A new document mentioning "special cellars" (Sonderkeller) in the crematoria 2 and 3 at Birkenau.

At the end of October 1942, the Zentralbauleitung began to consider transfer of the gassing from bunkers 1 and 2 to a room in crematorium.
[...]
It was decided to transform morgue 1 of crematorium II into a gas chamber. One indication that such a decision was taken is a "leak" - that is, any mention in a document (writing, blueprint, photograph) of an abnormal use of the crematoria that could not be explained except by the massive gassing of human beings - that occurred on November 27, when one of Bischoff's assistants, Wolter, called Topf to ask for a master metalworker to install the ventilation systems in the morgues of crematorium II. His colleague Janisch, who was formally in charge of the site, canceled the request. Wolter drew up a note to inform Bischoff what had happened. In this note he designated the corpse cellar in crematorium II as "special cellar" (Sonderkeller). That was not the only slip. Every document in a 120-item inventory of material needed for the completion of Birkenau, undertaken between December 10 and 18, was captioned "Re: Kriegsgefangenenlager Auschwitz (Durchführung der Sonderbehandlung)," or "Concerning: Prisoner-of-War Camp Auschwitz (Carrying Out of Special Treatment)," which referred to the killing operations.

1.) List of the necessary additional structures with corresponding construction volumes.
2.) List of necessary construction materials and barracks.

The first list (necessary additional structures with corresponding construction volumes) is given for the context and can be compared to a later similar list from 28.10.1942 (published by F. Freund, B. Perz, K. Stuhlpfarrer, "Der Bau des Vernichtungslagers Auschwitz-Birkenau", Zeitgeschichte, iss. 5/6, p. 202). The sum of 13,76 million RM presented to Speer was the same but the cost of specific items is different. Interestingly, only 3 crematoria are mentioned.

The second document (list of necessary construction materials and barracks) is the key one. It begins thus:

For the carrying out of special treatment the following additional barracks are necessary.

The list of all the camp barracks follows.

Here a word of caution is necessary, so we will make a small detour. In the official RSHA jargon the word Sonderbehandlung (special treatment) meant exclusively executions (mostly extrajudicial ones), whether by gas, bullets, gallows or other means. However when the term seeped into the other agencies, like WVHA, it sometimes became "generalized". In this particular document it is clearly synonymous with the "Final Solution to the Jewish question", which at that point meant the eventual but not immediate extermination of all European Jews - the element of the Jewish slave labor (and thus temporary survival of a large portion of Jews fit for work - with most Jews permanently unfit for work immediately disposed of) was a very important part of this plan.

Hence this list includes all possible camp barracks, including the hospital barracks and the troops' barracks. Clearly, therefore, in this document the term was not meant to apply to immediate executions but rather to the whole long genocide process, similar to what was described in the Wannsee protocol.

Similar situation obtains for another related document - the cost estimate from 29.10.1942 (in Freund et al., op. cit., p. 207) which mentions two disinfestation installations - one for special treatment (Entwesungsanlage für Sonderbehandlung), the other for the troops. Since, as we know, the first disinfestation installation - later named the Central Sauna - was not intended to be used directly for mass executions (the separately listed crematoria were), clearly the "special treatment" here is meant in the same general sense, including the utilization of the Jewish slave labor and property in the camp. Thus whether the mention of "special treatment" in the series of documents  mentioned by Pressac and van Pelt constituted a massive "slip" is a matter of interpretation - and it is also not clear that both full meanings of the term (the more specific one and the more general one) would have always been readily understood by the people outside of the RSHA and WVHA, like Speer. (Previously we discussed the issue of terminology here and here.)

After the barracks list we see a list of what are called "massive provisional constructions". Among them we see:

- "crematorium I with a special cellar [Sonderkeller]";
- "crematorium II with a special cellar";
- "2 8-muffle incineration ovens".

Interestingly, the crematoria III and IV (IV and V according to the alternative numeration) do not appear explicitly, rather their ovens are summarized in one line. It may be that for whatever reason they were presented here  as one cremation complex (hence there were "3 crematoria" in the previous list). Indeed, the decision to move the 2 8-muffle ovens from Mogilev to Auschwitz had only been taken in the middle of August, and although there are documents confirming the August plans for crematoria IV and V, there might still have been uncertainties at this early stage.

Thus we see that in this document both crematoria I and II (II and III according to the alternative numeration) had one "special cellar" each. I.e. the gas chambers were being planned as early as September 14, 1942, thus moving back the date of the origin of these gas chambers as proposed by Pressac and van Pelt and confirming the dating adopted by Dwork and van Pelt.

3. "Special cellars" and Holocaust denial.

Let us now look at how the Holocaust denier Carlo Mattogno (the only denier to address the previously known Sonderkeller document at some length) interpreted the code word.

In Auschwitz: The End of a Legend (printed, among other places, in G. Rudolf (ed.), Auschwitz Plain Facts. A Response to Jean-Claude Pressac, 2016) he merely notes (ibid., p. 176):

The term “special basement” (Sonderkeller) applied to Morgue 1 (p. 60) matches other similar terms beginning with “special,” which are all linked to the fight against typhus.

In several other works Mattogno devotes whole small sections to the code word. Since he simply copy-pastes this section from book to book, we will work with the one printed in The Real Case for Auschwitz (2015), pp. 80ff.

First of all, Mattogno argues (by citing relevant documents) that albeit the heading of the 28.11.1942 document refers to "crematoria", the content can only refer to one crematorium - II - since only its cellar was at the construction stage advanced enough so that its ceiling would be ready in about a week's time. This is initially plausible.

From this he concludes that the plural "Sonderkeller" in the document must refer to the two mortuary cellars of crematorium II, thus negating the use of the word as a criminal trace:

On the other hand, the basements of Crematorium II for which a “de-aeration system” had been planned were two in number, “Leichenkeller 1” and “Leichenkeller 2.” The former also had a “Belüftungsanlage” (aeration system), the latter only an “Entlüftungsanlage” (deaeration system), which was installed between March 15 and 21, 1943. It is thus clear that the “Sonderkeller(s)” in Wolter’s memo were both “Leichenkeller(s)” of Crematorium II. These half-basement rooms were “Sonder-” precisely because, out of the six rooms which made up the half-basement, they were the only two morgues which had an artificial ventilation. 

However, this does not follow. We have to take the following into consideration: it was a notice about a phone call. This notice was not typed by Wolter himself but rather by someone named L. (this initial appears in the code), probably a secretary. We don't know who L. was, but we know that exactly the section of this document dealing with the special cellar contains a crude grammar mistake (accusative "über die Sonderkeller" instead of the dative "über den Sonderkellern"). (Was L. a native speaker at all?)

We have the following transmission chain: Prüfer and Wolter speak on the phone and then Wolter dictates the notice to L.

Did Wolter misunderstand some of the things Prüfer said? Did Prüfer use the term Sonderkeller properly (only to refer to morgue 1) but Wolter, perhaps not fully familiar with the jargon, indeed used it to refer to both cellars? Was Wolter erroneously thinking, despite Krema III not being ready, of both crematoria as indicated by the heading of the notice? Or did perhaps L. not fully understand what Wolters was telling him or her in regard to the cellar(s) (e.g. due to plural "crematoria" being mentioned in the heading)?

There are too many unknowns to accept Mattogno's interpretation.

Moreover, Mattogno's explanation doesn't make any sense: of course the underground morgues had to be mechanically ventilated. This did not make them in any way special. The ventilation was expected. Mattogno thus cannot plausibly account for the use of "Sonder-".

In any case, whatever interpretational ambiguity introduced by Mattogno's argument is destroyed by the document we have now published: crematoria II and III indeed had only one special cellar each.

That there was only one such cellar in crematorium II was already clear from the 04.11.1942 report Mattogno himself published (see our introduction above), so he tries to explain it away:

It is possible to argue that the “special cellar” was “Leichenkeller 1,” but was its “special” use a criminal one? [...] if the “special cellar” of Crematorium II had been destined to become a homicidal gas chamber modeled upon the alleged one of Crematorium I, ZBL would have planned to fit the openings for the introduction of Zyklon B in the ferroconcrete ceiling of “Leichenkeller 1” already at the stage when the ceiling was laid. However, the ceiling was realized without such openings. [126] Hence, ZBL, having decided to transform “Leichenkeller 1” into a homicidal gas chamber at a time when only the water-proof floor had been poured in this room, had covered it with a ceiling devoid of openings – essential elements for a homicidal gas chamber using Zyklon B – only to allegedly open up later, with hammer and chisel, four openings for Zyklon B in this concrete slab 18 cm thick! Unfortunately for Pressac, the ZBL engineers were not that stupid. [...] Hence, the term “Sonderkeller” (special cellar) can easily be explained by the fact that “Leichenkeller 1,” being equipped, as it was, with an aeration/de-aeration system, was probably planned – as Pressac himself hypothesizes – “to take corpses several days old, beginning to decompose,” and therefore the room had to be well ventilated".
[126] This can be seen on a photo of the “Kamann” series taken in January 1943 which shows the outside of “Leichenkeller 1” of Crematorium II. APMO, negative no. 20995/506. Cf. Pressac 1989, p. 335.

It is not clear how he arrives at this conclusion. Only the absence of the introduction chimneys is clear from the photo, the photo tells us nothing about the openings (the angle does not allow for any conclusions about the presence or absence of any openings, and even a photo taken at another angle would not necessarily be conclusive one way or another, since the holes could have been covered by some material to reduce the snow accumulation inside the cellar).

We do know that the introduction holes were made during the construction of the ceiling (see D. Keren, J. McCarthy, H. Mazal, "The Ruins of the Gas Chambers: A Forensic Investigation of Crematoriums at Auschwitz I and Auschwitz-Birkenau", Holocaust and Genocide Studies, 2004, vol. 18, issue 1, p. 75).

The roof's lower portion was a thick layer of concrete, over which was laid waterproofing tar paper, and which was finally topped with a thin upper layer of sand-concrete. For the middle layer, brushing tar over the tar paper was necessary to ensure waterproofing. Of the original concrete edge of the hole only a few centimeters of the intact lower layer remain, in one corner, but a careful examination of that location reveals two clear drip marks where tar was brushed over the edge (Figure 11b, right). This demonstrates that the hole in the concrete was already there during the waterproofing step, while the roof was still being constructed.

As a side note, Mattogno ignored this evidence in his attempted response to Keren et al.

Mattogno thus constructed a silly strawman argument and his argument crumbles with it.

And note how Mattogno's explanations opportunistically change from document to document. In one case he thinks all ventilated cellars could be named "special cellars", in the other case he wants only one type of a ventilated cellar (with exhaust and supply ventilation) to be designated as such. One wonders how, with such a plethora of alleged meanings, the Central Construction Office would have been able to recognize what cellar was being referred to.

Mattogno's attempt to claim that Sonderkeller was merely a reference to a cellar with supply and exhaust ventilation for heavily decomposed corpses is also not plausible: not only there had been a ready designation for this cellar (B-Keller) and thus no need for terms emphasizing the supposed "specialness", the emphasis on the "special cellars" in the otherwise brief newly published document*** is most plausibly explained by their new function as gas chambers (which is also confirmed by later documents).

---

Endnotes:

* We will not seriously consider Michael Thad Allen's unconvincing thesis that the morgues of the crematoria II and III were planned as gas chambers from the very beginning (M. Allen, "The Devil in the Details: The Gas Chambers of Birkenau, October 1941", Holocaust and Genocide Studies, 2002, vol. 16, issue 2, pp, 189–216). It can't plausibly explain why the exhaust vents in the chambers were placed below if the gas chambers were planned in the morgues from the start - this is counterproductive to gassings (corpses in the chamber are likely to obstruct the vents; HCN is lighter than air and with mass gassings most of it would have been concentrated in the upper half of the chamber anyway - so the actual suboptimal arrangement of the vents - the supply air above, the exhaust air below, can only be plausibly explained by a last-minute change of plans from a normal morgue to a gas chamber with a minimal re-planning effort). Allen's attempt to argue by analogy with the Alt-Drewitz delousing installation (a poor argument on its own, since the "logic" of a delousing gas chamber is not automatically transferable to a homicidal gas chamber due to presence of the victims) fails due to a confusion of this hot-air delousing chamber with a Zyklon B one, which it was not; placement of the ducts in the walls doesn't establish any sort of a criminal trace, since the ducts could have been placed at any height in a homicidal gas chamber, far away from the reach of the victims, so the wall placement was not a necessity; it was however a natural solution for a semi-basement morgue (where cold foul air optimally has to be exhausted from below and the ducts obviously would not have been placed on the floor inside the morgue since they would have taken away valuable storage area and would have been easily damageable); Allen's thesis does not account for the progressive changes in the "homicidal" direction pointed out by Pressac and van Pelt; Allen appeals to some defensive testimonies of the perpetrators during trials but ignores the testimony of Rudolf Höß, who claimed that the crematoria plans were changed to include the gas chambers (protocol of interrogation from 01.04.1946, p. 27); the thesis is not supported by any documents and while one might find an ad hoc explanation for why the Nazis would have needed a huge gas chamber in Auschwitz in October 1941 (e.g. for POWs), the existence of this gas chamber isn't organically necessitated by any events or policies at the time.

** To our knowledge it was first cited by the Holocaust denier Carlo Mattogno.