Gassing Vans Revisited

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 16 May 2003 09:31

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:And all that gravel mined at the quarry of Treblinka I (about 2 km away) didn't get put on the Polish roads by elves or space aliens.
No, it was processed by a labor force of several thousand people. I hope Smith is not trying to tell us that they needed 713,555 people within half a year to mine gravel. That’s a lot more than were used in the building of the Soviet combine of Magnitogorsk if I’m not mistaken. I don’t know if any construction of mining project in history ever involved so enormous a labor force, but the little quarry at Treblinka I can impossibly have required more than a tiny fraction of that.
You mine the gravel and then you spread it on roads all over Poland, see. I never said it took hundreds of thousands to shovel gravel at Treblinka. But if you look at Kammler's depots you can see that there are plenty of labor projects. And at a death rate of say 10% a month you need a lot of labor to feed this "machine."
Can we have facts and figures instead of hollow speculations, please?

Just how many people did all those labor camps of Mr. Kammler's need within the period of time in question?

And if any of those taken to Treblinka are supposed to have worked at any of those building camps, why is there not a shred of evidence in this direction?

Why does no piece of documentary evidence on the Reinhard(t) camps refer to these building camps, whereas all refer to Treblinka and/or Belzec and/or Sobibor as final destinations? Some are even more explicit, namely the entry in the "War Diary No. 1, daily report from Military Commander in the Generalgouvernement" shown under

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp ... strow1.jpg

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp ... strow2.jpg

which under the date 24.10.1942 records the following:
OK Ostrow meldet, dass die Juden in Treblinka nicht ausreichend beerdigt seien und infolgedessen ein unerträglicher Kadavergeruch die Luft verpestet.
My translation:
Local Commander Ostrow reports that the Jews in Treblinka are not sufficiently buried and thus an unbearable smell of corpses befouls the air.

and the Stroop Report, with entries like the following, translated under

http://www.holocaust-history.org/stroop-on-treblinka/ :
Of the overall total of 56,065 captured Jews, about 7,000 have been destroyed in the course of the large-scale action in the former Jewish living quarter. 6,929 Jews were destroyed by transport to T. II, so that overall, 13,929 Jews were destroyed. It is estimated that, in addition to the number of 56,065, 5 - 6,000 Jews were destroyed by explosions and fire.


clearly showing that "T.II", the Treblinka extermination camp, was a place where people were sent for the purpose of being "destroyed".

Why did no defendant at any trial ever mention even temporary transfer from Treblinka et al to Kammler's building camps, although this would have been convenient to his defense?

Why did Korherr write in his report that the people sent to the Reinhard(t) camps had been subject to "special treatment", before being compelled by Himmler to claim that they had been "transported to the Russian East" instead?

Not to mention the fact that it would have been rather difficult to accommodate hundreds of thousands of people at a relatively small place like Treblinka for any period of time. The comparatively enormous Auschwitz-Birkenau complex never housed more than 100,000 people at a time, IIRC, and those bunched up there didn't exactly feel like they had plenty of space at their disposal.

Looks like we have here another of those "Revisionist" theories resting on nothing other than wishful thinking.
Scott Smith wrote: It's not quite as sexy as gaschambers with peepholes but it "works."
Smith is a poor imitator of his peer Ralph Marquardt. What happened to Mr. "CatScan", by the way?
Scott Smith wrote: One of the things that Professor Allen argues in his book The Business of Genocide is that the truth is actually far more sinister than the lies of Speer and the canonical story which makes the SS the "alibi" for a nation. Allen argues that far from the SS and Himmler trying to "infiltrate" German business, due to the war and the intolerable labor shortage, German industry actually came courting a reluctant SS, which would have preferred to use its cheap prisoner laborers simply to bake bricks in unremunerative and marginally-productive Buchenwald kilns and whatnot supplying its utopian housing settlements built to National Socialist concepts of aesthetics contrary to "the salesman's point-of-view."

With the war, however, all of that SS "can-do" spirit was translated into mobilizing the Reich's enemies for a maximum effort at victory,
Smith’s reference to concentration camp inmates doing murderous forced labor as "the Reich’s enemies" is duly taken not of.
Scott Smith wrote:one wheelbarrow of concrete at a time. About 10,000 died digging the V-2 rocket assembly tunnels.

By way of comparison, when the Hoover Dam was built using cheap expendable workers during the Depression the offical death toll was 112 (although hundreds may have suffered health problems from exposure to diesel exhaust in the tunnels). The Hoover dam was built in the aesthetic of Art Deco and is also a rather impressive feat of engineering. No bodies buried in the concrete either according to the dam docents.

Image

Of course, contrary to popular belief about Speer's "apolitical technocrats" corrupted by Himmler, the meat-grinder of Nordhausen was not built to any kind of SS aesthetic-standard other than a simple desire to win the war at any cost and complete unconcern for the internal enemies of the Reich (naturally).

Nor were all SS projects necessarily meat-grinders. The death-rate of the workers actually assembling the V-weapons was about the same as ordinary civilian production workers in other aspects of manufacture. The danger came more from Allied bombing than the SS in this case.
Says Smith. Did any of his gurus tell him this, or can he quote a reliable source in support of his assertions?

It wouldn’t occur to Smith that exposing forced laborers to enemy attacks on a military target was as criminal as having slaves or prisoners of war man the artillery in battle when under sniper fire, of course.
Scott Smith wrote:Of course, if one got arbitrarily transferred to the gangs digging tunnels and building roads then...
8O

Zwangsarbeiter in action manufacturing V components at Planet Dora...
:)

Image
All very wonderful, assuming that Smith's rendering of Allen is not fraught with the usual "Revisionist" distortion and misrepresentation.

But this beating about the bush (or shall we call it changing subjects?) doesn’t get us anywhere near an answer to my above questions.

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

Post by Scott Smith » 17 May 2003 07:28

Roberto wrote:Can we have facts and figures instead of hollow speculations, please?

Just how many people did all those labor camps of Mr. Kammler's need within the period of time in question?

And if any of those taken to Treblinka are supposed to have worked at any of those building camps, why is there not a shred of evidence in this direction?
They weren't "camps" as such; they were floating construction gangs. The Baustofflagern were more like temporary depots, a mastery of logistical organization. They sprang-up like mushrooms in the morning mist and might be gone by nightfall along with every brick and piece of lumber. Kammler knew how many "Fit" workers he had every day, but other records are not so certain.

I am not arguing that this is what happened, Roberto. I don't know. I am merely showing that alternative explantions can be found for wild gaschamber and flying-saucer stories. The Germans needed labor far and wide and they got it from collection points or Durchgangslager, of which Treblinka almost certainly was. I am not claiming that millions were housed there. We simply don't know how many ever really arrived at the gate of the camp and how many left (if any).

Besides, Kammler's operation was under the WVHA while Globocnik was under the HSSPF. For a while they competed for labor and other resources but the operation run by Kammler had a modern scientific basis along with NS spunk, whereas Globo only relied upon the later. Eventually he was given anti-Partisan duties while Kammler was given as much as he could chew in armaments and construction right down to all the German secret weapons projects including turbojets.

However, here is one tidbit that I thought you would find interesting:
Professor Allen wrote: The "beautiful form" of [Hans] Kammler's work came at a record cost in human lives. The SS engineering corps ground down over 10,000 concentration camp inmates in the tunnels of Mittelwerk. This number does not count those who died of death marches when the various satellite camps of Dora-Mittelbau were evacuated in the last months of the war. In fact, as Michael Neufeld has pointed out, the V-2 rockets are probably the only modern weapons system to have claimed more victims in its building phase than in combat (about 2,500). According to a survivor, Yves Beon, the camp Dora employed a special prisoner named Jacky to roam the tunnels in search of discarded corpses. [...]

Sometime in late 1943 or early 1944 Dora began to differentiate sharply between construction prisoners under Kammler and assembly line workers under [Albin] Sawatzki and [Arthur] Rudolph, a functional distinction that quickly became a matter of life and death. Of the tens of thousands of prisoners who lost their lives at Mittelwerk, relatively few died on the assembly lines of the V-2 rocket. The sheer technical complexity and sensitivity of the weapons system could tolerate neither sick and dying prisoners on the job nor the high rate of turnover caused by the steady removal of prisoners declared "unfit to work." Human skill mattered, and managers took initiative to preserve it. Therefore factory prisoners recieved higher rations than construction prisoners, even though they received relatively lighter tasks. On the assembly lines, attrition fell and mortality rates stabilized.

[Emphasis mine, pp. 223, 228.]

Michael Thad Allen, The Business of Genocide. University of North Carolina Press, 2002. ISBN: 0807826774.

This book is available from Amazon to support this site ONLY by clicking my icon below:

CLICK! Image
:)
Last edited by Scott Smith on 17 May 2003 10:56, edited 2 times in total.

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

Post by Scott Smith » 17 May 2003 10:24

Roberto wrote:It wouldn’t occur to Smith that exposing forced laborers to enemy attacks on a military target was as criminal as having slaves or prisoners of war man the artillery in battle when under sniper fire, of course.
Very lame, Roberto. Blame the Germans for the Allies having to bomb their civilians into submission at places like Hamburg and Dresden. Same with the "human shields" the Emperor cruelly ordered to live in their cities like Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

"Napalm Madonna" was one of the Viet Cong's human-shields too, I suppose. (Pictured in Critical Studies in Media Communication. Vol. 20:1, March 2003. "Public Identity and Collective Memory in U.S. Iconic Photography: The Image of 'Accidental Napalm,'" by Robert Hariman and John Louis Lucaites, pp. 35-66; photo p. 47.)

Junior Bush was preparing to use the Human Shields of Saddam-argument in the Iraq war, but didn't really need to since the U.S. "media elite" almost never showed pictures of Iraqi "collateral damage" to the flag-waving, hotdog munchin' American public.

I am told that the media in other countries has been more sanguine and less willing to carry Uncle Sam's torch, however. This is the impression I've gotten from reading European magazines and newspapers as well. But I'm sure you are better positioned to comment on that.
:)

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

Post by Roberto » 18 May 2003 00:54

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:Can we have facts and figures instead of hollow speculations, please?

Just how many people did all those labor camps of Mr. Kammler's need within the period of time in question?

And if any of those taken to Treblinka are supposed to have worked at any of those building camps, why is there not a shred of evidence in this direction?
They weren't "camps" as such; they were floating construction gangs. The Baustofflagern were more like temporary depots, a mastery of logistical organization. They sprang-up like mushrooms in the morning mist and might be gone by nightfall along with every brick and piece of lumber. Kammler knew how many "Fit" workers he had every day, but other records are not so certain.
OK, then how many people did all those floating construction gangs employ within the period of time in question?

Are there any documents?

Did Kammler leave any notes?

And why would they keep the manpower for those labor gang in places like Treblinka, with very little accommodation facilities?

How would they keep hundreds of thousands of people in a rather small place like that over a period of months ?

Looks like the two questions of mine Smith quoted weren't answered, not to mention the others. Quite apart from the fact that there's not a shred of evidence supporting Smith's speculations, whereas conclusive evidence to large-scale mass murder is plentiful.
Scott Smith wrote:I am not arguing that this is what happened, Roberto.
Well you should if you want to get somewhere with your "Revisionist" rubbish.
Scott Smith wrote:I don't know.
Translation: "I don't want to know."
Scott Smith wrote:I am merely showing that alternative explantions can be found for wild gaschamber and flying-saucer stories.
Cut out the crap, buddy, for you are showing nothing. The mass murder of hundreds of thousands of people at places at Treblinka is not some wild story, like Smith would desperately like to believe, but a gruesome fact proven by copious documentary, physical and eyewitness evidence assessed by historians and criminal justice authorities, some of which I have shown on this thread. Smith's speculations, on the other hand, stumble over my questions and have no evidentiary support whatsoever. They are thus as worthless as the "flying saucer stories" the true believer mumbles about.
Scott Smith wrote:The Germans needed labor far and wide and they got it from collection points or Durchgangslager,
Why, and I thought they got it from ghettoes and labor camps, whereas the overwhelming majority of "useless eaters" among the local Jews, those not able to work, were dispatched at places like Treblinka. That's what is supported by conclusive evidence, not merely by wishful thinking like Smith's apologetic fantasies.
Scott Smith wrote:of which Treblinka almost certainly was.
Until Smith can show conclusive evidence supporting that certainty, I'll call it a Moral Certainty. :lol:
Scott Smith wrote: I am not claiming that millions were housed there. We simply don't know how many ever really arrived at the gate
Dead wrong. If Smith had bothered to read the documents I showed, he'd know that, for instance, the arrival of 713,555 Jews from the General Government at Treblinka until 31.12.1942 is documented by Hoefle's report to Heim of 11 January 1943 and the Korherr Report.
Scott Smith wrote: of the camp and how many left (if any).
We know quite well how many left the place alive. About 70 who managed to escape during the uprising in 1943, and that's it, if I remember correctly. I thought Smith had read Arad's book. And I doubt any of his gurus has been able to identify any survivors beyond those escapees, or ever will.
Scott Smith wrote: Besides, Kammler's operation was under the WVHA while Globocnik was under the HSSPF. For a while they competed for labor and other resources but the operation run by Kammler had a modern scientific basis along with NS spunk, whereas Globo only relied upon the later. Eventually he was given anti-Partisan duties while Kammler was given as much as he could chew in armaments and construction right down to all the German secret weapons projects including turbojets.
Interesting if accurate, but where's that supposed to lead us?
Scott Smith wrote: However, here is one tidbit that I thought you would find interesting:
Professor Allen wrote: The "beautiful form" of [Hans] Kammler's work came at a record cost in human lives. The SS engineering corps ground down over 10,000 concentration camp inmates in the tunnels of Mittelwerk. This number does not count those who died of death marches when the various satellite camps of Dora-Mittelbau were evacuated in the last months of the war. In fact, as Michael Neufeld has pointed out, the V-2 rockets are probably the only modern weapons system to have claimed more victims in its building phase than in combat (about 2,500). According to a survivor, Yves Beon, the camp Dora employed a special prisoner named Jacky to roam the tunnels in search of discarded corpses. [...]

Sometime in late 1943 or early 1944 Dora began to differentiate sharply between construction prisoners under Kammler and assembly line workers under [Albin] Sawatzki and [Arthur] Rudolph, a functional distinction that quickly became a matter of life and death. Of the tens of thousands of prisoners who lost their lives at Mittelwerk, relatively few died on the assembly lines of the V-2 rocket. The sheer technical complexity and sensitivity of the weapons system could tolerate neither sick and dying prisoners on the job nor the high rate of turnover caused by the steady removal of prisoners declared "unfit to work." Human skill mattered, and managers took initiative to preserve it. Therefore factory prisoners recieved higher rations than construction prisoners, even though they received relatively lighter tasks. On the assembly lines, attrition fell and mortality rates stabilized.

[Emphasis mine, pp. 223, 228.]

Michael Thad Allen, The Business of Genocide. University of North Carolina Press, 2002. ISBN: 0807826774.
From which Smith would like to conclude that most of the prisoners succumbed to Allied air attacks, although what Allen is saying is that the V2 assembly lines offered greater chances of survival than the rest of the camp complex, where conditions seem to have been so murderous that they accounted for tens of thousands of deaths.

Anyway, I thought we were talking about the Reinhard(t) extermination camps and thus can't see Smith's excursion to the Dora-Mittelwerk complex as anything other than a digression leading away from the topic.

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

Post by Roberto » 18 May 2003 01:17

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:It wouldn’t occur to Smith that exposing forced laborers to enemy attacks on a military target was as criminal as having slaves or prisoners of war man the artillery in battle when under sniper fire, of course.
Very lame, Roberto.
Smith is especially unconvincing when he tries to imitate my introductory remarks to his ramblings.
Scott Smith wrote:Blame the Germans for the Allies having to bomb their civilians into submission at places like Hamburg and Dresden.
I'm not doing that, Mr. Apples & Oranges. When a nation has its own free citizens man the guns or otherwise exposes them to violent death in war, it is acting legitimately. When it does so with illegally detained or foreign captives, it is not.
Scott Smith wrote:Same with the "human shields" the Emperor cruelly ordered to live in their cities like Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.


Interesting, but I don't think the concentration camp inmates at Dora were used as "human shields". They were illegally detained forced laborers sacrificed to their captors' war effort, but "human shields" only insofar as they were used instead of German workers, which frontline duty mostly made unavailable.
Scott Smith wrote: "Napalm Madonna" was one of the Viet Cong's human-shields too, I suppose. (Pictured in Critical Studies in Media Communication. Vol. 20:1, March 2003. "Public Identity and Collective Memory in U.S. Iconic Photography: The Image of 'Accidental Napalm,'" by Robert Hariman and John Louis Lucaites, pp. 35-66; photo p. 47.)
Looks like what we have here is another of those utterly irrelevant "so-and-so-also-did-this-and-that" - arguments.
Scott Smith wrote: Junior Bush was preparing to use the Human Shields of Saddam-argument in the Iraq war, but didn't really need to since the U.S. "media elite" almost never showed pictures of Iraqi "collateral damage" to the flag-waving, hotdog munchin' American public.

I am told that the media in other countries has been more sanguine and less willing to carry Uncle Sam's torch, however. This is the impression I've gotten from reading European magazines and newspapers as well. But I'm sure you are better positioned to comment on that.
:)
Followed by an even more pointless digression to Junior Bush and his Iraq war. How that is supposed to diminish the criminal nature of his heroes' sacrificing the lives of prisoners of war or illegally held forced laborers to their war effort is one of those misteries of Smithsonian reasoning.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23721
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 18 May 2003 04:47

Please stay on the topic of gassing vans. Posters are free to open another thread on WWII "human shield" allegations.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8988
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 22 May 2003 12:32

I would like to comment on two statements made by Roberto.
and the Stroop Report, with entries like the following, translated under

http://www.holocaust-history.org/stroop-on-treblinka/ :

Quote:
Of the overall total of 56,065 captured Jews, about 7,000 have been destroyed in the course of the large-scale action in the former Jewish living quarter. 6,929 Jews were destroyed by transport to T. II, so that overall, 13,929 Jews were destroyed. It is estimated that, in addition to the number of 56,065, 5 - 6,000 Jews were destroyed by explosions and fire.


clearly showing that "T.II", the Treblinka extermination camp, was a place where people were sent for the purpose of being "destroyed".
and
Dead wrong. If Smith had bothered to read the documents I showed, he'd know that, for instance, the arrival of 713,555 Jews from the General Government at Treblinka until 31.12.1942 is documented by Hoefle's report to Heim of 11 January 1943 and the Korherr Report.
It is essential to get the relationship between these two documentary sources right.

The Stroop Report documents that a place called T2 existed, and that people were sent there to be exterminated.

A T1 also existed, and we know from external evidence that it was the official Treblinka work camp situated at a quarry at the end of a spur-line branching off at Treblinka Station.

Contemporary reports indicate that there was another camp situated further back on the spur-line, between Treblinka Stattion and the Treblinka work camp, and its existence is confirmed by air-photo evidence and post-war surveys. This camp may have been the T2 referred to in the Stroop Report, but that is not documented.

Thre may also have been a T3, situated not on the spur-line but at another location. Here is a link providing a reference to the possible T3:

http://www.ukar.org/kateln01.shtml

Here is what it says:
4. Please find enclosed a copy of the comprehensive official report of the Polish Government-in-Exile in London on German concentration camps prepared for the April 1943, Bermuda Conference of the Allies (Encl. 5). This report is based upon the investigation of the Treblinka camps requested by the Western Allied governments and ordered by "Grot"-Rowecki, the Commander-in-Chief of the Polish Home Army. It specified that Treblinka-I was a "forced labor camp". The Treblinka-II camp, the alleged site of Demjanjuk’s crimes, was denoted as a "concentration camp proper", without the designation of "death camp". The Treblinka-III camp was listed as "the death camp" for the Jews and was reported to be located at Czerwony Bor. As late as in 1944, its existance was also mentioned in the renowned wartime publication Ghetto Speaks published in New York (Encl. 6). The remote Czerwony Bor (Red Forest) was (and is) located 40 kilometers north of the Treblinka-I and Treblinka-II camps. Additional documents regarding Treblinka-III are available from the Polish Historical Society in the USA (tel. 203-325-1079) and archives of the Polish Underground Study Trust in London (tel. 011-4481-992-6057).
So it appears that "Treblinka" referred to a complex of camps, in much the same way as "Auschwitz" comprised a complex of separate camps. One of the camps did have an exterminatory function during at least part of its existence; it may have been T2 or T3, or the exterminatory function may have shifted between them, or the Polish report may have been mistaken about where the exterminatory function was located.

The important point is that the Hoefle report referred to by Roberto simply says that a numbr of Jews was sent to "T" (= Treblinka). It does not specify that they were all sent to T2, or whichever camp it was where extermination was carried out.

Accordingly, the Hoefle report does not provide documentary proof that all the more than 700,000 Jews sent to "T" were exterminated there.

The possibility that only a part of them was exterminated is supported by the situation regarding Belzec. The Hoefle report shows that over 400,000 Jews were sent to "B" (= Belzec) up to December 1942, at which time the camp was closed and no further Jews sent there. However, recent excavations at the site of the camp show that the mass graves located there could have contained a total number of corpses considerably less than the number stated by Hoefle to have been sent there, only about half.

That is a significant point, since the opening of the mass graves and the cremation of the bodies in them did not commence until after the camp had ben closed, meaning that the total buried equals the total killed at the camp.

The fact that the total number buried was substantially less than the total number of arrivals suggests that some sort of selection process was carried out, with about half the arrivals being killed at the camp and buried there, and the remainder, presumably selected for labour, continuing to other unknown destinations.

It is reasonable to assume that a similar process occurred at Treblinka. One of the three camps in the Treblinka complex could well have been a transit facility, through which those selected for labour were processed. The proportion of the more than 700,000 who arrived at "T" that was subjected to "Sonderbehandlung" at one of the Treblinka camps cannot be known for certain; it may have been much the same as the proportion of the arrivals at Belzec that ended up in the mass graves there.

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

Post by Roberto » 23 May 2003 02:09

michael mills wrote:I would like to comment on two statements made by Roberto.
Here goes another attempt to build transit camps en route from Warsaw to Treblinka, right?
michael mills wrote:
and the Stroop Report, with entries like the following, translated under

http://www.holocaust-history.org/stroop-on-treblinka/ :

Quote:
Of the overall total of 56,065 captured Jews, about 7,000 have been destroyed in the course of the large-scale action in the former Jewish living quarter. 6,929 Jews were destroyed by transport to T. II, so that overall, 13,929 Jews were destroyed. It is estimated that, in addition to the number of 56,065, 5 - 6,000 Jews were destroyed by explosions and fire.


clearly showing that "T.II", the Treblinka extermination camp, was a place where people were sent for the purpose of being "destroyed".
and
Dead wrong. If Smith had bothered to read the documents I showed, he'd know that, for instance, the arrival of 713,555 Jews from the General Government at Treblinka until 31.12.1942 is documented by Hoefle's report to Heim of 11 January 1943 and the Korherr Report.
It is essential to get the relationship between these two documentary sources right.
I don't expect Mills to be of much help in that, however.
michael mills wrote:The Stroop Report documents that a place called T2 existed, and that people were sent there to be exterminated.

A T1 also existed, and we know from external evidence that it was the official Treblinka work camp situated at a quarry at the end of a spur-line branching off at Treblinka Station.

Contemporary reports indicate that there was another camp situated further back on the spur-line, between Treblinka Stattion and the Treblinka work camp, and its existence is confirmed by air-photo evidence and post-war surveys. This camp may have been the T2 referred to in the Stroop Report, but that is not documented.

Thre may also have been a T3, situated not on the spur-line but at another location. Here is a link providing a reference to the possible T3:

http://www.ukar.org/kateln01.shtml

Here is what it says:
4. Please find enclosed a copy of the comprehensive official report of the Polish Government-in-Exile in London on German concentration camps prepared for the April 1943, Bermuda Conference of the Allies (Encl. 5). This report is based upon the investigation of the Treblinka camps requested by the Western Allied governments and ordered by "Grot"-Rowecki, the Commander-in-Chief of the Polish Home Army. It specified that Treblinka-I was a "forced labor camp". The Treblinka-II camp, the alleged site of Demjanjuk’s crimes, was denoted as a "concentration camp proper", without the designation of "death camp". The Treblinka-III camp was listed as "the death camp" for the Jews and was reported to be located at Czerwony Bor. As late as in 1944, its existance was also mentioned in the renowned wartime publication Ghetto Speaks published in New York (Encl. 6). The remote Czerwony Bor (Red Forest) was (and is) located 40 kilometers north of the Treblinka-I and Treblinka-II camps. Additional documents regarding Treblinka-III are available from the Polish Historical Society in the USA (tel. 203-325-1079) and archives of the Polish Underground Study Trust in London (tel. 011-4481-992-6057).
So it appears that "Treblinka" referred to a complex of camps, in much the same way as "Auschwitz" comprised a complex of separate camps. One of the camps did have an exterminatory function during at least part of its existence; it may have been T2 or T3, or the exterminatory function may have shifted between them, or the Polish report may have been mistaken about where the exterminatory function was located.
In the absence of posterior evidence to a three-part rather than two-part Treblinka, a distinct preference for the third alternative seems reasonable.
michael mills wrote:The important point is that the Hoefle report referred to by Roberto simply says that a numbr of Jews was sent to "T" (= Treblinka). It does not specify that they were all sent to T2, or whichever camp it was where extermination was carried out.
A pertinent observation, assuming that Mills can show us that the quarry would have needed more than a few thousand additional laborers during the period in question and that transportation of forced laborers to the quarry was also related to "Aktion REINHART". Mills also conveniently forgets that the 713,555 Jews delivered at "T" until 31.12.1942 were among the 1,274,166 Jews submitted to "special treatment" according to the first version of the Korherr Report and "transported to the Russian East" according to the final version thereof, with changes introduced by Korherr at Himmler's behest.
michael mills wrote:Accordingly, the Hoefle report does not provide documentary proof that all the more than 700,000 Jews sent to "T" were exterminated there.
Given the connection to "Aktion REINHART", the absence of evidence for a significant labor force at the quarry and the connection with the Korherr Report, it sure does, however badly Mills would like to believe otherwise.
michael mills wrote:The possibility that only a part of them was exterminated is supported by the situation regarding Belzec.
No, it is not. See below.
michael mills wrote:The Hoefle report shows that over 400,000 Jews were sent to "B" (= Belzec) up to December 1942, at which time the camp was closed and no further Jews sent there. However, recent excavations at the site of the camp show that the mass graves located there could have contained a total number of corpses considerably less than the number stated by Hoefle to have been sent there, only about half.

That is a significant point, since the opening of the mass graves and the cremation of the bodies in them did not commence until after the camp had ben closed, meaning that the total buried equals the total killed at the camp.

The fact that the total number buried was substantially less than the total number of arrivals suggests that some sort of selection process was carried out, with about half the arrivals being killed at the camp and buried there, and the remainder, presumably selected for labour, continuing to other unknown destinations.

It is reasonable to assume that a similar process occurred at Treblinka. One of the three camps in the Treblinka complex could well have been a transit facility, through which those selected for labour were processed. The proportion of the more than 700,000 who arrived at "T" that was subjected to "Sonderbehandlung" at one of the Treblinka camps cannot be known for certain; it may have been much the same as the proportion of the arrivals at Belzec that ended up in the mass graves there.
Pure and simple apologetic fantasy supported by no evidence whatsoever.

It tends to get boring after a few repetitions.

I once calculated the capacity of the Belzec mass graves myself, as Mills well knows. On the basis of excerpts from the report on an archaeological investigation carried out in 1997/98, transcribed under the links

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp ... enza_II.98

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp ... enza_VI.98

and

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp ... lusions.98

I made the following calculations:

Grave No.; Length (m); Width (m); Area (m2); Depth (m); Volume (m3); Number of Bodies

1; 40.00; 11.00; 440.00; 5.00; 2,200.00; 17,600
2; 15.00; 5.00; 75.00; 2.00; 150.00; 1,200
3; 20.00; 15.00; 300.00; 5.00; 1,500.00; 12,000
4; 20.00; 8.00; 160.00; 5.00; 800.00;
6,400
5; 35.00; 15.00; 525.00; 5.00; 2,625.00; 21,000
6; 33.00; 14.00; 462.00; 5.00; 2,310.00; 18,480
7; 30.00; 14.00; 420.00; 5.00; 2,100.00; 16,800
8; 30.00; 14.00; 420.00; 5.00; 2,100.00; 16,800
9; 10.00; 10.00; 100.00; 2.00; 200.00;
1,600
10; 25.00; 20.00; 500.00; 5.00; 2,500.00; 20,000
11; 11.00; 9.00; 99.00; 2.00; 198.00;
1,584
12; 20.00; 28.00; 560.00; 4.00; 2,240.00; 17,920
13; 5.00; 5.00; 25.00; 5.00; 125.00;
1,000
14; 70.00; 30.00; 2,100.00; 3.00; 6,300.00 50,400
15; 12.00; 7.00; 84.00; 2.00; 168.00;
1,344
16; 20.00; 8.00; 160.00; 4.00; 640.00;
5,120
17; 16.00; 8.00; 128.00; 3.50; 448.00;
3,584
18; 15.00; 10.00; 150.00; 2.00; 300.00;
2,400
19; 14.00; 8.00; 112.00; 3.50; 392.00;
3,136
20 30.00; 10.00; 300.00; 5.00; 1,500.00; 12,000
21 7.00; 7.00; 49.00; 2.00; 98.00;
784
22 27.00; 10.00; 270.00; 3.50; 945.00;
7,560
23; 10.00; 7.00; 70.00; 4.20; 294.00; 2,352
24 ?; ?; 0,00; 4.80; ?;
?
25; 14.00; 8.00; 112.00; 3.00; 336.00;
2,688
26; 9.00; 9.00; 81.00; 4.20; 340.20;
2,722
27; 10.00; 4.00; 40.00; 2.00; 80.00;
640
28; 5.00; 5.00; 25.00; 5.00; 125.00;
1,000
29; 30.00; 10.00; 300.00; 2.00; 600.00;
4,800
30; 10.00; 4.00; 40.00; 4.00; 160.00;
1,280
31; 10.00; 5.00; 50.00; 4.00; 200.00;
1,600
32; 15.00; 5.00; 75.00; 4.00; 300.00;
2,400
33; 5.00; 5.00; 25.00; 3.00; 75.00;
600

TOTALS (without grave no. 24):
Area: 8,257.00 square meters
Volume: 32,349.20 cubic meters

Estimated number of corpses: 258,794

In order to establish the number of dead bodies prior to burning, I multiplied the volume of the pits in cubic meters with a rather conservative average of 8 bodies per cubic meter.

The resulting total of 258,794 bodies is 175,714 bodies below the figure of 434,508 deportees to Belzec indicated in the Höfle memo. There are several possible explanations for the delta:

i) The 1997/98 archaeological investigation failed to discover all the burial facilities of the camp and there are mass graves that have still not been found;

ii) All burial pits were originally deeper than established by the archaeological investigation, and my above calculations have to be revised accordingly;

iii) The capacity of the pits was stretched by the natural shrinking of the body volume through decomposition (they were not all thrown into the pits at the same time, after all) and by the procedure of "top down" burning, suggested by the physical evidence (human remains found underneath a layer of human fat) and by Pfannenstiel’s testimonial transcribed on pages 173 and 174 of Kogon/Langbein/Rückerl, Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giftgas, which contains the following statement:
Nachdem in den Kammern Stille eingetreten war, wurden die an der Außenwand der Gebäudes angebrachten Türen geöffnet. Durch diese wurden die Leichen von jüdischen Häftlingen herausgeschafft und in große Gruben geworfen. In diesen Gruben wurden die Leichen verbrannt.
My translation:
After it had become quiet in the chambers, the doors placed on the building's outer wall were opened. Through these the corpses were taken out by Jewish inmates and thrown into huge pits. In these pits the corpses were burned.[my emphasis]
If Pfannenstiel got the time of his visit to Belzec right, this means that the bodies were being burned in the pits into which they were thrown in August of 1942. While this is borne out by the above described physical evidence, which suggests a "top down" burning using wood and tar paper in the pits, it is apparently not related to the overall burning of the corpses described by Heinrich Gley, former member of the SS staff of Belzec, at the already mentioned trial in Munich. A translation of Gley’s deposition is provided in Prof. Browning’s expert opinion at the Irving-Lipstadt trial:
As I remember the gassing was stopped at the end of 1942, when there was snow already on the ground. Then the general exhumation and cremation of the corpses began; it might have lasted from November 1942 until March 1943. The cremation was carried out day and night without a break, and indeed at first at one and then later at two fire sites. It was possible to cremate some 2 corpses at one fire site within 24 hours. About 4 weeks after the beginning of the cremation operation the second fire site was constructed. On average, therefore, some 300,000 corpses were cremated at the first site over 5 months, at the second site some 240,000 over 4 months. Naturally this is a matter of estimates based on averages. To figure the total number of corpses at 500,000 could be correct.

While Gley’s estimate on the number of corpses has been recently revealed by the Höfle memo to be a bit too high, his description of the general exhumation and cremation of the corpses is interesting in that it dates the commencement of this procedure to November 1942. This suggests that the burning in the pits in August 1942, described by Pfannenstiel, was not related to the general exhumation and cremation of the corpses but to an attempt to "downsize" the contents of the pits by burning the bodies as far as possible, in order to make room for further bodies.

iv) The difference is to be found "somewhere else".

Alternative iv) immediately raises the question: Where?

Considering that

- there is no evidence whatsoever that people taken to Belzec were taken anywhere else from there;

- the nature and purpose of the camp, and the fate of people transported there, become clearly apparent from the documentary evidence and from the depositions of former members of the SS staff at trials before West German courts;

- there is only a handful of deportees known to have survived Belzec

this alternative must be considered the least probable of the three. I consider alternatives ii) or iii) to be the most likely possibilities, but I wouldn’t rule out alternative i) either.

The day Mills can come up with conclusive evidence in support of alternative iv), his speculations may carry some weight. Until then, he would do well to keep them to himself.

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

Post by Scott Smith » 23 May 2003 08:04

Roberto wrote:The day Mills can come up with conclusive evidence in support of alternative iv), his speculations may carry some weight. Until then, he would do well to keep them to himself.
Why so aggressive, my Colombian compadre?
:?

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

Post by Roberto » 23 May 2003 10:27

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:The day Mills can come up with conclusive evidence in support of alternative iv), his speculations may carry some weight. Until then, he would do well to keep them to himself.
Why so aggressive, my Colombian compadre?
:?
That's not aggressiveness, but well-meaning advice. I'm calling Mills' attention to the dead ends where his argumentation will invariably lead him for want of evidence to support his speculations, every time he brings up the subject.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8988
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 24 May 2003 05:38

Roberto has misunderstood my comments on the wartime Polish report which referred to a third camp bearing the name "Treblinka".

I was not raising the possibility that the report was wrong about the existence of such a camp. Since the report locates the camp precisely, at a place called Czerwony Bor 40 km north of the other two Treblinka camps, its existence is not really open to doubt. Where the Polish report MAY have been mistaken was not in relation to its existence, but rather in relation to its designation of that camp as the "death camp", rather than the camp situated on the spur-line from Treblinka Station.

Based on the evidence of the Polish report, it seems that there were three camps bearing the name "Treblinka", of which one was a place to which Jews were sent for destruction, as documented by the Stroop Report.

The over 700,000 Jews sent to "T" according to Hoefle's report could have ended up at any one or all of the above three camps. It cannot be taken for grated that they were all sent to "T2" (assuming that was the place of mass extermination).

Roberto also writes:
Mills also conveniently forgets that the 713,555 Jews delivered at "T" until 31.12.1942 were among the 1,274,166 Jews submitted to "special treatment" according to the first version of the Korherr Report and "transported to the Russian East" according to the final version thereof, with changes introduced by Korherr at Himmler's behest.
Here Roberto arrogates to himself knowledge of the original wording of the relevant part of the Korherr Report. In fact, nobody knows for sure what the original wording said, since it no longer exists. All we know is that Korherr must have used the word "Sonderbehandlung", since he was told by Himmler's staff that that word must not appear in the text, and was ordered to delete his original whole passage and replace it with a passage dictated to him in full, leaving him only to insert the numbers.

Here is the relevant passage as it appeared in the final version of the Korherr Report (English translation):
All evacuations on the territory of the Reich and including the eastern territories and further in the German area of power and influence in Europe from October 1939 or later until 31.12.1942 resulted in the following numbers:

1. Evacuation of Jews from Baden and the Palatinate to France ....... 6,504 Jews
2. Evacuation of Jews from the Reichterritory incl. the Protectorate and Bialystok
district to the East...... 170,642 "
3. Evacuation of Jews from the Reich area and the Protectorate to Theresienstadt................. 87,193 "
4. Transportation of Jews from the eastern provinces to the Russian East: ............................ 1,449,692 "

The following numbers were processed through the camps in the General government ............. 1,274,166 Jews
through the camps in the Warthegau..... 145,301 Jews
5. Evacuation from othercountries, namely:France (insofar as occupied before 10.11.1942 )............... 41,911 Jews
Netherlands........................ 38,571 "
Belgium............................ 16,886 "
Norway ........................... 532 "
Slovakia................. 56,691 Jews
Croatia ................ 4,927 "
------------------------------

Evacuations total(incl.Theresienstadt and incl.special treatment)........... 1,873,549 Jews
without Theresienstadt.......... 1,786,356 "
It is point 4. that Korherr was ordered to replace with a passage dictated to him by Himmler's staff. The present wording is, in full, what was dictated to Korherr.

It is impossible to know exactly how Korherr used the word "Sonderbehandlung" in his original formulation of Point 4. However, it is noteworthy that the form of words differs markedly from that used by him in Points 1, 2, 3, and 5. For one thing, the word "transportation" rather than "evacuation" was used.

It is likely that Korherr's original formulation of Point 4 followed the format of the other points, and therefore may have read (on the model of Point 1):
"Evacuation of Jews from the Eastern Provinces to the East......".

Since it appears that he used the word "Sonderbehandlung" in some way, since that is what Himmler's staff objected to, it is possible that Point 4 read:
"Evacuation of Jews from the Eastern Provinces to the East, including special treatment....".

That would mirror his "incl. special treatment" appearing in the summary.

Accordingly, we cannot assume that Korherr originally gave a number for those "specially treated". It is more likely that he simply buried that number in the total "evacuated"; it is also likely that he was never given such a number, it being strictly secret, and perhaps unrecorded. It is noteworthy that in his overall total, he does not give any figure for those "specially treated", but simply says that unspecified number is included in the total.

Accordingly, the assumption that only part of the Jews "processed" ("durchgeschleust"; a technical term used in personnel management for the receipt at and discharge of individuals in camps and organisations) through the Treblinka camp and other camps were "sonderbehandelt" is perfectly consistent with the Korherr Report.

As for Roberto's attempts to reconcile the recorded number of persons arriving at Belzec with the calculated capacity of the mass graves found there, they are not conclusive. It is unlikely that the comprehensive investigation of the site of the camp left some graves undetected, or failed to find their true depth.

The explanation that graves filled with bodies were burned from the top down in order to create space for more bodies is fanciful. A fire set on top of a pile of bodies in a grave would not consume the bodies beneath it, since all the heat would be dispersed upward and outward, not downward. Heated air and gases rise, unless they are in a confined spae and channelled, as in a crematory oven. The presence of burnt remains found in some of the graves is probably due to the residue of open-air cremation of exhumed bodies being dumped into the emptied graves.

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

Post by Roberto » 24 May 2003 19:17

michael mills wrote:Roberto has misunderstood my comments on the wartime Polish report which referred to a third camp bearing the name "Treblinka".
From what statements of mine exactly does Mills infer such misunderstanding? Quote, please.
michael mills wrote:I was not raising the possibility that the report was wrong about the existence of such a camp. Since the report locates the camp precisely, at a place called Czerwony Bor 40 km north of the other two Treblinka camps, its existence is not really open to doubt. Where the Polish report MAY have been mistaken was not in relation to its existence, but rather in relation to its designation of that camp as the "death camp", rather than the camp situated on the spur-line from Treblinka Station.
What camp is "that" camp supposed to be, Mills? Explain yourself.
michael mills wrote:Based on the evidence of the Polish report, it seems that there were three camps bearing the name "Treblinka", of which one was a place to which Jews were sent for destruction, as documented by the Stroop Report.
Mistaken observation, as I said, is the likeliest explanation of the mention of three instead of two camps at Treblinka, which doesn’t appear again in any posterior report let alone in any eyewitness testimonial or defendant’s deposition, as far as I know.
michael mills wrote:The over 700,000 Jews sent to "T" according to Hoefle's report could have ended up at any one or all of the above three camps. It cannot be taken for grated that they were all sent to "T2" (assuming that was the place of mass extermination).
As I said, this would be a plausible assumption if Mills could demonstrate that the "Treblinka I" labor camp required a labor force of more than a few thousand people during the period in question and was related to the operation referred to as "Aktion REINHART" in Hoefle’s report.
michael mills wrote:Roberto also writes:
Mills also conveniently forgets that the 713,555 Jews delivered at "T" until 31.12.1942 were among the 1,274,166 Jews submitted to "special treatment" according to the first version of the Korherr Report and "transported to the Russian East" according to the final version thereof, with changes introduced by Korherr at Himmler's behest.
Here Roberto arrogates to himself knowledge of the original wording of the relevant part of the Korherr Report.
No, I don’t. The source of my assertion, as Mills well knows, are Himmler’s instructions to Korherr in a letter dated 10.04.1943. See below.
michael mills wrote:In fact, nobody knows for sure what the original wording said, since it no longer exists. All we know is that Korherr must have used the word "Sonderbehandlung", since he was told by Himmler's staff that that word must not appear in the text, and was ordered to delete his original whole passage and replace it with a passage dictated to him in full, leaving him only to insert the numbers.
Let’s have another look at the letter of 10.04.1943:
An den
Inspekteur für Statistik, PG. Korherr
B e r l i n



Der Reichsführer SS hat Ihren statistischen
Bericht über "Die Endlösung der europäischen Judenfrage"
erhalten. Er wünscht, dass an keiner Stelle von "Sonderbehand-
lung der Juden" gesprochen wird . Auf Seite 9, Punkt 4, muß es
folgendermaßen heißen:

"Transportierung von Juden aus den
Ostprovinzen nach dem russischen Osten:
Es wurden durchgeschleust
durch die Lager im Generalgouvernement .....
durch die Lager im Warthegau ..............."

Eine andere Formulierung darf nicht genommen werden.
Ich sende das vom Reichsführer-SS bereits abgezeichnete Exemplar
des Berichtes zurück mit der Bitte, diese Seite 9 entsprechend
abzuändern und es wieder zurückzusenden.


SS-Obersturmbannführer
Source of quote:

http://www.ns-archiv.de/verfolgung/korh ... ml#himmler

My translation:
To the
Inspector for Statistics, party comrade Korherr
B e r l i n



The Reichsführer SS has received your statistical report about “The Final Solution of the European Jewish Question”. He wishes that in no place a “special treatment of the Jews” is referred to . On page 9, item 4, the wording must be the following

" Transportation of Jews from the
eastern provinces to the Russian
East: ............................
The following numbers were sifted
through the camps in the General
government .............
through the camps in the Warthegau....."

Another wording may not be used.
[my emphasis]
I send back the sample of the report already signed by the Reichsführer SS with the request to change this page 9 accordingly and to send it back.
It should become clear from the above that the passage for which Himmler dictated the wording to be used had previously contained the term "special treatment", and that Himmler for some reason wished to see the previous wording replaced by "Transportation … to the Russian East" and/or "were sifted through the camps …". The previous wording may have been

" Special treatment of Jews from the
eastern provinces: ............................
The following numbers were submitted to special treatment at
the camps in the General
Government .............
at the camps in the Warthegau....."

or

" Special treatment of Jews from the
eastern provinces: ............................
The following numbers were sifted
through the camps in the General
government .............
through the camps in the Warthegau....."

or

" Transportation of Jews from the
eastern provinces to the Russian
East: ............................
The following numbers were submitted to special treatment at
the camps in the General
Government .............
at the camps in the Warthegau....."

It doesn’t make much of a difference what original wording was replaced by the wording dictated by Himmler, which in the absence of even the slightest evidence to a "transportation of Jews from the eastern provinces to the Russian East" is transparent enough even without "special treatment" being expressly mentioned.
michael mills wrote:Here is the relevant passage as it appeared in the final version of the Korherr Report (English translation):
All evacuations on the territory of the Reich and including the eastern territories and further in the German area of power and influence in Europe from October 1939 or later until 31.12.1942 resulted in the following numbers:

1. Evacuation of Jews from Baden and the Palatinate to France ....... 6,504 Jews
2. Evacuation of Jews from the Reichterritory incl. the Protectorate and Bialystok
district to the East...... 170,642 "
3. Evacuation of Jews from the Reich area and the Protectorate to Theresienstadt................. 87,193 "
4. Transportation of Jews from the eastern provinces to the Russian East: ............................ 1,449,692 "

The following numbers were processed through the camps in the General government ............. 1,274,166 Jews
through the camps in the Warthegau..... 145,301 Jews
5. Evacuation from othercountries, namely:France (insofar as occupied before 10.11.1942 )............... 41,911 Jews
Netherlands........................ 38,571 "
Belgium............................ 16,886 "
Norway ........................... 532 "
Slovakia................. 56,691 Jews
Croatia ................ 4,927 "
------------------------------

Evacuations total(incl.Theresienstadt and incl.special treatment)........... 1,873,549 Jews
without Theresienstadt.......... 1,786,356 "
It is point 4. that Korherr was ordered to replace with a passage dictated to him by Himmler's staff.
It’s good to read that from Mills himself.
michael mills wrote:The present wording is, in full, what was dictated to Korherr.
How does Mills know this?

It was certainly more practical and failsafe to transcribe the whole of the passage as it was to be worded than to state what terms where to be replaced by what other terms.
michael mills wrote:It is impossible to know exactly how Korherr used the word "Sonderbehandlung" in his original formulation of Point 4.
I suggested three possibilities above, which do not differ from each other in matters of content, under the circumstances. If Mills can think of a fourth, he’s welcome to add it.
michael mills wrote:However, it is noteworthy that the form of words differs markedly from that used by him in Points 1, 2, 3, and 5. For one thing, the word "transportation" rather than "evacuation" was used.
Noteworthy indeed, as "evacuation" did not always mean wholesale killing in the passage quoted by Mills. In the case of the Jews evacuated from Baden and the Palatinate to France (point 1), "evacuation" did not mean killing. As to the term “transportation”, the alleged destination ("to the Russian East") and the total absence of evidence to said transportation leaves little room for doubt as to what was behind this euphemism.
michael mills wrote:It is likely that Korherr's original formulation of Point 4 followed the format of the other points, and therefore may have read (on the model of Point 1):
"Evacuation of Jews from the Eastern Provinces to the East......".
No, my dear Mills, that’s as unlikely as can be. Why on earth replace "evacuation" by "transportation", and why do so in the context of stating that the term "special treatment” was to be avoided?
michael mills wrote:Since it appears that he used the word "Sonderbehandlung" in some way, since that is what Himmler's staff objected to, it is possible that Point 4 read:
"Evacuation of Jews from the Eastern Provinces to the East, including special treatment....".
And in what way, my dear dissident researcher, would he have used the term "Sonderbehandlung" in the corrected passage? "Sondebehandlung" at the camps in the General Government and the Warthegau, perhaps? Unless "Sonderbehandlung" previously stood in the place of "Transportation … to the Russian East", I see no other likely possibility.
michael mills wrote:That would mirror his "incl. special treatment" appearing in the summary.
Looks like Korherr overlooked that passage and thus failed to entirely comply with the instructions received, which required this nasty term to be removed everywhere in the report.
michael mills wrote:Accordingly, we cannot assume that Korherr originally gave a number for those "specially treated".
Yes, we can. See above.
michael mills wrote:It is more likely that he simply buried that number in the total "evacuated"; it is also likely that he was never given such a number, it being strictly secret, and perhaps unrecorded. It is noteworthy that in his overall total, he does not give any figure for those "specially treated", but simply says that unspecified number is included in the total.

Accordingly, the assumption that only part of the Jews "processed" ("durchgeschleust"; a technical term used in personnel management for the receipt at and discharge of individuals in camps and organisations) through the Treblinka camp and other camps were "sonderbehandelt" is perfectly consistent with the Korherr Report.
Come on, Mills, cut out these fatuous attempts to throw sand into people’s eyes. Even if we ignore the inconvenient letter of 10.04.1943, we still have that ominous "Russian East" as the destination for the transportation of 1,274,166 people "processed" through "the camps in the General Government". The figure tallies to the last digit with the total figure in Hoefle’s report to Heim, thus showing that this report was the source of the figure used by Korherr. So exactly the same people stated by Hoefle as having arrived until 31.12.1942 at the "Aktion REINHART" camps were transported "to the Russian East" until the same date after having been "processed" at these camps, according to the Korherr Report, and there’s no evidence whatsoever to something as innocuous as the alleged transportation. The destination statement in the Korherr Report was thus obviously false. These 1,274,166 people never left the places where Korherr was compelled to claim they were "processed" before being sent to the "Russian East". Thus the Korherr Report and Hoefle’s report to Heim together constitute clear documentary evidence to the murder of 1,274,166 Jews from the General Government at the "Aktion REINHART" camps until 31.12.1942.
michael mills wrote: As for Roberto's attempts to reconcile the recorded number of persons arriving at Belzec with the calculated capacity of the mass graves found there, they are not conclusive.
Or so Mills would like to believe. Let's see what he's got to show for his statement.
michael mills wrote:It is unlikely that the comprehensive investigation of the site of the camp left some graves undetected, or failed to find their true depth.
Rather feeble, unless Mills can plausibly explain whence he derived this conclusion.
michael mills wrote:The explanation that graves filled with bodies were burned from the top down in order to create space for more bodies is fanciful.
On the contrary, it is supported by interesting physical and eyewitness evidence. Does Mills have an explanation for Pfannenstiel’s quoted statement more plausible than mine?
michael mills wrote:A fire set on top of a pile of bodies in a grave would not consume the bodies beneath it, since all the heat would be dispersed upward and outward, not downward. Heated air and gases rise, unless they are in a confined spae and channelled, as in a crematory oven.
I don’t remember having stated that the "top down burning" suggested by the physical and eyewitness evidence I mentioned was meant to wholly obliterate the bodies in the pits. All it could achieve was to aid the work of quicklime and the natural agents of physical decomposition in reducing the volume of the corpses to which it was applied, thereby creating space for additional corpses. Of course the fire would reach only a part of the corpses in the graves, but Mills is not trying to tell us that the corpses in the upper layers would not be at least partially consumed, is he?
michael mills wrote: The presence of burnt remains found in some of the graves is probably due to the residue of open-air cremation of exhumed bodies being dumped into the emptied graves.
Does this explain the presence of unburned human remains underneath layers of human fat, as in grave no. 10?
"Grave No. 10. One of the largest mass graves in the camp, lies 15 m. N of the monument/mausoleum and measures 25 m. x 20 m. At depth 4 m. a 80 cm thick layer of human fat was found below which lay unburnt human remains and pieces of unburnt large human bones. The drill core brought to the surface several lumps of foul smelling fatty tissue still in a state of decomposition, mixed with greasy lime.”


Source of quote:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp ... enza_VI.98

Or the quoted testimonial of Dr. Pfannenstiel?
Nachdem in den Kammern Stille eingetreten war, wurden die an der Außenwand der Gebäudes angebrachten Türen geöffnet. Durch diese wurden die Leichen von jüdischen Häftlingen herausgeschafft und in große Gruben geworfen. In diesen Gruben wurden die Leichen verbrannt.
My translation:
After it had become quiet in the chambers, the doors placed on the building's outer wall were opened. Through these the corpses were taken out by Jewish inmates and thrown into huge pits. In these pits the corpses were burned.[my emphasis]
Or the fact that there’s not a shred of evidence that any of the deportees to Belzec mentioned in Hoefle’s report met a fate different from that of those who can be quantified on the basis of the physical evidence alone?

I don't think so.

demonio
Member
Posts: 908
Joined: 27 Apr 2003 03:54
Location: The Matrix

Post by demonio » 25 May 2003 00:36

Even if the Treblinka 1 destination was plausible as a destination for any of that 700,000 odd persons, which i dont for a second believe it was.
I will explore the possibility however that maybe a very small handful might have ended up here. I mean "ended" in every sense of the word too.
How many of that number might it have taken and what was its overall capacity for prisoners in this quarry/camp.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8988
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 25 May 2003 04:21

Just one comment:

Roberto seeks to deny the possibility of the existence of a third Treblinka camp, on the grounds that there is no other evidence for it, other than the wartime Polish report, to which I posted a reference.

How does he know that there is no other evidence for it? The wartime Polish report could well have been based on a whole range of evidence, including sightings of the third camp.

Furthermore, how much documentary evidence is there for a camp referred to as "Treblinka 2", or "T2". So far, he has quoted one documentary source that actually refers to "T2".

Most contemporary documents that I have seen simply refer to "Treblinka", without giving it a number. Hence, such references could refer to either T1 or T2 or T3; we have to deduce from the context exactly which one is meant.

Since the wartime Polish report gave a location for "Treblinka 3", namely at Czerwony Bor, it is unlikely that that camp was fictional. There must have been a camp at Czerwony Bor, and Jews must have been observed going there.

As I previously wrote, the Polish report was probably mistaken in locating the extermination function at the Czerwony Bor camp rather than at the camp situated on the spur-line from Treblinka Station. But such a mistake would not be unique; the SS judge Konrad Morgen, in his evidence at the Trial of the Major War Criminals, placed the exterminatory activity in the Auschwitz complex at Monowitz, Auschwitz III, instead of at Auschwitz II, Birkenau, despite the fact that he claimed to have been there and seen the extermination with his own eyes.

As for the description in the Polish report of Treblinka II as a "concentration camp proper", that may well derive from Himmler's announced intention of converting Sobibor and Treblinka II into ordinary concentration camps, under the administration of the WVHA, once the main exterminatory activity was concluded early in 1943. It is known that Sobibor was actually converted into a centre for reprocessing captured Soviet ammunition, with a largely Dutch Jewish work force of about 1,000. By the time of the preparation of the report referred to (April 1943), the conversion of Treblinka II to a concentration camp may have been under way; at the time of the mass breakout in early August 1943, it had a work force of about 1,000.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8988
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 25 May 2003 04:34

Demonio wrote:
Even if the Treblinka 1 destination was plausible as a destination for any of that 700,000 odd persons, which i dont for a second believe it was.
I will explore the possibility however that maybe a very small handful might have ended up here. I mean "ended" in every sense of the word too.
How many of that number might it have taken and what was its overall capacity for prisoners in this quarry/camp.
That would be superfluous.

There has been no suggestion by me, or anyone else as far as I can see, that significant numbers of Jews were sent to the Treblinka Labour Camp situated at the quarry at the end of the spur-line leading from Treblinka Station, and sometimes called "Treblinka I".

What I have suggested is that Jews recorded as "Zugang" (arrivals) at a place called "T" could have gone to two different camps with the designation "Treblinka", one situated on the same spur-line as the Treblinka Arbeitslager (this was presumably the T2 referred to in the Stroop Report), and another situated at Czerwony Bor, some distance away to the north.

I have raised the possibility that the camp at Czerwony Bor, referred to as Treblinka III in the Polish report of April 1943, was a transit camp for those Polish Jews selected for labour. That would be entirely consistent with the meaning of the Goebbels diary entry of 27 March 1942, which stated that only 40% of the Jews then being deported into the Occupied Eastern Territories could be used for forced labour, the remaining 60% having to be destroyed (which occurred at Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka, places situated on or near the railway lines leading into the Ocupied Eastern Territories).

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”