More Treblinka nonsense - this time from Thomas Dalton

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9969
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: More Treblinka nonsense - this time from Thomas Dalton

Postby Hannover » 7 years 10 months ago (Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:57 pm)

Kingfisher:
What you call "throwing a bone" others might see as being objective and open-minded. How can we expect opponents to consider our views if we are going to stick our fingers in our ears and intone loudly "I can't hear you" at the suggestion that even one tenth of what has been alleged could have some foundation? Historiography should be the search for facts, not the imposition of every aspect of a preconception.

My eyes and ears have been and are wide open, I read what they say; but there is no sense in making concessions (aka: throwing them a bone) if concessions are not warranted by facts.
While those like Clem and Steven F are overly dramatic and hyper personal in their critique of such concessionaires, they are IMO generally quite correct.

Trying to appear reasonable by making unsubstantiated concessions is simply illogical and unscientific.

Kingfisher:
As you never tire of saying, Revisionists have won the battle (evidence). What you should add is they are one hell of a way from winning the war (convincing the public).

With the media firmly in the hands of Jewish supremacists, and even they openly admit it, there have been problems getting the truth about the Revisionist positions on the 'holocaust' storyline. But people know that there are "deniers", no doubt about it, which is a big step in itself. People worldwide are beginning to see the evils of Zionism and the lies the Zionists tell, which also assists in adding credibility to Revisionism.
The whole 'fact' of the 'holocaust' is held together by media indoctrination, smoke & mirrors, doubletalk, and fear of ridicule. In the long run people tend to rebel against being told how to think and what to think about. They're also becoming tired of being told what they supposedly think, i.e.: a supremacist Jew writes something 'holocaust' related, which is most everything these days, and then goes on to say something like 'the public is horrified by holocaust deniers', when in fact I do not find that to be the case. In basic one on one discussions most feel that Revisionists have the right to speak and publish as they wish. Which is why it's important for people to realize that some countries have laws against free speech when such speech concerns the 'holocaust' storyline. When people realize that these laws exist it immediately creates a reaction of 'But why?'

People are putting the pieces together. They see who the liars are and understand how the liars make statements and engage in actions which are detrimental to society at large.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Clem
Member
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:23 am

Re: More Treblinka nonsense - this time from Thomas Dalton

Postby Clem » 7 years 10 months ago (Mon Apr 09, 2012 3:29 pm)

Hannover wrote:
Too assume they are 'mass graves' while completely lacking detailed and verifiable information is the classic definition of shoddy work with an agenda.

Kingfisher:
Absolutely. But that is a criticism of Caroline Sturdy Coles, not of Thomas Dalton


That is a criticism that can be directed at Dalton.

Dalton's writings are as shoddy as Colls "archaelogy." Here is an exact quote from his article:

I would further add that, on the revisionist thesis, many thousands of people did indeed die in the camp, of various causes. A high-volume transit camp would have received thousands of incoming dead (recall the “one third” statistic above), and many more would have died of disease and, yes, execution (likely by bullet) at the camp. So it is fully expected that mass graves exist in the camp. But the anticipated number of victims is much smaller—perhaps 10% of those claimed. Thus we might expect to see a total grave volume of around 10,000 to 12,000 cubic meters, rather than the 120,000 required by the conventional account.



I have yet to see Dalton (or Kues or any of their defenders) prove any of his shoddy claims.

What are they waiting for?

What are they so afraid of?

What is their agenda?

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9969
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: More Treblinka nonsense - this time from Thomas Dalton

Postby Hannover » 7 years 10 months ago (Mon Apr 09, 2012 3:58 pm)

Clem:
I have yet to see Dalton (or Kues or any of their defenders) prove any of his shoddy claims.

What are they waiting for?

What are they so afraid of?

What is their agenda?

They are just speculating. Of their speculations, the 'holocaust' they are not. They know that diseases did kill people, they know that legal executions under international law did occur, they know that people die of natural causes wherever they are. Are they wrong in assuming the numbers that they assume? Yes, that's is my opinion. There are no such mass graves to back them up.

Clem, I wouldn't get too worked up about it.

Thanks, Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

astro3
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:52 am

Re: More Treblinka nonsense - this time from Thomas Dalton

Postby astro3 » 7 years 7 months ago (Thu Jul 12, 2012 4:41 pm)

We've been discussing the total mortality associated with the Treblinka transit camp.
Excuse me being rather dense, but why is Treblinka not included in the 1970 Red Cross / Arolsen totals?
the Red Cross listed 13 camps, http://just-another-inside-job.blogspot ... l-red.html
This well-known document totals 270k inmate deaths in all these camps.
Mauthausen had the most at 78k, while Ravensbruck has the least at 2k.
Why is Treblinka not on the list?

If it had 10% of 800k namely 80k, it would be top of the list!
As I understand it, this 1970 document is an early version of what became the full Arolsen Archive.

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2566
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: More Treblinka nonsense - this time from Thomas Dalton

Postby borjastick » 7 years 7 months ago (Fri Jul 13, 2012 1:34 am)

The Red Cross report applies to those camps that could be visited and were still there. Treblinka wasn't there anymore to visit yet alone investigate, talk to inmates, officials etc.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

astro3
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:52 am

Re: More Treblinka nonsense - this time from Thomas Dalton

Postby astro3 » 7 years 7 months ago (Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:12 am)

Not sure if I have quite understood Mr Borjastic:
The Red Cross report applies to those camps that could be visited and were still there. Treblinka wasn't there anymore to visit yet alone investigate, talk to inmates, officials etc
If we agree that Treblinka functioned for a bit over one year, 1942-43, then the Red Cross / Arolsen totals cited are for all persons who lived and died during WW2 in the 13 German labour-camps, are they not? In that case they must have been counting them over the years 1942 - 1943. The Red Cross could not have just turned up after the Treblinka camp was closed own could they?
I'm confused!

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2566
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: More Treblinka nonsense - this time from Thomas Dalton

Postby borjastick » 7 years 7 months ago (Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:04 pm)

Yes you are right but as I understand things -I might well be wrong- the Red Cross did not visit Treblinka at any time, therefore did not have any records or data on who was there, the numbers and the condition thereof.

I am sure someone with greater knowledge on Treblinka will put me right.

As an aside on Treblinka I saw a fantastic video on Youtube about Treblinka. It was made by a guy called Heath who makes astonishing leaps of 'proof' about the place without any evidence to back it up. I will try to find it and post it here. It's a cracker!
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

User avatar
Kladderadatsch
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 11:08 am

Re: More Treblinka nonsense - this time from Thomas Dalton

Postby Kladderadatsch » 7 years 7 months ago (Fri Jul 13, 2012 1:05 pm)

The document in question has nothing to do with visits to concentration camps by the IRC. Such visits/inspections did also occur apparently, but that's not what is at issue here. The document from Bad Arolsen gives the totals for the number of individual file cards collected after the war in the BA archives which pertain to "declarations of death and inquiries from local courts concerning declarations of death" (Todeserklärungen und Anfragen von Amtsgerichten betr. Todeserklärungen), broken down by location in the KL system. Because there are sometimes multiple cards for a single case, the document also notes that the total number of cards per se (373 468) is higher than the number of confirmed cases (282 077 as of December 1983).

In other words, all that the list records is the number of individual "declarations of death" on record, presumably as found in German records themselves (Sterbebuecher, etc.). That doesn't mean that the IRC is committing itself to those numbers as a total for the "holocaust"--in fact, the document explicitly warns against reading it that way:

Die Beurkundungzahlen des Sonderstandesamtes laßen keine Rückschlüsse auf die tatsächliche Zahl der Toten in den Konzentrationslagern zu.

The certification numbers of the Special Registry Office do not allow conclusions about the actual number of deaths in the concentration camps.


(underlined in the original)


Image

Of course revisionists don't have to heed that warning if they don't want to. But then, the orthodox story claims that most of the Jews killed were never registered, and their deaths never recorded. So even if the IRC records are 100% correct (they're actually low for Auschwitz--the list was made before the KLA Sterbebuecher were released by the Soviets), that still doesn't do anything to disprove the six million figure: any other deaths, believers will say, were simply "off the books." All that the Bad Arolsen files claim to show is the number that were on the books, recorded in official "Todeserklärungen" and confirmed in other records from local courts. Two different sets of numbers entirely.

In that sense, the fact that neither Treblinka nor any of the other AR camps (Sobibor, Belzec) appear on the BA list actually can be seen as confirmation for the orthodox thesis. Since there were no official records of death from those camps (at least according to BA's list), then any deaths which occurred at them must have been "off the books" homicides. And that, of course, plays right into the idea that the AR camps were "pure extermination" camps, with no other purpose than killing.

I'm not arguing for that position here; I'm just saying that it's the obvious orthodox response to the claim that the Bad Arolsen list somehow proves that the holocaust is a hoax. All that the document really shows is that the Germans did indeed record deaths at concentration camps, something which they presumably wouldn't have done if their intention was to "hide their crimes" completely. But it doesn't prove anything at all about the total number of deaths in the deportation, and it shouldn't be used as such. It's too easy to shoot down. Revisionists can do better.
Last edited by Kladderadatsch on Fri Jul 13, 2012 6:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Der grosse Kladderadatsch war da.

-- D. Eckart Der Bolschewismus von Moses bis Lenin, "Er"

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2566
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: More Treblinka nonsense - this time from Thomas Dalton

Postby borjastick » 7 years 7 months ago (Fri Jul 13, 2012 1:44 pm)

Yes but no but... If Treblinka was indeed a transit camp they wouldn't have died there, or if they did the numbers would be light. This is what revisionists say and I obviously agree. If it were a transit camp then no records would exist . It's like being airside at an airport whilst waiting for an onward flight, you haven't actually entered the country legally or physically. 'Oh yes of course I have been to Hong Kong, many times, well actually I changed planes there often and then flew onwards to Manila, Sydney etc.'
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: More Treblinka nonsense - this time from Thomas Dalton

Postby Kingfisher » 7 years 7 months ago (Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:02 pm)

borjastick wrote:Yes but no but... If Treblinka was indeed a transit camp they wouldn't have died there, or if they did the numbers would be light. This is what revisionists say and I obviously agree. If it were a transit camp then no records would exist . It's like being airside at an airport whilst waiting for an onward flight, you haven't actually entered the country legally or physically. 'Oh yes of course I have been to Hong Kong, many times, well actually I changed planes there often and then flew onwards to Manila, Sydney etc.'

OK, this is speculation, but if it were a transit camp you would still expect death records to have been kept. Since the camp was destroyed they would not, of course be available on site, like at Auschwitz.

Of course, that doesn't mean they survived, or if they did that the Soviets didn't destroy them or "archive" them.

astro3
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:52 am

Re: More Treblinka nonsense - this time from Thomas Dalton

Postby astro3 » 7 years 7 months ago (Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:23 am)

Thank you Mr Kladderadatch, that is most helpful. Can I ask you a related question?

Georges Theil in his book Heresy (2006) cites the Arolsen total as 291,594 wartime deaths, and from this he derives a total of 'authenticated deaths in all the Hitlerite camps of detainees of Jewish origin' as under 200,000. He reckons half of all the registered deaths there were Jewish. So, he is doing what you warn against, of taking the IRC totals as being all of the real or ‘authenticated deaths.’

Is this figure slightly higher (above 282,000) because of the Soviet-held records becoming available? Thiel did not reckon these had caused much of an increase to the Arolsen totals. Thiel did visit this record office, so maybe that was how he acquired the figure.

Then, Germar Rudolf’s ‘Dissecting the Holocaust’ Chapter 7 had cited a slightly higher figure, (296, 081) which he dates to 1.1.93; however he in addition surmised that there may have been a comparable number of such deaths that were non-authenticated. Thereby he reached a total figure of double this: 'A realistic estimate of the actual number of victims, therefore, may be twice as high as the total of victims registered by name in the records at Arolsen.’

Would you comment upon this?

User avatar
widmann
Member
Member
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 6:22 pm

Re: More Treblinka nonsense - this time from Thomas Dalton

Postby widmann » 7 years 7 months ago (Sat Jul 14, 2012 7:41 am)

First, I think it would be useful for everyone to actually read the article that Thomas Dalton published in my journal, Inconvenient History here:
http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2012/volume_4/number_1/postcard_from_treblinka.php

The 912,000 figure that Dalton is charged with quoting throughout his article - which is simply a travel piece about his visit to Treblinka, is the "official" figure offered by Camp Museum Director Edward Kopowka.

Dalton recounts finding a book in the Museum gift shop entitled "The Stones Are Silent" which suggests that "one third of the deportees were dead or on the verge of death when they reached the camp."

Dalton goes on to write:
A British forensic archaeologist has unearthed fresh evidence to prove the existence of mass graves at the Nazi death camp Treblinka—scuppering the claims of Holocaust deniers who say it was merely a transit camp. … Forensic archaeologist Caroline Sturdy Colls has now undertaken the first coordinated scientific attempt to locate the graves.


After analyzing the work of Caroline Colls and the size of various grave areas and pointing out that they are significantly smaller than what would have been required to support the "traditional" story Dalton writes:

I would further add that, on the revisionist thesis, many thousands of people did indeed die in the camp, of various causes. A high-volume transit camp would have received thousands of incoming dead (recall the “one third” statistic above), and many more would have died of disease and, yes, execution (likely by bullet) at the camp. So it is fully expected that mass graves exist in the camp. But the anticipated number of victims is much smaller—perhaps 10% of those claimed. Thus we might expect to see a total grave volume of around 10,000 to 12,000 cubic meters, rather than the 120,000 required by the conventional account.


Here he says "many thousands" and does not identify an exact number. He similarly notes that many of those "in-transit" to the camp would have arrived dead - which is in agreement with my own thesis. He does not specify a number.

Dalton then states that we "might expect to see at total grave volume of around 10,000 to 12,000 cubic meters." Yes, "we might expect" but that is not what he concludes. He goes on to discuss what Ms. Colls actually found. Speaking of one particular find he writes:

As it is, and for all she knows, the graves may indeed be no more than 4 meters deep—in which case, her large “26 x 17” grave is a mere 3% of the needed size.


Unfortunately it appears that some of our revisionist friends have read this piece for more (or less) than it actually is. Dalton speculates but draws no conclusions. It is a short travel piece to inform people about Treblinka as it is today. Dalton even writes, "lacking the details, it's hard to draw firm conclusions."


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 4 guests