Zimmerman's cremation deceptions exposed by Mattogno

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9969
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Zimmerman's cremation deceptions exposed by Mattogno

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:38 am)

I find this debunking of an obvious charlatan, John Zimmerman, by Carlo Mattogno most informative. It displays the utter desperation that judeo-supremacist will go to manipulate public opinion and distort Revisionist research. Have a look, comments invited.

- Hannover
'Body disposal at Auschwitz': Zimmerman's 'grand illusions'

John C. Zimmerman and "Body Disposal at Auschwitz": Preliminary Observations by CARLO MATTOGNO
Translated and Copyrighted © MCMXCIX Russ Granata. All Rights Reserved.
POB 2145 PVP CA 90274 USA
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/jcz.html or https://archive.is/4CdkZ

John C. Zimmerman published an article entitled Body Disposal at Auschwitz [1] which is supposed to be a refutation of my arguments concerning cadaver cremations at Auschwitz; or better still, even a definitive refutation, as he makes clear from the sub-title of his article: The End of Holocaust-Denial. Zimmerman disputes my study The Crematoria Ovens of Auschwitz and Birkenau, [2] regarding which he writes:
"It appears that this was intended to be the definitive denier argument on the issue" (p. 2). This is merely one of the grand illusions of our professor. The work he cites is a translation of my article "Die Krematoriumsöfen von Auschwitz" which is published in the anthology edited by Ernst Gauss, Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte. [3] That work is a synthesis (carried out by the editor) of a text of approximately 80 pages which at the same time is a synthesis of a larger work which I had compiled in 1993 with the collaboration of Engineer Franco Deana.[4] It is obvious to me that "omissions" of which Zimmerman accuses me depended upon sudden drastic reductions of that anthology. Whereas that work arose from a period of limited availability of sources, since 1995 I have had access to a vastly more amount of material, therefore The Crematoria Ovens of Auschwitz and Birkenau is not a place of arrival, as Zimmerman believes, but merely a point of departure.

My "definitive" study concerning cremations at Auschwitz - assuming that I would speak of a "definitive study" - is the two-volume work being published: I forni crematori di Auschwitz. Studio storico-tecnico, con la collaborazione del dott.ing. Franco Deana. This work comprises 500 pages of text, 270 documents, and 360 photographs.[5] The major parts of the objections raised by Zimmerman have already been refuted with ample documentation in that work.[6] Actually, our professor has drawn a blank and therefore must start all over again with his "refutation", but this time his task will be much more difficult because it is not coincidental to repeat here what has been already demonstrated in that work to which I refer Professor Zimmerman.

At this time I shall limit myself to raising some preliminary observations. The Competence of Zimmerman.

First of all, let us assess the competence of this critic who presents himself as "Associate Professor, University of Nevada, Las Vegas" (p. 1). The first qualification required of one who wants to seriously occupy himself with this alleged holocaust is knowledge of the German language, but instead our professor does not know German and for interpretations of texts written in that language, entrusts translations to others. He in fact declares: "The author wishes to thank Judith Jenner and Karola Raab, both of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, for their translations of the German language material used in this study" (p. 52). It is as though a professor wanted to explain obscure passages of the Bible without knowing Hebrew and Aramaic! This already qualifies Professor Zimmerman as a dilettante.
From the historiographical point of view, the Zimmerman information is for the most part second-hand and filtered through various ones such as Pressac, Piper, van Pelt, Czech, etc. The original documents which our professor knows are few and irrelevant. We shall subsequently show what blunders result from such documentary ignorance. From the technical point of view, Zimmerman walks in the dark. He has not the faintest idea of structure and function of crematory ovens in general and those of Auschwitz in particular, going off into absolutely unfounded conjectures as if they were sacred truths. This fact shall be illustrated with appropriate examples.
As to methodology and professional honesty, Zimmerman demonstrates a truly worrisome deficiency, and while he charges that Mattogno "basically reverts to the common denier tactics of omission and misrepresentation" (p. 2) - an accusation of specious methodology against me - we are about to see just how honest are the Zimmerman "refutations":

Zimmerman fabrications and deceptions.

We begin with the case of aerial photographs. First of all, the Zimmerman conjectures concerning my alleged second-thoughts after the publication in books of aerial and surface photographs of Auschwitz are absolutely ridiculous. Being a dilettante, he evidently believes that I am as he and go looking for the documents in books and not in the archives. I possess all the Auschwitz aerial photographs he mentioned (and many others he doesn't know, or is even aware exist) as well as surface ones from 1989 which he mentioned. If I change opinion concerning interpretation of specific points, that depends only upon the progression of my studies, and not due to the fact that later books have published documents which I had already possessed. We shall examine in more detail the Zimmerman "definitive refutation":

1. Zimmerman writes that Mattogno "claimed in 1995, the year following the publication of the May 31 photo, that the smoke was not from burning bodies but most probably from trash" (p. 41). Zimmerman cites as a source my booklet Auschwitz Holocaust Revisionist Jean-Claude Pressac: The "Gassed" People of Auschwitz: Pressac's New Revisions. [7] This is false. I never wrote such a thing; not in that booklet nor elsewhere. [Note from Russ Granata: An online Internet version includes these words: "The small column of smoke rising from the courtyard near Crematory V which appears in the aerial photographs of May 31, 1944 is consistent with outside trash incineration in an open-air container where lower level combustion air is able to enter; we know of no aerial photographic evidence of pit incineration where burning would have been very slow because of poor air circulation."]

2. Our professor claims that "Mattogno simply had no explanation for the presence of this smoke (p. 41)." This is also false; anyone may read my "explanation" on page 43 of my book My Banned Holocaust Interview. [8]

3. Regarding the photographic note which Zimmerman reports in microscopic format in his article, Zimmerman declares that "it is possible to see 14 Sonderkommandos in uniform" (p. 45 ). This too is false. The photograph in question, shows only 8 persons (almost certainly prisoners) standing, and a 9th [person] on the left, who is probably a guard. As I have explained in My Banned Holocaust Interview (pp. 41-44 ), this photograph doesn't only NOT demonstrate, but refutes the story of mass cremation of "gassed". This lie serves to advance the number of prisoners in that photograph of "25 Sonderkommandos" declared by Filip Müller (p. 46 ).
4. Still, Zimmerman writes that "Mattogno never addressed this photo" (p. 46 ), to which I respond once again: See My Banned Holocaust Interview (pp. 41- 44 ).

5.. He furthermore declares that «Mattogno had also assured his readers that Red and White Bunkers were not found in any German documents and that they had "been created by postwar witness"» (p. 42 ). Here our very virtuous professor falsifies my affirmation. I have in fact textually written: "Before examining Jean-Claud Pressac's statements on Bunkers 1 and 2, it is well to specify that this designation (like those of "red house" and "white house") is not found either in the German documents or in the reports of the clandestine resistance movement of the period at Auschwitz; it has been created by postwar eyewitnesses". [9] I referred to names, while Zimmerman declares that I referred to things.

6. On the same page, our professor of integrity again falsifies my assertions, claiming that: "He [Mark Van Alstine] has identified three burning pits in the area of the White Bunker (Mattogno states that there were four)". In reality I referred to traces of four mass graves filled with soil located approximately 200 meters west of area BIII of Birkenau. I did not speak of "burning pits", nor of open graves, nor of graves "in the area of the White Bunker"; these are simply Zimmerman deceptions.

7. On page 44, referring to one of my citations concerning an article by H. Fröhlich entitled Zur Gesundheitspflege auf den Sclachtfeldern, Zimmerman wrote that Mattogno «cited a study by H. Frohlich [sic] in an 1872 German military journal that the attempt to dispose of the bodies of soldiers by opening mass graves and filling them with tar "resulted in charring of the uppermost layer of the corpses, the baking of the intermediate layer and no effect on the bottom layer". He ignored the fact that the author of the study gave guidelines for the effective disposal of bodies in pits by using gasoline. Frolich wrote that the grave had to be drenched with gasoline in a tar pit. After three hours, 250 to 300 bodies were disposed of.» But actually in the cited pages, the military medic Fröhlich expounds a criticism of a disinfestation procedure after the Battle of Sedan which was carried out by the chemist Créteur, and above all, of the results which he pretended to have obtained. Créteur opened mass graves, poured in liquid tar which was then ignited. Fröhlich objected that with such a procedure, cadavers at the bottom of the grave remained practically intact. One of two passages mentioned by Zimmerman (in reference to his note 278) references a citation by Fröhlich concerning a writing by Créteur, but the "guidelines" of which he expounds are those typically critical of the military medics. Moreover this passage does not contain any mention of "gasoline". The only combustible liquid of which Créteur writes (other than tar) is mineral oil (Steinöl), which however served only to ignite the tar: "Darauf enzündete ich den Teer mit Hilfe von mit Steinöl angefeuchtetem Stroh." [10] [Thereupon I ignited the tar with the help of straw soaked in mineral oil.] The other passage is the citation of a letter appearing in Belgian script which states that the cadavers were soaked with tar and mineral oil (Steinöl) which were then ignited. [11] But in the Fröhlich article, "gasoline" is never mentioned.

8. To this falsehood, Zimmerman then also adds another deception, writing: "In 1887 Dr Hugo Erichsen, one of the world's leading experts in body disposal in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, wrote of the Belgian government's efforts along these lines in a battle in 1814. The individual charged with body disposal was named Creteur." In reality, Zimmerman presents the same source - the affirmations of Créteur - as if they were two different sources ! This also shows our poor professor making a rather stupid historical chronological blunder: the fact is of course that the Créteur activities occurred at the time of the Franco-Prussian War: 1871, not in 1814 ! And if that is not enough, we have Zimmerman referencing Créteur - this alleged world expert of cremation - who, according to Zimmerman, was declaring that the cadavers of the soldiers were "saturated with kerosene" (p. 44), which is false, because Créteur speaks only of "mineral oil". So here is our Professor Zimmerman relying upon a world "expert" who is incapable of distinguishing mineral oil from kerosene !

9. Conclusions which Zimmerman draws from things such as the above, are just the beginning of classic examples of his crass ignorance of subject-matter while assailing me : "Deniers like Mattogno would have people believe that the Germans of World War II were incapable of replicating the achievements of an early 19th century European country" (p. 45). My response to that is that if Professor Zimmerman had made a serious research in this regard, he would have known that the scope of the disinfestation in the battlegrounds never had been the cremation of the cadavers, but only the more or less complete carbonization of their soft tissue in an attempt to ward off the onset of epidemics. Therefore this concerns completely different problems. If he wanted, our professor could fill a gap in his ignorance by reading Chapter X of Part One of my work cited at the beginning of this article.

10. Zimmerman affirms that "Mattogno claimed the maximum cremation capacity of the six original ovens was 120 per day, even though he was familiar with evidence from another concentration camp that showed a Topf double muffle oven could burn 52 per day or 26 per muffle" p. 4). In this case, the Zimmerman falsification consists in the omission of factors which permit such a cremation capacity. [12] I wrote: "The average cremation time of a continuously operating oven was about forty minutes of principal combustion (in the chamber), obtainable with the aid of the installation of an intake draft system (data relative to the Gusen oven). The average time of cremation without an intake draft system (taking into account the combustion capacity of the furnace grill) was sixty minutes, as is evident from the statement by Engineer Prüfer (in the 01 November 1940 letter), as well as from the diagrams published by Engineer R. Kessler concerning the principal combustion in the chamber". [13] Naturally Zimmerman does not mention the documents which I referenced in this cited passage because they refute in a very categorical manner his thermotechnical fantasies.

11. To "demonstrate" that Bunker 2 continued to function even after Crematory II at Birkenau started functioning, Zimmerman presents an argument which is truly a masterpiece of deception as well as bad faith. He affirms: «Another useful piece of information is a report from the Bauleitung on June 13, 1943. It states that doors for Krema II are "urgently needed for the execution of the special measures... Likewise, the completion of windows for the reception building and the doors for 5 [barracks] for the accommodation of prisoners [Häftlingsunterkünfte] is urgently required for the same reasons". There is no further information about the five barracks in the memo. Recall, however, that Höss mentioned five barracks in his memoirs for the two bunkers in the area where prisoners were gassed, and this is the same number referred to for "special treatment" in the Bauleitung memo of July 15, 1942. It would appear that the five barracks in the June 1943 memo are the same ones used for undressing in the areas where the two bunkers were located. Thus, their continued usage after the crematoria were built and before the Hungarian operation was undertaken is strongly suggested" (pp. 36-37).» Well, first of all Zimmerman falsifies the date of that document, which is a letter from the "Leiter der Zentralbauleitung" (Bischoff) to the "Deutsche Ausrüstungswerke" Auschwitz dated 13 January 1943. [14] To this falsification Zimmerman then adds an interpretation which is not only absolutely unfounded, but decidedly ridiculous: the "5 accommodations for prisoners"[15]mentioned in this letter were supposed to have been the alleged "undressing barracks"of the alleged homicidal bunkers. The foundation for this interpretation is the simple presence of the number "5" in the two cited documents and the affirmation of Höss! Moreover, Zimmerman here furnishes another proof of his ignorance of documents, because "in the Bauleitung memo of July 15, 1942" it is clearly specified that one of the "5 Baracken für Sonderbehandlung u. Unterbringung von Häftlingen" was meant for the village of Bor, a little settlement located about 4 km south of Birkenau: "4 Stück Baracken der Häftllinge in Birkenau 1 Stk. Baracken zur Unterbringung v. Häftl. in Bor".[16] So maybe in Bor there was a branch office of the alleged gassing Bunker of Birkenau?

12. Zimmerman wrote "the total number of prisoners registered in Auschwitz in 1941 is not known", but the Kalendarium of Danuta Czech, which he keeps citing, states explicitly that in 1941 there were 17,270 "registered" (eingeliefert) prisoners and 9,997 Soviet captives. [17]

13. On page 12, Zimmerman declares: "Mattogno and other deniers often argue that a planned expansion of the camp to 200,000 was the catalyst for the new crematoria. However, the Bauleitung began negotiating with firms for construction of the four crematoria in July 1942, while the first evidence of the planned expansion to 200,000 is on August 15". This involves another Zimmerman deception. In the Aktenvermerk of 21 August 1942, which Zimmerman cites on page 9, one reads (cited from the translation of the Pressac book to which our professor refers): "Regarding the construction of a 2nd crematorium with 5 3-muffle furnaces, together with the ventilation and air extraction systems, it will be necessary to await the result of negotiations already under way with the Reich Security Main Office [RSHA] on the subject of rationed materials."[18] Therefore no decision to construct Crematory II had yet been made. On this same document there is evidence that the Prüfer proposal to transfer two 8-muffle ovens from Mogilew to Auschwitz was made on 18 August. The proposal (proved by a handwritten note in the margin) was accepted by the WVHA on 24 August. So this signifies that the number of oven muffles for Crematory IV and V had not yet been decided upon at that time. Therefore Zimmerman knows he lies. Regarding augmenting the camp population, the Zimmerman affirmations are refuted by Pressac, his main source, who writes: "Himmler had ordered that the camp should accommodate 200,000 inmates, and the Zentralbauleitung had completed a design for the enlarged camp at the end of July." [19] In the original edition of that book, Pressac declares again more explicitly: "Fixer, selon les ordres de Himmler et de Kammler, l'effectif du KGL de Birkenau à 200000 détenus entraînait un nouvel agrandissement du camp et un renforcement de sa capacité d'incinération [...]. Fin juillet, une quatrième section de 600000 prisonniers fut ajoutée, placée au sud de la première, portant ainsi la capacité du camp à 200000".[20] So according to Professor Zimmerman, Pressac is also a "denier" ! The historical-documentary ignorance of Zimmerman.

14. Zimmerman writes "the Auschwitz Construction Agency, known as the Bauleitung" (p. 3). In his entire article he always writes 'Bauleitung' of Auschwitz. The poor professor has no idea of the fact that the Bauleitung was promoted to Zentralbauleitung on 14 November 1941 [21] and remained Zentralbauleitung until the end of the war in 1945.

15. On page 20, Zimmerman presents another classic example of his historical-documentary ignorance. After citing a Topf letter from the Mauthausen SS-Neubauleitung of 14 July 1941 - which he knows only from its appearance in Kalendarium by Danuta Czech and the erred reproduction of which appears in the book by R. Schnabel, Macht ohne Moral, [22] Zimmerman continues: "On the same day that the Gusen instructions were issued, two Topf engineers stated that the double muffle furnace could incinerate 60 to 72 bodies [30 to 36 per muffle] in a 20 hour period with three hours of maintenance required". This time his source is the Pressac article "The Machinery of Mass Murder at Auschwitz". But our poor professor didn't know that the cited Pressac document is exactly the same document mistranslated by R. Schnabel, so Zimmerman thought they were two different documents!

16. On page 28, citing H. Tauber through Pressac, Zimmerman repeats without any comment, that foolishness according to which in the three-muffled oven, "the flames went first round the two side muffles", and which, as I have explained elsewhere, [23] got started from a translation error [24] and is technically false. [25] From this one may surmise Professor Zimmerman's comprehension of cremation technology and sources !

17. On page 26, Zimmerman writes that "Miecyslaw Morawa, a worker in the crematoria, testified that..." But there is no existing testimony from Morawa. Our poor professor, being incapable of correctly interpreting the sources indicated by Danuta Czech in her Kalendarium of Auschwitz, had picked up a stupid blunder and confused Morawa with Tauber!

18. Zimmerman writes "the two structures in the wooded area [the alleged Bunkers of Birkenau] were completely destroyed by the Germans and no trace remains" (p. 3). But our professor ignores the fact that there still exists purported solid traces of alleged Bunker 2 - ruins of perimeter and interior walls - as seen by visitors to Birkenau.

19. To the question of "Sonderbehandlung", "Sonderaktion", etc., here Zimmerman, who only refers to second hand documents, is referred to my study which is currently being prepared for publication, Sonderbehandlung ad Auschwitz. Genesi e significato. If Zimmerman deludes himself into thinking that he could be able to liquidate the revisionist arguments by repeating like a parrot that which has been given to him by Pressac and van Pelt, he is making a big mistake. Our poor professor can not even imagine how many difficulties he would yet have to face in order to be able to "refute" the revisionist writings. Here I limit myself to a few glaring errors which Zimmerman presents: On page 9, in reference to the Aktenvermerk of 21 August 1942, he declares: "The letter is saying that these special actions are taking place in the "bathing installation". Just so there is no misunderstanding as what these words mean, they are the only ones in this lengthy two page memo which are underlined". In the document which Zimmerman knows (through Pressac), the expression "Badeanstalten für Sonderaktionen is underlined effectively in pen or pencil. But - even supposing that this has a sinister significance - how does Zimmerman deduce that expression was underlined by the Germans and not by the Poles who had this in their hands for a whole decade? Our naive professor ignores that in the Moscow archives there exists another version of this document (signed regularly and with the same handwritten annotation in the left margin) in which however the expression in question is not underlined.[26] Another example of Zimmerman dilettantism!

20. On page 9 while commenting on the "Fernschreiben" by Bischoff of 18 December 1942 in which it speaks of a "Sonderaktion" by the Gestapo in regard to civilian workers, Zimmerman considers the Pressac [27] interpretation possible, but adds: «It is quite possible that the camp administration sought to make an example of some of the civilian workers by executing them. This could explain why the memo is marked "secret"» The original text states there was a "Sonderaktion der Gestapo bei sämtlichen Zivilarbeitern" [special action by the Gestapo of all civilian workers], that is "all", not "some." If the Zimmerman interpretation is correct, the Gestapo executed all civilian workers. But what does one expect from an alleged Holocaust expert who doesn't know German? The fact that the document bears the term "geheim"doesn't matter; for example, that does not appear at all on the letter by Bischoff of 29 January 1943 which would have been much more compromising in that it displays the term "Vergasungskeller".

21. On page 7 Zimmerman offers another example of his technical, as well as his historical-documental ignorance. He writes: "The estimated capacity of cremation ovens for Mogilew was 3000 per day". Our naive professor ignores that of the 4 Topf 8-muffled ovens originally ordered by the Hauptamt Haushalt und Bauten, Mogilew was restricted to only half of one 8-muffled oven which therefore amounted to 4 muffles. And assuming that absurd cremation capacity shown in that Zentralbauleitung letter of 28 June 1943, those 4 muffles would have been able to cremate 384 cadavers in 24 hours! And also if the 3,000 cremated mentioned above were not one of the many Zimmerman falsifications but rather a blunder by his source, Zimmerman would still be guilty of a total lack of critical sense, because he reports this foolish lie as though it were the truth. The Technical Competence of Zimmerman.

22. To "refute" my arguments regarding duration of the cremation processes in coke-fueled ovens at Auschwitz, Zimmerman shares a document note relating to cremations carried out in the crematory at Gusen from 26 September to 12 November 1941 (p. 21), however due to his utter ignorance of camp thermotechnology, it is not surprising that he has not understood anything: First of all, the first column of the document bears the inscription "Uhr" "hour", but nowhere is it specified to what this "Uhr" corresponds. However Professor Zimmerman decides to authorize that the data contained in this column is to refer to the time of cremation, but this is not merely an unauthorized interpretation, it is also technically absurd, because if that were the case, the oven would have been able to cremate one cadaver in 8 (EIGHT) minutes with a grill speed [28] of 343 kg/hr, while the maximum speed (with an artificial maximum draught of 30 mm column of water) was 90 kg/hr and 8 minutes - which is really not very much even for our professor. He may read in my book cited at the beginning of this article, to what in reality the column "Uhr" actually refers. With this artifice, founded on one day of cremations (that of 07 November 1941), [29] Zimmerman declares that "each oven could incinerate a body in 25.2 minutes" (p. 21), which is unfounded documentarily, and is truly technically absurd.

23. Zimmerman writes moreover: "Kurt Prüfer, the Topf engineer who built the 46 Birkenau ovens, stated in a letter on November 15, 1942 that the ovens be installed in the Buchenwald concentration camp had a one-third greater output than had previously been thought". The source of this is the Pressac book, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers. Professor Zimmerman continues: "Unfortunately, he does not say what number the one third is greater than. However, on the same day he informed the Bauleitung that five triple-muffle furnaces, 15 ovens, could incinerate 800 corpses in 24 hours" (p. 21). The source is another writing by Pressac, "The Machinery of Mass Murder at Auschwitz", in which that French historian wrote: "Extrapolating the Buchenwald data for Auschwitz, Prüfer concluded that the five furnaces of the new crematorium in Birkenau could incinerate 800 corpses in 24 hours." [30] The referenced day from Pressac is identical to that of the letter of 15 November 1941 mentioned above: "[Staatsarchiv] Weimar, 2/555a, letter Prüfer November 15, 1942." [31] So Zimmerman in this case AGAIN has cited twice the same document as though there are two different documents! Considering his crass documentary ignorance, I do not believe that this is attributable to bad faith. Zimmerman is limited to only inventing the letter's addressee (Prüfer "informed the Bauleitung"). The alleged Prüfer "conclusion" ("Prüfer concluded...") is a simple invention by Pressac, because the letter in question, in which he himself has published the original text and the transcription, [32] does not mention any numerical figure.

24. In that letter, the phrase which stirred up the imagination of both Pressac and Zimmerman, is: "Die Öfen leisten mehr, als von mir überhaupt vorgesehen war". Now, both Pressac and Zimmerman arbitrarily interpret this in the sense of "production"/output/yield - that is, the number of cremated cadavers - but this may be interpreted also in the sense of "efficiency"/good performance, which is in practice, the coke consumption. The way I understand it, I interpret the term "leisten" precisely in the sense of efficiency, and have already explained that in this article. Zimmerman pretends to refute the thermotechnical reasoning for this reduction of the coke consumption originally expected by Prüfer,[33] but instead neither Pressac nor Zimmerman have explained why this term in question should refer to the production of the ovens. The Pressac fabrication indicated above has an essential importance to the Zimmerman pseudo-demonstrative display to which he also returns on pages 25 and 27.

25. On page 20 Zimmerman affirms: "Contrary to Legace and Leuchter, it is known that the Topf ovens could work on a continuous daily basis." This is supposed to have been demonstrated by the Topf letter of 14 July 1941 mentioned above. However this actually refers to a forced functioning of an oven, which certainly could have continuously functioned for even more than 24 hours, but which, in this manner, would have progressively lost its efficiency until finally it would have stopped functioning altogether if slag had not been removed from the oven grills which restrict required combustion air. Even the expert Pole, Roman Dawidowski, at the Höss trial, in the calculation of a technically absurd cremation capacity, admits: "A continuous functioning in two shifts of 12 hours per day, considering 3 hours pause per day for the extraction of slag from the gasogenes and for various minor work, with the inevitable interruptions of continuous activity." [34] Also Pressac admits a 3 hour pause in continuous activity. This affirmation also appears in the article "The Machinery of Mass Murder at Auschwitz," [35] but naturally Zimmerman prefers to ignore this. Therefore Lagacé, Leuchter and those who write are in excellent company!

26. Zimmerman works himself up, attempting to demonstrate with a series of illogical arguments that the cremation capacity of the crematories of Auschwitz were excessive for only the natural mortality of the prisoners, and that this demonstrates that they were planned and built for a criminal purpose; for mass extermination. I shall spare the reader of this article the refutation of the Zimmerman technical foolishness, and shall limit this to mentioning one single document, and that concerns a letter of the head of the Zentralbauleitung dated 10 July 1942 from which results that a crematorium of type II/III, with 15 muffles was projected for 30,000 prisoners, whereby the muffle-prisoner ratio was 1:2,000. Thus the 46 muffles of Birkenau were projected for 92,000 prisoners, but according to the final plans of the SS, the Birkenau camp was supposed to contain 140,000 prisoners, and 70 muffles were supposed to have been requested. In practice, the number of muffles at Birkenau were really inadequate in regards to the projected expansion of the camp! [36]

27. Zimmerman wrote one entire paragraph to the problem of "Durability of the Ovens." He, among others, pretends to demonstrate that the Auschwitz ovens could have carried out without any damage, an enormously greater number of cremations than those I have put forward based upon the article by Engineer R. Jakobsköter which I cite below, that is, 3,000 cremations per muffle. Zimmerman writes: "In the late 1880s, two ovens were installed in a crematory in Southern Paris. These ovens were designed to cremate 5000 bodies per year or 2500 per furnace" (p. 16). This is confirmation of the validity of my argument. Zimmerman refers to the Toisul and Fradet oven installed in the Paris cemetery by Père Lachaise in 1889. It consisted of a gigantic three-floor structure: on the ground floor was the provision for the recuperator; on the first floor, the cremation chamber; and in the basement, the gasogene. The oven was a single, and had one single cremation chamber. [37]

28. Continuing to the reader: "Augustus Cobb, a leading cremation expert of the period, learned from the engineer who worked in the crematory that "[although nearly four hundred bodies are burned in these furnaces every month, a close inspection of their walls showed no traces of fissures, and the same remark applies to the walls of the furnaces in the crematory in Milan (in Italy)]" (p. 16). The figure put forward by Zimmerman - 400 cadavers per month, is false. In the first 5 years of activity, in the Toisul and Fradet oven mentioned above, there were cremated respectively: 49 cadavers in 1889; 121 in 1890; 134 in 1891; 159 in 1892; and 189 in 1893 for a total of 652 in 5 years, [38] which averages 10 to 11 per month! At the end of the 1920s, when the number of crematories in France increased, and the practice of cremation was more widespread throughout the country, during 1926 there were 877 cremations; in 1927 there were 861; in 1928 there were 945; and during 1929 there were 1,118. [39] In Germany, where cremation was more widespread, from 1889 to 1893 there were a total of 881 cadavers cremated, [40] averaging approximately 15 per month! As for the crematory of Milan [Italy], from 1874 to June 30, 1884, there were 304 cremations, averaging approximately 3 per month! [41] I don't know if the deception is from Zimmerman or from his sources; but that's of little importance: the topic is absolutely bogus.

29. Professor Zimmerman continues like this: "Additional information on these ovens published in 1893 shows that from 1889 to 1892, 11,852 were cremated in these facilities" (p. 16). But this involves another deception. As I related above, during the period indicated by Zimmerman, there were a total of 652 cadavers cremated in the Père Lachaise oven. Therefore the bogus figure put forward by Zimmerman is 18 times more than the real one. In all of Germany, which was the European country where the practice of cremation was most widespread, from 1889 to 1893, there were a total of 881 cadavers cremated, [and furthermore, in all of Germany] the figure of 11,000 [sic] in one year was exceeded only in the year 1916 with 49 crematories! [42]

30. Zimmerman triumphantly concludes: "As will be seen, Germany led Europe in cremation technology in the 1930s. It would appear logical to conclude that Germany of the 1940s had more durable ovens than France of 50 years earlier" (p. 16). The bad faith of Zimmerman is quite evident because the article which I am referencing pertains to 1941! Rudolf Jakobsköter, by profession "Stadoberingenieur" [chief engineer of the city], was a cremation professional and an authoritative and reliable source (different from the popularized citations spread by Zimmerman). In that referenced article, Jokobsköter relates: "Da im zweiten elektrischen Öfen in Erfurt über 3000 Einäscherungen getätigt worden sind, während die Muffeln je nach ihrer Ausführungsweise bisland nur etwa 2000 Einäscherungen ausgehalten hatten, kann behauptet werden, dass sich die Bauweise hinsichlich der Haltbarkeit vollauf bewährt hat. Die Herstellerfirma rechnet künftig mit einer Lebensdauer von 4000 Einäscherungen je Muffel." [43] [Since 3000 cremations were performed in the second electrical oven at Erfurt, while up to now, the muffles, depending upon their operational effectiveness, withstood only 2000 cremations - one can come to the conclusion that the construction regarding the durability has been affirmed. The construction firm is counting on a life span of 4000 cremations per muffle.] Therefore in October of 1941, German technology, which was in the leading position throughout the world in the field of cremation, had not yet developed fire-resistant muffle-walls which could withstand 4000 cremations. Now Zimmerman claims to deny this factual data concerning1941 with false data concerning 1893! Another shining example of his utter bad faith. From 1941 until today, in this field, progress has not been exceptional. Here is what the American firm, "Industrial Equipment & Engineering Co." writes in their description of its electrically heated "Ener-Tek II" crematory oven: "The refractory and insulating materials used in the construction of the Ener-Tek II are of a very high quality which will ensure many thousand of cremations before repair of the brick work is required". Here it still refers to "many thousand", not to "tens of thousands", as would have been necessary at Auschwitz if the ovens had also cremated the cadavers of the "gassed". Documentation concerning the "Ener-Tek II" oven comprising various technical designs is published by Fred Leuchter in his report [44] which Zimmerman well knows, but he prefers to ignore this data which contradicts his baseless conjectures.

31. To "refute" my argument concerning the durability of the refractory walls in the Topf 2-muffled oven at Gusen after scarcely 3,200 cremations (1,600 per muffle), Zimmerman claims that "it is possible that the Gusen ovens may not have originally been built correctly" (p. 15). an unfounded hypothesis which is based upon a simple analogy: "Topf admitted that Krema IV ovens were made defectively" (pp. 14-15). But that is false. "Topf" did not ever make an "admission" of this sort. Zimmerman furnishes in this regard the erroneous reference to a "Topf letter of April 4, 1943 to the Bauleitung in APMO, BW 30/34 p. 43" (note 88 ), while this in reality deals with a letter of 10 April in which "Topf" does not even believe that the 8-muffle oven of Crematory IV had actually been damaged ("die angeblich in letzter Zeit entstandenen Risse") [45] [the supposed cracks to have occurred recently].

32. To my affirmations that the Zentralbauleitung documents do not in the least attest to 4 complete replacements of the refractory walls of all the muffles of all the Auschwitz ovens which would have been necessary if there was also cadaver cremation of [alleged] "gassed", Zimmerman objects: "In fact, no information has surfaced from these archives, or any other archives, that even one cremation took place in Auschwitz. In other words, not one contemporaneous document has surfaced from any source showing that even one cremation took place in Auschwitz" (p. 15), and concludes: "According to Mattogno's logic, this must mean that no cremation took place at Auschwitz!" (p. 15). Perhaps Zimmerman finds this idiocy amusing; for me it is only pathetic. To begin with, the Zimmerman affirmation is false; those who have such documentary ignorance are able to refrain from affirming things categorically. There in fact exists a "Kontrollzettel für die Firma J.A. Topf & Söhne, Erfurt" concerning the first crematory oven at Auschwitz in which one reads: "Die Probeeinäscherung der ersten Leiche erfogte mit gleichen Tage". [August 15,1940] [46] 502-1-327, p. 215. As to the rest, this unprofessional evidently ignores that the Moscow archival documents - among others - enable the reconstruction of the complete picture of the Topf Company commissions and invoice controls, and this picture categorically excludes that Topf had ever replaced the refractory walls of the Birkenau ovens.[47] One single replacement was probably carried out on the Auschwitz ovens.

33. Nevertheless, when he takes it easy, Zimmerman insolently and opportunistically resumes my arguments against me, by adapting to the Gusen case: "If these overhauls had taken place, they would have certainly been detailed in this file because the information on the 1941 overhaul includes all correspondence with Topf on materials used, billing information and time sheets for the days and hours worked, including overtime" (p. 15), but - as Zimmerman well knows but feigns to not understand - the same thing is valid for Auschwitz also! It is true that for 1941 the correspondence between the Topf company and the SS-Neubauleitung (later Bauleitung) of Mauthausen is nearly complete, but one can not say the same thing for sure for the following years. As to 1941, after the replacement of the refactory walls of the Gusen oven, it cremated at the maximum approximately 1,900 cadavers, [48] therefore the oven could not cremate another 4,100. For the following years, because the documentation is fragmentary, one cannot affirm nor exclude anything.

34. Still, Zimmerman objects that "from 1940 through April 1945 there were 27,556 cremations in Mauthausen. Yet, Mattogno was arguing that all 52 Auschwitz ovens could not have disposed of more than 162,000 bodies" (p. 16). But let's say that figure is exact (this figure was supposed to result from the list of cremations conserved at Arolsen which no one has ever seen), the comparison just does not make any sense. The first crematory oven at Mauthausen was installed by the Kori Company and concerning this there doesn't exist any correspondence. Therefore, for all we know, the Kori Company could have replaced the oven refractory walls ten times. The Topf two-muffled oven was not installed "in July 1944" (p. 16) as Zimmerman pretends, but during January-February of 1945. In the Topf-Mauthausen correspondence which Zimmerman knows well, there figures a letter from Topf to the Mathausen Bauleitung dated 20 December 1944 in which Topf advises to quickly begin the work for the oven foundation and for the smoke conduit, and a letter dated 03 January 1945 in which Topf gives advance notice of dispatching Oberingenieur Schulze for the 9th of January, [49] therefore the oven was constructed then. But we must be understanding: our "Holocaust expert" doesn't know German!

35. And to "demonstrate" the reality of multiple crematories at Auschwitz, our Professor Zimmerman can't find anything better to cite than a deposition concerning Dachau (!) according to which "an oven could burn 7 to 9 bodies in two hours when they were all introduced simultaneously" (p. 22). [50] Well that's simply so foolish it doesn't merit a response - for a scientific discussion of multiple cremations at Auschwitz, refer to Chapter IX of Part Two of my book cited at the beginning of this article.

36. Now we come to the Zimmerman awkward attempt to "refute" my thermic balance of the Birkenau ovens. The point of departure for the calculation of coke consumption is the effective consumption of the Gusen oven per 677 cremations (31 October-12 November), that is, on the average, approximately 30.5 kg of coke per cadaver. Zimmerman states that from 26 September to 15 October in the same oven there were 203 cadavers cremated [in reality, there were 193] with a consumption of 153 wheelbarrows of coke, which amounts to 9,180 kg of coke, on the average, 45 kg per cadaver [in reality 47.5]. In the cremation lists at Gusen, in the column "Karren Koks", is clearly indicated: "1 K.= 60 kg" and allows the transformation in kg the number of wheelbarrows. The consumption differential depends upon the fact that during the period from 26 September to 15 October the cremations were less frequent: on the 27th, 28th and 30th of September, and on the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th, and the 12th of October there were NO cremations and the oven cooled-down; on the rest of the days the average daily number of cremations was very low - hardly 19 - amounting to approximately 9 to 10 per muffle. However from 31 October to 12 November cremations occurred every day for a daily average of 52 which averaged 26 per muffle. A cold oven, before resuming the production temperature, accumulates a considerable quantity of calories in its refractory walls, therefore when the frequency of cremations is meager, the consumption of fuel is greater. For example, the 8 consecutive cremations carried out by Engineer R. Kessler on 05 January 1927 in the Dessau crematory (regarding which he published very detailed diagrams of the cremation process and of coke consumption), required on the average 54.5 kg of coke per cremation, of which however, a good 25 were debited to the heating up of the oven. (The consumption of coke was 200 kg of coke for pre-heating of the oven, and 236 kg for the 8 cremations). If the oven was already cold, the coke consumption would be at 29.5 kg per each cadaver. Professor Zimmerman, who does not even possess this elementary knowledge, instead reveals from that mentioned fact, an arbitrary and unfounded conclusion: "There is some reason, however, to suspect that each wheelbarrow did not contain 6o kilograms of coke but that this was a generic number based on the theoretical maximum that each delivery could hold" (p. 24). But it is not seen in fact for what reason this "generic" quantity must be exactly "the theoretical maximum" instead of the quantitative average; and moreover, if this were true, the wheelbarrows during that period of 31 October to 12 November would have contained only the (30.5 ÷ 47.5 × 100 =) 64% of the coke contained in the wheelbarrows of the period from 26 September to 15 October, but this is definitely a senseless conjecture. On the other side, the head of the Gusen crematory was drafting the reports concerning "Brennstoffverbrauch" [fuel consumption] in kilograms, and in one of these documents, the coke consumption from 26 September to 15 October is indicated as being exactly 9,180 kg, [51] which signifies that one wheelbarrow of coke corresponded on the average to 60 kg. And with this, all the Zimmerman conjectures collapse.

37. Zimmerman objects that "the practice of multiple cremation was known outside of Germany well before World War II. In Osaka, Japan in the 1880s there were 20 cremation ovens, each of which could incinerate three bodies simultaneously in a period of four hours" (p. 26) I point out first of all that the average duration for the cremation of one cadaver here is 80 minutes per cadaver, and not 25 minutes or less. Here Zimmerman offers another sample of his incompetence. By completely ignoring cremation history and crematory installations, our professor cannot know that there existed group/collective ovens which really could cremate more cadavers together, but which had a structure completely different than those at Auschwitz, so therefore any comparison in this regard is meaningless. [52] It's like attributing to a runabout, the performance of a Ferrari Formula 1! The Zimmerman Methodological Errors.

38. Zimmerman dedicates a sprawling two- page paragraph to the question of the "Necessity of the Crematoria." He claims that "The only way to test the necessity is to compare it to deaths in other concentration camps and the cremation capacity of those camps" (p. 9). So Zimmerman thereupon makes a comparison between the ovens of Mauthausen-Gusen and those of Auschwitz, and concludes that the crematories of Auschwitz had an excessive cremation capacity for prisoners deceased from natural causes. If however he makes the comparison with the crematory of Buchenwald, he arrives at the opposite conclusion. The two Topf 3-muffled ovens of that crematory went into operation during the second half of August and the beginning of December of 1942. Now, from 03 May to 29 November of 1942, 1,691 prisoners died at Buchenwald, averaging approximately 241 per month, with a maximum point of 335 (3rd to the 30th of August); the average population of the camp was approximately 8,660 prisoners, with a maximum point of 9,777 (2nd to 29th of November).[53] Making the same calculations of Zimmerman (based upon data of 26 cremations per muffle per day), the ovens would have been able to cremate (26 x 6 x 30=) 4,680 cadavers per month which is almost 14 times more than the maximum mortality actually registered! Yet in the case of Auschwitz - still following the Zimmerman reasoning - the cremation capacity would have been (30,000 : 9,000=) or approximately 3 times greater. So for a camp which was 'NOT for extermination', the German authorities "anticipated" a mortality rate 14 times more than the actual maximum, but for a camp which allegedly 'WAS for extermination', the German authorities "anticipated" a mortality rate 3 times more than the actual maximum!!

39. Contesting the alleged "Typhus Myth", Zimmerman objects that "only 2,060 of the 68,864 deaths were from typhus" (p. 5), claiming that the cause of death which appear on the "death certificates" was very often falsified by the SS, and Professor Zimmerman concludes: "How then can they be explained if the stated causes do not conform to physical reality? The only explanation is that camp authorities were engaged in a massive killing campaign of registered prisoners" (p. 5). Well, two facts are incontestable: that at the beginning of July 1942 a typhus epidemic broke out in Auschwitz, and during that month the mortality of the prisoners increased enormously. Now if Professor Zimmerman doesn't want to see a cause and effect connection between these two facts, that's his business. Of course it's true that some survived the typhus epidemics, such as Lucie Adelsberger and Ella Lingens Reiner (p. 5), but it's equally true that the poor devils who were not "Prominent" - even if they survived that sickness - because of the general prostration of their physique, the weakening of their immune system, and because of the scarcity of medicinals, they could easily incur other ailments and died from other causes. In my opinion this explains the relatively small number of deaths from typhus in the Sterbebücher of Auschwitz. Regarding babies that "were said to have died from 'decrepitude' " (p. 5), it is difficult to believe that doctors were falsifying in this idiotic way. Grotum and Parcer, the Zimmerman sources, even by making a computerized analysis of the data contained in the Sterbebücher, indicated one single case of this kind,[54] and that is reason to believe that this one is the only one,[55] therefore this most probably deals with an ordinary error here.

40. One last observation concerning the connection between the deceased and the coke supplies to the crematories. Zimmerman writes in conclusion of his analysis of the problem: "Therefore, the month of the second-highest recorded coke delivery also corresponds with the month of either the lowest or one of the lowest monthly death totals of registered prisoners" (p. 23). This fact, which to Zimmerman appears an implacable contradiction, is nevertheless perfectly normal, as I explained in point 36. Few cremations signify major cooling of the oven and major consumption of fuel for maintaining operating temperature; many cremations signifies instead minor cooling down of the oven. For now I am confining myself to these preliminary considerations which already are sufficient to assess the qualifications, competence, and above all the polemic honesty of this professor. The three days I spent on this, thus deterring me from more serious studies, are also too many.


NOTES 1. http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... -disposal/ 2. http://www.codoh.com/found/fndcrema.html 3. Grabert Verlag, Tübingen 1994, pp. 281-320. 4. For this reason he is cited as co-author although I alone wrote that article. 5. The release year of that publication is 2000. 6. Documents cited here except those so indicated, are published and discussed in this book. 7. Granata Publishing, Palos Verdes 1995. 8. Granata Publishing, Palos Verdes 1995. 9. Auschwitz: The End of a Legend. Institute for Historical Review, 1994, p. 72. 10. H. Fröhlich, Zur Gesundheitspflege auf den Schlachtfeldern, in: Deutsche Militärärtzliche Zeitschrift, I, 1 - 4, Januar - April 1872, p. 101. 11. Ibidem, p. 100. 12. Another factor no less important was the special structure of the Gusen oven muffle grill. 13. Auschwitz: The End of a Legend, p. 23. 14. Auschwitz Museum Archive, BW 30/34, pp. 78-79. 15. Evidently for Zimmerman "Häftlingsunterkünfte" is a code-word for"Auskleidebaracken." The imagination of these people is limitless! 16. Kostenanschlag für Bauvorhaben Konzentrationslager Auschwitz O/S dated 15 July 1942. Moscow, 502-1-220, p. 36. 17. Danuta Czech, Kalendarium der Ereignisse im Konzentrationslager Auschwitz-Birkenau 1939-1945. Rowohlt Verlag, Reinbeck bei Hamburg 1989, p. 160. 18. J.C. Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, New York 1989, p. 204. 19. J.C. Pressac, The Machinery of Mass Murder at Auschwitz, in: Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, Indiana University Press, 1994, p. 210. 20. J.C. Pressac, Les crématories d'Auschwitz. La machinerie du meurtre de masse. CNSR Editions, Paris 1993, p. 48. 21. See in this regard, my study La "Zentralbauleitung der Waffen-SS und Polizei Auschwitz". Edizioni di Ar, 1998. 22. Incredibly, Schnabel wrote "10-35 cadavers" whereas the original text states "30-36". Danuta Czech, who relied on this source, reproduced the same error and the same goes for Zimmerman. 23. Auschwitz: The End of a Legend, p. 91. 24. The Polish preposition "przez", ["through"], yield/productivity with "around". 25. The Auschwitz crematory ovens cremated by direct process, to be precise, the gasogene combustion products entered directly into the muffle. 26. Moscow, 502-1-313, pp. 159-160. 27. Pressac justifiably thinks that the term signified interrogation by the Gestapo. 28. The quantity of coke burned in one hour on the furnace grate. 29. On the other days - if the Zimmerman interpretation were correct - the resulting duration fluctuates between 8 and 30 minutes. 30. J.C. Pressac, The Machinery of Mass Murder at Auschwitz, op. cit., p. 212. 31. Ibidem, note 74 on page 243. 32. Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, pp. 98-99. 33. The Crematory Ovens of Auschwitz and Birkenau, pp. 15-16. 34. The Höss Trial, volume II, p. 47. 35. J.C. Pressac, The Machinery of Mass Murder at Auschwitz, op. cit., p. 189-190. 36. Text and document discussion in my book mentioned at the beginning of this article. 37. Malachia de Christophoris, Etude pratique sur la crémation moderne. Treves, Milano 1890, pp. 121-124. 38. Zentralblatt für Feuerbestattung, 1929, p. 64. 39. Luigi Maccone, Storia documentata della cremazione, Bergamo 1932, p. 66. 40. Theodor Weinisch, Die Feuerbestattung im Lichte der Statistik. Zirndorf 1929, p. 33. 41. G. Pini, La crémation en Italie et à l'etranger de 1774 jusqu'à nos jours. Hoepli, Milano 1885, p. 30. 42. Theodor Weinisch, Die Feuerbestattung im Lichte der Statistik, p. 33. To the question of the statistics of cremations in Germany, I have dedicated Chapter IX of Part One of my book cited at the beginning of this article. 43. Rudolf Jakobskötter, «Die Entwicklund der elektrischen Einäscherung bis zu dem neuen elektrisch beheizten Heisslufteinäscherungsofen in Erfurt», in: Gesundheits Ingenieur, 25. Oktober 1941, Heft 43, p. 583. 44. Also in the abbreviated American version, The Leuchter Report, Decatur, Alabama, 1998. 45. Auschwitz Museum Archive, BW 30/34, p. 42. 46. Moscow, 502-1-327, p. 215. 47. In my book cited at the beginning of this article, I publish the list of the commissions at Auschwitz carried out by the Topf Company. 48. In the Gusen camp, 887 prisoners died in November 1941, and 986 died in December. H.Marsalek, Die Geschichte des Konzentrationslagers Mauthausen, Wien 1980, p. 156. 49. Bundesarchiv Koblenz, NS4 Ma/54. 50. This comes from a deposition of Eugen Seibold dated 10 November 1945. Dachau Museum Archives, 767, p. 84. 51. Mauthausen Museum Archives, 3 12/31, 350. 52. Concerning this, I refer to Chapter X of Part One of my study mentioned at the beginning of this article. 53. Konzentrationslager Buchenwald, Thüringer Volksverlag GmbH, Weimar, no date, p. 85. 54. Sterbebücher von Auschwitz, Saur Verlag, 1995, p. 242. 55. It should have been very easy for these two analysts to indicate the exact number of these cases, just as they had indicated the exact numbers concerning a great deal of other data.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9969
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:55 pm)

See shyster Zimmerman's response to the above post. Real science vs. Zimmerman's desperate smoke & mirrors.

- Hannover

Historical Revisionism – International and Independent Scientific Historical Research
by Castle Hill Publishers, on www.vho.org | Download our USA Catalogue or unseren deutschen Katalog
Contact: Castle Hill Publishers, PO Box 257768, Chicago, IL 60625, USA


Supplementary Response to John C. Zimmerman on his
Edited and copyrighted © MM by Russ Granata


In October 1999 John C. Zimmerman, "Associate Professor University of Nevada, Las Vegas", published on his website the article, "Body Disposal at Auschwitz: The End of the Holocaust Denial."1

Zimmerman deluded himself in thinking that he produced the definitive (!) refutation of my study on the crematoria of Auschwitz. Since nearly all his objections have been already refuted in my work "I forni crematori di Auschwitz: Studio storico tecnico, con la collaborazione del dott. Ing. Franco Deana" (which was in the process of being printed 2), I limited my response to my "Preliminary Observations" in order not to lose too much time in answering his conjectures which were essentially based on ignorance of historical and technical matters as well as deception. But Zimmerman was mistaken if he thought I had no arguments to refute him.

He returned to the attack with bold arrogance in another verbose article he calls "My Response to Carlo Mattogno," 3 which is worth even less than its predecessor.

In this response our professor has transcended all limits of propriety, which is why I shall devote all the time to it which his impudence merits. I shall sink his arguments a little more, without making a compendium of my above work where I give all references not mentioned in this present article.

Zimmerman's "errors"

In my response, I immediately exposed the absurdity of the claim of this professor who poses as a specialist in the correct interpretation of German documents but doesn't even understand the German language. In addition I have revealed his ignorance of historical and technical matters as well as his bad faith which I have documented with many examples. Our professor has received the blow and has been exposed as a blatant liar and has been constrained to admit his "errors" in his "My Response":

His "error" regarding the date of Bischoff's letter of 13 January 1943 to which he ascribes the date 13 June (point 11 of my "Observations"). Zimmerman's excuse is that he had at his disposal "a copy of the original German document," he reported the date appearing in the English translation published by the NMT, so that he "never crossed checked the date from the translation. A careless error, to be sure, but an honest one" (p.36).
That is how he provides another proof of his superficiality and dilettantism.

His "error" regarding the furnace at Mauthausen, which was constructed in January 1945 (point 45): "Relying on a secondary source, I gave the date of July 1944?". And this is just what I reproached him for, for using secondary sources.

His "error" regarding the letter of Topf dated 14 July 1941 (point15):
"In citing a report by Topf engineers dated July 14, 1941 describing the efficiency of an oven as being able to burn 10 to 35 bodies in ten hours, I believed that it was a different report than one Pressac cited from the same day which talks about burning 30 to 36 bodies in 10 hours" (p.36).
One more proof of the superficiality and dilettantism of our professor, as well as proof of his rash tendency to refer to secondary sources.

His "error" regarding the "testimony" of M. Morawa. To tell the truth, Zimmerman is reluctant to admit this "error," and the reason is easy to understand: his inability to interpret even the sources reported by D. Czech in her Kalendarium 4 is truly the peak of his dilettantism! Zimmerman justifies himself as follows: "I have not been able to ascertain whether this was Morawa based on information I received from Auschwitz State Museum" (p.37).
So Zimmerman would want us to believe that not even the Auschwitz Museum succeeded in resolving this tremendous "enigma"! Now, according to the Auschwitz Museum, Morawa was shot [dead] at Mauthausen on 3 April 1945. 5 When and to whom did he give this phantom "testimony"?
Danuta Czech, in her Kalendarium, reports the reference: "APMO, D-Mau-3a/16408, Häftlings-Personal-Karte von Mieczyslaw Morawa." 6
Therefore our professor takes a "Häftlings-Personal-Karte" for a "testimony"! Another brilliant example of his crass ignorance and dilettantism.

His "error" regarding the mix-up of year 1814 with 1871! (p.37).

His "error" regarding the 4 barracks of Birkenau (p.37).

His "error" regarding the complete destruction of so-called Bunker 2, without leaving any trace, from which it emerges that our "expert" on Auschwitz has never visited the camp!

His "error" regarding Zimmerman's attribution of Pressac's simple calculation to Kurt Prüfer! This shows once more that Zimmerman does not even comprehend his own sources!

His "error" regarding the Aktenvermerk of 16 June 1944: "I thought that the reference to BA I and II was to Birkenau Kremas I and II, known in most literature as Krema II and III" (p.37). Therefore, our "expert" on Auschwitz has confused Bauabschnitte, construction sectors in the Birkenau camp, with the crematoria!
Yet another example of his astonishing ignorance!

Besides, Zimmerman has made another "error" in asserting that "Mattogno never addressed the issue of open air burnings" (p.4).

Another "error" admitted by Zimmerman relates to his travesty of what I wrote on the so-called Bunker of Birkenau: "Mattogno correctly states in this regard that in the full quotation he specifically uses the word "designation" when referring to these structures" (p.10).
This list is far from complete. He is prudently silent on other obvious "errors." For example, he is silent on the translation regarding the flames of the 3-muffle oven which went "round the two side muffles". He reported this absurdity without the least comment, showing that he does not have the faintest idea of how three-muffle ovens work - and not only these.

He says nothing of the "errors" concerning the "gasoline" of Frölich (point 7 of my Observations), or the "kerosene" of Erichsen (point 8 ), nor of the interpretative error concerning an emphasis in the only version of the Aktenvermerk of 21 August 1942 which he knows (point 19). Zimmerman nevertheless admits: "in the body disposal study I made some errors to be discussed later on, on several occasions relied on inaccurate sources - in one case very badly (in one case resulting in a significant error)" (p.19).

Perhaps with these admissions Zimmerman wants to give the impression that he is an unbiased researcher who can recognize his own mistakes, but the fact remains that he has been compelled to this by the force of my arguments. How true this is can be seen from the fact that he has not admitted his most serious "error" which I did not point out in my Observations because at the time I did not yet have access to the source he cited.

Zimmerman writes on p.19 of Body Disposal:

«Kurt Prüfer, builder of the ovens, was asked why the brick linings of the ovens were damaged so quickly. He replied that the damage resulting after six months was "because the strain on the furnaces was enormous." He recounted how he had told Topf's chief engineer in charge of crematoria, Fritz Sanders, about the strain on the furnaces of so many corpses waiting to be incinerated as a result of the gassing. Sanders stated that he had been told by Prüfer and another Topf engineer that the "capacity of the furnaces was so great because three [gassed] corpses were incinerated [in one oven] simultaneously.»

He adds:

"Prufer said that two bodies were simultaneously incinerated in his presence" (note 122).

The reference is to the interrogations of the Topf engineers on the part of a Soviet inquiry of SMERSH between 1946 and 1948. The records were published by Gerald Fleming,7 from which Zimmerman takes his citations (notes 121 and 122).

In reality Kurt Prüfer stated the very opposite of what Zimmerman attributed to him by means of a despicable manipulation.

On page 200 of the cited work, this is how Fleming summarizes part of the interrogation which K.Prüfer underwent on 5 March 1946:

"Normal crematoria 8 work with prewarmed air 9 so that the corpse burns quickly and without smoke. As the crematoria in the concentration camps were constructed differently, this procedure could not be used.10 The corpses burned more slowly and created more smoke, necessitating ventilation.
Question: How many corpses were incinerated in Auschwitz per hour?
Answer: In a crematorium with five furnaces and fifteen muffles, fifteen corpses were burned." [my emphasis]

During the interrogation of 19 March, K.Prüfer declared:

"I spoke about the enormous strain on the overused furnaces. I told Chief Engineer Sander: I am worried whether the furnaces can stand the excessive usage. In my presence two cadavers were pushed into one muffle instead of one cadaver. The furnaces could not stand the strain." 11 [my italics]

Recapitulating, Kurt Prüfer stated that:

1. The cremations in the concentration camp ovens took place "more slowly" than in civilian ovens.

2. In Krema II and Krema III of Birkenau (5 three-muffle ovens) it was possible to cremate 15 cadavers in one hour, that is, the duration of a single cremation was one hour.

3. The attempt to simultaneously cremate two cadavers failed because "the furnaces could not stand the strain."

These three statements alone constitute a radical refutation of Zimmerman's thermotechnical fantasies.

I summarize and conclude that:

a. in order to prove the thesis of "multiple" cremations, Zimmerman quotes a second-hand declaration of Prüfer and omits the primary declaration of Prüfer himself;

b. for the same motive, Zimmerman quotes Prüfer's statement in which he "said that two bodies were simultaneously incinerated in his presence," but omits the statement which follows: "The furnaces could not stand the strain."

These surgical omissions are unequivocal proof of Zimmerman's complete and deliberate deceptiveness.


Pointing out in my Observations that in Body Disposal, Zimmerman always talks of the Bauleitung of Auschwitz , I wrote that he:

"has no idea of the fact that on 14 November 1941 the Bauleitung of Auschwitz was promoted to Zentralbauleitung (point14).
Zimmerman objects that I myself used the term "Bauleitung" in 1996 concluding:

"Apparently, Mattogno believes that he is exempt from having to use correct terminology"! (p.2).
In 1998 I published the book La "Zentralbauleitung der Waffen-SS und Polizei Auschwitz" (Edizioni di Ar), which is the most profound study which exists on this most important Auschwitz office. Since 1998 I obviously no longer make the blunder of using the terms Bauleitung and Zentralbauleitung, which Zimmerman by contrast continues to use. Surprising, is it not, that he persists in his pathetic attempt to refute my writings on Auschwitz but ignores one of my important studies on the subject! And it is precisely this ignorance that I wanted to emphasize in the above way.

Not only this, but - as we will see below - Zimmerman cites a passage from a work published in 1996 by the Auschwitz Museum in which it is clearly stated that already in July 1942 the Bauleitung of Auschwitz had been promoted to the rank of Zentralbauleitung, and he is still ignorant of the difference between the two terms, paying not the slightest attention to them and continuing his blunder to speak of the Bauleitung, evidently because he feels himself "exempt from having to use correct terminology."

"Lack of documentation"

The documentation of the Zentralbauleitung kept in Moscow no doubt has some gaps. The problem is, to whom are these gaps due?

Zimmerman maintains that:

"the lack to date of any such information is more incriminating than all of the evidence that does exist on Auschwitz" (p.2).

This presupposes that the gaps are due to the SS of Auschwitz, which is precisely what needs to be proved.

Zimmerman claims that:

"all documents relating to crematoria construction were under a blanket order of secrecy going back to June 1942" (p.35).

He insists on this also on p. 36, where he writes

"there was a blanket order of secrecy on building projects dating from at least June 1942."

Therefore, all the documentation relating to the crematoria were "geheime Sache" ["secret matters"] or "geheime Reichssache" ["state secrets"] as the SS put it. But why then did the SS not destroy the entire archive of the Zentralbauleitung which contains thousands of "secret" documents on the crematoria? In a report of 1999 I showed that Pressac's explanation of this fact was without foundation. 12 What is Zimmerman's explanation?

Let us go ahead. As I demonstrated in the above-mentioned book on the Zentralbauleitung, the organization of this office was most complex and also decentralized. Already by the beginning of 1943 it was subdivided into 5 Bauleitungen, and the Zentralbauleitung itself comprised 14 Sachgebiete. Each Bauleitung and each Sachgebiet had its own archive, so that what we now call "the archive of the Zentralbauleitung," originally constituted some tens of archives. Like all documents, those on the crematoria were drawn up in several copies (the addressees were listed under the item "Verteiler") and each copy was sorted for the competent office, where it was archived. For example, Bischoff's letter of 28 February 1943 on "KGL = Krem. II und III BW 30 (elektr. Aufzüge)" was drawn up in 6 copies and sent to "Bauwirtschaft," "Rechnungslegung," "Baultg. KL," "Baultg. KGL," "Sachbearb." and "Registr. BW 30." 13 Copies of the letter of 29 March on "Krematorium II und III KGL, BW 30 u. 30a," were sent to "Baultg. KL," "Baultg. KGL," "Bauwirtsch.," "Rohstoffstelle," "Handakte" and "Registr. BW 30 KGL." 14

So these two letters alone gave rise to 14 documents which were archived in various offices. Several thousands of pages from the Zentralbauleitung kept at Moscow are in the form of carbon copies of this type.

The original archive comprised many folders ("Ordner"), each of which held the documents relating to one or more Bauwerke. For example, the "Ordner" no. 15 contained "7 Zeichnungen Krema II u. III," apart from "Schriftswechsel" and "Tagelohnzettel."15

Now it is certain that "secret" documentation on the crematoria exists and contain all the designs for the crematoria and also a very rich correspondence. It is just as certain that they display evident gaps, for example all the technical designs for the ovens, the reports on the cremation tests, the reports on the consumption of coke for 1944.

According to Zimmerman's thesis, the SS, instead of destroying in bulk all this "secret" documentation, had spare time and patience to leaf through every "Ordner" relating to the crematoria - which were found in all camp archives - and pick out and destroy individual documents regarded by them as compromising while leaving the rest intact, beginning with the plans for the crematoria themselves! Finally, they would have had the crematoria blown up in order to obliterate traces of their "crimes" but at the same time they would have left alive for the Soviets about 7,000 eyewitnesses of these "crimes"! Truly watertight logic!

On the other hand, the Soviets, who had to propagate the thesis of monstrous Hitlerian exterminators of millions of people had all the interest and the patience to leaf through every "Ordner" on the crematoria which were found in all camp archives and pick out individual useful documents for their propaganda while leaving the rest intact, beginning with the plans of the crematoria themselves.

Which of these two hypotheses is more rational?

Zimmerman continues:

"Mattogno has begun to hint that the Soviets have suppressed the records" (p.3).
The usual falsification: I simply said that the Soviets had selected the documents. Perhaps for Zimmerman, by a kind of conditioned reflex, selection is equivalent to suppression: If "selected" detainees are eliminated, so are selected documents!

Playing on this falsification, Zimmerman then raises objections as follows:

"The interrogation occurred in March 1946. Engineer Kurt Prufer, who built the Auschwitz ovens, stated that the Birkenau ovens could incinerate one corpse per hour and that brick lining on the ovens was damaged after six months because the enormous strain being placed on the ovens. Prufer's statement directly contradicted a Soviet report on this issue" (p.3).
What is more, Zimmerman confronts me with the case of the Sterbebücher:

"Moreover, if the Soviets were really anxious to suppress unfavorable information, then the more likely candidate would have been the Auschwitz Death Books," because the Books document "approximately 69,000 registered prisoners," while the Soviets claimed that the total number of camp deaths were 4 million (p.4).
In this way he only validates my thesis.

The interrogations of the Topf engineers or the Sterbebücher or the entire documentation of the Zentralbauleitung remained secret until the collapse of the Soviet regime and they would still have have remained so had this not happened. Why?

Until the collapse of the Soviet regime nobody knew of the existence of such documentation. So is it just as absurd to think that the missing documents were - certainly not "suppressed" - but, on account of their importance, transferred to a place more secure than an archive, and for this reason no one knew of their existence, as was earlier the case for all the other documents?

However that may be, the fact remains that my hypothesis is at least reasonable while one can certainly not say the same thing for his.

Prüfer and the "enormous strain" on the Birkenau crematoria

Above I cited the passage of Zimmerman regarding the Soviet interrogation of Kurt Prüfer. Here I wish to look at it from another point of view. Let us read it once more:

"The interrogation occurred in March 1946. Engineer Kurt Prufer, who built the Auschwitz ovens, stated that the Birkenau ovens could incinerate one corpse per hour and that brick lining on the ovens was damaged after six months because the enormous strain being placed on the ovens" (p.3).
Let us note some consequences which issue from Prüfer's affirmations.

We begin with cremation capacity.

The Birkenau ovens could cremate one cadaver per muffle in an hour. How does Zimmerman reconcile this statement with a duration of 25.2 minutes for a cremation at Gusen and with "15 minutes per body" at Birkenau?

Here it is necessary to emphasize the fact that Kurt Prüfer declared that when the attempt was made in his presence to simultaneously cremate two cadavers, "the furnaces could not stand the strain." This contradicts Zimmerman's fantasies on "multiple" cremations.

The citation mentioned above is without reference to the source. Zimmerman wanted to cover himself in the fear that somebody might disclose his imposture in Body Disposal, which I unmasked above. But all the same, he has done badly.
Let us now consider the "enormous strain" on the crematoria which damaged the "brick lining on the ovens." Quantitatively speaking, what does this "enormous strain" signify?

Let us make a quick calculation for the two most important crematoria respecting the economics of "extermination." Krema II went into operation on 15 March, Krema III on 25 June. 16

There is a six-month period between March and September 1943 coinciding with the visit to Auschwitz of Prüfer on 10 September 17. During this period Krema II was closed down for 3 months for repairs (Krema IV was already out of operation from the end of June).18

For this reason Kremas II and III each functioned for about 45 days. Since, according to the admission of Zimmerman, the duration of a cremation of one cadaver in one muffle was one hour, these crematoria could each have theoretically cremated, working hypothetically for 24 hours a day, 360 (=24 × 15) cadavers per day, so in 45 days 16,200 (=45 × 360) cadavers each, that is, 1,080 (=16,200 : 15) per muffle.

Therefore Zimmerman admits that the refractive masonry of the crematoria was damaged after 1,080 theoretical cremations, thus confirming my thesis that the refractive masonry could have sustained at most 3,000 cremations.

"Falsifications" and "suppressions"

In order not to waste too much time with this dilettante I ignored in my Observations several of Zimmerman's impostures. In his reply he returns to the same deception. The impudence of this individual is intolerable and deserves an adequate response.

a) The Gasprüfer

In Body Disposal Zimmerman wrote:

"Mattogno argued that this document 19 was a forgery because the type of gas detector mentioned in the memo was not the one which would have been used to detect prussic acid. Auschwitz: The End of a Legend, p. 66. However, Pressac also realized that this was not the same type of gas detector which would have been used to detect prussic acid." (?)

"The letter only shows that Topf was ignorant as to the type of gas detector which would be needed. The real problem for Mattogno was to explain why the oven builders would know it to be necessary to have such a device for a crematorium which several weeks earlier was stated to have a "gassing cellar". Since he could not find any such explanation, he reverted to the familiar denier tactic of labeling anything which cannot be explained as a forgery" (note 76).
In My Response he returns to the argument affirming:

"Elsewhere he has argued - without any proof - that the Soviets had altered a document from the captured Bauleitung archives to attempt to link Zyklon B to Krema II."
In his crass ignorance regarding historical and technical matters perhaps Zimmerman truly believes in the existence of a Gasprüfer for hydrocyanic acid! In Auschwitz: The End of a Legend (pp.119-122) I reproduced each page from the most important German engineering manual of the 1930's, from which it emerges that the Gasprüfer were simple analyzers of combustion gas and so could have been used only for the crematory ovens. On p.123 I reproduced a letter of Tesch & Stabenow in which the "gas detector" for hydrocyanic acid was called by its true name: Gasrestnachweisgerät. On p.124 I published a photograph showing that a Gasrestnachweisgerät was found at Auschwitz by the Soviets; on pages 105 and 106 I provided the precise description of its constituent elements and of the usage of a Gasrestnachweisgerät. Now Zimmerman, instead of accepting the strictly documented conclusions that the Gasprüfer had nothing to do with hydrocyanic acid, claims to prove the opposite by appealing to Pressac:

"However, Pressac also realized that this was not the same type of gas detector which would have been used to detect prussic acid."
Here our professor gives another brilliant sample of his bad faith.

In fact, Pressac wrote that:

["The measure for residual hydrocyanic gas would have been effected with a chemical method and not with the ten gas detectors, requested too late to be delivered on time"] 20
But the French historian not only did not explain what this "chemical method" was (and how the Zentralbauleitung came into its possession), and he neither produced any archival reference nor any evidence for it.

Now, when it does not suit him, Zimmerman rejects the affirmations of Pressac because they are not documented, as in the case of the Birkenau camp's expansion to hold 200,000 detainees ("however, Pressac did not cite a source," p.27), but when it suits him he accepts Pressac's assertions without any source even when they are patently false!

But let us continue. Zimmerman then falsifies the significance of the letter under consideration, for which it is untrue that it "shows that Topf was ignorant as to the type of gas detector which would be needed," but only shows that Topf did not manufacture the Gasprüfer, and for that reason had requested them already two weeks earlier "bei 5 verschiedenen Firmen." 21

This falsification tries to confirm the false thesis of the existence of Gasprüfer for hydrocyanic acid. If Topf, which produced combustion systems, "was ignorant as to the type of gas detector which would be needed," it follows that there existed different types of Gasprüfer! This is what may be called coherence within the lie.

Once established with this deceit that Gasprüfer referred to hydrocyanic acid, Zimmerman wonders why some simple constructors of crematory ovens had to be enlightened about "gas detectors" which were used for hydrocyanic acid, and, since I was in no position to provide an answer, why I explained the document "as a forgery."

Here Zimmerman gives another demonstration of his bad faith, deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote in the article The "Gasprüfer" of Auschwitz, which was published on the web on 18 February 1998. 22 Having placed the document in its context, I concluded with the words:

"The historical context would therefore strengthen Robert Faurisson's interpretation wherein these presumed, I might add - Anzeigeräte were used for normal disinfestations of the crematorium. In support of this interpretation it could be added that according to the general provisions of the SS-Standortarzt, 200 detainees who were working in late February 1943 in Crematory II would have been able to resume their activity only after a disinfestation of their bodies and of their work-place, i.e. Crematorium II." 23
Zimmerman cites this article limiting himself to the following sentence: "As usual, he presented no evidence for his latest peregrination" (Body Disposal, note 76).

Therefore our professor lies knowing that he lies.

If I concluded that the Topf letter "was falsified by an ignorant forger who created a hybrid neologism: Anzeigeräte für Blausäure-Reste," it was certainly not because the letter created some problem. On the contrary, following the interpretation of Pressac-Zimmerman, it would have been a further confirmation of my thesis that "the term Vergasungskeller designates a disinfestation basement." 24 So, if I arrived at this conclusion it was only because the relevant documents provoked historical problems so serious and so numerous that the only reasonable solution seemed to me to be this one. I explained these problems in more than three pages under the paragraph heading "Problems Pressac left unresolved" (pp.14-18). Zimmerman, being incapable of resolving them, cunningly tries to make them disappear with his squalid lies.

b) The letter of the Zentralbauleitung of 28 June 1943

Regarding this letter Zimmerman writes:

"He also argued - again without any proof - that the Soviet suppressed the 'correct' version of the Bauleitung report of June 28, 1943, which states that 4,756 bodies could be incinerated in a 24 hour period. Mattogno theorizes that this report was corrected in a subsequent report" (p.3).
In this case too, our professor refrains from quoting my thesis correctly. In the article The Auschwitz Central Construction Headquarters letter dated 28 June 1942: An alternative Interpretation, 25 I was interested in the origin of the letter as well as its bureaucratic significance. Pursuing this, I demonstrated by means of the documents that the letter in question is "bureaucratically senseless," since from one point of view it lacked the one date which constituted the reason for its existence (as appears under its "subject matter" 26 ) that is, the communication of the Übergabeverhandlung [delivery negotiations] of Krema III. From another point of view, it contains a date which bureaucratically speaking has nothing to do with the reason for the letter's existence, that is, an indication of the cremation capacity. I repeat, the problem is purely bureaucratic and has nothing to do with the figures mentioned in the document. The problem would be there even if the numbers were ten times fewer, because it is the communication in itself of the cremation capacity of the crematoria which is an anomaly bureaucratically inexplicable.

This drew me to the conclusion that the letter which we know is an erroneous version which was subsequently substituted by a correct version in which the Übergabeverhandlung of Krema III was reported and in which the cremation capacity was not mentioned, as the arrangements of Kammler of 6 April 1943 27 prescribed. As to the cremation capacity, I wrote that the numbers indicated in the letter are authentic, but that does signify that they are true, and I explained the reason for this distinction. Below I will demonstrate that the numbers are technically absurd.

Now Zimmerman, instead of discussing my analysis of the document, instead of explaining the serious bureaucratic anomalies which it presents, limits himself to quoting my conclusions out of context in order to make his readers believe that the correction of which I spoke referred to the cremation capacity.

Zimmerman's "real problem" is that he, like all dilettanti, is incapable of critically analyzing a document; he accepts everything blindly and opportunistically, and pretends that the problems which the document gives rise to, do not exist. Not only that; he has the impudence to reprove the person who discovers them, who understands their importance and searches to resolve them.


Coke Consumption

In "Body Disposal," Zimmerman wrote:

"The Gusen file that Mattogno relied on shows the amount of coke in the form of wheelbarrows used to transport it to the ovens. At the top of the page it states "Karren Koks," or wheelbarrows of coke. Below this heading it states that one wheelbarrow equals 60 kilograms. However, this weight is only stated for the period from September 26 to October 15, 1941. During this period, 203 bodies were cremated using 153 wheelbarrows. This means that 9,180 kilograms (60 kilograms times 153 barrows) incinerated 204 bodies at 45 kilograms per body. The 9,180 number appears on a backup page of this file where the 153 wheelbarrows are multiplied by 60 kilograms.
There is some reason, however, to suspect that each wheelbarrow did not contain 60 kilograms of coke but that this was a generic number based on the theoretical maximum that each delivery could hold. In other words, 60 kilograms was attached to each wheelbarrow regardless of actual weight.
For example, on October 3 eleven bodies were incinerated using 13 wheelbarrows. At 60 kilograms per wheelbarrow it would have taken 71 kilograms per body. However, on October 15, 33 bodies were incinerated using 16 wheelbarrows, or 29 kilograms per body" (pp.23-24).
In my Observations I mentioned a report on the consumption of coke used by the Gusen oven, according to which "vom 26.9.41 - 15.10.41 sind 9.180 kg Koks verbraucht." 28 Here "kg" are explicitly mentioned so that it is clear that the 153 "Karren Koks" consumed during this period correspond to 9,180 kg exactly, whence each "Karre" was exactly equivalent to (9,180 ÷ 153 =) 60 kg. Therefore this demolishes Zimmerman's hypothesis solely on documentary grounds.

Naturally in his response, our most honest professor passes over this crucial objection in silence and continues unperturbed with his speculative fantasies.

The claim that one wheelbarrow of coke is equivalent to 60 kg refers only to the period 26 September-15 October is another of Zimmerman's lies. The list of cremations for this period is a sheet of paper divided into two parts: The registrations for the period 26 September - 3 November are on the left; those for 4 - 12 November on the right. Each part is in turn subdivided into 4 columns which carry the designations "Uhr", "Datum", "Leichen", "Karren Koks 1 K. = 60 kg."

The fourth column in the left-hand part of the document (like the first three) extends to 3 November and continues in the right-hand part until 12 November.

Now as to the part on the left, it is clear that the designation "Karren Koks 1 K. = 60 kg" refers to the entire column, until 3 November. Zimmerman, on the other hand, by breaking up the logical sequence of the table claims - abusively - that it holds only up to 15 October. And it is just as clear that these designations are valid for the right-hand part, which is a continuation of the part on the left. It is true that the fourth column of the right-hand part only has the wording "Karren Koks," but what need was there to repeat that one wheelbarrow of coke was equivalent to 60 kg? Granted for the sake of the argument that the wheelbarrows in the column on the right would be equivalent to at least 60 kg, they must nevertheless have always contained a uniform quantity, since the head of the crematorium had to draw up the report on coke consumption in kilograms (or in Zentner). 29 Had the 249 wheelbarrows used for the registered cremations in the right-hand part been continued, showing for example, a 20 kg, a 35, a 55, a 40, a 60, a 25 kg and so on, how would the head of the crematorium have calculated the total consumption?

For the same administrative reason, had the wheelbarrows mentioned in the right-hand part of the report contained a uniform quantity less than 60 kg, there would have been an indication of the relative weight in the fourth column; for example:"Karren Koks 1 k. = 40 kg."

The hypotheses of Zimmerman are therefore unsustainable. As a confirmation of this, I offer another argument.

As I demonstrated above, documentation alone assures us that for the period 26 September - 15 October the wheelbarrows each contained exactly 60 kg of coke. During this period, 193 cadavers were cremated with a consumption of 9,180 kg of coke, which corresponds to 47.5 (=9,180 ÷ 193) kg per cadaver.

In the period 31 October -12 November, 677 cadavers were cremated with 345 "Karren" of coke. Since Zimmerman asserts that the weight of 60 kg of coke for each wheelbarrow was "the theoretical maximum that each delivery could hold," it follows that each wheelbarrow of coke had to weigh less than 60 kg. Nevertheless, assuming the weight of 60 kg, the coke consumption for the cremation of 677 cadavers during the above-mentioned period comes to about 30.6 (=[60 × 345] ÷ 677) kg. According to Zimmerman, the consumption was still less. But then why was the average consumption of coke 47.5 kg?

In his profound ignorance of thermotechnical questions on crematory ovens heated with coke, Zimmerman is shockingly ironic about the experimental fact established in all the crematoria fitted with coke ovens that the coke consumption per cadaver varied with the number of cremations.

For example, the chart "Einäscherungen hintereinander," published by professor P. Schlepfer in 1936 and compiled on the basis of practical experiments, shows a coke consumption of over 400 kg of coke for the first cremation in a cold oven, of around 200 for the second, and a little more than 100 kg for the fourth. Starting from the eighth cremation, the curve indicating the coke consumption tends to level out and at the twentieth and final cremation studied, the consumption of coke resulted in about 37.5 kg. 30 This signifies that 20 discontinuous cremations carried out on various days separated from one other would have needed over 8,000 (=400 × 20) kg of coke, while 20 consecutive cremations would have required only 740 (=37,5 × 20) kg. 31

From the tenth cremation onward the coke consumption tended to be uniform, so that by then the refractory masonry was absorbing very little heat. It was for this reason that in my calculation of the thermal equilibrium for the Auschwitz crematory ovens, I took into consideration the condition of the oven at the eighteenth cremation, that is, the condition in which its refractory masonry absorbed practically no more heat and the oven functioned with a minimum fuel consumption.

It is evident that the Gusen oven had an accumulation of heat notably inferior to that in the above-mentioned chart; nevertheless the principle still remains valid for this installation.

Now the difference in coke consumption for the two periods considered above - 47.5 and 30.6 kg - and also for the intermediate period 32 - 37,2 kg - depends essentially on the periodicity and number of the cremations, as I explained in point 36 of my reply to Zimmerman.

Zimmerman, in his crass thermotechnical ignorance, rejects these elementary facts, but since the documents confirm that the coke consumption for the period 26 September - 15 October 1941 was 47.5 kg per cadaver, it follows that the consumption of coke for the period 31 October - 12 November must have been 32,157.5 (=47.5 × 677) kg of coke, so that each of the 345 wheelbarrows of coke used to cremate the 677 cadavers during this period would have had to contain on average 93.2 (=32,157.5 ÷ 345) kg of coke! Exactly the opposite of what this dilettante wished to prove!

The soundness of my conclusions is confirmed by two other documents. The first is the report on the coke consumption of the Gusen oven from 21 January to 24 August 1941 drawn up by the head of the crematorium, Wassner. 33 The other is a reference note which reported the coke consumption for the period 25 August - 24 September 1941. 34 In both the documents the amount of coke is expressed in "Zentner," an old German measure of weight equivalent to 50 kg. In the following table I summarize the dates contained in the document and add the number of cremated cadavers taken from the list of deaths in the Gusen Camp which comes from the published official history of the Mauthausen camp.35 The number of deaths refers to the entire month, while the supply of coke is offset daily. However, the difference in the outcome is very slight and actually irrelevant regarding the order of magnitude of the results. For the overall calculation I will in any case try to be as precise as possible.

Period Coke
in "Zentner" Coke
in kg. Number of
cadavers Average
daily Average coke
per cadaver
9.1 - 24.2 226 11,300 250 9 45.2
5.2 - 24.3 271 13,550 375 12 36.1
5.3 - 24.4 452 22,600 380 13 59.4
5.4 - 24.5 68 3,400 239 8 14.2
5.5 - 24.6 164 8,200 199 7 41.2
5.6 - 24.7 298 14,900 369 12 40.3
5.7 - 24.8 527 26,350 479 15 55
5.8 - 24.9 479 23,950 426 14 56.2

Total 2,485 124,250 kg 2,717 36,841 45.7

The unique anomalous datum in this table is that dealing with the month of May, with a consumption of just 14.2 kg per cadaver. It seems logical to me that the data relating to the months of March and April - which contain the high and low points of coke consumption - must be considered together. The resulting average consumption - 42 (=[22.600 + 3.400] ÷ [380 + 239]) kg - is perfectly consistent with the consumption for January, February, June and July. In any case, the consumption for May is only one exception and what counts is the average consumption for the entire period. Let us try to complete the data of the table.

During the month of January, 220 detainees died, on average 7 per day, so that for the days 29-31 January it may be presumed that roughly 21 detainees died. For the cremation of these cadavers one may assume the average resultant quantity of coke for the period 29 January - 24 February, was, to be precise, 45.2 × 21= 949 kg. From 26 to 29 September 36 - according to the list of cremations discussed above - 34 cadavers were cremated with a consumption of 28 wheelbarrows of coke, that is 1,400 kg. For 25 September, in the absence of data, we may assume the data of the 26th, that is, 20 cremations37 with a coke consumption of 960 kg.

Recapitulating, at Gusen, between 29 January and 30 September 1941, 2,792 people died and were cremated with a consumption of 127,559 kg of coke. Since the number of non-documented days are 4 in 244, the eventual margin of error in the calculation is totally negligible.

The average consumption of coke per cadaver therefore comes out at 45.6 (=127,559 ÷ 2,792) kg. The soundness of this calculation is assured by the fact that, as I said above, during the period from 26 September to 15 October the average consumption of coke was of the same order of magnitude, that is, 47.5 kg per cadaver. The average number 38 of daily cremations during this period was also of the same order of magnitude: 9 -10 as against 10 -11 per day.

To the data displayed above we may add that which comes from the list of Gusen cremations under discussion, from which we may conclude, between 29 January and 15 October 1941 that 2,985 (=2,792 + 193) cadavers were cremated in the crematorium of Gusen with a coke consumption of 136,739 (=127,559 + 9180) kg, on average 45.8 kg per cadaver.

Thus, why was the consumption of coke so drastically reduced during the period from 26 October to 12 November so as to be actually less than that obtained, assuming that the wheelbarrows always contained 60 kg of coke?

The Zimmerman hypothesis is therefore senseless.

Duration of the cremation process

In "Body Disposal" Zimmerman writes:

"On November 7, 1941 these two muffles incinerated 94 bodies in a period of 19 hours and 45 minutes, or 47 per muffle. This means that each oven could incinerate a body in 25.2 minutes. This was probably achieved by adding a new body to the oven before the prior body had been totally incinerated, a method which appears to have been envisaged by the Topf instructions discussed earlier. (...). This method should not be confused with multiple body burnings to be discussed in the next part of this study. This 25 minute figure is not far from the Prüfer estimate cited in the prior paragraph. Mattogno totally ignored this information. Rather, he focused on the November 8 information which shows 72 bodies burned. He erroneously claimed that it took 24½ hours to burn these bodies. He has misread the time sheets. The actual burning time for these bodies was between 16 and 17 hours" (p.21).
In his response Zimmerman returns obsessively to these presumed "25.2 minutes" and he hurls various accusations at me: "Mattogno's knowingly false statement" (p.20); Mattogno "misread" the document (p.22). Finally, I am supposed to be "unable to read a simple time sheet that deals with these issues." Worse yet, he attacks the competence of those who are able to read this sheet (p.23).

Well then, I state and confirm that Zimmerman is not only "unable to read" this document, but also that due to his total incompetence, he has understood nothing of this document. And here is the proof of my claim:

In his response our professor explains how he calculated the presumed duration of 25.2 minutes:

"We know the time because the operation started at 11:15 A.M. The last load of coke was added at 5 A.M. on November 8. We know that this last burning only lasted two hours because the time sheet for November 8 starts at 7 A.M" (p.22).

And between 11:15 AM of day 7 to 7 AM of day 8 there are 19 hours and 45 minutes.

Therefore, the hypothesis of Zimmerman is based on two assumptions:

a. that the first entry in the column labeled "Uhr" refers to the beginning of the cremation;
b. that the number of wheelbarrows of coke appearing next to the times, refers to the coke "added" or "introduced" (p.24), that is, to the coke put into the gasogenes of the furnace.
Both assumptions are erroneous. Let us examine the first.

1. In the registrations for 6 October, the first hourly registration appears in the document as 9:15. The second and last is 10:50. At 10:50, 39 according to Zimmerman's hypothesis, five wheelbarrows of coke (=300 kg) were "added." Since he claims that the 7 (= 420 kg) wheelbarrows "added" to the five of November 8 were burnt in two hours (between 5:00 and 7:00), giving an hourly consumption of 210 kg, the five wheelbarrows of coke mentioned above must have been consumed in around 100 minutes. So, on 6 October the cremations began at 9:15 and ended at 12:30. It follows that in 195 minutes the furnace cremated 25 cadavers, so that each cremation lasted 15.6 minutes!

2. In the registration of 1 October the first hourly indication appearing in the document is 9:15, the last 11:00. According to Zimmerman's hypothesis, four wheelbarrows of coke (=240 kg) were "added" at 11:00, which would have to have been burnt in around 70 minutes. So, on 1 October the cremations began at 9:15 and were terminated at 12:10. Therefore, 20 cadavers were cremated in 175 minutes, which corresponds to a time of 17.5 minutes for each cadaver!

But the essential reason why Zimmerman's hypothesis is false is to be found in the combustion capacity of the furnace grills. This is the only scientific point of departure for an understanding of the Gusen document. The combustion capacity of a grill is the quantity of coke burnt in an hour on one grill of the furnace. The grill capacity is increased - within certain limits - by the chimney's draft, which draws air through the fissures of the grill and carries the necessary oxygen to the fuel. For the coke-heated crematory, the maximum admissible draft operating with a forced-air installation (Saugzug-Anlage) is a 30 mm column of water, corresponding to fuel of about 180 kg of coke per square meter of grill. As each grill of a Gusen furnace had a surface area of 0.25 (= 0.5 × 0.5) m2, the maximum capacity of a grill with a draft of 30 mm of water was 45 (= 180 × 0.25) kg of coke per hour, 90 kg for a grill with two gasogenes. Thus, if it is assumed that Zimmerman's hypothesis is correct, on 1 October the furnace would have worked with a grill capacity of about 554 kg/hour (=1,200 kg 40 of coke ÷ 130 minutes 41), on 15 October with a capacity of around 303 kg/hour (=960 kg ÷ 190 minutes 42 )! From 26 September to 15 October the capacity of the oven grill would have been around 240 (= 9,180 ÷ 2,300 43) kg per hour, that is, 2.6 times faster than the theoretical maximum!

It is therefore clear that the column "Uhr" appearing in the document in question cannot refer to the beginning of a cremation. But then, to what does it refer?

Perhaps it refers to the coke unloaded into the gasogenes at the times indicated by the document? Neither is this possible because the useful volume of a gasogene in a Gusen oven was around 0.2 m3. Now, 1 m3 of metallurgical coke weighs between 380 and 530 kg, which means that each gasogene could accommodate a maximum of about 110 (=530 × 0.2) kg of coke. In any case, in the document in question the number of wheelbarrows corresponding to times - that is, the respective quantity of coke - is often much greater than the capacity of the gasogenes. For example, on 8 November at 16:00 hours 16 wheelbarrows of coke44 were registered, that is, 960 (=16 × 60) kg, over four times the capacity of two gasogenes.

Does the column "Uhr" refer to the coke burnt in the gasogenes?

Neither does this hypothesis hold. Let us return to the previous case. Another wheelbarrow of coke was registered at 18:15 on the eighth day (the relative enumeration changes from 24 to 25), so that the 960 kg of coke relative to the time of 16:00 would have to have been burnt in two hours and 15 minutes, which corresponds to a grill capacity of about 427 kg per hour!

Well then, to what does the column "Uhr" refer? The answer is simple: to the coke withdrawn from time to time from the depot and unloaded near the oven. Let me explain this in more detail. Following a rational organization of the work - and nobody will deny that the Germans were most efficient at this - the coke had to be unloaded from time to time near the two gasogenes of the oven in such a way that the stokers could carry by hand a sufficient supply of fuel. As in any unloading of goods, the delegate who undertook the fuel's delivery and who took responsibility for its use gave bureaucratic account of its receipt, indicating the number of the wheelbarrow as well as the time when the unloading was completed, not the time when it began. But the oven was already put into operation with the first wheelbarrow. That is why the column "Uhr" in the document under discussion refers not to the beginning of a cremation but to the end of the unloading of a series of wheelbarrows of coke.

I can explain myself better with an example. A large supermarket orders 100 cases of mineral water. The truck transporting the cases arrives at 8:00 in the morning and immediately begins unloading them. The work takes a quarter of an hour and the warehouseman of the supermarket, having counted the unloaded cases, signs for the receipt of 100 cases at 12 noon. In the meantime the cases have already been placed in the sales circuit and the first cases are sold at 8:15. In the documents the unloading will be recorded as having taken place at 12 noon but the sales as beginning at 8:15.

Now let us return to the Gusen document. In the registrations of 7 November, the first datum refers to 11 wheelbarrows of coke (= 660 kg) at 11:15. This signifies that the unloading of these 11 wheelbarrows was recorded as ending at 11:15. The second datum concerns the unloading of two wheelbarrows between 11:15 and 11:30. For this reason the coke which the personnel had finished unloading at 11:15 was already almost totally burnt up.

Therefore the first wheelbarrow was unloaded before 11:15, but how long before?

If we assume a maximum grill capacity of 90 kg/hour, it can be reckoned that during the preceding seven hours, 630 (=7 × 90) kg of coke were unloaded and burnt, so that the cremations were initiated at 4:15 while at 11:15 there still remained 30 kg of coke near the gasogenes. Consequently, between 11:15 and 11:30 a further two wheelbarrows of coke were emptied. That is how the average duration of each cremation would have gone up to 34 minutes; and this would be the minimum theoretical time. The real duration would have been undoubtedly greater.

In fact, we know that the oven was out of service between 16 and 25 October. During the whole month of October there were 462 deaths at Gusen,45 but the number of cadavers cremated were only 351 (159 from day 1 to day 15 and 192 from day 26 to day 31), so that on 1 November there remained 111 (= 462 - 351) cadavers in the morgue to be cremated. To these it is necessary to add the cadavers of those detainees who died in the first week of November. In a situation so critical, only Zimmerman could seriously believe that on 7 November the head of the crematorium had waited at least 11 hours (the last registration recording unloading of coke for day 6 was at 22:10) before putting the oven back into service to cremate 94 cadavers. On the other hand, the more rational explanation is that, because he had to dispose of some further tens of cadavers behind schedule, he ordered a minimum pause in order to hurriedly clean the grills of the gasogenes and immediately thereafter put the oven back into operation. In this context, the more probable hypothesis is that the oven was reactivated shortly after midnight.

If, for example, the cremation was started at 0:45, by 11:15 the oven will have burnt 630 kg of coke in ten and a half hours leaving a remnant of 30 kg of coke. This corresponds to a normal grill capacity46 of 60 kg/hour. In this case the average time for one cremation would be around 39 minutes. This is my interpretation.

In this way I dispose of all our "expert's" thermotechnical fantasies. Therefore I confirm and reconfirm that his unfounded conjecture of 25.2 minutes for the duration of a cremation is "technically absurd."

As to the efficiency of the oven, Zimmerman finds the following:

"One of the factors I noted in the study is that the ovens [sic!] were still undergoing repairs at the time these efficiencies were being achieved (Body, note 118). Thus on November 6, 7 and 8 there were four hours of repairs on the oven each day. Yet the ovens were able to incinerate 57, 94 and 72 bodies on these days. These numbers suggest very high efficiencies even when undergoing repairs" (p.21).

[This is] yet another of Zimmerman's impostures. The document to which he refers - the "Bescheinigung über gegen besondere Berechnung geleistete Tagelohn-Arbeiten" of Willing for the period 6-10 November 1941 47- for days 6, 7 and 8 November simply mentions "Ofen Arbeiten." In German, "repairs" corresponds to "Ausbesserung" or "Instandesetzung," certainly not to "Arbeiten," which signifies generic work, for example a job of surveillance of the cremation activity, or a job to regulate the roller shutters and the oven blowers. Such an expression does not minimally imply that the ovens "were still undergoing repairs."

The problem with Zimmerman, as with all naïve and incompetent dilettanti, is that not having any awareness of the history and technology of cremation, he is necessarily incapable of an organic view of the argument. Now it is just such an organic view that in the end can only weaken his thermotechnical fantasies and validate my own scientific conclusions. For example, I refer to the cremation experiments of the engineer Richard Kessler with an oven heated with coke,48 from which the conclusion is drawn that the principal combustion lasts for about 55 minutes. I also refer to the list of cremations in the crematorium of Westerbork (a Kori oven heated with coke) showing an average cremation time of around 50 minutes, as well as to furnaces for the combustion of animal carrion functioning with charcoal, which I return to below. Even the Soviet experts, who - for all their hyperbolic exaggerations were second to none, in their "Chart for guidance in the determination of the rate of combustion in various ovens as a function of temperature" - used by them in their expert reports on the crematoria of Majdanek and Sachsenhausen - did not dare to attribute the exceptionally short times of the cremation process to the real temperatures found in practice. On the contrary.

For example, they attributed a duration of 120 minutes to the normal temperature of 800°C and a duration of 75 minutes to the temperature of 1,100°C. The scale ends with a duration of 15 minutes at a temperature 1,500°C. However, this situation can hold only in the gasogene at best, certainly not in the muffle.49

Let us now consider my "Omissions."

In the article "Die Krematoriumsöfen von Auschwitz-Birkenau" 50 I mentioned, en passant, the case of the cremations of 8 - 9 November, writing:

"Beispielsweise wurden am 8. und 9. November 72 Leichen in rund 1470 minuten eingeäschert, wobei insgesamt 2100 kg Koks verbraucht wurden, das heisst im Schnitt 29,1 kg pro Leichen. Dies bedeutet, dass in jeder Muffel (72 : 2 =) 36 kg Einbringungen von jeweils einer Leiche erfolgt sind, deren Verbrennung jeweils ca. 41 Minuten dauerte". ("For example, on 8 and 9 November 72 cadavers were cremated in around 1,470 minutes with a total consumption of 2,100 kg of coke, that is, on average 29.1 kg per cadaver. This means that in each muffle 36 (=72 ÷ 2) loads of cadavers were introduced with a cremation time of about 41 minutes per load").
As can be seen from the heading of the paragraph in which this passage appears, I exhibited this case not as a determination of the duration of the process of cremation but in order to refute the story of multiple cremations, a topic I return to below. In setting out this case I explained provisionally that "die Analyse der Liste von Einäscherungen und Kocksverbrauch zeigt dass..." ("the analysis of the list of cremations shows that ...")

Therefore, being a simple example, my above assertion does not have any particular significance since my conclusions regarding the Gusen document derive precisely from an analysis of the whole document - not just from the individual registrations contained in it - and are based essentially on the capacity of the furnace grill. It is therefore clear that Zimmerman's accusation according to which I "misread" the document regarding the case of 8 - 9 November is without foundation, so that his suppositions are false.

The duration of around 1,470 minutes is based on a calculation of the grill capacity closest to the maximum, that is, 86 kg/hour, which is still extremely high for a continuous operation of 24 hours.

In conclusion, based on documentary evidence, Zimmerman's hypothesis of an average cremation time of 25.2 minutes is unfounded.

And technically? Technically such an hypothesis is senseless: according to engineer Kessler's experiments on cremation. Even the phase during which water evaporated from the cadaver required on average 28 minutes in an optimum coke-operated oven!

The documentation on Mauthausen

In my reply to Zimmerman (point 33) I wrote that

"It is true that the correspondence between the firm Topf and the SS-Neubauleitung (finally Bauleitung) of Mauthausen for 1941 is almost certainly complete, but the same thing can definitely not be said for the following years."
Zimmerman maintains that "this is blatantly and knowingly false." Let us see why.

"There is not as much correspondence after October 1941 because there was no further oven installation until January 1945 in Mauthausen. Prior to November 1941 there had been two installations in Gusen - the original one in February 1941 and the overhaul in October 1941. This is what accounts for so much correspondence. However, there is enough paper trail in the file to show that no overhaul could have occurred from November 1941 to August 1943, and probably none occurred after August 1943" (p.15).
Let us see who tells falsehoods.

The documentation on Mauthausen, from February 51 to December 1941 contains about 120 documents. However, it is not "complete" (at best, it is nearly complete) because already one of the two most important documents is missing from this documentation, even though it was received and registered by the "S.S. Neubauleitung Mauthausen." This is the letter of Topf dated 14 July 1941 stating that in the two-muffle Topf oven heated with coke it was possible to cremate 30 - 36 cadavers in about 10 hours. The documentation contains the request of the SS-Neubauleitung of Mauthausen (letter of 9 July 1941), but not Topf's reply, which is at Weimar where it was accidentally discovered by J.C. Pressac. In addition, the design of Topf D 58479 (mentioned in the letter of 21 April) is missing from the documentation, as well as all invoices. For example, the invoice for 118 RM, that for 80 RM and the one for 108 RM dated 2 May (mentioned in the letter of 12 June); the invoice for for 303 RM of 25 August (mentioned in the letter of 23 September); that of 4 September for 1,594 RM (mentioned in the letter of 11 October); the invoice for 165 RM of 3 November 1941, and respectively those for 622.30 RM and 361.90 RM of 21 November (mentioned in the letter of 14 December). Also missing from the documentation are the financial documents respecting payments made by the SS, in particular the money orders for payment by installments (Abschlagszahlung), the final accounts (Schlussrechnung), the money orders for final settlements (Schlussabrechnung). By contrast, such documents are preserved for the crematory ovens of Auschwitz. 52

How many other important documents have been removed from correspondence between the firm of Topf and the SS-Neubauleitung? I do not know, but the examples mentioned should be cause for thought. Let us now consider the subsequent years. In the following tables I summarize data relevant to the consistency of the documentation:



January From day 5 to day 28 12
February Days 3 and 6 2
March 13 1
April / /
May / /
June / /
July / /
August From17 to 28 4
September 16, 26 and 30 3
October From 19 to 24 4
November 3,13, 17, 20,30 5
December 21 (2 documents) 2



January From 8 to 23 9
February 13, 24 (3 documents) 4
March / /
April 22 (2 documents) 2
May 5 1
June / /
July / /
August 11, 28 2
September / /
Ottobre / /
November / /
December / /



January / /
February / /
March / /
April / /
May / /
July / /
July / /
August / /
September / /
October / /
November / /
December 20 1



January 3, 21 (2 documents) 3
February / /
March / /
April / /

Let us recapitulate. There is a blank of 190 days in the documentation for the year 1942, from 7 February to 16 August (with only one document, that for 13 March). For 1943, from 25 February to 31 December the documentary void is 310 days (with just two documents for April, one for May and two for August). For 7 months (March, June, July, September, October, November and December) there is not a single document. For 1944, among 366 days there is a documentary gap of 365 days! Just one document, dated 20 December, features for the whole year. For 1945 there are only three documents (for January). For 22 months out of 37, from January 1942 to January 1945, there is not even one document!
In spite of this, Zimmerman quite incredibly has the impudence to say that my assertions on the incompleteness of the documentation "is blatantly and knowingly false!"

His explanation for the enormous documentary gaps is radically challenged by the fact that he presupposes a priori the very thing which must be proved: Starting with the presupposition that the documentation concerns only "oven installation," he concludes that the documentation is complete since there was no other "oven installation" until January 1945. But, how can it be excluded that further replacements of the refractory masonry of the Gusen oven were not made during the long periods of the documentary gaps? Only by an a priori and opportunistic negation that this could have taken place. Which is precisely what Zimmerman does.

Here our professor gives yet another demonstration of his deceptiveness, since the "correspondence" on the second "oven installation" contains just two documents! And how can Zimmerman seriously claim that this "correspondence" is complete? So also in this case it is evident that the documentation is extremely full of gaps and that our professor lies, knowing that he lies.

Thus the argument of the exceptional long life of the refractory masonry in the Gusen oven (around 30,000 according to the estimate of the International Red Crosss) 53also collapses, since it is not known how many times the refractory masonry was replaced, which holds true for the Kori ovens of Mauthausen as well.

The Gusen oven was planned "with a defect"?

Zimmerman maintains that the Gusen oven was badly constructed by the Topf firm and this - and not the wear following the number of cremations carried out - was responsible for the necessity of replacing the refractory masonry in October of 1941. In Body Disposal Zimmerman wrote:

"It is possible that the Gusen ovens may not have originally been built correctly" (p.15).
In his response he returns to this question stating:

"I speculated that perhaps the overhaul had to do with a defect in the Gusen ovens." (p.13).
On both occasions, our professor relies on the Topf letter of 10 April 1943, which is supposed to testify that "Topf admitted that the Krema IV ovens were made defectively" (Body Disposal, p.15). He quotes the following translation of the first part of the document in question54 :

"In response to your written communication referred to above, we inform you that we have instructed our foreman, Mr Koch, to take care of the cracks that apparently have recently occurred in the eight muffle oven of Krema IV. At the same time, we also took note of the agreement between your construction leader, SS-Major Bischoff and our senior engineer Mr Prufer according to which we will take care, at no cost to you, of the defects that have appeared, within two months of their start-up, in the cremation ovens built by us [ innerhalb zwei Monaten nach Inbetriebnahme der Ofen auftreten. ] Understandably we take it as a given that the defects have appeared because of defective operation, and not because of overheating the ovens or by scraping away the interior masonry with the stoking devices, etc.
[Hierbei ist selbstverständlich 55 Voraussetzung, dass die evtl. 56 aufgetretenen Mängel infolge fehlerhafter Ausführung entstanden sind und nicht etwa durch Überhizung der Öfen bezw. durch Abstossen der inneren Ausmauerung durch die Sch
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Laurentz Dahl
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 981
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 8:00 am
Location: Somewhere in Europe

Postby Laurentz Dahl » 1 decade 3 years ago (Sun Mar 26, 2006 4:05 am)

There's an even more thorough - close to a hundred pages long! - refutation of accountant Zimmerman's arguments that can be found in Rudolf and Mattogno's excellent work Auschwitz Lies, which can be downloades from here:


Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 5:51 am
Location: Germany

Postby jemand » 1 decade 3 years ago (Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:12 am)

What about Zimmerman's claim that the causes of death in the death books (Sterbebücher) of Auschwitz were made up? He writes:
The death books are incomplete. They contain the certificates of 68,864 registered prisoners who died from August 1941 to December 1943. [...] There are over 25,000 deaths listed which relate to some kind of heart problem.


Wieslaw Kielar, a Polish prisoner, was one of those charged with making up the death certificates. He writes that the method for getting rid of sick prisoners was to kill them. His memoirs were written in 1972, seventeen years before the discovery of the death books. He describes the falsification of the death certificates:

My work consisted of writing out death certificates. The description of the illness for which the prisoner had died also applied to those who had been murdered in the camp. Shot, killed by injection, gas chamber. Each one had to have his case history - a fictitious one, of course. That was what the camp authorities demanded, and that was what I was ordered to do. I must admit that, to begin with, I wrote "heart failure" in the case of prisoners who I knew had been shot. [...]

Kielar's description is borne out by the by the death certificates of 168 prisoners who were shot on May 27, 1942 but whose cause of death was listed as "heart attack."

Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 777
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Postby Breker » 1 decade 3 years ago (Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:33 am)

Considering that Zimmerman is claiming something incriminating, we should wonder why there are no 'gassings' listed. Why would the Germans list such alleged incriminating deaths, but not 'gassings'?
We do believe that typhus effects are detrimental to the heart.
Why would anyone believe 'Wieslaw Kielar'? Perhaps from the Yankel Wiernik school of prefarification.
Of these 168 prisoners who were said to have been shot, we should logically assume that common thugs & murderers, spies, illegal saboteurs, and such were dispensed with at Auschwitz. The facts are that Auschwitz did hold a wide variety of criminals as well as a labor force. If so incriminating then why no 'gassings' listed?

User avatar
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3421
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Postby Hektor » 1 decade 3 years ago (Sun Sep 03, 2006 11:28 am)

Breker wrote:Considering that Zimmerman is claiming something incriminating, we should wonder why there are no 'gassings' listed. Why would the Germans list such alleged incriminating deaths, but not 'gassings'? ...
Whom would the Germans have tried to fool around by falsifying death certificates, anyway?! Asked differently, why file any death certificates at all, if you are going to falsify them.

That's not to say there are no false death certificates, but why engage in a major conspiracy to put in false information on death certificates at all.
And why not mention death by gassing, if i.e. death by hanging/shooting would be mentioned?!

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 10 guests