Any serious researcher knows that and knows that such stories were disproven over 50 years ago. They still surface from time to time and always will.
The question is why raise such a distraction that has been demonstrated clearly wrong post war ? Unless of course it is to distract, if so it has done its job beautifully, denialism isnt allowed here but subtle distraction obviously is.
The focus should remain on the Death Camps.
Since you yourself "dare to say" that the account is the same, you shoot yourself in the foot, since original Russian account is incompatible with your fantasies above. It might so happen that English version was altered for publication by someone for whatever purpose, but it is highly improbable, you did not give any evidence of this and, what's more, it would render your "critique" of account worthless, since it is not an original anyway.
Some questions on “methods of history” lead us to distraction here.
"Should" the focus “remain” on the Death Camps, without “denialism” or “subtle distraction”, then we must apparently stay away from their “history”, if we follow the recommendation of alf
That sound more like religion than history to me, forbidding the “looking back” on the “Apocrypha”, once the "dis(ap)proving" has closed the case.
, on the other hand, recommends going back to “the original”, and does not exclude categorically that the original can be altered “for publication” when it is translated to other languages---“for whatever purposes”.
' "Critique" of account' footed on altered originals tends to shoot itself in the foot, once the original can be established.
He knows that it is “highly improbable”, but perhaps will admit that such alterations have been done in history -- in order to “focus” on what is “proven”, or to avoid “subtle distraction” from what is proven.
But the question “how?” is likely to “surface from time to time and always will”.
He gives links on side 2, to the “original Russian account”, not scanned(?) but published on the Net (still “original”?).
But he quotes from an 1981 edition, translated into English from(?) an edition “published in Hebrew in 1980”.
(Vasily Grossman, Treblinka, in Ilya Ehrenburg and Vasily Grossman (eds.), The Black Book, Holocaust Library, New York, published in Hebrew in 1980, published in English in 1981, p. 417).
But if you “mind” being “closed” – do you mind to read Sergey Romanov’s statement above, once again?
The case “leaks”, doesn’t it?
What is the original Russian account?
Mr. Mills wrote:
He is referring to a book published in the Soviet Union by Il'ia Erenburg, commonly referred to as "The Black Book". That work was in fact suppressed. It deals mainly with repressions of Jews by German forces on the territory of the occupied Soviet Union.
I was referring to a book published in New York in 1946. It is called "The Black Book: The Nazi Crime against the Jewish People". Its scope is Europe-wide, not restricted to the Soviet Union. And yes, I have read that book.
I dare say the account of Treblinka by Grossman published in "The Black Book: The Nazi crime Against the Jewish People", is the same as the account that appeared in the Erenburg work.
Suppressed but still published, and the one read in the “original account” by Sergey Romanov on the Russian website?
Alf would not care which account is original, since the focus ought to remain on the Death Camps, and not on what is “clearly wrong”.
“The case is closed”, historically?
But sometimes we would like (to know/learn how) to choose ourselves, and how our Founding Fathers of Historical Truth chose what is “clearly right”, when they “closed the case”.
What “subtle distraction” disappeared in the translation? Why was an “original account”…”clearly wrong”
[…] what's more, it would render your "critique" of account worthless, since it is not an original anyway.
When is an “approbation” worthless (“clearly wrong”), although it is as “original” as can be?
(Ehrenburg was close in time and place when he "accounted" Treblinka.)