Holocaust happened

Rebuttal R1. Hitler wanted to expel, not murder, all Jews in Germany? Con argues that "Hitler wanted to expel, not murder, all Jews in Germany". This claim can be easily refuted, and there's a lot of evidence that provides proof of murder. I'll refute this argument as follows: A. Jäger Report I've already presented the Jäger Report in Round 2. In the English translation, the report states "Jews liquidated by pogroms and executions" [1]. Liquidates and executions are synonymous with murder, and not about expelling. So Con's claim is false. B. Heinrich Himmler's Report I've also presented the Heinrich Himmler's Report in the previous round. It states "Juden exekutiert" which means executed Jews. This refers to death, and not expelling. C. Goebbels Diaries Joseph Goebbels was a leading member of the Nazi Party and wrote a diary [2]. Please note that he committed suicide on May 1, 1945 (Before the end of the War), so he wasn't pressured or tortured to fake a diary. What did the diary say? [3] March 27, 1942 (pp. 147-148) Beginning with Lublin, the Jews in the General Government are now being evacuated eastward. The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only about 40 per cent can be used for forced labor. D. Expelled? To where? Con argues that Hitler only meant to expel the Jews, not murder them. So in this case, you would expect that Nazi's would kick the Jews to someplace far from Europe, right? The answer is no! The map below shows where the Jews were expelled to. They were expelled from the corners of Europe into the outskirts of Germany, such as Auschwitz, Belzek, Treblinka. E. Crematoriums and Human Remains! When you find human remains in a crematoriums… Need I say more? F. Mass Graves I will not torture the readers by showing these pictures, but I urge you to look at the images in this link [4]. They are graphic. Readers' discretion is advised. These mass graves of "disfigured" Jewish people is further evidence. Do I need to say more! R2. Written order? Con brings the case of Albert Speer Testimony where it states that there was no written order. Con intentionally took this sentence out of context. The full text reads [5]: "Hitler's method of work was that he gave even important commands to his confidants verbally. Also in the leader's records of my interviews with Hitler completely preserved in the German Federal Archives - there were numerous commands even in important areas which Hitler clearly gave by word of mouth only. It therefore conforms with his method of work and must not be regarded as an oversight, that a written order for the extermination of the Jews does not exist" (Bolded text is what Con originally provided) Basically, Hitler gives very important commands verbally at times. If a written order was not extracted, it wouldn't diminish the legitimacy of the argument. R3. Churchill denied the holocaust? Con argues that Churchill and others didn't mention the holocaust. This is a straw man attack! But I'll address it anyways. Churchill, actually, wrote about the holocaust: Reading in July 1944 the first detailed account of Auschwitz, Churchill wrote: "There is no doubt this is the most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world, and it has been done by scientific machinery by nominally civilised men in the name of a great State and one of the leading races of Europe. It is quite clear that all concerned in this crime who may fall into our hands, including the people who only obeyed orders by carrying out the butcheries, should be put to death after their association with the murders has been proved." [6] Con mentioned that Hitler's book (Mein Kamf) which was written in 1924, didn't mentioned the genocide. Con argues that this is evidence that Hitler didn't intend to commit mass murders. That's a joke! This argument is non-sequitur. Hitler may have had the intention to exterminate the Jews, but didn't share these extreme views as they might impact his political aspirations. Or, Hitler may have made the decision to exterminate the Jews later, or even after the beginning of the war. R4. Delousing Argument Con argues that Nazi's sprayed Zyklon B to delouse Jews, and not kill them. He's inferring that they might have unintentionally killed them, or that the Typhon is the cause of the death. Con then shows that Zyklon B was used by Americans on Mexicans as well. I will refute this argument below: A. Carbon Monoxide: all three Reinford camps in Treblinka used carbon monoxide [7], not Zyklon B. Carbon Monoxide doesn't delouse. B. Zyklon B kills humans effectively: Zyklon B consists of hydrogen cyanide, less that 300 mg/m3 would kill human after 10 minutes. 3200 mg/m3 would kill humans within 1 minute! [8] C. Gas chambers vs. Delousing chamber! There were two types of gas chambers in Auschwitz: One for delousing clothes, and one for exterminating people. The fact that there are two types of gas chambers should be enough to refute my opponent's claim. To prove my point further, there are differences between the two [9]. Delousing chambers had blue walls due to hydrogen cyanide. Blue walls occurred as a result of hydrogen cyanide reacting with iron compounds to form the pigment Prussian blue. Gas chambers didn't have blue walls. That's because gas chambers had ventilation units, which prevents hydrogen cyanide to taint the walls. Also, lice are more stubborn than humans and requires "levels up to 16,000ppm (parts per million) and an exposure time of more than 20 hours" [10]. Human only need 300ppm to be killed as I've shown previously. D. Nazi's destroyed gas chambers, but not delousing facilities: What's interesting to note that Nazi's destroyed gas chamber before they were captured by the Soviets. However, they left the "delousing facilities" intact. Coincidence? E. Too convenient? If Nazi's genuinely didn't mean to kill the Jews, and only delouse them, why would they continue performing the same "instant" killing procedure over and over for millions of people? If a doctor injects medicine to patients that kills them instantly, would them keep doing it, over and over and over again? And if they did, would they not be liable for "deliberate killing" having knowledge of the result of their actions? Red Herrings Con presented many "Red herrings" so I simply ignore most of them. For example, Con claims that holocaust denial is illegal in some countries, or that Jews declared war on Germany. These and others don't change the fact that Nazi's killed nearly 6 million Jews. Sources [1] http://fcit.usf.edu... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.nizkor.org... [4] http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.ca... [5] https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org... [6] http://www.bbc.co.uk... [7] https://en.wikipedia.org... [8] https://en.wikipedia.org... [9] http://rationalwiki.org... [10] https://en.wikipedia.org... Images from: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...