The question was when was the public made aware that the Auschwitz gas chamber was a "reconstruction."
Nick said Pressac spilled the beans. Asked when the Auschwitz state museum admitted the "reconstruction,"
TSR said there was nothing to admit to.
Neither of these links says what you claim.
You can keep running from your Ponar Boehner and trying to pretend it was a victory but it's not working.
Actually, I keep bringing Ponar up, you mean, and the various sources that reinforce one another and enable us to reconstruct events there in 1941. Once again, I am not interested in how you tally victories and defeats but in understanding, through the sources, what happened at Ponar - the sources showing that a series of small and large extermination actions occurred there in summer and fall 1941, reducing Vilna's Jewish population by 10s of 1000s. You still haven't engaged these sources. So I will keep reminding you of that major failure on your part and that wide gap in your thinking.
It also needs to be said that I have made a number of longish posts explaining what happened at Ponar in 1941 and relating my understanding to a number of sources that help me understand that. You have made no explanation whatsoever and have ignored every source introduced except one tiny portion of Kruk's diary and your fumbling around with Jaeger. I've explained in detail why I find Kruk's diary credible but also why the source material is strong and abundant enough to explain the exterminations at Ponar without the few lines you object to, for whatever reasons that suit you at any moment (starting with your total misreading of the entry when you declared the victim a "master thespian" for passing out!).
Why don't you explain your version of the summer and fall 1941 events in Vilna and at Ponar, with sources?
As to your "smoking gun" Jaeger Report,
I asked you what the Jaeger Report was and you answered. Where in your answer did you say that it was evidence of the German government's plan to exterminate all the Jews?
First, the Jaeger Report is not a smoking gun. Nor did I call it that. I described it as one piece of evidence meshing with other sources and showing their credibility. Why are you attributing to me, again, something I did not say and even making it look as though I wrote "smoking gun" by putting the phrase in quotation marks? The only use of the term "smoking gun" that I recall, in fact, was yours referring to gas chambers. Your attributing this term to me and how I have brought in the Jaeger Report is thoroughly deceitful.
Second, after mentioning the Jaeger Report as a very important source, like Sakowicz's diary, I read where you wrote,
If you don't want us to say there are no documents, stop saying there are documents. When asked for a document that unambiguously says "extermination," don't offer one that says "special treatment." If you say that a German saying "ausrotten" in connection with the Jews is irrefutable proof of the intent to exterminate all the Jews, explain why Americans saying "exterminate" in connection with the Japanese is just flowery language. Don't say that the documentary evidence of a planned ethnic cleansing is evidence of an extermination. Don't say that one ambiguous word that appears once in one memo is the smoking gun that proves gas chambers at Auschwitz. Don't quote the opinion of a court that convicted members of the SS of treating Jews inhumanely as evidence that there was a policy of physically annihilating all the Jews. Don't offer a report that says X number of Jews were shot in retaliation for the murder of a German soldier as evidence that all the Jews were going to be killed.
In reply I cited some specifics of Jeager's Report, pertinent to your questions for a document that
unambiguously discusses killing Jews to get rid of Jews. The Jaeger Report does in fact discuss a plan to kill Lithuania's Jews and its near-complete success, which is what I said it discussed. From the Jaeger Report:
The goal of making Lithuania free of Jews could only be attained through the deployment of a raiding commando with selected men under the leadership of SS First Lieutenant Hamann, who completely and entirely adopted my goals and understood the importance of ensuring the co-operation of the Lithuanian partisans and the competent civilian positions. The implementation of such activities is primarily a question of organization. The decision to systematically make every district free of Jews necessitated an exhaustive preparation of each individual operation and reconnaissance of the prevailing circumstances in the applicable district.
But I didn't cite this specific document to prove a plan to murder all of Europe's Jews at that time, which I explained to you. When I laid this out, you then said that only if a document discussed extermination of "all the Jews" could it be used to understand the killing of some Jews - moving the goalposts in order to salvage something of your bold challenges.
But you also made three other counter-arguments: 1) that the Jaeger Report described anti-partisan operations, 2) that it described and used the language of ethnic cleansing, and 3) that it described rogue, unapproved excesses. I replied to these contradictory and unsupported arguments here
http://www.internationalskeptics.co...p=7879945&highlight=sterilization#post7879945 and asked, a number of times, for you to show how the Jaeger Report itself does any such things. You haven't done so. You have yet to offer any argument at all, based on sources, especially Jaeger's report, for your claims that it discussed ethnic cleansing rather than mass murder, anti-partisan operations, or unapproved excesses. Nothing.
Can you defend your claims about ethnic cleansing, anti-partisan operations, and rogue excesses - using the Jaeger Report?
Frankly, you have shown utterly no familiarity with the contents of the Jaeger Report up to this point. I wonder if you have even read it, judging by what you've said about it.
