Contemporaneous WW2 Intelligence and Diplomatic Reports

[Archie]

2 - I have never claimed electric floors and steam chambers are anything other than inaccurate rumours and hearsay. I have to constantly remind so-called revisionists, that they should only use those witnesses who saw the gas chambers in operation, preferably from the inside. The claims about electricity and steam, were not made by eyewitnesses. Wetzelrad is yet another who does not understand the basic difference between hearsay and eyewitness evidence and how to assess which is which. Wetzelrad also fails to notice, like all so-called revisonists, that all the deaths, whether believed to be by electricity, steam or gas, took place inside an enclosed space, within the camp. That part of the evidence is consistent. So-called revisionists only look for the differences, not the evidence in its entirety, so their supposed analysis is incomplete.

You know damn well that everyone with account on this website knows what hearsay is.

The disagreement between us and you is that you use "hearsay!" as an excuse to avoid having to confront a huge volume of embarrassing and highly discrediting material.

Your explanation, that these ridiculous stories are explained by hearsay, does not hold water when we read the text of these accounts carefully.

Here is one snippet from the Nov 1942 Treblinka report.

The people finally realize that they are going to their death. At the entrance of death-house No.1 the chief himself stands, a whip in his hand; beating them in cold blood, he drives the women into the chambers. The floors of the chambers are slippery. The victims slip and fall, and they cannot get up for new numbers of forcibly driven victims fall upon them. The chief throws small children into the chambers over the heads of the women. When the execution chambers are filled the doors are hermetically closed and the slow suffocation of living people begins, brought about by the steam issuing from the numerous vents in the pipes. At the beginning, stifled cries penetrate to the outside; gradually they quiet down and 15 minutes later the execution is complete.

Now comes the turn of the grave diggers. Shouting and cursing, the German overseers drive the diggers to their work, which consists of getting the bodies out of the execution chambers. The grave-diggers stand at the scoop, near the valves. The valves open but not a body falls out. Due to the steam all the bodies have become a homogenous mass stuck together with the perspiration of the victims. In their death agonies, arms, legs, trunks are intertwined into a gigantic macabre entanglement. To make it possible for the grave-diggers to get out single bodies, cold water from the near-by well is poured over the mass. Then the bodies separate and may be taken out.

Can you explain precisely what scenario that you are envisioning that would account for the text of this report, both the "correct" and incorrect details?

In particular: given that the report contains considerable accurate information about Treblinka, it must be the case that it relies to a considerable extent on real sources. Compared to the current official story, it "accurately" describes the timelines of the construction of the old and new gas chambers as well as the distinctive layout of the new gas chamber building. But if there were real sources who saw the chambers well enough to describe the interior layout, to describe what the steaming was like from inside the chamber, and how the bodies were removed, etc., how then do we square such details with the major blunders? How is it possible to have this exact mix of true and false information in the same highly detailed account? Did someone see these chambers or not? If they did, then how the hell did they come up with steam chambers? If the didn't, then how they hell did they get the layout correct?

I already know what you are going to say here. You will say steam is a type of gas and they merely described the exhaust as steam. But this explanation fails when we read the full text. For example,

Inside the steam-room there is a large vat which produces the steam. The hot steam comes in to the chambers through pipes installed there, each having a prescribed number of vents. While this machinery of death is in action, the doors and valves are hermetically closed. The floor in the chambers has a terra-cotta inlay which becomes very slippery when water is poured over it. There is a well next to the steam-room, the only well in the whole area of Treblinka B. Not far from the death-house, south of the barbed-wire and wooden fences, there is a grave-diggers’ camp. The grave-diggers live in barracks (19) next to which are the kitchen buildings. On both sides of the camp there are two guard-houses (17-20). The remaining area of Treblinka B is destined for the murdered victims.

I could perhaps entertain the idea of someone calling exhaust "steam," but is it reasonable for a person of sane mind to see a diesel engine and describe it as a "steam-room" with a "large vat"? While in the same report describing a different diesel engine at the camp? It says this engine was very loud and the rattle of this engine was a "characteristic" feature of life in the camp, i.e., highly memorable. How then are we to take seriously the idea that there was a second diesel engine right next to the gas chamber which was mistaken for a vat/steam room? This makes no sense at all.

[Nessie]

2 - I have never claimed electric floors and steam chambers are anything other than inaccurate rumours and hearsay. I have to constantly remind so-called revisionists, that they should only use those witnesses who saw the gas chambers in operation, preferably from the inside. The claims about electricity and steam, were not made by eyewitnesses. Wetzelrad is yet another who does not understand the basic difference between hearsay and eyewitness evidence and how to assess which is which. Wetzelrad also fails to notice, like all so-called revisonists, that all the deaths, whether believed to be by electricity, steam or gas, took place inside an enclosed space, within the camp. That part of the evidence is consistent. So-called revisionists only look for the differences, not the evidence in its entirety, so their supposed analysis is incomplete.

You know damn well that everyone with account on this website knows what hearsay is.

Then what is their excuse for constantly mixing it up with eyewitness evidence, as if it is the same thing?

The disagreement between us and you is that you use "hearsay!" as an excuse to avoid having to confront a huge volume of embarrassing and highly discrediting material.

No, I do what the courts, historians and journalists do, I prioritise eyewitness evidence over hearsay and differentiate between the two. You, uniquely, mix and match, as if it is the same thing.

Your explanation, that these ridiculous stories are explained by hearsay, does not hold water when we read the text of these accounts carefully.

Here is one snippet from the Nov 1942 Treblinka report.

The people finally realize that they are going to their death. At the entrance of death-house No.1 the chief himself stands, a whip in his hand; beating them in cold blood, he drives the women into the chambers. The floors of the chambers are slippery. The victims slip and fall, and they cannot get up for new numbers of forcibly driven victims fall upon them. The chief throws small children into the chambers over the heads of the women. When the execution chambers are filled the doors are hermetically closed and the slow suffocation of living people begins, brought about by the steam issuing from the numerous vents in the pipes. At the beginning, stifled cries penetrate to the outside; gradually they quiet down and 15 minutes later the execution is complete.

Now comes the turn of the grave diggers. Shouting and cursing, the German overseers drive the diggers to their work, which consists of getting the bodies out of the execution chambers. The grave-diggers stand at the scoop, near the valves. The valves open but not a body falls out. Due to the steam all the bodies have become a homogenous mass stuck together with the perspiration of the victims. In their death agonies, arms, legs, trunks are intertwined into a gigantic macabre entanglement. To make it possible for the grave-diggers to get out single bodies, cold water from the near-by well is poured over the mass. Then the bodies separate and may be taken out.

Can you explain precisely what scenario that you are envisioning that would account for the text of this report, both the "correct" and incorrect details?

The person who wrote the report, was given both correct and incorrect details and they have not identified what is accurate and what is not. That is to be expected, from a 1942 report, when there was, as yet, no eyewitness evidence.

In particular: given that the report contains considerable accurate information about Treblinka, it must be the case that it relies to a considerable extent on real sources. Compared to the current official story, it "accurately" describes the timelines of the construction of the old and new gas chambers as well as the distinctive layout of the new gas chamber building. But if there were real sources who saw the chambers well enough to describe the interior layout, to describe what the steaming was like from inside the chamber, and how the bodies were removed, etc., how then do we square such details with the major blunders? How is it possible to have this exact mix of true and false information in the same highly detailed account? Did someone see these chambers or not? If they did, then how the hell did they come up with steam chambers? If the didn't, then how they hell did they get the layout correct?

Anyone, who has even had to compile an intelligence report, from secondary sources, knows that it is going to be a mix of information, some more accurate than others. You are clearly unaware of that. There are witness descriptions of local people interacting with the camp guards. Poles were also used to help construct the camp. It is likely information has come from those sources. That the information about construction is accurate, is likely because it came from a witness to that construction. That the method of killing inside the chamber is wrong, is likely because, as of the report being written, there was no eyewitness to the actual killings.

I already know what you are going to say here. You will say steam is a type of gas and they merely described the exhaust as steam. But this explanation fails when we read the full text. For example,

Inside the steam-room there is a large vat which produces the steam. The hot steam comes in to the chambers through pipes installed there, each having a prescribed number of vents. While this machinery of death is in action, the doors and valves are hermetically closed. The floor in the chambers has a terra-cotta inlay which becomes very slippery when water is poured over it. There is a well next to the steam-room, the only well in the whole area of Treblinka B. Not far from the death-house, south of the barbed-wire and wooden fences, there is a grave-diggers’ camp. The grave-diggers live in barracks (19) next to which are the kitchen buildings. On both sides of the camp there are two guard-houses (17-20). The remaining area of Treblinka B is destined for the murdered victims.

I could perhaps entertain the idea of someone calling exhaust "steam," but is it reasonable for a person of sane mind to see a diesel engine and describe it as a "steam-room" with a "large vat"? While in the same report describing a different diesel engine at the camp? It says this engine was very loud and the rattle of this engine was a "characteristic" feature of life in the camp, i.e., highly memorable. How then are we to take seriously the idea that there was a second diesel engine right next to the gas chamber which was mistaken for a vat/steam room? This makes no sense at all.

Again, if you had relevant experience, it would make more sense to you. Plus, you do not want it to make sense, as that is what you base your disbelief on. It makes sense to criminal investigators, lawyers, journalists and the courts, because they know that hearsay and rumour is less accurate and mistakes are more than likely. If that information did come from someone who had some involvement in the construction work inside the camp, then they have speculated, based on what they saw, what the actual killing method was. Or, an SS guard gave them deliberately inaccurate information.

You hate it when I point out that you lack relevant training and expertise, but it is that lack, that causes you to make mistakes, and inaccurately assess both intelligence reports, and eyewitness evidence. If you learnt more about the subject, you would not make those mistakes.

You are also dodging that all the earlier reports are about deaths inside an enclosed space, but some get the actual means of killing wrong. It is once eyewitnesses to the killing process provide their evidence, that the actual method, using engine exhaust fumes, is accurately established. Even then, there is some disagreement over the type of engine used. You find that concerning, as if it is a problem. People who understand witnesses, far better than you, do not find it a problem. You should learn from them, in the same way you expect someone with no training, to learn from you, on a subject you know well.

[Wahrheitssucher]

Do most of you reject that the Nazis killed innocent Jews?

Wow! Y’ see. Mr. Hans Hill, do y’see??
This definitely IS a person with considerable comprehension issues.

After three whole months CJ still has no idea what is actually being disputed and why.

Of course innocent jews were killed! Of course!
E.g. Whole jewish communities were wiped out during operation Barbarossa as it was decided it would be impossible to discern who were jewish partisans, who was supporting them, who was sheltering them versus who was innocent and uninvolved. So yes whole communities were wiped out. Including the children as when they were left alive orphaned, they were constantly hanging around battalions begging for food and shelter. Which naturally was a pitiable sight and evoked sympathy so the resultant caring for children by troops interfered with their operations. Consequently it was decided it was actually more merciful to kill whole families together. (The alternative of leaving them cold, hungry, alone, frightened and suffering was deemed worse).
SUMMARY:
What dimwitted, self-centred, confused jews fail to understand is:
1.) contrary to what you are taught and believe it was NOT ONLY jewish civilians who were killed in their masses during WW2,
2.) and hard though it is for you to understand, during WW2 there was actually a bloody, horrendous war going on!! One with especially cruel treatment being meted out on the eastern front by all involved.

…It is too difficult to debate the details directly…

Oh really?
I suggest this admission is further proof this person is a low-iq time waster.

…all of the witness testimonies are completely thrown out based on irrelevant or small inconsistencies or inaccuracies.

That is NOT correct. So yet further proof we are dealing here with a simpleton. Someone who repeatedly argues with strawman misrepresentations.
I just posted some of the ACCURATE testimony of survivor-witness Viktor Frankl!
I have previously often referred to the accurate testimony of Corey Lubliner.
The first published ‘revisionist’ was camp survivor and ‘witness’ Paul Rassinier. Etc,, etc.
So OBVIOUSLY revisionists DO NOT “completely throw out all of the witness testimonies”.

CONCLUSION:
We definitely ARE dealing here with a dimwit who can’t read and comprehend simple points of an argument. Plus someone who (regrettably and unfortunately) erroneously thinks they are “obviously very intelligent”.

SUGGESTION TO THE MODERATORS:
I second Hans Hill’s previous suggestion that CJ not be allowed to lower the calibre of the CODOH discussion forum with further inane nonsense UNTIL they have read an actual beginner book.

There is an essay here explaining the various book, flyer and video options for getting familiar with the core principles.
Many of those have very generously been made accessible for free online at HolocaustHandbooks.com.
If CJ isn’t prepared to spend just a few days doing that then they perhaps shouldn’t be allowed to participate here.

What Is the Best Introduction into Revisionism?
By Germar Rudolf ∙ June 18, 2024 Last updated on June 29, 2025
“People have asked me repeatedly over the past twenty-five years or so what book or video I think is the best to recommend to a newcomer to Holocaust revisionism, or even to a person who has not yet opened their mind to the idea of questioning the orthodox Holocaust narrative…”
Read it here:
https://codoh.com/library/document/what ... visionism/

BOOKS FOR BEGINNERS

The Holocaust: an introduction. By Timothy Dalton. Only 136 pages.
https://armreg.co.uk/product/the-holoca ... -evidence/

Breaking the spell: The Holocaust, Myth & Reality. By Nicholas Kollerstrom. Only 286 pages.
https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/breaking-the-spell/

Debating the Holocaust —A New Look at Both Sides By Thomas Dalton. Only 346 pages.
https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/deb ... holocaust/

OR

Read a Leaflet or a Brochure
https://holocausthandbooks.com/

The Holocaust Controversy: The Case for Open Debate.
This letter-size flyer puts into a nutshell what Holocaust revisionism is all about.

Letter-Size Flyer HOLOCAUST REVISIONISM IN 10 MINUTES by Thomas Dalton, PhD.
This double-sided letter-size leaflet also gives the novice a brief introduction into what Holocaust Revisionism is. It has a different format (plain letter-size), writing style and contents than the above leaflet.

Holocaust Skepticism: 20 Questions and Answers about Holocaust Revisionism.
This stapled, full-colour brochure of 19 pages introduces the novice to the concept of Holocaust revisionism, and answers 20 tough questions, among them:
What does Holocaust revisionism claim?
Why should I take Holocaust revisionism more seriously than the claim that the earth is flat?
What about the pictures of corpse piles in the camps?
How about the testimonies by survivors and confessions by perpetrators?
What does it matter whether prisoners died from disease or poison gas?

The Holocaust: Facts versus Fiction.
This 36-page booklet gives a condensed overview of the latest research on the Holocaust with references to literature where you can find more on the subject. It also explains why the issue is important and why many governments brutally suppresses dissenting views. It contains lots of references to free e-books and videos, and it lists the entire book program of Armreg Ltd (at the time of going to press). You can download it right here .

[Archie]

[...]
The person who wrote the report, was given both correct and incorrect details and they have not identified what is accurate and what is not. That is to be expected, from a 1942 report, when there was, as yet, no eyewitness evidence.
[...]

A predictably terrible response. A complete dodge. Just saying that it's "a mix of correct and incorrect information" and that this "is normal" explains nothing whatsoever.

From the report,

According to the report of an eyewitness, the interior of the building is as follows; a corridor 3 meters wide runs through the middle; there are five chambers on each side; the height of each chamber is about 2 meters; the area is about 35 square meters. The execution chambers are with out windows, but they have doors opening on the corridor and a type of valve on the outside walls. Next to these valves there are large scoops (they remind one of large vessels). In the walls pipes were installed from which water-steam is supposed to pour into the chambers. This was to have been death-house No. 2.

The report itself attributes the description of the interior to an eyewitness. Additionally, the description matches the current story on some highly specific details, in particular the distinctive 5x2 arrangement of the chambers. There is no way that they could "know" the "correct" arrangement of the chambers unless they had some reliable sources for this information. Your claim that it isn't based on anyone who saw the interior of chambers is not consistent with what the report actually says. Your theory also fails to explain why the report relates highly detailed scenes with absolute confidence. Highly confident false details point to FABRICATION rather than typical deterioration in accuracy due to simple and honest retelling of stories. If the sources were uncertain and unreliable, then this should have been reflected with some degree of caution in the report. There is no caution because it is sensational propaganda.

Since you dodged the original points, let's try to take this in pieces. Let's just focus on the correct aspects of the report. How do you explain the correct information? What sort of sources must have been relied upon? Explain what you think they actually saw. Can we agree that your first attempted explanation, that "they only saw the gas chambers at a distance" is inadequate?

[Nessie]

[...]
The person who wrote the report, was given both correct and incorrect details and they have not identified what is accurate and what is not. That is to be expected, from a 1942 report, when there was, as yet, no eyewitness evidence.
[...]

A predictably terrible response. A complete dodge. Just saying that it's "a mix of correct and incorrect information" and that this "is normal" explains nothing whatsoever.

It explains everything, it is just you do not understand that, since you have never had to compile an intelligence report, or interview witnesses.

From the report,

According to the report of an eyewitness, the interior of the building is as follows; a corridor 3 meters wide runs through the middle; there are five chambers on each side; the height of each chamber is about 2 meters; the area is about 35 square meters. The execution chambers are with out windows, but they have doors opening on the corridor and a type of valve on the outside walls. Next to these valves there are large scoops (they remind one of large vessels). In the walls pipes were installed from which water-steam is supposed to pour into the chambers. This was to have been death-house No. 2.

The report itself attributes the description of the interior to an eyewitness.

It does not name that person, or say how they know what they know. I have already postulated it was a Polish worker, employed on camp construction, who could describe the building in part, without knowing the specifics of how it was going to work. He may have been told he was building a shower block, to hide the actual function. Or a guard claimed steam was used.

Additionally, the description matches the current story on some highly specific details, in particular the distinctive 5x2 arrangement of the chambers. There is no way that they could "know" the "correct" arrangement of the chambers unless they had some reliable sources for this information. Your claim that it isn't based on anyone who saw the interior of chambers is not consistent with what the report actually says.

I did not claim that. I even suggested a way that the source saw the building, but not the actual process. The problem is that report is likely wanting to protect its source, so we will never know the circumstances under which they operated.

Your theory also fails to explain why the report relates highly detailed scenes with absolute confidence. Highly confident false details point to FABRICATION rather than typical deterioration in accuracy due to simple and honest retelling of stories. If the sources were uncertain and unreliable, then this should have been reflected with some degree of caution in the report. There is no caution because it is sensational propaganda.

It would be best practice to grade the intelligence. The writer is confident in the details, but in some aspects wrong. It is easy to critique an intelligence report, especially when you have never written one. You just think up issues and assert they must be correct.

Since you dodged the original points, let's try to take this in pieces. Let's just focus on the correct aspects of the report. How do you explain the correct information?

The unknown source was correct about certain aspects of the gas chambers. Why that is, we will never know, because we do not know who the source was and how, or when, they got their information.

What sort of sources must have been relied upon?

In 1942, I think it is unlikely an escaped prisoner. It is more likely to a Pole employed for construction, or a local who had communicated with guards, in which case the report is wrong, in my opinion, to call them an eyewitness. There is an outside possibility it was a bribed SS guard, possibly one of the Ukrainians, who spun a lie into what he said. Local Poles traded with camp staff and the railway workers met guards. It could all be rumour, but the report exaggerates and suggests it was seen.

Explain what you think they actually saw.

I think they saw the gas chambers being constructed, but they were told it was a shower block. They knew, from rumours it was to be used to kill, so they presumed, from the pipes, and what the chambers looked like, that steam would be used.

Can we agree that your first attempted explanation, that "they only saw the gas chambers at a distance" is inadequate?

Can we agree I did not say that!

Quite frankly, you have programmed yourself to not be satisfied with any explanation.

[Keen]

People who understand witnesses, far better than you, do not find it a problem.

It has been proven that EVERY so-called "witness" to the fraudulently alleged "huge mass graves" of Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II was lying.

EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.

Only reality deniers like Nessie deny that proven fact.