"But, but, No Nazi ever Denied"- oogah boogah

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Christof
Member
Member
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:04 am

Re: "But, but, No Nazi ever Denied"- oogah boogah

Postby Christof » 9 years 6 months ago (Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:53 pm)

My problem is with Germans being quoted as denying the holocaust when in reality they only denied certain aspects of it such as their own personal involvement in it,or the meaning of the term 'the final solution',while still affirming that millions of Jews were murdered.

Kaltenbrunner is the nutjob who claimed that it was only through his intervention that the exterminations were stopped in the fall of 1944.

COL. AMEN: Very good. You had no personal knowledge of
and did nothing personal about the program for the extermination
of Jews; is that correct-except to oppose them?
KALTENBRUNNER: No-except that I was against it. From
the moment I knew of this as facts and had convinced myself of
it, I raised objections with Hitler and Himmler, and the final result
was that they were stopped.
IMT,vol.XI,pg.318

While Lammers may have testified favorably as to what Himmler told him was the meaning of the term 'the final solution',he did not deny that millions of Jews were murdered.

DR. THOMA: When did you hear that these 5 million Jews had
been exterminated?
LAMMERS: I heard of that here a while ago.
DR. THOMA: In other words the matter was completely secret
and only very few persons knew of it?
LAMMERS: I assume that Himmler arranged it so that no one
learned anything about it and that he formed his Kommandos in
such a way that nobody knew anything about them. Of course,
there must be a large number of people who must have known
something about it.
DR. THOMA: Can you tell me what people must have known
something about it, apart from those who actually carried out these
exterminations? Who, apart from those people, must have known
something about it?
LAMMERS: Well, to start with, Himmler must have passed his
order on to other people; and there must have been certain leading
officials, and these leading officials must, of course, have had other
leading officials subordinate to them who took charge of the Kom-
mandos and who kept everything completely secret.
DR. THOMA: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.
IMT,vol.XI,pgs.53-54
"All the concentration camps were, after all, vast transit camps.The inmates were constantly changing, passing from one camp to another, coming and going." Balachowsky:IMT vol.VI pg.317

User avatar
Pappy Yokum
Member
Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:03 pm

Re: "But, but, No Nazi ever Denied"- oogah boogah

Postby Pappy Yokum » 9 years 6 months ago (Thu Apr 22, 2010 7:18 pm)

Christof wrote:My problem is with Germans being quoted as denying the holocaust when in reality they only denied certain aspects of it such as their own personal involvement in it,or the meaning of the term 'the final solution',while still affirming that millions of Jews were murdered.

Kaltenbrunner is the nutjob who claimed that it was only through his intervention that the exterminations were stopped in the fall of 1944.

COL. AMEN: Very good. You had no personal knowledge of
and did nothing personal about the program for the extermination
of Jews; is that correct-except to oppose them?
KALTENBRUNNER: No-except that I was against it. From
the moment I knew of this as facts and had convinced myself of
it, I raised objections with Hitler and Himmler, and the final result
was that they were stopped.
IMT,vol.XI,pg.318

While Lammers may have testified favorably as to what Himmler told him was the meaning of the term 'the final solution',he did not deny that millions of Jews were murdered.

DR. THOMA: When did you hear that these 5 million Jews had
been exterminated?
LAMMERS: I heard of that here a while ago.
DR. THOMA: In other words the matter was completely secret
and only very few persons knew of it?
LAMMERS: I assume that Himmler arranged it so that no one
learned anything about it and that he formed his Kommandos in
such a way that nobody knew anything about them. Of course,
there must be a large number of people who must have known
something about it.
DR. THOMA: Can you tell me what people must have known
something about it, apart from those who actually carried out these
exterminations? Who, apart from those people, must have known
something about it?
LAMMERS: Well, to start with, Himmler must have passed his
order on to other people; and there must have been certain leading
officials, and these leading officials must, of course, have had other
leading officials subordinate to them who took charge of the Kom-
mandos and who kept everything completely secret.
DR. THOMA: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.
IMT,vol.XI,pgs.53-54


