Nick Terry
Illuminator
Er, no, the Topf design was self-contained and any blowers were located inside the ovens on the ground floor. Nothing in any of the blueprints identifies flues or other channels to route heat from the basement to the ground floor or vice versa. Indeed, an SS plan to direct excess heat into the basement to 'pre-warm' the same space fell through because it wasn't technically possible.
After the original blueprints, yes. All evidence from the site today indicates the holes were created at the time of construction, specifically the bending back of rebar in the concrete. It strikes me as much easier to pour a concrete roof then drill a hole in it than any other method of creating a hole.
Yes, I know, and revisionists are just as wrong on this one as they are on a thousand other issues.
Why do we need an explanation? The document sat in the Soviet archives until the 1970s or so, as far as I'm aware. There is no evidence of postwar alteration to the document.
But your "knowledge" of the Sonderkommandos being subjected to special treatment comes from hearsay. Hoess actually stated on record that Eichmann told him to liquidate the Sonderkommandos on a regular basis but this wasn't done as it was easier than replacing them constantly. The whole Sonderkommando was liquidated in December 1942 but not thereafter. Some few Sonderkommandos survived from the start of 1943 through to 1944 and then made it through the revolt and then, survived the war. One was Henryk Tauber. Other Sonderkommandos mention the division of the gas chamber in Krema II, but arrived only in 1944.
I find it amusing that you go haring off down another rabbit hole when your original incomprehension led you to claim that the Vergasungskeller and Auskleidekeller could have been in the same room, just to get out of accepting the common-sense correlations with LK1 and 2. You half-remembered something about a division of a gas chamber and threw it out almost at random.
But there's no evidence, documentary or witness, of a subdivision being made in March 1943. As in none, zilch, zippo.
Oh yes, I forgot, it is possible for a child to have been gassed six times and live straight through it.
Now you're citing the tall tales of a survivor, Moshe Peer, of Belsen claiming to have been gassed six times at Belsen. That isn't even vaguely relevant to Auschwitz witness testimony, and it isn't even vaguely damaging for there to have been a few kooks spouting nonsense when we have 100s of other witnesses who don't spout nonsense. You'll have to do considerably better than spew out standard denier cliches if you want to explain away the sum total of witness testimony from Auschwitz. It might of course help if you actually knew anything about Auschwitz for starters....
Yet neither of the Leichenkeller 2 in either Krema II or III were fitted with gastight doors. And you still lack any corroborating evidence, whether documentary or testimonial, to confirm that the rooms were actually used as morgues.
It's indeed a secondary issue to any sentient person. The fact is that 14 fake showers were installed in one out of four cellars in Kremas II and III, specifically in one cellar in Krema III. We know they were fake because there is no evidence of them being connected to a water supply, and because physical evidence of showerheads found in the ruins indicates they couldn't have delivered any water.
This is enough to refute your plate-spinning claim that they were real showers.
Which, incidentally, would be an odd thing to have in a morgue, which is your apparent preferred explanation for the other 50% of the time you're discussing this subject.
So what were those rooms - morgues or shower rooms? It seems you have no evidence for either being their actual use.
Why yes, as soon as you source the 50 fantastic witnesses everyone is waiting on tenterhooks for you to name.
Yet you don't seem to be able to make the next step and say 'OK, the real showers thing was wrong'.
Indeed, so stupid they listed the wrong number of lamps for each room. Gosh, has that ever happened before?
It so happens I'm having renovations done to my kitchen at the moment and it'll surprise NO ONE that the itemisation for pieces to purchase was typed out wrongly TWICE by the builders.
Aufbahrungsraum was used re: Krema I in 1941, and at no time were fellow inmates allowed to wander into the crematoria to doff their caps at their dead mates. My point was simply that had Aufbahrungsraum been used then this would be positive evidence towards the room being an actual morgue. Auskleidekeller implies someone undressing themselves. There really isn't any known case of Auskleide-anything being used in a genuine morgue context.
Indeed, yes, but we were discussing why one of the cellars was also called Auskleidekeller.
And misspellings prove what? You realise that the word was written down by a Topf engineer, right?
I believe Franciszek Piper was once asked whether he could be shown ONE of those gastight doors (was it by David Cole?) and although he said it was there, he couldn't show. Neither are any of those wire mesh induction columns around (I didn't know dynamiting removes all traces of those), I don't know whether you'll be able to source or show any of those "fake" showerheads and whatever holes in the ceiling of the basements seem like they were crudely made afterwards (much like the addition of the lines for a gastight door and the wire mesh columns on the documents themselves
This is all completely unresponsive to what I wrote:
The point is quite simple: the first indicators that the basements had gas chambers came from witnesses. So it is with their claims in mind that any documents must be read.
It is patently obvious in fact that the investigators in 1945 heard the testimonies of the surviving Sonderkommandos and other prisoners - 100s of prisoners, all chorusing about gas chambers in the crematoria - then found the Vergasungskeller document, and the case was closed. For all time.
What cannot be done, therefore, is to offer up a reinterpretation of Vergasungskeller as 'gasification cellar' independent of the witness testimonies. You can't simply reach for the dictionary and pull out the wrong translation, ignoring the fact that 'Vergasung' demonstrably was being used at Auschwitz to refer to gassing/fumigation, and ignoring the obvious significance of a gastight door.
If you had so much as one single witness referring to a gas generator in the basement, then you'd have a point. But you don't. You have precisely zero such witnesses. If you had so much as one single order slip for a gas generator for the basement, then you'd have a point. But you don't. You have precisely zero such order slips.
We're back to your double standards again, and once again you're unaware you're showing them. Your claims of showers and gas generators and morgues are entirely unsupported by a single witness, or indeed any further documentary evidence. You MUST account for this absence of evidence somehow. I don't think you can possibly give a plausible explanation why all the witnesses would be silent about the 'true' function of these cellars, and you are doing a lousy job of making sure the claims account for all the documents and are logically coherent.
So what do you do? Counterattack and try to change the subject. You point out that gastight doors are gone as are the wire mesh columns. But the conventional explanation has an answer for that: the crematoria were dismantled then blown up. We'd not expect to find that precise gastight door or those wire mesh columns in the ruins if the crematoria were being dismantled. We can cite documents and also witnesses to the dismantling. Ergo, the absence of evidence (gastight doors and wiremesh columns) is accounted for and explained. Whereas you've yet to account for, much less explain, your own absences of evidence. Like why not a single witness testified to the morgues being morgues. Or shower rooms.
You might as well try arguing, as did one of your more spectacularly obnoxious predecessors, that because not all the oven parts can be traced then there weren't actually any crematoria at all. Is that the kind of argument to negative evidence you want to make? What would be the difference, epistemologically, between them? Because from where I'm sitting one would be just as "valid" as the other.
If the absence of a physical object in the present day is enough to negate past history, then we're truly screwed in what we can know objectively about the past. Which would rapidly collapse the possibility of knowing anything about the past, which is why your kind are regarded as scum by professional historians.
But hey, if you want to be held to the standard of requiring accoutrements, where are the morgue shelves and other fittings? Your explanation also has a gaping great absence.
That's why you're displaying double standards.
Indeed, yes, that's what history is, corroborating different types of evidence together. What history isn't, is throwing out one type of evidence for no good reason, or speculating wildly based on only a sliver of evidence and making it up as you go along.
