Theories to explain lack of Prussian Blue (reply to patrick)

[Archie]

2. The presence of heat (What I believe is most likely)

First, the obvious. LK1 is a subterranean room. It was built as a basement to serve as a morgue. The benefit of it being subterranean is that it stays naturally cool. It must be assumed to have been cool by default.

It's true that a heating system was suggested for LK1 in KII, but this was to be a way of extracting hot air from its "forced-draft suction units" which at that time were overheating. After those forced-draft devices went up in literal flames, they were rejected by the Auschwitz Central Construction Office, therefore this heating construction project was not used. One document literally reads: "hot-air supply unit for Leichenkeller 1 must be dropped because of the change in design". (See Carlo Mattogno's The Real Case for Auschwitz, pp.104f, or Germar Rudolf's HH#42, pp.89f.)

As to moisture, might I suggest Googling the phrase "are cellars moist?" It is another safe assumption. As Markiewicz admitted long ago, "The chambers were certainly moist." (see Germar Rudolf's The Chemistry of Auschwitz, p.308). They would be especially moist in the gassing story, because you would have a combination of cool cellar walls with densely packed humans warming up the interior. Further, humans breathe out a lot of moisture plus they perspire. Even further, some arguers like Van Pelt and Green have put forward that the walls of the rooms were regularly washed, which certainly adds a great deal of moisture. Conspicuously, all of the arguers have avoided responding to Rudolf's points about moisture.

I'll add to these points about the moisture the fact that the Birkenau crematoria were constructed in 1943. Fresh masonry is moist and dries out over time.

[JimPP6363]

Hi everyone

Thank you so much for the replies! I'll hopefully be able to respond this evening I'll try bundle them all into 1 big response if that works for everyone.

I'd also like to thank everyone for such a warm welcome and I greatly look forward to further debates

Jim

[JimPP6363]

Thanks for the replies everyone and the very warm welcome! It's nice to dicuss these issues in a civil manner

I’d like to focus my reply primarily on point 2, as it ties directly into my main theory

I completely agree with Wetzelrad's point here:
"First, the obvious. LK1 is a subterranean room. It was built as a basement to serve as a morgue. The benefit of it being subterranean is that it stays naturally cool. It must be assumed to have been cool by default."
That makes total sense to me if there wasn't an external heat source LK1 would definitely have stayed cool by default. 

Regarding the heating system point:
"It's true that a heating system was suggested for LK1 in KII... One document literally reads: 'hot-air supply unit for LK 1 must be dropped because of the change in design'." 

I was actually referring to a later document dated 13 April 1943, which came out after the March 25th design change that specific document mentions an:
"Extension to the aeration and deaeration device (warm air supply) of the crematorium II" 

Van Pelt notes that this device was delivered and installed in June 1943 I’ve actually reached out to the USHMM to request the official installation document I’ll be very happy to share the details with everyone as soon as I hear back! In the meantime it seems most logical that this was intended for LK1 for a couple of reasons:
A. It was the only room the SS explicitly showed an interest in heating (in Krema 2)
B. Even looking at the Revisionist case installing it in LK1 makes practical sense as both Rudolf and Mattogno say that heating a morgue can be necessary

Lastly regarding Hanshill's point about the ground conditions:
"2) largely holds little merit for the reasons already explained (I will expand further by demonstrating the presence of puddles and flooding in the extant ruins of Krema II, meaning that yes, Birkenau is indeed a 'moist' location (basically a swamp)." 

I respectfully look at this a bit differently the puddles we see in the ruins of Krema II today could easily be due to the fact that the building is now ruined and the roof has holes just because there is water pooling there today doesn't necessarily mean the same conditions existed when the building was fully intact when it was in use

Thanks for reading

Jim

[HansHill]

Lastly regarding Hanshill's point about the ground conditions:
"2) largely holds little merit for the reasons already explained (I will expand further by demonstrating the presence of puddles and flooding in the extant ruins of Krema II, meaning that yes, Birkenau is indeed a 'moist' location (basically a swamp)." 

I respectfully look at this a bit differently the puddles we see in the ruins of Krema II today could easily be due to the fact that the building is now ruined and the roof has holes just because there is water pooling there today doesn't necessarily mean the same conditions existed when the building was fully intact when it was in use

Thanks for reading

Jim

Hi Jim, re-reading my comment it probably wasn't as well made as it could have been, that's on me. Let me try take another go at it. I was moreso referring to the well documented high watertable found in Birkenau. This can be noted in the present day by obvious puddling and waterlogging of the ruined Kremas. This also means that the entire vicinity of the Kremas having a high watertable would experience waterlogging and therefore the Kremas (being subterranean) be exposed to high environmental dampness and moisture.

[Wetzelrad]

I was actually referring to a later document dated 13 April 1943, which came out after the March 25th design change that specific document mentions an:
"Extension to the aeration and deaeration device (warm air supply) of the crematorium II" 

I don't have expertise over this, but the document you shared appears to be a list of earlier or ongoing projects with no context. About an even later document, Mattogno writes (pp.108-109):

On August 20, 1943, Topf sent the ZBL a list of invoices still unpaid; among them was the concerning Order No. 43/219 for “Warmluftzuführung für Krema. II. Rechnung v. 11.6.43,” in the amount of 1,070 RM.

The April letter also resembles an invoice, but rather than prices it lists the amount of copper, aluminum, and zinc these projects used. I'm not sure what purpose such a letter serves other than to document the amount of valuable materials that Topf was dedicating to Auschwitz. If you know what this letter was in response to, or any other part of this conversation chain, that would help. Otherwise I take it as a late accounting of previous projects, like the August one.

Here are the items listed in the letter:

• "Be-und Entlüftungsanlage des Krema. II" -- Supply and exhaust ventilation system of Crematorium II
• "Saugzuganlage des Krematoriums II" -- Induced-draft system of Crematorium II
• "2 Topf Entwesungsöfen für das Krema II" -- 2 Topf disinfestation ovens for Crematorium II
• "Erweiterung der Be-und Entlüftungsanlage (Warmluftzuführung) des Krema II" -- Expansion of the supply and exhaust ventilation system (warm air supply) of Crematorium II

I believe all of these were past projects. The ventilation was invoiced on February 22, 1943 and it certainly ought to have been finished by the time the building was handed over on March 31. The forced-draft system had already been installed, operated, and, as of March 25, damaged, and aimed to be removed and put into storage. So if all this occurred before they were listed in April, what does that tell you?

I think it is also meaningful that none of the people on the Holocaust believer side seem to make comment on the "disinfestation ovens" in a crematorium. You would think they would want to pick that up as a possible criminal trace, but instead they don't mention it at all. Is that because they don't want their readers to catch wind that delousing was planned at the crematoria? [EDIT: Wrong, discussed below.]

Van Pelt notes that this device was delivered and installed in June 1943

I don't see that in his book. Where did he do that? Probably he was referring to the above document which Mattogno interprets as unpaid invoices.

I’ve actually reached out to the USHMM to request the official installation document I’ll be very happy to share the details with everyone as soon as I hear back!

That would be helpful. Any undiscovered or unappreciated documents could move this conversation forward. I consider it definitely plausible that the Germans could have continued seeking for a way to heat the basements so they didn't totally freeze. As Mattogno and Rudolf both point out, frozen corpses were reportedly difficult to handle and required more fuel to cremate.

Let me return to the Prussian Blue argument. I believe that the morgues were held cool, probably in the range of ordinary refrigeration, but it is what the exterminationist camp believes that matters for arguing Prussian Blue. They seem to think that LK1 was "preheated" (Van Pelt unnumbered pages 307, 519, 552). In other words, LK1 would normally be a cooler ambient temperature, only being heated before a gassing operation. This and other facts stand in the way of your claims about heat and moisture.

[JimPP6363]

Hi Hans no problem! I can see your argument now. I think the issue of the water table and the morgues may actually be addressed by Mr. Rudolf himself:
“The walls of the morgue consist of double brick masonry with a layer of waterproofing in between for insulation.”
Chemistry of Auschwitz, p. 116
Because of this I find it difficult to see how water from the first exterior wall could have leaked through the first brick wall, the waterproofing layer and then the second brick wall into the interior of the morgue I know that explanation is perhaps a little clunky but I hope you see what I mean of course I could be wrong but based on the construction described by Rudolf it seems quite unlikely to me

[JimPP6363]

Hi Wetzelrad,

Regarding the document I understand it as a materials list with the materials listed alongside their intended uses I think Mattogno's document actually sheds some useful light on this.


“On August 20, 1943, Topf sent the ZBL a list of invoices still unpaid; among them was the concerning Order No. 43/219 for ‘Warmluftzuführung für Krema. II. Rechnung v. 11.6.43,’ in the amount of 1,070 RM.”

To me this indicates that the warm air device was actually sent to Krema II if it had not been supplied I don't see why Topf would have been pursuing payment for it Van Pelt also says that it was installed in June

[Van Pelt, footnote 25](https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... rgue.shtml)

So as I understand the evidence the equipment was sent installed and then the SS failed to pay Topf resulting in Topf sending a reminder for the outstanding payment

This is where I fundamentally disagree with your interpretation:

“I believe all of these were past projects. The ventilation was invoiced on February 22, 1943 and it certainly ought to have been finished by the time the building was handed over on March 31. The forced-draft system had already been installed, operated, and, as of March 25, damaged, and aimed to be removed and put into storage. So if all this occurred before they were listed in April, what does that tell you?”

The difficulty I have with that interpretation is that, according to Van Pelt the warm air system was installed in June if that is correct then the June installation would postdate the March 25 failure that would seem to suggest that the SS attempted another solution after the earlier ventilation system failed

I interpret “Aeration and ventilation system for Crematorium II in the POW camp, Auschwitz” as potentially referring to additional equipment or components associated with the ventilation system to accommodate the warm air installation rather than necessarily being evidence of one single installation completed earlier in the year

As for the two Topf disinfestation ovens for Crematorium II in the prisoner-of-war camp, Auschwitz Zimmerman and Mattogno argue that these were never delivered to Krema II I can see two possible explanations for that:

A. The SS considered the warm air supply satisfactory and therefore did not require the additional ovens or

B. Topf may have bundled multiple orders together for another project, such as the central sauna, to simplify transport and shipping.

The second possibility doesn't seem particularly strange to me I have some experience with logistics, and when you're dealing with multiple large projects, consolidating shipments is fairly normal

“I consider it definitely plausible that the Germans could have continued seeking for a way to heat the basements so they didn't totally freeze.”

I agree with that point entirely.

On the Prussian Blue argument I understand your point about the morgues being kept relatively cool perhaps around ordinary refrigeration temperatures however I think the question of what temperature the SS actually maintained during gassing operations is somewhat separate

You mentioned that LK1 may have normally been kept at a cooler ambient temperature and then “preheated” before a gassing operation, citing Van Pelt's discussion to me heating the room before and during the operation would remove moisture pre gassing (hence my point)

It's also possible as Bakon described that the SS simply continued heating LK1 for extended periods rather than only preheating and operational heating

Also pre heating could really just be perpetual and only implies to me anyways an action is to occur after this pre heating is successful if that makes sense

Again once I get the document I’m sure it’ll answer some questions but I’m almost positive this heating device was a second attempt to heat LK1 and I hope this makes my challenging of Rudolf on moisture a bit less stupid

Thanks

Jim

[HansHill]

Hi Hans no problem! I can see your argument now. I think the issue of the water table and the morgues may actually be addressed by Mr. Rudolf himself:
“The walls of the morgue consist of double brick masonry with a layer of waterproofing in between for insulation.”
Chemistry of Auschwitz, p. 116
Because of this I find it difficult to see how water from the first exterior wall could have leaked through the first brick wall, the waterproofing layer and then the second brick wall into the interior of the morgue I know that explanation is perhaps a little clunky but I hope you see what I mean of course I could be wrong but based on the construction described by Rudolf it seems quite unlikely to me

This is a good passage to quote, and it is illustrative here - let me qyuote the whole passage for completeness:

The walls of the morgue consist of double brick masonry with a layer of
waterproofing in between for insulation (ibid., pp. 325, 327). The interior
walls are plastered with a hard, cement-rich material, the ceiling and support
pillars of reinforced concrete show the marks of wooden planking and are
therefore not plastered. The roof, made of reinforced concrete, is insulated on
the outside by a layer of tar, which is protected from environmental and me-
chanical damage by a rather thin, screed-like layer of cement covering it. The
layers of tar both on top of the roof as well as between the two brick walls
were indispensable as a water barrier due to the high groundwater in the
swampy region of Birkenau. Both morgues had several drains.

Subsection 5.4.1.1

Key section in bold.

We agree that the tar layer provides waterproofing, but that would not be the factor at play here. A tarring layer is excellent at keeping water out, but it remains to be seen how well it keeps HcN in. Given what we see at the fumigation chambers (reaction on the cold damp exterior walls), and given also the high molecular mobility of HcN, and its volatility, and it's kinetic properties, I suggest to you that a tarring layer is not a sufficient layer to prevent HcN penetration to the outside damp walls.

Here is a study on the permeability of bitumen (and discusses other polymers).

https://sci-hub.ru/10.1016/S0016-2361(03)00246-1

I would be interested to see if you could counter by suggesting the tar layer was impenetrable to HcN, but thats not what I have found. This impenetrability would be one way to negate the moisture certain to host the Prussian Blue formation on the damp walls.

[JimPP6363]

Hi Hans

On the question of Prussian Blue penetration depth I think this is a really confusing issue, and I feel that Rudolf or anyone else making claims about it would need to do considerably more research before drawing firm conclusions

What I find particularly interesting are Harry Mazal’s photographs from the fumigation sites. As far as I can tell, the blue pigment often does not appear to penetrate very deeply at all in fact in Photo 3 it seems that the staining has not even penetrated through the plaster on the wall

Photo 9 is perhaps the strangest example to me. Even on the outside of the building the Prussian Blue seems to remain largely at the surface of almost looks as though the staining is present on the inner and outer surfaces but not really in the material between them which I find quite puzzling

If anyone can offer an explanation for what we are seeing in the Mazal photographs I would genuinely be very interested to hear it the blue staining outside the delousing room in particular almost looks like some kind of wash or liquid movement it gives the impression of water or another liquid moving through pores or cracks and then staining the surface I realise that may sound strange but that is honestly how the photographs appear to me

Mazal himself wrote:

“What can be proven, to the embarrassment of deniers and pseudo-scientists is that Prussian Blue only stains the surface of mortar, plaster and brickwork. With the permission of the authorities of the Auschwitz Birkenau State Museum, and under the watchful eye of one of its official guides, a number of very small samples of brickwork, mortar and plaster were carefully removed for further analysis. Viewed under a simple loupe, it could be seen that Prussian Blue hardly penetrated the surface of these samples.”

