A New Revisionist Interpretation of Operation Reinhardt

[bombsaway]

You instructed it to get into grammar theory, lmao, and then presented that as the thrust from the AI when it was just obeying your prompt. And you didn't provide the initial prompt here. Did you tell Claude that there's a tansit camp at the location where documents prove the trains stopped? Did you tell Claude that there's documents suggesting Polish workers were transited through this camp? Did you tell Claude about the anachronistic reports pertaining to deportations in the area during the time the Malkinia camp was open and "T-II" was not?

But the thrust of the LLM is going to be back towards supporting the Holocaust narrative, so the extent to which you relate this to Holocaust Denial the more it's going to be defensive of the mainstream narrative. That's what it is trained to do, and you can tell it's doing that by leaning on a "conventional historical narrative." It's not going to support a non-conventional narrative on this topic.

But the LLM isn't rationalizing your massive overreliance on a single sentence from a single letter in which the people involved were responsible for the trains and not the itineraries of the passengers. Not even a good try.

That was my first question "comment on PR". As I said, I just pasted the entire page into it so it knew what to comment on, which includes all the things I said it does.

[PrudentRegret]

The use of LLMs in Holocaust Denial is an interesting topic worthy of another thread. The problem is the model has been tuned to affirm the Holocaust, so asking it to evaluate a Holocaust Denial argument is invalid.

If I trained an LLM and then fine-tuned it by punishing it for generating tokens that constituted belief in the Holocaust and rewarded it for generating tokens that denied the Holocaust, you would obviously not accept the output of that LLM as being any sort of ground truth in analyzing arguments about the Holocaust.

I think there's still room to make use of them. For example, I used it recently to ask how far a fully-loaded train could travel from a dead stop in 7 minutes- which is the amount of time noted in the Fahrplanordnung between Malkinia and Treblinka. But I didn't ask it about Malkinia or Treblinka or something, I did a very generic prompt in order to specifically avoid the LLM interpreting the prompt to be in context of a topic that has obviously been tuned by RLFH. For example this was my prompt:

Let's say there's a fully loaded train at a dead stop at point A. A train schedule notes the departure of the train at time X and the arrival at point B 7 minutes latter. Given practical considerations of acceleration and deceleration of a train how far away could point B reasonably be from point A?

Assume it's a steam engine with 60 fully loaded wagons.

It gave the answer of approximately 3km for those curious, which if true would rule out that the destination "Treblinka" was actually code for the extermination camp in the Fahrplanordnung. The document denotes the station as the destination, not the Treblinka camps which are much further away than 3km from Malkinia.

I did not want the LLM to interpret this question as pertaining to the Holocaust. This is a case where I think it's very useful. Your case, where you are just presenting a Holocaust Denier argument and the LLM is taking the side of Holocaust Belief, is not any more impressive than it would be if I tuned an LLM to deny the Holocaust and it denied the Holocaust.

That's all I really care to say about this to avoid derailing the thread, if you are planning to use LLMs more in our discussions just know that the example I gave is one where I would give more weight to the output than "here's a Denier argument, what do you think"? because the LLM is going to do what it was trained to do.

[bombsaway]

Whereas your interpretation is that the train took about 7 minutes to travel 600 meters, gotcha

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/52.6964 ... FQAw%3D%3D

This is Treblinka via Malkinia

[PrudentRegret]

A train that stopped at the point you identify as the "Malkinia" stop could not have reached Treblinka station without first having transited through the Malkinia loop, which is about 2.5km long:



A train could not have done this 2.5km loop and then reached Treblinka station all in 7 minutes.

A train coming from the direction of Warsaw would have therefore needed to have taken the loop before the "Malkinia" stop, meaning the train would have been rolling to a stop in the precise area where there was a Transit Camp for Jews.

[bombsaway]

Within the orthodox narrative there would have been no absolute need for the train to stop at Malkinia for 20-25 minutes. So it could spend this time turning around and getting hooked up to a different locomotive that would take it to Treblinka. No loop necessary actually, the locomotive gets hooked to the back and it can go right down.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599- ... /figures/1

[PrudentRegret]

Sure, why not add another steam engine to the pile, that makes it 3 right? The engine that brought the train the Malkinia, the ghost "reverse" engine that brought the train to Treblinka station, and the ghost "shunting" engine that brought the gassed Jews to the Treblinka camps. It of course makes no sense to delay that long when the Malkinia loop could have taken the train directly to Treblinka without stopping at all in Malkinia.

When you need 3 separate steam engine configurations to explain your story you should take a pause. And then when it gets to Treblinka the steam engine gets reversed again right? Lol, make that 4 separate configurations.

[bombsaway]

Sure, why not add another steam engine to the pile, that makes it 3 right? The engine that brought the train the Malkinia, the ghost "reverse" engine that brought the train to Treblinka station, and the ghost "shunting" engine that brought the gassed Jews to the Treblinka camps. It of course makes no sense to delay that long when the Malkinia loop could have taken the train directly to Treblinka without stopping at all in Malkinia.

When you need 3 separate steam engine configurations to explain your story you should take a pause. And then when it gets to Treblinka the steam engine gets reversed again right? Lol, make that 4 separate configurations.

Nah 2, one to bring it to Malkinia, one from Makinia to Treblinka

"A transport usually consisted of 60 wagons; after it had arrived at the Treblinka railway station, it was divided into three parts, each with 20 wagons, which were gradually moved onto the ramp of the Treblinka extermination camp. This was done by a shunting steam engine, which came to the Treblinka railway station from Malkinia, specially for that purpose."

[PrudentRegret]

It's unclear in your comment. Are you saying this "shunting engine" brought the cars all the way to the Treblinka "Extermination Camp" from Malkinia? Or are you saying:

- The main engine brought the train to Malkinia
- The shunting engine brought 60 cars to Treblinka station
- Then the shunting engine brought 20 cars at a time to Treblinka Extermination Camp.

And that the Fahrplanaordnung noting the departure from Malkinia to Treblinka station was actually an entirely different engine- a shunting engine- which made it there in 7 minutes?

i.e. a shunting engine took 60 wagons to a station 4km away in 7 minutes?

[bombsaway]

- The main engine brought the train to Malkinia
- The shunting engine brought 60 cars to Treblinka station
- Then the shunting engine brought 20 cars at a time to Treblinka Extermination Camp.

Yes. Though Treblinka station seems much closer to Malkinia which brings the distance down closer to the AIs estimate of the distance a train could travel in 7 minutes. (judging by this map https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599- ... /figures/1)

Are you saying it took 7 minutes for the train to travel half a kilometer from Malkinia station to Camp Treblinka (in Malkinia, basically adjacent to the station)?

[Nessie]

Please explain why you think someone claiming to have taken property at the Malkinia camp, is evidence that TII (as in the camp built in 1942 on the spur to the TI labour camp and quarry) was a property sorting camp.

It is absolutely proven from every dimension of evidence: testimonial, documentary, archeological that this was a property sorting camp. The only question is, was it something else as well? Was it an extermination camp, or a transit camp? But literally nobody denies it was a sorting camp, that is proven.

The history is that it was a property seizure, rather than sorting camp. The property was then sent to Lublin for sorting.

Your suggestion that it was a property sorting camp, has to cherry-pick parts of the evidence, such as testimonies. When a witness speaks to seizing property and, as Krzepicki describes, pairing shoes and tying them together, are you believing him about that, but calling him a liar when he talks about gassings? When an archaeologist describes finding personal items buried at the camp, are you accepting of that evidence, but not the evidence of pits and buried cremated remains? You do know that cherry-picking is a logical fallacy?

Bombsaway's admission that there was a transit camp in Malkinia in operation during this time is very significant.

No, it is not. There is evidence that every town in Poland had a camp for Jews at some point. They were transit camps, as in they were set up to accommodate people after they had been rounded up and removed from their homes. Some were very temporary, others, like Malkinia lasted longer and were used as labour camps.

For one, the train schedules show the train stopping for some time at Malkinia. According to some documents Malkinia was itself the destination of the transports. So in the midst of this extermination hypothesis, you admit the train stopped at a transit camp BEFORE it went to "Treblinka."

To stop at the camp, would involve people disembarking and walking from the railway to the camp. The evidence is that transports to Treblinka were guarded, no one was allowed off and indeed anyone escaping was shot. The train timetables show the route, including stations the trains went through. That does not therefore mean people got off and went to the nearest camp.

Everybody knows a train going to a destination does not imply all passengers reach the destination.

The evidence from all the Jews on the transports, the Nazis that guarded them and Poles who saw the trains, is that no one got off. That evidence is inconvenient to you, so you ignore it and don't bother that you have no evidence of people disembarking. In this case, you cherry-pick evidence out.

The following system, attested to by Hirtreiter, would also fit with the known train schedules:

• The transport of settlers arrives at Malkinia transit camp, with likely some passengers disembarking at other locations where the train is documented to have stopped along the way.
• Settlers are ordered to turn in valuables and leave clothing on the train
• The train goes to Treblinka where an industrial spur shunts the cars full of confiscated property to the sorting camp. OR, it's an entirely separate train that goes to the sorting camp and the whole "shunting" operation was a misinterpretation of what was an entirely different train (this is my opinion, there's no way the rail in that image was used to transport standard gauge rolling stock).
• The train to Treblinka work camps would be busy with commuters, laborers, camp supplies, gravel, mining equipment, confiscated personal property, etc.
• Various features of the Malkinia Transit Camp were later translated to the Treblinka sorting camp, like the big beautiful train platform that looked like a real train platform, most likely describing the real Malkinia transit camp, whereas the images captured by the Soviets of "T-II" show no trace of such a thing:

You suggest that Hirtreiter is a witness who backs up your claims, but you fail to link to or quote him. Your suggested operation, is contrary to much of the evidence, including Hirtreiter, who was convicted by a court in Germany for working at TII and his role in gassings.

They way you blatantly cherry-pick parts of testimony, archaeology and other evidence, is only accepted by other revisionists here. It would not be accepted in any academic or court circumstance.

[Nessie]

A train that stopped at the point you identify as the "Malkinia" stop could not have reached Treblinka station without first having transited through the Malkinia loop, which is about 2.5km long:



A train could not have done this 2.5km loop and then reached Treblinka station all in 7 minutes.

A train coming from the direction of Warsaw would have therefore needed to have taken the loop before the "Malkinia" stop, meaning the train would have been rolling to a stop in the precise area where there was a Transit Camp for Jews.

You say precise, but at the places referred to on the ghetto transport timetables, the trains do not stop at the camp, they stop at the station, where they would then have to walk or be transported to the camp. Not only is there no evidence of that happening on the ghetto transports, the evidence is that Jews were prevented from leaving the trains when they stopped at places such as Malkinia. People were left inside the carriages, with many dying.

The AR camps were different, as they had stations inside the camp. People did stop precisely at the camp. That is why there are witness reports of transports waiting, often for many hours at Malkinia and the Treblinka station, as the carriages were split, since the camp stations could only take a few at a time.

[PrudentRegret]

You say precise, but at the places referred to on the ghetto transport timetables, the trains do not stop at the camp, they stop at the station

I say "precise" because even though there is uncertainty about the exact location of the transit camp, we know the train was coming to a stop at the exact loop which would have encompassed the transit camp. Bombsaway now deciding that the Main engine didn't bring the train to Treblinka Station is his attempt to avoid the fact that the train would have been slowing down and stopping in the exact area of Malkinia that contained the transit camp.

Now, where exactly the transit camp was within the "Malkinia loop" is still undetermined. When I saw that Yad Vashem photo I noticed a lot of disturbed ground at the eastern part of the loop and suggested that could have been the dismantled transit camp. But looking closer at other ariel photographs from 1944 in the archives I saw that there appeared to be military fortifications or something in this area and there was not a strong indication of a dismantled transit camp (not necessarily that there would be, given it's entirely possible the camp was dismantled and replaced with military fortifications by 1944):



Notice that Bombsaway has proposed no location where the Transit Camp could have been even though he acknowledges there was an operational transit camp in Malkinia.

It's entirely possible that the transit camp was at the north-western part of the "Malkinia Loop" close underneath the trains you can see stationed at the top left of the image. That would place it along Nurska street and south of Warsaw-Bialystok according to accounts and the first Treblinka map. If the facilities were in or around that part of the Malkinia Loop, the transit camp would absolutely be accessible to passengers stopped at Malkinia.

So unless someone can geolocate the Malkinia Transit Camp and put it far from the Malkinia platform, it is highly notable that these trains came to a stop along this exact loop, which increases the range of possibilities for where the camp could have been.

Nessie, where do you think Malkinia Transit camp was? Bombsaway where do you think it was? Don't you think it's reasonable that the Malkinia Transit Camp would have been accessible to passengers stopped at Malkinia?

[PrudentRegret]

And to clarify the above, I certainly maintain it's possible that there could have been an entirely separate Platform for the Malkinia Transit Camp, and the platform would have been directed by the station master. Note that the big beautiful platform described by witnesses did not exist at "T-II", or at least there's no trace of it from the ground photos taken by the Soviets. Train stations, especially at a major junction like Malkinia, can and do have multiple platforms and the Fahrplanaordnung AFAIK does not specify the platform, possibly because it would have been sensitive information.

But assuming the Malkinia Transit Camp had a dedicated platform, it would have been part of the Malkinia station and a stop referenced at "Malkinia" would definitely not rule out that platform at the station, which would have existed somewhere along this loop precisely where the train is coming to a stop.

The Fahrplanaordnung specifies a "Sonderzug mit Umsiedlern" (Special Train with Settlers) so the station master would have directed the train to the platform of the Malkinia Transit Camp, whichever platform would have been accessible to the transit camp.

[Nessie]

You say precise, but at the places referred to on the ghetto transport timetables, the trains do not stop at the camp, they stop at the station

I say "precise" because even though there is uncertainty about the exact location of the transit camp, we know the train was coming to a stop at the exact loop which would have encompassed the transit camp.

You posted an aerial photo that clearly locates the camp away from the railway loop here;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=147#p147



To get to the camp means walking or being otherwise taken about half a mile along a road. You do not want that to be the camp, because it does not fit with your desired belief.

https://www-tenhumbergreinhard-de.trans ... r_sch=http

"The rural municipality of Malkinia Gorna has about 12,000 inhabitants; the municipality includes the villages of Malkinia Dolna, Malkinia Mala-Przewoz and Treblinka. The camp was located near the train station in the village of Małkinia along the road to Ostroleka."

That is the road the Malkinia camp indicated on the aerial photo is on.

Don't you think it's reasonable that the Malkinia Transit Camp would have been accessible to passengers stopped at Malkinia?

No, since the majority of towns had a camp to accommodate Jews, who would then be taken to be transported to ghettos, labour or to the AR camps. They were transit camps, in that they were used for the local population, as the first stage in the rounding up and imprisonment. Those smaller camps then closed down, as the local population moved on. Malkinia camp was used as a labour camp until it was closed in July 1944.

[PrudentRegret]

Nessie I don't think you've been reading carefully. I posted that image to show where JOHN BALL identified the transit camp, and I was proposing a DIFFERENT LOCATION within the Malkinia loop. I also posted it to give readers a sense for the situation of various points of interest (Malkinia, Treblinka Station, Treblinka Quarry, etc.)

Note that over on RODOH we were inferring this Malkinia loop was the location of the transit camp even before we learned about sources attesting to a transit camp in this area.

Where was "Malkinia Transit camp"?

Note that the camp John Ball identified is not on the Eastern part of town along Nurska street, which is where the transit camp was identified. It's also not by a rail which would be an odd choice for a transit camp. Nick Terry also identified it as a garrison/training camp for a foreign legion in the past.