Any reason given for why Auschwitz needed so many crema?

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
gl0spana
Member
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2020 1:22 am

Any reason given for why Auschwitz needed so many crema?

Postby gl0spana » 5 days 6 hours ago (Sun Jun 28, 2020 2:08 am)

Seems like Topf and Sons should have provided more crema (total muffles they built were 76), or these muffles should have been more evenly distributed throughout the camps. Auschwitz accounts for 68%. Other large camps had 0 muffles.

Or were there other crema manufacturers in the game.

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1774
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Any reason given for why Aucshwitz needed so many crema?

Postby Lamprecht » 4 days 20 hours ago (Sun Jun 28, 2020 12:11 pm)

The population of Auschwitz was larger (and intended to grow) this is why. Same reason a big city has more than a small town. Especially a small town that makes all its money by selling hotel rooms to travelers, compared to one full of old/retired people.

Image

We know the design is absurd for mass murder, they would have instead used the obvious choice that is used for livestock mass culling: large scale carcass incineration devices.

Suggested:

Auschwitz cremation ovens and the "four-story continuous operation corpse incineration oven" never built
viewtopic.php?t=12778
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

gl0spana
Member
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2020 1:22 am

Re: Any reason given for why Aucshwitz needed so many crema?

Postby gl0spana » 4 days 19 hours ago (Sun Jun 28, 2020 12:55 pm)

Auschwitz Birkenau is said to have housed 200k.

Apparently Nazis also held millions of Soviet POWs in labor and detention camps, and between 3 million and 5.5 million (Eastern workers, some of whom were POWs but many were civilians), and 1.3 million Jews.

Overall it has been said that the Germans held 8 million people in forced labor and concentration camps, and probably 10-11 million (if we are assuming the Jews supposedly killed in Reinhardt were in fact kept in detention centers)

Even if Auschwitz was planned to double in size to 400k, it would still only comprise 3.5- 5% of the total captive population, while again having 68% of all crema, which is an statistical over-representation of at least 10 to 1. It is also strange that the last muffles installed in Aushwitz were in apparently in mid-1943, and the camp is not said to have grown since that time (eg it was not expanded to include more dormitories)

----

I'm happy to discuss other elements which make mass murder at Auschwitz absurd, but I think it would be best to make or use other threads for this. This thread is simply asking the question why Auschwitz might have had such a large proportion of the total crema used by Germans in WW2. I am not trying to dodge, but lets keep things on topic.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10063
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Any reason given for why Aucshwitz needed so many crema?

Postby Hannover » 4 days 18 hours ago (Sun Jun 28, 2020 2:16 pm)

So here you go again, gl0spana, making absurd claims about 'gas chamber exterminations' which were simply impossible as alleged.

I note that you don't even attempt to tell us how you think the 'gas chambers' worked such that the alleged massive cremations would have been necessary in the first place.
Please tell us how your alleged 'gas chambers' supposedly worked. No dodging.

Furthermore, again you fail to show the alleged massive amounts of human remains that are claimed to exist in known locations.
Please show us the millions upon millions of human remains that are claimed to exist in known locations. No dodging.

You also cite alleged numbers for all the labor sites for which you have no basis. But hey, it's the 'holocaust' where saying anything is considered just fine.

As for the alleged numbers of Auschwitz 'ovens',
Crematory facilities builder SS Kurt Prufer told the officers of SMERSCH (according to documents found in the Moscow archives) that only one body at a time could be cremated per muffle and that the cremation time took 60 minutes, and that they tried to cremate 2 bodies at a time; but the temperature inside the muffle went so high that it damaged the oven.
and:
- There was a total 52 muffles of Auschwitz, never used simultaneously.

- 38 is the most that were ever online simultaneously.

- The 6 at Auschwitz I were taken out of action as soon as the new ones at Birkenau came online. These were in turn liable to long periods of breakdowns and even idleness.
suggested:
The Crematoria Ovens of Auschwitz and Birkenau, By Carlo Mattogno :
https://codoh.com/library/document/the- ... rkenau/en/

- Hannover

Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the 'holocaust' storyline is the message.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1774
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Any reason given for why Aucshwitz needed so many crema?

Postby Lamprecht » 4 days 17 hours ago (Sun Jun 28, 2020 2:46 pm)

gl0spana wrote:Auschwitz Birkenau is said to have housed 200k.

Remember when I explained to you the importance of time? The camp grew and developed over the period; plans were made, abandoned, altered, etc. There were periods of higher mortality from disease and periods with lower.

Apparently Nazis also held millions of Soviet POWs in labor and detention camps, and between 3 million and 5.5 million (Eastern workers, some of whom were POWs but many were civilians), and 1.3 million Jews.

"Apparently" so. The Geneva Convention of the time was signed by the Germans and Western allies, but not USSR. And the Germans imprisoned by the USSR also were on the aggregate worse off than those imprisoned by the British or Americans. So you could expect the Germans did not care to treat their Soviet POWs as well as those of British, French, or American descent because they expected exactly that in return.

Overall it has been said that the Germans held 8 million people in forced labor and concentration camps, and probably 10-11 million (if we are assuming the Jews supposedly killed in Reinhardt were in fact kept in detention centers)

"It has been said"? Well if it has been said, then it's settled I guess: no other details necessary.

Even if Auschwitz was planned to double in size to 400k, it would still only comprise 3.5- 5% of the total captive population

At what point in time? Please provide your figures and the time frame

while again having 68% of all crema, which is an statistical over-representation of at least 10 to 1

Again, provide the sources of your population numbers, with dates.

It is also strange that the last muffles installed in Aushwitz were in apparently in mid-1943, and the camp is not said to have grown since that time (eg it was not expanded to include more dormitories)

It is not very strange at all, given the losing war situation. Physical expansion of the camp's infrastructure is not identical to population growth either.

I'm happy to discuss other elements which make mass murder at Auschwitz absurd, but I think it would be best to make or use other threads for this. This thread is simply asking the question why Auschwitz might have had such a large proportion of the total crema used by Germans in WW2. I am not trying to dodge, but lets keep things on topic.

Please provide the statistics for non-Auschwitz crematoria numbers and the non-Auschwitz labor camp populations, with dates of course. What you consider "Large" is merely an opinion at this point.
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

gl0spana
Member
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2020 1:22 am

Re: Any reason given for why Aucshwitz needed so many crema?

Postby gl0spana » 4 days 7 hours ago (Mon Jun 29, 2020 1:12 am)

I don't remember the source, it could have been total forced labor, which I guess includes people not kept in camps. 
But in general I am just assuming the Nazis must have put the millions of Jews and soviet POWs they captured somewhere, I will do some research on this, it is an interesting question.
 
Can you provide the source saying Auschwitz's capacity was going to be increased to 500,000, 1 million, 2 million, whatever it is?

One thing I found was

Buchenwald was said to have a capacity of 120,000
https://ww2db.com/facility/Buchenwald_C ... tion_Camp/

It had 6, should have had at least 30, 60% of Auschwitz's number.

Mauthausen was another large camp, 100,000 people and it had 5, should have had 25
---
As a side question I just thought up, why use crema at all for disposing of bodies? Were crema common in labor and concentration camps historically? I couldn't find any examples. Seems like nobody would care much if you just disposed of bodies the old way, with fire pits or whatever 

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1774
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Any reason given for why Aucshwitz needed so many crema?

Postby Lamprecht » 4 days 4 hours ago (Mon Jun 29, 2020 3:55 am)

gl0spana wrote:Buchenwald was said to have a capacity of 120,000
https://ww2db.com/facility/Buchenwald_C ... tion_Camp/

"it is said" ok
It says:
The maximum capacity for the camp was said to have been 120,000 inmates
That's just a maximum capacity. And who said that? Is that in the German documents?

It had 6, should have had at least 30, 60% of Auschwitz's number.

I don't follow the logic here at all. You're just not making sense.

Mauthausen was another large camp, 100,000 people and it had 5, should have had 25

Why should it have had that many?
Maybe it should have but it wasn't considered as essential?

As a side question I just thought up, why use crema at all for disposing of bodies?

Because they typically died of disease and this incineration would kill the disease so it doesn't spread as well.

Were crema common in labor and concentration camps historically? I couldn't find any examples. Seems like nobody would care much if you just disposed of bodies the old way, with fire pits or whatever 

They are common in places where people die.
Can you find an example in history of a genocide where millions of people were killed in homicidal gas chambers? What about 10,000 people?
Can you find an example in history where these same alleged genocidal individuals went through all the trouble to dig up millions of rotting corpses just to burn them to "hide the evidence"?
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1774
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Any reason given for why Aucshwitz needed so many crema?

Postby Lamprecht » 4 days 4 hours ago (Mon Jun 29, 2020 3:57 am)

gl0spana wrote:I don't remember the source, it could have been total forced labor, which I guess includes people not kept in camps. 
But in general I am just assuming the Nazis must have put the millions of Jews and soviet POWs they captured somewhere, I will do some research on this, it is an interesting question.

Try reading the response I made in your other thread
 
Can you provide the source saying Auschwitz's capacity was going to be increased to 500,000, 1 million, 2 million, whatever it is?

This is what the citation for that image goes to:

Image
Auschwitz Lies : Legends, Lies, and Prejudices on the Holocaust
PDF: https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/18-al.pdf

12. Connection between Camp Strength and Number of Crematory Ovens
12.1. The Example of Dachau

Zimmerman writes:

“The most informative comparison of oven needs versus camp expansion comes from the Dachau concentration camp. Dachau had six ovens. A total of 22,675 prisoners arrived at Dachau in 1940; 6,255 in 1941, 12,572 in 1942, 19,358 in 1943 and over 76,000 in 1944. Therefore, the prisoner population of the camp had reached over 41,000 by the end of 1942, over 60,000 by the end of 1943 and over 137,000 by the end of 1944. By contrast, the registered Auschwitz camp population never reached more than 92,000 – 112,000, if 20,000 transit prisoners to be shipped to other camps are counted in the summer of 1944. Moreover, there were typhus epidemics in Dachau in the winters of 1942-43 and 1943-44. Therefore, Dachau should have undergone a dramatic expansion of its cremation capacity, if the ‘denier’ arguments about Auschwitz are correct. Thus, at a time of typhus epidemics and a doubling of Dachau’s camp population, there were never more than six ovens. Why did Auschwitz need 52 ovens and Dachau only six?”

Zimmerman begins with the usual imposture in that he peddles “the prisoner population of the camp” for those who were transported to the camp. This can be seen from an official publication of the Dachau Museum,[377] which gives the following figures:

1940: 22,675
1941: 6,135
1942: 12,572
1943: 19,358
1944: 78,635

The camp population was much lower than what Zimmerman claims. The real numbers are as follows:[378]

Period | Real strength | Fictitious strength | Excess
December 1942 | 14,000 | 41,000 | 27,000
August 1943 | 17,000 | "60,000 (to December)" | 43,000
December 1944 | 47,000 | 137,000 | 90,000
Total: | 160,000

So with this imposture Zimmerman increases the strength of Dachau by 160,000 detainees, who for the most part had been transferred to other camps.

Similarly with another imposture he reduces to 92,000 – or 112,000 counting the Jewish detainees of the transit camp – the maximum strength of the Auschwitz camp, which “in the summer of 1944” reached 105,168 detainees – or 135,168 counting the 30,000 Jewish detainees of the transit camp.[379]

Let us now see what the confirmed mortality was at Dachau as a result of the camp’s expansion and the typhus epidemics of 1940 to 1944:[380]

Year: 1940
Month | Deaths | Per Day
January | / | /
February | 17 | 1
March | 86 | 2.7
April | 101 | 3.3
May | 87 | 2.8
June | 54 | 1.8
July | 34 | 1.1
August | 119 | 3.8
September | 134 | 4.4
October | 171 | 5.5
November | 273 | 9.1
December | 439 | 14.1
Total | 1,515 | 4.1

Year: 1941
Month | Deaths | Per Day
January | 455 | 14.6
February | 393 | 14
March | 321 | 10.3
April | 227 | 7.5
May | 322 | 10.3
June | 219 | 7.3
July | 140 | 4.5
August | 104 | 3.3
September | 73 | 2.4
October | 88 | 2.8
November | 110 | 3.5
December | 124 | 4
Total | 2,576 | 7

Year: 1942
Month | Deaths | Per Day
January | 142 | 4.5
February | 104 | 3.7
March | 66 | 2.1
April | 79 | 2.6
May | 98 | 3.1
June | 84 | 2.8
July | 173 | 5.5
August | 454 | 14.6
September | 319 | 10.6
October | 207 | 6.6
November | 380 | 12.6
December | 364 | 11.7
Total | 2,470 | 6.7

Year: 1943
Month | Deaths | Per Day
January | 205 | 6.6
February | 221 | 7.8
March | 139 | 4.4
April | 112 | 3.7
May | 83 | 2.6
July | 55 | 1.8
July | 51 | 1.6
August | 40 | 1.2
September | 45 | 1.5
October | 57 | 1.8
November | 43 | 1.4
December | 49 | 1.5
Total | 1,100 | 3

Year: 1944
Month | Deaths | Per Day
January | 53 | 1.7
February | 101 | 3.4
March | 362 | 11.6
April | 144 | 4.8
May | 84 | 2.7
July | 78 | 2.6
July | 107 | 3.4
August | 225 | 7.2
September | 325 | 10.8
October | 403 | 13
November | 997 | 33.2
December | 1,915 | 61.7
Total | 4,794 | 13.1


Therefore, “at a time of typhus epidemics,” during the winters of 1942-1943 and 1943-1944, the detainee mortality was effectively highest: a good nine per day during the first typhus wave and 42 during the second! Excluding the last two months of 1944, when conditions in the camp started to become tragic, the highest mortality was confirmed in January 1941, with 455 deaths, on average 14.6 per day. Of course, this needed a “dramatic (!) expansion” of the crematory capacity of the Topf two-muffle coke furnace in the camp’s old crematorium!

Like the Gusen furnace, this installation was originally a naphtha-heated furnace, which was transformed into a coke furnace by the addition of two lateral gas generators. Thus the cremation capacity of this furnace must have been the same as that of the Gusen furnace. Zimmerman’s claim is therefore even more ridiculous in that he attributes to this furnace – and consequently to the Dachau furnace – a cremation capacity of 4.7 corpses per hour (two every 25.2 minutes!), 47 in 10 hours, 94 in 20 hours.

What then would have been the use of another crematory furnace?

Yet, in spite of this, a new crematorium was constructed at Dachau (the “Barrack X”), in which four Kori single-muffle coke-heated furnaces were installed. The cost estimate for the installation bears the date March 17, 1942,[381] a period during which the mortality was lowest: two deaths per day. The plan of the furnaces was completed by the Kori firm on May 12, 1942,[382] but it seems that the installation went into service only in the spring of 1943.[383] Nevertheless, during this period – from March 1942 to May 1943 – the camp had an average mortality of barely three deaths per day.

Thus the argument turns against Zimmerman. As another four furnaces were constructed when the mortality was so low, and if the existing two-muffle furnace was more than sufficient, what was the need to install more furnaces?
12.2. The Example of Gusen

Zimmerman writes:

“In the body disposal study I cited data from Gusen. Let us now look at the Gusen data and Mattogno’s response. In 1944 Gusen expanded from two to three camps, but did not add any ovens. Figures for Gusen show that 14,500 entered the camp in 1940 and 1941, 6,000 in 1942, 9,100 in 1943, 22,300 in 1944 and 15,600 in 1945. Death rates from 1940 to 1945 were very high. From 1940 to 1944 slightly less than 25,000 of the 52,000 prisoners who entered the camp died. The population of the camp exceeded 22,000 by September 1944. Yet there was never more than one double muffle oven in Gusen. As noted earlier, the Mauthausen authorities ordered another double muffle for Gusen, but never installed it.”

Therefore, why were more furnaces not installed at Gusen as a result of the camp’s expansion?

First of all, let us see the picture of the mortality at this camp. I give the relevant data in the tables which follow:[384]

Year: 1941
Month | Deaths | Per Day
January | 220 | 7
February | 250 | 9
March | 375 | 12
April | 380 | 13
May | 239 | 8
June | 199 | 7
July | 369 | 12
August | 479 | 15
September | 426 | 14
October | 462 | 15
November | 887 | 30
December | 986 | 32
Total | 5,272 | 14

Year: 1942
Month | Deaths | Per Day
January | 1,303 | 42
February | 497 | 18
March | 751 | 24
April | 211 | 7
May | 93 | 3
June | 135 | 5
July | 558 | 18
August | 562 | 18
September | 374 | 12
October | 655 | 21
November | 552 | 18
December | 1,719 | 55
Total | 7,410 | 20

Year: 1943
Month | Deaths | Per Day
January | 1,436 | 46
February | 696 | 25
March | 546 | 18
April | 867 | 29
May | 268 | 9
June | 167 | 6
July | 180 | 6
August | 164 | 5
September | 192 | 6
October | 154 | 5
November | 250 | 8
December | 328 | 11
Total | 5,248 | 14

Year: 1944
Month | Deaths | Per Day
January | 311 | 10
February | 167 | 6
March | 212 | 7
April | 145 | 5
May | 85 | 3
June | 203 | 7
July | 192 | 6
August | 242 | 8
September | 168 | 6
October | 429 | 14
November | 943 | 31
December | 994 | 32
Total | 4,091 | 11


Hence the average mortality for these four years was about 15 deaths a day. The highest mortality occurs in January 1943, with an average of 46 deaths per day. With a forced draft blower the Gusen furnace could cremate two corpses in around 40 minutes (one in each muffle), so that it handled the mortality peak with about 15 hours of operation. In accordance with the average mortality, it operated daily for about five hours, for six if we include one hour for heating it up.

What was the need for another furnace?
12.3. The Example of Buchenwald

I showed the captious nature of Zimmerman’s methods in point 38 of my “Observations.” For comparison with Auschwitz, he chose two examples which he naively thought favored his thesis: Dachau and Gusen, examined above. I objected that the case of Buchenwald completely invalidated his thesis. Zimmerman claims that in this area I kept silent on “some crucial information.” This is what he wrote in “My Response” on this matter:

“Not surprisingly, Mattogno did not reveal some crucial information about the installation of the additional six ovens in Buchenwald. Shortly after the installation of these ovens the camp began to undergo a dramatic expansion in its population. It rose from 9,500 at the end of 1942 to over 37,000 by the end of 1943. Buchenwald continued to grow until by September 1944 it held over 84,000 prisoners. Seen in light of the actual growth of the camp, the new six ovens were not unusual. The Buchenwald authorities certainly must have anticipated this growth when the oven additions were made.”

It is true that on December 31, 1943, the average strength of the camp was 37,319 detainees, but it is also true that the two furnaces came into operation on August 23 and October 3, 1942, respectively.[385] An event occurring after 14 months cannot really be said to have taken place “shortly after!” But let us overlook this. If the first of the two furnaces went into operation on August 23, 1942, the decision to construct them was taken at the latest in the spring of 1942.

According to the statistics of the sick bay, the actual situation at the time was as follows:[386]

Period | Average strength | Mortality | Daily mortality
March 30 – May 2 | 6,653 | 337 | 9.9
May 3 – May 31 | 6,600 | 243 | 8.3
June 1 – June 28 | 7,828 | 231 | 8.2
June 29 – August 2 | 8,394 | 331 | 9.4
August 3 – August 30 | 9,461 | 335 | 11.9

The average strength of the camp was kept stable at around 9,000 detainees until January 1943, then it began to continuously rise as in the following table:[387]

Month - Strength

January - 9,719
February - 11,513
March - 12,526
April - 13,186
May - 14,503
June - 14,741
July - 16,500
August - 18,500
September - 22,736
October - 27,736
November - 33,379
December - 36,103


Here, as in the examples of Dachau and Gusen, Zimmerman has slyly diverted the discussion to the camp strength, as though I had considered it the only factor, which led to the decision to construct another three crematoria at Birkenau. In actual fact, I consider the essential factor to be the mortality (caused mainly by the typhus epidemic) as a function of the camp strength.

Although the average strength of Buchenwald in 1943 was about 19,300 detainees, that is, it increased by 232% with respect to the average strength for 1942 (about 8,300 detainees), the mortality increased by hardly 43% (from 2,542 deaths in 1942 to 3,636 in 1943) and the average daily mortality was hardly 10 deaths.

Zimmerman argues retrospectively, as though the Central Construction Office of Weimar-Buchenwald was planning this expansion before August 1942, but his statement is “without any proof.” With typical Pharisaic hypocrisy, our professor has the impudence to throw in my face the statement that the decision to expand the strength of Auschwitz-Birkenau to 200,000 detainees was taken in July 1942, claiming it is “without any proof,” and he hurls the same rebuke at Pressac, that he too is guilty of having made a statement “without any proof.” One more example of the squalid opportunism of this individual.

Nevertheless, let us suppose that Zimmerman’s statement was perfectly documented. In that case the Central Construction Office of Weimar-Buchenwald would have decided on the construction of two three-muffle furnaces in anticipation not only of the camp’s expansion but also of a mortality in proportion to its strength.

On account of transports of evacuees from other camps, the Buchenwald camp reached its maximum strength of 85,900 detainees in October 1944. It certainly cannot be seriously maintained that in 1942 the Central Construction Office of Weimar-Buchenwald had predicted this increase in the camp’s strength because at the time it would have foreseen the defeat of Germany.

Nevertheless, granting for the sake of the argument that the phantom plan of spring 1942 for the camp’s expansion really concerned this strength of 85,400 prisoners, on the grounds of the experience of the first six months of 1942, during which there were 1,310 deaths among an average population of 7,400 detainees (around 7 deaths a day), then the plan could also have foreseen the average mortality of about (85,400÷7,400×7=) 81 deaths daily.

But then of what use would six muffles have been, which – according to Zimmerman – could cremate from 342 (one cremation in 25.2 minutes) to 576 (one cremation in 15 minutes) corpses in 24 hours?

Therefore, even if we assume the most absurd hypotheses favoring Zimmerman’s thesis, the conclusions which follow radically contradict it.

Let us pass from hypotheses to reality. The two Buchenwald furnaces were ordered and installed during a period when for months the mortality oscillated between eight and twelve deaths per day. So, using Zimmerman’s argument based on real data, since the cremation capacity of the new installations was 120 corpses in 20 hours, that is, 3,600 per month, in two months they could have devoured the entire camp population! On the other hand, since this real capacity was at least ten times more than the above maximum mortality, it follows that the furnaces had a criminal purpose and served to cremate the corpses of mass extermination!

The problem with that, of course, is that not even Zimmerman claims that there ever was a mass extermination in Buchenwald.
12.4. The Case of Auschwitz

In March 1942, 66 detainees died at Dachau, which had an average daily mortality of 14 deaths during the previous year. Despite this, the Munich Central Construction Office made plans for a new crematorium with four furnaces.

At Buchenwald the average mortality was 8-12 deaths per day, and in spite of this the Central Construction Office of Weimar-Buchenwald planned and had installed two three-muffle furnaces.

In addition to the 15 muffles planned for Crematory II, how many muffles should the Central Construction Office have planned for Auschwitz, where in August 1942 the average daily mortality was 277 deaths? Let us make some quick calculations:

Mortality in month, during which the new furnaces were planned
Dachau - 66
Buchenwald - 337
Auschwitz - 8,600


Number of planned new muffles
Dachau - 4
Buchenwald - 6
Auschwitz - 31[388]

Therefore, the number of new muffles at Auschwitz was 5.1 times more than that of Buchenwald and 7.7 more that that of Dachau, whereas the mortality was respectively 25.5 and 130 times more. Had the Central Construction Office of Auschwitz adopted the same criterion as that chosen by the Central Construction Office of Weimar-Buchenwald, for instance, the former would have planned an installation with (8,600÷337×6=) 153 muffles!
12.5. The “Static” Population of Auschwitz

Zimmerman finds in “Body Disposal”:

“More importantly, I also noted that during the period of the typhus epidemic when the camp experienced its highest death rate for registered prisoners, the camp population remained static at about 30,000. I cited a Bauleitung report dated July 15, 1942 – twelve days after the typhus epidemic hit the camp – which stated that for the time being the camp population would remain at 30,000.”

Nowhere does Zimmerman mention the source of this document. Never mind! The number 30,000 of detainees appears in two reports of Bischoff of July 15, 1942:

“Explanatory Report on the temp. expansion of the concentration camp Auschwitz O/S,”[389]

and

“Explanatory Report on construction project concentration camp Auschwitz O/S.”[390]

However, in neither is it stated that “the camp population remained static at about 30,000.” In the “Dienstliche Veranlassung” (official inducement), which appears on page two of the first document, one reads:[391]

“According to the order of Reichsführers-SS and Chief of the German Police, a concentration camp for at present 30,000 inmates is to be established on the grounds of a former Polish artillery barracks in Auschwitz O/S.”

The same sentence is repeated in the official inducement on p. 2 of the second document, with the addition:

“simultaneously agricultural enterprises are to be established.”

Both documents refer exclusively to the Main Camp (Stammlager). So as usual, our naïve professor has understood nothing. In the case at hand, I do not even believe that he is trying to deceive us on purpose, since he does not give the source of the document he cites. It is clear that he puts his trust in second-hand or third-hand sources. So here he only provides additional proof of his crass ignorance and dilettantism.

...


[377] Johann Neuhäusler, Wie war das im KZ Dachau? Kuratorium für das Sühnemal KZ Dachau, Dachau 1980, p. 22. Identical figures are in another work edited by “Comitato Internazionale di Dachau”: Il campo di Concentramento di Dachau 1933-1945, 1978, p. 212. Here too the figures refer to “detainees arriving at Dachau.”

[378] Joseph Billig, Les camps de concentration dans l’économie du Reich hitlérien, Presses Universitaires de France, 1973, p. 75.

[379] D. Czech, op. cit. (note 188), p. 860. The date is August 20, 1944.

[380] Johann Neuhäusler, op. cit. (note 377), p. 26.

[381] NO-3864.

[382] Technical drawing No. J Nr. 9122.

[383] E. Kogon, H. Langbein, A. Rückerl (eds.), Nationalsozialistische Massentötung durch Giftgas. Eine Dokumentation. S. Fischer Verlag, Frankfurt/Main 1983, p. 278.

[384] H. Maršálek, op. cit. (note 220), pp. 156f.

[385] J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 191), pp. 116f. In my “Observations,” I wrote through a slip “beginning of December.”

[386] Konzentrationslager Buchenwald. Weimar, without date, pp. 84-85.

[387] Ibid., p. 85.

[388] 15 muffles in the future Krema III and 16 muffles in Kremas IV and V.

[389] “Erläuterungsbericht zum prov. Ausbau des Konzentrationslager Auschwitz O/S,” RGVA, 502-1-223, p. 1ff.

[390] “Erläuterungsbericht zum Bauvorhaben Konzentrationslager Auschwitz O/S.,” RGVA, 502-1-220, p. 1ff.

[391] “Laut Befehl des Reichsführers-SS und Chef der Deutschen Polizei ist auf Gelände der ehemaligen polnischen Artilleriekaserne in Auschwitz O/S ein Konzentrationslager für vorerst 30000 Häftlinge zu errichten.”
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Location: Antipodes
Contact:

Re: Any reason given for why Aucshwitz needed so many crema?

Postby HMSendeavour » 4 days 4 hours ago (Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:04 am)

gl0spana wrote:As a side question I just thought up, why use crema at all for disposing of bodies? Were crema common in labor and concentration camps historically? I couldn't find any examples. Seems like nobody would care much if you just disposed of bodies the old way, with fire pits or whatever 


Concentration camps only existed maybe 50 years prior, I'm thinking of the Boer war. They did exist really until mechanized industrial warfare that came about for the first time in such a large way due to WW1 and only then after by the biggest war in human history, WW2. Why would there be a precedent for these things, or need to be, when the Second World War was a precedent world record for the way wars were fought in and of itself? What you're asking makes no sense whatsoever.

Forced labour camps probably, but then again, why would you presume that they used cremas? There doesn't need to be a historical precedent for this, as there is good enough reason to have them in this instance anyway. The fact is they work and are reasonably efficient, something a great race like the Germans would use in order to ensure that war production isn't halted. But, they were not productive enough to kill millions of alleged people via extermination.

You should actually do research before coming to debate and throw out position you have literally no knowledge about. Don't waste everyone else's time because you're too lazy (as you have admitted elsewhere) to do your own due diligence without needing your hand held through everything. It's a giant game where we supply you with sources, you ignore them, then you make more claims and it goes around in circles. Some things we wouldn't need to answer because you'd already have some prior knowledge.

It's different with those who come here and are totally uninformed and just have questions, usually they'll know something about what they're talking about but not come here with priors trying to find contradictions in a narrative they know nothing about. They come wanting to learn what revisionists think and make sense of it all. You aren't here to find out what we think, you're here to waste time.

On Krema, read the trilogy Mattogno has written, it's the most comprehensive history, and technical study on the Crematoriums, ovens etc. ever written and that ever will be written. You should start there:

Image
http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1&page_id=24
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2641
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: Any reason given for why Aucshwitz needed so many crema?

Postby borjastick » 4 days 4 hours ago (Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:18 am)

And the crematorium on Ellis Island proves that all immigrants into the US were to be murdered and cremated.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

gl0spana
Member
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2020 1:22 am

Re: Any reason given for why Aucshwitz needed so many crema?

Postby gl0spana » 3 days 9 hours ago (Mon Jun 29, 2020 10:42 pm)

Interesting article Lamprecht , I should have figured Mattogno would have covered this question.

Most of the sources he cites are in French, German, Hungarian and not in mainstream books so I it may take me time to check them.

One question that jumps out at me, is if Auschwitz had this drastically higher mortality rate due to typhus, why keep sending prisoners there, its a death trap?

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10063
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Any reason given for why Aucshwitz needed so many crema?

Postby Hannover » 3 days 7 hours ago (Tue Jun 30, 2020 1:33 am)

gl0spana, you asked:
One question that jumps out at me, is if Auschwitz had this drastically higher mortality rate due to typhus, why keep sending prisoners there, its a death trap?

Typhus was rampant all through Europe during WWII.

Auschwitz is where large amounts a war time labor was needed.
Must I explain what was produced there?

You clearly do not understand the most basic of facts concerning the period under discussion.
And your dodging of information which simply demolishes your strange wishful thinking continues unabated.
I suggest to our readers that they see the entirety of this thread or any thread where gl0spana has participated.

These Holocaust deniers are very slick people. They justify everything they say with facts and figures."

- Steven Some, Chairman of the New Jersey Commission on Holocaust Education, Newark Star-Ledger, 23 Oct. 1996, p 15.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1774
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Any reason given for why Auschwitz needed so many crema?

Postby Lamprecht » 3 days 6 hours ago (Tue Jun 30, 2020 1:44 am)

Hannover wrote:Typhus was rampant all through Europe during WWII.

Auschwitz is where large amounts a war time labor was needed.
Must I explain what was produced there?

You clearly do not understand the most basic of facts concerning the period under discussion.

Indeed, what the laborers were doing at Auschwitz was far more important for the war effort than Jews being interned.
There was an outbreak of typhus (possibly from a nearby civilian / paid employee of the camp) but they immediately quarantined the place and demanded additional funds for delousing projects, medicine, etc.
If you read through the documents, there's a lot of bickering back and forth and bureaucratic hurdles that they had to jump through to get often simple but "urgently needed" requests for Auschwitz (and other camps in general).

Cremating the bodies would have been a necessity to keep the spread of disease limited, as were the fumigation chambers.

Image
Image

from: viewtopic.php?p=94711
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2641
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: Any reason given for why Auschwitz needed so many crema?

Postby borjastick » 3 days 3 hours ago (Tue Jun 30, 2020 5:15 am)

I know this is day one basic stuff but wasn't the large need for cremations due to the high water table and marshy ground in and around the camp. Thus digging graves wasn't an option. Apart from anything else they would have to secure the water sources from the pollution which would have come from many cadavers rotting in the watery soil.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Location: Antipodes
Contact:

Re: Any reason given for why Aucshwitz needed so many crema?

Postby HMSendeavour » 3 days 1 hour ago (Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:12 am)

gl0spana wrote:One question that jumps out at me, is if Auschwitz had this drastically higher mortality rate due to typhus, why keep sending prisoners there, its a death trap?


Why does that jump out at you? Where else would you send them? Are you implying that they sent them there because they knew they'd get typhus and die? Are you suggesting the Germans had a new killing method not yet discovered in which they schemed to exterminate the Jews via typhus?
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests