Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Again!

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Again!

Postby Werd » 2 years 7 months ago (Mon Jan 04, 2016 3:35 pm)

Re: A Christmas present from HC bloggers / threats
Blogbuster » 3 years 11 months ago (Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:43 am)
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?p=49002#p49002

Blogbuster wrote:Another interesting twist to this:

Apparently Dr Nick Terry of Holocaust Controversies tried to cut a deal of some sort with the people at ARC/HEART, one can only speculate on the rationale for such an offer, but the more I learn about the HC group, the less I understand about their notion of right and wrong.

The full story is here: http://hateblogwatch.yuku.com/topic/449 ... cut-a-deal

BB

Below is a portion of the link posted above:
---------------------------------------------------------------
In 2010 Dr. Nicholas Terry sent an email to a Holocaust Education and Archive Research Team distribution list, a member/recipient of which shared the contents of the email with Hate Blog Watch, I will not repost the email here, but I will summarize the contents:

Terry describes his role in the Holocaust Controversies group, along with some shameless self promotion about his "credentials" as a historian, including his association with Deborah Lipstadt, whom everyone knows wants nothing to do with Nick Terry or Holocaust Controversies!

He goes on to accuse HEART staff of manufacturing a campaign of exposure focused on himself and the HC hate blog. He tries to apply reason at first, but quickly moves into the arena of "veiled threats" similar to some we've seen from Andrew Mathis.

After a 3 paragraphs of that nonsense, he tries to cut a deal, asking HEART staff (who have nothing to do with the exposures of HC, and to the best of my knowledge have no membership in our forum, although some of their former staff have contributed to our dossier via third party), to remove any posts, blogs entries, or information that calls him out by name, his association via his hate blog, to criminal actions, and any commentary on the Internet that he believes to be unfavorable.

He then goes on to "skirt around an offer of what he's willing to do in return".

Innocent people do not try to cut deals. Only the guilty plea bargain!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Full article here.
http://bewarreofnickterry.blogspot.com/ ... tried.html



User avatar
NLH
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 10:28 pm
Location: England, UK

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Again!

Postby NLH » 2 years 7 months ago (Mon Jan 04, 2016 5:14 pm)

Werd wrote:Re: A Christmas present from HC bloggers / threats
Blogbuster » 3 years 11 months ago (Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:43 am)
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?p=49002#p49002

Blogbuster wrote:Another interesting twist to this:

Apparently Dr Nick Terry of Holocaust Controversies tried to cut a deal of some sort with the people at ARC/HEART, one can only speculate on the rationale for such an offer, but the more I learn about the HC group, the less I understand about their notion of right and wrong.

The full story is here: http://hateblogwatch.yuku.com/topic/449 ... cut-a-deal

BB

Below is a portion of the link posted above:
---------------------------------------------------------------
In 2010 Dr. Nicholas Terry sent an email to a Holocaust Education and Archive Research Team distribution list, a member/recipient of which shared the contents of the email with Hate Blog Watch, I will not repost the email here, but I will summarize the contents:

Terry describes his role in the Holocaust Controversies group, along with some shameless self promotion about his "credentials" as a historian, including his association with Deborah Lipstadt, whom everyone knows wants nothing to do with Nick Terry or Holocaust Controversies!

He goes on to accuse HEART staff of manufacturing a campaign of exposure focused on himself and the HC hate blog. He tries to apply reason at first, but quickly moves into the arena of "veiled threats" similar to some we've seen from Andrew Mathis.

After a 3 paragraphs of that nonsense, he tries to cut a deal, asking HEART staff (who have nothing to do with the exposures of HC, and to the best of my knowledge have no membership in our forum, although some of their former staff have contributed to our dossier via third party), to remove any posts, blogs entries, or information that calls him out by name, his association via his hate blog, to criminal actions, and any commentary on the Internet that he believes to be unfavorable.

He then goes on to "skirt around an offer of what he's willing to do in return".

Innocent people do not try to cut deals. Only the guilty plea bargain!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Full article here.
http://bewarreofnickterry.blogspot.com/ ... tried.html


I'd much rather see the actual email than someone telling me it exists and summarising it.
"Believe me, I came into Auschwitz in a much worse condition than I actually left it."
- Kitty Hart-Moxon, Jewish Holocaust Survivor.

June 1998 testimony, USC Shoah Foundation, Visual History Archive.
Part 2 - YouTube - 1:21:42

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Again!

Postby Werd » 2 years 7 months ago (Tue Jan 05, 2016 12:41 am)

I would too, but blogbuster and others from hateblogwatch are incommunicado since hateblogwatch went down. I was told they were slowly backing things up and working on relaunching their website. I was promised they aren't going away and had planned to really stick it to the HC clowns.

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Again!

Postby Werd » 2 years 5 months ago (Thu Feb 18, 2016 1:02 pm)

Roberto Muehlenkamp f___s up again.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... togno.html
Against my argument that – like at Treblinka, according to Strawczyinski – the SS at Bełżec may have simply found it too difficult to extract some corpses from the bottom of the mass graves, Mattogno brings up the testimony of Wiernik[15] whereby up to a certain time 75 per cent of the corpses in the mass graves had been cremated and work was begun to empty the remaining 25 per cent of the graves. Apparently this is supposed to be a categorical statement by the witness that every last corpse was removed from the graves, in Mattogno’s understanding. Capitalizing on Wiernik’s mention of the excavator’s capacity, which is obviously impossible if one reads the witness’s description the way Mattogno likes to do[16], Mattogno claims (without substantiating his claim) that it "doesn’t make any sense" that blood mixed with water accumulating at the graves’ bottom prevented their being entirely emptied, as recalled by Strawczyinski.

[15] J. Wiernik, "One Year in Treblinka", in: A. Donat (ed.), The Death Camp Treblinka. A Documentary., 1979 Holocaust Library, New York, pp. 180f.
[16] As above, p. 170: "an excavator which could dig up 3,000 corpses at one time". The "time" that Wiernik was referring to was obviously one work shift and not one load of the excavator’s bucket.

Let us quote from 1196 in the pdf of TECOAR by MGK.
On the other hand, since the exhumation of the corpses is said to have been carried out using “an excavator which could dig up 3,000 corpses at one time” [2676] – a rather gigantic machine! [2677] – it does not make any sense that “the graves ‘could never be emptied entirely, because blood mixed with water accumulated at the bottom.’”

2676
J. Wiernik, “One Year in Treblinka,” in: A. Donat (ed.), Death Camp Treblinka, p. 170.

2677
The translation is conform to the Polish text, according to which the machine extracted “about 3,000 corpses at one time [naraz około 3.000 trupów].” J. Wiernik, Rok w Treblince. Ghetto Fighters House Archives, Catalog No. 3166, p. 13.

And this from pages 1416-1417 of the pdf.
[70] On p. 490 a new paragraph starts, “Duration of Cremations.” Here Muehlenkamp profusely dispenses his trite speculations once more. I immediately anticipate the first:

“On the page preceding these calculations, Mattogno takes issue with an obviously misunderstood or mistranslated statement in Alexander Donat’s publication of Wiernik’s A Year in Treblinka, whereby an excavator could dig up 3,000 corpses ‘at one time’ (the witness must have meant to say something like ‘in one day’ or ‘in one shift’), derisively pointing out that ‘3,000 bodies take up a volume of about (3,000×0.045 =) 135 m³.’” (p. 491)

The “plagiarist bloggers,” who accuse me wrongly of not having consulted the original texts, are satisfied with an English, albeit correct, translation in which Muehlenkamp has “obviously misunderstood or mistranslated” the meaning. I already occupied myself with this issue in point 4 of chapter 11, where I quoted the text of the first machine-typed version of Wiernik’s declarations; here I mention the second version, the one published in 1944, which speaks about an excavator, with which help “3,000 corpses at one time were extracted [wyciągano naraz 3000 trupów].” 3065 The Polish adverb “naraz” translates as “at the same time, together,” 3066 therefore I interpreted the meaning of the passage in a blameless way. It was Wiernik who uttered a monstrous nonsense.

3065
J. Wiernik, Rok w Treblince. Nakładem Komisji Koordynacyjnej. Warsaw, 1944, p. 13

3066
Jan Stanisławski, Małgorzada Szercha, Podręczny Słownik Polsko-Angielsko. Wiezda Powszechna, Warsaw, 1990, p. 325.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9488
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Again!

Postby Hannover » 2 years 5 months ago (Thu Feb 18, 2016 1:54 pm)

Here is Roberto Muehlenkamp's claimed Treblinka excavator at work.

Image
caption:
crane lifting corpses destined for cremation
source: 'Surviving Treblinka', by Samuel Willenberg.

See any "corpses"? :lol:

Don't blame us, Zionists are the ones that made this crap up.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd & impossible nature of the 'holocaust' storyline is the message.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

avatar
Atigun
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:13 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Again!

Postby Atigun » 2 years 5 months ago (Thu Feb 18, 2016 4:09 pm)

Hannover wrote:Here is Roberto Muehlenkamp's claimed Treblinka excavator at work.

Image
caption:
crane lifting corpses destined for cremation
source: 'Surviving Treblinka', by Samuel Willenberg.

See any "corpses"? :lol:

Don't blame us, Zionists are the ones that made this crap up.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd & impossible nature of the 'holocaust' storyline is the message.

- Hannover


Here is a video of a Menck & Hambrock excavator with a clamshell bucket being used to demolish a building. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Nm1N8Rr72Y It's a model Mc but nearly identical to the M&H model Mb from the Treblinka sand and gravel quarry. Note how easily it cuts into and through heavy beams, masonry and other building materials. Can you imagine what it would do to a mass of decomposing cadavers? Yet we have claims by Wiernik and others that the bodies were stacked in layers on the cremation grate. WHAT bodies? Pieces, parts, viscera and gore by the bucketful but whole bodies? Why do apparently rational people believe such nonsense?

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Again!

Postby Werd » 2 years 5 months ago (Thu Feb 18, 2016 4:53 pm)

Excavators at Belzec.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8699

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Again!

Postby Werd » 2 years 5 months ago (Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:01 am)

Muehlenkamp f___s up again II
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... no_20.html
Mattogno then tries to make the point that the purpose of Prof. Kola’s investigations essentially consisted in obtaining archaeological and historical information (and not in pinpointing mass grave areas so as to avoid their disturbance during museum construction) by quoting Prof. Kola to the effect that the general purpose of the project had been to "obtain the basic knowledge of how the camp had been planned, particularly to establish where the mass graves had been located". The quote is taken out of a context that, contrary to Mattogno’s argument, does not contradict the statement of Miles Lerman[38]:

The architectural elements commemorating the camp in Bełżec, mainly as the enclosure and the monument require changes at present. The Council of Protection of Memory of Combat and Martyrdom (Rada Ochrony Pamięci Walk i Męczeństwa - ROPWiM) in Warsaw together with the United States Holocaust Memorial Council and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington have decided to take up new actions to commemorate the camp. The general purpose, essential for the project works taken up already, is to obtain the basic knowledge of how the camp had been planned, particularly to establish where the mass graves had been located.



As one can see, Kola was referring to his employers and the commemoration purpose of their "new actions". Obtaining "basic knowledge of how the camp had been planned", and particularly to "establish where the mass graves had been located", served that commemoration purpose.

No matter how much Muehlenkamp wants to pretend, the result of Kola's work would have been obtaining exactly what mattogno claims was the real intention. Does Muehlenkamp really expect us to believe that by openly stating that they just wanted to make a memorial and commemoration, they weren't going to try and figure out where the graves were so as not to desecrate them? One comes with the other, Roberto. You can't seperate them. They were killing two birds with one stone and to pretend otherwise is an intentional lie or worse, self delusion. I can't believe Roberto is still beating this dead horse that Mattogno already took out back and shot years ago. Mattogno even says on page 1085 (paperback), "even though the excavations are said to have been ordered for museal purposes, this would not change anything, because their findings have been used by Kola for his topographical aims."
And.
Mattogno makes the point that Prof. Kola’s book "presents itself as an archeological book with historiographical claims", describing finds "which would have been completely unnecessary for mere museal purposes". This indeed suggests that – as already mentioned in the critique[44] – a broader archaeological investigation eventually resulted from the initial purpose under a "as we’re at it, les us also …" perspective, as Prof. Kola expressly pointed out when writing that the archaeological works in the Bełżec camp area, which "had originally the only aim to locate the mass graves by probing drills", revealed structures that "opened a chance to widen the research programme" into one that involved reconstructing the camp buildings and establishing the function of located objects[45]. However, as already pointed out[46], this doesn’t validate Mattogno’s conjectures and insinuations. For independently of whether identifying the mass grave areas was Kola's only task or he was eventually also commissioned to attempt an archaeological reconstruction of the camp’s buildings (and independently of whether all information about the mass graves included in Prof. Kola’s report was necessary for the planning and construction of the memorial), the archaeologist was bound by his employers' religiously motivated concerns about disturbing the dead to keep physical contact with human remains to the minimum indispensable for identifying the areas containing such remains.

Mattogno therefore needs further arguments to substantiate what I appropriately called his conspiracy theory. Mattogno balks at the term ("This phantom ‘conspiracy theory’ is a real obsession for the ‘plagiarist bloggers.’" - p. 1207), apparently oblivious of his claims of a false pretext and un-confessed ulterior motives, quoted hereafter: [47]

This only confirms my assertion: that the primary goal was to locate the mass graves. The real issue here is the purpose behind the attempt to identify the mass graves. The official explanation, that of the new memorial, is clearly deceptive. [...] It is clear that the story of the memorial is merely a pretext, allowing for a thorough examination of the entire camp area in the hope of localizing mass graves (presumably able to contain 600,000 corpses) and archeological remains (of the alleged gassing installations) that would provide material evidence for the alleged exterminations at Bełżec, and thus silence historical revisionists. When the results of the surveys failed to meet these expectations, the team fell back on the official alibi of the memorial: human remains had not been searched for and the minor remains discovered could eventually not be exhumated for "moral" reasons.


(Emphases added.)

If the above-quoted conjectures don’t qualify as a conspiracy theory, I don’t know what does.

Using the old ad hominem fallacy, Muehlenkamp thinks he has refuted a conspiracy theory simply by calling it a conspiracy theory. :lol:
Next.
Mattogno argues that the rulings of Orthodox Jewish courts mentioned by Father Patrick Desbois[48], whereby the remains of victims of the Nazi genocide should be left in peace, have not prevented Desbois from "opening a mass grave and to expose human bones (Illustration 11.11), and then to take a picture on its edge (Illustration 11.12)". The illustrations show Father Desbois by a mass execution site uncovered at Busk in the L’viv region of Ukraine, in which a layer of skeletons has been laid bare. Desbois described the Busk excavations in great detail, expressly mentioning the constraints due to Jewish religious laws under which his team was forced to work[49]:

The challenge was doubly complex. On the one hand we had to respect Jewish laws and on the other hand we wanted to obtain scientific results as precise as possible in terms of the identity of the victims, their number, and the cause of death. The Jewish law, the Halakha, specifies that bodies must not be moved under any circumstances, particularly the victims of the Holocaust. According to Orthodox Jewish tradition, these victims are resting in the fullness of God, and any movement of the bodies would disturb that peace. Hence the archaeologist could only uncover the first layer of bodies, taking care not to move any bones. In addition, the bodies had to be covered up again as soon as the archaeologist finished working.


(Emphasis added.)

Mattogno either didn’t read Desbois’ book or omitted the above information on account of its inconvenience to his argument.


Why, one might ask, is excavation of human remains at extermination camp sites not allowed by Orthodox Jews although Father Desbois was allowed to conduct the excavations at Busk? A possible reason is that digging without dislocation of human remains (thus in compliance with Halakha) was possible at a place like Busk, which contained whole skeletons. At places where human remains mostly consist of ashes and smaller or larger bone fragments mixed with soil, on the other hand, every spade movement would imply dislocating human remains and thus violating Jewish law.

Roberto Muehlenkamp admits that religion takes precedence over science and expects us to believe Debois without evidence there were several layers of corpses. This looks bad for the holocaust believers, not revisionists who point it out.
This argument fails to take into account a source pointed out by Mattogno himself in an earlier publication[52], namely the article "Exhuming the Dead" by Rabbi Myron S. Geller[53]. Geller summarizes the applicable rules as follows:

From the perspective of halakhah, the removal of remains from a grave is generally barred because of concern for the dignity of the dead. Under certain circumstances, remains may be transferred:
A. to move the remains to a family burial plot;
B. to move the remains to Eretz Yisrael;
C. for the security of the remains against vandalism or natural catastrophe;
D. for public need; or,
E. if the remains were buried in a plot belonging to someone else.



Exception A - "to move the remains to a family burial plot" is obviously the reason why corpses of murdered Jews were exhumed from the mass graves into which their killers had buried them and transferred to the local Jewish cemetery. For Jews from a certain location murdered at or near that location, the location’s Jewish cemetery would be the "family burial plot", the place where their ancestors and other members of their extended family had been buried. But how was anyone to tell, from the partial remains saturating the soil of Bełżec, Sobibór and Treblinka, which remains belonged to what "family burial plot"? Impossible. And because it was impossible to determine what "family burial plots" the remains in the soil of the extermination camps should be transferred to (as concerns remains other than corpses in wax-fat transformation, it was even impossible to establish what specific human being these remains pertained to), exhumation under Exception A to the Halakhah rules (the only one that could have applied) was out of the question. Thus Mattogno’s examples don’t support his argument.


[52]"LE ULTERIORI CONTROVERSIE OLOCAUSTICHE DI ROBERTO MUEHLENKAMP Parte I.", now under [link], commented in the article "Belzec Mass Graves and Archaeology - Continuation (1)" ([link]).
[53] Online under [link].

I have the paperback in front of me now by MGK and every example Mattogno quotes is talking about whole bodies. On page 1087, Mattogno mentions a case near Iasi (Romania). 311 bodies were exhumed and put into three large common graves in the Jewish cemetary. Muehlenkamp wins on this one. Or does he? Let's jump back to a quote he took from Debois and added bold text to.
The challenge was doubly complex. On the one hand we had to respect Jewish laws and on the other hand we wanted to obtain scientific results as precise as possible in terms of the identity of the victims, their number, and the cause of death. The Jewish law, the Halakha, specifies that bodies must not be moved under any circumstances, particularly the victims of the Holocaust. According to Orthodox Jewish tradition, these victims are resting in the fullness of God, and any movement of the bodies would disturb that peace. Hence the archaeologist could only uncover the first layer of bodies, taking care not to move any bones. In addition, the bodies had to be covered up again as soon as the archaeologist finished working.

Wait a minute. I thought that as long as bodies were intact they could be moved and reburied according to Rabbi Geller. Oh I know. Does Halakah as told to Debois only permit one to dig up the graves and look at the bodies but just not move them? :lol: I thought they weren't supposed to be disturbed AT ALL. Not according to Geller. Furthermore, Mattogno never cared about unidentifiable remains that were destroyed through immense decay or cremation. He only cited examples about CORPSES and SKELETONS. So this is a red herring. Let us see the Italian version of mattogno's article about Belzec.
http://studirevisionisti.myblog.it/2012/02/06/057-le-ulteriori-controversie-olocaustiche-di-roberto-muehle/



Egli si appella poi alla seguente affermazione del padre Desbois:

«Prendendo una carta gialla, Rabbi Schlesinger alzò gli occhi e mi spiegò in inglese che si era deciso che gli Ebrei assassinati dal Terzo Reich erano “tsadiqim”,“santi”, e che è stata assicurata loro la plenitudine della vita eterna. Per questo i loro luoghi di sepoltura, dovunque si trovino – sotto un’autostrada o in un giardino – devono restare intatti in modo da non disturbare i loro resti» (corsivo di Muehlenkamp).

Ciò però non è in contrasto con questa mia osservazione:

«Secondo la tradizione giudaica, l’Ebreo morto potrà essere giudicato, alla fine del mondo, soltanto a Gerusalemme, donde la credenza popolare che “ogni Ebreo che muore fuori della Palestina deve scavarsi con le unghie una galleria per arrivare a Gerusalemme” e proprio per questo al cadavere “si nettano con scrupolosa cura le unghie”. Tralasciando il rituale, l’inumazione “in terra d’Israele” rappresenta un desideratum per gli Ebrei, e se ciò non è possibile “si usa mettere un po’ di terra d’Israele sulla testa o sotto i corpi degli Ebrei sepolti nella diaspora”».

Infatti per il giudaismo è lecito esumare un cadavere[6] «per spostare i resti in Eretz Yisrael [nella terra d’Israele] [7].

Con tutto il rispetto per Rabbi Schlesinger, rilevo che la pratica dell’esumazione e la risepoltura di cadaveri di Ebrei uccisi dai Tedeschi non è stata affatto insolita dopo la fine della seconda guerra mondiale. Ecco qualche esempio.

This is divided into PARTS. This is from part one. Let's see the footnotes from part one with English translation via google.
He then appealed to the Father Desbois following statement:

"Taking a yellow card, Rabbi Schlesinger looked up and said in English to me that it had been decided that the Jews murdered by the Third Reich were" tsadiqim "," holy ", and was assured them the fullness of eternal life. Why their burial places, wherever they are - under a highway or in a garden - must remain intact so as not to disturb their remains "(the Muehlenkamp italics).

But this is not in conflict with my remark:

"According to Jewish tradition, the Jew dead will be judged at the end of the world, only in Jerusalem, whence the popular belief that" every Jew who dies outside Palestine must claw or a tunnel to get to Jerusalem "and its why the body "is Neptune with scrupulous care the nails". Aside from the ritual burial "in Israel's" land is a desideratum for the Jews, and if this is not possible "is used to put a little 'of the land of Israel on the head or buried under the bodies of the Jews in the Diaspora "».

In fact, for Judaism it is permissible to exhume a corpse [6] "to move the remains to Eretz Yisrael [the Land of Israel] [7].

With all due respect to Rabbi Schlesinger, I note that the practice of the exhumation and reburial of the bodies of Jews killed by the Germans was not at all unusual since the end of World War II. Here are some examples.

[6] Rabbi Myron S. Geller, Exhuming the dead http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/ teshuvot/docs/19912000/ geller_exhuming.pdf

[7] Rabbi Myron S. Geller, Exhuming the dead http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/ teshuvot/docs/19912000/ geller_exhuming.pdf

Clearly Mattogno was aware of exception B to move the remains to Eretz Yisrael. He was aware of the disagreement between rabbis in halakah. So Roberto's objection is useless.

Moving from Bełżec to Sobibór, Mattogno accuses me on p. 1215 of dishonestly contorting the sense of a long slab of text from MGK’s Sobibór book[56], without explaining what the claimed dishonest contortion is supposed to consist of. In said long slab of text, which Mattogno quotes in all its splendor, MGK complain about "persons not satisfied with mere belief in eye witness claims and fanciful interpretations of documents" being "equated with flat-earthers and simply not debated with", and about the supposed cardinal scientific sin of accepting "as an a priori fact" the Sobibór gas chambers "for which there exist only the weakest type of evidence, namely eye witness testimony". "If this is not ‘pseudoscience,’ then what is it?", Mattogno rhetorically asks.

Well, it’s a reasonable scientific approach, as reasonable as it was to accept the existence and destruction of Roman Pompeji based on contemporary eyewitness accounts independently of what archaeological research revealed.

Anatoly Fomenko and others have mounted convincing arguments that there are holes in our chronology and that this Pompeii nonsense was artificially thrown back into the past by the French jesuits who wrote our current chronology only a few centuries ago.
One last one.
as to documents regarding the AR camps and deportations thereto, the only "fanciful" interpretations thereof are those of Mattogno et al, who to this day have not been able to provide a single name of a Jew supposedly transited to the Nazi-occupied territories of the Soviet Union even though such names would be all over the place if such transit had occurred.[58]

Ah yes, the whole, "well then where did they go then?" conundrum.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8272
One more. Here is a reader posted comment.
Nathan said...

- Considering that Rabbi Weiss’ concerns of "desecration" were obviously not shared at the time by other leading figures of the Jewish religious community, a reasonable person might conclude that there were differences in the Jewish religious community as to the interpretation of rules governing burial places and the exceptions of such rules, -

It happens all the time. Pope Francis, IIRC is quite loose on the subject of contraceptives. Catholics in other parts of the world aren't. As "monolithic" as Religious doctrine is, different people will always interpret it differently.

Dumbass antisemite Mattogno is too stupid to realize this.
Sunday, February 21, 2016 5:17:00 am

Since rabbis themselves can't agree on disturbing entire corpses or not, I see no reason to subvert science to religion and make excuses for it.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9488
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Again!

Postby Hannover » 2 years 5 months ago (Sun Feb 21, 2016 10:31 am)

Well done, Werd.

We have addressed this phony & pathetic claim about 'Jewish law', it's nothing more than desperate excuse for the complete lack of alleged 'holocaust' mass graves.
see:
The Big Excuse: 'excavation & exhumation of Jews forbidden'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6817
and:
"Jewish Burial Law" as excuse
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8997

- After all, Israeli Police have no problem exhuming corpses in murder cases.
- Poland is certainly not bound by so called 'Jewish law'.
- And then there's the claim that 5,000,000 'others' (non-Jews) were allegedly murdered in the same manner at the same places.
Oops.

Not a single enormous 'holocaust' mass grave alleged has been excavated, verified, and shown. We know why, they do not exist.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Again!

Postby Werd » 2 years 2 months ago (Thu Jun 09, 2016 2:19 pm)

Over the last two months, Roberto Muehlenkamp has been posting installments claiming to refute the last two chapters of TECOAR written by Mattogno. Let's jump in.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2016/03/mattognos-cremation-encyclopedia.html
Mattogno reiterates his attack against Dr. Pfannenstiel’s accounts of early cremation attempts at Bełżec[6], adding two arguments to his previous ones. The first argument (p. 1297) is that "the key witness Reder never mentions cremations as having taken place at Bełżec during his stay in the camp (17 August to the end of November 1942)". Interestingly there is no qualification to the term "key witness", suggesting that Mattogno considers Reder to have indeed been a key witness to mass extermination at this camp. Otherwise the argument is without interest as witnesses tend to recall and recollect what impressed them and thus stuck in their memory, and what that is varies from person to person. So if early corpse cremation attempts were not mentioned by Reder, this may simply be because he didn’t take an interest in such attempts, unlike the hygienist Dr. Pfannenstiel and the policeman interviewed by Wehrmacht officer Wilhelm Cornides[7].

[7] H. Rothfels "Zur ‘Umsiedlung’ der Juden im Generalgouvernement", Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 1959, Heft 3, pp.333-6. Cornides himself noticed an acrid burning odor when passing the camp by train.

Here is what Muehlenkamp leaves out.
Reder in fact mentioned it only as rumors heard from the local population – after his escape from the camp – when
he returned there after the arrival of the Red Army: 2861
“Soon I went there. I spoke with the people living in the area. They told me that in 1943 there had been fewer and fewer transports and that the center for exterminating Jews had shifted to the Auschwitz gas chambers. In 1944 the pits were dug up, gasoline was poured over the corpses and they were burned”
(see point 4)

But Muehlenkamp chimes in.
Mattogno takes issue with my having considered the possibility that this cremation, which according to eyewitness testimonies started in November of 1942, extended beyond March 1943.

Since Reder was gone by 1942, it's no wonder he did not mention cremations if cremations were not taking place until November 1942.
One of the sources I had invoked in support of this possibility was Gerald Reitlinger’s The Final Solution, where it is mentioned that a witness noticed the stench of exhumed corpses as late as April 1943. In an endeavor to (quite pointlessly, as I had written nothing to the contrary) highlight the fact that said witness had not mentioned cremation, Mattogno provides a comprehensive quote of the witness’s account[8], which he had earlier[9] presented as "horrifying propaganda stories" – including the following information, matching Cornides’ account, about what it was like to pass by the place that Mattogno claims was a mere transit camp:

Travelers on the railway line Zawada-Rawa Ruska close the windows, for this awful stench penetrates into the compartments and causes the people to vomit. I myself had to travel along this line on several occasions and have thus been able to convince myself of this state of affairs. As late as April 10, 1943, I passed through there one last time. The Christian population of Belzec has left this place for the only reason of this stench.

The other source, which Mattogno keeps silent about, is local inhabitant Eustachy Ukraiński, who stated that cremation at Bełżec lasted throughout the spring of 1943[10]. Another local inhabitant, Jan Gląb, recalled after the war that the burning of the corpses had ended in April 1943[11].

[10]Deposition before examining judge Godziszewski in Zamość on 11.10.1945, BAL B162/208 AR-Z 252/59, Bd. VI, f. 1117-20, referred to in critique, note 5 on p. 441.
[11]Deposition of Jan Gląb on 16.10.1945, quoted in Robert Kuwałek, Das Vernichtungslager Bełżec, p. 235.

Mattogno's point in TECOAR was that a witness quoted in Retlinger to a stench in April does not prove cremations. However Muehlenkamp appears to have tracked down two testimonies that specifically mention cremation. But he does not bother to quote them directly to prove his point. So we are forced to wonder if he just found two more testimonies about stinky corpses and just PRETENDS they specifically mention cremation. Roberto continues:
Regarding the device used at Bełżec to crush the victims’ bones after cremation, Mattogno amusingly accuses me of having omitted "the fact that Reder is not an eyewitness to the use of this machine", after quoting at length the footnote on pp. 442f. of the critique, in which I mentioned a Hungarian Jew named Szpilke, or Szpilka, "who told Belzec survivor Rudolf Reder about having set up and operated this machine, as mentioned by Reder in his report about Belzec". It should be clear to everyone other than Mattogno that if Reder learned about the device from this Szpilke, or Szpilka, this means that Reder did not witness the device himself. Referring to earlier depositions of Reder’s that mention neither this acquaintance nor the information he provided to Reder, Mattogno argues that "the tale of the grinder of Bełżec is not only without any proof, but also evolved rather late". Yes, the "tale" presumably "evolved" after Reder met the man he referred to as "an acquaintance, the technician Scharf-Szpilka, who assembled the grinder for grinding the bones", but this means not that the "tale" is without any proof, but that the proof consists of or includes Reder’s second-hand testimony

Mattogno was right to do so. I guess now your 'clarification' is that you have to admit he is not a direct eyewitness, but that he spoke to someone who was allegedly involved with setting up this bone grinding machine.
Commenting on a photo I showed on p. 443 of the critique ("Heinrich Chamaides, David Manuschewitz and Moische Korn (f.l.t.r.) on the platform of the bone mill in the Janowska camp in Lwow"), Mattogno mentions that such machine "was found in Lwów and was the object of a Soviet technical report dated 29 September 1944", concedes the possibility that "this machine was also used to grind burned human bones", but then hastens to add that "there is no documentary evidence of it, and neither is there any documentary proof that this machine was ever transferred to Bełżec". That may be so, but it’s not Mattogno who gets to set the rules of evidence, and in historiography and criminal investigation proof may also be provided by oral testimony. As concerns a bone grinding machine from Janowska, Reder’s reference to Scharf-Szpilka may be the only evidence, but local inhabitant Edward Łuczyński mentioned an additional device, a grain mill that had been confiscated from local peasants[12].


[12]Deposition of Edward Łuczyński, referred to in Kuwałek, Bełżec, p. 233. At Bełżec Father Patrick Desbois met the son of a man who "had seen the ash mills operating in the camp, old agricultural machines that were used to sort wheat from other grains. The Nazis used them to ventilate the ashes from the bodies, and to find dental gold." (Father Patrick Desbois, The Holocaust by Bullets, p. 24).

That famous bone machine nonsense was Soviet propaganda. It was exposed in a recent article from inconvenienthistory.
http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/ ... emberg.php
Pay special attention to the section Do the photographs reveal where the mill was used? and read on from there.
Furthermore, who is the son of some man who saw ash mills operating in the camp? Anything, Roberto, or are you just throwing out references without any type of elucidation and exegesis to simply pad your essay? Moving on.
Mattogno’s attempt to present the choice of Sobibór as "idiotic" on account of the leachate problem that eventually materialized, which Mattogno harks back to here for the sake of cheap ad hominem ("Accordingly, one must believe that the SS, being completely unable to foresee a more than obvious danger of groundwater poisoning due to leachate, were as inept as Muehlenkamp."), has already been addressed[13]
[13]See the blog ""Alleged" Mass Graves and other Mattogno Fantasies (Part 5, Section 1)" ([link])

We go there and I find this.
Mattogno produces the following blatant falsehood as he explains what he considers to be "the essence" (p. 1266):

The important data is that groundwater was located at a depth of 3.60 m from the surface. What importance does it have that Kola continued to dig in a shaft until he reached a depth of 5.10 m? This means that he merely found (5.1 – 3.6 =) 1.5 m of groundwater. And then? The problem Muehlenkamp dodges is in fact this: How could Kola drill up to 5.80 meters without running into water in an area where the groundwater level was 3.6 meters?

[...]

I don’t know how one can remove 1.50 meters of water by shoveling (especially after having reached the water table), but Mattogno apparently believes that this is possible, or then expects his readers to accept this possibility. Worse than that, Mattogno is rather unintelligently returning to the original claim that he and his co-authors had had enough sense to abandon in their Sobibór book, namely that the groundwater level (i.e. the "underground surface below which the ground is wholly saturated with water"[210]) in the area of Prof. Kola’s excavation was 3.60 meters. Actually at that depth, according to Prof. Kola, only traces of ground water "started appearing". Only at a depth of 5 to 5.10 meters, according to Kola’s description, did the ground become wholly saturated with water (Kola wrote about a "sudden leak of ground waters"), making further digging impossible. So the groundwater level or water table in this area was 5 to 5.10 meters, not 3.60 meters.

Let's regain some clarity.
During the penetration of the camp (basing on information taken from the locals) another well, made of concrete rollers was located north-eastern from memorial. After it was partially uncovered, the upper side of its highest roller was found at the depth of around 2.20 m to the existing surface. It’s measuring 180 cm in its external diameter, with the roller height of 0.80m and wall thickness up to 18cm. It was completely filled with sand. In the drill done around it, water was found at the depth of 5m. Well with similar parameters is still used near the existing building, house of the former commander, in the area of former camp 1.

http://holocaustcontroversies.yuku.com/ ... dzDJJdmp7F

This is from a section about "Grave no.4". So they are talking about Lager III in this quote.
Now we are finding water at 3.6 m, and even 5m. The last sentence talks about how a well like it with similar parameters exists in Lager I.
Object C

(Hectare XXV, acre 35. Dig 3/01)

In the depth of around 40-45 cm below the asphalt, where the cement well was located, there was started an archaeological dig, measuring horizontally 2.3 x 2.1 m. The dig was being excavated until the depth of 95 – 100 m, uncovering – at the depth of 50 m – the upper part of the first remaining cement CEMBROWINA of the well. It was noticed that while building the well, only the sand from its interior was taken out. Hence the following exploration was taken only in its interior not in the area of the dig. The depth of 5.00 – 5.10 m was reached. The exploration had to be stopped here because of the sudden leak of ground waters, of which traces started appearing at the depth of around 3, 60 m. They didn’t make it till the end of the well then. 7 cement spherical parts of well were revealed measuring 110 cm on the outside, 90 cm in the inside and with its height of 70 cm. In the construction of the well, the first, surface part was missing. The well was covered with sandy structures, probably at the times of memorial works in the 60s, and then covered with asphalt layer in the 80s. Until now, it is the only known well with water in the area of camp III.

http://holocaustcontroversies.yuku.com/ ... dzDJJdmp7F

So they found traces of groundwater at 3.6m but stopped at 5 meters. So maybe the water started seeping in more severely at say 4.25 meters or even 4.5 meters. And maybe they kept going because despite water leaking in, it was not too obstructive. Only at 5 meters did it get so bad they had to stop. So when Roberto says, " I don’t know how one can remove 1.50 meters of water by shoveling (especially after having reached the water table), but Mattogno apparently believes that this is possible, or then expects his readers to accept this possibility," he is playing dumb. No one is arguing that one removes 1.5 meters of water. Not Mattogno. What Mattogno is saying is that groundwater was starting to leak in and was definitely present at 4 meters. And that would be enough water to be contaminated by the corpses. Which would not make sense from a logistical point of view of you are intelligent nazis skilled at assembly line killing who want to do away with Jews in the safest way for Germans.
To jump back a bit:
Regarding Sobibór, Mattogno (p. 1302) takes issue with my statement (p. 443) that Sobibór "was the first of the three camps of Aktion Reinhard to change its body disposal procedure from burial to cremation, the main reason being probably a concern that the camp’s water supply might be polluted by leachate from the graves due to the camp area’s relatively high groundwater level." This is supposed to be irreconcilable with an earlier statement whereby the SS "could hope that groundwater pollution by leachate from the corpses would not occur at the site of the graves because underground currents carried such leachate away". Mattogno’s reading problems obviously kept him from realizing that the earlier statement referred to the time when Sobibór was chosen as an extermination site, while the later one referred to developments after the camp had already been conducting killing operations for several months.

Even if Roberto can erase this contradiction, it doesn't matter given what I just wrote. The groundwater was close enough to the surface that it would have posed a problem. Secondly, the nazis knew it was in a swampy area and would pose a danger. From witness Leon Feldhendler:
The crematorium was fenced in. 50 Jews were working there [...]. In the first period there was not yet a crematorium. After the gassing the persons were put into the graves in layers, the graves were still open, chlorine was poured over the corpses. But the soil exuded gases, blood started to squirt, nasty odors spread over the whole camp, they permeated everything. During this entire time the water in Sobibór was putrid. The Germans ordered their well to be purified. In wintertime they let some naked inmates inside the well to clean it.

Looks like the water in the well in Lager III was ruined by the corpse burials after all. Oh but that's right. The nazis never intended to dis-inter the bodies until they figured they would lose the war and get caught. Sure, Roberto. I guess the nazis would just go to the well in Lager I to get all the water they needed. Surely that wouldn't be contaminated? :lol: Remember many nazis lived in that camp and had their own quarters. They need food and water like anyone else to survive. What are they gonna do if they poison the wells? Ship water in by train? Plane? :lol:
Next, we see Roberto in his typical dishonest that Mattogno often accuses him of engaging in.
My next statement regarding Sobibór:
The corpses of the victims killed after the camp resumed operation in October 1942 following a two-month interruption were taken directly from the gas chambers to places of cremation, while the corpses of the victims killed and buried until the end of July/early August 1942 were disinterred with a mechanical excavator for this purpose.
also gets prominent attention from Mattogno, who refers to a statement by Jakób Biskubicz whereby the excavator (which extracted previously buried bodies from the mass graves for burial) arrived at Sobibór (only) in December 1942. As I said nothing about when the burning of the interred corpses (as opposed to that of newly killed arrivals, which started in October 1942) commenced, Mattogno’s objection is quite pointless, and his subsequent criticism ("Muehlenkamp does not explain why the camp SS did not take advantage of these two months of respite in order to start the cremations, which were supposedly begun only later in connection with the resumption of the deportations.") must be dismissed as a showpiece of Mattognian silliness as its author does not explain what relevance the missing explanation is supposed to have.

Clearly the Germans who were evil and smart enough to come up with assembly line killing and disposal methods would not have pissed away an opportunity to get ahead of schedule.
As for Muehlenkamp wondering why Mattogno thinks there is a contradiction between Shelvis and Feldhendler describing the pits, observe:

Leon Feldhendler: "The crematorium did not have a chimney. It consisted of a big pit, and above it some grids were put and above those rail tracks. The persons were thrown on the rail tracks and the bones fell to the grid. The fire was ignited in the pit, the corpses were doused with petroleum. The bones were crushed to ash with hammers.”

PIT-GRIDS-RAIL TRACKS
Schelvis wrote: A pit was excavated, but it was smaller and more shallow than the other two. Once it was finished, rails were criss-crossed over the top, forming a rudimentary grid. The grabber was then used to excavate the decomposing bodies from the two existing graves and to haul them over to the new pit.
PIT-RAIL TRACKS

Moving on:
Mattogno then claims that the Hagen Court’s verdict on Sobibór[16]"refers to the installation of a single cremation structure", though the quote and translation he provides clearly mention several grates:
The already decomposed corpses were lifted out of the pits with the help of the excavator and burned on large grates in an already dug but as yet empty pit. The grates consisted of old railway rails which had been placed over concrete foundations.
I considered this description to have been confirmed by archaeological research, on grounds that graves nos. 1 and 2 had been described as body-burning graves by Prof. Kola in his report about his 2001 survey of the camp[17]. In chapter 11 (p. 1256), Mattogno argued that Prof. Kola’s term "grób ciałopalny", which my translator had rendered as "body burning grave", is more correctly translated as "grave accommodating remains of cremation". If so, this means that Prof. Kola didn’t consider these graves to have been places where bodies were burned, but merely dumping sites for cremation remains. It doesn’t, however, rule out that cremation took place at these sites

Mattogno can read Polish, you can't. We have already established that, Roberto. And your pathetic attempt to now save your ass since you have egg on your face is a non sequitor ad hoc. "Well it could have happened." Yeah we already know Kola said that. So what?
viewtopic.php?p=62081#p62081

Muehlenkamp continues:
In the cremation chapter, Mattogno additionally argues (p. 1306) that the areas of mass graves 1 and 2 are far too large for cremation grates, quite pointlessly so as I had not claimed that the area of the graves had been equal to the area of the grates (I had merely written that the graves were large enough for grates of considerable size to fit into them, p. 444).

So Muehlenkamp makes his next move...
Were the cremation grates set up above a pit as assumed by Schelvis and described by Feldhendler (see above), were they set up inside such a pit as per the Hagen court’s findings of fact, or were both methods used at one or the other time? In support of the second of these possibilities, considering my reading of Prof. Kola’s archaeological investigation results, I had referred to several witnesses (p. 444, footnote 18): former SS-man Erich Bauer, who mentioned that the corpses were burned in pits on grids made of railway rails ("In den Gruben wurden die Leichen auf Rosten, die aus Eisenbahnschienen hergestellt waren, verbrannt."); inmate Chaim Engel, who mentioned a deep pit containing burning grids; inmate Kurt Thomas, who in various depositions had mentioned a "Krematoriumsschacht" (crematorium shaft), a "Verbrennungsschacht" (burning shaft) and a "Kremationsgrube" (cremation pit); Jan Piwonski, turnout setter at Sobibor train station, who learned about the burning of corpses in a pit from a non-German camp guard. It speaks volumes of Mattogno’s methodology that he addresses only the last of these witnesses, who provided quite a detailed description (quoted by Mattogno, pp. 1310f.) of what he had been told about the cremation method by a guard named Waska:
The guard told me that in the vicinity of the mass graves a pit around two meter deep was dug, that in this pit a kind of grate was constructed from railway tracks, and that on this grate the root stumps previously doused with some liquid were put. When this [fire] burned well, the excavator is said to have put the corpses on top of it.
Mattogno remarks that according to this second-hand witness the cremation is stated to have taken place in one single pit (no problem with that) on one single grate (which doesn’t preclude the setting up of one or more further grates at a later stage). Deliberately conflating the time when Sobibór changed its body disposal procedure from burial to cremation (October 1942) and the time when cremation was extended to the previously interred corpses (which happened in the second half of November or in early December 1942, according to Piwonski),

the two month gap Mattogno noted earlier...
Mattogno further remarks that "According to the witness, the cremations commenced in December 1942, not in October as stated by Muehlenkamp" (who, as we have seen, didn’t state that cremation of exhumed corpses, as opposed to corpses of freshly killed deportees, started in October 1942).

It is claimed that in October 1942, the method changed directly to gassing-cremation and no longer involved burials, and then two months later, only in December did old corpses start getting extracted to also be cremated. Fine. Does Roberto also want to tell us when the transition from grates/rails above the pits turned into grates/rails inside pits? Or does he wish to explain why the Germans would employ different methods instead of just being consistent?
Freiberg is quoted at length by Mattogno so he can make a fuss about my having omitted this witness's "nonsense" about the corpses having fallen through the gas chamber floor after the gassing, as if this obviously inaccurate description (or, for that matter, the subsequent, equally inaccurate description of the burning process) ruled out the possibility that the witness was right about the cremation pyres having been doused with gasoline.

Cremation of corpses for health reasons does not equal gas chambers.
Mattogno obviously hasn’t understood yet that a witness, especially one that, like any surviving Sobibór inmate, didn’t witness the killing and body disposal process first hand, may be dead wrong about certain details but right about others, and that a witness who is either right or wrong about everything he recalls is a rarity in real life. His rambling against Freiberg’s "nonsense", on the other hand, doesn’t keep Mattogno from using Freiberg’s testimony to his advantage, as he points out that the cremation system described by this witness "is in total contradiction to the one evoked by Muehlenkamp" (which is irrelevant as I didn’t refer to the witness as concerns the cremation system).

There were a whole host of people who claimed there were gas chamber trap doors.
http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blog ... 68008c06ea
Perhaps the most embarrassing one is Biskowitz.
Q. You came to this conclusion from the nature of the structure?
A. Not from the nature of the structure – I saw it from afar even while I was running away quickly, although I cannot describe it exactly, after nineteen years.
Q. Please understand me. You are somewhat familiar with these matters. Did you see the floor when it had opened up?
A. I did not see that – I merely saw that underneath the gas chamber, there was a hollow which already contained bodies.
At this exact point, the presiding judge hurriedly declaimed that Biskubicz had concluded his testimony, enigmatically adding:
I know you have not told us everything. But there was no alternative.
Small wonder the judge wanted Biskubicz to step down from the witness stand – his gas chamber building with collapsible floor is completely anathema to the death chamber dogma which was in place already by the time Biskubicz took the oath in Jerusalem.

It cannot be succesfully argued that Biskubicz did not see the inside of the building, or that he did not actually see a collapsible floor. Let us recapitulate what Biskubicz tells us of his observation per se (emphases mine):
I saw the pit and the hollow and the small train that carried the dead bodies ... I saw it from afar even while I was running away quickly... I only saw, from the outside, that there was a very prominent roof, and that the floor opened and the bodies fell below... I merely saw that underneath the gas chamber, there was a hollow which already contained bodies.
It is evident from this that Biskubicz maintained that he had seen corpses lying beneath a collapsible gas chamber floor – a sight irreconcilable with what the official narrative has to tell us of the alleged gas chambers at that camp and their construction.[2]
http://codoh.com/library/document/647/


I will deal with his take on Treblinka later.

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Again!

Postby Werd » 2 years 2 months ago (Thu Jun 09, 2016 10:10 pm)

The Muehlenkamp section of Treblinka.

Treblinka

As concerns Treblinka, Mattogno starts out (p. 1311) by referring to his earlier exploits in commenting my statements regarding corpse burning in August and September as well as October, November and December 1942. These have been commented in another blog[21], in which I distinguished three phases of cremation at Treblinka that I consider probable:

- 1st phase, beginning in late August 1942 and lasting until October of that year: not very successful attempts to burn the upper layers of corpses in the graves for hygienic purposes (especially in order to combat the smell of decomposition emanating from the corpses), burning of deportees murdered in the Lazarett;
- 2nd phase, beginning in November or December 1942: not very successful attempts (see e.g. Rajchman’s account quoted above) to burn all the corpses, (also) motivated by at least one complaint about the stench emanating from insufficiently buried corpses as the graves in camp’s extermination sector were filled to or beyond capacity;
- 3rd phase, after an efficient cremation procedure had been implemented, in which the corpses were systematically removed from the mass graves with excavators and burned on pyres made of concrete bases and railway rails.

[21]"Mattogno on early cremation at Treblinka" ([link])

Quick jump there and we find this:
His first target in this context are the following statements by my fellow blogger and co-author Jason Myers on p. 358 of the HC critique of Mattogno, Graf and Kues[4]:

Another Treblinka I inmate, Israel Cymlich, wrote in 1943 that "smoke was billowing from the pits and the terrible smell of burning human bodies spread through the air." Obviously the smells that Cymlich and Chodzko experienced were from the cremation of the mass graves filled with hundreds of thousands of Jews in the Treblinka extermination camp, which the Wehrmacht command of Ostrow believed were "not adequately buried."


which Mattogno comments in the following erudite manner:

Considering that this witness was detained in Treblinka I, which, as mentioned above, was located some 1.5 km as the crow flies from Treblinka II, any person of intelligence and good faith would ask how Cymlich could possibly know that the smoke "was billowing from the pits," but Myers does not meet these criteria, as is obvious from his conclusion:[…] "Obviously" this is a dishonest and ridiculous interpretation, because, as the “plagiarist bloggers” are well aware, the cremation of corpses, according to the canon of Holocaust historiography, began "at the end of February/beginning of March 1943." (p. 445). This is the reason for Myers’s hypocritical silence on the date of the complaint from Ortskommandantur Ostrów: 24 October 1942.


It obviously didn’t occur to the author of these fine lines that the first of the targeted statements didn’t contain a claim that Cymlich positively knew the details of the burning whose smell he noticed, the argument rather being that the witness noticed this smell and assumed (based on what he had learned about the place and his own conjectures) that the smell was coming from the burning of corpses in "the pits" at Treblinka extermination camp. In fact the witness Cymlich expressly stated that he didn’t know any particulars about the killing and body disposal process. [5]

[5] The pertinent passage of Cymlich’s account reads as follows: "The Germans guarded the secrets of the death camp well. At a later stage, all this was to leak out – but meanwhile smoke was billowing from the pits and the terrible smell of burning corpses spread through the air. All we knew was that the corpses were completely burned; nothing specific, however, was known about the methods of mass killing". (Escaping Hell in Treblinka. Israel Cymlich. Oskar Strawczyinski, Yad Vashem and The Holocaust Survivors’ Memoirs Project, New York and Jerusalem 2007, p. 38; emphasis added.)

So in other words, it was a lucky guess.
As concerns the second targeted statement ("Obviously …"), Mattogno’s mumbling about "hypocritical silence" is hard to understand: just how is the recorded date of Ortskommandantur Ostrów’s complaint about the stench of decomposing corpses in Treblinka (24.10.1942) supposed to contradict the notion that the general exhumation and cremation of the corpses in the mass graves (which seems to be what Cymlich was referring to, judging by the context of his mention of the smoke "billowing from the pits")[6] began in late February or early March 1943?

Good point Roberto. There will indeed be no contradiction if you can prove that mass corpse extraction didn't occur until early 1943 and that previous destruction of corpses by fire (while still in the open pits) was just to carbonize the top layer(s) to try and reduce the stench. Sure enough, that is where Roberto goes in this secondary HC article we had to jump to.
The rest of Mattogno’s above-quoted utterances is not much brighter, not only due to the "plagiarist bloggers" nonsense but also because there is no such thing as a "canon of Holocaust historiography" whereby corpse cremation at Treblinka only began at the end of February/beginning of March 1943, especially not in the sense that no corpses had been cremated at Treblinka before that time. The absence of such "canon" obviously didn’t escape Mattogno, for right after the above-quoted pearl he quotes, following a self-projecting accusation of "equal dishonesty", the following passages from p. 445 of the Critique:

From Treblinka extermination camp there are reports of corpse burning as early as August and September 1942. [27] These cremation procedures don’t seem to have been aimed at destroying all corpses in the graves, but rather at carbonizing the upper layers to stretch burial space and for hygienic purposes.[28] The same may have applied to reported cremations in the months of October, November and December 1942, another possibility being that these were early and not very successful attempts at wholesale cremation, perhaps motivated by shortage of burial space and/or by complaints such as one from the Wehrmacht local commandant in Ostrow about the unbearable stench of corpses emanating from Treblinka because the Jews there were not sufficiently buried.[29].


Note that the quoted paragraph refers to three footnotes. The first of them, note 27, mentions the following sources for cremations at Treblinka in August and September 1942: "Krzepicki, ‘Eighteen Days in Treblinka’, p.92; Eddi Weinstein, Steel Quenched in Cold Water, The Story of an Escape from Treblinka, Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 2001, online excerpt under http://www.zchor.org/losice/weinstein.htm#treblinka; deposition of Samuel Rajzman on 26.09.1944, quoted in M&G, Treblinka, p.141f.". The second, note 28, is a comment about the witness Rajzman’s depositions, which will be addressed below. The third mentions the following sources for cremations in the months October, November and December 1942: "Strawczyinski, ‘Escaping Hell’, pp.129 ff.; Glazar, Trap With A Green Fence, p.29 f.; Mendel Korytnicki, 23.09.1944, GARF 7445-2-134, pl.57ob, quoted in Sergey Romanov, "The Clueless Duo and early corpse incineration in Treblinka and Belzec" (http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... orpse.html)”.

Regarding the first two witnesses to cremation in August and September 1942 (Krzepicki and Weinstein), Mattogno is notably short of arguments; the only contradiction he can point out concerns the dates on which the burning of the corpses started: 24 August 1942 according to Weinstein, 27 August 1942 according to Krzepicki. The worst thing this would mean is that one or both of the witnesses were wrong about the date, without this affecting the accuracy of their remaining statements. However, if one considers the apparent purpose of cremations in August 1942 (carbonization of the upper layer of corpses as a hygienic measure, with a slight decrease in the volume of the corpses as an added benefit[7]), neither of the two witnesses need have been wrong in his dating. It is also possible that the burning of bodies inside the mass graves, while a regular procedure, was not done every day. Krzepicki’s only mistake would then have been to assume that burning the corpses in the graves was a "new system" implemented after his first days in the camp, when actually the procedure had already been adopted prior to his arrival.

Back to the primary HC article under discussion.
- 3rd phase, after an efficient cremation procedure had been implemented, in which the corpses were systematically removed from the mass graves with excavators and burned on pyres made of concrete bases and railway rails.

When did the 3rd phase commence? In the Critique I had assumed with Arad[22] that this had happened after "Himmler’s visit to the camp at the end of February/beginning of March 1943". Mattogno claims that the beginning of wholesale cremation at that time is "one of the pivotal points of the orthodox exterminationist account of the cremations in Treblinka", but actually it just happens to be the timing assumed by a historian who wrote the first comprehensive account of the Aktion Reinhard(t) camp, and there are reasons to call that timing into question. Mattogno would like wholesale cremation to have started later, so he refers to Wiernik, who links Himmler’s visit to the discovery of the Katyn mass graves first publicized by the Germans on 13 April 1943. However, it is possible that Wiernik misdated Himmler’s visit, and there are sources suggesting that the aforementioned 3rd phase started earlier than February 1943. One of these sources is Chil Rajchman, who dated the arrival of a cremation specialist nicknamed the "Artist" by the inmates to January 1943, though his account of how the new procedure was put into practice suggests that it took some time before the "Artist" succeeded in implementing an efficient cremation system[23]. Camp commandant Stangl recalled "the beginning of 1943" as the time when "excavators were brought in", "the corpses were removed from the huge ditches which had been used until then", and the "old" corpses "were burned on the roasters, along with the new bodies".[24] The verdict of the 2nd Düsseldorf Treblinka trial[25] mentions that around the turn of the year 1942/1943, following instructions from higher up, the bodies started being burned, which suggests that if there was a Himmler order for the burning of the bodies, it was given at that time and not in late February or early March 1943.

Nothing about gas chambers...
I had in an earlier blog[29]attempted a reconstruction of a Treblinka cremation roaster. As Leleko had mentioned a "cement pit about one meter deep and 20 meters long" with a "series of furnaces covered on the top with four rows of rails", while according to the 1st Düsseldorf judgment the installation consisted of "concrete bases about 70 cm high, on which 5 to 6 railway rails about 25 to 30 meters long lay in small intervals", I had matched both sources by assuming that Leleko’s "furnaces" were subdivisions of the cement pit by the concrete blocks on top of which the rails were placed, and that these were either blocks 1.70 meters high placed inside the pit and protruding from the pit for 70 cm, or blocks 70 cm high placed on the rims of the pit, the distance between the bottom of the rails and the bottom of the pit being, in any case, 1.70 meters. I had also assumed that the rails were 25 meters long (the middle value between Leleko’s 20 meters and the higher length of 30 meters mentioned in the Düsseldorf judgment), and that the width of the structure was 2 meters, 2.625 meters or 3.25 meters, depending on whether the grill consisted of four, five or six rails. Taking the middle of these three values, 2.625 meters, I had calculated that the average area of one roaster at Treblinka would be 65.625 square meters, and the volume of space underneath the same about 112 cubic meters.

Leleko is a fraud who claimed diesel engines. Oh but you guys already admitted that people who claimed diesel engines never saw them. That the closest witnesses all claimed gas or petrol. Another reason Leleko is a fraud.
In dealing with this and other issues, the bloggers have made use of Soviet interrogations that other authors have chosen not to use. Two cases in particular stand out: the use of Nikolai Shalayev and Ivan Shevchenko to support the idea of the use of a gasoline engine for gassing at Treblinka, and the use of Pavel Leleko to support the idea that the Treblinka cremation facilities were equipped with pits. But introducing these materials introduces problems which the bloggers do not discuss. According to the bloggers' given source,3 Leleko claimed that the gassing engine was a diesel, contradicting their argument that it was a gasoline engine. In fact, in the same source Leleko indicates that there were two engines used for gassing, occupying two of the ten chambers in the new gas-chamber building - contrary to the usual depiction, which has ten chambers used for gassing and the engine in a separate room. Shevchenko gives yet another version of the layout, with nine chambers used for gassing and one for an engine.4

The testimony of Shalayev is no less problematic. He claimed that the new gas-chamber building at Treblinka was equipped with five gas chambers, rather than the ten which has been generally accepted. He also described a curious procedure by which gassing in the old gas-chamber building proceeded one chamber at a time – a feature that contradicts the accounts of other witnesses. Finally, Leleko,5 Shalayev,6 and Shevchenko,7 all claimed that the new gas chambers were built in 1943 (Shevchenko specifying March 1943), while the standard literature claims that they came under construction in late August or early September of 1942, and went into action that October or November. The bloggers, always superficial in their handling of witness testimony, make no attempts to reconcile any of these contradictions.

- Friedrich Jansson.
http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/ ... nhardt.php

On another board I tore apart the Treblinka narrative. Here is what I came away with.
Let's be generous and take DP's numbers. He said there could be TWO rows on the 30 meter long railway pyres since they were wide enough. Okay. He tried to minimize the human shoulder to shoulder span by implying human decay but that won't work because whether the shoulders are packed with any skin or muscles, you can't change the skeletal range of at least one and a quarter feet - maybe one and a third - shoulder to shoulder. And if bodies were being exhumed in August when the camp was only open for a month by August 1943, then we can't pretend the bodies were skeletal. So DP loses there.

Next, he brings up children. He says Mattogno says a third were children in Treblinka. I will believe him on that. So 100 adults per row on the pyre becomes 200 when we have two rows per layer on the pyre. So look at one row and take a third of that off and we have about 66 adults. Problem is, the shoulder to shoulder length of each adult would be LARGER than one foot. So we would have LESS than 100 adults if the rails are 100 feet in length - 30 meters as given in Arad.

So what should we drop the number of adults to if a shoulder to shoulder span of an adult is well over a feet, and could be a foot and a quarter? 75 adults per 100 feet sounds good. A third of 75 is 25. So give us 50 adults. That leaves us with 75 feet out of 100 feet filled. We need 25 more feet. Throw anywhere from 20-25 children on since children's shoulder to shoulder span would be around one foot. So what is 50 adults plus 25 kids? 75 bodies per 100 feet. Two rows of 100 per layer is 200 per layer.

2500 / 200 = 12-13 layers of bodies.

A dozen layers of bodies burned away to skeleton and ash in five hours with 1.7 meters of space below for wood and twigs to be lit up with fire. If we want to claim that there were three rows of bodies per layer, call it 300 bodies per layer.

2500 / 300 = 8 layers of bodies.

If anyone thinks this is possible even without continuing to apply petrol, they are idiots.
At first an inflammable liquid was poured onto the bodies to help them burn, but later this was considered unnecessary; the SS men in charge of the cremation became convinced that the corpses burned well enough without extra fuel.

http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/ ... estock.php
Outdoor Incineration of Livestock Carcasses
Heinrich Köchel

Not much else there of value from Muehlenkamp. He just reiterates claims about how the final remnants of bones were crushed up by prisoners.
Mattogno seems to harbor a special grudge for Israeli historian Yitzhak Arad, for he misses no opportunity to accuse the man of indulging in "speculations" and proclaiming what "can only be regarded as his personal opinion". Yet the examples that are most thickly decorated with Mattogno’s rhetoric rather reveal Mattogno’s ignorance of what is obviously the source of Arad’s description. Take, for instance, the following information on p. 448 of the Critique ("This incessant referring to Arad’s speculations, as if they were a sacred truth, shows all of Muehlenkamp’s childish gullibility"):

Arad writes that round wooden sticks were then used to break the remaining bones into small fragments, which were then run through a tightly woven screen made of metal wire; those bone fragments which did not pass through the screen were then returned for further smashing. Unburned bones which proved too difficult to fragment were returned to the roaster and re-ignited with a new pile of bodies.


What Mattogno calls "Arad’s speculations" was described by inmate witness Chil Rajchman, as follows[38]:

The body parts of the corpses that had been incinerated in the ovens often kept their shape. It was not uncommon to take out whole charred heads, feet, bones etc. The workers of the ash commando then had to break up these body parts with special wooden mallets, which recalled the iron mallets used to pound gravel on motorways. Other instruments also resembled the tools used when working with sand and stone. Near the heaps of ash stood thick, dense wire meshes, through which the broken-up ashes were sifted, just as sand is sifted from gravel. Whatever did not pass through was beaten once more. The beating took place on sheet metal, which lay nearby. The carriers were not allowed to bring bones from the grills that had not been completely incinerated. They remained lying next to the furnaces and were thrown on top of the next layer of corpses that were brought in. The definitive "finished" ash had to be free of the least bit of bone and as fine as cigarette ash.


As I pointed out in an earlier blog, postwar photos showing the soil of Treblinka littered with bone fragments and larger bones suggest that the "fine as cigarette ash" principle was at least not always adhered to. Yet the above quote shows that every word of what Mattogno decries as "Arad’ speculations" is in line with first-hand eyewitness evidence. The same applies to the following statement of Arad’s in another publication[39]:

The bones were ground with rounded wooden stakes and afterwards they were shaken through a fine-meshed metal sieve; what got stuck therein was ground one more time. Unburned bones which were difficult to crush were thrown into the fire a second time.


regarding which Mattogno embarrasses himself by claiming (p. 1320) that "the Israeli historian merely took the Düsseldorf Court verdict and added his personal speculations".

Then there is the following supposedly unsupported statement in Arad’s book[40]:

Other efficiency measures introduced included increasing the number of cremation sites to six – thus enabling the workers to burn up to 12,000 corpses simultaneously – and placing the cremating roasters nearer the mass graves to save time in transferring the bodies.


which happens to be in line with the testimonies of Rajchman (as concerns the number of ovens) and Wiernik (as concerns the number of corpses). Rajchman wrote the following[41]:

It turns out that the corpses dug out of the pits burn even better than those of recently gassed people. Every day new ovens are constructed, more and more of them. After a few days there are six ovens. Each oven is served by several workers who load it with fodder.


Wiernik wrote the following[42]:

The cremation of the corpses proved an unqualified success. Because they were in a hurry, the Germans built additional fire grates and augmented the crews serving them, so that from 10,000 to 12,000 corpses were cremated at one time.


Regarding the wooden sticks or stakes used to grind the bones – Rachjman, see above, described them as "wooden mallets, which recalled the iron mallets used to pound gravel on motorways" – , Mattogno presents one of those "the Germans wouldn’t have done it that way" – arguments that are a staple of "Revisionist" rhetoric:

Muehlenkamp completely lacks any critical sense, since he does not even notice the fierce contrast between his descriptions of the treatment of the cremation remains at Bełżec and Treblinka respectively. Even though the SS were able to arrange machines such as that shown in Illustration 12.2, they are said to have preferred to execute this task manually at Treblinka, using makeshift tools to crush the bones from 789,000 corpses!


What actually takes a lack of any critical sense, among other Mattogno blunders, is assuming that the propaganda storytellers of Mattogno’s fantasies would not have avoided such "fierce contrast", whereas real life events are full of apparent incoherence. And is there really such a "fierce contrast"? A mechanical ball mill might have certain advantages over makeshift tools operated by manual laborers, but it also had the great disadvantage of being subject to mechanical failures and breakdowns. So why should the SS not complement it with manual labor or use manual labor instead, when they had no restrictions as concerns the size of the labor force? I say "complement" because Leleko mentioned a "special mortar" in which body parts that had preserved their natural shape were "pounded into flour", and Rachjman mentioned instruments that "resembled the tools used when working with sand and stone".

Mattogno never had a problem with arguing on both sides of his mouth, and he does it here again when, right after expressing his contempt for "makeshift tools" as opposed to mechanical devices, he postulates that, if the SS had used "massive tampers" to crush the bones like they did at Auschwitz according to Filip Müller (the term fits the "wooden mallets" mentioned by Rachjman and the tools portrayed on David Olère’s picture below), they would have done so perfect a job that crime site investigations would have found no larger human remains.

It is Muehlenkamp who argues out of both sides of his mouth. First the nazis are supposed to have brought in a bone crushing mill into Belzec. And despite easy access to this machinery, they chose not to do so for Treblinka because the machine was subject to failures and breakdowns. So then why would they use one at Belzec? The nazis are all over the place and in a camp such as Treblinka where they are supposed to have disposed of more people than at Belzec, they settled for an inferior method of bone destruction.

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Again!

Postby Werd » 4 months 2 weeks ago (Mon Mar 26, 2018 8:15 pm)

Jonathan Harris again:

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2018/03/georg-leibbrandt-and-killing-of-jews-in.html

Georg Leibbrandt and the Killing of Jews in the USSR: A Case Study of Mattogno's Methods
Author: Jonathan Harrison
Georg Leibbrandt was one of two members of the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories (RMfdbO) who attended the Wannsee conference. Mattogno has discussed him on numerous occasions, most recently in the Italian edition of volume 1 of his forthcoming Einsatzgruppen Handbook where Mattogno cites him seven times, six of which are duplicated from his response of 2013 to our White Paper. The one new reference in the Italian edition is the false claim, as shown below, that Leibbrandt regarded Soviet Jews as only a political and partisan enemy rather than a race that had to be eliminated on biological grounds. The six recycled references entail a misrepresentation of Leibbrandt's correspondence with Hinrich Lohse of the Reichskommissariat Ostland in the Autumn of 1941 as supporting resettlement of Jews eastwards. An analysis of Leibbrandt's involvement in anti-Jewish policy can therefore form a useful case study of how Mattogno manipulates sources on German perpetrators.

A telling feature of Mattogno's writing is his lack of interest in how the racial ideology of senior Nazis influenced their actions, despite this being a major theme of current historiography.[1] Leibbrandt had written in 1937 that the Russian Revolution of 1917 had been founded on the fact that Jewry was "the bearer of the Asiatic-Nomadic desert mentality", which had mingled with the "Mongolian-Asiatic instincts" that were already in Russian blood.[2] This deep racism made Leibbrandt a willing participant in the escalation during 1941 of German plans to kill Jews. Mattogno's avoidance of this background enables him to make the spurious claim that Leibbrandt's view of Jews was compatible with Churchill's, in which there was a split between "international Jews", who were conspiratorial and bent on world domination, and national Jews, who were loyal to their countries.[3] In reality, Leibbrandt made no such distinction.

Leibbrandt had recommended as early as May 29, 1941 that "it is probably advisable to leave to the population itself to settle its accounts with the Jewish-Bolshevik oppressors initially, and then after gaining more detailed knowledge to deal with the remaining oppressors."[4] His recommendations escalated to a clear genocidal motive by September 13, 1941, when he responded to Stalin's deportation of the Volga Germans by stating that "Jewry in the areas located in the German field of power. . . will be repaid manyfold for the crime."[5] Leibbrandt had a strong emotional connection to the Volga Germans because his academic career had been largely devoted to studying them. Moreover, his boss Rosenberg expressed similar sentiments in his diary the day before, leading to his infamous comments of November 18 that there should be "a biological eradication of the entire Jewry of Europe" by measures that would "expel them over the Urals or eradicate them in some other way."[6] Mattogno cites Rosenberg's comments in his Italian Einsatzgruppen book but fails to explain why Rosenberg would use the term "biological eradication" for an expulsion rather than than death.[7]

You fail to explain why it should mean what you think it means. We already have the proof there is nothing explicit in Rosenberg's diary about killing Jews.
https://nationalvanguard.org/2016/12/wh ... holocaust/
https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/6/1/3237
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7956

From: Nazis after Hitler: How Perpetrators of the Holocaust Cheated Justice and Truth By Donald M. McKale. page 175, Via googlebooks:
On November 15, 1941, Rosenberg had a long meeting with Himmler about the "Jewish question" and about coordinating the work of the latter's Higher SS and Police Leaders in the Soviet Union with the Reich minister's civilian officials. Three days later, Rosenberg briefed German journalists in Berlin, during which he declared that the "Jewish question," which involved "some six million Jews" still living in the East,

can only be solved biological eradication of the entire Jewry of Europe. The Jewish question is solved for Germany only when the last Jew has left German territory, and for Europe when not a single Jew lives on the European continent up to the Urals. That is the task that fate has posed to us.

Sounds to me like expulsion. How are you going to murder Jews in gas chambers in Poland if your goal is to EXPEL THEM OVER THE URALS? Oh I know, the phrase "or eradicate them in some other way" is taken to mean something homicidal. Sorry, but you can't prove a holocaust by harsh rhetoric. Because once you do, you get into a vicious circular argument. How do we know these statements are true? Because of the gas chambers. And how do we know the gas chambers are true? Well there are those statements, for one thing...SORRY. BEGGING THE QUESTION. FALLACY!

As we all know, historians have a habit of reading things into quotes that are simply not there.

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9038
https://web.archive.org/web/20150413171 ... -the-word/

If Harrison wants me to believe that Georg Leibbrandt had homicidal intentions in mind, he better prove it with some type of DOCUMENTARY OR PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT LINKS HIM TO PARTICIPATION IN, OR KNOWLEDGE OF ALLEGED GASSING OR MASS SHOOTING. He at least makes an attempt.

In October, Leibbrandt acquired knowledge of gassing plans for Riga because he was the direct superior of Wetzel, who wrote a draft on October 25 concerning Brack's readiness to supply gassing technology for Riga. There is written proof that Leibbrandt oversaw Wetzel's correspondence with Brack and Lohse because Wetzel submitted a memo to Leibbrandt on November 12, 1941, which mentioned letters Wetzel had written to Brack, Lohse and Koch the day before (NO-2094). Wetzel also testified on September 20, 1961, that Leibbrandt had dictated the October draft (BArch B 162/20424, pp.216ff). Moreover, Wetzel's draft enables us to infer that he, Lohse and Leibbrandt were aware of the Vilnius executions of July 1941, and also a genocidal policy of separating Jews by sex to prevent reproduction, which has implications for the fate of non-working Jews.

Here is a clip from the first document that is hyperlinked.
Oberdeinstlieter Brack von der Kanzlei des Führer bereit erklärt hat bei der Herstellung der erforde lichen Unterkünfte sowie der Vergasung Apparate mitzuwirken. Zur Zeit sind die in Betracht kommenden Apparate in genugender Anzahl nicht vorhanden, sie mussen erst hergestellt werden.

Google translate.
The chief contractor, Brack, from the Chancellery of the Furhrer, has agreed to cooperate in the manufacture of the necessary accommodation and gasification equipment. At present the suitable apparatuses are not available in sufficient number, they have to be manufactured first.

The document dates from October 1941. I have never seen this document before. But we always come back to the question Carlos Porter demands we ask. Is this an original? Or a certified true copy that we are supposed to trust the victors to be faithful to if there even is an original? :lol: Also, the hyperlinked "(NO-2094)" leads to an English translation of NO-2094. Not sure if that is of a true German original or a "certified true copy" either.

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Again!

Postby Werd » 4 months 2 weeks ago (Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:12 pm)

Jonathan Harris does not discuss the six references to Georg Leibbrandt that appear in TECOAR and the upcoming Einsatzgruppen book. He apparently deals with the newest, seventh one, found in the Italian edition of the Einsatzgruppen book. However let me get a few things out of the way. There is talk about killing Jewish women and children in Pleskau or Pskov.
This is not the first instance I have heard of or read of about Germans killing women and children just for being Jewish.
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?p=74457#p74457
Furthermore, here is a hyperlink mentioning Pskov where the remains of women and children and old people were found in a grave. Some of the skulls were smashed in.
https://fjc-fsu.org/grave-14-jewish-wwii-victims-reveled-near-pskov/
Yes victims were found but an eyewitness claims they were Jewish victims.
What did give the group an identification lead was an eventually-found single eye-witness account of an elderly woman, a former resident of the near-by village, Kholmatka, who remembered that in July 1941 a group of refugees arrived from Latvia, fleeing the Nazis. Unfortunately, the group did not flee far and was captured near the village.

Interesting. How did this alleged eyewitness get it correct about where remains of humans are if she is not an eyewitness?
Furthermore, this Harrison cited document mentions other killing sites but not Pleskau. That's because the spelling is actually Pskov. Example:
It is generally accepted that the Jewish women and children from Tallinn were concentrated to the Harku camp.
Einsatzgruppe A had calculated on imprisoning approximately 500–600 Jewish women and children in the camp, on 15 October 1941 there 400 of them in Harku camp.[57] There is no concrete evidence on their fate from then on. The statements of witnesses differ, but it is most likely that those 400 Jewish women and children were sent to Pskov, where they were later executed.[58] It is also possible that they may have been executed in small numbers on the spot. Also Chief of the German Security Police and SD in Estonia Sandberger said he knew of a certain Jewish burial site near Harku.[59] The option that they were taken to Pskov prevailed both in the legal proceedings against members of the Einsatzgruppe’s at the so-called Ohlendorf trial in 1948 as well as in the investigations held against Heinrich Bergmann and other officials of the German Security Police and the SD in Estonia in the 1960s in the Federal Republic of Germany.[60] According to Sandberger he did not favour the total annihilation of Jews. Head of EinsatzgruppeA SS-Brigadeführer Dr. Franz Stahlecker had demanded that the Estonian General Commissariat were immediately turned “judenfrei”. Therefore, Sandberger acknowledged, he had given orders to send Jewish women and children to Pskov, to the rear area of Army Group “Nord” outside the borders of Estonian General Commissariat in the hope that they will escape execution there. 61



Back to Harrison:
Mattogno's silence on Leibbrandt's connection to gassing plans is twinned with his misrepresentation of Leibbrandt's message to Lohse of November 9, 1941, that Reich Jews would be sent "farther east" than Riga.[8] Mattogno ties it to a proposal to send Jews to Pleskau[9], but this overlooks the fact that Pleskau was itself a killing site (examined, for example, in this postwar legal investigation, and the site of the discovery of human remains of women and children) and it ignores the fact that sending work Jews to Pleskau would still have been perfectly compatible with

hold on...Mattogno misrepresented nothing. The document he quoted on page 300 in the 1st edition of the paperback indeed says that a camp for Jews "which was planned to be constructed in the vicinity of Riga will be located in the area of Pleskau (Pskov)." Pskov is further east than Riga. Duh. What Harrison is complaining about is that Mattogno is either hiding or ignorant of the "fact" that Pskov was a killing site. Yes there is a holding camp. But it's not to transport them to somewhere else. It's to hold them just to kill them later according to Harrison. Back to the article:
...Wetzel's draft, which stated that:

Re: Solution of the Jewish Question

1. To the Reich Commissar for the East

Re: Your report of October 4, 1941 in respect to the Solution of the Jewish Question.
Referring to my letter of 18 October 1941, you are informed that Oberdienstleiter Brack of the Chancellery of the Fuehrer has declared himself ready to collaborate in the manufacture of the necessary shelters, as well as the gassing apparatus. At the present time the apparatus in question are not on hand in the Reich in sufficient number; they will first have to be manufactured. Since in Brack's opinion the manufacture of the apparatus in the Reich will cause more difficulty than if manufactured on the spot, Brack deems it most expedient to send his people direct to Riga, especially his chemist Dr. Kallmeyer, who will have everything further done there. Oberdienstleiter Brack points out that the process in question is not without danger, so that special protective measures are necessary. Under these circumstances I beg you to turn to Oberdienstleiter Brack, in the Chancellery of the Fuehrer, through your Higher SS and Police Leader and to request the dispatch of the chemist Dr. Kallmeyer as well as of further aides. I draw attention to the fact that Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, the referent for Jewish questions in the RSHA, is in agreement with this process. On information from Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, camps for Jews are to be set up in Riga and Minsk to which Jews from the old Reich territory may possibly be sent. At the present time, Jews being deported from the old Reich are to be sent to Litzmannstadt [Lodz], but also to other camps, to be later used as labor (Arbeitseinsatz) the East so far as they are able to work.

As affairs now stand, there are no objections against doing away with those Jews who are unable to work with the Brack remedy. In this way occurrences would no longer be possible such as those which, according to a report presently before me, took place at the shooting of Jews in Vilna [Vilnyus] and which, considering that the shootings were public, were hardly excusable. Those able to work, on the other hand, will be transported to the East for labor service. It is self-understood that among the Jews capable of work, men and women are to be kept separate.

I beg you to advise me regarding your further steps.[10]

I'm not sure what gassing apparatus Harrison wants us to think of. Are they talking about the gas vans? Most likely because just a few pages after point 28 from Mattogno which Harrison has a bee in his bonnet about, we come to page 213 of the paperback 1st edition of TECOAR and the subheading is The "Gas Vans." So we're back to the gas vans again. Harrison just puts new wine in old bottles.

Leibbrandt's "farther east" was simply a euphemism for this process of selection. Lohse's understanding of this fact is shown by two orders he issued banning executions in specific circumstances whilst agreeing with an overall policy of killing Jews eventually.

Oh let's hear this one... :lol:
On November 15, he stated that "I have forbidden the unauthorized ("wild") executions of Jews in Libau because the manner in which they were carried out was irresponsible." He then asked Leibbrandt whether "your inquiry of October 31 should be interpreted as a directive to liquidate all the Jews in Ostland? Is this to be done regardless of age, sex, and economic requirements (for instance, the Wehrmacht's demand for skilled workers in the armament industry)?"[11] Mattogno perversely interprets this as proof that Lohse was unaware of plans to kill any categories of Jews, when infact the wording and context clearly show that he was referring to whether the current plan to kill unfit Jews had also been expanded to include all ages, sexes and levels of fitness for work.

Let's see the link for footnote 11.
http://www.yadvashem.org/docs/letters-c ... ution.html
The document that does say, "I have forbidden the unauthorized ("wild") executions of Jews in Libau because the manner in which they were carried out was irresponsible." was quoted in Mattogno. Bottom of page 209 1st edition paperback. He gives the IMT footnote in 431. Lose's words in this document also say:
"The clearing of the Ostland from the Jews is a predominant task; its solution, however, has to be conciliated with the necessities of the war economy. Neither from the directives on the Jewish question in the 'brown folder' nor from other directives I could glean such an instruction."
Harrison left this last quoted part out. Funny too, because I enlarged the two portions to show they are linked by logic. The last part I just did was UNDERLINED in the text by mattogno. Mattogno has this to say:
Leibbrandt did not state that these directives had been changed, but limited himself to stating that with regard to the solution of the Jewish question, economic interests were not to be taken into consideration.

Very good Mattogno. What I am about to quote, you also put in your book...
document PS-3666
http://www.yadvashem.org/docs/letters-concerning-final-solution.html
in reply to your letter of November 15, 1941

The Jewish question has presumably been clarified meanwhile by means of verbal discussion. In principle, economic considerations are not to be taken into account in the settlement of the problem. It is further requested that any questions that arise be settled directly with the Higher SS and Police Leader (Hoeherer SS- und Polizeifuehrer).

Harrison finishes:
but also assumed that "its solution, however, must be in accord with the requirements of war production." The next sentence, "So far I have not been able to find such a directive either in the regulations concerning the Jewish question in the "Brown Portfolio" (Braune Mappe) or in any other decree", shows that the writer had been unable to find a directive to kill all Jews regardless of age, sex or fitness, but this is compatible with an understanding that selections would be carried out in accordance with Wetzel's draft, whereas Mattogno misinterprets as stating that policy had not changed since the Braune Mappe.[12]

That response from PS-3666 must be what Harrison is talking about when he says Loshe was made to understand that while economic considerations may have at least been up for some discussion, that ultimately would go out the window because a clearing of the Ostland was probably a physical cleansing. I.E. Extermination.

Mattogno then says:
This does not necessarily refer to an extermination, but rather to an exclusion of the Jews from the economic life of the state. Also, the reply given as quoted from

If Loshe just admitted that he had to prevent the wild executions of Jews in Libau, I'm not sure where Mattogno is getting this from. Harrison probably has a right to raise an eyebrow. I do have to wonder what methods of execution was going on in Libau that Loshe was privy to? Bullets probably. If there was a document with Loshe talking about gas vans, it would have already been found and shoved in the face of revisionists. But such a document does not exist as far as I know.

What is interesting about all of this, is what Harrison did not mention in his most recent article. From page 210 of the 1st edition paperback of MGK:
On the other hand the “green folder” in the section “Guidelines for the handling of the Jewish question” of September 1942, gave exactly the opposite instructions with regards to the issue of the Jewish question and the war economy: 434

“Regarding the urgency of the economic tasks in the East caused by the war it has to be made sure that, with all measures against the Jews, economic concerns will not be considerably harmed.”

What would Harrison say? That back in 1941, they went overboard, Loshe tried to step in, was rebuffed and then by 1942, a new stance was taken which contradicted Leibbrandt's from 1941?

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Again!

Postby Werd » 2 months 6 days ago (Thu Jun 07, 2018 7:28 pm)

holocaustcontroversies responded to Pia Kahn's statements about them. Jonathan Harrison posted a comment about me.

Jonathan Harrison said...

There's a case for ignoring CODOH entirely if you apply the "random nutjob" criterion as your baseline. Hargis has driven away everybody else from the forum with his control-freak moderation and the 'Pia Kahn'/Werd incoherent trolls are all that's left there. I don't respond to Werd because his posts are word salad and even if he came on here I'd be wasting my time engaging with that kind of stream of consciousness verbiage.
Friday, June 01, 2018 12:36:00 am

Naturally he would call my stuff word salad given how I was able to unpack a lot of his distortions and deceptions. He's just bitter.

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1516
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Again!

Postby Moderator » 2 months 6 days ago (Fri Jun 08, 2018 1:27 am)

Werd wrote:holocaustcontroversies responded to Pia Kahn's statements about them. Jonathan Harrison posted a comment about me.

Jonathan Harrison said...

There's a case for ignoring CODOH entirely if you apply the "random nutjob" criterion as your baseline. Hargis has driven away everybody else from the forum with his control-freak moderation and the 'Pia Kahn'/Werd incoherent trolls are all that's left there. I don't respond to Werd because his posts are word salad and even if he came on here I'd be wasting my time engaging with that kind of stream of consciousness verbiage.
Friday, June 01, 2018 12:36:00 am

Naturally he would call my stuff word salad given how I was able to unpack a lot of his distortions and deceptions. He's just bitter.

Except there's absolutely no "Hargis" here, WTF? And the visits to this forum are booming.
Obviously we're doing something very right.
M1
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: HMSendeavour and 9 guests