History Forum / General / What If / May 2005

The Germans went to great lengths to rid the camps of lice and vermin.
Ask yourself why you don't see works of this quality from the
exterminationist point of view.
If there is any interest, I'll post the plans, diagrams and photos
relating to this report.

Mr. Glickman, hope you learn something about construction. This post
is for you and I hope it corrects some of your misconceptions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some Details of the Central Construction Office of Auschwitz

HANS JÜRGEN NOWAK AND WERNER RADEMACHER

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Introduction

In 1992 the Moscow Central Archives made its holdings publicly
accessible.[1] These include the - evidently not entirely complete -
correspondence of the Central Construction Office of the Waffen-SS and
Police of Auschwitz - some 83,000 documents.[2] This Construction
Office was in charge of all matters relating to construction in the
concentration and prisoner-of-war camps in the environs of Auschwitz.
Auschwitz-Birkenau, the infamous camp belonging to this complex and
generally described today as "concentration and extermination camp",
was designed and built by this Central Construction Office as a
"prisoner-of-war camp". Construction began in late 1941. Work
proceeded as per a blueprint of the Special Construction Office of
Auschwitz, dated October 7, 1941.[3] Construction Section BA Ia was
completed in March 1942, and housed prisoners-of-war until August
1942. The designation of the camp was retained. A renaming does not
become apparent until mid-April 1944, as of when the term
"KL-Auschwitz, Lager II" (Concentration Camp Auschwitz, Camp II) was
also used.

Up to early 1998, only a tiny fraction of the holdings of this archive
had been tapped by three researchers, and a non-objective choice of
documents on their part is obvious.[4] Since early 1998, a series of
well-researched articles on a range of construction problems of the
Auschwitz camp appears regularly in a German journal,[5] and a
comprehensive monograph about the activities of the Central
Construction Office was presented by Carlo Mattogno in the summer of
1998.[6] Two especially interesting findings resulting from a study of
the Moscow archives will be summarized in the following.

2. Shortwave Delousing Facilities in Auschwitz

2.1. Introduction

A new discovery of immense significance is one about which Jean-Claude
Pressac reports in his second book: the VHF delousing facilities.[3]

These facilities were actually used with phenomenal success, and not
only in Auschwitz and Birkenau. It is only astonishing that to date -
in other words, for 53 years - neither the deloused nor the delousing
inmates nor any of the supervisory personnel have reported about these
facilities that were present in both Auschwitz camps, as well as in
other camps!

The high-frequency technique used here for the first time was far
superior to all other delousing methods known at that time. Not only
did it kill the lice and their nits, it also destroyed the bacteria
that caused spotted fever - as small-scale tests performed by the
manufacturer showed. The facilities were developed by the firm
Siemens-Schuckertwerke in Berlin; preliminary tests were conducted in
1939.

In rather oversimplified terms, the microwave appliances used in
almost every household today are the next generation. Only recently,
on November 2, 1996, the press[7] reported that the Göttingen
Institute for Agricultural Technology had developed a procedure for
sterilizing foods that "utilizes microwave energy and steam" - exactly
the procedure described in the documents at hand, but 55 years later.

The significance of this discovery is heightened when we consider that
55 years lie between the development of these facilities and our first
knowledge of their use in those days - for this is how long the
documents we speak of have been held under lock and key. This
discovery confirms with great emphasis that research about Auschwitz
is yet in its beginning stages.

Before we discuss the significance of the shortwave technology,[8] we
shall give an overview of disinfestation and disinfection as a whole,
with special attention paid to Auschwitz. We have at our disposal
archival documents that permit a complete analysis. This goes equally
for the technical, the medical and the organizational aspects.

2.2. Danger of Epidemics

We postulate as a given that in wars throughout history, for example
in the American Civil War, epidemics caused more deaths among the
soldiers and the civilians alike than did the use of weapons. It took
the atomic bomb, deployed in ruthless and criminal manner by the
United States against unarmed people, in contravention of
international laws, to change this aspect of war.

The epidemic most feared at the eastern front in World War I was
typhus or spotted fever.[9] Since that war - in which this epidemic
claimed uncounted thousands of lives among the German soldiers at the
Russian front and could be prevented from spreading into German
territory after the end of the war only by the most rigorous of
measures - the danger of epidemics has been firmly entrenched in the
awareness of all medical and military offices and personnel.

For example, the encyclopedia Der große Brockhaus, vol. 6 of the 1930
Leipzig edition, contains a comprehensive article on typhus fever and
states that this acute infectious disease is spread only by the body
louse:

"The disease is caused by Rickettsia prowazeki (discovered in 1910 by
Ricketts and in 1913 by Prowazek), a micro-organism found in the
intestines and salivary glands of infected lice. [...]

Epidemic typhus occurs chiefly where unfavorable social and sanitary
conditions prevail, in dark overcrowded living quarters, hospitals,
prisons, emigration ships, caused by crop failures and price
increases, thus also known as starvation, hospital, prison, ship or
war typhus. Typhus is endemic in Russia, the Balkans, northern Africa,
Asia Minor, and Mexico. According to Tarrassevich, 25-30 million
people suffered from typhus in Russia in 1918-1921, which amounts to
20-23% of the population. [...]

Successful control and prevention of typhus consists of enforcing all
measures available to destroy the body louse."[10]

Countless publications elaborated the topic further. Practical
experiments were also conducted to increase man's understanding of
means for the successful control of the cause. For example, Dr. G.
Peters reports in his work "Blausäure zur Schädlingsbekämpfung"[11]
about the fumigation of ships with hydrogen cyanide, done in the
United States as early as 1910, and about tunnel facilities which
entire railway trains could drive into to be disinfested. Thus it is
no surprise that Peters also mentions the quantity of hydrogen cyanide
that is lethal when absorbed by humans, and therefore, Pressac's
claim[12] that the lethal dose was not known is completely false. It
was also already a known fact in those days that HCN could be absorbed
via the skin.

Professor Dr. F. Konrich was completely justified in stating, in his
publication "Über die Sanierungsanstalten der deutschen
Kriegsgefangenenlager"[13], that epidemics such as that in question
"[...] had long been extinct here [in Germany]." However, it also
becomes quite understandable why all offices and institutions involved
over-reacted totally when spotted fever was introduced to the
concentration camp Auschwitz for the first time in early July 1942,
brought in from outside by civilian laborers.[14] The spreading of the
epidemic to the camp's environs, i.e., to the civilian population, had
to be prevented.

2.3. Epidemic Control

2.3.1. Terminology Used

We shall use the technical terms established in the 1939 Army
Regulations (Heeresdienstvorschrift 194),[15] since these determined
how the personnel, i.e., the physicians and those who disinfected the
camps, were to proceed:

"Disinfection

Disinfection means [...]: destroying the disease-(epidemic-)causing
agents on objects, in rooms, in excretions and on the bodies of
infectious persons.

Disinfestation

Disinfestation means: ridding rooms, objects and people of vermin
(small life forms) that can transmit pathogens, cause economic damage
or annoy man."

The regulation quoted lists all physical and chemical means of
disinfection and disinfestation that were known. Similarly, a "work
guideline" was released in 1943 by the Sanitation Institute of the
Waffen-SS: "Entkeimung, Entseuchung und Entwesung"[16] (Sterilization,
Disinfection and Disinfestation).

The authority in charge of sanitation in the Waffen-SS as well as in
the concentration camps was the "Hygieneinstitut der Waffen-SS"[17]
(Sanitation Institute of the Waffen-SS), established in 1942 in
Berlin, which set up a branch office in 1943 in Rajsko near Auschwitz,
with its "Hygienisch-bakteriologischen Untersuchungsstelle Südost d.
W-SS" (Sanitary and Bacteriological Testing Station Southeast of
Waffen-SS). The files[18] from this testing station have survived (151
volumes dating from 1943 to 1945).[19] To date we know of
approximately 110,000 laboratory tests. Many informative documentary
facsimiles are reproduced in the Hefte von Auschwitz.[20] It is
unfortunate that research generally underestimates the historical
value for Holocaust studies of these books.

The garrison physician (army medical officer) and the medical
personnel were in charge of implementing all sanitary measures. This
physician - and this was the case in Auschwitz as well - was to be
consulted as subject expert in all relevant matters of construction
planning. Where hydrogen cyanide and T-gas were to be used,
requirements even called for specially trained expert personnel. In
Auschwitz, this role was filled by the "disinfectors".

On September 9, 1942, Dr. E. Wirths was stationed here as garrison
physician for the time period at issue. From the records we can say
that he fulfilled his duties correctly, and in this context we refer
particularly to his massive criticism, directed to the highest
echelons.

2.3.2. Procedures Used

We shall confine our analysis to procedures used in Auschwitz
primarily before the outbreak of the first spotted fever epidemic,
since the latter outbreak resulted in considerable changes in the
camps. We draw our data from the listing dated January 9(?), 1943:
"Hygienische Einrichtungen im KL und KGL Auschwitz"[21] (Sanitary
Facilities in the POW and Concentration Camp Auschwitz) directed to
the Amtsgruppenchef C (Berlin), and a "Aufstellung über die im KL. und
KGL. Auschwitz eingebauten Entwesungsanlagen Bäder und
Desinfektionsapparate."[22] (List of Disinfestation Facilities, Baths
and Disinfection Apparatus Installed in the POW and Concentration Camp
Auschwitz), dated July 30, 1943. All the facilities listed therein
were subject to modifications. The number of sanitary facilities
increased with the number of inmates, as the two aforementioned
documents already show. In his first book, on p. 550, Pressac mentions
25 chambers operated with Zyklon B. However there is no verifiable
listing provided.

2.3.3. Results

Results could be reliably assessed only if the total number of people
disinfested in these facilities is known. We have chosen for this
analysis a document that is beyond all doubt, from an 18-page report
about a September 25, 1942, visit of SS-Obergruppenführer and General
of the Waffen-SS Pohl to Auschwitz.[23] The report is the typical work
of an aide-de-camp. The "overview of total labor expenditure",
contained therein, including "persons unable to work, and persons
concert for duty", ends on Sept. 25, 1942, with a total of 28,207
persons. The calculated capacity of the various parts of the camp is
given as follows:[24] "preventive detention camp [concentration camp;
auth.], 15,000" and "camp Birkenau [POW camp; auth.], 12,000 men and
18,000 women." Thus, a total of 45,000 persons.

It is not yet possible to say for certain whether the delousing
facilities that were available at that time were consistently adequate
for the number of persons stated. In his second book,[25] Pressac sets
the height of the first epidemic at "from September 7 to 11", with
"375 deaths per day".

2.3.4. Policy Decisions

Two policy decisions made by the SS-Hauptamt Haushalt und Bauten in
the Reich Administration of the SS and its successor no doubt also
influenced the measures taken in the camp. The first decision of June
5, 1940,[26] stated that HCN would no longer be used, and replaced
instead with a hot-air method. The second, issued on March 11,
1942,[27] 21 months later, instead called for the "[...] conversion of
all delousing facilities to operation with HCN." A further letter from
the Office C VI of February 11, 1943,[28] to the Commandant then again
expressly states, probably with reference to the letter of June 5,
1940: "[...] as per the prohibition against the use of HCN for
disinfestation [...]".

Now, if one puts oneself into the shoes of those in charge of the
camps, one gains some idea of the situation that resulted from these
decisions. It may have been what prompted the renovation of "Bunkers 1
and 2". To clarify this, it is necessary to know how and where and
when buildings were in fact constructed in Birkenau at this time. We
do have some documents that indicate an "extant building" in Sector BA
III which housed appropriate facilities, but as yet we doubt that this
evidence is conclusive.

Men in positions of authority who are used to making decisions, who
are faced with a dangerous epidemic that could also spread to the
civilian population with incalculable consequences, find a way out of
this situation, and act on it! Hydrogen cyanide (= Zyklon B) was the
most reliable disinfestation agent at that time. (For details the
reader is referred to "Blausäure als Entlausungsmittel in
Begasungskammern",[29] or "Entlausung mit Zyklon-Blausäure in
Kreislauf-Begasungskammern".[30]) The only choice was that of a safe
location for such facilities. We have not yet finalized the further
logical consequences to be drawn from the policy decisions and the
relevant documents, but perhaps they are logically inevitable: namely,
to use buildings far from the camp barracks.

2.3.5. The Army Medical Officer

The situation did not end with the number of inmates given, nor at
only one epidemic. Therefore, we shall briefly summarize by means of
examples which conclusions this physician came to and what steps he
took.

On December 4, 1942, Dr. Wirths reported to headquarters about a
discussion held in the administrative council of Bielitz District.[31]
The subject was spotted fever. A considerable number and range of
persons had participated in the discussion, from the medical officer
to the Wehrmacht to representatives of the government. This shows how
seriously the epidemic was taken to be:

"He reports that at present three large disinfestation, shower and
sauna facilities could be put into operation, specifically two
facilities for the inmates and one for the members of the SS troops.
The capacity of these facilities is some 3,000 to 4,000 persons per 24
hours. Zyklon B disinfestation has been discontinued entirely, since
it has been found that success is not 100% certain with this
procedure."

Buildings BW5a and 5b were intended for the inmates. The capacity of
these disinfestation facilities was probably adequate for the number
of inmates at this time. One must consider, however, that at this same
time the structural shell for another 19 DEGESCH circulation
fumigation chambers (normal gas chambers = serial type; cf. the
publication Die kleine Testafibel über Normal-Gaskammern by Tesch and
Stabenow[32]) was being completed in Building BW160 of the Main Camp
(Admissions building). Pressac has called the above term for the gas
chamber an "incredible error" on the part of Jährling, a civilian
employee and the Central Construction Office's official in charge of
heating questions.[33] In actual fact, however, it has been shown that
it was instead a typical error in judgment on the part of Mr. Pressac.
The publication explaining these gas chambers[30] bears the Auschwitz
Construction Office's date-of-receipt stamp from July 3, 1941. We
shall return to this point later.

Another paragraph of the above letter states that the garrison
physician of Kattowitz had provided the loan of two mobile boiler
installations. On April 18, 1943, Wirths reports to the Commandant,
with warning reference to the sewer system in Birkenau, and concludes
that "[...] great danger of epidemics is inevitable."[34]

On May 7, 1943, in a discussion with the chief of Amtsgruppe C, SS
Brigadier General and Major General of the Waffen-SS engineer Dr.
Kammler, and others, the garrison physician set out in section "II.
Bauten in Zuständigkeit des Standortarztes" (II. Buildings Under the
Charge of the Garrison Physician):[35]

"[...] that the continued health of the inmates for the major tasks is
not guaranteed, due to the poor toilet conditions, an inadequate sewer
system, the lack of hospital barracks and separate latrines for the
sick, and the lack of washing, bathing and disinfestation facilities."

Dr. Wirths clearly pointed out the inadequacies, and also how to
rectify them.

At this point we must warn the reader, who may perhaps not be
sufficiently aware of the historical context, not to jump to false
conclusions. The reader may well lack an understanding of all the
problems that were involved in obtaining materials as well as all the
other necessities required to build these facilities in wartime. For
every brick - figuratively speaking - it was necessary to obtain
permission for purchase. We must also point out that a sewer system of
any kind at all was already exemplary in those days, and this goes all
the more for sewage treatment facilities, which were built for both
camps with a great investment of resources and in a technically
outstanding fashion.

The document last quoted continues:

"The Brigadier General acknowledges the foremost urgency of these
matters and promises to do everything possible to ensure rectification
of the shortcomings. He is somewhat surprised, however, that on the
one hand, the medical side presents him with reports giving a very
favorable account of the sanitary and hygienic conditions, and on the
other he is then immediately confronted with reports to the exact
opposite effect. The Chief of the Central Construction Office is
hereby instructed to present suggestions for rectification by May 15,
1943." (Emphasis added.)

Given the widespread disinformation, we consider it appropriate to
also speak of the physicians of Auschwitz themselves, that is, of
their tasks and activities, based on the files in our possession. The
relevant files reposing in the Auschwitz Archive would of course be
better suited to this, but to date we have not been able to review
them. From a physician who spent a brief time on a cursory review, we
are aware of the bulk of these holdings. In his words: "A gigantic
amount." For example, the infirmary records have been preserved in
their entirety up to 1943. The garrison physician of Auschwitz took
care of everything that was his job, and much more. We shall thus
mention only a few particulars that relate to our present topic. It
began with the toilet facilities; here he enforced changes which he
considered necessary. For example: lids on the toilets, because
otherwise "[...] a great danger of epidemics is inevitable."[36] These
lids were ordered by the Amtschef C of the WVHA (Economic
Administrative Main Office) on May 10, 1943.[37] It ended with roofing
matters related to the gypsy kindergarten:

"For the damaged roofs of kindergarten blocks 29 and 31 in the Gypsy
Camp I request 100 rolls of roofing felt (very urgent.)"[38]

In between, on May 28, 1943,[39] he selected six circulating air
delousing facilities which - as was noted down by hand - were ordered
on May 29, 1943, by the Construction Office's expert on heating
matters, Jährling. Then there is an account of a water quality test on
June 1, 1943,[40] etc. This extensive correspondence resulted in
separate subject files in the filing system of the Central
Construction Office, such as "Sanitary Conditions".[41]

The physician's field of work was great and varied indeed. Even
ensuring that the inmates' kitchen personnel be frequently examined -
including laboratory tests of their stool, etc. - was part of his job.
Dr. Wirths truly saw to absolutely everything! This is evident from
the documents.

One comment made by Pressac[42] strikes us as highly important; he
concludes from "[...] Dr. Wirths' blunt report of April [...]" that
"the terms 'Sondermaßnahme' and 'Sonderbaumaßnahme' [special measures
and special construction measures] [...] are not used in a criminal
context [...]." Evidently Pressac has realized by now that the German
prefix 'Sonder-' [special] has no negative connotations whatsoever -
rather the opposite. The garrison physician's reminders and
admonitions even increased over time. We shall return to this later.

On balance one must conclude that, just as today, while there were
"opportunists" and "careerists" in those days, there were also - as
our example shows - SS-men with backbone and a sense of duty,
professional ethics and the courage to stand up for their beliefs.

At the end of the comments section of the Memorandum of May 9, 1943,
we find:

"As stop-gap measure until that time, the Brigadier General provides
the loan of a new shortwave delousing train." (Emphasis added.)

2.4. Shortwave Delousing Facilities

2.4.1. History of the Shortwave Facilities

Together with the Siemens-Reiniger Werke AG, which developed medical
instruments, the Siemens-Schuckertwerke GmbH (henceforth called SSW)
developed the shortwave facilities after the outbreak of the war
brought with it the problem of pest extermination. At that time, the
German eastern border was also the border for lice and fleas and other
vermin. This new means of combating pests was directed first and
foremost at lice as the carriers of spotted fever. The aim was, on the
one hand, to improve upon the long exposure times necessary for
hot-air or gas methods, and on the other hand, to find a means that
would also kill off the spotted fever microorganisms, as well as to
improve efficiency.

Together with the Reich Biology Institute in Dahlem, led by Professor
Dr. Hase, SSW conducted successful tests in the high-frequency field
of a shortwave transmitter. In operating the transmitter that had
broadcast the 1936 Olympic Games it had already been found that
shortwave frequencies had previously unknown effects on insects. These
tests were then demonstrated to civilian and military authorities.
Soon the advantages of these new facilities over the ones used
previously became apparent. Once considerable difficulties were
overcome, they achieved not only a great throughput in a very short
treatment time, but also absolute certainty in the killing of lice and
nits. The pests were dead only 1 to 2 seconds after the shortwave
field was activated. What was more, the typhus bacteria could also be
killed in the process. The suitability of these facilities for large
camps aroused the interest of the Reichsführung-SS.

Many different kinds of camps grew up in the course of the war. Today,
particularly maps in Polish books[43] show the large number (5,877) of
these camps in what used to be the "General Government". These were
not all concentration camps. There were considerably more labor camps
and others. Next to almost every larger factory there was a "guest or
foreign workers' camp". However, here is not the place to go into
greater detail on this topic. Large sectors of German industry, for
example, were transferred into areas which, for the time, were not
accessible to the bomber planes of Germany's enemies. Industries
essential to the war effort were not moved underground until later. We
refer the reader to the immensely informative book Siemens
1918-1945.[44] A detailed, information-packed and relevant reference
section is included. On page 168, for example, we read:




Illustrations 1 and 2: Plan sketches of the building that was to house
the shortwave delousing facility.


"On May 31, 1944, 7.126 million foreign workers were employed on the
territory of the Reich; by fall the number had risen to about 7.7
million."

In Heft von Auschwitz issue 14,[45] other camps are also named:

"In 1943 there were more than a dozen secondary camps in Gliwice
[Gleiwitz; auth.], and in Upper Silesia there were more than 225 camps
for inmates, prisoners-of-war and forced laborers."

It took personnel and materials support from the SS-Reichsführung to
continue developing the high frequency facilities. Interest grew when
these developments were demonstrated. The Wehrmacht (Army) ordered a
first installation for its own use which, however, was never
completed.

2.4.2. Orders

Not so the SS; they ordered five facilities to begin with, and after
the first mobile one ("Osten II") proved effective in Lublin in 1943
they ordered another five stationary facilities. The aforementioned
mobile installation fit onto the trailer of a truck manufactured by
Dromos-Werke of Leipzig. Operating the installation merely required a
380-volt mains connection or a portable electrical generator. There is
a privately-owned film about this facility which was probably filmed
in Lublin; unfortunately it is not very instructive, as it does not
show the interior of the truck trailer. The main part of the process
is the introduction of the parcels of clothing sideways into the
vehicle on the conveyor belt. To date the owner of the film is
reluctant to publish it because he fears the persecution that might
result from such an action.

2.4.3. Commission

Initially these facilities were supposed to be constructed for the
front-line troops; thus, they were to be mobile (on wheels) and
capable of delousing the gear of 400 men per hour. As developments
progressed, the stationary model was given preference. These were to
be set up at troop reassignment centers. The facilities were to be
accessible within a few hours or at most a day.

2.4.4. Development

The first mobile installation "Osten II" was developed further into
the stationary facility "Osten III" for the Auschwitz Main Camp.
Eventually it was installed in the building intended for it, BW160 in
the Main Camp, which was under construction at that time. Initially 19
Zyklon B delousing chambers were supposed to be built in this
facility, but this never happened - perhaps as a result of the
development of the ultra-shortwave facilities. Instead, while
retaining the function of the rest of the building, the shortwave
facility was planned for installation in four of the chambers
(illustration 1, previous page).[46] Only a short time later the plans
were expanded, that is, modified to be expandable over eight chambers
[47] (illustration 2, previous page). We even have a photo of the
shortwave facility that was in service (illustration 3),[48] as well
as the installation plan for the facility itself. We also have the
further planning documents, including mass calculations and detail
plans. Fifteen inmates were put to work operating the disinfestation
facility. A temporary heating system also had to be built in order to
operate the showers installation.


Illustration 3: Photo of the shortwave delousing facility, taken in
Auschwitz in 1944.


2.4.5. Method of Operation of the Shortwave Facilities

The louse-infested clothing was dampened slightly with a spray-gun. A
photo shows this process as it was performed in Auschwitz.[48] Then
the bagged clothing was piled into bundles of 12 × 40 cm in
cross-section and placed on transport belts, which carried it through
the high-frequency generator's capacitor field. Efficiency was 400
kilograms clothing per hour.

2.4.6. Installation of the Shortwave Delousing Facilities

Delivery of the first facility was promised for May 15, 1943.[49] This
probably led to many a planning debacle, for example that other,
expensive delousing facilities could not be built or completed because
a quick delivery of the shortwave facility was expected. Reasons for
the delays that occurred may have included SSW's underestimation of
the development work that was yet necessary, or the increasing
difficulty in obtaining materials, and of course also the destruction
of parts of the manufacturing plant in bombing attacks. Only on June
18, 1943, Amt C of the WVHA stated additionally that the shortwave
facilities had been assigned top priority.[50]




Illustration 4: Construction sketch of the shortwave delousing
facility by Siemens-Schuckert, from the Second World War. (A section
is missing in the middle. Source: Siemens archives, Munich. Click to
enlarge.)

In a discussion on June 30, 1943, Dr. Willing of Amt C/3 stated[51]
that

"[...] after a pass through the ultra-shortwave field, which takes 11
to 12 seconds, all vermin as well as bacteria, germs, brood and nits
are killed, and given non-stop operation, 13,000 to 15,000 pieces of
clothing can be sterilized in one day."

The installation of the mobile unit was carried out between July 16,
1943, (commission) and October 21, 1943 (last requisition of
materials). The operation is documented right down to virtually the
last screw.[52] The relevant files show not only that the parties
involved in Auschwitz made all necessary preparations as quickly as
possible, but also - and this is an important point to consider in an
overall assessment - that they relied fully on the promises made them.

On July 15, 1943, the garrison physician confirmed[53] that it had
been stated in the discussion of July 1, 1943, that

"[...] the stationary shortwave delousing facility will be ready to
begin operation in an estimated eight weeks, but that the mobile one
will have arrived in the concentration camp Auschwitz in three weeks
at the latest."

These deadlines were not met. In the listing of July 30, 1943,[22]
delivery of both units is announced for "early October". Further, the
hourly capacity of each unit is given as "= 625 men = 15,000 men" per
24 hours. Thus, the total capacity of both shortwave facilities
amounted to the clothing of 30,000 persons per day. On August 27,
1943, the construction costs of the stationary facility are given as
RM 98,000,[54] which translates into approximately DM 1,568,000 today
(ca. $870,000). A notice of December 11, 1943,[55] stated that the
materials and apparatus had already been received. The installation
date for SSW is given as January 16, 1944, at the earliest. Work
actually began on February 16, 1944.

A second stationary shortwave delousing facility for the Birkenau camp
is first mentioned in March 1944.[56] In a telex of May 25, 1944, the
Chief of Amt C III ordered that

"[...] the shortwave delousing train be started on the road from
Breslau to Auschwitz immediately."[57]

The stationary shortwave facility went into operation on June 30,
1944.[58] On the initiative of the garrison physician a test of the
facility's bacteria-killing effect was performed on July 29, 1944, by
Dr. Weber, the Chief of the Waffen-SS Sanitation Institute; the
results of this test may perhaps repose in Auschwitz in the files held
there.

On Aug. 10, 1944,[59] the garrison physician reported to the Chief of
Amtsgruppe C of the SS WVHA (Economic Administrative Main Office)
"[...] on the effectiveness of the stationary shortwave delousing
facility".[60] At this point it must be remembered that the second
mobile unit is not taken into consideration in the above efficiency
data and it is probably safe to assume that this deficiency was
considerably greater. On Nov. 7, 1944, the Central Construction Office
stated[61] that

"[...] at that time there was a stationary shortwave delousing
facility in concentration camp I [Auschwitz] and a mobile one in
concentration camp II [Birkenau]."

According to a detailed report, further developments and modifications
were made to the remaining facilities that had been ordered.

2.5. Comparisons

The advantages of the shortwave delousing facilities become apparent
in a comparison with the other types of procedures. Using the Zyklon B
method,[30] treatment of the clothing to be disinfested required 70 to
75 minutes. The Topf delousing ovens in BW32 took 60 to 80
minutes.[62] For the autoclaves the time requirement was similar.[63]
In the shortwave facilities, on the other hand, 11 to 12 seconds
sufficed even to kill the bacteria.[64]

Installation of all the disinfestation facilities in BW32 cost RM
153,000.[65] The shortwave facilities in BW160, on the other hand,
cost RM 75,000.[66]

Thus, the planning goals of the developer companies Siemens had been
fully realized. Aside from that, construction costs for new buildings
dropped as well, since the shortwave facilities required less space.
The same goes also for installation in existing buildings, of course.

2.6. Summary

Evidence that has been missing for almost 50 years - the files about
the shortwave delousing facilities of Auschwitz - has been
rediscovered in the shape of plans and documents, even in photos and a
film. They are not only proof that serious efforts were made to rid
the camp of epidemics, and thus to keep the inmates alive. Their far
greater significance is that they show that the inmates were so
important to the Third Reich that they were given preference and
priority status with regard to these new and better disinfestation
facilities. The German front-line soldiers and the German civilians
never enjoyed this life-saving technology - a fact that cannot
possibly be overestimated. This fact is of a similar importance as the
order of Dr. Mrugowsky, head of the Hygiene-Institut der Waffen-SS,
from August 8, 1943, to all SS departments and to the committee for
disinfestation and epidemic control within the Reichsminister for
arming and ammunition:[67]

"In future times, hydrogen cyanide may only be provided in cases of a
severe danger of typhus epidemics. According to previous experiences,
this is only the case in concentration camps. Thus, in future times,
hydrogen cyanide may only be applied for the gassing of huts in
concentration camps."

Furthermore, the 83,000 documents in the Moscow Archives contain not
so much as one proof of the "self-evidentness" of the alleged mass
murder, and as far as we know, no publication to the contrary has
appeared in the meantime either. This leads to one central question:
given the acute shortage of labor in the armaments industry, who could
have benefited from the deliberate murder of even a single inmate?
Does anyone seriously believe that this would have been tolerated? Any
such murderers would have been hauled into court for "undermining
military efficiency" or for "sabotage". Pressac has neglected to this
date to address this question. No historian has yet answered it
either.

Similarly, another central question is also still open: why was a
construction proposal submitted, on Sept. 30, 1943, to the tune of RM
32,200,000 for Birkenau alone, if the intent was to kill the
inmates?[68] In today's currency (1 RM had approximate purchasing
power parity with 10 US-Dollar today) the estimated construction costs
amount to $322,000,000 - that is more than a third billion US-Dollar.
Construction and the attendant spending proceeded as planned - the
documents prove this. An analysis of the implementation of the
construction project is presently in preparation for publication. We
wish to state at this time that we have in our possession the complete
and detailed construction proposal, that is, the calculations as well
as the plans and sketches.

We are painfully aware that the entire shortwave delousing topic
points to some of the SS plans and actions as being pregnantly humane,
thus opening us to the legal charge in Germany of Verharmlosung
(minimization) of the SS - a wholly evil organization according to the
Nuremberg show trials. But a scientific accounting of history about
Auschwitz compels our work - rather than politically correct
acceptance in the Berlin salon Kaffeeklatsch.

3. "Gas-Tight" Doors in Auschwitz

3.1. The Cause for This Investigation

The word gas alone takes on a sinister undertone as soon as it is used
in the context of Auschwitz. This psychology of horror is precisely
what is often used to escalate harmless terms, which appear in the
correspondence of the Central Construction Office of the concentration
camp Auschwitz, into purported evidence for the mass murder. The
ordering and installation of actually or even only allegedly gas-tight
doors in buildings of the camp Auschwitz-Birkenau plays a central role
in this. From the fact that the term "gas-tight door" appears in
various documents from the Central Construction Office of Auschwitz,
the subject literature has drawn the - untenable - conclusion
(frequently without bringing any further proofs) that these
occurrences are evidence for the construction of execution gas
chambers. In fact, however, the documents in question not only supply
no indication whatsoever for the existence of such chambers, as shall
be shown in the following. They also usually indicate that these doors
were used, or were to be used, for a completely different purpose,
namely to seal delousing gas chambers. To date there has also been no
examination of whether the doors used in Auschwitz were in fact
gas-tight doors in the technical sense, i.e., doors suited to
hermetical sealing for purposes of absolutely locking poisonous gases
in or out. In the following this omission shall be rectified.

3.2. The Task

Let us say at the outset that there were indisputably gas chambers in
Auschwitz which were used for the eradication of vermin and in which
Zyklon B was used. These rooms were also called "gas chambers" on the
building plans, for example the extensions of Buildings (BW) 5a and 5b
in Building Section (BA) 1.

What is disputed, however, is that there were such rooms for the
gassing, i.e., killing of human beings. To this day there is no
material evidence for this claim. Pressac believed that he had
discovered "criminal traces", which he tried to promote as
circumstantial evidence - an attempt which, however, failed and must
perforce continue to fail, simply because he has no proof. We shall
return to this.

A discussion of the statements of witnesses is beyond the scope of our
present investigation since they do not affect our topic. Furthermore,
they differ too much from each other and contain no irrefutable
evidence or indisputable documents. It is thus logically consistent to
question the truth of their contents. Therefore, since there is no
evidence, we accept these "execution gas chambers" as no more than
alleged until and unless the evidential situation changes.

Before the Second World War, there were practically no problems with
lice or fleas among the civilian population of the German Reich
proper.. But the situation was very different beyond the eastern
border of the Reich, for example in Poland, where as we know the
German Wehrmacht advanced in late summer 1939. Interested persons
should ask soldiers about this who were there in 1939.

It no doubt makes sense that vermin were to be found wherever many
people lived in camps or in poor sanitary conditions. "Polish
conditions" was a catch phrase in those days! We mention this here
only to clarify how first-hand experience influenced people's
thinking. Very many persons were still living in those days who had
relevant experience from World War I in combating vermin. Physicians
and administrations had at their disposal extensive first-hand reports
about the sanitary conditions in eastern Europe.

3.3. Development of the Delousing Facilities

The following brief summary shall also clarify where, how many, and
when gas-tight doors were necessary. After the arrival of the first 30
inmates in the concentration camp Auschwitz (Main Camp) on May 20,
1940, there were evidently no major problems as regards delousing.[69]
In the following we list the delousing facilities that existed at that
time.

One hot-air delousing facility (manufactured by Topf and Sons) was
installed in Building BW 1 L in the fall of 1940.[70] It remained in
service until it was damaged by fire on Nov. 5, 1942.[71] According to
a listing of July 30, 1943, it was restored (manufacturer Klein) and
equipped as before.[72] The facility conformed to a June 5, 1940,
order of the Reichsführer-SS:[73]

"[...] henceforth no HCN, but rather hot-air delousing facilities are
to be built. (Chief of Army Weapons and Commander of the Reserves.)
These facilities are to be installed in extant buildings."

In Crematorium I the first double-muffle oven was completed on July
25, 1940, the second on Feb. 22, 1941, and the third on May 30, 1942.
Once the facilities were wholly finished, and given the maximum
possible duration of operation (20 hours a day), the daily crematoria
capacity was 120 corpses - as shown by the double-checked, correct
calculations performed by Mattogno.[74] The chimney sustained damage
due to overheating, since it was probably not designed to serve 3
crematories.[75]

On July 3, 1941, the Construction Office received documents regarding
the delousing of material objects with hydrogen cyanide and
circulation fumigation chambers (serial format), relating to the
planning of BW160, the admissions building with delousing and laundry
facilities for the concentration camp.[76]

In a circular of March 11, 1942, the WVHA changed its position on
hydrogen cyanide.[77] It maintained its position that hot-air
facilities were to be used everywhere where the use of hydrogen
cyanide was too dangerous. The statement of principle, however,
follows:

"The goal is the conversion of all delousing facilities to operation
with HCN."

We shall show later, with reference to BW32 and BW160, how strict a
standard was applied here. Two further hot-air delousing facilities
were ordered by the garrison physician on May 19, 1942. The order, to
the manufacturer Hochheim, was confirmed on June 29, 1942.[78] This
exchange proves one more time that matters relating to delousing were
part of the garrison physician's duties.[79]

In the summer of 1942 the first "chamber for hydrogen cyanide
gassings", BW28, came into service in an old building of Personal
Effects Depot Kanada 1.[80] One advantage of these chambers was that
heat-sensitive objects that had to be deloused were treated with care.

On July 1, 1942, a sergeant from the gendarmerie of Auschwitz arrived
and closed off the construction firms' civilian laborers' camp due to
spotted fever.[80] As the voluminous correspondence in our archives
confirms, this event threw all involved offices and authorities from
the state, the Wehrmacht and the SS into an uproar. It was deemed
possible that the epidemic could spread to the camp and the civilian
population, with immeasurable consequences for, among other things,
the numerous armaments factories in Silesia. The files at hand from
the RGVA prove in all clarity that the subsequent re-designing of the
Birkenau camp and most of all the elaboration of the crematoria was a
consequence of this spotted fever epidemic.

And just at that critical time, the chimney of Crematorium I was
broken off (on June 12) and repairs were not finished until Aug. 8,
1942.[81] Thus, cremation of victims of the epidemic was not possible
during that time.

As a result, a newly revised construction program was immediately
drawn up for the POW camp Birkenau. The file containing the outline of
October 28, 1942, and plans was found in the War Archives in Prague,
with the additional description "Durchführung der Sonderbehandlung"
(Implementation of Special Treatment).[82]

On the plans contained within this file, however, only one building is
marked with the express and special note "Sonderbehandlung" (Special
Treatment), namely the disinfestation facility BW32.[14] To date no
one has produced any evidence for the common, though much-disputed
claim that in this case "Special Treatment" amounted to killing.
Building BW32 was first put into operation in the POW camp Birkenau on
January 29, 1944. It housed hot-air delousing facilities pure and
simple,[83] and thus proves the exact opposite of the alleged killing
of inmates, namely that "Special Treatment" referred strictly to
delousing measures.

Almost at the same time as Building 32, another delousing facility,
Building 32a, was built in Section BA IIe, also called the Gypsy Camp.
It went into service on February 17, 1944, as hot-air disinfestation
facility, but it was heated with electricity.[84]

On July 9, 1942, an offer was received from the company Berninghaus,
regarding gas-tight doors; a construction diagram was included.[85] A
detailed description and the diagram at hand reveal a type of door
construction that differed radically from that of the doors that were
otherwise manufactured mostly by inmates at the DAW (Deutsche
Ausrüstungswerke), a company operating near the camp. The doors were
offered for use with the HCN-operated circulation fumigation chambers
manufactured by DEGESCH which were to be installed in the delousing
facility in BW160. We shall return to this matter.

At this point at the latest, the Central Construction Office could see
how inadequate the doors were that had been manufactured by the DAW as
"gas-tight doors". They lacked all the characteristics of a truly
gas-tight door.

On July 23, 1942, the entire camp area was closed off due to the
spotted fever epidemic that had been introduced by the civilian
laborers.[86] Another hot-air delousing facility from the company
Klein was installed in BW 20 L of the Main Camp and came into service
in the fall of 1942.[70]

However, it took facilities in the Birkenau camp, which was at that
time under construction, to bring a noticeable relief of the
situation. In Birkenau, Section a of BA 1 was finished in March 1942
and Section b in August 1942. These sections each contained a large
delousing facility, each with one hot-air installation from the firm
of Hochheim, one disinfection apparatus by the firm of Werner, and one
sauna facility.[70] A chamber to be used for HCN fumigation was
attached to both. The buildings with the official designation BW 5a
and 5b came into service in November and December 1942 respectively.
Further, a facility with a hot-air apparatus from Hochheim and a
disinfection apparatus from the firm of Goedicker was put into
operation in January 1943 to service the civilian laborers.[70]

3.4. Undisputed, Alleged Gas-Tight Doors

Since air-tight and heat-retaining doors were also needed for the
hot-air facilities, we assume that the doors were of more or less the
same construction. We shall summarize for which facilities gas-tight
doors were required (as per the documents from January 9, 1943,[70] to
July 30, 1943:[72]

3.4.1. Concentration Camp Auschwitz

Block 3, upper story: (probably) 2 inside doors

Personal Effects Depot Kanada 1: (probably) 1 inside door 1 outside
door
3.4.2. POW Camp Birkenau

BW 5a: 4 inside doors, double-leaf as per diagrams

BW 5b: 4 inside doors, double-leaf as per diagrams

Total, 12 doors.

3.5. Disputed, Alleged Gas-Tight Doors

We do not intend to discuss here why we question that there were rooms
for the alleged gassing of human beings in the buildings described in
the following. For this reason we will also just mention briefly that
we also have a different, documented opinion regarding the unnamed
rooms in Crematoria IV and V. We shall go into detail about this in a
separate publication.

The fact is that to this date, Pressac and others have not offered any
verifiable material evidence for the alleged existence of execution
gas chambers. On the contrary, Pressac even refutes some of the
eyewitness testimony he himself has presented. As for the rest, the
published eyewitness statements which Pressac relies on heavily are so
unbelievable and abstruse that even persons with no special subject
knowledge can easily recognize that they are false. In many cases, all
it takes are simple calculations based on logical deductions.

Some allegations have been refuted by subject publications. Other such
publications are in preparation. As in previous publications, we have
weighty arguments, which yet need to be thoroughly supplemented and
reworked into final form. Not least of all, the documentary situation,
which is improving constantly, is producing many new insights and
changes which must be factored in.

These preparations give rise to the sweeping question whether there
really was even one single truly gas-tight door in Auschwitz that
could have fulfilled the necessary criteria. This is the only question
which we shall examine in the following.

Let us look first at the controversial claims which Jean-Claude
Pressac makes with regard to gas-tight doors:[87]

3.5.1. Concentration Camp Auschwitz

BW 160 Admissions Building: 38 inside doors, as per diagram.
3.5.2. POW Camp Birkenau

BW 30 Crematorium II: 1 inside door, possibly double-leaf
BW 30a Crematorium III: 1 inside door, possibly double-leaf
BW 30b Crematorium IV: 3 inside doors
BW 30b Crematorium IV: 2 outside doors
BW 30b Crematorium IV: 7 windows
BW 30c Crematorium V: 3 inside doors
BW 30c Crematorium V: 2 outside doors
BW 30c Crematorium V: 7 windows
3.6. Alleged Evidence for Gas-Tight Doors and Windows

Aside from verbal statements which are of no value as evidence since
they are clearly based on wishful thinking, the pharmacist J.-C.
Pressac - and other authors as well - offer the following
documentation:

3.6.1. Photos of Construction Parts

In his first book, Pressac repeatedly shows photos of doors and
windows that have been removed from their original locations but are
allegedly supposed to correspond with those we have listed in the
previous.[87] We shall come back to this with regard to specifically
quoted illustrations.

3.6.2. Construction diagrams allegedly showing merely the location of
construction parts

Since Pressac presents a jumble of diagrams which in part are also
repetitions or preliminary stages of the final diagrams, we shall
proceed similarly in this case.

3.6.3. Documents containing the word "gas" in some form or another

This includes particularly those documents which Pressac described as
"39 criminal traces" in his chapter 8. Again, we shall go into detail
here only where these "traces" are specifically mentioned.

3.7. General Comments on the Alleged Evidence

First we shall remark on the overall concept in question, before
giving detailed reasons for our position where required. Another
section will then give specifics regarding buildings and construction
parts.

We must mention that only one of our working group has any on-site
knowledge of Auschwitz. However, considering that most of the
buildings no longer exist and that only few doors remain in situ, this
fact matters little, since a detailed examination of the door (which
would only be possible by taking it apart) would certainly not be
permitted anyhow. Yet this is the only way to obtain the information
required. Construction parts held in storage cannot provide any
information regarding where they were installed more than 50 years
ago, unless they had special characteristics that made them
distinctive and unmistakable.

Of particular interest to us in this context are the "38 gas-tight
doors", allegedly kept in storage. On page 31 of his first book,[12]
Pressac tries to give the impression that the 19 HCN circulation gas
chambers in BW 160 had been finished. His brief commentary at this
point reveals that he knew neither how these were built nor how they
were operated. While he writes:

"The present state of the premises makes it impossible to reconstruct
the techniques employed",

he obviously proceeds on the assumption that there was a "technique".
Since in 1989 he knew nothing of the ultra-shortwave delousing
facilities, Pressac probably assumed that the HCN gas chambers had
been finished. That, at least, is indicated by his phrase:

"[...] making it possible to recover 38 gas-tight doors."

It is typical for Pressac's style of writing that he constantly tries
to infer proof even when there is not the slightest grounds for doing
so. He feigns knowledge where he doesn't have a clue. As it has turned
out, uninformed readers are not the only ones who fall for this.

The fact is that these "Degesch chambers" were never finished. We
shall prove this further on with some documents which also show that
not one of the 38 gas-tight doors for the chambers in fact existed.

3.7.1. Comments on Photos in General

No expert is able to judge from photographs whether a construction
part such as a door, where the proper construction of those parts that
are not visible is also important, is "gas-tight". In the case of
doors this goes, for example, for every screw that was screwed through
the door panel. It is commonly known that under conditions of varying
humidity and temperature, wooden construction parts warp, due
primarily to the ever-changing moisture levels in the wood. It would
thus be necessary to know for certain whether, when and how the
individual parts were given a waterproof coating, for example. This
can be decisive for the wood's tendency to absorb moisture. However,
there is no data about this. It is an even more important factor for
outside doors that were or are installed on the south side of
buildings, for example. Where there are considerable temperature
differences between the inside and the outside, such doors warp
considerably. Since none of the doors shown had more than two anchors
with which they could be affixed to their frames, this was a
significant shortcoming.

Ultimately, the photos in question show only one thing: namely, that
either a window or a door was installed - no more. Not even the date
of the photo can be determined. In the best case there are also some
indications of where a component was installed. If any additional
information is possible, it will be mentioned.

How great the danger of falsification is in the matter of photo
captions is shown by the article "Volksverhetzung?
Volksverhetzung!"[84] (Incitement of the masses).

3.7.2. Comments on Construction Diagrams in General

An expert cannot assess, on the basis of construction diagrams,
buildings which at the time of assessment have not existed for 50
years, since there is no means for comparison. There are no photos
that permit assessment with certainty. Further, the recorded
eyewitness statements diverge from each other so extremely that they
are useless as evidence. There are even diagrams that supposedly show
technical and architectural conditions as they existed at a given
time, but which provably do not represent such conditions as they are
known to have existed.

One exception is the delousing facility of BW 160. In his second
book[81] Pressac reports about new findings regarding ultra-shortwave
delousing facilities. Based on his references we were able to
considerably expand our own files on the subject (cf. previous).

3.7.3. Comments on Other Documents in General

From the fact that someone labels or has labeled a construction part
as "gas-tight" one cannot automatically conclude that it really is or
was gas-tight. The word merely means that the object was supposed to
have this property. A photo showing sufficient detail can give
indications for an assessment; the same goes for text documents.
However, if there is no description or specification and/or no diagram
of a construction part, then there is already no foundation for such
an assessment.

The documents pertaining to the aforementioned stationary
ultra-shortwave delousing facility enable one to draw concrete
conclusions, to follow.

3.8. Photos Offered As Evidence

3.8.1. Observations on Photos Shown

All photos cited are from J.-C. Pressac[12] and show exclusively
construction parts made of wood. Our comments, of course, also go
equally for other publications, insofar as the photos they show
exhibit the same characteristics or stem from the same source.

On pp. 28 and 29, photos 14 through 19 show the outside door of a
hot-air delousing facility in Block 1 of the concentration camp
Auschwitz. These are the only ones that can be verifiably assigned to
a specific building. Whether they are still the original doors cannot
be determined. However, they are not part of our topic, unless the
assumption could be proven that the construction type corresponds to
that of the gas-tight doors. The captions of the photos do not
correspond to the undoubtedly genuine documents.[70],[72] One more
proof that Pressac should be read with great caution. We do not wish
to suggest that he deliberately sought to increase the number of
delousing facilities operated with Zyklon B, merely that he did not
have access to the files presently available.


Illustration 5: Door of a Delousing Chamber in Auschwitz. (J.-C.
Pressac[12] , p. 49.)

Photos 13 through 18, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26 and 29/30 on pp. 41 to 52,
regarding BW 28 in Kanada 1, would seem to indicate that the
assumption that the doors were of the same construction type is
correct (cf. illustration 5).

Proceeding from this, the photos show the mountings of such doors.
These are: a handle of round iron, two steel straps the width of the
door (and bolted through the panel!) and on the hinge side supported
by blocks lagscrewed into the door frame (this is the construction
method for heavy door panels). At the swing side these straps are
fitted with latchbolts that turn into catches made of band steel. The
catches have threaded boreholes for securing the threaded latchbolts.
At the same time these latchbolts were supposed to press the panel
down gas-tight.

Felt was used as gasket material, as shown by some photos as well as
by documents, e.g. the materials inventory of February 24, 1943
(Pressac,[12] p. 444). For this purpose, strips of felt of low
elasticity, 7 mm thick and of varying width, were nailed into the
panel and door frame seams. This is documented by a photo on page 61,
and others. There are many other minor details of evidence with which
we shall not bore our readers, but one more essential point is that
not every photo shows whether the necessary 5-cm-high threshold was
present on the floor in every case; no door can be sealed gas-tight
along the floor without one.

This manner of door construction originated with the war-time
provisional air raid shelter construction programs.[88] It is no doubt
clear that construction parts not produced to industrial standards
would have resulted in inaccuracies.

The alleged windows/doors of Crematoria IV and V were of a special
type. They were window-sized but not glazed, and thus were actually
more like doors at window level. The aforementioned details apply by
analogy. There is no need to go into specifics.

3.8.2. Comments on Photos Shown

We shall be brief here because detailed descriptions of doors and
excerpts of the diagram for Auschwitz, which substantiate the
correctness of the following, will be presented later.

The most important criteria for a truly gas-tight door are readily to
be found in the contemporaneous subject literature on air raid and HCN
delousing facilities. As examples for both, we refer the reader to
Schutzraumabschlüsse[89] and, respectively, to Blausäuregaskammern zur
Fleckfieberabwehr,[90] since this publication already took into
account the experiences gained in the first years of the war. The main
criteria are:

Due to the highly penetrative property of HCN, absolute gas-tightness
of all construction parts.
The door panel must fit against all parts of the door frame in a
parallel and uniformly tight manner. This requires a rubber gasket. To
this, people often object that there was no rubber in Germany during
the war. This is true only to a degree; we had a substance that was in
some respects even better than natural rubber, namely buna (this is
why motorcyclists' buna overcoats dating from 1937 are still in
perfect condition today, whereas such made from natural rubber are
not!).
A 5-cm-high threshold was required.
The door hinges required a free axis so that the door panel could pass
on the band side when being closed. Illustration 8 shows this
important point. To allow the panel to be pressed tightly to the frame
but also to let it pass freely, the end of the steel strap on the pin
of the lagscrewed block is not round and close-fitting in shape, but
oval. This allows the panel to move. This is a necessary prerequisite
for a gas-tight door, since if it cannot be pressed tightly to the
frame it cannot be made gas-tight. This goes even more for felt than
for buna hose gaskets.
As locking mechanisms, even steel doors - as we shall show - required
at least 8 wedge locks, three on either side and one each at the top
and bottom. The wedges made it possible to press the door panels
uniformly to their frames. If this was necessary for steel doors, this
goes all the more for wooden doors (cf. illustration 7).
None of the doors pictured met even these five criteria:

The doors were uniformly fastened with screws etc.
The doors had only two fixed points, and two bolts of limited
adjustability.
Felt is not gas-tight.
The steel door straps had no adjustable axes.
The wooden door panels could warp. (Anyone who wishes to seriously
examine this issue should at least have read the aforementioned study
about gas chambers operated with hydrogen cyanide.)
Two photos [91] exist of the annex to building BW 160, belonging to
the shortwave delousing facility. They prove that construction of the
remaining facilities was not finished.

3.9. Construction Diagrams Offered As Evidence

3.9.1. Observations on the Construction Diagrams Shown

We will of course restrict ourselves to points relevant to this topic.
Regarding the diagrams of Crematoria II and III, therefore, it must be
pointed out that the entrance door to Mortuary 1 is depicted in
several different ways. There are doors which open into a room, but
also such that open outwards. Further, both single and double doors
are shown. The most credible diagrams are probably the status diagrams
made of the completed structural shell. These diagrams are by the
company HUTA of Series 109; as reproduced by Pressac,[12] pp. 327 and
329, they clearly show a suitable double door.

In the diagrams of Crematoria IV and V we shall only point out the
depiction of the small windows/doors. The wall anchors sketched in
here reveal an unusual form. They are configured in such a way that it
appears that they were intended to open outwards; cf. p. 399.[12] Wall
anchors are not generally sketched on the inside wall. How they were
in fact really constructed is unknown. In the context of related
documents some unusual features appear, but these are not relevant to
our present topic. We have already announced a separate study on this
matter.

3.9.2. Comments on the Construction Diagrams Shown

As we have already stated, no indisputable findings can be based on
the diagrams. However, if the doors were fashioned as double doors,
then it is certain that if they were made of wood, they could not
possibly have been gas-tight. The seam between the two movable panels
of a double door cannot be gasketed to gas-tightness with felt. Added
to this was the fact that given the shortage of skilled labor during
the war, parts which were manually manufactured on-site could not have
been as precisely made as industrially produced parts. This goes for
the doors themselves but even more for the felt gaskets. The same goes
for the windows/doors, but these are to be considered as above since
in this context it is irrelevant whether they opened inwards or
outwards. Most at risk is the construction shown in photos 32 and 33,
p. 427, given large temperature differences between inside and
outside. Aside from that, the construction shown in photos 29 and 30
is more reminiscent of a door to an ice box, of which it is known that
there were some in the camps. As part of its tender of July 9, 1942,
the firm of Berninghaus supplied a diagram of its door, "Delousing
Chamber Door St. 3596", dated March 20, 1942. Where the buildings in
Auschwitz are concerned, this tender for gas-tight doors is highly
significant in terms of its timing, since it had already been obtained
before any of the crematoria and Birkenau were being built. If, as is
alleged, 'execution gas chambers' had been planned for these
crematoria, then such doors would also have been ordered early on, but
this was not done. On the other hand, such doors manufactured by the
same firm were verifiably installed in the concentration camp
Buchenwald, for example (note: there were no 'execution gas chambers'
in Buchenwald!).

From the diagram supplied by the firm Berninghaus we present some
detailed excerpts which show how great the difference was between
these doors and those made by the Auschwitz-based DAW (Deutsche
Ausrüstungs-Werke), which produced the allegedly gas-tight doors for
the camp, largely with unskilled labor. These prove that the criteria
set out in 8.2 were known:

Stiffer, more precise construction with the aid of steel profiles:
illustration 6 (next page)
More and better locking hardware: illustration 7 (next page)
Free axes and wedge locks: illustrations 8 & 9 (next page)
3.10. Other Documents Offered As Evidence

3.10.1. Observations on the Documents Shown

Given the overall situation, we can dispense with minor points. We
have already mentioned that documents are now available of which
Pressac is or was not aware.

3.10.2. Comments on the Documents Shown

The files contain a tender for gas tight doors for the delousing
facility in BW160. It is a typical "circulation fumigation chamber by
the firm Degesch", about whose particular structuring and construction
Pressac probably did not inform himself. For this reason he made many
errors and misinterpretations here. The detailed tender and drawing,
which we have in our files, was received by the





Illustrations 6-9: detail enlargement of construction diagrams by the
firm Berninghaus, from March 20, 1942, discovered among the
correspondence of KL Auschwitz. Doors at least this solid and
gas-tight would have been necessary for execution gas chambers, but
were verifiably never supplied to the concentration camp
Auschwitz.[85] (Click to enlarge)

Central Construction Office on July 13, 1942.[85] The salient point
among the extensive correspondence is that these doors were not
ordered until May 5, 1944.[92] Due to the shortwave delousing facility
which had been implemented in the meantime, their number was reduced
to 22.

Another important element is the May 12, 1944, letter [93] from the
firm of Berninghaus in which they state:

"[...], that today we no longer supply gas chamber doors of anything
other than double-walled all-steel construction, since it has turned
out that the doors of a construction type that economizes on steel do
not meet the necessary requirements."

This letter was supplemented with a new offer dated May 12, 1944,
including a detailed description.[94] The doors were ordered via
registered letter of June 20, 1944.[95] Finally, in a letter dated
November 21, 1944, the Berninghaus company asks if the ordered doors
should still be delivered.[96] We may assume that they were not
delivered.

If even the door construction types that had already been much
improved in 1942 were not gas-tight, then this is an additional
corroboration of our concluding position. A subject expert could not
wish for better counter-evidence. A manufacturer of a much-improved
but nonetheless temporary 'gas-tight door' who, even in times of
severe steel shortage, declares only all-steel doors to be truly
gas-tight and offers to supply them, can hardly be surpassed as
evidence.

3.11. J.-C. Pressac's "39 Criminal Traces"

3.11.1. Observations on "39 Criminal Traces"

Completeness requires that this part of Pressac's book[12] also be
examined. However, only those who have read and worked through this
book from start to finish know what they would be getting into. To
refute every nonsensical and illogical sentence and, even more so,
every technically or physically incorrect statement made in this book
on the subject of the gas-tight doors and windows - and unfortunately
there are a great many such statements - would take an entire
book.[97] Within the scope of the study at hand, it is impossible to
provide a complete analysis of Pressac's section of 29 oversized text
pages. For this reason we shall choose just one example:

1. On p. 429 Pressac writes:

"Proposition A: A gas-tight door can be intended only for a gas
chamber."

As we shall see, this is a thoughtless and untenable claim. His
further conclusions can only be correct if this statement is correct.
But anyone who lived through the time in question must then conclude
from Pressac's claim that Germany was full of gas chambers - for prior
to the war there were legal regulations that required the construction
of air raid shelters as part of new buildings, and one of the
requirements was that the air locks of such shelters had to be
gas-tight.[88] So, Pressac's proposition is false!

He claims "39 criminal traces" but offers evidence for only 34.
Moreover, his 'line of reasoning' is characterized more by wishful
thinking than by documented facts. Evidently he put himself (or was
put?) under pressure to produce the desired evidence. There is no
other way to comprehend that he turns the one point in his exposition,
"gas-tight door", into 17 separate points, such as for example:

"23. [...] 210 anchors for gas-tight door".

We could have given him suggestions for some more, such as for
example, '35 nuts for bolts in gas-tight door.' The seriousness of the
topic prevents us.

3.11.2. Comments on "39 Criminal Traces"

We have proved clearly and compellingly the cardinal error of not only
Pressac's entire book, but 'serious' studies at large: rather than the
pharmacist J.-C. Pressac, subject experts should deal with all matters
that require special, i.e., subject-related knowledge. A pharmacist is
not the proper person to determine the presence of "gas-tight doors",
just as a construction engineer would not be tolerated in a pharmacy,
and rightly so.

The same, of course, also goes for the disciplines of history and law.
In these cases laws even require the consultation of suitable subject
experts, which are available in all fields of study. As subject
expert, one must thus ask oneself: why do precisely these two
disciplines continually refuse, even in violation of legal precepts,
to avail themselves of such subject experts?

The section in question does not provide any evidence that other,
truly gas-tight doors or windows existed. Pressac's attempt to bring
evidence 'indirectly' also fails, as we shall show in a future study.
The sentence which he aims at others on his p. 421 applies very much
to Pressac himself:

"There is none so blind as he that will not see."

3.12. Summary

After careful examination of all photos, descriptions and documents
available for analysis, we all concur in the conclusion that the
'infamous' gas-tight doors of Auschwitz were, in fact, not gas-tight.
In particular, they lacked the following characteristics:

The felt used as gasketing material is not sufficiently elastic to
compensate for warping of the door panel. This goes all the more for
the strapped side of the door panel because here it is not possible to
compensate by pressing on, since
there are no free axes.
The number of bolts is too small to fix the door panel uniformly, and
there are no parts that would allow for uniform sealing pressure on
the one hand and prevent distortions on the other.
The doors could not have kept gas from escaping into the buildings and
the surrounding areas. Claims to the contrary of these facts are
false.

However, as the correspondence from the firm of Berninghaus proves,
the Central Construction Office of Auschwitz would have been able at
any time to obtain solid, gas-tight steel doors, such as were
manufactured by the umpteen thousands for Germany's air raid shelters.
The fact that this was not done can only be because they simply were
not really needed in Auschwitz. For delousing facilities, where the
aim is not to keep great numbers of people mechanically completely
isolated from poison gas (as in air raid shelters) or locked into a
concentration of poison gas (as in the alleged execution gas
chambers), wooden doors with makeshift gaskets will do.

There was no gas-tight door in the two camps comprising Auschwitz.

Abbreviations

BA: Bauabschnitt = Building Section
BW: Bauwerk = building
Exterminationist: a person convinced of the theory of the
extermination of concentration camp inmates
WVHA: Wirtschafts- und Verwaltungs-Hauptamt = Economic Administrative
Main Office
RGVA: Rossiski Gosudarstvenni Vojenni Archiv, Moscow (the former
Tsentr Chranjenija Istoriko-domumen­tal’nich Kollektsii, Center for
the Custody of Historical Document Collections, TCIDK)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes

[1] This archive underwent several name changes since 1991. It is now
called Rossiski Gosudarstvenni Vojenni Archiv (RGVA), Viborskaja ult
3, Moskau.  
[2] Index of this Archive: Heinz Boberach, Inventar archivalischer
Quellen des NS-Staates. Die Überlieferung von Behörden und
Einrichtungen des Reichs, der Länder und der NSDAP, 2 vols, ed. by
IfZ, K.G. Saur, Munich 1991 and 1995.  
[3] J.-C. Pressac, Die Krematorien von Auschwitz. Die Technik des
Massenmordes, R. Piper GmbH & Co. KG, Munich 1994, p. 185  
[4] Gerald Fleming, "Engineers of Death", in The New York Times, July
18, 1993, p. E19; cf. F. Toben, "Ein KGB-Novellist: Gerald Fleming",
Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung (VffG) 2(1) (1997) p.
87-91 (online: vho.org/VffG/1997/2/Toben2.html)., Jean-Claude Pressac,
op. cit. (Note 3); Robert van Pelt, Deborah Dwork, Auschwitz: 1270 to
the Present, Yale, University Press 1996; cf. review by Carlo
Mattogno, "Architektonische Stümpereien zweier Plagiatoren", VffG,
4(1) (2000), pp. 25-33 (online:
vho.org/VffG/2000/1/Mattogno25-33.html; English: "Auschwitz 1270 to
the Present", www.russgranata.com/irving.html);Robert van Pelt, The
Pelt Report, Irving vs. Lipstadt (Queen's Bench Division, Royal Courts
of Justice, Strand, London, David John Cawdell Irving vs. (1) Penguin
Books Limited, (2) Deborah E. Lipstadt, Ref. 1996 I. No. 113; for a
detailed critique of van Pelt's flawed The Pelt Report see Germar
Rudolf, "Gutachter- und Urteilsschelte", VffG 4(1) (2000), pp. 33-50
(online: vho.org/VffG/2000/1/Rudolf33-55.html; Engl.:
vho.org/GB/Contributions/RudolfOnVanPelt.html and
.../CritiqueGray.html).  
[5] M. Gärtner, W. Rademacher, "Grundwasser im Gelände des KGL
Birkenau", VffG 2(1)(1998), pp. 2-12 (online:
vho.org/VffG/1998/1/GaeRad1.html); H.J. Nowak,
"Kurzwellen-Entlausungsanlagen in Auschwitz", VffG 2(2) (1998), pp.
87-105 (online: .../1998/2/Nowak2.html); H. Lamker, "Die
Kurzwellen-Entlausungsanlagen in Auschwitz, Teil 2", VffG 2(4) (1998),
pp. 261-272 (online: .../1998/4/Lamker4.html); W. Rademacher, "Sauna
ein 'Verbrechen'?", VffG 1(4)(1997), pp. 245ff. (online:
.../1997/4/Rademacher4.html); M. Gerner, "'Schlüsseldokument' ist
Fälschung", VffG 2(3) (1998), pp. 166-174 (online:
.../1998/3/Gerner3.html); Carlo Mattogno, "'Schlüsseldokument' - eine
alternative Interpretation", VffG 4(1) (2000), pp. 50-56 (online:
.../2000/1/Mattogno50-56.html: Engl "The Auschwitz Central
Construction Headquarters Letter Dated 28 June 1943: An Alternative
Interpretation", www.russgranata.com/lalett.html);H.J. Nowak, W.
Rademacher, "'Gasdichte' Türen in Auschwitz" VffG 2(4) (1998), pp.
248-260 (online: .../1998/4/NowRad4.html).  
[6] C. Mattogno, La "Zentralbauleitung der Waffen-SS und Polizei
Auschwitz", Editione di Ar, Padova 1998.  
[7] (dpa) "Lebensmittel in 3 Minuten keimfrei", Münchener Merkur no.
253, Nov. 2, 1996.  
[8] Regarding technical development and method of operation of the
facilities, cf. the two original studies, op.cit. (Note 5).  
[9] Although caused by different bacteria, typhus and spotted fever
(sometimes called typhoid fever) are frequently confused because they
cause similar symptoms.  
[10] The Brockhaus encyclopedia refers to the article by A.
Schittenhelm, "Flecktyphus" in Handbuch der Inneren Medizin, 2nd ed.,
1925.  
[11] Gerhard Peters, Blausäure zur Schädlingsbekämpfung, Ferdinand
Enke Verlag, Stuttgart 1933.  
[12] Jean-Claude Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the
Gas Chambers, Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York 1989, p. 148.  
[13] Friedrich Konrich, "Über die Sanierungsanstalten der deutschen
Kriegsgefangenenlager", Gesundheits-Ingenieur, July 19, 1941, pp.
399-404.  
[14] Cf. W. Stromberger, "Was war die 'Sonderbehandlung' in
Auschwitz?", Deutschland in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 44(2) (1996),
pp. 24-25.  
[15] H.Dv. 194. Entseuchungs- und Entwesungsvorschrift für die
Wehrmacht, (Ents. V.) Verlag der Reichsdruckerei, Berlin 1939.  
[16] Walter Dötzer, Entkeimung, Entseuchung und Entwesung, in J.
Mrugowsky (ed.), Arbeitsanweisungen für Klinik und Laboratorium des
Hygiene-Instituts der Waffen-SS, 2nd., unchanged ed.. Urban &
Schwarzenberg, Berlin and Wien 1943.  
[17] RGVA 502-1-26-117.  
[18] Heinz Boberach et al., op. cit. (Note 2), vol. 3/2, K. G. Saur,
Munich 1995.  
[19] Ibid., vol. 3/1, 1991.  
[20] Hefte von Auschwitz 1 to 19, special issues, Verlag staatliches
Auschwitz-Museum, as of 1959.  
[21] RGVA 502-1-332-46/46a. Since the document is in poor condition
and barely legible, we shall dispense with a reproduction of it here.
[22] RGVA 502-1-332-9/10. This document is also in poor condition; the
efficiency data are transcribed in our original work, op. cit. (Note
5).  
[23] RGVA 502-1-19-86/103.  
[24] RGVA 502-1-19-86.  
[25] J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (Note 3), p. 157.  
[26] RGVA 502-1-333-145.  
[27] RGVA 502-1-336-94.  
[28] RGVA 502-1-332-37.  
[29] Gerhard Peters und W. Rasch, "Die Blausäure als Entlausungsmittel
in Begasungskammern", Der praktische Desinfektor, September 1941, pp.
93-96.  
[30] Gerhard Peters, E. Wüstinger, "Entlausung mit Zyklon-Blausäure in
Kreislauf-Begasungskammern. Sach-Entlausung in Blausäure-Kammern",
Zeitschrift für hygienische Zoologie und Schädlingsbekämpfung, issue
10/11 (1940), special reprint. RGVA 502-1-332-86/90. Received by the
Construction Office of Auschwitz on July 3, 1941.  
[31] RGVA 502-1-332-117/119.  
[32] As quoted by W. Dötzer, op. cit. (Note 16).  
[33] J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (Note 3), p. 114; cf. Mattogno,
"Auschwitz: Das Ende einer Legende", in H. Verbeke (ed.), Auschwitz:
Nackte Fakten, Vrij Historisch Onderzoek, Berchem 1995, pp. 101-162
(online: vho.org/D/anf/Mattogno.html; Engl.:
vho.org/GB/Books/anf/Mattogno.html).  
[34] RGVA 502-1-332-219.  
[35] RGVA 502-1-233-33/38.  
[36] RGVA 502-1-322-219.  
[37] RGVA 502-1-322-31.  
[38] From a letter dated March 23, 1944, to the Central Construction
Office, RGVA 502-1-332-175.  
[39] RGVA 502-1-332-28.  
[40] RGVA 502-1-332-212.  
[41] RGVA 502-1-149-135.  
[42] J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (Note 3), p. 105, Note 256.  
[43] Obozy hitlerowskie na ziemiach polskich 1939-1945, Panstwowe
Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warschau 1979 (Encyclopedia).  
[44] Wilfried Feldenkirchen, Siemens 1918-1945, R. Piper GmbH & Co.
KG, Munich 1995.  
[45] Hefte von Auschwitz, no. 14, Verlag staatliches Auschwitz Museum,
1973.  
[46] RGVA 502-2-146.  
[47] RGVA 502-2-149.  
[48] Siemens archives, Munich. We thank an observant reader of VffG
(yet to be kept anonymous) for discovering these valuable documents.  
[49] RGVA 502-1-333-103.  
[50] RGVA 502-1-333-34.  
[51] RGVA 502-1-333-103/104.  
[52] RGVA 502-1-316-356/367.  
[53] RGVA 502-1-333-99.  
[54] RGVA 502-1-337-23.  
[55] RGVA 502-1-333-72.  
[56] RGVA 502-1-333-61R.  
[57] RGVA 502-1-333-45.  
[58] RGVA 502-1-333-7.  
[59] RGVA 502-1-333-7/8.  
[60] For the exact wording, cf. our original work, op. cit. (Note 5).
[61] RGVA 502-1-332-1.  
[62] RGVA 502-2-149-7.  
[63] RGVA 502-1-335-11/12.  
[64] RGVA 502-1-333-103.  
[65] RGVA 502-2-149-32.  
[66] RGVA 502-1-333-84.  
[67] Hessisches Hauptsstaatsarchiv Wiesbaden, 36342-5.  
[68] RGVA 502-1-238-10.  
[69] Cf. RGVA 502-1-336-101; July 22, 1943.  
[70] RGVA 502-1-332-46; Jan. 09, 1943.  
[71] RGVA 502-1-332-54; Nov. 05, 1942.  
[72] RGVA 502-1-332-9; July 30, 1943.  
[73] RGVA 502-1-333-145; June 05, 1940.  
[74] Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz. The End of a Legend. Granata
Publishing, Palos Verdes, CA, 1994 (online:
vho.org/GB/Books/anf/Mattogno.html); Mattogno, "Auschwitz. Das Ende
einer Legende", in Herbert Verbeke (ed.), Auschwitz: Nackte Fakten,
Vrij Historisch Onderzoek, Berchem 1995, table 3, p. 24 (online:
vho.org/D/anf/MattognoR.html; Engl.:
vho.org/GB/Books/anf/Mattogno.html).  
[75] RGVA 502-2-54-36; June 01, 1942.  
[76] RGVA 502-1-332-86; July 01, 1941.  
[77] RGVA 502-1-336-94; Mar. 11, 1942.  
[78] RGVA 502-1-332-97; June 29, 1942.  
[79] Cf. Carlo Mattogno, "Die 'Gasprüfer' von Auschwitz", VffG 2(1)
(1998), pp. 13-22 (online: vho.org/VffG/1998/1/Mattogno1.html); cf. As
well VffG 2(2) (1998), p. 160 (online: .../2/Leser2.html).  
[80] RGVA 502-332-151; 01.07.1942.  
[81] Jean-Claude Pressac, op. cit. (Note 3), Note 131.  
[82] Historický ústav Armády Ceske republiky. "Bauvorhaben
Kriegsgefangenenlager Auschwitz, Kostenüberschläge 28.10.1942", 43
pages with plans. This archive contains enormous numbers of German
files, including for example the war archives of the Waffen-SS, which
were inaccessible, even completely unknown until 1992, and are
supposed to return to such oblivion, cf. G. Rudolf, "Wer zu spät
kommt, den bestraft das Leben", VffG 2(3) (1998), p. 165
(vho.org/VffG/1998/3/Rudolf1_3.html).  
[83] We have in our possession documents showing even the smallest
details, including the diagrams and instructions for operation that go
with them; readers may request copies from the publishers of this
work.  
[84] Cf. also Michael Gärtner,, "Volksverhetzung? Volksverhetzung!",
VffG 1(4) (1997), pp. 244f. (online:
vho.org/VffG/1997/4/Gaertner4.html).  
[85] RGVA 502-1-354-8; July 09, 1942.  
[86] RGVA 502-1-332-143; July 23, 1942.  
[87] Jean-Claude Pressac, op. cit. (Note 12), pp. 161-171.  
[88] Cf. Samuel Crowell, "Technik und Arbeitsweise deutscher
Gasschutzbunker im Zweiten Weltkrieg", Vierteljahrehefte für freie
Geschichtsforschung (VffG) 1(4) (1997), pp. 226-244 (online:
vho.org/VffG/1997/4/Crowell4.html; Engl.:
codoh.com/incon/inconpressac.html).  
[89] R. Scholle, "Schutzraumabschlüsse", Baulicher Luftschutz issue 3,
W. Ernst & Sohn, Berlin 1939.  
[90] Franz Puntigam, H. Breymesser, E. Bernfus, Blausäuregaskammern
zur Fleckfleberabwehr, Sonderveröffentlichung des
Reichsarbeitsblattes, Berlin 1943.  
[91] From the Siemens archives, Munich, for one of them see
Illustration 3. The other was reproduced in H. Lamker, op. cit. (Note
5).  
[92] RGVA 502-1-354-7; May, 5, 1944.  
[93] RGVA 502-1-354-3; May 12, 1944.  
[94] RGVA 502-1-354-4; 12.5.1944.  
[95] RGVA 502-1-354-5; 20.6.1944.  
[96] RGVA 502-1-333-2; 22.11.1944.  
[97] Cf. also the chapter by W. Rademacher, this volume.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--

To silence a man is the best honor you can bestow upon him,
it means you recognize his superiority to yourself. - J. Sobran