Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
From a legal/technical point of view, a testimony has to be a formal statement (writing or speech), such as in a trial. I do not think you are even legally allowed to pay any "witness" to "testify" in a hearing. This would allow for rampant corruption/bribery
These "Survivors" you speak of likely qualify for some sort of "Holocaust reparations" in all likelihood. And there are other benefits besides money, such as fame/attention.
Maybe you are wondering if, back in the 1940s, some former camp prisoner was offered money to go testify as an eyewitness about all sorts of things. In other words: a bribe. Well, I don't even think that would have been necessary as there were plenty of unhappy prisoners that would have volunteered to give atrocity propaganda testimony as revenge.
The only sort of thing I can think of that fits the description of Jews being paid to talk about the "Holocaust" is all of the survivors that go around doing just that. A Bergen-Belsen survivor (Marion Blumenthal Lazan) came to my school and gave some sort of speech when I was very young. I don't remember much about it because I was a child and it was long ago, but the local news covered it. This lady also wrote a book "Four perfect pebbles" so you could possibly call the payment part of a book tour, but an old lady isn't to spend her own money like that traveling around to schools and talking to children. It happens all the time, just search "holocaust survivor speaks to school students" or whatever. They get paid to talk in front of an audience.
I am curious about what exactly it is that you're looking for.
Those who testified in court have been dissected one by one, the results are not favorable to the narrative they try to maintain.
This forum and the CODOH main site, AFAIK, has pretty much debunked them all.
Indirect payments for those types have certainly been made, via speaking fees, books of fiction, fictional "movies", and of course, piles of 'reparations' cash.
Never let anyone get away with merely saying it's all been proven by so called "testimonies". Make them say who, what, where & when.
IOW, insist that they state specifics for each 'testimony'.
And boom! Another liar bites the dust. And yes it is that simple.
It looks like that these persons had filed false restitution claims and received money. Thus, they did not welcome being contacted many years later by investigators as their lack of knowledge could jeopardize their payments or at least cause severe embarrassment for being exposed as liars.
Obviously, "knowledge" is a misnomer since the Treblinka and Sobibor camps were not extermination facilities.
"Eyewitness to Genocide: The Operation Reinhard Death Camp Trials, 1955-1966" by Michael S. Bryant is a good source with detailed information on the investigations. However, the earliest and perhaps most interesting trials fom 1950-1951 against Bauer (Sobibor), Gomerski and Klier (Sobibor), and Hirtreiter (Treblinka) are not covered.
The witnesses in the concentration camp cases were virtually all of the sort we court reporters termed "professional witnesses," those who spent months in Dachau, testifying against one or another of the many accused. They were fed and housed by the Americans at Dachau in comfort they could never have hoped to attain elsewhere in Germany in those days. They were also paid a fee for each day they spent at court. Thus it was to their economic advantage to testify, and many of them made a good living doing so.
As one might well imagine, the motive of the professional witnesses was also one of spite and revenge. Those of them who had been in the concentration camps hated the Germans and would have done anything to harm them. In many instances their vengeance included relating exaggerated accounts of what they had witnessed. It also included outright lying.
There were also strong indications that the professional witnesses worked together, helping each other with their testimony. The witnesses would frequently attend sessions in a court trial, following which they would relate to their friends what had transpired. This helped their friends prepare for their own testimony.
The professional witnesses were known to the authorities in Washington, as is proved by a memorandum for the Judge Advocate General's Office in the Pentagon, speaking of a professional witness whose testimony was to be considered to be "unreliable." A note in the review of "The United States vs. Lauriano Navas, et al." (file no. 000-50-5-25) states that:
A memorandum for the Chief of the War Crimes Branch, European Command, dated 2 April 1951, states that Pedro Gomez, although never officially declared unreliable, definitely falls into the class of a "professional witness" and that testimony from him should be considered with caution and given little weight unless corroborated.
This admonition from the Office of the Chief of the War Crimes Branch, European Command, came unfortunately too late to have had any bearing during the war crimes trials, all of which were complete by the end of 1947. The sentences meted out by the courts and the subsequent documents prepared by the review authority demonstrate what I was able to observe, that there was very little caution applied in the acceptance of such testimony.
Halow was a court reporter at Dachau. This is primarily an account of his personal experience. But he also gives at least one citation referring to this phenomenon of "professional witnesses."
Archie wrote:Have you seen this 1989 JHR article by Joseph Halow? It talks about something along those lines.
I'm surprised nobody has brought up Harlow until now.
He wrote a book elaborating further about his experiences when at the time he was only 18-19 years old.
I thought I had a pdf, but apparently I don't.
Lamprecht.I do not think you are even legally allowed to pay any "witness" to "testify" in a hearing. This would allow for rampant corruption/bribery
Expert witnesses such as scientists and psychologists get paid all the time to give their opinion in court cases.
On another note take the interviews Spielberg filmed. Were they paid? Almost certainly yes. At the very least they would have had their travel costs, hotel and food covered. The awkward thing for Spielberg is that many of these witnesses then went on to speak in his interviews and directly counter the holocaust narrative.
'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician
CapitalorLabour? wrote:As the title says, and does anyone have any sources for this?
of course they were. they were all paid very well and all made great money being flown around the world to tell their lies to schools and other places.
There may have been other rewards by NGOs and I recall that Franz Suchomel got money from Lanzman for telling him some tales about Treblinka.
Also don't underestimate that some people like it to be in the limelight. There are far more motives working in people than just money, which in itself is a means to satisfy other needs.
With regards to an extermination policy involving homicidal gas chambers, most testimonies contain little to nothing. So the argument that "If the Holocaust is untrue, all witnesses must be liars", doesn't hold any water neither. In fact, if the Holocaust is true, then why did so many witnesses notice anything of it themselves? It's of course that many of them may have heard rumours during or after the war, but that's exactly what makes testimonies problematic: Real experienced events get reinterpreted in terms of rumours and commonly held beliefs. And 'survivors' will have shared their yarn after the war at meetings and via other means of communication.
I've not come across Joseph Halow, cheers.
CapitalorLabour? wrote:It's Steven Spielberg's USC Shoah Foundation that I had in mind (some of the videos on there actually go against the narrative. Plus there are all the newspaper articles and the the rest.
I've not come across Joseph Halow, cheers.
I recall circumstantial talks from Jews (Living in Axis countries at the time) in private conversations that were rather odd, if one staunchly believed the narrative. That and a few other oddities was what made me a Revisionist on the matter in the first place. E.g. the pushiness of the propaganda was rather suspect. I was also astonished how people were gaslighted with the materials presented. Wouldn't extraordinary claims not also require more thorough evidence to believe them? Well, I think Holocaust promoters knew what they are doing, that includes their media campaign. Appears to be well organised and planned, and people don't find that astonishing. Too many believe TV, papers and schools would lie to them.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests