The Birkenau crematoria: what real 'convergence of evidence' looks like

[Archie]

Certain posters on the forum have been claiming that "100% of witnesses" say that the Birkenau crematoria were gas chambers and that there are zero witnesses who say these facilities could have been for anything else. Moreover, there is supposedly a "convergence of evidence" proving the gas chambers.

There is in fact a statement from Heinrich Himmler explaining what the crematoria buildings were for. He says they were ... crematoria. Whoa, crazy. And he says they built them to deal with high deaths due to disease, etc. This Himmler statement was reported by Norbert Masur of the WJC after a meeting between him and Himmler in Sweden on April 20-21, 1945. (The tantalizing question of why on earth Himmler would be meeting with the WJC is question for another time. For our purposes we will focus simply on Himmler's explanation of the purpose of the crematoria.

In order to stop the epidemics we were forced to cremate the bodies of many people that died of the diseases. That was the reason we had to build the crematoria, and now, because of this, everybody wants to tighten the noose around our neck.

Now, you are of course free to say that Himmler is lying here, but it is simply false to say that there are ZERO people in the authority who gave any explanation besides them being mass extermination facilities with gas chambers. Moreover, we need not take Himmler's word for it here because his explanation is well supported by much documentary evidence. A "convergence of evidence," if you will, but an actual instance of this. Note how it is very different from the Holocaust apologist version where they take bits that don't show what they want to show and make wild leaps to reach to their desired conclusion.

Himmler Visits Auschwitz, Camp Placed Under Quarantine (July 1942)

Himmler visited Auschwitz on July 17-18, 1942. There is a document from just before this (Jun 29) where Himmler indicates that he wanted to expand the camp's capacity to 150,000 inmates (HH#35, 259).

On July 22, a large shipment of Zyklon B was sent to Auschwitz, the stated purpose of which was “gas intended for gassing the camp against the epidemic that has broken out.” The next day on July 23 the camp was placed under quarantine (Pressac, 188).

That the registered deaths were high around this time and that there was rampant typhus is confirmed by the Auschwitz registered deaths as well as the Enigma decrypts (see HH#41, especially part one). Holocaust apologist John Zimmerman has claimed that the typhus was a "myth," his main argument being that typhus is listed as the official cause of death on only around 2,000 death book entries out of some 69,000. But this is a poor argument given 1) the typhus epidemic is too well attested to dismiss, 2) the epidemic coincides with elevated total mortality, 3) official cause of death is not necessarily reliable as there are primary and secondary causes and there may be pressure to play up or play down certain causes (this came up in recent years with COVID). Zimmerman is simply wrong. Typhus was a major and justified preoccupation, and whatever the exact causes of death it's clear that overall registered deaths were high.

Birkenau Crematoria Planned (Summer 1942)

The plans for the four crematoria in Birkenau were introduced right at this time. There were earlier plans for a single crematorium going back to early 1942 or even late 1941. But this was extended to four in the summer of 1942, coinciding with epidemic mortality and Himmler's plans to expand the camp (Pressac, 184). This fits very well with what Himmler gave as the purpose of the crematoria. The orthodoxy requires us to believe that this timing was simply an amazing coincidence.

Himmler Orders Death Rates Reduced at Auschwitz (Dec 1942)

On Dec 28, 1942, Himmler ordered the death rates in the concentration camps to be reduced (HH#22, 56). This was not only "including" Auschwitz but especially Auschwitz as it was the largest camp and accounted for approximately half of the concentration camp deaths.

Further documents collected in NMT Green Series (Vol 5, pg 372-384; NO-1523, PS-1469, NO-21) indicate that this was a serious initiative. PS-1469 reports that concentration camp deaths were reduced from 12,216 in Aug 1942 to 4,699 in Aug 1943.

Blueprints

The blueprints, which were hidden away for decades, show buildings with ovens, morgues, autopsy rooms, etc. The architects were put on trial in Austria in 1972 and got acquitted because the designs were so utterly non-incriminating.
viewtopic.php?t=157

Morgue Documents

There are additional documents indicated that the LKs were in fact used for corpse storage. The famous "Vergasungskeller" document, if read carefully, clearly implies this. And there are additional documents that surfaced later that are even more explicit on this point. According to the orthodox theory, Birkenau, the camp that had the greatest need by far for morgue space, is the only camp that had no dedicated morgue space.
viewtopic.php?t=134

Pressac's Big Concession on the Kremas

Pressac in his 1989 book was forced to make some rather radical revisions to try to salvage the gas chamber narrative. Pressac found evidence against the traditional story, that these buildings were designed and built expressly as mass gassing facilities, to be too strong, and so he was compelled to argue that the Kremas started as "normal sanitary facilities" and were only later modified into mass execution facilities. Here is how he explained it in the Igounet interview.

Concerning the history of the camp, it could be demonstrated that the Kremas had started off as normal sanitary facilities; then later changed into liquidation centers for “Jews unable to work”, that is women, children and the elderly.

What I indicate as being " criminal traces" arise from the difference between the normal installations of a normal crematory, one intended just to incinerate the dead and primarily including one or more mortuaries, along with an autopsy room which was legally mandated and a room for furnaces and coke storage; and those in an abnormal crematory which would have a homicidal gas chamber. This installation or this transformation required particular pieces of equipment which one finds mention of in the SS correspondence with the civilian firms or in their building site logs. A better definition would be “traces of criminal installations”. The search for such “traces” would not be possible if the Kremas had a criminal beginning, as the Polish historians believed for 40 years.

I would point out here that it's not just what "historians" believed for 40 years (which is bad enough). This is what many key witnesses also say. Here is what the Hoess affidavit says for example:

The ‘final solution’ of the Jewish question meant the complete extermination of all Jews in Europe. I was ordered to establish extermination facilities at Auschwitz in June 1941. At that time there were already in the general government three other extermination camps, BELZEC, TREBLINKA and WOLZEK. These camps were under the Einsatzkommando of the Security Police and SD. I visited Treblinka to find out how they carried out their exterminations. The Camp Commandant at Treblinka told me that he had liquidated 80,000 in the course of one-half year. He was principally concerned with liquidating all the Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto. He used monoxide gas and I did not think that his methods were very efficient. So when I set up the extermination building at Auschwitz, I used Cyclon B, which was crystallized Prussic Acid which we dropped into the death chamber from a small opening.

He says the "final solution" was ordered and that shortly after this he got orders to establish extermination facilities at Auschwitz. Good luck trying to harmonize Hoess's story with Pressac's "normal sanitary facilities."

Cremation Capacity

Many of these points naturally lead into discussions of cremation capacity. "Why would Auschwitz need so many ovens?" is the common spin. In fact, Auschwitz had by far the most deaths, and that's recorded deaths, not including the ~1M extra Holocaust fantasy deaths. In 1942 (when the relevant decisions were being made) Auschwitz had well over 10x the deaths of other large camps like Dachau and Buchenwald. Consider as well the documented plans to expand the camp and the capacity does not look disproportionate at all. Arguments to the contrary typically resort to projecting cremation capacity based on ludicrous, unrealistic assumptions while at the same time ignoring what this would imply for the non-extermination camps, i.e., that under such assumptions ALL of the camps would have had wildly excessive cremation capacity.

viewtopic.php?t=202

Real vs Fake Convergence of Evidence

The above is what it looks like when you have a real convergence of evidence. We have the high registered deaths. We have the quarantine. We have timeline with the blueprints and the construction, all of which makes perfect sense (but which makes no sense at all given the orthodox timeline). There is no mystery at all why these crematoria were built.

Conversely, we see the completely fake "convergence of evidence" for the Holocaust narrative. Hoess + Nyiszli + ..., all nothing more than statements collected AFTER the war which are full of irreconcilable contradictions. That isn't convergence of evidence. That is manufacturing a narrative after the war.

[TlsMS93]

Will exterminationists always cling to the Deutsche Bahn transport list and ask for proof of where they went? So they don't need to explain how it was technically possible.

[Nessie]

Certain posters on the forum have been claiming that "100% of witnesses" say that the Birkenau crematoria were gas chambers and that there are zero witnesses who say these facilities could have been for anything else.

To be more accurate, 100% of witnesses who WORKED at the Kremas and who were EYEWITNESSES to their operation. That point is someone what important.

Moreover, there is supposedly a "convergence of evidence" proving the gas chambers.

There is a comvergence of evidence. When so-called revisionists try to revise, they fall apart in contradictory disagreement.

There is in fact a statement from Heinrich Himmler explaining what the crematoria buildings were for. He says they were ... crematoria. Whoa, crazy. And he says they built them to deal with high deaths due to disease, etc. This Himmler statement was reported by Norbert Masur of the WJC after a meeting between him and Himmler in Sweden on April 20-21, 1945. (The tantalizing question of why on earth Himmler would be meeting with the WJC is question for another time. For our purposes we will focus simply on Himmler's explanation of the purpose of the crematoria.

In order to stop the epidemics we were forced to cremate the bodies of many people that died of the diseases. That was the reason we had to build the crematoria, and now, because of this, everybody wants to tighten the noose around our neck.

Now, you are of course free to say that Himmler is lying here, but it is simply false to say that there are ZERO people in the authority who gave any explanation besides them being mass extermination facilities with gas chambers.

The most senior of Nazis wanted plausible deniability and to appear to be ignorant as to what was really taking place. We see that happening throughout the Nuremberg trials. The seniro Nazis pled no knowledge or responsibility. None came forward to explicitly deny mass murders took place and what really happened to the millions of Jews arrested.

Moreover, we need not take Himmler's word for it here because his explanation is well supported by much documentary evidence. A "convergence of evidence," if you will, but an actual instance of this. Note how it is very different from the Holocaust apologist version where they take bits that don't show what they want to show and make wild leaps to reach to their desired conclusion.

Himmler's Visits Auschwitz, Camp Placed Under Quarantine (July 1942)

Himmler visited Auschwitz on July 17-18, 1942. There is a document from just before this (Jun 29) where Himmler indicates that he wanted to expand the camp's capacity to 150,000 inmates (HH#35, 259).

On July 22, a large shipment of Zyklon B was sent to Auschwitz, the stated purpose of which was “gas intended for gassing the camp against the epidemic that has broken out.” The next day on July 23 the camp was placed under quarantine (Pressac, 188).

That the registered deaths were high around this time and that there was rampant typhus is confirmed by the Auschwitz registered deaths as well as the Enigma decrypts (see HH#41, especially part one). Holocaust apologist John Zimmerman has claimed that the typhus was a "myth," his main argument being that typhus is listed as the official cause of death on only around 2,000 death book entries out of some 69,000. But this is a poor argument given 1) the typhus epidemic is too well attested to dismiss, 2) the epidemic coincides with elevated total mortality, 3) official cause of death is not necessarily reliable as there are primary and secondary causes and there may be pressure to play up or play down certain causes (this came up in recent years with COVID). Zimmerman is simply wrong. Typhus was a major and justified preoccupation, and whatever the exact causes of death it's clear that overall registered deaths were high.

Birkenau Crematoria Planned (Summer 1942)

The plans for the four crematoria in Birkenau were introduced right at this time. There were earlier plans for a single crematorium going back to early 1942 or even late 1941. But this was extended to four in the summer of 1942, coinciding with epidemic mortality and Himmler's plans to expand the camp (Pressac, 184). This fits very well with what Himmler gave as the purpose of the crematoria. The orthodoxy requires us to believe that this timing was simply an amazing coincidence.

Himmler Orders Death Rates Reduced at Auschwitz (Dec 1942)

On Dec 28, 1942, Himmler ordered the death rates in the concentration camps to be reduced (HH#22, 56). This was not only "including" Auschwitz but especially Auschwitz as it was the largest camp and accounted for approximately half of the concentration camp deaths.

