Crematorium V gas chamber?

[Joe Splink]

I asked Deepseek to find documents 'proving' the Holocaust, here's one it came up with -

Document Date Author/Context Specific Content and Keywords
2 March 1943
Daily construction report (Tagesbericht) for Crematorium V at Auschwitz-Birkenau.
Reports the task of "und Fussboden betonieren im Gaskammer" ("and concreting of the floor in the gas chamber").

What is the explanation?

[Stubble]

That deepseek smokes crack.

404:Document not found-because it doesn't exist since it's an ai hallucination.

Like CJ with his 'zyklon introduction chute' blueprint ChatGPT told him existed.

[Joe Splink]

Definitely not hallucinating - https://www.auschwitz.org/en/stop-denia ... documents/

[Wetzelrad]

This is one of those finer details that doesn't have a fully satisfactory explanation.

Jean Claude-Pressac popularized this document and wrote about it here. His opinion basically was that the Polish laborer who did this work "deduced" that it was a gas chamber from the fact that gastight doors and windows had been installed (or later would be) in the building.

The fact that "Gasskammer" was misspelled supports that it was written by someone less familiar with German. It's possible that the Polish laborer came up with the term on his own. It's also possible he was told that this is what the room was. Either way, it doesn't appear in other documents, so we are left in the dark.

It doesn't necessarily follow from the usage of this term that there was a homicidal gas chamber. The term is non-specific. In 1943 it didn't hold the decidedly homicidal meaning it does today. Other documents from 1941 and 1942 show that "Gaskammer" was the label for Birkenau's BW 5a and 5b Zyklon disinfestation rooms as well as for Majdanek's B41 Zyklon disinfestation room, none of which were used to gas people.

The fact that gastight fixtures were used also does not warrant a radical conclusion. As even Pressac felt free to speculate, some of these fixtures had a "'normal' use". He believed that four gastight doors were installed on the opposite end of the building, such as between the morgue and the furnace hall to "prevent fires". (Discussed here and on following page.)

The most obvious rebuttal to this document is that Crematoria IV and V are each supposed to have had three homicidal gas chambers, not one. All three side-by-side. All three should be equally equipped if they were all gas chambers, so it is illogical that only one of them could actually be identified as such.

Carlo Mattogno wrote in response to Pressac here. His interpretation draws from facts found in numerous other documents.

• This side of the building is documented to have had three coal-fired stoves.
• Two of the stoves were installed in the westernmost rooms, which are the ones claimed to be gas chambers.
• At least one stove was installed "at water installation", which carries the implication of heating water.
• "Water installation" appears twice more after that.
• Worksheets show a net total of 816 work hours went toward "sanitary installations".
• The westernmost rooms were equipped with semi-waterproof electric lamps, unlike the rest of the building.
• There were also floor drains connected to the sewer in these rooms.

Adding all this together, there is a viable theory that this side of the building was used to shower prisoners and disinfest their clothing, even if only on a short basis, before the Zentralsauna was set up.

Apologies for the long answer.

[Eye of Zyclone]

Non-genocidal interpretations of it :

The Morgues of the Crematoria at Birkenau in the Light of Documents
By Carlo Mattogno ∙ August 1, 2004

In the historical expert opinion drawn up for Deborah Lipstadt in the libel trial launched against her by David Irving (January 11 to April 11, 2000), Robert Jan van Pelt, when he was unable to find any proof of the reality of the extermination of Jews in gas chambers at Auschwitz, amassed all the available "traces," most of them already gathered by J.-C. Pressac, raised them falsely to the higher level of "proof," and later invented a "convergence of evidence" essentially based upon a systematic disfiguration of the documents. Also, all documents that did not lend themselves to such an operation of disguise were simply ignored by him.

The Morgues of the Crematoria at Birkenau within the Framework of
"special measures for the improvement of hygienic installations" in Birkenau

Read it here : https://codoh.com/library/document/the- ... au-in-the/

Wartime Germany’s Anti-Gas Air Raid Shelters
A Refutation of Pressac’s ‘Criminal Traces’
By Samuel Crowell ∙ December 15, 1999

As Holocaust historians concede, hard evidence for mass killings in Second World War gas chambers has proven to be elusive. After an extensive search, especially of wartime German wartime records held in Polish archives, French author Jean-Claude Pressac acknowledged in his detailed 1989 study, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, that he was unable to find any direct proof of wartime gas chamber killings at Auschwitz (including the its nearby satellite camp of Birkenau). Instead, he offered 39 documentary “criminal traces” of such gassings – what he called “indirect proofs.”

