Historians v revisionists, methodology.

[Nessie]

My argument is Hoess's story is "inherently anachronistic," i.e., it's totally impossible.

"What would debating the correct dates achieve?" My argument is that the events he relates are fundamentally contradictory. Not only can you not give dates, there is no set of dates that would even be possible hypothetically.

Historians argue that Hoess is not credible and I have provided reasons as to why that is, using studies of witnesses recalling stressful events, under stress. Historians have then gathered evidence that corroborate His main claims, proving that he told the truth about the mass transports, selections, theft of property, gassings and cremations. Corroboration and credibility are not the same thing. Corroboration determines how truthful a witness is, credibility determines how reliable he is when he describes what he saw.

How does your methodology prove Hoess lied? If a witness describes something in a way that means what he described is impossible, how does that prove he lied? Why could he have not made mistakes instead? Where are the studies that prove when someone is lying, they will get dates and events mixed up, but if they are telling the truth, they will remember everything correctly? Why does contradiction prove lies? Why are you again ruling out errors of memory and recall? Why do you reject corroboration as a means to determine truthfulness?

Since you are being so evasive, I will repeat my challenge that you offer some dates for the events below that are possible.

A - Receives order to implement "Final Solution"
B - Visits Treblinka which was already in operation
C - Sets up extermination facilities at Auschwitz (as an improvement upon the Treblinka procedures)

Since you have asserted that Hoess merely mixed up his dates a little, I would request that you share with us the correct dates for events A, B, and C.

I have already said you that I cannot do that, but going by the date of the docuemntary trail left behind at the camp's construction office;

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ce-on.html

A - the order would have been received likely mid to late, 1942
B - it must have been some time 1942-3, when the camp was open.
C - going by Construction Office documents, the autumn of 1942.

As for being evasive, you have ignored all my questions about your methodology.

How does your methodology prove Hoess lied?
If a witness describes something in a way that means what he described is impossible, how does that prove he lied?
Why could he have not made mistakes instead?
Where are the studies that prove when someone is lying, they will get dates and events mixed up, but if they are telling the truth, they will remember everything correctly?
Why does contradiction prove lies?
Why are you again ruling out errors of memory and recall?
Why do you reject corroboration as a means to determine truthfulness?

[Nessie]

I like how Nessie is trying to use the torture in order to excuse all of Hoess's outrageous blunders.

I am not trying to excuse them. Historians accept that he is not credible with the details. What I am doing, is explaining why he said what he said, with reference to scientific studies.

To anyone with a rational mind, the fact that he was tortured AND his story makes no sense reinforces the dubiousness of his testimony. But in Nessieland, the torture means we should grant him MORE latitude for blunders!

His "story" does make sense. Corroborating evidence proves that his claims about Birkenau functioning as a death camp, 1943-4, taking mass arrivals, with selections, gassings, theft of property and mass cremations, is true. Action 14f13 and the euthanasia of prisoners, is also corroborated and makes sense of his descriptions of gassings outwith that period at Auschwitz main camp. His "story" makes sense in the wider context of Nazi policy towards Jews, Action Reinhardt and the Final Solution.

That he was stressed and placed under duress, explains the blunders. You do not want such an explanation, as you want to claim that blunders prove lying, without bothering to evidence that is the case.

These are really two reasons to discount Hoess yet Nessie thinks these things effectively cancel out. Nessie, I don't believe that you really believe what you are saying. You know damn well that a tortured witness who tells a story with fatal blunders is not a valid witness. Yet, Hoess was relied on extensively and in a totally uncritical way by both the courts and by the H historians.

viewtopic.php?t=638

ETA: Nessie's "studies say" nonsense has been debunked here:
viewtopic.php?t=108

Hoess has not been relied upon uncritically. His blunders are widely reported and he is not regarded as a credible witness. In a legal and moral context, a tortured witness is not a valid witness. The problem you cannot cope with, is that he is CORROBORATED. Just as every other SS camp staff is. Most of them were not subjected to torture, when they were put on trial in West Germany, but they corroborated Hoess.

You have not debunked the studies of witnesses that prove how memory fails, recall is often poor, estimations are often wrong and what the common errors made by witnesses are. Those studies help to explain the "blunders" Hoess made and corroboration proves he is telling the truth about Birkenau as a death camp.

[Archie]

The problem you cannot cope with, is that he is CORROBORATED.

There is no independent proof of his claims of millions of gassings. The so-called corroboration is mostly just other people telling similar stories.

Corroboration is meaningless under your "let's ignore all the errors" method.

to corroborate - to add proof to an account, statement, idea, etc. with new information

If we check the statement and none of it adds up that is the opposite of corroboration.

Your excuses about bad memory are also not compelling. Trauma in some cases can make people block out memories. But it is actually more common for people have extremely vivid and haunting memories of traumatic events. People forget mundane things. They often don't forget intense things even if they want to. If I had to exterminate millions of people, I'm pretty sure I would remember it.

https://www.michiganmedicine.org/health ... ible-shake

[Archie]

Historians argue that Hoess is not credible and I have provided reasons as to why that is, using studies of witnesses recalling stressful events, under stress. Historians have then gathered evidence that corroborate His main claims, proving that he told the truth about the mass transports, selections, theft of property, gassings and cremations. Corroboration and credibility are not the same thing. Corroboration determines how truthful a witness is, credibility determines how reliable he is when he describes what he saw.

How does your methodology prove Hoess lied? If a witness describes something in a way that means what he described is impossible, how does that prove he lied? Why could he have not made mistakes instead? Where are the studies that prove when someone is lying, they will get dates and events mixed up, but if they are telling the truth, they will remember everything correctly? Why does contradiction prove lies? Why are you again ruling out errors of memory and recall? Why do you reject corroboration as a means to determine truthfulness?

Since you are being so evasive, I will repeat my challenge that you offer some dates for the events below that are possible.

Since you have asserted that Hoess merely mixed up his dates a little, I would request that you share with us the correct dates for events A, B, and C.

I have already said you that I cannot do that, but going by the date of the docuemntary trail left behind at the camp's construction office;

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ce-on.html

A - the order would have been received likely mid to late, 1942
B - it must have been some time 1942-3, when the camp was open.
C - going by Construction Office documents, the autumn of 1942.

As for being evasive, you have ignored all my questions about your methodology.

How does your methodology prove Hoess lied?
If a witness describes something in a way that means what he described is impossible, how does that prove he lied?
Why could he have not made mistakes instead?
Where are the studies that prove when someone is lying, they will get dates and events mixed up, but if they are telling the truth, they will remember everything correctly?
Why does contradiction prove lies?
Why are you again ruling out errors of memory and recall?
Why do you reject corroboration as a means to determine truthfulness?

"Going by the documentary trail" in other words, you are ignoring Hoess completely and are constructing a different timeline that isn't based on his statements at all.

A - the order would have been received likely mid to late, 1942

This doesn't work for two reasons.

1) Gassings at Krema I, Block 11, and Bunker 1 had supposedly begun prior to this point.

2) In the autobiography appendix, he gives the CORRECT date for the Himmler visit. Summer 1942. But he says the order came the year before - 1941. There is no justification for conflating these two events that he distinguishes very clearly. This leaves of with 1941 as the date for the order both by Hoess's absolute dating and by the relative dating (one year prior to the Himmler visit).

[Nessie]

The problem you cannot cope with, is that he is CORROBORATED.

There is no independent proof of his claims of millions of gassings. The so-called corroboration is mostly just other people telling similar stories.

It is every single person, Nazi and Jew, from multiple countries, with no reason to collude and cooperate, who agree the Kremas were used for gassing. They are in turn corroborated by camp and Topf & Sons documents and the circumstances around the operation of the Kremas. You would normally accept that volume of corroboration, in this case, you chose not to.

Corroboration is meaningless under your "let's ignore all the errors" method.

The errors are not ignored. For example, Hoess's errors mean he is not regarded as a credible witness.

to corroborate - to add proof to an account, statement, idea, etc. with new information

If we check the statement and none of it adds up that is the opposite of corroboration.

The vast majority of what Hoess describes does add up and it is corroborated. The process he describes is the same as described and evidenced not just at A-B, but at multiple other camps.

Your excuses about bad memory are also not compelling.

In your biased opinion. Your excuse for rejecting the studies of memory, is non existent. Why does revisionism present itself as a scientific examination of the evidence, when it ignores or rejects the scientific studies of witnesses?

Trauma in some cases can make people block out memories. But it is actually more common for people have extremely vivid and haunting memories of traumatic events. People forget mundane things. They often don't forget intense things even if they want to. If I had to exterminate millions of people, I'm pretty sure I would remember it.

https://www.michiganmedicine.org/health ... ible-shake

Hoess did remember it. He was stressed by it. What he and many other SS camp staff did, probably as a coping mechanism, was to try to minimise their responsibility for it.

[Nessie]

Since you are being so evasive, I will repeat my challenge that you offer some dates for the events below that are possible.

I have already said you that I cannot do that, but going by the date of the docuemntary trail left behind at the camp's construction office;

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ce-on.html

A - the order would have been received likely mid to late, 1942
B - it must have been some time 1942-3, when the camp was open.
C - going by Construction Office documents, the autumn of 1942.

As for being evasive, you have ignored all my questions about your methodology.

How does your methodology prove Hoess lied?
If a witness describes something in a way that means what he described is impossible, how does that prove he lied?
Why could he have not made mistakes instead?
Where are the studies that prove when someone is lying, they will get dates and events mixed up, but if they are telling the truth, they will remember everything correctly?
Why does contradiction prove lies?
Why are you again ruling out errors of memory and recall?
Why do you reject corroboration as a means to determine truthfulness?

"Going by the documentary trail" in other words, you are ignoring Hoess completely and are constructing a different timeline that isn't based on his statements at all.

The documentary trail is inherantly more accurate than Hoess, or indeed anyone elses memory, when it comes to date and chronology.

A - the order would have been received likely mid to late, 1942

This doesn't work for two reasons.

1) Gassings at Krema I, Block 11, and Bunker 1 had supposedly begun prior to this point.

2) In the autobiography appendix, he gives the CORRECT date for the Himmler visit. Summer 1942. But he says the order came the year before - 1941. There is no justification for conflating these two events that he distinguishes very clearly. This leaves of with 1941 as the date for the order both by Hoess's absolute dating and by the relative dating (one year prior to the Himmler visit).

You have forgotten that Aktion 14f13 precedes the use of Birkenau as a death camp. Prisoner euthanasia began in 1941, not just at A-B, but at many camps, where prisoners were sent to the Aktion T4 euthanasia centres. A-B was too far from any such centre and so euthanasia took place on site. It was also the site for experimenting with gassing prisoners. Hoess would have had an order to euthanise prisoners in 1941. The order to use Birkenau as a death camp came later. By 1943, Action Reinhard had ended, so the Nazis needed a camp for the last major Jewish populations, in Hungary and the remaining ghettos, and Birkenau was chosen. The work for that started at the end of 1942 into 1943. You also need to take into account the size of A-B and plans to expand Birkenau with the addition of the "Mexico" section, so the complex needed more capacity for the euthanasia programme than any other camp.

As for being evasive, you have again ignored all my questions about your methodology. Here;

How does your methodology prove Hoess lied?
If a witness describes something in a way that means what he described is impossible, how does that prove he lied?
Why could he have not made mistakes instead?
Where are the studies that prove when someone is lying, they will get dates and events mixed up, but if they are telling the truth, they will remember everything correctly?
Why does contradiction prove lies?
Why are you again ruling out errors of memory and recall?
Why do you reject corroboration as a means to determine truthfulness?

[Archie]

How does your methodology prove Hoess lied?
If a witness describes something in a way that means what he described is impossible, how does that prove he lied?
Why could he have not made mistakes instead?
Where are the studies that prove when someone is lying, they will get dates and events mixed up, but if they are telling the truth, they will remember everything correctly?
Why does contradiction prove lies?
Why are you again ruling out errors of memory and recall?
Why do you reject corroboration as a means to determine truthfulness?

I do not understand the point of these questions. Hoess was the commandant of Auschwitz. He should be able to tell us what happened. His statement were recorded in 1946, not fifty years later. "Oh, he couldn't remember." Bullshit. That's not the sort of thing you forget. Some details, sure, I can forgive him that. But fictional visits to Treblinka? No. That's a bridge too far, my friend. He should know what happened, but his story is not and cannot be true. His chronology (not only dates but the fundamental sequence of events and the way he integrates Treblinka into his story) is IMPOSSIBLE and CANNOT be fixed. So it's false.

As for the argument that he's falsified stuff on purpose to protect himself and that sort of thing - Given that he confessed to killing 3M people (a gross exaggeration) and he portrays himself as the being intimately involved in the extermination program, we cannot very well say he was minimizing his role or some such. If anything he is exaggerating it. Also, most of his statements trace back to his very first statement, NO-1210, taken in April 1946. He had not access to lawyers, so it is doubtful he had the presence of mind to cook up some elaborate and very subtle legal strategy on the top of his head.

[Archie]

You have forgotten that Aktion 14f13 precedes the use of Birkenau as a death camp. Prisoner euthanasia began in 1941, not just at A-B, but at many camps, where prisoners were sent to the Aktion T4 euthanasia centres. A-B was too far from any such centre and so euthanasia took place on site. It was also the site for experimenting with gassing prisoners. Hoess would have had an order to euthanise prisoners in 1941. The order to use Birkenau as a death camp came later. By 1943, Action Reinhard had ended, so the Nazis needed a camp for the last major Jewish populations, in Hungary and the remaining ghettos, and Birkenau was chosen. The work for that started at the end of 1942 into 1943. You also need to take into account the size of A-B and plans to expand Birkenau with the addition of the "Mexico" section, so the complex needed more capacity for the euthanasia programme than any other camp.

Nope. (I suspect this reply of yours is some AI nonsense that you have reworded). Hoess says nothing about gassings prior to getting his order in summer 1941. Everything occurs after the Himmler order. Plus you are ignoring that transports of Jews were supposedly being gassed at Auschwitz as early as March 1942 in Krema I and in Bunker I. According to Danuta Czech's Auschwitz Chronicle (quoted in HH47, pg. 70). Czech also says "The extermination of the Jews was probably begun on February 15, 1942."

20 Mar 1942
Gas chambers are put into operation in a farmhouse in Birkenau renovated
for this purpose; this is the so-called Bunker Number 1. The house is in the
northwest corner of the later Section B-III in Birkenau. The transport of Polish
Jews sent by the Gestapo from Upper Silesia are taken from the unloading
platform at the freight depot in Auschwitz directly to the gas chambers or tak
en without undergoing a selection. The corpses of the murdered people are
buried in mass graves in the nearby meadow. After each operation, the prison
ers used in the burial are killed in the prisoners’ infirmary with a phenol injec
tion. Although the SS men responsible for the operations are sworn to strict
secrecy, these operations become known to many prisoners.

Are you seriously suggesting Hoess had begun gassing entire transports of Jews under his own initiative without any orders at all? The "final solution" was implemented at Auschwitz BEFORE Treblinka.

Most functionalist historians date the "final solution" decision to around Sep-Dec 1941. For these historians, a summer 1941 is impossible, so they move it to 1942. Others like Danuta Czech and Richard Breitman favor a more traditional timeline and have rejected the 1942 redating for the order and insist that Hoess's 1941 dating is correct.

Various attempts to redate this meeting have been off the mark. Höss
could not have mistaken a summer-1942 meeting with Himmler for 1941 –
first, because Himmler’s 1942 appointment book, which exists, contains no
such entry, and, second, because Höss was already gassing Jews then. (Breitman, quoted in HH11, pg 18)

[Nessie]

How does your methodology prove Hoess lied?
If a witness describes something in a way that means what he described is impossible, how does that prove he lied?
Why could he have not made mistakes instead?
Where are the studies that prove when someone is lying, they will get dates and events mixed up, but if they are telling the truth, they will remember everything correctly?
Why does contradiction prove lies?
Why are you again ruling out errors of memory and recall?
Why do you reject corroboration as a means to determine truthfulness?

I do not understand the point of these questions.

They are to get you to explain your methodology for proving that witnesses lied. The whole point of this thread is to show how historians and revisionists have differing methodologies and why yours is wrong. I get your reluctance to answer the questions, as I think you know that you will have to accept your methodology is flawed.

Hoess was the commandant of Auschwitz. He should be able to tell us what happened.

That is correct, but even as commandant, is he necessarily going to be accurate on the details, especially when he was under severe stress and duress? Then you fail to separate the main event from the details. I have linked you to evidence that people are much better at remembering the big picture, than the details. For example, Hoess's description of the main event, with mass transports, selections, gassings and cremations is exactly the same as every other eyewitness. On that, he does tell us what happened.

His statement were recorded in 1946, not fifty years later. "Oh, he couldn't remember." Bullshit.

His statement was in 1946, of events from 1941 to 1945, so plenty of scope for him to make mistakes. Memory fades, for the details, quickly, but he still remembered the main events.

That's not the sort of thing you forget. Some details, sure, I can forgive him that.

That is your number one fault, you rely on your opinion, rather than evidence from studies of witnesses, memory and recall.

But fictional visits to Treblinka? No. That's a bridge too far, my friend. He should know what happened, but his story is not and cannot be true. His chronology (not only dates but the fundamental sequence of events and the way he integrates Treblinka into his story) is IMPOSSIBLE and CANNOT be fixed. So it's false.

You have no evidence to prove your claim that because he got dates and chronology wrong, that proves he lied and he did not visit TII, and there were no gas chambers at A-B. Instead, you rely on your opinion of what a truthful, or a lying witness would recall events. I have shown you ample evidence to prove that people are poor at recalling dates and events.

To prove Hoess did not visit TII, needs evidence, such as a commander from the camp who denied that there had been any visit. To prove a lie, you need evidence. You have no such evidence, so you rely on your opinion about the witness, which is not even supported by studies on witnesses. So, your methodology fails on both accounts.

As for the argument that he's falsified stuff on purpose to protect himself and that sort of thing - Given that he confessed to killing 3M people (a gross exaggeration) and he portrays himself as the being intimately involved in the extermination program, we cannot very well say he was minimizing his role or some such. If anything he is exaggerating it. Also, most of his statements trace back to his very first statement, NO-1210, taken in April 1946. He had not access to lawyers, so it is doubtful he had the presence of mind to cook up some elaborate and very subtle legal strategy on the top of his head.

My comment about Nazis minimising their role, was a general one, not specific to Hoess. Historians use corroboration to assess truthfulness, credibility and accuracy on the main event and the details. A witness whose description matches corroborating evidence for the main event, but there are discrepancies on the details, is assessed as truthful, but lacking in accuracy. If the witness exaggerates, that reduces their credibility. That assessment is evidence, rather than opinion based.

When you rely primarily on your opinion of the witness and their descriptions, you allow all sorts of bias and errors to creep in. That is why your methodology is flawed and the methodology use by historians is far more accurate.

[Nessie]

You have forgotten that Aktion 14f13 precedes the use of Birkenau as a death camp. Prisoner euthanasia began in 1941, not just at A-B, but at many camps, where prisoners were sent to the Aktion T4 euthanasia centres. A-B was too far from any such centre and so euthanasia took place on site. It was also the site for experimenting with gassing prisoners. Hoess would have had an order to euthanise prisoners in 1941. The order to use Birkenau as a death camp came later. By 1943, Action Reinhard had ended, so the Nazis needed a camp for the last major Jewish populations, in Hungary and the remaining ghettos, and Birkenau was chosen. The work for that started at the end of 1942 into 1943. You also need to take into account the size of A-B and plans to expand Birkenau with the addition of the "Mexico" section, so the complex needed more capacity for the euthanasia programme than any other camp.

Nope. (I suspect this reply of yours is some AI nonsense that you have reworded).

Which it is not.

Hoess says nothing about gassings prior to getting his order in summer 1941. Everything occurs after the Himmler order.

I said that the earliest he would get an order to gas prisoners, would be in 1941, as that was when Aktion 14f13 started.

Plus you are ignoring that transports of Jews were supposedly being gassed at Auschwitz as early as March 1942 in Krema I and in Bunker I. According to Danuta Czech's Auschwitz Chronicle (quoted in HH47, pg. 70). Czech also says "The extermination of the Jews was probably begun on February 15, 1942."

20 Mar 1942
Gas chambers are put into operation in a farmhouse in Birkenau renovated
for this purpose; this is the so-called Bunker Number 1. The house is in the
northwest corner of the later Section B-III in Birkenau. The transport of Polish
Jews sent by the Gestapo from Upper Silesia are taken from the unloading
platform at the freight depot in Auschwitz directly to the gas chambers or tak
en without undergoing a selection. The corpses of the murdered people are
buried in mass graves in the nearby meadow. After each operation, the prison
ers used in the burial are killed in the prisoners’ infirmary with a phenol injec
tion. Although the SS men responsible for the operations are sworn to strict
secrecy, these operations become known to many prisoners.

Are you seriously suggesting Hoess had begun gassing entire transports of Jews under his own initiative without any orders at all? The "final solution" was implemented at Auschwitz BEFORE Treblinka.

No, I am saying that the earliest order related to Aktion 14f13. The earliest experiments with gassing, involved Soviet POWs. In spring 1942, when the AR camps were up and running, A-B also started to gas Jews as they arrived. A-B began to run in tandem with AR and the gassings at Chelmno. By 1944, Birkenau had taken over as the main death camp.

Most functionalist historians date the "final solution" decision to around Sep-Dec 1941. For these historians, a summer 1941 is impossible, so they move it to 1942. Others like Danuta Czech and Richard Breitman favor a more traditional timeline and have rejected the 1942 redating for the order and insist that Hoess's 1941 dating is correct.

Various attempts to redate this meeting have been off the mark. Höss
could not have mistaken a summer-1942 meeting with Himmler for 1941 –
first, because Himmler’s 1942 appointment book, which exists, contains no
such entry, and, second, because Höss was already gassing Jews then. (Breitman, quoted in HH11, pg 18)

This is off topic, but it relates to the topic, as you are clearly trying to find excuses to doubt the gassing narrative. That there is an uncertain timeline and disagreement, causes you to think the whole thing is a hoax. Historians regard such uncertainty as just gaps in the evidence on a subject that spans years, a lot of people and locations. You would think that if historians were part of a hoax, they would agree on a narrative and stick to it.

[Archie]

They are to get you to explain your methodology for proving that witnesses lied. The whole point of this thread is to show how historians and revisionists have differing methodologies and why yours is wrong. I get your reluctance to answer the questions, as I think you know that you will have to accept your methodology is flawed.

Why are you so hung up on on the word "lie"? How about we first establish if Hoess's testimony is true or false. And once we agree it is false, then we can discuss why we think he gave false statements (although I think that's pretty obvious - he was cooperating with his Jewish torturers).

[Archie]

This is off topic, but it relates to the topic, as you are clearly trying to find excuses to doubt the gassing narrative. That there is an uncertain timeline and disagreement, causes you to think the whole thing is a hoax. Historians regard such uncertainty as just gaps in the evidence on a subject that spans years, a lot of people and locations. You would think that if historians were part of a hoax, they would agree on a narrative and stick to it.

It is not off topic. It is extremely relevant. Hoess says he visited BERLIN and met with Himmler in 1941 and that he received his orders there. THEN a year Himmler came to Auschwitz to observed gassings in the Bunkers.

I am pointing out to you why your 1942 timeline doesn't work and you have evaded the issues I have raised. Your replies have been very dishonest.

[Archie]

That is why your methodology is flawed and the methodology use by historians is far more accurate.

You need to stop pretending like you speak for "historians." You don't.

Historians DO reject/discount statements due to errors. All the time. They do not follow your "all errors can be ignored" nonsense.

Historians generally do NOT rely on psychological studies. They use something called source criticism. Psychological studies of memory etc are relatively recent.

[Hektor]

That is why your methodology is flawed and the methodology use by historians is far more accurate.

You need to stop pretending like you speak for "historians." You don't.

Historians DO reject/discount statements due to errors. All the time. They do not follow your "all errors can be ignored" nonsense.

Historians generally do NOT rely on psychological studies. They use something called source criticism. Psychological studies of memory etc are relatively recent.

Nessie tends to frontload its arguments.

[Nessie]

They are to get you to explain your methodology for proving that witnesses lied. The whole point of this thread is to show how historians and revisionists have differing methodologies and why yours is wrong. I get your reluctance to answer the questions, as I think you know that you will have to accept your methodology is flawed.

Why are you so hung up on on the word "lie"? How about we first establish if Hoess's testimony is true or false. And once we agree it is false, then we can discuss why we think he gave false statements (although I think that's pretty obvious - he was cooperating with his Jewish torturers).

If his testimony is false, then he lied. How have you proven he gave false testimony about events that did not happen?

I have shown you how historians have proven that he gave truthful, thought at times inaccurate testimony about events that did happen.