Gibson
โ๏ธ
Posts: 120
Member is Online
|
Post by Gibson on Mar 5, 2023 15:09:57 GMT
I think you're missing the point, Nessie. Historians used atrocity-propaganda to "settle the science," so to speak โ and now it is just a tautology. They never tired to "prove" gaschambers with anything resembling evidence or analysis. They just took "notice" of it as though it were the truth directly from the mouth of the Pope. Historians identified the atrocity propaganda and then traced contemporaneous eyewitness evidence, from those who were at the AR camps and inside the Kremas, and documents, images, forensics and archaeology that directly pertains to those places. It is that evidence which is used to prove mass murder. Your idea of a hard look, is to list your excuses as to why you do not believe the evidence, as if your belief determines what actually happened. When you are asked to prove evidence as to what did happen, you cannot do so. The condition of liberated Jewish prisoners and evidence of Nazi cruelty, is part of the circumstantial evidence of a Nazi plan to get rid of the Jews. It also proves motive and opportunity. You spend your time pouring over the propaganda and then fail to see the elephant in the room, which is the lack of any evidence as to an alternative, which involves millions of Jews not being killed, but instead surviving Nazi custody till the end of the war. Ok, the bolded part is an example of what I regard as an unsupported (and dubious) assertion on your part. I do not see how you can characterize the orthodox literature in that way. You make all these claims about how "historians" did this and that but without saying who you are talking about or what books you're even talking about. You haven't even tried to back it up. "Historians" - Which historians? When? What books? Cite an example of what you are talking about. "Eyewitnesses" - Can you give an example of an orthodox historian (preferably an earlier one) who actually does this careful "tracing" of testimony that you're claiming they did? "Forensics" and "archaeology"? Which orthodox historians have bothered with this?
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Mar 5, 2023 18:05:15 GMT
Historians identified the atrocity propaganda and then traced contemporaneous eyewitness evidence, from those who were at the AR camps and inside the Kremas, and documents, images, forensics and archaeology that directly pertains to those places. It is that evidence which is used to prove mass murder. Your idea of a hard look, is to list your excuses as to why you do not believe the evidence, as if your belief determines what actually happened. When you are asked to prove evidence as to what did happen, you cannot do so. The condition of liberated Jewish prisoners and evidence of Nazi cruelty, is part of the circumstantial evidence of a Nazi plan to get rid of the Jews. It also proves motive and opportunity. You spend your time pouring over the propaganda and then fail to see the elephant in the room, which is the lack of any evidence as to an alternative, which involves millions of Jews not being killed, but instead surviving Nazi custody till the end of the war. Ok, the bolded part is an example of what I regard as an unsupported (and dubious) assertion on your part. I do not see how you can characterize the orthodox literature in that way. You make all these claims about how "historians" did this and that but without saying who you are talking about or what books you're even talking about. You haven't even tried to back it up. I am talking in general, about the history of the history of the Holocaust. By that I mean how evidence was gathered, from the earliest, often unsupported intelligence and news reports of mass killings, to the first eyewitnesses, who were Jews who had escaped from the AR camps, to all the post war investigations. Those investigations consisted of tracing and interviewing witnesses, site surveys and gathering and archiving of documents, which were used in the various trials and subsequently used by, and added to by, historians. An example would be Rachel Auerbach, a trained historian, who also worked as a journalist. She then worked with the Jewish Historical Institute in Poland, who continue to this day, gathering evidence. www.jhi.pl/en/about-the-institute/history"In 1944 in Lublin, the Central Committee of the Polish Jews (the most important post-war Jewish organization) established the Central Jewish Historical Commission, whose main goals were to collect accounts of Holocaust survivors and to make available proof material useful in prosecuting German war criminals. In 1946, the Commission had collected already over 8,000 cases of archives, several dozen diaries, memoirs and works of literature, about 2,000 personal accounts..." Others were also involved in the investigations, journalists reporting on what had happened and lawyers, gathering and preparing evidence for the various post war trials. Auerbach interviewed one of the earliest escapees, Jacob Krzepicki, who got out of TII in 1943, and was part of the Polish site examination of the camp in 1945, which also involved the tracing of former inmates; www.vho.org/GB/Books/t/4.html"...the preparations for the Nuremberg Trial awakened the interest of the Jewish Central Historical Commission as well as of the Polish State Prosecutor's office for that camp. On November 6, 1945, the latter carried out an inspection trip to Treblinka, in which participated: Rachel Auerbach and Jรณzef Kermisz as representatives of the said Jewish Commission, Judge Zdzisลaw ลukaszkiewicz, State Prosecutor J. Maciejewski, land surveyor K. Trautsolt, the witnesses Samuel Rajzman, Tanhum Grinberg, Szimon Friedman, and M. Mittelberg..." The historians behind the "Holocaust Controversies" site reference the 1945 Polish site surveys and the later day surveys by Kola, Haimi and CS-C in detail. For example; holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2011/12/belzec-sobibor-treblinka-holocaust_4958.htmlThe historians responsible for the various museums, such as at Treblinka, also "bother" with the archaeology; muzeumtreblinka-eu.translate.goog/2015/10/28/jestesmy-razem/?_x_tr_sl=pl&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=scHere is an example of a review of archaeological work; www.holocaustresearchproject.org/ar/modern/archreview.html" Archaeological Investigations A Review By Historians: Robin OโNeil, Salisbury and Michael Tregenza, Lublin." I am surprised you think historians would not consider the work of archaeologists as worth bothering with.
|
|
Gibson
โ๏ธ
Posts: 120
Member is Online
|
Post by Gibson on Mar 5, 2023 20:55:28 GMT
Rachel Auerbach? You can't be serious.
Most of her writing is in Yiddish, so I really doubt that you've read much of it. She's most known for In the Fields of Treblinka which was included in the Donat book from the late 70s. A sample from this top "historian" (according to Nessie), from pages 35-36
This is bad literature, not history.
And then on the "forensic" and "archaeological" evidence, all Nessie can cite is some HC (which is a blog) and a few very late publications. Why did they wait so many decades? The reality is that the standard holocaust histories has long ignored physical evidence and only started addressing it to a very inadequate extent as a reaction to revisionism. Revisionists have always been the ones interested in physical evidence. If you look for physical evidence at Nuremberg, in Hilberg, in Arad, etc you will find virtually nothing.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Mar 6, 2023 8:47:44 GMT
Rachel Auerbach? You can't be serious. I knew that would be your reaction. It is your reaction to all the evidence I produce. Your default position is to ask, I provide and you then think up excuses to dismiss what I have provided. Most of my reading is from online sources, translated into English. It is one of the earliest histories, which you asked for, and yes, it contains inaccuracies that have gone on to be corrected. That is what happens with history. Historians revise what other historians have written. That historians do not necessarily agree with each other, will dispute other claims and conduct their own research, is one reason why the denier suggestion of a massive conspiracy, is clearly drivel. You ask, I provide, you line up your excuses to dismiss! There was a large gap of many decades between site investigations. The earliest histories had the basic Polish site examinations from 1945 to go from. After the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, further site examinations were carried out. To get detail of the archaeological work, read the archaeologists. The historians only need reference the work of the archaeologists. They will not go into detail and critique, because archaeology is outwith their field of expertise. Deniers do not think expertise matters and arrogantly think they can critique the work of experts, in subjects they have no training in. This whole thread is an example of the flaws with denial. All you do is critique the evidence that does not suit you. You fail to provide any evidence as to what did happen. You arrogantly critique subjects you have no training in.
|
|
|
Post by Carl Richard Baker on Mar 6, 2023 17:59:25 GMT
You lied that my posts are full of assertions and there is a lack of verifiable evidence for gas chambers. The evidence for gassings is overwhelming and you are the one who asserts and lies. Your assertions and lying is why you have fooled yourself into thinking the evidence for gassings is not impressive. Hold your horses, Nessie. Solid indisputable physical evidence of homicidal gassings is something those promoting the orthodox narrative have never felt the need to provide. Immediately after the war hundreds of Germans were executed for crimes against humanity which had allegedly occurred at camps located in Poland. At that time the camps in question were under Soviet control and the Western Allies were denied access to investigate the alleged killing apparatus. Instead the Western Allies relied entirely on perjurious and hearsay evidence from disgruntled ex prisoners to secure convictions in their post war trials.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Mar 6, 2023 19:42:44 GMT
You lied that my posts are full of assertions and there is a lack of verifiable evidence for gas chambers. The evidence for gassings is overwhelming and you are the one who asserts and lies. Your assertions and lying is why you have fooled yourself into thinking the evidence for gassings is not impressive. Hold your horses, Nessie. Solid indisputable physical evidence of homicidal gassings is something those promoting the orthodox narrative have never felt the need to provide. The Soviets and the Poles in 1945 and after the collapse of the SU, numerous archaeologists, have felt the need to provide physical evidence from the AR camp sites by conducting on site investigations. Historians have referenced those investigations as part of the evidence to prove what happened. Your attempt to create the impression that physical evidence was not important t those tasked with investigating what happened, is false. The western Allies who conducted the war trials had witness evidence, confessions from Nazis, the physical evidence from the sites and circumstantial evidence, along with motive, opportunity and guilty conduct after the crime. You are again making false claims about how the trials were conducted, to spin your fake narrative and divert from your total lack of any evidence to prove something else happened inside the AR camps and A-B Kremas.
