Gibson
โ๏ธ
Patrician
Posts: 269
|
Post by Gibson on Apr 8, 2023 4:58:20 GMT
Your argument of, there is no book of the type I think is needed, therefore no mass gassings, is clearly a non sequitur. No one rational would believe the conclusion follows the premise. You have also found excuses to dismiss all the suggestions for reading, so making it impossible find the book you are looking for. Wikipedia is the closest to what you want, but you reject it as well. Way to totally miss the point, dumbass. It doesn't matter if it's a book or a couple of books or a series of articles or whatever. The point is that your side has utterly failed to present their arguments in a thorough and comprehensive fashion. The criteria I listed were very general and reasonable. That's hardly me making arbitrary demands based on my personal whimsy which is how you are distorting things. Here is a very commonly used structure of an argument. The criteria I suggested (and you are free to suggest your own) are very much in line with this sort of classic structure. At the most basic level, the Holocaust is generally defined as the intentional extermination of around six million Jews by the Germans during WWII. The "Holocaust" literature, with very limited exceptions, simply ASSUMES all of that is true and tells you the story. If people want to write that sort of history, okay, but that's not how you argue something or convince people of something. The anti-revisionist material, limited mostly to websites, also does not argue for the Holocaust thesis comprehensively. |
|
Gibson
โ๏ธ
Patrician
Posts: 269
|
Post by Gibson on Apr 8, 2023 5:22:02 GMT
This comment here shows what little you know even about your own side's material. Here is #2 again.
At Nuremberg, they said "the final solution" began in summer 1941. Nick says December 1941. The Wannsee Conference of Jan 1942 has traditionally been assumed to have some importance. Hilberg in the original 1961 edition of his book has said, "How was the killing phase brought about? Basically, we are dealing with two of Hitler's decisions. One order was given in the spring of 1941..." But he was totally unable to defend these claims in court and these passages were changed in the next edition. The problem is of course that they have no Hitler orders, no explicit documentation of this extermination program, so they are just making lots of assumptions. Adding to their troubles is the fact that they assume "final solution" refers to genocide even though many documents use it in a way that precludes this interpretation, e.g., documents speaking of a "territorial" final solution, documents saying the solution of the Jewish question was to be deferred until after the war, or documents that mention the "final solution" too early. So then amazingly they are already struggling even with the most basic elements of the thesis.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,772 
|
Post by Nessie on Apr 8, 2023 7:24:10 GMT
Your argument of, there is no book of the type I think is needed, therefore no mass gassings, is clearly a non sequitur. No one rational would believe the conclusion follows the premise. You have also found excuses to dismiss all the suggestions for reading, so making it impossible find the book you are looking for. Wikipedia is the closest to what you want, but you reject it as well. Way to totally miss the point, dumbass. It doesn't matter if it's a book or a couple of books or a series of articles or whatever. The point is that your side has utterly failed to present their arguments in a thorough and comprehensive fashion. That, again, is merely your opinion, which is not backed by evidence to prove it. That is a very specific format, which in my experience, is for university work such as Phds. If something was presented that way, you would complain it was too long and dense. The histories I have read go through the evidence from witnesses, documents, images, circumstances etc. The truth of what happened comes from that evidence.
Well spotted, the revisionists do not present their work in the way you are demanding.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,772
|
Post by Nessie on Apr 8, 2023 7:30:21 GMT
This comment here shows what little you know even about your own side's material. Here is #2 again. That is different from the point 2 I was replying to, which was "On #2, the narratives favored by various authors contain major disagreements and they have admitted to a lack of documentation." There is no major disagreement over the mass gassing narrative, so you have changed point 2 to be about what there is disagreement over, which is how the mass killings and programme developed. There is disagreement over how it was organised, not that it happened. |
|
Gibson
โ๏ธ
Patrician
Posts: 269
|
Post by Gibson on Apr 8, 2023 14:43:54 GMT
That is a very specific format, which in my experience, is for university work such as Phds. If something was presented that way, you would complain it was too long and dense. Nonsense. You can argue something with that approach or an alternative one without it being overly complicated or involved. Highly readable and persuasive polemical writings use argument structures like that, with countless variations. A standard component to virtually all structures is to address counterarguments and objections, something Holocaust writers do not do. |
|
Gibson
โ๏ธ
Patrician
Posts: 269
|
Post by Gibson on Apr 8, 2023 15:03:11 GMT
This comment here shows what little you know even about your own side's material. Here is #2 again. That is different from the point 2 I was replying to, which was "On #2, the narratives favored by various authors contain major disagreements and they have admitted to a lack of documentation." There is no major disagreement over the mass gassing narrative, so you have changed point 2 to be about what there is disagreement over, which is how the mass killings and programme developed. There is disagreement over how it was organised, not that it happened. Where it says "On #2 ..." that clearly refers to some prior item identified as #2, and golly gee it's right there in the same post, so it's pretty damn obvious what that was referring to. You knew what I was saying and you know it's true, but rather than concede the point you distorted the statement and made an irrelevant comment about how the "mass gassing narrative" is fairly standard in the holocaust literature. Me: The Holocaust literature has disagreement on this rather major point (how and when the final solution developed, etc) Nessie, Mr. Master Logician: Well, they are sort of consistent on this other point; therefore, they are consistent. |
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,772
|
Post by Nessie on Apr 8, 2023 16:33:40 GMT
That is a very specific format, which in my experience, is for university work such as Phds. If something was presented that way, you would complain it was too long and dense. Nonsense. You can argue something with that approach or an alternative one without it being overly complicated or involved. Highly readable and persuasive polemical writings use argument structures like that, with countless variations. A standard component to virtually all structures is to address counterarguments and objections, something Holocaust writers do not do. Historians present the evidence as to what happened, primarily concentrating on witnesses, documents, imagery and circumstances. The physical, archaeological and forensic evidence comes from the archaeologists.
The analysis of the evidence is straightforward. It is verified as contemporaneous and if it is corroborated, then it is accepted as factual. That evidence is presented chronologically and logically. That witnesses vary in how they describe things and what is hearsay and what is not, is normal for witnesses. That every single witness who was inside an AR camp or A-B Krema speaks to mass gassings, is significant. That many do not provide a particularly detailed or what you would find credible statement, is not as important as you think it is. Truthfulness, determined by corroboration, is a more reliable method, than credibility based on opinion.
Revisionist counterarguments and objections are, in the most part, stupid, illogical and not worth bothering with.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,772
|
Post by Nessie on Apr 8, 2023 16:37:52 GMT
That is different from the point 2 I was replying to, which was "On #2, the narratives favored by various authors contain major disagreements and they have admitted to a lack of documentation." There is no major disagreement over the mass gassing narrative, so you have changed point 2 to be about what there is disagreement over, which is how the mass killings and programme developed. There is disagreement over how it was organised, not that it happened. Where it says "On #2 ..." that clearly refers to some prior item identified as #2, and golly gee it's right there in the same post, so it's pretty damn obvious what that was referring to. You knew what I was saying and you know it's true, but rather than concede the point you distorted the statement and made an irrelevant comment about how the "mass gassing narrative" is fairly standard in the holocaust literature. I did not distort your statement, you did!!!! You altered it, which is dishonest of you. Fact is, there is no disagreement over mass gassings, which is the most significant part of the Holocaust, due to it being mass murder on an industrial scale. My actual argument is that historians agree on mass gassings, but not on the development of the policy from which mass gassings came. It is possible for them to be consistent on some aspects of the Holocaust and inconsistent on others. |
|
Gibson
โ๏ธ
Patrician
Posts: 269
|
Post by Gibson on Apr 8, 2023 17:53:16 GMT
Where it says "On #2 ..." that clearly refers to some prior item identified as #2, and golly gee it's right there in the same post, so it's pretty damn obvious what that was referring to. You knew what I was saying and you know it's true, but rather than concede the point you distorted the statement and made an irrelevant comment about how the "mass gassing narrative" is fairly standard in the holocaust literature. I did not distort your statement, you did!!!! You altered it, which is dishonest of you. Fact is, there is no disagreement over mass gassings, which is the most significant part of the Holocaust, due to it being mass murder on an industrial scale. My actual argument is that historians agree on mass gassings, but not on the development of the policy from which mass gassings came. It is possible for them to be consistent on some aspects of the Holocaust and inconsistent on others. Nessie, why are you lying about a comment that's right there on the previous page? Pro-tip: You should only lie about things that are hard to check. Everyone can easily read the comment and see that you are lying and that the point was about the development of the supposed extermination program, not how the gas chambers worked (which is more #3 which mentions the technical means). |
|
Gibson
โ๏ธ
Patrician
Posts: 269
|
Post by Gibson on Apr 8, 2023 17:57:04 GMT
Nonsense. You can argue something with that approach or an alternative one without it being overly complicated or involved. Highly readable and persuasive polemical writings use argument structures like that, with countless variations. A standard component to virtually all structures is to address counterarguments and objections, something Holocaust writers do not do. Historians present the evidence as to what happened, primarily concentrating on witnesses, documents, imagery and circumstances. The physical, archaeological and forensic evidence comes from the archaeologists.
The analysis of the evidence is straightforward. It is verified as contemporaneous and if it is corroborated, then it is accepted as factual. That evidence is presented chronologically and logically. That witnesses vary in how they describe things and what is hearsay and what is not, is normal for witnesses. That every single witness who was inside an AR camp or A-B Krema speaks to mass gassings, is significant. That many do not provide a particularly detailed or what you would find credible statement, is not as important as you think it is. Truthfulness, determined by corroboration, is a more reliable method, than credibility based on opinion.
Revisionist counterarguments and objections are, in the most part, stupid, illogical and not worth bothering with.
Quote a part of the Rees book where he presents proof of mass gassings. |
|
Gibson
โ๏ธ
Patrician
Posts: 269
|
Post by Gibson on Apr 8, 2023 18:06:55 GMT
Keep telling yourself that, even as you devote a substantial amount of your own time to responding to it. Unsuccessfully.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,772
|
Post by Nessie on Apr 9, 2023 7:23:19 GMT
I did not distort your statement, you did!!!! You altered it, which is dishonest of you. Fact is, there is no disagreement over mass gassings, which is the most significant part of the Holocaust, due to it being mass murder on an industrial scale. My actual argument is that historians agree on mass gassings, but not on the development of the policy from which mass gassings came. It is possible for them to be consistent on some aspects of the Holocaust and inconsistent on others. Nessie, why are you lying about a comment that's right there on the previous page? Pro-tip: You should only lie about things that are hard to check. Everyone can easily read the comment and see that you are lying and that the point was about the development of the supposed extermination program, not how the gas chambers worked (which is more #3 which mentions the technical means). You made the original point about what you want to see in your perfect book on the Holocaust and the development of the extermination programme, here; "2) Explains when and how the extermination program was started, how it developed, under whose orders, and how it was carried out, preferably with hard documentation." I responded to that with a book suggestion. I then responded to your follow up; "On #2, the narratives favored by various authors contain major disagreements and they have admitted to a lack of documentation." I pointed out that there is no disagreement about the major part of the programme. You then altered that specific sentence I had responded to, as you want to ignore where historians agree, to concentrate on where they disagree, which I discuss here; rodoh.info/post/13598As I said, there is disagreement over how the extermination programme developed, not that it did develop and then what happened once it was up and running. Considering the size of the topic, it is hardly surprising there are disagreements. |
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,772
|
Post by Nessie on Apr 9, 2023 7:29:05 GMT
Historians present the evidence as to what happened, primarily concentrating on witnesses, documents, imagery and circumstances. The physical, archaeological and forensic evidence comes from the archaeologists.
The analysis of the evidence is straightforward. It is verified as contemporaneous and if it is corroborated, then it is accepted as factual. That evidence is presented chronologically and logically. That witnesses vary in how they describe things and what is hearsay and what is not, is normal for witnesses. That every single witness who was inside an AR camp or A-B Krema speaks to mass gassings, is significant. That many do not provide a particularly detailed or what you would find credible statement, is not as important as you think it is. Truthfulness, determined by corroboration, is a more reliable method, than credibility based on opinion.
Revisionist counterarguments and objections are, in the most part, stupid, illogical and not worth bothering with.
Quote a part of the Rees book where he presents proof of mass gassings. Every time Rees quotes a witness who worked at a Krema, or a document about the running or construction of a Krema, or the circumstantial evidence of mass transports arriving at the camp and the selection process, he is presenting the evidence that proves mass gassings. Proof comes from that evidence. You really need to read the book to go through the evidence.
That you think it is possible to prove mass gassings in one quote of a few sentences, or a paragraph and not what you would call a document dump, is wrong. It is not possible to do that.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,772
|
Post by Nessie on Apr 9, 2023 7:30:40 GMT
Keep telling yourself that, even as you devote a substantial amount of your own time to responding to it. Unsuccessfully. Revisionists are so reliant on logical fallacies, that they would need a total mind reset to understand where they have gone wrong. They would have to accept a complete failure to understand on their part, and ego prevents that. |
|
Gibson
โ๏ธ
Patrician
Posts: 269
|
Post by Gibson on Apr 15, 2023 22:27:01 GMT
To be fair, you've hit them on one of their weakest point: establishing a coherent timeline, which is a difficult challenge. Nick Terry's exegesis is hilarious. Hoess faced execution and he knew it. Most commentaries on his autobiography noted that he did not even try to refute charges against him at any point. Terry comments tersely: Hoess maximally implicated himself and the Reich, even dating the origins of Birkenau camp to non-existent planning for Soviet POWs pre-Barbarossa, discussed with Himmler as such in early March 1941. This isn't "misremembering." Hoess was a low-ranking SS official and he probably wasn't even told about Barbarossa, yet in his own narrative he's in an exceptional position in the German power structure. It makes no sense at all from the point of view of absolving himself of responsibility, especially because - as Terry notes - Soviet POWs were executed there. (Which, by the way, is reflected in captured camp documents, unlike other claims.) Hoess is pretty much saying that he was special enough to be implicated in a conspiracy to execute Soviet POWs hatched before the war even started. It's a significant black spot on Holocaust historiography and authorities that they repeated the Hoess timeline hook, line and sinker based on this coerced testimony despite possessing evidence to the contrary. Hoess' statement feeds maximally into the Allied narrative of pre-planning of atrocities and aggressive war by the German Government. The whole dating to December 1941 is completely unfounded - there was no real change to "Jewish policy" then. The overt U.S. entry in the conflict was a momentous development in the war, and there was a natural call to review all policies in light of the development, including the stance on the Jewish question. It's how governing works. However, nothing much happened or changed in the near term at all with respect to deportations. The earlier decision to evacuate Jews to the East, with Reich Jews prioritized, still stood. Even if Hitler declared it more urgent, the bureaucracy still dithered on logistics along the same lines as before, and "evacuations" were already in effect before December 1941 and continued the same as before. There's no evidence that some Hitler pep talk in the wake of Pearl Harbor and war declarations changed any of that. I was just arguing with them about this. Nick favors the December 1941 dating which is based on Gerlach. This theory seems to have been first proposed by a Dutch historian in 1994. This Goebbels diary entry is apparently the centerpiece of this just-so story. Imo, it is a wild leap to think this implies an general extermination order had been issued the day before. Similar phrasing was used before and after. And as you say there's not obvious inflection point here on the policies. |
|
