Foot and Mouth burial space versus the Reinhardt camps

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
friedrichjansson
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 4:43 am
Contact:

Foot and Mouth burial space versus the Reinhardt camps

Post by friedrichjansson » Tue Jul 16, 2013 4:04 am

The mass burial sites built by the British to help deal with the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic had the following properties:

Image

Note in particular their areas. They are much larger than the corresponding burial areas of the Reinhardt camps. If less than 2 hectares at Treblinka could hold nearly 800,000 corpses, then why couldn't the British get the job done in a similarly small amount of space?

(More information here.)

Roberto
Posts: 3734
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Foot and Mouth burial space versus the Reinhardt camps

Post by Roberto » Tue Jul 16, 2013 9:14 pm

friedrichjansson wrote:The mass burial sites built by the British to help deal with the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic had the following properties:

Image

Note in particular their areas. They are much larger than the corresponding burial areas of the Reinhardt camps. If less than 2 hectares at Treblinka could hold nearly 800,000 corpses, then why couldn't the British get the job done in a similarly small amount of space?

(More information here.)
Who said they couldn't "get the job done in a similarly small amount of space"? Did they even try? With a greater area at their disposal than what the management of the AR camps had to make do with, they didn't have to.
Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past.
~ A German jurist by the name of Baumann in the German juridical magazine NJW, quoted in: Bailer-Galanda/Benz/Neugebauer (ed.), Die Auschwitzleugner, Berlin 1996, page 261 (my translation).

friedrichjansson
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 4:43 am
Contact:

Re: Foot and Mouth burial space versus the Reinhardt camps

Post by friedrichjansson » Wed Jul 17, 2013 6:01 am

Roberto wrote:Who said they couldn't "get the job done in a similarly small amount of space"? Did they even try? With a greater area at their disposal than what the management of the AR camps had to make do with, they didn't have to.
Well, the sites caused a strong public backlash from local groups, which caused severe inconvenience to the authorities. Had they been able to achieve Treblinka-like densities, then all of the corpses could have been buried on one small site, and the protesters appeased. Note also that each site has an estimated capacity, indicating the largest number of carcasses the authorities thought could be buried there.

Saying "it's different because the Reinhardt camps had limited area" misses the point. Why did they have limited area? Were the German authorities so stupid that they failed to realize that burying hundreds of thousands of people takes quite a bit of space? The Germans are known for being systematic in their planning. If they were planning extermination camps where the bodies would be buried, they would have allocated a sufficient space to execute that mission successfully, meaning an area similar to those planned for the foot and mouth sites. They were perfectly capable of confiscating large tracts of land when they needed to build an artillery range; exterminating the Jews would have been no less of a priority. Using a large area would also have greatly improved the security of the site. So if the Germans did plan extermination camps, they would have built large facilities.

------

Here's one of the mass burial sites in action:

Image

And what the burials looked like:

Image

Now, let's compare that to Treblinka, which supposedly buried more carcasses than this site. The highlighted region corresponds to the region excavated in the earlier photo.

Image

Those little yellow pits on the Treblinka map are supposed to have held more carcasses than the large region highlighted in orange. This is obviously impossible.

Further details here.

Roberto
Posts: 3734
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Foot and Mouth burial space versus the Reinhardt camps

Post by Roberto » Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:29 am

friedrichjansson wrote:
Roberto wrote:Who said they couldn't "get the job done in a similarly small amount of space"? Did they even try? With a greater area at their disposal than what the management of the AR camps had to make do with, they didn't have to.
Well, the sites caused a strong public backlash from local groups, which caused severe inconvenience to the authorities. Had they been able to achieve Treblinka-like densities, then all of the corpses could have been buried on one small site, and the protesters appeased. Note also that each site has an estimated capacity, indicating the largest number of carcasses the authorities thought could be buried there.
Unless you can demonstrate that Treblinka-like densities were not possible under the circumstances in which Treblinka operated, all this means is that the authorities considered no higher densities possible, either rightly so because circumstances different than at Treblinka did not allow for such densities in food and mouth burials, or wrongly so. Was it even a matter of density, by the way? How deep were the pits in which the carcasses were buried? And why didn't they just make them deeper? Any technical impossibility there, or were other considerations at play? If so, to what extent can these considerations be applied to Treblinka?
friedrichjansson wrote:Saying "it's different because the Reinhardt camps had limited area" misses the point. Why did they have limited area? Were the German authorities so stupid that they failed to realize that burying hundreds of thousands of people takes quite a bit of space?
Did they plan from the start to bury hundreds of thousands of people at each of these places, or did an originally limited program escalate into wholesale extermination after these camps had been erected? That's the first question you should answer.
friedrichjansson wrote:The Germans are known for being systematic in their planning. If they were planning extermination camps where the bodies would be buried, they would have allocated a sufficient space to execute that mission successfully, meaning an area similar to those planned for the foot and mouth sites.
What for if they could do with less? Less area meant smaller camps, less conspicuous, requiring less guard personnel and other resources, and easier and faster to dismantle when the job had been done. Less area also reduced the likeliness of anyone stumbling upon the mass graves after they camps had been dissolved. All these factors FJ's systematic Germans must have taken into account, and weighed them against the advantages of a larger area allowing for a more leisurely use of burial space.
friedrichjansson wrote:They were perfectly capable of confiscating large tracts of land when they needed to build an artillery range; exterminating the Jews would have been no less of a priority. Using a large area would also have greatly improved the security of the site. So if the Germans did plan extermination camps, they would have built large facilities.
Despite the obvious advantages of smaller facilities, and despite the possibility of making do with less burial area? Highly unlikely. And besides, with evidence showing that this was just what they did, coulda-woulda-shoulda-dooda considerations are as moot as can be.

------
friedrichjansson wrote:Here's one of the mass burial sites in action:

Image

And what the burials looked like:

Image

Now, let's compare that to Treblinka, which supposedly buried more carcasses than this site. The highlighted region corresponds to the region excavated in the earlier photo.

Image

Those little yellow pits on the Treblinka map are supposed to have held more carcasses than the large region highlighted in orange. This is obviously impossible.
Who said those little yellow pits are the only burial pits in the Treblinka area? They cover but a fraction of the areas assumed by Peter Laponder based on eyewitness testimonies and common sense. They also cover but a fraction of the area that postwar criminal investigators found covered by ashes and other partial human remains. And CSC's work was far from finished at the time this map was made, as explained here.
friedrichjansson wrote:Further details here.
Highly irrelevant unless a physical/technical impossibility of mass burials at Treblinka and the other AR camps can be demonstrated.
Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past.
~ A German jurist by the name of Baumann in the German juridical magazine NJW, quoted in: Bailer-Galanda/Benz/Neugebauer (ed.), Die Auschwitzleugner, Berlin 1996, page 261 (my translation).

randomforumguy
Posts: 3624
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:14 am
Contact:

Re: Foot and Mouth burial space versus the Reinhardt camps

Post by randomforumguy » Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:52 pm

freidrich. Do you want to re-evaluate your insinuations before I destroy your argument in less than a paragraph ? :roll:

randomforumguy
Posts: 3624
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:14 am
Contact:

Re: Foot and Mouth burial space versus the Reinhardt camps

Post by randomforumguy » Thu Jul 18, 2013 12:25 am

randomforumguy wrote:freidrich. Do you want to re-evaluate your insinuations before I destroy your argument in less than a paragraph ? :roll:

You'll look as bad as berg and your pride could never be the same afterwards

randomforumguy
Posts: 3624
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:14 am
Contact:

Re: Foot and Mouth burial space versus the Reinhardt camps

Post by randomforumguy » Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:44 am

It is ashes that are buried, not people. You know when your relative dies and they give you a little box of what was left of them. The box occupies much less space then an actual person.
- Why do these elementary things need to be made obvious to you ?
- Are you not aware of the Himmler order to dig up and dispose of the corpses ?

randomforumguy
Posts: 3624
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:14 am
Contact:

Re: Foot and Mouth burial space versus the Reinhardt camps

Post by randomforumguy » Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:55 am

randomforumguy wrote:It is ashes that are buried, not people. You know when your relative dies and they give you a little box of what was left of them. The box occupies much less space then an actual person.
- Why do these elementary things need to be made obvious to you ?
- Are you not aware of the Himmler order to dig up and dispose of the corpses ?

Are you also aware of the reasons why himmler ordered that ?
Last edited by randomforumguy on Thu Jul 18, 2013 6:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

friedrichjansson
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 4:43 am
Contact:

Re: Foot and Mouth burial space versus the Reinhardt camps

Post by friedrichjansson » Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:23 am

Roberto wrote:How deep were the pits in which the carcasses were buried?
In the case of Great Orton, 4 meters, as was explained at the link given above. This is a little deeper than for the pits at Belzec.
RM wrote:And why didn't they just make them deeper? Any technical impossibility there, or were other considerations at play? If so, to what extent can these considerations be applied to Treblinka?
Probably because of the logistics involved in the method of burial chosen at this site, with the trucks driving up to the edge of the pit before dumping their loads. A deeper pit would have led to greater forces on the soil, and therefore to a likelihood of collapse, even with the clay soil found at the site. The sandy soil of Treblinka was far worse for efficient use of burial space, or course, because it cannot be excavated steeply to any very significant depth.
RM wrote: Did they plan from the start to bury hundreds of thousands of people at each of these places, or did an originally limited program escalate into wholesale extermination after these camps had been erected?
For Treblinka, undeniably the former (within the standard narrative). For Belzec it's fashionable to argue otherwise.
RM wrote: What for if they could do with less? Less area meant smaller camps, less conspicuous, requiring less guard personnel and other resources, and easier and faster to dismantle when the job had been done. Less area also reduced the likeliness of anyone stumbling upon the mass graves after they camps had been dissolved. All these factors FJ's systematic Germans must have taken into account, and weighed them against the advantages of a larger area allowing for a more leisurely use of burial space.
Beside the point (and presupposing your conclusion on the possibility of that high a burial density!) as the planners would need to know that the bodies could be buried in the space available, and they would have found no historical example of bodies being buried so densely as they would have had to have been if the Reinhardt extermination story is true. Therefore they would have allocated more space.

---

On the Treblinka / Great Orton comparison, RM complains that
Who said those little yellow pits are the only burial pits in the Treblinka area? They cover but a fraction of the areas assumed by Peter Laponder based on eyewitness testimonies and common sense. They also cover but a fraction of the area that postwar criminal investigators found covered by ashes and other partial human remains. And CSC's work was far from finished at the time this map was made
What stupidity. When confronted with actual data from a geophysical survey on the one hand, and assumptions [!] made by Peter Laponder on the other, RM chooses the latter. As for the area allegedly covered with ashes, this is irrelevant. The area where ashes were scattered has no necessary connection with the area that was dug up for burials. On the one hand we are talking about the surface of the earth, on the other we are talking about deep under the surface of the earth. Finally, the question of the area under the memorial is addressed in the link already given.

However, if RM can't tolerate the analysis of Treblinka, we can also make the comparison with Belzec:

Image

Clearly there was not enough burial space at Belzec to accommodate the alleged number of burials (>75% as many as the number of sheep-equivalent burials at Great Orton).

Roberto
Posts: 3734
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Foot and Mouth burial space versus the Reinhardt camps

Post by Roberto » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:50 am

friedrichjansson wrote:
Roberto wrote:How deep were the pits in which the carcasses were buried?
In the case of Great Orton, 4 meters, as was explained at the link given above. This is a little deeper than for the pits at Belzec.
And at the other food and mouth burial places? How deep were the pits there?

How did you calculate the depth of the Belzec pits?

The larger pits at Belzec were found by archaeologists to be between 4 and about 5 meters deep, as you can see in the table shown here.

Sobibór pits, up to 5.80 meters deep, also according to archaeological investigations, see here.

Treblinka pits we don't know as they have not yet been investigated by archaeologists (at least to the extent that the Belzec and Sobibór pits have been), but a crime site investigation report quoted here suggests a depth of 7.5 meters.
friedrichjansson wrote:
RM wrote:And why didn't they just make them deeper? Any technical impossibility there, or were other considerations at play? If so, to what extent can these considerations be applied to Treblinka?
Probably because of the logistics involved in the method of burial chosen at this site, with the trucks driving up to the edge of the pit before dumping their loads.
A method somewhat different from that applied at the AR camps, where the corpses were not simply driven by trucks to the edge of the pit and dumped in. The corpses were taken to the pits by an inmate labor detachment and accommodated there by another inmate labor detachment.
friedrichjansson wrote:A deeper pit would have led to greater forces on the soil, and ]therefore to a likelihood of collapse, even with the clay soil found at the site. The sandy soil of Treblinka was far worse for efficient use of burial space, or course, because it cannot be excavated steeply to any very significant depth.
Please tell us more about the soil at Treblinka, and at the other two camps as we're at it. What kind of sandy soil exactly did you have in mind? And how do you explain the pit depths mentioned above, established by archaeologists or forensic investigators? Just how "steeply" could the pits be excavated to those depths in the soil in question? And as an aside, how do you explain the presence of such large pits at all? Not to mention the human remains found therein.

As to clay soil, it may be more stable, but it's also more difficult to dig into, isn't it? Whereas in soil consisting of sand or sandy loam it should be rather easy to make a big hole. Less stability would be a disadvantage, but there are methods to handle that as you told us on another thread.

To sum up this part, I see no demonstration that it would have been technically unpracticable to make the pits at the AR camps as big as was necessary to accommodate a number of corpses corresponding to the number of people deported there, in the case of Sobibór and Treblinka the number deported there before the body disposal method was changed to cremation. All you can argue is that other people at other places, for other purposes and under other circumstances, used larger areas. Big deal.
friedrichjansson wrote:
RM wrote: Did they plan from the start to bury hundreds of thousands of people at each of these places, or did an originally limited program escalate into wholesale extermination after these camps had been erected?
For Treblinka, undeniably the former (within the standard narrative).
The "standard narrative" being the one that is supported by all known evidence, whereas the "Revisionist" narrative (if such it can be called, for "Revisionists" have not been able to produce a coherent alternative narration of events) has to make do with techno-babble and conpiracy theories for lack of the slightest shred of evidence supporting it.
friedrichjansson wrote:For Belzec it's fashionable to argue otherwise.
For Belzec historical research has established otherwise. The use of the silly term "fashionable" in this context tells us something about the contents of FJ's mind, but little else.

As to Treblinka, the start of operation postdated Himmler's order to clear the General Government of Jews by the end of the year 1942, but the camp must have been finished before that.
friedrichjansson wrote:
RM wrote: What for if they could do with less? Less area meant smaller camps, less conspicuous, requiring less guard personnel and other resources, and easier and faster to dismantle when the job had been done. Less area also reduced the likeliness of anyone stumbling upon the mass graves after they camps had been dissolved. All these factors FJ's systematic Germans must have taken into account, and weighed them against the advantages of a larger area allowing for a more leisurely use of burial space.
Beside the point (and presupposing your conclusion on the possibility of that high a burial density!) as the planners would need to know that the bodies could be buried in the space available, and they would have found no historical example of bodies being buried so densely as they would have had to have been if the Reinhardt extermination story is true. Therefore they would have allocated more space.
Nonsense. They needed no historical precedents, they only needed mathematics and experiments on the most efficient use of burial space. Which Christian Wirth had plenty of time to do at Belzec while the camp was still serving a limited killing program. And thanks for showing that all your elaborate techno-babble boils down to a "coulda-shoulda-woulda" argument in the end, not to a demonstration of physical impossibility or technical impracticability.
friedrichjansson wrote:On the Treblinka / Great Orton comparison, RM complains that
Who said those little yellow pits are the only burial pits in the Treblinka area? They cover but a fraction of the areas assumed by Peter Laponder based on eyewitness testimonies and common sense. They also cover but a fraction of the area that postwar criminal investigators found covered by ashes and other partial human remains. And CSC's work was far from finished at the time this map was made
What stupidity. When confronted with actual data from a geophysical survey on the one hand, and assumptions [!] made by Peter Laponder on the other, RM chooses the latter.
FJ either cannot read or is dishonestly misrepresenting my argument, which is that CSC's finds are preliminary and cover but a fraction of the burial space at Treblinka. Until CSC's final results are published in 2014, one should use what data are available from other sources to estimate the burial space at Treblinka, and not her preliminary finds.
friedrichjansson wrote:As for the area allegedly covered with ashes, this is irrelevant. The area where ashes were scattered has no necessary connection with the area that was dug up for burials. On the one hand we are talking about the surface of the earth, on the other we are talking about deep under the surface of the earth.
Except, of course, that the area where ashes and other partial remains were scattered happens to be the area where robbery diggers dug and blasted human remains from deep or not-so-deep under the earth to the surface. That's the connection. Unless you can demonstrate that the area covered by the results of robbery digging must have been larger than the area including the pits where those remains came from, the size of the area covered by the results of robbery digging is a good indication of the burial area's size.
friedrichjansson wrote:Finally, the question of the area under the memorial is addressed in the link already given.
You mean this?
Those little pits supposedly held more carcasses than all of Great Orton. To be fair, there is some uncertainty about Sturdy Colls’ findings in the area covered by the concrete memorial, but as that region has area ~1 hectare, the most that could possibly be found there is a square the size of the one inlaid in the lower right of the image above. Obviously even if a second such square were added, the burial space would still be insufficient.
This is based on the faulty assumption that the pits so far identified by CSC outside the area covered by the concrete memorial (which you established how, by the way?) are all there is outside that area, an assertion that cannot be made before CSC has published her final finds. And as to the areas discovered by CSC plus 1 hectare being insufficient, I'd like to see you demonstrate that. Taking into consideration what I wrote here:
According to Romanov’s measurements shown in Image 3.3.3, the "Death Camp" sector on Bay’s Figure 14 has an area of 40,500 m² (Laponder: 41,390 m²), whereas the area of the "Receiving Camp" is 14,190 m² (Laponder: 19,930 m²) and the area of the "Living Camp" is 36,290 m² (Laponder: 45,850 m²). The sum of these three areas inside Treblinka’s inner perimeter is 90,980 m² (Laponder: 107,170 m²). We see that two researchers (Alex Bay and Peter Laponder) reached very similar results independently of each other, especially as concerns the size of the "Death Camp" sector.

Bay projected 9 areas representing mass graves with an area of 50 x 25 meters into the "Death Camp" sector just to show that that the same could comfortably fit into the "Death Camp"[135]. These mass graves could take in at least 900,000 corpses, according to Bay’s calculations and estimate[136]. The surface area of these projected graves is 9 x 1,250 = 11,250 m², and their volume was calculated by Bay as being 9 x 8,502 = 76,518 cubic meters. The grave space accordingly required to bury the ca. 721,555 Jews murdered at Treblinka in 1942, with the density of ca. 12 corpses per cubic meter assumed by Bay, was somewhat smaller: 721,555 ÷ 12 = 60,130 cubic meters, corresponding to a surface area of 60,130 ÷ 76,518 x 11,250 = 8,841 m² (roughly 21-22 % of the "Death Camp" sector’s entire area).

friedrichjansson wrote:However, if RM can't tolerate the analysis of Treblinka, we can also make the comparison with Belzec:

Image

Clearly there was not enough burial space at Belzec to accommodate the alleged number of burials (>75% as many as the number of sheep-equivalent burials at Great Orton).
As the size of the pits at Belzec is known (at least of those that have been identified by archaeologists - there may be more, according to Alex Bay), what's the point of comparing areas (except, of course, to impress fellow "Revisionists" and other suckers who might be taken in by FJ's rhetoric)? Compare known burial spaces with known burial spaces. Or better, try to demonstrate the insufficiency of the known burial space at Belzec taking into consideration all related circumstances, addressed here.
Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past.
~ A German jurist by the name of Baumann in the German juridical magazine NJW, quoted in: Bailer-Galanda/Benz/Neugebauer (ed.), Die Auschwitzleugner, Berlin 1996, page 261 (my translation).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 5 guests