Roberto is at it again. Claiming there was never any tampering with Goebbels' diaries. Which is not the case. If anyone bothered to check at a bare minimum these two threads I linked to earlier,
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4685http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=3793they would see that some entries are problematic. Namely, the ones that allegedly point to a Jewish holocaust.
Let's look at 11943. What is the German that Muehlenkamp provides for us?
Aus dem Generalgouvernement werden jetzt, bei Lublin beginnend, die Juden nach dem Osten abgeschoben. Es wird hier ein barbarisches, nicht mehr zu beschreibendes Verfahren angewandt, und von den Juden selbst bleibt nicht mehr viel übrig. Im großen und ganzen wird man wohl feststellen, daß 60% davon liquidiert werden müssen, während nur noch 40% in die Arbeit eingesetzt werden können. Der ehemalige Gauleiter von Wien (Globocnik), der diese Aktion durchführt, tut das mit ziemlicher Umsicht und auch mit einem Verfahren, das nicht zu auffällig wirkt. An den Juden wird ein Strafgericht vollzogen, das zwar barbarisch ist, das sie aber vollauf verdient haben. Die Prophezeiung, die der Führer ihnen für die Herbeiführung eines neuen Weltkrieges mit auf den Weg gegeben hat, beginnt sich in der fürchterlichsten Weise zu verwirklichen, man darf in diesen Dingen keine Sentimentalitäten obwalten lassen. Die Juden würden, wenn wir uns ihrer nicht erwehren würden, uns vernichten. Es ist ein Kampf auf Leben und Tod zwischen der arischen Rasse und dem jüdischen Bazillus. Keine andere Regierung, kein anderes Regime könnte die Kraft aufbringen, diese Frage generell zu lösen. Auch hier ist der Führer der unentwegte Vorkämpfer und Wortführer einer radikalen Lösung, die nach Lage der Dinge geboten ist und deshalb unausweichlich erscheint. Gottseidank haben wir jetzt während des Krieges eine ganze Reihe von Möglichkeiten, die uns im Frieden verwehrt wären. Die müssen wir ausnutzen. Die in den Städten des Generalgouvernements freiwerdenden Ghettos werden jetzt mit den aus dem Reich abgeschobenen Juden gefüllt, und hier sollte sich dann, nach einer gewissen Zeit, der Prozeß erneuern. Das Judentum hat nichts zu lachen.
And what is the English that he provides us?
The Jews are now being pushed out of the General Government, beginning near Lublin, to the East. A pretty barbaric procedure is being applied here, and it is not to be described in any more detail, and not much is left of the Jews themselves. In general one may conclude that 60% of them must be liquidated, while only 40% can be put to work. The former Gauleiter of Vienna [Globocnik], who is carrying out this action, is doing it pretty prudently and with a procedure that doesn't work too conspicuously. The Jews are being punished barbarically, to be sure, but they have fully deserved it. The prophesy that the Fuhrer issued to them on the way, for the eventuality that they started a new world war, is beginning to realise itself in the most terrible manner. One must not allow any sentimentalities to rule in these matters. If we did not defend ourselves against them, the Jews would annihilate us. It is a struggle for life and death between the Aryan race and the Jewish bacillus. No other government and no other regime could muster the strength for a general solution of the question. Here too, the Fuhrer is the persistent pioneer and spokesman of a radical solution, which is demanded by the way things are and thus appears to be unavoidable. Thank God, during the war we now have a whole series of possibilities which were barred to us in peacetime. We must exploit them. The ghettos which are becoming available in the General Government are now being filled with the Jews who are being pushed out of the Reich, and after a certain time the process is then to renew itself here. Jewry has nothing to laugh about...
And where does he get both from? Right here.
http://br.groups.yahoo.com/group/Holoca ... essage/838Now keep in mind the yahoo German.
Aus dem Generalgouvernement werden jetzt, bei Lublin beginnend, die Juden nach dem Osten abgeschoben. Es wird hier ein barbarisches, nicht mehr zu beschreibendes Verfahren angewandt, und von den Juden selbst bleibt nicht mehr viel übrig. Im großen und ganzen wird man wohl feststellen, daß 60% davon liquidiert werden müssen, während nur noch 40% in die Arbeit eingesetzt werden können. Der ehemalige Gauleiter von Wien (Globocnik), der diese Aktion durchführt, tut das mit ziemlicher Umsicht und auch mit einem Verfahren, das nicht zu auffällig wirkt.
And the German another poster gave earlier in this topic by user ASMarques.
Aus dem Generalgouvernement werden jetzt, bei Lublin beginnend, die Juden nach dem Osten abgeschoben. Es wird hier ein ziemlich barbarisches und nicht näher zu beschreibendes Verfahren angewandt, und von den Juden selbst bleibt nicht mehr viel übrig. Im großen kann man davon feststellen, daß 60 Prozent davon liquidiert werden müssen, während nur 40 Prozent bei der Arbeit eingesetzt werden können. Der ehemalige Gauleiter von Wien, der diese Aktion durchführt, tut das mit ziemlicher Umsicht und auch mit einem Verfahren, das nicht allzu auffällig wirkt.
Notice the difference. But let's keep our eyes on the third sentence since that is key and talks about liquidation.
The yahoo English is as follows:
In general one may conclude that 60% of them must be liquidated, while only 40% can be put to work. Here is what Roberto says:
The term "will have to be liquidated" ("liquidiert werden müssen") refers to an active progress of something done to the Jews, not to something that will incidentally happen to them in the course of "ethnic cleansing" (which would also hardly have been referred to by Goebbels as a "pretty barbaric procedure" that was "not to be described in any more detail" let alone as a the Führer’s "prophecy" coming true "in the most terrible manner", by the way). If he had written something like "will have to be written off" ("abgeschrieben werden müssen"), you might be able to argue that he was referring to passive mortality rather than active killing. He is right. The term liquidiert werden müssen does appear. Not only in the yahoo German but also in ASMarques' German. Roberto says it means will have to be liquidated. However, earlier ASMarques disputed that and this dispuates Roberto's German. A refresher from ASM.
Now compare. The worst mistranslation concerns the words "davon" and "müssen," because "davon liquidiert werden müssen" does not mean "we must kill them." It means "they are almost certain to get liquidated from... (what has gone before), i.e. to be dead and gone due to... (what has gone before)." If you were writing the same in English, in your own diary, the equivalent would be something like "60% of them are likely to be goners (from the deportation)."Now what does google translation say:
davon liquidiert werden müssen turns into need to be liquidated
liquidiert werden müssen turns into have to be liquidated.
So Roberto would seem to be more correct about the German than ASMarques. However, that is not the final hurtle while Roberto is pretending it is. How do we know that entry is really his? Because of what he said in 1946 as seen below? Hardly. That would be an incredibly low standard. How about some sort of textual analysis. Handwritten or typewriter analysis. Searching to see if key phrases, footers, openings, any kind of styles are used despite changes between handwriting and typing. Especially since a poster below, was quoted as saying basically, 'oh how convenient is it that all these nasty Goebbels diary entries extermatination theorists like to talk about don't come from a handwritten source,' And I think that's something that must be taken into consideration.
Let's also take a refresher from
here. The topic, which I gave out earlier before I bumped this topic back up, is called, The Goebbels diary: a forgery?
1941: July
Goebbels began dictating his diaries to secretary Dr Richard Otte.
Question: Is it not possible that there is a hoax, and that Goebbels never ceased writing his own diaries? Arthur Butz, Hoax of the Twentieth Century, has expressed doubt as to whether the story of how Otte transcribed the diary is true. See
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/thottc/10.html1942 >
'While going through the Goebbels diaries [Irving] found that from about 1942 on Goebbels repeatedly said things like "We have crimes on our book. We can't go back. We can only go forward."' - Frank Miele.
http://www.skeptic.com/02.4.miele-holocaust.html#fireComment: No sooner does Goebbels stop handwriting his own diaries than they begin including passages in which G. betrays consciousness of being a 'criminal' - which is precisely the way the Allies were determined to depict him! How very obliging Herr Goebbels was!
1942: March 27
Goebbels diary entry (typewritten)
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Goebbels/Tgb_27034 ... 2a_600.jpg
Yes. Very interesting. That's just part of it. That very date is the same one concerning this entry I'm talking about now. And it's not handwritten. That whole damn topic is a good read. We later come to
another entry in that same topic that is a quote from Stäglich's book The Auschwitz Trial. A Judge looks at the evidence. He denies the authenticity of that passage. So it seems that while Roberto is getting hung up on the German, he takes that entry for granted. An entry that probably wasn't even willingly written or dictated by Goebbels. This was the point I made based off of what driansmith revealed about how the "Goebbels diaries" changed format. Not only that but I have within those two topics the work of Grubach, Weckart and Rudolf to back me and the rest of codoh up on our skepticism. In other words, after Roberto's tirdade, which was written without him bothering to read my old post I made before I bumped the topic (which contained those two old codoh topics as I said), we see that we are back to square one. In other words he repeats his same old tired arguments without looking at old, still un-refuted evidence that we have to date. Roberto can try and claim victory on the German all he wants, but that's not proof enough it came from Goebbels I'm afraid. That's the very issue at hand that he seems to sidestep. Well he sort of deals with it. When RalphGordon started asking questions, Roberto responded with a pathetic, fallacious, argument from ignorance.
ralphgordon wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely you are not suggesting that Goebbels is actually saying that most Jews will have to be "liquidated", in terms of an intentionial extermination program?
Roberto:
Why not? Your heroes were sometimes quite explicit in correspondence they sent to each other within the scope of the program's organization and execution, and Goebbels was not even writing for anybody else. He was writing for his own private diary.
ralphgordon wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is surely absurd that Goebbels would put that in his diary, because if there was an actual extermination program, Goebbels would not have wanted it known by future generations, who would read his diary.
Roberto:
Why not? Apart from the chances of "future generations" reading his diary being remote, future generations in the event of German victory could be expected to understand the great service that the Nazi government had done to Germany in wiping out the Jews. Your argument is rather puerile, but that’s also no surprise.
In other words, "if you can't prove a negative, being my question WHY NOT?, then that alone proves my positive assertion that he wrote everything attributed to him. Textual analysis by the likes of Weckart, Rudolf, Grubach and poster drainsmith be damned." Good one Roberto.

In his post of Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:09 am, Drew J spins silly
conjectures about Goebbels' diaries not being authentic. The only "indication" he can offer is that in a certain diary entry I mentioned (which was brought to my attention by Drew J's fellow believer "Thomas Dalton" via a lower-ranking rambler who calls himself Ralph Gordon, see my RODOH post 11943) Goebbels shows no compunction to write about death and executions, as I pointed out. For Drew J this suggests that Goebbels' diaries are not authentic. Why Goebbels should not have called things by their proper names in his own private diary entry - a document not meant for public disclosure - Drew J doesn't explain, instead turning to imbecilic "Robert knows deep down inside but will never admit it" - accusations and babbling that "There seems to be no good reason to think those are authentic Goebbels diaries.".
Um, clearly, the older stuff I posted in the last post I made in this current topic I'm typing in now before I bumped it, which lead to those two older codoh topics had more than enough reason to cast doubt on whether or not Goebbels actually wrote that stuff attributed to him that claim a final solution plan of execution. That's the very issue at hand. Of course you ignore it. Not that I'm surprised you'd do that Roberto since you can't handle people challenging your foundational beliefs that you so desperately demand we take for granted.
