What does everyone think of the Nuremberg Trials-Did they prove Nazi guilt?

[Wroclaw]

With only one exception, Kaltenbrunner was the only defendant charged with a role in the holohoax, he testified as follows ...

Wrong again. Göring was on trial as well, for having ordered the Heydrich to arrange the Final Solution.

 

[Wroclaw]

So is the contention that, if no defendant at Nuremberg admitted to taking part in the Holocaust, then the Holocaust didn't happen?

Really?

 

[Biscuit]

With only one exception, Kaltenbrunner was the only defendant charged with a role in the holohoax, he testified as follows ....

COL. BROOKHART: Witness after witness, by testimony and affidavit, has said that the gas chamber killings were done on general or specific orders of Kaltenbrunner.

KALTENBRUNNER: Show me one of those men or any of those orders. It is utterly impossible.

COL. BROOKHART: Practically all of the orders came through Kaltenbrunner.

KALTENBRUNNER: Entirely impossible.

Kaltenbrunner also testified that he first heard of the hoax on allied radio.

The charges against Kaltenbrunner were preposterous and there was not a shred of evidence for them. The 'orders' mentioned by Brookhard did not exist.

You really are just wrong about he trials and this guy. As far as the charges go he was charged with counts 1, 3, and 4. He was not charged with planning and executing wars of aggression.

He had undoubtedly visited Mauthausen and witnesses testified that he had seen prisoners killed by the various methods of execution, hanging, shooting in the back of the neck, and gassing, as part of a demonstration. Kaltenbrunner himself ordered the execution of prisoners in those camps and his office was used to transmit to the camps execution orders which originated in Himmler's office. At the end of the war Kaltenbrunner participated in the arrangements for the evacuation of inmates of concentration camps, and the liquidation of many of them, to prevent them from being liberated by the Allied armies.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/de-kaltenbrunner.htm

A letter which he wrote on 30 June 1944, described the shipment to Vienna of 12,000 Jews for that purpose, and directed that all who could not work would have to be kept in readiness for "special action," which meant murder. At Nuremberg Kaltenbrunner denied his signature to this letter, as he did on a very large number of orders on which his name was stamped or typed, and, in a few instances, written. The International Military Tribunal concluded that it was "inconceivable that in matters of such importance his signature could have appeared so many times" without his authority.

Oh clearly he denied it so it must not be true!

 

[Saggy]

A letter which he wrote on 30 June 1944, described the shipment to Vienna of 12,000 Jews for that purpose, and directed that all who could not work would have to be kept in readiness for "special action," which meant murder. At Nuremberg Kaltenbrunner denied his signature to this letter, as he did on a very large number of orders on which his name was stamped or typed, and, in a few instances, written. The International Military Tribunal concluded that it was "inconceivable that in matters of such importance his signature could have appeared so many times" without his authority.

"would have to be kept in readiness for "special action," which meant murder. "

The Nazis shipped Jews to Vienna to murder them? Complete idiocy.

very large number of orders on which his name was stamped or typed, and, in a few instances, written.

Kaltenbrunner wrote orders. They could not produce ONE incriminating order.

 

[Wroclaw]

The Nazis shipped Jews to Vienna to murder them? Complete idiocy.

Not necessarily. Depends on where they were deported from to get to Vienna. If it was the Altreich or western Europe, it doesn't defy expectations at all. Nor would it if, given the time frame, they were coming from Hungary or even Italy.

A shipment of 12,000 Jews is sent to Vienna, 3,200 of whom are fit to work. The rest have to be made ready to be sent to a death camp to be murdered.

What's the problem?

 

[Biscuit]

"would have to be kept in readiness for "special action," which meant murder. "

The Nazis shipped Jews to Vienna to murder them? Complete idiocy.

very large number of orders on which his name was stamped or typed, and, in a few instances, written.

Kaltenbrunner wrote orders. They could not produce ONE incriminating order.

wrong. They produced many. He denied responsibility but that hardly proves his innocence.

Kaltenbrunner denied his signature to this letter, as he did on a very large number of orders on which his name was stamped or typed, and, in a few instances, written.

You sure to make a lot of statements but can't seem to provide any proof, have you ever wondered why that is?

Would you care to explain why Vienna, in occupied territory and a major transport hub, would be an unlikely place to ship jewish prisoners?

 

[Biscuit]

The Nazis shipped Jews to Vienna to murder them? Complete idiocy.

Awww nuts! Looks like Vienna was indeed a transit city for the transportation of Holocaust victims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WW2-Holocaust-Europe-2007Borders.png

 

[Saggy]

You sure to make a lot of statements but can't seem to provide any proof, have you ever wondered why that is?

At no time in any trial was any written order, from Kaltenbrunner or anyone else, produced that involved exterminating Jews. That's the simple fact. If you want to disprove it, produce one.

It doesn't make any difference how many wiki articles you can find about 'extermination camps'. They are a fantasy.

 

[uke2se]

At no time in any trial was any written order, from Kaltenbrunner or anyone else, produced that involved exterminating Jews. That's the simple fact. If you want to disprove it, produce one.

It doesn't make any difference how many wiki articles you can find about 'extermination camps'. They are a fantasy.

Yes there is. We know that the "Endlösung" of the Jewish question referred to extermination, as forced emigration and evacuation had proven ineffective. On July 31, 1941 Hermann Göring sent an order to Reinhard Heydrich ordering him to "submit to [Göring] as soon as possible a general plan of the administrative material and financial measures necessary for carrying out the desired final solution (Endlösung) of the Jewish question."

 

[Dogzilla]

The Nazis did indeed persecute lots of different groups. I have never seen this fact bemoaned by any leaders of the Jewish community, now or then.

Jewish community leaders didn't complain about acknowledging other groups of people as victims of Nazism. They complained about the lack of recognition of the Jewish people as the chosen victims of Nazism. For one example see Report from Jacob Robinson to the World Jewish Congress, December 6, 1945, particularly page 6.

The Jews were probably the most numerous of the peoples that were murdered, so if you quantify importance by numbers of murder victims, the Jews were the most important. Otherwise, each human victim of the murderous Nazis was equally important.

IIRC, roughly 20 million Russians were killed during the war and ninety percent of the Romani population in Europe had been wiped out by 1945. So if you quantify 'importance' by either the number of murder victims or by percentage of population murdered, Jews were not the most 'important' victims.

 

[Dogzilla]

See my post above. The holocaust in its broader definition encompasses all the murdered peoples. The Nazis who were accused of crimes against humanity were accused of murdering the Jews as well as the Romani, the Slavs, the Poles, the handicapped, the homosexuals, the freemasons, the Jehova's Witnesses, Soviet POWs, the East Slavs and the Serbs and South Slavs.

I don't want to lead this discussion too far astray but if "the holocaust" includes the Romani, the Slavs, the Poles, the handicapped, the homosexuals, the freemasons, the Jehova's Witnesses, Soviet POWs, the East Slavs and the Serbs and South Slavs as well as the Jews, why is "denying" "the holocaust" considered a particularly virulent form of antisemitism?

 

[uke2se]

Jewish community leaders didn't complain about acknowledging other groups of people as victims of Nazism. They complained about the lack of recognition of the Jewish people as the chosen victims of Nazism. For one example see Report from Jacob Robinson to the World Jewish Congress, December 6, 1945, particularly page 6.

Mr Robinson expressed discontent about having the Jewish victims (roughly 5.2-5.5 million as per recent counts) equated to the Romani victims (around 220,000). At first glance, Mr Robinson also seems quite contemptuous of "Gypsies", which today would be unacceptable. I don't see him bemoan the fact that other peoples where mentioned as victims though, as was your assertion.

IIRC, roughly 20 million Russians were killed during the war and ninety percent of the Romani population in Europe had been wiped out by 1945. So if you quantify 'importance' by either the number of murder victims or by percentage of population murdered, Jews were not the most 'important' victims.

20 million Soviets were killed in the war, the majority of them not as part of the holocaust. Adding the sources I can find gives me a figure of about 4.6 million Soviets murdered during the holocaust + the Jewish victims hailing from those nations.

The Romani population, as already mentioned, lost about 220,000 victims. Some higher totals exist, of up to 1.5 million victims.

Neither of the two mentioned death tolls exceed that of the Jewish victims, so my point stands.

 

[uke2se]

I don't want to lead this discussion too far astray but if "the holocaust" includes the Romani, the Slavs, the Poles, the handicapped, the homosexuals, the freemasons, the Jehova's Witnesses, Soviet POWs, the East Slavs and the Serbs and South Slavs as well as the Jews, why is "denying" "the holocaust" considered a particularly virulent form of antisemitism?

Because most holocaust deniers are anti-semites, and their anti-semitism is the causing factor of their holocaust denialism. This link is so strong that reversing the cause and effect relationship nearly always shows the same.

If you are one of the minuscule minority of holocaust deniers that aren't also anti-semites, we can conclude that your delusion stems more from insanity and not as much from a rabid hatred of Jews.

 

[Dogzilla]

See, this is exactly the problem. Are you saying no Nazi defendant admitted taking part in the Holocaust, or that they didn't admit taking part in faking the Holocaust? I understand that you don't think the Holocaust happened as history presently says, but you need to wait until you've won that argument before you start trying to change the words we use to refer to it. As much as anything, it makes you look like a childish individual throwing out pathetic insults because you can't win the argument.

Oh, and something else to note: I'm trying to help you in this post, Saggy. That's how bad your position is. Someone who disagrees with everything you stand for is trying to strengthen your argument so it's at least an interesting fight.

Stop trying to derail the conversation by pretending you don't understand. "Holohoax" is the word Saggy uses for "Holocaust". He's not the first or only person to ever call it that. If somebody in this thread repeatedly used the word "Shoah" instead of "holocaust" you would know what he was talking about. You know what Saggy means as well.

 

[dafydd]

At no time in any trial was any written order, from Kaltenbrunner or anyone else, produced that involved exterminating Jews. That's the simple fact. If you want to disprove it, produce one.

It doesn't make any difference how many wiki articles you can find about 'extermination camps'. They are a fantasy.

They are not and you know it. Your rabid hatred of Jews prevents you from admitting it.

 

[Dogzilla]

Not necessarily. Depends on where they were deported from to get to Vienna. If it was the Altreich or western Europe, it doesn't defy expectations at all. Nor would it if, given the time frame, they were coming from Hungary or even Italy.

A shipment of 12,000 Jews is sent to Vienna, 3,200 of whom are fit to work. The rest have to be made ready to be sent to a death camp to be murdered.

What's the problem?

The problem is that, even if you fall for the orthodox history of the holocaust hook, line, and sinker, Vienna wasn't a death camp.

Even if Vienna was a collection point for Jews, the departure point for the Jews prior to arriving in Vienna wouldn't determine their ultimate fate. But let's pretend it does and Jews coming from Western Europe or Hungary or Italy into Vienna were destined to be shipped off to a death camp to be holocausted. The letter of 30 June 1944 doesn't reference the point of origin.

What might have happened or could have been doesn't prove beyond reasonable doubt what was or is. Do you realize how much of the 'evidence' against Kaltenbrunner is in the form of could've/should've/what he really meant was?

 

[Dogzilla]

wrong. They produced many. He denied responsibility but that hardly proves his innocence.



You sure to make a lot of statements but can't seem to provide any proof, have you ever wondered why that is?

Would you care to explain why Vienna, in occupied territory and a major transport hub, would be an unlikely place to ship jewish prisoners?

It wouldn't be an unlikely place. It would make sense. But Vienna wasn't an Auschwitz. It wasn't a place where Jews were collected to be shipped off somewhere else. You're basing an argument on what could have happened, not what was said to have happened.

 

[uke2se]

Stop trying to derail the conversation by pretending you don't understand. "Holohoax" is the word Saggy uses for "Holocaust". He's not the first or only person to ever call it that. If somebody in this thread repeatedly used the word "Shoah" instead of "holocaust" you would know what he was talking about. You know what Saggy means as well.

And he's saying that the word is childish. It demonstrates exactly the intellectual level deniers operate from.

 

[uke2se]

It wouldn't be an unlikely place. It would make sense.

Thank you. That was the whole point. Saggy was wrong. Again.

 

[ddt]

But Vienna wasn't an Auschwitz. It wasn't a place where Jews were collected to be shipped off somewhere else.

What part of the term "transit city" do you not understand?