Aktion 1005 Was Not To Destroy Remains?

[Wahrheitssucher]

The bodies were 'stored' in the water table for a year or a year and a half at Treblinka II. That's not going to desiccate them.

We are talking past each other me thinks. You should reflect on what I have put out there and ponder it and I will do the same.

It would be a disservice to the thread and to the forum for us to continue to clutter the thread saying the same thing over and over again.

To be as clear as possible, meat doesn't go in a ball mill Bombsaway, it is problematic, for a series of reasons, starting with it being gummy. To use the mill on a corpse, that corpse need to be, at least mostly, skeleton. Ligament and soft tissue and meat aren't going to be conducive to the operation of the equipment.

I will ruminate on what you are saying, maybe I misunderstand you as badly as you misunderstand me, I mean, you threw out this statement here, which is so far away from what I am saying that I don't know where to start;

It's just factually incorrect statement after factually incorrect statement, and you've diverted from your original point which was something about bodies being destroyed so that they couldn't be counted being dumb? Well that's what I believe.

If you really think this, than you obviously don't understand what I'm saying.

I am impressed with your generosity of spirit, Mr. Stubble.

Your argument was/is very clear and straight-forward. I don’t think Bombsaway is misunderstanding it. In my less generous opinion he’s more likely deceitfully avoiding it.

[Stubble]

One of the forum rules is 'The Principle of Charity'. It is a bit like Hanlon's Razor.

I don't assume people miss the entire point on purpose, I try to figure out how to be more clear.

Apparently, I've been crystal clear.

As a bit of an experiment, can you do me a favor and summarize my position in your words Mr Seeker? Perhaps the problem is in my syntax or some such.

[Wahrheitssucher]

One of the forum rules is 'The Principle of Charity'. It is a bit like Hanlon's Razor.

I don't assume people miss the entire point on purpose, I try to figure out how to be more clear.

Apparently, I've been crystal clear.

As a bit of an experiment, can you do me a favor and summarize my position in your words Mr Seeker? Perhaps the problem is in my syntax or some such.

Ok. Here’s my summarisation.
You argued that burning bodies to destroy all evidence and leave no trace of hundreds of thousands of corpses was not consistent with WW2 facts. Proof: we know the Germans also burned bodies of mass-murdered German, civilian non-combatants at Dresden and that was NOT to make the evidence of Allied war-crimes untraceable.

Bombsaway replied arguing that they didn’t use ball mills and mallets on the cremains at Dresden but they allegedly did at so-called ‘death camps’.

You replied arguing that in neither case would ball mills help in concealing corpses that were not completely dessicated as “Meat, doesn't, pass, through, a, ball, mill.”

Bombsaway couldn’t concede that simple statement of rather obvious fact and replied:
“Source? Should I just believe you?”

Adding sarcastically (presumably to avoid a humiliating climb-down) “I guess you just disproved the Holocaust. Good job”.

[Stubble]

One of the forum rules is 'The Principle of Charity'. It is a bit like Hanlon's Razor.

I don't assume people miss the entire point on purpose, I try to figure out how to be more clear.

Apparently, I've been crystal clear.

As a bit of an experiment, can you do me a favor and summarize my position in your words Mr Seeker? Perhaps the problem is in my syntax or some such.

Ok. Here’s my summarisation.
You argued that burning bodies to destroy all evidence and leave no trace of hundreds of thousands of corpses was not consistent with WW2 facts. Proof: we know the Germans also burned bodies of mass-murdered German, civilian non-combatants at Dresden and that was NOT to make the evidence of Allied war-crimes untraceable.

Bombsaway replied arguing that they didn’t use ball mills and mallets on the cremains at Dresden but they allegedly did at so-called ‘death camps’.

You replied arguing that in neither case would ball mills help in concealing corpses that were not completely dessicated as “Meat, doesn't, pass, through, a, ball, mill.”

Bombsaway couldn’t concede that simple statement of rather obvious fact and replied:
“Source? Should I just believe you?”

Adding sarcastically (presumably to avoid a humiliating climb-down) “I guess you just disproved the Holocaust. Good job”.

Fair. I was pretty clear then.

Thank you Mr Seeker.

[Nessie]

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.

I can further point out that, from the limited number of attempts to refute revisionists on the subject of mass cremation, none agree with you. No debunker makes mention of the revisionists' supposed misunderstanding of what they believe Aktion 1005 was. All debunkers agree implicitly or explicitly that destroying "all traces" was 1005's goal.
https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/by3-exhumation/
https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... art-1.html
https://archive.org/details/caseforauschwitz00pelt/

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.

It 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.

[Nessie]

....

I just imagined being told that Aktion 1005 was used to obliterate all the evidence.

You did not imagine that, it is what you were told. You, and clearly lots of others, mistakenly took what you were told literally, to mean the evidence would be obliterated, leaving no trace. I am merely correcting that mistake.

[Stubble]

No Nessie, there was no mistake on my end. It was said explicitly and reiterated. It was used to muzzle pesky questions. It was asserted from authority.

The reason for any lack of evidence, was Aktion 1005.

Good luck revising this part of history, welcome to the club. Guys, can we get Nessie a revisionist hat and tee shirt?

[Nessie]

No Nessie, there was no mistake on my end. It was said explicitly and reiterated. It was used to muzzle pesky questions. It was asserted from authority.

The reason for any lack of evidence, was Aktion 1005.

Good luck revising this part of history, welcome to the club. Guys, can we get Nessie a revisionist hat and tee shirt?

Your mistake was to take what historians said literally. You actually thought they were suggesting it was possible to eliminate all traces of a mass grave!

It is not a revision, on my part, to say that Aktion 1005 could not actually eliminate all the evidence and in fact its achievements were to prevent body counts, body identification and the establishing of the cause of death. I have just gone into more detail about what the action achieved.

[TlsMS93]

The exterminationist side doesn't care at all about rationalizing the process of exterminating the Jews. They expect us to simply believe it by osmosis, or that if we don't understand the process, it's because we don't want to believe it at all.

Operation Reinhardt and the Einsatzgruppen are too anecdotal for them, so the focus of the Holocaust is the gas chambers farther west of the Curzon Line, because there were crematoria and an entire intact structure that they could deal with and rationalize in some way.

[Nessie]

The exterminationist side doesn't care at all about rationalizing the process of exterminating the Jews. They expect us to simply believe it by osmosis, or that if we don't understand the process, it's because we don't want to believe it at all.

Operation Reinhardt and the Einsatzgruppen are too anecdotal for them, so the focus of the Holocaust is the gas chambers farther west of the Curzon Line, because there were crematoria and an entire intact structure that they could deal with and rationalize in some way.

The difference between historians and so-called revisionists, is that historians accept the evidence that the Nazis were able to build and operate gas chambers that killed millions, whereas so-called revisionists do not accept that evidence and claim it cannot have happened, because they cannot work out how it was possible.

[TlsMS93]

The difference between historians and so-called revisionists, is that historians accept the evidence that the Nazis were able to build and operate gas chambers that killed millions, whereas so-called revisionists do not accept that evidence and claim it cannot have happened, because they cannot work out how it was possible.

No, gas chambers are a very peculiar and modern method of mass murder, unprecedented in literature, except for some who argue that Napoleon used ship decks to crush resistance groups in Haiti, but even this is debated, even on a smaller scale.

I focus on the impossibility of the extermination bottleneck that this would require—obedient victims behaving like wax figures or canned sardines—and the limited cremation process. And the documents prove this bottleneck and this inefficiency.

[borjastick]

historians accept the evidence that the Nazis were able to build and operate gas chambers that killed millions Nessie

That's like saying scientists accept that man made global warming is 100% fact.

[TlsMS93]

Is it possible to gas people in a building as long as it's hermetically sealed? Of course. But there are nuances when considering the whole context. Gassing a single person is one thing, and it's already a considerable undertaking, as it was in American penitentiaries. Gassing on a scale that seems almost child's play is ridiculous.

Now, when I see documentation regarding the cremation process with limited charcoal delivery, it tells me there was no gassing, or at most, the gassing wasn't on the scale alleged, as Fritjof Meyer claims. Even he knows the limitations, but he doesn't want to deny that there was no gassing, despite claiming that the bulk of the incident occurred in the Bunkers, not the Kremas, dismissing almost all witnesses.

[Nessie]

The difference between historians and so-called revisionists, is that historians accept the evidence that the Nazis were able to build and operate gas chambers that killed millions, whereas so-called revisionists do not accept that evidence and claim it cannot have happened, because they cannot work out how it was possible.

No, gas chambers are a very peculiar and modern method of mass murder, unprecedented in literature, except for some who argue that Napoleon used ship decks to crush resistance groups in Haiti, but even this is debated, even on a smaller scale.

I focus on the impossibility of the extermination bottleneck that this would require—obedient victims behaving like wax figures or canned sardines—and the limited cremation process. And the documents prove this bottleneck and this inefficiency.

Just because you cannot work how it was done, does not evidence it was not done.

[TlsMS93]

I can accuse you of anything if you can't prove it happened. There's no point in me wanting to exterminate my hometown of 26,000 inhabitants and going around saying I didn't if I didn't have the materials to do it. The Nazis didn't have these implements and therefore didn't do it; it's very simple. There's no point in claiming we have no record of wood or coal being delivered and it happened anyway, or with your lame excuses; that only passes muster in exceptional courts.