Further documents collected in NMT Green Series (Vol 5, pg 372-384; NO-1523, PS-1469, NO-21) indicate that this was a serious initiative. PS-1469 reports that concentration camp deaths were reduced from 12,216 in Aug 1942 to 4,699 in Aug 1943.

Blueprints

The blueprints, which were hidden away for decades, show buildings with ovens, morgues, autopsy rooms, etc. The architects were put on trial in Austria in 1972 and got acquitted because the designs were so utterly non-incriminating.
viewtopic.php?t=157

Morgue Documents

There are additional documents indicated that the LKs were in fact used for corpse storage. The famous "Vergasungskeller" document, if read carefully, clearly implies this. And there are additional documents that surfaced later that are even more explicit on this point. According to the orthodox theory, Birkenau, the camp that had the greatest need by far for morgue space, is the only camp that had no dedicated morgue space.
viewtopic.php?t=134

Pressac's Big Concession on the Kremas

Pressac in his 1989 book was forced to make some rather radical revisions to try to salvage the gas chamber narrative. Pressac found evidence against the traditional story, that these buildings were designed and built expressly as mass gassing facilities, to be too strong, and so he was compelled to argue that the Kremas started as "normal sanitary facilities" and were only later modified into mass execution facilities. Here is how he explained it in the Igounet interview.

Concerning the history of the camp, it could be demonstrated that the Kremas had started off as normal sanitary facilities; then later changed into liquidation centers for “Jews unable to work”, that is women, children and the elderly.

What I indicate as being " criminal traces" arise from the difference between the normal installations of a normal crematory, one intended just to incinerate the dead and primarily including one or more mortuaries, along with an autopsy room which was legally mandated and a room for furnaces and coke storage; and those in an abnormal crematory which would have a homicidal gas chamber. This installation or this transformation required particular pieces of equipment which one finds mention of in the SS correspondence with the civilian firms or in their building site logs. A better definition would be “traces of criminal installations”. The search for such “traces” would not be possible if the Kremas had a criminal beginning, as the Polish historians believed for 40 years.

I would point out here that it's not just what "historians" believed for 40 years (which is bad enough). This is what many key witnesses also say. Here is what the Hoess affidavit says for example:

The ‘final solution’ of the Jewish question meant the complete extermination of all Jews in Europe. I was ordered to establish extermination facilities at Auschwitz in June 1941. At that time there were already in the general government three other extermination camps, BELZEC, TREBLINKA and WOLZEK. These camps were under the Einsatzkommando of the Security Police and SD. I visited Treblinka to find out how they carried out their exterminations. The Camp Commandant at Treblinka told me that he had liquidated 80,000 in the course of one-half year. He was principally concerned with liquidating all the Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto. He used monoxide gas and I did not think that his methods were very efficient. So when I set up the extermination building at Auschwitz, I used Cyclon B, which was crystallized Prussic Acid which we dropped into the death chamber from a small opening.

He says the "final solution" was ordered and that shortly after this he got orders to establish extermination facilities at Auschwitz. Good luck trying to harmonize Hoess's story with Pressac's "normal sanitary facilities."

Cremation Capacity

Many of these points naturally lead into discussions of cremation capacity. "Why would Auschwitz need so many ovens?" is the common spin. In fact, Auschwitz had by far the most deaths, and that's recorded deaths, not including the ~1M extra Holocaust fantasy deaths. In 1942 (when the relevant decisions were being made) Auschwitz had well over 10x the deaths of other large camps like Dachau and Buchenwald. Consider as well the documented plans to expand the camp and the capacity does not look disproportionate at all. Arguments to the contrary typically resort to projecting cremation capacity based on ludicrous, unrealistic assumptions while at the same time ignoring what this would imply for the non-extermination camps, i.e., that under such assumptions ALL of the camps would have had wildly excessive cremation capacity.

viewtopic.php?t=202

Real vs Fake Convergence of Evidence

The above is what it looks like when you have a real convergence of evidence. We have the high registered deaths. We have the quarantine. We have timeline with the blueprints and the construction, all of which makes perfect sense (but which makes no sense at all given the orthodox timeline). There is no mystery at all why these crematoria were built.

