Problem with the Air Raid Shelter Thesis

[curioussoul]

That is eyewitness evidence of the gas chamber being used temporarily as a shelter during an air raid. If Kremas II, III, IV and V had all been converted, as Krema I was, for purpose use as an air raid shelter, there would have been no reason to demolish them. They could have been left in their converted state, as Krema I was.

It's less plausible that Crematoria IV and V would have been used as air raid shelters, as they were both built above ground as 'regular' buildings, compared to the Leichenkellers which were basically concrete "bunkers" much more suitable for that purpose.

Krema I was all on ground level and when it was converted for use as an air raid shelter, an earth bank was formed round the building. It would have been simple to do the same for Kremas IV and V.

No, Crematorium I was much more suitable as an air raid shelter compared to IV and V because of the earth embankment surrounding the structure and the fact that one of the side entrances to the Leichenhalle was a secluded pathway flanked by concrete walls. It also did not have the typical sloped profile roof but a flat concrete roof which would have been much easier to camouflage and sustain.

[Archie]

I agree with you. It is Archie who thinks that "The more likely scenario would be that air raid defense features were incorporated from the beginning...", without any evidence of that being the case.

I am sure Archie will reply. When bombs start falling people will take any protection, any shelter underground would be OK. The Birkenau guards only had trenches to lie into located near their towers according to Schlomo Pivnik. The greatest danger from bombs is the shrapnel of dirt, bomb casings and stones.

There was also the threat of aerial gas attacks. Many structures won't withstand a direct hit from a bomb. But if the British had "drenched Germany with poison gas" as Churchill was contemplating, then you would want shelters with gas tight features.

[Nessie]

I agree with you. It is Archie who thinks that "The more likely scenario would be that air raid defense features were incorporated from the beginning...", without any evidence of that being the case.

I am sure Archie will reply. When bombs start falling people will take any protection, any shelter underground would be OK. The Birkenau guards only had trenches to lie into located near their towers according to Schlomo Pivnik. The greatest danger from bombs is the shrapnel of dirt, bomb casings and stones.

There was also the threat of aerial gas attacks. Many structures won't withstand a direct hit from a bomb. But if the British had "drenched Germany with poison gas" as Churchill was contemplating, then you would want shelters with gas tight features.

Yet again you are exposing the problem with the air raid thesis, a lack of evidence. You prefer to reject what is evidenced to have happened, in favour of unevidenced theories. You should put your bias and opinion aside and follow the evidence.

[Nazgul]

you would want shelters with gas tight features.

Indeed like this WWII airforce shelter at Woodford.

[Archie]

I am sure Archie will reply. When bombs start falling people will take any protection, any shelter underground would be OK. The Birkenau guards only had trenches to lie into located near their towers according to Schlomo Pivnik. The greatest danger from bombs is the shrapnel of dirt, bomb casings and stones.

There was also the threat of aerial gas attacks. Many structures won't withstand a direct hit from a bomb. But if the British had "drenched Germany with poison gas" as Churchill was contemplating, then you would want shelters with gas tight features.

Yet again you are exposing the problem with the air raid thesis, a lack of evidence. You prefer to reject what is evidenced to have happened, in favour of unevidenced theories. You should put your bias and opinion aside and follow the evidence.

The whole point of what we are doing here is to analyze "the evidence," something you are incapable of doing.

You persistently try to cut off the discussion prematurely without dealing with any counterpoints.

You think the evidence for gassings is strong. Fine. That is your opinion. I don't have to agree with you.

[Nessie]

There was also the threat of aerial gas attacks. Many structures won't withstand a direct hit from a bomb. But if the British had "drenched Germany with poison gas" as Churchill was contemplating, then you would want shelters with gas tight features.

Yet again you are exposing the problem with the air raid thesis, a lack of evidence. You prefer to reject what is evidenced to have happened, in favour of unevidenced theories. You should put your bias and opinion aside and follow the evidence.

The whole point of what we are doing here is to analyze "the evidence," something you are incapable of doing.

Sorry, Archie, but it is the other way around. I have relevant training and experience of analysing evidence from university and the police. I use the methods trained, that are proven to work and are logical and can easily explain where you have gone wrong, for example, Miklos Nyiszli. You cherry-picked one thing he said about using the gas chamber to shelter during an air raid, as evidence that was the main used of the Leichenkellers, which is a logically flawed argument. It is not a claim that harms the gassing narrative, as he clearly states they sheltered in the gas chambers. You may think it is sensationalist, but that does not mean therefore he lied. It just means he used emotive language to describe a highly emotional event.

You persistently try to cut off the discussion prematurely without dealing with any counterpoints.

Can you example that?

You think the evidence for gassings is strong. Fine. That is your opinion. I don't have to agree with you.

You are not going to agree with me. You have decided and that is an end to it. No amount of evidence, or reasoning, will cause you to alter your beliefs.

[Archie]

Yet again you are exposing the problem with the air raid thesis, a lack of evidence. You prefer to reject what is evidenced to have happened, in favour of unevidenced theories. You should put your bias and opinion aside and follow the evidence.

The whole point of what we are doing here is to analyze "the evidence," something you are incapable of doing.

Sorry, Archie, but it is the other way around. I have relevant training and experience of analysing evidence from university and the police. I use the methods trained, that are proven to work and are logical and can easily explain where you have gone wrong, for example, Miklos Nyiszli. You cherry-picked one thing he said about using the gas chamber to shelter during an air raid, as evidence that was the main used of the Leichenkellers, which is a logically flawed argument. It is not a claim that harms the gassing narrative, as he clearly states they sheltered in the gas chambers. You may think it is sensationalist, but that does not mean therefore he lied. It just means he used emotive language to describe a highly emotional event.

You persistently try to cut off the discussion prematurely without dealing with any counterpoints.

Can you example that?

You think the evidence for gassings is strong. Fine. That is your opinion. I don't have to agree with you.

You are not going to agree with me. You have decided and that is an end to it. No amount of evidence, or reasoning, will cause you to alter your beliefs.

An example? Literally your entire post history.

Your argument is: "The Holocaust is true because it is evidenced." Then if we try to discuss the evidence you say we aren't allowed. Because rejecting evidence is a fallacy. Or because errors don't matter. Or because you say we must defer to your supposed credentials (lol). All of that is an attempt to avoid having an actual debate. You just assert that you are correct and repeat it over and over and demand that everyone agree with you. None of the other anti-revisionists do that.

[Nessie]

The whole point of what we are doing here is to analyze "the evidence," something you are incapable of doing.

Sorry, Archie, but it is the other way around. I have relevant training and experience of analysing evidence from university and the police. I use the methods trained, that are proven to work and are logical and can easily explain where you have gone wrong, for example, Miklos Nyiszli. You cherry-picked one thing he said about using the gas chamber to shelter during an air raid, as evidence that was the main used of the Leichenkellers, which is a logically flawed argument. It is not a claim that harms the gassing narrative, as he clearly states they sheltered in the gas chambers. You may think it is sensationalist, but that does not mean therefore he lied. It just means he used emotive language to describe a highly emotional event.

You persistently try to cut off the discussion prematurely without dealing with any counterpoints.

Can you example that?

You think the evidence for gassings is strong. Fine. That is your opinion. I don't have to agree with you.

You are not going to agree with me. You have decided and that is an end to it. No amount of evidence, or reasoning, will cause you to alter your beliefs.

An example? Literally your entire post history.

Your argument is: "The Holocaust is true because it is evidenced."

That is a logically sound argument, or do you disagree?

Then if we try to discuss the evidence you say we aren't allowed.

You are allowed to discuss the evidence. My actual argument is that a discussion of the evidence would be vastly improved if you had a greater knowledge and understanding of evidencing. In particular, around witness evidence, of which revisionist display great ignorance.

Because rejecting evidence is a fallacy.

It is a fallacy for you to reject evidence merely because you don't believe it. For example, revisionist rejections of documents as supposedly forged or faked. That is done by revisionists without even seeing the original, or establishing its provenance.

Or because errors don't matter.

Again, you are showing your lack of understanding of evidencing. What matters is, are the errors explainable? For example, when people estimate the number of people who were packed inside a gas chambers. If they claim a number that is physically impossible, is that explainable? The answer is yes, as multiple studies of estimation of the size of crowds find that we are not very good at it and are prone to overestimate. Now we know why the witness made a mistake. You misinterpret the overestimation to mean the witness lied. I have proved that they made a mistake, and it is an easy mistake to make.

Or because you say we must defer to your supposed credentials (lol).

You don't defer to me, nor do I expect you to. What I would like you to do is read and learn from what I have shown you, so that you become less likely to rely on logical fallacies and gain better understanding of evidencing, so that your interpretation of the evidence improves.

All of that is an attempt to avoid having an actual debate.

What do you mean by an actual debate? Why is me pointing out the errors you make in the debate not acceptable?

You just assert that you are correct and repeat it over and over and demand that everyone agree with you. None of the other anti-revisionists do that.

They do, both Sanity Check and bombsaway regularly point out mistakes revisionist have made regarding the evidence and their interpretation of the evidence.

[Archie]

No, Nessie. What you do is different than the others. Most of the others at least try to debate the evidence whereas you simply roll excuses for why revisionists aren't allowed to challenge the evidence.

[Nessie]

No, Nessie. What you do is different than the others. Most of the others at least try to debate the evidence whereas you simply roll excuses for why revisionists aren't allowed to challenge the evidence.

I concentrate more on explaining why revisionist treatment of the evidence is wrong, than the others. You are allowed to challenge the evidence, you just need to ensure your challenge is reasonable. Most of the time it is not. The best example of that, is how witness evidence is challenged by revisionists. They fail to take into account any studies about witness behaviour, memory and recollection. With all due respect to historians Sanity Check and bombsaway, they have never interviewed a witness and most of my knowledge of witnesses came from my time in the police. I bring a different level of knowledge.

[curioussoul]

You don't defer to me, nor do I expect you to. What I would like you to do is read and learn from what I have shown you, so that you become less likely to rely on logical fallacies and gain better understanding of evidencing, so that your interpretation of the evidence improves.

There is no evidence of your supposed credentials. You would have to cite actual literature on the subjects of historiographic research and witness testimony in order to prove your point.