These “traces” are wartime documents, mostly from the Auschwitz central construction office, that contain passing references to “gas tight doors,” “gas detectors,” and such. In the view of Pressac, and other defenders of the standard Holocaust story, these are implicit references to equipment or devices that were part of homicidal gassing operations.

In the following essay, American researcher Samuel Crowell presents detailed evidence of benign explanations for these “criminal traces.”[1] His basic argument is that the documents cited by Pressac as “traces” of homicidal “gas chambers” are references to air raid shelters, or to their fittings or equipment. Specifically, he contends, the Birkenau crematory morgue rooms – the supposed “gas chambers” where, it is alleged, hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed with “Zyklon” pesticide – were modified to also serve as air raid shelters with features to protect against possible Allied attacks with poison gas.

Crowell extensively cites contemporary German specialized literature on wartime air raid shelters and measures against possible air attacks with poison gas to argue that such shelters, and their equipment, were widely used throughout wartime Germany, including in the concentration camps. He contends that seemingly damning documentary references to “gas tight doors” and so forth actually refer to normal civil air defense equipment. He therefore concludes that there is no documentary proof – direct or indirect – of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

[...]

Criminal Traces 18 and 20, and 19 and 21: ‘Gas’ Windows and ‘Gas’ Chamber

“Traces” 18 and 20 mention putting “gass [sic] tight window” in place (Gassdichtenfenster versetzen), while “traces” 19 and 21 mention “concrete in gas chamber” (betonieren im Gasskammer). Pressac regards these “traces” – which are from February and March 1943 and relate to Birkenau Kremas IV and V – as very important evidence of homicidal gassings at Birkenau.

As already pointed out, gas tight windows were a common feature of German anti-gas shelters.[85] In addition, and as already noted, these objects are identical to the “shutters” (Blenden).

These four “traces” are dealt with here together because in each the word “gas” (Gas in German) is misspelled. In these four “traces” it is rendered as “Gass.” I do not agree with Pressac’s view that these are simple misspellings. Instead, I’m inclined to think that they are abbreviations: “tight windows for the [anti-gas shelter]” (Gass[chutzraum]dichtenfenster) and “[anti-]gas shelter” (Gass[chutz]kammer).[86]

In any case, a benign interpretation is possible. Therefore, these are not criminal traces.

https://codoh.com/library/document/wart ... -shelters/

[Joe Splink]

Wow. Hard to follow all that (Pressac, Mattogno) ... without some serious effort. I'm wondering why there is no mention (that I saw) of what remains of these rooms. Also, I couldn't form a picture of the relative location, doors, sizes, and possible purposes of the rooms discussed 8, 9 , 10, 11 (?). Perhaps since the Auschwitz museum cites this reference as one of two documents that constitute the documentation of the best documented genocide in history, it might be a good idea to formulate a concise, comprehensive, and understandable rebuttal.

[Fred Ziffel]

My 2 cents
Crem 4 and 5 were mirror images in building layout
Here is the Auschwitz Museum claimed kill process. If it makes sense to you, let me know. I see NO linear logic here.
I included my proposed rework of the layout that took me about 10 seconds (literally) to improve.

[Fred Ziffel]

Watch from 21:15 to 23:36
Pay close attention of the lady in the sexy dress. No, not or that reason. Turns out she is not as dumb as she looks

Link:

this would be a great video to post on X? Hint hint

[Joe Splink]

We have photos of crematorim IV,

what's there now,

and a blueprint of the building


And I'm having a problem reconciling them. It must be the case that the roof on the rear 1/5 of the building is lower than the front roof? If not, what is that building behind the crematorium?
Given that it is, where are the three windows and door step-up in the blueprint in the photo?

In any case, from the blueprint, it appears that the 'gas chambers' have 3 windows and a door, which is absurd.

