Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[Wroclaw]

You consider research in the humanities to be massively funded? LOL.

That's a good one.

 

[Clayton Moore]

You consider research in the humanities to be massively funded? LOL.



No.



You're doing that time-machine thing again, aren't you? Blair's government considered and then rejected the idea of criminalising Holocaust denial, in its first term in office. Labour won two more elections after that, and have since been replaced.



And you are deeply familiar with the research of Robert Kuwalek, Alina Skibinska, Adam Pulawski, Bogdan Musial, Jacek Mlynarczyk and dozens of other Polish historians who have written about the Holocaust since 1990?



IHR doesn't have a forum. In case you didn't notice, the director of the IHR, Mark Weber, asked in January 2009 how relevant Holocaust revisionism was and concluded it wasn't. He is now officially an apostate in the eyes of the other 'revisionists', as is David Irving.

That's Holocaust denial: going round and round in ever decreasing circles.... swirling down the plughole.

I just wish Faurisson would snuff it as it'd make a great ending to my book.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 12.

 

[Hans]

It certainly appears that a massively funded holocaust industry has been furiously working on damage control 24-7-365 in the last 14 years and beyond.

You consider research in the humanities to be massively funded? LOL.

Talk about someone completely out of touch with realities - ah no dude humanities have been scrapping the bottom of barrel for funds for decades, heck they've gone through the barrel and are about a meter and half into the ground now....

Oh loved your deeply intellectual response to the reply that demolished your argument with a limp, 'Double talk" LOL, deny much?

Anything you say about the Germans intending genocide against the Jews of Europe is a lie.

Wow, now that deep denial

 

[LemmyCaution]

Are you suggesting that all of the cited incidences of torture and coercion by British, US and Soviet officials are false? If any of them are true, it blows the hell out of your mass gassing theory, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't. Why would it?

For my part, I am wondering why you all can't produce some primary sources on these coercion and torture assertions.

But I also think that it is utterly possible for interrogation techniques that contravene legal standards to be used where a defendant did in fact commit a crime. A conviction in such cases, if based on the information obtained in an illegal manner, should be tossed (and this--convictions based on coerced testimony about gas chambers--is not even shown in the discussion in this thread, only claims of bad treatment). A conviction based on information gained through coercion, for example, is a legal problem, not a problem with the occurrence of the crime in question or who committed it. I may misunderstand your point. You can't mean what I think you did. Can you?

 

[little grey rabbit]

Thanks for the wall of nazi text plus some very dodgy references.
Care to try again with a primary source.

That was a primary source. Or at least the quote was.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Thanks indeed to the Rabbit. We can now see how that paragraph from Eclipse was edited.

"Same thing in the next cell and the next, where the men, who
were bleeding and very dirty, were moaning something in German.
"You had better see the doctor" the captain said. "He s a nice
specimen. He invented some of the tortures here. He had one trick
of injecting creosote and petrol into the prisoners* veins. He used to
go round the huts and say "Too many people in here. Far too
many" Then he used to loose off his revolver round the hut. The
doctor has just finished his interrogation."
The doctor had a cell to himself.
"Come on. Get up," the sergeant shouted. The man was lying in
his blood on the floor, a massive figure with a heavy head and a
bedraggled beard. He placed his two arms on to the seat of a
wooden chair, gave himself a heave and got half-upright. One more
heave and he was on his feet. He flung wide his arms towards us.
"Why don t you kill me?" he whispered. "Why don t you kill me?
I can t stand any more."

I guess now it becomes "degenerate lies".

Well the fuller version is yet more evidence of coercion. Because the orthodox narrative now claims prisoners were injected with phenol. But in the Belsen trial everyone confessed to injecting with petrol. Later when phenol became the Hoax gold standard, everyone confessed to injecting with phenol.

The point is - even if you believe in the Nazi lethal injections (which I do not) - why would they confess at all - and if they did confess, why confess to using a substance they did not?

 

[little grey rabbit]

I'm sorry but the excerpt/quote is in no way 'good evidence for coercion' in any kind of meaningful sense. There is actually no direct evidence for coercion to make anyone say anything in particular. Without that - this is in essence the missing link - then all one has is apparent evidence of rough treatment by guards, which is sadly nothing unusual for prisoners in captivity.

The timing of the account would seemingly place the testimony - again it is really rather amazing how deniers seize on anything that suits them, when elsewhere they tell us over and over and over again that testimonies are not to be trusted - immediately after liberation. The Belsen pre-trial investigation lasted some time and there were many months before the trial, which was conducted in public with reporters present.

Moreover both before the trial and during the trial, the defendants did what one would expect - defend themselves against accusations. Guards denied having beaten prisoners, Kramer brought out his violin and claimed he was unable to do anything about the humanitarian catastrophe at Belsen, and so on.

It is really no more than magical thinking which allows deniers to try and parlay extremely vague report of maltreatment circa the first week of May 1945 with no names and no corroboration, into a very targeted coercion which forced SS men to lie exclusively about gas chambers while denying other crimes, and forced them to lie despite the presence of the world press. Even the defendants at the Moscow show trials in the 1930s recanted on the stand on occasion.

The logistics of this world-beating conspiracy become all the more absurd when the many other interrogations of Auschwitz SS going on at precisely the same time are taken into consideration. Not only is there not a peep of coercion for those interrogations - absolutely no evidence, not even a testimony to be quote-mined - but their sheer number decreases the prior and posterior probability of any such scenario.

That's before we even consider the impossible-to-explain matches. Poor bunny will bleat about me repeating this one, but I have always loved the idiotic allegation made by Carlo Mattogno that 'the Poles' got on the horn to 'the British' and made them coerce Hans Aumeier into using the term 'Bunkers' to describe the first gas chambers at Birkenau. This claim is advanced without a shred of evidence, and actually contradicts the documented chronology of Polish-British cooperation over war crimes, which got underway somewhat later. The glaring absence of evidence is evidently not enough to stop Charlie the chimp-in-chief from pausing to realise his own intellectual bankruptcy.

I'm sorry, but it's not enough to glom onto a single quote out of context which doesn't actually connect up with where you want it to go. You have to explain the totality of the evidence. End of story.

The IWM collections had on their digitalised photos section a lovely picture of some SS guards lying face down in a trench with British soldiers holding guns over them - an obvious mock execution. The caption on the lines of "Former guards allowed to rest during break". Unfortunately, the IWM have had the sense to remove it.

But leaving aside tell-tale signs like all prisoners confessing to petrol injections rather than phenol. What do you make of this

I have heard of the allegations of former prisoners in Auschwitz referring
to a gas chamber there, the mass executions and whippings, the cruelty of the
guards employed and that all this took place either in my presence or with my
knowledge. All I can say to all this is that it is untrue from beginning to end.

The next statement it morphed to this

departments
a Professor Bickerbach.
3. The first time I saw a gas chamber proper was at Auschwitz. It was attached
to the crematorium. The complete building containing the crematorium
and gas chamber was situated in Camp No. 2 (Birkenau), of which I was in
command. I visited the building on my first inspection of the camp after being
there for three days, but for the first eight days I was there it was not working.
After eight days the first transport, from which gas chamber victims were selected,
arrived, and at the same time I received a written order from Höss, who
commanded the whole of Auschwitz Camp, that although the gas chamber and
crematorium were situated in my part of the camp, I had no jurisdiction over it
whatever. Orders in regard to the gas chamber were, in fact, always given by
Höss, and I am firmly convinced that he received such orders from Berlin. I
believe that had I been in Höss’ position and received such orders, I would
have carried them out, because even if I had protested it would only have resulted
in my being taken prisoner myself.

But even now Kramer doesnt seem to be aware that there were supposed to have been FOUR gas chambers and crematoria.

It was only at his trial that he specified 4, but of course he, like all witnesses at the Belsen trial, could give no detailed description of them. And the more detailed the descriptions that were given, the more incorrect they were.

 

[Dogzilla]

No, I want a summary that also points to the evidence. I’ve said that from the start.

 People has done exactly what you ask in turning my question around; in fact, that is what I meant by a proper history needing to be done. I suggest you read some of Nick Terry's posts on topics relating to the Holocaust: they are summaries of the narrative, citing particulars, of the sort I had in mind. Surely it should be possible for you to summarize with some substantiation something that is so deeply held and core a belief.

No, my request relies on no such assumption. The request was made in reply to this statement –
This was posted by Saggy. i really have no idea what he means by Jews lying since 1906 and a whole scheme being laid bare. The least he could have done, or someone willing to help him out, is summarize the basis for “the scheme,” the way “the Jews” lied -- and the lying narrative that resulted -- and how they got people to accept it, and, as I’ve also asked, how that connects to evidence cited and arguments made by historians who have developed the narrative of the genocide and related war crimes.

Earlier I replied to this notion as follows: Nothing has changed in my response to you guys: I didn't offer a great man theory or a conspiracy theory: I asked Saggy his interpretation. No need for you to strawman what I said.


Even if I were to agree with this, so what? Many groups and causes have advocates, and advocates often overstate in their appeals for support. So, historians almost always have to confront and deal with interested, and even partisan, points of view on topics they research. That some people raised money, spread a view of events, and made exaggerated appeals doesn’t speak to the work done by social scientists to understand the context and events. Please show us a single recent scholarly book on the Holocaust that is based on or influenced by urgent appeals to help Jews in 1906.


Again, social scientists sort these things out. Again, wars in particular bubble up demonization, extreme claims, and caricatures of the enemy. That claims are made proves nothing about the future impact of those claims and in particular doesn’t address what subsequent historical works contain, use as evidence, and argue. I would remind you that we are now 60 years distant from the war, and we have a great deal of perspective and scope for reflection, weighing, and balancing, as historians do. Balancing does not mean, of course, whitewashing. Research has shown that the Nazis did institutionalized terror and barbaric practices in various contexts not directly related to the genocidal campaign against Europe’s Jews—the camp system, POWs, anti-partisan warfare to name three.

 This conclusion is decidedly not rooted in wartime propaganda or caricatures of the Nazis.
Again, so what? It is rare indeed when victims do not engage in emotional renditions of what they’ve suffered. Historians, as I have said, sort this out. It is not in the least telling that wild claims and exaggeration are mixed in with accurate information from victims. I posted about this upthread IIRC. If historians picked up every atrocity story, did not compare and cross-check sources, didn’t weed out and ignore unbelievable statements—and failed to challenge and improve their own interpretations, then there would be a problem. To show a hoax, you need to move past the expected rhetoric of partisans, advocates, and victims and show that the scholarship of the Third Reich has bought the rhetoric hook, line, and sinker. That means you have to engage the most recent scholarship. Not with sloganeering and your own caricatures, either. This is why the constant references from deniers to popular figures or to Elie Wiesel are ultimately so silly and amusing. These people don’t do the kind of assessing which historians do, nor does someone like Wiesel even figure as a significant source for historians. Reading what deniers write here at JREF and over at RODOH, I cannot believe that they have read much of the scholarship--but more importantly that, not understanding how history is researched and written, even were they to do so they would be ill disposed to grasp the arguments: the rhetoric of deniers ends up to be little more than a few, repeated, canned one-offs and riffs, most of them barely relevant to the recent work done by historians, for example.


Well, it wasn’t picked up by Angrick & Klein, whose recent work is probably the best and most thoroughly documented on Riga, with a great deal of material on Salaspils; perhaps they ignored the porridge testimony because they didn’t believe it or thought it an exaggeration or misconception by a victim. I don’t know. All I know is that murder by porridge doesn't appear in their book (to my best recollection) and that bunny posted a snippet about it without anything else. Since I have encountered this bit, I would ask you to explain its importance in scholarly interpretations of Nazi camp practices. Since this seems such an important and signal issue for you, please post a summary of the full porridge story, its context, other testimony about it, and so forth. Thank you.

And, again, so what? Stories circulate, a lot of erroneous rumors and misinformation usually accompanies big events. Points of view differ. Oddballs and unreliable people get swept up in events. People cover their butts with lies and self-serving stories. Why should a mass murder campaign be any different in this regard? I have no idea how the 1946 New Yorker article has been used by historians. Please trace this for us. I do, however, know how Dr Neander used a memoir by Mrs Zisblatt—to the incomprehension of deniers on this forum. Dr Neander’s method, not the method of the random and uncritical repetition of rumors, memoir claims, or promotional statements, is the method by which historians of the Holocaust work.
You are winding yourself up about a strawman--that I asked about a grand conspiracy. I don’t have a very strong notion of what Saggy meant by the construction of the hoax, the Jews lying about a holocaust of six million Jews starting in 1906, or what the whole scheme looks like when laid bare. That’s partly why I asked. It’s up to Saggy or some other denier to explain how the hoax developed and to put something non-random, cogent, and substantiated together to do this.

Since I am completely convinced that the genocide occurred, and that the notion of a hoax is absurd, I have no preconception about the nature of the hoax which Saggy claims developed. I believe, in fact, that you and LGR keep defaulting to the notion that I have a picture of the hoax in mind to obfuscate and stall. Whatever. I don’t think there was a grand conspiracy, of course, and not being a mind reader I don’t know what you think happened to lead to a hoax.


No, it does. Because forgery and manipulation are the only ways out when deniers are trapped by what is documented. I will spare you a summary of denier claims about forged photos because I am not permitted to link to RODOH and thus only mention Udo Walendy. However, here is a list of some denier claims of forged documents, many of them making the list on an as-needed basis, the document suddenly becoming manipulated or hoaxed just when a denier argument came apart because of it. That deniers have claimed all the below forgeries at various times pretty much rubbishes your statement. (List from a RODOH thread on forgeries and manipulation.)

General 

1940s - Himmler Dienstkalendar
1942 - Sefton Delmer invented it all (Grimm, Walendy, a few others)

1943 - Raphael Lemkin - invented gas chambers (Rassinier, Hoggan, Harwood) 

1945 - US 3rd Army - bamboozled Hoettl into saying 6 million

1945 - US Capt Doc Center - faked Himmler Posen speech text (quite a few)

1945 - US IMT Interrogation Division - bamboozled Wisliceny 

1945/1946 - Brack X-ray sterilization letter, purportedly sent to Himmler on 23 June 1942 

1947 - US NMT - faked Himmler Posen speech recording (quite a few)

1947 - US NMT - forged Wannsee protocol (a lot) 

1947 - US NMT - altered Korherr report (Challen, Rudolf, a few others) 

1956-1960 - Wilhelm Sassen - faked interviews with Eichmann

1961 - Israeli Mossad - substituted Eichmann for a patsy (the bunny) 



Mass shootings 

1945 - British CSDIC - induced Bruns to discuss Riga massacre in private and be bugged (Hannover, effectively)

1945 - Latvian NKVD - tortured Jeckeln over Riga massacre etc

1947 - US NMT - forged Ereignismeldungen 

1947 - 'the Soviets' - forged Ereignismeldungen (Hoggan, Butz, Graf) 

1947 - US NMT - forged Meldung Nr 51 (implied by some, incl. HM) 

1940s - Soviet Osobyi archive - faked Jaeger report and buried it until 1960s (Graf, others)
Additionally – Jewish wartime diaries (the bunny), OSR 24 doctored to align Western and Soviet War Crimes positions (the bunny), Sakowicz’s Ponar diary
(the bunny), Rademacher's note that "Eichmann suggests shooting" in margin of Benzler telegram, September 1941 (the bunny)


Gas vans

1945 - US Capt Doc Center - faked gas van document (every denier)

1945 - US IMT Interrogation Division - coerced Rauff into corroborating gas vans document 

1945/1946 - Any subsequent letter or memorandum on X-ray sterilization referring to Brack's letter (also Wetzel draft letter for Lohse on Kallmeyer and gassing apparatuses in Minsk and Riga)

19--- - somebody - faked a gas vans document re Chelmno (every denier)

1940s - Soviet Osobyi archive - faked another gas vans document (implied by faith conform claim) 

AR Camps 

1943 - Gerstein - faked letter to Ubbink about Belzec 

1944 - Soviet 65th Army - faked investigation of Treblinka 

1944 - Soviet 1st Belorussian Front - did nefarious things at Majdanek

1944 - Soviet 1st Belorussian Front - faked investigation of Sobibor 

1944 - Soviet 1st Ukrainian Front - faked investigation of Belzec 

1945 - Gerstein - invented Belzec story 

1945 - US CDC - forged Stroop report (some) 

1945 - Rachel Auerbach - forged Stroop Report (denierbud) 

1945 - Polish Main Commission - faked investigation of Treblinka 

1947 - US NMT - tortured Viktor Brack into explaining Aktion Reinhard 

1947 - US NMT - persuaded witnesses to corroborate Wirth going to AR 

1960s - ZStL - coerced AR camp guards into talking about BST 

1970 - Gitta Sereny - made up interview with Franz Stangl

1980s - Claude Lanzmann - bribed Suchomel 

19-- - somebody - faked OK Ostrow document (implied) 

1997 - British PRO - faked Hoefle telegram (so say some)

1997-1999 - Torun University - "fraudulent" archaeological dig at Belzec 

Auschwitz 

1943 - authors of Black Book of Polish Jewry - faked newspaper article (Butz)
1944 - US War Refugee Board - faked Vrba-Wetzler report (Butz) 

1944 - Auschwitz underground resistance - faked Sonderkommando photo 

1945 - Soviet 1st Ukrainian Front - faked Birkenau and Auschwitz gas chambers (Krema deniers)
1945 - Soviet 1st Ukrainian Front - forgot to take down formwork (PG) 

1945 - Soviet 1st Ukrainian Front - took pictures of newly constructed Birkenau crematoria (Krema deniers) 

1945 - Soviet 1st Ukrainian Front - faked '4756' cremation document then suppressed it (Rudolf) 

1945 - Krakow Forensics Institute - faked cyanide residues found in crema ruins 

1945 - British 2nd Army - coerced Josef Kramer, Franz Hoessler and others 

1945 - British Army in Norway - coerced Hans Aumeier

1945 - US 3rd Army - coerced Erich Muhsfeldt 

1946 - British WCIU - coerced Kremer into corroborating diary 

1946 - British WCIU - tortured Hoess (every denier) 

1946 - US IMT Interrogation Division - tortured Hoess some more (implied) 

1946 - GM Gilbert - hypnotised Hoess (implied) 

1946 - Leon Goldensohn - hypnotised Hoess (implied) 

1946-7 - Polish NTN - coerced Hoess into writing memoirs (Staeglich) 

1947 - Polish NTN - coerced 40 Auschwitz SS officers and NCOs into lying 

1947 - Polish NTN - coerced Kremer to corroborate diary 

1947 - US NMT - forged Veesenmeyer telegrams (Butz, but not Mattogno) 

1947 - US NMT - coerced witnesses to corroborate Veesenmeyer telegrams (Butz) 

1940s - Soviet Osobyi archive - altered Gaspruefer memo and buried it until 1993 (Mattogno) 

1958-1963 - Staatsanwaltschaft Frankfurt am Main - coerced 22 Auschwitz SS staff (implied) 

1959 - BRD - forced Kremer to recorroborate his diary for the 3rd time 

1964 - Polish firm Hydrokop - faked bore samples on Auschwitz grounds 

1979 - CIA - altered air photos (Ball, others, Krema Deniers) 

1990s - RAF - released more fake air photos
Also – Sonderkommando writings left in Birkenau (the bunny)



Camps in Altreich 

1945 - US Army film team - faked Dachau gas chamber

1945 - Soviet Speziallager staff - built Sachsenhausen gas chamber ruins (Maser, others)

Have you not been reading what deniers say and do when they find themselves in a pickle?


You need to get to the specifics in the scholarly works which you are disputing. I'm not a mind-reader, not are your other readers clairvoyants. Too many random, unattributed points. You need to show who made the claim, in context, and why it is incorrect—and finally you need to show how the error is part of a hoaxing pattern and helps create a scheme of lying, as Saggy has it. Unless you are disagreeing with Saggy. In which case you need to explain what you mean by hoax.


See above. You do need to when your "arguments" run into trouble, as in always.

That is not what is stated in the literature. Again, your general claims need to be pinned down. To take this example, I will cite just one excerpt from one EG report, #108, and you will see that it does not mention Jews in a case of special treatment:

Clearly here special treatment refers to an action carried out against mentally ill persons in by SK 7b. So you need to cite the specific statement about special treatment, which you have in mind, stating that special treatment meant the killing of only Jews and was a term used only in that context and sense. If you can show a historian saying what you said, there is a far simpler and more likely explanation than hoaxing, which is either sloppiness or misunderstanding. The historian will likely be right that special treatment means liquidation action but it does not always mean with Jewish victims.

Now you're just talking silly on purpose. I don’t even know what you are going on about. 

Your analogy is preposterous and without any relevance to this discussion. 'nuff said.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

No people are magic. This is another of your strawmen.

How do you calculate these %’s?

 What is it about gas chambers, which were also employed by the Nazis to liquidate the "incurably ill," that causes your mind to shut down. Recall, too, that nearly half the Jewish victims of the genocide were "shot en masse on the Eastern front," or died in ghettos or camps or in forced labor.

Even assuming I were to agree with you, scholars have been writing about what happened and sorting their way through partisan accounts and exaggerations for generations. Sorting through claims people make is second nature to a trained historian. That the Nazis made wild claims and put forth many kinds of self-justification, for example, has led deniers to pick up a particular hoax—but not historians, who subject accounts from interested parties to analysis, place them in context, and understand them as interested accounts which reveal mindsets, ideologies, subjective experience.

Please pick up Longerich’s most recent book in English and show me where he is open to believing just about any ridiculous lie. Or another recent book, Paulsson’s Secret City, about Jews in wartime Warsaw, which I mentioned earlier in this thread. Or Engelking & Leociak’s book on Warsaw ghetto. Or Angrick & Klein’s study of Riga ghetto, under discussion at RODOH just now.

Of course it wasn't just Jews who had something to say about what Nazi practices were like. You really need to reflect on why it might be so that the Nazis stirred up so much opposition and outrage--and, in fact, recent research helps clarify this as well as what the opposition was like. The wartime focus, of course, was not solely or even mainly on the persecution of the Jews. In any event, evaluating historical events isn't the same as going with what seems logical to you, as you seem to imply; in fact, from another perspective, German leaders got off easy. The Soviet Union, Poland, and large swaths of eastern Europe were also devastated. Yet the dominant opinion in the immediate postwar years was that the Soviet Union had become the arch-villain of the West, and Germany was quickly made an ally against Communism in the Cold War. your reading is incredibly one-sided and leaves out major themes. It isn't reliable. And it is full of bloviated rhetoric. Just sayin'.

And, again, the writing of the history is not a repetition of themes from a disinformation campaign. Or picking one side in competing disinformation campaigns. You haven’t gone beyond a hysterical sounding claim that the whole history of the genocide and war crimes is little more than the uncritical and unreflective adoption of wartime disinformation and lies. You clearly haven't even begun to contend with scholarship on Nazi policy and decisionmaking, major extermination campaigns, or various camps and local regions, on account of your preferring, it seems, to make general, unsupported assertions about “any ridiculous lie” being believed by . . . unnamed parties. You haven’t demonstrated one case of this using a serious work of research or naming an important scholar.



I have, and as noted and for the reasons noted, I profoundly disagree.



As noted 2x or 3x already, I have read this book. It was utterly unpersuasive and, as I said, laughable. I didn’t have to buy it because it is online and also exists as a PDF file on my hard drive.

I have already mentioned an area of particular interest to me, his material on the ghettos.

 I also explained that the book necessarily fails, given its date, to address part of the request -- that is, working through what recent scholarship argues and showing how it is a lie, a hoax, and part of a scheme, or however you want to explain "hoax."

I am curious to read your analysis of Hilberg.

I'm not going to get into a fisking war with you. The way I've been reading your request to Saggy sounds like you want him to explain the conspiracy behind the hoax. You say that you're not asking for an explanation of the conspiracy behind the hoax. That's good because there isn't a "conspiracy" involved.

But I'm confused because it seems that a few months ago (maybe longer) there was a challenge thrown down to all revisionists to explain how parts of the holocaust could be a hoax without invoking a conspiracy, Jewish or otherwise. If you're now saying that a conspiracy isn't involved, I guess that's progress. But that leaves me having no idea what exactly you want.

You directed the question to Saggy and clearly my intervention didn't help. Since I don't know what you want, I'll let Saggy answer you or not. If you're interested in how the Jews, Israelis, and/or the Zionists are involved, he's your go-to guy anyway.

 

[Dogzilla]

Dogzilla,

Here's an idea. Indeed, do not try starting your explanation of the history of the hoaxing with a 500 page tome. Start reasonably. On RODOH, there is a rather poorly attended thread on Angrick & Klein's book on Riga; to say the thread is limping along is to be charitable to it. So, go to RODOH and improve the thread. Explain how Angrick & Klein are not only in error but lying. Explain how Angrick & Klein have mostly picked up and recycled wartime propaganda and disinformation--uncritically, without additional research or analysis. Explain how Angrick & Klein's arguments have been preempted by a 35-year-old THOTTC, which has the last word. Explain how Angrick & Klein's book fits into a pattern of hoaxing and spreading of lies (or development or kinda just happening or megaplot or whatever you define the hoax as).

It should not be hard for you to do any of this, as the hoaxing of the hoax is a core belief of yours and you weighed in to help Saggy on this matter, which means you have firm opinions here. So show people the grounding for them in the case of one small book, contemporary research on Riga, and how it makes up part of the hoax. We can report back here on the discussion as links to it are prohibited.

LC

As I said, I don't know what you're asking of Saggy so I'll leave it to him. I'm not going to bother posting on RODOH. That place seems to bring out the worse behavior in people. All insults. No insights.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Ian Baxter's biography of Hoess is revealing about the extent to which the British tried to control the narratives of their captives.

During a car journey to Nuremberg, Hoess talked to a fellow POW, Moritz von Schirmeister. According to Schirmeister, the former commandant of Auschwitz confided in him that he had signed a statement admitting to the murder of two and a half million Jews.

But I could just as well have said that it was five million Jews. There are certain methods by which any confession can be obtained, whether it is true or not.

Baxter than describes how Hoess's letters to his wife were controlled by Sergeant Bernard Clark of the 92 Field Security Section - who censored them.
Page 181-182

Hoess's deepest fears were confirmed when the British and American authorities agreed to extradite him to Poland to stand trial there. Just before he left for Poland, Hoess attempted to smuggle a letter out to his wife, in which he apologised to her for confessing to the atrocities at Auschwitz. Although he admitted to the crimes, he claimed that he had been tortured into making false admissions. The letter never found Hedwig, however, as it was confiscated by one of the jailers.

Crucially, Mr Baxter appears not to have read the letter, for he provides no reference to this letter and was unable to quote from what would be surely quite an interesting document. He knows it exists, but is dependent on the British establishment for a precis of its contents.

In Poland for a long period he was also denied the right to communicate with his wife and children.

As for Kramer, according to Faurrison a French doctor, Dr. Frejafon, in a book on Bergen- Belsen, stated that Kramer was beaten by the British and put into a refrigeration room for a night.

 

[LemmyCaution]

I'm not going to get into a fisking war with you. The way I've been reading your request to Saggy sounds like you want him to explain the conspiracy behind the hoax. You say that you're not asking for an explanation of the conspiracy behind the hoax. That's good because there isn't a "conspiracy" involved.

But I'm confused because it seems that a few months ago (maybe longer) there was a challenge thrown down to all revisionists to explain how parts of the holocaust could be a hoax without invoking a conspiracy, Jewish or otherwise. If you're now saying that a conspiracy isn't involved, I guess that's progress. But that leaves me having no idea what exactly you want.

You directed the question to Saggy and clearly my intervention didn't help. Since I don't know what you want, I'll let Saggy answer you or not. If you're interested in how the Jews, Israelis, and/or the Zionists are involved, he's your go-to guy anyway.

1) I told you, and answered LGR earlier, that I don't know what you all believe about the hoax and asked for a history of the hoaxing (whether or not conspiracy is involved) to find out. I gave you some very helpful suggestions, I thought, regarding what would be of interest if you were to focus on just one book, but, as I see, you choose not to do so. 2) I don't know what you mean by progress, nor do I know what request from a few months ago you allude to. 3) What I want isn't hard to understand and I've stated it several times; it is hard for me to imagine my request leading to so many posts, some of them quite lengthy, dancing all around a question one would have thought you all would like to expound on. 4) I am glad that rabbit helped clarify matters for you with regard to forgeries, showing at least that forgeries are part of the hoax, even if much else about the development of the hoax remains elusive. That's progress, I guess.

 

[Gene Alley]

.
No, I am flat out stating that the 'citations' you have offered are not citations, but mere claims which do not hold up under scrutiny.
.

.
It is not *my* anything, nor is the mass gassing by the Nazis a mere theory. But I'm glad to see that you have dropped the pretense of "looking at both sides" although I doubt having done so will prevent you from claiming that you are in the future.

But for the sake of argument, *if* your claims of torture and coercion were true, it would not blow anything out of anything, since (I'll type this slow for you)

T h e . n o r m a t i v e . h i s t o r y . o f . t h e s e . e v e n t s . d o e s . n o t . d e p e n d . s o l e l y . o n . t h e . t e s t i m o n i e s . o f . t h e s e . p e o p l e .
.

Here you go. This is a nice analysis of the whole situation. There are citations and sources at the conclusion of this excellent essay. Enjoy the read. Thanks for your interest.

http://milb.com/

"Very few of those who glibly refer to "all the Nuremberg evidence" as proof for the Holocaust extermination story are familiar with either the real nature of this "evidence" or the character of these trials. On closer examination, solid documentary or forensic evidence of a wartime German policy to exterminate Europe's Jews proves to be elusive. As we have seen, the evidence that has been presented consists largely of extorted confessions, spurious testimonies, and fraudulent documents. The postwar Nuremberg trials were politically motivated proceedings meant more to discredit the leaders of a defeated regime than to establish truth.

We do not need trials or "confessions" to prove that the Katyn massacre or the postwar deportation of Germans from eastern and central Europe actually took place. By comparison, the Holocaust story does not claim just a few isolated massacres, but a vast extermination program taking place across the European continent over a three-year period involving several governments and millions of people. The fact that the Holocaust story must rely so heavily on highly dubious testimony evidence and trials staged in a historically unparalleled atmosphere of hysteria, intimidation and propaganda demonstrates its inherent weakness."

 

[Gene Alley]

Thanks for the wall of nazi text plus some very dodgy references.
Care to try again with a primary source.

Here's some extremely interesting information with notes and references. Several quotations at the time of the travesty at Nuremberg by prominant Americans in their utter disgust regarding the farcical kangaroo courts held there. Do you believe that Robert Taft was a Nazi at heart?


http://www.patriot.dk/nurnberg1.html

"US Supreme Court Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone remarked with irritation: "[Chief US prosecutor] Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg. I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law."

In Congress, US Representative Lawrence H. Smith of Wisconsin declared: "The Nuremberg trials are so repugnant to the Anglo-Saxon principles of justice that we must forever be ashamed of that page in our history ... The Nuremberg farce represents a revenge policy at its worst." (note 14) Another Congressman, John Rankin of Mississippi, stated: "As a representative of the American people I desire to say that what is taking place in Nuremberg, Germany, is a disgrace to the United States".

Probably the most courageous condemnation was by US Senator Robert A. Taft, widely regarded as the "conscience of the Republican party." At considerable risk to his political career, he denounced the Nuremberg enterprise in an October 1946 speech. "The trial of the vanquished by the victors cannot be impartial no matter how it is hedged about with the forms of justice," he said. Taft went on: (note 16)

"About this whole judgment there is the spirit of vengeance, and vengeance is seldom justice. The hanging of the eleven men convicted will be a blot on the American record which we will long regret. In these trials we have accepted the Russian idea of the purpose of trials -- government policy and not justice -- with little relation to Anglo-Saxon heritage. By clothing policy in the forms of legal procedure, we many discredit the whole idea of justice in Europe for years to come."

Milton R. Konvitz, a Jewish specialist of law and public administration who taught at New York University, warned at the time that the Nuremberg Tribunal "defies many of the most basic assumptions of the judicial process." He went on: "Our policy with respect to the Nazis is consistent with neither international law nor our own State Department's policy... The Nuremberg trial constitutes a real threat to the basic conceptions of justice which it has taken mankind thousands of years to establish." (note 17)

It certainly appears as if a rabid pack of unprincipled scum ran the whole show there and took control of tons of official documents which they then selectively used, denied access to the defendants and routinly forged and falsified documents. Anything that came out of that cesspool is worthless as evidence of anything except for the low moral character of those who were involved.

At Nuremberg, the German documents were in the custody of the Allied prosecutors, who did not permit defense attorneys to make their own selections of the material. Historian Werner Maser has pointed out that at Nuremberg "thousands of documents which seemed likely possibly to incriminate the Allies and exonerate the defendants suddenly disappeared... There is much evidence that documents were confiscated, concealed from the defense or even stolen in 1945." Other important documents suddenly "disappeared" when specifically requested by defense attorneys. Officials at the National Archives in Washington have confirmed to this writer on several occasions that the originals of numerous Nuremberg documents remain "lost" to this day. The Tribunal refused to allow in evidence several collections of German and captured foreign documents published during the war as German Foreign Office "White Books." Most of the 1,809 affidavits prepared by the Nuremberg defense have never been made public. (note 39)

 

[TSR]

Here you go. This is a nice analysis of the whole situation. There are citations and sources at the conclusion of this excellent essay. Enjoy the read. Thanks for your interest.

.
Citing a known liar telling lies about the evidence makes the article "nice" and "excellent"?

Once again, neither van Roden nor the inquiry confirmed any such thing, and the article cited was not written by van Roden.

Try again.
.

 

[TSR]

It certainly appears as if a rabid pack of unprincipled scum ran the whole show there and took control of tons of official documents which they then selectively used, denied access to the defendants and routinly forged and falsified documents.

.
"Routinly" <sic>?

Then you can produce, say, a dozen documents offered at Nuremberg, along with the evidence that they were forged or falsified?
.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Baxter than describes how Hoess's letters to his wife were controlled by Sergeant Bernard Clark of the 92 Field Security Section - who censored them.

How long was Bernard Clarke censoring Hoess's letters LGR? Was it five days or six? (You forgot to mention that little fact). Do you know Hoess used a false name when he first tried to avoid arrest?
"I took the name Seamen Franz Lang and traveled with marching orders to the Navel Intelligence School on the Isle of Sylt" Gosh! Perhaps the authorities thought it was a good idea to censor his letters before he tried to escape yet again.

In Poland for a long period he was also denied the right to communicate with his wife and children.

Gosh LGR! That poor man. He only was CO of Treblinka II where approx 850,000 people were executed (mostly Poles). I'm sure you will now show us all the letters posted at Treblinka II "transit station" post office, Do you think Mr Hoess helped the prisoners compose letters to their loved ones ( or did he just execute them in groups of five train car loads)

 

[Gene Alley]

.
"Routinly" <sic>?

Then you can produce, say, a dozen documents offered at Nuremberg, along with the evidence that they were forged or falsified?
.

This ought to get you started. Thanks.

http://www.patriot.dk/nurnberg2.html

It is sometimes claimed that the evidence presented by the prosecution to the Nuremberg Tribunal was so incontrovertible that none of the defense attorneys ever disputed the authenticity or accuracy of even a single prosecution document. (note 46)


This is not true. Not only did defense lawyers protest against the prosecution use of spurious documents, but some of the most important Nuremberg documents are now generally acknowledged to be fraudulent. (note 47)



For example, defense attorney Dr. Boehm protested to the Tribunal that Nuremberg document 1721-PS, which purportedly confirms attacks by stormtroopers against Jewish synagogues in November 1938, is a clumsy forgery. He went on to explain his reasons at some length. (note 48)


Several Nuremberg documents based on the purported "death bed confession" of Mauthausen commandant Franz Ziereis, are demonstrably fraudulent. (Nuremberg documents 1515-PS, 3870-PS, and NO-1973.) These documents supposedly prove systematic killings of hundreds of thousands of people by gassing and other means at Mauthausen and Hartheim. (note 49)

Almost forty years after the Tribunal handed down its verdicts, Nuremberg document USSR-378 was definitively exposed as a fraud. It is a purported record of numerous private conversations with itler by Hermann Rauschning, a former National Socialist official in Danzig. In brutal language, the Führer supposedly revealed his most intimate thoughts and secret plans for world conquest. Rauschning's "memoir" was published in 1939 in Britain under the title Hitler Speaks, and in the United States in 1940 as The Voice of Destruction. It was this US edition that was accepted in evidence at Nuremberg as proof of the "guiding principles of the Nazi regime."

Chief British prosecutor Sir Hartley Shawcross and his Soviet colleagues cited numerous quotations from it. Defendant Baldur von Schirach contested its authenticity, but defense attorney Pelckmann (who did not know any better) accepted this "evidence" as authentic. (note 50)

In 1983 Swiss historian Wolfgang Hänel established that the "memoir" is entirely fraudulent. Rauschning never had even a single private meeting with Hitler. (note 51)

Another fraudulent Nuremberg document is the so-called "Hossbach protocol" (document 386-PS), a purported record of a high-level 1937 conference at which Hitler supposedly revealed his secret plans for aggressive conquest. US Nuremberg prosecutor Sidney Alderman called it "one of the most striking and revealing of all the captured documents," and told the Tribunal that it removed any remaining doubts about the guilt of the Germans leaders for their crimes against peace. It was largely on the basis of this document that Göring was condemned to death. (note 52)

Similarly spurious is Nuremberg document L-3 (US-28), supposedly a record of a bellicose speech by Hitler to armed forces commanders on August 22, 1939. It contains a widelycited quotation attributed to Hitler, "Who talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians?" (note 53)

Jewish historian Lucy Dawidowicz, author of The War Against the Jews, acknowledged that "There are also olocaust documents that are outright falsification and some that purvey myth rather than historical fact." (note 54)



47. Internationally respected historian Werner Maser has noted "the existence of forged documents" at Nuremberg. W. Maser, Nuremberg, p. 98.; See also: Ingrid Weckert, Feuerzeichen (T_bingen: 1981), pp. 151, 155, 171.; After the war, Eichmann also expressed the view that some purported documents are fraudulent. See: Rudolf Aschenauer, ed., Ich, Adolf Eichmann (1980), p. 153.

48. IMT ("blue series"), vol. 22, pp. 148 f.; See: C. Porter, Made in Russia (1988), pp. 269-270, 410-411.; Defendant Baldur von Schirach, wartime Gauleiter of Vienna, complained that another prosecution document was fraudulent: IMT ("blue series"), vol. 14, p. 451.; Defendant Göring and attorney Stahmer objected to another document: IMT, vol. 9, pp. 610 f.

49. M. Weber, "Simon Wiesenthal," Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1989-1990, p. 443.

50. Cited or quoted in: IMT ("blue series"), vol. 7, pp. 442-443; vol. 14, pp. 518-519; vol. 19, pp. 256-259, 437-438, 494-495, 498; vol. 24, p. 182.

51. W. Malanowski, Der Spiegel, Sept. 7, 1985, pp. 92 ff.; M. Weber, "Swiss Historian Exposes . . .," Journal of Historical Review, Fall 1983 (Vol. 4, No. 3), pp. 378-380.; H. W. Koch, ed., Aspects of the Third Reich (New York: St. Martin's, 1985), pp. 13 f.; "Antideutscher Schwindel-Verleger gestorben," D. National-Zeitung (Munich), Jan. 24, 1992, p. 9.

52. Dankwart Kluge, Das Hossbach - 'Protokoll' (1980).; M. Weber, Journal of Historical Review, Fall 1983 (Vol. 4, No. 3), pp. 372 ff.; A.J.P. Taylor, An Old Man's Diary (London: 1984), p. 154. (Taylor added: "No evidence that Hitler planned aggressive war has ever been produced . . . [This] revision upsets the entire verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal, which is still solemnly quoted as justification of the Allied war against Germany.").

53. Heath W. Lowry, "The U.S. Congress and Adolf Hitler on the Armenians," Political Communication and Persuasion, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1985. Reprinted in: Armenian Allegations: Myth and Reality (Washington, DC: 1986), pp. 119-132.; See also the letters by Dr. Robert John in the New York Times, June 8 and July 6, 1985.

54. L. Dawidowicz, A Holocaust Reader (1976), p. 10.; In her 1981 book, The Holocaust and the Historians (pp. 100-101), Dawidowicz wrote of the case of Polish-Jewish historian Ber(nard) Mark, Director of the Jewish Historical Institute of Warsaw and author of several Holocaust books. She charged that he had falsified Holocaust sources. Another Jewish historian, Michel Borwicz, similarly charged in 1962 that Ber Mark was a falsifier ("transformer") of documents. See: M. Borwicz, Revue d'Histoire de la Deuxieme Guerre Mondiale (Paris), No. 45, Jan. 1962, p. 93.

 

[SanityGap]

Well the fuller version is yet more evidence of coercion. Because the orthodox narrative now claims prisoners were injected with phenol. But in the Belsen trial everyone confessed to injecting with petrol. Later when phenol became the Hoax gold standard, everyone confessed to injecting with phenol.

The point is - even if you believe in the Nazi lethal injections (which I do not) - why would they confess at all - and if they did confess, why confess to using a substance they did not?

You might want to re-read the passage for comprehension.
But as has been pointed out, it is just a passage in a book, no names, no corroboration.
Fail.

 

[SanityGap]

Here's some extremely interesting information with notes and references. Several quotations at the time of the travesty at Nuremberg by prominant Americans in their utter disgust regarding the farcical kangaroo courts held there. Do you believe that Robert Taft was a Nazi at heart?


http://www.patriot.dk/nurnberg1.html













It certainly appears as if a rabid pack of unprincipled scum ran the whole show there and took control of tons of official documents which they then selectively used, denied access to the defendants and routinly forged and falsified documents. Anything that came out of that cesspool is worthless as evidence of anything except for the low moral character of those who were involved.

TSR has covered this nicely (thanks).
Fail.

 

[Gene Alley]

TSR has covered this nicely (thanks).
Fail.

As long as you are satisfied, that's swell.