The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Wetzelrad wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2026 7:24 pm

JimPP6363 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2026 2:10 pm 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.

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

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

JimPP6363 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2026 1:52 pm
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.

JimPP6363 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2026 1:52 pm 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?

JimPP6363 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2026 1:52 pm 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.

JimPP6363 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2026 1:52 pm 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.

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

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

JimPP6363 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2026 5:10 pm 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.

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

JimPP6363 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2026 6:30 pm ..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

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