Forty-six muffles? Auschwitz versus Buchenwald

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
nathan
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:14 am

Forty-six muffles? Auschwitz versus Buchenwald

Postby nathan » 1 decade 1 month ago (Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:12 am)

Thread entitled “Denial of Holocaust and genocide at Auschwitz” – was too general to go anywhere in particular. Buried within it can be found a more focused debate between Lohengrin and Hans about a very specific question. Were the 46 muffles at Birkenau too numerous to have any ordinary explanation? Lohengrin drew a comparison from the six muffles operating at the undisputedly "ordinary" camp Buchenwald. He assumed that the capacities (and spare capacities) per muffle were comparable.

Hans wrote:
You[ Lohengrin] are just comparing muffles, but the Birkenau ovens had a higher cremation capacity than the ovens supplied by Topf to the concentrations camps in some years before.



But according to Mattogno (“Crematory ovens at Auschwitz....) the first two three-muffle ovens supplied by Topf went into service in the concentration camp Buchenwald, not some years before, but some six months before the three-muffle ovens “of the same model” were installed in Krema II. Perhaps Hans can show us where Mattogno has gone wrong.

Hans also wrote:
A more comprehensive analysis of this problem is provided by Van Pelt in his expert report for the Irving vs. Lipstadt trial. According to this, when the extermination of Jews was implemented in Auschwitz, the camp was supposed to have a cremation capacity per inmate which was twice as high as compared to Buchenwald or Dachau.

http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/van/3





There are revisionists too who think that for all "ordinary" purposes the Nazis had some ideal ratio of one standard muffle to every x thousand of (planned) camp population. But a such a “typical” ratio could only have existed if there were a “typical” death rate. .


Nathan wrote:


In his dispute with Lohengrin, Hans seemed willing to defend the following argument from Pelt, which he quotes:

“If we now fast forward to February 1943 -- a time that Birkenau was fully committed to play its central role in the Holocaust -- we see that the numbers have changed considerably. In February 1943 the projected inmate population of Auschwitz was 30,000, and of Birkenau 140,000, but the total incineration capacity which was by that time supposed to be available was 75 units [=52 muffles]. This brings the unit-per-inmate ratio to 1 : 2267. This means that, in comparison with Dachau or Buchenwald, Auschwitz has double the incineration capacity.”


.....That Camp A had more than double the cremation capacity per inmate as camp B need not require a sinister explanation, however. Its expected death rate might be more than twice as high.


The key calculation for precautionary planners would to maximum number of daily deaths - daily, because diseased corpses would have to be burned quickly. This calculation would depend not only on the predicted maximum population but on the predicted maximum daily death rate. Crematories are for dead bodies, not living populations. The unspoken presumption of Pelt’s calculations is that the differential death rates would not greatly matter....

... I find this extraordinary. Throughout the planning years 1942 and 1943 the actual monthly death rates in the eastern camps were up to ten times greater than the death rates in the western camps. In the second half of 42 Auschwitz alone accounted half the ordinary deaths in the entire camp system. Hans has to explain why this would not have influenced the planners....


Like Pelt we can “fastforward” a year to August 1943, for which we happen to have actual monthly data for both camps. Exam question: Camp A has four times the population of Camp B and five times its monthly death rate. Camp B has (at least) six muffles. How many operating muffles has Camp A? Assume constant returns to scale.

Of course this is not a real-world question. We cannot assume linearity, nor safely extrapolate from one month’s data. More importantly, our concern is with planned and projected magnitudes, not the actual ones. We know that Auschwitz did not have 120 operating muffles. Nevertheless the burden of argument would be how to explain why it had so few as 46.

[The Auschwitz complex then had about 74 thousand inmates and a monthly death rate of about 3.3 per cent. Buchwald had about 17, 000 and a monthly death rate of about 0.69 per cent].


(For the sake of argument I am accepting Pelt’s assumptions: that the projected maximum population for Auschwitz I and II was never greater than 170,000; that he had some reason not to mention Auschwitz III; that the planners originally intended permanent use for six muffles in the base camp. Some will inveigh against these assumptions, but I would like Hans to have a chance to defend the conclusions that Pelt has derived from them.)




The above by me was based on Hans’ quotation. I should add that a “very high” mortality rate, unforeseen in October 1941, does not go unmentioned by Pelt in the “comprehensive” account which Hans has linked.

http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/van/vi


Quote from Pelt

“Prüfer assumed that one muffle per 8,300 inmates--or 1 unit per 5,555 inmates--would suffice. In other words, neither Bischoff nor Prüfer anticipated in October 1941 the very high mortality rate of the prisoners of war that actually occurred. With a capacity of 15 muffles or 22.5 units for 125,000 inmates [as planned for Birkenau] , we come to 1 unit per 5,555 inmates, that is less than a third of the capacity of Auschwitz I, and very much in line with Dachau and Buchenwald.”




Engineer Prufer’s opinon as to what would “suffice” would in any case have no weight. His expertise would concern the number of corpses reducible per hour, not the number of expected deaths per thousand inmates. Any allocation of future cremation capacity per thousand inmates, without some notion of future deaths per thousand inmates, would be vacuous. The point after all is to predict the number of corpses. Prufer’s opinion would be especially irrelevant if it was based upon the death rates observed in Buchenwald and Dachau in 1940. He would of course not be alone in having failed to “anticipate” the death rates which would result from building, upon a Polish Sumpfgebiet, a forced labour camp for enormous concentrations of eastern labour.

You have to read carefully Pelt’s account, as linked above, to find that the authorities in December/January 1941 were already responding to the “rising death rate” with plans for two auxiliary crematories and ten corpse cellars to supplement the fifteen muffle Krema which had already been planned as an addition to the six actual muffles in the main camp. The two proposed auxiliary three-muffle crematoria, says Pelt, were a response to the “catastrophic conditions” of December/January 1941. But the ten corpse cellars, adds Pelt, may have been part of a homicidal scheme. These proposals, note, are dated early January of 1942. From the beginning of 1942 Pelt then “fast forwards”. well beyond the moment of decision in 19 August, to the beginning of 1943, when actual building had begun.

In case I have misread Pelt, here again is the link

http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/van/vi


By “fast forwarding” so quickly, Pelt misses an interesting eight months. From the Death Books we can derive the following sort of picture. In January/February 1942 the average daily death rate at Auschwitz was running at about 40-something a day. That was before the mega-epidemic kicked in. The we go to about 60 a day across February/March; then about 80 a day across April and May. From early June there is a steady climb from about a 100 a day to about 250 a day around the week in late August when the decision construct thirty extra muffles was finalised. The rate peaked at about 300 a day in early September 42. My averaging period is progressively shortening, and these are rough and ready figures. But I don’t think anyone can challenge the general picture.

These were actual current deaths, observed in an actual current population of perhaps about 24,000. Against this background the planners had to estimate a future maximum daily death rate in a future population perhaps eight times as large – but at least 140,000 according to Pelt. Yet this eight-month crescendo of mortality is supposed to have had no significant influence on the decision, taken in late August 1942, to add twenty-five extra muffles to those 15 muffles or 16 which Prufer in October 1941 had judged would “suffice” for any old population of 125,000 inmates, as well as to the six auxiliary muffles proposed during the “catastrophic conditions” of December and January. Eight months of experience apparently had no influence on perspectives formed at the end of it; neither did the radically larger death rates emerging in other eastern camps. On the orthodox view, the Birkenau expansion from 15 planned plus 6 planned auxiliaries to 46 actual muffles can only be explained by something else. It can only have happened because Himmler at some month in 1942 - which Hans might care to specify for us - had ordered Hoess to turn Auschwitz into a murder factory even bigger than “the existing exterminations site in the East”, which were proving themselves unequal to their task.


Hans is a well–informed and capable advocate of the standard view. That is why many here hope to see him expelled. That is why a some of us hope to see him stay. I hope he will correct my errors.

(I am here arguing that 46 muffles did not require a genocidal explanation. Ordinary realities were enough. I am not here arguing that 46 would be too few to cope with the planned genocide. That is another argument, and I am hoping to stick to one argument at a time. Fat chance. )

Hans
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 178
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 2:44 am

Re: Forty-six muffles? Auschwitz versus Buchenwald

Postby Hans » 1 decade 1 month ago (Tue Sep 14, 2010 12:05 pm)

Nathan,


But according to Mattogno (“Crematory ovens at Auschwitz....) the first two three-muffle ovens supplied by Topf went into service in the concentration camp Buchenwald, not some years before, but some six months before the three-muffle ovens “of the same model” were installed in Krema II. Perhaps Hans can show us where Mattogno has gone wrong.

In this case it is not Mattongo who has gone wrong (although sometimes he is!), but you have just misunderstood that I - or rather Van Pelt - was referring to the double muffle oven supplied by Topf to Buchenwald in 1939 .

Regarding the main text of your posting, I guess I understand your point and in principle I agree that a full treatment of the subject should take mortality rates into account when this appears to be relevant. But you should note that Van Pelt's argument is a bit more complex than what you have reduced it to in your posting and also considers the evolution of the morgue space. In his second report (a reply to Rudolf's counter expert report or whatever this was), he is emphasizing this more clearly:

I argued that if Auschwitz, as Holocaust deniers have maintained, was a "normal" concentration camp comparable to Dachau and Sachsenhausen - that is a camp not dedicated to systematic extermination of large transports - then one should expect an anticipated incineration and morgue capacity comparable to those "normal" concentration camps. If Auschwitz was more lethal than other concentration camps because of the greater prevalence of infectious diseases, then one should expect perhaps a higher incineration capacity, but certainly a very much higher morgue capacity to provide a buffer between the seasonally fluctuating discrepancy between incineration capacity and mortality. But, as we have seen, morgue capacity actually dropped from August 1942 onwards. Therefore the numbers suggested that in August 1942 the intended purpose of Auschwitz changed, and that it was to be an extermination camp in which most people were murdered "on command." This accounted for a high anticipated incineration capacity and a low anticipated morgue capacity, as the administrators of the killing process were in the position to send only as many people to the gas chambers as the crematoria could handle - assuming that the corpses of those killed would be incinerated within the next 24 hours.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/irving-david/vanpelt/vanpelt-coke.shtml

nickterry
Member
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 1:53 pm

Re: Forty-six muffles? Auschwitz versus Buchenwald

Postby nickterry » 1 decade 1 month ago (Tue Sep 14, 2010 3:30 pm)

I am afraid that the discussion is ignoring context.

Buchenwald was the second concentration camp to be equipped with a Topf 2 muffle oven, in December 1939, after Dachau had received a 2 muffle oven in November 1939. Both camps were largely complete in their construction with no known plans for major expansions. Gusen activated another Topf 2 muffle oven at the end of January 1941, after Auschwitz main camp had received one. In 1941 and early 1942, two more 2 muffle ovens were added to Krema I at Auschwitz.

In 1941, Buchenwald held under 10,000 inmates; in 1942 it held between 8000 and 12,000 inmates, almost all in the main camp (Stammlager). There are no known plans for the expansion of Buchenwald dating from 1941 or early 1942. Sub-camps only began to be added from late 1942 and early 1943. In 1944, the official capacity of the main camp was given as 18,000, taking into consideration a 'tent camp' that was erected by 1944, the so called 'kleines Lager'. The overcrowding that occurred in 1944 was not the result of any planning, and cannot be used to argue that there was a corresponding planned increase in cremation capacity.

Let us now look at the actual death-rates in Buchenwald. In 1940, the first full year after the erection of the 2 muffle oven in a temporary crematorium, there were 1,722 deaths. 2 muffles working 365 days per year could produce a theoretical 730 cremation-days. 1722/730 = 2.36 bodies per muffle per day. The death rate declined in 1941 among registered inmates, down to 1522 which means 1522/730 = 2.08 bodies per muffle per day on average, in 1942 2898/730 = 3.96 bodies/muffle/day and in 1943 3,516/730 = 4.82 bodies/muffle/day. Even the 1944 deaths of 8,644 prisoners would not have placed much strain on the ovens, as they produced an average of 8644/730 = 11.84 bodies/muffle/day.

All of these averages are well within even the most conservative estimates of 'conventional' cremation times. Buchenwald had with 2 ovens, a substantial excess cremation capacity.

Therefore, Buchenwald did not need any extra crematoria ovens to cope with existing or future cremation requirements. It could have got by for more or less the entire war with 2 muffles, as Gusen did, where the death rate was significantly higher in this tougher-class concentration camp. Buchenwald also did not need any extra crematoria ovens to match any planned expansion of the camp, unlike at Auschwitz-Birkenau, because no such expansion was planned.

The order for 2 ovens of 3 muffles of the new Topf type came, as far as can be determined - I am unaware that anyone has published the initial order contract or specified an exact date - at the end of 1941 or beginning of 1942. The occasion for the order came from a criminal intent - to incinerate the bodies of unregistered Soviet POWs who were sent to Buchenwald for execution under Einsatzbefehl Nr 8, known to the WVHA camps as Aktion 14 f 14. This was in full swing at the end of 1941 and overloaded the existing crematorium. The order was placed at the height of this action, which for other concentration camps tailed off in the spring of 1942. Not so at Buchenwald, where unregistered Soviet POWs continued to be delivered until at least the end of 1943. They were a separate group to a much smaller number of registered Soviet POWs sent as labourers, as also happened at Auschwitz and a few other concentration camps. In total, around 8,000 Soviet POWs are thought to have been sent to Buchenwald in this manner. There are two card indexes of Soviet POWs which has come to light and which have been exploited by German researchers such as Reinhard Otto to give more precision to the fates of Soviet POWs in general - these indexes record many prisoners who were handed over to the SS, and who do not then show up in the records of well documented camps like Buchenwald.

Whether or not the fact of Einsatzbefehl Nr 8 is accepted by revisionists is however of no great consequence. Even by the most conservative revisionist estimates of cremation speed, Buchenwald would never have needed as many as 6 ovens.

It is entirely possible that Topf, based in nearby Erfurt, might have had such good dealings with the Buchenwald administration that they were able to sell the SS one new triple muffle crematorium, saying how it was the bee's knees and worked exceptionally well. They did so after all at Mauthausen, even though the Mauthausen administration didn't then bother to install the triple muffle crematorium until much later in the war. Mauthausen was of similar size to Buchenwald, maybe slightly bigger, and had a much higher death rate.

But to order 6 muffles was to acquire a cremation capacity that was far in excess of any conventional requirements, and thus one can legitimately infer and suspect a criminal intent, which is borne out by the evidence of the murder of unregistered POWs.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10146
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Forty-six muffles? Auschwitz versus Buchenwald

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 1 month ago (Tue Sep 14, 2010 3:44 pm)

NIck,
You're simply assuming something you cannot prove and you don't even provide any source for your claims. There were no homicidal gassings, hence the claimed cremation rates are simply garbage in, garbage out. I challenge you to start a thread on the laughable 'gas chambers'; how they worked, etc. Here's your chance.

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

User avatar
Moderator3
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 4:01 am

Re: Forty-six muffles? Auschwitz versus Buchenwald

Postby Moderator3 » 1 decade 1 month ago (Tue Sep 14, 2010 4:29 pm)

Mr. Terry,
Your post depends on the accuracy of the gas chambers story, your avoiding that topic renders all else concerning cremations irrelevant. It is in your best interests to support your cremations assertions with information that Hannover requests. It is, afterall, you who has falsely claimed that this forum 'censors' extermationists. One would think that you would relish the opportunity to set Revisionists straight. I can only repeat what has been said, "Here's your chance", what are you waiting for?
Mod3

joachim neander
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 3:39 pm

Re: Forty-six muffles? Auschwitz versus Buchenwald

Postby joachim neander » 1 decade 1 month ago (Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:22 pm)

Sorry, I do not understand. Perhaps Hannover and/or Moderator 3 can help me.
Nick Terry posted something about the Buchenwald krema, which is within the topic of this thread. He said something about killing at Buchenwald, but I do not see that he mentioned "gas chambers." AFAIK the non-existence of homicidal gas chambers at Buchenwald is one of the few items on which Revisionists and the "orthodox" agree. So why should Nick Terry say something about "gas chambers" at Buchenwald?

The Warden
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 436
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:28 pm
Location: 'Murica!

Re: Forty-six muffles? Auschwitz versus Buchenwald

Postby The Warden » 1 decade 1 month ago (Wed Sep 15, 2010 8:57 am)

Hans wrote:
I argued that if Auschwitz, as Holocaust deniers have maintained, was a "normal" concentration camp comparable to Dachau and Sachsenhausen - that is a camp not dedicated to systematic extermination of large transports - then one should expect an anticipated incineration and morgue capacity comparable to those "normal" concentration camps. If Auschwitz was more lethal than other concentration camps because of the greater prevalence of infectious diseases, then one should expect perhaps a higher incineration capacity, but certainly a very much higher morgue capacity to provide a buffer between the seasonally fluctuating discrepancy between incineration capacity and mortality. But, as we have seen, morgue capacity actually dropped from August 1942 onwards. Therefore the numbers suggested that in August 1942 the intended purpose of Auschwitz changed, and that it was to be an extermination camp in which most people were murdered "on command." This accounted for a high anticipated incineration capacity and a low anticipated morgue capacity, as the administrators of the killing process were in the position to send only as many people to the gas chambers as the crematoria could handle - assuming that the corpses of those killed would be incinerated within the next 24 hours.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/irving-david/vanpelt/vanpelt-coke.shtml


The way it's laid out by the Exaggerationists is simple: They gassed hundreds at a time, pulled the bodies out and stacked them to the moon in order to get them out of the way for the next batch, and then burned the bodies as fast as possible, whether it be in the Kremas or right out in the open.
So I ask you: Why would you need a higher morgue capacity if you've decided to blatantly exterminate people? If you believe the story, they certainly didn't "care" about them or about preserving the bodies. According to your claims, they could cremate them so fast, rotting wouldn't be a problem. Besides, they were all "starved to death" anyway, right? You expect people to believe that these bags of bones (who were supposedly never taken care of in the first place) were accounted for in the planning of morgues?

What an argument... If the morgue capacity dropped, it's claimed they had the incineration capacity to handle the alleged millions of gassed. If the morgue capacity rose, they claim that it proves the millions were gassed. Nonsense! So which is it?

It's like asking someone if they're homosexual, and telling them "If you say no, you're a homosexual in denial. If you say yes, you're a homosexual". Both answers are designed to satisfy the accuser's mindset without any empirical evidence being presented.
Why the Holocaust Industry exists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A81P6YGw_c

User avatar
Moderator3
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 4:01 am

Re: Forty-six muffles? Auschwitz versus Buchenwald

Postby Moderator3 » 1 decade 1 month ago (Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:43 pm)

joachim neander wrote:Sorry, I do not understand. Perhaps Moderator 3 can help me.
Nick Terry posted something about the Buchenwald krema, which is within the topic of this thread. He said something about killing at Buchenwald, but I do not see that he mentioned "gas chambers." AFAIK the non-existence of homicidal gas chambers at Buchenwald is one of the few items on which Revisionists and the "orthodox" agree. So why should Nick Terry say something about "gas chambers" at Buchenwald?

The thread is 'Forty-six muffles? Auschwitz versus Buchenwald
M3

nathan
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:14 am

Re: Forty-six muffles? Auschwitz versus Buchenwald

Postby nathan » 1 decade 1 month ago (Thu Sep 16, 2010 3:54 am)

So many issues have been confused here that I hardly know where to begin. I would like to deal with them one at time.

Our task is to see whether, on the basis of undisputed facts, one can find a likely explanation for the 46 muffles installed at Birkenau in 1943. To that end Lohengrin drew a comparison with the two thee-muffle ovens at Buchenwald, which he thinks were installed in 1942 and were up and running in 1943. Hans tells us that the muffles that he, Hans, has in mind were the older muffles dated 1939. Well, I guessed that those were the muffles Hans had in mind. Anyone who bases himself on Pelt would have them in mind. What I cannot see is why these should be the appropriate muffles for comparison. For all I know these older muffles might not have been in use in 1943.
The first two three-muffle ovens supplied by Topf went into service in the concentration camp Buchenwald, on August 23 and October 3, 1942.[102]
The following description of the Topf three-muffle cremation oven is based on direct examinations of the ovens of Buchenwald and on the documents available. Three photographs from SS sources[103] confirm that the three-muffle ovens installed in crematoria II and III of Birkenau were the same model as those in Buchenwald; one of these, however, could also be fired with fuel oil.

Above is from Mattogno: Crematoria Ovens of Auschwitz......

http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndcrema.html


Is there any reason to think that these six newer muffles were not operating in 1943? Is there there any reason to think that the older 1939 muffles are the appropriate ones for comparison?

If no reasons are forthcoming I shall move on to the next point.

Hans
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 178
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 2:44 am

Re: Forty-six muffles? Auschwitz versus Buchenwald

Postby Hans » 1 decade 1 month ago (Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:15 pm)

nathan wrote:So many issues have been confused here that I hardly know where to begin. I would like to deal with them one at time.

Our task is to see whether, on the basis of undisputed facts, one can find a likely explanation for the 46 muffles installed at Birkenau in 1943. To that end Lohengrin drew a comparison with the two thee-muffle ovens at Buchenwald, which he thinks were installed in 1942 and were up and running in 1943.


I think you should re-read the posting by Lohengrin:

"Buchenwald had 1 muffle for 3.000 inmates."

Nowhere does he indicate he his talking about the three muffle ovens. Or the year 1943 to begin with. In fact, he also compares with "Oranienburg":

"Oranienburg had 1 muffle for 4.125 inmates."

Now, the concentration camp Oranienburg was closed down already in 1934. If he is actually confusing it with the concentration camp Sachsenhausen, the ovens were installed there already back in 1940 and as I just read, there were not even Topf but Kori (as I first assumed believing in Lohengrin that he would only compare ovens build by Topf).

joachim neander
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 3:39 pm

Re: Forty-six muffles? Auschwitz versus Buchenwald

Postby joachim neander » 1 decade 1 month ago (Fri Sep 17, 2010 11:34 am)

Moderator3 wrote:
joachim neander wrote:Sorry, I do not understand. Perhaps Moderator 3 can help me.
Nick Terry posted something about the Buchenwald krema, which is within the topic of this thread. He said something about killing at Buchenwald, but I do not see that he mentioned "gas chambers." AFAIK the non-existence of homicidal gas chambers at Buchenwald is one of the few items on which Revisionists and the "orthodox" agree. So why should Nick Terry say something about "gas chambers" at Buchenwald?

The thread is 'Forty-six muffles? Auschwitz versus Buchenwald
M3

That is undisputed. But the word "gas chambers" does not appear in the title of the thread. So why should Nick Terry discuss - non-existent - gas chambers at Buchenwald, when posting about the Buchenwald krema?

User avatar
Cloud
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 7:27 pm
Location: The Land of Political Correctness

Re: Forty-six muffles? Auschwitz versus Buchenwald

Postby Cloud » 1 decade 1 month ago (Fri Sep 17, 2010 12:30 pm)

joachim neander wrote:So why should Nick Terry discuss - non-existent - gas chambers at Buchenwald, when posting about the Buchenwald krema?


Wha..? What do you mean there were no gas chambers at Buchenwald? The eyewitnesses said so! They saw it with their own eyes. Are you calling my grandfather a...liar?! How dare you.

joachim neander
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 3:39 pm

Re: Forty-six muffles? Auschwitz versus Buchenwald

Postby joachim neander » 1 decade 1 month ago (Fri Sep 17, 2010 12:51 pm)

Such things do happen. I found, e.g., several reports from liberators who personally met "Lampshade Lady" Ilse Koch at Buchenwald (she was arrested in August 1943 and never set foot on Buchenwald again), even one who shot her. Brave guy, but probably suffering from distorted memory syndrome

nathan
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:14 am

Re: Forty-six muffles? Auschwitz versus Buchenwald

Postby nathan » 1 decade 3 weeks ago (Fri Sep 24, 2010 10:08 am)

Faced with the dour prospect of re-reading Pelt, I went down with a severe attack of procrastination and took a holiday from Codoh. However I still owe a reply to Hans and Nickterry, who are probably the only people who read my stuff.


I think it has been conceded that Buchenwald muffles of 1943 were not supplied “some years before” the Birkenau muffles. I was wrong if I conveyed that something I thought Lohengrin obviously believed was something that he actually said. Incidentally I did agree (with what I think Hans obviously believed) that Lohengrin was “inconsistent” in commensurating an actual population at Buchenwald with a planned population at Birkenau. I still do. If Nickterry is right, however, then Buchenwald’s planned population in 1943 was equal to its actual population and Lohengrin did not make this particular mistake.


Lohengrin’s real mistake, to which Hans had no principled objection, was to centre the discussion around some “typical” muffle-to-population ratio supposedly obtaining in normal camps. It is true that the German documents are cast in those terms. That is because, for budgeting purposes, the numbers for future muffles and for future camp populations can in principle be controlled and quantified, whereas nobody can do the same for a future death rate. Nevertheless, the future death rate is the number that really matters. Hans above claimed that Birkenau had twice the cremation capacity per inmate as Buchenwald and he cited Pelt’s “expert report” as his authority. I said that this fact, if it be a fact, would only seem remarkable if the eastern death rates of 1942 were completely ignored. And Pelt, as far as I can find, does ignore them.


Hans wrote:

In principle I agree that a full treatment of the subject should take mortality rates into account when this appears to be relevant. But you should note that Van Pelt's argument is a bit more complex than what you have reduced it to in your posting and also considers the evolution of the morgue space. In his second report (a reply to Rudolf's counter expert report or whatever this was), he is emphasizing this more clearly:


Perhaps Van Pelt has somewhere in his long Expert Report “taken into account” the maga-epidemics which peaked in August 1942. He would have to do this when explaining the planned expansion of cremation capacity which was finalised in August 1942. Otherwise, as an expert witness, and therefore a servant of the court obliged to make full disclosure, he was guilty of a considerable dereliction amounting to perjury. I do hope that Hans can clear him of this charge. But in the quoted section, the very place where the monumental epidemic might above all “appear relevant” he certainly chose fast forward past it.


Let me recapitulate : Back in October 1941, Prufer apparently thought that a camp fifteen or sixteen muffles might do for a camp of 125, 000. This according to Pelt would leave no room for genocide. Two months later, rising death rates - small increases by later standards - “appeared relevant”. They appeared relevant enough to require a forty percent increase in the number of muffles, adding six auxiliaries to the 15 or 16 already proposed. So instead of one muffle serving 8,300 prisoners, one muffle would now only serve 5,900 prisoners. That is quite a drop, induced by a merely the “rising” death rate observed in December 1941. A further such rise, for a planned population of 140,000 would already bring us up to 33 muffles or so. That would be one muffle serving every 5000 prisoners. From Pelt’s assumptions one may calculate that planners at the beginning of 1942 may have expected an Auschwitz to have annual death rate something like twenty percent of its standing population. But by August this annual rate, horrifying enough, had turned out to be less that the monthly death rate. It surely cannot be hard to believe that mega-epidemics of 1942 could have induced a drop in the planned ratio down to something like one muffle per four thousand prisoners. We now know of course that the maximum planned population and the maximum likely death numbers were never realised. But that could not be anticipated in August 1942.


I have oversimplified because life is short. Pelt has overcomplicated because his thought is obscure and perverse. I asked Hans to point out my errors. Perhaps he was too courteous to point out that I did badly misread Pelt’s argument on morgue capacity, a mistake for which I am too human to blame myself. I prefer to blame Pelt. His argument is so “complex” in its presentation, if not its essence, that I defy anyone to absorb it at a single reading.

Let me recapitulate again to see if I have grasped that “complex” argument. Let nobody spare my blushes if I have misunderstood. Once again: in December/ earlyJanuary it was assumed that death rates at Birkenau would “rise.” So those six auxiliary muffles were added to the fifteen of sixteen sketched out for the prototype of Krema II.

Along with these were to be added ten corpse cellars. The purpose of the extra six muffles had been to keep pace with the rise in the death rate. But that was not the purpose of the ten corpse cellars. For some reason, according to Pelt, the fifteen/sixteen-muffle Krema prototype, with its two big morgues and one little morgue, had allowed for a morgue space that was six times too small per capita by western norms. The ten projected corpse cellars were there simply to catch up. So I was mistaken, as Hans was too polite to mention, in thinking that Pelt was pointing to the presence of ten huge cellars on the January blueprints as a “criminal trace.” It is worse than that. The criminal trace, in Pelts view, is the absence of big corpse cellars when the camp was actually built.

Pelt himself wrote:
By the time the crematoria were finished, Auschwitz had virtually no permanently dedicated morgue capacity. This is very important: putting it very crudely, a design for a camp with a low incineration capacity and low morgue capacity indicates the expectation of low mortality; a design for a camp with low incineration capacity and high morgue capacity indicates the expectation of high mortality, most likely due to contingent circumstances (epidemics); a design for a camp with high incineration capacity with low morgue capacity indicates the expectation of high mortality, most likely due to humanly controlled circumstances (murder).


Pelt gives a fanfare of italics for his very important idea. His important idea can be put yet more “crudely” - or simply. A pure murder factory, run on controlled industrialised lines, would need no mortuary space at all. Victims arrive by predictable numbers; they can be “stored”as live bodies and burned immediately they become dead bodies. A complete absence of dedicated mortuary spaces, an absence such as we supposedly find at Birkenau, would count as clear indication that that Birkenau was a murder factory.

