Is an intermediate/compromise position viable?

Nessie, that people were euthanized at the six German state hospitals is not MY claim but the Hoaxster claim.

Frankly, I would be disappointed if the Germans were not giving mercy death to some institutionalized incurables.

I don't have a high regard for the Latin Rite Church generally speaking, but I think they were justified to complain to Hitler about the procedure. Euthanasia is a practice which should be rare, and should be highly transparent and strictly regulated.

Having been a patient myself, I know full well how physicians and healthcare institutions "play God." I was so happy to have my Dad take me out of long-term care that I did not care that I could not even walk yet. I was in the hospital a lot longer than actor Jeremy Renner, who got run over earlier this Winter by his own snowplow.

I assume that ─ to the extent that German patients were euthanized ─ that it was in the usual manner with an overdose of morphine. The Germans might have used a mask connected to a tank of CO, but there is zero evidence that they designed or built homicidal gaschambers. That being said, they knew how to build fumigation chambers.

Hoaxsters show us pictures of piles of shoes or clothing or crematoria ovens or cans of fumigant kicking about in lieu of anything resembling a real case. By these standards of evidence, every bomb shelter, fumigation cubicle, charnel house or outhouse is a Genocide program.




Nessie, your arguments might seem logical to you, but that does not make your premises facts.

I don't really care if the Germans euthanized institutionalized incurables in their state hospitals or not. As far as I'm concerned, it would be a more enlightened policy, but a problematical one in practice, especially in wartime.

In any case, my logic does not depend on that ─ only that in wartime there would be populations that would need to be deloused and disinfected, which is well-documented. That is why typhus deaths rarely occurred West of the Balkans and Eastern Europe in both World Wars I and II. In medical context, it is called a Cordon Sanitaire. Dr. Hans Zinsser documented millions of such deaths in Russia during the interwar period.

In 1909, Charles Nicolle of the Pasteur Institute in Paris discovered the pathogen that causes typhus and that it was spread by the clothing louse insect "vector." This hugely simplified preventive treatment by focusing on delousing regimens for hospitals and institutions like jails. Less virulent versions of typhus fever are passed by other blood-sucking insects like fleas and ticks.

The name Tularemia or "rabbit fever" was discovered in 1912 and it was named after Tulare County, California. The Soviets are believed by some to have tried to weaponize Tularemia during the Battle of Stalingrad because of an outbreak among German forces there. The U.S. Army did some research on weaponizing Tularemia in the 1950s because it is easily aerosolized and highly contagious but easy to protect against ─ unlike Anthrax, which was weaponized by the British at Porton Down during the war. And the lethality of Tularemia is lower, so it would be easier to control if civilians were adjacent, thus being seen more as a troop incapacitation agent in U.S. Army research.

In World War II, disinfecting populations would have commonly used people with some medical or sanitation backgrounds, plus experience as military police.

This was a high priority in both world wars, and explains why soldiers on the Western Front were often lousy, but typhus fever was very rare there, whereas several million died of typhus in the Balkans, with an epidemic that was stopped in Serbia in 1915.



Even if they are not lousy, all it takes to catch epidemic typhus is for hospital laundry workers to handle bedding and thereby inhale louse feces that has been gifted by sick lice who have fed upon patients who are sick with the typhus pathogen. A latent form of this pathogen was found in the blood of New York Jews from Eastern Europe in the interwar period, even though these populations were not currently louse infested. This is called Brill-Zinsser disease.

So the idea that people from the Reinhardt Camps had such experience with institutional hygiene and "population movement restriction" (military police) makes perfect sense. 

What doesn't make sense is that they were killers with experience doing Rube Goldberg killing. And they would not have been given life or death authority with patients in hospitals anyway. Panels of doctors would have done any possible euthanasia ─ not administrators, cooks and mechanics, etc.

Sorry, but your circular logic just does not work.

Dissent amongst historians is not possible. Irving and others found that out. This forum is not to rely solely on expert opinion but for the average person to examine the material independently. Appealing to authority, especially when there is no possible dissent is a common fallacy.

Either way, "evidence" of any kind requires analysis. It does not stand alone as people like this author suggests. Much of the "evidence" presented such as Die Fahrplananordnung presented as evidence of mass arrivals does not stand up to analysis in the light of the real context.


This is just a repeat of what has been said a million times or more with no substance. The ghettos needed to be cleared as they were detrimental to the health and safety of the inhabitants. They were also a breeding ground of criminal activity. Besides that the people were needed for industry.

There is no evidence of mass cremations at the AR camps. Considering that the Russians used the Treblinka area as a bombing range would create ground disturbance.



You have little ability to examine evidence, to critically analyse it. Your reasoning as Scott said is elliptical.

Denying the holocaust is a crime in 16 European countries. Dissent if perceived as "denial" would be dangerous for the author which is why no one in their right mind would bother. Those who tested the waters paid the price. It has nothing to do with evidence but politics and human malevolence.

I think the plethora of labour camps explains nicely what happened.


While the trains may have gone from various destinations to Treblinka railway siding, the significant stops at the precise locations of Jewish Labour camps and junctions for extended periods is sufficient to provide serious doubt of mass arrival at a single place. There is little doubt that people did arrive at Treblinka due to there being at a minimum 3 labour camps; one for the General Public and two separate ones for Jews. In addition there was also TII seen by Marian Olszuk, as well as Malkinia and Kosow Podlaski just down the road.

I will remind that the first mass transport from Warsaw sent 5 thousand young men to Bobruysk. There is evidence of Chiechanow Jews sent across the border in the thousands (80 thousand); those who remained were sent to Auschwitz not to Treblinka as some like to claim. There is also mention of the same Jews being sent to Czerwony bor for dispatch. All of these conflicting claims have witnesses.

All the witnesses who claim that thousands went to a single destination are simply wrong. They have assumed stepping on the Treblinka train meant they arrived at that destination point.

The reason why the trains stopped at the main Junctions for considerable periods is so the transportees could catch trains to other locations where work was needed. There were thousands of Zwangarbeitslager für Juden in Poland as the 1942 map below shows.




There is little evidence. You have inferred but produced nothing concrete over the years. A few bone shards here and there that could be explained by many other reasons.

The existence of thousands of Jewish Labour Camps is not an illogical argument from incredulity. Most people were not aware of the full extent of these places, it still being work in progress. There were hundreds of such camps in Österreich just for Hungarian Jews. Many did not arrive in Birkenau as claimed. Many camps were transitory without names, just locations.