|
|
 |
 |
AUSCHWITZ:
Technique
and Operation
of
the Gas Chambers © | |
|
| |
 |
Back |
 |
Contents |
Page 503 |
|
Home
Page |
Forward |
 |
| |
PART FOUR
CHAPTER
1 |
| |
AUSCHWITZ EXPLAINED BY
THE REVISIONISTS
“Vergasungskeller”:
gassing cellar or gas-generating
cellar ? |
| |
Reply to the affirmations by A R Butz and
R Faurisson
concerning Leichenkeller 1 or “corpse cellar 1”
of Birkenau Krematorium II |
| |
The article by Robert Faurisson that appeared in
“Le Monde” of 29th December 1978 on “The problem
of the gas chambers” or “The Auschwitz rumor”,
triggered a response by G Wellers, entitled "An abundance of
proofs". This was followed by the publication of “A
letter from Mr Faurisson”, in right of reply, and by virtue
of this same right, G Wellers replied with a text entitled “An
inspired novel”. Still not admitting defeat, Faurisson sent
yet another reply to the newspaper, requesting “One proof...
one single proof”, which the editors of "Le Monde" refused
to publish. This epistolatory duel in the press was the start of
“The Faurisson Affair” in that it brought the question to the
attention of the general public.
Keeping strictly to
German source documents, Georges Wellers counter-attacked using only
ONE LETTER, that of 29th January 1943 [Document 1]. Not
reasoning like a revisionist, it seemed to him that this document,
backed up and authenticated by the testimony of survivors and of the
SS themselves, would suffice. It was in fact the only material
“criminal proof” that he had available. 1t was effective, and
Faurisson was never able to produce a valid counter-explanation,
only very weak arguments bordering on the foolish.
Neither
Wellers nor, fortunately, Faurisson, were aware that the “slip”
contained in this letter, as it was presented in 1978, was
historically unusable because incomplete. It lacked Kurt Prüfer’s
clarifying report, unknown in France at the time, but found
subsequently in the Auschwitz. Museum Archives [Documents 2 and
2a].
To affirm, SOLELY on the basis of the letter of 29th
January 1943 that the term “Vergassungskeller” designated a
homicidal gas chamber installed in Leichenkeller 1 /
corpse cellar 1 of Krematorium II was irresponsible, for though
“gas chamber” was correct, there was no proof that it was
“homicidal”, for to be able to demonstrate this, the following
factors must all he taken into account and a number of steps must
necessarily be followed: |
| |
| a) |
The letter of 29th January 1943
DOES NOT STATE which of the Leichenkeller of Krematorium II the SS
are referring to. Drawing 932 shows that THREE Leichenkeller were
planned, numbers 1. 2 and 3 [Documents 3 and 4]; |
| |
|
| b) |
Two other Bauleitung drawings of
Krematorium II, numbers 1311 and 2003. show that Leichenkeller
3 was converted for other functions nothing to do with its
original purpose; |
| |
|
| c) |
The report by the engineer
responsible for the installations, Kurt Prüfer, clearly states that
it is Leichenkeller 2 from which the shuttering could not yet
be removed; |
| |
|
| d) |
The only remaining
Leichenkeller, designated by Bischoff as the
Vergassungskeller, is therefore Leichenkeller 1. His
letter means above all that it is to not be used for the moment as a
“gassing cellar”, but as a “corpse cellar”, i.e. a
“morgue”. |
| |
|
| e) |
The letter shows that the SS
called Leichenkeller 1 of Krematorium II the Vergassungskeller /
gassing cellar. The existence of a gas chamber in the basement of
Krematorium II is thus proven, BUT THAT IS ALL. It is not until this
“slip” is compared with and united with others, that the evidence
that this was in fact a homicidal gas chamber becomes
overwhelming. |
| |
| To date, no valid argument to refute this
interpretation has been found by the revisionists. The American
Arthur R Butz in his book,, “The Hoax of the Twentieth
Century” (Historical Review Press, Brighton 1977) writes in
Chapter IV on Auschwitz: |
| |
“Now the word “Vergasung” has two meanings. The
primary meaning (and the only one in a technical context is
gasification, carburation or vaporization ... In any
case it is obvious that the crematoria at Auschwitz required
equipment for “Vergasung” in order to inject a fuel air mixture
into the ovens and that the translation of NO-4473 [the letter of
29th January 1943], should be revised, possibly to “gas generation
cellar”. I have confirmed this interpretation of the
“Vergasungskeller” with technically competent sources [!] in
Germany” (page 121) |
| |
| When R Faurisson, somewhat surprised (to say the
least), it would appear, by NO-4373, had to find an answer quickly,
he purely and simply in his second article in “Le
Monde” and then in his “Statement the the
defense”, page 85, copied Butz argument, foolishly
|
|
 |
Document 1:
Letter of 29th January 1943 from SS Hauptsturmführer
Bischoff, head of the Auschwitz Bauleitung, to his superior
SS-General Kammler. [
[PMO microfilm No 205, volume 11 of the
Hoess trial, Annex 5. certified by Judge Jan Sehn as being a true
copy. Original in the PMO archives, file BW 30/34, microfilm
1060, page 100] |
|
| Translation of the passage
underlined: |
|
| |
|
| It has not yet been possible to
remove the shuttering from the reinforced concrete ceiling of the
corpse cellar because of the frost. However, this does not
matter because the gassing cellar can be used for the
purpose |
| |
| |
AUSCHWITZ:
Technique
and operation
of the gas chambers
Jean-Claude Pressac
© 1989, The
Beate Klarsfeld Foundation |
|
Back |
Page 503 |
Forward |
|
|
