The CODOH Revisionist Forum

In 1942 the Polish Underground wrote a report describing mass executions with steam chambers at camp Treblinka. They included a map, see below left. A year later, Jankiel Wiernik is supposed to have escaped from Treblinka and drawn an almost identical map, below right. These images taken from Carlo Mattogno's The "Operation Reinhardt" Camps.


The Polish Underground version is from "The Liquidation of Jewish Warsaw". Dated November 15, 1942, but not reaching London until January 1943. It credits an unnamed witness or witnesses.

The Wiernik version can be found in A Year in Treblinka or A yor in Ṭreblinḳe. These were published in 1944. The English version claims the map was "drawn from memory by Yankel Wiernik", but obviously it was in fact plagiarized in almost every detail from the 1942 map.

One only has to watch the interview with him to realise that Jankiel Wiernik was a hysterical lying lunatic for the holocaust promoters. His testimony was laughable and in answer to your question he must have been given the earlier plan so he could copy it for there is no way he could have drawn such an identical piece. Statistically and logically impossible, just as the rest of the holocaust claims are.

Wetzelrad wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 7:22 am In 1942 the Polish Underground wrote a report describing mass executions with steam chambers at camp Treblinka. They included a map, see below left. A year later, Jankiel Wiernik is supposed to have escaped from Treblinka and drawn an almost identical map, below right. These images taken from Carlo Mattogno's The "Operation Reinhardt" Camps.


Nov-15-1942 Polish Underground map of Treblinka versus Yankel Wiernik's map published in 1944.jpg


The Polish Underground version is from "The Liquidation of Jewish Warsaw". Dated November 15, 1942, but not reaching London until January 1943. It credits an unnamed witness or witnesses.

The Wiernik version can be found in A Year in Treblinka or A yor in Ṭreblinḳe. These were published in 1944. The English version claims the map was "drawn from memory by Yankel Wiernik", but obviously it was in fact plagiarized in almost every detail from the 1942 map.

The plan is on page 2 of a "Year in Treblinka", in the introduction, not written by Wiernik, but by someone likely from the publishers. They have plagiarised it from the earlier source or misattributed it to Wiernik. Whether the person who wrote the introduction made up the claim about Wiernik drawing from memory, or they were incorrectly told that, or Wiernik claimed he drew it, we do not know.

borjastick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 9:40 am One only has to watch the interview with him to realise that Jankiel Wiernik was a hysterical lying lunatic for the holocaust promoters. His testimony was laughable and in answer to your question he must have been given the earlier plan so he could copy it for there is no way he could have drawn such an identical piece. Statistically and logically impossible, just as the rest of the holocaust claims are.

His main narrative, about the functioning of the camp, is corroborated. There are details that do not seem correct, but they can be explained by a traumatised witness, who used emotive descriptive and has the same memory and recall issues all witnesses have. Your assessment of his testimony, fails to take into account corroboration and known issues with witnesses and is driven by your biased desire to disbelieve.

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 10:54 am The plan is on page 2 of a "Year in Treblinka", in the introduction, not written by Wiernik, but by someone likely from the publishers. They have plagiarised it from the earlier source or misattributed it to Wiernik. Whether the person who wrote the introduction made up the claim about Wiernik drawing from memory, or they were incorrectly told that, or Wiernik claimed he drew it, we do not know.

But what we do know is this: Wiernik was lying through his teeth when he alleged the nonexistent "huge mass graves" at Treblinka II.

Keen wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 10:59 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 10:54 am The plan is on page 2 of a "Year in Treblinka", in the introduction, not written by Wiernik, but by someone likely from the publishers. They have plagiarised it from the earlier source or misattributed it to Wiernik. Whether the person who wrote the introduction made up the claim about Wiernik drawing from memory, or they were incorrectly told that, or Wiernik claimed he drew it, we do not know.

But what we do know is this: Wiernik was lying through his teeth when he alleged the nonexistent "huge mass graves" at Treblinka II.

Soft touch Nessie at it once again fumbling inside his nightgown to come up with a way of somehow, softly, making it all ok and truthful. I bet Nessie repeats 'they must have been killed in the camps because they were never seen again' twenty times each night before falling back into bed with his teddy bear for a warm post orgasmic slumber.

borjastick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 1:06 pm

Keen wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 10:59 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 10:54 am The plan is on page 2 of a "Year in Treblinka", in the introduction, not written by Wiernik, but by someone likely from the publishers. They have plagiarised it from the earlier source or misattributed it to Wiernik. Whether the person who wrote the introduction made up the claim about Wiernik drawing from memory, or they were incorrectly told that, or Wiernik claimed he drew it, we do not know.

But what we do know is this: Wiernik was lying through his teeth when he alleged the nonexistent "huge mass graves" at Treblinka II.

Soft touch Nessie at it once again fumbling inside his nightgown to come up with a way of somehow, softly, making it all ok and truthful. I bet Nessie repeats 'they must have been killed in the camps because they were never seen again' twenty times each night before falling back into bed with his teddy bear for a warm post orgasmic slumber.

There is evidence of mass graves and the other claims by Wiernik. He is corroborated, by other eyewitnesses, documentary, archaeological and circumstantial evidence, including that they were never seen again.

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 3:41 pm There is evidence of mass graves and the other claims by Wiernik.

Continuing to say that there is evidence of mass graves at T II when the following statement of fact:

It is alleged in orthodox historiography that; during WW II, the bodies and burnt remains of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of jews were buried in numerous “huge mass graves” at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II. However, despite all the deceptive allegations to the contrary, the truth is, the largest (in terms of quantity of remains) of the 96 graves / cremation pits in question that are fraudulently alleged to have been “scientifically proven” to currently exist at these five sites, in which verified human remains have been uncovered / tangibly located via bona fide, verifiably honest and conclusively documented archaeology, contained the remains of -

ONLY SIX PEOPLE.

can be LEGALLY established as fact in a U.S. court - is the ultimate in dishonesty.

Let's put Sergays latest obfuscation to the test:

Nessie,

*9 - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; Not one of the alleged - “HUGE MASS GRAVES” - of Treblinka II alleged by so-called “eyewitnesses” - has ever been proven to actually exist - ??

Do you see how easy it is to expose these lying POS for the scum that they are?

One can produce "evidence" for virtually anything. One can literally say that there is "evidence" for the existence of Santa. And the "evidence" that Sergay speaks of for mass graves at T II is no more convincing or credible than the "evidence" for the existence of Santa. His dishonest vacuous statement, and his non-stop repeating of it, is testament to what a lowlife reality denying coward he is.

And a note on the reality deniers continued spewing of "corroboration." One piece of "evidence" for the existence of Santa can be said to corroborate another piece of "evidence" for the existence of Santa. It's meaningless if neither piece of "evidence" has never been substantiated and is not credible. Which is exactly what Wierniks absurd, physically impossible allegations are.

Repeating over and over and over again that "there is corroborated evidence" for the existence of "huge mass graves" is all the retards have to cling to. It's as vacuous and meaningless as their worthless lives. But it's all they have. But like good little mentally ill cult members, it's all they need to keep believing in the fantasy - some tiny little itty-bitty scrap of hope so they can continue to deny reality and believe their delusional nonsense.

For people like the mentally ill HC losers, who steadfastly defend the lie, the holohoax is a relgion. That explains their insane, cultish behavior.

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 10:54 am The plan is on page 2 of a "Year in Treblinka", in the introduction, not written by Wiernik, but by someone likely from the publishers. They have plagiarised it from the earlier source or misattributed it to Wiernik. Whether the person who wrote the introduction made up the claim about Wiernik drawing from memory, or they were incorrectly told that, or Wiernik claimed he drew it, we do not know.

The map is also on pages 32-33 of A yor in Ṭreblinḳe, clearly not in the introduction. It is also described by Wiernik in the Polish versions where he wrote "I sketched a map of the crime scene to show the world.". This is translated in the English version as "present to the world a description of the inferno and a sketch of the layout".

http://deathcamps.org/treblinka/maps.html also attributes this map to Wiernik.

Isn't it ridiculous then to claim it's not Wiernik? You're theorizing that a publisher committed the plagiarism, but that has no basis and contradicts what was actually said.

Even to accept your theory, wouldn't that be a fact of enormous importance? The Holocaust authorities of that time, such as they were, felt comfortable taking a map from one person and attributing it to another to better sell their propaganda. In one of the most well-known Holocaust memoirs. No one questioned it or called it out, Wiernik never disowned it, it was just allowed to stand like that unremarked apparently through to the current day. This gives rise to the question what other major facts have they misrepresented and lied about?

We can go further with this. The 1942/1944 map bears little resemblance to reality, but it does however resemble later maps, one of which is Wiernik's second map published in 1946. Here is a visual comparison.



The 1942/1944 map has forest where buildings should be. It's drawn as if the entire camp was what is now called the extermination section, with no sign of a barrack or anywhere for even the guards to sleep. Wiernik's 1946 map diminishes the extermination section considerably.

The 1942/1944 map has the camp shape as nearly a rectangle. Wiernik's 1946 map made it a definite rectangle, a clear sign that he was not familiar with the camp, which was more like a pentagon. Where the 1942 map had a north fence that angled outward (northerly), Wiernik moved it to perpendicular, whereas in reality it should have been angled inward. (Wiernik also made the camp a rectangle in his model and model map.)

Wiernik 1946 puts trees in the southern corner of the camp, not because he saw them there (they weren't), but because the 1942 map had trees in that area.

Where the 1942/1944 map has a giant L-shaped path to the gas chambers, Wiernik's 1946 map changed this to two separate paths, one curved and one diagonal. Colls instead depicts the path as nearly a straight line from the railway, and twice as distant.

I would expect a well to show up very prominently on scans, but Colls apparently did not find the supposed well next to the gas chambers. The 1942/1944 maps put it next to the gas chambers at number 16, and Wiernik 1946 put it in the same relative location next to number 26, because he plagiarized it.

The shape of the gas chamber foundations that Colls believes she found bear no resemblance to the building layout in either of Wiernik's maps. Clearly the 1946 map directly copied the gas chambers of the 1942/1944 map.

The above items effectively demonstrate plagiarism, and I'll stop here, but you can see more just looking at them. We can also get into the textual descriptions which Wiernik appears to have plagiarized from the 1942 report in his later writings and testimony, but these are less exciting.

(Sidenote: The BBC article about Colls claims that this aerial photo of Treblinka dates to November 1943, but other sources say November 1944 which I take to be more credible.)

I feel compelled to share his 'model' again...



About as close to reality as his map...

The death camps website also offers this map as Wiernik's "Model Map". In comparison to his 1946 map, you can see it still has the same overall wrong layout, but he made some minor alterations. Some features moved around like the locations of watchtowers. Some new things were added like the elaborate roofed entry gate.

Personally, I don't think he was EVER AT TREBLINKA.

I think the man is a propagandist plant.

It's not as demonstrable for him as it is for Wiesel.

The HC blog has pushed back on this argument a few times.

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ernik.html
https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... thers.html

Their main excuse is that they claim the map in the 1944 publication was inserted by the editors rather than Wiernik. This sort of argument is typical for them. Start out with, "Can you prove that Wiernik drew it?" and quickly slide over to "Wiernik didn't draw it." They just assume and argue whatever is convenient.

The Wiernik map is a plagiarized map. But the maps are not absolutely identical, so someone had to redraw it. I am actually not opposed to the idea that "editors" did the Wiernik map. In fact, it would not surprise me if it turned out that "editors" wrote a much of the text. But to me it's very strange that if you had an authentic "eyewitness" like Wiernik that some editors who had zero personal knowledge of the camp would attempt to copy the old map rather than have Wiernik do it. Especially since Wiernik was working on his own map. In contrast, if this is all a work of propaganda, then the integrity of the text hardly matters and you would expect them to use whatever.

Whether the 1944 map was done by Wiernik personally or by other people, it demonstrates that they had access to the Nov 1942 report. So there goes the whole "independent" testimonies thing they are always prattling on about. If the person or people responsible for the Wiernik report had seen the older report, then the reports aren't independent.

Wiernik testified at the Eichmann trial and commented briefly a couple times about one of the maps. He does not say one way or the other if he did the blatantly plagiarized map (he probably wouldn't have admitted it at that point if he had). But he does talk about a different map he drew in 1944 and which was first published in 1945. This is the map (which I guess HC considers to be the "real" Wiernik map) on page 331 of HH #8. This map is also somewhat similar to the other maps, but it's not as close a copy.

Q. After the War, immediately following the War, you drew a sketch of Treblinka?

A. Yes. This is it, here. I drew it. I prepared it when I was still underground, after my liberation in 1943, I drew it. I was working in Warsaw, in the Tashitza Palace. I worked as a Pole.

Attorney General: I submit the sketch which the witness made at the time.(Eichmann Trial, Session 66)

https://web.archive.org/web/20191104051 ... 66-03.html

Judge Halevi: [to witness] When you were a member of the Armia Ludowa, was it then that you drew this sketch?

Witness Wiernik: I prepared it when I was working in Warsaw in the Tashitza Palace. The SS was there on the one side, and I was a night watchman against air attacks - I also have a certificate about that. I used to sit there at night. Nobody disturbed me, and I gradually made that sketch.

Q. Do you remember in what month and what year you drew this sketch?

A. It was in 1944. It took a long time. I also wrote A Year in Treblinka. In 1944, it was already in America, via the underground.

Attorney General: The brochure about Treblinka was published both in Polish and in English.

Judge Halevi: Did you make the sketch only as a memento or for some practical purpose?

Witness Wiernik: I made my notes while I was still in the camp. I made notes of everything. I saw that nothing was known about the camp, so I wrote A Year in Treblinka.

Q. And you handed over all the material to the underground for their use?

A. They sent it over. I wrote it in Polish, and it was published in Warsaw at the beginning of 1944, in ten or twelve thousand copies. And the copies were sent over to America. They were sent to London. Professor Garka received the copies and sent them on to America. (Eichmann Trial, Session 66)

https://web.archive.org/web/20191104092 ... 66-04.html

The HC approach here is to try to keep their star witness Wiernik as pristine as possible and use the editors as scapegoats for this highly embarrassing map.

Wetzelrad wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 8:48 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 10:54 am The plan is on page 2 of a "Year in Treblinka", in the introduction, not written by Wiernik, but by someone likely from the publishers. They have plagiarised it from the earlier source or misattributed it to Wiernik. Whether the person who wrote the introduction made up the claim about Wiernik drawing from memory, or they were incorrectly told that, or Wiernik claimed he drew it, we do not know.

The map is also on pages 32-33 of A yor in Ṭreblinḳe, clearly not in the introduction. It is also described by Wiernik in the Polish versions where he wrote "I sketched a map of the crime scene to show the world.". This is translated in the English version as "present to the world a description of the inferno and a sketch of the layout".

http://deathcamps.org/treblinka/maps.html also attributes this map to Wiernik.

Isn't it ridiculous then to claim it's not Wiernik? You're theorizing that a publisher committed the plagiarism, but that has no basis and contradicts what was actually said.

Even to accept your theory, wouldn't that be a fact of enormous importance? The Holocaust authorities of that time, such as they were, felt comfortable taking a map from one person and attributing it to another to better sell their propaganda. In one of the most well-known Holocaust memoirs. No one questioned it or called it out, Wiernik never disowned it, it was just allowed to stand like that unremarked apparently through to the current day. This gives rise to the question what other major facts have they misrepresented and lied about?

The part in bold is a very good point. As that quote comes directly from the body of the text, I think it's very strained to shift responsibility for this map fiasco onto some other unnamed person.