Hannover wrote:I generally agree with Clem that there are times when Revisionists try to appear 'reasonable' in their assessments by throwing Jewish supremacists a bone.
What you call "throwing a bone" others might see as being objective and open-minded. How can we expect opponents to consider our views if we are going to stick our fingers in our ears and intone loudly "I can't hear you" at the suggestion that even one tenth of what has been alleged could have some foundation? Historiography should be the search for facts, not the imposition of every aspect of a preconception.
Hannover wrote:My analysis in those cases has shown that 'concessions' are not warranted by the evidence at hand. Dalton seems to accept some of Colls statements, with qualifications. I don't buy thoses concessions. Colls has not even proved that what she found were actual 'mass graves', the limited GPR work only indicated that some holes had been dug. Garbage burning pits? Footprints of former buildings? ... etc.
I think Dalton and Kues would be among the first to agree with you that these alternative reasons for the presence of at least some pits are valid, but it is "throwing a bone" to the opposition to suggest that these are necessarily the only reasons. Dalton's writing is a first reaction to the newspaper article, so he takes at face value the claim that "graves" have been found. It is reasonable to expect some disposal of dead persons to have taken place. Talking numbers is entering the field of speculation: it is impossible to have any sort of reasonably accurate figure, so Dalton and Kues have chosen to show that even apparently very high figures need not raise suspicions of genocide. Dalton nowhere says that 90K died. What he does say that if only 1 in 10 died, that would give us this sort of figure.
Hannover wrote:Too assume they are 'mass graves' while completely lacking detailed and verifiable information is the classic definition of shoddy work with an agenda.
Absolutely. But that is a criticism of Caroline Sturdy Coles, not of Thomas Dalton
Hannover wrote:I have no problem with accepting that some Jews died at Treblinka. Disease was rampant through much of eastern Europe during that time. Every populated area has deaths every day, applying that to the large numbers of people that moved through and stopped at Treblinka, it is therefore statistically logical that people died and were cremated. No big deal, happens everywhere everyday, a 'holocaust' that is not. To claim it is indicates nothing but desperation from those who profit & benefit from the ultimate 'big lie' technique.
So, in the end, you and Dalton are not so far apart.
But do note what Dalton concluded with:
Lacking the details, it’s hard to draw firm conclusions. But all signs point in one direction. They imply that, as at Belzec, ground surveys provide far more support for the revisionist thesis than the traditional one. Things are looking up; the truth is at hand.
Something we can all agree with. I was going to say and take comfort from, but then I thought of that Daily Mail headline and realised what an uphill task we have. Every time, the evidence is misrepresented in the media as confirming what, in reality, it casts enormous doubt upon.
As you never tire of saying, Revisionists have won the battle (evidence). What you should add is they are one hell of a way from winning the war (convincing the public).