Operation Reinhardt staff and the T4 connection

[Stubble]

Then this right here distinguished Franz as a good leader in the eyes of Wirth, who was very familiar with him through their shared work, and recommended him for a deputy commandant position at Treblinka. What strikes as you suspect about this?

Correct. I see nothing suspect with this.

I appreciate that you have a point of view but I don't understand what it is completely. So you think historians know that Weirnik was lying and go with it anyway because they are interested in vilifying Germans?

Hilburg, for example, must have read Weirnik before citing him as a source. If he didn't understand that there are lies in the pages of one year in treblinka, I'd be shocked, and yet, he went with that source anyway. Repeatedly. Of course there are plenty of other historian that cite him. I get that the volume of testimony for treblinka is rather slim. At the same time, I cannot understand quoting such a contaminated source in an unironic way and free from caveat.

I'm not trying to muddy the waters. Do you think I'm being dishonest? Do you think Holocaust affirmers like myself have a high degree of confidence about our positions? There's no need to use dishonest tactics if you think you're overwhelmingly correct.

I am unsure if your repeating of the same question in a slightly different way is dishonest or not, and I'm trying to presume good faith, I assure you.

If you are here, discussing the shoah, I would assume that you either have a high level of certainty or are examining your stance. You personally seem to be fairly certain.

If you go back through this thread, you have asked me to do what I did in the first post 2 separate times now with slightly different wording. I'm going to assume inattentiveness and not dishonesty. The end result is obfuscation regardless.

[bombsaway]

Correct. I see nothing suspect with this.

This works for the orthodox narrative which is what I'm saying.

Hilburg, for example, must have read Weirnik before citing him as a source. I

What Hilberg quotes by Wiernik isn't clearly a lie

To rush the procedure, the
women at Treblinka were told that the water in the showers was cooling
down.65 The victims would then be forced to walk or run naked though
the ‘‘hose’’ with their hands raised.66

Arad cites him much more. https://oceanofpdf.com/authors/yitzhak- ... -download/

Why don't you quote what you see as clearly being lies, do it in a separate thread. I think this is an issue you're having that you see as being very clear, and I don't.

I am unsure if your repeating of the same question in a slightly different way is dishonest or not, and I'm trying to presume good faith, I assure you.

What's my question, just for clarification purposes?

[Stubble]

Perhaps challenge is a better term.

'Go through them one by one and show me what's misframed' basically.

Again, addressed in post #1.

Did I go over every man involved, no, did I cite enough for illustrative purposes? In my opinion, yes. Feel free to look at more. They are cartoons.

/shrug

Didn't I say 'I'd look at Arrad over Hilburg' earlier? I'm well aware.

Hilburg and Arrad's books are incestuous anyway, but that's not really the point, is it. What is presented is a sanitized and somewhat unified version of events, with things like steam chambers and electric floors being ignored, things that are said and 'approved' cited selectively and a coherent narrative formed and presented.

In my opinion, this is a disservice. It is important to describe the history of the event. The propaganda is important to consider in the historiography. The work of the judge in Poland to exclude all but exhaust testimony, for example, should be honestly presented. The list goes on. I understand why this is not done. I do not excuse it.

[Nessie]

.....

Hilburg, for example, must have read Weirnik before citing him as a source. If he didn't understand that there are lies in the pages of one year in treblinka, I'd be shocked, and yet, he went with that source anyway. Repeatedly. Of course there are plenty of other historian that cite him. I get that the volume of testimony for treblinka is rather slim. At the same time, I cannot understand quoting such a contaminated source in an unironic way and free from caveat.

...

Wiernik is corroborated, so his truthfulness about the general operation of TII, is proven. You cannot prove he lied about details, rather than he did what many witnesses do, and mis-remember, exaggerate, use emotive language and figures of speech and mix hearsay with what he saw.

Revisionist lack of training in, experience with and understanding of witness memory, behaviour and recall, is why they make so many errors of interpretation.

[bombsaway]

Perhaps challenge is a better term.

'Go through them one by one and show me what's misframed' basically.

Again, addressed in post #1.

Did I go over every man involved, no, did I cite enough for illustrative purposes? In my opinion, yes. Feel free to look at more. They are cartoons.

So did the witnesses, or the historians misframe? Who created the cartoons? If the historians are citing witness testimony that are clearly lies, even that's not misframing. This is where I lose you.

[Stubble]

Perhaps challenge is a better term.

'Go through them one by one and show me what's misframed' basically.

Again, addressed in post #1.

Did I go over every man involved, no, did I cite enough for illustrative purposes? In my opinion, yes. Feel free to look at more. They are cartoons.

So did the witnesses, or the historians misframe? Who created the cartoons? If the historians are citing witness testimony that are clearly lies, even that's not misframing. This is where I lose you.

Origin, witnesses, perpetuation, 'historians'.

In their defense, an honest witness appears to be a rare bird.

[Numar Patru]

Perhaps challenge is a better term.

'Go through them one by one and show me what's misframed' basically.

Again, addressed in post #1.

Did I go over every man involved, no, did I cite enough for illustrative purposes? In my opinion, yes. Feel free to look at more. They are cartoons.

So did the witnesses, or the historians misframe? Who created the cartoons? If the historians are citing witness testimony that are clearly lies, even that's not misframing. This is where I lose you.

Origin, witnesses, perpetuation, 'historians'.

In their defense, an honest witness appears to be a rare bird.

You’d be surprised

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-09755-001

[bombsaway]

So did the witnesses, or the historians misframe? Who created the cartoons? If the historians are citing witness testimony that are clearly lies, even that's not misframing. This is where I lose you.

Origin, witnesses, perpetuation, 'historians'.

In their defense, an honest witness appears to be a rare bird.

You’d be surprised

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-09755-001

I think is Stubble is talking about the descriptions of brutal acts perpetuated by guards at these camps.

This goes back to witness statements which he wants historians to automatically discount. Why? I don't know exactly, it's possible for people to commit brutal acts. The documentary evidence supports these acts, the eavesdropped conversations by the British as well. We know that a certain percentage (maybe 8%) of people have strong sadistic tendencies. This isn't a cartoon, I would say a narrow mindedness on the part of revisionists not comprehend that many of these things are possible, that testimonies shouldn't automatically be dismissed. I think this idea of Jews faking their own genocide is cartoonishly evil, but if there was evidence of it I don't think I would automatically dismiss.

[Stubble]

How many survivors from treblinka described being run up 'the tube' naked being beaten by guards and bitten by dogs? How many?

What, they were out of fuel that day? FFS...

This list could go on almost ad infinitum.

Look, I know the people that testified didn't like the guy that ran the agricultural detail, that is no reason to lie and say he shot thousands of jews and shoved them into a 50 foot flaming pit. Furthermore, is it even asserted by the orthodoxy that the lazeret existed and was used in such a way?

That's just one guy and one example.

How about dj poop master fresh, the poop master of treblinka? Did this goblin in fact 'exist'?

These are fables.

[bombsaway]

How many survivors from treblinka described being run up 'the tube' naked being beaten by guards and bitten by dogs? How many?

What, they were out of fuel that day? FFS...

This list could go on almost ad infinitum.

Look, I know the people that testified didn't like the guy that ran the agricultural detail, that is no reason to lie and say he shot thousands of jews and shoved them into a 50 foot flaming pit. Furthermore, is it even asserted by the orthodoxy that the lazeret existed and was used in such a way?

That's just one guy and one example.

How about dj poop master fresh, the poop master of treblinka? Did this goblin in fact 'exist'?

These are fables.

I agree with this (in bold).

I don't know about any "poop master". Post the testimony, and I still don't know what this has to do with the T4 connection. This just sounds like the usual revisionist criticism about liewitnesses.

[Stubble]

It's in one year in treblinka. There are also some bronze statues here and there. The shitter master.

[bombsaway]

It's in one year in treblinka. There are also some bronze statues here and there. The shitter master.

I'm not going do your research for you and pull a quote, until you do that , statements like 'they are clearly lying because of such and such' are meaningless to me, I can't just take your word for it, don't have context etc etc

But I know scheize commando is something that comes up in many camps, not just with Jews but other groups. I never viewed it as automatically lying. For example

https://www.70voices.org.uk/content/day33

All of this seems very unconvincing to me, plus lazy (because you're not pulling quotes or testimony), so I'm not inclined to follow you down this path any further.

[Stubble]

I'm not asking you to do my leg work, I had assumed this was 'common knowledge' and didn't consider 40 pages a burden regardless.

Another such poor wretch was the so-called "Scheissmeister" [shitmaster]. He was dressed like a cantor and even had to grow a goatee. He wore a large alarm clock on a string around his neck. No one was permitted to remain in the latrine longer than three minutes, and it was his duty to time everyone who used it. The name of this poor wretch was Julian. He also came from Czestochowa, where he had been the owner of a metal products factory. just to look at him was enough to make one burst 

Chapter 12, paragraph 4

https://www.zchor.org/wiernik.htm

For the record, I have had literal encyclopedea thrown at me before here. Multi volume.

[bombsaway]

I'm not asking you to do my leg work, I had assumed this was 'common knowledge' and didn't consider 40 pages a burden regardless.

Another such poor wretch was the so-called "Scheissmeister" [shitmaster]. He was dressed like a cantor and even had to grow a goatee. He wore a large alarm clock on a string around his neck. No one was permitted to remain in the latrine longer than three minutes, and it was his duty to time everyone who used it. The name of this poor wretch was Julian. He also came from Czestochowa, where he had been the owner of a metal products factory. just to look at him was enough to make one burst 

Chapter 12, paragraph 4

https://www.zchor.org/wiernik.htm

For the record, I have had literal encyclopedea thrown at me before here. Multi volume.

And why are you so certain this is a lie? If it's something that's just self evident this a great divide between us. It could be a lie, literally any witness statement could be a lie, but you are assigning high certainty that it is, which I don't understand.

[Archie]

.....

Hilburg, for example, must have read Weirnik before citing him as a source. If he didn't understand that there are lies in the pages of one year in treblinka, I'd be shocked, and yet, he went with that source anyway. Repeatedly. Of course there are plenty of other historian that cite him. I get that the volume of testimony for treblinka is rather slim. At the same time, I cannot understand quoting such a contaminated source in an unironic way and free from caveat.

...

Wiernik is corroborated, so his truthfulness about the general operation of TII, is proven. You cannot prove he lied about details, rather than he did what many witnesses do, and mis-remember, exaggerate, use emotive language and figures of speech and mix hearsay with what he saw.

Revisionist lack of training in, experience with and understanding of witness memory, behaviour and recall, is why they make so many errors of interpretation.

If he
-misremembers
-exaggerates
-uses emotive language (lol, that's one way to put it)
-figures of speech (lol again)
-and mixes in hearsay (without telling us)

that's still a problem.

Even with these concessions, that would still raise major questions about his reliability. And there's no reason we have to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume complete honesty. The line between "exaggeration" + "emotive language" + "mixing in hearsay" and "lying" is a pretty fine one.

Also, from the revisionist perspective, it makes no difference if Wiernik is deliberately lying, is delusional, is extrapolating, or is engaging in pious fraud. It makes little difference. What matters is whether we can accept his narrative as reliable or not.

That you would use such a source as Wiernik which reads like a bad penny dreadful to prove that nearly a million people were killed at Treblinka is absolutely hilarious to me.