The CODOH Revisionist Forum

What is the anti-revionist consensus for the lack of millions of kilograms of wood at AR camps and the lack of a wood storage facility?
The way the open air cremation pyres are described to of worked would have meant the 'fuel'-i.e kindling wood, would of had to been bone dry and possibly built storage underground as this would provide the best shelter from weather. 'Eyewitnesses' also never say that the pyres were being tended to constantly, but say they were burning practically non stop, no mention of rain or snow being an issue.

The cremation methods and materials used(old train tracks) sound absolutely ridiculous anyway, but no presence of huge containers of wood and no massive storage area really seals the deal.
How do they explain this away?

It's The German Method that's the usual catch-all excuse or explanation as to how all these things happened at the time but have never happened or been utilised in the 80 odd years since. Such as how they managed to get three people per square metre in the gas chambers and how they managed to cremate 2000+++ bodies per day seven days a week for 18 months etc.

They just say 'it was the German Method'.

Just as I discussed in my thread about the ash cremains from Auschwitz never being discussed or proven as to how they were disposed of, they can never answer the issue you raise about the zillions of tons of dried wood being required to incinerate 800,000 bodies at Treblinka for example.

But of course we know it happened because of The German Method...

The traditional story was that the wood was gathered locally by the "forest kommandos."

That is of course not realistic, so more recently Holocaust Controversies has been forced to argue that there must have been enormous undocumented wood deliveries to the camps.

See Mattogno et al response to Holocaust Controversies, starting pg. 1269.

Basically all testimonies speak about Waldkommandos (forest commandos), squads of detainees appointed to the cut down trees in the nearby forests to obtain wood for the cremation, but for Muehlenkamp this holocaustic truth is intolerable. He appeals to only one witness, whose name Arad distorts and whose statements Muehlenkamp interprets according to his own convenience. Werner Becker in fact declared:

I performed various services, as already stated, I brought victuals for the camp as well as wood for the combustion of people.

In this regard Schelvis writes:

The burning of the corpses, at that time already more than one hundred thousand, required a vast quantity of wood, which was abundantly available in the nearby forest. A forest commando was formed which consisted of about 30 working inmates. Under the supervision of several SS members and of Ukrainian security guards it had to cut down trees and saw them into small pieces.

For the mainstream, I would guess the "forest kommando" thing is still the standard story. But details like that are the sort of thing they handwave on. For anti-revisionists (who often come up with their own versions of the stories that are different from the mainstream), I would say they've moved to claiming hypothetical wood deliveries.

With the forest kommando story, the wood would be green unless they gathered a huge amount in say the spring of 1942 and let it season during the summer.

Franz Stangl said that a piece of wood the size of a cigarette box and the fat from the bodies were enough for each body. This explains the German method

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 7:28 pm Franz Stangl said that a piece of wood the size of a cigarette box and the fat from the bodies were enough for each body. This explains the German method

Is Franz quoted in “scholarly” holocaust books?

Archie wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 3:57 pm The traditional story was that the wood was gathered locally by the "forest kommandos."

That is of course not realistic, so more recently Holocaust Controversies has been forced to argue that there must have been enormous undocumented wood deliveries to the camps.

The aerial photos of Treblinka pre-war and post-war prove that no significant logging took place in the immediately vicinity of the camp. The only explanation remaining is the "undocumented wood deliveries" scenario. But that's not history, that's conjecture.

"The environs of Treblinka are today overgrown with fir trees. A 50-yearold fir forest yields 496 tons of wood per hectare. For the sake of simplicity, we round this number to 500 tons. In order to obtain 139,200 tons of wood, the SS would therefore have had to cut down (139,200÷500=) 278.4 hectares of forest, which corresponds to 2.7 square kilometers! But such a large deforested zone would naturally have not gone unnoticed by the local Poles, who were questioned by Judge Łukaszkiewicz in his investigations. On the other hand, in the aerial photographs of May and November 1944 a thick forest of approximately 100 hectares can be recognized on the north and east side of the camp, of which at least one hectare is located on the camp area itself."

(Graf, Mattogno), T, p. 151)

I'm sure anti-revisionists would contest these numbers, but even so, I don't think anyone in their right mind would contest that huge quantities of wood would have been required, regardless

joshk246 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 7:42 pm

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 7:28 pm Franz Stangl said that a piece of wood the size of a cigarette box and the fat from the bodies were enough for each body. This explains the German method

Is Franz quoted in “scholarly” holocaust books?

The roots of evil - John Kekes
Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka: The Operation Reinhard Death Camps - Yitzhak Arad
Into That Darkness - Gitta Sereny