History /
Should David Irving, Holocaust denier, be allowed to run tours to Poland? [246]
I don't know if you have seen all seven parts of it, (...) And after that he mentions that the Germans had to pick those corpses up themselves and burn them.
I've seen it all. He doesn't mention burning here, only clearing up the place.
It's been a while since I saw the interview, but I seem to remember that he mentions the burning somewhere to the end of the interview. But like I said, I haven't seen it in a while.
I am not accusing you of lying. This burning is what I mentioned already, of selected ill and old people, who would slow the procedure. They had to 'process' around 4000 in 2-3 hours, so it was on the run.
But then again, why is the burning so important?
You said
'he explains how it was possible to kill and burn all the people', I pointed out he doesn't.
Disposal of corpses is important. I can visualise gassing 4000 people in 4-5 chambers during, say, 1.5-2 hours, even. Depends of the size of the chambers, but these were new ones, significantly bigger than the old ones of capacity 50-60 people. But then you have to take them away, make a pile, burn or cover with soil. This is a problem.
Let's choose easy numbers: 15000 a day, 15 people in one cubic meter, makes 1000 cubic meters. Pit with 2 meters' deep pile of bodies is then 20 by 25 meters in size, 2.5 meters deep, makes 1250 m3. Has to be dug out every day, if disposal is by burying. Who's done it?
There were 200 Jews in the camp, as labour. If all of them were used, it makes abut 6 cubic meters of soil for every one of them, daily, to shovel out from a deep pit. Hardly imaginable. Then it were not 200 available, as somebody had to transport the bodies during 2-3 hours, and, as he says, the southern gas chambers were not used as being too far from the disposal ground, so this was a real problem. From the map it seems the distance difference would be some 100 meters... Somebody had to move the surplus soil away, or we'd see mounds, like on ordinary simple graves - even less people left for digging. 50(?) were busy camouflaging the 'funnel', 20 at the trians and along the 'ascension' road.
If the disposal was by burning, you need several pits operating at once, but the new ones dug out every week or two only, so this problem seems solved, probably. But then you need fuel, loads of it, bodies don't burn well - and no mention about it. And still, after every week or two the distance to transport bodies increases by about 50 meters.
So, at this rate, Treblinka chokes after about a month. 30*15000 = 450000.
Hold on... in that place he mentions that the gaschambers on the south side were not used, because they were too far from the disposal ground, he might've mentioned here about burning (or burying), I don't remember now...
nott:This is a testimony about the fact, not about the extent of it.
I think his testimony explains very well the extend of things going on (in Treblinka),
Not at all. We do not know how long it lasted, and what were the numbers off-peak, so this testimony on its own doesn't say much about the extent. Treblinka is about 800000 victims.
Of course you can argue with my estimates, even if they are quite conservative. But that's the point of it, freedom to argue.
but there are more of those interviews. If I have time, I will post them as well.
I guess there are more. This particular one Irving would disregard as worthless, and I already can see the points he'd make.
nott: I don't see this having any bearing on Irving's case
This guy was a perpetrator, he actually says they were doing what Irving denies they did. That's the bearing in respect to Irvings claims.
No, this one says they were gassing people with exhaust gas, for unspecified period of time, and mentions not the Endloesnug question. Irving doesn't deny extermination as such, he questions numbers, Zyklon B, and extent to which it was a planned action. His estimate of Holocaust victims is about 3 mln.
Moreover, if you base your argument on witnesses, you miss the target. Irving regards testimonies as the least reliable of all sources, and not without reason.
Edit: this interview is actually part of Claude Lanzmann's Shoah. If you get the chance, you really should watch it. It's, I think, about 5 hrs long though.
I've heard too much of it to consider watching it any time soon.
A good Catholic, btw...
His bishop calls him 'antisemitic'.
