Where Specifically Do [Revisionists] Think the Reinhardt Jews Went?

[HistorySpeaks]

I know that the typical line is that the 1.4 million Jews sent to Sobibor, Belzec, and Treblinka, were resettled in the East.

But where specifically were these Jews resettled? How many settlements were there?

[curioussoul]

Evidently, the Jews processed through the Reinhard camps were sent to hundreds of localities in regions all over the Occupied Eastern Territories and, apparently, even to Rawa-Ruska. I'll quote myself from a previous thread of yours:

The unfortunate reality is that we know very little of the hundreds of camps set up by the Germans to house the astronomical numbers of Jews being sent there throughout 1942 and early 1943. Only minor clues and traces indicate their presence in these regions, and the Germans evidently did not go to great lengths to document these provisional and often times extremely primitive open-air camps. As Kues highlights, this was very indicative of German policy fulfillment as regards ambitious projects throughout the war. A command from Berlin would often fall on local leaders to implement within a mere days or even hours, regardless of the human or logistical costs. In the case of the Jews slated for resettlement in Eastern Europe, the ambition was clearly for an orderly establishment of Jewish reserves in Eastern Europe after the war; these plans naturally fell through when the tide of the war turned against the Germans, and the millions of Jews who had been hastily crammed into primitive camps and temporary settlements were simply left to fend for themselves, escape or fall into the hands of the Soviets. Many undoubtedly died even before the Soviets ever reached former German-occupied parts of Ukraine and Belarus.

Here is only a fragmentary map of known ghettos and camps for Jews in the eastern regions. Undoubtedly, many hundreds more existed, hurriedly thrown together by local officials to house the ever-increasing numbers of Jews deported into their districts, slated for resettlement pending a German victory over the Soviets - a victory which never materialized, leaving hundreds of thousands of Jews to fend for themselves following the German retreat. As pointed out by myself before, Stalin hardly had any humanitarian or political incentive to allow Western and Polish Jews to be deported back into Western Europe. On the contrary, he had every reason to keep these Jews under Soviet lock and key, not only because the Soviets looked upon "foreign Jews" as a dangerous political element, but also to maintain the myth of German extermination - a propaganda narrative which the Soviet Union was at the helm of. This explains the numerous reports about huge numbers of Jews stuck in the Soviet Union after the war, and Stalin's notorious deportations of Jews to places in Siberia during the late 1940's and early 1950's.

As demonstrated by Kues and others, there is no plausible explanation within the framework of the orthodox Holocaust narrative for why some Western Jews ended up in regions such as Ukraine and Belarus, or, indeed, places like the Baltics. Diary entries all but prove that Jews were transited through Sobibor, Chelmno and Treblinka to eastern regions occupied by the Germans.

By the way, I want to highlight the unsurprising fact that Holocaust affirmers have been forced to shift their argumentative weight towards the Reinhard camps and away from Auschwitz. This was a strategically necessary decision. Given the documentary black hole for the activity of the Reinhard camps, bar a handful of rare documents, Holocaust affirmers are able to stake their absurd claims on even more absurd witness statements. Having been completely shattered in regards to Auschwitz-Birkenau ever since the Russian State Archives opened up their Auschwitz collection to the public in the 1990's, Holocaust affirmers have been forced to utilize the lack of documentary evidence for the activity of the Reinhard camps to sustain their hypothesis.

[HistorySpeaks]

Okay so you cannot tell me with any kind of specificity where the 1.4 million Reinhardt-camp Jews went, but instead can only point in general terms to the fact that the Germans had camps and labour colonies in the East. Good to know.

Which diary entries are you referring to that in your judgment 'prove' the Reinhardt Jews were transited?

Regarding Auschwitz-Birkenau, you guys still cannot satisfactorily explain for the construction documents Pressac identified decades ago. Take LK1 of Cremas 2/3. Thomas Dalton said it was a morgue in our debate. Why was a morgue referred to as a "gassing cellar" in need of "gas-tight doors" and a "pre-heating" system by the Germans?

Some deniers have recognized that the 'just a morgue theory' is discredited, and theorize that LK1 WAS a gas chamber: an "emergency disinfestation chamber." This contradicts all the testimonial evidence, raises the question why an "undressing room" is adjacent to the delousing chamber, and most devastatingly is directly refuted by German documentation listing all the delousing facilities in Auschwitz (among which is NOT LK1).

Mattogno (in Auschwitz the Case for Sanity). Strangely, Germar Rudolf makes the same suggestion in the Chemistry of Auschwitz. But calling LK1 a gas chamber (homicidal or not) would appear to discredit all of Rudolf's 'chemistry' arguments. (Unless he wants to-conveniently-suggest that the gas chamber LK1 was 'never used.')

[hermod]

Where Specifically Do Exterminationists Think the Eastern Ethnic Germans Went?

Warning: Any failure to provide the specific postwar addresses and phone numbers of the 12-15 million displaced Volksdeutsche proves the extermination of six million of them during the germanophobic expulsion of WWII.

Are we supposed to believe that the Soviets were dumb enough or careless enough or truth-loving enough to provide or even archive German documents debunking their own atrocity propaganda on the German occupation of Eastern Europe during "The Great Patriotic War"? Are we supposed to believe that the Soviets couldn't do what the Israelis did with the memory of Palestine's natives?

[Hektor]

I know that the typical line is that the 1.4 million Jews sent to Sobibor, Belzec, and Treblinka, were resettled in the East.

But where specifically were these Jews resettled? How many settlements were there?

They went where they did go, plain and simple.


But since the assertion is made they were killed at specific camps. Where are the remains of 1.4 million Jews then. That's the real question that needs to be answered. Not asking "Where did they go then?" That question is a cop out.

It's a kin to the question to kids: "Who did bring the Christmas presents", if "Santa doesn't exist".

[Archie]

Obviously if all of the Jewish populations movements could be demonstrated with certainty there wouldn't be decades of debate about it. The territories of most of interest were under Communist control which did not help matters. In many instances, Jewish population figures are whatever Jewish groups say they are.

Do you think we haven't heard this where-did-they-go argument before? Do we need to explain to you why revisionists don't find this gambit convincing or do you already know?

[Hektor]

Obviously if all of the Jewish populations movements could be demonstrated with certainty there wouldn't be decades of debate about it. The territories of most of interest were under Communist control which did not help matters. In many instances, Jewish population figures are whatever Jewish groups say they are.

Do you think we haven't heard this where-did-they-go argument before? Do we need to explain to you why revisionists don't find this gambit convincing or do you already know?

Or whatever the government says the figures are. And even if the counting is half-way realistic. What will form the base? Ethnicity or Religion? Ethnicity can be assigned or self-proclaimed. Religion in an officially atheistic country can cause you problems. So lots of folks will pick the ethnicity of the language they speak. And state nothing with regards to religion. Jews were fearing persecution, so they shut up about being Jewish. Jews were increasingly atheistic during the 20th century... So they wouldn't be prone to state Judaism, neither. What you get would be Poles, Belarussians, Ukrainians, Russians, etc. that say they are not members of any denomination.

And well, the Soviets and other Communists were turning against Israel over time after WW2... While Israel aligned with the US.

This changed after the fall of the USSR... Far more people were stating to be Jewish now, since that helped with emigration as well.
So one needs to be cautious with that kind of statistics. Even for other countries, after the situation has adapted.

I searched for Jewish surnames in Poland and found out there are actually plenty of those, still. Though I don't think those people will say they are Jewish... They even may have converted to Catholicism or simply be Atheists now.


That there were population shifts during and after world war two, isn't really in dispute neither. And it will have changed demographics, statistics, etc. It's only Jewish population statistics that somehow are supposed ot be 'proof of Genocide'... With other populations the shifts are assumed to have different reasons and actually any 'genocide' or killing will be denied or brushed of. Such would be e.g. the case with Germans in Polish or Czech controlled territories. Their treatment was legitimized ex post facto. Oh yeah, bring it up in debates that Germans were killed for being Germans and you get any of the following responses:
* Denial, people will say they never heard about it, hence it didn't happen.
* Justification, "Ya, but the Germans were evil Nazis", so they deserved it"

That's the same people that sanctimonious will believe and condemn the Holocaust... Cognitive dissonance, when they are asked to use the same logic in both cases. It reveals those people's gullibility, ignorance and hypocrisy... So expect them to turn defensive as well. That reinforces the narrative of course and they will 'stick to their guns'.

[fireofice]

Regarding Auschwitz-Birkenau, you guys still cannot satisfactorily explain for the construction documents Pressac identified decades ago. Take LK1 of Cremas 2/3. Thomas Dalton said it was a morgue in our debate. Why was a morgue referred to as a "gassing cellar" in need of "gas-tight doors" and a "pre-heating" system by the Germans?

Some deniers have recognized that the 'just a morgue theory' is discredited, and theorize that LK1 WAS a gas chamber: an "emergency disinfestation chamber." This contradicts all the testimonial evidence, raises the question why an "undressing room" is adjacent to the delousing chamber, and most devastatingly is directly refuted by German documentation listing all the delousing facilities in Auschwitz (among which is NOT LK1).

Mattogno (in Auschwitz the Case for Sanity). Strangely, Germar Rudolf makes the same suggestion in the Chemistry of Auschwitz. But calling LK1 a gas chamber (homicidal or not) would appear to discredit all of Rudolf's 'chemistry' arguments. (Unless he wants to-conveniently-suggest that the gas chamber LK1 was 'never used.')

It's not out of "convenience" to say it wasn't used. The chemical analysis demonstrates that it wasn't used. Or if it was used, it was used not nearly enough to get the chemical results that the other delousing rooms have. Also, Van Pelt said that the "gassing cellar" line was underlined in red, which he uses to say that they slipped up and accidentally showed that it was a homicidal gas chamber. Or they could have just slipped up and referred to the room as something that it wasn't, like a currently in use delousing room, and the underline was there to emphasize the mistake. In a vacuum, there is no reason to prefer one explanation over the other. But when you look at the other surrounding evidence, it is clear that the latter explanation is more likely. The document can say whatever it wants, that doesn't make it true if it doesn't conform to material reality.

And yes, the gas tight doors were probably there in case they needed an emergency delousing if the other rooms were out of operation for whatever reason. There's no harm in being too careful if there's no significant cost. If it was a backup, it would not be a surprise if it was never used or referred to as such in any documents (except for the one time they accidentally referred to it as a "gassing cellar"). We can tell if it was used often by analyzing the chemical makeup of the room, which Germar Rudolf has done. As for a heater, it is completely expected for a freezing morgue where freezing bodies were a problem and it's actually fairly standard practice to have one for morgues, although it was never implemented in this case. Details are covered here on page 89:
https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/42-ataootgc.pdf

[Butterfangers]

Okay so you cannot tell me with any kind of specificity where the 1.4 million Reinhardt-camp Jews went, but instead can only point in general terms to the fact that the Germans had camps and labour colonies in the East. Good to know.

The only thing you know, just like us, is that those Jews were sent East and that the AR camps held some significance along those paths. Their obvious significance from a geopolitical and logistical perspective was their location along the border where the rail gauges changed (and also being adjacent to the "labor hub" of Europe, the Lublin district, from which Jewish laborers could be quickly dispatched along those routes to meet labor needs further East). This feature is more prominent than any characteristics of the camps which could render them as especially great "extermination" sites.

Your dismissive attitude toward the relevance of Germany having camps and labor colonies in the East demonstrates a bias which speaks volumes. Germany had LOTS of labor camps in the East, those shown below are a small sample (red is single, green is multiple):

https://www.mapcustomizer.com/map/Zwang ... ndUkraine7

The best-known labor camps (those shown above, although details are sparse) are those which are along the transportation lines, shown here as they existed in November 1941:

But beyond those which were widely known and reported on, we know Germany was setting up these camps and collection sites everywhere:

THIRTEEN years ago, researchers at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum began the grim task of documenting all the ghettos, slave labor sites, concentration camps and killing factories that the Nazis set up throughout Europe.

What they have found so far has shocked even scholars steeped in the history of the Holocaust.

The researchers have cataloged some 42,500 Nazi ghettos and camps throughout Europe, spanning German-controlled areas from France to Russia and Germany itself, during Hitler’s reign of brutality from 1933 to 1945.

The figure is so staggering that even fellow Holocaust scholars had to make sure they had heard it correctly when the lead researchers previewed their findings at an academic forum in late January at the German Historical Institute in Washington.

“The numbers are so much higher than what we originally thought,” Hartmut Berghoff, director of the institute, said in an interview after learning of the new data...

When the research began in 2000, Dr. Megargee said he expected to find perhaps 7,000 Nazi camps and ghettos, based on postwar estimates. But the numbers kept climbing — first to 11,500, then 20,000, then 30,000, and now 42,500.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/sund ... cking.html

Of course, there was little incentive to track and trace where Jews ended up after being sent East for resettlement. The important bit was to ensure they were used for labor where possible and otherwise sent far away, with as few records as possible which could someday facilitate their return. Given the scale of numbers outlined above, there were likely many thousands of sites where Jews were being dispersed throughout in the East. The piece which I think folks on your side of this debate have trouble accepting is that the Soviet Union is at least as suspect when it comes to the question of "what happened to those Jews sent East?".

Their destination was not Tokyo. It wasn't California. They were sent into Stalin's arms, ultimately, whose treatment of minorities is without a doubt among the worst in history, to which Jews are no exception.

You ask us, "where do you [Revisionists] think Reinhardt Jews went?". Let me ask you instead, if you assume for a moment that we are correct that these Jews were indeed resettled [at least for a period] in the Eastern territories, how many of them ended up in gulags? Killed by the advancing Soviet army? Starved? Died of disease? How many of the children "reeducated" and losing all Jewish identity? How many quietly assimilating into Soviet society and lived another 10-20 (or more) years without anyone ever asking them how they ended up there? How many escaped and emigrated, then did the same?

Who was more motivated to cover-up "where these Jews went": Stalin or Hitler?

The key point is that we both claim destinations we cannot fully prove. The difference is, your destination has an exact pinpoint on a map. And we've dug in those places. For the most part, we have come up empty-handed. And it is you who is claiming certainty of those locations.

[Hektor]

Okay so you cannot tell me with any kind of specificity where the 1.4 million Reinhardt-camp Jews went, but instead can only point in general terms to the fact that the Germans had camps and labour colonies in the East. Good to know.

The only thing you know, just like us, is that those Jews were sent East and that the AR camps held some significance along those paths. Their obvious significance from a geopolitical and logistical perspective was their location along the border where the rail gauges changed (and also being adjacent to the "labor hub" of Europe, the Lublin district, from which Jewish laborers could be quickly dispatched along those routes to meet labor needs further East). This feature is more prominent than any characteristics of the camps which could render them as especially great "extermination" sites.

Your dismissive attitude toward the relevance of Germany having camps and labor colonies in the East demonstrates a bias which speaks volumes. Germany had LOTS of labor camps in the East, those shown below are a small sample (red is single, green is multiple):
.....

One has to completely ignore the significance of where the Aktion Reinhard camps were, to make the Holocaust Myth fly. But that they were placed to the East of the 'Generalgouvernment' is significant. It makes perfect sense to have them there to first gather Jews (and perhaps others as well) to put them into batches to be sent Eastward. If they NS-government wanted to have extermination camps there, they would have had appropriate facilities there to do so, which they had not. The factual evidences are not the friends of exterminationism. Which is why Exterminationists have to rely on 'testimony'. And of the first testimony in this regard stems from characters like Jan Karski, who was a spy (hence skilled in deception) for the Polish government in exile. That any Allied government would have had an ulterior motive to frame the Axis/Germans with atrocities should be beyond any dispute. But that very fact is totally blinded out by Exterminationists in their narrative construction. In other Words: Bad Historiography makes you an Exterminationist. Good Historiography is always revisionistic in character. Given that the Exterminationists don't really have too much worth showing, they resort to debating tactics like slander, innuendo, manipulative presenting, distortions, emotional manipulation, etc., etc. One can not be honest and be an Exterminationist at the same time. This is even demonstrated by their lip-services given to 'freedom of speech', 'freedom of research' etc. They will state that they are against persecution of Revisionists... But are all to happy that Revisionists have a rope around their neck. And that there is no balanced research on WW2 in general within official academia. Because if their would be, they maybe won't look that smart after that. Well, they already got some eggs on their face, but manage to make it look like being victims now.

[curioussoul]

Okay so you cannot tell me with any kind of specificity where the 1.4 million Reinhardt-camp Jews went, but instead can only point in general terms to the fact that the Germans had camps and labour colonies in the East. Good to know.

We cannot demonstrate anything with specificity because the documents no longer exist. What is known, however, is that the Reinhard camps kept careful records of Jews and property passing through these camps, records which were destroyed following the dismantling of these camps. The purpose of Project Reinhard was the confiscation of Jewish property within the framework of the German resettlement policy, and it is hardly surprising that the Germans had these camps torn down and all records destroyed, because these activities constituted a war crime under international law. In addition, Odilo Globocnigg's financial report to Himmler, detailing seized property, demonstrates that the Germans were ultimately considering compensation for resettled peoples within the context of Project Reinhard.

Which diary entries are you referring to that in your judgment 'prove' the Reinhardt Jews were transited?

