Witness Krzepicki Debate Thread

[Stubble]

This is a thread for analysis and debate of the testimony of Krzepicki regarding his purported experience at the 'Murder Mill' at Treblinka II.

For the benefit of this aim, I will link the 'original' text of this testimony as previously linked by Pilgrimofdark.

https://cbj.jhi.pl/documents/727956/0/

As we go through this, the idea is for an exterminationist to choose a 'strong point' or 'irrefutable fact' and for a revisionist to respond.

We will analyze this until it has been completely taken apart and then look at what makes sense and what doesn't.

Sound good?

[Archie]

Hardly anyone had even heard of this guy before Alexander's Donat's 1979 book.

Reitlinger (1953) - no mention
Hilberg (1961) - no mention
Arad (1987/2018 - post-1979) - references on pages 100-101, 122-123, 129, 131-132, 202, 260, 265, 307

Some prior threads
https://archive.codohforum.com/20230609 ... c2893.html
https://archive.codohforum.com/20230609 ... 18c-2.html

[pilgrimofdark]

There's also this 577-page document "Report entitled 'A Man Escaped from Treblinka... Conversations with a Returnee.'"

https://cbj.jhi.pl/documents/729025/35/

Near the end there is a paginated account written in Yiddish, where the pages are somewhat out of order. It's 35 pages.

That account is followed, on page 572, with a different map, which differs somewhat in layout from the more commonly-known map. I don't see a key for the map.

Contents: The author, captured and deported from Warsaw on August 25, 1942, describes in detail the journey to Treblinka, his stay and forced labor in the camp, the extermination of successive transports of Jews, the sorting of belongings of the murdered, the selection of workers in the camp, his escape from Treblinka, and his escape to the Warsaw Ghetto (October 1942). This account is written and preceded by a general introduction by Rachel Auerbach. Includes a map of the camp and a photograph by Jakub Krzepicki.

So Krzepicki wrote a 12-page account in multiple hands in Polish and a 35-page account in Yiddish, in collaboration with Rachel Auerbach. The 577-page document is said to be Auerbach's notebooks, so none of the handwriting may be Krzepicki's in either document (doesn't rule out dictation).

Donat's version is ~70 pages.

[Stubble]

Guys, please, you are blowing the wad early.

You are gonna scare the fish!

Let one of them drop some meat down before we rip into it.

I wanted bombs et al going in two ways. Foolhardy, and blind.

[pilgrimofdark]

Here's the fake version of this source that Das Prussian did to scam* the gullible that's copy-pasted onto the forum at least twice so far:

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

We'll try to puzzle out what Das Prussian might be trying to communicate through this incomprehensible and puzzling reference style that borders on hieroglyphics.

Abraham Kaszepicki - fake name, not a real person, does not exist
for 18 days - what did he do for 18 days?
for 18 days escaped - it took him 18 days to escape?
escaped report - this guy works smarter, not harder, and just escapes his own reports
dec 42 - Ringelblum Archive says "after" December 1942 for one source, and "after" December 26, 1942 for the other source, so Das Prussian is "not 100% confident" it dates from December 27 - December 31.

"This pretentious ponderous collection of fake names and incomprehensible bibliographic data is enough to prompt the question, 'What day did the Lord create Das Prussian's list of 300 inaccurate sources, and couldn't he have rested on that day too?'"

*until Das Prussian joins the forum to defend his work, I'm under no obligation to be charitable to him after spending hours fixing 1.7% of his work.

[Nessie]

This is a thread for analysis and debate of the testimony of Krzepicki regarding his purported experience at the 'Murder Mill' at Treblinka II.

For the benefit of this aim, I will link the 'original' text of this testimony as previously linked by Pilgrimofdark.

https://cbj.jhi.pl/documents/727956/0/

As we go through this, the idea is for an exterminationist to choose a 'strong point' or 'irrefutable fact' and for a revisionist to respond.

We will analyze this until it has been completely taken apart and then look at what makes sense and what doesn't.

Sound good?

No, because you have approached this with an openly biased mind, expressing your intention from the outset. You will clearly ignore the decades of scientific study and experimentation on witnesses, their behaviour, memory, recall, estimations and influences on their testimony, and instead, you will apply your opinion and incredulity.

[Nessie]

...

So Krzepicki wrote a 12-page account in multiple hands in Polish and a 35-page account in Yiddish, in collaboration with Rachel Auerbach. The 577-page document is said to be Auerbach's notebooks, so none of the handwriting may be Krzepicki's in either document (doesn't rule out dictation).

...

The "multiple hands" will be dictation, whether straight forward wrote as he spoke, or as prompted by questions, so more of a statement, as the police or journalist would take.

[Stubble]

I refuse to engage in source criticism with you because you will point out obvious flaws and say mean things, because you don't agree with me.

—Nessie probably

Flippered fellow,

If you are going to make an off topic post that doesn't move the thread forward in the future, can you do us all a favor and not press 'Submit'. Comments like your reply to me in this thread are mere clutter.

I'm not sure how tolerant the admins intend to be of your shenanigans going forward, or how heavy handed moderation will have to become to keep the debate forum worthwhile for readers and contributors. I'm sure the sand is running out for comments like the one you directed at me.

In the future I would caution you to engage with the subject of the thread or hold your tongue, not just mindlessly scrawl words on to the forum like so much graffiti.

Kindly,

Stubble

[Nessie]

How witness Krzepicki's testimony is analysed, is crucial to the debate. That so-called revisionists analyse all witnesses incorrectly, in a way that is unique to so-called revisionism, means that you are inevitably doomed to make analytical mistakes and reach incorrect conclusions.

Krzepicki wrote about events in the camp, that only someone who was in it, could know. His was the first eyewitness evidence, so he must have been there. There is also likely documentary evidence he was arrested, imprisoned in the Warsaw ghetto and the transport he was on, dated 25/08/1942. That he was there for 18 days, explains why he never wrote about cremations. The provenance of his evidence is proved.

That his descriptions of how the camp functioned, the mass transports arriving, the sorting of the property stolen and its transportation back out of the camp, and the gassings, are corroborated, mean his claims are verified as truthful.

How accurate the details are, is harder to assess. He gave his evidence not long after he was in the camp, so his memory was likely still good. He gave evidence to a trained journalist, who would know how to interview someone and get a chronology of events that largely make sense. His book is less emotive than others, he is not so prone to use figures of speech, and his estimations do not seem excessive. He does not hide that he did not work at the gas chambers when people were being gassed. His description of how the gas chamber was constructed, matches the finds by the Staffs Uni team in 2011, of building remains.

To any historian, criminal investigator or journalist, Krzepicki meets the requirements to be considered a truthful, accurate witness. It is merely because he relates events that so-called revisionists do not want to believe, that they dismiss him.

[Stubble]

How witness Krzepicki's testimony is analysed, is crucial to the debate. That so-called revisionists analyse all witnesses incorrectly, in a way that is unique to so-called revisionism, means that you are inevitably doomed to make analytical mistakes and reach incorrect conclusions.

Elaborate. Explain your perspective with regard to this testimony and point out errors in interpretation you can see and why they are erroneous, if you please.

Krzepicki wrote about events in the camp, that only someone who was in it, could know. His was the first eyewitness evidence, so he must have been there. There is also likely documentary evidence he was arrested, imprisoned in the Warsaw ghetto and the transport he was on, dated 25/08/1942. That he was there for 18 days, explains why he never wrote about cremations. The provenance of his evidence is proved.

List some examples, if you please.

That his descriptions of how the camp functioned, the mass transports arriving, the sorting of the property stolen and its transportation back out of the camp, and the gassings, are corroborated, mean his claims are verified as truthful.

Corroboration and verification are two completely different things, hence different words exist as they are independent descriptors.

How accurate the details are, is harder to assess. He gave his evidence not long after he was in the camp, so his memory was likely still good. He gave evidence to a trained journalist, who would know how to interview someone and get a chronology of events that largely make sense. His book is less emotive than others, he is not so prone to use figures of speech, and his estimations do not seem excessive. He does not hide that he did not work at the gas chambers when people were being gassed. His description of how the gas chamber was constructed, matches the finds by the Staffs Uni team in 2011, of building remains.

How many witnesses were there for the 'Iraq Babies From Incubators' hoax? They all corroborated one another. Without a critical analysis, how would anyone have known that their testimony was false and that they had constructed a lie for propaganda purposes?

To any historian, criminal investigator or journalist, Krzepicki meets the requirements to be considered a truthful, accurate witness. It is merely because he relates events that so-called revisionists do not want to believe, that they dismiss him.

This statement is broad and sweeping and it fails to provide any substantive support.

Expand and elaborate if you would please.

[Nessie]

How witness Krzepicki's testimony is analysed, is crucial to the debate. That so-called revisionists analyse all witnesses incorrectly, in a way that is unique to so-called revisionism, means that you are inevitably doomed to make analytical mistakes and reach incorrect conclusions.

