Aumeier repudiated confessions?

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
nathan
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:14 am

Aumeier repudiated confessions?

Postby nathan » 1 decade 2 years ago (Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:58 am)

Perhaps not everything in Wikepedia is to be disbelieved. Citing “ Commanders of Auschwitz" by Jeremy Dixon as their source they say:

“On 11th June 1945, Aumeier was arrested ... he was still in full SS uniform without forged papers and admitted almost immediately his name and rank in fact he hid nothing. He was interrogated by U.S. intelligence officers at Akershus Prison in August 1945. In 1946 he was extradited to Poland to face trial as a war criminal along with thirty-nine other members of the SS staff of Auschwitz-Birkenau, before the Supreme National Tribunal in Cracow. The trial lasted from 25th November to 16th December 1947, and Aumeier stated that if he was found guilty and sentenced to death he would “die as a “Sundenbock” (scapegoat) for Germany”. 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.”


Is the last sentence true? If so, Aumeier was ending as he began, for his very first handwritten statement June 1945 was also a flat denial of any knowledge of gas chambers.

In a later (July 1945) statement he was ready to admit hearsay knowledge of the first gassing of Jewish prisoners in the main camp - carried out as an anti-typhus measure. In a third (25 July) statement he writes of how the two bunkers were installed – at the end of January 1943 he says - as an interim measure until the first big Birkenau crematorium was in place by April of that year.

Justice Grey considered Aumeier’s July statements to be good evidence for gas chambers because David Irving had failed to prove they were involuntary. But in the spirit of the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act, any judge should not now allow a renounced confession to be given in evidence except in so far as the prosecution proves to the court beyond reasonable doubt that the confession (notwithstanding that it may be true) was not obtained by “oppression.”

Any denial of statements made in captivity is implicitly an accusation of “oppression” (which need not amount to torture). So the burden of proof might not lie with Irving. The 1984 legislation followed various miscarriages of justice involving coerced confessions. SS concentration camp leaders in Allied interrogation cells were not likely to be treated with anything like the tenderness we know the West Midland Police showed to Irishmen suspected of terrorism in the Seventies. But perhaps it can be shown that all Aumeier’s confessions were made in the presence of a solicitor and a tape-recorder.

Most of the relevant PRO file is at:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Aumeier/index.html

Perhaps someone who has Dixon's book can tell me his source. Pressac mentions the Polish trials as if transcripts or at least summaries in western langages are somewhere to be found.

Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 764
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Postby Breker » 1 decade 2 years ago (Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:37 pm)

To believe the Aumeier saga means 'contradicting the current standard story in almost every particular.'
From the sea of links at
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Aumeier/index.html
these two, in English, are critical:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Aumeier/ ... 80199.html
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Aumeier/ ... 80103.html

Then there is the wooly monkey on the back of the "Holocaust" enforcers; science, which mandates that the alleged gassings are fictitious.
Breker

nathan
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:14 am

Postby nathan » 1 decade 2 years ago (Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:05 am)

I see that Mattogno deals with Aumeier in chapter 6 of a book The Bunkers of Auschwitz which can be found online. www.vho.org/GB/Books/tboa/

If Aumeier did repudiate a confession, Mattogno seems unaware of it. But the basis of any confession made in Poland would have been the very statements discussed above, for the British handed these statements over to the Poles along with Aumeier himself. Mattogno is confident that the Poles had already been as forthcoming with their own materials, though he does not prove it. But it seems to me a supporting fact is that Aumeier’s chronology concurs in its errors with that of Stanislaw Jankowsky who was deposed by the Polish examining magistrate Jan Sehn in April of 1945. They both agree that the things began at the end of 1942. But the first gassings of Jewish (as against Russian) prisoners in Auschwitz 1 and in the provisional “bunkers” are commonly alleged to have happened no later than July 1942. (I think Spring of 1942 is the main candidate for the bunkers.) Memory may make honest mistakes; two memories making the same mistake may not be so honest. However, Jankowski’s full deposition is not known to me.

I notice that Aumeier at first writes that he arrived at Auschwitz in June 1942 (just before the mother of all typhus outbreaks). In later writings his arrival becomes “Spring” and then, within a rather precise chronology, 16 February. It was an evolving story. The American report on the Jun/July interrogations, itself dated August 10, 1942 says that “ a further report will be made when the evidence of Polish citizens who were prisoners in the camp during Aumeier’s time has been collated”

Everything mentioned herein can be found at the fpp links given by Breker. I see that Crowell does not number the Poles among likely "influences"


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 3 guests