The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Letter Sent to David Irving

August 9, 1996
Part 2 of 2

On a different topic, I have recently browsed your Action Report #9 on Bradley Smith's web site, and this caught my eye:

Several key documents have been turned up by these revisionist sleuths. The most important so far is a document which makes specific reference to an Entlausungskammer fuer das Krematorium II (delousing chamber for Crematorium #2). How often the Holocaust experts have triumphantly brandished the document that refers to the construction of a Vergasungskeller (gassing chamber) in that crematorium, as the final "smoking gun".

The new moscow document, which was overlooked by both Fleming and Pressac, provides proof that the ominous Vergasungskeller was installed to save life, by killing the typhus-bearing lice, not to take it.

(There was a bracketed paragraph in there, but it is irrelevant and I think it was Mr. Smith's addition in any case.)

It's funny that you should mention this, because Mattogno had of course earlier advanced this idea that the Vergasungskeller, Leichenkeller 1, was really a delousing chamber. I quote from Auschwitz: The End of a Legend, 1994, pp. 64-65 -- pardon my emphasizing some important words:

The term Vergasungskeller designated a disinfestation basement. ...

The plan to preheat Leichenkeller 1 (p. 73) makes sense for a disinfestation gas chamber because it would permit shorter gassing times (the duration of a gassing using 20g of hydrocyanic acid per square meter required 45 minutes at a temperature of 25 C to 35 C, but three hours at a temperature of 0 to 5 C). It would be much less for a homicidal gas chamber, for a mass extermination in which the bodies of the victims would heat up the area sufficiently; therefore a preheating would be absolutely superfluous.

The presence of a gas-proof door (p. 80) is perfectly normal in a disinfestation gas chamber.

I note only in passing that the preheating plan is not at all at odds with what historians say actually happened: preheating the homicidal gas chamber was suggested, briefly tried, and rejected as superfluous. (Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, Gutman et al., 1995, pp. 230, 232-233.)

The big question is: have you noticed the contradiction? Has Mattogno or anyone else noticed it?

You are well-known for backing the Leuchter Report. The way Zündel describes it, you made quite a splash at his 1988 trial by announcing that you'd been totally converted to a revisionist, and that the means of your conversion was the Leuchter Report itself. And you've given the Report quite a bit of publicity -- I believe what's commonly considered the "official" version of the Leuchter Report is your Focal Point edition, with your forward.

In any case, this argument of Mattogno's, which you endorse, totally contradicts the chief argument of Leuchter's, which you have also endorsed. I quote from p. 12 of the edition I have (Samisdat, 1988, with the forward by Faurisson):

The investigated areas were the alleged gas chambers designated as morgue #1 on both drawings. As noted for Krema I, there was no ventilation, no heating system, no circulation system, no sealant inside or out and further, no doors on the morgue in Krema II. The area has been examined by the author and no evidence of doors or door frames has been found. This investigator could not make this determination for Krema III since portions of the structure are missing. Both structures has roofs of reinforced concrete without any apparent openings. Further, reports of hollow gas-carrying columns are not true. All the columns are solid, reinforced concrete exactly as indicated in the captured German plans. The roof vents are not gasketed. These facilities would be very dangerous if used as gas chambers and this use would probably result in the death of the users and an explosion when the gas reached the crematory. (My emphasis.)

So let me see if I can lay this out side-by-side:

Mattogno Leuchter
"plan to preheat" "no heating system"
"gas-proof door" "no evidence of doors or door frames"
"disinfestation" "very dangerous if used as gas chambers and this use would probably result in the death of the users and an explosion when the gas reached the crematory"

(As an aside, I don't think I need to mention that Leuchter's hypotheticals about the gas exploding are nonsense. As his own appendix, NI-9912, points out, the explosion point is 75 g/m3, normal application is 8-10 g/m3, "therefore not explosive." And, since mammals succumb to cyanide more quickly than insects, the homicidal gassings used a fraction of that "therefore not explosive" concentration. Faurisson's nonsense about higher concentration levels at the point of emission notwithstanding, of course, since there were no flames at the point of emission.)

(As another aside, there are more contradictions between Mattogno and most other "revisionists." For example, Lüftl [1992] and Rudolf [1992] have both argued strenuously that Zyklon was designed for slow outgassing with delousing and could not possibly outgas its HCN fast enough to kill people. Yet Mattogno [1994] argues the exact opposite, parroting established historians: "the duration of a [delousing] gassing... required 45 minutes... . It would be much less for a homicidal gas chamber [because] the bodies of the victims would heat up the area sufficiently... .")

Anyway, my point is that you've given your support to two conclusions about what the Leichenkeller were. Whether your conclusion in Action Report #9 is based on Mattogno specifically or not is not my point (though I've been using Mattogno to make my point). My point is: you support both the Leucher Report and the Leichenkeller-as-delousing-cellar idea. They have only one thing in common: they both conclude that Leichenkeller 1 was not used to kill people. But on every significant reason for that conclusion, they totally contradict each other.

Can you resolve these contradictions?

Thank you.



Jamie McCarthy

[ Previous | Index ]

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.