137 Crushed Testacles Debunked?

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
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 491
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

137 Crushed Testacles Debunked?

Postby HMSendeavour » 1 year 2 months ago (Thu Sep 12, 2019 8:41 am)

I was watching the Germar Rudolf documentary on the lies of Deborah Lipstadt when my thoughts snagged on a memory in relation to torture procedures to gather evidence in Holocaust trials. I remembered reading on a website that 137 out of 139 alleged German war criminals had their testicles crushed beyond repair. This claim I was eager to find again, but this time, have a source. So I went through my bookmarks to this post by Lasha Darkmoon

https://www.darkmoon.me/2015/torture-and-testicle-crushing-at-nuremberg/

In which it's written

The startling revelation that almost all the German defendants at Nuremberg had had their testicles crushed must make us sit up and think. How can testimonies obtained under testicle crushing be regarded in any way as reliable?

Following reports that defendants were tortured at the Malmedy massacre trial, the US Army formed the “Simpson Commission” to investigate the alleged misconduct. Judge Edward L. Van Roden was part of this commission. According to Van Roden’s book, American Atrocities in Germany, out of 139 cases of treatment of alleged German “war criminals” who were investigated by the commission—and who were subsequently put on trial by the American Military Tribunal in Dachau after World War II—”137 of these Germans were tortured by having their testicles crushed.”

Other methods used by the American interrogators included brutal beatings, placing a hood over prisoners and punching them in the face with brass knuckles, breaking their jaws, knocking out their teeth, putting them on starvation rations, and subjecting them to solitary confinement. The prisoners were then presented with prepared statements to sign. Confess or face more torture!

It emerged that Jewish prosecutors and interrogators had obtained complete control over the US Military tribunal that was to put German officials on trial for war crimes. This is seldom mentioned, as to do so is regarded as “anti-Semitic”. To state the unvarnished truth—that 137 Germans had their testicles mangled at Nuremberg by largely Jewish interrogators in order to obtain proof for the Holocaust—is regarded as “hate speech”.


From Darkmoon I was linked to a website now offline, but archived on the Wayback Machine

https://web.archive.org/web/20151220203026/https://exposing-the-holocaust-hoax-archive.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-holocaust-legend-is-built-on.html

Here I found the source.

Almost all defendants at Dachau trials had their testicles crushed

Following reports that defendants were tortured at the "Malmedy massacre" trial, the U.S. Army formed the "Simpson Commission" to investigate the alleged misconduct. Judge Edward L. Van Roden was part of this commission.

According to Van Roden's book American Atrocities in Germany, out of 139 cases of treatment of alleged German “war criminals” that were investigated by the commission (who were put on trial by the American Military Tribunal in Dachau after World War II), 137 were tortured by having their testicles crushed. Other methods used by the American interrogators included brutal beatings, placing a hood over the prisoner and punching them in the face with brass knuckles, breaking jaws, knocking out teeth, starvation rations, and solitary confinement. The prisoners were then presented with prepared statements to sign, "confessing" to various crimes.


I could've stopped here. But I didn't. I wanted to know more, so I googled Van Roden's book but instead of finding it, I found articles. Two of the sources I found were articles posted by David Irving and CODOH. Both having the source as 'E. L. Van Roden, "American Atrocities in Germany", The Progressive. February 1949, p. 21f.' https://codoh.com/library/document/1129/ http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Dachau/VanRoden1948.html

I also found another link. A link to an article published by the notorious Holocaust Controversies bloggers in which they claim to debunk the testicles 'meme' as they called it http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2017/04/137-crushed-lies-or-why-denial-is.html

The average online denier is not a sophisticated creature. He is usually satisfied with a few memes he has found on Twitter or at some forum and repeats them ad infinitum, never bothering to fact-check them, thus regurgitating the deceptive tidbits that have been debunked over and over and over again. One such moldy debunked meme is the myth about the crushed testicles of 137 German defendants in the Dachau trials.


They also cite the David Irving article, and make some disparaging comments towards Hannover where they cite a word search in which Hannover makes the testicles claim over and over again seemingly without criticism.

So of course this is repeated ad nauseam on Twitter and at trashy forums like CODOH, where this is a favorite of its know-nothing Aufseher "Hannover" .


They go on to cite other revisionists who have used the claim, in their article apparently without criticism. Simply accepting the story as a fact.

But the meme is used not only by online clowns. More "serious" sources quote it as if it were a proven fact. Germar Rudolf, writing under pseudonym "Manfred Köhler", insists in his article "The Value of Testimony and Confessions Concerning the Holocaust" that "... Americans extorted confessions from accused persons ... the methods used were [a list of allegedly used methods ending in] crushed testicles". Robert Faurisson, in a letter to the Journal of Historical Review, quotes Manstein's not quite honest lawyer Paget, who claimed that the Simpson Inquiry Commission "reported among other things that of the 139 cases they had investigated, 137 had had their testicles permanently destroyed by kicks received from the American War Crimes Investigating Team". Carlo Mattogno repeats the meme in Intervista sull'olocausto,in My Banned Holocaust Interview and in "The Myth of the Extermination of the Jews: Part II". The claim is repeated by Richard Harwood in Did Six Million Really Die? and by Roger Garaudy in The Founding Myths of Modern Israel, by Arthur Butz in The Hoax of the Twentieth Century and by Serge Thion in Historical Truth or Political Truth?.

Which basically means that the average denial guru has not evolved far from the average denier chimp.

Anyway, the claim is of course false and of course none of the individuals mentioned above have bothered to verify it. It was decisively debunked during the Malmedy massacre investigation hearings in the US Senate in 1949.


I don't want to quote the entire article, but it's not too long and really just relies on courtroom evidence, nevertheless it is interviews with those sources we revisionists have used to make the original claim.

I will just some from the article some of the relevant passages.

Gordon Simpson, of the Simpson Commission (composed of Simpson and Judge Van Roden), a former justice of the Texas Supreme court, was examined about the claim in 29.04.1949 (MMI, vol I, p. 197):
Mr. CHAMBERS. Today in the examination of other witnesses and in some of the printed stories based on the Simpson report, there is reference made to the fact that a rather surprising percentage - I think out of 139 cases all but 2 of the Germans had had their testicles damaged beyond repair. Where did you find the evidence on that?
Mr. SIMPSON. None at all.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Were there charges made to that effect?
Mr. SIMPSON. No; no claim was made to that effect in any of the records we inspected, and we diligently tried to find them.
Senator MCCARTHY. Just a second. Did you read Colonel Everett's affidavit, Judge?
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. You say there was no claim made. You read that before you conducted your investigation?
Mr. SIMPSON. I suppose you are correct. When I say no claim was made, I am too broad in that. I like to separate between the realm of allegation and the realm of proof. I want to say I found no proof of that.
Judge Van Roden was examined on 04.05.1949 (MMI, vol I, p. 244):
Senator MCCARTHY. Yes. Am I correct in saying that you did find evidence to indicate that a sizable number of those men sentenced to die were crippled to at least some extent because of having been kicked in the testicles?
Judge VAN RODEN. We found that to be so. But I have seen some of the articles in the papers and some were exaggerated. I read one the other day saying that all but two of the men had been injured for life. We did not find that.
Senator MCCARTHY. But you found -
Judge VAN RODEN. That some of them had been injured in their testicles. We could not find out how many.


On the 'progressive article'.

bout the article in Progressive (MMI, vol I, pp. 256-7):
Senator HUNT. Judge Van Roden, I have here before me a magazine known as the Progressive, I believe it is called.
Judge VAN RODEN. I have seen that.
Senator HUNT. Which carries, I presume, a written article by you, at least it accredits the article to you, and that makes some rather serious, very serious and direct charges, and I would like to ask you some questions with reference to the source of your information for making those charges.
Judge VAN RODEN. Before you do so, Senator, I want this to be made very definitely of record. I did not write that article. I had made a talk at a Rotary Club meeting in our county and a gentleman who was there took some notes on the talk, and I understand that is supposed to be a condensation of the things, some of the things that I said at that Rotary Club gathering. The gentleman who actually did write that article, actually is the author of it, telephoned to me that it was to have a byline. I did not know what a byline was, believe it or not, gentlemen. Then I was startled by receiving a copy of that as the author of that article. I am not the author of that article.
Senator HUNT. Let me ask you, Judge, after having read the article, would you like to say that the statements in there are statements made by you, or are they incorrect statements attributed to you?
Judge VAN RODEN. Well, some are correct and some are not correct. Senator HUNT. Judge, in your report of January 6, 1949, which you signed along with Colonel Simpson and Col. Charles W. Lawrence, this paragraph appears:

There was no general or systematic use of improper methods to secure prosecution evidence for the use at the trials.

Now, does that statement reflect your position as a member of the board?
Judge VAN RODEN. I would say so as stated therein.

And later (05.05.1949), commenting on the individual passages of the article in Progressive (MMI, vol I, p. 312):
Now, in the next paragraph where it says "All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair," I did not say that. What I said was that all but two were recommended for commutation to life imprisonment, and the other two for other sentences. I do not know how many we heard or how many may or may not have been kicked or kneed in the testicles. We learned some had been but that figure is absolutely wrong. I do not know how many were kicked or abused in the testicles.


It goes on for a bit, but you get the idea.

They conclude.

While there undoubtedly were some improper interrogation methods used in some cases during the Malmedy Massacre investigations (the methods, the allegations about which caused a public scandal and a whole Senate subcommittee hearing), the claim that 137 of 139 accused were kicked in the testicles rendering them beyond repair and that it was somehow standard operating procedure among the American investigators is simply false. It was categorically refuted both by Van Roden and Simpson.

Which, of course, will not prevent the deniers from citing this debunked zombie meme again and again and again and again...


This evidence, these testimonies seem pretty conclusive but I wanted to make a post about it anyway because I think as revisionists we need to admit when we have made mistakes, but not without investigating for ourselves.

I'm curious as to whether anyone has more information on this? Perhaps something is missing? Or there is more testimony which would contradict these statements?

My first impression is that it's probably not politically correct to make the testicles claim, even if you discovered what was going on, so denying it when questioned is for the best in order to save yourself. But that's just my own speculation and it won't stop me from throwing out this talking point if it isn't true.

I'm very keen to hear the thoughts of others on the forum about this. Cheers lads.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2173
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: 137 Crushed Testacles Debunked?

Postby Lamprecht » 1 year 2 months ago (Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:19 am)

Yes, it seems someone did an interview with Van Roden and took notes about it, wrote a sensational article and put him in the byline

Also it wasn't even a Holocaust trial

Judge Van Roden on Germans being tortured / kicked in testicles "exaggerated" / Malmedy trial
viewtopic.php?t=12608
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10186
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: 137 Crushed Testacles Debunked?

Postby Hannover » 1 year 2 months ago (Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:53 am)

Much ado about nothing.
As if laughably arguing over the exact numbers of Germans who had their testicles crushed for the purposes of getting "confessions" somehow:

1. proves that torture did not not happen, when there is no doubt that it did happen repeatedly
2. proves the existence of the scientifically impossible 'gas chambers'
3. shows us the alleged millions upon millions of human remains that are alleged to be in known locations, but are not.

The utterly discredited Zionists from 'Holocaust Controversies', as an obvious attempt to distract, are desperately haggling over HOW MANY Germans had their testicles crushed, not IF Germans had their testicles crushed:
Senator MCCARTHY: Am I correct in saying that you did find evidence to indicate that a sizable number of those men sentenced to die were crippled to at least some extent because of having been kicked in the testicles?
Judge VAN RODEN: We found that to be so. But I have seen some of the articles in the papers and some were exaggerated. I read one the other day saying that all but two of the men had been injured for life. We did not find that.
Senator MCCARTHY: But you found -
Judge VAN RODEN: That some of them had been injured in their testicles. We could not find out how many.

And of course there's the fact that other forms of torture were used as well.
- "The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pyjamas ripped from his body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where it seemed to [Bernard] Clarke the blows and screams were endless. Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: 'Call them off, unless you want to take back a corpse.'"(12)
12.R. Butler, Legions of Death, Hamlyn, (London, 1983), p.237

- The admission of Bernard Clarke was corroborated by Mr. Ken Jones in 'The Wrexham Leader', October 17, 1986.
Mr. Jones was then a private with the Fifth Royal Horse Artillery stationed at Heid in Schleswig-Holstein.
"They brought him to us when he refused to cooperate over questioning about his activites during the war. He came in the winter of 1945/6 and was put in a small jail cell in the barracks," recalls Mr. Jones. Two other soldiers were detailed with Mr. Jones to join Hoess in his cell to help break him down for interrogation."
"We sat in the cell with him, night and day, armed with axe handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to help break down his resistance," said Mr. Jones.
When Hoess was taken out for exercise, he was made to wear only jeans and a thin cotton shirt in the bitter cold. After three days and nights without sleep, Hoess finally broke down and made a full confession to the authorities.
and:
"The London Cage was used partly as a torture centre, inside which large numbers of German officers and soldiers were subjected to systematic ill-treatment. In total 3,573 men passed through the Cage, and more than 1,000 were persuaded to give statements about war crimes. The brutality did not end with the war, moreover: a number of German civilians joined the servicemen who were interrogated there up to 1948.
As the work of the Cage was wound down, the interrogation of prisoners was switched to a number of internment camps in Germany. And there is evidence that the treatment meted out in these places was, if anything, far worse. While many of the papers relating to these interrogation centres remain sealed at the Foreign Office, it is clear that one camp in the British zone became particularly notorious. At least two German prisoners starved to death there, according to a court of inquiry, while others were shot for minor offences.


- U.S. Congressional Representative, Lawrence H. Smith of Wisconsin said:
" The Nuremberg Trials are so repugnant to the Anglo-Saxon principles of justice that we must forever be ashamed of that page in our history."
Congressional Record, appendix, v.95, sec.14, 6/15/49
- Hannover

Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the 'holocaust' storyline is the message.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2173
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: 137 Crushed Testacles Debunked?

Postby Lamprecht » 1 year 2 months ago (Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:41 am)

A quick thought about torture and Holocaust confessions. It's important to point out that being tortured is just one of many reasons why someone would have "confessed" to something untrue.
When I mention Hoess' torture, lot of times people will say "Well he wasn't tortured before this specific confession!" which is silly because if he just went back on his claims after already being tortured once, wouldn't he expect even worse treatment?

Also there were probably many cases of torture that we just don't know about at all. One German in a room, two torturers from USA/Britain/USSR ordered by their superiors to do the deed and tell nobody, and after it's all done they tell the guy if he ever speaks about what happened his family will be sent off to Siberia. How would we ever know?

I recently posted in another thread about the London Cage, a new book was released with previously classified documents coming out that proved torture of "War criminals" at this place was even more prevalent than we previously thought.

A much better defense was "Yes it happened, Jews were gassed, but I had nothing to do with it and couldn't stop it even if I wanted to!"
Others just claimed to have no knowledge of it.

Check out:
"Why Didn't Any Nazi Deny" and the scope of the "conspiracy"

viewtopic.php?t=12287

Prosecutors usually see confessions as a "slam dunk" because in a normal court case if you're found to be guilty you will have a more serious sentence than otherwise. In these war crimes show trials, the opposite is true. The goals of some were to establish the "Holocaust" narrative and the others were to establish guilt for the alleged genocide which the trials took "Judicial notice" of. So claiming it did not happen in general was just not a reasonable defense at all. It would be treated by the court in the same way as if the individual said "Auschwitz didn't even exist"
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 15 guests