Exterminationist Tactics - part 2

[Nazgul]

It very much does. Mainstream Holocaust historians skirt the historical method and do not critically examine previous research or conclusions, but rather uncritically build upon previous conclusions as if they were absolute truth. This is a common problem in the humanities as a whole. The reproducibility crisis and the crisis of modern peer review is not limited to the humanities but the problem is at its absolute worst in those disciplines, and reaches its peak within Holocaust academia.

Actually, the biggest discipline in which this crisis has arisen is in psychology, which is a social science and not among the humanities.

Reproducibility, by the way, is something that the humanities doesn’t really engage with since it’s not a field based on experimentation.

The crisis in peer review is more complicated but lies in a few factors: a continued emphasis on high-volume publishing; a proliferation of open access journals, some of which are predatory; and finally, the fact that peer review isn’t paid, which means the most active scholars can’t afford to do it very much since their futures in scholarship depend on publishing their own work.

Hope that helps.

psychology is a science:
Scientific methods: Psychology uses the scientific method to study human behavior and mental processes. This includes:
Empirical research
Careful observation
Strict methodologies
Evidence-based discoveries
Randomization
Statistical analysis

It is more than possible to get a BSc or MSc in psychology.

[Numar Patru]

Psychology is a social science because it studies human behavior. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a science also.

Additionally, social sciences routinely use scientific methods, and you literally cannot earn a social science degree without studying statistics.

[SanityCheck]

I'm surprised at this concession. What you just said invalidated the vast majority of orthodox Holocaust "research" conducted since the war.

No, it doesn't.

It very much does. Mainstream Holocaust historians skirt the historical method and do not critically examine previous research or conclusions, but rather uncritically build upon previous conclusions as if they were absolute truth. This is a common problem in the humanities as a whole. The reproducibility crisis and the crisis of modern peer review is not limited to the humanities but the problem is at its absolute worst in those disciplines, and reaches its peak within Holocaust academia.

This is one of the reasons almost nothing of value has been published in terms of primary Holocaust research from orthodox historians in the past 20 years. Most "research" consist of rehashed meta studies, reviews, etc.

Um, just no.

You clearly have not got the slightest familiarity with the conventional research literature on the Holocaust if you think most research is "rehashed meta studies, reviews, etc".

The lack of specificity in your handwaving is a bit telling.

[Archie]

If you can't convince someone of something, the next best option is to try to confuse matters. Make the topic seem really complicated and expansive. That is exactly what I would do if had to defend something like the Holocaust.

[Nessie]

... Mainstream Holocaust historians skirt the historical method and do not critically examine previous research or conclusions, but rather uncritically build upon previous conclusions as if they were absolute truth. This is a common problem in the humanities as a whole. The reproducibility crisis and the crisis of modern peer review is not limited to the humanities but the problem is at its absolute worst in those disciplines, and reaches its peak within Holocaust academia.

This is one of the reasons almost nothing of value has been published in terms of primary Holocaust research from orthodox historians in the past 20 years. Most "research" consist of rehashed meta studies, reviews, etc.

Why do revisionists not show the historians how it is done, and produce a primary evidenced, originally sourced history of the Jews under Nazi occupation? Trace the Jews from point of arrest to their demise during the war, or liberation at the end of it. That does not need to be done to an individual basis for all, though many can be used as examples. It can be done in groups, such as the Jews in Warsaw were arrested on, imprisoned in the ghetto there, which close on, that they had been transported to TII by and then they were transported to another place and spend the next 2 years at, and were liberated at in 1945.

Other displace populations can be tracked by the evidence they left. The Jews can also be tracked, but often only so far and then trail stops. Revisionists need to produce evidence of their trail continuing.

You love to criticise the historians and their study of the Holocaust, but you fail to step up and do the job yourself. Those who criticise but cannot do the job they are criticising, just make themselves look stupid.

[Nessie]

If you can't convince someone of something, the next best option is to try to confuse matters. Make the topic seem really complicated and expansive. That is exactly what I would do if had to defend something like the Holocaust.

How can an historical event, that has its origins in the early 1930s, that then played out over 5 war years, which covered every single country in Europe that was occupied by, or aligned with the Nazis and involved millions of people, be simple to evidence?

[fireofice]

You love to criticise the historians and their study of the Holocaust, but you fail to step up and do the job yourself. Those who criticise but cannot do the job they are criticising, just make themselves look stupid.

The absolute gall of saying this while it's currently illegal to be a revisionist in the places where the relevant archives would be.

[SanityCheck]

If you can't convince someone of something, the next best option is to try to confuse matters. Make the topic seem really complicated and expansive. That is exactly what I would do if had to defend something like the Holocaust.

I think the confusions are mostly in revisionists' heads.

The Holocaust conventionally refers to the era of the persecution and murder of European Jews between 1933-1945. This matches the era of the Third Reich. The persecution part largely matches the prewar era, affecting three countries directly and several dozen more indirectly due to forced emigration. The murder part involved 20 countries and unfolded in parallel to another 'complicated and expansive' event, the Second World War. Not just Germans but other countries were involved, including in the killing, and the killing used a variety of methods, including gassing.

All of this has been repeatedly narrated over the time frames (1933-1945 or 1939-1945), inevitably in parallel to other entangled events and phenomena, from the euthanasia program to the 20 July 1944 bomb plot to Katyn to Dresden (all of which might be mentioned in a standard narrative history).The fallout from all this in the aftermath from 1945 onwards is equally entangled.

So from one perspective this is naturally "complicated and expansive". From another it's really no more complicated than WWII in Europe, or the rise and fall of the Third Reich. The order in which things happened has been long established and summaries like the Wikipedia page on the Holocaust will mention the essentials, e.g. that gassing was first used in the euthanasia program is the very first line in the sub-section on the extermination camps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holoc ... tion_camps

The literature on WWII, the Third Reich and the Holocaust is extensive, and it's fairly obvious that individual incidents as well as personalities are the main building blocks. A battle, a diplomatic coup, a forced labour camp, a ghetto, an extermination camp, a Nazi leader, a Soviet killing action like Katyn, a bombing raid on a German city. These are synthesised into national and regional studies, or themes (like the bombing war).

Each has its literature. The extent is uneven, which is why one can search https://search.worldcat.org/ and get 4,308 hits for Katyn but 2,728 hits for Treblinka. Those are not individual books or articles, but potentially any book whose table of contents or publisher blurb mentions the keyword, or if subject classifications do, and to be divided by crowdsourced triplicate entries for the exact same title, plus translations, reprints and new editions. Then one must consider whether there are entwined locations - for Treblinka, quite obviously, the Warsaw ghetto is one, so another 7157 hits (and 369 hits for Warsaw ghetto Treblinka for the blurb-contents level overlap). Five times as many people died in the Warsaw ghetto as in the 'Katyn' complex, so the amount of literature churned out is still favouring Katyn. More is written about Europe in this era than about Asia, but the balance is shifting and attention globally is catching up - so Nanjing massacre has 2037 hits catalogued and that number will only grow. All of these searches will include studies of the aftermath, commemoration, museums, in relevant cases trials, and studies of the feature films made about them if any were made.

How one deals with such enormous piles will depend on the level of study, but the depth of reading needed will be judged similarly at each stage. Familiarity with the relevant languages will be one limiter, but past a certain point one would need to know Chinese and Japanese to write more on Nanjing, just as one needs to know Polish to write about Katyn or Treblinka, as well as other languages. The translation/language bottlenecks affect any topic - one hopes that those writing on the Syrian civil war or ISIS will know Arabic and can engage with such sources.

The common principle at every stage past school level is engaging with multiple secondary sources, then primary sources as well. The end game for a properly researched study (book, PhD) is thus usually several hundred secondary sources and a range of primary sources. What is well-researched and what is missing key studies will soon become apparent. And that applies to every topic, potentially, since there will be a lot to digest with aspects of WWI, Stalinism, or the Vietnam War, too.

[SanityCheck]

The absolute gall of saying this while it's currently illegal to be a revisionist in the places where the relevant archives would be.

The digitisation of archives in the past 5-15 years has pretty much sunk that excuse, I'm afraid.

[Nessie]

You love to criticise the historians and their study of the Holocaust, but you fail to step up and do the job yourself. Those who criticise but cannot do the job they are criticising, just make themselves look stupid.

The absolute gall of saying this while it's currently illegal to be a revisionist in the places where the relevant archives would be.

There are no denial laws in the UK, USA, the Netherlands, Estonia, Latvia and most Balkan countries, where there are archives relevant to the Holocaust. Elsewhere, do not identify yourself as a denier and do some genuine historical research.

[Numar Patru]

If you can't convince someone of something, the next best option is to try to confuse matters. Make the topic seem really complicated and expansive. That is exactly what I would do if had to defend something like the Holocaust.

Because murdering millions of people across a whole continent while a war is going on is easy and compact?

[HansHill]

Mark Edele believes 1.7 million Jews were gassed at the Reinhardt camps.

I extended you the charity of assuming you had found Mark Edele mention this in the chapter I pointed to......

....So exactly where did the quote come from?....

....but when it becomes really important, then /citation needed.

The citation is:

Stalin's Defectors - pg 134 of the Oxford 2017 edition.

Interestingly, where he states this, he doesn't offer any citation - thanks for drawing even more attention to this, as it further indicates exactly as I am arguing, that he presents such genocidal arguments as self evident when they are anything but.

[HansHill]

Revisionists know full well that these conditions would be fatal had they occurred. In fact revisionists (for example Rudolf) even reflect on the suffocation aspect of these theoretical gassings would be fatal due to Oxygen depletion, no Revisionist would want to suffocate themselves as there's not really anything to prove here.

I can assure you that not all "revisionists" believe that gassing with Zyklon-B pellets would be fatal under the conditions described.

If Rudolf concedes many would have died from suffocation, then that's to his benefit. In that case, however, why bother to measure for cyanide on gas chamber walls?

Here's a list of over 100 studies were various cohorts of test subjects in varying sizes are exposed to diesel exhaust:
https://files.catbox.moe/tsvztw.ods

Two things
* Your link requires that I download a file onto my computer, which I'm not going to do.
* I see what you did there.

1) Why measure for cyanide in the walls

Because it is claimed that cyanide was not only present, but was the attributable murder weapon. If Orthodoxy were to pivot to Holocaust By Suffocation, i would be very intrigued to see the layman's reaction!!

2) Download file

Understandable - here is a screenshot of the first page you can peruse a set of the studies if you wish, and if interested i can present more if you're interested. Or alternatively, if the mods don't mind me cramming up the board, i will simply paste the entire set of studies here



3) You see what I did there

Yes, addressing the claims as presented

[Numar Patru]

1) I think most "exterminationist" historians assume many people who died in gas chambers suffocated rather than asphyxiated. Rudolf in fact found cyanide on the walls of the Krema buildings, which is important because it aligns with not only the testimony that people were gassed in those buildings but also with the appearance of references to gas chambers in documents and the testimony that Zyklon-B was removed from the gas chambers once the people inside were dead, which would leave a level of HCN far lower than in the delousing chambers (which required 24 hours to operate) but higher than if the rooms had been fumigated only once or twice.

2) There are no numbers of subjects in this table. Are they all case studies?

3) Not all eyewitnesses claim diesel was used in the Reinhard camps.

[HansHill]

1) I think most "exterminationist" historians assume many people who died in gas chambers suffocated rather than asphyxiated. Rudolf in fact found cyanide on the walls of the Krema buildings, which is important because it aligns with not only the testimony that people were gassed in those buildings but also with the appearance of references to gas chambers in documents and the testimony that Zyklon-B was removed from the gas chambers once the people inside were dead, which would leave a level of HCN far lower than in the delousing chambers (which required 24 hours to operate) but higher than if the rooms had been fumigated only once or twice.

2) There are no numbers of subjects in this table. Are they all case studies?

3) Not all eyewitnesses claim diesel was used in the Reinhard camps.

1) Finish the sentence - "at or below the detection limit with orders of magnitude discrepancy from the delousing chambers"

To refresh your memory on what Rudolf found:



2) Number of test subjects, n given here:



3) Not all eyewitnesses said it was a Submarine engine either, but we address what we can!