The CODOH Revisionist Forum

curioussoul wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2024 12:39 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 29, 2024 9:35 am

curioussoul wrote: ↑Sat Dec 28, 2024 10:36 pm

Would you explain the bolded bits? Why would that be?

I am surprised that you do not know that Soviet derived evidence, such as presented during the Nuremberg war crimes trials, was considered unreliable and exaggerated. For example, they did a very limited site survey at TII, which is why the Poles formed a warcrimes commission and returned to do a more detailed and thorough site survey.

See Chapter 3, "Treblinka Extermination or Transit camp?" here;

https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/treblinka/

Not answering the question. I asked why a Soviet report would be useless, and why Soviet derived evidence would be unreliable and useless. Would you answer the question? Go ahead.

I have answered the question. The Soviets, as an organisation, were not to be trusted. Why that culture of dishonesty developed amongst them, I do not know, but it is still apparent today, with the Russian leadership. The best known example of Soviet dishonesty and unreliability regarding their limited reporting on the Holocaust, was their inflated death tolls.

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2024 8:06 am

curioussoul wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2024 12:39 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 29, 2024 9:35 am

I am surprised that you do not know that Soviet derived evidence, such as presented during the Nuremberg war crimes trials, was considered unreliable and exaggerated. For example, they did a very limited site survey at TII, which is why the Poles formed a warcrimes commission and returned to do a more detailed and thorough site survey.

See Chapter 3, "Treblinka Extermination or Transit camp?" here;

https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/treblinka/

Not answering the question. I asked why a Soviet report would be useless, and why Soviet derived evidence would be unreliable and useless. Would you answer the question? Go ahead.

I have answered the question. The Soviets, as an organisation, were not to be trusted. Why that culture of dishonesty developed amongst them, I do not know, but it is still apparent today, with the Russian leadership. The best known example of Soviet dishonesty and unreliability regarding their limited reporting on the Holocaust, was their inflated death tolls.

Still not answering the question, Nessie. Why is it that a Soviet report would be prima faciae useless and why were the Soviets not to be trusted? Circular answers are not acceptable.

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2024 8:06 amI have answered the question.

No more dodging, Nessie (it's in the rules). I'm gonna need you to answer these two posts:

viewtopic.php?p=2755#p2755
viewtopic.php?p=2756#p2756

Stay on topic and you'll do fine.

He cannot explain where the corpses that died hundreds a day in the camp awaiting cremation were stored.

Were they in the undressing room? So the Jewish masses went in there, undressed in front of the corpses, with who knows how much space, and went to the gas chamber to die peacefully?

There is no place to store corpses and he does not accept the documents that attest that the place they were using for this purpose was the gas chambers. Unbelievable, worse still, we have the patience of Job with these individuals who go off on a tangent to the core of the discussion and affront us for coming up with evidence of another use for these buildings or where they went.

curioussoul wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2025 10:16 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2024 8:06 am

curioussoul wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2024 12:39 am

Not answering the question. I asked why a Soviet report would be useless, and why Soviet derived evidence would be unreliable and useless. Would you answer the question? Go ahead.

I have answered the question. The Soviets, as an organisation, were not to be trusted. Why that culture of dishonesty developed amongst them, I do not know, but it is still apparent today, with the Russian leadership. The best known example of Soviet dishonesty and unreliability regarding their limited reporting on the Holocaust, was their inflated death tolls.

Still not answering the question, Nessie. Why is it that a Soviet report would be prima faciae useless and why were the Soviets not to be trusted? Circular answers are not acceptable.

I am answering your questions, not just here, elsewhere as well and your new tactic is to accuse me of not answering.

A circular answer does apply to the Soviets. In general, they were caught lying and using propaganda, far too often, for anything they produced as evidence to be trusted. For example, Katyn. Their report, which was that the Nazis committed the atrocity, was totally false. They produced a minimal report on evidence found at TII and instead, Soviet troops had joined in with the grave robbers and had used explosives at the site. They then grossly exaggerated the death toll. Their death tolls for A-B and Majdanek were also grossly exaggerated and both ended up being, officially, substantially reduced.

curioussoul wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2024 12:30 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2024 7:45 amIf you misrepresent and strawman me, you will take responsibility for that. Is that understood going forward?

No more excuses, Nessie. Follow the rules or get out. Is that understood? That's a very simple question.

This is not a thread about Rudolf, or chemistry, or air-raid shelters. It's a thread about the morgue documents, and you're intentionally derailing the thread. Let's go on with it.

I agree that documentary and physical evidence is generally more reliable than witness memory, yes.

That's fantastic. Baby steps, again. Given the physical and documentary evidence the morgues were constructed and used as morgues, what would be the exterminationist explanation for such circumstances? Brushing them off as one-off exceptions doesn't explain their existence. If the morgue was indeed secretely a gas chamber for Jews, why are the Germans internally discussing their usage as morgues?

Internally, in the A-B Construction Office, the Kremas were being discussed as having heated undressing rooms, ventilated gas chambers and ovens for fast, multiple corpse cremations and that barracks were needed for property. Topf & Sons and Construction Office staff were not discussing using the Kremas as morgues to store corpses. They were to be used for a special action/treatment, involving Jews, the disabled and Hungarians.

That's a bit odd, right? You were initially stumped by these documents, alleging such documents could not and did not exist. When confronted, you called them cherry-picked one-off exceptions, acknowledging their existence and problematic nature within the exterminationist framework, but not offering an explanation for their existence.

We'll go from there and see how you handle yourself. Baby steps, as I said.

Elsewhere in A-B, staff referred to the Kremas as morgues. You cherry-pick that reference and assert that is what the Kremas were used for, but it is contradicted by how the staff responsible for the Kremas describe them.

curioussoul wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2024 12:37 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 29, 2024 9:21 amI have regularly stated, over the years of debates, that witness evidence is the weakest and linked to the reasons why.

Right, that's fantastic progress. We'll progress from here and see where we end up.

Of course. When any evidence, no matter its source, contradicts, that needs further investigation. That can be two documents contradicting each other.

Right. So in the context of the morgue documents - documents that you correctly identified as being completely incompatible with the exterminationist position, documents that really shouldn't be able to exist at all if we follow the mainstream story - how would you square those contradictory sources?

Try to muster the historian within you, and we'll see where it takes us.

The staff responsible for the construction and operation of the Kremas, at the Construction Office, did not refer to them as being morgues to store corpses. Staff elsewhere in the camp, who sent corpses to the Kremas, did call them morgues. The number of ovens meant that any corpse sent to the Kremas, could go straight for cremation, it did not need to be stored.

Revisionists try to apply interpretations to documents that contradict and are not supported by other evidence, such as the witnesses

But we've already determined that witness testimony is the weakest form of evidence possible and that physical and documentary evidence takes precedence over flimsly witness stories. See your above quote. In other threads you've asserted that physical, empirical evidence must be wrong if it contradicts "all of the witnesses", which is not a scientific position but an ideological one.

In general, physical evidence is stronger than documentary, than witness, than circumstantial. But that is just in general, it is a rule that is regularly broken. That 100% of witnesses to the operation of the Kremas agree they were used for gassings, SS, German civilian and Jewish, from multiple different countries, is compelling, strong corroborative evidence. The documentary and physical evidence from the Krema sites supports them.

To interject, the construction and planning personnel most definitely explicitly referred to the corpse cellars as corpse cellars. That people didn't call them 'morgues' shouldn't really be the issue. Kind of tomato/tomato stuff here.

Nobody involved in construction and planning referred to them as 'the undressing rooms and homicidal gas chambers' either.

They were corpse cellars, for storing corpses. Until those corpses could be disposed of. Because people were dying in the camps with a high frequency.

That's why Wirths had the German Authorities procure and install for him from Siemens a microwave delousing unit, which was likely later referred to as an electric conveyor belt of death.

Great strides were taken to improve camp conditions and to improve the health of the detainees. Why waste all of that effort if you are just going to destroy people there? Seems counter productive.

If you are going to exterminate everyone in the camp, just, you know, kill them in the camp...

Stubble wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2025 1:48 pm To interject, the construction and planning personnel most definitely explicitly referred to the corpse cellars as corpse cellars. That people didn't call them 'morgues' shouldn't really be the issue. Kind of tomato/tomato stuff here.

You are right;

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ce-on.html

"Memo of 25 March 1943 on “hot air supply device for corpse cellar 1” in crematorium 2"

The place where corpses are stored are never heated, they are kept cool.

"Order from Karl Bischoff of 31 March 1943 on “3 gas tight doors” of crematorium 4 and 5 and “gas door 100/192 for corpse cellar 1…with double 8 mm glass and peephole” of crematorium 2 and 3"

Gas tight doors and a peephole to store corpses in a room that was heated? That is very odd.

Nobody involved in construction and planning referred to them as 'the undressing rooms and homicidal gas chambers' either.

"Letter from Eduard Wirths of 21 January 1943 on “undressing room” in crematorium 2"
"Letter from Karl Bischoff to Topf of 6 March 1943 on “preheating cellar 1” and “undressing room” in crematorium 2 and 3"
"Working time sheet from Heinrich Messing of 14 March 1943 on “undressing cellar 2” in crematorium 2"
"Work time sheet from Heinrich Messing of 13 April 1943 on “undressing cellar” in crematorium 3"

"Memo from Fritz Sander of 17 February 1943 on “the gas cellar” in crematorium 2"
"Letter from Karl Bischoff of 29 January 1943 on “gassing cellar” in crematorium 2"
"Work time sheet of 2 March 1943 on “concrete in gas chamber” in crematorium 4"

They were corpse cellars, for storing corpses. Until those corpses could be disposed of. Because people were dying in the camps with a high frequency.

I have been to many mortuaries due to my old job in the police, and corpses are stored in refrigerated conditions, not heated rooms. They are also stored out of sight, not with peep holes to look at them.

That's why Wirths had the German Authorities procure and install for him from Siemens a microwave delousing unit, which was likely later referred to as an electric conveyor belt of death.

Great strides were taken to improve camp conditions and to improve the health of the detainees. Why waste all of that effort if you are just going to destroy people there? Seems counter productive.

If you are going to exterminate everyone in the camp, just, you know, kill them in the camp...

A-B was also a labour camp. Forced labour was a huge part of the Nazi operation and it was not just Jews who were used as forced labourers.

I'm not going to go through all that and show you where you have done something tantamount to take the word 'woman' and it its place inserted the term 'virgin'. I will say, when you look for something sinister and can't find it so you twist words, that's not evidence that you are correct.

Hot air, outside air, intake air....what's the point...

As for the last of it, then send them to an extermination camp and exterminate them if you are exterminating them, don't exterminate them at a camp where you aren't set up for exterminating people because then exterminating people will be difficult for your extermination.

Also, the the nazis tried to cover up their crimes shtick is wearing very thin.

They obviously didn't, because it is the best documented genocide in human history (when you decide documents mean what you say they mean, not, you know, what they actually mean), but simultaneously, the lack of evidence is proof of the crime, because there's all this evidence, but the nazis destroyed it.....

Look, the corpse cellars were corpse cellars....where they kept corpses...

I'm curious, how many concentration camp morgues in warzones in Poland in the mid 40's were you at during your time working for the 'police service' (since force is too strong a word after all)?

Sometimes words mean what they say and sometimes a thing is what it is called.

Like the undressing room at majdanek being the undressing room at majdanek...

The morgues were of course morgues when they were not being used to gas people. They only needed to be free of corpses immediately before and during a gassing. They were then filled with corpses. More corpses could be added if one wished after the chamber was ventilated and could be safely entered.

The gassing process was an insignificant amount of time compared to the cremation process. It would take a few hours to gas 2000 persons and vent the chamber. But it would take a couple days to cremate those 2000 cadavers.

Additionally, the ovens area of the krema was quite large and held hundreds of corpses during the cremations.

Only mental retards - of both anti-denier (e.g. Van Pelt) and Revisionist persuasion - have a big issue with the fact that the morgues can be seen to have been used as morgues AND gas chambers.

Yes, they could fit, just like putting more than 25 people inside a telephone booth, as Gerstein said they did. There is no problem with space. The only thing the Nazis could not do was win the war, apart from that all the laws of physics and chemistry were nullified.

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2025 6:53 pm Yes, they could fit, just like putting more than 25 people inside a telephone booth, as Gerstein said they did. There is no problem with space. The only thing the Nazis could not do was win the war, apart from that all the laws of physics and chemistry were nullified.

I discussed the gas chamber packing issue at SSF here:

https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic. ... 84#p942984

Something like 2000 is not as remarkable as Rudolf thinks.

The Sonderkommando, like Dario Gabbai, said that after the gassings the bodies were standing up, there was no room for them to fall because it was so crowded. This suggests a level of cooperation from the victims that even well-trained soldiers would not be able to achieve, including with the presence of naked men and women touching each other. They would clearly understand that they were not there to take a bath and there would be riots, but according to the Holocaust, they were like sheep to the slaughter. This fact alone shows how absurd the gassings would be.

It is if you are trying to convince them they are taking a shower.

Try leaving 4 inches elbow room and 10 inches nut to butt and see how many people fit. It ain't very many.