"Soviet reports are irrelevant" - only primary sources matter (Wrong)

[Archie]

In another thread, something came up that I think is a rather significant source of disagreement. The idea is that even though the Soviet investigations (and American and British and ...) were of very poor quality, this is "irrelevant" because all that matters are the underlying primary sources. I could really not disagree with this more strongly.

Concerning Soviet reports, I think one thing you're missing or not understanding is that reports are not the same as direct evidence. These are secondary sources basically, and historians treat them as such. If you're doing proper history, you go to the source. The Soviet reports are irrelevant except for if they imply that the primary source data has been tampered with, eg forging and suppressing documents or coercing witnesses. This is what I haven't seen evidence of.

Testimonies Do Not Exist in a Vacuum

The major flaw in bombsaway's reasoning is that when he says "just look at the primary sources" he is ignoring important context. These primary sources do not exist in a vacuum. It is important to ask WHO was collecting statements and WHY.

The WHO and WHY Matter

You will get very different results with an investigation headed by Goebbels vs by Ilya Ehrenburg. This is obvious. And, no, we are not required a prove a "conspiracy" in order to assume this. We can assume unless proven otherwise that government's slant things.

If you look at Russian vs Ukrainian sources on the war there, you're going to get very different stories. Same with Israel and Gaza. Yet we are supposed to suspend this common sense when it comes to the Nazis and their enemies.

A Dramatic Example: Dueling Katyn Investigations

The German and Soviet Katyn investigations demonstrate the point very forcefully. The Germans said that the Polish officers had been killed in the spring of 1940. The Soviets claimed it had happened much later, in the fall of 1941 after Barbarossa. The Soviet Katyn report (USSR-54) boasts of "over 100 witnesses." And guess what? All their witnesses supported their version. They found lots of witnesses who saw the Polish officers alive and well in mid 1941. Gee, how about that? In some cases they were literally the same people but they changed their stories depending on who was asking the questions!

The first witness was Parfen Kiselyoff, 73, who said he had signed a German document stating that the Russians had killed the Poles after he had been tortured. [...]

Matthew D. Zakharoff, 50, also had been whipped and tortured by the Germans until he signed a document asserting that the Poles had been shot by the Russians in 1940. (NYT, Jan 27, 1944)

No, It's Not Just Torture

I can already foresee that the response will be to say that torture is an exception. But the problem goes way beyond outright coercion of witnesses. There are lots of carrots and sticks that could influence witnesses. Even being subtly leading will skew the testimonies (e.g. "Tell me about the gas chamber" is leading because it presupposes that there was a gas chamber.) And even more fundamentally there is the issue of selection bias, of only presenting or publicizing the testimonies that are convenient. This is similar to the issue of publication bias but it can be even more egregious when their is an overt agenda.

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

The Investigators Absolutely Do Matter

In addition to the points already made, the Soviets were the only ones who had access to the physical sites and many of the documents. If the investigators of all of the key sites were deeply unreliable that is a huge concession. It casts doubt on the whole thing.

[bombsaway]

In another thread, something came up that I think is a rather significant source of disagreement. The idea is that even though the Soviet investigations (and American and British and ...) were of very poor quality, this is "irrelevant" because all that matters are the underlying primary sources. I could really not disagree with this more strongly.

You seem to have missed in my post where I said Soviet practices were in fact relevant if you could show a conection to Holocaust evidence being tampered with by them. But all you're doing is arguing for a possibility of something. You're not showing if A then B, you're showing if A then maybe B. It's quite obvious that the Soviets theoretically could have tampered with the primary evidence for the Holocaust like they did for with Katyn. But it's also obvious that the Soviets fabricating a Katyn narrative does not preclude the Nazis from killing millions of Jews.

I understand why you and other revisionists gravitate towards possibility. You are convinced the Holocaust simply could not have happened (for various reasons) therefore you see something like Soviet unscrupulousness and think AH, this is what they did. You are making a logical leap. You need to show direct evidence of a conspiracy, or positive evidence that contradicts the mass killing narrative*. You're focused on the conspiracy, but you need direct evidence to show that the direct evidence should be thrown out.

*Both evidence of a conspiracy and strong positive evidence exists to contradict the Soviet Katyn narrative. Soviet documents show they committed the massacre. On the witness side, one example would be the recantation of the only "perpetrator" they were able to get to testify https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... enced.html

Later, in a statement of November 29, 1954, Düre recanted his testimony about his participation in the burial of the Poles in Katyn, and declared that he had been forced to say so during the investigation.

Yep, of all the hundreds of confessed perpetrators that testified to being involved in Holocaust killing operations, not a single one stated they had been forced to lie, yet for Katyn the only perpetrator did.

Hopefully this illustrates for you why I and probably many others can't take your views seriously. There's really no comparison between the Holocaust and what the Soviets tried to pull off, even if you narrow your focus to relatively smaller killing operations of comparable size to Katyn like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaunas_ma ... r_29,_1941

[Archie]

"But it's also obvious that the Soviets fabricating a Katyn narrative does not preclude the Nazis from killing millions of Jews."

It means we can't take their word for it on Auschwitz.

You claim that several million Jews were executed at just a handful of sites. ALL of these sites were investigated exclusively by the Extraordinary State Commission and other Stalinist organs. That's a problem because you are relying heavily on entities with indisputably poor credibility. And to make it worse you side simultaneously claims to be inerrant.

The Katyn report is outright fraud. You admit this.

At Majdanek, I think fraud has been amply demonstrated. You still believe in it, so we have a disagreement there.

At Auschwitz, even by mainstream standards, the Soviet investigation with the 4,000,000 killed etc looks very questionable.

You are doing a bait-and-switch here where your side has claimed the Holocaust is 100% certain fact yet you don't want to defend it on that basis. You always shrink away from that and demand that revisionists produce absolute and highly specific proof of fraud to your arbitrary satisfaction.

[Nessie]

In another thread, something came up that I think is a rather significant source of disagreement. The idea is that even though the Soviet investigations (and American and British and ...) were of very poor quality, this is "irrelevant" because all that matters are the underlying primary sources. I could really not disagree with this more strongly.

For Soviet investigations to be relevant, you need to show that evidence the Soviets were responsible for gathering plays a large part in the history of what happened.

When you look at the source of much of the evidence used at the trials and by historians, you will see that it was gathered by the Poles, British, Americans and other western Allies. The earliest evidence gathering was by the Poles, with no Soviet influence. The majority of witness tracing and statement taking was by the Polish. They also conducted the primary camp site surveys and were responsible for their preservation.

It is significant that the Poles are usually sidelined by revisionists as a source of evidence. They do that because even they cannot bring themselves to believe that the Poles carried out a hoax to fool the world. Making out the Soviets could is far more credible.

As for the suggestion that the Poles were just an extension of the SU, that is not the case during the war and in 1945 and after 1989. Unlike say Ukraine, Poland retained its nation status after the war. They conducted the first camp trial in 1944 and conducted more Nazi prosecutions than any other nation. Polish witnesses, who themselves no longer lived in Poland, were subsequently used in trials in West Germany and Israel, over which the Soviets had no influence.

Testimonies Do Not Exist in a Vacuum

The major flaw in bombsaway's reasoning is that when he says "just look at the primary sources" he is ignoring important context. These primary sources do not exist in a vacuum. It is important to ask WHO was collecting statements and WHY.

The WHO and WHY Matter

Then why do revisionists always sideline the role of Poland?

You will get very different results with an investigation headed by Goebbels vs by Ilya Ehrenburg. This is obvious. And, no, we are not required a prove a "conspiracy" in order to assume this. We can assume unless proven otherwise that government's slant things.

If you look at Russian vs Ukrainian sources on the war there, you're going to get very different stories. Same with Israel and Gaza. Yet we are supposed to suspend this common sense when it comes to the Nazis and their enemies.

When eyewitnesses, the people who worked inside the AR camps, Chelmno and the A-B Kremas were interviewed, German (SS and civilian), Poles (civilian and Jewish prisoners), Ukrainians (SS) or Jews (from the Dutch to the Greeks), they all agree mass gassings took place. Their stories only vary in detail, which is to be expected.

For governments to "slant things" needs every national government in Europe since 1945, to be part of the hoax, no matter their political outlook and agendas. Since every occupied country cooperated to one extent or another in the killing of their Jewish population, from the highly efficient Dutch police and civil service identifying and rounding up Jews, to Lithuanians who took part in mass shootings, it would be in their interest to expose a hoax.

A Dramatic Example: Dueling Katyn Investigations

The German and Soviet Katyn investigations demonstrate the point very forcefully. The Germans said that the Polish officers had been killed in the spring of 1940. The Soviets claimed it had happened much later, in the fall of 1941 after Barbarossa. The Soviet Katyn report (USSR-54) boasts of "over 100 witnesses." And guess what? All their witnesses supported their version. They found lots of witnesses who saw the Polish officers alive and well in mid 1941. Gee, how about that? In some cases they were literally the same people but they changed their stories depending on who was asking the questions!

The first witness was Parfen Kiselyoff, 73, who said he had signed a German document stating that the Russians had killed the Poles after he had been tortured. [...]

Matthew D. Zakharoff, 50, also had been whipped and tortured by the Germans until he signed a document asserting that the Poles had been shot by the Russians in 1940. (NYT, Jan 27, 1944)

That one massacre could not survive being exposed as a hoax, means the significantly larger Holocaust could not survive, especially as a Soviet driven hoax.

No, It's Not Just Torture

I can already foresee that the response will be to say that torture is an exception. But the problem goes way beyond outright coercion of witnesses. There are lots of carrots and sticks that could influence witnesses. Even being subtly leading will skew the testimonies (e.g. "Tell me about the gas chamber" is leading because it presupposes that there was a gas chamber.) And even more fundamentally there is the issue of selection bias, of only presenting or publicizing the testimonies that are convenient. This is similar to the issue of publication bias but it can be even more egregious when their is an overt agenda.

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

Prosecutors asked the German witnesses to tell them about the gas chambers, because they had already admitted to their existence! The majority of prosecutors of the Nazis who worked at the AR camps and Chelmno were Germans, at trials in West and then a unified Germany. East Germany played a far small role in prosecuting their fellow countrymen, when you would expect the Soviets to have influenced them to play their role in the hoax and prosecute as many as possible.

Then revisionists dodge that the main trials of the Nazis responsible for killing Soviet citizens, the Einsatzgruppen, were run by the Americans. Many of the trials run by the Soviets were of Ukrainians who worked for the SS, as the Soviet leadership sought to suppress Ukraine and ensure it remained within the SU.

You suggest there is inconvenient testimony, but fail to produce a single witness who speaks to seeing inside an AR camp or Krema and that it was never used for gassings. When Germans were being tried in West Germany in the 1960s at the height of the Cold War, it would have been very much in their interest to expose a Soviet hoax.

The Investigators Absolutely Do Matter

In addition to the points already made, the Soviets were the only ones who had access to the physical sites and many of the documents. If the investigators of all of the key sites were deeply unreliable that is a huge concession. It casts doubt on the whole thing.

Why do you miss out the significant role of Poles, especially during the war to 1945, and after 1989? How are they unreliable? Their investigations have been repeatedly checked and verified by academics from all over the world and not been found wanting.

[bombsaway]

"But it's also obvious that the Soviets fabricating a Katyn narrative does not preclude the Nazis from killing millions of Jews."

It means we can't take their word for it on Auschwitz.

Historians don't take their word for it, they look at the primary source evidence. You are saying that evidence is fabricated because they did so w katyn (the only example you have of evidence fabrication, majdanek isn't) but this is the leap you're making.

It seems like you're not getting my point so here's a basic question for you to start, and then we can go from there. Are Soviet katyn fabrication and Nazi Holocaust mutually exclusive, or does one preclude the other?

[Archie]

"But it's also obvious that the Soviets fabricating a Katyn narrative does not preclude the Nazis from killing millions of Jews."

It means we can't take their word for it on Auschwitz.

Historians don't take their word for it, they look at the primary source evidence. You are saying that evidence is fabricated because they did so w katyn (the only example you have of evidence fabrication, majdanek isn't) but this is the leap you're making.

It seems like you're not getting my point so here's a basic question for you to start, and then we can go from there. Are Soviet katyn fabrication and Nazi Holocaust mutually exclusive, or does one preclude the other?

They are not mutually exclusive. However it does completely demolish Soviet credibility which you then rely on for other key sites.

What was your response on selection bias? Or do you deny that this would be an issue?

Are you seriously suggesting that the Soviets had NO influence on the testimonies whatsoever, except at Katyn? Really???

Here is part of Prufer's statement for example, taken in Soviet custody. Why is Prufer talking about "the Germans" like they are foreign enemies? My explanation is that this is written from a Russian perspective. What is your explanation?

I plead comprehensively guilty to having worked as a chief engineer of the Crematorium Construction Department of the Topf Company in Erfurt. I personally designed cremation furnaces, of which 150 were made during the entire activity in this field. During the war which Germany waged against the countries of Europe, up to 20 of the mentioned number of cremation furnaces were ordered by the SS leadership for the concentration camps of Buchenwald, Auschwitz, Dachau, Mauthausen and Gross-Rosen. They were built under my direct participation. In them, the bodies of totally innocent people of various nationalities were burned who had been tortured to death by the Germans in said concentration camps. I dealt with the design and construction of cremation furnaces and their installation in the concentration camps, and for this purpose I traveled to the concentration camps. With my participation as well as the involvement of engineer Schultze, who designed and installed the ventilation equipment and forced-draft blowers for the cremation furnaces, the corpses of utterly innocent people of different ages and nationalities, tortured by the Germans, were incinerated, when we were in the Auschwitz Concentration Camp in the spring of 1943, where we checked the cremation furnaces and the function of the ventilation equipment.

[Nessie]

.....

Here is part of Prufer's statement for example, taken in Soviet custody. Why is Prufer talking about "the Germans" like they are foreign enemies? My explanation is that this is written from a Russian perspective. What is your explanation?

....

It is explained by "mirroring", whereby a person adopts the language and mannerisms of another. In an interview, the interviewee is at a weaker position than the interviewer and so they will seek ways to reduce the stress and to make the interviewer more relaxed.

https://www.preemploymentassessments.co ... b-success/

"Mirroring is an interesting psychological phenomenon that occurs all the time in human interactions...Mirroring means to change your behavior to match that of a person of interest"

It happened a lot during police interviews, where the person being interviewed would adopt terminology used by the police. We were warned to look out for it in interview training, as it could create the impression undue influence had been applied to the interviewee. Prufer, who is in a stressful situation, being interviewed by the Soviets over his role in a mass murder, is subconsciously adopting the language and terminology used by the Soviet interviewer, or whoever is doing the translating. That person refers to the Germans and Prufer mirrors him.

In a way the interview is written in a Soviet perspective as they determine the questions, what they want to learn and how the interview is conducted. It would be in Prufer's perspective if it was his memoir, where he could put his spin on events and use his preferred terms and descriptions. In an interview that is not possible, as he does not control the narrative, the interviewer does. Prufer will want to distance himself as much as possible from Nazi actions, such as torture, that he had nothing to do with, so he refers to the Germans as a third party.

[bombsaway]

They are not mutually exclusive. However it does completely demolish Soviet credibility which you then rely on for other key sites.

Well to be clear historians use documents gathered and identified by the Soviets and witnesses who gave testimony in their domain. We know the Soviets have questionable practices w regard to history, but if we follow your logic here the Germans could have committed any number of crimes, which they should have escaped accountability for because of the aforementioned questionable practices.

It's also true that even in the immediate post-war period (not to speak of the later West German trials) witnesses in the west also affirmed the Holocaust story. Nick can speak to this in more detail if he wants, but this makes your claim of "reliance" doubly misleading. Your conspiracy, which has no basis in direct evidence, must extend to the west as well.

Re selection bias and judicial influence, on some level these things exist in any legal system, hence Cockerill's focus on "non-coerced" testimonies. You are asserting something far beyond this happened, ie witnesses being instructed to lie under extra judicial threats, a vast campaign of document destruction or suppression. The case of Katyn is illustrative here, because the Soviets couldn't get their only German witness to keep quiet about being forced to lie, and they weren't able to suppress the documentary evidence of their responsibility in the crime. I don't know how revisionists grapple with the Soviets total failure here to disguise their conspiracy, as compared to their apparent total success with the Holocaust hoax (no Holocaust recantations, no documents contradicting Holocaust or showing evidence of German or Soviet resettlement of Jews) , which would have been a larger conspiracy by a few orders of magnitude.

[Archie]

They are not mutually exclusive. However it does completely demolish Soviet credibility which you then rely on for other key sites.

Well to be clear historians use documents gathered and identified by the Soviets and witnesses who gave testimony in their domain. We know the Soviets have questionable practices w regard to history, but if we follow your logic here the Germans could have committed any number of crimes, which they should have escaped accountability for because of the aforementioned questionable practices.

It's also true that even in the immediate post-war period (not to speak of the later West German trials) witnesses in the west also affirmed the Holocaust story. Nick can speak to this in more detail if he wants, but this makes your claim of "reliance" doubly misleading. Your conspiracy, which has no basis in direct evidence, must extend to the west as well.

Re selection bias and judicial influence, on some level these things exist in any legal system, hence Cockerill's focus on "non-coerced" testimonies. You are asserting something far beyond this happened, ie witnesses being instructed to lie under extra judicial threats, a vast campaign of document destruction or suppression. The case of Katyn is illustrative here, because the Soviets couldn't get their only German witness to keep quiet about being forced to lie, and they weren't able to suppress the documentary evidence of their responsibility in the crime. I don't know how revisionists grapple with the Soviets total failure here to disguise their conspiracy, as compared to their apparent total success with the Holocaust hoax (no Holocaust recantations, no documents contradicting Holocaust or showing evidence of German or Soviet resettlement of Jews) , which would have been a larger conspiracy by a few orders of magnitude.

The Majdanek report was from August 1944. It claimed Zyklon gassings and huge numbers killed. In Jan 1945 when Auschwitz was overtaken, the Soviets ran a report in Pravda (a few days after the liberation) claiming gas chambers (and conveyor belts and other nonsense). Based on that, I think we are safe in assuming that by mid-1945, the Soviets were already pretty committed on the gas chambers etc. I see to think I'm way out on a limb with that assumption, but I just don't see it given that they had already been publicly claiming this for about a year. Your assumption, that this wouldn't have influenced the testimonies, is I think incredibly naive.

[bombsaway]

They are not mutually exclusive. However it does completely demolish Soviet credibility which you then rely on for other key sites.

Well to be clear historians use documents gathered and identified by the Soviets and witnesses who gave testimony in their domain. We know the Soviets have questionable practices w regard to history, but if we follow your logic here the Germans could have committed any number of crimes, which they should have escaped accountability for because of the aforementioned questionable practices.

It's also true that even in the immediate post-war period (not to speak of the later West German trials) witnesses in the west also affirmed the Holocaust story. Nick can speak to this in more detail if he wants, but this makes your claim of "reliance" doubly misleading. Your conspiracy, which has no basis in direct evidence, must extend to the west as well.

Re selection bias and judicial influence, on some level these things exist in any legal system, hence Cockerill's focus on "non-coerced" testimonies. You are asserting something far beyond this happened, ie witnesses being instructed to lie under extra judicial threats, a vast campaign of document destruction or suppression. The case of Katyn is illustrative here, because the Soviets couldn't get their only German witness to keep quiet about being forced to lie, and they weren't able to suppress the documentary evidence of their responsibility in the crime. I don't know how revisionists grapple with the Soviets total failure here to disguise their conspiracy, as compared to their apparent total success with the Holocaust hoax (no Holocaust recantations, no documents contradicting Holocaust or showing evidence of German or Soviet resettlement of Jews) , which would have been a larger conspiracy by a few orders of magnitude.

The Majdanek report was from August 1944. It claimed Zyklon gassings and huge numbers killed. In Jan 1945 when Auschwitz was overtaken, the Soviets ran a report in Pravda (a few days after the liberation) claiming gas chambers (and conveyor belts and other nonsense). Based on that, I think we are safe in assuming that by mid-1945, the Soviets were already pretty committed on the gas chambers etc. I see to think I'm way out on a limb with that assumption, but I just don't see it given that they had already been publicly claiming this for about a year. Your assumption, that this wouldn't have influenced the testimonies, is I think incredibly naive.

The widespread stories of gassings (also at Reinhard camps, Chelmno) had some influence, in so far as witnesses may have heard about them. But are you claiming they just heard the stories and fabricated testimonies to match, often implicating themselves and their countrymen in the process? Or does this indicate to you that the Soviets forced them to lie, as they did with Dure?

Beyond the speculative nature of both these claims, which invalidates them as far as serious history goes, the first possibility I don't think has any precedent in history, the second possibility (a Soviet conspiracy to fabricate Holocaust evidence) should be measured against the aforementioned Soviet record of not being able to cover their tracks on conspiracies 100x smaller (Nazis did Katyn). Both possibilities are dubious for these and many other reasons I could get into, that's probably a separate thread though.

[bombsaway]

BTW when I say speculative I don't mean that as a pejorative but simply (focusing on the witnesses) there is no direct evidence of the Soviets pressuring or outright coercing witnesses into fabricating Holocaust stories. To say no direct evidence invalidates a theory is probably too strong, it is more fair to say mass events without it haven't been accepted by mainstream history, even conspiracies. If you have an issue with this, it's not just an anti revisionist thing , it's the historical establishment.

I asked GPT o1 - preview a fair question and follow up I believe

in recent history (last 200 years), have historians asserted conspiracies that are not directly evidenced, but rather based on speculative grounds?
ChatGPT

Thought for 12 seconds

Yes, over the past 200 years, there have been instances where historians or scholars have proposed conspiracies based on speculative grounds rather than solid evidence. While reputable historians strive for evidence-based conclusions, the complex nature of historical events sometimes leads to speculative interpretations. Here are a few examples:

Jesuit and Catholic Conspiracy Theories: In the 19th century, some Protestant historians and writers speculated that the Jesuits or the Catholic Church were orchestrating global events to extend their influence. These theories were often rooted in religious tensions and lacked concrete evidence.

Freemasons and Illuminati Influence: After the French Revolution, figures like Augustin Barruel suggested that secret societies such as the Freemasons or the Illuminati were behind major political upheavals. These claims were largely speculative and not supported by definitive proof.

Protocols of the Elders of Zion: Although not authored by a historian, this fabricated document emerged in the early 20th century, alleging a Jewish plan for global domination. Some writers and pseudo-historians promoted it as authentic, despite it being a proven forgery.

Alternative Theories on Assassinations: The deaths of figures like President Abraham Lincoln and President John F. Kennedy have inspired numerous conspiracy theories. While mainstream historians rely on documented evidence, some have speculated about wider plots without substantial proof.

World War I Origins: Some historians have speculated that secret agreements and hidden agendas led to the outbreak of World War I. The "Merchants of Death" theory, for example, suggests that arms manufacturers conspired to instigate the war for profit, a claim that lacks strong evidence.

Soviet Espionage and McCarthyism: During the Cold War, Senator Joseph McCarthy and some historians alleged widespread communist infiltration in the U.S. government. While espionage did occur, many of the specific claims were unsubstantiated and driven by fear rather than hard evidence.

It's important to approach such speculative theories with caution. The academic community generally requires rigorous evidence before accepting claims about historical events. While speculation can open new avenues of inquiry, without substantial proof, these theories remain on the fringes of historical scholarship.






You said:
In terms of "reputable history", I guess you are saying such conspiracies have not been asserted. Why?
ChatGPT

Thought for a second

You're correct in understanding that reputable historians typically do not assert conspiracy theories based solely on speculative grounds. This adherence stems from several key principles and practices that underpin the field of historical scholarship. Here's an in-depth look at why reputable history generally avoids speculative conspiracies:

1. Evidence-Based Methodology
Primary Sources: Reputable historians prioritize primary sources—original documents, eyewitness accounts, official records, and artifacts—from the period being studied. These sources provide direct evidence about historical events.

Secondary Sources: They also critically evaluate secondary sources, which interpret and analyze primary data. The reliability of these sources is assessed based on the author's credibility, methodology, and adherence to factual accuracy.

Corroboration: Historians seek to corroborate information across multiple independent sources to ensure its validity. Speculative conspiracies often lack this multi-source support.

2. Rigorous Peer Review
Academic Scrutiny: Historical research undergoes peer review, where other experts in the field evaluate the work for accuracy, methodology, and contribution to existing knowledge.

Quality Control: This process helps filter out unfounded or speculative claims, ensuring that only well-supported theories gain acceptance within the scholarly community.

3. Commitment to Objectivity
Minimizing Bias: Historians strive to approach their subjects objectively, minimizing personal biases or preconceived notions that could skew interpretations.

Balanced Analysis: They consider multiple perspectives and interpretations, weighing evidence impartially to arrive at conclusions that best fit the available data.

4. Complexity of Historical Events
Nuanced Understanding: Reputable history recognizes the multifaceted nature of events, acknowledging that outcomes are often the result of a combination of factors rather than the machinations of a single group or hidden agenda.

Avoiding Oversimplification: Conspiracy theories tend to oversimplify complex situations, attributing causation to covert plots without accounting for broader social, economic, political, and cultural influences.

5. Ethical Standards
Integrity in Research: Historians adhere to ethical standards that prioritize truth and accuracy over sensationalism or personal beliefs.

Responsibility to Society: There is an ethical obligation to present history that is truthful and respectful to those who lived it, avoiding the spread of unfounded or harmful narratives.

6. Rejection of Speculative Narratives
Lack of Substantial Evidence: Conspiracy theories often rely on circumstantial evidence, coincidences, or misinterpretations rather than concrete proof.

Vulnerability to Debunking: Without solid evidence, such theories are easily debunked upon closer scholarly examination, reducing their credibility in reputable historical discourse.

7. Educational and Institutional Frameworks
Curriculum Standards: Educational institutions emphasize critical thinking and evidence-based analysis, discouraging the acceptance of speculative theories without proper substantiation.

Research Funding and Support: Funding bodies and academic institutions prioritize projects that demonstrate methodological rigor and evidence-based approaches, further discouraging speculative conspiracies.

8. Historical Precedents and Lessons
Past Misuse: History has examples where conspiracy theories have led to misinformation, persecution, and societal harm (e.g., the Protocols of the Elders of Zion). These precedents underscore the importance of cautious and evidence-based historical analysis.

Continuous Reassessment: Reputable history remains open to new evidence and interpretations. However, any shift towards accepting conspiracy theories requires substantial, credible evidence that can withstand scholarly scrutiny.

Conclusion
While speculative theories and alternative interpretations can sometimes inspire further research and discussion, they remain on the fringes of reputable historical scholarship unless they are supported by robust evidence. The commitment to methodological rigor, evidence-based conclusions, and ethical standards ensures that history as an academic discipline maintains its integrity and reliability. This cautious approach helps prevent the propagation of unfounded conspiracies and preserves the credibility of historical inquiry.

The issue as I see it, and maybe you haven't been explicit about this, is an assumption of conspiracy on the part of the Soviets to fake gas chambers (if the gas chambers were real they wouldn't have had to fake them)

This comes close:
" Based on that, I think we are safe in assuming that by mid-1945, the Soviets were already pretty committed on the gas chambers etc."

If you're saying I have a theory that the Soviets might have been faking gas chambers based on their unscrupulous methods as per Katyn, this might be somewhat conventional in the field but you're making a much stronger assertion of fact, no?

[Archie]

BTW when I say speculative I don't mean that as a pejorative but simply (focusing on the witnesses) there is no direct evidence of the Soviets pressuring or outright coercing witnesses into fabricating Holocaust stories. To say no direct evidence invalidates a theory is probably too strong, it is more fair to say mass events without it haven't been accepted by mainstream history, even conspiracies. If you have an issue with this, it's not just an anti revisionist thing , it's the historical establishment.

I asked GPT o1 - preview a fair question and follow up I believe

[...]

The issue as I see it, and maybe you haven't been explicit about this, is an assumption of conspiracy on the part of the Soviets to fake gas chambers (if the gas chambers were real they wouldn't have had to fake them)

This comes close:
" Based on that, I think we are safe in assuming that by mid-1945, the Soviets were already pretty committed on the gas chambers etc."

If you're saying I have a theory that the Soviets might have been faking gas chambers based on their unscrupulous methods as per Katyn, this might be somewhat conventional in the field but you're making a much stronger assertion of fact, no?

In US courts, there is a presumption that a witness is trustworthy until otherwise demonstrated. Witnesses can however be impeached if their statements are shown to be inaccurate, inconsistent, biased, etc. It is not necessary to prove EVERYTHING the person says is not true. One major thing might be enough to destroy the witness's credibility. We can apply this concept of credibility to institutional players like the Extraordinary State Commission as well. For example, if an organization is known to torture people and forge documents, then it would be foolish to assume that the instances where they have been caught doing it are the only times they have done it. If somebody has told me 50 confirmed falsehoods, I'm not going to assume that the other 50 things they told me are true just because the info needed to prove they are lying about the other things has never been released and I don't want to "speculate." That's not how it works. As a rule, governments don't tend to release stuff that directly refutes their own propaganda.

You said that who collects the testimonies and interviews the witnesses is generally unimportant. Unless we have video of the witnesses being tortured or something. That is obviously wrong. Even the most objective, conscientious, well-trained interviewers can unintentionally slant testimonies in subtle ways. The Soviet slant is anything but subtle.

I also don't agree that it's purely speculative/conspiracy theory to say the investigators influenced or selectively compiled the testimonies. We already know that happened. The classic example would be the cremation capacities/4 million death toll. The featured witnesses generally "confirmed" this sort of scale of killing.

https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/histo ... n-jan/826/

I already gave the example of the language in Prufer's statement. That's obvious contamination and strongly suggestive of coercion. I've seen other German confessions with Soviet terms like "Hitlerite."

For the Moscow trials in the 1930s, as far as I know, we don't know the specifics of how they extracted the confessions in individual instances. But once we are convinced that a confession is false, we can assume something was done (not necessarily physical torture) and there is some information about the sorts of general techniques they would use to secure confessions.

For Jewish Sonderkommandos, I don't think any coercion would be needed to get them to tell you gas chamber stories.

If there were witnesses who were saying something inconvenient, you could either nudge them toward the "correct" story or just not use their statements.

[bombsaway]

I also don't agree that it's purely speculative/conspiracy theory to say the investigators influenced or selectively compiled the testimonies.

Is your claim that investigators influenced testimony just by saying things happened? Because I agree with that. But I think your claim is much greater than this. In terms of selectively compiling testimonies, this is unknown if you're starting from a neutral, objective position about the debate. One enormous mistake you're making is assuming the Holocaust didn't happen--you're begging the question, working your way backwards from a given conclusion. If the Holocaust happened, there would be no need to selectively compile and preserve testimonies, right?

Your claims are speculative because of the lack of direct evidence. Maybe you want to redefine what speculative means, but I'm going by the textbook definition. Your approach is not one taken by historians doing rigorous history. Maybe you have some critiques of the entire field, but this is how things work. It's not my opinion.

Here's chatgpt o1-mini. Anyone can ask this question, and it will spit out a similar answer

What does it mean to say one is doing history in a speculative manner?
ChatGPT

Thought for a couple of seconds

Doing history in a speculative manner refers to the practice of interpreting, analyzing, or reconstructing historical events, figures, or trends based on conjecture, assumptions, or incomplete evidence rather than on solid, verifiable data. This approach often involves hypothesizing about motives, causes, or outcomes where definitive evidence may be lacking or ambiguous. Here's a more detailed breakdown:

Key Aspects of Speculative History
Hypothesis-Based Interpretation:

Assumptions: Speculative history often starts with assumptions about the intentions, feelings, or motivations of historical figures or groups.
Theoretical Frameworks: It may utilize theoretical models or frameworks that extend beyond the available evidence to explain historical phenomena.
Handling Incomplete Evidence:

Gaps in Records: When historical records are incomplete, speculative historians might fill in gaps using logical extensions of existing data or comparable situations.
Alternative Scenarios: They may propose "what if" scenarios to explore how different decisions or events could have altered historical outcomes.
Creative Reconstruction:

Narrative Construction: Crafting detailed narratives that may go beyond what can be strictly supported by evidence, aiming to provide a more comprehensive or engaging story.
Interdisciplinary Approaches: Incorporating insights from other disciplines (e.g., psychology, sociology) to enrich the historical interpretation.
Implications of Speculative History
Advantages:

Innovative Insights: Can offer fresh perspectives and provoke new lines of inquiry about historical events.
Engagement: Makes history more accessible and interesting to a broader audience by exploring intriguing possibilities.
Challenges:

Accuracy Risks: Greater reliance on conjecture can lead to interpretations that are less grounded in evidence, potentially distorting historical understanding.
Scholarly Debate: Speculative interpretations may be contested within academic circles, especially if they challenge established viewpoints without sufficient evidence.
Examples
Alternate Histories:

Exploring how history might have unfolded differently if key events had changed, such as "What if the Library of Alexandria had never been destroyed?"
Psychological Profiles:

Attempting to understand the psychological motivations of historical figures when direct evidence (like personal writings) is scarce.
Cultural Influences:

Speculating on how cultural, social, or economic factors influenced specific events or decisions in history beyond what contemporary sources explicitly state.
Distinguishing from Rigorously Evidence-Based History
While speculative history can provide valuable insights and stimulate discussion, it's important to distinguish it from more traditional, evidence-based historical scholarship. Rigorous history relies on primary sources, empirical evidence, and peer-reviewed methodologies to construct narratives and analyses. Speculative approaches, while sometimes useful, should be clearly identified as such to maintain transparency about the level of certainty and the basis for interpretations.

Conclusion
Engaging in history in a speculative manner involves a blend of informed conjecture and creative interpretation to explore historical events and figures beyond the available evidence. While it can enrich our understanding and provoke thoughtful discussion, it must be approached carefully to avoid overstepping the bounds of what the evidence can support.

We can talk about Jewish witnesses, but I think the German ones are more interesting, plus they should be able to provide more accurate information since they were in a position of authority. You make a few arguments here, but I think a basic problem is there are other explanations for what they said other than Soviet coercion. You might be able to prove a conspiracy if there's no other plausible explanation for a witness saying something. But in the cases you bring up, I think there is, and in some cases, the witnesses contradict the claim of conspiracy. Using a 24 hour kill rate capacity means diddley unless the claim is this was an average, rather than a peak. Do witnesses claim that 5,000 people were being killed every day for 3 years straight or whatever? Majdanek is an interesting case. Soviets claimed 2 million dead there? Are there any German witnesses that affirm this scale of killing? I don't think so, not even close. Here it's pretty easy for me to poke holes in your arguments because of their speculative nature.

[Nessie]

I also don't agree that it's purely speculative/conspiracy theory to say the investigators influenced or selectively compiled the testimonies.

Is your claim that investigators influenced testimony just by saying things happened? Because I agree with that...

I also agree with that. It happens with most if not all investigations to one extent or another. Interviewers do influence the answers they get from interviewees. Investigators do selectively compile testimonies.

Regarding interviewer influence, that can come in many forms, from the interviewee is tortured to sign a confession they did not even write, to what questions they are asked and how those questions are phrased. Interviewees will mirror interviewer terminology, and may feel under pressure, so they will answer in a way they think will please the interviewer.

Regarding the selective compilation of testimony, that can mean the deliberate suppression of exculpatory testimony, or just removing what is irrelevant, or hearsay. All major enquiries, that involve multiple witnesses, will involve the selection of the most relevant testimony.

Revisionists, with their total lack of any relevant experience or training, have realised that interviewers influence testimony and investigators are selective as to what testimony they rely on and think they have stumbled on something hot, damaging, controversial and significant. In fact, they have just begun to find out how investigations work. Take three witnesses from A-B.

Rudolph Hoess, commander of Auschwitz. Clearly, his testimony is going to be selected, as he will have important information about the camp operation. There is evidence that his evidence was heavily influenced by those who interviewed him, as he complained about his treatment and he gave what we now know to be greatly exaggerated death toll figures for the camp. In terms of credibility and usability, Hoess testimony has been rendered weak by the investigators, who frankly took an important witness and ruined the opportunity to get accurate, reliable witness evidence. That happens, there are investigators who themselves should be facing criminal charges for their conduct.

Rudolph Vrba, escaped prisoner. His testimony is going to be selected, as it was one of the earliest reports of camp operations at Auschwitz. There is no evidence of interviewer influence, or pressure to influence the report that carries his name and his claims have been tested under cross-examination in court. The main issue that found, was how much Vrba mixed hearsay with what he saw and that he was a storyteller, rather than trained observer gathering intelligence. He provides a lot of detail about the processes inside the Kremas, but he was never inside the buildings to see for himself what was taking place. His evidence is important, but because so much is hearsay, weak.

Henryk Tauber, prisoner, worked at the Kremas. His testimony is selected, because he is an eyewitness to operations inside the Kremas. His evidence is first hand and detailed. He is quite matter of fact about what he saw, more so than most Jewish witnesses. He was interviewed in 1945, so a year or so after the events he is describing. There is no evidence of any pressure and when giving his description of events, he was just left to relate what he saw, without being asked repeated questions. That reduces interviewer influence, so Tauber's testimony is far more credible and useful than either Vrba or Hoess.

A German Nazi camp commander, a Slovakian Jewish prisoner and a Polish Jewish prisoner. They never met, they speak different languages, and their experiences at the camp were very different. Theirs is amongst the earliest of the witness evidence, so less affected by any contamination due to hearing from others about their experiences. The circumstances under which they gave their testimony is also completely different, being variously interviewed by Slovakian, British and Polish authorities. Indeed, it is hard to find any common ground between them and, crucially, there is absolutely no evidence they colluded.

But, they corroborate each other. Details vary, often significantly, but they all state that mass gassings took place inside the Kremas and that many were killed. That Hoess and Vrba provide weak evidence, is countered by Tauber's strong evidence. A court should discount Hoess and Vrba as witnesses in a trial context, because of the undue pressure and hearsay, but for historians investigating what took place, their evidence, despite its flaws, stands as corroborated.

When other witnesses are added, then the case for gassings gets stronger. Kurt Pruefer, German civilian engineer also agrees that gassings took place. He was interviewed by the Americans and then the Soviets, for which there is evidence he was influenced by his interviewers, but no more so than in many question and answer interview, with predetermined questions. The list goes on to run to 34 Nazis, 26 Jewish prisoners, 47 other camp inmates, 3 doctors and 4 engineers;

https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=32920

For such a disparate group of people to all agree that the Kremas were used for gassings, is strong corroborative evidence. None of them ever broke ranks or made a mistake and blew a hoax. No witness has ever been traced, who had direct knowledge of Krema operations and who speaks to their use for another function and that no gassings took place. Since there is evidence hundreds of thousands of people saw the inside of the buildings, to not find anyone who has an alternative narrative, is significant circumstantial evidence that there is no alternative narrative.

Revisionists can inexpertly nitpick over the witness testimony, sometimes finding legitimate faults and sometimes finding fault where there is none, but they cannot counter the level of corroboration and the lack of alternative testimony.

[Nazgul]

Revisionists can inexpertly nitpick over the witness testimony, sometimes finding legitimate faults and sometimes finding fault where there is none, but they cannot counter the level of corroboration and the lack of alternative testimony.

Instead of just discussing evidence as a forum member, you constantly place yourself as an opponent. You have created a fasle dichotomy trying to claim a non existent moral highground between yourself and "revisonists".

There is alternative testimony from people such as Pierre Berg a camp Kapo at the selection ramps who saw nothing on any of his shifts that remotely fits into the narrative people like yourself try and promulgate. You then say he was not in the Kremas. Why should he be, when the people he processed went, like he did to their own administration protocols and barracks.