The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Between January 18 and March 10, 1972, two architects responsible for the design and construction of the crematoria in Auschwitz-Birkenau, Walter Dejaco and Fritz Ertl, were put on trial in Vienna, Austria. They were acquitted. Because the facilities were not designed as gas chambers.

If you are making a claim that the ventilation system in crematoria 2 and 3 were used to vent hydrogen cyanide gas, how do you square this hole? The system is patently to vent decomposition gasses, not lighter than air hydrogen cyanide.

To say the engineers designed this room with murderous intent is to ignore the facts of the case.

Stubble wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2024 4:26 pm Between January 18 and March 10, 1972, two architects responsible for the design and construction of the crematoria in Auschwitz-Birkenau, Walter Dejaco and Fritz Ertl, were put on trial in Vienna, Austria. They were acquitted. Because the facilities were not designed as gas chambers.

Yes, the defence that the original design was for a crematorium with a mortuary and cremation facility and not a gas chambers worked. Dejaco was the architect and Ertl worked at the Construction Office. Neither worked for Topf & Sons, whose engineers were responsible for the modifications to include a gas chambers and the design and instillation of multiple corpse cremation ovens.

If you are making a claim that the ventilation system in crematoria 2 and 3 were used to vent hydrogen cyanide gas, how do you square this hole? The system is patently to vent decomposition gasses, not lighter than air hydrogen cyanide.

To say the engineers designed this room with murderous intent is to ignore the facts of the case.

But the Topf & Sons engineers say the ventilation system was designed to ventilate gas. That you do not think, based on limited evidence of how the system worked, that it could have worked, is not evidence to prove no gassings. Imagine you designed and installed a ventilation system, that dozens of witnesses said worked and then the building with the system was destroyed. If an engineer came along and claimed you and all the witnesses lied, without ever being able to examine the system, would think that person was credible?

Of course it was designed to ventilate gas. Decomposition gas...

If I designed a system to vent hydrogen cyanide, I wouldn't make it backwards. There would be no doubt or speculation about what I had done. I would consult the absolute bleeding edge of research and technology and I would tightly adhere to prescribed design criteria and good practices.

So far as witnesses are concerned, are we excluding witnesses who say a 'large fan' placed 'in a hole' 'in the ceiling'? We just select the right ones eh? Who say what supports our thesis?

Who is picking the cherries here?

Summary here:

https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/witne ... alter/263/

Interesting that there was a case where denying aspects of the holocaust was successful for a defense in court.

EDIT: Here is an article on the case:

https://codoh.com/library/document/a-so ... itz-trial/

I think I was a little hasty in saying they used "holocaust denial" as a defense. Regardless, it's an interesting outcome nonetheless.

Stubble wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2024 5:53 pm Of course it was designed to ventilate gas. Decomposition gas...

If I designed a system to vent hydrogen cyanide, I wouldn't make it backwards. There would be no doubt or speculation about what I had done. I would consult the absolute bleeding edge of research and technology and I would tightly adhere to prescribed design criteria and good practices.

So far as witnesses are concerned, are we excluding witnesses who say a 'large fan' placed 'in a hole' 'in the ceiling'? We just select the right ones eh? Who say what supports our thesis?

Who is picking the cherries here?

Suddenly they make much of ventilation, just that this happens to be insufficient....

It's the trial... Well, then ther was Toepf und Soehne as well...But weren't they 'interrogated' by SMERSH.

As a thought experiment, if I were charged with killing condemned persons in the crematoria in question, I would have run a large pipe from the impounded waste water located yards away, locked the condemned in the basement, and flooded it. Then I would have pumped the water back to the sewage treatment plant. I wouldn't have ordered hydrogen cyanide.

Stubble wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2024 5:53 pm Of course it was designed to ventilate gas. Decomposition gas...

If I designed a system to vent hydrogen cyanide, I wouldn't make it backwards. There would be no doubt or speculation about what I had done. I would consult the absolute bleeding edge of research and technology and I would tightly adhere to prescribed design criteria and good practices.

In this analogy, there is doubt about what you had done, with much of the detail missing, primarily, where you constructed the ventilation system has been destroyed. With all that missing detail, if someone called you and all the witnesses who said your system worked liars, would you say they are credible?

So far as witnesses are concerned, are we excluding witnesses who say a 'large fan' placed 'in a hole' 'in the ceiling'? We just select the right ones eh? Who say what supports our thesis?

Who is picking the cherries here?

What witnesses are you talking about? Have you just made a witness up? I think I can safely exclude a fictitious witness who you invented.

fireofice wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2024 6:15 pm Summary here:

https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/witne ... alter/263/

Interesting that there was a case where denying aspects of the holocaust was successful for a defense in court.

EDIT: Here is an article on the case:

https://codoh.com/library/document/a-so ... itz-trial/

I think I was a little hasty in saying they used "holocaust denial" as a defense. Regardless, it's an interesting outcome nonetheless.

They did not deny that gassings had happened. Your second link states;

"The accused did not contradict the orthodox historiography about the camp Auschwitz, which should not be surprising in light of the fact that any attempt to do so would have been utterly hopeless and would have led to intensified punishment. However, Walter Dejaco claimed that during the planning and construction of the crematoria[10], he did not know anything of their alleged future utilization as tools of mass murder, while Fritz Ertl stated that he attempted to delay the completion of the crematoria through inner resistance"

The first link states;

"After deliberating six hours, an Austrian jury agreed with the defendant's contention that he was not guilty because he was acting under military orders and was ignorant of the use to which. the death ovens would be put."

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2024 1:20 pm

Stubble wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2024 5:53 pm Of course it was designed to ventilate gas. Decomposition gas...

If I designed a system to vent hydrogen cyanide, I wouldn't make it backwards. There would be no doubt or speculation about what I had done. I would consult the absolute bleeding edge of research and technology and I would tightly adhere to prescribed design criteria and good practices.

In this analogy, there is doubt about what you had done, with much of the detail missing, primarily, where you constructed the ventilation system has been destroyed. With all that missing detail, if someone called you and all the witnesses who said your system worked liars, would you say they are credible?

So far as witnesses are concerned, are we excluding witnesses who say a 'large fan' placed 'in a hole' 'in the ceiling'? We just select the right ones eh? Who say what supports our thesis?

Who is picking the cherries here?

What witnesses are you talking about? Have you just made a witness up? I think I can safely exclude a fictitious witness who you invented.

Page 13 'Eyewitness Auschwitz: Three Years in the Gas Chambers'

I noticed there were some small greenish-blue crystals lying on the concrete floor at the back of the room. They were scattered beneath an opening in the ceiling. A large fan was installed up there, its blades humming as they revolved.

Is 1 example. As I dig I will cite others. That is the 1st one i was readily able do dig out (as you have me re reading his book and simultaneously vetting other witness claims).

This trial was going with the old/traditional narrative that the Birkenau crematoria were designed from the start as mass gassing facilities. The old narrative actually makes more sense and is more consistent with the "final solution" and all that but it's unfortunately not consistent with the technical documentation.



Dejaco was charged with designing "gas chambers." Simon Wiesenthal was the main lobbyist who got the Austrians to pursue these charges. At court, there were a string of the witnesses, the usual liars, similar to those storytellers at the Demjanjuk or Walus trials. Witnesses claimed they saw Dejaco personally kill prisoners while overseeing the construction work and personally make "selections" for the gas chambers (I guess he and Mengele took turns?).

If the blueprints were incriminating, they would not have been hidden for decades. Even as late as 1976 it's clear that Arthur Butz had never seen the crematorium blueprints because they had never been published anywhere. Faurisson got a hold of them sometime in the mid 70s and he was thrilled because the blueprints strongly contradict the legend.



He was acquitted of killing 3 million people (sic!) because there is nothing in the blueprints whatsoever to indicate these buildings were designed to be mass gassing facilities.

It wasn't designed as a killing facility because it was designed as a corpse storage and cremation facility.

Hence the ventilation system in the corpse cellars being designed for a morgue. With the fresh air vents in the ceiling and the exhaust vents near the floor, and with 10 air exchanges per hour.

Absolutely textbook for, corpse storage.

Stubble wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2024 3:11 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2024 1:20 pm

Stubble wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2024 5:53 pm Of course it was designed to ventilate gas. Decomposition gas...

If I designed a system to vent hydrogen cyanide, I wouldn't make it backwards. There would be no doubt or speculation about what I had done. I would consult the absolute bleeding edge of research and technology and I would tightly adhere to prescribed design criteria and good practices.

In this analogy, there is doubt about what you had done, with much of the detail missing, primarily, where you constructed the ventilation system has been destroyed. With all that missing detail, if someone called you and all the witnesses who said your system worked liars, would you say they are credible?

So far as witnesses are concerned, are we excluding witnesses who say a 'large fan' placed 'in a hole' 'in the ceiling'? We just select the right ones eh? Who say what supports our thesis?

Who is picking the cherries here?

What witnesses are you talking about? Have you just made a witness up? I think I can safely exclude a fictitious witness who you invented.

Page 13 'Eyewitness Auschwitz: Three Years in the Gas Chambers'

I noticed there were some small greenish-blue crystals lying on the concrete floor at the back of the room. They were scattered beneath an opening in the ceiling. A large fan was installed up there, its blades humming as they revolved.

Is 1 example. As I dig I will cite others. That is the 1st one i was readily able do dig out (as you have me re reading his book and simultaneously vetting other witness claims).

Can you at least name the witness and help by using "quote" marks?

The witness has not said there was a fan in a hole. "There" refers to the ceiling, which is consistent with the Topf & Sons engineers statement, Schultze;

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

"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."

It is also consistent with the cutaway plan of Krema II.

Why is such a ventilation system a physical impossibility, that German engineers could not have designed and constructed in the 1940s?

No it isn't consistent with the cutaway.

I gave you the source material and page number.

Eyewitness Auschwitz: Three Years in the Gas Chambers was written by Muller.

To just brush this away is typical for you. I'm sure he was just being emotive and graphic or something.

The idea that the engineers could have built a system to vent hydrogen cyanide isn't the issue. They most certainly could have. The issue is that they didn't. They built a ventilation system more a morgue to vent decomposition gasses. The vent placement and air exchange rate are the proof for this.

The physical reality of the realized and implemented design. The unreasonably low air exchange rate for a gas chamber is even referenced in the interrogation you keep citing.

Stubble wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2024 4:48 pm


No it isn't consistent with the cutaway.

I gave you the source material and page number.

Eyewitness Auschwitz: Three Years in the Gas Chambers was written by Muller.

To just brush this away is typical for you. I'm sure he was just being emotive and graphic or something.

I have not brushed away Muller, as he is corroborated by other evidence, such as the Topf & Son engineers and construction documents.

Upon closer examination of the provided quote from Muller regarding a fan, it is apparent to me now that he is referring to crematoria I, not II or III.

Where is the corresponding ventilation hole in the 'homicidal gas chamber' situated at crematoria 1?

I'll keep digging for quotes I have run across regarding fans in the ceiling of crematoria 2 and 3.

I apologize for the mistake. My point remains, this description of the facilities by Muller is bullshit, in many places.