Historians v revisionists, methodology.

[Stubble]

Nessie, I'm surprised, you actually managed to go through the entire circle in one post rather than taking many posts to round the endless corner the circle creates.

[Nessie]

Nessie, I'm surprised, you actually managed to go through the entire circle in one post rather than taking many posts to round the endless corner the circle creates.

Can you describe and defend your methodology?

[Keen]

You are dodging the topic

[Nessie]

This question remains unanswered;

Can any revisionist here explain to me, why I should dump the methodology used by historians all over the world, to investigate the Holocaust and switch to their method?

Is that because the revisionists here do not understand enough about methodology to answer the question?

[Keen]

This question remains unanswered;

[Archie]

This question remains unanswered;

Can any revisionist here explain to me, why I should dump the methodology used by historians all over the world, to investigate the Holocaust and switch to their method?

Is that because the revisionists here do not understand enough about methodology to answer the question?

Because your question is in bad faith and is based on false premises. It's a "when did you stop beating your wife?" sort of question. You're just flinging an empty insult at revisionists based on nothing more than your own biased assertions.

Nessie, I would like to invite you to do a little exercise. Pick a history book, preferably on something somewhat controversial or where there is notable scholarly disagreement. Find some examples of where historians reject sources as unreliable.

[Nessie]

This question remains unanswered;

Can any revisionist here explain to me, why I should dump the methodology used by historians all over the world, to investigate the Holocaust and switch to their method?

Is that because the revisionists here do not understand enough about methodology to answer the question?

Because your question is in bad faith and is based on false premises. It's a "when did you stop beating your wife?" sort of question. You're just flinging an empty insult at revisionists based on nothing more than your own biased assertions.

What false premise is my question based on? Fact is that historians gather evidence to establish what happened, whereas so-called revisionists dispute that evidence and then fail to produce a revised history. For example, historians have evidenced the use of gas chambers in the Birkenau Kremas, whereas Rudolf and Mattogno dispute their existence, whilst failing to evidence what the buildings were used for. Why should I dump an evidenced history, for a non-history that does not tell me what happened?

Nessie, I would like to invite you to do a little exercise. Pick a history book, preferably on something somewhat controversial or where there is notable scholarly disagreement. Find some examples of where historians reject sources as unreliable.

A historian would not include a source they have rejected as unreliable in their history. Their histories are determined by sources that are tested, verified and regarded as generally reliable. There are numerous examples of Holocaust witnesses who historians do not use, such as Elie Wiesel and Lale Sokolov, as their testimony is in the form of story telling, mixing hearsay with what they maybe saw. You do not find their testimony in histories of Auschwitz. If a famous to the public Holocaust witness is not in any history book, that is because historians do not regard their evidence as reliable.

[Keen]

This question remains unanswered;



Is that because the revisionists here do not understand enough about methodology to answer the question?

Because your question is in bad faith and is based on false premises. It's a "when did you stop beating your wife?" sort of question. You're just flinging an empty insult at revisionists based on nothing more than your own biased assertions.

What false premise is my question based on? Fact is that historians gather evidence to establish what happened, whereas so-called revisionists dispute that evidence and then fail to produce a revised history. For example, historians have evidenced the use of gas chambers in the Birkenau Kremas, whereas Rudolf and Mattogno dispute their existence, whilst failing to evidence what the buildings were used for. Why should I dump an evidenced history, for a non-history that does not tell me what happened?

Nessie, I would like to invite you to do a little exercise. Pick a history book, preferably on something somewhat controversial or where there is notable scholarly disagreement. Find some examples of where historians reject sources as unreliable.

A historian would not include a source they have rejected as unreliable in their history. Their histories are determined by sources that are tested, verified and regarded as generally reliable. There are numerous examples of Holocaust witnesses who historians do not use, such as Elie Wiesel and Lale Sokolov, as their testimony is in the form of story telling, mixing hearsay with what they maybe saw. You do not find their testimony in histories of Auschwitz. If a famous to the public Holocaust witness is not in any history book, that is because historians do not regard their evidence as reliable.

Roberto Muehlenkamp's Psychopathy:

viewtopic.php?t=588

[Archie]

A historian would not include a source they have rejected as unreliable in their history. Their histories are determined by sources that are tested, verified and regarded as generally reliable.

Non-responsive (and does not follow from what I said).

Are you claiming historians never discuss sources they find to be unreliable? They do. All the time. Some sources are rejected by some historians but accepted by others and it's often necessary (especially on more controversial matters) to explain/justify what weight you give to various sources (and that includes what sources should be rejected). People often disagree about the value of sources.

Your understanding of how history is done--looking at "the evidence" and then everyone immediately knows exactly what happened--is simplistic and uninformed.

[Nessie]

A historian would not include a source they have rejected as unreliable in their history. Their histories are determined by sources that are tested, verified and regarded as generally reliable.

Non-responsive (and does not follow from what I said).

Are you claiming historians never discuss sources they find to be unreliable? They do. All the time. Some sources are rejected by some historians but accepted by others and it's often necessary (especially on more controversial matters) to explain/justify what weight you give to various sources (and that includes what sources should be rejected). People often disagree about the value of sources.

Historians will discuss the reliability of sources, for example Gerstein. He is reliable enough to be used by historians, but he is not considered to be credible. I gave you two examples of sources, Wiesel and Sokolov, that are not used at all. Hoess, because of his position as Auschwitz commander, is used, but his evidence is recognised as being tainted as much of it came under duress. Various documents have been rejected, most famously the Hitler diary scandal. When documents are assessed, they are assessed within context. For example, the use of the term special for actions at the Kremas. That term is assessed with evidence from the Kremas. Hence it has been logically and evidentially deduced that special referred to gassings.

When revisionists discuss the reliability of sources, they are coming up with reasons to reject evidence they just do not want to believe. The result is, they have zero eyewitnesses who worked inside the death camps, that they accept as truthful or credible. As for assessing documents, with regards to the use of the term special, evidence is taken from places other than the Kremas. If the term special is found to mean something innocuous elsewhere, that meaning is then applied to the Kremas. That is an illogical deduction, which relies on an assumption, that fails to prove what special refers to.

Your understanding of how history is done--looking at "the evidence" and then everyone immediately knows exactly what happened--is simplistic and uninformed.

That is not my understanding. You just made that up, straw man. How historians assess sources, or evidence, is far more reliable, accurate and credible than the revisionist method. The result is that historians can produce accurate, chronological, corroborated, historical narratives. Revisionists cannot do that. Instead, they come up with non-histories about what they say did not happen, with the reasons why they do not believe the historical narrative.

For example, the history of the Birkenau Kremas. Historians gathered eyewitness, documentary and other evidence pertaining to those buildings and produced an evidenced chronological narrative of when and how they were built, what they were used for and their end. That is a history with a conclusion. Revisionists, instead, argue that they cannot have been used for mass murder because of the supposed physical impossibility of the gas chambers and ovens and that they were used for various other tasks, such as air raid shelters, none of which they can agree on or evidence happened. That is an inconclusive non-history.

The way historians evidence what happened to the Jews during WWII, is no different to how any history is determined. Revisionism's method of "debunking" the evidence of mass murder and then failing to evidence what did happen, is not used in any other historical investigation.

[Nessie]

The responses to this comment by bombsaway typify the differences between historians and revisionists.

viewtopic.php?p=22679#p22679

eg someone saying I worked at the Crematoria in Auschwitz from 42-43 and never saw anyone get gassed there.

That is one way to evidence there were no gassings. The responses;

But We are talking about your argument. And there:
"…There's no testimony from anyone stationed in extermination areas who said no extermination took place there…"
that statement simply is not true.

I conclude these people like Bombsaway (what a disgustingly mass-murderous name to call yourself) ONLY reply so that any ‘unconvinced-either-way’, drive-by, casual visitors will think there ACTUALLY IS a credible argument supporting the mass-gassing Allied-propaganda deception.

Bombsaway has not used an argument, he has used evidence. Argument does not determine history, evidence does. It is true that no one who worked inside an AR camps, Chelmno or A-B Krema states no extermination took place. It is evidentially significant that the only evidence from the eyewitnesses, is that gassings took place inside those places. That evidence, is part of the proof of what took place. Bombsaway understands how to evidence there were no gassings, something that revisionists have no idea about, hence they try to argue there were no gassings.

[Keen]

Revisionism's method of "debunking" the evidence of mass murder and then failing to evidence what did happen, is not used in any other historical investigation.

Says the mentally ill HC cult member who alleges that 2.145 million jews are buried in 100 "huge mass graves" within the boundaries of the Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II camps, yet cannot prove, using the lowest standard of proof, that a mass grave containing the remains of any more than 6 people exists, or ever existed, in those camps.
,

[Archie]

Historians will discuss the reliability of sources, for example Gerstein. He is reliable enough to be used by historians, but he is not considered to be credible. I gave you two examples of sources, Wiesel and Sokolov, that are not used at all. Hoess, because of his position as Auschwitz commander, is used, but his evidence is recognised as being tainted as much of it came under duress. Various documents have been rejected, most famously the Hitler diary scandal. When documents are assessed, they are assessed within context. For example, the use of the term special for actions at the Kremas. That term is assessed with evidence from the Kremas. Hence it has been logically and evidentially deduced that special referred to gassings.

When revisionists discuss the reliability of sources, they are coming up with reasons to reject evidence they just do not want to believe. The result is, they have zero eyewitnesses who worked inside the death camps, that they accept as truthful or credible. As for assessing documents, with regards to the use of the term special, evidence is taken from places other than the Kremas. If the term special is found to mean something innocuous elsewhere, that meaning is then applied to the Kremas. That is an illogical deduction, which relies on an assumption, that fails to prove what special refers to.

Nessie, I would like to point out that in all of your blather, you have failed my "challenge." And it was not even really a challenge since it's so trivially easy.

Nessie, I would like to invite you to do a little exercise. Pick a history book, preferably on something somewhat controversial or where there is notable scholarly disagreement. Find some examples of where historians reject sources as unreliable.

I am not sure why you are having such a hard time with this.

[Archie]

"Historians will discuss the reliability of sources, for example Gerstein. He is reliable enough to be used by historians, but he is not considered to be credible."

Nessie, can you explain what you mean by this?

Gerstein was cited extensively by Poliakov, and traditionally he has been probably the most important AR witness. But since he's been debunked there now seems to be hesitance to use him.

[Nessie]

Historians will discuss the reliability of sources, for example Gerstein. He is reliable enough to be used by historians, but he is not considered to be credible. I gave you two examples of sources, Wiesel and Sokolov, that are not used at all. Hoess, because of his position as Auschwitz commander, is used, but his evidence is recognised as being tainted as much of it came under duress. Various documents have been rejected, most famously the Hitler diary scandal. When documents are assessed, they are assessed within context. For example, the use of the term special for actions at the Kremas. That term is assessed with evidence from the Kremas. Hence it has been logically and evidentially deduced that special referred to gassings.

When revisionists discuss the reliability of sources, they are coming up with reasons to reject evidence they just do not want to believe. The result is, they have zero eyewitnesses who worked inside the death camps, that they accept as truthful or credible. As for assessing documents, with regards to the use of the term special, evidence is taken from places other than the Kremas. If the term special is found to mean something innocuous elsewhere, that meaning is then applied to the Kremas. That is an illogical deduction, which relies on an assumption, that fails to prove what special refers to.

Nessie, I would like to point out that in all of your blather, you have failed my "challenge." And it was not even really a challenge since it's so trivially easy.

Nessie, I would like to invite you to do a little exercise. Pick a history book, preferably on something somewhat controversial or where there is notable scholarly disagreement. Find some examples of where historians reject sources as unreliable.

I am not sure why you are having such a hard time with this.

I do not know of any history books, where a historian discusses a source that they reject as unreliable, in that book. That is work completed, before the book is written. For example, Cesarani in the "Final Solution The Fate of the Jews 1933–1949", does not discuss why he does not use Wiesel as witnesses, he just does not use him. I am quite sure Cesarani was aware of Wiesel and he may well have read "Night", and I am quite sure that Wiesel is not used, because as a witness, he is not that credible, as he mixes story telling and hearsay throughout his narrative.

Can you show me examples of what you mean, since you suggest I should not have a hard time finding such?