Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Again!

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1022
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Ag

Postby Werd » 3 years 11 months ago (Wed Jun 18, 2014 2:43 pm)

An interesting piece I missed from way back.

Monday, December 24, 2012
Our Demolition of MGK: One Year On
By HC Guest Blogger
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... ar-on.html
Our motives for doing so were not because we felt that MGK’s work in their ‘trilogy’ on Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka represented a serious threat or challenge to the conventional understanding of the Holocaust. Indeed, over the course of the project, we felt that Holocaust denial had slipped down another notch towards complete irrelevance, as despite the ready availability of negationist material on the internet, the denier scene did not seem to be growing in a meaningful or significant fashion, while a new generation of ‘revisionist’ researchers failed to emerge.[3]In the time we spent working on the project, it became clear that deniers were failing utterly to convince others of the validity of their ideas when proselytising on the internet, as seen time and again at the James Randi Education Foundation forum (among many other venues on the web). One of the original reasons for the establishment of the Holocaust Controversies blog was to provide rebuttals and counters to arguments advanced on the internet by deniers, and while we undoubtedly have helped provide ammunition to others for that purpose, the antics and tactics of intenet deniers had become entirely self-refuting and self-discrediting.[4]

[3] See the interview with one of the co-authors of the critique appearing as ‘Holocaust denial in decline, says historian’, The Jewish Chronicle, 7 October 2010, http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/39171 ... -historian
[4]For an eloquent example of the frustration felt by non-deniers when listening to negationist claims, see the post by‘Horatius’ in the thread ‘Holocaust denial videos’, 19th August 2009, http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p= ... tcount=148

Holocaust denial is in decline according to this footnote #3. Really? Well if online debates are of paramount importance in regards to evidence, then how do you explain the fact that Ryan Dawson who years ago, attacked others for posting revisionist stuff, changed his tune a few years ago and is now active in promoting it? I and many others used to believe in the six million and gas chambers. What is with these Zionists? They claim on one hand that revisionism is discredited because it's believers are declining and yet on the other hand, they claim that because of its growth, forums and websites are needed to combat revisionism. If it's not a threat, then why all the effort?

Second of all the post on that randi forum is as follows.
Originally Posted by Budly View Post
But posting liberally to a thread about videos which you haven't watched is maybe indicative of how someone gets to 4,000+ or 8,000+ postings here.



You know, I think your inability to understand history is matched only by your inability to understand what it is you're doing here at JREF. Do you know what that is?


You're advertising.

You're trying to promote your beliefs (Holocaust denial) in the marketplace of ideas. We here are the potential consumers of those ideas, whom you wish to attract to your product.

Now, we skeptics here at JREF are a desirable consumer base in the marketplace of ideas. We are well-known for being smart shoppers, not easily swayed by the nonsense of the day. As such, purveyors of ideas come to us from all over, knowing that if they can convince us, they can convince almost anyone to believe as they do. Thus, we have people who believe in UFOs, Bigfoot, God, Angels, homeopathy, 9/11 Truth, and a thousand other ideas vying for our attention.

Now remember, you came to us. We did not go looking for your favourite forum to start a discussion of your videos, you came to our forum. If you want to compete against those others for our attention, you must give us something more than they do. I can go to any forum on this site, and find some earnest idea-pusher eager to engage me, and convince me to join them in their beliefs. Why should I engage with you, rather than any one of them?

Your posts here are your advertisements, and they are all you have to draw us in. Despite that, though, right from the very start, you have consistently refused to give us the information that we, as smart shoppers, have learned is needed to make any engagement with you worthwhile. We've shown you reports on your beliefs that indicate they are seriously flawed, which you have made no effort to rebut. It's as if a car salesman we to simply wave away a Consumers Report article that indicated the car he was selling was a fire hazard. Rejecting such a report out of hand may be easy, but it won't sell a car, will it?


You're competing in the marketplace of ideas. If you're incapable of expressing those ideas in a form that attracts our attention, then you'll surely lose.

So it is self discrediting because some other guy with no posted articles, books or documentaries in his reply...says it is? He has just admitted to not watching the videos in this post. That makes HIM look bad. This is a useless footnote because he is merely parroting with the HC crew says and at least they have bibliographies. On the other hand, we have already seen what so called atheistic skeptics have to say about the holocaust revisionist field. Just look at that jackass Steve Shives. Well Ryan Dawson is an atheist too, but clearly he's not a fundamentalist. He truly has a more open mind than other self styled "skeptics."

Here is page 4 of the randi forum.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=151218&page=4
woolfe99
18th August 2009, 07:30 PM

"Denierbud" has refused to debate the HC bloggers who demolished his propaganda video point-by-point, for more than two years now.

He posts over at the CODOH forum as Carto's Cutlass Supreme, where non-deniers are lucky to get 1 in 2 posts up that are not deleted by the moderator there, and few can persist unbanned for very long. There is no debate at all on that forum.

Hmmmm. Is it our fault that people come in, antagonize us, and then leave without having the guts to make a cogent reply like here?
Polish Witnesses to the Holocaust
Why are we to blame for their lack of testicular fortitude?
He has repeatedly been asked to join the RODOH forum, where both sides are permitted to express their views, and has predictably failed to do so.

Maybe because he was too smart to do so. Especially in the light of the moderation scandals that happened at that place. How an HC sockpuppet under the name of Joe Future, who is really Duke, became a moderator and now the exterminationist thugs are trying to harvest IP's and threaten others like they have done in the past? Again, we are getting blamed for their lack of guts or failture to fall for their tricks? I think now we know why Roberto so many times accused others of lacking guts for failing to post at rodoh back in the day. He was just pissed they were not going to let their personal/computer information be manipulated.
Cowardice is a common thread running from the Nazis themselves, who murdered unarmed, defenseless civilians (Jews and non-Jews), to their present day proponents and apologists, who cannot muster the backbone to face up to real opposition.

Are you sure you aren't talking about what Israelis do to the Palestinians?

Also, if another generation of revisionists is failing to emerge, then how do you explain Caroline Sturdy Colls getting cold feet and cancelling her meeting? How do you explain men like Thomas Kues who are young guys and have apparently been able to produce a lot of quality material? How do you explain Eric Hunt's work in the last few years? How do you explain more people willing to listen to David Cole's Auschwitz revisionism? How do you explain former nay sayers like Ryan Dawson turning to the revisionist cause?

Do the guys at HC really enjoy stroking their own sexual organs this much?

Also, continuing back to the HC article and away from that poster on randi
Should MGK wish to persist with negationism, then they will have to do a lot more to justify this approach. Indeed, a common reaction to denier arguments is that if generalised across the whole of history, then much of the historical record would disappear in a puff of smoke. While negationism has an unspoken epistemology and methodology, it is a major flaw in the revisionist belief system that its gurus like MGK seem unable to relate this epistemology and methodology to accepted philosophical, theoretical or practical models, and have never coherently elaborated the ‘revisionist method’. Worse still, MGK like other deniers consistently refuse to test their epistemology and methodology on other historical events properly and systematically, and thus fail to establish that there is anything unusual, incorrect or invalid in how historians of the Holocaust have approached the evidence for Nazi genocide. This refusal to compare almost single-handedly destroys the validity of revisionist arguments.

More of this, "Oh deniers only do negationism and there is nothing positive in revisionism," and "negatives don't tell us about what was, only what was not and that helps very little in building a historical picture." Maybe these morons should investigate a speech made by Carlo mattogno a while back that was hosted on the now defunct Russ Granata website.

Point 40

And what does he have to say about the future of Revisionism itself?

In Mattogno's opinion, negativistic revisionism - or that which exclusively limits itself to refuting the affirmations of the official historians - that sort of revisionism, has just about run its course.

Mattogno thinks that this may be just the right time to try to produce more positively oriented contributions and to create more Revisionist historiography of a wider range - not limiting itself to negativism - but on the contrary, expanding more into the challenging direction of constructive positivism.

As to his part in this challenge, Mattogno says that he has already tried to embark in that direction with the publication of his work on the Zentralbauleitung of Auschwitz, and he also feels that his work regarding the crematory ovens of Auschwitz, falls within that perspective as well.

He is quick to point out that this obviously does not mean that we must renounce the revisionist character of our historiography, but only that it be exercised with more diversification and in a wider historical context.


Mattogno believes the continuing production of more scientific, constructive historiography is an indispensable prerequisite to the future progress of Revisionism.

This challenge is much more important at a time such as the present - in which Revisionism, exhausted from its initial surge, appears to be groping with rash hypotheses and to be risking devouring itself with sterile polemics and personal clashes.

It is fervently hoped that 21st century generations shall reap bountiful harvests from even more truth seeds sown by our generation's truth-pursuing planters.

Ladies and gentlemen - I thank you for your kind attention, and wish you well.

http://web.archive.org/web/200408161729 ... rence.html

Mattogno's work on the crematory ovens of Auschwitz show what could have happened and what did happen in terms of cremation capacity. It is not negative in the purest sense. It speaks from German documents and makes positive assertions and claims. Not purely negative ones. Try again HC losers.

Finally,
When we began the critique project, we were of course fully aware of past ‘exchanges’ between deniers and their critics, such as occurred between Richard Green of the Holocaust History Project and Germar Rudolf. It was never our intention to engage in tit-for-tat dialogue as a collective, although individual contributors may well respond to future MGK writings as they see fit. It is, however, our intention to release a revised 2nd edition in 2013, correcting various typos and glitches, and possibly adding an afterword.

Since the first edition is out from Mattogno, Graf and Kues, I wonder if you guys will correct your historical plagarisms noted by Mattogno in chapter three.*

Thereafter, the critique team will disband once more. While we have all enjoyed our contributions to HC blog, several of us have quite simply, moved on, with others not involved in the drafting of the critique taking our place on the roster of HC blog contributors. We do not hold to the ‘last man standing’ theory of pseudo-debate seen on the internet in so many places. We are, in fact, quite sure that MGK will be churning out their screeds for years to come, and just as sure that such screeds will continue to have zero impact on serious scholarship. Some of us have done academic work on the history of Holocaust denial, and may continue to publish academically on that subject, while some will be publishing on the history of the Holocaust, and will be dealing with MGK only to the extent that they might be considered names in the history of the post-1945 phenomenon of negationism. We concur with MGK that after the publication of the revised edition of the critique, we will not have the slightest obligation as historians of the Holocaust to pay any further attention to anything Signore Mattogno, Herr Graf and Herr Kues might publish in the future.

Well if the contributions to the HC blog from Jonathan Harrison in recent times is any indication of the quality of your upcoming 2nd edition of your cut and paste manifesto, then even I would be able to find more problems with it. And I'm just good at philosophy. Mattogno, Graf and Kues have personal libraries and archival references behind their linguistic and historical skills to boot. So no doubt they could pick you apart once again. Hell, as I showed on the previous page, most of Harrison's contributions are just old wine in new bottles. Hell, you HC morons couldn't get Hitler's direct relation to Madagascar correct. You couldn't get your interpretation of Mattogno's writings to the Fuhrer's relation to the Madagascar plan correct as I also showed earlier. How can you screw up something so simple?


*Some quick examples of Nick Terry who basically steals quotes and footnotes. The first example is on page 94, and on page 97, we find Terry even plagraized a source of one of the holocaust deniers he was refuting! There are plenty more. There's a one on page 114 showing how Terry can't even get his citation correct. We have another example of that at the bottom of page 123. Jumping over the revisionist arguments against the holocaust, we find more direct evidence of plagarism of sources that the holocaust historians such as those associated with Gary Webb can not even deny. On pages 130-134, revisionist Carlo Mattogno exposes the "cut and paste" method of research Nick Terry has apparently engaged in. Read and you will see that not only is this all true, but that there are other examples in chapter three of plagarism.



avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1022
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Ag

Postby Werd » 3 years 11 months ago (Thu Jun 26, 2014 12:16 am)

Inquisitor wrote:But saying there is no "alternate explanation" ignores much - esp. Mattogno/Graf, as noted, etc.

And then there is the Kues series:

http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/ ... d_jews.php

http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/ ... jews_2.php

http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/ ... part_3.php

http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/ ... n_jews.php

And so forth...

Not surprisingly, Roberto had a response to part one.
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... ws-in.html
This goes back to 2010.

Some samples.
TK (Thomas Kues)

1. The Importance of the Search for the "Gassed" Jews
According to mainstream historiography, during a period from December 1941 to the fall of 1944, millions of European Jews were murdered in homicidal gas chambers in six camps in Poland – the “combined concentration and extermination camps” of Auschwitz-Birkenau and Majdanek (Lublin) and the “pure extermination camps” of Chełmno (Kulmhof), Bełżec, Sobibór and Treblinka. Revisionist historians, however, dispute this claim, considering it a theory completely lacking of documentary as well as material proof.




Said claim calls for ignoring, first of all, the incriminating eyewitness evidence. Eyewitness testimonies are a source of evidence that "Revisionist" propagandists – one shouldn’t call then historians – apparently don’t acknowledge as such, except when and insofar as they think it serves their arguments. Needless to say, they haven’t yet been able to quote any rules or standards of evidence whereby eyewitness testimonies are not a source of evidence to be taken into consideration.

It’s also not like documentary proof of mass murder at Nazi extermination camps were lacking. In fact there is a lot of documentary evidence in the form of documents that allow for establishing how many people were deported from certain places on certain dates to certain camps, correspondence and train schedules related to such camps that show them to be final destinations for the persons deported there rather than transit stations, as well as a number of documents containing thinly veiled or even explicit references to gassing cellars or gas chambers, to the unbearable stench of corpses emanating from one of these camps and to people being destroyed by transporting them to the same camp, among other more or less transparent indications of what these camps were all about. Some of these documents, concerning the camps Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka, are mentioned in my posts 172, 194 and 777 on the thread Archeological Investigations of Treblinka of the "Vanguard News Network" forum.

As concerns physical evidence, not only is it not lacking but reports about it have been provided or acknowledged by "Revisionists" themselves, usually before they indulged in lame attempts to explain away such evidence in a manner consistent with their preconceived notions. Whoever follows this link to articles labeled "graves" on the present blog site will find a wealth of reports, drawings and air or ground photographs of mass graves, including those at the extermination camps Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka, as well as refutations of "Revisionist" claims and arguments regarding such mass graves. The latest example is the refutation of Mattogno, Graf & Kues’ somewhat-less-than-convincing (and also somewhat-less-than-honest) considerations regarding the Sobibor Mass Graves.

Not only does the bottom of my post here mention pages to start reading in " The Extermination Camps of Aktion Reinhardt" that show what a lousy plagarist Nick Terry is, but on page four here I have shown what terrible reading comprehension Jonathan Harrison has. Also, one can consult the following topics. J. Graf and the illogical canard: 'Where did Jews go then?' and Treblinka and railway gauge.

TK

In a number of studies, they have shown, based on documentary as well as archeological-forensic and technical evidence, that the alleged homicidal gas chambers in these camps never existed, that the alleged numbers of victims did not perish at these sites, and that there never existed a National-Socialist plan for a systematic physical extermination of the European Jews to begin with.




Actually "Revisionists" have produced no "documentary as well as archeological-forensic and technical evidence" whatsoever that would prove the non-existence of homicidal gas chambers in these camps or that the number of victims accepted by historiography didn’t perish there. What they have done is indulge in mendacious and often laughably feeble attempts to "demonstrate" that homicidal gassing and body disposal on the scale that historians accept would not have been physically, technically or logistically possible, or that the physical evidence belies the notion of mass murder on such scale. These attempts, often based on pseudo-scientific arguments, have been largely if not mostly shattered by researchers who undertook to do so, without the respective "Revisionist" authors having yet come up with adequate responses to these refutations. Examples of such refutations of "Revisionist" techno-babble include, without limitation,

• Dr. Richard Green’s studies refuting Germar Rudolf’s claims regarding the gas chambers of Auschwitz-Birkenau: The Chemistry of Auschwitz, Leuchter, Rudolf and the Iron Blues, Chemistry is Not the Science, Expert Report submitted in support of Deborah Lipstadt's defense in David Irving's lawsuit against her;

Rudolf's reply is contained not only in the book 'Auschwitz Lies' but also in the following links.
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/Green.html
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/CharacterAssassins.html
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/Evasions.html

• Sergey Romanov’s blog Why the "diesel issue" is irrelevant, showing that knowledgeable eyewitnesses at places where gassing was done with engine exhaust all mentioned gasoline engines, which renders moot ubiquitous "Revisionist" considerations about the alleged impracticability of gassing with diesel exhaust;

Already dealt with here on codoh.
Poison Gas: Another Fuel for Motor Transport

• My own refutation of Carlo Mattogno’s arguments regarding the mass graves at Belzec extermination camp and the logistics and mechanics of body disposal at that camp, in several blogs of the series Carlo Mattogno on Belzec Archaeological Research;

Yes, we already know about a couple of problems in the original Belzec book mentioned here, but they are small potatos especially considering the collection of absurd atrocity stories that were conveniently dropped he managed to compile. Not to mention the spanking you received Roberto in the last two chapters of "The Extermation Camps of Aktion Reinhardt."

Besides refuting "Revisionist" arguments, these and other articles clearly show the dishonesty that characterizes the "Revisionist" stance, including but not limited to the distortion or misrepresentation of sources, by quote-mining or otherwise, that "Revisionists" indulge in. Readers of these articles may decide to what extent they are prepared to rely on anything claimed by authors who have been caught in such falsehoods.

I don't think our alleged dishonesty, can compare to the nonsense the holocaustcontroversies group was engaged in years ago with the ARC website as well as HEART.

TK

The revisionists further propose that the Jews sent to the "extermination camps" and allegedly gassed there were in fact deloused and then sent away, the vast majority of them to the occupied eastern territories[1], so that said camps actually functioned as transit camps. This transit camp hypothesis is in perfect harmony with documented National Socialist Jewish policy as expressed in official and internal reports, documents on the Jewish transports, and even in classified communications between leading SS members.[2] The exterminationists on the other hand are forced to explain away terms such as Durchgangslager (transit camp), Ostwanderung (“wandering to the east”), Umsiedlung (resettlement) and Aussiedlung (emigration) as verbal camouflage.




Actually the document that TK offers in support of his "perfect harmony" claim in his footnote 2 ("In a letter sent to eight high-ranking members of the SS administration, among them the head of SS-WVHA, Oswald Pohl, on 5 July 1943, Heinrich Himmler ordered "The Sobibor transit camp [Durchgangslager], located in the Lublin district, (...) to be converted into a concentration camp” (a transformation which eventually did not take place); Nuremberg Document NO-482") belies rather than supports his claim, if one looks at it more closely. The following is my translation of an excerpt from the judgment LG Hagen vom 20.12.1966, 11 Ks 1/64, which is partially transcribed in my RODOH post 10705:

The bunkers in Camp IV were to be used for the storage of booty ammunition. This was based on the following instruction of Himmler’s:

The Reichsführer SS Field Command Post, 5 July 1943

RF/Bn 1674/43 (initial)

Secret Reich Matter!

Instruction

1.) SS-Economics and Administration Main Office
2.) SS-Main Command Office
3.) Heads of SS- and Police East
4.) Heads of SS- and Police Eastern Territories
5.) Heads of SS- and Police Central Russia
6.) Heads of SS- and Police Ukraine
7.) SS- and Police Commanders in the Lublin District
8.) Chief of Bandit-fighting Units

1. The transit camp Sobibor in the Lublin District is to be converted into a concentration camp. In the concentration camp a processing station for booty ammunition is to be installed.
2. All Higher SS- and Police Commanders are instructed to deliver all booty ammunition to this place, insofar as not needed to operate booty guns in use.
3. Metals and especially the explosive powder are to be used carefully.
4. At the same time a production site for our multiple rocket launchers or also other ammunition is to be set up in this concentration camp.
signed H. Himmler

9.) Sent to the Chief of Security Police and Security Service in carbon copy for his information.

By order
signed Br (Brandt)
SS-Obersturmbannführer

The Main Economics and Administration office suggested that Himmler reconsider his instruction:

SS-Economics and Administration Main Office, Berlin, 15 July 1943
Lichterfelde-West
Dictation reference: Ch.Po/Fa. Unter den Eichen 126-135

Subject: Sobibor transit camp
Reference: Your letter of 5.7. RF/Bn 1674/43 Geh./RS

To
Reichsführer
Berlin

Reichsführer!

According to your above instructions the Sobibor transit camp in the Lublin District is to be converted into a concentration camp. I have talked about this to SS-Gruppenführer Globocnik. We both suggest that you give up the conversion, as the purpose you intend to achieve, that is, to install at Sobibor a processing station for booty ammunition, can also be reached without this conversion.

Everything else in your above instruction may remain as it is. I request your agreement, which is of significance only for Gruppenführer Globocnik and me.

Heil Hitler!

Signed Pohl

SS-Obergruppenführer und General der Waffen SS.

Himmler accepted this suggestion:

The Reichsführer-SS Field Command Post, 24.7.43
Personal Staff

Tgb.Nr.1674/43

B/H.

Subject: Sobibor transit camp
Reference: Your letter of 15.7.1943 - Ch.Po/Fa. -

To
SS-Obergruppenführer Pohl
Berlin

Dear Obergruppenführer!

The Reichsführer-SS agrees with the suggestion made by you and SS-Gruppenführer Globocnik as concerns leaving the Sobibor transit camp in its present state, given that the purpose he intends to achieve can also be achieved in this manner.

Heil Hitler!

signed (initial)

SS-Obersturmbannführer



Why, one wonders, did Himmler propose that the Sobibor camp be converted into a concentration camp in order to install there a station for processing booty ammunition? Obviously because he reasoned that such station required a fairly large labor force and collecting and controlling such fairly large labor force required the kind of organization that characterized the concentration camps run by the SS-Economics and Administration Main Office.

Why, on the other hand, did Globocnik and Pohl not consider it necessary to implement such organization? Obviously because Sobibor already had a fairly large labor force, which could be put to the task of processing booty ammunition, and this labor force was being managed and controlled in a manner akin to what was practiced in concentration camps.

In fact the camp held about 700 inmates at the time of the revolt on 14 October 1943. There’s no reason why a mere transit camp, a place where people were deloused and bathed and then put back on the train to their final destinations, should have required such a large labor force, which was not much smaller than that of Treblinka Labour Camp. What were all these people, directed in a concentration-camp-like manner by a dozen-or-so SS-men and a hundred-or-so Ukrainian guards, doing in a mere transit camp?

To cut a long story short, the fact that Globocnik, Pohl and eventually also Himmler considered Sobibor suitable for installing an ammunition-processing station without any transformation, obviously due to the size of its inmate population, shows that Sobibor was not what it was being called in the above-quoted documents, i.e. not a transit camp.

When did Himmler sign that letter again demanding it stop being a transit camp and be turned into a concentation camp to hold on to people for more labour intensive purposes? July 1943. When were Jews supposed to have begun being gassed in Sobibor? April 1942 until the inmate revolt in October 1943. So what would be the purpose of gassing Jews in 1942 if more labour was needed in 1943? Is this somehow related to what I discussed earlier on page four about how Himmler modified an alleged oral order from Hitler to gas the Jews? If so, we don't need to do that dance again. Jonathan harrison lost out big on that claim.

Other documents related to Aktion Reinhard(t) are even further away from the "perfect harmony" that TK claims. Ganzenmüller’s letter to Wolff of 28 July 1942 and Wolff’s response of 13 August 1942 show that Belzec and Treblinka were final destinations for the transports directed to either, for these letters expressly mention transports to Belzec and Treblinka and not transports via Belzec and Treblinka to some other final destination.

Since this was written in 2010, I can sort of forgive Roberto for not taking into account the many witnesses who claimed to have been transferred via Treblinka to other places as seen in the films by Eric Hunt. Especially since these films only came out this year.

The same goes for the complaint raised in October 1942 by the Wehrmacht local commander of Ostrow about the unbearable stench from the corpses of the "not adequately" buried Jews at Treblinka, which apparently carried as far as this gentleman's command post, 20 kilometers away from the camp. See my blog Belzec Mass Graves and Archaeology: My Response to Carlo Mattogno (4,4) on how Mattogno makes a fool of himself trying to explain this stench as having been caused by just 7 to 10 dead per day at the Treblinka labor camp.

A horrible stench of corpses does not prove that at Belzec Jews dug pits thirty meters deep with shovels. I mean...a horrible stench does not prove that at Belzec Jews died from electrical currents passing through the floor of the chambers they were in. I mean... a horrible stench does not prove that Jews in Belzec died from electrical current passing through the water that was waist high in those partially flooded chambers. I mean...a horrible stench does not prove that Jews in Belzec died from exhaust from a diesel engine. I mean...a horrible stench does not prove that Jews in Belzec died from exhaust from a gasoline engine that still does not have enough carbon monoxide to kill.

Second, there is no such thing, at least outside "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land, as the cohesive body of "proponents and defenders of the officially sanctioned exterminationist hypothesis" that TK apparently dreams up. There are governments who forbid and even criminally prosecute "Revisionism" as a form of hate speech, there are other governments who (rightly) consider such censorship incompatible with the basic right of free speech, there is the overwhelming majority of "exterminationist" historians who simply ignore "Revisionist" propaganda, and then there is a handful of dedicated opponents of "Revisionism", mostly private citizens like myself acting on their own initiative, whose deconstruction of "Revisionist" claims and exposure of "Revisionist" falsehoods is not any less devastating because "Revisionists" lamely try to play it down as "damage control", and who wish for nothing better than revocation of all laws against hate speech currently in force, if only so they don’t have to hear the "Revisionist" cry-baby-whining about "censorship" any more.

These bolded parts prove there is at least some level of conspiratorial organization to attack revisionism and suppress it. Governments do it. And citizens like you use websites to harvest IP's and harrass revisionists. Others like Andrew mathis brag about getting Ernst Zundel thrown out of America while threatening old ladies for their email correspondences with Fred Leuchter.

Third, the question what became of the Jews who vanished from the European continent during World War II, if they were not murdered as becomes apparent from all known evidence, is a salutary reminder that "Revisionism" is a moot exercise in haggling over details at best if it cannot offer a solid, evidence-backed alternative explanation as concerns the fate of these Jews. TK's article suggests that he is one of the few "Revisionists" who have (finally!) woken up to this elementary realization.

Maybe if the Russians, who as of 2014, wouldn't have banned revisionism and also closed their archives again (after opening them briefly following the fall of the Berlin wall) in the 90's after they let Graf and Mattogno in years ago, we could have found out what happened to many relatives Jews who thought their relatives were shot or gassed like ernest hollander, and it turned out they were alive somewhere else. And if countries banning revisionism, like Italy is trying to do now and closing their archives to revisionists aren't enough, mainstream historians find documents and upon disliking what they find, lie about their contents or location to keep revisionists away. Hey Roberto, could this be a reason why the Russians closed their archives of the central construction office of Auschwitz? Because Mattogno and Graf were able to grab many documents showing the degree that the SS went to keep Jews alive in Auschwitz? So many, that Mattogno in fact wrote a book about it and for years in fliers for Theses & Dissertations Press and Barnes Review an English translation of "Healthcare in Auschwitz" has been promised? An Italian excerpt of which is translated by google here.

TK
One might argue that the revisionists have no obligation to answer this question. From a moral standpoint this argument is fully valid. As in a court of law, the exterminationists must prove that the crime they allege really took place – the burden of proof is on the accuser.


Actually the accuser’s burden of proof was met by presenting a wealth of eyewitness, documentary, physical and demographic evidence converging towards the conclusion of systematic mass murder on an enormous scale. Then came Hitler’s willing defense attorneys, also known as "Revisionists", and tried to destroy the accusation’s case by discrediting the evidence. So far their attempts have met with disastrous failure, and there’s no reason to assume that this will ever change.


TK
Moreover, since the revisionists have proven that the crime – i.e. the mass gassings – did not take place, they have no moral obligation to search for the missing, alleged victim of the fictional crime.



As "Revisionists" haven’t proven a thing – though they have tried hard, with pseudo-scientific falsehoods and all – the assumptions on which this conclusion is based do not apply.


TK
On the other hand, from a scientific viewpoint the question posed by the exterminationists is also fully valid, even if it usually uttered as a merely rhetorical question and part of anti-revisionist propaganda.


Actually the propagandists are on the "Revisionist" side, whereas their opponents ask the mentioned question to remind "Revisionists" of what they must do to have a case that is valid from a scientific viewpoint.


TK
Needless to say, the forced deportation of millions of people would leave a significant paper trail.



Plus a significant body of eyewitnesses, which is why the yawning absence of either is enough to show how hopelessly hollow the "Revisionist" stance is.

You mean the eyewitnesses who either make up impossible stories like the ones at Belzec? Or the ones described here who kept changing their stories? Or do you mean the German witnesses who were tortured in the forties? Or the ones in the sixties who had to go along with the established propaganda since denial would only ensure their execution? Read pages 125-127 in Santiago Alvarez's THE GAS VANS to understand why people confess to things they did not do.


TK
Even if one assumes – and there is good reason for it – that the archives in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere which are not under lock and key have been purged of such “inconvenient” documents, common sense dictates that there should exist at least a number of minor direct or indirect documentary traces surviving in more or less obscure and unlikely places where the unnamed custodians of official history have neglected to look.



I didn’t know there was a "good reason" for assuming "that the archives in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere which are not under lock and key have been purged" of the documents that "Revisionists" desperately hope to find there, at least outside baseless "Revisionist" conspiracy fantasies

So people aren't messing with documents in archives in order to mess with revisionists? Cough cough. Himmler documents. Cough. Cough.
Latest Himmler murder documents / forged?
http://codoh.com/library/document/702/

TK

In addition, there should exist scores of witness testimonies mentioning the presence of allegedly gassed Jews in the occupied eastern territories, and possibly even physical traces of them.



Actually that's an understatement par excellence, considering that we are talking about [url=holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/04/thomas-dalton-responds-to-roberto_28.html]at least 2,497,000 people who disappeared behind the gates of the Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Lublin-Majdanek and Auschwitz-Birkenau[/url].
Does that number include the alleged 900,000 massacred at Treblinka? Or the 600,000 allegedly massacred at Belzec by quicklime, or electricity, or electrical current in water, or diesel, or petrol? Or the 235,000 in Majdanek with the CO2 tanks that somehow pumped out CO? Or do you mean the now accepted 70,000 at Madjanek? Can't you wackos keep your stories straight?

Take away about half a million Jews who perished at Auschwitz-Birkenau in 1944, at a time when resettlement to the occupied Soviet territories was out of the question already because not much and eventually nothing of those territories was left under German occupation, and we are left with about 2 million people who could theoretically have been transported through these camps to the occupied Soviet territories.

Now, if the resettlement of these 2 million people in the occupied eastern territories had actually taken place, one could expect at least hundreds of testimonies from German soldiers or officials involved in the deportation and accommodation procedures, further hundreds from local inhabitants who came into contact with them, and thousands upon thousands of testimonies from among the deportees themselves. What is more, unless we assume (notwithstanding there being no evidence in this direction while all evidence points to Nazi perpetrators) that these 2 million people were killed by the bad Russians in the occupied eastern territories (there is at least one "Revisionist" claiming just that, believe it or not), there would not only be easy-to-trace records of these peoples’ ongoing existence in the home countries to which they returned or other countries to which they emigrated, but there would have been a corresponding number of rightful claimants for indemnity from the Federal German State. Actually the total number of past and present acknowledged claimants for indemnity due to persecution on racial, religious or political grounds (not all of them Jews) was stated to be about 1 million (Constantin Goschler, "Die sogenannte Wiedergutmachung", in: Brigitte Bailer-Galanda, Wolfgang Benz, Wolfgang Neugebauer (editors), Die Auschwitzleugner, Berlin 1996, pages 273 to 296, here page 289. According to this article, two thirds of the about one million persons who had been granted indemnity under the Bundesentschädigungsgesetz, the Federal Indemnification Law, were people who had suffered in ghettos or in camps, whereas the other third were people who had managed to emigrate in time).


All meaningless given what I just exposed about the ever changing propaganda.

Such exonerating eyewitnesses would not only have been in abundant supply, but also in high demand by defendants and defense attorneys in those among the NS-crimes trials held before West German courts concerning mass killings at or the deportation to the mentioned camps. (Since 1945, a total of 912 trials were held involving 1875 defendants accused of homicidal crimes committed during World War II in the service of National Socialism. These trials resulted in 14 death sentences, 150 life sentences and 842 timely sentences – see the University of Amsterdam’s Justiz und NS-Verbrechen site >>> West German Trials >>> Introduction.) Perhaps TK can show us a defendant or defense attorney at any of these trials who presented or tried to present such a defense witness, or explain (preferably with something more substantial than hollow conspiracy theories) why none so did.

Do you also want to talk about the trials in the sixties? You know, the ones where the defendants who previously denied knowing about atrocities in the forties, changed their tunes in the sixties when the propaganda became entrenced and useless to deny lest you receive a death sentence? What I am getting at is some defendants did change their stories and their lives were spared accordingly. Examples?

The Value of Testimony and Confessions Concerning the Holocaust by Manfred Köhler
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndvalue.html

Also consult the section titled "Fourth Lecture: Eyewitness Testimonies and Confessions" in Lectures on the Holocaust.

TK

The present article consists of a comprehensive survey of the hitherto discovered evidence for the presence of “gassed” Jews in the east, and should be regarded as a stepping stone to further future research. Some of the evidence has already been presented in Jürgen Graf and Carlo Mattogno’s study on the Treblinka camp[3], as well as in a recent study on the Sobibór camp[4] which I co-authored together with Graf and Mattogno. It should be mentioned here that many pieces of evidence were located by the Spanish revisionist Enrique Aynat and the late Belgian revisionist Jean-Marie Boisdefeu. The majority of the finds presented below, however, are published here for the first time.



Let’s see what our friend has got, then. And let’s hope for him that all Jews he located in the "east" are Jews who, according to established historiography, were gassed at Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Lublin-Majdanek or Auschwitz-Birkenau. Otherwise he’ll have invested a lot of work into an at best futile exercise.
S
So far you have nothing in part one Roberto from 2010. Here is part two for interested readers.
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... in_14.html

I have to scroll down past Roberto's rhetorical questions until I get to this.

TK



2.4.5. Serbia

According to Raul Hilberg, barely 16,000 Jews lived in Serbia at the outbreak of the war.[53] Due to the significant involvement of Jews in the very active Serbian partisan movement, a large number of Serbian Jews were killed as hostages.




Significant involvement of Jews in the Serbian partisan movement? I’m afraid that TK made that up out of whole-cloth. In his essay Germans and Serbs: The Emergence of Nazi Antipartisan Policies in 1941, Christopher Browning wrote the following :

The 100:1 reprisal ratio was then established as standard operating procedure for all subsequent casualties. When the 717th Division of Major General Hoffmann, operating south of Belgrade, suffered losses in mid-October, it had no access to a convenient reprisal pool of interned Jews. Instead the Germans conducted roundups in Kraljevo and Kragujevac, shooting 1,755 people in the first city and 2,300 in the second. In Kragujevac the victims included the students of the local high school and the workers of an airplane factory producing for the German war effort, though the Germans had never suffered a single casualty within the city. This random roundup and massacre of over 4,000 Serbs in Kraljevo and Kragujevac between October 17 and 21 was criticized by various German occupation authorities, by Nedic, and even by the OKW, causing Böhme to reconsider his reprisal policy. Arbitrary arrests and shootings of Serbs are driving to the insurgents circles of the population which up to now did not participate in the insurrection, Böhme’s new order explained. It must be avoided, that precisely those elements of the population are seized and shot as hostages who, being non-participants in the insurrection, did not flee before the German punitive expedition. Thus the Germans reverted to what might be called the proximity principle, and henceforth reprisal victims were to be taken from those found in the vicinity of partisan attacks or from villages considered focal points of the insurgency. If Serbs in the countryside were still at high risk, those living in urban areas that remained peaceful were relatively more secure.

While the Serbs received a partial reprieve from German terror, this was no help to the Jews and Gypsies. If the Germans could conceive that not all Serbs were Communists and that the random shooting of innocent Serbs would damage German interests, they had no doubt at all that Jews were anti-German and that the Gypsies were no different from the Jews. And if more care had to be exercised in selecting Serbian hostages, the pressure to find hostages elsewhere to meet the 100:1 quota was that much greater. The new German policy stated succintly: As a matter of principle it must be said that Jews and Gypsies in general represent an element of insecurity and thus a danger to public order and safety. That is why it is a matter of principle in each case to put all Jewish men and all male Gypsies at the disposal of the troops as hostages. The fate of the male Jews and Gypsies in Serbia was sealed, and their execution by army firing squad was completed by early November.



We see that Jews and Gypsies were preferential reprisal victims in Serbia not because they were significantly involved in the Serbian partisan movement, but because the occupiers wanted to avoid antagonizing the general population and thus preferred to pick their reprisal victims from among minorities assumed a priori (and without reason) to be "an element of insecurity and thus a danger to public order and safety". Accordingly one finds nothing about Jewish involvement in the insurgency in Dr. Harold Turner's letter to Karl Wolff dated April 11, 1942, in which Turner wrote the following (emphases added):

Already some months ago, I shot dead all the Jews I could get my hands on in this area, concentrated all the Jewish women and children in a camp and with the help of the SD got my hands on a "delousing van," that in about 14 days to 4 weeks will have brought about the definitive clearing out of the camp, which in any event since the arrival of Meyssner and the turning over of this camp to him, was continued by him.

Problems have already been shown with Browning and Turner. See THE GAS VANS. The Turner document(s) contain German that is so piss poor and lousy it is laughable to think his confession is authentic. I guess when Roberto was writing this in 2010, he had no idea that a year later, Santiago Alvarez would unleash his devastating book.

Lanzmann's Shoah Witness Simon Srebnik
Santiago Alvarez
http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/ ... rebnik.php

Lanzmann's Shoah Witness Bronislaw Falborski
Santiago Alvarez
http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/ ... borski.php

One thing in the book about the gas vans the gas chamber/gas van mongers love to not talk about either here
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=235001
or here
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... dbook.html
is the following. Page 87-88.

2.2.7. The Turner Letter, 1 1 April 1942

This letter claims to have been written on 11 April 1942 by SS-
Gruppenfuhrer (Major General) Dr. Harald Turner, who at that time
was the head of the German military administration in Serbia. It was di-
rected at General Karl Wolff, who was chief of Himmler's personal
staff. During his own trial in 1 964 in Munich Wolff insisted that he had
no knowledge of what was happening to the Jews - as Himmler's adju-
tant (Giese 1964). It is not known whether Wolff ever received this let-
ter.

Harald Turner had a PhD in law, hence could be considered well-
educated. In spite of this, his letter is riddled with spelling errors,
butchered German language, and nonsensical content, which I will dis-
cuss subsequently. The author of the letter tried to emulate the rune-
shaped SS type, which was included on official typewriters of the era,
by superimposing a double slashes on a dash and adding another double
slash a three-quarter line lower: // (although I don't know how this
could be accomplished with such accuracy for all 4 cases, as a sub-
script-like half-line lift wouldn't have been enough).

As the head of Serbia's wartime military administration, Turner or
his secretary must have had access to a proper typewriter sporting the
runic SS key. But even if he had no such typewriter, using a simple SS
in replacement was common and acceptable. I have never seen such a
forced SS rune on an official letter of that era before, and neither has
anyone else I've asked. It is also awkward that Turner's personal letter-
head, on which this letter gives the impression to have been typed, did
not contain his SS rank, so that the writer added it using his inventive M
improvisation. David Irving has remarked that the original of this letter,
which is kept in the Berlin Document Center biographical file on
Turner, does not have the German standard paper format (DIN A4, 210
mm x 297 mm) but instead U.S. letter format, a paper size which during
the war was not available in Europe. 55

https://archive.org/stream/Holocaust_Ha ... y_djvu.txt


Also,
NEWS! magazine & Wiesenthal Ctr. caught faking 'gas vans'!

Occam's Razor dictates that if it really happened, you wouldn't need to fake it.

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1022
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Ag

Postby Werd » 3 years 11 months ago (Thu Jun 26, 2014 2:49 am)

Picking up where we left off in Alvarez's book.

2.2.7.1. Problematic Content

- The first four paragraphs describe an event with many words without
even once stating what this is all about. What makes the author think
that the recipient knew what he was writing about? As far as I could
verify, there is no historical event - some decision in favor of Turner
and against some ominous "Wehrmacht" interests - which would
warrant such sentences. As a matter of fact, there had only been a
decision against Turner, whose attempt to gain Serbian support for
his occupational policies led to deteriorating relations between him
and his SS men, not the Wehrmacht. As a result of SS claims that
Turner was too soft on the Serbs, the anti-Serbian hardliner August
Meyzner was appointed as head of the local SS units in early 1942,
which seriously undermined Turner's position (Browning 1995, pp.
134-136; Manoschek 1995, p. 170).

- The letter insinuates that this ominous foiled Wehrmacht intrigue
was directed not only against Himmler (whose title was Reichs-
fiihrer SS, not SS-Fuhrer) and the SS, but also the "corps of civil
servants" (Beamtenschaft), which means all of Germany's civil
servants. Such a Wehrmacht intrigue potentially affecting millions
of German civil servants sounds far-fetched to the point of being
outrageous, and I could not find anything in the literature confirming
this.

- The attachment mentioned in the letter is unknown. The letter insin-
uates that it might have dealt with some pressing issues about Jews
in Serbia. At any rate, the writer takes this attached letter as a reason
to jump right into the middle of a completely different topic.


89
- After having dealt with the clearing out of "the camp" (this refers to
the Semlin camp near Belgrade), the author suddenly changes tack,
as he is now worried about the attitude of "Jewish officers" held as
PoW, if they find out about that clearing. The author speaks again of
"the camp" in singular, although there were many PoW camps in
Germany and the German occupied territories. It is also inconceiva-
ble why those (relatively few) Jewish officers could have "easily"
caused "complications." And even if so, who would have cared,
since Jews are said to have been expendable anyhow?

- "repercussions on our prisoners in Canada": even though some
German soldiers were held in Canadian PoW camps, the vast majori-
ty of German PoW camps in early 1 942 were located in Britain and
the U.S. In addition, if the Germans had to worry about any of their
PoW in Allied hands, it would have been primarily about those in
Soviet hands. The Canadians were the smallest players in that game.
It is therefore beyond comprehension why Turner should have men-
tioned them. Unless, of course, the author of this letter was Canadi-
an.

2.2.7.2. Problematic Language

- "mochte ich nicht verfehlen" - probably literal translation from Eng-
lish "I don't want to fail"; correct German would be: "mochte ich
nicht versdumen."

- "meinen [...] Dank [...] zu iibermitteln" - correct German: "meinen
Dank auzusprechen"; "ubermitteln" means to convey thanks from a
third person.

- "I can also again today, the more so since you know me well
enough, only once more repeat" - a very circuitous way of saying
nothing.

- "Ich mochte nicht erinnern" - English "I don't want to remind"; in-
complete phrase; correct German: "Ich mochte ihn nicht daran erin-
nern" or "Ich mochte dies nicht anmahnen." The sentence basically
makes the same statement twice: "I don't want to remind, because
[. . .] I don't feel entitled to remind."

- "was allerdings weitergefiihrt worden isf - English: "which, how-
ever, was continued." The "allerdings" (however) indicates a con-
tradiction, but there is none here.

- "Dann ist der Augenblick gekommen, in dem die [...]jiidischen Offi-
ziere [...] hinter die nicht mehr vorhandenen Angehorigen kommen"



90
- English: "Then the moment has come in which the Jewish officers
[. . .] get behind the no longer existing relatives"; the German expres-
sion "dahinter kommen" (to find out about, to get to the bottom of)
cannot be used with a mere "hinter" in addition the entire sentence
structure is wrong; correct is: "Dann ist der Augenblick gekommen,
in dem die [. . .] jiidischen Offiziere [...] dahinterkommen, dafi die
Angehorigen nicht mehr vorhanden sind." In the way used here this
expression has a spatial meaning: to get behind something or some-
body.

- "das diirfte immerhin leicht zu Komplikationen ftihren" — English:
"that could after all easily lead to complications"; the "after all" here
makes neither sense in German nor in English.

- "Werden nun die Betreffenden entlassen [...] nicht allzu lange" —
English: "When those affected [Jewish officers] are being released,
they would in the moment of arrival have their final freedom, but
like their racial comrades not for very long": What is "in the moment
of arrival" supposed to mean? The arrival moment of their freedom?
If so, then this translates to: when freed, they are free at the moment
when they are free, but not for long. . .

Considering the bad usage of the German language, the question
arises whether this was Turner's normal style. Friedlander/Milton have
reproduced two more of Turner's letters. 56 Both letters exhibit a perfect-
ly normal usage of the German language. Although Turner had at times
the tendency to write complex phrases, they are grammatically correct,
consistent, and make sense, quite in contrast to the letter at issue here.

2.2.7.3. Spelling and Punctuation

Most German words requiring an "B" are misspelled with an "ss"
(wrong: dass, weiss, erschiessen, Griisseri), although a few are spelled
properly. Commas are set erratically, and spaces between words and pe-
riods, commas, hyphens, and quotation marks are inconsistent. "Cana-
da" is spelled the English way, not as the German "Kanada."

The other two letters mentioned above do not show these erratic pat-
terns. The first one (to Richard Hildebrandt from 17 October 1941) was
apparently typed on a machine not possessing any "B," whereas the se-
cond one (a duplicate of a letter to Himmler from 1 March 1942, typed



1992, part 1, pp. 356-362 (NO-5810); vol. 1 1/2, pp. 282f. (NO-3404); for references to
numerous other Turner documents similar in style see Browning 2004, pp. 52 If, notes
106, 117f, 132; Browning 1986.



91
by a secretary), consistently uses a double s instead of an "B" for the
word "daB" ("that" as conjunction) but otherwise uses the "B" correctly.
It also uses a proper rune-SS, which proves that such a machine was at
Turner's disposal at that time.

2.2.7.4. Assessment

Orthodox historians consider this document as a vital link to "re-
veal" that the term "delousing" was in fact used as a "code word" for
homicidal gassings. 57 It is based on the following sentence:

"Already some months ago, I shot dead all the Jews I could get
my hands on in this country, concentrated all the Jewish women and
children in a camp and at once with the help of the SD acquired a
'delousing van, ' which will have accomplished the definitive clear-
ance of the camp in about 14 days to 4 weeks, which, however, was
continued by Meyssner since his arrival and the turning over of the-
se camp issues to him. "

By "Jews" obviously only Jewish males are meant. In the fall of
1941 there has been quite some back and forth between various Ger-
mans officials regarding the fate of the Jewish prisoners held in the
Semlin camp. Whereas it was decided to shoot the males as hostages in
the escalating partisan warfare, German foreign minister Ribbentrop de-
termined in a telegram on 2 October 1 94 1 with respect to women, chil-
dren, and the elderly: 58

"As soon as the technical means exist for the complete solution of
the Jewish question, the Jews will be deported on the waterway [i.e.,
the Danube] to the reception camps in the east. "
Orthodox historians see this as a mere ruse, though:

"[. . .] the Nazis employed elaborate deception: not only were the
victims told that they were being transferred to a different and better
transit camp, but they were given fictitious 'camp regulations ' which
they supposedly needed to get acquainted with prior to arrival at
their destination. " (Byford 2010, p. 19; based on Browning 1985, p.
80; cf. also Browning 1983, pp. 75f.)

However, so far no document is known which would have changed
this decision to deport the Jews. Unless such a document is found, we
must therefore assume that "clearance" of the camp was not equivalent
with mass murder but rather with deportation. After the Wannsee Con-

See www.holocaust-history.org/1942041 1 -turner-wolff/.
NG-3354, reproduced in Kempner 1961, p. 293.


92

ference on 20 January 1942 had established the bureaucratic means to
implement this "complete solution," the road was prepared to deport
these Jews.

In this context it is interesting to note that Browning reports about
Turner's intervention with Felix Benzler, at that time Plenipotentiary
for Foreign Affairs in Belgrade, in order to prevent the execution of the
last 1,500 male Jews as hostages by trying to have them deported in-
stead (Browning 1978, p. 61; 2004, p. 343).

Hence, in real life Turner was relatively "soft" on the Serbs in gen-
eral and on the Serbian Jews in particular and had no interest in having
them executed. The letter analyzed here, however, gives the opposite
impression.

None of the problematic issues raised above are ever even men-
tioned, let alone addressed, by orthodox historians.

Could the well-educated Dr. Turner have written such an imbecilic
letter on U.S. stationary with its phantasmagorical content while at once
toying around with his typewriter - or have his secretary do so - in or-
der to compose some artistic rendering of the SS rune?

This pretty much renders the rest of part two of Roberto Muehlenkamp's response completely useless.

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1022
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Ag

Postby Werd » 3 years 10 months ago (Sat Jul 26, 2014 1:13 am)

In the introduction to Carlo Mattogno's newest book translated into English called "Inside the Gas Chambers", Jurgen Graf claimed that Kues is working on a book going into more detail about the presence of gassed Jews in Eastern territories.

Today the most significant revisionist author next to Mattogno is Thomas Kues, who is presently conducting a thorough analysis of the fate of those Jews who were deported to the East by the Germans, aimed at depriving orthodox Holocaust historians of their last remaining argument: What happened to the deported Jews, if they were not gassed?

p.15


Now if as seen above is all that Roberto really has, such as citing documents that have already been shown to have piss poor German, meaning they are clear forgeries, and linking back to old articles about alleged cremation capacities at Belzec and Treblinka that have already been refuted by Mattogno, then I really think Kues has nothing to worry about in terms of his upcoming book being properly quoted and well referenced.

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1022
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Ag

Postby Werd » 3 years 10 months ago (Thu Aug 07, 2014 6:10 pm)

I don't know how I missed this but someone posted a review of both books from MGK and HC.

http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/ ... nhardt.php
REVIEW

Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard: A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf and Kues.
Jonathan Harrison, Roberto Muehlenkamp, Jason Myers, Sergey Romanov, and Nicholas Terry, Holocaust Controversies; 2011, 570 pp.

The “Extermination Camps” of “Aktion Reinhardt”: An Analysis and Refutation of Factitious “Evidence,” Deceptions and Flawed Argumentation of the “Holocaust Controversies” Bloggers
Carlo Mattogno, Thomas Kues, and Juergen Graf, Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, UK; 2013, 1385 pp.

Friedrich Jansson




Like other intellectual movements, Holocaust revisionism has advanced in responding to challenges. Revisionist scholarship on Auschwitz, for example, advanced immensely in the course of responding to the challenges contained in the writings of Jean-Claude Pressac.1 Yet in the Holocaust debate, this kind of fruitful discussion has been very much the exception to the rule. More often than not, the Holocaust establishment has preferred to avoid confrontation, saying that debate would give “deniers” legitimacy.

This avoidance of confrontation has become particularly pronounced in recent years. After the publication of a number of works in connection with the Irving/Lipstadt trial, scholarly anti-revisionism has maintained careful silence for a full decade, while over the same period revisionist scholars have produced a steady stream of detailed studies on core aspects of the Holocaust. The main exception to this silence has been a team of bloggers calling themselves “Holocaust Controversies.” The first of the two works reviewed here is their first publication in non-blog format. Published in December 2011, it is a lengthy attack on three revisionist books,2 namely the monographs on Treblinka, Belzec, and Sobibor written by Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf, and Thomas Kues, whose reply to this criticism forms the second work under review.

The Bloggers' Critique

"Your manuscript is both good and original. But the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good." This remark, commonly attributed to Samuel Johnson, might well be applied to the bloggers' work. Loosely speaking, one might call its earlier chapters “good”, while its latter chapters could qualify as “original”. Although the term “good” is much too generous, the early chapters are at least fairly extensively sourced, and grounded in a large literature. The bloggers’ work begins outside the Reinhardt camps with broad generalities, then moves inside the camps to address more specific concerns. In the early chapters, in particular those dealing with National Socialist Jewish policy in general and shootings in the occupied eastern territories in particular, they are able to draw on an extensive secondary literature. While the extensive material derived from the secondary literature does give these chapters a certain weight, they have little to offer the reader already familiar with recent overviews such as Christopher Browning's The Origins of the Final Solution or Peter Longerich's Holocaust – little, that is, aside from a large trove of errors and misinterpretations.

While the bloggers’ early chapters are mainly devoted to regurgitating the contents of standard books and document collections, the subsequent chapters contain more original material. In particular, the final two chapters, which deal with mass graves and cremation, are without question the most detailed treatment of these topics in the orthodox literature. The bloggers - or rather Roberto Muehlenkamp, who is the author of the chapters in question - deserve great credit for acknowledging these essential issues. In this, they stand head and shoulders above other traditionalist holocaust scholars who have written on the Reinhardt camps.

This originality, however, is coupled with a remarkable lack of quality. While Muehlehkamp fills his chapters with enough tables to intimidate the average innumerate historian, any reader who acquaints himself with the literature on mass burial and cremation will easily see through his compendium of wishful thinking, numerical legerdemain, and willful ignorance. Muehlenkamp’s obfuscations may fool some readers for a time, but he has embroiled himself in an argument which he will inevitably lose, and which is absolutely fatal for the standard Reinhardt story.

Putting issues of content aside, the bloggers’ style deserves comment. As their introduction explains, their work originated in preparations for an (unrealized) online debate about Aktion Reinhardt. This heritage shows itself very clearly throughout their work. Although it is informed by recent scholarship, its style is a return to the methods of the Nuremberg trials. Rhetoric is given priority over rigor, the authors taking their stylistic cues more from lawyers than scholars. Although it does contain a number of detailed criticisms of revisionist arguments, the bloggers’ work is really not structured as a critique of the three books it purports to attack. Like the politician who knows never to give a direct answer to a hostile question but to deflect it with a statement of his own, the bloggers prefer to minimize the time spent in direct confrontation with opposing arguments in favor of caricatures, misrepresentations, and sneers. Such devices serve lawyers and debaters well, but will not impress serious readers. Yet despite all of its weaknesses, the bloggers' work is essential reading for revisionists with an interest in the Reinhardt camps: the criticism serves to focus the mind, and one’s arguments are bound to be improved in the process of testing them against opposition.

The reply of Mattogno, Graf, and Kues

In the conclusion to their white paper, the bloggers posed a challenge, writing that “we would like to set some provisions required for us to take any ‘riposta’ into serious consideration [...] we dare MGK [Mattogno, Graf, and Kues] to follow the structure of the present critique, so as to put things in proper perspective.” The second work under review was clearly influenced by a desire to answer this challenge. After two introductory chapters, it replies chapter by chapter: Chapters 3 and 4 reply to the bloggers' Chapter 1, while Chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8 reply to the bloggers' Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Chapters 9 and 10 reply to the bloggers' Chapter 6, while Chapters 11 and 12 respond to the bloggers' chapters 7 and 8.

The reply is extremely detailed, and parts of it mark a major advance for revisionism with respect to the Reinhardt camps. It examines new sources, polishes old arguments, and introduces new ones. Unfortunately, it does not do so in a manner likely to reach many readers. It suffers, in short, from a lack of attention to presentation. One senses that the bloggers approached the writing of their “critique” with eagerness and polished it carefully as a team, whereas their opponents appear, for the most part, to have seen their reply as a tedious chore. Large parts of it were clearly written irritably and in haste. This fact, coupled with the severe limitations of revisionist manpower and organization in translation and editing, have caused this work to be published in a rather unpolished state. These defects amount to little more than growing pains for scholarly revisionism on the Reinhardt camps, but they nonetheless do detract from the work, and open the door to easy polemical replies.

The lack of attention to presentation is particularly apparent in the work's conclusion, which seems to have been written in an irritable mood early in the process of responding, and never rewritten in light of the response's eventual content. Unlike the bloggers, who use their conclusion in the manner of a lawyer’s summation, Graf wastes his on name-calling and insults. Given that the introduction and conclusion will have far more readers than will the full work, this is a highly unfortunate lapse.

The separate contributions of the individual authors are written in quite different styles. Graf engages in an aggressive polemic, focusing more on attack than defense. Mattogno's style is the opposite: extensively sectioned, with each section beginning with a quotation from the work of his opponents, followed by his reply. While this style allows for highly specific point-for-point argument, it leads to a work lacking in synthesis because it does not impose its own organization on the material. As the number of points considered moves from the dozens into the hundreds, the point-by-point style becomes, as far as exposition and pedagogy are concerned, a disaster. Mattogno's extremely lengthy reply contains some highly interesting new material, and an engagement with a number of new sources, but its arrangement is such that only highly motivated readers already familiar with previous revisionist studies will be able to dig out the new and interesting parts. Because he chooses to reply even to many minor points made by his critics, his substantial new arguments and sources are diluted by much less compelling sections, and his major points obscured by his unwillingness to drop minor points. There are some significant advances here in content, but it will take considerable patience to find them in the extremely lengthy text.

The above mentioned facts severely limit this work's audience. That said, the first four chapters are considerably more polished than the rest of the work, and should reach a wider readership. Thomas Kues's contributions also stand out as readable, substantial, and well structured. Striking a stylistic middle ground between Graf and Mattogno, they can stand on their own.

One aspect which deserves special comment is the question of plagiarism, which Mattogno in particular repeatedly charges to the bloggers. Many of these charges are clearly accurate. That said, the frequent appearance of charges of plagiarism throughout the work becomes highly repetitious, especially as some of these accusations are either doubtful or clearly mistaken. Mattogno seems to have gotten somewhat carried away after having seen so many clear cases of plagiarism, including many from his own work, and started to see plagiarism in every corner. These false charges detract both from the readability of the text and from the impact of those accusations of plagiarism which are in fact true. In this, as in other things, an editor with a firmer hand could have greatly improved the work.

New aspects

The greater part of both works under review is spent rediscussing old material and arguments. While in some cases the rehashing of these familiar topics has refined the arguments, these aspects are likely to be incomprehensible to readers who have not carefully studied earlier writings on these subjects. There are, however, some elements which stand out in their novelty. The most prominent of the points on which the bloggers present us with something new is their attempt to change the killing method at Belzec and Treblinka from the traditional diesel exhaust to gasoline-engine exhaust. Given that anti-revisionists have spent nearly three decades insisting that, contra revisionist claims, diesel exhaust is a perfectly practical killing method, this marks an important backing-down. Their case for gasoline engines at these camps is not particularly compelling nor honest in its treatment of the witnesses, but the bloggers at least show the possibility of attempting such a line of argument. It will be interesting to see whether more prominent orthodox Holocaust scholars follow suit.

In dealing with this and other issues, the bloggers have made use of Soviet interrogations that other authors have chosen not to use. Two cases in particular stand out: the use of Nikolai Shalayev and Ivan Shevchenko to support the idea of the use of a gasoline engine for gassing at Treblinka, and the use of Pavel Leleko to support the idea that the Treblinka cremation facilities were equipped with pits. But introducing these materials introduces problems which the bloggers do not discuss. According to the bloggers' given source,3 Leleko claimed that the gassing engine was a diesel, contradicting their argument that it was a gasoline engine. In fact, in the same source Leleko indicates that there were two engines used for gassing, occupying two of the ten chambers in the new gas-chamber building - contrary to the usual depiction, which has ten chambers used for gassing and the engine in a separate room. Shevchenko gives yet another version of the layout, with nine chambers used for gassing and one for an engine.4

The testimony of Shalayev is no less problematic. He claimed that the new gas-chamber building at Treblinka was equipped with five gas chambers, rather than the ten which has been generally accepted. He also described a curious procedure by which gassing in the old gas-chamber building proceeded one chamber at a time – a feature that contradicts the accounts of other witnesses. Finally, Leleko,5 Shalayev,6 and Shevchenko,7 all claimed that the new gas chambers were built in 1943 (Shevchenko specifying March 1943), while the standard literature claims that they came under construction in late August or early September of 1942, and went into action that October or November. The bloggers, always superficial in their handling of witness testimony, make no attempts to reconcile any of these contradictions.

The many incremental refinements of old arguments aside, the main new elements in Mattogno, Graf, and Kues's reply come from examining a number of new sources, and from the ongoing progress of archaeological work. Thomas Kues's lengthy examination of the new archeological findings at Sobibor is of particular interest. Another fascinating new element is Carlo Mattogno's discovery of Yankiel Wiernik's draft for A Year in Treblinka and its story of killing with chlorine, which was dropped in the published version. Unfortunately, these and many other interesting new elements tend to be obscured by the very length of the point-by-point replies.

Looking ahead

What's next in this debate? The bloggers have indicated that they will produce a new edition of their work, but not a direct reply. This evasion is unfortunate, and highlights their overarching focus on rhetoric: they would be unable to maintain their rhetorical momentum and polemical style in a direct reply, and therefore they avoid such an encounter. But just as the bloggers dictated a series of conditions necessary for them to take a revisionist response to their work into consideration, so too must they meet certain standards if they expect their updated work to be taken seriously. First, their work must actually be about the camps Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka. For them to write another work that shirks discussing the camps themselves in favor of building a circumstantial case that they “must have been” extermination centers equipped with homicidal gas chambers on the basis of events that took place far outside the camps will be, to borrow one of the bloggers' favorite phrases, an automatic fail.

Second, the bloggers must grapple in an upfront fashion with the fatal technical challenges to the Reinhardt story, in particular the problem of cremation, and with the results of archeology with respect to building remains and mass graves. A response that confines these vital topics to isolated chapters at the end of the book will be inadequate. Such an arrangement relies on the fact that most readers will not read as far as the final chapters, and most of those who do will be sufficiently ignorant of the topics under discussion as to be intimidated by a collection of extensive tables. Rather, the critical technical and archeological aspects of the story of burial, exhumation, and cremation must be put front and center throughout the discussion of the camps and of eyewitness testimony. Nothing less will do.

Third, they must deal in an open and upfront fashion with their many serious errors, acknowledging them in public fashion. Moreover, they must deal openly with their dishonest use of sources. It will not suffice to refute certain erroneous accusations of plagiarism, or to quietly amend errors without acknowledging them. Rather, the bloggers must openly discuss the strongest and best substantiated accusations of plagiarism. Similarly, they must openly admit their numerous errors and discuss them in a transparent fashion, just as they asked their opponents to do.

Unfortunately, it seems unlikely that any of these desiderata will be satisfied. More likely, the bloggers will simply troll through books and document collections for more Einsatzgruppen and policy documents they can add to their early chapters (while claiming to have seen the documents in an archive, of course), stuff in as many secondary sources as they can to pad their bibliography, take some steps to cover the tracks of their extensive copying, and claim all the while that their massive citation fraud is simply the result of a few mistakes. They will retain their strategy of trying to prove gassings by talking about shootings. And their coverage of the critical issues of mass graves and cremation will remain confined to isolated chapters, and will remain totally inadequate.

All the same, the bloggers deserve real credit for their work, which has so graphically illustrated the bankruptcy of the traditional Reinhardt story in the face of archeology and the realities of mass cremation, and provided a stimulus for the continued improvement of revisionist scholarship.
Notes:

1 Early responses: Mark Weber, Journal of Historical Review (JHR) Vol. 10, No. 2; Carlo Mattogno, JHR Vol. 10, No. 4; Robert Faurisson, JHR Vol. 11, No. 1 and JHR Vol. 11, No. 2; Arthur Butz, JHR Vol. 13, No. 3. An intermediate phase: Germar Rudolf (ed.), Auschwitz: Plain Facts (Chicago: Theses & Dissertations Press, 2005) [first published in 1995]. Most recent and comprehensive: Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz: The Case for Sanity: A Historical and Technical Study of Jean-Claude Pressac’s “Criminal Traces” and Robert Jan van Pelt’s “Convergence of Evidence,” (Washington DC: The Barnes Review, 2010).

2 Jürgen Graf, Thomas Kues, Carlo Mattogno, Sobibor. Holocaust Propaganda and Reality (Washington DC: The Barnes Review, 2010); Carlo Mattogno, Belzec in Propaganda, Testimonies, Archeological Research and History (Chicago: Theses & Dissertations Press, 2004); Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf, Treblinka: Extermination Camp or Transit Camp? (Chicago: Theses & Dissertations Press, 2004).

3 Interrogation of 20 February 1945, in English translation at http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/akt ... leleko.001

4 Interrogation of 8 September 1944.

5 Interrogation of 20 February 1945, in English translation at http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/akt ... leleko.001

6 Interrogation of 18 December 1950.

7 Interrogation of 8 September 1944.


In regards to this paragraph...

The testimony of Shalayev is no less problematic. He claimed that the new gas-chamber building at Treblinka was equipped with five gas chambers, rather than the ten which has been generally accepted. He also described a curious procedure by which gassing in the old gas-chamber building proceeded one chamber at a time – a feature that contradicts the accounts of other witnesses. Finally, Leleko,5 Shalayev,6 and Shevchenko,7 all claimed that the new gas chambers were built in 1943 (Shevchenko specifying March 1943), while the standard literature claims that they came under construction in late August or early September of 1942, and went into action that October or November. The bloggers, always superficial in their handling of witness testimony, make no attempts to reconcile any of these contradictions.

It is unlikely that in a second edition from HC, we will see any serious examination of their contradictory testimonies. I also think it unlikely that any arguments from Santiago Alvarez which already answered many of Roberto's questions about the reliability of the Turner documents, will be dealt with honestly. I also believe that Nick Terry's acts of plagarism as exposed in chapter three of MGK's book will be addressed poorly, or rather excused for some ridiculous reason. That is assuming they won't simply ignore it, which they may also do. The egg is already on their face anyway.

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1022
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Ag

Postby Werd » 3 years 9 months ago (Tue Aug 19, 2014 3:14 pm)

Jonathan Harrison keeps coming back for more.


Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Graf's Idiocy Regarding West German Trials (Part 1)
http://www.holocaustcontroversies.blogs ... erman.html

Between 1975 and 1981, Hildegard Lachert was one of sixteen defendants who stood trial in Düsseldorf for crimes committed at Majdanek. Her lawyers included Ludwig Bock, who explicitly denied the gas chambers and stated that there was no proof that more than 100,000 Jews ever died in the Nazi period. Despite this clear denial strategy, however, Lachert received a sentence of only twelve years for accessory to murder, having previously served a term in Poland from 1947 to 1956. The judges in the trial allowed Bock to conduct a cross-examination of witnesses "so severe as to approach intimidation."

It is now admitted that no more than 70,000 died at Majdanek and Eric Hunt's new film has exposed Caroline Sturdy Colls' attempt to prove the Majdanek shower rooms were occult gas chambers as laughable. Especially with the CO2 tanks in the back room that supposedly pumped out CO. Does anyone also remember also how the allied powers lowered one of the ceilings in Dachau to claim it was a gas chamber and now it is admitted that it was not a gas chamber ever in Dachau? Despite that FACT admitted to on Donahue in 1994, people on the internet today are STILL claiming the Dachau gas chamber was "proven" at Nuremberg.
http://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2011/ ... s-chamber/
http://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2010/ ... v-29-1945/


Furthermore, the source Harrison links to is an article from the Christian Science Monitor dating September 2 1980. Here is the opening paragraph.

Dusseldorf, West Germany — The longest trial in West German history is at last drawing toward an end -- more than five years after it opened on Nov. 26, 1975. A prime defendant is a former overseer at the Maidanek concentration camp near Lublin in German-occupied Poland -- Hildegard Lachert. She and eight others including Hermine Braunsteiner Ryan, who was arrested in New York, are accused of participating in the death of some of 250,000 identified Maidanek victims.

And another clip.

For instance, Hildegard Lachert was put up as a candidate for the European Parliament by a right-wing group last year. One of Lachert's lawyers, Ludwig Bock -- a young man born during World War II -- has raised all the old arguments that there is no proof that more than 100,000 Jews ever died in the Nazi period. He ahs suggested that Hitler did not have a policy of Jewish extermination, and that gas chambers found in the camps could have been simple laundries, or possibly even built by occupation forces after the German surrender.

(Contrary evidence presented in the court-room showed the import into Maidanek of tons of the death gas Zyklon B, export of three-quarters of a ton of human hair, and the existence of piles of human skeletons and skulls, supporting the estimate of at least 1 million murders).

In the Maidanek trial there was repeated testimony that Lachert, who was known to prisoners as "Bloody Brigida" -- the name survivors still refer to her by -- personally reveled in beating prisoners, offered children candy to lure them into trucks to take them to the gas chambers, and participated in the "selection" of those prisoners who would be killed immediately.


Sounds to me like Bock had his head on straight and was incensed that the propaganda had become entrenched as history in the past two decades since the end of the war. One more clip.

Mr. Bock, however, has further contended that Lachert never saw any deaths in Maidanek. She took her job as an overseer in the camp, he argued, just as one might become a cook in a prison.

Besides employing every possible delayv ing tactic, Bock and colleagues defending the nine accused have conducted a cross-examination of witnesses so severe as to approach intimidation.


The opinion of the article's author Elizabeth Pond is not proof of intimidation. We don't even know what qualifies in her mind as intimidation. Since she has already made up her mind that "at least 1 million murders" occured in Majdanek, it is clear that she just doesn't think it's nice to put witnesses through the same rigorous cross examinations as any other person in a court of law. How dare you question this victim.

In the most extreme case, defense lawyers called for the arrest of one witness because she testified that she carried a cannister of poison gas at Maidanek when ordered to do so by the murderers. Defense lawyers also tried to brand a leading historian who was testifying as "prejudiced" on the grounds that he had earned his degree under a Jewish professor.

Good! Because thanks to the work of serious historians, we know the death toll at Majdanek was nowhere near one million. Oh and the now known CO2 tanks in Majdanek don't help the case of gas chambers either. So now we know that witnesses have gone to extreme lengths to lie about Germany as revenge for being put in camps and forced to work and unfortunately, seeing some of their relatives and friends starve to death. Well maybe you should blame the allies who bombed the hell out of the railway lines that were moving food supplies along to keep the prisoners fed. If you don't think witnesses have told extreme tall tales that defy the laws of physics, explain to me that one Chelmno witness Simon Srebnik who claimed to have been shot in the back of the neck and the bullet broke part of his nose, went out his mouth and he still lived? Is it any wonder with charlatans like this that these German defense lawyers had to go balls to the wall for their clients in these trials? The evidence is in. Majdanek was not an extermination camp with gas chambers. Eric Hunt's film showed how the Soviets even connected a shower room and one other room to make it look like it was a whole undressing barrack/gas chamber building when it was in fact two seperate buildings. THIS MEANS YEARS LATER WE KNOW THESE WITNESSES WERE LYING ABOUT TRANSPORTING CANS OF ZYKLON B FOR MURDER. Get over it Jonathan Harrison!


Bock was seemingly the first lawyer to openly deny the Holocaust in such a case, but he was not the first to question the legitimacy of war crimes prosecutions. Kurt Franz's lawyer, Hans Joachim Gohring, claimed that West Germany's current judges had “cooperated closely with the Gestapo and the other Third Reich organizations for the crimes committed during those years.” He expressed the view that death camp personnel were scapegoats for the men who were now passing sentence against them.

Other ex nazis who were in camps but now in positions of power trying to look good by punishing men who had little or no authority to gas Jews is not a far cry from reality. Why? Simply because now we know that the propaganda of Majdanek was just that. I also don't think the tales of yellow corpses from CO poisoning, pits thirty meters deep, and Jews stumbling to these thirty meter deep pits in Treblinka were helpful for the search for truth either, Jonathan Harrison. Which reminds me, the English translation of Wiernik's book from 1945 by Poles and Jews agreed that Wiernik said the corpses were yellow, so your little buddy Sergy Romanov who furnished an alternative explanation for the translation, basically lied his ass off and was caught doing it. And you have the nerve to not only NOT apologize and refuse to explain yourselves, but then hypocritically accuse self styled revisionists of bad history.


In another trial, defence lawyer Gerd Heincke "told the court that Hitler had believed he was fulfilling a “sacred mission” in the destruction of European Jewry and that those who carried out his orders were not guilty of murder. A statesman, who kills other people because he believes they are destroying his own people does not act from malicious motives, he argued."

I would like to see a link to the transcript and also see the quote in a wider context. I guess that is not becoming of you Jonathan Harrison. Especially since I exposed your lousy interpretation of MGK's take on Madagascar (among other things) in Sobibor. Go to this post and use the EDIT - "Find" function and type in the number 199.

These facts demolish the view of the West German legal process that deniers rely upon, in which there had to be a consensus between politicians, judges, prosecution and defence that the legitimacy of war crimes prosecutions was sacrosanct.

What facts? That judges tolerated obvious lies in the courtroom about Majdanek? Those are not facts. We know the truth now about Majdanek. Oh you must mean the other facts as listed in the Christian Science Monitor article. Let's have a look at some of those statistics.

Critics, both inside and outside West Germany, charge this country with failing to fully renounce Hitler's heritage. They point out that West Germany didn't begin to prosecute Nazi concentration murderers seriously until the 1960s , two decades after the Holocaust.

These critics also find the record since then a dismal one: 6,446 convictions out of 86,498 trials or investigations (official figures from the war's end to Jan. 1, 1980), out of an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 Nazi, SS, police, and Army officials directly involved in mass murders.

(By way of comparison, some 14,000 Germans were convicted of murder in Soviet courts after the war; 13,000 in East Germany; 5,000 in Poland; 4,000 in American , British, and French post-war occupation courts. An additional 14,000 got rather lighter sentences in Austria.)

No judge from the Nazi courts that decreed notoriously political executions is among those convicted. Dismissals of charges against concentration camp staff for lack of conclusive evidence -- four of the 13 remaining Maidanek defendants were acquitted in 1979 -- are becoming ever move frequent as the years go on and more witnesses and defendants die.

Clearly some West German courts didn't have their heads up their asses and weren't buying the propaganda. No revisionist is seriously claiming there was a successful conspiracy to bribe every single damn judge in every single damn trial. The point that MGK make is that propaganda became truth and it was useless to resist. Hence, some convictions that did occur on the most slim evidence is proof that SOME judges and prosecutors conspired to convict SOME defendents on the basis of SLIM evidence. Santiago Alvarez' book THE GAS VANS proves this. You see, the alleged gas vans are often tied up with Chelmno too. And if the witnesses to the so called gas vans in that camp are of the calibre of that other witness mentioned above - Simon Srebnik - who claimed to have a bullet go out the back of his neck, break his nose and go out of his mouth and live, then we can flush them down the memory hole with ease.


For example, in MGK's Sobibór, Graf insists that West Germany was merely a "puppet state" whose "leaders ordered the judiciary to fabricate the evidence for the mirage of the murder of millions of people in gas chambers, for which not a single shred of evidence survived – if it ever existed (p.171)." Such a mass fabrication could not have taken place if the different organisations involved in the process were antagonistic and liable to go off script, as occurred with Bock and Gohring.
Such a claim from you Jonathan Harrison is tantamount to a strawman as I have just explained. MGK only need to prove that some cases were corrupt and their point is therefore proven that we need to be careful with the testimonies of so called eyewitnesses. Especially the ones from the above mentioned majdanek trial in the Christian Science Monitor article whereby it was claimed one million were killed there with poison gas. Do you enjoy embarrassing yourself Jonathan harrison? We know the shower room at Majdanek was just a shower room. We also know thanks to Santiago Alvarez's book on the gas vans, that there is not one shred of evidence that they existed. Oh sure, you can talk about the Turner letter, but that was already explained by me to be a piss poor piece of evidence.
Werd @ Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Again!
Werd @ Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Again!

Furthermore, let's recall the words of Ernst Zundel on CNN about the origins of the West German government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y9eg0KX7-I
8:17 to 9:38

Let's get something straight here, Jonathan. Not all Jews in the world have to agree to lie in some holocaust conspiracy. No one argues that. The only thing it takes for a lie to spread and become believed is for the SMALL NUMBER of powerful people in the media to broadcast it to everyone via television, radio or print media. Conspiracies work the best when only a small number decide to conspire. You guys believe that when it comes to the alleged gas chambers. Not every German or Nazi had to build them, just a few needed to and just a few more to get the gassings done. So the revisionists are taking the same coherent logic (that is not supported by evidence from you guys) and applying it to the West German trials. You only need a few trials to allow for propaganda to spread and then put THAT in front of the rest of the world as proof. Why? Because the liars and deceivers only have enough time and energy to mess with a few trials instead of all of them. It's not all about every single number, Jonathan. It's about zeroing in on the key ones that you need and then promoting THOSE TRIALS as documenting the holocaust gas chambers and then not talking about the other ones in great detail.

Graf has to sweep many inconvenient facts under the rug to make this argument. He ignores the fact that, under the Basic Law, the judiciary was independent of the federal government.

And the United States is supposed to have three branches of government that do not overlap but we clearly know that to not be the case. You have conflicts of interest all the time. You can have a judge sitting on a case whereby Monstanto or some vaccine company is being charged or sued over a bad product, but the judge is a relative of an employee of Monsanto, or a business parter with him in some other venture and so he must be nice to Monstanto. Or even worse, a judge has a brother in Congress who is working to re-write laws to shield Monsanto from lawsuits or vaccine makers from lawsuits if they damage someone. It is called conflict of interest. Let's see the wikipedia quote.

Germany uses an inquisitorial system where the judges are actively involved in investigating the facts of the case, as compared to an adversarial system where the role of the judge is primarily that of an impartial referee between the prosecutor and the defendant.

So maybe that would explain why some judges who are supposed to be ex nazis and thus sitting in judgement of other ex nazis on trial, were accused of being too harsh or unjust on defendents. Remember what you said. "Kurt Franz's lawyer, Hans Joachim Gohring, claimed that West Germany's current judges had “cooperated closely with the Gestapo and the other Third Reich organizations for the crimes committed during those years.” Now that we know judges can in fact meddle in these cases instead of stepping back and being impartial, we can understand how it was in fact very possible for manipulation to occur. Now we can figure out why so many trials in West Germany went wrong and allowed the flimsiest of evidence for gas chambers at Majdanek or gas vans in many places like Chelmno to not be thrown out. Now we can figure out why such absurd testimony like that of Simon Srebnik was allowed. These judges can affirm the holocaust all they want know if they don't have to suffer for it. Germany has been overrun by the allies and the West German government was set up by the allies as explained above by Ernst Zundel. Now it's every ex nazi for himself. Judge or defendent! Furthermore, if ex nazi judges were to ever deny the gas chambers, they would probably lose their jobs. "But how can you say that Werd, if you admit there are some cases where ex nazis go free thanks to judges?" Sigh, let's continue to see what that possible retort is stupid for the issue of certain trials/judges tasked with proving gas chambers depending on the charges against the defendent...


He also fails to mention that, during the 1950s, the Adenauer government secured the release of war criminals convicted at Nuremberg (NMT) from Allied (US) captivity, whilst rehabilitating many of the judges and civil servants of the 1933-45 period, thereby implicitly reversing the Allies' policies towards the criminal legacy of the Third Reich as a set of corrupting institutions. Moreover, the West German trials were mostly not about crimes against Jews: there were 103,823 criminal investigations concrerning the Nazi period by 1992 but these produced only 472 cases that resulted in convictions for crimes against Jews (Matthaeus, pp.192-193).

That is a hyperlink to a book called Adenauer's Germany and the Nazi Past: The Politics of Amnesty and Integration by Norbert Frei. Here is a clip from the summary.

In this masterful examination of Germany under Adenauer, Norbert Frei shows that, beginning in 1949, the West German government dramatically reversed the denazification policies of the immediate postwar period and initiated a new "Vergangenheitspolitik," or "policy for the past," which has had enormous consequences reaching into the present.

Adenauer's Germany and the Nazi Past chronicles how amnesty laws for Nazi officials were passed unanimously and civil servants who had been dismissed in 1945 were reinstated liberally—and how a massive popular outcry led to the release of war criminals who had been condemned by the Allies. These measures and movements represented more than just the rehabilitation of particular individuals. Frei argues that the amnesty process delegitimized the previous political expurgation administered by the Allies and, on a deeper level, served to satisfy the collective psychic needs of a society longing for a clean break with the unparalleled political and moral catastrophe it had undergone in the 1940s. Thus the era of Adenauer devolved into a scandal-ridden period of reintegration at any cost.

I'd say I don't blame them. Not since we now know what we do about certain West German trials permitting the highest level of nonsense to masquerade as proof of a defendent's guilt.

The separation of courts from politicians can be illustrated in a number of war crimes cases. In 1968, the Chancellor of West Germany, Kurt Georg Kiesinger, was "subpoenaed to testify in the war crimes trial of a former diplomat [Adolf Beckerle] who was charged with arranging transportation for 11,343 Bulgarian Jews to German death camps." Kiesinger's denial of having had knowledge of the death camps until near the war's end was condemned by the AJC. Beckerle's lawyer was Egon Geis, who had previously represented Georg Heuser by going to such extraordinary lengths as visiting Minsk to view documents and interrogate witnesses. Geis never attempted to persuade Heuser to deny his crimes, and Heuser accepted full responsibility for his crimes.

Again, we have to distinguish between post war trials in Germany that sought to convict people for either using bullets to kill Jews, or beating them to death, starving them, etc versus the trials where they tried to actually, physically, establish the existence of things like gas chambers in majdanek or gas vans used in places like Chelmno. By looking at the contents of the trials and also who were the judges in them, we can figure out which trials were most important for the propaganda purposes for things like gas chambers. THOSE are the key ones revisionists focus on because THOSE are the issues that they are disagreeing with. They dont' disagree that some nazis shot or beat Jews. Those trials are irrelevant to the ones about the GAS CHAMBERS since it is the GAS CHAMBERS that are in dispute. Let me simplify it for you. There is a difference between someone who allegedly drives a truck full of Jews to camps that may or may not have gas chambers, and someone who was fingered by an alleged Jewish sonderkommando of pushing Jews into the chamber. The former can deny knowing anything about gas chambers since he never sets foot in the camp for very long, while the latter would have a harder time deying the so called historical reality of the gas chambers. Do so you see now why you can't lump all of the trials together as if they are one and the same?

The separation of courts from politicians can be illustrated in a number of war crimes cases. In 1968, the Chancellor of West Germany, Kurt Georg Kiesinger, was "subpoenaed to testify in the war crimes trial of a former diplomat [Adolf Beckerle] who was charged with arranging transportation for 11,343 Bulgarian Jews to German death camps." Kiesinger's denial of having had knowledge of the death camps until near the war's end was condemned by the AJC. Beckerle's lawyer was Egon Geis, who had previously represented Georg Heuser by going to such extraordinary lengths as visiting Minsk to view documents and interrogate witnesses. Geis never attempted to persuade Heuser to deny his crimes, and Heuser accepted full responsibility for his crimes.


The first hyperlink is a time article that only gives a preview of the first paragraph. Which would explain why only a small bit was quoted by Harrison. The article is called "West Germany: Witness for the Defense" published Friday, July 12, 1968. Furthermore, who gives a damn what some rabbi in the AJC says about Kiesinger in a July 1968 article. His opinion that gas chambers existed and Kiesinger knew is not evidence. It is merely repeating something that needs to be proven.

"view documents" hyperlink
Soviet Supplies Evidence in Trial of Nazis Charged with Killing Jews
February 4, 1963

The Soviet Government has officially supplied evidence in the trial here of Geag Heuser and 11 other ex-Nazis accused of murdering tens of thousands of Jews in the Minsk area during World War II. Some of the evidence, on films, was shown to the Jury here this weekend. As a result, Ego Geis, of Frankfurt, one of the defense attorneys, announced he is leaving for Moscow this week to see the original documents in the hands of Soviet officials.

The evidence shown the Jury thus far was contained in a 30-minute film sent here from Moscow, showing photographs of brutal treatment of Jews and picturing original documents ordering brutalities, signed by Heuser and Artur Wilke, one of his co-defendants in the trial.

The Soviet Foreign Ministry held a press conference for foreign Journalists in Moscow last week, detailing the evidence it has submitted against Heuser and his co-defendants, complaining that the prosecution here was ignoring that evidence. Some of the Russian evidence showed that, by April 1943, 130,000 of the 150,000 Jews in the Minsk area had “disappeared” under the German occupation of which Heuser was a part. Other evidence showed statements by German army men to the effect that Jews had been robbed of their valuables before being slaughtered by the group commanded by Heuser.



"interrogate witnesses" hyperlink.
Nazi Chief Who Planned Mass-killing of Jews in Minsk Discovered
April 18, 1963

COBLENZ (Apr. 17)

A one-time Nazi said to have been George Heuser’s superior at Minsk during the Nazi occupation of that city will testify at the trial of Heuser and 11 other former Nazis in the wartime slaughter of some 35, 000 Jews in that Byelorussian city, it was announced here today.

He is Dr. Johann Kunz, deputy police chief at Graz, Austria, who had been sought for some time without success because of a mixup with a namesake, Dr. Ewald Kunz, a former Gestapo member who meanwhile died in Bonn, Heuser has testified at the lengthy trial here that Dr. Kunz drew up a plan for the mass annihilation of Jews in Minsk.

The completion of the trial, which started last November, was expected to be further delayed by plans of Egon Geis, Heuser’s defense attorney, to fly to Minsk Friday to interrogate more witnesses.

Why the difference in numbers folks? If only 35,000 are claimed to have been slaughtered, what about the rest of the 150,000 in Minsk? You know, the 115,000? Where did they go? Camps? If they all went to camps, why would the Nazis only kill 35,000 if they goal was to annihilate all the Jews of Minsk? Are the nazis stupid, or are they engaging in attacks on partisans, who are fair game in war?

"accepted full responsibility for his crimes." hyperlink.
‘minsk Ghetto’ Trial Ends; 11 Nazis Sentenced for Killing 35, 000 Jews
May 22, 1963

COBLENZ (May. 21)

A jury court in Coblenz sentenced 11 former Nazis in the Minsk Ghetto trial to terms ranging from life imprisonment at hard labor to three-and-a-half years imprisonment today at the conclusion of a seven-month trial on charges of mass murder of Jews and Russians.

George Heuser, 50, the principal defendant, was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment and deprivation of his civil rights for five years. The prosecution had asked a life term. The 11 defendants had been accused of the wartime slaughter of 35, 000 Jews in the ghetto. In an unusual statement for a defendant in the West German Nazi crimes trials, Heuser had accepted full responsibility for his guilt.

The severest sentence was imposed on American-born Franz Starke, 51, a Nazi party member since 1920. He received the only life term in the judgments, and was given that punishment for murder in three cases. The Jury court also sentenced Starke to an additional term of eight years for complicity in murder in five other cases and to lifetime deprivation of his civil rights.

Artur Wilke, 51, was sentenced to ten years and deprivation of his civil rights for three years. Rudolph Schlegel received a term of eight years and loss of civil rights for three years. Friedrich Herbach, 51, received a term of seven years and loss of civil rights for three years. Wilhelm Kaul, 56, Johannes Feder, 51, and Eberhard von Toll, 52, each was sentenced to four years and six months. Johann Oswald, 52, and Karl Eahlheimer, 56, each received terms of four years imprisonment and Artur Harder, 52, was sentenced to three-and-a-half years at hard labor.

In all cases but that of Starke, detention pending trial was taken into consideration in determination of sentence.

Sounds to me like the either they were going after Partisans, or they got a little too crazy and just killed a bunch of random Jews without regard to whether they were armed and engaged in resistence or not. Although I fail to see why a nazi would admit to killing non partisans. I suppose it could happen. I'm not ruling it out. Not every nazi is or was the same. I believe Heuser did admit to killing that many.

Heuser was another example of an SS officer who regained police employment in West Germany after the war. Heuser had believed that his successful police career would protect him from arrest and prosecution as a war criminal. This is impossible to reconcile with Graf's delusional image of a puppet West German state ordering its judges to hunt down SS personnel who served at gassing sites.

Heuser was accused of killing a bunch of Jews with bullets, not taking them to gassings sites you idiot. Apples with apples please. The gas chambers are what needed to be proven more than anything which is why Graf is correct the most corruption surrounded THOSE trials. What better way to fool the world into thinking German courts have no interest in upholding propaganda then by convicting apparent scumbags like Heuser who shot people without cause.

Even after his conviction, Heuser seems to have settled for a fate in which he served "a little over six-and-one-half years of his sentence." Graf would have us believe that this is because Heuser co-operated with the prosecutors, but the far more likely explanation is that Heuser could convince the judges that he was just a bureacratic killer rather than a sadist, as this explanation was accepted by West German courts in numerous cases. As Pendas notes:

Rebecca Wittmann, in her brief but sweeping overview of German Nazi prosecutions from 1960 to 1980, points to what she sees as a generational conflict between "young, and eager prosecutors and older, more conservative, largely former Nazi judiciary" (p. 211). In a context where the legislature failed to provide an adequate or clear statutory basis for prosecuting Nazi crimes (and indeed, with legislative reform concerning the statute of limitations in 1969, actually effected a de facto amnesty for many Nazi criminals), conservative judges triumphed over activist prosecutors. The result was a largely exculpatory jurisprudence in which only the most extreme and sadistic Nazi defendants faced anything like adequate punishment for their crimes.

I will say that holocaustcontroversies' quotations of the courts' findings about his behaviour is probably accurate.
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... lying.html
As to him being truthful about killing tens of thousands of Jews, who really knows if he felt under pressure or not. His trial was in 1963.

If the West German state had prioritized the punishment of Nazi criminals, it would have reformed the "statutory basis for prosecuting Nazi crimes" by, for example, not allowing the statute of limitations for manslaughter run out in May 1960. As Friedlander argues here, "The language used by the courts at times also shows a lack of sensitivity to Nazi criminality. Two examples:

1. The Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshoj) condemned the activities of a German civil servant who aided Jews in contravention of Nazi laws as a "violation of official duties" (Amtspflichmerletzung).24

2. In sentencing a concentration camp administrator for killings committed in Sachsenhausen, the District Court in Nuremberg-Furth concluded: "The Court did not find sufficient reason to revoke the defendant's civil rights, because it could not be proven that, as an SS officer, he lacked honorable character."25"

Friedlander further notes that the precedent set by the 1940 Bathtub Case enabled the courts to interpret direct particpation in murder as merely aiding and abetting:



This so-called subjective interpretation enabled the courts to convict as an accomplice someone who had personally killed. In the immediate postwar years, some courts still rejected this interpretation. They refused to classify Nazi killers as accomplices; they saw the "degree of personal interest" as only one criterion of how to judge participation. These courts convicted the killers as perpetrators.61 But eventually most courts accepted the subjective interpretation of the Bathtub Case.62 After 1948, this interpretation was applied more and more often to almost all Nazi criminals; thus commanders of Einsatzgruppen, senior officers of the extermination camps, and chiefs of the Gestapo were convicted as the accomplices of the senior perpetrators: Hitler, Goering, Himmler, and Heydrich. All this had become accepted practice long before the highest federal court, the Bundesgerichtshof, reaffirmed this interpretation in its 1962 Staschynski decision.63

Even conviction as an accomplice did not automatically prevent the imposition of a stiff sentence. A life sentence was permissible; a reduction from the mandatory sentence of perpetrator was only suggested- not required-for the accomplice. Even if the possible life sentence was not imposed, a fifteen-year prison term could be pronounced. This, however, was not the trend. The courts rarely imposed such heavy sentences. Usually only a few years, often less than five, were imposed as punishment for an accomplice in the murder of thousands. The reasons advanced to explain this leniency were often bizarre. For example, in one case a court ruled as follows:

In passing sentence, the Court considered as a mitigating circumstance that the defendant suffered protracted psychological stress because, fearful of unjust punishment and extradition to foreign powers, he concealed himself for years in his apartment.64

In 1968 a change in the law made conviction far more difficult. By that time, the statute of limitations had expired on all Nazi crimes except murder. Each time the statute of limitations threatened to expire on murder, the legislature extended it after long debates. But the statute does not mention murder or manslaughter. Instead, it defines murder as a crime punishable by life imprisonment and manslaughter as a crime punishable by fifteen years imprisonment. The statute of limitations on the latter expired in 1960. The former, which has not expired, applies to the perpetrator; it also applied to the accomplice, who seldom received a life sentence but who could have received it. In 1968, a change in §50 of the Penal Code made the reduction of sentence mandatory for the accomplice if he did not share the base motives of the perpetrator. Such a reduction to no more than fifteen years meant that the statute of limitations would have expired in 1960 for this kind of accomplice to murder.65



The result was that the prosecution was not able to obtain life sentences for simply aiding and abetting murder. Thus in the Heuser trial, the prosecution had sought a life sentence for Heuser, but the jurors stipulated a maximum term of fifteen years, which would include the time Heuser had already spent in detention since 1959. Only the the sadist and fanatical antisemite Franz Stark received a life sentence. In the Sobibor trial, the unrepentant sadist Frenzel was given life, as was Kurt Franz for Treblinka, although this did not prevent Franz later making admissions concerning gas chambers.

End of part 1 from Jonathan Harrison. I would say the last part is interesting if true. That we do have some evidence of German authorities being lax in punishing some actual nazi criminals or at least making sure they have legal grounds to do so without a prevention from some statute of limitations as illustrated above. However, as far as I can tell, Heuser was never charged with working in a camp with a gas chamber or even known to have seen a gas chamber. Everyone knows about gas chambers because of certain German trials that put forth "evidence" we are not allowed to forget. However, nazis who kill Jews with bullets may or may not get punished and we never hear about those trials as much. It is clear to me which trials the German authorities felt were more important. The ones about gas chambers. And that alone is why Graf is making a stink. Let's read a bit more from him in the same area of the Sobibor book as page 171. Let's go to page 171 exactly. Let's start where you left off. Actually let's go back and try again.

6. The Sobibór Trials

6.1. Legal Proceedings as the Basis for Historiography

Once the victorious Western Allies had created a puppet state called “Federal Republic of Germany,” its leaders ordered the judiciary to fabricate the evidence for the mirage of the murder of millions of people in gas chambers, for which not a single shred of evidence survived – if it ever existed. To prove our point, all we have to do is quote Martin Broszat, long-time head of the Munich Institut für Zeitgeschichte (Institute of Contemporary History), who said in his introduction to Adalbert Rückerl’s documentation about the “NS extermination camps:” 490

Without intending to anticipate a historical investigation and valuation of the part played by the German judiciary in the prosecution of NS crimes, we may retain as of
today one aspect, particularly in respect of the activity of the central agency [at Ludwigsburg]: One must not judge the significance of the large-scale investigations carried out by the prosecuting and the judicial authorities since the end of the nineteen fifties merely by the – frequently minor – conviction rates.[...] Even though the fact of the ‘final solution of the Jewish question’ can be found in nearly all history and other schoolbooks about the NS era, the specific circumstances of those horrifying events have so far been documented hardly at all in a systematic manner. The methodical obfuscation by the agencies involved and the thorough elimination of all traces at the end of the campaigns have prevented a precise reconstruction of the events over long periods or rendered them very difficult. This applies in particular to the large and carefully hidden extermination camps set up in the occupied Polish territories. In spite of unfavorable starting conditions, the long and painstaking investigations of the judiciary have brought about a general clarification of the facts and the circumstances.”


Succinctly said: Although nearly all history and other schoolbooks mentioned the final solution of the Jewish question, the latter had been documented hardly at all in a systematic manner. This was done only later, thanks to the long and painstaking investigations of the judiciary! In other words: the public prosecutors and the judges had to fly to the side of the historians in order to prove belatedly what had not been proved so far.

The issue is gas chambers. And as one can see when they read on past 171, so called eyewitness testimony collapses. For whatever reason the German government seemed lax in going after nazi criminals in the 60's, they sure didn't waste time 'proving' the gas chambers when the first trial started in 1950 as Graf demonstrated on page 172.

The procedure of the judiciary can be convincingly demonstrated by the manner in which the trial against SS-Oberscharführer Ernst Bauer was conducted. Bauer
was a driver and alleged “Gasmeister von Sobibór,” sentenced to death in Berlin in 1950 on account of “continual crimes against humanity.” 491 After the abolition of the death penalty, the sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.


Finally, let's return to something you said earlier, Jonathan.

"If the West German state had prioritized the punishment of Nazi criminals, it would have reformed the "statutory basis for prosecuting Nazi crimes" by, for example, not allowing the statute of limitations for manslaughter run out in May 1960."

Let's examine the table of contents from THE GAS VANS by Santiago Alvarez. Well, rather a part of them.

3.7. Gas Vans during West-German Trials 171
3.7.1. Introduction 171

3.7.2. From 1949 to 1959 (4 trials) 175
3.7.2.1. LG Stuttgart, Verdict of 8 Nov. 1949 & 15 Aug. 175
3.7.2.2. LG Karlsruhe, Verdicts of 15 Dec. 1949 & 7. Oct. 1951 178
3.7.2.3. LG Wiesbaden, Verdict of 24 Mar. 1952 179
3.7.2.4. LGKoln, Verdict of 20 June 1953 180

3.7.3. From 1960 to 1964 (2 trials) 184
3.7.3.1. LG Karlsruhe, Verdict of 20 Dec. 1961 & 13 Dec. 1963 184
3.7.3.2. LG Koblenz, Verdict of 21 May 1963 & 10 Nov. 1965 186
3.7.3.3. Interrogations of August Becker 188

3.7.4. From 1965 to 1969 (11 trials) 191
3.7.4.1. LG Bonn, Verdicts of 30 Mar. 1963 & 23 July 1965 191
3.7.4.2. LG Kiel, Verdict of 26 Nov. 1965 203
3.7.4.3. LG Wuppertal, Verdicts of 30 Dec. 1965 & 13 Dec. 1967 204
3.7.4.4. LG Frankfurt/M., Verdict of 12 Mar. 1966 205
3.7.4.5. LG Hannover, Verdict of 7 June 1966 207
3.7.4.6. LG Stuttgart, Verdict of 15 Sep. 1967 215
3.7.4.7. LG Stuttgart, Verdict of 1 1 June 1968 220
3.7.4.8. LG Dortmund, Verdict of 16 Jan. 1969 221
3.7.4.9. LG Kiel, Verdict of 1 1 Apr. 1969 223
3.7.4.10. LG Darmstadt, Verdict of 18 Apr. 1969 & 23 Dec. 1971 226
3.7.4.11. LG Kiel, Verdict of 28 Nov. 1969 228

3.7.5. From 1970 to 1974 (6 trials) 230
3.7.5.1. LG Frankfurt/M., Verdict of 19 Mar. 1971 230
3.7.5.2. LGMiinchenl, Verdict of 22 Mar. 1972 231
3.7.5.3. LG Miinchen I, Verdict of 14 July 1972 231
3.7.5.4. LGMiinchenl, Verdict of 29 Mar. 1974 232
3.7.5.5. LG Kiel, Verdict of 14 June 1974 233
3.7.5.6. LG Miinchen I, Verdict of 15 Nov. 1974 234

3.7.6. From 1975 to now (1 trial) 236
3.7.6.1. LGMiinchenl, Verdict of 19 Dec. 1980 236

Yeah, West Germany was really taking it easy on ex nazis, weren't they?

I suppose also you don't wish to talk too much about John Demjanjuk do you now since that takes up a large part of the Sobibor book? Especially since Chris Webb even says Demjanjuk was innocent and the victim of Soviet fraud. Oh but that's right, he's the crook and liar, isn't he? Look I'm not saying some nazis didn't escape just punishment for some extreme behaviours in ghettos or certain cities, but the figures are often exaggerated and first of all, the earliest trials which were clearly crooked were about 'proving' the gas chambers on the flimsiest of pretexts. In your quote from page 171, Jonathan, you even quoted Graf as talking about how the earliest trials were trying to prove the gas chambers. Graf already stipulated the issue. And how many trials occured before this 1960 expiration of the statute of limitations for manslaugter? Well start from 1949 and count. 4. You know, the ones the Simon Wiesenthal Center was caught faking evidence for.
NEWS! magazine & Wiesenthal Ctr. caught faking 'gas vans'!
Alvarez says on page 171:
All in all 27 trials were conducted in the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) by German courts of law addressing in one way or other the alleged mass murder committed in gas vans. 91


91.
Since some of them are merely retrials of successful appeals, the number of unique cases is actually only 24.


If there was a statute of limitations on manslaughter that expired after 1960, why did the frequency of trials increase afterwars? Manslaughter is legally different from murder, so what the hell does manslaughter have to do with being charged with "murder" or "crimes against humanity"? Furthermore, I have gone back through Alvarez's summary of some of those cases, and sometimes judges would throw charges out because witnesses would contradict each other or tell flat out atrocity stories that were physically impossible. Jonathan Harrison would say, "point for my thesis that German was lax in prosecuting criminals and therefore Graf is wrong." However, despite the inability of the judge to tie defendents to the gas chambers or gas vans, they still said, "it can not be proven this man was involved in the gas vans but the gas vans have been proven to exist. We take judicial notice of it and that is it." THIS is the very thing Graf is upset about and rightfully so. Let's read about the first ever gas van trial from Santiago Alvarez.

3.7.2.1. LG Stuttgart, Verdict of 8 Nov. 1949 & 15 Aug. 1950

During this trial a defendant was prosecuted who had been incarcer-
ated since war's end and was to see the light of day no more in his life:
Ferdinand Gohler. In 1941 he was employed in the town administration
of Kalisch, where he was also concerned with the administration of the
camp Bornhagen (Polish: Kozminek), where Polish Jews had been in-
carcerated. Although the original indictment of 25 April 1 949 accused
him of having been involved in the resettlement of Jews at the end of
November 1941 (p. 190, 217), during which several hundred Jews are
said to have been killed by means of "gas vans," the court of the first
trial declared this case beyond its jurisdiction. As this decision was con-
firmed on appeal, this issue was no longer dealt with in detail during the
retrial of the case in 1950, so no verdict was passed in this regard at all
(p. 191). The court nevertheless made a few statements in this regard,
which I quote:

"The removal was done with a special vehicle, which had the
shape of a moving truck and which could be entered from the back.
Due to its dark paint, it was called 'black van. ' According to the
opinion of the Jewish witnesses, a gassing device was installed in-
side of it, which could be turned on during transit. Nobody could
make specific statements about this [...]. "
(p. 200)

"The so-called black vehicle was a large truck, which looked like
a moving truck and whose interior was lined with sheet metal. An
invisible device to be operated from the driver 's cabin was installed
in its interior, through which a lethal gas could be released into the
enclosed vehicle, a device which was started soon after the truck had
driven off so that the Jews inside the vehicle could be killed during
transit. "
(p. 231)

"In this capacity [the defendant] then participated in the gassing
action of 26 Nov. 1941. This was implemented in such a way that the
Jewish inmates assigned for this were loaded into a special vehicle,
a so-called 'black vehicle, ' on the square in front of the synagogue
in Bornhagen in the presence of the raiding squad: the vehicle re-
sembled a moving truck, and in its interior, which was sealed air-
tight, pipes had been laid so that the occupants could be killed dur-
ing transit. "
(p. 239)

It is worth noting that the gas vans employed by the Soviet Secret
Services before the war seem to have been based on black prison
transport vehicles ("Black Maria," see chapter 3.2.1.), yet that only a
minority of witnesses of the alleged German "gas vans" stated that they
were black (see chapter 4.2.), whereas most witness claim colors similar
to those usually applied to German military vehicles (grey, sometimes
with a brownish or greenish hue). The "moving truck" theme, which we
will encounter in numerous German court verdicts, probably is an out-
cropping either of the early Soviet show trials claims (see The Peoples '
Verdict, p. 29) or of the Kolo Magirus moving van falsely identified by
Falborski et al. as "the gas van" (see chapters 3.6.2.3ff). The claim of a
separate gassing device in the van's interior which could be turned on
from the driver's cabin during transit is in conflict with most other wit-
ness statements as well (see chapter 4.2.6.), which insist on engine ex-
haust gases being used, a process which had to be initiated while the
truck was standing still. The issue of an allegedly airtight gassing box
need not be addressed here again.

Furthermore, the claim that the Bornhagen camp had "gas vans" at
its disposal at the end of November 1941 is not credible. The very first
gas vans claimed to have been deployed by the Germans are said to
have been delivered only toward the end of November/early December
1941, if we believe the orthodox version (Beer 1987, p. 412, who does
not mention this verdict). It does not appear likely that the unimportant little
camp of Bornhagen was the first to receive one, nor is such a claim
backed up by anything.

Despite the collective length of these two verdicts and their associat-
ed appeal decisions, little more can be gleaned from them for the pre-
sent technical purpose. The court itself stated that many testimonies
were presented to the court only in writing, since most witnesses had
emigrated from Germany at the time of the trial and were therefore un-
able to testify in person. Since the various testimonies about the defend-
ant's alleged crimes were riddled with contradictions, impossibilities
and "untrue statements," the court moreover stated:

"These contradictions about the descriptions of the incidents are so huge
and affect the decisive events so much that no findings could
be made which would suffice for a conviction. "
(p. 205)

Many such "untrue statements" were never even detected by the
court. For instance, one witness implied that mass murder with gas vans
had occurred as early as 1940 (p. 228), which indicates that just about
any van or truck picking up inmates was a target for being named a "gas
van" by some witness.

So how could the court be so sure that the alleged mass murders
with a gas van took place in the first place? I quote:

"Finally it has become generally known from the war crimes tri-
bunals that countless Jews had been exterminated in such a way. "

(p. 234)

That the historical "truth" had been cast in stone at the very outset of
this trial is also hinted at by the verdict of the Mannheim Upper District
Court (Oberlandesgericht). After the first verdict had been handed
down on 8 Nov. 1949 by the LG Stuttgart, the defendant filed an appeal
with the Mannheim Upper District Court, in which he requested, among
other things, that the LG Stuttgart also rule about the alleged mass mur-
der with gas vans. In its decision the Mannheim court rejected this re-
quest, stating among other reasons also (p. 244):

"An acquittal is legally out of the question already because the
authorization by the military government does not extend to the sen-
tencing of this case under the aspect of crimes against humanity. "


This indicates that the German postwar trials in such cases were in-
deed little more than extensions of the Allied postwar trials.

In such case is the key phrase. As in the trials that affirmed the allied propaganda without checking the facts first. In other words, kudos to the defense team for that one trial about Majdanek
http://www.csmonitor.com/1980/1202/120247.html
where the defense attorneys got really aggressive and went after witnesses who were clearly lying out of revenge and hatred for Germany.

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1022
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Ag

Postby Werd » 3 years 9 months ago (Tue Aug 19, 2014 6:29 pm)

Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Graf's Idiocy Regarding West German Trials (Part 2)
http://www.holocaustcontroversies.blogs ... an_14.html

In addition to the general problems I identified in Part 1, which confront MGK concerning West German war crimes trials, Graf and his colleagues are burdened with the patterns that clearly emerge from testimonies and sentencing of defendants who stood trial in West Germany between 1963 and 1966 for crimes at the three Operation Reinhard camps.

Graf repeatedly claims that people who co-operated with the so-called gassing narrative were "given slap-on-the-wrist sentences" (Riposte, p.169).

The quote comes from "The 'Extermination Camps' of 'Aktion Reinhardt.'" Just a page earlier on 168 is part of a discussion about the fraudulent John Demjanjuk trial in Germany from 2009-11. We find the following quote.

Why did the German defendants accused of having participated in
the gassing of Jews not dispute the underlying claim itself? Simply put,
it would have been useless to try. Ever since the Nuremberg Tribunal of
1945-46 set the tone by declaring in its charter that it would “not be bound by technical rules of evidence” and would “not require proof of
facts of common knowledge,”307 no court in Germany has been willing
or able to entertain the possibility that certain “facts of common
knowledge” about the National Socialist regime’s alleged extermination
of European Jewry might not be facts at all. For a defendant to have
claimed otherwise could only have led to more severe punishments,
since courts inevitably would have seen such an “uncooperative” attitude
as indicating lack of remorse and/or continued loyalty to outlawed
Nazi ideas. Undoubtedly, their legal counsel informed them of the situation
they were in and the strategies they could realistically pursue. As a
consequence, defendants restricted themselves to insisting on their own
personal innocence or at the most to having acted under duress in following
military orders.

To nobody’s surprise, Terry angrily rejects this explanation. He accuses
me once more of defending a “conspiracy theory” while himself
standing common sense on its head in an attempt to explain away obvious
facts about the trial sentences:

“The fact that not one SS man who served at the Reinhard camps denied
that they were extermination camps evidently does not faze him
[Graf], as
he constructs a convoluted theory whereby if defendants had done so, they
would have received higher sentences, a claim for which he provides not a
shred of evidence. […] West German law did not allow for the possibility of
plea bargaining […]. Indeed, the example of Erich Bauer, given a life sentence
for his role as the ‘Gasmeister’ of Sobibor, refutes such an insinuation
before it has even left the starting-gate.”
(p. 80)

Terry claims that I have provided “not a shred of evidence” to support
the claim that defendants received lenient sentences in return for
compliant testimony, but the proof is in the pudding: the sentences
speak for themselves. That there may have been occasional exceptions
to the general rule
, as in the case of Erich Bauer, is no fatal weakness to
the revisionist position, for indeed former SS men who had served at alleged
“extermination camps” more often than not got away with surprisingly
mild prison terms.

Hmmm. Graf is admitting there are times when ex nazis who served in camps did not get heavy, but rather light sentences. Perhaps Jonathan Harrison should throw him a bone or apologize for making what appears to be a long winded strawman argument that absolutely no nazis got off lightly. I guess Jonathan didn't see fit to THAT part of page 169 a few sentences prior. This is a trick he often does. Let's continue in TECOAR.


Page169-170
At the Hagen trial of 1965-66, defendants
Erich Lachmann, Hans-Heinz Schütt and Heinrich Unverhau, charged
with “aiding and abetting with others in the murder” of “at least
150,000,” “at least 86,000” and “at least 72,000” persons respectively,
were even acquitted! And with the exception of Sobibór commandant
Karl Frenzel, who received a life sentence, the five other defendants
who were convicted at the trial received slap-on-the-wrist sentences ranging from three to eight years imprisonment for (again) “aiding and
abetting with others in the murder” of tens of thousands of people.308 In
Sobibór I explained this strange leniency on the part of the German judiciary
as follows:

“The judges assumed that the defendants had not volunteered for serving
in these camps and that a refusal to participate in the maintenance of
the ‘machinery of murder’ could have exposed them to sanctions, including
the death penalty. Thus, the court did not a priori attribute to them base
motives – a condition which was and still is necessary in Germany for a
murder charge. Base motives only came into play if a defendant had committed
unrequested crimes, for example killing or ill-treating Jewish laborers,
or whipping Jews on their way to the gas chambers. In such cases of
‘excesses,’ the defendants could face the toughest sanctions. Whether an SS
man had committed such ‘excesses’ in an extermination camp was obviously
something the court could only ascertain on the basis of testimonies. As
there were always plenty of witnesses on hand during these trials, all[309]
eager to ascribe the most horrifying deeds to any of the defendants, the
court could easily put pressure on the SS men in the dock. After all, it was
entirely up to the judges to classify ‘witness statements’ as ‘credible’ or
not.” (pp. 183f.)


To say the least, none of this careful weighing of motives and extenuating
circumstances would have ever come into play if the defendants
had been so unwise as to expose themselves as “unrepentant Nazis” by
questioning the validity of the “extermination camp” myth itself. True,
no mention of this tacit agreement between prosecutors, defendants and
judges is likely to appear in the documentary record, but then that’s just
the nature of a tacit agreement.

Rememeber this Hagen trial was in the mid sixties. Nuremberg was in the forties and many Nazis were hung. These guys in the 60's weren't going to be so stupid as to sign their own death warrant for denying the gas chambers since their existence already established according to West German court by the time the first trial in 1949 occured. Continuing on with Jonathan Harrison...

This causes problems for Mattogno when the latter discusses Willi Mentz and Kurt Franz, who both received life sentences for crimes committed at Treblinka. Mattogno quotes Mentz thus:

There were always some ill and frail people on the transports. Sometimes there were also wounded people amongst the arrivals because the transport escorts, SS members, police, Latvians, sometimes shot people during the journey. These ill, frail and wounded people were brought to the hospital by a special Arbeitskommando. […] I did this by shooting them in the neck with a 9-mm pistol. […] The number of people I shot after the transport arrived varied. Sometimes it was two or three but sometimes it was as many as twenty or perhaps even more.

This is taken from page 247 of Klee, et al (eds.), “The Good Old Days.” The Holocaust as Seen by Its Perpetrators and Bystanders, 1988, p. 247. However, the full version of this passage in Klee et al reads:

There were always some ill and frail persons on the transports. Sometimes there were also wounded people amongst the arrivals because the transport escorts, SS members, police, Latvians, sometimes shot people during the journey. These ill, frail and wounded people were brought to the Lazarett by a special Arbeitskommando. These people would be taken to the hospital area and stood or laid down at the edge of the grave. When no more ill or wounded were expected it was my job to shoot these people. I did this by shooting them in the neck with a 9-mm pistol. They then collapsed or fell to one side and were carried down into the grave by the two hospital work-Jews. The bodies were sprinkled with chlorinated lime. Later, on Wirth’s instructions, they were burnt in the grave itself.

The number of people I shot after the transport arrived varied. Sometimes it was two or three but sometimes it was as many as twenty or perhaps even more. There were men and women of all ages and there were also children.

When I am asked today how many people I killed this way, I can no longer say precisely.


Mattogno has therefore omitted the fact Mentz shot children. He has also left out the procedure by which the Jews were shot.


It turns out on page 881, Mattogno did in fact omit the passage where Mentz shot children who were apparently ill or wounded and thus not of any use for labour purposes. Odd that this part about shooting children would be omitted and yet MGK had no problem quoting that Kube document claiming children were liquidated in Minsk (discussed here). But let's see the entire argument of Mattogno. So it's clear that they are not attempting to deny that children were killed in TECOAR. Rather in this section, Mattogno is seeing how many people were shot and thus what the "true scale" was of shot deportees that Myers harps on about.

Page 881-882.
[72] Once more in the context of the alleged reorganization of Treblinka,
Myers presents an excerpt of the 19 July 1960 interrogation of
former SS-Unterscharführer Willi Mentz. Yet what he passes over in
silence is again more important than what he quotes. As I mentioned
above, he accuses us of not having considered the “true scale” of the
shootings in the “Lazarett.” In this regard Mentz asserted:2015

“There were always some ill and frail people on the transports. Sometimes
there were also wounded people amongst the arrivals because the
transport escorts, SS members, police, Latvians, sometimes shot people
during the journey. These ill, frail and wounded people were brought to the
hospital by a special Arbeitskommando. […] I did this by shooting them in
the neck with a 9-mm pistol. […] The number of people I shot after the
transport arrived varied. Sometimes it was two or three but sometimes it
was as many as twenty or perhaps even more.”


A “true scale” of epic proportions indeed: 20+ individuals shot for
every transport as the upper limit. This is more evidence of Myers’s
dishonesty, if any more evidence is needed at all. In the text by Mentz quoted by Myers the following passage also appears:

“For about two months I worked in the upper section of the camp and
then after Eberl had gone everything in the camp was reorganized. The two
parts of the camp were separated by barbed wire fences. Pine branches
were used so that you could not see through the fences. The same thing was
done along the route from the ‘transfer’ area to the gas chambers…” (p.
303)


This means that before the alleged reorganization, which is to say
until the end of August, the “death camp” was not separated from the
reception area, so that even the prisoners who worked here could observe
all phases of the alleged extermination. But then one cannot understand
this affirmation by Arad, certainly based on testimonies:2016

“With the cessation of deportations on August 28, the SS men murdered
all the prisoners who had worked in the extermination area in removing
and burying bodies. Considerations of secrecy caused the camp command
to prevent any contact between the Jews employed in the extermination area
and those in the Lower Camp; thus, the latter were not used for clearing
the corpses from the reception area.”


This makes no sense, since “considerations of secrecy” would have
led to the extermination of all the detainee-witnesses.


2015 Ernst Klee, Willi Dressen, Volker Riess (eds.), “The Good Old Days.” The Holocaust as Seen
by Its Perpetrators and Bystanders. Konecky & Konecky, New York, 1988, p. 247.

Continuing on with Harrison...
Most importantly, Mattogno has excluded the fact that Mentz was given a life sentence, despite the fact that he gave details of gas chambers to his interrogators, which are quoted on the very same page of the Klee et al book that Mattogno cites.

Well we already know the gas chambers did not exist because we know there are no remains of them or the 900,000 people alleged to have died there. So clearly Mentz's testimony is problematic. One has to wonder if Mentz decided to go along with the established 'history' of the gas chambers to prevent execution. Or was that even legal in West German courts?

Even though Mattogno left out the part about killing sick or wounded children, he should not have. But it was not central to his case about how many people per transport had to be killed due to illness or severe wounds. He was attacking Myers for Myers claiming Mattogno was ignoring the "true scale" of the shootings. So Mattogno went to the source, Mentz, and found that he admitted that he killed no more than 20 per transport. When you compare that to the claimed death toll in Treblinka from gas chambers, 20 people too sick or crippled to work getting a euthenasia bullet is small potatos. THAT was mattogno's point. So Jonathan Harrison needs to get his knickers untwisted. More from Jonathan...

Graf's comments on sentencing at the Sobibor trial contain inaccuracies that are, at best, very sloppy blunders. For example, he claims that "Jules Schelvis explains Lachmann’s acquittal on the grounds that the court had considered him to be “mentally impaired,” but a more probable explanation is just that he had actively cooperated with the prosecution."

The page number is 170 in TECOAR. Back to Jonathan Harrison...

Had Graf actually read the judgment, he would know that it actually states:

Translation:
In the defendant Lac.’s case this results from the following: he had from the beginning asked that he not be posted at Sobibor. When he was threatened with penal company or concentration camp he went there out of fear, but did not behave in an excessive manner, and there are also no indications that he changed his inwardly rejecting attitude. He did his ordered service so badly that he was eventually sent away as useless, thereafter protested to Höfle against further service at Treblinka, and even deserted when he was ordered to this other extermination camp.

[b] It cannot be ascertained that Lac., as a low-ranking policeman with his primitive intellectual talents, would have had or even realized any other possibilities and therefore failed to reasonably elude service at Sobibór in another way.
In personnel matters he had priorly been subordinated not to Wirth, but to the gendarmerie, whose highest-ranking commander was Globocnik. He protested to his superior Drechsel. Further efforts would have failed, as his later visit to Höfle shows. The camp commandant of Sobibór was competent as concerns his service; otherwise he was also subordinated to Wirth there. It cannot be demanded of a person as immensely primitive as Lac. that he should have further tapped the hierarchy of personal competences and possibilities at Sobibor to get away from there. Therefore, the fact that he – besides lack of zeal and drunkenness – did nothing at Sobibór to be relieved from there, does not necessarily indicate a compliant zeal or an inner indifference. Lac.’s limited intellect saw only the possibilities he used besides the desertion he later undertook.
[De Mildt & Rueter, JUSTIZ UND NS-VERBRECHEN SAMMLUNG DEUTSCHER STRAFURTEILE WEGEN NATIONALSOZIALISTISCHER TÖTUNGSVERBRECHEN. Einzelausfertigung der Urteile des LG Hagen vom 20.12.1966, 11 Ks 1/64 und des BGH vom 25.03.1971, 4 StR 7-48/69, Ex-Post Facto Productions, 2001, p.228; translation kindly provided by Roberto Muehlenkamp].

Lachmann's acquittal was therefore due to his mental limitations at the time he served in Operation Reinhard, not his fitness to stand trial and give witness testimony. Yet Graf claims erroneously that:

In other words: Lachmann told the prosecutors exactly what they wanted to hear – and they had sufficient confidence in his mental capacity to use him as a witness. No doubt we may safely assume that the same situation applied a few years earlier, when Lachmann’s own freedom was at stake [Riposte, p.171].

Graf has foolishly made an incorrect inference by relying on Schelvis instead of the primary source. He has confused apples with oranges by assuming that competence to give witness testimony was the court's rationale when infact it was the much higher competence needed to make moral judgments to avoid service in the camps.

Jonathan gets a point for saying Graf did not check the primary source in German which Roberto Muehlenkamp apparently did. Again from TECOAR p.170, "Jules Schelvis explains Lachmann’s acquittal on the grounds that the court had considered him to be “mentally impaired,” but a more probable explanation is just that he had actively cooperated with the prosecution." So with the bolded parts above we do see that there was an attack on this man's mental abilities. But did he have a low I.Q.? Was he mentally retarded? Should he have been institutionalized? No! None of that is true. So why is the court insulting him and saying he has low intellectual abilities? Why are they calling him a drunk man with no will or zeal to do what he truly wants?

"the fact that he – besides lack of zeal and drunkenness – did nothing at Sobibór to be relieved from there, does not necessarily indicate a compliant zeal or an inner indifference. Lac.’s limited intellect saw only the possibilities he used besides the desertion he later undertook."

Did nothing to be relieved from Sobibor? Why is the judgement contradicting itself? Let's read from the other part of it.

"He did his ordered service so badly that he was eventually sent away as useless, thereafter protested to Höfle against further service at Treblinka, and even deserted when he was ordered to this other extermination camp"

Clearly he was trying to get out of service by performing so bad he was "sent away as useless." I guess he got what he wanted. So this court judgement is self contradictory and ultimately proves nothing in terms of this man being mentally instable or a drunk or whatever. No psychiatry reports. No psychology reports. Nothing. Just name calling in the courtroom.

Now if Jonathan Harrison is to be taken seriously when he says, "Lachmann's acquittal was therefore due to his mental limitations at the time he served in Operation Reinhard, not his fitness to stand trial and give witness testimony," then we should never ever see him be used ever again in any courtroom as someone who is fit to give witness testimony. Oops. Let's see what Graf says on page 170 that Jonathan Harrison CLEARLY OMITS because he dares to quote Graf again later on page 171. Let's see what Jonathan Harrison couldn't bring himself to quote.

As a matter of fact, he continued
doing so after his acquittal, incriminating former comrades who had
been accused of similar crimes as himself. On pp. 355-6 of the bloggers’
Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Jason Myers quotes a statement which
Lachmann made in 1969 during the preliminary proceedings against
former Trawniki commandant Karl Streibel. When still stationed at

[WERD: PAGE BREAK. 171 STARTS HERE]

Trawniki – that is, prior to deployment to Sobibór – Lachmann allegedly
already knew that Bełżec and Sobibór were murder factories because

“[every] Polish child knew at that time that these were extermination
camps. It could not be concealed that transports of Jews were constantly
going into the camps, and that no Jews were coming out of the camps. […]
I surmise that there was no German or Ukrainian at Trawniki who did not
know what was going on with the Jews.”


In other words: Lachmann told the prosecutors exactly what they
wanted to hear – and they had sufficient confidence in his mental capacity
to use him as a witness. No doubt we may safely assume that the
same situation applied a few years earlier, when Lachmann’s own freedom
was at stake.


However, Lachmann told the prosecutors what they wanted to hear in regards to the trial of Karl Streibel in 1969. But the way Harrison writes, he is making it seem like Graf's page 171 bolded quote about Lachmann applied to his own trial. You think I'm kidding about Jonathan Harrison "accidentally" mixing this up. Read his extract again.

Lachmann's acquittal was therefore due to his mental limitations at the time he served in Operation Reinhard, not his fitness to stand trial and give witness testimony. Yet Graf claims erroneously that:

In other words: Lachmann told the prosecutors exactly what they wanted to hear – and they had sufficient confidence in his mental capacity to use him as a witness. No doubt we may safely assume that the same situation applied a few years earlier, when Lachmann’s own freedom was at stake [Riposte, p.171].

Graf has foolishly made an incorrect inference by relying on Schelvis instead of the primary source. He has confused apples with oranges by assuming that competence to give witness testimony was the court's rationale when infact it was the much higher competence needed to make moral judgments to avoid service in the camps.

Now we know why you skipped over that part that little extract I quoted showing the page break between 170 and 171. You had to leave that part out and apply that part of 171 to something else in order to construct a supposed refutation of Graf's interpretation about Lachmann. The 171 quote you took from Graf was not in regards to his own trial that Schelvis is talking about as you claim, but rather about testimonies he later gave at other trials implicating former SS guards. In other words, he obviously wasn't too mentally unstable to be a witness. I caught you and therefore your argument fails. BUSTED JONATHAN HARRISON!!! I guess I shouldn't be surprised at either this sloppiness of yours, or this sneaky distortion that you hoped no one would notice. But I expected nothing different from you. Especially given your ridiculous take on Madagascar as discussed on page 199 in Sobibor. That was a hilarious blunder that I had to smack you down for!

Graf also errs in his claim that "Unverhau had in effect enlisted voluntarily as a witness for the prosecution in the post-war NS trials – and hence received his reward." This is bizarre given that Unverhau was held in detention for three different investigations (Grafeneck, Belzec, Sobibor) and stood trial in two of them (only being stood down for Belzec). His acquittals still came after long periods of pre-trial custody. This is an entirely different form of treatment than that which Graf implies, which is more akin to "turning state's evidence" in US cases.

Furthermore, Graf fails to account for the long gaps between the witnesses making pre-trial confessions and the dates when they obtained their freedom. In Unverhau's case this would have involved long stretches between his first Belzec confessions and his final acquittal.

You fail to account for what was said by Graf that spilled over between the page break between 170 and 171 in TECOAR. Furthermore, let's see where you rip that quote from that was bolded by me. Further down on page 171.

About Heinrich Unverhau, Jules Schelvis has the following to say:312

“He was cleared after both the Hagen and the Bełżec trials [the latter of
which took place in Munich between 1963 and 1965]. He was the only SS
man who voluntarily spoke of his part in Operation Reinhardt immediately
after the war.”


This means that Unverhau had in effect enlisted voluntarily as a witness
for the prosecution in the post-war NS trials – and hence received
his reward. If Terry is unable, or pretends to be unable, to see the obvious
connection between the acquittal of these men and their active cooperation
with the prosecution, that is his problem and not mine.


Graf then goes on to talk about Wilhelm Pfannenstiel.

Page 171-172
Pfannenstiel is associated
with Bełżec, which was not my topic, but Mattogno discusses
this matter at some length in his book on the camp (pp. 51f.). In his famous
“report” of 1945, Kurt Gerstein asserted that Pfannenstiel had accompanied
him during his 1942 trip to Bełżec, where they had allegedly
witnessed the gassing of a group of Jewish deportees. When interrogated
on this point during the IG Farben trial of 1947-48, Pfannenstiel admitted
that he had been present at a gassing with Diesel exhaust but denied
having ever visited Bełżec.
Just as in the case of the Topf engineers,
however, his memory became sharper with the passing of time:
Pfannenstiel later remembered that he had indeed travelled to Bełżec
together with Gerstein. In his 1947 testimony, he had given no date for
the gassing which he allegedly witnessed, but by 1950 he could recall
that it had occurred “in the summer of 1942” – and in 1960 he even remembered
the exact day: 19 August 1942! Having in this way become
the official guarantor of the truth of the Gerstein report, Pfannenstiel
was rewarded with acquittal “for lack of proof” in three different proceedings
against him.313 Privately, he made no secret of the fact that he
had testified as he did for purely opportunistic reasons: in a letter to revisionist
pioneer Paul Rassinier dated 3 August 1963 he called the Gerstein
report “a piece of trash” in which “poetry far outweighs the
truth.”314 I will return to Pfannenstiel in a later chapter.


And now the gas chamber mongers are saying the diesel issue is irrelevant because nobody who was in a position to see them or who could have seen them ever claimed diesel but rather petrol and that does not work either.
Poison Gas: Another Fuel for Motor Transport
So what does this mean? That witnesses who testified to the entrenched propaganda, which included the now defunct diesel claims, got away. This is the point that Graf makes that the West German trials were merely parroting the allied/Soviet propaganda. Also, this is not the only instance that Unverhau is mentioned in TECOAR. There is the 169-170 bit I quoted earlier. Next is the 170 bit where there is the talk about Lachmann being supposedly mentally unstable. Next is on 171 where Jonathan took issue with the Graf quote that Lachmann "enlisted voluntarily as a witness for the prosecution in the post-war NS trials" The next occurence of Unverhau is on page 1072.


Page 1071-1072.
I will shortly dwell on the 1965 Bełżec trial at Düsseldorf,
my main source being Mattogno’s Bełżec (pp. 62-69). The va

garies of this trial were summarized by Adalbert Rückerl:2425

“The main proceedings against the only defendant […], Josef Oberhauser,
lasted a mere four days, from January 18 to 21, 1965.[2426] The court
interrogated 14 witnesses. 13 witnesses had been members of the SS or the
T4 organization at the time. […] Among the witnesses were six suspects
against whom the penal court had dropped charges. Five of them, as well
as another witness, had since become defendants in the Sobibor trial.”


As Mattogno shows in his analysis of the testimony of these witnesses,
their descriptions of the gassing procedure are largely copied out
of the Gerstein report, including the legendary “bluish color” of the
corpses. Quite obviously, during the preliminary proceedings the prosecution
had shown these men, six of whom had been suspects, the text of
the Gerstein report and asked them if they were willing to confirm its
veracity, which they did. The six former suspects promptly received
their reward: Instead of sitting in the dock, they were promoted to the
rank of “witnesses” and did not spend a single day in jail for their alleged
aiding and abetting, with others, in the murder of hundreds of
thousands of Jews at Bełżec.

As Rückerl states, five of these men were also defendants in the Sobibór
trial at Hagen (1963-1965). These men were Erich Fuchs, Werner
Dubois, Heinrich Unverhau, Robert Jührs and Ernst Zierke.2427 For
“aiding and abetting with others in the murder of at least 79,000 persons,”
Fuchs was sentenced to four years imprisonment, while Dubois
got three years for “aiding and abetting with others in the murder of at
least 15,000 persons.” Unverhau, Jührs and Zierke were acquitted (Sobibór,
pp. 183, 185)


Next time we see his name is 1163 of TECOAR.

10.2.6. Hubert Gomerski
Continuing his discussion of individual Sobibór staff members, Myers
brings up SS-Unterscharführer Hubert Gomerski (p. 366):

“Kues is, of course, unable to substantiate any of his concerns about the
coercion of Aumeier or Gomerski with any shred of evidence (as evident by
the lack of footnotes in the section). We know for instance that SSUnterscharführer
Heinrich Unverhau admitted to his participation in the
Aktion Reinhard camps ‘on his own accord… during his first police interrogation
in March 1948.’ Indeed Kues’ point is directly contradicted by the
available evidence, as after his release Gomerski himself stated in an interview
that his crimes deserved a sentence of 8-10 years and acknowledged,
‘After all, I was there (Sobibor). I cannot deny that.’”


As for the supposedly spontaneous 1948 confession of Heinrich Unverhau,
I have not seen it, and neither has Myers, apparently. It is not
included in the huge Schelvis document collection available online. It
would indeed be very interesting to see what was in fact stated in it.


That is all for Unverhau in TECOAR. So we have seen Unverhau enlist voluntarily as a witness and receive his reward as Graf said. Jonathan Harrison claims that "given that Unverhau was held in detention for three different investigations (Grafeneck, Belzec, Sobibor) and stood trial in two of them (only being stood down for Belzec)." Okay, maybe he was arrested but what he volunteered was testimony that conformed to the diesel propaganda (that gas chamber mongers admit is now wrong) and he claimed he could finger someone higher up than him which is why he was treated gently in exchange for his testimony. Congratulations on not seeing the forest for the trees, Jonathan.

This is just one of many ways in which Graf's grasp of law lacks any historical or comparative qualities, essentially because Graf is starting from a dishonest position. Most pivotally of all, Graf's legalism rests on antisemitism, whereby he accuses Jewish witnesses of orchestrating vengeance: "there were always plenty of witnesses on hand during these trials, all eager to ascribe the most horrifying deeds to any one of the defendants (Sobibor, p.184)." This is simply a lie, because unco-operative defendants did indeed sometimes get charges dropped because there was not sufficient witness testimony against them. For example, Klier was acquitted in 1950 because witnesses described him as a "good man", unlike sadist Gomerski. Similarly, Wolf and Dubois received reductions in sentences in the Hagen 1966 trial because the witness evidence was adjudged to be too weak (Bryant, p.37 and p.174).

Jonathan Harrison is claiming that it is simply a lie that witnesses were motivated by revenge to lie. By logical implication of his words, he is stating the following...

1. That Wiernik is correct that bodies turn yellow from CO poisoning.
2. That diesel engines WERE in fact used now, meaning Jonathan must be doing an about face on this article by his friend Sergy Romanov.
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... evant.html
3. That Simon Srebnik is a medical miracle and is telling the truth about his wounds.

and almost any other absurd atrocity story claimed by a witness is now thought of to be true. I guess Jonathan Harrison won't soon be responding to this part of TECOAR which updated and revised some material in Sobibor. "10.2.8.3. The “Evolving” Testimonies of Thomas, Pechersky, Biskubicz and Blatt" would be a good start. Here it is on a google translated Italian blog. Finally, Jonathan Harrison closes his part two:

Thus Graf is condemned by his sloppiness, his racism, his dishonesty and ultimately by not being judicious in his handling of evidence.

Actually Harrison, you have condemned yourself with your context ripping of quotes, your jumping over of inconvenient passages, and your rehashing of old arguments. Oh and that trick I exposed of you with regards to Lachmann above, that was not smart of you either. Did you really think nobody would bust you on that? If anyone is an idiot, it is YOU!

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1022
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Ag

Postby Werd » 3 years 9 months ago (Tue Aug 19, 2014 6:54 pm)

I think that covered it all. What do you guys think? I checked my posts three times. I don't think I have any errors. I especially think I'm dead on about Jonathan Harrison's mis-use of Graf's quote from 171 and applying it to Lachmann's own trial when it was in fact referring to other trials Lachmann was at as a witness to implicate others. Either Jonathan can't read, or he is counting on his fellow readers to not be able to read. As I said in regards to his last serious contribution, if this is the calibre of material that can be expected in the 2nd edition of their white paper, then Mattogno, Graf and Kues have nothing to worry about. Their work "The Extermination Camps of Aktion Reinhardt" is still solid. Also, as shown earlier, the Italian edition is apparently updated with a bit more material than the first English draft. If only I spoke Italian, I would also have that copy.

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1022
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Ag

Postby Werd » 3 years 7 months ago (Sat Oct 25, 2014 2:14 pm)

Werd wrote:A case of shabby plagiarism from Holocaust Controversies
http://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1297

Statistical Mechanic still can not accept what plagarism is defined as. If you steal a quote from someone and quote it the same way they do in a book you have read, and you also borrow their footnote without telling your reader that this quote and footnote was already used by someone else, then it is plagarism.

It appears this has still not sunk in to Roberto's head either.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... .html#more
The Black Rabbit of Inlé said...

It's been conclusively proven that you and you colleagues are serial plagiarists; this is no "foul accusation", but a documented and demonstrable fact. Perhaps the irony that Hans relies so heavily on Mattogno for his deliberately misleading compilation of cremation times is lost on you due to the similarly ironic reliance on Mattogno you displayed for Łukaszkiewicz's T2 report.

Roberto replied
Conclusively proven? Maybe by the standards of confused minds who don't know what plagiarism is, and who will yell "plagiarism" if someone quotes a primary source after one of Mattogno's pamphlets even though the quote is expressly referred to said pamphlet as the secondary source from which the quote was taken. There's nothing "deliberately misleading" in Hans' compilation outside the rabbit's accusation-prone ill-reasoning.
And there is also nothing ironic about relying on Mattogno's pamphlets as source collections They are quite useful for that purpose, even if what's in between the source quotes is useless rubbish.

Perhaps this still haunts the HC crew?
Werd @ Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Again!
As well as this?
*Some quick examples of Nick Terry who basically steals quotes and footnotes. The first example is on page 94, and on page 97, we find Terry even plagraized a source of one of the holocaust deniers he was refuting! There are plenty more. There's a one on page 114 showing how Terry can't even get his citation correct. We have another example of that at the bottom of page 123. Jumping over the revisionist arguments against the holocaust, we find more direct evidence of plagarism of sources that the holocaust historians such as those associated with Gary Webb can not even deny. On pages 130-134, revisionist Carlo Mattogno exposes the "cut and paste" method of research Nick Terry has apparently engaged in. Read and you will see that not only is this all true, but that there are other examples in chapter three of plagarism.

Werd @ Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Again!

Those pages refer to the pdf edition by the way. Not the paperback.

Also, I would like to quote from I "Campi Di Stermino" Dell "Azione Reinhardt." By way of English web translation of course.

Image

We present a brief example of how it was no danger of criminal consequences as a result of false testimony in any public lawsuit against the Germans, who had served their country as military or public managers in the post-war period. Any lie, invention, any charges of any kind was tolerated and never punished. The aim of tarnishing the enemy militarily defeated and the need, urgency, to re-build a virginity compromised by acts actually perpetrated by the infamous "allies", such as those awarded by the "right" to the Germans, were prevalent on the most elementary rules of normal processes of the province. The coveted. indispensable, "mission" gendarme of democracy (the system of usury banking stateless person, in fact) did the rest! We see two obvious cases ...

(...) Among the thousands of witnesses who deposed in dozens of trials, is in fact not a single one has been indicted for perjury, although many had made ​​statements patently false and absurd. In fact, it happened even worse, as is illustrated by two anecdotes related to the so-called processes of Dachau, celebrated by Americans. Both have as their protagonist Josef Kirschbaum, civil investigator and examiner of the United States.

"In a famous case, Kirschbaum presented some Einstein to prove that the accused Menzel had murdered Einstein's brother, but the brother said he pointed to the prisoner, who sat on the witness stand. Kirschbaum, deeply embarrassed, turned to Einstein and hissed: "How can we send this pig to the gallows if you are so stupid as to bring your brother in the classroom? '" 145.

On another occasion, he Kirschbaum deploy a dozen prisoners and he put one in the center, then left the room to call two witnesses Polish prosecution. In the meantime, the prisoners were mingled, exchanging positions.

"When the two Poles came in, threw themselves on the prisoner who was in the center and cried," Oh, we know him well, he killed many people. " Kirschbaum Now he realized the error, he sent her away, shouting the two Poles and put in the middle what he wanted. Then he called again the two Poles, who threw themselves back on the victim and declared in the same tone: "Oh, we know him well, he killed many people" »146.


145 Freda Utley, The High Cost of Vengeance. Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, 1949, p. 195.
146 Rudolf Aschenauer, Recht gegen Macht. Unbekanntes Material aus der amerikanischen britischen Kriegsverbrecher-und Praxis. Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Wirtschaft und Recht, Monaco, 1952, p. 22 (...)

(Source: Carlo Mattogno, Thomas Kues and Jürgen Graf, The "extermination camps" of '"Action Reinhardt", Vol.I, p. 44-45, dell' online edition .

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1022
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Ag

Postby Werd » 3 years 7 months ago (Mon Oct 27, 2014 10:27 pm)

For anyone who is interested, here is a direct pdf link to the Italian version that was just quoted in my last post.

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1022
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Ag

Postby Werd » 3 years 6 months ago (Wed Dec 10, 2014 6:18 pm)

New Auschwitz-Birkenau book refutes revisionists! Haha Hans!
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9041

More lousy arguments shown for what they are.

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1022
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Ag

Postby Werd » 3 years 2 months ago (Fri Apr 03, 2015 9:37 am)

SPECIAL OFFER! FIFTY PERCENT OFF!

https://shop.codoh.com/book/329/329

Image

The “Extermination Camps” of “Aktion Reinhardt”
An Analysis and Refutation of Factitious “Evidence,” Deceptions and Flawed Argumentation of the “Holocaust Controversies” Bloggers
By Jürgen Graf, Thomas Kues and Carlo Mattogno

Once. £100.00

NOW £49.90!!!

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1022
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Ag

Postby Werd » 3 years 2 months ago (Sat Apr 04, 2015 11:49 pm)

I have reformatted some text. I give each hyperlinked rodoh topic their own line.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... space.html

The issue of yellow was already solved by me on rodoh and it took forever due to Nessie's incessant trolling and dodging tactics.
Blast from the hateblogwatchforum past!
The nonsense about recovering fat has already been dealt with by Mattogno via a translation from Porter.
The Recovery of Human Fat in the Cremation Pits

One of Jansson’s main preoccupations is (or used to be) the burial space at the Aktion Reinhard(t) camps Bełżec, Sobibór and Treblinka, which is addressed in Chapter 7 of the critique of Mattogno, Graf and Kues and in the blogs Belzec Mass Graves and Archaeology: My Response to Carlo Mattogno (4,1) and Mattogno, Graf & Kues on the Aktion Reinhard(t) Mass Graves (3).

All refuted in the final two chapters of "The Extermination Camps of Aktion Reinhardt" by Mattogno, Graf and Kues, as well as Mattogno's essay "Belzec or the Holocaust Controversy of Roberto Muehlenkamp." Many of the arguments in that essay, he had to quote in TECOAR due to Muehlenkamp's dodging and twisting of arguments.

In May 2014 Jansson published part 12 of a series presenting mass graves in which corpses or carcasses were buried over larger areas and/or in smaller concentrations (number of corpses per cubic meter) than in the AR camps, as if that were an argument against the mathematically demonstrated possibility of burying in the relatively small areas of these camps the murdered deportees for whose fate "Revisionists" haven’t managed, more than 70 years after the events, to provide a remotely plausible let alone evidence-backed alternative explanation (any "Revisionist" disputing this is kindly invited to take my Challenge to Supporters of the Revisionist Transit Camp Theory).

Challenge already answered long ago.

J. Graf and the illogical canard: 'Where did Jews go then?'
Treblinka and railway gauge.

I suggest that Mr. Jansson have a conversation with his fellow "Revisionist" David Cole about the former Paris cemetery known as the Cimetière des Saints-Innocents.

Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp at 8:05 pm

Cole was already spanked on the issue of that cemetary here.
fountainhead @ David Cole on Treblinka

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1022
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Again!

Postby Werd » 2 years 5 months ago (Mon Jan 04, 2016 3:26 pm)

http://www.deathcamps.org/editorial2013.html
ARC EDITORIAL
APRIL 2013

Holocaust Revisionism and Controversial Hate Blogs

Many people may have read the recent article on the Holocaust Denial website Olodogma by Jurgen Graf, Thomas Kues and Carlo Mattogno in their partial response to the Holocaust Controversies group who produced a paper attacking them in December 2011.

We will not name the individuals concerned, they do not need any publicity from us.

As this website, www.deathcamps.org was mentioned in their partial response, we feel it is only right they we put the record straight in this editorial edition.

When we started developing the Aktion Reinhard Camps website in 2002 we thought it would be a robust bastion against Holocaust Denial and we hope it will always be so. The website in three short years was a pioneering and much-loved body of work, thanks to the original members of good faith and standing, and disregarding those contributors of ill-repute (i.e. Michael Peters), who played a major role in this website being vandalized and counterfeited back in 2006.

So that said, imagine the irony to find that our website has been quoted by a leading Holocaust Denier in their counter-attack on the Holocaust Controversies group. Mattogno also makes the claims that we abhor the Holocaust Controversies group because they use foul language and we shy away from debating the Holocaust because we are frightened of opening up a Pandora's box that we couldn’t defend. He isn’t quite right on either counts.

First of all we are not frightened of debate with Holocaust Deniers, if they could convince us that it is a debate worth dedicating our time to. We are light-years apart on how we perceive the Holocaust. Our view is that the Holocaust happened, there is no controversy, and there is simply too much robust evidence which renders any such debate as completely meaningless. The website is a clear statement of our beliefs and we are proud to stand up and be counted as those who believe in the Holocaust and we honour those who were victims of the evil designs of the Nazis.

If any Holocaust Denier thinks they can rise to this challenge, they can write to me at [email protected] holocaustresearchproject.org. - My secretary will pass it on to me. We can guarantee that whilst we might not agree, we will strive to be polite, and respectful of free speech, and happy to debate, if the merits are proven.

In respect of the Holocaust Controversies group, it is true in their blogs they use foul language, but to be frank this is one of their lesser shortcomings, they cannot help this, and like awkward teenagers (although they are middle-aged men), maybe it is something they will grow out of.

We have an understandable dislike of this rather odious group, because of what their members have done, not what they say. They were responsible for producing countless fakes and forgeries, which they tried to implant on the www.deathcamps.org website. They did this over a number of years, long before they applied for membership to our team, courtesy of Michael Peters, and later during their probationary membership period. Even going so far as to mastermind a devious approach of mixing fakes and forgeries with genuine items, in a way that would be difficult to detect.

We managed to identify and contain the vast majority of these fakes and forgeries, like the forged Feix photograph from the website, sadly one or two of the higher quality fakes slipped through the net. We have removed false ID cards of Sobibor and Treblinka personnel and the fake Munzberger statement about Treblinka.It is our intention to fully re-build this website, following the shameful vandalism in 2006, but that has, and will continue to take some time.

The Holocaust Controversies purveyors of poison spin some story on their blog, but they conveniently leave out the part they played in the demise of ARC. Some researchers and historians they are?

They would appear to be tellers of half-truths and lies they seem to be masters at spreading hate and are not fit to represent anyone. They boasted about their exploits on RODOH, another hate-filled website, but they ensured that crashed into the ether when it became too incriminating for them. They have spread their poison far beyond their own blog, and can never be trusted by serious historians and researchers on the Holocaust.

Approach them with caution, if you must approach them at all.

Many will ask the obvious question, how can anti-Revisionists attack Holocaust Memorial websites like ARC, and the Holocaust Education and Research Team (H.E.A.R.T.) without betraying themselves?

Whose side are they really on?

Certainly not the side of truth.


A Holocaust Memorial website has been used to discredit Holocaust Controversies, are we concerned? Saddened maybe, not concerned. To be honest they brought it all on themselves, and they deserve all the suffering that is linked with their despicable behaviour. We would hope Holocaust Controversies would not link our ARC pages to any articles they cut and paste together in the future, but they are hardly the standard bearers of good behaviour.

In conclusion, regarding the Holocaust Controversies blog, the revisionists sadly have gotten it right.

The Action Reinhard Camps Trustees

Read part 2 here

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1022
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Again!

Postby Werd » 2 years 5 months ago (Mon Jan 04, 2016 3:28 pm)

ARC EDITORIAL
October 2013
Holocaust Revisionism and Controversial Hate Blogs (part 2)
ARC Editorial

Dear Readers,

It is always nice not to be regarded as common fools, and for this we must thank Carlo Mattogno, the Holocaust Denier for recognising it, in his latest work.

We obviously do not agree that we are intellectually dishonest as he and other revisionists portray. It's simply that we believe in the Holocaust narrative as generally accepted by the mainstream historical community, and given that we maintain multiple Holocaust Memorial websites; we also understand we are uncomfortable to him and those like him.

So be it. We make no apologies for doing what we do.

Aktion Reinhard(t), the mass murder programme of Jews during 1942 -1943 happened. There is no controversy, it is an established fact.

Nothing to debate here, and people should come to terms with that.

Some people spend their lives engaged in pointless debate with Holocaust Deniers like Mattogno, Graf, Kues and others. What they do is up to them. We don’t engage in this past-time, and we never have.

Regarding the Holocaust Controversies bloggers, we turned down the request by Sergey Romanov in 2006, when he was a novice associate in the second-term ARC group, to create such a controversial debate forum on our website. We thought it was a dumb idea then, years later it is still a dumb idea.

So, we want people to be clear, debating the Holocaust is not for us, we let our work speak for itself. We don’t deny anyone the opportunity to debate, if they so wish. We just have better things to do with our time. The Holocaust isn’t a game, scoring points, playing to a gallery. We don’t participate, not out of fear, as Mattogno claims, but rather out of respect for historical facts. There is enough evidence to support the Holocaust, in all its forms, photographic, documentation and testimonies under oath.

There is no controversy - the Holocaust unfortunately happened, and we are proud, that we portray it honestly and with respect for the terrible events that took place between 1933-1945.

Carlo Mattogno is partly correct as to why we hold Holocaust Controversies members in such contempt. That they use foul and abusive language does show their lack of personal development and discipline, we agree with Mattogno there. But he is way off the mark as the comments below will show:

That Nick Terry, Sergey Romanov, Roberto Muehlenkamp and Mike Peters were all expelled from ARC seven years ago, is a proven fact. That our demise, which is a tad premature, as we clearly haven't gone anywhere, yet is still proclaimed on their blog as a HOT TOPIC! This show us clearly nothing much has been happening in the HC world for the past seven years, and we find that quite amusing.

The Holocaust Controversies bloggers were expelled for a number of reasons, we had some suspicions they had produced a number of high quality fakes and forgeries, and other than this, they had contributed little or nothing, to the website. These forgeries were later uncovered and their origins confirmed by technology experts and the suspects were confronted with their actions.

That one of their members has since apologised and said how he bitterly regrets his actions, is enough for us. At least he showed some character, until that time it was deemed that they fell short of the qualities needed to be members of ARC.

The HC group were seen by many as a cancer that needed to be cut out, before it became terminal, and we took appropriate actions to remove them which in turn lead to retribution from HC in the form of this website being vandalized and its content destroyed.

It took several months of hard work recreating ARC, days spent weeding through thousands of articles and photos to ensure that all the tainted material supplied by Sergey Romanov and fraudulently planted by Michael Peters were identified and expunged, and all references to HC removed.

They later went on to launch a counterfeit version of ARC in violation of international Copyright law. This was later removed through legal action.

We are content that the odious HC gang were run out of town in October 2006, with their tails between their legs. But they are an odd collection of misfits. They quote from our Holocaust Memorial websites one minute, then attack and slander us the next. They seem odd and confused, not knowing whether they are Holocaust believers or champions of Holocaust Denial.

That we were able to restore the ARC website, once it had been vandalized, was pleasing, that it had to be archived was a shame, but at least it is still available. So Carlo Mattogno you are wrong, we don’t despise them for what they did, we pity them.

ARC Trustees


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests