Rebuttal of Mattogno on Auschwitz, Part 2: Gas Introduction at the Crematoria

Rebuttal of Mattogno on Auschwitz:

Part 1: Indoor Cremation

Part 2: Gas Introduction at the Crematoria
Part 3: Eyewitnesses (Supplement)

Part 4: Sonderkommando Handwritings 

Part 5: Construction Documents:

A: Introduction
B: Ventilation & Elevators
C: Undressing Rooms
D: Outwards Opening Door & Removal of Corpse Chute 

E: Gas Detectors

F: Cremation with Simultaneous Special Treatment

G: Gas Chambers

For conventional delousing practise of housings in Auschwitz, the SS paramedics could enter the room to be deloused, open the Zyklon-B can(s) and leave again through the door. The same procedure was not possible for the killing of people as the victims were locked into rooms behind strong wooden gas-tight doors (the first experimental homicidal gassings in Block 11 in the Auschwitz main camp, where the victims were locked behind prisons bars, are an exception to this, but this technique was less efficient/more challenging to camouflage). Instead, the hydrogen cyanide soaked pellets had to be introduced from the outside. The actual method was depending on the structural design of the buildings, which housed the gas chambers. At crematorium 1 in the Auschwitz main camp and at crematoria 2 and 3 in Auschwitz-Birkenau holes were drilled or poured respectively into the flat roofs of the homicidal gas chambers and closed with covers. At Bunker 1 and 2 and crematoria 4 and 5 in Birkenau with their pitched roofs, the gas was introduced via windows in the walls that were closed with gas-tight shutters.

The supposed lack of evidence for gas introduction openings in the roofs of homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz has been a significant argument for Revisionists in the past: from the veteran Revisionist Robert Faurisson (“no holes, no Holocaust”) to Germar Rudolf (Rudolf Report), Brian Renk (Convergence or Divergence?) and Carlo Mattogno (No holes, no gas chambers, Auschwitz Lies, Auschwitz: Crematorium I , Auschwitz: The Case for Sanity ). I already dealt with the gas introduction openings of crematoria 2 and 3 elsewhere in detail. This will be a condensed and polished treatment of the matter. Two new pieces of evidence (German contemporary documents and the 23 August 1944 RAF aerial photograph) are also included. In the second and third part, the gas introduction at crematoria 4 and 5 and the gas openings of crematorium 1 in the main camp are discussed with a focus on Mattogno’s arguments.

Gas Openings at Crematoria 2 and 3 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

In contrary to what Mattogno claims in his book Auschwitz: the Case for Sanity, the body of evidence for gas openings at crematoria 2 and 3 consists of an actually converging and convincing set of testimonial, documentary, photographic and archaeological evidence.

Testimonial evidence 

There is an overwhelming number of at least 28 testimonies from former SS personnel, former prisoners and a civilian that the gas pellets were introduced through openings in the roof. Among these are for example the writing of the former Sonderkommando prisoner Salmen Lewenthal buried in 1944 at the extermination site (only discovered in 1962), the report of two escaped Russian POWs from 1944, the testimony of the former Sonderkommando prisoner Henryk Tauber in February 1945 in Poland, the drawings of the former Auschwitz prisoner Yehuda Bacon made in June 1945 in Austria, the testimony of the former camp leader of Auschwitz Hans Aumeier in July 1945 in Norway (British interrogation), the testimony of the former prisoner’s doctor Miklos Nyiszli in July 1945 in Budapest, the drawings of the former Sonderkommando prisoner David Olere in 1945 in France, the testimony of the Civilian engineer Karl Schultze in March 1946 in Erfurt (Soviet interrogation), the testimony of the former Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höß in April 1946 in Nuremberg (US interrogation), the testimony of the former SS officer Josef Erber towards the historian Gerald Fleming in 1981 and the testimony of the former SS doctor Hans Münch towards the Revisionist Germar Rudolf in 1994. 

