Holocaust Denial on Trial (HDoT) asks the question, “Was there enough coal available at Auschwitz-Birkenau to cremate the remains of nearly 900,000 Jewish victims?” HDoT follows this question up by repeating a claim from David Irving. I am not interested in defending Irving’s particular claim, which doesn’t matter to the overall point of whether there was enough fuel for the cremation of the alleged gassing victims in Auschwitz-Birkenau.
What I am interested in are these three demonstrably false claims that HDoT makes in the section below.
Let’s explore HDoT’s assertions. I have already written articles about all of these topics, so if you want more details, please click on the links.
(1) Multiple remains were cremated at the same time.
FALSE– The crematory ovens were designed for one person, and any attempts to go over the limit would result in slower cremation time and would have damaged the equipment. The image shows a recreation of the crematorium ovens from Auschwitz. The doors to the ovens were about 2 by 2 feet (source, page 333).
(2) The ovens were in continuous use.
FALSE– HDoT must have a unique definition of continuous and constant. In another one of their articles they say that the ovens were in constant operation but that there were breakdowns that required repairs. The four main crematoriums of Auschwitz-Birkenau were altogether operational for 1,164 days out of the 2,367 days of their existence (source). Being out of operation for 1,203 days doesn’t seem continual or constant. There is also the fact that the ovens had to be shut down every day for the removal of cinders from the ovens. So what exactly does HDoT mean by continual and constant?
(3) Alternative fuels and open-air burning pits were also regularly used by the Nazis.
FALSE– There is simply no physical evidence for the claim of open-air burn pits. And just wait till you hear what these “alternative fuels” supposedly were. (You’ll have to wait for part 2.)
HDoT claims that the records for coke (refined coal) deliveries are incomplete, so “attempts to calculate how much coke (coal) was used at Auschwitz-Birkenau are futile by design.” HDoT also says, “these facts [from the section above] make the issue surrounding the amount of coke (coal) irrelevant.” However, as I just demonstrated, those “facts” are actually not factual. Therefore, the issue can not be so easily dismissed.
In the section below, HDoT claims that Carlo Mattogno was unable to find the records from the Moscow archives that Irving based his claims on. It is true that the records are incomplete. What HDoT does not mention is that there are enough records to make a reasonable inference as to the amount of coke delivered from the missing time periods.
In Carlo Mattogno’s book, Deliveries of Coke, Wood and Zyklon B to Auschwitz—Neither Proof Nor Trace for the Holocaust, the topic of the incomplete records are covered on pages 39-40. After performing some calculations with the available data to fill in for the gaps in the delivery records, Mattogno concludes that “although the Auschwitz Museum’s list of coke deliveries for 1943 has some gaps which are comparable to those for 1942, even if we fill those gaps by interpolating, the coke supplies are always consistent with the cremation of registered detainees deceased in the camp, yet absolutely inconsistent with the hypothesis of mass gassings.” If you are interested in how Mattogno uses available documentation to connect coke deliveries to cremations, see pages 30-35.
To end part 1, I would like to skip to HDoT’s conclusion to point out how they (and Holocaust affirmers generally) argue from ignorance when it suits their needs. They use lack of evidence to assert that their story is true instead of accepting that lack of evidence can neither prove nor disprove their claims. When it comes to the delivery of coke there is supposedly not enough information to disprove their side of the story, so we must accept theirs. Another example: there are no Nazi documents that mention gas chambers or a plan for Jewish genocide. However, Holocaust affirmers claim that, since the Holocaust is said to be a proven fact, the documents must have existed at one point even though there is no evidence of their existence. The affirmers then came up with the just-so story that the documents were destroyed even though they have no evidence of that either. By both arguing from ignorance and shrugging off the burden of proof, the Holocaust affirmers can play all sorts of dishonest tricks to use a lack of evidence to default to their narrative, and through the abuse of authority they have gotten away with it. Mostly gotten away with it, that is.
Continue to part two.