Aktion 1005 and Mattogno's alleged lies

[Werd]

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... s-and.html

Monday, February 01, 2016
Once More, With Feeling: Deniers And Aktion 1005, 10 Years Later

About 10 years ago I composed a blog post about Mattogno and Graf's treatment of Aktion 1005.

I pointed out that Mattogno and Graf couldn't get the simplest things about the documentary evidence straight: they made a mess of the letter from Müller to Luther and the letter from Himmler to Müller - schoolboy level, one might be tempted to say, but even a schoolboy could have done better; they had no idea about Shmuel Spector's seminal article, which fact demonstrated their utterly dismal level of research; and finally, they made an outlandish claim that the very designation "1005" was a Soviet invention - something that is outright contradicted by Spector's article, which cites this German wartime document:

By special order of the Reichsfuehrer SS, Sonderkommando 1005 arrived, to execute special duties in the area of the army.

Of course, other deniers didn't fail to parrot this ignorant assertion. Denier guru Rudolf in his Lectures on the Holocaust (2nd ed., p. 276):

R: There are actually no written sources for this Action, as Mattogno has shown! (Mattogno/Graf 2004, pp. 217-229)

Rudolf is referring to their co-authored book Treblinka. Jump to page 225 in the pdf to skip the talk about the fraud of Katyn and Babi Yar.

This was published in 2010 - long after I had debunked M&G's idiocy. The same claim is made in the 2015 German edition (3rd revised!) on p. 349.

In the meantime Mattogno published a short pamphlet in Italian, "Azione Reinhard" e "Azione 1005" (2008). Here he tries to dispose of the above document in the usual slimy manner (p. 66; I had to use Google translate, but the gist of it should be correct):

The sourcing is nothing short of sparse: it is allegedly "an intelligence report of army activities in April 1944" (?)

It is not known by whom, where and when the report was drawn up. Spector provided neither the German text, nor the context, so that you can not even see if his translation is complete and correct. So there is reason to suspect that Spector has also misrepresented this document.

What would have a real scholar done? They would have checked out that little collection of numbers and letters called "endnote". They would have seen that the document Spector referred to is in the archives of Yad Vashem, in such and such file of such and such record group. Then they would have acquired the document, read it for themselves and made conclusions.
What would have a fraudulent hack done? Wonder no longer, just re-read Mattogno's quote above.
Anyway, to spare Mattogno the need to acquire documents from an Israeli archive, I'll provide the German text as quoted in Dieter Pohl, Die Herrschaft der Wehrmacht: Deutsche Militärbesatzung und einheimische Bevölkerung in der Sowjetunion 1941-1944, 2009 (2.Auflage), S. 330:

Das AOK 2 kannte sogar den internen Decknamen dieser Aktion: "Auf Grund eines Sonderbefehls des Reichsführers SS ist das Sdr.Kdo. 1005 zu besonderen Aufgaben im Armeegebiet eingesetzt."

And the corresponding footnote:

37 BA-MA RH 20-2/1358, S.227, Tätigkeitsbericht AOK 2, Ic/AO, 25.4.1944. Die 2. Armee befand sich zu diesem Zeitpunkt in Polesien im Bereich der Pripjat'-Sümpfe

That is, the original is in Bundesarchiv-Militärarchiv, while Spector cited a copy from YVA.
That matter disposed of, let's make a control headshot. Or three.

The first one:

Z.b.V.-Einsatzkommando 13-1 (12b) Klagenfurt, den 18.11.1944
Az. 10.10 Tgb.Nr. 16/44 - Geheime Staatspolizei - Burg. Einschreiben!
An die Staatl. Pol.-Verwaltung in Kiel
Betr.: Verwendung von Pol.-Sekr. Drews.
Der am 25.3.1943 vom Kommando der Schutzpolizei Kiel zum langfristigen Notdienst zur Pol-Reserve als Zugwachtmeister der Schp.d.Res. 5 herangezogene Pol.-Sekretär Drews ist auf Anordnung des Führers der z.b.V.-Gruppe "Iltis" - Reichssicherheitshauptamt -, SS-Standartenführer Blobel als Leiter I (Personalsachbearbeiter) und Leiter II (leitender Wirtschaftsbeamter) meinem Stab auf Grund seiner Kenntnisse im Verwaltungsdienst auf meinen Wunsch zugeteilt worden. Drews hat sich im Hinblick auf seine militärischen Erfahrungen im Fronteinsatz als Führer eines Zuges unter gleichzeitiger Wahrnehmung der anfallenden Verwaltungsaufgaben zu meiner vollsten Zufriedenheit bewährt. Er ist seit Beginn seines Einsatzes im Osten bei meiner Einheit tätig und zur Sicherheitspolizei abgeordnet. Im Hinblick darauf, dass sämtliche Angehörigen der Ordnungspolizei die im Osteinsatz mit der Durchführung der Aufgaben in der Geheimen Reichssache 1005 betraut waren, ist bestimmungsgemäss eine dienstliche Verwendung im Rahmen des ordnungspolizeilichen Einsatzes auf Grund der vom Reichsführer-SS - Reichssicherheitshauptamt - herausgegebenen Weisungen nicht mehr möglich. Der dzt. Einsatz meiner Einheit im Gaugebiet Kärnten ist auf unbestimmte Zeit begrenzt. Ich bitte daher, aus den angeführten Gründen für den zur Sicherheitspolizei endgültig abgestellten Pol.-Sekr. Drews die ausgesprochene Notdienstverpflichtung aufzuheben. Eine besondere Verfügung an Pol.-Sekr. Drews bitte ich im Hinblick hierauf zu erlassen. Da Drews seit dem 1.9.1944 als Pol.-Sekretär behelfsmässig eingekleidet ist, bitte ich ferner, ihm die gern. Erlass zustehende erste Einkleidungsbeihilfe von RM 250,- überweisen zu wollen. Aus einsatzmässigen Gründen kann er jedoch zur ersten Einkleidung nicht nach Kiel beurlaubt werden. Ich bitte, die erforderlichen Bezugscheine nach hier zu übersenden. Die vollständige Einkleidung würde sodann von der Bekleidungslieferstelle in Klagenfürt durchgeführt werden.Wegen Ankauf einer beamteneigenen Pistole bitte ich ausserdem um Ausstellung einer entsprechenden Bescheinigung, damit der Ankauf von hier erfolgen kann. Ferner wird mitgeteilt, dass dem Pol.-Sekr. Drews mit Wirkung vom 1.9.44 vom Reichssicherheitshauptamt das KVK II.Klasse mit Schwertern verliehen worden ist. Das Lichtbild zur Ausstellung des neuen SS-Soldbuches wird gleichzeitig in der Anlage beigefügt.
1 Anlage.

Source: Justiz und NS-Verbrechen, 2003, vol. 27, case 662. I thank Hans for pointing out this citation.

The second one:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-O2ZZOpp_bB4/V ... Bkauen.jpg

Source: Alex Faitelson, The Truth and Nothing But the Truth: Jewish Resistance in Lithuania, 2006, p.268. I thank Maximus Olson for pointing out this source.

The third one:

In den Abendstunden des 25.12.43 brachen 64 im Fort IX eingesetzte Arbeitskräfte des Unternehmens 1005-B aus, ohne dass die Flucht zunächst bemerkt wurde. Im Zuge der sofort eingeleiteten Fahndungen gelang es bisher, insgesamt 37 der Flüchtlinge wieder zu erfassen, wovon 5 auf der Flucht erschossen wurden.

Source: KdS Litauen, Lagebericht Dezember 1943, LCVA R1399-1-61, p.359 as cited in Christoph Dieckmann, Deutsche Besatzungspolitik in Litauen 1941-1944, 2011, p.1322. I thank Nick Terry for the quote and the reference.

This was also published by Faitelman in English (op. cit, p. 257, also see this page). And in German - back in 1998! (Pabėgimas iš IX forto, p. 103).

And to put some flowers on the grave of Mattogno's claim. Let's recall his and Graf's reasoning:

The designation 'Sonderkommando 1005' was invented by the Soviets. At the proceedings of February 9, 1946, at the Nuremberg Trial, the Senior Counsel Smirnov read out excerpts from the protocol "of the interrogation of Gerhard Adametz (Exhibit USSR-80, Document Number USSR-80), taken by an American army lieutenant, Patrick McMahon," in which there was talk of the activities of the "Sonderkommando 1005-A" and "1005-B."

Already Smirnov's reference to McMahon should have been an obvious signal that one cannot conclude, based on this information, that the designation was invented by the Soviets, because it was not the Soviets who had interrogated Adametz, but Americans! And indeed, in his statement to McMahon, made on 17.10.45, Adametz mentioned the designations 1005a and 1005b (YVA O.53/173, pp.10ff; see McMahon's signature on p.23; I must thank Nick Terry again for pointing out this source; direct pdf link).


So much for Mattogno's claim about the very designation "1005" being a Soviet invention. This claim demonstrates the conspiratorial mindset of the denier gurus and is a real shot in own foot: even seen from the "revisionist" perspective, there was no need whatsoever to state positively that the designation "1005" was a Soviet fabrication. Mere expression of doubt, or re-interpretation of the designation would have been more than enough. But no, it had to be specifically a Soviet fantasy, even though the claim was based on nothing but an argument from ignorance (the authors haven't seen such documents, therefore they don't exist).

Once again the "best and the brightest" "revisionists" are shown to be nothing but frauds.

I would say that Romanov may be correct on this one in that Mattogno and Graf are wrong that "1005" was a Soviet invention. Romanov may be correct that Germans willingly testifying about it to Americans without Soviet involvement. And therefore Rudolf may also be wrong to say there are no written sources for 1005. This article by Romanov article looks very convincing to me. I know Mattogno and Rudolf will probably ignore this so if anyone wants to point out why Romanov is wrong and why I am failing to see any alleged error of his, please point it out.

[Werd]

Regarding those pages in the Treblinka book, the 10 year old blog entry of Romanov's that Romanov linked up to in his 2016 article addresses that section of the Treblinka book directly.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... onism.html

Wednesday, April 05, 2006
That's why it is denial, not revisionism. Part I: Deniers on Sonderkommando 1005
In the book Treblinka. Extermination Camp or Transit Camp? Holocaust deniers Carlo Mattogno and Juergen Graf show blatant disregard for truth, by denying events for "reasons", which turn out to be bogus when the minimal amount of research is performed.

Let's start with the simplest case - that of Aktion/Sonderkommando 1005.

The gist of what Aktion 1005 was about you can glean at death-camps.org:

Under the code name "Aktion 1005" the Germans tried to cover all tracks of Nazi extermination policy in the east, by opening mass graves and cremating hundreds of thousands of bodies.

Here's what Mattogno and Graf have to say about it:

The decision to allow this operation to start up is supposed to have been made in Berlin at the beginning of 1942. A letter of February 20, 1942, from the Chief of the Gestapo, Heinrich Müller, to Martin Luther of the Foreign Office, in which the subject of the unsatisfactory burial of corpses is raised and which is supposed to have been written after Müller "had received an anonymous letter complaining about the corpses flooding the Warthegau area," is cited as proof. This letter bears the file designation "IV B 4 43/42 gRs (1005)," and the alleged 'Operation 1005' is supposed to have gotten its name from this document!

But Alfred Streim, who cites the relevant letter based on first-hand knowledge, writes:

"On November 20, 1942, Himmler ordered SS-Gruppenführer Müller, Chief of Department IV in the RSHA, in writing (Zst. Dok. Slg. Ordner 3, Bl. 583): '...You must give me a guarantee that the bodies of these deceased Jews will either be burned or buried in every location, and that nowhere can anything else of any kind happen with these bodies..."

He does not say that this letter bore the heading "IV B 4 43/42 gRs (1005)," does not assign to it the designation '1005,' and confines himself to the following comment:

"The undertaking received - in accord with a nomenclature procedure of the RSHA - the designation '1005.'"

Thus, the letter concerned dates from November 20, 1942, and not from February 20. This would mean that the designation '1005' for the operation would have been assigned a full five months after its start! On the other hand, in the letter the Jews are referred to as "dead," not 'shot' or 'killed.' Moreover, the disposal of the bodies could take place by cremation or burial, which means that the Himmler letter need have no connection with the excavation and cremation of corpses of Jews who had been shot, and what we are dealing with here is a primitive hoax.

[...]

Now, if one considers that according to the most comprehensive studies on this subject that exist, the Einsatzgruppen alone are supposed to have shot 2,200,000 people (Jews and non-Jews), that Wehrmacht, SS, and police units are also accused of hundreds of thousands of murders, and that - as already emphasized - neither the Soviets nor the Poles have found any mass-graves with even only a few thousand bodies, the 'Sonderkommandos 1005' must have exhumed and burned between one-and-a-half and three million bodies. This means that within a period of 13 months they had to have emptied thousands of graves at hundreds of locations, which were scattered over an enormous area - all of this without leaving behind any material or documentary traces!

Without having thousands of maps, on which the graves were marked, it would quite obviously have been impossible to locate those thousands of mass graves in a territory of more than 1.2 million square kilometers, but neither are such maps mentioned in even a single Einsatzgruppe report or any other document, nor have such maps ever been found among the German documents captured by the victors of World War II. And if - as the witnesses report - thousands of pyres were burning during the night despite blackout regulations, no Soviet reconnaissance plane discovered and photographed them - for otherwise the photographs would have been exploited at once for propaganda purposes.

Thomas Sandkühler plays this down:

"Due to the extreme secrecy of the 'Operation 1005,' written sources on this are very rare."

In other words, there are none! Sandkühler 's statement reflects the total embarrassment, which orthodox historians feel in the face of this outrage, while simultaneously serving up the customary stale explanation: the documents do not exist "due to the strict secrecy"! This hypothesis stands in glaring contrast to a fact, which Gerald Reitlinger describes:

"The original series [of Einsatzgruppen reports] consisted of nearly two hundred reports with a circulation list of sixty to a hundred copies each. [...]

It is not easy to see why the murderers left such an abundant testimony behind them, [...]"

The Event Reports USSR comprise a total of "over 2,900 typewritten pages," and each of them was distributed with a minimum circulation of 30 copies. The Germans are therefore supposed to have distributed tens of thousands of pages of documents concerning the mass shootings committed by the Einsatzgruppen, then quite suddenly have grasped the necessity of exhuming and burning the bodies, but have forgotten to destroy the incriminating documents!

The fact is, the story of 'Operation 1005' is based upon some few completely unreliable witness statements.

[...]

The designation 'Sonderkommando 1005' was invented by the Soviets.

I emphasized several key claims made by the authors.

Now, what someone researching these matters, and especially someone who is "skeptical" about these matters, should have done in the first place? (S)he should have consulted authoritative studies of other scholars on this topic, working from them, rebutting or adding information along the way.

Currently, the definitive scholarly study of Aktion 1005 is Shmuel Spector's article "Aktion 1005 - Effacing The Murder of Millions" (Holocaust and Genocide Studies, 1990, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 157-173).

Graf and Mattogno never mention this article. Indeed, they're obviously unaware of it, because it completely debunks their "analysis", quoted above.

1) First of all, the article makes clear that there was an inscription "IV B 4 43/42 gRs (1005)" in the upper left corner of the letter sent by Mueller to Luther on February 28, 1942 (not February 20, as the authors state). "IV B 4" was a designation of Eichmann's department of Jewish affairs. "43/42" was the number and year of the letter. "gRs" is "Geheime Reichsache", "secret Reich matter". Finally, 1005, whatever it was initially, would later become the code name of the operation to erase traces of mass murder.

The second document the authors mention as quoted by Streim (Spector quotes it too) is the letter not from Mueller to Luther, but from Himmler to Mueller, written not on February 28, but on November 20. From this the authors should have guessed that they were dealing with different letters. Duuuuh! So they reach the height of idiocy when they write:

But Alfred Streim, who cites the relevant letter based on first-hand knowledge...
[...]
Thus, the letter concerned dates from November 20, 1942, and not from February 20. This would mean that the designation '1005' for the operation would have been assigned a full five months after its start!

To reiterate: it is so freakin' obvious that these are the different letters. What kind of idiots are we dealing with here?

Also, I haven't seen any historian claiming that it was Himmler's November letter that started the whole operation. In his letter Himmler did not order to start Aktion 1005 - he was merely reacting to the rumors that the Nazis had been making soap from Jewish bodies, and was making sure that nothing of that kind would really happen.

2) The point about locating the mass graves is mostly a straw-man. Nobody argues that SK1005 cleared all the graves. In fact, Spector states:

The Nazis were not succesful in removing the signs of the murder because of the vast numbers, the wide distribution of the mass graves, and because of the swift advance of the Soviet army.

The graves themselves could be located by questioning the local population and those who took part in the killings, thus there was no need in extensive maps, etc. Historians indeed point out that surviving Sonderkommando 1005/Aktion 1005 documentation is scarce, but they never say that it is non-existent, contrary to what M&G deceptively state. In fact, in his article Spector quotes April 1944 intelligence report of the army activities in Pinsk area (by no means it should be assumed that this is the only such document):

By special order of the Reichsfuehrer SS, Sonderkommando 1005 arrived, to execute special duties in the area of the army.

Thus, contrary to M&G, Sonderkommando 1005 was not a Soviet invention.

Now think about it: how much embarrassment Mattogno and Graf would avoid if they would simply read Spector's article? Such is the best "revisionist" research.

And that's only the first example. More to follow.

Update: Also see PRO decodes about SK1005.

[Morrison]

Werd:

What kind of idiots are we dealing with here?

...

Thus, contrary to M&G, Sonderkommando 1005 was not a Soviet invention.

...

Such is the best "revisionist" research.

Werd, would you please, for the sake of clarity for those who are not up to speed on this issue, briefly explain what it is that the alleged Sonderkommando 1005 allegedly did and where?

[Hannover]

The whole argument of the reality of Aktion 1005 as alleged by Zionists falls completely on it's face via the claims made about it.
Examples follow.

Zionist propagandist Sergey Romanov says:

The point about locating the mass graves is mostly a straw-man. Nobody argues that SK1005 cleared all the graves. In fact, Spector states:

"The Nazis were not succesful in removing the signs of the murder because of the vast numbers, the wide distribution of the mass graves, and because of the swift advance of the Soviet army."

The graves themselves could be located by questioning the local population and those who took part in the killings, thus there was no need in extensive maps, etc. Historians indeed point out that surviving Sonderkommando 1005/Aktion 1005 documentation is scarce, but they never say that it is non-existent, contrary to what M&G deceptively state. In fact, in his article Spector quotes April 1944 intelligence report of the army activities in Pinsk area (by no means it should be assumed that this is the only such document):

"By special order of the Reichsfuehrer SS, Sonderkommando 1005 arrived, to execute special duties in the area of the army."
Thus, contrary to M&G, Sonderkommando 1005 was not a Soviet invention.

- Straw man not, that's self serving wishful thinking.

- Simply put, there has been no verified excavations of the alleged enormous mass graves to see, which is damning to the 'holocaust' claims considering that:
'the locals could tell anyone where to start digging' and "The Nazis were not successful in removing the signs of the murder because of the vast numbers".
So IWO, there are no such mass graves as alleged otherwise we'd be seeing them. Hence Aktion 1005 is more Zionist BS. Romanov desperately provides a contradictory rationale for the fact that there are no such graves alleged. He has shot himself in the foot with his own words.

- Where is the actual order from Himmler to view and confirm? This Spector character's alleged "quote" of the alleged order would not cut it in a court a law. Why can't we see the original German document? Was this order ever displayed in a court of law? Nope. It's alleged contents are fraudulent, otherwise the actual order would displayed for all to see. Imagine making a claim about a document and then not being able to produce it. You'd would be laughed out of court.

- Romanov has not refuted the claim that it was a Soviet invention since he cannot produce original orders/letters/documents to support his claims. In fact, it's actually irrelevant whose "invention" it was since there is no proof for the impossible claims. No claimed original letters/orders/documents, no alleged huge mass graves = no Aktion 1005 as alleged.

The Aktion 1005 allegations are part of the unsupportable '2,000,000 Jews shot by the Einsatzgruppen' tale.
So, is that:
100 graves of 20,000?
200 graves of 10,000?
400 graves of 5,000?
500 graves of 4,000?
1000 graves of 2000?
2000 graves of 1000?
None can be shown.

This is too easy.

For more on Zionist propagandist Sergey Romanov see these links:

http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=481

http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=3354

http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3525

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.

[Morrison]

Hannover:

The Aktion 1005 allegations are part of the unsupportable '2,000,000 Jews shot by the Einsatzgruppen' tale.
So, is that:
100 graves of 20,000?
200 graves of 10,000?
400 graves of 5,000?
500 graves of 4,000?
1000 graves of 2000?
2000 graves of 1000?

Why don't we ask Werd, as he is now the self-proclaimed best researcher in revisionism?

He implies over at another site that the remains of thousands of Jews exist in each of the Aktion Reinhardt camps
and explicitly says:

"I bet Belzec and Treblinka had at least a few mass graves."

I'll take that bet Werd.

I'll bet you that you can't prove that the remains of 10 people currently exist at Belzec, Chelmno or Treblinka.

I'll bet you that you can't prove that the remains of 20 people currently exist at Sobibor. (Where a total of 10 skeletons have been located / proven to exist in a total of 4 graves.)

And I'll bet you that you can't prove even one extant grave currently exists at Belzec or Treblinka.

And I'll bet you that you can't prove even one mass grave containing just 1 / 1,000 of 1% - of the fraudulently alleged buried remains claims ever existed at Belzec or Treblinka.

[Werd]

Mattogno himself in his Belzec book believed there was mass graves as Kola claimed, but that it was not for hundreds of thousands. Maybe just a few hundred who died during the transports to the East. Nothing wrong with that. But since you feel the need to dodge, I can only repeat myself.

I would say that Romanov may be correct on this one in that Mattogno and Graf are wrong that "1005" was a Soviet invention. Romanov may be correct that Germans willingly testifying about it to Americans without Soviet involvement. And therefore Rudolf may also be wrong to say there are no written sources for 1005. This article by Romanov article looks very convincing to me. I know Mattogno and Rudolf will probably ignore this so if anyone wants to point out why Romanov is wrong and why I am failing to see any alleged error of his, please point it out.

So discuss the documents and Mattogno/Graf's errors please, Morrison. At least, Hannover had this to say:

- Where is the actual order from Himmler to view and confirm? This Spector character's alleged "quote" of the alleged order would not cut it in a court a law. Why can't we see the original German document? Was this order ever displayed in a court of law? Nope. It's alleged contents are fraudulent, otherwise the actual order would displayed for all to see. Imagine making a claim about a document and then not being able to produce it. You'd would be laughed out of court.

- Romanov has not refuted the claim that it was a Soviet invention since he cannot produce original orders/letters/documents to support his claims. In fact, it's actually irrelevant whose "invention" it was since there is no proof for the impossible claims. No claimed original letters/orders/documents, no alleged huge mass graves = no Aktion 1005 as alleged.

So what Hannover is saying is that these sources Hans cited in the 2016 article I quoted in the OP mentioning "1005" are all fakes/forgeries?

That is, the original is in Bundesarchiv-Militärarchiv, while Spector cited a copy from YVA.
That matter disposed of, let's make a control headshot. Or three.

The first one:

Z.b.V.-Einsatzkommando 13-1 (12b) Klagenfurt, den 18.11.1944
Az. 10.10 Tgb.Nr. 16/44 - Geheime Staatspolizei - Burg. Einschreiben!

The second one:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-O2ZZOpp_bB4/V ... Bkauen.jpg

The third one:

In den Abendstunden des 25.12.43 brachen 64 im Fort IX eingesetzte Arbeitskräfte des Unternehmens 1005-B aus, ohne dass die Flucht zunächst bemerkt wurde. Im Zuge der sofort eingeleiteten Fahndungen gelang es bisher, insgesamt 37 der Flüchtlinge wieder zu erfassen, wovon 5 auf der Flucht erschossen wurden.

Hannover is at least trying to deal with these documents in the OP, Morrison. You seem fit to just dodge. I want to address these documents specifically and find out why Romanov has no business using them to attack Mattogno/Graf.

And what of the claim that Mattogno/Graf in their Treblinka book were confusing two documents with being the same one? This comes from the second article I quoted that is ten years old.

[Thames Darwin]

I would like Hannover to lay out the standard of evidence that he will accept.

Hannover:

The Aktion 1005 allegations are part of the unsupportable '2,000,000 Jews shot by the Einsatzgruppen' tale.
So, is that:
100 graves of 20,000?
200 graves of 10,000?
400 graves of 5,000?
500 graves of 4,000?
1000 graves of 2000?
2000 graves of 1000?

Why don't we ask Werd, as he is now the self-proclaimed best researcher in revisionism?

He implies over at another site that the remains of thousands of Jews exist in each of the Aktion Reinhardt camps
and explicitly says:

"I bet Belzec and Treblinka had at least a few mass graves."

I'll take that bet Werd.

I'll bet you that you can't prove that the remains of 10 people currently exist at Belzec, Chelmno or Treblinka.

I'll bet you that you can't prove that the remains of 20 people currently exist at Sobibor. (Where a total of 10 skeletons have been located / proven to exist in a total of 4 graves.)

And I'll bet you that you can't prove even one extant grave currently exists at Belzec or Treblinka.

And I'll bet you that you can't prove even one mass grave containing just 1 / 1,000 of 1% - of the fraudulently alleged buried remains claims ever existed at Belzec or Treblinka.

[Morrison]

Thames Darwin:

I would like Hannover to lay out the standard of evidence that he will accept.

That was me accepting Werd's bet Thames, not Hanover.

And I will accept as proof anything that Werd says is proof - based on his own personal standards of proof.

[Morrison]

Werd:

Mattogno himself in his Belzec book believed there was mass graves as Kola claimed

I assume you are saying that in defense of your earlier statements that you believe the remains of thousands of Jews exist in each of the Aktion Reinhardt camps and - "I bet Belzec and Treblinka had at least a few mass graves."

Werd, if Belzec and Treblinka "had at least a few mas graves," would it be possible for archaeologists to locate them still today?


And since you feel the need to dodge, let me repeat myself:

Werd, would you please, for the sake of clarity for those who are not up to speed on this issue, briefly explain what it is that the alleged Sonderkommando 1005 allegedly did and where?

Werd:

I would say that Romanov may be correct on this one

Are you saying the following, which is in the Romanov article you cite, is correct:

Under the code name "Aktion 1005" the Germans tried to cover all tracks of Nazi extermination policy in the east, by opening mass graves and cremating hundreds of thousands of bodies.

?

Werd, can you show me one mass grave that was opened by this alleged "Aktion 1005" group?

[Werd]

Well nobody denies graves were opened. I think even most revisionists would say yes there were probably a few small graves in Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka and possibly Auschwtiz. But they were dug up and destroyed for health concerns. If the mere opening of graves is proof the holocaust, that is not a good argument. If someone wants to show me a genuine document with 1005 on it anywhere talking about gas chambers, be my guest. But nobody can.

My whole point in all of this is to check Mattogno's claim the Soviets INVENTED this 1005 thing. That seems false and therefore so does Rudolf's claim that there is no paper trial for a "1005." Especially if Romanov has found at least three German documents with "1005" on them. And I want to know if those three documents cited by Romanov that have "1005" in them are genuine or fake/forgeries. That is all. Stop trying to complicate things. Resurrect a thread on Belzec or Treblinka or Sobibor or something. At least Hannover can stay on topic.

[Morrison]

Apparently, Werd is having a hard time grasping this concept pointed out by Hannover:

The whole argument of the reality of Aktion 1005 as alleged by Zionists falls completely on it's face via the claims made about it.

...

In fact, it's actually irrelevant whose "invention" it was since there is no proof for the impossible claims.

...

no alleged huge mass graves = no Aktion 1005 as alleged.

When Werd is asked a simple question:

Werd, can you show me one mass grave that was opened by this alleged "Aktion 1005" group?

He dodges the question with this evasive response:

Well nobody denies graves were opened.

What graves Werd? A grave has to exist before it can be opened.

Werd also claims that the remains of thousands of Jews exist in each of the Aktion Reinhardt camps, but runs when challenged to prove just a tiny fraction of his allegations.

As well, Werd says he's willing to bet that Belzec and Treblinka had at least a few mass graves, but backed down when challenged to prove it.

And when asked:

If Belzec and Treblinka "had at least a few mas graves," would it be possible for archaeologists to locate them still today?

He refuses to answer but claims:

they were dug up and destroyed

When you say "destroyed" Werd, do you mean annihilated / obliterated?

Could you tell us how this process of annihilation worked at the camps Werd?

Can you show us just one mass grave that was opened by this alleged "Aktion 1005" group?

Werd reminds me of Patrick Desbois.

[Werd]

You got a problem? Take it up with Mattogno who agrees with the drill findings of Kola at Belzec that included corpses in wax fat transformation. Finding the remains of a few hundreds or even a couple thousands DOES NOT PROVE A HOLOCAUST OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS BY GAS CHAMBERS. Now let's get focused on those three key documents that were cited by Romanov.

My whole point in all of this is to check Mattogno's claim the Soviets INVENTED this 1005 thing. That seems false and therefore so does Rudolf's claim that there is no paper trial for a "1005." Especially if Romanov has found at least three German documents with "1005" on them. And I want to know if those three documents cited by Romanov that have "1005" in them are genuine or fake/forgeries. That is all. Stop trying to complicate things. Resurrect a thread on Belzec or Treblinka or Sobibor or something. At least Hannover can stay on topic.

[Morrison]

Werd:

You got a problem?

The problem here Werd, is you are dodging questions right and left and refusing to address the major point that Hannover brought up:

The whole argument of the reality of Aktion 1005 as alleged by Zionists falls completely on it's face via the claims made about it.

...

In fact, it's actually irrelevant whose "invention" it was since there is no proof for the impossible claims.

...

no alleged huge mass graves = no Aktion 1005 as alleged.

Werd:

Take it up with Mattogno who agrees with the drill findings of Kola at Belzec that included corpses in wax fat transformation.

And you have stated unequivocally that you agree with Mattogno. So I bring it up with you.

Also, you claim:

the drill findings of Kola at Belzec included corpses in wax fat transformation

Can you prove that allegation Werd?

And BTW Werd, we're still waiting for you to prove your allegation that:

the remains of thousands of Jews exist in each of the Aktion Reinhardt camps

But you also claim:

"nobody denies graves were opened"

and

"they were dug up and destroyed"

So which is it Werd?

Do mass graves exist at Belzec that contain "corpses in wax fat transformation"?

or

Were these phantom mass graves "opened / dug up and destroyed"?

[Werd]

Bring up a thread on Kola and Belzec or Treblinka and I will gladly continue the discussion about those camps there. I'm not doing this dance anymore and you're not running this thread off topic.

Are those three documents Romanov cited authentic or are they fakes/forgeries?
Did Mattogno and Rudolf thus make a mistake about a lack of paper trial for "1005" yes or no?
Did Mattogno and Graf confuse two separate documents with one as Romanov claimed, yes or no?

[Hannover]

Werd:

Are those three documents Romanov cited authentic or are they fakes/forgeries?
Did Mattogno and Rudolf thus make a mistake about a lack of paper trial for "1005" yes or no?
Did Mattogno and Graf confuse two separate documents with one as Romanov claimed, yes or no?

1. Since they cannot / will not provide the originals they are either forged or do not really say what is alleged.
2. There has been no demonstration of a paper trail. Let's see the alleged documents. Simple.
3. Confused by what? Phantom documents?

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.