Jan Karski's Visit to Belzec: a Reassessment

[Reviso]

In chapter 29 of "his" book, Karski tells his secret visit to the Warsaw ghetto (october 1942). At the end of this chapter, he jumps ahead and tells his conversation with Szmul Zygelbojm (London, 2 December 1942). He says that he spoke to Zygelbojm of the Warsaw ghetto, but he does not say that he spoke of his visit to Belzec. And then comes chapter 30, about the visit to Belzec. How is it possible that Karski didn't speak of his visit to Belzec during his conversation with Zygelbojm, or, if he did, that he remains silent in his book about this part of the conversation ? A possible explanation : 1° he did not speak to Zygelbojm of a visit to Belzec because he had not made such a visit; 2° when he wrote chapter 29, he was not aware that there would be a chapter about a visit to Belzec.
I can be wrong, of course, and I would be interested by a discussion.

Another question. F. Jansson writes : "May 1943 story, written by Arthur Koestler on the basis of discussions with Karski and later broadcast on the BBC. Stated that Karski visited the camp of Belzec, which was located 15 kilometers south of the town of Belzec." This suggests that already in May 1943, Karski said that he had made a visit to Belzec. Does anybody know what Koestler said exactly ? Wood and Jankowski, Karski... (2014 edition), p. 160 and 249-250, say that Koestler wrote his BBC script "in Jan's voice", "in Karski's name" : what does that precisely mean ? And Jansson's note 55 shows that the BBC broadcast was concocted in a context of unscrupulous propaganda :"Maciej Kozlowski, “The Mission That Failed: A Polish Courier Who Tried to Help the Jews,” Dissent, vol. 34, no. 3, 1987, pp. 326-334, here p. 332. Karski adds that the suggestion that Koestler write such a broadcast came from Lord Selbourne [read Selborne], head of the British Special Operations Executive. In other interviews, Karski stated that Lord Selbourne [read Selborne] thought his story similar to the untrue stories spread in the first world war of the Germans bashing out the heads of Belgian babies, but supported such propaganda because it was good for public morale."

[Reviso]

F. Jansson writes : "As we will see below (Section 7), Karski freely admitted in postwar interviews (...) that the disinfectant was for the purpose of disinfection rather than extermination."
I don't find any reference about this in Jansson's article. Does anybody know references ? Thanks.
R.

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

In chapter 29 of "his" book, Karski tells his secret visit to the Warsaw ghetto (october 1942). At the end of this chapter, he jumps ahead and tells his conversation with Szmul Zygelbojm (London, 2 December 1942). He says that he spoke to Zygelbojm of the Warsaw ghetto, but he does not say that he spoke of his visit to Belzec. And then comes chapter 30, about the visit to Belzec. How is it possible that Karski didn't speak of his visit to Belzec during his conversation with Zygelbojm, or, if he did, that he remains silent in his book about this part of the conversation ? A possible explanation : 1° he did not speak to Zygelbojm of a visit to Belzec because he had not made such a visit; 2° when he wrote chapter 29, he was not aware that there would be a chapter about a visit to Belzec.

I don't have Karski's book, so I can't confirm whether your claims about it are correct or not. But I think your possible explanations 1° and 2° are absurd.

Another question. F. Jansson writes : "May 1943 story, written by Arthur Koestler on the basis of discussions with Karski and later broadcast on the BBC. Stated that Karski visited the camp of Belzec, which was located 15 kilometers south of the town of Belzec." This suggests that already in May 1943, Karski said that he had made a visit to Belzec.

It's already been proven emphatically by Janssen, and pointed out to you on this thread, that Karski was claiming in early December 1942 that he had visited Belzec.

If not Karski, who is the gentile that claimed to have visited Belzec mentioned in Schwarzbart's Dec 5, 1942 telegram in your hypothesis? Especially considering the numerous British War and Foreign Office documents cited by Janssen that prove a Polish diplomat named Jan Karski arrived in Britain in late November 1942 bearing extremely valuable and urgent information awaited by the Polish government.

Does anybody know what Koestler said exactly ?

