Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[little grey rabbit]

Just to complete the response to Mr Caution's list - which he initially requested

1940s - Himmler Dienstkalendar

Maybe tampered but not essential

1942 - Sefton Delmer invented it all (Grimm, Walendy, a few others)

The PWE and Black Propaganda were certainly key players


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


Not that I am aware of

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

My understanding is Hoettl was recruited into Gehlen's organisation - Mr Heink has the details. Its not something I take much interest in.


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

I believe so, I might be wrong.


1945 - US IMT Interrogation Division - bamboozled Wisliceny 


Obviously coerced testimony. Hell, it would have to be coerced testimony even if it were 100% true.

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


Its possible

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

Evidence was presented at Nuremberg by a number of witnesses (Two is a number).


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


One of the participants gave evidence at Nuremberg saying it was genuine except for a few passages. As per usual, only one copy of the 37 originals has survived.

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


Maybe, in essence it is genuine. Some aspects seem a bit odd.

1956-1960 - Wilhelm Sassen - faked interviews with Eichmann

Eichmann appears to have taken the Rauff/Rademacher route. The interviews were real, but clearly Eichmann was having some fun with his remarks about mushrooms springing up after rain.


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

See above.



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

Certainly


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


Not coerced, he was recruited.

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)

Certainly the letter re 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 


Presumably

1943 - Gerstein - faked letter to Ubbink about Belzec 


Silly, already dealt with

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 


Obviously, like the Soviet report on Katyn, it bore only minor relations to reality. They even took photos of themselves building the Majdanek crematorium chimney!

1945 - Gerstein - invented Belzec story 


Presumably as part of a resistance network

1945 - US CDC - forged Stroop report (some) 

1945 - Rachel Auerbach - forged Stroop Report (denierbud) 


It has been altered for sure, for example Jews that were transported to Majdanek and then used for labor are described as "vernichtet" when clearly they were alive and kicking.

1945 - Polish Main Commission - faked investigation of Treblinka 


See above

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


I havent read his testimony, but I wouldn't be surprised.

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

Not necessarily, I think Wirth was there.



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

They certainly all sang like canaries from day 1 
after arrest.

1970 - Gitta Sereny - made up interview with Franz Stangl

No, interview is genuine or mostly. For whatever reason Stangl was onside.



1980s - Claude Lanzmann - bribed Suchomel 


Lanzmann claims he bribed him. However Suchomel also sung for Sereny, so Lanzmann's cash might not be his only motivation. He was not speaking the truth and was well aware he was being filmed.

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


Dunno, I guess it is not necessary.

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

Yes, I believe so for reasons already detailed

 

[LemmyCaution]

Quote:

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

Not that I am aware of

I hope that Dogzilla has been taking notes.

The larger picture is that a denier, say you, can weed through various forgery or coerced testimony claims and choose some as "authentic" and dismiss others, ending up with a list of your own important instances. Other lists may vary. Some, like yours, may include work produced by the Moscow Forgery Factory; few except Rollo's, and we both realize that he has trouble keeping up, will also include OSR 24. There will be some overlap, then, among deniers' documents designated as dodgy, but nothing definitive and widely agreed.

One detail. In cases like the one snipped above, are you unaware of the claims by Rassinier, Hoggan, and Harwood--or that Lemkin did as they charged?

 

[little grey rabbit]

I am not aware of what Rassinier et al said about Lemkin. Nothing that I have read suggests Lemkin was a particularly important figure.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Truth will out.

 

[Nick Terry]

Just to complete the response to Mr Caution's list - which he initially requested

-long list of cretinous fisking snipped-

And again you fail. Fisking is not a coherent narrative, and unsubstantiated assertions are worthless.


I believe bluespaceoddity will be along before too long to correct you about Judith Eliazar.

 

[TSR]

This ought to get you started. Thanks.

.
Oh, I've already started. Once again: Weber is a liar making 'definitive' claims which are anything but. Re: USSR-378 -- does Hänel show that Rauschning was elsewhere during the time of the conversations, or that Hitler was? Do any other witnesses to these conversations contradict this document?

No and no.

Hänel merely asserts that "similarities in phrasing of quotations from other individuals in Rauschning's other books <...> and those attributed to Hitler in Voice of Destruction [i.e. Hitler Speaks]. If the two are even remotely similar Hänel concludes that the latter must be concoctions. However the similarities, which are mostly slight, could be for a number of reasons. <...> (and) need not stem from forgery" according to David Redles, in "Hitler's Millennial Reich: Apocalyptic Belief and the Search for Salvation."

You really shouldn't be accepting Weber at his word about books you can't be bothered to read.

Now it's your turn to start: how about you address Weber's claim that an article van Roden did not write constitutes the findings of the inquiry, and the fact that Hänel was engaged in a literary critique and not historical research?
.

 

[little grey rabbit]

And again you fail. Fisking is not a coherent narrative, and unsubstantiated assertions are worthless.


I believe bluespaceoddity will be along before too long to correct you about Judith Eliazar.

I hope so, Dr Terry, I hope so. I am shocked, SHOCKED.

 

[Gwynpaine]

Nick Terry's post carries no information. What he calls rough treatment I would call torture. The context of this torture is specifically "interrogation" This single passage is good evidence that Belsen staff were tortured during early interrogations Of course by itself the paragraph does not prove more than that. Here is a draft extract from my book about the British trials.

.

......As to how Klein might have begun to learn his “learned helplessness” we have a clue in the book ECLIPSE written by the respected and reliable journalist Alan Moorehead. Reporting Belsen a week after liberation he writes:

As we approached the cells of the SS guards the sergeant’s language became ferocious
We have had an interrogation this morning. I am afraid they are not a pretty sight.
“Who does the interrogation?”
“A Frenchman. I believe he was specially sent here by the French underground to do the job. The sergeant unbolted the first door..... He strode into the cell jabbing a metal spike in front of him. “Get up, getup you dirty bastards.”
There were half a dozen men lying or half lying on the floor. One or two were able to pull themselves erect at once. The man standing nearest me, his face and shirt spattered with blood, made two attempts before he got on his knees and gradually to his feet. He stood with his arms half stretched out in front of him trembling violently.
“Get up” shouted the Sergeant. They were all on their feet now but supporting themselves against a wall.”Get away from that wall”.......
“You had better see the doctor” the captain said. He is 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 revolvers.
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 with a heavy head and a bedraggled beard...
“Why don’t you kill me” he whispered “Why don’t you kill me. I can’t stand any more.”
The same phrases dribbled out of his lips over and over again

UQ

The “Frenchman” was most likely Roger Latrey, he who in mid-April obtained what may be earliest Auscwhitz gas chamber description coming from a German guard. [The guard, Emmerich, did not live to retell the tale]. “The doctor” was probably Klein himself. He fits the description, and I don’t know of any other SS doctor who chose to stay behind at Belsen. Whoever it was, we have a clear idea what sort of “interrogation” Klein would have undergone.

It cannot have improved his health. The May affidavit mentioned below by van Pelt was given by Klein from his sickbed in a military hospital. It contained the same sparse testimony he would later repeat in court. Klein was up on his feet for the trial, as we have seen, but not for long. Regarding another matter the Judge Advocate General’s office wrote in November 30 that “Klein is not now considered by JAG in a fit mental state for further interrogation,” [ WO 309/484]. Klein had recently been been interrogated by that formidable inquisitor Gerald Draper


In his expert report Professor Van Pelt writes:
Quot

As a physician, he participated in many selections. In his initial deposition he gave a very concise description of his responsibility, or lack thereof.
When transports arrived at Auschwitz it was the doctor's job to pick out those who were unfit or unable to work. These included children, old people and the sick. I have seen the gas chambers and crematoria at Auschwitz, and I knew that those I selected were to go to the gas chamber. But I only acted on orders given me by Dr. Wirths. I cannot say from whom Dr. Wirths received his orders and I have never seen any orders in writing relating to the gassing of prisoners. All orders given to me were given verbally.
Examined by his counsel Major Winwood, Dr. Klein discussed the selection in greater detail.

Q.: "Will you tell us what happened on selections?"
A.: "Dr. Wirths, when the first transport arrived, gave me orders to divide it into two parts, those who were fit to work and those who were not fit, that is those who, because of their age, could not work, who were too weak, whose health was not very good, and also children up to the age of fifteen. The selecting was done exclusively by doctors. One looked at the person and, if she looked ill, asked a few questions, but if the person was healthy then it was decided immediately."
Q.: "What happened to those people who were selected as capable of work?"
A.: "The doctor had only to make the decision. What happened to them afterwards was nothing to do with him."
Q.: "What happened to those people whom the doctors selected as unfit for work?"
A.: "The doctor had to make a selection but had no influence on what was going to happen. I have heard, and I know, that part of them were sent to the gas chambers and the crematoria.
UQ

Underlinings are mine. The above is from day 21 of the trial. We have to add this to our long list of occasions where the Expert Witness Professor Pelt has failed to tell us all we need to know. He may perhaps have been relying on an abbreviated edition of the Court transcripts. At the British National Archive at Kew one can find [WO235/14] a typed version of the complete shorthand transcript.

Further extracts:
QUOT

WINWOOD. Did you ever go down to the gas chambers yourself? Yes, I once had a look at the crematorium and the gas chamber. It was not working at the time.
Q did you have any duties to perform at the gas chamber?
A No not at the gas chamber
Q What was your opinion about this gas chamber business.
A I did not approve of it but I did not protest because that was no use at all....


BACKHOUSE [Prosecuting] when you went to OS and you found those transports of people taken to the gas chambers did you not realise that this was murder?
A Yes.
Q Those who were not fit were simply destroyed is that not true? Those who were fit to work were beaten to their work, starved and overworked until their turn came to go to the gas chamber. Is that not true?
A I have not seen it happen but if it did happen it was not right
Q you have seen many people beaten by the SS have you not?
A No I have not seen that myself but I received many people in the hospital who had been beaten by the SS but the majority of the patients I received were beaten by the kapos and the inmates.
.....
Q Although not your duty you went to see the gas chamber?
A Yes
Q Having taken part in the process you went to see how the murders were carried out?
A I did not look at them for that reason. I simply wanted to see them....
..........
Q To turn back to the selections, I want you to tell me more about the selections that took place in hospital. You have told us you had to make lists of people who might get better...and people who would not.
A Yes
Q What happened to the people who would not.
A It was always difficult. The lists were asked for very frequently and sometimes after having handed over the lists nothing happened at all, they simply stayed on. Sometimes again lists were asked for instance for all the patients suffering from TB and suddenly these people were taken away.
Q But what happened to them, the gas chamber?
A We never knew where they went. They were fetched in trucks and where they went I do not know.
Q Do you remember the Hungarian transports coming
A Yes,
Q. Was the gas chamber working night and day then?
A They might have been working night and day. Transports were arriving the whole time and if they were sent to the gas chamber then the gas chambers must have been working night and day.
Q.Were they not sent to the gas chamber?
A I do not know exactly. I believe so. I understand it is so, but I am not sure, but it might have been
Q Let us now turn to Belsen....

A The physical conditions at Auscwhitz were better; they were healthy and strong.
...
Q At Auschwitz if they were unfit for work they were sent to the gas chamber were they not?
A. Yes. Probably.

I was puzzled by all these qualifiers even before I came upon well-known studies of the false confessions made by DNA-exonerated prisoners on the USA’s well-populated death row.

Among interrogation-induced false confessions, according to Professor Richard Leo, it has been useful to distinguish the compliant from the persuaded. Compliant confessors want to end the stresses and menaces of the interrogation and take up the benefits suggested by that detective who has become their angry god. Typically they repeat back the details of the crime that were suggested to them by their interrogators - including egregious errors - or infer the correct answers or simply guess. Hoess’ has the odour of a compliant confession. Persuaded false confessions are rarer but can be detected by verbal clues. The Persuaded Confessor has come to doubt the reality of his own memory and ultimately makes a confession – despite having no clear memory of the crime – in an uncertain state of belief marked by tentative language.

Ofshe and Leo have proposed teaching detectives how to spot the telltale signs of a false confession (for example, the use of such qualifiers as "probably" and "I must have"). The researchers also advocate barring excessively manipulative deceptions — especially implied threats, which they consider the contemporary equivalent of the rubber hose
-from Amnesty International NOW Magazine. Article by Edwin Dobb.

UQ

It is noteworthy that most of the US false confessions were obtained in a few hours without benefit of rubber hose or the crushing weight of a quasi-totalitarian judicial system such as the one faced by Klein. Even under a liberal regime, heavy menaces and false promises could be enough to extract false confessions which, in some cases, were half-believed by the persons who made them. Third degree would hardly have made the task more difficult, however. Although it may not yield accurate information, extreme random brutality can intensify the hopelessness and disorientation that might prepare the soul for a false confession, or even for false belief.

 

[Clayton Moore]

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.

Thank you.

 

[Gene Alley]

Thank you.

You are quite welcome sir. I also have found it facinating that one of the main instigators of this Nuremberg farce went on to join a well known band of Israeli terrorist murderers shortly after these tribunals. The political implications of these "trials" are plain to see.

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


Political justice

The Nuremberg enterprise violated ancient and fundamental principles of justice. The victorious Allies acted as prosecutor, judge and executioner of the German leaders. The charges were created especially for the occasion, and were applied only to the vanquished. (note 3) Defeated, starving, prostrate Germany was, however, in no position to oppose whatever the Allied occupation powers demanded.

As even some leading Allied figures privately acknowledged at the time, the Nuremberg trials were organized not to dispense impartial justice, but for political purposes. Sir Norman Birkett, British alternate judge at the Nuremberg Tribunal, explained in a private letter in April 1946 that "the trial is only in form a judicial process and its main importance is political." (note 4)

Robert Jackson, the chief US prosecutor and a former US Attorney General, declared that the Nuremberg Tribunal "is a continuation of the war effort of the Allied nations" against Germany. He added that the Tribunal "is not bound by the procedural and substantive refinements of our respective judicial or constitutional system ..." (note 5)

Judge Iola T. Nikitchenko, who presided at the Tribunal's solemn opening session, was a vice-chairman of the supreme court of the USSR before and after his service at Nuremberg. In August 1936 he had been a judge at the infamous Moscow show trial of Zinoviev and Kamenev. (note 6) At a joint planning conference shortly before the Nuremberg Tribunal convened, Nikitchenko bluntly explained the Soviet view of the enterprise: (note 7)

We are dealing here with the chief war criminals who have already been convicted and whose conviction has been already announced by both the Moscow and Crimea [Yalta] declarations by the heads of the [Allied] governments... The whole idea is to secure quick and just punishment for the crime...

The fact that the Nazi leaders are criminals has already been established. The task of the Tribunal is only to determine the measure of guilt of each particular person and mete out the necessary punishment -- the sentences.

Indicative of the largely political nature of the Nuremberg process was the important Jewish role in organizing these trials. Nahum Goldmann, one-time president of both the World Jewish Congress and the World Zionist Organization, reported in his memoir that the Nuremberg Tribunal was the brain-child of World Jewish Congress officials. Only after persistent effort were WJC officials able to persuade Allied leaders to accept the idea, he added. (note 8)

The World Jewish Congress also played an important but less obvious role in the day to day proceedings. Above all, the powerful but secretive organization made sure that Germany's persecution of the Jews was a primary focus of the trials, and that the defendants were punished for their involvement in that process. (note 9)

Two Jewish officers in the US Army -- Lieutenant Colonel Murray Bernays and Colonel David "Mickey" Marcus -- played key roles in the Nuremberg enterprise. In the words of historian Robert Conot, Bernays was "the guiding spirit leading the way to Nuremberg." Bernays, a successful New York attorney, persuaded US War Secretary Henry Stimson and others to accept the idea of putting the defeated German leaders on trial. (note 10)

Marcus, a fervent Zionist, became the "number three man in making American policy" in occupied Germany. As chief of the US government's War Crimes Branch in 1946 and 1947, he selected almost all of the judges, prosecutors and lawyers for the Nuremberg NMT Trials. (He later became a commander of Zionist "Haganah" military forces in Palestine.) (note 11)

The last paragraph is priceless. Germany is still occupied territory after 66 years, and the terror campaign that old Mickey Marcus helped spearhead has been going on for over 60 years in Israel. I guess that explains why they are locking people up for "holocaust denial". Rabid zionist lunitics are behind these kangaroo style holo-denier prosecutions. Look at the organization who started the idiotic witch hunt against Zundel in Canada. I wonder how many Americans or Canadians are aware of ANY of this information?

 

[uke2se]

Nick Terry's post carries no information. What he calls rough treatment I would call torture. The context of this torture is specifically "interrogation" This single passage is good evidence that Belsen staff were tortured during early interrogations Of course by itself the paragraph does not prove more than that. Here is a draft extract from my book about the British trials.

.

It's nice that you just assume that the confessions were false, just because a guy who didn't see the gas chambers in operation used qualifiers such as "if".

 

[uke2se]

The last paragraph is priceless. Germany is still occupied territory after 66 years, and the terror campaign that old Mickey Marcus helped spearhead has been going on for over 60 years in Israel.

Germany is occupied territory? Who is occupying Germany?

I guess that explains why they are locking people up for "holocaust denial".

They are locking up people for inciting hatred. Holocaust denial is considered inciting of hatred. I don't personally agree with locking up people for speaking their (warped and twisted) minds, but I can understand nations wanting to avoid another Nazi state and thus coming down hard on those individuals who are working towards such a state.

Rabid zionist lunitics are behind these kangaroo style holo-denier prosecutions.

Really? Could you please give any evidence that zionists were behind any of the, say, german trials against holocaust deniers?

Look at the organization who started the idiotic witch hunt against Zundel in Canada.

Zundel was a neo-nazi and fervent purveyor of hate. I'm not surprised that you see his trial as a "which hunt".

I wonder how many Americans or Canadians are aware of ANY of this information?

Why does that matter?

Looking at people involved in this discussion, the people who seem unaware of reality are from your side of this "discussion".

 

[Gene Alley]

Germany is occupied territory? Who is occupying Germany?

U.S. and NATO forces along with the former USSR have been militarily occupying Germany since '45. There was never a formal peace treaty signed and a huge military contingent has been there ever since.

 

[Gene Alley]

They are locking up people for inciting hatred. Holocaust denial is considered inciting of hatred. I don't personally agree with locking up people for speaking their (warped and twisted) minds, but I can understand nations wanting to avoid another Nazi state and thus coming down hard on those individuals who are working towards such a state.

That's a bunch of crap. Can you quote any "warped and twisted" writings from Zundel which incited people to hate? I'm sure you can understand.

 

[A'isha]

U.S. and NATO forces along with the former USSR have been militarily occupying Germany since '45. There was never a formal peace treaty signed and a huge military contingent has been there ever since.

Wrong.

 

[Gene Alley]

Zundel was a neo-nazi and fervent purveyor of hate. I'm not surprised that you see his trial as a "which hunt".

Which hunt was that?

 

[Corsair 115]

U.S. and NATO forces along with the former USSR have been militarily occupying Germany since '45. There was never a formal peace treaty signed and a huge military contingent has been there ever since.

It's a curious occupation then given that it exerts no control whatsoever over the German political nor economic systems. Or are you suggesting all those elections that have been held in Germany over the decades were hoaxes too?

 

[Nick Terry]

Nick Terry's post carries no information. What he calls rough treatment I would call torture. The context of this torture is specifically "interrogation" This single passage is good evidence that Belsen staff were tortured during early interrogations Of course by itself the paragraph does not prove more than that.
.

You can try to dismiss my post as 'carrying no information' if you like, but you did not refute my arguments, to wit:

- no date is specified, no evidence of continual maltreatment
- no explanation of how a beating-up in early May could keep a defendant "speaking the right lines" in October, which is prima facie implausible anyway
- no evidence of what was tortured into the prisoners, no way of distinguishing the gas chamber part from the other parts of thetestimony other than your own evident personal desires
- still no explanation for why prisoners contested their personal responsibility over 'lesser things' like presiding over mass starvation at Belsen, but 'crumbled' over gas chambers.

Here is a draft extract from my book about the British trials.

Hope you're aware that one study of the Belsen trial and one study of the Ravensbrueck trial have just been published in the past 12 months, both in German.

Klein's vagueness in the extracts quoted above suggests only that he wished to distance himself from the details. He does not deny selections and indeed, selections are a huge problem for the denier fraternity since your gurus have consistently screwed up trying to explain them away. That he does not provide a detailed description of the gas chambers is somewhat irrelevant. Other witnesses, including SS witnesses, do. Klein is not even cited in the overwhelming majority of Auschwitz literature.

I will vaguely look forward to watching the logical fallacies fly when you try to analogise from one seemingly 'proven case' (which doesn't look that way to me at all) to all SS men, no doubt with much reiteration of the usual denier drivel on Hoess.

Personally, I think the interrogations of Eduard Wirths in September 1945 by Gerald Draper utterly destroy any argument about coercion across the board, since the transcripts record obvious resistance to the 4 million figure as well as an obvious reference to the '4756' document on cremation capacity which deniers hate so much. (There were needless to say no contacts between the Soviets and the British over Auschwitz at this time, no passing on of evidence, and no published report mentioned that document.)

 

[uke2se]

U.S. and NATO forces along with the former USSR have been militarily occupying Germany since '45. There was never a formal peace treaty signed and a huge military contingent has been there ever since.

Wait, what? Germany is a part of NATO. There are no "former USSR" bases in Germany today.

You do know that the Berlin Wall fell in '89 and that the Cold War ended thereafter, don't you?

 

[uke2se]

Quote-fail

I'll give you this write-up on Ernst Zundel, from his early carreer as a Neo-Nazi to the man(?) he is today.

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/zun...at=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=2&item=zundel

See also Zundel's piece "The Hitler We Loved and Why" for some extra tidbits.