getting the desired 'confession'....via torture

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: 10383
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

getting the desired 'confession'....via torture

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 7 years ago (Fri Jun 04, 2004 9:50 am)

Here's a look into just what it takes to get prisoners to say what the interrogators want them to say.
The first Dachau Trial (Trial of Martin Gottfried Weiss and 39 others) offers an insight into the manner in which these 'confessions' were obtained.
- H.
(TESTIMONY OF KICK, microfilm pages 000145-9).

Q: Are either of these two statements 96 or 97 in your handwriting?
A: The post-script on page 4 of 96 is in my handwriting.

Q: The rest of it is written in what manner?
A: The other part of it is typed.

Q: Did you dictate the typing?
A: No.

Q: Who did?
A: The interrogating officer.

Q: Who was the interrogating officer?
A: Lt. Guth.

Q: Is the language contained in either of those statements your language or the language of Lt. Guth?
A: Those are the expressions of Lt. Guth.

Q: And at the end of your statements you signed them, and swore to them as being the truth, did you not?
A: Yes.

Q: ... will you describe to the court the treatment that you received prior to your first interrogation anyplace?

(Prosecution objection as to whether beating received on the 6th of May could be relevant to confession signed on the 5th of

Q: ... Kick, did the treatment you received immediately following your arrest have any influence whatever on the statements
that you made on the 5th of November?
A: ... The treatment at that time influenced this testimony to that extent, that I did not dare to refuse to sign, in spite of the fact
that it did not contain the testimony which I gave.

Q: Now, Kick, for the court, will you describe the treatment which you received immediately following your arrest?
A: I ask to refuse to answer this question here in public.

President: The court desires to have the defendant answer the question.
A: I was here in Dachau from the 6th to the 15th of May, under arrest; during this time I was beaten all during the day and
night... kicked... I had to stand to attention for hours; I had to kneel down on sharp objects or square objects; I had to stand
under the lamp for hours and look into the light, at which time I was also beaten and kicked; as a result of this treatment my
arm was paralysed for about 8 to 10 weeks; only beginning with my transfer to Augsberg, this treatment stopped.

Q: What were you beaten with?
A: With all kinds of objects.

Q: Describe them, please.
A: With whips, with lashing whips, with rifle butts, pistol butts, and pistol barrels, and with hands and fists.

Q: And that continued daily over a period of what time?
A: From the morning of the 7th of May until the morning of the 15th of May.

Q: Kick, why did you hesitate to give that testimony?
A: If the court hadn’t decided I should talk about it, I wouldn’t have said anything about it today.

Q: Would you describe the people who administered these beatings to you?
A: I can only say that they were persons who were wearing the United States uniform and I can’t describe them any better.

Q: And as a result of those beatings when Lt. Guth called you in, what was your frame of mind?
A: I had to presume that if I were to refuse to sign I would be subjected to a similar treatment.

(TESTIMONY OF KRAMER, microfilm pages 000298-9).

Q: Kramer, were you interrogated after your arrest anywhere except Dachau?
A: Yes, in Fuerstenfeldbruck.

Q: Did that interrogation have any effect on the statement that you made here?

Prosecution: I object to that question as being immaterial and irrelevant.

President: Explain exactly what happened.

Q: Will you explain exactly what happened at that interrogation?
A: I do not want to talk about it.

Q: The court desires you to explain what happened.
A: I was beaten by an interrogation officer. Several prisoners were also present. I was supposed to tell how many people I
shot or hanged. I can say with a conscience that I never killed a person. Thereupon, I was beaten over the head with sticks
and rubber hoses until I broke down.

Q: Anything else to say about that?
A: No ...

(TESTIMONY OF DR. WITTELER, microfilm pages 000327-331).

A: During my interrogation I had to sit in front of the desk of Lt. Guth. A spotlight was turned on me which stood on the desk.
Lt. Guth stood behind the spotlight and the interrogation started. “We know you, we have the necessary records about you...”
I started to make an explanation. I was immediately stopped. I was yelled at. He called me a swine, criminal, liar, murderer,
and that is the way the interrogation continued. I couldn’t give any explanations. I was only told to answer “yes” or “no”... I
was interrupted immediately and told that all I had to do was answer “yes” and “no”. I couldn’t even explain it. I was told to
shut up and to answer “yes” or “no”... since it was not like he thought it was, I had to get up and stand. So I stood up until
1:30 in the morning - seven hours.

Q: ... at the conclusion of the drafting of this statement you signed it?
A: No, I answered that it is not correct... this statement was not written in my presence. It was written in another room. The
reporter was with me in the room all the time, but the statement was written in another room. After I couldn’t stand up any
more this statement was put in front of me at 1:30. And then when I said that this testimony... is not by me, that is the testimony
of Dr. Blaha-who was present for several hours that night... so that I didn’t want to sign it. Lt. Guth said he would interrogate
me until tomorrow morning, that he had other methods...


Q: How many people were present at the time you were interrogated?
A: Altogether, three: Lt. Guth, Dr. Leiss, and I, and, for a short time, Dr. Blaha.

Q: This writing in your own handwriting. Was that dictated or did you make it up? A: When I found that the interrogation
would end that way, I wrote down this last part and signed my name to it.

Q: Was it your own words or was it dictated to you?
A: Lt. Guth dictated those words...

Q: Prior to the time that you signed that statement, have you been served with any papers in this particular case?
A: No, I didn’t know why I was in Dachau. I had no idea I was one of the accused. After the interrogation at 1:30 I was sent
to the colonel and the colonel then read the charge to me. The first time I heard I was supposed to be a murderer, was then.

Q: You mean Col. Denson read the charges to you?
A: Yes. (Col. Denson acted as prosecutor in this trial and delivered the prosecution summation. Lt. Guth appeared as a
witness and denied all accusations of improper conduct. Guth was a viennese who came to the United States in 1941).

(TESTIMONY OF GRETSCH, microfilm pages 000701-3).

Q: Gretsch, is this statement in your handwriting?
A: No, that isn’t my handwriting.

Q: What part of this paper is in your handwriting?
A: This is my handwriting here.

Q: And what is this? What part of the paper is this?
A: That is, “I have made the above statements without compulsion, and I have read and corrected it and understand it fully. I
swear before God that it is the pure truth”.

Q: That is the oath, is it not?
A: Yes, that is the oath.

Q: And is the oath the only part of this statement that is in your handwriting?
A: Yes...

Q: ... Gretsch, you signed each page... did you not?
A: Yes, I signed it on the bottom, but I didn’t read it. It was in a hurry...

Q: ...Were you told to sign your name to each sheet of paper?
A: Yes...


Q: Kick testified that he was beaten daily from the 7th of May until the 15th of May... did you have occasion to examine
A: Yes.

Q: ... did you have occasion to observe his physical condition?
A: I did.

Q: Did he have any black eyes?
A: He did not.

Q: Did he show any evidence of violence having been used upon him?
A: He did not.

Q: Was any one or both of his arms paralysed?
A: Not that I observed. He was just as natural as he is now. In fact, he looked better at that time than he does now. I
observed nothing. He was very co-operative, and the record will so indicate. He was sworn and he gave his testimony in a
very gently manner.

Q: Did he at any time state to you, Colonel, that he had been beaten or in any manner mistreated?
A: He did not.

Q: ... how often did you see him?
A: Just during the time that he was interrogated. Q: ... of course he was fully clothed?
A: Yes.

Q: But there is no question about it - at the time you talked with him he was quite cooperative?
A: He was...


(TESTIMONY OF LT. LAURENCE, microfilm pages 000714-5).

Q: Did you have occasion to examine Albin Gretsch?
A: Yes, Sir.

Q: ... and did he complain of any mis-statements?...
A: Not at all, sir... they are mostly his own words, sir. And I may add, sir, that I wasn’t in a hurry at all. He took many hours
and as he was rather slow in answering, I gave him all the time he wanted...

Q: The statement, with the exception of the oath, is in your handwriting, is it not, Lt. Laurence?
A: Yes.

(Of course, while German allegations of mistreatment are always dismissed as baseless, similar accusations from prosecution
witnesses are accepted as “proven facts”.Among the offenses for which KICK was hanged was knocking 15 teeth out of the
lower jaw of Llewellyn Edwards of 12, Nora St. Cardiff, Wales, who claimed to have lost 15 upper teeth at some other

Q: At the time you went in Kick’s office, how many teeth did you have in your head?
A: Fifteen, sir. On the bottom, sir. Fifteen of my own, sir. On the top I had artificial teeth. (microfilm page 000722).
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10383
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 7 years ago (Fri Jun 04, 2004 9:53 am)

in addition:

U.S. Congressional Representative, Lawrence H. Smith of Wisconsin said:
" The Nuremberg Trials are so repugnant to the Anglo-Saxon principles of justice that we must forever be ashamed of that page in our history."

- Congressional Record, appendix, v.95, sec.14, 6/15/49

U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas:
I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled. Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time.
H. K. Thompson and H. Strutz, eds., Dönitz at Nuremberg: A Reappraisal (IHR, 1983), p. 196.

Edgar N. Eisenhower, American Attorney, brother of President Dwight D. Eisenhower:
I think the Nuremberg trials are a black page in the history of the world...I discussed the legality of these trials with some of the lawyers and some of the judges who participated therein. They did not attempt to justify their action on any legal ground, but rested their position on the fact that in their opinion, the parties convicted were guilty...This action is contrary to the fundamental laws under which this country has lived for many hundreds of years, and I think cannot be justified by any line of reasoning. I think the Israeli trial of Adolf Eichmann is exactly in the same category as the Nuremberg trials. As a lawyer, it has always been my view that a crime must be defined before you can be guilty of committing it. That has not occurred in either of the trials I refer to herein.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.168

Lt. Col. Ellis and Lt Perl of the Prosectution pleaded that it was difficult to obtain competant evidence. Perl told the court, "We had a tough case to crack and we had to use persuasive methods."

He admitted to the court that the persuasive methods included various "expedients, including some violence and mock trials." He further told the court that the cases rested on statements obtained by such methods.

The statements which were admitted as evidence were obtained from men who had first been kept in solitary confinement for three, four, and, five months. They were confined between four walls, with no windows, and no opportunity of exercise. Two meals a day were shoved in to them through a slot in the door. They were not allowed to talk to anyone. They had no communication with their families or any minister or priest during that time.

This solitary confinement proved sufficient in itself in some cases to persuade the Germans to sign prepared statements. These statements not only involved the signer, but often would involve other defendants.

Our investigators would put a black hood over the accused's head and then punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him, and beat him with rubber hose. Many of the German defendants had teeth knocked out. Some had their jaws broken. All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair. This was Standard Operating Procedure with American investigators. Perl admitted use of mock trials and persuasive methods including violence and said the court was free to decide the weight to be attached to evidence thus received.

One 18 year old defendant, after a series of beatings. was writing a statement being dictated to him. When they reached the 16th page, the boy was locked up for the night. In the early morning, Germans in nearby cells heard him muttering. "I will not utter another lie." When the jailer came in later to get him to finish his false statement, he found the German hanging from a cell bar, dead. However the statement that the German had hanged himself to escape signing was offered and received in evidence in the trial of the others.

Sometimes a prisoner who refused to sign was led into a dimly lit room, where a group of civilian investigators, wearing U. S. Army uniforms. were seated around a black table with a crucifix in the center and two candles burning, one on each aide. "You will now have your American trial," the defendant was told. The sham court passed a sham sentence of death. Then the accused was told, "You will hang in a few days, as soon as the general approves this sentence: but in the meantime sign this confession and we can get you acquitted." Some still wouldn't sign. We were shocked by the crucifix being used so mockingly.

In another case, a bogus Catholic priest (actually an investigator) entered the cell of one of the defendants, heard his confession, gave him absolution, and then gave him a little friendly tip: "Sign whatever the investigators ask you to sign. It will get you your freedom. Even though it's false, I can give you absolution now in advance for the lie you'd tell."

- E. L. Van Roden, "American Atrocities in Germany", The Progressive. February 1949, p. 21f.

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

User avatar
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1371
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 9:56 pm
Location: <secret>

Postby Haldan » 1 decade 7 years ago (Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:10 pm)

That was disgusting to read, but confirmed my previous thoughts of these 'trials'
<?php if ($Holocaust == false ) {deny_repeatedly(); } else { investigate(); } ?>
Homage to Catalin Haldan

User avatar
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10383
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Sun Dec 03, 2006 1:57 am)

Also see here as Auschwitz Commandant, Hoess, and his "confessions" via torture are exposed.

The "Confessions" of Rudolf Hoess

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

Barrington James
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 362
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 8:26 pm

Postby Barrington James » 1 decade 4 years ago (Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:48 am)

For more reading about torture and so on read Dr.Wilhelm's book "The Auschwitz Myth" . It is a great account of the "Inquisition" that occurred after the war. It is the most comprehensive examination of the "proofs" offered by the holocaust liars from a legalistic point of view and a damming analysis of their "show trails”.
You can fool too many of the people most of the time.

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2475
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 4 years ago (Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:40 pm)

What a great post Hannover!

I've never seen this before.
Hi Barrington: I believe you mean "Dr. Willhelm Staglich."

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:50 pm

Postby Mannstein » 1 decade 4 years ago (Sun Dec 03, 2006 10:00 pm)

This all sounds vaguely familar. Abu Ghraib and Gitmo come to mind.

As a young child I lived in Ebermannstadt Bavaria from 1945 - 1948 which had a CIC interrogation center. I vividly remember occcasionally seeing men and women coming out of the building with bloody noses and black eyes. At the time I didn't know what to think. Only later did it dawn on me what was actullly taking place.

Today the building has been turned into a Museum for Natural History. It's located on the street which leads from the Catholic church near the center of town to the railway station.

Google Ebermannstadt and you should be able to locate the exact spot. It's just before crossing the bridge over the Wiesend river.

User avatar
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10383
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 3 years ago (Tue Jun 10, 2008 3:57 pm)

But yet we're told it's all wrapped up, 'they confessed'. To cite the references in my first post would result in imprisonment in many countries.
BTW, there are thousands of 'confessions' in legal / official Witch Trials records.

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

User avatar
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:04 am
Location: Here

Postby PotPie » 1 decade 3 years ago (Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:38 pm)

And this, among other things, is why I take Nuremberg with a grain of salt.

Other reasons are refusal of exonerating evidence, prosecutorial control over documentation used at trial, etc.

From Time magazine (click here):

After war's end, the Germans responsible for the massacre fell into Allied hands. Among them were two SS bigwigs, General Josef ("Sepp") Dietrich, commander of the 6th Armored Division, and Colonel Joachim Peiper of the ist Armored Regiment (known as "Peiper's Task Force"). But most were youngsters whom Dietrich and Peiper had commanded. In 1946, in Dachau, 73 Germans were brought to trial for the Malmédy massacre. All were found guilty and 43 sentenced to death. It seemed an open-&-shut case. But the Germans' defense counsel (appointed by the U.S.), an Atlanta lawyer named Willis Meade Everett Jr., had discovered facts which turned the case into one of the ugliest in the history of the war crimes trials.

Candles on the Table. Everett submitted an incredible report (first to the U.S. Supreme Court, then to the U.S. Army), which read like a record of Nazi atrocities. He charged that, to extort confessions, U.S. prosecution teams "had kept the German defendants in dark, solitary confinement at near starvation rations up to six months; had applied various forms of torture, including the driving of burning matches under the prisoners' fingernails; had administered beatings which resulted in broken jaws and arms and permanently injured testicles."

He also charged that false confessions were obtained in mock trials, at which "the . . . plaintiff would see before him a long table . . . with candles burning at both ends . . . and a crucifix in the center . . . [The Germans] were informed or led to believe that they were being tried by Americans for violations of international law. At the other end of the table would be the prosecutor, who would read the charges, yell and scream at these 18-and 20-year-old plaintiffs and attempt to force confessions from them . . ."

Blot on the Record. Everett was no longer defending the Germans, most of whom he believed guilty; he was defending justice. For two years, at his own expense, Everett pleaded his case. Finally, last July 29, an Army commission under Justice Gordon Simpson of the Texas Supreme Court was set up to review the records.* The commission corroborated Everett concerning the mock trials and did not dispute or deny the rest. General Lucius D. Clay had already commuted the death sentences of 31 of the 43 condemned Germans. In Washington last week the Simpson commission recommended clemency (commutation to life imprisonment) for the remaining twelve.

This action, however, could not remove the blot on the record of U.S. military justice. It would remain as a terrible warning that, at times, the judges can be conquered by the forces of evil they are supposed to try.

*Three weeks ago a congressional committee, set up to review the case of Use ("Bitch of Buchenwald") Koch, whose life sentence had been reduced to four years, concluded that the U.S. prosecution had bungled. Use could have been given a life term for any one of several proved crimes; instead, she was tried and convicted on the shaky charge of participating in the management of Buchenwald. "Our soldiers," said the committee, "are not lawyers." Use will be free next September, but a German court will then almost certainly try her for crimes against German nationals.

Interesting, by the way, how the Chavez Report disappeared down the memory hole.

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 424
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 7:54 am

Postby MrNobody » 1 decade 3 years ago (Sat Jul 05, 2008 4:34 pm)

If you have ever watched the Documentary : Horizon: Total Isolation you'll soon realize just how tough & unwavering in their truth & conviction the Germans who underwent this torture were, the fact that they ultimately broke doesn't speak of their weakness but rather the lengths of brutality & unremitting pressure the Allies were willing to go in breaking them & getting the results they wanted.

You can see Horizon: Total Isolation here in five parts although I highly recommend finding a superior quality online source to download.

Or read an extensive BBC article here :
source :

For the first time in 40 years Horizon re-creates a controversial sensory deprivation experiment. Six ordinary people are taken to a nuclear bunker and left alone for 48 hours. Three subjects are left alone in dark, sound-proofed rooms, while the other three are given goggles and foam cuffs, while white noise is piped into their ears.

The original experiments carried out in the 1950s and 60s by leading psychologist Prof Donald Hebb, was thought by many in the North American political and scientific establishment to be too cruel and were discontinued.

Prof Ian Robbins, head of trauma psychology at St George's Hospital, Tooting, has been treating some of the British Guantanamo detainees and the victims of torture who come to the UK from across the world. Now he evaluates the volunteers as their brains undergo strange alterations.
Wir brauchen eine Bewegung, die Deutschland endlich aus der Kontrolle der Kräfte von Versailles und Jalta befreit, die uns schon ein ganzes Jahrhundert lang von einer Kastastrophe in die andere stürzt.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

Laurentz Dahl
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 981
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 8:00 am
Location: Somewhere in Europe

Postby Laurentz Dahl » 1 decade 3 years ago (Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:59 am)

It would indeed be interesting to know whether the same or similar techniques were used in the interrogation of "perpetrators" in conjunction with the West German "NS trials" in the 1960's.

User avatar
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10383
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 3 years ago (Mon Jul 07, 2008 1:23 pm)

Laurentz Dahl wrote:It would indeed be interesting to know whether the same or similar techniques were used in the interrogation of "perpetrators" in conjunction with the West German "NS trials" in the 1960's.

- Torture worked brilliantly at Nuremberg, why wouldn't it be used? And then there's always threats to the defendants family. 'Say what we want or your family goes to the communists'.

- And the fact that Nuremberg defendants were subjected fake trials as a safe, convenient way to control what they stated leads to the logical conclusion that that tactic too was re-used.

- We must realize that the actual verbatim transcripts are curiously not available.

The show trials courts took 'judicial notice' which stated that the laughble pesticide gassings were fact, even though no proof or forensic study to back it up (other than the equally absurd homicidal steam chambers study presented at Nuremberg), those accused had extremely limited options.

- How does one fight charges which the courts already assume to be 'fact'? You can't. You simply attempt to absolve yourself any way possible (make a deal) and blame others.

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

User avatar
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:04 am
Location: Here

Postby PotPie » 1 decade 3 years ago (Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:31 pm)

Mannstein wrote:Today the building has been turned into a Museum for Natural History. It's located on the street which leads from the Catholic church near the center of town to the railway station.

It should be converted to a museum of Allied war crimes.

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests