Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
mdmguyon wrote:Is a transcript of the cross examination of Raul Hilberg in the Ernst Zundel case available online? After hearing how effective it was, I looked for it. I'd like to decide for myself if he really was "defeated" in a debate or if he was excessively badgered and nitpicked with. What did Mr. Hilberg say about it after?
For Hilberg the consequences of his cross examination prepared by the Zundel defence team (including Faurisson) were:
1- He refused (was afraid) to appear as expert for the accusation at the 2nd Zundel's trial in 1988 in Toronto.
2- He revised the 1962's edition of his book "The destruction of the European Jews" by changing "2 orders of extermination by Hitler" with an extermination carried out in the 1988's edition through "an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy". An amazing version of Holocaust perpetrated through telepathy according with Hilberg.
5. With earnest heart shalt thou repeat after the American Raul Hilberg, our Number One historian, that it is exact, as did own Leon Poliakov, that in the archives of the Third Reich there is, unfortunately, to be found not the least evidence that the German authorities did envisage, organise and perpetrate a concerted slaughter of the Jews. And echoing the words of the same Raul Hilberg, thou shalt explain that “the Holocaust” was prepared, elaborated and effected without any order (either from Hitler or anyone else), plan, special agency, without written instructions, budget, yea with nothing, but spontaneously, through a phenomenon of collective creatio ex nihilo that did happen in the vast German bureaucracy. Repeat after me: “‘The Holocaust’ was prepared, elaborated and effected by the vast German bureaucracy through ‘an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus mind reading’, and did come about as ‘a matter of spirit, of shared comprehension, of consonance and synchronisation’”. Fail not to render homage unto Professor Raul Hilberg for this explanation which beareth the stamp of good Talmudic sense. Amen.
The Ten Commandments of the “Holocaust” Religion
http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/201 ... igion.html
A fine link you posted. How about starting a thread on:
'The Ten Commandments of the “Holocaust” Religion'
http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/201 ... igion.html
Go ahead and post the full text, I think it would make for an excellent discussion.
Have you ever visited Bergen-Belsen?, asked Christie.
"No," said Hilberg.
Have you visited Buchenwald?, asked Christie.
Have you visited Dachau?, asked Christie.
"No, I have not visited -- I can tell you, to save your questions," said Hilberg, "I have visited only two camps... Auschwitz and Treblinka." (4-771)
Hilberg testified that there were three parts to Auschwitz, the first called Auschwitz, the second called Birkenau and the third called Monowitz. They were also sometimes called Auschwitz I, II and III. Hilberg had visited Auschwitz and Birkenau but not Monowitz. (4-771)
Hilberg had visited Auschwitz and Birkenau once and Treblinka once in 1979 after he wrote his first book. (4-772)
So you wrote a book about a place before you went there, suggested Christie.
"I wrote a book on the basis of the documents," said Hilberg, "...I did not write a book about the place. I wrote a book about an event in which a place is mentioned, albeit repeatedly."
Hilberg agreed that he had written about what happened in a place before he went there on the basis of what he had seen in documents. (4-773)
So we agree, said Christie, that you wrote the book before you ever went to the place you were writing about?
"That's correct," said Hilberg.
When you went to Auschwitz once in 1979, how long did you stay there?, asked Christie.
"One day," said Hilberg.
And to Birkenau?, asked Christie.
"That was the same day."
And to Treblinka?
"That was another day," said Hilberg.
Hilberg agreed that he had spent "something like" one day in Treblinka, and perhaps a half day in Auschwitz and a half day in Birkenau. (4-774)
He admited that whole operation to exterminate millions of peoples was achieved with using telephathy, by reading of minds to explain why no documents were ever discovered, no orders, no budget, no plans, nothing.
"But what began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures. They were taken step by step, one step at a time. Thus came about not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus - mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy."
He comitted perjury when he said, that his new revised second edition of his book still contain two Hitler orders about extermination of Jews which he mentioned in his first edition without any source. In fact, In his second edition all mentions about these orders were removed.
Robert Faurisson added
Hilberg said that Hitler gave orders for the extermination of the Jews, and that Himmler gave an order to halt the extermination on November 25, 1944 (such detail!). But Hilberg could not produce these orders. The defense asked him if he still maintained the existence of the Hitler orders in the new edition of his book. He dared to answer yes. He thereby lied and even committed perjury. In the new edition of his work (with a preface dated September 1984), Hilberg systematically deleted any mention of an order by Hitler. (In this regard, see the review by Christopher Browning, "The Revised Hilberg," Simon Wiesenthal Center Annual, 1986, p. 294)
One misfortune awaited Prosecutor John Pearson: Hilberg, in spite of repeated requests, refused to appear again. The defense, having heard rumors of an exchange of correspondence between Pearson and Hilberg, demanded and got the publication of the letters they exchanged and in particular of a "confidential" letter by Hilberg that did not hide the fact that he had some bitter memories of his cross-examination in 1985. He feared being questioned again by D. Christie on the same points. To quote the exact words of his confidential letter, Hilberg wrote that he feared "every attempt to entrap me by pointing out any seeming contradiction, however trivial the subject might be, between my earlier testimony and an answer that I might give in 1988." In fact as I have already mentioned, Hilberg had committed perjury and he may have feared being charged with that crime.
http://www.whale.to/b/faurisson3.html#T ... l_Hilberg_
"In the new edition, all references in the text to a Hitler decision or Hitler order for the "Final Solution" have been systematically excised."
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp ... G&b=395051
He admited, that nobody ever bothered to make just one single expert report about alleged homicidal gas chambers to prove their existence, to prove their use for homicidal purposes as alleged.
May I suggest, said Christie, that experiments can mean going to the scene of an event and conducting scientific tests?
"One may conduct scientific tests. I don't exclude that."
Have you done it?, asked Christie.
"I do not. I have repeatedly said that I am not a chemist. I am not a geologist. I am not a photo interpreter. I do not do these things."
I am asking you, said Christie, if you have done any physical experiments in respect to the research we are dealing with here.
Do you know of one scientific report that substantiates that any single place was used as a gas chamber? If so, please name it, said Christie.
"What do you mean by a scientific report?," asked Hilberg.
I don't usually have to define simple words, said Christie, but by "scientific report" I mean a report conducted by anyone who purported to be a scientist and who examined physical evidence. Name one report of such a kind that showed the existence of gas chambers anywhere in Nazi-occupied territory. (5-968)
"I still don't quite understand the import of your question," said Hilberg. "Are you referring to a German, or a post-war -"
I don't care who -- German, post-war, Allied, Soviet -- any source at all. Name one, said Christie.
"To prove what?," asked Hilberg.
To conclude that they have physically seen a gas chamber. One scientific report, repeated Christie.
"I am really at a loss. I am very seldom at such a loss, but ... Again, I can only state that there have been aerial photographs that were analysed. Perhaps that is not in your definition of science. There have been contemporaneous documents about the lethality of the gas that was employed. Perhaps this is not important to you. There are documents -- " (5-969)
Excuse me, said Christie, I want to understand clearly. You say the second thing is evidence about what?
"The lethality, the toxicity of the gas, the nature of the poison and what it does... Signed by scientific personnel within the German chemical industry."
Hilberg agreed that the cans of Zyklon B were labelled as poison: "That's correct. None of these examples will satisfy you because you want the proverbial connection to be made so close... The additional, how shall I say, scientific evidence is contained in such subject matter as filters for gas masks and the like, again indicating the caution with which one must approach this gas. Now, these are all connected with gas chambers."
Is that the end of your answer?, asked Christie.
"Well, for the moment, it's a couple of examples that at the spur of the moment I can bring up. If you want me to reflect on the matter, I can certainly conjure up from my recollection other examples, but I am still at a loss to really understand your question." (5-970)
In your book, The Destruction of the European Jews, if you had a scientific report proving the existence of only one gas chamber, wouldn't you have used it?, asked Christie.
"Oh, well, there is no single report, as you say, proving scientifically the existence of a gas chamber, unless you mean by this the chamber. Now, if you mean a scientific report as to what happened to people inside a gas chamber after they have inhaled gas, that's a separate matter ..."
I didn't ask you that, said Christie.
"Well, that's the reason I am saying I am not quite sure as to the nature of your question. What scientist would make a report about a couple of hundred people squeezed into a gas chamber, and what exactly happens physiologically to them all, when you've got, from German sources, the exact description of what this gas will do once it is inhaled by human beings?" (5-979)
I suggest to you, said Christie, that it is quite possible to determine if hydrocyanic acid in gas has come in contact with stone or brick or mortar on walls. Do you know of a single scientific examination of any of those objects to determine, in 1945, the existence of hydrocyanic acid inside the walls of any buildings in Europe?
"Well, we have numerous structures described in German documents for utilization of gas for a variety of purposes. The particular gas to which you refer was delivered in various strength, and some of the structures were sealed off more securely, others less so, depending upon the purpose. Obviously, to me, from the existence of the industry, the reported quantities of gas used in the majority for fumigation purposes... Of buildings, of ships... Not necessarily lice. It could be cockroaches."
Bugs were disinfected with Zyklon B, right?, asked Christie.
"The bugs were disinfected? The building was disinfected. The bugs were killed," said Hilberg, "... Pardon me for giving you a long answer again, but that 'B' stands for the strength of the gas. There was Zyklon C and B at the beginning, at least, and depending upon the purpose, these particular strengths were used in the strengths indicated for the purpose." (5-980)
I want you to tell me, repeated Christie, if you know of one scientific report of the analysis of gas chambers that was used in conjunction with Zyklon B (hydrocyanic acid) for the killing of people?
"No, I don't know of any such report unless it is, you know, somewhere in the records of the Soviet Polish Investigation Commission of Lublin, Majdanek, because you have to remember that aside from the Lublin chambers, otherwise known as Majdanek, and the one Auschwitz chamber still in existence, there wouldn't be any -"
Judge Locke interrupted: "Doctor ... do you know of such a report?"
"No," replied Hilberg.
For me these examples means that he was really "killed" by the defense and this was total disaster for him and for Holocaust story.
I'm skeptical that his contention that he mentions the order from Hitler in his later edition constitutes perjury. When Christie asked him what he meant about the Holocaust being a result of "mind reading," he said:
"It does not exclude the existence of an order," said Hilberg. "... If an order is given orally and passed on, and especially if wording is couched in such a way that the order giver relies on the understanding of the subordinate, then it does become important for those subordinates to understand, indeed, and to have the same understanding of what was expected. And this is what I said."
Was there an order or wasn't there?, asked Christie.
"I believe that there was a Hitler order," said Hilberg.
If Hilberg had said that he believes there was a written order, that might have been perjury. Orders don't have to be recorded in writing. I can't remember where I heard it, but I heard that there is no written order for the invasion of Poland, etc., either.
For a summary,
http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.it/1990 ... -1983.html
beginning from "Incompetence of their number one expert: Raul Hilberg"
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests