Historians v revisionists, methodology.

[Archie]

Re: Elie Wiesel (whose importance you are trying to downplay),

-Head of Carter's President's Commission on the Holocaust (1978)
-Chairman of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council (1980), the beginning of USHMM
-U.S. Congressional Gold Medal (1984)
-French Legion of Honor (1984)
-Nobel Peace Prize (1986)
-Presidential Medal of Freedom (1992)

Night is a mega-bestseller and is still claimed to be factual, and it is commonly assigned and taught in high schools and universities.

Wiesel was quite obscure until the early 1960s and didn't testify at any trials (until the Klaus Barbie trial in 1987 which is very late). Night, like the Anne Frank diary, is not of much use as a broad historical source about Auschwitz. But it is still revealing that a novelist could become a central figure in Holocaustism.

[Nessie]

"Historians will discuss the reliability of sources, for example Gerstein. He is reliable enough to be used by historians, but he is not considered to be credible."

Nessie, can you explain what you mean by this?

Gerstein was cited extensively by Poliakov, and traditionally he has been probably the most important AR witness. But since he's been debunked there now seems to be hesitance to use him.

Gerstein is a more significant witness than say, Wiesel, due to his specialist knowledge and the camps he visited. Wiesel is a witness to life in A-B, the concentration camp, and there are many such witnesses. His evidence about the Kremas and gassings is hearsay. Just being at a camp, does not make someone a witness to the mass murders. The only such witnesses are those in authority who knew about the operation of the camp, or who worked inside and saw what was happening inside the Kremas. Gerstein saw gas chambers in operation. He visited death camps. His knowledge of what was happening, was far greater than Wiesel. Hence, Poliakov used Gerstein and I doubt very much he used Wiesel.

I have discussed with you before, the difference between credibility and reliability. Someone can be highly credible and a complete liar, making up a very believable story that is not true. I should add in accuracy. Someone can be credible, but completely wrong about something.

Gerstein has been assessed by historians to be who he said he was, the ranks and positions he held and places he went to. His evidence is corroborated, therefore, his descriptions of gassings are truthful. But, he made mistakes, such as he got the engine used for the gassings wrong, it was not a diesel. That error is explainable, as he did not have intimate knowledge of the gas chambers, and those who did, such as Fuchs, stated it was a petrol engine. Historians regard some of what Gerstein claimed to be exaggerated, so with that and the known errors his credibility is reduced.

Revisionists have not debunked Gerstein. To do that you would need evidence he lied about his work, the camps he went to and what he saw there. To prove he lied about seeing the gas chambers at Belzec and TII, you would need corroborating evidence there were no such chambers at those camps. You think you have successfully debunked someone, by disputing their credibility, so their testimony can be dismissed completely. That is not how it works and the best example I can think of to explain that is Hoess. His testimony is riddled with errors, inconsistencies and tainted heavily by the torture that was inflicted on him. His credibility as a witness is poor. But, and it is a big but, he was commander at A-B and his evidence is corroborated. That means he is being truthful when he admitted mass murder had taken place inside gas chambers at the camp. Hoess was there, he will have known and he is corroborated.

I am aware of hesitance to use Wiesel as a witness, but not Gerstein and Hoess, because despite the issues with their testimony, it is proven, by extensive corroborating evidence that they were where they said they were and the saw what they said they saw.

[Nessie]

Re: Elie Wiesel (whose importance you are trying to downplay),

-Head of Carter's President's Commission on the Holocaust (1978)
-Chairman of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council (1980), the beginning of USHMM
-U.S. Congressional Gold Medal (1984)
-French Legion of Honor (1984)
-Nobel Peace Prize (1986)
-Presidential Medal of Freedom (1992)

Night is a mega-bestseller and is still claimed to be factual, and it is commonly assigned and taught in high schools and universities.

Wiesel was quite obscure until the early 1960s and didn't testify at any trials (until the Klaus Barbie trial in 1987 which is very late). Night, like the Anne Frank diary, is not of much use as a broad historical source about Auschwitz. But it is still revealing that a novelist could become a central figure in Holocaustism.

Don't confuse survivor testimony with the histories. The public are more interested in survivor testimony, than they are in the histories. They would rather read "The Tattooist of Auschwitz" than "Auschwitz, The Nazis and the Final Solution". I am only downplaying Wiesel in that his evidence about mass murder is hearsay. He is not as important a witness as Tauber, for example. Tauber's testimony about working inside the Kremas, is in many a history book, but it has not been dramatised for the public. I suspect the public can stomach a TV series or film about Auschwitz as a concentration camp that hints at the mass deaths, than watching repeated gassings and cremations.

Much of "Night" is largely factual, about the daily grind and stress of being a prisoner at A-B. But it provides little evidence about what happened inside the Kremas, that is of use to a historian.

[Keen]

Much of "Night" is largely factual

[Archie]

I do not know of any history books, where a historian discusses a source that they reject as unreliable, in that book. That is work completed, before the book is written. For example, Cesarani in the "Final Solution The Fate of the Jews 1933–1949", does not discuss why he does not use Wiesel as witnesses, he just does not use him. I am quite sure Cesarani was aware of Wiesel and he may well have read "Night", and I am quite sure that Wiesel is not used, because as a witness, he is not that credible, as he mixes story telling and hearsay throughout his narrative.

Can you show me examples of what you mean, since you suggest I should not have a hard time finding such?

I really wonder if you are actually as thick as the above suggests or if you are just too lazy to produce an example. Maybe it's both? This comment of yours is especially embarrassing given that you claim to be interested in historical "methodology," yet you've apparently never read any serious history books.

I'll give an example that recently came up in another thread since it is fresh in mind. Take a look at Soviet histories. Look at some books on Stalin. There are very pro-Stalin histories. There are very anti-Stalin histories. If you read someone like Robert Conquest, throughout he will discount communist sources as dishonest propaganda. More sympathetic histories in contrast would be more inclined to take these sources at face value.

A minor example, when discussing whether there was enthusiasm for Stalin: "It is surprising to read the confident assertions still (1991) being put forward about the extent of the enthusiasm [for Stalin], on such a feeble basis of evidence." He's talking about the later memoirs of Communist leaders. He discounts these because he thinks they are from the people who survived and most benefited from the system. He is objected to the conclusion of others by questioning the reliability of the sources.

Lots of stuff was not admitted until the late 80s (when the regime fell).

[Nessie]

I do not know of any history books, where a historian discusses a source that they reject as unreliable, in that book. That is work completed, before the book is written. For example, Cesarani in the "Final Solution The Fate of the Jews 1933–1949", does not discuss why he does not use Wiesel as witnesses, he just does not use him. I am quite sure Cesarani was aware of Wiesel and he may well have read "Night", and I am quite sure that Wiesel is not used, because as a witness, he is not that credible, as he mixes story telling and hearsay throughout his narrative.

Can you show me examples of what you mean, since you suggest I should not have a hard time finding such?

I really wonder if you are actually as thick as the above suggests or if you are just too lazy to produce an example. Maybe it's both? This comment of yours is especially embarrassing given that you claim to be interested in historical "methodology," yet you've apparently never read any serious history books.

I'll give an example that recently came up in another thread since it is fresh in mind. Take a look at Soviet histories. Look at some books on Stalin. There are very pro-Stalin histories. There are very anti-Stalin histories. If you read someone like Robert Conquest, throughout he will discount communist sources as dishonest propaganda. More sympathetic histories in contrast would be more inclined to take these sources at face value.

A minor example, when discussing whether there was enthusiasm for Stalin: "It is surprising to read the confident assertions still (1991) being put forward about the extent of the enthusiasm [for Stalin], on such a feeble basis of evidence." He's talking about the later memoirs of Communist leaders. He discounts these because he thinks they are from the people who survived and most benefited from the system. He is objected to the conclusion of others by questioning the reliability of the sources.

Lots of stuff was not admitted until the late 80s (when the regime fell).

How are my examples of Gerstein, Hoess, Wiesel, Solokov and the Hitler Diaries, not examples of historians questioning the reliability of evidence? Your example is about how reliable an indicator some evidence is. Was Soviet propaganda dishonest or not? The Hitler Diaries were accepted as honest by some and then dismissed.

The method of assessing evidence that historians, journalists and lawyers use, has resulted in witnesses who were at the camps not being used, people who claimed to have been at the camps uncovered as liars and only the most relevant being used. Those witnesses are all corroborated by multiple sources of evidence independent of them. The corroborating evidence determines how accurate and reliable the witness is.

The method of assessment used by revisionists has resulted in 100% of eyewitnesses to gassings being dismissed as liars, leaving no witnesses at all, who worked inside the AR camps, Chelmno or A-B Kremas, who is believed, leaving you unable to evidence what happened. It is a method designed to ensure failure, when questioning the reliability of witnesses.

[Nessie]

Subject: Where are the Goalposts?

In theory, Holocaust revisionism is falsifiable.

Give us concrete examples of what would falsify the Holocaust.

Eyewitnesses who worked inside the AR camps, Chelmno or A-B Kremas who say they had no gas chambers and give testimony about those camps that explains their function.

Documents recording mass transports of hundreds of thousands of people back out of the AR camps and/or their arrival elsewhere.

Evidence that the ghettos remained open until the end of the war and there were liberations of millions of Jews.

Senior Nazis at Nuremberg who not only denied there were mass murders, but they provided revised explanations as to the planning of the Final Solution and AR, that involved the mass survival of millions of Jews, identifying where they were in 1944-5.

Geophysical surveys of the AR camps that found mostly undisturbed ground, indicating no mass graves.

The history of the Holocaust, as it stands, can be falsified by the gathering of evidence to produce a revised history of what happened to the Jews in Europe during WWII, that has no mass murders and millions still alive in 1945. The history of the Holocaust can be falsified in the same way any history can be falsified, by gathering evidence from eyewitnesses, documents, geophysics, circumstances etc, to revise it.

As an example, say the British were accused of gassing Germans they had interred on the Isle of Man, how would that be falsified? The answer is to interview staff and inmates to establish if they have any knowledge of gassings. Inspect buildings suspected to contain gas chambers to see if there is any physical sign of them. Check camp records to trace what happened to those interred there. If no one at the camp has any knowledge of gassings, if no gas chamber can be found and if all prisoners can be accounted for, it has now been proven the British were not gassing anyone there.

[Keen]

I really wonder if you are actually as thick as the above suggests

Always remember Archie, nesserto is a mentally ill cult member.

It isn't capable of logical and reasonable thought.

[Keen]

Subject: Where are the Goalposts?

In theory, Holocaust revisionism is falsifiable.

Give us concrete examples of what would falsify the Holocaust.

Geophysical surveys of the AR camps that found mostly undisturbed ground, indicating no mass graves.

So Krege falsified the Treblinka holohoax.

Thank you for that admission roberta.

[Nessie]

This is why debate on methodology is so important.

viewtopic.php?p=22932#p22932

Whether the witness is, on the surface, pro or anti-gas chamber, does not matter very much. The tally is not important. It's the substance of what they actually say. And the substance of the pro-gas chamber witnesses is such that we can confident the accounts are not based in fact.

Here is the main division in how the two sides look at these accounts. Revisionists evaluate these statements as purporting to be honest descriptions of events that actually happened in real time and space. If that's what these stories actually were, they would cohere in a credible way. They don't. The other side in contrast has an official story. They can't really explain where that story actually came from. As long as the witnesses say something vaguely similar to the story (basically as long as they mention "gas"), then it's close enough.

Archie does not understand that the methodology he uses to determine the gas chamber witness claims are not based in fact and are not credible, is flawed. He is unable to defend the methodology he uses and explain why that methodology is unique to revisionism, so he censors me and the debate.

[Nessie]

Archie;

viewtopic.php?p=22930#p22930

If we were really "fanatics" we would not let you post so freely on here. That we do so is a sign of our open-mindedness. I also recently posted that essay summarizing your side's best arguments, plus an anti-revisionist bibliography. How fanatical of me! Meanwhile you and Nessie failed that test spectacularly in that steelman thread, an indication of your extreme partisanship.

You do not let me post freely on here, because I attack your weakness, on methodology. I am sure you will end up restricting bombsaway as well, as he destroys your methodology. I explained why I could not steelman your deeply flawed arguments and lack of evidence and then steelmanned the one argument you have that has any steel to it, on credibility.

[Nessie]

viewtopic.php?p=22969#p22969

- Revisionists on the whole are NOT making a claim.
- they are in general pointing out the flaws in the holyH mass-gassing claim.

The burden of proof is on the one making a claim (not the ones who doubt it).

I assume it is because you know the holyH mass-gassing mythology has been destroyed on the basis of the empirical evidence conclusively refuting it.

Historical revisionism is normally where evidence comes to light that causes a previous narrative to be revised. It happens when errors are corrected or past interpretations are assessed to be wrong, causing a new narrative to form. In this case, the claimed new narrative is that mass gassing is a myth.

It then makes no sense to claim that Holocaust revisionists do not need to meet a burden of proof, as they are not making a claim, but then claim that there is empirical evidence to prove that mass gassing was a myth, which is meeting their burden of proof for that claim.

The issue is how Holocaust revisionists and historians would go about revising the mass gassing narrative to prove it was a myth. I will use TII as an example.

A historian would prove that mass gassing at TII was a myth, by gathering evidence from people who worked there, documents pertaining to the camp, geophysical, other physical and circumstantial evidence. If the SS camp staff denied the existence of gas chambers, no Jewish worker could be found who said he worked at a gas chamber, documents recorded the mass transport of people both into and back out of the camp and geophysics found no signs of disturbed ground containing humans remains, the historian would have proved mass gassing was a myth.

A Holocaust revisionist goes about their investigation not by gathering evidence, but by doubting the evidence. The camp staff who admit gassings took place are asserted to have been coerced into their confessions. The Jewish workers who state they saw gassings are declared liars, whose credibility is shot, because the claims they make are beyond the bounds of physical possibility. The geophysical evidence is disputed and derided. Some make attempts to evidence what the actual purpose of the camp was; transit camp, property sorting centre, hygiene station or a place to change to wider gauge trains.

It is no wonder that revisionists often suggest that the burden of proof is not on them, when their method of investigation is so clearly and deeply flawed.

[Keen]

Archie... censors me and the debate.

[Keen]

Archie;
You do not let me post freely on here

[Keen]

It then makes no sense to claim that Holocaust revisionists do not need to meet a burden of proof, as they are not making a claim, but then claim that there is empirical evidence to prove that mass gassing was a myth, which is meeting their burden of proof for that claim.