I don't. You need this:
http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/010677211

Wood and Jankowski, Karski... (2014 edition), p. 160 and 249-250, say that Koestler wrote his BBC script "in Jan's voice", "in Karski's name" : what does that precisely mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-person_narrative

F. Jansson writes : "As we will see below (Section 7), Karski freely admitted in postwar interviews (...) that the disinfectant was for the purpose of disinfection rather than extermination."
I don't find any reference about this in Jansson's article. Does anybody know references ? Thanks.
R."

I don't know how accurate the transcript of the Lanzmann interview is, but here's a few quotes from it:

Karski: The train moved a little, by three trucks. On the floor there is a whitish powder. I asked the Estonian militiaman, "What is it?" He says, "That's all right, it is for hygiene. This is quicklime. So when they die there is no problem, they will not contaminate the air whatsoever.

Lanzmann: But the quicklime in the wagons—it was to kill them?

Karski: It was for an apparently hygienic purpose. They were dirty, they were smelling. If they died, decomposition. And secondly, from what I understood, they died in agony. They had to urinate, and of course it would burn their feet if they were barefoot. At the same time, from the Nazi standpoint, it was to purify.

Lanzmann: Yes, but to kill them too.

Karski: And to kill them! And to make them die in agony, some sort of... undescribable.

Karski talks about the quicklime from the 05:07:36:04 mark on clip two:
http://www.ushmm.org/online/film/displa ... e_num=4739

[Reviso]

If not Karski, who is the gentile that claimed to have visited Belzec mentioned in Schwarzbart's Dec 5, 1942 telegram in your hypothesis? Especially considering the numerous British War and Foreign Office documents cited by Janssen that prove a Polish diplomat named Jan Karski arrived in Britain in late November 1942 bearing extremely valuable and urgent information awaited by the Polish government.

Walter Laqueur writes in The Terrible Secret that Karski was neither the first nor the last courier to arrive in the West from Warsaw with news of the Holocaust.

To my question :

F. Jansson writes : "As we will see below (Section 7), Karski freely admitted in postwar interviews (...) that the disinfectant was for the purpose of disinfection rather than extermination."
I don't find any reference about this in Jansson's article. Does anybody know references ? "

you reply by quoting a passage of the Lanzmann interview that ends in this manner :

Lanzmann: Yes, but to kill them too.

Karski: And to kill them! And to make them die in agony, some sort of... undescribable.

Mmm... Is that well described by the words "Karski freely admitted in postwar interviews (...) that the disinfectant was for the purpose of disinfection rather than extermination" ?

Your other answers seem non-answers to me, but if you insist, we can continue the discussion.
R.
P.S. For me, it is clear that Karski lied when he said hat he had visited the camp of Belzec. I said why I don't believe the "security paranoia" thesis. The question : "When did Karski say this for the first time ?" is secondary.

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

If not Karski, who is the gentile that claimed to have visited Belzec mentioned in Schwarzbart's Dec 5, 1942 telegram in your hypothesis? Especially considering the numerous British War and Foreign Office documents cited by Janssen that prove a Polish diplomat named Jan Karski arrived in Britain in late November 1942 bearing extremely valuable and urgent information awaited by the Polish government.

Walter Laqueur writes in The Terrible Secret that Karski was neither the first nor the last courier to arrive in the West from Warsaw with news of the Holocaust.

And which one is a viable alternative to Karksi, for being the gentile who visited Belzec and spoke to Schwarzbart on Dec 4, 1942?

Try not to dodge the question this time.

you reply by quoting a passage of the Lanzmann interview that ends in this manner :

Lanzmann: Yes, but to kill them too.

Karski: And to kill them! And to make them die in agony, some sort of... undescribable.

Mmm... Is that well described by the words "Karski freely admitted in postwar interviews (...) that the disinfectant was for the purpose of disinfection rather than extermination" ?

"Mmm", no, not really. But instead of building "a case" on quote mines, focus instead on the parts you didn't quote.

Jansson mentions "interviews", plural, which means he must have said it elsewhere too. So if you want to contest that Karski claimed the lime was used for hygiene purposes, then you need to check all the interviews cited by Jansson

Your other answers seem non-answers to me,

Hilarious!

Probably because your posits about *what really happened* have been completely and utterly inane.

but if you insist, we can continue the discussion.

No; I don't insist, the opposite in fact. I just had to point out the nonsense you've posted on this thread because it reflect badly on revisionists in general.

[Reviso]

And which one is a viable alternative to Karksi, for being the gentile who visited Belzec and spoke to Schwarzbart on Dec 4, 1942?

