ConCen

Important Questions - An Analysis of the Holocaust Claims

Holocaust = The Holocaust (from the Greek holókauston from holos "completely" and kaustos "burnt"), also known as Ha-Shoah (Hebrew: השואה), Churben (Yiddish: חורבן), is the term generally used to describe the killing of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, as part of a program of deliberate extermination planned and executed by the National Socialist regime in Germany led by Adolf Hitler.[2]
([2] Niewyk, Donald L. The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust, Columbia University Press, 2000, p.45: "The Holocaust is commonly defined as the murder of more than 5,000,000 Jews by the Germans in World War II." Also see "The Holocaust," Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2007: "the systematic state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish men, women and children, and millions of others, by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during World War II. The Germans called this "the final solution to the Jewish question.") http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust


1) Since when do we know that 6 million are dying and suffering?

It is a documented fact that during, right after and before the First World War in Jewish puplications and Jewish owned newspapers, such as New York Times and The American Hebrew, there were articles in which claims were made that 6 million Jews are dying in Europe. According to those following articles "6 million are dying of hunger and disease" and "In this threatened holocaust of human life six million men and women are dying". There were also fund raising campaigns for the "millions of sufferers".


During The First World War

"JEWS INDIFFERENCE TO WAR AID REBUKED
Louis Marshall Denounces Apathy Toward Suffering of Co-Religionists.
MILLIONS IN DIRE DISTRESS
Jacob H. Schiff, Meyer London, and Dr. Enelow Plead with the Rich to Give.
[...]
'In the world today there are about 13,000,000 Jews, of whom more than 6,000,000 are in the heart of the war zone; Jews whose lives are at stake and who today are subjected to every manner of suffering and sorrow, and the great American Jewish community is not doing its duty toward these sufferers."
(The New York Times, January 14, 1915, p. 3.)

"The Jews in the Eastern War Zones
[...]
Russia

Russia acquired the great bulk of her Jewish population through the partitions of Poland, from 1773 to 1795. Strongly medieval in outlook and organization as Russia was at that time, she treated the Jews with the exceptional harshness which the medieval principle and policy sanctioned and required. By confining them to those provinces where they happened to live at the time of the partitions, she created a Ghetto greater than any known to the Middle Ages; and by imposing restrictions upon the right to live and travel even within this Ghetto, she has virtually converted it onto a penal settlement, where six million human beings guilty only of adherence to the Jewish faith are compelled to live out their lives in squalor and misery, in constant terror of massacre, subject to the caprice of police officials and a corrupt administration-in short, without legal right or social status."
(Published by the American Jewish Committee, 1916, pp. 7 to 21.)


Right After the First World War


(The New York Times, May 1, 1920, p. 8)


(New York Times, May 3, 1920, p. 11)


Note the wording in this article: "Extermination by Hunger and Disease..."
(The New York Times, May 5, 1920, p. 9)


"From across the sea, six million men and women call to us for help [...] six million human beings. [...] Six million men and women are dying [...] in the threatened holocaust of human life [...] six million famished men and women. Six million men and women are dying [...]"
(The American Hebrew, Oct. 31, 1919, pp. 582f. Martin H. Glynn; State of New York between Oct. 17, 1913, and Dec. 31, 1914)

There were also fund raising campaigns in those newspapers to "save the lives of the six million". On one fund raising article there was a figure of $ 6,000,000.

(The New York Times, April 21, 1926)

Don Heddesheimer has gathered these newspaper articles in his book The First Holocaust, 2003:
http://vho.org/GB/Books/tfh/
More pictures about the first holocaust newspaper articles can be found here: http://vho.org/GB/Books/tfh/9.html


Before the First World War

"Rabbi Wise's Address

Rabbi Wise said, in part:

'The day will never come when I will care less for Zion, when there will be anyone who will strive more for the glorious ideals of Zionism.

'Two great conventions of Jews are being held tonight. In Chicago, there is a conference of charities called together by men who minister to the wants of the poor. They have assembled to see that too much charity is not given to the unworthy. Their purpose is right. But ours is the greater charity. We have assembled not to see that the Jew does not get too much, but that every Jew shall get the right to live.

'There are 6,000,000 living, bleeding, suffering arguments in favor of Zionism. They come not to beg, but ask for that which is higher than all material things. They seek to have satisfied the unquenchable thirst after the ideal. They ask to become once again the messengers of right, justice, and humanity.

'Your Christian friends will honor you if you have enough self-respect to care for your own people. Say that you are not a Jew and you will be hated as a Jew, nevertheless. But say that you are an American Jew, and strive for the best principles of the race, you will be respected and the Zionist name honored.

'Of Israel and Zion one thing is true. They can conquer. God is our leader, and with the General of the heavenly hosts to lead who will say that we go not to victory?

'In the old Greek games, the man who won the race was not he who went fastest, but the one who bore a lighted torch to the end of the course.

'We Zionists have entered a race, the torch of liberty, charity, and justice in our hands.

'The race will be won, not because we are fastest but because that lamp is a light unto the world. It will never be extinguished.

'Come, brothers, the lamp is in your hands, run the race and may God give you the victory forever."
(The New York Times, June 11, 1900, p. 7.)

According to Heddesheimer the fund raising campaigns went to Russia and to the Bolshevik Revolution.


During the Second World War

Again during World War Two, claims were made in New York Times and in other papers as well that "6 million are dying in Europe". This time it was the nazis who were said to be killing the 6 million.
(NYT = New York Times.)

NYT, June 30, 1942, p. 7:
"1,000,000 Jews Slain By Nazis, Report Says"

NYT, September 3, 1942, p. 5:
"A European observer said the Germans planned to exterminate the Jews not only in Europe, but throughout the world. He declared the Nazis had executed 2,000,000 Jews in the past three years."

NYT, December 13, 1942, p. 21:
"[...] 'Authenticated reports point to 2,000,000 Jews who have already been slain by all manner of satanic barbarism, and plans for the total extermination of all Jews upon whom the Nazis can lay their hands. The slaughter of a third of the Jewish population in Hitler's domain [3×2,000,000=6,000,000] and the threatened slaughter of all is a holocaust without parallel.'"

NYT, December 20, 1942, p. 23:
"What is happening to the 5,000,000 Jews of German-held Europe, all of whom face extermination [...].
Early in December 1942 the State Department in Washington gave some figures showing that the number of Jewish victims deported and perished since 1939 in Axis-controlled Europe now reached the appalling figure of 2,000,000 and that 5,000,000 were in danger of extermination."

NYT, March 2, 1943, pp. 1, 4:
"Immediate action by the United Nations to save as many as possible of the five million Jews threatened with extermination [...] was demanded at a mass demonstration [...] in Madison Square Garden last night.
[...Rabbi Hertz said] 'appalling is the fact that those who proclaim the Four Freedoms have so far done very little to secure even the freedom to live for 6,000,000 of their Jewish fellow men by readiness to rescue those who might still escape Nazi torture and butchery. [...]'"

NYT, March 10, 1943, p. 12:
"Forty thousand persons listened and watched [...] last night to two performances of 'We Will Never Die,' a dramatic mass memorial to the 2,000,000 Jews killed in Europe. [...] The narrator said 'There will be no Jews left in Europe for representation when peace comes. The four million left to kill are being killed, according to plan.'"

NYT, April 20, 1943, p. 11:
"London, April 19 (Reuter) - Two million Jews have been wiped out since the Nazis began their march through Europe in 1939 and five million more are in immediate danger of execution. These figures were revealed in the sixth report on conditions in occupied territories issued by the Inter-Allied Information Committee."


The first person who claimed that "6 million Jews had died"

The first person to claim this was Ilya Ehrenburg. Ilya Ehrenburg was a leading Jewish atrocity propagandist in the Soviet Union during WW2. Historian dr. Joachim Hoffman, in his 1995 study Stalin's War of Extermination 1941-1945, pointed out that the chief Soviet atrocity propagandist, Ilya Ehrenburg, had publicized the six-million-figure in the Soviet foreign press as early as January 4, 1945, i.e., fully four months before the war's end. At that time, no demographic figures could have been available to him. At that time Soviet Union had not even taken over Auschwitz yet, where allegedly, according to Soviet Union, 4 million people were killed. In fact, it was already earlier and later mentioned, as dr. Hoffmann points out:
"The six-million figure, stated exactly for the first time by Ehrenburg in the Soviet War News on December 22, 1944, at first inconspicuously, and then repeated by him once again on January 4, 1945, in the same Soviet propaganda newspaper, then appeared on March 15, 1945, in another article by Ehrenburg in the Soviet War News weekly under the headline ‘Wolves They Were - Wolves They Remain’ – in bold print, as a fact no longer to be disputed by anyone."
(Stalin's War of Extermination 1941-1945, p. 189f.)

Atrocity propaganda by Ehrenburg:

"The world now knows that Germany has killed six million Jews". "Wolves they were – Wolves they remain"
(Soviet War News Weekly, March 15, 1945.)
http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/4/Strauss366-372.html

http://vho.org/GB/Books/tfh/1.html


To sum it up: Jews* already claimed during, right after and before the First World War that 6 million Jews were dying in a holocaust. Again Jews* were claiming during the Second World War that 6 million Jews are dying in Europe. The first person to mention the six million figure was a Jewish rabbi Wise in 1900, in favor of Zionism. The first person who claimed that 6 million Jews had been killed in Europe was a Jewish atrocity propagandist in Soviet Union's war propaganda. Not a very credible start to the 6 million holocaust story...

(* Jews = In these sentences mean some Jewish persons (such as rabbi Wise and Max Warburg) and organisations (for example American Jewish Committee), not all Jews.)


Other Jewish 'genocides'

There are also many myths about Jewish genocides and massacres in the, Jewish holy book, Talmud.
Gittin 57b: 940,000 Israelis killed on one stone. http://www.come-and-hear.com/gittin/gittin_57.html
Gittin 58a: 64,000,000 Israelis were burnt alive by the Romans in the town of Bethar. http://www.come-and-hear.com/gittin/gittin_58.html
Gittin 57b: 4,000,000,000 (some say 40,000,000) Jews were killed by the Romans in the town of Bethar. http://www.come-and-hear.com/gittin/gittin_57.html
(Ctrl f the following: "ninety-four myriads", "four hundred" and "four hundred thousand myriads". Myriad means 10^4. Four hundred thousand myriads = 400,000 x 10^4 = 4,000,000,000.)

In my opinion it seems that in the Judaism there is a mythical and religious tendency about exaggerated Jewish sufferings. Why? I dont know, but there certainly seems to be that tendency.

6 million figure is obviously a mythical figure. Many holocaust experts also acknowledge this, while at the same time saying that 5-7 million Jews died = about 6 million.