|
|
Gibson
โ๏ธ
Posts: 120
Member is Online
|
Post by Gibson on Mar 7, 2023 1:16:22 GMT
The Soviets and the Poles also claimed 1.5M killed at Majdanek and 840K at Sachsenhausen. That DESTROYS your argument. Only a fool would take their word for it on Treblinka etc.
The 1945 digs were not submitted as evidence at Nuremberg. The only reason you've even heard of those is because Mattogno discussed these in some details in his Belzec and Treblinka books. How interesting that you have to look at revisionist literature to find out anything about those early digs.
Regarding later studies, none of them have produced any real proof, and they were all performed well AFTER the holocaust was already official history and the conclusions were therefore fixed ahead of time. The Kola study is one of the more discussed of these later studies. The work was done in the late 90s. Both sides of course have claimed that the results confirmed their respective positions. But the really interesting thing to me is that it is so difficult to get a copy of the Kola study.
This is the title of the book:
Hitlerowski obรณz zagลady ลปydรณw w Beลลผcu w ลwietle ลบrรณdeล archeologicznych: badania 1997-1999
It's only in Polish and you can't buy it anywhere. Very few libraries have it. According to WorldCat, no libraries in the UK have it. The closest copy for Nessie would be in Germany. (I think it has been scanned and there are bootleg copies floating around, but the point is that it is quite difficult to obtain legally). If this study really proved the holocaust, they would make it easier for people actually read it. Instead, they have, in effect, suppressed it, and soon after the study was done they covered the whole site with concrete to prevent further investigation. Hmm.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Mar 7, 2023 9:22:09 GMT
The Soviets and the Poles also claimed 1.5M killed at Majdanek and 840K at Sachsenhausen. That DESTROYS your argument. Only a fool would take their word for it on Treblinka etc. That the first Soviet death tolls were overinflated and as more evidence was traced and more western historians investigated, those tolls were reduced, destroys your argument. There were no AR camps trials at Nuremberg, because at that point, none of the Nazis had been caught. A simple online search of archaeology Treblinka, Belzec or Sobibor finds a lot of information, none of which is denier. In what way? That is evidence of how archaeologists, like historians, will return and check other's work. Deniers claim there are not enough remains at the site to corroborate the witness claims of mass graves and cremations. They provide no physical evidence to back up those claims. My search of World Cat finds my nearest copies are in London at the British Library and UCL. explore.bl.uk/primo_library/libweb/action/search.do?vid=BLVU1&fn=search&vl(freeText0)=9788390559063ucl.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?vid=44UCL_INST:UCL_VU2&mode=advanced&tab=local&offset=0&query=any,contains,9788390559063&sortby=rank&search_scope=MyInst_and_CI It is available at USHMM collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/bib62841I also found various results that lead to Polish libraries where it can be borrowed. There is an online scan of the English version here, ISBN 83-905590-6-4 www.tapatalk.com/groups/holocaustcontroversies/viewtopic.php?p=15044#p15044There are also numerous citations of the study online, which contain large parts of the book, such as; forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=3970www.holocaustresearchproject.org/ar/modern/archreview.htmlYour attempt to suggest it is being suppressed is false. Your comment about it proving the Holocaust just further proves you do not understand evidencing. It proves that Belzec was like Sobibor and TII, it was demolished after use and is full of disturbed ground containing human remains.
|
|
Gibson
โ๏ธ
Posts: 120
Member is Online
|
Post by Gibson on Mar 7, 2023 14:51:36 GMT
"That the first Soviet death tolls were overinflated and as more evidence was traced and more western historians investigated, those tolls were reduced, destroys your argument."
Historians like Hilberg used lower numbers simply because 1) they knew that nowhere near that people had ever set foot in those camps, 2) the Soviet narrative was that Germans were "exterminating" Poles, Russians, etc, not just Jews, but Hilberg et al never really got behind the idea of mass extermination of non-Jews. Hilberg did not look at physical evidence at all.
Majdanek and Sachsenhausen prove that Soviet-sphere forensic reports are not reliable. So their reports on Treblinka, Belzec, and Auschwitz cannot be assumed to be reliable.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Mar 7, 2023 17:50:51 GMT
"That the first Soviet death tolls were overinflated and as more evidence was traced and more western historians investigated, those tolls were reduced, destroys your argument." Historians like Hilberg used lower numbers simply because 1) they knew that nowhere near that people had ever set foot in those camps, 2) the Soviet narrative was that Germans were "exterminating" Poles, Russians, etc, not just Jews, but Hilberg et al never really got behind the idea of mass extermination of non-Jews. Hilberg did not look at physical evidence at all. Majdanek and Sachsenhausen prove that Soviet-sphere forensic reports are not reliable. So their reports on Treblinka, Belzec, and Auschwitz cannot be assumed to be reliable. Yes, the Soviet reports are unreliable. That is why the Poles set up their own Commission and why historians continue to check the evidence to this day. History is not static, it is not decided by the first historian to publish on a topic. That you find the variations between historians suspect, merely shows how little you know about the study of history. The history of the developing history of the Holocaust, is historians gathering, assessing, collating and then presenting the evidence.
I did a basic search of Hilberg's "The Destruction of the European Jewry" and on page 1045 he references the Polish postwar site examination at Belzec and how grave robbers had unearthed bones and flesh.
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Mar 7, 2023 21:38:22 GMT
Yes, the Soviet reports are unreliable. That is why the Poles set up their own Commission and why historians continue to check the evidence to this day. History is not static, it is not decided by the first historian to publish on a topic. That you find the variations between historians suspect, merely shows how little you know about the study of history. The history of the developing history of the Holocaust, is historians gathering, assessing, collating and then presenting the evidence. You have been told many times that Poland was a vassal of Moscow, but continue with the charade of some independent investigation. Poland was regarded as a satellite state in the Soviet sphere of interest. After Germany's surrender, Soviet troops occupied most of eastern Europe, including Poland who ruled the country. The Polish People's Republic was a country in Central Europe that existed from 1947 to 1989 having a unitary MarxistโLeninist government.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Mar 8, 2023 8:20:42 GMT
Yes, the Soviet reports are unreliable. That is why the Poles set up their own Commission and why historians continue to check the evidence to this day. History is not static, it is not decided by the first historian to publish on a topic. That you find the variations between historians suspect, merely shows how little you know about the study of history. The history of the developing history of the Holocaust, is historians gathering, assessing, collating and then presenting the evidence. You have been told many times that Poland was a vassal of Moscow, but continue with the charade of some independent investigation. Poland was regarded as a satellite state in the Soviet sphere of interest. After Germany's surrender, Soviet troops occupied most of eastern Europe, including Poland who ruled the country. The Polish People's Republic was a country in Central Europe that existed from 1947 to 1989 having a unitary MarxistโLeninist government. Poland was not under Soviet influence during the war, as the earliest reports appeared and the first historians and journalists started to gather evidence.
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Mar 8, 2023 8:46:48 GMT
You have been told many times that Poland was a vassal of Moscow, but continue with the charade of some independent investigation. Poland was regarded as a satellite state in the Soviet sphere of interest. After Germany's surrender, Soviet troops occupied most of eastern Europe, including Poland who ruled the country. The Polish People's Republic was a country in Central Europe that existed from 1947 to 1989 having a unitary MarxistโLeninist government. Poland was not under Soviet influence during the war, as the earliest reports appeared and the first historians and journalists started to gather evidence. Poland had the Reich as the Governing authority. The others I think were in exile in the UK. No authority.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Mar 8, 2023 9:39:36 GMT
Poland was not under Soviet influence during the war, as the earliest reports appeared and the first historians and journalists started to gather evidence. Poland had the Reich as the Governing authority. The others I think were in exile in the UK. No authority. Poles in Poland were sending information back to the Polish Government in Exile during the war and for a brief period after the war there was an attempt to re-establish that government, before a Soviet controlled government took power. Poles held enquiries into the Holocaust, separate from the Soviets and continued after the Soviets had established control.
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Mar 8, 2023 20:43:05 GMT
Poland had the Reich as the Governing authority. The others I think were in exile in the UK. No authority. Poles in Poland were sending information back to the Polish Government in Exile during the war and for a brief period after the war there was an attempt to re-establish that government, before a Soviet controlled government took power. Poles held enquiries into the Holocaust, separate from the Soviets and continued after the Soviets had established control. The Govt in exile were not a real government. The real government of Poland during the war was the Reich, then the Soviets for a few years who allowed a puppet state to be established. The Polish Government post war had no connection to the pre war Government which went into exile. A puppet government of the Soviets cannot be independent by definition.
|
|