Try not to dodge the question this time..

If there were many couriers who "arrived in the West from Warsaw with news of the Holocaust", and perhaps didn't remain very long in the West, the "manipulator" Schwarzbart could launch without risks a false story about such a courier who had visited Belzec.
But, as I said in a post- scriptum to my preceding post, the important point is that it is clear for me that Karski lied when he said that he had visited Belzec : I said why I don't believe in the "security paranoia" thesis. The question "When did Karski say this for the first time ?" is secondary. Karski spoke as if he had not met with Schwarzbart in December 1942. If you want to believe that he had, and that he already told his story on 4 December 1942, believe it.
R.

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

If there were many couriers who "arrived in the West from Warsaw with news of the Holocaust", and perhaps didn't remain very long in the West, the "manipulator" Schwarzbart could launch without risks a false story about such a courier who had visited Belzec.

Your excuses makes no sense whatsoever.

- Jansson documents in his article how the Karski's story completely contradicted the claims being pushed by Schwarzbart at that time about the mass electrocutions at Belzec. Why would Schwarzbart invent this courier (who he later got Karski to play the role of presumably) who would tell a story completely at odds with the electrocution story Schwarzbart was pushing?

- Why would Schwarzbart invent this courier and then only mention it in a private telegram to the WJ Congress? A telegram that is only known of thanks to a) British censors; b) a revisionist.

But, as I said in a post- scriptum to my preceding post, the important point is that it is clear for me that Karski lied when he said that he had visited Belzec : I said why I don't believe in the "security paranoia" thesis.

Your post scriptum was added as an edit to your original post. That's why I didn't answer it before.

Here's why you don't believe "the 'security paranoia' thesis":

Jansson's explanation by security paranoia doesn't seem convincing to me. (Jansson acknowledges that, at least in one case, the alleged security measure brought no security.

No he didn't. Here's what Jansson actually wrote:

... Karski was clearly very into his role as a secret agent, to the point that when detained by the British on his arrival in London he did not even give his real name, and continued to use pseudonyms even when dealing with government officials. Clearly he was the kind of man who might alter details for security’s sake without giving too much thought to whether the alterations really did increase security.

And here's what Karski said in 1993 about his war-time security measure of giving a false nationality for the guard at Belzec:

If I wrote Estonian, certainly it couldn't be Estonian. It would be idiotic of me to expose the [underground] Jews’ connections with the guards in that way

The question "When did Karski say this for the first time ?" is secondary.

It might be secondary for you, but your not wowing anyone with your analytical skills on this issue.

Karski spoke as if he had not met with Schwarzbart in December 1942

Where, in his book? if so: so what? He was writing a war-time book to demonise the German enemy. Why would he have mentioned a Jew he meet briefly in London, one he later described as "a professional politician and a bit of a manipulator"?

If you want to believe that he had, and that he already told his story on 4 December 1942, believe it.

If want to ignore evidence, then ignore it. But you'll never be taken seriously.

[Reviso]

If there were many couriers who "arrived in the West from Warsaw with news of the Holocaust", and perhaps didn't remain very long in the West, the "manipulator" Schwarzbart could launch without risks a false story about such a courier who had visited Belzec.

Here's why you don't believe "the 'security paranoia' thesis":

Jansson's explanation by security paranoia doesn't seem convincing to me. (Jansson acknowledges that, at least in one case, the alleged security measure brought no security.

No he didn't. Here's what Jansson actually wrote:

... Karski was clearly very into his role as a secret agent, to the point that when detained by the British on his arrival in London he did not even give his real name, and continued to use pseudonyms even when dealing with government officials. Clearly he was the kind of man who might alter details for security’s sake without giving too much thought to whether the alterations really did increase security.

And here's what Karski said in 1993 about his war-time security measure of giving a false nationality for the guard at Belzec:

If I wrote Estonian, certainly it couldn't be Estonian. It would be idiotic of me to expose the [underground] Jews’ connections with the guards in that way

Jansson writes : "This thesis might be opposed on the grounds that such alterations would hardly be an effective measure of protecting sources. But Karski was clearly very into his role as a secret agent, to the point that when detained by the British on his arrival in London he did not even give his real name,116 and continued to use pseudonyms even when dealing with government officials.117 Clearly he was the kind of man who might alter details for security’s sake without giving too much thought to whether the alterations really did increase security."

You omitted the words ""This thesis might be opposed on the grounds that such alterations would hardly be an effective measure of protecting sources. But ..."

I will reply to other parts of your last post, but it will be a the end of my day.
R.

[Reviso]

1° Schwarzbart's telegram
If Schwarzbart found that "Karski's story completely contradicted the claims being pushed by Schwarzbart at that time about the mass electrocutions at Belzec" (your words) and if he therefore kept silent about Karsky's story in his diary, why was he eager to send the telegram ? In this telegram, Schwazbart says that the gentile "confirm all most horrible mass atrocities". Curious, if "Karski's story completely contradicted the claims being pushed by Schwarzbart at that time about the mass electrocutions at Belzec". The terms of the telegram could be used in order to uphold that the report alluded to by Schwarzbart was something different from Karski's report(s).
My intention is to show that Jansson's thesis about the telegram arises difficulties. Now, what is behind this telegram : Karski, another courier or a sheer manipulation from Schwarzbart, I don't know.

2° The "security paranoia" thesis.
Jansson writes :

Raul Hilberg points out that while Karski claimed to have entered Belzec disguised as a guard of Baltic nationality, most or all of the non-German guards were in fact Ukrainians.110 Carlo Mattogno makes a similar argument, asserting that Estonian guards never served at Belzec.111 Here Karski’s descriptions are simply the result of his concern for security, which caused him to modify the details of his experiences in order to protect his contacts and the contacts of his associates. As his biographers explained,

At various times later in the war, Karski said he had worn Latvian, Lithuanian, and Estonian uniforms. He falsified the nationality for security and perhaps political reasons. ’If I wrote Estonian," he explained in an interview, "certainly it couldn’t be Estonian. It would be idiotic of me to expose the [underground] Jews’ connections with the guards in that way".112

Karski’s paranoia over security was so strong that he was even known to alter the nationality he assumed at Belzec from one day to the next.

If there were no Estonian guards in Belzec, but only Ukrainians, where was the security in pretending that the guard who accompanied Karski in Belzec was Estonian and that Karski wore an Estonian uniform ?

The cited biographers of Karski don't seem very convinced by his security argument, since they conjecture a political reason. (In a passage not quoted by Jansson, they explain their political conjecture : " the Polish government-in-exile was keen to maintain good relations wih Poland's Ukrainian minority. "

By the way, this political explanation seems unconvincing to me, as Karski speaks of some Ukrainian guards in the chapter of his 1944 book where he tells his visit to Belzec.

3° I had written : " Karski spoke as if he had not met with Schwarzbart in December 1942 "
You replied :

Where, in his book? if so: so what? He was writing a war-time book to demonise the German enemy. Why would he have mentioned a Jew he meet briefly in London, one he later described as "a professional politician and a bit of a manipulator"?

No, not in his book. Jansson (note 35) writes : " A number of writers have claimed that Karski met with both Zygelbojm and Schwarzbart on December 2nd. This telegram establishes that Karski in fact met with Schwarzbart on December 4th. In fact, in his interview with Claude Lanzmann Karski mentioned that he had been scheduled to meet with both Zygelbojm and Schwarzbart, but that Schwarzbart did not show, and he met with Zygelbojm alone. Apparently Karski’s meeting with Zygelbojm was on December 2nd, while he subsequently met with Schwarzbart on December 4th. "

If " Karski mentioned that he had been scheduled to meet with both Zygelbojm and Schwarzbart, but that Schwarzbart did not show, and he met with Zygelbojm alone ", and if Karski didn't add that he saw Schwarzbart two days later, then, for me, " Karski spoke as if he had not met with Schwarzbart in (let us say the first days of) December 1942 "
R.

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

You omitted the words ""This thesis might be opposed on the grounds that such alterations would hardly be an effective measure of protecting sources. But ..."

Yes I did. For two reasons

1. It wasn't applicable to your claim: "Jansson acknowledges that, at least in one case, the alleged security measure brought no security."

2. Including it renders it nonsensical, i.e. "This thesis might be opposed ..." 'What thesis would that be', the reader would be left wondering. You shouldn't quote an author referring to something not described in your quoted extract.

So the implication that I've misquoted, or quoted out of context, fails miserably.

[Moderator]

Reviso, TheBlackRabittofInle':
Could one or perhaps both of you give a brief summary of the disagreements you are having with each other? Unless one has been following this thread post by post your positions may appear a bit convoluted, difficult to keep track of.
Thanks in advance. M1

[Reviso]

Reviso, TheBlackRabittofInle':
Could one or perhaps both of you give a brief summary of the disagreements you are having with each other? Unless one has been following this thread post by post your positions may appear a bit convoluted, difficult to keep track of.
Thanks in advance. M1

Well, I think that Jansson's thesis, i.e. that Karski truly made a secret visit to Belzec and that his reports about this visit, if corrrectly interpreted, prove that Belzec was a transit camp, is not convincingly proved by Jansson. My reason is that untruths contained in the report published in Karski's book are impossible to explain if the story is true. The explanation by security reasons, given by Karski and admitted by Jansson, who speaks of "security paranoia" and admits that "this thesis might be opposed on the grounds that such alterations would hardly be an effective measure of protecting sources", is not convincing for me.

Less importantly, I suggested that Karski perhaps didn't speak spontaneously of a visit to Belzec when he arrived in London, but this is a secondary point.

TheBlackRabittofInle agrees with Jansson's thesis.
R.

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

1° Schwarzbart's telegram
If Schwarzbart found that "Karski's story completely contradicted the claims being pushed by Schwarzbart at that time about the mass electrocutions at Belzec" (your words) and if he therefore kept silent about Karsky's story in his diary, why was he eager to send the telegram ?

Because he was duty-bound to do so. This was a private communication between the Zionist and atrocity propagandist Schwarzbart to his fellow Zionists and atrocity propagandists in the American and World Jewish congresses; notifying them of a development in London regarding the alleged death camp at Belzec, a place that all parties were then involving with issuing horror stories about.

In this telegram, Schwazbart says that the gentile "confirm all most horrible mass atrocities". Curious, if "Karski's story completely contradicted the claims being pushed by Schwarzbart at that time about the mass electrocutions at Belzec".

It's curious, only if you want to interpret this short telegram—which spared no room even for correct grammar—hyper-literally.

The terms of the telegram could be used in order to uphold that the report alluded to by Schwarzbart was something different from Karski's report(s).

Not when considered with the numerous other documents about Karski's arrival and detention in the UK Jansson cites.

My intention is to show that Jansson's thesis about the telegram arises difficulties. Now, what is behind this telegram : Karski, another courier or a sheer manipulation from Schwarzbart, I don't know.

The evidence that "behind this telegram" was a meeting between Schwarzbart and Karski is overwhelming.

Despite a couple of requests form me, you've failed to suggest an alternative courier. And you're yet to offer a plausible explanation of what Schwarzbart hoped to achieve with his alleged hoax telegram.

If there were no Estonian guards in Belzec, but only Ukrainians, where was the security in pretending that the guard who accompanied Karski in Belzec was Estonian and that Karski wore an Estonian uniform ?

Karski couldn't be expected to know the nationality of each and every guard at Belzec. His contact was a Ukrainian, so Karski said he was Estonian.

The cited biographers of Karski don't seem very convinced by his security argument, since they conjecture a political reason. (In a passage not quoted by Jansson, they explain their political conjecture : " the Polish government-in-exile was keen to maintain good relations wih Poland's Ukrainian minority. "

That's sounds plausible, although I don't know the ins and outs of the London Poles' attitude to the Ukrainian minority back home. But as had already be shown, Karski stated that he purposefully muddled the nationality of the guard to protect his sources.

By the way, this political explanation seems unconvincing to me, as Karski speaks of some Ukrainian guards in the chapter of his 1944 book where he tells his visit to Belzec.

Okay.

3° I had written : " Karski spoke as if he had not met with Schwarzbart in December 1942 "
You replied :

Where, in his book? if so: so what? He was writing a war-time book to demonise the German enemy. Why would he have mentioned a Jew he meet briefly in London, one he later described as "a professional politician and a bit of a manipulator"?

No, not in his book. Jansson (note 35) writes : " A number of writers have claimed that Karski met with both Zygelbojm and Schwarzbart on December 2nd. This telegram establishes that Karski in fact met with Schwarzbart on December 4th. In fact, in his interview with Claude Lanzmann Karski mentioned that he had been scheduled to meet with both Zygelbojm and Schwarzbart, but that Schwarzbart did not show, and he met with Zygelbojm alone. Apparently Karski’s meeting with Zygelbojm was on December 2nd, while he subsequently met with Schwarzbart on December 4th. "

If " Karski mentioned that he had been scheduled to meet with both Zygelbojm and Schwarzbart, but that Schwarzbart did not show, and he met with Zygelbojm alone ", and if Karski didn't add that he saw Schwarzbart two days later, then, for me, " Karski spoke as if he had not met with Schwarzbart in (let us say the first days of) December 1942 "
R.

But Schwarzbart did meet with Karski on December 4, 1942, the telegram proves it.

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

Reviso is correct that "TheBlackRabittofInle agrees with Jansson's thesis", and that he finds Jansson's thesis unconvincing.

Reviso neglected to mention that he has also aired some contradictory, and extremely unconvincing, hypotheses of his own on the thread:

Thus, for me, Karski lied or permitted that others lied about him. In the case of the book, he let Reves write an "attractive" tale about Belzec.

the "manipulator" Schwarzbart could launch without risks a false story about such a courier who had visited Belzec.

[Reviso]

I asked :

If Schwarzbart found that "Karski's story completely contradicted the claims being pushed by Schwarzbart at that time about the mass electrocutions at Belzec" (your words) and if he therefore kept silent about Karsky's story in his diary, why was he eager to send the telegram ?

You replied :

Because he was duty-bound to do so.

Even if he was (is it sure ?), he was not duty-bound to say that a tale that " completely contradicted the claims being pushed by Schwarzbart at that time about the mass electrocutions at Belzec" (your words) " did " "confirm all most horrible mass atrocities". Even in a telegram, he could say " prudence required ".

You say :

Despite a couple of requests form me, you've failed to suggest an alternative courier.

There are several possibilities. For example, an imaginary courier who germinated in Schwarzbart's imagination when he heard from Zygelbojm that Karski said to have secretly visited the Warsaw ghetto and when he, Schwarzbart, thought : " Pity that he didn't secretly visit the Belzec camp. "

Another possibiliy : a liar who kept discreet after the war in order to avoid scrutiny. (It seems that Karski too tried to avoid scrutiny after the war.)

But I repeat it : for me, the question "When did Karski for the first time pretend to have visited Belzec ? " is secondary. From "his" book, I got the impression that he didn't speak of Belzec when he met with Zygelbojm on 2 December 1942. But a spontaneous lie from the part of Karski, as soon as he arrived in London, is compatible with my main thesis, i.e. that his visit to Belzec was a lie.

You say :

And you're yet to offer a plausible explanation of what Schwarzbart hoped to achieve with his alleged hoax telegram.

What does a propagandist hope to achieve with propaganda tales ? Does this need an explanation ?

I asked :

If there were no Estonian guards in Belzec, but only Ukrainians, where was the security in pretending that the guard who accompanied Karski in Belzec was Estonian and that Karski wore an Estonian uniform ?

You replied :

Karski couldn't be expected to know the nationality of each and every guard at Belzec. His contact was a Ukrainian, so Karski said he was Estonian.

The contact of Karski allegedly was a guard of Belzec. Thus, the contact knew that all guards in Belzec were Ukrainians. Curious that he didn't say it to Karski during their detailed conversations. And curious that Walter Laqueur, who interviewed Karski lengthily in 1979, and tells the visit to Belzec with details coming apparently fom this interview, still says that Karski used an Estonian uniform. (Walter Laqueur, Le terrifiant secret, 1981, p. 279.) If I'm not wrong, Karski "rectified" the Estonian thing only in 1999 (for the Polish edition of his book) and thus after the criticisms from Hilberg on this matter (Hilberg, Perpetrators... , 1992)

You wrote :

But Schwarzbart did meet with Karski on December 4, 1942, the telegram proves it.

Yes, we have the word of Schwarzbart, propagandist and manipulator.

You wrote :

Reviso neglected to mention that he has also aired some contradictory, and extremely unconvincing, hypotheses

Yes, I made different hypotheses, but I didn' say that they are all true simultaneously. My impression is that Karski's lie about Belzec was not spontaneous, but, in any case, it was a lie.