The Significance of the Morgue Documents

[Stubble]

Well, at least read the damn document.

The first thing that happened was mistranslation.

Now, you are telling me there is some kind of heat supply in the fresh air intake side of the ventilation system because you read a translation that was bad.

Now you think they heated the corpse cellar.

It's a real miscarriage.

[curioussoul]

I am answering your questions, not just here, elsewhere as well and your new tactic is to accuse me of not answering.

You are ignoring posts, hence why I had to remind you not to keep dodging.

A circular answer does apply to the Soviets. In general, they were caught lying and using propaganda, far too often, for anything they produced as evidence to be trusted.

Understood. What is the threshhold for getting caught in lies "far too often", and why? Also, would this apply to other parties involved in the conflict - why/why not?

I have not quantified a threshold. I look at what is the least reliable source of evidence and largely discount it. The Soviet claims about the Holocaust have been proven to be the least reliable, such as inflated death tolls and how they examined the AR camps sites, Majdanek and A-B. They were also involved in a proven hoax, over who was responsible for Katyn. They also showed little interest in the Holocaust, preferring to concentrate on Soviet casualties. There was no official Soviet history, of all the victorious powers they conducted the lowest number of Holocaust related war crimes trials, which tended to be of Ukrainians who had joined the SS, and they produced no memorials.

That standard also applies to other "parties" as in countries, but the USA, UK, Poland and West Germany stepped up and conducted evidenced enquiries to a far higher standard, into the individuals responsible for the Holocaust and to produce histories and memorials, so that we remember and learn from history.

Still not answering the question, Nessie. Circularly asserting that "the Soviets are unreliable because they are unreliable" is not how this works. Asserting that the Soviets were caught in lies "far too often" is not a serious metric for whether their reports were useless, and such a metric would quickly render every other party involved in the conflict very much "useless" as a source. Would it not? If getting caught in "a proven hoax" is enough to merit complete disqualification as a source, a lot of other hoaxers would disqualify themselves, would they not?

Surely you'd agree with that?

[curioussoul]

Topf & Sons and Construction Office staff were not discussing using the Kremas as morgues to store corpses.

The morgues are consistently referred to as morgues in documents pertaining to their construction, going back all the way to before the Birkenau expansion plans.

Elsewhere in A-B, staff referred to the Kremas as morgues. You cherry-pick that reference and assert that is what the Kremas were used for, but it is contradicted by how the staff responsible for the Kremas describe them.

They referred to the morgues, their original purpose before they were supposedly secretely converted into homicidal gas chambers, being used as morgues. That's a bit odd, given the gassing story. Would you concede as much?

What is odd is discussion about a hot hair for a morgue, as they are kept cold for corpse storage;

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ce-on.html

"Memo of 25 March 1943 on “hot air supply device for corpse cellar 1” in crematorium 2"

What is also odd is that a corpse store has gas tight doors and a peep hole.

"Order from Karl Bischoff of 31 March 1943 on “3 gas tight doors” of crematorium 4 and 5 and “gas door 100/192 for corpse cellar 1…with double 8 mm glass and peephole” of crematorium 2 and 3"

That staff who did not work at the Kremas, referred to them as morgues in documents, is not odd, considering that is what they were originally designed to include.

That's not the topic of discussion. The topic is the morgue documents. If you'd like to discuss the heating of the morgues, feel free to make your own thread on that topic.

I'm going to need you to answer the following post and more specifically why you lied about the operation of the crematoria: viewtopic.php?p=3111#p3111

In addition, you're going to have to figure out how the morgue documents fit within the framework of the gassing story. I've pressed you on this for several days now and you either refuse to respond, or switch topic - which, as you are aware, is against the rules.

[Stubble]

I suggest moving the posts concerning the HC blog documents to the HC blog thread.

I also suggest Nessie start a thread about the proposed heater in corpse cellar #1.

I agree that this is topic drift and I apologize for my involvement in such drift. My apologies to CuriousSoul.

[Nessie]

....

I have not quantified a threshold. I look at what is the least reliable source of evidence and largely discount it. The Soviet claims about the Holocaust have been proven to be the least reliable, such as inflated death tolls and how they examined the AR camps sites, Majdanek and A-B. They were also involved in a proven hoax, over who was responsible for Katyn. They also showed little interest in the Holocaust, preferring to concentrate on Soviet casualties. There was no official Soviet history, of all the victorious powers they conducted the lowest number of Holocaust related war crimes trials, which tended to be of Ukrainians who had joined the SS, and they produced no memorials.

That standard also applies to other "parties" as in countries, but the USA, UK, Poland and West Germany stepped up and conducted evidenced enquiries to a far higher standard, into the individuals responsible for the Holocaust and to produce histories and memorials, so that we remember and learn from history.

Still not answering the question, Nessie. Circularly asserting that "the Soviets are unreliable because they are unreliable" is not how this works.

When a source provides information and evidence that is often found to be inaccurate, it is correct to then regard that source as unreliable.

Asserting that the Soviets were caught in lies "far too often" is not a serious metric for whether their reports were useless, and such a metric would quickly render every other party involved in the conflict very much "useless" as a source. Would it not?

Sources can and should be graded, depending on past reliability.

If getting caught in "a proven hoax" is enough to merit complete disqualification as a source, a lot of other hoaxers would disqualify themselves, would they not?

Surely you'd agree with that?

Yes, it is possible for a source to be so unreliable that it can be dismissed its entirety. It is revisionists who are most guilty at dismissing all evidence, based on some issues with the evidence. That especially applies to witnesses to gassings. There are hundreds of eyewitnesses to gassings, at the AR camps, Chelmno, A-B Kremas and the witnesses from other camps that used temporary gas chambers. Revisionists dismiss them as liars, all 100% of them, without even reading many of them, because some say somethings that they do not find to be credible.

[Nessie]

I suggest moving the posts concerning the HC blog documents to the HC blog thread.

I also suggest Nessie start a thread about the proposed heater in corpse cellar #1.

I agree that this is topic drift and I apologize for my involvement in such drift. My apologies to CuriousSoul.

The OP posits the theory that because documents about transporting corpses to the Kremas called them morgues, that means therefore those corpses were stored at morgues in the Kremas before they were cremated, proving they were not used as gas chambers. That is a logically flawed argument and it is contradicted by evidence from the Kremas, such as a heating system that is inconsistent with storing corpses, which are normally stored in cool, if not refrigerated places.

Heating in the Kremas, along with undressing rooms, gas chambers, ovens that could cope with continuous cremation of corpses, along with every single witness who worked there stating gassings, rather than corpses storage, took place, is all relevant evidence.

[Stubble]

Nessie, start a new thread, I want to get into this with you, seriously.

This discussion does not belong in this thread, period. The op has been very clear that they don't want this clutter in their thread, and they have a point. There is absolutely no reason for it.

We can get into this in a new thread, pertaining particularly to your assertion that lk1 at Kremas II and III were heated.

We can talk about the documents, what they do say, what they don't say and what you think they say.

I look forward to engaging with you on this topic.

[Nessie]

Curioussoul does not want to talk about evidence that contradicts his theory that the Kremas operated as morgues, not gas chambers.

[Stubble]

Negative, he wants his thread free of clutter and diversion. Now, answer HIS questions...

We can talk about all this other nonsense in the HC blog thread.

[Nessie]

Negative, he wants his thread free of clutter and diversion. Now, answer HIS questions...

We can talk about all this other nonsense in the HC blog thread.

Curioussoul argues that "...a series of documents from Birkenau prove that these morgues were indeed actively used as morgues all throughout 1943 and 1944.". Those documents are about transporting corpses to the Kremas, one of which refers to a morgue.

He goes to say "Anti-revisionist debaters at the RODOH forum attempted a number of arguments to explain these documents." That suggests all that is being presented, is argument. In fact, what is being presented is evidence, such as documents about how the Kremas functioned, to determine what happened. There is no evidence, from staff or documents at the Kremas, that they were used to store corpses in the Leichenkeller. Instead, there is ample evidence the Leichenkeller was used as a gas chambers. It stands to reason that the dead of the camp went straight for cremation, along with the dead from the gas chambers.

[curioussoul]

When a source provides information and evidence that is often found to be inaccurate, it is correct to then regard that source as unreliable.

That is an absolutely shocking consession. But I'll take it. We're progressing, I suppose.

Sources can and should be graded, depending on past reliability.

According to what scale and criteria? What are the threshholds?

Yes, it is possible for a source to be so unreliable that it can be dismissed its entirety.

Right, so we know the Soviet Union qualifies for this "unreliability criteria". What other entities/parties to the conflict meet this criteria? Why/why not?

[curioussoul]

Curioussoul does not want to talk about evidence that contradicts his theory that the Kremas operated as morgues, not gas chambers.

Nessie, you're out of control. I've reported your posts because the only way to get you to behave is to have the moderators intervene, which is not what I wanted for this thread.

You've refused to engage in a serious discussion about the actual documents in question, you've constantly dodged my questions and invoked unrelated documents. You've gone so far as to simply lie about the operation of the crematoria, absurdly claiming that the ZBL was responsible for their operation, because you couldn't deal with the contents of the documents and needed any excuse to dismiss the them.

That's not how we behave on this forum. We expect each other to argue in good faith, not make up lies to get out of sticky situations.

[Nessie]

When a source provides information and evidence that is often found to be inaccurate, it is correct to then regard that source as unreliable.

That is an absolutely shocking consession. But I'll take it. We're progressing, I suppose.

What do you find shocking about me grading source reliability and assessing what is too unreliable to take at face value? Do you think grading source reliability is somehow wrong?

Sources can and should be graded, depending on past reliability.

According to what scale and criteria? What are the threshholds?

The more the inaccurate the details provided are, where that inaccuracy is outwith the bounds of what is to be expected, especially from witnesses, the less reliable the source is and the more it needs to be checked. The threshold is consistent unreliability.

Yes, it is possible for a source to be so unreliable that it can be dismissed its entirety.

Right, so we know the Soviet Union qualifies for this "unreliability criteria". What other entities/parties to the conflict meet this criteria? Why/why not?

Any evidence obtained under duress.
Hearsay and rumour.
Any claim, no matter how credible it is, that cannot be corroborated.

[Nessie]

Curioussoul does not want to talk about evidence that contradicts his theory that the Kremas operated as morgues, not gas chambers.

Nessie, you're out of control. I've reported your posts because the only way to get you to behave is to have the moderators intervene, which is not what I wanted for this thread.

You've refused to engage in a serious discussion about the actual documents in question, you've constantly dodged my questions and invoked unrelated documents. You've gone so far as to simply lie about the operation of the crematoria, absurdly claiming that the ZBL was responsible for their operation, because you couldn't deal with the contents of the documents and needed any excuse to dismiss the them.

That's not how we behave on this forum. We expect each other to argue in good faith, not make up lies to get out of sticky situations.

I have not dodged any of your questions. I may have missed question first time of asking, or not answered to your satisfaction, but I have dodged nothing.

You are lying that I have claimed the ZBL was responsible for their operation. Check my posts and I have never mentioned the ZBL.

Any document that refers to the Kremas, is related to their operation, in particular documents that refer to the room inside the building that you suggest was being used to store corpses.

What documents do you say I could not deal with? Be specific, stop throwing around vague accusations.

[curioussoul]

What do you find shocking about me grading source reliability and assessing what is too unreliable to take at face value?

Because a key feature of your line of argumentation, historically, has been to oddly assert that witness testimony is correct if it is "corroborated" according to your arbitrary critera, regardless of whether the witnesses are reliable. Having you concede that a witness can and should be discarded if found to be unreliable is a major step forward.

The more the inaccurate the details provided are, where that inaccuracy is outwith the bounds of what is to be expected, especially from witnesses, the less reliable the source is and the more it needs to be checked. The threshold is consistent unreliability.

And what are the quantifiable threshholds for these "inaccuracies" and these "bounds"? We have already established that the Soviets obviously failed the test. Who else?

Any evidence obtained under duress.
Hearsay and rumour.
Any claim, no matter how credible it is, that cannot be corroborated.

Any witnesses that come to mind from the Holocaust who would meet these criteria and why?