Hebden wrote:We're hoping to see if any poster can come up with a counter-explanation of the Riga messages quite as bizarre as yours.
We'll send a copy of the thread to Mr. Faurisson and see if he can put his thinking cap on.
Is Mr. Hebden referring to the tape recordings, which Irving is touting around since years now as proof for mass executions of Jews by the Germans?
Rudolf paraphrased in:
Wie Lämmer zur Schlachtbank (Like lambs to the slaughter)
As proof Irving lists a taped protocol which the British allegedly recorded on an audio tape. On this tape is allegedly recorded a talk among German POW's in a British prison. One of them is Generalmajor Walter Bruns, who was until his discharge in January 1945 employed with the Heereswaffenmeisterschule I in Berlin. Although he was in no way urged by his co-prisoners, Bruns proved to be rather talkative about an alleged crime which he allegedly personally witnessed.
Rudolf does not go into the source critical problems which such an alleged recording, prepared by a hostile power of a conversation between persons who allegedly don't know anything about being recorded, represents.
(For the recording see: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/Bruns/index.html
on Irving's site.)
Rudolf tries to picture:
"Thousands of women with small children are neatly standing in a 1500 yard long line. 600 yards before the forest they have to surrender their personal belongings, 500 yards before the forest they have to undress completely and then walk gradually towards the forest, which may have taken hours. After arriving at the forest they come to the pit where they have to lie down neatly and then are shot into the back of the neck with machine pistols.
A shot in the neck is done with a pistol, not a rifle or a machine pistol. Machine pistols were rather rare with the German army and is for this purpose not well suited, and they waste a lot of ammunition.
Six machine pistols clatter without interruption, thousands of victims standing in line, and notice only what is going on after arriving at the mass grave? And there is no panic among the victims standing in line to await their turn? There are no screams as a result of the shooting which would cause a panic among the thousands of waiting victims?
On the contrary, they stand nicely in a disciplined line and walk slowly forward, ignoring the screaming, the shooting, the corpses, pieces of flesh, attempts by some to flee, and the horrible smell of blood and decay.
It is therefore impossible, that Bruns really witnessed what he reported, because such a behavior of the victims before a mass execution is completely absurd and unthinkable.
Rudolf thinks that he can explain why Bruns, who was in a British POW camp, made such a statement (if he really did). He probably knew, that his conversation with other POW's was overheard, and it was his task to get similar statements from his co-prisoners.
Another indication for this is his behavior before the IMT. He attempted to distance himself from this recorded statement and maintained, that he did not see this himself, but was told by third persons, who either must have lied themselves, or Bruns must have completely misunderstood.
Rudolf cannot understand how an intelligent and critical man like the British historian David Irving can take such nonsense serious."
And Faurisson from the thread "Faurisson on Revisionism in 2004":
"Britain no longer has any revisionists, and certainly none in David Irving who, in recent years, has more or less rallied to Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s theory according to
which the Germans have a natural propensity for evil, which would explain
their responsibility in the so-called “Hitlerite crimes” (see Adelaide Institute
Online, December 1996, p. 17). During his lawsuit against Deborah Lipstadt he
did not wish to call on revisionists for help, and that cost him dearly: with
a rather weak grasp of the subject, he lost his footing; he made manifold
concessions; to give yet another pledge of good faith to his adversary, he
invoked, as usual, the “Bruns document”, a text devoid of the slightest testimonial
value; physically robust, D. Irving gave the display of a fragile man."