Nazi gas chambers

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 25 Feb 2004 21:02

Dan and xcalibur -- Thanks, fellows. I don't do a lot of work involving the ventilation of buildings, and I'm not sure I understood what Pressac was talking about beyond the summary I gave above. I've got a better idea of what you're saying now.

xcalibur · Post by **xcalibur** » 26 Feb 2004 05:11

David Thompson wrote:Dan and xcalibur -- Thanks, fellows. I don't do a lot of work involving the ventilation of buildings, and I'm not sure I understood what Pressac was talking about beyond the summary I gave above. I've got a better idea of what you're saying now.

DT: Part of the problem with Auschwitz (or more to the point for this discussion: Birkenau) is that it's not really been investigated by an independent body of experts as a crime scene per se. Pressac's work in the archives is impressive, to my mind, but falls short of being definitive based on what is available right here and what has been read so far.

Looking back there have been some attempts to put science to work in furtherance of understanding what happened there: I refer to Leuchter(chemical samples from crematoria building materials), John Ball (air photo analysis), the Polish War Crimes Commission(anecdotal, photographic, and documentary analysis)., and more recently the group from Krakow University.

Of the four afore-mentioned, The most recent report(Kralow) is indeed the most reliable. Leuchter's work is garbage and doesn't even bear mentioning as it's clear that he doesn't have the mental capacity to begin to understand crime scene evidence collection nor the chain of evidence that must be maintained to prove a case. John Ball's work has been refuted by the excavations at Belzec: He states that there are no mass graves present when excavation shows they were in fact there.

So this more or less leaves us with Pressac and the two Polish groups. The former Polish group, commisssioned in 1945 or 46 may have had a Communist axe to grind. The latter's report, however, does seem to have a reasonable ring to it as scientific method seems to have been reasonaby maintained.

As for Pressac, me thinks he got the conclusions more or less right, but somehow his evidentiary chain is terribly flawed. The best analogy I can think of is a prosecutor who, with overly abundant circumstantial evidence of a crime, buries the jury with mountains of incidental detail.

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 26 Feb 2004 05:33

xcalibur -- You said:

As for Pressac, me thinks he got the conclusions more or less right, but somehow his evidentiary chain is terribly flawed. The best analogy I can think of is a prosecutor who, with overly abundant circumstantial evidence of a crime, buries the jury with mountains of incidental detail.

I agree. I think that this is because M. Pressac -- who says that he was formerly a revisionist and is not a Jew -- undertook to accept an artificially narrow challenge proferred by his former revisionist colleague M. Faurisson. Why anyone would undertake to prove an historical proposition without using the readily available testimony of victims, perpetrators and bystanders is beyond me:

michael mills · Post by **michael mills** » 26 Feb 2004 08:25

It seems to me that the placement of the air-intake and outlet ducts in Leichenkeller I of Crematorium II proves Pressac's argument that neither that crematorium nor Crematorium II were originally designed as homicidal facilities.

It shows that the two crematoria were planned as normal corpse disposal facilities, with Leichenkeller I and II of both being designed as normal corpse-storage areas. The design of the ventilation system was appropriate for corpse-storage (cold noxious air containing decomposition gases given off by the corpses is drawn out at floor level and replaced by fresh air flowing in at ceiling-level), but counter-productive for homicidal gassing.

Similarly, the placement of the Leichenkeller underground was ideal for corpse-storage, since it would help to maintain a low temperature, but counterproductive for homicidal gassing, since it would inhibit the dispersion of the gas-laden air and require the installation of a purpose-built ventilation system (with the outlet valves at the top).

A contrast made be made with Crematoria IV and V. Since both structures are above ground, they present no ventilation problems. Indeed, since the rooms at the end of both structures (opposite end to the furnace-rooms) have entrances on both sides, the gas-laden air can be ventilated naturally by simply opening the doors and letting the wind blow through. That is how the original homicidal gas-chambers, Bunkers I and II (the converted peasant "red" and "white" houses) were ventilated, and it is also how a building being deloused with Zyklon-B is ventilated; no mechanical air-extraction system is required.

That suggests that Crematoria IV and V were originally designed for a homicidal purpose, whereas Crematoria II and III were not. Van Pelt (drawing on Pressac with minimal attribution) states that Crematoria IV and V were planned as corpse-disposal facilities for the "output" of the homicidal installations Bunkers I and II; the bodies of persons gassed in those building were buried in nearby pits throughout 1942 and early 1943, until the construction of the crematoria. The location of Crematoria IV and V close to the two Bunkers lends credence to Van Plelt's (actually Pressac's) interpretation.

I understand that Pressac shows that the original plans for Crematoria IV and V included only the furnace-rooms and the adjacent large corpse-storage room; they did not include the rooms at the other end with the lower roofline. His interpretation is that the two crematoria were originally designed as corpse-disposal facilities only, serving the two Bunkers; that is, homicidal gassing would continue to be carried out in the Bunkers, the bodies of the victims being then transported on lorries to Crenatoria IV and V for incineration.

Apparently, at some point before the construction of the two crematoria, it was decided to collocate the homicidal gassing with the incineration in the same building, and small rooms to serve as gas-chambers were simply tacked on to the furnace and corpse-storage rooms. Since the crematoria were above-ground, that was quite easy to do, and since the rooms could be ventilated naturally there was no need for mechanical ventilation. With that collocation, Bunkers I and II became redundant and they were closed down.

A number of interesting conclusions may be drawn from the above.

First, Hoess in his post-war interrogations and in his pre-trial statement prepared in November 1946 for Judge Sehn, "The Final Solution of the Jewish Question at KL Auschwitz", maintained that Crematoria II and III were from the very beginning (ie since the time they were ordered in 1942) were intended as homicidal facilities pursuant to a genocidal program centred at Auschwitz, and that their purpose was hidden from the building contractors by describing them as sanitary facilities. However, Pressac has demonstrated that the original design of the two crematoria was totally counter-productive for homicidal gassing but exactly right for corpse-storage. Accordingly, Hoess's testimony must be regarded as unreliable on that point.

Second, if Crematoria II and III were not originally intended as homicidal installations when they were originally ordered and designed in 1942 (and indeed when work first started on Crematorium II in late 1942), that shows that Auschwitz was not at that time intended to be a genocidal centre for Jews or anyone else. That in turn gives the lie to Hoess's claim that the order for the genocide of the Jews and the designation of Auschwitz as the centre for that genocide was given in mid-1941. It also suggests that at the time that the crematoria were ordered there was still no global extermination plan, and that the homicidal gassing that was being carried out at Birkenau (in Bunkers I and II) was more in the nature of a cull of those new arrivals or existing prisoners unable to be used for labour, to prevent the camp becoming overcrowded.

Third, throughout 1942, the only homicidal gassing capacity was provided by Bunkers I and II, and that capacity was sufficient for the purpose of exterminating the prisoners selected for killing by reason of being unfit for work. When Crematoria IV and V came on stream in 1943, the homicidal capacity they provided was equal to that provided by Bunkers I and II, which were then closed down; in other words, there was no increase in homicidal capacity, rather a replacement of existing capacity.

Furthermore, in 1943, greater emphasis was placed on preserving the prisoners for labour, and to the recuperation of those who had become unable to work, to the greatest extent possible. According to Himmler's orders of April 1943, the killing of prisoners was to be reduced to those who absolutely could not be restored to sufficent health for labour. Therefore, when Crematoria IV and V came on stream, the requirement for homicidal capacity had actually reduced, and those two crematoria were more than adequate to handel the task.

Therefore, any further homicidal capacity to be provided by the conversion of Crematoria II and III would be superfluous; in 1943 the level of killing declined rather than increased. The question then arises; why were Crematoria II and III converted from corpse-storage facilities to homicidal installations, if in fact they were so converted? If they were converted, were they actually used for a homicidal purpose, given that Crematoria IV and V provided adequate capacity?

It is noteworthy that all the photographic evidence for homicidal activity and the following incineration of the bodies, dating from the summer of 1944, centres exclusively on Crematoria IV and V. By that time their furnaces had broken down, but their end rooms could still be used for homicidal gassing, and the unservicable furnaces were simply obviated by dragging the bodies outside and cremating them on adjacent open-air pyres.

giles120 · Post by **giles120** » 01 Mar 2004 17:13

Belzec Gas Chambers:-

An interesting drawing of the 'Hackenholt Foundation' named after the person who helped build and operate the gassing facilities; Hauptscharführer Lorenz Hackenholt.

Note the Star of David on the roof, and the two flower pots by the steps. Also note how the pipes connect from the diesel engine shed to the six individual chambers.

Those who constructed the Belzec gas chambers(Hackenholt, Unterscharführer Erich Fuchs, Unterscharführer Erwin Lambert) were also involved in the design and build of the chambers at Sobibor and Treblinka.

Belzec was the first camp in which large gas chambers were built. The old wooden structure containing the three gas chambers was demolished, and on the same spot a larger, strong building was erected, which was 24 m. Iong and 10 m. wide. It contained six gas chambers. Statements differ as to their size; they fluctuate between 4 x 4 m. and 4 x 8 m. The new gas chambers were completed in mid July. (StA Munich 1, AZ: 22 Js 68/61, pp. 2602, 2613.)

Rudolf Reder was one of two known/confirmed survivors of the Belzec extermination camp. He described the new gas chambers:

"The building was low, long, and broad. It was built of grey concrete and had a flat roof made of roofing felt, with a net over it which was covered with branches. Three steps without baristers led into the building. They were ca. 1 m. wide. In front of the building stood a large flowerpot with colorful flowers and a clearly written placard: "Bath- and inhalation Rooms. " The steps led into a dark, empty corridor which was very long, but only 1.5 m. wide. To the left and right of it were the doors to the gas chambers. They were wooden doors, 1 m. wide... The corridor ant the chambers were lower than normal rooms, no higher than 2 m. In the opposite wall of every chamber was a removable door through which the bodies of the gassed were thrown out. Outside the building was a 2 x 2 m. shed which housed the gas machine. The chambers were 1.5 m. above the ground... (Rudolf Reder, Berzcc, Cracow, 1946, pp. 42 ff.)
These new gas chambers were able to take in 1,500 persons at one and the same time, i.e., a transport of about 15 freight cars. (Verdict of LG Munich 1, AZ: 110 Ks 3/64, p10.)."

Thanks.

Dan · Post by **Dan** » 02 Mar 2004 02:29

It would be interesting to see a more detailed picture, and to get some specifics. What kind of displacement did the engine have, how long were the pipes connecting the engines to the 6 rooms and what was their diameter the total area of the six rooms and what steps were used to make the doors air tight.

I think the only way to make this system even remotely believable is to assume a special poison was poured into the diesel fuel. We've been over this a thousand times, but I keep going back to the fact that when you hear of someone who dies in the garage with the car on, it's always gasoline, never diesel, and to that time in Africa when I caught a mongoose who'd been killing my laying hens, and I tied it into a bag and fixed the bag onto the exhaust pipe of my diesel pickup truck. I let it run for quite a while, and nothing happened, so I killed it by slamming it into a wall. I found out from my mechanic afterwards that it's the particulates that kill (eventually) with diesel, not CO gas.

PHILDHB · Post by **PHILDHB** » 02 Mar 2004 03:14

Quite right, if they were after Carbon Monoxide which is what I think we have all read, Gasoline would be the practical way to go. I just checked and two descriptions of these camps have Russian Tank & Submarine engines used, which were both diesel.
Dan, remind me not to mess with your chickens!
Phil.

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 02 Mar 2004 04:27

We have had a number of discussions on various threads in the H&WC section of the forum on the questions of whether (1) diesel or gasoline engines were used (2) to generate or pump the poison gas (carbon monoxide). As I recall, the eyewitnesses who expressed an opinion disagreed, particularly as to the type of engine(s), and most didn't say anything more about the engine than that there was one.

From what I've read, I can't tell whether the engine pumped pre-existing poison gas (as from canisters) into the chambers, or whether the engine fumes were supposed to be the killer element. Either a gas or a diesel engine, used to power a pump, could send a fair amount of pre-existing poison gas into a closed area. However, if the fumes were supposed to constitute the homicidal gas, based on what I've read I think that the engine would have to be gasoline-powered.

Dan -- A man who can catch a mongoose is a man who is respected. They are clever, bold and fast.

Dan · Post by **Dan** » 02 Mar 2004 04:35

Yes, but the post above mine states a diesel engine, and other accounts speak of diesel engines. I recall Roberto tracking down a source which either states a gasoline engine or an unspecified engine, but the majority of accounts specify either diesel engine or the make of the vehicle which allows one to determine what kind of engine is used.

But in this sketch, I would still like to see details. I wonder at the volume of air in the pipes and rooms, and how much non lethal air that would have to be displaced before toxic concentrations are arrived at.

michael mills · Post by **michael mills** » 02 Mar 2004 07:11

An interesting drawing of the 'Hackenholt Foundation' named after the person who helped build and operate the gassing facilities; Hauptscharführer Lorenz Hackenholt.

What is the origin of the drawing?

Is the product of an artist following a verbal description?

Or is it drawn from a preserved plan?

If the former, all we can say of the drawing is that it is a pictorial representation of a description of a building that is claimed to have been a gas-chamber. I do not think we can take it any further than that.

What I wonder is why there is what appears to be a loading-ramp on either side of the building. The most obvious use is to load onto vehicles whatever was taken out of the rooms through the large exterior swing-doors.

The objects loaded could be bodies. However, survivor accounts that I have read all seem to agree that the bodies were simply dragged out along the ground; in that case the loading ramp would constitute more a hindrance than a help.

The structure of the building and its design looks more like a storage facility than anything else. That is, it likes a building where trucks backed up to the loading platforms and unloaded things that were then stored in the rooms, and conversely loaded them on and took them away.

I doubt that the structure in the picture is a true representation of a homicidal gas-chamber. I consider that if the picture represents something actually seen by a person, then the thing seen was not actually a gas-chamber, although the person who saw it and described it may well have sincerely believed that it was.

Of course, it is entirely possible that the structure was originally built as a storage facility or something similar, with the platform attached to facilitate loading and loading, but then transformed into a gas-chamber by simply running a pipe to the interior of the rooms from a gas-producing device. But in that case the exterior platform would be counter-productive.

A gas-chamber set directly on the ground would be much more practical.

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 02 Mar 2004 07:17

michael mills · Post by **michael mills** » 02 Mar 2004 07:26

There is one other thing that I have just noticed.

The text says that the chambers (and hence the loading platforms) were 1.5 metres above the ground.

That is quite consistent with the height of a loading platform designed to facilitate the transfer of objects from the rooms onto trucks.

But to get from ground level to a floor-level 1.5 metres above it would surely require more than three steps.

I cannot see any logical reason for building a homicidal gas-chamber with a floor 1.5 metres above ground level. That would add totally unnecessary complications that could be obviated by setting the structure at ground level, on a concrete slab.

Looking at the picture, it seems that only reason for having the floor of the structure raised above ground level is to make it flush with the exterior loading platform, which makes sense for the purpose of loading and unloading from vehicles. But it makes no sense at all for the purpose of dragging bodies out of the rooms and along the ground to a nearby burial pit.

One possibility is that Reder has combined the description of two different buildings, one a storage facility set 1.5 metres above ground level and with an exterior loading platform, and the other a building with three steps going up to the entrance door (obviously not 1.5 metres above ground level).

That in turn suggests that Reder did not actually see a gas-chamber but, being required to provide a description of one as part of his account of having been a prisoner at Belzec, confected that description from the appearance of two buildings that he had either seen himself or had had described to him by others.

giles120 · Post by **giles120** » 03 Mar 2004 12:20

Mike,

Interesting comments. Rudolf Reder was a mechanic, and on arrival at Belzec was one of the few lucky ones selected for life. On the transport of 17 August 1942 only Reder and seven others were selected. There were 4,500 on that transport. I have no details, but he may have been employed in the motor pool. I presume there was some reason why he was chosen as a mechanic.

The small handful of skilled Jews selected for life were kept well away from the extermination facilities(apart from the Sonderkommando who emptied the chambers and buried the dead), which were usually situated in the most remote part of the camp grounds in their own sub-camp surronded by watchtowers. The Sonderkommando and the other worker Jews had no contact(apart from maybe the odd letter carried by one of the Ukrainians. This is mentioned in Richard Rashke's 'Escape from Sobibor'). The Sonderkommando's life expectancy was approx 3 months. One team was then shot/gassed and replaced with another from an incoming transport. This was done on purpose in an attempt to carry on the deception, although all must have been made aware hours after their arrival what was going on.

So, as Reder was not a part of the Sonderkommando, the likelihood of him seeing Belzec's gas chamber building must be very remote indeed. From my research, a number of aspects of Belzec were copied in Sobibor and Treblinka. One of these aspects was the 'tube', the covered walkway between the undressing huts and the gas chambers. This area was heavily camoflaged, with the intention that it could not be seen from other parts of the camp.

In 'Escape from Sobibor', Shlomo is ordered to collect gold from Kurt Bolander in Camp 3(the extermination centre). He walks
through the tube, enters through a guarded door into a yard where he sees Jews being herded into the chambers. Shlomo survived the outbreak of October 1943, gave evidence and was interviewed by Rashke when he was researching Sobibor. Following the outbreak, all Jews in Camp 3 were shot.

In contrast to Sobibor and Treblinka, in Belzec no uprising took place. Therefore nearly nothing could be told by Jewish witnesses about the most forgotten death camp. Some sketches / maps from witnesses do exist: two drawn by survivors and five by former SS men (drawn during their trials). The drawing was by B Rutherford who has also made a number of models of the Belzec gassing facilities. Both drawing and models are based on the the sketches and maps and Luftwaffe photos taken in 1940 and 1944(not during the time of operation of the camp though). The picture is from http://www.deathcamps.org

Recent excavations (1997 - 1999), led by Prof. Dr. Andrzej Kola (University of Torun / Poland) and commissioned by the Council for the Protection of Memory of Combat and Martyrdom brought to light a lot of important structures. In addition with researches made by M. Tregenza and B. Rutherford, new maps of the Belzec death camp could be drawn.

Thanks.

alf · Post by **alf** » 03 Mar 2004 13:13

But to get from ground level to a floor-level 1.5 metres above it would surely require more than three steps.

I was puzzled by that too, 3 steps require a lift of 500mm for each step, which does sound excessive, but further reading of the description and looking at the picture, it does lend itself to an answer.

A fuller description of the text

The building was low, long, and broad. It was built of grey concrete and had a flat roof made of roofing felt, with a net over it which was covered with branches. Three steps without bar isters led into the building. They were ca. 1 m. wide. In front of the building stood a large flowerpot with colorful flowers and a clearly written placard: "Bath- and inhalation Rooms. " The steps led into a dark, empty corridor which was very long, but only 1.5 m. wide. To the left and right of it were the doors to the gas chambers. They were wooden doors, 1 m. wide... The corridor ant the chambers were lower than normal rooms, no higher than 2 m. In the opposite wall of every chamber was a removable door through which the bodies of the gassed were thrown out. Outside the building was a 2 x 2 m. shed which housed the gas machine. The chambers were 1.5 m. above the ground... (Rudolf Reder, Berzcc, Cracow, 1946, pp. 42 ff.)

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/israeli ... 16-09.html

The hallway is 1.5metres wide, the picture shows the steps to be the width of the hallway, therefore they are 1.5 metres wide also, the text above says they are Three steps without bar isters led into the building. They were ca. 1 m. wide which I take to be a length of 1 metre. making each step 500mm high (depth), 1000mm long (length)) and 1500mm wide (width) ( per doorway drawing.) They would extend 3 metres from the door in total, so each was a low platform

That is a practical arrangement for large groups of people to move on, realistically the height 500mm would be lower but only marginally.

As to the side doors yes they were for moving objects :- corpses In the opposite wall of every chamber was a removable door through which the bodies of the gassed were thrown out

The 1.5 metres off the ground does make sense, Michael is right, its primary function is to make loading easier, but it is the loading of corpses into a cart or truck directly from the gas chambers.

A practical solution to a grisly problem.

michael mills · Post by **michael mills** » 05 Mar 2004 01:15

The 1.5 metres off the ground does make sense, Michael is right, its primary function is to make loading easier, but it is the loading of corpses into a cart or truck directly from the gas chambers

That would certainly be the case if carts or trucks were used to transports the bodies of the gassed victims to a crematorium or mass-graves.

But the survivor accounts that I have read, dealing with Sobibor and Treblinka, all seem to give the impression that the bodies were dragged out of the gas-chamber and along the ground by hand to a nearby mass-grave. As I pointed out, the 1.5-metre- high loading platform would be a hindrance to that method of removing the bodies.

One explanation could be that the original aim was to load the bodies onto carts or trucks, which would explain the loading platform and the height above ground of the whole structure, but that there was a change in plan, with removal by dragging along the ground being substituted (perhaps due to shortage of vehicles?).

Does anyone have any information on whether trucks or other vehicles were used at any time at Belzec or other camps for transporting the bodies of the victims away from the gas-chambers?