The Significance of the Morgue Documents

[Nessie]

Were the Nazis afraid the Soviets could store corpses in the Kremas?

No. The kremas you are asking about were subterranean meaning they were intended to double as air-raid shelters. It's good military practice to not allow critical wartime infrastructure (such as air raid shelters) fall into enemy hands.

Why did the Nazis not destroy any of the actual air raid shelters at the camp? Why leave them intact? Could it be because they were not conducting air raids as the fled east?

Only the four Kremas and two bunkers at Birkenau were destroyed. They are the six locations of gas chambers. Clearly evidence of a cover-up.

[TlsMS93]

Again this joke of separating Poles from Soviets.Again this joke of separating Poles from Soviets.

[HansHill]

Were the Nazis afraid the Soviets could store corpses in the Kremas?

No. The kremas you are asking about were subterranean meaning they were intended to double as air-raid shelters. It's good military practice to not allow critical wartime infrastructure (such as air raid shelters) fall into enemy hands.

Why did they leave all the actual air raid shelters intact? Could it be because they knew that bombing Birkenau was not going to happen after they abandoned it and the Luftwaffe was needed for the defence of Germany?

>"Why are military wartime operations during evacuations not exactly the way I envision them to be?"

You have me there, Nessie!

[Nessie]

Again this joke of separating Poles from Soviets.Again this joke of separating Poles from Soviets.

As opposed to your joke of trying to make out they are one and the same? Poland was not subsumed into the Soviet Union. The Poles who were in the Government in Exile, who were responsible for the wartime evidence gathering, the first trials in 1944 and 1945 site examinations were not all communist Soviet supporters. There has been no change in the Polish official narrative of the Holocaust since 1992 and the end of any ties with the SU.

[Nessie]

No. The kremas you are asking about were subterranean meaning they were intended to double as air-raid shelters. It's good military practice to not allow critical wartime infrastructure (such as air raid shelters) fall into enemy hands.

Why did they leave all the actual air raid shelters intact? Could it be because they knew that bombing Birkenau was not going to happen after they abandoned it and the Luftwaffe was needed for the defence of Germany?

>"Why are military wartime operations during evacuations not exactly the way I envision them to be?"

You have me there, Nessie!

Please explain why they left all the air raid shelters in tact and only destroyed the Kremas and two converted farm houses at Birkenau. Since they only destroyed the places witnesses identify as gas chambers, that is proof of a coverup.

[HansHill]

Why did they leave all the actual air raid shelters intact? Could it be because they knew that bombing Birkenau was not going to happen after they abandoned it and the Luftwaffe was needed for the defence of Germany?

>"Why are military wartime operations during evacuations not exactly the way I envision them to be?"

You have me there, Nessie!

Please explain why they left all the air raid shelters in tact and only destroyed the Kremas and two converted farm houses at Birkenau. Since they only destroyed the places witnesses identify as gas chambers, that is proof of a coverup.

>Conveniently omits Krema I in the main camp

By this logic, there either i) wasn't a cover up to destroy the gassing locations, or ii) no gassings took place at Krema I. Are you a revisionist?

[Nessie]

>"Why are military wartime operations during evacuations not exactly the way I envision them to be?"

You have me there, Nessie!

Please explain why they left all the air raid shelters in tact and only destroyed the Kremas and two converted farm houses at Birkenau. Since they only destroyed the places witnesses identify as gas chambers, that is proof of a coverup.

>Conveniently omits Krema I in the main camp

I did a post that included Krema I, which I thought went missing, then I ended up with a near duplicate, one of which has now been deleted.

Why not destroy Krema I, if air raid shelters were going to be so useful for the Soviets? You still cannot answer me!

By this logic, there either i) wasn't a cover up to destroy the gassing locations, or ii) no gassings took place at Krema I. Are you a revisionist?

The cover-up at Krema I, was to convert it for use as an air raid shelter.

[HansHill]

Please explain why they left all the air raid shelters in tact and only destroyed the Kremas and two converted farm houses at Birkenau. Since they only destroyed the places witnesses identify as gas chambers, that is proof of a coverup.

>Conveniently omits Krema I in the main camp

I did a post that included Krema I, which I thought went missing, then I ended up with a near duplicate, one of which has now been deleted.

