Evidence and Implementation

[Archie]

So-called revisionism would not work, if the witnesses were honestly assessed. They need 100% of the eyewitnesses to be lying.

I'm being intellectually honest here, but I am personally not sure how you can explain away the testimony of all of the perpetrators. I can't imagine why the Nazis would testify against themselves while on trial. I find the counter arguments on this forum to be very interesting and thought provoking, but not compelling. But I'm here engaging in good faith so I'm curious where this will take us.

The perpetrator testimonies become less persuasive once you realize,

1) They are not independent. Almost all of them were collected at war crimes trials. And at the same time there were strong disincentives to offer contrary narratives or to draw attention to yourself.

2) I suspect you are not consistent with your stated principles here. For instance, many Jews confessed to ritual murder (the so-called "blood libel"). But Jewish historians have no problem dismissing 100% of these confessions as fraudulent. Likewise with the witch trials, nobody has any trouble rejecting the confessions.

3) (Most Important) If a witness says something that is confirmed to be false, then it is false. it does not matter if you can't fathom how such false statements could be possible. Some falsehoods are perhaps forgivable, but there is a breaking point where it becomes too egregious to overlook.

The Hoess statements for example tell a story that is simply false. Go read his statements and try to come up with a possible timeline for the events he describes. In particular, try to figure out when he went to Treblinka and how he was able to improve upon the gas chamber design at Treblinka.

Pick a few of these statements, and read the original texts carefully. Don't just look at AI summaries. You will begin to see just how desperate your "minor inconsistencies" cope really is. More than likely you will nonetheless double down on your faith, but I would like to see you at least go far enough to appreciate the problems we discuss here.

[Archie]

I'm seeing two big issues come up that hopefully you guys can help me understand better.

1. There is a ton of different pieces of evidence, in my opinion, all pointing to the same narrative. What I see happening here is that people cherry pick issues with individual pieces of evidence that don't fully invalidate those individual artifacts or testimonies, let alone the entire body of evidence.

In general, how do you guys think about inconsistencies in evidence and how to interpret that? I just think these issues are blown out of proportion again and again so I'm looking for some kind of meta heuristic to be more objective about these things and reduce the bias in discussions, which we all have to some extent.

2. If this is just a hoax or postwar narrative, how is it possible for all these different fake sources to have come up with different people that were mostly disconnected during and after the war? I don't see how it's physically possible for so many different people to fabricate so much evidence and testimonies without coordinating. Can you explain that to me? I don't think anything like that has ever happened before in the history of the world.

You now have nearly 300 posts. You've started six threads. And you have said basically nothing.

[ConfusedJew]

So-called revisionism would not work, if the witnesses were honestly assessed. They need 100% of the eyewitnesses to be lying.

I'm being intellectually honest here, but I am personally not sure how you can explain away the testimony of all of the perpetrators. I can't imagine why the Nazis would testify against themselves while on trial. I find the counter arguments on this forum to be very interesting and thought provoking, but not compelling. But I'm here engaging in good faith so I'm curious where this will take us.

You're not being intellectually honest at all. Despite being corrected on multiple occasions, you've repeated the lie that there are "hundreds of thousands of witnesses" to the Holocaust, despite the actual number of eye-witnesses numbering barely 20 people. As for perpetrator confessions, I challenge you to name a perpetrator you find most convincing and then explain why that particular testimony is important.

This is factually wrong and I don't want to debate basic facts. There were 200 to 300,000 Jewish survivors of the camps. Many non Jewish prisoners like gay people, Roma, Jehovah's Witnesses who survived. There were thousands of Nazi survivors and tens of thousands of people who left testimony.

If you deny basic facts, there's really no point in having a discussion. I have no clue why you think there were barely 20 eye-witnesses but it's not even close to the truth.

https://apnews.com/article/holocaust-su ... e40e61c013

[ConfusedJew]

You now have nearly 300 posts. You've started six threads. And you have said basically nothing.

I've brought up a lot of new arguments and evidence and questions that we're working through on this board.

Will you please answer the questions so that we can have a shared standard of evidence to apply to disagreements on evidence in this forum?

1. If a piece of evidence is unclear about something or imperfect in some way, do you want to throw out the entire piece of evidence?

2. If you have a large body of evidence that suggests one explanation but a couple pieces suggest a different explanation, how do you resolve that contradiction? Do you go with the explanation that has more evidence or the one with less contradictory evidence? Or something else?

[Stubble]

New? No, nothing you have said is new. It is spoonfed to you from ai and then you regurgitate it.

At least have the courtesy to ruminate it a bit and let it pass before you simply vomit it out.

Think, a little, before you grab standard tripe and just spit it out.

It seems like just yesterday you were saying the wannsee minutes explicitly outlined 'the plan for the holocaust'.

Oh, wait, that was yesterday...

Have you bothered to read, anything?

Did you read debating the holocaust?

I don't mean, did you take your brain out of your skull, set it on the shelf, and ask ai to read it, I'm asking, if you, actually read it, with your own eyes.

[Archie]

You now have nearly 300 posts. You've started six threads. And you have said basically nothing.

I've brought up a lot of new arguments and evidence and questions that we're working through on this board.

New?

Now, let's take a look at your vague questions.

1. If a piece of evidence is unclear about something or imperfect in some way, do you want to throw out the entire piece of evidence?

I don't do this.

2. If you have a large body of evidence that suggests one explanation but a couple pieces suggest a different explanation, how do you resolve that contradiction? Do you go with the explanation that has more evidence or the one with less contradictory evidence? Or something else?

In general, I would look at all the relevant and available evidence and draw a conclusion. That conclusion would depend on the nature and quality of the evidence in question.

As far as your implicit argument here with respect to the Holocaust, you are simply asserting that there is a "large body of evidence" that proves the Holocaust, but you have failed to show this.

[ConfusedJew]

The question isn't vague, it is abstract. It is intentionally designed to create an objective standard that can be applied to any kinds of evidentiary disagreements. If, let's say, one party tries to cherry pick information, which many of you have tried to do in almost every argument, it wouldn't work because it would violate that objective standard.

I don't need to prove any affirmative case. The "proof" is already out there. I just need to prove that you are wrong.

[ConfusedJew]

It seems like just yesterday you were saying the wannsee minutes explicitly outlined 'the plan for the holocaust'.

Oh, wait, that was yesterday...

Have you bothered to read, anything?

That was two weeks ago. I moved on from that argument because we have a semantic disagreement on language. The overwhelming majority of people would interpret the minutes as explicit proof that the Holocaust took place. But you interpret slightly ambiguous language differently. We can agree to disagree on that. Doing the linguistic and semantic analysis is probably worth doing so maybe I'll open a thread on that too.

"Explicit" means something that is stated clearly and directly, leaving no room for confusion or interpretation. Something can seem explicit to one person but not to another, depending on their background knowledge, the context, language comprehension, or expectations.

This can be a matter of subjective opinion and some people have better subjective judgment than others. Do you not see why so many people see that conference minutes as smoking gun evidence?

I understand that there can be differences of opinion on things, but you are in the clear minority on this. It doesn't mean you are wrong, but it should be acknowledged and discussed.

[Archie]

The question isn't vague, it is abstract. It is intentionally designed to create an objective standard that can be applied to any kinds of evidentiary disagreements. If, let's say, one party tries to cherry pick information, which many of you have tried to do in almost every argument, it wouldn't work because it would violate that objective standard.

I don't need to prove any affirmative case. The "proof" is already out there. I just need to prove that you are wrong.

It is vague. You did not define "unclear," "imperfect," etc nor did you explain at what point you would consider errors serious enough to begin to doubt a testimony. You can't just assume that any error or contradiction we might bring up is automatically trivial. Especially when you don't seem to have read any of the primary sources yet.

You are entitled to your personal belief that it has all been proved, but here on the Debate board we treat it as an open question, i.e., you can't assume it has been proved. That's what we are debating. If the proof is indeed "out there" and readily available, then you should have an extremely easy time making your case. So what are you waiting for?

[Stubble]

It seems like just yesterday you were saying the wannsee minutes explicitly outlined 'the plan for the holocaust'.

Oh, wait, that was yesterday...

Have you bothered to read, anything?

That was two weeks ago. I moved on from that argument because we have a semantic disagreement on language. The overwhelming majority of people would interpret the minutes as explicit proof that the Holocaust took place. But you interpret slightly ambiguous language differently. We can agree to disagree on that. Doing the linguistic and semantic analysis is probably worth doing so maybe I'll open a thread on that too.

"Explicit" means something that is stated clearly and directly, leaving no room for confusion or interpretation. Something can seem explicit to one person but not to another, depending on their background knowledge, the context, language comprehension, or expectations.

This can be a matter of subjective opinion and some people have better subjective judgment than others. Do you not see why so many people see that conference minutes as smoking gun evidence?

I understand that there can be differences of opinion on things, but you are in the clear minority on this. It doesn't mean you are wrong, but it should be acknowledged and discussed.

You, triple down on 'explicit'?

You are aware words are defined and have meaning, right? Not unlike the minutes themselves, you can't just use words and ascribe meaning to them. If such were the case, language would be useless as nothing would have any meaning.

If the minutes are euphemism then, by definition, they aren't explicit. By definition.

If you don't understand this, I can see how you may develop misconceptions when ascribing ill intentions where none, in fact, exist.

Perhaps someone will be kind enough to start a wannsee thread so we can discuss them at length.

For the record, less than 20 hours ago, you said much the same as you said here. That's not 2 weeks ago.

Lastly, I assume you still haven't read them.

[ConfusedJew]

You, triple down on 'explicit'?

You are aware words are defined and have meaning, right? Not unlike the minutes themselves, you can't just use words and ascribe meaning to them. If such were the case, language would be useless as nothing would have any meaning.

If the minutes are euphemism then, by definition, they aren't explicit. By definition.

If you don't understand this, I can see how you may develop misconceptions when ascribing ill intentions where none, in fact, exist.

Perhaps someone will be kind enough to start a wannsee thread so we can discuss them at length.

For the record, less than 20 hours ago, you said much the same as you said here. That's not 2 weeks ago.

Lastly, I assume you still haven't read them.

I've read translations yes. Might be something lost in translation. To be honest, I hardly see those as euphemisms but even euphemisms are pretty explicit. This might be worth going through because we do see this very differently and I want to understand why you see it differently.

[ConfusedJew]

You are entitled to your personal belief that it has all been proved, but here on the Debate board we treat it as an open question, i.e., you can't assume it has been proved. That's what we are debating. If the proof is indeed "out there" and readily available, then you should have an extremely easy time making your case. So what are you waiting for?

To be honest, it does feel like I am debating with people who think the world is flat. I don't know how you could persuade those people that the world is in fact round, but I'd be curious to explore the flaws and contradictions in their arguments.

How would you go about doing that exactly?

[Nessie]

The best examples of cherry-picking and what that causes, are the AR camps and A-B Kremas. By cherry-picking, so-called revisionists have concluded that the AR camps were transit, customs, hygiene, property sorting camps, where people changed onto wider gauge trains. The Kremas were showers, corpse stores, bomb shelters and delousing chambers. There are even some who argue they cannot have been delousing chambers. When evidence is cherry-picked, it is impossible to reach a consensus. The so-called revisionists also cannot reach an evidenced, logical conclusion, as to what eventually happened and where people were in 1945. They fail at history.

My God, do you mean that in the German concentration camps there could be none of these things, only gas chambers or torture rooms?

No. Straw man fallacy.

Now if you are referring to the places that are BELIEVED to be gas chambers, revisionism has a certain consensus on that. Morgue then air raid shelter in Stammlager, morgue in Birkenau, delousing chamber and bath and disinfection in Majdanek.

IOW, there is no consensus, which is evidence to prove how flawed revisionism is.

[Nessie]

I'm being intellectually honest here, but I am personally not sure how you can explain away the testimony of all of the perpetrators. I can't imagine why the Nazis would testify against themselves while on trial. I find the counter arguments on this forum to be very interesting and thought provoking, but not compelling. But I'm here engaging in good faith so I'm curious where this will take us.

You're not being intellectually honest at all. Despite being corrected on multiple occasions, you've repeated the lie that there are "hundreds of thousands of witnesses" to the Holocaust, despite the actual number of eye-witnesses numbering barely 20 people. As for perpetrator confessions, I challenge you to name a perpetrator you find most convincing and then explain why that particular testimony is important.

This is factually wrong and I don't want to debate basic facts. There were 200 to 300,000 Jewish survivors of the camps. Many non Jewish prisoners like gay people, Roma, Jehovah's Witnesses who survived. There were thousands of Nazi survivors and tens of thousands of people who left testimony.

If you deny basic facts, there's really no point in having a discussion. I have no clue why you think there were barely 20 eye-witnesses but it's not even close to the truth.

https://apnews.com/article/holocaust-su ... e40e61c013

Revisionists still do not understand the basics about witnesses. All the survivors are witnesses to the mass arrests, transports and imprisonment in camps and ghettos, the huge numbers of relatives, friends and neighbours who disappeared and their slave labour and often terrible treatment. About a hundred survivors were eyewitnesses to the actual killings. They all speak to motive and opportunity and variously speak to what took place inside the camps and ghettos.

[Nessie]

You now have nearly 300 posts. You've started six threads. And you have said basically nothing.

I've brought up a lot of new arguments and evidence and questions that we're working through on this board.

Will you please answer the questions so that we can have a shared standard of evidence to apply to disagreements on evidence in this forum?

1. If a piece of evidence is unclear about something or imperfect in some way, do you want to throw out the entire piece of evidence?

2. If you have a large body of evidence that suggests one explanation but a couple pieces suggest a different explanation, how do you resolve that contradiction? Do you go with the explanation that has more evidence or the one with less contradictory evidence? Or something else?

Revisionists don't understand evidencing, so you will not get sensible answers.

1. They do want to throw out large parts of the evidence, such as 100% of the people who worked inside the death camps and most of the archaeological evidence. Documents such as the Stroop Report, which is explicit about killing people at TII, is also thrown out.

2. They prefer the unevidenced resettlement theory over the evidenced mass killings.