NO-205 document / Brack to Himmler June 23, 1942 / as posted by onetruth

[Hannover]

BROI, you said:

Right Rabbit, and Hoess "confessed" to gassing countless Jews.
At Nuremberg the Soviets 'proved' that Jews were steamed to death, "proven" in the Pohl Trial.
In 1946 at Nuremberg it was a "proven fact" that Nazis made human soap.

Etc., etc.

- Hannover

Okay, but what's the relevance to Brack admitting the letter under discussion is genuine?


Two days before Brack stated that this letter is genuine, he had felt confident enough to complain in the witness box that his American interrogators had "deceived" him into making incorrect statements in a signed affidavit.

If Brack was being tortured or blackmailed by the Americans, it makes little sense for him to publicly complain that his torturers/blackmailers had tricked and pressured him into signing an affidavit containing out of context statements but then go on to confirm the authenticity of a letter you're arguing is fake.

- The relevance is that those under duress will say whatever they think is necessary to save their own skin or the safekeeping of their loved ones.

- Then, using your logic, Hoess would not have continued to say he gassed countless Jews after saying:

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. 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)
- 11.R. Hoess, p. 179.

And more importantly, the absurd contents of said document/s give the game away. The contents are simply not supportable for the reasons I previously mentioned. Please read my challenges to onetruth.

- Hannover



The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

The relevance is that those under duress will say whatever they think is necessary to save their own skin or the safekeeping of their loved ones.

Okay, Hoess is relevant by this standard, but how so with the human soap and steam being "proven" at Nuremberg?

- Then using your logic Hoess would not have continued to say he gassed countless Jews after saying:

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. 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)
- 11.R. Hoess, p. 179.

We have evidence that Captain Hans Alexander threatened Hoess' wife; telling her that their two sons were about to be sent to the Russians who would shoot them. It seems likely that Alexander [a liar and murderer] would have made similar threats to Hoess.

Do you have any actual evidence that Brack's family was threatened?

He mentioned at his trial that his wife had been "arrested repeatedly" in 1946, but she did provide an affidavit in July 1947 that was used at the trial in Brack's defence.
http://www.profit-over-life.org/rolls_887.php?roll=1&pageID=413&expand=no

And more importantly the contents of said document/s are simply not supportable for the reasons I previously mentioned. Please read my challenges to onetruth.

Okay.

Still no response to the absurd 10M Jews.

That was his estimation. He used an estimation of 8-10 million during this trial. See pages 7476 and 7516.

- So what happened to the claimed "extermination policy"?
A plan to exterminate all the Jews in Europe, except they'd leave 2-3 million alive?

This is answered in the Brack quotes I provided above.

- Brack said in June:

About a year ago I reported to you that agents of mine had completed the experiments necessary for this purpose.

Himmler replied in August:

I am positively interested in seeing that sterilization by X-rays is tried out at least once in one camp in a series of experiments.

It makes no sense.
Brack supposedly said the experiments were completed in June, therefore Himmler wouldn't have asked that 'experiments' be conducted in August.

Out of context quotes rarely make sense. Those must have been different experiments.

Bletchley Park decrypted an intercepted German message about further sterilization experiments at Auschwitz:

On October 26, 1942 the codebreakers found Berlin warning Auschwitz to stand by to receive two visitors from the Führer's Chancellery in Berlin - the agency supervising euthanasia and various other killing schemes - for a lengthy stay at the camp: they would be setting up an X-ray sterilisation operation, the radio signal said (this being the method chosen by the S.S. to keep the Jews from breeding). (GC&CS German Police Section intercept: Lolling, Amt D III, to Auschwitz, Oct 26, 1942 (PRO file HW.16/11).]

Telegram Lolling to Auschwitz, October 26, 1942 , 'Der Chef des Amtes D III bittet 2 Herren von der Kanzlei des Führers am Donnerstag den 29.10.1942, 0940 Uhr, vom Bahnhof Mylowitz abzuholen, und für längere Zeit im Lager unterzubringen. Es handelt sich um die Röntgensterilisation, die nunmehr anlaufen soll. Gleichzeitig wird der Scharführer OLTM als erster SDG im KL.AU bestätigt.'

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/PoliceDecodes.html

- Also "Top Secret" is not typed into a document, it was stamped. It isn't stamped in Himmler's 'response'.

The letters were produced in different offices.

- And, why sterilize them if they are to be 'exterminated' soon thereafter?

Brack would've liked that question. He said his idea to sterilise 3 million Jews was actually his and Bouhler's attempt to stop "mass murder". But the claim sounds more like a defence strategy.

There is a history of using Brack's name fraudulently as can be seen in relation to Nuremberg 'document' NO 365, we have this:

Q. Herr Brack, are you still going to maintain what you said here in direct examination, namely, that you tried to protect the Jews and to save the Jews from their terrible fate and that you were never a champion for the extermination program?

A. I should even like to maintain that misuse, terrible misuse, was made of my name. I see from this letter and from the date of this letter that all these negotiations were carried out at a time when I was far away from Berlin, when I was on sick leave.

And the fraudulent letter used in NO 365 dated Nov. 1941, is only 7 months from June 1942. Do we know how long Brack's sick leave was?

Brack wasn't implying the letter was an Allied fake, he was claiming that his former colleagues—in this instance Ehrard Wetzel the author of NO 365—had misused his name:

It's obvious, when he's not quoted out of context:

I should even like to maintain that misuse, terrible misuse, was made of my name. I see from this letter and from the date of this letter that all these negotiations were carried out at a time when I was far away from Berlin, when I was on sick leave. If I have the possibility I hope I shall be able to bring witnesses who will testify to that effect. I must frankly admit that at this period something was going on which entirely contradicted my opinion, but this could only have been done under misuse of my name and my agency. I was not willing to participate in these things.

http://www.profit-over-life.org/rolls_887.php?roll=8&pageID=1010&expand=no

Ehrard Wetzel's letter [NO 365], in which Brack is repeatedly mentioned, can be read here:
http://www.profit-over-life.org/rolls_887.php?roll=8&pageID=1008&expand=no

[Hannover]

BROI:

Okay, Hoess is relevant by this standard, but how so with the human soap and steam being "proven" at Nuremberg?

- Good to see an admission from you. It knocks the wind out your argument.
- ' Soap and steam' are indicators of the sham that was Nuremberg, which you curiously continue to trust. hence my inquiry about discussing the post-war trials, which you seem to have a poor grasp of.

you said:

Do you have any actual evidence that Brack's family was threatened?

- Oh please no desperate strawmen, I never said 'Brack's family was threatened'. Cut the crap.

- But then you shoot yourself in the foot with the admission that Brack's wife was repeatedly arrested. In those cases there was no "threat", there were actual intimidating arrests.

That was his estimation. He used an estimation of 8-10 million during this trial. See pages 7476 and 7516.

- You dodged my point which asks how this "assessment" was derived?
- So how did Brack supposedly come up with 10M?

- I'll ask again:

So what happened to the claimed "extermination policy"?
A plan to exterminate all the Jews in Europe, except they'd leave 2-3 million alive?

I failed to see an answer it in your quotes.

- Then you dodged what I actually asked, which was:

Give us proof that these 2-3M [that's 2,000,000 - 3,000,000] were sterilized with X-rays. No dodging.

- And then you make excuses when saying

Out of context quotes rarely make sense. Those must have been different experiments.

- Yet, you believe that Himmler's alleged "letter" was a direct follow-up to Brack's. IOW, you're baffled and have no cogent response.

- And when attempting to deflect the lack of cohesive support for 'documents you resort to

The letters were produced in different offices.

- Which is certain, however the curiously unobserved official procedures are damning.

- Your waffling is bizarre in regards to my question:

And, why sterilize them if they are to be 'exterminated' soon thereafter?

Your response:

Brack would've liked that question. He said his idea to sterilise 3 million Jews was actually his and Bouhler's attempt to stop "mass murder". But the claim sounds more like a defence strategy.

- So then, you don't even believe what Brack says, but then sometimes you do believe what he says, sometimes. Again, you shoot yourself in the foot. And note you now say that a 'defence strategy' was in place where previously you brushed of the notion of such strategies at Nuremberg.

And if you really believe Brack's letter is real then you are accepting of the 'planned extermination' canard of onetruth and the rest of the Zionists propagandists.
That means you are now stuck with trying to show us the alleged humans remains of 10M minus 2-3M = 8-7M.

- Hannover



The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

Okay, Hoess is relevant by this standard, but how so with the human soap and steam being "proven" at Nuremberg?

- Good to see an admission from you. It knocks the wind out your argument.

Well, it might, when you produce some evidence that Brack's family received the treatment the Hoess family did. Until then, it remains only theoretically possible.

- ' Soap and steam' are indicators of the sham that was Nuremberg, which you curiously continue to trust. hence my inquiry about discussing the post-war trials, which you seem to have a poor grasp of.

'Soap and steam' doesn't prove Brack was lying, and no, I don't "trust" "the sham that was Nuremberg".

If you have new info on the post-war trials, please post it in a new thread for discussion [but I've said this already].

you said:
Do you have any actual evidence that Brack's family was threatened?

- Oh please no desperate strawmen, I never said 'Brack's family was threatened'. Cut the crap.

Even though you said:

The relevance is that those under duress will say whatever they think is necessary to save their own skin or the safekeeping of their loved ones.

Do you think Brack or his family were threatened? If not what was his motivation for lying about this "fake letter"?

- But then you shoot yourself in the foot with the admission that Brack's wife was repeatedly arrested. In those cases there was no "threat", there were actual intimidating arrests.

Why do you think those arrests in 1946 would make Brack lie about a "fake" letter in 1947?

That was his estimation. He used an estimation of 8-10 million during this trial. See pages 7476 and 7516.
- You dodged my point which asks how this "assessment" was derived?
- So how did Brack supposedly come up with 10M?

He pulled it out of thin air....or....he based it on the 11m figure originating from the "Wannsee conference" minutes. No one can know for sure what his thoughts were at that particular moment. Although he was clearly hopeless at estimating Jewish populations; he made a howler during his trial:

http://www.profit-over-life.org/rolls_8 ... &expand=no

- I'll ask again:
So what happened to the claimed "extermination policy"?
A plan to exterminate all the Jews in Europe, except they'd leave 2-3 million alive?
I failed to see an answer it in your quotes.

Okay; in really simply terms:
- Brack says he heard about the "extermination policy" from Bouhler [who heard it from Globocnik]
- Brack then writes to Himmler asking 'hey, why not sterilise some of them instead'?

- Then you dodged what I actually asked, which was:
Give us proof that these 2-3M [that's 2,000,000 - 3,000,000] were sterilized with X-rays. No dodging.

It was an idea, with an estimate. It never actually happened on anything approaching that scale.

Werner Blankenburg reported to Himmer 29 April 1944 that Brack's x-ray method was a waste of time:
Original: http://www.profit-over-life.org/rolls_887.php?roll=13&pageID=125&expand=no
English: http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/php/pflip.php?caseid=HLSL_NMT01&docnum=119&numpages=1&startpage=1&title=Letter+to+Heinrich+Himmler+concerning+x-ray+and+surgical+sterilization.&color_setting=C

- And then you make excuses when saying
Out of context quotes rarely make sense. Those must have been different experiments.
- Yet, you believe that Himmler's alleged "letter" was a direct follow-up to Brack's. IOW, you're baffled and have no cogent response.

I'll try to make it simpler:

Brack said [23 Jun 42] that some x-ray sterilisation experiments had been conducted over a year previously, Himmler replied [11 Aug 42] that he wanted more experiments conducted in a concentration camp. Auschiwtz was informed [26 Oct 42] that experts would be coming to conduct x-ray sterilisation experiments.

- And when attempting to deflect the lack of cohesive support for 'documents you resort to
The letters were produced in different offices.
- Which is certain, however the curiously unobserved official procedures are damning.

Who wasn't correctly following "official procedures", Brack or Himmler? Prolly Himmler based on Blankenburg's letter above. But we know from indisputable evidence [Bletchley decrypt cited by Irving] that experiments did occur at Auschwitz shortly after Himmler gave the go ahead in another letter you think is a fake.

- Your waffling is bizarre in regards to my question:
And, why sterilize them if they are to be 'exterminated' soon thereafter?
Your response:
Brack would've liked that question. He said his idea to sterilise 3 million Jews was actually his and Bouhler's attempt to stop "mass murder". But the claim sounds more like a defence strategy.

- So then, you don't even believe what Brack says, but then sometimes you do believe what he says, sometimes. Again, you shoot yourself in the foot. And note you now say that a 'defence strategy' was in place where previously you brushed of the notion of such strategies at Nuremberg.

I've never "brushed off" defence strategies, whether at Nuremberg, post-war "war criminal trials", or any trial. I wonder why you felt the need to inaccurately state that I have.

And, no, I don't believe Brack's defence plea that this letter was purely a result of his and Bouhler's altruism for Jews.

So far, no one's been able to provide anything even approaching tangible proof that Brack's letter is fake.

And if you really believe Brack's letter is real then you are accepting of the 'planned extermination' canard of onetruth and the rest of the Zionists propagandists.
That means you are now stuck with trying to show us the alleged humans remains of 10M minus 2-3M = 8-7M.

Hannover, putting aside the genuine vs. fake argument for a moment, the letter doesn't even say they had killed [10m minus 3m =] 7m.

[Hannover]

BROI, you said:

Well, it might, when you produce some evidence that Brack's family received the treatment the Hoess family did. Until then, it remains only theoretically possible.

Let me see, what about multiple arrests is hard to understand?

'Soap and steam' doesn't prove Brack was lying, and no, I don't "trust" "the sham that was Nuremberg".

It proves that there were severe pressures to follow what he 'Allies' required. And they required absoute obediance to 'planned extermination' canard.
That is apparently "new info" for you.

Do you think Brack or his family were threatened? If not what was his motivation for lying about this "fake letter"?

No, because as you admitted there were multiple arrests, not threats. Please read what I post.

Why do you think those arrests in 1946 would make Brack lie about a "fake" letter in 1947?

To prevent further arrests. Pretty basic stuff really.

He pulled it out of thin air....or....he based it on the 11m figure originating from the "Wannsee conference" minutes. No one can know for sure what his thoughts were at that particular moment. Although he was clearly hopeless at estimating Jewish populations; he made a howler during his trial

Well whoever created the 'letter" certainly pulled it out of thin air. And again, you shoot yourself in the foot with the acknowledgement of the "howler" that Brack had no clue about the impossible 10M,and the claimed 2-3M.

- Brack says he heard about the "extermination policy" from Bouhler [who heard it from Globocnik]
- Brack then writes to Himmler asking 'hey, why not sterilise some of them instead'?

- For which there is no proof whatsoever thereby debunking 'realness' of the letter.
- And in Himmler's alleged return letter, which you waffle on, see previous posts, we read a truly illogicial, bizarre response thereby exposing the "letter's" fraudulence.

On X-rays, please show me where I said they were never used. Stop the Mathis-like strawmen.

Werner Blankenburg reported to Himmer 29 April 1944 that Brack's x-ray method was a waste of time.

Bingo! So much for the authenticity of a "letter" which speaks of X-raying "2-3,000,000" Jews.

Brack said [23 Jun 42] that some x-ray sterilisation experiments had been conducted over a year previously, Himmler replied [11 Aug 42] that he wanted more experiments conducted in a concentration camp. Auschiwtz was informed [26 Oct 42] that experts would be coming to conduct x-ray sterilisation experiments.

Except that is not what Himmler's alleged return "letter" says. It says:

It is only today that I have the opportunity of acknowledging the receipt of your letter of 23 June. I am positively interested in seeing that sterilization by X-rays is tried out at least once in one camp in a series of experiments. I will be very much obliged to Reichsleiter Bouhler if, to begin with, he would place the expert physicians for the series of experiments at our disposal.

It says nothing of "more" experiments, it's fraudulence is determined by the fact that Bracks 1st "letter" says the experiments were already done / "completed", and no it doesn't say "some" experiments were done. Howlers galore, as expected in fake letters.

Who wasn't correctly following "official procedures", Brack or Himmler? Prolly Himmler based on Blankenburg's letter above. But we know from indisputable evidence [Bletchley decrypt cited by Irving] that experiments did occur at Auschwitz shortly after Himmler gave the go ahead in another letter you think is a fake.

So, the office of the head of the SS curiously failed to follow official procedures, it wouldn't happen. Howling again.
And you continue with your Mathis-like strawmen, no one said that X-ray experiments never occurred. But the 'document' states "2-3,000,000 Jews". Your Irvingisms aside.

I've never "brushed off" defence strategies, whether at Nuremberg, post-war "war criminal trials", or any trial. I wonder why you felt the need to inaccurately state that I have.
And, no, I don't believe Brack's defence plea that this letter was purely a result of his and Bouhler's altruism for Jews.
So far, no one's been able to provide anything even approaching tangible proof that Brack's letter is fake.

- Yes you did, please read what you posted.
- You can dodge the fact if you wish, that's you're problem', but I have demolished the authenticity of this "letter" by simply shooting down it's bizarre contents.

Hannover, putting aside the genuine vs. fake argument for a moment, the letter doesn't even say they had killed [10m minus 3m =] 7m.

Well not exactly, but knowing about the marketed propaganda / mandate of 'planned extermination' and the 'letter's" laughable claim of '10M Jews' and that '2-3 are to be left alive' leaves little to the imagination. As was intended by the duplicitous document creators.

Fakes happen, just a few more examples:

'Murderers Among Us: Movie documentary 'piece of evidence'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10386
and:
'The Franke-Gricksch "Resettlement Action Report"
Anatomy of a Fabrication"
By Brian A. Renk
http://codoh.com/library/document/2347/
and:
'phoney gas vans / J. McCarthy & 'holocaust' Hist. Proj.'
viewtopic.php?t=73
and;
'Not Guilty at Nuremberg'
http://www.cwporter.com/innocent.htm

- Hannover



The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.

[hermod]

Letter from Brack to Himmler:

In consideration of the exceptional difficulties posed for
us by the question of labor, I am of the opinion that these 2-3
million should in any case be taken out and kept alive.

Ich stehe in anbetracht des außerordentlichen Schwierigkeiten, die uns die arbeiterfrage bereitet, auf dem standpunkt, diese 2-3 millionen auf jeden Fall herauszuziehen und zu erhalten.

Isn't the correct translation 'kept' (instead of 'kept alive')? Isn't the German translation of 'kept alive' rather 'Leben erhalten'? Could some German-speaking natives clarify this matter?

to keep sb/sth alive (literal, figurative)......jdn/etw am Leben erhalten

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictio ... rman/alive

to keep sb. alive

jdm. am Leben erhalten

http://en.bab.la/dictionary/english-german/keep-alive

Keep alive in German
Am Leben erhalten; am Leben bleiben

http://translation.babylon-software.com ... eep+alive/

Both keeping the Jews fit for labor within the German sphere of influence and expelling the other ones out of it is 100% consistent with a policy of full territorial eviction.

[Dresden]

The Rabbit said:

"Okay; in really simply terms:
- Brack says he heard about the "extermination policy" from Bouhler [who heard it from Globocnik]
- Brack then writes to Himmler asking 'hey, why not sterilise some of them instead'?"

Since Barak got the information about an "extermination policy" from second or third hand hearsay, wouldn't it have been more reasonable for Barak to write to Himmler saying:

"Hey, Himm.....what's up with these insane allegations I'm hearing about an extermination program?.....are you really exterminating or planning to exterminate Jews by the million?.....have you lost your mind?.....what does the Führer know about this?"

Why would Barak take Bouhler's word for something so outrageously insane?

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

I have demolished the authenticity of this "letter" by simply shooting down it's bizarre contents.

By using the Hungoverian method, the Hungoverian standard of proof has been met.

To summarise what Hannover has proven:

Brack's letter" is a forgery because its contents prove it when they're considered injudiciously. Himmler's purported "reply", is also a crude forgery, not because it's a response to a proven forgery, oh no—that would be too obvious even for Zionists—but because "Geheime Reichssache" is typed and not stamped! This of course means that Pohl's famous 15 July 1943 letter to Himmler about "Transit Camp Sobibor" is also a forgery, as its "Geh./RS" is not only typed but abbreviated! Brack's was pressured into publicly confessing that he wrote this proven forgery under threat [although not a threat threat] that the Americans would once again arrest his wife if he didn't, and—just maybe—not let her go this time.

Hannover's case seems water [closet] tight, certainly no one born 28 May 2016 will doubt it. Anyone foolish enough to question Hungoverian evidential standards, on this on any other issue, will soon grow weary of its greatest defence: an exponential lengthening list of fatuously presented irrelevances, misrepresentations, incomprehensions, and deceitful omissions.

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

Why would Barak take Bouhler's word for something so outrageously insane?

Office gossip can be persuasive it seems, particularly when you're in the euthanasia business.

[Hannover]

BROI, immaturely said:

I have demolished the authenticity of this "letter" by simply shooting down it's bizarre contents.

By using the Hungoverian method, the Hungoverian standard of proof has been met.
To summarise what Hannover has proven:
Brack's letter" is a forgery because its contents prove it when they're considered injudiciously. Himmler's purported "reply", is also a crude forgery, not because it's a response to a proven forgery, oh no—that would be too obvious even for Zionists—but because "Geheime Reichssache" is typed and not stamped! This of course means that Pohl's famous 15 July 1943 letter to Himmler about "Transit Camp Sobibor" is also a forgery, as its "Geh./RS" is not only typed but abbreviated! Brack's was pressured into publicly confessing that he wrote this proven forgery under threat [although not a threat threat] that the Americans would once again arrest his wife if he didn't, and—just maybe—not let her go this time.

Hannover's case seems water [closet] tight, certainly no one born 28 May 2016 will doubt it. Anyone foolish enough to question Hungoverian evidential standards, on this on any other issue, will soon grow weary of its greatest defence: an exponential lengthening list of fatuously presented irrelevances, misrepresentations, incomprehensions, and deceitful omissions.

All that from TheBlackRabbitofInlé who believes in laughable, unprovable 'phosgene gassings' at Struthof-Natzweiler'.

He also believes that this staged photo of a corpse on the ground represents an official, highly professional 'autopsy'.

at:
Autopsies'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6513&start=45

Indeed, Brack's alleged letter & Himmler's alleged response are glaring, howling examples of forgery. As I pointed out in their contents, which now Rabbit dodges.
Then Rabbit goes from the frying pan into the fire when he curiously presents a letter allegedly written by Pohl ... which Pohl never signed!


Rabbit ignores the multiple arrests of Brack's wife, somehow thinking that those arrests would not influence what Brack said.
Rabbit is clearly unaware of the methods used against Germans in the post-war trials. IOW, Rabbit doesn't know what he's talking about.

And do note the others here who are now smelling something fishy with Rabbit's/onetruth's dodgy "letters".

Also notice Rabbit's childish & desperate name calling.

Ah yes, I have him yet again.

Fakes happen, just a few more examples:

'Murderers Among Us: Movie documentary 'piece of evidence'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10386
and:
'The Franke-Gricksch "Resettlement Action Report"
Anatomy of a Fabrication"
By Brian A. Renk
http://codoh.com/library/document/2347/
and:
'phoney gas vans / J. McCarthy & 'holocaust' Hist. Proj.'
viewtopic.php?t=73
and;
'Not Guilty at Nuremberg'
http://www.cwporter.com/innocent.htm

- Hannover



The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.

[hermod]

However it is also important to mention that Mattogno only equates two sentences from this letter as we see here :

"As for the deployment of euthanasia personnel at the “Aktion Reinhardt”camps, the following documentary evidence may be brought fourth. On 23 June 1942 the organizer of the euthanasia program, SSOberführerViktor Brack, sent a letter to Himmler in which he stated:[/b] “In accordance with my orders from Reichsleiter Bouhler I have long ago put at Brigadeführer Globocnik’s disposal part of my Manpower to aid him in carrying out his special mission. Upon his renewed request I have now transferred to him additional personnel. ”

[b]All the other content of the letter which is most discrimination is simply Ignored by Mattogno as if it never existed .

How he could do that is beyond me. I have just read a few comments on this strange blindness by Mattogno crucifying him as being dishonest on that point , but i would leave at that and let the readers here decide that facts for themselves.

It is clear however , that he simply uses the parts which suites him ( two lines exactly ) while ignoring all the rest of the document , making it a meaningless quatation.

Congratulations! You've just discovered a very widespread thing called a 'quotation.'

Simple Definition of quotation

1 : something that a person says or writes that is repeated or used by someone else in another piece of writing or a speech

Full Definition of quotation

1: something that is quoted; especially : a passage referred to, repeated, or adduced

2 a : the act or process of quoting

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quotation

So far I had never met anybody regarding this tool as a dishonest thing. But there is a first time in everything...

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

All that from TheBlackRabbitofInlé who believes in laughable, unprovable 'phosgene gassings' at Struthof-Natzweiler'.

I remember your hilarious attempt at rebutting C. Mattongo on Natzweiler, but that's a subject for another thread.

He also believes that this staged photo of a corpse on the ground represents an official, highly professional 'autopsy'.

Autopsies [plural] which found no trace of poisons in the pictured corpses [plural].

If it was a "staged propaganda hoax", the propagandists sure did foul up when the pictured pathologist admitted in court that he found no traces of poison in the bodies the prosecution claimed were poisoned.

You really backed the wrong horse there. You should be heralding those autopsies.

I did post this information at the time, but my post was deleted because I was apparently being mean to you.

Your last post directed at Hannover consisted of so much trash talk & nonsense that I have moved & saved it elsewhere. The on-topic, less childish aspects have been sent to Hannover.

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?p=75036#p75036

I see you get Sonderbehandlung from the moderator; sending you cherry-pickings from my deleted posts. I wonder why that is....

Indeed, Brack's alleged letter & Himmler's alleged response are glaring, howling examples of forgery. As I pointed out in their contents, which now Rabbit dodges.

No, they're authentic, the evidence for it is overwhelming. Your whining doesn't affect anything.

Brack's casual estimate of the Jewish population in Europe proves it was, unsurprisingly, a *casual estimate of the Jewish population in Europe*. If he was a bit off [which you're still to prove btw], it should not suggest to anyone that his letter was a forgery, let alone be considered proof of it.

Then Rabbit goes from the frying pan into the fire when he curiously presents a letter allegedly written by Pohl ... which Pohl never signed!

That was a retype for a published book; below's the signed original. It's proves you don't know what you're talking about when insisting [but of course not actually attempting to prove] that "Geheime Reichssache" was only ever stamped on letters:

Rabbit ignores the multiple arrests of Brack's wife, somehow thinking that those arrests would not influence what Brack said.

You've a short memory; you knew nothing about her multiple arrests until I told you about them.

Her arrests during 1946 wouldn't make Brack lie at his trial in 1947 and claim authorship of a letter "forged" by the Allies. This "forged" letter was being used by the prosecution as one of the strongest pieces of evidence showing Brack was guilty and deserved to be executed.

What is laughable, is that this is your "best evidence" that he lied!

Rabbit is clearly unaware of the methods used against Germans in the post-war trials. IOW, Rabbit doesn't know what he's talking about.

Says the poster who's presented nothing but opinions and trash talk. No documents or testimony have been supplied by Hannover. He's had to rely on the knowledge and research of myself and others to supply those.

And do note the others here who are now smelling something fishy with Rabbit's/onetruth's dodgy "letters".

You're imaging things Hannover, none of the other posters have yet nailed their colours to your idiotic claims about the letters being Allied forgeries and that Viktor Brack lied when he said he wrote the first of them. If someone eventually does, hopefully they'll be more conscientious than you [which shouldn't be hard] and will have first found some evidence to support the claims.

Also notice Rabbit's childish & desperate name calling.

I've not called you any names. I've just taken the micky out of your ridiculous methods and "expertise".

Ah yes, I have him yet again.

Nope, you still have nothing.

[Hannover]

Let's start with childish Rabbit's attempt to add credibilty to "documents" claiming they are the same.

As is usual, TheBlackRabbitofInle has made a fool of himself by believing that there were no WWII forgeries , see my previously given examples which blow that assertion out of the water..

Now compare both laughable "documents", actually look at them next to each other.
Note the differences, spacing, the locations of various elements in the "letters".
They are not the same.
Note that lack a signature on one of them, as if a signature would magically disappear when scanned.





Another blogger, Bob, at the Rabbit's favorite site originally posted the second "document" as being an exact copy plus the signature which this Bob claims magically disappeared when the first one was scanned.

But Rabbit laughably now claims that it was a "retype" which it clearly was not. Seriously, why would someone legitimately "retype" a claimed document when it would be much easier to simply copy the alleged original? They wouldn't. Rabbit's spin job is a utterly desperate. What we have is 2 bogus documents where the fabricators have exposed themselves via obvious differences in the purported same "documents".

This is too easy.

- Hannover



The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

Let's start with childish Rabbit's attempt to add credibilty to "documents" claiming they are the same.

Liar.

I said it was a retyped version from a published book.

As is usual, TheBlackRabbitofInle has made a fool of himself by believing that there were no WWII forgeries , see my previously given examples which blow that assertion out of the water..

Liar.

I've said no such thing. I was the first to track down proof of one of the most notorious WW2 forgeries:
http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/the-most-famous-holocaust-photo-fraud.html

You've yet to personally discover and provided indisputable proof of any. Your list represent's the work of others.

Another blogger, Bob, at the Rabbit's favorite site originally posted the second "document" as being an exact copy plus the signature which this Bob claims magically disappeared when the first one was scanned.

What's your proof for this claim? I think you're lying again.

But Rabbit laughably now claims that it was a "retype" which it clearly was not. Seriously, why would someone "retype" a claimed document when it would be very simple just to copy the alleged original? They wouldn't. Rabbit's spin job is a utterly desperate. What we have is 2 bogus documents where the fabricators have exposed themselves via obvious differences in the purported same "documents".

What's your proof Blatt had the original to copy and not just a retyped Nuremberg trials copy?

This is hilarious. You are so hapless, that you don't even realise that you're presently calling one of the only few documents in existence that described Sobibor as a "Transit Camp" 'bogus'.

[Hannover]

Let's start with childish Rabbit's attempt to add credibilty to "documents" claiming they are the same.

Liar.

I said it was a retyped version from a published book.

As is usual, TheBlackRabbitofInle has made a fool of himself by believing that there were no WWII forgeries , see my previously given examples which blow that assertion out of the water..

Liar.

I've said no such thing. I was the first to track down proof of one of the most notorious WW2 forgeries:
http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/the-most-famous-holocaust-photo-fraud.html

You've yet to personally discover and provided indisputable proof of any. Your list represent's the work of others.

But Rabbit laughably now claims that it was a "retype" which it clearly was not. Seriously, why would someone "retype" a claimed document when it would be very simple just to copy the alleged original? They wouldn't. Rabbit's spin job is a utterly desperate. What we have is 2 bogus documents where the fabricators have exposed themselves via obvious differences in the purported same "documents".

What's your proof Blatt had the original to copy and not just a retyped Nuremberg trials copy?

This is hilarious. You are so hapless, that you don't even realise that you're presently calling one of the only few documents in existence that described Sobibor as a "Transit Camp" 'bogus'.

- I acknowledged that laughable "retyped" bit, pay attention please.

- Indeed, you do accept that there were some WWII forgeries a la David irving. But you also have a problem with others that smack you in the face, but you defend them since you made the mistake of initially accepting them. For Freudians it's called 'ego'.

- Yes, forgers have often incorporated real facts with the garage, or as said, "just enough glitter amongst the chickenfeed".

- True, I don't present documents that are obvious forgeries, like you. With spotty work like yours who needs 'researchers'?

- No one said Blatt had the original. Another of your desperate strawmen. But he clearly presented a bogus document.

I said:

But Rabbit laughably now claims that it was a "retype" which it clearly was not. Seriously, why would someone "retype" a claimed document when it would be very simple just to copy the alleged original? They wouldn't. Rabbit's spin job is a utterly desperate. What we have is 2 bogus documents where the fabricators have exposed themselves via obvious differences in the purported same "documents".

Indeed. Now everyone, compare & contrast the two "documents".

claimed "retyped" version:

claimed "original" version:


Later, name calling Rabbit.

Cheers, Hannover



The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.