Auschwitz Commandant Hoess 'confessions' debunked in review

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
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9921
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Auschwitz Commandant Hoess 'confessions' debunked in review

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:01 pm)

This is a nice example of how the 'holocau$t' community tries to force fit their pre-existing dogma into their publications, in spite of the obvious illogic in those views.

Read on as Richard Widman shatters writer Steven Paskuly on Paskuly's own unsustainable interpretations.

- Hannover

Death Dealer: The Memoirs of the SS Kommandant at Auschwitz, by Rudolf Höss. Steven Paskuly, ed., Andrew Pollinger, trans., with a foreward by Primo Levi.
Da Capo Press, New York. 1996. Softcover. 390 pages. Notes. $15.95.

Reviewed by Richard Widmann


This volume of the memoirs of Rudolf Höß is flawed by the editor's refusal to objectively present the material. Death Dealer was assembled for the sole purpose of refuting or combating holocaust revisionism. Truth is suffocated in this type of presentation. The errors and implausiblilites of Höß' memoirs are often whitewashed in an effort to render this document as sacrosanct.

Steven Paskuly, writes in his "Introduction,"

"There are fanatical groups in the United States, France, and even Australia who call themselves 'The Revisionist Historians.' They actually propose that Höß never wrote these documents - that they are a fraud. They also state that even if the documents were written by Höß, they were obviously done under duress from the 'Communist authorities' in Poland. The 'research' and the conclusions of these 'historians' are absolute rubbish." (p.21)

Paskuly concludes his introduction by writing,

"...no serious argument can be made that Höß concocted the gassing stories to help the Allies find the major Nazi war criminals guilty, as some claim." (p.22)

Paskuly has joined forces for this presentation with Andrew Pollinger. Pollinger, a Dachau survivor, admits in his "Translator's Note,"

"...Steve [Paskuly] and I tried to find a modern American equivalent to the Nazi jargon used by Höß in order to fulfill our main purpose: to present Höß' words and thoughts in a readable form that today's young Americans could easily understand. This was a labor of love to help refute the claim that these horrors did not really happen." (p. 17)

The degree to which Höß' words were altered for sake of indoctrination of American youth can not easily be ascertained.

The team is rounded out by Primo Levi, author of, The Periodic Table, and other volumes of Holocaust lore who provides the foreward. Levi offers the following reason for publishing a work such as that of Rudolf Höß. His answer is but another attack on revisionism.

"Several years ago, an insidious trend was launched when people began affirming that the number of victims of the Nazi era was far less than stated by 'official history,' and that no poison gas was used to kill human beings in the camps. In regard to both these points Rudolph Höß' testimony is complete and explicit, nor would he have formulated it in such a precise and articulate manner, and with so many details confirmed by survivors and by material evidence, if he had been acting under coercion, as the 'revisionists' allege." (p.8)

As we shall see, although "survivors" may have confirmed many of Höß' statements, objective historical inquiry renders many of Höß' details invalid.

The memoirs themselves are an extremely valuable document. Paskuly refers to them as "perhaps the most important document attesting to the Holocaust, because they are the only candid, detailed, and essentially honest description of the plan of mass annihilation from a high-ranking SS officer intimately involved in the carrying out of Hitler's and Himmler's plan." (p.11) Included in this volume are 16 pages of pictures. Unfortunately some of these are not really relevant. One example of this is the inclusion of a picture of the crematorium from the Stuffhof camp. Paskuly also chooses to throw in an Epilogue as well as three lengthy Appendixes which feature, for one thing, the Wannsee Conference Minutes. Unfortunately, Paskuly has chosen not to include Höß' Nuremberg affadavit or his statements made at the Nuremberg trials. These would clearly have rounded out this volume on Höß.

The exclusion of these documents is all the more strange and irritating because of the inclusion of the unrelated Wannsee Conference minutes. The fact that the Nuremberg affadavit makes various absurd or contradictory claims appears to be its reason for exclusion.

Paskuly's agenda become evident based on his commentary regarding Höß' comments in the section of the memoirs entitled, "The Final Solution of the Jewish Question in Concentration Camp Auschwitz." Höß writes that in the "summer of 1941" he is called to Himmler's office in Berlin. There Himmler tells him,

"The Fuehrer has ordered the Final Solution of the Jewish question. We the SS have to carry out this order. The existing extermination sites in the East are not in a position to carry out these intended operations on a large scale. I have, therefore, chosen Auschwitz for this purpose."

Paskuly chooses to believe that,

"Himmler was most likely referring to the special squads (called Einsatzgruppen) who were killing civilians in the Soviet Union, since there were no exterminaton centers in the East..." (p.27)

Therefore, Paskuly argues that Höß is correct when he writes of 1941. Paskuly neglects to mention Höß' statement at Nuremberg which sheds some light on this issue.

The Höß Nuremberg affadavit reads as follows:

"I was ordered to establish extermination facilities at Auschwitz in June 1941. At that time, there were already in the General Government three other extermination camps: Belzek, Treblinka, and Wolzek...I visited Treblinka to find out how they carried out their exterminations. The camp commandant at Treblinka told me that he had liquidated 80,000 in the course of one-half year."

Höß speaks of three other extermination sites in existence during the summer of 1941. The problem with Höß' affadavit and memoirs is that the camp at Belzek only began to function in March of 1942. Treblinka, which Höß claims was in operation for at least six months by June of 1941, only began operations on July 23, 1942. As for the Wolzek camp, it never existed at all.

Paskuly claims to have refuted the thesis that Höß' affadavit and memoirs are in error over this important date. He mentions, however, only the writings of Richard Brietman which argue that Höß' meeting with Himmler could not have been earlier than summer of 1942. (Architect of Genocide, Knopf, New York, 1991). Paskuly actually declares, "Breitman is wrong." (p.27) Paskuly chooses to neglect all the other authors who have similarly pointed out this important error. J.C. Pressac for one, explained that the "June 1941" date is impossible. Pressac writes,

"The evidence that we have studied suggests that Höß retrospectively confused 1941 with 1942." (Y. Gutman, M. Berenbaum, Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, AADC, Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1994, p. 213. )

This error of Höß is troubling since as I pointed out in my article, "Auschwitz: A Re-evaluation,"

"These dates should have been clear in Höß' mind. Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa, the attack on the U.S.S.R. in June of 1941. This was one of the most important dates in the entire history of the Third Reich. Similarly, Höß was promoted to lieutenant-colonel in July 1942. Each of these events should have stood out in Höß' memory."

Paskuly makes totally unreasonable assertions regarding Höß' infamous comment about 2.5 million Jews transferred to Auschwitz for extermination. Paskuly actually chooses to argue that the real number of victims was higher. He writes:

"The Soviet government has stated that the total number of victims is near four million, while the Auschwitz Museum, undre the auspices of the Polish government, officially states the four million figure. Museum historians privately estimate that there were between 2.8 and 3.5 million victims." (p.38)

The assertion is made to convince readers that the actual number of victims exceeds Höß' 2.5 million number. This is clearly untrue. Even considering that the first edition of Death Dealer was published in 1992, Franciszek Piper who heads the department of historical research at the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum undertook a study of the number of victims in 1980. The first draft was completed in 1986. Piper's findings were first published in Yad Vashem Studies in 1991. Piper writes that the number of Jewish deportees to Auschwitz was 1,095,190. (AADC p. 68) Piper's total estimate of the number of victims ranges from 1.1 million to 1.5 million. (AADC p. 71-2).

Other authors including Gerald Reitlinger wrote as early as 1952 that,

"...the figure of four millions has become ridiculous. Unfortunately Russian arithmetic has blurred the stark and inescapable facts that little less than a million human beings perished in Auschwitz." (The Final Solution, Jason Aronson, Inc., Northvale, N.J., 1987, p. 460)

Falsifications and oversights like these verify the extremely biased presentation in this volume.

Other obvious falsifications in the memoirs include Höß' comments regarding Adolf Eichmann. Höß writes of the Sonderkommando,

"These Jews were housed separately from the other prisoners and, according to Eichmann's orders, they themselves were to be killed after each large extermination action." (p.31)

Here Paskuly half-heartedly acknowledges the impossibility of Eichmann having issued such orders. He notes,

"It is unlikely that Eichmann could or would give such orders since he was not in charge of the camps. The camp Kommandants were not answerable to Eichmann, but only to Himmler and Camp Administration and Supply. Eichmann stated to Israeli interrogators after his capture that he was never in a position to give such orders. He claimed that Höß lied in his memoirs about his role in the Final Solution." (p.31)

Paskuly does, interestingly, admit to the fact of Höß' torture by the Allies while in captivity. Paskuly writes,

"Just after his capture in 1946, the British Security Police were able to extract a statement from Höß by beating him and filling him with liquor." (p.20)

Höß himself writes,

"During the first interrogation [the British Field Security Police] beat me to obtain evidence. I do not know what was in the transcript, or what I said, even though I signed it, because they gave me liquor and beat me with a whip. It was too much even for me to bear." (p.179)

Höß continues to describe the events after being turned over to the Polish authorities:

"If the prosecutors office had not intervened, they would have finished me off, most of all mentally and emotionally. They almost had me at the breaking point. This was not feeble hysteria. I was almost totally finished at that time, and I can stand quite a bit. Life had often enough been hard for me, but the psychological torture of these three satans was too much." (p.181)

Even with these entries, Paskuly refuses to consider that Höß' testimony or his memoirs may be more what the interrogators wanted to hear rather than complete truth. In an American court of law these statements would not be admissable. (For a more complete analysis of the torture of Höß, please see: Robert Faurisson "How the British Obtained the Confessions of Rudolf Höß," The Journal of Historical Review, JHR 7(4) (1986) pp. 389-403).

The memoirs are very interesting in and of themselves. The reader finds Höß swaggering back and forth between descriptions of terrible atrocities to more reasonable, but totally contradictory passages, such as:

"I firmly maintain that the death rate of most of the Jews was caused not only by the unaccustomed work, or the inadequate food, or the overcrowded living conditions and all the other unpleasantness and poor conditions of the camp, but mainly and most importantly because of their psychological condition. The death rate of the Jews was not much lower in other places of work in other camps under much more favorable conditions." (p. 142-43)

Similarly Höß writes:

"...I was never cruel, nor did I let myself get carried away to the point of mistreating prisoners. A great deal happened in Auschwitz presumably in my name, on my direction, on my orders, about which I neither knew, nor would have tolerated, nor approved of." (p.184)

Paskuly, not unlike the revisionists, recognizes that passages such as these are very difficult to reconcile with the more frequently quoted passages. While these passages have caused a number of revisionist authors to wonder if the more horrific lines were inserted by another author, (See Wilhelm Staeglich, Auschwitz: A Judge looks at the Evidence, Institute for Historical Review, USA , 1990, pp. 196-216). Paskuly finds it necessary to comment,

"Höß fails to recall that hundreds of thousands of Jews were gassed in the chambers or simply executed. He also fails to mention that the work system was designed to work prisoners to death." (p.143)

The reader should note that the memoirs were written during the short period of time from October 1946 to April 1947.

Paskuly does address the question of forgery by noting that he carefully reviewed the actual handwritten documents. He describes the handwritten pages which were written in pencil in detail in his introduction. Unfortunately Paskuly has chosen not to include any of the original German text nor photos or reproductions of any of the handwritten pages. This omission is all the more strange by the inclusion of photos of 2 pages of the Wannsee Conference minutes and three pages of letters written by Höß! It is also of interest to note that Martin Broszat in his 1961 version of the memoirs, Kommandant in Auschwitz did reproduce the first 2 pages but was criticized because the pages shown were written in ink rather than pencil as all agree the memoirs were written.

Paskuly has provided a service by including the final letters of Rudolf Höß. Here in a personal letter to his wife and child he writes:

"Most of the terrible and horrible things that took place [at Auschwitz] 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. I certainly hope that the guilty will not escape justice." (p.189)

This is strangely at odds with the more widely quoted statements from Höß' memoirs and at Nuremberg.

Höß' writings are important documents on the history of the Holocaust. It is unfortunate that the editors of this particular volume refused to give this material a more objective presentation. As with most exterminationist productions, the volume is flawed by the editor's imposition of his pre-established beliefs and personal convictions. An objective academic-style analysis of the complete writings and testimony of Rudolph Höß has yet to be compiled. Death Dealer could have, and should have been this volume, instead it is merely another attempt to support a monolithic statue whose feet are made of clay.

http://www.vho.org/GB/c/RW/revddeal.html
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

nny
Member
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 10:43 pm

Postby nny » 1 decade 4 years ago (Fri Sep 09, 2005 12:52 am)

Paskuly makes totally unreasonable assertions regarding Höß' infamous comment about 2.5 million Jews transferred to Auschwitz for extermination. Paskuly actually chooses to argue that the real number of victims was higher. He writes:

"The Soviet government has stated that the total number of victims is near four million, while the Auschwitz Museum, undre the auspices of the Polish government, officially states the four million figure. Museum historians privately estimate that there were between 2.8 and 3.5 million victims." (p.38)


Just curious, why wouldn't Hoess "confirm" the 4 million number if he was under duress? The 2.5 number is actually in conflict with what the Soviets / Communist puppet Poles wanted (4 million) and before his death he stated it was closer to 1.1 million, not the 2.5 million he previously quoted. As for the Wolzek comment, I'm assuming he meant Wolcyn, a town near Sobibor, but no one can know for sure, anyways that is the judgment the 'exterminationists' have arrived at.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9921
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Fri Sep 09, 2005 10:17 am)

Just curious, why wouldn't Hoess "confirm" the 4 million number if he was under duress? The 2.5 number is actually in conflict with what the Soviets / Communist puppet Poles wanted (4 million) and before his death he stated it was closer to 1.1 million, not the 2.5 million he previously quoted. As for the Wolzek comment, I'm assuming he meant Wolcyn, a town near Sobibor, but no one can know for sure, anyways that is the judgment the 'exterminationists' have arrived at.

They couldn't make him say a 4 mil because he wasn't there the entire time.
And yes, the communists then had some problems as he 'confessed' to another number ..... which is further proof of the fact that he was under extreme duress. Another example of the story contradicting itself.

There is zero evidence for either numbers.

Just how near Sobibor is 'Wolcyn'? Is it alleged to have had a so called 'death camp'. Ever hear of an alleged 'Wolcyn death camp'?

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

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9921
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Fri Sep 09, 2005 12:23 pm)

Hoess also 'confessed' that Jews were already being exterminated by gas in the summer of 1941.

That's a howler, because the holocau$t legend claims that gassings of Jews did not begin at Auschwitz, Treblinka, or Belzec until sometime in 1942.

Hoess repeated this 1941 date, which shoots down any notion that he simply made a mistake and really meant 1942.

Keeping control of their lies has always been a problem for the 'holocau$t' Industry.

Revisionist are just the messengers, the ridiculous 'holocau$t' story is the message.

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

nny
Member
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 10:43 pm

Postby nny » 1 decade 4 years ago (Sat Sep 10, 2005 1:21 am)

Hannover wrote:

They couldn't make him say a 4 mil because he wasn't there the entire time.
And yes, the communists then had some problems as he 'confessed' to another number ..... which is further proof of the fact that he was under extreme duress. Another example of the story contradicting itself.

There is zero evidence for either numbers.

Just how near Sobibor is 'Wolcyn'? Is it alleged to have had a so called 'death camp'. Ever hear of an alleged 'Wolcyn death camp'?

- Hannover



Well yes and no, I've only ever heard of the Wolcyn death camp in Hoesses testimony, in that he said it was in an easternly direction from Auschwitz. I've also never heard of Belzak which came out of his testimony also, but has been chalked up to a typing error. Similarly in regards to WWII history I have come to recognize the city Krakow, but I have also heard that Hoess was imprisioned in Krakau and Cracovie by a number of people.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9921
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Sat Sep 10, 2005 10:25 am)

There was no Wolcyn camp, and it's not right next to Sobibor, and the name doesn't resemble another camp name in the slightest.

There is no way that the man that was allegedly 'given the task of developing efficient means of killing Jews' would not know where these alleged 'death camps' were.

nny, you ignored:
Hoess also 'confessed' that Jews were already being exterminated by gas in the summer of 1941.
That's a howler, because the holocau$t legend claims that gassings of Jews did not begin at Auschwitz, Treblinka, or Belzec until sometime in 1942.


I suggest you thoroughly familiarize yourself with Hoess and his 'confessions'. There are threads aplenty here on him. The points mentioned here are but the tip of the iceberg. Can you say TORTURE?

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

nny
Member
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 10:43 pm

Postby nny » 1 decade 4 years ago (Thu Sep 22, 2005 1:29 am)

There is no way that the man that was allegedly 'given the task of developing efficient means of killing Jews' would not know where these alleged 'death camps' were.

nny, you ignored:
Hoess also 'confessed' that Jews were already being exterminated by gas in the summer of 1941.
That's a howler, because the holocau$t legend claims that gassings of Jews did not begin at Auschwitz, Treblinka, or Belzec until sometime in 1942.


I suggest you thoroughly familiarize yourself with Hoess and his 'confessions'. There are threads aplenty here on him. The points mentioned here are but the tip of the iceberg. Can you say TORTURE?

- Hannover


Absolutely, thank you for the condescending tone :) Torture is no way to extract a confession, torture is never okay for precisely the reason this forum exists - The 'confessions' extracted are always in doubt. But, since ALL exterminationists whom are familiar with the holocaust are aware of what Hoess said about "1941", and virtually all of them agree that he was mistaken and meant "1942", not because he was lying, but because he was testifying in 1946 / 47. If he was tortured into saying anything, why wouldn't it be in line with what the 'exterminationists' insisted? Why would they torture him to say it happened in 1941, then claim it started in 42? Why would they torture him to say 2.5, then claim 4 million?

As for :
There is no way that the man that was allegedly 'given the task of developing efficient means of killing Jews' would not know where these alleged 'death camps' were.


He wasn't given the task of developing efficient means of killing Jews, as, I hope, most of you revisionists know. the T4 program in euthanasia in Germany provided the means, Heydrich in particular incorporated this into the "Endlosung". I would be curious to see your sources that state "Hoess was given the task of developing efficient means of killing Jews." Hoess visited Treblinka, Sobibor (Wolzek) and Belzak (Belzec) to view their methods of extermination (As the "myth" goes). Since revisionism, and this site in particular advocates open exchanges of ideas I hope that we can continue a conversation without polemics.

To continue on the "Wolzek" doesn't exist, we can look at his testimony. Yes he was tortured, that is not in debate, but when asked about the extermination camps (which by the way were kept under the strictest secrecy from even other commandants):

There were three camps: first Treblinka, Belzak near Lemberg and the third one was 40 kilometers in the direction of Kulm. It was past Kulm in an easterly direction.


If we assume that he meant Chelm (like I assume he meant Belzec not Belzak), we see that Sobibor is in almost the exact same position that he described. This is not hard to see, and I don't understand why revisionists stand by this argument since it is so easily countered. I understand there are a number of ways of refuting this, Hoess was tortured and simply invented Wolzek, which seems to be in the identical position of Sobibor (why didn't he say Buchenwald, or Dachau? Those would have been investigated and dismissed, or why not place it in a different country?).

There is another issue with Hoesses 'testimony', why didn't he cave in to the communists 4 million estimate? In his memoirs, which anyone who has read them will see, he denies the 2.5 million number he gave under torture, and said :

I reported the number of the Jews who were brought to Auschwitz to be killed as 2,5 million. This number comes from Eichmann, who gave it to Commander Glücks shortly before the destruction of Berlin. I myself never knew the real number, and I do not have possibilities to find out. I consider the number of 2,5 millon much too high. Even Auschwitz was not able to do that.


and later cited 1.1 - 1.3 million as the probable number, which is what 'exterminationists' seem to stick to (This is including the 200,000 'registered' deaths there). This is the argument revisionists will face, and in my mind it is a sound one, there is no point in sending 'minion revisionists' out to places such as amazon.com and saying things such as :

The only reason I'm writting this review is that, of my knoeledge, this biography is not actually accurate. Kommandant Rudolf Hoess (Hoss), was captured by the Soviet soldiers the same day auschwitz was liberated. He was incarcelated. During this period, Hoess was forced-obligated to write a full confessional biography about what really happened in the camp. He was brutally beaten and tortured by six officer, including a few jews every day until he stood trial at Nuremberg and was sentenced to death for the murder of 2.5 million people. During his trial, he was so tired and beaten up that what he spoke or wrote seemed unaccurate. He even spoke about an unexisting death camp named Wozer and many other topis that looked made up. For some reason, it seems that a big part of his testimony was forced to be written, and the other part fiercely accurate. In the 80's, when the soviet army released al the archival they cofiscated from the Auschwitz files...only 74.000 victims where registered and only 30.000 were Jews. Now, having information that a lot of trains and deportation to the camp were not registered, it seem that the first 4.1 million turned into 2.5 million, then into 1.1 million and now 74.000.


Someone should tell this guy that NO ONE claims that the soviets captured Hoess on the day Auschwitz was liberated, no one claims that he wasn't tortured, no one sticks to the 4 million or 2.5 million number (the 4 million number was propoganda to induce sympathy, much like Goebbels 250,000 Dresden number), and no one says that there was a death camp named "Wozer" or "Wolzek" (Which I assume he meant) but he meant the town Wolcyn, which was about the same distance from "Kulm" as Sobibor. If Hoess was inventing a death camp to 'tell the world he was forced into confessing', he certainly should have picked a spot further from Sobibor.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9921
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Thu Sep 22, 2005 2:47 am)

nny, you said:
But, since ALL exterminationists whom are familiar with the holocaust are aware of what Hoess said about "1941", and virtually all of them agree that he was mistaken and meant "1942", not because he was lying, but because he was testifying in 1946 / 47. If he was tortured into saying anything, why wouldn't it be in line with what the 'exterminationists' insisted? Why would they torture him to say it happened in 1941, then claim it started in 42? Why would they torture him to say 2.5, then claim 4 million?

Shock!
The judeo-supremacists and court historians say Hoess was "mistaken" ... even though he was testifying only one/two years after the war AND Hoess repeated the "mistake" in more than one 'confession' ... I said that before.

Hoess was simply making it up as he went along. There's any number of feasible reasons that his captors didn't get him to say 1942, perhaps his captors hadn't hardened their fraudulent story yet, weren't aware themselves of what they were going to attempt to tie in with Hoess's bogus statements. Irrelevant though since there's no evidence for the working premise of 'gas chambers'.

They couldn't get him to say '4,000,000' because he wasn't the commandant of Auschwitz for it's full duration (the alleged '4,000,000' was the communist claim for the entire period of Auschwitz/Birkenau) I also said that before, but you ignored it.

and you said:
He wasn't given the task of developing efficient means of killing Jews, as, I hope, most of you revisionists know. the T4 program in euthanasia in Germany provided the means, Heydrich in particular incorporated this into the "Endlosung". I would be curious to see your sources that state "Hoess was given the task of developing efficient means of killing Jews." Hoess visited Treblinka, Sobibor (Wolzek) and Belzak (Belzec) to view their methods of extermination (As the "myth" goes). Since revisionism, and this site in particular advocates open exchanges of ideas I hope that we can continue a conversation without polemics.

Wrong, according to the storyline, he was supposedly charged with finding a better way for killing other than the alleged shootings. That's the dumb storyline, find it yourself, show me I'm wrong if you can.

I suggest you know little about the T4 euthanasia program in which there is no evidence for gassings. The T4 program was a humane way of dealing with the anguish of incurable, horrid suffering and conditions. It's commonplace today, and was not a particularily German issue back then. We have threads here about it, jump in and have your say.

Polemics? How about straight talk? ... which is particularily encouraged by your dodging of points I have made.

you said:
If we assume that he meant Chelm (like I assume he meant Belzec not Belzak), we see that Sobibor is in almost the exact same position that he described. This is not hard to see, and I don't understand why revisionists stand by this argument since it is so easily countered. I understand there are a number of ways of refuting this, Hoess was tortured and simply invented Wolzek, which seems to be in the identical position of Sobibor (why didn't he say Buchenwald, or Dachau? Those would have been investigated and dismissed, or why not place it in a different country?).

Now you've changed it from 'Wolcyn' to Chelm. Since when does Chelm sound like Wolzek?
He didn't say Sobibor, he said 'Wolzek'. Another "mistake" I guess. I think you may be confused here.

Your asking why Hoess didn't name the German labor camps instead of the phantom 'Wolzek' is simply asking why someone would say nonsense when he's being coerced to tell lies. A person will say anything under such conditions.
and:
later cited 1.1 - 1.3 million as the probable number, which is what 'exterminationists' seem to stick to (This is including the 200,000 'registered' deaths there). This is the argument revisionists will face, and in my mind it is a sound one ....

Yeah, he changed his story by 1/2, which indicates he's talking nonsense. Only through the use of 'holocau$t' Logic 101 and bizarre 'holocau$t' jurisprudence do we see this as acceptable.

Face? What's to face? We've demolished the story over & over again. Read the threads here.

'Sound argument'. Why?

Want to discuss the impossibility of the gas chambers as they are alleged?

Care to show me the necessary massive human remains?

Care to show me what real court of law accepts testimony of an accused when it's admitted he was tortured?

Care to show me the records of the outgoing trains which certainly existed? Oh sure, the Germans would have allowed the incomming train records to be found, but deliberately hid the outgoing records just so they would look guilty of exterminating Jews.

It's all at this forum.

Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd story is the message.

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

Vallon
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 3:55 pm

Postby Vallon » 1 decade 4 years ago (Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:39 am)

Hannover: thanks for the Widman review.

If the moderators would allow me to address just one point out of the barrage of questions:
Hannover wrote:Just how near Sobibor is 'Wolcyn'?
Hannover wrote:He didn't say Sobibor, he said 'Wolzek'. Another "mistake" I guess.
The mistake is understandable, if you look at a map, and if you are prepared to equate "Wolzek" with "Wolczyn". Wolczyn is actually att least as close to the camp as the village of Sobibor is.
http://www.mazal.org/Maps/Sobibor-01.htm (with Chelm at the bottom)
http://www.mazal.org/Maps/Sobibor-03.htm
(The maps are bit slow to load, so I don't include them as images.)

Höss had a problem remembering this camp. From a previous interrogation:
Q. What were these extermination camps? Where were they, and what were their names?

A. There were three camps: first Treblinka, Belzak near Lemberg and the third one was 40 kilometers in the direction of Kulm. It was past Kulm in an easterly direction.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... k-paradox/

Of course, there is the problem that Sobibor is north of Chelm, but one can argue that the train left the Chelm railway station in an easterly direction. The distance is approximately correct.

Bergmann
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 4:29 pm

Postby Bergmann » 1 decade 4 years ago (Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:18 am)

There seems to be something very wrong with Höss’ book “Kommandant in Auschwitz”.

I have only the German edition of the book, which was edited heavily by the historian Martin Broszat.
Broszat left out numerous passages from the book, which seemed to him very inaccurate or exaggerated.

Why would Höss make these errors? After all, he was the top-dog in the camp. Was possibly the treatment in the Polish/Communist camp not as humane as we are made to believe?

At this time one can only guess.

Richard Perle
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:45 am

Postby Richard Perle » 1 decade 4 years ago (Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:48 am)

But that's the thing, nobody says he was treated humanely, everybody knows he was tortured. This must be the only topic where confessions extracted through torture are given any credence. I'm reminded of the recent case where a British expat living in Saudi Arabia confessed on television that he was behind a bombing that nobody believes he had any part of.
When you are safely outside of this taboo of taboos, confessions like the Höss example (and evidence of the quality that we see in general for the holocaust) would be unanimously rejected by experts and laymen alike.
It's a mad world.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9921
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Thu Sep 22, 2005 11:26 am)

And what's most tortured here is the hopelessly strained replies that the Believers come up with. Hoess said utter nonsense, was cruely treated, and yet they try to spin it to their favor. Only with things 'holocau$tic' can basic common sense be suspended.

All bow to your masters, or else.

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

Maly Jacek
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 9:45 am
Location: UK

Postby Maly Jacek » 1 decade 4 years ago (Thu Sep 22, 2005 12:24 pm)

Image
Image

There seems to be something very wrong with Höss’ book “Kommandant in Auschwitz”.


Anything coming from the communists has to be treated with extreme caution and scepticism.Alleged "memories" of Höss are no exception- I guess he simply "confessed" and did whatever he was told to.Just take a look at what suppose to be (according to description) photocopy of Hoess's "manuscript" written in Polish prison.Not a single cross or correction- even Pressac spotted that.

Vallon
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 3:55 pm

Postby Vallon » 1 decade 4 years ago (Thu Sep 22, 2005 1:28 pm)

Maly Jacek wrote:Anything coming from the communists has to be treated with extreme caution and scepticism.
The writings of Höss are not really different from his testimony in Nuremberg, before he was handed over to the communists.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/04-15-46.htm
Just take a look at what suppose to be (according to description) photocopy of Hoess's "manuscript" written in Polish prison. Not a single cross or correction - even Pressac spotted that.
Thank you for those images!

The man was an administrator, very much used to writing reports.

Richard Perle
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:45 am

Postby Richard Perle » 1 decade 4 years ago (Thu Sep 22, 2005 1:42 pm)

Vallon wrote:The writings of Höss are not really different from his testimony in Nuremberg, before he was handed over to the communists.


They wouldn't be. I hardly think that anyone would allow anything but a confirmation of his earlier confession to come out. I wonder if his wife and daughter were still at risk when he wrote those things. As we know, it was threatened that they would be turned over to the communists.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 8 guests