Interesting theory about the origins of the 6 million figure:
2. SCRIPTURAL ORIGINS OF THE SIX MILLION NUMBER

The following are two quotes from unpublished sources whose content I have tried -- so far unsuccessfully -- to have verified by rabbinical scholars. I suspect that their ultimate source is the book [i]The Holocaust Dogma of Judaism by Ben Weintraub, which is discussed HERE. The meaning of the second quote is made clearer if one understands something about Gematria, the Kabbalistic practice of interpreting texts by associating words and numbers. This material by itself does not prove the scriptural origins of the Six Million, but in combination with the fact that the number was used in other places (see below), this seems to clinch the case.

[Quote 1] Jewish prophecies in the Torah require that 6 million Jews must "vanish" before the state of Israel can be formed. "You shall return minus 6 million." That's why Tom Segev, an Israeli historian, declared that the "6 million" is an attempt to transform the Holocaust story into state religion. Those six million, according to prophecy, had to disappear in "burning ovens", which the judicial version of the Holocaust now authenticates. As a matter of fact, Robert B. Goldmann writes: ". . . without the Holocaust, there would be no Jewish State." A simple consequence: Given six million Jews gassed at Auschwitz who ended up in the "burning ovens" (the Greek word holocaust means burned offerings), therefore, the prophecies have now been "fulfilled" and Israel can become a "legitimate state". --Unknown

[Quote 2] Regarding the 'six million' number you should know the following: In the Hebrew text of the Torah prophesies, one can read "you shall return". In the text the letter "V" or "VAU" is absent, as Hebrew does not have any numbers; the letter V stands for the number 6. Ben Weintraub, a religious scientist, learned from rabbis that the meaning of the missing letter means the number is '6 million'. The prophesy then reads: You will return, but with 6 million less. See Ben Weintraub: "The Holocaust Dogma of Judaism", Cosmo Publishing, Washington 1995, page 3. The missing 6 million must be so before the Jews can return to the Promised Land. Jahweh sees this as a cleaning of the souls of the sinful people. The Jews must, on the return to the Promised Land, be clean -- the cleaning shall be done in burning stokes. --A Correspondent[/i]
http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Jews/Jews-...lionNumber.html


Some conclusions could already be drawn from these facts alone... but lets not jump to final conclusions, just yet. In my next posts I will deal with Red Cross reports and Jewish population statistics, among other things. And in further posts I will deal with various technical data etc. Lets have a thorough look at these holocaust claims.

You're preaching to the choir...LOL... but keep posting... n00bs will need this.

Agreed. The 6 million thing goes all the way back to the Talmud and has been dusted off time and again when needed.
Nice crisp clear and important and damn hard to deny. Incredibly flammable for bags of water,eh?

At least they make a good scream when you throw them in the oven... :rolleyes:

Heh. Seeing that one Newspaper scan with the 6 million $ made me think of the
Six Million dollar Man. Right arm strong left arm weak stands on two strong pillars and has
one eye that is all seeing. Why me still awake am being ? Shutdown.

Quote:You're preaching to the choir...LOL... but keep posting... n00bs will need this.

Yes, I know many people here know these things already. But many people might also learn something new (noobs and others too).


Telling these things to holocaust believers

If one is trying to tell these things to a holocaust believer, a good way of starting to do this would be "the first holocaust" claims. It was the one thing which started me seeing things differently (also many revisionist scholars, such as Germar Rudolf, recommend that this is what gets people listening to these things).

In addition if you have only seen some documentaries found here, it would be useful to read these posts also. The documentaries - such as Judea declares war on Germany, David Cole's videos, Persecution of Revisionists, One Third Of The Holocaust - they are fairly good and help people to get interested in these things. Unfortunately, however, in some of those documentaries there is a bit old information, over simplificatins and some few errors also. So after reading some books, I was thinking of trying to correct some errors or misunderstandings. I could also deal with some criticisms here later.

Welcome Konev to CC and thanks for doing the Radio ConCen with me

2) Population Statistics - Are Six Million Missing?

Population statisticians estimate that Mao Zedong manage to kill about 40-70 million people when he ruled China. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Mao
Population statisticians estimate that about 20-66 million people were killed in the Soviet Union (real figures propably 20-30 million). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#Number_of_victims
Lets see what the population statisticians estimate about the Jewish population changes.

Census figures
Various census figures can be viewed here: http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_408.html
(I found this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population#_note-3
^ Judaism, continued... citations at Adherents.com)

In short
World'Jewish population before World War 2 according to census figures: 12,000,000 - 18,000,000.
World'Jewish population after World War 2 according to census figures: 11,000,000 - 18,200,000.

Lets play with the figures.
Example 1: In 1939 there were 18,000,000 Jews in the world. In 1945 there were 11,000,000 Jews in the world. So 7,000,000 died in the holocaust.
Example 2: In 1939 there were 16,000,000 Jews in the world. In 1945 there were 11,000,000 Jews in the world. So 5,000,000 died in the holocaust.
Example 3: In 1939 there were 15,700,000 Jews in the world. In 1948 there were 15,700,000 Jews in the world. So 0,000,000 died in the holocaust.
Example 4: In 1939 there were 15,700,000 Jews in the world. In 1962 there were 17,500,000 Jews in the world. So Jewish population increased 1,800,000 during the war.
Example 5: In 1900 there were 12,000,000 Jews in the world. In 1997 there were 18,200,000 Jews in the world. So Jewish population increased 6,200,000 during the 20th century.

(15,7 million in 1939 according to World Almanacs; 17,500,000 in 1962 according to World Center of Contemporary Jewish Documentation)

I let Jürgen Graf, revisionist scholar, make my point:
The leading pre-war expert on Jewish population statistics, Arthur Ruppin, stated that there were 16.7 million Jews in the world in 1939 (13). For the immediate postwar years, the World Almanac gave the following figures: 15.19 million in 1945 and 15.7 million in the following four years, from 1946 to 1949. But its 1949 issue, the World Almanac quoted the figures furnished by the American Jewish commitee according to which there had been 16.6 million Jews in 1939 and only 11.2 million in 1947 (14). On the other hand, in an article published in the Jewish-owned New York Times in early 1948, Hanson Baldwin, a military expert and specialist on Palestine, stated that there were between 15 and 18 million Jews worldwide (15). As you see, the Jewish world population statistics enable you as easily to prove that the Holocaust took place as they allow you to prove that it didn't; it just depends upon which statistics you prefer to believe. It's not in these statistics that we are going to find the answer to our question how many Jews really perished as a result of German policy.
http://www.historiography-project.org/misc...wishlosses.html


One of the sources who estimate that the world's Jewish population is about 18 million:
http://www.firstthings.com :
Forgetting the Source and Summit

Who's Who in World Religions

I first met David Barrett in 1971 in Nairobi, Kenya, where he was doing pioneering work on indigenous religious movements in Africa, a subject on which I was going to write a book, until my attention was diverted by developments in South Africa. In recent years, Barrett has been running the research office of the AD2000 Global Evangelization Movement in Rockville, Virginia. Among numbers crunchers on world religion, Barrett is at the top of his field. He publishes an annual summary in the International Bulletin of Missionary Research and edits the relevant sections of the Britannica Book of the Year and Britannica World Data. While Barrett's data are state of the art, he cautions that the art is precisely that, an art. Estimates involve some delicate distinctions and carefully controlled guesswork. But it is fascinating stuff.

For instance, there are 1.9 billion Christians in the world and slightly over one billion Muslims. Barrett estimates that in the year 2025 there will be over three billion Christians and 1.8 billion Muslims. Among Christians, there are 56 million Anglicans, 4 million Catholics (non- Roman), 20 million "marginal Protestants" (non-Catholic but also not identified with any Protestant tradition), 167 million nonwhite indigenous Christians (mainly new African groups combining Christianity and tribal religions), 187 million Eastern Orthodox (Russian, Greek, et al.), 347 million Protestants, and somewhat over a billion Roman Catholics.

Not everyone is happy with the way that Barrett counts Jews. He says that in 1900 there were 12.2 million Jews, 15.5 million in 1970, 18.2 million at present, and he projects that there will be 25.5 million in the year 2025. These figures are in tension with the common claim that "half of world Jewry" was wiped out in the Holocaust, and that the number of Jews is declining. For twenty-five years, Barrett has been in discussion with Jewish specialists who generally give a much lower figure for the number of Jews living today. One Jewish publication claims, "Statistical data are difficult to obtain among Jews owing to the lack of public sources." Barrett challenges that: "Half of all nations in the world enumerate religious Jews and ethnic Jews in their decennial population censuses, and I have records of them all going back 140 years. Polls, partial censuses, sociological studies are all legion. Making sense of them is more difficult, but again the literature is enormous."

He says that Jewish statistical experts use the concept of "core Jew," meaning "real Jews" who are known, professing, affiliated, and usually practicing. Barrett, however, uses the larger category of "adherents" based on the definition in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He also includes adherents of "Jewish sects or cults, crypto-Jews, Third World adherents of Judaism who are ignored or disowned by core Jews, Black Jews, Black Hebrews, African groups like the Bayahuda in Uganda, and Asian groups like the Cochin Jews in Kerala and the Bney Israel in Bombay." There are also groups that are somewhere between Christianity and Judaism or Islam and Judaism, but are more Jewish than Christian or Muslim. Then, of course, there are Messianic Jews, and ethnic Jews who are Christians or atheists. "If one examines every source figure in this rigorous fashion," says Barrett, "no conflicting figures emerge, although proponents of core Judaism may not like the larger totals that result."

by: Richard John Neuhaus
February 1997
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id...cs%2C+Buddhists


Demographic Research into Jewish population changes during the Second World War
Quote from wikipedia:
Raul Hilberg, in the third edition of his ground-breaking three-volume work, The Destruction of the European Jews, estimates that 5.1 million Jews died during the Holocaust. This figure includes "over 800,000" who died from "Ghettoization and general privation"; 1,400,000 who were killed in "Open-air shootings"; and "up to 2,900,000" who perished in camps. Hilberg estimates the death toll in Poland at "up to 3,000,000".[24] Hilberg's numbers are generally considered to be a conservative estimate, as they generally include only those deaths for which some records are available, avoiding statistical adjustment.[25] British historian Martin Gilbert used a similar approach in his Atlas of the Holocaust, but arrived at a number of 5.75 million Jewish victims, since he estimated higher numbers of Jews killed in Russia and other locations.[26]

Lucy S. Dawidowicz used pre-war census figures to estimate that 5.934 million Jews died (see her figures here).[27]

One of the most authoritative German scholars of the Holocaust, Wolfgang Benz of the Technical University of Berlin, cites between 5.3 and 6.2 million Jews killed in Dimension des Volksmords (1991), while Yisrael Gutman and Robert Rozett estimate between 5.59 and 5.86 million Jewish victims in the Encyclopaedia of the Holocaust (1990).[28]
[...]
The number of people killed at the major extermination camps has been estimated as follows:

Auschwitz: 1.4 million;[29] Belzec: 600,000;[30] Chelmno: 320,000;[31] Jasenovac: 600,000;[32] Majdanek: 360,000;[33] Maly Trostinets: 65,000;[34] Sobibór: 250,000;[35] and Treblinka: 870,000.[36]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Vic..._and_death_toll
(These last figures at concentration camps are Yad Vashem's, 4,4 million according to Vashem died in the concentration camps.)


Now lets see do these 'expert figures' hold any water
The following is a quote from http://www.historiography-project.org/misc...wishlosses.html written by Jürgen Graf:

The fraudulent methods used by the orthodox Holocaust historians

After the war, the Zionists and their hirelings resorted to all kind of impudent manipulations to prove this imaginary figure. While most orthodox Holocaust historians arrrive at slightly lower numbers of Jewish victims, it seems to be an unwritten law in Western society that it is not permissible to go below the five million limit. Raul Hilberg, whose three-volume study The Destruction of the European Jews is universally recognized as the standard work on the Holocaust, puts Jewish population losses during World War Two at 5,1 million (4).

In order to demonstrate the fraudulent methods used by the orthodox Holocaust historians, I will now quote some figures from Raul Hilberg's work plus from a book written by another famous Jewish Holocaust expert, The War against the Jews by Lucy Dawidowicz (5). According to Hilberg, 2.67 million out of the total 5.1 million Jewish victims were murdered in six camps which the orthodox historians call "extermination camps", a term found in no German wartime document. This means that 2.43 million Holocaust victims must have met their fate outside these "extermination centers". But Lucy Dawidowicz tells us a completely different story, contending that no less than 5.37 million Jews were gassed in the "six killing factories" (6). Since her total death count is 5.9 million, these figures imply only 530,000 Jews died outside the "extermination camps."

Now, how do the two auguste scholars arrive at their figures? What sources do they quote? The answer is very simple: None. While both books are replete with footnotes about the most trifling things, none of the two authors makes the slightest attempt to explain what their statistics are based upon. Quite obviously, these statistics are purely arbitrary and devoid of any scientific value. Hilberg and Dawidowicz name totally different death figures for some of the "extermination camps" -- for example, Dawidowicz states that no less than 1.38 million Jews were murdered at Majdanek, while Hilberg contents himself with 50,000 -, and Hilberg's figure of Jews who died outside the "extermination centers" is nearly five times higher than Dawidowics's, yet both authors claim a total death Jewish toll of between five and six million, and both are hailed as splendid historians by the media.

When following the evolution of the Holocaust yarn, we notice that the death figures given for the so-called extermination camps Auschwitz and Majdanek have been drastically reduced by the orthodox historians in the last decades. During the Nuremberg trial, the Soviets contended that no less than four million people had been murdered at Auschwitz (7) but no Western historian has ever dared to accept this ridiculous figure. Raul Hilberg claims that one million Jews plus 300,000 non-Jews died at Auschwitz, and in 1994 Jean-Claude Pressac, whom the media extolled as the world's leading expert on Auschwitz, lowered the total death toll to 631,000 (8). A similar evolution can be observed in the case of Majdanek. In the summer of 1944, after the liberation of the camp, the communists stated that 1.5 million had been murdered there, but already in 1948, the Poles lowered the figure to 360,000, and in the early ninetieth, it was further reduced to 230,000 (9).

Significantly, all these modifications do not affect the sacrosanct figure of six, or five to six, million Jewish victims at all. In other words, if you have a basket with six apples in it, you can eat one, two, three or even four of them, there are still six apples left. That's Holocaust mathematics! And in several European countries, including once free Switzerland, you are obliged to believe this, otherwise you go to jail, and the media will label you a racist.

Even the modified figures of the orthodox historians are still vastly exaggerated. As a matter of fact, approximately 150,000 people, probably just over half of whom were Jewish, perished at Auschwitz, as Italian revisionist Carlo Mattogno will show in a study exclusively based upon German wartime documents (10). The combined number of Jewish and non-Jewish victims at Majdanek was about 42,500, as Mattogno has demonstrated in a book he wrote together with me (11). Of course, even these real figures are frightfully high, but it should be remembered that Anglo-American terror bombers murdered more German civilians in one single night than prisoners died at Auschwitz and Majdanek together during the whole war, and that the main cause of death in the camps were epidemic diseases the Germans were unable to control. The mass deportation of Jews to forced labour camps and the bad conditions prevailing in these camps were the result of total war, and in total war, people suffer and die -- not only Jews. It should not be forgotten that tens of thousands of Catholic Poles and many thousands of Russian prisoners of war also died at Auschwitz and Majdanek, and that between 60,000 and 80,000 German civilians were murdered after the war in Polish communist concentration camps, often after hideous tortures. As Jewish author John Sack has documented in his famous book An eye for an eye, almost all of these authentic death camps were run by Jews (12).

[...]

Walter Sanning and Wolfgang Benz

In 1983, Walter Sanning, an American of German descent, published a book which, despite certain shortcomings, is still far and away the most serious study of Jewish population losses during the Second World War (16). Sanning's method is refreshingly original. He almost exclusively uses Jewish and Allied sources and accepts German sources only when they are anti-Nazi. Sanning irrefutably demonstrates the whole extent of post-war Jewish migration from Europe to Palestine, the USA, and other non-European countries. Altogether, more than one and half million Jews left Europe in the years after the war. Furthermore, Sanning conclusively proves that we do not need the "extermination camp" story to explain the almost complete disappearance of Polish Jewry. In 1939, a large part of the Polish Jews were living in the eastern half of the country which was annexed by the Soviet Union after Hitler and Stalin had divided Poland. As soon as the Germans had invaded Poland, a huge stream of Jewish refugees poured eastwards, into the Soviet-occupied half. In the summer of 1941, after the German preventive attack against the USSR, a large proportion of the Jews were evacuated east and never came under German control. The same thing happened in the Baltic states. Although the victorious Wehrmacht liberated Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia from the Bolshevist yoke shortly after the beginning of the German-Soviet war, a large percentage of the Baltic Jews managed to leave these countries even before the arrival of the German troups. Sanning thinks that about 80% of the Jews in the areas later conquered by the Germans were evacuated, but as his main source is an unreliable Soviet propagandist, David Bergelson, this figure is almost certainly too high.