Why not destroy Krema I, if air raid shelters were going to be so useful for the Soviets? You still cannot answer me!

By this logic, there either i) wasn't a cover up to destroy the gassing locations, or ii) no gassings took place at Krema I. Are you a revisionist?

The cover-up at Krema I, was to convert it for use as an air raid shelter.

What you are seeking shows you want it both ways. Something both existing and not existing are evidence of genocide.

Krema i = Converted into an air raid shelter and extant = proof of genocide
Krema II / III = Converted into an air raid shelter and not-extant = proof of genocide

You surely realise how this looks, don't you.

[Nessie]

....
The cover-up at Krema I, was to convert it for use as an air raid shelter.

What you are seeking shows you want it both ways. Something both existing and not existing are evidence of genocide.

Krema i = Converted into an air raid shelter and extant = proof of genocide
Krema II / III = Converted into an air raid shelter and not-extant = proof of genocide

You surely realise how this looks, don't you.

I see you misrepresenting the argument, as you cannot deal with the actual argument.

The evidence of a cover-up is part of the circumstantial evidence, it is not being presented as evidence that alone, with no other evidence, is proof.

There is no evidence Kremas II and III were converted for use as air raid shelters. Instead, they were blown up. Kremas IV and V were demolished. Krema I was converted to be used as an air raid shelter. None were left in tact, as they were reportedly being used as gas chambers.

Your attempt to claim the Nazis would not leave an air raid shelter for the Soviets to use, as a reason for blowing up Kremas II and III, fails because they left all the actual air raid shelters. You just made up a claim, ad hoc, which fell apart.

[HansHill]

....
The cover-up at Krema I, was to convert it for use as an air raid shelter.

What you are seeking shows you want it both ways. Something both existing and not existing are evidence of genocide.

Krema i = Converted into an air raid shelter and extant = proof of genocide
Krema II / III = Converted into an air raid shelter and not-extant = proof of genocide

You surely realise how this looks, don't you.

I see you misrepresenting the argument, as you cannot deal with the actual argument.

The evidence of a cover-up is part of the circumstantial evidence, it is not being presented as evidence that alone, with no other evidence, is proof.

There is no evidence Kremas II and III were converted for use as air raid shelters. Instead, they were blown up. Kremas IV and V were demolished. Krema I was converted to be used as an air raid shelter. None were left in tact, as they were reportedly being used as gas chambers.

Your attempt to claim the Nazis would not leave an air raid shelter for the Soviets to use, as a reason for blowing up Kremas II and III, fails because they left all the actual air raid shelters. You just made up a claim, ad hoc, which fell apart.

Krema I = Cover up what? You would need to demonstrate that Krema I was used for something worth covering up.

Krema II / III = You would need to demonstrate that Kremas II / III were unsuitable for use as air raid shelters. Which as I've explained to you, they were more than suitable to double as air raid shelters as intended, being subterranean, somewhat spacious, concrete structures.

[Nessie]

....

I see you misrepresenting the argument, as you cannot deal with the actual argument.

The evidence of a cover-up is part of the circumstantial evidence, it is not being presented as evidence that alone, with no other evidence, is proof.

There is no evidence Kremas II and III were converted for use as air raid shelters. Instead, they were blown up. Kremas IV and V were demolished. Krema I was converted to be used as an air raid shelter. None were left in tact, as they were reportedly being used as gas chambers.

Your attempt to claim the Nazis would not leave an air raid shelter for the Soviets to use, as a reason for blowing up Kremas II and III, fails because they left all the actual air raid shelters. You just made up a claim, ad hoc, which fell apart.

Krema I = Cover up what? You would need to demonstrate that Krema I was used for something worth covering up.

Krema II / III = You would need to demonstrate that Kremas II / III were unsuitable for use as air raid shelters. Which as I've explained to you, they were more than suitable to double as air raid shelters as intended, being subterranean, somewhat spacious, concrete structures.

There is evidence all three were used as gas chambers. They all could work as air raid shelters, Krema I was modified for that use and the semi submerged parts of Kremas II and III were also suitable. There is no evidence that they were repurposed as bomb shelters in 1944, once planes came into range.

You made up an excuse for the SS destroying Kremas II and III, forgetting, or not knowing, they left the camp's actual air raid shelters intact, for the Soviets! Rather than accept your mistake, you are doubling down.

The ONLY buildings destroyed or repurposed prior to the Soviet arrival, were the buildings for which there is evidence they were used as gas chambers. That is evidence of a cover-up.

[HansHill]

....

I see you misrepresenting the argument, as you cannot deal with the actual argument.

The evidence of a cover-up is part of the circumstantial evidence, it is not being presented as evidence that alone, with no other evidence, is proof.

There is no evidence Kremas II and III were converted for use as air raid shelters. Instead, they were blown up. Kremas IV and V were demolished. Krema I was converted to be used as an air raid shelter. None were left in tact, as they were reportedly being used as gas chambers.

Your attempt to claim the Nazis would not leave an air raid shelter for the Soviets to use, as a reason for blowing up Kremas II and III, fails because they left all the actual air raid shelters. You just made up a claim, ad hoc, which fell apart.

Krema I = Cover up what? You would need to demonstrate that Krema I was used for something worth covering up.

Krema II / III = You would need to demonstrate that Kremas II / III were unsuitable for use as air raid shelters. Which as I've explained to you, they were more than suitable to double as air raid shelters as intended, being subterranean, somewhat spacious, concrete structures.

There is evidence all three were used as gas chambers. They all could work as air raid shelters, Krema I was modified for that use and the semi submerged parts of Kremas II and III were also suitable. There is no evidence that they were repurposed as bomb shelters in 1944, once planes came into range.

You made up an excuse for the SS destroying Kremas II and III, forgetting, or not knowing, they left the camp's actual air raid shelters intact, for the Soviets! Rather than accept your mistake, you are doubling down.

The ONLY buildings destroyed or repurposed prior to the Soviet arrival, were the buildings for which there is evidence they were used as gas chambers. That is evidence of a cover-up.

You're forgetting that Kremas II / III could absolutely double as air raid shelters, for the reasons I've explained. Therefore destroying them seems credible in the miltary context, which again I've explained to you.

The revisionist position here is perfectly coherent.

[Nessie]

...

There is evidence all three were used as gas chambers. They all could work as air raid shelters, Krema I was modified for that use and the semi submerged parts of Kremas II and III were also suitable. There is no evidence that they were repurposed as bomb shelters in 1944, once planes came into range.

You made up an excuse for the SS destroying Kremas II and III, forgetting, or not knowing, they left the camp's actual air raid shelters intact, for the Soviets! Rather than accept your mistake, you are doubling down.

The ONLY buildings destroyed or repurposed prior to the Soviet arrival, were the buildings for which there is evidence they were used as gas chambers. That is evidence of a cover-up.

You're forgetting that Kremas II / III could absolutely double as air raid shelters, for the reasons I've explained. Therefore destroying them seems credible in the miltary context, which again I've explained to you.

The revisionist position here is perfectly coherent.

Why destroy two buildings that can double as air raid shelters, but leave the purpose built air raid shelters around the A-B camps, intact?

[Stubble]

Not to step to firmly on anyone's toes, but, a slight interjection.

I will posit the reason for destroying crematoria II and III was because the assigned personnel were ordered to destroy them.

That's just a guess.

I'm also going to suppose they were not ordered to destroy crematoria I. Again, that's a guess.

Now, looking at the absolute beating that the complexes took from allied bombing, and not knowing what kind of damage was sustained by II and III, I cannot speak to ths structural integrity of the facilities, but, I can show you images of 2,000lb HE being delivered to the facility from the open bomb bay doors of a B-17 Flying Fortress...

[HansHill]

Why destroy two buildings that can double as air raid shelters, but leave the purpose built air raid shelters around the A-B camps, intact?

There could be any number of reasons why, for example Krema I was not dynamited. Here is a snippet from the official Auschwitz website

"The Germans therefore initiated a series of evacuation-liquidation steps lasting through the middle of January 1945, but they refrained from doing anything that would make it impossible for the camp to continue functioning." Emphasis mine.

Now, this makes perfectly reasonable sense in an evacuation scenario. Look at where it is situated, and imagine this being cratered, and attempting to maintain the functioning of this location, which includes in its immediate vicinity, administration buildings and a hospital.