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.
LOL, you evidently don't know much about Hoess's statements. Hoess testified under oath to the same numbers deported from individual countries
in his very first affidavit. He repeated them to GM Gilbert at Nuremberg, and he repeated them in a signed statement in November 1947 (the one published in Polish in 1951, and in German and English in 1958), then repeated them in court (and thus under oath) in March 1947, also while explaining why he gave a higher number for the overall death toll initially, and why he changed his mind.
So your argument is screwed.
But you can have half a banana, since Hoess's surprisingly accurate recollection of 1.1 million Jews deported to Auschwitz isn't the same as 1.1 million Jews gassed at Auschwitz, since not all Jews deported there were gassed.
Like I said: No Nazi war criminal was ever charged with gassing 1.1 million Jews at Auschwitz.
No Nazi war criminal could be charged with all gassings at Auschwitz, because no Nazi was solely responsible for all of the gassings.
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.
Can you present either the indictment (charging instrument) or the judgement of the British court which convicted the Tesch executives? The Law report has the charge specified without naming any number, and there isn't any written judgement affirming specific numbers. All you have is an estimate by the prosecution which was contradicted by the prosecution's own evidence.
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.
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.
And yes, I'm repeating myself. Your repetition didn't address my point at all, mainly because your statement is meaningless waffle.
I looked up clueless in the dictionary. It doesn't mean "to speak the truth."
No Nazi was charged with gassing 999,999 Jews or 998,997 Jews or any number of permutations of your strawman.
I don't see the words "compelling evidence" anywhere in that document at all.
So you misrepresented again.
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?
Duh, there was compelling evidence that the industrialists had supplied Zyklon in stated quantities to the concentration camp system, and compelling evidence that it had been used to kill people. The numbers part was stated explicitly as an estimate.
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.
I'm not lying about the facts. I stated that Broad testified at this trial to a lower number of victims. That is in the court record, which I've seen. I've also seen Broad's testimony from this trial excerpted as an NI-series document and submitted to successor Nuremberg trials (IG Farben trial). Your objection is based solely on a summary document, not the court record, and thus fails.
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.
LOL, where does any number appear in the charge?
The accused, Bruno Tesch, Joachim Drosihn and Ka r l Weinbacher, were charged with a war crime in that they "at Hamburg, Germany, between 1st January, 1941, and 31st March, 1945, in violation of the laws and usages of war did supply poison .gas used for the extermination of allied nationals interned in concentration camps well knowing that the said gas was to be so used."
I don't see any number there.
You're quoting from the prosecution counsel's opening statement, which is not the same as a charge or 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.
This is the purest horsehockey. Firstly, the key fact under deliberation was whether the Tesch executives had supplied Zyklon in the knowledge that it was being used to murder people. The court decided that this fact was true, and no other. That is all a guilty verdict would determine. If they had been declared innocent it wouldn't even be a ruling on whether Zyklon had been used to murder people, it would be solely a ruling on whether the Tesch executives had knowingly supplied it for that purpose.
Secondly, estimates are defeasible propositions. They are offered as statements about the order of magnitude or likely extent of a particular phenomenon. They vary in reliablity depending on the amount of information available or used to support the calculation. Calling this estimate a fact is utter childishness.
It's even more childish when the estimate was contradicted by evidence put onto the record by the self-same prosecution, producing at the very least, a major contradiction, and when there was no ruling given on the estimate by the court, and the estimate was swiftly contradicted by other courts ruling on similar issues (you may wish to read the actual
written judgements in the Gerhard Peters case, which states simply 'many millions' and 'we cannot be exact' while citing testimonies), and rapidly contradicted by the work of historians.
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.
So what if it wasn't 100 million? How many millions need to be murdered before it becomes a crime?
As was said already, about 0.0001 percent of one
I said "if." It was a hypothetical.
So you're unable to name one person on the planet who who denies gas chambers were used by the Nazis who accepts there was a Nazi intention to physically exterminate Jews. Gotcha.
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?
Or maybe you're just hopelessly confused. If you say that x million non-Jews were not killed by the Nazis, then you're minimising Nazi crimes, since it is well established that the Nazis did in fact kill millions of non-Jews.
If you say that x million non-Jews were killed by the Nazis but they are not part of the Holocaust, then you are making an interpretative judgement about how to define the Holocaust, in this case to reserve the term to Jewish victims only.
If you say that Simon Wiesenthal was wrong to talk of 5 million non-Jewish Holocaust victims then you are correcting Simon Wiesenthal. But that correction would either be higher, lower or definitional.
Simply blethering about Wiesenthal's "5 million others" is pointless, on a par with jumping up and down about Nobel Prize-winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn babbled about 100 million victims of Stalinism.
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.
You really need to ask by this stage?
Look, I'll quote
Wiki since it seems you aren't capable of mastering anything more complicated, and since Wiki is a crowdsourced encyclopedia which reflects widespread knowledge and common interpretations, also giving sources, which in this case are quite clearly multiple.
The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος holókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt"),[2] also known as the Shoah (Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "catastrophe"; Yiddish: חורבן, Churben or Hurban,[3] from the Hebrew for "destruction"), was the genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder by Nazi Germany, led by Adolf Hitler, throughout Nazi-occupied territory.[4] Of the nine million Jews who had resided in Europe before the Holocaust, approximately two-thirds perished.[5] In particular, over one million Jewish children were killed in the Holocaust, as were approximately two million Jewish women and three million Jewish men.[6][7]
Some scholars maintain that the definition of the Holocaust should also include the Nazis' genocide of millions of people in other groups, including Romani, Soviet prisoners of war, Polish and Soviet civilians, homosexuals, people with disabilities, Jehovah's Witnesses and other political and religious opponents, which occurred regardless of whether they were of German or non-German ethnic origin.[8] Using this definition, the total number of Holocaust victims is between 11 million and 17 million people.[9]
So we have 'approximately' six million Jews, although Hilbergians estimate 5.1 million, as is discussed
later in the entry. And we have a dispute between scholars over whether to include non-Jews or not, which would take the total all the way up to 17 million on some calculations.
The opening preamble here defines the Holocaust as a genocide, making it comparable to other mass murders also defined as genocides, and describes the event as "a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder by Nazi Germany, led by Adolf Hitler, throughout Nazi-occupied territory".
There is nothing in this definition about a Plan, or Gas Chambers, or 100% extermination, but there is a clear statement that the Holocaust was a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder.
The statement 'by Nazi Germany' is inaccurate because certain Axis allies like Romania and Croatia also carried out the systematic state-sponsored murder of Jews independently. The statement 'throughout Nazi-occupied territory' is vague but relatively accurate, since the Nazis killed on the spot or deported Jews to their deaths from every territory that they occupied. They also killed Jews deported from territories not under their direct occupation (eg Bulgarian-occupied Greece and Yugoslavia).
Wiki's definition of Holocaust denial is different:
Holocaust denial is the act of denying the genocide of Jews during World War II, usually referred to as the Holocaust.[1] The key claims of Holocaust denial are: the German Nazi government had no official policy or intention of exterminating Jews, Nazi authorities did not use extermination camps and gas chambers to mass murder Jews, and the actual number of Jews killed was significantly (typically an order of magnitude) lower than the historically accepted figure of 5 to 6 million.[2][3][4]
The most basic definition of the Holocaust is that it was a genocide of European Jews which was carried out as a systematic programme of murder.
Deniers invariably dispute that whatever happened to the Jews in WWII can be described as a genocide, although they are uniformly illiterate about other genocides and don't seem to know the UN definition of genocide. The crucial element of the UN definition of genocide is "genocidal intent"; as with legal definitions of murder, there must be intent.
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?
Your original cluelessness went as follows: "Is the evidence of gas chambers the same evidence that proves the Nazi plan to kill every Jew in Europe?"
Ignoring the 'kill every Jew in Europe' hyperbole, it is a matter of simple logic that evidence of planning is not going to be identical to evidence of implementation. You simply said 'the same evidence'. You didn't stop to think about how one piece of evidence might relate to another. It's fairly well established that you are not very good with understanding inferential logic.
I doubt anybody reads these ridiculously long replies to you except you.
This thread says otherwise, as do private messages I have received.
