Nazi gas chambers

michael mills · Post by **michael mills** » 24 Feb 2004 15:11

On the cross-section blueprint of Leichenkeller I of Crematorium II, the ventilation system is shown. The vent for removing air (Entlüftung) is at the bottom of the wall on each side, and the vent for introducing fresh air (Belüftung) is at the top of the wall.

That arrangement is supposed to be significant for the process of removing gas-laden air, but I cannot comment on that for lack of technical expertise.

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 24 Feb 2004 18:32

Michael -- From Pressac, Jean-Claude, Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers, The Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York: 1989, p. 377:

Dan · Post by **Dan** » 24 Feb 2004 19:59

What I can't figure out is that sense HCN is one of the only chemicals made for killing things that is lighter than air, why would the intake be on the top and the exit be on the bottom? This is strange.

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 24 Feb 2004 22:00

Dan -- As I read Pressac, Leichenkeller 1 was originally designed and built as a morgue annex to Krematorium II, and had a ventilating system designed for that purpose. The building was built of concrete and was underground, so the ventilating ducts couldn't be changed. Later, when the Leichenkeller 1 morgue was converted to a gas chamber, the Germans had to "work around" this problem.

I don't know a lot about this subject, but if you've got questions I can try to find the answer in Pressac's work and post it for you.

From Pressac, Jean-Claude, Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers, The Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York: 1989, p. 369:

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 24 Feb 2004 23:22

Dan -- Here's some more, from Pressac, Jean-Claude, Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers, The Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York: 1989, pp. 223-24:

Dan · Post by **Dan** » 25 Feb 2004 00:26

While I no longer deny homicidal gassing by the Germans, evidence like this would to my mind be better not to be used as major proofs. Thanks of course for putting this online, but 33 kilowatts worth of motors don't produce that kind of heat. I used 2 x 126 kilowatt motors to pump water to a vineyard, and I had to start the pumps every 2nd day during warm weather. This took some time, because you have to slowly pressurize the pipes, otherwise they'll blow. They get too hot to touch, but they only warmed the little pump room a few degrees even when they were on most of the day.

I admit that they were electrical, perhaps 33 kilowatts of engines burning diesel or petrel burn hotter, but this whole explaination seems to have been made by someone without any knowledge whatsoever of what they were talking about.

Perhaps I'm missing something, though.

In addition, I'm still trying to figure out how pumping air into an upper vent would be more efficent that simply opening the building with HCN. I just can't see it having been used that way.

Regards and thanks

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 25 Feb 2004 00:58

Any time, Dan. If you have additional questions, please don't hesitate to ask. My own lack of understanding of the "nuts and bolts" of the gassing process is a distinct handicap, though hopefully I'll learn. Pressac argues 39 different "criminal traces," so I'm not sure if this explanation is supposed to be a major proof or not. As I slowly read through Pressac's opus I may find more material on this issue, in which case I'll post it here.

Dan · Post by **Dan** » 25 Feb 2004 01:41

I should in fairnes add that I may be reading this wrong. Perhaps he meant the motors were re-directed to shunt the super heated furnace exhaust into the gas chambers. But then you run into another problem, he states that dissipating the heat wasn't provided for. So, what happened when the gas chamber wasn't being preheated? Where were the necessary heating ducts? What were the saftey precautions? Where was the absolutely necessary and complex temperature control instrumentation?

We talked about "convergence of evidence" before, and I understand the need of this form of argument, but still, if any of the 39 traces are either pure speculation, or rumor, or seriously implausable, my instinct is to par the number down by throwing out these types of argument because at the end of the day, they simply serve to negatively affect the verisimilitude of the main argument.

Regards

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 25 Feb 2004 01:52

Dan -- Fair enough. I reason that way myself. Let me see what I can find in Pressac's formidable volume on the gas chambers of Auschwitz. For the moment, shall we focus the discussion on the gas chamber of Krematorium II?

If any of our readers can bring additional knowledge to bear on this topic, feel free to chime in.

xcalibur · Post by **xcalibur** » 25 Feb 2004 02:08

Dan wrote:I should in fairnes add that I may be reading this wrong. Perhaps he meant the motors were re-directed to shunt the super heated furnace exhaust into the gas chambers. But then you run into another problem, he states that dissipating the heat wasn't provided for. So, what happened when the gas chamber wasn't being preheated? Where were the necessary heating ducts? What were the saftey precautions? Where was the absolutely necessary and complex temperature control instrumentation?

We talked about "convergence of evidence" before, and I understand the need of this form of argument, but still, if any of the 39 traces are either pure speculation, or rumor, or seriously implausable, my instinct is to par the number down by throwing out these types of argument because at the end of the day, they simply serve to negatively affect the verisimilitude of the main argument.

Regards

You raise a good your point here and in your previous post. Pressac's point about preheating the cellar (insofar as using the electric motors to do it) does seem to speculative rather than conclusive. An alternative that has been suggested is that the heated air came from the ambient air in the crematory room itself being vented to the cellar. Venting of the exhaust from the ovens would have filled the cellar with noxious elements.

Dan · Post by **Dan** » 25 Feb 2004 03:13

An alternative that has been suggested is that the heated air came from the ambient air in the crematory room itself being vented to the cellar.

That would seem more reasonable. So, what were the volumes of the area being used for cremation, and what was the volume of the alleged gas chamber?

If we need to raise the temperature to 30C we could get some extrapolations. We would also need to see how they could have put fans into the walls of the cremation ares and have made air ducts to the homicidal area. But for now I think we can discard the heat from the engines themselves, and shunted heat from the crematory exhaust.

And still, pumping air into the top with HCN to clear it would be like keeping the window rolled up in your car and turning on the heater when the guy next to you farted.

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 25 Feb 2004 04:17

From Pressac, Jean-Claude, Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers, The Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York: 1989, p. 355:

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 25 Feb 2004 04:19

Part 2: From Pressac, Jean-Claude, Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers, The Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York: 1989, p. 359:

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 25 Feb 2004 06:01

Part 3: From Pressac, Jean-Claude, Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers, The Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York: 1989, p. 363:

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 25 Feb 2004 06:03

Part 4: From Pressac, Jean-Claude, Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers, The Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York: 1989, p. 364: