tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post5822775168292907452..comments2024-03-29T02:19:32.860+00:00Comments on Holocaust Controversies: “The Jews buried in a little wood near Kulmhof”: Documenting Cremation at ChelmnoNicholas Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14852758011968360596noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-81515153308272827852016-10-19T14:25:50.119+01:002016-10-19T14:25:50.119+01:00«a letter from Blobel to the Łódź ghetto administr...«a letter from Blobel to the Łódź ghetto administration from November 1942 regarding the purchase of a diesel motor “for the purposes of Sonderkommando Kulmhof”»<br /><br />The letter's date is 3.2.1943, as correctly mentioned in the respective footnote.Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-13409399293478586832016-09-04T21:09:11.607+01:002016-09-04T21:09:11.607+01:00"PS: yes, medieval and ancient historians are..."PS: yes, medieval and ancient historians are a bit "fucked" in this sense, but then I think they themselves would point out that their reconstructions are inherently less detailed and more tentative than modern history."<br /><br />Yes and no. They are more text-centric because the texts are more or less all they have, so they have to work with them, or they're stuck. But every era of history has been influenced to some extent by literary approaches and the acknowledgement of genres; basically if you work on a particular moment in time, you have a certain quantum of texts to work with, and they will all be 'biased' and 'unreliable' for a variety of reasons. Autobiographies and memoirs fit into certain literary genres and traditions, and may well reflect the influence of prevalent traditions (Bildungrsoman, travelogue) in some cases. But 'literary' influences are an inevitable result of texts being produced en masse by a literate population. <br /><br />I was discussing this issue with a colleague teaching a course on African-American history, who will be discussing slave narratives; he mentioned an example of a pre-abolition slave narrative from a fugitive who went north, describing being whipped in punishment. The number of blows? 300. That would almost certainly be fatal; the number is surely an exaggeration. There are far fewer slave narratives extant than there are accounts of WWI/WWII, the Holocaust or Vietnam, and by 'objective' standards they are probably more tainted. But they're all we've got, so you work with them; that includes dealing with the outright fakes (eg Vietnam veterans who weren't), using fiction (very common with WWI and Vietnam), and sifting through the peculiarities of memoirs. <br /><br />The upside with the Holocaust is we've still not digested *all* the accounts by a long shot, and there are an enormous number that are stunningly detailed, not written with excessive poetic license, and often highly sober and objective despite the horrific conditions they describe. And those are the ones written down in the 1940s.Nicholas Terryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14852758011968360596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-89669069892976663092016-09-04T19:24:55.000+01:002016-09-04T19:24:55.000+01:00Another striking example would be Adolf Rögner. A ... Another striking example would be Adolf Rögner. A very, very knowledgeable inmate with near-zero credibility. Yet not useless, as Joachim Neander's first gassing article shows. And it would still be a folly to use the numerous (really, numerous) details of his voluminous letters and other statements without corroboration. Simply because he was shown to be a particularly unreliable fellow. But once there is corroboration (like the Bunkerbuch), it does wonders.Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-4841404725036868982016-09-04T19:10:46.074+01:002016-09-04T19:10:46.074+01:00Yes, one should point out that there is a single s...Yes, one should point out that there is a single source, but one should also assess the source's credibility in specific areas of inquiry. If we know that the source is credible on the big picture (Nyiszli is) but not on the known details, or that the source had no compunction in saying something is truth when they knew it wasn't, then one should be suspicious of non-refuted but uncorroborated details which this sole witness provides. If on the other hand the witness is also generally credible on the details, using them is much less of a problem.<br /><br />To continue the Gerstein analogy: when using Gerstein, Arad points out that this or that claim is based on Gerstein's report. So far so good. It is my opinion however that he fails at the second step, namely, in assessing Gerstein's credibility about details.<br /><br />One claim in particular is on p. 102 of BST, namely, that Gerstein's rendition of Globocnik's speech is reliable (even if Globocnik's claims themselves weren't). Considering the other claims Gerstein makes in his report I think it is a folly to claim without corroboration that Gerstein's retelling of what Globocnik allegedly said is reliable. It is not a "fact", even with caveat emptors. On p. 103 Arad blames Globus for inventing the outrageous details, but it's just as probable that those were Gerstein's errors (whether one then classifies them as lies, mistakes, inventions or false memories is another issue). On p. 171 Arad takes Gerstein's claim about Globus' alleged desire to bury bronze tablets in the mass graves at face value (properly specifying the source and all) - even though without further corroboration it does not rise to the level of a probable fact. Maybe Globus did, maybe he didn't - we don't know. Why? Because while while Gerstein correctly paints the big picture, he lacks credibility when it comes to specific details.<br /><br />So when I see something like "I don't doubt Nyiszli", I will always point out that this is exactly the wrong approach. You don't dismiss, but you certainly doubt.<br /><br />PS: yes, medieval and ancient historians are a bit "fucked" in this sense, but then I think they themselves would point out that their reconstructions are inherently less detailed and more tentative than modern history.Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-72938692514831302772016-09-04T18:49:52.652+01:002016-09-04T18:49:52.652+01:00Um, missing the point slightly.
A sole-witness p...Um, missing the point slightly. <br /><br />A sole-witness personal detail should generally be identified as coming from the sole witness, e.g. someone reports on a conversation they had with someone else. Maybe there's a pattern of such conversations, but each is ultimately sourced by one witness. This is actually quite normal because why would there be multiple witnesses to such things. <br /><br />I don't think you can or should devise rules to 'silence' witnesses in such situations. But it's good practice to make clear that the personal detail is exactly that, and there's only one source. <br /><br />Otherwise historians working on far worse-sourced eras would be hamstrung rather badly.<br /><br />Some medievalists work with what might as well be the equivalent of Zisblatt as their sole source, someone's synthesis of a popular tale they've effectively stolen from someone else many decades after the fact, and that's all they've got. <br /><br />We can easily forget how lucky we are to have so many sources on this subject.Nicholas Terryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14852758011968360596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-15403273329853365942016-09-04T18:22:51.861+01:002016-09-04T18:22:51.861+01:00As you point out, being a sole witness is an issue...As you point out, being a sole witness is an issue in itself, but being a sole witness with a skewed concept of truth (which N. made clear with his statement about his book) doesn't help things. Which is why "Nyiszli says it, so it's probably true" is a much more problematic statement than, say, "Langbein says it, so it's probably true", even if both of them boil down to probabilities (then again, what doesn't?). As I've made clear above, I'm not dismissing Nyiszli, but neither should his claims be used without further corroboration, albeit they can work nicely along other evidence. In this respect he is not unlike Gerstein, whose testimony can work nicely in tandem with Pfannenstiel (even when P. accuses him of lying, etc.), but whose juicier and less corroborated parts have been uncritically used by historians like Arad.Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-29178050581896929052016-09-04T17:58:54.116+01:002016-09-04T17:58:54.116+01:00"Not the same, but not divorceable from a sli..."Not the same, but not divorceable from a slightly later "truthful" memoir either. We examine everything together, remember? Publishing such a memoir tells us something about the author. Hence the slightly earlier testimony is inevitably tainted by the exaggerations of a memoir presented as an unexaggerated truth."<br /><br />But we're talking about a memoir that has literary embellishments as well as accurate reportage. One has to distinguish between the two in the first place, inside the memoir. The taints may have no equivalent, point for point, in the earlier account; and they may depend on specific types of perceptual recall such as distances, dates, people. If there are earlier point-matches then these can establish the embellishment and help excise the problem parts.<br /><br />Ultimately, the act of outright lying is quite different to the act of fictionalising, and both are different to the act of misremembering or misperceiving in the first place. All can be potential problems, but they're all things that can be detected and accounted for, yes, even lying (I'm thinking here of perpetrator lies in their own defense that are mixed in with corroborated truth). <br /><br />A lot of Nyiszli's memoir is very usable, in conjunction with other sources, as well as his earlier testimony. It is also usable on truly intimate personal details that only he could know, in exactly the same way as any other testimony is usable on sole-witness details - the fact that it's sole-witness carries its own caveat emptor to begin with. But those aren't the details that bother deniers.Nicholas Terryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14852758011968360596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-39232872602742189832016-09-04T17:50:09.757+01:002016-09-04T17:50:09.757+01:00To illustrate how convergence of evidence works on...To illustrate how convergence of evidence works on flawed sources:<br /><br />Nyiszli describes in his book how the Bunker 2 site was used for mass shootings near the pit. Mattogno et al. claim of course that this contradicts other witnesses, etc. etc.<br /><br />However in NO-2310 Deszö Schwarz describes how one of the five Birkenau "crematoria" - the one without the ovens but with a giant pit (an obvious description of Bunker 2) was used for shooting (lustiges Preisschießen) of small transports (up to 100 persons) near the incineration pit under the direction of Oberscharführer Moll, during which 15 of DS' comrades perished.<br /><br />There are some contradictions between accounts (e.g. Nyiszli claims the method was used for groups as large as 5000 - but, of course, we know he's an exaggerator), but the core rings true, so on the basis of these two flawed (albeit not *equally* flawed) sources we can make a probability judgment: some groups of people probably were victims of mass shootings in the Bunker 2 area.Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-87470913837329222992016-09-04T16:59:16.794+01:002016-09-04T16:59:16.794+01:00> Sergey, the basic point is that one examines ...> Sergey, the basic point is that one examines all the evidence together for everything.<br /><br />That was my assumption all along.<br /><br />> Not the same type of source as a memoir intended for publication. <br /><br />Not the same, but not divorceable from a slightly later "truthful" memoir either. We examine everything together, remember? Publishing such a memoir tells us something about the author. Hence the slightly earlier testimony is inevitably tainted by the exaggerations of a memoir presented as an unexaggerated truth.Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-52464032956341143672016-09-04T16:31:55.597+01:002016-09-04T16:31:55.597+01:00Sergey, the basic point is that one examines all t...Sergey, the basic point is that one examines all the evidence together for everything. Tadeusz Borowski wrote a novel after the war regarding his time at Auschwitz, this is explicitly labelled as such, yet it contains details that are certainly historical, because we see them in other sources. Conversely, one finds memoirs with clearly fictionalised elements that are not plausible, along with outright lying and dissembling in some statements by SS men.<br /><br />We have novels, literary memoirs (which is how one should classify Nyiszli), autobiographies, reports written after the war published as 'memoirs' later on, affidavits, cross-examinations, interrogations, statements, contemporary accounts plus letters smuggled out and manuscripts left on-site. They were all produced by eyewitnesses but they are verging on different genres of testimony. <br /><br />The statement by Nyiszli mentioned by Hans from 29 July 1945 is the product of a hidden dialogue as this was a DEGOB questionnaire-generated statement. Not the same type of source as a memoir intended for publication. <br /><br />Premature Mengele-sightings can be found in many of the above categories of testimony, many from before he was truly 'famous' in later decades, so they seem much more like a case of mistaken identity than simply projecting him back onto the selection at arrival. Mengele is also described in bizarre ways that make more sense if some prisoners were mistaking him for someone else.Nicholas Terryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14852758011968360596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-81871086085516383502016-09-04T16:07:33.033+01:002016-09-04T16:07:33.033+01:00Basically, the point is this: Nyszli's testimo...Basically, the point is this: Nyszli's testimony cannot be fully dismissed (as deniers would want it), but neither is it sufficient by itself. If Nyiszli claims that A killed B, sorry, but this is in doubt, considering Nyiszli's provable exaggerations. *However* were some other independent source to appear that claims roughly the same thing about the same event, the convergence of evidence would kick into place - although not sufficiently credible by itself, Nyiszli's earlier testimony could be used to buttress this latter piece of new evidence.Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-10015727562507305052016-09-04T15:52:51.036+01:002016-09-04T15:52:51.036+01:00His "poetic license" of 1946 should be a...His "poetic license" of 1946 should be as relevant for judging his worth as a witness as his slightly earlier testimony, especially as the concept of poetic license doesn't apply to memoirs which were expressly claimed by the author to contain only the truth "free from all passion, without the slightest exaggeration".Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-65801457757677272862016-09-04T15:28:58.982+01:002016-09-04T15:28:58.982+01:00Nyiszli provided a descent testimony as early as 2...Nyiszli provided a descent testimony as early as 29 July 1945, which should be the relevant account to judge him as witness:<br /><br />http://degob.org/index.php?showjk=3632<br /><br />His later book employed some "poetic license".Hans Metznerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07746792258730274681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1627061617390357692016-09-04T15:01:38.429+01:002016-09-04T15:01:38.429+01:00One should be very careful about those "thous... One should be very careful about those "thousands" of witnesses because it was a "default assumption" in the camp that it was Mengele who was always at the ramp, so many witnesses just assumed that they saw the infernal doctor (see e.g. Dragon's mistake on this very point). As Dr. Lipstadt points out, "Lots of survivors who arrived at Auschwitz will tell you they were examined by [Dr Josef] Mengele. Then you ask them the date of their arrival, and you say, 'Mengele wasn't in Auschwitz at that point'." <br /><br />That such statements are in the thousands doesn't make the problem go away because of the persistence of the Mengele meme in the camp.<br /><br />It is therefore important to examine specifically the testimonies of the SS personnel, of the other doctors, etc. - the people who had to know. They of course confirm that Mengele took part in the selections, albeit they don't number in the thousands.<br /><br />As for Nyiszli, he's a witness in a need of defense himself, so to say. I'm sure you know his book contains weird exaggerations, including many wrong descriptions of the crematoria (four elevators, 200 m long gas chambers...).<br /><br />We know, for example, that Dr. Lettich belonged to the Sonderkommando but never really visited the gas chambers because he was forced to stay in his Block, and his descriptions, although valuable, are second-hand (this also explains some inaccuracies, like him repeating the "soap and towels" meme).<br /><br />I wonder if something like that was also true for Dr. Nyiszli.Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-52670026130041104092016-09-02T10:52:30.182+01:002016-09-02T10:52:30.182+01:00~
Thanks for the reply Nick
I have not actually ...~<br /><br />Thanks for the reply Nick<br /><br />I have not actually had to work hard at debunking Mattogno's Mengele article. <br />But when you come across this sentence :<br /><br />" The essential and sole witness, the one upon whose testimony the whole accusation is based, was an extraordinarily creative impostor. "<br /><br />And you know for a fact that their are actually hundreds of witnesses to Mengelle's experiments and thousands that saw him during selections - it just screams to the sky that this above statement is a blunt lie meant to mislead people.<br /><br />That putting aside the testimony of Miklós Nyiszli, which i do not doubt and is a most discriminating first hand testimony , since Nyiszli worked at Crematorium II and gives precise evidence of the horrors that took place their as well as Mengelle's experiments. It is clear why denialists would try to discredit him as his detailed testimony shatters their story completely. <br /><br />~ abogger33https://www.blogger.com/profile/01424309305418534569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-83128527853704014632016-09-01T23:08:32.133+01:002016-09-01T23:08:32.133+01:00Hi abogger33,
blog contributors work to their own...Hi abogger33,<br /><br />blog contributors work to their own pace, so we cannot promise when we might look at something, and cannot therefore "take requests". <br /><br />However, regarding Nyiszli, a translation of a Mattogno booklet on Nyiszli was due to be published in May 2016, it's now overdue, but presumably will appear at some point. There will be more interest in looking at Nyiszli-related things when that's in English. Mattogno published a booklet of 108pp in the 1980s in Italian about Nyiszli, so we presume this is what will be translated, maybe with the Inconvenient History article thrown in, who knows.<br /><br />It sounds like you've debunked Mattogno's Mengele article in your own mind by comparing info from other sources with the denier claims. Nicholas Terryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14852758011968360596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-72727192182477881402016-09-01T22:20:05.986+01:002016-09-01T22:20:05.986+01:00From the article:
"We need only inquire, how...From the article:<br /><br />"We need only inquire, however, for whom this alleged propaganda was intended, since not even the delegate from the Red Cross who visited Auschwitz in September 1944 was permitted to visit Birkenau Camp.5"<br /><br />He never stops to think: why.Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-3228934654454422622016-09-01T17:47:02.207+01:002016-09-01T17:47:02.207+01:00Hardly surprising . It is the same Carlo Mattogno ...Hardly surprising . It is the same Carlo Mattogno that claims Dr. Mengele's crimes lay on a sole witness - Miklos Nyiszli .<br /><br />See here :<br /><br />http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2013/volume_5/number_4/dr_mengeles_medical_experiments_on_twins.php<br /><br />When in fact there are hundreds of witnesses , co-workers , some 200 surviving twins ,not to mention thousands that saw him during selections sending people to their death.<br /><br /> Maybe this Mengele article by Mattogno and his asserted collection of lies can be demolished here as well ?abogger33https://www.blogger.com/profile/01424309305418534569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-45951824141636021212016-08-29T10:09:07.899+01:002016-08-29T10:09:07.899+01:00BRoI: "Both the memos of the Forschungsstelle...BRoI: "Both the memos of the Forschungsstelle from 1942 -Typo"<br /><br />No, I wasn't referring to the two facsimiled memos from 1943 but to Forschungsstelle memos from 1942 such as the ones cited in notes 42 and 44 which are from 1942. Have changed the wording to 'Both memoranda' to reduce the confusion.<br />Nicholas Terryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14852758011968360596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-66248181612200526292016-08-29T02:29:23.413+01:002016-08-29T02:29:23.413+01:00Both the memos of the Forschungsstelle from 1942
...Both the memos of the Forschungsstelle from 1942<br /><br />TypoThe Black Rabbit of Inléhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12083144769375557650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-79229761660989053132016-08-28T04:21:37.764+01:002016-08-28T04:21:37.764+01:00Thank you, excellent work.Thank you, excellent work.J Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04893548775462142380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-89478686042409046632016-08-27T23:08:05.047+01:002016-08-27T23:08:05.047+01:00Great stuff, Dr. Terry. Reading about the Holocaus...Great stuff, Dr. Terry. Reading about the Holocaust from an accounting perspective, how the German authorities plundered and made use of Jewish property in the Final Solution, was interesting. Thanks a lot.<br /><br />Thanks also for showing Mattogno's ignorance. He's an idiot and a liar, and those who follow him are idiots and liars too. Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02660486969581542489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-64328770246268575822016-08-27T22:00:21.432+01:002016-08-27T22:00:21.432+01:00While most researchers didn't know about this ...While most researchers didn't know about this document until now, I'm still justified in pointing at Mattogno and laughing about his utter ignorance and fraudulence in this case. Because his burden of proof is much, much higher than that of the mainstream historians, and if he makes such claims without having examined the necessary documents, well, he only has himself to blame. A historian can make a justified claim about Chelmno without this document, because the evidence is already overwhelming. Mattogno cannot make such a sweeping claim without having examined all the documents.Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-58839726378071051162016-08-27T21:40:59.874+01:002016-08-27T21:40:59.874+01:00> to put a line under the period of their Sond...> to put a line under the period of their Sonderkommando and not to speak of it even in passing.<br /><br />This "resettlement to the East" was such a yuuuuge secret. I wonder why. /sarc<br /><br />Brilliant, Nick.Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.com