Gas chambers with wooden doors is a well known aspect of Holocaust revisionism. Here the Jewish Virtual Library (JVL) addresses the issue:
Notice the phrase, “there is no physical evidence as to how the door of the extermination gas chambers looked like”. They are admitting that they don’t know what the doors looked like but since they found a door that maybe could have worked for a homicidal gas chamber that’s good enough for them.
Side note, JVL admits that none of the alleged extermination facilities are in the original state. This is a new admission as they used to pass off Crema I for being in the original state. For an in depth look at this watch Germar Rudolf’s Curated Lies—The Auschwitz Museum’s Misrepresentations, Distortions and Deceptions.
Back to the wooden doors. JVL references the book, AUSCHWITZ: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, by Jean-Claude Pressac. Wikipedia claims Pressac’s book “demonstrated the technical possibility of mass killing by gas chambers during the Holocaust, thus debunking many falsehoods promoted by Holocaust deniers”. Despite this book being so important to debunking Holocaust deniers it had limited printings and is rare. Copies can sell for over $1000. Fortunately there is an online version. For more about Pressac’s book and how unscientific is it see this article that I wrote.
Unlike JVL, Pressac makes no admission that there is an uncertainty about the doors used. He says that the door found in the Bauhof, or builders yard, certainly was an alleged homicidal gas chamber door. He says the proof is the peephole with the grid protecting the peephole from the inside. The following is the photograph that JVL was referring to:
Germar Rudolf’s book, The Chemistry of Auschwitz, has a better photograph of what the alleged homicidal gas chamber doors probably looked like according to orthodox Holocaust historians:
As for the peephole allow me to quote Rudolf, “Peepholes were in fact required for all disinfestation doors, because anyone entering a disinfestation chamber had to be observed by another person from the outside in order that, in case of an accident, help could be provided immediately.” (page 123). There are plenty of reasons for the peephole to be protected on the inside that are not sinister. For example; if the clothing was being disinfected on racks there is a possibility that the rack could damage the peephole. What doesn’t make sense is having a peephole to observe the alleged gassings as according to the official story the room would have been so packed that an outside observer wouldn’t have been able to see past the person that was immediately by the door.
Here is Pressac’s detailed description of the door:
It is interesting to note that Pressac describes how everything in the alleged gas chamber was destroyed but the door. Could this door have withstood two thousand or more panicking people? Could it have remained gas tight while a mass of people were pressing upon it? Without experimentation there is no way to know for sure, and orthodox Holocaust historians are against such scientific exploration. In the end it doesn’t actually matter as it is not known for sure what doors were used for the alleged homicidal gas chambers.
Thanks to this article I have become aware of another Holocaust museum deception. In the early ’90’s the newly opened US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC fraudulently displayed this replica as the door to the alleged homicidal gas chambers when it was known that it was actually the door to a delousing chamber. The dishonesty of the Holocaust affirmers knows no bounds.
Be sure to read this follow-up article for new information!
beyond based o/
Why thank you. Please remember holocaust.claims for all your internet argument needs 🙂
Krema I did not hold 2000 people. I’ve been to Auschwitz. The 2000 people estimates stems from the Birkenau chambers, and the wooden door bullshit itself comes from the existing Krema I chamber which was renovated in 1944 for air raid shelter purposes.
Krema I was small and more of a trial chamber. It is unlikely that more than 10,000 people were gassed here. Your claims confuse the main gas chambers at Birkenau and the existing one at Auschwitz I.
Second, Delousing chambers already existed at Auschwitz. There is no evidence the gas chamber was used for delousing and once again, it would be extensive and useless to use that for delousing since one already existed. The door argument is obviously full of random lies. The real door for Krema I is the one that was found in a yard . The doors for II, III, etc were destroyed.
JVL doesn’t say they are talking about Krema I only. If you have something that says that please share it. Also, the diagram from Pressac that JVL referred to, pictured above, says the door was for one or more of the Krema in Birkenau.
I never said that Krema II and III were used for delousing chambers. That was a separate building.
I know you said II and III weren’t for delousing. There’s no way to know if they were since most Nazi documents about the chambers are gone and evidently it’s just a heap of rocks and dirt if you go there now.
You talk about Pressac’s words on I’s wooden door, and make the claim that the door couldn’t hold more than 2000 people pushing on it. Krema I is the topic of the article if i’m reading it correctly and like I said it could not hold 2000 people. The chamber itself is pretty small in contrast to the size the main chambers
Why did you bring up the delousing chambers then?
I don’t feel like slogging through Pressac. Show me where he says the description is about Krema 1.
“There were delousing chambers at Auschwitz I. Why would they need another? Nazis must have loved their delousing chambers if what you’re saying is true.”
-Are you forgetting about the typhus epidemic?
“We do not know if the doors were actually wooden or not. None of the Kremas remained in their original state, as JVL states clearly, so why bother debating about the door? The door found by the people working the post war camp excavations is never really explicitly stated that “100%, this is the door from the gas chamber”. We just don’t know”
-The whole point of my article is to say they don’t know for sure what doors were used on the alleged homicidal gas chambers. Thanks for noticing.
So why are you even using the door argument if you’re admitting yourself that the point of the article was that we didn’t know?
I’m not using the door argument. I am simply informing people about the topic. Why is that so hard to understand?
Also, what’s the point of bringing up that the door was for one of more the chambers? I don’t get the issue with that door. Just because they used the same door for delousing and gassing really isn’t that much of a changing claim.
Also, what are you suggesting II and III were? The remnants of them resemble what we know about gas chambers and honestly I don’t know what other building it could be. Storage? Obviously a weak argument but just something to chew on.
Let me just summarize what i’m trying to say.
– Krema I was modified as we know. The doors on Krema I now were different than what they were prior to. 1944.
– There were delousing chambers at Auschwitz I. Why would they need another? Nazis must have loved their delousing chambers if what you’re saying is true.
– We do not know if the doors were actually wooden or not. None of the Kremas remained in their original state, as JVL states clearly, so why bother debating about the door? The door found by the people working the post war camp excavations is never really explicitly stated that “100%, this is the door from the gas chamber”. We just don’t know.
I’m aware of the typhus epidemic. What doesn’t make sense is that they would built another delousing chamber with such a strange design.. almost seems inconvenient tbh.
On a somewhat related note, how come there’s been like no testimonies from Nazis or survivors that Krema I was for delousing?
As the Red Army approached the camps in 1945, the Germans would not have had time to destroy any gas chamber. Likewise, it was mathematically impossible for the Germans to have gassed 6 million people. In fact, they would still be cleaning up the mess. Moreover, if you have actually viewed a door to a gas chamber, used for executions, a wooden door would not have sufficed. Finally, the gas chamber on display at Auschwitz was built by the Soviets. Since they do not use gas to execute criminals, putting a wooden door on their display model, makes sense. The lie served its purpose in the short run, but overtime, the idea the Third Reich undertook the endeavor of gassing all of these people is not realistic.