Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
I can just see it now in a real court of law when the accused states: 'They tortured me to get a confession', and the prosecutor asks: 'But what do you recant'?
Say what? The rather obvious answer is all that the accused 'confessed' to. Duh!
The human mind is not that rational. People can and do break pretty easy under enough stress. Physical or otherwise.
Think about all the people that confessed to making pacts with Satan way back when. How many of them actually made pacts with Satan? None. Because satan is a mythological character. He does not exist.
Those people would have admitted to anything to stop the torture. Many were burned alive as a result of their confessions. Surely they could have endured further torture right? Nope. Many people would rather die than go on under that kind of stress. At least in their mind they stop caring if death will be their punishment if they just admit to whatever the torturers are looking for.
Yikes! What the hell would they torture him for but to get him to say what they want?
In a legitimate court of law this man is freed. Such was Nuremberg, such were the show trials after the war. Such is the so called 'holocau$t'.
If he was lying about the treatment, why would his captives allow him to tell the tale of the torture?
If he was humanly treated and gave affidavits during this time, are the affidavits lies as well? Then how can we believe anything he writes?
Höß testified in an affidavit that under his direction 2½ million Jews were killed. But we know today that only about 1 million Jews were ever deported to Auschwitz. In my opinion the man could not have told the truth.Trojan wrote:So when Hoes says he was tortured he was telling the truth, then when he says that he is being humanly treated he is lying?
I don't know. Could this have had something to do with the beginning of the cold war?If he was lying about the treatment, why would his captives allow him to tell the tale of the torture?
I don't think that the man was treated humanely and that we can believe anything he wrote. The man was cross examined and tried by the communists, whose Moscow show trials in the mid thirties with all the confessions they got out of the accused are well known all over the world.If he was humanly treated and gave affidavits during this time, are the affidavits lies as well? Then how can we believe anything he writes?
Try to google "show trials". You may be amazed.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests