Watch Hannover Grow More Hysterical

What is it with Hannover? No matter how often he gets nailed, he simply waits all of five minutes and then reposts the same old lies. Evidently smarting from the spanking Sergey gave him here and here over Taeubner, the intrepid librarian now reposts one of his favourite cliches: 'no mass graves as alleged, no Holocaust'

According to the judeo-supremacist lies, mass-shootings-into-pits
allegations go as high as 2,000,000.
So, is that: 100 graves of 20,000? 200 graves of 10,000? 400 graves of
5,000? 500 graves of 4,000? 1000 graves of 2000? 2000 graves of 1000?
Not one mass grave has been produced to support the 'holocaust' shooting
claims*. Not a single one. Revisionism would be finished if even a few could be
shown. Go ahead and actually look for evidence like this excavation by the
Germans of the Communist atrocity at Katyn .... that was, of course, blamed on
the Germans. Katyn facts: 'Amtliches Material zum Massenmord von Katyn' http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=758
No mass graves as alleged, no 'holocaust'. -
Hannover
* or the gassings claims

Waaaalll, Jonnie, you might like to peruse some of the following blog articles about mass graves: on the Polesie, on Marijampole in Lithuania, on Babi Yar here, here, here and here; never mind this little overview of the extent of mass graves in the Soviet Union and Poland. Meanwhile, just so he's brushed up on the state of research about Sonderkommando 1005, the German unit which exhumed some - and ONLY some - of the mass graves of executed Jews in the east, he can have a little read here and here.

Of course, Hannover might also stop to wonder that this isn't simply a question of 2 million Jews mown down by rifle and machine gun fire, but many millions more Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Poles and other East European peoples unceremoniously dumped in antitank ditches and pits of varying sizes after expiring from gunfire, the noose, starvation and exhaustion.

Perhaps, too, Hannover is confused about the extent and nature of the documentation relating to mass shootings? Then he can get back to us about what this document actually means, if it doesn't mean a mass execution (and in this case, we know there was a mass grave dug up after the war). Or he could mull over the inability of 'revisionist' gurus Jürgen Graf and Carlo Mattogno to read several documents correctly, most notably concerning Galicia, Lithuania and Latvia.

Keep 'em coming, Jonnie. You may reassure your dwindling flock when you mount your soapbox, but you're a sorry excuse for a 'revisionist'.

Watch Hargis squirm

Someone alerted Jonnie "I am not Hannover" Hargis to the fact that he has been pwned. Now watch him squirm:

'Germania' refers to the above and the book it supposedly came from as "sourced in a similarly painstaking manner", very odd indeed.

- I just love the authors' silly beginning, "SS secret verdict". Amazing, so secret that court transcripts were supposedly left behind.

- Where is a reference to Taubner with his case number? Where is a reference to Taubner?

- Why don't we see the real text to these 'verdicts'? We have no reason to believe any of them support the claims made. We have no reason to believe any of them are about Taubner.

- They claim access to damning SS court transcripts, but do not show them. What are they hiding?

- What photos were ordered burnt?
If SS Himmler ordered alleged incriminating photos burnt, then why would an SS court leave a record of him supposedly ordering it? They wouldn't. And where's the alleged orders?

- We see English text, but not the original German transcripts. Why?

- We do see reference to an informer who was supposedly executed, perfectly legal. No Taubner though.

'sourced in a painstaking manner', I don't think so. A jumbled mess of nonsense is more like it.

I stand by my statements.

Jonnie dances around the facts which he can't refute. Namely:

• the book is painstakingly sourced;
• the verdict and other Taeubner-related documents are fully sourced;
• Jonnie Hargis is a silly antisemite, who wouldn't find his way out of a paper bag, much less find a page with sources in a book.

Jonnie is also so stupid as to refer to the fact that Taeubner wasn't judged for the murder of the Jews (he was sentenced because he acted without authorization, with cruelty, and, worst of all, made photos) as proof of something (only Hargis knows what).

It seems we have caught Hannover with his pants down. Yeeew. Not a lovely sight.

Anonymous comments disallowed.

Although sometimes anonymous comments are left by good people, we have decided to disallow such comments. They make it far too easy for various cowardly riff-raff to leave their trash here without feeling any responsibility whatsoever. We can't even track who authored which comment, which makes only trolls happy.

Registering with Blogger is not difficult, so nobody is disadvantaged.

Yet another troglodyte

In "The Unbearable Stupidity of the Cesspit" I have shown that an average Cesspit lemming doesn't know what it is talking about. Here I will show that it is their custom to dig themselves even deeper into their own manure.

Pompous, but absolutely brainless denier "Carto's Cutlass Supreme" (AKA "Even Dumber Than Hargis") begs for more humiliation:

The Sobibor maps and models have a railway line going to the death part of the camp. On page 124 of Yitzhak Arad's book "Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka," Scharfuhrer Erich Bauer said the train, equipped with a locomotive, transferred those unable to walk to the totenlager (death part of the camp) to the Lazarett located there. Arad quotes Bauer:

It was known in the camps that this Lazarett was used not for healing but for the extermination of people..."

The problem is that he's confusing Sobibor with Treblinka. Sobibor had no Lazarett. No map or model shows a Lazarett. It was Treblinka that had the Lazarett.

Really? What maps and models has this nimrod examined? Certainly not this map by W. Rutherford. After all, the legend reads:

55 "Lazarett" (former chapel with long pit behind structure for shooting invalids, the elderly or infirm, unaccompanied minors and any "trouble makers" from the transports)

Neither was it this sketch by survivor Moshe Bahir, which has "LAZARET" written on it in rather large letters. Nor this plan based on information from Erich Bauer and Thomas Blatt, which shows the chapel as no. 47, and the legend for which in Blatt's book Sobibor. The Forgotten Revolt reads as follows:

47. "Lazarett" (former chapel) used in the beginning to kill immobile Jews

And what models? Certainly not this model by Thomas Blatt, which shows the "Lazarett" chapel where it was.

True, Lazarett wasn't in Camp III, so Bauer is compressing two phases into his narrative - the early phase, when the infirm were transferred on carts to the chapel to be shot; and the later phase, when they were transported by narrow-gauge railway into Camp III, to the mass graves.

CCS adds a rather ironic observation:

It is not unlike where on Lubomyr Prytulak's website (now forced down) where he documented the confusion of the dog Barry being at Sobibor and at Treblinka.

Ironic, given that Lubo didn't really document anything, but his own lack of basic logic. And Lubo's site wasn't "forced down". He decided to remove it himself.

Now I'd like an answer from the Cesspit pond-life: is it painful to be so stupid?

Yawn. I guess it's spankin' time again.

Deniers can't debunk the fact that the 1943 judgement by the SS and Police Supreme Court against SS-Unterstrumfuehrer Max Taeubner proves the Nazi genocidal anti-Jewish program (Klee, Dressen, Riess, The Good Old Days, p. 201):

The accused shall not be punished because of the actions against the Jews as such. The Jews have to be exterminated and none of the Jews that were killed is any great loss. Although the accused should have recognized that the extermination of the Jews was the duty of Kommandos which were set up especially for this purpose, he should be excused for considering himself to have the authority to take part in the extermination of Jewry himself. Real hatred of the Jews was the driving motivation for the accused.

Given this damning evidence, deniers have to resort to different tricks. Our old good library assistant Jonnie Hargis (AKA Hannover, AKA The Dumbest Person in the World) tries one such trick:

On pages 196-207 they have alleged extracts from an SS court trial in 1943 involving a Max Taubner who was allegedly pardoned even though he was found guilty of allegedly killing Jews. There is no case number given, no reference to the location of the transcripts, nothing....simply text written by who knows who. There is a post at this bbs with claims a case number, but indeed in the book, none exists! I have the book.

[...]

The entire book is utter nonsense where unsubstantiations abound. They simply make up absurd claims and can't back up a single one. Read it and see.

Here's a part of a scanned page from the book, giving the source of the Taeubner-related documents:



The rest of the book is sourced in a similarly painstaking manner.

Now, do you think Hannover-Hargis is a lying scum or an oligophrenic scum?

An honest (well, in a way...) denier sez:

So is this the so-called "massacre" where kikes were supposedly massacred? God, but were it only so.

Google-Whack-A-Scumbag

We've had fun recently with Kiwichap, aka SeymoreG at RODOH and, as 'Antipodes', almost single-handedly responsible for the closing of the Skeptic Forum WWII section because of what was deemed excessive racism.

Anyway, the loss of an entire platform has meant that the fundamentalist Christian freak has had to return to the Cesspit to practice his stupidities. This time, the bright spark stumbled across news International Research Project on Jewish Soldiers and Prisoners of War in World War II and boggled at the quoted figure of 200,000 Jewish POWs captured by the Germans.

Had the intrepid New Zealander performed a simple Google, he might have come across no fewer than 1,320,000 hits for 'Jewish POWs', of which quite a number might have helped him with his comprehension problems. Most of all, he might have realised that just because his antisemitic buddies and he think of 'the Jews' as a unified people today, doesn't mean that the Nazis could proceed against 'the Jews' uniformly in the 1940s. How many countries was it that Hitler invaded and fought against, again?

Take this short excerpt of a conference paper by noted German historian Rüdiger Overmans, for example. There he might have learnt that the Germans released the POWs captured from the Greek and Yugoslav Armies, which meant they rounded up the Jewish POWs later - partly because in those countries, the Nazis didn't call all the shots, because they shared spheres of influence with Mussolini. Or he might have found this interesting page on Jewish POWs in Colditz, many from nations which happened to have captured rather a lot of German prisoners of war, who might have fallen victim to reprisals had the Nazis tried to deport British, US, Canadian and other Commonwealth nationals to death camps, in breach of the Geneva Convention. While we appreciate that in many respects, Kiwichap's hero Dolfy was not the cleverest of strategists, the Nazis weren't completely stupid and had to respect certain boundaries out of pure Realpolitik.

Not so in the east, as Kiwichap might have learned regarding Polish Jewish POWs if he'd clicked here or here [Large PDF]. Indeed, he might sooner of later have come across the potentially shocking (to deniers, that is) fact that the SS first carried out four-figure mass executions against Polish Jewish prisoners of war.

As for Soviet Jewish POWs, we'll forgive him his presumable inability to read Russian and thus to access this mammoth two-volume work by Aron Shneer on the fate of Jewish Red Army prisoners of war, now online in full and for free, and instead direct him back to Google, this time to search among the 341,000 hits for 'commissar order'.

Such, then, is the state of 'revisionist research' at the Cesspit these days. Another trial balloon floated to convince themselves that the Holocaust Never Happened, another balloon shot down. If we were even vaguely sympathetic to 'revisionism', we'd be embarrassed for the poor little dears.

Open Thread

I know, we're hardly dailykos in size, but there seems to be some demand for a place that readers can get on their own soapboax. No spam please, and remember, think before you type...

McNally 'too crude' even for Cesspit

Well, that didn't last long. Only a few hours after Andrew pulverized McNally's '95 Theses', the Cesspit moderator (read: Hannover)posted the following message:

Moderator
Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:26 am
This list, while rich with basic Revisionist facts, is simply too crude. The list is gone, this thread will be removed.
M1

Full credit to Hargis for realising that someone ranting about the 'joos' is 'too crude'. Perhaps he might then realise that saying 'judeo-supremacist' is only a couple of junior high grades above?

As to Sergey's question is Patrick McNally's brain rotting, the answer is obvious: he sold it on brains4zombies.com.

Absence of Logic: A Response to McNally

On Jonnie Hargis's Führerbunker, Canadian Holocaust denier Friedrich Braun posted "Ninety-Five Theses on the Holocaust" by Professor Patrick McNally of the Faculty of Policy Studies at Chuo University in Japan.

I threw these responses out in less than half an hour. I seriously hope Prof. McNally does not teach basic logic. A shorter version of this has already been e-mailed to McNally:

Read more!

*1. There is no forensic evidence whatsoever for the hoaxoco$t.

This is simply not true. If McNally (and other deniers) would define "forensic," we could move forward from there, but they never do. So the first stage in debating these "theses" would be to establish the truth or falsity of this first thesis. But we can't do that because McNally, like most deniers, won't define terms first.

*2. There logically cannot be any holyhoax eyewitnesses.

This is begging the question. We have yet to establish (1).

*3. All so-called holocaust evidence is merely hearsay and senile lies.

That can only apply to eyewitnesses, if even then. So we're back to (1)

*4. The hoaxoco$t affirmers jump grasshopper-like from refuted lies to
new lies awaiting refutation.

Can McNally provide a single example?

*5. The hoaxoco$t is world history`s filthiest blood libel.

How so? Wouldn't something like the Lincoln and Norwich blood libels be worse, considering they ended in violence against and mass deportatation of Jews?

*6. The Awshucks Labor Camp had more amenities than the USA WW2 camps for Japanese Americans.

A swimming pool used only by SS is not going to cut it, nor is a movie theater.

*7. Crematoria are never used anywhere to kill people. They are used to burn the bodies of people who are already dead. There is nothing ominous about crematoria.

There is something ominous about 52 crematoria muffles able to incinerate over 2,500 bodies per day. In a camp that could barely hold 200,000 people, it's a bit strange to be able to incinerate the entire camp population in less than three months, unless you're expecting mass deaths to occur.

*8. Awshucks and all labor camps had insecticidal gas chambers.

This proves or disproves nothing.

*9. Insecticidal gas chambers saved Jewish lives.

And they saved SS lives. Which do you think were more important to the Nazis?

*10. There were no homicidal gas chambers anywhere in German occupied territory.

What about at Auschwitz, Belzec, Chelmno, Treblinka, Majdanek, and Sobibor?

*11. Faurisson`s Challenge [Draw me a homicidal gas chamber!] must be met. Holocaustomaniacs must finally put up or shut up!

Why? What special right does Faurisson have to have his demands met that others
do not? We're talking about a man who, for years, asked for "just one proof" of gas chambers, and when Jean-Claude Pressac published a whole book of proofs, and Faurisson still won't shut up.

*12. There were no 6,000,000 jooz to be killed.

Sure there were. The Wannsee Protokol has that nearly that many in Poland and Ukraine alone.

*13. During WW2 there was a war going on. During wars people die and get killed.

Again, this proves or disproves nothing.

*14. If Hiroshima deaths were not murders, neither were Auschwitz deaths.

Straw man alert! Hiroshima was murder.

*15. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were real holocausts [killing by burning].

OK, so let's just call the Holocaust the Shoah instead.

*16. The only real holocaust in Germany was against Germans in their firebombed cities.

That emanates only from your limited definition of "Holocaust."

*17. The worst war criminals [1941-1945] were the American Air Farce fire bombing squadrons.

All sides in the war committed crimes. Both Americans and Japanese did in the Pacific Theater, and we know the Soviets did. The British did most of the bombing of Dresden. But does that exculpate the Nazis? No, it doesn't.

*18. There is better and more proof for the Trojan War than for the holyhoax.

There is no proof at all for the Trojan War, or even Troy.

*19. Belief in the hoaxoco$t is epistemologically similar to belief in witches.

Did the perpetrators of torture during the witch trials confess to engaging in torture? Because if they didn't, then you're wrong.

*20. Belief in the hoaxoco#t is morally much worse than belief in witches.

Based in whose moral calculus? Yours?

21. G, Rudolf`s Lectures on the Holocaust is the indispensable vademecum for students of the holocaust.

Perhaps then you can explain why Mr. Irving withdrew Mr. Rudolf's affidavit from evidence?

*22. The constant changes in the holyhoax fable are due to revisionist pressure and not to any jooish honesty.

This is a classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

*23. Jooz have abandoned the filthy "soap made from Jews" blood libel.

No, historians have abandoned it.

24. The whole hollowcause story is exactly like the filthy "soap made from Jews" lie.

This shows an utter failure to show causation.

*25. Only jooish obstinacy, greed, and mendacity maintain the Hoaxocost Lie.

And all that inconvenient evidence. Back to (1).

26. The Awshucks Labor Camp was much safer than the German cities being bombed.

Again, begging the question.

27. Giving false testimony must be a criminal and tort offense. ["Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor!"]

So shall we punish sixty-nine SS witnesses for bearing false witness against themselves?

*28. In colloquial English and bureaucratic German, the phrase "Auschwitz Lie" has exactly opposite meanings.

This is a completely irrelevant observation.

*29. If the Auschwitz Lie collapses, the hoaxoco$t collapses.

This is false dilemma.

*30. The holyhoax is the Achilles heel of Jew Power over Gentiles.

Again, begging the question.

*31. If the hoaxoco$t collapses, Jew Power collapses.

Ditto.

*32. Nazis wanted to deport Jooz to somewhere.

Wow, we agree!

*33. Zionists wanted jooz to be deported to somewhere.

Again, we agree.

*34. Nazis and Zionists cooperated to save jooz by getting them out of the war zone to Palestine.

It couldn't have happened that way. Germany never controlled the Mediterranean. As such, the British Navy never lost its ability to enforce its white papers on Palestine that restricted and later outlawed immigration.

*35. Russia and Western Europe have different railroad width gauges.

True.

*36. The Bergen-Belch-Burp Camp and several other camps were located at
the railroad width gauge difference line. They were all transit camps and
not death camps.

This is a faulty syllogism. You cannot conclude your final sentence from your penultimate premise.

*37. If it is morally acceptable for Jews to deport Palestinians from
their homeland, it was morally acceptable for Germans to deport Jews from a
country not their homeland. This is called Torah tit-for-tat.

Another straw man.

*38. Deholyhoaxotoxification is urgently needed.

I don't even understand what that means.

*39. Both the Nurnberg Show Trials and Stalin`s Show Trials used lots of
torture to get confessions.

Who was tortured at Nuremberg?

*40. The Nurnberg Show Trials were far worse than Stalin`s Show Trials
because a whole people was condemned in perpetuity at Nurnberg.

Only if one believes that all Germans were Nazis. Do you?

*41. An international commission must study the forensic aspects of the
holocaust accusations of murder. This commission cannot include any
Jews, Christians, or citizens of HOGs [Holocaust Occupied Governments].

So who will do it? Muslims? Buddhists? Avowed atheists from Samoa?

*42. Finkelstein`s witty and informative The Holocaust Industry does not
even touch on the holocaust as such.

True.

*43. Jooz lie and then get angry when people do not believe their lies.

As do all people, but I question the relevance of this statement. And I seriously question whether all Jews lie, if that is your suggestion.

*44. The absolutely biggest jooish lie is the hoaxoco$t.

And again, begging the question.

*45. The holyhoax fable is nothing but jooish hate speech.

Ditto.

*46. Jooish anti-Gentile lies are a clever defense tactic.

Defense against what?

*47. Gentiles get so overwhelmed by jooish lies that they do not see that jooz are committing the very crimes they accuse Gentiles of.

Where are "Jooz" using gas chambers?

*48. Gentiles will stop telling truths about jooz when jooz stop telling lies about Gentiles.

What truths are being told about Jews that we would want stopped?

*49. Germans must institute a class action lawsuit against the holocaust jet-set plutocrats.

That'll go over big.

*50. The hoaxoco$tofried European Union should be dissolved back into its member states.

I object to this "thesis" on the grounds of relevance.

*51. Holocaust affirmers should be incarcerated.

This would be violation of First Amendment and Article 19 of the U.N. charter.

*52. World Jewry has to pay back all money extorted via the Auschwitz Lie.

Back to our good old friend begging the question.

*53. The once proud German people have become cowards enslaved by the
Auschwitz Lie.

And again: Begging the question.

*54. Germany is now a HOG [Holocaust Obsessed Government].

I don't see how. They seem to have moved past it.

*55. The Hoaxoco$t is the worse plague facing humanity today.

AIDS kills millions yearly. How many die at the hands of the Holocaust?

*56. All UN member states should institute an anti-Holocaust loyalty
oath for their citizens. No holocaust affirmer can be trusted.

This is McCarthyism at best and fascism at worst.

*57. The holyhoaxofried UN itself should be disbanded.

Would that be before or after your McCarthyite "loyalty oath"?

*58. The holyhoax must be privatized, i.e. removed from public space.

Again, I object due to relevance.

*59. All hoaxoco$t museums, libraries, and stink tanks must be closed.

Ditto

*60. Alley the Weasel told significant lies to get his UAssA citizenship.

Please name them or retract this ad hominem.

*61. Alley the Weasel is a schmaltzy vicious hate-mongering racist liar.

Ditto.

*62. Alley the Weasel, history`s filthiest libeler, should be deported
back to the JewsOnlyState whence he came. He did not come to the USA as a
homeless refugee but as a speaker and spreader of anti-Gentile hatred.

Wiesel never lived in Israel. Unless you mean that France, from which Wiesel emigrated to the U.S., is a "JewsOnlyState."

*63. The Holocaust industry causes infinitely more harm than the tobacco
industry. Public health warnings should be put on anything published by
holocaustomaniacs.

Tobacco kills 500,000 Americans per year. Again, as per (55), it is your job to prove what you allege.

*64. The Hoaxoco$t is elite Jewry`s cash cow, golden calf, and prize
alibi for any and all of its crimes.

Perhaps, but again, what is the relevance?

*65. The holocaust fable has replaced Christ`s Crucifixion.

So history literally changed?

*66. The birth of Isrealhell has replaced Christ`s Resurrection.

Ditto.

*67. Holocaustianity has replaced Christianity.

So what organization does Benedict XVI run?

*68. The vast majority of the jooish sheeple are hoaxoco$t racists.

This is more ad hominem.

*69. Israel must continue to exist but within the 1948 UN mandated borders.

OK, but I again object due to relevance.

*70. Israel can continue to serve as an open-air mental hospital for incorrigible racists. Where could Izzies go?

This is again ad hominem.

*71. There cannot be any ¡Èone state solution¡É forcing Palestinians to live with racist joos.

Ditto.

*72. The apart-hate JewState must get rid of its worse than Nazi race laws.

Could Jews in Germany vote after 1935?

*73. Israel sees the UAssA as its chief near-term enemy.

What proof is there of this assertion?

*74. Israel destroys the UAssA through its fifth column of traitors high
in the American government. Israel blackmails the JewAssA into wars fought
for the JewState and these wars are bleeding America to death.

Ditto

*75. Unrepentant racist Jews must be helped to emigrate to the
demilitarized JewState or be put back into a new ghetto.

Got yourself a little Madagascar plan, do you?

*76. Jewdayism is not any kind of a religion but merely a racist
political ideology.

How is Judaism racist? Give examples.

*77. Zio-Judyism must be privatized back into the synagogues and mental
wards.

This is self-contradiction. You said above that Israel should continue to exist.

*78. Zio-Judaism is a Tallmud teaching of anti-Gentile hatred.

The Talmud is specifically against Zionism.

*79. Aliyah Zionism teaches that all jooz should emigrate to Izzie. Actually a great idea!

This is actually a terrible idea. Fourteen million Jews in a space the size of Delaware is a invitation to a nuclear attack by people like you.

*80. Non-aliyah Zionism teaches that jooz should support the JewsOnlyState by acting as a fifth column of traitors in the various cattle-goyim states. Not a good idea!

Any proof for this whopper? Of course not.

*81. Zionism must be recognized as [not even] a racism.

Once again, the relevance here cannot be established?

*82. Any Gentile racism is on a higher moral level than Zionism.

Why?

*83. Semitism [Jewish Supremacy] teaches that a joo elite should use deceit to dominate cattle goyim nations. Semitists principally use the Auschwitz Club to control the goyim

Again, there is no proof offered here -- just assertions.

*84. Anti-Semitists [not anti-Semites] are urgently needed to fight Semitism [jooish supremacy].

You say potato.

*85. The "Clash of Civilizations" is just a joo scam used to cause wars against and among all humans.

Proof? Relevance? Either? Both?

*86. Jewry is defeating the West [both Black and White] with the hoaxoco$t lie. Jewry is simultaneously waging an anti-Islamic war using Gentile stooges to fight and die for Isrealhell.

Where is war being waged against Islam per se?

*87. Jewry`s multi-front wars are very risky for Mr. Joo because some cattle goyim might wake up.

Which wars are we speaking of?

*88. The German [Hitler] Revolution was very democratic. The French and Russian Revolutions were very undemocratic.

Can we see a demonstration of any relevance whatsoever?

*89. Elite Jewry started WW2 in 1933 by unilaterally declaring war on Germany.

So why did it take Germany six years to retaliate? This is beyond senseless. An economic boycott by a stateless people cannot be and is not an act of war.

*90. Jewism is the residual racism uniting the Solomon Sixpackers, i.e.
the hoi polloi of the jooish sheeple.

There is no proof offered. Again.

*91. The jooish contribution to Gentile societies is a net negative.

Look at a list of Nobel winners some time.

*92. An anti-Semitist [not auntie-Semenist] used to mean someone who hates Semitists. Now an anti-Semitist means someone whom Semitists hate.

You, again, say potato.

*93. A Zionist used to mean a Jew who wanted to send stupider Jews to Palestine. Now a Zionist is often a rich¡¡Jew who escapes from Israel and leaves the stupidest jooz holding the bag as the JewState implodes.

This is perhaps true, but where is the freaking relevance?

*94. The War on Terrorism [actually a War on Common Sense] is a joo- inspired scheme to get stupid Whites and Christians to kill innocent Arabs and Muslims.

Is there any proof of Jewish contrivance? Or any demonstration of relevance?

*95. Delendae sunt Judaea atque holyhoaxotoxia! [Israel and the hoaxoco$t must be destroyed.

And we end with another self-contradiction.

Can you respond to this without ad hominem? I'll bet $100 you can't.

Whack-a-scumbag

I just love this game. The crazy Kiwi Christian Identity guy, rather known for his lack of brightness (politically-correctly speaking), quotes lying David Irving's rendition distortion of Cavendish-Bentinck's memos at the Cesspit.

No matter that Irving's lies about Cavendish-Bentinck have been exposed during the 2000 trial...

Is Patrick H. McNally's brain rotting?

From this one is tempted to conclude: yes.

2. There logically cannot be any holyhoax eyewitnesses.

This alone should indicate that his circuits just ain't workin'!

But we already knew this, didn't we.More from Andrew soon.

A Message Regarding Cyber-Attacks

When visiting the UVP video site today to listen to the victims of my next commentary, I was very annoyed to find the following message, which meant I had to go through the YouTube circuit to watch what I wanted to see:

«Message: We've had some problems with cyber-attacks. The videos are not available at the moment. You can find a lower-quality (but still watchable) version at youtube.com. Go there and search "holocaust denial movie"»

I’m not sure if these cyber-attacks are real or just a propaganda maneuver by the Ugly Voice artist, meant to give importance to his filth by insinuating that the "Holocaust Industry", or whatever sinister organization his conspiracy theories dream up, is bothered enough by his trash to take recourse to such underhand methods. I’ve seen too much "persecution" whining from these "Revisionist" true believers to rule out such possibility.

However, assuming that these cyber-attacks are real – in which case I would attribute them to some knee-jerk reaction by someone sufficiently computer-wise who got sick watching this trash – I would hereby like to convey this blog’s message to whoever launched these attacks, which is the following:

«Shame on you, whoever you are.

You are using the same despicable methods that are currently being employed by Holocaust deniers against the site of The Holocaust History Project.

To be sure, THHP is a respectable information site committed to historical truth whereas the UVP videos are ideologically motivated propaganda lies of the most disgusting kind.

But this does not justify applying such methods, which restrict the Ugly Voice’s right to free speech. The way to tackle such filth is to expose it by means of evidence and arguments, as we are doing on this blog.

Therefore, we disapprove of your methods in the strongest possible terms. Free speech is for everyone, including cockroaches like Mr. Ugly Voice.

We strongly urge you to refrain from cyber attacks on the UVP site in the future and, insofar as possible, to immediately annul the effects of such attacks that have already occurred.

This would also make our work much easier.»

A Name I've Never Heard Before

Canadian authorities have sentenced Edmonton's resident wingnut, Reni Sentana-Ries, to sixteen months in prison for operating a "hate Web site."

Note that I don't put that phrase in sneer quotes because I don't think that such sites exist. I know that they do. Rather, I question (again) the judgment of putting people in jail for their political beliefs, no matter how repugnant.

Consider: I've been in the Holocaust denial refutation business for going on seven years now, and I've never heard of this guy. I mean never. There are other Canadian deniers who have crossed my radar, notably Manitoba's Lubomir Prytulak (a Ukrainian-Canadian who believes no war crimes were committed in Ukraine during WWII) and, of course, Ernst Zündel (who is standing trial in Germany as we speak for denying the Holocaust -- another idiotic move).

But Sentana-Ries? Never heard of him. If that's the case, then (not to toot my own horn) how dangerous can he be?

Canada has made this mistake in the past and, unfortunately, will likely continue to make this mistake, bringing publicity to people that otherwise would be men wearing tin foil hats and operating Web sites that no one reads. (Note that I only fit one of those two criteria.)

Quit Whining, Fabian

No online denier would be complete without his nym. (And 99.9% of the time, it usually is a him.) The nym not only announces his allegiances but also serves to protect his real identity from imagined persecutions. That's to say, these small fry expect to hear a knock on the door from the Bundesverfassungschutz come to extradite them from the safety of their North American homes just for mouthing off on the internet. Or that the German authorities will really be able to check that someone with a certain name, such as Fabian Eschen, is in fact the denier they obviously want to jail, and not someone of the identical same name. No doubt they have the cell next door to Germar Rudolf all warmed up for just such a purpose. Yeah... right.

Hang on... did I just mention a name? I guess I did. But then, so did the person in question, who has translated18 articles for Germar Rudolf's pseudo-scientific journals at VHO.

Evidently, this person was foolish enough to do these translations under his real name, as Herr Eschen has recently begun whining that his real identity was exposed at RODOH. This, however, was not so; someone merely said that a certain 'Bergmann' sounded like Fabian Eschen, also known in his day as 'Sailor' and who was stupid enough to probably blow the cover of 'Kolchab' on another forum.

But... now his identity is out. Does it matter? Well, I don't post at RODOH anymore, out of boredom with the trolls there. And I can do what the hell I like on my own blog, including engaging in the parlour-game of identifying Fabian Eschen with 'Sailor' with 'Bergmann'.

Guys, we don't really give a shit who you are. Nor are we interested in knowing where you live, or if you're the sole solitary person with your name in the world. Nor, do we believe, are the German authorities. Why would they waste time on small fry like you?

Pot, Kettle, Black

Below find the text of an open letter I have send to Richard Krege, the Canberra, Australia-based Holocaust denier who says he visited Treblinka half a decade ago and conducted ground-penetrating radar studies there. Krege claims he found no mass graves, but he never published his results.

Dear Mr. Krege:

I listened with interest to your interview with Michael Collins Piper of Friday
night. During that interview you stated, regarding Dr. Richard Wright's study
on mass graves in Ukraine, "the report has never been published from that work."
This evoked laughter from Piper, and you added that you tried to obtain a copy
of Wright's studies, and "it's never been released."

I found this to be a pretty disingenuous claim on your part, considering that
you have published nothing regarding your own alleged studies at Treblinka. It has been several years since you claimed to go to Treblinka and fail to find any mass graves there, but we've seen nothing in the way of a scientific report from you.

That being the case, I am hereby requesting a copy of your results for my own
perusal. You may send them to me via e-mail or by fax at 215-893-1759. If you
prefer to mail them, please contact me and I will give you a postal address to
which you may send them.

Thanks in advance,

Andrew E. Mathis, Ph.D.
The Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org/
The above views are my own are do not represent the official views of the
Holocaust History Project or any of its individual members, except myself.

Listening to Piper's broadcast and his idiotic callers, I also learned some things:

(1) It is suspicious that the six death camps were in the Soviet occupation zone. No, it isn't. Far more Jews lived on the Eastern front, and thus it was far more expedient to locate the camps in the East rather than in the West.

(2) Six million Jews never lived in NS-occupied Europe. Yes, they did. The Nazis' own census of Jews in Europe shows nearly six million in Poland and Ukraine alone.

(3) The six million figure originates with Ilya Ehrenburg, head of the Soviet secret police. Ehrenburg didn't work for the secret police (in fact, he was arrested by the Cheka in 1918), and he didn't originate the six million figure. It originated after a Anglo-American Commission of Enquiry looked into the issue, and the figure they came up with was 5.8 million

(4) The gas chambers and oven would have to have been enormous to "process" six million Jews. John Zimmerman has definitely answered this question.

(5) Stalin carried out the Babi Yar massacre. Ukraine was fully under Nazi control at the time of the massacre. Stalin couldn't have carried out Babi Yar.

(6) Not one corpse has ever been found and autopsied that indicated gassing as the reason for death. That's because the bodies were cremated.

(7) There is no evidence other than eyewitness testimony to substantiate the "orthodox" Holocaust story. One look at this blog would show otherwise.

I've concluded that rank-and-file Holocaust deniers aren't a bright bunch. No surprise there, I guess...

Witness Roberto taking...

... a very pompous, but not very bright denier to task here.

Some misconceptions related to the Nuremberg trials …

... come up again and again in discussions with "Revisionist" fanatics.

Read more!


Here, for instance, we have the claims of Mr. "Bergmann" in his post # 463 on the RODOH forum:

Mr. Mühlenkamp

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you could now show us where the IMT concluded on “4 million Jews in Auschwitz and steaming to death 900,000 Jews in Treblinka”, and which findings of fact in its judgment were based on “common knowledge” rather than documentary and eyewitness evidence assessed at the trial, that would be something. Otherwise, better keep your trap shut.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The one who should keep his big trap shut is Saint Roberto, the enlightened one.

By the way, how did you achieve that enlightened status about the Holocaust myth? Did you do those koans of the Zen practice?

Both the “4 million Jews in Auschwitz" and the "steaming to death of 900,000 Jews in Treblinka” were part of the Soviet and Polish indictments of those kangaroo trials and were not objected to by anybody to my knowledge. or were they?

They therefore form part of the Crimes against humanity of the IMT and NMT. which is spelled out in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cri...t_humanity
for your spiritual enlightenment.

Since you told us that you once read the whole trial protocols (only idiots would do such stupid things to read 100,000 pages of text) you can check out the details yourself and avoid in the furture such stupid questions.

The following were declared guilt of these crimes against humanity including “4 million Jews in Auschwitz and steaming to death 900,000 Jews in Treblinka”, and sentenced either to death or imprisoned for many years:

Hans Frank, Wilhelm Frick, Walther Funk, Hermann Göring, Alfred Jodl, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Wilhelm Keitel, Konstantin von Neurath, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Alfred Rosenberg, Fritz Sauckel, Baldur von Schirach, Albert Speer, Julius Streicher, Oswald Pohl.

Of course these crimes of “4 million Jews gassed in Auschwitz and steaming to death 900,000 Jews in Treblinka” were never investigated because of this beautiful provision:

»The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence.
The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge, but shall take judicial notice thereof.«

Mr. "Bergmann" is making the following claims here, decorated with a hallucination or lie (I never claimed to have read the entire protocols of any of the Nuremberg trials, for all I can remember) and some insults and/or senile baloney:

1. The International Military Tribunal, at the Nuremberg Trial of German Major War Criminals, declared it a fact that 4 million Jews had been killed in Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp.

2. The International Military Tribunal, at the same trial, declared it a fact that 900,000 Jews had been steamed to death at Treblinka.

3. The International Military Tribunal reached these findings of fact because it was not bound by technical rules of evidence.

4. The International Military Tribunal simply proclaimed the killing of 4 million Jews at Auschwitz and the steaming to death of 900,000 Jews at Treblinka to be facts of common knowledge and took judicial notice thereof, instead of asking for evidence supporting these allegations and examining that evidence.

Expanding on the reply I gave Mr. "Bergmann" in my RODOH post # 6996, I shall now address these claims, one by one.

1. The International Military Tribunal, at the Nuremberg Trial of the Major War Criminals, declared it a fact that 4 million Jews had been killed in Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp.

At a criminal trial, the document that shows the conclusions that the tribunal eventually arrived at after assessing the evidence presented by prosecution and defense, or procured by itself, is the judgment. In the judgment one can see which of the prosecution’s allegations the tribunal considered to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

One should therefore look at the Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German Major War Criminals in order to establish whether, as claimed by Mr. Bergmann, the IMT declared the killing of 4 million Jews at Auschwitz-Birkenau to be a proven fact.

The part of the IMT’s judgment dealing with the persecution of the Jews by the Nazis can be found here. Unsurprisingly for who is familiar with "Revisionist" hoaxing, there is nothing in this pertinent section of the judgment about 4 million Jewish dead at Auschwitz-Birkenau. What the IMT wrote was the following:

The massacres of Rowno and Dubno, of which the German engineer Graebe spoke, were examples of one method, the systematic extermination of Jews in concentration camps, was another Part of the " final solution " was the gathering of Jews from all German occupied Europe in concentration camps. Their physical condition was the test of life or death. All who were fit to work were used as slave labourers in the concentration camps; all who were not fit to work were destroyed in gas chambers and their bodies burnt. Certain concentration camps such as Treblinka and Auschwitz were set aside for this main purpose. With regard to Auschwitz, the Tribunal heard the evidence of Hoess, the Commandant of the camp from 1st May, 1940, to 1st December, 1943. He estimated that in the camp of Auschwitz alone in that time 2,500,000 persons were exterminated, and that a further 500,000 died from disease and starvation. [...]

Emphases in the above quote are mine.

As can be seen, the IMT made no statements of its own regarding the number of people killed at Auschwitz-Birkenau, instead limiting itself to reproducing the estimate of former camp commandant Rudolf Höss that «2,500,000 persons were exterminated, and that a further 500,000 died from disease and starvation» under his administration between May 1940 and December 1943. There was also no statement in the sense that the victims of Auschwitz-Birkenau had all or mainly been Jews, which – independently of the fact that the majority of this camp’s victims were indeed Jews – belies the "Jews" part of the "4 million Jews" claim.

The IMT did well not to declare the figures given by Höss to be proven facts, for they were well above the mark; Höss himself would in his later pre-trial interrogations in Poland reduce the 3 million death toll mentioned in his testimony before the IMT to a realistic order of magnitude around 1 million, which has been confirmed by historical research. But that’s not the point of this exercise. The point of this exercise is to show that Mr. "Bergmann" should at least have read the IMT’s judgment before stating his claim, instead of shooting bull so easy to debunk.

Incidentally, not even the Nuremberg Trial Indictment mentions 4 million Jews killed at Auschwitz-Birkenau. The related statement under Count Three – War Crimes of the Indictment reads as follows:

About 1,500,000 persons were exterminated in Maidanek and about 4,000,000 persons were exterminated in Auschwitz, among whom were citizens of Poland, the U.S.S.R., the United States of America, Great Britain, Czechoslovakia, France, and other countries.

Nothing here about the victims’ ethnic or religious background; they were just stated to be citizens of various countries including Poland, the U.S.S.R., the United States of America, Great Britain, Czechoslovakia and France, period.

2. The International Military Tribunal, at the same trial, declared it a fact that 900,000 Jews had been steamed to death at Treblinka.

Unlike Auschwitz and Majdanek, Treblinka is not even mentioned under Count Three – War Crimes of the Indictment. In the judgment it is referred to along with Auschwitz as one of the camps that "were set aside" for the “main purpose” of destroying Jews not fit to work in gas chambers. However, there is not even an indication in the judgment about the number of people killed at Treblinka. Mr. "Bergmann" may have mixed up the Nuremberg Trial of the Major War Criminals with the trial of Treblinka’s commander Franz Stangl before a West German court in Düsseldorf, Germany, the judgment of which was issued on 22 December 1970 (LG Düsseldorf vom 22.12.1970, 8 Ks 1/69 , some excerpts of which are transcribed here). At this judgment the court, based on an expert opinion provided by German historian Wolfgang Scheffler, concluded that at least 900,000 people, most of them Jews, had been killed at Treblinka.

Yet the main "Revisionist" fuss in connection with the Nuremberg IMT’s findings regarding Treblinka is the claim that the IMT proclaimed the victims of that camp to have been killed by a somewhat improbable method, "steaming to death".

This killing method was indeed mentioned in an exhibit introduced as evidence at the Nuremberg Trial, Document 3311-PS. This document, offered in evidence at the morning session on 14 December 1945, was an otherwise quite accurate report from a Polish Government Commission on the investigation of German crimes in Poland, which contained the following statements:

Late in April 1942 erection was completed of the first chambers in which these general massacres were to be performed by means of steam.
[…]
After being filled up to capacity, the chambers were hermetically closed and steam was let in.

This erroneous description of the killing method – the victims in the gas chambers were not killed "by means of steam" but poisoned/asphyxiated with engine exhaust – may have been related to the report being based on the account of an outside observer of the camp who, not knowing what the foggy substance was that came out of the gas chambers when they were opened on a cold day (it may have been the engine exhaust and/or steam produced by the differences in temperature between the cold outside and the cumulated body heat in the gas chamber), speculated that it was hot steam, which the victims had been boiled to death with.

What matters here, however, is not how this error came into being but whether it found its way into the IMT’s judgment, for this alone would introduce an inaccuracy into the results of the Nuremberg Trial of German Major War Criminals. Even an elementary knowledge of criminal trial procedures should be sufficient to understand that, just because an exhibit was introduced as evidence at a trial, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the tribunal accepted all or part of that exhibit’s contents as reliable and a basis for its findings of fact.

It we now look again at the IMT’s judgment, we see that there is nothing in this judgment about anyone being "steamed to death", at Treblinka or anywhere else. The only reference to Treblinka in the judgment, which is included in the above quote from the same, reads as follows:

All who were fit to work were used as slave labourers in the concentration camps; all who were not fit to work were destroyed in gas chambers and their bodies burnt. Certain concentration camps such as Treblinka and Auschwitz were set aside for this main purpose.

So Treblinka was accurately stated in the IMT’s judgment to have been a place were Jews not fit to work were destroyed in gas chambers, i.e. killed by gassing and not by "steaming to death". The IMT presumably arrived at this conclusion regarding the killing method, and accordingly dismissed the description of that method in the above-mentioned Polish report, based on the testimony of Samuel Rajzman. Rajzman clearly stated that the killing had been done in gas chambers.

As Mr. Bergmann also referred to the Nuremberg Military Tribunal (NMT) and its trial of Oswald Pohl, the following statement in the records of that trial should be mentioned:

In the spring of 1942 an extermination camp was established at Treblinka. It contained 10 death chambers and opened up for business in the early autumn of 1943. Death was inflicted here by gas and steam, as well as by electric current.

This statement is not part of the Opinion and Judgment of the United States Military Tribunal II against Pohl et al, however. It is contained in a Concurring Opinion by Judge Michael A. Musmanno, the pretense of which, as Musmanno stated here , was to provide «one document sufficiently comprehensive to which the legal profession and the lay public, now and in the future, can turn for an authoritative account on concentration camps» so that these future readers would not «be required to read through thousands of pages of transcript and scan tons of documents to obtain an adequate picture of this supreme crime against humanity through the ages». Said account was thus not a statement of findings of fact essential to the tribunal’s judgment against Pohl et al, but a friendly service to future readers of the trial documentation, meant to save them the work of having to go through all the files in order to make themselves familiar with “this supreme crime against humanity throughout the ages” as pictured by the evidence.

While Musmanno’s account, despite its somewhat emotional tone (he wrote, for instance, that «In comparison to Hoess, Genghis Khan was a Sunday school boy, Torquemada an entertaining Micawber, and Ivan The Terrible, an innocuous, benevolent, old man.») can indeed be considered authoritative, in the light of later research, in what concerns many aspects of the Nazi system and its crimes, the part dealing with the killing methods applied at Treblinka is clearly one of the inaccuracies – there are also others, like when Musmanno locates at Auschwitz Kurt Gerstein’s description of a gassing at Belzec – that diminish the authoritativeness of Musmanno’s record.

However, and incomprehensible though it is – given the above-mentioned evidence previously assessed by the International Military Tribunal, namely Rajzman’s testimony, and the above-quoted findings of fact stated in the IMT’s judgment – that Musmanno spoke of death by “steam, as well as by electric current” besides gassing at Treblinka, Musmanno’s opinion was a document separate from the tribunal’s judgment against Pohl et al and not part of the tribunal’s findings of facts stated in that judgment, in which the tribunal expressed its concurrence with the IMT’s findings of fact regarding the persecution of the Jews.

This means that, contrary to what Mr. “Bergmann” claims, the “steaming to death” of people at Treblinka was not part of the sentence against Pohl any more than it was a part of the sentences against those defendants at the Nuremberg Trial of German Major War Criminals whom the IMT convicted on the War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity charges.


3. The International Military Tribunal reached these findings of fact because it was not bound by technical rules of evidence.

This claim is related to the following provision of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal:

Article 19.
The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and nontechnical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to be of probative value.

The implication is that the absence of technical rules of evidence means there was no adequate assessment of the evidence in favor and against the defendants.

To establish whether this implication holds water, one must first understand what technical rules of evidence are and what effect they have.

The following definitions of rules of evidence can be found on the web:

Standards governing whether evidence in a civil or criminal case is admissible.


The rules that govern the method of presentation and admissibility of oral and documentary evidence at Court hearings or depositions.


Rules of law which determine which testimony, documents, etc. should be submitted for consideration by a judge or a jury, and the weight such evidence is to be given in determining a question of fact.


Rules of evidence govern whether, when, how, and for what purpose proof of a case may be placed before a trier of fact for consideration.

According to these definitions, rules of evidence are rules that tell a court of law

a) what evidence it is allowed to take into consideration as proof of any or certain facts relevant to its decision,

b) how it must handle such evidence as may be used as proof, and

c) what weight it must or may give to such evidence.

Rules of evidence like the US Federal Rules of Evidence, contain strict stipulations as to what types of evidence may or may not be used to establish facts in general or certain types of facts. Thus, for example, Rule 602 stipulates that «A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter». According to Rule 608, «The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by evidence in the form of opinion or reputation», subject to certain limitations. Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, other than conviction of crime, «may not be proved by extrinsic evidence» for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness' character for truthfulness, according to the same rule. Evidence that a witness has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted or not for the purpose «of attacking the credibility character for truthfulness of a witness», pursuant to the provisions of Rule 609. According to Rule 802, hearsay is not admissible as evidence, except if it falls under one of the numerous exceptions provided by the Federal Rules of Evidence themselves, by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority or by Act of Congress. Proof of the content of a writing, recording or photograph generally requires submission of the original (Rule 1002), subject to a number of exceptions including but not limited to those established in Rules 1003 to 1007. And so on.

Submitting a tribunal to strict rules regarding types of evidence it may use as proof of a given fact and the conditions such evidence must comply with is not the practice in all legal systems, however. In Continental European countries like France and Germany, judges have more freedom in deciding what evidence they consider conclusive proof of a given fact, rather than being bound by rules regarding the types of evidence they are or not allowed to consider for this purpose. Thus, for instance, article 261 of the German rules of criminal procedure (Strafprozessordnung) stipulates the following (my translation):

About the result of the hearing of evidence the court decides according to its free conviction derived from the trial as a whole.

This means that the court is, on the one hand, obliged to take all evidence into consideration in its decision (provided of course that the evidence is relevant and has been lawfully obtained). It is free, however, in determining what facts it considers proven by what elements of evidence submitted, why it holds a certain witness to be credible or not, etc., without being bound to requirements other than the absence of reasonable doubt as to the facts it considers proven.

As no one will reasonably dispute that France and Germany are constitutional countries requiring their criminal justice authorities to give suspects and defendants a fair hearing, this means that technical rules of evidence such as those cited above are not an indispensable requirement of a fair trial, and that their absence in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal was not the outrage that "Revisionists" try to make believe it was. According to a retired US attorney with knowledge of the German and French legal systems, technical rules of evidence tend to be done without even in the US where the trier of fact is not a jury, consisting of amateurs with no juridical training or experience, but a professional judge. This gentleman, writing as Walter Kaschner, stated the following in a post on what is not the Axis History Forum, which is transcribed in this thread of the RODOH forum:

As to your notion that the Tribunal’s procedures were flawed because it was not bound by formal rules of evidence and could take judicial notice of governmental documents, I can only say that however highly we in the US regard our own rules of evidence that regard is not generally shared on the Continent (at least in France, which I know quite a bit about, and in Germany, which I think I know something of) and they seem to get along pretty well without them. Don’t forget that half the members of the Court were continental lawyers, and as far as I know none of the defense lawyers were familiar with our highly technical evidentiary rules. Moreover, even in the US, in cases where a judge, rather than a jury is the trier of fact, our evidentiary rules are often ignored and the judge allowed to give the evidence whatever weight he deems it’s worthy of. And in our own practice judicial notice is customarily taken of governmental documents if prepared in the ordinary course of business, or if purporting to reflect official acts or decisions.

Emphases in the above quote are mine.

Confirming Mr. Kaschner’s assessment, here are a few references to judicial or administrative decisions or hearings in the US or Canada, where technical rules of evidence are done without:

The hearing need not be conducted according to the technical rules of evidence relating to evidence and witnesses.


The Immigration Appeal Division, in any proceeding before it,
(b) is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence; and

(c) may receive and base a decision on evidence adduced in the proceedings that it considers credible or trustworthy in the circumstances.


In any investigation or hearing, the commissioner shall not be bound by the technical rules of evidence.


The technical rules of evidence do not apply. Any evidence may be received, except that an Administrative Law Judge may exclude any evidence or offer of proof which is immaterial, irrelevant, unduly repetitious, or customarily privileged. Every party shall have a right to present his case by oral and documentary evidence and to submit rebuttal evidence.


It having thus been shown that there is nothing sinister about the absence of technical rules of evidence at a judicial proceeding, the question that remains to be examined is, why were technical rules of evidence excluded when putting together the Charter of the International Military Tribunal?

The answer to this question goes in the direction of Mr. Kaschner’s above-quoted statement that «half the members of the Court were continental lawyers, and as far as I know none of the defense lawyers were familiar with our highly technical evidentiary rules». In his report Nuremberg in Retrospect, the erstwhile Nuremberg prosecutor Robert H. Jackson wrote the following:

The rules of evidence that should govern the tribunal might have caused serious disagreement if we had insisted on our own. Continental lawyers regard or common-law rules of evidence with abhorrence. Since they were involved in response to the peculiarities of trial by jury, we saw no reason to urge their use in an international trial before professional judges. They have not generally been followed by international tribunals.[my emphasis – RM] We settled, therefore, upon one simple rule: that the tribunal "shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value." While this vested considerable discretion in the tribunal, it had the merit of making admission of evidence turn on the value of what was proffered rather than upon compliance with some formal rule of evidence.

So the reason for the absence of technical rules of evidence at the Nuremberg Trial of German Major War Criminals was clearly not anyone’s intention to screw the defendants, as their "Revisionist" apologists would like to believe. The American jurists wanted to apply technical rules of evidence such as were applied in the US, but this approach was disliked by the jurists from Continental Europe involved in the making of the Charter, presumably for the simple reason that they and/or the Continental European judges nominated as members of the International Military Tribunal didn’t know a thing about US-type rules of evidence and accordingly would have been unable to handle them at the trial. The Americans decided to compromise, as said rules «were involved in response to the peculiarities of trial by jury» and they thus saw no reason to urge the use of these rules «in an international trial before professional judges». This compromise, as Mr. Kaschner pointed out, arguably benefited the defense insofar as none of the German lawyers acting as defense attorneys was familiar with technical rules of evidence as applied in the US.

At the later trials before the Nuremberg Military Tribunal, which were a purely American affair, this compromise was no longer necessary, however. This was probably the reason why, for instance, the Einsatzgruppen Trial was conducted in accordance with US rules of evidence, as mentioned by Yale F. Edeiken in his recommendable article An Introduction to the Einsatzgruppen.

4. The International Military Tribunal simply proclaimed the killing of 4 million Jews at Auschwitz and the steaming to death of 900,000 Jews at Treblinka to be facts of common knowledge and took judicial notice thereof, instead of asking for evidence supporting these allegations and examining that evidence.

This claim is related to the following provision of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal which, like Article 19, is also presented as having a sinister, particularly "Nurembergian" content:

Article 21.
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 Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and of records and findings of military or other Tribunals of any of the United Nations.

Regarding the second sentence of this provision, Mr. Kaschner (see above quote) pointed out that, also in US juridical practice, «judicial notice is customarily taken of governmental documents if prepared in the ordinary course of business, or if purporting to reflect official acts or decisions».

As to the first sentence – the bone of Mr. "Bergmann"’s contention – it takes but a look at the US Federal Rules of Evidence to realize that taking judicial notice of facts deemed to be of "common" or "general" knowledge is provided for in these rules as well. Rule 201 has the following wording:

Rule 201. Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts

(a) Scope of rule.
This rule governs only judicial notice of adjudicative facts.

(b) Kinds of facts.
A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

(c) When discretionary.
A court may take judicial notice, whether requested or not.

(d) When mandatory.
A court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information.

(e) Opportunity to be heard.
A party is entitled upon timely request to an opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of taking judicial notice and the tenor of the matter noticed. In the absence of prior notification, the request may be made after judicial notice has been taken.

(f) Time of taking notice.
Judicial notice may be taken at any stage of the proceeding.

(g) Instructing jury.
In a civil action or proceeding, the court shall instruct the jury to accept as conclusive any fact judicially noticed. In a criminal case, the court shall instruct the jury that it may, but is not required to, accept as conclusive any fact judicially noticed.

The definition of a "judicially noticed fact" in subdivision (b) of Rule 201 describes what is generally held to characterize a fact of "common" or "generalized" knowledge, according to the Notes to Rule 201: it is a fact that is (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. According to a California judge’s ruling at a lawsuit between Mr. Mel Mermelstein and the "Institute of Historical Review", the fact that Jews were gassed to death at the Auschwitz Concentration Camp in Poland during the summer of 1944 was to be considered a fact subject to the taking of judicial notice because it was «not reasonably subject to dispute» and «capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy».

While the above shows that there is nothing sinister about a provision allowing the IMT to take judicial notice of facts of common knowledge rather than require proof of such facts, this doesn't mean that the mass murder at Nazi extermination camps could be considered a fact of common knowledge already at the time of the Nuremberg Trial of German Major War Criminals in 1945/46, when criminal justice authorities were only beginning to investigate these crimes. Accordingly, and contrary to what Mr. "Bergmann" claims, the IMT did not pronounce these crimes to be facts of common knowledge and simply take judicial notice thereof, but looked at evidence regarding the occurrence and scale of these crimes.

Evidence regarding Auschwitz-Birkenau and/or Treblinka brought before and assessed by the IMT included the following:

• a communication to Himmler dated 16 December 1942 by Mueller, for the Chief of the Security Police and SD (document R-91)

• an affidavit made in London by Dr. Rudolph Kastner, a former official of the Hungarian Zionist Organization, regarding the deportation of the Hungarian Jews in 1944 (document 2605-PS)

• an official Polish report on Auschwitz Concentration Camp (document l-161)

• an official United States government report issued by the Executive Office of the president of the United States, War Refugee Board, on the German camps at Auschwitz and Birkenau (document L-22)

• the affidavit of Rudolf Franz Ferdinand Hoess dated 5 April 1946 (document 3868-PS)

• the testimony of Marie Claude Vaillant-Couturier

• the testimony of Severina Shmaglevskaya

• the testimony of Rudolf Franz Ferdinand Hoess

• the Stroop-Report (document 1061-PS)

• the above-mentioned Polish Government report about Treblinka (document 3311-PS)

• the above-mentioned testimony of Samuel Rajzman

None of this evidence would have been required it the IMT had simply taken judicial notice of the mass killings at Auschwitz-Birkenau and Treblinka as facts of common knowledge. This means that the "Revisionist" claim under examination is false, just like the others before.

Claims of this nature are not uttered only by hard-core "Revisionists" like Mr. "Bergmann", by the way. On the Scrapbookpages site about Buchenwald concentration camp, more precisely in this section, one reads the following nonsense:

At the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945, the Soviet Union charged that the Nazis had made soap from human fat in the concentration camps. Soap that was allegedly made from human fat was displayed in the court room, but no forensic report on the soap was presented. No forsensic proof was required because it was common knowledge that the Nazis had made soap out of the Jews.

Article 23 of the Constitution of the International Military Tribunal stated that "The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof."

Apart from the fact that what the author of these lines calls "Article 23 of the Constitution of the International Military Tribunal" was actually Article 21 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, the author apparently forgot to read his own quote, which would have told him that, if the IMT had considered it a fact of common knowledge "that the Nazis had made soap out of the Jews", no proof whatsoever of that "fact" would have been required. Yet the Soviet prosecutor who introduced the issue of human soap into the Nuremberg Trial before the IMT substantiated his allegation that «In the Danzig Anatomic Institute semi-industrial experiments in the production of soap from human bodies and the tanning of human skin for industrial purposes were carried out» (he didn’t make a general claim that "the Nazis had made soap out of the Jews") with evidence which, besides the Exhibit USSR-393 that the Scrapbookpages author is referring to, included the following:

• the testimony of Sigmund Mazur (Exhibit USSR-197)
• a copy of "the recipe for soap produced from the corpses of the executed" (Exhibit USSR-196)
• the sworn statement of British POW John Henry Witton (Exhibit USSR-264)
• the sworn statement of British POW William Anderson Neely (Exhibit USSR-272).

Whatever one may say against the evidentiary quality of these exhibits and their conclusiveness as proof of an intention to manufacture soap from human bodies, rather than the mere use of maceration fat for cleaning purposes, the fact is that the Soviet prosecutor presented a fair amount of evidence for an allegation which, had it been deemed a fact of common knowledge, would have required no evidence at all.

If the IMT has considered it a fact of common knowledge that "the Nazis had made soap out of the Jews", as the Scrapbookpages author claims, there should also be a statement in this sense in the section of the IMT’s judgment dealing with the Persecution of the Jews. Yet what you read there shows that the IMT, while it went further in its conclusions than was warranted by the evidence presented by the Soviet prosecutor (which referred only to a single case of a possible attempt to make soap out of human fat, the experiments at the Danzig Anatomical Institute, and contained nothing warranting the conclusion that the corpses used at the Danzig Anatomical Institute were necessarily of Jews), made no statement in the sense that "the Nazis had made soap out of the Jews" but merely spoke of occasional ("in some instances") attempts to make soap from the fat of the (Jewish) victims of Nazi persecution:

After cremation the ashes were used for fertilizer, and in some instances attempts were made to utilise the fat from the bodies of the victims in the commercial manufacture of soap.

Let’s hope that the Scrapbookpages don’t contain too many ignorant claims like the one under discussion. Otherwise their author should consider scrapping the first "S" in the name of his production.


Thanks to Sergey for his valuable input to this article.

A Clarification for Cesspit Lemmings

Just to add to what Sergey wrote below, it should be clarified that of the four of us on this blog, I have never once registered a username at The Cesspit, not even a sockpuppet. Andrew, Roberto and Sergey have all suffered the indignities of vanishing posts and spurious bans (read: because they showed Hannover up too much), but not me. Therefore Cesspit lemmings will have to come elsewhere to debate me, for example at RODOH.

Lemmings notice us once again

Boo-hoo, "Hektor" posted a link at the Cesspit. Well, do you think these mental midgets would try and debunk anything? Address the factual statements, etc.? You know, debate. What CODOH (The Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (snicker)) is all about (supposedly). No, instead here's what we get:

Look at the contributors:
Andrew E. Mathis
Sergay Romanov
Nick Terry
Roberto Muehlenkamp

Those clowns wouldn’t find their way out of a telephone booth. See them get spanked on this forum. Just search on their last name.

Is this is what one of our anonymous commenters called a "typically Jewish ad-hominem attack"? Of course, while we weren't banned at the Cesspit, and while our postings weren't being simply deleted (quite a nice way to make it look like you've "won" a debate), the midgets were spanked mercilessly. Then again, even if you will look at distorted versions of the debates, with postings deleted, etc. - even then you will see that deniers were being refuted by us at every turn. Not only that, CODOH Circus is still being humiliated by us.

Alas, lemmings are not fast learners. They're a great cannon fodder, though.

Minutia

Several interesting recent lectures on the Holocaust in English and German can be found here.