The CODOH Revisionist Forum

'You are just asserting that, as if you are an expert in ventilation systems!'

I actually am. I attended trade school for HVAC-R and spent a decade of my life designing ventilation systems.

I'll write a longer response to the rest when I get a chance, but, I wanted to address that one real quick.

Archie wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2024 2:34 am This is the "haystack" method of argumentation. They present you with a haystack and promise there are some needles in there.

The first time I saw that page, I laughed out loud. It looks designed to overwhelm and impress the reader by sheer volume. If they had anything good, they would be giving you those highlights along with some sort of coherent argument, not doing this sort of gish gallop/wild goose chase. That they sourced so much of it from Mattogno originally is quite funny. Although quite long, the vast majority of the documents cited are very vague, and a lot of the testimonies are obscure.

They list Ada Bimko as a witness (this is one I happen to be familiar with). Here is some of what this witness said in court.

http://www.bergenbelsen.co.uk/pages/Tri ... tents.html
.....

It's hurling an elephant and court room theatrics. Simply stack up tons of documents, expert reports, testimonies and then make as if the content somehow supports your thesis. That's essentially how the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial worked. A couple of dozen accused or potentially accused. hundreds of witnesses. That only a dozen or so did actually say something in support of the major accusation being made is ignored. Also that the court admitted that they didn't have any forensic evidence for any of the accusations subject to conviction. That's ignored. What is noticed is the number of witnesses the time spend on testimony, the guilty verdicts and the media hype around that. That witnesses contrary to the accusation were intimidated is barely mentioned. Also what the testimony was that supposedly proves the Holocaust is ignored.

If you read through this, it's hard to believe that any rational, intelligent, mature person would actually consider to believe something like this... But emotions trump reason all the time it seems....


Is it that Ada Bimko that testified on camera that Commandant Cramer kept all the chocolates to himself.

Stubble wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2024 2:27 pm 'You are just asserting that, as if you are an expert in ventilation systems!'

I actually am. I attended trade school for HVAC-R and spent a decade of my life designing ventilation systems.

I'll write a longer response to the rest when I get a chance, but, I wanted to address that one real quick.

Where is your evidence that the Krema ventilation system would not have coped with gassings?

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=61650

"The gas chamber was initially called «room for corpses», where a ventilation was installed by the company Topf, but later it became clear that this was a gas chamber for killing people."

"At Auschwitz concentration camp I was twice. Once in connection with a calculation error regarding the ventilation - this was in the spring o 1943 - and the second time about two months later, to commission the ventilation in a newly built crematorium."

"The ventilation installation provided for a ten-times air exchange; it served to suck out the gas that had collected and pump in fresh air. The pipes of the ventilation, which I personally constructed for the gas chamber, were immured in the walls of the chamber."

https://phdn.org/histgen/schmitz/plan01.html



"The plan of the gas chamber of Krema II in Auschwitz. The air extraction system (which the Holocaust deniers claim didn't exist) is clearly shown: Entlüftungskanal means air extraction duct, and Belüftung means ventilation. Remains of the air-extraction system can still be seen in the ruins."

Hektor wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2024 3:19 pm ....
It's hurling an elephant and court room theatrics. Simply stack up tons of documents, expert reports, testimonies and then make as if the content somehow supports your thesis. That's essentially how the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial worked. A couple of dozen accused or potentially accused. hundreds of witnesses. That only a dozen or so did actually say something in support of the major accusation being made is ignored.

Can you evidence that hundreds of witnesses gave evidence, but only a few actually had anything relevant to say?

Also that the court admitted that they didn't have any forensic evidence for any of the accusations subject to conviction. That's ignored.

That is incorrect. There was a 1945 forensic report that had found traces of the use of Zyklon B on metal plates from vent openings in the ruins at Krema II and from bales of hair found at the camp;

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

"In the attachment we send the Institute hair that comes from women’s corpses and
was cut off these after gassing and before burning in the crematorium ovens of
Brzezinka. It is packed in a paper sack, which according to the label contains
22.5 kg of hair. We request that you search the contents [of the sack] and
examine them in a procedure corresponding to Article 254 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure as well as in connection with Articles 123, 138 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, in order to establish whether and which poison is
contained (in the hair).

In the same manner and for the same purpose we ask for examination of the sheet
metal plates from the ventilation openings of the gas chamber (Corpse Cellar
No. 1 of Crematorium no. II in Brzezinka), which were found during the site
inspection in the crematorium, and of the mortar that was taken from the side
wall of this chamber. These objects (4 complete closing plates of ventilation
openings made of sheet metal and 2 damaged such closing plates, as well as the
mortar lump) were handed to the Institute for keeping on 12.5.1945."

What is noticed is the number of witnesses the time spend on testimony, the guilty verdicts and the media hype around that. That witnesses contrary to the accusation were intimidated is barely mentioned. Also what the testimony was that supposedly proves the Holocaust is ignored.

Who are these witnesses? Name, links and evidence please.

If you read through this, it's hard to believe that any rational, intelligent, mature person would actually consider to believe something like this... But emotions trump reason all the time it seems....


Is it that Ada Bimko that testified on camera that Commandant Cramer kept all the chocolates to himself.

Germans, trying Germans, in Germany, and still you find fault. There is not set of circumstances that you would approve of!

Air exchanges per hour are consistent with a morgue, not a gas chamber. Hydrogen cyanide is lighter than air. The exhaust vents are at floor level, the intake vents are in the ceiling.

Funny that you start with credintialism then pivot to, well these guys on this forum say...

Look, the vents are backward and the system is designed for too few air exchanges per hour for proper ventilation of a gas chamber.

Those are facts.

/shrug

For the record, to notice that the vents are backward should not take an associates degree.

Nessie wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2024 4:13 pm ...

Germans, trying Germans, in Germany, and still you find fault. There is not set of circumstances that you would approve of!

And plenty of it. So does any good lawyer. Now that should make you think. Does it?

Just when I thought revisionism couldn't get any easier...

I took Stubble's advice just for a short moment and decided to look a bit closer at the context of some of the documents in the Auschwitz Index and the very first document I actually look at closely, and the very first phrase I translate is this one:


It pertains to this item under "Contemporary German Documents" in the HC Auschwitz Index:

List of barracks of 30 June 1942 on “effect barracks for special treatment 3 pieces” [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews...,p.118]

The actual document scan (provided by Hans) is here: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/i ... Cp.118.png

[ Backed up here: https://imagebin.ca/v/8RaCjDpCjzZJ ]

Here is the full transcribed text of the relevant document portion(s):

Typ X RAD
Aborthauser 8 Stück
Typ 263/9 OKH.
Fahrzeug und Gerätehalle 1 "
Typ 260/9
1.) Effektenbaracken
bei prov. Entlausung im K.L. aufgestellt
4 Stück
2.) Effektenbaracke für Sonder-
behandlung 3 Stück
3.) Effektenbaracke im FKL 1 Stück
4.) Unterkunftsbaracke Bor 1 Stück [Total #1-4:] 9 Stück
Typ Luftwaffe (Meyer Tarnow 42.50x12.50x2.30)
Mannschaftsunterkunftsbaracken für Kommandantur 4 Stück
(fertig aufgestellt u. belegt)
Typ Luftwaffe (Meyer Tarnow 42.50x12.50x2.30)
Mannschaftsunterkunftsbaracke (Stabsbaracke) 1 Stück
(fertig aufgestellt und belegt)

And here it is translated:

Type X RAD
Outhouses 8 pieces
Type 263/9 OKH.
Vehicle and equipment hall 1 "
Type 260/9
1.) Personal effects barracks
set up in the K.L. for prov. delousing
4 pieces
2.) Personal effects barracks for special treatment 3 pieces
3.) Personal effects barracks in the FKL 1 piece
4.) Accommodation barracks Bor 1 piece [Total #1-4:] 9 pieces
Type Luftwaffe (Meyer Tarnow 42.50x12.50x2.30)
Personnel accommodation barracks for the commandant's office 4 pieces
(fully set up and occupied)
Type Luftwaffe (Meyer Tarnow 42.50x12.50x2.30)
Personnel accommodation barracks (staff barracks) 1 piece
(fully set up and occupied)

( Here is a great deal of information on some of the "pieces" which were being ordered, above - that is, Type 260/9 barracks: https://dbxchange.eu/project/pferdestal ... e-2609-okh )

To be clear, what this document shows for item #1 under "Type 260/9 [barracks]" is a provisional setup for delousing personal effects within Auschwitz-Birkenau. This was clearly the largest operation in scale per this document, given the greatest number of pieces/barracks is allocated for this purpose (4 pieces).

The phrase "Effektenbarackten bei prov. Entlausung im K.L. aufgestellt" is translated and interpreted as follows:

- "Effektenbarackten" refers to barracks where personal effects are stored.
- "bei prov. Entlausung" means "during provisional delousing," indicating a temporary or non-permanent setup.
- "im K.L." stands for "in the concentration camp."

The very next item pertains to personal effects barracks for special treatment. It is well-known that "special treatment" referred to hygienic practices. Here is an important example (Rudolf, The Chemistry of Auschwitz, p. 121):

At the behest of the garrison physician, a thoroughgoing program was launched at Birkenau in early May 1943 with the official designation “Special measures for the improvement of the hygienic installations.”

Therefore, this special treatment (applicable to personal effects) undoubtedly relates to the same "provisional delousing" (or similar operations) of the previous item. Here is a plausible interpretation:

Proposed Process Flow:
- Step 1: Confiscation of personal effects from prisoners.
- Step 2: Storage of personal effects in "Effektenbaracken bei prov. Entlausung im K.L. aufgestellt" for delousing.
- Step 3: After delousing, transfer of personal effects to "Effektenbaracke für Sonderbehandlung" for sorting and special treatment, which may involve:
-- Sorting valuables for appropriation (possibly to "Kanada" warehouses or other destinations).
-- Disposing of or repurposing non-valuable items.

On a separate note, relevant to other items in the Auschwitz Index, even terms like 'gas chamber' exclusively referred to disinfestation (Ibid., p. 85):

The only structures remaining intact in Auschwitz-Birkenau today encompassing a wing for the disinfestation of personal effects with Zyklon B are Buildings (Bauwerk, BW) 5a and 5b in Construction Sections B1a and B1b, respectively. These buildings were planned as mirror images of each other. The west (respectively east) wing of these buildings were used, at least temporarily, for disinfestation with Zyklon B. These rooms were expressly labeled “Gaskammer” (gas chamber) on the construction blueprints, see Figure 39. This is no triviality: rather, it is important proof that, if we follow the extant documentation, the term “gas chamber,” at that time, referred exclusively to installations for the disinfestation of personal effects, both by architects during the planning of such buildings, and by disinfestation experts.

So, an innocuous document pertaining to the delousing of personal effects and clothing.

Touted as proof of a campaign of extermination at Auschwitz Birkenau.

/shrug

You can't make this stuff up

Stubble wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2024 9:21 pm So, an innocuous document pertaining to the delousing of personal effects and clothing.

Touted as proof of a campaign of extermination at Auschwitz Birkenau.

/shrug

You can't make this stuff up

It also just highlights the fact that temporary, provisional delousing efforts were being setup as needed and that additional installations needed to be setup for this purpose. This altogether makes it indeed not-so-strange if/when any given building or room needed to include gas-tight features for expanded delousing operations. This should be the first assumption anytime gas-related-anything appears in documents.

You could really pick any document at random from the list and easily refute it. None of them actually evidence gassings or a Holocaust. This is the entire reason why Pressac had to start looking for "criminal traces" and piece together some sort of coherent story some 50 years after the fact.

Just for fun I picked 3 documents from the list.

1) "Patent draft from Fritz Sanders of 26 October 1942 on “continuously operating corpse cremation oven for mass use”". (note their pretty funny misspelling of Fritz Sander, "Sanders" - quite typical of this blog)

This patent was filed during the very height of the typhus epidemic at Auschwitz (which peaked in August of that year, immediately after Himmler's visit in July and after camp staff had ordered more crematoria be built) and specifically mentions the high death rates due to disease "in the concentration camps". It had nothing to do with mass extermination of Jews and this type of oven was never built.

In his patent filing, Sander specifically debunks the idea that the regular ovens in Auschwitz would have been able to handle huge amounts of corpses as alleged, because, he points out:

"In my opinion, in a muffle, the cremation does not proceed quickly enough to ensure the elimination of a great number of corpses at a desirably high rate."

Sander then, incredibly, goes on to explain why regular ovens are extremely inefficient because they are essentially designed according to civilian cremation principles, and loading several corpses or stringing several muffles together (such as in Birkenau) does not solve this basic issue. In other words, regular ovens using single-opening muffles were inefficient for wartime camps with high death rates.

2) "Letter from Eduard Wirths of 21 January 1943 on “undressing room” in crematorium 2 [Mattogno ATCOS, vol. 1, p. 72] "

This document is a completely innocuous letter from camp doctor Eduard Wirths discussing the autopsy rooms/morgues inside of the crematoria, further evidencing their actual purpose. I quote it since the blog expects its readers to just blindly accept it proves the Holocaust:

"1. The SS garrison surgeon at Auschwitz requests to install a partition in the dissecting hall planned for the new crematorium building at Birkenau, dividing the hall into 2 rooms of equal size and to have 1 or 2 wash basins installed in the first of these rooms, because the latter will be needed as an autopsy room, whereas the 2nd room will be needed for anatomical preparations, for the preservation of files and writing materials and books, for the preparation of colored tissue sections and for work with the microscope.

2. Furthermore it is requested to provide for an ‘undressing room’ [Auskleideraum] in the cellar rooms."

The fact this request came from the camp doctor and not the camp administration is pretty telling as to its supposed purpose.

3) "Order from the central construction office of 29 March 1943 on 4 “iron grilles” for windows 30 x 40 cm of crematoria 4 and 5 (i.e. the gas tight windows)"

This one is pretty funny because these iron grilles for the windows of Crematorium IV would have prevented the introduction of Zyklon B through cans from the outside.

Reams of other documents in the list just blandly mentions "special operations", "special actions", sometimes in completely banal contexts, and the bloggers axiomatically assume that these were secret code words meaning gassing. Most other documents are just criminal traces mentioned by Pressac and van Pelt and thoroughly discussed and debunked by Mattogno in The Real Case for Auschwitz.

curioussoul wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2024 11:12 pm You could really pick any document at random from the list and easily refute it. None of them actually evidence gassings or a Holocaust. This is the entire reason why Pressac had to start looking for "criminal traces" and piece together some sort of coherent story some 50 years after the fact.

Here is something I read recently in the encyclopedia that caught my eye.

Sehn was charged with assisting the Polish prosecution in preparing the upcoming two Stalinist show trials against former camp commandant Rudolf Höss on the one hand, and against several former lower-ranking camp officials on the other. From the vast documentation, and with the help of Polish engineer Roman Dawidowski, Sehn cherry-picked ambivalent documents that included terms such as “gas,” “gastight,” and “gas chamber,” or “sonder” and “spezial” (meaning “separate” or “special”), ripped them out of their documental and historical context, and mispresented them as circumstantial evidence allegedly proving that homicidal gas chambers existed at the former camp, and had been used for mass murder.

Their long list of misinterpreted innocuous documents was rediscovered in the 1980s by French researcher Jean-Claude Pressac. He plagiarized Sehn’s and Dawidowski’s work without mentioning them, and rebranded their misrepresented pieces of evidence as “criminal traces.” Then he added a few more items he had found to this mendacious list, and used them in an attempt to bolster the orthodox Auschwitz narrative. A few years later, Jewish-Dutch historian Robert Jan van Pelt plagiarized Pressac’s work, without mentioning him, and presented it as his research result.

https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/histo ... n-jan/826/

This says Pressac essentially just rediscovered material that had already been compiled by Jan Sehn (around 1946). I don't recall hearing this previously. This I think devalues Pressac's arguments even more because he relied on documents cherry-picked by the Polish-Soviet Communist investigations.

Hektor wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2024 3:19 pm

Archie wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2024 2:34 am This is the "haystack" method of argumentation. They present you with a haystack and promise there are some needles in there.

The first time I saw that page, I laughed out loud. It looks designed to overwhelm and impress the reader by sheer volume. If they had anything good, they would be giving you those highlights along with some sort of coherent argument, not doing this sort of gish gallop/wild goose chase. That they sourced so much of it from Mattogno originally is quite funny. Although quite long, the vast majority of the documents cited are very vague, and a lot of the testimonies are obscure.

They list Ada Bimko as a witness (this is one I happen to be familiar with). Here is some of what this witness said in court.

http://www.bergenbelsen.co.uk/pages/Tri ... tents.html
.....

It's hurling an elephant and court room theatrics. Simply stack up tons of documents, expert reports, testimonies and then make as if the content somehow supports your thesis. That's essentially how the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial worked. A couple of dozen accused or potentially accused. hundreds of witnesses. That only a dozen or so did actually say something in support of the major accusation being made is ignored. Also that the court admitted that they didn't have any forensic evidence for any of the accusations subject to conviction. That's ignored. What is noticed is the number of witnesses the time spend on testimony, the guilty verdicts and the media hype around that. That witnesses contrary to the accusation were intimidated is barely mentioned. Also what the testimony was that supposedly proves the Holocaust is ignored.

If you read through this, it's hard to believe that any rational, intelligent, mature person would actually consider to believe something like this... But emotions trump reason all the time it seems....


Is it that Ada Bimko that testified on camera that Commandant Cramer kept all the chocolates to himself.

Speaking of court, typically in normal trials there are rules to prevent exactly this sort of gish gallopy presentation of evidence. You can't just claim you have a lot of evidence and expect the court to take your word for it. You have to present specifics and allow for it to be digested and for the other side to respond. And judges try to keep things moving and will often shut down lawyers who are beating around the bush.

Also in the legal profession, when you want to be uncooperative with the other side, one of the classic techniques is the so-called "document dump." This is when the other side requests documents in discovery and you give them a huge volume of largely irrelevant material in hopes that they won't be able to go through it all. If someone is doing something akin to a document dump in a historical debate, it indicates a major lack of confidence.

Hektor wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2024 6:33 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2024 4:13 pm ...

Germans, trying Germans, in Germany, and still you find fault. There is not set of circumstances that you would approve of!

And plenty of it. So does any good lawyer. Now that should make you think. Does it?

It is evidence to prove how far down the conspiracy rabbit hole you have fallen. It does not matter what is evidenced and what is not, you will believe.

Stubble wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2024 9:21 pm So, an innocuous document pertaining to the delousing of personal effects and clothing.

Touted as proof of a campaign of extermination at Auschwitz Birkenau.

/shrug

You can't make this stuff up

It is not touted as proof. Proof rarely, if ever comes from one piece of evidence and never for something as large as a mass murder. A mass murder is proved with multiple sources of evidence. That document is just one of them.

It stands to reason, when people arrive at a prison camp, and they are killed, then they no longer need their property. It is well evidenced that the SS had a property processing system, whereby the stole prisoner property, sorted and graded it and sold what they could.

The addition of 8 outhouses, for personal effects, including one specifically for property that needed delousing, is consistent with the mass theft of prisoner property, which is consistent with the mass killings. It does not prove mass killings. As documentary evidence, it is consistent with mass killings. Proof comes when there is more evidence to determine what took place inside the Kremas.

As for the reference to "special treatment", revisionists normally deride historians for their claim about the use of code words. But here, "special treatment" is being claimed as a code word for "hygienic practices". For that to be the case, then there needs to be evidence of "hygienic practices" inside the Kremas. For example, a witness who states that the Kremas were being used to delouse clothing. Or obvious Prussian blue staining, as seen at delousing chambers around the camp, inside a room within the Krema. We know that there is no such evidence. There is nothing to prove "hygienic practices" in the Kremas.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2024 10:34 pm

Stubble wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2024 9:21 pm So, an innocuous document pertaining to the delousing of personal effects and clothing.

Touted as proof of a campaign of extermination at Auschwitz Birkenau.

/shrug

You can't make this stuff up

It also just highlights the fact that temporary, provisional delousing efforts were being setup as needed and that additional installations needed to be setup for this purpose. This altogether makes it indeed not-so-strange if/when any given building or room needed to include gas-tight features for expanded delousing operations. This should be the first assumption anytime gas-related-anything appears in documents.

An open-minded investigation does not assume anything. If the Leichenkeller was used for delousing, then why did Rudolf find no evidence of the level of exposure in the ruins of Krema II, that he found at known delousing chambers elsewhere in the camp? Why is there no witness to delousing operations? Why is something "innocuous" given a code word?