Wetzelrad wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 2:37 am
Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 7:56 am
Wrong. When I read Hilberg stating "leave no mass graves", or Himmler ordering "erase the traces", I do not take that literally. It is physically and forensically impossible, to return a mass grave to its original state. They are referring to the cover-up of the murders, by the use of cremation. That neither Hilberg, nor Himmler go into detail about the way cremations would cover up the murders, is either because to them, it is blindingly obvious, or they lack forensic awareness, or they do not think the how, is that important.
I agree that true erasure is physically and forensically impossible, but that is none the less the consensus position on the Holocaust. You are way out in the fringe by claiming that Hilberg and the museums and their sources are all wrong about this.
They are not wrong to use words like destroy, hide or wipe out the evidence of mass graves, but their choice of words, has caused confusion amongst so-called revisionists, who took them literally.
I have cause more confusion amongst the so-called revisionists, by pointing out that it is wrong to take the historians literally.
One of Hilberg's sources is Blobel's postwar statement where he explicitly says that the purpose of his assignment was to erase "all traces of Einsatzgruppen executions". That is, he was to hide the crime itself, not just the victims' identities or their number. Since Blobel is supposed to be the commander of Aktion 1005, he ought to have known what his own job was, but you seem to think you know better.
https://www.whlcollections.org/fulltext/1655-2673/4/
You are playing at semantics, and incorrectly taking Blobel literally. Whether he thought, initially, that he could literally erase all traces, we do not know. What will have happened, is that he will have found that he was limited in what he could do, since there were so many mass graves and corpses to deal with.
Also relevant: prosecutor Smirnov claimed that as part of Aktion 1005 trees were planted on top of the graves. Other sources claim that branches, tree trunks, grass, flowers, and roads were put on top of the graves. Was this done to render the bodies unidentifiable or uncountable? No, it was done to "camouflage" the graves so that they couldn't be found. Smirnov uses the word "camouflage" several times. Historians like Hilberg adopted his claim.
The planting over was done to hide the mass graves. I have just gone into more detail than the likes of Hilberg, about what the cover-up achieved, by referring to body counts, identification and cause of death. That is probably because I am more forensically aware than Hilberg. When I was in the police, I worked on a murder, when a garden was excavated and a corpse that had been set on fire, was recovered. The Scenes of Crime officers could identify which ground had been dug into, to then excavate and despite the corpse having been burnt, it could be identified and post mortemed to establish the cause of death. The Nazis were more thorough.
You are assuming that when a historian states that the purpose was to destroy "all traces", that they literally mean that, and they do not know that it is in fact impossible to do. A mass grave full of corpses, cannot be returned to undisturbed ground, so removing all traces of it having been dug into and corpses buried there.
And where attempts were made to debunk Holocaust denial more generally, they just come out and say it: Aktion 1005's purpose was "to hide all evidence of their activities."
https://www.yadvashem.org/holocaust/faqs.html
I am astonished to watch you disagree with all of the experts on your side on one of the core aspects of the Holocaust narrative.
I am not disagreeing with them. The destroying all traces is not to be taken literally. It means the covering-up of the mass graves, by exhuming the corpses and cremating them, which prevented body counts, identification and establishing cause of death.
Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 7:56 amIt has clearly never dawned on so-called revisionists, how cremations would serve to cover up the murders. I suspect that they also took the words of Hilberg, and Himmler, literally, causing them to become confused. It is obviously news to them, that the cremations served to cover up the murders by preventing body counts, identification and establishing the cause of death.
How amusing. Revisionists have in fact repeatedly raised questions over the many absurdities in the narrative of mass cremation, among them whether the ground was disturbed at all, why aerial photos lack signs of burial or cremation, how everything fit into the alleged mass graves, where the ashes went, how the bones were made to disappear, why evidence and witnesses were left behind, and the logical inconsistencies of incomplete secrecy or incomplete erasure, quite in line with the issues you raise. These are core arguments for revisionism. Carlo Mattogno's
The Einsatzgruppen is all about this.
Notably, mainstream historians have never had any good explanation for these concerns. The fact that you have also begun to share these concerns does not bear well on the narrative. You pose a question of "how cremations would serve to cover up the murders". A great question to put to the Holocaust authorities, if you get the chance.
So-called revisionists have never presented any evidence whether the ground was disturbed at all. The aerial photos of the AR camps show that there are areas of disturbed ground, where witnesses state the mass graves were located. Bones were not made to disappear. The corpses were cremated and there is also some evidence they were rendered, before being mixed back into the mass graves, which were then planted over.
Your concerns are just arguments, as you express your doubts, because you just do not want to believe that so many people were killed and buried at the AR camps. Your lack of evidence means, you have to resort to semantics, arguments and debate point scoring. If you were a genuine revisionist, you would produce evidence, to prove what happened and that there were no mass graves.