Nazi gas chambers

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23684
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 11 Jun 2004 02:40

Earlier in this thread, I pointed out that the walls of Krema I at Auschwitz had a blue coloring. Lucius Felix Silla disagreed with me and said:
The walls of Krema I aren't blue. You have seen the Krematorium I in Oswiciem? I'm in Auschwitz in august of the past year and i can testify that don't exist any trace of blue clour in the walls. Everyone known this.


In other words, LFS is saying he knew better because he had been there. Most people would take his word for it, because after all, he was there. But when it comes to the testimony of witnesses who establish the existence of homicidal gas chambers at KL Auschwitz, there's a different standard -- a double standard.

Here's some testimony from folks who were in the concentration camp when it was operating, and were aware of the homicidal gas chambers. As LFS might say:
Everyone known this.

These are the accounts of just a few of the people who knew better because they were at Auschwitz -- not just visiting a museum where the concentration camp used to be:

The Auschwitz testimony of Dr. Aharon Beilin
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=51877

Problematic testimony of Dr. Bendel
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=42672

The Auschwitz testimony of Gedalia Ben-Zvi
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=51879

The Auschwitz testimony of Esther Goldstein
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=51880

Majdanek and Auschwitz - Testimony of Yisrael Gutman
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=51464

Cracow statement of Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Hoess
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=52298

The Auschwitz testimony of Nachum Hoch
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=51881

The Auschwitz testimony of Rava Kagan
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=51885

The Auschwitz testimony of Joseph Zalman Kleinman
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=464160

Dr. Miklos Nyiszli - An eyewitness from Auschwitz
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=47151

The Auschwitz testimony of Alfred Oppenheimer
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=51888

Auschwitz Statement of Hans Stark
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=52289

IMT Testimony of Mme. Marie Claude Vaillant-Couturier
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=47321

Auschwitz Testimony of George Wellers
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=48082

User avatar
Lucius Felix Silla
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: 01 Aug 2003 17:46
Location: North Italy

Post by Lucius Felix Silla » 11 Jun 2004 12:23

Dear Mr. David Thompson,

You wrote:

1)


Lucius Felix Silla --

(1) You said:
Quote:
Unfortunately, Pressac omits stating that Leuchter:
-came to exactly the opposite conclusion: for Leuchter, a gas chamber did not exist and could not exist there;
- based his findings on physical inspection and with chemycal analyses to Alpha Laboratories (in USA). These analyses revealed that, in the alleged homicidal gas chamber, the amount of ferric-ferro-cyanide was either ZERO or infinitesimal by comparison with samples from a disinfection gas chamber of Auschwitz which had quantities of ferric-ferro-cyanide equal to 1.050 mg per kg, i.e. at least 133 (!) times that of maximum quantity found in the alleged homicidal gas chamber (7,9 mg per kg).

Here one can see the Leuchter Rapport
http://ihr.org/books/leuchter/leuchter.toc.html



I replied:
Quote:
In this argument, I have been very careful to provide you and the readers with page references. Could you please do the same with your Leuchter citation? This will save me, and the readers who are trying to follow this discussion, the inconvenience of having to read all of Leuchter's report to find a single fact. If possible, cite directly to the page or paragraph number of Leuchter's explanation for the presence of cyanide in the walls of the homicidal gas chamber of Krema I. If Leuchter concluded that there were no cyanide traces in those walls, please give that reference


And You concludes:

You (Lucius Felix Silla) have not responded to this request.


Oh, what mistaken!
In reality, that’s not entirely true because I have answer in these exact terms:

“As for the explication provided by Leuchter about the presence of insignificants traces of HCN in samples taken from Krematorium I, he states :”It is notable that almost all the samples were negative and that the few that were positive were very close to the detection level (1 mg/kg); 6.7 mg/kg at Krema III; 7.9 mg/kg at Krema I. The absence of any consequential readings at any of the tested locations as compared with the control sample reading 1050 mg/kg supports the evidence that these facilities were not execution gas chambers. The small quantities detected would indicate that at some point these buildings were deloused with Zyklon B -- as were all the buildings at all these facilities.” see Leuchter, Forensic Considerations of HCN, Cyano-compounds and Crematories
at http://ihr.org/books/leuchter/forensic.html


So in my reply I have provided to You and to all readers non only the exact words employed by Mr. Leuchter in the paragraph “Forensic Considerations of HCN, Cyano-compunds and crematories” (which contains the explication given by Leuchter for the presence of insignificants traces of HCN in samples taken in Krematorium I or in the others presumed homicidal gas chamber of Birkenau) but the link to go directly to exact page of the so called “First Leuchter Rapport” where this statement is present , so all that one must do is …click the link!. As for the number of page, the Leuchter Rapport have been printed and circulated in so much numerous versions that I have chosen this solution. But if You prefers, the statement is at pagg. 10-11 of the condensed version (which contains Leuchter’s full report but only a selected number of its attached appendices) published by Samisdat Publishers Ltd. : Fredrick A. Leuchter, An Engineering Report on the alleged Execution Gas Chambers at
Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, Poland, Samisdat Publishers Ltd., Toronto 1988, pp.34. Also a full version, which is long pp.196, with complete appendices have been published by Revisionist and Historical Video Tapes. Audio Tapes and Books. David Clark P.O. Box 726, Decatur, Alabama 35602, in 1988 with a foreword of Prof. Robert Faurisson, but I don’t have – One another version (with more appendices than the condensed version, but I don’t known if complete) was published in June 1989 by Focal Point Publications, London with a foreword of David Irving and one introduction of Prof. Robert Faurisson. The statement which I have quoted is at pag.15.


2)

You wrote:

(2) When I pointed out that it would be no surprise to find a higher concentration of cyanide in the delousing facilities than there would be in a homicidal gassing facility, since each disinfestation gassing took longer, you replied:
Quote:
Your hypothesis is unreliable for these simple reasons.

1. A higher concentration of HCN was employed in gassing operations to kill human beings, according to Pressac same.

2. The time of exposition.

3. The walls of the presumed homicidal gas chambers were exposed to a superior amount of HCN than delousing gas chamber due to lack of technical equipment to heat the room.

Your counterarguments show there are so many variables involved in producing the trace amounts of cyanide that the presence of bright blue, or moderately blue, or non-blue spots on the walls can tell us nothing about whether a room was used as a homicidal gas chamber. Whatever the claims may be as to the amount of Zyklon-B used in a typical homicidal gassing, or in a typical fumigation of a building, or for the delousing of clothes -- and these amounts do not appear to be settled -- they tell us nothing about the frequency of the gassings, which together with the strength of the gas, the exposure time, and the composition of the walls, all affect the problem. In short, the entire method you have employed cannot, and does not, establish whether or not a room was used for homicidal gassing.




Also here I must note that You have entirely omitted what I have wrote in my reply and to which, I see, You don’t have yet provided a precise answer but only very vague statements.
In reply to Your assertion that in disinfection gas chambers was employed a larger amount of Zyklon B than in homicidal gas chambers, and other wrong assumptions I have showed that:
1) According to Pressac same, in homicidal gas chamber was employed much more HCN than in delousing facilities; and according to Pressac these variables, not affected the question.
2) Due to lack of technical equipment to heat room and circulate HCN gas in homicidal gas chamber (the so called Degesch Kreislauf method apply in delousing chambers employing Zyklon B at Birkenau) the time of exposure of walls and superficies to HCN was minor in delousing gas chambers.
3) Due to cold present in the presumed homicidal gas chambers and for the same reasons descripted above, the Zyklon B have been subject to phenomenon of condensation and only a little, a very little amount, could be passed to gaseous state. Therefore, a large quantity of Zyklon B have been absorbed in walls and concrete superficies of homicidal gas chambers.
For all these reasons - and much others, which I can’t discuss here, as the lack of any and/or efficient ventilation system in homicidal gas chambers, as we seen in next posts concerning Pressac’s criminal traces - is without any chemical, scientific and technical reasonable explanation (and therefore historical) the presence of a major amount of cyanide in delousing chambers than in homicidal gas chambers, if not assuming that the Krematoria of Birkenau never have been employed as homicidal sites.

As for the frequency of the gassings, also here is possible prove some factual points.

For Pressac (cit. p. 183), in the Krematorium II alone could have been gassed some 400.000 human beings between 14th March 1943 and 27th November 1944. So considering (and according to witnesses) that in one single gassing, 2.000 people (i.e about 10 people for mq.!) were packed and killed for day and that crematoria ovens, for Auschwitz Museum researchers, cannot burn more than 1.440 bodies in a day (a number simply absurd, but that I don’t want discuss here) is easy to observe that at least 270 daily operations of gassings have been occurred. Pressac reduces the capacity of LK 1 at 1.000 people and reduces the capacity of ovens to approx. 1.000 daily cremations (on this point his confusion raises the apex: he vary the number of daily cremations from 288 to 1.500 in 5 different answers!), so the number of gassing operations is in reality 400. Assuming that not always the gas chamber was fully operational due the reduced size of transports, we can concludes with a certain degree of certitude that at least 425 daily gassings operations occurred in K II. According to Pressac (which relies on Hoess statement), some 5-7 kgs. of Zyklon B were employed for one single operation. Applying the lower number of 5 kg., we have a grand total of 2,125 t. of Zyklon B, also if Hoess states clearly that 7kg. were employed in great Krematoria (cfr. Nur.doc. NI-036) and this given a total 3t..

Also conceding that the delousing facility BW5a have been fully operational for mid 1942 to mid 1944 without pausing and assuming that, as Pressac seems say, at least 2 daily operations have been performed in this period, we have, a grand total of 1400 delousing operations i.e. approx. 3 1/4 times of the total gassing operations performed in K II homicidal gas chamber.

And here, I don’t want to care about differences between use of Zyklon B in disinfection gas chamber and homicidal gas chamber-

The maximum cyanide founded in the seven samples taken by Leuchter in LK1 of Krematorium II is: 0.00 mg/kg, i.e. ZERO. In other words, of this 2t. of Zyklon B we don’t have any chemical trace.
The cyanide founded in the comparison sample taken by Leuchter in delousing chamber BW5a is 1.050 mg/kg, i.e. 1.050 times more than the percentage founded in samples of KII.

I suggest that these dates deserves more attention and can’t dismiss without a more serious analysis.

3) You wrote:

(3) Furthermore, your argument is not helped by statements like this:
Quote:
During the fall, winter and spring months, this outside ventilation air would have been considerably cooler than 78 degrees F. In addition, as Pressac admits, the "gas chambers" had no internal heating devices to prevent condensation. The temperature of the walls, floors and ceilings for much of the year would have been well below 78 degrees F.


Assuming, without conceding, that your generalizations about the temperature are accurate, haven't you ever noticed that when a whole bunch of people are packed in a room, the temperature goes up?

Generalizations?
The temperature of Krakow region, as every polish member of this forum can confirms (also if he disagrees with my opinions), is very low for fall and winter months and surely considerably cooler than 26 ° Celsius in spring months. I remember that 4 years ago, when I was near Auschwitz/Oswiecim, at Makow Podhalanski (distant about 40 km. from Auschwitz) was snow: the calendar indicates the 10th April, the thermometer – 6° celsius.

Aware that when a whole bunch of people are packed in room, the temperature goes up?
Yes, I’m currently aware of this particular.
But this can explicate at best the vaporization of HCN. After 5 minutes, according to eyewitnesses the people was died, the mechanical ventilation starts (or the doors of the gas chambers were open to allow the entry of fresh air) and so the temperature in 1-2 minutes again go down. So Your objection is without factual, chemical, technical fundament. My objections are still there, intact.

4) You write:
Or this -- when I said:
Quote:
The Germans considered some prisoners valuable enough to enslave and put to work, while others were killed. The Germans simultaneously maintained both slave labor subcamps and murder facilities at KL Auschwitz. Were you unaware of that, and therefore surprised?

You replied:
Quote:
Yes I’m very surprised because Your opinion is contraddicted and dismissed by…Pressac.
Commenting the German plan for a new Haftlings-Lazarett u. quarant ane-Abt.(Prisoner hospital and quarantine section") for Birkenau “Mexico” section prepared in June 1943 by the WVHA agency in Berlin, he states “There is INCOMPATIBILITY in the creation of a health camp a few hundred yards from four Krematorien where, according to official history, people were exterminated on a large scale (...) It is obvious that KGL Birkenau cannot have had at one and the same time two opposing functions: health care and extermination. The plan for building a very large hospital section in BA III ["Mexico" section] thus shows that the Krematorien were built purely for incineration, without any homicidal gassings, because the SS wanted to "maintain" its concentration camp labor force” (Pressac p.512).

You are mistaken. The quote you have given is missing material portions which change the entire context. In your quote, Pressac is saying that "that the Krematorien were built purely for incineration, without any homicidal gassings, because the SS wanted to «maintain» its concentration camp labour force." In the actual passage, Pressac is giving a version of a revisionist argument, in order to counter it. Your use of the quote, without providing the missing context, is a gross misrepresentation.

Here is the full passage from Pressac (at p. 512) for our readers to compare and contrast with your version. I have italicized the portion you quoted, and put Pressac's real conclusion is bold italics:
Quote:
The drawing on Photo 20 is a real godsend for the revisionists. Concerning the initial arrangement for the third construction stage at Birkenau [KGL Bauabschnitt III], it formally states that this was to serve only as a mixed quarantine and hospital camp. There is INCOMPATIBILITY in the creation of a health camp a few hundred yards from four Krematorien where, according to official history, people were exterminated on a large scale. Drawing 2471 of a barracks for sick prisoners planned for BA.III [Photo 21] showing in detail the arrangement of the bunks, supports this demonstration. The two drawings date from June 1943, when the Bauleitung was completing the construction of the four new Krematorien, and it is obvious that KGL Birkenau cannot have had at one and the same time two opposing functions: health care and extermination. The plan for building a very large hospital section in BA.III thus shows that the Krematorien were built purely for incineration, without any homicidal gassings, because the SS wanted to «maintain» its concentration camp labour force.

This argument seems logical and is not easy to counter. The drawings exist, and what is more they come from the SS Economic Administration Head Office in Berlin, so it was no local humanitarian initiative.

One remark, however, and above all another Bauleitung drawing [Photo 22], contradict this plausible, but theoretical, reasoning. Life and death were such close neighbours in Birkenau that the only functioning hospital sector, B.IIf, was right next to Krematorien III and IV. The sick prisoners placed in the front row of this demential theatre knew that if there was a selection, or if they died, they would be reduced to ashes in these buildings.

It may appear paradoxical that prisoners should have received even a semblance of medical care just outside the Krematorien which had annihilated their relatives and could do the same to them at any moment, but this would be to disregard the capacity for «doublethink» [to use the term coined by George Orwell in «1984»] of the SS hierarchy, who blindly executed orders even when they were totally contradictory.



I don’t see none misrepresentation.
The explication given for this INCOMPATIBILITY (his capitals: here is Pressac who speak, not the revisionists) by Pressac is embarrassing: he say that we ought not to underestimate the capacity for “doublethink” (sic!) of the SS hierarchy, which blindly executed orders even when they were totally contradictory.

5)
You write:
Earlier in this thread, I pointed out that the walls of Krema I at Auschwitz had a blue coloring. Lucius Felix Silla disagreed with me and said:
Quote:
The walls of Krema I aren't blue. You have seen the Krematorium I in Oswiciem? I'm in Auschwitz in august of the past year and i can testify that don't exist any trace of blue clour in the walls. Everyone known this.


In other words, LFS is saying he knew better because he had been there. Most people would take his word for it, because after all, he was there. But when it comes to the testimony of witnesses who establish the existence of homicidal gas chambers at KL Auschwitz, there's a different standard -- a double standard.

Here's some testimony from folks who were in the concentration camp when it was operating, and were aware of the homicidal gas chambers. As LFS might say:
Quote:
Everyone known this.

These are the accounts of just a few of the people who knew better because they were at Auschwitz -- not just visiting a museum where the concentration camp used to be.


A long series of links to “confessions” and “witnesses” is presented by Mr. David Thompson.

I will recommend to read the link dedicated to Mr.Bendel and titled, because is particularly instructive: Problematic testimony of Dr. Bendel
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=42672
After a long discussion about the presumed incompetence of Mr. Carlo Mattogno [ David Thompson: “Mattagno's scholarship is very poor -- many of his footnotes do not support his claims at all, while other claims are referenced by footnotes to secondary sources and not to the original documents he describes.” Sergey Romanov : “There's no question about Mattogno's very poor scholarship, I found egregious errors in his other works.” (where, when? You can give examples? LFS)] is posted a long examination of Pressac of this eyewitness, which confirms the absolute lack of credibility of Bendel as testimony. We await their parry. An embarrassed silence follows.

This statement is like a confession: we don’t have documents, material proofs (here the topic is Pressac DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, or more simply the existence of one documentary proof of the existence of homicidal gas chambers isn’t true?) but we have confessions (as Hoss, which say absurd things and affirms facts untrue and impossible) and eyewitnesses, so….

And...no, I don’t want knew better because I have visited Auschwitz: but surely, I don’t go saying that the Krematorium I have blue walls as a proof of the existence of homicidal gas chambers, because this seems from a photography of poor quality.

Best Regards

LFS
Last edited by Lucius Felix Silla on 11 Jun 2004 12:29, edited 1 time in total.

simsalabim
Member
Posts: 227
Joined: 10 Jul 2003 10:50
Location: Netherlands

auschwitz trial

Post by simsalabim » 11 Jun 2004 12:25

For those interested, the german Fritz Bauer Institute, together with the Digitale Bibliothek, have released their long awaited DVD on the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial:

http://www.digitale-bibliothek.de/scrip ... and101.htm

The DVD is based on the 430 hour audio tape that was used to record the trial proceedings. An excellent introduction by Werner Renz to the trial is given here, though it's in german:

http://www.fritz-bauer-institut.de/text ... 3_renz.htm

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1984
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Post by Sergey Romanov » 11 Jun 2004 14:14

Lucius Felix Silla wrote:Dear Mr. Sergey Romanov,

I have behind my eyes this article. I read...but i don't see.
Visit an ophthalmologist, then.

You can say more clearly what photo i must see as a "proof" of the existence of these like-chimneys on the roof of the LK1, KII?
P. 80, 81.
And this - highly speculative and conjectural (the words most used were "can" could" "probably") - essay would be a proof of the existence of gas chambers?
It's not a speculative essay, and judging by your words about the "proof of the existence of gas chambers", you know nothing about historical methodology.

User avatar
Lucius Felix Silla
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: 01 Aug 2003 17:46
Location: North Italy

Post by Lucius Felix Silla » 12 Jun 2004 10:48

Dear Mr. Sergey Romanov,

So, at pp.80-81 i have the photographic proof of the existence of these like-chimneys conducts to introduce Zyklon-B?

For those who don't have yet read the essay published in "Holocaust and Genocide Studies" Vol. 18, No. 1, Spring 2004 by Daniel Keren, Jamie McCarthy and Harry W. Mazal entitled "The Ruins of the Gas Chambers: A Forensic Investigation of Crematoriums at Auschwitz I and Auschwitz-Birkenau", pp. 68-103, a preliminary explication seems necessary (i'm sorry, i can't post these two pages for copyright law).


Pag. 80

Above: Fig.3. Photograph by team under SS- Unterscharführer Dietrich Kamann during construction of Crematorium II. Is the famous photo so-called "of Train" (APMO neg. nr. 20995/494). The date is not known, but is plausible that has been taken in january 1943. Pressac dates Feb. 9-11, 1943. See Pressac p. 340
On this same thread the photo have been posted at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 59&start=0
See Mr. David Thompson Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2004 6:13 am Pressac p.340b

Below: Fig.4. Detail of Fig.3. According to authors, who says that three chimneys are visible, another Zyklon B chimney is occluded by locomotive’s smokestack. So all four chimneys are, in reality, presents.

Pag. 81

Above: Fig.5. Computer rendering of Crematorium II, from point of view of Train photograph.

Below. Fig. 6. Overlay of Train photograph. A computer rendering was post below the photo and shown the chamber’s inside, concrete support pillars and Zyklon introduction shafts.

These photos and the computer rendering, is discussed by authors at pp. 70-71.

Whereas Pressac (cfr. supra) see three chimneys (see the three arrows with comment “3 ouvertures de versement du Zyclon-B") in the middle and right of the roof, Keren and co., believe that the object visible below the window nr. 7 (Pressac) isn’t a chimney. The third chimney (fourth in their numeration) is in reality situated immediately near the locomotive’s smockestack, - little visible in Pressac photo, but more clear in Fig. 4 - in opinion authors.

Why this photo, from long time well known, is now the proof of the existence of chimneys to introduce Zyklon-B?
Two reasons are provided by the fantastic three. One is clearly stressed, the other is suggested through a clever assembly and presentation of the various drawings (Fig. 2a and Fig.2b, p.79: we see later) and, computer renderings
1) According to calculations of Keren and &, the three chimneys have the same dimensions, geometric figure and height so the three objects have the same functions.
2) The three chimneys have correspondence with the location of the four holes/columns of the two drawings posted at p.79.
Above: Scheme of Crematorium II gas chamber from above, from authors. The four holes: H1-H4.
Below: Schematic drawing of entire crematorium. Also here the four columns are showed. This drawing appeared earlier in R.J. van Pelt, The Case for Auschwitz, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2002, p.190.

All is show, packed and sold with the greatest elegance and, of course, a good dose of technology.

But…wait a moment.
Is all true?
Unfortunately much questions and objections to conclusions of our formidable trio can be raised, questions and objections entirely sufficient to dismiss this new effort as one déjà vu, futile attempt.

1) They assumes, as seen above, that the fourth chimney is in reality posted immediately near the locomotive’s smokestack. None convincing explication is provided for the presence of the object of the roof indicated by Pressac as chimney for Zyklon-B in the middle between two others objects (central arrow). They dismiss all with a vague statement “a lighter shadow (…) this does not correspond to an introduction port either. It may be an object on or near the roof of the gas chamber. It is lower and narrower (…)” (pp.70-71). So one can reasonably think that where the objects corresponds with apodittical conclusions of the authors, then the object is a criminal instrument, whereas if one another object doesn’t, then is without importance.

2) This fourth chimney is really on the roof or is simple an optical illusion? On this, the authors don’t provided image from above of this photo because, I suspect, the real distances and proportions of the objects don’t correspond to author’s thesis. None data about height, area, distance between the various objects is given. So this presumed fourth chimney, cannot be identical to the object posted under window nr.5 and dismissed as “a portal, discoloration, or another shape”? Or this object cannot be, more reasonably, attached to wall of krema or to embanked earth visible on left of the photo? Precisely because the object is partially obscured by smokestack is in reality impossible to determine the exact dimensions. And the position on the roof seems much more posted immediately near of the wall, not in the middle as suggested by our wizards.
All is conjectural at best.

3) The two drawings of pag.79 aren’t identical. The dispositions of the presumed columns is manifestly different. This because, in reality we don’t have one single german blueprint of the LK1 were these presumed columns and holes to introduce the Zyklon B were shown or drawn. This macroscopic difference between the authors and van Pelt say much of the “progress” of antirevisionistic research: and what is more amazing is that the work of Keren and co. was already attached (but curiously not show in http://www.holocaust-history.org/irving-david/vanpelt/) to van Pelt report submitted in the Irving’s appeal.

4) In reality, the fantastic three have chosen the perspective more suitable for his conclusions (exactly as their - curious ? - choice of only one of allied aerial photos of Birkenau 1944).
When one change also slightly the perspective, exactly as in one of Escher’s litographs, all conclusions are drastically different.
See for example for an entirely different explication http://www.codoh.com/found/fndgcger.html#ftn62 illustration nr.9,10,11 and relative comment.
Where is show how, in reality, these objects are different in height, proportions and not equidistant.

In conclusion, the explication for the presence of these objects on the roof is very simple and don’t have nothing of criminal.

Best Regards

LFS

P.S. I’m still waiting for a precise reply to my question about this statement given by you:There's no question about Mattogno's very poor scholarship, I found egregious errors in his other works.

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1984
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Post by Sergey Romanov » 12 Jun 2004 16:11

> None convincing explication is provided for the presence of the object of the roof indicated by Pressac as chimney for Zyklon-B in the middle between two others objects

Their aim was to establish the existence of holes, not to explain obscure this-or-that on the roof. They brilliantly accomplished their task. One object is without importance. It's the amazing convergence of two lines of evidence - the model constructed on the basis of the physical findings, and and the German photo - that counts, your mumblings notwithstanding.

> This because, in reality we don?t have one single german blueprint of the LK1 were these presumed columns and holes to introduce the Zyklon B were shown or drawn.

So what? We have enough evidence to establish their existence without any German blueprints.

> In conclusion, the explication for the presence of these objects on the roof is very simple

Indeed, Zyklon-B introduction chimneys.

> and don?t have nothing of criminal

By themselves - no. In context of other evidence they can be explained only in gas chambers framework.

> There's no question about Mattogno's very poor scholarship, I found egregious errors in his other works.

> I?m still waiting for a precise reply to my question about this statement given by you

Well, you did not ask ME. The message was to David. If you think that I read all your mumblings, you are too pretentious.

One example will suffice. In his "Supplementary Response" to Zimmerman Mattogno writes:

http://www.russgranata.com/Risposta-new-eng.html
Zimmerman writes on p.19 of Body Disposal:

«Kurt Prufer, builder of the ovens, was asked why the brick linings of the ovens were damaged so quickly. He replied that the damage resulting after six months was "because the strain on the furnaces was enormous." He recounted how he had told Topf's chief engineer in charge of crematoria, Fritz Sanders, about the strain on the furnaces of so many corpses waiting to be incinerated as a result of the gassing. Sanders stated that he had been told by Prufer and another Topf engineer that the "capacity of the furnaces was so great because three [gassed] corpses were incinerated [in one oven] simultaneously.»

He adds:

"Prufer said that two bodies were simultaneously incinerated in his presence" (note 122).

The reference is to the interrogations of the Topf engineers on the part of a Soviet inquiry of SMERSH between 1946 and 1948. The records were published by Gerald Fleming,7 from which Zimmerman takes his citations (notes 121 and 122).

In reality Kurt Prufer stated the very opposite of what Zimmerman attributed to him by means of a despicable manipulation.

On page 200 of the cited work, this is how Fleming summarizes part of the interrogation which K.Prufer underwent on 5 March 1946:

"Normal crematoria 8 work with prewarmed air 9 so that the corpse burns quickly and without smoke. As the crematoria in the concentration camps were constructed differently, this procedure could not be used.10 The corpses burned more slowly and created more smoke, necessitating ventilation.
Question: How many corpses were incinerated in Auschwitz per hour?
Answer: In a crematorium with five furnaces and fifteen muffles, fifteen corpses were burned." [my emphasis]

During the interrogation of 19 March, K.Prufer declared:

"I spoke about the enormous strain on the overused furnaces. I told Chief Engineer Sander: I am worried whether the furnaces can stand the excessive usage. In my presence two cadavers were pushed into one muffle instead of one cadaver. The furnaces could not stand the strain." 11 [my italics]

Recapitulating, Kurt Prufer stated that:

1. The cremations in the concentration camp ovens took place "more slowly" than in civilian ovens.

2. In Krema II and Krema III of Birkenau (5 three-muffle ovens) it was possible to cremate 15 cadavers in one hour, that is, the duration of a single cremation was one hour.

3. The attempt to simultaneously cremate two cadavers failed because "the furnaces could not stand the strain."

These three statements alone constitute a radical refutation of Zimmerman's thermotechnical fantasies.

I summarize and conclude that:

a. in order to prove the thesis of "multiple" cremations, Zimmerman quotes a second-hand declaration of Prufer and omits the primary declaration of Prufer himself;

b. for the same motive, Zimmerman quotes Prufer's statement in which he "said that two bodies were simultaneously incinerated in his presence," but omits the statement which follows: "The furnaces could not stand the strain."

These surgical omissions are unequivocal proof of Zimmerman's complete and deliberate deceptiveness.
Here's my translation of the excerpts sent to me by Mattogno:

http://pub86.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm ... =177.topic
I was telling Sander that I attended testing of ovens in crematorium in concentration camp Auschwitz, that I came to conclusion that crematoriums could not cope with such a number of corpses, which were there to be burned, because the ovens of the crematoriums are of low capacity. At that, <I> gave an example to Sander, that when I were in Auschwitz, in my presence two-three corpses were being pushed into crematoria muffles instead of one, and even then crematorium's ovens did not cope with that load, because there were too many corpses to burn. At the same time I said to Sander that the corpses seen by me were killed in gas chambers earlier.
Ans some comments:
There are certain subtle nuances in Russian interrogation protocol, that might or might not have existed in Pruefer's original statements, so we must be cautious about them. These nuances, however, do not support "revisionist" interpretation of the document.

1) "...two-three corpses were being pushed into crematoria muffles instead of one..."

It is not clear from this phrase whether Pruefer is talking about continuous shoving of the corpses into muffles, or about the multiple instances of such at one time (2-3 corpses in the first muffle, 2-3 corpses in the second muffle, etc.).

2) "...and even then..." [Russian "i to"]

I'd say that it implies that Pruefer thought of multiple cremations as more efficient than single cremations.

"- And "even then", even when 2-3 corpses were pushed into one muffle, ovens couldn't cope with the load. So if they would push just one corpse into one muffle, they would certainly get nowhere".

3) "...ovens did not cope with that load..."

Sometimes wrongly translated as "ovens couldn't stand the strain", which might even imply physical damage. It's clear from the text that Pruefer talks about the difficulty of burning the overall number of corpses, not about the supposed damage done to the ovens by 2-3 corpses in an oven. This intepretation is supported by the following two phrases:

a) "...I came to conclusion that crematoriums could not cope with such a number of corpses, which were there to be burned, because the ovens of the crematoriums are of low capacity..."

Here Pruefer explains what is that "load" the ovens could not cope with, and why.

b) "...and even then crematorium's ovens did not cope with that load, because there were too many corpses to burn..."

Here Pruefer explains again why ovens did not cope with the load.

Thus, Pruefer did not say that multiple cremations failed.
The finishing touch is the letter to me from Mattogno, in which he said:
As far as I knew the Russian language, I understand that the passage you point out is ambiguous. However it is important to consider that both Pr?fer and Sander stated that the crematory ovens in Birkenau could incinerate one corpse per muffle per hour. (emphasis mine)

User avatar
Lucius Felix Silla
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: 01 Aug 2003 17:46
Location: North Italy

Post by Lucius Felix Silla » 14 Jun 2004 09:57

Dear Mr. Sergey Romanov,


1)
You write

"Their aim was to establish the existence of holes, not to explain obscure this-or-that on the roof. They brilliantly accomplished their task. One object is without importance. It's the amazing convergence of two lines of evidence - the model constructed on the basis of the physical findings, and and the German photo - that counts, your mumblings notwithstanding."

But if, as You states, this-or-that on the roof is obscure, how can the authors qualifies that these object are the famous like-chimneys to introduce the Zyklon-B on the underground room LK1, that is the gas chamber of Krema II?

Isn't more honestly to concede, as antirevisionist Charles D. Provan states clearly commenting this photo, that "It is our conclusion therefore, that whatever they are [these objects, LFS], they are not the Zyklon B insertion Chimneys spoken of by the eyewitnesses"? (see, No Holes? No Holocaust? A Study of the Holes in the Roof of Leichenkeller 1 of Krematorium 2 at Birkenau, published by Zimmer Printing, 410 West Main Street, Monongahela, PA 15063, 2000, p.18).

As for the amazing convergence between the model constructed (i.e. the computer rendering) and the physical evidence, in reality Keren and.co.
before have tried to individuate (but on wrong basis as we see below) the various locations of these chimneys on the roof and after have constructed the computer rendering of this hypothesis.

But the attempt is based on wrong point of start.
To sum up the conclusions of the authors, there three chimneys (C) visibles and a fourth is obscured/occluded by locomotive’s smokestack :

C1: The first chimney corresponds to the right arrow in Pressac photo and comment (under window nr.6). see for Pressac ttp://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=42759&start=0
C2: The second chimney correspond to the central arrow in Pressac photo and comment (under window nr.6, more in the middle of the roof)
C3: The third chimney is obscured/occluded by locomotive’s smokestack.
C4: The fourth chimney is immediately near (on the left) to the locomotive’s smokestack, partially obscured/occluded by locomotive’s smokestack.
According to the authors all three objects have same height.

In reality:
C1: Is height 70 cm. and don't have the same area and dimensions of C2 see http://www.vho.org/VffG/1999/1/RudDas1.html
C2: is height 85 cm. and therefore don't have same area and dimensions of C1.
C3: Is only imaginary (x-ray powers?) and his hypotethical position is based on the wrong idea that C4 was situated is immediately near (on the left) to the locomotive’s smokestack, partially obscured/occluded by locomotive’s smokestack.
C4: Here the authors are mistaken. The object visible wasn't the fourth chimney, but as show by another photography of January 1943 (see D. Czech, Auschwitz Chronicle 1939-1945, New York 1990, p. 318. Or see http://www.vho.org/VffG/1999/1/RudDas1.html, Abbildung - Illustration nr.8. I suppose that the photo was classified by APMO under nr. 20995/460.) is an object posted on the wall of Krematorium II and not on the roof. They have confused one innocent object with the presumed chimney to introduce the Zyklon B.

The attempt of Keren & co. - at least for what concerning this single photo - is entirely a failure.

2)
Really, i don't understand Your reply about Mattogno's, in Your opinion not in Mr. David Thompson opinion, "poor scholarship" and "egregious errors [committed by Mattogno and allegedly found by You, LFS]" (note the plural).
I ask for one example of these Mattogno errors...and You reply with an example of error committed by GERALD FLEMING!
The bad translation from russian is not by Mattogno himself, but obviously by Fleming.
And as for the substance of the matter, i.e. the evenience of multiple cremations in one oven, i don't see none errors committed by Mattogno.

Now, i believe that everyone is absolutely free (obviously!) to think what he want about the conclusions provided by Carlo Mattogno, but is beyond any doubt that the italian researcher cannot be accused of lightly or incompetence on the matter of knowledge of sources and documents - as explictly stated by german historian Ernst Nolte - pertinents to Auschwitz.

Mumble, mumble...

LFS

Best Regards

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23684
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 15 Jun 2004 00:38

Well, here's how I see the Auschwitz homicidal gas chambers debate so far:

The issue

LFS asked for documentary evidence of the use of homicidal gas chambers at KL Auschwitz. He apparently is of the view that there weren't any homicidal gas chambers at KL Auschwitz. He has the same view of homicidal gas chambers at KL Majdanek -- there weren't any there, either.

LFS never really gave a satisfactory explanation of why he wanted only documentary evidence to prove this point. Documentary evidence is one type of proof, but hardly the only type, which can be used to establish historical facts. In the case of homicidal gas chambers, there are documents relating to the construction and repair of the gas chambers, there are eyewitness accounts of their use given by perpetrators and prisoners, there are contemporaneous and subsequent photographs of the buildings, and there are the standing and ruined structures which remain. Although all this was pointed out, LFS wanted only documentary proof.

When referred to the work of Jean-Claude Pressac on the subject, LFS asked that I copy and post Pressac's work here for the assistance of the readers. Pressac's chapter on the subject listed 39 criminal traces in contemporaneous documents relating to homicidal gassing at KL Auschwitz in Kremas II-V. I scanned, proofed and posted the text of the entire chapter earlier in this thread.

LFS's argument

By way of reply, LFS argued against nine of Pressac's traces (Nos. 1-3, 6-7, 11, and 13-15). These traces, and therefore LFS's arguments, apply only to the gas chambers of Kremas II and III, not to the gas chambers of Kremas IV and V. LFS didn't address himself to the remaining 30 of Pressac's 39 criminal traces backed by period documents.

The gist of LFS's main argument was that there were gas chambers in Kremas II and III, but they were not used for homicidal gassing. Instead, LFS states, these Krema II and III gas chambers were planned and used as disinfestation facilities to combat the more or less continuous problem of typhus at the camp.

The problems with LFS's argument

Unfortunately, there is no evidence to take this reasoning beyond the daydream stage. There is no documentary evidence which establishes that those gas chambers were ever used as disinfestation facilities, nor has LFS referred the reader to any witness testimony in support of his claim for delousing chambers in Kremas II and III.

Furthermore, if Fred Leuchter's crackpot "blue stain" theory is correct, there could not have been either a homicidal or disinfestation gassing facility in Kremas II and III, so why would the Germans be ordering gastight doors with special handles and gas detectors for those places?

Finally, LFS has no explanation for the testimony, between 1945 and 1965, of large number of witnesses who saw operating homicidal gas chambers at KL Auschwitz. The testimony was given by different persons, possessed of different experiences and motives, of different nationalities, at different times, in different court proceedings held in different countries.

LFS's failure to account for the great mass of physical, documentary and testimonial evidence demonstrating the existence of homicidal gas chambers is perhaps the most telling aspect of this whole argument, and no doubt explains the extraordinary narrowness of his approach to the question.

Summary

Score so far: Pressac 39, LFS 0.

User avatar
Lucius Felix Silla
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: 01 Aug 2003 17:46
Location: North Italy

Post by Lucius Felix Silla » 15 Jun 2004 12:17

4) 1 gasdichte Tür and 14 Brausen.

As [i]“fundamental proof"[/i] (emphasis in original, see Pressac p.429), "absolute and irrefutable proof", (Pressac, ibidem), "DEFINITIVE PROOF" (capitals in original, see Pressac p.430) of the presence of a homicidal gas chamber in LK1 of Krematorium III of Birkenau, Pressac presents and comments (see Pressac pp.429-30 and 439) under nr. 16 an inventory annexed to the handover document for Krematorium III dated 24th June 1943, signed by the head the Bauleitung, Bischoff, and one of his officers, Kirschneck.

With this premise, one is induced to believe that, yes, finally - after have flooded the reader for 10 pages of innocuous terms (as already seen) and technical details about simple underground mortuaries (adapted to temporarily disinfestation facilities), gas detectors for ovens, objects without any precise criminal significance, erroneous translations from german, illogical interpretations to absurdity (see my next post dedicated to the last of criminal traces for KII-KIII, i.e. Auskleidekeller-Auskleideraum) - will be satisfied with a shocking revelation.

No, nothing of all this.

This irrefutable documentary proof is a typed form, probably mimeographed in numerous copies. Headings down the side of the page listed various parts of a building (rooms, elevator cage, toilet et cetera).
Across the top were headings for different fittings (lamps, chandeliers, lanterns et cetera). With any probability this document is a general form employed for all buildings in Birkenau.
The form in question pertains to various rooms of Krematorium III (as proved by the handwritten in ink: Krematorium III at top left). The various rooms of the Krematorium are specified: Leichenkeller 1, Leichenkeller 2, Büro (LK3) et cetera.
Regarding LK1, the presumed gas chamber, the following have been entered: 12 Kugel-Lampen (12 lamps type Kugel), 2 water taps, 14 Brausen (14 shower heads) and handwritten in ink, in left blank space for additional heading, 1 gasdichte Tür.
Regarding LK2, the presumed undressing room, one reads 22 lamps and 5 faucets. (see for the reproduction of the document http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... inventory/. Classified APMO BW 30/43, p. 24)

From the juxtaposition of 14 shower heads and a gas-tight door in the same door, Pressac concludes that he is confronted with a homicidal gas chamber outfitted with fakes dummy shower heads

He obverves (Pressac p.430):

Two items [the gas-tight door and 14 shower heads, LFS] that are strictly INCOMPATIBLE with one another. This incompatibility constitutes the fundamental proof [of the existence of homicidal gas chamber in Birkenau, LFS], for it is clear that:
Proposition A: A gas-tight door can be intended only for a gas chamber.
Question A: Why does a gas chamber have showers in it?
Reply A: Incomprehensible. Proposition A must be formulated differently for a logical reply.
Proposition B: A room fitted with showers is a place where people wash themselves.
Question B: Why does the only entrance to the shower room have a gas- tight door?
Reply B: Incomprehensible. Proposition B must be formulated differently for a logical reply.”


Both the propositions can be dismissed.
As shown elsewhere, the proposition A is untrue: a gas-tight door can be placed also in rooms not designed for use as gas chamber but is a normal practice in wartime to provide certain buildings with gas-tight doors. So the successive Question A is based on a illogical assumption.
The Proposition B could be also true and Question B could be also logical, but the Reply B is a conclusion absolutely unfounded.

If the presence of one gas tight door in a local provided by showers is really an absurdity that can only explicate through a criminal conclusion, then why did Auschwitz Zentralbauleitung on 13 November 1942 order "Herstellung von 2 Stck. [i.e. Stück, LFS] Gasdichte Türen 100/200 für die Sauna"(i.e. "2 100/200 gas-tight doors for the sauna") of the disinfestation installation BW 5a in Birkenau? (cfr. TCIDK, 502-1-328, p. 70)? And isn’t the only example.
Also Pressac cannot explicate why on the inventory of LK 1 of Krematorium II dated 31 March 1943, which is supposed to be built and later transformed in a gas chamber in the same way of his twin Krematorium III, the column Brausen don’t have any entry!
(see for this document http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... inventory/. Classified APMO BW 30/43, p. 12).
These facts alone dismiss Pressacian’ absurdities.

But there’s more.

Also, Pressac’s state that: “Which sends us back to proposition A, question A, reply A, proposition B, etc. The reasoning is in a vicious circle which cannot be broken. The only way to escape the illogicality is to bring complementary proof demonstrating that one of the propositions IS INCORRECT. This can be done by means of the following arguments: The average area covered by a shower head, calculated on the basis of the drawings for the two shower installations at the Stammlager, the reception building (BW 160) and Block 26, and for those at Birkenau, BW 5a, 5b, and the Zentral Sauna (BW 32), works out at 1.83m2.
On this basis, Leichenkeller 1 of Krematorium III, with a floor area of 210m2, should have 115 shower heads.”

These abstract calculations says much of the confusion of Pressac. Evidently, because the scope of LK1 is to receive the bodies of inmates died for natural causes, only a portion of the LK1, a small section, was intended as a shower facility. Every crematorium has a room for washing corpses.

But the apex is raised when he suggests that these shower heads were “DUMMY SHOWERS [his capitals, LFS] made of wood or other materials and painted” (sic!), because – he assures – “seven wooden bases to which similar shower heads were fitted are still visible in the ruins of the ceiling of L-Keller 1 of Krema II “ and the plan of the Krematorium II nr. 2197 dated 19 March 1943 (sic!) shows no connection with the showers.

Obvious, simply because showers did not exist in Leichenkeller 1 of Crematorium II (as above see) and these wooden bases serve as support for the lamps which illuminate the premises!

He not alone. Also Keren and co. in the essay published in "Holocaust and Genocide Studies" Vol. 18, No. 1, Spring 2004 by Daniel Keren, Jamie McCarthy and Harry W. Mazal entitled "The Ruins of the Gas Chambers: A Forensic Investigation of Crematoriums at Auschwitz I and Auschwitz-Birkenau", pp. 68-103, claim this absurdity. At p. 87 two photos shown front and rear of these “probable [sic!] false showerhead found besides ruins of gas chamber of Crematorium II”!

And these are the “fundamental proof" "absolute and irrefutable proof"”DEFINITIVE PROOF" of the presence of a homicidal gas chamber in Birkenau?

Best regards

LFS

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23684
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 15 Jun 2004 16:51

Lucius Felix Silla --

(1)
a gas-tight door can be placed also in rooms not designed for use as gas chamber but is a normal practice in wartime to provide certain buildings with gas-tight doors.
How do you know that it's "a normal practice in wartime to provide certain buildings with gas-tight doors?"

Why would anyone want a gas-tight door in a working morgue?

(2) You said:
Evidently, because the scope of LK1 is to receive the bodies of inmates died for natural causes, only a portion of the LK1, a small section, was intended as a shower facility. Every crematorium has a room for washing corpses.
The attendants took the corpses into the shower to wash them?

One morgue has 14 shower-heads to wash corpses?

(3)
these wooden bases serve as support for the lamps which illuminate the premises!
How do you know?

tigersqn
Member
Posts: 175
Joined: 03 Jun 2004 02:14
Location: Canada

Post by tigersqn » 15 Jun 2004 19:49

Why would they call it a "gas-tight door" and not an "air-tight door"?

xcalibur
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 20 Apr 2003 15:12
Location: Pennsylvania

Post by xcalibur » 16 Jun 2004 04:24

"Every crematorium has a facility for washing corpses...."

Crapola. I'll show you 20 on the East Coast of the US tomororrow that don't.

And please explain why they would.

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1984
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Post by Sergey Romanov » 16 Jun 2004 17:34

1)
> You write

>>"Their aim was to establish the existence of holes, not to explain obscure this-or-that on the roof. They brilliantly accomplished their task. One object is without importance. It's the amazing convergence of two lines of evidence - the model constructed on the basis of the physical findings, and and the German photo - that counts, your mumblings notwithstanding."

> But if, as You states, this-or-that on the roof is obscure, how can the authors qualifies that these object are the famous like-chimneys to introduce the Zyklon-B on the underground room LK1, that is the gas chamber of Krema II?

On the basis of evidence.

> Isn't more honestly to concede, as antirevisionist Charles D. Provan states clearly commenting this photo, that "It is our conclusion therefore, that whatever they are [these objects, LFS], they are not the Zyklon B insertion Chimneys spoken of by the eyewitnesses"? (see, No Holes? No Holocaust? A Study of the Holes in the Roof of Leichenkeller 1 of Krematorium 2 at Birkenau, published by Zimmer Printing, 410 West Main Street, Monongahela, PA 15063, 2000, p.18).

No, it isn't, since evidence shows otherwise. BTW, I admire Chuck Provan, but his Holes article is full of holes. And Provan is not an anti-"revisionist". He defines himself as a Revisionist who accepts gas chambers.

> As for the amazing convergence between the model constructed (i.e. the computer rendering) and the physical evidence, in reality Keren and.co.
> before have tried to individuate (but on wrong basis as we see below) the various locations of these chimneys on the roof and after have constructed the computer rendering of this hypothesis.

They constructed their model on the basis of their physical findings. What is supposed to be wrong with _that_?

> C1: Is height 70 cm. and don't have the same area and dimensions of C2 see http://www.vho.org/VffG/1999/1/RudDas1.html

Haha! Rudolf couldn't even use a good copy of the photo. His is all dotted.

According to your own source it's not _height_, but _width_!

> C2: is height 85 cm. and therefore don't have same area and dimensions of C1.

Same here. Besides, since the objects are not clearly delineated, one wonders how Rudolf managed to measure their widths!

> C4: Here the authors are mistaken. The object visible wasn't the fourth chimney, but as show by another photography of January 1943 (see D. Czech, Auschwitz Chronicle 1939-

What is this object and how you can prove that it is exactly this object?

> The attempt of Keren & co. - at least for what concerning this single photo - is entirely a failure.

On the contrary! It is your "criticism", based on faulty "measurements" of poor quality photos is a failure.

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1984
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Post by Sergey Romanov » 16 Jun 2004 17:59

2)

> Really, i don't understand Your reply about Mattogno's,

Why I am not surprised?

> in Your opinion not in Mr. David Thompson opinion, "poor scholarship" and "egregious errors [committed by Mattogno and allegedly found by You, LFS]" (note the plural).

Well, what are you getting at? I can post other errors (in logic, reasoning and facts), if you wish. Some I've found by myself (they're quite obvious, BTW), others were pointed out to me by others. But what would you get from this excersie?

> I ask for one example of these Mattogno errors...and You reply with an example of error committed by GERALD FLEMING!

BS. It's Mattogno's "error". And it's not just an egregious mistake, it's pure dishonesty. Fleming is irrelevant, since Mattogno had Russian text (I received it from him!), and indicated in a letter to me that he knew that the passage was ambiguous (in his opinion, that is).

> The bad translation from russian is not by Mattogno himself, but obviously by Fleming.

Ha ha!

> i don't see none errors committed by Mattogno.

None so blind as those who will not see.

> the italian researcher cannot be accused of lightly or incompetence on the matter of knowledge of sources and documents - as explictly stated by german historian Ernst Nolte - pertinents to Auschwitz.

Well, I concede that M is an expert on the Auschwitz documentation. Which doesn't make him less prone to error (or dishonesty).

> Mumble, mumble...

That's right.

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1984
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Post by Sergey Romanov » 16 Jun 2004 18:53

If the presence of one gas tight door in a local provided by showers is really an absurdity that can only explicate through a criminal conclusion, then why did Auschwitz Zentralbauleitung on 13 November 1942 order "Herstellung von 2 Stck. [i.e. Stück, LFS] Gasdichte Türen 100/200 für die Sauna"(i.e. "2 100/200 gas-tight doors for the sauna") of the disinfestation installation BW 5a in Birkenau? (cfr. TCIDK, 502-1-328, p. 70)? And isn?t the only example.
Aha, here's another of Mattogno's errors.

This nonsense has been debunked long ago. I'm not sure why you should be taken seriously after repeating it.

Zimmerman, "Holocaust denial":
The document he cited is a work order in AA File 502-1-328. It states: "For: Delousing Barrack. The following work is to be done: The creation of two steel gas proof doors for the sauna." In other words, if we are to believe Mattogno's explanation of this document, gas tight doors were being used in the shower facilities of the sauna. Why would gas tight doors be needed in a shower facility unless prisoners were being gassed?
The sauna is a reference to delousing barracks BW 5a which contained legitimate prisoner shower facilities and rooms where clothing was deloused with Zyklon B. Any logical person reading this document would realize that the gas tight doors were for that portion of the sauna used to disinfest clothing, not for the shower facilities. If Mattogno's explanation of this document is to be believed, then he has demonstrated that prisoners were gassed in the shower facilities of the sauna because the work order specifically refers to the type of gas tight doors which were used in the clothing disinfestation facility!
Mattogno may have believed that because the word sauna was used the argument could be made that it referred to the shower portion. But in fact the building known as the Central Sauna - which began operation in December 1943 - had legitimate shower facilities and places where clothing was disinfested. Not even Mattogno has claimed that the prisoner shower facilities of the Central Sauna had gas tight doors.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”