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.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Sunday, September 17, 2006
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...
No matter that Irving's lies about Cavendish-Bentinck have been exposed during the 2000 trial...
Is Patrick H. McNally's brain rotting?
Saturday, September 16, 2006
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.»
«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.»
Thursday, September 14, 2006
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.)
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.)
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
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?
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?
Monday, September 11, 2006
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...
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...
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
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. "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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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):
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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.
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.
Sunday, September 03, 2006
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:
Alas, lemmings are not fast learners. They're a great cannon fodder, though.
Look at the contributors: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.
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.
Alas, lemmings are not fast learners. They're a great cannon fodder, though.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Monday, August 28, 2006
The Cesspit just keeps on giving
Yet another circus act, this time from "vincentferrer" and "Haldan".
Read more!
So how does that prove anything?
(Of course, lethal injections continued throughout the existence of the camp, so even if Kolbe would be murdered by lethal injection after gassings started, that still wouldn't prove anything. Obviously, sometimes it was more efficient to kill a small number of people with injections rather than wasting Zyklon B on small groups or waiting for the next Jewish transport.)
Not surprisingly, our old friend "Haldan" is wetting his panties in awe:
Read more!
I found a item on ebay recently which has become a great tool for introducing Holocaust Revisionism to people, who might not otherwise ever ask about it.So, basically, this stupid pig admits that his way of introducing denial to unsuspecting people is black propaganda. Because how otherwise this method could be characterized, if, according to the Auschwitz Chronicle Kolbe was murdered on August 14, 1941? The earliest date mentioned for the first experimental gassing in Auschwitz (significantly, of non-Jews) is August 15, 1941 (testimony of Michal Kula).
If you search on ebay using the keyword Maximilian Kolbe, you will find a seller offering $ .98 black stickers, 2x3.5 inches in size. These stickers are a little smaller than a credit card and have large white numbers on
them: 16670. In very small print it then says, St. Maximilian Kolbe, pray for us.
Most people cannot read that , but they can see the 16670.
I have placed this sticker on the inside of my windshield at the lower left hand side of the window.
And does it ever get people curious.
It then allows me to explain this is the number of a Auschwitz inmate, a non Jew who was in Auschwitz and died............ by a lethal injection.
This is about the fastest route into debunking the legend about Gassings that I can think of. If that does not provide a great door opener for sharing the truth of Revisionism to strangers, I do not know what could.
I also carry a stack of brochures from the IHR and in particular a handout titled, The "Problem of the Gas Chambers" by Robert Faurisson
It works, and that is the botton line.
So how does that prove anything?
(Of course, lethal injections continued throughout the existence of the camp, so even if Kolbe would be murdered by lethal injection after gassings started, that still wouldn't prove anything. Obviously, sometimes it was more efficient to kill a small number of people with injections rather than wasting Zyklon B on small groups or waiting for the next Jewish transport.)
Not surprisingly, our old friend "Haldan" is wetting his panties in awe:
Yes, it is a good eye opening argument, which infact should work good in this practice, of showing a person that the idea of German "gas chambers" is absurd on the face of the available facts.How come the Cesspit attracts mostly degenerates into its ranks?
It has been written that Kolbe suffered from active tuberculosis and therefore I wonder why it wouldn't have been more convenient to march this man to one of the alleged "gas chambers" along with 1999 Jews or other sick people, or any number of people which the alleged "gas chamber" could hold!
Convenient as in following the story line of the Hoaxco$t, I mean. It is afterall incessantly repeated that those who were ill had to be "gassed" upon arrival.
The Unbearable Stupidity of the Cesspit
As usual, some "revisionist" lemming ("Hotzenplotz") has found something which he, lacking any imagination and common sense, cannot explain, and therefore rejects.
Read more!
Finally, here's the description by the Company Commander Westermann of the arrival of a train to Belzec, a related extermination camp:
Now, deniers like to babble about "common sense". But they themselves have none. It doesn't make sense to build a railway to disinfestation chambers, because the chambers can be built near the ramp. It does make sense to build a railway to the mass graves (if the materials are available), because the graves themselves cannot be situated too close to the ramp for obvious reasons.
And still, another denier lemming ("Laurentz Dahl") is very happy about the first lemming's "find":
And of course, both lemmings are at loss as how to explain the whereabouts of the Jews transported to Sobibor. "Eastern territories" doesn't cut it, kids. They would have been found in these territories after the war, just as the Jews sent to Auschwitz, Treblinka, Belzec, Chelmno.
But they weren't.
Update: Jonnie "Hannover" Hargis makes a total fool of himself:
The upper camp is connected with the lower camps by a small gauge ("narrow track") railway, as we are told. More precisely, what we see is that the mass graves are connected with Sobibor's station. The railway leads directly to the platform.
What could possibly be the purpose? SS-men travelling between the two parts of the camp? Illogical.
Read more!
First of all, there would be no need for a railway to transport a couple of men for just something like 200 metres. Sounds like a loona park. Secondly, there would be no reason for the tracks to lead to the station. If the railway was to facilitate quick transport between the two parts of the camp, it should end right in the middle of the lower camp, not in front of the "pre-camp". Or was it built for SS-men from the upper camp going "downtown" or on holidays? Absurd. They didn't leave that often and certainly could have walked the 200 metres. Why not use a car or truck, anyway? Or was the railway for supplying coal to the crematoria? There were no crematoria. For transporting the belongings of the "gassed"? No, they were taken away from them already in the lower camps. We know the deportees had to walk naked along the "tube" ("Schlauch") leading to the "gas chambers".Poor schmuck is so silly that he won't be embarrassed even when the obvious will be pointed out to him:
I therefore conclude that the deportees, after having been gassed and dumped in the mass graves, arose from the dead to take a train ride back to Sobibor station!
The Sobibor small gauge railway is an instance of the characteristical appearance of details within a story of lies that don't fit in logically. Within this story, the railway makes perfect sense: Lots of Jews came from the disinfection installations/ shower rooms (a.k.a. "gas chambers") in the upper camp who had to be channeled back to the station swiftly - for transport to the eastern territories. Sometimes several thousands a day. Some of them were old, some children. Instead of whipping them along, the SS chose to build a small gauge railway which ended exactly where it should, at the station, so that the deportees could change to the next train.
Elderly people, the sick, and invalids who were unable to walk were told that they would be taken to a Lazarett (infirmary) where they would receive medical treatment. Actually they were put on carts, pushed by men or pulled by horse, and at a later stage on a narrow-gauge railway carriage, and were taken into Camp III, directly to the open pits, and there they were shot.Arad, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, p. 77.
Another technical improvement introduced in Sobibor was a narrow railway trolley that ran from the disembarking platform to the burial pits in Camp III. It was to replace the carts pushed by prisoners or the horse-drawn carts on which the dead, the sick, and those unable to walk from the train were transferred to the pits. According to Oberscharfuehrer Hubert Gomerski, who was in charge of Camp III, the length of the narrow railway was about 300-400 meters. It included five or six trolleys and a small diesel locomotive.Op. cit., pp. 123-124.
Scharfuehrer Erich Bauer testified:... Part of the trolleys and rails originated from the sawmill that bordered the Sobibor camp. Additional trolleys and rails arrived by train from Trawniki. The locomotive of this train came later, about two months after the trolley was in operation. At the beginning horses pulled the trolleys. As I explained in previous interrogations, the trolley was laid to transport the sick and handicapped Jews from the arriving trains to Camp III. I know that these people, including the handicapped and sick, children, and particularly infants, were taken to the so-called Lazarett, and there they were shot by those serving in Camp III. ... It was known in the camps that this Lazarett was used not for healing but for the extermination of the people. ...
Finally, here's the description by the Company Commander Westermann of the arrival of a train to Belzec, a related extermination camp:
The ever greater panic spreading among the Jews due to the great heat, overloading of the train cars, and stink of dead bodies – when unloading the train cars some 2,000 Jews were found dead in the train – made the transport almost unworkable.The report of Zugwachtmeister Jaecklein confirms the number of the dead:
The ever increasing panic among the Jews caused by the intense heat, the overcrowding in the wagons the stink of the dead bodies – when the wagons were unloaded there were about 2,000 dead in the train – made the transport impossible.There is no reason to suggest that situation was any different in Sobibor. So that's the simple answer to the silly question.
Now, deniers like to babble about "common sense". But they themselves have none. It doesn't make sense to build a railway to disinfestation chambers, because the chambers can be built near the ramp. It does make sense to build a railway to the mass graves (if the materials are available), because the graves themselves cannot be situated too close to the ramp for obvious reasons.
And still, another denier lemming ("Laurentz Dahl") is very happy about the first lemming's "find":
Nice find.Gee.
However, in our upsidedown cloud cuckoo world of today, common "sense" would probably have it that the nazis at Sobibor were so evil that they had to kill their victims twice.
Rutger Hauer they had to gas at last thrice of course...
And of course, both lemmings are at loss as how to explain the whereabouts of the Jews transported to Sobibor. "Eastern territories" doesn't cut it, kids. They would have been found in these territories after the war, just as the Jews sent to Auschwitz, Treblinka, Belzec, Chelmno.
But they weren't.
Update: Jonnie "Hannover" Hargis makes a total fool of himself:
What stands out like a liar's big nose is the area designated as 'mass graves'.Except that the mass graves have been found:
Those alleged mass graves have never been shown to actually exist.
If the laughable yarns were true they would excavate and make a enormous media event of it.
Remnants of such alleged mass graves are impossible to obliterate.
The claimed 'mass graves' do not exist. Doesn't get any simpler than this.
Researchers have discovered seven mass graves at the Sobibor Nazi death camp in north-eastern Poland.
The research team, which began its government-sponsored investigation in the summer, said the graves - the largest of which is about half the size of a football pitch - contain charred remains.
Commercial Decisions Aren't Censorship...
...but try telling that to the deniers. Johnnie 'I'm not Hannover' Hargis just threw his rattle out of the pram after receiving an email from Michael Santomauro, acting business manager of VHO while the boss is in jail, saying that US firm PayPal has suspended VHO's account on the grounds that it violates their acceptable use policy on two counts.
Firstly, because "PayPal may not be used to send or receive payments for items or in support of organizations that promote hate, violence, or racial intolerance." Secondly, and this one makes you wonder why it wasn't enforced sooner, because "PayPal also prohibits a person convicted of a violent felony, or his relatives or associates, from using PayPal to benefit financially from the convicted criminal's notoriety or crime.". Now, if you want to split hairs, Young Germar is not a violent felon, merely a deluded pseudo-scientist, but there's little doubt that VHO is soliciting donations on behalf of Rudolf and precisely because of his notoriety.
The response from Hargis is predictably hilarious and utterly paranoid. The ninny automatically assumes that the 'judeo-supremacists' must have been behind it, which would be news to 'avowed libertarian' Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal, or to the founder of eBay, Iranian emigre Pierre Omidyar, methinks.
In any case, as the title of this post alludes to, both Hannover and Santomauro don't have a legal leg to stand on. The First Amendment applies exclusively to the US goverment, not to private corporations, who have the legal right to enforce any restrictions they so desire. It's the e-commerce equivalent of the shopkeeper saying 'we don't want your business here'.
Holocaust deniers have been largely shut out of the bookstore trade by simple economics - their books evidently don't sell well enough to warrant much interest from Borders or Barnes & Noble - but remain tolerated on amazon.com, since online bookstores can cope with niche interests better than physical ones. PayPal's decision, however, cuts to the very heart of an operation such as VHO.
How long before they try the hypocritical tactic of comparing the ban to certain boycotts in the past? Not long, probably. Expect to see some smart-ass mouthing off shortly about 'Revisionisten unerwünscht', oblivious to the irony.
Firstly, because "PayPal may not be used to send or receive payments for items or in support of organizations that promote hate, violence, or racial intolerance." Secondly, and this one makes you wonder why it wasn't enforced sooner, because "PayPal also prohibits a person convicted of a violent felony, or his relatives or associates, from using PayPal to benefit financially from the convicted criminal's notoriety or crime.". Now, if you want to split hairs, Young Germar is not a violent felon, merely a deluded pseudo-scientist, but there's little doubt that VHO is soliciting donations on behalf of Rudolf and precisely because of his notoriety.
The response from Hargis is predictably hilarious and utterly paranoid. The ninny automatically assumes that the 'judeo-supremacists' must have been behind it, which would be news to 'avowed libertarian' Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal, or to the founder of eBay, Iranian emigre Pierre Omidyar, methinks.
In any case, as the title of this post alludes to, both Hannover and Santomauro don't have a legal leg to stand on. The First Amendment applies exclusively to the US goverment, not to private corporations, who have the legal right to enforce any restrictions they so desire. It's the e-commerce equivalent of the shopkeeper saying 'we don't want your business here'.
Holocaust deniers have been largely shut out of the bookstore trade by simple economics - their books evidently don't sell well enough to warrant much interest from Borders or Barnes & Noble - but remain tolerated on amazon.com, since online bookstores can cope with niche interests better than physical ones. PayPal's decision, however, cuts to the very heart of an operation such as VHO.
How long before they try the hypocritical tactic of comparing the ban to certain boycotts in the past? Not long, probably. Expect to see some smart-ass mouthing off shortly about 'Revisionisten unerwünscht', oblivious to the irony.
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Meet Celtic Patriot's Best Friend
Ah, the Stormfront. Home of the alternatively-thinking, alternatively-gifted, alternatively-spelling Neanderthals. We have already seen one SF high-IQ specimen, Celtic Patriot.
Here comes the next Alternative Genius - MiketheReeper.
Hi, I'm Mike. Mike the Reeper! Aaaaargh!
Mikey tries to tackle my article about the "revisionist" lies about Alexander Pechersky.
He doesn't do very well, and his spelling is the smallest part of the problem.
1. Pechersky didn't see it.
2. Nobody said that Pechersky saw it.
3. Pechersky himself didn't say that he saw it.
4. The person Pechersky talked with explicitly said that even he didn't see it.
5. Go to 1.
Mikey again:
I understand, of course, that smart, long texts are confusing for poor Mikey:
PS: Mikey's butt buddy Hektor chimes in:
Here comes the next Alternative Genius - MiketheReeper.
Hi, I'm Mike. Mike the Reeper! Aaaaargh!
Mikey tries to tackle my article about the "revisionist" lies about Alexander Pechersky.
He doesn't do very well, and his spelling is the smallest part of the problem.
Absolutly! There it is, the proof that the "Holocaust" happened!! I must thank you for finally, after how many hundreds of posts this is what you introduce ...The disrespectful rantings of a self-righteous "Holocaust" enforcer who "knows" what happened and therefore does not feel he has to share all facts relavent.Um, Mikey, are you living in your own fantasy world, or something? (You probably do.) Where anything about the "the proof that the "Holocaust" happened" is mentioned in the article? The paragraph you're dealing does not mention it either. Hmmmm... The article does deal with the deniers' lies though.
So..he saw but he didn't?Mikey, Mikey, Mikey. Are you on medication, or something? (You probably are.) Didn't you read a few paragraphs later:
Pechersky's description is not only hearsay, it is at least second-hand hearsay. ... But Graf omitted this crucial fact, destroying any credibility he might have ever had.To make it easier for you, Mikey:
1. Pechersky didn't see it.
2. Nobody said that Pechersky saw it.
3. Pechersky himself didn't say that he saw it.
4. The person Pechersky talked with explicitly said that even he didn't see it.
5. Go to 1.
Mikey again:
Oh, I have a "eyewitness testimony that helps explain the use for the "gas chamber" having fossits and shower heads.So how does this testimony explain anything about showers and faucets?Camp inmates may have sometimes heard real screams and mistakenly assumed that they were the screams of people being killed. For example, consider Sarah Cender's eyewitness account of her arrival at Auschwitz, as quoted by Martin Gilbert (Auschwitz and the Allies, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1981, p. 309):
"Upon arrival we were separated from the males and brought in front of a building where heaps of clothing were lying on the ground. We were ordered to undress quickly and naked we were pushed into a pitch dark chamber (what we naively and hopefully thought to be a bath facility -- although no soap or towel were given to us).
The doors closed behind us. Anxious seconds and minutes passed. Nothing seemed to happen -- for a while. Only cries and laments and hysterical screams we heard from every corner of the chamber. Some of the women started to cough incoherently, believing being choked by gas. The situation became unbearable....
Eventually, after a bombing raid, the doors were opened and Cender and her companions were ordered out of "the chamber". But how many camp inmates heard their "hysterical screams" and assumed that they were being gassed?
I understand, of course, that smart, long texts are confusing for poor Mikey:
I am assuming since this sites ideas are almost confusingDon't assume, Mikey. That makes an ASS out of U (but not ME).
PS: Mikey's butt buddy Hektor chimes in:
But if you really believe they debunked the videos, you certainly also believe in the "gas chambers with opening floors", do you Trojan11?!Boy, aren't you stupid, Hek! How much of "I did not see that" should we repeat to you? Whatever Biskowitz saw from a distance, in a hurry, and described as a hollow with the bodies, he said about the "collapsing floor": "I did not see that". And historians rightly don't use this part, because it doesn't mesh with other descriptions, but it doesn't discredit Biskowitz, exactly because of the circumstances in which he witnessed whatever he later described as a hollow with bodies. To repeat: it was at a distance; he was in a hurry. This doesn't add to credibility of these particular observations, and does not detract from Biszkowitz's overall credibility, because exactly these circumstances help to explain why Biskowitz got it wrong.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Another denier runs away
An interesting exchange took place at The Skeptics Society Forum. Nick challenged a rather dull and dim denier "David" (who, we suspect, is a certain David Allen of San Francisco, who is somehow related to a well-known denier Andrew Allen):
David, please list all witnesses claiming to have observed diesel engines at the Aktion Reinhard camps of Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka. Please spell out their actual position in the camp, the level of their technical education. Please also add in those witnesses claiming to have observed petrol engines at the Aktion Reinhard camps.David's answer:
What is the evidentiary basis for your claim that diesels were used at all?
Whoa there partner, you are the Believer...I don't believe inSome people just don't understand. Or understand too well. But Nick doesn't give up:
no diesels, no how.
So you are asking ME to tell YOU what Believers believe about diesels?
Well, it seems to be all over the range. Some claim diesels really
are deadly, some say diesels are kinda of deadly, some say
diesels are irrelevant, some say zyklon. Asphyxiation, smothering,
heat...I've heard many a differing tale.
So please excuse a poor non-Believer for being confused.
But I can tell from the direction of your question that you are
one of them new style "gasoline" Believers! Tell me if I have you
pegged right.
No, David, I'm asking you to SOURCE your claims that the gas chambers in the Aktion Reinhard camps have always been described as diesels.As his Titanic was sinking, David let out his last breath:
That means presenting convincing evidence that all witnesses to these camps said diesels. If you - or any other 'revisionist' such as Berg - can't actually prove that all witnesses said diesels, why should we listen to you blather on?
In case you are puzzled, the evidence is independent of historians. Please try not to confuse the two. It really doesn't help matters very much, and it suggests you have been asleep in any history classes you have attended should you persist in mistaking one for the other.
As the Diesel Myth slowly splutters to an end I would like to
move on to a new Treblinka topic.
[...]
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Moon landing, shmoon landing!
So, NASA lost the original Moon landing footage.
I guess that means there was no footage in the first place. At least if we use Jonnie "I am not Hannover" Hargis' logic. All too often when confronted with quotes from incriminating documents from scholarly sources his only defence is "Where are the originals?", as if it is absolutely necessary to always consult the original pieces of paper with text, as if one can never rely on scholarly literature (which is a pretty standard practice).
Well, no, Hargis won't apply the same reasoning to the Moon landing or most other proven historical events. Try asking Jonnie for Katyn evidence (in jest), and a scanned image of a xeroxed copy will suffice. Not so for the Holocaust documents. The Holocaust is unique in this sense - for the deniers.
I guess that means there was no footage in the first place. At least if we use Jonnie "I am not Hannover" Hargis' logic. All too often when confronted with quotes from incriminating documents from scholarly sources his only defence is "Where are the originals?", as if it is absolutely necessary to always consult the original pieces of paper with text, as if one can never rely on scholarly literature (which is a pretty standard practice).
Well, no, Hargis won't apply the same reasoning to the Moon landing or most other proven historical events. Try asking Jonnie for Katyn evidence (in jest), and a scanned image of a xeroxed copy will suffice. Not so for the Holocaust documents. The Holocaust is unique in this sense - for the deniers.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
More CODOH Circus
Valiant "Haldan" is all for logic, reason and science!
Tags: k0nsl
I know you are asking specificially about scientists, but those who believe in the Holocaust in general are typically motivated by feelings, intuition [hunches] as opposed to logic, reason and science - hence they shed away from doing any serious research on the matter, preferring mainly to be dependent on questionable documents and "eyewitnesses".Except...
I just don't believe the Germans 'gassed' the Jews, that's all -- and if there is a document which supports this absurd allegation, it must be forged, faked or otherwise altered -- because the Germans never 'gassed' the Jews.
Tags: k0nsl
CODOH Circus
We can rely on the Cesspit to bring us the best unintended humor out there.
In this thread an exposed falsificator "polardude" tries to cast doubt on legitimate photos. He thinks that on this photo the "street lamp which is standing in the middle of this waste land seems out of place".
Interestingly, he is quickly corrected:
Update: the embarrassing thread has been deleted, as usual.
In this thread an exposed falsificator "polardude" tries to cast doubt on legitimate photos. He thinks that on this photo the "street lamp which is standing in the middle of this waste land seems out of place".
Interestingly, he is quickly corrected:
It's not a streetlamp. It's a pole and there's a small stain on the picture or on the negative.
Update: the embarrassing thread has been deleted, as usual.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)