• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
little grey rabbit said:
Kremer was a Larmarckist and therefore no Nazi. We biologists get quite passionate about such issues.
Click to expand...
Oh good lord, do not get me started. Anyway this is an interesting tidbit, but I don't recall anyone's claiming that Kremer was a Nazi. Or mentioning that he was released on account of Lemarckianism.
 
Clayton Moore said:
My view is that in 1947ish if you were sentenced to death and the sentence was commuted there was a damn good reason for it. If the "facts" of the

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/kremer.html



were true or even 1/2 or 10% true I don't see him deserving/getting an early release. Especially in the early post war years.

Him, Kremer, serving only 10 or so years would mean
the jewishvirtuallibrary.org is publishing lies.
Click to expand...
You seem ignorant of the history, say, of the large number of EG leaders who were released after conviction and imprisonment, not for good behavior in their cases but because IMHO the political climate changed. Their sentence reductions and early releases, in fact, specifically and by law IIRC could have nothing to do with their crimes or the facts of their cases. The only thing fishy here is the lengths that the Allies would go to in order to cozy up to West Germany in the Cold War.
 
Last edited:
LemmyCaution said:
Oh good lord, do not get me started. Anyway this is an interesting tidbit, but I don't recall anyone's claiming that Kremer was a Nazi. Or mentioning that he was released on account of Lemarckianism.
Click to expand...

My spelling was wrong, but so is yours. It is Lamarck or Lamarckism.

Maybe no-one claimed he was a Nazi and I don't know about his NSDAP membership but he joined the SS in 1937 as a reservist.

If you look at his Stammkarte it has two postings during the war, a relief position in Dachau for a few weeks and a relief position in Prague for a similiar time - other than that he was an academic in Muenster.

The diary has him going to Prague and then being sent to Auschwitz. That may be so but its not on his SS personnel file. His incriminating portion of his diary is recorded in a notebook sourced in either the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia or the Czechoslovakia Socialist Republic.

There is no real understanding about how he ended up in trial in Krakow 1947, since such a brief, insignificant visitor from 1942 is unlikely to have been a the top of anyone's extradition lists. A publication of the Auschwitz museum claims that the British searched his apartment found the diary, read it and were shocked, SHOCKED I say. But it suggests a level of surveillence that it is unlikely the occupation forces had the interest or manpower to perform.

So I don't suggest that his Lamarckism explains why he was released early, rather his Lamarckism explains his testimony and his immediate post-war behaviour. In fact if you read his diary it is clear he had got in trouble with the Gestapo as being ideologically suspect.
 
little grey rabbit said:
My spelling was wrong, but so is yours. It is Lamarck or Lamarckism.

Maybe no-one claimed he was a Nazi and I don't know about his NSDAP membership but he joined the SS in 1937 as a reservist.

If you look at his Stammkarte it has two postings during the war, a relief position in Dachau for a few weeks and a relief position in Prague for a similiar time - other than that he was an academic in Muenster.

The diary has him going to Prague and then being sent to Auschwitz. That may be so but its not on his SS personnel file. His incriminating portion of his diary is recorded in a notebook sourced in either the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia or the Czechoslovakia Socialist Republic.

There is no real understanding about how he ended up in trial in Krakow 1947, since such a brief, insignificant visitor from 1942 is unlikely to have been a the top of anyone's extradition lists. A publication of the Auschwitz museum claims that the British searched his apartment found the diary, read it and were shocked, SHOCKED I say. But it suggests a level of surveillence that it is unlikely the occupation forces had the interest or manpower to perform.

So I don't suggest that his Lamarckism explains why he was released early, rather his Lamarckism explains his testimony and his immediate post-war behaviour. In fact if you read his diary it is clear he had got in trouble with the Gestapo as being ideologically suspect.
Click to expand...
I should know better than to refer to one of your posts for spelling assistance. Oh well. I am pretty sure that Kremer was in the Party but thought you were referring to his ideology as opposed to membership. I am not shocked that his diary was found shocking, what with the descriptions of executions of Musselmanner and so on. Unless that was in his testimony. Anyway, it was all shocking if you take it seriously.
 
Last edited:
LemmyCaution said:
I should know better than to refer to one of your posts for spelling assistance. Oh well. I am pretty sure that Kremer was in the Party but thought you were referring to his ideology as opposed to membership. I am not shocked that his diary was found shocking, what with the descriptions of executions of Musselmanner and so on. Unless that was in his testimony. Anyway, it was all shocking if you take it seriously.
Click to expand...

I just don't think the British had manpower to do searches of personal documents and read them all. If there was no request from the Poles (and their appears no record of it) and since we know there is no record in his SS personnel files of him being at Auschwitz, it is a mystery about how he found himself in Krakow.

If we accept that Kremer was an ideological foe of National Socialism - and we have his own scientific publications which are an excellent marker of sympathy with if not Marxism at least (normal) Socialism and the fact that he came under suspicion of the Gestapo - then his behaviour in joining the SS looks like political and subversive in motive. It is in such a light that we need to to judge his "confessions."

For all we know during that 10 years in Poland he was sunning himself in Sochi.
 
Wroclaw said:
Oh, dear...

I want you to read this:

http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/2275/Veritas-Team-Opening-Statement-4-2-04

However, knowing that you're too lazy to do so, I'll give you the important quote here:



They're all liars also?

By the way, those SS witnesses are all limited to Auschwitz. If you go to witnesses for the other five camps in Poland, you're in triple figures.



No, we're going to stay on topic here, or you're going to admit that you're either too stupid or too intellectually lazy to pursue this point like an adult. Or you can admit you're wrong. There is no fourth option.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, I've found it. And it's a crock.
 
Well I read the link and I don't see a list of 69 SS witnesses, let alone their statements.

I have read the testimony of some of them, for example Richard Baer spent many months in detention at Frankfurt before dying before trial. The few statements of his that have been released - presumably he was questioned many more times that the slim number of pages suggest - don't contradict the existence of gas chambers in Birkenau but contain no description of them or even any claim to have personally seen them.

Then there were 68

Hans Aumeier in his early statements in British custody seems to dispute existence of gas chambers and numerous crematoria. His later statements are consistent with gas chambers but according to his wikipedia page he back-tracked on them at Krakow
He told the court that he had never killed anyone at Auschwitz and neither had any of his men and denied knowledge of the gas chambers. On December 22, Aumeier was sentenced to death, and he was hanged on January 28, 1948 in Montelupich Prison, Kraków.
Click to expand...
And then there were 67

Arthur Liebenschel denied having anything to do with gas chambers or crematoria at his Nuremberg interviews.

And then there were 66

Josef Kramer
Denied in his initial statement there was anything more than one crematoria and that there were homicidal gas chambers. In his next statement he said that there was one crematorium and one gas chamber, but stressed that his men knew nothing about them and the responsibility was all his - ie he was clearly trying to shield his subordinates. On the trial stand he said there were four crematoria with each a gas chamber

And then there were 65

Rudolf Hoess stated he as tortured, wrote a letter to his wife saying there were some treatments it was impossible to resist and told Nuremberg psychiatrists he was solely concerned now with protecting his family.

And then there were 64.

So can we have a list of these 64 and their statements please?
 
Friedrich Entress gave a statement concerning the Bunkers, but his statement stated that all the internal walls were removed, when according accepted historical narratives today it was divided up into four cells with each an entrance and exit door. Suggesting he is not an eye-witness. He wrote this affidavit a month before he was hung during a period when he was appealing for clemency suggesting his (inaccurate) testimony was designed to curry favor. He also stated lethal injections were of potassium cyanide not phenol - when as a doctor he should have been very familiar with the procedure

Then there were 63.

Eduard Wirths supposedly hung himself upon being taken into British custody. He left behind a collection of letters and an apologia which is supposed to have confessed to mass gassings. Since his November 1944 letter mentions 599 Iron Crosses given out for surpressing the Sonderkommando revolt (a fictional affair whose original version was a revolt of Poles deported from Warsaw) we know that this collection of documents has been salted with fakes.

Then there were 62.

Johannes Paul Kremer was a Lamarckist and ergo regime-hostile element who had infiltrated the SS, his testimony therefore is not safe.

Then there were 61

Can I please have the 61 names and their testimonies?
 
little grey rabbit said:
Johannes Paul Kremer was a Lamarckist and ergo regime-hostile element who had infiltrated the SS, his testimony therefore is not safe.
Click to expand...
Something called eowyn once went on about this, and at the time you never were able to adduce a bit of evidence unless you call wild leaps and paranoid fantasies evidence. Do you have any evidence 3-4 years later?
 
Wroclaw said:
You wanna take 'em one by one? Sure.

You begin with Baer?

(Note: Aumeier is not one of the 69 cited.)
Click to expand...

How do you know Aumeier isn't one of the 69 cited? Your link just says
In total there are the depositions of forty SS-members sentenced in Poland in 1947, those of Hss and those of 19 SS-members sentenced or acquitted in the German Federal Republic between 1963 and 1965, the depositions of Baer and Dejaco and of a further seven SS-members testifying as witnesses who admitted to having seen the Auschwitz gas chambers with their own eyes. A total of 69 witnesses who had belonged to the SS.
Click to expand...
It would seem that Aumeier was included in the list of forty SS members. But since you don't have the list of 69 eyewitnesses and it certainly appears that the authors of that forum post had not read their depositions, your claim seems without secure foundation.

For example I have, unlike the authors of that forum post, read the interrogations of Richard Baer that have been released. He doesn't claim to have seen the gas chambers, he just says that as Commandant of Auschwitz 1 he had nothing to do with them.

If you have a description or claim from Baer that he saw the gas chambers of Birkenau, then present it. Otherwise he is not an eyewitness.
 
Last edited:
LemmyCaution said:
Something called eowyn once went on about this, and at the time you never were able to adduce a bit of evidence unless you call wild leaps and paranoid fantasies evidence. Do you have any evidence 3-4 years later?
Click to expand...

What precisely do you want evidence of?
That he was a Lamarckist?
That he was regime-hostile?
It is easy to prove that he was Lamarckist, if you accept that ideology of the time almost exclusively associated Lamarkism with the left then he is likely to have been regime-hostile.

If you want direct evidence of being regime hostile beyond Lamarkism there is not so much. There is the clear evidence he came under investigation by the Gestapo, that he was not employed as a reservist by the SS after 1942, that he read underground Socialist pamphlets and did not denounce the person who distributed them.
 
Yes, I wanted evidence that he was 1) hostile to the NS regime, 2) a Marxist, 3) investigated by the Gestapo for hostility to the regime and not for some other problem, 4) an infiltrator of the SS, and 5) (now that you mention it) receiving socialist pamphlets from people whom he protected.
 
LemmyCaution said:
Yes, I wanted evidence that he was 1) hostile to the NS regime, 2) a Marxist, 3) investigated by the Gestapo for hostility to the regime and not for some other problem, 4) an infiltrator of the SS, and 5) (now that you mention it) receiving socialist pamphlets from people whom he protected.
Click to expand...
5. It is in his diary that he read a socialist pamphlet in early 1943 I believe. He mentioned that person who distributed it, there is record he denounced him.
4. If he was not a sincere Nazi then he either joined the SS for career purposes or for political purposes. The fact that he was ideologically opposed to the Nazi racial theory suggests the later.
3. It is clear from his diary that he was investigated by the Gestapo and also denied promotion directly in relation to his scientific publication. A fellow academic tells him "you shouldn't have published that paper". Since his paper was directly contradicting one of the basic tenets of Nazi Racial theory, we can assume regime hostility.
2. I never said he was a Marxist, but Lamarckism was a marker of Marxist sympathies, but not all Lamarckists need be Marxists.
1. Publishing papers that directly contradict Nazi Racial theory should be a marker of regime hostility.
 
Well, you said earlier,
It wasnt so much that it was anti-Nazi but that it was pro-Marxist.
Click to expand...
And then insinuated the same in this thread:
excellent marker of sympathy with if not Marxism at least (normal) Socialism.
Click to expand...
Your statement that
He mentioned that person who distributed it, there is record he denounced him
Click to expand...
isn't intelligible. If you are trying to say the diary doesn't record a denunciation, this hardly makes Kremer a socialist or fellow traveler. If you are trying to say, Kremer did denounce a pamphlet sharer, so be it.

Also, that someone who joined the SS didn't follow the party's thinking absolutely or may have joined the formation for careerist purposes doesn't imply hostility to the regime and opposition to the NS. An insincere Nazi is not necessarily an opponent of the Nazis.

Where did Kremer publish his problematic article?

How do we know the cause of the problems Kremer had with the Gestapo and their upshot? Do you have quotations or citations so that we are not left with only your interpretations, which, to say the least, have been rather bizarre in the past?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom