The Pyres of Dresden

[Callafangers]

On this question, it seems plausible to me that the bodies at the Altmarkt were fully reduced. All of the photos show piles of ash and cremains that are not quite a fine powder but definitely reduced to small bone fragments.

Are you talking about the piles of ash and/or bones and/or rocks and/or rubble appearing near to the cremation pyres? There is no confirmation of this even being ash (as opposed to rubble from the mass destruction -- note the building materials appearing in the pile; bricks, a pipe, wooden blocks?), let alone human bones, let alone crushed human bones, let alone mostly human ash (rather than wood ash).

1.jpg (209.26 KiB) Viewed 176 times

I am not aware of reports that wood ash was (or could have been) meticulously sifted or hand-sorted from corpse ash, as any corpse ash would have fallen directly into the wood below as fires raged on and as more wood was continuously added/mixed:

2.jpg (134.42 KiB) Viewed 176 times

For outdoor cremations, the volume of wood remnants (ash + non-combustibles) exceeds the volume of corpse remnants by a factor of about ten, per calculations based on Mattogno's work.

Reducing human corpses even to the extent done in Hindu funeral pyres (which leaves large bone fragments) is in the range of ~300-400kg per corpse -- even with a great deal of pyre airflow, dry wood, and efficiency common to Hindu pyres. To achieve this at Dresden seems highly unlikely, even if some of the energy (say, 20%, which would be extreme) were substituted by liquid fuels which, as shown in this and another recent thread, is untenable.

As Leif F. (and Irving) mentions, the main purpose of these cremations was for prevention of epidemic, hence the probability for such massive fuel quantities is further reduced -- no need to reduce corpses to ash, just to eliminate a biohazard.

[Nessie]

I said corroboration is needed. You accept corroborating evidence that pyres were used at Dresden, but not at the AR camps.

Who said I deny that open-air cremations took place at the Reinhardt camps? The difference between you and me is the alleged scale. Since exterminationists can't and won't quantify the ash and corroborate how much it could have produced if the alleged death toll is sufficient, you're content with finding only ash and uncremated remains, claiming that everyone transported there was killed.

Therein lies your flaw and dishonesty. Even the ashes themselves would need to be analyzed to determine whether they are purely human or not and what proportion of the ashes contain the burned remains of the material used in the cremation. Kola's findings aren't sufficient; they haven't been corroborated by peers.

When I look at the size and scale of disturbed ground at the AR camps, I can see that a lot of people were buried there. Yes, the volume is lower than I would have estimated, but there are explanations for that, and we just do not know enough about what happens when lots of corpses are buried and decompose together.

The difference between me and so-called revisionists, is that I am not so arrogant to think that because what is found is not what is necessarily expected, I do not claim, therefore all the witnesses lied, the other evidence is somehow wrong, and hundreds of thousands were not buried there. The evidence, from documents and witnesses, is that hundreds of thousands were sent to the camps and the vast majority were killed.

Kola's work has been corroborated and his work is quoted and used by his peers, so you are wrong there. You just don't want to believe and think that because you cannot believe, that must mean it cannot have happened to the scale alleged.

[Nessie]

....

Thus I wonder (and I am not asking rhetorically! But really am interested in getting to know whether this is the case or not): DO you (all) both sides agree with those basic statements or to what degree partly or not at all? Is there a base of scientific rules that both sides could be made to agree upon for constructive dialogue/research over the opinion/interpretation-divide?

Sorry reply got long....

There is limited data, and much of that is eyewitness estimations, about how many corpses were cremated on pyres, how long it took, to what extent the corpses were cremated and how much ash was produced. So-called Holocaust revisionists take that data and use it to construct arguments from incredulity, whereby they argue that cremations were not physically possible, therefore they did not happen. That form of argument is logically flawed, because just because someone cannot work out how something was possible, does not therefore mean that it cannot have happened.

The so-called revisionists do not deny the pyres at Dresden, because they are so well evidenced, in particular the photos, and because they are prepared to accept the evidence that the British bombed the city, causing a firestorm.

They then deny the pyres at the AR camps, Birkenau and Chelmno, which are also well evidenced, because they are not prepared to accept that the Nazis had gassed and then cremated hundreds of thousands of Jews.

Not being able to work out how the Nazis got the pyres to work, is not evidence to prove that there were no pyres. But the pyres at Dresden and Ohrdruf, prove that they were possible. It is just that at the AR camps, Birkenau and Chelmno, they were far larger.

Ok, thanks for feedback, I think I understand your point.

May I though drill a bit more into my core question if it might be possible to formulate and settle most basic rules of scientific objectivity and fairness that both sides agree upon?
Could it be possible to establish a somewhat double-blind fair investigation-situation or is this topic too emotionally loaded ?

How about you, can you think of any concrete rules of objectivity that you think both the other side and you yourself could agree to ? Not meant theoretically, but concretely, as example/starting point perhaps, you state specifically :

"There is limited data, and much of that is eyewitness estimations"

which seems to agree with the main point of my basic statements A1-A4 and B in former post and (please correct of course if wrong) basically what the other commentators stated in several places as well and thus this seems to be a fact/rule of objectivity that indeed all could/do agree to (?):

1. Fully objective scientific data is one category and witness testimony is another, the latter cannot be regarded reliable/scientific unless corroborated independently by enough amounts of the former.

As a generalisation, yes, but, there are circumstances where witnesses can be regarded as reliable, without corroboration from other evidence, so it is not a hard and fast rule.

What makes the eyewitnesses at the AR camps so compelling, is that that all agree, Nazi and Jew. For accused and accuser all every single one of them to agree, is strong corroboration.

(And in the case of this thread and the topic of the Dresden pyres and burials, as you state (if I summarize correctly) there isn`t even remotely enough of that, objective data, available for ANY definite conclusions (either/any which way) and what witnesses said cannot be taken as reliable proof because it is not corroborated.)

There is indeed not enough data. The witnesses, due to the known, studied, flaws of memory, recall and estimation, are not reliable in the detail, but their overall narrative about the use of mass pyres, is corroborated.

Do you agree and if so, would you agree/say it is fair to state that this rule of course applies to all sides equally, witness testimony of all sides needs to be corroborated by independent scientific data to have any value as evidence?

The rules of evidence do apply equally.
Witness evidence does not require to be corroborated by scientific data.

And perhaps the follow-up question, might it be possible what exact objective scientific "data" is/stops and where subjective interpretation starts?
Best again probably in concrete example, I personally would say/agree that the 23 photographs taken by Walter Hahn on 25th feb 1945 showing the Altmarkt pyres (in many interesting details) are fully objective data and the datapoints (size of pyres/girders/wood/location)they show cannot be (and isn`t as far as I know) disputed by anyone.

Subjective interpretation, comes from witnesses recalling, estimating and remembering the details. If a witness in Dresden had a stop watch, spreadsheet, conducted body counts and weighed remains, then they would provide scientific data.

But already when going to the official documents cited mentioning numbers and times/actions, a possibility -and infact as proven before in this case of Dresden a certainty (given that the records do not match up)- of subjective error/falsehood has come in, because they are written entirely by and through subjective humans. So already at the level of documents we cannot talk about fully scientifically reliable data anymore and preferably need independent corroboration.

Would you agree to that and if not why not If one may ask?

Dresden witnesses estimating times etc, are not providing reliable, scientific data.

[Callafangers]

What makes the eyewitnesses at the AR camps so compelling, is that that all agree, Nazi and Jew. For accused and accuser all every single one of them to agree, is strong corroboration.

This is what Nessie believes to be his best argument, he says it constantly.

The problem is, the witnesses are extraordinary in all of the following ways:

• Extraordinary lies at the origin of the story and in overall significance, i.e. key witnesses; for example, see the Propaganda History section for this entry, and info on Reder and Gerstein: https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/instr ... elzec/403/
• Extraordinary proportion of lies and liars; e.g. numerous falsehoods from Treblinka's witnesses, here, see the table halfway down the page: https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/instr ... linka/889/
  Also see, a selection of other examples: https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/absur ... laims/214/
• Postwar trials as thinly-veiled show trials, see: https://holocausthandbooks.com/video/th ... nuremberg/

That fact that 'Nazi and Jew all agree' about what is claimed at Treblinka is not surprising, considering the only people who investigated or cared at all about 'what happened at Treblinka' (as opposed to the thousands of other locations of interest during WW2 and Jewish movement) were the war victors (including Jews) who had an axe to grind and the Germans whose families were held captive by Soviet mass rapists.

The bottom-line is that there was no one who could effectively challenge Allied narratives post-war (regardless of truth), neither at trial nor in public opinion. The victors controlled all forms of information. There was no free inquiry for Germans, all while their wife and kids remained subject to abuse and deportation. But regardless, once 'judicial notice' of the 'facts' of the Holocaust were solidified, denying the "unspeakable crimes" was never a viable legal defense.

This brings us to one of the most important quotes of the post-war era:

The trial of the vanquished by the victors cannot be impartial, no matter how it is hedged about with the forms of justice.
- Fmr. US Senator Robert Taft

All of this is of course off-topic from the thread so I will not be addressing further but, every now and then, it just helps to get newbies caught up to how much of a sinking ship Nessie is riding on.

Nessie, please stay on-topic. This thread is about Dresden.

[Nessie]

What makes the eyewitnesses at the AR camps so compelling, is that that all agree, Nazi and Jew. For accused and accuser all every single one of them to agree, is strong corroboration.

This is what Nessie believes to be his best argument, he says it constantly.

No. The best argument is that ALL of the evidence, not just the witnesses, corroborates and converges on mass killings and that you cannot evidence any alternative.

The problem is, the witnesses are extraordinary in all of the following ways:

That you think so, speaks to your lack of experience with witnesses. They are not extraordinary at all, as they all exhibit normal, to be expected, abilities to remember, recollect and estimate. That the Jewish witnesses are more emotive than the more matter of fact Nazis, is also to be expected and is easily explained. You pretend that the witnesses are unusual.

• Extraordinary lies at the origin of the story and in overall significance, i.e. key witnesses; for example, see the Propaganda History section for this entry, and info on Reder and Gerstein: https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/instr ... elzec/403/
• Extraordinary proportion of lies and liars; e.g. numerous falsehoods from Treblinka's witnesses, here, see the table halfway down the page: https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/instr ... linka/889/
  Also see, a selection of other examples: https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/absur ... laims/214/

You have not proven they lied. You cannot rule out normal forgetfulness, poor estimations and the mixing of hearsay with what was seen. Your MO is to find excuses to believe the evidence is absurd, so of course you find it absurd.

[*] Postwar trials as thinly-veiled show trials, see: https://holocausthandbooks.com/video/th ... nuremberg/[/list]

The Holocaust was not proven at the IMT. It was proven at the numerous SS trials, of camp staff and the Einsatzgruppen. At those trials, variously run by the Americans, Poles, Germans and Austrians, Jewish witnesses and Nazi accused, all agreed that mass murders had taken place. The disagreement was over the detail and responsibilities.

That fact that 'Nazi and Jew all agree' about what is claimed at Treblinka is not surprising, considering the only people who investigated or cared at all about 'what happened at Treblinka' (as opposed to the thousands of other locations of interest during WW2 and Jewish movement) were the war victors (including Jews) who had an axe to grind and the Germans whose families were held captive by Soviet mass rapists.

The TII trials were run by Germans, in West Germany. Some others, mainly Ukrainians, were tried at courts in the US and USSR. Where is the evidence that the staff tried at Dusseldorf, had family held by the Soviets?

The bottom-line is that there was no one who could effectively challenge Allied narratives post-war (regardless of truth), neither at trial nor in public opinion. The victors controlled all forms of information. There was no free inquiry for Germans, all while their wife and kids remained subject to abuse and deportation. But regardless, once 'judicial notice' of the 'facts' of the Holocaust were solidified, denying the "unspeakable crimes" was never a viable legal defense.

There was no one to challenge the narrative, because there was no one prepared to lie and claim that camps such as TII, had a purpose other than AR and mass gassings. It is normal in a court, where the crime is proven, because the accused admits to the crime and there is evidence to corroborate them, for the defence to then not challenge the crime.

This brings us to one of the most important quotes of the post-war era:

The trial of the vanquished by the victors cannot be impartial, no matter how it is hedged about with the forms of justice.
- Fmr. US Senator Robert Taft

Which yet again IGNORES THE MAJORITY OF TRIALS WERE BY GERMAN PROSECUTORS!!!!!!!!!!!

All of this is of course off-topic from the thread so I will not be addressing further but, every now and then, it just helps to get newbies caught up to how much of a sinking ship Nessie is riding on.

Nessie, please stay on-topic. This thread is about Dresden.

Dresden proves that mass pyres were used by the Nazis and they were possible.

[TlsMS93]

Kola's work has been corroborated and his work is quoted and used by his peers, so you are wrong there. You just don't want to believe and think that because you cannot believe, that must mean it cannot have happened to the scale alleged.

Cited does not mean reviewed, which means repeat the experiment, how embarrassing you are.

[Nessie]

Kola's work has been corroborated and his work is quoted and used by his peers, so you are wrong there. You just don't want to believe and think that because you cannot believe, that must mean it cannot have happened to the scale alleged.

Cited does not mean reviewed, which means repeat the experiment, how embarrassing you are.

I did not use the word cited and I know cited does not mean reviewed. I said corroborated, quoted and used. Kola is corroborated by the earlier Polish excavations at Belzec, along with excavations at other AR camps, that were left in the same state. His findings are quoted and used, for example, in C S-C TII report.

[Stubble]

There is, fresh wood under that pyre...

Thanks Fangers! Unless I'm mistaken this is photographic evidence that wood was added to the space under the pyres as it burned down, just like you posited earlier.

[bombsaway]

There is, fresh wood under that pyre...

Thanks Fangers! Unless I'm mistaken this is photographic evidence that wood was added to the space under the pyres as it burned down, just like you posited earlier.

Where do you see fresh wood?

The wood I see is like sticks and such. According to some calculations the total volume of wood necessary for this burning would be many times greater than the volume of the bodies being burned

[Stubble]

The split wood there is what I am referring to. Looks to be cut into pieces roughly as big around as your wrist and around 2 feet long. There are some pieces that are oriented in a way to be roughly identifiable.

That would be, wood Sir.

I don't want to be overly personal here, but, I would like to ask if you have considered a trip to your optometrist Sir.

[bombsaway]

The split wood there is what I am referring to. Looks to be cut into pieces roughly as big around as your wrist and around 2 feet long. There are some pieces that are oriented in a way to be roughly identifiable.

That would be, wood Sir.

I don't want to be overly personal here, but, I would like to ask if you have considered a trip to your optometrist Sir.

I just see wood that is burning, is what I mean, not evidence of new wood being inserted

also the wood is haphazardly arranged, (see bottom left) is this how you would do it if wood was primary fuel source?

[Nessie]

The pyre is made from supported metal rails, with wood underneath and corpses on top. The wood underneath has been set on fire. The fire is starting to spread through the corpses.

[Nessie]

The fire is spreading further through the corpses. There is darker smoke coming from the burning wood and white smoke, which is likely moisture evaporating, as the fire heats up.

[TlsMS93]

I just see wood that is burning, is what I mean, not evidence of new wood being inserted

And what evidence is there that wood wasn't being added? The same goes for the Reinhardt camps. They didn't add all the necessary wood and let it work, they just added it gradually. At Treblinka, they claim that every few seconds more wood was added to the pyre, who knows how they protected themselves from the intense heat without thermal protective equipment.

[Stubble]

The split wood there is what I am referring to. Looks to be cut into pieces roughly as big around as your wrist and around 2 feet long. There are some pieces that are oriented in a way to be roughly identifiable.

That would be, wood Sir.

I don't want to be overly personal here, but, I would like to ask if you have considered a trip to your optometrist Sir.

I just see wood that is burning, is what I mean, not evidence of new wood being inserted

also the wood is haphazardly arranged, (see bottom left) is this how you would do it if wood was primary fuel source?

Build pyre, set. Wait for heat to die down enough to approach, push fresh solid fuel into one side with a square nose shovel. Perhaps use a hook to manipulate the coal bed and wood. Retreat from heat, wash, rinse, repeat.

To answer your question at the end, yes, this is exactly how I would complete this task if assigned.

To be 100% clear, the amount of fuel and its state given the state of the pyre indicates the fuel is fresh. Some of the wood is completely unburned, look at the second hole from the left.