I am interested in methodology, how we go about studying and investigating. Here is an apt dictionary definition;
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... ethodology
"...a system of ways of doing, teaching, or studying something:
The methodology and findings of the research team have been criticized."
I am very critical of the methodology and findings of the research team that is Holocaust revisionist/deniers. It stands to reason, if an investigation uses poor or flawed research and evidence assessment methods, it will likely reach the wrong conclusion. I find the way historians investigate the Holocaust far more compelling than the way revisionists use. The next definition provided by the dictionary is also apt;
"...a set of methods used in a particular area of study or activity:
The two researchers are using different methodologies."
Historians and Holocaust revisionists use different research methodologies, and they come to different conclusions. Surely why that is and which side is using the more accurate methodology, should be a question that needs study and an answer.
I will happily explain and defend the methodology used by historians. They gather contemporaneous evidence to establish a chronological narrative of events, using corroboration to establish accuracy and truthfulness. It is similar to the methodology used by the police and journalists. When I ask revisionists to explain and defend their methodology, they are less happy, shall we say.
viewtopic.php?p=22273#p22273
Why do revisionists consistently not use the same methodology as historians? After saying that, sometimes they do. Robert Faurisson visited Treblinka and found a witness who worked near to TII, when he was a youth. Rudolf Germar has visited Auschwitz and looked into the archives, tracing documentary evidence. But, and it is a big but, they have failed to produce any history of what took place inside those places. Their methodology is to give reasons why they find the evidence those places were used to mass gas Jews and others, unconvincing and then declare there were no such gassings. Suggestions are sometimes made as to what those places were used for, but there is no chronological narrative, no revised history.
Can any revisionist here explain to me, why I should dump the methodology used by historians all over the world, to investigate the Holocaust and switch to their method?
Historians v revisionists, methodology.
Re: Historians v revisionists, methodology.
Archie has confirmed with me, that pointing out when revisionists are using a certain form of logically flawed argument is banned. Obviously, that is going to make discussion about methodology harder. It also evidence to prove how flawed revisionist methodology is, as instead of explaining themselves, they ban any discussion.
The main flaws with revisionist investigations, that as yet have not been banned, are;
1 - their inability to gather contemporaneous evidence to produce a chronological narrative. In that respect they fail at the basic task of historian, they cannot prove what happened. Instead, they produce a non-history, of what they say did not happen. Some poor attempts have been made to produce revised histories, such as Thomas Kues research into what happened to "non-gassed" Jews, by looking for reports and other evidence of Jews in the Soviet east. Jean-Claude Pressac searched the Auschwitz archives for evidence as to what took place inside the camps Kremas, but he concluded they were used for gassings. Mattogno produced a basic history of what happened to some of the Hungarian Jews transported to Birkenau in 1944, who he traced to other camps. The Holocaust is such a huge topic, that it is best researched in part.
2 - their treatment of the witness evidence, mixing hearsay with eyewitnesses, failing to identify what is hearsay and what was seen and ignoring the studies about estimation, memory and recall.
3 - their analysis of other evidence, such as archaeology, without taking cognisance their lack of relevant training and experience, which is more likely to cause them to make mistakes. There is a distinct overconfidence amongst the revisionists, that they can successfully review and assess expert produced evidence.
The main flaws with revisionist investigations, that as yet have not been banned, are;
1 - their inability to gather contemporaneous evidence to produce a chronological narrative. In that respect they fail at the basic task of historian, they cannot prove what happened. Instead, they produce a non-history, of what they say did not happen. Some poor attempts have been made to produce revised histories, such as Thomas Kues research into what happened to "non-gassed" Jews, by looking for reports and other evidence of Jews in the Soviet east. Jean-Claude Pressac searched the Auschwitz archives for evidence as to what took place inside the camps Kremas, but he concluded they were used for gassings. Mattogno produced a basic history of what happened to some of the Hungarian Jews transported to Birkenau in 1944, who he traced to other camps. The Holocaust is such a huge topic, that it is best researched in part.
2 - their treatment of the witness evidence, mixing hearsay with eyewitnesses, failing to identify what is hearsay and what was seen and ignoring the studies about estimation, memory and recall.
3 - their analysis of other evidence, such as archaeology, without taking cognisance their lack of relevant training and experience, which is more likely to cause them to make mistakes. There is a distinct overconfidence amongst the revisionists, that they can successfully review and assess expert produced evidence.
Re: Historians v revisionists, methodology.
Get over yourself, its a good job you’ve had multiple entire threads dedicated to the fallacies you dont understand and people can go laugh at how much you blew it in various places.banned
For God’s sake. Be thankful im not a mod here or else you actually would be banned at the IP level for the thousands of cumulative man-hours you have leeched from the users here.
Re: Historians v revisionists, methodology.
All you and the rest needed to do, was to explain why your disbelief about the physical possibility of gassings, based on the evidence from eyewitnesses and what little was left by the Nazis, is proof that there were no gas chambers.
You couldn't do that, so the subject is censored.
You would rather ban me, than debate me over your methodology. That is evidence to prove how deeply flawed your methodology is. Your treatment of witness evidence, your failure to produce a revised history and your overconfident assessment of evidence you have no training or expertise in, are all flaws that you are unable to defend.For God’s sake. Be thankful im not a mod here or else you actually would be banned at the IP level for the thousands of cumulative man-hours you have leeched from the users here.
Re: Historians v revisionists, methodology.
Nazgul, whose posting style has changed, with an improvement in his vocabulary, on his favourite theory that the transports to TII dropped prisoners off each time they stopped. His approach is evidentially flawed, as he is very selective about what evidence he uses.
viewtopic.php?p=22323#p22323
viewtopic.php?p=22323#p22323
In fact, Poswolski's account aligns with and is corroborated by multiple eyewitness descriptions of the ghetto transports being split, to fit inside TII. There is no evidence the split transports at Malkinia then headed to different camps.Poswolski’s account shows that not all transported individuals arrived at the same ramp or site at the same time. This supports the idea that operations may have been spread across multiple locations and that witness observations refer to different areas or points of entry, which makes interpreting precise numbers and movement patterns challenging. The rest is hearsay
Re: Historians v revisionists, methodology.
Rebuttal: The Małkinia "Split" and the Multi-Camp Discrepancy
The claim that the "split" at Małkinia proves a single-camp queue for Treblinka II (TII) ignores significant geographical and functional contradictions found in contemporary intelligence and survivor mapping
1. Małkinia as a Sorting Hub, Not a Queue
The testimony of Eli Rosenberg and Henryk Poswolski confirms that the Małkinia junction was the operational "break point" for all transports. However, contemporary military reconnaissance did not identify TII as a "death camp."
Intelligence Record 3030/3031: U.S. Intelligence reports from the period specifically categorized Treblinka II as a Judenlager—a facility for housing and labour, rather than an extermination site.
General Grot-Rowecki’s Reconnaissance: As Commander of the Polish Home Army, Grot-Rowecki’s intelligence identified distinct perimeters for multiple sites. His plans for a potential attack relied on a layout where TII and a separate execution zone were functionally independent.
2. The Existence of "Treblinka III" and the Kosów Lacki Woods
If TII functioned as a Judenlager, the "death camp" identified by intelligence was a separate entity, often referred to as Treblinka III or located specifically in the Kosów Lacki woods.
Geographic Mismatch: This aligns with the testimony of town elders who placed the execution site South of Wólka Okrąglik. In contrast, the modern TII monument sits 1.2 km Northeast of that same village.
Distribution via Spur Line: The "split" at Małkinia into groups of 15 wagons likely facilitated sorting between these functionally distinct sites (Labour/Housing vs. Execution), rather than serving as a simple waiting line for one ramp.
3. The Mapping Shift and Post-War Alignment
The "standard" narrative relies heavily on the 1945 Łukaszkiewicz survey, which merged these disparate intelligence-identified sites into a single 17-hectare footprint. This required adjusting earlier data:
Wiernik’s Map Shift: Jankiel Wiernik’s original 1944 map placed the camp on the Warsaw-Białystok main line. It was only later "moved" to the Małkinia-Siedlce spur line in revised versions to align with the physical remains surveyed in the woods in 1945.
4. Conclusion
The logistical "split" described by Rosenberg—moving wagons via a "special side-track"—confirms a distribution process away from the main junction. Given that military reconnaissance at the time identified a multi-camp system with distinct functions, there is no forensic requirement to assume all split transports terminated at the same location. The "exterminationist" model requires dismissing these early, detailed reports (3030/3031) as "errors" to fit a unified post-war map.
References
1. U.S. Intelligence & Digital Memorial Archives
Since the original Deutschland ein Denkmal site is inactive, you can use the Arolsen Archives (the world's most comprehensive archive on Nazi crimes) or the EHRI (European Holocaust Research Infrastructure) to reference the specific camp categorisations like Judenlager.
Arolsen Archives (Search for Treblinka/Judenlager):
collections.arolsen-archives.org
EHRI Portal (For Intelligence Reports and Camp Categorisation):
portal.ehri-project.eu (Note: Search for Treblinka II/III within this portal for specific report numbers).
2. The 1945 Łukaszkiewicz Investigation
The Central Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland reports (which include the Wólka Okrąglik survey) are hosted by the Zapisy Terroru (Chronicles of Terror) database.
Chronicles of Terror (Łukaszkiewicz Testimony & Survey):
www.zapisyterroru.pl
3. General Grot-Rowecki & The Home Army (AK)
For the reconnaissance and attack plans (Operation "Antyk" or reports to London), the Polish Underground Movement Study Trust in London is the primary source.
PUMST Digital Archive (Home Army Reports):
www.pumst.org
4. Survivor Testimonies (Rosenberg/Wiernik)
To link directly to the testimonies where the "split" at Małkinia and the mapping discrepancies are documented:
Yad Vashem Digital Collections (Eli Rosenberg/Jankiel Wiernik):
collections.yadvashem.org
Treblinka Museum (Official Site for Geographical Context):
muzeumtreblinka.eu
SPQR Vita hominis iter est, non destinatio
Re: Historians v revisionists, methodology.
You need to learn the difference between evidence and supposition. You cherry-pick secondary evidence from intelligence reports, that are uncertain about the location of the death camp and ignore that the primary evidence of eyewitnesses, who all locate the camp on the spur leading to the Treblinka quarry and labour camp. You hypothesis that the different locations of the camp given in the intelligence reports, mean that when transports were split at Malkinia, they were going to different camps. You produce no primary evidence, such as an eyewitness, to support that.Nazgul wrote: ↑Mon Feb 23, 2026 1:20 pmAnalysis of the Discrepancies
The claim that there is "no evidence" of transports heading to different locations is challenged by early intelligence and military reconnaissance that identified a more complex multi-camp system:
The Three-Camp Model: Early reports, including those associated with General Grot-Rowecki (Commander of the Polish Home Army), distinguished between multiple sites. While Treblinka II (TII) was frequently labeled as a Judenlager (Jewish camp/housing) in various intelligence summaries, a separate "death camp" or execution site was often identified as Treblinka III or located specifically in the Kosów Lacki woods.
Intelligence Geography: U.S. Intelligence reports from the period specifically placed the primary execution facilities at Kosów Lacki, not at the site 1.2 km Northeast of Wólka Okrąglik where the TII monument stands today. If the "split" transports were being diverted, these reports suggest they were moving between a labor/housing facility (Judenlager) and a separate execution zone.
Reconnaissance for Attack: General Grot-Rowecki’s reconnaissance and plans to attack the camps relied on a layout that differs from the modern unified map. His intelligence identified distinct perimeters for TII and TIII, suggesting that the "split" at Małkinia served to sort arrivals between different functional destinations rather than just a logistical queue for a single ramp.
The "Mapping Shift": The fact that Jankiel Wiernik’s original maps placed the site on the Warsaw-Białystok main line—only for the location to be "moved" 4km away to the Małkinia-Siedlce line in later versions—indicates a significant post-war adjustment to align survivor testimony with the physical remains found in the woods.
Summary of the Counter-Argument
Functional Labels: Contemporary U.S. Intelligence and Polish Underground reports often categorized TII as a Judenlager, implying it served a different purpose than the specialized death facilities identified elsewhere (TIII/Kosów).
Małkinia as a Sorting Hub: The "split" at Małkinia likely facilitated the distribution of victims to these different facilities (Labor vs. Execution), which explains why early reports maintained a distinction between the names and locations.
Geographic Mismatch: The 1945 judicial survey by Judge Łukaszkiewicz effectively merged these separate intelligence-identified sites into one unified "Treblinka II," disregarding the earlier reports that placed the "death camp" at Kosów Lacki and the "Judenlager" at Treblinka.
By relying on the 1945 survey as the "correct" map, the current narrative ignores the reconnaissance data that originally drove the Home Army’s tactical planning.
Lukaszkiewicz did not merge the intelligence reports. He gathered eyewitnesses who had escaped from the camp, took statements from them and got them to show where the camp was. That is how TII, the AR camp, was located.
https://www.zapisyterroru.pl/dlibra/res ... 20camp&p=0
Your methodology, is flawed, because of your selectiveness with the evidence and the way you conflate secondary and primary sources.
Have you used any form of AI in your research?
Re: Historians v revisionists, methodology.
Eyewitness testimony is valuable, but it is far from infallible. Survivor statements are often second-hand, contradictory, and shaped by trauma. Even Judge Łukaszkiewicz had to reconcile huge discrepancies between different eyewitness accounts when establishing Treblinka’s layout, demonstrating that primary testimony alone cannot provide a complete picture.
Relying solely on these testimonies is inherently fragile. Early intelligence reports and military reconnaissance offer a broader operational perspective, capturing functional distinctions between labor/housing sites and execution facilities, as well as multiple sites that individual statements alone cannot reliably convey. For instance, U.S. intelligence and Polish underground reports identified separate perimeters for Treblinka II (Judenlager) and Treblinka III/Kosów Lacki (execution site), and reconnaissance maps informed tactical planning and transport routing at Małkinia.
Understanding the camp layout requires integrating both primary eyewitness accounts and contemporaneous intelligence. Considering both sources reveals the multi-site complexity that post-war surveys often simplified into a single location. This approach gives a more accurate and nuanced picture for anyone seeking the historical truth.
Real people deserve real research — not shortcuts, slogans, or the comfort of a single story.
SPQR Vita hominis iter est, non destinatio
Re: Historians v revisionists, methodology.
What is the last historical book you have read? Any historical topic.
I ask because it seems to me you do not actually read any history. Rather you make sweepingly inaccurate claims based on your own preconceptions about what "the historians" do and don't do.
Incredulity Enthusiast
Re: Historians v revisionists, methodology.
How revisionists assess the eyewitness evidence has no basis in the numerous studies of witnesses and their evidence. Their primary aim is to find excuses to dismiss their evidence, resulting in claims about lying and then not being able to trace anyone who worked inside TII, who they believe.Nazgul wrote: ↑Mon Feb 23, 2026 2:25 pmEyewitness testimony is valuable, but it is far from infallible. Survivor statements are often second-hand, contradictory, and shaped by trauma. Even Judge Łukaszkiewicz had to reconcile huge discrepancies between different eyewitness accounts when establishing Treblinka’s layout, demonstrating that primary testimony alone cannot provide a complete picture.
Which is why historians use corroboration.Relying solely on these testimonies is inherently fragile.
Real research does not involve cherry-picking only the secondary sources that are the intelligence and military reports and dumping the entirety of the eyewitness evidence.Early intelligence reports and military reconnaissance offer a broader operational perspective, capturing functional distinctions between labor/housing sites and execution facilities, as well as multiple sites that individual statements alone cannot reliably convey. For instance, U.S. intelligence and Polish underground reports identified separate perimeters for Treblinka II (Judenlager) and Treblinka III/Kosów Lacki (execution site), and reconnaissance maps informed tactical planning and transport routing at Małkinia.
Understanding the camp layout requires integrating both primary eyewitness accounts and contemporaneous intelligence. Considering both sources reveals the multi-site complexity that post-war surveys often simplified into a single location. This approach gives a more accurate and nuanced picture for anyone seeking the historical truth.
Real people deserve real research — not shortcuts, slogans, or the comfort of a single story.
Re: Historians v revisionists, methodology.
A History of World Agriculture, borrowed from a relative who had a career in botany.
Have you any specific examples?I ask because it seems to me you do not actually read any history. Rather you make sweepingly inaccurate claims based on your own preconceptions about what "the historians" do and don't do.
Re: Historians v revisionists, methodology.
You clearly missed the word 'integrating' in my post. I’m arguing for the synthesis of sources, not the substitution of one for the other. If you’re going to accuse someone of 'dumping' evidence, you should probably start by actually reading the evidence provided in their text. Literacy is a prerequisite for 'real research.
SPQR Vita hominis iter est, non destinatio
Re: Historians v revisionists, methodology.
So, you’ve skimmed a botany-adjacent book on agriculture and now you feel qualified to 'defend the methodology of historians' regarding Holocaust intelligence?
That explains why you don't know the difference between a primary and secondary source. Citing a book on crop rotation doesn't give you the range to lecture anyone on integrating 1942 reconnaissance with survivor testimony.
You aren't 'defending methodology'—you're a hobbyist who can't even read a three-paragraph post without misrepresenting it. Stick to the botany; the archival research is clearly out of your depth
SPQR Vita hominis iter est, non destinatio
Re: Historians v revisionists, methodology.
You have dumped every single witness who worked inside TII, the AR camp on the line to the Treblinka quarry and labour camp.Nazgul wrote: ↑Mon Feb 23, 2026 10:06 pmYou clearly missed the word 'integrating' in my post. I’m arguing for the synthesis of sources, not the substitution of one for the other. If you’re going to accuse someone of 'dumping' evidence, you should probably start by actually reading the evidence provided in their text. Literacy is a prerequisite for 'real research.
Re: Historians v revisionists, methodology.
Please evidence your claim that I do not know the difference between a primary and secondary source. Show examples of where I mix them up. Failure to do so will be evidence you have lied.Nazgul wrote: ↑Mon Feb 23, 2026 10:12 pmSo, you’ve skimmed a botany-adjacent book on agriculture and now you feel qualified to 'defend the methodology of historians' regarding Holocaust intelligence?
That explains why you don't know the difference between a primary and secondary source. Citing a book on crop rotation doesn't give you the range to lecture anyone on integrating 1942 reconnaissance with survivor testimony.
You aren't 'defending methodology'—you're a hobbyist who can't even read a three-paragraph post without misrepresenting it. Stick to the botany; the archival research is clearly out of your depth
I note that your reaction is not to explain and defend your methodology and how the methodology used by historians is wrong, rather it is to attack me. This thread will be like the thread where I proved how reliant revisionists are on a certain illogical argument. I will prove revisionism's research methods are all deeply flawed.