Matthew Ghobrial Cockerill vs. Thomas Dalton Debate: Aktion Reinhardt Transit Camps Part 2

Editor: Matt Cockerill and Thomas Dalton had a debate on the Holocaust which can be found at Both participants did an excellent job, and displayed a civility that is often lacking in such debates. WearsWar will run a series of articles written by John Wear over the next several months refuting Matt Cockerill’s statements in this debate.

From CODOH: “Cockerill is a rather knowledgeable young man, and as such this debate is of interest not merely because of the topic itself, but because in our estimation, this intelligent fellow is a fair representation of what scholarly (or at least the attempt thereof) anti-revisionism looks like in the younger generation. So how did this up-and-coming academic and devotee of “Holocostodoxy” fare against the battle-hardened scholastic acumen of Mr. Dalton?”

This article continues the discussion on why the Aktion Reinhardt camps of Sobibór, Belzec, and Treblinka II were transit camps. See part one here:

Outrageous Eyewitness Extermination Claims

Matt Cockerill writes on page three: “All eyewitnesses corroborate the claim that Kulmhof, Sobibor, Belzec, and Treblinka II were extermination camps, and these camps did not contain adequate space or infrastructure to house and feed any substantial number of internees, much less the 1.5 million persons deported there.”

“Finally—as usual—overwhelming testimonial evidence attests to extermination, via homicidal gassings, at these camps.”

Matt adds on page 18: “Your claim that ‘virtually every witness making substantive and verifiable claims about their time at a camp has said outrageous, ridiculous, and impossible things’ is base calumny. Do you claim to have read ‘virtually every’ witness accounts from survivors and perpetrators in the death camps? If so, how did you carry this research out?”

My response: Actually, numerous witnesses have claimed that far more than homicidal gassings were used to execute people at the Aktion Reinhardt camps and Chelmno.

For example, at Treblinka, various witnesses have alleged that mobile or stationary gas chambers, poison gas, quicklime, steam, electricity, machine guns, vacuum chambers, Zyklon B, and exhaust from diesel or gasoline engines were used as murder weapons.1

On November 15, 1942, the resistance movement of the Warsaw Ghetto composed a long article about Treblinka that was widely disseminated. This report stated that Treblinka used steam to execute inmates:

When the execution chambers are filled the doors are hermetically closed and the slow suffocation of leaving people begins, brought about by the steam issuing from the numerous vents in the pipes. At the beginning, stifled cries penetrate to the outside; gradually they quiet down and 15 minutes later the execution is complete.2

The Polish government’s charge number six against Hans Frank at the International Military Tribunal (IMT) stated: “The German authorities acting under the authority of Governor General Dr. Hans Frank established in March 1942 the extermination-camp at Treblinka, intended for mass killing of Jews by suffocating them in steam-filled chambers.” As late as 1961, a witness in Düsseldorf testified in a deposition that the victims at Treblinka had been killed by using steam.3

In August 1944, the Soviets conducted a military forensic investigation of Treblinka with an examination of the camp grounds as well as witness interviews. The murder method most frequently mentioned by the witnesses consisted of the evacuation of air from hermetically sealed rooms by means of a vacuum pump driven by an engine. The murder technique of suffocation by pumping out air was described by two witnesses in particular: Abe Kon, a former Treblinka prisoner, and the Pole Kazmierz Skaryznski. The first official Soviet report concerning Treblinka on August 24, 1944 mentioned air evacuation as the killing method.4

At the end of 1945, three different methods of mass murder at Treblinka were contending for first place: steam, evacuation of air, and engine exhaust. As previously mentioned, the Polish government gave preference to steam-filled chambers and stated that this killing method was an historical fact. However, the steam-filled chambers at Treblinka were soon declared to be a myth, and the steam-killing execution method was replaced by executions with exhaust gasses from diesel engines.5

The transition to execution by exhaust gasses from diesel engines was aided by a report from Jankiel Wiernik. Wiernik, who had been in Treblinka from August 23, 1942 until August 2, 1943, published a report in May 1944 about Treblinka that was similar to the resistance movement’s report of November 15, 1942. However, Wiernik in his report replaced the words “steam chambers” with the words “gas chambers.”

Wiernik’s report about engine exhaust gas chambers at Treblinka is shown to be invented by Wiernik’s description of the corpses of the alleged gassing victims. Wiernik reported, “All were equal. There was no longer any beauty or ugliness, for they all were yellow from the gas.” Actually, corpses of people killed by carbon monoxide poisoning exhibit a cherry-red or rosy-red coloring.6

At Belzec, on the eve of the IMT, extermination by electric current was the preferred alleged execution method, and had been officially adopted by the Polish and Soviet authorities. Dr. Litawski, the officer in charge of the Polish War Crimes Office, wrote a report in 1945 about Belzec:

On the pretext of bathing, completely undressed Jews were brought to a special building called “baths,” whose floor consists of slabs through which flows electric current of high voltage. In this way big masses of Jews were killed; their corpses were cremated or buried in huge common graves.7

Probably the most detailed and famous eyewitness account of the electric chambers at Belzec comes from Stefan Szende:

One had to work several months and build…Hundreds of thousands of working hours were spent on it, and tens of thousands of tons of valuable material were required to establish the human mill in Belzec…The human mill covers an area of approximately seven square kilometers…The trains full of Jews would travel through a tunnel into the underground rooms of the execution place. There the Jews disembarked…The naked Jews were brought into enormous halls. Several thousand humans at one time could fit into these halls. They did not have windows, and they were made with metal with a floor that could be lowered. The floors of these halls with thousands of Jews standing on them were lowered into a water basin below it—but only so far that the humans standing on the metal place would not be completely submerged. When all Jews standing on the metal were submerged in water up to their hips a strong electric current was sent through the water. After a few moments thousands of Jews were dead.

Then the metal floors were raised out of the water and on them lay the executed corpses. Another electric cable was switched on and the metal plate was turned into a crematory coffin, white-hot, until all corpses were burnt to ashes. Massive cranes then lifted the enormous crematory coffins and emptied the ash. Huge factory chimneys eliminated the smoke.8

Of course, neither documents nor material traces remain of this enormous underground plant. Some witness statements report on a soap factory in Belzec, where the fat from murdered Jews was allegedly turned into soap. Witnesses also mentioned other killing methods at Belzec, such as quicklime, which killed the deportees while traveling in trains, as well as vacuum chambers.9

At Sobibór, witnesses who testified shortly after the war spoke of chlorine as a lethal agent, and of collapsible gas chamber floors which discharged their load onto railway carts below. Various additional witness testimonies mentioned other absurd methods of execution at Sobibór.10

The so-called Gerstein Report, published by SS officer Kurt Gerstein, attracted the attention of historians directly after its publication, and became decisive for historiography regarding the choice of the murder weapon—diesel exhaust gases—for the three alleged extermination camps of Belzec, Treblinka, and Sobibór.11

In 1951, Léon Poliakov used the Gerstein Report as a source to prove the existence of extermination camps in Poland. He quoted a long excerpt from the Gerstein Report and concluded:

There is little to add to this description, which holds good for Treblinka and Sobibor as well as for the Belzec camp. The latter installations were constructed in almost the very same way, and also used the exhaust carbon monoxide gases from Diesel motors as the death agent.12

Two years later, Gerald Reitlinger used Poliakov’s work in his book The Final Solution, which soon became a classic of official Holocaust historiography. Reitlinger in this book wrote that diesel exhaust gases were the extermination method used in the Aktion Reinhardt camps. Therefore, it owes mainly to the Gerstein Report that Treblinka, like Bełżec and Sobibór, was claimed to have used diesel engines to murder people, and the steam chambers were banished to the junk yard of history.13

So, contrary to Matt Cockerill’s statement that “overwhelming testimonial evidence attests to extermination, via homicidal gassings, at these camps,” overwhelming testimonial evidence was originally presented that numerous execution methods other than homicidal gassings were used at the Aktion Reinhardt camps. Holocaust historians adopted the diesel exhaust gasses method of extermination only after the other alleged execution methods proved too absurd to support.

Matt writes on page 13: “However, multiple perpetrators, including SS functionary Eric Fuchs—who helped construct the Sobibor gas chambers—and SS-Oberscharführer Walter Piller, attested to the use of gasoline engines in the exterminations at Kulmhof [and] the Aktion Reinhardt camps.

The most parsimonious assumption is not that the witness references to diesel engines corroborate a grand conspiracy to frame the Germans—do you actually believe this, Thomas?—but that the these witnesses were simply mistakes. In any case, none of the witnesses attesting to diesel are more credible than the aforementioned Eric Fuchs. Fuchs helped install the gas chamber, was therefore in an ideal position to describe how it worked, and testified to the use of a gasoline engine (not diesel) at Sobibor.”

Matt adds on page 32: “Your claim that only “one man,” Fuchs, attested to the use of gasoline engines is false. As noted in an extensive post on this matter published by Holocaust Controversies, eyewitnesses to gasoline engines include SS men Erich Bauer and Franz Hödl; SS-Oberscharführer Walter Piller; Kulmhof gas van driver Walter Burmeister. These are higher quality witnesses than any who can be used to support the existence of diesel engines. Fuchs, Piller, and Burmeister were all SS personnel who were in a much better position to know about the mechanics of killing than horrified Jewish camp inmates, with their bird’s-eye view of the killing process.”

Matt concludes on page 43: “Both in your opening statement and in your rebuttal, you devoted considerable space to emphasizing that diesel gas would have been an implausible means of mass execution at the Reinhardt camps. In view of the fact that some witnesses alleged the use of diesel gas engines at the camps, you argued that the technical implausibility of mass gassing by diesel casts doubt on the entire extermination narrative. I exposed your argument as a complete non-sequitur. Far stronger testimonial evidence exists that the Nazis used gasoline engines, and the witnesses referring to diesel engines were simply mistaken about this ultimately trivial detail.”

Eyewitness Claims Cast Doubt On The Entire Testimonial Evidence For Executions

My response: So many outrageous statements were made by so many witnesses that it casts doubt on the entire testimonial evidence concerning the executions at the Aktion Reinhardt camps. Everything from steam, electricity, machine guns, vacuum chambers, Zyklon B, exhaust from diesel or gasoline engines, quicklime, and chlorine gas were allegedly used to murder inmates in these camps. Furthermore, after lengthy investigations, authorities from Poland and the Soviet Union adopted many of the most absurd alleged killing methods such as steam and electricity.

Thomas Dalton is correct that historians adopted the exhaust from diesel engines method of execution in the Aktion Reinhardt camps. This became a problem for Holocaust historians when it was determined that diesel engines were not an effective means of murdering people.

Walter Lüftl, a court-recognized expert engineer who headed a large engineering firm in Vienna, reported that mass murder with diesel exhaust gasses is a sheer impossibility for reasons of time alone. Lüftl stated that this can be easily proven experimentally, even today, with a few brave men. Therefore, Lüftl concluded that the stories of gas chambers with diesel engines and gas vans at places such as Treblinka can only be disinformation. Lüftl stated in his report: “The laws of nature apply both to Nazis and anti-fascists. Nobody can be killed with diesel exhaust gas in the manner described [in the Holocaust literature].”14

Friedrich Paul Berg, an American engineer, agreed with Lüftl that diesel gas chambers are not an effective means of committing mass murder. Berg stated that for any Diesel arrangement to have been even marginally effective for mass murder, it would have required an exceptionally well-informed team of experts to know and do all that was necessary. Berg mentioned that even if someone had tried for a time to commit murder with Diesel exhaust, after a few tries it would have become apparent that something better was needed. Berg concluded that the evidence for diesel gassings in the German concentration camps fails to meet the most basic standards that credible evidence must pass to satisfy reasonable people.15

Matt Cockerill provides a link to an article by Holocaust Controversies, which lists eyewitnesses to gasoline engines being used in the Aktion Reinhardt camps. These witnesses include SS men Erich Bauer and Franz Hödl; SS-Oberscharführer Walter Piller; Kulmhof gas van driver Walter Burmeister, Erich Fuchs, and others. These eyewitnesses all allegedly had close experience with the operation of the gassing vehicles in the Aktion Reinhardt camps and testified that they were run by gasoline/petrol. Therefore, the testimony of these men is regarded as more credible than witnesses who had only indirect hearsay evidence of the engines and identified them as diesel engines.

The Germans listed in the Holocaust Controversies article were typically defendants in postwar trials. For example, Erich Fuchs was arrested on April 8, 1963, and was a defendant in the Sobibór case, in which the defendants were charged with murder and aiding and abetting murder at Sobibór. Fuchs was rotated from Belzec (January 1942) to Treblinka (March 1942), eventually serving at Sobibór for several weeks between April and May 1942. He later returned to Belzec, where he remained until December 1942, before being reassigned to Treblinka.16

According to the indictment, Fuchs procured a gas-fueled, 200-horse-power motor from a tank or locomotive. Fuchs tinkered with the ignition and valves to start the motor, and with the help of unidentified assistants, he connected the exhaust pipes of the motor to a duct leading into the gas chambers. Due to a legal technicality, Fuchs was severed from the main Sobibór trial on August 29, 1966, and tried apart from the codefendants. Fuchs was convicted on December 20, 1966, to four years in prison for aiding and abetting murder.17

As with other German defendants in the Allied-run postwar trials, Fuchs was in no position to contest that Germany had a mass extermination program against Jews. If he had testified that no extermination program had existed, any leniency shown by the court in the judgment would have been tantamount to the court’s conceding the possible untruth of the extermination claim. This was a political impossibility.18 Fuchs and the other defendants’ best chance for leniency was to plead “superior orders” and “duress” which forced them to commit such heinous crimes.19

Carlo Mattogno writes about the inability of German defendants to give honest testimony at the Belzec trial:

By 1965, when the Belzec trial took place in Munich, the official historical and legal framework had been so firmly established that the defendants, in the hope of minimizing their sentences, could not but accept it unconditionally and proffer painful “confessions.”20

So, in this author’s opinion, German defendants who had alleged experience with the gassing engines are not necessarily credible when they are accused of crimes in a court of law. Under this circumstance, the German defendants were not free to dispute the allegations, but had to plead the defenses of superior orders and duress. Otherwise, like Richard Baer, the German defendants might not have lived to testify at their trials.

The Missing Crematoria

Matt writes on page 15: “Your main argument here is that it would be technically impossible to supply adequate wood for open-air cremation at the Aktion Reinhardt camps. There are two unsubstantiated and probably false assumptions behind this argument impossibility’ argument concerning whether the Nazis could supply adequate wood for open-air cremation at the Reinhardt camps.

First, you are assuming—in contradiction to the testimonial evidence—that only the dozens of woodcutting slave-laborers stationed at the camps were involved in the procurement of wood for them.

Second, you are assuming that no wood was imported to the camps from elsewhere in German-occupied Poland, a lumbering country where forestry was abundant. (According to a 1921 New York Times article cited in the Holocaust Controversies White Paper on the Reinhardt camps, “Poland’s state forests alone furnished 3,439,047 cubic meters of building timber and 2,019,758 cubic meters of fuel wood.”) Both of these assumptions contradict the testimonial evidence, which indicates such imports took place.”

Matt writes on page 31: “(And we are only discussing physical evidence; the compelling documentary and testimonial evidence for exterminations at the Reinhardt camps converge with the physical evidence.)”

“There is evidence for extermination at the Reinhardt camps—not just the ‘incomplete’ physical evidence; there is also documentary evidence like the aforementioned Stroop Report, and literally all eyewitnesses.”

My response: It is universally acknowledged that none of the Aktion Reinhardt camps had crematoria. The dead bodies were all allegedly burned on pyres in the open air. If the Aktion Reinhardt camps were extermination camps as is alleged in the official Holocaust story, the matter of the missing crematoria is extremely problematic, because cremating so many corpses would have been tremendously difficult.

