Intro & Let's Talk About Eichmann

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Guptalicious
Member
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 12:47 am

Postby Guptalicious » 1 decade 6 years ago (Tue Dec 02, 2003 2:11 pm)

Tom, good catch: Wiesel wrote "geysers of blood" in 1968 in the Jews of Silence.

Therefore he got it from Eichmann who got it from the Einsatgruppen Trial. Alternatively he got it from someone else who got it from one of these two. Or maybe both.

In Re Gerstein, Henri Roques' book is the main source to consult. The affidavit was well known immediately after the war. It was first published to my recollection in the 1953 period, in a German historical journal, it was also published in Harvest of Hate in France and discussed by Reitlinger at the same time.

Proof that Eichmann read these things? He referred to reading Reitlinger somewhere. He also had a heavily annotated copy of Hoess' memoirs, published in Germany in 1957.

trtsk
Member
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:29 am

Postby trtsk » 1 decade 6 years ago (Tue Dec 02, 2003 2:16 pm)

Guptalicious wrote:Tom, good catch: Wiesel wrote "geysers of blood" in 1968 in the Jews of Silence.


Yeah and he doesn't publish his stuff in English first. He always writes in French first. Thanks for acknowledging the point. Too few people can do that.

Therefore he got it from Eichmann who got it from the Einsatgruppen Trial. Alternatively he got it from someone else who got it from one of these two. Or maybe both.


I can live with that. Of course it doesn't make it untrue as Hannover had suggested.

In Re Gerstein, Henri Roques' book is the main source to consult. The affidavit was well known immediately after the war. It was first published to my recollection in the 1953 period, in a German historical journal, it was also published in Harvest of Hate in France and discussed by Reitlinger at the same time.


OK that's decent backing. I have Reitlinger on the shelf and I'll dig in.

Proof that Eichmann read these things? He referred to reading Reitlinger somewhere. He also had a heavily annotated copy of Hoess' memoirs, published in Germany in 1957.


About Hoss I know. I'll check in Reitlinger for postwar references to Gerstein.

Thanks.

Tom

Dan Cullum
Member
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2003 1:18 pm

Re: Intro & Let's Talk About Eichmann

Postby Dan Cullum » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Dec 03, 2003 12:57 pm)

trtsk wrote:I'll make clear a few things before I begin this thread.

I'm Jewish. I won't be baited so don't try it.

I'm also a Zionist. Ditto.



Tom, no one would be interested in baiting you. Welcome to the Forum.

So here's an opening volley. Eichmann pled not guilty in Jerusalem. In fact he pled in exactly the same manner as Goring at Nuremberg: Not guilty in the sense of the indictment. Dr. Servatius, Eichmann's attorney who was paid for by the State of Israel, told the press that Eichmann felt "guilty before God but not before the law."

Question Number One therefore is this. What did Eichmann feel guilty for?


Whichever side on takes on the genocide issue, it may be fair to say that his sense of guilt was understandable; the horrors on the Eastern Front alone would suffice. What I am most stricken by about the Eichmann trial is that he did feel guilty. He looked like a normal, even otherwise nice person and not a ghoul. As far as the things that did happen, whatever they were, his appearing human was unsettling. Did you ever get this strange impression (as you firmly believe in the Holocaust) that whatever compelled him to do the things he did was gone?

Also, what do think of David Irving's claim to have the lost Eichmann memoirs?

Goethe
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 3:41 am

Postby Goethe » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Dec 03, 2003 2:52 pm)

It seems to me that kidnapping, solitary confinement, and who knows what coercive techniques, would enable his Israeli kidnappers to get him to say whatever they desired. I guess what is really critical is the fact that what he specifically said was weird, far out, and cannot be confirmed by evidence.

trtsk
Member
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:29 am

Re: Intro & Let's Talk About Eichmann

Postby trtsk » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Dec 03, 2003 7:35 pm)

Dan Cullum wrote:
trtsk wrote:I'll make clear a few things before I begin this thread.

I'm Jewish. I won't be baited so don't try it.

I'm also a Zionist. Ditto.



Tom, no one would be interested in baiting you. Welcome to the Forum.


Oh, but it's begun already.

So here's an opening volley. Eichmann pled not guilty in Jerusalem. In fact he pled in exactly the same manner as Goring at Nuremberg: Not guilty in the sense of the indictment. Dr. Servatius, Eichmann's attorney who was paid for by the State of Israel, told the press that Eichmann felt "guilty before God but not before the law."

Question Number One therefore is this. What did Eichmann feel guilty for?


Whichever side on takes on the genocide issue, it may be fair to say that his sense of guilt was understandable; the horrors on the Eastern Front alone would suffice. What I am most stricken by about the Eichmann trial is that he did feel guilty. He looked like a normal, even otherwise nice person and not a ghoul. As far as the things that did happen, whatever they were, his appearing human was unsettling. Did you ever get this strange impression (as you firmly believe in the Holocaust) that whatever compelled him to do the things he did was gone?


Yes. In fact it's those observations that got Hannah Arendt in hot water though history vindicated her.

Also, what do think of David Irving's claim to have the lost Eichmann memoirs?


I'm wondering when they were missing. I have them in German.

Tom

Dan Cullum
Member
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2003 1:18 pm

Postby Dan Cullum » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Dec 03, 2003 7:53 pm)

Tom,
As far as the Eichmann memoirs, David Irving claims to have previously unknown memoirs, handed to him in South America. As far as Hannah Arendt is concerned, observations such as mentioned would be expected to stir up contraversy. I personally find it chilling when I see some people such as Eichmann that appear like someone's next door neighbor.

trtsk
Member
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:29 am

Postby trtsk » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Dec 03, 2003 8:00 pm)

I didn't know you were referring to the Buenos Aires memoirs. Sorry.

I believe Irving is telling the truth. He says he handed them over to the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich. He also says what was in them he found to be troubling and not easily explained away.

Tom

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10002
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 6 years ago (Thu Dec 04, 2003 2:41 am)

trtsk says:
I believe Irving is telling the truth. He says he handed them over to the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich. He also says what was in them he found to be troubling and not easily explained away.


Considering that Irving has said:
"more women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz"

"According to the evidence that I have seen, there were no gas chambers anywhere. The evidence that we have been shown, the aerial photographs, the eyewitnesses, it's all very spurious indeed."

"We were talking yesterday about this bus in Serbia with 90,000 people or 70,000 people being gassed in the space of 35 days. That would have meant 38 people being gassed every hour in each bus. That kind of figure is completely impractical."

"Eyewitness testimony is really a matter for psychiatric evaluation."


So then, Eichmann is indeed easily 'explained away'; as we have done at this Forum, as Irving has done himself.

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

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 6 years ago (Thu Dec 04, 2003 9:55 am)

trtsk wrote: I'll make clear a few things before I begin this thread.

I'm Jewish. I won't be baited so don't try it.

I'm also a Zionist. Ditto.


And I am Christian.

I don't know about the others: Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists or Confucians.

This never came up before.

fge

trtsk
Member
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:29 am

Postby trtsk » 1 decade 6 years ago (Thu Dec 04, 2003 2:29 pm)

In Ron Rosenbaum's Explaining Hitler there is a whole chapter that is nothing but an interview with Irving. In that he explains how he got the Eichmann diaries on Buenos Aires and states that it seemed probable to him that there was indeed an oral Fuhrer order. Eichmann mentioned this presumably first under interrogation but these diaries were written when Eichmann believed he was safe from abduction or even being found.

Tom

Eistir
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 6:20 pm

Postby Eistir » 1 decade 6 years ago (Thu Jan 01, 2004 1:20 pm)

trtsk:Question Number One therefore is this. What did Eichmann feel guilty for?
----------------------------------
I think most of true christians feel quilty in the face of god before they die.
In same time I don't know was he(Eichman) religious and if he was,then was he catholic or protestant?
I'm going out of topic now,but has anyone seen doc film about Eichman court case?I think one "surviver" was obviously acting out his fainting.I don't know maybe I saw something wrong but it looked like that to me.

Juan
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 219
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 11:11 am
Location: Chile

Postby Juan » 1 decade 5 years ago (Tue Jun 15, 2004 8:33 pm)

I think judicial tactics employed by Eichmann to try to get a less-than-death sentence are not basis to feel that the Holocaust has been proven.

Still there's no satisfactory forensic evidence of the crime.

Juan


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests