The Significance of the Morgue Documents

[curioussoul]

Yes it does and in any case, they were not discussing storing corpses, they were discussing sending corpses.

No, it doesn't, unless you're alleging that they're sending fake letters to each other to imply the morgues are being used for corpse storage when they're really not.

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.

They wanted the corpses to be removed and placed into the morgues. That's pretty much all you need to know. What else is there to say?

No, I have just given you another example of secrecy, by referring to something as "special" rather than describing the operation.

There's nothing "special" about storing corpses in the morgues; there was an active order enforcing that policy.

Now, that is very dishonest of you to accuse me of only producing one example witness and then you cut out another three.

Your only example of a debunked witness turned out to be one of the most famous Holocaust witnesses ever, which is pretty ironic.

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!

Those are not Holocaust witness statements but novels written decades after the war, and I'm not aware of a single historian who ever utilized Martin Gray, Binjamin Wilkomirski or Misha Defonseca as Holocaust witnesses. Are you?

Historians do not normally publish why they chose not to use certain witnesses.

So you're not actually aware of any critical assessments of any known Sonderkommando or Holocaust eyewitness? That should tell you a lot.

[Nessie]

Yes it does and in any case, they were not discussing storing corpses, they were discussing sending corpses.

No, it doesn't, unless you're alleging that they're sending fake letters to each other to imply the morgues are being used for corpse storage when they're really not.

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.

They wanted the corpses to be removed and placed into the morgues. That's pretty much all you need to know. What else is there to say?

No, I have just given you another example of secrecy, by referring to something as "special" rather than describing the operation.

There's nothing "special" about storing corpses in the morgues; there was an active order enforcing that policy.

You need evidence to prove the corpses taken to the Kremas were stored in the Leichenkellers and not just take straight for cremation.

Now, that is very dishonest of you to accuse me of only producing one example witness and then you cut out another three.

Your only example of a debunked witness turned out to be one of the most famous Holocaust witnesses ever, which is pretty ironic.

I gave you evidence of how historians critically examine witness testimony and times witnesses have been debunked, or are considered too unreliable to be used.

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!

Those are not Holocaust witness statements but novels written decades after the war, and I'm not aware of a single historian who ever utilized Martin Gray, Binjamin Wilkomirski or Misha Defonseca as Holocaust witnesses. Are you?

No. Historians have also not used Lali Sokolov.

Historians do not normally publish why they chose not to use certain witnesses.

So you're not actually aware of any critical assessments of any known Sonderkommando or Holocaust eyewitness? That should tell you a lot.

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

"Translating the Self: False Holocaust Testimony"

That is an example of the critical assessment of witness testimony.