PART FOUR
CHAPTER
1 |
| |
AUSCHWITZ
EXPLAINED BY THE REVISIONISTS
“Vergasungskeller”:
gassing cellar or gas-generating
cellar ? |
| |
Reply to the affirmations by A R
Butz and R Faurisson
concerning Leichenkeller 1 or “corpse cellar
1”
of Birkenau Krematorium II |
| |
The article by Robert Faurisson that appeared
in “Le Monde” of 29th December 1978 on “The
problem of the gas chambers” or “The Auschwitz
rumor”, triggered a response by G Wellers, entitled "An abundance
of proofs". This was followed by the publication of “A letter
from Mr Faurisson”, in right of reply, and by virtue of this same
right, G Wellers replied with a text entitled “An inspired
novel”. Still not admitting defeat, Faurisson sent yet another
reply to the newspaper, requesting “One proof... one single
proof”, which the editors of "Le Monde" refused to publish. This
epistolatory duel in the press was the start of “The Faurisson
Affair” in that it brought the question to the attention of the general
public.
Keeping strictly to German source documents, Georges
Wellers counter-attacked using only ONE LETTER, that of 29th January 1943
[Document 1]. Not reasoning like a revisionist, it seemed to him that
this document, backed up and authenticated by the testimony of survivors and of
the SS themselves, would suffice. It was in fact the only material
“criminal proof” that he had available. 1t was effective, and
Faurisson was never able to produce a valid counter-explanation, only very weak
arguments bordering on the foolish.
Neither Wellers nor, fortunately,
Faurisson, were aware that the “slip” contained in this letter, as it
was presented in 1978, was historically unusable because incomplete. It lacked
Kurt Prüfer’s clarifying report, unknown in France at the time, but
found subsequently in the Auschwitz. Museum Archives [Documents 2 and
2a].
To affirm, SOLELY on the basis of the letter of 29th January
1943 that the term “Vergassungskeller” designated a homicidal gas
chamber installed in Leichenkeller 1 / corpse cellar 1 of
Krematorium II was irresponsible, for though “gas chamber” was
correct, there was no proof that it was “homicidal”, for to be able
to demonstrate this, the following factors must all he taken into account and a
number of steps must necessarily be followed: |
| |
| a) |
The letter of 29th
January 1943 DOES NOT STATE which of the Leichenkeller of Krematorium II the SS
are referring to. Drawing 932 shows that THREE Leichenkeller were planned,
numbers 1. 2 and 3 [Documents 3 and 4]; |
| |
|
| b) |
Two other Bauleitung
drawings of Krematorium II, numbers 1311 and 2003. show that Leichenkeller
3 was converted for other functions nothing to do with its original
purpose; |
| |
|
| c) |
The report by the
engineer responsible for the installations, Kurt Prüfer, clearly states
that it is Leichenkeller 2 from which the shuttering could not yet be
removed; |
| |
|
| d) |
The only remaining
Leichenkeller, designated by Bischoff as the Vergassungskeller, is
therefore Leichenkeller 1. His letter means above all that it is to not
be used for the moment as a “gassing cellar”, but as a “corpse
cellar”, i.e. a “morgue”. |
| |
|
| e) |
The letter shows
that the SS called Leichenkeller 1 of Krematorium II the Vergassungskeller /
gassing cellar. The existence of a gas chamber in the basement of Krematorium
II is thus proven, BUT THAT IS ALL. It is not until this “slip” is
compared with and united with others, that the evidence that this was in fact a
homicidal gas chamber becomes overwhelming. |
| |
| To date, no valid argument to refute this
interpretation has been found by the revisionists. The American Arthur R Butz
in his book,, “The Hoax of the Twentieth Century”
(Historical Review Press, Brighton 1977) writes in Chapter IV on Auschwitz:
|
| |
“Now the word “Vergasung” has two
meanings. The primary meaning (and the only one in a technical context is
gasification, carburation or vaporization ... In any case it is
obvious that the crematoria at Auschwitz required equipment for
“Vergasung” in order to inject a fuel air mixture into the ovens and
that the translation of NO-4473 [the letter of 29th January 1943], should be
revised, possibly to “gas generation cellar”. I have confirmed this
interpretation of the “Vergasungskeller” with technically competent
sources [!] in Germany” (page 121) |
| |
| When R Faurisson, somewhat surprised (to say
the least), it would appear, by NO-4373, had to find an answer quickly, he
purely and simply in his second article in “Le Monde”
and then in his “Statement the the defense”, page 85,
copied Butz argument, foolishly |
|
 |
Document 1:
Letter of 29th January 1943 from SS Hauptsturmführer Bischoff,
head of the Auschwitz Bauleitung, to his superior SS-General Kammler.
[
[PMO microfilm No 205, volume 11 of the Hoess trial, Annex 5.
certified by Judge Jan Sehn as being a true copy. Original in the PMO
archives, file BW 30/34, microfilm 1060, page 100] |
|
| Translation of
the passage underlined: |
|
| |
|
| It has not yet been
possible to remove the shuttering from the reinforced concrete ceiling of the
corpse cellar because of the frost. However, this does not matter
because the gassing cellar can be used for the purpose |
|
|
