Irving v. Lipstadt


Holocaust Denial on Trial, Statement of Mark David Bateman: Electronic Edition, by Mark David Bateman

Table of Contents
<< CQ >>

D. Ventilation system

  • Rudolf pages 27-29
  • Van Pelt pages 52-57
  • Green pages 5-14
  • Judgment 7 62
  • Libson paragraphs 18-20
  • Bateman paragraphs 30-32
Holocaust deniers have long argued that the gas chambers could not have operated as homicidal gas chambers, relying on "facts" about ventilation. The argument can be traced back to Faurisson in 1979 (see Van Pelt page 52). Formerly, they argued that there was no ventilation system at all (there was); that disproved, the argument became that the ventilation system was inadequate.
Green confirms that Rudolf's arguments are not new and that they do not support the case that the relevant rooms could not have operated as homicidal gas chambers. The fact that the ventilation system could have been operated in a way suitable for a morgue is inconsequential, since it does not mean that it cannot have been used as a homicidal gas chamber. The capacity of the ventilation system was adequate for operation in a homicidal gas chamber, as Green explains.
In persisting with the argument that morgue I of crematorium II could not have been used as a homicidal gas chamber, Rudolf ignores evidence which conflicts with his argument, including: the existence and type of spy-hole in the door, the wire-mesh introduction devices, the four wooden covers, eye-witness evidence, and aerial photographs (see Van Pelt pages 55-56). As noted above, Rudolf does not mention the four wire mesh introduction devices or the wooden covers, although they are listed in the inventory on which he relies
<< CQ >>