Revisionist 'Excuses' on Documentation?

[Callafangers]

I have seen some instances (e.g. by Dr. Terry at the HC blog, years ago) where exterminationists will attempt to criticize or discredit revisionist interpretations of 'Holocaust' documentation in noting that revisionists, for certain documents, have pointed out two or more separate lines of critique, such as that the document:

• Lacks evidence of authenticity (e.g. lacking clear chain-of-custody)
• Shows signs of forgery or postwar modifications
• Doesn't actually say anything genocidal-incriminating

Some exterminationists have responded to imply a lack of confidence of the revisionist author who would simultaneously say "it doesn't say anything incriminating" but "it's a fake anyway".

There are two things happening, here:

• Reversal of burden-of-proof
  • Exterminationists assuming the document's authenticity and genocidal implications, rather than proving them through critical assessment; then implying revisionists must refute that assumption
• Treating source-critical investigation as anomalous or improper
  • The extent that modern historiography has adopted source-uncritical practices is an extent to which the field has become unsound; a shift perhaps largely derived from post-WW2 political pressure and influences

In other words, official historiography points and gawks at revisionists (schoolyard tactics) for doing the historiographer's job for them -- that is, critically reviewing documentation before accepting it, and recognizing the broader context of means and motives (a crucial variable for source criticism) amid wartime and post-war global tensions and superpowers.

[Archie]

A drawback of alleging forgery is that it does tend to suggest that the document is incriminating. (Theoretically, a forgery could be non-incriminating, but usually you forge something for a reason). Another drawback is that if you rely too much on forgery as an explanation, collectively, this becomes less and less plausible as the number of alleged forgeries climbs. (Mass production of false documents would require a lot of personnel and the probability of anachronisms, contradictions and other errors compounds). For this reason, my personal approach is to grant a general presumption of authenticity to the body of documents as a whole but with the recognition the authenticity of any individual document is not guaranteed and is case by case. In practice, this would mean that caution should be used in placing too much weight on one document, which is good general historical practice even with genuine documents since even a "genuine" document can be false or misleading or out of context.

There are a number of good questions that can be asked about a document.

• Provenance: When and how did the document first surface?
• Forensics: Are the paper, ink, etc consistent with the time and place? (Generally less useful here because forgeries would be from the same era. Plus the originals aren't available for testing in most cases).
• Signatures: Presence of signatures would boost the authenticity
• Further statements by the people involved: If people were still alive, were they ever asked about the document? Did they confirm or dispute it?
• Content: Does it contain anachronisms? Internal contractions? Contradictions of known facts? Does it plagiarize or rely on other known sources?

And there are a number of good questions to ask about the general credibility and quality of the source

• Why does this document exist? With real documents, there is usually a clear reason that makes sense. With more dubious documents like the Franke-Gricksch report for example there's a document that does not have a clear for purpose. Ostensibly F-G is a some sort of secret appendix that bluntly reveals the truth about Auschwitz that is unmentioned in any other documents. And this appendix was prepared why? Seemingly the only purpose for it is to provide evidence for the Holocaust.
• Was the person talking in a position to know what they're claiming to know? If not, then the source is less credible, even if the document is real.
• How does the content of the document compare with other sources? For something things like what Hitler thought about some particular thing, we can often find seemingly contradictory statements. This is typical with politicians. The trick is then to determine what reflects a private view, what was most reflective of policy, and what was perhaps tailored to a given audience. The audience is key for some things. Another point is that private positions often do not reflect actual policies which is often the part that is of more historical interest. With the Holocaust, proving intent to holocaust would be only one part of it. It must further be demonstrated that they actually accomplished it.

All of the above is absolutely routine in history.

Ultimately, we need to find the explanation that best explains all the evidence in total. On individual documents, we may not always have a slam dunk argument, but that's okay. I think in debate contexts (for the H but also more generally) there is a tendency to want to project absolute confidence and never admit to difficulties. But because it's a huge topic, we shouldn't expect to have full information to have dispositive explanation for every single thing.

Lastly, I'll note that while the orthodox side doesn't tend to allege forgery often, that's only because they use other tricks to avoid difficulties.

For the many documents that contradict the story, they have a few escape tricks that make the story essentially unfalsifiable.

• Assuming code language and euphemism (but NEVER hyperbole)
• Playing games with the timeline (see for example discussions of the final solution or the Birkenau crematoria construction)
• Playing games with who was or wasn't in the loop
• Drawing distinctions between groups of Jews. Labor vs unemployable is a big one. German Jews vs Eastern Jews is another.
• Positing ever more disorganized and improvised scenarios to explain why there is so much missing documentation

Related comments here:
viewtopic.php?p=16901#p16901
viewtopic.php?t=340

[Callafangers]

A drawback of alleging forgery is that it does tend to suggest that the document is incriminating. (Theoretically, a forgery could be non-incriminating, but usually you forge something for a reason). Another drawback is that if you rely too much on forgery as an explanation, collectively, this becomes less and less plausible as the number of alleged forgeries climbs. (Mass production of false documents would require a lot of personnel and the probability of anachronisms, contradictions and other errors compounds). For this reason, my personal approach is to grant a general presumption of authenticity to the body of documents as a whole but with the recognition the authenticity of any individual document is not guaranteed and is case by case.

Agreed. I point out forgery mainly due to its clear potential (given motives, means, opportunity, and patterns of behavior of Allied/postwar powers -- no one denies these powers have been up to very sketchy business, which has included defaming Germans). Exterminationists are forced to minimize or ignore this potential in many cases; revisionists simply acknowledge it. But yes, I agree that every effort should first be made to explain the document aside from assumptions about 'incriminating' language (and forgery), or else this risks giving away too much when it was not really necessary to do so.

I think where some revisionists in the past have gotten caught up on certain documents, perhaps by jumping early to 'forgery' suspicion, is that they have not fully appreciated the scale of the document pool being dug through by orthodox scholars. Amid many millions of documents, it's very likely to find some that could -- particularly when taken out of context -- at least sound like something cryptic or suspicious, perhaps favoring a narrative that the digger/scholar is aiming to reinforce. But as you mention, all documents and evidence must be taken together, collectively; cherry-picking to produce a narrative-mosaic that reinforces one's assumptions (in the well-guarded echo chamber known as modern 'academia') is not how real historiography should work.