THE SAMUEL CROWELL BOMB SHELTER THESIS:
A HISTORICALLY UNFOUNDED HYPOTHESIS
Edited and Copyrighted © MMI by Russ Granata
Numbers in brackets [ ] refer to end notes.
In my final response to Crowell, I have cited his article published as "Bomb Shelters in Birkenau: A Reappraisal." Item # CS 600 Smith' s Report: The Catalog PO BOX 439016 San Diego CA 92143.
A long article by Samuel Crowell entitled « Technik und Arbeitsweise deutscher Gasschutzbunker im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Eine Widerlegung von J. C. Pressacs „kriminellen Spuren" » appeared in the September 1997 issue of the journal Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung (pp. 226-243). Noticing the total inconsistency of Crowell's thesis, I wrote the refutation Morgue Cellars of Birkenau: Gas Shelters or Disinfesting Chambers? . Crowell replied with "Comments On Mattogno's Critique Of the Bomber Shelter Thesis", an article even more inconclusive than the first. In my following «Reply to Samuel Crowell's "Comments" about my "Critique of the Bomb Shelter Thesis"»  I promised myself not to return to this topic, which, for my part, I considered to be closed. Nonetheless, Crowell's systematic distortion of documents and facts in his article "Bomb Shelters in Birkenau: A Reappraisal " and his unshakeable tenacity for supporting patently false theses, induced me to reconsider my decision. Since his thesis has found proselytes among revisionists - however incredible this may seem - and for the sake of historical accuracy, I again take part in the debate. This is also because Crowell once more put forward arguments that I had already proved to be unfounded, beginning with the argument concerning the doors of the Entwesunsanlage at Majdanek.
2) The gas-tight doors of Auschwitz
In reality this assumption is completely unfounded as are the consequences that Crowell draws from it. In the first place, it is not true that "all air-raid shelter doors were equipped with peepholes." Some of the doors in regulation air-raid shelters  lacked them, such as the one in illustration 1. 
It is equally false that an anti-gas door with a "peephole" cannot be a door of a disinfestation chamber, as can be seen from the photographs published by Pressac. Particularly significant is the photograph published on p. 49 of his work (see illustration 2). The sign on the door shows the words "Giftige Gase! Bei betreten des Raumes Lebensgefahr."
Even the "Gaskammer" using hydrogen cyanide in BW 5b had two normal gas-tight wooden doors that are still in existence as can be seen in illustration 3.
Also the two doors of the gas chamber using hydrocyanic acid next to the shower room in the "Entwesungsanlage" at Majdanek had simple gas-tight wooden doors. 
3) The gas-tight doors of Majdanek
In the aforementioned book KL Majdanek. Eine historische und technische Studie, Castle Hill Publisher, 1998, I dedicated an entire paragraph to the question of the planning, construction and objective of the gas chamber in this camp (pp. 129-137). In this paragraph, referring to the documents of the Zentralbauleitung of the concentration camp Lublin (Majdanek), I demonstrated that the facility to which the gas-tight doors in question belonged, was planned and constructed as an "Entwesungsanlage." [see Document 36] On this there is not the slightest doubt. Let us briefly take up the early history of this installation with the following chronology:
2) The two doors of the northern side had in addition a central bolt (Zentralverriegelung) which could also be closed from the outside. (illustration 11)
Therefore these doors are constucted to be closed from the outside and not the inside, so they could not have been used in a shelter against gas attack.
Crowell asserts that the arguments which I set out in my above-mentioned reply
A final observation.
The presumed order of 26 September 1942 is in reality the result of a misaprehension of Adam Rutkowski, who edited the item "Majdanek" in the book cited by Crowell. On p. 242 of this work we read:
"Construction order No. 525 of 26 September1942. Provincial State Archive of Lublin, Zentralbauleitung, No. 25, p. 39."
If Crowell persists in ignoring these proofs and to negate the evidence, his thesis will be transformed from one of error into one of imposture.
4) The "Bomb Shelter Documents"
This distressful section illustrates perfectly the axiomatic nature of Crowell's methodology. Having found a simple resemblance between two photographs (!) and without knowing the documents nor having inspected the installations, he immediately jumps to a conclusion that is for him final and indisputable, but which is in fact false. In his study of Pressac's "criminal traces" he adopted the same aberrant methodology which formulated the form of rebuke to van Pelt and myself reads:
Crowell, instead of studying this essential point, started with the firm assumption that air-raid measures were taken in the crematoria of Birkenau, and then tried to justify his assertions with documents.
He first postulated his dogmatic conclusion, and then searched for documents to prove it. Since these documents do not exist, he resorted to systematic distortion of the documents, which in fact demonstrate nothing at all, as will be seen from the following analysis.
Document 1 (pp. 7-8) dates back to 6 August 1942 and considers the "Richtlinien für den Aufbau der Luftschutzes im Bereich des M.i.G. [= Militärbefehlshaber im Generalgouvernement]." It concerns simple norms from which it cannot be deduced neither if nor when air-raid shelters were constructed.
Document 2 (p. 8) consists of two terse citations from the so-called diary of Hans Frank dated 22 and 24 September 1942 concerning "Gasmasken." This document too says nothing about air-raid shelters.
Document 3 (p. 9) refers to the doors of the Entwesungsanlage of Majdanek. As I have shown above, a request for these doors, dated 26 September 1942, does not exist, and the doors have nothing to do with air-raid shelters.
Document 4 (p. 9) is a short citation in English translation of the Stroop report. The original says:
Document 5 (p.10) is a simple deposition of Bühler at the Nuremberg trial and proves nothing.
Document 6 (p.12) goes back to 14 September 1940 and refers to "Sofortmassnahmen bei Bomben-und Brandschäden". Crowell himself admits that
Document 7 is a "memo on Fighting Phosphorous Fires December 21, 1940" (p.12). Another inane document to make up a number.
Document 8 (p.12), "Erweiterer Selbstschutz in Barackenlagern" of 4 January 1941 contains instructions on the construction of air-raid shelters and other similar general directives. It proves nothing regarding the actual construction of air-raid shelters.
Document 9 (p. 13) considers "Blaues Licht während der Verdunklung" and is dated 16 April 1941. Another inane document.
Document 10 is a tender by the Berlin firm Heinemann & Co. to the SS-Neubauleitung of Auschwitz and has for its object "Luftschutzdeckungsgräben für Arbeitsläger, Fabriken, öffentliche Plätze usw." and concerns "LS-Stollenrahmen aus Zement." From the letter it appears that the Heinemann firm wrote it on its own initiative to promote its products and was not solicited by the SS-Neubauleitung, nor is there a known response from this office. The document therefore proves nothing.
Document 11 (p.13), "Building Regulations for 1942, March 6, 1942" mentions "quite casually in the context of general building regulations" measures for air-raid defense. Yet another document proving nothing.
Document 12 (p. 13) is a "Civil Defense Security Directive, Himmler to Glücks, February 8, 1943" of which Hilberg gives a brief summary. This is how Crowell comments on it:
Document 13 (pp.13-14) is made up of the "Richtlinien" of Kammler and has for object "Luftschutz." It is dated 6 March 1943, but was protocolled by the Zentralbauleitung on 19 June, as appears from the relative stamp. This means that the letter reached Auschwitz on the latter date. Crowell states that
To be precise, SS-Untersturmführer Kirschnek was simply the head of one of five Bauleitungen - into which the Zentralbauleitung was then divided - having the function of Bauleiter of the "Bauleitung der Waffen-SS und Polizei Auschwitz, K.L. Auschwitz und Landwirtschaft Auschwitz." In particular, he had no jurisdiction over the Birkenau camp, which was subject to the authority of SS-Untersturmfüher Janisch, Bauleiter of the „Bauleitung des Kriegsgefangenenlagers."
Since these directives reached Auschwitz in June 1943, they prove absolutely nothing regarding the possible implementation of air-raid measures in the crematoria of Birkenau between January and April 1943.
Starting with No. 14, all the documents given by Crowell except for No. 16 postdate Pressac's criminal traces of April 1943. Hence they prove nothing about these traces in the framework of the "bomb shelter thesis." In the following table, I indicate the dates of the respective documents:
Document 16 concerns the 23 September 1942 visit of Pohl to Auschwitz.  Nevertheless, the itinerary for the visit does not refer to any site having the remotest connection with a "bomb shelter." This was candidly admitted by Crowell himself, who writes "the itinerary makes no visits to possible bomb shelter sites" (p. 16). But then why did he cite this document to support his argument on "bomb shelters"?
Crowell makes another blunder in his commentary stating that the annotations added by hand to the document
Therefore Crowell takes for the population of the Lager Birkenau to be these 1,323 detainees which simply make up the service personnel of the SS in the Truppenlager!
Even though the remaining documents, for chronological reasons, demonstrate absolutely nothing, I will examine some of them in order to show the hair-splitting nature of Crowell's interpretations. Regarding Document 17 (p. 16), I refer to paragraph 10 (The 6 Leichenkammern of the Aktenvermerk of 17 June 1944).
Document 30 (p. 21) is a simple invoice for 45 RM dated 2 June 1943 concerning work done by detainees in Krema II. What does this document have to do with "bomb shelters"? What does it prove? Absolutely nothing.
5) The Luftschutz-Deckungsgräben of September-November 1943.
Documents 20-22 require a separate discussion. They concern a letter from the specialist SS-Untersturmführer Kirschnek (not by Dejaco, as Crowell erroneously states) dated 21 September 1943, and two letters dated 25 October and 5 November 1943 from the SS-Untersturmführer specialist Dejaco, who was employed in the Sachgebiet Planung of the Zentralbauleitung.
In my two articles cited above on the "bomb shelter thesis" I stated - and here I confirm this - that at Auschwitz no air-raid measures (construction of "bomb shelters") were taken before 16 November 1943. Crowell cited these three documents in order to contradict this fact (to which I return below), and, as it seems, he truly believes that they refute my statement so strongly so as to qualify it as "a ridiculous assertion." If there is anything truly ridiculous here, it is Crowell's interpretation. He actually claims that these three documents refer to the construction of a "trench shelter" at Auschwitz (p. 19).
In reality, Crowell has understood nothing of the problems posed by these documents; let us summarize the course of events.
The «Programm "Luftschutzgräben"» was launched in Upper Silesia in August 1943. This entailed the use of pieces of prefabricated concrete (Betonteile) in the construction of Luftschutzgräben. The job of making these pieces was entrusted to the Zentralbauleitung of Auschwitz, which had them made from its "Beton-Kolonne." For the production, standard metallic forms (Formen) were used that were supplied by the purchaser and into which cement was poured. Thus the excavation was covered with these elements of concrete that formed a kind of huge cement pipe. The most important part was evidently the cover (Deckung), a vault (Bogen, Gewölbe), so that these installations were commonly called "Luftschutz-Deckungsgräben."
Auschwitz was only the place of manufacture (Baudienststelle), but the Zentralbauleitung had also to provide for the delivery (Auslieferung) of the products to the customer. The products were intended for the Baubevollmächtigte im Bezirk der Rüstungsinspektion VIII, but the customer (Auftraggeber) of the work was the Gaubeauftragte des Generalbevollmächtigten für die Regelung der Bauwirtschaft im Raume Oberschlesien (G.B.-Bau), with its seat at Kattowitz. The co-involvement of G.B.-Bau as customer shows that the "Luftschutzgräben" had been requested by Speer, probably for the Todt organisation. In fact, a document pertinent to "Programmbauten" from the "Reichsminister für Rüstung und Kriegsproduktion. Amt Bau OT [= Organisation Todt]" of March 1944 mentions a "Luftschutz" plan included in the Bauvorhaben "Kattowitz Stollenbau." 
In conclusion, the Betonteile of the "Luftschutzgräben" (or "Luftschutz-Deckungsgräben") were meant for the above-mentioned office of Speer at Kattowitz: Nothing at all shows that a single Betonteil was meant for Auschwitz.
The above documents have an antecedent that Crowell fails to cite. This is Kammler's letter of 3 September 1943 to the Gaubeauftragte des Generalbevollmächtigten für die Regelung der Bauwirtschaft im Raume Oberschlesien with object "K.L.-Auschwitz - Luftschutzmassnahmen in O/S". Kammler writes:
Wie ich bereits mitteilte, habe ich die Baudienststelle angewiesen, in Anbetracht der geschilderten Dringlichkeit, sich für die geforderte Produktion einzusetzen. Ich bitte jedoch dringend, Ihrerseits auch dafür besorgt zu bleiben, dass die erforderlichen Kontigente zeitgerecht zur Verfügung stehen.
Ferner bitte ich, zu bestätigen, dass die in meinem Fernschreiben vom 21.8.1943 geforderten 10% der Fertigsfabrikate bei einer Kontingentierung durch den Gaubevollmächtigten des GB-Bau für Waffen-SS-Zwecke zur Verfügung gestellt werden." 
Dejaco's "Aktenvermerk" of 25 October 1943 has for its object the "Luftschutz-Deckungsgräben." 
The document concerns a dispute regarding the breaking of 60% of 7 wagons of concrete vaults (Bogenstücken) for the "Luftschutz-Deckungsgräben" sent to the Zentralbauleitung at Kattowitz on 11 and 12 October, the delivery of which was taken by engineer Andre, a functionary from G.B.-Bau. Dejaco declined any responsibility, declaring that the 176 Bodenstücken were loaded "ordnungsgemäss und ohne Beschädigung" in the presence of a functionary from Kattowitz. The document contains a further request for still outstanding forms ("noch ausstehenden Formen").
Here I emphasize a decisively foolish interpretation of Crowell. He writes:
However, this conclusion was wrong, first, because the construction of the shells was not understood (they are practically oval) and second because the problem with the high water table at Birkenau was not evident. In addition, whatever the problem with the water table, it seemed to be contradicted by the photographic evidence of what appeared to be trench shelters in Birkenau" (p.19).
He has understood neither that the "Luftschutz-Deckungsgräben" were made from pieces of prefabricated concrete nor that the "176 Bogenstücken" formed part of the "500 lfdm Betonteile," that were earlier mentioned in Kirschnek's letter of 21 September as a program to be implemented. Nevertheless, as Dejaco explicitly says in the "Aktenvermerk" of 5 November, by this date about 250 meters of the program had been completed.
Now, had there been "hundreds" (that is, not less than 200) shelters and if they were meant for the SS troops, they must have been 1.25 (=250:200) meters in length! Here is a further example of Crowell's senseless "deductions."
Dejaco's "Aktenvermerk" of 5 November 1943 again has for its object the "Luftschutzdeckungsgräben." It concerns a report for the specialist SS-Obersturmführer Jothann, who on 1 October 1943 took over from Bischoff as head of the Zentralbauleitung, which he confirmed by taking it into cognizance (zur Kenntnis genommen).
The author refers to a colloquium between himself and engineer Andre, who had returned to the chair of the Zentralbauleitung the day before. The princial theme was the scarcity of fuel which risked stoppage of the production of concrete pieces. The received fuel had been consumed by the production already realized:
In conclusion, to claim that these documents prove that during this period „Luftschützgräben" (or "Luftschutz-Deckungsgräben") were installed at Auschwitz, or were intended for Auschwitz, shows that either Crowell has understood nothing or that he is in bad faith [malafede].
6) Genesis and development of "bomb shelters" at Auschwitz
On the basis of the documents examined above, Crowell comes to the following surprising conclusion:
I have already shown that none of the documents cited by Crowell contain not only no proof of this assertion, but not even a vague suggestion of it. This being established, let us pass on to another problem.
Crowell claims that the "measures" for constructing "civil air defense" were carried out on the orders of Himmler to Glücks dated 8 February 1943 (his document 12), which in fact have nothing to do with "bomb shelters." Therefore he believes a directive from above would have been put into effect modifying the crematoria into "bomb shelters." Obviously, being a matter of a directive from above, it had to be executed in more or less the whole Auschwitz complex, so that during this period from 8 February to 16 November 1943 several "bomb shelters" must have been constructed, intended either for detainees or the troops. Crowell subdivides the documents on "bomb shelters" adduced by him into three sections which he labels "high level," "mid-level" and "low level." This tripartite division ultimately serves only to complicate the essential issue to be resolved, which is most simple: Between February and November 1943 were orders imparted and carried out for the construction of "bomb shelters"?
Crowell neither demonstates that such orders were given nor that they were implemented. On the other hand, there is not the minimum trace in the documents that "civil air defense measures" were carried out. Let us examine the most important documents.
1) Prüfungsbericht Nr. 491 über Baustoffeinsparung gemäss G.B.-Anordnung Nr. 22, drawn up by Bischoff on 2 February 1943.  This document contains a list of construction work which was to be completed during 1944 (Fertigstellungstermin: 1944). As follows:
182 Pferdestallbaracken, 27 Waschbaracken, 13 Abortbaracken, 10 Wirtschaftsbaracken, 12 Revierbaracken, 10 Blockfürerbaracken, 3 Waschbaracken für die Truppe, 6 Abortbaracken für die Truppe, 3 Wirtschaftsbaracken für die Truppe, 11 Kammer- und Schreibstubebaracken, 16 Mannschaftsunterkunftsbaracken für die Truppe, 1 Waschgebäude, 1 Kommandanturgebäude, Lagerhaus, Drahthindernis und Wachtürme, Kochkessel und Heizöfen, 4 Krematorien, 4 Leichenhallen, Entlausungsanlage für Gefangene, Entlausungsanlage für die Wachtruppe, Wasserversorgungsanlage, Entwässerung, Gleisanschluss, Alarm- und Telefonanlage, Elektrische Lichtanlage, Notstromaggregate, Transformatorenstation, Provisorische Bäckerei, Werkhallen für die D.A.W., 3 Lagerbaracken für die D.A.W., 1 Wohnbaracke (D.A.W.), Entlausungsanlage I (Zivilarbeiter), 4 Unterkunftsbaracken (Zivilarbeiter), Entlausungsanlage II (Zivilarbeiter), 2 Abortbaracken (Zivilarbeiter), 2 Waschbaracken (Zivilarbeiter).
None of these bear any relation to anti air-raid measures.
2) Tätigkeitsbericht of the SS-Untersturmführer Kirschnek on works executed between January 1 and March 31 1943.  The report mentions the following Bauwerke:
BW 7a, BW 20M, BW 20N, BW 20O, BW 20Q, BW 43, BW 20D, BW 64, BW 81, BW 76, BW 26B, BW 71A, BW 63, BW 71B, BW 26B, BW 32 B, BW 4, BW 68B, BW 66E, BW 86, BW 4, BW 71, Unterkunft H. 834, BW 83, BW 207, Garage neben Haus 7, BW 71, BW 81, BW 30, 30a.
None of these Bauwerke are related to anti air-raid measures.
3) Aufteilung der Bauwerke for the Bauvorhaben Kriegsgefangenenlagers drawn up by SS-Untersturmführer Janisch on 9 April 1943.  The following Bauwerke are listed here:
BW 1, BW 2, BW 3a, BW 3b, BW 3c, BW 3d, BW 3e, BW 3f, BW 4a, BW 4b, BW 4c, BW 4d, BW 4e, BW 4f, BW 5a, BW 5b, BW 6a, BW 6b, BW 6c, BW 7a, BW 7b, BW 7c, BW 8a, BW 8b, BW 8c, BW 9, BW 10, BW 11, BW 12a, BW 12b, BW 12c, BW 12d, BW 12e, BW 12f, BW 13, BW 14 (Barackenlager für die Wachtruppe), 14a, 14b, 14c, 14d, 14e, 14f, 14g, 14h, BW 15, BW 16, BW 17, BW 18, BW 18a, BW 19, BW 20, BW 21, BW 22, BW 23, BW 24, BW 25, BW 26, BW 26a, BW 26b, BW 27, BW 28, 29, BW 30, BW 30a, BW 30b, BW 30c, BW 31, BW 32, BW 33, BW 34a, BW 35, BW 45, BW 66, BW 77.
None of these Bauwerke are related to anti air-raid measures.
4) Erläuterungsbericht zum Ausbau des Kriegsgefangenenlagers der Waffen-SS in Auschwitz O/S, drawn up by Bischoff on 30 September 1943.  The document lists the following Bauwerke:
BW 3a-3c, BW 4a, BW 5a, BW 6a, BW 7a, BW 3b, BW 4a, BW 4b, BW 8a, BW 12c, BW 12d, BW 12e, BW 12f, BW 3d, BW 4c, BW 4d, BW 6b, BW 7b, BW 12a, BW 12d, BW 34a, BW 33, BW 3e, BW 4c, BW 4e, BW 4f, BW 6c, BW 7c, BW 12b, BW 12d, BW 33a, BW 9, BW 10, BW 11, BW 15, BW 18, BW 30, BW 30a, BW 30b, BW 30c, BW 31, BW 32, BW 35, BW 13, BW 16, BW 17, BW 18, BW 18a, BW 19, BW 21, BW 22, BW 23, BW 24, BW 25, BW 26b, BW 27, BW 29.
None of these Bauwerke are related to anti air-raid measures. BW 29 refers to "Feuerlöschteiche," but as we shall soon see, has nothing to do with "civil air defense measures."
5) Baufristenplan of the Kriegsgefangenenlager written up by Jothann on 15 December 1943. In this document all the camp's Bauwerke between April 1943 and March 1944, either in construction or already completed, together with an indication of the degree of work completed in %, the date started as well as the projected date for finished work are drawn up:
BW 2, BW 3a, BW 3b, BW 3c-d, BW 4a, BW 4b, BW 4c, BW 5a, BW 5b, BW 6a, BW 6b, BW 6c, BW7c, BW 7a, BW 7b, BW 8a, BW 9, BW 12a, BW 12c, BW 13, BW 14, BW 16, BW 17, BW 18, BW 19, BW 20/21, BW 24, BW 25, BW 26, BW 30, BW 30a, BW 30b, BW 30c, BW 31, BW 32, BW 33, BW 35, BW 36, BW 10, BW 14a.
None of these documents are related to anti air-raid measures.
This total absence of references to "civil air defense measures" in the documents of the Zentralbauleitung before 16 November 1943 is explained only by the fact that before this date such measures did not exist and could not exist. In fact, the program for anti air-raid protection that was launched in Upper Silesia in August of 1943 was initially intended for the structures of the Todt organisation and was extended to the Auschwitz camp only in the middle of November. The decision was made official by SS-Obersturmbannführer Liebehenschel, who at that time was the SS-Standortälteste of the Auschwitz camp. In the Standortbefehl n. 51/43 of 16 November 1943 he communicated the following:
"11. Luftschutzmassnahmen im Stardort Auschwitz.
This document irrefutably proves that Crowell's ponderings are mere fantasies - and that is why he took good care not to say a single word about it. This is not surprising since in order to play it down or disguise this document he would have had to have recourse to even more foolish fantasies.
Let us return to our story.
Liebehenschel assumed the post of "Der SS-Standortälteste als örtlicher Luftschutzleiter" and his office was called „LS-Befehlstelle (für das Interessengebiet des K.L. Auschwitz O/S.)". This heading was printed as a letterhead on his stationary that was used for his correspondence in his capacity as Luftschutzleiter.
It was precisely in this capacity that Liebehenschel sent a letter on 17 February 1944 to the Zentralbauleitung which begins as follows:
Following practice, an appropriate Bauwerk, BW 98, was established in which all projected air-raid shelters were included. BW 98 refers to the first air-raid installation planned for Auschwitz. A document not cited by Crowell indicates that BW 98 was established for "Luftschutzdeckungsgraben" and concerns the "Leistungsverzeichnis über die Ausführung der Erd-, Mauer-, und Isolationsarbeiten für die Luftschutzdeckungsgraben BW 98 im KL Auschwitz" drawn up on 25 March 1944 by Jothann. The "Leistungsverzeichnis" is a contract in which all the work to be done is specified, but without indication of the cost per square or cubic meter, showing that on 25 March 1944 the Bauwerk 98 was still at the planning stage. The air-raid shelters of BW 98 successively constructed constituted sections of BW 98 that were marked with a sign such as the addition of a letter. For example, the Luftschutzkeller for the house of the camp commandant was BW 98J, the Luftschutzbunker constructed in Krema I was BW 98M.
The Luftschutz program at Auschwitz was realised gradually.
The anti air-raid installations requested (gefordert) and realized (erstellt) are listed in Jothann 's Aktenvermerk of 28 June 1944, which has for its object "LS.-Massnahmen im K.L.Auschwitz."
The completed installations were the following:
1.) Kommandantur Lager I
10 Stück Splitterschützgräben in Fertigbetonteilen für je
1 Bunker für die Häuser
22 Stück 1-Mann bezw. 2-Mann-Splitterschutzbunker für kleine
1 Splitterschutzgraben für 130 Personen". (See illustration 13)
The facilities requested but not yet realized were an additional 220. Even the air-raid shelter for the camp commandant's house was planned very late, as can be seen in "Erläuterungsbericht zum Bau eines Luftschutzkellers für das Kommandantenhaus BW 98 J"  and the relative "Kostenvoranschlag,"  both dated 10 October 1944.
The following anti air-raid installations were in construction on 4 September 1944 and have their degree of completion in % indicated on the right:
7) Pressac's criminal traces
In the article "Technik und Arbeitsweise deutscher Gasschutzbunker im Zweiten Weltkrieg" Crowell claimed to have explained all Pressac's criminal traces with his "bomb shelter thesis":
Noting the ambiguity of this trace, we leave it aside for now, observing only that superficially it tends to support the gas chamber thesis as opposed to either the disinfection or bomb shelter theses" (p.34).
In the first version of the above-cited article, I showed that the telegram of 26 February 1943 sent by the Zentralbauleitung ("Gasprüfer") and the reply of 2 March from the Topf firm ("Anzeigegeräte für Blausäure-Reste") raises so many unsolvable problems that the only solution seemed to be the hypothesis that the second document had been falsified. This hypothesis served only to give a response to those problems that are of a technical and bureaucratic nature and do not minimally concern the specific question of a possible request by the Zentralbauleitung for an apparatus to test for residual hydrogen cyanide.
Indeed, I devoted an entire paragraph to these questions where I reconstructed the historical context in which these two documents are set and I showed that this validated the interpretation already formulated by Robert Faurisson that the "Anzeigegeräte für Blausäure-Reste" served for normal disinfestation purposes of Krema II.
Reviewers with few scruples or openly deceptive [malafede], and who opportunistically passed over this demonstration remembered only the fact that Mattogno had asserted - without proof - that the second document is a falsification, shrewdly insinuating that I had recourse to this expedient because of an inability to provide an adequate response to the document's reference to "gas."
The reality is that Topf's letter of 2 March 1943 preoccupied me so little that I was most disposed to accept its authenticity, with the result that I did indeed formally accept it in the latest version of my article  and retracted the falsification hypothesis. In any case, those who, like Crowell, claim to seriously analyze documents, cannot escape the duty of discussing problems that documents provoke nor the obligation to resolve them.
In our case the problems are many and grave. We briefly summarize them.
If we chose, we could dismiss this criminal trace right now: the Germans had been gassed with HCN in World War One, expected its use, and had prepared for it. The presence of HCN detectors has no criminal significance at all.
But there is still a problem: why would one ask an oven maker to purchase gas detectors? In other words, we know that the manufacturers of Zyklon had HCN gas detectors, and we are certain that the Wehrmacht and the SS had their own. Thus, why would one ask the builders of the cremation ovens for gas detectors, and why ten in number? The simplest answer is that these gas detectors were meant for the 10 three-muffle cremation ovens that comprised Crematoria II and III, and they probably were meant to have some characteristic (heat resistance) to make them usable in or by the ovens. That the gas detectors would be meant for Crematoria II and III makes sense, because, first, Pressac notes that the crematoria were always discussed as pairs (II and III, IV and V) [ATO, 452], and because Crematoria IV and V did not have 10, but rather 4 double muffle ovens apiece.
Then we have to ask what their function would be. Pressac argues that these detectors prove gassings with Zyklon B in the crematoria: but in the event of such gassings, certainly the crematoria operators would not have needed to be informed that dangerous concentrations of the gas were nearby. In other words, the need for detectors for the ovens suggests the ability to detect the presence of HCN residues created by other processes, but not by the release of pure HCN in the Crematoria.
In early March, 1997, Dr. Arthur R. Butz argued that the incineration chute behind the cremation ovens of Crematoria II and III could have generated high levels of HCN in the crematory ductwork if certain fabrics were burned. There is merit to this argument, since it is known that German uniforms from the beginning of the war were composed of a wool-rayon combination, and that the proportion of rayon increased throughout the war [US 541ff]. It is not unreasonable to assume that most concentration camp fabrics contained similar proportions of wool and rayon, nor is it unreasonable that highly flammable rayon fabrics would be treated with flame retardant which would provide a catalyst for HCN release when burned.[…].
Recognizing that the problem is not a question of the criminality of these detectors, but rather a question of why Topf should be acquiring them, I accept the general validity of Dr. Butz' thesis and direct the interested reader there». (pp. 25-27).
Crowell then claims that
Crowell then goes on to explain why the "Gasprüfer" were intended for a crematorium and why there were 10. He asserts that
Here Crowell reproduced my explanation but he has distorted it into a silly argument. In fact, as combustion analyzers, the "Gasprüfer" were not, as he thinks, installed in the ovens, but in the smoke conduits or at the base of the chimneys, and in Kremas II and III there were altogether 10 smoke conduits. On the other hand, there were 10 chimney flues in all four crematoria (since the chimneys of Kremas II and III were subdivided into three separate flues).
My interpretation is based on the fact - as I have already indicated - that "Gasprüfer" in German technical literature of the time were simple analyzers of combustion gas regularly installed in civilian crematoria, and also because they could have been installed in the 10 smoke conduits or in the above-mentioned 10 chimney flues. The first possibility is the most probable.
Crowell, on the other hand, creates a hybrid explanation that is not only unfounded but also silly.
Following me he claims on the one hand that the "Gasprüfer" were meant for the 10 ovens of Kremas II and III; following Butz on the other hand, he asserts that they did not serve for analyzing fumes, but rather for "the presence of HCN residues created by other processes," that is, hydrogen cyanide produced from the combustion of rayon impregnated with a "flame retardant" substance. Nevertheless, Butz clearly refers to the Müllverbrennungsofen of Krema II, an incinerator in which camp refuse was destroyed. By contrast, Crowell claims that refuse - or rather military uniforms  - were destroyed in the crematory ovens, which is senseless. On the other hand, it is known that the cadavers were burnt nude and that certainly no hydrogen cyanide developed from the combustion of a corpse! Crowell's explanation is therefore totally inconsistent. As to Butz, he does not even explain the reason for requesting the 10 "Gasprüfer." Given that there was a single Müllverbrennungsofen in Krema II, what was the point of the 10 "Gasprüfer"? Indeed, this hypothesis does not answer any of the seven problems posed above.
In conclusion, the explanation of Crowell is not only unfounded but also foolish.
A final observation.
Discussing the "regular" doors made gas-tight following the concept of engineers Nowak and Rademacher, Crowell writes:
So, according to Crowell, when it conerns all the wooden doors in the presumed "bomb shelters" of the crematoria (beginning with those in Leichenkeller 1 of Kremas II and III), the Zentralbauleitung did not foresee any "real threat of aerial cyanide attack"; but when it concerns "gas detectors" it foresaw a "real threat of aerial cyanide attack"!
Another example of the Crowell oportunistic argumentation.
The statement that the presumed vertical apertures "have not yet been discovered" is false, since the walls of Leichenkeller 2 of Krema II are quite visible and show not the slightest trace of these presumed four "vertical wall openings." Therefore, there is really nothing "yet" to be discovered in these walls.
Crowell considers as "unconvincing" Pressac's explanation that Gastürme "is a misspelling for Tür and that this is a reference to 'three gastight doors' " (p.27). He asserts
In order to support this arbitrary assertion Crowell has recourse to a trick: his "document 29" does not in fact present a "Luftschutz-Verschlüss," but a "Gasdichte lüftungsrohrverschlüsse" (see document 15)  , so that the "ventilation chimneys" that Crowell speaks of were actually called "Lüftungsröhre," certainly not "Türme." On the other hand, the ventilation chimney of Krema II and Krema III was called a "Schacht" ("Entlüftungsschacht"). So to claim that the "gastight ventilation chimneys could be described as 'gasdichte Türme' " is false and foolish.
In "Technique and Operation of German Anti-Gas Shelters in World War Two" Crowell writes:
This being cleared up, let us see what the "gasdichte Türme" were. The following request dated 19 February 1943 appears in the Schlosserei documentation:
8) The suicidal "bomb shelters" of Kremas IV and V
The idea supported by Crowell that the Zentralbauleitung could use the rooms in the west wing of Kremas IV and V as air-raid shelters is decisively stupid. In my article "Morgue Cellars of Birkenau: Gas Shelters or Disinfesting Chambers?" I showed that
"medium weight bombs, when falling from a normal bombing height, have a penetration of 0.40 to 0.50 m into reinforced concrete, and a penetration of circa 1.20 m into an ordinary full-brick wall and even deeper into a hollow brick wall" » (pp. 5-6).
This is displayed in detail in a document well-known to him: the Richtlinien of Kammler dated 6 March 1943 cited by Crowell as document 13. The following guidelines are provided in section III, "Die bauliche Ausführung von Splitterschutz. Bestimmungen des Reichsluftfahrtministeriums in der Fassung September 1942", paragraph B „Splittersichere Gebäudewände und freistehende Splitterschutzwände", subsection 2 „Mauerwerk":
Mauerziegel 1. Klasse DIN 105 (Mauerziegel).
[There follow another 5 types of masonry].
2) Sie müssen mindestens 64 cm dick sein, wenn verwendet werden:
Mauerziegel 2. Klasse DIN 105 (Mauerziegel)
[There follows another type of masonry]".
Die Dicke der Splitterschutzwand, die aus der bestehenden Gebäudewand und der neuen Splitterschutzwand besteht, muss bei Verwendung von Baustoffen nach Nr. 2 (1) mindestens 51 cm und bei Verwendung von Baustoffen nach Nr. 2 (2) mindestens 64 cm betragen".
14. Splitterschutzwände, die vor die zu schützenden Öffnungen gesetzt werden, müssen diese seitlich und oberhalb mindestens um 0,50 m überdecken." 
Now the perimeter walls of Kremas IV and V were realised in "Ziegelsteinmauerwerk ohne Aussenputz"  and had a thickness of barely 25 cm.  The small windows and doors of the west wing (allegedly used as a "bomb shelter") had no type of Splitterschutzung. Thus Kremas IV and V could not serve as "bomb shelters," nor could they be protected from "bomb splinters".
The assertion that since their roofs were "equipped with fireproof sheets of Heraklith in their ceiling" they "would have provided some protection from bomb splinters and incendiaries" is simply foolish.
The roof framework of these crematoria was beams made from easily ignitable seasoned timber that rested on the perimeter walls. Pressac has published both the plan of these structures and its implementation.  A double layer of "Pappdeckung" (highly inflammable cardboard impregnated with tar) was spread over the woodwork to make the roof waterproof and a cover of "Heraklithplatten" (Herculite sheets) was placed on top. This thin sheeting was fastened with 20,000 small iron layers (Eisenblät[t]chen). 
Illustration 17 shows barracks in the Auschwitz camp with the roof covered with Heraklith sheeting. At the bottom a "Splitterschutzbunker" can be seen for one or two men with a roofing consisting of one layer of concrete 15 cm in thickness and a layer of bricks 33 cm thick. The thickness of the Herculite sheets is estimated to be a few centimeters.
This photograph shows vividly how foolish it is to claim that the roofs of Kremas IV and V could have offered "some protection from bomb splinters." Obviously they could not offer any protection at all, not even against incidiary bombs, the explosion in the vicinity of the crematoria of which would have blown away the Herculite sheeting and taken off the roof, while the inflammable substance would easily have ignited the wooden framework as well as the cardboard impregnated with tar.
Finally, the hypothesis that these two crematoria "would have worked as gas shelters" is senseless. In what would the enemy have put the toxic gas for a possible chemical attack if not in a fragmentation bomb?
And given that the crematory could not have resisted a fragmentation bomb, how could they have been protected against the possible toxic gas contained in them?
Furthermore, the 12 small gas-tight windows of Kremas IV and V could be closed only from the outside - as can be clearly seen in the photographs published by Pressac 
- an absurd arrangement for an anti-gas shelter.
Finally, the presumed anti-gas shelter had no ventilation. Crowell gives much weight to the fact that all anti-gas shelters were equipped with ventilation funnels - and, as we have seen, it is precisly for this reason that he claims to interpret the trace "Türme" as ventilation funnels. We have also seen that the alleged ventilation funnels in the west wing of the crematory were in reality ordinary oven chimneys. It follows that this presumed anti-gas shelter was deprived of ventilation, another absurdity.
In conclusion, any type whatever of "shelter" in Kremas I and II would have been sheer folly and suicidal as well.
9) The "emergency exits" of Leichenkeller 1 of Kremas II and III
Crowell claims that the Leichenkeller 1 of Kremas IV and V were provided with emergency exits, and this would be a proof that they were suitable for "bomb shelters":
With unheard of mystification Crowell first of all invents the second "tube", the one relevant to Krema II, in that he abusively places it in the same position as that of Krema III, as the latter appears in the photograph published by him. Then - totally unacceptably - he criticizes Pressac's interpretation with the excuse that in plan 1300 of the Zentralbauleitung the presumed "tube" was situated "about six to eight feet away from the western wall" of Leichenkeller 1, whereas it should have been behind this wall. But this is just one of his inventions. In fact, Pressac simply says that the square manhole was situated "on the outside, against the center of the western wall", without specifying at what distance. In reality Pressac is mistaken because - as can be seen in illustrations 25 and 26 - toward the center of the western view of Leichenkeller 1 of Krema II there is no manhole cover neither behind the wall nor at a distance of about 2.40 meters from it (inferred from plan 1300).
Finally, Crowell opportunistically passes over in silence the certainly not irrelevant fact that the only manhole existing behind a wall of a Leichenkeller, that of Krema III, is without an "access ladder." But then how could one use such a hypothetical "emergency exit"?
On the other hand, that this manhole was connected to the Leichenkeller across a hole in the wall - an essential condition for it to be of use as an "emergency exit" - is a purely arbitrary assumption of Crowell without the support of any evidence.
10) The 6 Leichenkammern of the Aktenvermerk of 17 June 1944
Crowell's comments on document 17 are another brilliant example of his arbitrary and false deductions. Regarding the Aktenvermerk of 16 June 1944 he writes:
The construction of the 6 Leichenkammern had nothing to do with alleged inactivity of the crematory Leichenkeller but simply closed a dispute between the SS-Standortarzt (Dr. Wirths) on one side and Bischoff, Höss and Kammler on the other. The dispute started on 20 July 1943 when Wirths in his capacity as Leiter der Zentralbauleitung sent Bischoff in his capacity as Leiter der Zentralbauleitung [as SS-Standortarzt] a request for brick Leichenkammern. The letter begins as follows:
From this resulted a correspondence which went on for some months. In the end it was decided to install the mortuary chambers in brick buildings already in existence. On 12 June 1944 Jothann, who had taken over from Bischoff as head of the Zentralbauleitung, drew up a "Bauantrag zum Ausbau des Lagers II der Waffen SS in Auschwitz O/S. Errichtung von 6 Stück Leichenkammern in bereits erstellten Unterkunftsbaracken BW 3b und 3d". The relative „Erläuterungsbericht" explains that the mortuary chambers were constructed in brick (aus Ziegelmauerwerk) and that the work had already begun.  The mortuary chambers were distributed as follows: one in the Bauabschnitt (BA) Ia, and one in each of the Bauabschnitte BIIa, b, c, d and e. 
On 16 June 1944 Pohl, during his visit to Auschwitz, did no more than ratify this state of affairs by authorizing the "Erstellung von 6 Leichenkammern in BaI und II." 
The Crowell hypothesis is therefore totally unfounded.
Moreover, he claims to have validated this hypothesis using a fantastic deduction from Jothann's "Aktenvermek" of 28 June 1944. Crowell asserts:
He makes his "deduction" from the following passage:
In Lager II können ebenfalls Splitterschutzgräben für Häftlinge mit Rücksicht auf den Grundwasserstand und die vorhandenen Freiflächen auch nicht angelegt werden." 
If that was not the case, Jothann would have also specified in relation to Lager II that "so many prisoners can be given protection in the existing cellars" ["können jedoch so viele Häftlinge in den vorhandenen Kellerräumen untergebracht werden"].
But there is a more important point: If the Birkenau crematoria had been modified so as to function as air-raid shelters, why are they not mentioned as such in Jothann's Aktenvermerk? The reason is that the crematoria had nothing to do with air-raid shelters. Actually, as we have seen above, the unique "Luftschutz-Anlagen" that had been realized in Lager II by 26 June 1944 consisted of only "8 Feuerlöschteiche von je 400 cbm Inhalt" and "1 Splitterschutzgraben für 130 Personen."
In conclusion, the "Aktenvermerk" of Jothann dated 28 June 1944 proves not only that the crematoria of Birkenau were not modified into air-raid shelters, but that they were not even contemplated as emergency shelters.
11) The "disinfection thesis"
Originally claiming to have explained all Pressac's criminal traces with his "bomb shelter thesis", Crowell had to admit finally that
So the only positive aspect of his article has nothing original to offer.
Crowell asserts that van Pelt's and my efforts to criticize his theses are "rather weak because they are solely negative in character" (p. 45). As far as I am concerned, this statement is clearly false because it is precisely from my article that Crowell took the cue to develop the positive thesis of disinfestation.
He then adds that
In my view, revisionist "scholarship" before even becoming "productive" and "intelligent" must be honest and scientific and consequently must firmly reject captious interpretations which are totally without scientific foundation, such as the Crowell "bomb shelter thesis".
AGK: Archiwum Glównej Komisji Badania Zbrodni w Polsce (Archive of the Central Commission of inquiry concerning German criminality in Poland), [ Warsaw, Poland ]
APMM: Archiwum Panstwowego Muzeum na Majdanku (Archive of the State Museum of Majdanek)
APMO: Archiwum Panstwowego Muzeum Oswiecim - Brzezinka (Archive of the State Museum of Auschwitz-Birkenau)
GARF: Gosudarstvenni Archiv Rossiiskoi Federatsii (State Archive of the Russian Federation, Moscow)
TCIDK: Tsentr Chranenija Istoriko-dokumental'nich Kollektsii (Center for the Custody of the Historical-Documentary Collection, Moscow)
VHA: Vojenský Historický Archiv, Praha (Military Historical Archive, Prague)
WAPL: Wojewódzkie Archiwum Panstwowe w Lublinie (Provincial State Archive of Lublin)
1. Published on the web by Russell Granata: http://www.russgranata.com/leichen.html
2. Published on the web by Bradley Smith: http://www.codoh.com/incon/inconscrmtgno.html
3. Published on the web by Russell Granata: http://www.russgranata.com/reply.html
4. Published on the web by Bradley Smith: http://www.codoh.com/incon/inconsinbirk.html
A German translation of this article appeared in the periodical, "Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung" with the title "Bombenschutzeinrichtungen in Birkenau: Eine Neubewertung" (December 2000, pp. 284-330).
5. Shelters planned and constructed as such, with air regeneration and filtration systems etc.
6. See: Captain Dr. Attilio Izzo, Guerra chimica e difesa antigas. [Chemical warfare and anti-gas defense.] Publisher: Ulrico Hoepli, Milan, 1935, p. 254.
7. J. C. Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers. The Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York 1989, pp. 46-49.
8. In: "für freie Geschichtsforschung," December 1988, pp. 248-261.
9. One of the reasons for using this type of door could be the fact that these rooms worked with a heated air and gas mixture circulated by a fan with a pressure of 80 millimeters of a column of water, therefore with a heavier pressure that could have provoked gaseous mixtures escaping with the use of the normal wooden doors of Auschwitz.
10. See J. Graf and C. Mattogno, KL Majdanek. Eine historische und technische Studie. Castle Hill Publisher, 1998, photographs XVI, XVIa and XVII.
11. GARF, 7021-107-2, pp. 13-17.
12. Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giffgas. Eine Dokumentation. Herausgegeben von Eugen Kogon, Hermann Langbein, Adalbert Rückerl u.a. S. Fischer Verlag, Frankfurt/Main 1983, pp. 242 and 319.
13. „Zeszyty Majdanka", IV, 1969.
14. The letter from the head of the Zentralbauleitung to the Bauinspektion Ost der Waffen-SS und Polizei of 10 July 1942 mentions "Bauantrag zur Errichtung einer Entwesungsanlage" for an amount of 70,000 RM. WAPL, Zentralbauleitung, 141, p. 3.
15. This expression is the translation of the German term "Bauantrag."
16. PS-1061, IMG, XXVI, p. 672.
17. Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of The European Jews, Holmes and Meier 1985 (3 volumes), vol. 3, pp. 913-914 and footnote 86.
18. In this regard see my study the Zentralbauleitung der Waffen-SS und Polizei Auschwitz, Edizioni di Ar, 1998, pp. 25 and 45-48.
19. Besichtigung des SS-Obergruppenführers Pohl am 23,9,1942. TCIDK, 502-1-19, pp. 86-87.
20. S. Crowell, Comments On Mattogno' s Critique Of The Bomb Shelter Thesis, p. 6.
21. 10 November 1943 Jothann requests from the field commander a food supplement for the Kommando Beton-Kolonne because: "Das Kommando der Bauleitung ' Beton-Kolonne' hat zur Zeit dringende und schwere Arbeiten für die Anlegung von Luftschützgräben zu verrichten." TCIDK, 502-1-256, p. 129.
22. VHA, Fond OT, 26/7, p. 342.
23. TCIDK, 502-1-401, p. 80.
24. TCIDK, 502-1-401, pp. 91-91a.
25. TCIDK, 502-1-26, p. 178.
26. TCIDK, 502-1-26, pp. 186-186a.
27. TCIDK, 502-1-28.
28. TCIDK, 502-1-26.
29. TCIDK, 502-1-26.
30. TCIDK, 502-2-60.
31. TCIDK, 502-1-320.
32. GARF, 7021-108-32, p. 71.
33. TCIDK, 502-1-401, p. 100.
34. TCIDK, 502-1-210, p. 20. Directory of the BW of the Bauvorhaben Konzentrationslager Auschwitz.
35. TCIDK, 502-1-404, pp. 51-52.
36. AGK, NTN, 94, p. 156.
37. TCIDK, 502-1-404, pp. 33-33a.
38. TCIDK, 502-1-404, pp. 34-34a.
39. TCIDK, 502-1-85, pp. 195-196.
40. Crowell himself writes that: "...this criminal trace [ Vergasungskeller ], along with the residual gas detectors for cyanide, remain as rather forceful evidence in support of the gas chamber thesis" (p. 33).
41. The " Gasprüfer " of Auschwitz. Version 28/XI/2000. Published on the web by Russell Granata:
42. Letter from the company Tesch & Stabenow to the Verwaltung of the KL Lublin. APMM, Sygn. I.d.2, vd.1, p. 107.
43. S. Crowell, Technique and Operation of Anti-gas German Shelters in World War II: A Refutation of J. C. Pressac's "Criminal Traces.":
45. Verbrennungöfen für Abfälle aller Art. 1927. APMM, sygn. VI-9a, vol. 1.
46. Topf Abfall-Vernichtungsöfen, not prior to January 1940. TCIDK, 502-1-327, pp. 161-164a.
47. APMO, BW 30/34, pp.88-89.
48. Topf, Rechnung Nr. 1314 with object: "Lieferung und Errichtung eines Topf-Müllverbrennungsofen im Krematorium III." TCIDK, 502-1-327, pp. 13-13a.
49. "The entire structure would be equipped with gas detectors (Gaspürer) [ LDB 208 ], and the people entering would go through a gas tight steel door" (p. 7).
50. A. Izzo, Guerra chimica e difesa antigas, [Chemical warfare and anti-gas defense], op. cit., p.10.
51. Idem, p. 67.
52. Idem, p. 68.
53. Idem, p. 65.
54. Nobody has yet explained why they needed to burn military uniforms in Auschwitz, a place where, as is well known, they collected everything and even recycled rags.
55. TCIDK, 502-2-54, p. 8.
56. APMO, BW 30/34, p. 49.
57. APMO, BW 30/34, p. 50.
58. Gasdichte Lüftungsrohrverschlüsse für L. S. Deckungsgräben Kenn-Nr. RL3-43/81 DRGM. TCIDK, 502-1-401, (page number illegibile).
59. Plan 2036 of 11 January 1943. The two chimneys are adjacent to two rectangles with an X in the center that distinguishes two stoves. In: J. C. Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, p. 401.
60. Höss Trial Proceedings, volume 11a, p. 84.
61. TCIDK, 502-1-401, pp. 101-202a.
62. Defending Against the Allied Bombing Campaign: Air Raid Shelters and Gas Protection in Germany, 1939-1945, p. 50. http://www.codoh.com/incon/inconabr_txt.html
63. Gebäudebeschreibung of Crematory IV. TCIDK, 502-2-54, p. 26.
64. Plan 2036 of 11 January 1943. In: J. C. Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, p. 401.
65. Idem, Photographs 4, 5 and 6 on p. 415.
66. TCIDK, 502-2-54, p. 35.
67. J. C. Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, op. cit., pp. 426-427.
68. TCIDK, 502-1-170, p. 249.
69. TCIDK, 502-2-95, p. 10a.
70. TCIDK, 502-1-52, p. 12.
72. TCIDK, 502-1-401, p. 38.