Talk:Gerstein Report

Criticism of the Gerstein Report
I added two paragraphs to this section, in order to provide important factual information that challenges the validity of the Gerstein Report. Sebsequently, someone inserted the words "by Holocaust deniers" into the first sentence; I have removed this addition, because it is just a weak attempt to discredit any critical analysis of the Gerstein Report. Please do not modify this section unless you can provide sources to support your claims.

--- Of course Carlo Mattogno is a Holocaust denier. Read his book Auschwitz: The End of a Legend : How Was Such Mass Murder Technically Possible? (Critique on Pressac's Auschwitz Books) by Carlo Mattogno. Also, see John Zimmerman's discussion of Mattogno's deceptions at http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/response-to-mattogno/. IddAhazi 02:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This is why wiki and Gerstein are given the same weight in academic circles on anything to do with the Holocaust - "Gerstein witnessed CO gassing using a diesel engine at Belzec" - even ardent Believers have\are switching to gasoline CO production ( diesel fumes are fairly benign - always have been but scholars of course slow to catch onto what every farmer,miner, mechanic... has know since childhood. It is tragic that the "witnesses" were all city boys.) 159.105.80.141 (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Trivia - the Nuremberg military trials(judges) refused to use Gersteein's report - didn't except it as evidence. Raul Hilberg(a believer) was not impressed with the report( I believe called him a mad man). Henri Roques ( a denier ) wrote a book demonstrating its lack of reliable content. Across the board agreement from a varied crowd. 159.105.80.141 (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * WilliamH, please do not delete references simply because you decide they are 'unreliable', especially without discussing it first on this talk page. If you do it again I will consider it vandalism. If you have not read the 2 books in question (I have), then please do so before dismissing them. Both books are very well sourced from other reliable references, and as such their conclusions deserve serious consideration. I note that you have added Nizkor as a reference; I personally consider Nizkor to be not a reliable source, but out of courtesy have not removed it. The findings of the books may not align with your personal beliefs - I don't care; people have a right to know about them.Logicman1966 (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The IHR is not an acceptable source, period, and may not be used as a source on Wikipedia other than in articles about itself. The same applies for all Holocaust denier sites and individuals: as they are dedicated to fraud and perpetuating frauds, they are not usable on Wikipedia. This has been repeatedly supported by the community. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please check your facts - I am not using IHR as a source, rather I am referring to two published books. Let's be quite specific here; these books discuss the Gerstein Report, not the Holocaust in general (so the 'Holocaust denial' line doesn't apply), and they are therefore completely legitimate references in this article. Rather than dismissing them outright, please advise what material in the books you find unacceptable; having read them myself I can assure you they are very well referenced. I will wait a few days to allow for further discussion, after which I intend to restore the material you deleted. I am prepared to ask for Mediation on this issue if necessary. Logicman1966 (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, that fact that you have read them does not make the authors reliable sources. I do not dispute that there are technically erroneous statements in the Gerstein report. I also do not dispute that Mattogno and Roques may have put some of them forward accurately. But do their findings attempt to clarify? Do they discern falsely cited quotations and inaccurate figures from otherwise corroborated facts? No, they simply dismiss everything that the report contains and label it fraudulent. That’s not scholarship. It’s presumably why actual scholars choose not to consider Mattogno and Roques as reliable sources of historical journals, so on that basis, Wikipedia doesn’t either.


 * In contributing to this article, I ultimately intend to improve Wikipedia and I will assume good faith and assume you intend to do the same thing, while asserting my strong belief that legitimate scholarship on Wikipedia must not be obfuscated with what isn’t. If you want to elaborate on criticism of the report, the answer is simple: use reliable sources. I cite Nizkor in accordance with the HDOT, since it provides the transcript for which the HDOT citation mentions. Nizkor doesn’t seek to negate historical fact: the same cannot be said for Mattogno. Please seriously consider what you say if you anticipate bringing this to Mediation - you will be asking for consensus to approve unencyclopedic content from unreliable sources: material and references which two administrators have so far maintained has no place here. WilliamH (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A couple of comments – (1) I mentioned having read the books because it means that I know exactly what is said in them, and don’t rely on other people to tell me. (2) Please name the “actual scholars” you are referring to, I can name 3 who consider Roques a reliable source : (i) Alain Decaux (ii) Michel de Bouard (iii) Hugh Trevor-Roper. (3) You claim to act in “good faith”, but you delete material without discussing it first. You invite criticism of the Report, but you arbitrarily dismiss material I present because it is “unreliable”. (4) Can you please define specifically on what basis you have decided that Roques and Mattogno are unreliable sources. Note that I will not accept “because Nizkor says so” as a legitimate answer. Logicman1966 (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There has been no further discussion on this topic since my last post five days ago. I assume that this means my explanations have been accepted (and no sources to support the contrary opinion have been provided), therefore I have re-inserted the material that was deleted by WilliamH. Again, can I ask that any proposed changes in the future be discussed here on the talk page first.

Note that I have also added a “citation needed” tag to the statement regarding the Nuremberg Trials; it is my understanding that the Gerstein Report was not used at the Nuremberg Trials, however it was used at the Eichmann Trail. Logicman1966 (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * IHR will not be used as a source in Wikipedia. Period. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your last edit was impolite. Please explain why (in addition to deleting the material I added) you removed the “citation needed” tag, as I thought it was acceptable practice in Wikipedia to request a source for material that is disputed. Yes I know that IHR is not to be used as a source in Wikipedia (you already said so previously), but with respect you are misrepresenting the situation. These days Roques book is indeed published by IHR, but prior to that was published as a PhD thesis, which was peer reviewed and accepted by a French University. I have also cited the names of 3 history scholars who consider Roques a reliable source. Yes I also know that the degree was later revoked, however if you check further you will find that this was not because of the content of the thesis, but because of administrative irregularities.  I am trying very hard to be civil here, but the only response I am getting so far is rudeness. Logicman1966 (talk) 07:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * IHR is not an acceptable source, nor are books published by IHR. If you can provide a reliable source, please do so; otherwise, cease putting up the material. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nor is Henri Roques an acceptable reference. He is described as a "a militant of the anti-Semitic extreme right" by the distinguished French historian, Pierre Vidal-Naquetwho continues by analyzing revisionist literature, concluding that it is "a  pastiche, a parody of History."--Joel Mc (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been looking around, and, of the four professors at Nantes university who approved Roques' dissertation, none of them specialised in World War Two. In 1986, around 60 French professors signed a petition against Roques' doctorate and there were also protests in Paris by several organisations against it in the spring of that year, as well as a petition signed by 200 members of staff of the University of Nantes against Roques. Seems like any suggestion by the IHR that only administrative technicalities lead to Roques' degree being revoked is not exactly...the whole story. WilliamH (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In an attempt to clear up the situation regarding the use of the Gerstein Report at the Nuremberg Trials. According to Holocaust Denial On Trial, The Gerstein Report was offered into evidence during the morning session on January 30, 1946 and initially refused because of a technicality.  The certificate establishing its origin, required by the Tribunal for every piece of submitted evidence, was not attached.  In the afternoon of the same day, the British Assistant Prosecutor General informed the court that the Gerstein Report was part of a bundle of documents whose "origin and the filing were authenticated on November 22" Thereby the judges were satisfied the certificate of authenticity had been overlooked in the morning session, and entered it into evidence. Zerosprite (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Black listed link: deathcamps.org/belzec/gerstein.html Gerstein Report (English)
Link was whitelisted see: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel Mc (talk • contribs) 23:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Recently, while browsing other articles, I ran across two Gerstein texts - one from 1943 and the 1945 one we all know. The author pointed out that the 1943 version leaves out all the "good" stuff. If the 1943 version was all that survived it would have been used for kindling. Now the 1945 version - beefed up with juicy details - appears to be the one history likes to keep. The question is who beefed up the original?159.105.81.31 (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC) http://bcrfj.revues.org/index3022.html a super "reliable" source even talks about a second 1943 version - inspired by the earlier version. BCRJ doesn't even try to pretend that the second version is even by Gerstein. I suppose that means - and they imply - the 5 later 1945 versions were also inspired by earlier versions circulated within the Dutch government. ( I assume BCRFJ is super "reliable" from their tone and stance on anything to do with the Holocaust - but on this they shocked me. They come as close to dumping the Gerstein Report as a fabrication as I have ever seen - and then praise it, odd. 159.105.81.31 (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No idea what article you were reading relating to the early 1943 report, however in my opinion your attempt at condemnation and undermining the importance of The Gerstein Report (1945) is not borne out by the facts. In 'An Early Report by Kurt Gerstein' the author, Florent Brayard stated "Aside from the level of detail, the report as a whole has an emotional tonality that bears the hallmarks of Kurt Gerstein." Furthermore "...suggests that the 1943 report was a frame for the ones written in 1945, or more probably, that the two reports testify to the existence of a frame that served for both reports at a two years interval." and finally, "The two written reports should thus be seen as two exceptional written versions of even more intense testimony, which in most cases was presented orally." Neither of the two 1943 reports were written by Gerstein, the evidence shows the BCRJ does not come close to dumping The Gerstein Report as you suggested, in fact, the article completely validates it as an important historical document providing evidence of Gerstein's many attempts to inform the outside world of The Holocaust.Zerosprite (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)