Had Treblinka, for example, been a pure extermination camp, then it would have been the sheerest insanity not to construct crematoria. All large German concentration camps – Dachau, Sachsenhausen, Buchenwald, Mauthausen, Flossenbürg, Neuengamme, Groß-Rosen, Niederhagen, Ravensbrück – were equipped with stationary or mobile crematorium furnaces. Lublin/Majdanek and Auschwitz-Birkenau, which supposedly functioned simultaneously as concentration and extermination camps, possessed several crematoria. The former camp had two of them with seven muffles altogether; the latter, five crematoria with a total of 52 muffles (although not all functioning in the same time period). Why did Himmler not provide for the building of even a single furnace for an alleged pure extermination Aktion Reinhardt camp?21

The Germans even built a crematorium for a simple prisoner-of-war transit camp in Russia. Also, when it turned out that the Germans had bought too many cremation furnaces, camp leaders were all asked if such furnaces were needed in their camps. No one at Treblinka, Belzec, or Sobibór indicated a need for such cremation furnaces. This makes no sense if the Aktion Reinhardt camps were the extermination camps they are claimed to have been.22

According to Holocaust historians, the bodies of Jews gassed at the Aktion Reinhardt camps were first buried in mass graves. The bodies were later exhumed and burned in the open air.23

Based on several cremation experiments, Carlo Mattogno determines that 160 kg of wood are needed to cremate a human body weighing 45 kg. He calculates that the burning of 870,000 bodies at Treblinka would have left 1,950 tons of human ashes, plus 11,100 tons of wood ashes. The total volume of ashes would have amounted to approximately 48,400 cubic meters. Also, 139,200 metric tons of wood would have been required for the incineration of the bodies. Since human teeth and bones cannot be completely destroyed through open air cremations, myriads of teeth and bone fragments would have been scattered at the site of the former camp.24

Matt Cockerill references a lengthy article from Holocaust Controversies which concludes that the average weight of a cremated body at the Aktion Reinhardt camps was significantly less than 45 kg. However, even if Mattogno’s calculations are substantially inflated, the mass extermination of approximately 870,000 people at Treblinka would have left huge amounts of human and wood ashes as well as teeth and bones. The fact that large quantities of these have not been found indicates that mass exterminations of inmates did not take place at Treblinka.

The cremation of a human body using firewood as the primary fuel source is not easily accomplished. Criminal Inspector and Technician Lennart Kjellander of the Swedish Rikskriminalpolisen has made the following comment on incineration of human corpses outside of crematory ovens:

Large amounts of fuel, several cubic meters of wood, are necessary in order to cremate the body… High temperatures and access to large amounts of dry wood is a must. And it takes time. It is nothing that can be done in a few hours.25

Kjellander’s statement is confirmed by data we have on the firewood consumption of traditional Hindu funeral pyres. According to this data, between 300 and 600 kg of firewood is required to cremate a single body. These Hindu funeral pyres are very primitive constructions where the dead are simply placed on top of a stack of wood. The slightly more advanced method of placing a grate on top of the pyre, however, like in the “grills” reportedly used at Treblinka, is not much more fuel efficient.26

CNN: India’s burning issue with emissions from Hindu funeral pyres. Above image is a mass cremation of 15 school girls.

Thomas Kues writes that the wood needed to cremate 870,000 bodies at Treblinka had not been procured from the forests around this camp:

The witness Richard Glazar claims that the wood used to fuel the pyres was taken from “the woods around the perimeter of the camp.” Using real-life data from experiences with open-air incineration we can estimate with a high degree of certainty the amount of firewood that would be needed to incinerate the alleged number of corpses. This corresponds to approximately three square kilometers of forest. Realistically, however, this area would be much larger, as it follows from the chronology of Glazar’s testimony as well as established historiography that there would have been no time to season the wood. The cremation pyres would therefore have had to use “green” wood as fuel, which is less efficient than seasoned wood due to its higher moisture content.

By comparing a detailed 1936 map of the Treblinka area with air photos taken by the Luftwaffe in May and November 1944 we are able to estimate the scope of contemporary deforestation in the area. If 870,000 bodies had really been burned at Treblinka, then the procurement of the required fuel would have denuded the entire wooded area north of the camp site. The air photos show that this is clearly not the case. Rather, the visible possibly deforested areas – amounting to less than 10 hectares – indicate the cremation of at most some ten thousands of bodies…

There only remains the conclusion that a small percentage of the Jewish deportees died en route to the camp and that the remainder were sent somewhere else, most of them likely to occupied USSR territory. The witness Richard Glazar has thus inadvertently helped confirm the revisionist hypothesis that Treblinka II was a transit camp.27

It would have been enormously difficult, if not impossible, to cremate 870,000 bodies through open air cremations. Germar Rudolf calculates that without wood between the corpse layers, each pyre of the fire grates would have been about nine meters high. With wood between the layers, each pyre would have been over 26 meters high. This would result in a total weight of over 700 metric tons per pyre for successful cremations. Even if the Germans had managed to build such a pile, it would be only a matter of time before the corpses fell over to one side, because fires never burn evenly. Realistically, a stable pile cannot be built that is higher than it is wide.28

Since enormous amounts of fuel would have been needed to cremate the hundreds of thousands of alleged corpses, some historians have invented explanations of how such an enormous number of corpses were cremated. For example, according to Polish-Jewish historian Rachel Auerbach, fuel to burn bodies was not needed at Treblinka because the bodies of women, which had more fat, “were used to kindle, or, more accurately put, to build the fires among the piles of corpses…” Even more incredible, she wrote that “blood, too, was found to be first-class combustion material.”29 Auerbach’s explanation of how bodies were burned at Treblinka is total nonsense.

Matt writes on page 15: “Even if we adopt for argument’s sake your unsubstantiated assumptions about limitations on workforce and lumber supply, you are not able to cash out your claim of technical implausibility. According to all available testimonial and documentary evidence, a great many corpses at the Reinhardt camps—e.g., the vast majority in Treblinka—were not originally cremated, but interred in mass graves. What this meant in practice was that hundreds of thousands of exhumed corpses were decomposed and (therefore) dehydrated. Since water accounts for 60% of human weight, these dehydrated corpses required much less lumber to burn. Because these corpses were dehydrated by decomposition, they required much less lumber to burn than a fresh corpse would have…

You also raise questions about the plausibility of the Nazis disposing of bones, teeth, and ashes of victims at the camps. This argument did not impress me as likely to persuade a balanced reader, so I will deal with it summarily. The manner for disposing of bones and teeth—or more specifically, crushing them into powder and then disposing of the powder—varied from camp to camp. A ball mill was used at Belzec and Kulmhof to crush bones. The use of a ball mall was not unique to Belzec and Kulmhof. The ball mall used to crush bones at the Janowska concentration camp is pictured below.”

My response: Matt is correct that the official Holocaust story claims that most of the dead bodies at the Aktion Reinhardt camps were originally interred in mass graves. These decomposed and dehydrated bodies were then allegedly cremated using firewood as the primary fuel source.

However, this story lacks all credibility. First, it would have required a tremendous amount of work to bury hundreds of thousands of dead bodies in a few months at the Aktion Reinhardt camps. It would have then required a tremendous amount of work to recover these buried bodies and place them on the open-air pyres to be cremated. Finally, it would have required an enormous amount of work to use a bone mill to crush the huge amounts of teeth and bone fragments that would have been scattered around the Aktion Reinhardt camps. The Germans were not so stupid to have used such a labor-intensive process when far better alternatives were available.

Obviously, if the Aktion Reinhardt camps had been pure extermination camps, it would have been the sheerest insanity not to construct crematoria. The fact that none of the Aktion Reinhardt camps had crematoria indicates that these camps were not pure extermination camps.


Many Jewish prisoners undoubtedly perished during or after their rail journey to the Aktion Reinhardt camps. It is also plausible that hundreds and perhaps thousands of Jews who were too weak or ill to continue the eastbound journey from the camps were killed by officials acting on their own authority. These prisoners were buried at the Aktion Reinhardt camps. However, there is no compelling evidence that the Aktion Reinhardt camps were pure extermination centers in which Jews were systematically put to death.30

The Aktion Reinhardt camps were transit camps rather than extermination camps. The demographic studies, the numerous statements from Heinrich Himmler, the reports of transfers of Jews from the Aktion Reinhardt camps to Auschwitz and Majdanek, the lack of credible forensic evidence that mass exterminations occurred at the camps, the photographic and engineering evidence, the impossibility of disposing of so many bodies in such a short period of time, the relative lack of secrecy and security in the camps, and the small size of the areas where the bodies were supposedly buried all indicate that the Aktion Reinhardt camps were transit camps.  

Germar Rudolf writes about the Aktion Reinhardt camps:

Those claiming that a gigantic mass-murder operation unfolded have to deliver the kinds of evidence required in any murder case: primarily traces of the bodies, evidence of them having been murdered, and any kind of trace of the murder weapon.31

Official Holocaust historiography has produced no credible evidence of any of these.


1 Rudolf, Germar, Lectures on the Holocaust: Controversial Issues Cross-Examined, 4th edition, Bargoed, UK: Castle Hill Publishers, January 2023, p. 257.

2 Mattogno, Carlo and Graf, Jürgen, Treblinka: Transit Camp or Extermination Camp?, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2010, p. 56.

3 Ibid., p. 62.

4 Ibid., pp. 64-65.

5 Ibid., p. 70.

6 Ibid., pp. 70-73.

7 Mattogno, Carlo, Belzec: In Propaganda, Testimonies, Archeological Research & History, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2011, p. 35.

8 Rudolf, Germar, Lectures on the Holocaust: Controversial Issues Cross-Examined, 4th edition, Bargoed, UK: Castle Hill Publishers, January 2023, pp. 282-283.

9 Ibid., p. 283.

10 Ibid., p. 287.

11 Mattogno, Carlo and Graf, Jürgen, Treblinka: Transit Camp or Extermination Camp?, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2010, p. 75.

12 Ibid., p. 76.

13 Ibid.

14Lüftl, Walter, “The Lüftl Report,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 12, No. 4, Winter 1992-1993, pp. 403-406, 419.

15 Berg, Friedrich Paul, “The Diesel Gas Chamber: Ideal for Torture—Absurd For Murder,” in Gauss, Ernst (ed.), Dissecting the Holocaust: The Growing Critique of Truth and Memory, Capshaw, AL: Thesis and Dissertations Press, 2000, pp. 454-456.

16 Bryant, Michael S., Eyewitness to Genocide: The Operation Reinhard Death Camp Trials, 1955-1966, Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Press, 2014, pp. 144, 151.

17 Ibid., pp. 151, 177, 280-281.

18 Butz, Arthur R., The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, Newport Beach, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, pp. 181-182.

19 Bryant, Michael S., Eyewitness to Genocide: The Operation Reinhard Death Camp Trials, 1955-1966, Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Press, 2014, p. 163.

20 Mattogno, Carlo, Belzec: In Propaganda, Testimonies, Archeological Research & History, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2011, p. 41.

21 Mattogno, Carlo and Graf, Jürgen, Treblinka: Transit Camp or Extermination Camp?, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2010, p. 143.

22 Rudolf, Germar, Lectures on the Holocaust: Controversial Issues Cross-Examined, 4th edition, Bargoed, UK: Castle Hill Publishers, January 2023, p. 270.

23 Mattogno, Carlo and Graf, Jürgen, Treblinka: Transit Camp or Extermination Camp? Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2010, p. 143.

24 Ibid., pp. 150-151.

25 Svårt bränna upp lik”, Aftonbladet, Stockholm, February 16, 2006.

26 Kues, Thomas, “Tree-Felling at Treblinka,” Inconvenient History, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2009.

27 Ibid.

28 Rudolf, Germar, Lectures on the Holocaust: Controversial Issues Cross-Examined, 4th edition, Bargoed, UK: Castle Hill Publishers, January 2023, p. 271-273.

29 Auerbach, Rachel, “In the Fields of Treblinka,” edited by Donat, Alexander, The Death Camp Treblinka, New York: Holocaust Library, 1979, p. 38.


31 Rudolf, Germar, Lectures on the Holocaust: Controversial Issues Cross-Examined, 4th edition, Bargoed, UK: Castle Hill Publishers, January 2023, p. 279.

Spread the love

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.