<<Again : how many eyewitness testimonials do we have ?>>
Hundreds for all the Reinhard(t) extermination camps, according to a brief that the Institut für Zeitgeschichte
sent to me.
In the judgment of the Düsseldorf Court of Assizes, I counted 44 witnesses who made depositions without being under oath and 44 who made depositions under oath. In addition there were the depositions of the defendants Kurt Hubert Franz, Otto Stadie, Heinrich Arthur Matthes, Willi Mentz, August Wilhelm Miete, Franz Suchomel, Gustav Münzberger, Erwin Hermann Lambert and two others whose names are not revealed in the judgment. One of these was acquitted, the other sentenced to three years. Lambert got four years, Suchomel six, Stadie 7, Münzberger 12. Franz, Matthes, Miete and Mentz were sentenced to lifetime imprisonment.
<<Correct. The treatment of the polish jews makes it probable , that they were determined to execution at one of the extermination camps.>>
I would say that the absence of a plausible alternative explanation, together with the existing documentary and eyewitness evidence, makes it highly improbable
if not wholly impossible
that anything else happened.
<<My question, which still awaits you answer : who has been a member of this Central Commission ? I have not been able to find some further infos about.>>
Neither have I. When I find something, I’ll let you know.
<<The answers to following questions concerning the burial area at Treblinka II remain still unknown>>
It would be good to know the answers, but it is not necessary to provide proof of the killings.
<<However, we have eyewitness testimonials and document evidence*, but we are still lacking the technical details for extermination and burial. After that problem has been answered in a satisfying way, we might close the Treblinka papers.>>
The technical details of the extermination and burial are irrelevant to the fact that mass murder in the dimensions becoming apparent from the documentary and eyewitness evidence took place. As all records were destroyed and most perpetrators and witnesses died in the meantime, those details will probably never be know, so in that respect we might as well close the papers right away.
<<Quote of Arnulf Neumaier>>
I've taken a closer look at it:
“According to Eliahu Rosenberg, after the trap doors of the gas chambers were pulled up, the corpses (some 850,000 altogether) were taken to pits measuring 394 ft. in length, 49 ft. in breadth and 20 ft. in depth. Based on Rosenberg's testimony, and assuming a likely gradient of 65° in the sandy and gravelly terrain of the Treblinka area and a 1.6 ft. soil layer to cover the mass grave, such a burial pit would have had a fillable volume of some 282,500 cu.ft.”
1 foot equals 0.3048 meters. This means that the pits were 120 meters in length, 14 meters in width and 6 meters in depth according to Rosenberg. The fillable volume would be 10,080 cubic meters. Rudolf says 282,500 cubic feet, which would be roughly 8,000 cubic meters (1 cubic meter equals 35.3147 cubic feet). How he takes 2,000 cubic meters off the filling volume remains his mystery. The top layer he assumes would take away a mere 1.6 feet = ca. 0.5 meters x length x width = 840 cubic meters. Why the gradient would take away another 1160 cubic meters Rudolf does not explain. The complaint of a Wehrmacht commander about the unbearable stench emanating from the insufficiently buried bodies at Treblinka suggests that the cover layer may have been less than half a meter. I wonder if Rudolf took this into consideration.
“Some witnesses have stated that the bodies were layered into the pit and that each layer was covered with a layer of soil; others claim that the bodies were haphazardly thrown into the pit. Both situations would allow for approximately 8 bodies per cubic meter (10 per 44 cubic ft.), meaning that the pits described would have accommodated about 64,000 bodies each.”
I’m glad to see my assumption of 8 bodies per cubic meter confirmed by the "Revisionist" Minister of Science and Keeper of the Faith.
“Interestingly enough, none of the witnesses mention the considerable amount of excavated soil, which came to about 339,000 cubic ft. per pit, given a 20% loosening-up of the soil. The gradient of a pit dug in natural ground conditions is known to be much steeper than that of the pile of dug-up contents. If the surface area of the burial pit measured 19,300 sq.ft., as alleged, then given a gradient of approximately 30° for the excavated gravel or sand - and after subtracting approximately 35,300 cu.ft. for the material with which the corpses were covered - the area taken up by the dug-up material piled 20 ft. high along the pit would have been approximately 28,000 sq.ft.”
Rudolf again does not lay open his calculations, which anyway would only be relevant if and to the extent that the excavated soil was kept inside the burial area
and not removed to an area adjacent to it. How does Rudolf know this was so?
“According to the Slovenian historian Tone Ference, the upper extermination area, which is said to have been within the camp area of Treblinka II, covered an area of about 172,000 sq.ft.; however, to forestall any objections on this score, we shall base our further considerations on the size of the extermination area indicated by the archival plan, namely about 193,700 sq.ft. This area held not only burial pits and the material dug up in the course of their excavation, but gas chambers and other buildings as well. If one accepts the 875,000 dead mentioned in the Jerusalem Trial of John Demjanjuk, then 14 burial pits à la Rosenberg and a total of some 4.6 million cu.ft. of excavated earth would have been involved in the accommodation of all these bodies. Since these 14 pits would have taken up an area of 271,150 sq.ft, they could not have fit into the extermination area measuring only 193,700 sq.ft. Further, the heaps of excavated material resulting from the 14 burial pits would have required an additional area of more than 392,000 sq.ft.”
1 square meter equals 10.7639 square feet, which would mean that the size of the extermination area according to the “archival plan”, which I would like to see (does Rudolf show it?) was 17,995.34 square meters. If the pits were 120 meters long and 14 meters wide, i.e. 1680 square meters in area, this would mean that no more than ten such pits could have fit into the whole extermination area. The Düsseldorf County Court, however, reached the conclusion that the whole camp had been 600 meters long and 400 meters wide in total, i.e. 240,000 square meters, consisting of three parts of more or less equal size:
- the “Wohnlager”;
- the “Auffanglager”
- the “Totenlager”, i.e. the extermination area.
The area of the “Totenlager” would thus have been 80,000 square meters, more than enough to accommodate the gas chambers, the burning grids, the material excavated from the burial pits and the pits themselves. Needless to say, I have far greater confidence in the findings of the Düsseldorf County Court than in Rudolf’s rendering of sources. It thus seems altogether plausible that the pit area alone should have had a size of 20,234.3 square meters or 217,799 square feet as stated by the Central Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland. If the pits had an area of 1,680 square meters, according to Rosenberg’s deposition, and considering that no more than three fourths of the area could be made up of the pits proper to allow for freedom of movement in between them, no more than 9 such pits could have fit into the area. But what if the pits were 50 meters long and 25 meters wide, as Arad concluded from depositions at the West German Treblinka trials? In that case the burial area could have held 12 such pits. At a depth of 7.5 meters according to the commission mentioned in the Weber/Allen article and taking away one-fifth of the total volume on account of gradient and top layer, according to Rudolf's unexplained calculations (see above), we would thus have a volume of 9,375 cubic meters * 0,8 = 7,500 cubic meters per pit available for body disposal, or 12 * 7,500 = 90,000 cubic meters in total. At an average of 8 bodies per cubic meter, there would thus be room for 720,000 whole dead bodies.
<<Finally, some comments on the allegedly 20-ft.-deep burial pits.>>
1 meter equals 3.28084 feet According to eyewitness depositions at the West German Treblinka trials, the pits were actually 10 meters = 32.81 feet deep. According to the findings of the commission mentioned in the Weber/Allen article, the depth of the pits was 7.5 meters = 24 feet.
<<First of all, it seems unlikely that the pits would have been dug that deep, as doing so would have required either complicated heavy machinery or increased expenses related to the construction of ramps. The excavators allegedly used in Treblinka would hardly have been adequate to this task.>>
How does Rudolf know that? His footnote 75 reads as follows:
Cf. the pictures from K. Franz's photo album, in G. Sereny, op. cit. (note 40), p. 210; A. Donat, op. cit. (note 40), p. 264; Y. Arad, op. cit. (note 40), p. 95.
It would be interesting to check these sources. The photo from the Franz album that Rudolf refers to is most probably the following:
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp ... ave-02.jpg
The photo shows not one of the bucket excavators (Schaufelbagger, in German) used at the beginning of the camp’s existence to dig the pits, but a grab excavator (Greifbagger) used to take dead bodies out of the re-opened pits when they went over to burning them at the beginning of 1943. Rudolf is obviously taking his readers for a ride. Or then he knows nothing about civil construction. I often passed the construction site of the new Corte Inglês
shopping mall in Lisbon during the last year, especially at the beginning when they were laying the foundations. The pit I saw was enormous and much deeper than ten meters, and the only “complicated heavy machinery” I saw there were huge bucket excavators.
<<At depths of 20 ft., it is also probable that ground water seepage occurs, which would have impeded or downright prevented the construction and use of pits of such depth.>>
Boy, I sure wonder how civil construction can ever manage to dig a pit deep enough for the foundations of a large building if that were so.
<<However, since the camp Treblinka I, with a large gravel pit, is said to have been located near Treblinka II, a ground water level lower than 20 ft. is certainly conceivable.>>
Rudolf’s sources for that contention would be appreciated. The commission mentioned in the Weber-Allen article reportedly reached “untouched sandy soil” (i.e. without human remains mingled with the earth and sand) after 7.5 meters. Several of the graves found at Belzec in 1997/98 were 5 meters deep or more. The Belzec findings also suggest that it was possible to dig below the ground water level:
"Grave No. 1. Located only 5 m. S of BM 2007. At 3.90 m. below ground level a layer of dark grey (burnt) sand was found in which were mixed pieces of carbonized wood and fragments of human bones - among them an incisor tooth. This was the first indication of the [Page 14] "presence of a mass grave. Beneath this deep layer lay a several centimetres thick layer of foul-smelling water under which were found unburnt corpses compressed by the weight of soil to a layer only 20 cm thick. The drill core brought to the surface putrid pieces of human remains, including pieces of skull with skin and tufts of hair still attached, and unidentifiable lumps of greyish, fatty human tissue. The bottom of the grave was lined with a layer of evil smelling black (i.e. burnt) human fat, resembling black soap. As no evidence of fabric was brought to the surface, it may be assumed that the corpses are naked. The state of preservation of the corpses is due to the fact that they lay virtually hermetically sealed between the layer of water above, the layer of solidified fat below, underneath which the natural, dry and compressed sand through which no air could penetrate, resulted in their partial mummification. The dimensions of Grave No. 1 were determined as 40 m. x 11 m. and over 5 m. deep.
Grave No. 3. This was the first mass grave the location of which was positively identified from a Luftwaffe aerial photograph taken in 1944, in which it appears as a T-shaped white patch and seems to be the biggest grave in the camp. The presence of graves in this part of the camp was also discernible at ground level by soil subsidence and different vegetation on the areas of subsidence. Upon investigation, however, it was found that the T-shape consisted of three separate graves (labelled 3, 5 and 6 on Fig. 4) with Grave No. 3 forming the stem of the 'T'. It measured 20 m. x 15 m. and is at least 5 m. deep. After drilling through a 4.90 m. deep layer of dark grey sand mixed with pieces of carbonized wood and fragments of burnt human bones, a foul odour was released. The drill core brought to the surface pieces of skulls with skin and tufts of hair still attached, lumps of greyish human fat, and fragments of unburnt human bones. The bottom layer consisted of putrid, waxy human fat.
Grave No. 4. Located immediately adjacent to the N side of BM 2007, measures 20 m. x 8 m. and is 5 m. deep. At depth 1.20 m., burnt pieces of human bones were found. Beneath this, a layer of water signalled the presence of corpses at the next level. From below the water layer the drill core brought to the surface pieces of unburnt human bones, including pieces of skulls with skin and hair still adhering and lumps of foul smelling greasy fat, indicating the presence of unburnt corpses
Grave No. 6. Forms the right-hand bar of the T-shaped arrangement of graves and measures 33 m. x 14 m. and is more than 5 m. deep. At depth 0.4 m. - 2.60 m. there is a layer of carbonized wood and fragments of burnt human bones. At the E end of the grave the ground is covered with grey sand containing a mixture of crushed pieces of burnt and unburnt pieces of human bones. A few silver birch trees stand between Graves 5 and 6.”
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp ... enza_II.98
Emphases are mine.
“Grave No. 7. Initially located in October - 1997 in the vicinity of symbolic tomb No. 4. Dimensions determined as 30 m. x 14 m. The symbolic tomb lay just to the right (S) of the grave. Carbonized pieces of wood and fragments of burnt human bones mixed with dark grey ash were found to a depth of 5 m.
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_II.98
Emphases are mine.
<<If one proceeds on the assumption of a more realistic pit depth of approximately 10 ft., then a pit of the aforementioned surface area would have held some 35,000 bodies, and 25 pits would have been needed, covering a total of 484,200 sq.ft. excluding the area taken up by the excavated soil. The excavated material itself would have required an area of 570,300 sq.ft., making for a total of almost 1.1 million sq.ft. For the alleged 3 million victims, 86 pits covering 1.67 million sq.ft. would have been needed, plus the corresponding area for the excavated soil.>>
The “more realistic pit depth” of 10 feet = 3 meters is far too low, see above. The Belzec excavations turned up graves deeper than 5 meters which also seem to have been dug below the water level because there were human remains found below that level. This suggests that pits 7.5 meters deep were altogether feasible and that Rudolf’s premises are simply wrong. The premises being wrong, all calculations based on them are wrong as well, of course.
<<In the case of Auschwitz, quantitative considerations based on events 'attested to' by witnesses, and on the technical and material consequences resulting from the alleged events, have brought about a constant and ongoing reduction in the number of victims.>>
Nonsense. There has never been such a thing as a “constant and ongoing” reduction in the number of victims, and the key factor to assess this number is not the “technical and material consequences resulting from the alleged events”, but the number of people taken to Auschwitz-Birkenau according to various estimates by historians and court experts. The figure that Rudolf Höss gave at his trial in Warsaw in 1947 and in his memoirs – 1,135,000 – is in line with the posterior estimates of most historians:
- Dr Josef Kermisz, from the Jewish Historical Commission in Poland, wrote in 1949 that this Commission had evaluated the number of victims of Auschwitz at 1 500 000;
- Gerald Reitlinger in 1953 estimated at 800 000 to 900 000 the number of Jewish victims of Auschwitz;
- Raul Hilberg, in The Destruction of European Jews
, 1961, estimated the number of Jewish victims of Auschwitz at 1 million and the total number of victims of Auschwitz at 1.1 million.
- Helmut Krausnick declared in 1964, at the process against former members of the Auschwitz staff in Frankfurt, that the total number of victims of Auschwitz was between on million and one and a half million;
- Georges Wellers in 1983 provided an estimate of 1.3 million Jewish victims at Auschwitz and a total of 1.5 million victims of the camp;
- Franciszek Piper, in a study that started in 1980 and the results of which were presented in 1991 and 1994, gave as the total number of victims of Auschwitz a minimum of 1.1 million and a maximum of 1.5 million.
<<Scientific facts have always been the enemy of religious dogma.>>
Pseudo-scientific contentions, on the other hand, seem to have become the strongest support of the quasi-religious dogma that the “Revisionists” adhere to. Rudolf’s “science” reminds me of the proposal evaluation matrices of some of my state customers. The calculation inside the matrix is mathematically correct and looks “scientifical”, but the input is highly selective and subjective. Rudolf’s input into his “matrix” are the assumptions that, processed by said “matrix”, will result in the conclusions that fit his ideological agenda, whether or not – the latter being the case here – those assumptions are supported by the facts.