Archie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 11:03 pm
Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 4:23 pm
The names are in the list (2.1 to 2.3), split between Sonderkommando, Nazi and Polish railworkers. Basically, those who worked inside the camp and on the railways going to or nearby.
Let's see.
Yankel Wiernik (!)
Abraham Bomba (!)
Eliahu Rosenberg (!)
Wiernik's pamphlet has been discussed to death. Bomba is the famous barber of Treblinka who claims the gas chamber doubled as a beauty salon (see Denier Bud's One Third of the Holocaust). Rosenberg was totally exposed during the Demjanjuk trial. I would recommend watching the documentary
The Devil Next Door which shows footage of that clown testifying in court. Not even the Israelis could go along with this guy's nonsense.
Unlike most of the Nazis put on trial for their work at the death camps, Demjanjuk denied being there. That allowed his defence to dispute Rosenberg's identification, a defence that worked. Why was Demjanjuk's defence not used by others? If Jews are running a hoax, why was Rosenberg allowed to give evidence?
Notice that Nessie will give you a LIST of names but he rarely quotes what the testimonies actually say.
That is not true, I have thousands of posts on various forums discussing testimony in detail.
(And indeed according to Nessie, the details are totally unimportant as long as they "corroborate" (hardly) the gassing story in some vague way).
Again, not true. Details are important. The issue is that revisionists used a unique to them, flawed method for assessing witness truthfulness, that fails to take into account the multiple studies of how witnesses recollect and relate the details.
Revisionists try to use the details as evidence of lying, when instead, it is normal witness behaviour and what they are claiming, is corroborated by other evidence.
Here are some samples from Wiernik's pamphlet.
Samples of what? Why are you being so vague? Let me assist you (the linked to source of "A Year in Treblinka" is a different translation to the one you use)
https://www.zchor.org/treblink/wiernik.htm
A German named Zopf was a vile and savage beast, who took special delight in abusing children. When he pushed women around and they begged him to desist because of the children, he frequently snatched a child out of a woman's arms and either tore it in half or grabbed it by the legs and smashed its head against a wall and threw the corpse away. Such incidents were by no means isolated and scenes as tragic as that occurred at every turn.
That is clearly emotive and likely uses a figure of speech, or is repeating an atrocity rumour, when claiming a child was torn in half. All the Jewish victim testimony is full of emotive descriptions and figures of speech. It is maybe culture and how they spoke, or it is a result of the trauma they suffered. A lot of the descriptives should not be taken literally. It is often not clear if what is being related was seen, or is a rumour being repeated and exaggerated.
Revisionists find it easier to dispute emotive Jewish testimony, over the more matter of fact Nazi. What is important, is whether the general claim, in this case cruelty by a named Nazi towards children. What Zopf (who is called Sepp in the translation I link to) is claimed to have done, is shown cruelty to children. There are many reports of that happening and Josef Hirtreiter, who worked at TII, was found guilty of child murder, at his trial in 1951 at Frankfurt, West Germany.
https://www.zukunft-braucht-erinnerung. ... -prozesse/
" The court considers it proven that Hirtreiter killed at least ten people, including small children, arbitrarily."
Wiernik's claim is possibly hearsay, it is emotive, but in general terms, about Nazi cruelty towards children, it is corroborated.
It turned out that women burned easier than men. Accordingly, corpses of women were used for kindling the fires.
That is referenced by a number of witnesses, including Tauber when describing the ovens at A-B and he explains why;
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=82890
" I know from the experience gained by observing cremation in Krematorien II and III that the bodies of fat people burn very much faster. The process of incineration is accelerated by the combustion of human fat which thus produces additional heat."
The female body has a higher fat content than the male, and fat is a fuel that burns. Wiernik's claim is corroborated and explained.
When corpses of pregnant women were cremated, the abdomen would burst open, and the burning of the foetus inside the mother's body would become visible. However, this made no impression whatsoever on the German killers, who stood around watching, as if at a badly functioning machine which produced little.
Wiernik is describing the cremation process of corpses that had been exhumed. The cremation of many, partially decomposed corpses, is unique to the AR camps. There is no other example of that happening, to get further details as to what happens during the process. That the partially decomposed corpse of a pregnant woman would split during cremation, is entirely possible. The description is emotive, which is not surprising. That the Nazis remained impassive and uncaring, is entirely likely. The Nazis working at the AR camps came from the T4 euthanasia project, selected because they were so used to death.
This claim could also be hearsay atrocity rumour, and it is not specifically corroborated, but it is not evidence Wiernik is lying. His claim is plausible.
The Germans stood around with satanic smiles on their faces, radiating satisfaction over their foul deeds. They drank toasts with choice liquors, ate caroused and enjoyed themselves near the warm fire. Thus, even after death, the Jew was of some use.
Again, that fits with the selection of staff for the AR camps. That they coped easily with the task in hand, is corroborated by their own matter of fact testimony. They were there to do a job and like all soldiers, kill the enemy. Photographs of the staff at TII and Sobibor, show them to be relaxed, eating and drinking and clearly happy at their work.
That Wiernik claims they drank whilst the pyres burned, which is entirely plausible. Whether they ate and danced is not certain and may be hearsay atrocity, or a one-off, or exaggerated incident. That Wiernik's testimony is full of emotive descriptions, is not evidence to prove he lied.
Lol, we want to know if 900,000 people were killed at this camp and the basis for it is STORY TIME.
I will debunk the rest of this another time. No rush.
You have not debunked anything. All you have done is quote emotive descriptions of events that are largely corroborated and claimed, because of your personal incredulity, that it is evidence of lying, which is a logical fallacy.