Material difference between Crema III morgue and Delousing room

[gelert]

HI guys, long time browser, first time poster.

I was thinking about the assertion that the Crema III Morgue at Auschwitz-Birkenau had it's walls washed to remove the Prussian blue resulting from the alleged homicidal gassings. Often, the state of the morgue walls and the nearby delousing building are compared to show what should be expected.

This prompts the question from me: What exactly is the material difference between the Crema III morgue, the alleged gas chamber, and the delousing building?

If the narrative requires us to believe the Germans were so diligent in hiding their activities that they washed all evidence of the use of HCG in these chambers, why would they not do the same to the delousing chamber so that it was not also assumed to be such. Why is it modern holocaust historians have never assumed the delousing building to be a secondary homicidal gas chamber?

It seems the Delousing chamber is a more practical site for extermination than the morgue given that it does not require bodies to be hoisted from underground on a flimsy wooden lift. The only thing the morgue has going for it is it's proximity to the crematoria.

This line seems to highlight the obvious thought process behind the original fabrications. Neither the inmates organised by allied intelligence to create black propaganda, nor the soviet commissars who "inspected" the site knew about the obvious traces of HCG use and simply attached the site of the alleged gassings to the Crema to invoke imagery of a industrialised genocide.

It may be interesting to see how far one could play devils advocate and make the case for why the morgue is a revision and that the so called "delousing room" is in fact the real gas chamber.

[Fred zz]

was not long ago I posted this
see attachments

[curioussoul]

The "washing the walls argument" has never held up to critical scrutiny, not only because the roof obviously would not have been washed, but because such washings arguably would make the walls more susceptible to blue staining in the long term (by wetting them, thus simplifying the chemical reaction between the iron oxides in the wall and the hydrogen cyanide in the room).

It's hard to imagine that the washings (if they did occur) were so thorough that every single part of every single wall in Crema II and III never saw any staining whatsoever. If they washed away piss and shit from the walls, why would literally every part of all 6 surfaces be washed? It's simply not plausible that not even a little staining occurred, especially on parts of the wall above 2-3 feet, to be generous.

Needless to say there is no evidence for any washings. And even though the vast majority of the witnesses never mention washings, we're supposed to take the claims of one or two witnesses for granted simply to find an explanation for the lack of blue staining in the gas chamber. Is this really how the historical process is supposed to work? I think not.

[Hektor]

It's a cop-out. Why are there no blue stains from HCN? "Oh, they washed the walls." That's unproven, of course. And it is a non-sequitur as well.
But make it a bone of contention. Then you can jump back to your favorite 'eye-witness testimony' or point to some trial verdict affirming the Holocaust Narrative.

Oh, and as far as witnesses go. Don't forget that the majority of potential witnesses didn't know about 'The Holocaust' until after the war.