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!
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 (Mon Sep 27, 2010 10:41 am)

Zulu seems to think that I overstated registered Auschwitz deaths for 1943. More likely, he has simply not read my post. Nobody has. Rather than accept Zulus figures, I shall trust those supplied by that forgotten man Arthur Butz:

That documentation is incomplete but Pressac has used it to arrive at figures for Auschwitz very similar to those offered here. Thus I shall maintain my assumption that the Auschwitz total of ordinary deaths for 1940 through January 1945 was "in the range 100,000 - 150,000, probably closer to the former, since the camp population was small in 1940-1941 and by 1944 the Germans had made some progress against typhus" [7] (the Auschwitz camp population expanded to well over 100,000 in 1944). We shall see that this total is not the crucial point. The figures are:

Year Auschwitz Buchenwald Dachau

1940 ? 1,772 1,515
1941 ? 1,522 2,576
1942 45,575 2,898 2,470
1943 36,960 3,516 1,100
1944 ? 8,644 4,794
1945 ? 13,056 15,384

Totals ? 31,408 27,839
Totals? 125,000? 37,000? 32,000?

The tabulation is bit scrambled. Question marks are blanks for Auschwitz deaths. The number for 1943 is 36,960. I understated it in fact.

Such a long and discursive post as Zulus is bound to go on-topic occasionally, if only by accident:

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.

Zulu is impartial; he does not read his own posts either. In his own long disquisition he has actually given a camp Auschwitz population 74,000 for August 1943, when it was still growing.

As for planned population, which is what really counts, I have seen the numbers 200,000 and 230,000 (for the whole camp complex?) bandied around by various writers. What we need is good evidence that such numbers were bandied around by the German authorities themselves before the decision was taken in to install 46 new muffles, bringing the planned total to 52 for the whole camp complex. This would preferably be evidence which was available to Pelt et al. when they set forth what must be regarded as the official case. If Zulu can source his big number convincingly he will have done something very important and relevant.

Another merit of Arthur Butz is that has he grasped a simple truth that some revisionists are unable to recognise. Planned crematoria are made for anticipated corpses, not anticipated populations. Butz found it self-evident that big eastern death rates must have had a big influence on cremation plans for big eastern camps. According to Lohengrin and Zulu the Nazis simply had some ideal ratio of muffles to every 4, 000 prisoners or so regardless of time or place. But according the documents adduced by Pelt, Prufer was proposing in late 1941 that one muffle might serve every 8,300 prisoners - much greater than the magic ratio which Lohengrin and Zulu derive “from observation”. Two months later it was down to about 5900. This reduction Pelt explains in terms – how else? - of an increase of death rate among Russian prisoners. Neither Pelt nor Hans nor Zulu nor Lohengrin has explained their assumption that later mega-deaths , an experience beyond all anticipation, would not have compelled an even more drastic revision.

Zulu wanders on-topic again:
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

Zulu assumes in late 1942 the authorities were planning or allowing that the camp might in the foreseeable future rise to something of the order 37,319. I have seen that number before, and it seems very credible. But in the face of Nickterry’s argument, which Zulu ignores, this number needs to be well documented; and it has to represent potential candidates for the main camp crematoria.

(Nickterry argued that we do not have any evidence of of any plans in 1942 for camp population expansion in 1943 beyond the 18000 actually achieved, which of course is not the same as having evidence that there were no such plans or allowances)

Zulu says that were two older ovens - I had only heard of one - one of them with two muffles, and he assumes and that these three old muffles were meant to be supplemented rather than superseded by the six new ones. That is not obvious.

I hope that Hans will not be tempted to argue that because certain revisionists think that the great epidemic of 1942 did not count for much, Pelt too would be justified in thinking it did not count for much. I hope he will put me right if I have failed to understand the "importance" of the zero dedicated morgue capacity. I hope that Nickterry will find time to supply us with Otto’s data on the thousands of commissars murdered at Buchenwald.

User avatar
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 (Tue Sep 28, 2010 3:57 am)

Planned population at Auschwitz
The mention of 200,000 is of Pressac who quotes a letter form Bischoff

"On 15th August 1942, a situation plan of the whole POW camp was completed [Document 15], projecting its extension to four construction stages, numbered (from south to north) IV, I, II, III, with a capacity of 60,000, 20,000, 60,000 and 60,000 respectively or a total of 200,000 prisoners. A letter of 27th August 1942, signed by Bischoff and addressed to the SS Construction Inspectorate at Posen for the Head of Office C/V of the SS WVHA in Berlin, confirmed that the "lodging" capacity of the POW camp was to be increased to 200,000 prisoners to [Soviet "October Revolution" Archives, microfilm 295, ref. 7021-108-32, page 41]." ... 0200.shtml

My source to the 230,000 planed inmates. It was from Van Pelt vs Irving.

"The new purpose is reflected in the figures. By the end of August 1942 the SS planned for 230,000 inmates, had ordered crematoria with a total anticipated incineration capacity of 120,000 corpses per month (crematorium 2: 40,000, crematorium 3: 40,000; crematorium 4: 20,000; crematorium 5: 20,000), but reduced the anticipated morgue capacity to 24,000 morgue units (100,000 cu ft.). In October 1942 the total anticipated inmate population had dropped to 170,000 inmates, but the projected incineration capacity remained at 120,000 corpses per month (crematorium 2: 40,000, crematorium 3: 40,000; crematorium 4: 20,000; crematorium 5: 20,000). The anticipated morgue capacity was increased to 48,000 morgue units (200,000 cu ft).
" ... coke.shtml

Van Pelt uses fallacious arguments by omitting the fact that SS required Zentral Sauna while there were asking for more muffles. It is evident that the constructions of crematorium AND Zentral sauna (why that last one is always omitted by exterminationists?) were required to face a difficult situation because previous typhus attacks.
The SS didn't plan the installations of Kremas by anticipating the number of deaths but by using a standard of construction e.g. 1 muffle per 4000/5000 inmates hosted. Just like they planed the number of barracks, morgues, delousing rooms, kitchens and latrines. The surface of morgues corresponds to the number of muffles installed at each crematorium. It can't be noted nothing weird on it.
It is important to find the documents related with the application of such standards at other camps which received similar installations like Dachau, Oranienburg etc...
It is obvious that, had SS planned to burn 1,2 millions of people with certainty they wouldn't have installed several batteries of civilian ovens with multiple tiny muffles while they had on hands large industrial incinerators. That is a simple question of industrial logic.
Exterminationists never answered to that simple question:
which specific installations distinguished concentration camps from so called "death camps".
The answer is NONE because it never existed "extermination camps" for the SS.
On all their statistics and correspondence, Auschwitz-Birekenau is treated like the other large concentration and labor camps.

