General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[SpitfireIX]

0.03%? Really? Were the British taking 14-15 year olds prisoner?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Excerpt_from_CDC_2003_Table_1.pdf

You do realize that far and away the leading cause of death among Americans aged 18-24 in 2003 was automobile accidents, don't you? How many German POWs do you suppose died in automobile accidents while in British custody?

More to the point, why do you even believe this is a valid comparison, when it's 60 years apart and for a totally different demographic sample? Can you see where people might have a hard time taking your claims seriously when you seem to be clutching at any straw, no matter how tenuous, that could possibly cast doubt on your opponents' arguments?

This goes double when you attempt to ridicule those arguments and your ridicule is demonstrated to be unwarranted, as in this case.

 

[Aulus Agerius]

0.03%? Really? Were the British taking 14-15 year olds prisoner?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Excerpt_from_CDC_2003_Table_1.pdf

So your argument is that the 0.03% figure is wrong, because it doesn't sufficient correspond with what you expect, based apparently on a 2003 table of life expectancy. Once again, has it not occurred to you that life in a prisoner of war camp in the 1940s is different from life in largely urban America in 2003? Have you bothered to find out how the 0.03% figure came from? Or are you, like Irving, just "trying to cast doubt"? (see how well that went for Irving...)

For Vergasungskammer, apparently it has even been pointed out by a Holocaust believer on this forum:

http://www.patent-de.com/20031218/DE60001669T2.html

I have finished wading through this thread, now there is still part I and these to browse through:

forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=194108
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202147

You weren't asked about Vergasungskammer though were you? Is your next post the best you can do on vergasungskeller?

 

[Natan]

Your parsing of the sentence makes no sense, even if you get your cases right.

Care to explain to me how a Vergasungskeller can be used to this end? How are people going to think they are "showering" with corpses lying around? This since your interpretation clearly implies the Vergasungskeller/gas chamber to be used as a morgue. Removing of the formwork/shuttering would somehow greatly disturb and annoy the corpses? Or maybe the heat of a Vergasungskeller could help against the reported frost problems?

 

[Nessie]

Re Krema II, if it was a morgue, where are all the slabs and other items you would find in a morgue?

Are there any documents showing orders for equipment used in morgues?

Why empty it before it was blown up?

 

[Natan]

Re Krema II, if it was a morgue, where are all the slabs and other items you would find in a morgue?

Are there any documents showing orders for equipment used in morgues?

Why empty it before it was blown up?

Where is the wire mesh or the holes you would find in a gas chamber? Why blow it up if that doesn't remove any prussian blue stains that should have been there if it was a gas chamber? Who says the Nazis and not the russians blew it up anyway? Why blow up the "gas chambers" while leaving intact almost complete documentation of the central construction office instead of simply burning it in a few seconds or minutes. Why all the intact Sterbebuecher with the deaths of tens of thousands of registered inmates?

 

[Natan]

Considering Pressac, would anyone also please explain to me:

1. How you're going to trick allegedly hundreds of people in Leichenkeller 1 / "Vergasungskeller" to be "showered" with only 14 fake showerheads? Why bother with any at all then?
2. If the showerheads are "fake wooden dummies" and no one is going to get "showered", then what is the point of waterproof bulbs?

Gee, maybe they were planned real showers?

This inventory indicates that the equipment installed for “Leichenkeller 1 / Corpse cellar [morgue] 1” included:

· “1 gasdichte Tür / 1 gas-tight door,” AND
· “14 Brausen / 14 showers”,

two items that are strictly INCOMPATIBLE with one another. This incompatibility constitutes the fundamental proof, for it is clear that:

Proposition A: A gas-tight door can be intended only for a gas chamber.

Question A: Why does a gas chamber have showers in it?

Reply A: Incomprehensible. Proposition A must be formulated differently for a logical reply.

Proposition B: A room fitted with showers is a place where people wash themselves.

Question B: Why does the only entrance to the shower room have a gas-tight door?

Reply B: Incomprehensible, Proposition B must be formulated differently for a logical reply.

Which sends us back to proposition A, question A, reply A, proposition B, etc. The reasoning is in a vicious circle which cannot be broken. The only way to escape the illogicality is to bring complementary proof demonstrating that one of the propositions IS INCORRECT. This can he done by means of the following arguments:

· The average area covered by a shower head, calculated on the basis of the drawings for the two shower installations at the Stammlager, the reception building (BW 160) and Block 26. and for those at Birkenau, BW 5a, 5b. and the Zentral Sauna (BW 32), works out at 1.83m²

· On this basis. Leichenkeller 1 of Krematorium III, with a floor area of 210m2, should have 115 shower heads.

