Mark Turley on the Hoess 'confession' & legal precedent

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 387
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 3:41 am

Mark Turley on the Hoess 'confession' & legal precedent

Postby Goethe » 1 decade 2 years ago (Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:28 pm)

I've quoted Mark Turley's summary of the false Hoess "confessions" and their implications. I admire the way Mark takes care of business in exposing the hollow nucleus of The Big Lie.

I also suggest everyone read Mark's overview of the "Holocaust" and the revisionist success in laying it to waste.

Bernard Clarke, the Jewish interrogator who led the squad responsible for obtaining Hoess' confession, for example, admitted twenty years later in 'Legions of Death' (Hamlyn Paperbacks) a book by British historian Rupert Butler, that Hoess' testimony stating that 2.5 million Jews had been gassed at Auschwitz and a further 500,000 had died of natural causes while under his command had taken three days of torture and death threats made against his children to obtain. For years and years Hoess' declaration was the bedrock of the extermination claim, its descriptions of the gassing process repeated ad infinitum, including the famous line 'we knew when to open the doors because the screaming stopped'. To further discredit it, it has emerged that the original document was actually written in English, a language Hoess didn't read, speak or understand. Not only was he beaten senseless and fearful for the lives of his family, he didn't even know what he was signing. The mere fact that this was done should arouse suspicion in most critical thinkers. If you have to resort to coercion, torture and death threats to prove that something happened, it surely suggests that you don't have real proof.

What is more, due to the principal of legal precedent, once Hoess and other leading Nazis had been forced to confess, it established the gas chamber story as 'fact' in the eyes of the court, meaning that subsequent defendants at Nuremburg could not dispute it. The only option available to a Nazi on trial who had any interest in avoiding the death penalty was to admit that the gas chamber / genocide story was true, but that they, personally, had nothing to do with it. It is unsurprising that in such circumstances this is what virtually all of them said.
"The coward threatens when he is safe".
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:50 pm

Postby theTRUTH » 1 decade 2 years ago (Wed Mar 05, 2008 4:52 pm)

They'll rationalize that torture was necessary to extract the true story, but almost everyone knows torture can persuade an innocent to admit guilt. However they cannot explain that the confession was written and signed in a language Hoess did not read or understand.
"Israel must invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the methods of provocation..." Moshe Sharett, Israeli's Foreign Minister ('48-'54), & Prime Minister ('54-'56).

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2463
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 2 years ago (Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:10 am)

It's a good article.

I was going to criticize Turley for not crediting Faurisson regarding Hoess from 1986:

But now I see that the context is that he's mentioning what the revisionists believe, and thus crediting isn't really the thing. He's talking about what revisionists believe so he doesn't need to name the individuals.

It's neat to see someone discovering all this stuff for themselves and writing about it.

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests