Bombsaway does in fact think that he knows better than the professional Holocaust historians. Van Pelt is a "secondary source" and therefore worthless. He prefers to make up his own version based on "primary sources" (the ones can he can find on Google).HansHill wrote: ↑Sat Aug 02, 2025 10:38 pmAre you arguing Van Pelt should have consulted you instead of Michal Kula for an accurate model?bombsaway wrote: ↑Sat Aug 02, 2025 10:29 pmDid Van Pelt claim it looked exactly like this? I don't see how, without a time machine.HansHill wrote: ↑Sat Aug 02, 2025 9:47 pm
Robert Jan Van Pelt has entered the chat
https://uwaterloo.ca/architecture/robert-jan-van-pelt
(He hasn't figured out yet that the primary sources are all over the place and that harmonizing them into a single coherent story is not a simple task.)
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=1475&#p1475
Archie wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 8:04 amArad and other historians, in theory, have already reviewed the primary sources and carefully weighed and synthesized them. I guess you are saying you think Arad did a bad job?? Interesting concession.bombsaway wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 6:09 amOne issue you guys have is deferring to secondary sources like historians on what the story is. This is not how history works. Whenever possible, the primary sources take precedent. At best you're making a critique of historiography, which is important, but that's barely relevant to the debate. Historians are often wrong, you're just showing that Holocaust history is no exception.fireofice wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 5:29 am
The USHMM seems to be the only source for the October date (which is what Wikipedia cited). All other earlier sources put it on November at the earliest. Do you have any other sources that say it was October? If not, it seems like this was just made up by the USHMM.
Burning of bodies is evidenced in August of 1942. The extent of the burning is unclear, but it is evidenced.
...
Generally speaking, the official story comes from the literature, i.e., secondary sources, not random primary sources which have countless inconsistencies. Reder says 3,000,000 bodies. That's a primary source. It's also not generally accepted. You seem to want to shop miscellaneous sources and pull out whatever bits you find convenient in the moment, ignoring how it would fit in with everything else. THAT'S not how history is done.
The history apparently IS too complex for Van Pelt and Arad. But not for bombsaway!bombsaway wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 8:22 amYou're talking to me, not some distant personage, maybe dead (like Arad). The history isn't so complex that I can't grasp it and tell you why trusting Reder on the number killed is wrongheaded from the perspective of someone doing proper history.Archie wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 8:18 amThat process of weighing out the sources is what historians are supposed to do. And they publish their work in secondary sources.bombsaway wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 8:15 am
Reder's statements are contradicted by better sources, like the deportation records to Belzec (from which Arad got his 600k figure, and then later the Hofle telegram, which was the Nazis own numbers).
It's absolutely typical in history to defer to written records over individual testimonies (of compromised people no less). Reder was compromised due to the brutality he was subjected to, and also his lack of access to what was happening, he was a prisoner, and not directly involved in transporting corpses, etc. Historians would be utterly foolish to take his numbers as sacrosanct, esp when they are not corroborated elsewhere.
And still no response to my question about the ash layers. Did Nazgul do the best job here, should I examine his explanation?