Scrapbookpages Blog

December 31, 2013

Both doors of Auschwitz gas chamber opened inward

Filed under: Germany, Holocaust — Tags: , — furtherglory @ 12:33 pm

This morning, I was listening to a you-tube video of an old TV show presented by Montel Williams, many years ago.  Mark Weber and David Cole, both Jewish and both revisionists, were guests on the show.

David Cole pointed out, on the TV show, that both doors in the alleged gas chamber in the main Auschwitz camp opened inward.  David Cole asked if the German engineers would have built a gas chamber with the doors opening inward, which would have made it difficult to remove the bodies after 900 people were allegedly gassed in the room at the same time.

I visited the gas chamber in the main Auschwitz camp, in 1998 and again in 2005, and I took photos of the doors. It didn’t occur to me that building the doors in this fashion would have been totally stupid, but David Cole is right.  How did they get the doors open with bodies pressed up against them?

How is it that the Germans allowed this stupid construction?  The answer is that the alleged gas chamber in the main Auschwitz camp is a RECONSTRUCTION, done by the Soviet Union after the camp was liberated in January 1945.

Door in the Auschwitz gas chamber opens inward

Door into the Auschwitz gas chamber opens inward

When the Auschwitz camp was liberated by soldiers of the Soviet Union,  the alleged gas chamber in the main camp had been turned into an air raid shelter by the Germans. The photo above shows an air raid shelter door on the left and a wooden door into former gas chamber on the right.  Neither of these doors was there when the Auschwitz gas chamber was allegedly used for gassing the Jews.  These are doors into an air raid shelter that was constructed in the Auschwitz morgue, which was right next to the crematorium, where dead bodies were burned.

Door into Auschwitz gas chamber opens inward

Door into Auschwitz gas chamber opens inward

Notice that the the door in the photo above, which was the back door into the gas chamber in 1998, has a glass window.  Allegedly, the Jews were prevented from breaking the glass because there was a German soldier standing outside the door, ready to shoot anyone who tried to escape. (Actually, this was originally the door into a washroom, before the reconstruction done by the Soviets.)

I blogged about the washroom at

When I visited the Auschwitz gas chamber in 1998, I was told by my tour guide that the prisoners entered the gas chamber through the air raid shelter door.  At that time, the Auschwitz Memorial Site was not yet admitting that the Auschwitz gas chamber is a reconstruction.

My 1998 photo of the back door into the gas chamber

My 1998 photo of the back door into the gas chamber

On my trip to Auschwitz in 1998, I was told that the door, shown in the photo above, was the back door of the gas chamber, and that the victims had entered through the air raid shelter door.  At that time, it was a crime to claim that the air raid shelter door was not there when the Jews were allegedly gassed in what was obviously a morgue.


  1. Cole wrote in his 46 questions:

    “Unanswered Questions Regarding the Physical Evidence at the Majdanek Concentration Camp (Poland)

    (27) Gas chamber 1 [usually known as no.4] has two doors, both of which open INTO the gas chamber room. How can a homicidal gas chamber have two doors which open IN? Wouldn’t the bodies be pressed up against the doors, as described numerous times by eyewitnesses?”

    In their 2000 book Denying History. Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say it? by Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, they agreed with Cole about Alleged Homicidal Gas Chamber no. 4:

    “The original block measures 9.2 meters by 3.62 meters by 2.05 meters high. Casual inspection of the large gas chamber room shows that its use was for delousing clothing and blankets, not for mass extermination, since the doors to it open in, they do not (and cannot) lock, and there is a large glass window (about 30 by 60 centimeters, or 1 by 2 feet) that could easily be broken. The window frame appears to be original, since the wood from which it is constructed is saturated with blue Zyklon-B stains (as is the rest of the room).” (p.162)

    Despite Shermer, and his book commissioned by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, denying that AHGCH no. 4 was a homicidal gas chamber, the Majdanek museum continued to claim it was a homicidal gas chamber until 2008-2009, when they eventually dropped the claim that they’d been. making for 63 years by then.

    Comment by The Black Rabbit of Inlé — January 1, 2014 @ 4:26 am

  2. David Cole’s new book Republican Party Animal has been announced as a Spring 2014 release by Feral House/Process media books: Mark Weber has recently stated to various interviewers that he now believes as many as 2,000,000 Jews may have died during WWII without offering any new and conclusive evidence for this. He appears to be following David Irving’s lead in accepting the Hoeffe telegram as genuine. As the sole spokesperson for the IHR (Institute for Historical Review) Weber announced a few years ago that the mission of the “institute” is no longer Holocaust revisionism.

    Comment by who dares wings — December 31, 2013 @ 3:26 pm

    • “The Korherr report together with the Höfle document and other evidence show, however, that of the approximately 1,800,000–1,900,000 Jews who reached the Occupied Eastern Territories in all, some 80% had done so already by mid-December 1942.” – Thomas Kues, p.649

      “Finally, because Korherr’s report is in complete agreement with the Höfle document on the number of Jews “processed through the camps in the General Government area” and transited from there “to the Russian East” until the end of 1942 (1,274,166) and since an analysis of the statistics in the Korherr report allows us to draw the conclusion that the Jews stated therein to have been “evacuated” were indeed evacuated, it follows that the 23,631 stated by the Korherr report to have reached Treblinka, Sobibór and Majdanek during the last two weeks of that year must in fact have reached the “Russian East” as well.” – Thomas Kues, p.739

      Click to access 28-tecoar-long.pdf

      I don’t think any serious person questions the authenticity of the HoefIe telegram and the other intercepted messages which make reference to its figures. The only debate being whether the 1,274,166 mentioned on it were gassed and buried at Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka and Majdanek or shipped off further east.

      Comment by The Black Rabbit of Inlé — January 1, 2014 @ 3:31 am

      • The Black Rabbit of Inle wrote: “I don’t think any serious person questions the authenticity of the HoefIe telegram”

        David Irving does (at least he did in 2003) think that the Hoefle telegram might be a forgery, even he now bases his new exterminationist position nearly entirely on that document.

        In 2003 Irving wrote on his website: “I am worried about that telegram, very worried. You say the possibility of forgery is unthinkable, and I would like to agree, but cannot dismiss it entirely. Some key Holocaust documents are forged, or they were only selectively copied at Nuremberg. This particular item is certainly one of a kind […] I have examined the original decode, as you know, and I spotted at once what other authors did not, or kept quiet about, that it has been inserted in the bound volume at a later date, and its first page accidentally placed at the end – not an easy thing to spot in such a muddled heap of single-spaced decodes typed on rice-paper, but there is no doubt that the “trailing” page 1 is in fact the page 1 that is missing at the front, so to speak. Now, how did that happen, to this of all documents? It is a rare occurrence indeed in these volumes of decodes.” (

        The Guardian made this statement about Irving’s change of mind on the ‘Holocaust’: “[Irving] says that a document, which he is 80% sure is genuine, suggests that 2.4 million Jews were killed in Poland…” (

        But maybe you don’t regard Irving as a serious person…

        Comment by hermie — January 1, 2014 @ 6:01 am

        • On October 5, 2007, Irving wrote on his website: “THIS morning I have read the item in The Forward which their journalist Marissa wrote. She has — they have — their agenda, and they stick to it. She talks of my “turnaround”, although nothing I say now was not in my books since 1977. She omits my warning that although I am eighty percent convinced by the Hermann Höfle document, by my own cursory forensic examination of ink, paper, and typewriter, there is still a twenty percent chance that it is a forgery: the misspelling of Reinhardt (as Reinhart), the wrong math, the possibility that the authors simply worked backwards from a well-known figure (1,274,166) in the Korherr report of April 1943 (right) in order to authenticate it, the unusual lack of any register-number or date for the originating query (“Betr.:…”) , the prominence of the names involved (Eichmann himself), the top state-secret classification GEHEIME REICHSSACHE found only once elsewhere by me so far in the tens of thousands of otherwise overwhelmingly trivial decodes, the five-page document somehow being bound into the archive file out of page-sequence (5, 1, 2, 3, 4): these are just some of the anomalies unique to the Höfle document.” (

          Comment by hermie — January 1, 2014 @ 6:27 am

        • That’s all a bit out of date Hermie, I found this on the same website:

          “MY CONCLUSION is therefore that the intercepted Hermann Höfle signal is an authentic document, and that its content has not been reverse-engineered from the Korherr report; and that it is a pivotal document in the history of where the real Holocaust operations were taking place.”

          If the Höfle is fake then the Bletchley summaries on intercepted German messages received between 21.12.42 – 25.01.43 and between 25.01.43 – 26.02.43 are also fake, as the first quotes the Höfle signal whilst the second refers to the previous summary whilst mentioning a subsequent intercept about a Feldöfen for Einsatz Reinhardt.

          Comment by The Black Rabbit of Inlé — January 1, 2014 @ 10:06 am

          • Thanks for the update.

            Those “evidence” of the authenticity of the Hoefle telegram seem pretty tenuous to me. A few years ago Irving was lured by fake telegrams on Himmler’s death planted in British archives. Hasn’t that mishap demonstrated to him how easy it is to forge evidence, even in official state archives?

            What’s your opinion on that? Don’t you think those intercepts might have been planted there afterwards? As I know you’ve examined British archives, do you think that is possible? Or am I over-cautious and over-skeptical about that?

            Comment by hermie — January 1, 2014 @ 7:48 pm

            • No probs.

              The Höfle signal wasn’t discovered until 2001, four years after the files had become available to the public in the PRO. Apparently U.S. “War Crimes Investigators” were provide with copies of these intercept files as early as the 1980s, and then these copies were made available to the public at the NARA in 1996.

              The discoverer of the Höfle signal (Stephen Tyas) didn’t find the two British summaries which reference it. These, it appears, were discovered in 2002 by none other than Holocaust Controversies’ Dr. Nicholas Terry. Terry presented a paper to a Holocaust-ish conference in Budapest during 2002 in which they were mentioned, and his paper was published in 2004. It’s available online: “Conflicting Signals: British Intelligence on the ‘Final Solution’ through Radio Intercepts and Other Sources, 1941-1942.” It is interesting and certainly worth a read, it’s how I learn of the above.

              So Irving’s article from 2011 that I linked above, contains nothing that Terry hadn’t made public knowledge 9 years earlier.

              As for the chances of someone fiddling with the original file. Well it sounds rather unlikely to me considering that they’d have had to have forged all three documents. I’ll have to find out more about where precisely the HW (intercept) files were prior to them being released: Were they in the PRO but off limits to all, or were they in some secure government storage place?

              Michael Mills points out some very interesting things about the wording of the Höfle signal, which further excludes the possibility of fakery.

              I’ve no doubt there were all types of skullduggery going on among the German-born “Brits” in the war Crimes Unit in terms of tortured ‘confessions,’ encouraging camp survivors to swear to having seen x, y, and at Auschwitz, and even outright forging documents, such as the doctored version of the Franke-Griksch Report. But the thought that some entity could get hold of these to HW files in the 1980s/1990s to insert such clever forgeries is too much.

              Comment by The Black Rabbit of Inlé — January 2, 2014 @ 10:01 am

              • If one can insert one document into archives, one can also insert 3 as easily. The notorious HC forger Nick Terry miraculously finding new documents which strengthen the credibility of the Hoefle telegram seems to good to be true.

                How does Michael Mills’ article exclude the possibility of fakery?

                Comment by hermie — January 8, 2014 @ 7:16 am

  3. Mark Weber is not thought to be Jewish although his sister married an Israeli Jew. It has puzzled me since I was told of it how anyone wouldn’t question the pane glass windowed door for a gas chamber that was claimed to have been used more than once. Wouldn’t the Germans immediately see the idiocy of this if they hadn’t known it from the start for some reason? 😉

    Comment by Paul L. Blake — December 31, 2013 @ 2:54 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: