The Prevarications of Markiewicz (Prussian Blue)

[HansHill]

....
Archie has already explained what Rudolf's position here entails, and it cements his positions as one of science, rather than one of polemics. This is a credit to Rudolf. I will further explain however, as you seem to have not understood.

Rudolf is making us, and the academic world aware, that he is willing to consider and / or appreciate any other outstanding factors, processes or properties of HcN that have as yet become known or understood by us. To give a rather silly example, lets consider:

Tomorrow we become aware that by chance, every day an alleged gassing took place at Birkenau, there just so happened to be a solar flare. Remarkable! These solar flares in turn produces an overabundance of photons, which in turn ionised the HcN molecules in a rather peculiar way we've never seen before, hence completely explaining the absence of HcN residues! Even more remarkable!

Should this fantastical scenario ever come to light, Rudolf would be willing and open-minded to revisit his results in light of this solar flare / photon / ionised HcN thesis.

So far, nothing of the sort has ever surfaced, so Rudolf's position holds.

What Rudolf has done, is the equivalent of a maritime engineer claiming that he has examined the wreck of the Titanic, it cannot have been sunk by an iceberg, therefore everyone on the ship is a liar.

It is unscientific of you to cherrypick Rudolf's results and claim his position holds, in the face of so much evidence to the contrary.

This analogy would actually hold, if a maritime engineer demonstrated there was an absence of damage to the sunken hull, and the ocean was roundly inhospitable to ice!

It seems my fantastical analogy has been topped by yours.

[Nessie]

.... To give a rather silly example, lets consider:

Tomorrow we become aware that by chance, every day an alleged gassing took place at Birkenau, there just so happened to be a solar flare. Remarkable! These solar flares in turn produces an overabundance of photons, which in turn ionised the HcN molecules in a rather peculiar way we've never seen before, hence completely explaining the absence of HcN residues! Even more remarkable!

Should this fantastical scenario ever come to light, Rudolf would be willing and open-minded to revisit his results in light of this solar flare / photon / ionised HcN thesis.

So far, nothing of the sort has ever surfaced, so Rudolf's position holds.

What Rudolf has done, is the equivalent of a maritime engineer claiming that he has examined the wreck of the Titanic, it cannot have been sunk by an iceberg, therefore everyone on the ship is a liar.

It is unscientific of you to cherrypick Rudolf's results and claim his position holds, in the face of so much evidence to the contrary.

This analogy would actually hold, if a maritime engineer demonstrated there was an absence of damage to the sunken hull, and the ocean was roundly inhospitable to ice!

It seems my fantastical analogy has been topped by yours.

You have missed out part of the analogy, regarding all the witnesses being liars. I should also add to it that other maritime engineers say there is damage consistent with hitting an iceberg and there is evidence that icebergs were in the area.

If the only evidence for gassings, was Markiewicz's report, then I would join you in dismissing the gassings as unevidenced. But he is backed up by Green and crucially, other evidence pertaining to the operation of the Kremas in 1943-4.

You have taken one opinion as gospel and dismissed everything else. You cannot cherry-pick one scientific opinion, dismiss all the other opinions and evidence and decare you have proof.

[Leif F.]

...
"I am being more rigorous with and showing a greater understanding of the scientific process than you are. I agree with Rudolf, he may be wrong and his claims need more experimentation."

- You are sure of that? While it is of course nice of you to agree with Rudolf when HE shows openness towards being proven WRONG, is not the whole idea rather that if you`d really agree with him you would reciprocate with openness towards YOU being WRONG as well and not turn it on its head excluding yourself ?

"Rudolf understands, unlike revisionists, that a scientific claim by one person, with a theory, that has not been tested by experimentation, cannot and should not be taken as a certainty. That is why there is peer review and repeated testing, as scientists check claims to make sure they are correct."

- Indeed. And/But the good thing is that these rules always apply to all sides equally, agreed?

To accomodate that rule is exactly why Germar Rudolf in his main work "Chemistry of Auschwitz" focused entirely on official experiment based peer reviewed data (official DEGESCH-experiments, Lehrbuch der Arbeits-und Gewerbehygiene, Department of (US) army Edgewood arsenal, US HCN gaschamber execution results, etc....if interested, easily to check this work in videoformat https://holocausthandbooks.com/video/th ... auschwitz/ minute marks 3-6).
(These practical experimental results at the same time also address the apparently erroneous theoretical assumptions of being able to kill human beings with low (30 million ppm etc..) HCN concentrations, so if interested, see there.)

May one ask if you have actually read or watched his work/these official standard sources before commenting on it?

And most importantly, could you please link to the exact objective practical "tests of experimentation" that have proven Markiewicz and Green`s theoretical assumptions/claims and your own regarding that low HCN concentration gassings in large morgue rooms without aided gas dispersion and an upside down (floor-level extract, i.e. dead bodies would block it) ventilation system can kill masses of humans quickly and leave no residue?

When/Where and by Whom were those official experiments made and where can we study the methodology and results ? Thanks.

And the same regarding the claims of washing and painting, where is the forensic/experimental data that proves this actually happened (where did the allegedly washed out watersoluable HCN residue go, the camp-sewer/water recycling system?) and would have the claimed effect? Thanks.

[mod note: Leif, your formatting got a little messed up. I tried to fix it. Feel free to edit.]

[HansHill]

.... To give a rather silly example, lets consider:

Tomorrow we become aware that by chance, every day an alleged gassing took place at Birkenau, there just so happened to be a solar flare. Remarkable! These solar flares in turn produces an overabundance of photons, which in turn ionised the HcN molecules in a rather peculiar way we've never seen before, hence completely explaining the absence of HcN residues! Even more remarkable!

Should this fantastical scenario ever come to light, Rudolf would be willing and open-minded to revisit his results in light of this solar flare / photon / ionised HcN thesis.

So far, nothing of the sort has ever surfaced, so Rudolf's position holds.

What Rudolf has done, is the equivalent of a maritime engineer claiming that he has examined the wreck of the Titanic, it cannot have been sunk by an iceberg, therefore everyone on the ship is a liar.

It is unscientific of you to cherrypick Rudolf's results and claim his position holds, in the face of so much evidence to the contrary.

This analogy would actually hold, if a maritime engineer demonstrated there was an absence of damage to the sunken hull, and the ocean was roundly inhospitable to ice!

It seems my fantastical analogy has been topped by yours.

You have missed out part of the analogy, regarding all the witnesses being liars. I should also add to it that other maritime engineers say there is damage consistent with hitting an iceberg and there is evidence that icebergs were in the area.

If the only evidence for gassings, was Markiewicz's report, then I would join you in dismissing the gassings as unevidenced. But he is backed up by Green and crucially, other evidence pertaining to the operation of the Kremas in 1943-4.

You have taken one opinion as gospel and dismissed everything else. You cannot cherry-pick one scientific opinion, dismiss all the other opinions and evidence and decare you have proof.

For your analogy to be entirely complete then, there would need to be an entire country of Titanic-survivors established with wildly divergent tales, laws enacted to prevent discussion (or exploration) of the vessel and the maritime engineer in question to have been imprisoned for his efforts!

What an analogy this is turning out to be!

[Nessie]

...
"I am being more rigorous with and showing a greater understanding of the scientific process than you are. I agree with Rudolf, he may be wrong and his claims need more experimentation."

- You are sure of that? While it is of course nice of you to agree with Rudolf when HE shows openness towards being proven WRONG, is not the whole idea rather that if you`d really agree with him you would reciprocate with openness towards YOU being WRONG as well and not turn it on its head excluding yourself ?

I am open to being wrong. I just think that because all the evidence and opinion, with the exception of Rudolf, is in my favour, it is far more likely I am correct.

"Rudolf understands, unlike revisionists, that a scientific claim by one person, with a theory, that has not been tested by experimentation, cannot and should not be taken as a certainty. That is why there is peer review and repeated testing, as scientists check claims to make sure they are correct."

- Indeed. And/But the good thing is that these rules always apply to all sides equally, agreed?

Agreed.

To accomodate that rule is exactly why Germar Rudolf in his main work "Chemistry of Auschwitz" focused entirely on official experiment based peer reviewed data (official DEGESCH-experiments, Lehrbuch der Arbeits-und Gewerbehygiene, Department of (US) army Edgewood arsenal, US HCN gaschamber execution results, etc....if interested, easily to check this work in videoformat https://holocausthandbooks.com/video/th ... auschwitz/ minute marks 3-6).
(These practical experimental results at the same time also address the apparently erroneous theoretical assumptions of being able to kill human beings with low (30 million ppm etc..) HCN concentrations, so if interested, see there.)

May one ask if you have actually read or watched his work/these official standard sources before commenting on it?

I have repeatedly explained that since I am not a chemist, I cannot comment on the actual chemistry. Revisionists fail to understand that they also lack the relevant expertise to critique the chemistry, but they do so anyway. Revisionists for reasons known only to them, seem to think they can critique experts, with no relevant training or expertise. You should see them having a go at forensic archaeology!

And most importantly, could you please link to the exact objective practical "tests of experimentation" that have proven Markiewicz and Green`s theoretical assumptions/claims and your own regarding that low HCN concentration gassings in large morgue rooms without aided gas dispersion and an upside down (floor-level extract, i.e. dead bodies would block it) ventilation system can kill masses of humans quickly and leave no residue?

When/Where and by Whom were those official experiments made and where can we study the methodology and results ? Thanks.

You have missed the part where I said that there have been no such tests and I agree with Rudolf that more testing is needed.

And the same regarding the claims of washing and painting, where is the forensic/experimental data that proves this actually happened (where did the allegedly washed out watersoluable HCN residue go, the camp-sewer/water recycling system?) and would have the claimed effect? Thanks.

[mod note: Leif, your formatting got a little messed up. I tried to fix it. Feel free to edit.]

The claims about washing and painting come from witnesses. Again, I have said that Markiewicz and Green have been as theoretical as Rudolf has. They are trading opinions on theory. All we have, regarding the residue of HCN in the walls at the Krema Leichenkellers, is disputed opinion and theory. Quite why revisionists think that disputed theoretical opinion is sufficient to prove their claim that no mass gassings took place, and they can just ignore all the evidence gassings happened, is beyond me. Maybe you can explain.

[curioussoul]

I am open to being wrong.

That's a good attitude to have, but you've yet to demonstrate this willingness even a single time, and even when confronted with overwhelming evidence debunking your ill-founded position on some subjects.

Again, I have said that Markiewicz and Green have been as theoretical as Rudolf has. They are trading opinions on theory.

Markiewicz and Green have been unable to defend their positions. As I've said before, you would have to find a scientific explanation for why the evidence favors revisionists, in this case. Claiming the physical evidence must be wrong because otherwise the witnesses would had to have lied, is not a scientific argument.

[Nessie]

I am open to being wrong.

That's a good attitude to have, but you've yet to demonstrate this willingness even a single time, and even when confronted with overwhelming evidence debunking your ill-founded position on some subjects.

I have not been presented with evidence. I have been presented with opinion.

Again, I have said that Markiewicz and Green have been as theoretical as Rudolf has. They are trading opinions on theory.

Markiewicz and Green have been unable to defend their positions.

In your opinion.

As I've said before, you would have to find a scientific explanation for why the evidence favors revisionists, in this case. Claiming the physical evidence must be wrong because otherwise the witnesses would had to have lied, is not a scientific argument.

It is only your opinion that the science favours revisionists. In Rudolf's opinion, he is correct. In Markiewicz and Green's opinion, he is wrong. It is wrong to treat the issue as purely a scientific one. There is evidence as to what took place inside the Leichenkeller. When that evidence favours one sides opinion and not the other, then it makes sense to go with the opinion that the evidence supports. Rudolf's opinion on the science, as he admits, may be wrong and the evidence of what happened proves he is wrong. The evidence favours the opinion of Markiewicz and Green, over the opinion of Rudolf.

[Archie]

Nessie logic

"Green and Markiewicz disagree with Rudolf. Therefore, Green and Markiewicz are right and Rudolf is wrong."

"Rudolf acknowledges the possibility that he could be refuted. Therefore, Rudolf has been refuted."

Hilarious

[Archie]

Please note that after over 100 posts, nobody has provided any justification for Markiewicz's approach of excluding 99.9% of the total cyanide, nor has anyone explained where all that Prussian blue came from if (supposedly) not from Zyklon.

[HansHill]

Please note that after over 100 posts, nobody has provided any justification for Markiewicz's approach of excluding 99.9% of the total cyanide, nor has anyone explained where all that Prussian blue came from if (supposedly) not from Zyklon.

That's just your opinion.

[Nessie]

Nessie logic

"Green and Markiewicz disagree with Rudolf. Therefore, Green and Markiewicz are right and Rudolf is wrong."

"Rudolf acknowledges the possibility that he could be refuted. Therefore, Rudolf has been refuted."

Hilarious

My actual logic, rather than your misrepresentation;

Green and Markiewicz disagree with Rudolf. Green and Markiewicz are supported by the evidence of gassings. Rudolf cannot evidence what happened instead of gassings. Therefore, Green and Markiewicz are right and Rudolf is wrong.

You accused me in another thread of having a "weak response" to Rudolf, but you miss out that I have repeatedly pointed out that the evidence of the use of the Liechenkeller in 1943-4, is against Rudolf. That is also the case with this, where you miss out an important part of my argument, which is properly represented here;

Rudolf acknowledges the possibility that he could be refuted. Others have presented reasons to refute him and the evidence from the Liechenkellers is that it was modified for and used as a gas chamber. Therefore, Rudolf has been refuted."

[Archie]

Nessie logic

"Green and Markiewicz disagree with Rudolf. Therefore, Green and Markiewicz are right and Rudolf is wrong."

"Rudolf acknowledges the possibility that he could be refuted. Therefore, Rudolf has been refuted."

Hilarious

My actual logic, rather than your misrepresentation;

Green and Markiewicz disagree with Rudolf. Green and Markiewicz are supported by the evidence of gassings. Rudolf cannot evidence what happened instead of gassings. Therefore, Green and Markiewicz are right and Rudolf is wrong.

You accused me in another thread of having a "weak response" to Rudolf, but you miss out that I have repeatedly pointed out that the evidence of the use of the Liechenkeller in 1943-4, is against Rudolf. That is also the case with this, where you miss out an important part of my argument, which is properly represented here;

Rudolf acknowledges the possibility that he could be refuted. Others have presented reasons to refute him and the evidence from the Liechenkellers is that it was modified for and used as a gas chamber. Therefore, Rudolf has been refuted."

Green and Markiewicz are right because ... they are supported by evidence

Nessie, FFS, we are on page 8 of this thread. Your job here is to EXPLAIN WHAT THAT EVIDENCE is.

"The Holocaust is true because reasons"

[Nessie]

Nessie logic

"Green and Markiewicz disagree with Rudolf. Therefore, Green and Markiewicz are right and Rudolf is wrong."

"Rudolf acknowledges the possibility that he could be refuted. Therefore, Rudolf has been refuted."

Hilarious

My actual logic, rather than your misrepresentation;

Green and Markiewicz disagree with Rudolf. Green and Markiewicz are supported by the evidence of gassings. Rudolf cannot evidence what happened instead of gassings. Therefore, Green and Markiewicz are right and Rudolf is wrong.

You accused me in another thread of having a "weak response" to Rudolf, but you miss out that I have repeatedly pointed out that the evidence of the use of the Liechenkeller in 1943-4, is against Rudolf. That is also the case with this, where you miss out an important part of my argument, which is properly represented here;

Rudolf acknowledges the possibility that he could be refuted. Others have presented reasons to refute him and the evidence from the Liechenkellers is that it was modified for and used as a gas chamber. Therefore, Rudolf has been refuted."

Green and Markiewicz are right because ... they are supported by evidence

Nessie, FFS, we are on page 8 of this thread. Your job here is to EXPLAIN WHAT THAT EVIDENCE is.

"The Holocaust is true because reasons"

You know what that evidence is. It is the evidence from the Construction Office documents that record the modification of the Kremas, to incorporate undressing rooms, gas chambers and ovens for multiple corpse cremations, that is corroborated by 100% of the witnesses who worked at the Kremas and the circumstantial evidence of mass arrivals, selections and those not selected to work and sent to the Kremas disappearing from the Nazi's documented trail of prisoner movements and the theft of their property, that they were supposedly to keep for resettlement.

"The Holocaust is true because of the historical evidence".

When the historical evidence supports Green and Markiewicz's scientific conclusion and it does not support Rudolf, that proves Rudolf's scientific conclusion is wrong. That is something he admits is a possibility. History + science, beats science on its own.

[Stubble]

'You know what that evidence is. It is the evidence from the Construction Office documents that record the modification of the Kremas, to incorporate undressing rooms, gas chambers and ovens for multiple corpse cremations, that is corroborated by 100% of the witnesses who worked at the Kremas and the circumstantial evidence of mass arrivals, selections and those not selected to work and sent to the Kremas disappearing from the Nazi's documented trail of prisoner movements and the theft of their property, that they were supposedly to keep for resettlement.'

Cite these modified plans. Cite them.

The plans I have seen are very clear about what the facility 'is'. A crematorium and corpse storage facility.

I have not seen plans with an 'undressing area' or 'showers'. Just, corpse cellar 1, corpse cellar 2, and a vestibule in between them with a hygienic fumigation chamber and washing station. Very standard.

Nothing jumps out at me and says 'this is where we gas 2,000 to 5,000 people at a time before we raise them on an elevator up to the 15 muffles and burn them with coal we don't have'.

Literally nothing in the plans says that to me.

Cite these modified plans.

[Nessie]

'You know what that evidence is. It is the evidence from the Construction Office documents that record the modification of the Kremas, to incorporate undressing rooms, gas chambers and ovens for multiple corpse cremations, that is corroborated by 100% of the witnesses who worked at the Kremas and the circumstantial evidence of mass arrivals, selections and those not selected to work and sent to the Kremas disappearing from the Nazi's documented trail of prisoner movements and the theft of their property, that they were supposedly to keep for resettlement.'

Cite these modified plans. Cite them.

The plans I have seen are very clear about what the facility 'is'. A crematorium and corpse storage facility.

I have not seen plans with an 'undressing area' or 'showers'. Just, corpse cellar 1, corpse cellar 2, and a vestibule in between them with a hygienic fumigation chamber and washing station. Very standard.

Nothing jumps out at me and says 'this is where we gas 2,000 to 5,000 people at a time before we raise them on an elevator up to the 15 muffles and burn them with coal we don't have'.

Literally nothing in the plans says that to me.

Cite these modified plans.

Read through the list of documents recording the work at the Kremas here. They record the modification of the Kremas to contain heated undressing rooms, secured and vented gas chambers that have shower fittings and ovens that can cope with fast, multiple corpse cremations.

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ce-on.html

Letter of 14 July 1941 from the Topf engineer Paul Erdmann to the construction office Mauthausen on a cremation rate of 33 to 40 min per corpse "without overloading" the two-muffle oven [Rebuttal of Mattogno on Auschwitz, Part 1: Indoor Cremation]
Report of 30 October 1941 from the construction office Auschwitz on "60 men can be cremated" in the Topf five three muffle ovens within one hour Bartosik, The origins of the Birkenau camp, p. 170, see also Rebuttal of Mattogno on Auschwitz, Part 1: Indoor Cremation]
List of constructions of 31 March 1942 on "5 horse stable barracks | special treatment" [Mattogno, STIA, p. 36]
Letter from central construction office Auschwitz to SS-WVHA of 9 June 1942 on “for the special treatment of Jews, erection of 4 horse stable barracks for accomodation of effects" [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews..., p.109]
List of barracks of 30 June 1942 on “effect barracks for special treatment 3 pieces” [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews...,p.118]
List of work done by company Lenz & Co of 8 July 1942 on "2 doors at 2nd [?] gas-chamber [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews...,p.66]
Letter of construction office Auschwitz to construction office Stuthof on "an incineration takes about ½ hour according to the Topf company” in the three-muffle oven [Mattogno, IFCDA, p. 424]
Estimate of costs of 15 July 1942 on “4 barracks for special treatment of prisoners in Birkenau” [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews..., p.114]
Explanatory report of 15 July 1942 on “5 barracks for special treatment of detainees” [Mattogno, STIA, p. 37]
List of barracks of 17 July 1942 on “Purpose: special treatment Type: 260/9 Needed: 5 Erected: 3 Still to erect: 2” [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews..., p.121]
List of prisoner's details of 17 August 1942 on "for Sonderkommando 475 prisoners and 25 functionaries" [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews...,p.69]
Memo of Fritz Ertl of 21 August 1942 on „bathing installations for special actions" [Schüle, Industrie und Holocaust, p. 440; color scan p.1 & p.2]
Work of the electricians' detail between 20 and 22 August 1942 on "Installation and supply line for the Sonderkommando" [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews...,p.75]
Radio signal of 26 August 1942 on “material [Zyklon-B, back-up link] for special treatment” [Death Books From Auschwitz: Remnants, Vol. I, p. 144]
Letter from Kurt Prüfer of 8 September 1942 on "the number of muffles [37 with a capacity of 1850 corpses per day] is not yet sufficient; we should deliver more ovens as quick as possible" [Schüle, Industrie und Holocaust, p. 442]
Travel permit of Arthur Liebehenschel of 14 September 1942 on “5 trucks…for special actions” [Mattogno, STIA, p. 135]
Report from Fritz Sanders of 14 September 1942 on "stuffing the individual muffles with several corpses" [Schüle, Industrie und Holocaust, p. 443]
Radio signal of 15 September 1942 on “experimental station for field ovens Aktion Reinhard” [Johannes Tuchel, Inspektion der Konzentrationslager 1938-1945, p. 176, back-up link]
Report of 17 September 1942 on “inspection of special facility” in Chelmno and order for “a ball mill for substances” [Shmuel Krakowski, Das Todeslager Chełmno/Kulmhof: Der Beginn der"Endlösung", p. 120, English translation)
Speech of Oswald Pohl of 23 September 1942 on “special tasks, about which we do not have to speak words” [The Van Pelt report, VI Blueprints of the Genocide]
Schedule for the visit to Auschwitz by Oswald Pohl on 23 September 1942 on "Station 2 of Aktion Reinhardt" [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews...,p.81]
Order of 5 October 1942 on “doors for special t[reatment] of the Jews” [Mattogno, STIA, p. 48]
Letter from Karl Bischoff to SS-WVHA of 13 October 1942 on “due to the situation created by the special actions, the construction of the crematorium had to be begun immediately just this past July” [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews...,p.226]
Patent draft from Fritz Sanders of 26 October 1942 on “continuously operating corpse cremation oven for mass use” [Schüle, Industrie und Holocaust, p. 450]
List of construction projects of 28 October 1942 on "POW camp Auschwitz (carrying out the special treatment)" [Florian Freund et al., Der Bau des Vernichtungslagers Auschwitz-Birkenau]
Report from Karl Bischoff of 4 November 1942 on “special cellar” in crematorium 2 [ A new document mentioning "special cellars" (Sonderkeller) in the crematoria 2 and 3 at Birkenau ]
Memo from Fritz Wolter of 27 November 1942 on “special cellars” in crematorium 2 [Schüle, Industrie und Holocaust, p. 180]
Assignement of barracks of 8 December 1942 on “Purpose: special treatment (old) Type: 260/9 Needed: 5 Erected: 5” in Birkenau [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews...,p.130]
Report from the duty officer of 9 December 1942 on “6 prisoners escaped from special detail I” [Czech, Kalendarium, p. 355]
Report (1,2) from Heinrich Kinna of 16 December 1942 on “imbeciles, idiots, cripples and sick people have to be removed from the camp within a short time by liquidiation to unburden the camp…Poles have to die of a natural death contrary to the measures applied on the Jews” [IPN GK 69/169, reproduced in Jaczynska, Sonderlaboratorium SS, p. 423, see also The Kinna Report - German Document on the Killing of Unfit Jews in Auschwitz]
Explanationary report from Karl Bischoff of 16 December 1942 on “the individual crematoriums and other special facilities” [Mattogno, STIA, p. 61]
Receipt of coke delivery of 18 December 1942 to "Sonderkommando 2" [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews...,p.205]
Order of Rudolf Höss of 5 January 1943 on “the solution of the Jewish question in Auschwitz” [Czech, Kalendarium, p. 845]
Letter from Karl Bischoff of 13 January 1943 on “doors for crematorium I in the POW camp, ordered with letter dated Oct. 26, 1942 are urgently required for the carrying out of the special measures” [Mattogno, STIA, p. 91]
Letter from Eduard Wirths of 21 January 1943 on “undressing room” in crematorium 2 [Mattogno ATCOS, vol. 1, p. 72]
Letter from Karl Bischof to Hans Kammler of 27 January 1943 on “carrying out of the special action” in Birkenau [Mattogno, STIA, p. 131]
Memo from Heinrich Swoboda of 29 January 1943 on “cremation with simultaneous special treatment” in crematorium 2
Letter from Karl Bischoff of 29 January 1943 on “gassing cellar” in crematorium 2 [Pressac, Technique, p. 432]
Report of Oswald Pohl of 6 February 1943 on ""realization of textile-salvage from the Jewish resettlement" [NO-5742, english]
Memo of Karl Bischoff of 10 February 1943 on "at special unit 1, three horse stable baracks" and "at special unit 2, three horse stable baracks" available "for the storage of personal effects" [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews...,p.135]
Order of 10 February 1943 for 200 kg chlorinated lime "for the Sonderkommando Birkenau" [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews...,p.203]
Camp employement record book on 10 February 1943 on "request of dentists for the special action" [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews...,p.209]
Letter from Karl Bischoff to Rudolf Höß of 12 February 1943 on the “sixth crematorium…an open incineration chamber with the dimension 48.75 x 3.76 m” [Schüle, Industrie und Holocaust, p. 450]
Memo from Fritz Sander of 17 February 1943 on “the gas cellar” in crematorium 2 [Schüle, Industrie und Holocaust, p. 456, back-up 1st and 2nd page]
Order of 13 February 1943 on “12 gas tight doors approx. 30/40” for crematorium 4 and 5 [Pressac, Technique, p. 444]
Order of 15 February 1943 on “210 anchors for gas tight doors” for crematorium 4 [Pressac, Technique, p. 448]
Note from Josef Janisch of 15 February 1943 on “for undressing, a horse stable barrack has been erected infront of the cellar entrance” of crematorium 2 [Mattogno, ATCFS, vol. 1, p. 74]
Order of 19 February 1943 on “4 tight doors” for crematorium 4 [Pressac, Technique, p. 452]
Telex from Heinrich Schwarz to SS-WVHA of 20 February 1943 on “the men were specially accommodated because of infirmity, the women because most of them were children” [Sterbebücher von Auschwitz, document 56, back-up]
List of materials of 24 February 1943 on “12 gas tight doors approx. 30/40” for crematorium 4 and 5 [Pressac, Technique, p. 444]
Delivery note of 24 February 1943 on “fittings of 12 gas tight doors” for crematorium 4 and 5 [Pressac, Technique, p. 443]
Work time sheet of 28 February 1943 on “fit gas tight windows” in crematorium 4 [Pressac, Technique, p. 445]
Work time sheet of 2 March 1943 on “concrete in gas chamber” in crematorium 4 [Pressac, Technique, p. 446]
Letter from Topf to central construction office Auschwitz of 2 March 1943 on “display devices for hydrogen cyanide residues” for crematorium 2 [Pressac, Die Krematorien von Auschwitz, p. 92]
Order of 5 March 1943 of “handle for gas door” for crematorium 2 [Pressac, Technique, p. 433]
Telex from Heinrich Schwarz to SS-WVHA of 5 March 1943 on “918 women and children sent to special treatment“ [Blumental, Dokumenty i materiały, volume 1, p. 109]
Telex from Heinrich Schwarz to SS-WVHA of 8 March 1943 on “151 men and 492 women and children were specially treated“ [Blumental, Dokumenty i materiały, volume 1, p. 110]
Letter from Karl Bischoff to Topf of 6 March 1943 on “preheating cellar 1” and “undressing room” in crematorium 2 and 3 [Pressac, Technique, p. 433]
Working time sheet from Heinrich Messing of 14 March 1943 on “undressing cellar 2” in crematorium 2 [Pressac, Technique, p. 434]
Plan of Birkenau camp of 20 March 1943 indicating a barrack at crematorium 2 [Pressac, Technique, p. 226, also p. 462]
Memo of 25 March 1943 on “hot air supply device for corpse cellar 1” in crematorium 2 [Pressac, Technique, p. 230]
Order from the central construction office of 29 March 1943 on 4 “iron grilles” for windows 30 x 40 cm of crematoria 4 and 5 (i.e. the gas tight windows) [Mattogno, ATCFS, p. 169]
Duty testimonial for [Hans?] Kühnemann of 30 March 1943 on "the action 'resettlement of the Jews', where he supervised, collected and drove away the effects that accumulated at special detail 1 [So. Kdo. I] and crematorium 2" [Perz and Sandkühler, Auschwitz und die "Aktion Reinhard" 1942 - 45, p. 296]
Order from Karl Bischoff of 31 March 1943 on “3 gas tight doors” of crematorium 4 and 5 and “gas door 100/192 for corpse cellar 1…with double 8 mm glass and peephole” of crematorium 2 and 3 [Pressac, Technique, p. 436]
Transfer document of 31 March 1943 on “gas door” in crematorium 2 [Pressac, Technique, p. 437]
Transfer inventory of 31 March 1943 on “4 wire mesh slide in devices” and “wooden covers” in the crematorium 2 basement [Pressac, Technique, p. 430]
Order of 6 April 1943 on “24 anchor bolts for gas tight doors” for crematorium 4 and 5 [Pressac, Technique, p. 454]
Work time sheet from Heinrich Messing of 13 April 1943 on “undressing cellar” in crematorium 3 [Pressac, Technique, p. 439]
Material list of 13 April 1943 on “extension of the aeration and deaeration device (warm air supply) of the crematorium II” [Rudolf Report, 2nd edition]
Order of 16 April 1943 on “iron for fittings for 5 gas doors” for crematorium 4 and 5 [Pressac, Technique, p. 438]
Order of 16 April 1943 on “fitting for 1 gas door” for crematorium 3 [Pressac, Technique, p. 439]
Work time sheet of 16 April 1943 on “fit gas door” in crematorium 5 [Pressac, Technique, p. 454]
Letter from Karl Bischoff to Rudolf Höß of 17 April 1943 on "the horse stable barracks erected at special unit II and at crematorium III are urgently needed for troop accommodation...After the operation of special unit II has stopped and the corresponding quarters by Crematorium III are available as well, information is requested as to when the barracks can be dismantled" [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews...,p.139]
Order from Rudolf Höß of 20 April 1943 on “2 Jews escaped from the Sonderkommando” [Standort- und Kommandanturbefehle, p. 251]
Order from the central construction office of 27 April 1943 on “12 pieces of window grids 50 x 70 cm” (i.e. for the gas tight windows) [Pressac, Technique, p. 441]
Report from Alfred Franke-Gricksch of May 1943 on the extermination of Jews unfit for work in Auschwitz [see Nazi Document on Mass Extermination of Jews in Auschwitz-Birkenau ]
Memo of Karl Bischoff of 9 May 1943 on "two horse stable barracks from 'special action 1'" [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews...,p.144]
Map of 2 June 1943 with a “prohibited area” near the Bunker 1 and 2 extermination sites [Pressac, Die Krematorien von Auschwitz, doc. 21, see also The prohibited area Birkenau]
Order from Glücks via Liebehenschel of 15 June 1943 on “special buildings” should be “located offside in accordance with their purpose and cannot be stared at by all sorts of people” [NO-1242]
Transfer inventory of 24 June 1943 on “14 showers” and “1 gas tight door” in crematorium 3 [Pressac, Technique , p. 430]
Report from Karl Bischoff to Hans Kammler of 28 June 1943 on “capacity of existing crematoria…in 24 h…4756 persons” [Schüle, Industrie und Holocaust, p. 460]
Order of Hans Aumeier of 6 August 1943 on "the performed work on the occasion of the special action" [Standort- und Kommandanturbefehle, p. 320]
List of female prisoners of 21 August 1943 (signed by Maria Mandel), who were “specially lodged” (abbreviated G.U. in German) [Sterbebücher von Auschwitz, document 32, see also Auschwitz-Birkenau Selection List of 21 August 1943]
Letter from the central construction office to the camp administration of 24 December 1943 on "stores of the special actions" [Mattogno, STIA, p. 74]
Letter of the camp administration to the central construction office of 24 December 1943 on "narrow-gauge material, namely tracks and wagons, had been provided to Sonderkommando 1" [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews...,p.211]
Letter for Hans Kori to concentration camp Majdanek that the cremation time of his ovens can be halved to 30 min per corpse by employing multiple cremations [Mattogno, IFCDA, p. 422]
Letter of the central construction office Auschwitz to the camp administration of 4 February 1944 on "the loaned barracks at Sonderkommando 1 are no longer required there" [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews...,p.147]
Proposal list of 9 February 1944 on "after finishing his daily tours, Sch[ramme] was used for the tours due to 'special tasks', Dylewski was "significantly involved in carrying out the 'special tasks' in the camp, and was there to be on duty at day and night"
Letter of the camp administration to the central construction office Auschwitz of 18 March 1944 on "it is requested to provide the cable - 4 x 6 m² [sic] 1 KV - to Bunker I., Birkenau, which is no longer needed" [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews...,p.101]
Telegram of Kammler to the central construction office Auschwitz on "for the special action Hungary, immediately erect three horse-stable barracks at the swerve bunkers" [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews...,p.149]
Duty notes from August Bielisch of 20 May [Leide, NS-Verbrecher und Staatssicherheit, p. 262], Gottfried Weisse of 24 May and Gerhard Appel of 25 May 1944 [Faschismus - Getto - Massenmord, p. 373]: "I will maintain unconditional secrecy during the measures to carry out the Jewish evacuation, and also vis-à-vis my comrades"
Telegram from Hans Kammler to the central construction office of 25 May 1944 on “for special action Hungary/program 3 horse stable barracks are immediately to be erected at the swerve bunkers” [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews...,p.150]
Memo from Werner Jothann of 17 June 1944 on “camouflage of the crematoria and security measures by erection of a second fence“ [Auschwitz 1940-1945, Volume 3 p. 183]
Labour force report of 28 July 1944 on "807 stokers" and "30 wood unloader" at the crematoria in Auschwitz-Birkenau [similar reports exist also for later dates, see here]
Escape report of 7 September (actually October) 1944 on “special detail (crematorium)” [originally from the website of the Auschwitz State Museum]
Strength reports of the female camp in Birkenau of October 1944 on "special treatment [abbreviated SB]" as loss of prisoners
3 October 1944 [Hefte von Auschwitz 8, p. 115]
4 October 1944 [Deaths books of Auschwitz; image originally from the Auschwitz Museum website]
6 October 1944 [Baum, Widerstand in Auschwitz, p. 28]
8 October 1944 [Kogon, Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giftgas, p. 223]
15 October 1944 [Baum Widerstand in Auschwitz, p. 29]
Letter to Dachau camp administration of 25 October 1944 on "deportation of unfit Jews to Auschwitz" and "transport of invalids to Auschwitz" [back up here]
Letter to Dachau camp administration of 31 October 1944 on "transfer of 1020 sick and unfit prisoners to Auschwitz" [back up here]