The Holocaust happened

How do we know anything ever happened? On the basis of what evidence do we consider something to be an established part of history vs something subject to debate? This is the question upon which this debate largely rests, and although the case here might be specific to the use by the Nazis of homicidal gas chambers, we should be able to generalize a bit. I propose in this opening post to do two things. First, I propose to show how one should reasonably evaluate historical evidence. Second, I intend to make these principles specific to one gas chamber. Then I'll prove others and continue to do so until TheTroof concedes. I suspect that once it is conceded that a handful of these installations are sufficiently proved, the rest will be conceded more swiftly. After that, maybe we can move on to mass executions by shooting in the occupied USSR. His choice. For the first point, let's consider a hypothetical scenario. A concentration camp that has been largely destroyed has been liberated, and several former inmates and SS guards are being interviewed by several interviewers. When the interviews are over, the interviewers compare notes. Among other testimonies, they find the following: * One person says there were six gas chambers. * One person says there were eight gas chambers. * One person says the chambers used steam for executions. * One person says the gas chambers were 50 feet by 75 feet. * One person says the gas chambers were 65 feet by 100 feet. * One person says there were no gas chambers. And so on. The historical method dictates that we would consider it likely that the camp had homicidal gas chambers. We might not know yet how many or how big, but we're going to consider gas chambers likely because the majority of witnesses have mentioned them. A couple of important points must be noted. First, we're not going to throw out all of the testimonies because they contradict each other; rather, we'll disregard or emphasize less where the testimony disagrees, and we will consider as a working thesis where the testimonies agree in the main. This is the first really big mistake that Holocaust deniers make. They believe inconsistencies require historians to disregard testimony. They do not. They require only that the historian proceed with caution. Second, what we are not going to do is throw out all of the testimony that is in agreement because one piece of testimony is greatly at odds with the rest. Instead, we will disregard steam chambers because they're not corroborated by multiple sources, whereas gas chambers are. Conversely, we're not going to seize on what one person says that is at variance with all other testimony and adopt that as our new thesis. This is the deniers' second crucial error on testimony -- what might be called drawing conclusions based on a sample of one. You don't do that in science so you shouldn't do it in history. If one person says there were no gas chambers, we don't draw the same conclusion because far more people said that there were gas chambers. Two final general points must be made, also related to points of failure by deniers. First, the idea that evidence, including testimony, is rigged is an assertion that requires evidence. Deniers have alleged conspiracy but never proved it. Nevertheless, dozens of testimonies in agreement with each other almost demand orchestration of some kind, and yet none is seen. Second, where the predominance of evidence indicates one solution, a coherent counter-argument must be made that accounts for the available evidence. On this point, as we'll see, the deniers similarly fail. Now we can get specific. We know beyond the shadow of a doubt that a certain room existed in a building at Auschwitz-Birkenau. The building is Krema (crematorium) II, and the room is the one labeled on the blueprints for the building as Leichenkeller (morgue) 1. So what was this room? Piece of cake, right? It was a morgue -- says so right on the blueprint. And if this were the only piece of evidence, that would be a fair assumption. But it isn't. Instead, we have three varieties of evidence indicating that this room was a homicidal gas chamber. First, there is a ton of testimony. This testimony generally comes from two sources: SS men and members of the Sonderkommando, who were the men responsible for removing dead bodies from the gas chambers. Everyone that has provided testimony regarding that room has referred to it as a gas chamber. Every last one, over 70 years, on five continents, with not a single divergence. Not one. One such testimony: http://www.holocaust-history.org... Second, there is physical evidence, mainly in the form of cyanide residues. Four separate investigations conducted over a period of fifty years found cyanide on the walls of the room. Two of the investigations, by Fred Leuchter and Germar Rudolf, claimed the levels of cyanide were insufficient to prove homicidal gassing. However, Leuchter lacks any expertise on the topic of chemistry. Rudolf, a trained chemist, has been refuted by other chemists -- a point we can take up if you like. Personally, I'm not a chemist. If you are, then perhaps you can make that particular case. I'd rather leave it to experts. Third, there are documents. The most important document on Krema II (but there are others) dates from the period when the crematorium was under construction. Written by one SS man, Karl Bischoff, to another, Hans Kammler, it details that the roof of the morgue is not ready, but until it is ready, bodies can be stored in the Vergasungskeller, i.e., the gassing cellar. Robert Jan van Pelt discusses this document here: https://archive.org... Forward to around 43 minutes into the film. He discusses this specific document at 46 minutes. Actually, you should watch the whole movie if you haven't seen it, because it pretty much proves that Leuchter's report is sheer nonsense. So we have testimony, physical evidence, and documents. I submit that, on the basis of the available evidence, it is fair to assume that this was a homicidal gas chamber. You might protest that this is a small amount of evidence, and indeed it is. But it's more evidence that exists for any other explanation. You are free to dispute this conclusion; however, bear in mind the more general points about the historical method made above. Moreover, be prepared to tell me what this room actually was, and to provide evidence at least as numerous as dozens of witnesses to prove it, not to mention explanations for the cited document and for the cyanide tests. Extra points for coherence!