Nazi destruction of evidence - actions of the guilty

[Nessie]

From another thread, an interesting point has been raised;

viewtopic.php?p=178564#p178564

https://christiansfortruth.com/holocaus ... -happened/

Holocaust Museum Head Explains How The Complete Lack of Physical Evidence Of The Holocaust Is Proof It Happened

Werd corrects torus9 pointing out that the argument put forward is that the destruction of the evidence is the actions of the guilty;

viewtopic.php?p=178568#p178568

....

Sort of an accurate interpretation. What he goes on to explain is that Nazis destroyed the evidence and since we know THAT, then it's clear that the holocaust happened; combined of course with alleged eyewitness testimony and an inability to find all the Jews.

You don’t find the mountains of clothing of victims that arrived there. You don’t find mountains of ashes and bones — it was taken in trucks and dumped in the Vistula (River) or the swamp around Auschwitz. You don’t see the actual buildings of the crematoria or gas chambers — they were blown up by the Germans before they retreat in 1945.

...at Treblinka. Himmler gave an order to dig everything up — destroy everything — and disperse it in the entire area — which was done — and Jewish prisoners had to do this work.

places like Babi Yar where we know there were 30,000 Jews were murdered there in the end of September, 1941 — all together close to 60.000 Jews in ’41 and ’42 were murdered in Babi Yar — and you go back there and you dig it up, you should find some physical evidence — bodies, bones, something — that doesn’t disappear — it’s not there because it was all dug up by a special, top secret operation commanded by SS Paul Blobel, called 1005 — personally created by Himmler in the Spring of 1942.

the Germans at their height of military superiority in 1942, and they decide to go back and to clean up the mess they made. They went back to Babi Yar. They went back to the Rumbula Forest near Riga. They went back to the seventh and ninth fort near Kovna. They went back to Ponary near Vilna where tens of thousands of Jews had been murdered in ’41 and ’42. They dug it up — cleaned it out — disappeared.

Destruction of "evidence" is a sign of guilt in their eyes.

Destruction of evidence allows the inference of guilty conduct. Attempting to pervert the course of justice is a crime. Torus9 is merely repeating a denier lie that there is no physical evidence (which is ironic, since deniers happily believe in the mass survival of Jews under the Nazis, without there being any physical evidence of that happening). Werd has understood the argument being made, which is that the Nazis attempted as best they could to hide what they did. The gas chambers at A-B were either converted or blown up. The gas chambers at TII etc were razed to the ground. Mass graves were dug up, bodies cremated and ashes dumped. All of that can be reasonably inferred as the actions of the guilty.

[Nessie]

Only Belzec, Sobibor and TII were razed to the ground and planted over. No other camp was so thoroughly destroyed. In Globocnik's 1944 report on AR to Himmler he stated;

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org ... sheet.html

"The entire Action Reinhardt is divided into four spheres: A. The expulsion itself. B. The employment of labour. C. The exploitation of property. D. Seizure of hidden goods and landed property. [=]
A. The Deportation
This is settled and completed. In this case the prerequisite was to get hold of the people with the small forces available and to cause as little economic damage as possible to war production by methodically appropriate measures. On the whole this was achieved. Considerable damage occurred only in Warsaw, where, owing to ignorance of the position, the methods applied in the final action were entirely wrong.
I was no longer able to carry out the action in Litzmannstadt (Lodz) myself because of my transfer.
The equipment which was provided for this action from seized goods, which however are to be considered as Reich property, have been removed completely. For reasons of surveillance in each camp a small farm was created which is occupied by an expert.
An income must regularly be paid to him so that he can maintain the small farm."

Those camps were made to look like farms and kept watch over. Guards were being used to try and stop the remains of the camps from being dug up. The Nazis wanted to hide what they had buried there.

[Nessie]

Aerial photos of the camps in 1944;

Belzec;



Sobibor;



TII;

[torus9]

From another thread, an interesting point has been raised;

For one, I make NO 'interesting' points. And in context of the given thread, the point being made is that there appears to be eyewitnesses testimony along with physical evidence that contradicts the official narrative of the Presidential election.

[Nessie]

From another thread, an interesting point has been raised;

For one, I make NO 'interesting' points. And in context of the given thread, the point being made is that there appears to be eyewitnesses testimony along with physical evidence that contradicts the official narrative of the Presidential election.

Do you accept that the destruction of evidence was a Nazi attempt to cover up their crimes at the A-B kremas and the camps at Sobibor, Belzec and TII?

[Werd]

Destruction of evidence allows the inference of guilty conduct.

Destruction of something proves another thing.

Not really an argument.

Werd has understood the argument being made, which is that the Nazis attempted as best they could to hide what they did.

I have understood that the revisionist in question on that website was creating a strawman. The Jew was not saying that lack of evidence suggests a holocaust. He was suggesting that destruction of many things COULD imply a destruction of evidence of a crime. Destruction IN AND OF ITSELF proves nothing. It merely JUSTIFIES further INVESTIGATION of ALL STREAMS of possible EVIDENCE.

The gas chambers at A-B were either converted or blown up.

Crematoria that may have had gas chambers were blown up.

The gas chambers at TII etc were razed to the ground.

Alleged gas chambers.

Mass graves were dug up, bodies cremated and ashes dumped. All of that can be reasonably inferred as the actions of the guilty.

It's just a circular argument, or at worse a tautology.

Only once you prove gas chambers, can you then say the Nazis were destroying an actual crime scene. You can't say "crime scene therefore gas chambers." You can't have things backwards, nor can you define things into existence - ontological argument style.

[Huntinger]

Only once you prove gas chambers, can you then say the Nazis were destroying an actual crime scene. You can't say "crime scene therefore gas chambers." You can't have things backwards, nor can you define things into existence - ontological argument style.

Interesting Werd, I am currently looking at Maly Trostenets in Belarus; the Soviets claimed over 210 thousand people were murdered there from 1941. However, at the start of 1941 the NKVD murdered 250 000+ juden at Kurapaty 13km from Trostenets. I am suspecting that this Trostenets is a fiction. Soviets claim the camp was completely destroyed; I suspect it never existed.

[Werd]

Interesting Werd, I am currently looking at Maly Trostenets in Belarus;

Thomas Kues already did.
http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/3/1/3141

Then he unexpectedly "retired."
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2383

the Soviets claimed over 210 thousand people were murdered there from 1941. However, at the start of 1941 the NKVD murdered 250 000+ juden at Kurapaty 13km from Trostenets.

Proof?

And where did these Jews come from? Were they Soviet Jews all their lives, or were they Polish and German Jews that fled Germany or were pushed out of Germany?

The idea of mass execution of Jews by Soviets is interesting. If it was done SOLEY to blame on Germans, then it becomes startling!

[Huntinger]

The idea of mass execution of Jews by Soviets is interesting. If it was done SOLEY to blame on Germans, then it becomes startling!

Thanks I am not sure if other people have linked Trostenets with Kurapaty. I think this is worthy of full investigation; yet the realization is startling. 3 years apart and 13 km (8 miles) with almost the same death count is too coincidental for me to let it go. I will do more research but in the interim worthy of reflection. If the NKVD did Trostenets and Kurapaty that is half a million jüdische murders.

[Nessie]

Destruction of evidence allows the inference of guilty conduct.

Destruction of something proves another thing.

Not really an argument.

Your fallacy is strawman, I said "inference of guilt" and you changed that to "proves". A famous more recent case of the large scale destruction of evidence, was Enron and the shredding of lots of documents. There are many circumstances where inferences can be made from a person's conduct;

http://www.consumercrime.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ar7918

"Inference is the cornerstone of circumstantial evidence which is defined in Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law, 4th edition, as 'an indirect form of proof, permitting inferences from the circumstances surrounding disputed questions of fact'. 'Inferential reasoning', says Jowitt, 'is the intellectual process by which conclusions are derived from existing information or evidence'.

When someone destroys evidence, that infers they are trying to hide a criminal act.

Werd has understood the argument being made, which is that the Nazis attempted as best they could to hide what they did.

I have understood that the revisionist in question on that website was creating a strawman. The Jew was not saying that lack of evidence suggests a holocaust. He was suggesting that destruction of many things COULD imply a destruction of evidence of a crime. Destruction IN AND OF ITSELF proves nothing. It merely JUSTIFIES further INVESTIGATION of ALL STREAMS of possible EVIDENCE.

It also infers that a crime had been committed and that there was an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

The gas chambers at A-B were either converted or blown up.

Crematoria that may have had gas chambers were blown up.

The gas chambers at TII etc were razed to the ground.

Alleged gas chambers.

Mass graves were dug up, bodies cremated and ashes dumped. All of that can be reasonably inferred as the actions of the guilty.

It's just a circular argument, or at worse a tautology.

Only once you prove gas chambers, can you then say the Nazis were destroying an actual crime scene. You can't say "crime scene therefore gas chambers." You can't have things backwards, nor can you define things into existence - ontological argument style.

That is your strawman misinterpretation of what I said. You think I am claiming Nazi activities to destroy evidence proves guilt, which is wrong. I am saying that Nazi activities can be used to infer guilt. That means when there is a dispute over what happened, such as the denier claim of the buildings were just showers against the historian's claim the buildings were gas chambers, the destruction of said buildings adds weight to the historian's claims and it weakens the denier's claim.

That inference form destruction of evidence, makes the witness evidence for gassings more credible, as it supports the witnesses.