More on the “holes” in the “gas chamber” roof (Marques161200)

Documents on the
allegation about Zyklon B killings of victims in Nazi
concentration camps

Controversy: Are or were there ever holes in the roof of the Leichenkeller (Morgue) No. 1 at Krema (crematiorium) II at Auschwitz — the holes through which SS officers allegedly poured in the Zyklon B crystals?

See David Irving closing speech, page 31.

Website photo of Krema II, Leichenkeller 1, underside of roof

A S
Marques writes Friday,
December 15, 2000 :

YOUR comments on Charles Provan
and his discovery of “holes” in the roof of Krema II are right on target.

I had a brief email exchange with Provan in June this year [2000] and I got the impression that he was basically honest but quite naïve both in his views and in his expectations concerning the Auschwitz
Museum authorities. He wrote to me, for instance, that “I decided to do my own survey because I was pretty sure that one of the eyewitnesses to the holes in the roof (Konrad
Morgen) was telling the truth.”

But
Morgen, of course, is well-known precisely for, while pretending to go along with his Allied captors, managing to tell glaring Münchausen-like lies that no one accepts any longer, devised to shift every conceivable guilt claim, no matter how surrealistic, from the living persons undergoing trial to the dead ones that could no longer be reached.

One example of this is his testimony concerning
Oscar Dirlewanger’s permanently hard-pressed combat group trying to make human soap out of Jewish fat in a large bubbling cauldron in the middle of Warsaw (of all people, times and places!), a worthy sequel to the now classic stories of evil Herr Prof. Spanner and his supposed human soap industrial research.

Well, okay, one’s first motivations, however naïve, do not necessarily imply that one’s conclusions will not be honest. They may, however, throw a degree of suspicion over the level and quality of one’s critical thinking, however well-intended. So, I sent for a copy of Provan’s booklet
No Holes ? No Holocaust?

A Study of the Holes in the Roof of Leichenkeller 1 of Krematorium 2 at
Birkenau (One Chapter of the Book entitled
Revising Revisionism), available from the author, and I was again taken aback by the level of Provan’s naïveté. For instance, he begins his booklet by dividing “witnesses” in two groups, one of which he labels “testimonies of lesser value”, proceeding to explain why they should be labeled so.

However, the ones he includes in the other group, apparently accepting them as legitimate ones with little or no hint of suspicion and labelled simply “eyewitnesses”, include not only Konrad Morgen, but Rudolf
Höss and such luminaries as Miklos
Nyisly and Filip Müller…

Concerning the famous holes, Provan found no less than eight of them. It’s clear that by “holes” he means everything from cracks to post-war holes to gain access to the underground room. He does recognize this, and he acknowledges that there are bent rebars in one of the
“holes” which he agrees must have been made after the war (this is the one that is most often shown as the genuine thing by the traditional friends of hole-riddled cabalistic thinking.)

Another three, Provan says, are obvious products of the roof being demolished. But he claims the remaining last three are in positions largely agreeing with the eyewitness accounts. Though the eyewitnesses mention four holes for Zyklon B, he says he was unable to locate a suitable candidate for the fourth hole, since the roof was on edge, and the hole location under the surface of the rubble.

His conclusion is this: since three suitable locations agree with the witnesses, with the fourth underground, it is now not correct for the Revisionist position to be “No Holes, No Holocaust.”

Again, it should be stressed that Charles Provan seems to be an honest individual. He mentioned Faurisson’s
criticism of his method in a letter to me, and indeed he agrees that he did not check the holes he claims to have found to ascertain the non-presence of rebars. He does recognize that if the Germans on duty had cut holes in the concrete, they would have had to remove the rebars in the holes in order to make them suitable for the introduction of
Zyklon B.

He also said he was hesitant to disturb the holes, so as not to disturb evidence and that he had written to the
Auschwitz Museum (which he had heard was planning to disturb the site to find the holes) requesting that they conduct an “x-ray” study to check the pattern of the rebars, so as not to disturb the site.

All very nice and commendable, but one must make two objections upon examination of Provan’s photos and arguments:

1. The three “holes” that he thinks might have included
   original Zyklon vents are next to the remnants of the
   massive pillars and in the photos they look like
   irregular enlarged fractures due to the whole roof being
   lifted and moved sidewise by the explosion and then
   crashing on the said pillars with the fractures resulting
   from this.

   “Hole” 2 of the eight has visible rebars
   protruding and is located at the end of a short crack
   with crumbled material all around extending from the
   respective pillar that protrudes through the roof;
   neither “hole” 6 nor “hole” 8 look like holes at all but
   rather as cracks directly resulting from the roof landing
   on the respective pillars and pieces of it crumbling in
   those locations.

   Provan considers the possibility that
   the large holes / cracks resulting from the fall of the
   roof may have coincided with previous gassing holes, not
   clear any longer among all the fractured concrete, even
   though “holes” 6 and 8 lie to the East of the central
   pillars and “hole” 2 to the West. Of course, irregular
   fractures resulting from a rather visible direct cause
   and subsequently enlarged are not the same as holes
   drilled for a purpose and finished accordingly.

   The
   extent of the iron remains in (at least) one of the holes
   that can be seen in Provan’s photos together with the
   apparent lateral dislocation of the whole roof seem to me
   to make the hypothesis of previously existing holes (with
   not one of them surviving in recognizable form) in the
   location of the fractures and cracks that can be seen
   today, very unlikely.

2. The crying need is for a truly independent
   investigation of the premises with all the modern means
   available, under public

   scrutiny from all parties
   interested. Certainly, something like the scientific
   investigation that debunked the Turin shroud would be
   nice. But,
   alas, this is quite impossible to achieve for the moment
   and all efforts should be deployed to avoid any tampering
   with the current state of the location by professional
   falsifiers of history that have to conform to (and impose
   on others) the only story permitted by their own national
   laws that forbid doubts about the “Holocaust”.

   Provan
   does not appear to realize that any present or future
   Polish curator of the Auschwitz Museum that will say “I,
   or my predecessors, have goofed in the past” will go
   straight to jail as a “Holocaust denier”, as indeed will
   go any German or French investigators that do not conform
   with the dogmas imposed by the law in their respective
   countries.

   Right now, vigilance is all-important
   and makeshift investigation from past falsifiers should
   be avoided, unless (a very unlikely event) they were
   allowed to proceed under the control of all the parties
   interested. After the long history of tampering with the
   main camp crematorium / air shelter, everything should be
   expected.

So, the question should be the following, given the amazing shameless out-and-out constant falsifying concerning the gas chambers issue: is it really a good policy to encourage the Auschwitz Museum authorities to investigate
on their own and to talk to them, as Provan does, as if they were thrustworthy and interested in honest inquiry
?

A S
Marques

• Brian Renk: Some
  Preliminary Observations on the Charles D. Provan booklet
  ‘No Holes? No Holocaust? A Study of the Holes in the Roof
  of Leichenkeller I of Krematorium 2 at Birkenau’
• Verdict of expert Sam
  Crowell

© Focal Point
2000 write to David Irving