the 21 questions. in fact I went over the first one a little bit earlier, I mentioned the Soviets primarily consulting those who worked on the V2 rockets for their missile program - these were Jews who were used to build some of the components of the V2 in their concentration camps. so the answer to the first question is simple: the Nazis did not, in fact, have a policy of killing EVERY Jew that they had, indeed as many who point out the "furnace problem" of not being able to burn that many bodies in that amount of time, they would not be able to kill them all at once.
2. with regard to these, I've only actually read Churchill's. and these aren't books that document history from 1933 to 1946, they're the story of these people's lives, so for examples Churchill doesn't mention the Nanking massacre either, but it's because he's writing from his perspective, and from his perspective during the time he didn't know about the holocaust - could he have mentioned it in passing as a matter of reflection? sure, but I don't think it's so remarkable that he didn't, and as I said with Nanking, there's plenty he left out.
3. a death camp, as previously stated, does not mean "immediate death". an infirmary is to treat wounds, and while these Jews were alive the Germans wanted them working. as for the brothel - I mean, would you care that they had a brothel if you knew they were gonna die? it's the kind of thing I wouldn't be surprised if they let be.
4. a bullet on the spot was what was more common. the germans would dig a trench, and shoot Jews into it on the spot. essentially there were special divisions whose job it was to go and hunt out Jews along the warpath of the army. in fact it may even be fair to say that the majority of Jews in the holocaust died in this manner.
5. the same reason you find minor zyklon b residue in some chambers but not in others: they tried to cover up evidence. burning documents, scrubbing walls, etc. we do have some german documented evidence in fact, but I don't think you'd find it very convincing, it's mainly train schedules (you'd say it proves they were just work camps) and photographs (you'd say they were altered).
6. somewhere between 4 and 6 million works just fine as an estimate, personally the number I'm familiar with is 5.8 million. and I do agree that the difference is important, the reason why we work with the estimate instead of verifying for sure is that it would be a ton of work to examine every recovered body individually, and even then there'd be a lot left out, like the shot Jews left buried out in Russia.
7. while it's true that we don't have records of pertinent communication for Auschwitz specifically, wouldn't the Hoefle telegram count as a confirmation that camps did report on their extermination progress?
8. that's a fair point. it's totally possible that there weren't as many victims at Auschwitz than we think, and it's worth establishing for the historical record exactly how many there actually were.
9. but there are still gas chambers at those camps? whoever says that all death camps were in Poland is full of shit.
10. well first of all, these witness testimonies may well be invalid, but also, I'm not sure about how exactly concentrations of zyklon b work. are the effects stated there for a use of a normal concentration? because as other holocaust deniers will eagerly point out, zyklon b can be used at a much lower concentration to kill people (and then by pointing at some of the zyklon b residue, they therefore conclude that this proves they were using it at a concentration way too high to be efficiently killing people, and thus it must have been being used as a disinfectant... but of course, that's precisely why residue is so absent from a lot of the walls of chambers, which they fail to mention).
11. yes. indeed I mentioned earlier the claim that the Germans rolled Jews into an electrocution chamber on a conveyor belt, and from the look of it, it seems likely that particular story was made up wholesale by some bored journalist in Chicago. there were a lot of stupid stories going around as the holocaust was being uncovered, I would imagine that these are among them.
12. I went over that above. and sure, Nuremberg was a contravention of justice, I won't deny that, but the mere fact that Nuremberg was a sham doesn't alone prove anything.
14. who's to say he was ever there? all we know is Hungary supposedly deported him there, and he got a tattoo. anybody could have given him that tattoo, and he easily could have given authorities the slip when he was ordered to be deported. I think that in that particular case, Elie probably avoided the holocaust altogether, and simply lied about it later for attention.
15. it's not impossible, he was doing batch experimentation after all.
16. what about the Staffordshire University team? they went to Treblinka and actually excavated some mass graves. whoever did that sonar study had shitty equipment.
17. well for one, mr Simpson was just one man, without much ability to hide evidence as just the one man. this is a fair criticism, though, there is relatively little hard evidence, and I think we ought to be working hard on finding more.
18. the holocaust revisionism being made illegal deal is one of the stupidest things on earth. I wouldn't be surprised if all holocaust revisionism today was the result of these braindead laws outlawing it. I have no defence or justification for these laws, they are blatant and unfair violations of human rights.
19. there have been people with degrees to claim those things, yes.
20. I heard such a concern expressed on talkernate history, I think it's mostly a matter of personal opinion.
21. well, either they saw incorrectly, have faulty memories, mistook some unrelated smoke for the crematorium, or they were never there and made it up for attention. sadly a great number of testimonies may well just be made up, we need to have a better system of verifying these stories.