The Pyres of Dresden

[Callafangers]

Corroborating eyewitness descriptions are enough for courts, historians and journalists, and are only not enough for you, when it is what you do not want to believe.

Nessie, why are you lying (or just playing dumb)?

If one-thousand witnesses say that a man jumped over the Eiffel Tower, do the courts agree it happened? If something is not physically possible, it's a dead-end.

If this debate has truly devolved into you simple dismissing hard data on biomass as fuels, then this forum truly has become a haven for idiotic conspiracy theorists, and you're just now more overtly wrong about which side of that you're on.

Embarrassing.

[Archie]

So what's the summary of all of this so far? I'll give my version.

Bombsaway believes in his own novel theory that the bodies at the AR camps were burned primarily with gasoline rather than wood. This is contrary to the procedure described by all Holocaust authorities in standard reference works.

It was pointed out to him that liquid fuels are primarily used as an accelerant and are not a suitable replacement for wood as they flare up and burn off too rapidly. Moreover, gasoline in particular would be an especially volatile and dangerous choice. BA is stubbornly unable to grasp these points and continues to talk as if gasoline can be easily substituted for wood.

BA's only support for his theory is Dresden which he cites as a supposed "proof of concept" for liquid fuel-only cremations. Except upon investigation, it turns out 1) other sources of fuel like straw, wood, and clothing were present, and 2) it is unclear what degree of cremation was achieved. As the precise conditions and outcome cannot be determined, this has limited experimental value and it certainly is not enough to override all prior understanding of thermodynamics.

I would urge caution in attempting to draw scientific conclusions based on vague general history accounts as BA has attempted to do ("but Irving says X!"). Unless you have competent technical documentation of the events in question, it just isn't controlled or precise enough to draw any lessons about fuel consumption, etc.

[bombsaway]

So what's the summary of all of this so far? I'll give my version.

Bombsaway believes in his own novel theory that the bodies at the AR camps were burned primarily with gasoline rather than wood. This is contrary to the procedure described by all Holocaust authorities in standard reference works.

It was pointed out to him that liquid fuels are primarily used as an accelerant and are not a suitable replacement for wood as they flare up and burn off too rapidly. Moreover, gasoline in particular would be an especially volatile and dangerous choice. BA is stubbornly unable to grasp these points and continues to talk as if gasoline can be easily substituted for wood.

BA's only support for his theory is Dresden which he cites as a supposed "proof of concept" for liquid fuel-only cremations. Except upon investigation, it turns out 1) other sources of fuel like straw, wood, and clothing were present, and 2) it is unclear what degree of cremation was achieved. As the precise conditions and outcome cannot be determined, this has limited experimental value and it certainly is not enough to override all prior understanding of thermodynamics.

I would urge caution in attempting to draw scientific conclusions based on vague general history accounts as BA has attempted to do ("but Irving says X!"). Unless you have competent technical documentation of the events in question, it just isn't controlled or precise enough to draw any lessons about fuel consumption, etc.

Arad's foundational study quotes use of liquid fuel. Laughable.

I never stated this was a stone cold belief, rather a speculation. Show me where I was said anything else.

Rather my belief is that liquid fuels were used, in accordance with what you see in Arad's book + most other sources. The ratio, I have said, is unknown.

There's a difference between speculation and belief in something, a distinction you clearly don't get.

[Callafangers]

There's a difference between speculation and belief in something, a distinction you clearly don't get.

So, you are making posts about speculation you don't even believe?

[Stubble]

Cite your sources and explain what you are talking about.

For the record, I don't think a jerry tin of diesel to start the fire is in dispute, and from my recollection, the most widely cited source says the fuel was jewesses.

[bombsaway]

There's a difference between speculation and belief in something, a distinction you clearly don't get.

So, you are making posts about speculation you don't even believe?

speculation is defined as "the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence."

so I should be in the practice of believing in thing unsupported by evidence? LOL

the debate about liquid fuels being the main fuel was a debate about whether that was a reasonable possibility (like resettlement). You guys were driving that train, not me.

[Callafangers]

speculation is defined as "the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence."

so I should be in the practice of believing in thing unsupported by evidence? LOL

the debate about liquid fuels being the main fuel was a debate about whether that was a reasonable possibility (like resettlement). You guys were driving that train, not me.

One should generally be in the practice of believing what he speculates. Otherwise, what is your intention? Is this just your uncommitted stream of consciousness, wasting everyone's time? Or do you think you actually have a case to be made, here?

It sounds like you're saying you've come up with conjecture that is so weak, that you don't even believe it. And that's a wild admission, considering that your case relies on this conjecture being true.

[bombsaway]

speculation is defined as "the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence."

so I should be in the practice of believing in thing unsupported by evidence? LOL

the debate about liquid fuels being the main fuel was a debate about whether that was a reasonable possibility (like resettlement). You guys were driving that train, not me.

One should generally be in the practice of believing what he speculates. Otherwise, what is your intention? Is this just your uncommitted stream of consciousness, wasting everyone's time? Or do you think you actually have a case to be made, here?

It sounds like you're saying you've come up with conjecture that is so weak, that you don't even believe it. And that's a wild admission, considering that your case relies on this conjecture being true.

I said it was possible, you guys pushed this argument, not me. It's conjecture unsupported by the evidence, so no I wouldn't believe it. I also don't believe it was mostly wood that was the fuel. The ratio is unknown, as I've said many times before.

[Stubble]

I beg your pardon? This thread is a response to YOU pushing this theory Sir. Check post #1, then see the 'gasoline hack' thread.

I suppose now that you can't find the supporting evidence you claimed existed in testimony and from Arad, you are left with this final pivot saying that I put words in your mouth somehow.

So far as what you do believe Bombsaway, what was the fuel.

Enlighten us Bombsaway, how do you think the cremations were carried out.

[bombsaway]

I beg your pardon? This thread is a response to YOU pushing this theory Sir. Check post #1, then see the 'gasoline hack' thread.

I suppose now that you can't find the supporting evidence you claimed existed in testimony and from Arad, you are left with this final pivot saying that I put words in your mouth somehow.

So far as what you do believe Bombsaway, what was the fuel.

Enlighten us Bombsaway, how do you think the cremations were carried out.

quote me, if you dare, where I was pushing this theory? I was defending it as a possibility, you were arguing NO

[Wetzelrad]

I find it very difficult to take Arad seriously, but here is what he says on pages 174-5. The cremation experts determined that liquid fuel was "unnecessary" because "the corpses burned well enough without extra fuel", so they stopped using it. Therefore an indeterminate number of bodies, say half, were burned with only "brushwood" or, according to a different account, "dry wood and branches".

Since liquid fuel was unnecessary, Callafangers's statement that wood would have been the primary fuel and gasoline only the "starter" is supported by Arad. Not perfectly but much moreso than bombsaway's hypothesis.

[bombsaway]

I find it very difficult to take Arad seriously, but here is what he says on pages 174-5. The cremation experts determined that liquid fuel was "unnecessary" because "the corpses burned well enough without extra fuel", so they stopped using it. Therefore an indeterminate number of bodies, say half, were burned with only "brushwood" or, according to a different account, "dry wood and branches".

Since liquid fuel was unnecessary, Callafangers's statement that wood would have been the primary fuel and gasoline only the "starter" is supported by Arad. Not perfectly but much moreso than bombsaway's hypothesis.

And Arad quotes another testimony which said petrol and brushwood was used. Brushwood would not be enough for cremations of this nature.

At that time SS Oberscharführer or Hauptscharführer [Herbert] Floss, who, as I
assume, was previously in another extermination camp, arrived. He was in charge of
the arrangements for cremating the corpses. The cremation took place in such a way
that railway lines and concrete blocks were placed together. The corpses were piled on
these rails. Brushwood was put under the rails. The wood was doused with petrol. In
that way not only the newly accumulated corpses were cremated, but also those taken
out from the graves.11

the testimonies contradict one another, Arad isn't taking a position about this question

he quotes a Polish investigator, talking about flammable material - not necessarily gasoline

From December 1942 the arrival of transports with Jews to the Belzec camps
came to a standstill. The Germans then started to erase systematically the trails of their
crimes. They started to remove from the graves, with special cranes, the corpses of the
murdered, pour over them some highly flammable material, and cremate them in large
heaps.
Later the procedure of burning the corpses was improved, and a roaster of railway
tracks was built. The corpses were laid in layers, alternated with a layer of wood. The
ashes from the burned corpses were put through a screening machine so that the
valuables that might have remained with the corpses could be separated and removed.
Subsequently, the ashes were buried. . . . The burning of the corpses was finished in
March 1943. . . .

[Stubble]

quote me, if you dare, where I was pushing this theory? I was defending it as a possibility, you were arguing NO

/shrug

I mean, I guess you might try to wiggle out of this;

So what's the summary of all of this so far? I'll give my version.

Bombsaway believes in his own novel theory that the bodies at the AR camps were burned primarily with gasoline rather than wood. This is contrary to the procedure described by all Holocaust authorities in standard reference works.

It was pointed out to him that liquid fuels are primarily used as an accelerant and are not a suitable replacement for wood as they flare up and burn off too rapidly. Moreover, gasoline in particular would be an especially volatile and dangerous choice. BA is stubbornly unable to grasp these points and continues to talk as if gasoline can be easily substituted for wood.

BA's only support for his theory is Dresden which he cites as a supposed "proof of concept" for liquid fuel-only cremations. Except upon investigation, it turns out 1) other sources of fuel like straw, wood, and clothing were present, and 2) it is unclear what degree of cremation was achieved. As the precise conditions and outcome cannot be determined, this has limited experimental value and it certainly is not enough to override all prior understanding of thermodynamics.

I would urge caution in attempting to draw scientific conclusions based on vague general history accounts as BA has attempted to do ("but Irving says X!"). Unless you have competent technical documentation of the events in question, it just isn't controlled or precise enough to draw any lessons about fuel consumption, etc.

Arad's foundational study quotes use of liquid fuel. Laughable.

I never stated this was a stone cold belief, rather a speculation. Show me where I was said anything else.

Rather my belief is that liquid fuels were used, in accordance with what you see in Arad's book + most other sources. The ratio, I have said, is unknown.

There's a difference between speculation and belief in something, a distinction you clearly don't get.

That would be incredibly slimy though.

There are of course various other examples. Like pointing at Dresden to support the idea, while you were arguing for it...

This doesn't really take us to where we need to be though Bombsaway, what do you believe happened? How do you believe the cremations were carried out?

Enlighten us.

[bombsaway]

quote me, if you dare, where I was pushing this theory? I was defending it as a possibility, you were arguing NO

/shrug

I mean, I guess you might try to wiggle out of this;

So what's the summary of all of this so far? I'll give my version.

Bombsaway believes in his own novel theory that the bodies at the AR camps were burned primarily with gasoline rather than wood. This is contrary to the procedure described by all Holocaust authorities in standard reference works.

It was pointed out to him that liquid fuels are primarily used as an accelerant and are not a suitable replacement for wood as they flare up and burn off too rapidly. Moreover, gasoline in particular would be an especially volatile and dangerous choice. BA is stubbornly unable to grasp these points and continues to talk as if gasoline can be easily substituted for wood.

BA's only support for his theory is Dresden which he cites as a supposed "proof of concept" for liquid fuel-only cremations. Except upon investigation, it turns out 1) other sources of fuel like straw, wood, and clothing were present, and 2) it is unclear what degree of cremation was achieved. As the precise conditions and outcome cannot be determined, this has limited experimental value and it certainly is not enough to override all prior understanding of thermodynamics.

I would urge caution in attempting to draw scientific conclusions based on vague general history accounts as BA has attempted to do ("but Irving says X!"). Unless you have competent technical documentation of the events in question, it just isn't controlled or precise enough to draw any lessons about fuel consumption, etc.

Arad's foundational study quotes use of liquid fuel. Laughable.

I never stated this was a stone cold belief, rather a speculation. Show me where I was said anything else.

Rather my belief is that liquid fuels were used, in accordance with what you see in Arad's book + most other sources. The ratio, I have said, is unknown.

There's a difference between speculation and belief in something, a distinction you clearly don't get.

That would be incredibly slimy though.

There are of course various other examples. Like pointing at Dresden to support the idea, while you were arguing for it...

This doesn't really take us to where we need to be though Bombsaway, what do you believe happened? How do you believe the cremations were carried out?

Enlighten us.

I don't know, there are gaps in the record, esp concerning how thoroughly the bodies were burned, the exact techniques, the ratio of fuel to wood. I would be flabbergasted by your inability to get this but sadly it is what I have come to expect from you lot...

Similarly you say that with resettlement, that happened and the Jews were somehow interned in the USSR, though nothing is known of what their life was like there. Were families separated eg?

The difference between me and you, and revisionism and the orthodox view, is that the question marks for you extend to every aspect of this supposed resettlement whereas the question marks for orthodoxy are extremely narrow. All accounts agree with the general principles, the bodies were excavated, burned, and then destroyed.

[Stubble]

I don't know[...]

Fair

Similarly you say that with resettlement, that happened and the Jews were somehow interned in the USSR, though nothing is known of what their life was like there. Were families separated eg?

Not exactly, I'm not sure if they were interned by or in the USSR at all. I will say that there is no evidence of it. They may well have been shot as collaborators upon 'liberation' by the 'extermination battalions' and burned with a special earmarked 'NKVD supply of wood'.

They also may have been killed during the advance as collateral damage.

There is also the consideration of a statistical aberration. We don't have a 'head count' and the extrapolations are based off of data that indicates population booms during both The Great War and The Great Depression for example.

Then there are the jews that were evacuated by the Soviet prior to or during Barbarossa.

What I think happed to the jews under the authority of 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔗𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔡 ℜ𝔢𝔦𝔠𝔥 said to have been murdered before the Russian counter offensive is that they were transported to the Bug River camps, partisans were winnowed out and shot (around 10% of the suggested dead), and the rest were busted up into groups of 20-2,000 and sent to work in Ostland, Ukraine and The Occupied Soviet Territories. Some under TN, some under OT, some under WSRA, some under various local firms. Building infrastructure, armaments, cooking food, doing laundry etc.

The difference between me and you, and revisionism and the orthodox view, is that the question marks for you extend to every aspect of this supposed resettlement whereas the question marks for orthodoxy are extremely narrow. All accounts agree with the general principles, the bodies were excavated, burned, and then destroyed.

This statement is to diminish the incongruent, unexplained and inverted. I get that. I also understand that you make this comment for any lurkers or future visitors, not for me. I still consider it a splinter in my eye vs a log in yours kind of deal, or pot kettle if you prefer.

Your new commitment to being non committal is, amusing. I will give you points for that.

While you were defending liquid fuels are primary, you never believed it....