The Significance of the Morgue Documents

[Stubble]

'The way you approach things is alarming...'


You ever heard of the socratic method? A hypothesis? A theory?

So far as the rest, a picture is worth 1,000 words, unless it is pictures of bombs falling on Auschwitz Birkenau, and not something you agree with.

I'll get around to digging more later. I'm not going to drop everything and go hunting for something that was right there on the front page one day and gone the next.

Eventually, I'll find it again. When I do, I'll certainly share it. Point I'm driving at is, what was on the front page of my results yesterday for a query should be there today. Especially if the links are over a decade old. They aren't. I'm going to have to dig.

I did find some craters around the ss stockade, but, caption says may..



I also found this one.



It mentions the October 1944 date for Krema IV.

Krema V and Krema II and III might merit a look. Surely the date is wrong.

[HansHill]

The only buildings destroyed, were the ones used for gassings, that had not subsequently been modified for other uses. Cover-up.

There were no buildings used for gassing humans that were destroyed. The buildings used for gassing were fumigation chambers that remain extant today.

Subterranean Kremas II / III being destroyed is explained by a military retreat for tactical purposes.
Main camp Krema I remaining extant is explained by its central location adjacent to many critical buildings in close proximity as the camp was intended to remain functional for as long as possible.

You have no cover up, and are going around in circles on this.

[Nessie]

The only buildings destroyed, were the ones used for gassings, that had not subsequently been modified for other uses. Cover-up.

There were no buildings used for gassing humans that were destroyed. The buildings used for gassing were fumigation chambers that remain extant today.

You have no evidence Kremas I to V or the two Bunkers were used for delousing.

Subterranean Kremas II / III being destroyed is explained by a military retreat for tactical purposes.

You cannot evidence what use those two buildings had, that meant they needed to be destroyed. You argued that because they could be used as air raid shelters, they needed to be destroyed, which ignores all the actual air raid shelters that were left intact.

I can evidence their use as gas chambers, and they were destroyed along with the other buildings used as gas chambers at Birkenau, as part of an attempt to destroy evidence.

Main camp Krema I remaining extant is explained by its central location adjacent to many critical buildings in close proximity as the camp was intended to remain functional for as long as possible.

You have no cover up, and are going around in circles on this.

Krema I was not destroyed, because it was needed as an air raid shelter until the camp was abandoned and its conversion hide its previous use as a gas chamber. I can evidence my claims, you cannot evidence yours. We are going around in circles because you refuse to accept you are wrong. You think that repeating your unevidenced, nonsensical claims ad nauseam, is a conving argument! Yet again, you are evidence free and rely only on a logically flawed argument.

[HansHill]

You have no evidence Kremas I to V or the two Bunkers were used for delousing.

You cannot evidence what use those two buildings had, that meant they needed to be destroyed. You argued that because they could be used as air raid shelters, they needed to be destroyed, which ignores all the actual air raid shelters that were left intact.

I can evidence their use as gas chambers, and they were destroyed along with the other buildings used as gas chambers at Birkenau, as part of an attempt to destroy evidence.

Krema I was not destroyed, because it was needed as an air raid shelter until the camp was abandoned and its conversion hide its previous use as a gas chamber. I can evidence my claims, you cannot evidence yours. We are going around in circles because you refuse to accept you are wrong. You think that repeating your unevidenced, nonsensical claims ad nauseam, is a conving argument! Yet again, you are evidence free and rely only on a logically flawed argument.

Kremas I - V were not delousing chambers. The delousing chambers were delousing chambers.

"You cannot evidence what those two buildings had that meant they needed to be destroyed"
They doubled as air raid shelters, and i have explained to you maybe 4 times now, that this makes sense in the military sense.
Krema I was left intact for operation continuity.

As a final point, your "cover up" theory makes no sense and I'll explain why. Dynamiting the structures of KII and KIII does not destroy evidence, should there have been any evidence, of gassing. As you'll note, the structure is still available to us to study for evidence of gassing (for example HcN content, and introduction holes).

Leaving behind the material for us to examine, makes your "cover up" thesis laughable.

You are starting from the premise of "gassings occurred" and from that position you deny outright any other credible explanation. You keep suggesting I want to disbelieve the gassings, but it is you who are rejecting sound, credible alternative suggestions because you are seeking to begin from this inflexible position of "gassings happened". Nothing in the material left behind demonstrates gassings.

[curioussoul]

I would like you to link to and quote me denying that such a document could exist. My recollection is that all I wanted you to do, was to link to and quote the document, which for reasons known only to you, you found annoying.

I have been to plenty of mortuaries (morgues), during my time as a police officer. They are used to store corpses, that are awaiting postmortems (autopsies) or collection for cremation or burial. If you remove those purposes, you do not need a mortuary. The dead at A-B were not sent for postmortems and the cremation capacity at the camp was so high, that corpses did not need to be stored to await disposal. That means the Leichenkeller is now freed for use as a gas chamber. Moving corpses twice a day, prevents corpses piling up, when there is nowhere to store them and spreads the demand for the Kremas.

That the term morgue remained in use, is explained by the policy of keeping the usage of the Kremas as obscured and secret as possible, during the period of the "special" treatment and action in 1943-4.

I'm disappointed, you refuse to stick to the subject and you've successfully derailed yet another thread.

Back to topic for once. Here's a link to one of the discussions over at RODOH: https://rodoh.info/thread/613/compendiu ... tes?page=9

I had written the following:

In another thread you authoritatively claimed that there were no documents at all mentioning the use of the Leichenkellers as morgues. You've now been confronted with such documents, but conveniently they are apparently "insufficient evidence" to trump the witness testimony to the contrary.

Your response was that:

A reference to a morgue, does not therefore mean the body is stored in the morgue. Obviously those corpses are going for cremation, an action which is corroborated by other evidence.

In other words, a document about transporting dead camp inmates to the morgues does not mean the bodies were actually transported to the morgues.

I responded again:

I find it entertaining that just one day ago, you had no idea these documents existed - in fact, you outright denied any such document existed. Now you're reduced to making excuses for their existence, and not very convincing ones at that.

If we know the morgues were planned as morgues (you admitted this), built as morgues (until they allegedly changed their mind), and documents then mention their use and purpose as morgues, any serious person would call that corroborating evidence that they were, in fact, morgues. Right?

You kept on insisting:

"None of the documents use the word store, or storage, specifically relating to the Kremas. You cannot produce any corroborating evidence from the Kremas, of corpses being stored in the Leichenkellers, prior to cremation."

When confronted again about the fact that the entire correspondence is about the storage of corpses in the morgues, you hit back with the following:

"You have cherry-picked one document, that is contradicted by other corroborating evidence and taken that document literally."

[curioussoul]

The article has been reposted to CODOH here.
https://codoh.com/library/document/the- ... au-in-the/

Let's put in simple terms. If the "morgue" was really a gas chamber, where was the actual morgue for all the people dying of typhus, etc?

Auschwitz was the largest concentration camp and accounted roughly half of the deaths in the KLs. The registered deaths were around 135,000. That's quite substantial. This only seems trivial compared to the wildly inflated "Holocaust" numbers that get thrown around. What were they doing with these 100+ bodies that were accumulating per day? They were taking them to the morgues. We are to believe that the camp that had the greatest need for morgues was the one without dedicated morgue space. Meanwhile camps like Buchenwald and Dachau that had more like 10 deaths per day did have dedicated morgues.

Would it be conceivable to keep track of which crematoria had gassings scheduled, to make sure that the bodies were cleared, and that "regular" deaths were taken to a crematorium that had no gassing scheduled? Perhaps. But that sounds like a big hassle and where is there any indication that anything like this was done?

You could probably go back to Czech's Auschwitz Chronicle and check her gassing dates, which Mattogno regularly does. The claimed dates of huge gassings never add up. You'll have witnesses swearing up and down that mega gassings took place on this or that date, yet Czech contradicts it, or the other way around.

The question that antirevisionists have to answer is why there are documents about storing corpses in the morgues, if they were actually gas chambers. Nessie's contrived excuses don't make sense. Calling damning documents "cherry-picked one-off exceptions" and ignoring the obvious problems is typical of antirevisionism but insufficient for writing history.

As a side note, one thing that struck me about this correspondence is that Dr. Wirths sounds like a pretty good doctor. Very conscientious for a guy working in a murder camp.

As far as I know, he was well liked. Rudolf published a drawing gifted to Wirths by the inmates, thanking him for his efforts to stop the typhus outbreak at Birkenau.

[Nessie]

....

Kremas I - V were not delousing chambers. The delousing chambers were delousing chambers.

Tell that to Mattogno and others who have theorised they were used for delousing.

"You cannot evidence what those two buildings had that meant they needed to be destroyed"
They doubled as air raid shelters, and i have explained to you maybe 4 times now, that this makes sense in the military sense.

There were actual purpose built air raid shelters in Birkenau. They were left intact. It does not make military, or any other sense, to destroy the four Kremas and two Bunkers, because you think two of the Kremas could double as air raid shelters and leave the actual air raid shelters at Birkenau alone.

Krema I was left intact for operation continuity.

Krema I, which was located in Auschwitz main camp and was some distance from Birkenau, was left as an air raid shelter because that conversion served the purpose of hiding the building's use as a gas chamber. You cannot give a ration reason why it makes military sense to destroy two buildings because they could double as air raid shelters and leave another.

As a final point, your "cover up" theory makes no sense and I'll explain why. Dynamiting the structures of KII and KIII does not destroy evidence, should there have been any evidence, of gassing. As you'll note, the structure is still available to us to study for evidence of gassing (for example HcN content, and introduction holes).

Leaving behind the material for us to examine, makes your "cover up" thesis laughable.

You are starting from the premise of "gassings occurred" and from that position you deny outright any other credible explanation. You keep suggesting I want to disbelieve the gassings, but it is you who are rejecting sound, credible alternative suggestions because you are seeking to begin from this inflexible position of "gassings happened". Nothing in the material left behind demonstrates gassings.

You concentrate only on Kremas II and III and you ignore Kremas IV and V and the two Bunkers at Birkenau. Krema IV and the two Bunkers were completely demolished. Kremas II, III and V were blown up when the Nazis finally had to abandon, with the Soviets fast advancing. Given the time frame they had and Hitler's reluctance to retreat, blowing them up was the best they could do.

If you want me to flex from the position gassing happened, then produce evidence from a witness who worked inside a Krema or Bunker, who states what it was really used for. Or, a document that records another use, such as delousing taking place. Or, evidence that those not selected to work, either left the camp or were accommodated there. I start from the premise gassings occurred, because that is the conclusion based on the evidence. What you think is my start point is actually my evidence based conclusion. You cannot evidence what else happened.

[Nessie]

I would like you to link to and quote me denying that such a document could exist. My recollection is that all I wanted you to do, was to link to and quote the document, which for reasons known only to you, you found annoying.

I have been to plenty of mortuaries (morgues), during my time as a police officer. They are used to store corpses, that are awaiting postmortems (autopsies) or collection for cremation or burial. If you remove those purposes, you do not need a mortuary. The dead at A-B were not sent for postmortems and the cremation capacity at the camp was so high, that corpses did not need to be stored to await disposal. That means the Leichenkeller is now freed for use as a gas chamber. Moving corpses twice a day, prevents corpses piling up, when there is nowhere to store them and spreads the demand for the Kremas.

That the term morgue remained in use, is explained by the policy of keeping the usage of the Kremas as obscured and secret as possible, during the period of the "special" treatment and action in 1943-4.

I'm disappointed, you refuse to stick to the subject and you've successfully derailed yet another thread.

Go back and you will see it was others who started the topic drift, into other uses for the Kremas. In fact, there is no evidence the four Birkenau Kremas were used for any revisionist theory, 1943-4.

Back to topic for once. Here's a link to one of the discussions over at RODOH: https://rodoh.info/thread/613/compendiu ... tes?page=9

I had written the following:

In another thread you authoritatively claimed that there were no documents at all mentioning the use of the Leichenkellers as morgues. You've now been confronted with such documents, but conveniently they are apparently "insufficient evidence" to trump the witness testimony to the contrary.

Your response was that:

A reference to a morgue, does not therefore mean the body is stored in the morgue. Obviously those corpses are going for cremation, an action which is corroborated by other evidence.

In other words, a document about transporting dead camp inmates to the morgues does not mean the bodies were actually transported to the morgues.

I responded again:

I find it entertaining that just one day ago, you had no idea these documents existed - in fact, you outright denied any such document existed. Now you're reduced to making excuses for their existence, and not very convincing ones at that.

If we know the morgues were planned as morgues (you admitted this), built as morgues (until they allegedly changed their mind), and documents then mention their use and purpose as morgues, any serious person would call that corroborating evidence that they were, in fact, morgues. Right?

You kept on insisting:

"None of the documents use the word store, or storage, specifically relating to the Kremas. You cannot produce any corroborating evidence from the Kremas, of corpses being stored in the Leichenkellers, prior to cremation."

When confronted again about the fact that the entire correspondence is about the storage of corpses in the morgues, you hit back with the following:

"You have cherry-picked one document, that is contradicted by other corroborating evidence and taken that document literally."

What is your point? You have zero witnesses who worked inside a Krema in 1943-4, who states the Leichenkeller was used to store corpses. You have documents about taking corpses to the mortuary, but the evidence is that with such a high cremation capacity, the dead from elsewhere in the camp could just be cremated along with the dead from the gas chambers.

[curioussoul]

Go back and you will see it was others who started the topic drift

That's nonsense. You have a personal responsibility to stick to topic and not derail threads by engaging in off-topic discussions. Is that understood?

What is your point?

My point is that none of these documents are compatible with the orthodox story. Claiming documentary (and physical) evidence needs to be brushed aside and ignored because it would contradict some of your witnesses is not how historiography and science works. You do realise that, right?

[Nessie]

Go back and you will see it was others who started the topic drift

That's nonsense. You have a personal responsibility to stick to topic and not derail threads by engaging in off-topic discussions. Is that understood?

What is your point?

My point is that none of these documents are compatible with the orthodox story. Claiming documentary (and physical) evidence needs to be brushed aside and ignored because it would contradict some of your witnesses is not how historiography and science works. You do realise that, right?

I have made no such claim. Strawman is the new revisionist forum favourite fallacy.

If two sources of evidence contradict, what do you think is the correct method for determining which of the two is correct?

[curioussoul]

Go back and you will see it was others who started the topic drift

That's nonsense. You have a personal responsibility to stick to topic and not derail threads by engaging in off-topic discussions. Is that understood?

What is your point?

My point is that none of these documents are compatible with the orthodox story. Claiming documentary (and physical) evidence needs to be brushed aside and ignored because it would contradict some of your witnesses is not how historiography and science works. You do realise that, right?

I have made no such claim. Strawman is the new revisionist forum favourite fallacy.

If two sources of evidence contradict, what do you think is the correct method for determining which of the two is correct?

You will take responsibility for your posts and not blame others. Is that understood going forward?

As for your arguments, you've insisted that physical and documentary evidence must be wrong if it contradicts witness statements. That's not how the study of history works. Historiographically, contemporary first party documentary evidence as well as physical evidence takes precedence over post-event witness statements containing numerous errors and falsehoods. Would you agree?

[curioussoul]

They left the Majdanek camps intact and that didn't stop the Soviets from claiming the most absurd things ever said in the war, they didn't want to make their propaganda work easier.

I repeat, no one is creating a conspiracy that the Soviets' scorched earth was to cover up anything. I'm surprised they didn't cover up the Katyn massacres and still had the nerve to blame the Germans, but Nessie trusts the reports of the Polish-Soviet commissions of those camps.

Was there a Soviet report on A-B? If so, it is so useless

Why would a Soviet report on A-B be useless?

[TlsMS93]

There was no delivery of coal in 1942-1943 for the alleged number of gassings carried out by Danuta Czech, nor were the muffles suitable for multiple cremations in a few minutes, nor was the refractory masonry of the same refurbished after 3,000 cremations. This Trinity of evidence alone demolishes the Holocaust at Auschwitz

Supporting hypotheses for these three problems without empirical evidence from tests that anyone can repeat as the scientific method guarantees will not convince anyone reasonable, perhaps people with very low IQs. Hasn't this been the goal of this post-45 system? To make society ignorant and docile so that the law will come out of Zion as Isaiah prophesied?

[Stubble]

There was no delivery of coal in 1942-1943 for the alleged number of gassings carried out by Danuta Czech, nor were the muffles suitable for multiple cremations in a few minutes, nor was the refractory masonry of the same refurbished after 3,000 cremations. This Trinity of evidence alone demolishes the Holocaust at Auschwitz

Supporting hypotheses for these three problems without empirical evidence from tests that anyone can repeat as the scientific method guarantees will not convince anyone reasonable, perhaps people with very low IQs. Hasn't this been the goal of this post-45 system? To make society ignorant and docile so that the law will come out of Zion as Isaiah prophesied?

Look man, there is no fuel problem.

You've got a guy that says if you run out of coke, you just put some straw in there, and then that body burns. Once it starts, it catches all the other bodies. No coke/coal necessary.

*Henryich Tauber

You also have the manufacturer saying that you can reduce consumption by just leaving it running.

*Topf & Sons memo, dated March 11, 1943

Check and mate denier!

[Nessie]

That's nonsense. You have a personal responsibility to stick to topic and not derail threads by engaging in off-topic discussions. Is that understood?



My point is that none of these documents are compatible with the orthodox story. Claiming documentary (and physical) evidence needs to be brushed aside and ignored because it would contradict some of your witnesses is not how historiography and science works. You do realise that, right?

I have made no such claim. Strawman is the new revisionist forum favourite fallacy.

If two sources of evidence contradict, what do you think is the correct method for determining which of the two is correct?

You will take responsibility for your posts and not blame others. Is that understood going forward?

If you misrepresent and strawman me, you will take responsibility for that. Is that understood going forward?

As for your arguments, you've insisted that physical and documentary evidence must be wrong if it contradicts witness statements.

No I have not. I have said that in the instance of Rudolf's analysis, he is wrong, as proven by documentary and witness evidence. Will you now take responsibility for your misrepresentation?

That's not how the study of history works. Historiographically, contemporary first party documentary evidence as well as physical evidence takes precedence over post-event witness statements containing numerous errors and falsehoods. Would you agree?

I agree that documentary and physical evidence is generally more reliable than witness memory, yes. That is not a universal rule. If a document is contradicted by every single eyewitness to an event, then the document's accuracy should be questioned. For example, a news report claims that 5 people were killed in a shooting, but every single witness, from the police, to medics, to the public state that 100 people were killed, then I would say it is more likely that the document is wrong. Would you agree?