The Website of Carlos Whitlock
Porter

The Unreliability of Documents in Jean-Claude Pressac's Auschwitz:
Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers

By Carlos W. Porter

Update 2005: Pressac's mighty tome -- for what it is worth, which is
something, but perhaps not quite in the manner intended by its author -- is
supposedly on-line, in its entirety, at:

http://www.mazal.org/Pressac/Pressac0011.htm

The following article is less confusing if you read it
once through without referring to the graphics. In doubt, please see the
original by Pressac. "Page 433" here is
"http://www.mazal.org/Pressac/Pressac0432.htm" on the www.mazal.org/Pressac/
website, so they should be easy to find; just paste them in. The
graphics are better quality as well. Of course, as always, the entire book
should be read from beginning to end to form a proper opinion. It may be best to
save it with "Teleport Pro" from www.tenmax.com, and then print it, the entire
book. It was billed as the "Final Solution to the Revisionist Problem",
but only 1,000 copies of it were printed, which then promptly became
unobtainable. They have been sold for up to 2,000 US dollars second hand. -C.P.
2005

Jean-Claude Pressac's book, AUSCHWITZ: TECHNIQUE AND OPERATION OF THE GAS
CHAMBERS (1988, Beate Klarsfeld Foundation) reproduces many German
documents. The documents which Pressac considers to be most
incriminating are, in the great majority of cases, either "photocopies" or
"microfilm copies" made available by the Soviets; many have been retyped by
unknown persons and do not even purport to be photocopies; others are obvious
forgeries.

The quality of many of these documents is so poor that it is obvious
they are photocopies of photocopies ad infinitum.

On pp. 90/91, Pressac lists the documents which are available only on
microfilm. On pp. 199, 243, 245, and 439, he admits that many
of the others (not including the blueprints, which are available as originals)
are available only as "photocopies"; he would very much like to see the original
documents, but that is impossible; no one has ever seen them (p. 439 "reverse of
document is not known", p. 243
"Moscow prosecutor... omitted to communicate the verso").
All documents marked BW 30/25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 36, 44, and 46
are Soviet microfilm copies.

All documents marked BW 30/43 are Soviet photocopies.

This includes nearly all the correspondence, and about half of the time
sheets and work sheets - the very documents which Pressac finds most
suspicious.

The document on p. 100 bears
no handwritten markings of any kind.

The document on p. 134 is a
retyped "certified true copy" of a microfilm. The document on p. 135 is crystal-clear at the top
of the page, but fades to illegibility downwards towards the signature,
indicating that it, too, is probably a "microfilm copy".

The document on p. 210 is
supposed to be a "telex", but it's a "microfilm copy" of a document which has
been "retyped", with the same handwritten markings as on pp. 187 and 504.

The "Vergassungskeller" document on p. 211 is a "photocopy" of a
"microfilm copy". The document on pp. 214/215 is a microfilm without
signature; where is the end of the document?

The document on p. 222 does
not match the caption; it is a "microfilm", although the table on p. 89 lists
these documents as "originals".

The document on p.238 is a
"certified true copy" retyped by a Jew.

See also: Commentary on the
Franke-Gricksch "Report" ("True copy" retyped by Jew)

The document on p. 247,
letter of 28 June 1943, BW 30/42, is a "photocopy" transmitted by the Committee
of Anti-Fascist Resistants of the German Democratic Republic; see p. 91.

The document on p. 248 is
a "microfilm copy" with many handwritten corrections but no signatures.

On p. 279, a gigantic
thumbprint indicates that the document is another "microfilm copy". Another
retyped "microfilm copy" of a "telegram" appears on p. 371.

The document on p. 361 bears
the statement "Remarks on original letter" ["Anmerkung auf den Originalbrief"]
typed out right in the "original German document", which turns out to be a
"microfilm copy".

The two different versions of the document on p. 207 are a "microfilm copy" of a
"retyped copy" which has "signature illegible" ["Unterschrift unleserlich"]
typed out right in the "original German text" itself.

The document on p. 375,
left, says "written in pencil" ["in Bleischrift geschrieben"] typed out in the
"original German" text! It purports to be a "telegram", but it's been retyped.

The "wire mesh introduction devices" documents on pp. 376, 430, etc. etc. are also
"photocopies". So are the "gas-tight door documents" on pp. 438 and most of the
other time sheets.

(NOTE: Since all the pillars and columns in the
so-called "gas chambers" at Auschwitz are of solid reinforced concrete, and
since there are no holes in the roofs, the "wire mesh introduction devices"
document may safely be dismissed as a forgery in any case.)

For obviously forged signatures, compare the signatures of "Kirschenek" on p. 192 bottom, with p. 211 top, p. 240 bottom left, p. 368 bottom left, p. 371 (with initial by Järhling),
p. 388, top centre.

Kirschenek's squiggle should also be compared: p. 245 centre (next to
"Sturmbahnführer", where it is difficult to see), p. 241, and p. 388.

(NOTE: If I understand Pressac correctly, on page 388
both the squiggle and the signature are supposed to be by Kirschenek. The
translation states:

[Hand written additions]
Dealt with Jährling
[initialed]
Kirschneck

[in violet pencil] Kirschneck and Janisch). This may be a misreading of
Pressac's meaning on my part. C.P.]

Compare the signatures of Bischoff and Jährling p. 223, with Bischoff's initial on
p. 242, and the signatures of
Bischoff on p. 376, p. 235, and especially p. 360 bottom of second page,
and p. 199. These last may be
someone else signing on Bischoff's behalf, but there is no indication of this;
if that were so, normally a document would so state.

Were there two Bischoffs? He's a Hauptsturmfüher on p. 199 and Sturmbahnführer on p. 360, but it's not the same
signature as the Sturmbahnführer on p. 376.

In my view, most of the Bischoff documents are probably authentic, but not
all the Kirschenek and Pollok documents.

Compare the signatures of "Pollok" at bottom of p. 211, with those at bottom of p. 213, p. 360, and p. 504. They only look the same
on p. 211 and p. 432; the others are different.

There are two different versions of the "Vergassungskeller" document with
related report; they are not the same documents on pp. 211/213 as on p. 432 and pp. 503/504; the text of the two versions
is identical, but the signatures are different and the documents have been
retyped. The one on p. 503 is
labelled as a document retyped by the Poles; but it looks the same as the
others. All you have to do is leave out the word "Odpis" [copy], fake a name or
initial, and presto! It becomes an "original".

The document on p. 504
(second page) claims to be an "original document", but it's not the same
"original" as on p. 213. The
signature at the top of p. 504
is a forgery of Jahnich's signature, see bottom of p. 187. The document on p. 213 appears to bear a forged
Kirschenek signature at the top. Another apparent forgery of Jahnich's signature
appears under "F.d.R." ["For the Correctness of the Copy"] on p. 361, right next to "Remarks on
original letter" ["Anmerkung auf den Originalbrief"].

Pressac gives the same references for the Vergassungskeller document on p. 211 and p. 432 in the apparent belief that
they are identical. But they are not the same document or even the same
signature; only the text is identical. [See graphics of
"Vergassungskeller" document.]

P. 245 is only a better
quality photocopy of the document reproduced on p. 441. These are identical.

The document on p. 243 is an obvious forgery utilizing the "quotation within a
letter" technique.

The initial by "Jothann" on p.
250 is an obvious forgery if this is supposed to be the same person who
signed his name in full on pp.
387 and 413.

On pp. 27, 28, 31, 55, 56, and 57, etc. he shows that "Gaskammer" was
a perfectly ordinary word used by the Germans to mean "delousing chamber". He
even reproduces the blueprints, which clearly state "ENTWESUNGSANLAGE
Gaskammer". He doesn't claim that the delousing chambers were used or designed
for any purpose other than delousing. One wonders what
Pressac thinks he's proving with all this material.

Pressac claims that it's absurd to heat a morgue, which must be kept
cool, and that the presence of a stove in a morgue proves it's a "gas chamber
for the extermination of human beings". In fact, morgues must be kept cool, but
must not be allowed to freeze, because frost damages corpses. The temperature
must be kept at 2 to 12 degrees Centigrade.
(source: Garten und
Friedhofsamt, Darmstadt, Hermannstr. 4, FRIEDHÖFE UND KREMATORIEN, p. 423).

Pressac considers the word "undressing room" to have sinister
connotations; it is hard to see why, since these structures were morgues with
washing facilities and showers.

It might be pointed out that Pressac believes in the reality of the
"socks of human hair" socks (p. 475); this document, USSR-511, the original of which
no one has ever seen, bears a typewritten heading, a typewritten signature, and
two German stamps. The human hair socks have never been found.

Pressac also apparently believes that cyanide gas
travels horizontally, then vertically, like sewer water filling a basement (p.
473).

Now. What I want to know is, if the "mass gassing
victims" in the "homicidal gas chambers" could see the gas approaching and
attempt to escape from it by climbing on top of each other, was the gas lighter
than air, or heavier? What colour was the gas, since they could see it? Purple? Pink? Red, White, and Blue? I have asked
this question many times, but never gotten an answer.

See also:
KATYN:
How the Soviets Manufactured 'War Crime' Documents (translation of USSR-54) by
C.W.Porter
Commentary on
Document L-180 ("Einsatzgruppen Report") by C.W. Porter
Graphic of Document
BW/30/42
Graphics of
"Vergasungskeller" Document

For another interesting KGB forgery,
see:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm
(they
forged an almost perfect letter from Lee Harvey Oswald, but misspelled his
middle name! That, too, was a "photocopy" of a "microfilm".)

CARLOS W. PORTER
REVISED JUNE 15 2005

MADE IN RUSSIA - THE HOLOCO$T
Return to ARTICLES PAGE

Return to CONTENTS PAGE