The Significance of the Morgue Documents

[curioussoul]

Yes it does and in any case, they were not discussing storing corpses, they were discussing sending corpses.

No, it doesn't, unless you're alleging that they're sending fake letters to each other to imply the morgues are being used for corpse storage when they're really not.

At no point is the word storage, or anything similar, used. They discuss where to send corpses to and not what then happens to them.

They wanted the corpses to be removed and placed into the morgues. That's pretty much all you need to know. What else is there to say?

No, I have just given you another example of secrecy, by referring to something as "special" rather than describing the operation.

There's nothing "special" about storing corpses in the morgues; there was an active order enforcing that policy.

Now, that is very dishonest of you to accuse me of only producing one example witness and then you cut out another three.

Your only example of a debunked witness turned out to be one of the most famous Holocaust witnesses ever, which is pretty ironic.

I gave you a link to the study of three witnesses who lied about their experience in the Holocaust, but since you want to believe there is no critical assessment by historians, you need to edit that out!

Those are not Holocaust witness statements but novels written decades after the war, and I'm not aware of a single historian who ever utilized Martin Gray, Binjamin Wilkomirski or Misha Defonseca as Holocaust witnesses. Are you?

Historians do not normally publish why they chose not to use certain witnesses.

So you're not actually aware of any critical assessments of any known Sonderkommando or Holocaust eyewitness? That should tell you a lot.

[Nessie]

Yes it does and in any case, they were not discussing storing corpses, they were discussing sending corpses.

No, it doesn't, unless you're alleging that they're sending fake letters to each other to imply the morgues are being used for corpse storage when they're really not.

At no point is the word storage, or anything similar, used. They discuss where to send corpses to and not what then happens to them.

They wanted the corpses to be removed and placed into the morgues. That's pretty much all you need to know. What else is there to say?

No, I have just given you another example of secrecy, by referring to something as "special" rather than describing the operation.

There's nothing "special" about storing corpses in the morgues; there was an active order enforcing that policy.

You need evidence to prove the corpses taken to the Kremas were stored in the Leichenkellers and not just take straight for cremation.

Now, that is very dishonest of you to accuse me of only producing one example witness and then you cut out another three.

Your only example of a debunked witness turned out to be one of the most famous Holocaust witnesses ever, which is pretty ironic.

I gave you evidence of how historians critically examine witness testimony and times witnesses have been debunked, or are considered too unreliable to be used.

I gave you a link to the study of three witnesses who lied about their experience in the Holocaust, but since you want to believe there is no critical assessment by historians, you need to edit that out!

Those are not Holocaust witness statements but novels written decades after the war, and I'm not aware of a single historian who ever utilized Martin Gray, Binjamin Wilkomirski or Misha Defonseca as Holocaust witnesses. Are you?

No. Historians have also not used Lali Sokolov.

Historians do not normally publish why they chose not to use certain witnesses.

So you're not actually aware of any critical assessments of any known Sonderkommando or Holocaust eyewitness? That should tell you a lot.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24585354

"Translating the Self: False Holocaust Testimony"

That is an example of the critical assessment of witness testimony.

[curioussoul]

You need evidence to prove the corpses taken to the Kremas were stored in the Leichenkellers and not just take straight for cremation.

That's what he's saying. Documentary evidence is no longer evidence, if it contradicts your theory?

I gave you evidence of how historians critically examine witness testimony and times witnesses have been debunked, or are considered too unreliable to be used.

You did not. You named Elie Wiesel, who was one of the most famous Holocaust witnesses ever. What you didn't do was show how Holocaust historians have actually assessed witnesses in a critical manner to determine the believability of their testimony.

No. Historians have also not used Lali Sokolov.

Precisely, because he (along with the other novelists you mentioned) are not Holocaust witnesses who were ever utilized by any historian. I asked you to demonstrate how witnesses have been assessed and discarded and upon which criteria they were discarded. Real eyewitnesses used by historians to reconstruct the Holocaust, such as Filip Mueller, Miklos Nyiszly, Szlama Dragon and Henryk Tauber, not novelists who wrote books decades after the war.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24585354

"Translating the Self: False Holocaust Testimony"

That is an example of the critical assessment of witness testimony.

No, that's a English professor analysing three novels about the Holocaust written decades after the war. She's not a historian nor is she making critical historiographic analyses of witness testimony.

Get yourself together, man.

[Nessie]

You need evidence to prove the corpses taken to the Kremas were stored in the Leichenkellers and not just take straight for cremation.

That's what he's saying. Documentary evidence is no longer evidence, if it contradicts your theory?

No and you have no document that states corpses were stored in the Kremas, only documents that they were transported there.

I gave you evidence of how historians critically examine witness testimony and times witnesses have been debunked, or are considered too unreliable to be used.

You did not. You named Elie Wiesel, who was one of the most famous Holocaust witnesses ever. What you didn't do was show how Holocaust historians have actually assessed witnesses in a critical manner to determine the believability of their testimony.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... 014.951909

" 1 When does testimony become ‘testimony’? (i.e. should everything survivors say in connection with the Holocaust – on and off the record, incidental and considered, reflection as much as remembrance – be considered part of their ‘testimony’?) Another way of asking the question: Is ‘testimony’ best understood as one genre of survivors' retelling more generally, and, if so, what distinguishes it?

2 Relatedly, what are the advantages and disadvantages – for survivors and for the rest of us – of engaging survivors primarily as ‘bearers of testimony’ or ‘moral witnesses’?

3 In what ways do accounts composed during the war by those who did not survive (e.g. diaries, ghetto chronicles, buried records, and so on) inform, or conceivably mislead, the ways we understand survivor ‘testimony’?

4 How have concepts of trauma helped – and hindered – our understanding of survivors and of their retelling? Is ‘trauma’ also best viewed as one ‘genre’ of a wider spectrum of individual and/or collective suffering – or not?

5 How do you assess the impact of these concepts in contemporary discourse concerning survivors of catastrophe in general? Have these concepts illuminated, distorted, or some more complex combination our understanding of the current historical and cultural moment?"

The primary tests for witness evidence are, can they prove they were there and are their claims corroborated? The next tests are about how reliable and credible they are. Are they prone to exaggerate, are they giving hearsay evidence?

No. Historians have also not used Lali Sokolov.

Precisely, because he (along with the other novelists you mentioned) are not Holocaust witnesses who were ever utilized by any historian. I asked you to demonstrate how witnesses have been assessed and discarded and upon which criteria they were discarded. Real eyewitnesses used by historians to reconstruct the Holocaust, such as Filip Mueller, Miklos Nyiszly, Szlama Dragon and Henryk Tauber, not novelists who wrote books decades after the war.

The method is the same for both. Many have also been tested in court.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24585354

"Translating the Self: False Holocaust Testimony"

That is an example of the critical assessment of witness testimony.

No, that's a English professor analysing three novels about the Holocaust written decades after the war. She's not a historian nor is she making critical historiographic analyses of witness testimony.

Get yourself together, man.

It is still an example of how false Holocaust testimony is identified, whether that is embellishment, or fabrication. Your allegation that all witnesses are accepted without any critical assessment is proven to be wrong.

"This chapter studies false and embellished Holocaust testimonies. In Binjamin Wilkomirski's Fragments and Bernard Holstein's Stolen Soul, the authors appear to be genuinely delusional about their childhood experiences and the historical context in which these took place. In relation to embellished testimonies, Deli Strummer attributes the inaccuracies in her recall in A Reflection of the Holocaust to the overwhelming nature of camp existence. Martin Gray's account in his For Those I Loved, which consists of his deportation to and taking part in the revolt in the death camp Treblinka, contains anomalies in his description of the camp. In his An Angel at the Fence, Herman Rosenblat added an invented element of romantic salvation to the real story of his survival from the concentration camp of Buchenwald as a teenager. While a Holocaust narrative serves as redemption for the loss of her parents during the war, only Misha Defonseca eventually confessed that her highly successful testimony in Surviving with Wolves was made up."

[curioussoul]

No and you have no document that states corpses were stored in the Kremas, only documents that they were transported there.

I do, and it's quoted in the OP - to your utter chock and confusion. You hilariously denied any such document could even exist because it would essentially debunk gassings. When confronted you seemed somewhat stunned but now you seem to have settled on the theory that it must have been a one-off exception or a fake.

The primary tests for witness evidence are, can they prove they were there and are their claims corroborated? The next tests are about how reliable and credible they are. Are they prone to exaggerate, are they giving hearsay evidence?

You've yet to show even one historian put any witness under such critical examination... Where are you going with this, Nessie? You're just proving my point.

The method is the same for both. Many have also been tested in court.

Tested how?! Give us specifics, Nessie.

It is still an example of how false Holocaust testimony is identified, whether that is embellishment, or fabrication. Your allegation that all witnesses are accepted without any critical assessment is proven to be wrong.

But you've yet to show even one historian doing any of the things you claim they routinely do to determine witness credibility and truthfulness. What you did was link an article by an English Professor about Holocaust novelists who lied in the 70's and 90's about their experiences. That's not a historian evaluating a testimony, let alone any of the significant Sonderkommando witnesses.

[Callafangers]

This is largely a re-post from the RODOH forum, where we had an interesting discussion going.

One of the main features of the orthodox gassing story for Auschwitz is that the Birkenau morgues (Leichenkeller I) of Crematoria II and III were secretely converted into gas chambers around the end of 1942 and early 1943, shortly before Crematorium II was inaugurated in March of that year. Because of this, some scholars such as Robert van Pelt have pointed out that Birkenau had "no permanently dedicated morgue capacity".

Nevertheless, a series of documents from Birkenau prove that these morgues were indeed actively used as morgues all throughout 1943 and 1944. Carlo Mattogno published an article in 2004 entiteld "The Morgues of the Crematoria at Birkenau in the Light of Documents" (found here). In it, he quoted some pretty extraordinary documents, a few of which I'll quote below. In 1943, camp doctor Eduard Wirths made requests for the camp administration to expand the morgue capacity of the camp, but was shot down by Hoess, Mrugowski and Bischoff on the basis that the morgues in the crematoria were enough. On August 4, 1943, Bischoff (head of the Central Construction Office), replied with the following letter to Wirths:

SS Standartenführer Mrugowski has decreed during the discussion that the corpses are to be removed twice daily, in the morning and in the evening, into the morgues of the crematoria; in this way, the separate construction of morgues in the individual subsections can be avoided.

This is probably the single most damning document because it outright mentions the morgues of the crematoria, which - followin the official story - would have been unavailable as morgues due to them being supposedly converted into homicidal gas chambers for Jewish deportees. But the letter also mentions a decree whereby corpses are to be removed "twice daily", in the morning and in the evening, to the morgues, showing that the morgues were expected to be available around the clock for corpse storage.

When confronted with this particular document on the RODOH forum, Nessie appeared somewhat taken aback, denying that such a document could exist. After being convinced the document was indeed real, he pivoted to claiming it had to be a one-off exception. Traces of this corpse removal decree can be found in other documents relating to the morgues. As late as May 1944, the new ZBL head Werner Jothann responded once more to Wirths regarding the expansion of the morgues:

SS Obersturmbannführer Höß points out that in accordance with a presently valid order, the daily load of c.[orpses] is to be removed daily in the morning by means of a dedicated truck; if this order is carried out, an accumulation of c. cannot arise and therefore the construction of the above-mentioned halls is not imperative. SS Ostubaf. Höß therefore demands not to undertake the construction of the halls under discussion.

In other words, the order to remove corpses to the morgues twice daily was still in effect in May 1944. Wirths himself confirmed the order was still being followed in May 1944 in a different letter:

In the sick-bays of the camps at cc Auschwitz II a certain number of corpses accumulate daily on a regular basis. While their transportation to the crematoria has been organized and takes place twice a day, in the morning and in the evening, it does happen that on account of the scarcity of vehicles and/or fuel the corpses are not taken care of for 24 hours.

Anti-revisionist debaters at the RODOH forum attempted a number of arguments to explain these documents. One explanation was that the reference to merely "the crematoria" meant the corpses were immediataly taken to the ovens and burned, but this argument hardly holds up considering the most significant of these letter, the one by Bischoff, expressly mentions "the morgues of the crematoria". The phrasing "the crematoria" generally included facilities other than the ovens, such as the undressing room and the morgue itself. Another attempted explanation was that the morgue could have theoretically been used both as a morgue and a gas chamber, but there is no witness testimony from any of the Sonderkommando witnesses about the gas chamber ever being filled with regular non-gassed corpses. That would mean that the gas chamber would have to be regularly cleared of real corpses before every gassing, a major aspect of the duties of the Sonderkommando. A third explanation was that the SS didn't need morgues at all because corpses could just be burned instantly in the crematoria, which supposedly ran daily 24/7 at fantastical rates. But this doesn't really explain the fact that Wirths was asking for more morgues and the fact that autopsies were regularly carried out at the camp, which would have required morgues.

Given the significance of these documents for the gassing story, I think they deserve their own thread.

Wow. I don't know how I overlooked this thread previously (presumably due to having taken some time off earlier this year). Great topic. The question of the upgrades/enhancements to the morgue came up recently in another discussion. Here is some insight that seems relevant, from the new Wiki entry on "Auschwitz Chemistry":

Revisionists also challenge the interpretation of documentary evidence often cited in support of Kula columns, such as the inventory reference to “4 Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung” (translated by mainstream historians as “wire mesh introduction devices”). Critics like Samuel Crowell argue this term, more accurately translated as “wire net sliding device,” likely refers to benign safety features like removable mesh screens for ventilation openings or emergency exits, consistent with anti-gas shelter literature of the time[21], rather than devices for Zyklon B introduction. This case for benign interpretation is further supported in light of general modifications taking place at Auschwitz-Birkenau throughout March 1943 across Crematoria 2, 4, and 5, driven by a need to improve airflow, containment, sanitation, and safety for normal morgue and camp functions, and disinfection processes.[22] Multipurpose potential as an air raid shelter is supported by at least one witness.[23]

https://wiki.codohforum.com/pages/index ... _Chemistry

A source for the bolded portion above is Mattogno's The Real Auschwitz Chronicle, particularly the March 1943 documentation for Auschwitz-Birkenau (p. 250-268), which is AI-summarized as follows:

“4 Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung” Reference (March 31, 1943):

• Document: Central Construction Office, “Handover Negotiation” for Crematorium II (RGVA, 502-1-54, pp. 77-80; APMO, Neg. No. 20995/460).
  >> Relevant Text: Inventory list of the basement of Crematorium II includes “Room 2 – morgue [Morgue 2]: 4 wire-net insertion device, 4 wooden screens.”
  >> Alignment with Benign Interpretation: This is the direct reference to “4 Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung,” translated here as “wire-net insertion device.” Crowell’s argument that this could mean “wire net sliding device” and refer to a benign feature (like a ventilation screen or safety device) aligns with the ambiguity of the term in the original German. The context in which it is listed alongside “wooden screens” in a morgue inventory does not explicitly indicate a purpose tied to gassing. Instead, it could plausibly be interpreted as a protective or functional item for ventilation or safety in the morgue, consistent with anti-gas shelter designs that prioritized airflow and emergency access.

General Modifications for Airflow and Safety:

• Multiple entries in the documentation refer to construction and modifications at Crematoria II, III, IV, and V, focusing on ventilation, airflow systems, and structural safety adjustments, which align with the revisionist claim of benign purposes for improving camp functions and safety.
• March 6, 1943: Letter from Central Construction Office to J.A. Topf & Sons (APMO, BW 30/34, p. 7).
  >> Relevant Text: Discussion of preheating Basement 1 of Crematorium II with exhaust air from forced-draft units, and urgent delivery of piping and blowers.
  >> Alignment: This indicates a focus on improving airflow and heating/ventilation systems, consistent with modifications for normal morgue operations or safety (e.g., preventing dampness or ensuring air circulation), rather than solely for a homicidal purpose. The urgency suggests operational necessity for general functionality.
• March 25, 1943: File memo on visit by Topf representatives (APMO, BW 30/34, p. 8).
  >> Relevant Text: Notes on removing forced-draft units in Crematorium II due to damage from high temperatures, replacing wooden housings with wrought-iron ones for deaeration systems, and other design changes like eliminating a hot-air supply system for Morgue I.
  >> Alignment: These modifications emphasize concerns with operational safety (damage from overheating) and improvements to ventilation/deaeration systems, supporting the idea that the crematoria were being adapted for sustainable, safe use rather than solely for mass extermination. The removal of ineffective equipment and focus on durable materials (wrought-iron housings) align with a practical, benign intent.
• March 29, 1943: Letter from J.A. Topf & Sons to Central Construction Office (APMO, BW 30/34, p. 53).
  >> Relevant Text: Confirmation of replacing wooden housings for exhausters with airtight wrought-iron ones for deaeration systems in Crematoria II and III.
  >> Alignment: This reinforces the focus on improving ventilation and containment systems, which could be interpreted as enhancing safety and functionality for morgue or shelter purposes, consistent with anti-gas shelter designs that emphasized airtightness and robust ventilation.

Sanitation and Disinfection Processes:

• Several documents reference disinfestation and sanitation efforts, which support the revisionist view that facilities were being adapted for hygiene and disease control, not just extermination.
• March 2, 1943: Letter from Central Construction Office to SS-WVHA regarding “Installation of Disinfestation Barracks” (RGVA, 502-1-336, pp. 77-78).
  >> Relevant Text: Discussion of inadequate storage for prisoner effects, risk of weather damage, and improper storage leading to fire hazards; also plans for disinfestation facilities.
  >> Alignment: This highlights a focus on sanitation and the need for proper disinfestation infrastructure, aligning with benign camp management goals (disease control, hygiene) rather than homicidal intent. The emphasis on protecting inmate belongings suggests a concern for maintaining order and resources.
• March 9, 1943: File memo on “Water Connection and Commissioning of the Disinfestation Barracks” (RGVA, 502-1-149, p. 351).
  >> Relevant Text: Describes trial operation of showers and water supply in disinfestation barracks, ensuring sufficient water pressure for maximum demand.
  >> Alignment: This directly relates to sanitation improvements (showers for delousing or hygiene), supporting the idea that facilities were being developed for health and disease prevention, consistent with a benign interpretation of camp functions.
• March 18, 1943: Letter from Central Construction Office to SS garrison physician regarding “Delousing of residential communities as well as civilian workers” (RGVA, 502-1-332, p. 236).
  >> Relevant Text: Details delousing of civilian workers and quarters, with monthly lice checks and disinfestation procedures.
  >> Alignment: This underscores a systematic approach to hygiene and disease control, aligning with the revisionist view that much of the activity at Auschwitz was focused on sanitation and containment of epidemics like typhus, rather than mass murder.

Multipurpose Potential as Air Raid Shelters:

• While the documentation does not explicitly mention air raid shelters, some references to safety measures and structural modifications could be interpreted as supporting multipurpose use, including shelter functions, as suggested by the revisionist argument.
• March 6, 1943: SS-WVHA “Guideline No. 39” on “Air Protection” (RGVA, 502-1-401, p. 96; pp. 101-103).
  >> Relevant Text: Supplement No. 3 concerns “The structural design of shrapnel protection. Regulations of the Reich Aviation Ministry as amended September 1942.”
  >> Alignment: The mention of air protection and shrapnel protection regulations indicates a broader concern for safety against air raids, which supports the idea that facilities like crematoria basements could have been adapted or designed with multipurpose use in mind, including as shelters. This ties into Crowell’s broader argument about anti-gas shelter designs influencing construction.
• March 16 & 17, 1943: Orders for painting windows with blackout paint in Crematoria I and II (RGVA, 502-1-314, pp. 24-25).
  >> Relevant Text: Instructions to paint windows of cremation rooms and adjoining rooms with blue or black blackout paint, and the dissecting room with white paint to prevent viewing from outside.
  >> Alignment: Blackout paint is a common wartime measure for air raid precautions, suggesting that these facilities might have been prepared for use during air raids, aligning with a multipurpose interpretation. This supports the revisionist view that safety and shelter functions were considerations in the design or modification of these structures.

Summary of Alignment with Benign Interpretation:

• The reference to “4 Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung” on March 31 can be interpreted as a benign safety or ventilation feature, as Crowell suggests, due to the lack of explicit homicidal context in the inventory and its pairing with nonspecific items like wooden screens.
• Numerous documents from March 1943 show a focus on improving airflow (ventilation systems, exhausters), containment (airtight designs), sanitation (disinfestation barracks, delousing), and safety (structural modifications, blackout measures), which align with the revisionist argument that modifications served practical, non-homicidal purposes like morgue operation, disease control, and general camp management.
• References to air protection guidelines and blackout measures provide indirect support for the idea that facilities could have been adapted for multipurpose use, including as air raid shelters, consistent with wartime safety concerns and anti-gas shelter literature.

[Nessie]

No and you have no document that states corpses were stored in the Kremas, only documents that they were transported there.

I do, and it's quoted in the OP - to your utter chock and confusion. You hilariously denied any such document could even exist because it would essentially debunk gassings. When confronted you seemed somewhat stunned but now you seem to have settled on the theory that it must have been a one-off exception or a fake.

The documents only speak of moving corpses to the Kremas, they do not speak of storage.

The primary tests for witness evidence are, can they prove they were there and are their claims corroborated? The next tests are about how reliable and credible they are. Are they prone to exaggerate, are they giving hearsay evidence?

You've yet to show even one historian put any witness under such critical examination... Where are you going with this, Nessie? You're just proving my point.

The witnesses were originally tested by the war crimes investigators and courts. All a historian has to do is check that the witness is corroborated, which happens as the evidence is collated. They can read the witnesses testimony and see what is exaggeration, etc.

The method is the same for both. Many have also been tested in court.

Tested how?! Give us specifics, Nessie.

Corroboration. Is there evidence that agrees with the witnesses claim. For example, Nazi the admissions and Polish death camp site surveys, corroborate Jewish witness claims.

It is still an example of how false Holocaust testimony is identified, whether that is embellishment, or fabrication. Your allegation that all witnesses are accepted without any critical assessment is proven to be wrong.

But you've yet to show even one historian doing any of the things you claim they routinely do to determine witness credibility and truthfulness. What you did was link an article by an English Professor about Holocaust novelists who lied in the 70's and 90's about their experiences. That's not a historian evaluating a testimony, let alone any of the significant Sonderkommando witnesses.

Pick up a history of the Holocaust, read the testimony the historian quotes and look at the other, corroborating evidence the historian provides. When Wiernik or Fuchs are referenced, they corroborate each other, about gassings at TII. The evidence of the clearing of ghettos, the mass transports to the camp, the theft of property, the evidence of empty trains leaving, is all corroborating circumstantial evidence.

[curioussoul]

Wow. I don't know how I overlooked this thread previously (presumably due to having taken some time off earlier this year). Great topic. The question of the upgrades/enhancements to the morgue came up recently in another discussion. Here is some insight that seems relevant, from the new Wiki entry on "Auschwitz Chemistry":

Thanks, I appreciate the input! The new chemistry article on the Wiki is absolutely fantastic and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Stoked for future entries as well.

The reason the "morgue documents" in particular are so significant is that they really debunk the gas chamber story at its very core, namely by demonstrating without a shadow of a doubt that the morgues were used as morgues. I'm always a little puzzled at how overlooked they are in revisionist argumentation.

[Nessie]

Wow. I don't know how I overlooked this thread previously (presumably due to having taken some time off earlier this year). Great topic. The question of the upgrades/enhancements to the morgue came up recently in another discussion. Here is some insight that seems relevant, from the new Wiki entry on "Auschwitz Chemistry":

Thanks, I appreciate the input! The new chemistry article on the Wiki is absolutely fantastic and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Stoked for future entries as well.

The reason the "morgue documents" in particular are so significant is that they really debunk the gas chamber story at its very core, namely by demonstrating without a shadow of a doubt that the morgues were used as morgues. I'm always a little puzzled at how overlooked they are in revisionist argumentation.

A morgue with gas chambers, undressing rooms and ovens for multiple corps cremations, for a special action involving unfit prisoners, Jews and Hungarians. Normal morgues do not have those facilities and are less selective about who they will take.

Then there is the issue that 100% of Krema workers disagree with you.

Then you need to explain why you are correct and other so-called revisionists, who claim it was a bomb shelter, shower or delousing chamber are wrong.