The CODOH Revisionist Forum

One of the biggest problems with the air raid shelter thesis in my opinion is the direction of the door opening. If you have an air raid shelter, you want to open it inward, not outward, as there could be debris blocking it from opening back up. This page of the HDOT website goes over that here:

https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/a ... -shelters/

While it does go over other supposed problems, that seems like the biggest one to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall any revisionist literature addressing this. Mattogno obviously wouldn't address it because he doesn't believe in the air raid shelter thesis.

Is HDOT right about this?

The thing about the air-raid shelter hypothesis is that it doesn't claim the Leichenkellers were primarily meant to serve as air-raid shelters. They simply served a secondary purpose, the primary purpose being as a corpse storage facility (which is well documented). Because of this, mounting the doors inwards wouldn't really be convenient for its primary purpose.

That being said I've never been a big fan of the air-raid shelter hypothesis either, but not for the reasons stated in the HDOT article. However, that doesn't prevent it from having had a potential 3rd purpose as an air-raid shelter. After all, these buildings were full concrete semi-basements located half underground, making them suitable for that purpose.

It all comes down to why these gastight doors were installed in the first place, and that question has been beaten to death.

curioussoul wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2024 11:13 pm The thing about the air-raid shelter hypothesis is that it doesn't claim the Leichenkellers were primarily meant to serve as air-raid shelters. They simply served a secondary purpose, the primary purpose being as a corpse storage facility (which is well documented). Because of this, mounting the doors inwards wouldn't really be convenient for its primary purpose.

Maybe I'm stupid, but what exactly is it about storing bodies that makes it more convenient for the door to open outward? I don't see the connection.

Not sure about the doors. If anyone has commented on it, it would probably be Crowell.

It seems to me that all of the hypotheses have some problems. The biggest weakness of the air raid or gas shelter hypothesis imo is that the Auschwitz specific documentation suggests implementation of aid defense measures did not really happen until late 1943 which is seemingly too late to fit the timeline for the construction of the Kremas. In the Mattogno vs Crowell disagreement, it sees Mattogno focused on Auschwitz specific documentation and found it implausible while Crowell focused on broader documentation and found it plausible. I think that difference in perspective was the crux of their disagreement. The Birkenau crematoria were new construction so it's possible it didn't require the same sort of orders as conversion of existing structures.

I had a long post on the bomb shelter hypothesis on the old forum last year (from the summer, after the latest backup). I have a copy of it, so I'll probably repost it on here at some point (I should probably revise it a bit).

Since the Kremas are underground, it would improve the cooling of the corpses, as there would be a bottleneck due to the insufficient muffles. Germar Rudolf suggests that there should be hundreds more muffles just to deal with the "natural" deaths.

What sense does it make for Krema I to have a crematorium next door and for II and III to need an elevator? In the context of extermination, it makes no sense at all.

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 1:10 am What sense does it make for Krema I to have a crematorium next door and for II and III to need an elevator? In the context of extermination, it makes no sense at all.

Here are the plans for Krema II.

The alleged victims supposedly walked down the steps into Leichenkeller II (Lk II), where there was access to Lk III, the flimsy elevators and then the main gaskammer, or Lk I, through a single door and the botton right of this underground structure. Most likely Lk III was an autopsy room. The scenario is that thousands of people undressed in Lk II, walked through a single door to the elevator room and then make a right turn through another single door to L I, where they obediently lined up with military precision until L 1 was filled. I doubt if trained soldiers and practise could do this task.

Here is the path


After the alleged gassing, the bodies had to be removed manually and taken up a flimsy board and rope elevator which could handle only a few bodies at a time, to the ovens.

In the case of an air attack hiding in L II would stop the shrapnel but not take a direct hit.

Another problem with the air raid shelter thesis is the lack of witness evidence. From Miklos Nyiszli, who worked inside the Kremas, quote produced by Archie here;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=579#p579

"I was in the habit of reading for a while in bed each night before I went to sleep. One night, while I was doing just that, the lights suddenly went out and the KZ alarm siren began its dismal wail. Whenever there was an alert we were taken, convoyed by well-armed SS guards, to the Sonderkommando shelter, that is, to the gas chamber.
We crossed the threshold of the gas chamber with heavy hearts. The whole kommando was present, 200 strong. It was a terrible feeling to remain in this room, knowing that hundreds of thousands of people had met a frightful end here."

That is eyewitness evidence of the gas chamber being used temporarily as a shelter during an air raid. If Kremas II, III, IV and V had all been converted, as Krema I was, for purpose use as an air raid shelter, there would have been no reason to demolish them. They could have been left in their converted state, as Krema I was.

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 8:39 am Another problem with the air raid shelter thesis is the lack of witness evidence. From Miklos Nyiszli, who worked inside the Kremas, quote produced by Archie here;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=579#p579

"I was in the habit of reading for a while in bed each night before I went to sleep. One night, while I was doing just that, the lights suddenly went out and the KZ alarm siren began its dismal wail. Whenever there was an alert we were taken, convoyed by well-armed SS guards, to the Sonderkommando shelter, that is, to the gas chamber.
We crossed the threshold of the gas chamber with heavy hearts. The whole kommando was present, 200 strong. It was a terrible feeling to remain in this room, knowing that hundreds of thousands of people had met a frightful end here."

That is eyewitness evidence of the gas chamber being used temporarily as a shelter during an air raid. If Kremas II, III, IV and V had all been converted, as Krema I was, for purpose use as an air raid shelter, there would have been no reason to demolish them. They could have been left in their converted state, as Krema I was.

No, it's somebody writing a very sensational and propagandistic book accidentally admitting the underground cellars were used as air shelters. I've explained admission against interest to you four or five times now but you obviously don't get it.

Also, there's no reason to assume Kremas II and III were "converted." They were new construction in 1943. The more likely scenario would be that air raid defense features were incorporated from the beginning since it's a lot easier to do it during initial construction than to build it and change it later.

Archie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 2:43 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 8:39 am Another problem with the air raid shelter thesis is the lack of witness evidence. From Miklos Nyiszli, who worked inside the Kremas, quote produced by Archie here;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=579#p579

"I was in the habit of reading for a while in bed each night before I went to sleep. One night, while I was doing just that, the lights suddenly went out and the KZ alarm siren began its dismal wail. Whenever there was an alert we were taken, convoyed by well-armed SS guards, to the Sonderkommando shelter, that is, to the gas chamber.
We crossed the threshold of the gas chamber with heavy hearts. The whole kommando was present, 200 strong. It was a terrible feeling to remain in this room, knowing that hundreds of thousands of people had met a frightful end here."

That is eyewitness evidence of the gas chamber being used temporarily as a shelter during an air raid. If Kremas II, III, IV and V had all been converted, as Krema I was, for purpose use as an air raid shelter, there would have been no reason to demolish them. They could have been left in their converted state, as Krema I was.

No, it's somebody writing a very sensational and propagandistic book accidentally admitting the underground cellars were used as air shelters. I've explained admission against interest to you four or five times now but you obviously don't get it.

That is your biased, illogical cherry-picked take on the witnesses claim, ignoring that there is good reason his testimony is emotive. A more neutral, logical assessment would be to look for corroborating evidence. He is corroborated that there were air raids, that the construction of the building and the Leichenkeller lended itself to be a good place to shelter. Of course he is going to be emotive about sheltering in a place where a lot of people died.

Also, there's no reason to assume Kremas II and III were "converted." They were new construction in 1943. The more likely scenario would be that air raid defense features were incorporated from the beginning since it's a lot easier to do it during initial construction than to build it and change it later.

Krema I was converted. Kremas II and III, because part of the building was built into the ground, lended themselves to be a safer place to shelter during air raids, like people who would go to their basements, or underground railways to shelter. There is no evidence from documents or the Topf & Sons engineers to prove your scenario that potential use as air raid shelters was part of the original building design.

There is a large disconnect between what you want to believe and the evidence, whereas I follow the evidence.

Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2024 8:18 am There is no evidence from documents or the Topf & Sons engineers to prove your scenario that potential use as air raid shelters was part of the original building design.

Is there evidence from the British Engineers who built the London underground about potential use as air raid shelters? Often how things are designed and how they are used are two different beasts.

Nazgul wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2024 8:42 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2024 8:18 am There is no evidence from documents or the Topf & Sons engineers to prove your scenario that potential use as air raid shelters was part of the original building design.

Is there evidence from the British Engineers who built the London underground about potential use as air raid shelters? Often how things are designed and how they are used are two different beasts.

I agree with you. It is Archie who thinks that "The more likely scenario would be that air raid defense features were incorporated from the beginning...", without any evidence of that being the case.

Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2024 9:09 am I agree with you. It is Archie who thinks that "The more likely scenario would be that air raid defense features were incorporated from the beginning...", without any evidence of that being the case.

I am sure Archie will reply. When bombs start falling people will take any protection, any shelter underground would be OK. The Birkenau guards only had trenches to lie into located near their towers according to Schlomo Pivnik. The greatest danger from bombs is the shrapnel of dirt, bomb casings and stones.

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 8:39 amThat is eyewitness evidence of the gas chamber being used temporarily as a shelter during an air raid. If Kremas II, III, IV and V had all been converted, as Krema I was, for purpose use as an air raid shelter, there would have been no reason to demolish them. They could have been left in their converted state, as Krema I was.

It's less plausible that Crematoria IV and V would have been used as air raid shelters, as they were both built above ground as 'regular' buildings, compared to the Leichenkellers which were basically concrete "bunkers" much more suitable for that purpose.

curioussoul wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2024 12:58 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 8:39 amThat is eyewitness evidence of the gas chamber being used temporarily as a shelter during an air raid. If Kremas II, III, IV and V had all been converted, as Krema I was, for purpose use as an air raid shelter, there would have been no reason to demolish them. They could have been left in their converted state, as Krema I was.

It's less plausible that Crematoria IV and V would have been used as air raid shelters, as they were both built above ground as 'regular' buildings, compared to the Leichenkellers which were basically concrete "bunkers" much more suitable for that purpose.

Krema I was all on ground level and when it was converted for use as an air raid shelter, an earth bank was formed round the building. It would have been simple to do the same for Kremas IV and V.

Is Nessie an accredited engineer on shelters. ?