"But, but, No Nazi ever Denied"- oogah boogah

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10182
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: "But, but, No Nazi ever Denied"- oogah boogah

Postby Hannover » 9 years 3 months ago (Thu Jul 28, 2011 6:40 pm)

Balsamo wrote:Well I think the question should have been :

"Did any of the Nazis who admitted the genocide retracted himself in some way ( post-mortem letter, confessions, etc )?"

Of course, the oft cited Auschwitz commandant, Hoess, whose 'confessions' are such a big deal for the 'holocaust' Industry said:
"During the first interrogation they beat me to obtain evidence. I do not know what was in the transcript, or what I said, even though I signed it, because they gave me liquor and beat me with a whip. It was too much even for me to bear. The whip was my own. By chance it had found its way into my wife's luggage. My horse had hardly ever been touched by it, much less the prisoners. Somehow one of the interrogators probably thought that I had used it to constantly whip the prisoners."(11)
- 11.R. Hoess, p. 179

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 9:44 am

Re: "But, but, No Nazi ever Denied"- oogah boogah

Postby Zulu » 9 years 3 months ago (Fri Jul 29, 2011 6:14 am)

A fact generally ignored is the existence of the affidavits of more than 300,000 German leaders and officers of high ranks which have declared on their affidavits to know nothing about an alleged "extermination plan". From that mass of declarations, it seems that a little more than hundred only were duly translated to be presented by the corresponding witnesses of the defense at the Court.
BTW, Imagine the reaction of Iraqi officers after the war while asked why didn't they know the existence of WMDs while the "whole world" knew about these artifacts.

"The Prosecution has frequently alleged that the "whole world" knew about these crimes and so why did not the members?
Colin Powell's UN Presentation on Iraq WMD pt 1

Final Report on the Evidence of Witnesses for the Defense of Organizations Alleged to be Criminal, Heard Before a Commission Appointed by the Tribunal Pursuant to Paragraph 4 o the Order of the 13th of March, 1946.


When the time limit for affidavits was reached on August 5th, the total number of collective affidavits submitted was 313,213.

The total for each organization was as follows:

Political Leaders.155,000
General Staff..........3,000


The Prosecution has frequently alleged that the "whole world" knew about these crimes and so why did not the members?

This was attacked by the Defense as being entirely untrue. It is their claim that under the HITLER regime the reading of foreign, newspapers or listening to foreign broadcasts was prohibited except for a very small circle of officials of the Government. In consequence it was impossible for the average person to have knowledge of such atrocities even though they were being published all over the world.

This suppression of information by the GESTAPO and other organizations played some part in the evidence regarding the extermination of the Jews. Where it could be shown that the GESTAPO deliberately prevented information from reaching any large number of members of the population this was considered relevant. A mere statement, however, by a witness who asked the GESTAPO for information as to whether the atrocities alleged in Auschwitz were actually occurring and received a negative answer, was declared inadmissible. There appeared to be no evidence that this information was passed on to the public as a whole, nor in this particular case, did it appear to relate to the organization (the SS) for which he had sworn an affidavit.

For the same reason evidence by a witness that his own brother had been an inmate of Belsen concentration camp and told him that there were no atrocities going on, was declared irrelevant to the question of whether the atrocities were generally known to the SS. Similarly, evidence was also declared irrelevant which relates only to the guilt or innocence of a particular person.

The summary of evidence which follows will perhaps serve to illustrate further problems concerning the Order of March 13th that have arisen during the hearings.


The point made by the Commissioners was that it was not the intention that the structure of the organization as such should be given. It was intended that the details of the organization should only be described insofar as they were intended to refute the particular crimes alleged under Article 6 of the Charter.

It was, for instance, considered quite relevant to show that disciplinary action was taken against people who committed atrocities in concentration camps and what was the practice of the SS Court in dealing with these because these were crimes mentioned in the Charter.

Colonel Neave Report

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests