EtienneSC said:
Secondly, there would have to have been pressure on the German authorities in the early 1960s to throw SS men to the wolves. Now there is evidence of this happening. Following the Wirtschaftwunder of the 1950s, West Germany was attempting to rearm morally as part of the Cold War. The "myth of the clean Wehrmacht" had been strengthened by the Manstein trial. Hence the Auschwitz trials of the time proceeded without the full evidence of a normal trial. This was partly justified by the existence of the iron curtain at the time. Some of the verdicts (e.g. the Oberhauser confession on Belzec) have been questioned, at least by revisionists. Oberhauser's sentence is out of proportion to his offence, which is evidence of plea-bargaining, or of something going on behind the scenes.
If there was a laugh emoticon, I'd have filled up the whole page with it.
Seriously, though. There's
no evidence for any of EtienneSC's speculations. Only evidence of his ignorance of or inability to deal with the reality of Postwar Germany's dealings with the Holocaust. As I have mentioned several times now - .
MOST OF THE INSTITUTIONS OF WEST GERMANY-THE GOVERNMENT, THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICES (ESPECIALLY THE GEHLEN ORGANIZTION/BND), THE POLICE AND LEGAL SYSTEMS WERE HEAVILY STAFFED BY EX NAZIS with the unofficial blessings of the US government. The reality is the complete opposite of what he wants it to be. Instead of his childish fantasy of those German "traitors", throwing EtienneSC's SS heroes "to the wolves", they did everything they could to protect them. Perfect example: Adolf Eichmann. The capture of Eichmann was purely due to the efforts of Frankfurt State Prosecutor Fritz Bauer and the Mossad. The German intelligence service and interpol did not help, and in fact hampered Bauer's investigation. The original intention was to have Eichmann tried in Germany. But because the US government and the German government were afraid of Eichmann exposing prominent ex Nazis in the government,
THEY REFUSED IN ORDER TO PROTECT THEM. Germany threatened to stop arms sales to Israel if they insisted on having Eichmann tried in Germany. The results speak for themselves- they caved in. Eichmann is just one example. German embassies in Latin America also helped former Nazis escape. For example, the embassy in Chile stonewalled and delayed the extradition requests for Walter Rauff. As late as 1988, the Germans delayed the trial of a man accused of killing Orthodox Christians in Latvia, and in 1994 the case was stopped because he was "too frail". There was no "throwing to the wolves", only the inability of deniers to deal with the painful reality of the leniency West Germany had towards their heroes, because it refutes once and for all any claims of "hoaxing" or "forgery"
EtienneSC's assertions about the Frankfurt Auschwitz trials are laughable, bordering on slanderous. They were very thorough and cautious in their review. Judges were onsite to verify for themselves if witnesses could see whay they said they did. The final verdict contain a section about how "special care had to be taken when assessing witness statements", and "where there were even the slightest doubts, the court did not use such witness statements". One defendant was acquitted because of these. And even then, the sentences do not reflect EtienneSC's fantasies: they were very lenient. 7 were convicted of murder, 10 of manslaughter and 3 were acquited. The sentences ranged from 1/4 to 3 years, to life. These cannot be underestimated. As mentioned previously,
THE GERMAN LEGAL SYSTEM WAS HEAVILY STAFFED BY EX NAZIS, and they made heavy use of the "base motives" loophole in German law to get the lightest possible sentences for their fellows on trial. They protected their own and certainly did not throw them to the wolves. They were more on the defendants' side. The Frankfurt Auschwitz trials were just one example of a larger trend. The courts treated the murders of Jews differrently from what EtienneSC called "normal" murders. More often than not, they issued sentences of about 1 or 2 days for every proven murder. For example, there was a case where men convicted of "accessory to murder" of 200 children in a gas van were given four years because the court felt sorry for the stress they felt during the proceedings. I'm not making that up. Anyone who has studied this period can see EtienneSC's speculation for what it is: Baseleas garbage completely at odds with reality.
There is no evidence for EtienneSC's speculations. The Deniers "question" because they are liars and scam artists unable to deal with the fact thay they don't have a leg to stand on. Zundel lied when he said his trial was the first time witnesses were cross examined - the Auschwitz trials demonstrated that this was not the case, and because of the "base motive" requirement for murder convictions, German courts needed detailed information on the perpetrators' motives and questioned witnesses rigorously, some might say excessively so. Faurisson lied when he called theae trials "witch" trials- they were on the side of the defendants and had no trouble abusing Jewish witnesses. Staeglich made much of his credentials as a judge, and this means he lied every time he opened his mouth or wrote something down.
EtienneSC doesn't know what he's talking about. Quite frankly, he's parroting crap made by scam artists who are dead terrified of looking at reality, because a close look at it would prove once and for all that the entire premise of Denial is false. There was no hoax or forgery, just the opposite. Completely baseless garbage.
Edited by Loss Leader:
Edited to resize text. Do not use disruptive formatting.
