Comments on other threads.

[Nessie]

The claim;

"If the Germans were interested in killing people in mass numbers, they would not have designed the kill centre facility like this".

That is just an opinion, which has no evidential value. The original design was a crematorium, that was temporarily adapted for gassings, 1943-4, for the last of the main Jewish populations, in ghettos and Hungary. That is the evidenced history f the building.

No, that does not follow from the evidence available. According to Pressac (and transitively all those who cribbed his analysis: Van Pelt, Hilberg, the museums, etc.) KIV and KV were being planned for mass gassings from the beginning. He said this about the first drawing from August 1942:

Drawing 1678, the first one of the future Krematorium IV [...]

Despite its apparent innocence as a sanitary instrument, there is a criminal element, linked with homicidal gassings, in the drawing. [...] The presence of a stove in the uncompleted room of drawing 1678 is a formal indication that it was used for gassing.

https://www.historiography-project.com/ ... tz/392.php

Pressac did also contradict himself by stating the opposite -- because he wanted to have it both ways -- but the evidence shows what it shows, right?

Pressac also noted that this drawing included the building's total width, but gave no indication as to what the collection of western rooms were to be:

Although its final length (67.50 m) was marked on drawing 1678 (67.65 m), the Bauleitung had not drawn the left hand section, 48 m long by 12 m wide.

https://www.historiography-project.com/ ... tz/396.php

If Pressac's conversion theory was correct, then these western rooms must originally have had some non-homicidal purpose, yet no where in any surviving document can anyone find them labelled or given any purpose. Pressac opines above that they were already planned as gas chambers from the start. So it's a nonsensensical theory.

Your claim that KIV "was temporarily adapted for gassings" seems to go even further. What evidence is there to support that the alleged gas chambers were or were going to be converted back to their non-homicidal roles? And what non-homicidal roles were those, by the way? Or is this all just speculation on your part?

You start by claiming Pressac the Kremas were planned for gassing from the beginning. Then you change that to he wants it both ways. There is evidence it was to be used as a crematorium after the gassing action had ended, with the planned expansion of the camp and the section called "Mexico". The non-homicidal role was a crematorium for the dead for a greatly expanded camp, housing labourers.

[Wetzelrad]

Correct, Pressac wanted it both ways. He frequently wrote in contradiction to himself, but this didn't stop other historians from citing and parroting his opinions. You are highlighting an excellent example of how unserious Holocaust history is.

Pressac repeated this circus act again later in the book.

This “phanthom” document is not “conclusive” proof of the existence of homicidal gas chambers in Krematorium IV. but it helps us to understand and establish how they were planned, built and used.

Contrary to what I said in my article on “Les Krematorien IV et V de Birkenau” in “Le Monde Juif”, the three documents cited above [Photos 31, 32 and 33] together with Krermatorium drawings 1678 of 14th August 1942 and 2036 of 11th January 1943 enable us to state that KREMATORIEN IV AND V WERE DESIGNED AS CRIMINAL INSTRUMENTS, though modifications introduced in the course of their construction and operation made their operating sequence absurd.

https://www.historiography-project.com/ ... tz/447.php

By calling the "operating sequence absurd", Pressac agreed with what Fred Ziffel wrote above about the facility's nonsensical design. Contrary to what you wrote, Pressac believed those absurdities were introduced because of modifications made later, not because of its initial design.

As to what the crematoria were originally designed as, obviously only one theory can be true. If conversion theory is correct -- if KIV and KV were converted from mundane purposes, as you believe -- then how did Pressac get it wrong? And what were the gas chambers originally intended to be? And what would they turn into after, as you imagine, they would be converted a second time?

[Nessie]

Correct, Pressac wanted it both ways. He frequently wrote in contradiction to himself, but this didn't stop other historians from citing and parroting his opinions. You are highlighting an excellent example of how unserious Holocaust history is.

Pressac repeated this circus act again later in the book.

This “phanthom” document is not “conclusive” proof of the existence of homicidal gas chambers in Krematorium IV. but it helps us to understand and establish how they were planned, built and used.

Contrary to what I said in my article on “Les Krematorien IV et V de Birkenau” in “Le Monde Juif”, the three documents cited above [Photos 31, 32 and 33] together with Krermatorium drawings 1678 of 14th August 1942 and 2036 of 11th January 1943 enable us to state that KREMATORIEN IV AND V WERE DESIGNED AS CRIMINAL INSTRUMENTS, though modifications introduced in the course of their construction and operation made their operating sequence absurd.

https://www.historiography-project.com/ ... tz/447.php

By calling the "operating sequence absurd", Pressac agreed with what Fred Ziffel wrote above about the facility's nonsensical design. Contrary to what you wrote, Pressac believed those absurdities were introduced because of modifications made later, not because of its initial design.

As to what the crematoria were originally designed as, obviously only one theory can be true. If conversion theory is correct -- if KIV and KV were converted from mundane purposes, as you believe -- then how did Pressac get it wrong? And what were the gas chambers originally intended to be? And what would they turn into after, as you imagine, they would be converted a second time?

You misunderstand. The issue is that it is not known how much the original building desinger knew about its function. At a trial in Austria, one of the architects denied any knowledge of gassings, but he could have been lying. That means there are three alternatives. One, it was designed purely to be a crematorium, that later on, was modified for gassings. Two, it was designed to start off as a gas chamber with easy conversion to a crematorium. Three, it was designed purely for gassing and cremation operations and was not going to be later used just as a crematorium.

Different historians will look at the evidence and make different conclusions about which of the three is the most likely. That is what happens when evidence is unclear, much of it has been destoryed and those involved cannot be trusted to not be lying.

[Keen]

Different historians will look at the evidence and make different conclusions... That is what happens when evidence is unclear

Right. Like the utter lack of physical evidence at T II for example:

nessie, is it - True. - or - False. - that; Non-nefarious diggings for such things as garbage pits, cellars, wells, latrines, septic pits, etc. - were dug at Treblinka II - ??

nessie's answer: True.

Caroline Sturdy Colls:

Without intrusive activity, it is not possible to conclusively determine the nature of these pits.

nessie:

Geophysics scientifically and conclusively proves that there are pits and that they exist.

But it does not prove that those pits contain human remains.

I cannot physically show you mass graves.

Right, even though in the past you have blatantly and shamelessly lied about being able to do so.

And the utter lack of physical evidence leads sane individuals to the following logical conclusion:

If the physical evidence for an alleged crime that - HAS TO EXIST - for the crime to have

actually happened - DOES NOT EXIST - then the alleged crime obviously - DID NOT HAPPEN.

Ergo: The orthodox “pure extermination center” story is - A PROVEN, NONSENSICAL BIG-LIE.

The same logic holds true for Sobibor:

nessie:

When archaeologists excavated Sobibor, they found pits that contained no corpses.

But to be clear, they actually did find pits that did contain corpses.

Here is a photo of the pit they found that contained the most human remains:

[Nessie]

Bombsaway;

viewtopic.php?p=26384#p26384

only in the cartoon conspiracy world of revisionists do people reliably admit culpability for crimes they have not done.

It seems like the Soviets got a single German to admit culpability, but this was only temporary. He recanted his testimony while in Soviet captivity, saying he been forced to make false claims.

From the link;

...Düre recanting his false testimony was pretty typical and makes a mockery of the deniers' claims that the Nazis who confessed in a much more free environment of West Germany would have upheld their allegedly false testimonies until their deaths

[Keen]

nessie:

When archaeologists excavated Sobibor, they found pits that contained no corpses.

What do you call this:



???

[Keen]

Archie:

This is classic bombsaway... What I have noticed with bombs is that he will start some line of argument with some erroneous notion. A little ways in, he realizes it's wrong, but rather than just abandoning the argument he will always double-down but by modifying his argument and trying to save it, usually by added arbitrary qualifications, or making a tortured analogy/"evidence ratio" comparison with other historical events. With his Katyn argument, he was trying to argue that because the Soviets didn't forge documents or elicit false testimonies at Katyn that their Holocaust-related reports could not be false. But that was a false premise, so the argument just doesn't work... There are times when it is useful to cite historical examples or precedents in a historical argument. For instance, if your argument relies on a premise or principle, prior examples that demonstrate this principle can be used to support that premise. For example, if a revisionist is arguing that the Hoess confession is false, it may be useful to cite some examples establishing the phenomenon of false confession. Usually this is not a main argument...

If this so-called "debate" forum was actually run as a real debate forum, then we wouldn't have these senseless round and round and round we go arguments.

Real debate with real names would solve this nonsense.

But we all know how scared people are, on both sides, to do such a thing.

What a shame

[Nessie]

Callafangers;

viewtopic.php?p=26412#p26412

Exterminationists assuming the document's authenticity and genocidal implications, rather than proving them through critical assessment; then implying revisionists must refute that assumption

When claims like that are made, it would be better if examples are provided. Where is there a document, that it can be proved that all historians have assumed it is authentic and that none has researched when and where it was found, who found it, and what happened to it? Once a document has been verified and for example, submitted as evidence to be used in a trial, there is no need to continually re-verify it. Historians are entitled to assume it is verified.

A document that needs no assumption as to its genocidal implications is Report 51 from Himmler to Hitler, detailing the execution of enemies, including 363,211 Jews over 4 months in 1942.

https://holocausthistory.site/1942-12-2 ... ur-months/

A search asking AI, "where was report 51 from Himmler to Hitler originally found?" produced the answer "The original document surfaced among the vast troves of captured Nazi administrative and SS records seized by the Allied forces at the end of World War II. It was subsequently published in official U.S. government collections, such as Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals (Vol. XIII, pp. 269–272)"

A lot if known about the history of the document;

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... 63211.html

"Prützmann handed over the documents to Himmler, who signed the first page of the report with date and his initials (Figure 1). The statistical report was marked with "51." at the top, which indicated that the content was to be used for the 51st report on partisan actions to Adolf Hitler."

"Document 3 is the original final report personally signed by Himmler. It was typed on the so-called Führer typewriter with especially big letters so that he could read it also without his glasses. The report was shown to Hitler, as follows from the handwritten remark "submitted 31.12.42" by his adjutant, Hans Pfeiffer. He returned the document to Grothmann, who signed with his initials before it was put to the files."

Historians are entitled to make assumptions that Report 51 is authentic and it is about the genocide of the Jews by the Nazis during WWII.