Holocoaster of Auschwitz

[Archie]

Here is another early Soviet source that are more similar to Vrba-Wetzler and that mentions the trolley cars.

From the first account,

Under the guise of visiting a bath, the arrived people are being undressed, given soap and are directed to the "bath sections", where the doors are hermetically closed, after which ampoules with unknown liquid are being thrown in from above, which break and emit gas, and as a result of this after five-ten minutes [unclear word] suffocation happens.

After this the room is ventilated, the corpses are loaded into trolleys and are brought into the cremation ovens. Before the incineration the corpses are examined, golden teeth, crowns etc. are being pulled out.

At a distance of 200 meters from the cremation ovens an orchestra plays, to mute the shouts.

And from the second account,

Groups of doomed persons are brought in automobiles on the territory of crematorium, they're lined up in a column and an examination is performed - whether anyone has gold teeth or other valuables. Those found to have gold teeth or gold in other places, are directed to the "surgical rooms", where the gold teeth or other compounds are pulled out.

After the examination people go to a basement room - an undressing room, similar to an undressing room in a bath. Having undressed, they go into the next room - a bath, where there are taps and showers, but there never was any water. In this room there are 4 /four/ lattice-work columns, going through the roof of the building. After the "bath" is full of people /standing next to each other/, the doors are hermetically closed. Into the openings, which are on the top of the columns, some sort of powder-like substance is poured, which emits poisonous gas, and people begin to suffocate. Process of suffocation lasts for 10-15 minutes.

Then corpses are brought on special trolleys to the upper room and incinerated.

Interestingly, this one also mentions "Kula columns." This might be the earliest reference to that idea.

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... z-and.html

[Nessie]

It's less than 20 pages Nessie, read it.

In the Auschwitz Protocols, they are very clearly claiming, that in the Kremas at Auschwitz Birkenau, that we refer to as Kremas II and III.

That is where they are saying the tracks are.

That us what that 'floor plan' represents.

Then the Protocols made a mistake.

[Nessie]

It's less than 20 pages Nessie, read it.

In the Auschwitz Protocols, they are very clearly claiming, that in the Kremas at Auschwitz Birkenau, that we refer to as Kremas II and III.

That is where they are saying the tracks are.

That us what that 'floor plan' represents.

You know Nessie has lost this exchange badly when he has to fall back on his already debunked idea about it being the main camp crematorium. He's doing that thing bombsaway does where when a strong point has been made he just pretends not to understand it.

No, I am checking that claims being made here are correct. It is right that I do that, since there is so much lying, dishonesty, ignorance and misrepresentation by so-called revisionists. To give them some benefit of the doubt, that is most likely due to their lack of experience in investigations.

[Nessie]

Nessie.

Look at this diagram.



It says Kremas I and II in BIRKENAU. It's not talking about the Stammlager crematorium. The full text, which I linked for you and which you are too lazy to read, makes it even more clear.

The second hand reports (including the Soviet one you also link to) about the use of trollies on rails in Kremas II and III are wrong. Can you name and quote an eyewitness who worked inside Kremas II and III, who said that trollies on rails were used to transport corpses from the gas chambers to the ovens?

[Stubble]

Muller and the other sonderkommando off whose accounts the Auschwitz Protocols were based. Obviously.

[Nessie]

Muller and the other sonderkommando off whose accounts the Auschwitz Protocols were based. Obviously.

Muller stated;

https://archive.org/details/three-years ... up?q=rails

"Coming from the room where I had been undressing corpses into the cremation room, there were two ovens on the left and four on the right. A depression roughly 20 to 25 centimetres deep and 1 metre wide ran across the room and in this rails had been laid. This track was about 15 metres long. Leading off from the main track were six branch rails, each 4 metres long, going straight to the ovens. On the main track was a turn-table which enabled a truck to be moved onto the branch tracks. The cast-iron truck had a box-shaped superstructure made of sheet metal, with an overall height and width of just under 1 metre. It was about 80 centimetres long. An iron hand-rail went right across its entire width at the back. A loading platform made of strong sheet metal and not quite 2 metres long jutted out in the front; its side walls were 12 to 15 centimetres high. Open at the front, the platform was not quite as wide as the mouth of the oven so that it fitted easily into the muffle. On the platform there was also a boxshaped pusher made of sheet metal, higher than the side walls of the platform and rounded off at the top. It was about 50 centimetres deep, 30 to 40 centimetres high and could be moved back and forth quite easily. Before the truck was loaded, the pusher was moved to the back of the platform. To move the truck from one track to another one had to hold onto the turn-table to prevent the truck from jumping off the rails as it left the turn-table"

That is Krema I. His description matches the 1941 Topf & Sons plan.

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... 0151.shtml

He never mentions rails for any other Krema.

[Stubble]

Nessie, what year did Muller say that?

Are you saying that both he and Vrba lied about how the Auschwitz Protocols were minted before being distributed?

You are ignoring what was said at the time while pointing only at what was said over 30 years after the fact.

I find it amusing that you will read that but refuse to read a scant 17 pages.

[Nessie]

Nessie, what year did Muller say that?

The book was published in 1979.

Are you saying that both he and Vrba lied about how the Auschwitz Protocols were minted before being distributed?

What do you mean by "minted"?

You are ignoring what was said at the time while pointing only at what was said over 30 years after the fact.

I find it amusing that you will read that but refuse to read a scant 17 pages.

You hate being asked to link to and quote, when you make claims.

Mueller is describing Krema I, the Protocols describe Kremas II and III. Mueller is an eyewitness, the Protocols is a secondary report. Therefore, Mueller is more likely to be accurate.

[Stubble]

Minted; coined, developed, created, put together, compiled, pressed, published, written...

[Nessie]

Minted; coined, developed, created, put together, compiled, pressed, published, written...

I am not saying Vrba etc lied about the Protocols were "minted".

[Stubble]

If that's truly the case Nessie, then, you need to accept that Vrba used statements from Muller and other sonderkommando to develop his tracks and trollies bit in 'The Auschwitz Protocols', as outlined in those pages.

I don't know what else to tell you buddy.

Muller et al said it, confirmed it, and later reframed it, and now, people defend it by claiming that the report is 'obviously referencing Krema I'. It's not.

[Nessie]

If that's truly the case Nessie, then, you need to accept that Vrba used statements from Muller and other sonderkommando to develop his tracks and trollies bit in 'The Auschwitz Protocols', as outlined in those pages.

I don't know what else to tell you buddy.

Muller et al said it, confirmed it, and later reframed it, and now, people defend it by claiming that the report is 'obviously referencing Krema I'. It's not.

The Protocols say that the tracks and trollies were in Kremas II and III. The Protocol is wrong. The track and trollies were in Krema I.

The Protocols are a secondary source. Eyewitnesses and documents are primary sources. Primary sources are more likely to be accurate than secondary ones. I think that you think you are on to something significant here, but you're not. Anyone with investigatory training and experience knows about the hierarchy, accuracy and reliability of the different types and sources of evidence.

[Archie]

If that's truly the case Nessie, then, you need to accept that Vrba used statements from Muller and other sonderkommando to develop his tracks and trollies bit in 'The Auschwitz Protocols', as outlined in those pages.

I don't know what else to tell you buddy.

Muller et al said it, confirmed it, and later reframed it, and now, people defend it by claiming that the report is 'obviously referencing Krema I'. It's not.

The Protocols say that the tracks and trollies were in Kremas II and III. The Protocol is wrong. The track and trollies were in Krema I.

The Protocols are a secondary source. Eyewitnesses and documents are primary sources. Primary sources are more likely to be accurate than secondary ones. I think that you think you are on to something significant here, but you're not. Anyone with investigatory training and experience knows about the hierarchy, accuracy and reliability of the different types and sources of evidence.

Your source criticism is extremely simplistic. There are more considerations than eyewitness vs hearsay. And in history "hearsay" accounts are used all the time. As you go further back in time there often are no "primary" firsthand eyewitness sources in the sense you are insisting upon. Hearsay is often excluded IN COURT and the reason for that is because you can't cross-examine someone who isn't there. In history, you generally can't cross-examine the source anyway, so it is not as relevant. The general rule in history is simply that, on average and all else equal, a firsthand source is better than secondhand source which is in turn better than a thirdhand source etc. But again it's not the only consideration. Is a "firsthand" source from thirty years after the fact more reliable than a contemporaneous secondhand source? Perhaps not.

Much of the V-W report is purported to be primary. In the original report, it does not explain the sourcing. Vrba claims that he saw the gassings from the outside and that he personally counted many of the transports. He saw the smoke and flames from the chimneys and so on.

For the details inside the Kremas he said his source was the Sonderkommandos. That is only one degree removed from firsthand.

Can you explain how the story deteriorated so dramatically after only one degree of separation from the Sonderkommandos? The Sonderkommandos presumably gave him the accurate story, right? And then Vrba inexplicably came up with a track and trolley car? And a doctor in a lab coat handing out soap and towels? Come on, Nessie. Think it through.

The other problem with your analysis here is that you are failing to appreciate the historical importance of the V-W report. That report is the earliest and most comprehensive report on Auschwitz. It is the first report that is more or less (aside from certain blunders) recognizable as the current story. When you downplay the credibility and competence of Vrba (in order to deal with these huge blunders) you don't seem to realize that you are sawing off the branch you are sitting on. The question then because not just why there are such major blunders but also how they got the story so "correct," if the sourcing was as unreliable as you insist it was.

[Stubble]

Source is extremely specific in that the tracks and trolleys are in Kremas II and III.

[Archie]

Source is extremely specific in that the tracks and trolleys are in Kremas II and III.

The reality is that these stories are completely made up and the whole eyewitness vs hearsay distinction is of no importance whatsoever. It doesn't matter whether the story was made up by someone who personally worked in the Kremas or not.