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 could tell you were weasel-wording so I provided clarifications at the time. Here is what you initially said:
Well here we are with Belzec where the claim is... several hundreds thousand corpses were completely cremated on open air pyres in the space of a few months. Kola's results don't leave room for you to speculate on incomplete state of cremation for any significant portion of the alleged victims like you did for Treblinka.
I could tell you were weasel-wording at the time so I asked for clarification:
To which you responded with more weasel words you are now using to walk-back your position:
I could tell you were still weasel-wording with qualifiers that nobody asserted so I provided the exact text from Arad to refresh your memory and give you the opportunity to assess the plausibility of exactly what Arad claimed. At the time, it was not convenient in that argument for you to dwell on Arad's claims of 800,000 corpses cremated between March and August 1943 (such a claim ought to raise the eyebrows of people here to appreciate the sheer implausibility of what the "history" claims), so you distanced yourself from it, but in this conversation you can't distance yourself from it without hurting the mainstream orthodox case for Belzec.
Do you still maintain that:
Or are you walking that back, too?
Assuming you maintain this position, we can dismiss the claims of the Zamość prosecutor in the 1946 investigatory report as impossible, and likewise the testimony of key witnesses as impossible. The HC paper cited testimony from Gley to argue for a November 1942 start of cremation, but I noticed that they did not acknowledge Gley's statement form his 1961 interrogation, which said "I say that I am sure no corpses were as yet being cremated when I arrived" and placed the start of cremation operations at January 1943 at the earliest. So Gley's accounts are inconsistent, and his first interrogation can likewise be dismissed as infeasible.
Of course the next question is, if it's infeasible to "completely cremate several hundred thousand corpses on open air pyres in the space of a few months" then why is four months any more plausible? It isn't.
I'm reminded of a criminal interrogation YouTube video I watched last week where a teenage girl confessed to tragically murdering a 9 year-old neighboring girl. The suspect claimed it was an accident, and she panicked and burned the body and scattered the ashes in the river (!). As you can imagine, the investigators didn't buy that for a second, frequently remarking how difficult it is to cremate a body. The girl didn't want the body to be found because the autopsy would contradict her story. They immediately knew she was lying and she couldn't provide plausible details for how she conducted the cremation. This is the problem the Holocaust "witnesses" run into: they have no concept for what would be involved in cremating 800,000 or 430,000 people on open-air pyres so the accounts they give are infeasible and completely void of the details that would be most important to describe the operation if it actually happened. So they say things like, little or no fuel was used, or fatter bodies were used as kindling and burned on their own. It's the marker of people making up a story with no conception of what would actually be involved in what they are claiming.
I said "a picture of uncremated bodies in Dresden provides nothing in the way of scientific evidence" and you respond with a picture of uncremated bodies. There were ashes everywhere in Dresden, we have no scientific knowledge whatsoever of what those ashes are, their quantity, how they were cremated (or even if they were cremated or just dumped from a pile of rubble for a photo-op), how the pyre was setup and the type and quantity of fuel used... we have no information about any of this. Your picture as a source base for the Dresden pyres is inadequate for a technical analysis. The technical analysis we do have refutes the feasibility of using gasoline for mass cremation.
IIRC The Belzec camp was in the vicinity of labor camps in the area since 1940 for building fortifications and the like, and Belzec was built on one. They could be from before the camps operation as a transit camp, or during, or after. Without excavations and forensic analysis it's just speculation. I will point out that mass graves of intact skeletons found at Sobibor were widely speculated to have been Holocaust victims, and they were excavated and forensically studied- the only intact corpses to have ever have been at any of these "extermination camps." The December 2021 paper recently published concluded that they were indeed Jewish and most likely victims of... the NKVD! And that they were executed after the Soviets conquered the area of the camp! Historians had widely speculated that these were prisoners from Treblinka who were transferred to Sobibor to dismantle the camp. That hypothesis was rejected by the study. This story shows the importance of excavation and not just speculating based on what appears to be in the ground.
Without any attempt whatsoever to quantify the number of victims in the graves, this statement is moot. If the Belzec graves had the same victim density as the Katyn mass graves in the Soviet report, that would imply ~20,000 deaths.
What we can do is acknowledge the maximum volume of possible burial space, which is 21,310 cubic meters. We can then apply a theoretical maximum burial density of 8 corpses per cubic meter and see there is only space in theory for a maximum of 170,000 corpses, not even volume enough for half of what is claimed to have been buried at that site.
This is an example where Revisionists prove the strength of their argument by taking the most unfavorable assumptions possible and proving the official story does not check out. They will for argument's sake assume 100% capacity of absolute maximum burial density and show that the story is still contradicted by the evidence. Whereas the mainstream story is always desperate to make the most favorable estimates along every dimension to try to bring their claims closer to the realm of possibility...
I made a conditional statement, that if Arad said what you said he said, you were right, but he didn't say what you said he said. No weaseling, no walking back. There's no contradiction or hypocrisy in saying that it would be much more difficult to cremate 700,000 or 800,000 corpses than it would be to cremate 430,000 in a similar timeframe.
Because 430,000 is less than 800,000 by almost half. If there are uncremated corpses at Belzec (and there are obviously at least a few or else Kola wouldn't have found them) then it's a very small fraction of the total.
What does "scientific knowledge of what those ashes are" mean? It's possible the authorities at Dresden dumped a random unrelated heap of ashes in a neat little pile right next to a burning cremation pyre for no reason but that strikes me as pretty implausible. Seems more likely they are the results of previous cremations in the same spot. Which also dovetails with the statements of the people who carried out the cremations, who said the bodies were reduced to ash. Unless they were also lying. The fact that it wasn't carried out in a lab doesn't matter.
So if it was possible to reduce corpses to the state of those piles of 'ash' in those photos (or whatever you want to call it maybe it wouldn't pass muster as 'ash' in a commercial crematorium), then it was possible to do the same on a larger scale at Belzec, and hence the Belzec cremations were also possible.
The cite from the UK foot-and-mouth report by way of Jansson's blog is not technical analysis either. No indication anyone carried out any experiments, nor does it even claim gasoline (well, napalm) wouldn't serve, merely that it wouldn't "improve on" burning with wood and coal, and of course all this refers to the fresh corpses of livestock with their full water content and not desiccated corpses in the earth for a year.
I don't know what you're referring to with regard to the Sobibor skeletons. The only recent paper I'm familiar with is this one which does not conclude that these people were shot by the NKVD.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link