That is also not direct evidence for mass arrivals at the camp you are calling "Treblinka." You are inferring that when "Treblinka" is in these documents it is referring to the Sorting Camp operated by the SS-Bekleidungswerk Lublin. When I press you on this issue, you just point to documents that reference Treblinka, do you not see you are begging the question?
I have already pointed out the ambiguity as to exactly where this "extermination camp" was supposed to be, including in my previous post:
PrudentRegret wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 5:51 pm
Another early witness who accused Franz of breathtaking atrocities at
Treblinka was a Warsaw-born Jew turned Israeli citizen, Kalman Tajgmann.
Tajgmann lived with his family in the Warsaw Ghetto after its erection. As a
trained mechanic, he was employed at the Okecie airport in the repair service
of Daimler Benz’s airplane motor division. Along with 150 other Jews from
the Ghetto, he was driven in a Luftwaffe truck each day to his workplace. In
early September 1942, the SS encircled the factory grounds and the workers
were brought under guard to the assembly area (Umschlagplatz), where a large
crowd had already gathered. Sixty boxcars stood empty on a nearby rail spur.
Everyone in the assembly area was loaded into a boxcar, and the train traveled
to Malkinia, where the transport (comprising, according to Tajgmann, around
six thousand people, one hundred per boxcar) was divided into groups of three,
each of which was sent on to the Treblinka camp at staggered intervals. On
arrival at the ramp, Tajgmann and the other Jews in his boxcar were hectored
by the Ukrainian and German guards to an area where the women with chil-
dren were strong-armed into a barracks on the left while the men remained
behind. From this latter group, four hundred healthy, younger men (including
Tajgmann) were ordered to stand aside.
...
These and other Jewish survivors of Treblinka would be essential to con-
victing and punishing the former camp staff. Less helpful were former railroad
employees of the German Reichsbahn who had operated the trains shipping
Jews to their doom at Treblinka. In the preliminary investigation, former (and
in some cases current) railroad officials informed the examining magistrates
that they had accompanied the Jewish transports to the camp. Now, when
confronted by their earlier testimony, the witnesses claimed that they did not
travel the full distance to the death camp but accompanied the transports only
to the train station in Malkinia, the closest station to Treblinka. (A one-track
line connected Malkinia to the station square in Treblinka I.)89 The witnesses
blamed their memory lapses on the passage of time since the event but also ar-
gued that the examining magistrate had misunderstood them. The court pres-
ident Gottlebe exclaimed impatiently to the former Reichsbahn men, “Have
you coordinated your story?” They denied doing so. One of them, Hans Pitsch,
a retired Bundesbahn chief inspector, presented a medical report certifying his
disability.90
Reichsbahn officials testified originally that they brought the transports to "the camp." Then later they said they just brought the transports to Malkinia.
The Judge accuses them of changing their story, but I don't think they changed their story, they always meant facilities at the Malkinia Station and that was their notion of "the camp," just like many others described the Malkinia Train Station as the "fake" train station constructed at "the camp." Then later, courts were insisting "the camp" was this Sorting Camp several km from Malkinia and tried to apply their testimony to that camp, so the Reichsbahn officials said they didn't bring the transports there, but they were not changing their story or colluding.
So the Reichsbahn officials should be filed with Hirtreiter under very early witnesses attesting to Malkinia and then courts later on trying to interpret the testimony as pertaining to the Treblinka Sorting Camp 7 kilometers away.
The entire shunting operation is such a weak point in the story. It is obviously meant to pick up and drop these passengers off in the correct place since there are no documents putting them where they were supposed to be according to the extermination narrative. The Frpo is evidence against offloading at "T-II", in any case if you are saying that people got off a train at location X but X is several kilometers away from where the train is documented to have traveled then you have a claim that is very suspect.
You have cited the testimony of the station workers as "direct evidence" that the Treblinka Sorting Camp was the arrival point of ~700,000 people whereas their testimony is a textbook example of
circumstantial witness testimony. To give just one example:
Railway transports arrived at the Treblinka station from the direction of Siedlce and from Małkinia, but I think that more transports came from the direction of Małkinia. Each wagon usually consisted of more than 100 people, which I can remember because the number of people in each wagon was written on the wagons’ doors in chalk.
Pop quiz Bombsaway: Is this direct evidence? If not, why not?
Answer, it's not direct evidence because it's an example of
intervening inference. The witness has
inferred the number of people that were on each wagon based on the number written in chalk on the wagon. I think even you can explain why this is a dangerous inference.
Maybe that number was pertinent to the departure point- i.e. for the station at the origin to tabulate the number of Jews leaving a ghetto- to make sure deportation quotas were met and the ghetto population was trending as expected. And that number was never meant to be relevant to the workers unloading confiscated property at the Treblinka Sorting Camp.
Especially given we
know through actual direct evidence that these transports stopped at several stations and major junctions before appearing at the location of this witness, we should appreciate how circumstantial this testimony actually is in assuming that a number written in chalk was reflective of an underlying reality to the exact number of people in a specific wagon that was being sent to that camp.
Most likely that number- written in chalk by someone, somewhere, at some place, for some reason, was not representative of the number of people being sent on that spur and the witness has made a faulty inference. Many such cases in Holocaust Mythos.
That's not to entirely dismiss circumstantial evidence, circumstantial evidence is important and it's important to history. But stop calling things Direct Evidence which are no such thing!