Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[little grey rabbit]

Per the bunny's request, I'm posting the full list of SS witnesses to gas chambers. I'll be back in a few days to begin debating them. I believe we agreed we'd start w/Baer.

Also, I apologize, but yes — Aumeier is on the list. My mistake.


1. Aumeier
2. Baer
3. Baretzki
4. Bednarek
5. Böck
6. Boger
7. Bogusch
8. Brandl
9. Breitweiser
10. Broad
11. Bülow
12. Buntrock
13. Capesius
14. Danz
15. Dejaco
16. Dinges
17. Dylewski
18. Frank
19. Gehring
20. Götze
21. Grabner
22. Handl
23. Hess
24. Hiblinger
25. Höcker
26. Hoffman
27. Hofmann
28. Jeschke
29. Josten
30. Kaduk
31. Kirschner
32. Klehr
33. Koch
34. Kollmer
35. Kraus
36. Kremer
37. Lächert
38. Lätsch
39. Lechner
40. Liebehenschel
41. Lorenz
42. Lucas
43. Ludwig
44. Mandl
45. Medefind
46. Möckel
47. Morgen
48. Muhsfeldt
49. Mulka
50. Müller
51. Münch
52. Nebbe
53. Neubert
54. Nierzwicki
55. Orlowski
56. Plagge
57. Romeikat
58. Schatz
59. Scherpe
60. Schlage
61. Schobert
62. Schröder
63. Schumacher
64. Seufert
65. Stark
66. Storch
67. Szczurek
68. Weber
69. Wiebeck

Thanks for that. Can we do Morgen next? That's an easy one.

Since I think your delay may be that your are asking your back-up team to provide you with the necessary documents - allow me to assist.

I have provided all the interrogations of Baer that are in the public sphere here, it is not much for 3 years investigation
http://madness-visible.blogspot.com/2011/05/richard-baers-five-interrogations.html

The sole mention of gas chambers is this, taken the day after his arrest on being read the accusation against him

Der Beschuldigte wurde gefragt, ob er auf die Beschuldigungen im Haftbefehl etwas erwidern wolle.

Er erklärt, daß er sich nicht im Sinne der Beschuldigungen im Haftbefehl strafbar gemacht habe.

Er erklärt:

Ich bin nur Lagerkommandant im Lager Auschwitz I gewesen. Mit den Teillagern, in denen Vergasungen stattfanden, hatte ich nichts zu tun. Ich habe auch keinen Einfluß auf die Vergasungen selbst gehabt. Die Vergasungen fanden im Lager II statt. Dieses Lager unterstand nicht mir, sondern dem Hauptsturmführer Kramer. Er war zu meiner Zeit Kommandant des Lagers II

In fact reading this text, it becomes clear that the investigators were deliberately only recording statements that fitted with the case they were trying to build and the preconceptions they already held.

For example, at one point Baer is goaded into taking issue and provides us with this fascinating window into the nature of these investigations

Waren Sie Antisemit?

Ich erwiderte:
Nein, ich war kein Antisemit. Die Juden waren mir gleichgültig. Ich habe in der damaligen Zeit sogar ein jüdisches Kino besucht und in jüdischen Geschäften eingekauft. Bei den Geschäftsinhabern handelte es sich um solche Personen, die bei meinem Arbeitgeber Stark Kunden waren.

Sinngemäß habe ich das Herrn Staatsanwalt Kügler damals erklärt. Es wurde aber nicht in das Protokoll aufgenommen, weil es ihm nicht wichtig erschien; das nehme ich jedenfalls an.

Als ich Staatsanwalt Kügler erklärte, daß mir die Juden gleichgültig gewesen seien, sagte er zu mir, daß man mir das nicht gut glauben könne. Er hielt mir das mehrfach vor. Schließlich sagte ich, um Ruhe zu schaffen:

»Geliebt haben werde ich die Juden nicht.«

Als ich das gesagt hatte, war Staatsanwalt Kügler auch zufrieden.

Regardless, there is no statement from Baer that allows one to say he was an eyewitness of the gas chambers. There is no description or a claim to have seen them whatsoever.

In fact, in the substantive interrogations on the 29 and 30th there is only a few lines on Auschwitz. One assumes because no statements were made that satisfied the interrogators.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Testimony taken from the Accused: Arther Liebehenschel

Date Taken: May 7 & 8, 1947

Presiding Examining Judge: Jan Sehn

To answer the question if the Crematoria in Birkenau were in use during my tour of duty, I cannot say. If they were in use at this time it would only have been to cremate the corpses, those who died as the result of an outbreak of Typhus epidemic. If Jews were murdered and sent to the Gas Chambers, then this happened under the direction of Hoess who visited regularly during my entire stay at Auschwitz.

Here he is the year before at Nuremberg

Q. Briefly explain how the gassings were done at Auschwitz? A. That I don’t know, I didn’t experience this.

Q. You’re trying to tell us that at the time you were Camp Kommandant that not one single human being was gassed? A. In any event, I had nothing to do with this.

Q. That was not the question. The question is: to your knowledge at this time, were there any people sent to the gas chamber? A. That I don’t know, I have no knowledge of this.

Transcript of Pretrial Interrogation at Nuremberg: U.S. Military Chief of Counsel for War Crimes/ SS Section Taken of: Arthur Wilhelm Liebenhenschel – by E. Rigney

Date: September 18, 1946 – 10:00-11:30 am


And this is one of your eyewitnesses! Sheesh!

 

[dafydd]

Testimony taken from the Accused: Arther Liebehenschel

Date Taken: May 7 & 8, 1947

Presiding Examining Judge: Jan Sehn



Here he is the year before at Nuremberg


Transcript of Pretrial Interrogation at Nuremberg: U.S. Military Chief of Counsel for War Crimes/ SS Section Taken of: Arthur Wilhelm Liebenhenschel – by E. Rigney

Date: September 18, 1946 – 10:00-11:30 am


And this is one of your eyewitnesses! Sheesh!

No chance that the guy was lying then.

 

[little grey rabbit]

No chance that the guy was lying then.

No, I think Wroclaw is just lacking in knowledge and badly informed. I think - charitably - that he really did believe his list of names were people who admitted to be eyewitnesses to gassings at Auschwitz.

Wroclaw's only sin is ignorance, not dishonesty. That was his crime and that, I respectfully submit, should be his punishment.

 

[Uzzy]

And every one of those German historians would lose their position if they deviated from Holocaust party line. Let alone having criminal charges brought against them and a kangaroo court trial.

Confirmed for knowing nothing about anything.

 

[Dogzilla]

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.

Nothing in his diary was shocking. Parts of it were sufficiently vague (containing references to the dreaded "special action") to be retrofitted with sinister intent, which he provided in his testimony. Cooperating with the authorities could lead to leniency in some cases. Especially when you have a guy who was at Auschwitz for, what? A couple of months in 1942? He clearly wasn't one of the big fish.

 

[Wroclaw]

As a general point of clarification to everyone: The 69 SS witnesses are not all eyewitnesses. There's a difference. When time allows, I can asterisk the actual eyewitnesses. The list is only SS witnesses, so other eyewitnesses (e.g., Tauber) are not on the list.

My wife is very sick, which is why I don't have time to devote to this right now. Do with that what you want.

 

[Wroclaw]

And just so we're clear (and I checked), I personally never said they were eyewitnesses. Just witnesses.

 

[Dogzilla]

Who would they have been hiding the "alleged brutality" from?

Good point. I read in the beginning they would send urns to family members if the family arranged for the delivery. I don't recall them ever sending the bodies to the families.

Besides, wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to simply send out a memo telling guards to stop leaving visible marks when they beat the prisoners to death?

Every time you use the term denier it validates the lies about gas chambers, gas vans, etc.

I use "denier" in the same way African Americans called each other the N-word. I don't see it as validating the lies about the gas chambers. But people who call others holocaust deniers because they question the Holy Trinity of gas/intent/six million are basically restricting the holocaust to just those three things.

 

[Dogzilla]

I do not think that Clayton Moore has read many of the works "discussing" the Holocaust by German historians. He has shown not a single sign of familiarity with this body of work, and he no doubt means by discuss "dismiss" or "deny."

Nor do I think he has much insight into the motivations behind section 130 and how contemporary Germans apparently take their history and its "serious consequences."

For insight into the motivations behind Section 130, read "Making Holocaust Denial a Crime" The relevant passage:


The historical fact itself, that human beings were singled out
according to the criteria of the so-called “Nuremberg Laws” and
robbed of their individuality for the purpose of extermination,
puts Jews living in the Federal Republic in a special, personal
relationship vis-à-vis their fellow citizens; what happened [then]
is also present in this relationship today. It is part of their
personal self-perception to be understood as part of a group of
people who stand out by virtue of their fate and in relation to
whom there is a special moral responsibility on the part of all
others and that this is part of their dignity. Respect for this selfperception,
for each individual, is one of the guarantees against
repetition of this kind of discrimination and forms a basic
condition of their lives in the Federal Republic. Whoever seeks
to deny these events denies vis-à-vis each individual the personal
worth of Jewish persons. For the person concerned, this is
continuing discrimination against the group to which he belongs
and, as part of the group, against him.

 

[dafydd]

No, I think Wroclaw is just lacking in knowledge and badly informed. I think - charitably - that he really did believe his list of names were people who admitted to be eyewitnesses to gassings at Auschwitz.

Wroclaw's only sin is ignorance, not dishonesty. That was his crime and that, I respectfully submit, should be his punishment.

That's rich,you saying that somebody is lacking in knowledge and badly informed.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Confirmed for knowing nothing about anything.

I think your revelation had to do with the why of Nazism and the reestablishment of German pride.

 

[TSR]

I think your revelation had to do with the why of Nazism and the reestablishment of German pride.

.
No, it quite obviously had to do with pointing out that you were wrong when you stated that there would be (implied) bad consequences to merely discussing the Holocaust.

Or perhaps you can detail to whom which consequences applied for the discussions collectively known as the Historikerstreit?

Here, I'll give you a leg up, the main participants in this non-existent discussion were Martin Broszat, Jürgen Habermas, Eberhard Jäckel, Jürgen Kocka, Hans Mommsen, Wolfgang Mommsen. Hans-Ulrich Wehler and Heinrich August Winkler on one side; Joachim Fest, Klaus Hildebrand, Andreas Hillgruber, Ernst Nolte, Hagen Schulze, Michael Stürmer and Rainer Zitelmann

Karl Dietrich Bracher and Richard Löwenthal took the middle ground; Gordon A. Craig, Richard J. Evans and Ian Kershaw also weighed in.

Now, what happened to each of these people?
.

 

[Kevin.Silbstedt]

Per the bunny's request, I'm posting the full list of SS witnesses to gas chambers. I'll be back in a few days to begin debating them. I believe we agreed we'd start w/Baer.

Also, I apologize, but yes — Aumeier is on the list. My mistake.


1. Aumeier
2. Baer
[...]

I can't see Josef Erber (or "Josef Houstek", which was his original name) in your list. You maybe wanna add this guy, since he is not only a witness, but an eyewitness.

Josef Erber, Josef Klehr and Oswald Kaduk appear in a documenttary called "Drei deutsche Mörder" (="Three Germans Murders"), which I recommend.

One of the best parts:

Zitat von Interviewer:
Es gibt heute viele, die sagen Auschwitz war eine Lüge, es sind keine Menschen vergast worden.
Zitat von Oswald Kaduk:
Ha ja, ich will mal sagen, die Leute, die das überhaupt sagen, die halte ich nicht für normal, wissen sie, ich meine [unverständlich], dass sind auch nur Leute, die streiten es ab und dabei, es ist nicht abzustreiten, was passiert ist, ist passiert.

Quote from interviewer:
There are many people today saying, that Auschwitz was a lie, there were no people gassed.
Quote from Oswald Kaduk:
Well, I want to say those people, that say this, they are not normal, you know, I mean [inaudible], those are just people, they deny it but then, it's not deniable, what happend, happend.

Even a mass murderer thinks our Hitler huggers are not normal, kind of funny.

 

[Dogzilla]

And just so we're clear (and I checked), I personally never said they were eyewitnesses. Just witnesses.

What's the difference between an eyewitness and simply a witness?

 

[Clayton Moore]

.
No, it quite obviously had to do with pointing out that you were wrong when you stated that there would be (implied) bad consequences to merely discussing the Holocaust.

Or perhaps you can detail to whom which consequences applied for the discussions collectively known as the Historikerstreit?

Here, I'll give you a leg up, the main participants in this non-existent discussion were Martin Broszat, Jürgen Habermas, Eberhard Jäckel, Jürgen Kocka, Hans Mommsen, Wolfgang Mommsen. Hans-Ulrich Wehler and Heinrich August Winkler on one side; Joachim Fest, Klaus Hildebrand, Andreas Hillgruber, Ernst Nolte, Hagen Schulze, Michael Stürmer and Rainer Zitelmann

Karl Dietrich Bracher and Richard Löwenthal took the middle ground; Gordon A. Craig, Richard J. Evans and Ian Kershaw also weighed in.

Now, what happened to each of these people?
.

The Historikerstreit (Historians' dispute) was an intellectual and political controversy in West Germany about the way the Holocaust should be interpreted in history. It took place between 1986-1989, and pitted left-wing intellectuals against right-wing intellectuals. Its embers flared up again briefly in 2000[1] when one of the leading figures, Ernst Nolte, was awarded a literary prize. "Die Vergangenheit, die nicht vergehen will" proposed by Ernst Nolte, had to be rejected as inadequate due to their lack of sufficient empirical substance [2].

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historikerstreit

As I said the debate had nothing to do with the "facts/lies" of the Holocaust it had to do with Germany removing the YOKE of the Holocaust.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Ernst Nolte

"Die Vergangenheit, die nicht vergehen will"

http://translate.google.com/transla...fox-a&hs=CcJ&rlz=1R1DVFC_en___US329&prmd=ivns

With the "past, will not pass", only the Nazi past of the Germans or Germany meant. The topic of the thesis implies that normally goes every past and that it is this non-offense to something quite exceptional. On the other hand, the ordinary crimes of the past will not be taken as a disappearance. The era of the First Napoleon in such historical works present ever again and also the Augustan classicism. But this history appeared to have lost the oppressive that they had for contemporaries. That is why they can be left to historians. The National Socialist past, however, is subject - as recently even Hermann Lübbe pointed out - apparently this waning, this Entkräftigungsvorgang not, but it still seems more alive and powerful will, but not as a model, but as a nightmare, as a past that is almost as established the presence or like a sword is suspended over the present.

 

[ladmo]

What's the difference between an eyewitness and simply a witness?

Eyewitness... actually present during the act.

Witness... has knowledge of facts between parties.

 

[MG1962]

You might want to review the fifth column of the chart.

Sigh.....missed the point as usual

 

[little grey rabbit]

And just so we're clear (and I checked), I personally never said they were eyewitnesses. Just witnesses.

With respect - and with my best wishes to the speedy recovery for your wife - this was your original quote

Oh, dear...

I want you to read this:

http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/227...atement-4-2-04

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

Quote:
"In total there are the depositions of forty SS-members sentenced in Poland in 1947, those of Höss 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."
They're all liars also?

This is the definition of eye-witness. Baer did not admit to seeing gas chambers with his own eyes, nor did Liebehenschel.

I am reasonable man, and I would allow a statement of the gas chambers and their operation and not an explicit statement - but Baer didn't even do that.

Why not make a list of actual SS who admitted to having seen the Auschwitz gas chambers with their own eyes?

You could add Moll/