The 1972 Trial of the Engineers of Crematoria II and III in Vienna

For more adversarial interactions
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2024 7:41 am

Re: The 1972 Trial of the Engineers of Crematoria II and III in Vienna

Post by Nessie »

Stubble wrote: Thu Jan 02, 2025 2:02 am Right, so, now it's a dick measuring contest with a dead guy that told Russian intelligence exactly what they told him to tell them.

Forget the fact that it's fucking backwards.
The Topf & Sons engineers are corroborated by other evidence. Kula stated in June 1945, in Krakow;

https://www.zapisyterroru.pl/dlibra/sho ... nt?id=3894

"We didn’t do any major construction work for Crematorium I in Auschwitz in the locksmith’s workshop. I recall that we made, according to the Topf company’s model, a cart for carrying the corpses to the furnaces, grates, iron frames for the chimney, grates for the generators and a ventilation pipe for the gas chamber."

That is evidence, before the Topf & Sons engineers gave their testimony in March 1946, that they were involved in the construction of gas chamber ventilation systems.

Kula also stated;

"The air ducts of the gas chamber were hammered into the walls of the chamber. The vents were covered with zinc sheets, which had circular holes in them."

That is corroborated by physical evidence found in the Krema remains;

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/holocau ... t1894.html

"On 12 May 1945 4 complete and 2 damaged closing plates of ventilation openings were delivered for examination. These had been found during the site inspection at Crematorium No. II in Brzezinka and were from the ventilation openings of
the gas chamber (Corpse Cellar No. 1) of the same crematorium....The closing plates had the usual form and a construction of rectangular boxes for the equipment of ventilation openings. They were made of zinc sheet."
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2024 7:41 am

Re: The 1972 Trial of the Engineers of Crematoria II and III in Vienna

Post by Nessie »

Archie wrote: Thu Jan 02, 2025 6:56 am In the article Stubble posted in another thread, there's this interesting quote about the expert report of engineer Gerhard Dubin. The report was apparently crucial to the aquittals and is no longer available.
In 1972, the two architects Walter Dejaco and Fritz Ertl, who were involved in the planning and construction of the crematoria at Auschwitz-Birkenau, had to stand trial in Vienna for assisting in mass murder. The Auschwitz Museum had sent the Viennese court the construction plans of these buildings. Because the judges found themselves incompetent to evaluate these plans, they tasked the Viennese architect Gerhard Dubin, a certified engineer, to examine these designs to ascertain whether the spaces denoted by the Auschwitz Museum as execution chambers could have been used as such or could have been restructured for such use. Dubin answered “No” to both questions in his expert report. This was one of the reasons why both defendants were ultimately acquitted by the jury. Subsequently, an unknown person removed Dubin’s embarrassing (for the orthodoxy) expert report from the trial records, because today it is not to be found there. This destruction of evidence is not only grossly anti-scientific, it is also a criminal act.
https://codoh.com/library/document/revi ... #_ednref24
This article also references Dubin, though not by name.

https://codoh.com/library/document/a-so ... ial/#ftn19

"At least in this trial a construction specialist was requested for his expertise. This construction expert who testified during that trial got in touch with the author of this article and informed him that he had explained more than just the identity of the original plans with the copies, which were in the public prosecutor’s hands. He had to answer basically two questions put to him by the court:
Do the plans indicate that these were gas chambers? His answer was: No.
Could the accused infer from the plans that they could be transformed later into gas chambers? Here also was the answer: No."

Dejaco and Ertl were SS who worked at the A-B Construction Office, with Ertl being credited with the overall design of the camp and the barracks used and Dejaco being credited with the Krema original designs. The original design and plans were for a crematorium, with corpse store and ovens. That was the long term plan for A-B, to function as a labour camp. The gassings were a short term, temporary operation. It is not surprising that original Krema plans, do not indicate gas chambers.
That there was nothing within the plans that could be used to infer they were to be modified to include gas chambers, is also not significant. Any enclosed space that can be secured and made air tight, can be used as a gas chamber. The Leichenkeller, with its concrete construction, single entry/exit and ventilation system, made it easier to convert for use as a gas chambers, but there is nothing to say that Dejaco originally designed it with its use as a gas chamber in mind. It is then obvious why the Austrian court acquitted them, which was apparently not unusual, they were lenient on ex-Nazis.

The two "no" answers do not mean that the Leichenkellers could not have been converted for use as gas chambers. Their construction clearly made them suitable for conversion, and there is evidence from the A-B Construction Office, Topf & Sons and multiple witnesses, that they were converted.
User avatar
Archie
Site Admin
Posts: 590
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2024 6:54 am

Re: The 1972 Trial of the Engineers of Crematoria II and III in Vienna

Post by Archie »

"It is not surprising that original Krema plans, do not indicate gas chambers."

This completely contradicts and rewrites the traditional narrative. The original story was that these were sophisticated "industrial" killing centers. "Conveyor belt" killings, etc. It also defies common sense to say that mass scale exterminations began in the summer of 1941 and the "final solution" was decided upon in late 1941 yet they were designing "normal" crematoria in Auschwitz in mid 1942.

Jews had Dejaco in their crosshairs years before this trial. Vrba actually mentions him by name in his 1963 memoir and Simon Wiesenthal was the one pushing to get him prosecuted. In Wiesenthal's mind, the crematorium architect must necessarily be complicit of mass murder because under the original narrative the design was inherently criminal from the beginning.
He was to watch the world's first conveyor belt killing, the inauguration of Commandant Hoess's brand new toy, his crematorium. It was truly a splendid affair, on hundred yards long and fifty wide, containing fifteen ovens which could burn three bodies each simultaneously in twenty minutes, a monument in concrete, indeed, to its builder, Herr Walter Dejaco.

Auschwitz survivors who, like myself, were the slave laborers who worked to build it, may be interested to learn, incidentally, that Herr Dejaco still practices his craft in Reutte, a town in the Austrian Tyrol. In 1963 he won warm praise from Bishop Rusk of Innesbruck for the fine new Presbytery he had built for Reutte's Parish Priest.
It was only decades later that Pressac and others attempted to change the story in light of additional documentation. Here is what Pressac explained in his 1995 interview with Igounet.
Concerning the history of the camp, it could be demonstrated that the Kremas had started off as normal sanitary facilities; then later changed into liquidation centers for “Jews unable to work”, that is women, children and the elderly. That doesn’t appear to change the fact of the slaughter of the Jews, but the crucial question was and always will be - for lack of a written document, one that would be an SS report saying so – when was the order given? According to Kommandant Hoess, it was in the summer of 1941. However, the criminal transformation of the Kremas was a job that began at the end of November of 1942. This one year difference can only be explained if Hoess was mistaken about the date. Affirming that Hoess accepted the liquidation order at the beginning of June of 1942 implies that all the books written for the past 50 years on this question, books that indicate that the decision to begin this massacre came in the summer of 1941, are inaccurate and need to be reexamined. Such were the first results of a simple study of the files of the SS-Bauleitung at Auschwitz and a study which would have to be carried out for a long time. As for the thesis of Faurisson, it was an execution. When I had started to consult the construction plans and files of the Kremas, many difficulties emerged. The writing of some plans was in a Gothic script that I could not read. I ended up breaking up the words letter by letter. I had to approach the construction files with nothing but my schoolboy German. I worked on researching key words: gaskammers/gas chambers, Gastur/gas door, Gasdichte Tur/gastight door, Ofen/oven, Einascherungsofen/incineration oven, Krematorie/crematory. As soon as I understood a word, I found I had to grasp the context in which it was employed. Often, I called Iwaszko in to help me decipher something so I could understand it. These files had not been studied by the Polish historians because, being handwritten, they were not easily readable. It was by the pen of a foreman of the civilian firm Reidel and Sons of Bielitz that I found the first two “criminal traces” concerning Krema IV.

What I indicate as being " criminal traces" arise from the difference between the normal installations of a normal crematory, one intended just to incinerate the dead and primarily including one or more mortuaries, along with an autopsy room which was legally mandated and a room for furnaces and coke storage; and those in an abnormal crematory which would have a homicidal gas chamber. This installation or this transformation required particular pieces of equipment which one finds mention of in the SS correspondence with the civilian firms or in their building site logs. A better definition would be “traces of criminal installations”. The search for such “traces” would not be possible if the Kremas had a criminal beginning, as the Polish historians believed for 40 years.
This idea that the crematoria started out as normal crematoria and were converted to have gas chambers during construction is an absolutely radical revision to the story. And it doesn't make sense given the general timeline for the supposed extermination program.
User avatar
Stubble
Posts: 912
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2024 10:43 am

Re: The 1972 Trial of the Engineers of Crematoria II and III in Vienna

Post by Stubble »

The nazi conveyor belt of death was an electrified conveyor belt that fed people directly from the train cars into the blast furnace as it electrocuted them.

https://armedwithknowledge.blogspot.com ... story.html

Image

"the electric conveyor belt, on which hundreds of people were simultaneously electrocuted, their bodies falling onto the slow moving conveyor belt which carried them to the top of the blast furnace where they fell in, were completely burned..."
were to guess why no t4 personnel were chosen to perform gassing that had experience with gassing, it would be because THERE WERE NONE.
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2024 7:41 am

Re: The 1972 Trial of the Engineers of Crematoria II and III in Vienna

Post by Nessie »

Archie wrote: Fri Jan 03, 2025 3:39 am "It is not surprising that original Krema plans, do not indicate gas chambers."

This completely contradicts and rewrites the traditional narrative.
There is only a traditional narrative in the macro sense. There is plenty of disagreement in the micro sense.
The original story was that these were sophisticated "industrial" killing centers. "Conveyor belt" killings, etc. It also defies common sense to say that mass scale exterminations began in the summer of 1941 and the "final solution" was decided upon in late 1941 yet they were designing "normal" crematoria in Auschwitz in mid 1942.
I think it is common sense to design a building for a long term use, bearing in mind that it will start off with a different use. The special treatment involving gassings was expected to last months, in a building expected to last years, if not decades.
Jews had Dejaco in their crosshairs years before this trial. Vrba actually mentions him by name in his 1963 memoir and Simon Wiesenthal was the one pushing to get him prosecuted. In Wiesenthal's mind, the crematorium architect must necessarily be complicit of mass murder because under the original narrative the design was inherently criminal from the beginning.
Which is not an unreasonable opinion to have of Dejaco. He literally was one of the architects of the Holocaust, who designed the buildings where hundreds of thousands of Jews died. The court in Vienna, took a different opinion and found him not guilty.
He was to watch the world's first conveyor belt killing, the inauguration of Commandant Hoess's brand new toy, his crematorium. It was truly a splendid affair, on hundred yards long and fifty wide, containing fifteen ovens which could burn three bodies each simultaneously in twenty minutes, a monument in concrete, indeed, to its builder, Herr Walter Dejaco.

Auschwitz survivors who, like myself, were the slave laborers who worked to build it, may be interested to learn, incidentally, that Herr Dejaco still practices his craft in Reutte, a town in the Austrian Tyrol. In 1963 he won warm praise from Bishop Rusk of Innesbruck for the fine new Presbytery he had built for Reutte's Parish Priest.
It was only decades later that Pressac and others attempted to change the story in light of additional documentation. Here is what Pressac explained in his 1995 interview with Igounet.
Concerning the history of the camp, it could be demonstrated that the Kremas had started off as normal sanitary facilities; then later changed into liquidation centers for “Jews unable to work”, that is women, children and the elderly. That doesn’t appear to change the fact of the slaughter of the Jews, but the crucial question was and always will be - for lack of a written document, one that would be an SS report saying so – when was the order given? According to Kommandant Hoess, it was in the summer of 1941. However, the criminal transformation of the Kremas was a job that began at the end of November of 1942. This one year difference can only be explained if Hoess was mistaken about the date. Affirming that Hoess accepted the liquidation order at the beginning of June of 1942 implies that all the books written for the past 50 years on this question, books that indicate that the decision to begin this massacre came in the summer of 1941, are inaccurate and need to be reexamined. Such were the first results of a simple study of the files of the SS-Bauleitung at Auschwitz and a study which would have to be carried out for a long time. As for the thesis of Faurisson, it was an execution. When I had started to consult the construction plans and files of the Kremas, many difficulties emerged. The writing of some plans was in a Gothic script that I could not read. I ended up breaking up the words letter by letter. I had to approach the construction files with nothing but my schoolboy German. I worked on researching key words: gaskammers/gas chambers, Gastur/gas door, Gasdichte Tur/gastight door, Ofen/oven, Einascherungsofen/incineration oven, Krematorie/crematory. As soon as I understood a word, I found I had to grasp the context in which it was employed. Often, I called Iwaszko in to help me decipher something so I could understand it. These files had not been studied by the Polish historians because, being handwritten, they were not easily readable. It was by the pen of a foreman of the civilian firm Reidel and Sons of Bielitz that I found the first two “criminal traces” concerning Krema IV.

What I indicate as being " criminal traces" arise from the difference between the normal installations of a normal crematory, one intended just to incinerate the dead and primarily including one or more mortuaries, along with an autopsy room which was legally mandated and a room for furnaces and coke storage; and those in an abnormal crematory which would have a homicidal gas chamber. This installation or this transformation required particular pieces of equipment which one finds mention of in the SS correspondence with the civilian firms or in their building site logs. A better definition would be “traces of criminal installations”. The search for such “traces” would not be possible if the Kremas had a criminal beginning, as the Polish historians believed for 40 years.
This idea that the crematoria started out as normal crematoria and were converted to have gas chambers during construction is an absolutely radical revision to the story. And it doesn't make sense given the general timeline for the supposed extermination program.
It does make sense, chronologically. Decisions being made in 1941-3, were long term decisions that assumed the Nazis would be in power for decades, if not centuries. Ertl is asked to design a huge labour camp. Dejaco is asked to design a crematorium for that camp. At some point senior Nazis decide that the camp would, temporarily, be used as an extermination camp, rather than resurrect the AR camps. That would last for months, at a place expected to last for decades. More crematoriums are built, and modified for that temporary action. The cheapest, simplest option out of resurrecting the AR camps, or building purpose built gas chambers at Birkenau, to then demolish them, or converting a design for a crematorium, is the latter. Bear in mind, two farm houses were also converted and then demolished. Keeping the crematoriums made more long term sense.
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2024 7:41 am

Re: The 1972 Trial of the Engineers of Crematoria II and III in Vienna

Post by Nessie »

Stubble wrote: Fri Jan 03, 2025 6:00 am The nazi conveyor belt of death was an electrified conveyor belt that fed people directly from the train cars into the blast furnace as it electrocuted them.

https://armedwithknowledge.blogspot.com ... story.html

Image

"the electric conveyor belt, on which hundreds of people were simultaneously electrocuted, their bodies falling onto the slow moving conveyor belt which carried them to the top of the blast furnace where they fell in, were completely burned..."
Soviet atrocity story, which typically for the Soviets, they ran, without bothering to check, verify and evidence if the claim was true and corroborated by any other evidence. Does that not remind you of anyone.....?
User avatar
Stubble
Posts: 912
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2024 10:43 am

Re: The 1972 Trial of the Engineers of Crematoria II and III in Vienna

Post by Stubble »

Are you asking if it reminds me of people who use black propaganda from the Polish Government in Exile or other allied sources as supporting evidence then yes, it absolutely does. Does it remind you of anybody Nessie?
were to guess why no t4 personnel were chosen to perform gassing that had experience with gassing, it would be because THERE WERE NONE.
User avatar
TlsMS93
Posts: 476
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2024 11:57 am

Re: The 1972 Trial of the Engineers of Crematoria II and III in Vienna

Post by TlsMS93 »

Stubble wrote: Fri Jan 03, 2025 3:11 pm Are you asking if it reminds me of people who use black propaganda from the Polish Government in Exile or other allied sources as supporting evidence then yes, it absolutely does. Does it remind you of anybody Nessie?
The Polish government-in-exile demanded an International Red Cross commission to investigate the German discoveries of mass graves in the Katyn Forest for fear of displeasing the Soviets, who interpreted this as collaboration with the Nazis and broke with them but accepted at face value the allegations of gas chambers for fugitives in German camps.
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2024 7:41 am

Re: The 1972 Trial of the Engineers of Crematoria II and III in Vienna

Post by Nessie »

Stubble wrote: Fri Jan 03, 2025 3:11 pm Are you asking if it reminds me of people who use black propaganda from the Polish Government in Exile or other allied sources as supporting evidence then yes, it absolutely does. Does it remind you of anybody Nessie?
Yes, Holocaust deniers and revisionism. Like the Soviets, they are not evidence based and instead promote their propaganda about the Holocaust, such as lying that it lacks evidence.
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2024 7:41 am

Re: The 1972 Trial of the Engineers of Crematoria II and III in Vienna

Post by Nessie »

Dejaco and Ertl did not deny mass gassings, or evidence a different process from selections and gassing those not needed for work. Just like all the other death camp staff put on trial, they just minimised their involvement to dodge responsibility for their actions.
User avatar
Archie
Site Admin
Posts: 590
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2024 6:54 am

Re: The 1972 Trial of the Engineers of Crematoria II and III in Vienna

Post by Archie »

Nessie wrote: Sat Jan 04, 2025 7:23 am Dejaco and Ertl did not deny mass gassings, or evidence a different process from selections and gassing those not needed for work. Just like all the other death camp staff put on trial, they just minimised their involvement to dodge responsibility for their actions.
If you are on trial for witchcraft, you don't try to convince everyone that witches don't exist. That's foolhardy. If the court is immovable on the Auschwitz legend, you leave it alone. You don't tell them the Auschwitz story is 99% hoax. You just have to come up with some story where you as an individual can escape culpability. In this instance, they said the "gas chambers" weren't designed as gas chambers. Their defense worked. That they acquiesced on the legend means nothing whatsoever. The bigger point is that the court unwittingly disproved the Holocaust by admitting the blueprints aren't incriminating.
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2024 7:41 am

Re: The 1972 Trial of the Engineers of Crematoria II and III in Vienna

Post by Nessie »

Archie wrote: Sat Jan 04, 2025 9:59 pm
Nessie wrote: Sat Jan 04, 2025 7:23 am Dejaco and Ertl did not deny mass gassings, or evidence a different process from selections and gassing those not needed for work. Just like all the other death camp staff put on trial, they just minimised their involvement to dodge responsibility for their actions.
If you are on trial for witchcraft, you don't try to convince everyone that witches don't exist. That's foolhardy. If the court is immovable on the Auschwitz legend, you leave it alone. You don't tell the Auschwitz story is 99% hoax. You just have to come up with some story where you as an individual can escape culpability. In this instance, they said the "gas chambers" weren't designed as gas chambers. Their defense worked. That they acquiesced on the legend means nothing whatsoever. The bigger point is that the court unwittingly disproved the Holocaust by admitting the blueprints aren't incriminating.
That they did not challenge the subsequent use of the gas chambers, was because of the volume of evidence they were used as gas chambers. The prosecution had a lot of witnesses, many of whom were former colleagues of the defendants, who had said there were gas chambers. The Austrian court would not want Nazis calling other Nazis liars.

Your comparison with witchcraft is false, because casting spells and flying on broomsticks is provably impossible, whereas Germans converting a mortuary for use as a gas chambers is not.

The admission that the original design was not incriminating, does not disprove the Holocaust. The evidence is that Topf & Sons engineers took the original design, and modified it, a job that was well within their engineering capabilities, and not at all like witchcraft.
Post Reply