Bischoff Letter Dated June 28th 1943 and Krema 4

[bonniwell2923]

Please Reference this link: http://www.takeourworldback.com/vanpelt.htm

In the paper "Robert Jan Pelt's Cremation Claims Refuted" , go to 3.8
At 3.8 You will find the following, ( I cut and pasted directly from the paper )

3.8. The "Bischoff" letter of 28 June 1943 - Claims Equivalent to a 200 mph, 400 mpg Trabant

That "Bischoff's letter" of 28 June 1943 to which he refers is frequently cited by Hoaxers such as van Pelt. On p. 247 of his "expert report", van Pelt claims that "one muffle could burn a maximum of nine bodies per hour" and "Bischoff's number is less than half". Actually, the so-called "Bischoff's number" is four times too high for Krema II to V. This is what the document states about the performance of Auschwitz-Birkenau's crematoria:

Performance of the crematoria presently existing over an operational period of 24 hours:

1.) old Crematorium I 3 furnaces with 2 muffles 340 persons
2.) new Crematorium at KGL II 5 furnaces with 3 muffles 1,440 persons
3.) new Crematorium III 5 furnaces with 3 muffles 1,440 persons
4.) new Crematorium IV furnace with 8 muffles 768 persons
5.) new Crematorium V furnace with 8 muffles 768 persons
for a total of 4,756 persons in an operating period of 24 hours.

So, when we compare the inflated performance above to the actual performance of one body per muffle per hour, we get:

Krema I: 340 / 24 = 14.17 per hour. Divide by 6 muffles, 2.36 bodies per hour, 1 body in 25.4 minutes. 2.36 times faster than reality.
Krema II or III: 1,440 / 24 = 60 per hour. Divide by 15 muffles, 4 bodies per hour, 1 body in 15 minutes. Four times faster than in reality.
Krema IV or V: 768 / 24 = 32 per hour. Divide by 8 muffles, 4 bodies per hour, 1 body in 15 minutes. Four times faster than in reality.

My first question is, Are the contents of this paper the correct English translation to the Bischoff letter of June 28th 1943?

I have learned from other sources that Crematorium 4 at Auschwitz Berkinau went off line on May 10th 1943. (50 days in Operation) Is this true?

[Hannover]

Bonniwell:
The 'Bischoff letter' is a crude, easily debunked forgery.

Here are links to search results for Bischoff 4,756 at this forum and the CODOH main site.

search.php?keywords=bischoff+4%2C756&fid%5B0%5D=2
and:
https://codoh.com/search/?sorting=relev ... ff+4%2C756

Just a few examples that debunk that fake and utterly impossible '4,756 cremated in one day' letter:

Dr. Faurisson shreds J.C Pressac's 'gas chambers'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6457
and:
Auschwitz Central. Bldg. Admin. docs. blow away nonsense
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1650
and:
charlatan 'historian' Van Pelt nailed again
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=474

Indeed, Krema IV being shutdown is another nail in the coffin.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. Only lies require censorship.

[bonniwell2923]

Are the (German language version) contents of what is written in the Bischoff letter displayed accurately in English above? What I cut and pasted accurate to this fraudulent letter? I fully understand the letter is a fraud. Thanks

[bonniwell2923]

A quick question concerning Crematorium 4 at Birkenau if I may.
It was said the this facility was on line from March 21st, 1943 to May 10th 1943 (50 days)
Does anyone know where the original reference source of #4 operation period information comes from? Someone I am talking to said Oct 1944.
It may have existed till then, but not in operation?
Thanks

[Hannover]

This should help.

There is a difference between a) how long KIV existed as a building and b) how long the furnace operated.

http://vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndcrema.html

Chapter 8, "Operation of the Crematoria of Birkenau"

- building in existence: until Oct 7, 1944

- days with operable furnace: 50 (approximate)

Germar Rudolf

- Hannover

No alleged human remains of millons to be seen in allegedly known locations, no 'holocaust'.