Lammers professes no personal knowledge of the extermination of millions of people. I don't see that as an affirmation. His responses here appear more in the realm of speculation. He moves from the assumption that the court was fixed on its opinion in the matter: If millions were killed as he had heard in the court, it must have been a secret because he had first heard about at the court. Some people must have known about it because, if it happened, because Himmler didn't do it by himself. The whole proposition is absurd. If millions of people were being murdered it could not have been kept secret.

I don't know that Kaltenbrunner was a nut job. He was in a position that anything that he might say that the court would accept on the matter would have to be incredible because the charge itself was incredible. As a high-ranking member of the SS, saying he never knew anything about it or that he was in a position to know and knew the charge was not true would not fly. As I stated before, it could not have been kept secret and claiming only late knowledge or none is not to be believed. The choices are few. Either Kaltenbrunner knew the whole extermination story was absurd and was not in a position to say so, or he knew about it from the start and professed ignorance. There is no documentation that I know of that second choice is true.

Christof
Member
Member
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:04 am

Re: "But, but, No Nazi ever Denied"- oogah boogah

Postby Christof » 9 years 6 months ago (Thu Apr 22, 2010 9:45 pm)

Pappy Yokum wrote: He moves from the assumption that the court was fixed on its opinion in the matter: If millions were killed as he had heard in the court, it must have been a secret because he had first heard about at the court. Some people must have known about it because, if it happened, because Himmler didn't do it by himself. The whole proposition is absurd. If millions of people were being murdered it could not have been kept secret.


Then that it was absurd should have been his answer.Remember the point of the thread isn't what did or did not actually happen only what they said.

I don't want to copy and paste all of Lammers's testimony here,so a few more examples will have to do.Actually this is the remainder of what I think are his incriminating statements.At the IMT at least:

...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 indi-
vidual cases.
IMT,vol.XI,pg52


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 broad-
casting 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 Fuhrer did not say a word about
murder; no mention was ever made of such a plan.
IMT,vol.XI,pgs.115-116


MAJOR JONES: There are only two more matters, My Lord,
which I feel that it is my duty to put to the witness.
[Turning to the witness.] On the question of the massacre of the
Jewish people, you said in your evidence before the adjournment
that you had saved 200,000 Jews yourself. Do you remember saying
that to the Tribunal?
LAMMERS: Yes.
MAJOR JONES: You saved them from extermination, you meant,
I take it?
LAMMERS: No. I merely saved them from evacuation and
nothing else. I found out afterwards, of course-now-that in
actual fact I really did save them from death. You have . . .
(here he was interrupted by Jones who moved on to another subject)
IMT,vol.XI,pg.133


While he may have made some good points,it seems to me that Lammers was at least professing to buy what the Nuremberg prosecutors were selling.Which might have something to do with his being released from prison in 1952.Of course others are free to cite what they wish I personally wouldn't feel comfortable claiming him as a denier.


Pappy Yokum wrote:As a high-ranking member of the SS, saying he never knew anything about it or that he was in a position to know and knew the charge was not true would not fly.


Then he doesn't belong on the list of German deniers.
"All the concentration camps were, after all, vast transit camps.The inmates were constantly changing, passing from one camp to another, coming and going." Balachowsky:IMT vol.VI pg.317

nickterry
Member
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 1:53 pm

Re: "But, but, No Nazi ever Denied"- oogah boogah

Postby nickterry » 9 years 6 months ago (Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:53 pm)

Pappy Yokum wrote:The thread is about the invalid argument that the Nazis admitted the extermination. As demonstrated here, high members of the Nazi Party had heard the accusations during the war and had investigated them. They were told the Jews were being deported and resettled. Members of the Party in a position to know, like Alfred Rosenberg, stated the Jews were not being physically exterminated, but rather their extermination was political.


Unfortunately it cannot be claimed that "the Nazis admitted the extermination" is an invalid argument. If the claim is "all Nazis admitted the extermination", then the examples cited on this thread would have some weight, but anyone who says "all Nazis admitted the extermination" evidently does not know very much about the National Socialist regime, normal governmental procedures and need-to-know, or the records of the interrogations of the Nazis. It does not help much to argue against strawmen, so let us dispose of "all Nazis" as just that, a strawman.

There are very good reasons why the likes of Hans Lammers would have denied knowledge of the extermination camps. The first reason is that he did not need to know. There is no evidence that Lammers visited Auschwitz and I doubt he even visited an 'ordinary' concentration camp. At Nuremberg and subsequently, a very frequent question was did you ever visit a concentration camp. In some cases there was evidence from witnesses that a particular accused had visited a particular concentration camp, for example Kaltenbrunner's visit to Mauthausen was much discussed because he was not very believable in his denials. In other cases, the defendants or other senior ministers, state secretaries, generals etc denied ever having visited a KZ, and as there was no evidence that they had, they were believed.

Rosenberg and other leading Nazis certainly denied extermination, but as they were on trial for their lives, the weight one can give such denials is not that great. Of course Rosenberg would say that, wouldn't he? His testimony is certainly the origin of all 'language games' that words like Vernichtung and Ausrottung never mean killing when applied to Jews. That is however a separate issue to the question posed by this thread.

To answer that question: a hell of a lot of Nazis denied knowledge of extermination. Given their jobs that was to be expected. if a Nazi who was serving in Holland or France was interrogated, then they could semi-plausibly deny knowledge of what went on in Poland. If they served in Berlin then they had the convenient cover story, even if they could not provide any details to corroborate the 'alibi'. Many undoubtedly did not want to know. But quite a few did find things out, and admitted this knowledge after the war.

Even some Nazis who served in or in close proximity to death camps denied things. But these were stupid denials, claiming that they were never even in Poland despite the fact that their names were on documents proving they were in Poland and even serving in Treblinka or Lublin. Irmfried Eberl never mentioned his service in Treblinka although there were several letters found with his name on it, posted from Treblinka. He also did his best to deny serving in Hadamar where he had killed psychiatric patients, even though his name was on yet more pieces of paper proving he served there, too. The German interrogators didn't realise he had served in Treblinka before he killed himself just because of the charges he faced over Hadamar.

None of the other Belzec, Sobibor or Treblinka staff who were interrogated denied extermination. It is a myth that Richard Baer, one of the commandants of Auschwitz I-main camp, denied the gas chambers, a falsehood which even some revisionist authors are at pains to distance themselves from. In fact his interrogations show he admitted that there were gas chambers at Birkenau, but he denied, rightly, any responsibility for them. 100s of other Auschwitz staff admitted extermination, knowing about it, or taking part in it.

A great many other Nazis who served in Poland or the east were close enough to the camps to know what went on, or even to visit them. Railwaymen had to run the trains to the camps, and were frequently called to give evidence about this. Civilian administrators, other SS and Police officials, Army men as well as private businessmen. Too many to list. There were 100s of investigations and trials in West Germany just covering the Generalgouvernement. They have been extensively explored by German historians in recent decades, writing up dozens of books on different regions or institutions in occupied Poland. It is not difficult to stumble across admissions of knowledge from Kreishauptmann X in such works.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9898
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: "But, but, No Nazi ever Denied"- oogah boogah

Postby Hannover » 9 years 6 months ago (Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:46 pm)

You have to laugh. Nick Terry keeps posting the same old debunked nonsense which has been demolished time after time at this forum.

You want 'Nazis' to say what you want? Here's how, from a earlier thread:
Hannover wrote:The canard 'No Nazi ever denied gas chambers' is easily shot down: many did not accept the ludicrous claim and those that did had compelling reasons to lie and attempt life saving "confessions".
see:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5330
excerpts:
The sham courts established 'judicial notice' on the gas chambers, which meant they were accepted as fact by the court without ever providing proof, simple as that. This sham 'judicial notice' made any defense against the gas chambers claim impossible. And to hedge their bets, the Alllies had various means at their disposal.

American judge, van Roden:

"Statements admitted as evidence were obtained from men who had first been kept in solitary confinement for three, four and five months..The investigators would put a black hood over the accused's head, punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with rubber hoses"


Judge van Roden's allegation of torture to gain "confessions" is confirmed by Texas Supreme Court Judge, Gordon Simpson. He confirmed that savage beatings, smashing of testicles, and months of solitary confinement occurred.
- Congressional Record, appendix. v. 95,sec.12, 3/10/49

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


Ernst Kaltenbrunner, wartime head of the powerful Reich Security Main Office (RSHA), was certain that he would soon be put to death regardless of the evidence presented to the Tribunal: "The colonel in charge of the London prison that I was in has told me that I would be hanged in any case, no matter what the outcome would be. Since I am fully aware of that, all I want to do is to clear up on the fundamental things that are wrong here." In a question-and-answer exchange, Kaltenbrunner rejected the charge that he had ordered gassings:102

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

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

Q. Practically all of the orders came through Kaltenbrunner.

A. Entirely impossible.


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.103
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_Weberb.html

and
'getting the desired 'confession'....via torture'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=1121
excerpt:
Lt. Col. Ellis and Lt Perl of the Prosectution pleaded that it was difficult to obtain competant evidence. Perl told the court, "We had a tough case to crack and we had to use persuasive methods."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Hannover

This is too easy.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Christof
Member
Member
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:04 am

Re: "But, but, No Nazi ever Denied"- oogah boogah

Postby Christof » 9 years 6 months ago (Fri Apr 23, 2010 8:41 pm)

nickterry wrote:To answer that question:a hell of a lot of Nazis denied knowledge of extermination.


:cheers: That's a keeper,I propose that as the new title of this thread.

nickterry wrote:Rosenberg and other leading Nazis certainly denied extermination, but as they were on trial for their lives, the weight one can give such denials is not that great.


Common sense dictates that they had a better chance of escaping the hangman or lengthy prison terms if they went along with the extermination story.

nickterry wrote:It is a myth that Richard Baer, one of the commandants of Auschwitz I-main camp, denied the gas chambers, a falsehood which even some revisionist authors are at pains to distance themselves from. In fact his interrogations show he admitted that there were gas chambers at Birkenau, but he denied, rightly, any responsibility for them.


Be a dear and post an example of that admission would you?

edit:
I'll retract the statement that it was in their best interest to go along with the extermination story because there are too many examples of when that did or did not pay off and could lead to a never ending cluster#@!$.

I am however eagerly awaiting an example of Baer's admission so that I can cross him off my list.
Last edited by Christof on Mon Apr 26, 2010 9:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"All the concentration camps were, after all, vast transit camps.The inmates were constantly changing, passing from one camp to another, coming and going." Balachowsky:IMT vol.VI pg.317

nickterry
Member
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 1:53 pm

Re: "But, but, No Nazi ever Denied"- oogah boogah

Postby nickterry » 9 years 6 months ago (Sat Apr 24, 2010 4:15 am)

Hannover wrote:You have to laugh. Nick Terry keeps posting the same old debunked nonsense which has been demolished time after time at this forum.

You want 'Nazis' to say what you want? Here's how, from a earlier thread:
Hannover wrote:The canard 'No Nazi ever denied gas chambers' is easily shot down: many did not accept the ludicrous claim and those that did had compelling reasons to lie and attempt life saving "confessions".
This is too easy.


The bolded claim in your lengthy repost, which is the same as the claim in the OP, happens to be a strawman. Maybe you can find some non-revisionist who argued that "no Nazi ever denied gas chambers" but they would be incorrect. It is indeed 'too easy' to dispose of imaginary arguments and strawmen, but that is because they are imaginary arguments and strawmen.

Your claim that Nazis could be made to say what anyone wanted would be false, since evidently a lot of Nazis did deny things when it was convenient to them and when they thought they could get away with it. That is how criminals generally operate, after all.

User avatar
Jazz
Member
Member
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 11:12 pm

Re: "But, but, No Nazi ever Denied"- oogah boogah

Postby Jazz » 9 years 6 months ago (Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:06 am)

nickterry wrote:Your claim that Nazis could be made to say what anyone wanted would be false, since evidently a lot of Nazis did deny things when it was convenient to them and when they thought they could get away with it. That is how criminals generally operate, after all.


Like the Malmedy massacre? Did German soldiers deny killing ninety American POWs in cold blood? Yes. Did the Americans have any proof that they were lying? No. So were they tortured until they confessed the 'truth'? Yes, they were actually tortured so badly that the death sentences were commuted and life sentences were reduced.

Karl Radl
Member
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:43 pm
Location: New York City

Re: "But, but, No Nazi ever Denied"- oogah boogah

Postby Karl Radl » 9 years 6 months ago (Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:16 pm)

nickterry wrote:Your claim that Nazis could be made to say what anyone wanted would be false, since evidently a lot of Nazis did deny things when it was convenient to them


That does not follow. If somebody says things that are false for their own benefit it does not means that they wouldn't say anything they believed it was in their best interests to say: in fact it suggests that if they 'denied things' (although that's a question of a perspective as to whose version of events you generally believe: Allied, Comintern or Axis) for their own benefit then they would also likely, but not necessarily as it depends on the individual case, be willing to use a positive or negative falsehood if they held it was to their benefit to do so.

That is how criminals generally operate, after all.


Why prejudge your subject as 'criminals' and implicitly assume that only 'criminals' use such 'methods'?

nathan
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:14 am

Re: "But, but, No Nazi ever Denied"- oogah boogah

Postby nathan » 9 years 6 months ago (Thu May 06, 2010 3:30 am)

“..a denial is of very limited value as evidence – they would say that wouldn’t they.?”
–nathan , above, April 5


“the weight one can give such denials is not that great. Of course Rosenberg would say that, wouldn't he?”
= Nickterry, above, April 23


Now say I have no influence. It is obvious that the guilty do have a motive to plead innocence whereas the innocent usually have no motive to plead guilty. A voluntary confession is therefore stronger evidence than a denial, though only to the extent that it is not self-serving. But a villain’s confession can be judged voluntary only to the extent that a denial would carry no sort of cost. Confessions of conscience are purely voluntary, but unrepentant and hardened sinners make uncoerced confessions only when they are confronted with too much solid evidence to be coherently gainsaid. The case against them is so visible that a denial could have no crucial weight. Hard crimes generate hard evidence and, generally speaking, the bigger the crime, the more of it there is. The interrogators can overwhelm the villain without the aid of threats or promises.

So any intelligent man who supplies the crucial evidence against himself is either a man of conscience or a man coerced. The early SS statements were clearly not the voices of conscience ; yet in some cases they supplied the key courtroom evidence for gas chambers. Confessions which constitute the sole evidence against an accused would, in a just world, carry little more weight than denials did for Mandy Rice Davis. Why would a hardened sinner freely incriminate himself? “He wouldn’t say that, would he?” she might have put it. Coerced confessions of course are not necessarily false, any more than an assertions of innocence are necessarily false . But a coerced confession is worthless as evidence, whereas a protestation of innocence does have a limited value.

Rosenberg’s denial does indicate something guaranteed to surprise anyone new to this subject. Nothing was denied more vehemently by Rosenberg’s co-accused in their separate interrogation rooms at Nuremberg than any knowledge of an extermination policy. This indicates that the interrogators were unable to overwhelm these denials with the mass of solid evidence which - given the enormous scope of that policy - these interrogators might easily have been expected to possess.

nathan
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:14 am

Re: "But, but, No Nazi ever Denied"- oogah boogah

Postby nathan » 9 years 6 months ago (Mon May 10, 2010 9:57 am)

As a brief addendum to remarks about Kaltenbrunner I quote below from an online CIA posting. Kaltenbrunner was interrogated by American Intelligence officers in May and June. He was skillfully questioned for general background intelligence, and well treated. His health up to this point was good. Like Schellenberg, also questioned, he claimed to have learned about the camps only after the war. He was astonished and indignant when he learned that he was to be charged as a war criminal and handed over to the bad cop. He was taken to a London interrogation centre with a fierce reputation. These interrogations are unlikely to be on record. The excerpt is from the The Last Days of Kaltenbrunner, easily googled with its title words :

In July Kaltenbrunner was sent to British Interrogation Center 020 outside of London. Here, at a time when the horrors of the concentration camps were being brought to light, he was seized on as the first prisoner that had played a significant and responsible part in the extermination program. He was given third-degree treatment, I learned later from an American intelligence officer working on the case. The result was that henceforth he not only did not cooperate but refused even to admit he had any responsibility at all in the Nazi system. He refused to admit that he knew men who had been his closest associates. He denied that he had ever been near a concentration camp. He refused to admit that he signed orders incarcerating persons in concentration camps. In short, he denied from this time on any connection with Nazi crimes or persons responsible for such crimes. He was flown to Nuremberg for the trial in handcuffs--the only one of the 21 major defendants treated in this manner.


Christof
Member
Member
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:04 am

Re: "But, but, No Nazi ever Denied"- oogah boogah

Postby Christof » 8 years 3 months ago (Tue Jul 26, 2011 3:43 pm)

If the police arrested you for murder and you were innocent, would you tell them that the murder didn't happen, or that you knew nothing about it?

Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial 1963
excerpt testimony Robert Mulka, adjutant to Rudolf Hoess

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwcjf1JGMxk[/youtube]
"All the concentration camps were, after all, vast transit camps.The inmates were constantly changing, passing from one camp to another, coming and going." Balachowsky:IMT vol.VI pg.317

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: "But, but, No Nazi ever Denied"- oogah boogah

Postby Kingfisher » 8 years 3 months ago (Tue Jul 26, 2011 4:31 pm)

Christof wrote:If the police arrested you for murder and you were innocent, would you tell them that the murder didn't happen, or that you knew nothing about it?

That is Catch 22. Isn't this a variant on the scientific principle of the unfalsifiable hypothesis? There is no answer they can give which will satisfy the court (and the media).

User avatar
Balsamo
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 305
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 1:44 pm

Re: "But, but, No Nazi ever Denied"- oogah boogah

Postby Balsamo » 8 years 3 months ago (Thu Jul 28, 2011 10:16 am)

Well I think the question should have been :

"Did any of the Nazis who admitted the genocide retracted himself in some way ( post-mortem letter, confessions, etc )?"

Atigun
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 493
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:13 am

Re: "But, but, No Nazi ever Denied"- oogah boogah

Postby Atigun » 8 years 3 months ago (Thu Jul 28, 2011 2:21 pm)

Let's not forget that Harlan F. Stone, the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court called the Nuremberg trials a "High grade lynching" and a "fraud". Associate Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas concurred. Deputy Chief Counsel Abraham Pomerantz resigned in protest over the incompetence, "low caliber", of the presiding judges. Yet holocaust believers still quote the evidence, testimony and sentences of those marsupial proceedings as positive, irrefutable proof of the holocaust and the guilt of the German defendants. The believers might as well be quoting the findings of the Inquisition.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests