Auschwitz. The Samuel Crowell Bomb Shelter thesis - morula
Auschwitz. The Samuel Crowell Bomb Shelter thesis - morula
Auschwitz. The Samuel Crowell Bomb Shelter thesis - morula
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
CARLO MATTOGNO<br />
AUSCHWITZ<br />
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
A HISTORICALLY UNFOUNDED HYPOTHESIS<br />
Edited and Copyrighted © MMI by Russ Granata<br />
www.russgranata.com<br />
Numbers in brackets [ ] refer to end notes.<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
In my final response to <strong>Crowell</strong>, I have cited his article published as "<strong>Bomb</strong> <strong>Shelter</strong>s in<br />
Birkenau: A Reappraisal." Item # CS 600 Smith' s Report: <strong>The</strong> Catalog PO BOX 439016<br />
San Diego CA 92143.<br />
1) Background<br />
A long article by <strong>Samuel</strong> <strong>Crowell</strong> entitled « Technik und Arbeitsweise deutscher<br />
Gasschutzbunker im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Eine Widerlegung von J. C. Pressacs<br />
„kriminellen Spuren" » appeared in the September 1997 issue of the journal<br />
Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung (pp. 226-243). Noticing the total<br />
inconsistency of <strong>Crowell</strong>'s <strong>thesis</strong>, I wrote the refutation Morgue Cellars of Birkenau: Gas<br />
<strong>Shelter</strong>s or Disinfesting Chambers? [1]. <strong>Crowell</strong> replied with "Comments On Mattogno's<br />
Critique Of the <strong>Bomb</strong>er <strong>Shelter</strong> <strong>The</strong>sis"[2], an article even more inconclusive than the<br />
first. In my following «Reply to <strong>Samuel</strong> <strong>Crowell</strong>'s "Comments" about my "Critique of the<br />
<strong>Bomb</strong> <strong>Shelter</strong> <strong>The</strong>sis"» [3] I promised myself not to return to this topic, which, for my<br />
part, I considered to be closed. Nonetheless, <strong>Crowell</strong>'s systematic distortion of documents<br />
and facts in his article "<strong>Bomb</strong> <strong>Shelter</strong>s in Birkenau: A Reappraisal "[4] and his<br />
unshakeable tenacity for supporting patently false theses, induced me to reconsider my<br />
decision. Since his <strong>thesis</strong> has found proselytes among revisionists - however incredible<br />
this may seem - and for the sake of historical accuracy, I again take part in the debate.<br />
This is also because <strong>Crowell</strong> once more put forward arguments that I had already proved<br />
to be unfounded, beginning with the argument concerning the doors of the<br />
Entwesunsanlage at Majdanek.<br />
2) <strong>The</strong> gas-tight doors of <strong>Auschwitz</strong><br />
One of the assumptions of the <strong>Crowell</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong> <strong>Shelter</strong> <strong>The</strong>sis<br />
is that "all air-raid shelter doors were equipped with<br />
peepholes" (p. 5). From this assumption <strong>Crowell</strong> deduces<br />
Page 1 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
peepholes" (p. 5). From this assumption <strong>Crowell</strong> deduces<br />
that all gas-tight doors "with peepholes" are "air-raid shelter<br />
doors." Because he does not see the necessity of a<br />
"peephole" in a disinfestation chamber, <strong>Crowell</strong> declares that<br />
a gas-tight door "with peepholes" cannot be a door of such a<br />
chamber (pp. 26, 47, 48) and he concludes that the gas-tight<br />
doors of Leichenkeller 1 of Kremas II and III, having been<br />
equipped with "peepholes," were necessarily "air-raid shelter<br />
doors."<br />
In reality this assumption is completely unfounded as are the<br />
consequences that <strong>Crowell</strong> draws from it. In the first place,<br />
it is not true that "all air-raid shelter doors were equipped<br />
with peepholes." Some of the doors in regulation air-raid<br />
shelters [5] lacked them, such as the one in illustration 1. [6]<br />
Illustration 2<br />
Door of a disinfestation chamber<br />
functioning with hydrocyanic acid<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
Illustration 1<br />
Hermetically sealed door for shelters<br />
used in general anti-gas defense.<br />
Steel door without a "peephole".<br />
It is equally false that an anti-gas door with a "peephole" cannot be a door of a<br />
disinfestation chamber, as can be seen from the photographs published by Pressac.[7]<br />
Particularly significant is the photograph published on p. 49 of his work (see illustration<br />
2). <strong>The</strong> sign on the door shows the words "Giftige Gase! Bei betreten des Raumes<br />
Lebensgefahr."<br />
Citing the article "Gasdichte" Türen in <strong>Auschwitz</strong> by<br />
engineers Hans Jürgen Nowak and Werner Rademacher [8]<br />
<strong>Crowell</strong> claims that:<br />
"the felt-stripping used for the makeshift doors<br />
manufactured by the German Armaments Works at<br />
<strong>Auschwitz</strong> would not have been "gastight" in any sense<br />
having to do with fumigation or extermination, particularly<br />
with cyanide gas" (p. 26).<br />
This assertion is completely refuted by the facts. <strong>The</strong> two<br />
engineers have in effect erroneously taken as the normative<br />
model of a gas-tight door in a disinfestation chamber<br />
functioning with hydrocyanic acid (hydrogen cyanide), the<br />
type of steel door used in the standard Degesch-Kreislauf<br />
disinfestation chambers.[9] Now it is a certain and<br />
incontrovertible fact that all the known doors of<br />
disinfestation facilities actually installed at <strong>Auschwitz</strong> using hydrocyanic acid were<br />
wooden, beginning with the facility of Kanada I. If these wooden doors were not gastight<br />
and were not suitable for use with hydrocyanic acid, we must conclude that the SS<br />
of <strong>Auschwitz</strong> were candidates for suicide!<br />
Even the "Gaskammer" using hydrogen cyanide in BW 5b had two normal gas-tight<br />
Page 2 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
Even the "Gaskammer" using hydrogen cyanide in BW 5b had two normal gas-tight<br />
wooden doors that are still in existence as can be seen in illustration 3.<br />
Also the two doors of the gas chamber using hydrocyanic acid next to the shower room<br />
in the "Entwesungsanlage" at Majdanek had simple gas-tight wooden doors. [10]<br />
3) <strong>The</strong> gas-tight doors of Majdanek<br />
<strong>The</strong> case of the gas-tight doors of the<br />
Entwesungsanlage at Majdanek is the clearest<br />
example of <strong>Crowell</strong>'s aberrant methodology.<br />
Since 1997 he has been instigating Bradley<br />
Smith to engage the Washington Holocaust<br />
Museum in the well-known sterile<br />
controversy. In No. 46 of his Report dated<br />
September1997, Bradley Smith wrote:<br />
«Early this year <strong>Crowell</strong> discovered that<br />
a gas-tight door advertised and sold<br />
throughout wartime Germany as defense<br />
Illustration 4<br />
One of the two doors of the Gaskammer using<br />
hydrogen cyanide of BW5b. © Carlo Mattogno.<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
Illustration 3<br />
Door of the Gaskammer using hydrogen cyanide<br />
in BW5b. © Carlo Mattogno.<br />
against poison gas attack (the same door advertisement was reproduced on p.8 of<br />
SR 43) is identical, as <strong>Crowell</strong> has it, "in every conceivable physical feature", to the<br />
door at Majdanek, a replica of which is exhibited at the USHMM as the door to a<br />
gas chamber. [...]. <strong>The</strong> door was not a door designed to kill; it was designed to save<br />
lives: the one piece of evidence on exhibit at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum<br />
to substantiate the "gas chamber" claim is a hoax».<br />
In my Reply cited above I showed extensively<br />
that the gas-tight doors of the<br />
Entwesungsanlage at Majdanek were actually<br />
doors of a disinfestation chamber operated with<br />
hydrogen cyanide. Because <strong>Crowell</strong> - who is<br />
incapable of providing a single response to my<br />
arguments - prefered to remain silent, I present<br />
once more the proofs which show<br />
incontrovertibly that the four gas-tight doors at<br />
Majdanek had nothing to do with a "bomb<br />
shelter," but were the doors of a hydrogen<br />
cyanide gas chamber.<br />
In the aforementioned book KL Majdanek. Eine historische und technische Studie, Castle<br />
Hill Publisher, 1998, I dedicated an entire paragraph to the question of the planning,<br />
construction and objective of the gas chamber in this camp (pp. 129-137). In this<br />
paragraph, referring to the documents of the Zentralbauleitung of the concentration camp<br />
Page 3 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
paragraph, referring to the documents of the Zentralbauleitung of the concentration camp<br />
Lublin (Majdanek), I demonstrated that the facility to which the gas-tight doors in<br />
question belonged, was planned and constructed as an "Entwesungsanlage." [see<br />
Document 36] On this there is not the slightest doubt. Let us briefly take up the early<br />
history of this installation with the following chronology:<br />
K.L. Majdanek Plan<br />
Document 36: Plan of the Gaskammern I-IV, from:<br />
Deficiencies and Incoherences of the Leuchter Report,<br />
Jour J, December 1988, p.X.<br />
27 May1942: the Amt IIB of the SS-WVHA requested an "Entwesungsanlage" for<br />
the "Bekleidungswerk Lublin";<br />
19 June1942: the Chef des Amtes Zentrale Bauinspektion of the SS-WVHA, SS-<br />
Sturmbannführer Lenzer, communicates to the Bauinspektion der Waffen-SS und<br />
Polizei Generalgouvernment the above request "zum Bau einer Entwesungsanlage<br />
nach dem System der Blausäure-Entwesung";<br />
10 July 1942: the Leiter der Zentralbauleitung sends the administrative<br />
documentation on the "Entwesungsanlage" to the Bauinspektion der Waffen-SS und<br />
Polizei Generalgouvernment;<br />
Page 4 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
10 July 1942: composition of the "Erläuterungsbericht zur Errichtung einer<br />
Entwesungsanlage für die Pelz- und Bekleidungswerkstätte Lublin";<br />
10 July 1942: composition of the "Kostenanschlag über Errichtung einer<br />
Entwesungsbaracke für die Pelz- und Bekleidungswerkstätte Lublin";<br />
August 1942: composition of design "K.G.L. Lublin. Entwesungsanlage. Bauwerk<br />
XIIA"<br />
11 September 1942: the Zentralbauleitung orders two Heissluftapparate from the<br />
firm <strong>The</strong>odor Klein - Maschinen- und Apparatebau Ludwigshafen, Rhein<br />
Knollstrasse 26, for the "Entwesungsanlage";<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
22 October 1942: in the list of Bauwerke already completed appears the "Erstellung<br />
einer Entwesungsanlage" for the Bauvorhaben Pelz- und Bekleidungswerkstätte<br />
Lublin. In this list there is no mention of any air-raid shelter.<br />
No document indicates a possibility that this facility had to carry out the double<br />
function of "Entwesungsanlage" and "Luftschtzbunker".<br />
In the "Provisions in case of alarm" (Alarmvorschriften) emanating from the<br />
commandant of the camp on 3 September 1942, the possibilty of an air-raid attack<br />
is not even contemplated. [11]<br />
<strong>The</strong> installation was planned according to standard norms regarding the construction<br />
of gas chambers using hydrogen cyanide. In this respect I emphasize that the<br />
Kostenanschlag of 10 July for the entire "Entwesungsanlage" foresaw a reinforced<br />
concrete roof of 12 cm thickness ("Eisenbetondecke 12 cm stark") covered on top<br />
with a layer of clay 12 cm thick ("Lehmauffüllung 12 cm stark") as an isolating<br />
overlay ("als Isolierschicht"). <strong>The</strong> walls were to be constructed from ordinary bricks<br />
("Ziegelmauerwerk"). <strong>The</strong> plan "Entwesungsanlage Bauwerk XIIa" dated "August<br />
1942" shows a ceiling consructed from 15 cm of reinforced concrete and 12 cm of<br />
clay. <strong>The</strong> outer walls of the installation display a thickness of 38 cm.<br />
<strong>The</strong> standard disinfestation chambers operating with hydrocyanic acid and Degesch-<br />
Kreislauf had a ceiling made up of:<br />
15 cm of "Eisenbetondecke"<br />
5 cm of "Wärmeschutz"<br />
10 cm of "Betondecke",<br />
and had walls 38 cm thick (design of F. Boos of 30.6.1942 for the gas chamber of<br />
the "Aufnahmegebäude" at <strong>Auschwitz</strong>).<br />
Page 5 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
Regarding the direct inspection of the facility, I observe that<br />
1) As can be seen in illustrations 5-11, the four doors of the "Entwesungsanlage,"<br />
had two fastening levers (Hebelverschlüsse) - one above, the other below - with<br />
external handles, so that the doors could be hermetically closed only from the<br />
outside.<br />
Illustration 5<br />
KL Lublin - Entwesungsanlage -<br />
External door of the north-east<br />
gas chamber. © Carlo Mattogno.<br />
Illustration 7<br />
KL Lublin - Entwesungsanlage -External door<br />
of the north-west gas chamber.<br />
Fastening lever. © Carlo Mattogno.<br />
Illustration 6<br />
KL Lublin - Entwesungsanlage -<br />
External door of the north-west gas<br />
chamber. © Carlo Mattogno.<br />
Illustration 8<br />
KL Lublin - Entwesungsanlage -<br />
External door of the north-east<br />
gas chamber. © Carlo Mattogno.<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
Page 6 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
2) <strong>The</strong> two doors of the northern side had in addition a central bolt (Zentralverriegelung)<br />
which could also be closed from the outside. (illustration 11)<br />
Illustration 9<br />
KL Lublin - Entwesungsanlage - External door of the<br />
north-east gas chamber, internal view.<br />
Hook of the fastening lever.<br />
© Carlo Mattogno.<br />
Illustration 10<br />
KL Lublin - Entwesungsanlage - Frame of door<br />
of the north-east gas chamber.<br />
<strong>The</strong> hook of the fastening lever was inserted<br />
on the left into the metallic plate that can be seen<br />
on the frame. © Carlo Mattogno.<br />
<strong>The</strong>refore these doors are constucted to be closed from the outside and not the inside, so<br />
they could not have been used in a shelter against gas attack.<br />
3) <strong>The</strong> presence of huge stains of ferro-ferric<br />
cyanide in the walls of the<br />
"Entwesungskammer" situated on the northwest<br />
shows that hydrogen cyanide was<br />
employed in this chamber. Contrary to what<br />
<strong>Crowell</strong> claims, nothing shows that the<br />
disinfestation chambers served also as air-raid<br />
shelters.<br />
Illustration 11<br />
KL Lublin - Entwesungsanlage -<br />
External door of the north-eastern gas<br />
chamber. Particulars of the central bolt<br />
for the fastener. © Carlo Mattogno.<br />
<strong>Crowell</strong> asserts that the arguments which I set out in my above-mentioned reply<br />
"do not merit much space here, not only because they have already been responded<br />
to, but also because there is a lot of extraneous matter in his article." (p. 42)<br />
Page 7 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
Both claims are false. <strong>Crowell</strong> has neither responded to these arguments nor does the<br />
article contain "a lot of extraneous matter," being a detailed response to his theses. To<br />
show <strong>Crowell</strong>'s bad faith, it suffices to examine what he writes about the above doors:<br />
"Document 3. Orders from Lublin (Majdanek) to Auert in Berlin, September 26,<br />
1942 (Source: Kogon, E., others, eds. Nationalsozialistischen Massentötungen<br />
durch Giftgas, p. 319).<br />
Regarding this, he sententiously judges:<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
"In this case, we are lucky to have some of the doors still in existence, where they<br />
can be found at the Majdanek concentration camp. <strong>The</strong>refore [sic!], we know that<br />
these were air-raid shelter doors" (p.9).<br />
So not only has <strong>Crowell</strong> not responded to my arguments, but with foolish obstinancy, he<br />
persists in negating the evidence.<br />
A final observation.<br />
<strong>The</strong> presumed order of 26 September 1942 is in reality the result of a misaprehension of<br />
Adam Rutkowski, who edited the item "Majdanek" in the book cited by <strong>Crowell</strong>.[12] On<br />
p. 242 of this work we read:<br />
"Die mit Gummidichtungen versehenen Eisentüren, die fest verriegelt werden<br />
konnten, sind von der Firma ‚Auert' in Berlin geliefert worden."<br />
Referring to the provincial State Archive of Lublin and the relative note on this,<br />
Rutkowski writes:<br />
"Schreiben Nr. 17; die Liefernummern der Firma lauteten 656, 657, 659" (note 5 on<br />
p. 319).<br />
Here Rutkowski misunderstands a piece of information supplied by Józef Marszaek on<br />
p.53 of the article "Budowa obozu koncentracyjnego na Majdanku w latach 1942-1944"<br />
[13]:<br />
Page 8 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
"<strong>The</strong> letters on the door indicate that it was manufactured by the firm Auert, that<br />
assigned to the door the successive numbers 656, 657, 658 and 659. […]. <strong>The</strong> limits<br />
[that is, the allocation] permitted for the construction of the gas chamber amounted<br />
to 70,700 RM." [14]<br />
After this figure Marszaek writes in note 118:<br />
"Rozkaz budowlany [15] nr 525 z dnia 26 IX 42 r. WAPL, Zentralbauleitung…, nr.<br />
25, s. 39", that is:<br />
"Construction order No. 525 of 26 September1942. Provincial State Archive of<br />
Lublin, Zentralbauleitung, No. 25, p. 39."<br />
<strong>The</strong>refore this document does not refer to the order for four gas-tight doors from the firm<br />
Auert, but rather to the "Bauantrag" for 70,700 RM. Rutkowski, who did not mention<br />
the source, misunderstood Marszaek's previous note (relative to the order of 11<br />
September 1942 for two Heissluftapparate from the firm <strong>The</strong>odor Klein) that refers to<br />
"WAPL, Zentralbauleitung…, nr 17, s. 9-11." Here nr 17 does not indicate a "Schreiben"<br />
of the Zentralbauleitung, as Rutkowski believes, but to dossier No. 17 in the provincial<br />
State archive of Lublin from the fund named "Zentralbauleitung der Waffen SS und<br />
Polizei Lublin."<br />
If <strong>Crowell</strong> persists in ignoring these proofs and to negate the evidence, his <strong>thesis</strong> will be<br />
transformed from one of error into one of imposture.<br />
4) <strong>The</strong> "<strong>Bomb</strong> <strong>Shelter</strong> Documents"<br />
This distressful section illustrates perfectly the axiomatic nature of <strong>Crowell</strong>'s<br />
methodology. Having found a simple resemblance between two photographs (!) and<br />
without knowing the documents nor having inspected the installations, he immediately<br />
jumps to a conclusion that is for him final and indisputable, but which is in fact false. In<br />
his study of Pressac's "criminal traces" he adopted the same aberrant methodology which<br />
formulated the form of rebuke to van Pelt and myself reads:<br />
"Instead of working from the uncontested observation that the gastight fixures of the<br />
Criminal Traces were identical to civil air defence fixures, they proceeded from the<br />
premise that the crematoria never could have fulfilled an air-raid shelter function.<br />
Instead of working within the structure of the argument, they both preferred to<br />
simply look for reasons to reject it" (p.45).<br />
Page 9 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
I pass over his presumption concerning the "uncontested (!) observation" of this alleged<br />
identity. As I have already written, <strong>Crowell</strong> simply confuses things which have a<br />
superficial resemblance but are different in function and purpose, with things that are<br />
identical. But this is not the problem. <strong>The</strong> real problem is whether at the time when<br />
Pressac situates his criminal traces (January-April 1943) measures were taken at<br />
<strong>Auschwitz</strong> for air-raid defense.<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
<strong>Crowell</strong>, instead of studying this essential point, started with the firm assumption that airraid<br />
measures were taken in the crematoria of Birkenau, and then tried to justify his<br />
assertions with documents.<br />
He first postulated his dogmatic conclusion, and then searched for documents to prove it.<br />
Since these documents do not exist, he resorted to systematic distortion of the documents,<br />
which in fact demonstrate nothing at all, as will be seen from the following analysis.<br />
Document 1 (pp. 7-8) dates back to 6 August 1942 and considers the "Richtlinien für den<br />
Aufbau der Luftschutzes im Bereich des M.i.G. [= Militärbefehlshaber im<br />
Generalgouvernement]." It concerns simple norms from which it cannot be deduced<br />
neither if nor when air-raid shelters were constructed.<br />
Document 2 (p. 8) consists of two terse citations from the so-called diary of Hans Frank<br />
dated 22 and 24 September 1942 concerning "Gasmasken." This document too says<br />
nothing about air-raid shelters.<br />
Document 3 (p. 9) refers to the doors of the Entwesungsanlage of Majdanek. As I have<br />
shown above, a request for these doors, dated 26 September 1942, does not exist, and the<br />
doors have nothing to do with air-raid shelters.<br />
Document 4 (p. 9) is a short citation in English translation of the Stroop report. <strong>The</strong><br />
original says:<br />
"Nach gestern und heute gemachten Aussagen wurden im letzten Halbjahr 1942 die<br />
Juden angefordert, Luftschutzkeller zu bauen. Unter der Tarnung, Luftschutzkeller<br />
zu bauen, wurde bereits damals mit dem Bau der jetzt von den Juden bezogenen<br />
Bunker begonnen, um diese bei einer Aktion gegen die Juden [sic] benutzen zu<br />
können." [16]<br />
This proves nothing about <strong>Auschwitz</strong>, because Warsaw was in the Generalgouvernement<br />
while <strong>Auschwitz</strong> was situated in Upper Silesia and was part of the Reich. This fact makes<br />
documents 1-3 even more inconclusive.<br />
Document 5 (p.10) is a simple deposition of Bühler at the Nuremberg trial and proves<br />
nothing.<br />
Page 10 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
nothing.<br />
Document 6 (p.12) goes back to 14 September 1940 and refers to "Sofortmassnahmen<br />
bei <strong>Bomb</strong>en-und Brandschäden". <strong>Crowell</strong> himself admits that<br />
"it holds no particular interest, except that is the first document in the Central<br />
Construction Office files on the subject of civil air defense."<br />
In other words, it has no value whatever, but serves only to make up a number, like<br />
documents 1-5.<br />
Document 7 is a "memo on Fighting Phosphorous Fires December 21, 1940" (p.12).<br />
Another inane document to make up a number.<br />
Document 8 (p.12), "Erweiterer Selbstschutz in Barackenlagern" of 4 January 1941<br />
contains instructions on the construction of air-raid shelters and other similar general<br />
directives. It proves nothing regarding the actual construction of air-raid shelters.<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
Document 9 (p. 13) considers "Blaues Licht während der Verdunklung" and is dated 16<br />
April 1941. Another inane document.<br />
Document 10 is a tender by the Berlin firm Heinemann & Co. to the SS-Neubauleitung<br />
of <strong>Auschwitz</strong> and has for its object "Luftschutzdeckungsgräben für Arbeitsläger,<br />
Fabriken, öffentliche Plätze usw." and concerns "LS-Stollenrahmen aus Zement." From<br />
the letter it appears that the Heinemann firm wrote it on its own initiative to promote its<br />
products and was not solicited by the SS-Neubauleitung, nor is there a known response<br />
from this office. <strong>The</strong> document therefore proves nothing.<br />
Document 11 (p.13), "Building Regulations for 1942, March 6, 1942" mentions "quite<br />
casually in the context of general building regulations" measures for air-raid defense. Yet<br />
another document proving nothing.<br />
Document 12 (p. 13) is a "Civil Defense Security Directive, Himmler to Glücks,<br />
February 8, 1943" of which Hilberg gives a brief summary. This is how <strong>Crowell</strong><br />
comments on it:<br />
"<strong>The</strong> document, in our view, is significant in three ways. First, because it<br />
establishes an awareness of the need for civil air defense in the concentration camps<br />
at the highest level of the SS by early February, 1943. Second, because security<br />
needs would certainly justify the alternative use of the Birkenau crematoria in the<br />
case of air attack. Third, because an obvious antidote to prevent prisoner escapes<br />
would be to provide the prisoners with some measure of security so that they would<br />
Page 11 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
would be to provide the prisoners with some measure of security so that they would<br />
have a stake in maintaining order in an air-raid" (p.13).<br />
Here is what Hilberg writes:<br />
"In February 1943 Himmler became worried that air-raids on the concentration<br />
camps might occasion mass breaks. To prevent any such occurrence he ordered that<br />
each camp be divided into blocks, 4,000 inmates per block, each block to be fenced<br />
in with barbed wire. Every camp was to be surrounded by a high wall, and barbed<br />
wire was to be strung on both sides of the wall. <strong>The</strong> interior passageway between<br />
wire and wall was to be patrolled by dogs; the outer passageway was to be mined,<br />
just in case a bomb tore a hole in the wall. In the vicinity of the camp, dogs trained<br />
to tear a man apart (zerreissen) were to roam at night." [17]<br />
Hence this document concerns repressive measures against detainees, not measures for<br />
air-raid protection. It therefore proves nothing while <strong>Crowell</strong>'s comments are totally<br />
arbitrary.<br />
Document 13 (pp.13-14) is made up of the "Richtlinien" of Kammler and has for object<br />
"Luftschutz." It is dated 6 March 1943, but was protocolled by the Zentralbauleitung on<br />
19 June, as appears from the relative stamp. This means that the letter reached <strong>Auschwitz</strong><br />
on the latter date. <strong>Crowell</strong> states that<br />
"there are scribbles at the top of the page, including a large one that appears to be<br />
the name of Kirschnek, who was the overall building supervisor at <strong>Auschwitz</strong> and<br />
directly subordinate to Karl Bischoff, the head of the Central Construction Office at<br />
this time" (p. 14).<br />
Here <strong>Crowell</strong> makes another incredible blunder, because the writing in question is<br />
"Reg.", the abbreviation for "Registratur," that was the Sachgebiet of the<br />
Zentralbauleitung assigned to the registation of arriving post. [18]<br />
To be precise, SS-Untersturmführer Kirschnek was simply the head of one of five<br />
Bauleitungen - into which the Zentralbauleitung was then divided - having the function of<br />
Bauleiter of the "Bauleitung der Waffen-SS und Polizei <strong>Auschwitz</strong>, K.L. <strong>Auschwitz</strong> und<br />
Landwirtschaft <strong>Auschwitz</strong>." In particular, he had no jurisdiction over the Birkenau camp,<br />
which was subject to the authority of SS-Untersturmfüher Janisch, Bauleiter of the<br />
„Bauleitung des Kriegsgefangenenlagers."<br />
Since these directives reached <strong>Auschwitz</strong> in June 1943, they prove absolutely nothing<br />
Page 12 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
Since these directives reached <strong>Auschwitz</strong> in June 1943, they prove absolutely nothing<br />
regarding the possible implementation of air-raid measures in the crematoria of Birkenau<br />
between January and April 1943.<br />
Starting with No. 14, all the documents given by <strong>Crowell</strong> except for No. 16 postdate<br />
Pressac's criminal traces of April 1943. Hence they prove nothing about these traces in<br />
the framework of the "bomb shelter <strong>thesis</strong>." In the following table, I indicate the dates of<br />
the respective documents:<br />
Document 14 p. 14 5/4/44 Document 26 p. 20 20/9/44<br />
Document 15 p. 15 30/8/44 Document 27 p. 20 18/9/44<br />
Document 16 p. 15 23/9/42 Document 28 p. 20 11/8/44<br />
Document 17 p. 16 16/6/44 Document 29 p. 21 11/9/44<br />
Document 18 p. 17 28/6/44 Document 30 p. 21 2/6/43<br />
Document 19 p. 18 6/12/43 Document 31 p. 21 9/6/44<br />
Document 20 p. 19 21/9/43 Document 32 p. 21 11/5/44<br />
Document 21 p. 19 25/10/43 Document 33 p. 22 21/3/44<br />
Document 22 p. 19 5/11/43 Document 34 p. 22 25/3/44<br />
Document 23 p. 20 4/10/44 Document 35 p. 22 24/3/44<br />
Document 24 p. 20 18/10/44 Document 36 p. 22 26/8/44<br />
Document 25 p. 20 17/10/44<br />
Document 16 concerns the 23 September 1942 visit of Pohl to <strong>Auschwitz</strong>. [19]<br />
Nevertheless, the itinerary for the visit does not refer to any site having the remotest<br />
connection with a "bomb shelter." This was candidly admitted by <strong>Crowell</strong> himself, who<br />
writes "the itinerary makes no visits to possible bomb shelter sites" (p. 16). But then why<br />
did he cite this document to support his argument on "bomb shelters"?<br />
<strong>Crowell</strong> makes another blunder in his commentary stating that the annotations added by<br />
hand to the document<br />
"indicate that the camp capacity of Birkenau is foreseen as 12,000 men and 18,000<br />
women, and suggest that there are only 1,000 persons at Birkenau at this time" (p.<br />
16).<br />
One should ask oneself what annotations "suggest" such an absurdity. In the document in<br />
question the term "Birkenau" appears twice with an annotation next to it. <strong>The</strong> first is the<br />
one cited by <strong>Crowell</strong> ("Lager Birkenau Fassungsvermögen Männer 12.000 u. Frauen<br />
18.000"); the second is "Truppenlager Birkenau 523 mänl. häftl.u. 800 Fr."), that is,<br />
Page 13 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
18.000"); the second is "Truppenlager Birkenau 523 mänl. häftl.u. 800 Fr."), that is,<br />
"Camp for troops at Birkenau having 523 male detainees and 800 female."<br />
<strong>The</strong>refore <strong>Crowell</strong> takes for the population of the Lager Birkenau to be these 1,323<br />
detainees which simply make up the service personnel of the SS in the Truppenlager!<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
Even though the remaining documents, for chronological reasons, demonstrate absolutely<br />
nothing, I will examine some of them in order to show the hair-splitting nature of<br />
<strong>Crowell</strong>'s interpretations. Regarding Document 17 (p. 16), I refer to paragraph 10 (<strong>The</strong> 6<br />
Leichenkammern of the Aktenvermerk of 17 June 1944).<br />
Document 30 (p. 21) is a simple invoice for 45 RM dated 2 June 1943 concerning work<br />
done by detainees in Krema II. What does this document have to do with "bomb<br />
shelters"? What does it prove? Absolutely nothing.<br />
5) <strong>The</strong> Luftschutz-Deckungsgräben of September-November 1943.<br />
Documents 20-22 require a separate discussion. <strong>The</strong>y concern a letter from the specialist<br />
SS-Untersturmführer Kirschnek (not by Dejaco, as <strong>Crowell</strong> erroneously states) dated 21<br />
September 1943, and two letters dated 25 October and 5 November 1943 from the SS-<br />
Untersturmführer specialist Dejaco, who was employed in the Sachgebiet Planung of the<br />
Zentralbauleitung.<br />
In my two articles cited above on the "bomb shelter <strong>thesis</strong>" I stated - and here I confirm<br />
this - that at <strong>Auschwitz</strong> no air-raid measures (construction of "bomb shelters") were taken<br />
before 16 November 1943. <strong>Crowell</strong> cited these three documents in order to contradict this<br />
fact (to which I return below), and, as it seems, he truly believes that they refute my<br />
statement so strongly so as to qualify it as "a ridiculous assertion."[20] If there is<br />
anything truly ridiculous here, it is <strong>Crowell</strong>'s interpretation. He actually claims that these<br />
three documents refer to the construction of a "trench shelter" at <strong>Auschwitz</strong> (p. 19).<br />
In reality, <strong>Crowell</strong> has understood nothing of the problems posed by these documents; let<br />
us summarize the course of events.<br />
<strong>The</strong> «Programm "Luftschutzgräben"» was launched in Upper Silesia in August 1943.<br />
This entailed the use of pieces of prefabricated concrete (Betonteile) in the construction<br />
of Luftschutzgräben. <strong>The</strong> job of making these pieces was entrusted to the<br />
Zentralbauleitung of <strong>Auschwitz</strong>, which had them made from its "Beton-Kolonne."[21]<br />
For the production, standard metallic forms (Formen) were used that were supplied by the<br />
purchaser and into which cement was poured. Thus the excavation was covered with<br />
these elements of concrete that formed a kind of huge cement pipe. <strong>The</strong> most important<br />
part was evidently the cover (Deckung), a vault (Bogen, Gewölbe), so that these<br />
installations were commonly called "Luftschutz-Deckungsgräben."<br />
Page 14 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
<strong>Auschwitz</strong> was only the place of manufacture (Baudienststelle), but the Zentralbauleitung<br />
had also to provide for the delivery (Auslieferung) of the products to the customer. <strong>The</strong><br />
products were intended for the Baubevollmächtigte im Bezirk der Rüstungsinspektion<br />
VIII, but the customer (Auftraggeber) of the work was the Gaubeauftragte des<br />
Generalbevollmächtigten für die Regelung der Bauwirtschaft im Raume Oberschlesien<br />
(G.B.-Bau), with its seat at Kattowitz. <strong>The</strong> co-involvement of G.B.-Bau as customer<br />
shows that the "Luftschutzgräben" had been requested by Speer, probably for the Todt<br />
organisation. In fact, a document pertinent to "Programmbauten" from the<br />
"Reichsminister für Rüstung und Kriegsproduktion. Amt Bau OT [= Organisation Todt]"<br />
of March 1944 mentions a "Luftschutz" plan included in the Bauvorhaben "Kattowitz<br />
Stollenbau." [22]<br />
In conclusion, the Betonteile of the "Luftschutzgräben" (or "Luftschutz-Deckungsgräben")<br />
were meant for the above-mentioned office of Speer at Kattowitz: Nothing at all shows<br />
that a single Betonteil was meant for <strong>Auschwitz</strong>.<br />
<strong>The</strong> above documents have an antecedent that <strong>Crowell</strong> fails to cite. This is Kammler's<br />
letter of 3 September 1943 to the Gaubeauftragte des Generalbevollmächtigten für die<br />
Regelung der Bauwirtschaft im Raume Oberschlesien with object "K.L.-<strong>Auschwitz</strong> -<br />
Luftschutzmassnahmen in O/S". Kammler writes:<br />
"Durch Bericht vom 27.8. teilte mir die Zentralbauleitung der Waffen-SS und<br />
Polizei <strong>Auschwitz</strong> mit, dass mit Fertigung von Betonteilen für das Programm<br />
„Luftschützgräben" am 30.8.1943 begonnen werden sollte.<br />
Wie ich bereits mitteilte, habe ich die Baudienststelle angewiesen, in Anbetracht der<br />
geschilderten Dringlichkeit, sich für die geforderte Produktion einzusetzen. Ich bitte<br />
jedoch dringend, Ihrerseits auch dafür besorgt zu bleiben, dass die erforderlichen<br />
Kontigente zeitgerecht zur Verfügung stehen.<br />
Ferner bitte ich, zu bestätigen, dass die in meinem Fernschreiben vom 21.8.1943<br />
geforderten 10% der Fertigsfabrikate bei einer Kontingentierung durch den<br />
Gaubevollmächtigten des GB-Bau für Waffen-SS-Zwecke zur Verfügung gestellt<br />
werden." [23]<br />
Kirschnek's letter of 21 September 1943 [24] has for object „L.S.-Deckungsgräben für<br />
den Baubevollmächtigten im Bezirk der Rüstungsinspektion VIII" and is addressed to the<br />
„Baubevollmächtigte des Reichsministeriums Speer im Bezirk der Rüstungsinspektion<br />
VIIIb". Kirschnek justified himself to the consignee of the products for the delay in<br />
production stating that it was due to a shortage of fuel (which of course was needed to<br />
make the concrete mixer work) and of forms for the cover of the vault:<br />
"mit der Fertigung der Betonteile für die L.S.-Deckungsgräben mangels<br />
Betriebsstoff und nachdem bisher von seiten des Auftraggebers nur 3 Formen für die<br />
Page 15 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
Betriebsstoff und nachdem bisher von seiten des Auftraggebers nur 3 Formen für die<br />
Gewölbewände geliefert wurde, noch nicht mit Grosseinsatz begonnen werden<br />
konnte".<br />
After listing the missing administrative documents, Kirschnek indicated the forms which<br />
had to be sent to the Zentralbauleitung and renewed the request of 8 September for fuel<br />
coupons.<br />
Dejaco's "Aktenvermerk" of 25 October 1943 has for its object the "Luftschutz-<br />
Deckungsgräben." [25]<br />
<strong>The</strong> document concerns a dispute regarding the breaking of 60% of 7 wagons of concrete<br />
vaults (Bogenstücken) for the "Luftschutz-Deckungsgräben" sent to the Zentralbauleitung<br />
at Kattowitz on 11 and 12 October, the delivery of which was taken by engineer Andre, a<br />
functionary from G.B.-Bau. Dejaco declined any responsibility, declaring that the 176<br />
Bodenstücken were loaded "ordnungsgemäss und ohne Beschädigung" in the presence of<br />
a functionary from Kattowitz. <strong>The</strong> document contains a further request for still<br />
outstanding forms ("noch ausstehenden Formen").<br />
Here I emphasize a decisively foolish interpretation of <strong>Crowell</strong>. He writes:<br />
"All of the materials have to do with the production and delivery of concrete shells<br />
to be used for trench shelter construction at <strong>Auschwitz</strong>. <strong>The</strong> October 25, 1943<br />
memorandum mentions 176 of these shells, while the November 5, 1943<br />
memorandum mentions the "first 500 meters of concrete." Consequently, we<br />
concluded originally that this document referenced the construction of hundreds of<br />
air-raid shelters in the camp.<br />
However, this conclusion was wrong, first, because the construction of the shells<br />
was not understood (they are practically oval) and second because the problem with<br />
the high water table at Birkenau was not evident. In addition, whatever the problem<br />
with the water table, it seemed to be contradicted by the photographic evidence of<br />
what appeared to be trench shelters in Birkenau" (p.19).<br />
How could <strong>Crowell</strong> infer from the "500 lfdm Betonteile" and "176 Bogenstücken" that<br />
they demonstrate the existence of "hundreds of air-raid shelters in the camp"?<br />
He has understood neither that the "Luftschutz-Deckungsgräben" were made from pieces<br />
of prefabricated concrete nor that the "176 Bogenstücken" formed part of the "500 lfdm<br />
Betonteile," that were earlier mentioned in Kirschnek's letter of 21 September as a<br />
program to be implemented. Nevertheless, as Dejaco explicitly says in the<br />
"Aktenvermerk" of 5 November, by this date about 250 meters of the program had been<br />
completed.<br />
Page 16 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
Now, had there been "hundreds" (that is, not less than 200) shelters and if they were<br />
meant for the SS troops, they must have been 1.25 (=250:200) meters in length! Here is a<br />
further example of <strong>Crowell</strong>'s senseless "deductions."<br />
Dejaco's "Aktenvermerk" of 5 November 1943 again has for its object the<br />
"Luftschutzdeckungsgräben."[26] It concerns a report for the specialist SS-<br />
Obersturmführer Jothann, who on 1 October 1943 took over from Bischoff as head of the<br />
Zentralbauleitung, which he confirmed by taking it into cognizance (zur Kenntnis<br />
genommen).<br />
<strong>The</strong> author refers to a colloquium between himself and engineer Andre, who had returned<br />
to the chair of the Zentralbauleitung the day before. <strong>The</strong> princial theme was the scarcity<br />
of fuel which risked stoppage of the production of concrete pieces. <strong>The</strong> received fuel had<br />
been consumed by the production already realized:<br />
"Da nunmehr bereits mehr als 250 lfdm L.S.Deckungsgräben von der ZBL.<br />
fertiggestellt sind, ist diese Kraftstoffzuteilung längst verbraucht."<br />
Nevertheless, Dejaco requested a further allocation of fuel. Moreover, he let it be known<br />
that the administrative documents requested in the letter of 21 September were still<br />
lacking and he again listed them. <strong>The</strong>n Dejaco informed the specialist SS-<br />
Obersturmführer Jothann that more "Formen" had arrived at <strong>Auschwitz</strong> on 4 November.<br />
Finally, engineer Andre had visited the "Beton-Werkstätten" of the Zentralbauleitung<br />
where the concrete pieces were produced.<br />
In conclusion, to claim that these documents prove that during this period<br />
„Luftschützgräben" (or "Luftschutz-Deckungsgräben") were installed at <strong>Auschwitz</strong>, or<br />
were intended for <strong>Auschwitz</strong>, shows that either <strong>Crowell</strong> has understood nothing or that he<br />
is in bad faith [malafede].<br />
6) Genesis and development of "bomb shelters" at <strong>Auschwitz</strong><br />
On the basis of the documents examined above, <strong>Crowell</strong> comes to the following<br />
surprising conclusion:<br />
"It should be possible to say that somewhere between the fall of 1942 and the<br />
spring of 1943 the Central Construction Office at <strong>Auschwitz</strong> became aware of the<br />
need to implement civil air defense measures and began implementing them" (p.24).<br />
Page 17 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
A few lines earlier he provides a more precise date: "from the beginning of February<br />
1943."<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
I have already shown that none of the documents cited by <strong>Crowell</strong> contain not only no<br />
proof of this assertion, but not even a vague suggestion of it. This being established, let<br />
us pass on to another problem.<br />
<strong>Crowell</strong> claims that the "measures" for constructing "civil air defense" were carried out<br />
on the orders of Himmler to Glücks dated 8 February 1943 (his document 12), which in<br />
fact have nothing to do with "bomb shelters." <strong>The</strong>refore he believes a directive from<br />
above would have been put into effect modifying the crematoria into "bomb shelters."<br />
Obviously, being a matter of a directive from above, it had to be executed in more or less<br />
the whole <strong>Auschwitz</strong> complex, so that during this period from 8 February to 16<br />
November 1943 several "bomb shelters" must have been constructed, intended either for<br />
detainees or the troops. <strong>Crowell</strong> subdivides the documents on "bomb shelters" adduced<br />
by him into three sections which he labels "high level," "mid-level" and "low level." This<br />
tripartite division ultimately serves only to complicate the essential issue to be resolved,<br />
which is most simple: Between February and November 1943 were orders imparted and<br />
carried out for the construction of "bomb shelters"?<br />
<strong>Crowell</strong> neither demonstates that such orders were given nor that they were implemented.<br />
On the other hand, there is not the minimum trace in the documents that "civil air<br />
defense measures" were carried out. Let us examine the most important documents.<br />
1) Prüfungsbericht Nr. 491 über Baustoffeinsparung gemäss G.B.-Anordnung Nr. 22,<br />
drawn up by Bischoff on 2 February 1943. [27] This document contains a list of<br />
construction work which was to be completed during 1944 (Fertigstellungstermin: 1944).<br />
As follows:<br />
182 Pferdestallbaracken, 27 Waschbaracken, 13 Abortbaracken, 10 Wirtschaftsbaracken,<br />
12 Revierbaracken, 10 Blockfürerbaracken, 3 Waschbaracken für die Truppe, 6<br />
Abortbaracken für die Truppe, 3 Wirtschaftsbaracken für die Truppe, 11 Kammer- und<br />
Schreibstubebaracken, 16 Mannschaftsunterkunftsbaracken für die Truppe, 1<br />
Waschgebäude, 1 Kommandanturgebäude, Lagerhaus, Drahthindernis und Wachtürme,<br />
Kochkessel und Heizöfen, 4 Krematorien, 4 Leichenhallen, Entlausungsanlage für<br />
Gefangene, Entlausungsanlage für die Wachtruppe, Wasserversorgungsanlage,<br />
Entwässerung, Gleisanschluss, Alarm- und Telefonanlage, Elektrische Lichtanlage,<br />
Notstromaggregate, Transformatorenstation, Provisorische Bäckerei, Werkhallen für die<br />
D.A.W., 3 Lagerbaracken für die D.A.W., 1 Wohnbaracke (D.A.W.), Entlausungsanlage I<br />
(Zivilarbeiter), 4 Unterkunftsbaracken (Zivilarbeiter), Entlausungsanlage II<br />
(Zivilarbeiter), 2 Abortbaracken (Zivilarbeiter), 2 Waschbaracken (Zivilarbeiter).<br />
None of these bear any relation to anti air-raid measures.<br />
Page 18 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
2) Tätigkeitsbericht of the SS-Untersturmführer Kirschnek on works executed between<br />
January 1 and March 31 1943. [28] <strong>The</strong> report mentions the following Bauwerke:<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
BW 7a, BW 20M, BW 20N, BW 20O, BW 20Q, BW 43, BW 20D, BW 64, BW 81, BW<br />
76, BW 26B, BW 71A, BW 63, BW 71B, BW 26B, BW 32 B, BW 4, BW 68B, BW<br />
66E, BW 86, BW 4, BW 71, Unterkunft H. 834, BW 83, BW 207, Garage neben Haus 7,<br />
BW 71, BW 81, BW 30, 30a.<br />
None of these Bauwerke are related to anti air-raid measures.<br />
3) Aufteilung der Bauwerke for the Bauvorhaben Kriegsgefangenenlagers drawn up by<br />
SS-Untersturmführer Janisch on 9 April 1943. [29] <strong>The</strong> following Bauwerke are listed<br />
here:<br />
BW 1, BW 2, BW 3a, BW 3b, BW 3c, BW 3d, BW 3e, BW 3f, BW 4a, BW 4b, BW 4c,<br />
BW 4d, BW 4e, BW 4f, BW 5a, BW 5b, BW 6a, BW 6b, BW 6c, BW 7a, BW 7b, BW<br />
7c, BW 8a, BW 8b, BW 8c, BW 9, BW 10, BW 11, BW 12a, BW 12b, BW 12c, BW<br />
12d, BW 12e, BW 12f, BW 13, BW 14 (Barackenlager für die Wachtruppe), 14a, 14b,<br />
14c, 14d, 14e, 14f, 14g, 14h, BW 15, BW 16, BW 17, BW 18, BW 18a, BW 19, BW 20,<br />
BW 21, BW 22, BW 23, BW 24, BW 25, BW 26, BW 26a, BW 26b, BW 27, BW 28,<br />
29, BW 30, BW 30a, BW 30b, BW 30c, BW 31, BW 32, BW 33, BW 34a, BW 35, BW<br />
45, BW 66, BW 77.<br />
None of these Bauwerke are related to anti air-raid measures.<br />
4) Erläuterungsbericht zum Ausbau des Kriegsgefangenenlagers der Waffen-SS in<br />
<strong>Auschwitz</strong> O/S, drawn up by Bischoff on 30 September 1943. [30] <strong>The</strong> document lists the<br />
following Bauwerke:<br />
BW 3a-3c, BW 4a, BW 5a, BW 6a, BW 7a, BW 3b, BW 4a, BW 4b, BW 8a, BW 12c,<br />
BW 12d, BW 12e, BW 12f, BW 3d, BW 4c, BW 4d, BW 6b, BW 7b, BW 12a, BW 12d,<br />
BW 34a, BW 33, BW 3e, BW 4c, BW 4e, BW 4f, BW 6c, BW 7c, BW 12b, BW 12d,<br />
BW 33a, BW 9, BW 10, BW 11, BW 15, BW 18, BW 30, BW 30a, BW 30b, BW 30c,<br />
BW 31, BW 32, BW 35, BW 13, BW 16, BW 17, BW 18, BW 18a, BW 19, BW 21, BW<br />
22, BW 23, BW 24, BW 25, BW 26b, BW 27, BW 29.<br />
None of these Bauwerke are related to anti air-raid measures. BW 29 refers to<br />
"Feuerlöschteiche," but as we shall soon see, has nothing to do with "civil air defense<br />
measures."<br />
5) Baufristenplan of the Kriegsgefangenenlager written up by Jothann on 15 December<br />
1943.[31] In this document all the camp's Bauwerke between April 1943 and March<br />
1944, either in construction or already completed, together with an indication of the<br />
Page 19 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
1944, either in construction or already completed, together with an indication of the<br />
degree of work completed in %, the date started as well as the projected date for finished<br />
work are drawn up:<br />
BW 2, BW 3a, BW 3b, BW 3c-d, BW 4a, BW 4b, BW 4c, BW 5a, BW 5b, BW 6a, BW<br />
6b, BW 6c, BW7c, BW 7a, BW 7b, BW 8a, BW 9, BW 12a, BW 12c, BW 13, BW 14,<br />
BW 16, BW 17, BW 18, BW 19, BW 20/21, BW 24, BW 25, BW 26, BW 30, BW 30a,<br />
BW 30b, BW 30c, BW 31, BW 32, BW 33, BW 35, BW 36, BW 10, BW 14a.<br />
None of these documents are related to anti air-raid measures.<br />
This total absence of references to "civil air defense measures" in the documents of the<br />
Zentralbauleitung before 16 November 1943 is explained only by the fact that before this<br />
date such measures did not exist and could not exist. In fact, the program for anti air-raid<br />
protection that was launched in Upper Silesia in August of 1943 was initially intended for<br />
the structures of the Todt organisation and was extended to the <strong>Auschwitz</strong> camp only in<br />
the middle of November. <strong>The</strong> decision was made official by SS-Obersturmbannführer<br />
Liebehenschel, who at that time was the SS-Standortälteste of the <strong>Auschwitz</strong> camp. In<br />
the Standortbefehl n. 51/43 of 16 November 1943 he communicated the following:<br />
"11. Luftschutzmassnahmen im Stardort <strong>Auschwitz</strong>.<br />
Nach Mitteilung der vorgesetzten zuständigen Dienststellen sind nunmehr auch<br />
im Standortbereich <strong>Auschwitz</strong> sofort die erforderlichen Luftschutzmassnahmen<br />
in Angriff zu nehmen. Mit Durchführung dieser Massnahmen beauftrage ich<br />
in meiner Eigenschaft als örtlicher Luftschutzleiter den SS-Untersturmführer<br />
Josten als meinen ständigen Vertreten. Ich bitte sämtliche Dienststellen, SS-<br />
Untersturmführer Josten in jeder Weise zu unterstützen." [32] (see illustration<br />
12).<br />
Illustration 12<br />
„Luftschutzmassnahmen im Stardort <strong>Auschwitz</strong>". From the Standortbefehl n. 51/43 of 16 November 1943.<br />
This document irrefutably proves that <strong>Crowell</strong>'s ponderings are mere fantasies - and that<br />
is why he took good care not to say a single word about it. This is not surprising since in<br />
order to play it down or disguise this document he would have had to have recourse to<br />
Page 20 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
order to play it down or disguise this document he would have had to have recourse to<br />
even more foolish fantasies.<br />
Let us return to our story.<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
Liebehenschel assumed the post of "Der SS-Standortälteste als örtlicher Luftschutzleiter"<br />
and his office was called „LS-Befehlstelle (für das Interessengebiet des K.L. <strong>Auschwitz</strong><br />
O/S.)". This heading was printed as a letterhead on his stationary that was used for his<br />
correspondence in his capacity as Luftschutzleiter.<br />
It was precisely in this capacity that Liebehenschel sent a letter on 17 February 1944 to<br />
the Zentralbauleitung which begins as follows:<br />
"Mit Anordnung vom 1.1.1944 über die Durchführung des Luftschutzes im<br />
Interessengebiet des KL <strong>Auschwitz</strong> wurde die Erstellung von Feuerlöschteichen<br />
verfügt." [33]<br />
<strong>The</strong>refore the decision to officially put into effect air-raid protection measures in the<br />
pertinent area of <strong>Auschwitz</strong> on 16 November 1943, became construction orders only on<br />
1 January 1944. In execution of these orders, "Feuerlöschteiche," intended specifically<br />
for extinguishing fires caused by bombardments were also constructed, so that these<br />
"Feuerlöschteiche" of BW 29 mentioned in the Erläuterungsbericht of 30 September<br />
1943 had nothing to do with air-raid protection measures, but served only for normal<br />
fire-fighting in the <strong>Auschwitz</strong> camp, a camp consisting mainly of wooden barracks. In<br />
fact, already from 31 March 1942 a "Feuerlöschanlage" for <strong>Auschwitz</strong> had been<br />
projected as BW 206. [34]<br />
Following practice, an appropriate Bauwerk, BW 98, was established in which all<br />
projected air-raid shelters were included. BW 98 refers to the first air-raid installation<br />
planned for <strong>Auschwitz</strong>. A document not cited by <strong>Crowell</strong> indicates that BW 98 was<br />
established for "Luftschutzdeckungsgraben" and concerns the "Leistungsverzeichnis über<br />
die Ausführung der Erd-, Mauer-, und Isolationsarbeiten für die<br />
Luftschutzdeckungsgraben BW 98 im KL <strong>Auschwitz</strong>" drawn up on 25 March 1944 by<br />
Jothann.[35] <strong>The</strong> "Leistungsverzeichnis" is a contract in which all the work to be done is<br />
specified, but without indication of the cost per square or cubic meter, showing that on<br />
25 March 1944 the Bauwerk 98 was still at the planning stage. <strong>The</strong> air-raid shelters of<br />
BW 98 successively constructed constituted sections of BW 98 that were marked with a<br />
sign such as the addition of a letter. For example, the Luftschutzkeller for the house of the<br />
camp commandant was BW 98J, the Luftschutzbunker constructed in Krema I was BW<br />
98M.<br />
BW 14k, "Splitterschutzgräben für die Truppe," was established at Birkenau,<br />
forming a section of BW 14 that incorporated the "Barackenlager für Wachtruppe<br />
Page 21 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
forming a section of BW 14 that incorporated the "Barackenlager für Wachtruppe<br />
BA II." [36]<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
In the above-mentioned documents, neither BW 98 nor BW 14k appear by 15 December<br />
1943, since both were established in 1944.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Luftschutz program at <strong>Auschwitz</strong> was realised gradually.<br />
<strong>The</strong> anti air-raid installations requested (gefordert) and realized (erstellt) are listed in<br />
Jothann 's Aktenvermerk of 28 June 1944, which has for its object "LS.-Massnahmen im<br />
K.L.<strong>Auschwitz</strong>."<br />
<strong>The</strong> completed installations were the following:<br />
„An Luftschutz-Anlagen wurden bisher erstellt:<br />
1.) Kommandantur Lager I<br />
12 Stück Feuerlöschteiche von je 400 cbm Inhalt<br />
10 Stück Splitterschützgräben in Fertigbetonteilen für je<br />
130 Personen<br />
1 Bunker für die Häuser<br />
22 Stück 1-Mann bezw. 2-Mann-Splitterschutzbunker für kleine<br />
Postenkette<br />
2.) Kommandantur Lager II.<br />
8 Feuerlöschteiche von je 400 cbm Inhalt<br />
1 Splitterschutzgraben für 130 Personen". (See illustration 13)<br />
Page 22 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
Illustration 13<br />
Aktenvermerk of Jothann of 28 June 1944. Detail.<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
<strong>The</strong> facilities requested but not yet realized were an additional 220. Even the air-raid<br />
shelter for the camp commandant's house was planned very late, as can be seen in<br />
"Erläuterungsbericht zum Bau eines Luftschutzkellers für das Kommandantenhaus BW 98<br />
J" [37] and the relative "Kostenvoranschlag," [38] both dated 10 October 1944.<br />
<strong>The</strong> following anti air-raid installations were in construction on 4 September 1944 and<br />
have their degree of completion in % indicated on the right:<br />
Splitterschutzgräben für die Wachtruppe: 60%<br />
Feuerlöschteiche im Gebiet des KL: 90%<br />
Splitterschutzgräben im KGL: 80%<br />
10 Feuerlöschteiche von je 400 cbm Inhalt: 50%<br />
Feuerlöschteich für die Weichsel-Metall-Union: 10%<br />
Sicherheitslinie für Lager I - 15 Stück 1 Mann-Splitterschutzbunker: 95%<br />
Ausbau einer LS-Befehlsstelle mit Funkstelle u. Fernsprechvermittelung<br />
im Kommandantur-gebäude I:<br />
Ausbau eines gasdichten Behandlungsraumes im früheren Krema für<br />
den Standortarzt:<br />
7) Pressac's criminal traces<br />
70%<br />
5%<br />
[39].<br />
In the article "Technik und Arbeitsweise deutscher Gasschutzbunker im Zweiten<br />
Page 23 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
In the article "Technik und Arbeitsweise deutscher Gasschutzbunker im Zweiten<br />
Weltkrieg" <strong>Crowell</strong> claimed to have explained all Pressac's criminal traces with his<br />
"bomb shelter <strong>thesis</strong>":<br />
"jede als Indiz für die Gaskammern angeführte Spur kann genauso als Beweis für<br />
einen deutschen Luftschutzraum oder, genauer gesagt, für die Ausrüstung eines<br />
Gaschutzraumes interpretiert werden." (p. 226)<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
Now he has been constrained to admit that neither of the two more serious traces [40] -<br />
the „Vergasunskeller" and the „Gasprüfer" (or "Anzeigegeräte für Blausäure-Reste"), that<br />
he imprecisely calls "gas detectors" - bear any relation to presumed "bomb shelters." He<br />
interprets the first according to the "disinfection <strong>thesis</strong>," the second, if only<br />
"superficially," according to the "gas chamber <strong>thesis</strong>"! (pp. 32-34). On p.34 he concludes<br />
that<br />
"the Vergasungskeller and the gas detectors have no clear explanation under any<br />
<strong>thesis</strong>, but we are now inclined to think that they too have something to do with<br />
disinfestations."<br />
On the whole, <strong>Crowell</strong>'s proposed explanation of Pressac's criminal traces is artificial and<br />
often clearly captious. Starting from a false <strong>thesis</strong> he is constrained to twist the<br />
significance of the documents in order to force an "explanation" of such a <strong>thesis</strong>. Here we<br />
examine the most obvious cases of this aberrant methodology.<br />
Gasprüfer - Anzeigegeräte für Blausäure-Reste<br />
<strong>The</strong> story of the "Vergasungskeller" as a "decontamination center" having been<br />
demolished - thanks to my criticism - let us go on to the "gas detectors." In his treatment<br />
of this trace, <strong>Crowell</strong> returns to his piece "Technique and Operation of German Anti-Gas<br />
<strong>Shelter</strong>s in World War Two." Before examining his explanation I wish to consider how<br />
he looks at my interpretation, which he sets out in the article "<strong>The</strong> Gasprüfer of<br />
<strong>Auschwitz</strong>." <strong>The</strong>re writes:<br />
"On the other hand, we consider the Mattogno explanation weak, because there is<br />
no causal chain to accompany the claim of forgery or falsification. In other words, if<br />
a document is forged, common sense dictates that there be a reason for the forgery.<br />
To say that such a document is altered, which isn't explicit in any case, tells us<br />
nothing. In order to make the argument for falsification stick, one has to propound a<br />
scenario under which it was altered, and why. For example, if the document was<br />
used in a judicial proceeding against Kurt Prüfer, that might set us on the proper<br />
trail. But Mattogno offers no evidence for this.<br />
Page 24 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
trail. But Mattogno offers no evidence for this.<br />
Noting the ambiguity of this trace, we leave it aside for now, observing only that<br />
superficially it tends to support the gas chamber <strong>thesis</strong> as opposed to either the<br />
disinfection or bomb shelter theses" (p.34).<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
This is the same objection raised by Zimmerman. Now when Zimmerman lays down such<br />
an objection, it doesn't surprise me in the least, but when someone who should be a<br />
researcher for truth does this, it is extremely painful. Like Zimmerman, <strong>Crowell</strong> has<br />
avoided the obstacle by taking a short cut.<br />
In the first version of the above-cited article, I showed that the telegram of 26 February<br />
1943 sent by the Zentralbauleitung ("Gasprüfer") and the reply of 2 March from the Topf<br />
firm ("Anzeigegeräte für Blausäure-Reste") raises so many unsolvable problems that the<br />
only solution seemed to be the hypo<strong>thesis</strong> that the second document had been falsified.<br />
This hypo<strong>thesis</strong> served only to give a response to those problems that are of a technical<br />
and bureaucratic nature and do not minimally concern the specific question of a possible<br />
request by the Zentralbauleitung for an apparatus to test for residual hydrogen cyanide.<br />
Indeed, I devoted an entire paragraph to these questions where I reconstructed the<br />
historical context in which these two documents are set and I showed that this validated<br />
the interpretation already formulated by Robert Faurisson that the "Anzeigegeräte für<br />
Blausäure-Reste" served for normal disinfestation purposes of Krema II.<br />
Reviewers with few scruples or openly deceptive [malafede], and who opportunistically<br />
passed over this demonstration remembered only the fact that Mattogno had asserted -<br />
without proof - that the second document is a falsification, shrewdly insinuating that I<br />
had recourse to this expedient because of an inability to provide an adequate response to<br />
the document's reference to "gas."<br />
<strong>The</strong> reality is that Topf's letter of 2 March 1943 preoccupied me so little that I was most<br />
disposed to accept its authenticity, with the result that I did indeed formally accept it in<br />
the latest version of my article [41] and retracted the falsification hypo<strong>thesis</strong>. In any case,<br />
those who, like <strong>Crowell</strong>, claim to seriously analyze documents, cannot escape the duty of<br />
discussing problems that documents provoke nor the obligation to resolve them.<br />
In our case the problems are many and grave. We briefly summarize them.<br />
1. <strong>The</strong> apparati for testing of residual hydrocyanic gas were pertinent to the SS-<br />
Standortarzt. But why then were they requested from the Zentralbauleitung and not<br />
from the SS-Standortarzt?<br />
2. Such apparati were distributed by the firm Tesch und Stabenow. But why were they<br />
requested from the Topf firm?<br />
Page 25 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
3. Such apparati were called "Gasrestnachweisgeräte für Zyklon" [42] (see illustration<br />
14). Why then were they called "Gasprüfer" and "Anzeigegeräte für Blausäure-<br />
Reste" in the two above-mentioned documents?<br />
Letter from the firm Tesch and Stabenow of 29 July 1942<br />
Illustration 14<br />
Letter from the firm Tesch & Stabenow of 29 July 1942 to the Verwaltung of KL Lublin.<br />
<strong>The</strong> apparatus for testing for residual hydrocyanic gas was called "Gasrestnachweisgerät für Zyklon"<br />
4. <strong>The</strong>"Gasprüfer" were analysers of combustuion gas. Why did the<br />
"Zentralbauleitung" ask for analysers of combustion gas if instead it wanted<br />
apparati to test for residual hydrogen cyanide?<br />
5. Why were exactly 10 "Gasprüfer" requested?<br />
6. <strong>The</strong> "Anzeigegeräte für Blausäure-Reste" did not exist in the German technical<br />
litterature of the time and the term „Anzeiger" did not designate a chemical<br />
apparatus (testing for residual gas was carried out exclusively by chemical means),<br />
but rather a mechanical instrument or the gauge of a mechanical instrument. How is<br />
one to explain the usage of such terminology?<br />
7. If the Zentralbauleitung desired apparatuses to test for residual hydrogen cyanide,<br />
why did it not also request the indispensable apparati needed for usage of hydrogen<br />
cyanide, that is, masks and "J" filters for protection against the gas?<br />
Let us now consider <strong>Crowell</strong>'s interpretation. In Technique and Operation of German<br />
Anti-Gas <strong>Shelter</strong>s in World War Two" [43] he writes:<br />
«As noted above, Gasprüfer and Gasspürer were common in German chemical<br />
warfare equipment and in anti-gas shelter equipment. [Source: US 525ff]. A benign<br />
interpretation is possible, therefore it is not a criminal trace.<br />
[…].<br />
If we chose, we could dismiss this criminal trace right now: the Germans had been<br />
Page 26 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
If we chose, we could dismiss this criminal trace right now: the Germans had been<br />
gassed with HCN in World War One, expected its use, and had prepared for it. <strong>The</strong><br />
presence of HCN detectors has no criminal significance at all.<br />
But there is still a problem: why would one ask an oven maker to purchase gas<br />
detectors? In other words, we know that the manufacturers of Zyklon had HCN gas<br />
detectors, and we are certain that the Wehrmacht and the SS had their own. Thus,<br />
why would one ask the builders of the cremation ovens for gas detectors, and why<br />
ten in number? <strong>The</strong> simplest answer is that these gas detectors were meant for the<br />
10 three-muffle cremation ovens that comprised Crematoria II and III, and they<br />
probably were meant to have some characteristic (heat resistance) to make them<br />
usable in or by the ovens. That the gas detectors would be meant for Crematoria II<br />
and III makes sense, because, first, Pressac notes that the crematoria were always<br />
discussed as pairs (II and III, IV and V) [ATO, 452], and because Crematoria IV<br />
and V did not have 10, but rather 4 double muffle ovens apiece.<br />
<strong>The</strong>n we have to ask what their function would be. Pressac argues that these<br />
detectors prove gassings with Zyklon B in the crematoria: but in the event of such<br />
gassings, certainly the crematoria operators would not have needed to be informed<br />
that dangerous concentrations of the gas were nearby. In other words, the need for<br />
detectors for the ovens suggests the ability to detect the presence of HCN residues<br />
created by other processes, but not by the release of pure HCN in the Crematoria.<br />
In early March, 1997, Dr. Arthur R. Butz argued that the incineration chute behind<br />
the cremation ovens of Crematoria II and III could have generated high levels of<br />
HCN in the crematory ductwork if certain fabrics were burned. <strong>The</strong>re is merit to<br />
this argument, since it is known that German uniforms from the beginning of the<br />
war were composed of a wool-rayon combination, and that the proportion of rayon<br />
increased throughout the war [US 541ff]. It is not unreasonable to assume that most<br />
concentration camp fabrics contained similar proportions of wool and rayon, nor is<br />
it unreasonable that highly flammable rayon fabrics would be treated with flame<br />
retardant which would provide a catalyst for HCN release when burned.[…].<br />
Recognizing that the problem is not a question of the criminality of these detectors,<br />
but rather a question of why Topf should be acquiring them, I accept the general<br />
validity of Dr. Butz' <strong>thesis</strong> and direct the interested reader there». (pp. 25-27).<br />
In my critique of the A.R. Butz article, "Gas Detectors in <strong>Auschwitz</strong> Crematorium II"<br />
[44] I showed that the A. R. Butz hypo<strong>thesis</strong> is untenable from a documentary, historical<br />
and technical point of view. Its untenability is already proven by the fact that the<br />
assumptions on which it is based are inconsistent:<br />
<strong>The</strong> fact that the combustion of rayon impregnated with a "flame retardant"<br />
substance can develop hydrocyanic acid was only discovered in the 1970s, so it is<br />
anachronistic to ascribe this knowledge to 1943.<br />
In 1943 the only "gas detector" for hydrocyanic acid was the chemical method<br />
developed by Pertusi and Gastaldi and there did not exist any "gas detector differing<br />
Page 27 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
developed by Pertusi and Gastaldi and there did not exist any "gas detector differing<br />
from that used in the Zyklon B delousing operation […], perhaps a detector<br />
generating an audible alarm." Precisely because of this it was never mentioned in<br />
propagandistic pamphlets on "Abfall-Vernichtungs-Öfen" in connection with the two<br />
most important firms which operated in this sector, that is, the firm of Hans Kori<br />
[45] and the Topf firm itself. [46]<br />
On the other hand, this presumed "gas detector" is not mentioned in either the<br />
description of the Müllverbrennungsofen of Krema III dated 11 February 1943 [47]<br />
nor in the related invoice of 23 August 1943. [48] If this presumed instrument was<br />
indispensable for the Müllverbrennungsofen of Krema II, why was it not also<br />
ordered for the Müllverbrennungsofen of Krema III?<br />
That having been said, let us examine <strong>Crowell</strong>'s explanations.<br />
He asserts<br />
"As noted above, Gasprüfer and Gasspürer were common in German chemical<br />
warfare equipment and in anti-gas shelter equipment."<br />
<strong>The</strong> reference "as noted above" is deceptive since "above" <strong>Crowell</strong> mentions the term<br />
"Gasspürer" once (with the misspelling "Gaspürer") [49] but he never mentions the term<br />
"Gasprüfer," which has nothing to do with the "Gasspürer" nor with air-raid shelters.<br />
Thus <strong>Crowell</strong> deceptively introduces the term "Gasprüfer" as a synonym of "Gasspürer"<br />
to make us believe that also the first is found in the technical literature on air-raid<br />
shelters.<br />
<strong>Crowell</strong> then claims that<br />
"the Germans had been gassed with HCN in World War One, expected its use, and<br />
had prepared for it. <strong>The</strong> presence of HCN detectors has no criminal significance at<br />
all."<br />
As to usage of the chemical agent hydrocyanic acid and its derivatives during the First<br />
World War, the French used:<br />
Hydrocyanic acid (HCN), with the war-time name of "Vincennite."<br />
Cyanic chloride (Cl.CN), with the war-time name of "Mauguinite."<br />
Cyanic bromide (Br.CN), with the name "Campiellite."<br />
Nevertheless, these three agents showed themselves to be the least efficient, as<br />
Captain Dr. Attilio Izzo shows:<br />
"Apart from the technical difficulty which must be confronted when passing from<br />
Page 28 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
"Apart from the technical difficulty which must be confronted when passing from<br />
the production of small laboratory quantities to the production of the tens of tons<br />
needed every day for war requirements, in order to decide whether a substance was<br />
less or more efficient for chemical warfare, the confirmation of that immense<br />
laboratory is needed, which is the battlefield.<br />
It is one thing to kill an innocent mouse or rabbit under a laboratory tarpaulin, quite<br />
another to annihilate entire detachments of men in the open air under the immense<br />
sky. <strong>The</strong> past conflict [World War One] gave us numerous demonstrations of this<br />
assertion. Hydrocyanic acid, one of the most poisonous compounds known, and on<br />
which so many hopes were based, is unsuccessful in the practical field of battle<br />
because of its high volatility." [50]<br />
As to cyanic chloride, Captain Izzo writes:<br />
"It was used by the French as an agent but without great success." [51]<br />
And regarding cyanic bromide he asserts:<br />
"During the war it was used mixed with 25% acetone bromide and 50% benzol<br />
(Campiellite), but without great results." [52]<br />
Finally, describing the properties of hydrocyanic acid, Captain Izzo asserts:<br />
"It is one of the most poisonous compounds known to man and it was used during<br />
the 1914 - 1918 war as a chemical agent, generally mixed with substances of low<br />
volatility. It has a high vapour pressure (567 mm. of mercury at 18° against 0.115<br />
mm. for mustard gas at 20° ) and a low specific gravity, so that it is impossible to<br />
maintain strong concentrations in the open." [53]<br />
Thus protection against a chemical attack with hydrocyanic acid would have been only<br />
the last preoccupation of the Zentralbauleitung.<br />
<strong>Crowell</strong> then goes on to explain why the "Gasprüfer" were intended for a crematorium<br />
and why there were 10. He asserts that<br />
"these gas detectors were meant for the 10 three-muffle cremation ovens that<br />
comprised Crematoria II and III, and they probably were meant to have some<br />
characteristic (heat resistance) to make them usable in or by the ovens."<br />
He rules out the possibility that these instruments could have been intended also for<br />
Kremas IV and V because the latter "did not have 10, but rather 4 double muffle ovens<br />
apiece."<br />
Here <strong>Crowell</strong> reproduced my explanation but he has distorted it into a silly argument. In<br />
fact, as combustion analyzers, the "Gasprüfer" were not, as he thinks, installed in the<br />
ovens, but in the smoke conduits or at the base of the chimneys, and in Kremas II and III<br />
Page 29 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
ovens, but in the smoke conduits or at the base of the chimneys, and in Kremas II and III<br />
there were altogether 10 smoke conduits. On the other hand, there were 10 chimney flues<br />
in all four crematoria (since the chimneys of Kremas II and III were subdivided into three<br />
separate flues).<br />
My interpretation is based on the fact - as I have already indicated - that "Gasprüfer" in<br />
German technical literature of the time were simple analyzers of combustion gas regularly<br />
installed in civilian crematoria, and also because they could have been installed in the 10<br />
smoke conduits or in the above-mentioned 10 chimney flues. <strong>The</strong> first possibility is the<br />
most probable.<br />
<strong>Crowell</strong>, on the other hand, creates a hybrid explanation that is not only unfounded but<br />
also silly.<br />
Following me he claims on the one hand that the "Gasprüfer" were meant for the 10<br />
ovens of Kremas II and III; following Butz on the other hand, he asserts that they did not<br />
serve for analyzing fumes, but rather for "the presence of HCN residues created by other<br />
processes," that is, hydrogen cyanide produced from the combustion of rayon<br />
impregnated with a "flame retardant" substance. Nevertheless, Butz clearly refers to the<br />
Müllverbrennungsofen of Krema II, an incinerator in which camp refuse was destroyed.<br />
By contrast, <strong>Crowell</strong> claims that refuse - or rather military uniforms [54] - were destroyed<br />
in the crematory ovens, which is senseless. On the other hand, it is known that the<br />
cadavers were burnt nude and that certainly no hydrogen cyanide developed from the<br />
combustion of a corpse! <strong>Crowell</strong>'s explanation is therefore totally inconsistent. As to<br />
Butz, he does not even explain the reason for requesting the 10 "Gasprüfer." Given that<br />
there was a single Müllverbrennungsofen in Krema II, what was the point of the 10<br />
"Gasprüfer"? Indeed, this hypo<strong>thesis</strong> does not answer any of the seven problems posed<br />
above.<br />
In conclusion, the explanation of <strong>Crowell</strong> is not only unfounded but also foolish.<br />
A final observation.<br />
Discussing the "regular" doors made gas-tight following the concept of engineers Nowak<br />
and Rademacher, <strong>Crowell</strong> writes:<br />
"On the other hand, "gastight" in a civil air defense context was not directed so<br />
much against cyanide gas as against aerosols such as mustard gases, for which felt<br />
would suffice" (p.26).<br />
By contrast, when <strong>Crowell</strong> busies himself with "gas detectors" he asserts that "in<br />
Technique, we showed that there was a real threat of aerial cyanide gas attack" (p. 33).<br />
Page 30 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
So, according to <strong>Crowell</strong>, when it conerns all the wooden doors in the presumed "bomb<br />
shelters" of the crematoria (beginning with those in Leichenkeller 1 of Kremas II and III),<br />
the Zentralbauleitung did not foresee any "real threat of aerial cyanide attack"; but when<br />
it concerns "gas detectors" it foresaw a "real threat of aerial cyanide attack"!<br />
Another example of the <strong>Crowell</strong> oportunistic argumentation.<br />
Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtungen and Holzblenden<br />
<strong>Crowell</strong> claims that<br />
„the wire mesh devices were simply wire mesh screens to fit into windows which<br />
the wooden shutters would cover, probably to provide some protection against<br />
bomb splinters, such a screen being normally called a 'Splitterschutzvorrichtung.' "<br />
A few lines later <strong>Crowell</strong> adds:<br />
"We see no reason to abandon our position on either this trace or the Holzblenden,<br />
although it is clear that proper location for such paraphernalia would be vertical<br />
wall openings and these have not yet been discovered" (p. 27).<br />
This criminal trace is found in the documentation of the Übergabeverhandlung of Krema<br />
II to the camp commandant (31 March 1943) and refers to Leichenkeller 2. [55] <strong>Crowell</strong>'s<br />
explanation is unfounded not only by the documents, but also architecturally. From the<br />
documenary point of view it is arbitrary, since on the one hand we are ignorant of what<br />
the Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtungen and relative Holzblenden really were; on the other,<br />
German anti air-raid technical literature knew Holzblenden but not<br />
Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtungen. <strong>The</strong> claim that the latter were simple<br />
Splitterschutzvorrichtungen is another non-proven assertion.<br />
<strong>The</strong> statement that the presumed vertical apertures "have not yet been discovered" is<br />
false, since the walls of Leichenkeller 2 of Krema II are quite visible and show not the<br />
slightest trace of these presumed four "vertical wall openings." <strong>The</strong>refore, there is really<br />
nothing "yet" to be discovered in these walls.<br />
Drei gasdichte Türme<br />
One reads in the letter of 31 March 1943 from the Zentralbauleitung to the Deutsche<br />
Ausrüstungswerke:<br />
"Es wird auf c.a. Schreiben mitgeteilt, dass drei gasdichte Türme gemäss des<br />
Auftrages vom 18.1.43 für das Bw 30 b und c auszuführen sind, genau nach den<br />
Page 31 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
Auftrages vom 18.1.43 für das Bw 30 b und c auszuführen sind, genau nach den<br />
Ausmassen und der Art der bisher angelieferten Türme." [56]<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
<strong>The</strong>re is still in existence a carbon copy of this same document in which the first<br />
occurrence of "Türme" is corrected in ink to "Türen." [57] It is not known who made the<br />
change.<br />
<strong>Crowell</strong> considers as "unconvincing" Pressac's explanation that Gastürme "is a<br />
misspelling for Tür and that this is a reference to 'three gastight doors' " (p.27). He<br />
asserts<br />
"in Technique we argued that this was probably a reference to three gastight<br />
ventilation chimneys, another common object in the civil air defense literature" (p.<br />
27)<br />
and concludes his explanation thus:<br />
"Document 29 presented a picture of a Luftschutz-Verschlüss, or gastight ventilation<br />
chimney, of the kind used for the known trench shelters at <strong>Auschwitz</strong>. Other<br />
documents also indicate that gastight chimneys were common at <strong>Auschwitz</strong> for gas<br />
protection. Certainly, such gastight ventilation chimneys could be described as<br />
'gasdichte Türme', and we remain confident in our interpretation of this trace" (p.<br />
27).<br />
This explanation is totally inconsistent in that it is based on the absolutely arbitrary<br />
supposition that "such gastight ventilation chimneys could be described as 'gasdichte<br />
Türme'. <strong>The</strong> "proof" of this alleged terminological equivalence is just an adverb: his own<br />
"certainly"!<br />
In order to support this arbitrary assertion <strong>Crowell</strong> has recourse to a trick: his "document<br />
29" does not in fact present a "Luftschutz-Verschlüss," but a "Gasdichte<br />
lüftungsrohrverschlüsse" (see document 15) [58] , so that the "ventilation chimneys" that<br />
<strong>Crowell</strong> speaks of were actually called "Lüftungsröhre," certainly not "Türme." On the<br />
other hand, the ventilation chimney of Krema II and Krema III was called a "Schacht"<br />
("Entlüftungsschacht"). So to claim that the "gastight ventilation chimneys could be<br />
described as 'gasdichte Türme' " is false and foolish.<br />
Page 32 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
Illustration 15<br />
"Gasdichte Lüftungsrohrverschlüsse", not "Luftschutz-Verschlüss"<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
In "Technique and Operation of German Anti-Gas <strong>Shelter</strong>s in World War Two" <strong>Crowell</strong><br />
writes:<br />
"We observe the drawings of Crematoria IV and V with their shuttered cupolas<br />
surmounting the roof, and might easily conclude that they are the same thing:<br />
however, it appears that the extermination gas chambers were at the opposite end of<br />
the building. But this end of the buildings also had chimneys, although much<br />
smaller ones. Our conclusion is that Türme are references to gas tight chimneys of<br />
some kind: the idea, offered by Pressac, that Türme was a stenographic error, even<br />
though it was repeated four times seems very strained"(p. 34).<br />
He then makes another gross blunder, mistaking chimneys attached to two ovens for<br />
ventilation chimneys! [59] .<br />
This being cleared up, let us see what the "gasdichte Türme" were. <strong>The</strong> following request<br />
dated 19 February 1943 appears in the Schlosserei documentation:<br />
"19.2.43. Nr. K.G.L. BW. 30 b. Przedmiot [object]: 4 dichte Türen, mit Tür futter -<br />
lt. Angabe der Bauleitung Ausmass 100 x 205 cm i.l. Auftrag Nr. 2261/:80/17:/<br />
vom 18.1.43 der Zentralbauleitung. Von der ehme. [= ehemaligen] Häftl. Tischlerei<br />
übernommen." [60]<br />
<strong>The</strong> above-mentioned letter of 31 March 1943 has for object (Betrifft): "Auftrag<br />
2261/80/17 vom 18.1.43 Bw 30 b". <strong>The</strong>refore it was about the very same job that<br />
concerned not "Türme," but "Türen" of 100 x 205 centimeters. So on this score Pressac<br />
is perfectly right while <strong>Crowell</strong> has made another big blunder.<br />
Gasskammer<br />
Page 33 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
Regarding this trace <strong>Crowell</strong> writes:<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
"In Technique, our interpretation was that there were several repetitions of the<br />
"Gass-" spelling here and elsewhere in the documents, and we interpreted it in a<br />
civil air defense context, thus "Gasskammer" was interpreted as a bracket form for a<br />
gas shelter, or Gass[chutz]kammer" (p. 28).<br />
It concerns another baseless forced explanation. In fact, he displays no similar case. In<br />
"Technique and Operation of German Antigas <strong>Shelter</strong>s in World War Two" <strong>Crowell</strong><br />
presents the following recurring terms from the German technical litterature of the time:<br />
"A similar prolificity affects bomb shelters (Gasschutzraum, -keller, Gaskeller [as<br />
Dr. Butz has noted], Luftschutzraum, -haus, -keller, Schutzraum, even Selbstschutz;<br />
LS-Bunker only rarely)" (p. 37).<br />
Not only does he not offer a single example of this presumed abbreviation, e.g. a<br />
"Gassraum" for "Gasschutzraum", but he doesn't even show that the term<br />
"Gasschutzkammer" was actually in use. <strong>The</strong> most logical explanation is that<br />
"Gasskammer" is a simple orthographic error for "Gaskammer".<br />
8) <strong>The</strong> suicidal "bomb shelters" of Kremas IV and V<br />
<strong>The</strong> idea supported by <strong>Crowell</strong> that the Zentralbauleitung could use the rooms in the west<br />
wing of Kremas IV and V as air-raid shelters is decisively stupid. In my article "Morgue<br />
Cellars of Birkenau: Gas <strong>Shelter</strong>s or Disinfesting Chambers?" I showed that<br />
«since those facilities were entirely surface-buildings with walls of only 25 cm<br />
thickness, and had very fragile roofing ("Bretternagelbinder, doppelte Pappdeckung,<br />
Decke mit Heraklithplatten benagelt" (nailed boarding, double felt-paper roofing,<br />
roofing with nailed Heraklith sheets) then the <strong>Crowell</strong> theory appears to be<br />
technically flawed, because according to a technical manual of the 1930s,<br />
"medium weight bombs, when falling from a normal bombing height, have a<br />
penetration of 0.40 to 0.50 m into reinforced concrete, and a penetration of circa<br />
1.20 m into an ordinary full-brick wall and even deeper into a hollow brick wall" »<br />
(pp. 5-6).<br />
This is how <strong>Crowell</strong> responds:<br />
"It is of course true that Crematoria IV and V were built above ground and would<br />
not offer much protection in an air-raid in the case of a direct hit. Probably no<br />
shelter at <strong>Auschwitz</strong> would. Nevertheless, aboveground shelters and aboveground<br />
conversions were common for civil defense purposes. We have also seen that there<br />
was a preference to simply use wooden struts and other materials to reinforce walls<br />
and the ceiling of such structures. Certainly, the western rooms of Crematoria IV<br />
and V, equipped with fireproof sheets of Heraklith in their ceiling, and gastight<br />
Page 34 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
and V, equipped with fireproof sheets of Heraklith in their ceiling, and gastight<br />
window-shutters, would have provided some protection from bomb splinters and<br />
incendiaries."<br />
In conclusion <strong>Crowell</strong> says:<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
"while they would not have functioned very well as bomb shelters, they would have<br />
been better than nothing, and they certainly would have worked as gas shelters" (pp.<br />
43-44).<br />
Now it is true that "aboveground shelters and aboveground conversions were common for<br />
civil defense purposes", but <strong>Crowell</strong> does not say how such a "conversion" had to be<br />
effected.<br />
This is displayed in detail in a document well-known to him: the Richtlinien of Kammler<br />
dated 6 March 1943 cited by <strong>Crowell</strong> as document 13. <strong>The</strong> following guidelines are<br />
provided in section III, "Die bauliche Ausführung von Splitterschutz. Bestimmungen des<br />
Reichsluftfahrtministeriums in der Fassung September 1942", paragraph B<br />
„Splittersichere Gebäudewände und freistehende Splitterschutzwände", subsection 2<br />
„Mauerwerk":<br />
"1) Splitterschutzwände aus Mauerwerk müssen mindenstens 51 cm dick sein, wenn<br />
verwendet werden:<br />
Mauerziegel 1. Klasse DIN 105 (Mauerziegel).<br />
[<strong>The</strong>re follow another 5 types of masonry].<br />
2) Sie müssen mindestens 64 cm dick sein, wenn verwendet werden:<br />
Mauerziegel 2. Klasse DIN 105 (Mauerziegel)<br />
[<strong>The</strong>re follows another type of masonry]".<br />
In paragraph C - which refers to a specific method for the "conversion" of existing<br />
buildings, (Splittersicherung der Wände bestehender Gebäude) - the Richtlinien lay down<br />
the following provisions:<br />
"9. Mauerwerk (vgl. Bild 7).<br />
Die Dicke der Splitterschutzwand, die aus der bestehenden Gebäudewand und der<br />
neuen Splitterschutzwand besteht, muss bei Verwendung von Baustoffen nach Nr. 2<br />
(1) mindestens 51 cm und bei Verwendung von Baustoffen nach Nr. 2 (2)<br />
mindestens 64 cm betragen".<br />
Paragraph D lays down provisions for the protection of windows (Sicherung von<br />
Wandöffnungen):<br />
"13. Wandöffnungen, die splittersicher hergerichtet werden sollen, sind zuzumauern<br />
oder durch Splitterschutzwände ausserhalb oder innerhalb des Raumes zu sichern.<br />
Splitterschutzwände im Innern von Räumen sind zu verankern oder abzustützen,<br />
Page 35 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
Splitterschutzwände im Innern von Räumen sind zu verankern oder abzustützen,<br />
damit sie durch Luftstoss von aussen nicht eingedrückt werden.<br />
14. Splitterschutzwände, die vor die zu schützenden Öffnungen gesetzt werden,<br />
müssen diese seitlich und oberhalb mindestens um 0,50 m überdecken." [61]<br />
How the the exterior of windows were to be protected is revealed by the following<br />
drawing published by <strong>Crowell</strong>.[62]<br />
Illustration 16<br />
Splitterschutzwand before a window<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
Now the perimeter walls of Kremas IV and V were realised in "Ziegelsteinmauerwerk<br />
ohne Aussenputz" [63] and had a thickness of barely 25 cm. [64] <strong>The</strong> small windows and<br />
doors of the west wing (allegedly used as a "bomb shelter") had no type of<br />
Splitterschutzung. Thus Kremas IV and V could not serve as "bomb shelters," nor could<br />
they be protected from "bomb splinters".<br />
<strong>The</strong> assertion that since their roofs were "equipped with fireproof sheets of Heraklith in<br />
their ceiling" they "would have provided some protection from bomb splinters and<br />
incendiaries" is simply foolish.<br />
Page 36 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
<strong>The</strong> roof framework of these crematoria was beams made from easily ignitable seasoned<br />
timber that rested on the perimeter walls. Pressac has published both the plan of these<br />
structures and its implementation. [65] A double layer of "Pappdeckung" (highly<br />
inflammable cardboard impregnated with tar) was spread over the woodwork to make the<br />
roof waterproof and a cover of "Heraklithplatten" (Herculite sheets) was placed on top.<br />
This thin sheeting was fastened with 20,000 small iron layers (Eisenblät[t]chen). [66]<br />
Illustration 17 shows barracks in the <strong>Auschwitz</strong> camp with the roof covered with<br />
Heraklith sheeting. At the bottom a "Splitterschutzbunker" can be seen for one or two<br />
men with a roofing consisting of one layer of concrete 15 cm in thickness and a layer of<br />
bricks 33 cm thick. <strong>The</strong> thickness of the Herculite sheets is estimated to be a few<br />
centimeters.<br />
This photograph shows vividly how foolish it is to claim<br />
that the roofs of Kremas IV and V could have offered<br />
"some protection from bomb splinters." Obviously they<br />
could not offer any protection at all, not even against<br />
incidiary bombs, the explosion in the vicinity of the<br />
crematoria of which would have blown away the<br />
Herculite sheeting and taken off the roof, while the<br />
inflammable substance would easily have ignited the<br />
wooden framework as well as the cardboard impregnated<br />
with tar.<br />
Finally, the hypo<strong>thesis</strong> that these two crematoria "would<br />
have worked as gas shelters" is senseless. In what would<br />
the enemy have put the toxic gas for a possible chemical<br />
attack if not in a fragmentation bomb?<br />
And given that the crematory could not have resisted a<br />
fragmentation bomb, how could they have been protected<br />
against the possible toxic gas contained in them?<br />
Illustration 17<br />
Splitterschutzbunker for one or two<br />
men at <strong>Auschwitz</strong>.<br />
At the back can be seen barracks<br />
with roof made of Heraklith sheeting.<br />
© Carlo Mattogno.<br />
Furthermore, the 12 small gas-tight windows of Kremas IV and V could be closed only<br />
from the outside - as can be clearly seen in the photographs published by Pressac [67]<br />
- an absurd arrangement for an anti-gas shelter.<br />
Finally, the presumed anti-gas shelter had no ventilation. <strong>Crowell</strong> gives much weight to<br />
the fact that all anti-gas shelters were equipped with ventilation funnels - and, as we have<br />
seen, it is precisly for this reason that he claims to interpret the trace "Türme" as<br />
ventilation funnels. We have also seen that the alleged ventilation funnels in the west<br />
Page 37 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
ventilation funnels. We have also seen that the alleged ventilation funnels in the west<br />
wing of the crematory were in reality ordinary oven chimneys. It follows that this<br />
presumed anti-gas shelter was deprived of ventilation, another absurdity.<br />
In conclusion, any type whatever of "shelter" in Kremas I and II would have been sheer<br />
folly and suicidal as well.<br />
9) <strong>The</strong> "emergency exits" of Leichenkeller 1 of Kremas II and III<br />
<strong>Crowell</strong> claims that the Leichenkeller 1 of Kremas IV and V were provided with<br />
emergency exits, and this would be a proof that they were suitable for "bomb shelters":<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
<strong>The</strong> relevance is that this description matches the two concrete tubes that lie in the<br />
center of the western walls of Morgue #1 of both Crematoria II and III. <strong>The</strong>se were<br />
already identified as emergency exits in Defending. Pressac claimed that these had<br />
something to do with drainage, but there is no documentary basis for this view.<br />
(Pressac referenced Drawing 1300, which shows the drains converging about six to<br />
eight feet away from the western wall, which is irrelevant ). Furthermore, these<br />
concrete tubes, which still exist today, do not appear on any architectural drawings.<br />
Nor do these concrete tubes have any relevance for either the disinfection or gas<br />
chamber theses. <strong>The</strong> conclusion, which we consider unavoidable, is that Morgue #1<br />
of both Crematoria II and III were adapted by means of these emergency exits into<br />
auxiliary bomb shelters at some point. We do not have the documents that tell us<br />
exactly when these concrete tubes were put in place, but our guess is that it must<br />
have taken place prior to Pohl's inspection of June 16, 1944, because that puts his<br />
request for "six mortuaries" into a comprehensible context (p. 21).<br />
<strong>The</strong>n <strong>Crowell</strong> adds that all the crematoria had "emergency exits" and that "in the case of<br />
Crematoria II and III, the emergency exits, in the form of concrete tubes, were actually<br />
installed" (p.45). On the same page <strong>Crowell</strong> publishes two photographs with the<br />
following caption:<br />
"<strong>The</strong> first figure shows the collapsed crematoria roof with the emergency exit tube<br />
visible at back center. <strong>The</strong> second figure is an inside view of the ladder inside the<br />
tube".<br />
<strong>The</strong> second picture is taken from Pressac's work <strong>Auschwitz</strong>: Technique and Operation of<br />
the Gas Chambers, p. 228, "document 45". On the same page Pressac presents two<br />
photographs of what <strong>Crowell</strong> calls a "tube" ("document 47" and "document 48"), and also<br />
two photographs of a sewer manhole for inspecting the drainage facility of Krema II or III<br />
("document 44" and "document 45"). Pressac presents the captions for these photographs<br />
on the next page and we quote those of interest to us:<br />
Page 38 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
Illustration 18<br />
"Document 47. General view, looking roughly<br />
south-north, of the ruins of the Krematorium III,<br />
very overgrown with vegetation.<br />
In the center the four supporting pillars are still<br />
upright.<br />
<strong>The</strong> top of the sewer manhole is on the left, against<br />
the west wall, raised considerably above the gound."<br />
Illustration 20<br />
"Document 44. Entrance to the Leichenkeller 1<br />
(gas chamber) sewer manhole, situated on the<br />
outside, against the center of the western wall.<br />
<strong>The</strong> top rung of the metal ladder can be seen."<br />
From illustrations 23 and 24 it appears that<br />
the manhole in documents 47 and 48 had a<br />
semi-cicular cross-section (like a horseshoe<br />
Illustration 19<br />
"Document 48. Close-up view of the manhole of<br />
document 47, made up of 4 to 6 sections of<br />
concrete pipe and with a concrete lid in<br />
two pieces (only one of which remains).<br />
This type of manhole has no built-in access<br />
ladder.<br />
In the background is one of the pillars that<br />
supported the roof of the Krematorium III<br />
gas chamber."<br />
Illustration 21<br />
"Document 45. View of the inside of the manhole<br />
of document 46 with its access ladder.<br />
On the left is the rod running from the waste water<br />
stop cock to its control wheel above ground.<br />
<strong>The</strong> location can be seen on Bauleitung drawing<br />
1300 of 18/6/42."<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
Page 39 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
semi-cicular cross-section (like a horseshoe<br />
arc) while those in documents 44, 45 and<br />
46 had a square cross-section. According to<br />
Pressac, the manhole with the round crosssection<br />
had no "access ladder"; a "metal<br />
ladder"existed only in the manhole with a<br />
square cross-section. In addition, the<br />
manhole with a round cross-section was<br />
situated only in the area of Leichenkeller 1<br />
of Krema III, whereas in the corresponding<br />
area of Krema II there would be only a<br />
manhole with a square cross-section. I shall<br />
explain why I use the conditional "would<br />
be."<br />
With unheard of mystification <strong>Crowell</strong> first<br />
of all invents the second "tube", the one<br />
relevant to Krema II, in that he abusively<br />
Illustration 22<br />
"Document 46. Concrete cover with metal handle,<br />
weighing about 20 kg, originally made for the<br />
manhole of documents 44 and 45, now next to<br />
the remains of an opening on the roof of<br />
Leichenkeller 1 (the gas chamber) of<br />
crematorium II, through which Zyklon-B<br />
was poured".<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
places it in the same position as that of Krema III, as the latter appears in the photograph<br />
published by him. <strong>The</strong>n - totally unacceptably - he criticizes Pressac's interpretation with<br />
the excuse that in plan 1300 of the Zentralbauleitung the presumed "tube" was situated<br />
"about six to eight feet away from the western wall" of Leichenkeller 1, whereas it<br />
should have been behind this wall. But this is just one of his inventions. In fact, Pressac<br />
simply says that the square manhole was situated "on the outside, against the center of the<br />
western wall", without specifying at what distance. In reality Pressac is mistaken because<br />
- as can be seen in illustrations 25 and 26 - toward the center of the western view of<br />
Leichenkeller 1 of Krema II there is no manhole cover neither behind the wall nor at a<br />
distance of about 2.40 meters from it (inferred from plan 1300).<br />
Illustration 23<br />
Leichenkeller 1 of Krema III in 2000.<br />
Illustration 24<br />
Leichenkeller 1 of Krema III in 2000.<br />
Page 40 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
Leichenkeller 1 of Krema III in 2000.<br />
© Carlo Mattogno.<br />
Leichenkeller 1 of Krema III in 2000.<br />
Enlargement of the "tube".<br />
© Carlo Mattogno.<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
Finally, <strong>Crowell</strong> opportunistically passes over in silence the certainly not irrelevant fact<br />
that the only manhole existing behind a wall of a Leichenkeller, that of Krema III, is<br />
without an "access ladder." But then how could one use such a hypothetical "emergency<br />
exit"?<br />
On the other hand, that this manhole was connected to the Leichenkeller across a hole in<br />
the wall - an essential condition for it to be of use as an "emergency exit" - is a purely<br />
arbitrary assumption of <strong>Crowell</strong> without the support of any evidence.<br />
Leichenkeller 1 of Krema II in 1992<br />
Illustration 25<br />
Illustration 26<br />
Leichenkeller 1 of Krema II in 1992. © Carlo Mattogno. Leichenkeller 1 of Krema II in 2000. © Carlo Mattogno.<br />
<strong>The</strong> western aspect is toward the trees.<br />
<strong>The</strong> western aspect is on the right.<br />
In conclusion:<br />
it is false that behind the eastern wall of Leichenkeller 1 of Krema II there was a<br />
"concrete tube";<br />
it is unproven that the manhole relevant to Krema III was connected to the<br />
Leichenkeller through an opening in the wall;<br />
it is senseless that this manhole could be an "emergency exit" from the<br />
Leichenkeller since it had no "access ladder".<br />
As can be seen from illustration 27, the type of "tube", the function of which <strong>Crowell</strong><br />
distorts, was part of the camp's Entwässerung system.<br />
Page 41 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
Illustration 27<br />
On the left: A manhole cover of the drainage system at Birkenau. In the background: <strong>The</strong> ruins of Krema II.<br />
10) <strong>The</strong> 6 Leichenkammern of the Aktenvermerk of 17 June 1944<br />
<strong>Crowell</strong>'s comments on document 17 are another brilliant example of his arbitrary and<br />
false deductions. Regarding the Aktenvermerk of 16 June 1944 he writes:<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
"<strong>The</strong> part that we find most curious is the reference to the construction of six<br />
mortuaries (Leichenkammern) in Ba I and II, that is, in the two main Birkenau<br />
camps. This strongly suggests that the morgues of the crematoria were no longer<br />
being used as morgues at this time. Otherwise, it would not be necessary to build<br />
more of them. Furthermore, this directive is frankly incomprehensible in terms of<br />
the alleged burn rates attained at this time, in which some ten thousand people could<br />
be incinerated per day in the crematoria and the associated burning pits. It needs to<br />
be said that there is no hint of this other activity in this document at all" (p.16).<br />
Although this is an arbitrary hypo<strong>thesis</strong> unsupported by the sightest evidence, he insists<br />
on it another three times (pp. 21, 43 and 47) in order to prove that since in June 1944 the<br />
mortuary chambers of Birkenau were not used as such, therefore they were used for<br />
some extraordinary purpose, that is, for "bomb shelters". On p. 21 he returns to his<br />
baseless <strong>thesis</strong> concerning the "concrete tubes", explaining:<br />
"We do not have the documents that tell us exactly when these concrete tubes were<br />
put in place, but our guess is that it must have taken place prior to Pohl's inspection<br />
of June 16, 1944, because that puts his request for "six mortuaries" into a<br />
comprehensible context."<br />
Here <strong>Crowell</strong> makes another gross blunder.<br />
Page 42 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
<strong>The</strong> construction of the 6 Leichenkammern had nothing to do with alleged inactivity of<br />
the crematory Leichenkeller but simply closed a dispute between the SS-Standortarzt (Dr.<br />
Wirths) on one side and Bischoff, Höss and Kammler on the other. <strong>The</strong> dispute started on<br />
20 July 1943 when Wirths in his capacity as Leiter der Zentralbauleitung sent Bischoff<br />
in his capacity as Leiter der Zentralbauleitung [as SS-Standortarzt] a request for brick<br />
Leichenkammern. <strong>The</strong> letter begins as follows:<br />
"In den bereits belegten Lagern des Bauabschnittes II fehlen noch betonierte,<br />
beziehungsweise gemauerte Leichenkammern, deren Erstellung vordringlich ist."<br />
<strong>The</strong> request was justified by the fact that the existing mortuary chambers were made of<br />
wood and rats had penetrated them and were feeding on the cadavers:<br />
"In den bisher zur Verfügung stehenden Holzschuppen sind die Leichen<br />
ausserordentlich stark dem Rattenfrass ausgesetzt, sodass beim Abtransport der<br />
Leichen kaum eine Leichen ohne Zeichen von Rattenfrass festzustellen ist."<br />
Wirths then mentioned that rats are the carriers of disease and to avoid the danger of<br />
epidemics it was necessary to preserve the cadavers in an unexceptionally hygienic way.<br />
Whence no doubt his request. [68] .<br />
From this resulted a correspondence which went on for some months. In the end it was<br />
decided to install the mortuary chambers in brick buildings already in existence. On 12<br />
June 1944 Jothann, who had taken over from Bischoff as head of the Zentralbauleitung,<br />
drew up a "Bauantrag zum Ausbau des Lagers II der Waffen SS in <strong>Auschwitz</strong> O/S.<br />
Errichtung von 6 Stück Leichenkammern in bereits erstellten Unterkunftsbaracken BW 3b<br />
und 3d". <strong>The</strong> relative „Erläuterungsbericht" explains that the mortuary chambers were<br />
constructed in brick (aus Ziegelmauerwerk) and that the work had already begun. [69]<br />
<strong>The</strong> mortuary chambers were distributed as follows: one in the Bauabschnitt (BA) Ia, and<br />
one in each of the Bauabschnitte BIIa, b, c, d and e. [70]<br />
On 16 June 1944 Pohl, during his visit to <strong>Auschwitz</strong>, did no more than ratify this state of<br />
affairs by authorizing the "Erstellung von 6 Leichenkammern in BaI und II." [71]<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Crowell</strong> hypo<strong>thesis</strong> is therefore totally unfounded.<br />
Moreover, he claims to have validated this hypo<strong>thesis</strong> using a fantastic deduction from<br />
Jothann's "Aktenvermek" of 28 June 1944. <strong>Crowell</strong> asserts:<br />
"Furthermore, the document assumes the use of existing buildings for civil air<br />
defense purposes, although the individual buildings are not specified. Given the fact<br />
that Crematoria II and III as well the Central Sauna were all equipped with<br />
basements, and given that they were among only a handful of fixed structures on the<br />
western side of Birkenau, the use of these basements can certainly be inferred from<br />
Page 43 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
western side of Birkenau, the use of these basements can certainly be inferred from<br />
this date" (pp. 17-18).<br />
This "deduction" is a distortion of the document's significance that proves exactly the<br />
opposite of what <strong>Crowell</strong> claims.<br />
He makes his "deduction" from the following passage:<br />
"Als Schutzmassnahmen für Häftlinge des Lagers I ist die Anlage von<br />
Splitterschutzgräben nicht möglich auf Grund der vorhandenen Freiflächen. Es<br />
können jedoch 2 - 3000 Häftlinge in den vorhandenen Kellerräumen untergebracht<br />
werden.<br />
In Lager II können ebenfalls Splitterschutzgräben für Häftlinge mit Rücksicht auf<br />
den Grundwasserstand und die vorhandenen Freiflächen auch nicht angelegt<br />
werden." [72]<br />
<strong>The</strong> only sensible inference that can be drawn from these words is that at <strong>Auschwitz</strong><br />
(Lager I) it was possible to provide protection for 2,000-3,000 detainees in the existing<br />
basements (those of the brick Blöcke), while in Birkenau (Lager II) that was not possible.<br />
I do not say because there were no basements, but because those existing in the<br />
Zentralsauna and Kremas II and III had another use.<br />
If that was not the case, Jothann would have also specified in relation to Lager II that "so<br />
many prisoners can be given protection in the existing cellars" ["können jedoch so viele<br />
Häftlinge in den vorhandenen Kellerräumen untergebracht werden"].<br />
But there is a more important point: If the Birkenau crematoria had been modified so as<br />
to function as air-raid shelters, why are they not mentioned as such in Jothann's<br />
Aktenvermerk? <strong>The</strong> reason is that the crematoria had nothing to do with air-raid shelters.<br />
Actually, as we have seen above, the unique "Luftschutz-Anlagen" that had been realized<br />
in Lager II by 26 June 1944 consisted of only "8 Feuerlöschteiche von je 400 cbm<br />
Inhalt" and "1 Splitterschutzgraben für 130 Personen."<br />
In conclusion, the "Aktenvermerk" of Jothann dated 28 June 1944 proves not only that the<br />
crematoria of Birkenau were not modified into air-raid shelters, but that they were not<br />
even contemplated as emergency shelters.<br />
11) <strong>The</strong> "disinfection <strong>thesis</strong>"<br />
Originally claiming to have explained all Pressac's criminal traces with his "bomb shelter<br />
<strong>thesis</strong>", <strong>Crowell</strong> had to admit finally that<br />
"the dual use of the crematoria for hygienic purposes may have included the<br />
installation of ad hoc disinfection stations" (p.31).<br />
Page 44 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
He then displays "A Disinfection Chronology" in which he does no more than to take up<br />
and develop information I had already provided in the article "Morgue Cellars of<br />
Birkenau: Gas <strong>Shelter</strong>s or Disinfesting Chambers?"<br />
So the only positive aspect of his article has nothing original to offer.<br />
12) Conclusions<br />
<strong>Crowell</strong> asserts that van Pelt's and my efforts to criticize his theses are "rather weak<br />
because they are solely negative in character" (p. 45). As far as I am concerned, this<br />
statement is clearly false because it is precisely from my article that <strong>Crowell</strong> took the cue<br />
to develop the positive <strong>thesis</strong> of disinfestation.<br />
He then adds that<br />
"instead of working within the structure of the argument, they both preferred to<br />
simply look for reasons to reject it. We do not consider this very productive or<br />
intelligent scholarship" (p. 45).<br />
Well, as can be seen, <strong>Crowell</strong>'s conceit is boundless; he claims that his <strong>thesis</strong> is<br />
indisputable, that it can be discussed only from within it! <strong>The</strong> reality is that his <strong>thesis</strong><br />
is absolutely unfounded from the historical, documentary and technical point of view and<br />
should be rejected altogether.<br />
In my view, revisionist "scholarship" before even becoming "productive" and<br />
"intelligent" must be honest and scientific and consequently must firmly reject captious<br />
interpretations which are totally without scientific foundation, such as the <strong>Crowell</strong> "bomb<br />
shelter <strong>thesis</strong>".<br />
Completed in March 2001<br />
CARLO MATTOGNO<br />
ABBREVIATIONS<br />
AGK: Archiwum Glównej Komisji Badania Zbrodni w Polsce (Archive of the<br />
Central Commission of inquiry concerning German criminality in Poland), [<br />
Warsaw, Poland ]<br />
APMM: Archiwum Panstwowego Muzeum na Majdanku (Archive of the State<br />
Page 45 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
APMM: Archiwum Panstwowego Muzeum na Majdanku (Archive of the State<br />
Museum of Majdanek)<br />
APMO: Archiwum Panstwowego Muzeum Oswiecim - Brzezinka (Archive of the<br />
State Museum of <strong>Auschwitz</strong>-Birkenau)<br />
GARF: Gosudarstvenni Archiv Rossiiskoi Federatsii (State Archive of the Russian<br />
Federation, Moscow)<br />
TCIDK: Tsentr Chranenija Istoriko-dokumental'nich Kollektsii (Center for the<br />
Custody of the Historical-Documentary Collection, Moscow)<br />
VHA: Vojenský Historický Archiv, Praha (Military Historical Archive, Prague)<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
WAPL: Wojewódzkie Archiwum Panstwowe w Lublinie (Provincial State Archive of<br />
Lublin)<br />
NOTES<br />
1. Published on the web by Russell Granata: http://www.russgranata.com/leichen.html<br />
2. Published on the web by Bradley Smith:<br />
http://www.codoh.com/incon/inconscrmtgno.html<br />
3. Published on the web by Russell Granata: http://www.russgranata.com/reply.html<br />
4. Published on the web by Bradley Smith:<br />
http://www.codoh.com/incon/inconsinbirk.html<br />
A German translation of this article appeared in the periodical, "Vierteljahreshefte für<br />
freie Geschichtsforschung" with the title "<strong>Bomb</strong>enschutzeinrichtungen in Birkenau: Eine<br />
Neubewertung" (December 2000, pp. 284-330).<br />
5. <strong>Shelter</strong>s planned and constructed as such, with air regeneration and filtration systems<br />
etc.<br />
6. See: Captain Dr. Attilio Izzo, Guerra chimica e difesa antigas. [Chemical warfare and<br />
anti-gas defense.] Publisher: Ulrico Hoepli, Milan, 1935, p. 254.<br />
7. J. C. Pressac, <strong>Auschwitz</strong>: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers. <strong>The</strong> Beate<br />
Page 46 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
7. J. C. Pressac, <strong>Auschwitz</strong>: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers. <strong>The</strong> Beate<br />
Klarsfeld Foundation, New York 1989, pp. 46-49.<br />
8. In: "für freie Geschichtsforschung," December 1988, pp. 248-261.<br />
9. One of the reasons for using this type of door could be the fact that these rooms<br />
worked with a heated air and gas mixture circulated by a fan with a pressure of 80<br />
millimeters of a column of water, therefore with a heavier pressure that could have<br />
provoked gaseous mixtures escaping with the use of the normal wooden doors of<br />
<strong>Auschwitz</strong>.<br />
10. See J. Graf and C. Mattogno, KL Majdanek. Eine historische und technische Studie.<br />
Castle Hill Publisher, 1998, photographs XVI, XVIa and XVII.<br />
11. GARF, 7021-107-2, pp. 13-17.<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
12. Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giffgas. Eine Dokumentation.<br />
Herausgegeben von Eugen Kogon, Hermann Langbein, Adalbert Rückerl u.a. S. Fischer<br />
Verlag, Frankfurt/Main 1983, pp. 242 and 319.<br />
13. „Zeszyty Majdanka", IV, 1969.<br />
14. <strong>The</strong> letter from the head of the Zentralbauleitung to the Bauinspektion Ost der<br />
Waffen-SS und Polizei of 10 July 1942 mentions "Bauantrag zur Errichtung einer<br />
Entwesungsanlage" for an amount of 70,000 RM. WAPL, Zentralbauleitung, 141, p. 3.<br />
15. This expression is the translation of the German term "Bauantrag."<br />
16. PS-1061, IMG, XXVI, p. 672.<br />
17. Raul Hilberg, <strong>The</strong> Destruction of <strong>The</strong> European Jews, Holmes and Meier 1985 (3<br />
volumes), vol. 3, pp. 913-914 and footnote 86.<br />
18. In this regard see my study the Zentralbauleitung der Waffen-SS und Polizei<br />
<strong>Auschwitz</strong>, Edizioni di Ar, 1998, pp. 25 and 45-48.<br />
19. Besichtigung des SS-Obergruppenführers Pohl am 23,9,1942. TCIDK, 502-1-19, pp.<br />
86-87.<br />
20. S. <strong>Crowell</strong>, Comments On Mattogno' s Critique Of <strong>The</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong> <strong>Shelter</strong> <strong>The</strong>sis, p. 6.<br />
21. 10 November 1943 Jothann requests from the field commander a food supplement for<br />
the Kommando Beton-Kolonne because: "Das Kommando der Bauleitung ' Beton-<br />
Kolonne' hat zur Zeit dringende und schwere Arbeiten für die Anlegung von<br />
Page 47 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
Kolonne' hat zur Zeit dringende und schwere Arbeiten für die Anlegung von<br />
Luftschützgräben zu verrichten." TCIDK, 502-1-256, p. 129.<br />
22. VHA, Fond OT, 26/7, p. 342.<br />
23. TCIDK, 502-1-401, p. 80.<br />
24. TCIDK, 502-1-401, pp. 91-91a.<br />
25. TCIDK, 502-1-26, p. 178.<br />
26. TCIDK, 502-1-26, pp. 186-186a.<br />
27. TCIDK, 502-1-28.<br />
28. TCIDK, 502-1-26.<br />
29. TCIDK, 502-1-26.<br />
30. TCIDK, 502-2-60.<br />
31. TCIDK, 502-1-320.<br />
32. GARF, 7021-108-32, p. 71.<br />
33. TCIDK, 502-1-401, p. 100.<br />
34. TCIDK, 502-1-210, p. 20. Directory of the BW of the Bauvorhaben<br />
Konzentrationslager <strong>Auschwitz</strong>.<br />
35. TCIDK, 502-1-404, pp. 51-52.<br />
36. AGK, NTN, 94, p. 156.<br />
37. TCIDK, 502-1-404, pp. 33-33a.<br />
38. TCIDK, 502-1-404, pp. 34-34a.<br />
39. TCIDK, 502-1-85, pp. 195-196.<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
40. <strong>Crowell</strong> himself writes that: "...this criminal trace [ Vergasungskeller ], along with the<br />
residual gas detectors for cyanide, remain as rather forceful evidence in support of the gas<br />
chamber <strong>thesis</strong>" (p. 33).<br />
Page 48 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
41. <strong>The</strong> " Gasprüfer " of <strong>Auschwitz</strong>. Version 28/XI/2000. Published on the web by<br />
Russell Granata:<br />
http://www.russgranata.com/gasprüfer.html<br />
42. Letter from the company Tesch & Stabenow to the Verwaltung of the KL Lublin.<br />
APMM, Sygn. I.d.2, vd.1, p. 107.<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
43. S. <strong>Crowell</strong>, Technique and Operation of Anti-gas German <strong>Shelter</strong>s in World War II:<br />
A Refutation of J. C. Pressac's "Criminal Traces.":<br />
http://www.codoh.com/incon/inconpressac.html<br />
44. http://www.codoh.com/viewpoints/vpmatbutz.html<br />
45. Verbrennungöfen für Abfälle aller Art. 1927. APMM, sygn. VI-9a, vol. 1.<br />
46. Topf Abfall-Vernichtungsöfen, not prior to January 1940. TCIDK, 502-1-327, pp.<br />
161-164a.<br />
47. APMO, BW 30/34, pp.88-89.<br />
48. Topf, Rechnung Nr. 1314 with object: "Lieferung und Errichtung eines Topf-<br />
Müllverbrennungsofen im Krematorium III." TCIDK, 502-1-327, pp. 13-13a.<br />
49. "<strong>The</strong> entire structure would be equipped with gas detectors (Gaspürer) [ LDB 208 ],<br />
and the people entering would go through a gas tight steel door" (p. 7).<br />
50. A. Izzo, Guerra chimica e difesa antigas, [Chemical warfare and anti-gas defense],<br />
op. cit., p.10.<br />
51. Idem, p. 67.<br />
52. Idem, p. 68.<br />
53. Idem, p. 65.<br />
54. Nobody has yet explained why they needed to burn military uniforms in <strong>Auschwitz</strong>, a<br />
place where, as is well known, they collected everything and even recycled rags.<br />
55. TCIDK, 502-2-54, p. 8.<br />
56. APMO, BW 30/34, p. 49.<br />
57. APMO, BW 30/34, p. 50.<br />
Page 49 sur 61
THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:<br />
57. APMO, BW 30/34, p. 50.<br />
58. Gasdichte Lüftungsrohrverschlüsse für L. S. Deckungsgräben Kenn-Nr. RL3-43/81<br />
DRGM. TCIDK, 502-1-401, (page number illegibile).<br />
07/06/09 08:19<br />
59. Plan 2036 of 11 January 1943. <strong>The</strong> two chimneys are adjacent to two rectangles with<br />
an X in the center that distinguishes two stoves. In: J. C. Pressac, <strong>Auschwitz</strong>: Technique<br />
and Operation of the Gas Chambers, p. 401.<br />
60. Höss Trial Proceedings, volume 11a, p. 84.<br />
61. TCIDK, 502-1-401, pp. 101-202a.<br />
62. Defending Against the Allied <strong>Bomb</strong>ing Campaign: Air Raid <strong>Shelter</strong>s and Gas<br />
Protection in Germany, 1939-1945, p. 50.<br />
http://www.codoh.com/incon/inconabr_txt.html<br />
63. Gebäudebeschreibung of Crematory IV. TCIDK, 502-2-54, p. 26.<br />
64. Plan 2036 of 11 January 1943. In: J. C. Pressac, <strong>Auschwitz</strong>: Technique and Operation<br />
of the Gas Chambers, p. 401.<br />
65. Idem, Photographs 4, 5 and 6 on p. 415.<br />
66. TCIDK, 502-2-54, p. 35.<br />
67. J. C. Pressac, <strong>Auschwitz</strong>: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, op. cit., pp.<br />
426-427.<br />
68. TCIDK, 502-1-170, p. 249.<br />
69. TCIDK, 502-2-95, p. 10a.<br />
70. TCIDK, 502-1-52, p. 12.<br />
71. NO-2359.<br />
72. TCIDK, 502-1-401, p. 38.<br />
http://www.russgranata.com/<br />
e-mail: info@russgranata.com<br />
POB 2145 PVP CA 90274 USA<br />
Page 50 sur 61