I have never seen an argument caught more red-handedly circular. How do we know that Birkenau had no dedicated mortuary spaces? Pelt had just told us. It is because these mortuary spaces had become dedicated murder spaces instead, either as gas chambers or undressing rooms. He has incorporated the crime into his evidence for the crime.

Back in October 1941, the designed crematory/morgue capacity ratio, according to Pelt had been much too high. But those were innocent times. Such a ratio, then, need not have a sinister explanation. Moreover, any increase in cremation capacity, supposedly made solely to cope with immediately-cremated murder victims, would neither require or allow for an absolute reduction in existing dedicated mortuary space. Birkenau was a long term project. Epidemics were not expected to go away, not in a camp of at least 140,000. People were still expected to drop dead at work, or die in beds or in hospitals in very large numbers and with very large random variations. If the mortuaries in the blueprints were never used as mortuaries, where were the Leichenkommando expected to put all those diseased bodies? Wherever it was, it had to be near the crematoria. Perhaps the memoirs and postwar testimonies have provided some fantastic answer to this problem. What we need to be told is if Pelt’s wartime “blueprints for genocide” provide an answer to it.


Nickterry is guilty of eccentric arithmetic. It is true that a camp with two muffles will have 730 muffle-days every year. But that is not true of a camp with six muffles. For the transitional year 1942, the weighted average would be about thee muffles. Nickterry’s unchanging denominator will induce our sleepy Codoh revisionists to think that each Buchenwald muffle was handling 11 bodies per day in 1944. Wow - that means it must have lot of spare time on its hands back in day. Idle hands could not have existed without devils work to do. In fact, during the hectic year, accepting Nicktery’s figures for 1944, each Buchenwald in fact had to cope with about 3.6 as a daily average.

No doubt it could have coped with far more. For ordinary purposes all crematoria would have to carry massive overcapacity. They would be installed with worst day in mind, not the typical day. They would not be intended to work 23 hours a day, seven days a week. The daily average would not be a daily occurence. In the calendar year 1943 deaths at Auscwhitz-Birkenau were running on at an average of about 100 a day – far fewer than the worst number that must have been anticipated - but 100 people did not die every day. Lingens-Reiner in her memoir records that in winter 43/44 the deaths peaked at 350 a day. If that is true, then on that day each of 46 muffles, no doubt working long hours, would on average have had to cope with 8 corpses a day. But over the whole year - assuming it had 36 muffles (as a weighted average across that calendar year) - each muffle would have coped with an average of over three bodies a day. In the slack month of August 1943 each of 46 muffles had to cope with an average of fewer than two recorded bodies a day. In Buchenwald, during that month, things were even slacker.

Something over three bodies per muffle per day as a daily average would in fact have been what Prufer was expecting in October 1941 if, as Pelt says, he was also expecting Buchenwald-type death rates for his 125,000 prisoners in a non-homicidal camp served by only fifteen or sixteen muffles. No doubt, as a theoretical maximum, each of his muffles might have dealt with some immensely greater number, but nobody claims this as evidence that some immensely greater number was expected secretly to occur. Back in late 1941, given current death rates, at most, 20,000 annual deaths would have been predicted. But in late August 1942, given current death rates, it would have been madness to plan against anything less than 70,000 annual deaths relative to a standing population of 140,000. As things were, in spite of vast prophylactic measures, the annual 1943 total reached 35,000 relative to a standing population of no more than 74,000 . So there is nothing obviously sinister about the fact of 46 muffles. (For argument’s sake I am taking Pelts own account of the documentation entirely on trust, eg, assuming that any plans for a camp of 200,000 were proposed only after plans for the 46 muffles had been finalised.)


Nickterry believes that there was an order to execute selected Russian prisoners of war, and so do I. He thinks that was a crime, and so do I. For present purposes I count illegal executions as an “ordinary” event. What matters here is numbers, predictable and large numbers. Common belief about these shootings seems heavily contaminated by Greuelpropaganda. The British prosecution case against Pauly was that some 200 Russian commissars had been murdered on a single occasion by a half-wit medical orderly in a makeshift gas chamber, carried out while the whole camp stood by and was forced to sing hymns. At the trial of the Dachau staff, I seem to remember, some 6000 commissars were alleged by prosecution witnesses to have been shot all at once on a spot that nobody could ever identify. Nickterry’s number 8000, I think, first emerged from the prosecution of the Buchenwald staff, the same prosecution which gave us those shrunken skulls. The shooting, if I remember, was alleged to have been done furtively and elaborately so as to take the prisoners by surprise

The Nazi regime was an evil regime, in my opinion, but it was also a serious regime. If there was a “Commissar order”, I imagine that Russian prisoners of war in the Stalags and camps would screened by the SD for possible agitators and saboteurs, much in the manner German POWs were later screened for possible war criminals. Lists would have been prepared, circulated and signed by some SD official and perhaps countersigned by some jealous camp bureaucrat ratifying permission for Security Police to take them away. That type of thing, or something like it, would not surprised me. But it would rather surprise me if the Buchenald numbers amount to 8000 for the whole period 41-43. And I would expect the monthly numbers of murdered commissars to be declining rather than expanding.

If a Herr Reinhard Otto has in some learned journal presented evidence that, say, 3000 commissars were anticipated in Buchenwald in1942 to be shot and cremated during the course of 1943 then some of us would like to see this evidence. Perhaps Nickterry can quote for us the relevant passages. Actually, Nickterry thinks we do not really need evidence; the proof that it was done is that there was too much cremation capacity for it not to have been done. I have to concede that the six muffles installed in 1942 would be excessively panicky if a limit of 18000 had been set to the future camp population. But I have yet seen no reason to believe that such a limit had ever been set, nor would I expect it to be set. If in 1942 the camp authorities were still preparing for a future supply of Russian commissars, perhaps in their hundreds, it suggests to me that they were also expecting a future supply of Russian POWs, perhaps in their thousands, to increase the pool of labour for the upcoming war industries around Buchenwald. They were certainly not at that date preparing for the German army to be crushed at Stalingrad. But this is all speculation.

User avatar
Zulu
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 9:44 am

Re: Forty-six muffles? Auschwitz versus Buchenwald

Postby Zulu » 1 decade 3 weeks ago (Sat Sep 25, 2010 8:48 am)

I put here a post that I have been sending regularly on alt.revisionism
I made it quickly but I think that it could constitute a valuable basis to a deeper investigation. The numbers of the populations at the camps I mention were picked from official sites on the net. They need to be accurately sourced. The population actually planed at A-B is another important point to be correctly addressed. I found in Pressac's book the number of 200,000 and some other official source (Van Pelt?) cite 230,000.
Another point, which is not clear to me, is the alleged discovering of documents which would confirm the coke deliveries at the crematoriae of A-B corresponding to the year 1944 by Irving. That year is not mentioned on the records presented by Pressac I use (years 1941 to 1943).
I would like to know more about that Irving's finding. That would allow to have a more accurate estimation of the number of cadavers actually burned at A-B.
According with David Irving, documents form the Moscow's archives give the following numbers as deliveries of coke to Auschwitz-Birkenau crematories:

Crematory......Period..........Coke (t)

I...........1.01.40/28.02.40 .....041,6
............1.03.41/31.10.41......166,4
...........01.11.41/31.01.42......093,6
...........16.02.42/28.02.43.....395,5
I - V......15.03.43/31.10.43.....568,0
II - III...01.01.44/27.11.44......923,0
--------------------------------------
TOTAL.............................2.188,1

By using my parameter of an average of 28,7 kg of coke per corpse burned that would imply a total of 76,236 cadavers.
Now, the complement of wood or other fuel that could have been eventually employed at the crematories must be addressed also.

Another aspect that must be stressed, is that when the requirement for more muffles was made, at the same time SS ordered also Zentral Sauna as a complementary measure of fighting epidemics. Not to mention it just was after experiencing hard attacks of typhus at the camp few months ago. That reinforces the fact that crematoriae were integrated at the camps since 1942 as part of sanitary installation.
Previous typhus attacks explain why SS had to put their camp at the standard recommended for cremation installations.
An interesting matter of research is on the criteria and parameters used by the engineers to design the camps. As for current constructions involving the hosting of numerous people (stadium, fairs, etc...) they are standards of construction e.g. the number of latrines. So, it could be important to know if such documents are still available for A-B or other large camps like Dachau, Buchenwald or Oranienburg.
Aren't such documents in the numerous archives of the Zentral Bauleitung of A-B?

CREMATION AT NAZI CAMPS

A - Why did nazis cremate the bodies of the deaths?

<>

German concentration camps did really exist but the whole world knows that they were
not original or unique to the Germans. Crematorium ovens have also existed in certain
of these camps, but incineration is no more offensive or criminal than burial. The
crematorium ovens even constitute progress from the sanitary point of view where
there was a risk of epidemics. Typhus ravaged the whole of wartime Europe. The
majority of corpses which are shown to us in photos are clearly the corpses of typhus
victims. These photos illustrate the fact that the internees-and sometimes the
guards-died of typhus. They prove nothing other than this. To exploit the fact that
the Germans at times used crematorium ovens is not very honest. In asserting this one
counts on the repulsion or feeling of unease and disquiet felt by people accustomed
to burial and not to incineration. Imagine an oceanic population accustomed to
burning its dead. Tell such a people that you bury your own and you will appear a
kind of savage. Perhaps they would even suspect that in Europe persons "more or less
alive" are placed in the earth!

Robert Faurisson

<>

Since the typhus epidemics occurrence after 1942, all corpses might be cremated as a
part of necessary prophylactic measures and crematoriae passed to be mandatory basic
installations at all the main nazi camps.

Crematory buildings (Krematorium) were copied from civilian installations in use at
that time in Germany.
They included basically morgues and ovens. The furnaces were also designed like
civilian models, nothing specific to criminal purpose.
On the opposite there were not properly model to industrial burning (massive burning)
because, as being civilian, they were tiny muffles planned to burn corpses by unit
and to recuperate ashes for the family into a receptacle placed below the burning
platform.
On the plan of Krema I at Auschwitz I a room dedicated to store urns as receptacles
of ashes is visible.
The main manufacturer contracted by the SS to equip their camps passed to be the
civilian firm Topf & Söhne. H Kori, the former main supplier, had lost importance but
represented a rough competitor for Topf. For instance, to take the Birkenau's market,
Prüfer, the Topf's engineer had to "invent" an innovative configuration of more
muffles per furnace in order to present a more cost effective offer and convince the
new head of the Zentral Bauleitung ("Construction Management") at Auschwitz, SS
Captain Karl Bischoff, to get the contract.

http://www.mazal.org/Pressac/Pressac0095.htm

B - How was planed the capacity of cremation to be installed at nazi camps?

Pressac didn't write too much on that fundamental point, the documents that should
exist regarding the planing of equipment from the scratch are not exhibited on his
books. So, the observation of the installations of cremation in use at the main camps
is necessary to deduce the parameters SS seem to have applied to determine their
cremation's equipment.
From such observation, it appears that SS have used a standard ratio of 1 muffle
installed per 4,500-5,000 inmates hosted. For instance, we can observe a ratio of
4,500 at Oranienburg and 5,000 at Birkenau to an expected population of 230,000 which
was planed in August 1942 but was never reached (67,000 to 130,000 maximum). See
hereafter #I.

C - Was a cremation installation an evidence of criminal intention at nazi camps?

The same model of furnaces provided by the manufacturer Topf & Söhne can be found
at Gusen, Mauthausen, Dachau, Oranienburg, Gusen or Buchenwald which are not labeled
"extermination camps" on the Dogma. Only the combination [number of furnaces x number
of muffles] could have changed while the basic muffle's design remained the same
following a civilian design.
There, the cremation buildings presented nearly the same basic configuration: morgues
+ ovens as on civilian model of construction existing at that time in Germany.

Actually, by observing all the main nazi camps, it is impossible to find a specific
installation which could differentiate an alleged "extermination camp" from a
"concentration camp", a point able to allow a reasonable doubt about the actual
existence of specific "industrial factories" supposedly built to perform an
"industrial extermination plan". I developed the "gas chambers" matter at Auschwitz
on other posts.

A blueprint of the standard model of Topf's oven was presented at Nuremberg trial as
an "evidence" of a criminal action. That cannot be sustained anymore.

"Historically, it is no longer possible to present this Nuremberg drawing [drawing of
a furnace] as being “criminal”. Produced entirely without any supporting documentary
context, as were many German documents at that time, this drawing was supposed to
prove “ipso facto” the criminality of KL Buchenwald, whereas in fact it was only a
pictorial representation of a perfectly ordinary piece of “public health” equipment.
Whether used as incriminating evidence or not, the fact that this drawing was
retained, certainly with a covering letter whose content is not known, shows the
stupid way in which the documents of the defeated were “evaluated” by a tribunal of
the victors. It is just as ridiculous as if in the Landru trial the prosecution had
presented a catalogue of harmless kitchen ranges and declared that this brochure was
obvious proof of the crimes of the accused, and had omitted to mention the purchase
of the railway tickets: one return [for Landru] and one single [for his lady victim]."

http://www.mazal.org/Pressac/Pressac0106.htm

D - Establishment of cremation's parameters for Topf's ovens.

An important document allows to analyze on real working conditions and during a
sufficiently long period the actual activity of cremation at Gusen with a model of
Topf's oven built with 2 furnaces x 2 muffles.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/gusen- ... ndex.shtml

It can be deduced from that time sheet that, into 1 muffle, an average time of 23 min
per corpse was needed to burn 61 corpses per day in an hypothesis of extrapolated
continuous performance not recommended by the manufacturer.
Actually, to avoid refractory failures, a maximum of 8 to 10 hours of work was
possible. (see Hoess statement: "After eight or ten hours of operation, the
crematoria were unfit for further use. It was impossible to keep them in continuous
operation."[20]
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Osteurop ... eyer2.html )

However, in my opinion, that factor time is not of major relevance to estimate the
actual activity of the ovens. To me, the coke or wood consumption is the most
relevant and objective parameter to obtain a consistent estimation of the number of
corpses which could have been burned at a camp.

On that aspect, the same time sheet of Gusen gives an average coke's consumption of
28.7 kg (28.72 kg) per corpse in hypothetical conditions of continuous use.
"Hypothetical" means that the real values observed were extrapolated to an improbable
work on 24 h/24 h. That same time sheet shows that the average of corpses burned
daily during the period considered was about 21 (1009 corpses burned in 48 days)
That represented 17.21% of the capacity installed which is far from being a 24h/24h
load to a maximum capacity of cremation of 122 bodies per day in 2 muffles.

Such remark makes highly dubious all kind of calculations based on a hypothetical
"maximum capacity" of such installations to evaluate their actual performance.

E - Can cremation's parameters observed at Gusen be applied at Birkenau?

By their conception, the ovens installed by Topf at Gusen (2 furnaces x 2 muffles)
were theoretically less demanding in coke than similar models installed at Birkenau.
Actually, Krema II and III had 5 ovens of 2 furnaces x 3 muffles and Krema IV and V
had 2 ovens of 2 furnaces x 4 muffles).
The configuration of less furnaces to heat more muffles was interesting under an
economic point of view but resulted in less efficient because of increased thermal
losses. Each furnace had more refractory lining to heat and to maintain around a
working temperature of 800-1000ºC. So, the average of 28,7 kg of coke per body
calculated at Gusen can be perfectly applied at Birkenau despite it could be expected
slightly inferior to the actual consumption because of the less thermal efficiency of
the ovens.

F - Was it possible to overpass the nominal efficiency of Topf's ovens?

The allegation that the cremation's performance could have been highly improved by
burning several cadavers (simultaneous cremation) instead of one in a muffle's cavity
designed to burn one corpse only is at least reckless.

In fact, as being an indirect cremation, by trying to put too much corpses in a small
cavity, one would only reduce the hot air circulation around the material to be
burned and, as consequence, would actually reduce the speed of cremation, thus,
obviously the productivity of the operation. Not to mention the risk of damaging the
refractory brick lining on such tentative.

Moreover, the laws of thermodynamic can be broken and there is a limit to low the
mass of coke needed to burn a mass of body. Under that point of view it is important
to analyze "real work on real conditions" to establish a realistic cremation's model.

Of course, as the volume occupied by the bodies is the main factor for a load, 2 or 3
corpses of children depending on their size could substitute the volume of 1 adult.

In any case to low the Gusen's average of 28.7 kg to 3.5 kg as seen in some
Exterminationist works is completely unrealistic.

However, we can consider that the period of activity examined on the Gusen's document
is enough extended to reflect consistently a "typical load" in a cremation
installation at a camp with that kind of oven. Under that aspect, the unknown ratio
mass/number of bodies can be considered "integrated" in the resulting average of 28.7
kg of coke per corpse burned with a little merge on uncertainty.

To clear that doubt, a "calibration" is made hereafter by facing that Gusen's
parameter with documented data from Birkenau during the month of August
1943 [#G]. Nevertheless, any new document concerning that matter should be useful to
increase the accuracy of that measurement. At the moment I don't know if more data
are available on the remaining nazi archives.

To avoid the inconvenient of an exaggerated volume of corpses processed at a time by
the operators and to facilitate the load of the muffles, specific apparatuses were
manufactured at the camps like the "corpse charging trolleys, set on rails" of
Auschwitz showed on Pressac's book

http://www.mazal.org/Pressac/Pressac0154.htm

We can see that the container placed upon the trolley was made on purpose to avoid
the contact between the corpses and the brick lining in order to prevent its
deterioration during the loading operation. At the same time it prevented the bad
behavior of the stokers by limiting their liberty to load too much bodies at a time.

G - Verification of the Gusen's parameters for coke's consumption in Topf's ovens.

References are available to control Gusen's parameters applied to Auschwitz's
crematory installations. For instance, there is a document concerning the number of
deaths registered in August 1943 which can be faced with the documented coke delivery
on that same month at Auschwitz.

1 - The number of deaths registered in August 1943

According with that page from the Pohl's report to Himmler
http://www.mazal.org/archive/nmt/05/NMT05-T0382.htm

we can observe that, on August 1943, the mortality at Auschwitz was:

Concentration camps......Average number of inmates.....Deaths
Auschwitz (men).............48,000......................1,442
Auschwitz (women)...........26,000........................938
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................74,000.......................2,380

2 - The coke's consumption of the year 1943

"PMO microfilm 12,012 contains the coke delivery notes for the Krematorien (without
distinguishing between them) from 16th February 1942 to 25th October 1943."

http://www.mazal.org/Pressac/Pressac0224.htm

We observe that for the month of August, 1943 the coke delivery notes for the 4
Krematorien in activity at Birkenau, the quantity of coke delivered was

---> 71 tons.

If we consider that 2.380 deaths were cremated* that month, that gives an average of
29,83 kg of coke burned per corpse.

The average I gave above for the Gusen's parameter is 28.7 kg per corpse burned. That
value is remarkably consistent with 29,83 kg deduced from the registers of Auschwitz
in August 1943 related with coke deliveries and deaths.

3 - Causes of variability of the Gusen's parameter

2 parameters can introduce a variability on that average of 28.7 kg:

a - The time the ovens are actually working during the day. The less time the more
coke consumed per corpse. The coke necessary to heat all the mass of refractory
bricks in order to reach the 800-1000ºC working temperature is distributed all along
the total time of work.

b - The number of children among the total of bodies burned. The more children the
less coke consumed per corpse.

However, by considering the reference of August 1943 at Auschwitz, it can be
reasonable to keep on using 28.7 kg per corpses despite it seems to be lower** than
the actual consumption per corpses on "real work".

H - Possible estimation of the number of bodies actually cremated at Auschwitz.

As we have seen, the only consistent parameter to estimate the actual activity of an
installation of cremation is the coke/wood's consumption.

Each time the corresponding data are available, it is allowed to make a good
estimation of the numbers of bodies ACTUALLY BURNED at a camp.

We have some documents concerning coke's deliveries for 1942 and 1943 at the
crematoriae of Auschwitz and nothing about 1944. Maybe something might remain
undiscovered in the Russian archives.

With what we have concerning the coke deliveries at the new 4 Kremas in 1943 (about
802 tons), we can estimate the number of bodies cremated at Birkenau that precise year:

http://www.mazal.org/Pressac/Pressac0224.htm

The average of coke's consumption to burn 1 body was 28,7 kg in the model of Topf's
ovens installed at Birkenau (based on actual Gusen's time sheet**).

http://www.holocaust-history.org/gusen- ... ndex.shtml

So, we could establish the number of corpses burned at Birkenau in 1943 around 28,000
to a consumption of coke estimated at 802 tons.

The statistics of deaths for Auschwitz's camps given by the Russian archives are

Total deaths 108,946

http://tbrnews.org/Archives/a2617.htm

The number of corpses burned in 1943 at Auschwitz are compatible on its order of
magnitude with the number of deaths registered on the deaths ' books although they
are far away from usual official exaggerations.

With the deaths' books and in absence of further documents concerning coke/wood
deliveries, the following repartition could be made to give numbers of deaths
concerning Auschwitz.

1940-1942...45,000
1943........30,000
1944........35,000
---------------
Total......110,000

Remark: It is possible that during some periods the coke was substituted by wood to
burn corpses on the ovens. An equivalence coke-wood has been established by Mattogno
to a quantity of wood consumed at Birkenau.
"a total of 96 m3 (3,390 cu. ft.) of wood was delivered in September and October 1943
[aa], which correspond to about 21.5 metric tons of coke.
[aa] APMO, D-Au-I-4, segregator 22, 22a

As consequence the total number of bodies burned could be increased according with
the addition of wood on the total amount of coke sent to the crematory ovens if no
other application can be proved at the camp.

Then the estimated number of 110 000 bodies cremated could be increased to 130 or 140
000. Unfortunately, fundamental data concerning the coke/wood deliveries to the
crematories of Birkenau during the year 1944 are missing. We hope that the related
documents were not destroyed by the Stalinists and lay on some Russian archives to be
discovered in the future in order to reveal finally a more accurate estimation of the
actual number of bodies which could have been burned at those crematory installations.

* That is not "exact" in fact because of the "buffer's effect" of the morgues but, by
observing the months of July (67 tons) and September (61) the respective deliveries
were not so much different in quantities than for August to introduce a huge
variability on that basis of calculation..

** A predictable result because my calculation based on the time sheet of Gusen was
done considering an hypothetic continuous load which was not recommended by the
manufacturer.
I have showed on other posts that the activity observed at the cremation installation
of Birkenau by considering the coke deliveries corresponded roughly with the nominal
activity of only 14 muffles (admitted also by Pressac) despite the number of muffles
installed was 46. That fact is easily explainable because the cremation installation
was planed to a population of 230,000 inmates while the real number actually was
around 67,000. That explains also why the situation at the Kremas was never
considered critic despite the numerous failures of the ovens which reduced
considerably the total cremation capacity.

http://www.mazal.org/Pressac/Pressac0386.htm

I - The application of a standard ratio to plan crematory installations at the nazi
camps including Auschwitz-Birkenau

Ia - The crematory ovens were not equipments specifically designed to
Auschwitz-Birkenau. In fact, since 1942 many crematory ovens (based on civilian
design) were installed at all main camps to satisfy the drastic sanitary measures
required to fight epidemics like typhus by means of the mandatory cremation of cadavers.

Thus, ovens are not the indication of a supposed criminal intention as
Exterminationists want us to know. There were required together with other sanitary
installations for the treatment of inmates' effects (delousing chambers, disinfection
equipment) and for the hygiene like shower rooms and latrines.

The nazis determined the number of muffles to be installed at their camps by applying
a standard ratio of 1 muffle per 4000-5000 inmates to be hosted.

A mere observation of the installations of cremation realized after 1942 at all main
nazi camps allow to verify that nearly invariable ratio and Auschwitz-Birkenau
doesn't constitute any exception on that aspect.

Here is the map of the installations stated by Topf, the manufacturer of the ovens
installed at Dachau, Oranienburg, Mauthausen, Buchenwald and Auschwitz. That very
useful map includes also the ovens installed by Kori.

http://www.topfundsoehne.de/images/imghi_053_karte.jpg

Ib - Calculations of cremation ratios observed and respective ovens' installation at
the main nazi camps.

The following list present the relation existing between the planed population at a
camp and its number of muffles installed. The homogeneity of such relation appears
clearly and it can be deduced that the nazis applied a ratio of 1 muffle installed
per 4,000-5,000 inmates planed to determine the capacity of cremation at their camps.

Sachsenhausen-Oranienburg:

Population planned 33000 inmates
Number of muffles installed: 2x2 + 1+1+1+1 muffles = 8 (Manufacturer Kori)
Cremation ratio observed: 1 muffle per 4125 inmates

Dachau :

Population planed: about 30,000 inmates
Number of muffles installed: 2x2 + 1 + 1 = 6 (Manufacturer Topf & Shoene)
Cremation ratio observed: 1 muffle per 5,000 inmates

Buchenwald: 9,500 inmates in 1942, 37,319 end 43

Population planned: 37,319 inmates (end 43)
Number of muffles installed: 2x3 + 1x2 + 1 = 9 (Manufacturer Topf & Shoene)
Cremation ratio observed: 1 muffle per 4,145 inmates

Gusen

Population observed: 9,100 inmates (1943)
Number of muffles installed: 1x2 = 2 (Manufacturer Topf & Shoene)
Cremation ratio observed: 1 muffle per 4,550 inmates

Mauthausen

Population planed: 19,800 inmates (1943)
Number of muffles installed: 1 + 2x2 = 5 (Manufacturer Topf & Topf & Shoene)[*]
Cremation ratio observed: 1 muffle per 3,960 inmates

Auschwitz-Birkenau

Population planned: 230,000 inmates (mid 42)(not included more than 40 sub-camps)**
Number of muffles installed: 2[5x3] + 2[4x2] = 46 (Manufacturer Topf & Soehne)
Cremation ratio planed: 1 muffle per 5,000 inmates

[*] To Mauthausen I have no precise data concerning the nominal population before the
arrival of many prisoners from other camps in 1945.
The low cremation ratio could be explained by the installation of the last 2 muffles
oven corresponding to an increased population to a number greater than 19,800 that I
don't know.
The Commandant of Mauthausen, Franz Ziereis, said that there were never more than
19,800 prisoners in the main camp at any one time.

[**] Finally, the camp's population never reached that number. As consequence, the
numerous Mexico's barracks planed to the third step of amplification weren't
completely achieved.
Te average number of inmates observed was likely about 67,000 inmates and the actual
activity of the ovens corresponded to the nominal operation of 14 muffles if we
observe the actual coke's delivery at the Kremas during the same period.

Is it a mere coincidence if the ratio applied to a population of 67,000 inmates would
have conduced to the installation of 14 muffles by applying the same cremation ratio
of 1 muffle per 5000 inmates?

<quote Pressac>

..Any attempt to deny that Krematorium II was shut down for repair, Kr IV permanently
out of service and Kr V subsequently mothballed comes up against the problem of the
coke consumption for the four Krematorien, which is known up to the end of
October 1943 and which shows that the quantities delivered covered the requirements
of 14 muffles only.]

<quote Pressac>

http://www.mazal.org/Pressac/Pressac0386.htm


J - Ovens and crematoriae were not specific to the so-called "death camps".

In fact, as they were mandatory to respect the basic sanitary measures to fight
epidemics, all main camps had installation of ovens to cremate the bodies of the deaths.

A tour to visit the crematory ovens installed at the crematorium of several nazi camps

Terezín Camp-Ghetto Crematorium
http://www.rudyfoto.com/hol/ter-oven.html

Dachau Old Crematorium
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScr ... orium.html

Dachau New Crematorium
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScr ... ium04.html

Sachsenhausen-Oranienburg Crematorium
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Sachsenha ... Ovens.html

Buchenwald Crematorium
The Buchenwald crematorium was equipped with brick ovens made by the Topf & Söhne
company in nearby Erfurt. This company also made the ovens which were installed in
Auschwitz-Birkenau in June 1943.
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Buchenwal ... orium.html
http://www.rudyfoto.com/hol/bu-oven.html

Mauthausen Camp Crematorium
http://www.rudyfoto.com/hol/mau-oven.html

Majdanek Camp Crematorium
http://www.rudyfoto.com/hol/maj-oven.html

Bergen Belsen unique muffle.
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/BergenBel ... otos2.html

Mittelbau-Dora Camp Crematorium
http://www.rudyfoto.com/hol/md-oven.html

Gross-Rosen Crematorium Oven
http://www.rudyfoto.com/hol/gr-oven.html

Natzweiler-Struthof Crematorium
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Natzweile ... orium.html
http://www.rudyfoto.com/hol/stu-oven.html

Ravensbrück Camp Crematorium
http://fcit.usf.edu/Holocaust/GALL33R/rava19.htm
http://fcit.usf.edu/Holocaust/GALL33R/rav16.htm
http://www.rudyfoto.com/hol/ra-oven2.html
http://www.rudyfoto.com/hol/ra-oven.html

Flossenbürg Crematorium
http://www.rudyfoto.com/hol/flo-oven.html


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests