How the "Bunker" became part of the extermination

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Hotzenplotz
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:09 pm

How the "Bunker" became part of the extermination

Postby Hotzenplotz » 1 decade 4 years ago (Thu May 18, 2006 10:11 am)

In Auschwitz, there were crematories, there were gas chambers (for disinfestation), and there were showers which internees had to use extensively; this is well confirmed by survivor literature (see e.g. Wiesel's Night http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=2223 , point (3).) All of the three must have been natural topics of conversion among the internees, and in the case of the crematories, subjects associated with death and fear, while the disinfestation gas chambers, at that time high-tech, probably had an air of mystery. It is not at all surprising that rumours arose that *people*, not clothes were gassed, that gass, not water, came from some showers, and that the gassed were then burned in the crematories. But it is also evident from Wiesel's Night (and other facts like the lack of resistance) that not even the internees really believed in these rumours.

The point I want to make: Fairly early in the development of the Myth, certain "Bunkers" are mentioned in connections with gassings (I think already in the "War Refugee Board Report" (Butz) from 1944.) I think there is, too, a simple explanation how a "Bunker" could have found its place in the horror stories internees well telling each other.

From SS judge Konrad Morgen we learn that in Buchenwald, the "Bunker" was the detention quarter:

"Thereupon I appointed a special official, whose sole task was to investigate the suspicious circumstances, and follow up the rumors which were circulating about the detention quarters, the so-called "Bunker," regarding this killing of prisoners."

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/08-07-46.htm

It seems likely that this was the same in Auschwitz. Again, the detention quarters must have been a topic of conversion among the internees, and were associated with fear. Maybe a couple of internees were executed after having been brought to the detention quarters never to be seen again; although we do not need such events to explain how the "Bunker" became a part of the rumours. To the contrary, it would be surprising if the had been no rumours surrounding the detention quarters. These rumours were then exploited for the extermination propaganda.

(By the way: Morgen's deposition allows many insights into the workings of a witch trial; his description of the gas chambers (at Monowitz!) before the IMT is totally different from the standard story, and also totally different from the improved version he presented 15 years later at the German "Auschwitz Trial"; obviously, by that time he reasoned that he wouldn't get away once more with a story that so blatantly contradicts the established view. I wonder if the judge asked him how his two accounts can differ completely? Probably not...)

H

Laurentz Dahl
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 981
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 8:00 am
Location: Somewhere in Europe

Postby Laurentz Dahl » 1 decade 4 years ago (Fri May 19, 2006 4:36 am)

The bizarre Auschwitz "Bunker" propaganda is effectively shot down by Carlo Mattogno in his book The Bunkers of Auschwitz: Black Propaganda vs History:

http://vho.org/dl/ENG/tboa.pdf

TMoran
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:00 pm

Postby TMoran » 1 decade 4 years ago (Fri May 19, 2006 6:28 pm)

Since they had to keep the numbers big and the story was developing from the alleged exterminations at Crema I - 'Main Camp', they had to come up with other places to account for the huge numbers, thus the bunkers. That would be before Birkenau was built.

As it turned out the 'bunkers' became identified as farm houses, 'Little Red House' and "Little White House'. That would be because they would have to explain what these bunkers were and avoid having to claim they were specially constructed facilities.

Anyone who has ever studied the contents of the Holocaust story would notice the locations are never discussed. Then bunker tales have mass graves and subsequent cremation pits located right along side of the bunkers - farm houses, which would have been located outside the camp compound.

PLAYWRIGHT
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 262
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 12:17 pm
Location: Milwaukee

Postby PLAYWRIGHT » 1 decade 4 years ago (Sun May 21, 2006 6:04 pm)

Laurentz Dahl wrote:The bizarre Auschwitz "Bunker" propaganda is effectively shot down by Carlo Mattogno in his book The Bunkers of Auschwitz: Black Propaganda vs History:

http://vho.org/dl/ENG/tboa.pdf


That book is brilliant.

Mattogno's deep knowledge of the Central Construction Office at Auschwitz and how it worked certainly paid off. He proved that the Bunker's never existed by noting that there was never any work order or other paperwork to build them.

There were work orders to modify all sorts of houses for use by the SS, but never anything that would relate to any Bunker. Even if you accept the crap about the SS using "code words" to hide a building's purpose, that still doesn't explain why there is no building project code, estimate of expenses or pay records for work done to build the "Bunkers".

Proving the non-existance of the bunkers by the absence of the paperwork that should be there, but isn't, is brilliant. Not only brilliant, but air-tight. The believers will have no answer to this at all.

polardude
Member
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 7:28 pm

Postby polardude » 1 decade 4 years ago (Sun May 21, 2006 7:58 pm)

While I don't necessarily disagree with the thesis "The bunkers never existed", it is important that one is aware of all evidence towards their existence.

1. Drawings and maps of the Soviet investigation commission as well as mentions in the escapees reports and affadavits like the Tauber affadavit.

2. Outlines and remains of the undressing huts and bunker (II or I, I forget)

3. Aerial photos. These are a little puzzling. They show clear outlines of two very large "undressing" huts (far larger than the scale of the bunker would need as a gassing facility. The place where the bunker should be shows no clear building structure visible. However there are marks either of pits (as orthodox history claims) or by the CIA when the photos were prepared for publication. With a large amont of good will, something hoaxers have no lack of, it might be possible to term some of these marks as a bunker.

In otherwords to accept the "bunkers did not exist" you would have to accept that the Soviet Commission wrote its report specifically to verify the escapees reports and that affadavits and memoirs were similiarly tampered with and manipulated.
Brick outlines were placed in the ground at the particular location
The CIA in all probability photo-montaged two undressing huts in that particular location onto the aerial photos - as they are rather unlikely positioning to have had a non-related purpose (although perhaps one cant rule that out, it would strain most people's credibility).

Personally I would happily accept all this.

I wonder if all revisionists are so willing.

Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Postby Breker » 1 decade 4 years ago (Sun May 21, 2006 9:24 pm)

polardude:
You have stated that "The CIA in all probability photo-montaged two undressing huts in that particular location onto the aerial photos".
May we please see this "montage"?

Brecker

polardude
Member
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 7:28 pm

Postby polardude » 1 decade 4 years ago (Sun May 21, 2006 10:22 pm)

Certainly.

Photo montage is simply the technique prior to photo shop. It involved taking a genuine image and layering it on to an existing photo.

I am saying what this is what the CIA did (although I believe it is possible).

I am just saying that in the area of Bunker (I or II) the undressing huts are clearly visible as are many black marks (presumably designating burning pits - albeit not burning on August 25).

Presumably when the CIA marked the photos for the vents they would have checked with the museum or polish contacts to see what other facilities might be needed.

As the outline of the undressing huts (either installed simply as concrete outlines after the war or as vestiges of real huts during the war) are easy to observe the CIA would know if the photos were released without coresponding to this feature it would damage the narrative.

Hence if the bunker and by extension the undressing huts did not exist (as the building archive suggests) then the pressure would be there to add them in.

As I say, I am happy with this scenario. Not all revisionists may be though.

Photo below.
Undressing huts and "burning pits" on far left. I repeat to my eyes there is nothing the absolutely corresponds to the outline of the bunker that can presently be found near the outlines of the undressing huts.

Image

polardude
Member
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 7:28 pm

Postby polardude » 1 decade 4 years ago (Sun May 21, 2006 10:55 pm)

To expand a little more.

Here is a version of the CIA photograph expanded at the appropriate site for Bunker II (still in operation for the Hungarian deportations according to normative narrative).

Image

Here is the March 1945 drawing of the Soviet Commission on the site.

Image

Help for legends
http://www.mazal.org/Pressac/Pressac0180.htm

There are numerous discrepancies between photo, plans and the site today.

1. There are no visible air raid shelters on the photo nor any vestiges that are visible on the site today. And why would they be removed after 1945? Hence its reasonable to conclude from this alone that the investigating commission was drawing fantasy. A fantasy that was partially implemented by various "ruins" being added later (neglecting the air raid shelters that had no significance regarding extermination).

2. Trees are marked on the plans that clearly aren't visible on the photo.

3. While some black marks are visible on photo, allegedly representing burning ditches nothing of the shape or size (30 meters square) drawn on the plan. Neither is the long rack for burning bodies visible.

4. The bunker itself is not visible on the photo.

5. The path on the plans is situated on the wrong place compared with the photo.

My guess is that the process followed these steps.

a. Soviet Commission arrived and drew fantasy extermination site

b. Some features then implemented for establishment of museum - ie outline of undressing huts and outline of bunker.

c. Years later CIA release air photos. Photos are manipulated to fit the physical features visible from (b). But because the March 1945 plan (of (a)) has been forgotten about, it is not used as a reference so discrepancies creep in. Creating dressing huts is easy as all that needs to be done is lift two images of huts from the camp and place them at the required place. However bunker being unknown is more difficult. Compromise by smudging area with indistinguisable black marks which could represent anything.

Thats my take.

TMoran
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:00 pm

Postby TMoran » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon May 22, 2006 6:30 am)

Playwrite:
Proving the non-existance of the bunkers by the absence of the paperwork that should be there, but isn't, is brilliant. Not only brilliant, but air-tight. The believers will have no answer to this at all.


Fact as it would be, the absence of documents is a main problem with the Holocaust story, yet the further fact is, it's easy for the Holocaust community to simply say the documents were destroyed by the Germans.

Polardude's retrieval and subsequent comments on a Soviet drawing from Pressac's book, which I found hard to follow, don't necessarily jive.

Notice how the drawing doesn't have any North, East, South and West direction legend.

The most obvious in researching the Holocaust nonsense is they don't make any attempts at saying where these bunkers were. For the most part when it comes to "bunkers", "little red house" or "little white house" the only thing we get are those words and absolutely nothing else.

Then we could consider David Olere's drawings, one or two of which shows the huts along with rolling hills in the back ground. There were and are no rolling hills in the area of Birkenau.

I don't know whether or not Zimmerman's book carries it but his first layout was on the Holocaust History Project and in that he mentioned Mark VanAlstine, now deceased alt.revisionism participant, found one of the huts on a aerial recon shot. Zimmerman said Van Alstine found the hut by studying the photos in John Ball's book with a lupe. How idiotic can you get? Ball's photos were published with the standard procedure of 'dot matrix' and studying anything in a dot matrix format under magnification only shows the individual dots.

There is nothing in the Holocaust story that says exactly or hardly even in general where the alleged bunkers were.

"Bunkers" is about all you get.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10182
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon May 22, 2006 8:56 am)

polardude:
c. Years later CIA release air photos. Photos are manipulated to fit the physical features visible from (b). But because the March 1945 plan (of (a)) has been forgotten about, it is not used as a reference so discrepancies creep in. Creating dressing huts is easy as all that needs to be done is lift two images of huts from the camp and place them at the required place. However bunker being unknown is more difficult. Compromise by smudging area with indistinguisable black marks which could represent anything.

The photo is as phoney as a $3 bill, see:

Altered WWII Aerial Photos - The 'Smoking Guns'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=506

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

Reinhard
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:30 pm

Postby Reinhard » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon May 22, 2006 12:15 pm)

As for those mysterious "bunkers 1 & 2" a passage from Germar Rudolf's book "Dissecting the Holocaust" (see at paragraph 2.3.4):
Two policy decisions made by the SS-Hauptamt Haushalt und Bauten in the Reich Administration of the SS and its successor no doubt also influenced the measures taken in the camp. The first decision of June 5, 1940,[26] stated that HCN would no longer be used, and replaced instead with a hot-air method. The second, issued on March 11, 1942,[27] 21 months later, instead called for the "[...] conversion of all delousing facilities to operation with HCN." A further letter from the Office C VI of February 11, 1943,[28] to the Commandant then again expressly states, probably with reference to the letter of June 5, 1940: "[...] as per the prohibition against the use of HCN for disinfestation [...]".

Now, if one puts oneself into the shoes of those in charge of the camps, one gains some idea of the situation that resulted from these decisions. It may have been what prompted the renovation of "Bunkers 1 and 2". To clarify this, it is necessary to know how and where and when buildings were in fact constructed in Birkenau at this time. We do have some documents that indicate an "extant building" in Sector BA III which housed appropriate facilities, but as yet we doubt that this evidence is conclusive.

Men in positions of authority who are used to making decisions, who are faced with a dangerous epidemic that could also spread to the civilian population with incalculable consequences, find a way out of this situation, and act on it! Hydrogen cyanide (= Zyklon B) was the most reliable disinfestation agent at that time. (For details the reader is referred to "Blausäure als Entlausungsmittel in Begasungskammern",[29] or "Entlausung mit Zyklon-Blausäure in Kreislauf-Begasungskammern".[30]) The only choice was that of a safe location for such facilities. We have not yet finalized the further logical consequences to be drawn from the policy decisions and the relevant documents, but perhaps they are logically inevitable: namely, to use buildings far from the camp barracks.

Source: http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndNowak.html

And:
http://vho.org/tr/2003/2/Mattogno176-183.html

TMoran
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:00 pm

Postby TMoran » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon May 22, 2006 7:57 pm)

Reinhart suggests:
As for those mysterious "bunkers 1 & 2" a passage from Germar Rudolf's book "Dissecting the Holocaust" (see at paragraph 2.3.4):


Germar treats the subject as if there really were bunkers when no one has to believe there were such places, lest they were farm houses as the tales can tell us.

One would have to wonder about the term 'bunkers' in the first place, then one should wonder how they came to be identified as farm houses.

Germar suggests maybe the bunkers were used for contingent fumigation facilities. That camp authorities would have taken it on themselves to use HCN in order to ward off any epidemic getting to the civilian population. But then again the bunkers were supposed to have been outside the camp perimeter which would have been in civilian territory.

It's just a easy, if not easier to just say there were no bunkers and leave it up to the Holocaust community to make their case.

Where were they and where's the alleged mass grave/cremation pits? There is a tale or two that tells us the bunkers were put back into use during the great gas off of 1944. Tales can tell us about undressing huts. A tale or two can tell us they had rail tracks from the bunkers to the mass graves. The time of the great gassings was at the time the Allied recon shots were taken.

Let them show it all on the aerial recon shots.

Richard Perle
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:45 am

Postby Richard Perle » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon May 22, 2006 9:18 pm)

The foundation remains of one of these buildings exist today, do they not?

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10182
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon May 22, 2006 11:31 pm)

Well, there are some foundations in the area.

More 'holocau$t evidence' which is alleged, but conveniently missing.

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

polardude
Member
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 7:28 pm

Postby polardude » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue May 23, 2006 12:47 am)

I am not sure whether or not there are foundations. That would involve digging into the soil.

There are outlines of these buildings.

Long large concrete curbs outline the two undressing sheds. A line of bricks mark where Bunker II was.

I cant say whether these are authentic or have been simply rebuilt - in exactly the same way it is acknowledged that the remaining walls of Krema V were rebuilt.

Its a small point, but there is a huge mismatch between the amount of space in the undressing shed and the gassing capacity of the very small bunker.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 10 guests