Conversely, we see the completely fake "convergence of evidence" for the Holocaust narrative. Hoess + Nyiszli + ..., all nothing more than statements collected AFTER the war which are full of irreconcilable contradictions. That isn't convergence of evidence. That is manufacturing a narrative after the war.

Will you now criticise the revisionists who claim the Kremas operated as mass showers, delousing chambers or bomb shleters, which contradict your mortuary claim? Why are you correct and they are all wrong?

Can you explain why you need to ignore 100% of the Krema staff, who all say something else took place? Hoess and Nyiszli do not contradict each other, they both say the Kremas were modified to be used as gas chambers. You even quoted Hoess admitting to that. They only vary in the details of that operation.

Can you explain why the Kremas needed nearly 900 staff and all four were running 24/7 in July 1944, when there was no typhus epidemic, but there were mass arrivals?

Can you explain what happened to those people not selected to work, who were sent to the Kremas, as evidenced by witnesses and photos and who were never registered to work at any camp?

Can you explain why documents record a secretive operation, a special treatment, involving infirm prisoners, Jews and Hungarians, rather than open discussion about the operation of a normal crematorium?

[Nessie]

Will exterminationists always cling to the Deutsche Bahn transport list and ask for proof of where they went? So they don't need to explain how it was technically possible.

Modifying an existing design, to have holes in a roof, gas tight doors, some shower heads, a ventilation system and a mesh column to contain Zyklon B that can then be pulled back out, is not technically possible, how? Those designs are well within German engineering capabilities in the 1940s.

Why do you cling to the logically flawed argument from incredulity, that because you cannot work out how the gassings happened, therefore they did not happen?

Why do you dodge proving what did take place and what happened to all of those Jews?

[HansHill]

The observations in Archie's post further converge with the i) physical record and ii) resolves all procedural inconsistencies. The physical record convergence includes (but not limited to) the absence of Prussian Blue and other long term stable HcN residues, no Kula Columns, no holes. The procedural inconsistencies convergence includes (but not limited to) throughput (both gassing and cremation), and the downstairs-upstairs gas-cremate rubegoldberg machine with the elevator.

All of this convergence is extremely strong.

[borjastick]

And never forget that 'convergence of evidence' was cemented in law by the use of Judicial notice.

[Nessie]

The observations in Archie's post further converge with the i) physical record...

That record is of a crematorium being modified for a secretive special action involving infirm prisoners, Jews and Hungarians, that needed barracks for property, heated undressing rooms, ventilated gas chambers and ovens for mass cremations. The camp records do not mention showering, delousing, corpse storage, bomb shelters or normal crematorium usage, which so-called revisionists allege took place.

and ii) resolves all procedural inconsistencies.

There is no procedural inconsistency. All the witnesses who worked at the Kremas variously describe what the documents record, people undressing, gassed, cremated and their property taken for sorting. Their evidence converges perfectly with the documents.

The physical record convergence includes (but not limited to) the absence of Prussian Blue and other long term stable HcN residues, no Kula Columns, no holes.

It is not possible to say if Prussian blue never formed in Kremas III, IV and V, or the two bunker/farmhouses, as they were demolished. Only a small part of Krema II can be accessed and Krema I gassings stopped in 1942, with the building being converted to an air raid shelter in 1944. Chemists disagree whether Prussian blue would form, with homicidal gassing procedures. Traces of holes have been identified in the Krema roof and there is no reason why the Kula columns would survive a cover-up of the gassings.

The procedural inconsistencies convergence includes (but not limited to) throughput (both gassing and cremation), and the downstairs-upstairs gas-cremate rubegoldberg machine with the elevator.

All of this convergence is extremely strong.

You are not using converging evidence, you are using the logically flawed argument from incredulity. Just because you do not want to believe gassings and cremations were possible, does not mean they did not happen.

[Nessie]

And never forget that 'convergence of evidence' was cemented in law by the use of Judicial notice.

According to so-called revisionists, the evidence converges to the Kremas being bomb shelters, mass showers, delousing chambers, corpse stores and normally operating morgues/crematoriums.

Why can so-called revisionists not agree?

[Archie]

To be more accurate, 100% of witnesses who WORKED at the Kremas and who were EYEWITNESSES to their operation. That point is someone what important.

The whole point of limiting the pool of witnesses would be to screen for witnesses who would be in a position to know one way or the other. Himmler would have been in a position to know. When you claim that all relevant witnesses run 100/0 in your favor, you are lying.

You are also wrong about there being no lower level testimonies that support more mundane interpretations. For example, this one is a Polish underground report. It is anonymous, but it's also very early and it seems informed on the layout of the Krema II/III.

Unpublished. Polish Underground Movement (1939-1945) Study Trust; a reference number was not given
February 2, 1944
“The concentration camp in Auschwitz.”

The crematorium is underground; it is built following the pattern of an air raid shelter. Only the chimney protrudes above ground, in whose construction the informant was also involved. The informant does not know where the gas chambers are located; he merely heard that they are underground, built on the pattern of the crematorium.

Krematorium miesci sie pod ziemia zbudowane na wzòr scronu przeciwlotniczego. Nad powierzchnia ziemi unosi sie jedynie komin, przy budowie ktòrego byl zatrudniony ròwniez informator. Gdzie mieszcza sie komory gazowe, informator nie wie, slyszal jedynie, ze sa pod ziemia, zbudowane na zwòr krematorium.

This person says the underground cellar was pattered after an air-raid shelter. The person had also apparently heard rumors about a gas chamber but does not know where it was! That is, someone involved in the construction did not know it was a gas chamber. This matches well with the revisionist interpretation of the buildings being built as crematoria with morgues (and it even lends some support for the idea that the cellar may have doubled as an air-raid shelter, though I think that is perhaps a separate topic).

[Archie]

And never forget that 'convergence of evidence' was cemented in law by the use of Judicial notice.

According to so-called revisionists, the evidence converges to the Kremas being bomb shelters, mass showers, delousing chambers, corpse stores and normally operating morgues/crematoriums.

Why can so-called revisionists not agree?

All revisionists agree that they were used for corpses storage, i.e., the Leichenkellers were kellers for leichen. The disagreement is over potential secondary uses for those rooms and there is disagreement because of incomplete documentation. Happens all the time in history. It's normal for there to be some open questions.

And I love how you are just brazenly ignoring that your side has even more serious disagreements. Did you read the part in the OP, "Pressac's Big Concession on the Kremas"? The orthodox side claimed that these were ordered, designed, and built expressly as mass gassing facilities from the beginning. Which, if you believe in the Holocaust, is the only scenario that actually makes sense. Pressac found this was not viable and so he offered a radically different scenario where gas chambers were added as an afterthought months into construction.

[TlsMS93]

The Kremas in AB were morgues, the one in Stammlager, due to the abandonment of its cremation, served as an air raid shelter. The ones in Majdanek were clearly delousing chambers as there are visible signs of Prussian Blue in them. The exterminationists claim that they were gas chambers in Majdanek but far fewer people died than in AB, even so the Prussian Blue is visible, why doesn't the same happen in AB? And why the excuse that after each gassing they didn't wash the walls and floor and painted it to cover it up for the new batch of victims?

[Archie]

Can you explain why you need to ignore 100% of the Krema staff, who all say something else took place? Hoess and Nyiszli do not contradict each other, they both say the Kremas were modified to be used as gas chambers. You even quoted Hoess admitting to that. They only vary in the details of that operation.

I don't ignore them. I discount their stories because of major errors and contradictions along with the fact that they had an obvious motive to lie and exaggerate.

But you are dancing around the main point I raised which is over the decision to construct the Birkenau crematoria. When was this decision made, by who, and for what purpose?

The traditional story is that Himmler ordered Hoess to implement an extermination program at Auschwitz and that the Kremas were intended to be mass gassing facilities from the beginning.

What is your position? Do you favor the traditional view or do you favor the Pressac view? Since you say "were modified" I assume you hold the latter position. Although you claim that Hoess said this when my reading of Hoess's statements is that the story he gives is very much the traditional story.

[Nessie]

To be more accurate, 100% of witnesses who WORKED at the Kremas and who were EYEWITNESSES to their operation. That point is someone what important.

The whole point of limiting the pool of witnesses would be to screen for witnesses who would be in a position to know one way or the other. Himmler would have been in a position to know. When you claim that all relevant witnesses run 100/0 in your favor, you are lying.

100% of eyewitnesses, who worked at the Kremas, whose evidence is not hearsay, claim they were used for gassings.

You have ignored my point about senior Nazis wanting plausible deniability.

You are also wrong about there being no lower level testimonies that support more mundane interpretations. For example, this one is a Polish underground report. It is anonymous, but it's also very early and it seems informed on the layout of the Krema II/III.

Unpublished. Polish Underground Movement (1939-1945) Study Trust; a reference number was not given
February 2, 1944
“The concentration camp in Auschwitz.”

The crematorium is underground; it is built following the pattern of an air raid shelter. Only the chimney protrudes above ground, in whose construction the informant was also involved. The informant does not know where the gas chambers are located; he merely heard that they are underground, built on the pattern of the crematorium.

Krematorium miesci sie pod ziemia zbudowane na wzòr scronu przeciwlotniczego. Nad powierzchnia ziemi unosi sie jedynie komin, przy budowie ktòrego byl zatrudniony ròwniez informator. Gdzie mieszcza sie komory gazowe, informator nie wie, slyszal jedynie, ze sa pod ziemia, zbudowane na zwòr krematorium.

This person says the underground cellar was pattered after an air-raid shelter. The person had also apparently heard rumors about a gas chamber but does not know where it was! That is, someone involved in the construction did not know it was a gas chamber. This matches well with the revisionist interpretation of the buildings being built as crematoria with morgues (and it even lends some support for the idea that the cellar may have doubled as an air-raid shelter, though I think that is perhaps a separate topic).

Your best witness is anonymous and thinks there were gas chambers.

[Nessie]

The Kremas in AB were morgues, the one in Stammlager, due to the abandonment of its cremation, served as an air raid shelter. The ones in Majdanek were clearly delousing chambers as there are visible signs of Prussian Blue in them. The exterminationists claim that they were gas chambers in Majdanek but far fewer people died than in AB, even so the Prussian Blue is visible, why doesn't the same happen in AB? And why the excuse that after each gassing they didn't wash the walls and floor and painted it to cover it up for the new batch of victims?

Why are you correct and the revisionists who say they were showers, delousing chambers or bomb shelters are all wrong? How come you lot cannot agree with each other?

[Nessie]

Can you explain why you need to ignore 100% of the Krema staff, who all say something else took place? Hoess and Nyiszli do not contradict each other, they both say the Kremas were modified to be used as gas chambers. You even quoted Hoess admitting to that. They only vary in the details of that operation.

I don't ignore them. I discount their stories because of major errors and contradictions...

How do they make major errors and contradictions, when they all say there were gas chambers? That is universal agreement, far more so than so-called revisionist contradicting delousing chambers, bomb shelters, corpse stores and showers.

How do accurately assess the witnesses, when you are biased and have no relevant training or experience?

.... along with the fact that they had an obvious motive to lie and exaggerate.

What was the SS camp staff's motive to lie?

But you are dancing around the main point I raised which is over the decision to construct the Birkenau crematoria. When was this decision made, by who, and for what purpose?

The traditional story is that Himmler ordered Hoess to implement an extermination program at Auschwitz and that the Kremas were intended to be mass gassing facilities from the beginning.

What is your position? Do you favor the traditional view or do you favor the Pressac view? Since you say "were modified" I assume you hold the latter position. Although you claim that Hoess said this when my reading of Hoess's statements is that the story he gives is very much the traditional story.

The evidence from the Krema plans, is that they were originally designed to be crematoriums. A-B was also planned to far larger, with "Mexico" being added to Birkenau. The evidence is that Topf & Sons were employed to modify them for gassings.