Elaborate. Explain your perspective with regard to this testimony and point out errors in interpretation you can see and why they are erroneous, if you please.

Common so-called revisionist mistakes;

- claiming lies, when lying has not been proven. For example, claiming a witness lied because they claimed 1000 people fitted inside a gas chamber, that was not big enough for that many people, which could easily be a mistake, due to over estimating how many people were in the chamber. A mistake is not a lie.

- ignoring the scientific studies of witnesses and witness evidence, regarding memory, recall, estimation, the effect of repeatedly giving evidence, the effect the interviewer has etc.

- mixing hearsay with eyewitness evidence and not being able to identify which is which

- assessing credibility, rather than truthfulness. Someone can be a liar and credible and vice versa, so truthfulness is the better test.

- getting bogged down in variations in how witnesses describe the details, ignoring that they all agree on the main events, in particular, mass arrivals, theft of possessions, gassings, cremations and graves. If the witnesses all agreed on the details as well, that would be evidence of collusion.

- ignoring that the Jewish evidence is more emotive than the matter of fact Nazi testimony and reasons why that is.

- ignoring that Jews and Nazis corroborate each other, which is regarded as strong corroboration as it is between two groups who would not normally cooperate.

- not using corroboration to test the witnesses, which is how historians, the courts and journalists test witnesses to assess truthfulness and accuracy.

Krzepicki wrote about events in the camp, that only someone who was in it, could know. His was the first eyewitness evidence, so he must have been there. There is also likely documentary evidence he was arrested, imprisoned in the Warsaw ghetto and the transport he was on, dated 25/08/1942. That he was there for 18 days, explains why he never wrote about cremations. The provenance of his evidence is proved.

List some examples, if you please.

Examples of what? I have explained how his provenance is established. Investigators will start by checking to see if there is evidence the person was in the camp they said they were in. That is how some supposed eyewitnesses have been found to be frauds, as they were proven to have not been in the camp they claimed they were in.

That his descriptions of how the camp functioned, the mass transports arriving, the sorting of the property stolen and its transportation back out of the camp, and the gassings, are corroborated, mean his claims are verified as truthful.

Corroboration and verification are two completely different things, hence different words exist as they are independent descriptors.

Verification of the truthfulness of the witness is reliably established by the use of corroboration.

How accurate the details are, is harder to assess. He gave his evidence not long after he was in the camp, so his memory was likely still good. He gave evidence to a trained journalist, who would know how to interview someone and get a chronology of events that largely make sense. His book is less emotive than others, he is not so prone to use figures of speech, and his estimations do not seem excessive. He does not hide that he did not work at the gas chambers when people were being gassed. His description of how the gas chamber was constructed, matches the finds by the Staffs Uni team in 2011, of building remains.

How many witnesses were there for the 'Iraq Babies From Incubators' hoax? They all corroborated one another. Without a critical analysis, how would anyone have known that their testimony was false and that they had constructed a lie for propaganda purposes?

By critical analysis, you mean further corroboration. The witnesses corroborated each other, but there was no other evidence to corroborate them, in particular, the corpses, or photos. That lack of other evidence, is how journalists established the claims were false.

To any historian, criminal investigator or journalist, Krzepicki meets the requirements to be considered a truthful, accurate witness. It is merely because he relates events that so-called revisionists do not want to believe, that they dismiss him.

This statement is broad and sweeping and it fails to provide any substantive support.

Expand and elaborate if you would please.

I already did, as I explained how Krzepicki was assessed, his provenance established and his claims corroborated. You know that his evidence is widely accepted and used by historians. His evidence was also assessed and accepted by a journalist. If he had lived, he would have very likely been used as a witness in subsequent trials.

It is fact that so-called revisionists regard him as a liar and even suggest he did not exist.

[Stubble]

Then we will keep this basic, how was it 'established' that this fellow was ever at Treblinka?

You say that is step one, let's walk together and take step one and see where that leads. Fair?

Common so-called revisionist mistakes;

- claiming lies, when lying has not been proven. For example, claiming a witness lied because they claimed 1000 people fitted inside a gas chamber, that was not big enough for that many people, which could easily be a mistake, due to over estimating how many people were in the chamber. A mistake is not a lie.

- ignoring the scientific studies of witnesses and witness evidence, regarding memory, recall, estimation, the effect of repeatedly giving evidence, the effect the interviewer has etc.

- mixing hearsay with eyewitness evidence and not being able to identify which is which

- assessing credibility, rather than truthfulness. Someone can be a liar and credible and vice versa, so truthfulness is the better test.

- getting bogged down in variations in how witnesses describe the details, ignoring that they all agree on the main events, in particular, mass arrivals, theft of possessions, gassings, cremations and graves. If the witnesses all agreed on the details as well, that would be evidence of collusion.

- ignoring that the Jewish evidence is more emotive than the matter of fact Nazi testimony and reasons why that is.

- ignoring that Jews and Nazis corroborate each other, which is regarded as strong corroboration as it is between two groups who would not normally cooperate.

- not using corroboration to test the witnesses, which is how historians, the courts and journalists test witnesses to assess truthfulness and accuracy.

If you find some time, I'd also like to ask how exactly any of this applies specifically here.

I believe I had been clear. This gish gallop in no way addresses my challenge.

[pilgrimofdark]

Yiddish version from 1956 is below. It more closely matches the length of Donat's English translation (around 70 pages).
https://cbj.jhi.pl/documents/1298664/72/

Less interesting is the first Polish translation from 1962, but only the first four chapters.
https://cbj.jhi.pl/documents/721824/84/

Both the Yiddish and Polish versions have additions in square brackets/parentheses. The Polish translators attribute these additions to Rachel Auerbach.

Donat removes at least some of these insertions. Some are completely inappropriate editorializations.

So it looks like Donat translated from the 1956 Yiddish version, which includes chapter numbers and section headings.

But neither of the early handwritten versions match the length of the 1956 Yiddish, so something is missing to determine how accurately the later versions match the actual words attributed to him in 1942. He was a soldier in the Jewish Combat Organization (ZOB) and perished during the Ghetto Uprising in April 1943.

A lost 70-page handwritten version probably doesn't exist. Donat references "file #290," which has to be a typo, as "Ring. II/ 290" is a different file that has nothing to do with Krzepicki. The 16-page version with map is "Ring. II/ 295" and Yiddish notebooks are "Ring. II/299."

So unless we're missing something, Auerbach may have expanded the account significantly. Based on the length, it's more her words than Krzepicki's.

But maybe someone else has an alternative explanation.

(Still no confirmation "Abraham Kaszepicki" ever existed.)

[Nessie]

Then we will keep this basic, how was it 'established' that this fellow was ever at Treblinka?

I am just copying and pasting what I have already said, reordered to make it really clear. Please read it.

Krzepicki wrote about events in the camp, that only someone who was in it, could know. His was the first eyewitness evidence, so he must have been there. That he was there for 18 days, explains why he never wrote about cremations. His description of how the gas chamber was constructed, matches the finds by the Staffs Uni team in 2011, of building remains.

There is also likely documentary evidence he was arrested, imprisoned in the Warsaw ghetto and the transport he was on, dated 25/08/1942.

You say that is step one, let's walk together and take step one and see where that leads. Fair?

Common so-called revisionist mistakes;

- claiming lies, when lying has not been proven. For example, claiming a witness lied because they claimed 1000 people fitted inside a gas chamber, that was not big enough for that many people, which could easily be a mistake, due to over estimating how many people were in the chamber. A mistake is not a lie.

- ignoring the scientific studies of witnesses and witness evidence, regarding memory, recall, estimation, the effect of repeatedly giving evidence, the effect the interviewer has etc.

- mixing hearsay with eyewitness evidence and not being able to identify which is which

- assessing credibility, rather than truthfulness. Someone can be a liar and credible and vice versa, so truthfulness is the better test.

- getting bogged down in variations in how witnesses describe the details, ignoring that they all agree on the main events, in particular, mass arrivals, theft of possessions, gassings, cremations and graves. If the witnesses all agreed on the details as well, that would be evidence of collusion.

- ignoring that the Jewish evidence is more emotive than the matter of fact Nazi testimony and reasons why that is.

- ignoring that Jews and Nazis corroborate each other, which is regarded as strong corroboration as it is between two groups who would not normally cooperate.

- not using corroboration to test the witnesses, which is how historians, the courts and journalists test witnesses to assess truthfulness and accuracy.

If you find some time, I'd also like to ask how exactly any of this applies specifically here.

I believe I had asked a clear question. This fish gallop in no way addresses my question.

They are the errors that I see so-called revisionists making, for all witnesses, Krzepicki included. I am pre-empting, as no one here has yet to produce any comment on what he has said. When you do, you will make one or more of the mistakes I have listed above.

[Stubble]

I am just copying and pasting...

Dodge, and dodge again.

This isn't going well for you.

Let me clearly ask again, how was it 'established' he was at Treblinka...