That the diary entries fit the historical context in which they were written in a manner suggesting contemporary insider knowledge (for instance, the diary entry of 27.03.1942 was written ten days after the start of deportations from Lublin to Belzec extermination camp and mentions the head of Aktion Reinhard(t), Odilo Globocnik, as "the former Gauleiter of Vienna"), that they were never used for propaganda purposes (one doesn't make forgeries to keep them in the drawer) but gradually became known as historians analyzed them and realized their significance, that neither historians nor criminal justice authorities referring to these diary entries (the entry of 27 March 1942 is mentioned, for instance, in the judgment at the Sobibor trial in Hagen in 1966) have found any reason to doubt the authenticity of these diaries (that includes erstwhile "Revisionist" favorite David Irving, who pointed out that he had personally been in Moscow and examined the originals of the diaries), plus his own inability to point out indications of forgery (Goebbels' having written about deaths and executions is none) - all this is no "good reason" for Drew J to "think those are authentic Goebbels diaries". His lack of arguments makes his forgery claims look increasingly desperate.
Yeah as if that Hagen trial is worthy of believing. Second of all, claiming David Irving admits them to be real does you no good Roberto beacuse you are sidestepping what was in those two old codoh topics I brought up. Not surprising. As I said you not only recycle your bottles, you also recycle the same old refuted, and dealt with arguments.
What is especially funny is that, while on the one hand "Revisionists" like "Dalton" and Gordon are pathetically trying to explain away the incriminating content of Goebbels' diaries, including but not limited to the one of 27 March 1942, other followers of the "Revisionist" creed such as Drew J are yelling "forgery" and thereby confirming that they consider Goebbels diary entries to have incriminating contents incompatible with their articles of faith. For if they didn't consider these diary entries to have incriminating contents, why would they be claiming that they are not authentic? A discussion between the two schools of "Revisionist" nonsense ("Dalton"/Gordon vs. Drew J/Heink) should be most amusing to watch.
I too have noticed that people disagree on the German. So what? This just proves that revisionism is a diverse field and we're not all of one mind as you like to paint us out to be.
The one good thing about Drew J is that he still seems to disagree with the cowardly disfigurement of links to the RODOH forum, which like other CODOH practices speaks volumes about the hypocrisy of their claim to "open debate". Drew J wrote:
Sorry but I have not reproduced hyperlinks here as codoh will not allow rodoh links to go unsubstituted with the old 'aliceinwonderland' thing.
I wonder long will it take for Drew J to also swallow this "thing" and fully tow the party line.
Hmmm. Why don't you take this post of mine, and the posts of mine where I showed people how to circumvent that aliceinwonderland trick, and read them again, I MEAN REALLY READ THEM, and then mull on it, I MEAN REALLY MEDITATE ON IT, and then decide if someone who shows how to circumvent something really agrees with it? God, are you really that thick?

Now, Roberto talks about Hoess.
Drew J's obsession with this writer furthermore shows in his post of Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:09 am, where he writes the following:
Let's talk about how Hoess was tortured and how other nazis were tortured to say things to fit the propaganda. I went over this many times with Roberto Muehlenkamp, but he refuses to acknowledge reality. He eventually budged but said Hoess wasn't tortured. Just MISHANDLED. Can you believe that?
Drew J's claim that he "went over this" with me is funny insofar as the discussion took place on two different forums (me writing on the RODOH forum, where Drew J wouldn't show up, he writing on the CODOH forum where I was not allowed to write). The "budged" crap shows Drew J's eagerness to convince himself that he gained the upper hand (he must be so desperate to have an experience of success that he claims them in the absence of any). As to the "tortured" vs. "mishandled" thing, I'd call that a false dilemma as it doesn't matter which of the two terms one uses for the treatment that Hoess received at the hand of his British captors,
Actually it does matter, because one is more euphemistic and tries to hide the reality. It tries to soften the blow of what really happened. Torture implies intent. Mishandled sounds like an accident. Big difference Roberto. Nice try but no cigar.
which Hoess himself described as follows in the memoirs he later wrote in Polish captivity (from the translation by Constantine FitzGibbon published by Phoenix Press under the title "Commandant of Auschwitz", pages 173f.):
I was arrested on 11 March, 1946.
