The Holocaust Thread - The Great Debate Between Affirmers, Revisionists and Deniers

[History Speaks]

@History Speaks maybe try it like a Fermi problem? Just make up numbers for % body fat and % muscle of the emaciated 70lb victims. Make those percentages as absurdly large as you'd like. You'll then be able to look up estimates for enthalpy of combustion for both and use it to offset the energy requirements.
You said you were excellent at the theoretical aspects of chemistry, so basic multiplication and division shouldn't be a problem.
Once we have a more accurate formula that's not based _solely_ on enthalpy of vaporization of water, we can play with variables all day to get it more accurate.

guys, you can make fun of my point. I do not know why you would since it is true and a product of pretty basic science (the difference between fuel and energy). But go ahead and make fun of it.

I do however insist that you do it through direct quotes, not your misrepresentations.

Regarding this "challenge" to create some kind of equation, My whole point is that we CANNOT, sitting here today, make an equation about the "minimum possible fuel" need to cremate cadavers at Auschwitz with any kind of accuracy-not even as a Fermi estimate. We simply do not have enough information at hand to numerically measure exactly how fuel efficient the Nazi methods were.

We CAN make qualitative statements. We CAN say that the Topf methods (the dehydration of the corpses, the emission of fat from the heavier corpses, running the cremas all day to build up heat, etc) saved a hell of a lot of fuel. But it would be pseudoscientific, without knowing more about how the cremas worked in practice, to present equations of exactly (in a numerical sense) how much fuel the cremas saved, and how much fuel would have been necessary.

The response to my point in this regard has been to conflate fuel with energy-John Doe said, hey we can calculate how much energy we need to cremate corpses of x weight, you are dumb for denying this. I responded by saying that fuel is not energy, but a source of energy, and that the cremas had other sources of energy, most salient of these is the built up heat from prior cremations, but you also have the emission of fat from heavier corpses.

Another response to this has been to say, where did the heat come from? This is a complete red herring - Of course the heat came from the cremating process which required fuel (who denied this?). But the fact that X fuel (through the whole cremation process) is used to create Y heat does not mean that creating Y does not save fuel. Of course it does--and Topf's technique of running the cremas continuously through the day produces more heat than an on-and-off commercial cremation working with the same amount of fuel would.

Regarding what I said about my knowledge of chem, again this is a misrepresentation. I said I did excellent at low-level underclassman theoretical chemistry classes, but did mediocre in the labs where I was quite clumsy. Hence I dropped my chemistry major before I could even get to upper level courses. By referencing these banal facts of my academic career, I was not presenting myself as some kind of chemist or professor of chemistry making pioneering discoveries.

My expertise is history. The only thing I have said is I know enough about chemistry to debunk the nonsense I have read on this thread insofar as it relates to chemistry. With respect to chemistry, I am very knowledgeable by rando standards, but completely useless compared to an actual chemist or engineer or someone with a degree in chemistry.

 

[mrolonzo]

What language was it written in? If it's German I can give it a try.


The Nazis are exceptional in that when they began to lose the Eastern front, they actually started directing more trains of Jews and more resources necessary to kill them to the camps, not fewer. Rail shipments to KZs were prioritized ahead of replenishing the front, arming the military, and civilian stuff. It was as if Hitler and Co. realized they were on a deadline and needed to 'liquidate' as many Jewish lives as possible before the Soviet Army liberated their facilities to do so.

Another question for the thread: what is the real purpose of trying to minimize or deny the events of the Holocaust? Theories set in stubborn opposition to consistent historical documentation like this always have an ulterior motive. Is it anti-Semitism? Why are you mad at the internet because of the 6 million? If you deny this, how far up does it go? Do you deny the existence of Operation Reinhard? Do you pretend that Himmler didn't sign it? Would you say that Josef Mengele never happened? Are you going to tell me Mein Kampf is fake news?

Operation Reinhard, the finance minister? Oh yes he happened.

Josef Mengele the dedicated doctor battling typhus definitely happened too.

What I mean to say is, that during the heavy logjams in 1942 and 1943, coal was diverted from the front to run the crematories.

Which is also the time they were battling typhus to save the Jews .

 

[History Speaks]

Josef Mengele the dedicated doctor battling typhus definitely happened too.

You do know that a number of torturous Nazi medical experiments were also performed on non-Jewish inmates, and in camps other than Auschwitz. Do you think these witnesses--and more importantly, the doucmentary evidence for Nazi medical experiments, including the "scientific" data they collected from their freezing experiments, among others--are also lying?

 

[mrolonzo]

You do know that a number of torturous Nazi medical experiments were also performed on non-Jewish inmates, and in camps other than Auschwitz. Do you think these witnesses--and more importantly, the doucmentary evidence for Nazi medical experiments, including the "scientific" data they collected from their freezing experiments, among others--are also lying?

Yes they certainly did experiments and on volunteer SS soldiers too. Were they being mean to them too?

 

[JohnDoe]

Regarding this "challenge" to create some kind of equation, My whole point is that we CANNOT, sitting here today, make an equation about the "minimum possible fuel" need to cremate cadavers at Auschwitz with any kind of accuracy-not even as a Fermi estimate. We simply do not have enough information at hand to numerically measure exactly how fuel efficient the Nazi methods were.

We can calculate the absolute minimum fuel required, starting with the minimum energy needed and then determining the amount of fuel required to provide that minimum. That would be the lower bound of the fuel required, and the upper bound would depend on the amount of inefficiency present in the system (which may be difficult to pin down.) You really don't understand the basic theoretical groundwork on this, do you?

 

[History Speaks]

Yes they certainly did experiments and on volunteer SS soldiers too. Were they being mean to them too?

Are you seriously claiming that the Germans scrupulously consulted Slavic, Jewish and Romani inmates-people they considered subhuman-for consent to being injected with malaria and frozen to death? Why would they do such a thing? (They may have "consented" in the sense that someone consents to giving a wallet guy who points a gun to his dead his wallet, but that is a complete sham.)

Attached is a "malaria card" of a Polish priest who was detained in Dachau and subject to freezing experiments as well. Was he lying about having been forced to undergo these experiments? Numerous such cards were found when the Americans-not muh Nazis, Americans-liberated the camp.

We can calculate the absolute minimum fuel required, starting with the minimum energy needed and then determining the amount of fuel required to provide that minimum

Okay, this is our disagreement. I say you cannot calculate the needed fuel even if you can calculate the needed energy, because fuel is not the same as energy, and because fuel requirements depend on other (unquantifiable) variables in addition to energy requirements. In this case, the relevant variables relate to the Topf method. We do not know numerically how fuel efficient the unusual and innovative Topf cremation methods (dehydrating corpses through the method described earlier, running the cremas continuously all day to build up heat as an alternative source of energy, utilizing emissions of fat from heavier corpses) were.

 

[CrentistMcMahon]

guys, you can make fun of my point.

And I will!

I do however insist that you do it through direct quotes

Can do!

we CANNOT, sitting here today, make an equation about the "minimum possible fuel" need to cremate cadavers at Auschwitz with any kind of accuracy-not even as a Fermi estimate

We can indeed. You are revealing that you don't understand what a Fermi problem is. The point is derive relevant factors at play with little/no measurement

But it would be pseudoscientific, without knowing more about how the cremas worked in practice, to present equations of exactly (in a numerical sense) how much fuel the cremas saved, and how much fuel would have been necessary.

Science has nothing to do with it. We're not making testable hypotheses here (and obviously neither are you). We're attempting to establish and refine a least upper bound for the energy required to convert a body to ash.

The response to my point in this regard has been to conflate fuel with energy

I have seen no one conflate these things except you.

the cremas had other sources of energy, most salient of these is the built up heat from prior cremations

This is waste heat due to the cremation process being less than 100% efficient and therefore requiring _more_ energy than our theoretic least upper bound. Were the process 100% efficient then by definition the cremator would remain at room temperature throught the process as all the energy is going into the Jew

you also have the emission of fat from heavier corpses.

Yes, and I am asking you to make a wildly over-optimistic estimate of the heat generated by this process. All it takes is multiplication.

Another response to this has been to say, where did the heat come from? This is a completely irrelevant assertion - Of course the heat came from the cremating process which required fuel

Again, that estimate assumes that all heat went into the Jew and the cremator remained at room temperature throughout. You are conjuring up magical heat from nowhere.

But the fact that x fuel (through the whole cremation process) can be used to create y heat does not mean that creating the heat does not save fuel

This is unparseable gibberish lmao

Topf's technique of running the cremas continuously through the day produces more heat than an on-and-off commercial cremation working with the same amount of fuel would.

The estimate for energy required makes no reference to, and is independent of, any process of cremation. I don't know why you keep bringing up cremation techniques. They have no bearing whatsoever on the argument. We're already assuming an impossible 100% efficient cremation process. However efficient Topf was, he wasn't breaking thermodynamics.

Regarding what I said about my knowledge of chem, again this is a misrepresentation

I was excellent in the theoretical chemistry

bruh

By referencing these banal facts of my academic career, I was not presenting myself as some kind of chemist

You were representing yourself as a person who was capable of multiplying

The only thing I have said is I know enough about chemistry to debunk the nonsense I have read on this thread insofar as it relates to chemistry

Lmao you're no expert but you know enough about chemistry to debunk conservation of energy I'm fuckin dying dude

 

[mrolonzo]

Are you seriously claiming that the Germans scrupulously consulted Slavic, Jewish and Romani inmates-people they considered subhuman-for consent to being injected with malaria and frozen to death? Why would they do such a thing? (They may have "consented" in the sense that someone consents to giving a wallet guy who points a gun to his dead his wallet, but that is a complete sham.)

Attached is a "malaria card" of a Polish priest who was detained in Dachau and subject to freezing experiments as well. Was he lying about having been forced to undergo these experiments? Numerous such cards were found when the Americans-not muh Nazis, Americans-liberated the camp.


Okay, this is our disagreement. I say you cannot calculate the needed fuel even if you can calculate the needed energy, because fuel is not the same as energy, and because fuel requirements depend on other (unknown) variables addition to energy requirements. In this case, the relevant variables relate to the Topf method. We do not know numerically how fuel efficient the unusual and innovative Topf cremation methods (dehydrating corpses through the method described earlier, running the cremas continuously all day to build up heat as an alternative source of energy, utilizing emissions of fat from heavier corpses) were.

Yes in fact the SS had a specific camp for inmates with malaria. As for experiments as with many aspects of the camp people are rewarded for their contribution. You're asking if people would lie, the answer is of course, and especially given the agendas and ignorance of the time.

Are you still doing the 'throw in some fat people ' for the fire thing?

 

[History Speaks]

Deniers (including Crentist) - I am sure you guys (all Holocaust deniers, gee what a coincidence that it is only the deniers on this thread, i.e. people with a massive emotional motivation for concluding this, who think I made some horrible technical mistake) are as convinced of my stupidity as Scientologists would be if I denied Lord Xenu was scientifically proven. But I have no problem here as far as normal people are concerned so long as you quote me. So we have no problem so long as you keep doing that, and I am happy to be civil with you all again.

Crentist - The funniest thing is that your invocation of a Fermi estimate as the best course here--I disagree, and believe we would need to know how fuel efficient the Topf method is in general before doing a respectable Fermi estimate*--contradicts what Lemming and John are saying. They are saying that we can calculate a "minimum possible fuel" requirement with precision.

*Though we would need this general knowledge of the Topf method's fuel efficiency, we would not in the specific case of a Fermi estimate need to see how it worked in practice at Auschwitz

 

[Lemmingwise]

Please stop asking questions how germans were able to break the laws of physics. It was secret technology powered by their pure unprecedented evil alright? And the patent is destroyed, so it's one of those mysteries of the past that are lost forever like how to make damascus steel. If this makes you skeptical, you're literally a scientologist!

I wonder if in 50 years time when fusion energy is abundant they'll claim it was some type of fusion from the burning of the simultaneously fat and emaciated cadavers.

 

[History Speaks]

Yes in fact the SS had a specific camp for inmates with malaria.

Just to avoid straw manning you, I want to clarify - are you denying that the Nazis injected people with malaria?

 

[JohnDoe]

Okay, this is our disagreement. I say you cannot calculate the needed fuel even if you can calculate the needed energy, because fuel is not the same as energy, and because fuel requirements depend on other (unquantifiable) variables in addition to energy requirements. In this case, the relevant variables relate to the Topf method

The funniest thing is that your invocation of a Fermi estimate as the best course here--I disagree, and believe we would need to know how fuel efficient the Topf method is in general before doing a respectable Fermi estimate, though we would not in the specific case of a Fermi estimate need to see how it worked in practice at Auschwitz

At this point its clear that you're either incapable of understanding and simultaneously too stupid to realize you don't understand or you're being deliberately obtuse. Its been explained to you multiple times.

Where are the diagrams, I'd like to read something written by someone that understands high school physics.

 

[History Speaks]

At this point its clear that you're either incapable of understanding and simultaneously too stupid to realize you don't understand or you're being deliberately obtuse. Its been explained to you multiple times.

Where are the diagrams, I'd like to read something written by someone that understands high school physics.

If you believe this, what is the point in continuing this back and forth? We have clearly established the crux of our disagreement. After last night's torrent of misrepresentations and obscurantism, you are quoting me accurately. If you continue to do that we have no quarrel.

I am not telling you to stop discussing it. You can keep joking with fellow Scientologists about how funny it is all over this thread, just quote me accurately. But I really have nothing more to add on this subject so long as I am quoted accurately - the two things you just quoted are a very fair representation, in point of fact.

 

[CrentistMcMahon]

Deniers (including Crentist) - I am sure you guys (all Holocaust deniers, gee what a coincidence that it is only the deniers on this thread, i.e. people with a massive emotional motivation for concluding this, who think I made some horrible technical mistake) are as convinced of my stupidity as Scientologists would be if I denied Lord Xenu was scientifically proven.

If you could attack the argument you would. Instead you're personally attacking the people putting forth the argument. No "normal" person sees you repeatedly refusing to engage in discussion and thinks "Wow I don't understand the technicals, but this guy who is refusing to engage must SURELY know what he's talking about!"

I am happy to be civil with you all again.

Doubt.

The funniest thing is that your invocation of a Fermi estimate as the best course here

Never said it was the best course, but it is certainly A course of action you could take that would make you seem more respectable to the normals. Also, it's fucking hilarious that I have to quote you exactly but you can just make up whatever you want on the spot and attribute it to me lmao

I disagree, and believe we would need to know how fuel efficient the Topf method is in general

That would surely lead to a better estimate. You mentioned some paper earlier detailing it. As it is the centerpiece of your current argument perhaps you can provide it?

They are saying that we can calculate a "minimum possible fuel" requirement with precision.

You're spamming the shit out of this thread so maybe I missed it but I don't think anyone has ever said this. Instead, they've been making an intentionally imprecise estimate that massively undershoots whatever the true required fuel amount is and it's still so ridiculously large that you are panicking and resorting to insults over arguments, even as I attempted to help you formulate a counterargument.

 

[History Speaks]

Look, I am bored of talking about this subject. Last night I was butthurt by being misrepresented, now I am just bored. (A very pleasant ongoing skype chat with Germar Rudolf, of all people, has made me optimistic again about trying to converse with deniers. He is a denier out of bias for Germany, but he is an otherwise good person and not a technical crank.)

There are pages of quotes from all of us, feel free to keep quoting it if it is so funny and discrediting. In fact I encourage you to do so, so long as you quote me rather than paraphrase.

What I would most like to see is you try to bring this stuff to a forum of chemists or physicists or engineers, not Scientologists who are emotionally committed to Zenu existing. If you quote me accurately and describe the Topf method--which is the big variable here in making fuel efficiency so hard to determine--it will be funny indeed to see what people say. We can agree on that.

 

[CrentistMcMahon]

Look, I am bored of talking about this subject.

Please don't go before you provide that technical analysis of the Topf process.

Last night I was butthurt by being misrepresented, now I am just bored.

You seem to still be excruciatingly butthurt.

(A very pleasant ongoing skype chat with Germar Rudolf, of all people, changed my outlook. He is a denier out of bias for Germany, but he is an otherwise good person and not a technical crank.)

I am sure you guys (all Holocaust deniers, gee what a coincidence that it is only the deniers on this thread, i.e. people with a massive emotional motivation for concluding this, who think I made some horrible technical mistake) are as convinced of my stupidity as Scientologists would be if I denied Lord Xenu was scientifically proven.

You can keep joking with fellow Scientologists about how funny it is all over this thread

So if someone disagrees with you on Skype (lmao Skype? what a fuckin boomer) due to his "massive emotional motivation", he is an "otherwise good person". But if someone disagrees with you because your math doesn't add up, he's a Scientologist.

What I would most like to see is you try to bring this stuff to a forum of chemists or physicists or engineers,

Hilariously enough, I used to be a chemist and am now an engineer.

not Scientologists who are emotionally committed to Zenu existing.

oh sweetie nooooooo

 

[Stabmaster Arson]

And I will!

Can do!

We can indeed. You are revealing that you don't understand what a Fermi problem is. The point is derive relevant factors at play with little/no measurement

Science has nothing to do with it. We're not making testable hypotheses here (and obviously neither are you). We're attempting to establish and refine a least upper bound for the energy required to convert a body to ash.

I have seen no one conflate these things except you.

This is waste heat due to the cremation process being less than 100% efficient and therefore requiring _more_ energy than our theoretic least upper bound. Were the process 100% efficient then by definition the cremator would remain at room temperature throught the process as all the energy is going into the Jew

Yes, and I am asking you to make a wildly over-optimistic estimate of the heat generated by this process. All it takes is multiplication.

Again, that estimate assumes that all heat went into the Jew and the cremator remained at room temperature throughout. You are conjuring up magical heat from nowhere.

This is unparseable gibberish lmao

The estimate for energy required makes no reference to, and is independent of, any process of cremation. I don't know why you keep bringing up cremation techniques. They have no bearing whatsoever on the argument. We're already assuming an impossible 100% efficient cremation process. However efficient Topf was, he wasn't breaking thermodynamics.


bruh

You were representing yourself as a person who was capable of multiplying

Lmao you're no expert but you know enough about chemistry to debunk conservation of energy I'm fuckin dying dude

The Nazi ufos ran on burning Jews, Die Glocke removed all traces of the holocasust.

There are pages of quotes from all of us, feel free to keep quoting it if it is so funny and discrediting. In fact I encourage you to do so, so long as you quote me rather than paraphrase.

What I would most like to see is p[...]e[...]n[...]i[...]s.

 

[Lemmingwise]

History speaks, you weren't misrepresented. You're still defending the same stupid thoughts.

Last night I was butthurt

We could tell.

 

[History Speaks]

Please don't go before you provide that technical analysis of the Topf process.

lol I have never claimed to be an expert on cremation, much less the Topf process. I really can only quote from and paraphrase documents (e.g. Topf's 1942 patent application) that describe how it worked, and have done so earlier on this thread.

I do know enough about science and cremation to say that by dehydrating corpses, running the cremas continuousl (so as to build up heats), rotating the bodies into certain positions, etc, Topf could dramatically increase fuel efficiency of cremation. But how exactly his design did these things technically I do not know and have never claimed to know.

Was Topf's design--which purported to be extremely fuel efficient for the above mentioned reasons--legit? We have overwhelming documentary evidence showing that it was. For example, a patent application for the Topf method was approved by the West German government post war, and we also know that the method was used by the Germans "secretly" during the war as a solution with their problem in not being able to cremate enough bodies. We also have documents from Auschwitz showing that, with the Topf cremas, 4,756 cadavers could be cremated daily.

If people are anons I do not take claims of professional qualifications seriously, sorry. If you are not an anon though go ahead and send any engineering or chemistry credentials you have to me.

I have said my views on this. I encourage you to continue talking about this subject and my views, just quote me accurately.

 

[Stan]

Operation Reinhard, the finance minister? Oh yes he happened.

Josef Mengele the dedicated doctor battling typhus definitely happened too.



Which is also the time they were battling typhus to save the Jews .

Are you shitposting? Are you a cow? Bugger off.

From the source I'll link you too (dont freak out retards you can read a summary without signing up!!)

Operation Reinhard was the name given to the entire framework of actions undertaken in the destruction of the Jews in Poland’s General Government. The name was chosen for the operation after the death of Reinhard Heydrich, following the injury he sustained in the assassination attempt by the Czech underground on May 27, 1942. The decision to exterminate the Jews of the General Government was taken months earlier, and its execution began months prior to the decision on the operation’s title.