site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   6209 thread views

Quality Contributions Report for December 2022

This is the Quality Contributions Roundup. It showcases interesting and well-written comments and posts from the period covered. If you want to get an idea of what this community is about or how we want you to participate, look no further (except the rules maybe--those might be important too).

As a reminder, you can nominate Quality Contributions by hitting the report button and selecting the "Actually A Quality Contribution!" option. Additionally, links to all of the roundups can be found in the wiki of /r/theThread which can be found here. For a list of other great community content, see here.

A few comments from the editor: first, sorry this is a little late, but you know--holidays and all. Furthermore, the number of quality contribution nominations seems to have grown a fair bit since moving to the new site. In fact, as I write this on January 5, there are already 37 distinct nominations in the hopper for January 2023. While we do occasionally get obviously insincere or "super upvote" nominations, the clear majority of these are all plausible AAQCs, and often quite a lot of text to sift through.

Second, this month we have special AAQC recognition for @drmanhattan16. This readthrough of Paul Gottfried’s Fascism: Career of a Concept began in the Old Country, and has continued to garner AAQC nominations here. It is a great example of the kind of effort and thoughtfulness we like to see. Also judging by reports and upvotes, a great many of us are junkies for good book reviews. The final analysis was actually posted in January, but it contains links to all the previous entries as well, so that's what I'll put here:

Now: on with the show!

Quality Contributions Outside the CW Thread

@Tollund_Man4:

@naraburns:

@Bernd:

@FiveHourMarathon:

@RandomRanger:

@Iconochasm:

Contributions for the week of December 5, 2022

@zeke5123:

@ymeskhout:

@FiveHourMarathon:

@gattsuru:

@Southkraut:

@Bernd:

@problem_redditor:

@FCfromSSC:

@urquan:

@gemmaem:

Sexulation

@RococoBasilica:

@problem_redditor:

Holocaustianity

@johnfabian:

@DaseindustriesLtd:

@SecureSignals:

Coloniazism

@gaygroyper100pct:

@screye:

@urquan:

@georgioz:

Contributions for the week of December 12, 2022

@SecureSignals:

@Titus_1_16:

@Dean:

@cjet79:

@JarJarJedi:

@gattsuru:

@YE_GUILTY:

@aqouta:

@HlynkaCG:

Contributions for the week of December 19, 2022

@MathiasTRex:

@To_Mandalay:

Robophobia

@gattsuru:

@IGI-111:

@NexusGlow:

Contributions for the week of December 26, 2022

@FCfromSSC:

@gattsuru:

@LacklustreFriend:

@DaseindustriesLtd:

20
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There are many, many, many documents describing resettlement in the General Government, but you base so much assumption on the impossible-to-verify authenticity of handwritten modifications to a few documents that aren't even contextually related to the resettlement actions in the General Government.

In these trials (the IMT) the prosecution also claimed:

An attempt was even made to manufacture soap from the fatty parts of the bodies, while the ashes remaining after cremation were used for fertilizer. This was indeed a gruesomely commercial exploitation of death on a mass basis.

It is not reasonable to base your assertion - that resettlement mentioned in dozens and dozens of documents was code for extermination- on a few handwritten modifications to documents that were submitted to these trials, especially in which the context was not related to these resettlement actions in General Government.

But you have to reach, because the direct reading of those documents affirms the Revisionist claims.

There are many, many, many documents describing resettlement in the General Government

There aren't. There are plenty of documents that use the words "resettlement" or "evacuation," there aren't any documents actually describing to the process of resettlement of several million Polish Jews (i.e, transportation, provisioning, housing) in northern Russia (like Bühler said) or Lublin (like Korherr said--evidently they couldn't even agree on where the Jews were supposed to be 'resettled'), which would have left behind plenty of documentation had it actually happened. When you add this to the fact that there is hard evidence, which I have presented, that "resettlement" was sometimes used as a code for "murder" by the Nazis, and that many Nazis discussed this openly after the war in non-coercive settings (Adolf Eichmann, for example, talked about the extermination of Jews in the GG to journalist and former SS man Wilhelm Sassen in Argentina in the 50s), things begin to look suspicious.

In these trials (the IMT) the prosecution also claimed:

Is your contention that these documents are forged?

Is your contention that these documents are forged?

My contention is that the weakness of your case is demonstrated by your enormous reliance on handwritten modifications to a few documents that aren't even related in context to the resettlement actions in General Government under discussion. You are claiming that an enormous number of SS men in an enormous volume of documents across time and space were all in on the conspiracy to talk about "resettlement" instead of "gas chamber extermination" in secret internal communications, and that the highest-level officials with direct involvement in these initiatives all continued to insist on the "coded language" after the war. And you base that on very weak evidence. Someone in the comment section also objects to the reliability of your evidence that you place so much weight on:

I find it fascinating that the document the Judge Ad read before the "camo" document, orders on how to treat the Jews on the Eastern Front is based upon...hearsay and "doesn't help the court at all". Wow. Page 17. Hearsay admitted as evidence. Now, I wonder why the prosecution would do that?

Dr. Laternser asks to see the "camo" document? Why? Was he not allowed to see the "camo" document prior to the trial? Was the defense present during the forensic analysis? Nope.

  1. So no change of evidence for the document.
  1. Defense apparently didn't view the document prior to the trial as he asks to see it.
  1. Defense did not have representation during the forensic analysis.

There are according to the transcript, multiple copies, but only one presented as evidence. Can anyone obtain the original document for research or just the photostat? You realize it would be easily claimed the Prosecution manufactured the edit (replacement words in the margin instead of above the word???) , performed the forensic science, and then claim some official made the "rather clumsy precaution" with speculation as to the motivation...

You are basing so much on so little, but it's honestly par for the course in mainstream historiography.

The fact is, the direct reading of these documents, without your claim of remarkably consistent "coded language" supports the Revisionist case.

You are basing so much on so little

All I am basing on these documents, is that the Nazis sometimes used 'resettlement' as code for 'murder,' and this is a matter of documentary fact.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats