istheholocaustreal.com exposed -- "Why Didn't Any Nazi Deny" and the scope of the "conspiracy"

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
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

istheholocaustreal.com exposed -- "Why Didn't Any Nazi Deny" and the scope of the "conspiracy"

Postby Lamprecht » 10 months 5 days ago (Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:35 am)

This is my next post in my series debunking the istheholocaustreal.com website



From: http://www.istheholocaustreal.com/nazis-didnt-deny.html
Why Didn't Any Nazi Deny the Holocaust?

If the Holocaust wasn’t real, why is it that no Nazi has ever denied it? Not one. Nada. Zip.

Deniers love to argue that the Allies tortured Nazis into confessing their participation in The Holocaust.

Seriously?

That means that all these people went to trial (and many to execution) without once shouting “It’s a LIE!!!!” The hundreds and thousands of Nazi troops captured were also kept silent.

“Of course they did,” Holocaust deniers will say, “it’s a conspiracy!!”

A successful conspiracy to keep 30+ leaders, all on trial for their lives, from arguing “we didn’t do it!” A successful conspiracy to silence thousands of captured Nazi troops.
...
Some tried excuses like “I was just following orders.”

None said “It never happened.”

Not one.


This is totally incorrect. Many Nazis did deny the Holocaust. The most reasonable defense in the trials, of course, was to deny any involvement in the Holocaust as alleged. Not to mention, the alleged fact of a nazi extermination of Jews was not up to debate at the Nuremberg Trials. The Charter of the International Military Tribunal permitted the use of normally inadmissible 'evidence.'
Article 19 of the Nuremberg Charter wrote:The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence... and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value.
Article 21 of the Nuremberg Charter wrote:The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United [Allied] Nations, including acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and the records and findings of military and other Tribunals of any of the United [Allied] Nations.

Given this acceptance of 'evidence' where no proof was ever established, it is clear there were few options for anyone accused, as what they were accused of was already accepted as fact. Any 'document' or accusation presented by any of the Allied nations was accepted, without proof, as fact.

Most probably did not deny the gas chambers because it was impossible to prove that they didn't exist, especially when it was "common knowledge" and the prosection did "not require proof" -- at best, they defense could claim that they had no knowledge of them, but one can't really prove a negative. Remember: The attempted extermination of all jews was assumed to be true, so the defendants could only hope to absolve themselves of being at fault in that regard.


From the "debunking" link:
The Holocaust directly involved millions of people. Millions. Soldiers, prisoners, and observers of all kinds saw the concentration camps, the gas chambers, and the ovens. To successfully fake the Shoah, all of those people would have to keep their mouths shut.


What is being alleged here is a conspiracy theory, in which "The Germans executed a secret plan to exterminate every Jew they could, and managed to murder 6 million of them with gas chambers and by shooting them into large pits." According to Nuremberg Judge Powers, the "Holocaust" had been perpetrated with the greatest level of secrecy, and very few knew it was even happening: "not over 100 people in all were informed" about the attempted extermination, he claimed. In fact, many of the Nazis stated that post-war reports (or the trials themselves) were the first instances where they had ever heard of an extermination of Jews, and had honestly believed that the "Final Solution" meant "resettlement" which was what every document mentioning the "Final Solution to the Jewish question" defined it. As with many other conspiracy theories, the lack of physical evidence and the scarcity of alleged eyewitness testimonies were seen as convincing proof that the Nazis had something to hide and that they had successfully managed to do it.

Image



Anyway, on to the Nazis that denied... I will start with SS-Hauptsturmführer Josef Kramer:
I have heard of the allegations of former prisoners in Auschwitz referring to a gas chamber there, the mass executions and whippings, the cruelty of the guards employed, and that all this took place either in my presence or with my knowledge. All I can say to all this is that it is untrue from beginning to end.
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/thottc/16.html
I must point out, that Kramer later claimed that "The gas chamber existed, there is no doubt about it" once he realized what the nature of the trial was. This is a perfect example of the standard strategy for the defense: the defendant "knew" but was not "responsible" for the gassing of Jews. Another famous example of this strategy is Adolf Eichmann.

According to Holocaust believer Mark Roseman: "Eichmann, for his part, was at pains to establish a clear set of orders that absolved him of responsibility."
also:
"Adolf Eichmann spoke more openly, but his testimony is unreliable, particularly on his own aspirations, concerned as he was to portray himself as a dutiful errand boy, with neither initiation nor knowledge."
further:
"Both Rudolf Hoess's and Eichmann's testimonies lack credibility." (Roseman, Mark (2002) "The Wannsee Conference and the Final Solution: A Reconsideration")

Hoess was of course personally tortured and the allies threatened to send his son to Siberia. More can be read about that here:

Commandant of Auschwitz—Rudolf Höss, His Torture and His Forced Confessions
https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/35-coa.pdf


Because of his mistreatment, Hoess admitted to crimes he had no knowledge of:
Since I was Commandant of the extermination camp Auschwitz I was totally responsible for everything that happened there, whether I knew about it or not. Most of the terrible and horrible things that took place there I learned only during this investigation and during the trial itself. I cannot describe how I was deceived, how my directives were twisted, and all the things they had carried out supposedly under my orders.



Oswald Pohl had similar remarks:
As result of the brutal physical mistreatment in Nenndorf and my treatment in Nuremberg, I was emotionally a completely broken man. I was 54 years old. For 33 years I had served by country without dishonor, and I was unconscious of any crime.



As you can see, being tortured and having your family threatened can lead a person to say just about anything, even admitting to crimes that they never committed. Regardless, there were very large numbers of Nazis that did deny a mass extermination of Jews; "Holocaust" promoters simply cherry-pick the testimony they like and ignore any testimony that contradicts them.


Some points:

- Dr. Horst Pelckmann, defense counsel for the SS at Nuremberg, exposed the fact that over 97% of the SS men who mentioned "The Jewish Problem" denied that it was to be solved by extermination. On 21 August 1946 (IMT Proceedings, vol. 21, p. 368):
On the question of whether the SS members recognized the destruction of Jewry as an aim of the leaders, 1,593 out of 1,637 affidavits which mention this problem state that the Jewish problem was not to be solved by killing or the so-called "final solution," and that they had no knowledge of these intentions of the leaders. They point out that the SS members were forbidden to undertake individual acts against Jews. As evidence, numerous members refer to the fact that many death or other severe sentences were passed because of crimes against Jewish persons or Jewish property.
From: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/08-21-46.asp


- On July 1945, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that: "A report from the place where major German war criminals are now confined discloses that all of them have denied that the Nazis had any plans to exterminate the Jews of Europe." https://archive.is/NJgOn


Holocaust_The_Greenville_News_April_1945_T.jpg
April 1945: As Soviet-Allied atrocity propaganda about Nazi gas chambers grows bigger and bigger, Radio Berlin denies that Nazi Germany ever had any homicidal gas chamber in its concentration camps, and adds that the German gas chambers are "merely delousing devices" using poison gas only for "sanitary purposes."
Holocaust_The_Greenville_News_April_1945_T.jpg (138.26 KiB) Viewed 3028 times




Some individual examples of Nazis denying the "Holocaust" or saying "I first heard about it here":



- SS Obergruppenführer Ernst Kaltenbrunner called orders for homicidal gassings "impossible":

Code: Select all

Q: Witness after witness, by testimony and affidavit, has said that the gas chamber killings were done on general or specific orders of Kaltenbrunner.

Kaltenbrunner: Show me one of those men or any of those orders. It is utterly impossible.

Q: Practically all of the orders came through Kaltenbrunner.

Kaltenbrunner: Entirely impossible.




- Hans Frank, Hitler's personal lawyer & Governor-General of the occupied Polish territories:
On 7 February 1944 I succeeded in being received by Adolf Hitler personally--I might add that throughout the war he received me three times only. In the presence of Bormann I put the question to him: "My Fuhrer, rumors about the extermination of the Jews will not be silenced. They are heard everywhere. No one is allowed in anywhere. Once I paid a surprise visit to Auschwitz in order to see the camp, but I was told that there was an epidemic in the camp and my car was diverted before I got there. Tell me, My Fuhrer, is there anything in it?" The Fuhrer said, "You can very well imagine that there are executions going on of insurgents. Apart from that I do not know anything. Why don't you speak to Heinrich Himmler about it?" And I said, "Well, Himmler made a speech to us in Krakow and declared in front of all the people whom I had officially called to the meeting that these rumors about the systematic extermination of the Jews were false; the Jews were merely being brought to the East." Thereupon the Fuhrer said, "Then you must believe that."




- Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel:

Code: Select all

DR. LATERNSER: Do you know whether the higher military commanders at any time were informed of the intention of Hitler or Himmler to kill the Jews?

KEITEL: According to my opinion, that was not the case, since I personally was not informed either....

DR. HORN: In connection with the testimony by General Lahousen, I want to ask you one question. At the time of the Polish campaign, was there a directive or an order by Hitler to exterminate the Jews in the Polish Ukraine?

KEITEL: I cannot recall any such things. I know only that during the occupation of Poland – that is after the occupation – the problem of the Polish Jews played a part. In that connection I also put a question once to Hitler to which, I believe, he answered that that area was well suited for settling the Jews there. I do not know or remember anything else.




- Reichskommissar Arthur Seyss-Inquart:

Code: Select all

DR. HAENSEL: You said in your interrogation that a decree of Heydrich’s caused you to have Jews transported from Holland. Did you see Hitler's decree to Heydrich?

SEYSS-INQUART: I think so – a decree from Hitler to Heydrich alone would not have been for Heydrich.

DR. HAENSEL: You picture the situation as if Heydrich had told you that he had this decree.

SEYSS-INQUART: Yes, he told me that, and a few weeks later he sent me this decree.

DR. HAENSEL: Was it in writing?

SEYSS-INQUART: Yes, it was in writing.

DR. HAENSEL: And what did the decree say?

SEYSS-INQUART: That he had complete charge of the final solution of the Jewish question as well as other matters dealing therewith.

DR. HAENSEL: And when was this? 1941? 1940?

SEYSS-INQUART: It was at about the time when the evacuations started. That was in 1942.

DR. HAENSEL: That must be wrong. It was 1941, not later.

SEYSS-INQUART: Perhaps he showed me the decree later. I do not know the date of the decree.

DR. HAENSEL: That must be the case. But this decree, you said, was conceived in general terms?

SEYSS-INQUART: General terms.

DR. HAENSEL: It could be interpreted one way or another? I mean, you know...

SEYSS-INQUART: Yes, I had the impression that in the occupied territories Heydrich was to carry through the evacuation, and at that time I was not quite sure whether that was to be a final evacuation – which, however, was possible. The most extreme possibility was that the Jews would be collected in camps and after the end of the war settled somewhere.

DR. HAENSEL: I beg your pardon, Witness, the most extreme possibility would certainly be that the Jews would be destroyed, is that not so?

SEYSS-INQUART: I am speaking of the most extreme possibility which I thought of at the time.
...
DR. HAENSEL: Before 1943 did you discuss these problems with Hitler?

SEYSS-INQUART: I was merely present when Hitler talked about these problems. It was always along this line, to eliminate the Jews from the German population and to send them somewhere abroad.

DR. HAENSEL: But there was no talk at all about destruction of the Jews?

SEYSS-INQUART: Never.





- Chief of the Reich Chancellery Hans Lammers:

Code: Select all

DR. THOMA: I have only one more question. Did you know anything regarding the fact that Hitler had decided to solve the Jewish question by the final solution, that is, by the annihilation of the Jews?

LAMMERS: Yes, I know a great deal about that. The final solution of the Jewish question became known to me for the first time in 1942. That is when I heard that the Führer supposedly, through Göring, had given an order to the SS Obergruppenführer Heydrich to achieve a solution of the Jewish question. I did not know the exact contents of that order and consequently, since this did not come within my jurisdiction, at the beginning I took a negative attitude, but then as I wanted to know something I, of course, had to contact Himmler. I asked him what was really meant by the idea of the final solution of the Jewish question. Himmler replied that he had received the order from the Führer to bring about the final solution of the Jewish problem – or rather Heydrich and his successor had that order – and that the main point of the order was that the Jews were to be evacuated from Germany. With that statement I was satisfied for the time and waited for further developments, since I assumed that I would now in some way – I really had no jurisdiction here – I would obtain some information from Heydrich or his successor, Kaltenbrunner. Since nothing did come I wanted to inform myself about this, and back in 1942 I announced a report to the Führer, whereupon the Führer told me that it was true that he had given Himmler the order for evacuation but that he did not want any further discussion about this Jewish question during the war...

In the meantime I once more turned to Herr Himmler. He was of the opinion that it was necessary to discuss this question since a number of problems would have to be solved, particularly since the intention of achieving a final solution of the Jewish question would probably extend to persons of mixed blood, first grade, and would also extend to the so-called “privileged” marriages, that is to say, marriages where only one party was Aryan whereas the other party was Jewish. The Führer stated once more that he did not wish to have a report on it but that he had no objections to consultation on these problems. That some evacuations had taken place in the meantime had become known to me. At that time, at any rate, not the slightest thing was known, about the killing of Jews; if crass individual cases came up, I always addressed myself to Himmler and he was always very willing to settle these individual cases. Finally, however, in 1943, rumors cropped up that Jews were being killed. I had no jurisdiction in this field; it was merely that I occasionally received complaints and on the basis of these complaints I investigated the rumors. But, as far as I could tell, at any rate, these rumors always proved to be only rumors. Every one said he had heard it from somebody else and nobody wanted to make a definite statement. I am, in fact, of the opinion that these rumors were based mostly on foreign broadcasts and that the people just did not want to say from where they had the information. That caused me once more to undertake an investigation of this matter. First of all, since I, for my part, could not initiate investigations of matters under Himmler’s jurisdiction, I addressed myself to Himmler once again. Himmler denied any legal killings and told me, with reference to the order from the Führer, that it was his duty to evacuate the Jews and that during such evacuations, which also involved old and sick people, of course there were cases of death, there were accidents, there were attacks by enemy aircraft. He added too, that there were revolts, which of course he had to suppress severely and with bloodshed, as a warning. For the rest, he said that these people were being accommodated in camps in the East. He brought out a lot of pictures and albums and showed me the work that was being done in these camps by the Jews and how they worked for the war needs, the shoemakers shops, tailors shops, and so forth. He told me:
“This is the order of the Führer; if you believe that you have to take action against it then tell the Führer and tell me the names of the people who have made these reports to you.”

Of course, I could not tell him the names, first of all because they did not want to be named, and secondly, they only knew these things from hearsay, so as I said, I could not have given him any definite material at all. Nevertheless, I once again reported this matter to the Führer, and on this occasion he gave me exactly the same reply which I had been given by Himmler. He said, “I shall later on decide where these Jews will be taken and in the meantime they are being cared for there.”
...
DR. THOMA: But, Witness, please be quite brief. I am now putting this question to you: Did Himmler ever tell you that the final solution of the Jewish problem would take place through the extermination of the Jews?

LAMMERS: That was never mentioned. He talked only about evacuation.

DR. THOMA: He talked only about evacuation?

LAMMERS: Yes, only about evacuation.

DR. THOMA: When did you hear that these 5 million Jews had been exterminated?

LAMMERS: I heard of that here a while ago.
...
MAJOR JONES: Are you, as the head of the Reich Chancellery, the man who knew all the secrets of the Third Reich, saying to this Tribunal that you had no knowledge of the murder of millions and millions who were murdered under the Nazi regime?

LAMMERS: I mean to say that I knew nothing about it until the moment of the collapse, that is, the end of April 1945 or the beginning of May, when I heard such reports from foreign broadcasting stations. I did not believe them at the time, and only later on I found further material here, in the newspapers. If we are speaking now of the elimination of a harmful influence that is far from meaning annihilation. The Führer did not say a word about murder; no mention was ever made of such a plan.
Lammers also testified at the Ministries Case (NMT, v. 13). Asked again about the Final Solution he affirmed:

Code: Select all

Q. Witness, I must return to the killings of Jews. You stated that you had no knowledge of that. But I must nevertheless ask you, didn’t you at least hear rumors of such killings of Jews, and what did you undertake on hearing them?

A. Only in the year 1943 did such rumors come to my knowledge and this happened through private conversations and through a few anonymous and pseudonymous letters. But for me these rumors remained rumors. I looked into them. However, I never succeeded in ascertaining anything positive regarding the truth of such alleged facts. People bringing me such rumors never wished to stand their ground and withdrew when I tried to pin them down to their statements. It always turned out that they would name their informants or did not wish to and that they themselves were not eyewitnesses. I myself always had the impression that such rumors rested solely on the listening to foreign radios which was strictly forbidden and punishable and in the last analysis no one wished to confess this activity. So far as I looked into letters that were actually signed, I found out that these were pseudonymous letters, and so far as I wished to pin any individual down to an actual deposition of facts, that never came about because the persons did not wish to stick to their stories and could produce no actual recounting of facts, and were themselves not eyewitnesses....

Q. In what then did the problem of the final solution consist so far as you understood that term at that time and I emphasize your understanding of the term at that time?

A. The solution was to lie in the evacuation of full-blooded Jews, and secondly, a regulation of some sort concerning the privileged Jews and the half-Jews.

Q. Witness, on the basis of the minutes of the three meetings of 20 January 1942, 6 March 1942, and 27 October 1942 put in by the prosecution, are you stilI of the opinion that no program for exterminating the Jews was ever set up and that, secondly, with regard to including half-Jews and privileged Jews in the evacuation or other measures, no program was set up?

A. Yes. I am of that opinion. At least this program never came to my attention. The program cannot have been set up.





- Minister of Finance Schwerin von Krosigk:

Code: Select all

Q. With reference to the problem of the treatment of the Jews I have one more question. These matters have been repeatedly discussed here. I would only like to hear your personal attitude. What did you know about the so-called Final Solution [Endloesung] of the Jewish Question?

A. I cannot remember ever having heard the term at all before the collapse. At any rate I was not aware of any physical extermination as a solution of the Jewish question.

Q. The prosecution naturally says that many people in Germany knew it and asks why you, as a minister, did not know it. Is it possible for you to explain that?

A. Of course it could not remain hidden from me that in wartime Jews were evacuated from Germany. All the less since the property they left behind them was transferred to my financial authority for administration and evaluation. But as far as a plan, the execution of such a plan went, that this evacuation was to lead to extermination, that is something of which I never heard anything at all. When I asked I was always told that these measures were equivalent to the internment of enemy nationals in wartime for security reasons.

Q. At that time were you ever given the name of a place where they were taken?

A. The East was mentioned quite generally. I only heard one name. That was Theresienstadt. That was given to me as a place which had been evacuated by other inhabitants and made available for the settlement of German Jews.




- Secretary of the Foreign Office Ernst von Weizsäcker:

Code: Select all

Q. Were you kept currently informed about what was happening to the Jews and what extent the extermination [Vernichtung] had assumed?

A. From the very beginning I considered many atrocious actions possible, but my imagination did not suffice to picture what I actually learned after the collapse.

Q. Didn’t you know of the plan of the so-called Final Solution [Endloesung], I mean the plan regarding the final extermination of all the Jews who were reported to the East?

A. This plan was completely unknown to me.




- Julius Streicher:

Code: Select all

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: We will go on. Now, I just want to put one or two further articles of your own to you. You remember what I am suggesting, that you are inciting the German people to murder. We know now that at least you had read one article in the Israelitisches Wochenblatt where murder is mentioned. I just want to see what you go on to publish in your own paper after that date. Would you look at Page 47-A. This is an article by yourself on 6 January 1944. This is after you had been living on your estate for some time.

“After the National Socialist uprising in Germany, a development began in Europe, too, from which one can expect that it will free this continent for all time of the Jewish disintegrator and exploiter of nations; and, over and above this, that the German example will, after a victorious termination of the second World War, bring about the destruction of the Jewish world tormentor on the other continents as well.”

What example was the German nation setting to the other nations of the world? What example do you mean there?

STREICHER: This article corroborates what I have been saying all along. I spoke of an international solution of the Jewish question. I was convinced that if Germany had won this war or had been victorious over Bolshevism, then the world would have agreed that an understanding should be reached with the other nations for an international solution of the Jewish question. If I wrote here about destruction, it is not to be understood as destruction by mass killing; as I have said, that is an expression; I have to point out that I do not believe that Erich Kauffmann[1] really wanted to kill the German people by sterilization, but he wrote it, and we sometimes wrote in the same manner, echoing the sounds that we heard in the other camp.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: You have not yet told us what is this international solution that you are advocating by talking about extermination; if it is not murder, what is it? What is the solution?

STREICHER: I have already said that I founded the Anti-Semitic Union, and through this Anti-Semitic Union we wanted to create movements among the nations which should, above and beyond governments, act in such a way that an international possibility would be created, such as has been represented today here in this Trial – thus I conceived it, to form an international congress center which would solve the Jewish question by the creation of a Jewish state and thereby destroy the power of the Jews within the nations.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: That is your answer – that you were advocating a Jewish state? Is that all that this comes to? Is it simply that you were advocating a Jewish national home? Is that what you have been talking about in all these extracts that we have read? Is that the solution which you are advocating?

STREICHER: Well, I do not know what you want with that question. Of course, that is the solution.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Very well. Let us just go on now. Turn to Page 48-A now, will you? This is 24 January 1944, “Whoever does what a Jew does is a scoundrel, a criminal, and he who repeats and wishes to copy him deserves the same fate – annihilation, death.”

Are you still advocating a national Jewish home?

STREICHER: Yes, that has nothing to do with the big political plan. If you take every statement by a writer, every statement from a daily newspaper, as an example, and want to prove a political aim by it, then you miss the point. You have to distinguish between a newspaper article and a great political aim.
Streicher also said: "To this day I do not believe that 5 million were killed. I consider it technically impossible that that could have happened. I do not believe it. I have not received proof of that up until now."




- Chief of the Wehrmacht Alfred Jodl:

Code: Select all

DR. EXNER: As we are just talking of the Jews, will you tell the Court what you knew about the extermination of Jews? I remind you that you are under oath.

JODL: I know just how improbable these explanations sound, but very often the improbable is true and the probable untrue. I can only say, fully conscious of my responsibility, that I never heard, either by hint or by written or spoken word, of an extermination of Jews. On one single occasion I had doubts, and that was when Himmler spoke about the revolt in the Jewish Ghetto. I did not quite believe in this heroic fight; but Himmler immediately supplied photographs showing the concrete dugouts which had been built there, and he said, “Not only the Jews but also Polish Nationalists have taken refuge there and they are offering bitter resistance”. And with that he removed my suspicions.

THE PRESIDENT: Are you speaking of Warsaw?

JODL: I am speaking of the uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto of which I heard through a personal report from Himmler given in our presence, in the presence of soldiers at the Fuehrer’s headquarters. Himmler spoke only of an uprising and of bitter fighting. As far as the activities of the Police are concerned, of the so-called action groups, Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos – a conception, incidentally, of which I first heard here in detail – there was never any explanation through the Fuehrer himself other than that these police units were necessary to quell uprisings, rebellions, and partisan actions before they grew into a menace. This was not a task for the Armed Forces, but for the Police, and for that reason the Police had to enter the operational areas of the Army. I have never had any private information on the extermination of the Jews; and on my word, as sure as I am sitting here, I heard all these things for the first time after the end of the war.




- Alfred Rosenberg:
The thought of a physical annihilation of Slavs and Jews, that is to say, the actual murder of entire peoples, has never entered my mind and I most certainly did not advocate it in any way. I was of the opinion that the existing Jewish question would have to be solved by the creation of a minority right, by emigration, or by settling the Jews in a national territory over a ten-year period of time. The White Paper of the British Government of 24 July 1946 shows how historical developments can bring about measures which were never previously planned.
Alfred Rosenberg again:

Code: Select all

ALEXANDROV: How about the mass extermination of thousands of innocent people, for instance, Jews in the Ghettoes of Warsaw and other cities. Did you hear about such things; did you hear about the gas vans?

ROSENBERG: I have heard about them but I don't believe it.

ALEXANDROV: But it is a fact. We have documents which prove that all this was done. We also have people that are still alive who witnessed these atrocities. There is no question but that these things are true. How do you feel about them?

ROSENBERG: I would assume that in such a gigantic struggle there would be many victims but I still don't believe this part where you allege to prove that deliberate mass extermination was practiced in this manner. I did, of course, know that in connection with our struggle there were many executions. I did not know anything about mass extermination to the extent and in the manner as you say.
In response to questions about inhumane orders:
I think that such orders for inhuman conduct in concentration camps could not ever have been given, [...] My personal opinion is that such inhuman things ought not and could not have been ordered.
more Rosenberg:

Code: Select all

HINKEL: You knew it was Himmler's policy to exterminate the Jews, didn't you?

ROSENBERG: In this shape or manner, I did not believe it until the end.

HINKEL: You had been informed of that, had you not?

ROSENBERG: No; I was not.

HINKEL: Everybody else seems to have known it. Why didn't you know about it?

ROSENBERG: I learned about it the first time by the radio which mentioned and cited speeches of Jews abroad.

HINKEL: Didn't you receive the Hitler order, wherein Himmler was appointed the person in charge of Jewish affairs?

ROSENBERG: No; I haven't seen it, but I have been told of it.

HINKEL: And when were you told about it?

ROSENBERG: In the '30s.

HINKEL: You knew what Himmler's policy was towards the Jews?

ROSENBERG: Well, those things must have become rather acute during the war because before the war such things didn't happen. Himmler only mentioned once that he had to drive away the Jews from Dusseldorf, and that they were in a camp where in about a fortnight they set up a cabaret.
Rosenberg denies knowledge of extermination of Jews:

Code: Select all

DR. HAENSEL: Do you know that the SS, as far as the Jews were concerned, followed secret aims and objectives, others than those that were published officially?

ROSENBERG: That I learned here.

DR. HAENSEL: You do not know that from your own knowledge?

ROSENBERG: No.





- Reich Marshal Hermann Göring:

Code: Select all

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You heard what I read to you about Hitler, what he said to Horthy and what Ribbentrop said, that the Jews must be exterminated or taken to concentration camps. Hitler said the Jews must either work or be shot. That was in April 1943. Do you still say that neither Hitler nor you knew of this policy to exterminate the Jews?

GOERING: For the correctness of the document.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Will you please answer my question. Do you still say neither Hitler nor you knew of the policy to exterminate the Jews?

GOERING: As far as Hitler is concerned, I have said I do not think so. As far as I am concerned, I have said that I did not know, even approximately, to what extent these things were taking place.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You did not know to what degree, but you knew there was a policy that aimed at the extermination of the Jews?

GOERING: No, a policy of emigration, not liquidation of the Jews. I knew only that there had been isolated cases of such perpetrations.




- Dr. Mengele, the infamous "Angel of Death" stated: "I gave life in Auschwitz, I did not take it." https://archive.is/fJM8C
He also said: "I don’t have anything to hide. Terrible things happened at Auschwitz, and I did my best to help. One could not do everything. There were terrible disasters there. I could only save so many. I never killed anyone or hurt anyone. I can prove I am innocent of what they could say against me. I am building the facts for my defense. I want to turn myself in and be cleared at a trial." http://tinyurl.com/ptye3e2


- S.S. Major-General Heinz Fanslau, from "Did Six Million Really Die":
There is no more eloquent testimony to the tragedy and tyranny of Nuremberg than the pathetic astonishment or outraged disbelief of the accused persons themselves at the grotesque charges made against them. Such is reflected in the affidavit of S.S. Major-General Heinz Fanslau, who visited most of the German concentration camps during the last years of the war. Although a front line soldier of the Waffen S.S., Fanslau had taken a great interest in concentration camp conditions, and he was selected as a prime target by the Allies for the charge of conspiracy to annihilate the Jews. It was argued, on the basis of his many contacts, that he must have been fully involved. When it was first rumoured that he would be tried and convicted, hundreds of affidavits were produced on his behalf by camp inmates he had visited. When he read the full scope of the indictment against the concentration camp personnel in supplementary Nuremberg Trial No. 4 on May 6th, 1947, Fanslau declared in disbelief: "This cannot be possible, because I, too, would have had to know something about it."
Source: https://www.ihr.org/books/harwood/dsmrd04.html


- SS Captain Alois Brunner:
"I first heard about gas chambers after the end of the war," says Alois Brunner, the "most wanted Nazi war criminal" still at large.
...
"When did you learn about the gassing of Jews?" [Austrian journalist Gerd] Honsik asked. Brunner's reply: "After the war, from the newspapers!"
...
Brunner is "an innocent man," and those who believe that he is a mass murderer or criminal are "victims of a great Allied propaganda lie," Honsik insists.
From: Alois Brunner Talks About His Past
https://codoh.com/library/document/2279/?lang=en


A few more examples, from: A Brief List of the Conveniently Deceased
https://codoh.com/library/document/656/
Gustav Franz Wagner (b. 1911) was reportedly deputy commandant at Sobibor. After the war Wagner migrated to Syria and later in the early 1950’s to Brazil , where he lived under his own name, working as a farmhand. After Simon Wiesenthal initiated a hunt for a man falsely identified as him, the real Wagner voluntarily handed himself over to the Brazil special police in São Paulo , on May 30, 1978. According to an article in the newspaper Folha de São Paulo, June 2, 1978, Wagner had stated to the police: “I never saw any gas chamber at Sobibor” ( Eu nunca vi nenhuma camara de gas em Sobibor). On June 22, 1979, the Rio Supreme Court dismissed all claims for Wagner’s extradition. On October 30, 1980, Wagner allegedly committed suicide by stabbing himself to death in the bathroom of his rural home. The circumstances of the suicide have been deemed suspicious even by some exterminationist writers. Brazil citizen and former Sobibor inmate Stanislaw Szmajzner, who “confronted” Wagner at the time of his arrest, has let out that he “believes” that Wagner was in fact killed by Jewish “avengers” (Die Zeit, October 11, 1991). The author is currently researching the Wagner case together with local Brazilian revisionists.


Kurt Bolender (b. 1912) was another SS posted at Sobibor. When arrested in 1961, he initially denied killings at the camp. He is alleged to have committed suicide by hanging on October 21, 1966, just before his sentence was pronounced. According to the American magazine Time, Bolender left behind a suicide note stating that he was innocent.


Alexander Laak, former commandant of the Jägala camp in Estonia where a large number of Jews were supposedly massacred, is alleged to have committed suicide by hanging in his garage in Winnipeg , Canada . A number of Laak’s subordinates had at the time been given harsh sentences at a Soviet show trial. According to an article in Der Tagespiegel September 8, 1960, Laak had declared the Soviet allegations against him to be “99% lies and Communist propaganda.” In Michael Elkin's book Forged in Fury (1971) it is claimed that a Jewish "avenger" named Arnie Berg travelled to Winnipeg to kill Laak, and that Laak hanged himself under Berg's supervision in order to not have his wife shot by Berg.


Herbert Cukurs was a Latvian who allegedly participated in a massacre of 30,000 Jews in Riga . After the war Cukurs lived in São Paulo , where he later was “recognized” by two Jews and became a target of extreme harassment by the local Jewish community. In 1965 Cukurs was tricked to go to Uruguay , where he was brutally murdered with gun shots and hammer blows from unknown perpetrators. His dismembered remains were then sent back to his family in a box. According to the newspaper Folha de São Paulo, Cukurs had insisted to his family that he was innocent of the allegations.



- Hans Aumeier, deputy commandant of Auschwitz, said in a statement on 29 June 1945:
In the main camp was one crematorium with two ovens... During my time two or three crematoria were built at Birkenau. I know nothing about gas chambers, and no prisoner was gassed in my time.

Meiner Zeit waren in Birkenau 2 oder 3 Krematorium [sic. Krematorien] in Bau. Von Gaska[m]ern ist mir nichts bekannt, auch wurde zu meiner Zeit kein Häftling vergast.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Aumeier/MS2_290645.html


- Generaloberst Paul Hausser at Nuremberg also repeatedly denied atrocities attributed to the Waffen-SS:

Code: Select all

HERR PELCKMANN: The Prosecution is particularly accusing the Verfiigungstruppe for inciting racial hatred and for the persecution of the Jews as one of its special tasks. Was the troop trained for these purposes?

HAUSER: The political and ideological training could only be achieved by schooling. I, personally, as director of the school and as an inspector, have closely watched this training, for I was a new man myself and had first to acquaint myself with these ways of thinking. I can testify that race hatred and the extermination of Jewry or of the Eastern peoples was never taught and was never demanded.
...
HERR PELCKMANN: Is it correct that Heinrich Himmler in his speeches broke out into exorbitant invective against the Jews and the Slavs?

HAUSER: I know only about the speech at Kharkov in 1943, in which he mentioned three points which called forth our criticism and opposition. I have already expressed myself on the one point, namely, the terror which was to precede us. His distasteful statements about the Jews referred to Germany only and did not indicate extermination in any way.



- Albert Speer, Reich Minister of Armaments and War Production:
Until his death in 1981, Speer steadfastly insisted that he did not know of any extermination program or gassings during the war. His position was remarkable because, if a wartime policy to exterminate the Jews had actually existed, almost no one would have been in a better position to have known about it. As Reich Armaments Minister, Speer was responsible for the continental mobilization of all available resources, including critically needed Jewish workers. That millions of Jews could have been transported across Europe and killed at a wartime industrial center as important as Auschwitz, and elsewhere, without Speer's knowledge simply defies belief.
From: The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust
https://codoh.com/library/document/2369/



- Auschwitz Commandant Richard Baer was the only defendant who did not appear at the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial in 1963. He was commandant of Auschwitz I from May 11, 1944 and Auschwitz II (Birkenau) from the end of 1944 until the evacuation in January 1945. He was arrested on December 21, 1960 and, though in perfect health, he died on June 1963 "in a highly mysterious way" (according to German newspaper 'Deutsche Wochenzeitung' July 27, 1973) while in prison before the trial had begun. This is of particular interest because a Paris newspaper (Rivarol) had recorded his insistence that "during the whole time in which he governed Auschwitz, he never saw any gas chambers nor believed that such things existed," and from this statement nothing would dissuade him.
See: The curious death of Richard Baer
viewtopic.php?t=3073
See also: https://archive.is/289fP



- On SS commander Erich Priebke:
In a written interview recorded a few months before his death, Priebke, who was jailed for life over the execution of hundreds of Italians in the so-called Ardeatine massacre, denied the Holocaust and defends Adolf Hitler and the Nazi ideology.
...
Priebke dismissed concentration camps as normal war prisons, saying they featured good kitchens and brothels for the inmates to use.
...
He claims the gassing of millions Jews is false and that existence of gas chambers was cooked up at the Nuremberg trials of Hitler's top Nazi henchmen.

He describes Nuremberg as a "show trial" and a farce set up to dehumanise Germans and cover up war crimes made by the US and its allies.
...
"To kill millions of people this way, in the same place where other work and live, without them to notice anything is absurd," he rambled.

Priebke claimed he was "dismayed" when he first heard about gas chambers after the end of the war.
Source: https://archive.is/h1ul6



- Karl Wolff, Himmlers adjutant, denied knowledge of an extermination of Jews. An article in German says he admitted to first having learned "about the systematic extermination of millions of Jews in Poland in mid-March 1945 in Switzerland" https://archive.is/W1Qns



- SS-Obersturmführer Robert Mulka, who was adjutant to Rudolf Hoess, denied he even knew about the gassings. (German: https://archive.is/3J842#selection-3736.7-3835.169 also viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8165&start=60#p66296)
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwcjf1JGMxk



- Karl Höcker, Mulka's successor as adjutant of the camp commandant, believed "that inmates in Auschwitz were basically not killed." https://archive.is/g4Zhb#selection-500.0-500.1 also https://archive.is/Q1QE2#selection-314.0-314.1



- SS Staff Sgt. Rochus Misch, Hitler's bodyguard, claimed he "knew nothing of the murder of 6 million Jews" https://archive.is/LQECw



- Goebbels' secretary that "took down every word that Goebbels uttered, both his private correspondence and his official orders" claimed she "didn't know about the Holocaust" and "only learned about the Jewish extermination programme after the war. Goebbels never mentioned it in his correspondence." https://archive.is/vBhjp



- Generalfeldmarschall Erich von Manstein:

Code: Select all

COL. TAYLOR: You think that you wrote the second part and not the first?

VON MANSTEIN: I did not write the order at all myself. Very probably the order was shown to me in draft and then I signed it. If the first part mentions the fight against the system and the extermination of the system as well as the fight against the Jews as the supporters of the partisan movement, in the last analysis it had its proper justification. But all that has nothing to do with the fact that Jews were to be exterminated. They were to be excluded, and the system was to be removed. That is the point that matters.

COL. TAYLOR: I think you told the Tribunal a few minutes ago that you did not even know that Jews were likely to be opposed to the new administration. It looks as if you very definitely wrote that for the attention of your soldiers, doesn’t it?

VON MANSTEIN: No, I did not know that, and this order that Jews were to be exterminated cannot possibly recall it to my memory because it does not mention a word that the Jews were to be exterminated. It merely says that the system is to be exterminated.
According to the Manstein trial verdict: "the defendant denied strongly to have participated in any gas van operations. He stated that he has never seen a gas van in his life and that he had not even heard of the existence of such vehicles at that time"
Also see: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8165&start=120#p75290




- Hans Laternser, defense lawyer of the Generals on trial, denied the gas vans at the IMT:
In the autumn of 1943, 195,000 persons are alleged to have been killed in mass executions and in gas vans in Kiev. For counter-evidence I refer to Affidavits 1116-a,* 1116-b, and 1116-c, which show that the Wehrmacht never possessed any gas vans.




- Hans Gawlik, defense lawyer of SS and SD defendants:
The Prosecution have also submitted Document Number 501-PS on the use of gas vans. I must point out that Amt III never issued instructions on the use of gas vans, as testified by the witness Dr Ehlich [vol. 42, p. 106]. Document 501-PS submitted by the Prosecution shows by its reference Number II that the matter of gas vans was dealt with in Amt II of the RSHA. The SS-Obersturmbannfuhrer Rauff mentioned in the document was not a member of Amter III and VI, but a group chief in Amt II of the RSHA. He was at that time in charge of motor transport. I refer in this connection to the testimony of the witnesses Ohlendorf and Hoeppner (Session of 3 January 1946) and to 60 affidavits from the entire Reich and the occupied territories for the period from 1941 to 1945, according to which the SD had nothing to do with the use of gas vans.




- Erich Ehrlinger, from "The Gas Vans: A Critical Investigation"
Erich Ehrlinger, head of Einsatzkommando 1b in summer 1941, “persistently” denied having ordered or participated in wanton mass murder, though the court did not believe him, pp. 85f., 106. Initially sentenced to twelve years, a retrial never took place due to him allegedly being permanently unfit for trial. Ehrlinger died in 2004 at the age of 95. So much for his unfitness; cf.
PDF: http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/26-tgv.pdf



- Josef Bühler the deputy governor of the General Government and attendee of the Wannsee Conference, claimed to be one of the main peretrators of one half of the entire "Holocaust" and he was sentenced to death for it:

Code: Select all

SMIRNOV: Then the Jewish ghettos were already empty. In that case, what happened to the Jews from Poland?

BUEHLER: When these Jewish ghettos were emptied, I assumed they were resettled in the northeast of Europe. The chief of the RSHA had definitely told me at the conference in February 1942 that this was the intention.
...
DR. SEIDL: The Prosecution submitted an extract from Frank's diary in evidence under Number USA-281 (Document Number 2233(d)-PS.) This is a discussion of Jewish problems. In this connection Frank said, among other things:

"My attitude towards the Jews is based on the expectation that they will disappear; they must go away. I have started negotiations for deporting them to the East. This question will be discussed at a large meeting in Berlin in January, to which I shall send State Secretary Dr. Buehler. This conference is to take place at the Reich Security Main Office in the office of SS Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich. In any case Jewish emigration on a large scale will begin."

I ask you now, did the Governor General send you to Berlin for that conference; and if so, what was the subject of the conference?

BUEHLER: Yes, I was sent to the conference and the subject of the conference was the Jewish problem. I might say in advance that from the beginning Jewish questions in the Government General were considered as coming under the jurisdiction of the Higher SS and Police Leader and handled accordingly. The handling of Jewish matters by the state administration was supervised and merely tolerated by the Police.

During the years 1940 and 1941 incredible numbers of people, mostly Jews, were brought into the Government General in spite of the objections and protests of the Governor General and his administration. This completely unexpected, unprepared for, and undesired bringing in of the Jewish population from other territories put the administration of the Government General in an extremely difficult position.

Accommodating these masses, feeding them, and caring for their health-combating epidemics for instance-almost, or rather, definitely overtaxed the capacity of the territory. Particularly threatening was the spread of typhus, not only in the ghettos but also among the Polish population and the Germans in the Government General. It appeared as if that epidemic would spread even to the Reich and to the Eastern Front.

At that moment Heydrich's invitation to the Governor General was received. The conference was originally supposed to take place in November 1941, but it was frequently postponed and it may have taken place in February 1942.

Because of the special problems of the Government General I had asked Heydrich for a personal interview and he received me. On that occasion, among many other things, I described in particular the catastrophic conditions which had resulted from the arbitrary bringing of Jews into the Government General. He replied that for this very reason he had invited the Governor General to the conference. The Reichsfuehrer SS, so he said, had received an order from the Fuehrer to round up all the Jews of Europe and to settle them in the Northeast of Europe, in Russia. I asked him whether this meant that the further arrival of Jews in the Government General would cease, and whether the hundreds of thousands of Jews who had been brought into the Government General without the permission of the Governor General would be moved out again. Heydrich promised me both these things. Heydrich said furthermore that the Fuehrer had given an order that Theresienstadt, a town in the Protectorate, would become a reservation in which old and sick Jews, and weak Jews who could not stand the strains of resettlement, were to be accommodated in the future. This information left me definitely convinced that the resettlement of the Jews, if not for the sake of the Jews, then for the sake of the reputation and prestige of the German people, would be carried out in a humane fashion. The removal of the Jews from the Government General was subsequently carried out exclusively by the Police.

I might add that Heydrich demanded, particularly for himself, his office, and its branches, the exclusive and uninterrupted competence and control in this matter.
...
SMIRNOV: I ask you this: In 1944 when the machines of destruction were working at top speed at Auschwitz and Maidanek, what depots or warehouses existed for the storage of Jewish movable property besides those which stored the movable property of Jews executed in concentration camps? Do you know of any other warehouses and where they were located?

BUEHLER: The Jews were deprived of their property on the spot. I have never assumed that Jewish property was to be found in concentration camps. I did not know anything at all about these camps. Where the Police took that movable property was not clear to me, but depots must have existed.

SMIRNOV: I would draw your attention to the date-21 February 1944. At that time were there any Jews still alive in Poland, or were the Jewish ghettos already quite empty?

BUEHLER: The Jewish ghettos were empty, but there were still some Jews; I know that because they were being used in one way or another in the armament industry. Jewish property could not have been removed from the territory, it must have been somewhere in the Government General, very probably near the ghettos or wherever else the evacuation of Jews took place. And this telegram, I repeat, does not concern stores which were in concentration camps; they were everywhere. Every place had property stored somewhere which originated from the resettlement of the Jews.

SMIRNOV: Then the Jewish ghettos were already empty. In that case, what happened to the Jews from Poland?

BUEHLER: When these Jewish ghettos were emptied, I assumed they were resettled in the northeast of Europe. The chief of the RSHA had definitely told me at the conference in February 1942 that this was the intention.




- General Erhard Milch, March 11, 1946:
In the first place the large number of concentration camps was unknown to everybody, as it was unknown to me. Secondly, nobody knew what went on there. This knowledge was apparently confined to a very small circle of people who were in the secret. [...] And again, how could the Germans know anything about these things, since they never saw them or heard about them? Nothing was said about them in the German press, no announcements were made on the German radio, and those who listened to foreign broadcasts exposed themselves to the heaviest penalties




- The dean and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Rabbi Marvin Hier, lamented about the fact that "those in the close circle around Hitler" all claimed no knowledge of the alleged Holocaust: "They never heard the horrible things. That is all basically revisionism" he said. https://archive.is/TNVeq#selection-1003.0-1007.196



- Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop denied any extermination of Jews, and pointed out the unfair nature of the trials:
The defense had no fair chance to defend German foreign policy. Our prepared application for the submission of evidence was not allowed... Without good cause being shown, half of the 300 documents which the defense prepared were not admitted. Witnesses and affidavits were only admitted after the prosecution had been heard; most of them were rejected... Correspondence between Hitler and Chamberlain, reports by ambassadors and diplomatic minutes, etc., were rejected. Only the prosecution, not the defense, had access to German and foreign archives. The prosecution only searched for incriminating documents and their use was biased. It knowingly concealed exonerating documents and withheld them from the defense.
In a letter to his wife, written shortly before his execution, von Ribbentrop commented: "Everyone knows that the [guilty] verdict is utterly untenable, but I was once Adolf Hitler's Foreign Minister and politics demands that for this fact I shall be condemned."




- Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz, who was named Hitler's successor and head of state in Hitler's last will and testament, also denied the claims of extermination. In his Spandau diaries (18 March 1948), Albert Speer wrote: " Doenitz; abruptly and aggressively says to me that the Nuremberg verdict made a mockery of all justice... I cannot deny that Doenitz; is partially right in his rejection of the Nuremberg verdicts."




- Hans Fritzsche, Ministerialdirektor at the Propagandaministerium, present in the Berlin Führerbunker during the last days of Adolf Hitler:

Code: Select all

DR. FRITZ: [...] Herr Fritzsche, I should like to put two more general questions to you on this topic. During the last period of the war, did you not try to find out something about the final fate of the Jews?

FRITZSCHE: Yes. I made the most of an opportunity to which I will refer briefly later on. I asked a colleague of Obergruppenfuehrer Glucks, in Oranienburg-Sachsenhausen, about the Jews. Briefly summarized, his answer was as follows: The Jews were under the special protection of the Reichsfuehrer-SS who wished to make a political deal with them. He looked upon them as a kind of hostages and he did not wish a single hair from their heads to be harmed.

DR. FRITZ: Some of the Prosecution's witnesses have asserted during this Trial that the German public knew about these murders. Now I just want to ask you, as a journalist who worked in the National Socialist State, what was, as far as you know, the attitude of the broad mass of the German people to the Jews? Did the people know about the murder of the Jews? Please be brief.

FRITZSCHE: [...] I, as a journalist who worked during that period, am firmly convinced that the German people were unaware of the mass murders of the Jews and assertions to that effect were considered rumors; and reports which reached the German people from outside were officially denied again and again. As these documents are not in my possession, I cannot quote from memory individual cases of denial; but one case I do remember with particular clearness. That was the moment when the Russians, after they recaptured Kharkov, started legal proceedings during which killing by gas was mentioned for the first time.

I ran to Dr. Goebbels with these reports and asked him about the facts. He stated he would have the matter investigated and would discuss it with Himmler and with Hitler. The next day he sent me notice of denial. This denial was not made public; and the reason stated was that in German legal proceedings it is necessary to state in a much plainer manner matters that need clarification. However, Dr. Goebbels explicitly informed me that the gas vans mentioned in the Russian legal proceeding were pure invention and that there was no actual proof to support it.

It was not without reason that the people who operated these vans were put under the ban of strictest secrecy. If the German people had learned of these mass murders, they would certainly no longer have supported Hitler. They would probably have sacrificed 5 million for a victory, but never would the German people have wished to bring about victory by the murder of 5 million people.
...
DR. FRITZ: Now I shall turn to a different topic. You are accused by the Prosecution of having incited atrocities, and that the results of your propaganda covered every phase of the conspiracy, including abnormal and inhuman treatment and behavior. In this connection I shall, therefore, have to ask you about the whole question of concentration camps.

Did you know that the concentration camps existed?

FRITZSCHE: Yes, the fact of their creation was announced publicly, I believe in 1933; and the concentration camps were mentioned later in official communiques.

DR. FRITZ: What was the purpose of these camps in your opinion at that time?

FRITZSCHE: As far as I can recollect, the persons to be taken to these camps were those who could not be restrained from taking an active part against the new State. It was stated that the reason for the establishment of these camps was the abnormal internal political situation prevailing at that time: A weak center party and two strong extreme parties, one of which had now assumed power. Steps were taken to put matters on a proper legal basis. Only later was it mentioned that habitual criminals were also to be brought to the concentration camps to prevent them from reverting to crime.
...
DR. FRITZ: Did you yourself visit concentration camps?

FRITZSCHE: No, I have never been inside the compound of a concentration camp. However, during the winter of 1944-45 I was frequently in the administration building near the Oranienburg-Sachsenhausen camp. Apart from that, I spoke to prisoners as often as I was able to do so, if I happened to see them either on the march or at work.

DR. FRITZ: With whom did you speak at Oranienburg?

FRITZSCHE: With a colleague of Obergruppenfuehrer Glucks and twice also with him personally. They told me that the foreign reports regarding cruel treatment were false. They said that the treatment was not only humane but decidedly good, as after all, the prisoners were valuable laborers. I spoke at some length about the working hours, for at that time a rather silly decree had been issued about a general extension of working hours. The attitude taken by Glucks was very reasonable, namely, that longer working hours would not necessarily result in greater output. Therefore the working hours of 8 to 10 hours a day remained as before. He did not mention anything about extermination through overwork. That is something I heard about for the first time in Court.

DR. FRITZ: And how about your questions which you put to the prisoners direct?

FRITZSCHE: Well, first of all, there was always a guard present, and quite naturally the prisoners were suspicious; but eventually I always received positive replies to positive questions. Briefly, the gist of these replies was always the same, that they had been unjustly arrested. Their food was really better than in prison and I frequently heard this phrase: "Well, anyway we are not soldiers here." The weapons carried by the guards were only rifles or revolvers; I did not see any truncheons.

DR. FRITZ: Did you not become more and more suspicious about these concentration camps, after listening to foreign radio reports?

FRITZSCHE: Not for a long time, for the reasons which I gave yesterday. Reports from English members of Parliament regarding the Buchenwald case were first mentioned in April 1945. But this case is so very recent that for brevity's sake I do not need to describe particulars of the incidents that occurred in the Ministry of Propaganda.

DR. FRITZ: How can you explain the fact that crimes and illtreatment of the worst kind undoubtedly took place in concentration camps?

FRITZSCHE: I am on the horns of a frightful dilemma, since I heard the first reliable reports about these things here in prison.

Only a part of these terrible conditions, which were found to exist, can be explained through the stoppage of traffic and communications at the end of the war. The rest is more than enough. Obviously, the decree for the secret murder of masses of people had brutalized to a terrible extent those people who were entrusted with the execution of this decree.
...
I should like to refer briefly to the statements which I already made about the murders; that there were many rumors but those rumors were denied. Undoubtedly an iron ring of silence surrounded these terrible events and the only thing I observed in the course of my work, and which appears to me to be important, is that in the RSHA and some of its branches there must have existed groups who worked systematically with the view of concealing these atrocities by issuing reassuring statements and denials to the offices which represented the public.




- Fritz Gaar claimed: "Although I was working for longer then 4 years in Auschwitz I did not notice anything about prisoners being gassed there" https://archive.is/LbjZL#selection-1951.0-1971.15



- General Otto Ernst Remer openly accused the Americans "of constructing fake gas chambers at Dachau to discredit the Germans" in the 1950s. https://books.google.com/books?id=bgkVC ... 22&f=false



- Kurt Georg Kiesinger, in 1968, former chancellor of West Germany & former member of the Nazi party (from February 1933) & the deputy head of the German Foreign Ministry's radio propaganda department during WW2, said that the Nazi extermination of Jews was "nothing but atrocity propaganda" to him "until after the war" https://archive.is/aK7sV



- Heinrich Himmler's statements could be construed as "Holocaust Denial" -- from Norbert Masur's report on his meeting with Himmler on 20th of April 1945:
"In order to stop the epidemic, we were forced to cremate the bodies of the many people that died of the disease. That was the reason we had to build the crematoria, and now, because of this everybody wants to tighten the noose around our neck."
...
[Masur: But one cannot deny that many atrocities occurred in the camps]
"I have to admit that this happened, but I then punished the guilty."
...
[Masur: I was afraid that Himmler’s repeated complaints about the publication of the terrible deeds in the concentration camps, which he tried to label as hate propaganda, would result in a request to stop such publicity as compensation in order to fulfill my requests.]
Read more: viewtopic.php?t=11008



- Herbert Martin Hagen, former SS leader, called "the second most important of the Nazi criminals who deported the Jews from France" by the Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, explained in 1979 that he thought during WW2 that Hitler's Final Solution to the Jewish question was the establishment of a Jewish state. https://archive.is/EeBnB



- Bruno Tesch, the inventor of Zyclon-B, denied that it was used to gas people:
As a scientific man accustomed to reason in word and thought, Dr. Tesch pointed out that if humans were ever packed into any space as tightly as Dr. Bendel testified, they would promptly suffocate, making the use of poison gas quite superfluous.
...
Yes, he still believed that Zyklon B was used only for fumigation. Responding to this, Draper asked: "Did you feel the SS were more reliable than the Allied [United Nations] authorities, as a matter of information?" Dr. Tesch answered with honesty and great perception (again according to the interpreter): "I cannot say because during the war I did not hear anything else. Today, I think that something might be true but probably there are exaggerations or misunderstandings." Draper replied: "Were you aware that the murder of the four million was partly arranged by the Reicharzt SS?" Dr. Tesch answered: "This is quite news to me. I have never thought of that."

Dr. Tesch then proceeded to say that during his visit to the Sachsenhausen-Oranienburg concentration camp, the inmates in striped suits looked well-fed, healthy and "quite happy." He had heard Hitler say in a speech that a Jewish Zone was being set up in the eastern provinces, and he believed him. Further, he had no reason to believe that Hitler had lied to the Germans. He believed that Hitler and the SS had been perfectly correct in their behavior. He believed Sehm and Bendel to be incorrect in their testimony. Sehm. had probably misinterpreted an unimportant remark and invented the remainder; his testimony was "quite impossible." The thought of killing Jews with Zyklon B had never occurred to Dr. Tesch, who believed also that the other witnesses misunderstood something they saw or heard.
From: Zyklon B, Auschwitz, and the Trial of Dr. Bruno Tesch
https://codoh.com/library/document/2052/



- Degesch director Gerhard Peters' contact at the SS denied that there had been homicidal gas chambers:
the Wiesbaden Regional Court acquitted Gerhard Peters. He was the managing director of Degesch, the company that had supplied Zyklon B to the SS -- the chemical frequently used in the gas chambers. Peters' contact at the SS had testified that he had used the chemical for disinfection purposes only. The court concluded that Peters had been "unsuccessfully complicit."
From: https://archive.is/i2SCh#selection-3087.17-3087.385



- Walter Schreiber, a senior engineer whose firm built the Krema 2 and 3 at Birkenau, ruled out that the morgues of Krema 2 and 3 could have been converted into gas chambers. From an interview with Walter Lüftl

Code: Select all

L.: What did the Huta Corporation build?

S.: Among other things, crematoria II and III with the large morgues.

L.: The prevalent opinion (considered to be self evident) is that these large morgues were allegedly gas chambers for mass killings.

S.: Nothing of that sort could be deduced from the plans made available to us. The detailed plans and provisional invoices drawn up by us refer to these rooms as ordinary cellars.
...
L.: Would it be conceivable that you were deceived and that the SS nevertheless had gas chambers built by your firm without your knowledge?

S.: Anyone who is familiar with a construction site knows that is impossible.

L.: Do you know any gas chambers?

S.: Naturally. Everyone in the east knew about disinfestation chambers. We also built disinfestation chambers, but they looked quite different. We built such installations and knew what they looked like after the installation of the machinery. As a construction firm, we often had to make changes according to the devices to be installed.

L.: When did you learn that your firm was supposed to have built gas chambers for industrial mass killing?

S.: Only after the end of the war.

L.: Weren’t you quite surprised about this?

S.: Yes! After the war I contacted my former supervisor in Germany and asked him about it.

L.: What did you learn?

S.: He also only learned about this after the war, but he assured me that the Huta Corporation certainly did not build the cellars in question as gas chambers.

L.: Would a building alteration be conceivable after the withdrawal of the Huta Corporation?

S.: Conceivable, sure, but I would rule that out on the basis of time factors. After all, they would have needed construction firms again, the SS couldn’t do that on their own, even with inmates. Based on the technical requirements for the operation of a gas chamber, which only became known to me later, the building erected by us would have been entirely unsuitable for this purpose with regard to the necessary machinery and the practical operation.
From: Engineer’s Deathbed Confession:We Built Morgues, not Gas Chambers
http://vho.org/tr/2004/3/Rademacher296-297.html



- Vidkun Quisling, the Nazi leader of Norway during WW2, also denied any knowledge of the gas chambers before the end of the war. viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8165&start=105#p68153


- Moritz von Schirmeister, the personal press attaché of Joseph Goebbels, mentioned in the IMT "always and without exception, there was a very definite denial of concentration camp atrocities and so forth":

Code: Select all

DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I beg to be permitted to continue with the examination of the witness [Moritz] Von Schirmeister.

Witness, yesterday, at the end of the session, we stopped at the point dealing with the anti-Semitism expressed by the Defendant Fritzsche in his radio speeches; in connection with that point, I have a further question. According to the statement made by Dr. Goebbels, to where were the Jews evacuated?

VON SCHIRMEISTER: Up to the first year of the Russian campaign, Dr. Goebbels in the conferences over which he presided, repeatedly mentioned the Madagascar plan. Later he changed this and said that a new Jewish state was to be formed in the East, to which the Jews were to be taken.

DR. FRITZ: Do you know whether, in dealing with reports from abroad concerning alleged German atrocities, not only towards the Jews but towards other peoples as well, Fritzsche always had inquiries made at the RSHA or other authorities concerned?

VON SCHIRMEISTER: Yes. Not only with regard to atrocity reports but all propaganda reports from abroad which were embarrassing to us. He made inquiries sometimes at the office of Muller, at the RSHA in Berlin, and sometimes he inquired of the authorities that were directly concerned in these matters.

DR. FRITZ: And what other agencies were concerned besides the RSHA where he might have made inquiries?

VON SCHIRMEISTER: For example, the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, the Armament Ministry, the OKW; it all depended.

DR. FRITZ: Do you know whether in reply to such inquiries a clear and completely plausible denial was given, or how was a matter of this sort handled?

VON SCHIRMEISTER: There were not always denials, not at all; very frequently we had quite precise answers. For example, if it was asserted that there had been a strike in Bohemia-Moravia, then the answer was: Yes, in such and such a factory a strike took place. But always and without exception, there was a very definite denial of concentration camp atrocities and so forth. That is precisely why these denials were so widely believed. I must emphasize that this was our only possibility of getting information. These pieces of information were not intended for the public, but for the minister [Joseph Goebbels], and again and again the answer came: "No, there is no word of truth in this." Even today I do not know by what other means we could have obtained information.




- Fritz Frenzel, Hermann Hagerhoff, and Walter Otto (Auschwitz camp guards) and Ernst Romeikat and Theodor Grewe (Auschwitz administration of inmate property) all stated that they had no personal knowledge of the alleged mass killings.
Hermann Hagerhoff and Walter Otto, both interrogated on April 27, 1959, were both camp guards at Auschwitz. Both say that during the war they had no knowledge about gassings from their own experiences. While Hagerhoff stated to have learned about atrocities at Auschwitz only from post-war media items (pp. 1039f.), Otto claimed that is was “generally known” that gassings were going on at Birkenau (p. 1047). Shortly before that, though, Otto mentions in passing that he had learned about atrocities at Auschwitz during an Allied tribunal staged in 1947 at Lüneburg where he had been present as a defendant (p. 1046). Hence it is likely that Otto’s “general knowledge” has its roots not in wartime experiences but rather in the time after the war.
From: From the Records of the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial, Part 8
https://codoh.com/library/document/1821/



- Thies Christophersen, stationed at Auschwitz, and author of the book "The Auschwitz Lie" also rejected the claims of homicidal gas chambers. "During the time I was in Auschwitz, I did not notice the slightest evidence of mass gassing" https://codoh.com/library/authors/2350/




As we can see, "Why Didn't Any Nazi Deny the Holocaust?" is a textbook example of the "loaded question" fallacy - a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption. Some Nazis did, in fact, deny the Holocaust. A large number of Nazis who [publicly] accepted it as true claimed that they had only become aware of it after the war had already ended. Furthermore, the claim that hundreds of thousands of people would have had to be kept from spilling the beans is simply absurd, and is contradicted by the "Holocaust" story as defined in the Nuremberg Trials by the prosecution. Lastly, the trials took "judicial notice" of the "Holocaust -- meaning it was accepted as undeniable fact, one that could not be contested or deliberated by the defense.



Recommended reading:

Forced Confessions - Why Innocent Defendants Admit their "Guilt"
https://codoh.com/library/document/1524/

Nuremberg - Fair Trial or Show Trial ?
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11053

Do we have evidence of torture to extract confessions?
viewtopic.php?t=974

fact: Torture used to get 'confessions' from Germans
viewtopic.php?t=5552

getting the desired 'confession'....via torture
viewtopic.php?t=1121

The Value of Testimony and Confessions Concerning the Holocaust
https://codoh.com/library/document/932/

D. Liptadt demolished on another lie: 'No perpetrator of any nationality ever said it didn’t happen'
viewtopic.php?t=12061

the misleading 'No Nazi ever denied gas chambers'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5595

"But, but, No Nazi ever Denied"- oogah boogah
viewtopic.php?t=5998
"There is a principal 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 principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: istheholocaustreal.com exposed -- "Why Didn't Any Nazi Deny" and the scope of the "conspiracy"

Postby Lamprecht » 5 months 2 weeks ago (Thu Jun 27, 2019 5:08 pm)

Useful graphic:
Image
download/file.php?id=2229


And an excellent post by member "HMSendeavour" from the following thread:

Nuremberg - Fair Trial or Show Trial ?
viewtopic.php?t=11053

(The whole thread is a good read)

HMSendeavour wrote:
BroncoBuff wrote:Brand new to this Board - briefly my perspective: I think the Holocaust happened mostly the way popular history has recorded it, though I do understand the truism "the victors write the history books," and how that dynamic very likely resulted in exaggeration and overstatement. I believe the Jews have not been shy about playing the issue for all it's worth, and Israel (and especially Netanyahu) have played that victim card as justification for extraneous criminal treatment and bullying of neighbors.

______________

That said, my input: I've been a criminal defense attorney for most of the past 25 years, and I have a thorough if not comprehensive appreciation for the motivations and impulses of defendants on trial for crimes.

In my cursory research of the Nuremberg Trials, at least of the most serious tier of 24 defendants, I found those defendants had either 1) pleaded for mercy, 2) claimed un-involvement, or most often, 3) claimed they were merely "following orders," and that their superiors, from Heydrich on down, would have executed them had they refused.


This is a real problem for Holocaust deniers or Third Reich revisionists: When faced with criminal charges that could well result in a sentence of death and summary execution, none of them claimed "it was all a hoax." No defendants went on record claiming it was all a fiction concocted by the allies, and none of it happened. I recall two or three mentions that certain of the Jews (those the particular defendant was in charge of), were treated "well" (comparatively) because they were useful for manufacturing.

In my fairly extensive experience, I promise you people will say damn near anything to avoid even 30 days in jail, much less death.

Moreover, none of those who were convicted, served sentences and were later released, have gone on record that the Holocaust was a hoax. Albert Speer and Karl Donitz have written books on the Reich and the War, but neither made a claim of hoax, even decades later when such claims would no longer have put their lives in peril.


I cannot believe this line of reasoning has never been broached, please tell me how it's countered. I am not opposed to the idea it was a hoax, or did not occur as widely believed.


You're so wrong it's not even funny.

Prisoners would also say damn near anything when tortured. Rudolf Hoess is the prime example of this (see my post on the torture https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9066&p=92512#p92512).

If any National Socialists were to outright deny instead of play dumb then it might've lead to brutalities against them. Seeing their fellow comrades admit to things that were untrue and brought forth by brutal means when not in a position to know themselves would not lead them to definitive answers one way or the other. If you're suggesting those who were in a position to know, knew but denied their knowledge then it is simply on you to prove that this is the case. More than that, it is you who must prove what the Holocaust is, how it was done and by what means. Simply declaring it's reality through a lack of statements by the defendants isn't going to make your horror stories of Holocoasters, Electric conveyor belts, Lampshades, burning baby pits, Jewish soap, poisoned dog teeth, electric wank machines of imminent death real. Nor will Simon Rozenkier's stories of hunchback tortue and sterilising X-Rays become legitimate. Moshe Peer who claimed to have been gassed six times and survived will not be real, William Lowenbergs magic third quenching pebble, Yankel Wiernik's tales of women leaping 10 feat into the air, giant outdoor hibachis, or Morris Hubert's claim of surviving bear cage torture every day at Buchenwald. It's all rubbish and nobody with any sense would take the Holocaust as it is based on eyewitness testimony seriously https://web.archive.org/web/20190101011316/http://balder.org/judea/The-Most-Fantastic-Holocaust-Survivor-Stories-Jewish-Soap-Lampshades-Fertilizer-Mengele-Miracles.php

041f576d589adb599bd207ad024dbebe.jpg

Ribbentrop's memoirs are also quite interesting. He was a man doomed to execution, no chance of escape and yet he denied the slightest possibility that Hitler, the man himself, knew anything about any kind of killing. Granted Ribbentrop seems to have bought the idea that killing was done, but to what degree and how is left unanswered.

For the sections I'm quoting see https://web.archive.org/web/20181101142651/https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t837409/ and for the full memoirs see https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.183521

From the moment I joined the N.S.D.A.P. I tried to bring about a revision of its anti-Semitic principles, or, at least, to have the Jewish problem solved by way of evolution through a 'numerus clausus'. I also though there was a possibility that my hope for more tolerance would come true.

Germany undoubtedly had a Jewish problem even before 1933. Jews had gained considerable influence in many sectors of the life of the nation. They were almost predominant in German cultural life, the Press, the cinema, the stage and especially business and finance. A well-known Frankfurt Jew and family friend of ours of long standing frequently spoke to me about this at the time full of anxiety. He was worried lest the conduct of certain German and immigrant Jews should lead to serious conflict sooner or later.

After the promulgation of the Nuremberg Laws in September, 1935, I had a long detailed talk with the Führer about the Jewish question. It was soon after the conclusion of the Naval Agreement with Britain; the Führer had great confidence in me, and I therefore pointed out the repercussions these Laws would have abroad. His reply seemed to me to indicate that the new legislation was intended to be the concluding measure, and that the Jews, while very much restricted in their scope, would retain an altogether fair chance of Hitler and of Party headquarters up to 1936, when I left for London, appeared to be not unfavourable to the emergence of quite toleration.

When in 1938 I returned to Berlin as Foreign Minister I found an entirely new situation. The reaction of world Jewry, especially in the U.S.A., to the Nuremberg Laws had been strong, and the result had been the sharpest attacks on National Socialist Germany, especially in the foreign Press. This in turn had made the Führer much harder. The vicious circle had begun.

Following the murder by the Jew Grunspan of Legation Counsellor vom Rath in our Paris Embassy, the well-known excesses against Jews occurred in November, 1938. As soon as I heard of them I went to the Obersalzberg and told Hitler of the serious effect such illegal anti-Semitic measures were bound to have on our own German people, and the inevitable political consequences. Hitler replied in deadly earnest that it was not always possible to determine the course of events as one liked, and that everything would return to its normal course. I had the impression that Hitler himself was surprised by the extent of the reaction.
During the winter of 1938 to 1939 I repeatedly made vain representations to the Führer in favour of a complete return to the situation as it existed before the excesses. I submitted to him a plan which provided for the voluntary emigration of Jews with permission to take with them part of their property. In fact many Jews did emigrate at that time, although other countries, including the U.S.A., made the immigration of German Jews very difficult.

After the outbreak of hostilities the propaganda war between National Socialist Germany and international Jewry became increasingly bitter; this made Hitler even more inflexible and it became more and more difficult to talk to him about the Jewish question. In spite of this I indicated to him the great disadvantages from the point of view of foreign policy of the anti-Jewish policy on several occasions. American propaganda, and even that of some neutral governments, made great play with the Jewish question and made things very difficult for us. Most of this propaganda originated in the Anglo-American world. I always told Hitler that the enmity of world Jewry appeared unnecessary, and that it was tantamount to having an additional great power as an enemy.

However, Hitler's conviction that world Jewry had systematically prepared the war against Germany and was in the end responsible for its outbreak became more and more deeply rooted. In his view, the desired comprehensive settlement with Britain had been foiled by the Jews alone, in that country and in America. Moreover, before and after the outbreak of the Russian war, Hitler believed that international Jewry was also responsible for the communist threat in the East, and that it had compelled Stalin to decide first to defeat Germany by an attack from East and West and then to bolshevize her.

I repeatedly advanced my contrary opinion: I was convinced that the war had been caused by Britain's hostility to German aspirations. While Jewish influence may have contributed, it had not been the primary cause. On the contrary this lay in the anxiety of British imperialists to preserve the balance of power in Europe. When discussing these questions with Hitler I recalled that in the era of Napoleon, when the Jews exerted no appreciable influence in England (the Rothschilds only rose to eminence after Waterloo), the English nevertheless fought an embittered war against the French Emperor; and later, Britain had proclaimed the Emperor Wilhelm II as her enemy, although he was a friend of the German Jews.

Hitler was immovable and always replied that I did not understand this issue. He remained convinced that the war had been brought about by the Jews of England and France, and especially of the U.S.A. American Jews, who exercised almost complete domination over the American Press, had systematically prepared for war and driven Roosevelt into his anti-German attitude. My proposal for a change in our Jewish policy were rejected.

After the victory over Poland and France Hitler gave Himmler jurisdiction over the Jews in occupied Europe. I was only informed late and incompletely about his actions for the resettlement in the East, first of German Jews, and then of the Jews in the occupied territories. As late as 1944, the Terezein (Theresienstadt) camp, for instance, was still open to inspection by representatives of the International Red Cross. Since the Foreign Office acted as the intermediary, I received a report which described conditions as satisfactory. I heard no details, and certainly not about other camps, because the Führer had given authority over these exclusively to the Reichsführer S.S. (Himmler.) The Foreign Office was told that these matters of domestic administration, and it was thereby expressly excluded from concerning itself with Jewish questions.

When in 1943 I submitted to the Führer a memorandum with proposals for a change in our ecclesiastical and Jewish policies, Hitler replied that he thoroughly disagreed with me on all matters. Nor did a subsequent talk, which was conducted in a comparatively calm atmosphere, yield any positive result. Hitler said: 'You understand foreign policy; the Jewish question you do not understand. This question is best understood by Goebbels. The Foreign Office can do nothing; it is not its business.' I nevertheless advanced every possible argument to prove how our situation, which had become so much more difficult through the worsening of the war, could be eased by an ideological peace. Hitler replied: 'That is naïve. This is an ideological war between the Jewish-bolshevist world and the world of nations, and it cannot be won in the field of diplomacy; arms must decide.'

The Foreign Office could only try to oppose the adoption of extreme anti-Jewish measures, and it was often able to exert a calming influence. Hitler, personally, gave few instructions to the Foreign Office on the Jewish question, and those which he did send were generally concerned with representations to friendly governments, asking that more attention should be paid to the Jewish question, and that Jews should be removed form important posts. But this, too, always led to unpleasantness without allies. Thus the Führer once sent me a message to the effect that a big Jewish espionage and sabotage organization had been discovered in Italian-occupied France, and instructed me to make serious representations to Mussolini. In our diplomatic work in neutral states it became increasingly apparent that the Jews were working against us there.

In 1944, Hitler spoke even more of his conflict with Jewry and he became fanatically obstinate. But never, down to 22nd April, 1945 when I last saw him in the Reich Chancellery, did he ever mention the killing of Jews. That is why even to-day I cannot believe that the Führer ordered these killings; I believe that Himmler presented him with accomplished facts.


Goering also backs up what Ribbentrop had written in his memoirs.

With icy composure Goering cast doubts upon ail the documents and all the testimony connected with the subject. He would not venture, he said. to describe them as wholly false, but he did take into account the possibility that they might well be inconclusive or incomplete; in any case they were far too much at variance with everything he knew to be accepted. And cven if the events described by the Prosecution had taken place, he did not believe Hitler had given the order; it was more likely to have been Himmler. - Hans Fritzsche, The Sword in the Scales, London, 1953, pp.145


Goering is notorious for believing that the alleged extermination of the Jews was an allied myth. He even said that in Nuremberg it was the first time he was ever hearing of it (again see https://web.archive.org/web/20181101142651/https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t837409/

In Chapter 7 of Fritzche's book, he talks about documents and the claims against the 21 defendants. It's quite clear that rather than believing it to be true they had no clue as to what was going on. They wanted to look through documents, but weren't granted a great deal. They weren't allowed to have meetings among themselves to discuss or cover documents for a defense,

Each of us engaged in a feverish survey of documentary evidence which was itself often anything but easy to obtain. Sauckel wanted the text of the instructions he had issued concerning the treatment of foreign workers; a year ago these instructions were to be found all over Germany, now they seemed to have vanished from the face of the earth. Streicher enquired for documents relating to a certain hostile threat to destroy, not the German Government, but the German people; they had been published in America by a Dr. Kaufmann-but how to lay hands on them in the present nruddle ? In pracl.ice there were only three sources of information at our disposal: the documents belonging to the Prosecution, which were naturally biassed; a complete set of the south German edition of the Völkischer Beobachter, which contained comprehensive references to much important evidence; and the library of Erlangen University, which would certainly not have been of great use for our purpose - Hans Fritzsche, The Sword in the Scales, London, 1953, pp.136-137


they simply thought it was utterly useless to try and defend their own innocence because to them the mind of the public and prosecutors had been made up.

For the Prosecution at this time it seemed sufficient that the atrocities had been committed. Who was specifically responsible for the orders or for the actual deeds either came second in their estimation or simply did not interest them. No matter how slight the connection between such an occurrence and any of the prisoners the shadow of disgrace invariably fell on all twenty-one of us; and under its cover various false assertions--such as for instance that there had been a generally prevailing and virulent anti-semitism in Germany found an all too ready acceptance. No one ventured to dispute such charges; we were too conscious of the horror of that monstrous campaign of extermination. To all outward seeming the matter was closed.

Among ourselves, however, the questions persisted:
Who was involved? How was it carried out? Were such atrocious actions the outcome of strong anti-semitic feeling? What had we overlooked? Where did we arrive at wrong conclusions? What were our sins of omission? Some, for example Frick, based their defence on the plea that they knew nothing about the whole business. They were not indifferent to the immeasurable human suffering revealed at each state of the evidence; but, first and foremost they wanted to keep out of it--it was not their affair.. Others, like Seyss-Inquart, had more imagination and endured the ghastly statements of the witnesses with new and agonising life. They bowed their heads in shame and declared that it was useless to protest their own ignorance and innocence; that could be left to future historians . The present generation would never believe that any leader of the Third Reich could be unaware of the Birkenau gas chambers and the activities of the "special squads".

Others again persisted for a considerable time in doubting the authenticity of the evidence, even when this was no longer rationally possible. And a few, such as Dr. Frank, accused themselves of having through sheer indifference been content to know only half the truth, without attempting to draw the obvious conclusions from the information at their disposal.[/u][/b] Kaltenbrunner became unusually talkative at this time and assured us that he could confirm the statements about the mass murders because he himself had put a stop to them. When I asked him why, knowing these things, he had described the general accusation as absurd his answer was that the actual perpetrators were now dead. - Hans Fritzsche, The Sword in the Scales, London, 1953, pp.137-139


Reading this far you really feel how utterly confused these men were. And it's abundantly clear that they knew nothing, and to them anyone who did was already dead. They themselves seem to have the demeanor of discovering these facts for the first time with varying degrees of skepticism and not simply outright denying it because in actuality none of these men are in positions to know anything. They're bewildered by it all.

For the first time an atmosphere of profound mutual mistrust grew up among the prisoners, and though it did not have much chance to develop in the artificial little community, each of us wondered in his own mind whether, after all, his neighbour knew more than he cared to admit. Some of us, nevertheless, got together and collected every scrap of available material and then, item by item,
checked the hideous account. Five million persons were stated to have been murdered. Was such a thing technically possible ? The capacity of the corpse-factories described by Hciss did not seem sufficient. Where were these five million-mostly Jews Supposed to have come from? Not from Germany, where in 1939 they numbered scarcely half a million. But when we got hold of information about the Jewish population of the occupied eastern territories, we saw that the numbers might tally if none had emigrated and none survived. But how had it been possible to conceal this monstrous crime from the public ? At this point every attempt at explanation failed' The majority of the twenty-one prisoners were faced with the task of explaining to the court-or rather, to the world how it was feasible that in a modern state hundreds of thousands of people could be killed without its corning to the ears of the man in the street, or to the knowledge of all members of the government and others in high places. Those who had the best right to say that such a thing was possible, and had induced happened, were the least able to prove it.--Thus for the first time we saw the road leading from the Germany that we knew to the Germany which had been hidden from many of us. - Hans Fritzsche, The Sword in the Scales, London, 1953, pp.139,142


Whatever the nature of the 'massacres' as Fritsche describes them, he makes plain on pages 140-143 that the defendants including himself took the statements of the SS Judges Reinicke and Morgen seriously. On these pages he describes the statements made, and trots out the now defunct idea that Gas came out of shower heads. And in-fact it was the National Socialists themselves who looked into and stopped the supposed massacres.

It is open to doubt whether the Prosecution took much account of Morgen's statements; but for most of us they were conclusive. It was only after he appeared on the scene that I personally felt that in protesting my ignorance of these massacres, I was not offending against all the laws of human reason - Hans Fritzsche, The Sword in the Scales, London, 1953, pp.142-143


This shows us that rather than having foreknowledge, the defendants were themselves convinced of the lie.

It was certainly proved beyond dispute that the butchery came to an end in the autumn of 1944 and that-however unlikely it may appear-the Jews were from that moment under the special protection of the Chancellor's S.S. - Hans Fritzsche, The Sword in the Scales, London, 1953, pp.143


Interesting that Hitler's SS would put protection over the Jews isn't it? You see, Hitler also got word of these supposed brutalities. Hans Frank himself took his concerns to Hitler.

The rumor, however, that the Jews were being killed in the manner which is now known to the entire world would not be silenced. When I expressed the wish to visit the SS workshop near Lublin, in order to get some idea of the value of the work that was being done, I was told that special permission from Heinrich Himmler was required.

I asked Heinrich Himmler for this special permission. He said that he would urge me not to go to the camp. Again some time passed. On 7 February 1944 I succeeded in being received by Adolf Hitler personally-I might add that throughout the war he received me three times only. In the presence of Bormann I put the question to him: "My Fuehrer, rumors about the extermination of the Jews will not be silenced. They are heard everywhere. No one is allowed in anywhere. Once I paid a surprise visit to Auschwitz in order to see the camp, but I was told that there was an epidemic in the camp and my car was diverted before I got there. Tell me, My Fuehrer, is there anything in it? "The Fuehrer said, "You can very well imagine that there are executions going on-of insurgents. Apart from that I do not know anything. Why don't you speak to Heinrich Himmler about it?" And I said. "Well, Himmler made a speech to us in Krakow and declared in front of all the people whom I had officially called to the meeting that these rumors about the systematic extermination of the Jews were false; the Jews were merely being brought to the East." Thereupon the Fuehrer said, "Then you must believe that." https://web.archive.org/web/20170428180020/http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/04-18-46.asp


There is no more eloquent testimony to the tragedy and tyranny of Nuremberg than the pathetic astonishment or outraged disbelief of the accused persons themselves at the grotesque charges made against them. Such is reflected in the affidavit of S.S. Major-General Heinz Fanslau, who visited most of the German concentration camps during the last years of the war. Although a front line soldier of the Waffen S.S., Fanslau had taken a great interest in concentration camp conditions, and he was selected as a prime target by the Allies for the charge of conspiracy to annihilate the Jews. It was argued, on the basis of his many contacts, that he must have been fully involved. When it was first rumoured that he would be tried and convicted, hundreds of affidavits were produced on his behalf by camp inmates he had visited. When he read the full scope of the indictment against the concentration camp personnel in supplementary Nuremberg Trial No. 4 on May 6th, 1947, Fanslau declared in disbelief: "This cannot be possible, because I, too, would have had to know something about it."


Source: https://www.ihr.org/books/harwood/dsmrd04.html

Have you noticed the theme? Hitler has no idea, even when broached about it at the time of it's supposed occurrence. After the war the men closest to Hitler all say that without a doubt it's more likely to be Himmler and not Hitler. These men at nuremberg know nothing and have been finding out what charges lay against them as they happen. There's no proof here that i've seen which makes the holocaust legitimate. Nothing at all.


The book by Fritzsche quoted above can be found here:

Hans T Fritzsche (1953) "The Sword In The Scales"
https://archive.org/details/TheSwordInTheScales
or https://archive.is/tuo5r
"There is a principal 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 principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Horhug
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:01 am

Re: istheholocaustreal.com exposed -- "Why Didn't Any Nazi Deny" and the scope of the "conspiracy"

Postby Horhug » 5 months 2 weeks ago (Sat Jun 29, 2019 3:32 pm)

The lie spread by the likes of Tim O'Neill, who is quoted on istheholocaustreal.com as providing an "excellent answer" to the false assertion of :

Why Didn't Any Nazi Deny the Holocaust?
http://www.istheholocaustreal.com/nazis-didnt-deny.html

10 pages of refutation :

quora.com / Tim O'Neill: Nazis never denied 'holocaust' / WRONG
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8165

Rogal Dorn
Member
Member
Posts: 110
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: istheholocaustreal.com exposed -- "Why Didn't Any Nazi Deny" and the scope of the "conspiracy"

Postby Rogal Dorn » 5 months 1 week ago (Sun Jun 30, 2019 2:59 am)

Let's refute the site with a simpler link.

Take a look at this:

http://www.istheholocaustreal.com/faked-images.html

Image


The guy actually believes there exists a genuine war photo showing a German tank commander having a woman with a noose dangling from a tank barrel.

He then goes to great lengths to "debunk" the photo without the woman (which is the actual historic photo since at the very bottom, you even have the post-war German federal archive (Bundesarchiv) data underneath).

If he asked his revisionist colleagues, they would tell him he is defending an atrocity photo that was created by holohoaxers.
If he asked his mainstream colleagues, they would tell him he is defending an atrocity photo that was created by trolls peddling it side-by-side with the originals using a poisoning-the-well fallacy to discredit any and all genuine atrocity photos out there that might exist, for example photos showing Germans hanging bandits and partisans.

The guy loses on both counts.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: istheholocaustreal.com exposed -- "Why Didn't Any Nazi Deny" and the scope of the "conspiracy"

Postby Hektor » 5 months 1 week ago (Sun Jun 30, 2019 6:38 am)

Rogal Dorn wrote:Let's refute the site with a simpler link.

Take a look at this:

http://www.istheholocaustreal.com/faked-images.html

Image


The guy actually believes there exists a genuine war photo showing a German tank commander having a woman with a noose dangling from a tank barrel.

He then goes to great lengths to "debunk" the photo without the woman (which is the actual historic photo since at the very bottom, you even have the post-war German federal archive (Bundesarchiv) data underneath).

If he asked his revisionist colleagues, they would tell him he is defending an atrocity photo that was created by holohoaxers.
If he asked his mainstream colleagues, they would tell him he is defending an atrocity photo that was created by trolls peddling it side-by-side with the originals using a poisoning-the-well fallacy to discredit any and all genuine atrocity photos out there that might exist, for example photos showing Germans hanging bandits and partisans.

The guy loses on both counts.

Faked Atrocity photos were peddled by Holocaust promoters long before the emergence of the internet and photoshop.

Could you please point to the photo in the Bundesarchiv?!

As for the "No Nazi ever denied the Holocaust" nonsense:
https://archive.org/details/NorbertMasu ... ichHimmler

User avatar
Zulu
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 467
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 9:44 am

Re: istheholocaustreal.com exposed -- "Why Didn't Any Nazi Deny" and the scope of the "conspiracy"

Postby Zulu » 5 months 1 week ago (Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:38 pm)

Hektor wrote:
Rogal Dorn wrote:Let's refute the site with a simpler link.

Take a look at this:

http://www.istheholocaustreal.com/faked-images.html

Image

As for the "No Nazi ever denied the Holocaust" nonsense:
https://archive.org/details/NorbertMasu ... ichHimmler

I was intrigued by that photo. I made a reverse search on tineye.com by using the location link given here.
The results are given here
https://www.tineye.com/search/67c49fae0 ... 6e8?page=1
Some links are down but I find an interesting report on a Russian link where the same photo including corresponding Budesarchiv's reference and author is displayed.
The Russian site
http://www.feldgrau.info/2010-09-02-14- ... a-foto-403
The photo with references on it.
Photo Panzer.jpg

Reference
Photo Panzer Bunderarchiv.png
Photo Panzer Bunderarchiv.png (10.2 KiB) Viewed 837 times

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: istheholocaustreal.com exposed -- "Why Didn't Any Nazi Deny" and the scope of the "conspiracy"

Postby Lamprecht » 5 months 1 week ago (Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:44 pm)

In terms of photo fakes, I think a bigger issue is not doctored photos, but rather mislabeled/miscaptioned photos.

A pile of bodies that died from a bombing raid, or typhus at the end of the war with the caption "jews exterminated in gas chambers by evil nazis" does more to deceive than these horribly doctored photos. This is discussed in the following article:

Do Photographs Prove the NS Extermination of the Jews?
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndgcffor.html
"There is a principal 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 principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Zulu
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 467
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 9:44 am

Re: istheholocaustreal.com exposed -- "Why Didn't Any Nazi Deny" and the scope of the "conspiracy"

Postby Zulu » 5 months 1 week ago (Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:51 pm)

Another site mentioning this photo among others in order to debunk doctored pictures used as soviet propaganda.
The photo is quoted here as "Walter Cruger being awarded the Knight’s Cross".
http://memolition.com/2013/05/10/soviet ... -pictures/
It seems that it must rather be the SS General Walter Krüger who was a recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Kr ... SS_general)

User avatar
Zulu
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 467
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 9:44 am

Re: istheholocaustreal.com exposed -- "Why Didn't Any Nazi Deny" and the scope of the "conspiracy"

Postby Zulu » 5 months 1 week ago (Mon Jul 01, 2019 10:59 am)

Zulu wrote:Another site mentioning this photo among others in order to debunk doctored pictures used as soviet propaganda.
The photo is quoted here as "Walter Cruger being awarded the Knight’s Cross".
http://memolition.com/2013/05/10/soviet ... -pictures/
It seems that it must rather be the SS General Walter Krüger who was a recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Kr ... SS_general)

The photo is registered on commons.wikimedia.org with the same reference.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... ich%22.jpg

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: istheholocaustreal.com exposed -- "Why Didn't Any Nazi Deny" and the scope of the "conspiracy"

Postby Hektor » 5 months 1 week ago (Mon Jul 01, 2019 3:38 pm)

Zulu wrote:
Hektor wrote:
Rogal Dorn wrote:Let's refute the site with a simpler link.

Take a look at this:

http://www.istheholocaustreal.com/faked-images.html

Image

As for the "No Nazi ever denied the Holocaust" nonsense:
https://archive.org/details/NorbertMasu ... ichHimmler

I was intrigued by that photo. I made a reverse search on tineye.com by using the location link given here.
The results are given here
https://www.tineye.com/search/67c49fae0 ... 6e8?page=1
Some links are down but I find an interesting report on a Russian link where the same photo including corresponding Budesarchiv's reference and author is displayed.
The Russian site
http://www.feldgrau.info/2010-09-02-14- ... a-foto-403
The photo with references on it.
Photo Panzer.jpg
Reference
Photo Panzer Bunderarchiv.png


I wasn't lazy neither and searched the Bundesarchiv:
http://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/

I searched for Walter Kruger. And indeed I could find the photo in question.
Image
https://bit.ly/2KOAbTr
http://archive.is/ZtFfi
There is more data coming with this:
Inventory: Bild 101 III - Propagandakompanien der Wehrmacht - Waffen-SS
Signature: Bild 101III-Zschaeckel-197-09
Old signature: Bild 146-1975-119-36
Archive title: Sowjetunion, nach Schlacht bei Charkow.- Waffen-SS-Division "Das Reich"; Ritterkreuz-Verleihung durch Divisionskommandeur SS-Obergruppenführer Walter Krüger auf einem Panzer VI "Tiger I" stehend (an Krumm, Tychsen, Worthmann, Stadler, Kaiser und Weiss); SS-PK
Dating: 20. April 1943
Photographer: Zschäckel, Friedrich
Origin: Bundesarchiv

We learn from this date, location , photographer, people on photo.
Hardly something one gets with the supposedly incriminating Holocaust pictures.

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Hitler's reaction to the news Auschwitz was lost

Postby Lamprecht » 2 months 3 weeks ago (Sat Sep 21, 2019 6:03 pm)

During his final statement at his 2000 trial against Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt, David Irving advised Hitler's reaction to the news that the Red Army had captured Auschwitz, as recorded by the stenographers.
"Informed by Colonel-General Heinz Guderian that the Russians had captured Auschwitz, Hitler is recorded by the stenographers as merely acknowledging: "Yes." ("Jawohl") The Court might find it significant that he did not prick up his ears and say something like, "Herr Himmler, I hope you made sure that the Russians will find not the slightest trace of what we have been up to." (Or even, "I hope you managed to get those holes in the roof slab of Krema II cemented over so there's no trace, before you blew it up."
https://archive.is/DrenA

On his website he gives more details:
"... on January 27, 1945 when Generaloberst Heinz Guderian informs him that the Red Army has just overrun Auschwitz, Hitler's only reply is just: okay, "Jawohl" -- he seems to have no idea that Auschwitz was anything other than a slave-labour camp built for the nearby synthetic chemicals plant. Informed by the general in these words, "The attacks along a continuous line from the Tichau area to Auschwitz have been deflected; however Auschwitz itself was lost," Hitler finally interrupts to ask only, "Where is the main coal area?"

All the stenographers, closely questioned by the Americans, stated quite bluntly that there was never any reference at all at the Führer-HQ to what is now, since about 1972, called the Holocaust. https://archive.is/nbQ4t
"There is a principal 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 principal 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 4 guests