Request: a summary of the revisionist case (no strawman)

I am talking in general, about the history of the history of the Holocaust. By that I mean how evidence was gathered, from the earliest, often unsupported intelligence and news reports of mass killings, to the first eyewitnesses, who were Jews who had escaped from the AR camps, to all the post war investigations. Those investigations consisted of tracing and interviewing witnesses, site surveys and gathering and archiving of documents, which were used in the various trials and subsequently used by, and added to by, historians.



An example would be Rachel Auerbach, a trained historian, who also worked as a journalist. She then worked with the Jewish Historical Institute in Poland, who continue to this day, gathering evidence.

www.jhi.pl/en/about-the-institute/history

"In 1944 in Lublin, the Central Committee of the Polish Jews (the most important post-war Jewish organization) established the Central Jewish Historical Commission, whose main goals were to collect accounts of Holocaust survivors and to make available proof material useful in prosecuting German war criminals. In 1946, the Commission had collected already over 8,000 cases of archives, several dozen diaries, memoirs and works of literature, about 2,000 personal accounts..."

Others were also involved in the investigations, journalists reporting on what had happened and lawyers, gathering and preparing evidence for the various post war trials.



Auerbach interviewed one of the earliest escapees, Jacob Krzepicki, who got out of TII in 1943, and was part of the Polish site examination of the camp in 1945, which also involved the tracing of former inmates;

www.vho.org/GB/Books/t/4.html

"...the preparations for the Nuremberg Trial awakened the interest of the Jewish Central Historical Commission as well as of the Polish State Prosecutor's office for that camp. On November 6, 1945, the latter carried out an inspection trip to Treblinka, in which participated: Rachel Auerbach and Józef Kermisz as representatives of the said Jewish Commission, Judge Zdzisław Łukaszkiewicz, State Prosecutor J. Maciejewski, land surveyor K. Trautsolt, the witnesses Samuel Rajzman, Tanhum Grinberg, Szimon Friedman, and M. Mittelberg..."



The historians behind the "Holocaust Controversies" site reference the 1945 Polish site surveys and the later day surveys by Kola, Haimi and CS-C in detail. For example;

holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2011/12/belzec-sobibor-treblinka-holocaust_4958.html

The historians responsible for the various museums, such as at Treblinka, also "bother" with the archaeology;

muzeumtreblinka-eu.translate.goog/2015/10/28/jestesmy-razem/?_x_tr_sl=pl&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc

Here is an example of a review of archaeological work;

www.holocaustresearchproject.org/ar/modern/archreview.html

" Archaeological Investigations
A Review By Historians: Robin O’Neil, Salisbury and Michael Tregenza, Lublin."

I am surprised you think historians would not consider the work of archaeologists as worth bothering with.

I knew that would be your reaction. It is your reaction to all the evidence I produce. Your default position is to ask, I provide and you then think up excuses to dismiss what I have provided.



Most of my reading is from online sources, translated into English.



It is one of the earliest histories, which you asked for, and yes, it contains inaccuracies that have gone on to be corrected. That is what happens with history. Historians revise what other historians have written. That historians do not necessarily agree with each other, will dispute other claims and conduct their own research, is one reason why the denier suggestion of a massive conspiracy, is clearly drivel.



You ask, I provide, you line up your excuses to dismiss!



There was a large gap of many decades between site investigations.



The earliest histories had the basic Polish site examinations from 1945 to go from. After the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, further site examinations were carried out. To get detail of the archaeological work, read the archaeologists. The historians only need reference the work of the archaeologists. They will not go into detail and critique, because archaeology is outwith their field of expertise. Deniers do not think expertise matters and arrogantly think they can critique the work of experts, in subjects they have no training in.

This whole thread is an example of the flaws with denial. All you do is critique the evidence that does not suit you. You fail to provide any evidence as to what did happen. You arrogantly critique subjects you have no training in.

The Soviets and the Poles in 1945 and after the collapse of the SU, numerous archaeologists, have felt the need to provide physical evidence from the AR camp sites by conducting on site investigations. Historians have referenced those investigations as part of the evidence to prove what happened.

Your attempt to create the impression that physical evidence was not important t those tasked with investigating what happened, is false.



The western Allies who conducted the war trials had witness evidence, confessions from Nazis, the physical evidence from the sites and circumstantial evidence, along with motive, opportunity and guilty conduct after the crime.

You are again making false claims about how the trials were conducted, to spin your fake narrative and divert from your total lack of any evidence to prove something else happened inside the AR camps and A-B Kremas.

That the first Soviet death tolls were overinflated and as more evidence was traced and more western historians investigated, those tolls were reduced, destroys your argument.



There were no AR camps trials at Nuremberg, because at that point, none of the Nazis had been caught. A simple online search of archaeology Treblinka, Belzec or Sobibor finds a lot of information, none of which is denier.



In what way?



That is evidence of how archaeologists, like historians, will return and check other's work.



Deniers claim there are not enough remains at the site to corroborate the witness claims of mass graves and cremations. They provide no physical evidence to back up those claims.



My search of World Cat finds my nearest copies are in London at the British Library and UCL.

explore.bl.uk/primo_library/libweb/action/search.do?vid=BLVU1&fn=search&vl(freeText0)=9788390559063
ucl.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?vid=44UCL_INST:UCL_VU2&mode=advanced&tab=local&offset=0&query=any,contains,9788390559063&sortby=rank&search_scope=MyInst_and_CI

It is available at USHMM

collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/bib62841

I also found various results that lead to Polish libraries where it can be borrowed. There is an online scan of the English version here, ISBN 83-905590-6-4

www.tapatalk.com/groups/holocaustcontroversies/viewtopic.php?p=15044#p15044

There are also numerous citations of the study online, which contain large parts of the book, such as;

forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=3970
www.holocaustresearchproject.org/ar/modern/archreview.html

Your attempt to suggest it is being suppressed is false. Your comment about it proving the Holocaust just further proves you do not understand evidencing. It proves that Belzec was like Sobibor and TII, it was demolished after use and is full of disturbed ground containing human remains.

Poland was not under Soviet influence during the war, as the earliest reports appeared and the first historians and journalists started to gather evidence.

Poles in Poland were sending information back to the Polish Government in Exile during the war and for a brief period after the war there was an attempt to re-establish that government, before a Soviet controlled government took power. Poles held enquiries into the Holocaust, separate from the Soviets and continued after the Soviets had established control.