The Holocaust Gas Chambers were not used for execution

Efficiency at KillingHydrogen cyanide from Zyklon-B is extremely efficient at killing people. One need only do a little research to find that it is ultimately poisonous to humans. It is true that there were other gasses that were comparably good at killing, but Zyklon-B was special because it had two advantages. One was that it was easy to pack, store, and transport. It came in sealed tin cans and could be ordered from any ordinary chemical company. Another was that it was widely available and therefore easier to obtain, since Zyklon-B was used for delousing purposes all across Europe[1][3].CirculationMy opponent states that the hydrogen cyanide used for gassing would have to circulate around the room and would be limited to several areas. However, many gas chambers had forced-ventilation systems, so the ability for the lethal cyanide gas to travel around the room would not be much more than a few minutes. The time it would take for the Jews to consume the gas would also be reduced, so it is certainly viable that a 3-4 minute extermination could occur in a gas chamber. The reason that different testimonies of the gas chambers told about different amounts of time that it took for the Jews to die is totally dependent on several conditions, which are: "the temperature (Zyklon-B dispersal depends on the air temperature), number of people in the room, the size of the room, and the amount of gas poured into the room; not to mention the psychological differences in time perception by different observers. If the estimation of times were exactly the same, in fact, we would have to be suspicious that they were all taking their story from a single account."[2]Endangered ExecutionersPro asserts that the executioners would have used more protective clothing to keep the hydrogen cyanide away from them. I would like to point out that in wartime, safety standards do not apply, especially not when the aim is to kill a thousand people as fast as possible. It is true that the executioners would need this protection. However, Pro is assuming that the process of Zyklon-B disposal through the holes were done without sealing up the holes afterwards. If we examine the testimony of Henryk Taeber, who witnessed the extermination process at Auschwitz, we will find that the openings to the gas chamber were closed after the Zyklon-B was poured through. "...Scheimetz opened them with a special cold chisel and a hammer, then poured the contents into the gas chamber. Then he closed the orifice with a concrete cover. As there were four similar chimneys, Scheimietz poured into each the contents of one of the smallest cans of 'Cyklon'..."[4]Salmen Lewantal, a member of the Sonderkommado, stated in his testimony:"...After throwing 4 tins of the gas through the small upper doors and after sealing them hermetically, silence soon reigned."[4]From these we can conclude that Pro's contention, that the executioners would have to be protected from the lethal hydrogen cyanide, is false. The executioners would drop the Zyklon-B pellets in and close the upper orifices that sealed the holes, which would prevent particles of lethal cyanide from floating or evaporating up and affecting them. From this we can also see that there would be no time for rainwater or dampness to affect the hydrogen cyanide or gas chambers themselves since the top of the holes would be covered at all times except for when the gas pellets are being delivered.Analysis of the TestimoniesHere Pro argues that there are contradictions between Broad's and Hoess' testimonies. He states that because their testimonies do not coincide perfectly with the circumstances that should've been present at Auschwitz, then the gassings themselves did not happen. However, I would like to point out that this is not the case. As I said before, documentaries of what happened in a certain scenario are dependent on many conditions. A major one is the psychological differences in perception by different observers. When estimating the numbers of Jews being transported in, or the amount of time it took, one must not stop their investigation of historic claims because of minor contradictions between two testimonies.I would like to also point out that there are multiple accounts from ex-commandants, guards, and survivors of what happened at Auschwitz. Yes, not every testimony is exactly the same, but if they were, we would have to be suspicious that each testimony was coming from a single account, as I stated earlier. Let us also take into consideration the circumstances of the ex-guards and witnesses of the gassings: when interviewed, they know their life is on the line, and they can't recall exactly how many Jews were transported or how many bodies are being cremated. To show that one's estimations do not align the same as others' or their's are different from what should've happened, yet to ignore the many other witnesses that testified of the gassings of Auschwitz with similar descriptions of the extermination process, and to not take into consideration that these former Nazi guards were unaware of the similar testimonies being told by other commandants is nonsensical on many different levels. To find sixteen testimonies of the holes alone, refer to source [4].Sources1. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...2. Source 1, Round 2.3. http://www.nizkor.org...4. Source 4, Round 2.