Prufer letter / '80,000 Cremation Capacity Per Month Not Sufficient for Auschwitz '

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Atigun
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 498
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:13 am

Prufer letter / '80,000 Cremation Capacity Per Month Not Sufficient for Auschwitz '

Postby Atigun » 1 year 1 week ago (Mon May 20, 2019 9:25 pm)

I've come across this, "80,000 Cremation Capacity Per Month Not Sufficient for Auschwitz - New Document" from HC. It claims that there is a "recent" discovery of a letter from Prufer to Topf and Sohne that shows a need for more than 80,000 cremations per month. I have failed in my attempts to find any mention of this on CODOH. Can anyone help me out? This "recently found" document sounds fishy to me.

User avatar
Dresden
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1533
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:38 pm

Re: Prufer letter / '80,000 Cremation Capacity Per Month Not Sufficient for Auschwitz'

Postby Dresden » 1 year 1 week ago (Mon May 20, 2019 10:39 pm)

Atigun wrote:I've come across this, "80,000 Cremation Capacity Per Month Not Sufficient for Auschwitz - New Document" from HC. It claims that there is a "recent" discovery of a letter from Prufer to Topf and Sohne that shows a need for more than 80,000 cremations per month. I have failed in my attempts to find any mention of this on CODOH. Can anyone help me out? This "recently found" document sounds fishy to me.


Here you go:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6171&p=43476&hilit=monthly#p43476
Maybe, just maybe, they believe what they are telling you about the 'holocaust', but maybe, just maybe, their contempt for your intelligence and your character is beyond anything you could ever have imagined. -- Bradley Smith

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10034
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Prufer letter / '80,000 Cremation Capacity Per Month Not Sufficient for Auschwitz '

Postby Hannover » 1 year 1 week ago (Mon May 20, 2019 11:20 pm)

Much more here:

The Ovens in the Camps are Incinerators Now
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7842

demolished here:
On the Piper-Meyer-Controversy
Soviet Propaganda vs. Pseudo-Revisionism

By Carlo Mattogno
https://codoh.com/library/document/1690/?lang=en
excerpt:
4. Prüfer's memo dated 8 September 1942

He begins with the memo by Kurt Prüfer, Chief Engineer at Topf & Söhne, dated 8 September 1942. Like Meyer, he fails to mention that credit for discovery of this document goes to Jean-Claude Pressac. Piper's solemn excommunication of Pressac is obviously still in effect.

In my article on Meyer, I explained the sense in which this new document should be interpreted.[15] I shall restrict myself here to an examination of Piper's explanation.

In particular, Piper raises an objection against Meyer in relation to the crematory capacity mentioned in the memo:

"Meyer's interpretation of the daily capacity, as mentioned by Prüfer, raises further reservations. Meyer thinks that Prüfer is talking about capacity per 24 hours." (emphasis in original)

Piper, on the other hand, writes several rather illogical pages to "prove" that the "daily capacity" refers to a period of 12 hours. In so doing, he shows that he is not even aware of the article, in which Pressac describes his discovery. I quote again the relevant passage that I quoted on a former occasion:[16]

"The question of capacity of the crematories at Auschwitz-Birkenau is answered in an internal memo written by Prüfer on 8th Sep 1942, and bearing the heading 'Reichsführer SS, Berlin-Lichterfelde-West, Krematorium Auschwitz: Confidential and Secret!' The memo states that the three double-muffle ovens of Crematory I could cremate 250 bodies daily, the four triple-muffle ovens of Crematory II 800 daily; those of Crematory III likewise 800; the two four-muffle ovens of Crematory IV 400 daily; and those of Crematory V likewise 400. Theoretically this gives a total capacity of 2,650 bodies per day, which was never realized. This memo, written by the best known German cremation specialist of the time, shows that the total cremation capacity of 4,756 bodies per day, as stated by Auschwitz Central Building Administration in report for Berlin dated 28th June 1943, is greatly exaggerated."

Thus, in Pressac's opinion, Prüfer's memo shows that the capacity of 4,756 corpses in 24 hours mentioned in Bischoff's letter was "greatly exaggerated." Prüfer's memo of Sept. 8, 1942, cannot, therefore, refer to 12 hours, because in that case the 24-hour crematory capacity would amount to 5,300 corpses, a figure even higher than the one Pressac considered greatly exaggerated.

Instead of checking the source, Piper simply indulges in arbitrary and lengthy lucubrations that are meaningless.

Piper's interpretation of the document in question is rather fantastic. First, he notes that the Erläuterungsbericht zum Vorentwurf für den Neubau des Kriegsgefangenenlagers der Waffen-SS, Auschwitz O/S (Explanatory Report for Construction of the Waffen-SS Prisoner of War Camp, Auschwitz O/S) dated October 30, 1941, states that the new crematorium intended for the Birkenau camp (future Crematorium II) has five 3-muffle ovens, each muffle of which could cremate 2 corpses in half an hour, corresponding to a (theoretical) capacity of 1,440 corpses in 24 hours. Piper then argues:

"Prüfer's memo would therefore mark an attempt to modify a contract that had already been signed and was in the process of having its provisions realized."

He then adds

"that Prüfer's proposal as to the capacity of the crematoria was rejected"

and concludes:

"The central Construction Board (Zentralbauleitung) stuck to the earlier findings and tested the crematoria over a 24-hour working day. The results are found, as noted above, in the June 28, 1943 letter."

In reality, the "contract" between the Central Construction Office and the Topf Corporation related merely to the crematory machinery, as clearly shown by the letter from Topf to the (then) Bauleitung of Auschwitz dated November 4, 1941:[17]

"Sincerest thanks for your order for the delivery of:

5 Topf three-muffle crematory ovens with pressurized air installation
2 coffin introduction devices with rail installation for ovens
3 Topf forced draft installations
Flue installation.

The order is accepted on the basis of the enclosed cost proposal and the conditions thereof, for a total price of RM 51,237."

Therefore, not only was there no "contract' relating to the crematory duration and capacity of a muffle, but Prüfer's memo could not be an attempt to violate this phantasmagorical "contract," since the memo was addressed to "Reichsführer SS, Berlin-Lichterfelde-West" and was intended for the Hauptamt Haushalt und Bauten, which depended on the "Reichsführer-SS" and was headquartered at "Berlin-Lichterfeld-West, Unter den Eichen 129." The letters sent by Topf to the Auschwitz SS Bauleitung were, by contrast, addressed "an die Bauleitung der Waffen-SS und Polizei Auschwitz O/S," with the addition of "for the attention of Bauleiter Bischoff" when they involved matters that were the specific responsibility of the Bauleiter, such as the cancellation of a possible contract. If Prüfer had really signed such a "contract" with Bauleiter Bischoff and had then wished to cancel it, he would have written to Bischoff himself, not to Berlin!

In addition, Prüfer's memo contains no mention of cancellation of any hypothetical contract. As may be seen, Piper's imagination knows no bounds. No less fantastic is his claim that the letter from the Central Construction Office dated June 28, 1943, represented the rejection of Prüfer's "contract," with a reconfirmation of "earlier statements," i.e., the presumed "contract."

There is undoubtedly a link between the above mentioned Erläuterungsbericht and the letter in question, but the link is not the one imagined by Piper.

and:
from the interrogations of Topf engineers by the Soviet SMERSH between 1946 and 1948, as were published by Gerald Fleming, the quoted from:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10214

How many bodies were cremated per hour at Auschwitz?"

Prüfer (builder of the crematorium) responded:
"In a crematory with 5 ovens and 15 muffles, fifteen bodies were cremated."

This means an average cremation time of one hour per body per muffle and indicates that the theoretical maximum capacity of Crematory IV (and each of the ovens of Crematory V as well) in a 24 hour period was 192 bodies.

At his interrogation on 19th March 1946 Prüfer elaborated as follows:[28]

"I have mentioned the enormous load to which the overtaxed ovens were subjected. I told Chief Engineer Sander I was worried about whether the ovens could withstand the excessive load. In my presence, two bodies were placed in one muffle, instead of a single body, and the ovens were unable to handle the load"

SS Kurt Prufer, told the officers of SMERSCH (according to documents found in the Moscow archives) that only one body at a time could be cremated per muffle and that the cremation time took 60 minutes, and that they tried to cremate 2 bodies at a time; but the temperature inside the muffle went so high that it damaged the oven.
and:
- There was a total 52 muffles of Auschwitz, never used simultaneously.

- 38 is the most that were ever online simultaneously.

- The 6 at Auschwitz I were taken out of action as soon as the new ones at Birkenau came online. These were in turn liable to long periods of breakdowns and even idleness.

- If there was a program of mass extermination, the desperate need for cremation capacity is obvious. Why then put six muffles out of action?


No alleged human remains of millions to be seen in allegedly known locations, no 'holocaust'.

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

Atigun
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 498
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:13 am

Re: Prufer letter '80,000 Cremation Capacity Per Month Not Sufficient for Auschwitz'

Postby Atigun » 1 year 1 week ago (Tue May 21, 2019 1:54 am)

Thanks to both Dresden and Hannover for their excellent help. One thing that I'm still curious about is whether or not the letter is considered an accurate document or has it been altered or even forged? Why would Prufer write about such extraordinary numbers for cremations in the letter and completely contradict that during his interrogation by the Soviets? It doesn't make any sense.

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1647
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Prufer letter / '80,000 Cremation Capacity Per Month Not Sufficient for Auschwitz'

Postby Lamprecht » 1 year 1 week ago (Tue May 21, 2019 6:36 am)

See also:

Why did Auschwitz need crematoriums able to 'burn 5,000 people a day' ?
viewtopic.php?t=10214

Atigun wrote:Thanks to both Dresden and Hannover for their excellent help. One thing that I'm still curious about is whether or not the letter is considered an accurate document or has it been altered or even forged?


Read this post:

Hannover wrote:The rout is on, from another thread:
There can be no reasonable doubt that that "document" is fake:
Image

Manfred Gerner has mentioned the ridiculous mistake in the address field concerning the rank of SS-Brigadeführer Dr.-Ing. Hans Kammler in that "document".
There were two different ranks for a SS-Brigadeführer within the SS or the SD and the Sicherheitspolizei (Sipo, = Security Police) or the Ordungspolizei:

a) SS-Brigadeführer und Generalmajor der Waffen-SS (SS-Brigadeführer and Major General of the Waffen-SS) and
b) SS-Brigadeführer und Generalmajor der Polizei (SS-Brigadeführer and Major General of the Police)

That "document" is the only one, in which this distinction is not made:
SS-Brigadeführer und Generalmajor [sic!] Dr.-Ing. Kammler

The forger either wasn't aware of that undispensable detail or he had no interest to make his fabrication a convincing one (e.g. if he were a former member of the Zentralbauleitung, who was forced to assist the forgers in manufacturing their fake "documents").

Moreover this "document" was intended to be made look like it was dictated by SS-Untersturmführer Janisch (that's why the abbreviation Ja shows up in the file number), but the forgers again weren't successful: They added a full stop after those two letters. What a pity that there is no single authentic letter in the Moscow archives with such a full stop, but 50 without it. :mrgreen:

There isn't one single real document from this period of time either, which was typed by a typist with the abbreviation Ne. for Janisch, but 49 were typed by L. and another one by Lm.

And last, but not least, the forger made another grave mistake with the file-number of that fake "document": 31550/Ja./Ne.

As mentioned before, he added a full-stop after Ja, but he omitted the year after the file number. It should have been: 31550/43/Ja/Ne.

They do say, you have to take in consideration quite a lot of details, if you want to be a successful forger! :mrgreen:

Manfred Gerner wrote:5.2. BRIEFTAGEBUCHZEILE

Die Brieftagebuchzeile aller Fassungen ist falsch. Auf vier Fassungen sieht sie gleichmäßig wie folgt aus, auf der fünften fehlt sie:

31550/Ja./Ne.

Eine vollständige und richtige Brieftagebuchzeile enthält jedoch eine weitere Angabe, nämlich das Kalenderjahr. Nach uns vorliegenden richtigen Dokumenten müßte die Zeile wie folgt aussehen:

31550/43/Ja/Ne.

Die erste Zahl steht für die Brieftagebuchnummer, sie wurde fortlaufend vergeben für alle auslaufenden und eingehenden Briefe, solange die Zentralbauleitung bestand. [...] Die zweite Zahl in der Zeile steht für das Kalenderjahr. Das darauf folgende Kurzzeichen gehört zum Verfasser des Briefes. Das ist hier der Bauleiter Untersturmführer Janisch. Das abschließende Kurzzeichen gehört zu dem, der das Schreiben fertigte. Meistens wurde auf Durchschlägen die Bftgb.Nr. von Hand eingetragen (Anlagen 3 und 4). [...]

5.2. NICHT EXISTIERENDE SCHREIBKRAFT

Wir haben nun unseren nicht geringen, chronologisch geordneten Aktenbestand durchgesehen, und zwar vom 1.4.1943 (Bftgb. 26218) bis zum 18.9.1943 (Bftgb. 36428) und nach besonderen Kriterien in einer gefertigten Liste geprüft. Erstes Kriterium war, alle Schreiben mit dem Zeichen »Ja.« und mit dem Zeichen »Ne.« zu suchen. Hierdurch konnten wir eindeutig klären, daß es kein zweites Schreiben mit dem Zeichen Ne. gibt. (Mit und ohne Punkt.)

Als zweites Kriterium wählten wir Schreiben mit dem Zeichen »Ja.« (der Punkt hinter »Ja« ist hierbei wesentlich). Wir fanden nicht ein Exemplar. Hingegen fanden wir 50 Exemplare mit dem Zeichen »Ja« (Also ohne Punkt.)

Natürlich wollten wir dann wissen, wer schrieb für »Ja« als Schreibkraft. Ergebnis: 49 Schreiben »L.« und eines »Lm.« in unseren Beständen. Ferner fanden wir 3 Schreiben die für Bischoff und Jährling von »L.« gefertigt waren.

Geklärt ist mit dieser Untersuchung, daß es in der fraglichen Zeit in der ZBL keine Person gab, die unter dem Zeichen Ne. schrieb.

Nach vorstehenden Feststellungen sind wir dann noch weiter gegangen und haben das gesamte Jahr 1943 geprüft. Eine Veränderung im Ergebnis ergab sich nicht. [...]

5.4. Dienstgradbezeichnung

Alle Fassungen haben eine falsche Dienstgradbezeichnung des Briefempfängers. Es gab in der Waffen-SS nur den zusätzlichen Dienstgrad »und Generalmajor der Waffen-SS«, wie auf Anlage 1 ausgeführt.

Wir haben, wie oben geschildert, auch diesen Fehler geprüft. Im eingegrenzten Bereich fanden wir 5 Schreiben mit richtiger Anschrift von »Ja« verfaßt, darunter 4 mit dem weiteren Zeichen »L.« und eines mit »Lm.« Die auf das gesamte Jahr 1943 erweiterte Untersuchung ergab sehr viele weitere richtig adressierte Briefe. Eines, wie das inkriminierte Exemplar, mit lediglich der Bezeichnung »Generalmajor«, fand sich nicht!

Source: http://www.vho.org/VffG/1998/3/Gerner3.html

Carlo Mattogno makes another good point in his article about that "document", when he mentions that there originally was a document with this file-number in the files of the Zentralbauleitung - most probably a simple report on the completion of crematorium III, roughly like this:
Sir,
Herewith I report completion of crematorium III.
The building has been taken over by the Camp Commander of KL Auschwitz.

Moreover that fake "document" contains things which shouldn't be contained in it and omits others which should be contained:
Carlo Mattogno wrote:1. Die laufende Nummer in der Brieftagebuchzeile des Briefes - 31550 - taucht auch in der »Aufstellung der bereits übergebenen Bauwerke an die Standortverwaltung«[14] zu Beginn des Jahres 1943 auf, so daß es keinen Zweifel geben kann, daß sich ein Schreiben mit dieser Nummer auf die »Fertigstellung des Krematoriums III« bezogen haben muß. [...]

Lassen Sie mich dies erklären: Die Meldung der »Fertigstellung« eines Bauwerkes an das SS-WVHA (Wirtschafts-Verwaltungshauptamt) erfolgte in Erfüllung eines besonderen Befehls von Kammler vom 6. April 1943:[16]

»Zur Beurteilung der Tätigkeit der Baudienststellen und zur Überwachung der befohlenen Baufristen ist es unbedingt erforderlich, daß sämtliche nachgeordneten Dienststellen die Fertigstellung eines Bauwerkes oder Bauvorhabens umgehend melden.

Ich ordne daher folgendes an:

1) Nach Fertigstellung eines Bauwerks bzw. nach Inbetriebnahme desselben ist mit der hausverwaltenden Dienstelle eine Übergabeverhandlung zu tätigen. Das Ergebnis dieser Verhandlung ist in einer Niederschrift festzuhalten. [...]«

Dieser Befehl Kammlers verlangte also, daß ihm die Fertigstellung eines Bauwerks gemeldet werden müsse unter Angabe der jeweiligen Übergabeverhandlung, und zwar dem folgenden Muster folgend, das bei allen derartigen Dokumenten eingehalten wurde (vgl. Abbildung):[17]

»Melde die Fertigstellung des Schornsteines-Krematorium BW 11 und Pumpenhauses b.d. Hauptwache BW 29.

Die Bauwerke sind an die Kommandantur des K.L. Auschwitz (Btgb. Nr. 20744/43/Ki/Pa) übernomen worden.« [That's a mistake of Mattogno - it should read: "...übergeben worden, R.]

Aus diesem Grunde enthält die zuvor erwähnte und in Erfüllung dieses Kammler-Befehls erstellte »Aufstellung der bereits übergebenen Bauwerke an die Standortverwaltung« u.a. die Brieftagebuchnummern der Briefe, mit denen die Übergabeprotokolle der jeweiligen Bauwerke an die Kommandantur des K.L. Auschwitz weitergeleitet wurden, das Datum der Übergabe und die Brieftagebuchnummer der »Meldung an Amtsgruppenchef C«.

Wenn also das Protokoll der Übergabeverhandlung von Krematorium III am 24. Juni 1943 geschrieben[18] und am gleichen Tag an die Kommandantur weitergeleitet wurde,[19] und wenn die Standortverwaltung das Krematorium III am 25. Juni offiziell übernommen hat,[14] warum befindet sich dann im hier behandelten Schreiben vom 28. Juni kein Bezug auf diese Vorgänge? Dies sind Dinge, die nicht in diesem Dokument enthalten sind, dort aber enthalten sein müßten.

Die Meldung der »Fertigstellung« eines Bauwerks war ein rein formeller Vorgang ohne Angabe irgendwelcher technischen Einzelheiten, weshalb das Scheiben vom 28. Juni 1943 mit seinen Ausführungen über die Leistung der Krematorien bürokratisch sinnlos sind - und das ist genau das, was in diesem Brief enthalten ist, dort aber gar nicht hingehört.

Die Auflistung der Krematoriumsleistungen weist zudem zwei weitere Anomalien auf: Vor allem die Verwendung des Begriffs »Personen«, was mir sehr merkwürdig vorkommt. Im Zusammenhang mit Kremierungen würde ich Begriffe wie »Leichen«, »Körper« oder zumindest »Häftlinge« erwarten. [...]

Eine weitere Tatsache, die unsere Aufmerksamkeit verdient, ist, daß der behandelte Brief ein isoliertes Schreiben ohne Bezug zu irgendeinem anderen ist: es gibt kein anderes Dokument, in dem auf die Leistung der Krematorien Bezug genommen wird. Diese Tatsache ist um so seltsamer, als dieser offizielle Brief an den Amtsgruppenchef C des SS-WVHA, SS-Brigadeführer und Generalmajor der Waffen-SS Kammler gerichtet ist. [...]

Der letzte hier zu untersuchende Punkt ist: wurde dieses Schreiben vom 28. Juni 1943 überhaupt an das SS-WVHA gesandt? Dies hätte, wie zuvor ausgeführt, unweigerlich zu einem Briefwechsel geführt haben, von dem sich im Archiv der Zentralbauleitung aber keine Spur findet. Die Tatsache, daß der Brief von Bischoff nicht unterschrieben wurde, [...]

Source: http://www.vho.org/VffG/2000/1/Mattogno51-56.html


Sailor wrote:Question: You said before that the firm Topf built in crematorium I in the camp section Auschwitz two two-muffle cremation ovens, while in an official report by the SS- Bauleitung of Auschwitz of June 28, 1943, a photo copy of which lies in front of you, is stated that in that crematorium three two-muffle ovens were installed. Give an explanation for this!
Answer: Now I remember, that in crematorium I, which is located in the camp section Auschwitz, the Topf company erected under my participation three and not two cremation ovens, i.e. it is so as explained in the report of the construction management which is in front of me. In this connection I would like to make clear, that the Topf company built in five crematoriums a total of not 20 but 21 cremation ovens.




That's quite an interesting point here (Prüfer "remembers" that there were three double-muffle ovens in the old Krema I instead of only two, as he had said before, when his SMERSH-torturers reminded him.

There have been suspicions that there were in fact only two ovens in Krema I:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=3239&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30
I came across an interesting issue in footnote 18 of an article written by a certain "Knud Bäcker" (pseudonym) in Germar Rudolfs periodical Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung No. 1/1999, p. 60:
"'At first they [the Germans] built a small crematorium in Auschwitz I with 4 muffles. Then two large crematoria, II and III, were built in Auschwitz II (Birkenau)' (Dr. Filip Friedman, To jest Oswiecim!, Warsaw 1945, p. 72 and Dr. Filip Friedman (Director of the Central Jewish Historical Commission in Poland), Oswiecim - The Story of a Murder Camp, The United Jewish Relief Appeal, London 1946, p. 54). - The alleged installation of a third double-muffle oven in Auschwitz I is not mentioned here. In the 'Broad-Report' as well ' 4 ovens' are mentioned, which can only refer to the 2 double-muffle ovens with their 4 muffles (Rawicz (ed.), KL Auschwitz in den Augen der SS, PMO, 1973, p. 159). Not till the Soviet Pravda-article of 7 May 1945 a third oven is mentioned."
And in footnote 59 on page 61 of the same issue of VffG "Bäcker" quotes Friedman once again and comments:
"[...] Here we have been informed first hand by a member of the Soviet-Polish Commission immediately in 1945 on the real equipment of the 'old' crematorium: Two double-muffle ovens with together four muffles. Not until the Pravda-report of 7 May 1945 three ovens are claimed.”
That would correspond with the two vents on the roof.

[Post of May 06, 2006 11:50 am; as to the only two vents on the roof see polardude's post from May 03, 2006 12:55 am.]
[...] You will notice that the ovens were lighted from the rear side (four stairs are drawn in, which led downstairs to the grate. No. 6 is the coke storage room. So you have a short way from the coke storage to the two ovens. But for the alleged third oven (left) you have to carry the coke the whole way through the entire furnace room! Why wasn't the wall behind the alleged third oven removed and a seperate coke storage built, there would have been enough space in the yard? (see on the photo on the right side!)

[Post of May 07, 2006 4:36 am in above mentioned thread]

So, Prüfer himself said in the SMERSH interrogation, there were only two double-muffle ovens in the old Krema I and it wasn't until he was "reminded" by the SMERSH interrogators that he "remembered" that there were in fact three!

And so much for this 'document'

- 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.
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

Atigun
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 498
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:13 am

Re: Prufer letter / '80,000 Cremation Capacity Per Month Not Sufficient for Auschwitz '

Postby Atigun » 1 year 1 week ago (Tue May 21, 2019 12:48 pm)

Thanks to all and my humble apologies for not being able to find the rebuttals. The hackneyed old expression, "The devil is in the details" sums up this forgery quite nicely.

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1647
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Prufer letter / '80,000 Cremation Capacity Per Month Not Sufficient for Auschwitz '

Postby Lamprecht » 1 year 1 week ago (Tue May 21, 2019 5:34 pm)

Pressac admits the numbers are bogus:

On 28th June, following the handover of Krematorium III, the last one to be completed, Jährling calculated the overall throughout for the five Krematorien as 4,756 people in 24 hours, and sent this information to SS General Kammler in Berlin [Document 68]. This “official” figure, coolly doubled when explaining operations to high ranking visitors (cf. SS Major Franke Gricksch’s report above, giving a figure of 10,000 in 24 hours), had no basis in practice, and probably has to be divided by two or three to arrive at the true figure. The different visitors, SS, political leaders or others, were obviously unable to check the figures given by the camp SS, but accepted them as true and went away praising the Auschwitz SS for having found such a splendid solution to the “Jewish question”.
https://archive.is/n0Keb#selection-254.10-254.13
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher and 6 guests