Majdanek this and that

[Fred Ziffel]

I have no idea who or what year they were connected. All I know is that they were not connected when the Germans occupied the camp. I can only say after 1946.

Here is an image of not being connected
the first constructed connection was made to look like it was there during the war. then they redid that in 2021 that now it does not look like it was there during the war

[Wetzelrad]

There must have been poor communication on my part, or a misunderstanding by me on what you were saying regarding the work order that was previously discussed.
What we are discussing now is what I assumed those shafts were part of.

Yes, those same shafts. Anyone asserting that people were gassed in the B41 undressing room would be forced to assert that Zyklon was inserted through that chimney because there is no other means to insert it.

Whereas in the case of B28 the Soviets claimed explicitly that Zyklon was poured down the chimney, as seen in the photo caption posted above.

Their story line, whatever it is, becomes a harder sell when we have another building which was claimed to be a gas chamber with a zyklon chimney, reported in a major newspaper.
Does that building still exist?
Is that building now said to have been a disinfection chamber?

Mattogno writes that B28 no longer existed at the time of Pressac's writing about it in 1988. The museum's official position on B28 is difficult to parse out, but it seems to be that they think the building was primarily a laundry facility that may have been used for delousing. More on this in my next post.

I'm not familiar with the numbering system of the alleged gas chambers at Majdanek.
Which number is for the undressing room in B41?

The numbers come from the Soviet report. Mattogno neatly lists them.

Mattogno p.136.jpg (107.07 KiB) Viewed 29 times

the museum removed the chimneys? which building are you talking about?

Well if the whole building at B28 is gone then the chimney is definitely gone. As to B41, I took it from previous discussions that that was the case, but maybe I was wrong. Looking at your photos of B41, do you think one of those is the exhaust chimney? I will take your word for it.

Here is a photo I believe to be B41

Returning to this. It's an important photo if you're right. The design of the chimney and lid is not much dissimilar from the one photographed at B28. There is a man standing behind the chimney, possibly even the same man in both photos. Since the Soviets falsely portrayed one as a Zyklon insertion chimney, did they intend to do the same with the other?

Items in the background could help establish its location. The wooden structure on the right could be the canopy roof, but I'm not sure.

The chimney seems unreasonably large for its purpose. Where did you find this photo, anyway?

[Stubble]

I have no idea who or what year they were connected. All I know is that they were not connected when the Germans occupied the camp. I can only say after 1946.

Here is an image of not being connected
the first constructed connection was made to look like it was there during the war. then they redid that in 2021 that now it does not look like it was there during the war

Fair. I have been led to assume the Soviet, but I must concede, I don't have solid proof of that, it's conjecture.

Thank you for the very detailed post Sir. I appreciate it.

It is also good on the museum that they appear to be acting in good faith about it, although, like Krema I, I'd like to see them put it on a sign and while they are at it, tell us who did it.

[Wetzelrad]

I was not previously aware of this 2019 article on the Majdanek website. Now that I am, I would recommend it to anyone as a must-read.
https://www.majdanek.eu/en/pow/gas_cham ... ajdanek/57

The language used here is revisionist. I can't summarize the whole thing, but for example it explains that B41 could not be used for homicidal gassings because the door opened inward, B28 could not be used for homicidal gassings because inmates working in the surrounding area would have seen and reported on them, archival documents point to these being disinfection chambers, and so on. These are no different than the arguments revisionists make against gassings at any camp.

At one point, the article confirms that chamber II could not have been used for gassings because "no evidence of iron cyanide compounds was detected after the war". That is the Prussian Blue stains argument only without using the words "blue" or "stain".

At another, it quotes a witness named Rudolf Ettrich who claimed he would watch as someone climbed a ladder to the roof of B41 and poured a can down the chimney. Is this the same chimney which connects to a horizontal shaft?

If I were producing something on Majdanek I would quote from this liberally.

[Booze]

From the 2019 article on the Majdanek website linked by Wetzelrad:

Some historians point to the chambers built in the so-called ‘old crematorium’ on a strip of land between the first and second prison fields (Interfield I) as to being the location for exterminations. It is assumed that gassings took place there in the summer of 1942. However, there is no mention of the operation of gas chambers in this part of the camp in recollections of Polish prisoners, nor in reports of Jews imprisoned in the camp at that time. It is completely improbable that people kept in fields I and II would not have seen that mass gassings were being carried out near their barracks. This was first noted by Józef Marszałek who wrote as follows: ‘Placing them [the gas chambers] next to the crematorium - located at that time on the so-called Interfield I - was impractical because there would have been too many witnesses to the gassings. After all, a laundry room was located near the crematorium, with a significant work detail; furthermore, prisoners confined to fields I and II would have been able to clearly observe the crimes of the camp authorities’ [Józef Marszałek, “Budowa obozu koncentracyjnego i ośrodka masowej zagłady na Majdanku w latach 1942-1944,” Zeszyty Majdanka, vol. IV (1969), p. 54]

That's all very strange because this same logic is only used by revisionists in regard to mass gassing taking place at Auschwitz in view of witnesses.

[Booze]

Significant doubts are also raised regarding a statement that a chamber in the bathhouse (barracks No. 41), directly adjoining the shower room, called the ‘makeshift’ or ‘experimental’ chamber, was also used for murdering people. The theory that prisoners were gassed here is further disproved by two arguments. The first is the fact that a wooden door connecting the bathhouse with the chamber opened into the chamber which - if people were murdered here - would greatly complicate the execution procedure. The second argument concerns the chamber’s internal arrangement. It had a makeshift finish, irregular shape and adjoined not only the bathhouse, but also two other rooms, and had a total of three doors.

Wasn't the museum itself claiming at one point that this was a gas chamber?

[Fred Ziffel]

they are alongside each other in the same room, so both were exhaust vents
see attached
there had to be something to exhaust the gas out of the room and the south door below needed to be closed or the gas would migrate to the other parts of B41. They may have opened the window also.
yes some credit is due, but they waited till 2021. I have a sign of the museum admitting it if interested

[Fred Ziffel]

I have a completed picture study of the Rudolf Ettrich testimony if interested. Let me know if interested and I will post it on drop box. I go through line by line in the statement

[Fred Ziffel]

They claimed that room was a gas chamber up until 2005. As per Hunt, for 60 years claimed as a gas chamber
the window 6 feet up did not help either