Today I will continue addressing Holocaust Denial on Trial’s (HDoT) copes for the Gerstein Report being credible.
HDoT assured me that Gerstein was more accurate when he wasn’t reporting what others had told him. In fact, the very next section after the one below it states, “Gerstein is the most credible and consistent when he is describing what he actually saw with his own eyes.” Apparently HDoT was hoping that between this section and the next you would forget about Gerstein claiming to have seen, with his own eyes, a 12 story pile of clothing and shoes.
For their last point HDoT blames the absurd claim from Gerstein that 20 to 25 million Jews were murdered in the Operation Reinhard camps was based on inaccurate information heard from others.
The following is the section of the Gerstein report that states the numbers for the deaths in the Operation Reinhard camps for your reference. HDoT says that these numbers of Jews murdered were ‘just guesses’ and don’t count as evidence. It is important to note Gerstein wrote his reports in 1945, after the war. Are we to believe that Gerstein heard these astronomical numbers and believed them without ever looking into the matter? I don’t think so. Especially considering that in 1941 the Nazi regime conducted a census of Jews in the territories under their control. This census identified approximately 5.3 million Jews in the occupied territories of the Soviet Union, Poland, and other areas of Eastern Europe. Why would Gerstein accept numbers of Jews murdered that were well beyond the number of Jews present?
I asked my robot assistant, BIll, for his input:
If orthodox Holocaust historians analyzed witness testimony like they ought to they would have to answer many uncomfortable questions. For example, did the fact that Gerstein was given accommodation in a nice hotel instead of a prison cell have anything to do with the reports he wrote while staying there?
How can HDoT determine what parts of the report are accurate and which part are inaccurate guesses? Without physical evidence corroborate the claims, which they don’t have, they simply cannot make the distinction. Therefore, from a truth seeking standpoint, the Gerstein report is worthless. Any attempts to use it as such indicates motivation to find means to justify an end.