michael mills wrote:A brief comment on the testimony of Milton Buki.
It is obvious that his testimony about Bunker 1 has been contaminated by other accounts dealing with the operation of the gas-chambers in the Crematoria.
The particular items of contamination are:
1. The claim that the gas-chamber was opened only twenty minutes after injection of the gas and the bodies taken out.
2. The claim that Mengele was present at gassings in Bunker 1.
With regard to Item 1, more reliable witnesses such as Szlama Dragon describe a process that is apparently based on the standard methodology for using Zyklon-B to fumigate buildings. He states that the homicidal gassing took place in the evening, with the victims being placed in the bunker, the entrances being hermetically sealed, and the Zyklon-B being inserted through an opening high on the wall. The bunker was left sealed all night, and not opened until the next morning; the gas was then allowed to dissipate through natural ventilation, the bodies of the victims being left in place until the ventilation process had reduced the concentration of gas to a safe level, usually several hours. Only then were the bodies removed and taken to the mass-graves.
The process described by Dragon suggests that the disinfection staff trained in the use of Zyklon-B simply transferred the procedures they had learned for fumigation to homicidal gassing, something they had not received formal training in. Such a transfer of operational procedures makes sense under the circumstances, and is credible.
Buki's description of opening the gas-chamber in Bunker 1 after twenty minutes is therefore false in that context, and derived from a description of a gassing (or fumigation?) in a chamber with mechanical ventilation (and even there with some exaggeration of the speed of the gassing procedure).
With regard to Item 2, Mengele arrived at Auschwitz in May 1943, after the homicidal operation had been replaced by the operation at crematoria IV and V. Therefore he could not have presided over a homicidal gassing at Bunker 1 as described by Buki. Buki has apparently adopted the name Mengele from other testimony, and applied it falsely to a doctor presiding at a gassing in Bunker 1 between December 1942 and the date of the bunker's c;osre (whenever that was).
Two conclusions are possible from the contamination of Buki's testimony:
1. He was never present at a homicidal gassing at Bunker 1, and fabricated his testimony based on details from other testimony not referring to procedures at Bunker 1, or;
2. He did witness homicidal gassing at Bunker 1, but for some unkown reason partially falsified his description of it by substituting details drawn from other testimony for certain details of what he actually witnessed, ie the duration of the gassing procedure and the identity of the supervising doctor.
If the second conclusion is the correct one (and I would propose accepting it in the absence of firm proof that Buki's testimony is wholly false), it is likely that he substituted those false details into his testimony in order to make it more dramatic, or to make it conform with other testimony he had heard. Such substitution does detract from his honesty as a witness, but does not invalidate the whole of his testimony when it is compared with other testimony concerning homicidal procedures at Bunker 1.
Dear Mr. Michael Mills,
No contamination with Szlama Dragon (later i come back on his testimony on Bunker 1, which is totally false and invented). From where You have derived the Dragon's description of this procedure of gassing ?
As for Buki, i would return on other two-three points.
1) His description, which cannot be assumed as released under stress or emotion, was very vague, in reality. One brick farmhouse - without any dates about dimensions of this presumed house - around Auschwitz KL (where precisely is not entirely clear: no particulars about Stammlager or Birkenau was provided) was allegedly used by germans as site for homicidal gassing. He have one door (as every house in the world) and one chimney ( to introduce Zyklon-B. He was camouflaged as bathroom with showers. None others particulars are provided. These particulars are widely knowledged at the time of his declaration. So very hardly one can assumes this presumed witness as a valuable source.
2) All particulars (euphemism) already noted are wrong:
- presence of Mengele;
- blue stains on corpses;
- the door open and after 30 minutes the entry of the members of Sonderkommandos;
3) Others errors:
- the introduction of Zyklon - B was carry out through a LITTLE CHIMNEY. But for official history, were 4 small openings around the walls to introduce Zyklon B and Pressac same is obliged to remark this error.
According to Milton Buki the "SS climbed several steps by the side wall of the house and introduced through a little chimney [opening, PRESSAC] the contents of the can that he opened with a knife".
Let's go to see the dimensions and description given by Franciszek Piper the chief historian of Auschwitz Museum.
Because we don't have any single german document with says something of this presumed Bunker 1 (a curious circumstance, because the archives of the Zentral Bauleitung are taken by sovietics almost intact) he have reconstructed the status of this building on township map. So the farm house measured approximately 6m by 15m.
He allegedly was transformed by germans in this way:
- the house was divided into two presumed gas chambers, simply combining the original four rooms into two, divided by a central wall. One chamber (K1) was more little than the other (K2).
- one entrance and door for the K1 was situated on the side of 15 m near the angle, approx. 1m from this. One opening to introduce Zykon-B was situated 2 mt. from the door, 4 mt. from the angle. The other opening was situated on the left side of the house (6mt.long), approx. in the middle, 3mt from both angles.
- the other entrance and door for the K2 was situated on the right side (6mt.long) of the farmhouse, in the middle of the two openings to introduce the Zyklon B at 1,5 mt of distance, near both angles. The rear of this edifice don't have doors nor openings.
The openings were applied where there the windows.
So, how is possible that this eyewitness have saied that the SS climbed several steps by the side wall to introduce Zyklon B in K1 or K2. How is possible this fantasy if not assuming that the SS introduce Zyklon through the roof, which is materially impossible. And if in reality the witness would say that the SS have simply walked several steps, how is possible this scenario if the openings are all near the doors?
Pithifully, Pressac comment, is fantasious: "This witness certainly never knew that he had worked at Bunker 1, but two details prove that he did: «a red brick cottage» [?LFS], this is the red house and «a few steps»[?LFS] to climb for access to the opening where the Zyclon-B was introduced is a detail not reported by S. Dragon but confirmed by his drawing. The witness speaks of one gas chamber and one access door. Looking at the drawing of Bunker 1, it can be seen that an observer situated below and to the left would be able to see only one door (D 1) and only one side opening for introducing the toxic gas (01). [no: two openings and one door. LFS].
One last point: the declaration made before a notary and reproduced by Pressac, seems to be partial: why? What other absurdities contains?
And these are the proofs of existence of one gas chamber (which the same Auschwitz Museum was able to found only in 1978 or maybe also later!) in the so called little red house?