35: Denying History -- Gas Chambers

Holocaust deniers do not deny the existence of gas chambers and crematoria. Rather, they claim that the gas chambers were used strictly for delousing clothing and blankets and that the crematoria were used to dispose of the bodies of those who died of "natural" causes in the camps. How can we distinguish between gas chambers used for delousing and gas chambers used for mass murder? How can we prove that the bodies disposed of in crematoria were murdered and had not just died of so-called natural causes like disease, starvation, and overwork?

To find out, Shermer and Grobman went to the camps at Mauthhausen, Majdanek, Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec, Dachau, and Auschwitz-Birkenau. As they discovered, there is far more to the story than meets the eye through books and film alone.

Consider in general how we might prove through a convergence of evidence from various sources that the Nazis used gas chambers and crematoria for mass murder:

1. Written documents -- orders for Zyklon-B, architectural blueprints, and orders for building materials for gas chambers and crematoria
2. Zyklon-B gas traces -- on the walls of the gas chambers at several camps
3. Eyewitness testimony -- survivor testimonies, Jewish special commando diaries, confessions of guards and commandants, and statements by other SS officers
4. Ground photographs -- not only of the camps, but also of bodies burning (photos taken and smuggled out of Auschwitz)
5. Aerial photographs -- indicating prisoners being moved toward the gas chamber/crematorium complexes, and matching those of ground photographs corroborating the structure of the gas chambers and crematoria
6. The extant ruins of the camps -- examined in light of the above sources of evidence

In presenting these six lines of evidence, Shermer and Grobman are not saying that each or even any particular one proves that gas chambers and crematoria were used for genocide. Rather, they are arguing that these lines of evidence converge on this conclusion.

There were six extermination camps -- with gas chambers and crematoria -- involved in the Final Solution, resulting in a total of approximately 3,062,000 killed:

Auschwitz-Birkenau, 1942-44 -- 1,100,000
Treblinka, 1942-43 -- 900,000
Belzec, 1942 -- 600,000
Sobibor, 1942-43 -- 250,000
Chelmno, 1941-42 -- 152,000
Majdanek, 1942-44 -- 60,000

Some Holocaust deniers note that at some sites the Zyklon-B traces are stronger in delousing chambers than in those used for homicide. This finding, they contend, makes no sense if the chambers were used to kill millions of people because then they would have been in operation nearly twenty-four hours a day and the gas would have left deep blue staining.

But is that true? To begin with, millions did not die in any one gas chamber. Many, perhaps one-third to one-half of the six million, died from a variety of other causes, including the Einsatzgruppen shootings, as well as beatings, overwork, starvation, disease, and the general unsanitary conditions at the camps -- murder is murder regardless of the method.

Furthermore, the gas chambers were never in operation continuously, around the clock, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, as is sometimes believed. Finally, what about the darker stains in the delousing chambers? Consider this: lice take much longer to succumb to Zyklon-B than humans do, who absorb through their lungs and die in a matter of minutes (the delousing of clothing took twelve to eighteen hours). And minutes after the prisoners died, the gas was let out of the chambers (and the bodies removed), preventing any long-term buildup of residue in most cases.

Some deniers claim that the use of Zyklon-B in a chamber not far from the crematoria would have caused an explosion. This idea is ludicrous. The crematoria were brick structures with sealed doors. The flames that burned the corpses were not in the open air or anywhere Zyklon-B gas could have wafted through and ignited. Additionally, the level of Zyklon-B used to kill humans was far lower than that needed to reach the explosion level. Specifically, it takes 300 parts per million (ppm) of hydrocyanic acid to kill human beings; it takes 56,000 ppm to cause an explosion -- a 186-fold difference.

One denier indicates that there were traces of Zyklon-B in general buildings that were fumigated as well as in the gas chambers, and so concludes that the traces of Zyklon-B prove nothing about the homicidal use of gas chambers. According to the pharmacist and extermination camp expert Jean-Claude Pressac, however, this defense does not make sense since buildings and morgues are normally disinfected with antiseptics, whether solid (lime, lime chloride), liquid (bleach, cresol), or gas (formaldehyde, sulfur anhydride). Neither the general buildings, nor the morgues, would have been disinfected with an insecticide or vermin killer like the hydrocyanic acid in Zyklon-B. In other words, the claim that traces of Zyklon-B were found in general buildings appears to be false.

Finally, we must ask how accurate any findings of Zyklon-B traces can be. Keep in mind that the gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau, where the deniers have conducted their analyses, were completely destroyed by the Nazis as the Russians were closing in on the camp in late 1944. The deniers make it sound as if anyone could go there, walk into the gas chamber, pick up a brick, and test it for Zyklon-B traces. There is nothing but rubble there, completely exposed to the elements for over half a century. The partially reconstructed undressing rooms, gas chambers, and crematoria and Auschwitz-Birkenau are part of the recent restoration of the camp as a museum.

Another denier, acknowledging that the extant ruins have been exposed to the elements, wonders why Zyklon-B blue staining remains on the outside of the brick gas chamber at Majdanek, against which the Nazis beat clothing and blankets to remove the gas residue. Wouldn't the blue stains have washed away in the weather as at Auschwitz? The question sounds reasonable, but when Shermer and Grobman visited Majdanek they could see that the blue staining on the outside bricks is minimal. Moreover, a roof overhang has protected the bricks from rain and snow, so that the bricks at Majdanek are nowhere near as weathered as the open rubble at Auschwitz.

The same denier gives no citations for some of his claims. When he says, for example, that the buildings which used to served as the camp delousing facilities still have extremely high traces of the gas and that the Auschwitz camp barracks and offices, "which were fumigated with the Zyklon-B from time to time," show similarly minute traces of the gas, and no blue staining, is this just his opinion or does he have solid evidence? As it happens, there are no references to back up these statements -- a short coming that seems to happen all too often in deniers' "research." When a question or statement has no grounding in evidence, it becomes just a rhetorical device and requires no answer.

Consider, as yet another example, the claim that at Mauthhausen the door of the gas chamber does not lock. True, the present door does not lock, but that is irrelevant because it is not the original door. All Shermer and Grobman had to do in order to discover this fact was ask.

What about the "evidence" that deniers do present, such as the "finding" that the residue from Zyklon-B in the gas chamber at crematorium I at Auschwitz I (the original camp converted from a Polish army barracks) does not reach a level consistent with extermination? Significantly, they fail to mention in their writings that this building was reconstructed using both original materials and those from other buildings. Who knows what they actually "tested" in their research?

The deniers are only too happy to point out that the gas chamber is a reconstruction but conveniently drop the subject when it comes to their testing of the bricks. One denier, in his video documentary of his visit to Auschwitz, dramatically proclaims that he got the museum director to "confess" that the gas chamber was a reconstruction and thus a "lie" thrust upon an unwitting public. This is classic denier hyperbole and ideological flag waving. No one at Auschwitz -- from the guides to the director -- denies that the gas chamber there is a reconstruction. All a visitor has to do is ask.

As noted, no one element alone of the six lines of evidence presented above proves that gas chambers and crematoria were used for mass murder -- but the convergence of these sources leads to this conclusion. How might we connect what we know about the use of Zyklon-B gas with other lines of evidence to show that the gas chambers were used for mass murder? Can we, for example, corroborate the orders for Zyklon-B gas and the remains of Zyklon-B canisters with eyewitness accounts and photographs?

We have dozens of accounts of survivors describing the unloading and separation process of prisoners at Auschwitz, for example, and we have photographs of at least the first steps in the process. We also have eyewitness accounts of the Nazis forcing prisoners to undress an march into the gas chambers, and of the Nazis burning bodies in open pits, and we have photographs of both processes, taken secretly by a Greek Jew named Alex.

In addition to such photographs, we have documents regarding the construction of the gas chambers. In a letter dated January 29, 1943, from SS-Sturmbannfuehrer (Major) Bischoff, of the Auschwitz construction department, to SS General Heinz Kammler, the major reports: "Crematorium No. 2. The completed furnaces have been started up in the presence of Engineer Pruefer from Messrs. Topf (of Erfurt). The planks cannot yet be moved from the ceiling of the mortuary cellar on account of frost, but this is not important, as the gassing cellar can be used for that purpose. The ventilation plant has been held up by restrictions on rail transport, but the installation should be ready by February 20th."

On March 6, 1943, Bischoff refers to a gas-tight door for Crematorium III, similar to that of Crematorium II, which was to include a peephole of thick glass. Bischoff's order reads: "order of 6/3/1943 concerning the delivery of a gas-tight door 100x192 cm for cellar I of Crematorium III, to be produced to identical pattern and dimensions as the cellar door of Crematorium II which is situated opposite, with peephole of double 8 mm glass, with rubber sealing strip and frame." Why would they need a peephole with thick glass if all that was happening in this room was the delousing of clothing? Although in itself the existence of the peephole does not "prove" anything, it is one more finding that dovetails with the idea that these chambers were used for killing people.