Document changing morgue to Gas chamber

[Fred zz]

Are any of you out there familiar with the document in the attachment?

I am told it shows the Germans initially intended the Birkenau 2 and 3 to be morgues but were changed to gas chambers
I do not read German and hope someone out there can give a general translation of this document major points or know anything about it. THis is the first time I have seen it
See attachment

[hermod]

If memory serves me right, that was part of a sanitary project intending to convert some morgues into temporary delousing facilities with showers for inmates and gas chambers (fumigation cubicles) for clothes. But the project was finally abandoned when larger delousing facilities were finally completed elsewhere in the camp. Have a look at the paper linked below...

https://codoh.com/library/document/the- ... in-the/en/

[Marley775]

There is also a document related to gas chamber for the extension of Krema IV & V, but yet, other documents debunk the homicidal purpose reveaiing a project of sanitary installations during the same period.

https://imgur.com/0z5v5pB

Here's a rough translation of the worksheet

Arbeitskarte : worksheet

Installateure : plumber

Für kremarorium IV & V: For crematories 4&5

Ist folgende arbeit aszuführen : The following work is to be carried out

Ausführung der sanitaren installation: Execution of sanitary installation.

From 13/3/1943 to 23/4/1943

653 hours by specialist
163 hours by helpers
************************

653 hours only to install fake shower heads is a nonsense !

Source from book 'Auschwitz The case for sanity by Carlo Mattogno, p.178, 713 (doc 32)

[Otium]

Yes.

Unsurprisingly this is a document taken from Jean-Claude Pressac's magnum opus.

Exterminationists cling to Pressac's work because they have nothing else.

The translation of this document is as follows:

Description of building

General: Single storey building, partly over basement, comprising:

Basement: Corpse cellar 30.0 x 7.0 [m] with ventilation and air extraction ducts, 1 gas tight door, 1 corpse cellar 50.0 x 7.93 [m], wind break and vestibule, 1 gold processing room, 1 office with safe, 1 antechamber with lift [temporary goods hoist], 3 stairways, 1 [corpse] chute.

Ground floor: 1 wind break, 1 corridor, 1 dissecting room with table, 1 laboratory, 1 washroom, 1 WC, 1 [corpse] washing room, 1 incineration room with 53 muffle cremation furnaces and blower installation, with corpse charging trolley on rails, coal [in fact coke] or clinker trolley on rails, 1 brick separating wall for the ashes of corpses [outside yard], 1 motor room [in fact three], 1 waste incinerator room, 1 brick separating wall for waste [another outside yard], 1 fuel store, 1 capos room, 1 tool store [irons for firing and operating the furnaces], 1 room with urinal and WC [and shower], 1 prisoners' rest mom, 1 corridor, 1 stairway.

Roof space: 1 heraclite built room for prisoner accommodation, 1 loft with furnace room air extraction ducts, 1 loft with air extraction for the whole Krematorium and 1 temporary goods hoist.

External walls: Brickwork with no facing
Internal walls: Brickwork, plastered and whitewashed
Ceilings: Ackermann reinforced parpends
Floor: Concrete floor with cement screed
Stairways: Reinforced concrete with cement screed
Roof: Gable roof with dormers, tile covered
Windows: Single glazing
Water supply and drainage: Basement and ground floor
Lighting: Electric lighting
Heating: 1 chimney installation 15.46 m high

Jean-Claude Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers (New York: Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, 1989), Doc. 50, p. 231.

Digital Page

Pressac actually states that this document doesn't prove homicidal intent:

It is not possible with these documents alone to prove that it was “homicidal”.

Jean-Claude Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers (New York: Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, 1989), Doc. 50, p. 231.

Of course, true to his method, he finds 'proof' of it's criminal intent in combining various documents (49, 50, 51 and 52) and witness statements, to then interpret them altogether to mean something sinister, which is quite literally supposition, i.e. not proof. This is the essence of what Pressac and the exterminationists are all about, so-called 'criminal traces'.

Particularly interesting is Document 52 for the 'basement inventory' of 'Leichenkeller 2' (which he thinks is actually for 'Leichenkeller 1') which states that it required '4 Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung' and '4 Holzblended' translated by him as 'wire mesh introduction devices' and 'wooden covers' respectively. This is clearly intended to serve as proof for the Zyklon B introduction columns, or 'Kula columns'. The problem is that Pressac transcribes the word incorrectly, and mistranslates it, giving it a new meaning which doesn't align with his claims.

Pressac notes that the “Krematorium inventories, drawn up when the buildings were completed, also provide an almost incredible supplementary proof: mention of the device for introducing Zyklon B into a Leichenkeller.” In the inventory for Crematorium II, Pressac did, in fact, read the entries “4 Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung” and “4 Holzblenden,” which he interprets as “wire mesh introduction devices” and “wooden covers” [...] Pressac’s deciphering is correct, except for the omission of a vowel: the word in question is actually spelled “Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung”. “Holzblenden” is correct.

Carlo Mattogno, The Real Case for Auschwitz: Robert van Pelt’s Evidence from the Irving Trial Critically Reviewed (Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers, 2019), p. 76.

In the aforementioned work by Mattogno I just quoted from, Section 2.5. covers the alleged “Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung” and “Holzblenden” (pp. 76-85) and also shows his attributing these 'devices' to Leichenkeller 1 is unjustified, and done purely to service his narrative. It of course covers the fact that Pressac mistranslated these words to mean something which they do not.

Robert Faurisson wrote of this:

I repeat that, as can be noted still today, the roof of the alleged gas chamber has no opening, no such means. Moreover, the Italian revisionist Carlo Mattogno has rightly alerted me to a translation error made by Pressac: Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung implies an implement for “inserting” (einschieben) and not for “pouring.” It is possible that this German word designates the steel latticework set in the concrete, which enabled the insertion or installation of something or other.

Robert Faurisson, "Reply to Jean-Claude Pressac on the Problem of the Gas Chambers", in: Germar Rudolf (ed.), Auschwitz Plain Facts: A Response to Jean-Claude Pressac (Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers, 2016), p. 94.

Mattogno's brief refutation of Pressac on this question is as follows:

“Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung” – wire mesh push-in device – does not mean “introduction devices made of wire netting,” as Pressac translates it (dispositifs d’introduction en treillis de fil de fer, p. 79). The German verb “einschieben” means to insert, to slide into, to push in, for example, to insert or push a drawer into a cabinet.

The alleged device for the introduction of Zyklon B in the alleged homicidal gas chambers would have been called “Einwurfvorrichtung” (throw in device). Pressac himself speaks in fact of déversement, “pouring out,” of the Zyklon B in the alleged homicidal gas chambers (p. 89). The wooden blinds (Holzblenden, p. 79) cannot be what Pressac maintains either, i.e. wooden covers or lids of the alleged introduction devices for the Zyklon B. These devices would have been called “Holzdeckel,” precisely lids, not blinds.

Pressac states that the above-mentioned devices were found in “Morgue 1” (p. 79), that is, the alleged homicidal gas chamber. But in reality, in the inventory of Crematory II, these devices are attributed to Morgue 2, the alleged undressing room. Did the SS want to gas the victims in the “undressing room”? But that’s not all: These devices do not figure at all in the inventory of Crematory III. Then how did the SS think they could introduce the Zyklon B into the gas chamber? By affably asking the victims to carry in the cans of Zyklon B and open them after the gas-proof door closed behind them? Therefore, these devices could have been anything but what Jean-Claude Pressac claims.

Carlo Mattogno, "Auschwitz: The End of a Legend", in: Germar Rudolf (ed.), Auschwitz Plain Facts: A Response to Jean-Claude Pressac (Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers, 2016), pp. 178-179.

So, we can see why Pressac wanted these devices moved from the undressing room into the alleged homicidal gas chamber. All the facts simply don't fit the way Pressac wanted them, so he made them fit, and of course this was uncritically accepted.

As a rule of thumb, if you're presented with a document, it's likely from Pressac, so always check his book.

[hermod]

Of course, true to his method, he finds 'proof' of it's criminal intent in combining various documents (49, 50, 51 and 52) and witness statements, to then interpret them altogether to mean something sinister, which is quite literally supposition, i.e. not proof. This is the essence of what Pressac and the exterminationists are all about, so-called 'criminal traces'.

Particularly interesting is Document 52 for the 'basement inventory' of 'Leichenkeller 2' (which he thinks is actually for 'Leichenkeller 1') which states that it required '4 Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung' and '4 Holzblended' translated by him as 'wire mesh introduction devices' and 'wooden covers' respectively. This is clearly intended to serve as proof for the Zyklon B introduction columns, or 'Kula columns'. The problem is that Pressac transcribes the word incorrectly, and mistranslates it, giving it a new meaning which doesn't align with his claims.

Pressac notes that the “Krematorium inventories, drawn up when the buildings were completed, also provide an almost incredible supplementary proof: mention of the device for introducing Zyklon B into a Leichenkeller.” In the inventory for Crematorium II, Pressac did, in fact, read the entries “4 Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung” and “4 Holzblenden,” which he interprets as “wire mesh introduction devices” and “wooden covers” [...] Pressac’s deciphering is correct, except for the omission of a vowel: the word in question is actually spelled “Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung”. “Holzblenden” is correct.

Carlo Mattogno, The Real Case for Auschwitz: Robert van Pelt’s Evidence from the Irving Trial Critically Reviewed (Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers, 2019), p. 76.

In the aforementioned work by Mattogno I just quoted from, Section 2.5. covers the alleged “Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung” and “Holzblenden” (pp. 76-85) and also shows his attributing these 'devices' to Leichenkeller 1 is unjustified, and done purely to service his narrative. It of course covers the fact that Pressac mistranslated these words to mean something which they do not.

Robert Faurisson wrote of this:

I repeat that, as can be noted still today, the roof of the alleged gas chamber has no opening, no such means. Moreover, the Italian revisionist Carlo Mattogno has rightly alerted me to a translation error made by Pressac: Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung implies an implement for “inserting” (einschieben) and not for “pouring.” It is possible that this German word designates the steel latticework set in the concrete, which enabled the insertion or installation of something or other.

Robert Faurisson, "Reply to Jean-Claude Pressac on the Problem of the Gas Chambers", in: Germar Rudolf (ed.), Auschwitz Plain Facts: A Response to Jean-Claude Pressac (Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers, 2016), p. 94.

Mattogno's brief refutation of Pressac on this question is as follows:

“Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung” – wire mesh push-in device – does not mean “introduction devices made of wire netting,” as Pressac translates it (dispositifs d’introduction en treillis de fil de fer, p. 79). The German verb “einschieben” means to insert, to slide into, to push in, for example, to insert or push a drawer into a cabinet.

The alleged device for the introduction of Zyklon B in the alleged homicidal gas chambers would have been called “Einwurfvorrichtung” (throw in device). Pressac himself speaks in fact of déversement, “pouring out,” of the Zyklon B in the alleged homicidal gas chambers (p. 89). The wooden blinds (Holzblenden, p. 79) cannot be what Pressac maintains either, i.e. wooden covers or lids of the alleged introduction devices for the Zyklon B. These devices would have been called “Holzdeckel,” precisely lids, not blinds.

Pressac states that the above-mentioned devices were found in “Morgue 1” (p. 79), that is, the alleged homicidal gas chamber. But in reality, in the inventory of Crematory II, these devices are attributed to Morgue 2, the alleged undressing room. Did the SS want to gas the victims in the “undressing room”? But that’s not all: These devices do not figure at all in the inventory of Crematory III. Then how did the SS think they could introduce the Zyklon B into the gas chamber? By affably asking the victims to carry in the cans of Zyklon B and open them after the gas-proof door closed behind them? Therefore, these devices could have been anything but what Jean-Claude Pressac claims.

Carlo Mattogno, "Auschwitz: The End of a Legend", in: Germar Rudolf (ed.), Auschwitz Plain Facts: A Response to Jean-Claude Pressac (Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers, 2016), pp. 178-179.

So, we can see why Pressac wanted these devices moved from the undressing room into the alleged homicidal gas chamber. All the facts simply don't fit the way Pressac wanted them, so he made them fit, and of course this was uncritically accepted.

https://postimg.cc/KRbNWTqF

[Otium]

I should've added the following to my last post:

Regarding the alleged 'wire mesh introduction devices' and 'wooden covers' which Pressac believes existed; he doesn't explain how exactly such devices were to be constructed by architects or builders without precise instructions, as far as I'm aware. There would have to be further documentary proof for the actual method of construction, and orders to that effect. It seems extremely implausible to me that no documentation could exist that doesn't show builders, or architects having been briefed on how any of this was supposed to work not only technically, but in terms of the object itself which would have to be precisely designed.

Writing a vague word like 'Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung' isn't by any means sufficient to convey the complexity of the project entailed. Someone would actually have to know what this device is, especially seeing as it was constructed - in the exterminationist view - for a very specific and unique purpose. Someone would actually have to implement the device, and know where/how to do so. This word alone cannot tell us anything else about how this device was to be constructed, or inserted into the building. There is NO other documentation (to my knowledge) about this device, let alone all of the orders and instructions which would necessarily have to follow in creating and implementing such a thing.

There would be so many practical questions entailed with something like this. Many people would have to have known about it, and enquired about it, or would otherwise have been issued with precise instructions with relevant documentation on the architectural feasibility and functionality of the project. The planning involved in architectural endeavours like this cannot be ignored, I think that any architect would agree. That no such planning exists for the 'Kula columns' is a massive hole in the story. They didn't just pop into existence one day, there had to be a method leading from conception to reality.

[Merlin300]

I should've added the following to my last post:

Regarding the alleged 'wire mesh introduction devices' and 'wooden covers' which Pressac believes existed; he doesn't explain how exactly such devices were to be constructed by architects or builders without precise instructions, as far as I'm aware. There would have to be further documentary proof for the actual method of construction, and orders to that effect. It seems extremely implausible to me that no documentation could exist that doesn't show builders, or architects having been briefed on how any of this was supposed to work not only technically, but in terms of the object itself which would have to be precisely designed.

Writing a vague word like 'Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung' isn't by any means sufficient to convey the complexity of the project entailed. Someone would actually have to know what this device is, especially seeing as it was constructed - in the exterminationist view - for a very specific and unique purpose. Someone would actually have to implement the device, and know where/how to do so. This word alone cannot tell us anything else about how this device was to be constructed, or inserted into the building. There is NO other documentation (to my knowledge) about this device, let alone all of the orders and instructions which would necessarily have to follow in creating and implementing such a thing.

There would be so many practical questions entailed with something like this. Many people would have to have known about it, and enquired about it, or would otherwise have been issued with precise instructions with relevant documentation on the architectural feasibility and functionality of the project. The planning involved in architectural endeavours like this cannot be ignored, I think that any architect would agree. That no such planning exists for the 'Kula columns' is a massive hole in the story. They didn't just pop into existence one day, there had to be a method leading from conception to reality.

Thank you Otium. I have a question for you, please?
A drawing of the "wire mesh introduction devices' is show in Technique at page 487.
https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... 0487.shtml

I remember that Somewhere in Pressac is a brief mention of a French doctor drawing the wire introduction device as a note on another document.
Evidentially, after the Soviets overran the Camp, they gathered various inmates together to figure out the evidence to support the claims
of gas chambers. This group came up with the theories like the "wire mesh introduction device" that were necessary for the tale of
gassing in the morgues of Krema II and III.

[Butterfangers]

Evidentially, after the Soviets overran the Camp, they gathered various inmates together to figure out the evidence to support the claims
of gas chambers. This group came up with the theories like the "wire mesh introduction device" that were necessary for the tale of
gassing in the morgues of Krema II and III.

This has always been my own suspicion / interpretation of what must have happened once the Soviets took over. They had plenty of time, motive, and a pattern of behavior which aligns with this sort of activity... Is there any other evidence that you (or anyone here) are aware of, of their (Soviets) working with former prisoners toward building a narrative post-war?

[Merlin300]

Evidentially, after the Soviets overran the Camp, they gathered various inmates together to figure out the evidence to support the claims
of gas chambers. This group came up with the theories like the "wire mesh introduction device" that were necessary for the tale of
gassing in the morgues of Krema II and III.

This has always been my own suspicion / interpretation of what must have happened once the Soviets took over. They had plenty of time, motive, and a pattern of behavior which aligns with this sort of activity... Is there any other evidence that you (or anyone here) are aware of, of their (Soviets) working with former prisoners toward building a narrative post-war?

You have spotted a very important element of the Holocaust Belief...the widespread creation of evidence...some ridiculously inept, some later
works very well done. Maybe we should start a separate thread but here are some obvious acts of Collaboration.

The tale of a "screen of brush" hiding the gas chambers was "confirmed" by the discovery of screens of brush!
Tales of the Ring of Birch Trees screening the "Gas Chambers" is now confirmed by...birch trees ringing Krema II and III.
But Aerial and ground photographs show that no trees were there during the War.

The holes chipped into the roof of Krema I in the Main Camp are an example of the Soviets creating "evidence" in conjunction with inmates.
This has been admitted by the Auschwitz Museum staff. They even put up a disclaimer at Krema I after the Cole video but they seem to
have taken the sign down.

Pressac has more that I will find and post after work today

[Merlin300]

The two drawings [Documents 10 and 11] presented come from the Moscow "October Revolution" Central State Archives. The references are not known. They were drawn at the beginning of March 1945 by a Pole for the Soviet investigation commission that started work immediately on the liberation of the Auschwitz camp. pg 179

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... 0179.shtml

These drawings are attempts at locating "Bunker 1 and the huge cremation pit." These documents are evidence that no remains of
the huge cremation pit could be found at the time.
-quote Pressac-
While the location of five of them, of which ruins remain, is physically defined, this is not the case with Bunker 1. The drawing locates it approximately seven hundred meters northwest of B.A. III. Present knowledge would now situate it rather in the proximity of the northwest corner of B.A. III and the location of its cremation pits would be in the wood which borders it to the west as shown on the drawing. Entirety dismantled by the SS, Bunker 1 can no longer be precisely situated.


The second drawing [Document 11] shows in detail the area around Bunker 2/V. Its four gas chambers are shown as running southwest/northeast, whereas in reality the remains of the foundations and the drawing attached to Szlam[y] Dragon's deposition of 10th May 1945, indicate southeast/northwest. It seems that the draughtsman made an error of orientation. Today, of all this there only remain the original foundations of the house that was fitted with four primitive gas chambers and the cement outlines, built by the Auschwitz Museum to show the location of the two undressing huts. The drawing shows a cremation ditch of 30m² (7m long by 4.3m wide) as having been in activity. The survey, made a little more than a month after the liberation of the camp, faithfully records the state in which the premises were abandoned. Not having been destroyed, except for the house that had contained the gas chambers, the installation was almost certainly as it was in the summer of 1944, at the moment of the Hungarian extermination, when it was designated Bunker V.

The Soviet Commission was attempting to organize the various tales with the evidence on hand. The early drawing and plans from February
and March show how much evidence the Soviets and Poles needed to "create."