General Holocaust denial discussion Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
I will make more in-depth post at some point tomorrow, but has the user "EtienneSC" ever heard of the Nurnberg Laws? Of Nazi dismissal of Jewish civil servants in 1933? Of various anti-Jewish restrictions in the years between 1933-38?
Edited by jsfisher: 
<snip> Edited for compliance with Rule 12 of the Membership Agreement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LeoMajor said:
I will make more in-depth post at some point tomorrow, but has the user "EtienneSC" ever heard of the Nurnberg Laws? Of Nazi dismissal of Jewish civil servants in 1933? Of various anti-Jewish restrictions in the years between 1933-38?
Edited by jsfisher: 
<snip> Moderated content redacted.
Click to expand...
To describe as "sentiment" the host of well-documented and analyzed anti-Jewish laws, discriminatory ordinances, confiscations and seizures, official and unofficial proscriptions and expulsions, violent actions, and various persecutory measures of the Third Reich, such as incarceration without charge or appeal, is to betray a gross misunderstanding of the Third Reich to the point of neutering it. Even the Nazis themselves would object to such a tepid, vanilla characterization of their rule, a depiction that, whilst seeming to try making Nazi rule bland, erases from it the special qualities which the Nazis insisted on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
EtienneSC said:
. . . Here are my opinions based on information currently to hand:

Günther Reinecke
I have looked at a copy of Reinecke's thesis . . . Reinecke does not evince the sort of casual or visceral anti-semitism found in the Taubner verdict. . . .

Authenticity of the Taubner verdict
I stress that this is only a theory - or desperate guess if you will. Nonetheless, I'm being serious. Two things would have to have happened for there to have been a miscarriage of justice in the 1961 investigations into Reinecke. Firstly, the Taubner verdict would have to been wrongly associated with him, or somehow misrepresented. We have still not seen his signature on it or an official stamp that would connect him with it. . . .

Work to do
It should be possible to get a copy of the original verdict. There is an essay on the investigation into Reinecke in HGS - this needs to be examined in detail.
Click to expand...
In Büchler's article in HGS, we can read how Himmler directed that Täubner be tried in a higher SS court than the case warranted on its face and that
The head of the SS legal system, Günther Reinecke, was appointed head of the tribunal, and the investigating judge was Meurin, the prosecutor who had interrogated Täubner and his men.54 The proceedings against Täubner were, according to Himmler’s opinion of 26 October 1942, a secret “field trial.”
Click to expand...
Büchler describes Himmler's interventions, which included directing which court to use for the case, guidelines to SS legal officials for handling of state secrets regarding killing of Jews (when such killings were prosecutable and when not - Bender, document of 26 October 1942), secrecy of the proceedings, importance of the photographs in the case, edits to and approval of the verdict, and handling of Täubner's appeal including probation. The case and verdict were carefully considered - not casually or viscerally - by senior officials within the SS; the verdict was the outcome of official deliberations and policy review, not the product of an individual's sensibilities as you try having it in a Reinecke fishing expedition of sorts.

Whilst I appreciate reflections on Reinecke, it's important to recall the context in which he worked, with what superiors and guidelines. In fact, Büchler writes about Brause - "The SS judge, Obersturmbannführer (Lieutenant Colonel) Dr. Brause, who wrote the verdict" - and cites testimony of Brause in this regard (VA, TR-10/752, p.9). I take it from this, although Büchler doesn't say so directly, that Brause authored the verdict, directed by Reinecke as the head of the tribunal but also overseen by the Reichsführer-SS himself. Poor, sad Reinecke is not being thrown to the wolves in this process, no matter how hard you speculate (it may interest you to know that Büchler finds Reinecke's postwar testimony particularly dishonest).

Büchler's citations are to the trial documents and verdict - Feldurteil 25 May 1943, YVA, TR-10/711. Büchler also quotes from testimonies about the actions conducted by Täubner's unit, testimonies you surely will not like reading ("original documents are in ZSt. Best II 204 AR-132/1, and the copies in YVA, TR- 10/1080, 101, 711, 752").

To make your speculations even interesting, you really need to review the materials in the archives cited by Büchler and at the very least contend with his article.
 
Last edited:
EtienneSC said:
I am attempting to act like a defense attorney or devil's advocate and question every bit of unfavorable evidence. If I end up feeling like OJ Simpson's defense team at a Trump rally, so be it. It's a legitimate task.
Click to expand...

No it is not. As a responsible citizen I have no choice but to question the underlying motivations of someone who willingly defends a openly racist and genocidal regime.

Konrad Morgen and Monowitz
No, I have not read Conscience of a Nazi Judge, but only skimmed parts online. It looked interesting, but when I saw by searching Amazon that the author's said nothing about the Monowitz "gaffe" and hence knew nothing of revisionism, I figured their judgement would be impaired.
Click to expand...

You must take into account two factors when discussing that. First, Morgen was a German and was not stationed in Poland on a permanent-duty basis, and the newly Germanized names of Upper Silesian locales would have been confusing and unfamiliar to him. Second, Morgen was testifying as a defense witness for the SS and would have made it his mission to obfuscate and misdirect as much as possible. He clearly played upon the judges lack of knowledge of the SS organizational structure in presenting his own rosy picture.

You have no choice but to accept that he was a credible witness: he refused to corroborate certain claims made about practices at KL Buchenwald, even after being beaten senseless. He also expressed doubt about the Six Million number in a 1971 interview and expressed contempt for Jews stating that "they helped kill their own people". He was no shill and no victim of any show trial. I dislike him as a person, and his memory was foggy at times and clouded by agenda at others but there is no doubt that he was describing as best as he could what was a fact: extermination.

However, the description he gave at Nuremberg of the location of the gas chambers corresponds in substance and not only in name to Monowitz
Click to expand...

Wrong! :dig:

There were no gas chambers at Monowitz, and Morgen's description of them in later testimonies clearly places their location at Birkenau. I once again instruct you, with absolute unforgiving firmness, to account for Morgen's role as an SS witness in the former testimony.


I gather that you wish to make points about Morgen's wartime work. I don't have a copy of Conscience of a Nazi Judge, but can discuss if you provide full citations of documents that you wish to draw conclusions from.
Click to expand...

Why don't you make the trip down to your local Library and order it? takes about a week or two to arrive. Morgen was a trustworthy witness in terms of motivation and outlook, and presents a massive problem for deniers. I would say that the fact of his testimony, combined with his resistance to pressure on other matters and his clearly apologetic outlook in regards to the KL's basically refutes denial (among many other pieces of evidence).
 
Jeffk 1970 said:
Maybe Rudolf (and others) shouldn't break the law of their respective countries.
Click to expand...

Rudolf is also openly antisemitic and a serial misinterpreter of information, to the point of outright lying. Jim Rizoli got his Grnagauz nonsense from Rudolf.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LeoMajor said:
Rudolf is also openly antisemitic and a serial misinterpreter of information, to the point of outright lying. Jim Rizoli got his Grnagauz nonsense from Rudolf.
Click to expand...

And Rudolf got it from Butz. They're anything but original, these folks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nick Terry said:
Dickopf was the probable source of a 100-page report on the RSHA, SD and Nazi intelligence given to the Swiss military in 1944. I.e. he probably wrote the whole thing, in exhaustive detail.

The report included a section with extremely detailed knowledge of the extermination of the Jews, especially the Einsatzgruppen, gas vans and to a lesser extent Auschwitz, that could only have come from insider-hearsay, from knowledge passed on by other SS officers - Brigadefuehrer Thomas seems to have been one of his sources. Dickopf was not directly involved in the Holocaust, which is why he could remain in government service. But one did not need to be a mass murderer to be a Nazi or to find some aspects worth preserving after 1945.
Click to expand...

Thanks a lot for your valuable info, Dr. Terry.

I don't think this makes Dickopf a "good" person, though. His later actions reveal his true character. He was almost certainly complicit in efforts to protect Nazi fugitives. He visited Fritz Bauer's office and made a not so veiled threat to them not to pursue Eichmann. His BKA refused to investigate Eichmann and other Nazi fugitives, and it's very likely he did the same while he served as the head of interpol and blocked the pursuit of Nazi fugitives. As the head of the BKA, he pretty much practiced the equivalent of McCarthyism and discriminated against Gypsies. He did a service if he did indeed make the report you mentioned. But in light of his career before and after that, it sounds like he was more interested in saving his own skin. Given his position in both the BKA and CIA, and how he used it, it clearly paid off.
 
I take the point about my ignorance of the Büchler article in HGS. I can remedy that over time.

Diemut Mayer
Mayer has been cited as the author of "Non-Germans" in the Third Reich (2013). This has an introduction that frames the rest of the book. Then there are chapters on applications of legal principles on non-Germans to public law in the Old Reich, annexed Eastern territories and General Government; their application to the system of Justice (penal law and civil law) again in the Old Reich, annexed eastern territories and General Government. There seems to be no special sections on military law or the occupied territories. Hence it is not clear if her work would apply without qualification to the Einsatzgruppen or to Aktion Reinhard - which took place on the borders of the General Government and concerned deportees.

The introduction frames the later discussion in terms of "inequality". Ronald Dworkin (Taking Rights Seriously, Law's Empire) identified the principle of equality as a basic principle behind law. He takes it as a first principle that cannot be proved. However, it was not accepted prior to 1945. Hence his reflections on the injustice of a hypothetical Nazi judge ("Judge Siegfried"). It may be that the principle of equality is a historical construct rather than, or as well as, a constant. Some Nazi theorists tried to grapple with the idea of inequality and had problems with its scope and interpretation. Mayer cites Hans Lammers doing this:
In conscious and diametrical opposition to liberalism, National Socialism takes as its starting point a firm belief in the inequality of man... because nothing can be perfect, National Socialism prefers a - perhaps - just inequality over the unjust inequality of unrealistic liberalism. 616n
Click to expand...
The classical theorist Justinian's principle was to "give to each their due", not "give to each the same amount". Reflections of this sort are not without precedent in legal theory. Some of them are mistaken and it is to be expected that a literate country like Germany would produce a literature exploring different ideas about almost everything, some wrong headed.

Mayer goes on to cite a work now widely considered to be a wartime forgery, namely Hermann Rauschning's Conversations with Hitler (1940) - 616n. This work was published in Paris in 1940 before the invasion and quickly put into English as part of the war effort. The Germans repudiated it, describing it as defamatory. Reportedly, they conducted an investigation establishing that Rauschning had not met Hitler in the way the book alleges. Ian Kershaw makes no use of it, though Alan Bullock still used it, in their Hitler biographies. Revisionists including Vincent Reynouard have summarized the story. Hitler's secretary, Traudl Junge, makes an indirect reference to it at the start of her memoirs when she says that Hitler was no "carpet chewer". This illustrates the point that a heightened criticism of sources is necessary in this area.
 
Degeneve said:
A new German study confirms what Ivanesca has told since several days, i.e. that the German justice ministry was infested with ex-Nazis hellbent on protecting their former "Parteigenossen" : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...stice-ministry-was-infested-with-nazis-prote/
Click to expand...

Yep. It also shows that this
Fully 77 per cent of senior ministry officials in 1957 were former members of Adolf Hitler's Nazi party, a higher proportion even than during the 1933-45 Third Reich, the study found.
The fascist old-boys network closed ranks, enabling its members to shield each other from justice, the study found - helping to explain why so few Nazi war criminals ever went to prison.
Click to expand...
And not the repeated claims of "hoax" and "forgery" was the reality. Until deniers like EtienneSC and Mondial actually explain their fantasies in the actual context of the actual postwar policies of the Allies and West Germany (which they will never do, because said policies were the opposite of their claims), they're nothing more than scam artists clinging to baseless delusions.
 
EtienneSC said:
. . .

Diemut Mayer . . . The introduction frames the later discussion in terms of "inequality". . . .
Click to expand...
Be clear, we are discussing equality under the law and whether a form of law that supports persecution of some people by denying them rights extended to others existed in Nazi Germany. I am not trying to convince you to change your views but rather explain that Nazi law did what you now seem to be saying.

EtienneSC said:
Mayer goes on to cite a work now widely considered to be a wartime forgery, namely Hermann Rauschning's . . .
Click to expand...
True, Majer also has some citations to Picker's equally problematic (I wouldn't use it) Table Talk. The point on 616, if I'm following your post right, deals with the German Labor Front - not a point central to her argument. In nearly 400 pages of endnotes, there are a small number of references to these sources. TO convince me that Majer's core argument is problematic, especially after you just seemed to embrace it, you'd have to evaluate all the sources and how they were used - not a single endnote.
 
Given the rabid Jew hatred of the Holocaust deniers, I was always surprised rather than trying to deny the mass murder of millions of Jews, they didn't instead boast about it. What is the agenda behind their denial of reality? is is because they don't want history to see the Nazis for the monsters they were-or do they still want to paint Jews as some kind of bogeymnan, and claim somehow the Nazis were the victims?
 
Tinfoil Hater said:
Given the rabid Jew hatred of the Holocaust deniers, I was always surprised rather than trying to deny the mass murder of millions of Jews, they didn't instead boast about it. What is the agenda behind their denial of reality? is is because they don't want history to see the Nazis for the monsters they were-or do they still want to paint Jews as some kind of bogeymnan, and claim somehow the Nazis were the victims?
Click to expand...

For some (many?) the claim seems to be the Holocaust is an invention of the Jews themselves to gain some sort of moral authority and financial reward. Also, the power to create the "holocaust myth" would demonstrate the power of the Jews in world affairs. It is of course arrant nonsense but what else would you expect.
 
Tinfoil Hater said:
Given the rabid Jew hatred of the Holocaust deniers, I was always surprised rather than trying to deny the mass murder of millions of Jews, they didn't instead boast about it. What is the agenda behind their denial of reality? is is because they don't want history to see the Nazis for the monsters they were-or do they still want to paint Jews as some kind of bogeymnan, and claim somehow the Nazis were the victims?
Click to expand...

There might be different reasons for Holocaust denial. Anti-Semitism is certainly the more common one.

There have been ex-Nazis who tried to exonerate themselves from the crimes while denying they had taken place at all.

There are also people who try to rehabilitate Hitler and the Nazis. This is for instance what the French denialist Vincent Reynouard explained. He once explained that he is convinced that Hitler and the Nazism had reached some valuable achievements and that Nazism was an acceptable political system. He therefore came to the conclusion that the Holocaust story must have been falsified in order to negate the merits of Nazism.

Robert Faurisson has a very old record of being a support of Philippe Pétain and Vichy France for which the collaboration with Germany is an embarrassment. Negating the Holocaust makes his position more acceptable. Beside Faurisson is also an anti-Semite.

There are certainly other reasons but these three are the first ones which come to my mind.
 
Tinfoil Hater said:
Given the rabid Jew hatred of the Holocaust deniers, I was always surprised rather than trying to deny the mass murder of millions of Jews, they didn't instead boast about it. What is the agenda behind their denial of reality? is is because they don't want history to see the Nazis for the monsters they were-or do they still want to paint Jews as some kind of bogeymnan, and claim somehow the Nazis were the victims?
Click to expand...

I think this short article from Nizkor has the right of it: "Denial is the greatest tool that Nazis have in whitewashing the image of Adolf Hitler and thus paving the way for a second Holocaust."
 
Mondial said:
Germar Rudolf <snip>
Click to expand...
That's Rudolf the Holocaust denier and failed chemistry student who conducted the bungled and long discredited "research" into cyanide residue at Auschwitz" which showed nothing other than his bias and incompetence?
The Germar Rudolf who also dabbles in 911 conspiracy theories?

Pathetic.
 
Mondial said:
Germar Rudolf - http://germarrudolf.com - has written a critique of the court room performance of Robert Jan Van Pelt. He was an expert who testified on behalf of Deborah Lipstadt -
www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/RudolfOnVanPelt.html
Click to expand...

Oh, look. An article written in 2000. And I see Rudolf is still relying on the images taken on August 25th, 1944. Why am I not surprised? Don't you deniers ever get tired of repeating the same old de-bunked crap? How about some up-to-date Scholarship?


Here's an animated gif from photographs taken on August 23rd, 1944. The roll of film was discovered in 2004.

Thanks to Sergey and Hans from HC.




I challenge anyone to see even the slightest wisp of smoke in those pictures!!!
 
Tinfoil Hater said:
Given the rabid Jew hatred of the Holocaust deniers, I was always surprised rather than trying to deny the mass murder of millions of Jews, they didn't instead boast about it. What is the agenda behind their denial of reality? is is because they don't want history to see the Nazis for the monsters they were-or do they still want to paint Jews as some kind of bogeymnan, and claim somehow the Nazis were the victims?
Click to expand...

There are some like that, but there are also some who genuinely believe that the Nazis are not the bogeymen they have been made out to be and there were Allied atrocities, particularly Soviet which went unpunished. I see them as more Nazi apologist and Soviet hating than anti-Semitic.

Katyn is the famous massacre which the Nazis investigated but the Soviets managed to switch the blame. There was also a massacre at Vinnitsia of Ukrainians in 1938 by the Soviets which the Nazis uncovered, arranged an international investigation, but the Soviets got away with. Some 9000 bodies were found. The Bykivnia graves could contain over 200,000 bodies, people killed by the Soviets.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom