The problem with facile "gotcha" documents (prooftexts)

[Nessie]

The various reports to the most senior Nazis, of the mass murder of Jews, where Jews are listed as a different group to others, is evidence that mass murders had been ordered, or at least approved of, at the highest level.

Under German law, any civilian combatant, or those assisting are liable to summary execution. Partisans were a huge problem.

Bandits dead in combat 1337. Bandit prisoners executed 737. Bandit helpers executed 14,257. Jews executed 363,211.

The Jews were the huge problem.

[Nazgul]

The Jews were the huge problem.

Terrorists in those times.

[Nessie]

The Jews were the huge problem.

Terrorists in those times.

Indeed, that was the Nazi motive to kill.

[fireofice]

There are double standards galore here since exterminationist language in other contexts is routinely dismissed as hyperbolic. It entirely depends on which groups are involved. See the article below for example on the exterminationist song "Kill the Boer!" which blacks chant in South Africa. Is this proof of "white genocide" in South Africa? The mainstream media assures us it is not. That's just a "conspiracy theory." The language in the song "should not be taken literally." In this case. But if Goebbels had led such chants, that would be exhibit A in Holocaust proofs.

I just came across this tweet:



I wonder if he's willing to apply this to the holocaust?

"Notice that every time these weirdos present evidence of the holocaust it’s just a guy saying stuff. There’s literally no actual evidence"

Good to know that the Posen speeches, Goebbels diaries, Hitler's prophecy speech, post war "confessions", ect. are just "guys saying stuff" and are not actually evidence! I wonder what he thinks is evidence for the holocaust then?

[Callafangers]

More Word Associations with Gas

We also see this keyword/word association game with the gas chambers. The Vergasungskeller document is the obvious one here. (Pressac's "gas-tight" doors would be another). The argument can sound superficially convincing, but when you read the Vergasungskeller document it is clear they were eager to begin using at least one of the cellars for morgue space. This does not fit the orthodox interpretation which requires both cellars to be free for the gassing procedure.

Regarding the 'Vergasungskeller' document (Karl Bischoff's letter), this is another example of a word (like 'ausrottung') that had a predominantly non-homicidal nor sinister meaning prior to WW2. Only throughout the course of the propaganda campaigns and publications on postwar trials did these words become normalized to a more sinister interpretation. Here is a transcript of the letter, for those unfamiliar:

Subject: Crematorium II, state of construction.
First cremation (Fe trial) on 29.1.43
Enclosure: 1 test report

To
SS-Sturmbannführer C,
Construction manager and general engineer
of the Waffen-SS, engineer Kammler,
Central Construction Management of the
Waffen-SS and Auschwitz Police
(Among the files Lg.-159)

Crematorium II was completed with the use of all available forces despite unspeakable difficulties due to frost during day and night work, except for minor construction work. After the acceptance of the attic by the chief engineer Prüfer of the executing company Topf u. Söhne, Erfurt, the articulations were installed. However, the reinforced concrete ceiling of the mortuary cellar could not yet be stripped due to frost. However, this is irrelevant as the gassing cellar can be used for this purpose.

Due to a lack of water, the Topf u. Söhne company was unable to deliver the ventilation system on time as requested by the central construction management. However, once the ventilation system arrives, installation begins immediately, so that the system is expected to be fully operational on February 20, 1943.

A report by the test engineer from Topf u. Söhne, Erfurt, is enclosed.

The head of the central construction management
of the Waffen-SS and Police Auschwitz

[signed]
- Hauptsturmführer -

[Captured from here: https://www.welt.de/geschichte/zweiter- ... eller.html]

Here is an excerpt from a short conversation with ChatGPT (may need to be further verified / fact-checked):

Before WWII, "Vergasung" in German had well-established non-homicidal meanings:

Industrial/technical contexts:
-- Kohlevergasung (coal gasification)
-- Holzvergasung (wood gasification for vehicles)
-- Fuel and energy sectors used this extensively.

Chemical processes:
-- Turning solids or liquids into gas (generic gasification).

Agricultural/pest control:
-- Begasung or Vergasung of storage rooms for insects or rodents,
-- Occasionally used synonymously with Entwesung, but more typically in the verb form (begasen).

Conclusion: Pre-war use of “Vergasung” was almost exclusively technical, and not associated with human death.

Also worth noting is that Karl Bischoff had a rather unique role at Auschwitz, overseeing the construction of numerous facilities under high-pressure conditions. It’s plausible:

• He used unstandardized or improvised terminology, especially in internal memos.
• The language could reflect localized jargon, specific to the Auschwitz building projects.
• "Vergasungskeller" may have focused more on the technical process (gassing/fumigation) rather than the outcome (disinfestation, i.e. as with "Entwesungskeller").

As always, one must keep in mind that fumigation was well-documented as a top priority at every major camp during this period. Thus, a bias toward fumigation-related interpretation is the most rational approach in any document that mentions 'gas' at all. Moreover, those peddling a 'Holocaust' narrative have had millions of documents to sift through post-war. Is this the most 'incriminating' they could come up with? I mean, really?

[curioussoul]

More Word Associations with Gas

We also see this keyword/word association game with the gas chambers. The Vergasungskeller document is the obvious one here. (Pressac's "gas-tight" doors would be another). The argument can sound superficially convincing, but when you read the Vergasungskeller document it is clear they were eager to begin using at least one of the cellars for morgue space. This does not fit the orthodox interpretation which requires both cellars to be free for the gassing procedure.

Regarding the 'Vergasungskeller' document (Karl Bischoff's letter), this is another example of a word (like 'ausrottung') that had a predominantly non-homicidal nor sinister meaning prior to WW2. Only throughout the course of the propaganda campaigns and publications on postwar trials did these words become normalized to a more sinister interpretation. Here is a transcript of the letter, for those unfamiliar:

Subject: Crematorium II, state of construction.
First cremation (Fe trial) on 29.1.43
Enclosure: 1 test report

To
SS-Sturmbannführer C,
Construction manager and general engineer
of the Waffen-SS, engineer Kammler,
Central Construction Management of the
Waffen-SS and Auschwitz Police
(Among the files Lg.-159)

Crematorium II was completed with the use of all available forces despite unspeakable difficulties due to frost during day and night work, except for minor construction work. After the acceptance of the attic by the chief engineer Prüfer of the executing company Topf u. Söhne, Erfurt, the articulations were installed. However, the reinforced concrete ceiling of the mortuary cellar could not yet be stripped due to frost. However, this is irrelevant as the gassing cellar can be used for this purpose.

Due to a lack of water, the Topf u. Söhne company was unable to deliver the ventilation system on time as requested by the central construction management. However, once the ventilation system arrives, installation begins immediately, so that the system is expected to be fully operational on February 20, 1943.

A report by the test engineer from Topf u. Söhne, Erfurt, is enclosed.

The head of the central construction management
of the Waffen-SS and Police Auschwitz

[signed]
- Hauptsturmführer -

[Captured from here: https://www.welt.de/geschichte/zweiter- ... eller.html]

Here is an excerpt from a short conversation with ChatGPT (may need to be further verified / fact-checked):

Before WWII, "Vergasung" in German had well-established non-homicidal meanings:

Industrial/technical contexts:
-- Kohlevergasung (coal gasification)
-- Holzvergasung (wood gasification for vehicles)
-- Fuel and energy sectors used this extensively.

Chemical processes:
-- Turning solids or liquids into gas (generic gasification).

Agricultural/pest control:
-- Begasung or Vergasung of storage rooms for insects or rodents,
-- Occasionally used synonymously with Entwesung, but more typically in the verb form (begasen).

Conclusion: Pre-war use of “Vergasung” was almost exclusively technical, and not associated with human death.

Also worth noting is that Karl Bischoff had a rather unique role at Auschwitz, overseeing the construction of numerous facilities under high-pressure conditions. It’s plausible:

• He used unstandardized or improvised terminology, especially in internal memos.
• The language could reflect localized jargon, specific to the Auschwitz building projects.
• "Vergasungskeller" may have focused more on the technical process (gassing/fumigation) rather than the outcome (disinfestation, i.e. as with "Entwesungskeller").

As always, one must keep in mind that fumigation was well-documented as a top priority at every major camp during this period. Thus, a bias toward fumigation-related interpretation is the most rational approach in any document that mentions 'gas' at all. Moreover, those peddling a 'Holocaust' narrative have had millions of documents to sift through post-war. Is this the most 'incriminating' they could come up with? I mean, really?

Yeah, the Vergasungskeller document, which has been touted as an outright proof of the Holocaust, was treated much more cautiously by Pressac himself. I've never considered it as problematic as some people seem to think.

I wrote a more lengthy post on the old CODOH forum, but all you have to do to 'debunk' the exterminationist interpretation of this document is to just look at what the text actually says rather than hyperfocus on the word "Vergasungskeller". He's literally saying that because of the effects of frost, the undressing room could not be used, but that's okay, because the gas chamber can be used instead. He then goes on to explain that the ventilation system has not yet been installed due to freight delays, meaning no gassings could possibly have taken place either way. Is it possible for the gas chamber to serve as the undressing room simultaneously? Not really, if we are to follow the orthodox version of the gassing story. Either way, this would have been a purely provisional solution, meaning the "gas chamber" could have served the purpose of Leichenkeller 2 for a limited period of time, until the planking of the reinforced concrete ceiling could be removed. But because there was no ventilation system, this 'purpose' could clearly not have been to gas Jews. As Mattogno has been able to demonstrate based on documentary evidence, there was an association made, for a limited period of time, between Crematorium II and disinfestation, indicating that bringing these two purposes (cremation and disinfestation) into the same building was not out of the question.

In The Real Case for Auschwitz, Mattogno also highlights the fact that there is a documentary void surrounding this document. Based on the correspondence there should have been numerous other documents shedding some light on what exactly was being discussed. For whatever reason, those documents do not exist, and it's not at all far-fetched to assume Soviet tampering or destruction of 'inconvenient' documentation which would refute exterminationist interpretations of the document in question.

[Callafangers]

Yeah, the Vergasungskeller document, which has been touted as an outright proof of the Holocaust, was treated much more cautiously by Pressac himself. I've never considered it as problematic as some people seem to think.

I wrote a more lengthy post on the old CODOH forum, but all you have to do to 'debunk' the exterminationist interpretation of this document is to just look at what the text actually says rather than hyperfocus on the word "Vergasungskeller". He's literally saying that because of the effects of frost, the undressing room could not be used, but that's okay, because the gas chamber can be used instead. He then goes on to explain that the ventilation system has not yet been installed due to freight delays, meaning no gassings could possibly have taken place either way. Is it possible for the gas chamber to serve as the undressing room simultaneously? Not really, if we are to follow the orthodox version of the gassing story. Either way, this would have been a purely provisional solution, meaning the "gas chamber" could have served the purpose of Leichenkeller 2 for a limited period of time, until the planking of the reinforced concrete ceiling could be removed. But because there was no ventilation system, this 'purpose' could clearly not have been to gas Jews. As Mattogno has been able to demonstrate based on documentary evidence, there was an association made, for a limited period of time, between Crematorium II and disinfestation, indicating that bringing these two purposes (cremation and disinfestation) into the same building was not out of the question.

In The Real Case for Auschwitz, Mattogno also highlights the fact that there is a documentary void surrounding this document. Based on the correspondence there should have been numerous other documents shedding some light on what exactly was being discussed. For whatever reason, those documents do not exist, and it's not at all far-fetched to assume Soviet tampering or destruction of 'inconvenient' documentation which would refute exterminationist interpretations of the document in question.

Just to note, I would avoid calling it a 'gas chamber' at all, which could be interpreted as a concession that this is what the language actually says (it doesn't). A more literal translation would be "gassing cellar" (Vergasungskeller; as opposed to 'gaskammer', i.e. "gas chamber"), which is even less aligned with orthodox 'Holocaust' interpretations, and better aligned as a reference to the technical process of fumigation.

[Nessie]

....

As always, one must keep in mind that fumigation was well-documented as a top priority at every major camp during this period. Thus, a bias toward fumigation-related interpretation is the most rational approach in any document that mentions 'gas' at all. Moreover, those peddling a 'Holocaust' narrative have had millions of documents to sift through post-war. Is this the most 'incriminating' they could come up with? I mean, really?

A document recording the construction of a gas chamber, inside a building that every single witness who worked there, said was used to gas people, is strong corroborative evidence.

How come, so-called revisionists, cannot agree on what the Kremas were used for? Since you support the "interpretation" that the Kremas were used as delousing chambers, you accept that Leuchter and Rudolf are wrong. What evidence of usage do you have, to prove you are correct and they are wrong?

[Nessie]

...
Just to note, I would avoid calling it a 'gas chamber' at all, which could be interpreted as a concession that this is what the language actually says (it doesn't). A more literal translation would be "gassing cellar" (Vergasungskeller; as opposed to 'gaskammer', i.e. "gas chamber"), which is even less aligned with orthodox 'Holocaust' interpretations, and better aligned as a reference to the technical process of fumigation.

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

"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]"

"Work time sheet of 2 March 1943 on “concrete in gas chamber” in crematorium 4 [Pressac, Technique, p. 446]"

[Callafangers]

...
Just to note, I would avoid calling it a 'gas chamber' at all, which could be interpreted as a concession that this is what the language actually says (it doesn't). A more literal translation would be "gassing cellar" (Vergasungskeller; as opposed to 'gaskammer', i.e. "gas chamber"), which is even less aligned with orthodox 'Holocaust' interpretations, and better aligned as a reference to the technical process of fumigation.

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

"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]"

"Work time sheet of 2 March 1943 on “concrete in gas chamber” in crematorium 4 [Pressac, Technique, p. 446]"

The Bartosik quote refers to the PoW disinfestation chamber, not Krema II:

Schlesische Industriebau Lenz & Co., “Report of Wednesday, July 8, 1942. Con-
struction site: Auschwitz PoW camp”. Preprinted sheet with pencil inscription.
“1 Pg [Poliergeselle, assistant mason] + 2 M[aurer, bricklayer] bricking in the
door in gas chamber.”
Full handwritten sheet headed “Wednesday, July 8, 1942”:
“1 Pg – 2 M. Brick in doors in gas chamber.”
Remarks: The note refers to the fumigation gas chamber of disinfestation barrack
2, BW 5b, of PoW camp. Bartosik et al. misinterpret this as “in 2 gas chamber”,
which they then meaninglessly change to “druga komora gazowa”, “the second gas
chamber”, which according to them points to the alleged “Bunker 2”

(See p. 123-124: https://holocausthandbooks.com/wp-conte ... 8-trac.pdf)

As for the March 1943 work being done at Krema IV, it's clear when viewing the other documents throughout the surrounding weeks that upgrades to the ventilation and sanitation systems for the morgues were being applied across-the-board (e.g. upgrades from wood blowers to iron-wrought airtight blowers), for reasons that are explained as due to technical issues or safety concerns in normal camp operations. See the link above to The Real Auschwitz Chronicle for March 1943, starting on p. 250.

[Callafangers]

A document recording the construction of a gas chamber, inside a building that every single witness who worked there, said was used to gas people, is strong corroborative evidence.

No it is not. Your "witnesses who worked there" are Jews who literally sat at a table together once the work was done and discussed the ways they would retaliate against Germans. Their fellow tribesmen and communist propagandists were having much luck disseminating lies and they were in the perfect position to fabricate them. And so they did. Then, all of the victorious cohorts had a chance to mine through German documents post-war, looking for anything to 'corroborate' their intended narrative. Hence, we see only far-reaching 'code word' claims from you, over and over again.

How come, so-called revisionists, cannot agree on what the Kremas were used for? Since you support the "interpretation" that the Kremas were used as delousing chambers, you accept that Leuchter and Rudolf are wrong. What evidence of usage do you have, to prove you are correct and they are wrong?

You're asking us to fill in documentary gaps which you have only filled-in with a pattern of testimony heavily saturated with provable lies. Do you understand why anyone who has actually taken a critical look at 'survivor' testimony would find that ridiculous?

There are several hypotheses about the precise/alternative uses of the Morgues (where applicable), all of which require a degree of inference. The hour-by-hour narrative you are demanding does not exist -- and why should it for an uneventful morgue at a concentration camp? Your laughable 'Sonderkommando' filling in the gaps with their tall tales and horror stories is not a valid refutation of official camp documentation reflecting mundane wartime operations and technical improvements, while combating disease and managing security concerns.

[Edit: small edit for clarify on Kremas vs morgues]

[Nessie]

...
Just to note, I would avoid calling it a 'gas chamber' at all, which could be interpreted as a concession that this is what the language actually says (it doesn't). A more literal translation would be "gassing cellar" (Vergasungskeller; as opposed to 'gaskammer', i.e. "gas chamber"), which is even less aligned with orthodox 'Holocaust' interpretations, and better aligned as a reference to the technical process of fumigation.

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

"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]"

"Work time sheet of 2 March 1943 on “concrete in gas chamber” in crematorium 4 [Pressac, Technique, p. 446]"

The Bartosik quote refers to the PoW disinfestation chamber, not Krema II:

Schlesische Industriebau Lenz & Co., “Report of Wednesday, July 8, 1942. Con-
struction site: Auschwitz PoW camp”. Preprinted sheet with pencil inscription.
“1 Pg [Poliergeselle, assistant mason] + 2 M[aurer, bricklayer] bricking in the
door in gas chamber.”
Full handwritten sheet headed “Wednesday, July 8, 1942”:
“1 Pg – 2 M. Brick in doors in gas chamber.”
Remarks: The note refers to the fumigation gas chamber of disinfestation barrack
2, BW 5b, of PoW camp. Bartosik et al. misinterpret this as “in 2 gas chamber”,
which they then meaninglessly change to “druga komora gazowa”, “the second gas
chamber”, which according to them points to the alleged “Bunker 2”

(See p. 123-124: https://holocausthandbooks.com/wp-conte ... 8-trac.pdf)

As for the March 1943 work being done at Krema IV, it's clear when viewing the other documents throughout the surrounding weeks that upgrades to the ventilation and sanitation systems for the morgues were being applied across-the-board (e.g. upgrades from wood blowers to iron-wrought airtight blowers), for reasons that are explained as due to technical issues or safety concerns in normal camp operations. See the link above to The Real Auschwitz Chronicle for March 1943, starting on p. 250.

The problem with so-called revisionist claims about the Kremas, is that they cannot evidence actual usage. Instead, they postulate on what the buildings could have been used for, coming up with all sorts of contradictions and no proven conclusion. Thus, they fail at the primary task of investigation, they cannot prove what happened. That is why revisionists are not really revisionists.

[Callafangers]

The problem with so-called revisionist claims about the Kremas, is that they cannot evidence actual usage. Instead, they postulate on what the buildings could have been used for, coming up with all sorts of contradictions and no proven conclusion. Thus, they fail at the primary task of investigation, they cannot prove what happened. That is why revisionists are not really revisionists.

I don't know what to tell you. The camp documentation tells a story of disinfestation and wartime measures. You're telling a story that isn't supported by measurable nor verifiable evidence of any kind.

Maybe exterminationists are just mainstream conspiracy theorists?

[Nessie]

A document recording the construction of a gas chamber, inside a building that every single witness who worked there, said was used to gas people, is strong corroborative evidence.

No it is not. Your "witnesses who worked there" are Jews who literally sat at a table together once the work was done and discussed the ways they would retaliate against Germans.

That seems unlikely, since they variously came from Poland, Hungary, France and Greece and they did not speak the same language.

Their fellow tribesmen and communist propagandists were having much luck disseminating lies and they were in the perfect position to fabricate them. And so they did. Then, all of the victorious cohorts had a chance to mine through German documents post-war, looking for anything to 'corroborate' their intended narrative. Hence, we see only far-reaching 'code word' claims from you, over and over again.

There are more German witnesses to what happened inside the Kremas, than any other nationality. They all agree the buildings were used for gassings. That evidence of actual usage, is how we know what "special" is referring to;

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

"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"

"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"

"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]"

"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""

How come, so-called revisionists, cannot agree on what the Kremas were used for? Since you support the "interpretation" that the Kremas were used as delousing chambers, you accept that Leuchter and Rudolf are wrong. What evidence of usage do you have, to prove you are correct and they are wrong?

You're asking us to fill in documentary gaps which you have only filled-in with a pattern of testimony heavily saturated with provable lies. Do you understand why anyone who has actually taken a critical look at 'survivor' testimony would find that ridiculous?

There are several hypotheses about the precise/alternative uses of the Morgues (where applicable), all of which require a degree of inference. The hour-by-hour narrative you are demanding does not exist -- and why should it for an uneventful morgue at a concentration camp? Your laughable 'Sonderkommando' filling in the gaps with their tall tales and horror stories is not a valid refutation of official camp documentation reflecting mundane wartime operations and technical improvements, while combating disease and managing security concerns.

[Edit: small edit for clarify on Kremas vs morgues]

Why are so-called revisionists unable to agree on actual usage? Is it because;

A - they are clueless, inexperienced, untrained investigators, causing them to make mistakes?
B - their aim is to find excuses not to believe gassings took place?
C - their methodologies are flawed, leading to multiple errors?
D - all of the above?

[Nessie]

The problem with so-called revisionist claims about the Kremas, is that they cannot evidence actual usage. Instead, they postulate on what the buildings could have been used for, coming up with all sorts of contradictions and no proven conclusion. Thus, they fail at the primary task of investigation, they cannot prove what happened. That is why revisionists are not really revisionists.

I don't know what to tell you. The camp documentation tells a story of disinfestation and wartime measures.

Why are Leuchter and Rudolf wrong? Can you evidence the Leichenkellers being used to delouse clothing?

You're telling a story that isn't supported by measurable nor verifiable evidence of any kind.

Maybe exterminationists are just mainstream conspiracy theorists?

You are just coming out with excuses for you to disbelieve the evidence from all the eyewitnesses, camp documents, the circumstances around the running of the camp and mass arrivals and physical, photographic and forensic evidence. The "story" of mass gassings and cremations, is supported by corroborating evidence from multiple sources.