I am referring to diaries such as those of Herman Kruk and Avraham Tory, both of whom detailed transports of Jews that are completely at odds with official historiography on the Holocaust but fit perfectly within the theory of the Reinhard camps being transit camps for Jews. Let me also highlight the fact that Heinrich Himmler and subordinates referred to Sobibor as a "durchgangslager" in several rare documents - another "secret code word" I presume.

Regarding Auschwitz-Birkenau, you guys still cannot satisfactorily explain for the construction documents Pressac identified decades ago.

Are you seriously pivoting to Auschwitz-Birkenau in your own thread about the Reinhard camps? Alright, I'll bite.

Take LK1 of Cremas 2/3. Thomas Dalton said it was a morgue in our debate. Why was a morgue referred to as a "gassing cellar"

Let me start off by pointing out that the document that talks of LK1 as a "gassing cellar" is completely incompatible with the extermination hypothesis, because of how the document is worded. Here is what it actually says:

"The furnaces were fired up in the presence of senior engineer Prüfer of the contracting firm, Messrs. Topf & Söhne of Erfurt, and function perfectly. The planking of the reinforced concrete ceiling of the corpse cellar could not yet be stripped because of the effect of frost. This is, however, of no importance, because the gassing cellar can be used for this instead."

Namely, LK2 can not be put into operation because of the effect of frost, but this is not an issue because LK1 can be used instead. If we are to follow the official narrative, LK2 was the undressing room for Jews going into the gas chamber, which raises the question how LK1 could have simultaneously been used as the undressing room and the gassing room. However, LK1 could not possibly have been used as a homicidal gas chamber at that time, because, as the document points out:

"On account of freight restrictions, Topf & Söhne have as yet been unable to supply in time the aeration and de-aeration system as requested by Zentralbauleitung. On arrival of the aeration and de-aeration equipment installation will proceed immediately, and it is expected that the unit will be ready for operation on February 20, 1943."

The document dates from 29 January 1943. Given these facts, it is easy to rule out the possibility of LK1 having been a homicidal gas chamber. Conversely, it is easy to see that LK1 was temporarily planned to become a provisional delousing room, given that the documents date from a period of flare-up of typhus in the camp and immediately following an order from Himmler to lower the death tolls in the concentration camps by any means possible. It is even possible that the room was to be used for delousing corpses. This is not the only time delousing and the crematoria in Birkenau were associated in documents.

But let me also make a different argument: Pressac admitted that the Birkenau crematoria can not possibly have been planned from the get-go as homicidal installations. Rather, they were converted for mass murder at a later point during construction. If we assume that the Germans had decided upon the use of LK1 as a homicidal gas chamber by January 29th 1943, why is there a clear photograph of the roof of LK1, dating from January 1943, showing the roof without vents for Zyklon B? This would imply that the Germans filled in the concrete ceiling of the morgue without holes, later to open it up by hand.

in need of "gas-tight doors"

Within the context of LK1 having been used as a provisional delousing room, it is wholly unsurprising that they Germans installed gas-tight doors.

and a "pre-heating" system by the Germans?

If you want to make an argument, make an argument. If you want to play games, then go somewhere else. What is your claim in regards to the "pre-heating" of the morgues? Do you even understand the argument you're trying to make?

Some deniers have recognized that the 'just a morgue theory' is discredited

LK1 was a morgue, which is attested to by documents running all through 1943 and 1944. Contrary to the claims by Van Pelt and company, we know for an absolute fact that LK1 was used as a morgue at the very time it is claimed to have been used as a homicidal gas chamber. We even know that Rudolf Hoess issued orders for the removal of corpses twice a day to the morgues. If, as Van Pelt claims, there was no permanent morgue capacity in Birkenau because the morgues were in actuality homicidal gas chambers, how do we square this with the reams of documents from the SS camp garrison, the Zentralbauleitung and the garrison physician talking about these very morgues?

This contradicts all the testimonial evidence, raises the question why an "undressing room" is adjacent to the delousing chamber

Yes, it does contradict the wildly improbable witness testimonies from the Sonderkommando about the gas chambers. As stated, LK1 and LK2 were officially morgues, LK2 having been an undressing room for corpses. The possibility of LK1 having been temporarily planned as a provisional delousing room has no bearing on the purpose of LK2.

and most devastatingly is directly refuted by German documentation listing all the delousing facilities in Auschwitz (among which is NOT LK1).

No one has ever made the argument that LK1 was officially classified as a delousing building or part of the Zentralsauna. You are obviously aware of this, which only highlights your intellectual dishonesty. The argument is that, at the height of a new typhus flare-up in Birkenau and following Himmler's/Glueck's order to lower the deaths tolls by any means necessary, the Germans temporarily planned for LK1 to be used as a provisional delousing room, even though the room was officially built, planned and used as a morgue. This argument says absolutely nothing about whether this building was actually ever used for that purpose.

Strangely, Germar Rudolf makes the same suggestion in the Chemistry of Auschwitz. But calling LK1 a gas chamber (homicidal or not) would appear to discredit all of Rudolf's 'chemistry' arguments. (Unless he wants to-conveniently-suggest that the gas chamber LK1 was 'never used.')

How does it discredit Rudolf's accurate claim about Iron Blue? Even if we assume that LK1 was actually used temporarily to delouse corpses or objects (which, again, might not ever have been the case), this would not necessarily have resulted in massive blue staining given the limited use of this building for delousing. In fact, we know that most buildings in Auschwitz were deloused at some point, because trace amounts of hydrogen cyanide was detected all over the camp. Only the delousing chambers have the blue staining (and hundreds of times higher levels of hydrogen cyanide in the walls).

[HistorySpeaks]

One thing that genuinely baffles me is the expectation that the cremas should have lots of HCN.

Crema I was used for gassings at an extremely small scale, so the relatively low HCN levels there make sense.

Cremas II-V were literally blown up after the war. The brick and mortar have been exposed to the elements for generations, and hydrogen cyanide is water soluble.

In fact, that substantial levels of HCN have been found in the ruins of all five buildings is strong evidence of gassings.

[curioussoul]

One thing that genuinely baffles me is the expectation that the cremas should have lots of HCN.

Crema I was used for gassings at an extremely small scale, so the relatively low HCN levels there make sense.

Fine.

Cremas II-V were literally blown up after the war. The brick and mortar have been exposed to the elements for generations, and hydrogen cyanide is water soluble.

Long-term stable Iron Blue is extremely resistant to weathering and even to acids, which is evidenced by the fact that the Iron Blue staining in the delousing chambers literally penetrated the brick mortar all the way through the brickwork onto the outside of the wall, and is still visible to this very day, despite having been exposed to the open air for decades. So the idea that weathering would necessarily destroy every single remnant of Iron Blue staining is simply ludicrous. At the very least, partial staining would have been visible on the parts of the ruins not directly exposed to the elements even if your argument was true.

In fact, that substantial levels of HCN have been found in the ruins of all five buildings is strong evidence of gassings.

Substantial levels...? In the tests conducted by Jan Markiewicz the HCN levels in all buildings, including various barracks and sleeping quarters, were so low that some of them were below the detection limit for the sampling equipment, and should consequently have been rendered as non-detection. In fact, what HCN was detected might not even have originated with delousings, but might as well have been contaminants from the surrounding atmosphere, exhaust gases or false positives. We furthermore know for a fact that almost every building in Auschwitz was deloused as a routine matter, which explains the presence of trace amounts of HCN pretty much everywhere in the camp.

It should come as no surprise that the delousing chambers had HCN levels hundreds of times higher than both the claimed homicidal gas chambers and the other buildings in the camp.

[HistorySpeaks]

Curious,

So is your claim that the formation of Prussian Blue is a necessary consequence of repeated HCN exposure?

If so, you are mistaken. The delousing chamber in "Barrack X" of Dachau has no Prussian blue stains . This proves that exposure to HCN does not necessarily result in the formation of Prussian Blue.


Pic related (regarding the Barrack X building, which was a crematorium containing four furnaces, sanitary facilities, the - never used - homicidal gas chamber, and the - actively used - delousing gas chamber.):

[Hektor]

Curious,

So is your claim that the formation of Prussian Blue is a necessary consequence of repeated HCN exposure?

If so, you are mistaken. The delousing chamber in "Barrack X" of Dachau has no Prussian blue stains . This proves that exposure to HCN does not necessarily result in the formation of Prussian Blue.

....

That would depend on the material that is disposed. There are several conditions that lead to the formation of prussian blue. If they are not given, than formation of prussian blue is unlikely.

E.g. the conditions in the morgues of Krema II and Krema III would have been ideal for the formation of Prussian Blue, if it was used as alleged.
It is unlikely to happen with older buildings and if it isn't of the appropriate type of building material. But you can read this up in the respective literature. Only after you have done this, it can become worthwhile to debate it.