My phial of poison had been broken two days before.
When I was aroused from sleep, I thought at first I was being attacked by robbers, for many robberies were taking place at that time. That was how they managed to arrest me. I was maltreated by the Field Security Police.
I was taken to Heide where I was put in those very barracks from which I had been released by the British eight months earlier.
At my first interrogation, evidence was obtained by beating me. I do not know what is in the record, although I signed it. Alcohol and the whip were too much for me. The whip was my own, which by chance had got into my wife’s luggage. It had hardly ever touched my horse, far less the prisoners. Nevertheless, one of my interrogators was convinced that I had perpetually used it for flogging the prisoners.
After some days I was taken to Minden-on-the-Weser, the main interrogation center in the British Zone. There I received further rough treatment at the hands of the English public prosecutor, a major.
What matters, as I remember having pointed out to Drew J as we "went over this", was that Hoess stated nothing under the influence of this mishandling or torture (whichever term is Drew J's preference)
Now pretending he doesn't know which term I prefer even though I explicitly said that he was tortured and that mishandled was a bullshit trick. Very cute.

that he didn't state, even in more detail, on later occasions when he was far removed from the influence of physical violence, namely in his testimony for the defence of Kaltenbrunner before the IMT and in his writings in Polish captivity, including his notes under the title The Final Solution of the Jewish Question in Auschwitz.
And what day did this testimony happen? Monday, 15 April 1946. So in other words, Hoess's words here in 1946 were in no way influenced by any tortures or threats he may have received earlier. Well that's bullshit obviously. Let's just look again at what I exposed Hoess went through. What I have, as I have already shown, and as Roberto seems to deny, BEEN OVER THIS.
viewtopic.php?p=39164#p39164Stuff from page six.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 2&start=75
by xcalibur on 08 Aug 2003, 10:57
It seems apparent that Hoess' testimony was to one degree or another coerced (and by that standard alone should never have been allowed to be entered into evidence in any trial against any defendant). We have spoken here of his possible motivation or "agenda" for making the statements he did and the suggestion that he made them truthfully because he knew that he faced the noose has been suggested. On the other hand, we also have the fact that Hoess had been told repeatedly that his family faced deportation to the Russians should he not be compliant. Coercion enough. This in and of itself should have been enough (using the legal standards of the day) to impugn his testimony regardless of its veracity.
Having said that, legalities are one thing and truth is another. Was he a complete liar? I think not. His part in the brutalisation of prisoners and killings at Auschwitz are indeed very hard to ignore. His testimony before the IMT, his sworn statements, etc. all seem oddly weighted to proving that there was no ill treatment of prisoners (as though this was where he felt his main guilt lay), and yet he then goes on very dispassionately about gassing transports. In short, he seems to deny vehemently the smaller crimes and can't wait to talk volubly about and confess to the larger one.
Now we're on page seven.
by demonio on 09 Aug 2003, 02:20
To suggest that the Hoess memoirs are written under duress and false is absurd.
Yes he was in custody
Yes he copped several beatings mainly from the British
Yes he was more like an exotic pet on show whilst in custody.
An interogation is an interogation.
Memoirs are memoirs
His timeline at the back of the book does reconcile with an acceptable amount of victims. ie A total of 1.5 to 2.5 million destroyed in the camp by various means.
If it said 4 million, then i would think that its rubbish. Or the Russians got him
Another thing worth mentioning is that his tone comes across as sincere and from the heart.
Also there are many footnotes throughout the text where the press trys to sanitise his ideals and demonise him. Why do they do it ? Because they want you to believe that this man is incapable of human love. But why you ask ? Because the book is written from the heart and goes a long way to humanise a monster. Hoess life is full of ironies.
This monster was one of us and supposed to become a priest.(disiplined ?)
He had murdered already murdered someone in his youth (lack of disipline ?)
He also loved animals and was a family man (but ok to shove other families in the gas)
He would take his children to swim in the Sola river (the same river they disposed of the ashes in).
I am starting another thread inviting professional psychiatrists to analyse Hoess memoirs and provide their professional opinion on the state of mind of the writer. Such a person could easily spot if the book was written under duress.
by michael mills on 09 Aug 2003, 02:46
Demonio, like many others, is failing to distinguish between Hoess's autobiography, written early in 1947 after the completion of his pre-trial investigation, while he was waiting for the trial to start, and the statements he made late in 1946 as part of the pre-trial investigation, which are attached to the published memoirs as appendices.
The autobiography was produced by Hoess pretty much in isolation, but the appendices are statements produced by a process of interrogation, with all that implies in the way of "guidance".
With the autobiography, Hoess was basically left to his own devices, but he did take up many of the things he had said in his pre-trial statements and try to put a spin on them that put him in the best possible light, eg the Gypsies, without actually repudiating them in toto.
The difficulty with both the autobiography and the pre-trial statements is eliminating the distortions and falsehoods, both those that are self-serving and those arising from a need to comply with his interrogators pre-conceptions, so as to arrive at the data that is trustworthy.
One of the least reliable part of Hoess's writings, both from the point of view of self-exculpation and complying with his interrogators' pre-conceptions, is everything he said about Eichmann.
Not only that but there was also what Austin App revealed in his book THE SIX MILLION SWINDLE. In the topic BELIEVER TACTICS, I gave many resources to how Hoess was tortured.
Now let's take this all in. Torture occured. It was admitted by the Jew named Clarke AS I HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED AND ROBERTO HAS READ BUT OBVIOUSLY IGNORED. Hoess and his family was threatened with deportation to the Soviets if he didn't comply. Hmmm. That kind of reminds me of what they did to other nazis such as this one that App talked about.
Page 25-26
Quote:
How Affidavits were Extorted and Perjury Encouraged
Affidavits, like those to which Time refers, are unreliable, often outright frauds, like the figure of six million itself. With a few heroic exceptions, all affidavits by Jews are in part or whole perjured, often well rewarded, and altogether unreliable. Affidavits from Germans, including from former Nazis, were rather customarily obtained by threatening the witness with hanging if he did not incriminate his superior sufficiently for hanging.
After Simon Wiesenthal, one of the best known prosecutors and persecutors of Germans is Dr. Robert Kempner, who seems to exploit dual American and German citizenship...After the war, he turned up as a prosecutor of Germans at Nuremburg, a particularly unscrupulous one, who is still at it. His nasty method of extorting incriminating affidavits against the more important Nazi leaders is illustrated in the case of Dr. Friedrich Gaus, many years a minor official in the German foreign office. Dr. Kempner wanted him to testify falsely in order to get his superior Ribbentrop hanged. When Gaus complained that he could not honestly to testify, Kempner replied:
The Russians are very interested in you, Mr. Gaus! For your violation of International Agreements! The only way for you to save your head, is that you tell the truth. Or do you wish as the right hand of Ribbentrop to go to the gallows? You know the old German saying, 'Captured with him, hanged with him!' Who were after Ribbentrop, the most guilty in the Foreign Office. Just say it; it serves no purpose, to spare these people.
Whereupon the terrified Gaus incriminated Ribbentrop as Kempner wished; - and thereby secured immunity! He was immediatly released from solitary arrest and moved to the witness portion of the Nuremburg court. (See: "U.S. Anklaeger Kempner schwer belasted." Deutsche Wochenzeitung Fed. 23, 1973).
Threats and blackmail. Documented right there. Let's read further from Roberto.
In the latter he even told his captors where they could stick their 4 million figure for the death toll of Auschwitz-Birkenau. From the translation in "Commandant of Auschwitz", pages 193 and following (emphasis added):
I myself never knew the total number and I have nothing to help me make an estimate of it.
I can only remember the figure involved in the larger actions, which were repeated to me by Eichmann or his deputies.
From Upper Silesia and Polish territory under German rule … 250,000
Germany and Theresienstadt … 100,000
Holland … 95,000
Belgium … 20,000
France … 110,000
Greece … 65,000
Hungary … 400,000
Slovakia … 90,000
I can no longer remember the figures for the smaller actions, but they were insignificant in comparison with the numbers given above.
I regard a total of two and a half millions [stated by Hoess earlier interrogations including his IMT deposition - RM] as far too high. Even Auschwitz had limits to its destructive possibilities.
Figures given by former prisoners are figments of the imagination and lack any foundation.
Those Poles must have been squeezing Hoess's balls like hell for him to write this.
The figures given by Hoess add up to 1,130,000.
The figure estimated by the Soviet investigation in 1945, on the basis of the theoretical capacity of the installations and the depositions of former captives, was 4,000,000. This figure was officially upheld by the Polish government until 1992.
What Hoess was doing here was to directly challenge the reliability of his captors’ other sources, of their and the Soviet investigation commissions and of the eyewitnesses on which these commissions had relied. The latter he attacked in the strongest terms, calling them "figments of the imagination".
Why would the Poles let Hoess get away with this, if they had been bent on dictating his statements?
All I can say is thanks Roberto for doing some work for the revisionists. This just proves the tricky games the Allied powers were up to when they had their hands on him. Clarke knew what was up to say the least. They tortured and threatened him until he said four million at Auschwitz. The Poles get about one million out of him. There goes the six million number. More interestingly, that's the same figure that revisionists came up with years later only to be called holocaust deniers. Yet they got this out of the mouth of the director of the Auschwitz museum Dr. Piper.
But you come back and say, "But he admitted to killing one million instead of four Drew J. He admitted it. He's guilty. You lose."
In Roberto's mind, apparently allied and Soviet threats expire after a couple of years so therefore Hoess was in the clear.

You really don't think they would keep in eye on his trial to make sure that he didn't weasel out of admitting to a holocaust? You really think they wouldn't take him out if he started to completely flip flop?
Page 23-24
Quote:
What About The Hoettl, Hoess, and Eichmann Testimony?
The only evidence that Talmudists and their stooges ever pretend to offer for the six million figure is what Hoettl and Hoess, under threat of their lives, claimed to have heard Eichmann one time say. Dr. Wilhelm Hoettl was a colonel in the security services, not a very high rank, a subordinate of Eichmann's, who himself said, "I was merely a cog in the machinery." Hoettel himself claims to have been a British agent sometime during the war. The London paper Weekend (January 25, 1963) confirms this. It also reveals that when Hoettl gave his affidavit he had been threatened with delivery to the Hungarian Communists. This must be interpreted as a promise of immunity if he gave sufficient damning testimony against his superior, Eichmann, but hanging if he didn't.
According to the British at Flensburg, he declared he had one time heard Eichmann say that four million Jews died in concentration camps and another two million elsewhere as reprisals and so on. He was then rushed to the Nuremburg Trials, where he dutifully repeated his hearsay. But oddly enough, theough the German attorney for the Defense, one Dr. Kaufmann, repeatedly requested that he be called for cross-examination, the Nuremburg lynchers did not dare expose this key evidence to cross-examination. Again, at the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem the legal lynchers were afraid to expose him to cross-examination. And during the same trial Eichmann insisted that Hoettl had twised his casual remark and that he had in fact never named figures to Hoettel because he could not know such figures. (See: Heinrich Haertl, Freispruch fuer Deutschland, Goettingen, 1965, p. 190-01).
Here in lies the truth of the matter. Neither Eichmann nor Hoettl could know the figures. And Hoettl got immunity for what was almost certainly a perjured affidavit. Yet on it rests almost the whole myth of the six million. The only other testimony advanced is that of Rudolf Hess. He was for awhile commander at Auschwitz. Again, threatened with the noose of he did not incriminate his superiors, he testified at Nuremburg that two and a half million Jews died there. Even Gerald Reitlinger accuses Hoess of "perverse magalomania" for this figure. To show how unreliable poor freightened Hoess had been, when he later was delivered to the Poles he reduced the two and one half million to only 1.13 million. The Poles thereupon irately hanged him! Eichmann himself declared:
Since the war I read that 2,500,000 Jews were physically liquidated under Hoess' command. I find this figure incredible. The capacity of the camp argues against it. Many of the Jews confied there were put to work details and survived. After the war the Auschwitzers sprouted like mushrooms out of the forest floor after a rain. Hundreds of thousands of them are today in the best of health."
(See:Life Magazine, November 28, 1960)
...
To show the guess work and the shameful unreliability involved, Time Magazine (June 6 1960) reported Eichmann said, "Five Million Jews"; the Jewish Newsweek, however (June 6 1960), hiked the figure to "six million Jews." That is how Jewish throw a million Jews around - when it serves their blackmail!
Page 25
Quote:
Not Hoettl, Not Hoess, Not Eichmann Could or Did Attest the 6 Million Figure
Essentially, on this off-the-cuff remark of Eichmann's, never properly probed, the whole swindle of the six million rests. Be it noted first that Eichmann said five million, not six; secondly, he referred to "Enemies of the Reich"; not Jews; thirdly, he was at the time talking casually, not professionally, and authoritatively. Furthermore, he said far more officially, "I would like to stress again, however, that my department never gave a single annihilation order. We were responsible only for deportation..." Eichmann ordered no Jews killed, nor anyone else...In short, Eichmann could not in any way know the number of Jewish casualties, and Hoettl and Hoess did not pretend to know but, under extoration to incrinimate Eichmann, attributed conflicting words to him!
Page 25-26
Quote:
How Affidavits were Extorted and Perjury Encouraged
Affidavits, like those to which Time refers, are unreliable, often outright frauds, like the figure of six million itself. With a few heroic exceptions, all affidavits by Jews are in part or whole perjured, often well rewarded, and altogether unreliable. Affidavits from Germans, including from former Nazis, were rather customarily obtained by threatening the witness with hanging if he did not incriminate his superior sufficiently for hanging.
After Simon Wiesenthal, one of the best known prosecutors and persecutors of Germans is Dr. Robert Kempner, who seems to exploit dual American and German citizenship...After the war, he turned up as a prosecutor of Germans at Nuremburg, a particularly unscrupulous one, who is still at it. His nasty method of extorting incriminating affidavits against the more important Nazi leaders is illustrated in the case of Dr. Friedrich Gaus, many years a minor official in the German foreign office. Dr. Kempner wanted him to testify falsely in order to get his superior Ribbentrop hanged. When Gaus complained that he could not honestly to testify, Kempner replied:
The Russians are very interested in you, Mr. Gaus! For your violation of International Agreements! The only way for you to save your head, is that you tell the truth. Or do you wish as the right hand of Ribbentrop to go to the gallows? You know the old German saying, 'Captured with him, hanged with him!' Who were after Ribbentrop, the most guilty in the Foreign Office. Just say it; it serves no purpose, to spare these people.Whereupon the terrified Gaus incriminated Ribbentrop as Kempner wished; - and thereby secured immunity! He was immediatly released from solitary arrest and moved to the witness portion of the Nuremburg court. (See: "U.S. Anklaeger Kempner schwer belasted." Deutsche Wochenzeitung Fed. 23, 1973).
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=311959
As long as that two year old threat was hanging over his head, he couldn't completely turn around. He's not the free spirited rebel you are making him out to be.
P.S.
I see you demanded to have your account re-activated since your 'away time' has expired at codoh. And you want me, on your behalf to ask for it back. Well okay. Mods, I think Roberto should be allowed back here. I had no problem with him being here before.