REPLY TO SAMUEL CROWELL'S "COMMENTS" ABOUT MY
"CRITIQUE OF THE BOMB SHELTER THESIS"
by Carlo Mattogno
Edited and copyrighted MCMXCIX Russ Granata
Box 2145 PVP CA 90274 USA
In the first issue of Annales d'Histoire Révisionniste, a goal of revisionism is
presented in this way: «Il ne prétend pas énoncer la vérité
d'un fait ou événement, il prétend en vérifer l'exactitude» (it
does not purport to expound the truthfulness of a fact or of an event; it purports to verify its
I acknowledge this as an aspiring principle of my endeavors in this field, and unlike some
revisionist voices which unfortunately suit very well Deborah Lipstadt's harsh invectives, I believe
that the quest for exactness ought not be limited to exclusively exterminationist historiography,
but should also include revisionists as well. I therefore firmly reject the deviating concept of
revisionism as being some kind of sectarian fraternity in which in-house critique is taken as a sort
of betrayal or personal affront.
It was from this standpoint that I wrote Leichenkeller di Birkenau: Gasschutzräume o
Entwesungsräume? (English translation: Morgue Cellars of Birkenau: Gas Shelters
or Disinfesting Chambers? ) which regrettably was viewed by some American revisionists
as some sort of show-off, whereas the plain truth of the matter is that this writer with many
years of revisionist research resulting in many publications, is no novice seeking attention
and feels no need to show-off anything to anybody. Now that being stated, I shall reply to the
comments of Mr. Crowell, however I have no intention of carrying on long-lasting sterile
polemics, and intend to consider the question of the Crowell hypotheses concluded with this reply
and let the competent reader evaluate the respective argumentation.
The Samuel Crowell article entitled Comments On Mattogno's Critique Of The Bomb Shelter
Thesis is based upon mischaracterizations of the meaning of my statements and more
regrettably, upon an opportunistic adaptation of his own hypotheses whereby he shifts with ease
from a postulation of crematoria designed and built as anti air-raid shelters, to one of crematoria
utilized as improvised anti-raid shelters (such as when he calls upon Nyiszli's witnessing, of
which I shall later comment), as if those two postulations were not radically antithetical. My
article is directed exclusively to the former postulation - specifically to the Crowell postulation
that the "Leichenkeller" of Crematoria II and III in Birkenau "tatsächlich
als Leichenkeller mit einer möglichen Zusatzfunktion als Luftschutzkeller entworfen und
gebaut wurden." Since according to Crowell, the Pressac "criminal clues" are
explained only by the "Luftschutzkeller" hypothesis, it is clear that the
"Leichenkeller" must in any case have been designed as
Samuel Crowell begins his critique with the following comment:
"But here's the remarkable thing. There is not one word about gastight doors in Signor
Mattogno's article. Not one word. Even more remarkable in his praiseworthy book on KL
Majdanek, home of the notorious "Auert" air-raid shelter door, a casting of which sits
on display at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, neither Jürgen Graf nor
Signor Mattogno chose to say one word about the gas-tight doors at the camp. In a book that
painstakingly provides copies of several original documents, they unaccountably forgot to include
any copies of the delivery bills concerning these gas-tight doors, nor even comment on them in the
I reply that in the study KL Majdanek: Eine historische und technische Studie, a book I
wrote in collaboration with Jürgen Graf, the issue of delousing installation doors in the
camp has not been addressed because it is absolutely irrelevant and as far as I know is important
only to Samuel Crowell, but since he blames me for this, I shall reply in a detailed manner to this
point too; but first of all, allow us to point out that the Crowell hypothesis is not based upon a
study of the German documents, nor is it based upon a Crowell on-site study of the installations;
it is based upon confrontation of two photographs! Noticing that this cannot be properly defined
as scientific working methodology, let us then see just what is the foundation of the Crowell
1) The doors of the installation at issue were constructed by the firm "Auert" of
Berlin. On the external side of the round peep-holes installed in the gastight doors of the
Entwesungsanlage appears the writing "AUERT BERLIN." This does not therefore
deal with the firm AUER of Berlin which specialized in anti-gas protection, but from another firm.
These four doors presented two closing levers (Hebelverschlüsse) - one up and the other
down - with an outside handle so that they could be hermetically closed only from the outside.
The two doors on the north side have furthermore, a central latch (Zentralverriegelung) which
likewise closes from the outside. These doors were thus built to be closed from the outside, and
not from the inside, and therefore could not have been utilized for an anti-gas shelter.
2) In our above-cited work, KL Majdanek: Eine historische und technische Studie, we
have shown with reference to documents of the Zentralbauleitung in KGL Lublin (Majdanek),
that the installation of the anti-gas doors at issue belonged to, were designed, and were
constructed, as "Entwesungsanlage." There is no doubt whatsoever about this. Here
is a historical summary of this installation with the following chronology:
The presence of vast stains of ferric ferrocyanide on the walls of the
"Entwesungskammer" show that hydrocyanic acid was used inside this
- 27 May 1942: Amt IIB of WVHA orders an "Entwesungsanlage" for the
- 19 June 1942: Chef des Amtes Zentrale Bauinspektion of the SS-WVHA
2, SS-Sturmbannführer Lenzer reports to
Bauinspektion der Waffen-SS und Polizei Generalgouvernment, the above-stated order
"zum Bau einer Entwesungsanlage nach dem System der
- 10 July 1942: The Leiter der Zentralbauleitung sends the Bauinspektion der Waffen-SS und
Polizei Generalgouvernment, the administrative documentation on the
- 10 July 1942: The drafting of the "Erläuterungsbericht zur Errichtung einer
Entwesungsanlagen für die Pelz-und Bekleidungswerkstätte Lublin";
- 10 July 1942: The drafting of the "Kostenanschlag über Errichtung einer
Entwesungsbaracke für die Pelz- und Bekleidungswerkstätte Lublin";
- August 1942: The preparation of the drawing "K.G.L. Lublin. Entwesungsanlage.
- 11 September 1942: The Zentralbauleitung orders two Heissluftapparate from the firm
Theodor Klein - Maschinen-und Apparatebau Ludwigshafen Rhein, Knollstrasse 26, for the
- 22 October 1942: On the list of completed Bauwerke is the "Erstellung einer
Entwesungsanlage" for the Bauvorhaben Pelz- und Bekleidungswerkstätte
No document hints to a possibility that this installation could serve the dual purpose of
"Entwesungsanlage" and "Luftschtzbunker." Moreover, the ceiling of the
delousing installation, as per the Kostenanschlag of 10 July 1942, was then only 12 cm (4.7
inches) thick and thus unsuitable for anti air-raid purposes, and since the doors could be tightly
closed only from the outside, it is clear that the "Entwesungsanlage" could not even
be used as an anti-gas shelter because of its construction, therefore the Crowell hypothesis is
As to "delivery bills concerning these gastight doors", we did not include such things
in our publication simply because we do not possess such documents which are not among the
documentation we examined in Lublin.
The Crowell reproach that in my article "there is not one word about gastight doors"
is meaningless since the purpose of that article was to present the general untenableness of the
Crowell hypotheses, not to discuss the meaning and the value of the Pressac "criminal
signs", a task I have already done elsewhere.
Then Samuel Crowell comments on my arguments [SC=Samuel Crowell, CM=Carlo
SC: "ARGUMENT 1. Mattogno argues that the argument for air raid shelters is
historically flawed because there are no documents about air raid shelters prior to 16 November
1943. He further asserts his authority by referring to the absence of any prior or any other
SC: COMMENT: Signor Mattogno is in error, both in fact and by inference. For over a year,
there have been three documents pertaining to air raid shelter construction at Birkenau posted on
the Internet at: http://www.fpp.co.uk and
http://www.codoh.com. Two of these documents
antedate the letter Mattogno cites, and both of them makes it clear that plans for constructing air
raid shelters at Birkenau were so far advanced by August of 1943 as to involve the chief architect
Walter Dejaco of the Zentralbauleitung and involved the construction of hundreds of raid
CM: Here, Crowell completely mischaracterizes the meaning of my argumentation. I wrote
that the actual order to take Luftschutzmassnahmen at Auschwitz was given by the Camp
Commander, SS-Obersturmbannführer Liebehenschel on 16 November 1943. By stating
that, I did not deny the existence of documents which mention air-raid shelters prior to 16
November 1943, but rather I deny the construction of such installations at Auschwitz prior to
that date. The document to which I referred, Standortbefehl Nr. 51/43 dated 16 November 1943
leaves no doubt in this regard. It says:
"Luftschutzmassnahmen im Standort Auschwitz. Nach Mitteilung der vorgesetzten
zuständigen Dienststellen sind nunmehr auch im Standortbereich Auschwitz sofort die
erforderlichen Luftschutzmassnahmen in Angriff zu nehmen. Mit der Durchführung dieser
Massnahmen beauftrage ich in meiner Eigenschaft als örtlicher Luftschutzleiter den
SS-Untersturmführer Josten 3 als meinen
ständigen Vertreten. Ich bitte sämtliche Dienststellen, SS-Untersturmführer
Josten in jeder Weise zu unterstützen."
(Air raid protective measures in the Auschwitz command post. According to notification by the
responsible departments, necessary air-raid protective measures must also be undertaken
immediately in the area of the Auschwitz command. In my position as the head of air raid
protection, I am appointing SS-Untersturmführer Josten as my permanent representative to
have him undertake these measures. I am asking all departments to support
SS-Untersturmführer Josten in every way).
The two documents Crowell cited - the Aktenvermerk dated 25 October and the Aktenvermerk
dated 05 November 1943 do not refer to construction of
"Luftschutzdeckungsgräben" in Auschwitz; on the contrary, they show that a
definitive decision on that matter had not yet been made ("betreffend all offen stehenden
Fragen über Herstellung der L.S. Dechungsgräben"); thus the conclusion to
which Crowell comes concerning these documents is totally arbitrary.
On 10 November 1943 the Bauleiter SS-Obersturmführer Jothann sent the
"Kommandantur des KL Abteilung IIIa (the "Arbeitseinsatz" section) a request
for additional food ("Zusatz-Verpflegung") for the "Beton-Kolonne" with
the motivation that it "hat zur Zeit dringende und schwere Arbeiten für die Anlegung
von Luftzchutzgräben zu verrichten." This is the first reference in the
Zentralbauleitung documents of work of this type, and in historical context it clearly results that
these were still in preliminary preparatory phase. The only legitimate and irrefutable conclusion
one can draw from the documents cited above is that the decision to build anti air-raid shelters at
Auschwitz was taken between the end of October and the beginning of November of 1943, and
was officialized as a specific construction order by the Standortbefehl of 16 November 1943.
The postulation of air-raid shelter construction in the crematoria of Birkenau as early as January
4 is thus historically ruled out.
This is confirmed by a recent study by an Auschwitz Museum historian, who writes:
"During the years 1943 and 1944, the question of air defense and rescue operations
became of special importance because of the situation at the battle fronts. This is also
confirmed by the received statistical tables, KL Auschwitz II B-II/d, Blockpfleger u.
Samuel Crowell continues:
This tabulation is a record of the situation of the air raid protection organization as
well as of the medical services of Section BIId after 22 January 1944. The highest
recorded prisoner number 17828 is a proof of this.
This tabulation contains the names and camp numbers of 68 prisoners who are
performing the indicated duties. The connection of these two services had
occurred because of pragmatic reasons. In order to fully understand the context
of this tabulation, we must point out that air raid protection was organized within
There is no doubt that the Commander of Concentration Camp Auschwitz I was
overall responsible for this since he held the function of Commander of the Garrison
as well as head of the SS operations. The complexity of his duties lead to the fact that
he left the completion of the organizational and technical matters to the Assistant of
the Air Protection Command, but he as Camp Commander, maintained supervision.
In Concentration Camp Auschwitz-Birkenau, this function was already fulfilled by SS
Untersturmführer (later SS-Obersturmführer) Heinrich Josten as of autumn
After the establishment of an administrative department in November 1943,
5 the responsibility for these functions in a certain part of
the organization was left to the various commanders.
One must believe that no independent organizational structure for air raid protection
in the camps was established.
Inmates who functioned in the air-raid protection service in the camp were at the
same time working in other Kommandos which is evidenced by the kind of
compensation for the work." 6
"As for the inference of large scale air-raid shelter construction, in addition to the above, we
Second, the basement of Block 11, one of the older Stammlager buildings, is explicitly referred to
as air raid shelter in a Nuremberg Document, [2223-PS]."
CM: An example of Crowell methodology: The document in question does not come from the
Auschwitz Zentralbauleitung; on the contrary, it is a collection of testimonies and prisoners'
reports about various camps, including Auschwitz, which were put out in 1945 by U.S.
intelligence (!) Thus for Samuel Crowell, a prisoner's testimony has the same value as a
document issued by the Zentralbauleitung! Moreover, Crowell says nothing regarding the date of
the alleged transformation of the Bunker into an anti-raid shelter, which is not insignificant since
his first comment was aimed at my argument about the date 16 November 1943.
SC: "Third, RFSS Himmler issued a directive to all concentration camp commandants
about air raid protective measures (I have seen this quoted only in terms of protecting against
escapes: I have not seen the document) dated February 2, 1943. [Himmler to Glucks, Himmler
Files, Folder 67, National Archives"].
CM: The argument is irrelevant; even if such a document ever existed, it would not whatsoever
prove that "air raid shelters" were ever constructed in Auschwitz prior to 16
SC: "Fourth, it is well known that Majdanek received shipments of air raid shelter doors
the previous fall, the same time as the German authorities prioritized supplies to the Jewish
inhabitants of the Warsaw ghetto for the purpose of constructing air raid shelters.
CM: In the opinion of Samuel Crowell regarding Majdanek, that alleged fact is "well
known" only to Samuel Crowell, and as I have explained earlier, the tale of the "air
raid shelter doors" is absolutely unfounded; besides the matter is as tangential as is the one
regarding Warsaw, since it does not confirm construction of air raid shelters in Auschwitz before
16 November 1943.
SC: "Fifth, it is known that the "Arrest-Bunker" at Neuengamme was fitted
out with ventilation and wood shutters at the same time."
CM: That argument is irrelevant for the above reason.
SC: "Sixth, the concentration camps are routinely referred to in KZ correspondence as
being vital to industry, and the "Air Raid Shelter Guidelines" from 1941 specify that
all new construction, especially in the war-related industries, must have air-raid
CM: The argument is irrelevant for the same reason given above.
Samuel Crowell triumphantly concludes:
SC: "The conclusion I draw on the basis of these inferences is that there was an ongoing
attempt to construct air raid shelters in the concentration camps and ghettos at least from the Fall
of 1942, or to adapt existing structures with air raid shelters as a matter of course. Mattogno can
disagree with my conclusion, but it is meaningless to do so without confronting the inferences.
Finally, the assertion that there were no air raid provisions made before November 1943 is refuted
by documents that have long been available on the Internet."
CM: The Crowell conclusion is more ludicrous that the Crowell hypothesis: I maintain that no
air raid shelter was constructed in KL Auschwitz before 16 November 1943, while Crowell
claims to disprove this by declaring that before that date air raid shelters had been planned or
constructed elsewhere, or that general directives existed for the construction of shelters; things
which I have never denied!
CM: My reply to the Crowell allegation that Mattogno "asserts his authority by referring to
the absence of any prior or any other meaningful documents" is that due to his rather
limited knowledge of the Auschwitz Zentralbauleitung documentation, Samuel Crowell
obviously does not know of the existence of a series of monthly reports of that office
(particularly the "Baufristenplan" and the "Baubericht") which describe
month per month the status of the construction jobs of the Auschwitz and Birkenau camps, listing
also all the existing Bauwerke.7 In these reports
(which were kept until the end of September 1943 and which also report regularly about
Birkenau crematoria), there is no indication whatsoever of any work to construct anti air raid
shelters: neither inside nor outside the crematoria. Crowell also ignores the existence of various
cost estimates for Auschwitz and Birkenau camps in which are listed all the scheduled Bauwerke.
Not even these documents show any trace of air raid shelters. In particular, I refer to the one of
28 October 1942,8 which for chronological reasons
aught to contain at least some indication of a "Luftschutzbunker" allegedly planned
for Birkenau crematoria.
Summarily: Before 16 November 1943, neither the projects nor the reports concerning the
construction pertaining to the camp, contain anything about plans or construction of air raid
shelters, and if Samuel Crowell does not trust my "authority" let him go to Moscow
as I have done and examine the documents.
SC: "Argument 2. Parenthetically, Mattogno refers to a visit to Auschwitz by Oswald
Pohl where a number of construction projects were approved, including the construction of 15
1-man "Splitterbunker." Mattogno claims that it does not appear that these projects
were ever carried out.
SC: COMMENT: One can see pictures of the 1-man "Splitterbunker" on the Nizkor
site, where they have resided for over a year."
CM: I wrote in this regard that it turns out that these projects were never carried out because the
list of Bauwerke following the visit of Pohl does not mention them. I do not know the
"pictures" of which Samuel Crowell writes, and cannot judge if they realistically
pertain to these installations in Auschwitz-Birkenau. The question is marginal because we are
dealing with installations which refer to 1944.
SC: "ARGUMENT 3. Mattogno calls the claim that there were numerous
"Splitterbunker" for the prisoners "shaky."
SC: COMMENT: This ignores the fact that the anonymous individual who forwarded the three
documents cited above assures VffG that his elder relative constructed these, meanwhile, the
Allied raid of August 1944, killed 50 workers in one of these "trench shelters", so it is
clear that they were built."
CM: For lack of documents, Crowell supports his argument with a second-hand testimony of an
anonymous person! - therefore this is not serious. On the other hand, not ever having set a foot in
Birkenau, Crowell necessarily ignores that in front of the barracks there is no trace of
"Splitterbunker" for the prisoners - where have they gone?
SC: "ARGUMENT 4. Mattogno argues that the basement morgues in the crematoria
would never have been designed as air raid shelters because otherwise there would exist many
documents about this, and he hasn't seen any.
SC: COMMENT: There are two problems with this argument, the first being that Mattogno's
authority to speak of the existence or non-existence of relevant documents was exploded in
Argument 1. The second, more fundamental argument, is that he doesn't seem to appreciate that
the adaptation of any given space - and particularly basements - to serve in a supplemental
capacity as air raid shelters does not require much in the way of adaptation, except some
rudimentary modifications such as gastight doors with peepholes."
CM: As I have shown, since Crowell argument number one is completely unfounded even if
we reject my "authority." Samuel Crowell presents this as though I speak ex
cathedra, and I do not. My statements are specifically documented and cited among the notes in
the published study of the Zentralbauleitung, and since I have personally examined all the
documents of the Auschwitz Zentralbauleitung preserved in Moscow (some 88,200 pages), it
will be granted me to have acquired a somewhat different view of this subject than that of
individuals such as Samuel Crowell who know some tens of second-hand documents. About this
specific problem, a vast documentation exists about Birkenau crematoria, a great part of which is
published by Pressac. Other than the plans and maps, accurate inventories
("übergabeverhandlung") and account books ("Bauausgabebuch"
for Crematory III) also exist. The possible planning of air raid shelters in the
"Leichenkeller" of the crematoria, since they would have occupied the same space,
would have inevitably left some traces among this massive accumulation of documents, as
happened for Crematory I, whose transformation to a "Luftschutzbunker für
SS-Revier mit einem Operationsraum" is documented by the well-known plan of 21
September 1944, and furthermore by an "Erläuterungsbericht" and a
"Kostenüberschlag" both dated 02 November 1944. In the documentation
concerning the crematoria in Birkenau, there is no trace of planning or construction of air raid
shelters in the "Leichenkeller", and that shows that the Crowell hypothesis is
SC: ARGUMENT 5. Mattogno argues that air raid shelter provisions must have figured in the
transfer documents for the crematoria.
SC: COMMENT: Once again, Mattogno presumes that the fitting out of a space as an air raid
shelter is going to follow fixed and rigid guidelines. Yet, as the literature which I have quoted
extensively in my articles makes clear, this is by no means the case. The only way in which air raid
shelter provisions HAD to be described in terms of the transfer documents would be if their
inclusion was essential to the operation of the crematoria. But no one has ever made that
argument. Furthermore, many of the "criminal traces" refer to dates subsequent to
the transfer documents."
CM: Samuel Crowell, not sure of his hypothesis, adjusts it to circumstances via an
opportunistic methodology - when he opposes his hypothesis to Pressac, he speaks of an air raid
shelter as an organic center, well-organized with "Luftschutzräume,
Dekontaminationszentren",9 and even
"einen Keller der zur Aufnahme von Gasverletzen gedacht ist";
10 but when he needs to justify his hypothesis, his air raid
shelter becomes even rudimentary. He uses this duplicity to evade a fundamental problem, which
is that if the air raid shelter feature in the "Leichenkeller" is the result of a project
designed to create mortuary rooms which could also be used as air raid shelters, then we expect
that these shelters are conforming to the shelters described in the technical literature which I have
cited, exactly as if a crematorium is projected as a crematorium, we expect that it be properly
equipped - with a crematory oven, a mortuary room, and a dissection room. So if the equipment
of air raid shelters does not appear at all in the "übergabeverhandlung" of the
crematoria, then they (their "Leichenkeller") were also not projected as gas tight
SC: "ARGUMENT 6. Mattogno argues that "undressing rooms" were not
equipped with gastight doors.
SC: COMMENT: Since an undressing room's function is for the shedding of contaminated
clothing, it is not clear why such a room would require gas-tightness in any case."
CM: Perhaps that would be true in the hypothesis of an improvised
"Luftschutzbunker", but not in the case of an installation well-articulated with
"Dekontaminationszentrum" - a refuge from gas poisoning that would have required
the entire "Kellergeschoss" of the crematoria, and therefore the hermetic sealing of
all its openings.
SC: "ARGUMENT 7. Mattogno argues that the morgue's ventilation capacity was
inadequate for an air raid shelter.
SC: COMMENT: Once again, Mattogno ignores the data in the literature which discusses
provisions for air raid shelter use with and without ventilation systems."
CM: Here again, Crowell plays on the ambiguity of the organic, well-equipped air raid shelter,
and the rudimentary shelter. According to the technical literature I presented, a gastight bomb
shelter by definition, is an installation equipped with ventilation facilities, filtering and air
regeneration devices, etc. Otherwise we are confronted with a simple improvised refuge, which
however, cannot in any way justify or explain away the Pressac "criminal
SC: "ARGUMENT 8. Mattogno corrects the calculation of the capacity of the morgue at
4,800 cbm per hour, as opposed to twice that capacity that I cited from Pressac.
SC: COMMENT: Assuming that this is true, that still would not invalidate the use of the space as
an air raid shelter, it simply means that fewer people could use it and for a shorter period of
CM: There is no need to "assume" that fact, it is enough to read the documents
reproduced on pages 110 and 112 of my work Auschwitz: The End of a Legend
(Institute for Historical Review). As to the use of Leichenkeller" as bomb shelters,
Samuel Crowell uses the above mischaracterization once again. Here I need to clarify an
essential point. Crowell attributes to me the "conclusion that the crematoria could never
have functioned as air raid shelters" which is true if referred to standard shelters, but is
false if referred to improvised refuges. That the "Leichenkeller" of the crematoria
could have been used as improvised "Luftschutzbunker" is obvious, and that would
have also been possible for a brief time without mechanical ventilation, but that does not have
anything to do with the planning of "Luftschutzbunker" in the
"Leichenkeller", because only this matter could give Samuel Crowell the illusion of
being able to explain Pressac's "criminal indications."
SC: "ARGUMENT 9. Mattogno corrects my calculation of the morgue's volume, it was
499 cubic meters versus 525 as I roughly calculated.
SC: COMMENT: To be sure, forgetting to account for the volume occupied by the concrete
columns in the morgue was a serious omission insofar as it allowed for an error of 5% in my
calculation. This might be profitably compared to the 50% error in Mattogno's remarks by
forgetting to address the issue of gastight doors with peepholes."
CM: This remark displays an attitude which can not tolerate being corrected - not even regarding
absolutely certain data; here Crowell refers to an observation of mine - one written in an end note
(!) and quite marginally, to show the reader in an "argument", the exact data on the
ventilation problem! As to my alleged "50% error" I will return below.
SC: "SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 7, 8, 9: The volume of the morgue was 499 cubic
meters. The rule of thumb is 1,5 meters per person per hour. This means that this morgue would
still offer 2.5 hours air raid and gas protection even with no operating ventilation system for 200
CM: Here again Crowell counters a claim I never made; I never denied that the
"Leichenkeller" could have been used as improvised "Luftschutzbunker";
what I deny is that they were projected and also constructed as normal
"Luftschutzbunker" - moreover, with this calculation, Samuel Crowell presents more
evidence of his competence level in this field. According to the specialized literature, for the
calculation of the staying time and the number of people in a "Luftschutzraum" in
relation to the function of time and volume, the following formulae are used: (they also take
into account the amount of carbon dioxide eliminated by each person in the breathing
v = capacity of the "Luftschutzbunker" in m3
n = number of the occupants
t = length of stay in hours.11
Besides, "the highest cubic volume of the occupants (75 dm3 per person)
plus that of the existing material should be subtracted from the capacity of the shelter in cubic
meters."12 Therefore from the theoretical
499 m3 should be subtracted (200 × 0,075 =) 15 m3, so
the real volume would be (499 - 15=) 484 m3.
It follows that 200 people would have been able to stay in a "Leichenkeller" for 0.48
× 484 ÷ 200 = 1.16 hours (about 64 minutes).
Why Samuel Crowell chose 200 people in his example? Just for mere matter of convenience. If
in fact the number of refugees were for instance 800, the staying time would get down to 16
minutes; if they were 1,200, the time would be 11 minutes. With the Crowell hypothesis, the ideal
numbers would have been the highest, because at the beginning, before the alleged construction of
"Luftschutzdeckungsgräben" for the prisoners (that did not take place before
16 November 1943), the "Luftschutzbunker" of the crematoria would have served for
the camp prisoners as well, whose numbers were definitely abundant.
SC: "ARGUMENT 10. Mattogno makes three points about the ventilation system: (a) a
filtration system places a load on the air conditioning system, (b) two separate systems are
required, (c) the need to install the ventilation system in the bunker itself.
SC: COMMENT: They are good points and I tip my hat to Signor Mattogno here. However,
they are not decisive. First, point (a) rests on an Italian configuration for ventilation systems,
which has nothing to do with German "Schutzraumbelufter." Second, two separate
systems are required: only under ideal conditions, otherwise greater or lesser levels of
"Behelfsmässigkeit" (do it yourself-ness) are called for, as is noted continually
in the literature quoted in my article. Finally, that the ventilation system was not connected to the
morgue does not mean that a single bomb would suffocate the inhabitants of the morgue, it simply
means that they would not be able to get air from it in the event of a direct hit on their ventilation
system, a common enough situation confronted by, and dealt with by, the inhabitants of cities like
Dresden and Hamburg."
CM: Once more Samuel Crowell plays with the ambiguity reported earlier - when he needs to
explain Pressac's "criminal indications", his "Luftschutzbunker" is an
"ideal" one, equipped with "Luftschutzraum",
"Entgiftungsanstalt", "Dekontaminationszentrum", "Aufnahme von
Gasverletzen" etc.; but when he needs to explain the technical difficulties which such a
construction presents, he becomes "behelfsmässig." Regarding point (c), it is
true that in case of interruption of the ventilation system, the people inside the
"Leichenkeller" would have breathed the local air, but the staying time, as I explained
above, would have been reduced by the number of persons, and in case of major nervousness,
would have been a few minutes.
SC: "ARGUMENT 11. Mattogno argues that the presence of corpses would make the use
of these space air raid shelters impossible.
SC: COMMENT: Presence of corpses would make the use of these spaces unsatisfactory for air
raid shelters, the presence of corpses would make the use of these spaces equally unsatisfactory
for sanitizing incoming inmates as Mattogno will ultimately argue. However, Mattogno ignores
survivor evidence that indicates that prisoners were indeed taken to basements during air raids and
moreover, according to Nyiszli, directly to the morgue in question. Indeed, Nyiszli specifies that
the crematorium II Sonderkommando, 200 strong, took refuge in the "gas chamber"
during air raids."
CM: Here again Samuel Crowell misrepresents my thesis which has nothing to do with
"sanitizing incoming inmates." When I refer to
"Entwesungsräume" I mean disinfestation chambers used for prisoners'
clothing, not rooms for the sanitary treatment of new prisoners. I also point out that I have not
written that the use of mortuary rooms as bomb shelters is impossible, but that the prospect of
being closed for hours inside a gas tight room together with miasmic or infected corpses is not
very inviting. And I do not believe that Samuel Crowell thinks so either, but Crowell's
objection is decidedly puerile: since air raids were occurring with little warning, and the
"Leichenkeller" could be full of miasmic or infected corpses, the use of
the "Leichenkeller" as disinfestation chambers could be quietly programmed
by the Standortverwaltung; for instance moving dead bodies into other crematoria.
Appealing to testimonies is pathetic, demonstrating a deficiency in the application of revisionist
methodology, if not a deficient understanding of revisionism itself. Serious revisionists cannot
accept the use of opportunistic testimonies: why must we believe Nyiszli when he tells us that
during air raids, members of the Sonderkommando sheltered themselves inside the "gas
chamber" but we don't have to believe Nyiszli when he tells us that in these gas chambers
people were [murderously] gassed - and I summarily point out once more that Crowell hits a
false target, improvised by himself, as though I ever proclaimed the impossibility of the use of a
"Leichenkeller" as an impromptu "Luftschutzbunker."
SC: "ARGUMENT 12. Mattogno argues that "Vergasungekeller" does not
mean a "cellar for treating those who have been gassed."
SC: COMMENT: On this point, and in light of the two documents he has put forward, I agree
with him if he had read my other writings, particularly Defending Against the Allied Bombing
Campaign and The Gas Chambers of Sherlock Holmes. In those places I have argued
that "Vergasungskeller" would most normally refer to a "fumigation
cellar" or, by extension, a "disinfection cellar", and I further point out that it
was common for the Germans in World War II to adapt existing bathing and delousing
establishments to double as gastight air raid shelters and gas warfare decontamination centers.
This is what I mean when I say the entire premise to his argument is fallacious."
CM: My article refers exclusively to the Samuel Crowell article published in VffG December
SC: "ARGUMENT 13. Mattogno argues that the "Gasskammern" in
Crematory IV and V could not have served as aboveground gas air raid shelters because a direct
hit would have killed everyone.
SC: COMMENT: Obviously, a direct hit on most shelters by most bombs will kill everyone, just
as a direct hit on a trench shelter in August 1944 killed everyone in that shelter. That does not
mean however that during an air raid one should go running around the camp naked.
Furthermore, Mattogno ignores the sizable evidence for above ground air raid shelters, for
do-it-yourself shelters, as well as the reference to the numerous red lamps for these two
crematoria which make no sense EXCEPT in the context of air raid darkening."
CM: Once more Crowell creates a false objective only to triumphantly counter it. Actually, I
quoted a technical piece of text which refers specifically to a "direct hit." It is not so
"obvious" that a bomb striking the roof of a "Luftschutzbunker" would
kill all of its occupants: if the roof is made of reinforced concrete and is sufficiently thick - 80 cm
according to the Attilio Izzo study - the shelter can hold out against a middle weight bomb falling
from a normal bombing height (naturally in reference to the bombs in use during the Second
World War). How can we seriously believe that Zentralbauleitung engineers planned and also
installed an "air raid shelter" in Crematories IV and V, which had 25 cm thin walls
and quite ordinary covering? A falling bomb on those crematories would have destroyed the roof
and caused casualties without even exploding.
The objection that there existed "above ground air raid shelters" is absolutely
irrelevant; I have never denied that. Why does Crowell not say anything of their structure? (I
am certain that they did not have a "Heraklitplatten" roof - something which in Italy
would be used to cover henhouses). In confirmation of that, I can add the fact that when
Crematory I was transformed to "Luftschutzbunker" there immediately was added
"eine Verstarkung von 38cm" of the walls.
SC: "ARGUMENT 14. Mattogno contends that
"Drahtnetz-einschiebvorrichtung" and "Holzblenden" for Crematoria II
could not have had anything to do with covering openings in an air shelter context because there
were no such openings.
SC: COMMENT: Aside from the fact that the absence of document describing these four
opening does not prove their non-existence, it would be helpful at this point if Signor Mattogno
explained what these materials were for. The normal meaning of "Blende" is of a
(vertical) shutter for an opening. The screens seem to have had an associated function. It seems
likely that there where four openings - somewhere - for which these screens and shutters were
designed. Otherwise why are they on the list? One thing is certain: wooden shutters and wire
mesh screens are not common paraphernalia for delousing or disinfection chambers of any
kind, although they are common for air raid shelters. As in many other places, Mattogno
offers destructive criticism, but no constructive explanation."
CM: Unlike some others, I do not presume to know everything and to be able to explain
everything; my explanations concerning my hypotheses are based upon the documents, and as to
the case in question, I know of no document in reference to Auschwitz containing the terms
"Drahtnetzeinshiebvorrichtung" and "Holzblenden," therefore up to this
moment at which I write, I am not able to explain what these were; but one thing is certain - to
expect to explain via a dictionary basis, is simply frivolous - as for one example of a
dictionary-based explanation, a translator explained the expression of R. Höss
"fünf 3-Kammer-öfen" (five 3-muffeled crematory ovens) as "five
ovens of three rooms"! Crowell keeps silent about the fact that these devices, according
to the document in which they are mentioned, refer to "Leichenkeller 2", which in his
opinion did not need a gas-proof door (see argument 6) since it was merely a disrobing room;
but then why did it now require these gas-tight devices? What was their use? And why did they
not also exist in "Leichenkeller 1" which, nevertheless, had precisely one such
gas-proof door? The lack of documents demonstrating the existence of openings in the ceiling of
"Leikenkeller 2" do not prove their non-existence exactly as the non-existence of
documents demonstrating that Samuel Crowell has eaten babies does not prove that he has not
The truth of the accusation of "destructive criticism" is measured by the fact that
Crowell himself devotes the conclusive part of his article to "Mattogno's Positive
Contribution"! Naturally, faced with such duplicity, one needs to be necessarily
SC: "ARGUMENT 15. Mattogno argues that the "Fenstergitter" are not
screens but rather "Gitterfenster", that is, not screens but iron bars.
SC: COMMENT: Whether Crematoria IV and V were equipped with screens, or with bars, or
with grill-work, is not really relevant. What is more relevant is that the "little doors"
for these two crematoria are identical in design to gastight Blende for air raid shelters and second,
that gastight Blende are not part of the normal equipment for disinfection chambers. Furthermore,
the number and the measures of the bars and/or screens he cited do not compare to the number
and the measures of document I cited. It is therefore not obvious that "Fenstergitter"
were "Eisengitter" in the first place."
CM: Samuel Crowell in his article maintains that «die Auschwitzer Auftragsnummer-Nr.
353 vom 27. April 1943 enthält folgende Bestellung: "12 Stücke Fenstergitter
50 x 70 cm", was allgemein als Drahtnetzgitter für jene 12 gasdichten Fenster (oder
Türen) angesehen wird, die wir oben als identisch mit den Blenden und Holzblenden
festgehalten hatten». He claims that Fenstergitter is synonymous with Drahtnetzgitter
without giving any proof. I object that in the linguistic use of the documentation in which
this Auftrag appears (the extracts of Jan Sehn from the register "Schlosserei WL"
(WL= Werkstättenleitung) the word "Gitter" associated to a
"Fenster" without further specification, undoubtedly means a grille with metallic bars,
and this comes from the document I cited in the article which speaks about
"Eisengitter" for "Fenster." It is not a case that the Auftrag of 03
March 1943 Nr.146 mentions "Drahtgittertore" in reference to two gates of the
courtyard of Crematorium II that were interwoven with a metallic net. Therefore the devices
which Samuel Crowell imagines, would have been called "Drahtgitterfenster", if not
"Drahtnetzgitterfenster." Also, in his quotation of the aforesaid Auftrag Nr. 353 of
27 April 1943, Crowell forgets to mention "4 Stück Fenstergitter 50 x 100
cm" that evidently do not conform to his hypothesis. Thanks to this forgetfulness, he could
affirm that the measurements of the devices mentioned in the two documents (the one quoted
from Crowell and the other quoted from me) do not correspond. Both documents speak about 4
windows of 50 x100 cm. The following reasoning is another example of the Crowell whimsical
methodology - after he has authoritatively established without any proof, the difference between
"Fenstergitter" and "Gitterfenster" as synonyms for
"Drahtnetzgitterfenster", he claims that the "gasdichte Türen" (30
x 40 cm) of Crematories IV and V were identical to "gas tight for air raid shelter
Blende" and he then triumphantly concludes that "gas tight Blende are not part of the
normal equipment for disinfection chambers." Then, as a prestidigitator, he replaces the
first term ("gasdichte Türen") which appears in the Auftrag Nr.6 of 24
February 1943, with the second ("gas tight Blende") which has no documentary
basis, and from this he finally arrives at his untenable conclusion.
14 In reality, the "criminal indications" which
Crowell claims to explain, refer expressly to "gasdichte Türen", which on the
contrary and obviously, "are part of the normal equipment for disinfestation
SC: "ARGUMENT 16. Mattogno argues that the "little doors" were closed
from the outside, as evidenced by a photograph, and therefore could not have been used for air
SC: COMMENT: This was a puzzle to me, since the photo shows the "little doors"
closing in one direction, while the close-ups of "little doors" in Pressac show the
doors being held upside down, or it might mean that the larger photo of the Crematorium taken
from a distance has an exposure error. It might also mean that the Germans, in the camps,
violated a fundamental condition of establishing seals, as indicated in Scholle's book, which
specified that the screens and other "Splittervorrichtung" had to go outside, with the
CM: It is clear that Crowell knows only of the poor reproductions of the photograph published
by Pressac15 and has never seen the original
photograph, which leaves no doubt about what I have written concerning the opening to the
outside16 of the three small windows on the
southern façade of the western part of Crematory IV (the one equipped with doors and
gastight small windows). If Samuel Crowell has any doubt about this subject, he can get the
original photograph. The reference is: Archives of the Museum of Auschwitz, negative no.
To support his hypothesis, Crowell claims an alleged similarity between these plants and those in
Dachau and Neuengamme which have no relationship to the "gasdichte Türen"
of Crematories IV and V in Birkenau.
SC: "ARGUMENT 17. Mattogno's argument that the "Gasprüfer"
document is a forgery.
SC: COMMENT: Arguments that documents are forgeries are generally bootless unless one can
explain in general who forged it, for what purpose, and how. Mattogno has done none of these
things, and hence gives ammunition to those critics of revisionism who accuse us of dismissing as
forgeries all inconvenient documents."
CM: As usual, in order to be able to object to something apparently meaningful, Crowell is
forced to distort my reasoning. On this matter I simply wrote that in regard to the
"Gasprüfer", Samuel Crowell doesn't propose anything and merely accepts
the explanation - which in my opinion is unfounded - of A. Butz, and that is all. The burden
of Crowell in this respect is easily comprehensible: he claims to explain ALL of Pressac's
criminal indications, but he has nothing to say about the indication that Pressac himself considers
the most important. Actually, "Gasprüfer", according to the meaning which
Pressac gives to them, are fully justified in regards to a disinfestation chamber, but how can they
be explained in regard to a "Luftschutzbunker"? What purpose did they fulfill?
Now to the usual rectification of the usual Crowell mischaracterizaton: In my article Die
Gasprüfer von Auschwitz, which appeared in the March 1998 issue of VffG, I wrote that
if the "Gasprüfer" actually designated equipment for testing residual gas (that
equipment was called "Gasrestnachweisgerät"), the historical context I have
delineated with the quotation of unpublished documents would justify the Robert Faurisson
interpretation concerning disinfestation with Zyklon B in the "Leichenkeller" of
Crematory II. From this point of view, Zyklon B could have been used for gas disinfestation; so
that document is not "inconvenient" to my hypothesis, rather it would actually
strengthen it. Therefore I could have easily accepted the Pressac explanation and could have used
it in connection with the "Vergasungskeller" as proof that "Leichenkeller
1" of Crematory II was used as a disinfestation chamber. But the matter presents so much
absurdity as to make me think the document is a falsification. I will be glad to correct this idea if
Samuel Crowell will be able to explain the absurdities that I have listed on pages 17 and 18 of the
Then Samuel Crowell presents a "Recapitulation of Mattogno's conclusions." Since
it is a "recapitulation", I shall explain only those matters not included in his
"comments." The first one starts as:
SC: "Absolutely no air raid protective measures were undertaken before the end of
SC: COMMENT: This is clearly wrong, and in context of the documents posted in January,
1998, a ridiculous assertion."
CM: Actually, if there is something "ridiculous", it is the Crowell hypothesis
1) ascribes to me a postulation which is not mine;
On the third point Samuel Crowell states:
2) speciously interprets the documents to which he refers. Having already explained this
matter in "Argument 1", enough time has been devoted to this Crowell
SC: "Crematoria IV and V not have functioned as air raid shelters because of their
unprotected aboveground status.
SC: COMMENT: Mattogno does not explain why the "Gasskammern" of
Crematories IV and V, the "Gaskammern" of Majdanek, and the Morgues of
Crematories II and III were all equipped with concrete, and in most cases, reinforced concrete
walls and ceilings. While it is true that delousing facilities should be sturdily constructed to retain
heat, what purpose would a delousing facility have for reinforced concrete? On the other hand, a
supplemental interpretation as an air raid shelter explains the point easily.
CM: Again Crowell presents more evidence of his competence level - regarding Crematoria IV
and V - and my argument refers exclusively to them - I wrote that they had "ordinary
walls made of bricks just 25 cm thick." The "Entwesungsanlage" of
Majdanek, which however has nothing in common with Crematoria IV and V in Birkenau, was
projected according to standard procedures regarding the construction of gassing chambers
functioning with hydrocyanic acid. Concerning this matter I again point out that the
Kostenanschlag of 10 July 1942 for the whole "Entwesungsanlage", foresaw a ceiling
12 cm thick ("Eisenbetondecke 12 cm stark") with an exterior clay layer 12 cm thick
("Lehmauffüllung 12 cm stark") as an insulating layer ("als
Isolierschicht"). The walls were planned to be made of ordinary bricks
("Ziegelmauerwerk"). The "Entwesungsanlag Bauwerk XIIA" plan,
dated "August 1942" shows a 15 cm thick ceiling made of reinforced concrete with
an over layer 12 cm thick made of clay and the external walls of the plant present a thickness of
38 cm. The Standard disinfestation gas chambers functioning with hydrocyanic acid using a
("DEGESCH-Kreislauf-Anlage für Entlausung mit Zyklon-Blausäure")
had a ceiling made up of:
and walls 38 cm thick (project by F. Boos dated 30.6.1942 for delousing gas chambers of the
"Aufnahmegebäude" of Auschwitz). These kinds of installations still exist in
various former German concentration camps, for instance in Dachau and in Buchenwald. Will
Samuel Crowell now dare tell us that these gas chambers are also
"Luftschutzbunker"? Therefore it is clear that he errs when he speaks about
"concrete, and most cases, reinforced concrete walls" regarding the gas chambers of
Majdanek and in Crematorium IV and V.
- 15 cm of "Eisenbetondecke"
- 5 cm of "Wärmeschutz"
- 10 cm of "Betondecke",
And then Crowell accuses me of not making any effort to documentarily verify his
"In this case, however, it seems clear that Signor Mattogno had made absolutely minimal
effort in this direction." To this I reply that Mister Crowell, who knows nothing of my
activities and writings, yet claims to judge my work, is indeed presumptuous - so I reply by
reminding that this latest hypothesis from this latest revisionist, is nothing new whatsoever; it was
propounded many years ago by people more competent than he, for example by engineer Pierre
Marais, in his work En lisant de près les écrivains chantres de la Shoah,
La Vieille Taupe,
in 1991, and even before that, as Crowell himself remembers at the beginning of his article, this
hypothesis was formulated by Wilhelm Stäglich in his Der Auschwitz-Mythos. Already
when Pressac's first book about Auschwitz appeared in 1989, this hypothesis of air raid shelters
as an explanation to the Pressac "criminal indications" was current among
revisionists, and since then I have evaluated it. While in Moscow I researched all the Auschwitz
Zentralbauleitung documentation and among my interests was also the verification of this
hypothesis. Although I found hundreds of documents in Moscow relating to crematoria, among
them there is not one single "indication" to support the
"Luftschutzbunker" hypothesis. I am at good peace after the ridiculous accusations
of Samuel Crowell.
In the second part of his article, titled "Mattogno's Positive Contribution", Crowell
continues his systematic work of mischaracterizing the meaning of my arguments and even of the
documents. Here is the astounding Crowell comment concerning the documents I published in
my article regarding delousing chambers and crematoria:
SC: "These are excellent documents because they prove that the
"Vergasungekeller" as well as the associated space in Crematorium III, were
equipped with showers, as well as hot air delousing installations strongly supports the notion that
they were not, and could not have been used for gassing."
CM: How Samuel Crowell can deduce the existence of "showers" from the simple
mentioning of "2 Topf Entwesungsöfen für das Krema II" and of a
"Entwesungsanlage" remains a mystery. There is no doubt that a disinfestation
procedure by "Entwesungsöfen" can be achieved by means of hot air rather
than by means of hydrocyanic acid, but "Entwesungsanlage" also work with
hydrocyanic acid. I know that the official denomination of the disinfestation plant functioning
with hydrocyanic acid in Majdanek was an "Entwesungsanlage." As I explained in
my article, the "Entwesungsöfen" were installed in the Zentralsauna, so that
the central point of the matter is the "Entwesungsanlage." The "positive"
part of my article is written to "understand the intentions of the Zentralbauleitung of
Auschwitz and to reconstruct the general historical situation" in which the Pressac
"indications" were developed, without having to formulate any specific hypotheses.
Undoubtedly, the Crowell hypotheses, on a documentary basis, are not a part of this historical
situation. Samuel Crowell seems instead to understand little about this historical environment as
well as my purpose, and accuses me of skipping those details that were outside the general
theme of my article. Considering the insistence with which Crowell remarks on this point, I shall
reply to this matter, since it seems to have fundamental importance in his opinion. Crowell
SC: "HOWEVER, Mattogno, by failing to say even one word about the gas tight doors
with peepholes falls into the trap laid by Pressac. He still cannot explain what such a door would
be doing in a space containing showers."
CM: Actually it is Samuel Crowell who is caught by the Pressac trap, and both of them ignore
the fact that the "gas tight doors" were commonly used in Birkenau; they were
installed not only in the hot air "Entwesungsanlage" in the gypsy camp (BW 32), but
in all hygienic places of BW 5a and 5b ("Sauna", "Entwesungsapparat",
"Entwesungskammer", "Desinfektion"), and of course in the
"Gaskammer" working with hydrocyanic acid. Therefore if a simple sauna needed
gas tight doors ("2 Stuck Gasdichte Türen 100/200 für die
Sauna"),17 is it really surprising that a similar
door was installed in the shower room?
Recapitulating, I do not disagree with the hypothesis of the double (or triple) function of the
"Leichenkeller" in Birkenau which Samuel Crowell attributes arbitrarily to me when
he writes that "the morgues were not either air raid shelters or disinfestation chambers, but
rather, both." It is clear that he misunderstood what I had written. The
"Leichenkeller" of the crematoria were surely planned and built as
"Leichenkeller", and this was the principal purpose of their construction. Pressac's
"indications", in particular the one relating to the "Vergasungskeller",
induce one to believe that since the beginning of 1943 the Zentralbauleitung thought to adapt the
"Leichenkeller" to use them also as provisional and supplementary disinfesting gas
chambers. That does not mean that these places could not be used (for a certain number of
people for a certain period of time) also as "Luftschutzbunker", but I can assert with
certainty that this additional function did not affect the outfitting of these places at all. In other
words, Pressac's "indications" have nothing to do with
Historical revisionism has little necessity for hobby improvisations based upon photographic
comparisons or vocabulary definitions, but rather there exists greater need for more scientific
research based upon the study of documents and upon on-site inspections; and while there is no
great necessity for improvisational writings, there will always be a need for more competent
researchers to go into the archives for the research of documents.
- Annales d'Histoire Revisionniste, 1, Printemps 1987,
- L'Amt C/V, Zentralbauinspektion.
- In my article I inadvertently wrote "Jothan."
- The "Indication" concerning
"Vergasungskeller" re-occurs on 29 January 1943.
- Standortbefehl Nr. 53/43 dated 23 November 1943.
- Jerzy Debski, Tablice obozowe zródlem do historii
KL Auschwitz (The Indexed Tables of the Camp as a Source for the History of KL
Auschwitz), in: Zeszyty Oswiecimskie, 21 1995, pp. 171-173.
- See in this regard, pages 39-43 of my study La
"Zentralbauleitung der Waffen-SS und Polizei Auschwitz." Edizioni di Ar,
- Vorhaben: Kriegsgefangenenlager Auschwitz
(Durchführung der Sonderbehandlung). The Prague Archives of Military History.
- VffG, December 1997, p. 240.
- Idem, p. 234.
- Attilio Izzo, Guerra chimica e difesa antigas. (Chemical
Warfare and Antigas Defense) Hoepli, Milano 1935, pp. 246-247.
- Idem, p. 246, Note 78.
- Erläuterungsbericht dated 2 November 1944.
- This conjuring trick serves also to create a connection equally
arbitrary with the "Holzblende" of Crematory II.
- Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas
Chambers. New York 1989, p. 417.
- This signifies that the closing devices for the doors were
located on the external side of the "gasdichte Türen", which therefore could
close only from the outside as is clearly shown in the photographs of these little shutters by
Pressac (Auschwitz, pp. 426-428). These photographs show that these shutters were fitted into a
frame to only swing open out and not in; recessed to a receptive frame joint: if they were installed
contrarily, they would open against the interior and not against the exterior. Therefore these
shutters, which were the same as the gas tight doors of the "Entwesungsanlage" of
Majdanek, could not have closed from the inside, and this fact alone demolishes the Crowell
- Arbeitskarte dated 13 November 1942, Auftrag Nr. 2433 for