Many of the testimonies, especially the early ones, were clearly made independent of each other. This is immediately obvious for Lewenthal’s writing, but it is also true for the testimony of Henryk Tauber, Miklos Nyiszli, Yehuda Bacon, David Olere (all 1945, Nyiszli on gas columns in March 1946) and Rudolf Höß (April 1946). These testimonies originated from different places (Poland, Hungary, Austria, France, Germany) and circumstances (Soviet interrogation, Hungarian examination, Bacon and Olere on their own, US interrogation). Furthermore, the testimonies are too different for having been scripted by any conspiracy (let aside there is not the slightest evidence for such), yet they are too detailed and consistent for mere rumour propagation. It can also be safely excluded that the testimonies were scripted by the War Refugee Board Report (authored by several Auschwitz escapees and released in November 1944), since precisely the insider knowledge of the gas shafts going down the basement described in these accounts was not known to the escaped prisoners Alfred Wetzler and Rudolf Vrba, who were never inside the crematoria themselves. Neither was the information included and spread by the Soviet report on crimes in Auschwitz (USSR-008) and the Soviet film footage from Auschwitz shown at Allied trials. The testimonies are independently corroborating and therefore most powerful evidence. 

A closer analysis of the testimonies shows that most likely the number of openings amounts to four, small chimneys were constructed around them and wire mesh shafts lead down into the gas chamber. Each of these details is further independently corroborated by documentary or photographic evidence: 

Documentary evidence

The transfer inventory for crematorium 2 of 31 March 1943 lists “4 wire mesh slide-in devices” for the undressing room (Leichenkeller 2). In the absence of any evidence that the devices were anything else, they are most probably related to the wire mesh gas columns described the numerous witnesses for the gas chamber. The false assignment to the undressing room can be easily explained: the author of the document also switched the previous entry between the undressing room (Leichenkeller 2) and the gas chamber (Leichenkeller 1).

While going through Mattogno’s Auschwitz: The Case for Sanity (ATCFS) again for this series of blog postings, I’ve noticed that Mattogno did find some more German documents on the wire mesh shafts (Mattogno, ATCFS, p. 134 f.). Since 11 March 1943, the construction office ordered “4 pieces complete devices” each consisting of a “suspension device”, an “angle iron guide” and a “framework of gauge rail spanned around with wire-mesh” for crematorium 2. The same device was also ordered for crematorium 3 on 10 April 1943 (the number of wire mesh parts is not mentioned in the order for crematorium 3, cf. Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz: La Falsa "Convergenza die Prove" di Robert Jan Van Pelt, but the other two parts were ordered four times). 

The “framework of gauge rail spanned around with wire-mesh” is in excellent agreement with the descriptions of the wire mesh gas shafts described by numerous witnesses for the gas chambers of crematoria 2 and 3. It should be emphasised that there is no evidence (let it be testimonial, documentary, photographic or archaeological) that these devices were something else than the gas introduction columns. The “suspension device” and the “angle iron guide” were probably used to mount the wire mesh gas column. According to these documents, the person in charge of their fabrication in the prisoner's metal workshop was the (Czech?) prisoner Mirek Dyntar. He was obviously helped by the Polish prisoner Michal Kula, who gave the most detailed description of the device after the war.

Ground photographic evidence 

A ground photograph taken by the SS in February 1943 is showing three cuboids on the roof of the homicidal gas chamber of crematorium 2. According to testimonial evidence (corroborated by German documents, see above), there were four gas introduction ports in crematorium 2. The missing gas port is most probably covered behind the smoke stack of the little train, as can be verified by modelling the chimneys based on archaeological evidence (see below) and the assumption the gas openings were homogeneously distributed on the roof (Mazal et al.’s model, my own is here)

Aerial photographic evidence

The aerial photographs taken by the German Luftwaffe, the US Air Force and the British Royal Air Force show four dark spots as well as an interconnecting path on the roof of the gas chamber of crematorium 2 (see here, the RAF photograph of 23 August 1944 is shown here). These features are entirely lacking on the undressing basement and are strong evidence for activity at four sites on the gas chamber’s roof. In fact, the dark spots are located approximately, at or around where the SS ground photographs and the archaeological evidence (see below) indicate the location of the gas ports. Hence, given the absence of evidence for any other activity on the roof, the spots and the path (from, e.g. dirt, compacted earth/grass, emerging bitumen isolation) were most likely the results of  SS paramedics and officers walking around the gas chimneys and from gas chimney to chimney. 

The roof of the gas chamber of crematorium 3 shows additional blotches in the north-west and south-east corners on the aerial photos. However, examining the somewhat enhanced and more precise images of August 1944 photos allows discriminating between four strong spots homogeneously distributed on the roof (in accordance with the eyewitness accounts reporting four gas introduction ports), while the other discolourations are less pronounced. 

A powerful corroboration can be drawn between a drawing of David Olere made in 1945 and the aerial photographs. Olere pictured the four gas openings as west-east alternating (starting west for the south most opening), which is precisely how aerial photographs (published more than 30 years later) show the pattern of the most pronounced spots on the roof. Mattogno merely says the spots are "black bitumen which was shielded from the atmosphere by a thin layer of cement which probably later crumbled in certain areas" (p. 494), which is good to know but explains nothing. He does neither explain the activity on the basement's roof of crematorium 3 (or 2) [or does he think that cement is crumbling spontaneously?] nor how Olere (or Bacon or Tauber) were able to describe it in agreement with photographic evidence unknown at the time. 

Think about the meaning of the term corroboration [from Latin corroboratio = strengthen, support], Carlo. I make it simple for you:  (no) spots on the gas chamber's roof that are in accordance with how eyewitnesses described the arrangement of the gas ports = (no) corroboration. We have the spots, ergo corroboration => you are busted.

Archaeological evidence

The substantial independent corroboration between the testimonial evidence as well between testimonial evidence and documentary and photographic evidence is a nightmare for anyone not believing in the homicidal gassings in Auschwitz. As if this body evidence were not already striking enough, the story of the gas openings is further corroborated and completed by archaeological evidence. 

 

In the late 90s of the last century, Harry Mazal, Daniel Keren and Jamie McCarthy investigated the ruin of the gas chamber of crematorium 2 and found three suitable candidates for gas openings in collapses roof of crematorium 2 (see their paper The Ruins of the Gas Chambers: A Forensic Investigation of Crematoriums at Auschwitz I and Auschwitz-Birkenau). The location of the three openings in the ruin, as well as the projected location of the forth still missing opening, is shown here. A close-up of opening number 1 (counting from the south) is shown here, opening number 2 here and opening number 4 here. Opening number 3 has not been identified so far, requires further on-site investigations and is supposed to be in a “badly damaged area and covered with rubble” according to Mazal et al. As already pointed out, the location of the three identified openings matches the place of the cuboids on the SS ground photograph of February 1943 as well as approximately the spots on the aerial photographs of 1944. 

Mattogno claims that “earlier I have demonstrated in detail that this [opening number 1] is not an original opening but one made by the Soviets and the Poles in 1945 to gain access to the cellar” (Mattogno, ATCFS, p. 482). However, he merely offers the hand-waving argument that the hole was not mentioned by Roman Dawidowski in his expert report of September 1945. But for all we know, Dawidowski might have not recognised the hole as gas opening precisely because it was so heavily destroyed. Not only is there no evidence that the hole was made after the war by the Soviets or the Poles, but Mazal et al. also pointed out that there are solidified black drops at an edge of the hole, which supports that the opening was initially made in 1943 prior the roof was isolated (and there is no indication that bitumen used for the isolation of the roof started flowing in the ruin after the war). This argument has been ever since ignored by Mattogno. 

On opening number 2, Mattogno claims that it is “a simple crack caused by the impact of that part of the ceiling on pillar no. 6” (Mattogno, ATCFS, p. 483), but there is nothing that demonstrates it is only a crack (i.e. that the opposite sides of this crack fit together without leaving space for a gas introduction hole). While a support pillar might have very well destroyed the area, this does not contradict that there was a gas opening there in the first place. According to Mazal et al., the hole exhibits “clean-cut rebar, short but apparently manufactured straight edges of concrete that meet at a 90-degree angle, rebar bent inwards at the edges, and most notably the absence of rebar in its open area”, which cannot be the result of a "simple crack". While such bending and cutting of rebars and straighten of the edges could have been done after the war, such manipulation is rather unlikely and implausible in this specific case, since a more obvious hole (which was not a gas opening) was left with its rebar sticking out, while opening number 2 is rather is much less likely identified as a possible gas opening at first sight because of its massive destruction.

Mattogno argues on opening 4 that it was “obviously caused by the ceiling crashing onto this pillar” (Mattogno, ATCFS, p. 484 f.) but as with opening number 2, it might be as well a gas opening crushed by a pillar. As long as their is no evidence which rules out that it was a former gas opening, Mazal et al.'s finding that the hole corresponds to the approximate location of the little chimney on the SS ground photograph, and the numerous independent corroborating testimonial evidence is sufficient evidence to conclude that it is likely a former gas introduction opening, even it was destroyed upon dismantling of the basement (recall the meaning of "corroboration"). Moreover, Mattogno is absolutely silent on Mazal et al.’s observation that bent rebar is “firmly embedded in a large chunk of concrete to the east of the hole, contradicting any claim of tampering after the war”. Note that this is the second time Mattogno has entirely ignored a crucial argument and smoking gun in his treatment of Mazal et al.That's not sloppy anymore IMHO.

  

Gas Openings at Crematoria 4 and 5 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

The process of gas introduction has been described by fewer witnesses for crematoria 4 and 5 than for crematoria 2 and 3 (among those are Henryk Tauber, Shlomo Dragon, Henryk Mandelbaum, Eliezer Eisenschmidt, Filip Müller and Kitty Hart-Moron - this is not to be confused with the much larger number of witnesses who testified about homicidal gassings at these sites). Zyklon-B was poured into the gas chambers through little windows with wooden shutters in the walls (as was already the case for Bunker 1 and 2). According to Shlomo Dragon (10 May 1945), the SS man was standing on a little ladder to pour the gas through the windows. It should be noted that a tall SS-man could have performed the exercise even without a ladder since the handles of the windows were at the height of about 1.9 m.

The little openings 30 x 40 cm in the walls of the gassing tracts of crematoria 4 and 5 are shown on a construction drawing of 11 January 1943. The construction office Auschwitz ordered "12 pieces gas-tight doors [sic] about 30 x 40 cm" for crematoria 4 and 5 on 13 February 1943. These gas tight windows were fitted for crematorium 4 on 28 February 1943. The gas-tight windows were further protected from the inside (since the shutters opened outside) by "12 pcs. window grids 50×70 cm" ordered on 27 April 1943 (Pressac, Technique, p. 441, translation from Mattogno, ATCFS, p. 69). The protection of the windows was already described by the former Sonderkommando prisoner Henryk Tauber in May 1945:

"All had gas tight doors, and also windows that had bars on the inside and were closed by gas tight shutters on the outside."

(Pressac, Technique, p. 498)

The number of six gas tight windows for each crematorium (plus the number of four gas tight doors for crematorium 4) suggests that the two big rooms in the western tract of the buildings with their low ceiling were intended for homicidal gassing in the construction phase, but not the smaller corridor. But as eyewitnesses like Pery Broad and Henryk Tauber have testified to three or four gas chambers per crematoria, the number was probably increased later on by installing gas tight doors and windows also in the corridor and/or by subdivision of gas chambers. Pressac believed that an outside door was added to the passage to speed up the ventilation of the gassing tract and claims to have spotted the extra door on contemporary German photographs of crematora 4 (from the Auschwitz album) and 5 (from the Bauleitung album). I'm unable to confirm this based on the photos he published. Mattogno was pretty sloppy when reading Pressac's Technique on the issue of the extra outside doors. He understood that Pressac was only referring to crematorium 5 and the Bauleitung photograph, and then falsely "corrects" Pressac's dating of the Auschwitz Album photo of crematorium 4 from "May or June 1944" to "actually in April 1943" (Mattogno, ATCFS, p. 166).

According to Mattogno, the "homicidal gassing system by way of the windows, as described by Pressac, was technically impossible" at crematoria 4 and 5 (ATCFS, p. 170), because the victims could "keep him [the SS man] from pouring in the contents of his can of Zyklon...by simply raising their hands" (ATCFS, p.169, I've reversed the order of the snippets for linguistic reasons) and because the windows "were barred...even two simple cross-bars would have been enough to prevent any introduction of Zyklon B" (ATCFS, p. 170). Mattogno based his argument on the assumption that the frame of the windows measured 30 x 40 cm. However, there is still some uncertainity with regards to the size of the gas tight windows. Although the construction documents identify them as 30 x 40 cm, the actual gas tight windows still preserved at the Auschwitz State Museum show shutters ranging from 30 x 40 cm to 43 x 52 cm, and thus with even larger frames. Unless it can be confirmed these shutters were found at the ruins of crematoria 4 and 5, they could also stem from Bunker gas chambers. But the relatively large size of the "12 pcs. window grids 50×70 cm" supports that the gas introduction windows were larger than the 30 x 40 cm frame size assumed by Mattogno. In fact, Mattogno himself pointed out that "[t]he dimensions 50×70 cm probably corresponded to later variations in the design of the walls" (ATCFS, p. 170). But then it was pointless from him to discuss the available space for introducing Zyklon-B based on windows frames of 30 x 40, if it is possible/likely that these were not the actual dimensions during the operation of the chamber anyway.

He says the windows grids "prevent[ed] any introduction of Zyklon B" (ATCFS, p. 170). But the order for the window grids does not specify how the grids looked like and how they were mounted in the gas chamber. So these details have to be derived and assumed, so they fit other evidence. Precisely because the victims could reach the little windows, it is reasonable to think that the window grid was meant to protect the opening from the hands of victims, i.e. it was bent or protruding towards the inside. This interpretation of the window grids follows from the strong evidence that homicidal gassings were carried at these sites (numerous testimonial evidence corroborated by documentary and photographic evidence). On the other hand, Mattogno's interpretation that the grids were simply straight bars is not supported by anything other than his wishfull thinking that there had been no homicidal gassings in Auschwitz.

Gas Openings at Crematorium 1 in Auschwitz Main Camp

Before the crematoria in Birkenau became operative, some homicidal gassings were also carried out in the crematorium in the Auschwitz main camp. The gas was introduced into the gas chamber through holes in its flat roof, but there were no wire mesh gas shafts as later in crematoria 2 and 3 in Birkenau. The operation of the gas chamber from openings in the roof was described by the SS men Rudolf Höß, Hans Aumeier, Maximilian Grabner, Pery Broad, Hans Stark, Richard Böck, Martin Wilks and the prisoners Ignacy Golik, Hermann Langbein, Karl Lill, Zdzislaw Mikolajski, Edward Pys, Jan Sikorski, Czeslaw Sulkowski and Stanislaw Jankowski (see here).

The actual number of openings is known less conclusive than for crematoria 2 and 3 in Birkenau. Although Pery Broad was generally a reliable witness, his figure of six holes for a gas chamber much smaller than that of crematoria 2 and 3 can be discarded as exaggerated. The number is also confirmed in Filip Müller’s book Sonderbehandlung, but a text comparison suggests that exactly this passage was strongly influenced by the Broad report and that Müller (or his ghost writer) has adapted the figure from this source, which loosens the corroboration.

According to Hans Stark and Stanislaw Jankowski, there were two openings in the roof. Hans Aumeier stated there were two or three. In contrast to the two Polish witnesses from the SS sickbay, Stark, Aumeier and Jankowski were in an excellent position to know about the actual number of openings in the roof the gas chamber. Stark actually operated the gas chamber, Aumeier was in charge of the gassing procedure, and Jankowski worked inside the crematorium. Accordingly, the most likely number of gas openings in the roof of the gas chamber is 2-3. 

It is essential to point out that Jankowski and Aumeier have testified independently from each other. Jankowski testified in April 1945 towards Polish investigators. Aumeier was captured and interrogated by the British more than 1500 km aways in Norway in July 1945. There is no evidence (or reason to begin with) that the British and Aumeier were aware of Jankowski's deposition and actual sources that may have been known to British investigators such as the War Refugee Board report were not on gassings in the crematorium in the main camp (let aside on openings in its roof).

The crematorium building in the Auschwitz main camp was not demolished by the Germans (unlike crematoria 2 and 3) and remained intact. The mass murder had been shifted from the main camp to Auschwitz-Birkenau since 1943, and the building was converted into an air-raid shelter for the SS sickbay in late 1944. After the war, the Poles tried to reverse the conversion and reconstructed the crematorium and attached gas chamber. This reconstruction included the installation of four gas introduction ports in the flat roof of the gas chamber tract. According to the former prisoner Adam Zlobnicki on 18 November 1981: 

 “I remember perfectly well that the openings for the introduction of Zyklon B, which were located on the flat roof of this crematorium, were also remade. The reconstruction was made easier by the fact that at the locations of the former insertion openings there remained clear traces after the sealing of the former openings with cement. At these very points, the openings were re-established and the little chimneys were raised. This work, too, was done in 1946–1947.”

 (Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz: Crematorium I [abbreviated as ACI] p. 91)

In Mattogno’s opinion, these “four openings now on the roof of the morgue are not original” (ACI, p. 96), i.e. the Poles did not reopen previously existing holes but instead created new ones. He argues that a) the closure of the holes is not mentioned in the German files on the conversion of the crematorium to an air raid shelter and b) the actual location of “[t]he openings created by the Poles make sense, geometrically speaking, only in the context of the present state of the morgue but are totally asymmetric and irrational when seen in the context of its original state” (ACI, p. 97). 

The first argument assumes that the closure of the gas openings would have been mentioned in the available files of the central construction office (actually, the letter explaining the modifications to be carried out for the conversion mentions the task “renovation of the roof” (ACI, p. 14); this description may very well include the closure of any holes in the roof), but which is unfounded. First of all, the walling up of the door leading from the vestibule to the washing room (compare the drawing of the crematorium from April 1942 with the drawing of the air-raid shelter from September 1944, see Mattogno, ACI, p. 105 and 106) is not mentioned either in the above-cited letter. Secondly, the walling up of the door leading from the furnace room to the gas chamber is apparently also not mentioned in the files, since Mattogno merely notes that “at some point in 1944” the Germans were “walling up the door” (p. 90). Since the existing documentation from the construction office Auschwitz is clearly unreliable on the walling of the doors in the crematorium, there is no reason to assume that it was reliable on the closure of openings in its roof. 

The second argument assumes that the “original state” of the crematorium in 1942 is correctly presented by the drawing of April 1942 of the crematorium. But if this drawing is unreliable, say if the clerk simply copied the tract with the gas chamber from an earlier drawing from 1941 (which is an easy assumption compared to that numerous testimonial evidence is false), then this is already sufficient for his flimsy argument to collapse entirely.

Moreover, the argument does not take into account the possibility that the gas openings were indeed closed by the Germans but that the Poles have reopened not only gas openings but also ventilation ducts or missed acual gas openings. In other words, just because the Poles may have been confused about what sealed openings in the roof were meant for gassing, it does not show or even indicate there were no sealed gas openings to begin with. The gas openings made by the Germans did not even have to be square as assumed by the Poles but may have been very well round. Some sealed openings remained in the ceiling and can be still observed today. It is of course also possible that the Poles have really created the four openings they have assigned for gassing (in contrast to Zlobnicki's account, according to Mattogno they also created a new door instead of reopening the sealed one) and that the actual gas openings during the war are to be found among the holes still sealed in the roof (and used for ventilation in 1944; note that the actual gas openings may have been sealed already in 1943 when the crematorium was shut down and reopened as ventilation openings in 1944 by the Germans) or that they only reopened some real gas openings and created the rest themselves, for whatever reason.

As mentioned above, the published testimonial evidence suggests that there were only 2-3 openings for homicidal gassings. But IMHO the available evidence is not conclusive yet to settle this number issue. Even if further research may be required to determine the exact number and location of the gas openings, what is essential (and the big problem for Revisionists) is that there are certainly enough candidates of former gas openings in the roof to conclude that homicidal gassing described by numerous eyewitnesses was possible in the room. 

Conclusion

Mattogno utterly failed to demonstrate that gas introduction was not possible at either crematorium 1, crematoria 2 & 3 and crematoria 4 & 5. There is no proof or technically, documentary, photographic or historical reason that these sites could not have been used by the Germans to gas people by pouring in poison gas from the roof or from gas-tight windows in the walls. The corresponding openings were existing or possibly existing already according to documentary and archaeological evidence.

Moreover, the evidence that there were openings for gas introduction at the crematoria of Auschwitz is most potent. Aside from numerous eyewitness accounts (including clearly independent testimonies), there is strong corroboration from documentary (crematoria 2 - 5), photographic (crematoria 2 & 3) and archaeological evidence (crematorium 2).

Instead of actually delivering a sound and reasonable dissection and refutation of the body of evidence, Mattogno has limited himself to hand waving arguments, assumptions not justified by something outside his disbelief in homicidal gassings and ignoring any corroboration between the evidence.

_____________________________________________________________
Changelog:
26 November 2014: added Dyntar and Kula, reworked paragraph on sealed holes re: crematorium 1.
2 February 2015: linguistic changes. 
15 March 2015: corrected that the order for the windows grids for crematorium 4 & 5 was already cited by Pressac (1989).