|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Dec 30, 2022 8:46:18 GMT
Why is the war relevant in your distinction rather than, say, one or more Allied authorities' access to the camps, documents and eyewitnesses?
I am explaining the history of the history of the Holocaust and how the evidence appeared and why narratives have changed because of that evidence. That history starts with the wartime reports of mass killings of Jews, with shootings in the Soviet east and death camps in Poland and elsewhere. It appears that the morphing is due to making the claims more reasonable. The testimony of the first survivors are entirely discounted. One would think that first account testimony would appear first rather than the reconstructs at a later date.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,771
|
Post by Nessie on Dec 30, 2022 9:22:10 GMT
I am explaining the history of the history of the Holocaust and how the evidence appeared and why narratives have changed because of that evidence. That history starts with the wartime reports of mass killings of Jews, with shootings in the Soviet east and death camps in Poland and elsewhere. It appears that the morphing is due to making the claims more reasonable. The testimony of the first survivors are entirely discounted. One would think that first account testimony would appear first rather than the reconstructs at a later date. You say "it appears" and "one would think" which are admissions, you don't know.
The morphing was due to more accurate sources of evidence being traced. The most inaccurate form of evidence is hearsay, which is all that was initially available to the Polish when they submitted their intelligence reports, 1941 to 1944. By 1944, the first of the eyewitness evidence was appearing, with escaped prisoners. After the war, Nazis could be interviewed, documents read and camp sites archaeologically and forensically examined.
The "first account testimony" did not appear first, because it came from escaped prisoners who were not safe till the war had ended and they were free from being caught by the Nazis.
The testimony of the first survivors is not discounted, because it is corroborated.
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Dec 30, 2022 9:42:12 GMT
You say "it appears" and "one would think" which are admissions, you don't know. The morphing was due to more accurate sources of evidence being traced. The most inaccurate form of evidence is hearsay, which is all that was initially available to the Polish when they submitted their intelligence reports, 1941 to 1944. By 1944, the first of the eyewitness evidence was appearing, with escaped prisoners. After the war, Nazis could be interviewed, documents read and camp sites archaeologically and forensically examined.
The "first account testimony" did not appear first, because it came from escaped prisoners who were not safe till the war had ended and they were free from being caught by the Nazis.
The testimony of the first survivors is not discounted, because it is corroborated.
One would assume the first wave of witnesses would be the closest to the reality. yet strangely the last wave after many years of potential manipulation are accepted. The first witnesses are discounted. There are no mass discovery of bodies and if they were can be explained by the arrival of train loads of dead people. Sadly you and your kind have discounted the electrocution of hundreds of thousands at Belzec. You are a holocaust denier.
|
|
|
Post by gardenhose on Dec 30, 2022 10:11:05 GMT
Why is the war relevant in your distinction rather than, say, one or more Allied authorities' access to the camps, documents and eyewitnesses?
I am explaining the history of the history of the Holocaust and how the evidence appeared and why narratives have changed because of that evidence. That history starts with the wartime reports of mass killings of Jews, with shootings in the Soviet east and death camps in Poland and elsewhere. Sure, but witness statements were directly taken by Allied authorities before Germany or Japan surrendered. Are these downgraded to "a lot of hearsay and rumour" because the war was not concluded, whereas statements made after the war ended become better sources?
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,771
|
Post by Nessie on Dec 30, 2022 11:40:24 GMT
You say "it appears" and "one would think" which are admissions, you don't know. The morphing was due to more accurate sources of evidence being traced. The most inaccurate form of evidence is hearsay, which is all that was initially available to the Polish when they submitted their intelligence reports, 1941 to 1944. By 1944, the first of the eyewitness evidence was appearing, with escaped prisoners. After the war, Nazis could be interviewed, documents read and camp sites archaeologically and forensically examined.
The "first account testimony" did not appear first, because it came from escaped prisoners who were not safe till the war had ended and they were free from being caught by the Nazis.
The testimony of the first survivors is not discounted, because it is corroborated.
One would assume the first wave of witnesses would be the closest to the reality. Why make that assumption? That is not true. Many of the earliest witnesses are still accepted. The evidence is for mass gassings.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,771
|
Post by Nessie on Dec 30, 2022 11:57:56 GMT
I am explaining the history of the history of the Holocaust and how the evidence appeared and why narratives have changed because of that evidence. That history starts with the wartime reports of mass killings of Jews, with shootings in the Soviet east and death camps in Poland and elsewhere. Sure, but witness statements were directly taken by Allied authorities before Germany or Japan surrendered. Are these downgraded to "a lot of hearsay and rumour" because the war was not concluded, whereas statements made after the war ended become better sources? No.
The majority of earliest witness evidence, from 1941 to 1944, was based on people repeating what that had heard, which made that evidence hearsay. That witnesses evidence is different from eyewitness evidence. Eyewitness evidence is from people who were there and saw with their own eyes what was happening. The majority of eyewitness evidence was not given until the very end of the war in 1945, or after.
A witness who was a prisoner at A-B, who worked in the camp, but not inside the Kremas where the gassings took place, who gives evidence about what they were told about what happened inside the Kremas, is giving hearsay evidence. An example of that, is Rudolph Vrba, who was at A-B, but was only told about what was happening inside the Kremas. When he escaped and helped to write a report in April 1944 on what was happening, his evidence is hearsay.
A witness who was at A-B, and who worked inside the Kremas and saw what was happening, the gassings and mass cremations, is an eyewitness. An example of that is Henryk Tauber, who gave his testimony in May 1945.
Since eyewitness evidence is more reliable than hearsay, Tauber is a more reliable source than Vrba. However, compare Vrba to Tauber and we see that despite being hearsay, Vrba's evidence is very accurate. Vrba did a good job in finding out what was happening. That is why historians and courts use Vrba as a witness, because his hearsay evidence is accurate.
|
|
|
Post by gardenhose on Dec 30, 2022 15:08:13 GMT
I'm afraid the Soviets took a number of pertinent statements e.g. in the month of August 1944 from witnesses describing all sorts of stuff. IMT Document USSR-29 contains the joint Polish-Soviet report on Majdanek, which is dated 1944. I suppose having custody of the area isn't enough, the war must end so testimony magically becomes non-rumor?
If so, what do you think of Paul Ludwig Gottlieb Waldmann's confession dated June 30, 1945 (published in USSR-52) that during the summer of 1941 when he served at KL Sachsenhausen, for 30 continuous days, 28,000 Russian POWs arrived daily at the camp to be executed, resulting in the execution of 840,000 Russian POWs? He has witnessed executions by others and personally killed, using the bespoke execution device which he operated or by shootings, anything from 2,400 to 3,000 Soviet POWs.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,771
|
Post by Nessie on Dec 30, 2022 15:50:49 GMT
I'm afraid the Soviets took a number of pertinent statements e.g. in the month of August 1944 from witnesses describing all sorts of stuff. IMT Document USSR-29 contains the joint Polish-Soviet report on Majdanek, which is dated 1944. I suppose having custody of the area isn't enough, the war must end so testimony magically becomes non-rumor? Again, no. A witness who saw what was happening with their own eyes, who gives evidence before the end of the war, is an eyewitness. The clue is in the word. Someone who was at a camp, but was told about what happened and did not see it, who gives evidence after the war has ended, is giving hearsay witness evidence. The majority of the early witness evidence was hearsay. As the war ended, more eyewitness evidence was gathered. To me, it is not a difficult to differentiate between EYEwitness and hearsay witness evidence. If someone saw it, they are an eyewitness. If someone was told about it, that is hearsay. It is common in debates here and on other forums to find Holocaust deniers who really struggle with the simple difference and who constantly get the two mixed up. I have never read his testimony, but from what you say, that makes him an eyewitness, but, he may also have heard about things happening at Sachsenhausen and have spoken about them. Witnesses often mix what they saw with what they heard about, and are often poor at differentiating between the two, so it is not clear if what they say is eyewitness or hearsay. If his claims are corroborated by other evidence, then I would assess his evidence as truthful.
|
|
|
Post by gardenhose on Dec 30, 2022 20:07:40 GMT
I'm afraid the Soviets took a number of pertinent statements e.g. in the month of August 1944 from witnesses describing all sorts of stuff. IMT Document USSR-29 contains the joint Polish-Soviet report on Majdanek, which is dated 1944. I suppose having custody of the area isn't enough, the war must end so testimony magically becomes non-rumor? Again, no. A witness who saw what was happening with their own eyes, who gives evidence before the end of the war, is an eyewitness. The clue is in the word. Someone who was at a camp, but was told about what happened and did not see it, who gives evidence after the war has ended, is giving hearsay witness evidence. The majority of the early witness evidence was hearsay. As the war ended, more eyewitness evidence was gathered. To me, it is not a difficult to differentiate between EYEwitness and hearsay witness evidence. If someone saw it, they are an eyewitness. If someone was told about it, that is hearsay. It is common in debates here and on other forums to find Holocaust deniers who really struggle with the simple difference and who constantly get the two mixed up. Well, I do find your distinction try-hard. The matter of hearsay is simply a technical one. It doesn't make the information more liable to be wrong unless someone at some point did something wrong, including the witness (or investigator).
To use the American court system as a guide, hearsay is roughly defined as an out-of-court statement offered into evidence at trial to prove the truth of the matter asserted. For example, hearsay evidence that someone confidently stated the sky was blue cannot typically be offered as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted, namely whether the sky was blue or not - without the opportunity to question directly e.g. the person's visibility. But it can in cases be offered as evidence that someone simply said that. Likewise, you can't erase that the matter was allegedly said and has an alleged source.
Anyhow, would it be fair to say that if an eyewitness statement said the eyewitness handled certain people's effects, including passports and/or other identification, or if an eyewitness purports in his statement to have talked at close range to certain people, then such an eyewitness is not engaging in hearsay when testifying to the presence of said people where he was located?
If the Experts said so, then I'm in, and if not, then I'm out - is that about it? Well, the IMT found it wise to take judicial notice of it but now it is said that two days of that would exceed the camp's death toll from 1936 on.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,771
|
Post by Nessie on Dec 31, 2022 8:35:57 GMT
Again, no. A witness who saw what was happening with their own eyes, who gives evidence before the end of the war, is an eyewitness. The clue is in the word. Someone who was at a camp, but was told about what happened and did not see it, who gives evidence after the war has ended, is giving hearsay witness evidence. The majority of the early witness evidence was hearsay. As the war ended, more eyewitness evidence was gathered. To me, it is not a difficult to differentiate between EYEwitness and hearsay witness evidence. If someone saw it, they are an eyewitness. If someone was told about it, that is hearsay. It is common in debates here and on other forums to find Holocaust deniers who really struggle with the simple difference and who constantly get the two mixed up. Well, I do find your distinction try-hard. The matter of hearsay is simply a technical one. It doesn't make the information more liable to be wrong unless someone at some point did something wrong, including the witness (or investigator).
To use the American court system as a guide, hearsay is roughly defined as an out-of-court statement offered into evidence at trial to prove the truth of the matter asserted. For example, hearsay evidence that someone confidently stated the sky was blue cannot typically be offered as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted, namely whether the sky was blue or not - without the opportunity to question directly e.g. the person's visibility. But it can in cases be offered as evidence that someone simply said that. Likewise, you can't erase that the matter was allegedly said and has an alleged source.
Anyhow, would it be fair to say that if an eyewitness statement said the eyewitness handled certain people's effects, including passports and/or other identification, or if an eyewitness purports in his statement to have talked at close range to certain people, then such an eyewitness is not engaging in hearsay when testifying to the presence of said people where he was located?
Someone who repeats a conversation they had with another, is an eyewitness to that conversation. Someone who repeats information they were given is hearsay. For example, if a Nazi reports he had a conversation with a senior Nazi, who told him that 250,000 people died at Belzec, then the Nazi is an eyewitness to the senior Nazi's claim of mass deaths at Belzec, but it is hearsay that 250,000 died there. No, if the evidence from other sources agrees with the witness, then I am in. For example, if a document or other witnesses who were at the camp, or the circumstantial evidence agrees with the witness, then I am in. If there is no other evidence, or there is evidence that contradicts the witness, then I am out.
|
|
Gibson
โ๏ธ
Patrician
Posts: 268
|
Post by Gibson on Dec 31, 2022 17:26:18 GMT
Nessie uses this hearsay excuse to pick and choose the parts that match the current story and sweep the embarrassing parts in the early stories under the rug. As a rule, you can assume Nessie hasn't even read much less analyzed and compared most of the key accounts. As long as it conforms in some vague way to the current story, then he accepts it. His approach is totally circular as he is simply reflexively defending the court history.
As gardenhose pointed out, the early stories often do claim to originate from eyewitnesses (or only a step or two away from an eyewitness). The Soviet reports are full of witness statements. Vrba claimed that he saw numerous transports, that he was able to estimate the number of Jews processed (around 1.7M), that he saw them herded into the Birkenau crematoria, and that he saw SS men introduce the Zyklon from the roof. He claims he directly saw this from the window of the mortuary where Wetzler worked. His report includes elaborate yet inaccurate details of the interior of the crematoria. Later he would claim he relied on Filip Mueller, supposedly a "direct" witness. However, a careful reading of the key materials associated with Vrba/Wetzler/Mueller (especially Vrba's Zundel trial testimony) demolishes this story completely. The errors cannot be handwaved because some material is second-hand from Mueller. Another point here which Nessie does not seem to have appreciated is not it's not simply that certain accounts have errors, it's that these are sources of the legendary aspects of the Holocaust story.
Most of these holocaust stories are not written as first-person accounts, nor as a summary of material heard second-hand. Much of it is written from the perspective of a third-person omniscient narrator, which is a common technique used in FICTION. A "memoir" describing an emotional scene from inside a gas chamber is an example of this. It's not an "eyewitness" statement. It's not "hearsay." It's fiction.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,771
|
Post by Nessie on Dec 31, 2022 18:21:46 GMT
Nessie uses this hearsay excuse to pick and choose the parts that match the current story and sweep the embarrassing parts in the early stories under the rug. Why do think rumour and hearsay, spread by someone who has not seen what happened, should be considered as reliable evidence? What is wrong with dismissing such evidence? There is hearsay that was not "embarrassing" as you call it, which stated that mass gassings were taking place, which is correct, but I do not use any of it. I consistently dismiss hearsay and rumour. You are wrong when you claim I pick and chose only that evidence which suits me. When you say conforms, I say corroborates. Corroboration is the most reliable and credible method for determining truthfulness and accuracy. It is not circular to corroborate a witnesses claim with documentary evidence. Errors can be hand waved away, when they are normal witness errors, such as poor estimations of size, time, crowds and distances, since it is well known and understood that most witnesses are poor at such. When Vrba etc gave their evidence, no one, until the Zundel trial, confirmed if he was talking about what he was told, or what he saw. Much of the witness evidence is a mix of hearsay and eyewitness evidence. You nitpick over details, ignore normal witness failings and exaggerate the errors, to support your arguments from incredulity. That was because many of the earliest reports and hearsay was later confirmed by eyewitness and other corroborating evidence. Historians are more open to hearsay that courts are, but historians are well aware that hearsay is only useful if it corroborated by more reliable sources of evidence. Historians and the courts have not used the third person memoirs. Dismiss all of that evidence and you are still left with evidence to prove gassings and no evidence to prove something else happened inside the AR camps and A-B Kremas.
|
|
Gibson
โ๏ธ
Patrician
Posts: 268
|
Post by Gibson on Dec 31, 2022 19:00:32 GMT
Nessie uses this hearsay excuse to pick and choose the parts that match the current story and sweep the embarrassing parts in the early stories under the rug. Why do think rumour and hearsay, spread by someone who has not seen what happened, should be considered as reliable evidence? What is wrong with dismissing such evidence? There is hearsay that was not "embarrassing" as you call it, which stated that mass gassings were taking place, which is correct, but I do not use any of it. I consistently dismiss hearsay and rumour. You are wrong when you claim I pick and chose only that evidence which suits me. When you say conforms, I say corroborates. Corroboration is the most reliable and credible method for determining truthfulness and accuracy. It is not circular to corroborate a witnesses claim with documentary evidence. Errors can be hand waved away, when they are normal witness errors, such as poor estimations of size, time, crowds and distances, since it is well known and understood that most witnesses are poor at such. When Vrba etc gave their evidence, no one, until the Zundel trial, confirmed if he was talking about what he was told, or what he saw. Much of the witness evidence is a mix of hearsay and eyewitness evidence. You nitpick over details, ignore normal witness failings and exaggerate the errors, to support your arguments from incredulity. That was because many of the earliest reports and hearsay was later confirmed by eyewitness and other corroborating evidence. Historians are more open to hearsay that courts are, but historians are well aware that hearsay is only useful if it corroborated by more reliable sources of evidence. Historians and the courts have not used the third person memoirs. Dismiss all of that evidence and you are still left with evidence to prove gassings and no evidence to prove something else happened inside the AR camps and A-B Kremas. "Normal witness errors," you say? Vrba and Wetzler, in the report from May 1944 which they supposedly wrote (or which was "based on" their statements), claimed that there was some sort of track running between the gas chamber and the ovens and that there were carts for transporting the bodies on this track. Is this corroborated by hard evidence? No. The blueprints show no track and are quite different than the Vrba-Wetzler diagram. The ruins show no track. The so-called gas chamber was also underground. The claim is therefore FALSE. Is this a "reasonable" error? No. It is not possible that someone who was actually familiar with the structure in question would describe it that way. Is this excusable as a second-hand error? No, because that would mean Mueller thought there was a track. Your claim that disinterested investigators calmly and objectively sorted out all of the evidence and carefully distinguished fact from fiction is totally laughable and reveals your total ignorance of the early investigations of the concentration camps, the Nuremberg trials, and the early Holocaust historiography. The camp investigations from the British (Belsen), the Americans (Dachau, Buchenwald, Mauthausen), and the Russians (Majdanek, Auschwitz) made numerous, ridiculous claims and they misrepresented the scenes found at these camps in order to portray the Germans as savagely as possible to justify the war they had just fought. The gas chamber claims in particular are laughable.
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Dec 31, 2022 20:24:09 GMT
The gas chamber claims in particular are laughable. This image of Krema II has been pardoned as being authenic. Vrba and Wetzler obtained the information about the gas chambers and crematoria from the Sonderkommando Filip Mรผller and his colleagues, who worked there. Hardly an eye witness account.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,771
|
Post by Nessie on Dec 31, 2022 20:33:27 GMT
"Normal witness errors," you say? You have failed to spot that my comment about normal witness errors was about EYEwitnesses. You now go on to discuss hearsay from witnesses. That you cannot differentiate between a EYEwitness and hearsay is incredible. Yes, they are reasonable errors, as they were not EYEwintesses and they were repeating what that had been told, or what they believed from the information they could glean. That does not make sense. Why would what Mueller thought mean that what Vrba and Wetzler thought was not excusable? Someone who was not inside the Kremas and who relied on second or more information, is going to make more mistakes. At no time have I claimed that every single investigator conducted a credible investigation. You just made that up. It is called a strawman fallacy, which is common amongst deniers, who make up false allegations. I have repeatedly said that the earlier investigations involved hearsay and, in particular, the Soviets, made exaggerated claims and conducted woefully inadequate inquiries. I have repeatedly said that as more evidence came to light, especially the Nazi eyewitnesses and the post Soviet archaeological surveys, the narrative becames more accurate. It does not matter that you think the gas chamber claims are laughable. Your opinion does not matter. Sadly, no matter how often the fallacy of argument from incredulity is explained to you, you continue to use it. It is like me arguing, I believe it, therefore it happened. You must be able to see that is a flawed argument. Yet, when you make the argument of you do not believe it, therefore it did not happen, you are quite happy. Why is that?
|
|