A crematorium is basically just a furnace. Why would a 1940s crematorium be THAT different than a modern one. Calories are calories. It takes a certain amount of energy to break down a body like that and it's not going to be any less or more now than it was then. Efficiency of heat creation by just straight up burning fuel is pretty damn efficient and we haven't figured out a way to magically make today's fuel burn any hotter, and I'm pretty sure concrete or other insulation also wouldn't have changed SO MUCH that it would make a difference of HOURS of efficiency.
If anything they could have been MORE efficient. After all if they were starving them, boom right there half the body mass to burn. Then you stuff a whole bunch into ONE furnace. BOOM now you're utilizing more of the heat and losing less to being radiated out the walls due to a high filled volume.
Go ask a modern cremator. They'll turn a person to ash bones and all in two hours. Stuff a 50 people in there at once, use some more fuel now you're at 50/hr PER furnace. Run that thing full time that's 300,000/yr. I'm assuming they didn't run it full time however. But they probably did have multiple going over multiple years. I'm not saying you're wrong about some of the high victim numbers being worth some skeptism. But it ain't because they couldn't cremate them all. At least theoretically it's possible and even if negligible difficulty.
** shit reading that my math is off but you're still within an order of magnitude of the low estimates with just a few furnaces
A crematorium is basically just a furnace. Why would a 1940s crematorium be THAT different than a modern one. Calories are calories. It takes a certain amount of energy to break down a body like that and it's not going to be any less or more now than it was then. Efficiency of heat creation by just straight up burning fuel is pretty damn efficient and we haven't figured out a way to magically make today's fuel burn any hotter, and I'm pretty sure concrete or other insulation also wouldn't have changed SO MUCH that it would make a difference of HOURS of efficiency.
If anything they could have been MORE efficient. After all if they were starving them, boom right there half the body mass to burn. Then you stuff a whole bunch into ONE furnace. BOOM now you're utilizing more of the heat and losing less to being radiated out the walls due to a high filled volume.
Go ask a modern cremator. They'll turn a person to ash bones and all in two hours. Stuff a 50 people in there at once, use some more fuel now you're at 50/hr PER furnace. Run that thing full time that's 300,000/yr. I'm assuming they didn't run it full time however. But they probably did have multiple going over multiple years. I'm not saying you're wrong about some of the high victim numbers being worth some skeptism. But it ain't because they couldn't cremate them all. At least theoretically it's possible and even if negligible difficulty.
A crematorium is basically just a furnace. Why would a 1940s crematorium be THAT different than a modern one. Calories are calories. It takes a certain amount of energy to break down a body like that and it's not going to be any less or more now than it was then. Efficiency of heat creation by just straight up burning fuel is pretty damn efficient and we haven't figured out a way to magically make today's fuel burn any hotter, and I'm pretty sure concrete or other insulation also wouldn't have changed SO MUCH that it would make a difference of HOURS of efficiency.
If anything they could have been MORE efficient. After all if they were starving them, boom right there half the body mass to burn. Then you stuff a whole bunch into ONE furnace. BOOM now you're utilizing more of the heat and losing less to being radiated out the walls due to a high filled volume.
Go ask a modern cremator. They'll turn a person to ash bones and all in two hours. I'm not saying you're wrong about some of the high victim numbers being worth some skeptism. But it ain't because they couldn't cremate them all. At least theoretically.