[Wetzelrad]

I didn't fully develop this argument above, but if Pressac was correct that the foreman "sensibly deduced" the room is a gas chamber, then this supposed criminal trace is no more incriminating than whatever he deduced it from, which Pressac thought was just the gas-tight windows. Pressac has a tendency to undermine his own suppositions like this, which is probably why the Auschwitz Museum leaves his name out.

Also the presence of the two large coal-fired ovens inside rooms 9 and 10 tends to preclude their usage as gas chambers. It would be difficult to operate the ovens from outside the room and easy to sabotage them from inside the room. Also they both connect to room 11, the actual "Gasskammer", which indicates they helped heat that room. This would be useful for doing a Zyklon gassing in room 11. But room 11 itself is small and, because it serves as the only hallway connecting all these rooms, quite ill-suited to homicidal gassing. This design really wouldn't make any sense in the orthodox view.

Wow. Hard to follow all that (Pressac, Mattogno) ... without some serious effort. I'm wondering why there is no mention (that I saw) of what remains of these rooms.

Well, it isn't clear that there is much to be gained from the brick remnants of Crema IV and V. An attempt was made to measure cyanide traces there, and they came back with minute cyanide levels (similar to control samples, so low they may be equivalent to zero), but it's not even certain to what extent these brick remains are original.

Nothing in the remains or in the historical photos shows that they had gas chambers.

Also, I couldn't form a picture of the relative location, doors, sizes, and possible purposes of the rooms discussed 8, 9 , 10, 11 (?).

Yes, I had some difficulty too. Mattogno tends to put all his documents in the back of his books which makes them harder to read but easier for him to continue referencing throughout the text. I have to screenshot his diagrams to look back at as I read.

The original drawing is quite difficult to see, so here is a quick drawing I made to highlight some of the relevant features.

floorplan drawing of Crema IV, my own.png (163.95 KiB) Viewed 113 times

Perhaps since the Auschwitz museum cites this reference as one of two documents that constitute the documentation of the best documented genocide in history, it might be a good idea to formulate a concise, comprehensive, and understandable rebuttal.

True, although in online debates I have never seen anyone employ this particular document. I'm not yet volunteering to write this rebuttal but one of us ought to.

And I'm having a problem reconciling them. It must be the case that the roof on the rear 1/5 of the building is lower than the front roof?

That's correct.

In any case, from the blueprint, it appears that the 'gas chambers' have 3 windows and a door, which is absurd.

Yes. All three rooms have multiple windows and doors. I'm not sure the exact origin of the story, but those windows became interpreted as Zyklon insertion windows. The absurdity of this theory leads to this oft-quoted passage from Pressac (p.386):

Although the operating sequence looks simple enough, it had become irrational and ridiculous. It was irrational to have the victims going from the central room to the gas chambers then being brought back, thus destroying the linear logic of the initial design. It was ridiculous to have an SS man in a gasmask balancing on his short ladder with a 1 kg can of Zyklon B in his left hand while he opened and then closed the 30 by 40 cm shutter through which he introduced the pellets with his right hand. This performance was to be repeated six times. [...]

The revisionist theory would be that these windows were deliberately made small and high-up as a matter of privacy. Anyone undressing, showering, and being inspected by the doctor would enjoy the benefit of that privacy.

[Hektor]

I asked Deepseek to find documents 'proving' the Holocaust, here's one it came up with -

Document Date Author/Context Specific Content and Keywords
2 March 1943
Daily construction report (Tagesbericht) for Crematorium V at Auschwitz-Birkenau.
Reports the task of "und Fussboden betonieren im Gaskammer" ("and concreting of the floor in the gas chamber").

What is the explanation?

How is that supposed to prove extermination activities there?

[Joe Splink]

I didn't fully develop this argument above, but if Pressac was correct that the foreman "sensibly deduced" the room is a gas chamber, then this supposed criminal trace is no more incriminating than whatever he deduced it from, which Pressac thought was just the gas-tight windows. Pressac has a tendency to undermine his own suppositions like this, which is probably why the Auschwitz Museum leaves his name out.

Thanks - I wondered a bit about Pressac's claim, and your explication clears it up. Pressac was capable of subtle reasoning!

Beyond that, your post cleared up the whole situation, the Jews were really grasping at straws to produce any documentation whatever for the most documented genocide in history.