Hilariously wrong. Hoess admitted almost precisely that in his memoirs. His estimates of the major deportation actions to Auschwitz come to almost exactly 1.1 million, and as camp commandant then as staff officer in Amtsgruppe D in charge of the camps, he was in the best position to know.
Hilariously irrelevant. Nick Terry evidently believes that something Hoess wrote in 1947/1947 but wasn't published until 1958 carries more weight than something he testified to under oath.
Indeed, plenty of Nazi war criminals were charged with participating in the gassings of smaller numbers, since no one person had total responsibility for the overall death toll. Not even Hoess, since he was't camp commandant from November 1943 to May 1944 and left again in the summer of 1944. So that's a strawman.
Like I said: No Nazi war criminal was ever charged with gassing 1.1 million Jews at Auschwitz. Maybe I should be more precise and say that no Nazi war criminal was ever charged with procuring the Zyklon B that was used to gas some of the 1.1 million Jews who died at Auschwtiz. That would be more analogous because there were, however, men who were accused of and executed after being found guilty of procuring the Zyklon B that was used to gas 4.5 million not Jewish people at Auschwitz.
Yet dozens of SS men were convicted of participating in gassings of smaller numbers, the ones for which they actually have criminal responsibility. Kremer was only at Auschwitz for a matter of months, how could he be charged with 1.1 million murders? Liebehenschel was only in charge for six months. Grabner was arrested at the end of 1943. Et cetera.
Like I said: Nobody has ever been convicted in a court of law or punished in any way for gassing 1.1 million Jews at Auschwitz.
No, you're just clueless.
I looked up clueless in the dictionary. It doesn't mean "to speak the truth."
Funny, I don't see the words 'compelling evidence' used in the relevant section of the
UNWCC Law Reports summary of the Tesch case, which sums up the prosecution argument that an estimated six million were killed using Zyklon B in camps, referring to 4.5 million at Auschwitz. The evidence section then cites Pery Broad, who actually estimated 2.5 million victims at the trial, and contrary to your gloss, emphasised that those victims were Jews (as quoted in your source a few pages later). The indictment evidently did not specify a number, judging by the summary. As the Royal Warrant courts did not issue written judgements, there is no indication that any figure was carved in stone by the court at all. The evidence it heard would have contradicted the prosecution estimate since Broad gave a figure two million lower.
I don't see the words "compelling evidence" anywhere in that document at all. However, there must've been compelling evidence that 4.5 million Poles, Russians, Czechs, French, Belgians, Dutch, American, and other nationalities (but not Jews) were gassed at Auschwitz because the German industrialists were indicted for supplying the murder weapon to commit that crime. Are you saying that Germans were indicted, found guilty, and executed for being accessories to crimes for which there is no compelling evidence were ever committed? If there wasn't compelling evidence, was there ANY evidence at all?
You are, as usual, lying about the facts. There is no mention of a specific number from Pery Broad in that document. Broad does mention Jews as do other witnesses. However they are merely witness statements. Nothing indicates that a witness statement overrides the specific number of victims that are in fact mentioned in the indictment. A single witness statement never overrides a specific fact that is in the indictment. The lack of a written judgement, the lack of any explanation or information that supercedes the facts in the indictment and a guilty verdict means the facts in the indictment ARE written in stone. Nice attempt at handwaving away all the evidence, though.
If I said that Stalin didn't kill 100 million people as claimed by Solzhenitsyn on several occasions, am I minimising Stalin's crimes?
If we apply the holocaust standard, you would be denying Stalin's crimes completely, no doubt because your intense hatred of anti-communists blinds you to the truth.
Inaccurate or exaggerated estimates are hardly unusual for 20th Century megacides, some come from otherwise trustworthy sources. Solzhenitsyn may have been wrong about 100 million dead in the GULag, but that doesn't impeach all the evidence in the Gulag Archipelago. We have better evidence today regarding how many people Stalin ordered killed and caused to die in the GULag, and we have better evidence today regarding the precise extent of Nazi crimes at different sites.
So what if it wasn't 100 million? How many millions need to be murdered before it becomes a crime?
But you don't say that, since you have repeatedly denied any such Nazi intention. Name me one person on the planet who denies gas chambers were used by the Nazis who accepts there was a Nazi intention to physically exterminate Jews. (I am ignoring your 'all Jews' strawman until you reply to a previous post.)
I said "if." It was a hypothetical.
Since many more than 5 million non-Jews were murdered by the Nazis, yes. But if you're correcting a populist meme spread around by Simon Wiesenthal and offering something more sensible then no. Alas, you're not offering anything more sensible, you're just being a contrarian troll.
I said "if." It was a hypothetical. But if I did say five million non-Jews weren't killed in the holocaust without any reference to Simon and his fantasy five, I WOULD be denying the holocaust? So I could accept The Plan, The Six Million, The Gas Chambers but still be a holocaust denier? This gets to the gist of the problem. What is the holocaust and what does it mean to deny it.
Common sense says no. Evidence of planning is not going to be identical to evidence of implementation, especially not when the Nazis used other means (like rifles and machine guns) to exterminate Jews alongside using gas chambers and gas vans.
Didn't someone just say that "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."? But you're right. Evidence of planning is not going to be identical to evidence of implementation. But that stands no matter what the murder weapon chosen. Does evidence of rifles and machine guns being used support gas chambers and vice versa?
I'm sure everyone long ago spotted the trend for Dogzilla to offer up strawmen and dance around the subject. I'm sure any noobs will spot this quick enough since three posts in a row from you is normally enough to convince anyone reading that you're simply trolling.
I doubt anybody reads these ridiculously long replies to you except you.
