instances after, but not as a rule), so finding non-Jewish children or people unfit for work in Auschwitz in 1944 or 1945 should hardly raise eyebrows.

So Rudolf's nice graph is right out: it shows all inmates, not only Jews. The rest of his speculations is just that - pure guessing (one just needs to take a look at this article about the age composition of the Hungarian Jews). Rudolf also doesn't take all the Jewish children into account that lived (and died) in the camp due to exceptional circumstances, like the children who arrived with the Slovak transports in 1942 before the selections were instituted or the children in the Family Camp, or the children from the transports discussed in the next few paragraphs.

Second, the photos are not self-explanatory as to the ethnicity of the depicted children. Though there certainly were Jewish children among them, for example those who escaped being gassed only to become subjects of Dr. Mengele's experiments (like the twins) or those who arrived in Auschwitz after the last transport selection took place on 30.10.1944. There were also several exceptional late Jewish transports that did not undergo selection and were registered together with children. An example of one such transport would be the so-called Phillips transport:
The train arrived in Auschwitz on June 6, the day of the allied invasion in Normandy. The acting commandant of Auschwitz Rudolf Höss was informed that a transport of trained radio technicians would be arriving in Auschwitz. The message came from Gerhard Maurer, head of the department for labour deployment at the SS Economic Administrative Main Office who had been contacted by Ewald Löser, a senior Philips executive in Berlin. Thus the Jews from Vught did not undergo a selection and were kept alive.
A group of Jewish transports from labor camps in the Generalgouvernement at the end of July, beginning of August of 1944 underwent no selection upon arrival. This includes the transport from Starachowice on 30.07.1944, the transports from Pionki and Blizyn on 31.07.1944, the transport from Kielce on 02.08.1944 and the transport from Ostrowiec on 03.08.1944. The most probable reason is that these GG transfers were seen as "internal" transfers from labor camps on an otherwise "judenrein" territory: it was assumed that most Jews unfit for work would have already been eliminated in the previous labor camps by the time of the arrival in Auschwitz, and it would be a waste of manpower to stage a selection for such transports for a few people who might be unfit for work.

Relatively speaking these transports were still nothing compared to the transports that did undergo selections.

Let's take a closer look at the famous photo with liberated children which is also used in the tweet. This Yad Vashem page identifies 7 of the children and gives the background information about their arrival in Auschwitz. 6 of them (Gabriel Neumann, Tomy Shacham (formerly Schwarz), Erika Dohan (née Winter), Shmuel Schelach (formerly Robert Schlesinger), sisters Marta Wise (née Weiss) and Eva Slonim (née Weiss)) were deported to Auschwitz from the Sered camp in Slovakia.

According to Danuta Czech's Auschwitz Chronicle the transport from Sered arrived in Auschwitz on 03.11.1944. That is both after the last transport selection took place on 30.10.1944 and the Auschwitz gassings stopped forever on 02.11.1944. The Sered transport thus did not undergo a selection, despite it being full of people unable to work, including small children. The 7th person identified in that article was Bracha Katz (aka Berta Weinheber/Weinhaber). She and her brother Adolf said they were twins during the initial selection and were saved for Mengele's "research" (but Adolf died in the camp).

This article identifies further 4 children from the photo: Paula Lebovics, Miriam Ziegler, Gabor Hirsch, Eva Kor. Yet another survivor on the photo is Ruth Muschkies Webber.

Lebovics, Ziegler and Webber (who were friends in the camp) were all deported in the above-mentioned transport from Ostrowiec that did not undergo a selection.

Gabor Hirsch, was 15 when he arrived in Auschwitz and thus was considered fit for work.
Eva Kor was used in Mengele's experiments together with her twin sister Miriam.

Some of the other children appearing in the Soviet footage of Auschwitz liberation were Michael Bornstein and Sarah Ludwig, who came to the camp in the above-mentioned transport from Pionki that did not undergo a selection. Also Tova Friedman (aka Tola Grossman) appears there. She arrived from Starachowice (also without a selection, as mentioned above) with her friend Rachel Hyams (aka Rutka Greenspan); her another friend Frieda Tenenbaum arrived from Blizyn (also without a selection, as mentioned above).

Thus Jewish children in Auschwitz were an exception, not a rule. Indeed, that the surviving children almost exclusively fall into the "exceptional" groups (twins; children from transports arriving without selections) requires an explanation from the deniers. Where are the rest of the Jewish children transported to Auschwitz and not registered there, i.e. children who were "selected"?

Same principle of being an exception is also true for Jewish babies born in Auschwitz. The absolute majority perished. If there were some who survived, they must have been born to the mothers from the "exceptional" groups as listed above, or after the gassings stopped in November of 1944, or they must have been hidden from the authorities (which would have been a very rare occurrence).

The story of a Polish midwife in Auschwitz, Stanislawa Leszczynska, who allegedly helped 3000 children to be born is also pretty useless for deniers. First of all, assuming the number is correct (and it is likely significantly exaggerated, see H. Kubica, "Dzieci i młodzież w KL Auschwitz", p. 190n88 in Auschwitz 1940-1945. Węzłowe zagadnienia z dziejów obozu, t. II, 1995), how many of those children were Polish, how many Russian, how many German, how many Jewish?

Second,  here is what Leszczynska had to say about it (Przegląd Lekarski, Nr. 1, 1965, pp. 105, 106):
In May 1943 the situation of some children has changed. Children with blue eyes and blond hair were taken from their mothers and send to Germany to be Germanized. Overwhelming scream of mothers accompanied departing of each transport of newborns. As long as a newborn was together with the mother, motherhood itself created a ray of hope. Separation with the newborn was overwhelming.
(This obviously refers to non-Jewish children.)
Jewish children were still drowned in the most brutal fashion. There was no way to hide a Jewish child or put him or her among other children. Schwester Klara and Schwester Pfani observed Jewish mothers very closely during the delivery. The newborn was tattooed with the number of the mother; afterwards Klara and Pfani drowned the child in the barrel and threw the body outside.
The life of other children was the worst; they died from a slow starvation. Their skins become thin and transparent, with muscles, blood vessels and bones seen through the skin. Newborn Russians survived the longest. 50% of all women were from Russia. 
Among those horrible memories there is one main thought coming back to me all the time. All children were born alive. Their goal was to stay alive! Only thirty of them survived the camp. Several hundred children were send to Germany to grow up as Germans, more than 1,500 were drowned by Schwester Klara and Pfani, more than 1,000 children died because of cold and starvation (the numbers do not include the period to April 1943).
So again, how does all this help the deniers, exactly?

Hermann Langbein, the camp survivor and historian, has a whole chapter "Those born in Auschwitz" in his book People in Auschwitz (2004, UNC Press, pp. 234ff.):
On September 18, 1943, a girl born in the women’s camp was the first baby who was given an inmate number and added to the camp population. The mother was a Pole from Kattowitz. Even after this, however, Jewish women were not allowed to give birth. If such a woman managed to conceal her pregnancy until delivery, which had to take place in the utmost secrecy and under unimaginably primitive conditions, the child had to die so that at least the life of the mother could be preserved.
‘‘We stockpiled all the poison in the camp for this purpose, and it was not sufficient,’’ writes Lucie Adelsberger, an inmate physician who had to deal with this problem in 1944.
Adelsberger realizes that some mothers ‘‘did not forgive themselves and us.’’ Because a Jewish mother could be saved only if her baby was poisoned and a miscarriage was pretended, ‘‘the Germans turned us into murderers’’ (Olga Lengyel). A female nurse had no other choice. Who will relieve her and her colleagues of the torment of memory?
Janina Kosciuszkowa noted the next development. ‘‘In 1944 Jewish babies were not murdered immediately after being born.’’ However, the mothers had no milk, and no one had food for the babies. Krystyna Zywulska has reported that they cried, whimpered, grew weaker and weaker, became bloated, and died. Kosciuszkowa, who experienced the end of this episode, writes: ‘‘One day the news spread that mothers with infants were being gassed. The children who were still alive were ‘liquidated,’ and the mothers were hurriedly released from the infirmary and added to the camp population. The next day, a fellow prisoner discovered two live children wrapped in blankets, and we managed to save them.’’ Zywulska states that those who had to witness this greeted the death of the children with a sigh of relief, for this seemed to avert the general killing campaign.
At the time of the Hungarian transports in 1944, women who had been found fit for work at the initial selection were gathered in Section B II c of Birkenau. Gisella Perl, who worked as a physician there, soon noticed that all pregnant women were taken away and gassed. In an effort to save at least the mother, it was her bitter duty to perform abortions. At a later date the SS gave the order to kill only the newborn babies and let the young mothers live. From then on, the abortions could be stopped and deliveries did not have to be secret anymore. ‘‘I was jubilant,’’ writes Perl. There were 292 women waiting to give birth when Mengele surprisingly revoked this order and had all pregnant women taken to the gas chamber. In September 1944 abortions were permitted again and the killing of newborn babies was stopped. Even so, many of them died because their mothers were not able to feed them.
The quote about the playground is just another deception. This refers specifically to the "Gypsy" family camp (Langbein, op. cit., p. 237):
Julia Skodova, who worked in the registry, remembers clearly how careful those in charge were to avoid any irregularity in the register of births.The camp administration also provided some visual effects by building a playground in the Gypsy camp. ‘‘Like any proper playground, it had a merry-go-round with rocking horses and the like as well as all kinds of gym equipment, such as rings and parallel bars, and a wooden fence without barbed wire’’(Lucie Adelsberger).
The lying denier edited out any mention of the Roma.

The Nazi anti-Roma policy differed from their antisemitic policy and the Roma were allowed for some time to live in the so-called Zigeunerlager without working or undergoing selections. In the end most were gassed in one fell swoop. But before that they were officially allowed to have children in the camp, hence the playground. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Jews.

Now to the Jews unfit for work. First of all, this means people unable to work for a really prolonged period of time (old people, children, disabled...). It does not mean that all Jews who fell ill were automatically murdered. The Nazis needed working hands, and this was especially true as the war progressed (so the conditions were also different in different periods, which should be always taken into account). Working Jews were a valuable resource - just as slaves were once a valuable resource to their slavemasters.

So, especially in 1944, Jews who fell ill but with a hope of a relatively quick recovery (in a matter of a few weeks) would have been medically treated, including surgical operations in a hospital. This is absolutely logical and in no way contradicts the general outlines of the Final Solution. When these Jews would become permanently disabled they would be killed, but "for now" the Nazis wanted to exploit them for what it was worth.

So the silly denier memes feigning "surprise" about medical treatment of Jews stem from ignorance or dishonesty.

And the photo of a little person in Auschwitz is taken from the so-called Auschwitz Album which documents the arrival of a Hungarian Jewish transport. Its use in this context is thus dishonest because this person's immediate fate is unknown - he was probably gassed, unless he became a subject of medical experiments. It is therefore hardly evidence for Jews permanently unfit for work as Auschwitz inmates.

31. Jews lie about the Holocaust?

Short debunking: eh, wut?

Further comments: aside from being an antisemitic assumption that all or most Jewish survivors lie, this is also an incoherently nonsensical claim. Who said that the historicity of the Holocaust depends on what the mythical Jewish monolith "says"? It is proven by the cumulative evidence of a) the documents (mostly German wartime documents), b) testimonies by people belonging to numerous ethnic groups (incl. Germans, Poles, Ukrainians, Russians), who were perpetrators, bystanders, and victims; c) demographic and d) physical evidence. What does that have to do with Jews or believing or disbelieving "them" (again, as if they were a monolith)?

32. Predetermined death toll?

Short debunking: conclusions first arrived at through demographic means, camp data retrofitted, so nothing strange or curious; different reliability of the two historians.

Further comments: the Auschwitz plaque nonsense has been debunked in the very first item of this post. As for Hilberg and Dawidowicz, first of all, if the antisemitic CT about the predetermined 6 million figure were true, Hilberg would have tried to reach it. Instead he only reached 5.1 million.

What actually happened is that Hilberg and Dawidowicz arrived at the totals through the country-by-country historico-demographic analysis. Since any such analysis, if done honestly, will most likely result in a figure between 5 and 6 million, it's hardly surprising that the end figures are comparable. They were not predetermined by a bias.

The apparent "strangeness" only resulted from the historians trying to fit the data for killing places to these independently derived demographic results. Hilberg managed to do it much better because he had always used much better camp data - his camp estimates have, by and large, withstood the test of time. What one sees in the tweet is actually an updated version (note the Höfle figure for Belzeс). His earlier estimates were:
Auschwitz: 1,000,000
Treblinka: 750,000
Belzec: 550,000
Sobibor: 200,000
Kulmhof: 150,000
Lublin: 50,000
Total: 2,700,000
After the Höfle telegram delivered more precise figures, the historian of course revised his camp table (the demographic total stayed the same). At a time when many historians were using the figures of 360,000 for Kulmhof, 2,500,000 or more for Auschwitz, and big figures for Lublin (Majdanek) Hilberg stayed sober and nowadays the acknowledged figures for these camps largely coincide with his old estimates.

Dawidowicz, on the other hand, was a bit of a hack. Note her Majdanek figure which is apparently just a slightly modified Soviet estimate without any basis in reality. So yes, her camp data is  unreliable. Whether her demographic data is reliable is another question, but her research is outdated anyway, so the issue is irrelevant. The point is, there was no "conspiracy" to arrive at the same figure here. The deniers just misunderstood the methodology involved. Or maybe they understood it very well but still used the differing estimates for propaganda purposes.

33. Hilberg and famous witnesses shown to be liars, impostors during the Zündel trial?

Short debunking: examination of the transcript shows the claim to be false.

Further comments: the tweet relies on an article by Faurisson, who is demonstrably dishonest. Anyway, this must be the place in the transcript [125 MB PDF] Faurisson was referring to when he said Hilberg might have committed perjury:
Q. "Shortly after the mobile operations had begun in the occupied Soviet territories, Hitler handed down his "second order."
Now, where is his second order?
A. The problem with that particular order is the same as it is with the first. It is oral.
Q. It is oral.
A. And there are people who say, no, it was not one order at all. It was a series of orders that were given to various people at various times.
Q. Mm-hmmm.
A. This is a matter for dispute and for argument among historians, and for this purpose one has meetings and second editions of books, too.
Q. I see. So you have to correct that statement in your second edition. Right?
A. No, I am not saying that I have to correct this statement, but there are corrections in the second edition, of course.
The answer thus was not about maintaining the statement in the new edition but rather about whether Hilberg had to do it. Hilberg's answer might have been evasive, but it was also formally correct. No perjury was committed.

As for the strawman argument about a "scientific report" or an "autopsy" showing gassed bodies, this is ridiculous. At most a "scientific report" without any historical input can show the presence of HCN in the former gas chambers (as the Markiewicz et al. study has done). Obviously this wouldn't be enough for the deniers who would just claim those were delousing chambers. And due to a significant time lapse between the stop of the gassings in the extermination camps and their liberation, as well as due to the fact that the bodies were usually disposed of immediately, neither can we expect autopsy reports showing gassings there. Theoretically it might have been possible with rare late small-scale gassings in some smaller (non-extermination) camps, like Gusen, but had such autopsy reports existed, the deniers would simply claim that they still don't prove gassings in Auschwitz or Treblinka, and that they are most probably propaganda fakes anyway.

Arnold Friedman was not a "famous" survivor, contrary to the tweet. He had never claimed to have personally witnessed gassings in Auschwitz, so in which sense was he proven, during the Zündel trial, to have been an impostor and a liar just because he did not see the gassings? Right, he wasn't.

Rudolf Vrba was indeed famous, but his main role was merely that of a messenger. He sure believed in a lot of mistaken things about Auschwitz (such as the exaggerated death toll), and testified about some of them, which would not, strictly speaking, make a perjurer or an impostor out of him unless he knew he was testifying falsely and was not simply misremembering and misinterpreting some of his experiences. Be that as it may, his testimony is at most of tertiary importance in what the historicity of the gas chambers is concerned.

He never claimed to have been inside the Birkenau crematoria, the famous not quite accurate sketch was done very quickly from memory of a hearsay:
Q. MR. CHRISTIE: How do you. explain the fact that you've drawn on the diagram that I showed you every crematorium·the same shape in 1944, when you drew the diagram upon your escape.
A. Because I had only two days to write the whole report, and to try to depict the crematoria.
There was a great urgency with that plan, because the objective of the plan was to get it to Hungary and to use this whole report towards the Hungarian Jews of imminent deportation.
Under that conditions I didn't lose much time with.details like what is the difference between Krematorium I and II and Krematorium II and Ill, but I limited myself to depict the position of the gas chambers and crematoria one side, and the geographic position of the whole murderous complex on the other side.
And of course the "poetic licence" comment has been taken out of context and exaggerated. Here is the exchange, you be the judge of how horrible poetic licence is:
Q. I suggest, also, that you falsified to some extent as well, because throughout the book you referred to someone by the name of Rudolf Vrba, and you attribute the name Vrba to the conversations, and Rudi, meaning you, and in fact, there was nobody by that name in the camp, sir. Is that right?
A. That is perfectly so, but I would take a great objection against your word "falsify", because I would say, then, that the artist drawn my moustache in a different way has falsified something.
This is not a document, but literature, and literature has been meant mainly for young people and it would be for young people a considerable confusion to explain to them all the methods of clandestine work and how it came that the names have to be changed.
Moreover, I would have to explain my real ground and reasons why I changed my German name to the name of my native language, and this would have transferred, perhaps, a national hatred to the reader, which I wanted to avoid, against the Germans. In other words, I used my licence of a poet, it is called licensia poetarium, to put in the book only those facts and events which will enable a young person to understand the general situation.
Q. Mm-hmmm. So for you it's poetic licence?
A. Poetic licence in this particular case.
Q. Yeah.
A. In other words, I am not bound to make of it a document, but re-creates the situation as close as possible to the truth without complicating it.
34. Schindler's list a tale of fiction?

Short debunking: and?

Further comments: since Schindler's Ark is classified as a "historical fiction novel", of course it's fiction. Duh. Nobody claimed otherwise. What, exactly, is supposed to be the point?

The novel was based on the true events. Obviously, Oskar Schindler existed, and so did the Jews that he saved. So does Schindler's list.

The denier "arguments" are sometimes so dumb that it's hard to say much about them, they self-destruct.

35. Bruno Baum admitted that false propaganda was created in Auschwitz?

Short debunking:  quote taken out of context; Baum used the word "propaganda" in a purely neutral sense of "spreading of ideas/information", never once implying that the "propaganda" in question was false. The  word is used today mostly in a negative context, which allows the deniers to quote-mine and distort old texts for their own propaganda.

Further comments: this refutation of the meme was posted by our Hans Metzner at CODOH:
There is one statement which you see frequently cited in discussion with Revisionists, it is from the little book Widerstand in Auschwitz by Bruno Baum (1949). On page 34, Baum writes:
Ich glaube, es ist keine Übertreibung, wenn ich sage, daß der größte Teil der Auschwitzpropaganda, die um diese Zeit in der Welt verbreitet wurde, von uns im Lager selbst geschrieben worden ist.
„I believe it is no exaggeration, when I say, that the largest part of the Auschwitz propaganda, which was spread at the time around the world, was written by ourselves in the camp.“
A similiar statement was apparently made by him in 1945:
Die ganze Propaganda, die dann im Ausland um Auschwitz einsetzte, war von uns, mit Hilfe unserer polnischen Kameraden, entfacht.
The entire propaganda which started abroad, was made by us with the help of our Polish mates.
from: Rudolf, Aus der Forschung - Aus den Akten des Frankfurter Auschwitz-Prozesses, Teil 7 
Those statements have been referred to at least 13 times in the past 8 years alone at this forum - Sailor (2003), Hannover (2003), Hannover (2003), Hannover (2004), Richard Perle (2005), Hannover (2006), PotPie (2007), PotPie (2007), Hannover(2007), Driansmith (2007), PotPie (2007), Goethe (2011), Toshiro (2011). 
In addition, it is cited in several Revisionist articles, such as Lectures on the Holocaust (Germar Rudolf), Aus der Forschung - Aus den Akten des Frankfurter Auschwitz-Prozesses, Teil 7 (Germar Rudolf), Aus der Forschung - Aus den Akten des Frankfurter Auschwitz-Prozesses, Teil 2 (Germar Rudolf), »Ein Kommentar ist an dieser Stelle überflüssig« (Knud Bäcker), Die neue Weltordnung und der Holocaust (Jürgen Graf) 
In all those postings and articles it is implicitly or explicitly assumed that the statement is evidence for the spreading of false propaganda. However, when Bruno Baum used the term in the 40s, he did understand “propaganda” in this context in the sense of spreading true information as follows already from the title of the chapter in the 1949 book “Wir informieren die Welt” (we inform the world) and from the actual description of their work. For instance, just the next sentence reads “Wir haben in diesen Tagen so manches Mal die Absichten der politischen Abteilung durchkreuzt, indem wir ihre Pläne der Öffentlichkeit übergaben“ (In those days we foiled the intentions of the political department by making their plans public). etc. 
There is no indication whatsoever that he meant to say that they created any false information. In the 1962 edition of the book the term “Auschwitzpropaganda” was changed to “Veröffentlichungen über Auschwitz”, apparently to avoid exactly the misunderstanding, which Revisionists exploit today, when they misinterpret it as admission of false propaganda and hoax. Whereas in fact it is an "admission" of spreading true information around the world (even though one may doubt weather they always did).

To this I should add that the word "entfacht" is more properly translated as "sparked", not "made up".

The German dictionary Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache provides the following three meanings of "Propaganda":
1. DDR systematische Verbreitung politischer, philosophischer und anderer Lehren, Ideen, Meinungen mit dem Ziel, das öffentliche Bewusstsein dahingehend zu beeinflussen
politische, sozialistische, marxistisch-leninistische, revolutionäre Propaganda
eine breite, massenwirksame Propaganda (für etw.) entfalten
Agitation und Propaganda
2. die Verschleierung der wahren Ziele dienende politisch-ideologische Beeinflussung, Hetze
staatsgefährdende, feindliche, gegnerische, gehässige Propaganda
das ist doch alles nur Propaganda! (= es steckt nichts dahinter!) umgangssprachlich
3. ⟨Propaganda für etw. machen⟩ umgangssprachlich Reklame für etw. machen
der macht für sein Buch ja ganz schön Propaganda
Only the second one carries the negative connotation of sinister manipulation. The third meaning, which is not used in English, colloquially means to advertise something (e.g. one's business).

The first one was in use in the GDR and thus was also used by the Communist Baum. It meant, quite neutrally, the systematic spreading of political, philosophical and other ideas in order to influence the public consciousness. Obviously, in this sense propaganda can be good or bad, true or false. The deniers spread false propaganda.

PS: Needless to say, Baum was never a "President of East Germany". Another lie.

36. Changing camp death tolls?

Short debunking:  some of the listed changes in estimates are real, initial exaggerated tolls stem from incomplete information, incorrect way of estimating and, yes, probably propaganda; overall death toll was not estimated on the basis of individual camp tolls so their correction, logically, should not result in the correction of the overall death toll.

Further comments: we have already touched on this topic in items 1 and 32.

First of all, let's separate the more "accepted" numbers from the flukes: the exaggerated Mauthausen death toll from the Britannica was never accepted by any significant number of historians dealing with the Nazi history. To repeat, general purposes encyclopedias are not scholarly sources, so whatever the Britannica wrote is, frankly, irrelevant. It was not the number accepted by the scholarly consensus.

The Majdanek death tolls over 1 million were relatively quickly revised downwards already in the Communist Poland and were not meant to denote the Jewish or mostly Jewish deaths, so their revision is also irrelevant to the overall Jewish death toll. There was one exception, as mentioned above, Lucy Dawidowicz who, for reasons known only to her, claimed over 1,3 million Jewish deaths in Majdanek. But one hack historian does not a consensus make. In roughly the same time period Raul Hilberg estimated 50,000 Jewish deaths in Majdanek and his figure is more or less in accordance with the current knowledge.

The 800,000+ shoes are easily explained: Majdanek was one of the sorting and storage depots for the Aktion Reinhardt extermination camps (Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor).

The Auschwitz death toll has been commented on in item 1. The initial hugely exaggerated Soviet death tolls for these two camps were based on alleged cremation capacities supposedly available there, a very unreliable way to calculate anything. The Soviet death toll was not generally accepted in the West, but the Western historiography was influenced by some of Rudolf Höß' earlier statements about 2.5-3 million victims. However Höß himself later revised this estimate down to about 1 million, based on the transport statistics as he roughly remembered it. Raul Hilberg's estimate was also about 1 million.

The modern estimates are based mainly on the transport data. The data is incomplete, but as more and more sources are analyzed by the historians, the more precise the camp estimates become. Sometimes even unexpected new documents are found that refine the picture, like the Höfle telegram.

In other words, what we are seeing is the natural process of going from sensationalist news items and propaganda to the more sober analysis of all available sources. The historians are the true revisionists. The denier hacks are just liars.

37. Death camps found only by the Soviets?

Short debunking:  the Western Allies did liberate several camps with homicidal gas chambers, so that claim in the first tweet is a lie. That only the Soviets liberated dedicated extermination camps is not a coherent argument. The evidence for their exterminatory function was found by all Allies.

Further comments: first, a point of order: the term used in the historical literature nowadays to designate camps either wholly or significantly dedicated to extermination is "extermination camps" (Vernichtungslager). Examples of such camps would be Auschwitz-Birkenau (which was part-concentration, part-exterminaton camp), Treblinka, Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor (which were pure extermination camps).

The term "death camps" is ambiguous and is sometimes used to designate "ordinary" concentration camps like Buchenwald or Belsen, which were not extermination camps, but which exhibited such atrocious conditions at some point that it was arguably a proper term to use. When you see piles of human bodies in the camps, even if they died of the so-called "natural causes" (the Nazis being still responsible for these deaths since they put these people there in the first place), surely calling those places of death "death camps" is a natural thing? It can, however, be misleading since some people will assume that extermination camps are meant.

Another important point to make is that having a homicidal gas chamber in a particular camp did not make it an extermination camp. It's the organized, relatively numerous mass killings that count.

With this in mind, here is a not necessarily complete list of camps liberated by the Western Allies which contained dedicated homicidal gas chambers or where some homicidal gassings took place in makeshift gas chambers (I don't list the "euthanasia" institutions on the German soil - Bernburg, Brandenburg, Grafeneck, Hadamar, Hartheim, Sonnenstein - in which people were also murdered in carbon monoxide gas chambers, among other methods; and I don't include the Soviet-liberated concentration camps with homicidal gas chambers, like Sachsenhausen and Ravensbrück):
  • Mauthausen and its subcamp Gusen (B. Perz, F. Freund, "Tötungen durch Giftgas im Konzentrationslager Mauthausen" in G. Morsch, B. Perz (Hrsg.), Neue Studien zu nationalsozialistischen Massentötungen durch Giftgas. Historische Bedeutung, technische Entwicklung, revisionistische Leugnung, 2012 (2.Aufl.), S. 244ff.; F. Freund, "Tötungen durch Giftgas in Mauthausen und Gusen" in B. Bailer, W. Benz, W. Neugebauer (Hrsg.), Wahrheit und "Auschwitzlüge". Zur Bekämpfung "revisionistischer" Propaganda, 1995, S. 119ff.):
  • Neuengamme (R. Möller, "Die beiden "Zyklon B"-Mordaktionen im Konzentrationslager Neuengamme 1942" in Morsch, Perz, op. cit., S. 288ff.);
  • Natzweiler (F. Schmaltz, "Die Gaskammern im Konzentrationslager Natzweiler" in Morsch, Perz, op. cit., S. 304ff.; J.-C. Pressac, The Struthof Album. Study of the Gassing at Natzweiler-Struthof of 86 Jews Whose Bodies Were to Constitute a Collection of Skeletons, 1985);
  • most probably also Dachau, although whether anyone was gassed in the built gas chamber is not clear (B. Distel, "Die Gaskammer in der "Baracke X" des Konzentrationslager Dachau und die "Dachau-Lüge" in Morsch, Perz, op. cit., S. 337ff.).
It is true that the above-mentioned extermination camps like Auschwitz or Treblinka were liberated by the Soviets. The explanation is very simple: the Nazis concentrated these mass-killing factories away from the so-called "Old Reich", in the East (relatively speaking), one of the main concerns being secrecy vis-à-vis the average Germans. This obviously did not prevent the information from leaking out eventually (you can't keep operations on such huge masses of people really secret - which is how we know with certainty that the alleged deportation of the Jews "to the Russian East" never happened and they were murdered in the extermination camps instead), but the location of the camps made sense. Which is why such camps - or the places where they used to be (for camps like Treblinka and Belzec had been fully destroyed some time before the Soviet army overran the territories) were found en masse by the Soviets and not the Western Allies. There is nothing surprising about this if you take just a few seconds to think things through.

The argument in the tweet is thus incoherent. Indeed, that these particular camps were extermination camps was known long before anyone even suspected that the Allies would win the war. It's not like their extermination function was suddenly discovered upon liberation. Just as a quick example, Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor were mentioned as extermination camps for Jews in the official note by the Polish government-in-exile in December of 1942 (see The Mass Extermination of Jews in German Occupied Poland; the information about the methods of murder was unsurprisingly garbled). The clandestine Polish Home Army publication Informacja Bieżąca reported on these three camps, as well as Chelmno and Auschwitz, throughout the war. Even the extremely antisemitic radical right-wing Polish press mentioned specific extermination camps during the war.

More importantly, there is no correlation between overrunning the territory with extermination camps and finding evidence for the activities in these camps. The evidence about the above-mentioned extermination camps was found by all Allies. Very simply because the Western Allies also had access to numerous witnesses who had been in those camps (incl. some of the victims, bystanders and of course the perpetrators), as well as to the partial documentation.

Another important aspect to mention here is that the Soviets simply would not have faked information about the mass murder specifically and primarily of Jews. With very few exceptions they insisted on using the "internationalist" language to describe the Nazi mass murder of Jews. Thus the Jewish victims of the Babiy Yar massacre were turned into "peaceful Soviet citizens" by a stroke of a pen in the official Soviet message, and, as already mentioned above, the official Soviet report on Auschwitz does not mention any Jewish victims. The famous Black Book was notoriously censored by the Stalinist officials specifically because it focused on the murder of Jews. Had the Nazi mass murder been a Soviet fake, the story would have been the murder in the camps of millions of Slavs, like Russians, Belorussians and Ukrainians.

The argument in the tweets makes no sense whatsoever. As usual.


Nathan said...

Nice Work, Sergey. I agree that this sort of thing is popular on Facebook as well. This is very useful.

You must have the patience of a saint to be willing to slog through all that crap.

Gabi said...

I wont't be surprised if ALL of what you've written will be dismissed as "based on communist forgeries". I mean your name aftee all is SERGEY. Which is Russian = Soviet = commie = Joo = liar.

Sergey Romanov said...

It already has been, on twitter, by the people who swallow random twitter memes as the truly truthy truth!

The Black Rabbit of Inlé said...

>>> "Long story short, the New York Times Magazine deleted the standing guy from the picture."

What about Auschwitz and Buchenwald survivor Mel Mermelstein—who actually appears in the photo—did he also *delete the standing guy" for the cover of his 1979 memoirs?

I have found irrefutable evidence that Mermelstein was aware of the Toncman-present version before he published the Toncmanless version on the first edition of his book.

And an abundance of evidence that MM was aware of it before he again used the Toncmanless version on the late-1981 revised edition of his memoirs, following his legal victory over the IHR.

Sergey Romanov said...

> did he also *delete the standing guy" for the cover of his 1979 memoirs?

We have discussed it previously.

Look at the cover again. Don't you see the gray smudge instead of the bunks, absent in the NYTM version?

A much more crude retouching than that done by the NYTM.

The Black Rabbit of Inlé said...

The MM version is of even poorer quality than the photo in the NYTM [which was almost certainly just a wirephoto cheaply printed on cheap paper, and is 68 years old in the photos and scan that I have posted online].

So, just to be certain of your position which you opted not to define previously, are you are saying that MM doctored the photo [or had someone do it for him]? And that it's simply a coincidence that MM doctored it in the same manner as had been done by the NYTM 34 years earlier?

What do you suppose was his motive?

Hans Metzner said...

Re gas chamber knowledge:

Knowledge of Mass Extermination Among Hungarian Jews Returning from Auschwitz

In short, the statistics from 999 Hungarian Au survivors shows that one tends to overestimate the (shared) knowledge on extermination in Auschwitz among Hungarian Jews.

Sergey Romanov said...

I have previously defined my position:

"Not only the bottom part of the posts cannot be seen, almost the whole area is a grey smudge (unlike the NYTM version), which means that yes, whoever made the cover manipulated the photo anew (whether not to take away the focus from Mel, or because of nudity, or both)."

The gray smudge can be seen at regardless of the photo quality. With poor quality we would expect merely not to see the dark parts in the background. Instead we see a gray fog-like smudge, distinct from the dark parts of the bunks, which appears exactly where the man stands in the original.

If you have another edition with an even poorer quality - this one for example

then you can't see anything.

Note also that the texture of the wooden post is different where the man's shoulder should be (in both editions).

I obviously don't believe that MM did design for his own books. So most probably it was done by the publisher. Publishers can do such thing without the authors knowing, so the assumption that this was done at MM's behest is uncertain.

Most probable reason: the book is about MM; but he is barely seen, so that they even had to use a red circle to show him. The standing man would obviously steal the focus from MM.

The Black Rabbit of Inlé said...

>>>> "There was one exception, as mentioned above, Lucy Dawidowicz who, for reasons known only to her, claimed over 1,3 million Jewish deaths in Majdanek. But one hack historian does not a consensus make."

Lipstadt out did Dawidowicz by insisting a whooping 1,700,000 Jews had been killed at Majdanek, in a 1983 LA Times article which was subsequently syndicated in other US newspapers, i.a. Finger Lake Times (Geneva, NY), Friday, April 22, 1983, p.5.

Is she a "hack historian"?

I found a very interesting quote r.e Majdanek in Telford Taylor's memoirs. It shows that even US Nuremberg prosecutors believed the Soviets were deliberately exaggerating death tolls, which had warped many of their reports.

Smirnov went on to give figures of the death toll in several cities: 632,253 during the blockade of Leningrad; over 100,000 at Vilna; 70,000 at Kaunas; some 200,000 at the Yanov camp; 1.5 million at Maidanek.

Were the statistics inflated? Were the atrocities invented or overstated? Total reliance on official reports based on untested depositions by unseen witnesses is certainly not the most reliable road to factual accuracy. Furthermore, some of the numerical totals, such as those for Maidanek and the German-occupied cities, are plainly estimates, in contrast to Leningrad, where circumstances made exact counts possible. Considering the number of deponents and the play of emotional factors, not only faulty observation but deliberate exaggeration must have warped many of the reports. But granting all that, were the flaws so numerous and so deep as to undermine the general accuracy of the picture presented?

- Telford Tayfor, The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir, NY: Knopf, 1992, p.315.

The Black Rabbit of Inlé said...

So, in May 1945 an unspecified NYTM editor ordered an unspecified photo technician to paint bunks, floor, ceiling shadow over Simon Toncman because he didn't want to offend his readers, but he didn't think of simply cropping the photo, as the paper had done the previous week.

Then, 34 years later, MM's "publisher" had the photo doctored in precisely the same way but this time it was because he, and perhaps MM, thought the presence of ST distracted from the young MM peaking over the edge of the top bunk.


Sergey Romanov said...

Lipstadt acted as a hack in that instance, but her "sin" is incomparable to that of Dawidowicz. Lipstadt is not, strictly speaking, a Holocaust historian and she wasn't a specialist on the numbers. Dawidowicz on the other hand wrote a whole book on the topic and mucked up things badly.

I have seen Taylor's quote.

Sergey Romanov said...

> So, in May 1945 an unspecified NYTM editor ordered an unspecified photo technician to paint bunks, floor, ceiling shadow over Simon Toncman because he didn't want to offend his readers, but he didn't think of simply cropping the photo, as the paper had done the previous week.

> Then, 34 years later, MM's "publisher" had the photo doctored in precisely the same way but this time it was because he, and perhaps MM, thought the presence of ST distracted from the young MM peaking over the edge of the top bunk.

Since we know that retouching did take place twice (as proven above and in the relevant post), this is what most probably happened. And there are no other versions that would be anywhere close to this one as far as parsimony is concerned.

The Black Rabbit of Inlé said...

FYI, MM's book was vanity press. So, you'll have to say MM ordered the doctoring or think up a new CT entirely.

>>> I have seen Taylor's quote.

I thought you might have, considering what we were discussing on SF. But it doesn't appear to have been quoted in any article or book available on the web, at least in English.

Sergey Romanov said...

> or think up a new CT

You obviously don't understand the meaning of such a basic term as "conspiracy theory". For nothing I have described is anywhere within 1000 km of a CT.

The irony is that my posting has debunked your actual - and implausible to the level of craziness, not to mention absolutely lacking in supporting evidence - conspiracy theory.

The Taylor quote is available at GB, as usual.

The Black Rabbit of Inlé said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Black Rabbit of Inlé said...

Too scare to go on record saying MM doctored the photo? This is as far as we got last time!

>>> I obviously don't believe that MM did design for his own books

You, obviously, are unaware of MM's artistic streak. In his USC Shoah testimony he shows off many pieces of art he created with cutlery and other such items he found at Birkenau.

>>> You obviously don't understand the meaning of such a basic term as "conspiracy theory". For nothing I have described is anywhere within 1000 km of a CT.

I'm well aware of your tendency to indulge in a little persuasive definition.

Your theory is that unnamed persons conspired to doctor the photo, not once but twice, completely independently and for totally different reasons. That is a conspiracy theory, or conspiracy theories, to be precise.

The alleged motives of your conspirators are absurd; you don't have a scrap of evidence to support either of your CTs, and you've not even bothered finding out if they're even theoretically possible—you didn't even known MM self-published before announcing his publisher dun did it!

Your "debunking" essentially boils down to: the NYT dun did it, and anyone who doesn't accept this evidence free say-so has mental health issues.

Any contentious person will treat such an argument with the contempt it deserves, regardless of whom they suspect doctored the photo.

Sergey Romanov said...

> Too scare to go on record saying MM doctored the photo?

Unlike you I don't usually jump to unwarranted conclusions.

> You, obviously, are unaware of MM's artistic streak. In his USC Shoah testimony he shows off many pieces of art he created with cutlery and other such items he found at Birkenau.

I'm not really interested in tertiary details. If MM did it, it's no skin off anyone's nose. You can't prove that MM did it of course. All we know is that it's different from the NYTM version. Whether it was MM or the publisher interests only small minds.

The point is that you got totally debunked. And are trying to hide it by arguing about trivia.

> Your theory is that unnamed persons conspired to doctor the photo, not once, but twice, completely independently and for totally different reasons. That is a conspiracy theory, or conspiracy theories, to be precises.

Just as I said, you have no idea about basic terms like "conspiracy". Nobody has "conspired" to retouch the photo. They simply did it for mundane reasons.

For example, the SK photos were retouched in some books for mundane reasons. Was that a conspiracy? Obviously not. Women's images get retouched in some fundies' newspapers out of modesty. Is that a conspiracy? Obviously not.

Not every deviation from truth is defined as a conspiracy. So, as I said, you're clueless.

On the other hand your claim, not supported by any evidence, of someone pasting in the standing man for absolutely absurd reasons as a part of some kind of a govt forgery effort for iconic photos and conspiring to hide the original photo, but then it somehow getting out and reaching the NYMT (and only NYMT), then it being retouched again (because the photo *is* retouched differently) and somehow getting into MM's hands decades later (despite the fact that both photos are differently retouched versions), then it being published by MM who allegedly designed the cover himself, but somehow did not see that he was publishing the wrong photo, is a pure convoluted CT that makes exactly zero sense.

Facts remain:

1. The NYTM photo was retouched, as I have shown. You have failed to refute the evidence.
2. The MM book photo was retouched, and retouched differently than the NYTM photo, as I have shown. You have failed to refute the evidence.
3. Thus the two retouchings were independent.

Since this is proven, any theory as to what the original is must incorporate these 3 points. All other theories are dismissed as false, since they contradict proven facts.

Since the two retouched photos by definition cannot be the originals, one has two choices - either the original no longer exists, or the photo claimed as the original is the original. Quite obviously the latter is the only plausible, parsimonious version.

> you don't have a scrap of evidence to support either of your CTs,

True, I don't, because I don't have any CTs unlike you, oh believer in the Jewish blood libel. My main claims (the 3 above), on the other hand, have all been proven. So I have facts and no need of CTs.

> The alleged motives of your conspirators are absurd

You mean, the alleged motives of *your* conspirators are absurd. I agree.

The motives I have stated for non-conspiratorial retouching are fully plausible.

> Your "debunking" essentially boils down to: the NYT dun did it, and anyone who doesn't accept this evidence free say-so has mental health issues.

Well, anyone who accepts your Rube Goldberg CT certainly has mental issues. It lacks any shade of plausibility, not to mention any evidence.

> Any contentious person will treat such an argument with the contempt it deserves, regardless of whom they suspect doctored the photo.

Almost anyone knowing your m.o. of branding anything you don't like a fake for absolutely absurd reasons will ignore your blather. I'm being kind in responding at all.

The Black Rabbit of Inlé said...

>>> The attempt was partially symbolic (as the detached chimney shows) and partially botched.

The detachedness is utterly irrelevant, as Soviet probably knew from an original 1942 plan.

Fighting fire with fire. The artwork's ropey but the info's good:

Negroid said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Gabi said...

Ohhh can you please tell us what Negroid had written? Should be fun.

Nicholas Terry said...

I've no idea; Negroid and any sockpuppets he might create are perma-banned from commenting on this blog, so we just went 'delete'.

Sergey Romanov said...

> The artwork's ropey but the info's good:


Dass Prussian said...

I love lists . Even more so when they are backed up with supporting notes !

Many thanks for this, Sergey.


hi ! i saw your list , but im not convinced , i have some little arguments here :

the holocaust is a lie to manipulate the world to never support national-socialism and to never try to destroy the liars... i question you who are the liars ?


yeah but not the jewish people... the zionist-bolchevik globalist...

in fact the jewish people lived in harmony in the reich... (in the end of my arguments i will put a link to the photos)

i have some questions about the holocaust :

1- if the holocaust existed.. how worked concentration camps.. the "historians" should know right ?

2- if the holocaust existed.. where are the "gassed body piles in the ground near concentration camps" ?

3- if the holocaust existed.. the concentration camps comsumed lot of resources right ? because for the light , wood , steel , gaz and etc..
where are the importation notes for the death camps ?

4- if the holocaust existed.. why we let survivors ? we had guns, mechanised , armored , tanks... why we didn't kill them ?

5- if the holocaust existed.. why the hell we would record everything... some videos show "nazis" doing awful things.. and they look to the camera.. why would we record..

6- if the holocaust existed.. why stalin killed polish , jews and other peoples to blame on hitler ? and why the "photoshopped" some photos ?

7- why auschwitz opened to the public in 1955-60 and the other camps in 1970 ?

the holocaust is a lie to stop people to support national-socialism and destroy the zionist new world order plan... and its a propaganda of war..

hitler in some speeches the blame some jews.. its true.. but who are they ?


the national socialist german party is the only one who closed the rothschild banks...

that's why the rothschilds and the jewish zionist greated the holocaust... TO STOP THE ONLY WAY OF GOVERNMENT AGAINST THEM.. IT MAKES SENSE NOW ???

and in the war more than 125.000 jews fought for the wehrmacht , sturmwaffe , luftwaffe , kriegsmarine and even the most important one.. THE WAFFEN-SS

there was jewish field marshals , generals , captains , soldiers and doctors...


please anwser to ALL the questions

photos :

hitler man of peace :

the greatest history never told :

relate of a survivor from the "holocaust" :

jewish old women talking about jews.. :

Sergey Romanov said...

> 1- if the holocaust existed.. how worked concentration camps.. the "historians" should know right ?

Eh? And what does that have to do with the Holocaust "existing"?

> 2- if the holocaust existed.. where are the "gassed body piles in the ground near concentration camps" ?

See item 18 above.

> 3- if the holocaust existed.. the concentration camps comsumed lot of resources right ? because for the light , wood , steel , gaz and etc..
where are the importation notes for the death camps ?

Most did not survive the war for obvious reasons. Those few that did are in the archives. One such series will be published at the blog soon.

Also, it's not like you can readily find this stuff for normal concentration camps, but you don't doubt them on this basis, right?

> 4- if the holocaust existed.. why we let survivors ? we had guns, mechanised , armored , tanks... why we didn't kill them ?

They were mostly killing Jews unable to work and using the other Jews as slave labor many of whom survived until the end, after the gassing stop order was issued.

> 5- if the holocaust existed.. why the hell we would record everything... some videos show "nazis" doing awful things.. and they look to the camera.. why would we record..

Well, since they did, the question is irrelevant, right? They just did.

But some people just enjoy this stuff, so they did it even though it was prohibited. Of course, far from everything has been recorded.

And what does that have to do with the Holocaust "existing", aside from proving that it did?

> 6- if the holocaust existed.. why stalin killed polish , jews and other peoples to blame on hitler ? and why the "photoshopped" some photos ?

Katyn was blamed on Hitler simply because the Nazis found the graves and made a propaganda show out of them. You are making up Stalin killing Jews and blaming them on Hitler (aside from those Jews who died as Katyn victims).

And what does that have to do with the Holocaust "existing"?

As to the photos, see item 25 above:

> 7- why auschwitz opened to the public in 1955-60 and the other camps in 1970 ?


> the holocaust is a lie

Got any proof of that?

As to your other sources, I have to assume that aside from being an illiterate freak you are also a liar. Your very first source has been debunked above:

So you have not actually read the post.

The Greatest Story nonsense has been debunked at

So in the end... you got nothin'. :-)

Aaron Richards said...

A very, very awesome summary refuting most, actually probably all, of the average internet troll's commonly used ensemble of "clever questions that debunk the holohoax in 5 mins". Wherever we encounter them, be it YouTube, twitter, facebook, the various chan imageboards etc., this is I daresay the "one Link to refute them all." At least it should get them back to the drawing board.

Nathan said...

- the Communists never claimed that all Auschwitz victims were Jewish; the Soviet Auschwitz report didn't mention this, there was an oblique reference to "not less than 4,000,000 citizens of the USSR, Poland, France, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Rumania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Holland, Belgium, and other countries", but that's it.-

The law/act the Polish Government issued when establishing the Auschwitz Memorial in 1947 is also worth mentioning. The Law is explicitly named "ACT of 2 July 1947 on the commemoration of the martyrdom of the Polish Nation and other Nations in Auschwitz".

Like you said, the communists never claimed that all Auschwitz victims were Jewish. The actual official edict issued by the Communist government makes it clear that this was the case. So, it's based on 2 false assumptions: the 4 million being a physical count of actual people (which it wasn't), and that it referred to only Jews and impacts the Jewish death toll (Refuted by the official edict).