Is this really the best there is?

Discussions
User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Is this really the best there is?

Post by Monstrous » Thu Oct 15, 2015 8:25 pm

Monstrous have perused this document in order to understand what the Believers believe to be the best Believer beliefs:
http://www.historiography-project.com/misc/rebuttal.php

The thing that hit Monstrous is how low value even the Believers place on the post-WWII witnesses and confessors. The best evidence is mostly argued to be NS WWII statements. Apparently even the Believers do not think that postwar show trials are particularly convincing.

Is this really the best there is?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27622
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Oct 15, 2015 10:50 pm

"Monstrous has" . . . not "Monstrous have," unless there are more than one of you, which might explain your references to yourself when you use verbiage that makes it seem that you are not writing your own posts . . .

In any event, your OP is a bit, well, stupid. It doesn't define the "Believer beliefs" you say you lack evidence for, and I doubt that anyone other than you and a cuckoo or two have any clue what you mean by "Believer beliefs." To put it simply, so you can grasp the problem, you never said "best evidence" for what?

Compounding the stupidity of your post, you link to a webpage that specifically focuses on evidence (supposed lack thereof) for "claims that the Third Reich had a plan or policy to exterminate Jews in gas chambers." Not to cast aspersions on your webpage, but the unnamed author then quotes from a request he says he made, which wasn't for evidence about only gas chambers but more generally for evidence of "the murder of six million Jews as a central act of state by the Nazis during the Second World War, many in gas chambers." The author never quotes the actual wording of his specific request for evidence, just the general set up. Your author also fails to link to the replies he says he received from Nizkor, a project which I discussed here and Balsamo discussed here. From what you've given us, it is not possible to tell why your author received replies not germane to evidence for gas chambers - whether the reason lay in his poor phrasing of a request, a misunderstanding on the part of Nizkor, or some other breakdown.

So, the answer is clearly "no," if you want evidence for mass murder in gas chambers, no, the documents cited by your author are not the best evidence for gas chambers. But so what? There are long studies of camps that had gas chambers citing documents other than those on your webpage.

Clearly, Himmler's speech at Posen, Ereignismlrdung UdSSR No. 128, the Stahlecker report, etc clearly won't provide evidence for gas chambers. Why on earth would you think an EG report from November 1941 on Kiev, for example, would speak to the use of gas chambers? That your anonymous author was provided such references makes me suspicious, as I've alluded, about what he actually asked. Arguments like "Apparently, this 'peaceful-looking cottage' no longer exists, or the cottage itself would be introduced into evidence" are almost too dumb to comment on: one of the characteristics of history is that it deals with what no longer takes place, including people and things that no longer exist. If your quarrel is with historical knowledge itself, that might be an interesting discussion - however, you seem obsessed with denying aspects of one set of historical events, the Holocaust. It also appears that your author is unable to, or refuses to, access documents which illuminate testimonies, diaries, etc. No wonder he's a revisionist - he uses a faulty methodology.

Your post is also ignorant of how historians use sources. It is not correct to say that historians "place low value" on testimonies (caution, care, cross checking and other elements of the historical approach to such sources do not equate to "low value"). In fact, your erstwhile pal Maryzilla thinks just the opposite of what you claim - Mary is certain that the only sources that historians have for the Holocaust are the very testimonies you now say historians shy away from. The fact is that historians use a range of sources, examining them all critically and in context. Historians caution that in using testimonies, the purpose and setting of the testimony, the witness's self interest, memory issues, and other complicating factors must be considered. Historians are well aware that witnesses make mistakes and that they have a point of view - that is why historians don't seek a "smoking gun" or single "reliable" witness when trying to understand a historical issue.

The notion that historians rely on "NS WWII statements" is bizarre - what do you mean by statements? Do you mean sources in archives - plans, reports, statistics, regulations, laws, memoranda, and other typical documents?

It is too bad that your anonymous author failed to acquaint himself with the basic sources utilized by van Pelt, Piper, Pressac, the 5-volume Auschwitz history, and other secondary accounts of Auschwitz-Birkenau, if he was interested in the evidence for gas chambers at that camp. Such works would have familiarized him with many more than the 10 pieces of evidence in his webpage. And so on for other camps. A very good addition to the literature, published recently (your webpage is quite dated - at least a decade old), is Patrick Montague's Chelmno and the Holocaust: The History of Hitler's First Death Camp, which, contrary to your assertion, makes extensive use of witness/perpetrator testimonies, along with Reich documents, correspondence, etc.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5221
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by Jeff_36 » Fri Oct 16, 2015 3:50 am

You have failed to address:

- Meldung 51
- Brack-Himmler correspondance
- Hosenfeld Diary
- Lwow Garrison report
- Ostrow Garrison report
- "SB" references in a minor SD document
- references to T4 euthanasia men partaking in a "final solution" under the authority of Globocnik in correspondence between Bohler and Bormann.
- German foreign office docs from the Netherlands indicating that "The Jews have figured us out and know what is behind the deportation to the east"
- the AR secrecy oath I posted earlier
- descriptions of "outsettlment" of Jews from Galacia to Belzec (westward) as being "a state secret"
- A letter from Commandant Eberl of Treblinka to his wife stating that the nature of his work was unpleasant and that he did not want her to know what was going on.
- The third Posen speech that you did not address at any point in your earlier droolings, despite my demands that you do.
- reports from the Polish AK, including a very detailed report on Belzec
- a speech by the county Hauptmann of Stanislowow, where he states that Jewry in Europe has been subjected to "destruction"
- a report on masses of confiscated property including walking sticks and glasses (do you propose that the nazis deported Jews stumbling, naked, and blind to the "east?)
- a reference for Hermann Holfe where he is described as having partaken in "sensitive tasks" in the "final solution" that were "purely confidential"

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by Monstrous » Fri Oct 16, 2015 8:11 am

In the quest to ascertain what the Believers think is the best evidence Monstrous have turned to the Holy Grail of Believer belief itself: the Irving vs Lipstadt judgement which definitively proved the Holocaust (or maybe not).

An accurate version illustrated by Irving himself can found here ("Essay in Perversity"):
http://www.fpp.co.uk/trial/judgment/

Well, there it is. The judge placed extraordinarily weight on NS WWII statements. The highest praise, as seems always to be the case for Believers, is reserved for the tampered with Himmler speeches: "in these three speeches Himmler was speaking, with remarkable frankness, about the murder of the Jews...provide powerful evidence that Hitler ordered that the extermination of the Jews should take place."

However, regarding other forms of evidence, no revisionist could have stated it better than the judge himself: "What is the evidence for mass extermination of Jews at those camps? The consequence of the absence of any overt documentary evidence of gas chambers at these camps, coupled with the lack of archeological evidence, means that reliance has to be placed on eye witness and circumstantial evidence."

The judge is not entirely sure of the value of the postwar testimonies and confessions: "Similarly Irving had some valid comments to make about the various accounts given by survivors of the camp and by camp officials. Some of those accounts were given in evidence at the post-war trials. The possibility exists that some of these witnesses invented some or even all of the experiences which they describe. Irving suggested the possibility of cross-pollina-tion, by which he meant the possibility that witnesses may have repeated and even embellished the (invented) accounts of other witnesses with the consequence that a corpus of false testimony is built up. Irving pointed out that parts of some of the accounts of some of the witnesses are obviously wrong or (like some of Olère’s drawings) clearly exaggerated. He suggested various motives why witnesses might have given false accounts, such as greed and resentment (in the case of survivors) and fear and the wish to ingratiate themselves with their captors (in the case of camp officials). Van Pelt accepted that these possibilities exist. I agree."

So there it is. The testimonies, but in particular the confessions made by the NS themselves during the war, are so astoundingly good that we can safely ignore that utter absence of other forms of evidence after having killed millions.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27622
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Oct 16, 2015 10:30 am

Monstrous wrote:In the quest to ascertain what the Believers think is the best evidence Monstrous have turned to the Holy Grail of Believer belief itself: the Irving vs Lipstadt judgement which definitively proved the Holocaust (or maybe not).
False premise.
Monstrous wrote:The judge placed extraordinarily weight on NS WWII statements.
The judge was decidedly, and admittedly, not a historian. More, however, below on his actual holding.
Monstrous wrote:The highest praise, as seems always to be the case for Believers, is reserved for the tampered with Himmler speeches: "in these three speeches Himmler was speaking, with remarkable frankness, about the murder of the Jews...provide powerful evidence that Hitler ordered that the extermination of the Jews should take place."
Not my view, which, as you are well aware, is posted here in this subforum:
The Posen and Sonthofen speeches cause all sorts of mildly amusing denier tergiversations - from waffling about ausrottung to claims of inauthenticity (Mary's snottiness here is simply her mildly amusing way of deflecting). As for my view, I agree with you that Himmler's statements at Posen are damning - but I don't believe there to be any single "coup de grace." The best - and incontrovertible - proofs of the Holocaust remain the vast web of independent pieces of evidence for the major elements of the genocide, from planning to actions on the ground.
Cherry-picking the Irving trial after presenting a cherry-picked web post from a denier website is apparently your way of "excluding" what people here say, argue, and rely on.
Monstrous wrote:However, regarding other forms of evidence, no revisionist could have stated it better than the judge himself: "What is the evidence for mass extermination of Jews at those camps? The consequence of the absence of any overt documentary evidence of gas chambers at these camps, coupled with the lack of archeological evidence, means that reliance has to be placed on eye witness and circumstantial evidence."
Yet in your first post you argued that "Believers" place "low value" on witness testimonies? The judge was not aware of the archaeological evidence, apparently, I forget whether it was touched on. Roberto Muehlenkamp has summarized much of the archeaological evidence in various forums, including SSF, and at HC. Also, at the time of the Irving trial, the excavations at Sobibór and the LIDAR and other investigations at Treblinka by Sturdy Colls hadn't been carried out yet. Pressac's work on Auschwitz utilized construction and other documentation, as have van Pelt and others (and as was presented in the Irving trial).
Monstrous wrote:The judge is not entirely sure of the value of the postwar testimonies and confessions: "Similarly Irving had some valid comments to make about the various accounts given by survivors of the camp and by camp officials. Some of those accounts were given in evidence at the post-war trials. The possibility exists that some of these witnesses invented some or even all of the experiences which they describe. Irving suggested the possibility of cross-pollina-tion, by which he meant the possibility that witnesses may have repeated and even embellished the (invented) accounts of other witnesses with the consequence that a corpus of false testimony is built up. Irving pointed out that parts of some of the accounts of some of the witnesses are obviously wrong or (like some of Olère’s drawings) clearly exaggerated. He suggested various motives why witnesses might have given false accounts, such as greed and resentment (in the case of survivors) and fear and the wish to ingratiate themselves with their captors (in the case of camp officials). Van Pelt accepted that these possibilities exist. I agree."

So there it is. The testimonies, but in particular the confessions made by the NS themselves during the war, are so astoundingly good that we can safely ignore that utter absence of other forms of evidence after having killed millions.
Another false premise. You don't appear to have read a single historical account of the period: as I posted above, historians do not generally argue that there is some unique reliability and quality to Holocaust perpetrator confessions. And, again, historians utilize a range of sources, not only such confessions. As you know, we've been through the NMT Einsatzgruppen trial, which dealt with "forms of evidence [for the Nazis'] having killed millions," where the prosecution didn't offer a single confession as part of its case (and used IIRC just two witnesses). That said, making use of the accounts of perpetrators and victims, along with documents and physical investigations, is how anyone interested in understanding what happened would proceed.

Jeff and I have posted corrections to your misleading statements. You've not addressed a single document which Jeff mentioned nor the evidence I referred to for Chelmno and Auschwitz gas chambers. Looking at Jeff's list, I gather he's as confused as I am about the evidence for what question I raised in my reply to the OP. I have a list of crucial documents for the killing of millions of Jews and others by the Nazis is over 500 items long, btw - and I frankly don't know the extent to which that list incorporates all the sources used in the books I mentioned or more recent work on Majdanek, Ravensbrück, the KL system as a whole, and so forth. Hilberg's 3 volumes had over 4,700 footnotes, mainly documents; Longerich's single volume study, Holocaust, had 2,263 notes. In any event, I for one expect you to continue posting more misleading statements, without regard to the corrections and without clarifying just what point you're trying to make.

By the way, from Gray's judgment in the Irving trial:
. . . in my judgment there is ample evidence which would have convinced an objective commentator that there were also gas chambers which were put to use to kill humans. In the first place there is the eye-witness evidence to which I have referred. Secondly, there is the evidence of van Pelt that the redesign of crematorium 2 in late 1942 was intended to cater for live human beings to walk down to an undressing room before being led into the chamber and to do away with the corpse-slide previously used to convey dead bodies downstairs. Thirdly, there is evidence that a camp doctor asked in January 1943 for the provision of an undressing-room, which would have been unnecessary if the crematorium were intended for corpses. Finally there is the evidence of the letter dated 31 March 1943 in which Bischoff requisitions, as a matter of urgency, a gas-tight door with a spy-hole of extra thickness. It is difficult to see why a spy-hole would be necessary in the door of a chamber used only for fumigating corpses or other objects. For these reasons I do not accept that an objective historian would be persuaded that the gas chambers served only the purposes of fumigation. The evidence points firmly in the direction of a homicidal use of the chambers as well. . . . If the redesign was to convert the buildings to air raid shelters, there would have been no reason why the drawings and associated documents should not say so. But there is no hint in the documents that such was the intention. The question arises for whose benefit such shelters would have been built. It appears to me to be unlikely that the Nazis would be concerned to shelter the camp inmates. In any case the shelters would have been too small to accommodate more than a fraction of them. But the shelters would not have been suitable for SS personnel either, since the SS barracks were about one and a half miles way. So I cannot accept that this argument comes anywhere near displacing the conclusion to be drawn from the convergent evidence relied on by the Defendants for their contention as to the object of the redesign work.
Note Gray's use of the term "convergent evidence," which is what I earlier alluded to in discussing the variety of sources used by historians. Nick Terry once wrote about how historians use a range of sources from
newspapers to parliamentary debates to committee hearings to diaries to memoirs to oral histories to photos, paintings, sculptures, newsreels, films, speeches, censuses, business records, railway timetables, government decrees and ordinances, memoranda, stenographic protocols, audio recordings, orders, telegrams, log books and ledgers, architectural blueprints, forensic reports and so on. All of these sources are potentially "biased" or "limited" one way or another.

Nick Terry's last point explains why historians generally don't look for a single "killer app." Nor are the "bias" and "limit" Nick mentioned, and I discussed above, unique to sources for the Holocaust, for which you seem to be trying to create a special brand of historiography.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Fri Oct 16, 2015 11:12 am, edited 3 times in total.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
NathanC
Regular Poster
Posts: 600
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:19 am

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by NathanC » Fri Oct 16, 2015 10:39 am

Moronstrous is really just trolling now. He's trying to change the subject instead of answering the criticisms leveled at him. He's turning into another David. Stat Mech and Jeff really did a number on him.

At any rate, his new spam is just a bunch of out of context quotes. For the full context, see these other things the verdict said.


http://hdot.org/en/trial/judgement/06-14.html
The Defendants adduced in evidence a report from a sergeant in the motor pool dated 5 June 1942, which records that 97,000 had been killed by means of the use of three vans over the preceding six months
http://hdot.org/en/trial/judgement/07-15.html
7.66 Another allegedly incriminating document is the record of a meeting held on 19 August 1942 between members of the Auschwitz construction office and a representative of the engineers Topf to discuss the construction of four crematoria. The note of the meeting refers to the construction of   triple oven incinerators near the "Badenanstalten fur Sonderaktionen" ("bath-houses for special actions": the words are in quotations in the original).7.67 In a different category is a report dated 16 December 1942 made by a corporal named Kinna, which made reference to an order that, in order to releive the camp, limited people, idiots, cripples and sick people must be removed from the same by liquidation. Kinna stated that the implementation of this order was difficult because the Poles, unlike the Jews, must die a natural death.
http://hdot.org/en/trial/judgement/13-35.html
The nature of the redesign in 1942 of crematorium 2 appears to me, for the reasons summarised in paragraph 7.59 to 7.63 above, to constitute powerful evidence that the morgue was to be used to gas live human beings who had been able to walk downstairs. Few and far between though they may be, documents do exist for which it is difficult to find an innocent explanation. I have in mind for example the minute of the meeting of 19 August 1942 (paragraph 7.66 above), which refers to Badenanstalten fur Sonderaktionen ("bath-houses for special actions") and the so-called Kinna report (paragraph 7.67 above). As to Muller's letter about the incineration capacity of the ovens (see paragraphs 7.69 and 7.106 above), it does not seem to me that, despite its unusual features, a dispassionate historian would dismiss it out of hand, as did Irving, as a forgery. Van Pelt believed it to be genuine. He pointed out that there are two copies in different archives (in Domburg and in Moscow, where it has been since 1945). It was used at the trial of Hoss in 1948.If it had been forged before 1948, it would have been unlikely that the capacity would have been given as 4,756 corpses per day since that is a lower figure than the figures published by the Russians and the Poles at the end of the war. I accept the reasoning of van Pelt. If the Muller document is authentic, it is further cogent evidence of genocidal gassing
And here, Justice Grey dismisses the considerations that Moronstrous falsely attributes to him.

http://hdot.org/en/trial/judgement/13-36.html
13.77 Whilst I acknowledge that the reliability of the eye-witness evidence is variable, what is to me striking about that category of evidence is the similarity of the accounts and the extent to which they are consistent with the documentary evidence. The account of, for example, Tauber, is so clear and detailed that, in my judgment, no objective historian would dismiss it as invention unless there were powerful reasons for doing so. Tauber's account is corroborated by and corroborative of the accounts given by others such as Jankowski and Dragon. Their descriptions marry up with Olere's drawings. The evidence of other eye-witnesses, such as Hoss and Broad, would in my view appear credible to a dispassionate student of Auschwitz. There is no evidence of cross-pollination having occurred. It is in the circumstances an unlikely explanation for the broad similarity of the accounts in this category.

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by Monstrous » Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:09 pm

There is a section called "Irving’s concessions". According this Irving was at some point not denying anything at all regarding the Holocaust including genocidal gassings at Auschwitz and Hitler giving the order. He later changed his position somewhat on some points such as Hitler not explicitly ordering the EG shootings but that seems to be within what Holocaust scholars are legally allowed to say without being imprisoned. So he was not a Holocaust denier then.

Of course, that is in some sense irrelevant for whether Lipstadt defamed Irving by calling him a denier in her book since this depended on whether Irving had denied the Holocaust in past or not. Not on whether he was denying the Holocaust at the time of the trial. However, since Irving was actually not denying the Holocaust at the end of trial, then the judge could of course himself not state that Irving in past was right regarding denying the Holocaust, a position contrary to that of both Irving and team Lipstadt at the end of the trial. So rather unclear why this trial is considered so important. It was not about the Holocaust, it was about whether Irving had denied the Holocaust at some point previously.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27622
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Oct 16, 2015 3:27 pm

What the {!#%@} is this thread about - the Irving trial then? Troll can't seem to make his mind up . . .
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5221
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by Jeff_36 » Fri Oct 16, 2015 3:44 pm

monstrous fails also to account for the clarification made by Irving himself at the very trial monstrous claims knowledge of: that the posen speeches were not post war forgeries, but rather fiddled with by Himmler.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5221
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by Jeff_36 » Fri Oct 16, 2015 3:50 pm

Here ( is an interview where Irving seems to accept the authenticity of the speech. Granted, he still parrots his "unknowing Hitler" theory and his silly ramblings can be hard to follow.

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by Monstrous » Sat Oct 17, 2015 9:59 am

Jeff_36 wrote:Here ( is an interview where Irving seems to accept the authenticity of the speech. Granted, he still parrots his "unknowing Hitler" theory and his silly ramblings can be hard to follow.
Is there a point here? Irving has never been really "denied" the Holocaust but only rejected some aspects such as Auschwitz gassings. Mainstream revisionism has never seen Irving as some authority on the Holocaust. Makes it even stranger that the trial is claimed to have crushed revisionism.
Last edited by Monstrous on Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by Monstrous » Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:10 am

NathanC wrote: http://hdot.org/en/trial/judgement/13-36.html
13.77 Whilst I acknowledge that the reliability of the eye-witness evidence is variable, what is to me striking about that category of evidence is the similarity of the accounts and the extent to which they are consistent with the documentary evidence. The account of, for example, Tauber, is so clear and detailed that, in my judgment, no objective historian would dismiss it as invention unless there were powerful reasons for doing so. Tauber's account is corroborated by and corroborative of the accounts given by others such as Jankowski and Dragon. Their descriptions marry up with Olere's drawings. The evidence of other eye-witnesses, such as Hoss and Broad, would in my view appear credible to a dispassionate student of Auschwitz. There is no evidence of cross-pollination having occurred. It is in the circumstances an unlikely explanation for the broad similarity of the accounts in this category.
What documents? How can it be claimed to be consistency when the early claims were widely contradictory. Of course, many later accounts after 1944 started to copy the Vrba–Wetzler report but that is, hm, "cross-pollination". Even so, many parts of for example the stories of Höss are totally inconsistent with the current orthodoxy.

Just shows that Irving had very little knowledge of revisionist arguments on Auschwitz so he could not argue effectively.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27622
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sat Oct 17, 2015 11:22 am

So did Gray waffle, as you originally claimed, on using testimonies, or did he find significant testimonies credible and useful?

You really can't make up your mind what the topic is, or what your arguments are, so long as you stay in denial. Piss-poor attempt at a thread.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5221
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by Jeff_36 » Sat Oct 17, 2015 3:39 pm

Monstrous wrote:
NathanC wrote: http://hdot.org/en/trial/judgement/13-36.html
13.77 Whilst I acknowledge that the reliability of the eye-witness evidence is variable, what is to me striking about that category of evidence is the similarity of the accounts and the extent to which they are consistent with the documentary evidence. The account of, for example, Tauber, is so clear and detailed that, in my judgment, no objective historian would dismiss it as invention unless there were powerful reasons for doing so. Tauber's account is corroborated by and corroborative of the accounts given by others such as Jankowski and Dragon. Their descriptions marry up with Olere's drawings. The evidence of other eye-witnesses, such as Hoss and Broad, would in my view appear credible to a dispassionate student of Auschwitz. There is no evidence of cross-pollination having occurred. It is in the circumstances an unlikely explanation for the broad similarity of the accounts in this category.
What documents? How can it be claimed to be consistency when the early claims were widely contradictory. Of course, many later accounts after 1944 started to copy the Vrba–Wetzler report but that is, hm, "cross-pollination". Even so, many parts of for example the stories of Höss are totally inconsistent with the current orthodoxy.

Just shows that Irving had very little knowledge of revisionist arguments on Auschwitz so he could not argue effectively.
You really have not looked at early Polish reports have you?

Hans
Poster
Posts: 324
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by Hans » Sat Oct 17, 2015 8:29 pm

Monstrous wrote:
NathanC wrote: http://hdot.org/en/trial/judgement/13-36.html
13.77 Whilst I acknowledge that the reliability of the eye-witness evidence is variable, what is to me striking about that category of evidence is the similarity of the accounts and the extent to which they are consistent with the documentary evidence. The account of, for example, Tauber, is so clear and detailed that, in my judgment, no objective historian would dismiss it as invention unless there were powerful reasons for doing so. Tauber's account is corroborated by and corroborative of the accounts given by others such as Jankowski and Dragon. Their descriptions marry up with Olere's drawings. The evidence of other eye-witnesses, such as Hoss and Broad, would in my view appear credible to a dispassionate student of Auschwitz. There is no evidence of cross-pollination having occurred. It is in the circumstances an unlikely explanation for the broad similarity of the accounts in this category.
What documents? How can it be claimed to be consistency when the early claims were widely contradictory. Of course, many later accounts after 1944 started to copy the Vrba–Wetzler report but that is, hm, "cross-pollination".
Monstrous,

your explanation does not fit to the body of testimonies. The "widely contradictory" claims were usually made by hearsay witnesses - including the Vrba-Wetzler report, by the way. In contrast to this, most eyewitness accounts (Sonderkommando, SS men, other prisoners who gained access to the extermination sites) were consistent and reliable from the very beginning.

I have yet to see any Revisionist explanation why the testimonies of the Sonderkommando prisoners and SS men from Auschwitz stand out in terms of level of detail, reliability and consistency compared to the rest. This is exactly what one would expect if the story of mass extermination were true and it is pretty much the opposite of what one would expect if it were just false rumors circulating in and outside the camp.

Care to explain this?

Hans
Poster
Posts: 324
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by Hans » Sat Oct 17, 2015 8:43 pm

And while you are at it, Monstrous, could you please also demonstrate your claim that "many later accounts after 1944 started to copy the Vrba–Wetzler report" (but not on hearsay accounts, which are little relevant, but strictly limited to Sonderkommando and SS testimonies).

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27622
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sat Oct 17, 2015 8:46 pm

Hans, I was hoping you'd show up about when this veered toward A-B . . . :)
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Hans
Poster
Posts: 324
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by Hans » Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:07 pm

Well, bad timing from Monstrous to come up with his canard right after it was rebutted at the HC blog.

Did you tell Monstrous about PS-501 already? Or do you think this would confuse him (or her) too much?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27622
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:13 pm

PS-501 is on the list of over 500 sources I mentioned having in my files . . . but, no, I didn't mention it, or any other documents, specifically, as I've kept things general until I figure out what Monstrous is after with this thread - the Holocaust in general (killing of millions), gassing in general, stationary gas chambers, Justice Gray's reasoning, what have you.

Your showing up just after he tries to say something about A-B is more or less his "oh {!#%@}" moment!

But since you raise the point, I am curious what Monstrous has to say about PS-501 - IFWF?
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
NathanC
Regular Poster
Posts: 600
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:19 am

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by NathanC » Sun Oct 18, 2015 11:53 am

Monstrous wrote:
NathanC wrote: http://hdot.org/en/trial/judgement/13-36.html
13.77 Whilst I acknowledge that the reliability of the eye-witness evidence is variable, what is to me striking about that category of evidence is the similarity of the accounts and the extent to which they are consistent with the documentary evidence. The account of, for example, Tauber, is so clear and detailed that, in my judgment, no objective historian would dismiss it as invention unless there were powerful reasons for doing so. Tauber's account is corroborated by and corroborative of the accounts given by others such as Jankowski and Dragon. Their descriptions marry up with Olere's drawings. The evidence of other eye-witnesses, such as Hoss and Broad, would in my view appear credible to a dispassionate student of Auschwitz. There is no evidence of cross-pollination having occurred. It is in the circumstances an unlikely explanation for the broad similarity of the accounts in this category.
What documents? How can it be claimed to be consistency when the early claims were widely contradictory. Of course, many later accounts after 1944 started to copy the Vrba–Wetzler report but that is, hm, "cross-pollination". Even so, many parts of for example the stories of Höss are totally inconsistent with the current orthodoxy.

Just shows that Irving had very little knowledge of revisionist arguments on Auschwitz so he could not argue effectively.
This just shows that Moronstrous really lives up to his name.

There isn't any "orthodoxy". Höss's "inconsistencies" are actually due to him acting as a defense witness for Ernst Kaltenbrunner, and him mixing things up. He testified at the IMT that Himmler gave the extermination order in early 1941 because that would place the responsibility on Kaltenbrunner's predecessor, Heydrich. And he mixed up a visit by Himmler with a visit by Pohl, because he's a human being, and such things happen.

Moronstrous should understand that there's no such thing as "orthodoxy". There's a wide range of perspectives, and they have common, verifiable elements which form our understanding of the Holocaust, or any other history for that matter. It's subject to revision when further evidence becomes available.

It's really obvious, but it's worth pointing out. Moronstrous totally ignored the documentary evidence that I quoted, showing that like a good Judge, Gray knew that he shouldn't focus on one type of evidence, but multiple types. Followed by getting the common, verifiable points.

Just another David wannabee.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27622
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Oct 18, 2015 2:05 pm

According to a report of the OCCWC Document Disposal Committee, August 1948, of the 65,000 cubic feet of documents collected for Nuremberg proceedings, slightly less than 43,000 cubic feet remained; in this mass of documents were 43,000 records, weighing 8 tons, captured from the Germans. I admit to having read only a tiny fraction of this documentation.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Hans
Poster
Posts: 324
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by Hans » Sun Oct 18, 2015 2:34 pm

How many 4.5 tons gasoline powered Saurer homicidal gas vans full of records is this, Monstrous?

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5221
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by Jeff_36 » Sun Oct 18, 2015 3:41 pm

and btw: what thinkith Monstrous on the report of the Zamosc Resettlement in Auschwitz?

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Mon Oct 19, 2015 4:55 am

Good job Monstrous. You have them foaming at the mouth because they know the answer to your question in the OP is, yes, this is the best evidence they have.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28619
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by scrmbldggs » Mon Oct 19, 2015 5:24 am

:laff:
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

Hans
Poster
Posts: 324
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by Hans » Mon Oct 19, 2015 5:49 am

Mary really lives in her own world, right?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:00 am

Hans wrote:Mary really lives in her own world, right?
Mary is simply the dumbest person I have ever met on a forum. It's almost "magical".

When he was Dogzilla, he came across as angry and stupid. Nowdays he is more like Gilligan from Gilligan's Island and expects us to laugh at him.
:D

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28619
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by scrmbldggs » Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:37 am

Hans wrote:Mary really lives in her own world, right?
Probably a walk-in cooler at Todzilla's in Rozvell, playing Hollow Earth make-belief.


(Which brings up a hilarious page on RationalWiki. :-P)
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27622
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:18 am

Mary Q Contrary wrote:Good job Monstrous. You have them foaming at the mouth because they know the answer to your question in the OP is, yes, this is the best evidence they have.
Which explains why I replied, "So, the answer is clearly 'no' . . ."? And so on . . . But good job, Mary, reminding everyone how little you always manage bringing to discussions you join and what an utterly useless wanker you are. We'd kind of forgotten.

PS-501, Mary? I didn't catch Monstrous's comments (we can assume he's searching for a link to post LOL) . . . yours?
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by Monstrous » Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:08 pm

Monstrous see no need to repeat the criticisms of individual witnesses mentioned, for example, here:
http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/15-loth.pdf

See for example the criticism of Sonderkommando Filip Müller starting on page 392 and on how he copied others. Or the problems with Pery Broad starting on page 324 and also on page 377. Or Höss starting on page 375. Tabuer starting on page 383. Etc.

Of course the Vrba-Wetzler report provided the blueprint for many after the 1944. It was widely publicized and of course the communists also learned of it and likely found it useful in order to standardize the story. Allied prosecutors and interrogators "interviewing" witnesses likely expected to hear this version of events and that was consequently what they got (after the necessary "prodding" to help memory). The remarkable thing is that it despite this has so many problems compared with orthodoxy. See pages 317-21 and pages 381-383.
Last edited by Monstrous on Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by Monstrous » Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:17 pm

Considering the numerous inconsistencies and absurdities in the postwar testimonies and confessions it is not surprising that the Believers have instead turned to cherry-picking NS WWII statements as the most important proof.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5221
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by Jeff_36 » Mon Oct 19, 2015 1:15 pm

there is no cherry picking. They testified, for the most part, of their own free will and their statements matched up on the most important details. You neglect to mention that many of them criticized slobbering skinheads like yourself post-war.

Josef Klehr, Hans Munch, and Josef Erber to name a few. Erber in particular gave a compelling argument against revisionism that I posted in SSF some months ago.

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by Monstrous » Mon Oct 19, 2015 1:35 pm

There is also a section called "Trials in “Nations under the Rule of Law” starting on page 343.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27622
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Oct 19, 2015 1:54 pm

Hans, his answer to your question about Auschwitz is "of course" LOL

As to PS-501 I think he said "pass."
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by Monstrous » Mon Oct 19, 2015 2:13 pm

PS-501
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndwagon.html

The Becker Document (501-PS), 16 May 1942 .................. 40
http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=24

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27622
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Oct 19, 2015 3:02 pm

LOL right on cue, the {!#%@} replies with links he's dug up instead of being able to offer an argument of his own. Lawd have mercy.

Hans - enjoy.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by Monstrous » Mon Oct 19, 2015 3:07 pm

There is a convergence of evidence that in Treblinka steam was used:
http://vho.org/tr/2002/1/tr09irving.html

(Monstrous will contribute that steam gas may be a more plausible method than carbon monoxide gas from a captured Russian submarine).
Last edited by Monstrous on Mon Oct 19, 2015 3:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Xcalibur
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1434
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by Xcalibur » Mon Oct 19, 2015 3:11 pm

Monstrous wrote:There is a convergence of evidence that in Treblinka steam was used:
http://vho.org/tr/2002/1/tr09irving.html

(Monstrous will contribute that steam gas may be a more plausible method than carbon monoxide gas).
Say what?

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5221
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by Jeff_36 » Mon Oct 19, 2015 3:21 pm

Monstrous wrote:There is a convergence of evidence that in Treblinka steam was used:
http://vho.org/tr/2002/1/tr09irving.html

(Monstrous will contribute that steam gas may be a more plausible method than carbon monoxide gas).
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
SM: can you get a load of this!!?!?!

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5221
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Is this really the best there is?

Post by Jeff_36 » Mon Oct 19, 2015 3:23 pm

:shock:
Monstrous wrote:There is also a section called "Trials in “Nations under the Rule of Law” starting on page 343.
You have not adressed my points at all