Talk:Treblinka extermination camp/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Request for comments on the killing installation at Treblinka

Should the operation of Treblinka gas chambers include the description of the type of fuel used to produce deadly fumes? Some historians say, it was the gasoline (i.e. petrol), other historians say it was the diesel fuel. The controversy goes back several decades. — The SS functionary who installed the fuming engines at the extermination camps of Operation Reinhard (including Treblinka); and, who testified at the postwar trials in Germany, did not describe his own Treblinka installation. Others did it instead of him ... thus igniting a fiery debate in the following decades between Holocaust historians, Holocaust deniers, and even the most prominent American politicians. Poeticbent talk 19:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support inclusion of the word "diesel" in the description of the deadly fumes.
• Oppose; the word "diesel" is not necessary in the description of the killing apparatus.

---

• Oppose It's immaterial to the extermination. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. There's ample evidence to the contrary. Poeticbent talk 04:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose It's immaterial; let's not get into trivia when discussing such an important topic. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• The fuming engines at death camps of Operation Reinhard (including Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka), were installed by SS-Scharführer Erich Fuchs. Fuchs testified at the Bełżec trial in 1963, and at the Sobibor trial in 1966. He did not appear at the Treblinka trials of 1964 and 1970 (for reasons unknown). Fuchs (a primary source) stated that his killing installation at Sobibor consisted of a gasoline engine,^[a] producing high volumes of carbon monoxide. He said little-to-nothing about the engine he installed at Treblinka. Fuchs died in 1980. The first person who claimed that the engines were fueled by diesel was Kurt Gerstein (a primary source), who authored his Gerstein Report in 1945. Gerstein had nothing to do with the killing installations and was offering a hearsay testimony. Meanwhile, the testimonies of Erich Bauer (Sobibor), Rudolf Reder (Belzec), and Nikolay Shalayev (Treblinka; all primary sources) spoke of gasoline-fueled engines used for gassing. The real major controversy regarding the type of fuel used at Treblinka erupted when Fuchs was no longer alive. In 1990, Pat Buchanan, while preparing to run for the presidency, proclaimed in the New York Post: "Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody." It was revealed later that Buchanan's claim originated from the leading Holocaust denial organization.^[b] The actual heated debate about the gassing engine at Treblinka continues to this day; with summary offered by the Holocaust Denial on Trial website created by Professor Deborah E. Lipstadt and colleagues at the Institute for Jewish Studies.^[c] More point-by-point analysis is offered by other scholars as well.^[d] The general trend in identifying the type of gas used for the extermination of Jews is clearly noticeable,^[e] even though, is not essential for our purposes. — There's always room for another article in Wikipedia. What matters here, is wp:neutrality. Poeticbent talk 19:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

a). The testimony of SS Scharfuhrer Erich Fuchs in the Sobibor-Bolender trial at Dusseldorf, is quoted (word-for-word) by Yitzhak Arad (1987), BELZEC, SOBIBOR, TREBLINKA – the Operation Reinhard Death Camps, Indiana University Press, p. 31-32. See: reprint of Arad's quote by Nizkor.org.

b). Michael Shermer, Alex Grobman (2009), Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? University of California Press, p. 39. ISBN 0520944097.

c). Deborah E. Lipstadt at al (2017), Holocaust Denial on Trial. Emory University, Institute for Jewish Studies.

d). Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard. A Critique. Internet Archive, 2011, pp. 316–328.

e). Cymet, David (2010). History Vs. Apologetics: The Holocaust, the Third Reich, and the Catholic Church. Lexington Books. p. 263. ISBN 0739132938.

• I’m on vacation typing this on my phone, will be back in a week. First, I’m not happy that I was not noticed about the prior conversation regarding one of my edits and the tone of this conversation. All I can say now is the evidence ce for diesel or petrol is very contradictory. The mechanics on the engine disagree about whether it was a Renault (French) engine or Russian tank! This is not a minor disagreement, the witnessess are unreliable diesel has inert amounts of carbon monoxide. Article should discuss it or this should be addressed in another article regarding the gas chambers. Here’s an objective article on the contoversey. Raquel Baranow (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. Analysing primary sources and posts on websites is exactly what we shouldn't be doing. The article must reflect the position of high-quality secondary sources. In the section above, I listed several that say it was diesel, including Donald Bloxham (Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 118): "the murders at Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka involved the use of carbon monoxide exhaust fumes, generated from a diesel engine". I asked Poeticbent to provide a reliable source for his view that it wasn't and could not have been diesel. Instead of replying, he opened an RfC (and one not neutrally worded). If there is doubt as to how to word that sentence, we can write to the RS and ask for advice. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - If I understand Poeticbent's statement correctly, this argument is over an issue raised by Pat Buchanan decades after the fact? Since when do we allow extremist politicians/religious leaders to determine our content in matters about which they are essentially ignorant non-specialists, and for which they may have other agendas working rather than factual accuracy? I believe the comment of SV is very sensible, and I agree with what she says. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not what the argument concerning 'diesel' is about. My remark about Buchanan served as an example of how badly misrepresented it may be. The real argument is best summarized by Professor Deborah E. Lipstadt (quote): "More recent research in newly-opened archives has shown that gasoline engines, and not diesel engines, were used in Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor. Direct eyewitness evidence supports this conclusion. This is a simple matter of new information becoming available and not a product of “desperation.”"[1]

---

Endnote: Friedrich Berg, “Diesel Gas Chambers: Ideal for Torture—Absurd for Murder,” Part 3 (“12. Scholarly Evasion and Metamorphosis”) at www.nazigassings.com/dieselgaschamberc.html and: Friedrich Berg, “The Diesel Gas Chambers: Myth Within a Myth,” (“Postscript: More Surprises to Come!”) at www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/5/1/Berg15-46.html. Poeticbent talk 23:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Then why does your comment include this:

The real major controversy regarding the type of fuel used at Treblinka erupted when Fuchs was no longer alive. In 1990, Pat Buchanan, while preparing to run for the presidency, proclaimed in the New York Post: "Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody." It was revealed later that Buchanan's claim originated from the leading Holocaust denial organization.

What is the purpose of mentioning this? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• If it wasn't for Buchanan and his cohorts, the issue would have probably been resolved in the usual scholarly manner similar to the 'steam' chambers first mentioned at the Nuremberg trials. Poeticbent talk 00:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Here's an excerpt from the testimony of Wachmann Nikolay Shalayev, the 'motorists' at the Treblinka extermination camp:

It was an ordinary, four-cylinder engine which used gasoline and, according to the story, of the German machine operator, was of Russian make. The engine was installed on a wooden frame and started as soon as people were herded into the gas chamber rooms, whereupon the exhaust pipe was covered up and the valve of the pipe was opened, through which the exhaust entered the "bath".

Protokol doprosa, Nikolay Shalayev, 18.12.1950, in the Soviet criminal case against Fedorenko, vol. 15, p. 164. Exhibit GX-125 in US v. Reimer. Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard. A Critique... page 320. (PDF, direct download). Poeticbent talk 01:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

You know, people were killed using the exhaust of engines powered by petroleum products. Does anyone (except deniers) doubt that? If not, then this is arguing about a pretty irrelevant detail, and any extensive discussion of the specifics beyond the statement that a dispute exists would, in my view, be WP:UNDUE in this context, somewhat like arguing about what brand of medical equipment Josef Mengele used. It really is just not that important. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

So, if the statement that a dispute exists would be appropriate, how would you phrase such a statement without going into extensive detail? Our Treblinka article states in Wikipedia's authoritative voice that: "The victims were gassed with diesel exhaust..." There's a curious stack of citations selected only to verify it, with no mention of expert testimonies, or a 'dispute' of any kind. Bloxham (2001, p. 118) has no source for his diesel claim,[2] and contradicts Arad about the gasoline motor at Sobibor, so why choose him at all? [3] Poeticbent talk 04:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Addendum: Our aim is to strive for wp:neutrality without fact picking. Many of the sources listed on this page in support of the diesel claim (beginning from the top) do not say that diesel fuel was used at Treblinka for the extermination of Jews. Here's a partial list of them:

1. David Cymet 2010 (above): "When the doors closed, the diesel engine broke down ..." (p. 274) quoted from Gerstein about Belzec (from Gerstein Report). This is NOT about Treblinka. Gerstein came to Belzec on a short visit and had nothing to do with the killing installations anywhere. (Google)
2. Paul Weindling 2000: "carbon monoxide gas from diesel motors ..." (pp. 297, 301). Circular references about Sobibor from Hilberg, Gerstein file, and Eugen Kogon 1983 in German. (Google). This is NOT about Treblinka. Besides, Sobibor used gasoline (not diesel), said Erich Bauer who operated the gas chambers.
3. THE TWO SOURCES FROM ABOVE DO NOT SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF A DIESEL-FUELED MOTOR IN TREBLINKA.
4. Rashke 2012, Cymet 2012, Bryant 2014, Webb 2017, Schelvis 2014, Bialowitz 2010 (Google) all mention "Erich Bauer ..." the "Gasmeister" of Sobibor who operated the gas chambers. Here's what Bauer said about Sobibor: "....We unloaded the motor. It was a heavy Russian benzine [i.e. gasoline] engine, at least 200 horsepower. we installed the engine on a concrete foundation and set up the connection between the exhaust and the tube." (p. 31-32) Sobibor-Bolender trial.
5. Bloxham 2001: "In fact, the murders at Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka involved the use of carbon monoxide exhaust fumes, generated from a diesel engine." (p. 118) The paragraph is not referenced to anything. (Google). We already know that the claim is not true about Sobibor according to "Gasmeister" Bauer; nor is it true about Belzec according to Rudolf Reder, the Sonderkommando survivor who was ordered to hand-pour gasoline (not diesel) from the canisters into the tank of the killing apparatus.
   Poeticbent talk 18:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Poeticbent quoted Deborah Lipstadt above ("More recent research in newly-opened archives has shown ...), but linked to an anonymous post on hdot.org. This is a site set up by her and others, but we don't know that she wrote those words, and even if she did, that website is not an RS. The article can describe disputes, but it must be based on scholarly publications, not posts on websites. As for why Bloxham was cited, his book was published by Oxford University Press. In case the mainstream view has changed since then, we can write to these authors and ask for their guidance. Poeticbent, can you cite a peer-reviewed article or book that supports your view? SarahSV ^(talk) 05:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I, too, would like to see academic secondary sources (not trial transcripts) for the case that the engines were gasoline engines, not diesel. It appears we have at least one source that supports diesel... plus Arad's Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka p. 42 where he discusses the construction of Treblinka "During the camp's first months of operation, there were three gas chambers, each 4 X 4 meters and 2.6 meters high, similar to the first gas chamber constructed in Sobibor. A room attached to the building contained a diesel engine, which introduced the poisonous carbon monoxide gas through pipes into the chambers, and a generator, whic supplied electricity to the entire camp." It's possible Arad's been superceded, but we need to have more than an anonymous posting on a web site to contradict Arad. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• The only book source worth quoting in this article in reference to an ongoing debate about the type of fuel used in Treblinka, is the book already cited in academic literature, including by The Routledge History of Genocide 2015 (Google,) as well as the Holocaust and Genocide Denial 2017 (Google,) titled: Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard. A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf and Kues (A Holocaust Controversies White Paper, First Edition, December 2011; 571 pages). — It is a fairly new book featuring an exhaustive analysis of all available data including expert testimonies from newly-opened archives (mentioned by Lipstadt and colleagues). Older publications cannot (and do not) offer the same information simply because the research by Harrison, Muehlenkamp, Myers, Romanov and Terry, has not been published before. However, if Cathie Carmichael and Richard C. Maguire (Routledge, ISBN 131751484X), Paul Behrens and Olaf Jensen (Denial, ISBN 1317204166) cared to rely on it, there's no question of the book's growing significance. It is available from the Internet Archive at https://archive.org/details/BelzecSobiborTreblinka.HolocaustDenialAndOperationReinhard.ACritique as well as an optional direct download such as PDF 5.3 MB from the same portal.

Please read the entire chapter: "The Gassing Engine: Diesel or Gasoline?" (quote from p. 316): A re-examination of the relevant testimonies with the Reinhard camps and gas vans reveals an interesting feature, one long ignored: witnesses who had closer experiences to the actual gassing engine share a large agreement that they were run by gasoline/petrol, while those witnesses with only an indirect hearsay knowledge of the engine were more likely to identify it as diesel. It didn’t matter whether the witness was a perpetrator, bystander, or a survivor, only the matter of direct knowledge is important in identifying the testimonies which should be used to establish the method of murder. Poeticbent talk 17:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Would there be any objections to wrapping up this discussion with some revisions and a small expansion of the article to include the fuel debate in it? I wrote most of this article, in its present form anyway (Poeticbent +117,674 / -19,692 / page size 140,861),[4] with editorial input from AmericanLemming (+36,051 / -21,191) who's the best.[5] Wouldn't mind doing that without flare ups if possible. Thank you, Poeticbent talk 20:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to something being added if it is based on appropriate peer-reviewed sources. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

External links...

Just to dot the i's and cross the t's - can we have a good explanation of why the external link is being removed? It would be nice to have a quick discussion so if need be, the page can be semi-protected rather than just edit-warred over. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• My comment is here to keep the discussion in one place. freshacconci (✉) 15:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

First sentence

I agree with Beluuga's change to the first sentence "forced labour and extermination camp". [6] I've never understood why we focus only on the latter. There were two camps, as the lead goes on to explain, and this article is about both. Similarly, in Auschwitz there were multiple camps, even though when most people think of Auschwitz they think of the death camp. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• There was only one (!) extermination camp called Treblinka. The labour camp was 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) away. Beluuga's edit warring, with everyone else, about "a forced labour and extermination camp" made it sound like the extermination camp served a dual purpose which would be a form of denialism. Poeticbent talk 14:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

You've "never understood why we focus only on the latter"? Really? Forced labor camps were a dime-a-dozen in Nazi Germany, they were all over the Reich, at the sites of all major factories and munitions plants. Speer couldn't have done his magic without massive amounts of slave labor. But, as opposed to labor camps, there were a limited number of extermination camps, and a heck of a lot of people were killed in them - and deliberately so, not simply worked to death as in the labor camps. I'd say that makes them rather extraordinary in the history of the world, so there's little reason to wonder why we focus on them.

That said, I see nothing wrong in adding "and forced labour" after "extermination, so we don't, as they say in the news biz, bury the lede. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Why the snark? The lead as written makes no sense. The title is extermination camp. We say in the first sentence it was an extermination camp. And "The camp operated between 23 July 1942 and 19 October 1943". But no, in fact there were two camps, and the first operated before that. The lead then mentions that lower down, as though it isn't contradicting itself. It's poor writing. (Whether to die of hunger, summary execution, forced labour, or gas chamber: I don't know how much that would matter to the dead. The point is that there were two camps, and people were killed in both.) SarahSV ^(talk) 00:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Why the snark? Because of what I perceived as the insensitivity of your remark, frankly. If I was mistaken, then I apologize. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, and I apologize if what I wrote seemed insensitive. I meant only that I don't see any reason to overlook the first camp (Abeitslager Treblinka, December 1941 to August 1944), and write the lead as though it's an afterthought. It operated alongside the death camp and men from the first helped to build the second. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I already responded in part to this question at the Beluuga's W:ANI report. My reasoning is simple, there was only one extermination camp called Treblinka ... which is also the WP:TITLE of this article. In the opening line of the "Treblinka extermination camp" article we ought to follow the world-wide general understanding of what Treblinka extermination camp is. I don't really like the sound of it, but should the two camps be split into two separate articles? Is this what our debate might lead to ? Poeticbent talk 01:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Why can't we handle it as we do Auschwitz? Explain right at the start that there two camps and describe the relationship between them. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Administratively speaking, Treblinka gravel mine had little to do with the Treblinka extermination camp. Unlike Auschwitz, Birkenau and Monowitz, run by the SS Main Economic and Administrative Office, Operation Reinhard camps, including Treblinka, were run by the SS and police leader as a separate entity with officers sworn to absolute secrecy.^[1] Their orders came directly from Himmler and not from the Concentration Camps Inspectorate. So in fact, lumping them together in one Wikipedia article was a matter of convenience. Poeticbent talk 03:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

1). Beevor, Antony (2012). The Second World War. The Shoa by Gas 1942–1944. Little, Brown. p. 584. ISBN 0-316-08407-7.

Unencyclopaedic content removed

I removed the following text:

• Convenient road connection from Poland's capital to Treblinka is a car drive along Expressway S8 to Ostrów Mazowiecka and from there, Road 627 through Małkinia Górna to Treblinka.

The reason should be obvious: it is not encyclopaedic. The policy could not be clearer: Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Therefore, this must be removed. And yet, two editors have tried to put it back. Why? 167.98.54.59 (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Unencyclopaedic content removed #2

I removed the following adjectives (highlighted in bold):

• Famed Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal, pictured here in 1982, was responsible for hunting down Franz Stangl in Brazil.
• It took another six years before the famous Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal tracked him down...

The reason should be obvious: these are peacock words, neither summarising nor imparting verifiable information. And yet, two editors are trying to put them back. Why? 167.98.54.59 (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You failed to explain your edits, you are edit warring, you are attacking other editors ([7], [8], and [9]), and you are most likely a blocked editor/sockpuppet. freshacconci (✉) 22:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I love how you say "you failed to explain your edits" right underneath yet another explanation of them! Your malicious intent is obvious and yet inexplicable. What exactly is your motivation here? Do you want to make a high quality encyclopaedia, or is this some kind of game for you? 167.98.54.59 (talk) 03:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

So you can throw in a 3RR violation and not assuming good faith to the above. And of course you know that removing the warnings from your talk page does not negate them? You're edit warring, editing disruptively and attacking other editors and the warnings are still part of the talk page history. freshacconci (✉) 03:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You are obviously acting in bad faith. You cannot claim otherwise. You've repeatedly undone edits without making any attempt to explain why, and you've lied repeatedly. Here, you are entirely ignoring my explanation of the edit I made. Clearly, you are not here to build an encyclopaedia. And you accuse me of disruption!! 167.98.54.59 (talk) 03:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

10 April 2018

There have been a few investigations of the Treblinka grounds - ground radar and forensic work by an English group. Their results should be added. 2601:181:8301:4510:D981:90CB:8ADC:BCDA (talk) 04:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• The investigations of the Treblinka grounds, and their results, are there in section Treblinka extermination camp#Archaeological studies. Anything else? Poeticbent talk 05:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I stumbled upon the name Marian Olszuk, a nearby resident of Treblinka during WWII. He was questioned and claimed that he passed the camp daily and never noticed any extermination activity ( burning fires, smoke, etc). Any information on him or other neighbors? 2601:181:8301:4510:3D2A:7E0F:7BC1:CCD (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

There are no sources for that. It would be uninteresting to our readers any way. Someone not noticing the murders is hardly an interesting fact. --AdamF in MO (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Escapees from the camp

Some prisoners escaped from the camp before the uprising, including David Milgrom who told the Bratislava Working Group about exterminations at Treblinka. I suspect that Milgrom was not the only one, and in fact other escapees spread news of the killings around occupied Poland. I was going to add this to the article but couldn't find the appropriate section. Any ideas? Catrìona (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Steiner...

Per our own article on Jean-François Steiner, his book Treblinka is not a reliable source. I'm working to replace it. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Death account estimated during the Treblinka Trials

I think the quote below is important and should be included in the article because it refutes the unfounded claim by Holocaust deniers that Treblinka was a transit camp and not a death camp.

Of course, it is not possible to determine an exact number of persons who were taken to Treblinka in this way, since only part of the railway documents were available, particularly with regard to rail transport. Nevertheless, the number of persons brought to Treblinka by freight and passenger trains - excluding the approximately 329,000 Jews from Warsaw - could be estimated at around 271,000 if, per train, an average wagon number of 60 and an average wagon load of 100 and one Passenger car with 50 people go out, so that a freight train had transported about 6000 and a passenger train about 3000 Jews to Treblinka. But as these figures were in reality often much higher, and since thousands of Jews and Gypsies also came to Treblinka by horse and cart, the total number of those brought from Warsaw, from the rest of Poland, from Germany and other European countries to Treblinka Jews, including at least 1,000 Gypsies, are well over 700,000, even taking into account that several thousand people from Treblinka had returned to other camps and that several hundred prisoners had escaped from the camp, especially during the rebellion on August 2, 1943. For all these reasons, it is scientifically justified to estimate the number of people killed in Treblinka to be at least 700,000.

In the original German:

Eine genaue Anzahl der auf diese Art und Weise nach Treblinka geschafften Personen lasse sich freilich nicht bestimmen, da insbesondere hinsichtlich der Bahntransporte nur noch ein Teil der Bahnunterlagen greifbar sei. Trotzdem könne man die Zahl der mit Güter- und Personenzügen nach Treblinka gebrachten Personen - unter Ausserachtlassung der rund 329000 Warschauer Juden - auf rund 271000 schätzen, wenn man pro Zug von einer durchschnittlichen Waggonzahl von 60 und von einer durchschnittlichen Belegung eines Güterwaggons mit 100 und eines Personenwagens mit 50 Menschen ausgehe, so dass ein Güterzug etwa 6000 und ein Personenzug etwa 3000 Juden nach Treblinka befördert habe. Da diese Zahlen aber in Wirklichkeit häufig viel höher gelegen hätten und da ausserdem Tausende von Juden und auch Zigeunern mit Pferdefuhrwerken und Lastkraftwagen nach Treblinka gekommen seien, habe die Gesamtzahl der aus Warschau, aus dem übrigen Polen, aus Deutschland und anderen europäischen Ländern nach Treblinka gebrachten Juden einschliesslich von mindestens 1000 Zigeunern beträchtlich über 700000 gelegen, selbst wenn man berücksichtige, dass einige Tausend Menschen von Treblinka wieder nach anderen Lagern gekommen seien und dass einigen hundert Häftlingen die Flucht aus dem Lager, insbesondere beim Aufstand am 2.August 1943, gelungen sei. Aus allen diesen Gründen sei es wissenschaftlich zu vertreten, die Zahl der in Treblinka getöteten Personen auf mindestens 700000 Personen zu schätzen.

The full text of the trial can be found in the original German here.--JackRussell1962 (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The trial was in 1965. The whole article refutes the denialist claims - throughout. Per MOS:QUOTE, we try to avoid large block quotes, and one reason is that it gives undue prominence to particular views. In this case - the block quote is from a non-academic source (a trial), that took place over 50 years ago. It gives undue prominence to one view of the death count - which has been superceeded by more modern research that occurred after the fall of the Iron Curtain and the opening of archives in the former Soviet Union, etc. We should not privilege such a non-academic/out of date source with such a long quote. Arad, for one, has done extensive work on documenting some of the deportation efforts, and his revised edition of The Operation Reinhard Death Camps (2018) lists this information in Appendix A (Treblinka's information is in Table 4 of the Appendix) as well as chapter 48 of that work. Note that the intercepted telegrams from Hofle to the headquarters of Operation Reinhard were only discovered in 1997 and fully interpreted after that - which telegrams have significantly increased our knowledge of the death toll in the Reinhard camps - because these telegrams give (1) the death totals for the last two weeks of December 1942 for the various Reinhard camps, and (2) the cumulative death totals for the camps through December 31, 1942. The number in the second telegram for Treblinka is 713,555 - which is significantly higher than the total given above in the quote and is much more up to date ... thus showing why it's a bad idea to priviledge outdated material by quoting it at length. Arad goes on to give a number killed in Treblinka of 800,000-850,000 - which is just an estimate, but one that is based on academic scholarship and is much more up to date than the one given in the 1965 quote. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Excellent response. Completely agree. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

'Gas Chambers' at Treblinka

I think it might be a wise decision to adjust those parts of the article that indicate that people were 'gassed' at Treblinka or that there were 'Gas chambers' in operation at Treblinka. There were no gas chambers at Treblinka and no person was gassed there. By stating that there were such installations gives an opening to the Holocaust-deniers who will take any opportunity to use inaccurate statements to promote their view of a lesser catastrophe. I've seen this on discussuion sites on other parts of the web. People sent to Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec and the Chelmo site were asphyxiated by the method of piping carbon monoxide from vehicle engines into the sealed chamber where they were penned. People sent to Auchwitz who were selected to be murdered were gassed by the introduction of Zyklon B pellets through overhead openings in the chambers where they were herded. The end result is the same but in respect of the victims and to avoid providing any opportunity to Holocaust-deniers to undermine, in any way, the truth of the Holocaust, I believe that it is important to stress these factual points. Thanks. 2A00:23C4:49B:F100:E47C:419:E1A4:78FF (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

That part of the article is detailed and well-sourced and these facts are stressed in the article, which states: The killing process at Treblinka differed significantly from the method used at Auschwitz and Majdanek, where the poison gas Zyklon B (hydrogen cyanide) was used. At Treblinka, Sobibór, Chełmno, and Bełżec, the victims died from suffocation and carbon monoxide poisoning. El_C 01:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

There have been several forensic studies done at Treblinka - there needs to be a section of these forensic studies - pro and con. 2601:181:8301:4510:5008:B8C2:A3EB:786D (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

"Pro and con" what, exactly? As mentioned above, carbon monoxide was used at Treblinka and this is well-sourced. These "forensic studies" -- where are they published? What specific articles discuss them? freshacconci (✉) 16:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Study done by English forensic scientist - Coll. Study done by Australian using ground penetrating radar. Probably a few others. They both came to about the same results - not much was found but minor soil disturbances, no large fire pit charring, not much for infrastructure , etc. Nothing from either of a massive operation. 2601:181:8301:4510:6CBB:A686:D0E:B38E (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

And the reason you fail to name any of these studies is because...? El_C 15:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Because they've been debunked. here and here is TV coverage of the Colls study which also doesn't agree with the statement above. Colls discovered some previously unknown mass grave sites, in fact. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Because I am certain you have already heard about and read Colls work. She found a shoe (instantly claimed it was a shoe of a murdered Jew - great forensic work there). Then she found some bone fragments - no DNA check - just sobs and more claims. Check the 1944aerial photos of Treblinka. These will really upset you. Read Colls and see for yourself the minimal research actually done (most of the fragments were animals - no DNA). 2601:181:8301:4510:68DC:9905:C7D2:C651 (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOTAFORUM Jayjg ^(talk) 13:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see in that article the mention of "steam chambers" as a way of killing at Treblinka. The only documentary proof of murders performed at Treblinka and exhibited at Nuremberg was the official report made by a Soviet commission and accepted as an authentic evidence (ref. 3311-PS) according with the article 21 of the statute of the Tribunal.

"The erection of this camp was closely connected with the German plans aiming at a complete destruction of the Jewish population in Poland which necessitated the creation of a machinery by means of which the Polish Jews could be killed in large numbers. Late in April 1942, the erection of the first three chambers was finished in which these general massacres were to be performed by means of steam. Somewhat later the erection of the real death building was finished, which contains ten death chambers. It was opened for wholesale murders early in autumn 1942 * * *." (3311-PS) 2804:7F2:C180:ED42:ADE0:C5C6:2B23:9ACF (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Euphemisms

I have removed some references to people being "processed" at the camp. I understand that this was a word used by the Nazis, and it has its place here, but I think that is also a very good reason not to overuse it. The people were killed. I would use "murdered", as frankly it's the most precise word in many respects, but "killed" is more neutral. In any event, euphemisms should generally be avoided.

I don't think that putting it in quote marks helps greatly. Either it looks a bit arch - which is tonally wrong - or it's just playing into the ideas of people who coined the phrase. So it's better to be clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westmorlandia (talk • contribs) 22:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Spade is a spade. No WEASELS. Zezen (talk) 09:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Murdered is the correct word. You can't be neutral about this. Tsf (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect reference must be removed

Under the "Archaeological studies" section there is a sentence which reads "In his memoir describing his stay in the camp, survivor Jankiel Wiernik says that the floor in the gas chambers (which he helped build) was made of similar tiles.[241]"

Note 241 links to "Boyle, Alan (29 March 2014). "Archaeologists Delicately Dig Up Nazi Death Camp Secrets at Treblinka". NBC. Retrieved 29 March 2014." URL: https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/archaeologists-delicately-dig-nazi-death-camp-secrets-treblinka-n66241.

That NBC article makes no reference to Jankiel Wiernik's memoir, and does not even mention him by name. This sentence and the reference should be removed for accuracy's sake. BookyDong (talk) 06:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2021

The mentioned number of 6 gas chambers is incorrect. In the first few months of operation there were 3. Later a new building containing 10 gas chambers was built. The original building with 3 chambers was maintained. Making 13 in total. 2A02:A44D:602C:1:75BB:2149:EF5E:E34A (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Number of survivors

I just want to add that I believe an edit needs to be made or perhaps a section added regarding the number of survivors from Treblinka. This article states that "70 [survivors] are known to have survived until the end of the war". This is an often cited figure in Treblinka literature and scholarship, however it is inaccurate. This figure originated with Alexander Donat in his book "The Death Camp Treblinka: A Documentary". In this book he listed the names of 68 survivors that he knew of, though he did not intend it to be an exhuastive list. This number caught on and is cited pretty much any time Treblinka is ever mentioned in the media or in academic literature. However, historians of this field have found many more survivors, including at least 48 not listed by Donat who have recorded testimonies in the USC Shoah Foundation Visual History Archive. Historian Dr. Chad S.A. Gibbs has uncovered at least 248 survivors as of September 2020, with another 29 leads still being investigated. He presented this data in a lecture on this subject which can be found here.

It is likely that not all of these survivors are from the revolt, I have found in my reading of various Treblinka survivor memoirs and testimonies that there were at least a few who escaped through other means. I believe that perhaps a seperate section within this article discussing survivors would be necessary. This section might give an overveiw of the post-war life and activities of certain notable survivors and can explain the issues within the scholarship regarding the commonly used "70 survivors" figure. We can pull out the personal details of known survivors from the Day of the revolt and survivors subsection, which will declutter this section and keep it on focused on the details of the uprising. I am in the process of looking for more reliable sources regarding the number of Treblinka survivors. One other source that could be used is Dr. Gibb's 2018 article in the The Journal of Contemporary Archival Studies, which can he found here, where he states that he has found 130 survivors and is investigating 900 possible leads.

I am not yet an extended-confirmed user so I cannot make these changes myself however I am willing to work on it with someone on this. April Jennifer (she/her • talk • contributions) 06:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 August 2021

Hello, in the section Day of the revolt and survivors I had previously added a short description of Chaim Sztajer. Please change "survived 11 months" to "survived 10 months" as I have discovered in my reading that he was deported to the camp on the 3rd of October 1942, which makes 10 months until the day of the uprising when he escaped. I originally wrote 11 months as I believed he had been deported to the camp in September, not October. Apriljennifer (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 September 2021

Ivan the Terrible was not a real person. Cite them and their identity. Beaten with whips, also needs citation. 75.130.193.179 (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: He is adequately sourced in Ivan the Terrible (Treblinka guard) — IVORK _Talk 03:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 October 2021

In the last paragraph of the background section, add the line

The Operation Reinhard camps reported directly to Himmler, and not to the concentration camps inspector Richard Glücks.

to highlight an important distinction with Auschwitz and other camps. Edit0r6781 (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2021

In the last paragraph of the background section, add the line

The Operation Reinhard camps reported directly to Himmler, and not to the concentration camps inspector Richard Glücks.

to highlight an important distinction with Auschwitz and other camps. Edit0r6781 (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Erwin Labert's description

Erwin Lambert is described as "euthanasia expert." I think it is more correct and appropriate to describe him as "expert for the construction of gas chambers," (with quotes and citation) as he is described here: Erwin Lambert#cite ref-Friedlander 2-2. AndyBloch (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)