Why Do you Guys Think the Holocaust is Fake?

[InuYasha]

They are not really historians, or even revisionists, they are deniers. That is because of their failure to produce an evidenced, chronological history of what did happen. Instead, they deny mass murders, so suggesting mass survival, but they cannot evidence the whereabouts of the millions of Jews they say were not murdered, in 1944-5.

As Arthur Butz noted, the main argument against the Holocaust theory was that they were still there at the end of the war. However, I believe that the intensification of violence and political degradation of the National Socialist regime in the second half of the war could have led to mass executions of Jews, just as ethnic Germans themselves were executed on suspicion of "treason" in the last year of WWII. This would explain the lack of any meaningful documentation (orders) about the Holocaust from the German government - violence and paranoia created a vicious cycle that intensified over a long period of time. The executions on Soviet territory are fairly well documented by the "Commission for the Investigation of Nazi Crimes", and are informally called the "Shoah/Holocaust by Bullets".

That is how denial works. It finds what can be described as odd and then alleges that means, therefore, it did not happen. That method is best described as the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity.

If a person asserts something that is contrary to the laws of chemistry and physics (and the continuous cycle of deliveries to the camps, gassing in the chambers, and cremation of corpses - on such a scale - would have been impossible with the technology of the 1940s), then doubting his words is not a logical fallacy. If I say that you can fit 14 people on one square meter, is that credible? With the same success you can say that you can jump on the roof of a skyscraper without much effort, and criticize those who doubt as committing the fallacy of "argument from incredulity."

That change happened, because the earliest reports were hearsay and rumour, about activity inside the death camps. They were inaccurate, which is the nature of hearsay and rumour. As eyewitnesses came forward and other evidenced gathered, the actual means of death was established.

In 1942, the English press was already reporting on "mobile gas chambers" in which 700,000 people died in Poland. Surprisingly, in 1916, the same newspaper reported on the gassing of 700,000 people in Serbia. You can check this in the Daily Telegraph for March 22, 1916 and June 25, 1942. A mere coincidence? Perhaps. However, the word "Holocaust" in the sense of "oppression/murder of Jews" and the number 6,000,000 were around long before WWII, even before the National Socialist revolution in Germany. If something happens once, it's an accident, twice is a coincidence, three or more is a trend.

In other words, these stories, which partially form the basis of modern historiography of WWII and the Shoah, existed long before they actually happened.

No, the major death camps were in Poland, or the General Government, because Poland had the largest population of Jews. Ukraine and Serbia also had death camps. There were also gas chambers in camps and hospitals in Germany and Austria, used to euthanise inform prisoners and the disabled.

Oddly enough, in the fifties historians believed that the program of mass extermination was not only in Poland, but also in Germany and Austria. In 1960 and later it was recognized that mass extermination took place only in the General Government.

Because research found them to be an exaggeration, atrocity story. It is correct to eliminate such.

The scale of the supposed Holocaust is similarly exaggerated, and there is disagreement among historians about the total number of victims.

The Auschwitz total was an exaggerated Soviet one, that the Poles used until the collapse of the Soviet Union. Then they switched to using the more accurate western death toll.

If the number of victims was exaggerated by the Soviets, how come the figure of 6,000,000 people remained after it was reduced? Why are people still being tried in Germany and Austria for denying the figure of 6,000,000 dead, and not, say, 3,500,000?

The "weird stuff" is revisionism concentrating on atrocity stories and rumours, rather than finding the accurate narrative and doing the basic task of any historian. That you believe the Auschwitz death toll revisionist maths, without doing any research to find out how the figures were achieved, tells me that you are blindly believing the revisionist narrative. You should apply your doubts to revisionism. It cannot be trusted, since many are anti-Semitic, far-right, conspiracy theorists pushing an agenda. They also commonly lack relevant training and expertise on the topics they discuss.

I do not "blindly believe the revisionists." In fact, when I first read Graf's book, I was skeptical, fearing that he was trying to trick me into revisionism with false facts. However, all the oddities of the Holocaust stories - which are supported by official historians, not revisionists - such as the 2,000 or 3,000 prisoners in the Auschwitz gas chambers, the fantastic use of Sonderkommandos to remove corpses just 20 or 30 minutes after they were gassed, and without the use of gas masks, are still there. This is not based on rumors, but on the testimony of those very witnesses and the works of historians. Of course, politically biased groups such as anti-Semites are not to be trusted. However, not all revisionists are far-right.

[Nessie]

They are not really historians, or even revisionists, they are deniers. That is because of their failure to produce an evidenced, chronological history of what did happen. Instead, they deny mass murders, so suggesting mass survival, but they cannot evidence the whereabouts of the millions of Jews they say were not murdered, in 1944-5.

As Arthur Butz noted, the main argument against the Holocaust theory was that they were still there at the end of the war.

There is no evidence that the millions of Jews the Nazis arrested, 1939-44, were still being accommodated in camps and ghettos in 1944 and liberated in 1945.

However, I believe that the intensification of violence and political degradation of the National Socialist regime in the second half of the war could have led to mass executions of Jews, just as ethnic Germans themselves were executed on suspicion of "treason" in the last year of WWII. This would explain the lack of any meaningful documentation (orders) about the Holocaust from the German government - violence and paranoia created a vicious cycle that intensified over a long period of time. The executions on Soviet territory are fairly well documented by the "Commission for the Investigation of Nazi Crimes", and are informally called the "Shoah/Holocaust by Bullets".

There are plenty of documents recording the execution of Jews during the Holocaust by bullets. Those involved in the gassings were more circumspect about their documentation.

That is how denial works. It finds what can be described as odd and then alleges that means, therefore, it did not happen. That method is best described as the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity.

If a person asserts something that is contrary to the laws of chemistry and physics (and the continuous cycle of deliveries to the camps, gassing in the chambers, and cremation of corpses - on such a scale - would have been impossible with the technology of the 1940s), then doubting his words is not a logical fallacy. If I say that you can fit 14 people on one square meter, is that credible? With the same success you can say that you can jump on the roof of a skyscraper without much effort, and criticize those who doubt as committing the fallacy of "argument from incredulity."

The fallacy of incredulity applies when arguing against something that is physically possible. Germans designing and running gas chambers, using engines to pump in CO, or by modifying a room in a crematorium to drop in Zyklon B and then vent the room, are physical possibilities.

That witnesses overestimated how many people fitted inside, is explained by how poor most people are at estimating sizes. Your analogy with jumping a skyscraper is a false one.

That change happened, because the earliest reports were hearsay and rumour, about activity inside the death camps. They were inaccurate, which is the nature of hearsay and rumour. As eyewitnesses came forward and other evidenced gathered, the actual means of death was established.

In 1942, the English press was already reporting on "mobile gas chambers" in which 700,000 people died in Poland. Surprisingly, in 1916, the same newspaper reported on the gassing of 700,000 people in Serbia. You can check this in the Daily Telegraph for March 22, 1916 and June 25, 1942. A mere coincidence? Perhaps. However, the word "Holocaust" in the sense of "oppression/murder of Jews" and the number 6,000,000 were around long before WWII, even before the National Socialist revolution in Germany. If something happens once, it's an accident, twice is a coincidence, three or more is a trend.

In other words, these stories, which partially form the basis of modern historiography of WWII and the Shoah, existed long before they actually happened.

That WWII had atrocity claims similar to WWI is hardly surprising. There were also predictions about 4 and 5 million Jews at risk, as well as 6 million, made before the war. That the word holocaust was used before the war, possibly helps explain how it became the most common descriptive after the war.

No, the major death camps were in Poland, or the General Government, because Poland had the largest population of Jews. Ukraine and Serbia also had death camps. There were also gas chambers in camps and hospitals in Germany and Austria, used to euthanise inform prisoners and the disabled.

Oddly enough, in the fifties historians believed that the program of mass extermination was not only in Poland, but also in Germany and Austria. In 1960 and later it was recognized that mass extermination took place only in the General Government.

What mass exterminations were located in Germany and Austria and who made those claims?

Because research found them to be an exaggeration, atrocity story. It is correct to eliminate such.

The scale of the supposed Holocaust is similarly exaggerated, and there is disagreement among historians about the total number of victims.

It is agreed it is between 5 and 6 million killed.

The Auschwitz total was an exaggerated Soviet one, that the Poles used until the collapse of the Soviet Union. Then they switched to using the more accurate western death toll.

If the number of victims was exaggerated by the Soviets, how come the figure of 6,000,000 people remained after it was reduced? Why are people still being tried in Germany and Austria for denying the figure of 6,000,000 dead, and not, say, 3,500,000?

Because the 6 million was already in use, in the West. The exaggerated Soviet total was dropped by Eastern European countries, after the collapse of the SU, in the early 1990s.

The "weird stuff" is revisionism concentrating on atrocity stories and rumours, rather than finding the accurate narrative and doing the basic task of any historian. That you believe the Auschwitz death toll revisionist maths, without doing any research to find out how the figures were achieved, tells me that you are blindly believing the revisionist narrative. You should apply your doubts to revisionism. It cannot be trusted, since many are anti-Semitic, far-right, conspiracy theorists pushing an agenda. They also commonly lack relevant training and expertise on the topics they discuss.

I do not "blindly believe the revisionists." In fact, when I first read Graf's book, I was skeptical, fearing that he was trying to trick me into revisionism with false facts. However, all the oddities of the Holocaust stories - which are supported by official historians, not revisionists - such as the 2,000 or 3,000 prisoners in the Auschwitz gas chambers, the fantastic use of Sonderkommandos to remove corpses just 20 or 30 minutes after they were gassed, and without the use of gas masks, are still there. This is not based on rumors, but on the testimony of those very witnesses and the works of historians. Of course, politically biased groups such as anti-Semites are not to be trusted. However, not all revisionists are far-right.

Witnesses are poor at estimations, so exaggerated numbers for gassings and how long the gas took to clear, are to be expected. That is normal for witnesses, and since revisionists do not know much about witness behaviour, memory and recollection, they make mistakes.

[InuYasha]

There is no evidence that the millions of Jews the Nazis arrested, 1939-44, were still being accommodated in camps and ghettos in 1944 and liberated in 1945.

There is in fact evidence that there were Jewish survivors in concentration camps in 1945. One revisionist website, which has since been taken down, shows photographs of the Buchenwald concentration camp in April 1945, where Jewish men and even pregnant women with babies were. Of course, Buchenwald is not considered a death camp or a gassing site today, but the fact that there were camps where people who were unable to work were kept until the last days of the NS regime is quite remarkable.

Yes, many people unfortunately died, both as a result of the collapse of logistics and supplies (due to Allied airstrikes and the collapse of the Third Reich), and political terror (shootings in occupied territories, executions in camps) in the later stages of the regime, but this was not a "purposeful policy". Also, one should not forget the epidemics such as typhus, which broke out in the autumn of 1943 and again in the spring of 1945. Deaths from typhus and exhaustion occurred even after the liberation of the camps.

There are plenty of documents recording the execution of Jews during the Holocaust by bullets. Those involved in the gassings were more circumspect about their documentation.

Yes, that is why I have no doubt that there were, in fact, cases of murder of Jews. It was not a deliberate "kill them all" policy, but a gradually escalating process, similar to the "snowball" of domestic repression. By 1945, even German citizens could be killed on suspicion of collaborating with the enemy - and the Jewish people were considered by Hitler from the very beginning to be a hostile and dangerous element.

However, Zyklon B was not used for the purpose of mass murder - but for the treatment of lice, which is also recorded, for example, in Kremer's diaries:
"Wrote off to Berlin for officers' cap, belt, suspenders. In afternoon attended block gassing with Zyklon B against lice." (September 1, 1942).
https://web.archive.org/web/20080514183 ... 01-kremer/
Moreover, the use of Zyklon would have required lengthy treatment of the GC from hydrocyanic acid, especially in winter, when hydrocyanic acid slowly decomposes.

The fallacy of incredulity applies when arguing against something that is physically possible. Germans designing and running gas chambers, using engines to pump in CO, or by modifying a room in a crematorium to drop in Zyklon B and then vent the room, are physical possibilities.

That witnesses overestimated how many people fitted inside, is explained by how poor most people are at estimating sizes. Your analogy with jumping a skyscraper is a false one.

The analogy is not false, because although gas poisoning is not physically impossible (as is a simple jump), but mass, continuous gas poisoning of many people over several years, including winter periods, when hydrocyanic acid is preserved in space for a long time, and their immediate transportation to crematoria, or even more absurd story with mass burial, and subsequent excavation and burning after several years. It is like the difference between the statement "I can jump 1 meter" (doubt may be a logical error) and "I can jump on a skyscraper" (this is physically impossible for a person, therefore doubt has grounds).

Also, there is no evidence of the existence of gas chamber machines, and murder by pumping CO from a diesel engine into a gas chamber is an extremely expensive and difficult to implement phenomenon.

That WWII had atrocity claims similar to WWI is hardly surprising. There were also predictions about 4 and 5 million Jews at risk, as well as 6 million, made before the war. That the word holocaust was used before the war, possibly helps explain how it became the most common descriptive after the war.

These are rather odd predictions. They could have been coincidences, but they have been made too often over too long a period of time. The earliest mention was as early as 1900, and the number was 6,000,000. War atrocities are not a 20th century peculiarity, of course, but the fact that the same newspaper reports the same number (700,000) in two different incidents under very similar circumstances is quite remarkable.

What mass exterminations were located in Germany and Austria and who made those claims?

"By order of SS-Hauptsturmführer Dr. Krebsbach, a gas killing facility was built in the Mauthausen camp, disguised as a bathhouse. In this fake bathhouse, prisoners were gassed. In addition, a special machine traveled from Mauthausen to Gusen, in which prisoners were gassed en route /.../ I myself never turned on the gas, but only drove the machine. However, I knew that prisoners were exterminated with gas /.../ SS-Gruppenführer Glucke gave the order to consider weakened prisoners mentally ill and to exterminate them with gas in one of the aforementioned structures. About 1-1.5 million were killed in this way. This place is called Hartheim and is located 10 km from Linz in the direction of Passau. The camp announced that the prisoners died a natural death"

(Wiesenthal Simon. KZ Mauthausen. Vienna, Ibis-Vrl. 1946)

However, for a long time now, no serious historian has claimed that there were gas chambers in Dachau, Buchenwald, Ravensbrück, Mauthausen and Hartheim Castle. Their death knell struck on August 19, 1960, when Martin Brosath, a former employee and later director of the Institute for Contemporary History, informed the newspaper "Die Zeit" in a short letter:

"Jews and other prisoners were not exterminated by gas either in Dachau, or in Bergen Belsen, or in Buchenwald /.../ The mass extermination of Jews by gas began in 1941-42. and took place exclusively in individual places, specially selected for this purpose and equipped with the appropriate technical equipment, primarily in the occupied Polish territory (and never in the Reich): Auschwitz-Birkenau, Sobibor on the Bug, Treblinka, Chelmno and Belzec."

It is agreed it is between 5 and 6 million killed.

This is a total number that cannot be disputed by law. Meanwhile, Wiesenthal believed that the number of victims was 11,000,000 (+5,000,000 non-Jews).

Because the 6 million was already in use, in the West. The exaggerated Soviet total was dropped by Eastern European countries, after the collapse of the SU, in the early 1990s.

For what reason did the Soviet leadership exaggerate the death toll? If they took distorted information from the Polish government, why did they continue to cling to it after 1945, when Poland was under communist control (members of the London government were lured to Poland by deception and then arrested in June 1945), when an objective study could have been conducted? If the USSR did not benefit from a political hoax, its leaders would have lowered the numbers immediately after the war.

Witnesses are poor at estimations, so exaggerated numbers for gassings and how long the gas took to clear, are to be expected. That is normal for witnesses, and since revisionists do not know much about witness behaviour, memory and recollection, they make mistakes.

If witness testimony is valuable, it is unlikely that it will distort information. On the other hand, recognizing that human memory is subject to distortion lowers the value of such testimony. That is why in the judicial and criminal sphere, witness testimony is the lowest priority in the hierarchy of evidence, compared to documentary and material evidence.

[Stubble]

Food for thought, one of the commanders of majdanek was shot by the SS after a trial because of the deaths of 2,000,000 Jews at majdanek, no, wait, let me check,

>checks notes

I apologize, for the deaths of 3 jews at Buchenwald when he was the commander there before his transfer to majdanek.

[Nessie]

There is no evidence that the millions of Jews the Nazis arrested, 1939-44, were still being accommodated in camps and ghettos in 1944 and liberated in 1945.

There is in fact evidence that there were Jewish survivors in concentration camps in 1945. One revisionist website, which has since been taken down, shows photographs of the Buchenwald concentration camp in April 1945, where Jewish men and even pregnant women with babies were. Of course, Buchenwald is not considered a death camp or a gassing site today, but the fact that there were camps where people who were unable to work were kept until the last days of the NS regime is quite remarkable.

Millions of Jews were arrested, 1939-45 and sent to camps and ghettos, but by 1945, there were no ghettos and only a few hundred thousand Jews in the camps. That is consistent with mass murder, not mass resettlement. Can you evidence a Jew, who could not work, who saw out the war in Buchenwald?

Yes, many people unfortunately died, both as a result of the collapse of logistics and supplies (due to Allied airstrikes and the collapse of the Third Reich), and political terror (shootings in occupied territories, executions in camps) in the later stages of the regime, but this was not a "purposeful policy". Also, one should not forget the epidemics such as typhus, which broke out in the autumn of 1943 and again in the spring of 1945. Deaths from typhus and exhaustion occurred even after the liberation of the camps.

Allied airstrikes cannot be blamed for the deaths in A-B, the AR camps and Chelmno, 1941-4. That the Jews starved in 1945, when other prisoners were fed, is not the fault of the RAF.

There are plenty of documents recording the execution of Jews during the Holocaust by bullets. Those involved in the gassings were more circumspect about their documentation.

Yes, that is why I have no doubt that there were, in fact, cases of murder of Jews. It was not a deliberate "kill them all" policy, but a gradually escalating process, similar to the "snowball" of domestic repression. By 1945, even German citizens could be killed on suspicion of collaborating with the enemy - and the Jewish people were considered by Hitler from the very beginning to be a hostile and dangerous element.

The Einsatzgruppen recorded areas being made "Jew-free". There was a policy to shoot Jews, till there were none left.

However, Zyklon B was not used for the purpose of mass murder - but for the treatment of lice, which is also recorded, for example, in Kremer's diaries:
"Wrote off to Berlin for officers' cap, belt, suspenders. In afternoon attended block gassing with Zyklon B against lice." (September 1, 1942).
https://web.archive.org/web/20080514183 ... 01-kremer/
Moreover, the use of Zyklon would have required lengthy treatment of the GC from hydrocyanic acid, especially in winter, when hydrocyanic acid slowly decomposes.

Zyklon B was used for delousing and mass gassings. That you cherry-pick the evidence for delousing and ignore the evidence for gassings, is logically flawed.

The fallacy of incredulity applies when arguing against something that is physically possible. Germans designing and running gas chambers, using engines to pump in CO, or by modifying a room in a crematorium to drop in Zyklon B and then vent the room, are physical possibilities.

That witnesses overestimated how many people fitted inside, is explained by how poor most people are at estimating sizes. Your analogy with jumping a skyscraper is a false one.

The analogy is not false, because although gas poisoning is not physically impossible (as is a simple jump), but mass, continuous gas poisoning of many people over several years, including winter periods, when hydrocyanic acid is preserved in space for a long time, and their immediate transportation to crematoria, or even more absurd story with mass burial, and subsequent excavation and burning after several years. It is like the difference between the statement "I can jump 1 meter" (doubt may be a logical error) and "I can jump on a skyscraper" (this is physically impossible for a person, therefore doubt has grounds).

You are trying to argue an illogical argument is sound. Your incredulity has no evidential value. Just because you do not believe it, does not mean therefore it did not happen.

Also, there is no evidence of the existence of gas chamber machines, and murder by pumping CO from a diesel engine into a gas chamber is an extremely expensive and difficult to implement phenomenon.

There is a lot of evidence for the existence of gas chambers, which, if you knew more about it, you would know eyewitnesses to the engine used, said it was petrol, or they did not say what fuel was used, not that it was diesel.

That WWII had atrocity claims similar to WWI is hardly surprising. There were also predictions about 4 and 5 million Jews at risk, as well as 6 million, made before the war. That the word holocaust was used before the war, possibly helps explain how it became the most common descriptive after the war.

These are rather odd predictions. They could have been coincidences, but they have been made too often over too long a period of time. The earliest mention was as early as 1900, and the number was 6,000,000. War atrocities are not a 20th century peculiarity, of course, but the fact that the same newspaper reports the same number (700,000) in two different incidents under very similar circumstances is quite remarkable.

Cherry-picking references to 6 million and ignoring references to 5 and 4 millions, is logically flawed. You need evidence, not illogical arguments.

What mass exterminations were located in Germany and Austria and who made those claims?

"By order of SS-Hauptsturmführer Dr. Krebsbach, a gas killing facility was built in the Mauthausen camp, disguised as a bathhouse. In this fake bathhouse, prisoners were gassed. In addition, a special machine traveled from Mauthausen to Gusen, in which prisoners were gassed en route /.../ I myself never turned on the gas, but only drove the machine. However, I knew that prisoners were exterminated with gas /.../ SS-Gruppenführer Glucke gave the order to consider weakened prisoners mentally ill and to exterminate them with gas in one of the aforementioned structures. About 1-1.5 million were killed in this way. This place is called Hartheim and is located 10 km from Linz in the direction of Passau. The camp announced that the prisoners died a natural death"

(Wiesenthal Simon. KZ Mauthausen. Vienna, Ibis-Vrl. 1946)

However, for a long time now, no serious historian has claimed that there were gas chambers in Dachau, Buchenwald, Ravensbrück, Mauthausen and Hartheim Castle. Their death knell struck on August 19, 1960, when Martin Brosath, a former employee and later director of the Institute for Contemporary History, informed the newspaper "Die Zeit" in a short letter:

"Jews and other prisoners were not exterminated by gas either in Dachau, or in Bergen Belsen, or in Buchenwald /.../ The mass extermination of Jews by gas began in 1941-42. and took place exclusively in individual places, specially selected for this purpose and equipped with the appropriate technical equipment, primarily in the occupied Polish territory (and never in the Reich): Auschwitz-Birkenau, Sobibor on the Bug, Treblinka, Chelmno and Belzec."

Historians do claim there were gassings at Mauthausen and Hartheim, as part of Actions 14f13 and T4. It is clear your knowledge is limited.

It is agreed it is between 5 and 6 million killed.

This is a total number that cannot be disputed by law. Meanwhile, Wiesenthal believed that the number of victims was 11,000,000 (+5,000,000 non-Jews).

It is likely he used the exaggerated Soviet total.

Because the 6 million was already in use, in the West. The exaggerated Soviet total was dropped by Eastern European countries, after the collapse of the SU, in the early 1990s.

For what reason did the Soviet leadership exaggerate the death toll? If they took distorted information from the Polish government, why did they continue to cling to it after 1945, when Poland was under communist control (members of the London government were lured to Poland by deception and then arrested in June 1945), when an objective study could have been conducted? If the USSR did not benefit from a political hoax, its leaders would have lowered the numbers immediately after the war.

The Soviets did not think they had exaggerated the death toll, and then, after the war, the Soviet leadership did not care about the Holocaust. There were no Soviet histories of the Holocaust, no memorials to the Jews and Stalin never spoke about it. He saw the Soviets as the main victims of Nazism, not the Jews, so there was no reason for the Soviets to hoax a Holocaust.

Witnesses are poor at estimations, so exaggerated numbers for gassings and how long the gas took to clear, are to be expected. That is normal for witnesses, and since revisionists do not know much about witness behaviour, memory and recollection, they make mistakes.

If witness testimony is valuable, it is unlikely that it will distort information. On the other hand, recognizing that human memory is subject to distortion lowers the value of such testimony. That is why in the judicial and criminal sphere, witness testimony is the lowest priority in the hierarchy of evidence, compared to documentary and material evidence.

Witness evidence is the best narrative evidence, as well as being the least accurate form of evidence. Revisionists are ignorant of witnesses, memory and recall, as they come up with all sorts of excuses to dismiss the witness evidence.

[Nazgul]

Revisionists are ignorant of witnesses, memory and recall, as they come up with all sorts of excuses to dismiss the witness evidence.

As you have done with Marian Olszuk.

[Stubble]

Revisionists are ignorant of witnesses, memory and recall, as they come up with all sorts of excuses to dismiss the witness evidence.

As you have done with Marian Olszuk.

Mr Wraith, could you do us the service of penning a thread on Marian Olszuk if you find the time?

I am unfamiliar with this and would like to delve into it.

[Nessie]

Revisionists are ignorant of witnesses, memory and recall, as they come up with all sorts of excuses to dismiss the witness evidence.

As you have done with Marian Olszuk.

I have not dismissed Olszuk. He says nothing about transports, which is odd, if he was at the camp as much as suggested. He speaks to burning and noises from inside the camp, and little else, which attests to the security around the site. That he is your star witness, explains why you cannot evidence what did take place, inside TII.

[Nazgul]

I have not dismissed Olszuk. He says nothing about transports, which is odd, if he was at the camp as much as suggested. He speaks to burning and noises from inside the camp, and little else, which attests to the security around the site. That he is your star witness, explains why you cannot evidence what did take place, inside TII.

Very few got off the trains at the end point, just those assigned their, to the labour camp, the two Judenlagers and perhaps Kosow Laski. The transports stopping at many many Jewish Labour camp locations en transit speaks volumes. Olszuk could see clearly into Treblinka, he mentions a single anomaly of the smell of burning which could be anything. If nothing took place inside TII, there is nothing to report. This is why Zabecki only took one photo of Treblinka smoke, after the insurrection and murder of SS. Make all the excuses you like, Zabecki was a spy. If there was burning every day as claimed there would be hundreds of different pics. The lack of this hard evidence speaks volumes which is why you rely on liars like Wiernik and machines giving the nazi salute.

[Nessie]

I have not dismissed Olszuk. He says nothing about transports, which is odd, if he was at the camp as much as suggested. He speaks to burning and noises from inside the camp, and little else, which attests to the security around the site. That he is your star witness, explains why you cannot evidence what did take place, inside TII.

Very few got off the trains at the end point, just those assigned their, to the labour camp, the two Judenlagers and perhaps Kosow Laski.

That claim is contradicted by documentary and witness evidence. Olszuk does not support your claim, as he is silent about transports.

The transports stopping at many many Jewish Labour camp locations en transit speaks volumes. Olszuk could see clearly into Treblinka, he mentions a single anomaly of the smell of burning which could be anything. If nothing took place inside TII, there is nothing to report.

He could not see clearly into the camp and that he had little to say about what took place inside, is evidence of the security measures taken by the Nazis.

This is why Zabecki only took one photo of Treblinka smoke, after the insurrection and murder of SS. Make all the excuses you like, Zabecki was a spy. If there was burning every day as claimed there would be hundreds of different pics. The lack of this hard evidence speaks volumes which is why you rely on liars like Wiernik and machines giving the nazi salute.

Zabecki was a station master who provided intelligence to the intelligence services. He was a source, not a spy. He took one photo because it was only safe for him to take one, when the station was abandoned by the SS guards when the camp rebelled.

[Nazgul]

He could not see clearly into the camp and that he had little to say about what took place inside, is evidence of the security measures taken by the Nazis.

That is not what Olszuk told Faurisson.
In 1942-1943, the 'extermination camp' area was practically devoid of trees or large shrubbery. As a result, the neighboring farm folk and passers-by could easily observe, through the barbed-wire fence, the prisoners and the guards as well as the various buildings of a camp that is now said to have been ultra-secret....Witness Olszuk

Zabecki was a station master who provided intelligence to the intelligence services. He was a source, not a spy.

This is the definition of a spy. He was an asset. Spies are not intelligence officers.

[Nessie]

He could not see clearly into the camp and that he had little to say about what took place inside, is evidence of the security measures taken by the Nazis.

That is not what Olszuk told Faurisson.
In 1942-1943, the 'extermination camp' area was practically devoid of trees or large shrubbery. As a result, the neighboring farm folk and passers-by could easily observe, through the barbed-wire fence, the prisoners and the guards as well as the various buildings of a camp that is now said to have been ultra-secret....Witness Olszuk

Zabecki was a station master who provided intelligence to the intelligence services. He was a source, not a spy.

This is the definition of a spy. He was an asset. Spies are not intelligence officers.

The photos of Sobibor show how the AR camps were kept from view, maybe Olszuk was seeing into TI? Or maybe the staff section of TII was open to view?

You can nit-pick over the definition of spy, Zabecki was a station master who gathered some intelligence and took one photo, that was passed to the Polish intelligence services.

[Stubble]

Nessie, no, just no. He shared a fence that ran about 300 yards with the camp. He could see directly into treblinka II on his way to go work at treblinka I. Just read or listen to the interview, its, right, there...

Why are you misrepresenting his statements?

If you don't believe him, fine, say so, don't just stand there and put words and ideas in his mouth. That's dirty pool.

Also, so far as defining the word spy, here, the definition;

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... nglish/spy

So, obviously, as a descriptor, it applies, as used by Mr Wraith. Your denial of this very basic fact is telling.

This is the second time in two days I have had to remind a member of the orthodoxy that words are defined and thus have meaning.

It seems ridiculous, and yet it is true. I have had to tell two separate people in two days that words have defined meaning.

[Nessie]

Nessie, no, just no. He shared a fence that ran about 300 yards with the camp. He could see directly into treblinka II on his way to go work at treblinka I. Just read or listen to the interview, its, right, there...

Why are you misrepresenting his statements?

If you don't believe him, fine, say so, don't just stand there and put words and ideas in his mouth. That's dirty pool.

I did not put words into his mouth. I am questioning how he could see into TII. There were others who worked nearby, who described how action was taken to prevent people seeing into the camp;

https://www.zapisyterroru.pl/dlibra/pub ... aCA3djs3ag

"I would like to add that the fences which surrounded the extermination camp, made of barbed wire and intertwined with pine in order to prevent observation of the camp, burnt down during the Uprising, and so later tablecloths, bedspreads and other similar things apparently taken away from the victims were spread on wire to obscure the view."

The photos of Sobibor show pine woven into the fences to prevent them from being seen through.

Also, so far as defining the word spy, here, the definition;

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... nglish/spy

So, obviously, as a descriptor, it applies, as used by Mr Wraith. Your denial of this very basic fact is telling.

This is the second time in two days I have had to remind a member of the orthodoxy that words are defined and thus have meaning.

It seems ridiculous, and yet it is true. I have had to tell two separate people in two days that words have defined meaning.

Words often do not have a defined meaning, their meaning can vary, depending on context. Zabecki was not a spy, as in an intelligence officer working for the Polish intelligence services. He did do some spying, by gathering information and a photo, for the intelligence services, which would make him a source, asset or CHIS.

[Nazgul]

Words often do not have a defined meaning, their meaning can vary, depending on context. Zabecki was not a spy, as in an intelligence officer working for the Polish intelligence services. He did do some spying, by gathering information and a photo, for the intelligence services, which would make him a source, asset or CHIS.

Cambridge dictionary: A spy is a person who secretly collects and reports information about the activities of another country or organization
This is what Zabecki was doing, he was secretly collecting, analysing and reporting information or disinformation about Germany to another government. An asset is a spy.