Vergassungskeller question

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Bob
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 5:49 am

Re: Vergassungskeller question

Postby Bob » 6 years 10 months ago (Sun Feb 03, 2013 6:14 pm)

ClaudiaRothenbach wrote:This sentene makes no sense.


The sentence is out of context, here is the same sentence with previous sentence which makes clear that the "Vergasungskeller" can be used for the purpose of a corpse cellar which is unavailable:

"Die Eisenbetondecke des Leichenkellers konnte infolge Frosteinwirkung noch nicht ausgeschalt werden. Die ist jedoch unbedeutend, da der Vergasungskeller hierfür benützt werden kann."

User avatar
ClaudiaRothenbach
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:16 pm

Re: Vergassungskeller question

Postby ClaudiaRothenbach » 6 years 10 months ago (Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:13 pm)

Bob wrote:
ClaudiaRothenbach wrote:This sentene makes no sense.


The sentence is out of context, here is the same sentence with previous sentence which makes clear that the "Vergasungskeller" can be used for the purpose of a corpse cellar which is unavailable:

"Die Eisenbetondecke des Leichenkellers konnte infolge Frosteinwirkung noch nicht ausgeschalt werden. Die ist jedoch unbedeutend, da der Vergasungskeller hierfür benützt werden kann."


The second sentence "Die ist jedoch unbedeutend, da der Vergasungskeller hierfür benützt werden kann." does not make sense anyway.
This sentence means that the gassing cellar could be used as reinforced concrete roof.

My sentence would make clear that the gassing cellar could be used as morgue.
"Diese ist jedoch nicht unbedingt erforderlich, da der Vergasungskeller zeitweise als Leichenkeller (morgue) benutzt werden kann."

The exterminatiolist version would have to be:
"Diese ist jedoch nicht unbedingt erforderlich, da der Vergasungskeller zeitweise für die Sonderbehandlung benutzt werden kann."

If Bischoff would have written this sentence we revisionists would have a bigger problem.

A 100% sentence for believers would be:
"Diese ist jedoch nicht unbedingt erforderlich, da der Vergasungskeller zeitweise für den Massenmord benutzt werden kann."

But Bischoff did not. He (or a forger) wrote BS.
"Everything has already been said, but not yet by everyone." - Karl Valentin

Bob
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 5:49 am

Re: Vergassungskeller question

Postby Bob » 6 years 10 months ago (Mon Feb 04, 2013 5:27 pm)

ClaudiaRothenbach wrote:
Bob wrote:
ClaudiaRothenbach wrote:This sentene makes no sense.


The sentence is out of context, here is the same sentence with previous sentence which makes clear that the "Vergasungskeller" can be used for the purpose of a corpse cellar which is unavailable:

"Die Eisenbetondecke des Leichenkellers konnte infolge Frosteinwirkung noch nicht ausgeschalt werden. Die ist jedoch unbedeutend, da der Vergasungskeller hierfür benützt werden kann."


The second sentence "Die ist jedoch unbedeutend, da der Vergasungskeller hierfür benützt werden kann." does not make sense anyway.
This sentence means that the gassing cellar could be used as reinforced concrete roof.


If you connect together something what cannot be connected then such sentence does not make sense, yes, you can do this with everything. The second sentence is clearly related to the use of the Leichenkeller which is still unavailable and not to the use of planking or concrete roof because this really does not make any sense.

If you claim that the document is a forgery, then it does not make sense to forge something without making clear that the document is somehow related to homicidal gassings - i.e. the very purpose of this alleged forgery. I think you need much more than this to back up your forgery hypothesis which is based solely on the problem created by you when you connected not related parts of the sentences together to demonstrate that the sentence in question does not make sense.

Regarding your versions of the part in question:

1. We can check hundreds or even thousands of documents which can be put into the same group of documents which have something what is not clear enough for you or some other people and to base forgery allegation on this is erroneous.

2. Central Sauna was called "disinfestation facility for special treatment"[1] But feel free to let me know what you mean with that "problem" because I do not see any problem.

3. Yes, but this version is impossible even for forgery since this would have blew up the whole myth of alleged "code language" and "secrecy" created after the war in order to find "something."


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes

[1]“Vorhaben: Kriegsgefangenenlager Auschwitz (Durchführung der Sonderbehandlung),” VHA, Fond OT 31 (2)/8, pp. 9-10.; Carlo Mattogno, Special Treatment in Auschwitz: Origin and Meaning of a Term, Theses & Dissertations Press, Imprint of Castle Hill Publishers, 2004, pp. 39ff, p. 122, p. 124.

User avatar
Callahan
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:40 am

Re: Vergassungskeller question

Postby Callahan » 6 years 10 months ago (Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:20 pm)

Maybe I'm a bit outdated but I'm surprised I've yet to see a reference to Samuel Crowell's theory and his response to Pressac:
The design characteristics, layout, and equipment of the extermination gas chambers Pressac describes match those of morgues altered to double as bomb shelters with anti-gas warfare features. According to the material evidence reviewed, extermination gas chambers have no unique features.
[...]
The design characteristics, layout, and equipment of German bomb shelters, or anti-gas shelters, are described in a large contemporary technical literature, a small part of which we have reviewed. On the other hand, there is no comparable literature pertaining to the design characteristics, layout, and equipment of extermination gas chambers.
[...]
Therefore, in a material and documentary context, we must conclude that the extermination gas chambers in the four Birkenau crematoria were designed and constructed as morgues with modifications for them to serve as anti-gas shelters, that is, they were not designed to keep gas in, but to keep gas out.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9924
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Vergassungskeller question

Postby Hannover » 6 years 10 months ago (Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:24 pm)

Not in this thread perhaps, but use the search function here for: crowell pressac
Quite a bit at this forum.

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

User avatar
ClaudiaRothenbach
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:16 pm

Re: Vergassungskeller question

Postby ClaudiaRothenbach » 6 years 10 months ago (Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:25 pm)

Bob wrote:If you connect together something what cannot be connected then such sentence does not make sense, yes, you can do this with everything. The second sentence is clearly related to the use of the Leichenkeller which is still unavailable and not to the use of planking or concrete roof because this really does not make any sense.


I did not connect the two sentences. This was done by the writer of the document (possibly Bischoff).

Bob wrote:If you claim that the document is a forgery, then it does not make sense to forge something without making clear that the document is somehow related to homicidal gassings - i.e. the very purpose of this alleged forgery.


If the forger was not good enough at German he would not have realized that it is wrong.


Bob wrote:I think you need much more than this to back up your forgery hypothesis which is based solely on the problem created by you when you connected not related parts of the sentences together to demonstrate that the sentence in question does not make sense.


Sounds like you do not understand German.
Please learn German first. After that you understand the sentences.
"Everything has already been said, but not yet by everyone." - Karl Valentin

jheitwler
Member
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 2:46 pm

Re: Vergassungskeller question

Postby jheitwler » 6 years 10 months ago (Tue Feb 05, 2013 8:09 pm)

Bob wrote:
3. Yes, but this version is impossible even for forgery since this would have blew up the whole myth of alleged "code language" and "secrecy" created after the war in order to find "something."


It doesn't blow up the myth of the coded language. It's used to reinforce it. One of the reasons this document is so significant for the Auschwitz story is that it represents a lapse in the "coded language" and "secrecy" nonsense. According to the story, the word Vergassungskeller is underlined and Bischoff's name is handwritten at the top because it violates the rule about speaking openly about the gassings and Bischoff needs to be made aware of this lapse. No doubt so the offender can be tortured at Gestapo headquarters and then murdered with an injection of petrol or maybe morphine.
"First of all there is the fact that if we assume the Holocaust to have happened more or less as told, all the evidence becomes intelligible, while if we assume it was a hoax, most of the evidence does not make any sense." - Robert Jan Van Pelt

Bob
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 5:49 am

Re: Vergassungskeller question

Postby Bob » 6 years 10 months ago (Tue Feb 05, 2013 9:21 pm)

ClaudiaRothenbach wrote:I did not connect the two sentences. This was done by the writer of the document (possibly Bischoff).


No, you chose meaning which does not make any sense when is clear how these sentences were meant.

If the forger was not good enough at German he would not have realized that it is wrong.


Forger was good enough to forge everything but not good enough to forge the most important passage? For what purpose this alleged forger wanted to make us believe that LK1 aka "Vergasungskeller" can be used as an "undressing room" instead of LK2 before he allegedly wrongly forged it? Why this forger did not use the term "undressing room/Auskleideraum" instead of the term "corpse cellar/Leichenkeller"?

This does not hold any water and I must add that there is another document from Kurt Prüfer dated January 29, 1943 and he refers to the same situation described in the "Vergasungskeller" document and where he used correct term for one of the morgue, i.e. "morgue 2", but according to you forger for some strange reason did not even use the precise number for one of the morgue to make clear that the alleged "Vergasungskeller" for people is the one known as the "morgue 1."

There is also another copy of this "Vergasungskeller" document in which the word "Vergasungskeller" is not underlined, thus another slip of this poor forger?

ClaudiaRothenbach wrote:Sounds like you do not understand German.
Please learn German first. After that you understand the sentences.


This is not about me since according to you everyone do not understand German because as far as I know you are the first who interpreted the passages in question in the way which does not make sense despite the fact that can be interpreted in the way which is perfectly meaningful and logical. I must add that this is not about German and you really need more and something better to back up your hypothesis about forgery.

jheitwler wrote:It doesn't blow up the myth of the coded language. It's used to reinforce it. One of the reasons this document is so significant for the Auschwitz story is that it represents a lapse in the "coded language" and "secrecy" nonsense. According to the story, the word Vergassungskeller is underlined and Bischoff's name is handwritten at the top because it violates the rule about speaking openly about the gassings and Bischoff needs to be made aware of this lapse. No doubt so the offender can be tortured at Gestapo headquarters and then murdered with an injection of petrol or maybe morphine.


Bischoff´s name is not handwritten on that document, there is "Kirschneck". Bischoff dictated the document and Lippert typed it. Deliberately forged slip does not make sense regarding "reinforcing of the code language myth," in this case it does make sense to produce nice coded document which leaves no possibilities for innocent explanations in order to really reinforce the story about coded language.

jheitwler
Member
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 2:46 pm

Re: Vergassungskeller question

Postby jheitwler » 6 years 10 months ago (Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:08 pm)

Bob wrote:
jheitwler wrote:It doesn't blow up the myth of the coded language. It's used to reinforce it. One of the reasons this document is so significant for the Auschwitz story is that it represents a lapse in the "coded language" and "secrecy" nonsense. According to the story, the word Vergassungskeller is underlined and Bischoff's name is handwritten at the top because it violates the rule about speaking openly about the gassings and Bischoff needs to be made aware of this lapse. No doubt so the offender can be tortured at Gestapo headquarters and then murdered with an injection of petrol or maybe morphine.


Bischoff´s name is not handwritten on that document, there is "Kirschneck". Bischoff dictated the document and Lippert typed it. Deliberately forged slip does not make sense regarding "reinforcing of the code language myth," in this case it does make sense to produce nice coded document which leaves no possibilities for innocent explanations in order to really reinforce the story about coded language.


Right you are. It is Kirschneck that is handwritten at the top. I didn't mean to imply that I believe that the document is a forgery that is used to reinforce the coded language myth. It does fit into the coded language myth because it is touted as an example of a lapse in the coded language. But I don't think it's a forgery. It's a genuine document with an ambiguous word that has its meaning twisted to fit the story.
"First of all there is the fact that if we assume the Holocaust to have happened more or less as told, all the evidence becomes intelligible, while if we assume it was a hoax, most of the evidence does not make any sense." - Robert Jan Van Pelt

Bob
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 5:49 am

Re: Vergassungskeller question

Postby Bob » 6 years 10 months ago (Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:41 pm)

jheitwler wrote:
Bob wrote:
jheitwler wrote:It doesn't blow up the myth of the coded language. It's used to reinforce it. One of the reasons this document is so significant for the Auschwitz story is that it represents a lapse in the "coded language" and "secrecy" nonsense. According to the story, the word Vergassungskeller is underlined and Bischoff's name is handwritten at the top because it violates the rule about speaking openly about the gassings and Bischoff needs to be made aware of this lapse. No doubt so the offender can be tortured at Gestapo headquarters and then murdered with an injection of petrol or maybe morphine.


Bischoff´s name is not handwritten on that document, there is "Kirschneck". Bischoff dictated the document and Lippert typed it. Deliberately forged slip does not make sense regarding "reinforcing of the code language myth," in this case it does make sense to produce nice coded document which leaves no possibilities for innocent explanations in order to really reinforce the story about coded language.


Right you are. It is Kirschneck that is handwritten at the top. I didn't mean to imply that I believe that the document is a forgery that is used to reinforce the coded language myth. It does fit into the coded language myth because it is touted as an example of a lapse in the coded language. But I don't think it's a forgery. It's a genuine document with an ambiguous word that has its meaning twisted to fit the story.


No problem, I know that you addressed only the issue with the code language in the case of the "100% believer" sentence proposed by "ClaudiaRothenbach" and my response to it.

There is another alleged "slip" from February 17, 1943, this time ZBL informed civilian employee of Topf company about missing blower for "Gaskeller." That´s not all, there is "slip" concerning "Auskleideraum", there is "slip" concerning "betonieren im Gas[s]kammer" (two times in the case of KIV-V) so there was not a single reason to forge another alleged slip and especially in such amateurish way like in the case of alleged forgery of "Vergasungskeller." I must repeat, that these "slips" do not reinforce myth of code language, quite the contrary. These alleged lapses in the coded language are nothing but falsehoods which can make an impression only on public and proven impostor Pelt knows it.

neugierig
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 352
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:01 pm

Re: Vergassungskeller question

Postby neugierig » 6 years 10 months ago (Wed Feb 06, 2013 9:19 pm)

You make a good case, Claudia Rothenbach. There are many documents I have seen that raise these questions, but it appears Revisionists are afraid of the "f" word, i.e. forgery. Why I will never know, although Bohlinger/Ney did a good job re. the Wannsee Konferenz minutes.

More of it needs to be done, we can only hope that some day a program will be available, able to differentiate between authors. The Israelis claim to have developed on and are using it on the Old Testament. I did purchase a "Duden" program in the hope that it will identify grammatical errors, no go, this new Denglisch is useless.

Regards
Wilf

User avatar
ClaudiaRothenbach
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:16 pm

Re: Vergassungskeller question

Postby ClaudiaRothenbach » 6 years 10 months ago (Fri Feb 08, 2013 4:04 pm)

Absolutely, Wilfried.

Here is another example: http://www.h-ref.de/vernichtung/gaskamm ... sblatt.jpg

The respective sentence is: "Fußboden Aufschüttung auffüllen, stampfen und Fußboden betonieren im Gaskammer."
Here it is to say:

1. Most scientists write: "in Gaskammer". But it is written "im Gaskammer". "im Gaskammer" does not make sense.
Look for example here: http://www.h-ref.de/vernichtung/gaskamm ... sblatt.php

2. "in Gaskammer" would be ok, but the word order of the sentence is wrong.
This would be German: "Fußboden in Gaskammer: Aufschüttung auffüllen, stampfen und Fußboden betonieren ."
It looks like there was this worksheet without any "gaskammer", but teh forger used the space behind "betonieren". The forger did not speak German very well, that is why he put "im gaskammer" into the text.

3. Once I saw a better version of the doc and it was to be seen quite well that the ink of "im Gaskammer" was darker than the rest and the writing was a little bit bolder.

Could someone provide us with a better version?

Just another example of a forgery.
"Everything has already been said, but not yet by everyone." - Karl Valentin

Bob
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 5:49 am

Re: Vergassungskeller question

Postby Bob » 6 years 10 months ago (Fri Feb 08, 2013 6:57 pm)

ClaudiaRothenbach wrote:Absolutely, Wilfried.

Here is another example: http://www.h-ref.de/vernichtung/gaskamm ... sblatt.jpg

The respective sentence is: "Fußboden Aufschüttung auffüllen, stampfen und Fußboden betonieren im Gaskammer."
Here it is to say:

1. Most scientists write: "in Gaskammer". But it is written "im Gaskammer". "im Gaskammer" does not make sense.
Look for example here: http://www.h-ref.de/vernichtung/gaskamm ... sblatt.php


There is "im Gasskammer" and not "im Gaskammer," your source has it wrong too.

According to the same logic, the documents speaking about installing stoves in medical room, at water installations, brick layer works and etc. are forged too since these work reports are written with spelling errors too and without the "criminal traces," quite the contrary. Please explain who and for what purpose allegedly forged these documents. Please explain why this alleged forger speaks in singular and not in plural about the gas chamber, why he called other rooms by their normal name or simply as "chambers" instead speaking in plural about gas chambers in accordance with the post war story.

As Carlo Mattogno pointed out, these errors were probably written by a civilian Polish worker who didn´t handle German perfectly, thus the spelling errors are no surprise.

ClaudiaRothenbach wrote:2. "in Gaskammer" would be ok, but the word order of the sentence is wrong.
This would be German: "Fußboden in Gaskammer: Aufschüttung auffüllen, stampfen und Fußboden betonieren ."
It looks like there was this worksheet without any "gaskammer", but teh forger used the space behind "betonieren". The forger did not speak German very well, that is why he put "im gaskammer" into the text.


The second presence of the passage "im Gasskammer" is written on the first line and a writer continued from the previous page, then the other entries follow from the same line since there was a still some space on the first line. So if you do not want to tell us that somebody who prepared the originally genuine document kindly provided some space for future forgery and for this purpose he began to write from the end of the line, then your hypothesis is again unfounded. Another document contains again the passage with an error "Gassdichtenfenster versetzen" and again this passage is written in the middle of the document and since this must be a forgery too according to the presence of a spelling error, then somebody again provided space for the future forgery.

The word order is not good in more cases, so again, the documents are completely forged or not forged at all, you cannot claim that one passage was inserted and others are genuine since more of them contain errors or not proper word order.

ClaudiaRothenbach wrote:3. Once I saw a better version of the doc and it was to be seen quite well that the ink of "im Gaskammer" was darker than the rest and the writing was a little bit bolder.

Could someone provide us with a better version?

Just another example of a forgery.


I do not see any problem in the document Your hypothesis is unfounded.

Leaving aside that your hypothesis has been refuted I would like to add that people produce spelling errors no matter if they are native Germans, Americans or whatever, so to base your hypothesis solely on the presence of spelling errors is really unfounded and I must say - completely wrong approach. In this case I saw tons of forged text including my own text written in my native language since I produce errors too. People in television have forged voices since they produce errors as well, sometime quite ridiculous errors.

Hohenems
Member
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:16 pm

Re: Vergassungskeller question

Postby Hohenems » 6 years 10 months ago (Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:09 pm)

Bob,

You make good points but that leaves the question of what you think this document means?

neugierig
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 352
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:01 pm

Re: Vergassungskeller question

Postby neugierig » 6 years 10 months ago (Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:25 pm)

Bob, the issue is grammar, not misspelling. I was born in 1937 when German was still spoken in Germany, and I still have some of that ‘sound’, if you will, in my ears. Todays Denglisch – De = Deutsch and -englisch for English – hurts my ears. So does the German used in some of the documents. Why would a document as such be produced? Because it contains the word, horror, “Gaskammer”.

We must remember that hordes of German Jews who fled when the NS came to power (and now no doubt are listed as H-victims), returned after the defeat of Germany for their pound of flesh. But, their German was not perfect, the Ghetto mentality prevented it. Bohlinger/Ney write that the largest forgery workshop existed in Föhrenwald-Wolfratshausen near Munich. Thomas E. Mahl also addresses the issue in “Desperate Deception”.

But, no expert will go near this, for good reasons because it would be a career ender. Therefore all some of us can do is pick away at it, to the dismay of the Industry.

BTW, did you say that you are fluent in German?

Regards
Wilf


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests