8 October 1997 (Beginning of Papon's trial)
Samuel Crowell was kind enough to phone me recently when he heard that I seemed to disagree with his views on the air-raid shelter doors (see Smith's Report, September 1997, p.1, 3-4). We had a long conversation. I told him that, as long as he is explaining at length what was a German air-raid shelter and the door of such a shelter, I totally agree with him, since this is exactly what I had myself discovered in the 70s and what Fritz Berg also studied in the 80s. The last time I mentioned the matter in English was, I suppose, in 1991. At that time I wrote in an article about J.-C. Pressac:
"A gas-tight door is a Gastür or gasdichte Tür. English speakers use `gas-proof door' as well as `gas-tight door'; this type of door can be used for delousing gas chambers or for airlocks (for example, airlocks in an oven-room or in an air-raid shelter) . [...] In a bombing attack, the door to an air-raid shelter is supposed to guard against two effects, among others, caused by exploding bombs: suction of the oxygen out of the shelter and penetration of CO into the same shelter (Journal of Historical Review, Spring, 1991, p.49, 65)."
In order to give us an idea of what those air-raid shelter doors could look like, Crowell presents us with some German advertisements. I had already some advertisements coming from F. Berg and also, which is perhaps more interesting, six or seven photos of such a door in the cellar of a German house in 1939-1940 (in Karlsruhe). I informed Crowell I was ready to send him copies of those photos.
I disagree with Crowell when he says that the presence of such a door is the proof that the room equipped with it was necessarily an air-raid shelter. I took the example of Majdanek that he had himself mentioned. I had visited the place in 1975 and noticed that the Germans had used such doors for the disinfestation gas chambers. I even remember that, apparently, they had put into the peep-hole of one of those doors a thermometer in order to control the temperature of the room which was heated up by a stove situated in another little room and connected to the gas chamber itself by a large pipe. I suppose that, once the temperature was appropriate, a device would stop any contact with the stove room.
For Crowell, this place, he told me, was logically an air-raid shelter above ground. He added that the Germans had many such shelters underground but also above ground. I asked him if he had seen the place. He said he had not visited Majdanek. I told him that, if he had seen the place, he would have noticed that the building was not made of concrete. (In fact, it was made of bricks, with a wooden roof, crumbled in July 1944 when the Soviets arrived). I added that J.-C. Pressac himself had to admit that the place was a "disinfestation gas chamber" (Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, 1989, p. 555, 557). The photo given by J. -C. Pressac, with the reconstructed wooden roof, speaks volumes: the place could never have been an air-raid shelter!
Another disagreement: Crowell says that J.-C. Pressac "is a man of integrity and honor" and, as an example of such integrity and honor, he mentions that the man was fair enough to say that nobody had yet explained why on the crumbled roof of the so-called gas chamber of Krema II we had only two openings for Zyklon B instead of the four introduction points mentioned in the `Holocaust' literature. But J.-C. Pressac committed here a damned lie, in fact, there are zero such openings and the two holes he alludes to, considering their place and their shape, could never have been `introduction points' for Zyklon B! If such points had existed, even two instead of four, imagine the fuss in the media and in every book about Auschwitz. In fact, as I said to Crowell, we should go back to my quip: "No holes, no `Holocaust'" (that we could as well write: "No holes, no `Holocau$t'").
In Washington, on April 21, 1993, Mark Weber and I denounced the "Gas Chamber Door Fraudulently Portrayed at US Holocaust Museum" (JHR, September-October 1993, p.39). We said it was a casting of the door, in Majdanek, of a disinfestation gas chamber, even according to Pressac. It would be a mistake for Crowell to say 1) that the fraud was discovered only in 1997; 2) that the door was that of a place to consider as an air-raid shelter.
Finally, Crowell told me on the phone, if I am not mistaken, that the German word `Gaskammer' could mean `Gasschützkammer'. This is more interesting but I do not know if he is right. After our phone conversation, I perused his 29-page essay on the whole matter, dated April 30, 1997. I had had no time yet to read it. I found it interesting for the reason I give in the first paragraph of this very letter.
Extracted from The Adelaide Institute Newsletter (on-line) nr 66, dec. 1997. Since that time, Crowell's essay has been remoulkded into a more comprhensive work, The Gas Chamber of Sherlock Holmes, An Attempt at a Literary Analysis of the Holocaust Gassing Claim, which has undergone several revisions. It is found on the CODOH website.
First displayed on aaargh: 17 April 2001.
This text has been displayed on the Net, and forwarded to you as a tool for educational purpose, further research, on a non commercial and fair use basis, by the International Secretariat of the Association des Anciens Amateurs de Recits de Guerres et d'Holocaustes (AAARGH). The E-mail of the Secretariat is <[email protected]. Mail can be sent at PO Box 81475, Chicago, IL 60681-0475, USA..
We see the act of displaying a written document on Internet as the equivalent to displaying it on the shelves of a public library. It costs us a modicum of labor and money. The only benefit accrues to the reader who, we surmise, thinks by himself. A reader looks for a document on the Web at his or her own risks. As for the author, there is no reason to suppose that he or she shares any responsibilty for other writings displayed on this Site. Because laws enforcing a specific censorship on some historical question apply in various countries (Germany, France, Israel, Switzerland, Canada, and others) we do not ask their permission from authors living in thoses places: they wouldn't have the freedom to consent.
We believe we are protected by the Human Rights Charter:
ARTICLE 19. <Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.>The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, in Paris.