That is one possible DEDUCTION, yes.
No, it's the only possible deduction. There were only two cellars in the basement of Krema II and their construction is copiously described in the paper trail of correspondence and memos in January 1943. The fact that LK2 was unfinished means that the reference to a Leichenkeller in the 29.1.43 Vergasungskeller memo was to LK2, meaning that the Vergasungskeller was LK1.
One might add that there are other pieces of evidence pointing to LK1 as the Vergasungskeller and gas chamber. The holes, for starters, were drilled into LK1's roof and are visible today. A contemporary photograph shows vents/caps on the roof of LK1, in positions matching the location of the holes.
But the main piece of common-sense evidence is the fact that a gastight door was ordered for LK1 whereas no gastight door was ordered for LK2.
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 are deeply confused about chronology. Krema II's gas chamber, aka the Vergasungskeller, aka Leichenkeller 1, was subdivided in
late autumn 1943. This is known through witness testimonies not blueprints or correspondence.
In January 1943 and right through the summer, Krema II's basement had two cellars. As explained already, these were originally designated Leichenkeller 1 and 2. Thus if a room is designated Auskleidekeller in March 1943, it MUST have been one of the two cellars known originally as Leichenkeller 1 and 2. The fact that the source naming the room as an Auskleidekeller installed ventilation systems into that room and had already installed ventilation into Leichenkeller 1 means that the Auskleidekeller MUST have been Leichenkeller 2. That is because only the two Leichenkeller had ventilation systems installed in the basement.
Mistakes are acceptable. Allowing for editing could correct this. May I ask the historical reason to have this thread moderated?
The historical reason for this thread being moderated dates back 1-2 months to when a denier provoked a series of bitter exchanges and caused the mods to decide enough was enough. I'm not thrilled, either, but this thread has historically generated an awful lot of yellow cards, so it's understandable that the mods have decided to preempt bickering.
I don't want to get into discussing those now, what do you want to discuss about it?
I'd like your coherent explanation for all of the criminal traces, which cover Kremas IV and V as well, because it stands to reason that any explanation of all of the crematoria is going to be more reliable than an ad hoc explanation of one or two documents relating to only one of the crematoria.
The fact is that
all of the crematoria II-V had rooms fitted with gastight doors.
All of the crematoria II-V were identified as possessing gas chambers by 100% of the witnesses claiming to have set foot inside them, as well as 1000s of witnesses who observed them from the outside.
These two facts have to be borne in mind whenever any individual document is considered and examined for the possibility of an alternative explanation.
I have no coherent explanation. Neither is the pro gas chamber kind of argumentation all that coherent.
Sorry no, your false equivalency equivocation is just so much blether. Either you have a coherent explanation or the existing accepted explanation stands. Nobody much cares about your nitpicking attempts, especially when you're proving yourself to be quite hilariously ignorant of the history of these buildings. I just shot down another misunderstanding above.
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?
It's an irrefutable fact that at least one crematoria, III, was fitted with fake showers. This is known from documentary evidence - the listing of 14 showers coupled with the absence of any correspondence or blueprints showing the water supply being hooked up to showers - as well as physical evidence - fake showerheads found in the ruins. The
significance of the fact of fake showers is that their fakeness means a deception was intended. Their fakeness also precludes a more benign 'hygienic' interpretation.
The
effectiveness of using fake showers as a deception measure is a secondary issue, and as such arguments to incredulity don't undermine the documented existence of fake showers. Either present direct evidence of forgery or deal with the fact that there really were fake showers in Krema III's gas chamber.
You might want to remember that there isn't necessarily corresponding evidence for the
other crematoria. Fake showerheads have been found in the ruins of Krema II as well, I believe, and I'm pretty sure they're reported.
I've already explained why there would be damp-proof bulbs and pointed out that
all rooms in these basements had damp-proof bulbs, yet only one out of 4 cellars in Krema II or III is mentioned as possessing showers.
I've also already pointed out that on the handover papers for Krema II, the listing of 4 wire mesh insertion devices is wrongly ascribed to the undressing room/LK2, we KNOW it's wrong because the number of your precious lightbulbs matches the blueprints for the OTHER room, therefore the lines were reversed on the form.
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.
If you're still trying to argue for a 'gas generator' as the Vergasungskeller then this was a piss-poor attempt.
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.
Your counter-argument is a classic example of the fallacy of possible proof, as discussed in David Hackett Fischer's Historian's Fallacies. You advance a 'possible' explanation and don't even stop to think whether it stands up. It's classic CT-think to assume that if you can hypothesise or speculate then that is somehow enough to overturn another explanation. Well, sorry, it isn't.
Your 'possible' explanation makes no sense because we know that
only the rooms originally designated as LK1 were fitted with gastight doors. The rooms designated as LK2 received no such doors, even though there wasn't a shortage as the doors were manufactured locally by the DAW workshop, and the rooms in Kremas IV and V received
many gastight doors and gastight shutters.
So if you're trying to hold onto the original designation of the two cellars as Leichenkeller and argue 'morgue', then you already have a
major inconsistency. That's before one remembers that the two cellars are designated all kinds of other things which are not 'morgue'.
To preempt a likely wild-ass speculation, Auskleidekeller aka undressing room is not really compatible with a morgue function. The correct German word, used for Krema I in the main camp in 1941, for a room to prepare corpses in a morgue would be Aufbahrungsraum. The repetition of Auskleidekeller/Auskleideraum in 1943 without a single use of Aufbahrungsraum is significant. If so much as one document existed which used Aufbahrungsraum for a Birkenau Leichenkeller in 1943, then this would be significant evidence in favour of the Leichenkeller being an actual morgue. But no such document exists.
As for Kremas IV and V, their blueprints don't say Leichen-anything, and the design pattern of multiple differently sized rooms with gastight shutters and gastight doors is simply incompatible with a morgue function of any kind. There is in fact a deafening silence on the function of those rooms, except for slipping up and labelling them a Gaskammer in one case.
It's not a formal proof for a homicidal gas chamber. It does count as evidence, I'll grant you that.
Talking of 'formal proof' is spurious. There is a sum total of evidence and then there are explanations which address the totality of that evidence. In this particular case, we can conduct the somewhat masturbatory exercise of only considering documents, but the totality of evidence also includes vast numbers of testimonies and a not insignificant amount of physical evidence.
No relevant discipline, certainly not in history and not in law, excludes witness testimonies from the totality of evidence. In fact, it should be obvious that the first evidence for the gas chambers chronologically speaking comes from witnesses. Survivors are liberated and say 'there were gas chambers in those buildings'.
Then the investigators find the documents and see that the basement identified by witnesses as having a gas chamber with a gastight door and an undressing room are down in the correspondence described as Vergasungskeller and Auskleidekeller, and there are orders for gastight doors just as described by the witnesses.
The documents thus corroborate the witnesses.
In a nutshell, that's been the situation since 1945 when Polish investigators interviewed survivors and first correlated the blueprints and documents.
As a masturbatory mental exercise, one can follow Pressac and look more or less only at the documentary proofs. If we follow this artificial test then a 'formal proof' of anything depends on the sum total of documents. No one document needs to prove the whole, but together the conclusion is inescapable.
How gullible do you think people are?
Anyway, I already mentioned that if it was indeed a morgue, containing pathogens and stench (there were no cooled morgues in Auschwitz whatsoever right?) might be important. There is a possible other explanation as to the need for a gastight door.