I'm not aware of specific denial by those at Treblinka, though I see that Kurt Franz wrote in his album that his time there was "the best days of my life", which seems an unlikely description for an involvement in systematic mass murder with a sideline in sadistic atrocity:
http://holocausthistorychannel.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/screenshot-301.png
But then, the usual laws of psychology are suspended in holocaust studies, along with the laws of physics, chemistry, etc, so it's a weak argument.
Unlikely? Seems? You don't really understand sadism then, do you ESC? Franz was described as a sadist by those who saw what he did in Treblinka. The Ukrainian hiwi feared him. There were photographs missing from his "Good old days album," (not sneer quotes) too I believe, they had been torn out of it and were missing. Your personal incredulity or learned incredulity - as the case may be- doesn't tip the scale here. Read a bit more criminal psychology. Concerning photography, Walendy, U. Him, the user of the retouched spaghetti picture from the smuggled out roll taken from the door of Krema V in Birkenau during Hungarian aktions? Yes well that's another pot of beans that has been refried and refried.
If you want to argue that every picture documenting the period which is clearly incriminating in some fashion is fraudulent, then on you go. I'm really not going to get into any such discussions upon forums with you Revisionists. I have done that now and have learned that such topics represent a very special level of, "prove it," tedium. I am more interested myself in why. Why choose to document the crimes? Who was behind the camera, etc. What should be read into their activites, what should be read into what they chose not to photograph?
You are arguing otherwise I think that the events did not happen and mostly upon the strength of surviving photographs. Fine. I must remind you that these images are tied to specific documented events. They should not be viewed in isolation as is the good ole rev approach. These graphic images supplement historical understanding.
In studying the photographs of professional photographer Johannes Hähle and his documenting of the Lubny aktion (SK4a 16 October 1942.) we learn from what is being shown things about how the aktion was carried out. All that Hähle chose not to photograph that day were the murders themselves. Everything else is shown, the utter despondency of people sitting. People waiting themselves to have to stand up and be lead away and shot. The removal of warm outer clothing etc. The final leading off in small groups to the execution site. Johannes Hähle was attached to Propagandakompanie and was with 6th Army in Russia, he was injured before Stalingrad and so escaped the enciclement. He was a very good German photographer.
It was he who had also caught the evidence afterward of Babi Yar in Kiev with a roll of colour film and now here he was a scant two weeks later in Lubny, Ukraine. Recording with his camera all the events which lead to the destruction of the Jewish community there that day. Those killings at Lubny were accounted for in a paragraph in Operational Situation Report 132:
"Another platoon of Sonderkommando 4a was active at Lubny. Without any opposition, it executed 1,363 Jews, Communists, and partisans, among them 53 prisoners-of-war and a few Jewish rifle-women. Before the war, Lubny had 35,000 inhabitants, among them 14,000 Jews. A recent census undertaken by the local municipal administration showed that of 20,000 inhabitants allegedly only 1,500 Jews can be listed."
I believe one Lemmy Caution who used to argue with Holocaust Revosionosts here wrote about the subject of photography broadly.
Lemmy Caution:
For the vast body of photographs and documents which deniers declare to be forgeries - under the doctrine of * IFWF - there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of forgery or tampering. A contrasting photographic example is the famous Yezhov photo as well as photos of Trotsky. In these cases, we can see, from negatives, original and altered version. Much of what passes for photo analysis among deniers is conspiracy theorizing about digital versions of photographs, with all the problems inherent in using these kinds of copies. That there are many Holocaust photographs incorrectly captioned or used on certain Websites without care doesn't speak to the photographs themselves, nor to scholars' uses of these documents; rather, it speaks to the nature of the "democratic" Web. Janina Struk's Photographing the Holocaust is a good treatment o the use of photographs in constructing historical understanding of this period and a good caution against "fundamentalist" uses of photography. That said, along with other sources, as with the Liepaja photos or the famous Birkenau SK photos, or photos documenting mass graves, this kind of evidence is quite useful and not so glibly dismissed as our deniers pretend with their Moscow Forgery Factories and other flights of fancy. In the case of Liepaja, for example, we know a great deal about the shooting of the photos, including the brand of camera, and how they came to be printed, along with narrative accounts of the actions which the photos record. Deniers would not be taken as charlatans and clowns if they were to document their claims about forgeries in the same manner. That they don't speaks to the absence of evidence for their claims as much as their incompetence in this area.
Working explanation. * It's a forgery or we're **********.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-202147-p-25.html
That seems essentially good enough to me.
