Rudolf Hoess recants

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
David
Member
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 10:59 pm

Rudolf Hoess recants

Postby David » 1 decade 5 years ago (Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:28 am)

IHR says Hoess said he was beaten and tortured and that he would have signed anything, even a confessional letter admitting to gassing 5 million prisoners in Auschwitz. He was hung at Nuremburg.

Now, how could he have gotten away with saying these things under the tight supervision of the victors, who did he say them to, and what is the evidence Hoess even said these things?

This is what Hoess said: "During the first interrogation they beat me to obtain evidence. I do not know what was in the transcript, or what I said, even though I signed it, because they gave me liquor and beat me with a whip. It was too much even for me to bear."

Again, how was he allowed to say that?

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9997
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 5 years ago (Wed Jun 02, 2004 1:39 pm)

His torturers admitted the use of torture.

I'm sure he didn't say these things with his torturers in the room.

The substance of what he 'confessed' to is laughable, and frankly absurd. There is not one aspect of it that can be sustained under critical scrutiny.

use the search function: 'hoess torture'

This topic has been covered repeatedly.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

FW
Member
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2003 10:08 am

Postby FW » 1 decade 5 years ago (Wed Jun 02, 2004 1:45 pm)

One way of ensuring that witnesses like Höss stayed on message whilst making court appearances goes something like this: "Co-operate or else your whole family wil be sent over to the Russian zone"

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Re: Rudolf Hoess recants

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 5 years ago (Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:16 pm)

David wrote:IHR says Hoess said he was beaten and tortured and that he would have signed anything, even a confessional letter admitting to gassing 5 million prisoners in Auschwitz. He was hung at Nuremburg.

Now, how could he have gotten away with saying these things under the tight supervision of the victors, who did he say them to, and what is the evidence Hoess even said these things?

This is what Hoess said: "During the first interrogation they beat me to obtain evidence. I do not know what was in the transcript, or what I said, even though I signed it, because they gave me liquor and beat me with a whip. It was too much even for me to bear."

Again, how was he allowed to say that?


Actually Hoess was not hung in Nuremburg. He was hung in Poland.

And it was in Poland where he said that he was tortured by the British.

fge

Trojan
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 7:53 am

Postby Trojan » 1 decade 5 years ago (Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:22 pm)

Let's take it one at a time:

There were four affidavits:

1. Affidavit from March 14, 1946. No trials used this affidavit
2. Affidavit from April 5, 1946.
3. Affidavit from May 17, 1946.
4. Affidavit from January 11, 1947.

#2 was used at Nuremberg where he was treated as though he were in a "health spa." Quote is from Hoess.

There was no "torture." The initial english questioning was done to get his
identity. He's been evading them for months and they wanted him to admit who he was. So they deprived him of sleep and got him drunk. His pictures at this time show a very tired and worn out man. So basicaly. he refused to give his name rank and serial number as he was required to do under the geneve convention ...

So what specifically did he recant? What specific part of his testimony did he say was a lie?

I always hear that his testimony was coerced. So ... what parts die Hoes say was coerced?

I've also heard that his interrogators were jewish officers, any proof for this?

Hebden
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:17 am
Location: Here and there, mostly there

Re: Rudolf Hoess recants

Postby Hebden » 1 decade 5 years ago (Wed Jun 02, 2004 4:28 pm)

David wrote:IHR says Hoess said he was beaten and tortured and that he would have signed anything, even a confessional letter admitting to gassing 5 million prisoners in Auschwitz. He was hung at Nuremburg.

Now, how could he have gotten away with saying these things under the tight supervision of the victors, who did he say them to, and what is the evidence Hoess even said these things?




During the war, Moritz von Schirmeister had been the personal press attache of Joseph Goebbels. On 29 June 1946, he was interrogated before the IMT as a defense witness for Hans Fritzsche. His deposition was particularly interesting regarding the actual personality of Dr. Goebbels and the attitude of the official German news services toward the flood of atrocity stories about the concentration camps spread during the war by the Allies.

At the end of the war, Moritz von Schirmeister had been arrested by the British and interned in a camp in England, where he was given the task of politically "re-educating" his fellow prisoners. Before testifying at Nuremberg, he was transferred by plane from London to Germany. At first he was kept at Minden-on-the-Weser, which was the principal interrogation center for the British Military Police. From there he was taken by car (31 March - 1 April 1946) to the prison at Nuremberg. In the same car rode Rudolf Hoess. Moritz von Schirmeister is precisely that "prisoner of war who had been brought over from London as a witness in Fritzsche's defence" about whom Hoess speaks in his "memoirs" (see above, p. 393). Thanks to a document that I obtained from American researcher Mark Weber, who gave me a copy of it in Washington in September of 1983 (a document whose exact source I am not yet authorized to indicate), we know that the two Germans were able to talk freely in the car that took them to Nuremberg. In that document, slightly more than two pages long, Moritz von Schirmeister reports, as regarding the charges hanging over Hoess, that Hoess confided to him:

Gewiss, ich habe unterschrieben, dass ich 2 1/2 Millionen Juden umgebracht habe. Aber ich hatte genausogut unterschrieben, dass es 5 Millionen Juden gewesen sind. Es gibt eben Methoden, mit denen man jedes Gestandnis erreichen kann -- ob es nun wahr ist oder nicht.

"Certainly, I signed a statement that I killed two and a half million Jews. But I could just as well have said that it was five million Jews. There are certain methods by which any confession cam be obtained, whether it is true or not."


Some time ago, we asked Mr. Weber if he could tell us more about the document that Mr. Faurisson refers to. He revealed that it was actually a letter which Mr. von Schirmeister had sent to Mrs. Hoess. When, however, we asked if he was now at liberty to release the full text of the letter he said he couldn't but would not explain why. A most unsatisfactory state of affairs. Are we expected to simply trust Mr. Weber in this matter?

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9997
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 5 years ago (Wed Jun 02, 2004 5:21 pm)

I would certainly trust Weber on this vs. trusting the bizarre, unsustainable statements in Hoess's so called 'confessions'.

All of this is to ignore the fact that Hoess's torturers clearly stated that they did indeed torture Hoess.

And ofcourse, we must ask why we should trust Mr. Hebden on his claim.

Much ado about nothing.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9997
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 5 years ago (Wed Jun 02, 2004 9:13 pm)

Hoess ‘confession’ by way of torture.

An explanation for Hoess's wild testimony is the evidence that Hoess was tortured by his captors. Hoess wrote of such torture:
"During the first interrogation they beat me to obtainevidence. I do not know what was in the transcript, or what I said, even though I signed it, because they gave me liquor and beat me with a whip. It was too much even for me to bear. The whip was my own. By chance it had found its way into my wife's luggage. My horse had hardly ever been touched by it, much less the prisoners. Somehow one of the interrogators probably thought that I had used it to constantly whip the prisoners."(11)


An account, by Rupert Butler, of the capture and interrogation of Rudolf Hoess, includes the following episode:

"The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pyjamas ripped from his body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where it seemed to [Bernard] Clarke he blows and screams were endless. Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: 'Call them off, unless you want to take back a corpse.'"(12)

11.R. Hoess, p. 179.
12.R. Butler, Legions of Death, Hamlyn, (London, 1983), p.237.
also: R. Faurisson, "How the British Obtained the Confessions of Rudolf Hoess." The Journal of Historical Review (JHR) 7(4) (1986) pp.389-403.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Hebden
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:17 am
Location: Here and there, mostly there

Postby Hebden » 1 decade 5 years ago (Thu Jun 03, 2004 12:35 am)

Hannover wrote:
And ofcourse, we must ask why we should trust Mr. Hebden on his claim.

- Hannover


Write Mr. Weber and find out yourself. It's quite simple.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9997
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 5 years ago (Thu Jun 03, 2004 12:53 am)

"Some time ago, we asked Mr. Weber if he could tell us more about the document that Mr. Faurisson refers to."

That just won't do. Perhaps Hebden should write Dr. Faurisson.

In other words, Hebden cannot back-up what he alleges.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Hebden
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:17 am
Location: Here and there, mostly there

Postby Hebden » 1 decade 5 years ago (Thu Jun 03, 2004 12:55 am)

Hannover wrote:
"Some time ago, we asked Mr. Weber if he could tell us more about the document that Mr. Faurisson refers to."

That just won't do. Perhaps Hebden should write Dr. Faurisson.

In other words, Hebden cannot back-up what he alleges.

- Hannover


We did write Mr. Faurisson but without reply. So once again you fall down.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9997
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 5 years ago (Thu Jun 03, 2004 3:27 am)

Mercy, what have we here?

Hebden says he contacted Weber, with no such proof, yet we're supposed to believe him....1 strike.

Hebden then claims to have written Dr. Faurisson, with no such proof, we're still supposed to believe him....2 strikes.

All the while avoiding the admissions of Hoess's torturers and the absurd contents of Hoess's forced 'confessions'....3 strikes.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Fugazi
Member
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 6:12 am

Re: Rudolf Hoess recants

Postby Fugazi » 1 decade 5 years ago (Thu Jun 03, 2004 4:17 am)

David wrote:IHR says Hoess said he was beaten and tortured and that he would have signed anything, even a confessional letter admitting to gassing 5 million prisoners in Auschwitz. He was hung at Nuremburg.

Now, how could he have gotten away with saying these things under the tight supervision of the victors, who did he say them to, and what is the evidence Hoess even said these things?

This is what Hoess said: "During the first interrogation they beat me to obtain evidence. I do not know what was in the transcript, or what I said, even though I signed it, because they gave me liquor and beat me with a whip. It was too much even for me to bear."

Again, how was he allowed to say that?


I'd like to pick up on Sailor's point.

Hoess wrote these things about his British interrogators while in jail in Poland, well after his appearance at Nuremberg. The Polish Stalinists had no reason to stop Hoess writing bad things about the British, in fact it would have suited their propaganda purposes nicely, so no surprise that he was able to tell that story.

But I noticed in his memoirs the surprising information that he'd mostly been very well treated by his Polish jaillers - so presumably the Stalinists weren't letting him tell about the British torture out of any commitment to truth or freedom of speech!

Fugazi

FW
Member
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2003 10:08 am

Postby FW » 1 decade 5 years ago (Thu Jun 03, 2004 7:33 pm)

Trojan says that Hoess was obliged to give them his details under Geneva Convention obligations and so this somehow jutsifies their torture - for that what any kind of duress is.

Consider this though, the prisoners of the IMT/NMT travesty were illegally stripped of their POW status. So why should Hoess or anyone else give their details under Geneva obligations when their Geneva rights had been unlawfully taken away?

Is this starting to remind you all of something? Guantanamo Bay, Abu Graib, the treatment of Saddam (regardless of what we might think of him he is still the lawful president of Iraq), the WMD fantasies, the lies, the demonisation?

The same rotten stuff from the same rotten people

Trojan
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 7:53 am

Postby Trojan » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sat Jun 05, 2004 6:54 pm)

OK, so what specifically did Hoess recant??

Anyone?


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests