In part one I demonstrated that despite the lack of documents, we can use available data to infer that the amount of coke (refined coal) delivered to Auschwitz/Birkenau is consistent with the cremation of registered detainees deceased in the camp—not with the mass alleged gassings. Today I will be addressing Holocaust Denial on Trial’s (HDoT) testimony from Sonderkommando, Henrik Tauber.
At the beginning of HDoT’s article they said, “Alternative fuels and open-air burning pits were also regularly used by the Nazis.” Looks like one of those alternative fuels was human fat. With a straight face HDoT repeats the following claim from Tauber as an “important fact”:
“…we used the coke only to light the fire of the furnace initially, for fatty bodies burned of their own accord thanks to the combustion of the body fat. On occasion, when coke was in short supply, we would put some straw and wood in the ash bins under the muffles, and once the fat of the body began to burn the other bodies would catch light themselves.”
Through the use of emotional manipulation and the abuse of authority, Holocaust affirmers have convinced the masses that questioning the Holocaust makes you an evil and/or stupid person. If this claim were being made about anything other than the Holocaust, a reasonable person would immediately dismiss Tauber’s claim as absurd and not buy it for a second. Even though the claim is on its face ridiculous, I am going to address it nonetheless.
First, I’m going to begin with another insane claim from Tauber:
“The corpses of women burned much better and more quickly than the corpses of men. Therefore, when a male body burned poorly, we fetched a female body [and] put it into the furnace to speed up the combustion process.” (source, page 344)
Just because women have more body fat doesn’t mean they can act as kindling. This is absurd. On average a person is 60% water. This water must heat up and vaporize before the rest of the body can burn. Using a female body to speed up the combustion process would be like adding a damp log to a failing campfire to get it going. Just to be clear: fat Jewish women cannot be used as kindling.
I will use using Carlo Mattogno’s book, The Real Case for Auschwitz—Robert van Pelt’s Evidence from the Irving Trial Critically Reviewed, to look into the claim that “…we used the coke only to light the fire of the furnace initially, for fatty bodies burned of their own accord thanks to the combustion of the body fat.” Mattogno points out that the parameters from Tanner’s triangular diagram put a body that is 60% water out of the region for auto-combustion.
Last, we have Tauber’s claim that “On occasion, when coke was in short supply, we would put some straw and wood in the ash bins under the muffles, and once the fat of the body began to burn the other bodies would catch light themselves.” In an open-air pyre, it takes about 1,000 pounds of wood to cremate a body. As you can see from the following photograph of the reconstructed crematorium ovens from Auschwitz, the ash bins weren’t that big. Some straw and wood in them wouldn’t be enough to burn a body even though it would take less wood to do a cremation in an oven as compared to a open-air pyre.
Anyone that has cooked meat on a grill knows that when fat drips into the heat source, it immediately combusts and only provides extra heat for a fraction of a second. And we’re not talking about cooking meat—we’re talking about burning a human body, bones and all. What happens when the fat is burned up and you have a pile of difficult-to-burn bones? The idea that a body will burn on its own fat is beyond laughable.
Mattogno also points out that if auto-combustion is impossible in a furnace already heated to 800°C, auto-combustion in a cold furnace would stretch this impossible claim even further.
Considering that Tauber also lies about putting up to 8 bodies in one muffle (individual opening in the oven), it is clear that Tauber is telling just-so stories to retcon the official Holocaust narrative. Despite Tauber’s unreliability as a witness, Holocaust affirmers insist that that he is “an almost-ideal witness” and “historically reliable” (see image below). Anyone that promotes Tauber’s testimony as valid are not acting in good faith and should not be trusted.
Stay tuned for part 3!