The text which follows this brief introduction is from the homepage of my website. The links to Pressac's on-line book do work from my homepage. I do not have Faurisson's e-mail address and I would appreciate it if someone would pass this on to him.
I was guided by Ingrid Weckert's work in "Dissecting the Holocaust" on the Koblenz document R 58/71 which included the careful review of related documents to the extent that it is possible for revisionists to do so. Ms. Weckert had also made it clear to me years earlier that the real meaning of an otherwise incriminating document may emerge only within related documents. The incriminating document itself will only tell us what the accusers want us to believe--and that is why it was chosen.
The infamous "Vergasungskeller"
A single letter from SS-Hauptsturmführer BISCHOFF dated January 29, 1943 contains the word "Vergasungskeller" and is to this day the strongest evidence for the mass extermination hoax with cyanide (see Pressac page 211 [link] ). The word has several possible translations, the most literal being a cellar where gas is released, or generated. It has been given the most sinister meaning possible by the exterminationists who insist that it must have been a place where people were gassed to death. But, the word is actually explained by a related letter, also from Bischoff, dated December 18, 1942 (see Pressac page 210 [link]) in which the very first sentence says: "Im Monat Dezember musste wegen Entlausung und Entwesung die Arbeit an mehreren Tagen ruhen" ("During the month of December work had to be stopped for several days because of delousing and disinfestation"). It is clear enough that the fumigations were occurring somewhere within the building. Or else, why would there have been any need to stop work? The work was actually stopped for days (Pressac actually mistranslated the text) and delayed completion of this urgently needed crematorium. The surrender of five million Soviet prisoners to the Germans by this time would have been a major reason for completing these Kremas as quickly as possible. But obviously, the need for delousing and disinfestation was even greater.
Some historians using the shabby logic of HILBERG will, no doubt, continue to insist that the words "delousing and disinfestation" were merely euphemisms for mass murder, but even Pressac insists (see Pressac page 227 [link]) that the first homicidal gassing occurred on March 14, 1943. This was just a day after the crematorium was finished but nearly three months after life-saving fumigations had been carried out in the incomplete structure over several days. In other words, rather than being a place off mass murder, a Vergasungskeller (rather than the above-grade Krema) seems to have actually been used to keep people alive. The sinister interpretation is just one more example of how life-saving activities--shaving of hair and showering are other examples--have been turned upside down and made to appear as evidence of mass murder. The hoaxers have nothing better.
Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at www.nazigassings.com
I had seen the reference to delousing and disinfestation in the building, which I took to mean the fumigation and disinfestation of the entire building (which must have been done from to time anyway). This is not the same thing as dedicating a cellar (or part of a cellar) to fumigation and disinfestation, which I take to mean, the fumigation and disinfestation of inmate personal effects. Fumigating a whole building isn't the same as fumigating just a cellar, or part of a cellar.
If this were the case -- i.e., if somebody dedicated a cellar, or part of a cellar, to the fumigation and disinfestation of personal effects -- then there would be nothing implausible about referring to such a cellar, or a part of a cellar, as a "fumigation cellar".
I don't think the point has been proven either way. "Delousing and fumigation in a cellar" is a narrower meaning than "delousing and fumigation" generally, i.e., what is missing is proof that the delousing and disinfestation took place in a "cellar".
If Fritz is right, then I am almost certainly wrong, in which case, somebody will come up with the original documents and explain the discrepancies and oddities in half the signatures, etc. etc.
The document says that the Auschwitz officials have succeeded in finishing Crematorium II despite all sorts of problems, that the ovens have been successfully tested, etc. etc., and that it has not as yet been possible to remove the planking on the reinforced concrete ceiling of the morgue due to the effects of frost, but that this is quite unimportant, since the “fumigation cellar” can be used as a morgue!
It seems certain that if mention of a “fumigation cellar” (whatever that may mean) constituted “proof of a Hoaxoco$t”, it wouldn’t turn up in a couple of cruddy-looking documents like this, without any stamps and with all sorts of obviously forged signatures, in a couple of Soviet “photocopies” of “copies”, etc. etc. Apart from that the text seems quite plausible and Berg is probably right.
In any case, there is still no proof of mass homicidal gassings, and the "Vergasungskeller"document certainly does not prove it.
-C.P. 18 November 2006
The Unreliability of Documents used by Jean-Claude Pressac by C. W. Porter (with graphic links) REVISED
Graphics of "Vergasungskeller" Document REVISED
Graphic of Document BW/30/42
Return to ARTICLES PAGE
Return to CONTENTS PAGE