The Birkenau crematoria: what real 'convergence of evidence' looks like

[TlsMS93]

There was also consensus that there was luminiferous ether, geocentrism, spontaneous generation, and a flat Earth.

[HansHill]

100% of eyewitnesses, who worked at the Kremas, whose evidence is not hearsay, claim they were used for gassings.

100% of a subset, of a subset. So not 100%

Are you the same guy prattling on about convergence all the time? In any other example you always defer to authority, except when Archie presented the Himmler quote, you disregard it. Curious!

[TlsMS93]

Are you the same guy prattling on about convergence all the time? In any other example you always defer to authority, except when Archie presented the Himmler quote, you disregard it. Curious!

Nazis being in favor of the prosecution is true, but if they are against it, then they are liars.

[HansHill]

You know there is a word for arguments of this kind:

"Unfalsifiable"

[Nessie]

100% of eyewitnesses, who worked at the Kremas, whose evidence is not hearsay, claim they were used for gassings.

100% of a subset, of a subset. So not 100%

Are you the same guy prattling on about convergence all the time? In any other example you always defer to authority, except when Archie presented the Himmler quote, you disregard it. Curious!

Himmler did not work at the Kremas, he was not an eyewitness and the senior Nazis, as seen at the Nuremberg trials, relied on plausible deniability. Hence, as a witness, he is of little relevance.

So-called revisionists, when they try to revise the history of the usage of the Kremas, fail to produce a single witness who worked there, to help prove their competing, contradicting claims.

[Archie]

100% of eyewitnesses, who worked at the Kremas, whose evidence is not hearsay, claim they were used for gassings.

100% of a subset, of a subset. So not 100%

Are you the same guy prattling on about convergence all the time? In any other example you always defer to authority, except when Archie presented the Himmler quote, you disregard it. Curious!

Himmler did not work at the Kremas, he was not an eyewitness and the senior Nazis, as seen at the Nuremberg trials, relied on plausible deniability. Hence, as a witness, he is of little relevance.

So-called revisionists, when they try to revise the history of the usage of the Kremas, fail to produce a single witness who worked there, to help prove their competing, contradicting claims.

!!!

Himmler, the mastermind of the extermination program, the man who gave Hoess his orders, is of little relevance as a witness?

This might be the most absurd thing you have ever said (and there is some stiff competition). Himmler not only 100% knew what was going on, he was the one directing everything we're talking about. He and Hoess are the most important people in all of this. Himmler might not be the most informed on the details of the interior of the Kremas, sure, but as far as the motivation for why the crematoria were constructed he is, bar none, the person with the absolute best knowledge.

Hoess, from the Goldensohn interview.

In the summer of 1941, I was called to Berlin to see Himmler. I was given the order to erect extermination camps. I can almost give you Himmler's actual words, which were to the effect: 'The Fuehrer has ordered the final solution to the Jewish problem. Those of us in the SS must execute these plans. This is a hard job, but if the act is not carried out at once, instead of us exterminating the Jews, the Jews will exterminate the Germans at a later date."

That was Himmler's explanation. Then he explained to me why he selected Auschwitz. There were extermination camps already in the East but they were incapable of carrying out a large-scale action of extermination. Himmler could not give me the exact number, but he said that at the proper time Eichmann would get in touch with me and tell me more about it. He would keep me informed about the incoming transports and like matters.

I was ordered by Himmler to submit precise plans as to my ideas on how the extermination program should be executed in Auschwitz. I was supposed to inspect a camp in the East, namely Treblinka, and to learn from the mistakes committed there.

A few weeks later, Eichmann visited me in Auschwitz and told me that the first transports from the General Government and Slovakia were to be expected. He added that this action should not be delayed in any way so that no technical difficulties would arise and that the schedules of transports should be maintained at all costs.

Meanwhile, I had inspected the extermination camp of Treblinka in the General Government, which was located on the Bug River. Treblinka was a few barracks and a railroad line side track, which had formerly been a sand quarry. I inspected the extermination chambers there.

And add to this that Himmler was at Auschwitz when the plans to build the four crematoria were launched. You can argue Himmler is lying, but you cannot argue that he isn't an informed witness.

[HansHill]

Hall of Fame!!

I was here. Put me in the screenshot!

[TlsMS93]

Wasn't Himmler the one Vrba said saw a gassing on site at Birkenau in 1943?

[Archie]

Wasn't Himmler the one Vrba said saw a gassing on site at Birkenau in 1943?

Yes, Vrba went on about this for several pages in his memoir. Although he had to backtrack on this story on the stand at the Zundel trial when it became clear the story was made up.

viewtopic.php?t=69

[Nessie]

100% of a subset, of a subset. So not 100%

Are you the same guy prattling on about convergence all the time? In any other example you always defer to authority, except when Archie presented the Himmler quote, you disregard it. Curious!

Himmler did not work at the Kremas, he was not an eyewitness and the senior Nazis, as seen at the Nuremberg trials, relied on plausible deniability. Hence, as a witness, he is of little relevance.

So-called revisionists, when they try to revise the history of the usage of the Kremas, fail to produce a single witness who worked there, to help prove their competing, contradicting claims.

!!!

Himmler, the mastermind of the extermination program, the man who gave Hoess his orders, is of little relevance as a witness?

This might be the most absurd thing you have ever said (and there is some stiff competition).

You think that, because you do not understand witness evidence and you refuse any learning on the subject.

Himmler not only 100% knew what was going on...

Correct, but.....

... he was the one directing everything we're talking about. He and Hoess are the most important people in all of this. Himmler might not be the most informed on the details of the interior of the Kremas, sure, but as far as the motivation for why the crematoria were constructed he is, bar none, the person with the absolute best knowledge.

Himmler, like all the senior Nazis, had plausible deniability. Revisionists crow about the lack of direct orders, but that proves how the Final Solution was managed. The most senior Nazis like Himmler told middle ranking Nazis like Hoess to get on with it, and then left them to do so. They, in-turn, did not get their hands dirty and lower ranking Nazis did the actual killing.

That Himmler never visited a Krema, or bunker/farmhouse, to watch a gassing, means he is not an eyewitness. The lack of any document with his name on it, explicit about the planning or usage of those buildings, or the camp itself, means he cannot be regarded as a hearsay witness. If he had chosen to speak about the Final Solution and admit to knowing gassings took place, he could have made himself a witness to the motive and opportunity of the crime. Instead, when he had been identified after capture he killed himself.

Hoess, from the Goldensohn interview.

In the summer of 1941, I was called to Berlin to see Himmler. I was given the order to erect extermination camps. I can almost give you Himmler's actual words, which were to the effect: 'The Fuehrer has ordered the final solution to the Jewish problem. Those of us in the SS must execute these plans. This is a hard job, but if the act is not carried out at once, instead of us exterminating the Jews, the Jews will exterminate the Germans at a later date."

That was Himmler's explanation. Then he explained to me why he selected Auschwitz. There were extermination camps already in the East but they were incapable of carrying out a large-scale action of extermination. Himmler could not give me the exact number, but he said that at the proper time Eichmann would get in touch with me and tell me more about it. He would keep me informed about the incoming transports and like matters.

I was ordered by Himmler to submit precise plans as to my ideas on how the extermination program should be executed in Auschwitz. I was supposed to inspect a camp in the East, namely Treblinka, and to learn from the mistakes committed there.

A few weeks later, Eichmann visited me in Auschwitz and told me that the first transports from the General Government and Slovakia were to be expected. He added that this action should not be delayed in any way so that no technical difficulties would arise and that the schedules of transports should be maintained at all costs.

Meanwhile, I had inspected the extermination camp of Treblinka in the General Government, which was located on the Bug River. Treblinka was a few barracks and a railroad line side track, which had formerly been a sand quarry. I inspected the extermination chambers there.

And add to this that Himmler was at Auschwitz when the plans to build the four crematoria were launched. You can argue Himmler is lying, but you cannot argue that he isn't an informed witness.

I am not arguing he is not an informed witness, in that he will have known about the Final Solution and that Jews were being murdered. But that is it. He is not a witness to the actual process. Like all senior Nazis, as seen by the testimony of those who chose not to kill themselves, they had kept their distance from the actual process. Indeed, many had also kept their distance from anything to do with the Final Solution.

You mistakenly think that because Himmler was the boss, that means he is a key witness, but think about it. How often is the boss, a key witness to, a criminal act? Instead, how often is the more junior staff who are the actual witnesses? If Himmler had lived and given evidence, he would speak to motive and allowing the opportunity for the crime to take place. That's it.

[Nessie]

Wasn't Himmler the one Vrba said saw a gassing on site at Birkenau in 1943?

Yes, Vrba went on about this for several pages in his memoir. Although he had to backtrack on this story on the stand at the Zundel trial when it became clear the story was made up.

viewtopic.php?t=69

You know that, yet you still regard all witnesses as equal.

Neither Himmler nor Vrba were eyewitnesses, so their use as witnesses is very limited. How do you still not understand that?

[TlsMS93]

You know that, yet you still regard all witnesses as equal.

Neither Himmler nor Vrba were eyewitnesses, so their use as witnesses is very limited. How do you still not understand that?

How do you classify an eyewitness? Because you were alive during the events? Or because historiography has exposed Vrba's testimony with its contradictions? Wasn't it his report that convinced the Allies that there was a genocide via gas chambers in AB?

[Nessie]

You know that, yet you still regard all witnesses as equal.

Neither Himmler nor Vrba were eyewitnesses, so their use as witnesses is very limited. How do you still not understand that?

How do you classify an eyewitness? Because you were alive during the events? Or because historiography has exposed Vrba's testimony with its contradictions? Wasn't it his report that convinced the Allies that there was a genocide via gas chambers in AB?

There is only one definition of an eyewitness and the clue is in the name. Someone saw with their own eyes what they then later speak about. They actually witnessed the event as it happened. They likely did not see the entire event and they will have witnessed it with a different perspective to other eyewitnesses. They will also remember and recollect the event differently to other eyewitnesses. That explains why the eyewitnesses vary in their details.

Someone who was thereabouts, like Vrba and got most of his information from other people, is a hearsay witness. He did not see what was happening inside the Kremas, he was told what was happening and he saw other events at the camp. Since he relies on second hand information and rumour, that explains why his testimony is different again from the eyewitnesses.

Himmler is not an eyewitness to what happened at the Kremas. He was more than likely an eyewitness to some of the high level planning for the Final Solution, from meetings with other senior Nazis, but any records of that have not survived. If Himmler spoke about what happened at the Kremas, that evidence would be hearsay, since he would be speaking about what he did not see.

I find the distinction between eyewitness and hearsay very easy to understand, revisionists really struggle.

[Nazgul]

They actually witnessed the event as it happened.

I have determined that most of these witnesses were under duress or spies; the evidence they present has little value. In those days the modern day legal finesse was not applicable but closer to Tombstone and the OK coral, with the hanging judge thrown in as seasoning.

[Archie]

And he's doubling down. He is seriously claiming that Himmler is "irrelevant" as a witness because he didn't personally work in the Kremas. Hilarious.

Nessie, a basic principle of source criticism is, "The reliability of a given source is relative to the questions put to it." The question raised here in this thread is about when and why the Kremas were constructed. Himmler was a direct participant, indeed the key decision maker in this. Someone who worked in the Kremas would not have been involved in these decisions at all.

Let's summarize some of the key points so far,
-Nessie's claim that there are ZERO witnesses who have supported the revisionist interpretation of the Kremas is a deliberate falsehood.
-Himmler himself gave a revisionist interpretation for the Kremas.
-Himmler's claim is supported by abundant, contemporary documentation
-The timeline for the Krema construction supports the revisionist view but does not fit the orthodox timeline at all
-The evidence is so strong that even Pressac was forced to present a radically revised thesis about gas chambers being incorporated later during construction
-The Pressac proposal contradicts numerous classic sources such as Hoess and is at odds with what everyone believed for many decades