The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/a/abels.nele/vergasungskeller-essay

               Is a "Vergasungskeller" a "Gas Shelter"?
        A Linguistic Rebuttal of A. R. Butz' _Vergasungskeller_

                              by Nele Abels

   In a recent article by Arthur R. Butz[1], once again the document
comes under discussion, which was put forward as a piece of evidence
under the reference number 4473-NO in the Nuremberg trials[2] This 
letter was sent from the chief of the Auschwitz construction department,
Hauptsturmführer Karl Bischoff[3], to his supervisor in Berlin, 
SS-Brigadeführer Dr. Ing. Hans Kammler and was dated the 29. January 
1943. In this letter Bischoff writes that the construction department
has problems with the cold weather and will therefore not be able to 
finish timely the concrete works to be done in the morgue. But this 
would be of no great harm, since the corpses could also be stored 
in the "Vergasungskeller". 

   This term is quite incriminating for the purposes of holocaust
deniers (Butz speaks of an "outstanding small problem") since there is no 
doubt that "vergasen" can mean "to kill with gas". The other meaning of
"vergasen" is "to carburet" or "to gasify". Therefore, the only way for
Holocaust deniers to escape admitting the killings with gas in Auschwitz
is therefore to interpret "Vergasungskeller" in the second sense. Butz 
gives in his article a brief history of such "revisionist" attempts:

   In _The Hoax of the Twentieth Century_, 1976, Butz put forward the
thesis that the "Vergasungskeller" was used to create a combustible
gas for the crematorium ovens, but admits himself that his theory could 
not be defended. In 1989, Robert Faurisson offered the idea that the 
cellar was a storage area for fumigation supplies. In 1992 Butz came 
forward with two new theories. First he pointed out "that there were many 
ways 'Vergasung' can come up in a sewage treatment technology" and thus
concluded that the "Vergasungskeller" may have something to do with
the sewage treatment plant in the camp. Even stranger is his second
theory that the "Vergasungskeller" was a "facility for generating fuel
gas for the camp" which he deemed more plausible nethertheless.

   In _Vergasungskeller_ Butz offers now a new explanation for the 
allegedly mysterious "Vergasungskeller", without giving reason why his 
other theories are implausible, by the way. He points out that after the 
first world war, the danger of gas attacks has been taken seriously and 
therefore shelters against chemical warfare were being developed. Such 
shelters had to fulfil certain requirements which could not be found 
everythere. Thus, they had preferably to be located under ground. Butz 
argues that the crematorium in Auschwitz would be an ideal location for 
such a shelter because if offered cellars but was only one storage high, 
so that after a bomb attack, the rubble of the collapsed building would 
not block the exit of the shelter. Therefore the "Vergasungskeller" 
mentioned in the letter was in fact a "gas shelter".

   The central passage of Butz' argumentation is of great importance 
and is therefore quoted here entirely:

    I have never seen the word "Vergasungskeller" in a lexicon; indeed I
    have seen it only in discussions of NO-4473! However I have seen 
    two German-Russian dictionaries, one a military dictionary, that say
    "Gaskeller" means "gas shelter". However we should not consider
    ourselves bound to dictionaries on this. If one asks the question:
    In a World War II military context, what might "Vergasungskeller" 
    and/or "Gaskeller" mean?, I think that "gas shelter" is the answer 
    that comes naturally to mind, and that other meanings are somewhat
    strained. Of course other meanings come naturally to mind in 
    non-military contexts.

   It should be noticed that apart from free-wheeling speculations about
the existence of gas shelters in concentration camps (despite of his
impressive list of footnotes which make out one quarter of the article,
Butz fails to offer evidence for such shelters in Auschwitz and in other 
camps, which would be after all the central point of his argument) the 
only support for his interpretation is that two dictionaries mention 
"Gaskeller" as translation for "gas shelter". Very strangely for 
an experienced author and academic he goes on without much consideration 
and identifies two very different words as synonyms.  "Vergasungskeller" 
is  "Gaskeller", therefore "Vergasungskeller" is "gas shelter". 
Full stop. No evidence needed.

   Unfortunately, it is not that simple. A "Gaskeller" may be a
"Vergasungskeller". A "Gaskeller" may also be a "Gasschutzkeller" 
(the German word for "gas shelter"). But a "Vergasungskeller" may never
be a "Gasschutzkeller". On the first sight, this looks like a paradoxon
and therefore some elaboration on the German word formation system is 

   Only a minor part of the German words are simplicia, e.g. words which
are "undividable". The major part of the German words are compounds, formed
in one or the other way. This is one of the marking features of the
German language. Because it is possible to form "new" words on the spot
- which are nethertheless perfectly understandable to a speaker of German -
most words will not appear in dictionaries. One third of the words used in
an average newspaper article cannot by found in a dictionary.[4] In the
case of rarely used technical terms, this quota is of course much higher,
which means that it is hardly surprising that Butz has not been able to
trace "Vergasungskeller" in a dictionary. Dictionaries can do little more
than to give the parts of the language which the user has to put together
with the background of his own knowledge in order to achieve the desired 
result. The foreword of the Wahrig dictionary puts it this way:

    The word epxlanations have therefore always the sense to give the
    user a help which allows him to use language elements already known
    by him to deduce other, unknown ones. Their sense is not, as it was
    mentioned above, to give scientifically and logically sound definitions.
    This would be the task of the specific scientific branches.[5]
   Therefore Butz' complaints that the Wahrig dictionary does not mention
the use of "Gaskammern" in the fumigation field is completely unjustified.
In nowadays German language, the meaning of "Gaskammer" is first and
foremost connected to the national socialist extermination camps. 
This has nothing to do with Orwell or "politicized" dictionaries. Holocaust
deniers may like it or not, but very few native speakers of German
would be aware that "Gaskammern" could be found in delousing facilities etc.
The Wahrig dictionary thus describes the language at it is used, it is not
its task to question whether a minor fringe of political extremists deny 
historical commonplaces or not.

   To come back to the "Vergasungskeller" problem, what Butz has done
is obviously to take the particles "gas" and "keller" which can be found
in both words, "Gaskeller" and "Vergasungskeller", and to conclude that
the meaning of both words must therefore be identical. But the language
elements which are mentioned above as the required background knowledge 
are not only the knowledge about the meaning of the words, semantics,
but in this case also the knowledge about the "mechanics" of puttig the
words together, morphology. This would e.g. be the knowledge that the 
particle "-ung" changes a verb to a noun. A matter of morphology is also
the fact that when two nouns are put together, the first noun influences 
the meaning of the second and not the other way round. A "washing room" 
is a room where washing is done (It works the same in German). The 
meaning of "washing" and the meaning of "room" alone would be insufficient
to explain "washing room", morphological knowledge is also needed.[6]
It is no different with "Gas" and "Keller" and their derivatives.

   A further morphological phenomenon is that in certain cases parts of
compound nouns may fall away without harm. Again, this is relevant to the 
word "Gaskeller". In its meaning of "gas shelter" it was constructed in 
the first place as "Gas-Schutz-Keller" (gas-protection-cellar). As a first
step the compound "Gas-Schutz" is formed (protection against gas) and
with this new noun another compound is formed: a cellar for the protection
against gas. Since "Gasschutzkeller" is rather longish, another tendency
of human language comes into play, the habit of shortening and simplifying
language elements. The Duden grammar calls this "language economy"[7], but
we could call it more plainly natural human laziness. Thus the middle part
falls away and the shorter form "Gas-Keller" remains. In the German
grammar, this ellipsis, e.g. short form, is called a "bracket form"[8]
An equivalent form would be "Gasmaske" (gas mask) which is derived from
"Gasschutzmaske". Since this word is used much more commonly than 
"Gaskeller" it can be found in dictionaries.

   Butz is entirely correct when he assumes that in a military
context, in which people are confronted every day with protective rooms
against gas attacks, this meaning of "Gaskeller" could come naturally to
their mind. But Bischoff did not write "Gaskeller", he wrote "Vergasungs-
keller". Yet, "Gaskeller" may also mean "Vergasungskeller", because this
word needs not necessarily to be the outcome of the ellipsis described
above. German compounds may be formed very vaguely out of two nouns
to express a modification but not necessarily the precise nature of the
modification.[9] An example for this is "Sauerstoffmaske" (oxygen mask).
It could be imaginable that analogous to a "Gasmaske" a "Sauerstoffmaske"
provides protection against oxygen, which is obviously not true. On the
other hand, no information is included in "Sauerstoffmaske" which hints 
at that it is a device to introduce oxygen into the human organism.
Therefore we could deduct from the compound "Gaskeller" only that it 
describes a cellar where something happens which has to do with gas, 
which can of course also be what "vergasen" means: the killing of people 
with gas or the creation of gas. 

   This means that "Gaskeller" is highly ambiguous and would indeed be
defined only by its context. But again, Bischoff did not write "Gaskeller"
but "Vergasungskeller". And this word, being derived from the verb
"vergasen" by a morphological process, is unambiguous and can be looked
up in a dictionary, as Butz himself states:

   The primary meaning of "Vergasung" is gas generation or carbureation
   [...] A secondary meaning is application of a gas as in fumigation or
   in gas warfare.[10]

   By no means has "vergasen" the meaning of "to protect against" gas. Such
a claim is unsupportable as it would be to claim that "Gasschutz" means
"gassing". We have seen that the connection between "Gaskeller", 
"Vergasungskeller" and "Gasschutzkeller" can be understood in a fashion
similar to a tree. The two latter words branch from the general form but
are distinct in their meaning. To assume that they are synonyms because
the have a common generalization is a logical fallacy which is indeed
extremely astonishing when uttered by a doctor of science and lecturer 
at a renowned university.[11]

  Butz is closer to the truth than he probably would like when he says:

  Why would the author of NO-4473 not refer to a Leichenkeller as a
  Leichenkeller? I don't think a slip is involved. We normally do no
  consider ourselves bound to use only formal designations. More
  commonly, we refer to things according to their function or in any
  case to the function that happens to be in mind at that time. [...]

  Bischoff had indeed "Vergasungen" in mind. Since evidence for 
gasification devices can neither be produced in contemporary documents,
nor in testimonies nor in archeological research, it is clear beyond
doubt that the Bauleiter meant killings by gas. But already on linguistic
grounds, Butz' theory is simply wrong and therefore worthless. 

28. September 1996
[1] Butz, Arthur R.: _Vergasungskeller_, August 1996, In the following,
   quotations without reference are taken from this article.
[2] Nuremberg document 4473-NO, National Museum Auschwitz BW30/34,
   chapter 100, quoted in _Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch
   Giftgas: eine Dokumentation_, eds. Eugen Kogon, Hermann Langbein,
   Adalbert Rückerl et al., Frankfurt/M.: Fischer, 1989, p. 230.
[3] For the position of Bischoff cp. Pressac, Jean-Claude: _Die
   Krematorien von Auschwitz: die Technik des Massenmordes_, München,
   Zürich: Piper, 1993, p. 176. It can quite well be assumed that the
   building site supervisor, who had an SS rank equivalent to army
   captain, was informed about the purpose of the buildings and would
   use "Vergasungskeller" only when it was appropriate.
[4] _Duden Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache_, 4th edition,
   eds. Günter Drosdowski et al., Mannheim etc.: Dudenverlag, 1984, p.386.
[5] Wahrig, Gerhard: _Deutsches Wörterbuch_, Gütersloh, Berlin:
   Bertelsmann, 1977, p. 23. The passage reads in German:
      "Bei den Worterklärungen handelt es sich also immer darum, Hilfen
      zu geben, die es dem Benutzer ermöglichen, durch ihm bereits
      bekannte sprachliche Elemente andere, ihm unbekannte zu erschließen,
      und nicht darum - wie oben gesagt - wissenschaftlich und logisch
      hieb- und stichfeste Definitionen zu geben. Das ist die Sache der
[6] One has to keep in mind that there are two "sorts" of language 
   knowledge. The linguist knows the terms and is able to explain the
   linguistic phenomena. The native speaker of a language simply knows
   "that it is right this way and that it is wrong the other way." Both
   sorts of knowledge serve as background in the way described above. The
   linguistic explanations given in this essay are self-evident to every
   native speaker of German, even if they should not know the terms
   "semantics" or "morphology". We all know that a "washing room" is not
   a washing that takes place in a room, don't we?    
[7] _Duden Grammatik_, p. 392.
[8] Ibid. p. 394.
[9] For general remarks on such compounds, cp. ibid. p. 408.
[10] Butz doesn't give a source, but this is the definition which can
   also be found in the Wahrig dictionary.
[11] Cp. Lipstadt, Deborah E.: _Betrifft: Leugnen des Holocaust_, Zürich:
   Rio Verlag, 1994, p.154.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.