Historians v revisionists, methodology.

[Nessie]

No, I want to read the statement. I went looking for it, as you failed to provide a link and found PS-1553 is a document about the delivery of Zyklon B, it is not Gerstein's statement.

The Gerstein statement was submitted as PS-1553 and was cited in court.

According to the link I provided, his statement was submitted along with PS-1553.

A long extract from the statement was published on page 865.

Can you link to it?

There was no discussion about all the errors in the statement. They didn't notice. All the careful fact-checking and quality control that you claim they always do didn't happen.

I am not going to believe that claim until you provide links and evidence. You would not even know what to look for.

This same negligence (even unscrupulousness) is evident in the early treatment of Gerstein in the Holocaust literature. French historian Leon Poliakov in his 1951 booked cited Gerstein approvingly as a major witness.



He then dedicates to a long quote of the statement. We know Poliakov actually did notice some errors in the statement because he makes undisclosed changes to the statement without any discussion or explanation. For example Gerstein's description has 700-800 people in a gas chamber of only 25 sq meters. Poliakov arbitrarily increases the room to 93 sq meters without comment, i.e., he falsifies the text to hide Gerstein's error from the reader.

Critical comments about Gerstein from the orthodox side generally came very late and only AFTER revisionists had already debunked him.

You criticise others, without providing evidence, such as where does Poliakov increase the size of the chamber? You then, crucially, without evidence, claim revisionists have debunked him. How have you done that? Show your methodology.

You need to learn how to do basic research. How are you not familiar with the Gerstein statement after 15 years of doing this?

Butz reproduces it here:
https://www.unz.com/book/arthur_r_butz_ ... _79_1:1-31

Here is the Poliakov book I cited. Check it. He says 93 square meters.
https://archive.org/details/harvestofhatenaz00poli

See Roques for a detailed discussion of the textual variations, including Poliakov's inaccuracies.
https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/the ... -gerstein/

Looks like you need reminding of the forum rule "Sourcing: Formal citations are not required, but, as a basic courtesy, you are encouraged to put in some effort to source your posts, and you should be ready to supply references upon request." If you ask me about assessment of a statement, why not just link to it?

Then, when you provide links, why are you being so vague? Where is it that Poliakov "arbitrarily increases the room to 93 sq meters without comment"? Why do you dodge quoting him?

Then there is the issue of you have still not provided a concise description of how you assess witnesses. I have provided you with one, including examples. Historians find that he is corroborated on his main claims, but he is poor on and unreliable in the details. The level of corroboration proves he is being truthful about the main claims he makes, but he cannot be relied upon to provide accurate descriptions.

[Nessie]

Gerstein's version of events has been questioned and subjected to extensive checking and verification.

I have provided you with links and quotes by historians as they have checked and verified his claims. On the main events, he is found to be corroborated. On the details of his descriptions, he is found to be unreliable.

[Wetzelrad]

The German historian Hans Rothfels writes about Gerstein;

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/846188/pdf

[...]

Rothfels finds that Gerstein is not that credible, he makes mistakes, makes claims that are not possible but his core claims are corroborated.

This was published in 2016. That's 55 years after the revisionist historian Paul Rassinier first began criticizing Gerstein. It's 71 years after Nuremberg. It shouldn't take half a century to correct the record. Can you not see that this a perfect example of the totally negligent and unscrupulous "methodology" of Holocaust historians? They have no leg to stand on.

He then applies the test of corroboration and finds that the primary claims about gassing are verified by other evidence.

Where are gas chambers corroborated? Rothfels cites a post-war report claiming 600,000 dead there, but that itself is a guesstimate, not evidence. He also cites hearsay from Reder and Morgen which he misleadingly claims are "Wirth's own words". He also cites Von Otter's proven lies about what Gerstein told him. None of this has any substance. Where is the corroboration?

It's absurd that some Holocaust historians continue to defend Gerstein even as they are now forced to admit to all his errors and "claims that are not possible".