List of "direct" eyewitnesses to gassings.

[Nessie]

....

Just to add, two years ago on the old forum, Nessie showed up and started spamming the board (we didn't have the Debate board back then). He was derailing nearly every thread, so we limited him to one thread (it was called "Nessie's tar pit," IIRC; unfortunately it has been lost). We told him it was his thread and to show us everything he had. He trotted out this exact list of 300 gas chamber witnesses. We called him out for his gish gallop and told him to pick his favorite one to analyze in detail. He picked Abraham Krzepicki. It's no accident that the testimony he picked was 70 pages long. His goal was to do everything possible to avoid actually discussing the substance of the testimonies. This is what they do. We linked him to prior threads on Krzepicki whose description of the gas chamber of course does not match the standard version of the story. So that didn't go well for him. After face-planting on Krzepicki, Nessie picked a second "star witness." I forget the name, but the testimony was clearly hearsay (in the text it said things like, "others told me ..." etc). That was his second best witness.

The reason why DP produced the list and the main reason why I often link to it, especially when on X, is to counter denier lies that there are no, or very few witnesses. It is also a useful way to explain the difference between eyewitness and hearsay evidence, something so-called revisionists really struggle with (just see a few posts up from Stubble and comments about witnesses being "rubbish").

It is staggering that just after you claim I am lazy, you lazily deride having to read a 70 page long statement. You could easily go through Krzepicki's various online entries and find key testimony. He does not differ from the "standard version" of the process prisoners faced, when they arrived at TII. You have made that up.

I say you made up the claim the second person I suggested only gave hearsay evidence. It is typical of you to just make things up, straw man. Get used to being repetitively called out for straw man claims.

[Nessie]

...
This is interesting. Is there any other major operation in history (particularly where witnesses saw the alleged processes day-in and day-out), where there aren't at least a handful of truly exemplary -- or at least objective, believable -- witnesses?

When the operation is Nazis murdering Jews by gassing them, you will never find any statement believable. It does not bother you that you are then left with zero eyewitnesses, to events that lasted for years, in multiple locations, that you cannot provide an evidenced chronological history of.

As much as I've been witness to Nessie's shenanigans, I am actually surprised to find out he has a lack of confidence in specific witnesses. I suppose I just haven't given this question much thought.

Nessie, is this true? Are there not at least 3-4 witnesses per camp you could point to, supporting your position effectively?

It would be a very short essay to simply capture the exact statements of just 3-4 people, highlighting their integrity and consistency between one another.

So-called revisionists find it easy to dismiss the Jewish witnesses. They find it harder to dismiss the Nazis, and they rely on often unfounded claims they were being coerced. I have tried to start detailed discussion of various Nazi witnesses, such as the Topf & Sons engineers and Erich Fuchs, but it has not gone anywhere.

[pilgrimofdark]

He picked Abraham Krzepicki.

Oh, we're calling him Abraham Krzepicki today? What changed?

A couple days ago, I was spammed this:

11) Abraham Kaszepicki - 8/42-9/42 for 18 days escaped report dec 42

He escaped for 18 days? After 18 days? He spent 18 days and then escaped? He escaped a report? What is the name of the report he wrote? Of course, we're missing all of the Column and Row headings from Das Prussian's Excel spreadsheet, so this is incomprehensible in addition to being a fake name with no source.

Abraham Kaszepicki doesn't exist, so his claim doesn't exist, so the nonexistent report from a nonexistent person can't be corroborated.

Regardless, we must go through the process.

> If it's accurate, I agree with "Kaszepicki"
> If it's inaccurate, it's not my fault since it's not mine
> If you point out this is a fake name with no citation to an actual source, you're a denier

This is the only thing I've read from Das Prussian, and I now suspect he was a scammer who compiled a list full of inaccuracies and fakes, hoping to misdirect and discredit anyone who used it.

The alternatives aren't much better.

Das Prussian was so sloppy in copying information into his list that he slithered away from it by his unwillingness to provide links to his sources.

Or Das Prussian accurately copied information from secondary literature that was itself full of fakery and did nothing to verify. This is the more worrying alternative.

We might as well fix this one. Maybe someone will compare the Polish original and English translations. Donat isn't 100% trustworthy in what passages of an original he chooses not to translate. Donat got a 70-page account out of an 11-page manuscript.

Krzepicki, Abraham. “Account of a Treblinka escapee.” Warsaw Ghetto, December 1942. Originally published as Relacja uciekiniera z Treblinki. ARG II 378. Center for Jewish History. https://cbj.jhi.pl/documents/727956/0/.

Krzepicki, Abraham. “Eighteen Days in Treblinka.” In The Death Camp Treblinka: A Documentary, translated by Alexander Donat. Bleter far Geshikhte (Vol. XI, No. 1-2), 1956. Reprint, Holocaust Library, 1979. https://cbj.jhi.pl/documents/727956/0/.

Krzepicki, Abraham. “Report entitled ‘A Man Escaped from Treblinka... Conversations with a Returnee.’” Interview by Rachel Auerbach. December 26, 1942. Originally published as Relacja pt. „Człowiek uciekł z Treblinek... rozmowy z powracającym". Print. Center for Jewish History (ARG II 382). https://cbj.jhi.pl/documents/729025/519/.

Spoiler

This is another manuscript that indicates multiple forms of handwriting, so Krzepicki didn't solely write out the report himself. Dictation to others isn't excluded.

His map and the Polish key are on the last few pages.

[Nessie]

Why don't the so-called revisionists revise and produce a list of workers from the AR camps, Chelmno or A-B Kremas, whom they believe?

Archie made some claims about me, in a thread he locked, to avoid my response. One of those claims was "You have a tendency to make sweeping claims (e.g., 100% of the witnesses ...) without proper support or sourcing.". This thread is the support. It is a list of eyewitnesses to gassings, workers from the death camps, who saw what happened. They all claim gas chambers, and the so-called revisionists claim they are all lying, as there were no gas chambers. They then fail to name one camp worker, as an eyewitness they believe. So, my 100% claim is correct and supported.

[Archie]

The reason why DP produced the list and the main reason why I often link to it, especially when on X, is to counter denier lies that there are no, or very few witnesses.

Nobody says there aren't purported eyewitnesses. Obviously there are. We say there are no convincing witnesses. The star Holocaust witnesses have been demolished. They are evidence that it is false, not that it is true.

It is staggering that just after you claim I am lazy, you lazily deride having to read a 70 page long statement. You could easily go through Krzepicki's various online entries and find key testimony. He does not differ from the "standard version" of the process prisoners faced, when they arrived at TII. You have made that up.

I have read the Krzepicki text. I do not object to discussion of that text. What I object to is you posting a list of 300 witnesses without quoting or providing a single syllable of actual testimony and providing zero analysis and pretending like that's a conclusive argument. And then when we tried to pin you down and asked you to discuss a single witness, you chickened out and posted a link to a 70 page statement with no quotes or page numbers, clearly a tactic intended to waste people's time and avoid having to discuss specifics of the statements. You resort to that because you know what happens when you are pinned down and forced to defend specifics.

This thread is the support. It is a list of eyewitnesses to gassings...

That you think a mere LIST of witness names is sufficient proof for millions of murders with no regard whatsoever for the quality or substance of these testimonies reveals your total incompetence.

Every discussion with you is the same. You make some grandiose claim about supposed overwhelmingly proof for the Holocaust. We check your claims by reviewing the evidence in detail. It immediately falls apart. You then roll out your excuses for why checking the evidence is not allowed. "Incredulity fallacy" "witness behavior" and other idiocies.

[Archie]

This is the only thing I've read from Das Prussian, and I now suspect he was a scammer who compiled a list full of inaccuracies and fakes, hoping to misdirect and discredit anyone who used it.

I think the intention is to present a list that will look impressive to people who don't know any better. Most people won't know how to check the list, and even if they did hardly anybody would want to spend the time or money. I think the hope is that people will just give up and assume these testimonies are legit.

Maybe this sort of thing would be convincing to a casual on X. I don't know. But the more you know, the less impressive it is.

Das Prussian was so sloppy in copying information into his list that he slithered away from it by his unwillingness to provide links to his sources.

One thing I will give Das Prussian a little credit for is that he does put a date on a lot of them. Often they don't do this because they don't want people to know how late many of these testimonies are.

For example, we see many of these SS statements are from twenty years after the war. It is a basic principle of history that all else equal statements taken earliest and closest to the events in questions are more likely to be factual.

D1) Treblinka Nazis :

1) Franz Stangl 1970 - Dussledorf
Camp commander Sobibor and Treblinka
2) Kurt Franz 1964 - Dussledorf
deputy camp commander. 'the doll'
3) Willi Mentz 1964 - Dussledorf
'the gunman of Treblinka' - 'frankenstein'
4) Heinrich Mattes 1964 - Dussledorf
'doctor'
5) Otto von Horn 1964 - Dussledorf
1990's - IvanTerrible
(witness)
6) Erwin Lambert 1964 - Dussledorf
'the flying architect'
7) Franz Suchomel 1964 - Dussledorf
8) August Miete 1964 - Dussledorf
'Angel of death'
9) Gustav Munzberger 1964 - Dussledorf
10) Otto Stadie 1964 - Dussledorf
11) Rudolf Hoess
Auschwitz camp commander
12) Dr Irmfried Erbel arrested jan 48
First commander of camp - replaced for incompetence
13) Erich Fuchs
based at sobibor

[Nessie]

The reason why DP produced the list and the main reason why I often link to it, especially when on X, is to counter denier lies that there are no, or very few witnesses.

Nobody says there aren't purported eyewitnesses.

You should spend time on X, where there is out and out denial. I use the list primarily to counter claims about the alleged lack of evidence.

Obviously there are. We say there are no convincing witnesses. The star Holocaust witnesses have been demolished. They are evidence that it is false, not that it is true.

You have not evidenced they all lied.

It is staggering that just after you claim I am lazy, you lazily deride having to read a 70 page long statement. You could easily go through Krzepicki's various online entries and find key testimony. He does not differ from the "standard version" of the process prisoners faced, when they arrived at TII. You have made that up.

I have read the Krzepicki text. I do not object to discussion of that text. What I object to is you posting a list of 300 witnesses without quoting or providing a single syllable of actual testimony and providing zero analysis and pretending like that's a conclusive argument. And then when we tried to pin you down and asked you to discuss a single witness, you chickened out and posted a link to a 70 page statement with no quotes or page numbers, clearly a tactic intended to waste people's time and avoid having to discuss specifics of the statements. You resort to that because you know what happens when you are pinned down and forced to defend specifics.

You cannot accurately analyse what a witness said, without reading their entire testimony. You asked for a name and I did not chicken out, I gave you a name! You then chickened out debating his testimony, because it would mean you would have to do some work.

This thread is the support. It is a list of eyewitnesses to gassings...

That you think a mere LIST of witness names is sufficient proof for millions of murders with no regard whatsoever for the quality or substance of these testimonies reveals your total incompetence.

Yet another straw man from you. Debate with you is virtually impossible, because you create false positions I have supposedly taken, that I have to constantly correct. Where have I ever said, or suggested that there is no regard for the quality or substance of the witness testimony? You just made that up.

I have REPEATEDLY explained to you, how witness evidence is normally assessed, by historians, the courts and journalists. I have explained about corroboration, credibility, truthfulness, accuracy, memory, recall and hearsay.

Every discussion with you is the same. You make some grandiose claim about supposed overwhelmingly proof for the Holocaust. We check your claims by reviewing the evidence in detail. It immediately falls apart.

How have you checked the eyewitnesses in "detail"? You cannot do that without reading all of their testimony and much of it, is not even available to read online.

You then roll out your excuses for why checking the evidence is not allowed.

Straw man, evidence checking is allowed. What goes on in your mind, that you come up with obvious, blatant misrepresentations?

"Incredulity fallacy" "witness behavior" and other idiocies.

No, all the scientific studies of memory, recall, estimations, statement taking, the effect of trauma and witness behaviour, that you ignore, as you base your belief on your incredulity.

[Stubble]

New thread dropped;

viewtopic.php?t=617