He then concludes:

“This close-up picture shows strong Prussian Blue staining on both mortar and brickwork. Two other facts are revealed: (1) The stain scarcely penetrates the mortar. The broken section reveals pristine, unstained material proving that Prussian Blue does not penetrate solids to any great degree; and (2) the stains on the bricks appear like a semi-transparent wash, suggesting that the bricks are not subject (as was shown in the illustrations above) to any great penetration by the pigment.

A third, much more subjective, observation regards the patterns that the stain has left on the brickwork and mortar. The stain gives the appearance of having come through cracks in the mortar as a liquid and flowed down the surface of some bricks and part of the mortar. The stain is indeed stronger at the points where the mortar meets the bricks. If Prussian Blue is insoluble and practically inmiscible in water, whatever came through those walls must have had cyanide in some soluble form together with iron salts sufficient to react in order to form Prussian Blue. Furthermore, it could not be hydrogen cyanide in gaseous form as this would have dissipated immediately upon being released to the atmosphere.”

I would be very interested in your thoughts on this particularly on how the staining patterns in the Mazal photographs should be interpreted chemically and physically to me they raise some rather interesting questions about exactly how the pigment formed and how it was transported through the material

Thanks

Jim

[HansHill]

..Prussian Blue penetration depth ...

I will respond in more depth once I review the photos and give you the response your post deserves. In the meantime, I want to make sure we are not confusing two similar (but distinct) concepts.

Prussian Blue penetration =/= HcN penetration.

Hydrogen cyanide penetration refers to the ease and proclivity for the gaseous HcN to penetrate (via permeability, porosity and diffusion) through a solid material. That is, how a gas moves through a solid.

Prussian Blue penetration is a measure of how far the PB crystals have formed inside of the material. PB obviously is a solid.

In my previous post I was discussing the former - that HcN would be expected to have a relatively high degree of penetration through the building materials in question. Once this former concept is agreed between us, the latter then becomes more relevant, in that we can begin to model how far inside the materials should we expect this reaction to have occurred, leaving solid PB residues (crysals) in the wake of the permeating gas.

Regarding the permeability of the building materials, I prepared a whole thread on this exact topic for this purpose (althougn regretably i did not include tar in this study, I may go back and expand upon it when I have time)

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=502

[JimPP6363]

Hi Hans I’ll respond at some point tomorrow-Saturday

I apologise to leave you hanging as it were but I have a big job coming up and it’ll be taking up most of my time I apologise

Good night and god bless

Jim

[Wetzelrad]

To me this indicates that the warm air device was actually sent to Krema II if it had not been supplied I don't see why Topf would have been pursuing payment for it

It was sent, but it's not clear that it was ever installed. The timeline looks like this:

February 22 - Topf letter proposing warming LK1 with forced-draft exhaust air. This letter is lost.
March 6 - Bischoff response accepting that proposal, to be implemented ASAP.
March ~24 - Fire in the forced-draft units.
March 25 - Kirschneck memo notes that forced-draft units needed to be "dismantled" and hot-air supply "must be dropped". Also mentions getting a sort of refund on "metal allocation".
April 13 - Topf letter listing the weight of metal planned in four KII projects.

Therefore the April letter was probably written for the Central Construction Office's benefit so that they could get credit for metals that went unused, because metal was at that time being rationed. Kirschneck would then be able to report the exact amount of metal that went used and unused, because he didn't want the unused metal to be taken out of his allocation. But separate from this, Topf still needed paid.

It's within the realm of possibility that the warm air device was installed between March 6 and 24, but the language Kirschneck used implies it never reached that stage. He wrote it was "dropped", not "dismantled" like the rest.

Van Pelt also says that it was installed in June

[Van Pelt, footnote 25](https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... rgue.shtml)

I see. I thought Van Pelt's book (The Case for Auschwitz) included the important contents of his report (called The Van Pelt Report), but this part is not included.

Van Pelt's footnote 25 points to the August 20 list of old invoices, as I suspected. From what Mattogno quoted, it merely has an invoice for this dated June 11. In order for this to prove that a new, second warm air device was delivered, some evidence would need to be offered, or argument made. A less reaching interpretation is that this was still the original device.

I interpret “Aeration and ventilation system for Crematorium II in the POW camp, Auschwitz” as potentially referring to additional equipment or components associated with the ventilation system to accommodate the warm air installation rather than necessarily being evidence of one single installation completed earlier in the year

The wording is vague enough that interpretations like this are possible. Having all the other documents to compare with would help, so that we could look at all the order numbers, billing numbers, and other details.

Another thing that would help is expertise in ventilation. Someone who knows ventilation might be able to judge what it means for 30.2 kg copper and 6.8 kg aluminum to be used for a ventilation project.

As for the two Topf disinfestation ovens for Crematorium II in the prisoner-of-war camp, Auschwitz Zimmerman and Mattogno argue that these were never delivered to Krema II I can see two possible explanations for that:

A. The SS considered the warm air supply satisfactory and therefore did not require the additional ovens or

I'm reading Van Pelt's treatment of this now and marvelling at his arguments. "it seems probable... it seems likely". This is terribly insubstantial for what is supposed to be proof for the gassing of a million people. What the documents actually show is that the Entwesungsöfen were planned for the crematoria first, then latter installed in the Entwesungsanlage, now better known by the name Zentralsauna, which was effectively built right next door. The word "Entwesung" and their later usage strongly supports that they were always intended for disinfestation. There is nothing of substance to support the allegation that they were intended to be used in a plan to gas humans.

Ignoring that, if we continue with your theory, although it is highly speculative, it does make obvious sense that only one heating system would be needed. So that explanation for the disinfestation ovens being sent away is fine. But does the overall chain of events make sense to you? Why did Topf get the idea to heat the gas chambers from the cremation ovens getting overheated? Shouldn't they have already thought of that, it being the middle of winter? And they were already gassing people in February -- or March depending on the source -- but they didn't have a functioning warm air system in place until maybe June or August? That's 3 to 6 months of cold LK1 gassings.

It is also difficult to make coherent that there was a system built to utilize hot air from the cremation furnaces in 1943 with the CCO/ZBL's suggestion in 1944 to do the same thing (The Real Case for Auschwitz, pp.139). However, this is scantily documented so I can't build a better argument out of it.

B. Topf may have bundled multiple orders together for another project, such as the central sauna, to simplify transport and shipping.

You can probably rule this out just on the numbers. Two ovens were sent to KII. Presumably two more were sent (or planned to be) to its mirror image, KIII. Instead, all four ovens were installed at the Zentralsauna. If they were bundled like you suggest, it should have been four from the beginning.

You mentioned that LK1 may have normally been kept at a cooler ambient temperature and then “preheated” before a gassing operation, citing Van Pelt's discussion to me heating the room before and during the operation would remove moisture pre gassing (hence my point)

I think it would be dangerous to heat the room during gassing.

But assuming the preheating scenario, if that had happened, then its suitability for Prussian Blue would depend on the length of the preheat. A few minutes would be enough to fill the room with warm air, suitable for evaporating Zyklon B. I would guess that it would take hours to evaporate all the natural moisture and heat the walls sufficiently that they no longer formed condensation. Even then, as soon as people went inside they would bring moisture with them, both from their natural sweat and breath, but also from the neighboring basement rooms, and so on.

Furthermore, I can't find where any of the eyewitnesses were aware of this heating scheme or the related construction. Two witnesses do mention heating, though. Szlama Dragon, in one of his statements to the Soviets, made mention of heating: "If necessary, the gas chambers were heated with transportable coke burners" (Sonderkommando Auschwitz II, pp.57,137). And Leon Cohen in the 1990s claimed they used "big iron stoves" or just "a coal fire" to heat the gas chambers (Sonderkommando Auschwitz III, p.82). These are totally at odds with the theories presented above.

Those are my thoughts for now. I'm willing to revise if something else comes up, but I suspect the documents have already been bled for all they're worth on both sides.

[HansHill]

Furthermore, I can't find where any of the eyewitnesses were aware of this heating scheme or the related construction. Two witnesses do mention heating, though. Szlama Dragon, in one of his statements to the Soviets, made mention of heating: "If necessary, the gas chambers were heated with transportable coke burners" (Sonderkommando Auschwitz II, pp.57,137). And Leon Cohen in the 1990s claimed they used "big iron stoves" or just "a coal fire" to heat the gas chambers (Sonderkommando Auschwitz III, p.82). These are totally at odds with the theories presented above.

Yes this is an excellent point, and yet another instance of needing to discard either the eyewitness accounts or the theorists (or both lol)- these are two clearly mutually exclusive scenarios.

[JimPP6363]

Thanks for laying this out I think we’re actually closer on some points than it might initially seem I’m certainly open to revising my position if stronger documentation turns up but I do have some questions about the interpretation of the April document
“It was sent, but it’s not clear that it was ever installed. The timeline looks like this:
February 22 - Topf letter proposing warming LK1 with forced-draft exhaust air. This letter is lost.
March 6 - Bischoff response accepting that proposal, to be implemented ASAP.
March ~24 - Fire in the forced-draft units.
March 25 - Kirschneck memo notes that forced-draft units needed to be “dismantled” and hot-air supply “must be dropped”. Also mentions getting a sort of refund on “metal allocation”.
April 13 - Topf letter listing the weight of metal planned in four KII projects.”
If I understand you correctly and please correct me if I’ve misunderstood you think the April 13 document is referring to the March heating device rather than to a second attempt I see several difficulties with that interpretation
First if that is the case the “2 Topf disinfestation ovens for Crematorium II in the prisoner of war camp, Auschwitz” would presumably have also been delivered and already supplied for almost a month yet there is mention of them in the documentary record or even an order for them?
Second Van Pelt states quite definitely in his affidavit that the equipment was delivered and installed in June obviously until we see the underlying document I don’t think we can simply treat his statement as independently demonstrated but he was giving evidence in a court affidavit so I think it deserves some weight I would also expect Irving or Rudolf if they believed Van Pelt was misrepresenting the chronology to address that specifically
Third there seems to be an important technical distinction between the two systems the March device is described in connection with the forced draft system (aeration) the later device was connected to both aeration and deaeration the later device isn’t simply another description of exactly the same installation but more extensive arrangement and likely more powerful because it’s connected to both not just the 1
“I see. I thought Van Pelt’s book (The Case for Auschwitz) included the important contents of his report (called The Van Pelt Report), but this part is not included.”
This isn’t from the Van Pelt Report this comes from the appeals stage of the trial in response to Germar Rudolf’s affidavit Van Pelt was presumably already working on the Case for Auschwitz material and Zimmerman had already referred to the issue in his just published book so perhaps Van Pelt didn’t see any reason to reproduce the same material there also he would’ve only had 7 months to do so
“Van Pelt’s footnote 25 points to the August 20 list of old invoices, as I suspected. From what Mattogno quoted, it merely has an invoice for this dated June 11. In order for this to prove that a new, second warm air device was delivered, some evidence would need to be offered, or argument made. A less reaching interpretation is that this was still the original device.”
On this particular point I think we’re both limited until the actual document is available I don’t think we can simply assume it refers to the original device when there are the other chronological and technical questions I’ve mentioned above
“I’m reading Van Pelt’s treatment of this now and marvelling at his arguments. “it seems probable… it seems likely” this is terribly insubstantial for what is supposed to be proof for the gassing of a million people what the documents actually show is that the Entwesungsöfen were planned for the crematoria first then Zentralsauna, which was effectively built right next door. The word “Entwesung” and their later usage strongly supports that they were always intended for disinfestation. There is nothing of substance to support the allegation that they were intended to be used in a plan to gas humans.”
Firstly I don’t think this alone proves the gassing of 1 million human beings I don’t think anyone would ever say this no 1 piece of evidence can prove any historical event however I agree that words such as “probably” and “likely” should be distinguished from what is directly demonstrated by a document at the same time I don’t think the fact that equipment was described as entwesungsofen settles the question of every intended application by itself equipment can be described according to its technical function without that description necessarily establishing every purpose for which it was ultimately intended to be slightly crude what do you expect the SS to order? “2 Zyklon heaters for the express purpose of gassing jews”?
“But does the overall chain of events make sense to you? Why did Topf get the idea to heat the gas chambers from the cremation ovens getting overheated? Shouldn’t they have already thought of that, it being the middle of winter?”
Well not particularly up to this point the SS had no issue gassing people without heat (bunkers and Krema 1) however it does raise a question for the revisionist why is it Topf that is suggesting this if heat is a requirement for a morgue backed by the expert literature? Would the ZBL not know this? So the pendulum swings both ways
“And they were already gassing people in February – or March depending on the source – but they didn’t have a functioning warm air system in place until maybe June or August? That’s 3 to 6 months of cold LK1 gassings.”
Perhaps there is already part of the answer in the eyewitness evidence
“Two witnesses do mention heating, though. Szlama Dragon, in one of his statements to the Soviets, made mention of heating: “If necessary, the gas chambers were heated with transportable coke burners” (Sonderkommando Auschwitz II, pp.57,137). And Leon Cohen in the 1990s claimed they used “big iron stoves” or just “a coal fire” to heat the gas chambers (Sonderkommando Auschwitz III, p.82). These are totally at odds with the theories presented above.”
Dragon could be describing an ad hoc temporary solution the SS came up with for Krema 2 in the 2 months from ordering the second device and it’s installation as for Cohen see bellow
On eye witnesses is true that we do not have an eyewitness who specifically says that there was a heating system installed inside the ventilation system of Krema 2 but there are eyewitness indications that LK1 was heated from some source that was not controlled by the sonderkammdo (like heaters)
Y Bakon said:
“Yes. We had to take wooden logs that were in the vicinity of the crematorium for the fire. Sometimes these had to be taken for regular heating in the camps. And when we finished our work and it was cold, the Kapo of the Sonderkommando took pity on us and said: “Well, children, outside it is cold, warm yourselves in the gas chambers! There is nobody there.”
Henryk Tauber who is generally regarded as one of the more significant eyewitnesses concerning the operation of Krema 2 said:
“It was very hot in the gas chamber and so suffocating as to be unbearable.”
On Cohen specifically I think there’s an important distinction.
Cohen worked in Krema 3
His statement appears at least in this particular passage to be reporting what he had heard rather than describing something he personally witnessed in Krema 2
He says:
“In the winter, they put big iron stoves in the gas chamber so that the people wouldn’t freeze when they went in.”
The use of “they” rather than “we” seems significant so I don’t think Cohen should be presented as a direct eyewitness to the installation of those stoves in Krema 2 it sounds more like he was reporting what he had heard from the Sonderkommando of Krema 2
At the same time Cohen gives some interesting information concerning Krema 3 where he does appear to describe warmth entering the building from another source he says that the heat from the furnaces kept the whole building warm (we wept 304) it is difficult to know from that statement alone whether LK1 was actually heated solely by the furnaces (which is unlikely) or whether Cohen simply experienced warmth in LK1 and attributed it to the furnaces (which is more likely)
So I think the responsible conclusion is that the testimony doesn’t establish the precise heating mechanism but also doesn’t directly contradict the idea one was installed
“You can probably rule this out just on the numbers. Two ovens were sent to KII. Presumably two more were sent (or planned to be) to its mirror image, KIII. Instead, all four ovens were installed at the Zentralsauna. If they were bundled like you suggest, it should have been four from the beginning.”
A relatively simple possibility is that the other two had not yet been completed or delivered that would explain why the numbers don’t necessarily have to appear as four from the beginning again though I think we’d need the underlying documentation before treating that as a good explanation
“I think it would be dangerous to heat the room during gassing.”
Why if it was not dangerous in the case of de lousing?
“But assuming the preheating scenario, if that had happened, then its suitability for Prussian Blue would depend on the length of the preheat. A few minutes would be enough to fill the room with warm air, suitable for evaporating Zyklon B. I would guess that it would take hours to evaporate all the natural moisture and heat the walls sufficiently that they no longer formed condensation. Even then, as soon as people went inside they would bring moisture with them, both from their natural sweat and breath, but also from the neighboring basement rooms, and so on.”
I’m not sure we can be quite so confident about the moisture question without quantifying the chemistry one relevant point comes from Green’s discussion of HCN solubility his Henry’s law calculations show that at a given HCN gas partial pressure increasing temperature decreases the equilibrium amount of HCN dissolved in water so heating does make the “aqueous HCN reservoir” smaller, all else being equal that isn’t the same thing as demonstrating that there would be insufficient cyanide chemistry for Prussian-blue formation dissolved HCN and CN- are not identical: the amount present as CN- also depends on the acid base equilibrium including pH and the temperature dependence of the relevant equilibrium constant and formation of Prussian blue type compounds involves additional iron chemistry and kinetics there is also another consideration when discussing the moisture supplied by people body fluids and waste products are not necessarily chemically neutral urine is normally somewhat acidic with a typical pH range of roughly 4.5–8.0 and an average around 6.0. Sweat is also generally weakly acidic, commonly falling somewhere around pH 4.5–7.0 human feces can also be mildly acidic one commonly cited average is around pH 6.6 although fecal pH varies substantially depending on diet and other factors
That matters because an acidic environment can shift the equilibrium:
HCN turns into H+ + CN-
toward HCN rather than CN- In terms of Le Chatelier’s principle adding H + a product of the dissociation tends to push the equilibrium to the left
This produces a suppression of ionization: extra H+ ions can cause existing CN- ions to recombine with H+ to form molecular HCN in other words additional H+ suppresses the ionization of HCN and keeps a greater proportion of the dissolved cyanide in its weak non ionized HCN form
There is also a strong pH dependency here HCN is a weak acid with a pKa of approximately 9.2. Consequently when the pH is below the pKa the equilibrium favors HCN over CN- the further the pH falls below approximately 9.2 the greater the proportion present as HCN rather than CN-
I wouldn’t claim that the weak acidity of sweat urine or other biological material would by itself prevent Prussian blue formation the point is much more modest if acidic moisture was present it could reduce the fraction of dissolved cyanide present as CN- when considered alongside temperature HCN solubility moisture availability reaction kinetics and the availability of suitable iron species it becomes another variable that would need to be accounted for rather than simply assuming that moisture automatically produces sufficient CN- for Prussian blue formation
And that is why I think the Prussian-blue question is interesting but I doubt it can ever be answered with certainty we cannot reproduce the exact historical conditions of the room and we don’t know the precise temperature humidity surface conditions pH concentrations exposure times iron chemistry or other variables that would have existed at the relevant moment
My understanding is also that Prussian blue is not an inevitable or necessary by product of every use of HCN for fumigation its formation can depend on the particular environmental and material conditions so I think it is reasonable to treat the question of whether the historical conditions were sufficient to produce the observed Prussian-blue staining as a matter requiring expert chemical interpretation rather than as something that can simply be demonstrated from first principles alone
I wouldn’t claim that this proves Rudolf’s interpretation however even Rudolf’s own argument as I understand it allows for the possibility that Prussian blue might not form even if the proposed conditions were present so at most I think this makes the Prussian blue evidence something that needs to be evaluated alongside the full range of chemical and historical evidence rather than treated as a simple independently decisive test (not accusing you of doing this but some I’ve spoke to do)
Anyway this is purely food for thought I really cannot say with any certainty that the chemistry works out exactly as Rudolf says it does and I’m not claiming that this establishes anyone’s argument this is simply my own interpretation based on my reading of the material and my amateur interest in chemistry I’m very open to being corrected if I’ve misunderstood something chemically or if there is evidence I’ve overlooked
“Those are my thoughts for now I’m willing to revise if something else comes up, but I suspect the documents have already been bled for all they’re worth on both sides.”
Likewise I think the most productive approach is to separate what the documents actually demonstrate from what is inferred from them and then see whether the eyewitness testimony and chemistry fit the resulting chronology if the missing documents turn up I’m perfectly happy to reconsider the points I’ve made here
Jim
Note: Hans writes “instance of needing to discard either the eyewitness accounts or the theorists (or both lol)- these are two clearly mutually exclusive scenarios.”
If this is in response to me I’d like to make it clear that I do not see the lack of Prussian blue as 1 uniform reason I see the paint theory as thoroughly unlikely however beyond that I think it is a multitude of reasons primarily discussed by Dr Green on such a complex question of chemistry there is rarely a single answer
(PS: Hans I apologise for not replying to your point yet I’m writing this on my lunch break so it may be sometime tonight till I get to this thanks)

[JimPP6363]

Hi Hans,

I think I’ve now tried to answer the main points you’re raising although some of the chemistry gets a little technical so I’ll try to explain what I mean in fairly simple terms

I agree with your basic distinction that HCN penetration and Prussian Blue penetration aren’t the same thing HCN is a gas which can move through a material whereas prussian blue is a solid reaction product which forms only if the necessary chemical conditions are present

Where I’m being cautious is about what we can conclude from showing that HCN is capable of penetrating the wall

For an intact multilayer wall HCN isn’t simply travelling through one uniform block of material It might have to pass through brick, mortar, plaster, tar or other layers and each of those could behave differently things like porosity moisture temperature thickness and the structure of the material can all affect how quickly the gas moves

A way of thinking about it is that a gas may move quite easily through a porous material but encounter much greater resistance when it reaches a dense or relatively impermeable layer cracks joints and gaps could also provide preferential pathways which behave quite differently from the surrounding material

This is why I think the tar layer is particularly relevant a continuous bituminous or tar containing layer could potentially provide considerably more resistance to HCN than something like porous brick or mortar that doesn’t mean we can simply say tar is completely impermeable to HCN because that would need to be demonstrated experimentally but equally I don’t think we can assume that the tar makes no meaningful difference

The important thing is that we would need to know something about the actual material: its thickness composition temperature physical condition how readily HCN can move through it etc etc without that information I don’t think we can calculate a definite breakthrough time

There is a fairly simple idea behind the more complicated diffusion equations in very simplified terms the time needed for something to diffuse through a material tends to increase very rapidly as the distance increases you can think of it roughly as:

t ~ L^2 / D

L is the distance
D is how easily the substance moves through the material

So for example doubling the distance doesn’t simply double the characteristic diffusion time under a simple diffusion model it increases it by roughly four times but that’s only a general scaling relationship it doesn’t tell us that a particular wall will take 10 minutes an hour or several days unless we actually know the relevant diffusion properties of the materials

And this brings me back to the question on prussian blue

Even if we establish that HCN can reach the other side of a wall that doesn’t automatically mean that a visible blue stain must form there there is another chemical step involved.

Very simply HCN can exist in an equilibrium like:

HCN turns into H+ + CN-

The cyanide then has to be present in the right chemical environment and there also has to be suitable iron available for an ironcyanide pigment to form moisture pH temperature the chemical form of the iron reaction rate and the amount of product produced could all matter

So I think there are really two separate questions:

1. How much HCN actually gets through the wall?

and then:

2. Once it gets there, are the conditions actually sufficient to produce enough iron blue to be visibly detectable?

If we knew the actual wall construction the thickness of every layer the HCN concentration, temperature humidity and the relevant properties of the materials then in principle we could put all of that into a transport and reaction model and make a much more meaningful prediction

Without those data though I think we’re still dealing with a question that needs experimental or material-specific evidence rather than a universal rule such as HCN will always break through in x minutes or HCN cannot get through in z minutes

So I think we’re actually dealing with an interesting two stage problem I completely agree with you that HCN penetration and prussian blue penetration are distinct my hesitation is simply that demonstrating that HCN can penetrate the material doesn’t by itself demonstrate how much HCN reaches a particular depth or how much iron blue should subsequently form there

That is really the part I’d really like to see demonstrated quantitatively

I hope I’ve understood you correctly and again any mistakes I’ve made please let me know

Jim