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 (Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:34 am)

For some of us, big death rates and big plans for expansion are together more than enough to explain the 46 muffles. But Orthodoxy, with the support of Zulu, says that the big death rate was just a big coincidence. Plans to expand the camp were another big coincidence. These two big coincidences happened to come along around the time when Himmler decided that Birkenau would be the very spot for the quiet murder European Jewry by whatever method Hoess and Eichmann could come up with – provided it was better than methods used in the Eastern extermination centres

Zulu proves to his own satisfaction that death rates did not count, simply by re-asserting, against much evidence, that a high muffle-prisoner ratio was invariably planned.

He is on the money with the Bischoff letter, but that does not quite settle the matter. The orthodox case is that authorization to begin negotiations for all four new crematoria came in early July, well before the figure of 200,000 is supposed to have popped into Bischoff 's head, and just before the giant epidemic came along. That is what they say.

All this has been debated with much hissing and snarling, but very little clarity, by John Zimmerman and Carlos Mattogno. It is difficult to decide who is the more irritating. When I find time I might examine their arguments in laborious detail. On the other hand it might be more fun to go off somewhere and slash my wrists.

User avatar
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 (Wed Sep 29, 2010 11:47 am)

I never told that "a big death rates was just a coincidence". I don't see any coincidence on what I exposed here, just industrial and planning logic. If a camp had to be expanded so, all basic installations destined to the inmates must be increased on their capacity as well crematoriae and morgues as latrines or kitchens. Generally, standard of constructions are employed to establish the new capacity required accordingly with the increase of the numbers of inmates. Some research would expose such parameters used to plan installations at the main camps.
Under that aspect, no relevant discrepancy can be observed for the installations built at Auschwitz-Birekenau while compared with those of other large concentration or labor camps. Not even for the capacity of the crematoriae, as I previously showed.

However, that is true that mortality rates were high in Nazi concentration camps and that was real issue for the Nazis. That was the reason why , since the end of 1942, they implemented drastic prophylactic measures at their camps like the generalization of delousing treatments (Zyclon B) and the systematic cremation of cadavers.
Himmler ordered Pohl, responsible of the camps, to reduce the mortality rates by all means available. He expressed his satisfaction and gratitude when a dramatic reduction was finally observed.

Berlin, 30 September 1943

Reich Leader

Although in the month of December the mortality rate was still approximately
10 percent, in January 1943 it fell to 8 percent and continued to fall.

This reduction in the mortality rate is due primarily to the fact that the
hygienic measures which have long been demanded have now been carried out, at
least to a larger extent. Furthermore, it has been ordered in the field of
nutrition that one-third of the food, raw and properly chopped, be added shortly
before distribu- [.tion]

[distribu.] tion, to the cooked food. Cooking too long has been avoided.
Supplementary rations of sauerkraut and similar foods have been issued. In
regard to clothing, it has been ordered that the prisoners may keep their coats
on in the winter, insofar as their work permits. Unnecessary prolongation of
roll calls has also been avoided. Permitting prisoners to receive food shipments
individually has had a favorable effect.

The experiments with the distribution of yeast preparation were also

The above measures were aided by the fact that selected prisoners were
incorporated in a special cooking course in the training kitchen at Dachau. It
is intended to conduct a new cooking course inmthe near future.

Two tables [charts] are enclosed.

1. Comparison of deaths in the second half of 1942 with the first half of
1943 - this comparisonshows that the over-all average of the second half of 1942
was 9.89 percent while the over-all average of the first half of 1943 was only
5.72 percent.

2. Deaths in the month of August 1943 - since January 1943 the death rate
has fallen steadily, so that in the month of August it was only 2.09 percent.

A graph is also enclosed, illustrating the figures for the Sachsenhausen
concentration camp extremely well. Sachsenhausen contains 26,500 people, 194
cases of death or 0.73 percent. Similar graphs could be obtained for all the camps.

Although when bad weather begins, an increase in the death rate must be
expected, it is nevertheless certain that it will no longer exceed five or six

In Stutthof also, the death rate for the month of August 1943 fell to 3.45
percent while in the previous month it was still 5.69 percent. Only in the
Lublin concentration camp did the percentage figures rise again to two or three
percent. It is to be expected that when the planned hygienic measures are
carried out the mortality figures here will also no longer differ from those

Heil Hitler

[Signed] POHL
SS Obergruppenfuehrer

----> Himmler answer
Field Command Post, 8 October 1943
Personal Staff of Reich Leader SS
Document administration
No. Secret 64

The Reich Leader SS
Journal No. 38/133/43g

Subject: Deaths in concentration camps.
Reference: Your letter of 30 September 1943 -
Ch. /Po/Ha-VS No. 933/43


Dear Pohl:

I received your report of 30 September 1943-- concerning death in concentration
camps and can only more express to you and Your co-workers my thanks and my
gratitude for the result achieved. I am convinced that the latest difficulties
will also decrease to the extent when sewerage and better sanitary installations
are possible.

Heil Hitler!

[Signed] H. H.

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 2 weeks ago (Fri Oct 01, 2010 6:28 am)

Truism: the more live bodies you have, the more facilities you must have. A camp for 200,000 live might well have e.g. ten times more bed spaces than a camp for 20,000, because there might be few significant economies of scale in that particular. But there might well be significant economies of scale with respect to latrines and kitchens and even crematoria; in such cases any ratio of facilities-per-inmate, if it could be measured, would not be fixed; other things equal, it might in fact tend to decline with population.

Zulu suggests that the German robots who were designing an eastern camp for 200,000 live bodies would automatically have followed fixed ratio and thereby allotted it 46 muffles for its dead bodies. Any actual death rate with which this muffle-prisoner planning happened to coincide would therefore in every sense be a coincidence.

If “Research” can establish some such a fixed ratio it has to come from documents rather than achievements, since planned populations were seldom if ever attained. Actual populations were determined by unforeseen catastrophes of one sort or another. Any honest discussion of documents has to face those sources adduced by Pelt and already discussed ad nauseam by me. Once again: Pelt claims to have documentary evidence that in 1941 a ratio of 1:5000 was thought appropriate; later for a camp of 125 thousand, because of technical improvements, the ratio goes up to 1: 8000. Later yet , with a prospect of a rising death rate among Russian prisoners, as determined by recent experience, the rate goes down 1: 5,900. Mattogno, if I remember, has cited a 1942 document which apparently proposed that 15 muffles would be appropriate for a population of 30,0000. The implied ratio would be an (unbelievable) 1:2000. Maybe these and other such documents have been misinterpreted, and maybe by me. But that has to be demonstrated.

Truism: faced with catastrophic death rates all camps, the Germans would have taken measures to bring them down, and in 1942 would have been expected to succeed. You cannot even proceed to build a camp in which 28 percent of your labour force might die in a single month. Bringing this monthly rate down to “only” about 3.3 percent of the actual population, achieved during August 43 in Auschwitz, was counted as a remarkable success - though it was not maintained. But all that, according to Zulu, would be of no concern to the German robots in 1942. They would have built their 46 muffles even if no success had been expected at all, or alternatively even if they expected eastern death rates to match western death rates. Whether the monthly death rate of the full camp were to peak at 60,000 or “only” 6000 deaths would have been not be their concern. The vast difference between eastern death rates and western death rates, easily explained and therefore easily predicted, would have been of no concern either. Yet from the details attached to the well-known letters for September 1943 we know that, despite all the successes with hygiene measures such as delousing and fumigation, the death rates in the eastern camps (Auschwitz, Stutthoff, and Lublin) in August 1943 were still many times greater than in the western camps such as Buchenwald and Sachsenhausen. For every thousand of planned population there would predictably have been many times more deaths.

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

Re: Forty-six muffles? Auschwitz versus Buchenwald

Postby nathan » 9 years 11 months ago (Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:21 am)

The Zimmerman v Mattogno debate is easily found by googling back and forth from Zimmerman’s “My Response to Carlos Mattogo”. Messrs Z and M supply a lot of personalised invective - the dreary soul music of sectarian polemics – but they do not always supply clear sources. Among key sources which I cannot find online is Pressac’s second,1993 book Crematories at Auschwitz; machinery of mass murder. Perhaps some better googler than myself can find it, if only in German or French? According to Zimmerman, Pressac on page 215 of the English edition cites a document dated July 2 1942 , a reference with which he apparently supports the claim that Himmler ordered the Birkenau population to be doubled from a planned 100 thousand to a planned 200,000. I would like to know anything about that document.

Like many writers, Zimmerman cites the Polish Kalendarium as if it were a reliable primary source and treats its editor Danuta Czech as if she were an unbiased authority. That, however, does not mean she must always be wrong. We will have to see. Zimmerman gives a footnote:
Danuta Czech, "Origins of the Camp, Its Construction and Expansion", in Franciszek Piper and Teresa Swiebocka, Auschwitz: Nazi Death Camp (Oswiecim: 1996), 34. She emphasizes the point that in July the Bauleitung "had already begun negotiating with several firms over the construction of four - not two - large crematoria and gas chambers."/

If anyone happens to have the Piper/ Swiebocka book on their shelves I would be grateful if they can tell me whether Czech in her essay has supported the statement which Zimmerman ascribes to her - that already in July all four crematoria (not two) were in negotiation - with any contemporary German documentation. Her entries in the published Kalendarium would not be enough to sustain that claim. Living in isolation from libraries, I have already spent too much money buying secondary sources from Amazon in order to track down references, only to be led yet another secondary or postwar source.

Another document I cannot find is one in which Zimmerman refers in My Response:
“On July 15, 1942, twelve days after the typhus epidemic hit the camp, a Bauleitung memo stated that for the time being the camp's population would remain at 30,000 even though an eventual unspecified expansion was expected”

When nathan becomes King, a slow and painful death will be ordained for all those polemicists who do not either reproduce contentious and crucial documents or at least quote the key extracts in full. Very often the reader is expected to accept on faith a bald summary of some document footnoted to some secondary source leading back at best to some mysterious abbreviations in some foreign archive. That is what is called scholarship.

Nor will that incredibly hoity-toity gentleman Carlos Mattogno escape his cruel and unusual punishment. Both in his Preliminary Observations on Zimmermans Response and in a review “Frijhof Meyer’s New Revisionism" he leans heavily on a document:
A letter dated 10th July 1942 from Bischoff to Stutthof Concentration Camp states that the five triple-muffle ovens of the future Crematory II were designed for an anticipated camp population of 30,000.

He says somewhere that he has reproduced this document in a book, but does not say exactly where.

If nobody can offer any clues about the four mentioned documents I shall do what I can without them.

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 » 9 years 11 months ago (Wed Nov 03, 2010 2:43 pm)

nathan wrote:Nor will that incredibly hoity-toity gentleman Carlos Mattogno escape his cruel and unusual punishment. Both in his Preliminary Observations on Zimmermans Response and in a review “Frijhof Meyer’s New Revisionism" he leans heavily on a document:
A letter dated 10th July 1942 from Bischoff to Stutthof Concentration Camp states that the five triple-muffle ovens of the future Crematory II were designed for an anticipated camp population of 30,000.

He says somewhere that he has reproduced this document in a book, but does not say exactly where.

If nobody can offer any clues about the four mentioned documents I shall do what I can without them.

I don't find the document anywhere.

In Auschwitz lies (p. 101) ... f-hess.pdf
We see the following:

I shall spare the reader of this article the refutation of Zimmerman’s technical
foolishness, and shall limit this to mentioning one single document. This
concerns a letter of the head of the Cental Construction Office dated July 10,
1942, from which results that a crematorium of type II/III with 15 muffles was
projected for 30,000 prisoners, whereby the muffle-prisoner ratio was 1:2,000.
Thus the 46 muffles of Birkenau were projected for 92,000 prisoners, but according
to the final plans of the SS, the Birkenau camp was supposed to contain
140,000 prisoners, and 70 muffles were supposed to have been requested.
In practice, the number of muffles at Birkenau was really inadequate in regards
to the projected expansion of the camp!46

To which the footnote 46 See below, chapter II.12, p. 161. refers the reader to a chapter entitled "12. Connection between Camp Strength and Number of
Crematory Ovens". After using Dachau, Gusen, and Buchenwald as examples, they move onto Auschwitz (p. 168)...

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 ovens.
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 ovens.

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:
Dachau Buchenwald Auschwitz
Mortality in month, during which the
new ovens were planned
66 337 8,600
Number of planned new muffles 4 6 31224

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,”225
“Explanatory Report on construction project concentration camp Auschwitz

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:227
“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

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 secondhand
or third-hand sources. So here he only provides additional proof of his
crass ignorance and dilettantism.

It would appear even Mattogno doesn't need the source of Zimmerman's quote since it wouldn't make sense anyway, although he does infer it isn't going to be found.
Why the Holocaust Industry exists:

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

Re: Forty-six muffles? Auschwitz versus Buchenwald

Postby nathan » 9 years 11 months ago (Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:27 am)

Mattogno wrote, in Crematoria at Auschwitz:
Originally, only one new crematorium with 15 muffles was planned to be erected in Birkenau (crematorium II), but this plan was extended in 1942 to four crematoria with altogether 46 muffles. There were two related reasons for extending the cremation facilities in Birkenau. The first reason was an order given by Himmler during his visit to Auschwitz on July 17 and 18, 1942, to enlarge the camp so that it could hold 200,000 inmates.[162] The second factor was the inmates' mortality, caused by a terrible typhus epidemic that broke out in July 1942.

Yes, the recent past is a guide to the anticipated future. The actual future is a guide we never have, even though Zimmerman wrote:

....the actual expansion of the camp was accompanied by a substantial decrease in registered prisoner deaths from the summer of 1942. This means that the authorities anticipated fewer deaths on a higher camp population as the camp expanded, not a higher number of deaths of registered prisoners than occurred in the summer of 1942. (Body, 13, 14)
- My Response to Carlo Mattogno

“This means” they had foreknowledge of things known by Professor Zimmerman only with the vulgar wisdom of hindsight. It is true that the peak death rates of August 1943 when the population had reached 74,000 were lower than peak death rates of August 1942 when camp population was smaller than 30,000. But the authorities in August 1942 would have no grounds to “anticipate” any such a happy thing. Even today, nobody can say what the maximum death rates might have been if the Birkenau population had reached its target figure. Chances of epidemics in concentrated populations grow faster than numbers.

The proposal for an additional fifteen muffles was made in October 1941, according to Pressac to match a proposal to expand the Auschwitz II POW camp population to 125 thousand. I am not sure where exactly the figure 125,000 came from. Two auxiliary three-muffles ovens were then added to these proposals in January 42 according to Pelt as a result of “catastrophic conditions” recently experienced among Russian prisoners. Against this, John Zimmerman argues the six base camp muffles would have met the needs of the POW camp as originally planned in March 41. In October fifteen new muffles were added to cope with a future extermination of thousands of ordinary (non-Commissar) Russian POWs:

“”the planned expansion of Auschwitz in March 1941 to 130,000 was not accompanied by any proposal to expand the cremation capacity from the existing four ovens. (Body, 12) The only proposal for additional ovens came in the following September for one more double muffle oven which was added in the Spring of 1942. Auschwitz was not an extermination camp in the Spring of 1941. However, in October 1941 as Auschwitz became an extermination camp for Soviet POWs there is a proposal for an additional 15 ovens. This number jumps to 46 additional ovens as the camp becomes an extermination center for Jews.”

[As for the planned camp expansion to 200 000...]

“Bauleitung began negotiating with firms for construction of the four crematoria in July 1942, while the first evidence of the planned expansion to 200,000 is on August 15"
-My Response.....
[Emphases by nathan.]

As for natural mortality – the “second factor” – there was, well, no natural mortality. According to Zimmerman the infernal death rates of summer 1942 were due, not to what Pressac called “disastrous health conditions” but to a massive murder campaign secretly waged against the registered prisoners. It resembles his secret murder campaign envisioned for future Russian prisoners in October 41. I would dispute all these descriptions, but here there is no need to do so here. Any secret murders of registered prisoners - most of whom would have been Gentiles - would have been themselves a function of camp numbers and camp illnesses. The murders of any prisoners who became too sick to be cheaply cured would require only a marginal increase in cremation capacity - unlike those pre-meditated mega-murders of unregistered and healthy people who were killed simply because of their race. It would have been a feature of “ordinary” camps and can be included among the other things being equal.

Zimmerman’s source for 130,000, as an earlier target population for both camps, is Danuta Czech, Auschwitz Chronicle, who cites Hoess’ Polish trial testimony. It is not impossible that a plan for a vast camp to pool POW labour for nearby industries was mooted three months before the attack on Russia, though it would be interesting to know of any contemporary documentation. Even those who swear by Hoess’s narratives are sometimes obliged to denounce his chronology.
In his published Autobiography Hoess wrote:

“Himmler during his visit of March 1941 made things perfectly plain: the camp for 100 thousand prisoners of war[Birkenau], the enlargement of the old camp to hold 30,000, the earmarking of 10,000 prisoners for the synthetic rubber factory, all this emphasised his point. The numbers envisaged were at this time something entirely new in the history of concentration camps.”

In Hoess’ account the proposal is “not accompanied by” any proposal for the expansion in the number of huts or latrines. Nobody except Zimmerman would deduce from this that the existing number of huts and latrines in the base camp would give us a “true picture” of future needs in the POW camp nearby. Zimmerman is abusing the argument from silence. The six muffles in the expanding base camp are inferred by him to offer a “true picture” of the future needs of a vast nearby camp for POWs. Then, reconceived as an extermination camp for Russians, this camp needed a further fifteen muffles; when reconceived again as an extermination camp for European Jews, the number jumps from fifteen to forty-six.

