http:// r o d o h f o r u m . y u k u .com/reply/275647/A-message-to-Hannover-
Actually there's nothing about Jewish tombstones in Blobel's affidavit that mentions the burning of the corpses at Babi Yar. Hannover must have mixed up Blobel with Yakov Kaper, who described the arrangement to burn the corpses at Babi Yar as follows:
On one side, a furnace was being erected. First they brought stones taken from the Jewish cemetery. The tomb-stones bore the dates of those buried in the cemetery. Long railway rails were put on those stones, then iron fences also removed from the cemetery and then some logs with a little room in between to let air through when they started burning.Is there anything about this arrangement that you can demonstrate to be implausible, Hannover?
How about proving it actually happened, Roberto? You get a small concession but Hannover's point still stands that someone did claim tombstones were used at Babi Yar. So now it seems the issue is Yakov Kaper. Does Hannover have anything he can post about this man? I'd like to see. Or from anyone else for that matter.
The matter is debunked by aerial photography at the exact time of the alleged process, and that's right, nothing of the sort is happening in the photography.
That's all? Big fucking deal. Sergey Romanov has made mincemeat of the Babi Yar aerial photography crap.
I would also stress that anything anyone may have to say in reply to the Babi Yar ariel photography stuff should stay out of this topic and put in another one. Let's just stick to Chelmno. Next one.
But Blobel stated that due to the advancing Red Army, a lot of the alleged these mass graves went untouched. Oops! So, using basic logic, these graves should be available for excavation and viewing. They are not and cannot be shown, they do not exist and never did.
Basic logic is one thing, Hannover's pathetic hollering as he tries to convince himself of his own lies (the graves can be shown and have been shown in many cases, mainly by Soviet investigators but also by their more recent successors like Richard Wright and Father Desbois) are another.
So Roberto says the graves ARE there and HAVE been shown. He gives names but no specific links on this certain post. I can't help but wonder if he already has given them elsewhere. he certainly is a man of links.
Blah, blah, blah. As Hannover mentions Höss, by the way, can he explain why Höss had the cheek of telling his Polish interrogators where they could stick their 4 million Auschwitz figure? If the Poles tortured him into saying that, they must have been about as dumb as "Revisionists".
Here's a better question. Why did Piper admit on camera that the four million figure was too high? it clearly means that Hoess was lying. When we figure out that he was tortured, it's easy to put two and two together to see why he confessed to an impossible figure that even non-revisionists admit was too high while in British custody.
Roberto then quotes my long post and has this to say about Hoess.
The only issue I have with Werd for the moment relates to his comment about Höss. As Werd well knows, my argument always was that yes, Höss was tortured by the Brits (I remember that Werd/Drew J took issue with my having called it mistreatment instead of torture), but no, this doesn't mean that Höss' subsequent statements were extracted under torture. I can also agree that Höss might theoretically have been under fear of undergoing the same treatment again when he essentially confirmed at Nuremberg, as a defense witness for Kaltenbrunner, what he had told the Brits under torture, even though nothing indicates that Höss would have had any reason for such fear.
Seems like Roberto is being fair here but has his own personal convictions on Hoess. No problem here I guess.
However, what Höss told the Poles about the Auschwitz-Birkenau death toll (among other inconvenient statements one finds in his memoirs and the annexes thereto) does not fall in that category, as he not only expressly distanced himself from the exaggerated figure he had given at Nuremberg, but had the cheek of insisting that, if that figure had been too high, figures based on estimates made by inmates (he was no doubt referring to the 4 million figure that the Soviets had concluded on also on the basis of testimonies from inmates) were utter nonsense ("figments of the imagination" is how Constantine FitzGibbon translated his expression, see quote below). That must have been a bitter pill to swallow for the Poles, who were committed to the 4 million figure and would have wanted nothing more than to see it confirmed by the former camp commandant himself. So if the Poles had been inclined to extract anything from Höss by torture or another form of coercion, they would have made him confirm the 4 million figure. Höss was a tough guy but every man has his limits, and he had nothing to lose anyway as he would be hanged for the ca. 1 million deaths he confessed to just like for 4 million deaths, big deal. If he had been a softy trying to accommodate his interrogators lest it might occur to them to get rough, he would not have challenged them as he did.
Roughly, Hoess was taken in and tortured by the Brits and he admitted to four million. However the Poles also wanted this figure and they didn't get it out of him so Muehlenkamp concludes that Hoess wasn't tortured by the Poles because he confessed to four million and he wasn't in any danger anyway. But Muehlenkamp says that the free non coerced testimony that Hoess gave to the Poles includes the statements about what I think Ismer was allegedly involved in and that's why Roberto accepts this testimony. So it is my assumption that Muehlenkamp is attacking Hannover for failing to distinguish between two types of Hoess testimonies. One extracted under torture, the other, not. Even if Hannover was dumb enough to mix up Hoess's statements under British capture and Hoess' statements under Polish custody (which I don't think Hannver did for a second), however I can not side with Roberto for one simple reason. Hoess was no dummy. He knew that THEY KNEW the four million figure was too high, so the poles had no reason to try and force Hoess to say four million. They would lose credibility. However, the idea that the Poles wouldn't turn him over to someone else who would make him confirm EVERYTHING ELSE they wanted to hear about Chelmno is absurd. The Poles' fear of losing credibility over the SPECIFIC NUMBERS (and their simultaneous ability to give Hoess over to someone who would torture him AGAIN if he doesn't play ball)...doesn't preclude Hoess from being in fear of telling them what they want to hear regarding PEOPLE and VAGUE PROCESSES. And I think THIS is why Hannover takes issue with Hoess' testimony to the Poles. And that would be my reason too. So Roberto and I will have to just disagree on Hoess' testimony while in Polish custody.
Roberto also has a reply to MKK. I won't quote it because it's too long, but I recommend people read it.
http:// r o d o h f o r u m . y u k u .com/reply/275604/A-message-to-Hannover-#reply-275604
basically he does seem to have an answer about the weight of ghetto deportees and has links to studies showing how many people died before they could even be deported. He does seem to be scratching the surface and providing a strong guestimation about the average weight of deportees that managed not to starve in ghettos like some people unfortuantely did. And among the beefs he takes with Hannover, here is one I find interesting.
Blobel's statements have already been shown to be self defeating for the likes of the irrational Muehlenkamp.
Where, in the crap shredded here? Delusions of adequacy seem to be one of Hannover's many problems. And apparently the guy is such a brain-damaged fool that he hasn’t yet realized that the criticism of Mattogno he quotes is not about Blobel’s statements or Blobel’s credibility at all.
I would say that is an issue that does count on a seperate plain. There is nothing wrong with checking a person's credibility and the circumstances of the utterance of their statements. But this is a minor quibble because Roberto is building something so let's let him finish.
It is about Mattogno’s bumbling (or dishonesty) in falsely claiming that Höss was the only witness to Blobel’s presence at Chełmno, when actually there are at least two other witnesses mentioning Blobel’s activity at that place, and these witnesses are moreover referred to in a source included in Mattogno’s bibliography.
Okay so let's say you win there Roberto. Let's say Mattogno omitted two other witnesses because they would harm his case. But then what if we do as Hannover wants to do with Blobel, and check the credibility of not only Blobel, but also the other ones as well. Ismer and Bauer. Roberto summarizes.
I’ll highlight my point so that even Hannover may realize what my argument is:
What is worse than these and other ongoing blunders (or falsehoods), as concerns Mattogno's scholarship, is that Mattogno continues peddling his claim that "the alleged activity of Blobel at Chełmno is not confirmed by any document, but only by a single testimony, that of Rudolf Höss, the commandant of Auschwitz (confirmed, long after the fact, by one of the architects of the Auschwitz crematoria, Walter Dejaco)" (section 8.2, page 76), conveniently omitting the testimonies of Fritz Ismer and Julius Bauer, which are mentioned in Hoffmann's book and in my blog Mattogno on Chełmno Cremation (Part 1). Got it now, Hannover?
So it would seem that Roberto is saying Mattogno omitted the fact that Hoess is not the only one to talk about Chelmno. Does Mattogno talk about Ismer and Bauer? Roberto is saying no. But the second prong of this counterargument from Roberto says that Mattogno knows about these other two and is igoring them because Roberto mentioned them long before Mattogno's Chelmno book was published. In other words, Muehlenkamp is accusing Mattogo of being a dishonest chicken. I will say that given the date of the publishing of this book (2011), the date of Roberto's blogs where he mentioned Ismer and Bauer (Mattogno on Chełmno Cremation (Part 1) Dec 31 2010). In other words, Mattogno, who KNOWS about Roberto given that he responded to Roberto at least once or twice on Belsec back in 2009, is know acting like he doesn't know who Roberto is, where his blog is, or that Roberto spends a lot of time making counter arguments that still need to be dealt with. This conspiracy theory doesn't look so absurd in my view. If we know that Mattogno knows who Roberto is, has responded to him, and knows where to find his work - which includes his work countering Mattogno's work, then it does seem reasonable to question why Mattogno forgot or either "forgot" to take into account Roberto's work on Chelmno which mentioned Ismer and Bauer - something Mattogno does not do. This strange behavior, or rather lack of behavior, does require an explanation.
So Hannover, anything on ismer and Bauer and the circumstances of their testimonies about Chelmno? If Hannover, you can shoot down Blobel, can you show us anything on Ismer and Bauer? I'm not being antagonistic, I'm just trying to summarize the main points, lay out what is what so that other people can know what the issues are and directly respond to them. I'm a little bit versed in revisionism but not so much about the Atkion Reinhard camps. That's why I'm asking you Hannover and others for counterarguments to read in conjunction with the first arguments.
So what's say you other codoh board members? Have I summarized things clearly? I hope my posts are coherent? Can we continue on knowing which names and people need to be talked about?
Edit: I highlighted the new (to me) names that came up in Roberto's last few posts.