Gas Chambers at Bunker 1, KL Auschwitz

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
Lucius Felix Silla
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: 01 Aug 2003 17:46
Location: North Italy

Post by Lucius Felix Silla » 14 Jul 2004 23:09

Sergey Romanov wrote:
So the poison symptoms is HEALTHY PINK TO RED SKIN COLOR. Only in specifics eveniences the skin color MAY BE bluish.
... these specific "eveniences" being ... physical injury or lack of oxygen! Exactly what we would expect in a gas chamber. You just can't admit being wrong, do you?
You confuses two differents medical/chemical questions.

One thing is to die by HCN poisoning: in this occurence the red coloration of the blood and bruised spots (and for consequence of the skin), is caused by over-saturation of the blood with oxygen, since the blood can no longer give off its oxygen to the cells.
On the other hand, there the death due by lack of oxygen, which can produces bluish coloration of skin. Incidentally You seems confirms one theory advanced by Rudolf, who have presumed that in gas chambers hermetically sealed, people would die simply for suffocation due by lack of oxygen.

Your thesis is unfounded: You read too much Provan essays....

Best Regards

LFS

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1987
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Post by Sergey Romanov » 14 Jul 2004 23:19

> You confuses two differents medical/chemical questions.

I confused nothing. I never mentioned death by asphyxiation. You erected a straw-man in desperation. As is indicated by the sources I cited, cyanosis (look it up) tends to be associated with severe cyanide poisonings, especially when the poisoning is coupled with the lack of oxygen and physical injuries (exactly what we would expect in a crowded gas chamber). Case closed.

Your behavior here confirms another thesis: you don't like to admit being wrong, so you will conjure all kinds of excuses to save your Faith.

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

Post by xcalibur » 14 Jul 2004 23:21

LFS said:
i think to have post some serious academical sources
Yes, from the titles it would seem that you did. Those sources are German, and many of our readers don't have access to German texts, or, for that matter, are not able to read them.

The website that I previously posted was that of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry which is a subsidiary agency of the Center for Disease Control of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. It's known to have a few academicals on its payroll.

Konrad
Member
Posts: 47
Joined: 25 Jun 2004 00:41
Location: USA

Post by Konrad » 15 Jul 2004 02:42

Milton Buki (Majlech Michal), from Pressac p. 163:
Declaration made before a notary on 15th December 1980 in Jerusalem under reference No. 623/80. Extracts concerning Bunker 1:
How reliable is the testimony of a witness which he made almost 40 years after the event? His memory may have been influenced simply by the passing of the time, by watching TV and cinema movies and by reading books about the event.
I would have to at least raise a warning flag about the truthfulness of this testimony.

Konrad

Konrad
Member
Posts: 47
Joined: 25 Jun 2004 00:41
Location: USA

Post by Konrad » 15 Jul 2004 03:32

Szlama Dragon, from Pressac, pp. 161.
Deposition recorded on 10th May 1945 by Judge Jan Sehn, concerning Bunker 1:
«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.»
I don't possess a copy of Pressac's book Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers. From another source I learn, that according to Pressac Dragon mistook frequently crematorium 1 and Bunker 2 when he appeared as a witness for the prosecution during the trial against Dejaco and Ertl in Vienna in 1972.
Pressac further criticized that Dragon stated the number of victims in Auschwitz as four million (»I don't believe that this witness lied deliberately, however he followed the general tendency to exaggerate…«), and he thinks that the number stated by Dragon of 2,500 to 2,550 to be forced simultaneously into Bunker 1 is impossible, which would amount to 28 people per square meter.

Apparently it was Dragon's job to drag the naked dead bodies which were poisoned with HCN out of the bunker. However he does not mention to have worn any protective suit during this activity.

Added:
According to Dragon the gassing in Bunker 1 was supervised by Dr. Mengele. There must be something wrong with the dates, because Dragon was describing the gassing in Bunker 1 in 1942 while Dr. Mengele serviced as the chief physician at Auschwitz-Birkenau in 1943 and 1944.


Konrad

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1987
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Post by Sergey Romanov » 15 Jul 2004 05:41

> How reliable is the testimony of a witness which he made almost 40 years after the event?

About the details? Not very, that's the point. About the event itself, however, it is reliable.

> Pressac further criticized that Dragon stated the number of victims in Auschwitz as four million

That does not make Dragon even a bit less credible. He did not (because he could not) talk about that number as an _eyewitness_.

> and he thinks that the number stated by Dragon of 2,500 to 2,550 to be forced simultaneously into Bunker 1 is impossible, which would amount to 28 people per square meter

That's not impossible.

http://holocaust.skeptik.net/documents/ ... stein.html

> However he does not mention to have worn any protective suit during this activity.

Did he mention wearing clothes? Or should we assume he was naked?

> According to Dragon the gassing in Bunker 1 was supervised by Dr. Mengele. There must be something wrong with the dates, because Dragon was describing the gassing in Bunker 1 in 1942 while Dr. Mengele serviced as the chief physician at Auschwitz-Birkenau in 1943 and 1944.

Did he really say that? Quote, please. But, assuming you're correct, see my comments about the same mistake in Buki's testimony.

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1987
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Post by Sergey Romanov » 15 Jul 2004 05:59

According to Dr. Green's report in Irving v. Lipstadt trial, "[g]as masks are also referenced by Szlama Dragon at a gas chamber which lacked ventilation":
I myself and eleven others were detailed, as we learnt later, to remove the bodies from this cottage. We were given gas masks, and led to the cottage. When Moll had opened the door, we saw that the cottage was full of naked corpses of both sexes and of all ages.

[...]

20 Dragon, Szlama, The Höß Trial, Vol. 1, pp. 102-121. As cited in Pressac, Technique, op.cit., p. 171. Dragon also mentions donning a gas mask for work at the (also unventilated) crematorium V, in Kogon et al., Nazi Mass Murder, 1993, p. 167.
Once again the old thesis is confirmed: never trust deniers' rendering of the sources. They will inevitably distort something.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 9000
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 15 Jul 2004 06:32

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.

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

Post by Lucius Felix Silla » 15 Jul 2004 10:44

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?

Best Regards

LFS

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

Post by xcalibur » 15 Jul 2004 15:13

Sergey Romanov wrote:http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/a0518.htm
In most cases, cyanide poisoning causes a deceptively healthy pink to red skin color. However, if a physical injury or lack of oxygen is involved, the skin color may be bluish. Reddening of the eyes and pupil dilation are symptoms of cyanide poisoning. Cyanosis (blue discoloration of the skin) tends to be associated with severe cyanide poisonings.
http://www.biochemhazard.com/hydrogen%20cyanide.htm

AC=HCN
AC poisoning causes a deceptively healthy pink to red skin color. However, if physical injury or lack of oxygen is involved, the skin color may be bluish.
But then again, what Buki (and other witnesses, if you're correct) were talking about might have been simple bruises, which certainly can look bluish (BTW, in Russian bruise is "sinyak", which derives from "sinij", blue, so, actually, it might have been even the result of the mistranslation from different Slavic languages).

There goes another canard.
Sergey, your explanation probably is the closest to what the witness actually saw. Perhaps not bruising but more likely post mortem lividity (also referred to in the UK as "post mortem staining", though this terminology is somewhat archaic now).

Simply put, post mortem lividity is the draining of blood within a corpse to the lowest levels it can seek. The blood pools in these areas and causes a discoloration (in a range of colors from cyanotic blue, violet, purple, red, or brown depending on many different factors) of the surface skin which may be seen by an untrained eye to be a "stain".

I asked DT yesterday about the possibility of posting some post mortem photos of HCN poisoning victms in order to demonstrate that there are a range of color differentials of the skin in these victims. Unfortunateley, so far the pics I've been able to find don't conform to forum guidelines (at least in my opinion, as they are rather gruesome) but I'll continue to look for some as they do demonstrably show that there are no absolutes in the relationship between post mortem skin color and HCN poisoning.

Konrad
Member
Posts: 47
Joined: 25 Jun 2004 00:41
Location: USA

Post by Konrad » 15 Jul 2004 21:33

The Greek Jew Maurice Benroubi was not a "Sonderkommando"-man, but a member of the »Totengräberkommandos« (grave digger commando).

Maurice Benroubi, from Pressac, p. 162:
In fact I saw that all the comrades were working with their backs to the Bunkers to avoid giving even the slightest glance towards the two extermination Bunkers...
[…]
«The Bunker was a brick-built house, with the windows filled in... We had to turn our backs to the Bunker when we picked up the corpses, never look at the gas chambers... »
It is too bad that Benroubi and his comrades always turned their backs to the gas chamber during their work, else we could have learned some more details about the killing process. Actually it does not make much sense that the grave diggers were not allowed to observe the execution process, but were permitted to drag and burry or cremate the dead bodies.

Pressac does not tell us were he got this text from. He had a talk at a non-specified date with Benroubi who possibly made his statements during this conversation.

Konrad

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1987
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Post by Sergey Romanov » 15 Jul 2004 22:17

It seems that you're looking for _any_ excuse, however weak, to discard the inconvenient testimonies.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 15 Jul 2004 22:51

The main question is whether there were homicidal gas chambers in Bunker 1 at KL Auschwitz. There are a number of witnesses who say there were, and nothing so far to indicate that there weren't.

The next questions go to the reliability of some of the details in the testimony. There are some anomalies, but they've been of the "so what?" variety. The witnesses are human. Again, the primary issue isn't whether small aspects of their accounts may be mistaken, but whether what they're all talking about -- homicidal gas chambers in Bunker 1 -- is something that never existed. In other words, whether the homicidal gas chambers at Bunker 1 are, as LFS put it, "mythical."

see the "Nazi Gas Chambers" thread at:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &start=165

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1987
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Post by Sergey Romanov » 15 Jul 2004 23:04

I think that since Hoess testified about them, we can safely accept them, denier's Hoess-was-tortured-into-saying-all-this litany notwithstanding.

Konrad
Member
Posts: 47
Joined: 25 Jun 2004 00:41
Location: USA

Post by Konrad » 16 Jul 2004 01:56

Moshe Maurice Garbarz, from Pressac pp. 163-64:
Garbarz published «Un Survivant». in 1984, 40 years after the event. And similar to Buki's affidavit it should be questioned how reliable the testimony is after so many years and the influence on the editor of the book by the published Holocaust literature and documentaries.

This type of witness would be labelled a "media witness".

It is not quite clear to me whether he is talking about Bunker 1 or 2.

He descibed how he was employed to install electrical spot lights on poles inside rectangular massgrave pits, some 20 to 30 m wide, 50 to 60 m long and 1.5 m deep, which were excavated the night before and:
"Then we went into action, wallowing in human blood to recover the lamp posts. I could not understand why the corpses bled. The pressure when they heaped earth on them? Or the effect of the gas?"

Neither do I understand this.
David Thompson wrote: The main question is whether there were homicidal gas chambers in Bunker 1 at KL Auschwitz. There are a number of witnesses who say there were, and nothing so far to indicate that there weren't.
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.
By the way, were there ever remains of this building discovered? It is customary in Europe to have full cellars below buildings. These serve in the country usually for cold storage of perishable food.
To remove such a construction without leaving a trace would be quite difficult.

Konrad

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”