Claims of Forged, Altered or Missing Evidence

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 00:39
Location: North

Post by witness » 19 Jan 2003 13:59

Scott . I emphazise with your attempts to type slowly
However it didn't help you at all.
I pointed out on the racist statement in the Weckert's work and on the deliberate distortions in Irving's . Your knee jerk reaction to this was your blubbering about Zionism which has nothing to do with the concrete examples of deliberate lying and racism of these authors.
Maybe you are following the advice "how to be a good Revisionist " which
I posted in the other thread.
Your post perfectly match this 16th point of this advice right now.
16. As for the motive behind the Holocaust "hoax", claim that the Holocaust was invented near the end of WWII by people who foresaw the establishment of the state of Israel, and also foresaw that Israel would face years of conflict with its neighbors, and also foresaw the consequent need for U.S. military and financial aid to Israel, and also foresaw possible public opposition to such aid, and so they invented a huge hoax with thousands of phony witnesses and documents so that those who might oppose the aid to Israel would feel sorry for Jews and wouldn't oppose the aid. When someone points out to you that this is sheer idiocy and that acts of genocide do not automatically turn on the aid spigot to the victims, ignore them.
Good job Scott.Just keep it up so that it would be evident to everybody what your skeptisism is all about .. :lol:

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 19 Jan 2003 15:50

Erik -- Since you didn't answer the question, let me ask it again:

"If you are trying to make a point with the Treblinka numbers, what is it? If it's that you think the Treblinka statistics are unreliable, ok. Other contributors have also questioned them, and been answered by yet other contributors. But ultimately, whatever the numbers may be, the place was a murder camp. It was established and operated by the Nazi government to kill persons -- men women and children -- on the basis of something the victims couldn't do anything about -- their race. So what's your point -- KZ Treblinka wasn't that bad, because they didn't kill as many people as some claimed?"

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 19 Jan 2003 16:14

witness wrote:I pointed out on the racist statement in the Weckert's work and on the deliberate distortions in Irving's.
I posted Weckert's explanation of her thesis in her own words. There is nothing racist about criticizing Jews or Zionists, although the ADL and apparently you disagree. Once again, I ask you to get the words directly from the source and not from a Holo-Site whose interest is discrediting the source with ad hominem attacks and specious text. As far as the criticisms of Irving from the Court, I find that as credible as the Scopes monkey-trial. Irving is a heretic and he had to pay for that: Full stop. He should have predicted the result and not played the hypocrite by making Little Debbie into a paper tiger and a would-be martyr for free-speech, a bitter irony indeed. As I said, there are five copies of Debbie's book in the Scottsdale Public Library and they were merely following national trendiness. Some people are afraid to death of "Deniers," especially clever ones who ask questions. In Freudian terms this would be called overcompensation.
:)

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 19 Jan 2003 16:41

David Thompson wrote:But ultimately, whatever the numbers may be, the place was a murder camp. It was established and operated by the Nazi government to kill persons -- men women and children -- on the basis of something the victims couldn't do anything about -- their race.
I don't think Treblinka was a "pure extermination camp," as per the Hilberg thesis--but what quantifiable threshold defines "murder camp"?

Is it coincidence that the Pure Extermination Camps and Auschwitz and Majdanek (mixed Labor and Death Camps) were behind the Iron Curtain until recently? Would this have affected the historiography?
:)

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 19 Jan 2003 17:38

Scott -- You stated: "I don't think Treblinka was a "pure extermination camp," as per the Hilberg thesis--but what quantifiable threshold defines "murder camp"?"

What difference would it make if KZ Treblinka was an "impure extermination camp?" If only 75% of the inmates were murdered instead of 100%, would KZ Treblinka be 25% better?

You ask "Is it coincidence that the Pure Extermination Camps and Auschwitz and Majdanek (mixed Labor and Death Camps) were behind the Iron Curtain until recently?"

Is there any indication that this geo-political fact is anything other than coincidence? I don't think anyone made the decision to move the "Iron Curtain" further west just to make sure KZ Auschwitz and KZ Majdanek were in the Soviet zone of influence.

You ask: "Would this have affected the historiography?"

Who knows? With historians, there are the good, the bad, the ugly, and the indifferent. Each has to be judged by the merits of his work. There's not a lot of Soviet historiography available in English translation, so I'm not sure what all got written.

Erik
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 03 May 2002 16:49
Location: Sweden

Post by Erik » 19 Jan 2003 19:30

Erik -- Since you didn't answer the question, let me ask it again:

"If you are trying to make a point with the Treblinka numbers, what is it? If it's that you think the Treblinka statistics are unreliable, ok. Other contributors have also questioned them, and been answered by yet other contributors. But ultimately, whatever the numbers may be, the place was a murder camp. It was established and operated by the Nazi government to kill persons -- men women and children -- on the basis of something the victims couldn't do anything about -- their race. So what's your point -- KZ Treblinka wasn't that bad, because they didn't kill as many people as some claimed?"
Mr. Thompson:

So what’s my point? Here it is—KZ Treblinka was so bad because it was claimed to kill people in a way and an extent that is beyond my ability to grasp.

If I was threatend with jail or getting sacked – or "banned"(?) – , I would certainly accept the “fact” of it. I’m no hero.

But here I’m supposed to “reason”, no?

Gittta Sereny (“Into that darkness”, s. 166) mentions three Polish/Ukrainian cooks(girls – Sereny names them!), working at the mess at Treblinka, and going home to their families on their days off. Sereny writes that “ if one’s mind boggles at the idea of people having a ‘job’ at Treblinka from which they had their ‘days off ‘ to go and see their families in the surrounding villages, this is perhaps a deficiency in our imagination”.

Or is it a realism of reason?

Sereny never went to see them or their families, as far as I know. Or tried to find them.

If she had found them, they would probably tell her what she already “knew”, but could not “believe”.
We KNOW that more than a million human beings were killed and lied buried in these acres , but it cannot be BELIEVED!!
(Gitta Sereny “Into that Darkness”, side 145)(my capitalizations).

I don’t WANT to believe that a place like Treblinka, as described by Gerstein and Wiernik and Suchomel can ever have existed! Just like I am Christian enough not wanting to believe that God maintains something like a burning Hell for all non-believers. If I’m threatend to taste some of its “realities”..”live”... unless I believe in it, I will certainly “make believe” – but that’s from cowardice rather than conviction.

Does this make me a “denier” of the Holocaust? No, I’m not denying the Holocaust, and I’m not denying Hell either. There are hells enough in life, and people were and are mass killing each others whether I believe it or not. Those Nazi camps were hells created by men to torment and kill and exterminate other men. The Jews were targets and victims wherever the Nazis found them.

But Treblinka is a realm of such madness, that I will suspend my belief as far as the law permit. I will grasp at every straw of doubt and disbelief, and relish every disproof of its “realities”.

But “denying” is meaningless, since it presupposes knowledge. You can’t deny what you don’t know. You can if you’re stupid, perhaps (like Charlie Brown?).

But then you don’t know either, really, do you?

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 19 Jan 2003 19:52

Erik --

(1) Okay. You don't want to answer the question. You prefer asking questions, not answering them. That's all right. I'm not going to start a thread called "The Erik Challenge."

(2) You don't want to believe what has been written about KZ Treblinka because it's horrible? That's all right too. I don't like to think about dead folks all the time either. History is full of the horrible, the magnificent, and everything in between. But if you don't want to believe it, why not thumb through a book of Maxfield Parrish paintings, or visit a museum, or photograph beautiful girls? Why waste your time asking questions about something you don't want to believe?

Your explanation has something unreal about it -- like a guy who calls a radio station to request songs he doesn't want to hear.

(3) You ask: "But then you don’t know either, really, do you?"

Know what?
Last edited by David Thompson on 19 Jan 2003 20:23, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 00:39
Location: North

Post by witness » 19 Jan 2003 20:00

Scott Smith wrote:
witness wrote:I pointed out on the racist statement in the Weckert's work and on the deliberate distortions in Irving's.
I posted Weckert's explanation of her thesis in her own words. There is nothing racist about criticizing Jews or Zionists, although the ADL and apparently you disagree. Once again, I ask you to get the words directly from the source and not from a Holo-Site whose interest is discrediting the source with ad hominem attacks and specious text. :)
Unfortunetely for you this is not true - I didn't get this extract on some what you call "Holo-site" I found this masterpiece on the
Nazi site .
Here is the link ( Marcus I apologize for posting it here but Scott really wants to make sure )
http://www.ety.com/berlin/flashpnt.htm
You wrote
Scott Smith wrote
There is nothing racist about criticizing Jews or Zionists, although the ADL and apparently you disagree.
I agree .I myself often criticize them ( for example for the policy of unlawful(IMO ) settlements )
But this example of bigotry which I posted is not ''critizising "
It is labeling of a whole people and accusing them of starting the WW2
which is obviously bigotry and lie.
I post it once again -Ingrid Weckert wrote :
Under the pretext of "Hitler's antagonism to the Jews," the world was excited into war against Germany; because of "Hitler's antagonism to the Jews," Germany was destroyed; because of "Hitler's antagonism to the Jews," a policy of occupation that has just one purpose: the moral and spiritual destruction of its people, was put into effect in Germany.
Do you think that if one disagrees with such a statement it automatically
means that he is a Zionist or an ADL proponent ? :)

User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 00:39
Location: North

Post by witness » 19 Jan 2003 20:56

Erik wrote:[So what’s my point? Here it is—KZ Treblinka was so bad because it was claimed to kill people in a way and an extent that is beyond my ability to grasp. .....
I don’t WANT to believe that a place like Treblinka, as described by Gerstein and Wiernik and Suchomel can ever have existed! Just like I am Christian enough not wanting to believe that God maintains something like a burning Hell for all non-believers. If I’m threatend to taste some of its “realities”..”live”... unless I believe in it, I will certainly “make believe” – but that’s from cowardice rather than conviction......

But Treblinka is a realm of such madness, that I will suspend my belief as far as the law permit. I will grasp at every straw of doubt and disbelief, and relish every disproof of its “realities”.
"relish'' is the word !! :D
Relish Erik, relish .. :D
After all, you're fighting for the truth (as you'd like it to be).
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/v ... hp?t=14706

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 20 Jan 2003 08:42

witness wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
witness wrote:I pointed out on the racist statement in the Weckert's work and on the deliberate distortions in Irving's.
I posted Weckert's explanation of her thesis in her own words. There is nothing racist about criticizing Jews or Zionists, although the ADL and apparently you disagree. Once again, I ask you to get the words directly from the source and not from a Holo-Site whose interest is discrediting the source with ad hominem attacks and specious text. :)
Unfortunetely for you this is not true - I didn't get this extract on some what you call "Holo-site" I found this masterpiece on the Nazi site. Here is the link ( Marcus I apologize for posting it here but Scott really wants to make sure )

http://www.ety.com/berlin/flashpnt.htm
Okay, you got it from a "Nazi" site. Assuming for the sake of argument that it is indeed a Nazi site, your logic only follows if Weckert endorses the views that her arguments have been made use of. If doubtful, it is best to go to her own explanations, as I said.
witness wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:There is nothing racist about criticizing Jews or Zionists, although the ADL and apparently you disagree.
I agree . I myself often criticize them ( for example for the policy of unlawful (IMO ) settlements ) But this example of bigotry which I posted is not ''critizising " It is labeling of a whole people and accusing them of starting the WW2 which is obviously bigotry and lie.

I post it once again:
Ingrid Weckert wrote:Under the pretext of "Hitler's antagonism to the Jews," the world was excited into war against Germany; because of "Hitler's antagonism to the Jews," Germany was destroyed; because of "Hitler's antagonism to the Jews," a policy of occupation that has just one purpose: the moral and spiritual destruction of its people, was put into effect in Germany.
Assuming that she is not misquoted or taken out of context by others, I disagree that this (labeling of a whole people and accusing them of starting WW2) is exactly what she is saying.

I think there is no doubt that Zionist groups wanted to poison German international relations, except insofar that they could get "cooperation" from German authorities or policies (including systemic anti-Semitism) that were favorable to settling Europe's Jews in Israel. As the saying goes, a Zionist is a Jew (or a Christian?) who wants some other Jew to go live in the Holy Land.
:wink:

I don't think that Jews or even Zionists can be assumed to have had a monolithic ideological or political agenda. They are as diverse as any other people, but true-believers always have had a special reverence for Israel in myth and reality.
Do you think that if one disagrees with such a statement it automatically means that he is a Zionist or an ADL proponent ? :)
No, I don't and I don't even agree with the statement above myself. However, I don't think that agreeing with the statement is anti-Semitic or bigoted as you suggest. The Zionists have plenty to account for--just like everybody else in the world. Weckert can't answer all of the questions that she has posed. Her legal harassment by the Bundestablishment is a blot on the conscience of intellectual-diversity, however.
:)
Last edited by Scott Smith on 23 Jan 2003 03:31, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

By Curious Coincidence...

Post by Scott Smith » 20 Jan 2003 09:35

David Thompson wrote:Scott -- You stated: "I don't think Treblinka was a "pure extermination camp," as per the Hilberg thesis--but what quantifiable threshold defines "murder camp"?"

What difference would it make if KZ Treblinka was an "impure extermination camp?" If only 75% of the inmates were murdered instead of 100%, would KZ Treblinka be 25% better?
Yes, it would be better. How much better depends on whose ox is being gored, because if you are one of the 75% killed (or the 25% killed?) then such utilitarian arguments don't matter to you. I would definitely say that only 25% killed instead of 75% killed make a big difference, especially to the historiography. And if we were (pray-tell) talking about "only" 1% killed, perhaps we would have to rethink our thesis altogether, not that this makes it "good."
You ask "Is it coincidence that the Pure Extermination Camps and Auschwitz and Majdanek (mixed Labor and Death Camps) were behind the Iron Curtain until recently?"

Is there any indication that this geo-political fact is anything other than coincidence? I don't think anyone made the decision to move the "Iron Curtain" further west just to make sure KZ Auschwitz and KZ Majdanek were in the Soviet zone of influence.
I don't think it is a coincidence. Initially the focus of the Death Camp propaganda was Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau, etc. But nobody seriously claims that people were gassed in Dachau and only ideological purists serious think the morgue or dissection room in Barracke X with the crematoria and the delousing chambers really is a homicidal-gaschamber that for some reason was never used.

Why the change? Because these camps were available for Western inspection after the war, and while it can't be disproved that a limited number of gassings occurred in the Old Reich, Austria and Alsace, there were no mass-exterminations of the "Pure Extermination Camp" proportions alleged of Poland.

With the fall of Communism in the Eighties, however, this situation changed and even the Polish camps can be accessed by skeptics and prying eyes. Therefore it is necessary for key Western governments to outlaw unwanted questions in such sensitive matters. The entire foundations of the post-1945 society hinge upon certain myths and taboos not being treated by Historikerstreit critics.
You ask: "Would this have affected the historiography?"

Who knows? With historians, there are the good, the bad, the ugly, and the indifferent. Each has to be judged by the merits of his work. There's not a lot of Soviet historiography available in English translation, so I'm not sure what all got written.
I think it did matter to the historiography. When the Iron Curtain came down and the Polish museums no longer had Communist protection they were forced for reasons of credibility to use the "mainstream" version of the deathtoll at Auschwitz, a move from four-million murdered to a "mere" million died. I would say a 400% difference in the Devil's calculus "Matters." Certainly they thought the bigger number got better "gas mileage" and preferred to use it while they could.

I don't know where the chips will ultimately fall. The important point is that criminalizing inquiry is a bad precedent of staggering importance.
:)
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 20 Jan 2003 17:37

Erik wrote:
Erik wrote:
But mass graves for 7,000 victims at Treblinka
"Arnulf Neumaier" and the "Polish Historical Society", I presume. And the same fellow who piously believes in them professes to be a "skeptic".

Erik wrote:
instead of 200,000 (those buried there before the Enterdungsaktion)

The "Enterdungsaktion" started sometime in the spring of 1943. Until 31.12.1942, according to Höfle's report to Heim of 11 January 1943, no less than 713,555 Jews had been transported to Treblinka from the General Government alone.

Erik wrote:
would challenge the “policy result” of 700,000 murdered there.

If you

i) ignore the evidence that most of the victims were eventually burned on railway grids, the bones that survived the process then being ground and the result of burning and grinding thrown back into the burial pits, interspersed and then (though the posterior activities of Treblinka gold diggers) wildly mixed with much larger amounts of earth and sand;

ii) can demonstrate that the burial ground of Treblinka examined by the Central Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland, more than 20,000 square meters in area and 7.5 meters deep, could not have accomodated the dead bodies of at least 700,000 people;

iii) can demonstrate that the human remains after burning of the corpses and grinding of the surviving bones would have occupied so large a part of the pits they were thrown back into that it should have been possible for the Polish investigators to separate them from the earth and sand they were mixed with and to accurately quantify them;

iv) can demonstrate all detailed and coincident eyewitness testimonials and perpetrators' depositions to be either flights of fantasy, bald-faced lies or the product of illegal coercion; and

iv) can plausibly account otherwise for the fate of those who are documented to have entered Treblinka but nowhere shown to have ever left the place,

you may argue as you do.

Erik wrote:
An archive find, recording hundreds of thousands transportations from Treblinka to other camps would challenge it, too; unless it can be shown to be forged.

The day there is such an archive find, please let us know. Assuming any of us is still alive by then, that is.


Thus wrote Roberto.

Thanks for your reply and your exemplary patience. It’s not the first time you have to post corrections like those above.

I must have mixed up the Reinhard camps in some way. Blobel started the “Sonderaktion/Kommando 1005” (not to be mixed up with the Enterdungsaktion?) already in June 1942, on initiative of the Gestapo chief Müller/Heydrich(?). Experiments were made in Kulmhof/Lemberg/Janowska(?) and then implemented in the Action Reinhard camps, with Treblinka last (“somtime in the spring of 1943”)in order, until the camp was razed to the ground autumn 1943.

Stangl said that the burning of the exhumed corpses was done at the same time as the burning of the newly arrived victims. The Bulgarian Jews from Thrakien and Makedonien (c.a 14 000 according to Hilberg) described by Wiernik and Sereny (24 000 persons, according to her), were perhaps among those.

In fact, I’ve never understood the implications of the Höfle's report to Heim of 11 January 1943
and its dating (“Until 31.12.1942”) – until now! “No less than 713,555” must have been killed at Treblinka before that date, and buried in the ground there, since the open air cremations began first in March 1943 or so.
What's the deal?

Höfle's report to Heim was a progress report, probaby related to Himmler's order that the General Government should be cleared of Jews, except for those working for the Germans in ghettoes and camps, by the end of 1942.
Erik wrote:At least 5,000 corpses from the ground cremated very day, added with new corpses of those queuing for the gas chambers.
Why not ? Grids made of rails thirty meters long with gasoline-drenched brushwood underneath and dried-up, decomposed bodies on top that - unlike the bodies of those freshly killed in the gas chambers - burned very well, according to the depositions of eyewitnesses and defendants before West German courts.
Erik wrote:Roberto then numerates all the impossibilities meeting anyone bent on refuting this scenario of mass killings at Treblinka in five points.
Let's say I numerate the questions that any "truth seeker" bent on "refuting this scenario of mass killings at Treblinka" should be able to answer - and that none of them can answer, of course.
Erik wrote:The complete lack of quantifiable physical evidence of mass murder at present day Treblinka proves the very fact of at least 700,000 murders at Treblinka, like the fathomless abysses of the Atlantic ocean give evidence to the 100 million slaves that have perished there during the transportations to America.
It's not the quite understandable lack of quantifiable physical evidence. It's the presence of conclusive documentary and eyewitness evidence, which the physical evidence that survived the killers' efforts to erase it corroborates rather than contradicts.

I'll skip the unintelligible blah-blah-blah thereafter and go right to one the philosopher's favorite out-of-context quotes:
We KNOW that more than a million human beings were killed and lied buried in these acres , but it cannot be BELIEVED!!
(Gitta Sereny “Into that Darkness”, side 145)

What Sereny is saying here is that we know from documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence that the mass killings at Treblinka took place, but it is hard to conceive the idea that so many human beings should have been murdered in so relatively small a place.

She is not questioning the plausibility of the relation between the burial space and the number of dead bodies.

Why should she ?

As my calculations - which the philosopher avoids addressing - clearly shows, there's noting implausible about that relation.
Erik wrote:That’s knowledge, isn’t it?
Indeed it is. Knowledge based on documentary and eyewitness evidence, the latter including the depositions of perpetrators before West German courts.
Erik wrote:CAN it be refuted by archive finds?
An upward or downward revision of the estimates on the number of dead by new archival finds is possible, of course. The widely accepted estimate of 600,000 dead at Belzec had to be revised downward because the Höfle report mentioned only 434,508 deportees until 31.12.1942 and the camp had ceased receiving victims before that. Future archival finds may also give us a more precise idea of how many Jews from the General Government and other countries were taken to Treblinka beside the 713,555 mentioned in Höfle's report.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Modern Meccas

Post by Roberto » 20 Jan 2003 18:08

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Erik wrote:
would challenge the “policy result” of 700,000 murdered there.
If you

i) ignore the evidence that most of the victims were eventually burned on railway grids, the bones that survived the process then being ground and the result of burning and grinding thrown back into the burial pits, interspersed and then (though the posterior activities of Treblinka gold diggers) wildly mixed with much larger amounts of earth and sand;
What evidence?
Depositions of defendants before West German courts and the findings of the Central Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland, as Smith well knows.
Scott Smith wrote:There should be millions of teeth,
Why should there be "millions" of teeth?

The bodies were burned, and what was left was ground over and over again until it fit through a narrow-meshed sieve.

Some teeth may have survived the process, but try to find them in roughly 100,000 cubic meters of pit space, assuming that two thirds of the 20,000 square meters of burial area were pits and that these, according to the depth to which the Central Commission found human remains, were 7.5 meters deep.
Scott Smith wrote:gazillions of bone-chips and other artifacts, chemical changes in the soil, as well as evidence of structures and digging in the strata. Instead of a systematic forensic archaeology we have Holo-Kitsch for Pilgrims of Memory. We're talking about Treblinka not ancient Troy.
Ever talked to an archaeologist about the chances of accurately quantifying such partial remains under the circumstances under consideration, Smith?

I have, and my friend tells me it's impossible.

Which is not surprising if you consider that the ashes and other partial remains of ca. 800,000 people occupy a volume of 2.4 million liters at most - i.e. less than 2.5 % of the total volume of the pits, the remaining more than 97.5 % being earth and sand.
Scott Smith wrote:
ii) can demonstrate that the burial ground of Treblinka examined by the Central Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland, more than 20,000 square meters in area and 7.5 meters deep, could not have accomodated the dead bodies of at least 700,000 people;
Ordering the Central Commission report from the Library of Congress is on my to-do list. Unlike you, I have little faith in evidence generated under Communist auspices for warcrimes trials.
Is that Smith's best shot ?

Postulating that the Central Commission's investigation is worthless just because the state that ordered it carried out was "Communist"?

What relevant indications against the professionalism and objectivity of that investigative body, whose findings coincided with the depositions of defendants and witnesses at the West German Treblinka trials, can Smith offer?
Scott Smith wrote:
iii) can demonstrate that the human remains after burning of the corpses and grinding of the surviving bones would have occupied so large a part of the pits they were thrown back into that it should have been possible for the Polish investigators to separate them from the earth and sand they were mixed with and to accurately quantify them;
So could my back yard. That proves nothing.
Mind the context before uttering such rubbish, Smith. What you wrote above is completely meaningless, in case you didn't notice.
Scott Smith wrote:
iv) can demonstrate all detailed and coincident eyewitness testimonials and perpetrators' depositions to be either flights of fantasy, bald-faced lies or the product of illegal coercion; and
We've been thorough this before.
We sure have, with Smith conveniently beating around the bush in order to avoid addressing these issues.
Scott Smith wrote:Even the testimonial is scant, uneven, and contradictory.
Yeah, sure.

I still have to see a convincing demonstration of the "scant, uneven and contradictory" nature of eyewitness testimonial on the Treblinka killings by Smith or any other true believer.
Scott Smith wrote:
iv) can plausibly account otherwise for the fate of those who are documented to have entered Treblinka but nowhere shown to have ever left the place,
Assuming they really arrived at the gate and never left, Flying-saucers is an equally plausible scenario given the available hard evidence.
The available hard evidence discovered by the Central Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland does not contradict the documentary and eyewitness evidence, but corroborates it.

As the documentary evidence shows they arrived at the gates, the eyewitness evidence shows that Treblinka was a place of mass murder and flying saucers don't exist, the true believers' only chance is proving that a substantial number of those who arrived at Treblinka were taken somewhere else thereafter.

As they cannot provide such proof, they are reduced to lame and imbecile mumbling like that quoted above.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 20 Jan 2003 20:45

Scott Smith wrote:
David Thompson wrote:But ultimately, whatever the numbers may be, the place was a murder camp. It was established and operated by the Nazi government to kill persons -- men women and children -- on the basis of something the victims couldn't do anything about -- their race.
I don't think Treblinka was a "pure extermination camp," as per the Hilberg thesis--but what quantifiable threshold defines "murder camp"?
Then what does Smith think it was, and on what basis ?

I’m talking about “Treblinka II”, the extermination complex, not “Treblinka I”, the small labor camp with an attached quarry a mile or so away from it.

Is there any evidence suggesting that the place Stroop called “T II” in his report served any purpose other than killing the Jews who were taken there and taking away from them all valuables they had?
Scott Smith wrote:Is it coincidence that the Pure Extermination Camps and Auschwitz and Majdanek (mixed Labor and Death Camps) were behind the Iron Curtain until recently?
Is there any good reason why they should have been west of what later became the Iron Curtain rather than in Nazi-occupied Poland, the country with the largest resident Jewish population in Europe, far out of sight of the German public?
Scott Smith wrote:Would this have affected the historiography?
No. There might be some more knowledge of certain minor details, but the conclusions of historiography as to the essential facts would be the same.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 20 Jan 2003 20:56

Scott Smith wrote:
David Thompson wrote:Scott -- Terming Carlos Whitlock Porter an iconoclast is charitable. Is there something in particular on the site to which you wanted to draw my -- or the other contributors' -- attention? I don't want to go through the whole haystack (I'll be charitable too) to find a needle.
Sorry.
Why so angry, Mr. Smith ?

Is it the cumulated frustration of having had your nonsense slapped in your face on this forum over the last two and a half years ?
Scott Smith wrote:He discusses the Neely and Witton Human Soap affidavits and makes some good points about document 501-PS, the Becker-Rauff memo on the Gas-Vans.
If Smith considers Porter to make "good points", the fellow must be a real showpiece of imbecility.
Scott Smith wrote:Roberto actually called my attention to Porter some time ago as I had never heard of him, although I had heard some of the points that have been made by him and others, such as the pedal-powered brain-bashing machine that Nuremberg actually claimed the Germans used.
Nuremberg claimed ?

Where in the indictment did "Nuremberg" claim that ?

And more important, where in the judgement did they endorse that claim ?
Scott Smith wrote:I can give you specific links if you want, but my point was only that not everyone swallows Nuremberg as gospel,
I'd say nobody does. The IMT's findings have been checked by historians and criminal justice authorities against their own research and investigation, the result being the confirmation of most of them.
Scott Smith wrote:in itself a veritable heresy.
Don't insult the heretics of old, Smith. They contested nonsense on the basis of facts. Folks like Porter do exactly the opposite: they contest facts on the basis of nonsense.
Scott Smith wrote:And Porter makes a few good points that can only be countered with ad hominem arguments.
See one of those good points below, and also an example of how it can be countered with nothing other than "ad hominem arguments".
Scott Smith wrote:Roberto called Porter a "Falsifier of History," but he never really offered any non-theological views in support of that notion.
:)
Well, it's not necessary to go looking for "non-theological views" (read: reasonable assessments whereby "Revisionist" nonsense is taken apart) when Porter shoots himself in the foot with his own theology.

If Smith was as familiar with Porter's articles of faith as he claims to be, he would for instance know that in Appendix IV, under the link

http://www.cwporter.com/pg387.htm

the rabid Jew-eater (“It is time for the citizens of our 'democratic' Western slave states to speak out, whether the Jews like it or not.”) introduces a scan of the translation and original text of Nuremberg Document NO-9912, the DIRECTIVES FOR THE USE OF PRUSSIC ACID (ZYKLON) FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF VERMIN (DISINFESTATION) issued by the Health Institution of the Protectorate Bohemia and Moravia in Prague, with the sneering remark

“Zyklon works by evaporation and takes 24 hours to kill moths”.

How hilarious, isn’t it. We are asked to believe (a favorite “Revisionist” phrase) that the Nazis gassed human beings within a few minutes with a substance that takes 24 hours to kill miserable little moths! Just how dumb do these filthy Jews think we are?

Well, the third section of item 1 of the instructions, featured in the scanned page just below this triumphant assertion, makes you wonder just how dumb Mr. Porter is. For it reads as follows:
Toxic effects on warm-blooded animals
Since prussic acid has practically no indicative irritant effect, it is highly toxic[my emphasis] and very dangerous[my emphasis]. Prussic acid is one of the most powerful poisons. 1 mg per kg of body weight is sufficient to kill a human being.[my emphasis] Women and children are generally more susceptible than men. Very small amounts of prussic acid do not harm the human body, even if breathed continuously. Birds and fishes are particularly susceptible to prussic acid.


Was Porter stupid enough not to realize just how silly his remark would look to a critical reader in the face of the contents of the document it introduced?

Or did he expect to be dealing with a public trusting enough to take his word at face value and not even to read what he offered in support thereof ?

It is true that Zyklon B takes 24 hours to kill moths, by the way. But given its effects on warm-blooded animals described in the instructions, that doesn’t exactly make Porter’s point.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”