· In fact only 14 were planned and we know that they were FITTED, because seven wooden bases to which similar shower heads were fitted are still visible in the ruins of the ceiling of L-keller 1 of Krema II.

· On one of the copies of the Krematorium II/III inventory drawing 2197, that from the Soviet “October Revolution” central state archives, water pipes are shown supplying the 3 taps of Leichenkeller 1 and the 5 of Leichenkeller 2, but none are connected to the “showers”, This is paradoxical because on this version of drawing 2197 even the lamps are drawn and on various other drawings showing shower installations the shower heads are necessarily shown and the associated pipework usually appears also.

· It can only be concluded that these are DUMMY SHOWERS, made of wood or other materialls, and painted, as stated by several former memhers of the Sonderkommando

This inventory is absolute and irrefutable proof of the existence of a gas chamber fitted with dummy showers in Krematorium III.

These dummy showers were not placed there by chance, or for purposes of decoration, but with a very precise purpose: to mislead the people entering Leichenkeller 1 / gas chamber l, a misrepresentation implying the deliberate intention to cause them to die by inhaling a deadly gas.

These 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. The second document [Documents B and B'] [Auschwitz State Museum Archive reference BW 30/43, page 12, also from a Soviet source] contains a flagrant error on the part of the SS man who filled in the form.

The first line indicates that in the basement of Krematorium II, "Raum I, Leichenkeller / Room I, corpse cellar" was fitted with:

· “16 Lamp o. Kug, u. Tel. Feuchtsicher / 16 lamps other than globes, waterproof” and
· “5 Zapfhühne / 5 taps”.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/pressac0429.shtml

 

[Natan]

You do realize that far and away the leading cause of death among Americans aged 18-24 in 2003 was automobile accidents, don't you? How many German POWs do you suppose died in automobile accidents while in British custody?

More to the point, why do you even believe this is a valid comparison, when it's 60 years apart and for a totally different demographic sample? Can you see where people might have a hard time taking your claims seriously when you seem to be clutching at any straw, no matter how tenuous, that could possibly cast doubt on your opponents' arguments?

This goes double when you attempt to ridicule those arguments and your ridicule is demonstrated to be unwarranted, as in this case.

Fine, I'll admit I'm wrong on that one. I gave a valid reason to be suspicious, but that reason turned to be based on wrong assumptions.

 

[FluffyPersian]

You do realize that far and away the leading cause of death among Americans aged 18-24 in 2003 was automobile accidents, don't you? How many German POWs do you suppose died in automobile accidents while in British custody?

More to the point, why do you even believe this is a valid comparison, when it's 60 years apart and for a totally different demographic sample? .

In addition, the rate of deaths from car accidents (a risk that an imprisoned population doesn't face) fell by half from 1941 (30 out of 100,000) to 2003 (14.78 out of 100,000). (source) and source.

(Also, note that the rate of car accidents for men, ie the population in question here, is higher than for the general population. So the above rates likely understate the amount of risk these men "missed" by being imprisoned.)

I'm using American statistics here, but then, you did too. If anyone has time to find the British car accident statistics, please post them.

 

[Natan]

Unfortunately it is you who is trying to be disingenuous here. I was referring quite clearly to documents discussed later on in Pressac which use the term Gaskammer in relation to Kremas II and III.

Those documents are spelled out and displayed pretty clearly in the chapter on the "39 criminal traces" in Pressac. So I don't need to "come forward" with sources that are absolutely intrinsic to this entire debate, because anyone attempting to discuss the subject ought to know that chapter and have a clear explanation for all 39 documents.

Which you don't have, of course.

We're getting a bit further with you mentioning your sources. You were incorrect in stating that the Vergasungskeller, which isn't even listed anywhere on ANY blueprint, but DEDUCED to be Leichenkeller 1 of Krema II by Pressac, is also stated to be a Gaskammer. Some rooms in Krema IV and V, not II and III as you claim, were according to Pressac named Gasskammer. Considering your familiarity on the subject, I think you know why I used some bold text there?

 

[Nick Terry]

Care to explain to me how a Vergasungskeller can be used to this end? How are people going to think they are "showering" with corpses lying around? This since your interpretation clearly implies the Vergasungskeller/gas chamber to be used as a morgue. Removing of the formwork/shuttering would somehow greatly disturb and annoy the corpses? Or maybe the heat of a Vergasungskeller could help against the reported frost problems?

Did you even look at the date? The document is from the end of January 1943, before Krema II was operational. What is being said, in essence, is while the roof on the Leichenkeller is being finished, they can use the Vergasungskeller to store corpses. The document refers explicitly to the ovens being fired, and it wasn't long before the ovens were tested with corpses to see how they performed (remember our discussion about the 4756 document?). Only in March 1943 did the SS test the gas chamber by killing a transport from Krakow, and the crematorium wasn't handed over formally until the end of that month.

There was a big hurry on, which is why there are multiple documents generated on the same day (January 29 1943) all concerned with how far the construction of the crematoria had progressed. What this document is saying is in effect, no we haven't finished the roof of one of the cellars but the other one is finished and look sir! we can use that for one of the crematorium's purposes!

The document is thus a snapshot from the construction process. In 1942, both cellars were designated 'Leichenkeller', 1 and 2. Then in the autumn a document refers to 'Sonderkeller', specal cellars. Then in this document, we find that instead of Leichenkeller 1 and 2, we have a 'Leichenkeller' and a 'Vergasungskeller'.

Thereafter, we find that the 'Leichenkeller' - Leichenkeller 2 - has been renamed an 'Auskleidekeller' or 'Auskleideraum' - an undressing room, whereas the 'Vergasungskeller' has been identified as a 'Gaskammer' and the same space identified as the 'Vergasungskeller' - Leichenkeller 1 - has been fitted with gastight doors.

Also worth noting is that on the very same day as the Vergasungskeller document was written, another memo was written regarding the electrical supply to Krema II, which referred to how the electrical supply was set up to allow 'simultaneous cremation with Sonderbehandlung'. Cremation above, on the ground floor, and Sonderbehandlung below, in the Vergasungskeller. Or Gaskammer. You know, the space fitted with gastight doors. After the victims had undressed in the Auskleideraum. The same rooms that all the witnesses identified as an undressing room and a gas chamber.

 

[Nick Terry]

We're getting a bit further with you mentioning your sources. You were incorrect in stating that the Vergasungskeller, which isn't even listed anywhere on ANY blueprint, but DEDUCED to be Leichenkeller 1 of Krema II by Pressac,

Vergasungskeller was Leichenkeller 1. That's because there were only two cellars in the basement. A memo on the same day refers to Leichenkeller 2 being complete other than the removal of formwork on the ceiling, the same issue raised in the Vergasungskeller memo. These two documents together indicate that the Vergasungskeller must have been Leichenkeller 1.

The other cellar was then identified as an Auskleidekeller by a Topf engineer fitting ventilation systems to the cellars. We know that when the fitting was going on, Leichenkeller 2 aka the Auskleidekeller wasn't ready, so the SS installed a barracks in the courtyard, as seen on this map of the camp from the same time-frame. Indeed, another document (discovered after Pressac wrote in 1989) also refers to the removal of a barracks from the crematorium courtyard, and several witnesses mention how at first, the victims undressed in a barracks outside until the Auskleidekeller was ready.

We also have a document dated March 6, 1943 (scroll down) discussing plans to preheat 'Keller 1' which then mentions a clearly separate Auskleideraum.

The request for a gas door for Leichenkeller 1 on the same day (March 6) and a further mention of a gastight door for Leichenkeller 1 on March 31 further solidifies the logical conclusions one draws from the preceding sources.

is also stated to be a Gaskammer. Some rooms in Krema IV and V, not II and III as you claim, were according to Pressac named Gasskammer. Considering your familiarity on the subject, I think you know why I used some bold text there?

You're right, I made a mistake since I've been discussing this mostly from memory. The timesheet referring to a Gaskammer is for Krema IV. But now we have to discuss Krema IV and V, since your point-scoring means they came up.

I'm still waiting, by the way, for a coherent explanation from you for all the 'criminal traces'.

You seem to have given up trying to argue there was a gas generator in Krema II, and by now you'll have realised there isn't even a sniff of a gas generator in either of Krema II or III's basements, yet the paper trail identifies a ton of gastight doors and identifies Auskleidekeller in both Kremas II and III, but doesn't give any designations at all to the mysterious complex of rooms in Kremas IV and V which were fitted with gastight doors and side-shutters.

 

[Nick Terry]

Where is the wire mesh or the holes you would find in a gas chamber?

The holes have been identified. Quite why you expect four wire mesh columns which were removed to show up anywhere is beyond me.

Why blow it up if that doesn't remove any prussian blue stains that should have been there if it was a gas chamber?

There's no reason that Prussian Blue would form in a gas chamber used for half an hour maybe every other day then ventilated, with the room washed down and regularly whitewashed. There's every reason that prussian blue would form in a delousing chamber used 24-7.

Your question also fallaciously presumes that the SS would know that Prussian Blue would form some time in the future, since it's more often than not the case that it takes time to form, rather than appearing overnight at the merest whiff of HCN.

Who says the Nazis and not the russians blew it up anyway?

An Arbeitseinsatz report from January 1945 identifying an 'Abbruchkommando for the crematoria, says who. Nazi document, pre-liberation.

The argument that the Soviets would blow up the crematoria makes zero sense. They absolutely loved clambering over the Majdanek crematoria and gas chambers in 1944.

Why blow up the "gas chambers" while leaving intact almost complete documentation of the central construction office instead of simply burning it in a few seconds or minutes.

Because the ZBL records were captured off-site, and had evidently been forgotten in the haste of the evacuation in January 1945.

Why all the intact Sterbebuecher with the deaths of tens of thousands of registered inmates?

The death books aren't complete; none survive for 1944 or for the first years of the camp. They're also an incomplete record of deaths among registered inmates, and say absolutely zip about the deaths of unregistered inmates, since it was policy at Auschwitz not to write out death certificates for execution victims, whether registered or not. Those had to be reported in a different way.

I might add that the surviving death books for 1942-1943 show that after the spring of 1943, hardly any Jews appear in the death books full stop. That was because it became policy not to bother to write out death certificates for Jews. Surviving secretaries employed in the political department are unanimous on this change of policy. There were only a few exceptions to this new rule (as I understand it, either because the Jewish victim was deported on a regular transport along with non-Jews from a prison, rather than on an "RSHA" transport, or because they were shot trying to escape, or because they were in the Theresienstadt family camp, which was a deception operation).

Perhaps Simon can explain how he interprets the sudden massive drop-off in entries in the death books for Jews in the spring of 1943. Will you seriously argue that Jews stopped dying at Auschwitz all of a sudden?

 

[Nick Terry]

Considering Pressac, would anyone also please explain to me:

1. How you're going to trick allegedly hundreds of people in Leichenkeller 1 / "Vergasungskeller" to be "showered" with only 14 fake showerheads? Why bother with any at all then?
2. If the showerheads are "fake wooden dummies" and no one is going to get "showered", then what is the point of waterproof bulbs?

Gee, maybe they were planned real showers?

Archaeological finds in the ruins indicate the showerheads were dummies. So the physical evidence contradicts any claim that the showers were real.

I don't think anyone has argued that the SS tricked the victims into submission by showing off sparkling shower rooms in which everyone had their own individual shower, as if the quality of the shower room was really that crucial to the deception. The victims had after all been ordered to undress in the undressing room, after being marched into a basement under armed guard. Then once the victims were ready to be moved into the gas chamber, they were led off.

The purpose of installing some fake showers into the gas chamber was surely to lull enough of the victims who entered the room first into complacency, before some realised that 1,000 people taking a shower together wasn't what the SS had in mind.

 

[Natan]

Did you even look at the date? The document is from the end of January 1943, before Krema II was operational. What is being said, in essence, is while the roof on the Leichenkeller is being finished, they can use the Vergasungskeller to store corpses.

The crematorium of Krema II could already be used. Isn't the official narrative that they were burying them in mass, only to dig them back up around September 1942 and "burn them in open pits"? With spare capacity for getting rid of bodies, it doesn't make sense to use the Vergasungskeller as Leichenkeller, then where would people be gassed from?

 

[Nessie]

Where is the wire mesh or the holes you would find in a gas chamber? Why blow it up if that doesn't remove any prussian blue stains that should have been there if it was a gas chamber? Who says the Nazis and not the russians blew it up anyway? Why blow up the "gas chambers" while leaving intact almost complete documentation of the central construction office instead of simply burning it in a few seconds or minutes. Why all the intact Sterbebuecher with the deaths of tens of thousands of registered inmates?

Please answer the question, not dodge it.

I had a long debate with a denier called Bob on the Skeptic Forum where I asked him to evidence gas chambers only being used for clothing. He found to his surprise that there is little evidence to the standard he demanded for proof of people being gassed.

There are pictures of piled up clothes, just like there are pictures of piles of bodies. There have been no tests on clothes to find traces of Zyklon B, just as there have been no traces of such found on a body. There is witness testimony of delousing of clothes, just as there is of gassing of people. There is evidence of delousing at some camps, such as Bergen - Belsen, but not at others such as Treblinka II. But there is evidence to say more people died at Treblinka II than at Bergen-Belsen. In other words in as much as you prove or not people were gassed, you can do the same with clothes. Which raises if you cannot prove to the satisfaction of deniers people were gassed, then by the same rules you cannot prove clothes were deloused.

So by those rules, evidence Krema IIs use as a morgue.

 

[Natan]

Vergasungskeller was Leichenkeller 1. That's because there were only two cellars in the basement. A memo on the same day refers to Leichenkeller 2 being complete other than the removal of formwork on the ceiling, the same issue raised in the Vergasungskeller memo. These two documents together indicate that the Vergasungskeller must have been Leichenkeller 1.

That is one possible DEDUCTION, yes.

The other cellar was then identified as an Auskleidekeller by a Topf engineer fitting ventilation systems to the cellars.

We know that when the fitting was going on, Leichenkeller 2 aka the Auskleidekeller wasn't ready

What do you mean? The "other room"? I thought it was one and the same room, Leichenkeller 1, only that it had been divided into two, for revisionists indeed to supply an Auskleideraum as requested in a 21 January 1943 letter of the SS-Standortarzt of Auschwitz to the camp commander, for your Holoteam buddies below to alternatively gas small or large groups:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.be/2006/11/new-evidence-about-division-of.html

We also have a document dated March 6, 1943 (scroll down) discussing plans to preheat 'Keller 1' which then mentions a clearly separate Auskleideraum.

You're right, I made a mistake since I've been discussing this mostly from memory. The timesheet referring to a Gaskammer is for Krema IV. But now we have to discuss Krema IV and V, since your point-scoring means they came up.

Mistakes are acceptable. Allowing for editing could correct this. May I ask the historical reason to have this thread moderated? I don't want to get into discussing those now, what do you want to discuss about it?

I'm still waiting, by the way, for a coherent explanation from you for all the 'criminal traces'.

I have no coherent explanation. Neither is the pro gas chamber kind of argumentation all that coherent. Somehow 14 showerheads are supposed to be evidence of an attempt to fool hundreds (in one claim even 3000 fitting in the gas chamber of Krema II, maybe I should add that to a list of fraudulent survivor claims I need to compile) of people into being "showered"? Why then also waterproof lightbulbs if there's no water coming from the ceiling but instead some Zyklon B through Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtungen? With words like that, no wonder ze Germans lost the war.

Speaking of those, I thought those four holes were in one document allegedly in Leichenkeller 2, I'd need to check?

You seem to have given up trying to argue there was a gas generator in Krema II

Nope. The technically correct designation for the unnamed space on the blueprint of the Mauthausen Krema that I showed you would probably be Vergasungskeller. Doesn't mean because it is not written on any found blueprint of Auschwitz that it wasn't there and that some other room on the blueprint, Leichenkeller 1 has to be it.

and by now you'll have realised there isn't even a sniff of a gas generator in either of Krema II or III's basements, yet the paper trail identifies a ton of gastight doors and identifies Auskleidekeller in both Kremas II and III, but doesn't give any designations at all to the mysterious complex of rooms in Kremas IV and V which were fitted with gastight doors and side-shutters.

At to those gastight doors, a possible explanations is because the air from actual corpse cellars for a few tens to hundred corpse is probably not all that healthy either as opposed to the air from a gas chamber. It's not a formal proof for a homicidal gas chamber. It does count as evidence, I'll grant you that.

 

[Nick Terry]

2. If the showerheads are "fake wooden dummies" and no one is going to get "showered", then what is the point of waterproof bulbs?

Forgot about this bit, mainly because your central contention was spectacularly contradicted by physical evidence of dummy showerheads.

“16 Lamp o. Kug, u. Tel. Feuchtsicher / 16 lamps other than globes, waterproof” and
· “5 Zapfhühne / 5 taps”.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/aus...ssac0429.shtml

I love it how you cite evidence from Krema II which listed no showers of any kind, but did mention 5 and 3 taps respectively in the two cellars.

Feuchtsicher actually means 'damp proof'. These cellars were in a basement sunk into ground which had been pumped out to lower a high water table, and even with waterproofing in the walls, the basements could get damp. And would be cleaned using water, which would get everywhere.

Meanwhile the exact same description of feuchtsicher is given on the same page you linked to for the fittings in the undressing room, the catch being that the blueprints show 16 lights in the gas chamber and 10 in the undressing room, so the document you cite has the contents reversed between the two rooms, something that is quite important since the same document mentions wire mesh columns.

So now we have a 'shower room' without showers and an undressing room with the exact same fittings but also without showers.

Krema III's handover papers listed 14 showers for 'Leichenkeller 1' and no showers for 'Leichenkeller 2'. I'm sure you can work out how to find the handover document for Krema III in Pressac and tell us how waterproof lights overcome the glaring lack of evidence in textual or blueprint form for showers actually being hooked up to a water supply, and the contradictory physical evidence of actual dummy showerheads found in the ruins.

Your argument is a virtually textbook example of wishful thinking. Rather than accept the evidence as it is given, you fantasise about an alternative setup and then ignore the fact that not only is your fantasy unsubstantiated, but it's also in fact contradicted by other evidence. Yet it's a virtual certainty that at some point you will insist that the evidence as given is insufficient to prove these crematoria had gas chambers.

I doubt you have realised just how blatant your double standards are when it comes to evidence. But that double standard sticks out like a sore thumb to skeptics and readers of this thread.

 

[Nick Terry]

The crematorium of Krema II could already be used. Isn't the official narrative that they were burying them in mass, only to dig them back up around September 1942 and "burn them in open pits"? With spare capacity for getting rid of bodies, it doesn't make sense to use the Vergasungskeller as Leichenkeller, then where would people be gassed from?

You're forgetting Birkenau already had gas chambers, the Bunkers, linked directly to open-air burial/cremation sites. It also had registered prisoners who had a marked tendency to drop dead, who were buried and later cremated in the open air sites as well.

So it's quite easy to see that the ZBL member writing this memo could be thinking about getting the crematoria ovens up and running while the rest of the building was completed, and using the cremation function of the buildings to meet one of two intended goals, namely the cremation of 'ordinary' victims who had not been gassed, since those 'ordinary' victims tended to die in proportionately smaller numbers than the mass gassings of incoming transports. Thus, in what is quite clearly an obvious transition phase, gassing-and-cremation could go on at one site, whereas mere cremation could begin in the future mega-facility.

But this is beside the point, since you're repeating the same mistake of trying to generalise from a very specific snapshot moment in the construction history of the crematoria, and don't seem to understand that the memo writers on January 29 are basically saying in their multiple memos, 'look, we know it's not completely ready but hey, the ovens have been fired, we can use this building to cremate people'. They are engaging in CYA, saying 'nearly done!'

And it's in that context that a ZBL memo writer slipped up and called one of the basements a gassing cellar.

Have you officially given up trying to prove there was a gas generator in the basement, btw? I'd like an answer. If the basement cellar didn't have a gas generator in it, then what was the Vergasungskeller? I'd like an answer to that, too.

 

[Natan]

So by those rules, evidence Krema IIs use as a morgue.

Why should I? If it is clearly indicated on blueprints that they are Leichenkellers, shouldn't it be up to you to give good evidence they were not? Shouldn't it be up to you that if there were a Vergasungskeller not on any blueprint, that the evidence that it is a gas chamber would be a bit better than deductive reasoning on speculations? Or that if Germans mention Gasskammers in other Kremas, that you can give a reasonable explanation why said Germans can't spell Gaskammer? Or maybe Polish workers wrote that, working on some of the Reich's most supersecret unmentionable gas chambers?

 

[Natan]

Perhaps Simon can explain how he interprets the sudden massive drop-off in entries in the death books for Jews in the spring of 1943. Will you seriously argue that Jews stopped dying at Auschwitz all of a sudden?

Wasn't there a three months deportations break around that time? With those too weak for the harsh concentration camp system had already died off and with no loads of new people coming in, this might explain. How drastic was the drop, any figures?