"At any rate, the cremations were promptly begun. The corpses of men, women, children and old people were exhumed from the mass graves. Whenever such a grave was opened, a terrible stench rose from them, because the bodies were already in an advanced stage of decomposition. This work brought continued physical and moral suffering to those who were forced to do it. We, the living, felt renewed grief, even more intensively than before. We were ill fed, because transports had ceased to arrive, so that the hapless purveyors of food had become a thing of the past. We did not like to draw on our reserves. All we ate was moldy bread, which we washed down with water. The malnutrition caused an epidemic of typhus. Those who became ill needed neither medication nor a bed. A bullet in the neck and all was over.
Work was begun to cremate the dead. It turned out that bodies of women burned more easily than those of men. Accordingly, the bodies of women were used for kindling the fires. Since cremation was hard work, rivalry set in between the labor details as to which of them would be able to cremate the largest number of bodies. Bulletin boards were rigged up and daily scores were recorded. Nevertheless, the results were very poor. The corpses were soaked in gasoline. This entailed considerable expense and the results were inadequate; the male corpses simply would not burn. Whenever an airplane was sighted overhead, all work was stopped, the corpses were covered with foliage as camouflage against aerial observation."
I say he meant the graves, opened up for exhumations, rather than the pyres, that were covered.
This is such slop.
Nessie: If you have actually read Jankiel Wiernik's book you will know he said this about the amount of smoke produced by the cremations:
"The result was one huge inferno, which from the distance looked like a volcano breaking through the earth's crust to belch forth fire and lava".
What would be the point in you saying, they tried to hide the corpses laying on the ground, and not the monstrous volcano of flames and smoke? This is the point you are being grilled (pun not intended) on, and your answers are pathetic.
Other witnesses state that the initial attempts to cremate corpses were in the mass graves. The various witnesses speak about different times in the process.
I'm not 100% sure which witnesses you're referring to, but the Jewish historian Konnilyn Feig does make that assertion, can you provide said witness statement's?
"Later, on Wirth’s instructions, they were burnt in the grave itself."
"When the cremation grates were there, fire was kindled in the corpse pits to cremate the corpses on top… such a fire in one grave resulted from the gas from the corpses. Big tall flames shot up and there was an enormous mushroom cloud.
If you mean, Brenner, Rajzman and Łukaszkiewicz then they also spoke about a huge incineration 'furnace' that was a trench dug 200-300m long and 5/6m deep?
“The furnace – that was a large trench 200-300 m long and 5-6 m deep, excavated with an excavator. Three rows of reinforced concrete poles one- and-a-half meters high each were driven into the bottom of the trench. The poles were connected with one another by crossbeams. On these cross- beams were laid rails at intervals of 5 to 7 cm. This was a giant furnace grate. Narrow-gauge tracks were brought up to the edges of the trench.” - Hejnoch Brenner + Samuel Rajzman
No room for such trench, also no evidence of said trench.
On top of that, Treblinkas longest side was only 188m.
People are poor at estimating size, so don't take what a witness said about the size of a grave literally and as if it is accurate.
Oh, all those confessions are from decades after the war. (The mushroom cloud one is funny, why would you include that?)
How is one supposed to ascertain that Suchomel hadn't read Gitta's book about Stangl's 'confessions', also 'confessions' which are conducted decades after the 'holocaust narrative" has been engrained in society, are not serious evidence.
Attachments
Screenshot 2025-07-03 at 10.09.22 2.jpg (244.61 KiB) Viewed 88 times
“The emigration of Jews from Germany must be encouraged by all means.”
- Hermann Göring
"At any rate, the cremations were promptly begun. The corpses of men, women, children and old people were exhumed from the mass graves. Whenever such a grave was opened, a terrible stench rose from them, because the bodies were already in an advanced stage of decomposition. This work brought continued physical and moral suffering to those who were forced to do it. We, the living, felt renewed grief, even more intensively than before. We were ill fed, because transports had ceased to arrive, so that the hapless purveyors of food had become a thing of the past. We did not like to draw on our reserves. All we ate was moldy bread, which we washed down with water. The malnutrition caused an epidemic of typhus. Those who became ill needed neither medication nor a bed. A bullet in the neck and all was over.
Work was begun to cremate the dead. It turned out that bodies of women burned more easily than those of men. Accordingly, the bodies of women were used for kindling the fires. Since cremation was hard work, rivalry set in between the labor details as to which of them would be able to cremate the largest number of bodies. Bulletin boards were rigged up and daily scores were recorded. Nevertheless, the results were very poor. The corpses were soaked in gasoline. This entailed considerable expense and the results were inadequate; the male corpses simply would not burn. Whenever an airplane was sighted overhead, all work was stopped, the corpses were covered with foliage as camouflage against aerial observation."
I say he meant the graves, opened up for exhumations, rather than the pyres, that were covered.
This is such slop.
Nessie: If you have actually read Jankiel Wiernik's book you will know he said this about the amount of smoke produced by the cremations:
"The result was one huge inferno, which from the distance looked like a volcano breaking through the earth's crust to belch forth fire and lava".
What would be the point in you saying, they tried to hide the corpses laying on the ground, and not the monstrous volcano of flames and smoke? This is the point you are being grilled (pun not intended) on, and your answers are pathetic.
This is such slop, even for you.
He is talking about different events, that likely happened months apart. Obviously, a "huge inferno" cannot be "covered with foliage" when "an airplane was sighted overhead". A mass grave can. The camp staff can only hide so much.
You have programmed yourself to be as sceptical and suspicious of what the witnesses said, because you want to convince yourself they all lied. It would not matter how they described events, if you do not want to believe them, you will find something to excuse your disbelief.
If you studied witness behaviour, you would find it far harder to sustain your suspicion they all lied, because you would realise how they describe what they saw, is within what is normal for eyewitnesses.
joshk246 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 9:38 pm
I'm not 100% sure which witnesses you're referring to, but the Jewish historian Konnilyn Feig does make that assertion, can you provide said witness statement's?
"Later, on Wirth’s instructions, they were burnt in the grave itself."
"When the cremation grates were there, fire was kindled in the corpse pits to cremate the corpses on top… such a fire in one grave resulted from the gas from the corpses. Big tall flames shot up and there was an enormous mushroom cloud.
If you mean, Brenner, Rajzman and Łukaszkiewicz then they also spoke about a huge incineration 'furnace' that was a trench dug 200-300m long and 5/6m deep?
“The furnace – that was a large trench 200-300 m long and 5-6 m deep, excavated with an excavator. Three rows of reinforced concrete poles one- and-a-half meters high each were driven into the bottom of the trench. The poles were connected with one another by crossbeams. On these cross- beams were laid rails at intervals of 5 to 7 cm. This was a giant furnace grate. Narrow-gauge tracks were brought up to the edges of the trench.” - Hejnoch Brenner + Samuel Rajzman
No room for such trench, also no evidence of said trench.
On top of that, Treblinkas longest side was only 188m.
People are poor at estimating size, so don't take what a witness said about the size of a grave literally and as if it is accurate.
Oh, all those confessions are from decades after the war.
Which is all the more reason why it would be unreasonable to expect witnesses to recollect the correct dimensions. The passage of time helps to explain why witnesses described grave sizes, that were too big to fit inside the camp.
(The mushroom cloud one is funny, why would you include that?)
It is because that is what he is quoted as saying. What is funny about a mushroom cloud? I have seen fires that caused a mushroom cloud.
How is one supposed to ascertain that Suchomel hadn't read Gitta's book about Stangl's 'confessions', also 'confessions' which are conducted decades after the 'holocaust narrative" has been engrained in society, are not serious evidence.
That is just speculation. So-called revisionists like to speculate and it is far easier than it is to evidence Suchomel had read and been influenced by Gitts's book, or that she made up what Stangl said. Most of so-called revisionism is just speculation.
Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Jul 03, 2025 1:27 pm
You have programmed yourself to be as sceptical and suspicious of what the witnesses said, because you want to convince yourself they all lied. It would not matter how they described events, if you do not want to believe them, you will find something to excuse your disbelief.
If you studied witness behaviour, you would find it far harder to sustain your suspicion they all lied, because you would realise how they describe what they saw, is within what is normal for eyewitnesses.
Instead of being the very amateur psychologist, stick to the very real fact that the Soviets or anyone else never noted anything as described. Doing so is attempting to deflect. The same question was mentioned regarding thousands of Jews in a line heading down into LII at Birkenau.
Omnia transibunt. Oblivione erimus imperia surgent et cadunt, sed gloria Romae aeterna est!
Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Jul 03, 2025 1:27 pm
You have programmed yourself to be as sceptical and suspicious of what the witnesses said, because you want to convince yourself they all lied. It would not matter how they described events, if you do not want to believe them, you will find something to excuse your disbelief.
If you studied witness behaviour, you would find it far harder to sustain your suspicion they all lied, because you would realise how they describe what they saw, is within what is normal for eyewitnesses.
Instead of being the very amateur psychologist, stick to the very real fact that the Soviets or anyone else never noted anything as described. Doing so is attempting to deflect. The same question was mentioned regarding thousands of Jews in a line heading down into LII at Birkenau.
There may be Soviet intelligence reports and aerial photos of TII, from 1943, when Wiernik described covering corpses from planes over head, still sitting in an archive somewhere. Or, they got destroyed.
Poles who lived locally to TII, described excavators digging in the camp in 1942 and months of burning in 1943. Kurt Franz photographed excavators working at the camp in 1943.
You suggest the excavations were for the dead off the trains and those who died inside the camp from disease, but you produce no evidence to prove how many died, or were buried there.
Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Jul 03, 2025 1:27 pm
He is talking about different events, that likely happened months apart. Obviously, a "huge inferno" cannot be "covered with foliage" when "an airplane was sighted overhead". A mass grave can. The camp staff can only hide so much.
You have programmed yourself to be as sceptical and suspicious of what the witnesses said, because you want to convince yourself they all lied. It would not matter how they described events, if you do not want to believe them, you will find something to excuse your disbelief.
If you studied witness behaviour, you would find it far harder to sustain your suspicion they all lied, because you would realise how they describe what they saw, is within what is normal for eyewitnesses.
What
You are asking us to believe they made efforts to obfuscate corpses lying on the ground from aerial observation at an earlier point in the war but not towering infernoes of flame and smoke from a later point in the war?
And you say i'm programmed?! Can you just acknowledge please that Wiernik is lying and we can move on from this slop.
Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Jul 03, 2025 1:27 pm
He is talking about different events, that likely happened months apart. Obviously, a "huge inferno" cannot be "covered with foliage" when "an airplane was sighted overhead". A mass grave can. The camp staff can only hide so much.
You have programmed yourself to be as sceptical and suspicious of what the witnesses said, because you want to convince yourself they all lied. It would not matter how they described events, if you do not want to believe them, you will find something to excuse your disbelief.
If you studied witness behaviour, you would find it far harder to sustain your suspicion they all lied, because you would realise how they describe what they saw, is within what is normal for eyewitnesses.
What
You are asking us to believe they made efforts to obfuscate corpses lying on the ground from aerial observation at an earlier point in the war but not towering infernoes of flame and smoke from a later point in the war?
And you say i'm programmed?! Can you just acknowledge please that Wiernik is lying and we can move on from this slop.
That's exactly what he is not only suggesting, but stating, clearly.
Hence I said he had earned a missing the point award, to which he also roundly missed the point and doubled down.
At this point he has what, quintupled down?
/shrug
'Some men, you just can't reach, so, you get what we got here today, which, is the way he wants, well, he gets'...
were to guess why no t4 personnel were chosen to perform gassing that had experience with gassing, it would be because THERE WERE NONE.
"Later, on Wirth’s instructions, they were burnt in the grave itself."
"When the cremation grates were there, fire was kindled in the corpse pits to cremate the corpses on top… such a fire in one grave resulted from the gas from the corpses. Big tall flames shot up and there was an enormous mushroom cloud.
People are poor at estimating size, so don't take what a witness said about the size of a grave literally and as if it is accurate.
Oh, all those confessions are from decades after the war.
Which is all the more reason why it would be unreasonable to expect witnesses to recollect the correct dimensions. The passage of time helps to explain why witnesses described grave sizes, that were too big to fit inside the camp.
Oh dear Nessie… those statements of a 200m long incineration trench were not decades after the war, unlike the 2 statements you provided.
(The mushroom cloud one is funny, why would you include that?)
It is because that is what he is quoted as saying. What is funny about a mushroom cloud? I have seen fires that caused a mushroom cloud.
Do you have any other statements of this mushroom cloud, preferably not decades post war.
How is one supposed to ascertain that Suchomel hadn't read Gitta's book about Stangl's 'confessions', also 'confessions' which are conducted decades after the 'holocaust narrative" has been engrained in society, are not serious evidence.
That is just speculation. So-called revisionists like to speculate and it is far easier than it is to evidence Suchomel had read and been influenced by Gitts's book, or that she made up what Stangl said. Most of so-called revisionism is just speculation.
So called ‘witnesses’ speculate much worse and cry out about ridiculous impossibilities, yet affirmers take that as gospel…
“The emigration of Jews from Germany must be encouraged by all means.”
- Hermann Göring
Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Jul 03, 2025 1:27 pm
He is talking about different events, that likely happened months apart. Obviously, a "huge inferno" cannot be "covered with foliage" when "an airplane was sighted overhead". A mass grave can. The camp staff can only hide so much.
You have programmed yourself to be as sceptical and suspicious of what the witnesses said, because you want to convince yourself they all lied. It would not matter how they described events, if you do not want to believe them, you will find something to excuse your disbelief.
If you studied witness behaviour, you would find it far harder to sustain your suspicion they all lied, because you would realise how they describe what they saw, is within what is normal for eyewitnesses.
What
You are asking us to believe they made efforts to obfuscate corpses lying on the ground from aerial observation at an earlier point in the war but not towering infernoes of flame and smoke from a later point in the war?
Wiernik evidences attempts to hide the graves, which could not be done with the pyres. I don't expect you to believe any evidence that does not suit your desired beliefs, but there is a lot of evidence that as much as was possible, the Nazis tried to hide activities inside TII.
And you say i'm programmed?! Can you just acknowledge please that Wiernik is lying and we can move on from this slop.
You need evidence to prove he lied. Your biased beliefs are not good enough reason to dismiss what he said as lies. It is very arrogant of you to think that they are.
Oh, all those confessions are from decades after the war.
Which is all the more reason why it would be unreasonable to expect witnesses to recollect the correct dimensions. The passage of time helps to explain why witnesses described grave sizes, that were too big to fit inside the camp.
Oh dear Nessie… those statements of a 200m long incineration trench were not decades after the war, unlike the 2 statements you provided.
I never said that the descriptions of a 200m long trench were made decades after the war. They were made around 2 years after the event, which is easily enough time for memory to fade and make it even more unlikely a witness would estimate a dimension correctly.
(The mushroom cloud one is funny, why would you include that?)
It is because that is what he is quoted as saying. What is funny about a mushroom cloud? I have seen fires that caused a mushroom cloud.
Do you have any other statements of this mushroom cloud, preferably not decades post war.
I do not remember, from the statements that I have read, any other description of a mushroom cloud. There are a lot of statements, I have not fully read, due to lack of availability of online translations.
How is one supposed to ascertain that Suchomel hadn't read Gitta's book about Stangl's 'confessions', also 'confessions' which are conducted decades after the 'holocaust narrative" has been engrained in society, are not serious evidence.
That is just speculation. So-called revisionists like to speculate and it is far easier than it is to evidence Suchomel had read and been influenced by Gitts's book, or that she made up what Stangl said. Most of so-called revisionism is just speculation.
So called ‘witnesses’ speculate much worse and cry out about ridiculous impossibilities, yet affirmers take that as gospel…
Historians and others, with experience and training in witness evidence, know not to take witness descriptions literally and to look for corroboration, to determine truthfulness. So-called revisionists, with no relevant training, make constant mistakes when assessing witness evidence.
