Archie wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 1:21 am
Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 6:46 pm
Arguments are necessary for interpreting and giving meaning to the available data. In a situation where the evidence is so obvious that it speaks for itself, perhaps you could say that argument would be so trivial that it goes without saying, but that's obviously not the situation we are in here.
Wrong. When dozens of witnesses state a Krema has a gas chamber, and there are documents recording the construction of gas chambers, the evidence is obvious and there is little to infer or argue about.
Your views do NOT reflect Pressac, especially in terms of reasoning and approach. Your views are closer to the unthinking orthodox views that he criticizes.
-Pressac admits that there are major problems with the witness statements (you do not admit this)
Yes I do. Those problems are what so-called revisionists feed off. My point is that those problems are explainable, within the context and knowledge of normal witness behaviour, memory and recall.
-Pressac harshly criticized the mainstream side for overreliance on witnesses (you refuse to admit this point and think the mainstream work is not guilty of this)
Historians can be over reliant on witnesses, because witnesses provide the best narrative evidence, from which to learn the chronology of events. What historians do not need to do, is repeatedly corroborate every witness, with other evidence, such as a document, every time they quote that witness. Once corroboration is established, it does not need to be done again.
-Pressac does not think the documents speak for themselves. He presents intricate (and flawed) argumentation for his conclusions.
That is Pressac the revisionist, doubting the gassing narrative. That you note his argument is flawed, explains why so-called revisionists cannot agree on the usage of the Kremas. None of their arguments are well enough evidenced to be convincing.
-He specifically rejects the practice of e.g. assuming that Vergasungskeller must refer to a homicidal gas chamber (which is what you are doing when you say no interpretation of the documents is required)
I say that interpretation of the document is determined by the evidence of usage. When the evidence is that homicidal gassings took place, then the correct interpretation is the document is referring to a homicidal gas chamber. So-called revisionists come up with all sorts of competing, contradicting theories about usage, none of which is even good enough for the revisionists to generally agree upon. Indeed, the favourite usage, going by claims on X, is that it was for delousing clothing, a usage that is outright refuted by others, Leuchter and Rudolf, who weirdly, also get supported!
Keeping strictly to German source documents, Georges Wellers counter-attacked using only ONE LETTER, that of 29th January 1943 [Document 1]. Not reasoning like a revisionist, it seemed to him that this document, backed up and authenticated by the testimony of survivors and of the SS themselves, would suffice. It was in fact the only material “criminal proof” that he had available. It was effective, and Faurisson was never able to produce a valid counter-explanation, only very weak arguments bordering on the foolish.
Neither Wellers nor, fortunately, Faurisson, were aware that the “slip” contained in this letter, as it was presented in 1978, was historically unusable because incomplete. It lacked Kurt Prüfer’s clarifying report, unknown in France at the time, but found subsequently in the Auschwitz. Museum Archives [Documents 2 and 2a].
To affirm, SOLELY on the basis of the letter of 29th January 1943 that the term “Vergassungskeller” designated a homicidal gas chamber installed in Leichenkeller 1 / corpse cellar 1 of Krematorium II was irresponsible, for though “gas chamber” was correct, there was no proof that it was “homicidal”, for to be able to demonstrate this, the following factors must all he taken into account and a number of steps must necessarily be followed:
a) The letter of 29th January 1943 DOES NOT STATE which of the Leichenkeller of Krematorium II the SS are referring to. Drawing 932 shows that THREE Leichenkeller were planned, numbers 1. 2 and 3 [Documents 3 and 4];
b) Two other Bauleitung drawings of Krematorium II, numbers 1311 and 2003. show that Leichenkeller 3 was converted for other functions nothing to do with its original purpose;
c) The report by the engineer responsible for the installations, Kurt Prüfer, clearly states that it is Leichenkeller 2 from which the shuttering could not yet be removed;
d) The only remaining Leichenkeller, designated by Bischoff as the Vergassungskeller, is therefore Leichenkeller 1. His letter means above all that it is to not be used for the moment as a “gassing cellar”, but as a “corpse cellar”, i.e. a “morgue”.
e) The letter shows that the SS called Leichenkeller 1 of Krematorium II the Vergassungskeller / gassing cellar. The existence of a gas chamber in the basement of Krematorium II is thus proven, BUT THAT IS ALL. It is not until this “slip” is compared with and united with others, that the evidence that this was in fact a homicidal gas chamber becomes overwhelming. (Pressac, 503)
He says explicitly here that Wellers was too hasty in his conclusions and says that we must reason through "a number of steps," i.e., we must
MAKE ARGUMENTS. Saying there is no need to for argument or interpretation is IDIOTIC. All of the "criminal traces" he presents require elaborate argumentation. Notice Nessie that none of the others on your side are willing to publicly embarrass themselves by saying any of this stuff you say.
You are trying to prove usage, with only some of the evidence. Any evidence of usage that is homicidal gassings you just ignore. Your cherry-picking approach is logically and evidentially flawed. You accept the presence of a gas chmaber is proven and then stop. You fail to evidence what the chamber was used for, or if it was not used, why and what happened instead. Nick Terry has agreed with me on this. Your incomplete, inconclusive approach is not history and it is obviously flawed.
Pressac found evidence, mostly documents, that he was clearly unaware of, and he realised that they corroborated the witnesses. There is little interpretation needed, the argument is settled, by the corroborating evidence.
There is a ton of interpretation needed. For instance, one of Pressac's arguments is about the 14 Brausen (showerheads). He says these are fake.
How does he know? This requires ARGUMENTS and REASONING. The documents do not say the Brausen are fake. This is an INFERENCE he has made which can be challenged. Pressac further assumes that the supposedly fake showerheads were attached to the wooden blocks in the ceiling. Once again, there is no proof of this. This is an inference he has made. These points require argumentation.
They were likely real shower heads, used in a fake setting. How they were attached to the ceiling is uncertain. There is corroborating evidence that the Nazis used "showering" as a means to gas people at various camps. My argument and reasoning is simple and backed by the evidence of usage.
You get unstuck by the evidence of showers and a gas chamber and just come to a nothing conclusion, whereby you cannot prove actual usage. This is where you revisionists are really so-called revisionists, because you cannot revise the history of how the Kremas were used. Instead, you just deny they were used for homicidal gassings.
You sideline as much of the evidence as possible, because it is not in your favour, as in you cannot evidence agreed usage. Historians can and Pressac realised that and sided with them. He saw that when the "traces", as in the documentary evidence was gathered and arranged chronologically, they matched perfectly with the witness chronologies. Mass transports of people arrived, there were selections, those selected to work are evidenced to have survived, at least for a time. Those not selected for work, were sent to the Kremas, where they undressed and were told they would shower. They were gassed and then cremated and there is no more evidence of their existence. A case is strong, when the vast majority of work is done by the evidence, with little room for interpretation or argument.
You have to emphasise interpretation and argument, as you try to craft the evidence, into something that it is not. None of the so-called revisionists are very good at that, which is why you cannot agree, amongst yourselves, what the Krema usage was. Every day I read so called revisionists on X, who argue they were used as delousing chambers, whilst they also support Leuchter and Rudolf, who argue they cannot have been used as delousing, let alone gas chambers! It is also daily that claims are made about the wooden and glass door in Krema I, pouring scorn on it being the supposed gas chamber door, when basic research would establish it was a door into a store/washroom! The level of ignorance on X is incredible. The mistakes, deluded claims and outright lying is off the scale. Another example is the claim about only 271k dead, because of an IRC report. No one seems to notice it is for only 13 of the camps and none of the ghettos! Over quarter of a million dead in only a few of the camps, is a massive death toll!
You do not understand what evidence is. You define too narrowly. Anything that informs our conclusion is evidence. You routinely ignore evidence that you don't like.
Your argument and reasoning is not evidence. I routinely ignore your illogical arguments and cherry-picked reasoning. I ignore your claims about witnesses, that ignore all the studies of their behaviour and memory. I am correct to do that.
Looking at the documents for the ventilation and noting that it is typical for morgue and way less powerful than what would be used for a Zyklon B chamber is evidence. Comparing the ventilation fan for the LK2 (the "undressing room") and noticing that was more powerful than the fan in LK1 (the "gas chamber") is evidence. You have your interpretation ("the witnesses say it was a gas chamber, so it was, no matter how illogical and ridiculous the design") and I have mine ("no one in their right mind would design a Zyklon gas chamber like this since it would take hours to ventilate; this story is clearly BS").
This is the crux of the matter. Just because you cannot work out, to your satisfaction, how a ventilation system worked, does not evidence there was no gas chamber. You are using an obviously logically flawed argument.
You have quoted Pressac stating that whilst Krema I did not have a ventilation system designed for a gas chamber, it did have a ventilation system that worked.
LK1 in Krema II. Not Krema I.
Fritz Sander explained, in his testimony, how he vented that chamber. His is primary eyewitness evidence, that is corroborated by documents such as the plan that shows the vents and parts of the system recovered from the ruins. That evidence beats your arguments and reasoning.
Pressac routinely presents material that points one way (toward it not being true) but then ends up moving toward the orthodox conclusion (sort of). I place more weight on the substance of what Pressac's admits than I do on his opinions or conclusions. If he says "well, this ventilation design makes zero sense. But, uh, it must have worked somehow!" I am not obliged to take that conclusion seriously. I am free to note his concession and then draw my own conclusion based on the problematic facts he acknowledges about the ventilation design.
That explains why you keep on falling for the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity. If a ventilation system is proven to have been used, but it is then destroyed and you or Pressac cannot work out how it could have worked, that is not a good enough reason to claim there was no such ventilation system.
