Hi Hotzenplotz, I think it's good if you ever feel like taking the exterminationist position. I welcome that and encourage you to do it. I had the same questions myself that you had and I'm still trying to figure it out. I really don't know how they pulled all these people out of a hat.
You mentioned how they all admitted there was a chamber there. Look at what Robert Faurisson says regarding this, but at Auschwitz. It surprisingly involves Dr. Browning and Eichman too! Bold text is mine:
With respect to Browning's testimony generally, Faurisson said: "I would say that Dr. Browning doesn't take into account what I call the other side of the story........... as I did, to Dr. Servatius who was the defence lawyer of Eichmann and in the Nuremberg trial, he had been also a defence lawyer. Very interesting...I ask him how is it that you didn't ask any question about the gas chamber and he said because we decided not to get into that but to say that Eichmann had nothing to do with it. And it's classical in all those trials, the defence lawyer cannot defend something which looks impossible. It looks impossible to say that the gas chamber did not exist so the tactic of those people, and I can bring proof of that, was not to get into that. Exactly as in the witchcraft trial, when the people were accused of having [met] the devil, they wouldn't say, 'Your Honour, the best proof that I have not met the devil is that the devil does not exist'; it would have been the end. No. The tactic was to say, 'Oh, yes, the devil was there on the top of the hill. Myself, I was down [at the bottom]...
and in Auschwitz it's exactly the same thing." The accused would admit the existence of the gas chambers, but deny their involvement with them. (30-8236 to 8238)
Faurisson at the Zundel Trial:http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/FaurisArch/RF880413.html
Another point: O.k. there's 29 people and there's Eichmann before
he was arrested. And then there's the very unlikely notion that a 1960's German government would torture people, and send them to the Soviets! It seems like overwhelming evidence in favor of the holocaust. But as Hannover mentions: "go into the details." And in fact I've done that in a post called "the Hirtreiter document." For one we find that his confession was to an American Jewish interrogator in 1946. There is a link to a scan of the interrogator's report. Then I point out all sorts of very unlikely things. But what I don't even mention is that when it came time for the trials it got even more crazy: he was accused and convicted of killing babies for fun. By throwing them like a ball. This accusation then made it into Hilberg's Destruction of the European Jews.
Similar for the Treblinka inmates. How could all these people be lying? C'mon? But then you read the most prominent account: Yankel Weirnik, or Wernik or Wiernik's Year in Treblinka, and he's talking about the SS drinking fine liquers and fine foods while laughing like maniacs, as they burn bodies. I mean get real. First of all those bodies were likely the dug up bodies, so they would have smelled so bad, no one would be able to eat. Plus do you think the Treblinka administration would allow guards to drink alcohol and eat fine foods on duty?
Seriously, the reason Hannover asks for the specifics on what these people actually said, is that he knows it's just going to be ridiculous. Why these people could never get it together and tell a believable lie is beyond me. But due to that, we get new literature, and new accounts from people who couldn't speak for 50 years, or something pulled out of the woodwork, and these people then correct this and try to tell a believable lie for a change. But thanks to Raul Hilberg, we have all the old liars documented. Then the exterminationists are in a weird position: touting an important account which Hilberg in 40 years of research never mentioned in his 1985 three volume Destruction of the European Jews. Thanks Hilberg.
Here's a Treblinka confession of Josef Hirtreiter, paraphrased by a US government agent. Alas we look at a real document. Will the proof be in the pudding? You decide. And keep in mind that this wouldn't even be acceptable enough for Hannover (or me) We'd want to see the transcript of the confession itself. But even in Friedlander's words, you can see the ridiculousness.
Hotzenplotz: I encourage you to start studying via original research: buy the 60's Life Magazines on EBAY that had the Eichmann articles and post what you find in the article here. If you get into this like me, with my current 500 plus posts, it's surprising what you find. As an example:
One day you're studying the Eichmann trial and finding out his lawyer was Dr. Servatius.
The next day you're reading Year in Treblinka on the web by Yankel Wernik and reading obvious lies.
Then you put them together: Weirnik testified at the Eichmann trial, and Servatius chose not to cross-examine him.
Servatius could have asked him all about his book, Year in Treblinka. Instead Servatius had no questions for the witness. And Eichmann is then executed. Hmmm. In Weirnik's book, he claimed to get shot by a guard. The bullet went through his clothing but then didn't pierce his skin, then he turned around and killed the guard with an axe. Not bad for a 52 year old who's been in a concentration camp for a year!!