Critique of the "Findings on Justification" by Judge Gray
In his Judgment on Tuesday 11th April 2000
In The High Court of Justice 1996 -I- 1113,
Queen's Bench Division
David John Cawdell Irving ./. Penguin Books Limited & Deborah E. Lipstadt
This critique was compiled on request of David Irving for use in his appeal against this judgment. Most of my comments in the following are restricted to remarks made by Justice Gray in section 13 of his Judgment, as the rest merely is a repetition of the trial itself and doesn't mean that it influenced the judge's decision. Furthermore, I mainly focus on points dealt with by the expert witness Prof. Robert Jan van Pelt, since a) I do not feel competent to address many of the other topics and b) because wherever David Irving has agreed with the position of the defendants, - which was the case in many points of what the other epert witnesses of the defense stated - there appears to be no point in discussing these topics here again, although many things had to be said where both David Irving and the defendants are obviously wrong. This will be done in a later work.
For orientation purpose, I shall introduce my paragraphs with a quotation of what Justice Gray said, including the number he used in his judgement for his paragraphs.
I am grateful to Carlo Mattogno whose material has been very helpful in compiling this article.
Expert Prof. van Pelt
"13.10. [...] In several instances his criticisms were supported by the Defendants' other experts, van Pelt, Browning and Longerich. I am satisfied that each of them is outstanding in his field."
Even though Prof. Van Pelt has no education and professional training as an architect, it must be admitted that he might have collected a certain amount of experience in the field of interpreting architectural maps during his 15 years of professional activities. But that does by no means whatsoever make him an "outstanding" expert in Chemistry nor in cremation technology. It is therefore wrong that Justice Gray accepted any chemical or engineering statement made by Prof. Van Pelt as an expert opinion. In fact, it is worth nothing more than the comment of any layman which has to be ignored by any court.
"13.36 [...] Irving's perception of the importance of the note appears to take no account of the mass murder of the Jews which took place soon afterwards."
Justice Gray - and with him the experts of the defendants - display a great deal of ignorance and incompetence when assuming that the meaning of a document must be interpreted by considering what (allegedly) happened afterwards. Writing history retrospectively is anachronistic and thus a flawed method, especially if the alleged later events are not supported by documentary or physical evidence.
British Post-War Trials
"13.50 [...] It was of course legitimate for Irving to suggest that his [Aumeier's] account was the result of brutal pressure being brought to bear by his British captors, if he had evidence for such a suggestion. But it was not clear to me what evidence Irving was relying on."
Although there is no direct evidence available that Aumeier was tortured by his British captors, there is ample evidence that alleged German perpetrators were frequently mistreated in British captivity. According to Aschenauer, the main features of the American post-war trials (skin burns, destruction of the bed of the (finger-, i.e., toe-)nails with burning matches, torn-out fingernails, knocked-in teeth, broken jaws, crushed testicles, wounds of all kinds due to beatings with clubs, brass knuckles and kicks, being locked up naked in cold, damp and dark rooms for several days, imprisonment in hot rooms with nothing to drink, mock trials, mock convictions, mock executions, bogus clergymen, and many more.,) also characterized those British trials taking place in Werl, where leading officers of the Wehrmacht as well as concentration camp guards from Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen and Natzweiler were tried. One fundamental difference, however, was that no investigating commissions were introduced during or after these trials, so that the internal proceedings of, for example, the British interrogation camps and prisons - most notably Minden, Bad Nenndorf and Hameln - remained sub-surface.
From two examples, however, it becomes clear that interrogation methods of second and third degree were the rule there as well. The first example is the torture of the former Commandant of Auschwitz, Rudolf Höß, in the prison of Minden. This torture was not only mentioned by Höß himself in his autobiography, but has also been confirmed by one of his torturers who, rather as an aside, also mentioned the torture of Hans Frank in Minden. And further, in his testimony before the International Military Tribunal (IMT), Oswald Pohl reported that similar methods were used in Bad Nenndorf and that this was how his own affidavit had been obtained. The example of Höß is especially important since his statement was used at the IMT as the confession of a perpetrator, to prove the mass murder of the Jews.
It is therefore untenable to use any testimony or "confession" produced at these trials without critically analyzing it and confirming it by documentary and physical evidence.
Gassing Cellar for Delousing
"7.68 The Defendants relies on a letter dated 29 January 1943 from Bischoff, Chief of Central Construction Managemnent at the camp, to SS Brigadefuhrer Kammler in which there is reference to a Vergasungskammer (gas chamber or cellar)."
"13.69 As I have already observed in paragraph 7.11 above, in the course of the trial Irving modified his position: he accepted that there was at least one gas chamber (or "cellar") at Auschwitz, albeit used solely or mainly for the fumigation of clothing."
"13.82 As the Defendants point out, this argument has some curious features. Firstly, Irving embraced it relatively recently in late 1998 (so that it cannot have been the basis for his denials before that date of the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz). Secondly, Irving appeared at one stage to accept that there was a gas chamber in morgue 1 at crematorium 2, albeit one that was used for fumigation and not for killing. In that case it would seem that ducts or some other form of aperture would have been required to introduce the pellets into the chamber, since the morgue had no windows and a single gas-tight door."
Even if the gassing cellar ("Vergasungskeller", not "Vergasungskammer"!) was operated as a delousing cellar with Zyklon B (documents recently found in Moscow archives indeed indicate that they were operated with hot air instead), Justice Gray's reasoning "that ducts or some other form of aperture would have been required to introduce the pellets into the chamber" is wrong. Not a single delousing chamber - provisional or permanent - in the entire Third Reich had such introduction devices. A glance into the Leuchter report would reveal that the normal operation during delousing procedures is that somebody equipped with a gas mask enters the delousing facility, opens the Zyklon B cans with a special tool, distributes the Zyklon B pellets, leaves the room and closes it tightly. Even if such a gassed room had windows or other openings, they were never used to insert Zyklon B, as they had to be sealed for safe operation, and that could not be done properly from outside the building. Thus, Justice Gray's reasoning simply reveals his ignorance of the evidence.
Stairs and Slides
"7.61 The next feature identified by van Pelt relates to the entrance to crematorium 2 and the means of which access was gained to the morgue below. In its original design, the entrance was situated to one side of the building. Inside the entrance there was a slide down which corpses would be tipped to reach the level of the morgue. But the drawing shows that this design was changed in late 1942 so as to move the entrance to the crematorium to the street side of the building. At the same time a new stairway to the morgue was designed to replace the pre-existing slide. Van Pelt pointed out that the original design apparently contemplated that only corpses would need to be transported down to the morgue. The new design on the other hand is consistent with a wish to enable people transported to Auschwitz to proceed from the railway station through the new entrance, then to walk downstairs into what is alleged to have been the undressing room and thence into the supposed gas chamber. The stairway has been redesigned in such a way that it would be extremely awkward to carry corpses down to the morgue on stretchers. Van Pelt concludes that the object of the redesign of the stairway was to enable living people to walk downstairs rather than for corpses to be carried down."
"13.76 The nature of the redesign in 1942 of crematorium 2 appears to me, for the reasons summarised in paragraph 7.59 to 7.63 above, to constitute powerful evidence that the morgue was to be used to gas live human beings who had been able to walk downstairs."
"13.84 [...] Secondly, there is the evidence of van Pelt that the redesign of crematorium 2 in late 1942 was intended to cater for live human beings to walk down to an undressing room before being led into the chamber and to do away with the corpse-slide previously used to convey dead bodies downstairs."
It is incredible how stubbornly ignorant Pressac, van Pelt, and subsequently Justice Gray can be. The design for Crematorium II and III was originally made for this building being erected in the Auschwitz main camp. Jean-Claude Pressac has published the maps which show why the entrance to the basement was changed. The map is entitled: "Verlegung des Kellerzuganges an die Straßenseite" (relocation of entrance to the road site). This had become necessary, because when those plans originally intended for the Stammlager where transferred to Birkenau a year later, some alterations had to be made: First, the cellars were raised in order to avoid problems with the low ground water level in Birkenau. Secondly, the access road was on the other side of the building. Since the cellars with the soil on them raised some 3 feet above ground level, morgue 2 had to be surrounded before one could access the stairs to the cellar, that is some 100 yards longer than initially planned. Therefore, the decision to build extra steps into the basement from the other side of the building and from the end of morgue 2 is absolutely innocent.
Schematic situation for the new Crematorium as originally planned for Auschwitz Stammlager
Schematic situation of Crematorium II, changed planning to adopt with raised morgues and access from other side in Birkenau camp (crematorium III mirrored).
During their entire period of operation, the morgues of crematorium II and III were doubtlessly used for storing corpses of inmates who died due to „natural" causes, waiting for their cremation, which summed up to some ten thousands of corpses. If, as Justice Gray imputes, the corpse-slide was dismantled because the morgues were no longer used to store the corpses of "naturally" deceased people, and if stairs without such slides could be passed only by living people, then pardon my asking: How did the corpses of those inmates who died "naturally" got into the morgues? Did they walk, too? Certainly not. They were carried, and they had to be carried down a few steps into the basements. An impossible task? Obviously not. So why did the SS not include slides with the new stairs? Perhaps simply because the costs of the whole project were going out of control due to the changes that had to be made at the new location in Birkenau, and that they wanted to keep the costs down? Isn't that a much simpler and more logic explanation?
And apart from that: Where is the proof that the slides were removed in the first place? If Prof. van Pelt and Justice Gray had looked into the available plans carefully, they would have seen that they were still there, as Carlo Mattogno has recently pointed out:
Plan 2136 from Februar 22, 1943, for
Krematorium III [Note 11, p. 305];
Plan 2197 from March 1, 1943, for Krematorium
II [Note 11, p. 307]
Plan 109/15 by the Firm Huta from September 24,
1943 für Krematorium II und III [Note 11, p. 327]
Plan 109/16A by the Firm Huta from October 9, 1943 für Krematorium II und III [Note 11, p. 328].
Moreover, the slide is mentioned as existing in
ordinances 200 and 204 of the Zentralbauleitung to the Häftlingsschlosserei
of 18 March 1943 regarding Crematorium II [11a]
Dummy Shower Heads
"7.51 Another was Yehuda Bakon, an Israeli artist, who at Auschwitz had been employed to take papers to the crematoria for burning. Consequently he had entered the crematoria and had seen the gas chamber. In the summer of 1945 he drew illustrations of Auschwitz which he produced in the course of his evidence. The drawings depicted the inside of gas chambers, including the dummy shower heads and the mesh columns used to insert the Zyklon-B into the gas chamber."Let me quote from an article written by Carlo Mattogno:
On 14 May, Bischoff sent Topf the following "dringendes Telegramm" [urgent]:
"Mitbringt Montag überschlägiges Projekt für Warmwasserbereitung für ca. 100 Brausen. Einbau von Heizschlagen oder Boiler in den im Bau begriffenen Müllverbrennungsofen Krem. III oder Fuchs zwecks Ausnutzung der hohen Abgangstemperaturen. Evtl. Höhermauerung des Ofens zwecks Unterbringung eines grossen Reservebehälters ist möglich. Es wird gebeten entsprechende Zeichnung Hernn Prüfer am Montag den 17.5. mitzugeben."22
On 05 June 1942, Topf sent Drawing D60446 to the Zentralbauleitung "den Einbau der Boiler in den Müllverbrennings-Ofen betreffend." (regarding the installation of the boilers in the trash incinerator.) This project also involved the installations for Crematorium II.23
In an undated "Fragebogen" (questionnaire) apparently written in June 1943 regarding the Birkenau crematoria, in answer to the question, "Werden die Abgase verwertet?" (are the exhaust gases utilized?), the head of the Zentralbauleitung, Bischoff, responded: "geplant aber nicht ausgeführt" (planned but not carried out), and in response to the following question: "Wenn ja zu welchem Zweck?" (If yes, to what purpose?), Bischoff answered: "für Badeanlagen im Krema. II und III."24 (for bath facilities in Crematorium II and III).
For more details see Mattogno's article. So, whatever hard documentary evidence there really is for those shower heads, it all indicates that the eye witnesses have made it up, my Lord.
"7.62 The drawings further provide for the ventilation of the supposed gas chamber in crematorium 2. Van Pelt infers that the purpose of the system for extracting air was to extract poisonous air and so speed up the removal of the corpses to the incinerators."
It is not very intelligent of Justice Gray to parrot the false and long ago refute claims by his incompetent "expert" witness Prof. van Pelt. I refer here to my critique on van Pelt's claims.
Preheating the Morgue
"7.68 […] Van Pelt pointed to a letter dated 6 March 1943 from Auschwitz to the Topf company which contemplated the use of hot air from the ventilators for the incinerators to pre-heat the Leichenkeller 1. Why, he asked, heat a morgue, which should be kept cool. Answering his own question, he claimed that Zyklon-B evaporates more quickly in high temperatures, so the killing process would be speeded up. (Irving answered that there is nothing sinister about heating the morgue: it was a requirement of good building practice in relation to civilian morgues)."
First of all, Justice Gray ignores that this heating was never installed! I hate repeating myself about this topic, so I refer to what I said already in my critique of van Pelt's claims.
Krema IV & V
"7.68 […] There is a timesheet of a construction worker which makes reference to fitting gastight windows to crematorium 4."
"7.63 Crematoria 4 and 5 were new buildings. The initial drawings are dated August 1942, not long after the visit paid to the camp by Himmler, which the Defendants say marks the inception of the accelerated extermination programme. According to van Pelt the design of these crematoria incorporated undressing rooms (although not so designated on the drawings) and morgues which were to serve as gas chambers. The drawings of the morgues make provision for several windows measuring 30 x 40cms. The size of these windows corresponds with the size of windows referred to elsewhere in construction documents as being required to be gas proof. The windows were to be above eye level. Van Pelt draws the inference that the purpose of these windows was to enable Zyklon-B pellets to be inserted through them into the building (a process which was observed by Sonderkommando Dragon, as mentioned above).
7.64 Van Pelt agreed that the drawings for crematoria 4 and 5 show a drainage system which appears to link up with the camp sewage system. He disagreed with Irving's suggestion that this would have been highly dangerous because large quantities of liquid cyanide would have found their way into the sewage system. Van Pelt claims that the gas would evaporate rather than turn into liquid."
There is indeed more evidence available indicating that these rooms where intended to be used as gas chambers, e.g., reports about leveling the soil and making a concrete floor, and fitting windows in a "gas chamber". However, Justice Gray ignores that before and during the war the term "gas chamber" was used solely in connection with delousing facilities. The best example for that are the designation in the plans of the delousing rooms in the Buildings BW 5a and BW5b in Birkenau. There one reads clearly: "Gaskammer" (gas chamber). Another example is one of the most widely spread expert literature of the 1940s about Zyklon B delousing: F. Puntigam, H. Breymesser, E. Bernfus, Blausäuregaskammern [sic! Emph. added] zur Fleckfieberabwehr, Sonderveröffentlichung des Reichsarbeitsblattes, Berlin 1943. So it has to be assumed that the camp authorities at least temporarily considered to use these rooms as delousing facilities. See for that my reasoning in my critique of van Pelt's claims.
"7.66 Another allegedly incriminating document is the record of a meeting held on 19 August 1942 between members of the Auschwitz construction office and a representative of the engineers Topf to discuss the construction of four crematoria. The note of the meeting refers to the construction of triple oven incinerators near the 'Badenanstalten fur Sonderaktionen' ('bath-houses for special actions': the words are in quotations in the original)."
"13.76 [...] Few and far between though they may be, documents do exist for which it is difficult to find an innocent explanation. I have in mind for example the minute of the meeting of 19 August 1942 (paragraph 7.66 above), which refers to Badenanstalten fur Sonderaktionen ("bath-houses for special actions") and the so-called Kinna report (paragraph 7.67 above). "
The word "Sonderaktion" does not necessarily have any sinister meaning, as one example mentioned by Carlo Mattogno might show: In a "Fernschreiben" of December 18, 1942, Bischoff writes there was a "Sonderaktion der Gestapo bei sämtlichen Zivilarbeitern" [special action by the Gestapo of all civilian workers], that is "all", not "some." If the interpretation by Justice Gray, that Sonderaktion was equivalent to execution, is correct, the Gestapo executed all civilian workers. A dispassionate Judge would never impute a sinister meaning to a document if he has no documentary evidence supporting his claim.
"6.96 The Defendants rely in addition on what they claim to be an explicit mention of the policy of extermination which is contained in the so-called Kinna report, written by an SS corporal dated 16 December 1942 from Zamosk in Poland about the transport of 644 Poles to Auschwitz. This report records SS Hauptsturmfuhrer Aumeier as having explained that only Poles fit for labour should be delivered to Auschwitz and that, in order to relieve the camp, "limited people, idiots, cripples and sick people must be removed from the same by liquidation". The report continues that "in contrast to the measures applied to the Jews, the Poles must die a natural death"."
"7.67 In a different category is a report dated 16 December 1942 made by a corporal named Kinna, which made reference to an order that, in order to releive the camp, limited people, idiots, cripples and sick people must be removed from the same by liquidation. Kinna stated that the implementation of this order was difficult because the Poles, unlike the Jews, must die a natural death."
"13.76 [...] Few and far between though they may be, documents do exist for which it is difficult to find an innocent explanation. I have in mind for example the minute of the meeting of 19 August 1942 (paragraph 7.66 above), which refers to Badenanstalten fur Sonderaktionen ("bath-houses for special actions") and the so-called Kinna report (paragraph 7.67 above)."
This document I fairly unknown in the literature (at least as far as I know), so a thorough analysis will have to wait. Kinna was a witness during the Auschwitz trial in Frankfurt in 1964. The court documents say about that: "The witness Kinna confirmed the accuracy of the report" (trial transcripts Irving ./. Lipstadt, day 18, pp. 11). During the trial, Irving stressed:
"The significance is the fact that this witness, to what is obviously a criminal document, is questioned only as to the accuracy of the document and is then released by all the parties, including the public prosecutor.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, I am not saying you are wrong about that. My reaction to it would be that that is simply what happens when a witness is finished giving his evidence." (Ibid., p. 12)
This clearly shows that Justice Gray didn't get it. The Kinna report shows that, if its content is true, Kinna must have known a great deal about what was going on in Auschwitz, especially regarding the measures applied on the Jews, and he was involved in it. Surprisingly, nobody asked him about what the measures allegedly applied against the Jews, about his role in this, and he was not charged for complicity. Irving points out
"the remarkable fact that here is a man who has obviously been engaged in a criminal undertaking who could possibly have struck a bargain, shall I put it like that, that if he will testify to the accuracy of the document, then no further charges will be laid against him." (Ibid.)
And apart from all: What ever the measure applied to the Jews were, again we are left totally in the dark about what they were about. Why did nobody ask Kinna?
"13.74 Similarly Irving had some valid comments to make about the various accounts given by survivors of the camp and by camp officials. Some of those accounts were given in evidence at the post-war trials. The possibility exists that some of these witnesses invented some or even all of the experiences which they describe. Irving suggested the possibility of cross-pollination, by which he meant the possibility that witnesses may have repeated and even embellished the (invented) accounts of other witnesses with the consequence that a corpus of false testimony is built up. Irving pointed out that parts of some of the accounts of some of the witnesses are obviously wrong or (like some of Olere's drawings) clearly exaggerated. He suggested various motives why witnesses might have given false accounts, such as greed and resentment (in the case of survivors) and fear and the wish to ingratiate themselves with their captors (in the case of camp officials). Van Pelt accepted that these possibilities exist. I agree."
"13.77 Whilst I acknowledge that the reliability of the eye-witness evidence is variable, what is to me striking about that category of evidence is the similarity of the accounts and the extent to which they are consistent with the documentary evidence. The account of, for example, Tauber, is so clear and detailed that, in my judgment, no objective historian would dismiss it as invention unless there were powerful reasons for doing so. Tauber's account is corroborated by and corroborative of the accounts given by others such as Jankowski and Dragon. Their descriptions marry up with Olere's drawings. The evidence of other eye-witnesses, such as Hoss and Broad, would in my view appear credible to a dispassionate student of Auschwitz. There is no evidence of cross-pollination having occurred. It is in the circumstances an unlikely explanation for the broad similarity of the accounts in this category."
When it comes to witnesses' claims regarding homicidal mass gassings, there is not a single document supporting then. The way and the social atmosphere in which these confessions were obtained and accounts were made reminds every "dispassionate student of Auschwitz" of the way eye witness accounts and confessions were obtained in the Middle Ages during the witch trials. Justice Gray might be ignorant of both, though. Additionally, he doesn't care about the physical impossibilities of what eye witnesses tell us. They confirm each other, so they must be right.
Höß was tortured, and Broad wrote his confession filled with Polish nationalism and hatred against the SS - but he was an SS-man himself. Any judge accepting a confession by a tortured witness should immediately lose his job in a country under the rule of law.
Regarding the »cross- pollination« I repeat what I said in my critique about van Pelts claims, and hope so to make the read think for themselves: Ota Krauss and Erich Schön-Kulka, a pal of Vrba, Wetzler, Müller and Jankoswki, all of them members of the so-called camp partisans of Auschwitz who were involved in what they called "making propaganda".
The communist Bruno Baum, himself a member of these partisans, boasted after the war:[15a]
"The entire propaganda which then started abroad was made by us with the help of our Polish mates.«
No mutual influence?
The Central Construction Office and Himmler's Dismantling Order
"7.20 Although the archive of the camp Kommandantur had been destroyed by the Nazis, the archive of the Central Construction Office survived, apparently by an oversight, and was recovered by the Russians."
"7.118 [...] Himmler ordered the dismantling of the extermination installations in the crematoria at Auschwitz. In late 1944 the Nazis duly dynamited the crematoria and destroyed the camp archives (or so they intended: as has been observed above, documents from the Central Construction Office accidentally survived)."
Nothing indicates that the archive of the Central Construction Office survived because of "oversight" or "accidently". It could as well be that nobody thpought it would be worth destroying it since nothing incriminating is to be found in it, which would indicate that there was nothing sinister with the buildings constructed in Auschwity.
There is no evedence that Himmler ordered the dismantling of the "extermination installations". The documents we ave about that do not include the word "extermination".
The Leuchter Report, Prof. van Pelt, and Prof. Roth
"7.115 The Defendants relied on the content of an interview of Dr Roth, the scientist at the Massachusetts laboratory which carried out the tests on Leuchter's samples. According to Dr Roth, cyanide produces a surface reaction which will penetrate no further than one tenth of the breadth of human hair. The samples with which he was provided by Leuchter ranged in size between a human thumb and a fist, so they had to be broken down with a hammer before analysis. Roth asserts that the resulting dilution of any cyanide traces effectively invalidates the test results.
7.116 Apart from what the Defendants regard as the fundamentally flawed assumption by Leuchter about the concentration of cyanide required for killing purposes, they identified numerous errors of fact in his report. He wrongly stated that there was no provision for gas-fitted (that is, sealed) doors and windows in the gas chambers. Tthe walls of the Leichenkeller were, contrary to what Leuchter claimed, sealed with a coating of plaster. Leuchter wrongly assumed that there was a mains sewer. He wrongly stated that there was no exhaust or ventilation system and that the facilities were damp and unheated."
"13.79 The reason why Irving initially denied the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz was, as has been seen, the Leuchter report. I have summarised in some detail the findings made by Leuchter at paragraphs 7.82 to 7.89 above. I will not repeat myself. I have also set out at paragraphs 7.104 to 7.108 above the reasons why van Pelt on behalf of the Defendants dismissed the Leuchter report as flawed and unreliable. Those reasons were put to Irving in cross-examination. It is a fair summary of his evidence to say that he accepted the validity of most of them. He agreed that the Leuchter report was fundamentally flawed. In regard to the chemical analysis, Irving was unable to controvert the evidence of Dr Roth (summarised at paragraph 7.106 above) that, because the cyanide would have penetrated the brickwork and plaster to a depth of no more than one tenth of the breadth of a human hair, any cyanide present in the relatively large samples taken by Leuchter (which had to be pulverised before analysis) would have been so diluted that the results on which Leuchter relied had effectively no validity. What is more significant is that Leuchter assumed, wrongly as Irving agreed, that a greater concentration of cyanide would have been required to kill humans than was required to fumigate clothing. In fact the concentration required to kill humans is 22 times less than is required for fumigation purposes."
Prof. Dr. Roth did not give evidence in front of this court. Being totally ignorant in Chemistry, Prof. Van Pelt is not in the position to testify on this subject at all. Mr. Irving did indeed refute Prof. Roth's claim by showing how, in the case of the Auschwitz delousing facilities, the cyanide migrated through the entire wall, coloring its outer wall patchy blue. More could be said about it, but that alone "exterminates" Roth's "evidence". But apart from that: Everybody knows that plaster is a very rough, porous and course material. How can a dispassionate judge seriously assume that a gas like hydrogen cyanide cannot penetrate into such material deeper than just a few mikrometers? And if he doesn't feel competent on that: why does he not want to hear an expert in his court first before judging about it?
Though it is true that mammals are far more sensitive to HCN than insects, killing people in the spaces and within the short time attested to requires similar concentrations of Zyklon B as used for delousing purposes. I have demonstrated that frequently,16 see my critique of van Pelt's claims.
Apart from that: Leuchter was correct: The morgues of Krematoria II and III were not heated and damp (see section on preheated morgue), and a plaster is not a sealing that prevents hydrogen cyanide to penetrate walls, see my critique of van Pelt's claims.
Holes in the roof of morgue 1 at crematorium 2?
"7.70 In support of his contention that there were chimneys through which it is alleged that Zyklon-B would have been poured into morgue 1 at crematorium 2, van Pelt relied on a photograph taken by a camp official in February 1942. According to van Pelt in this photograph, when greatly enlarged, it is possible to detect smudges which he maintained represent the chimneys protruding through the morgue roof. Furthermore van Pelt remarked on the similarity in the alignment of the supposed chimneys in the photograph with the alignment of the chimneys in one of Olere's drawings. Van Pelt further relied on an aerial photograph which was taken in the summer of 1944 (to which I have referred earlier) on which, when greatly enlarged, spots are visible above the morgues of crematoria 2 and 3. He claims that these spots are the protruding chimneys, reduced in size because of the dirt laid onto the roof since the earlier photograph was taken. Irving gave reasons why he suspected that the 1944 photograph relied on by van Pelt had been tampered with.
7.71 Irving disputed van Pelt's interpretation of the photographs and suggested that tampering may have taken place. He produced a photograph showing the roof of morgue 1 in the background on which there is no sign of any protruding chimney. Van Pelt responded that this photograph (in which the construction of the roof of the crematorium can be seen to be incomplete) was probably taken in December 1942 at which date the chimneys would not have been installed. Van Pelt explained that the reason why no protruding chimneys are visible in another photograph produced by Irving is that it was taken after the Nazis had dismantled the gas chambers."
"7.92 It is common ground that the roof of Leichenkeller 1 was supported by seven concrete pillars. The Defendants allege that adjacent to four of these pillars there ran hollow ducts or chimneys made of heavy wire mesh which protruded through holes in the roof where the pellets were poured into them and ran down into the chamber below. These ducts were 70 square centimetres in size but tapered at the top where they passed through the roof.[...] Van Pelt conceded in one of his supplementary reports that there is no sign of the holes. It would be impossible for chimneys of the size described by Tauber and Kula to have disappeared."
"7.120 […] In response to Irving's claim van Pelt maintained, firstly, that the roof is in such a mess and most of it is so inaccessible that it is impossible to verify whether or not the holes existed. In any case he claimed that it is likely that, when the gas chambers were dismantled in 1944, the chimneys would have been removed and the holes cemented over so as to remove incriminating evidence. (Irving regards this as highly implausible since the Russians were by then poised on the eastern side of the Vistula). Moreover, van Pelt repeated that there exists powerful evidence for the existence of chimneys, namely the photographic and eye-witness evidence (including Olere's drawings which I have summarised above)."
"13.83 [...] In the end, the task for an historian is to weigh the evidence of the absence of signs of holes in the roof of the morgue against the opposing evidence that there were chimneys running through the roof. In my view van Pelt is right in his opinion that it is after so many years difficult to verify whether or not holes at one time existed in a roof which collapsed as long ago as 1944. It is unclear how much of the roof can be seen in the photograph on which Irving relies. The roof is in a bad state, so that it is hard to tell if there were holes in it. There is a possibility that the holes were backfilled. There is the evidence of eye-witnesses who observed or at least described pellets being poured down through the roof of the morgue. Olere's drawing depicts clearly the chimneys running up towards the roof the gas chamber. Their appearance in his drawing corresponds with the description of them by Tauber and others. Photographs taken in 1942 (or 1943) and 1944, whilst difficult to interpret, are consistent with the presence of protruding chimneys. In these circumstances, I consider that an objective historian, taking account of all the evidence, would conclude that the apparent absence of evidence of holes in the roof of morgue at crematorium 2 falls far short of being a good reason for rejecting the cumulative effect of the evidence on which the Defendants rely."
A proper analysis of the photos referred to by Justice Gray irrefutanbly proofs that what he and van Pelt pretend to be "chimneys protruding through the morgue roof" as claimed by "eye witnesses" cannot what the witnesses told us, see my analysis in my critique of van Pelt's claims. In fact, there is not a single document indicating that there were any such "protruding chimneys". The "Photographs taken in 1942 (or 1943) and 1944" are not difficult to interpret. Their interpretations are clear and without any alternative possibility: These images do NOT show any "protruding chimneys" allegedly used to introduce Zyklon B.
No document or eyewitness can refute and change the fact that there are no holes and nor traces of "backfilled holes" in the ceiling of morgue 1 of crematorium II in Birkenau. Holes of the size of 70 cm² (half a square meter!) would be easily visible even under the prevailing circumstances of the roof filled with dirt and rubble. Furthermore, it is impossible to "backfill" holes in a way to make it impossible to find their traces. Additionally, it would be idiotic in the first place to "backfill" such holes in the roof of morgue 1, when at the same time the roof of the other morgue 2 was dismantled completely. This would have been the way to remove criminal traces. Since it was not done in the case of morgue 1, this clearly indicates that there was nothing the SS worried about. For more, see my analysis in my critique of van Pelt's claims
"7.121 […] Contemporaneous documents identified by the Defendants show that the new design incorporated a undressing room (Auskleiderkeller). Irving was unable to explain in cross-examination what need there would have been for an undressing room if the facility was to be used only for the fumigating of dead bodies and inanimate objects."
"13.84 [...] Thirdly, there is evidence that a camp doctor asked in January 1943 for the provision of an undressing-room, which would have been unnecessary if the crematorium were intended for corpses."
Inmates died in their barracks, during work, in the camp hospital or were executed somewhere on gallows or shot. Were these inmates undressed at the spot where they died and carried naked to the crematorium? Certainly not. Where they burnt with their clothes? Certainly not. Thus, was there a need to undress them inside the crematorium? Yes. Would it be sinister to refer to such a room as "undressing room"? Not at all. Why then does Justice Gray consider this term to be sinister?
Gas Tight Doors
"7.60 The principal feature identified by van Pelt is the redesign of the double door to the supposed gas chamber in crematorium 2. When in 1942 the drawings were executed for the adaptation of this crematorium, this door in common with others in the same building was designed to open inwards. Careful scrutiny of the drawings reveals, however, that the drawing of the inward- opening door has been scratched out. A fresh drawing dated 19 December 1942 was made by Jakob, the chief of the drawing office, who rarely undertook drawings himself. It provides for the door to the supposed gas chamber to open outwards. There is no apparent reason for this. To van Pelt the obvious explanation is that the chamber was to be used as a gas chamber. If the door opened inwards, it would be impossible to open it after the administration of the gas because of the crush of corpses against the inside or the door of those who struggled to get out when they realised what was happening to them."
7.68 […] In a letter dated 31 March 1943 Bischoff presses for the delivery of a gastight door with a spyhole of 8mm glass, with a rubber seal and metal fitting. There is a timesheet of a construction worker which makes reference to fitting gastight windows to crematorium 4.
"7.121 […] Moreover, there would have been no need for a metal-protected, reinforced spy-hole if only corpses and metal objects were to be gassed (see paragraph 7.68 above)."
"7.122 […] Van Pelt did not accept that, if the chamber was to become a shelter, it would have needed to have a gas-tight door with a peep-hole protected on the inside by a metal grill."
"13.84 [...] Finally there is the evidence of the letter dated 31 March 1943 in which Bischoff requisitions, as a matter of urgency, a gas-tight door with a spy-hole of extra thickness. It is difficult to see why a spy-hole would be necessary in the door of a chamber used only for fumigating corpses or other objects."
|Door of a Delousing Chamber in Auschwitz. with spy- hole and metal grid.|
Though a spy-hole might not have been necessary for fumigation purposes, it is nevertheless a proved fact that the delousing doors in Auschwitz were equipped with such, see the picture to the right, taken from Jean-Claude Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, Beate Klarsfeld, New York 1989, p. 49. Air raid shelter doors where always equipped with spy-holes, see S. Crowell's article, and another one.
It is furthermore proved that there was at least a temporary intention to equipped morgue 1 of crematorium II with some sort of delousing equipment. Furthermore it was proved that the "gas tight" doors delivered to the Auschwitz camp, consisting merely of some wooden boards, were neither gas tight in a technical sense nor were they constructed in such a stable way to lock in hundreds of panicking people, especially while opening outwards. Finally, it was proved that the Auschwitz camp authorities could have ordered and received real gas tight, massive steel doors that could have served the sinister purpose, but they decided not having a use for it.
Neither Prof. van Pelt nor Justice Gray obviously noticed that the door referred to in "the letter dated 31 March 1943" by Bischoff describes this gas tight door as "100 × 192 cm", which clearly is a single door that could not be fitted into the frame of morgue 1 (the alleged 'gas chamber'), as this was 190 × 200 cm for, as Justice Gray rightly states, a "double door". It is technically close to impossible to make a double door gas tight and resistant against a panicking crowd. Wherever this gas tight single door was to be fitted in, it was apparently not morgue 1.
Furthermore, the change of the door of morgue 1 from opening inwards to opening outwards might as well have a very simple and innocent explanation: Due to capacity restrictions of crematories, they are normally equipped with morgues for storing corpses of infectious diseases. Spotted fever claimed many lives at the Birkenau camp, and since morgue 1 was the only morgue equipped with both an air intake and exhaust, it is most likely that the victims of this epidemic were temporarily stored there. Intelligent ventilation design causes a slight underpressure in such morgues to prevent the nauseous gases developed by stored corpses from entering the rest of the building. Under such circumstances any double door would have to open outwards in order to stay closed.
Air raid shelters
"13.86 If the redesign was to convert the buildings [crematoria II and III] to air raid shelters, there would have been no reason why the drawings and associated documents should not say so. But there is no hint in the documents that such was the intention. The question arises for whose benefit such shelters would have been built. It appears to me to be unlikely that the Nazis would be concerned to shelter the camp inmates. In any case the shelters would have been too small to accommodate more than a fraction of them. But the shelters would not have been suitable for SS personnel either, since the SS barracks were about one and a half miles way. So I cannot accept that this argument comes anywhere near displacing the conclusion to be drawn from the convergent evidence relied on by the Defendants for their contention as to the object of the redesign work."
Whether an air raid shelter in the basements of crematoria II and III would have served to shelter inmates, as testified by several witnesses(!),or SS is not important. Contrary to Justice Gray's view, it is reasonable to assume that some facility inside the camp served as an air raid shelter for the SS, since many SS men worked inside and around the camp during day and night. The ample evidence found by Samuel Crowell indeed proves that the SS did care.
Quantity of Zyklon B
The quantity of Zyklon-B required
"7.123 In relation to Irving's argument that the quantity of Zyklon-B delivered to the camp could be explained as being needed for fumigation purposes, Van Pelt produced a supplementary report in which he noted that the amount of Zyklon-B delivered to Auschwitz vastly exceeded the quantity delivered to other camps. He made a detailed calculation, based on delivery documents and on stated assumptions about the frequency of fumigations, that of the total amount of Zyklon-B delivered to Auschwitz in 1943 (1,200 kilos) [recte: 12,000, G.R.] not more than 9,000 kilos would have been required for fumigation. That would leave unaccounted for 3,000 kilos, which van Pelt contended would have been more than enough to kill the 250,000 Jews estimated to have been gassed to death that year."
No other camp had to fight such massive spotted fever epidemics, so a comparison with other camps simply doesn't make any sense. Van Pelt's "stated assumptions" are pure speculations. One single delousing in the delousing chambers of BW 5a and 5b would at least require 5 kg Zyklon B, so these two facilities alone would consume 3,650 kilos per year if they were used once a day. And these were not the only delousing facilities in Auschwitz, and this does not even take into consideration that inmate baracks might have been fumigated as well, which would invalidate van Pelt's "assumptions". The only proper assumptions would be to conclude that we simply don't know how much was really needed to fight lice and other vermin.
Auschwitz Death Books
"13.88 Irving relied on the fact that the camp registers or "death books" released by the Russians record deaths at Auschwitz, but make no mention of any deaths by gassing. The short answer to this point is that, according to the unchallenged evidence of a large number of witnesses, the books record only the deaths of those who were formally registered as inmates of the camp. The Jews who were selected on arrival to die were taken straight to the gas chambers without being registered. One would not therefore expect to find mention of the cause of death of those Jews in the death books."
Justice Gray overlooks the fact that many old and very old as well as young children and infants are registered in the Sterbebücher (death books) as having died due to "natural" causes, which clearly indicates that even those inmates were frequently registered in the camp, in crass contradiction of the defendants' supposition that people unable to work were immediately executed. Astonishingly, the scientific analysis of these books published by the International Tracing Center in Arolsen does include all sorts of data about the people whose death was registered in these Sterbebücher, except for their age/date of birth, the most important feature. Thus, this publication is scientifically worthless.
"13.89 Reports were sent regularly from the camp to Berlin in cypher. They were intercepted and decoded at Bletchley Park. Although these reports often gave the cause of death, they did not mention gassing. In my judgment there are two reasons why little significance is to be attached to this: the first is that there was a strict rule of secrecy about the gassing and the second is that, like the death books, these reports related to registered inmates only."
Justice Gary's statement "the first is that there was a strict rule of secrecy about the gassing" is typical for a pseudoscientific statement. According to this reasoning, the absence of evidence proves the alleged crime. With such a rule of evidence, everything can be proved and nothing refuted. A judge arguing this way has failed his professional duties miserably and should be dismissed immediately.
Coke Consumption and Crematory Capacity
"7.65 In addition to the architectural drawings, there are other documents which, according to the Defendants, lend support to their contention that there were gas chambers at the camp which were used for genocidal purposes. I shall not itemise all the documents identified by the Defendants as belonging in this category. They include a patent application for multi-muffle ovens made by Topf. Although the patent application does not in fact relate to the ovens supplied to Auschwitz in 1942/3, it is said that the principle is the same. The two features of the application on which the Defendants focus are, firstly, the method of employing fat corpses to speed promote the rate at which corpses can be burned and, secondly, the claim that no fuel is required after the initial two day pre-heating period, no more fuel will be required because of the amount of heat generated by the burning corpses. Van Pelt noted that both these features are reflected in the account given by Tauber of the way in which the corpses were incinerated."
"7.125 Likewise van Pelt rejected the argument that the quantity of coke delivered to Auschwitz was insufficient to fuel the incineration of the corpses in the numbers which the Defendants claim were killed at the camp. He challenged the premise of Irving's argument which was that as much as 35kg of coke would have been required for each body incinerated: basing himself on a contemporaneous calculation and assuming bodies were burned together at the rate contemplated in the Bischoff's letter of 28 June 1943, he maintained that the quantity of coke required per corpse would have been no more than 3.5kg)"
"13.76 [...] As to Muller's letter about the incineration capacity of the ovens (see paragraphs 7.69 and 7.106 above), it does not seem to me that, despite its unusual features, a dispassionate historian would dismiss it out of hand, as did Irving, as a forgery. Van Pelt believed it to be genuine."
"13.90 Irving argued that the quantity of coke required to burn one body would have been 35kg. He contended that the amount of coke which is recorded as having been delivered to Auschwitz is nothing like enough to kill the number of Jews who the Defendants say lost their lives in the gas chambers. But I accept that the evidence of van Pelt, which was based on contemporaneous documents (see paragraph 7.125 above), that, if the incinerators were operated continuously and many corpses were burnt together so themselves providing fuel, no more than 3.5kg of coke would have been required per corpse."
Referring to a Topf patent that had technically little to do with the ovens built in Auschwitz reveals an enormous technical ignorance. This patent was about cremating animal carcasses and butcher garbage!
It is totally irrelevant what a person without any knowledge in engineering in general and cremation technology in particular believes what a document about that topic is all about. If a dispassionate court wanted to establish what the maximum capacity of the Auschwitz crematoria was like, it would have heard technical and physical expert reports about that rather than the opinion of a cultural historian or the letters of an old and suspicious document with "unusual features".
Furthermore, Justice Gray was mislead by Prof. Van Pelt who, during his cross examination, when he said the coke consumption of the Auschwitz crematoria was reduced in comparison to others due to the forced draught fans which replaced the recuperator:
"In Auschwitz, actually, the ovens -- the difference between the ovens is that one element which is used in normal ovens is with a heat kind of regenerator in Auschwitz was replaced by compressed air which was blown into the oven. Now ----
Q: [Irving] Would this account for the drop of normal coke usage from 35 kilograms in the crematorium Gussen concentration camp per body to 3.5 in Auschwitz, in your opinion?
A: [van Pelt] Yes, and I think the normal use for Gussen questions the normal use of what? For one, two, three, four bodies in a day at a certain moment very high intensity use. I just would like to quote here from a piece which John Claude Pressac wrote and I also worked on."
This statement alone reveals an ignorance on behalf of van Pelt that one has to grasp for air. How can this man pretend to have any expertise in cremation technology in general and regarding Auschwitz in particular? First, the recuperators in Auschwitz (which he wrongly calls regenerators) were not replaced by bellows (which he wrongly calls compressed air). These two devices had nothing to do with each other and could not replace each other. Secondly, bellows do not reduce, they increases the fuel consumption as they blow air into the furnance, thus accelerating the air flow, which, as a consequence, has less time to transfer its energy to the muffle walls. And the removal of a recuperator has the same effect. Its purpose is to recuperate the heat int he exhaust gasses to heat up the incoming fresh air. By removing the recuperator, additional coke must be fired to heat up the incoming air. Relying on Jean-Claude Pressac is a bad habit of Prof. Van Pelt anyway, since Pressac is a pharmacist with as much expertise in cremation technology as Prof. van Pelt or Justice Gray: None!
Justice Gray has proved that there is one ignorant, pseudo-scientific and pseudo-legal Holocaust-Promoter more in this world. His judgment is not worth the paper it is written upon.
Germar Rudolf, 20th April 2000
 Aside from McCarthy, Congressional Record-Senate No. 134, July 26, 1949, pp. 10397ff., reprinted in its entirety in R. Tiemann, Der Malmedy-Prozeß, Munin, Osnabrück 1990, pp. 269ff., also cf. R. Aschenauer, Macht gegen Recht, Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Recht und Wirtschaft, Munich 1952, S. 13ff.; F. Utley, The High Cost of Vengeance, Regnery, Chicago 1949, esp. pp. 190ff.; F. Oscar, Über Galgen wächst kein Gras, Erasmus-Verlag, Braunschweig 1950, pp. 38ff.
 J. Halow, JHR 9(4) (1989) pp. 453-483 (online:www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/9/4/Halow453-483.html); J. Halow, Siegerjustiz in Dachau, Druffel, Leoni 1993; for a typical example, cf. the case of Ilse Koch in A. L. Smith, Die "Hexe von Buchenwald", Böhlau, Cologne 1983; for Malmedy cf. also R. Merriam, JHR 2(2) (1981) pp. 165-176 (online: www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/2/2/Merriam165-176.html).
 R. Aschenauer, op. cit (note 1), pp. 72ff.
 A. Rückerl, NS-Verbrechen vor Gericht, C. F. Müller, Heidelberg 1984, p. 98; for a comprehensive discussion of the British trial of the suppliers of Zyklon B to Auschwitz, cf. W. B. Lindsey, The Journal of Historical Review (JHR) 4(3) (1983) pp. 261-303 (online: www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/4/3/Lindsey261-303.html).
 According to R. Faurisson, Annales d'Histoire Révisionniste 1 (1987) p. 149 (online:www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/archFaur/1986-1990/RF8703xx1.html); Minden/Weser was the interrogation headquarters of the British military police.
 R. Aschenauer, Macht gegen Recht, (note 1), p. 72, tells of the infamous Special Camp Bad Nenndorf, where preliminary hearings culminated in severe physical abuse.
 R. Höß, in M. Broszat (ed.), Kommandant in Auschwitz, dtv, Munich 1983, pp. 149f.; cf. R. Faurisson, op. cit. (note 5), p. 137-152; in English: JHR 7(4) (1986) pp. 389-403; in German: DGG 35(1) (1987) pp. 12-17 (online:www.vho.org/D/DGG/Faurisson35_1.html); cf. also R. Faurisson, NV 33 (1994) pp. 111-117.
 B. Clarke, as quoted in R. Butler, Legions of Death, Arrow Books Ltd., London 1986, pp. 236f.
 R. Butler, ibid., pp. 238f.
 O. Pohl, "Letzte Aufzeichnungen", in U. Walendy, Historische Tatsachen Nr. 47, Verlag für Volkstum und Zeitgeschichtsforschung, Vlotho 1991, pp. 35ff.; M. Lautern, Das letzte Wort über Nürnberg, Dürer, Buenos Aires 1950, pp. 43ff.; D. Irving, Der Nürnberger Prozeß, 2nd ed., Heyne, Munich 1979, pp. 80f.; Pohl considered himself legally innocent, since he had neither caused nor tolerated any atrocities: cf. O. Pohl, Credo. Mein Weg zu Gott, A. Girnth, Landshut 1950, p. 43; cf. also A. Moorehead's account of the rough interrogation methods used by the British in Bergen-Belsen, published in the British monthly The European, March 1945; quoted from: F. J. Scheidl, Geschichte der Verfemung Deutschlands, pub. by author, Vienna 1968, v. 3, pp. 83ff.; cf. Alan Moorehead's essay "Belsen", in Cyril Connolly (ed.), The Golden Horizon, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London 1953, pp. 105f.
 J.-C. Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York, pp. 183f., 302f.; for the maps of the original planning by Walter Dejaco see J.-C. Pressac, Les crématoires d'Auschwitz. La machinerie du meurtre de masse, CNSR, Paris 1995, document 9.
[11a] The Trial of Höss, volume 11a, S. 88. I took this information from Carlo Mattogno's article "Auschwitz 1270 to the Present"-
 Carlo Mattogno, "John C. Zimmerman and 'Body Disposal at Auschwitz': Preliminary Observations", online:http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/jcz.html; similarly important: Mattogno, "'Sonderbehandlung' and Crematory II: The Typhus Epidemic of January 1943", online: http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/sonder.html.
 "Beschränkte, Idioten, Krüppel und kranke Menschen müssen in kürzester Zeit durch Liquidation zur Entlastung des Lagers aus demselben entfernt werden.
Diese Maßnahme findet aber insofern eine Erschwerung, da nach Anweisung des RSHA entgegen der bei den Juden angewendeten Maßnahmen, Polen eines natürlichen Todes sterben müssen."
 See M. Köhler, "The value of Testimony and Confessions Concerning the Holocaust", in Ernst Gauss (ed), Dissecting the Holocaust, Theses & Dissertations Press, Capshaw (Alabama) 2000, pp. 89-136 (online:www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndvalue.html).
 See my analyses of only a few portion of what Justice Gray's star witness Tauber tells in „Critique of Claims Made by Robert Jan Van Pelt", online:www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/RudolfOnVanPelt.html.
[15a] Bruno Baum, »Wir funken aus der Hölle« in Deutsche Volkszeitung – Zentralorgan der KPD, Berlin 31.7.1945.; cf. B. Baum, Widerstand in Auschwitz, Kongress-Verlag, Berlin 1957; Estate of Hermann Langbeins in Dokumentationszentrum des Österreichischen Widerstandes, Vienna:unbublished manuscript of Baum entitled »Bericht über die Tätigkeit der KP im Konzentrationslager Auschwitz« from June 1945 in Vienna; I took that information from the article »„Ein Kommentar ist an dieser Stelle überflüssig“«, by Knud Bäcker, VffG 2(2) (1998), S. 128, FN 26e (online: http://www.vho.org/VffG/1998/2/Baecker2.html).
 Trial transcript, day 8, 24.1.2000, pp. 61ff., day 32, 15.3.2000, pp. 154ff.
 See Carlo Mattogno, "Morgue Cellars of Birkenau: Gas Shelters or Disinfesting Chambers?", online:www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/leichen.html.
 See Hans Jürgen Nowak, Werner Rademacher, "Some Details of the Building Administration of Auschwitz", in: E. Gauss (ed.), op. cit. (note 22), pp. 319-346 (online:www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndNowak.html).
 Miklos Nyiszli's Auschwitz (NY: 1993), p. 128, an important source for Pressac, claims that during air raids the prisoners would take shelter in the gas chamber. Martin Gilbert's Auschwitz and the Allies (NY: 1981), p. 309, contains the testimony of a woman survivor who describes being led into a dark space with many other new female arrivals and being kept there during an air raid. The most interesting thing about this testimony is that it describes how several of the women became hysterical during the raid, believing themselves to be inhaling poison gas (taken from S. Crowell, "Technique and Operation...", op. cit., note 20). Another survivor tells us that in 1944, during allied air raid, the inmates were frequently led into air raid shelters: Colin Rushton, Spectator in Hell. A British soldier's extraordinary story, Pharaoh Press, Springhill (Berkshire) 1998.
 "Defending Against the Allied Bombing Campaign: Air Raid Shelters and Gas Protection in Germany, 1939-1945" (online:http://www.codoh.com/incon/inconabr.html), "The Gas Chamber of Sherlock Holmes: An Attempt at a Literary Analysis of the Holocaust Gassing Claim" (http://www.codoh.com/incon/inconshr123.html), "Technique and Operation of German Anti-Gas Shelters in WWII: A Refutation of J.C. Pressac's 'Criminal Traces'" (online: http://www.codoh.com/incon/inconpressac.html); "New Documents on Air Raid Shelters at Auschwitz Camp", 18.2.1998 (online: www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/documents/LSKeller/MoscowDocs.html); "Comments on Mattogno's critique of the bomb shelter thesis" (online: http://www.codoh.com/incon/inconscrmtgno.html) more to come, as documented at Crowell, Samuel.
 Sonderstandesamt Arolsen (ed.), Die Sterbebücher von Auschwitz, Saur, Munich 1995.
 See C. Mattogno, F. Deana, "The crematory ovens of Auschwitz and Birkenau", in: Ernst Gauss (ed.), op. cit. (note 14), pp. 405-446 (online:www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndcrema.html).
 Trial Irving ./. Lipstadt, day 9, pp. 149f.