New Auschwitz-Birkenau book refutes revisionists! Haha Hans!

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1090
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

New Auschwitz-Birkenau book refutes revisionists! Haha Hans!

Postby Werd » 4 years 7 months ago (Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:57 pm)

I found this through the holocaustcontroversies website.



http://en.auschwitz.org/m/index.php?pag ... &Itemid=57
Image

Not published until today source materials make it possible to fill in to a considerable degree the historical knowledge about functioning of the first gas chambers in Auschwitz.

As a result of extensive searches conducted in both the Zentralbauleitung collection and the other Auschwitz Museum archival resources, a range of interesting and previously unknown documents has been identified. The majority of them (over 70) are presented in the book "The Beginnings...", divided into six basic thematic sections:

— the history of the gas chamber at crematorium I in the Auschwitz I camp;
— the functioning of the provisional gas chambers in Birkenau, known as bunkers I and II (“The Little Red House” and “The Little White House”);
— the wooden barracks used as undressing rooms for the people murdered in bunkers I and II;
— the history of the unloading ramp where Jews deported to Auschwitz underwent selection;
— the establishment of the Sonderkommando and its first year of existence;
— the mass murders, known as “special operations,” carried out in the camp.

These documents make it possible significantly to clarify the chronology of events and to confirm facts known until now only through witness accounts.

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH-POLISH.


Igor Bartosik, Łukasz Martyniak, Piotr Setkiewicz. The Beginnings of the Extermination of Jews in KL Auschwitz in the Light of the Source Materials
Publisher: Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, Oświęcim 2014
255 p., 26 x 18 cm, hard cover
ISBN: 978-83-7704-73-7

It seems to me like they are TERRIFIED of these books by Carlo Mattogno.

ImageImage
ImageImage

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1090
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: New Auschwitz-Birkenau book refutes revisionists! Haha H

Postby Werd » 4 years 7 months ago (Tue Dec 02, 2014 6:18 pm)

Hans has his own writeup too.
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... sites.html

Curiously these documents which supposedly mention 'bunker' specifically were apparently missed by mattogno and only recently found. Mattogno does say in his study on the bunkers that he found no document with the word bunker in them.

Bunker 1 was mentioned by its proper name (as coined by the Auschwitz SS, e.g. commandant's office, Political Department) in two letters exchanged between the camp administration and the central construction office in March 1944. The camp administration asked to use the power supply leading to "Bunker 1 Birkenau" as control line for sirens, since it was no longer needed there (Bunker 1 was apparently not dismantled but kept idle as a back-up in 1943):

Hence, it is requested to provide the cable - 4 x 6 m² [sic] 1 KV - to Bunker I., Birkenau, which is no longer needed, for this purpose to the SS camp administration.

(letter camp administration to central construction office Auschwitz of 18 March 1944, Bartosik et al, p. 101)

The central construction office agrees to provide the cable 4 x 6 mm², which is released from the provisional supply line to Bunker I, Birkenau, for the control line of the sirens to the SS camp administration on loan.

(letter central construction office to camp administration Auschwitz of 2 March 1944, Bartosik et al., p. 101)

The term Bunker certainly did not designate a wooden barrack but a more massive structure. Moreover, it was (originally) located somewhat outside the camp infrastructure, since it had to be provided with a long provisional power supply (else the cable would not be suitable as control line for sirens). It was therefore likely one of the former farmhouses shown on the maps of the Birkenau area. Since there was a Bunker I, logically, there had to be a Bunker II.

Another document reveals a set of 3 barracks was located at each Sonderkommando 1 and 2:
1. at special detail 1 3 pieces of horse stable barracks
2. at special detail 2 3 "

(memo of 10 February 1943, Bartosik et al, p. 135, the document is apparently also cited in Mattogno, Special Treatment in Auschwitz, p. 102, but curiously he only mentions "Sonderkommando I [sic]")

Hans also claims that finally, evidence that Mattogno did not see, or either ignored, has come to light talking about railways. Let's refer to Mattogno's The Bunkers of Auschwitz on page 43.
3.4.8. Road Works
For the victims to be transported to the ‘Bunkers’ by truck (by day, all those unable to walk, and everybody by night), it was also necessary to build a suitable road. The construction reports describe the road works during the month covered in detail, but they do not contain the slightest trace of linking any ‘Bunkers’ to the camp. The construction report for March, under the entry “road works,” mentions beginning work on the road linking the “Deutsche Haus” to the Auschwitz camp as well as works within the Birkenau camp.111 The construction report for May informs us of the continuation of work on the road from “Deutsches Haus” to the Auschwitz camp (450 meters = 1,500 ft.), of a road of 600 meters from the Main Industrial Camp to the new stables, and also of road works within the Birkenau camp.112 The construction report for June, finally, refers only to the progress on the two roads just mentioned.113


111 “Baubericht für Monat März 1942,” written by Bischoff on April 3, 1942. RGVA, 502-1-24, p.
385.
112 “Baubericht für Monat Mai 1942” written by Bischoff on June 2, 1942. RGVA, 502-1-24, p. 263.
113 “Baubericht für Monat Juni 1942” written by Bischoff on July 2, 1942. RGVA, 502-1-24, p. 222.

What does Hans have in response?
Sonderkommando 1 was working a with narrow gauge track system for transporting the corpses:

Some time ago, the central construction office Auschwitz has provided material for narrow gauge railways, namely rails and trolleys, for special detail I. This material for narrow gauge railways, which is not used there anymore, is urgently needed by the construction office of the POW camp.

(letter construction office to commandant's office Auschwitz of 24 December 1943, Bartosik et al., p. 211)

special detail 1 = bunker 1? :? According to Hans, yes.
By 10 February 1943, these barracks were assigned for effects storage according to the document at least in the mind of the central constrction office. The date is a few weeks before the first crematorium went into operation with its gas chambers and when the Bunker sites were still in operation. This can be explained in such way that either it was considered more important to store the clothes than to provide a shelter for the undressing of the victims or that this assignment was purely formal at thetime, e.g. based on the promised completion of crematorium 2 on 31 January 1943.

That these barracks were originally not meant for storing effects (or desinfestation) but for activities related to body disposal is shown by the following document:
For carrying out of a special measure, I have provided 3 barracks from the construction section III of the POW camp some time ago. After the crematoria have been completed for a long time and were handed over to your administration, the above mentioned loaned barracks at special detail I are no longer needed.
...
I have given the order that the barracks at special detail I are to be dismantled and erected in the construction section III.

(letter from the central construction office to Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höß of 4 February 1944:, Bartosik et al., p. 147)

The body disposal activity is confirmed by an order of 10 February 1943 for "200 kg chlorinated lime" for "Sonderkommando Birkenau" (Bartosik et al., p. 203).

He then concludes:
In short, these German documents confirm and corroborate the existence of the Bunker sites and the body disposal activity of the Sonderkommando according to numerous testimonial evidence.

I'm not saying Hans is lying about this new book when he quotes from it. But I would love to see the full RGVA references and I would love to see a photocopy of the originals.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9778
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: New Auschwitz-Birkenau book refutes revisionists! Haha H

Postby Hannover » 4 years 7 months ago (Tue Dec 02, 2014 7:06 pm)

Werd:
I'm not saying Hans is lying about this new book when he quotes from it. But I would love to see the full RGVA references and I would love to see a photocopy of the originals.
You will not see photocopies of the full RGVA referenced originals since the originals do not say what is alleged when read in their entirety. The authors and 'Hans' inability to produce & display full original documents necessarily means that their efforts are fraudulent and utterly desperate. Simple as that.
'Hans' has also been demolished time after time at this forum, anyone can check for themselves, his own embarrassing efforts defeat him. It's a rout, not even close.
In addition, a quick check of two of the authors reveals they are paid to conjure up this nonsense. Igor Bartosik and Piotr Setkiewicz both work for the Auschwitz-Birkenau mu$eum / theme park. A huge conflict of interest exists, they are not impartial or unbiased historians.

I challenge anyone to debate the claims about 'the bunkers' at this forum.

See here for take downs of the 'Bunkers claims:
http://codoh.com/library/document/1458/
The 'Discovery' of 'Bunker 1' at Birkenau: Swindles, Old and New
By Carlo Mattogno

http://codoh.com/library/document/1193/
The Bunkers of Auschwitz, Black Propaganda versus History
By Carlo Mattogno

http://codoh.com/library/document/2251/
The First Gassing at Auschwitz: Genesis of a Myth
Paper Presented to the Ninth International Revisionist Conference
By Carlo Mattogno

go to: http://codoh.com/
search: bunkers auschwitz

As for poor discredited 'Hans', how does anyone describe someone who is consistently not truthful?

The more they talk, the worse it becomes for them. They would be better off keeping their mouths shut. As usual, Revisionists will have a field day with this so called "The Beginnings of the Extermination of Jews in KL Auschwitz in the Light of the Source Materials".

Of course, 'No human remains as alleged, no 'holocaust' as alleged'.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of Truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9778
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: New Auschwitz-Birkenau book refutes revisionists! Haha H

Postby Hannover » 4 years 7 months ago (Tue Dec 02, 2014 8:27 pm)

Hans and the 'authors':
The body disposal activity is confirmed by an order of 10 February 1943 for "200 kg chlorinated lime" for "Sonderkommando Birkenau" (Bartosik et al., p. 203).
This is hilarious and utterly unscientific, it has nothing to do with "body disposal".
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictio ... nated+lime
chlo·ri·nat·ed lime
a mixture of varying proportions of complexes of chlorine with calcium oxide and calcium hydroxide. Contains 24-37% available chlorine. Decomposes in moist conditions to liberate chlorine. Strong irritant due to chlorine vapors. Used for disinfecting drinking water and sewage; in the bleaching of wood pulp, linen, cotton, straw, oils, soaps, and laundry; as an oxidizer; in destroying caterpillars; and as a decontaminant for mustard gas and similar substances.
Synonym(s): bleaching powder
and:
chlorinated lime is a white powder used for bleaching or disinfecting.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency ... 002773.htm
So 'Hans' and the paid nutters think that chlorinated lime proves their point. I guess the Germans are now accused of bleaching corpses for some unknown reasons. And why would anyone disinfect corpses that were supposedly cremated? Fact: Lime would actually slow up the decomposition of bodies rather than assist in their disposal.

This is too easy.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of Truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1090
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: New Auschwitz-Birkenau book refutes revisionists! Haha H

Postby Werd » 4 years 7 months ago (Tue Dec 02, 2014 10:41 pm)

Hans' first two cited documents discussing Bunker 1 come from March 1944. This is a problem because according to official historiography, the Bunker 1 house was no longer needed or used for gassing. Let us consult Mattogno's book.

7.6. The Timetable of the Birkenau ‘Bunkers’

Elevating the propaganda legend to history brought with it another problem to be solved: that of the dates.

As we have seen above, the Polish-Soviet experts asserted that ‘Bunker 1’ had been in operation “for about a year and a half” and had been demolished in March-April 1943. It follows that it began operations in September-October 1941. ‘Bunker 2’ operated for “a year and ten months,” including six months in 1944, hence went into service in October of 1941.

In his article of 1946, Jan Sehn accepted these dates and asserted that the two ‘Bunkers’ had started operations in autumn 1941. Dawidowski gave March 1942 or ‘after March 1942’ for the beginnings of their operation. The verdict in the Höß trial mentions the spring of 1942 as the launch date.

In the first edition (1960) of the Auschwitz Chronicle, Danuta Czech tried to integrate the divergent dates, asserting that ‘Bunker 1’ had gone into service in January 1942 and ‘Bunker 2’ on June 30 of the same year.552 In the 1989 edition of the Auschwitz Chronicle, Czech moved the inauguration of ‘Bunker 1’ to March 20, 1942, leaving that of ‘Bunker 2’ unchanged. Finally, Jean-Claude Pressac moved the starting date of ‘Bunker 1’ once again, to the end of May 1942.553

All the dates proposed are absolutely arbitrary, and are not corroborated by even the slightest circumstantial evidence.

552 D. Czech, “Kalendarium der Ereignisse im Konzentrationslager Auschwitz-Birkenau,” in: Hefte
von Auschwitz, no. 3, Staatliches Museum Auschwitz, 1960, p. 49 and 68.
553 Cf. chapter 1.6. above.

This also means that Hans' document talking about a railway for transporting corpses for 'special detail 1' dating from December 1943, can not possibly refer to a bunker 1 that was already gone by March-April 1943 as Mattogno has just stated.

Hans really needs to try harder.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9778
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: New Auschwitz-Birkenau book refutes revisionists! Haha H

Postby Hannover » 4 years 7 months ago (Tue Dec 02, 2014 11:12 pm)

Voila!
Werd blows away more of the 'holocaustian' lies yet again.

Good work, comrade.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of Truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1090
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: New Auschwitz-Birkenau book refutes revisionists! Haha H

Postby Werd » 4 years 7 months ago (Wed Dec 03, 2014 12:38 am)

This is merely a testament to the validity of Carlo Mattogno's tireless work and hundreds if not thousands of hours spent in archives. His books that are over ten years old already have the refutations against present day spin doctors contained within. Therefore if Hans is correctly citing these pages numbers from the newly published book, which is supposedly quoting from authentic documents, we have to wonder what kind of trickery Igor Bartosik, Łukasz Martyniak, Piotr Setkiewicz are involved in.

User avatar
blake121666
Member
Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 9:04 pm

Re: New Auschwitz-Birkenau book refutes revisionists! Haha H

Postby blake121666 » 4 years 7 months ago (Wed Dec 03, 2014 11:12 pm)

Hannover wrote:Hans and the 'authors':
The body disposal activity is confirmed by an order of 10 February 1943 for "200 kg chlorinated lime" for "Sonderkommando Birkenau" (Bartosik et al., p. 203).
This is hilarious and utterly unscientific, it has nothing to do with "body disposal".


This is hilarious! But what is even funnier is that he has responded to your post at that URL (http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... sites.html) stating

The Sonderkommando's use of chlorine lime is for instance described in a resistance report:
The ventilator [is switched on] and special ‘Sonderkommando[s]’ throw the corpses into two enormous pits, arranging them in layers and covering them with calcium chloride.
(report of 26 May 1944, from Mattogno, The Bunkers of Auschwitz, p. 67)


He's now justifying his bleach assertion with this calcium chloride example (the stuff you use on ice patches in the winter)! He is one very confused person. None of these things are even caustic for crying out loud. He needs to further explain this lunacy. I could understand some sort of "disinfectant" argument if he were to flesh that out a bit. But then throwing in this calcium chloride example (itself a bit bizarre IMO) to justify that line of reasoning! He needs to explain this kookiness.

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1090
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: New Auschwitz-Birkenau book refutes revisionists! Haha H

Postby Werd » 4 years 7 months ago (Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:42 am)

Werd:
"Hans' first two cited documents discussing Bunker 1 come from March 1944. This is a problem because according to official historiography, the Bunker 1 house was no longer needed or used for gassing."


Perhaps Werd should have read the blog posting more carefully, since the point was already answered: "Bunker 1 was apparently not dismantled but kept idle as a back-up in 1943". There is no problem that the Germans may have kept Bunker 1 as a back-up facility for about a year. In fact, Bunker 2 was reactivated during summer 1944 exactly because the crematoria were insufficient for the extermination of the Hungarian Jews in Auschwitz.

Notice Hans still refuses to provide the direct RGVA references that are typical in a Mattogno book. Second of all, think of what he is saying. Those Hungarian Jews were exterminated. Well, actually they were not. David Cole/Stein even admits this. Problem solved.

The Deportation of Hungarian Jews from May to July 1944
A preliminary account
By Carlo Mattogno
http://codoh.com/library/document/357/

What Happened to the Jews Who Were Deported to Auschwitz But Were Not Registered There?
Jürgen Graf
Insights on the 1944 Deportations of Hungarian Jews
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n4p-4_Graf.html

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1090
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: New Auschwitz-Birkenau book refutes revisionists! Haha H

Postby Werd » 4 years 7 months ago (Thu Dec 04, 2014 1:02 am)

http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?s ... 0521301544
Sign Petitions to Ban Holocaust Denial from Social Media as Hate Speech shared Auschwitz Memorial / Muzeum Auschwitz's photo.
7 July ·

New publication released. analysis of 74 archival documents, most of them previously unpublished, describes preparation to the mass extermination of Jews in gas chambers and the process of turning Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp into a centre of mass extermination.

'The beginnings of the extermination of Jews in KL Auschwitz in the light of the source materials' - a new publication of the Museum, through the analysis of 74 archival documents, most of them previously unpublished, describes preparation to the mass extermination of Jews in gas chambers and the process of turning Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp into a centre of mass extermination. Authors of the analysis are historians of the Research Center of the Museum: Igor Bartosik, Łukasz Martyniak and Piotr Setkiewicz.

• The book in on-line bookstore: http://bit.ly/beginnings_book

• Article about the book: http://bit.ly/beginnings_article

‘These documents make it possible significantly to clarify the chronology of events and to confirm facts known until now only through witness accounts. It should nevertheless be noted that the documents do not usually refer directly to killings in the gas chamber, and interpreting the entries sometimes requires a detailed familiarity not only with other documents, but also with the reality of the camp,’ says Dr. Piotr Setkiewicz, Head of the Research Center. That is why every documents presented in the book is accompanied with a historical comment and the publication has also a detailed preface.

74 documents previously unnoticed in the ZBL archive as well as Auschwitz archives. So why couldn't Hans give those RGVA references for all those documents in this book which he clearly possesses? Those two documents from 1944 which mention an apparently deactivated bunker 1, are connected to the ZBL.

letter camp administration to central construction office Auschwitz

and

letter central construction office to camp administration Auschwitz

Are the RGVA references not in the new book?

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9778
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: New Auschwitz-Birkenau book refutes revisionists! Haha H

Postby Hannover » 4 years 7 months ago (Thu Dec 04, 2014 11:31 am)

It should nevertheless be noted that the documents do not usually refer directly to killings in the gas chamber, and interpreting the entries sometimes requires a detailed familiarity not only with other documents, but also with the reality of the camp,’ says Dr. Piotr Setkiewicz, Head of the Research Center. That is why every documents presented in the book is accompanied with a historical comment and the publication has also a detailed preface.
More laughable 'holocaust logic' at work.
- "... the documents do not usually refer directly to killings in the gas chamber..." Usually? Wrong. The factual answer is not at all.
- Then we see a dishonest weasel at work. The documents say nothing about what is alleged, so it requires those who profit from the scam to invent conclusions which cannot be backed up with proof.
74 documents previously unnoticed in the ZBL archive as well as Auschwitz archives.
Previously 'unnoticed'?
No, previously deemed unusable even by the 'holocaust' shysters laughable low standards. But hey, it doesn't stop those that are paid to lie along with the challenged poor-little-tag-along-Hans from claiming the impossible. Revisionists are having these liars for lunch.

Do note the profit minded 'holocau$t' Fantasy Museum's sleazy attempt to draw in sympathy for their obvious scam by bringing up the Rwanda disaster, here: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Sign-Pet ... 0521301544
Much like they make the discredited claims about homosexuals & gypsies, a form of support buying. Now that's desperation.

No human remains as alleged, no 'holocaust' as alleged. It's all just too easy.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of Truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Thames Darwin
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:55 pm

Re: New Auschwitz-Birkenau book refutes revisionists! Haha H

Postby Thames Darwin » 4 years 7 months ago (Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:24 pm)

Hannover wrote:Hans and the 'authors':
The body disposal activity is confirmed by an order of 10 February 1943 for "200 kg chlorinated lime" for "Sonderkommando Birkenau" (Bartosik et al., p. 203).
This is hilarious and utterly unscientific, it has nothing to do with "body disposal".
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictio ... nated+lime
chlo·ri·nat·ed lime
a mixture of varying proportions of complexes of chlorine with calcium oxide and calcium hydroxide. Contains 24-37% available chlorine. Decomposes in moist conditions to liberate chlorine. Strong irritant due to chlorine vapors. Used for disinfecting drinking water and sewage; in the bleaching of wood pulp, linen, cotton, straw, oils, soaps, and laundry; as an oxidizer; in destroying caterpillars; and as a decontaminant for mustard gas and similar substances.
Synonym(s): bleaching powder
and:
chlorinated lime is a white powder used for bleaching or disinfecting.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency ... 002773.htm
So 'Hans' and the paid nutters think that chlorinated lime proves their point. I guess the Germans are now accused of bleaching corpses for some unknown reasons. And why would anyone disinfect corpses that were supposedly cremated? Fact: Lime would actually slow up the decomposition of bodies rather than assist in their disposal.


Be careful how you refute this particular point. There are multiple reasons why bodies can be buried in lime, and none of them has to do with decomposition. Rather, the point of burial with lime is two-fold: firstly, it prevents an odor from putrefaction from arising; secondly, it prevents any leachate penetrating the groundwater from carrying microbial contaminants with it. The Red Cross even still recommends using lime in cases where sanitary burial is not possible.

That said, they're still wrong. Chlorinated lime isn't used for burial. Slacked lime or quick lime has to be used; chlorinated lime is neither. It's possible that the translation from Polish is bad. Anyone here read Polish?

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9778
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: New Auschwitz-Birkenau book refutes revisionists! Haha H

Postby Hannover » 4 years 7 months ago (Thu Dec 04, 2014 5:42 pm)

T. Darwin:
Be careful how you refute this particular point. There are multiple reasons why bodies can be buried in lime, and none of them has to do with decomposition. Rather, the point of burial with lime is two-fold: firstly, it prevents an odor from putrefaction from arising; secondly, it prevents any leachate penetrating the groundwater from carrying microbial contaminants with it. The Red Cross even still recommends using lime in cases where sanitary burial is not possible.
That said, they're still wrong. Chlorinated lime isn't used for burial. Slacked lime or quick lime has to be used; chlorinated lime is neither. It's possible that the translation from Polish is bad. Anyone here read Polish?
The storyline goes that after the alleged bodies were buried they were exhumed and cremated in open pyres.
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Poland/Bi ... nau03.html
All the bodies had to be dug up later and burned on pyres because the corpses were contaminating the ground water at Birkenau.
But why would they exhume alleged bodies that were supposedly sanitized with "chlorinated lime" and were therefore no groundwater threat? Once again, the absurdity and blatant contradictions within the narrative exposes it's fraudulence.

Thanks, Hannover

Also, some more on the alleged "bunkers", excerpt from: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v11/v11p177_Aynat.html Neither Trace Nor Proof: The Seven Auschwitz 'Gassing' Sites According to Jean-Claude Pressac
Bunker 1

As Pressac himself acknowledges, there remain no ruins, and neither documents nor plans of this supposed installation with its homicidal gas chamber. Consequently, the "information that has reached us on this provisional installation is scanty and based only on the testimonies of the few survivors" (p. 162).

Pressac cites six testimonies. Four of them come from former prisoners (Szlam Dragon, Maurice Benroubi, Milton Buki and Moshe Garbarz) and two from members of the SS (Pery Broad and Rudolf Höss).

Let us first look at the description of the supposed homicidal installation given us by the witnesses.

S. Dragon: "a small brick house divided into just two parts and able to contain altogether 2000 naked persons. These rooms each had one entrance door and a small window" (p. 161).
P. Broad: according to Pressac, P. Broad never described Bunker 1 (p. 165).
M. Benroubi: "There were two big concrete blocks [the buildings known as 'Bunker 1' -- Pressac's note] at least 20 m. wide and perhaps as many long [...] One morning, the doors of the Bunkers, as they called them, were open. I noticed that there were shower heads and along the wall clothes hooks" (p. 162).

Further on he indicates that the "Bunker was a brick-built house, with the windows filled in" (p. 163).
M. Buki: the Bunker was "a brick farmhouse" (p. 163). The lethal gas was introduced through "a little chimney" (p. 164).
M. Garbarz: "a sort of barn closed on three sides, identical to those where our farmers keep the hay" (p. 164).
R. Höss: "All the rooms -- there were five in all -- were filled at the same time; the airtight doors were locked with a key, and the contents of the cans of gas were put in through the skylights.

"At the end of half an hour, the doors were opened - there were two in each room -- and the dead were removed and taken to the ditches." [8]

Bunker 1 could hold 800 persons. [9]

Contradictions abound in these testimonies. Thus, regarding its exterior aspect, Bunker 1 was:

"a small brick house" (S. Dragon)
"two big concrete blocks" (M. Benroubi)
"a sort of barn closed on three sides" (M. Garbarz).

And as for its capacity, it had room for:

2,000 persons (S. Dragon)
800 persons (R. Höss).

The lethal agent was introduced:

through "a small window" in every gas chamber, according to S. Dragon, even though the plan of this installation made on the basis of his testimony has two windows in each chamber (p. 161).
"through a little chimney" (M. Buki).

Bunker 1 had:

two gas chambers (S. Dragon)
five gas chambers (R. Höss).

The gas chambers had:

one door each (S. Dragon)
two doors each (R. Höss).

Pressac concludes by affirming that the purpose of Bunker 1, "the extermination of human beings by gassing, cannot be called into question, if only because of the constant repetition of an identical process in the accounts of former prisoners, unless like certain Revisionists of bad faith we claim that the witnesses were all lying, including the SS" (p. 165).

This conclusion can not be defended. In the first place, the testimonies of the former prisoners all share a great vagueness. We can scarcely speak of "an identical process" when Pressac himself admits that it "is impossible to make a synthesis of all these accounts" (p. 165). Secondly, revisionists do not say that the witnesses lie in every case. It is enough for them to observe that some testimonies, like that of P. Broad (as Pressac himself acknowledges), have been "'slightly' reworked by the Poles."

In short, as authority for the existence and functioning of a gas chamber in Bunker 1, Pressac provides only six testimonies. These testimonies are generally very vague, and when by exception they are specific on some point or another, contradictions arise. Ergo, based on the sources provided by Pressac, it is not possible in the case of Bunker 1 to maintain the historic reality of any execution gas chambers.
Bunker 2

According to the official thesis, Bunker 2 was a farmhouse in which a number of homicidal gas chambers had been installed. It was in operation from the summer of 1942 until the spring of 1943. In the summer of 1944 it was again put into operation in order to assist in the extermination of the Hungarian Jews.

Pressac cites the following testimonies in his treatment of Bunker 2:

a) Szlam Dragon, considered the principal witness by the French author.

In 1945 Dragon described Bunker 2 as "a cottage covered with thatch, its windows bricked in [...] The interior of the cottage was divided into four parts by partition walls running across it, one of which could contain 1200 naked people, the second 700, the third 400 and the fourth 200 to 250" (p. 171).

Two items in the testimony, the interior division and the capacity, are demolished by Pressac himself. With regard to the number of rooms, the French author exhibits a reconstruction of Bunker 2 based on the actual ruins which clearly shows eight of these rooms (pp. 174 and 175).With reference to the number of persons put into the Bunker, from 2500 to 2550, Pressac reckons that a physically impossible density of 28 persons per square meter (Bunker 2 had an area of 90 square meters) and so believes that the witness was following "the tendency to exaggerate which seems to have been the general rule at the time of the liberation" (p. 171).

Nonetheless, 27 years later, in 1972, S. Dragon again testified in a celebrated trial against two former SS men, and his declaration was so disordered (he confused the Bunker with a crematorium) that the session had to be interrupted. Pressac justifies this by saying that the "intervening time had done its work, a blessing for the witness, a disaster for justice and for History. I have added this anecdote to show the irreplaceable value of early testimony. Afterwards, witnesses constantly go over the same story, altering it as the years go by" (p. 172).

In short, Pressac finds it easy to justify the errors, falsehoods and absurdities of the testimonies. If the latter are from the immediate post-war period, they demonstrate "the tendency to exaggerate" characteristic of that era; but if they were given many years later, it turns out that time has altered the memory of the witnesses. Moreover, it is not to be understood that Pressac is alluding to the "irreplaceable value of early testimony" when he has just said that it suffers from a "tendency to exaggerate."

b) Pery Broad.

Even though Pressac had made clear that the account of this former member of the SS "is not exploitable in its present version" (p. 162), he does not hesitate to "exploit it" now and again.

c) Rudolf Höss.

There is only one reference in the memoirs of R. Höss to Bunker 2: "Bunker 2 was the larger and could hold about 1200 people" (p. 174). This information is refuted by Pressac himself when he says that the stated capacity corresponded to 13 persons per square meter, "a physically impossible density" (p. 174).

d)Miklos Nyiszli, a Hungarian Jewish doctor deported to Auschwitz.

Dr. Nyiszli's declaration makes reference to the functioning of Bunker 2 in its final stage, during the summer of 1944. In contradiction to all the other testimonies, Dr. Nyiszli affirms that there were no gas chambers in Bunker 2, but rather a dressing room where the people who were going to be shot and incinerated in an adjacent trench could leave their clothes (p. 177). Despite that, Pressac acknowledges the "validity" of Dr. Nyiszli's account (p. 179).

e) David Olére, former prisoner of Auschwitz.

Pressac reproduces a sketch by D. Olére showing the operation of Bunker 2 as a gas chamber in the summer of 1944.

Pressac admits that the little hill that appears in the sketch is fictitious and was introduced by the witness "for artistic reasons only" (p. 178). One notices as well that although this is supposedly a summer scene, the SS men are wearing overcoats. None the less, for our author the scene is "of such remarkable precision as to be almost as good as a photograph" (p. 178).

We need to call attention to a contradiction that Pressac falls into here: the scene sketched by D. Olére, which represents,so to speak, the prolegomenon to a homicidal gassing, is of photographic fidelity; at the same time, Dr. Nyiszli's description, which is contemporaneous with that of Ol ere and yet reflects a totally different extermination procedure, is also valid.

f) Filip Müller.

Here it will suffice to note Pressac's opinion of this witness: "Filip Müller is an important witness, but in choosing to describe material and precise facts in a book and in 1979 (1st German edition) he has accumulated errors, thus making his account historically dubious" (p. 181).

Conclusion: as in the two previous cases, it is not possible to establish historically the existence of a homicidal gas installation at Bunker 2 on the basis of the testimonies provided by author Pressac.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1090
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: New Auschwitz-Birkenau book refutes revisionists! Haha H

Postby Werd » 4 years 7 months ago (Thu Dec 04, 2014 7:38 pm)

More from Hans...
http://www.holocaustcontroversies.blogs ... et-al.html
Other documents in the collection have been known already, in particular from Revisionist Carlo Mattogno's works. And some of the docs have been clearly misinterpreted by Bartisek et al.

Between 20 to 22 August 1942 the following work was done by the electrician detail in Auschwitz-Birkenau:

Working card

To the ...electricians

For installation of the Sonderkommando Birkenau BW20KGL [power plant] the following work is to be done:

Installation and supply line for the Sonderkommando consisting of:

19 burning sites [literal translation of Brennstellen]
1 supply line 200 m overhead line and 600 m cable 3 x 10 mm²


(work card of 22 August 1942, Bartosik et al, p. 75, my translation and emphasis)

According to Bartosik et al., the term burning sites refers to "burning of corpses retrieved from the mass graves". However, in this specific context (work to be done by electricians), it actually means electrical contacts/sockets/lightening outlets:

"Brẹnn|stel|le 〈f. 19; Sammelbez. für〉 Steckdose, Herd, Kochplatte, Lampe"

http://universal_lexikon.deacademic.com ... rennstelle

Kudos to hans for admitting this point. However, he continues.
Revisionists should wipe that smirk off their face, because Carlo Mattogno's reading of the source was not any better. In his book Special Treatment in Auschwitz (STIA), he understood that the Sonderkommando mentioned in the document was a "unit of electricians serving in the power plant of Birkenau" (STIA, p. 102), whereas the document is actually saying that the electrician detail is performing work for the Sonderkommando, i.e the document describes connecting some Bunker extermination site to electricity, obviously to enable day and night activity.

Carlo's entire section from page 101-102 is called "Special Unit" of the Crematoria. He made an error that he corrected in 2010.
http://revblog.codoh.com/2010/07/the-%E ... /#more-984
In my study Special Treatment in Auschwitz. Origin and Meaning of a Term[1] I have written as follows:

«“Special Units” of the Crematoria
Danuta Czech explains the origin and meaning of the term “Sonderkommando” (special unit) as follows:
“The extermination camp created also one other group of people, those who were forced to work in the crematoria and gas chambers – the unfortunate people were assigned to the work of the special unit. The SS used code words if they spoke about the mass extermination of those ‘unworthy of life.’ It called the mass extermination as well as the transports leading
to selection ‘special treatment’ (often abbreviated as SB). Thus, also, the expression ‘special unit.’”
In other words, since criminal activity described by the code word ‘special treatment’ was allegedly being conducted in the crematoria, the staff employed there had of necessity to be a ‘special unit.’ Naturally it was the only work unit at Auschwitz that merited the prefix ‘special’ [sonder] – otherwise the word would have lost the criminal significance that it possessed according to official historiography.
Based on the documents, the reality is entirely different. First of all, the expression ‘special unit’ does not appear in a single document referring to the crematoria. In its ‘magnum opus’ the Auschwitz museum attempted to prove, on the basis of two documents, that this term was used for the crematoria personnel. The first document is a duty roster for July 18, 1944 [”Dienstplan für Dienstag”, dated 17 July], the second order no. 8/43 of April 20, 1943 from the Commandant’s Headquarters. But the first document merely mentions the term ‘special unit’ in connection with a gate control [Torkontrolle]»

Here a correction is necessary. The mention of the ”Sonderkommando” is not related to the ”Torkontrolle” written on the left (the document is written in two columns) but to four names listed on the right: ”Buch, Kelm, Schultz, Bickel”. Franciszek Piper considers them all to be “members of the SS directly employed in the gas chambers and crematoria”, but this assertion is based solely on the document in question.[2] He also states that Buch, Kelm and Schulz are mentioned as the members of the SS-Sonderkommando of the crematoria by the witnesses Alter Feinsilber (alias Jankowski) and Henryk Tauber,[3] but the first one speaks only of a ”Scharführer Buch” and a ”Kell”,[4] while the other mentions a ”Schultz” and a ”Köln”.[5] One Scharführer Buch, an Unterscharführer Kelm and an Unterscharführer appears (with their proper names) in an undated list of SS-men containing a column of written signatures under the heading ”receipt”, likely related to the payment of salaries. Their tasks are not specified.[6] The Heinz Schulz who according to Piper (whose source refers to a “Schultz”) was a Kommandoführer (commando leader) of the crematoria was identified at the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial as SS-Unterscharführer Arthur Heinz Schulz, who was the “ Kommandoführer im Arbeitskommando Zerlegbetriebe” (commando leader of the disassembly work commando).[7] Hermann Buch, who according to Piper also served as a Kommandoführer in the crematoria, served, according to the same book in which the Auschwitz historian makes this claim, as Lagerführer of BIIe (head of camp BIIe, the “Gypsy family camp), at the beginning of April 1944. In the eight lines of his biographical note there is no hint that he occupied the – in the context of the ”Holocaust” claims most important – position of a crematoria Kommandoführer.[8]

[Werd: End highlight]

[1] Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago 2004, p. 101.
[2] F. Piper, «Vernichtung», in: W. Długoborski, F. Piper (eds.), Auschwitz 1940-1945. Studien zur Geschichte des Konzentrations- und Vernichtungslagers Auschwitz, Verlag des Staatliches Museums Auschwitz-Birkenau, Oświęcim 1999, vol. III, p. 261.
[3] Idem, pp. 261-263.
[4] Inmitten des grauenvollen Verbrechens. Handschriften von Mitgliedern des Sonderkommandos, Verlag des Staatlichen Auschwitz-Birkenau Museums, 1996, p. 45.
[5] The Höss Trial, vol. 11, p. 142.
[6] GARF, 7021-108-54, pp. 97 and 98.
[7] Der Auschwitz Prozeß, edited by the Fritz Bauer Institut (Frankfurt am Main) and the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, Digitale Bibliothek, Verlag der Directmedia Publishing GmbH, Berlin 2005, p. 33519, 46036 and 46043.
[8] Aleksander Lasik, «Die Organisationsstruktur des KL Auschwitz», in: W. Długoborski, F. Piper (eds.), Auschwitz 1940-1945. Studien zur Geschichte des Konzentrations- und Vernichtungslagers Auschwitz, op. cit., vol. I, p. 239.

As for what Hans is concerned about, he says Mattogno, "understood that the Sonderkommando mentioned in the document was a "unit of electricians serving in the power plant of Birkenau" (STIA, p. 102), whereas the document is actually saying that the electrician detail is performing work forthe Sonderkommando, "

Let's see from Mattogno again. Special Treatment 102.
In the second place, there were numerous ‘special units’ in Auschwitz, of which not a single one had anything whatsoever to do with the crematoria. I list those below, for which I have found documentary evidence:

Installation by special unit Birkenau BW 20 POW camp [“Installation des Sonderkommando-Birkenau BW 20 KGL”]: unit of electricians serving in the power plant of Birkenau (BW 20). 358

358. “Installation des Sonderkommando-Birkenau BW 20 KGL”, work card for the electricians, order no. 1888/276 of August 22, 1942. RGVA, 502-1-316, p. 34.

The use of either "by" or "for" the special unit Birkenau is what is at stake here. Hans claims the electricians did work FOR a special unit, whereas Mattogno's book with the use of the word "BY" shows the electricians were in fact the special unit that was doing work of some kind. Now how does Hans interpret it as again? "the document describes connecting some Bunker extermination site to electricity, obviously to enable day and night activity. "
So can Hans provide the full RGVA citation to show where the word 'bunker' comes up? Is he going to accuse Mattogno of seeing it, but leaving it out? What now?

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1090
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: New Auschwitz-Birkenau book refutes revisionists! Haha H

Postby Werd » 4 years 7 months ago (Fri Dec 05, 2014 9:27 am)

Let us examine a clip from Mattogno's THE BUNKERS OF AUSCHWITZ.
3.4.4. Installation of a Power Line

Lighting in the ‘Bunkers’ and of the enclosed space would have been indispensable for nocturnal operations. For example, when the Central Construction Office realized that the construction of crematorium II was not proceeding on the schedule ordered by Kammler, it decided to speed up the work by running night shifts. To enable this, it issued an order to the “Electrician Kommando” of its work shops, which was described as follows in the corresponding “work card”:104

“Re: Crematorium II – BW no. 30 in POW camp. Lighting for construction works in Crematorium II and focusing of searchlights for night shift /guard unit.”

The work was carried out between January 15 and 23, 1943, and entailed 14 specialist man-hours and 28 helper man-hours for a total expenditure of 1,413.76 RM, consisting of 1,283.32 RM for materials (explicitly listed), a surcharge of 10% amounting to 128.34 RM and 2.10 RM for the 42 manhours of the detainees. No such voucher exists for the Birkenau ‘Bunkers.’


104 RGVA, 502-2-8, pp. 1-1a.

While I would question whether the quote marks around the phrase Electrician Kommando are Carlo Mattogno's or if they come directly from the work card itself, the point made in my previous post still stands.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests