Holocaust denial – strategies of lies and distortion

Transcript of the podcast

Denying the Holocaust among others denying or downplaying the number of victims or questioning existence of the gas chambers is a view that stands in contrast to the scientific research that has been carried out for the last decades. By downplaying or completely denying the role of the Holocaust it de facto aims at spreading hatred fueled by the underling antisemitism. Dr Igor Bartosik and dr Piotr Setkiewicz of the Auschwitz Museum’s Research Center discussed the most common myths and lies that appear in the denial narrative and in their strategies.

There is a wealth of information available from diverse sources that shed light on the operations of the concentration camps and the process of extermination in the gas chambers. Can we try to consolidate and organise them to showcase the diverse range of evidence that historians researching Holocaust issues have at their disposal today?

It is a complex task to establish a hierarchy or ranking of the importance of these sources. The most significant are witness accounts given many years after the war. These accounts were provided even before the end of the war by individuals from diverse countries and locations in the presence of representatives from various institutions. Additionally, there are accounts written by the witnesses and published in various magazines or books, with a considerable number already in circulation. From our perspective, the most valuable and easily accessible accounts for historians are likely those written 20-30 years after the war, when the witnesses' memories were still vivid. Particularly valuable are accounts written in the presence of historians who could pose pertinent questions crucial to historical research. Notably, the Auschwitz Museum houses more than 400 volumes of such accounts. Additionally, we have trial testimonies and numerous other materials, all of which are statements from former prisoners who were eyewitnesses to historical events. Contrary to what one might assume, some accounts were written during the war, free from potential pressures or influencing circumstances. They primarily come from prisoners who escaped or were released from the camp. The Home Army underground organisation frequently contacted these individuals to gather their testimonies, which later served as material for more general reports. Fragments of these testimonies were published in underground periodicals like the 'Information Bulletin' or in Halina Krahelska's book 'Oświęcim. Pamiętnik więźnia' (in Eng. 'Auschwitz. A Prisoner's Memoir '). They were distributed as brochures, particularly in occupied Warsaw. Finally, these accounts were used to create reports. This involved a meticulous process, from the initial compilation of the testimonies to their thorough review and analysis, before being forwarded to the Polish authorities in London. Similarly, these reports underwent a screening process from their submission to receipt by the headquarters of the Commander-in-Chief in London. The information always came from a former prisoner's account. We have a few recorded instances of escaped prisoners who managed to write memoirs or reports even amidst the chaos of war. In this context, I am referring to the Witold Pilecki report, but it's important to note that multiple similar reports also exist. Furthermore, the testimonies of the prisoners who were responsible for operating the gas chambers and crematoria during the war were also documented here on-site. They took the effort to write them down and then buried them near the crematoria. They were discovered after the war and, to this day, are one of the most valuable sources of our knowledge of the Holocaust. Moreover, we have post-war testimonies from SS men that we can present as evidence. However, it should be noted that the vast majority of these testimonies are of little value, in the sense that the majority of SS men who testified before the courts, whether in Poland or other countries, generally tried to play down their guilt. Their testimony was often reduced to a few sentences saying, “I did not see or hear or remember anything”. However, among these SS testimonies, there are also a few individuals who, perhaps not anticipating acquittals, saw no need to conceal anything. These crucial witnesses undoubtedly include the camp founder and commandant Rudolf Hoess and SS men Vladimir Bilan and Erich Muhsfeldt who chose to be honest in their accounts. Additionally, we have many non-prisoner witnesses who were civilian workers. These individuals had access to the crematoria area because they were employed by specific German construction companies. These companies had been involved in construction projects at Auschwitz and Birkenau since the establishment of the camp. They often worked near these facilities or even participated in building the crematoria and gas chambers. Also, these witnesses are as valid and reliable as can be. Finally, we have a diverse group of witnesses from various countries, mainly civilian workers who were sent to Auschwitz during the war by the labour offices or through bilateral agreements with the IG Farbenindustrie company. The company was constructing extensive chemical plants near Auschwitz. They were the ones who could observe the smoke and flames emerging from the crematorium areas and incineration pits on the horizon. Moreover, they had contact with prisoners who had lost loved ones in the gas chambers and thus had a first-hand understanding, so to speak, of what was happening at Birkenau. Another group of witnesses also includes Luftwaffe soldiers who served in Auschwitz or nearby towns during the war. Their job was to fight the American bombers that were attacking the IG Farben factory, so they, too, had some knowledge of what was happening at Auschwitz and Birkenau. Also, it was German workers or engineers, for example, from the Krupp company, who came here to Auschwitz during the war to supervise the construction of the factory. Furthermore, there are numerous witnesses, and it is worth noting that they all generally present an identical message. Naturally, their accounts vary in detail, but in general, they all confirm the existence of gas chambers and crematoria where people were murdered en masse. Furthermore, in every testimonial from those who experienced Auschwitz or Birkenau firsthand, whether they were prisoners or civilian workers, there is unanimous agreement that the gas chambers were indeed utilised for mass killings. In a nutshell, there are no Holocaust deniers among former Auschwitz prisoners or survivors.

The accounts provide a broad perspective, allowing us to see the camp from a distance, the fumes hovering over Birkenau, and even faraway places like Libiąż or several others. Due to the existence of both the testimonies from Sonderkommando prisoners and their on-site records, carefully buried and preserved for future generations, we can observe the extermination process with exceptional precision from a considerable distance. The accounts give us a highly varied picture of what transpired at Auschwitz.

The witness's viewpoint is always subjective. Besides, we must take into account that the witnesses observed the camp from different perspectives at varying times. The prisoner's knowledge of the extermination process, except for those who were present in the Kommando, was somewhat distorted. This was mainly because the extermination operations were initially conducted as discreetly as possible. They took place out of the prisoners' view, in makeshift gas chambers near Birkenau, and not within the boundaries of the camp. We also need to take this into account. One example that illustrates the distortion of specific issues due to discrepancies between documentation and witness accounts is the remarkable testimony of Henryk Tauber. He delivered this testimony in May '45 before Judge Jan Sehn, who had extensive knowledge of the events at the camp. In his testimony, Tauber explained that the concept of using a crematorium stretcher to load bodies into the ovens was suggested by Kapo August Brück, who had experience working at the Buchenwald crematorium and arrived at Birkenau in March '43. He was assigned to oversee the Sonderkommando in Birkenau because the ovens were identical in design to the ones in Buchenwald. Tauber's recollection differs from the documented evidence and correspondence between the camp Zentrabauleitung the camp's building department, and the Topf und Sohne company. These records clearly show that the Topf engineers, not Kapo Brück, should be credited with this idea. We must remember that his memory is from the viewpoint of a witness, whereas the documents indicate a slightly different version. What I’m implying is that we treat the prisoners' testimonies as an indispensable complement owing to their unquestionable importance. It serves as a conclusive factor: on the one hand, we have the testimonies of eyewitnesses and the confessions of the perpetrators; on the other hand, we have official records, whether from the camp's administrative offices or the construction department, as well as the physical remnants found on-site. These pieces paint a complete picture when they are put together. In most cases, this information aligns with each other, allowing us to form a comprehensive understanding and encapsulate it within the realm of camp reality. Additionally, testimonies and accounts from witnesses are a valuable complement. As someone who has delved into denialist literature, I can confidently say that deniers seldom rely on witness statements, and when they do, they selectively cherry-pick and manipulate them. However, very few references are made to these testimonies and the memories of former prisoners. Conversely, the documentation centres around a specific aspect, like the Bauleitung documentation, which is somewhat prepared in a way that makes no direct reference to the Holocaust. They search for an explanation regarding the nonexistence of gas chambers and the Holocaust, as there is no explicit mention of them in the official Bauleitung documents.

We will discuss documents shortly, but it is often said that a picture is worth a thousand words, so we also have photographic sources in addition to the accounts of multiple witnesses.

Our collection of photographs has four distinct categories. One category features photographs of the building department during the camp's expansion, while another highlights the investments made by the Auschwitz building department or Zentralbauleitung. We have aerial photos partially representing this extermination because they were taken at specific intervals. Our possession also includes a collection of photographs taken in 1944 on the ramp inside Birkenau and photos captured by the Sonderkommando. Essentially, only the images captured by the Sonderkommando vividly and unequivocally depict the extermination despite the ministers' negation that they do not.

The aerial photographs offer valuable insights into the occurrences at Birkenau, with a clear view of the crematoria and gas chambers. The pictures captured in 1944 depict the infamous “white house” or bunker two, which served as a site for executing Jews brought to the camp at the time. The witness accounts mention various elements, including the gate fence, the undressing area, the location of the piles, and the incinerator. In addition, the aerial photographs clearly depict these objects, with one showing a noticeable cloud of smoke lingering above the non-combusting piles. Similarly, they are significant and contribute immensely when paired with other sources. It is uncommon for a solitary photograph to resolve all uncertainties completely. However, these photographs can lend credibility to information from sources like prisoners' narratives. For instance, in these aerial images, we can see roads, including dirt roads, that connect the crematoria area to the Vistula River. It is well-documented that these roads were used by trucks to transport the ashes of the victims, which were eventually dumped into the river. The Bauleitung photographs provide visual evidence of the three-dimensional structural elements of the crematoria or gas chambers depicted in the German Bauleitung plans. These photographs offer multiple perspectives, enabling a thorough examination of how the plans, which represent a previous state, were ultimately brought to fruition. Additionally, the information we gather from various sources mutually complements and intertwines.

However, it is crucial to state that while this is our perspective, people who deny the reality and mass extermination at Birkenau interpret these photos according to their viewpoints. Although they acknowledge the loss of lives in the camp, no one refutes this fact. Crematoria were built as a solution to the problem of what to do with bodies after people passed away. The roads were used to transport ashes from the multiple ovens scattered across the barracks, kitchens, and administrative buildings. Something had to be done with the ashes.

That about the pictures taken by the Sonderkommando? Well, one of them claims that these pictures only depict a few dozen bodies. On that particular day, several ovens in the crematorium were damaged and could not be used for burning. Consequently, an alternative solution had to be found, and they were eventually incinerated using wood piles. Oh, and the photos showing the undressing women are taken by the Sonderkommando at the same moment. The main objective of the bath was to disinfect the women who arrived alongside the Hungarian Jews; however, due to the excessive congestion in the Sauna, it was impossible to carry out this process within the facility. Consequently, the procedure took place at the fire pond adjacent to crematorium four, where the female prisoners were bathed by the bathhouse staff pouring buckets of water over them. Nothing extraordinary in their view. We know perfectly well that this claim is absurd because upon examining the photograph I have just referred to, namely the undressing of the women, we know, in turn, from the accounts of the Sonderkommando prisoners and even from observing aerial photographs that this was the square where people undressed before entering the gas chamber, located in crematorium five. There was a place where benches had been specially erected for people to leave their clothes and personal belongings before going to the gas chamber room. Well, that we certainly know. None of our arguments resonates with these people. They have their own vision of the world. This discussion leads nowhere because they will always have an explanation for what is visible in the pictures. The same is the case with the photographs portraying the arrival of the transport and subsequent selection process. The selection we see on the ramp is just the selection before the bath. The women and children separately, and the men separately. In their view, nothing is frightening or strange about this. We know from witness accounts and other documents that this is a selection for death. No argument will resonate with these people or convince them. They will always put up a defensive position in response.

Fortunately, some individuals document these images in Auschwitz, as some claim that the photograph of the burning piles does not depict Auschwitz but rather a train collision of some kind...

To put it simply, those deniers who once refuted the camp's existence or the mortality rates there, are now interpreting the documents more accurately. They no longer claim that the deceased individuals were fictitious people. They only minimise the scale of the death toll and dismiss the existence of gas chambers and crematoria, in other words, the Holocaust. Well, given the existence of death books, morgue records, and hospital documents, it is indeed feasible to tally the number of prisoners who were killed. Conversely, the number of Jews murdered in the gas chambers and incinerated upon arrival at the camp appears to be a rough estimate, as no camp documentations contain such data.

Let us move on to the next category of sources. We talked about accounts and photographs. In both cases, there were references to camp documents. What information can we derive from analysing the Bauleitung – the construction office documents and the various sections of the camp administration?

Our material here is extensive and comes from different offices within the SS administration that operated in the camp. Many of these records contain references suggesting that a large number of prisoners either died en masse or mysteriously disappeared from the camp's records. This pertains to both main groups of Auschwitz victims. In other words, it concerns both prisoners registered at the camp, specifically, the Jews who survived the selection, and all other prisoners who were transported to the camp. Furthermore, it is feasible to ascertain, based on these documents, the fate of the remaining prisoners, particularly the Jews, who were mercilessly executed upon their arrival at Auschwitz in the gas chambers without any official documentation. A wide variety of these documents exist. Perhaps I should start by providing a tally of the camps. They provide statistics on the number of prisoners in Auschwitz at any given time. Examining the arrival numbers of prisoners at the camp and contrasting them with the consistent decline observed in the figures daily and weekly shows that a significant proportion of these individuals periodically vanished from the camp's records. How can someone be removed from the records of Auschwitz? A prisoner could be transferred to a different camp, escape from the camp, or be released. These are the only two quite limited possibilities. Lastly, it's important to recognise that many lives were lost at Auschwitz, leading to numerous testimonies and documents that address the issue of mortality. Nevertheless, some instances evidently point to unnatural causes of death. As an example, in many hospital documents, it is stated that prisoners died from various illnesses. At the same time, the death certificates issued by the camp civil registry office indicated natural causes of death. However, other documents also indicate that a significant number of prisoners did not die from natural causes. In a document that mentions the count of women in the camp in 1944, the causes of depletions or deaths are clearly divided into natural deaths, with several occurrences daily. Occasionally, there were also designations of “SB” or “Sonderbehandlung,” which referred to special treatment. Occasionally, entries are found that describe the special treatment of groups of female prisoners, numbering in the hundreds or even thousands. If these individuals were still alive and not relocated to another camp, what other possible explanation could there be for their deletion from the records? Unnatural death applies solely to cases where someone is killed through special treatment, such as being murdered in a gas chamber. Lastly, multiple explicit indications point to the fact that some prisoners were murdered at Auschwitz. In this context, I'm referring to specific cases on death certificates where a phrase like 'executed for resisting state authority' is commonly employed. Except that such entries are included in early death certificates dating back to 1941. Over time, these annotations were no longer used and replaced with information about the cause of death, specifically sudden cardiac arrest. It is now readily apparent that “sudden cardiac arrest” is a frequent cause of death by firing squad, as evidenced by its serial occurrence in these records. We have several dozen or possibly a hundred prisoners there who all experience sudden cardiac arrest and die, typically between three and five in the afternoon, at a rate of one per minute. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that these entries are definitely not true and the individuals mentioned here are indeed victims of execution. We can verify this through different methods, including cross-referencing with other documents and relying on the testimonies of former inmates who vividly recall such executions. They remember how their friends and acquaintances from the same block were summoned to block 11 one day and tragically lost their lives there shortly after. Moreover, it is difficult to consider any deaths as natural in Auschwitz, regardless of one's interpretation, as prisoners frequently died from disease, starvation, exhaustion, and, above all, beatings. By unnatural death, in this context, I’m referring to all other cases that cannot be attributed to such causes. However, in the case of the Jews sent to Auschwitz and killed immediately upon arrival in the gas chambers, there are various crucial documents we can consult in this regard. The most important of these are the transport lists. We possess surviving transport lists that document the arrival of Jews from several European countries to Auschwitz. These countries include France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, the Czech Republic, and others. Based on these lists, it can be concluded that most deportees were typically not registered as camp prisoners. Their names never appear again in any camp records, be at Auschwitz or any other concentration camp in Germany. Upon their arrival at Auschwitz, these individuals vanished, leaving no other plausible explanation for the absence of any information regarding their fate except that they were killed upon arrival, specifically in the gas chambers.

However, individuals who harbour malicious intentions will interpret it in the exact opposite way. To clarify, if we take the example of the transport lists of Jews from France in '42, we can identify a select few individuals who are mentioned in our camp documentation. Some individuals use this as an argument to suggest that it is a prove that Jews were not murdered in Auschwitz. Given their inclusion in the transport list, it is evident that they have been allocated a camp number and are now situated in the camp. This evidence strongly suggests that the claims about Jews being killed in gas chambers at Auschwitz are false.

Well, except that it stems from complete ignorance.

Yes, indeed.

There is no historical record of any historian claiming that except for transports designated explicitly for the Holocaust in gas chambers, no prisoners deemed fit for labour were selected from these transports. The general rule was that, apart from a few short periods, such as the extermination of Jews in Sosnowiec and other ghettos in the Katowice area in 1942, the process involved selecting individuals who were capable of work from the newly arrived Jews being transported to Auschwitz, and then assigning them identification numbers. In this specific context, we are focusing on scenarios where, for instance, out of a group of 2,000 individuals, only 500 were officially documented. The main point we are making is that the fate and survival of the remaining 1,500 individuals who were not registered at Auschwitz remains unknown and unrecorded. Therefore, it's improbable that none of these people were discovered after the war, right? It can be argued that these individuals were abruptly and unexpectedly moved from Auschwitz to another camp. In the case of the Jews, it must have been some solitary confinement, a labour camp, whatever. However, there is no documented case of a Jewish individual being deported to Auschwitz, not being registered upon arrival at the camp, and later being found alive elsewhere, with evidence to support their existence either during or after the war. It would be highly unlikely that all the missing Jews from the statistics of new arrivals at Auschwitz changed their names and started a new life somewhere else on the planet, whether in the Soviet Union or any other country.

How crucial are the documents mentioned earlier, such as the Zentralbauleitung documents, which record the construction of the camp facilities, including the gas chambers and crematoria?

In many cases, they are crucial to establishing the facts and the sequence of events. Firstly, the very existence of these high-capacity crematoria implies that there must have been a staggering number of deaths at Auschwitz to warrant the design and construction of such facilities. Critical supporting evidence for this claim is a June 1943 document confirming the completion of the crematoria at Birkenau. In the document, the Bauleitung’s leader – Bischoff – reports to Brigadier Kammler on the finished construction work and states that, as indicated by the Bauleitung Auschwitz, all the crematoria can handle the incineration of 4,756 corpses per day. It may be debated whether the SS estimates regarding the capacity to incinerate numerous bodies in these facilities are accurate, but in my opinion, it is unnecessary. The crucial point is that the SS wanted crematoria capable of incinerating nearly 5,000 corpses per day. This confirms that there was a demand at Auschwitz to incinerate as many as 5,000 corpses in a day, regardless of whether they were prisoners or new arrivals to the camp. Such a large-scale incineration of corpses was usually unnecessary. The frequency of transports to Auschwitz suggests that there was generally no requirement to incinerate such a high volume of corpses. The daily selection process from the transports at Auschwitz involved picking a few hundred, perhaps 1000-2000 individuals per day, possibly including those who died in the camp, which often meant that the crematoria's power or combustion capacity was not fully utilised. Nonetheless, it is essential to remember that during the arrival of large groups of Jews at Auschwitz and the ensuing mass executions of thousands of individuals per day, the use of incineration pyres was prevalent in such circumstances. Additionally, any effort to calculate the plausibility of the Auschwitz Holocaust based on the crematoria's capacity or theoretical capacity to incinerate is fundamentally nonsensical. Even if the assumed burning capacity of the crematoria was lower, the incineration pyres could still accommodate an unlimited number of corpses. Our current estimation indicates that the number of bodies burnt on the pyres is almost identical to the number of corpses incinerated in the crematoria.

All these refer to the crematoria; however, the documents also mention the presence of gas chambers. Records indicate the delivery of Zyklon B to the camp, and this information is included in the documentation.

Indeed, we can verify the substantial provision of Zyklon B to Auschwitz and confirm the existence of substantial amounts of coke, which served as fuel for the crematoria ovens. This argument aims to establish the existence of a supply of this specific material. However, it is essential to acknowledge that a portion of this substance was used, for example, for disinfecting clothing or, in general, for combating insect infestation in Auschwitz. Moreover, some buildings at Auschwitz used a relatively small amount of coke in their heating furnaces. Besides coke, a substantial quantity of coal was delivered to the camp, which was burned in stoves for heat. However, in particular office buildings, coke was utilised as fuel for the central heating system. Regardless, these documents provide evidence that the crematoria and gas chambers were operational in Auschwitz due to the availability of necessary materials.

The issue with the Bauleitung is that the actual documents concealed the Holocaust. The true intention behind the different facilities connected to the mass extermination was concealed. Hence, the production of the book 'The Beginning of the Extermination of the Jews in the Light of the Source Materials', written over ten years ago, posed a considerable challenge because of the necessity of extensively delving deep into the source material. Secondly, it is important to accurately interpret and comprehend a specific series of events that provide evidence directly linking the document in question to the Holocaust.

Let me provide an example. Given that we are discussing the topic of coke, it is necessary to address the issue of Zyklon B, as disinfection chambers were known to exist in the camp where Zyklon B was utilised for disinfection purposes. Besides, the furnaces in the sauna were powered by coke. However, we must consider that there are records kept by the camp's building department, which inform the SS building department's head in Berlin, Hans Kammler, about the disinfection installation present in the camp. This installation is quite extensive, particularly in the years 1943-1944. Given the widespread knowledge of the devastating typhus epidemic, it became imperative for SS personnel to address these concerns to prevent the spread and escalation of these epidemics within the camp premises. Thus, as an illustration, a document dated July '43 provides a detailed list of the disinfection chambers, including the ones already installed and those planned for future use. I am referring here to the sauna building in section BIIg in Birkenau. Now, for those who deny the facts of the Holocaust, this serves as the most compelling evidence that the SS ensured the well-being, security, and hygiene of the prisoners at Auschwitz. Naturally, these disinfection chambers are a crucial argument in this case. In light of the reference to July '43 and the comprehensive listing of disinfection facilities in the camp area, it is puzzling that the disinfection facilities in the crematorium area are conspicuously absent from the list. Many insist that the rooms referred to as the Leichenkeller or morgues and de facto gas chambers on the camp plans were used as disinfection rooms. If that is the case, why are they not listed in the document? Naturally, these people choose to remain silent on this matter. The reason for this is that it no longer fits their thesis. What is it I am trying to convey? My point is that references to the gas chambers and their intended purpose are only found in the documents at the bottom of the construction documentation. For illustrative purposes, the construction foreman responsible for supervising the construction of crematorium number four, while working for the steelworks construction company, diligently documented the completion of specific tasks in the Tagesbericht the daily work log for the prisoners and civilian workers under his supervision. Within the log, it is common to encounter entries indicating the completion of tasks, such as the screed in the gas chamber room, with clear documentation. Although the primary intention of this daily work card was to account for the work done by prisoners and workers, in practice, its circulation was limited as soon as it was handed over to the camp's building department. This document did not leave the camp area in any form. Conversely, the documents sent to the headquarters in Berlin had already been extensively revised to eliminate any references that might be linked to the actual purpose of the rooms in the gas chambers and crematoria. This is where the issue arises, as we must accurately interpret it. Here's another example to illustrate my point. Some people deny the existence of gas chambers in the crematoria despite historical evidence suggesting otherwise. How can one explain the installation of airtight doors in the crematoria's rooms, specifically in the areas referred to as Leichenkeller, or the morgue? Of course, these people will again argue that airtight doors were necessary for the morgue to prevent insects from entering. The ongoing debate in our argumentation always revolves around the connection between the witness accounts and the documents. We understand the content and the reasons behind the structure of these documents. However, these individuals consistently deflect to demonstrate that we are the ones lying and in the wrong and that their argument is the only one that is accurate and reveals the truth.

The language utilised in German documents, particularly when referring to the Bauleitung documents, is peculiar. One has to learn the various expressions that the SS authorities used to conceal what was happening in the camp.

The mass killings in the gas chambers at Birkenau would have been recorded in the SS documentation, especially in the administrative department, as the existence of the crematoria and gas chambers created logistics challenges for the SS. The fourth department was primarily responsible for ensuring a constant supply of Zyklon B. It was also in charge of coordinating the transportation of lorries from Auschwitz to either the factory in Dessau or the Degesch company headquarters in Frankfurt. Furthermore, the “purpose of the journey” sections explain why trucks are dispatched to these locations. The section includes phrases stating that the material to be transported to Auschwitz will be Zyklon B, intended for disinfecting the camp. However, there are also frequent reports indicating that this material is meant for the special treatment of Jews. At this point, it becomes challenging to assert that the document solely pertains to the provision of gas for disinfection purposes. The last components of the system were the organisational units, which comprised the camp administration and the guard battalion command. These units were tasked with providing personnel for various duties, such as guards on the railway ramp or near the crematoria and gas chambers. This duty was considered particularly difficult at Auschwitz. Therefore, it was determined that these SS men should be given various rewards. Typically, it involved recognising the effort by awarding a decoration or allowing time off as a reward for this unappreciated duty. These documents contain details about the awards received by designated SS personnel and the bestowing of decorations for specific duties, engagement in special missions, and involvement in resettlement operations. Accordingly, they employed elaborate turns of phrase and euphemisms to avoid explicitly stating the nature of the reward being bestowed upon such an SS man. When examining requests for extra special leave for SS personnel, one may discover instances where such leave was approved based on their involvement in actions related to the displacement of Jews, participation in special tasks, and other similar activities. The vocabulary employed in these statements is quite alike, but they all obscure the same events – the active involvement of these SS men in the heinous mass murders committed in the gas chambers.

There were also instances of theft by some SS men who appropriated valuable items that belonged to Jews. Detailed descriptions of these events have been documented, including confessions from the accused. They admitted to stealing and continuously looting items that belonged to Jewish prisoners, even items that had been discarded and should have been legally confiscated. According to court records, all prisoners were required to hand over their valuables as part of the camp's regulations, and the camp commandant was responsible for keeping custody of these items. This rule also applied to items that inmates tried to hide or throw away. This theme of SS men discovering valuables in their lockers, supposedly because Jews were disposing of them, is frequently documented in these court records. It is difficult to imagine a situation where a considerable group of Jews is allegedly told to bathe and disinfect and then scatter their belongings, like rings, wedding rings, or similar objects in various directions. In addition, the explanation provided in the SS documents was senseless and appeared to be a deliberate ploy to evade using explicit language to portray the actual events. In this document, there is no mention whatsoever of the gold found in possession of the SS man in question, which he had acquired during the massacre of a Jewish transport. Such wording was impossible. Nevertheless, there were moments when the self-censorship of the SS investigating magistrates faltered, allowing for the inclusion of specific phrases that offered a more direct account of the events near the crematoria. Let's take the case of an SS officer who had various items in his possession. They didn't just steal gold items; they would take anything they could get their hands on. Examples include leather bags, clothes, coats, fur coats, etc. One of the SS men claimed that the hunting knives discovered in his possession had been confiscated from Jews. His explanation for confiscating the knives is to render them defenceless. The question is why these Jewish individuals felt the need to use knives to defend themselves. Additionally, he stressed that the SS men often came across worthless discarded items that would have decayed in the mud anyway. So again, upon further examination of the court records, one can easily envision the circumstances under which the SS men appropriated these objects.

An essential factor to remember when analysing historical sources is the specific setting where the events occurred. There are buildings, there are ruins. Once again, the juxtaposition of photographic evidence, official documentation, and physical remnants of the gas chambers affirms the veracity of this narrative within this particular location.

One problem arises when people cite studies from the early 1990s that examine various aspects, such as the concentration of hydrogen cyanide in the walls of the gas chamber ruins. They compare this to the amount of hydrogen cyanide residue found in disinfection chambers, such as the one in block number 3 at Auschwitz. The argument here, the most substantial evidence against these rooms being used as gas chambers, is the presence of trace concentrations of these compounds. Thus, they disregard how these rooms were utilised. Regarding gas chambers, the use of a hydrogen cyanide atmosphere makes the process of killing someone relatively fast because of the comprehensive breathing apparatus and the effective penetration of these hydrogen cyanide compounds. However, the process is significantly slower in disinfection chambers designed to exterminate insects because insects lack lungs. Due to its ability to permeate through the tracheas, hydrogen cyanide has a prolonged impact. Moreover, the gas chambers did not undergo hydrogen exposure for as long as the disinfection chambers. Furthermore, the disinfection chambers, such as the one in block number 3, are enclosed rooms that remain dry and intact and are not ruins. Conversely, the behaviour of hydrogen cyanide traces varies significantly in buildings that have endured exposure to different environmental factors, such as rainfall, temperature fluctuations, humidity, and more, over several decades. Regrettably, these individuals choose to ignore all of these factors. An exceptionally notable discovery in a revisionist book was an extensively detailed table that analysed the hydrogen levels found in the remnants of the gas chambers. The samples were collected violating regulations that mandate a specific level of sterility. They even mentioned the bunker I used to stay in, even though there's hardly anything left of it. Additionally, the report stated that there was no detectable level of hydrogen cyanide in the remains. It is difficult to expect any other outcome, considering the site's remains no longer exist. These individuals go to extreme lengths to deny the existence of gas chambers, disregarding the overwhelming evidence of the remains at Auschwitz as irrelevant to the crime. To illustrate, let's look at the scenario involving crematorium number one. In 1944, it was being reconstructed and repurposed as an air raid shelter for the SS. Consequently, several alterations and conversions were carried out on the premises. They do not take this into account. One notable example is, for instance, the claim that the strongest evidence that this is all a sham is that the chimney or chimney reconstruction is not connected to the draught and that the furnaces we see are not properly reconstructed. It is inconceivable that the ovens would have the appearance and functionality described, and the gas chamber room itself can only be regarded as a morgue, to say the least. They very often consider it as a storage room. Furthermore, the evidence, undoubtedly compelling from our perspective as rational and analytical individuals, serves as convincing proof. However, those who choose to deny the Holocaust will always remain unconvinced. Nonetheless, their arguments fail to coherently respond to our assertion that the crematorium rooms were exclusively used for cremation. While they admit to the existence of the crematoria, they contend that they had a significantly lower capacity. This raises the question: What was the reason behind their destruction? None of them can provide a satisfactory explanation or even come close to addressing this argument.

Notwithstanding the extensive evidence, as previously mentioned, some individuals persist in denying and dismissing the occurrence of the Holocaust. Discussion with them is pointless because it is not an argument-based debate. Negationists manipulate source material by distorting its context or outright rejecting it, as they continuously argue that all evidence is falsified and non-existent, questioning the validity of discussing facts related to events that supposedly never occurred. Therefore, it is not revisionism, which attempts to examine the documents and sources, but rather an ideology founded on hatred. This represents yet another form of antisemitism, and the primary issue is that people may encounter opposition from deniers, particularly in the online realm, where this is now most prevalent. On the one hand, it is vital to demonstrate the extensive array of sources accessible to historians, enabling them to authenticate historical occurrences. On the other hand, it is equally important to expose the deliberate tactics employed by deniers to distort history.

The primary strategy focuses on the history of Auschwitz. Intriguingly, there exists a wide range of deniers who show interest in the history of Auschwitz. They are actively looking for methods to refute the occurrence of the Holocaust at this particular site. In comparison to other extermination sites such as Chełmno on the Ner or similar camps, it is safe to say that there are very few people involved in researching the history of these sites, wouldn't you agree? This stems from the notion that Auschwitz holds the utmost significance in this controversy. According to one revisionist, if we dismantle the Auschwitz concentration camp, the entire foundation of the Holocaust atrocities crumbles like a fragile house of cards. Thus, there is immense interest and much attention to the study of the Auschwitz documentation, albeit from a skewed perspective. It relies, for example, on using arguments that appear easy and seemingly understandable to the layperson. One frequently mentioned argument used by those who deny the Holocaust is the question of whether it was feasible to burn corpses in the Birkenau burn pits, especially considering the presence of puddles and high groundwater after any heavy rainfall at Birkenau. Consequently, burning corpses in deep pits would be impractical because the pits would quickly become flooded with water. And that is an argument that appeals to the imagination. Those who have witnessed Birkenau under these conditions can attest to shallow drainage ditches and stagnant water. Once again, the response to this type of accusation is easy and obvious. Firstly, this was because Birkenau had much deeper drainage ditches, even during the war. These ditches formed a comprehensive system that effectively channelled rainwater into the Vistula River. Photographs in the Bauleitung collection support the existence of the potential for a deep pit at Birkenau. These images depict extensive excavation work, such as during the construction of the central Sauna. In any case, if you go to the central Sauna today, you will notice the significant depth of its foundations. Additionally, given the conditions in 1942, digging pits that prevented water seepage was strongly encouraged. Neo-Nazis have no reason to share this knowledge or information with anyone. Why would they? Naturally, it was devastating to see the order of events they had carefully constructed fall apart.

They do not refrain from citing documents. They quote documents, and that is the deplorable thing. They frequently manipulate the Bauleitung documents, dissecting them to present a perspective that denies the occurrence of mass extermination. And here lies the danger, as anyone who opens and reads can realise that these stories are not fictional but are grounded in authentic sources. These include plans for the expansion of the camp and plans for the construction of the facilities of the individual disinfection chambers. They also refer to the camp's expansion and use this documentation to depict Auschwitz as one extensive construction site encompassing the prison, camp, and various functional structures. Regarding the existence of crematoriums in that area, they contend that they were indeed present because, after all, over 100,000 people died in the camp, according to their estimates. Consequently, a solution had to be found for the disposal of the bodies, leading to the establishment of crematoria. One counterargument against the notion of mass extermination revolves around the alleged insufficiency of the crematoria's capacity. Furthermore, they relate it to the practice observed in the civilised world, where people are individually cremated in cemetery crematoriums, often in their clothes and occasionally even in a coffin. This burning process cannot be violent because a special computer programme controls it. Moreover, the initial stages of the cremation process are relatively fast, but as the high temperature affects the skeleton, the process is prolonged, sometimes requiring more time for complete decomposition. They fail to consider that the primary emphasis at the crematoria in operation at Birkenau was on this initial phase. The burnt bones, on the other hand, were later crushed by the Sonderkommando prisoners, as we know from their accounts and reports, as well as from drawings by David Olère. They keep searching for any flaws or testimonies from witnesses. Let me provide another example of David Olère's painting, 'The Gassing,' which depicts the tragic scene of individuals perishing in a gas chamber. For them, the argument for Olère's authenticity and message is that one can see a can of Zyklon B among the dying people on the floor. In their opinion, Olère deliberately painted the can with the label to emphasise the role it played in the killings. Conversely, they argue that only the Zyklon was poured when they disposed of it; they did not throw in the entire can.

Some of the deniers do not want to be convinced at all. These are people who make a living from it. These people publish books and receive all sorts of grants, and it is in their interest to pursue the argument to the end, whether it makes sense or not. I have occasionally pondered if specific authors of these publications genuinely hold the beliefs they express. The arguments put forth by those individuals, specifically those who typically possess some comprehension of the camp documentation. The books give the impression of being scientific studies and contain footnotes, right? They are equipped with scientific apparatus, suggesting that they are the work of a serious researcher. Some of the people involved are familiar with historical sources. However, among the deniers, there is a group of individuals who I would refer to as Internet deniers. These individuals have little to no knowledge of SS documentation, yet they express and publish their completely absurd thoughts on the Internet. And they are not particularly bothered by it. There is evidence that challenges the belief that there were no exterminations at Auschwitz and instead suggests that prisoners were provided with favourable living conditions. One such piece of evidence is a reproduced photograph depicting a medical procedure in a hospital within the Birkenau camp. Well, yes, there were such medical rooms in the blocks either in Häftlingskrankenbau or in Birkenau. Nevertheless, this does not prove that their existence had any impact on reducing or significantly reducing the mortality rate among the prisoners because the doctors could, at most, have had completely basic medicines, like aspirin or coal. In addition, some individuals propagate photographs that were not taken at Auschwitz yet are falsely labelled as depicting favourable living conditions. Such an iconic photo was taken during a fencing competition organised by the IG Farben Industrie sports club in Auschwitz. This photograph depicts two fencers engaged in a professional duel, with a prominent banner in the background bearing the inscription 'IG Auschwitz'. So, the word Auschwitz is enough of a cue here for completely uninformed readers to confirm that such events supposedly took place at Auschwitz. Indeed, however, it was in an area populated by German civilian workers building a chemical factory in Auschwitz, a few kilometres away. At times, distinguishing whether this preoccupation with these arguments arises from ignorance, ill will, or other factors can be challenging. However, when it comes to commenting on memoirs or accounts of former prisoners, the most common method used by deniers is to point out an error. It is difficult to anticipate the absence of such errors in a book written several years after the war, given the inherent fallibility of human memory, particularly regarding numbers and dates. The method I mentioned involves questioning a detail that is an error on the author's part, which should not come as a surprise given the passage of time. Conversely, deniers contend that the presence of an error, for instance, on page seventy-three of a given book, necessitates rejecting its entire content. The credibility of the author is questionable.

One of them researched the diary of Johann Paul Kremer specifically the doctor responsible for the selection process in Birkenau during the autumn of '42. One notable fragment in the diary includes Heinz Thilo's mention during the selection process, describing Birkenau as the Anus Mundi, i.e., the world's rectum. This individual infers that Heinz Thilo's expression can be attributed to the prevalent diarrhoea outbreak in Birkenau during that period. Kremer's description of the selection process highlights the inclusion of women who vary in their level of illness. However, priority is given to those who are more severely sick and require immediate assistance. The most compelling evidence that these selections did happen and that the sick were relocated is the transfer of 800 sick prisoners from Birkenau to the Majdanek camp in May '43. Of course, this is the only instance mentioned there. In this context, it is considered as an established principle. In his writing, Kremer mentions the distressing scenes that unfolded outside the last bunker as people were being gathered inside. And that's when Hössler's name came up. According to the author of this analysis, the main point is simply that the transportation arrived late in the evening, and the Jewish individuals who were brought in were subsequently confined to the basement of block number 11, where they remained until morning. Well, they just couldn't fit in there. Also, an incident took place there. Such is the level of argumentation. This scenario may seem plausible for individuals lacking a visual representation of the camp or a comprehensive understanding of the circumstances. From our perspective, it is the epitome of absurdity.

The deniers' arguments involve manipulating and denying the source material. Despite the previous discussion about the existence of multiple sources, they are inadequate due to several issues associated with each source, including inaccuracies in the information or language that need to be interpreted. An additional essential element is necessary to interpret the source material accurately.

This element is the historian, endowed with a profound understanding of the event and extensive familiarity with the documentation, can interpret it appropriately. In addition, the sources alone do not fully address the matter. It is of utmost importance to give due consideration to the historian's reliable and comprehensive work, which presents events coherently and interrelatedly in a logical manner. By carefully constructing a historical narrative of the camp based on this documentation and addressing any doubts or discrepancies that may arise, we can present an authentic depiction of Auschwitz as an extermination and death camp.

When we receive inquiries from different individuals who initially exhibit a fact-based and accuracy-oriented perspective, it is only through the course of these discussions or email exchanges that we generally detect certain denialist themes in the statements and questions presented. When we endeavour to offer factual responses in these circumstances, our counterparts frequently fail to provide facts and substantial information. Ultimately, these statements reveal that anti-Semitism is the fundamental factor behind denialist behaviour, leaving no alternative justification for becoming a Holocaust denier.