|
|
REPORT OF
PROFESSOR ROBERT JAN VAN PELT
Table of Contents
Re: A. Gassing Cellar for Delousing (10-13)
In this section Rudolf does have a valid point - in fact the only valid
point in his whole affidavit. A primitive Zyklon B delousing chamber does
not need ducts to introduce the cyanide pellets, and it is indeed true
that "someone equipped with a gas mask enters the delousing facility,
opens the Zyklon B cans with a special tool, distributes the Zyklon B
pellets, leaves the room and closes the door tightly." (p. 11).
The question, now, is to assess the significance of this particular
error in Mr. Justice Gray's Judgment. I believe it to be a minor one.
First of all, let us see its origin. It came from Mr. Rampton's closing
speech made on the 32d day of the trial. For ease of reference, I have
printed the sentence that caused the confusion in italics.
[Irving's] last remaining defence against the evidence showing
that the crematoria at Birkenau were used to murder vast numbers of Jews
by means of Zyklon B was to make the slippery concession that the gas
chambers - known as Leichenkeller I at crematoria II and III at
Birkenau - were, indeed, gas chambers, but for gassing only (I quote Mr.
Irving's words) "objects and cadavers".
This last proposition is ludicrous. If this were not such a serious
matter, it would be hilarious. For the evidence, clearly explained by
Professor van Pelt, is that the gas-tight doors in Leichenkeller
I at both those crematoria were equipped with thick glass spyholes,
protected by metal grilles. Why, it was asked of Mr Irving, should these
be required for the observation of the gassing of lice-infested "objects"
and corpses? Faced with this, Mr Irving retreated to the position that
Leichenkeller I had been intended to serve an alternative purpose
as an air-raid shelter. This last refuge will be dealt with shortly
below. Meanwhile, Professor van Pelt also explained that when the plans
of crematoria II and III were redesigned in late 1942 and early 1943,
the corpse-slides or chutes appearing on the original plans were removed,
and the entrance to the basement moved to the other side of the building.
Thus, if the re-design was intended to facilitate the gassing of corpses,
people who are already dead, it had only succeeded in compelling those
who were carrying the corpses to negotiate a series of small rooms,
narrow passages, and staircases to reach the gassing-space. Moreover,
the plans were re-designed at that time so as to change the way in which
the doors of the gassing-space opened from inwards to outwards, thus
further impeding the carrying of corpses into the space.
Mr Irving's air-raid shelter proposal is equally absurd. It is obvious
that the Leichenkellers could never have served as air-raid shelters
for an inmate population of 100,000 or more, even if it thought likely
that the SS should have wanted to protect the inmates against air-raids.
Therefore, if the Leichenkellers were ever intended to be used
as air-raid shelters, they must have been intended for the SS. In fact,
crematoria II and III are about one and a half miles from the nearest
SS barracks. The picture of SS personnel running from their barracks,
round the perimeter wire, in full gear, one and a half miles to the
crematoria, under a hail of bombs, is just plain daft. Mr Irving's concession
that Leichenkeller I was indeed a gas chamber is, of course,
entirely inconsistent with his continued adherence to Leuchter's chemical
analysis as being conclusive evidence that Leichenkeller I never
was a gas chamber. It is also wholly inconsistent with his final line
of defence, which is that Leichenkeller I could never have been
a gas chamber because the remains of the roof that can be seen at Birkenau
do not show the holes through which the gas pellets were thrown.
This last line of defence, which emerged at a very late stage in Mr
Irving's Holocaust denial, is, in any case, easily demolished. In the
first place, Professor van Pelt, who has subjected the remains of the
roof of Leichenkeller I at crematorium II to careful examination
(which Mr Irving has never done), told the court that the remains are
so fragmentary that they do not allow any firm conclusions to be drawn
as to the existence or non-existence of the holes. Second, if, as
Mr Irving accepts, Leichenkeller I was a gas chamber (for whatever
purpose) it would always have needed apertures for inserting the Zyklon-B,
since it never had any windows and only one gas-tight door. Third,
even if Mr Irving were right that it was used for gassing objects and
corpses, the concentration of hydrogen cyanide required for this would
have been comparatively high, with the consequence that the need for
tight fitting apertures which could be opened and closed quickly and
easily, would, for the protection of those throwing in the pellets,
have been all the greater. Finally, leaving aside all the mass of eyewitness
testimony, there is a coincidence between two pieces of independent
evidence which demonstrates conclusively the existence of these holes
or apertures. In 1945, a former inmate of Auschwitz, David Olere, an
artist, drew the ground plan of Leichenkeller I in crematorium
III. This drawing shows a zigzag alignment of the gassing columns in
Leichenkeller I. These are the columns which would have ended
in the apertures through which the gas pellets were inserted. It happens
that that zigzag alignment is precisely matched by an aerial photograph
taken by the Allies in 1944, which was not released to the world until
1979. There can, therefore, be no possibility of any cross-contamination
between Olere's drawing and the aerial photograph. No doubt recognizing
this, Mr Irving sought to suggest at this trial that the aerial photograph
had been faked by the CIA. Professor van Pelt, however, explained to
the court that he had had the photograph tested by Dr Nevin Bryant at
NASA and that the result of those tests showed conclusively that the
photograph was authentic.
In the light of Mr Irving's concession that Leichenkeller I
was indeed a gas chamber and of the fact that it is clear that it was
never intended for the gassing of corpses or other inanimate objects,
or for use as an air-raid shelter, the stark conclusion can only be
this: It must have been used for gassing people, live people. 14
The sentence that was the source of Mr. Justice Gray's erroneous conclusion
is as follows: "Second, if, as Mr Irving accepts, Leichenkeller
I was a gas chamber (for whatever purpose) it would always have needed
apertures for inserting the Zyklon-B, since it never had any windows and
only one gas-tight door." Does Mr. Rampton's argument concerning Irving's
evidence that the crematoria were not used as killing installations suffer
any damage when this sentence is removed? I do not think so. It is only
a subsidiary observation within a subsidiary argument, and if we remove
this sentence, Mr. Rampton's argument continues to be utterly convincing.
I quote only the last part.
Mr Irving's concession that Leichenkeller I was indeed
a gas chamber is, of course, entirely inconsistent with his continued
adherence to Leuchter's chemical analysis as being conclusive evidence
that Leichenkeller I never was a gas chamber. It is also wholly
inconsistent with his final line of defence, which is that Leichenkeller
I could never have been a gas chamber because the remains of the roof
that can be seen at Birkenau do not show the holes through which the gas
pellets were thrown.
This last line of defence, which emerged at a very late stage in Mr
Irving's Holocaust denial, is, in any case, easily demolished. In the
first place, Professor van Pelt, who has subjected the remains of the
roof of Leichenkeller I at crematorium II to careful examination
(which Mr Irving has never done), told the court that the remains are
so fragmentary that they do not allow any firm conclusions to be drawn
as to the existence or non-existence of the holes. [. . . . ] [Second],
even if Mr Irving were right that it was used for gassing objects and
corpses, the concentration of hydrogen cyanide required for this would
have been comparatively high, with the consequence that the need for
tight fitting apertures which could be opened and closed quickly and
easily, would, for the protection of those throwing in the pellets,
have been all the greater. Finally, leaving aside all the mass of eyewitness
testimony, there is a coincidence between two pieces of independent
evidence which demonstrates conclusively the existence of these holes
or apertures. In 1945, a former inmate of Auschwitz, David Olere, an
artist, drew the ground plan of Leichenkeller I in crematorium
III. This drawing shows a zigzag alignment of the gassing columns in
Leichenkeller I. These are the columns which would have ended
in the apertures through which the gas pellets were inserted. It happens
that that zigzag alignment is precisely matched by an aerial photograph
taken by the Allies in 1944, which was not released to the world until
1979. There can, therefore, be no possibility of any cross-contamination
between Olere's drawing and the aerial photograph. No doubt recognizing
this, Mr Irving sought to suggest at this trial that the aerial photograph
had been faked by the CIA. Professor van Pelt, however, explained to
the court that he had had the photograph tested by Dr Nevin Bryant at
NASA and that the result of those tests showed conclusively that the
photograph was authentic.
In the light of Mr Irving's concession that Leichenkeller I
was indeed a gas chamber and of the fact that it is clear that it was
never intended for the gassing of corpses or other inanimate objects,
or for use as an air-raid shelter, the stark conclusion can only be
this: It must have been used for gassing people, live people.
As to Rudolf's subsidiary argument concerning the plan to install hot-air
disinfestation facilities in the crematorium, I do not see the relevance.
If indeed morgue 1 was intended to have hosted Topf hot-air disinfestation
facilities, and I will consider this issue at greater length below, and
if these facilities would have been constructed in morgue 1, then the
question remains why the morgue would have needed a gas-tight door. Possibly
the units of the hot-air disinfestation installations would have needed
some tight-closing doors, but the larger space in which they were built
did not need any special doors. This can be readily seen when one visits
the Central Sauna in Birkenau, which hosts a number of Topf hot-air disinfestation
facilities. These are placed in a large space, divided by a wall separating
the "unclean" from the "clean" side, and this space is provide with normal
doors and normal windows, none of which are gas-tight.
|