Gas Chambers at Bunker 1, KL Auschwitz

alf · Post by **alf** » 16 Jul 2004 02:30

Anyone who would attempt this could be accused of denying the Holocaust and be banned from future posting on this forum. You are not quite fair in your conclusion

The onus is on you to provide documentary proof, linked to primary source documents, not to merely express opinion and nit pick. Focusing on minor negatives to disprove does NOT prove your claims.

Can you provide proof for your opinions? what books, interent sites, research have you done to reach your viewpoints, that is what the spirit site is about, I believe.

Lucius Felix Silla · Post by **Lucius Felix Silla** » 16 Jul 2004 15:40

Another "witness" presented by Pressac is Szlama Dragon.

Szlama Dragon, from Pressac, pp. 161.

Quote:
Deposition recorded on 10th May 1945 by Judge Jan Sehn, concerning Bunker 1:

Quote:
«Five hundred [in actual fact 800] metres further on [from Bunker 2] there was another cottage designated Bunker 1. This was also a small brick house divided into just two parts and able to contain altogether 2000 naked persons. [Manifest exaggeration by the witness, practically the rule among all the early accounts. Hoess gives the figure of 800: a «technician« of death, he knew what he was talking about, even if he also tended to massage the figures through «professional pride»] These rooms each had one entrance door and a small window. Near Bunker 1, there was a small barn and two huts. The pits were much further on. They were connected to this Bunker
[1] by narrow gauge rails.»

Practically every detail provided by this very vague statement of Dragon is wrong.

1) The site of the presumed Bunker 1 is totally invented by Dragon.
He was interrogated on February 26, 1945, by the Soviets and later, on May 10 and 11 of the same year by the Poles. He was never able to identify the location where 'Bunker 1' had stood.

Regardless of the presence of Dragon and other witnesses, the Soviets were so uncertain as to this structure that it appeared in quite a different location on the map drawn up on March 3, 1945, by Engineer Nosal for the Soviet Investigating Commission (Pressac, Auschwitz tecnique, cit p.179): outside the camp, approximately 300 m away from the north barbed wire perimeter of construction section III of Birkenau, i.e., approximately 500 m north of the location marked by the Auschwitz Museum on its official maps as site of the presumed Bunker 1 (Gutman-Berenbaum: Anatomy of Auschwitz Death Camp, INDIANAPOLIS 1994, p.15). Some days later he repeated the same history to polish and so the same Pressac is obliged to correct his witness.

2) The house according to him was divided in two rooms each with one door and one window. But according to Auschwitz Museum reconstruction of this mythical adaption work from germans, the house have two doors and FOUR OPENINGS (F. Piper, The Method of Mass Murder, pp.134-135 vol. III of Auschwitz 1940-1945. Central Issues in the History of the camp, Oswiecim 2000).

3) According to Dragon the Bunker 1 can accomodated 2000 people.
But with a space calculated by Pressac same in 60-80sq. mt (Pressac in Anatomy cit. p. 212) note the vagueness of this calculation) one can really ask how is possible accomodate 33 or 25 people on one sq.mt. Mr. Sergey Romanov have cited one sperimental proof from Mr. Provan which allegedly proves that this fact could be also true, assuming that half of the people are children.
Now, i don't want discuss here this species of experiment in detail, but i will only suggest that also if the space occupied by people could be more small than one can think in abstract, this fact presupposes the collaboration of the people in a way similar to a sort of "guiness of primacies" agenda. The day that one sq. mt. could accomodates 29 (i assumes here a medium) people, we will see also the pigs fly.

Pressac says explictly "manifest exaggeration" (he later - 1994 - estimates a capacity of 500 people. Anatomy cit. p.212) and others comments are in the pages dedicated to the testimony of Dragon on Bunkers 2. Dragon really have a species of obsession for these numbers unreal.

To sum up, Dragon don't known nothing about site, dimensions, dates, external aspect of this Bunker 1. And he was considered as one eyewitness....

Best Regards

LFS

Allen Milcic · Post by **Allen Milcic** » 16 Jul 2004 15:46

Lucius Felix Silla wrote:Practically every detail provided by this very vague statement of Dragon is wrong.

Silly man, this witness - he forgot to bring his measuring tape and a notepad to take exact information as he was herded around as a prisoner in a concentration camp.

Konrad · Post by **Konrad** » 16 Jul 2004 16:16

Mr. Thompson to LFS:

David Thompson wrote:(2) Not only have I read the Zyklon-B handling instructions, I posted them. The section you quote refers to disinfestations of buildings, not homicidal gassings, so your point lacks proof.

I would be very much interested reading the Zyklon-B handling instructions for homicidal gassings.
Where did you post these?

Konrad

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 16 Jul 2004 16:28

Dr. Miklos Nyiszli: An eyewitness from Auschwitz
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... c&start=15

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 16 Jul 2004 17:49

LFS -- Why are you using Pressac as a source when you reject his conclusions?

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 16 Jul 2004 17:51

The "freedom of speech" posts now have a thread of their own, at: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=54764

Konrad · Post by **Konrad** » 16 Jul 2004 17:54

David Thompson wrote: Dr. Miklos Nyiszli: An eyewitness from Auschwitz
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... c&start=15

Thank you for the link.

On that thread you posted the well known "Directives for the Use of Prussic Acid (Zyklon) for the Destruction of Vermin (Disinfestation)
Translation of Document No. NI-9912 Office of Chief Counsel of War Crimes" for the disinfestation of buildings.

Then you really don't have similar instructions for homicidal gas chambers, I assume?

Konrad

Lucius Felix Silla · Post by **Lucius Felix Silla** » 16 Jul 2004 18:12

David Thompson wrote:LFS -- Why are you using Pressac as a source when you reject his conclusions?

I use Pressac as source for documents and dates because his works on Auschwitz, whetever one can think about his conclusions, contains very good material to discuss. For example, he is the first to work deeply on Auschwitz archives and Moscow archives. When he died some time ago, not one single historian have written some words about his death. Robert Jan van Pelt, who largely if not exclusively based his work on Auschwitz (see Auschwitz. 1270 to the present) on documents discovered by Pressac contains only one (1!) reference to Pressac work.

Also Pressac can't be called a revisionistic source. So we don't have problems on his documents.

We can discuss hours on methods and scope of Pressac work (i have my personal opinion on this). But this is an annoying thread i suspect.

Best regards

LFS

Sergey Romanov · Post by **Sergey Romanov** » 16 Jul 2004 21:38

> The site of the presumed Bunker 1 is totally invented by Dragon

At least in this testimony we read only this:

«Five hundred [in actual fact 800] metres further on [from Bunker 2] there was another cottage designated Bunker 1.

800-500 meters is not that a great discrepancy. He didn't, you know, measure that distance.

> The day that one sq. mt. could accomodates 29 (i assumes here a medium) people, we will see also the pigs fly.

Sure you assume a "medium". You rig the figures to reach a desired "conclusion".

> Pressac says explictly "manifest exaggeration"

So what? Can you show that it's an exaggeration, and if an exaggeration, a big, significant one?

> But according to Auschwitz Museum reconstruction of this mythical adaption work from germans, the house have two doors and FOUR OPENINGS

OK, let's assume you don't lie and have not distorted anything. Perhaps it's a case of mistranslation. Perhaps just a bad memory. Did Dragon claim that he worked at Bunker 1?

> To sum up, Dragon don't known nothing about site, dimensions, dates, external aspect of this Bunker 1. And he was considered as one eyewitness....

This conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Lucius Felix Silla · Post by **Lucius Felix Silla** » 16 Jul 2004 22:10

Sergey Romanov wrote:> The site of the presumed Bunker 1 is totally invented by Dragon

At least in this testimony we read only this:

«Five hundred [in actual fact 800] metres further on [from Bunker 2] there was another cottage designated Bunker 1.
800-500 meters is not that a great discrepancy. He didn't, you know, measure that distance.

> The day that one sq. mt. could accomodates 29 (i assumes here a medium) people, we will see also the pigs fly.

Sure you assume a "medium". You rig the figures to reach a desired "conclusion".

> Pressac says explictly "manifest exaggeration"

So what? Can you show that it's an exaggeration, and if an exaggeration, a big, significant one?

> But according to Auschwitz Museum reconstruction of this mythical adaption work from germans, the house have two doors and FOUR OPENINGS

OK, let's assume you don't lie and have not distorted anything. Perhaps it's a case of mistranslation. Perhaps just a bad memory. Did Dragon claim that he worked at Bunker 1?

> To sum up, Dragon don't known nothing about site, dimensions, dates, external aspect of this Bunker 1. And he was considered as one eyewitness....

This conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Dear Sergey Romanov,

1) The testimony of Dragon was taken immediately after the liberation of camp so none can claima that he suffers from memory.
In fact he is erroneous not for 300 mt but for 500 mt. and above all he don't have any idea of the exact site of bunker 1
2) I don't have adjusted any number. This species of insinuations disqualifies only who advances them. I have provided an average between 2.000 people according to Dragon and 60/80sq. mt. which is the internal dimension of presumed Bunker 1 calculated by Pressac. The result is 29. And pigs still fly.
3) I'm not liar. This is a speciality of someone other but not mine. If You have problems with source, check and found if there's one error.
And if Dragon, as You seems suggest, don't have worked near Bunker 1 how he can be considered an eyewitness? How he can have testified about one thing which he never see?
4) My conclusion is perfectly consistent respect to what Dragon himself says.

Best regards

LFS

Sergey Romanov · Post by **Sergey Romanov** » 16 Jul 2004 22:31

> In fact he is erroneous not for 300 mt but for 500 mt. and above all he don't have any idea of the exact site of bunker 1

Pressac says 800 m. What do you have to contradict him except for an alleged Soviet map?

> I have provided an average between 2.000 people according to Dragon and 60/80sq. mt. which is the internal dimension of presumed Bunker 1 calculated by Pressac. The result is 29. And pigs still fly.

In deniers' la la land pigs fly, indeed. As for the capacity, I refer you back to Provan's article.

> I'm not liar.

Did I say that you are one?

> And if Dragon, as You seems suggest, don't have worked near Bunker 1 how he can be considered an eyewitness? How he can have testified about one thing which he never see?

Haa ha. You didn't study logic, did you? Or you would have known about the "false dichotomy", which is exactly what you have created. I don't know whether Dragon worked in B1 or not (probably not, as my reading of van Pelt indicates). That doesn't mean that he never was near B1. But if he didn't work there but did see it and was near it for a short time, his mistakes (assuming that you didn't lie or distorted your sources) are easily explainable.

> 4) My conclusion is perfectly consistent respect to what Dragon himself says.

It might ot might not be _consistent_ with what he says, but it doesn't _follow_ from what he says or from what you say about what he says.