Transit Camp Treblinka Challenge: One Person, with Proof

[Lamprecht]

The point I am making is that everything points away from an extermination policy: the large number of survivors...

A large number and not one name?

[Thesaint]

Wahrheit:
When revisionists use the term "transit camp," it is not within the context of sending hundreds of thousands of Jews to other camps in Poland; rather, it clearly refers to a 'resettlement program', one in which these Jews were sent into the occupied Soviet territories.


Then why call the thread "The transit camp Treblinka challenge" thread,and not the "Treblinka transit camp re: Soviet-area resettlement" thread?
For my part as a revisionist,the issue of whether there was or was`nt Jewish resettlement in the Soviet areas has no bearing on whether Treblinka was a transit camp,seeing as there is evidence that there were at least inter-camp transfers,and no, repeat NO evidence of extermination at Treblinka.
If on the other hand you have revisionists saying explicitly that the Treblinka transit camp theory is wholly dependent on there being resettlement into the occupied Soviet territories,then please provide us with the quotes.

Wahrheit:
Distortion is a better word than paraphrase.

In your opinion it is,just like:
"the evidence for extermination, however minor or debateable, wins out"
and:
"'exterminationists' should provide positive evidence for gas chambers (as I believe they have)"
and:
"no matter how flimsy or debateable (to some)"
and:
"a lot of evidence"

are all nothing more than matters of opinion.


Wahrheit:
Also, where is my own admission that I am a 'biased hoaxster'?

Wahrheit:
Therefore, 'exterminationists' should provide positive evidence for gas chambers (as I believe they have)

The same "positive evidence" that has been torn to atoms on this forum all these years,which you well know.
If you think you can get away with labeling the hoaxster offerings re:"Homicidal gas chambers" as "positive evidence" and then try and distance yourself from these same hoaxsters then you are seriously deluded.
We`re still waiting for this "positive evidence for gas chambers" thread.
Where is it Wahrheit?
Will it ever materialise?

[Lamprecht]

The name of ONE PERSON who was transferred to (and later without any doubt from) Treblinka, was no less than the Kid from that World Famous photograph, the one with his little hands up, walking along those terrible Nazi's on his way to Treblinka to be 'gassed', as the whole Holocaust Media etc. told and showed us as long as 65 years now.
This boy (and his family!) happens to be Tsvic Nussbaum, nowadays a very successful Doctor in New York, USA.

If this child wasn't 'gassed' in Treblinka, he surely was resettled anywhere else, or not, Wahrheit? Or do you have a 'Third' possibility?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsvi_C._Nussbaum
It says he went to Bergen Belsen

[Gébé Tremblay]

"If there was such "fierce suppression" and some overarching conspiracy controlling Europe, revisionism would not have existed as long as it has today. The many books put out by VHO are a "living proof of that." Also, suppressed memoirs usually have a way of surfacing, in some way or another."

Well, now you are in complete denial ! Those books ARE supressed. Even libraries who carry them are being vandalized by jewish lobby groups ! There is even laws against contradicting the official story ! People are being sent to prison !

Who, besides courrageous revisionists, would write something that would contradict the holocaust ?

Don't make us believe you dont know about those laws !

Your dishonnesty is getting clearer now.

[Wahrheit]

Once again, according to your logic, my story wins and should be written in history books.

Not really. UFO stories largely only make it big time when there is more corroboration than just one witness who just happens to live by themself. Such is why the famous sightings occur when numerous people across a given area state that they saw something.

This is where your logic completely fails. The Holocaust is and should be treated as a murder case. Since the allegations are that the Germans committed the worst war crime in human history, a mass murder of 11 million people, it should be proven beyond reasonable doubt that such murder occurred. A "flimsy" case won't do it. I believe that 99% of people, once there is open debate and they hear the revisionists' side, would agree that there is very reasonable doubt, despite having been indoctrinated in schools and having assumed a-priori that the Holocaust is a "fact" and that the Germans are guilty.

The Holocaust is treated as a historical event, much as Soviet crimes are. It formed part of the indictment against the Nazis, but it was only part. To, today, demand full on proof of every minor detail for a historic event is not something that is taken seriously in any historic field.

I also disagree with your premise that 'revisionists' have made points which "strongly refute the allegation of mass murder or even intention to murder," but that is another thread. For Auschwitz-Birkenau, a thread does exist, and I have explained some of my problems with 'revisionist' evidence. Perhaps you could help answer my forensically focused questions there, as well.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4111&start=105

[Wahrheit]

Wahrheit:
When revisionists use the term "transit camp," it is not within the context of sending hundreds of thousands of Jews to other camps in Poland; rather, it clearly refers to a 'resettlement program', one in which these Jews were sent into the occupied Soviet territories.


Then why call the thread "The transit camp Treblinka challenge" thread,and not the "Treblinka transit camp re: Soviet-area resettlement" thread?
For my part as a revisionist,the issue of whether there was or was`nt Jewish resettlement in the Soviet areas has no bearing on whether Treblinka was a transit camp,seeing as there is evidence that there were at least inter-camp transfers,and no, repeat NO evidence of extermination at Treblinka.
If on the other hand you have revisionists saying explicitly that the Treblinka transit camp theory is wholly dependent on there being resettlement into the occupied Soviet territories,then please provide us with the quotes.

And this is a perfect example of the mentality we are dealing with here. Are you seriously arguing that 'transit camp' (in revisionist terminology) does not refer to a camp designed to send Jews eastwards? It's just a big game; deny everything that you can get away with (or think you can).

Unfortunately for you, Mattogno specified this point in his work (the most comprehensive and latest 'revisionist' analysis of Treblinka):

f. The Thesis of the Transit Camp

The revisionist studies mentioned to this point have restricted themselves exclusively to refuting the official picture of Treblinka as an "extermination camp." An alternative interpretation of its function has not appeared in these studies, which of course is the direct consequence of the complete lack of contemporary documents. Yet some notable revisionist authors have proposed the thesis that Treblinka was a transit camp for Jews. The American scholar Prof. Dr. Arthur R. Butz suggested in his revisionist classic The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, which appeared for the first time in 1976, that Treblinka simultaneously served as a labor camp as well as a transit camp for Jews resettled to the east,[109] and Prof. Robert Faurisson also supports the transit camp thesis.[110]

Finally, US historian Mark Weber, together with US lawyer Andrew Allen, wrote an excellent article about Treblinka in 1992, in which the two authors summarized all the familiar arguments made to that point in time against the thesis of the 'extermination camp,' introduced new viewpoints in the field, and wrote concerning the actual nature of the camp:[111]

"If Treblinka was not an extermination center, what was it? [...] the balance of evidence indicates that Treblinka II - along with Belzec and Sobibor - was a transit camp, where Jewish deportees were stripped of their property and valuables before being transferred eastwards into German-occupied Soviet territories."

Since Treblinka was much too small to be able to accommodate the large number of Jews deported there at the same time, the transit camp thesis is, in fact, the single plausible alternative to the conventional picture of the extermination camp. Tertium non datur - no third possibility is given.
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/t/2.html

Hence, Mattogno himself (in addition to other revisionists cited) refers to it as the "transit camp thesis," clearly defined by the notion of Jewish deportees being shipped into the Nazi occupied Soviet territories.

Wahrheit:
Also, where is my own admission that I am a 'biased hoaxster'?

Wahrheit:
Therefore, 'exterminationists' should provide positive evidence for gas chambers (as I believe they have)

I don't see any admission that I am a 'hoaxster', but a simple statement that those who argue for the existence of gas chambers have actually put out evidence to support their belief. Do you doubt this too? Have you really researched this topic?, Thesaint?

[ginger]

Wahrheit wrote responding the Thesaint -

"I don't see any admission that I am a 'hoaxster', but a simple statement that those who argue for the existence of gas chambers have actually put out evidence to support their belief. Do you doubt this too? Have you really researched this topic?, Thesaint?"

Wahrheit - What are you talking about when you say those who argue for the existence of gas chambers have actually put out evidence to support their belief? Are you persuaded by their arguments? What are their arguments? Can you summarize?

Is it because there are openings in the ceilings of certain buildings, or forensics? I have found nothing but windy and inflammatory stories with regard to the gas chamber stories.

[Gébé Tremblay]

Gert:

8. The Holocaust is the only claimed genocide that will get you excommunicated (best case) or jailed (worst case) if you doubt its veracity.

Untrue

http://www.nrcu.gov.ua/index.php?id=148&listid=56782

It envisages prosecution for public denial of the Holodomor Famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine as a fact of genocide of the Ukrainian people and of the Holocaust as the fact of genocide of the Jewish people. The draft law foresees that public denial as well as production and dissemination of materials denying the above shall be punished by a fine of 100 to 300 untaxed minimum salaries or an imprisonment of up to two years.

A draft is not a law and besides this proposed law is tied in with prosecution for public denial of the jewish holocaust. It is sort of a "bargain" or "paquage deal" against critical thinking.

This draft proposed by the president of Ukraine , Viktor Yushchenko, who's father, Andriy Andriyovych Yushchenko, was captured by German forces and imprisoned as a POW in a series of concentration camps in Poland and Germany, including Auschwitz-Birkenau. He survived the ordeal, and after returning home, taught English at a local school (he died in 1992). Viktor's mother, Varvara Tymofiyovna Yushchenko (1918–2005), taught physics and mathematics at the same school.

Why dont our friend Wahrheit ask the president of Ukraine (which was in the KGB) to present his father's testimony of the gas chambers in all those german camps ?

You wont find any link between gas chambers and Andriy Andriyovych Yushchenko. For a person who experienced a "series" of "extermination camps", he did not have much to say about them ! Was more concerned about teaching english !

Maybe he just did not want to have to lie.

[Wahrheit]

Wahrheit - What are you talking about when you say those who argue for the existence of gas chambers have actually put out evidence to support their belief? Are you persuaded by their arguments? What are their arguments? Can you summarize?

Ginger, my point was that historians and 'exterminationist' proponents (those who believe in the existence and employment of homicidal gas chambers at Treblinka) have cited documents, witness testimony, and the on-site investigations by the Poles and Soviets to substantiate their claims/beliefs.

I'm reluctant to go much further into this than I already have, as I have no doubt that the thread will lose all control if we open the gates to the entire Treblinka subject. Already the thread has tied all other existing threads on this forum for most replies (ties with this very reply), and it no doubt will overtake the title as "most replied to thread" by the end of the day. However, as you can see, I still haven't gotten much in the way of evidence for Treblinka's use as a transit camp.

Some evidence is not hard to find on the web. I do intend to start a seperate discussion on positive evidence for Treblinka's use as an extermination site in the near future, but for now I would just like to focus on the transit camp assertion.

[Gébé Tremblay]

For Auschwitz-Birkenau, a thread does exist, and I have explained some of my problems with 'revisionist' evidence.

And again you faint to not understand, still pretending revisionnists have evidence. You can't have problems with revisionists' evidence because revisionist's dont present evidence, they only show abscence of the claimed evidence of the exterminationists.

Your real problem, the one you just dont want to face, is your own lack of evidence.

That is why you invent revisionist evidence and ask them to present evidence that dont exist (a name). Trying to reverse the burden of proof.

When you can provide concrete proof of the supposed 800,000 victims of Treblinka, we will provide you with all their names.

[Gébé Tremblay]

I don't see any admission that I am a 'hoaxster', but a simple statement that those who argue for the existence of gas chambers have actually put out evidence to support their belief.

Your statement is absurd.

Evidence for a belief ?

What's the faith for ?

have cited documents, witness testimony, and the on-site investigations by the Poles and Soviets to substantiate their claims/beliefs.

Wharheit, there is nothing of "substance" in testimonies, documents, or web sites. Substanciate a claim or belief ? Nonsense. They would then be facts. Claims or beliefs dont have substance.

That is the core of your problem, Wahrheit. Without any hard evidence you uslessly are trying to substanciate your claim/belief.

An impossibility that must then be imposed by through repressive laws (inquisition).

You are not in science, Wahrheit, you are into religion.

[Wahrheit]

For Auschwitz-Birkenau, a thread does exist, and I have explained some of my problems with 'revisionist' evidence.

And again you faint to not understand, still pretending revisionnists have evidence. You can't have problems with revisionists' evidence because revisionist's dont present evidence, they only show abscence of the claimed evidence of the exterminationists.

'Revisionists' have tried to present evidence (samples of gas chamber walls), in an attempt to negate other evidence (eye-witness testimony, for instance). Please discuss in the proper thread if you wish to add your input to the A-B chemistry subject or respond to me on the subject.

What revisionists really don't do is present a coherent, substantiated alternative. Hence the term "negationist" and "denier."

[Gébé Tremblay]

'Revisionists' have tried to present evidence (samples of gas chamber walls),

There are no gas chamber walls. What has ben proven is lack of evidence of the cyanide that should be present on these claimed/believed to be gas chamber walls. Again you are playing the reverse-burden game.

in an attempt to negate other evidence (eye-witness testimony, for instance).

A testimony is no evidence. It must be substanciated with hard evidence.

Please discuss in the proper thread if you wish to add your input to the A-B chemistry subject or respond to me on the subject.

I am answering your challenge question in the same substancial way you presented it.

What revisionists really don't do is present a coherent, substantiated alternative.

We are not into "making up" things.

[Heydrich]

@ Wahrheit

"What revisionists really don't do is present a coherent, substantiated alternative. Hence the term "negationist" and "denier."

You don't get it. It is not the job of Revisionists to present an alternative, but the job of the accuser to present coherent, substantiated evidence of their accusations. Revisionists do not have to prove anything at all. Only accusers like you have to prove. As you don't do that, you are the "denier" of logic and truth here.

You cannot even answer the most simple questions in regard to your accusations. You failed.

[Wahrheit]

You don't get it. It is not the job of Revisionists to present an alternative, but the job of the accuser to present coherent, substantiated evidence of their accusations. Revisionists do not have to prove anything at all. Only accusers like you have to prove. As you don't do that, you are the "denier" of logic and truth here.

I haven't made any accusations in this thread. While it may not be their 'job' (for proper revising of history it customarily is, but that doesn't appear to be what this is about), they have made the allegation that Treblinka was a transit camp, for better or for worse. I just find it amusing that so many revisionists lack the fortitude to accept any type of "burden of proof," even if it means disassociating themselves from their own experts/gurus, and cleansing themselves of the only major positive allegation that 'revisionists' do make. Such is why the vast majority are not 'revisionists', they are deniers; they don't wish to find the truth in history, they only wish to opine what didn't happen for their own ideological reasons (even though its patently obvious that most hardly study the issue outside of 'revisionist' texts).

Bradley Smith has taken a more rational approach, one that is praiseworthy and goes against the grain, IMO. He considers my question a reasonable one, one that he has no answer to. He also believes that revisionists should accept the point that they cannot answer some questions. Is this something that you could accept, Heydrich?

You cannot even answer the most simple questions in regard to your accusations. You failed.

Which ones are those?

Also, I wouldn't be talking about unanswered questions, as there is still one looming around from the original post, some 110+ replies back. And I'm the one dodging things? Please...