Arthur R. Butz – The Hoax Of The Twentieth Century

Arthur R. Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century
writing my book, and the assumption seemed confirmed for me by the observation
that crematory technology could call for such a facility. However, Pressac has
shown, without realizing it, that the Vergasungskeller was not in Crematory II,
because it does not appear on the many engineering plans and is not implied or
called for by anything that appears on those plans. Only an unfounded or arbitrary
prior assumption can place it there.
If the Vergasungskeller was not in Crematory II, then the questions of what
and where it was are only of limited importance. It suffices, I believe, to show that
the term could have applied to operations that transpired, or may have transpired,
elsewhere in the camp.
To give my favored interpretation first, it is unlikely that the town of Auschwitz
had preexisting means for production and/or distribution of fuel or town gas
sufficient for the needs of the huge complex of camps we call “Auschwitz.” Such
needs could have been for cooking, heating, or incineration of waste, and so forth.
On account of the paucity of natural gas but abundance of coal in Europe, the
Germans had extensively developed the gasification of coal. 596 In the Auschwitz
region, coal was particularly abundant, so processes of coal or coke gasification
were suited for the conditions there.
In offering my earlier interpretation of the Vergasungskeller as a fuel gas generator
for the crematory ovens, I wrote on p. 155 (Chapter 4):
“The two most common methods of producing fuel gases from coal or coke
are, first, by passing air through a bed of burning coke to produce ‘coke oven
gas’ and second, by passing steam through the coke to produce ‘water
gas’.” 597
I now offer almost the same interpretation, but modified so that the specific location
of the Vergasungskeller is no longer known, and the gas generated is for
general application and not specifically for cremation. This seems entirely justified
by the engineering plans that indicate no Vergasungskeller in the crematories,
by the great likelihood that the camp required fuel gas and in view of the easy
availability of coal there. 598 Incidentally, it is unimportant, from the present point
of view, if such a Vergasungskeller were operational or only in a state of construction;
only the possibility of its temporary use as a morgue is relevant. So
much the better, if such a facility was not yet operational, because then nothing
would interfere with use as a morgue.
As I say, this is my “favored” or preferred interpretation, but there are a few
other possibilities that are worth noting.
596
597
598
420
John F. Foster and Richard J. Lund, eds., Economics of Fuel Gas from Coal (NY: McGraw Hill,
1950), pp. 68-97.
The remark on the method of generation of coke oven gas can be improved. See: Foster & Lund
(1950), cited above, p. 41. In any case, the German processes were sufficiently advanced that
they did not necessarily fall into classic categories. See: Foster & Lund (1950), pp. 68f.
A summary of various gas generation processes is given in Hermann Franke, ed., Lueger. Lexikon
der Technik (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1960-1972), Vol. 7 (1965), pp. 484+. Gasification
of oil, or Ölvergasung), as contrasted to gasification of solid fuels, or Vergasung fester
Brennstoffe, had also been practiced in Germany since the late nineteenth century. See: H.
Franke, ed., Lueger (Stuttgart: 1960-1972), Vol. 4, p. 390.