100 million dead at Yanov, or 1,800 dead at Treblinka?

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).

Moderators: Budu Svanidze, Joe Future

Post Reply
friedrichjansson
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 11:43 pm
Contact:

100 million dead at Yanov, or 1,800 dead at Treblinka?

Post by friedrichjansson » Sat Aug 31, 2013 2:13 pm

The fact that human remains covering an area of 1.8 hectares were allegedly found at Treblinka is often cited as evidence for extermination at that camp. But check out what the Soviets said they found at Yanov:
In confirmation of what I said just now, I refer to the report of the Extraordinary State Commission relative to Yanov Camp in the city of Lvov. The Tribunal will find this on Page 59 in the document book, Paragraph 5 of the first column of the text. But at the same time, I ask the members of the Tribunal to refer to Page 6 of the album of documents relative to the Lvov Camp. One of them is a picture of "a trench in the valley of death." The ground is soaked with human blood to the depth of 11/2 meters. On the next pages are shown the belongings taken from the executed persons. This picture was taken by the experts of legal medicine about 2 months after the mass shootings.

From the reports of the Extraordinary State Commission on crimes in the Yanov Camp it can be seen that here in what was officially a usual work camp, over 200,000 Soviet citizens were exterminated, according to the findings of the legal experts. I quote only the first paragraph on Page 261 of the Russian text. I begin the quotation:

"In view of the total area of burial grounds and the area of 2 square kilometers in which the ashes and bones were scattered as well the expert commission concluded that in the Yanov Camp there were exterminated over 200,000 Soviet citizens."
2 square kilometers is 200 hectares. That means that if we accept the Soviet claim that 2 square kilometers of remains indicates 200,000 dead, then 1.8 hectares should indicate 1,800 dead at Treblinka.

On the other hand, if we accept the standard Treblinka death toll, then scaling up from 1.8 hectares to 200 hectares should indicate that close to 100 million people were exterminated at Yanov.

Which is it to be, Roberto?

Roberto
Posts: 3734
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 9:45 am
Contact:

Re: 100 million dead at Yanov, or 1,800 dead at Treblinka?

Post by Roberto » Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:04 am

friedrichjansson wrote:The fact that human remains covering an area of 1.8 hectares were allegedly found at Treblinka is often cited as evidence for extermination at that camp.
Is it? By whom exactly? I remember having argued that the area covered by human remains is an indication of the burial area's size, which is appropriate in this case if one considers that the human remains found on this area were the result of robbery digging. Things would be different if remains had been systematically scattered by the perpetrators over a larger area in an effort to better conceal the crime.
friedrichjansson wrote:But check out what the Soviets said they found at Yanov:
In confirmation of what I said just now, I refer to the report of the Extraordinary State Commission relative to Yanov Camp in the city of Lvov. The Tribunal will find this on Page 59 in the document book, Paragraph 5 of the first column of the text. But at the same time, I ask the members of the Tribunal to refer to Page 6 of the album of documents relative to the Lvov Camp. One of them is a picture of "a trench in the valley of death." The ground is soaked with human blood to the depth of 11/2 meters. On the next pages are shown the belongings taken from the executed persons. This picture was taken by the experts of legal medicine about 2 months after the mass shootings.

From the reports of the Extraordinary State Commission on crimes in the Yanov Camp it can be seen that here in what was officially a usual work camp, over 200,000 Soviet citizens were exterminated, according to the findings of the legal experts. I quote only the first paragraph on Page 261 of the Russian text. I begin the quotation:

"In view of the total area of burial grounds and the area of 2 square kilometers in which the ashes and bones were scattered as well the expert commission concluded that in the Yanov Camp there were exterminated over 200,000 Soviet citizens."
2 square kilometers is 200 hectares. That means that if we accept the Soviet claim that 2 square kilometers of remains indicates 200,000 dead, then 1.8 hectares should indicate 1,800 dead at Treblinka.

On the other hand, if we accept the standard Treblinka death toll, then scaling up from 1.8 hectares to 200 hectares should indicate that close to 100 million people were exterminated at Yanov.

Which is it to be, Roberto?
Unless FJ can demonstrate that the corpses of 700,000+ people couldn't have been buried in an area of 1.8 hectares, or provide conclusive evidence for an alternative fate of the people who disappeared behind the gates of Treblinka, FJ's question is notoriously stupid even by FJ's standards.

And while one shouldn't accept Soviet estimates as accurate except to the extent that they are confirmed by evidence independent of the Soviets, FJ apparently failed to notice that the Soviets concluded on the number of victims also on the basis of "the total area of burial grounds", which was obviously much smaller than the area in which the ashes and bones were scattered.

Funny to see FJ open threads directed at my humble person, by the way. I must have stepped on the poor fellow's sensitive toes.

Also funny that FJ considered this cream cheese worth blogging.
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: Tue May 28, 2013 11:43 pm
Contact:

Re: 100 million dead at Yanov, or 1,800 dead at Treblinka?

Post by friedrichjansson » Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:56 am

Roberto wrote: I remember having argued that the area covered by human remains is an indication of the burial area's size, which is appropriate in this case if one considers that the human remains found on this area were the result of robbery digging. Things would be different if remains had been systematically scattered by the perpetrators over a larger area in an effort to better conceal the crime.
But if you accept that at Yanov the area containing human remains need not equal the area of the graves, then you have no reason to suppose they were equal at Treblinka. Hence your argument on this point collapses.
RM wrote:Unless FJ can demonstrate that the corpses of 700,000+ people couldn't have been buried in an area of 1.8 hectares,
Enjoy some more info on Throckmorton and Birkshaw forest, Roberto.

Roberto
Posts: 3734
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 9:45 am
Contact:

Re: 100 million dead at Yanov, or 1,800 dead at Treblinka?

Post by Roberto » Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:27 pm

friedrichjansson wrote:
Roberto wrote: I remember having argued that the area covered by human remains is an indication of the burial area's size, which is appropriate in this case if one considers that the human remains found on this area were the result of robbery digging. Things would be different if remains had been systematically scattered by the perpetrators over a larger area in an effort to better conceal the crime.
But if you accept that at Yanov the area containing human remains need not equal the area of the graves, then you have no reason to suppose they were equal at Treblinka. Hence your argument on this point collapses.
FJ hasn't been paying attention. The Yanov area containing human remains obviously resulted from a systematic attempt to scatter such remains over an area as large as possible, hence allowing no inferences about the size of the burial area. The Treblinka area covered by human remains resulted from robbery digging underneath that area, which is why the size of an area is an indication of the size of the camp's burial area.
friedrichjansson wrote:
RM wrote:Unless FJ can demonstrate that the corpses of 700,000+ people couldn't have been buried in an area of 1.8 hectares,
Enjoy some more info on Throckmorton and Birkshaw forest, Roberto.
Where do I find the part demonstrating that it would have been physically or technically impossible to bury the corpses of 700,000+ human beings in an area of 1.8 hectares? Quote it, please.

I enjoyed this footnote, by the way:
(*) If anti-revisionists want to argue that the soil removed from the graves was trucked away, they then need to answer the question of how the soil was levelled again. If 100,000 cubic meters of soil were trucked away from Treblinka, that would have left a 1 hectare pit 10 meters deep, or a 5 hectare pit 2 meters deep, and so on. The ashes from the cremation would have filled only a fraction of this. An explanation of why the Russians didn’t find such an enormous pit when they captured Treblinka is required. Presumably anti-revisionists would assert that new sand was trucked in – but from where? Is there any evidence for this large scale operation? Did none of the witnesses notice the tens of thousands of truckloads of soil that would have had to come in over the course of a few months? If anti-revisionists hope to claim that the pits were filled in after the Treblinka revolt, so that the witnesses would not have noticed, they will have to explain why witnesses claimed that the pits were completely smoothed over before the revolt. Moreover, soil trucked in from elsewhere should be identifiable with soil tests, or even by a casual inspection of the site, but I am unaware of any evidence of this nature for such an enormous amount of delivered soil.
First of all, it's not for "anti-revisionists" to provide "evidence for this large scale operation". With all known evidence pointing to the "anti-revisionist" scenario of systematic mass murder and none pointing to the "Revisionist" scenario of transit and resettlement, it's for "Revisionists" to demonstrate that "this large scale operation" couldn't have taken place.

Second, what eyewitnesses described or did not describe is of no relevance in this context. SS eyewitnesses didn't provide many details, and the few inmate eyewitnesses were more concerned with the horror of what they had witnessed than with technical details and logistics. So one should expect much of Treblinka's logistics to be missing in eyewitness descriptions.

Third, much of the sand was left inside the camp area, as mentioned here.

Fourth, assuming maximum dilation and that half the sand was moved out of the camp area and had to be brought back in from somewhere else, e.g. the Treblinka gravel yard, we would have roughly 37,600 cubic meters of sand. The specific weight of sand being 1.8 tons per cubic meter, according to this page, that would be 67,680 tons of sand, or 13,536 five-ton truckloads. If we assume that the covering up took place in August, September and October 1943, that would be 147 truckloads per day. 3 trucks making 10 trips per day each from a nearby place (e.g. the Treblinka gravel yard), why not? Or 6 trucks making 5 trips per day each. And if smoothing over took place before the revolt, that would mean 3 additional months to take the sand into the camp. What witnesses claimed that that "the pits were completely smoothed over before the revolt", by the way?

Fifth, how do you tell "soil trucked in from elsewhere" by a "casual inspection of the site", especially if it's soil that had originally been in the place to where it was returned?

Sixth, who has been seeking evidence for "such an enormous amount of delivered soil" (actually smaller than the amount extracted at, say this 1.4 ha construction site)? If no one has been looking for such evidence, it's hardly surprising that no such evidence has been reported.

I wouldn't misspell "Jews" as "jews" if I were you, by the way. Unless, of course, you don't mind making your agenda obvious for the casual lurker, or are aware that your audience (occasional visits by myself aside) consists of "Revisionists" anyway.
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: Tue May 28, 2013 11:43 pm
Contact:

Re: 100 million dead at Yanov, or 1,800 dead at Treblinka?

Post by friedrichjansson » Mon Sep 02, 2013 11:03 pm

Roberto wrote:The Yanov area containing human remains obviously resulted from a systematic attempt to scatter such remains over an area as large as possible, hence allowing no inferences about the size of the burial area. The Treblinka area covered by human remains resulted from robbery digging underneath that area, which is why the size of an area is an indication of the size of the camp's burial area.
This is a mere supposition without proof. You cannot demonstrate either of these two assertions.
Roberto wrote:
friedrichjansson wrote:
RM wrote:Unless FJ can demonstrate that the corpses of 700,000+ people couldn't have been buried in an area of 1.8 hectares,
Enjoy some more info on Throckmorton and Birkshaw forest, Roberto.
Where do I find the part demonstrating that it would have been physically or technically impossible to bury the corpses of 700,000+ human beings in an area of 1.8 hectares? Quote it, please.
Huh? Of course it's not impossible to bury 700,000+ corpses in 1.8 hectares. Just dig really deep. With 8 bodies per cubic meter, you can bury 800,000 bodies in ten meters square, as long as you're willing and able to dig a pit a kilometer deep.

With more realistic assumptions, on the other hand - well, you'll have to read the posts in question.

Roberto
Posts: 3734
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 9:45 am
Contact:

Re: 100 million dead at Yanov, or 1,800 dead at Treblinka?

Post by Roberto » Tue Sep 03, 2013 7:12 am

friedrichjansson wrote:
Roberto wrote:The Yanov area containing human remains obviously resulted from a systematic attempt to scatter such remains over an area as large as possible, hence allowing no inferences about the size of the burial area. The Treblinka area covered by human remains resulted from robbery digging underneath that area, which is why the size of an area is an indication of the size of the camp's burial area.
This is a mere supposition without proof. You cannot demonstrate either of these two assertions.
What can I not demonstrate? Robbery digging on the grounds of Treblinka extermination camp? Or the deliberate scattering of ashes and bones from the Yanov camp over a large area? Well, the latter is a common sense assumption, but one that FJ must rule out if he wants to get a banana.
friedrichjansson wrote:
Roberto wrote:
friedrichjansson wrote:
RM wrote:Unless FJ can demonstrate that the corpses of 700,000+ people couldn't have been buried in an area of 1.8 hectares,
Enjoy some more info on Throckmorton and Birkshaw forest, Roberto.
Where do I find the part demonstrating that it would have been physically or technically impossible to bury the corpses of 700,000+ human beings in an area of 1.8 hectares? Quote it, please.
Huh? Of course it's not impossible to bury 700,000+ corpses in 1.8 hectares. Just dig really deep. With 8 bodies per cubic meter, you can bury 800,000 bodies in ten meters square, as long as you're willing and able to dig a pit a kilometer deep.
No need to go that deep. 8,841 m² of burial area and 60,130 cubic meters of burial space will do, as mentioned here.
friedrichjansson wrote:With more realistic assumptions, on the other hand - well, you'll have to read the posts in question.
Problem with those "more realistic assumptions" is that they fly in the face of all known evidence, which points to mass extermination at Treblinka, and the complete absence of evidence pointing to a transit and resettlement scenario even though abundant evidence would exist if that scenario were not a mere fantasy.
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: Tue May 28, 2013 11:43 pm
Contact:

Re: 100 million dead at Yanov, or 1,800 dead at Treblinka?

Post by friedrichjansson » Wed Sep 04, 2013 6:06 pm

Roberto wrote: What can I not demonstrate? Robbery digging on the grounds of Treblinka extermination camp?
That is not what you would need to demonstrate. You would need to show that the cremation remains started in the former graves, and were disturbed only by robbery digging, and that said digging did not significantly alter the area that they covered. Since you cannot prove these claims, your argument is worthless - as usual.
Roberto wrote: Or the deliberate scattering of ashes and bones from the Yanov camp over a large area? Well, the latter is a common sense assumption, but one that FJ must rule out if he wants to get a banana.
No, the burden of proof is on you here, because it is you who have tried to argue from area of remains to death toll. If I wanted to use the areas covered by remains to prove that Treblinka has the remains of only 1,800 bodies, then the burden of proof would be on me. But that is not my argument. My argument is that the area allegedly covered with human remains offers no support to the Treblinka extermination story, not that it refutes the Treblinka extermination story.

Roberto
Posts: 3734
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 9:45 am
Contact:

Re: 100 million dead at Yanov, or 1,800 dead at Treblinka?

Post by Roberto » Thu Sep 05, 2013 12:09 pm

friedrichjansson wrote:
Roberto wrote: What can I not demonstrate? Robbery digging on the grounds of Treblinka extermination camp?
That is not what you would need to demonstrate. You would need to show that the cremation remains started in the former graves, and were disturbed only by robbery digging, and that said digging did not significantly alter the area that they covered. Since you cannot prove these claims, your argument is worthless - as usual.
By whose standards, if I may ask? Those of a frustrated bigot who deliberately misspells "Jew(s)" as "jew(s)"? Or by any standards worth considering?

As there is no evidence that the soil at Treblinka was disturbed after the camp's dismantlement by anything other than robbery digging, before this 1.8 ha area covered by human remains was found by criminal investigators, and as there was also no apparent reason to disturb that soil for any other purpose, the conclusion is warranted that there was no disturbance of the soil other than due to robbery digging.

The cremation remains, as follows from photographs, eyewitness testimonies and site inspection reports, started in the former mass graves, bar evidence that they were brought there from outside, which no one had any reason to do and is therefore highly unlikely.

And there's no reason why robbery diggers would scatter those remains beyond the area in which they were extracted, for robbery diggers weren't there to scatter the remains but to find valuables.

Add to that the fact that the area was located in a part of the camp that has been identified by eyewitness testimony and analysis of air and ground photographs as the "death camp" sector of Treblinka, and the conclusion that the area of 1.8 ha covered by human remains probably coincides with burial sector of Treblinka's "death camp" area (which, as mentioned here, was not the camp's only burial area) is an altogether reasonable one.
friedrichjansson wrote:
Roberto wrote: Or the deliberate scattering of ashes and bones from the Yanov camp over a large area? Well, the latter is a common sense assumption, but one that FJ must rule out if he wants to get a banana.
No, the burden of proof is on you here, because it is you who have tried to argue from area of remains to death toll.
Interesting logic, and where have I tried to "argue from area of remains to death toll", as opposed to arguing from area of remains to probable burial area?
friedrichjansson wrote:If I wanted to use the areas covered by remains to prove that Treblinka has the remains of only 1,800 bodies, then the burden of proof would be on me. But that is not my argument.
Why, that's exactly how I understood your argument. Did I misunderstand you?
friedrichjansson wrote:My argument is that the area allegedly covered with human remains offers no support to the Treblinka extermination story, not that it refutes the Treblinka extermination story.
Your argument implies the claim that the human remains "allegedly" covering the 1.8 ha area at Treblinka might as well have resulted from mortality on a much smaller scale than corresponds to what you call "the Treblinka extermination story", and all you have to show for that claim, which flies in the face of all related evidence, is a silly comparison with another camp.

As to proof that the remains at Yanov were deliberately scattered, suffice to say that, as follows from the report you quoted, the burial area identified was not identical with the area on which ashes and bones were found. As it made no sense (and doesn't correspond to the practice at any other camp I know about) to distribute the mass graves of Yanov's victims over an enormous area of 2 square kilometers (much larger, I presume, than the area of the camp and the sand hills in which most executions took place), the burial area must have been much smaller than that. And as bones and ashes don't usually move by themselves, their presence over so large an area can only have been due to their having been deliberately scattered after cremation. As simple as that.
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], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 9 guests