AUSCHWITZ: PLAIN FACTS - Holocaust Handbooks

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz: The End of a Legend 125amounts to an average of some 23 per day. If we assume the latter averagefor November 1940 as well, the first double-muffle oven wouldhave been insufficient to cremate this low quantity of bodies. The letterin question is part of the Moscow documents from the Central ConstructionOffice of Auschwitz, but Pressac does not even mention it.His motive in excluding it is easily understandable.On 5: The gas-generating ovens heated with coke required a daily interruptionfor cleaning the gas generators, since cinder, the residue fromcoke, melted and adhered to the grates. If cinder accumulated thereover a long period of time, it would impede the passage of primarycombustion air through the bars of the grill, causing poor operation ofthe cremation ovens. From a letter by Engineer H. Kori at the Lublincamp of October 23, 1941, 21 one deduces that the cremation ovens inthe concentration camps were used only twenty hours at a stretch.On 6: Accepting the data in the Topf letter dated July 14, 1941, the capacityof a two-muffle oven over 21 hours of activity would be:30 corpses ÷ 10 hours × 21 hours = 63 corpses;36 corpses ÷ 10 hours × 21 hours = 76 corpses.so that the capacity for three ovens would be 63 × 3 = 189 and 76 ×3 = 228 corpses per day. Pressac unjustifiably estimates an excess of200 to 250 corpses per day. I say unjustifiably, since the data supply amaximum capacity for an oven with two muffles from the very beginning.On 7: In a letter sent to Ludwig and Ernst-Wolfgang Topf dated November15, 1942, 22 Engineer Prüfer indicates that the three-muffle ovens hedesigned, which were installed in the crematory at Buchenwald, hadan efficiency greater by one-third than what he had expected. HerePressac, who normally confuses capacity with efficiency, commits theopposite error by confusing efficiency – that is, reduced coke consumptionper cremation – with capacity – that is, cremations per time.In effect, the greater efficiency depended upon a thermotechnical advantage,of which Prüfer himself was not aware (maybe because hehad designed the three- and eight-muffle ovens during his “sparetime,” as he wrote in a letter to Topf dated December 6, 1941 23 ): Thehigher efficiency was the result of the fact that the three-muffle ovenhad only two gas generators – just like the two muffle oven. The thirdmuffle in the middle was fed with the hot gases coming out of the lateralmuffles. This reduced the fuel consumption by 1 / 3 .21 Letter of H. Kori G.m.b.H. to SS-Sturmbannführer Lenzer, Lublin, of October 23, 1941. ArchiwumPastwowego Muzeum na Majdanku, sygn. VI-9a, vol.1.22 APMO, BW 30/46, p. 18.23 APMO, BW 30/46, p. 6.
126 Germar Rudolf (ed.), Auschwitz: Plain FactsThis advantage in reduced fuel consumption had its price, though, becausethe third muffle had to accommodate the gases of two gas generators.Thus, the volumetric velocity of the gases passing through thecentral muffle was roughly twice as high as in the outer muffles. As aresult, some of the flammable gases reached the flue. This, along witha careless use of the forced draft systems, caused the damage of theflues and chimney of Crematory II at the end of March 1943But this has nothing to do with capacity. Instead, Pressac interpretsthis by claiming that the duration of a cremation in the three-muffleoven was reduced by one-third as compared to the two-muffle oven,which is technically absurd, since the heat theoretically available ineach of the muffles was greater in the two-muffle oven than in thethree-muffle oven (about 210,000 kcal/h/muffle as opposed to 163,000kcal/h/muffle; or given in amount of coke per muffle: 30 kg/h/muffleas opposed to 23.3 kg/h/muffle).On 8: But even if, for the sake of argument, Pressac’s interpretation were correct,then it would follow that the maximum capacity of a three-muffleoven would be twice as high as that of the double-muffle oven ( 3 / 2 (relationof muffles) × 4 / 3 (relation of capacity) = 2):36 corpses ÷ 10 hours × 21 hours × 2 = 151.2 corpses per day,therefore the capacity of five ovens would be:Therefore the maximum capacity of five three-muffle ovens would be(5×151.2) = 756 corpses per day. But Pressac mentions an effectivecapacity of 800 corpses per day, which is then magically transformedinto 1,000. Thus Pressac is not even consistent with his own technicallyerrant presuppositions.On 9: Pressac does not even attempt to justify in some way the capacity thathe attributes to the eight-muffle oven, which is as technically unfoundedas the capacity he attributes to the three-muffle oven.On 10: The cremation of 45 fat adult corpses – three per muffle – in the fiveovens of Crematory II at Birkenau in 40 minutes (reference from thewitness H. Tauber) can be taken seriously only by those who have notthe vaguest idea of the structure and operation of these ovens. First ofall, the cremation time of one adult male corpse was an average of 60minutes; secondly, the maximum amount of heat that the two gas generatorscould produce, which was designed for the cremation of onlyone corpse at a time in each muffle, would have been insufficient tomaintain a muffle temperature of 600°C when assuming the simultaneouscremation of two corpses in each muffle. 600°C is less a temperaturethan required for a complete combustion of the heavy hydrocarbons,which develop during the cremation of a corpse. 700°C is aminimum required. This means that not even the simultaneous crema-
Page 1 and 2:
BARNES REVIEW HOLOCAUST HANDBOOK SE
Page 5:
HOLOCAUST HANDBOOKS SERIES—VOLUME
Page 8:
Table of Contents 7Auschwitz: The E
Page 11 and 12:
10 Germar Rudolf (ed.), Auschwitz:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 22 and 23:
21Pressac and the German PublicBy G
Page 24 and 25:
Germar Rudolf, Pressac and the Germ
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76: 74 Germar Rudolf (ed.), Auschwitz:
Page 125: 124 Germar Rudolf (ed.), Auschwitz:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
THE HOLOCAUST HANDBOOK SERIES . . .
Page 201 and 202:
Treblinka. Extermination Camp or Tr
Page 203 and 204:
Auschwitz: Plain Facts—A Response
Page 205 and 206:
Auschwitz: The First Gassing—Rumo
Page 207 and 208:
THE BARNES REVIEW:In the maverick t
Page 210:
TBR ORDERING COUPON TBR SUBSCRIBERS
show all

AUSCHWITZ: PLAIN FACTS - Holocaust Handbooks

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?