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

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10302
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

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

Postby Hannover » 4 years 8 months ago (Mon May 30, 2016 7:25 pm)

In addition:

- If the phony document under discussion was "retyped" why doesn't it say so on the "document"?
Because it was a shady attempt to present it as an 'original' document.

I can understand if someone re-types a German document into another language so that it's contents could be understood by a non-German reader, that is IF they then provide a copy of the original for review & verification. In this case, according to previously mentioned Bob, we have someone supposedly doing a re-type of an alleged original into the same language of the claimed original. That simply makes no sense when the alleged original is supposedly available for reproduction. Note the many fake documents techniques used at Nuremberg per Carlos Porter quoted below. I can only hope that Bob has read Carlos Porter's work.

Bob at TheBlackRabbitofInle's favorite low brow site for suckers (actually a shabby a retreat for Zionists such as Andy Mathis, Nessie, etc. who have been easily routed at this forum) says:
Believe it or not, but to just retype the text from the document (+ reference to original) is usual practice, on the other hand publishing scanned originals is quite rare.

- No it's not, unless someone is attempting to forge a "document". :lol:
The problem here is that the forgers blew it by missing the details in their "copies".

- This is the same 'Bob' who at this forum tried to say that the crematorium at Auschwitz/Birkenau would have been blowing smoke all over the place, even though not a single photo out of countless examples show any such smoke exiting the crematorium chimneys. :lol:
'Bob' was completely deconstructed and unfortunately lost his composure. That friendly discussion is available here if anyone wishes to check it.

Still waiting for the smoke billowing chimneys photos of Auschwitz, Bob.

Apparently this Bob thinks that Zionist propagandist Olere was on to something. :lol:

More on 'document' manipulation by Nuremberg expert Carlos Porter, follow along Bob.
The documents used in evidence at Nuremberg consisted largely of "photocopies" of "copies". Many of these original documents were written entirely on plain paper without handwritten markings of any kind, by unknown persons. Occasionally, there is an illegible initial or signature of a more or less unknown person certifying the document as a 'true copy'.
Sometimes there are German stamps, sometimes not. Many have been 'found' by the Russians, or 'certified authentic' by Soviet War Crimes Commissions.

Volume XXXIII, a document volume taken at random, contains 20 interrogations or affidavits, 12 photocopies, 5 unsigned copies, 5 original documents with signatures, 4 copies of printed material, 3 mimeographed copies, 3 teletypes, 1 microfilmm copy, 1 copy signed by somebody else and 1 unspecified.

The Hague has few, if any, original documents. The Hague has many original post-war 'affidavits', or sworn statements, the Tribunal Commission transcripts, and much valuable defense material.
They have the 'human soap', which has never been tested, and the 'original human soap recipe' (Document USSR-196), which is a forgery; but apparently no original wartime German documents.
The Hague has negative photostats of these documents, on extremely brittle paper which has been stapled. To photocopy the photostats, the staples are removed. When they are re-stapled more holes are made. Most of these documents have not been photocopied very often, and officials at the Hague say it is very unusual for anyone to ask to see them.

The National Archives in Washington (see Telford Taylor's Use of Captured German and Related Documents, A National Archive Conference) claim that the original documents are in The Hague. The Hague claims the original documents are in the National Archives.

The Stadtarchiv Nürnberg and the Bundesarchiv Koblenz also have no original documents, and both say the original documents are in Washington.
Since the originals are, in most cases, 'copies', there is often no proof that the documents in question ever existed.

Robert Jackson got the trial off to a start by quoting the following forged or otherwise worthless documents: 1947-PS; 1721-PS; 1014-PS; 81-PS; 212-PS; and many others (II 120-142 [141-168]).

1947-PS is a 'copy' of a 'translation' of a letter from General Fritsch to the Baroness von Schutzbar-Milchling. The Baroness later signed an affidavit stating that she never received the letter in question (XXI 381 [420-421]).

The falsified 'letter' from General Fritsch to the Baroness von Schutzbar-Milchling was recognized as such during the trial and is not included in the document volumes, where it should appear at XXVIII 44. Jackson was not, however, admonished by the Tribunal (XXI 380[420]).

The enthusiastic Americans apparently forged 15 of these 'translations', after which the original documents all disappeared (See Taylor, Captured Documents).

1721-PS is a forgery in which an SA man writes a report to himself about how he is carrying out an order which is quoted verbatim in the report. Handwritten markings on pages 2 and 3 are obvious imitations of handwritten markings on page 1 (XXI 137-141[157-161]; 195-198 [219-224]; 425 [470];XXII 147-150 [169-172]. See also Testimony Before the Commission, Fuss, 25 April, and Lucke, 7 May 1946). The National Archives have a positive photostat of 1721-PS, and The Hague has a negative photostat. The 'original' is a photocopy (XXVII 485).

1014-PS is a falsified 'Hitler Speech' written on plain paper by an unknown person. The document bears the heading 'Second Speech' although it is known that Hitler gave only one speech on that date. There are four versions of this speech, 3 of them forgeries: 1014-PS, 798-PS, L-3, and an authentic version, Ra-27 (XVII 406-408[445-447]; XVIII 390-402 [426-439].

The third forgery, Document L-3, bears an FBI laboratory stamp and was never even accepted into evidence (II 286 [320-321]), but 250 copies of it were given to the press as authentic (II 286-293 [320-328]).

This document is quoted by A.J.P. Taylor on page 254 of The Origins of the Second World War (Fawcett Paperbacks, 2nd Edition, with Answer to his Critics) giving his source as German Foreign Policy, Series D vii, No 192 and 193.

L-3 is the source of many statements attributed to Hitler, particularly "who today remembers the fate of the Armenians?" and "our enemies are little worms, I saw them at Munich". 'Hitler' also compares himself to Genghis Khan and says he will exterminate the Poles, and kick Chamberlain in the groin in front of the photographers. The document appears to have been prepared on the same typewriter as many other Nuremberg documents, including the two other versions of the same speech. This typewriter was probably a Martin from the Triumph-Adler-Werke, Nuremberg.

81-PS is a 'certified true copy' of an unsigned letter on plain paper prepared by an unknown person. If authentic, it is the first draft of a letter never sent. This is invariably spoken of as a letter written by Rosenberg, which Rosenberg denied (XI 510-511 [560-561]). The document lacks signature, initial, blank journal number (a bureaucratic marking) and was not found among the papers of the person to whom it was addressed (XVII 612 [664]). 81-PS is a 'photocopy' with a Soviet exhibit number (USSR-353, XXV 156-161).

212-PS was also prepared by an unknown person, entirely on plain paper, without any handwritten markings, date, address, or stamp (III 540 [602], XXV 302-306; see also photocopies of negative photostats from The Hague).

This is, unfortunately, only typical. Document 386-PS, the 'Hossbach Protokoll', Hitler's supposed speech of 5 November 1938, is a certified photocopy of a microfilm copy of a re-typed 'certified true copy' prepared by an American, of a re-typed 'certified true copy' prepared by a German, of unauthenticated handwritten notes by Hossbach, of a speech by Hitler, written from memory 5 days later. This is not the worst document, but one of the best, because we know who made one of the copies. The text of 386-PS has been 'edited' (XLII 228-230).

Thus 'trial by document' works as follows: A, an unknown person, listens to alleged 'oral statements' made by B, and takes notes or prepares a document on the basis of those alleged oral statements. The document is then introduced into evidence, not against A, who made the copy, but against B, C, D, E and a host of other people, although there is nothing to connect them with the document or the alleged statements. It is casually stated as fact that 'B said', or that 'C did', or that 'D and E knew'. This is contrary to the rules of evidence of all civilised countries. Nor are the documents identified by witnesses.

The forgery of original documents was rarely resorted to at Nuremberg, because the documents were not brought to court. The "original document" - that is, the original unsigned "copy" - was kept in a safe in the Document Centre (II 195 [224], 256-258 [289-292]).

Then, 2 "photocopies" of the "copy" (V 21[29]) or 6 photocopies (II 251-253 [284-286]) were prepared and brought to court. All other copies were re-typed on a mimeograph using a stencil (IX 504 [558-559]).

In the transcript, the word "original" is used to mean "photocopy" (II 249-250 [283-284]; XIII 200 [223], 508 [560], 519 [573], XV 43 [53], 169 [189] 171 [191] 327 [359]), to distinguish the photocopies from the mimeograph copies (IV 245-246 [273-274]).

"Translations" of all documents were available from the beginning of the trial (II 159-160[187-189], 191 [219-220], 195 [224], 215 [245], 249-250 [282-283], 277 [312], 415 [458], 437 [482-483]), but the "original" German texts were not available until at least two months later. This applies not just to the trial briefs and indictment, etc. but to ALL DOCUMENTS.

The defense received no documents in German until after January 9, 1946 (V 22-26 [31-35]).

Documents which appear to have been prepared on the same typewriter include Document 3803-PS, a letter from Kaltenbrunner to the Mayor of Vienna, and the cover letter from this same Mayor sending Kaltenbrunner's letter to the Tribunal (XI 345-348 [381-385]). This letter from Kaltenbrunner contains a false geographical term (XIV 416 [458]).

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

User avatar
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2350
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

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

Postby Lamprecht » 2 years 1 month ago (Wed Jan 02, 2019 11:12 pm)

I am bumping this thread because I linked to it in another thread, where this document was mentioned in a new study.

The documents:

NO-205 - ... ch-himmler
NO-208 - ... ch-himmler
NO-206 - ... ktor-brack

Some points:

- the report by Brack does not mention any extermination plan. It cites "Jewish Action (Judenaktion)"

- The correct translation is not "these 2-3 million should in any case be taken out and kept alive." as onetruth puts it, implying that the rest will be killed. The German text: "Ich stehe in Anbetracht der außerordentlichen Schwierigkeiten, die uns die Arbeiterfrage bereitet, auf dem Standpunkt, diese 2-3 Millionen auf jeden Fall heranzuziehen und zu erhalten."
Translation: "In view of the extraordinary difficulties which the workers' question poses, I take the view that these 2-3 million will definitely be used and maintained."

- According to Brack, two or three million Jews should be included in a program of "X-ray castration (Roentgenkastration)", since sterilization by traditional means is too long and expensive.

The document, if authentic, would only demonstrate the criminal will of a senior Nazi official. However, we must make some clarifications:

- Brack talks about castration. Castration involves the ablation or destruction of an organ necessary for procreation. It does not make sense, therefore, for Brack to say in the same document that "it has become unimportant at the present time whether those affected will then in the course of a few weeks or months realize by the effects that they are castrated." If the castration occurs, the affected will not take weeks or months to know, but will know immediately. Also, X-rays do not look like the most appropriate method for castration. After a very intense and prolonged exposure, X-rays can burn. However, they can produce sterility much more easily thanks to the deterioration of the reproductive cells. That a senior official, an expert in health issues, confuses castration with sterilization is more than suspicious.

- Brack adds that X-ray castration is not only relatively cheap, but can be practiced on many thousands of people in a short period of time. According to him a year before his agents had completed the necessary experiments. As far as I know, there is no trace of these experiments.

- In fact, two years later, Blankenburg - a colleague of Brack in the chancellery - called Himmler's attention to the fact that castration by X-rays was not practical, since it was slower than surgical castration, which only lasted 6-7 minutes. (Document NO-208)

- In his reply to Brack, Himmler simply said that he had "an absolute interest in having X-ray sterilization tested in at least one series of experiences in a concentration camp." Himmler silenced all reference to the two or three million Jews to castrate. (Document NO-206)

- BROI quotes Brack's testimony on page one: "Under these considerations one could perhaps persuade Hitler that it would be more expedient to use these Jews in labor rather than exterminate them." Convenient excuse, essentially saying: "But I tried to save the Jews, I couldn't stop it, I am innocent!" And it has been pointed out that his wife was arrested multiple times?

The fact is that Brack's project was never carried out, which can not be surprising given the folly it entails. And it is precisely this foolishness in the proposed method - inappropriate for a specialist in health issues - which makes me suspicious about the authenticity of the document.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests