The CODOH Revisionist Forum

PrudentRegret wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 6:10 am First of all, none of the witnesses actually describe what the operation would have looked like if it had actually happened. So there are 0 witnesses who attest to a realistic interpretation of the operation. You know this.

So really the number of reliable witness accounts is 0.

This is I think the crucial issue and the a priori conclusion that is driving your current speculations.

According to Danuta Czech, on December 10, 1942, a transport with 2,500 persons, from which 524 men were registered with the numbers 81,400 to 81,923, arrived in Auschwitz from the transit camp Małkinia. The remaining 1,976 are supposed to have been gassed. On December 12 of the same year, again according to Danuta Czech, a transport from the transit camp Małkinia also arrived in Auschwitz with 2,000 Polish Jews

PrudentRegret wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 3:06 pm

It's not a priori at all, it's clear I came to this conclusion by following a thread of the true nature of the Reinhardt operation, and realizing the existence and operation of "T-II" doesn't require it to either be an extermination camp or transit camp given its purpose in the economic use action which had other secret Jewish camps entirely dedicated to sorting confiscated property.

PrudentRegret wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 3:39 pm More documentary evidence of a transit camp at Malkinia, from Mattogno's work:

According to Danuta Czech, on December 10, 1942, a transport with 2,500 persons, from which 524 men were registered with the numbers 81,400 to 81,923, arrived in Auschwitz from the transit camp Małkinia. The remaining 1,976 are supposed to have been gassed. On December 12 of the same year, again according to Danuta Czech, a transport from the transit camp Małkinia also arrived in Auschwitz with 2,000 Polish Jews

Now, Mattogno interprets this as evidence that Jews were transited through the camp I've identified as a Jewish work camp at Treblinka. But instead this is evidence that the Malkinia Transit Camp was open at least as late as December 12, 1942 which would encompass its operation during the first wave of 300,000+ deportations from Warsaw and of course show that both the Treblinka Sorting Camp and Treblinka Transit Camp were operational in conjunction with each-other. And the first ever Treblinka perpetrator confessed to conducting confiscations of the property carried by deportees IN Malkinia.

PrudentRegret wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 3:39 pm More documentary evidence of a transit camp at Malkinia, from Mattogno's work:

According to Danuta Czech, on December 10, 1942, a transport with 2,500 persons, from which 524 men were registered with the numbers 81,400 to 81,923, arrived in Auschwitz from the transit camp Małkinia. The remaining 1,976 are supposed to have been gassed. On December 12 of the same year, again according to Danuta Czech, a transport from the transit camp Małkinia also arrived in Auschwitz with 2,000 Polish Jews

Now, Mattogno interprets this as evidence that Jews were transited through the camp I've identified as a Jewish work camp at Treblinka. But instead this is evidence that the Malkinia Transit Camp was open at least as late as December 12, 1942 which would encompass its operation during the first wave of 300,000+ deportations from Warsaw and of course show that both the Treblinka Sorting Camp and Treblinka Transit Camp were operational in conjunction with each-other. And the first ever Treblinka perpetrator confessed to conducting confiscations of the property carried by deportees IN Malkinia.

PrudentRegret wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 5:17 pm

PrudentRegret wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 3:39 pm More documentary evidence of a transit camp at Malkinia, from Mattogno's work:

According to Danuta Czech, on December 10, 1942, a transport with 2,500 persons, from which 524 men were registered with the numbers 81,400 to 81,923, arrived in Auschwitz from the transit camp Małkinia. The remaining 1,976 are supposed to have been gassed. On December 12 of the same year, again according to Danuta Czech, a transport from the transit camp Małkinia also arrived in Auschwitz with 2,000 Polish Jews

Now, Mattogno interprets this as evidence that Jews were transited through the camp I've identified as a Jewish work camp at Treblinka. But instead this is evidence that the Malkinia Transit Camp was open at least as late as December 12, 1942 which would encompass its operation during the first wave of 300,000+ deportations from Warsaw and of course show that both the Treblinka Sorting Camp and Treblinka Transit Camp were operational in conjunction with each-other. And the first ever Treblinka perpetrator confessed to conducting confiscations of the property carried by deportees IN Malkinia.

Bombsaway, do you think these transports transited to Auschwitz went through the Treblinka Extermination Camp? Or do you think they went through the Transit Camp Malkinia as indicated in the document?

You just keep pointing to witness testimony. Yes, I know that witness testimony is the only thing that holds the hypothesis together. Which is why it is very suspect in the first place.

Either the document is correct, or the document is wrong and it's another data point indicating confusion about Treblinka vs Malkinia.

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 6:29 pm 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.

• 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:
  
  

With reference to our phone conversation on 16.7.1942 I hereby transcribe the following report of our Gerneral Direction of Eastern Railways (Gedob) in Cracow for your information:

"Since 22.7. a train with 5 000 Jews goes daily from Warsaw via Malkinia to Treblinka. Furthermore there is a train with 5 000 Jews going from Przemysl to Belzec twice a week. Gedob is constantly in touch with the security service in Cracow, who agrees that the transports from Warsaw via Lublin to Sobibor (near Lublin) rest as long as the conversion works on this line make transports impossible (until October 1942)" The trains are agreed with the commander of the Security Police in the General Government. The Head of SS and Police for the Lublin district, SS-Brigadeführer Globocnik, has been informed.

Heil Hitler!
Your truly
signed Ganzenmüller36

bombsaway wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 8:32 pm This letter, if taken literally does not support your interpretation of them getting off in the vicinity of Malkinia..

Since in many documents relating to transports to Treblinka, Malkinia is noted as the destination station [well now, there’s a surprise], it would appear that at least one transport from Salonika, carrying 2,800 Jews, arrived at Treblinka.

PrudentRegret wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 9:37 pm

These trains could have bypassed Malkinia entirely, but they stopped along the way. What could the purpose of the stops possibly be? Why not go directly from Warsaw-Bialystok to Treblinka station?

Certainly, I'll delve deeper into the grammatical analysis of the key phrase from the Ganzenmuller letter:

The phrase in question is: "a train with 5000 Jews goes daily from Warsaw via Malkinia to Treblinka."

Let's break this down from a grammatical perspective:

1. Sentence Structure:
This is a simple declarative sentence with a subject ("a train with 5000 Jews"), a verb ("goes"), and adverbial modifiers ("daily", "from Warsaw", "via Malkinia", "to Treblinka").

2. Prepositional Phrases:
- "from Warsaw": origin
- "via Malkinia": intermediate point
- "to Treblinka": destination
These prepositions form a logical sequence of movement: from (starting point) -> via (passing through) -> to (end point).

3. Verb Tense and Aspect:
"Goes" is in the simple present tense, indicating a regular, habitual action. Combined with "daily," it implies an ongoing, scheduled operation.

4. Implications of "via":
The preposition "via" typically means "by way of" or "passing through." In travel contexts, it usually doesn't imply stopping or disembarking unless explicitly stated.

5. Principle of Completeness:
In formal communication, especially in administrative or military contexts, omitting significant details (like partial disembarkation) would be unusual. The principle of completeness in communication would suggest that if partial offloading was a regular feature, it would likely be mentioned.

6. Gricean Maxims:
Applying philosopher Paul Grice's conversational maxims, particularly the maxim of quantity (provide as much information as required, not more), the absence of information about stops or partial disembarkation suggests these weren't considered relevant or didn't occur.

7. End-weight principle:
In English, the most important information often comes at the end of a sentence. Here, "to Treblinka" is in the final position, emphasizing it as the primary destination.

8. Holistic meaning:
The sentence presents a complete journey. Breaking this semantic unit to suggest partial journeys for some passengers would be an unusual interpretation without additional context.

PrudentRegret's interpretation requires reading beyond what's explicitly stated, assuming unstated actions that would typically be included in such a formal communication if they were regular occurrences. While language can sometimes be ambiguous, in administrative contexts like this, precision is usually prioritized.

This grammatical analysis suggests that the most straightforward interpretation is that the train's intended destination for all its passengers was Treblinka, with Malkinia serving as a waypoint rather than a significant stop for disembarkation. However, it's important to note that historical interpretation often requires corroborating evidence beyond single documents or phrases.

The preposition "via" typically means "by way of" or "passing through." In travel contexts, it usually doesn't imply stopping or disembarking unless explicitly stated.

PrudentRegret wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 11:58 pm That's probably the funniest Believer argument I've seen, Bombsaway, truly scraping the bottom of the barrel and it reeks of desperation.

I'm not opposed to asking LLMs to weigh in on certain things as long as you are aware the model has been RLFH'd to have a Kosher view of the Holocaust narrative. But that's not what is happening here.

LLMs are only as good as the context you provided. You didn't share your prompt which is a low IQ way to present this as evidence, as the extent to which LLM response has value in analyzing our reasoning is highly coupled with the prompt you have given it.

I can infer from the output that you did not provide needed context to the LLM- that we know from documents that the trains to Treblinka stopped at various locations, including a location you have admitted had a Transit camp. For example:

The preposition "via" typically means "by way of" or "passing through." In travel contexts, it usually doesn't imply stopping or disembarking unless explicitly stated.

Of course the LLM is correct, and you have simply not provided it the context that we know it stopped there and there is no ambiguity on that point. The stopping is explicitly stated in the transport documents, you have merely obscured that context in your prompt.

If you provided the Fahrplanordnung Warsaw - Treblinka and asked it "can we say for certain that nobody disembarked from the train at this stop given the grammar of this single sentence from this single letter months before?" the LLM would probably respond something like- "of course it's possible people got off the train where the train stopped you fucking idiot."

It's fascinating to see such empirical validation of the weakness of the Believer method. "Analyze the grammar of this single sentence!" Not "look at all these documents, is it possible passengers got off at Malkinia where there is a Transit Camp?" You are exposing yourself my dude.

Can you comment on PR's reading of the Ganzenmuller letter?

I'll analyze PrudentRegret's (PR's) interpretation of the Ganzenmuller letter:
PR makes several key arguments about the Ganzenmuller letter:

He argues that the phrase "a train with 5000 Jews goes daily from Warsaw via Malkinia to Treblinka" doesn't necessarily mean all passengers reached Treblinka. PR suggests some may have disembarked at stops along the way, including Malkinia.
PR notes that Arad (presumably Yitzhak Arad, a Holocaust historian) mentioned that many transport documents listed Malkinia as the final destination for Treblinka-bound transports.
PR questions why the trains would stop at Malkinia if all passengers were destined for Treblinka, suggesting this supports his theory of Malkinia as a transit point.
PR argues that the train schedules (Fahrplanaordnung) don't list "T-II" or Treblinka extermination camp as a destination, which he sees as supporting his interpretation.

There are some issues with PR's reasoning:

While it's true that stating a train's destination doesn't guarantee all passengers arrived there, the letter's wording strongly implies the 5000 Jews were intended to reach Treblinka. PR's interpretation requires assuming unstated stops and disembarkations.
The mention of documents listing Malkinia as a destination is interesting, but without seeing those documents, it's hard to assess their context or meaning. They may have administrative or logistical explanations.
Trains often make stops for various reasons (refueling, crew changes, etc.) without necessarily offloading passengers. The stops alone don't prove PR's theory.
The absence of "T-II" on schedules isn't necessarily meaningful, as clandestine operations often use coded or alternate designations.

Overall, while PR raises some interesting points, his interpretation requires making several assumptions not directly supported by the letter's text. A more straightforward reading of the document seems to align with the conventional historical understanding of Treblinka's role. However, this is a complex historical topic that continues to be debated by scholars. CopyRetryN

Explain the #1 issue in much more depth, getting into grammar theory

EditCertainly, I'll delve deeper into the grammatical analysis of the key phrase from the Ganzenmuller letter:
The phrase in question is: "a train with 5000 Jews goes daily from Warsaw via Malkinia to Treblinka."
Let's break this down from a grammatical perspective:

Sentence Structure:
This is a simple declarative sentence with a subject ("a train with 5000 Jews"), a verb ("goes"), and adverbial modifiers ("daily", "from Warsaw", "via Malkinia", "to Treblinka").
Prepositional Phrases:

"from Warsaw": origin
"via Malkinia": intermediate point
"to Treblinka": destination
These prepositions form a logical sequence of movement: from (starting point) -> via (passing through) -> to (end point).


Verb Tense and Aspect:
"Goes" is in the simple present tense, indicating a regular, habitual action. Combined with "daily," it implies an ongoing, scheduled operation.
Implications of "via":
The preposition "via" typically means "by way of" or "passing through." In travel contexts, it usually doesn't imply stopping or disembarking unless explicitly stated.
Principle of Completeness:
In formal communication, especially in administrative or military contexts, omitting significant details (like partial disembarkation) would be unusual. The principle of completeness in communication would suggest that if partial offloading was a regular feature, it would likely be mentioned.
Gricean Maxims:
Applying philosopher Paul Grice's conversational maxims, particularly the maxim of quantity (provide as much information as required, not more), the absence of information about stops or partial disembarkation suggests these weren't considered relevant or didn't occur.
End-weight principle:
In English, the most important information often comes at the end of a sentence. Here, "to Treblinka" is in the final position, emphasizing it as the primary destination.
Holistic meaning:
The sentence presents a complete journey. Breaking this semantic unit to suggest partial journeys for some passengers would be an unusual interpretation without additional context.

PrudentRegret's interpretation requires reading beyond what's explicitly stated, assuming unstated actions that would typically be included in such a formal communication if they were regular occurrences. While language can sometimes be ambiguous, in administrative contexts like this, precision is usually prioritized.
This grammatical analysis suggests that the most straightforward interpretation is that the train's intended destination for all its passengers was Treblinka, with Malkinia serving as a waypoint rather than a significant stop for disembarkation. However, it's important to note that historical interpretation often requires corroborating evidence beyond single documents or phrases.