What does seem the case is that between June and October the Germans suddenly held masses of Russian prisoners of whom a huge fraction were dying like flies, largely in the long transit between capture and base camp and largely as a consequence of hunger and privation. “In all, at least one million German prisoners died out of the 3,150,000 taken by the Red Army." (S.P. MacKenzie, "The Treatment of Prisoners of War in World War II," The Journal of Modern History, 66: 3 [September 1994], p. 511.”

After muddy October 1941 a quick victory could no longer be expected, and Russian labour could less affordably be squandered. In Technique and Operation, Pressac quite casually mentions:

on 4th December 1941, Topf received an order from Himmler's headquarters for four-twinned four-muffle (or four eight-muffle) furnaces, giving 32 cremation muffles, for the Mogilew prisoner of war camp in the Soviet Union. On 9th December 1941, Topf accepted what was to be known as the "Mogilew Contract".

From Pressac’s precise dating I conjecture that term “prisoner of war camp” appears in some document. No doubt for some thinkers these thirty-two muffles would in themselves be evidence enough that Mogilev was to be an extermination camp - just as those six muffles installed in Buchenwald in late 1942 are for NickTerry evidence enough that plans were ongoing for the secret extermination of thousands of ordinary Russian prisoners in the course of 1943. If any “ordinary” camp proves to have a relatively comparable number of muffles with an alleged extermination camp, I imagine that it can always be argued that it was therefore not really an ordinary camp after all. All that can be said about that methodology is that there is no arguing with it.

Though opinions do differ. Zimmerman:
Mattogno did not reveal some crucial information about the installation of the additional six ovens[sic] in Buchenwald. Shortly after the installation of those ovens the camp began to undergo a dramatic expansion in its population. It rose from 9500 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. 74 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. The prisoner to oven ratio in Buchenwald reached 10,000 to 1[sic]. Therefore, Mattogno is impeached by his own evidence.

Zimmerman uses “oven” interchangeably with “muffle.” He believes that recent death rates, which Mattogno had rightly calculated in terms of actual population, would not be a big enough factor to explain the six new muffles. Unlike Nickterry he does believe that anticipated population would be weigh heavily and therefore allows that these six new “ovens” were not unusual. Like Nickterry, as one can see, he is capable of eccentric arithmetic.

The Mogilev camp appears in Pressac as a projected labour camp for prisoners of war and in Zionist literature as an aborted extermination camp for Jews. Nobody really knows anything about it. As far as I can understand, sixteen of its thirty-two muffles were diverted to Birkenau and became Krema IV and Krema V. The other sixteen muffles, wherever else they went, did not go to Birkenau or Mogilev.

Mogilev was not the only projected prisoner of war camp that required many muffles. In his pamphlet Concentration Camp Stutthof, which can be found online, Mattogno writes:

A document from the Central Building Administration of Auschwitz offers a background explanation: on June 15, 1942, the Bauleitung of Stutthof concentration camp requested the Central Building Administration of Auschwitz for information on the installation of a crematorium. The head of the Central Building Administration, SS Hauptsturmführer Karl Bischoff, replied on July 10, enclosing the plans for the future Crematorium II of Birkenau, providing for the construction of "5 three-muffle crematory ovens"

In other writings Mattogno seems to claim that this unseen document establishes another Zulu-esque standard muffle/prisoner ratio: fifteen every 30,000, or one to every 2,000. Mattogno can never think of a conclusion without jumping to it, however distant be it from his premises. This July 10 document cited by Mattogno concerning muffle/prisoner ratio is not to be confused with a July 15 document quoted by Zimmerman as evidence of a temporary freeze on the Auschwitz population at 30,000. Mattogno makes heavy weather of that document in the passages quoted above by Warden. It is of no interest here

It is not clear whether the figure 30,000 is specifically mentioned by Bischoff in the July 10 document, nor which camp - Stutthoff or Auschwitz - was in his mind. But Mattogno does usefully reproduce in his Stuthoff pamphlet a Himmler letter, dated December 41 in which Himmler proposes to add on to the small Stuthoff camp a POW camp for 20,000 Russian prisoners. So perhaps this whole camp, staff included, might be expected to grow to 30,000. But also in July there were some fewer than 30,000 prisoners in Auschwitz/ Birkenau itself. Until we see this July 10 document, all we can say is that any camp would need a lot more muffles if it was expected to house as many as twenty thousand Russian prisoners

Zimmerman says that the “first evidence” of the plan to house no less than 200,000 prisoners at Birkenau is on August 15. But this first evidence is an elaborate and completed “situation plan” for a camp the size of a large but overcrowded town, a project which had to have been authorised weeks earlier. It can be inspected in Pressac’s “Technique..” as Document 15 on page 203, linked below, along with mention of a letter by Bischoff which apparently confirms the 200,000 figure. For polemical ends, Zimmerman and Danuta Czech need an earlier date for the 46 muffle proposal, and a later date for the 200,000 proposal. Forty-six muffles conceived in July: 200,000 prisoners planned in August: effect cannot precede cause. But these proposals and plans were not events but processes with gestation periods between first suggestion and first excavation. An earlier date within one process will easily come before a date of decision in the other.

Zimmmerman , (My Response...) writes:
Mattogno then quotes Pressac as writing in his essay on "The Machinery of Mass Murder at Auschwitz" that "Himmler ordered that the camp should accommodate 200,000 inmates, and the Zentralbauleitung had completed a design for the enlarged camp at the end of July." However, Pressac did not cite a source. Pressac also wrote about Himmler's visit to the camp on July 17:

“...Himmler ordered Hoss [the camp commandant] to speed up the work, to raise the camp's population capability from 100,000 to 200,000, and to get rid of the repugnant pits full of corpses behind the bunkers. Hoss also received a promotion to the rank of lieutenant colonel in the SS.”

However, the only source Pressac cites is a document dated July 2, which means that it could not have dealt with Himmler's visit which occurred more than two weeks later.

A document dated July 2 might actually serve the revisionist case better than anything dated two weeks later. But I do not know what this document was, or what it was in it. Zimmerman says that Pressac cites it on page 215 of the English translation of Crematories of Auschwitz, which I cannot get hold of. As to the crematoria, Zimmerman accepts the authority of Danuta Czech, "Origins of the Camp, Its Construction and Expansion", in Franciszek Piper and Teresa Swiebocka, Auschwitz: Nazi Death Camp (Oswiecim: 1996), 34. Where, according to him she emphasises that in July already the Bauleitung - he seems to be quoting some of her exact words "had already begun negotiating with several firms over the construction of four - not two - large crematoria and gas chambers." Zimmerman demands sources of Pressac for an initial date of the expansion plan; he does not demand sources of Czech for the initiating date of the “four large crematoria and gas chambers” negotiations; he simply accepts her conclusion. We have to wait to see how she derived it. It is possible that she has included negotiations for the two small auxiliary “crematoria”, each with three muffles, which had been pending since January.

Zimmerman would like to argue that the decision to expand from about 100,000 to200,000 came only after Himmler’s visit in July 17, and therefore well after negotiations for all “four large crematoria” had been initiated – or so he says Danuta Czech says..
There is a Situation Plan on page 195 of Pressac's Technique (document 10B page 195, linked below) which Pressac conjecturally dates as July 6. It pictures a camp which in my guess might well serve of 100,000. It shows what we call Krema II in roughly the place where it did end up. Later this plan is superseded by our big Situation Plan at document 15 page 203, which shows a camp suitable for 200,000. It pictures two crematoria resembling what we call Krema II and Krema III flanking the western (top) side of the camp. Duplicating Krema II is just what one might expect if it were suddenly proposed to double of the size of the planned POW camp. Hoess had described a camp population of 100,000 as something new in the history of concentration camps. The new plan was for a doubly unheard-of 200,000. A typically totalitarian project.

The bigger Situation Plan for this huge undertaking was signed off on August 15, but would hardly have been knocked off that very morning. There is more to a big plan than a big drawing. The drawing has to embody weeks of consultations and discussions. Hoess in his Autobiography describes how Himmler on July 17 inspected the Birkenau site, including water drains still under construction “and he was shown the extent of the proposed expansion.” That extent had already been demarcated for his inspection. The idea that Himmler, having expressed general satisfaction, went home on the 18th and waited for August 15 to order another proposed expansion doubling the previous proposed expansion is itself unlikely; that Hoess would have made no mention such an amazing disruption in his memoirs is unthinkable. It is just the sort of thing Hoess’ captors would have encouraged him to complain about.

On the face of it, we have a proposal in July to create a camp of unprecedented scale, to be burdened with a population twice that of a large overcrowded town, to be situated on a near-swamp and to be peopled by tens of thousands of forced labourers imported from that lice-ridden east of horrendous World War I memory. In parallel we have a proposal to expand its cremation capacity, also on an unprecedented scale. Both proposals transpired around July and gestated in tandem. No surprises there.

The enlargement plan may possible have resulted from a decision not to build a large prisoner of war camp at Mogilev. That is mere speculation on my part. But it is hard to see how the two eight-muffle Krema could have been part of any negotiations “for four large crematoria and gas chambers” in early July, as Danuta Czech is said to have argued. According to Pressac (Technique.. linked below, page 202) it was suggested by Prufer on the 10th August that these two eight-muffle Krema should replace the two “auxiliary” three-muffle ovens or “crematoria” left over from pre-genocidal proposals and which nobody had yet decided where to locate. Pressac says Prufer was “exploiting to the full the disastrous health conditions in the camp.” If Pressac has been accurate, these ten (16-6) extra muffles clearly postdated the visit of Himmler and coincided with the crisis of the epidemic.

If so, any July negotiations can have involved no more than thirty-six muffles for the POW camp, twenty-one of which were inherited from the old days and fifteen of which (the proposed Krema III) can be very naturally explained by the proposed expansion as shown on the bigger Situation Plan. But in the Zimmerman/Czech view, remarkably, the decision to double the size of the camp had no influence at all on plans for cremation capacity. None. Neither did what Pressac calls “disastrous health conditions”. The negotiations for the 46 muffles had already begun because at some (always unspecified) date in the Spring of 1942 it had been already been decided by Himmler that Auschwitz was to become a centre for the extermination of millions of west and central Europeans. By July, Bunker 1 and Bunker 2 were already producing their output, at least doubling the normal source of corpses.

Faced with such events and prospects, it is a big surprise that on July 6, by Pressac’s dating of the earlier Situation Plan, the Bauleitung was still faffing around with a plan for 21 (15 plus 6 unshown auxiliary) muffles which derived from an earlier pre-genocidal moment. But it would be no big surprise that many more muffles than 21 would be needed if the camp was to be doubled in size. That something would be Krema III, which appears on the plan for a 200,000 camp but does not appear on the plan for a 100,000 camp. The further net addition ten muffles according to Pressac did not enter the picture until a time of “disastrous health conditions.” I wait to see if Danuta Czech’s article can change my mind.

An objection I have to answer is that at the end of October 1942 it was decided to reduce the population target from 200,000 to 140,000 ; but there was no corresponding reduction in the target of 46 muffles.
Pressac writes:
The date of 15th August 1942 is to be considered as the end of the gestation period for the FOUR KREMATORIEN of the POW camp and the beginning of their construction. In fact the contracts for the building work on Krematorien II and III were awarded on 29th July The first drawing for the future Krematorium IV [PMO file BW 30b 30c/22, drawing 1678] was produced on 14th August. The contract for the construction of the four chimneys for the TWO OTHER KREMATORIEN (IV and V], of a different model from II and III, was awarded to Messrs Robert Koehler on 20th August 1942 [file BW 30/26, pages 52 and 53]. Thus the incineration capacity of the camp was to be increased to 52 muffles while on 19th August 1942 at the evening roll call there were EMPHASIS 22,925 prisoners in the camp. AS AT MID AUGUST 1942, the criminality of the Krematorien, normally by definition installations planned for health reasons, is evident from the fact that THEIR CAPACITY WAS EXCESSIVE IN RELATION TO THE REAL NEEDS OF THE CAMP, without there being any need to demonstrate the presence of homicidal gas chambers inside them, which is in fact difficult to establish at that date.
Technique....p200. Pressac’s emphases

One must concede to Pressac that fifty two muffles, if built for a camp of 22,925, would be clear evidence of criminality. The fact that he resorts to such arguments shows that he has need of them. If all contracts were signed at the end of August then the number in the Bauletung mindset at the time of decision, and which would govern that decision, must have been 200,000. When at the end of October it was decided to lower the number to 140,000, the forty six muffles were a done and dusted deal involving private companies; disastrous health conditions had not ceased to be a likely prospect. And those sixteen Mogilev muffles, which had long ago been contracted for, probably had no better place to go.

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

Re: Forty-six muffles? Auschwitz versus Buchenwald

Postby nathan » 9 years 11 months ago (Mon Nov 15, 2010 5:51 am)

I forgot to add the links for Pressac's Technique and Operation....

Also below, a reminder of those six auxiliary muffles, which Zimmerman seems not to know of. These six proposed muffles are not to be confused with the six actual muffles of the Stammlager Old Crematorium which were closed down in 1943. Pressac and Pelt both agree that the big Krema II fifteen-muffle building was originally to be built next door to the old one in the Stammlager itself, so there must be a source for that, though it seems to me a strange plan.

As regards Auschwitz II, Zimmerman's suggested accumulation of proposals is: fifteen muffles in October, then a leap to forty-six muffles somewhere between Spring and early July. My sequence is: fifteen muffles in October; twenty-one muffles in January; thirty-six muffles in late July; forty six muffles in late August.

How Auschwitz III figures in all this I have no idea. ... operation/ ... 0195.shtml ... 0203.shtml

Pelt Report, as linked by Hans the mortality rate of the prisoners of war began to rise, the plans of the camp were changed. In December 1941 Bischoff ordered the creation of a new master plan, which was completed in the first week of January 1942. ... elements of this plan relate directly to the catastrophic conditions... the western edge of Building Section II and Building Section III a new zone was designated which was to include two auxiliary crematoria and ten corpse cellars. The plan was approved on January 6, 1942, and a few weeks later Prüfer returned to Auschwitz to discuss the incinerators to be used. The engineer proposed to equip each with a simplified version of his triple-muffle furnace..... these were to be built in addition to the large crematorium........

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

Re: Forty-six muffles? Auschwitz versus Buchenwald

Postby nathan » 9 years 10 months ago (Sun Dec 05, 2010 6:52 am)

I have found the Swiebocka volume, which I shall discuss later in the week. I also googled “forty-six muffles” and found that I actually do have one reader.

In this completely pointless thread, 4 members of the HC clowns have posted, Nathan, who is probably Jonathan Harrison, Hans, who is better known as the exposed Mike Peters, Nick Terry, and one Joachim Neander. So 4 people from RODOH / HC now having a nice discussion on a holocaust denier site.

Larry half-believes that I am Jonathan Harrison. That would be the same Jonathan Harrison who once called me a “moronic babbler”. Or was it a “chimp”? I cannot remember. (But how could I manage to forget these piquant and witty sallies?)

Larry is instantly recognisable as that blogger whose purpose in life is to invent and advertise websites wherein various invented personages traduce members of the Rodoh Forum. A strange existence - the words “completely pointless” somehow come to mind. Life has obviously not been kind to Larry. But for my part I refuse to make fun of him, and anyway I am not going to knock my only reader. The fact that my only reader is a solitary obsessive, with no interest whatever in German history, has one advantage: it means that nobody has noticed my mistakes. I did make a bad mistake in my previous post which shall own up to later.
I learned this mistake through Carlo Mattogno’s review of a book by Schulte in volume 2 of Inconvenient History 2010. I took a low view of Mattogno’s wretched tirade against Zimmerman. This is much better, much more lucid, much less concerned with Mattogno’s own reputation. The review quotes passages from documents which, combined with Pressac’s documents, would have instantly put paid to Zimmerman’s tortured insinuations about the chronology of camp expansion. I recommend it to anyone who is willing to think about it. ... rkenau.php

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

Re: Forty-six muffles? Auschwitz versus Buchenwald

Postby nathan » 9 years 10 months ago (Tue Dec 14, 2010 7:16 am)

Those big well-documented events of 1942 offered an obvious explanation those big well-documented crematoria. Some have denied the obvious, or simply ignored it. Denier Pelt’s “complex” arguments, as sponsored by Hans, dealt with 1942 by simply “fastforwarding” through it. Evidence for homicide could then include the sinister fact that the actual camp of 1943 had zero dedicated morgue capacity; the evidence for this zero dedicated morgue capacity included the sinister fact that the dedicated morgues were used for homicide. This deliriously circular argument will probably be defended by Hans, though he has yet to do so. Denier Zimmerman at one point argued that the planners in 1942 had perfect foreknowledge of 1943. While planning cremation capacity for a camp of some 200,000, the planners simultaneously knew that it would never in fact reach half that number and so could foresee that 1943 would produce fewer corpses than 1942. Excess cremation capacity of 1943, having been planned in 1942, was added evidence of planned genocide.

In late 41 fifteen new muffles were planned for the POW camp at Birkenau according to Zimmerman because earlier plans for a more ordinary PoW camp had turned into plans for an “extermination” camp for Russian prisoners of war. The number of planned muffles then made a prodigious leap from fifteen to forty-six when it was decided in Spring 1942 (in Zimmmerman’s chronology) to make Auschwitz the main extermination centre for Europe’s Jewish citizens. He also insinuated that the planned expansion of the POW camp to 200,000 could have had no influence on planned cremation capacity. For, he pointed out, the “first evidence” of a camp for 200,000 came in mid-August 42, whereas negotiations for all 46 muffles had been initiated no later than July 1942. Ante hoc ergo non propter hoc. His basis for making the latter claim was that Danuta Czech had also made it. He quoted her (correctly) as saying, very pointedly, that negotiations “already” began in July “not for two”, but for four large crematoria “and gas chambers”.
If I seem to have caricatured the arguments, it is merely because I have clarified them. Otherwise, let someone elucidate their uncaricatured logic.

Carol Mattogno has performed many admirable researches, as he would be the first to admit, though I myself would not always trust him to interpret his findings cautiously and fairly. However, he is unlikely to have got the following quotations wrong:

Complete references can be found in his review of Schulte’s book, as linked previously:
1st November 1941 Kammler:
“I hereby issue the related construction order for a Kriegsgefangenenlager at Auschwitz intended to house 125,000 POWs“

22 June 1942 Kammler to Bischof:
Please let me know immediately how many barracks you need for completion of the POW camp to house 150,000 POWs”

June 29 1942, Bischoff:
“Since according to the order from the Reichsführer-SS and head of the German police, the camp had to be expanded from 125,000 POWs to 150,000 POWs........

3 August, 1942, Bischoff:
“The expansion of the project has been presented to..... Dr Kammler during the Reichsführer’s visit on 17 and 18 July 1942. Please indicate your approval on a copy of the annexed plan and return it to us promptly”. [Bingo]

27 August 1942, Bischoff:
“The annexed plan has already taken account of the expansion of the capacity of the camp for POWS recently requested to 200,000 persons”.

Expanding population plans, expanding death rates, expanding cremation plans. Documents establish unambiguously that all these things did happen, and indicate roughly when they happened. I think Mattogno has laid a solid timeline for the expansion proposals, and there can be little dispute about when the health crises occurred.
For cremation capacity I suggested the following cumulative totals:

October 1941 15 muffles (future Krema II)
January 1942 21 muffles (includes six “auxiliary” )
Late July 1942 36 muffles( includes Krema III)_
Late August 1942 46 muffles (sixteen Mogilev muffles replace six “auxiliary” muffles.

This proposed sequence for muffle growth follows the other two sequences closely and naturally enough to be explained by them. The synchronicity is strong. It is based largely on documents that Pressac has reproduced and partly on the assumption that he and Pelt have been accurate about documents I have not seen.

Zimmerman/ Czech’s implied sequence for muffle growth is based on nothing at all. I have now looked at Czech’s essay in the Swiebocka/Piper collection. As Zimmerman cannot have failed to notice, her claim about July negotiations for crematories - four, not two in number and large, not small in size - “and gas chambers” comes out of thin air. It has no source. Czech needs an early date because she adheres to a very early date of the genocide plan. Zimmerman has to be vague about the one because he is vague about the other. His sequences are: A Spring decision to make Auschwitz a death factory, then a sudden leap from fifteen to forty-six muffles.

If correct, my sequence fits the chronology of camp expansion plans and epidemics. It cannot fit so easily with the agreed chronology for genocide because there is no agreed chronology for genocide. We lack a fourth a timeline for the decisions and events that turned Auschwitz a genocide factory. There are no documents known to me unambiguously proving that these decisions and events actually did happen; so there is confusion among the orthodox about when they happened. Danuta Czech herself would not accept Zimmerman’s Spring dating. Rudolf Hoess insisted that the summons to Berlin occurred before the assault on Russia, and he famously stuck to that date throughout all his testimonies. The museum functionaries Piper and Czech have to stick to it too; otherwise they would have too much to discard from their official cremation story, a story in which the fifteen muffle crematorium proposed in October 1941 was already designed for genocide and the genocide began in the early months of 1942.

Since Butz published his book in 1976, and possibly because of it (?), Hoess’s dating has had to been re-classified by western orthodoxy as a simple honest lapse of memory. Keeping Hoess’ own date would generate too many anachronisms to maintain the admissibility of his other testimony. (Revised datings, though, remove some anachronisms only to create others). The scholarly consensus now, I think, is that Nazi policy shifted from a program of expulsion and decimation in late 41 to one of complete industrialised extermination in early 42. The earliest dating for the undocumented and moveable Berlin meeting now has to be some unspecified moment in “Spring”, although that barely leaves time for Bunker 1 to swing into action in March 1942. Pressac (Crematoires) places the Berlin meeting at the beginning of June, with instructions to begin operations on first of July 1942. So no bunker gas chamber could have been operating in “en serie” before then.

Pressac needs as late a date as possible because he is closer to the documents. The documents suggest that a long time was taken to arrive at a plan for all forty six muffles because a long time was taken to arrive at a plan for some 200,000 prisoners. It could take many months actually to build the crematoria and bring them on stream, because it would take many months to physically expand and then populate the big camp. But if the steady creation of a million extra-curricular corpses at Auschwitz had begun already, then the observed timetable for cremation capacity would seem impossibly dilatory. Even a late Spring decision would have required the authorities to get cracking - as is implicitly recognised in the Zimmerman jump-cut from fifteen to forty six proposed muffles.

Pressac could ascribe sinister purpose to those August proposals concerning the Mogilev muffles - additional to the obvious purpose of revising the estimate of “disastrous health conditions” – a bit less implausibly if bunkers 1 and 2 had become busy gas chambers only as recently as July. But even given a June 42 Berlin meeting, it still took a year before all the four crematoria were up and running. This shilly-shallying would seem less surprising however if the tempo of allocation and construction was driven, not by current trainloads of murder victims, but by the anticipated death rates of a future camp population which did not begin seriously to expand until around the end of February 1943.

Pressac’s writings are riddled with wild inferences and inconsistent conjectures. Like the anonymous authors of the “Broad Report,” he sometimes imagines that he is writing a historical novel. One should trust his documents not his text. His text may have influenced my guess that the situation plan on page 195 of Technique, as linked by in my earlier post, would serve a camp of 100,000. I cannot find this magnitude in any document and it is certainly too small. Nevertheless the two situation plans I linked, one before Himmler’s visit and one after, are still by themselves very strong evidence. The proposed duplication of Krema II, appearing for the first time on the August plan, absent from the smaller preceding plan, was a consequence of the bigger camp expansion plan. Pressac at one point treats this as perfectly obvious; at another point he finds an “incriminating trace” in the fact that the duplicated Krema needed approval for scarce materials from the RSHA rather than the RWHA.

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests