This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I would say it recognizes revisionist questions and therefore gives revisionist answers. And it accepts the argument about the operational challenges and vastness of the task, because having to burn 5000 corpses or kill millions of russians etc, is so far out of the normal experience that it seems "highly unlikely" to it. Which it is. I can't remember a single day where I burned 5000 corpses or killed millions of russians.
You can approach it from a totally non-Revisionist starting point, though, which I did. First ask how much wood to cremate a body. Then ask how much wood to cremate 5,000 bodies - i.e. "hundreds of cords of wood." So it's already giving Revisionist arguments before the topic comes up. I doubt that its answers to cremation in general are so heavily influenced by Revisionist arguments. It just walks directly into the Revisionist line of argumentation when starting from generalized questions like that.
There are also many published volumes of work explaining in detail how the cremations were allegedly done. A more kosher ChatGPT would just say "this is how it was done" and describe the process as claimed by mainstream historiography (I expect it will do this when it is more "advanced"). There is a lot of discussion of mass cremation in the mainstream literature, it is not an issue that is only discussed by Revisionsits. It's only Revisionists though who allege that the claims are not possible, and instead of copy + pasting the description from mainstream historiography it seems inclined towards the Revisionist argument.
Let's say that it is not remotely possible 5,000 people were cremated every day at Treblinka, and Revisionists are right. How would an AI create a response that describes the possibility of something impossible/did not happen? It would probably prefer to generate the more likely response, i.e. the Revisionist critique of the claims.
But like I said it's going to get better at detecting this stuff and copy+pasting the mainstream position as in the case with HBD.
"When the air could be breathed again, the doors were opened, and the Jewish workers removed the bodies. By means of a special process which Wirth had invented, they were burned in the open air without the use of fuel." (I recommend reading https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2011/10/holocaust-nazi-perspective/)
As far as I understand, burning a human body is an energy-positive process (quick googling: meat energy density is about 10MJ/kg, water heat of vaporization is about 2MJ/kg, humans are 60% water), so you only need extra fuel to start the fire and due to inefficiencies. Once you figure out how to cremate 5000 bodies at a time you definitely don't get the naive answer to the question you proposed.
The suggestion that cremations were burned in the open-air without fuel is of course completely absurd, but so it goes in Holocaust lore. You are not just burning the meat, you are trying to cremate the skeleton to ashes, which requires a prolonged period of extremely high heat. Cremation is not an energy-positive process.
Is a perfect example of Holocaust mysticism. The statement "By means of a special process which Wirth had invented" is supposed to give credibility to the absurd claim. The "special process" was laying corpses on makeshift grates made with railroad rails and burned on open-air pyres.
But you can notice there is already a contradiction in the witness testimony. One says that the cremations were performed without the use of fuel (!) and the other just mentions that "dry branches" were used. Of course none of the methods attested to are remotely possible.
Here's another quick-and-dirty source:
The energy from that is not coming from the body. It is a completely absurd claim but it's part-and-parcel for the sort of "witness testimony" you get when you try to account for the logistics for what is claimed.
That's a "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" kind of argument. I'm pretty sure that turning bones to ashes only requires a certain temperature and is also an energy positive process by itself, or if not then a rounding error compared to the heat required to evaporate the water. You're welcome to look up the chemical processes involved, for me my back of the envelope calculations and some physics-related common sense provide convincing enough proof that cremation is in fact an energy-positive process, so your "multiply the wood amount by 5000" argument is nonsense.
I'm OK with assuming that the Nazi judge did not relay the boasting about the cremation process by the guy who he had shot in precise enough detail.
It's pretty unbelievable that you make the claim that thousands of people could be cremated simultaneously without fuel (except to start the fire), and that the cremation would be net energy-positive. Then you accuse me of making a "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" argument. You are literally saying that the cremations were magical and the bodies were self-cremating.
Humanity has practiced cremation for millennia. Cremation is not net-energy positive. There are many studies and case studies, especially pertaining to the cremation of livestock during pandemics, and what you are claiming is a fairy tale. Revisionists have also studied cases where extremely hot house or car fires failed to cremate a body, the notion that a body is self-cremating once a temperature threshold is reached is completely asinine.
But just because I asked ChatGPT to weigh in since people are more likely to trust an AI to say the sky is blue than a Holocaust denier:
You have not provided an explanation for how 5,000 could have been cremated every single day, you are providing evidence of how completely absurd the official story is and how detached it is from reality.
Ultimately, the credibility of that particular piece testimony does hinge on the question of whether it is possible for a meat-powered fire to generate enough heat to self-sustain once it gets started.
But let's actually do the math ourselves, instead of just parroting the arguments of ChatGPT, which is a language model which infamously has trouble telling you which of two numbers is larger unless you tell it to work through the problem step by step.
Enter the bomb calorimeter. It is a reasonably accurate way of measuring the energy content of various substances. Measurements using bomb calorimeters suggest that fat contains 38 - 39 kJ / g, proteins 15 - 18 kJ / g, and carbohydrates 22 - 25 kJ / g.
Humans are composed of approximately 62% water, 16% protein, 16% fat, 1% carbohydrates, and 6% other stuff (mostly minerals). For the cremation story to be plausible, let's say that the water would need to be raised to 100ºC (4.2 J / g / ºC) and then boiled (2260 J / g), and the inorganic compounds (call their specific heat also 4 J / g / ºC -- it's probably closer to 1, which is the specific heat of calcium carbonate, but as we'll see this doesn't really make much difference) raised to (let's say) 500ºC.
So for a 50 kg human, that's
31 kg water: - 12 MJ to raise to 100ºC, 70MJ to actually boil
8 kg protein - 132 MJ released from burning under ideal conditions
8 kg fat - 308 MJ released from burning under ideal conditions
500g carbohydrates - 12 MJ released from burning under ideal conditions
3 kg other - 6 MJ to raise to 500ºC.
So that's about 450 MJ released by burning, of which about 90 MJ goes towards heating stuff and boiling water. That sure looks energy positive to me.
Sanity check -- a tea light is a 10g blob of paraffin wax, which has a very similar energy density to fat. So a tea light should release about 400 kJ of energy when burned, which means that a tea light should contain enough energy to boil off about 150 mL of water, or to raise a bit over a liter of water from room temperature to boiling, if all of the energy is absorbed in the water.
And, in fact, it is possible to boil water using tea lights. A tea light takes about 4 hours to burn fully. That video shows 17 tea lights burning for 8.5 minutes, which should release about 60% as much energy as is contained in a single tea light. It looks like that brought about 400ml of water to a boil, so the sanity check does in fact check out.
I really don't think that random british dude who is showing you how to use candles to boil water during a power failure is in on a global conspiracy to cover up a lack of genocide, but, just in case you think he is, this is an experiment you can try at home with your own materials.
Edit: clarity
I think securesignal's argument has massive holes elsewhere (even in the point under discussion, finding fuel in industrial quantities to burn bodies should not be a problem for a modern state) , but your argument is very theoretical.
I listen to true crime, and I never heard of a murderer burning a body without fuel. Usually it takes them a day of piling on wood on the corpse before it's gone. Is a steak spontaneously combustible? It would seem to have enough energy, yet I have never seen one burst into flames and keep burning if briefly exposed to fire.
You have to dehydrate it first, but jerky is in fact flammable. We're not talking about a single body, we're talking about a pile of bodies with fuel and accelerants at the bottom.
SecureSignals keeps coming back to the assertion that "pile a bunch of bodies on a grate, put wood and accelerants below them, and ignite" is not a viable way to burn bodies, and that it is not viable because burning bodies is a strongly energy-negative process, as evidenced by normal cremations taking a lot of fuel. This would actually be a pretty good knock-down argument against the reliability of that testimony if burning bodies was in fact strongly energy-negative.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link