[bonniwell2923]

Sincere thanks Hannover

[Lamprecht]

I would like Wyatt to explain why he believes this document to be genuine.

More on this document:

Why did Auschwitz need crematoriums able to 'burn 5,000 people a day' ?
viewtopic.php?t=10214




As per these threads:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12720

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12715

[wyatt]

I have seen nothing to debunk its authenticity. Only whining about math and how "impossible" it is. show me how its a forgery

[Lamprecht]

I have seen nothing to debunk its authenticity. Only whining about math and how "impossible" it is. show me how its a forgery

Have you tried reading the links provided?

Even the Industry's J.C. Pressac himself disregards the veracity of the document: it has "no basis in practice, and probably has to be divided by two or three to arrive at a true figure" [see Pressac, p.244]
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1650

More:

There can be no reasonable doubt that that "document" is fake:


Manfred Gerner has mentioned the ridiculous mistake in the address field concerning the rank of SS-Brigadeführer Dr.-Ing. Hans Kammler in that "document".
There were two different ranks for a SS-Brigadeführer within the SS or the SD and the Sicherheitspolizei (Sipo, = Security Police) or the Ordungspolizei:

a) SS-Brigadeführer und Generalmajor der Waffen-SS (SS-Brigadeführer and Major General of the Waffen-SS) and
b) SS-Brigadeführer und Generalmajor der Polizei (SS-Brigadeführer and Major General of the Police)

That "document" is the only one, in which this distinction is not made:

SS-Brigadeführer und Generalmajor [sic!] Dr.-Ing. Kammler

The forger either wasn't aware of that undispensable detail or he had no interest to make his fabrication a convincing one (e.g. if he were a former member of the Zentralbauleitung, who was forced to assist the forgers in manufacturing their fake "documents").

Moreover this "document" was intended to be made look like it was dictated by SS-Untersturmführer Janisch (that's why the abbreviation Ja shows up in the file number), but the forgers again weren't successful: They added a full stop after those two letters. What a pity that there is no single authentic letter in the Moscow archives with such a full stop, but 50 without it.

There isn't one single real document from this period of time either, which was typed by a typist with the abbreviation Ne. for Janisch, but 49 were typed by L. and another one by Lm.

And last, but not least, the forger made another grave mistake with the file-number of that fake "document": 31550/Ja./Ne.

As mentioned before, he added a full-stop after Ja, but he omitted the year after the file number. It should have been: 31550/43/Ja/Ne.

They do say, you have to take in consideration quite a lot of details, if you want to be a successful forger!

5.2. BRIEFTAGEBUCHZEILE

Die Brieftagebuchzeile aller Fassungen ist falsch. Auf vier Fassungen sieht sie gleichmäßig wie folgt aus, auf der fünften fehlt sie:

31550/Ja./Ne.

Eine vollständige und richtige Brieftagebuchzeile enthält jedoch eine weitere Angabe, nämlich das Kalenderjahr. Nach uns vorliegenden richtigen Dokumenten müßte die Zeile wie folgt aussehen:

31550/43/Ja/Ne.

Die erste Zahl steht für die Brieftagebuchnummer, sie wurde fortlaufend vergeben für alle auslaufenden und eingehenden Briefe, solange die Zentralbauleitung bestand. [...] Die zweite Zahl in der Zeile steht für das Kalenderjahr. Das darauf folgende Kurzzeichen gehört zum Verfasser des Briefes. Das ist hier der Bauleiter Untersturmführer Janisch. Das abschließende Kurzzeichen gehört zu dem, der das Schreiben fertigte. Meistens wurde auf Durchschlägen die Bftgb.Nr. von Hand eingetragen (Anlagen 3 und 4). [...]

5.2. NICHT EXISTIERENDE SCHREIBKRAFT

Wir haben nun unseren nicht geringen, chronologisch geordneten Aktenbestand durchgesehen, und zwar vom 1.4.1943 (Bftgb. 26218) bis zum 18.9.1943 (Bftgb. 36428) und nach besonderen Kriterien in einer gefertigten Liste geprüft. Erstes Kriterium war, alle Schreiben mit dem Zeichen »Ja.« und mit dem Zeichen »Ne.« zu suchen. Hierdurch konnten wir eindeutig klären, daß es kein zweites Schreiben mit dem Zeichen Ne. gibt. (Mit und ohne Punkt.)

Als zweites Kriterium wählten wir Schreiben mit dem Zeichen »Ja.« (der Punkt hinter »Ja« ist hierbei wesentlich). Wir fanden nicht ein Exemplar. Hingegen fanden wir 50 Exemplare mit dem Zeichen »Ja« (Also ohne Punkt.)

Natürlich wollten wir dann wissen, wer schrieb für »Ja« als Schreibkraft. Ergebnis: 49 Schreiben »L.« und eines »Lm.« in unseren Beständen. Ferner fanden wir 3 Schreiben die für Bischoff und Jährling von »L.« gefertigt waren.

Geklärt ist mit dieser Untersuchung, daß es in der fraglichen Zeit in der ZBL keine Person gab, die unter dem Zeichen Ne. schrieb.

Nach vorstehenden Feststellungen sind wir dann noch weiter gegangen und haben das gesamte Jahr 1943 geprüft. Eine Veränderung im Ergebnis ergab sich nicht. [...]

5.4. Dienstgradbezeichnung

Alle Fassungen haben eine falsche Dienstgradbezeichnung des Briefempfängers. Es gab in der Waffen-SS nur den zusätzlichen Dienstgrad »und Generalmajor der Waffen-SS«, wie auf Anlage 1 ausgeführt.

Wir haben, wie oben geschildert, auch diesen Fehler geprüft. Im eingegrenzten Bereich fanden wir 5 Schreiben mit richtiger Anschrift von »Ja« verfaßt, darunter 4 mit dem weiteren Zeichen »L.« und eines mit »Lm.« Die auf das gesamte Jahr 1943 erweiterte Untersuchung ergab sehr viele weitere richtig adressierte Briefe. Eines, wie das inkriminierte Exemplar, mit lediglich der Bezeichnung »Generalmajor«, fand sich nicht!

Source: http://www.vho.org/VffG/1998/3/Gerner3.html

Carlo Mattogno makes another good point in his article about that "document", when he mentions that there originally was a document with this file-number in the files of the Zentralbauleitung - most probably a simple report on the completion of crematorium III, roughly like this:

Sir,
Herewith I report completion of crematorium III.
The building has been taken over by the Camp Commander of KL Auschwitz.

Moreover that fake "document" contains things which shouldn't be contained in it and omits others which should be contained:

1. Die laufende Nummer in der Brieftagebuchzeile des Briefes - 31550 - taucht auch in der »Aufstellung der bereits übergebenen Bauwerke an die Standortverwaltung«[14] zu Beginn des Jahres 1943 auf, so daß es keinen Zweifel geben kann, daß sich ein Schreiben mit dieser Nummer auf die »Fertigstellung des Krematoriums III« bezogen haben muß. [...]

Lassen Sie mich dies erklären: Die Meldung der »Fertigstellung« eines Bauwerkes an das SS-WVHA (Wirtschafts-Verwaltungshauptamt) erfolgte in Erfüllung eines besonderen Befehls von Kammler vom 6. April 1943:[16]

»Zur Beurteilung der Tätigkeit der Baudienststellen und zur Überwachung der befohlenen Baufristen ist es unbedingt erforderlich, daß sämtliche nachgeordneten Dienststellen die Fertigstellung eines Bauwerkes oder Bauvorhabens umgehend melden.

Ich ordne daher folgendes an:

1) Nach Fertigstellung eines Bauwerks bzw. nach Inbetriebnahme desselben ist mit der hausverwaltenden Dienstelle eine Übergabeverhandlung zu tätigen. Das Ergebnis dieser Verhandlung ist in einer Niederschrift festzuhalten. [...]«

Dieser Befehl Kammlers verlangte also, daß ihm die Fertigstellung eines Bauwerks gemeldet werden müsse unter Angabe der jeweiligen Übergabeverhandlung, und zwar dem folgenden Muster folgend, das bei allen derartigen Dokumenten eingehalten wurde (vgl. Abbildung):[17]

»Melde die Fertigstellung des Schornsteines-Krematorium BW 11 und Pumpenhauses b.d. Hauptwache BW 29.

Die Bauwerke sind an die Kommandantur des K.L. Auschwitz (Btgb. Nr. 20744/43/Ki/Pa) übernomen worden.« [That's a mistake of Mattogno - it should read: "...übergeben worden, R.]

Aus diesem Grunde enthält die zuvor erwähnte und in Erfüllung dieses Kammler-Befehls erstellte »Aufstellung der bereits übergebenen Bauwerke an die Standortverwaltung« u.a. die Brieftagebuchnummern der Briefe, mit denen die Übergabeprotokolle der jeweiligen Bauwerke an die Kommandantur des K.L. Auschwitz weitergeleitet wurden, das Datum der Übergabe und die Brieftagebuchnummer der »Meldung an Amtsgruppenchef C«.

Wenn also das Protokoll der Übergabeverhandlung von Krematorium III am 24. Juni 1943 geschrieben[18] und am gleichen Tag an die Kommandantur weitergeleitet wurde,[19] und wenn die Standortverwaltung das Krematorium III am 25. Juni offiziell übernommen hat,[14] warum befindet sich dann im hier behandelten Schreiben vom 28. Juni kein Bezug auf diese Vorgänge? Dies sind Dinge, die nicht in diesem Dokument enthalten sind, dort aber enthalten sein müßten.

Die Meldung der »Fertigstellung« eines Bauwerks war ein rein formeller Vorgang ohne Angabe irgendwelcher technischen Einzelheiten, weshalb das Scheiben vom 28. Juni 1943 mit seinen Ausführungen über die Leistung der Krematorien bürokratisch sinnlos sind - und das ist genau das, was in diesem Brief enthalten ist, dort aber gar nicht hingehört.

Die Auflistung der Krematoriumsleistungen weist zudem zwei weitere Anomalien auf: Vor allem die Verwendung des Begriffs »Personen«, was mir sehr merkwürdig vorkommt. Im Zusammenhang mit Kremierungen würde ich Begriffe wie »Leichen«, »Körper« oder zumindest »Häftlinge« erwarten. [...]

Eine weitere Tatsache, die unsere Aufmerksamkeit verdient, ist, daß der behandelte Brief ein isoliertes Schreiben ohne Bezug zu irgendeinem anderen ist: es gibt kein anderes Dokument, in dem auf die Leistung der Krematorien Bezug genommen wird. Diese Tatsache ist um so seltsamer, als dieser offizielle Brief an den Amtsgruppenchef C des SS-WVHA, SS-Brigadeführer und Generalmajor der Waffen-SS Kammler gerichtet ist. [...]

Der letzte hier zu untersuchende Punkt ist: wurde dieses Schreiben vom 28. Juni 1943 überhaupt an das SS-WVHA gesandt? Dies hätte, wie zuvor ausgeführt, unweigerlich zu einem Briefwechsel geführt haben, von dem sich im Archiv der Zentralbauleitung aber keine Spur findet. Die Tatsache, daß der Brief von Bischoff nicht unterschrieben wurde, [...]

Source: http://www.vho.org/VffG/2000/1/Mattogno51-56.html
TRANSLATED: https://archive.is/2J0LQ

Question: You said before that the firm Topf built in crematorium I in the camp section Auschwitz two two-muffle cremation ovens, while in an official report by the SS- Bauleitung of Auschwitz of June 28, 1943, a photo copy of which lies in front of you, is stated that in that crematorium three two-muffle ovens were installed. Give an explanation for this!
Answer: Now I remember, that in crematorium I, which is located in the camp section Auschwitz, the Topf company erected under my participation three and not two cremation ovens, i.e. it is so as explained in the report of the construction management which is in front of me. In this connection I would like to make clear, that the Topf company built in five crematoriums a total of not 20 but 21 cremation ovens.

That's quite an interesting point here (Prüfer "remembers" that there were three double-muffle ovens in the old Krema I instead of only two, as he had said before, when his SMERSH-torturers reminded him.

There have been suspicions that there were in fact only two ovens in Krema I:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=3239&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30

I came across an interesting issue in footnote 18 of an article written by a certain "Knud Bäcker" (pseudonym) in Germar Rudolfs periodical Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung No. 1/1999, p. 60:
"'At first they [the Germans] built a small crematorium in Auschwitz I with 4 muffles. Then two large crematoria, II and III, were built in Auschwitz II (Birkenau)' (Dr. Filip Friedman, To jest Oswiecim!, Warsaw 1945, p. 72 and Dr. Filip Friedman (Director of the Central Jewish Historical Commission in Poland), Oswiecim - The Story of a Murder Camp, The United Jewish Relief Appeal, London 1946, p. 54). - The alleged installation of a third double-muffle oven in Auschwitz I is not mentioned here. In the 'Broad-Report' as well ' 4 ovens' are mentioned, which can only refer to the 2 double-muffle ovens with their 4 muffles (Rawicz (ed.), KL Auschwitz in den Augen der SS, PMO, 1973, p. 159). Not till the Soviet Pravda-article of 7 May 1945 a third oven is mentioned."
And in footnote 59 on page 61 of the same issue of VffG "Bäcker" quotes Friedman once again and comments:
"[...] Here we have been informed first hand by a member of the Soviet-Polish Commission immediately in 1945 on the real equipment of the 'old' crematorium: Two double-muffle ovens with together four muffles. Not until the Pravda-report of 7 May 1945 three ovens are claimed.”
That would correspond with the two vents on the roof.

[Post of May 06, 2006 11:50 am; as to the only two vents on the roof see polardude's post from May 03, 2006 12:55 am.]

[...] You will notice that the ovens were lighted from the rear side (four stairs are drawn in, which led downstairs to the grate. No. 6 is the coke storage room. So you have a short way from the coke storage to the two ovens. But for the alleged third oven (left) you have to carry the coke the whole way through the entire furnace room! Why wasn't the wall behind the alleged third oven removed and a seperate coke storage built, there would have been enough space in the yard? (see on the photo on the right side!)

[Post of May 07, 2006 4:36 am in above mentioned thread]

So, Prüfer himself said in the SMERSH interrogation, there were only two double-muffle ovens in the old Krema I and it wasn't until he was "reminded" by the SMERSH interrogators that he "remembered" that there were in fact three!

David Irving destroyed the validity of this document in court:

Code: Select all

Q. [Mr Rampton]: From Bicshoff, though it has not got his signature in and
that is no doubt because it is an office copy, setting out
what he perceives to be or is reporting to be the
theoretical capacity of each of five crematoria at the
time when he writes in a 24-hour period. Have I got it
right?
A. [Mr Irving]: Yes.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  So that is 4,756 corpses in 24 hours.
MR RAMPTON:  That is 4,756 people corpses — I must not suggest
they were alive — 4,756 corpses to be incinerated by
these five installations in a 24-hour period. If you
multiply, Mr Irving, 4,756 by 7 you get something like
33,000 in a week; and you if multiply that by 4 you get
something like 130,000 a month; and if you multiply that
by 12 you get about 1.6 million in a year. What,
Mr Irving, did they need that kind of capacity for?
A. [Mr Irving]: Can we discuss the document first?
Q. [Mr Rampton]: By all means.
. P-151

A. [Mr Irving]: This is one of the few documents whose integrity I am
going to challenge.
Q. [Mr Rampton]: Ah! On what basis, please tell us?
A. [Mr Irving]: Well, I prefer to discuss this with one of the expert
historians who you are calling as witnesses.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  No.
MR RAMPTON:  No, absolutely not, Mr Irving. Do not keep your
cards in your pocket, it is not allowed.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  You have to explain why now.
A. [Mr Irving]: Well, as I explained already to the court and we discussed
this briefly with Professor Watt, all German documents of
this character had to follow a standard layout, a German
Civil Service layout, if you can put it like this. They
were typed in a certain way. They had certain
characteristics like the security classification and so on
put in. Certain things were written in by hand. Certain
things were typed in. There are I think five or six
different versions of this document I have seen in the
files over the last couple of years, and there are a
number of discrepancies. I am only going to point to one
discrepancy and this is right in the top left. The
“31550” has been typed in,.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Why is that a discrepancy?
A. [Mr Irving]: My Lord, if you go back to page 39 you will see that
characteristically it would start off with “Brief
Tagebuch” BFTGB. This is a very good one for comparison.
. P-152

Then you follow with a handwritten number 24365 which
always handwritten on the documents, followed then by the
“43” which is the year and that is missing in this page
49, the year is missing and the year is always there
normally, followed by JA, and if it is supposed to be
“Janisch” it should be a JA with an umlaut, followed on
page 49 by NE full stop, dash, and there is no other
document in the entire Auschwitz archives which has a
secretary initial “NE”.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Why do you say that is the secretary?
A. [Mr Irving]: The last initials to come there would always be the
secretary who has typed the document. The one before it
is the one who has dictated it. So that is the
discrepancy, just in that one line. The line above the
date we are missing the word “Auschwitz”. So this is a
document that I am very unhappy with, not to mention the
fact that the figures do not tally with any of the
established figures that are provided by the top company
who actually manufactures these crematoria.
MR RAMPTON:  Yes, Mr Irving. That is what happens, is it not?
You come across something absolutely insuperable, so
immediately you cast doubt on its authenticity?
A. [Mr Irving]: I have been careful not to do this with any other
documents, Mr Rampton.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  What is the provenance of this document,
Mr Rampton, do you know.


MR RAMPTON:  It has on my copy “reproduced from the holdings of
the US Holocaust Memorial Museum Archives”, but —-
A. [Mr Irving]: I think it is —-
Q. [Mr Rampton]: — but at the bottom of the page there is a signature or
the handwritten word “Jahrling” or it might be “Jahrling?
A. [Mr Irving]: “Jahrling”.
Q. [Mr Rampton]: It has the umlaut on it there at the bottom of the page,
has it not?
A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, but the typist obviously did not bother to put it in
because on a German typewriter it is a different letter.
I think it first surfaced in about 1950 when it was
supplied by the East German Government to the Auschwitz
Museum which is a rather odd way round for it to go.
Q. [Mr Rampton]: Do you know that?
A. [Mr Irving]: From studies — I am not reproducing my own conclusions on
this document. I am not an expert on these documents, but
I have read a study on it. But I have subsequently heard
from someone that it did actually surface in Soviet hands
back in the 1945 period.
Q. [Mr Rampton]: Let us suppose for a moment it is an authentic document so
we can get on a bit faster. You can take it up with
Professor van Pelt probably tomorrow.
A. [Mr Irving]: I just want to say it is a suspect document, but I am
quite happy to accept that I may be wrong on that.


Q. [Mr Rampton]: Let us —-
A. [Mr Irving]: It has things that would make my —-
. P-154

Q. [Mr Rampton]: Let us assume you are wrong. Why do you think, if you are
wrong, that they contemplated that kind of capacity?
I mean they are contemplating incinerating more than the
whole population of the camp once a month?
A. [Mr Irving]: Well, that again is a pointer to the totally absurdity of
the document frankly.
Q. [Mr Rampton]: Oh no, it is not, Mr Irving. If they are incinerating
people who will never form part of the population of the
camp at all, it is not absurd in the very least bit.
People who are selected on arrival for being killed and
incinerated, they never get registered in the camp, do
they?
A. [Mr Irving]: The entire population of the camp is going to be between
150,000 and 200,000 people.
Q. [Mr Rampton]: No, it is projected at some stage. I will have the
projection figures for you tomorrow, but if these are
registered people that are being talked about here, then
I quite agree, it is utterly absurd. If, however, what is
contemplated is that the majority of these people who are
going to be incinerated are never registered at all but
are merely killed on arrival off the train, why then it is
not the least bit absurd, is it?
A. [Mr Irving]: It is absurd when you look at the individual figures and
you know that those figures wildly exceed anything that
the top company who actually designed and specified the
crematorium furnaces had provided for by many multiples.
. P-155

Q. [Mr Rampton]: Not at all. We will get to the figures. You will
probably get to the figures with Professor van Pelt, but
that is the whole point about the design of these top
multiple muffle ovens, is that you can incinerate up to
four corpses at a time in any one muffle. Do you know why
you do that, Mr Irving? Because they self-combust. You
mix fat corpses with thin corpses and then you do not need
much coke supply; it keeps going under its own steam?
A. [Mr Irving]: Mr Rampton, you are not mortician. I am not a mortician,
but one thing I do know is that bodies are largely made up
of water, not fat. Nine tenths of a body is water, and
unless you find a way of burning water then they are not
going to self-combust.
Q. [Mr Rampton]: We might have to look at the patent application. Did you
read that in these papers, Mr Irving?
A. [Mr Irving]: The patent for the furnaces actually installed?
Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes, it is in this bundle.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Are you about to leave the document which
Mr Irving challenges?
MR RAMPTON:  Yes.


MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Can I just ask you one question, Mr Irving?
If for the sake of argument it is an authentic document,
it is about as incriminating as one could possibly find?
A. [Mr Irving]: My Lord —-
Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: When I say “incriminating” you know what I mean?
A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, it looks incriminating until you realize the trauma
. P-156

they have been through in 1942, with people who were dying
at the rate of 400 or 500 a day and not knowing what lies
before them in 1943 when conditions are undoubtedly going
to get worse because the camp is expanding.
Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: So you think they might, in order to guard against a
repetition of 1942, have been constructing crematoria
capable of taking nearly 5,000 people a day?
A. [Mr Irving]: I do not accept these figures could possibly be true for
other considerations, from the coke consumption
considerations alone. It takes 30 kilograms of coke to
burn one body, whatever Mr Rampton is about to say now.
There is no provision for coke supplies on this scale in
the entire encampment.
MR RAMPTON:  Mr Irving, the top patent application runs in two
parts it is, but it runs from pages 6 to 18 in this part
of the file. It is much to long for us to struggle
through this afternoon. It is all in German. It is cited
by Professor van Pelt in his report.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  539 did you say?
MR RAMPTON:  Yes. Mr Irving, if you have not read it already
I suggest you read it overnight in case you are going to
fall out with Professor van Pelt about its effect.
A. [Mr Irving]: Is it suggested these were crematoria actually installed?
Q. [Mr Rampton]: No.
A. [Mr Irving]: Then what on earth is the relevance?
Q. [Mr Rampton]: What is suggested is that this is the model for, this is
. P-157

the patent application after all, the prototype or model
for those which were actually installed, yes, and the key
to it was that you had to keep, well, I will start at the
beginning. Under German law, Mr Irving, correct me if
I am wrong, you had to burn only one corpse at a time,
because you had to be able to identify the ashes at the
end of the operation?
A. [Mr Irving]: Even in 1940 Himmler ordered this was to be the situation
in concentration camps too, yes.
Q. [Mr Rampton]: This was a direct breach of German law, no doubt
sanctioned by the SS, because what they were proposing was
to incinerate more than one corpse at a time?
A. [Mr Irving]: On account of conveyor belt system by the look of it.
Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes, absolutely right, and what they observe in their
patent application is that if you do not keep the process
continuous you hit problems. If you operate it
periodically it does not fully satisfy. That is how,
Mr Irving, they can reach such high numbers. It is also
how — I have made a mistake. The patent used — I made a
mistake. Anyhow it is the description of the process I am
interested in.
A. [Mr Irving]: Well, I cannot quite see the relevance of this to what is
before us, because you yourself say these were not ever
installed in Auschwitz.
Q. [Mr Rampton]: I may have to come back to that.
A. [Mr Irving]: It is grisly and gruesome stuff to read, but, believe me,
. P-158

my brother was Regional Commissioner in Wiltshire and he
tells me what we were planning for the event of nuclear
war in this country and that was equally grisly and
gruesome as to what to do with the bodies that would come
from a nuclear war. They are planning for worst case
contingencies here.
Q. [Mr Rampton]: Mr Irving, the reason why it was possible to contemplate
such a large daily incineration was that they could burn,
according to the design of these ovens, one more than one
corpse at a time in each muffle?
A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, a zigzag or something like that.
Q. [Mr Rampton]: No, they were just laid in lines.
A. [Mr Irving]: Yes.
Q. [Mr Rampton]: That is number one.
A. [Mr Irving]: But it was never installed, this is the whole point.
Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes, that is exactly. If you read the eyewitness
descriptions, if you go and look at the wretched things in
Auschwitz, that is exactly what they are. They are
multi-muffle ovens.

From: http://web.archive.org/web/201909122335 ... org/day08/

[Lamprecht]

For the record, the Soviets were notorious document forgers. After World War II, the US government accused them of doing it on a massive scale

The Soviet Union's documented use of document forgeries, Active Measures
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12297

The most common method was to take an already existing document, modify a word or two, add an extra digit or two to a number, etc.

What is the reason you believe its authenticity? You trust anything any government (except the NSDAP) tells you about their enemies?

[wyatt]

Its not a forgery because irving doesnt like it. (also irving now believes that gassings happened but its okay because hitler didnt know)

[Lamprecht]

Its not a forgery because irving doesnt like it.

Correct. It's a forgery whether or not Irving believes it is. That's merely reality. The facts are all there, it's clearly a bogus document.

And conversely, it's not legitimate just because you wish it was.

(also irving now believes that gassings happened but its okay because hitler didnt know)

More like it's "okay" because he was imprisoned after having his face smashed up.

Either way, it doesn't matter who said it, it matters what is said. You're not addressing the arguments. You're just attacking the person who said them, and ignoring the arguments they gave. This would be considered trolling, but you're clearly so emotionally invested in the story that I think you actually believe it's a real document just because you want it to be.

[wyatt]

Its not a forgery because irving doesnt like it.

Correct. It's a forgery whether or not Irving believes it is. That's merely reality. The facts are all there, it's clearly a bogus document.

And conversely, it's not legitimate just because you wish it was.

(also irving now believes that gassings happened but its okay because hitler didnt know)

More like it's "okay" because he was imprisoned after having his face smashed up.

Either way, it doesn't matter who said it, it matters what is said. You're not addressing the arguments. You're just attacking the person who said them, and ignoring the arguments they gave. This would be considered trolling, but you're clearly so emotionally invested in the story that I think you actually believe it's a real document just because you want it to be.

so irving is only credible when he shares your beliefs okay

[Breker]

Mr. Wyatt said:

so irving is only credible when he shares your beliefs okay

No, only when he can prove what he claims.
And it rather appears you cannot prove what you claim.
Free speech does wonders in refuting propaganda.
B.

[Lamprecht]

so irving is only credible when he shares your beliefs okay

I'm not falling for this silly trick, Wyatt. I did not quote Irving's statements to suggest "This document is fake because Irving said so"
I merely quoted his arguments from the trial. It doesn't really matter who says it. A person who is "not credible" can also say things that are correct. Just like "qualified experts" can get it wrong. Usually it's the other way around, but to dismiss Irving's claims merely because "Irving said it" is a weak argument and also fallacious.



You also ignored every point that was made by people other than Irving.