The Significance of the Morgue Documents

For more adversarial interactions
c
curioussoul
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2024 10:23 pm

Re: The Significance of the Morgue Documents

Post by curioussoul »

Nessie wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2025 8:12 am
curioussoul wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2025 10:12 pm
Nessie wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2025 8:47 am 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.
You've consistently dodged my questions and tried to invoke unrelated documents in order to intentionally derail the thread. That's not arguing in good faith, is it? You're still going to have to deal with how these documents fit the orthodox story and why there is seemingly no possible scenario in which they could be made to fit.

I am not lying. Anyone can look for themselves, but I'll help you out and quote your post from just a few pages ago:

"The staff responsible for the construction and operation of the Kremas, at the Construction Office, did not refer to them as being morgues to store corpses. Staff elsewhere in the camp, who sent corpses to the Kremas, did call them morgues."

Claiming that the Construction Office staff was responsible for the operation of the crematoria is a bald-faced lie. Attempting to wiggle your way out of the problem by lying that the Construction Office (who according to you operated the crematoria) said one thing, but other people who supposedly were not responsible for the operation of the crematoria said another thing, is actually outrageous and would get you kicked out from any serious university. Shame on you.
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 1097
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2024 7:41 am

Re: The Significance of the Morgue Documents

Post by Nessie »

curioussoul wrote: Fri Jan 10, 2025 11:51 pm
Nessie wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2025 8:07 amWhat 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,...
The use of corroboration is widespread, by the police, courts, historians and journalists. It is an important investigatory principle, since if two independent pieces of evidence agree, that makes the conclusion more certain and reliable
.... 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.
I did not say they should be necessarily discarded, it depends on how unreliable they are. You are acting as if this is a learning process for me, but I show a far greater understanding of witnesses than any revisionist. Witnesses can be truthful and unreliable, if they are prone to exaggerations, mistakes or have a poor memory. That type of witness may get the basics correct, but they are hopeless when it comes to the details. It is also perfectly possible for someone who is considered reliable, to come out with an obvious howler, something clearly not right.

Reliability, accuracy and credibility are independent of truthfulness. Revisionists mistakenly think that unreliability, inaccuracy or a lack of credibility mean lying.
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?
Over the years, journalists and historians have uncovered fake claims by people about their wartime experiences. A number of memoirs are unreliable in their details, hence why Elie Weisel is not used as a witness by historians. The witnesses used to identify John Demjanjuk at his trial, were found to be unreliable and they were dismissed.
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?
There is evidence Hoess was subject to duress at the hands of his British interrogators. Vrba's testimony about the gas chambers were based on hearsay and rumour, as he never worked at or was inside the Kremas. The claim, I cannot remember the witnesses name, about chambers with an opening floor to dispose of the corpses, is not corroborated by any witness who worked at the chamber.
User avatar
Stubble
Posts: 910
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2024 10:43 am

Re: The Significance of the Morgue Documents

Post by Stubble »

Wrong thread.
Last edited by Stubble on Sat Jan 11, 2025 9:51 am, edited 2 times in total.
were to guess why no t4 personnel were chosen to perform gassing that had experience with gassing, it would be because THERE WERE NONE.
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 1097
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2024 7:41 am

Re: The Significance of the Morgue Documents

Post by Nessie »

curioussoul wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2025 12:00 am
Nessie wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2025 8:12 am
curioussoul wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2025 10:12 pm

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.
You've consistently dodged my questions and tried to invoke unrelated documents in order to intentionally derail the thread. That's not arguing in good faith, is it? You're still going to have to deal with how these documents fit the orthodox story and why there is seemingly no possible scenario in which they could be made to fit.
Can you link to and provide an example?
I am not lying. Anyone can look for themselves, but I'll help you out and quote your post from just a few pages ago:

"The staff responsible for the construction and operation of the Kremas, at the Construction Office, did not refer to them as being morgues to store corpses. Staff elsewhere in the camp, who sent corpses to the Kremas, did call them morgues."

Claiming that the Construction Office staff was responsible for the operation of the crematoria is a bald-faced lie. Attempting to wiggle your way out of the problem by lying that the Construction Office (who according to you operated the crematoria) said one thing, but other people who supposedly were not responsible for the operation of the crematoria said another thing, is actually outrageous and would get you kicked out from any serious university. Shame on you.
Sorry, that sentence was badly worded. Construction Office staff were not responsible for the operation of the Kremas. I should have said, the staff responsible for the construction of the Kremas, at the Construction Office, and those responsible for its operation, did not refer to them as being morgues to store corpses. I thought I had made that clear here, a post you went on to quote;

viewtopic.php?p=3069#p3069

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

"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."

I have separated staff into Construction Office, elsewhere in the camp and those actually responsible for the Kremas. It would have been better to make even that differential clearer. The point stands, only one group of staff, those with no connection to the Kremas, call them morgues and talk about corpses storage.
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 1097
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2024 7:41 am

Re: The Significance of the Morgue Documents

Post by Nessie »

Wrong thread.
Last edited by Nessie on Sat Jan 11, 2025 11:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
c
curioussoul
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2024 10:23 pm

Re: The Significance of the Morgue Documents

Post by curioussoul »

Nessie wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2025 9:49 amCan you link to and provide an example?
Sure. On pages 2, 3, 4 and 5 you avoided the question of the morgues and attempted to have us talk about Crematoria I, IV and V and the Bunkers, and air raid shelters, instead.

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=134&start=30

etc.
Sorry, that sentence was badly worded. Construction Office staff were not responsible for the operation of the Kremas. I should have said, the staff responsible for the construction of the Kremas, at the Construction Office, and those responsible for its operation, did not refer to them as being morgues to store corpses. I thought I had made that clear here, a post you went on to quote;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=3069#p3069

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

"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."

I have separated staff into Construction Office, elsewhere in the camp and those actually responsible for the Kremas. It would have been better to make even that differential clearer. The point stands, only one group of staff, those with no connection to the Kremas, call them morgues and talk about corpses storage.
"Badly worded", right. More like, you made up a lie to cover your tracks, got caught, and changed tune. Your entire argument was based on the lie that the people who actually ran/operated/administrated the Crematoria never referred to the morgues (according to you, the ZBL), whereas other people elsewhere in the camp supposedly incorrectly did refer to them as morgues. Sadly for you, the Camp Administration were the ones who referred to them as morgues, undermining your entire argument.

Even so, you've yet to explain how this document fits into the broader Holocaust theory at Birkenau. We're still waiting for that.

You've also failed to explain, without using circular reasoning, why a Soviet report would be "useless", but you did make some progress in regards to the value of witness testimony and did concede that some testimonies rightly deserve to be thrown out for lack of credibility and/or reliability. You admitted that Hoess and Vrba meet that criteria, which is rather odd consider they still form part of the very core of the Holocaust story to this day. You've yet to name even a single eyewitness that's been outright thrown out for lack of credibility by Holocaust historians who analysed them.
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 1097
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2024 7:41 am

Re: The Significance of the Morgue Documents

Post by Nessie »

curioussoul wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2025 1:53 pm
Nessie wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2025 9:49 amCan you link to and provide an example?
Sure. On pages 2, 3, 4 and 5 you avoided the question of the morgues and attempted to have us talk about Crematoria I, IV and V and the Bunkers, and air raid shelters, instead.

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=134&start=30

etc.
What question, please be less vague and quote and link to the actual question you are referring to.
Sorry, that sentence was badly worded. Construction Office staff were not responsible for the operation of the Kremas. I should have said, the staff responsible for the construction of the Kremas, at the Construction Office, and those responsible for its operation, did not refer to them as being morgues to store corpses. I thought I had made that clear here, a post you went on to quote;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=3069#p3069

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

"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."

I have separated staff into Construction Office, elsewhere in the camp and those actually responsible for the Kremas. It would have been better to make even that differential clearer. The point stands, only one group of staff, those with no connection to the Kremas, call them morgues and talk about corpses storage.
"Badly worded", right. More like, you made up a lie to cover your tracks, got caught, and changed tune. Your entire argument was based on the lie that the people who actually ran/operated/administrated the Crematoria never referred to the morgues (according to you, the ZBL), whereas other people elsewhere in the camp supposedly incorrectly did refer to them as morgues. Sadly for you, the Camp Administration were the ones who referred to them as morgues, undermining your entire argument.
Quote SS staff, who worked inside a Krema, referring to it as a morgue.
Even so, you've yet to explain how this document fits into the broader Holocaust theory at Birkenau. We're still waiting for that.
I have explained the document is an order to send corpses to the Kremas, to stop them piling up elsewhere. That fits with the Kremas use as crematoriums. You assume corpses were stored on arrival.
You've also failed to explain, without using circular reasoning, why a Soviet report would be "useless", but you did make some progress in regards to the value of witness testimony and did concede that some testimonies rightly deserve to be thrown out for lack of credibility and/or reliability. You admitted that Hoess and Vrba meet that criteria, which is rather odd consider they still form part of the very core of the Holocaust story to this day. You've yet to name even a single eyewitness that's been outright thrown out for lack of credibility by Holocaust historians who analysed them.
Corroboration is why some reports or witnesses you claim fail the credibility/reliability test, are still used as evidence. Hence Soviet reports, Hoess and Vrba are still used, despite their value being lesser than other evidence.

I am not aware of any eyewitness to gassings, as in they saw them happen, who has since be exposed as a liar.
c
curioussoul
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2024 10:23 pm

Re: The Significance of the Morgue Documents

Post by curioussoul »

Nessie wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2025 2:08 pmWhat question, please be less vague and quote and link to the actual question you are referring to.
Sure, I reiterated the question in this comment: https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=2755#p2755
Quote SS staff, who worked inside a Krema, referring to it as a morgue.
It's on the OP, but I'll quote it again:
SS Standartenführer Mrugowski has decreed during the discussion that the corpses are to be removed twice daily, in the morning and in the evening, into the morgues of the crematoria; in this way, the separate construction of morgues in the individual subsections can be avoided.
I have explained the document is an order to send corpses to the Kremas
To the morgues of the Kremas. ;)
Corroboration is why some reports or witnesses you claim fail the credibility/reliability test, are still used as evidence. Hence Soviet reports, Hoess and Vrba are still used, despite their value being lesser than other evidence.
I did not claim that, you did. You claimed Soviet reports were "useless" and then invoked circular reasoning to defend your point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

What specifics from Vrba and Hoess have been corroborated and by who? I'd like to look in to that.
I am not aware of any eyewitness to gassings, as in they saw them happen, who has since be exposed as a liar.
So 0 discarded witnesses, despite your previous claims. That's odd. Any historians that come to mind that have investigated the issue of the truthfulness of such witnesses?
User avatar
Stubble
Posts: 910
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2024 10:43 am

Re: The Significance of the Morgue Documents

Post by Stubble »

It's almost like you have forgotten us going over Muller when you talk about no eyewitnesses being liars.

Of course, I could go on and choose MORE of them, but, you have already failed to assimilate the facts concerning the 1. Matter of fact, you hand wave it away.
were to guess why no t4 personnel were chosen to perform gassing that had experience with gassing, it would be because THERE WERE NONE.
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 1097
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2024 7:41 am

Re: The Significance of the Morgue Documents

Post by Nessie »

curioussoul wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2025 2:25 pm
Nessie wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2025 2:08 pmWhat question, please be less vague and quote and link to the actual question you are referring to.
Sure, I reiterated the question in this comment: https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=2755#p2755
I have answered the questions you asked. Again;

Q - Given the physical and documentary evidence the morgues were constructed and used as morgues, what would be the exterminationist explanation for such circumstances?

A - There is no evidence they were used as morgues, the evidence from every single person who worked on or inside the Kremas is that the Leichenkeller was converted for use and was used as a gas chamber.

Q - If the morgue was indeed secretely a gas chamber for Jews, why are the Germans internally discussing their usage as morgues?

A - Secrecy, they did not want to call it a gas chambers, though there were slips, where it was referred to as a gas chamber.
Quote SS staff, who worked inside a Krema, referring to it as a morgue.
It's on the OP, but I'll quote it again:
SS Standartenführer Mrugowski has decreed during the discussion that the corpses are to be removed twice daily, in the morning and in the evening, into the morgues of the crematoria; in this way, the separate construction of morgues in the individual subsections can be avoided.
I have explained the document is an order to send corpses to the Kremas
To the morgues of the Kremas. ;)
I cannot find any record of a Mrugowski working at A-B, let alone working inside the Kremas. Can you? That name is not on the list of those who worked at the Kremas here;

https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=32920
Corroboration is why some reports or witnesses you claim fail the credibility/reliability test, are still used as evidence. Hence Soviet reports, Hoess and Vrba are still used, despite their value being lesser than other evidence.
I did not claim that, you did. You claimed Soviet reports were "useless" and then invoked circular reasoning to defend your point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning[/quote]

Corroboration is not circular reasoning. Corroboration is where there are separate independent of each other pieces of evidence, that converge to the same conclusion.
What specifics from Vrba and Hoess have been corroborated and by who? I'd like to look in to that.
The entire process of arrivals, selections, undressing, gassing and cremations and property sorting. The whole process is variously corroborated by documents, photographs, physical and witness evidence directly pertaining to the operation of the Kremas. Handy list of that evidence here;

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ce-on.html
I am not aware of any eyewitness to gassings, as in they saw them happen, who has since be exposed as a liar.
So 0 discarded witnesses, despite your previous claims. That's odd.
Witnesses may have been discarded, I do not know about them. No eyewitness that I know about has been exposed as a liar.
Any historians that come to mind that have investigated the issue of the truthfulness of such witnesses?
All of them. Historical investigations rely on evidence gathering and corroboration to establish what happened and witness truthfulness.
c
curioussoul
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2024 10:23 pm

Re: The Significance of the Morgue Documents

Post by curioussoul »

Nessie wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2025 4:35 pmA - Secrecy, they did not want to call it a gas chambers, though there were slips, where it was referred to as a gas chamber.
Purported secrecy does not explain why the Germans were internally discussing corpse storage in the morgues. Are you saying they drafted entire fake correspondences with meetings and discussions that never actually took place?

And you're still not explaining the how this document fits into the broader context of the gassing hypothesis in regards to Birkenau.
I cannot find any record of a Mrugowski working at A-B, let alone working inside the Kremas. Can you? That name is not on the list of those who worked at the Kremas here
He doesn't need to have worked inside the Crematoria, lol. That's just an arbitrary criteria you made up on the fly to try to somehow wriggle your way out of this mess. Either way, Bischoff is the one who wrote the letter to Wirths, not Mrugowski. He was head of the ZBL Construction Office and, according to your revised argument, is the one who was aware of the 'true nature' of the morgues. All in all, the people involved in the discussions belonged to both the ZBL and the Camp Administration, Bischoff, Mrugowski, Wirths and Hoess, some of the highest ranking officials in the camp.
Corroboration is why some reports or witnesses you claim fail the credibility/reliability test, are still used as evidence. Hence Soviet reports, Hoess and Vrba are still used, despite their value being lesser than other evidence.
Corroboration is not circular reasoning.
I never said so. You asserted that Soviet reports were "useless", and when confronted as to why you claimed that they were "useless" because they were not trustworthy, then refused to elaborate on why they couldn't be trusted without employing circular reasoning.
The entire process of arrivals, selections, undressing, gassing and cremations and property sorting.
I asked for specifics and names. Vaguely referring to broad categories of alleged claims and evidences does not prove your point. Refer back to my original question.
Witnesses may have been discarded, I do not know about them. No eyewitness that I know about has been exposed as a liar.
So you've yet to demonstrate your point, here. Either no witness ever lied or the historians are not doing their jobs, unless you count revisionist historians.
Any historians that come to mind that have investigated the issue of the truthfulness of such witnesses?
All of them.
Could you refer us to one of those analyses which have resulted in a witness being discarded?
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 1097
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2024 7:41 am

Re: The Significance of the Morgue Documents

Post by Nessie »

curioussoul wrote: Fri Feb 14, 2025 1:02 pm
Nessie wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2025 4:35 pmA - Secrecy, they did not want to call it a gas chambers, though there were slips, where it was referred to as a gas chamber.
Purported secrecy does not explain why the Germans were internally discussing corpse storage in the morgues. Are you saying they drafted entire fake correspondences with meetings and discussions that never actually took place?
No, I am saying that camp staff operated in the knowledge that gassings were to be belt as secret as possible, for example;

"Speech of Oswald Pohl of 23 September 1942 on “special tasks, about which we do not have to speak words” [The Van Pelt report, VI Blueprints of the Genocide] "

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ce-on.html
And you're still not explaining the how this document fits into the broader context of the gassing hypothesis in regards to Birkenau.
The dead of the camp were being sent to the Kremas to be cremated along with those who were murdered in the gas chambers.
I cannot find any record of a Mrugowski working at A-B, let alone working inside the Kremas. Can you? That name is not on the list of those who worked at the Kremas here
He doesn't need to have worked inside the Crematoria, lol. That's just an arbitrary criteria you made up on the fly to try to somehow wriggle your way out of this mess. Either way, Bischoff is the one who wrote the letter to Wirths, not Mrugowski. He was head of the ZBL Construction Office and, according to your revised argument, is the one who was aware of the 'true nature' of the morgues. All in all, the people involved in the discussions belonged to both the ZBL and the Camp Administration, Bischoff, Mrugowski, Wirths and Hoess, some of the highest ranking officials in the camp.
So, they are aware of the secrecy of the operation. Hence many documents refer to "special" action or treatment of people who were sent to the Kremas.
Corroboration is why some reports or witnesses you claim fail the credibility/reliability test, are still used as evidence. Hence Soviet reports, Hoess and Vrba are still used, despite their value being lesser than other evidence.
Corroboration is not circular reasoning.
I never said so. You asserted that Soviet reports were "useless", and when confronted as to why you claimed that they were "useless" because they were not trustworthy, then refused to elaborate on why they couldn't be trusted without employing circular reasoning.
Examples of why Soviet reports are not useless, but need to be treated with extra scepticism, are their inflated death tolls, the poor quality of their work and their political motivations.
The entire process of arrivals, selections, undressing, gassing and cremations and property sorting.
I asked for specifics and names. Vaguely referring to broad categories of alleged claims and evidences does not prove your point. Refer back to my original question.
I give you specifics and you move the goalposts. If you want to provide a specific claim by Vrba and Hoess, I will look for you, to find corroborating evidence, since you clearly do not know how to do that and need spoon fed.
Witnesses may have been discarded, I do not know about them. No eyewitness that I know about has been exposed as a liar.
So you've yet to demonstrate your point, here. Either no witness ever lied or the historians are not doing their jobs, unless you count revisionist historians.
You clearly do not understand how investigations work. If a historian finds a witness who lied and is not a witness, they are not then used as a witness. Historians include witnesses such as Vrba, who provides mainly hearsay evidence, and Hoess who made clear mistakes and whose testimony was in part under torture, because of the context they provide. They are an important part of the developing narrative, the history of the history of the camp. Plus, their evidence is, for the main events, corroborated.
Any historians that come to mind that have investigated the issue of the truthfulness of such witnesses?
All of them.
Could you refer us to one of those analyses which have resulted in a witness being discarded?
A witness who is discarded is, by the nature of being discarded, not used. Historians would read a witness, decide that they are lying, or just not credible, so they just do not use them. Elie Wiesel comes to mind as a witness who I have never heard of being used by a historian. Fake Holocaust witnesses are themselves a subject of studies;

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24585354

"Translating the Self: False Holocaust Testimony"

Bear in mind, historians approach witness evidence very differently from revisionists. Revisionist assessment of witnesses is unique, as it is designed to discredit and disbelieve with the aim of leaving no witnesses at all, who are considered to be truthful.
c
curioussoul
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2024 10:23 pm

Re: The Significance of the Morgue Documents

Post by curioussoul »

Nessie wrote: Fri Feb 14, 2025 4:08 pmNo, I am saying that camp staff operated in the knowledge that gassings were to be belt as secret as possible
Purported secrecy does not explain why the Germans were internally discussing corpse storage in the morgues if they were in fact not morgues used for corpse storage.
The dead of the camp were being sent to the Kremas to be cremated along with those who were murdered in the gas chambers.
Then why are the Germans discussing the morgues in terms of corpse storage, their stated purpose in extant documentation? You still have no explanation.
So, they are aware of the secrecy of the operation. Hence many documents refer to "special" action or treatment of people who were sent to the Kremas.
You've already abandoned your original, pained hypothesis. The camp staff and members of the ZBL are discussing normal corpse storage inside the morgues. That has nothing to do with secrecy.
Examples of why Soviet reports are not useless
Oh, so they're not useless anymore? That's what you claimed earlier in the thread. Make up your mind, Nessie. ;)
their inflated death tolls, the poor quality of their work and their political motivations.
Right, so inflated death tolls, poor quality work and political motivations are legitimate reasons to discard or deem "useless" a particular party to the conflict, in terms of its evidentiary value for the Holocaust? Would that be fair to say?
I give you specifics and you move the goalposts.
You did not give me specifics, you gave me a list of vague, broad categories of alleged accusations, "undressing", "selections", etc. Those are not specifics. I asked for specifics as to what Vrba and Hoess alleged that had been corroborated and by who, specifically. I'm not interested in vague claims.
If you want to provide a specific claim by Vrba and Hoess, I will look for you, to find corroborating evidence, since you clearly do not know how to do that and need spoon fed.
You're the one making claims you refuse to back up. I'm simply asking for you to put your money where your mouth is.
You clearly do not understand how investigations work. If a historian finds a witness who lied and is not a witness, they are not then used as a witness. Historians include witnesses such as Vrba, who provides mainly hearsay evidence, and Hoess who made clear mistakes and whose testimony was in part under torture, because of the context they provide. They are an important part of the developing narrative, the history of the history of the camp. Plus, their evidence is, for the main events, corroborated.
Again with the circular reasoning. If witnesses are in fact analysed and discarded, where are these analyses and the historians who conducted them? You're being very contradictory. On the one hand, you know of no witnesses who have been exposed as liars, but on the other hand, Holocaust historians are allegedly discarding unreliable witnesses like normal historians do, but where are these historians and where are the discarded witnesses, and why were they discarded? Enlighten us, Nessie.
A witness who is discarded is, by the nature of being discarded, not used.
A discarded witness was discarded for a reason, right?
Historians would read a witness, decide that they are lying, or just not credible, so they just do not use them.
Fantastic, so where are the analyses of witnesses and the reasoning for them getting discarded?
Elie Wiesel comes to mind as a witness who I have never heard of being used by a historian. Fake Holocaust witnesses are themselves a subject of studies;
That's very funny. Your only example of a Holocaust liar is one of the most famous Holocaust witnesses ever. Says a lot, I suppose.
Bear in mind, historians approach witness evidence very differently from revisionists.
Yes, I think that's quite clear from your statement that no Holocaust witness has been exposed as a liar by a historian. That's breathtakingly inept.
Revisionist assessment of witnesses is unique, as it is designed to discredit and disbelieve with the aim of leaving no witnesses at all, who are considered to be truthful.
On the flip side, orthodox hisorians do not critically assess witness statements at all, and you've been unable to find even one witness analysed by a historian that was then discarded as a witness. Revisionist witness assessments are industry standard in any investigatory or historical field.
User avatar
Stubble
Posts: 910
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2024 10:43 am

Re: The Significance of the Morgue Documents

Post by Stubble »

On the flip side, orthodox hisorians do not critically assess witness statements at all, and you've been unable to find even one witness analysed by a historian that was then discarded as a witness. Revisionist witness assessments are industry standard in any investigatory or historical field.


They do parse the statements, clip what they approve of, then splice them together to build a coherent narrative.
were to guess why no t4 personnel were chosen to perform gassing that had experience with gassing, it would be because THERE WERE NONE.
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 1097
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2024 7:41 am

Re: The Significance of the Morgue Documents

Post by Nessie »

curioussoul wrote: Fri Feb 14, 2025 11:12 pm
Nessie wrote: Fri Feb 14, 2025 4:08 pmNo, I am saying that camp staff operated in the knowledge that gassings were to be belt as secret as possible
Purported secrecy does not explain why the Germans were internally discussing corpse storage in the morgues if they were in fact not morgues used for corpse storage.
Yes it does and in any case, they were not discussing storing corpses, they were discussing sending corpses.
The dead of the camp were being sent to the Kremas to be cremated along with those who were murdered in the gas chambers.
Then why are the Germans discussing the morgues in terms of corpse storage, their stated purpose in extant documentation? You still have no explanation.
At no point is the word storage, or anything similar, used. They discuss where to send corpses to and not what then happens to them.
So, they are aware of the secrecy of the operation. Hence many documents refer to "special" action or treatment of people who were sent to the Kremas.
You've already abandoned your original, pained hypothesis. The camp staff and members of the ZBL are discussing normal corpse storage inside the morgues. That has nothing to do with secrecy.
No, I have just given you another example of secrecy, by referring to something as "special" rather than describing the operation.
Examples of why Soviet reports are not useless
Oh, so they're not useless anymore? That's what you claimed earlier in the thread. Make up your mind, Nessie. ;)
You are playing semantics, as you demand that Soviet reports are either black or white, totally useless or highly useful.
their inflated death tolls, the poor quality of their work and their political motivations.
Right, so inflated death tolls, poor quality work and political motivations are legitimate reasons to discard or deem "useless" a particular party to the conflict, in terms of its evidentiary value for the Holocaust? Would that be fair to say?
Yes, though I would not totally disregard them, as nothing is black and white and there is still context and there may be important details therein. I know, it is more complicated than you would like.
I give you specifics and you move the goalposts.
You did not give me specifics, you gave me a list of vague, broad categories of alleged accusations, "undressing", "selections", etc. Those are not specifics. I asked for specifics as to what Vrba and Hoess alleged that had been corroborated and by who, specifically. I'm not interested in vague claims.
Undressing is a specific part of the process. Please give me an example of what you regard as specific and then I will look for corroboration.
If you want to provide a specific claim by Vrba and Hoess, I will look for you, to find corroborating evidence, since you clearly do not know how to do that and need spoon fed.
You're the one making claims you refuse to back up. I'm simply asking for you to put your money where your mouth is.
I provided you with a specific, which since you reject it, it is your job to come up with another. I know what you are up to, you want me to run around doing research for you. I see that a lot with revisionists, it betrays their lack of training and experience. You need me to do the work as you cannot.
You clearly do not understand how investigations work. If a historian finds a witness who lied and is not a witness, they are not then used as a witness. Historians include witnesses such as Vrba, who provides mainly hearsay evidence, and Hoess who made clear mistakes and whose testimony was in part under torture, because of the context they provide. They are an important part of the developing narrative, the history of the history of the camp. Plus, their evidence is, for the main events, corroborated.
Again with the circular reasoning. If witnesses are in fact analysed and discarded, where are these analyses and the historians who conducted them?
Historians do not normally publish why they chose not to use certain witnesses.
You're being very contradictory. On the one hand, you know of no witnesses who have been exposed as liars, but on the other hand, Holocaust historians are allegedly discarding unreliable witnesses like normal historians do, but where are these historians and where are the discarded witnesses, and why were they discarded? Enlighten us, Nessie.
I have done, with Elie Wiesel. I have not seen many of the Holocaust memoir writers being used as witnesses in the histories. That will because, as survivors, they often did not see the heart of the action and instead speak to the well known grind of daily life in the camp. They also clearly mix hearsay with what they saw and use highly emotive, bordering on atrocity descriptives of the cruelest and harshed events in the camps.

The Nazis, who were often at the heart of the action, saw and knew far more about what was happening and are less emotive in tehir descriptions, make for better witnesses.
A witness who is discarded is, by the nature of being discarded, not used.
A discarded witness was discarded for a reason, right?
Obviously. Many are discarded because they add nothing to what is already knwn.
Historians would read a witness, decide that they are lying, or just not credible, so they just do not use them.
Fantastic, so where are the analyses of witnesses and the reasoning for them getting discarded?
You would need to get in touch with each historian for that. I have never heard of a history that comes with an appendix that lists the evidence assessed and then not used.

Revisionism is entirely about assessing and giving reasons for rejecting every single witness, resulting in a non-history, with no evidence to conclude what happened.

It is the opposite to history, which is about assessing and establishing the truthfulness of a witness in relation to the events they describe, to determine what happened.
Elie Wiesel comes to mind as a witness who I have never heard of being used by a historian. Fake Holocaust witnesses are themselves a subject of studies;
That's very funny. Your only example of a Holocaust liar is one of the most famous Holocaust witnesses ever. Says a lot, I suppose.
Bear in mind, historians approach witness evidence very differently from revisionists.
Yes, I think that's quite clear from your statement that no Holocaust witness has been exposed as a liar by a historian. That's breathtakingly inept.
Revisionist assessment of witnesses is unique, as it is designed to discredit and disbelieve with the aim of leaving no witnesses at all, who are considered to be truthful.
On the flip side, orthodox hisorians do not critically assess witness statements at all, and you've been unable to find even one witness analysed by a historian that was then discarded as a witness.
Now, that is very dishonest of you to accuse me of only producing one example witness and then you cut out another three. I gave you a link to the study of three witnesses who lied about their experience in the Holocaust, but since you want to believe there is no critical assessment by historians, you need to edit that out!

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24585354

"Translating the Self: False Holocaust Testimony"

That is an example of the critical assessment of witnesses. Those witnesses will not be used by any historian, after it is established they lied. Those historians will just not use them, so they become an example of what I was referring to, whereby they are discarded without the need for further comment.
Revisionist witness assessments are industry standard in any investigatory or historical field.
The actual process was that rumours and information started to circulate that certain camps had gas chambers and mass killings took place. Step 1 is to identify who was inside those camps, step 2 is to interview them and step 3 is to gather other, non witness contemporaneous evidence pertaining to that camp and its operation. If people who are proven to have been at the camp, speak to gas chambers, and the remains of a building are found where they said the gas chambers had been located, that witness is corroborated and their truthfulness established. If excavations and geophysics locate disturbed ground and cremated remains where the witness states mass graves were located, that is corroboration. If a witness claims ovens had more than one corpse cremated at a time and a document is found that refers to multiple corpse cremations, that is corroboration. If a witness refers to people undressing in a specific room prior to being gassed and a document is traced that records a heated undressing room in that building, that is corroboration.

That is the investigative standard, and revisionists do not use it.
Post Reply