According to the 1939 census, there had been 3.02 million Jews in the Soviet Union. Now the first postwar census, which took place in 1959, only yielded 2.26 million Jews, but all western Zionist agreed that this figure was unrealistically low. According to Soviet practice, every citizen could chose himself which nationality he or she belonged to, and a considerable part of the Soviet Jews were already assimilated and regarded themselves as Russians, Ukrainians etc.

Moreover, the political atmosphere was not particularly favourable to the Jews at that time, so many of them preferred not to be identified as such. Finally, one cannot exclude the possibility that the Soviet government, which endorsed the Holocaust legend, deliberately falsified the results of the census. On 1 July 1990, the Zionist New York Post, referring to Israeli specialists, stated that there were over five million Jews in the USSR. As the birth rate of the Soviet Jews was by far the lowest of any ethnic group in the country, and as many hundreds of thousands of Jews had already emigrated by that time, all points to the conclusion that there were between five and six million Jews in the USSR after the Second World War. This can only be explained by the fact that a large percentage of Polish and Baltic Jewry had been absorbed by the Soviet state.

Of course, it is impossible to give precise figures. For example, we do not know how many of the Polish Jews who had fled from the Germans in 1939, or who had been evacuated after the German attack on Russia in 1941, returned to Poland after the war, and how many of them elected to stay there. In February 1946, at a time when the return of Jews from Russia was still going on, and when large numbers of Polish Jews had already emigrated to the west, a British-American commission reported that there were still 800,000 Jews in Poland (17).

Sanning concludes that about one and a half million Jews lost their lives during the Second World War, but that most of them were killed as soldiers on the battlefield or or perished in the Soviet territories which were never occupied by the Germans. According to his calculations, only some hundreds of thousands of Jews disappeared in German-controlled Europe.

As it was expected, the adherents of the Holocaust story countered Sanning's study with an attempt to corroborate the official figures. Significantly, it took them no less than eight years to do so, and the result of their endeavours was simply pathetic. In 1991, a group of scholars headed by one Wolfgang Benz published a voluminous book the title of which was Dimension des Voelkermords ("Dimension of Genocide") (18). Benz, who is heading a pro-Zionist propaganda institute in Berlin (19), is not Jewish. He is a particulary nasty specimen of the political prostitutes who have been flourishing in occupied Germany ever since 1945 and who owe their carreers to the zeal with which they systematically falsify the history of their own country by accusing it of imaginary crimes.

Benz and his team claim that between 5.29 and just over six million Jews died as a result of National Socialist repression during the Second World War. In an excellent study comparing the methods and the results of Sanning and Benz, leading German revisionist Germar Rudolf has exposed the tricks used by the Benz people in order to obtain the desired high Jewish casualty figures (20), and I can do no better than simply resume Rudolf's demonstration.

The basic assumption of Benz is that every Jew who, in 1945, was no longer living in the place where he had been living in 1939 had been murdered by the Germans. An analogy showing the imbecility of this argument would be the following: Some years before Algerian independance, there were one million Frenchmen living in Algeria. After Algerian independance, their number had shrunk to 100,000, so the Algerians must have murdered 900,000 Frenchmen! As a matter of fact, the case of the demographic key country Poland is by far more compliacted than the one of Algeria, because the borders of the latter country did not change after its independance whereas the Polish state was moved westwards after the war. Poland lost her eastern provinces, where the Jews had been especially numerous, to the Soviet Union. In return, she acquired large German territories in the West where few Jews had been living before the war.

Incredibly as it may seem, Benz does not dedicate even a single paragraph of his thick book to the problem of Jewish post-war emigration as such an emigration did not take place according to him. There were no Polish, Russian, German, Hungarian, Romanian and other European Jews streaming to Palestine after 1945, because all of them had been either murdered by the Nazis or stayed in their respective countries! This is good news for the Palestians who erroneously thought their land had been invaded and taken away from them by European Jews, and that a state of Israel had been proclaimed in 1948. Such a thing never happened, it was only a nightmare!

As Sanning had devoted a large part of his book to the numerical analysis of Jewish postwar emigration, and as Benz does not even attempt to challenge Sanning's conclusions although Sanning's book had appeared eight years earlier (21), the only possible conclusion is that Sanning's arguments are irrefutable.

As ignoring Jewish post-war emigration does not yet suffice to approach the six million figure, Benz resorts to plenty of other mean tricks. Between 1939 and 1945, the national boundaries of many European states underwent considerable changes. For example, Hungary acquired Romanian, Czechoslovak and Yugoslave territories, only to lose them again in 1945. Romania was forced to cede Bessarabia to the USSR in 1940. Now, the Jews who lived in the respective areas and who really or allegedly died during the war are counted twice by Benz. Thus, 100,000 Bessarabian Jews who, according to Benz, were exterminated by the Germans and their Romanian allies, appear twice in the statistic of victims. They are included both in the alleged figure of exterminated Romanian Jews and in the one of exterminated Soviet Jews, which allows Benz to double their number. As Germar Rudolf has shown, Benz and his team are guilty of more than half a million double counts. The number of pre-war Jews in Poland is exaggerated by about 700,000, because Benz chooses to ignore the massive emigration of Polish Jews during the thirties.

In a documentation published by the Munich-based Institute of Contemporary History, which Benz, who is working for the same Institute, could not possible have been unaware of, it is clearly stated that about 100,000 Jews left Poland annually during the thirties owing to poverty and the anti-Jewish atmosphere in that country. As a matter of fact, there could not have been no more than about 2.8 million Jews in Poland before the outbreak of the Second World War, yet Benz puts their number at 3.5 million, thus inventing yet another 700,000 "Holocaust victims". Finally, Jews who were killed in combat as soldiers of the Red Army, and even Jews who perished during Soviet Communist deportations, are regarded as "victims of the Nazi Holocaust"! So much about the impudent swindler Wolfgang Benz and his methods.

While the failure of the orthodox historians to refute Sanning's figures doesn't automatically prove their accuracy, their order of magnitude is confirmed when tackling the problem from different angles.
http://www.historiography-project.org/misc...wishlosses.html
Important reading also; Jurgen Graf's THE GIANT WITH FEET OF CLAY RAUL HILBERG AND HIS STANDARD WORK ON THE "HOLOCAUST" http://vho.org/GB/Books/Giant/ (Graf has debunked Hilberg's book.)


I next quote from Germar Rudolf's analysis the fate of the Jews in Poland and in Soviet Union, in which according to holocaust expert Wolfgang Benz, about 4,7 million Jews died (3/4 of the holocaust).

Quotes from Germar Rudolf's analysis:

3.9. Poland

Poland is discussed here in terms of its post-war boundaries, without the eastern German regions. While Benz claims to add to this merely the administrative districts of Bialystok and Galicia, he does eventually include the victims for the entire territory that was Polish in the time between World Wars One and Two, i.e., parts of what was known during the Second World War as the Reich Commissionerships of Ukraine and Ostland. But since he deducts only the numbers of victims for Galicia and Bialystok from the total in his chapter about the Soviet Union, this results in duplicate counts which will be discussed in greater detail in the section regarding the Soviet Union.

3.9.1. Poland’s Pre-War Population

The last pre-war Polish census indicated approximately 3.1 million Jews (B416; S20).

On the basis of detailed studies Sanning shows that even during the period between the two world wars, the Polish Jews exhibited an extremely low rate of population increase (S26f.). The Institut für Zeitgeschichte adds that since 1933 some 100,000 Polish Jews per year had turned their backs on radically anti-Semitic Poland and emigrated to western Europe or overseas (S32).[51] Since those leaving the country were predominantly young people, the number of Jews in Poland must have decreased sharply due not only to this migration but also due to the increasingly disproportionate percentage of old people. Sanning puts the number of emigrants between 1931 and 1939 at only 500,000 and even factors in a population growth rate of 0.2%. He thus arrives at a population of 2,664,000 Jews prior to the war (S32).

This issue, to which Sanning devotes roughly 20 pages of intensive and thoroughly documented analysis, is accorded all of two sentences by Benz (B417):

"[…] if we extrapolate the census figures [of 1931] taking into account natural increase and emigration, we arrive at a 1939 total population of 35,100,000 persons for the Polish nation as a whole, of which the Jewish component is estimated at 3,446,000. We repeat: these figures are not certain [….]"

So Benz assumes, first of all, that the numbers of Polish Jews increased like those of the remaining Poles. Since Sanning clearly disproved this assumption eight years before Benz’s work was published, and yet Benz does not even mention Sanning’s arguments, there can be only one explanation for why untruths are clearly being disseminated here: the purpose is to maximize the initial population figure for Polish Jews.

Secondly, Benz assumes that the rate of emigration was essentially negligible. But since his book is a publication of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte and since this same Institut has publicly announced that some 100,000 Polish Jews had left Poland annually since 1933, one wonders whether this is a case of the left hand not knowing (or not wanting to know?) what the right hand is doing.

Benz therefore bases his subsequent arguments on a starting figure of 3,350,000 Jews present in Poland at the beginning of the war (B417), of which 2.3 million are assigned to the western part which the Germans occupied in 1939 (B418). In this way Benz has falsified the statistic by probably 700,000 Jews at the least. Are we to believe that Benz is unaware of Sanning’s analysis of population trends in pre-war Poland? This seems out of the question, since after all Benz’s book is a response to Sanning’s. As I see it, the fact that Benz spares this complex topic no more than one sentence and an apologetic comment ("We repeat: these figures are not certain") explains everything: this is an example of statistics being stretched well past the breaking point!

3.9.2. Flight Migrations During the Polish Campaign

According to Benz, some 300,000 of the initial 2.3 million Jews of western Poland fled eastward from the German army during the Polish campaign, into the Soviet-occupied area; of these 300,000, approximately 250,000 were deported to Siberia by the Soviets. Benz states that these are estimates, since allegedly there are no reliable figures (B425f.; 443). Accordingly, Benz suggests that approximately 2 million Polish Jews came under German rule in western Poland (B443). To document these statistics, Benz refers first and foremost to data originating with German sources whose doubtful value has already been mentioned.[28] Sanning explains that these figures are estimates calculated by the German authorities by extrapolating the census data from 1931 on the basis of a 10% population increase (S44f.). Even in those days there were no more reliable figures and analyses available, and contemporaneous statisticians made the same mistake that Benz repeats in his book.

Sanning quotes numerous Zionist, Jewish and pro-Jewish sources, all of which indicate that between 500,000 and 1 million Jews fled to the Soviet-occupied zone of Poland during the German-Polish war (S39-43). Again, the majority of these were deported to Siberia. Among the sources cited are Jewish relief organizations, which attended to 600,000 Polish Jews in Siberian labor camps. Since a considerable proportion of these deported Jews already died during the inhumane transports to these camps, Sanning postulates a total of 750,000 Jews who fled into the Soviet zone as well as a further 100,000 who had fled to Rumania (S44).[52] Thus, the number of Jews in western Poland had decreased from an initial 1,607,000 (S39) to 757,000 (S44), while the number remained unchanged in eastern Poland due to the deportation of predominantly western Polish refugees (approximately 1 million, also Benz, B443).

The fact that such migrations of fleeing persons were not unusual is demonstrated by the example of Belgium, where 1½ to 2 million persons fled from the German army at the start of the war, effectively obstructing any strategic movements of the Allied armies (S43).

Benz’s and Sanning’s figures regarding the number of Jews remaining after the war are not very different from each other. It should be added, however, that according to the United Press the British and American investigative committee for the European Jewish problem declared, at a press conference in February 1946, that there were still an estimated 800,000 Jews in post-war Poland, all of whom wished to emigrate.[53]

3.9.3. The Destruction of the Polish Jews

Whereas Sanning does not touch on the methodology of the alleged mass murder, Benz makes several observations on this topic, of which we shall quote some aspects, with comments where necessary.

First, Benz expounds repeatedly on the alleged exhaust gas murders in vans, which of course he considers irrefutably proven (Kalisz, B431, Chelmno, B447, 462, cf. Yugoslavia, B320). The reader is referred to the chapter by I. Weckert in the present volume.

Regarding the methods of killing in other camps, he reports the use of bottled Zyklon B gas in Belzec (B462). But Zyklon B gas, i.e., hydrogen cyanide, is not and never was bottled. For industrial purposes hydrogen cyanide is transported in tanker trucks, but it is never bottled. Further, he recounts the use of Diesel engines for mass gassings (Belzec, B462, Treblinka, B463, cf. USSR, B540). Regarding gassing with Diesel exhaust fumes, cf. the chapter by F. P. Berg, and regarding Treblinka, cf. the study by A. Neumaier, both in this volume. Any further commentary would be superfluous at this point.

A noteworthy admission on Benz’s part is the following:

"Considering the fact that there are very few usable sources of documentation about the extermination camps, the number of Jews killed at these murder sites is especially difficult to ascertain, and depends primarily on estimates provided by witnesses, on the analysis of the regular transports and their numeric strengths, and on the population of those areas from which the respective killing centers were ‘supplied’ [….]" (B463f.)

The unreliable nature of witness testimony is demonstrated repeatedly in the present volume. Furthermore, straight calculations based exclusively on pre- and post-war populations are possible only if no uncontrolled emigration took place and if the initial statistics are sure to be correct. It is quite amazing that Benz nevertheless has the gall to use this method.

Benz finally concedes that the availability of source material leaves a great deal to be desired, not only where the alleged extermination camps are concerned but also with respect to the entire organization of the alleged extermination network structure (B463, footnote), and that there is no written, i.e., documented and thus provable order for the destruction of the Jews (B3; 458f.; 512).


3.10. Soviet Union

3.10.1. The Soviet Deportations

Sanning’s category "German Theater of War" in the above table includes Jewish losses suffered in the area under German military influence as the results of pogroms not carried out or initiated by German troops, of starvation and epidemics, as well as of the execution of partisans (permitted by international law) of which Jews are known to have comprised a very great percentage. This category, as well as "Casualties of deportation" and "Killed in combat" in the Red Army, are rather willfully dismissed by Benz:

"It [the number of victims] also includes the casualties among Jewish soldiers and civilians [partisans] as well as those who succumbed to the strain of flight and to starvation. This is justified. They too were victims of brutal National Socialist policies." (B560)

Benz neither quantifies these categories, nor does he give reasons for this catch-all approach, for these are the closing words of his book. However, there certainly are clues to be found regarding the attitude embraced by the book’s collective authorial mind.

For example, Benz speaks of the "attack on the Soviet Union" (B499), and asserts that Stalin had done everything he could to "give Hitler no pretext for anti-Soviet measures, least of all for war" (B507). Further, he believes that the Soviet Union had practiced a "policy of appeasement" (B508). Today it is generally acknowledged even in Russia that the fairy-tale of Germany’s attack on the peace-loving Soviet Union really belongs in the junk room of Communist war-time propaganda.[54] In this respect, the losses resulting from the war are not due exclusively to Germany, and they certainly have no relevance whatsoever to any aspect of the Holocaust.

Benz suggests that there are no systematic accounts of the extent and scope of Soviet evacuations and deportations of material resources and human beings. He dismisses this very important aspect in merely two paragraphs, with the comment that Stalin did not wish to provoke Hitler with evacuation activities (no, it’s not a joke - he really does claim this!) and that there were therefore hardly any noteworthy deportations (B507). Sanning, on the other hand, devotes pages 53-109 exclusively to this issue and draws on a wide range of Allied, Jewish and Soviet statistics to offer sound data regarding the scope of Soviet evacuation and deportation measures at the start of the war. And with that, Benz’s claim that there are no systematic accounts of this topic is already disproved. Did Benz and his co-authors not even read Sanning’s book after all? But clearly they must have, for Benz does not deem Sanning’s explanations in general to be a systematic account:

"[…] The author [Sanning] distinguishes himself through his methodologically unsound handling of the statistical material as well as through daring and demonstrably erroneous reasoning and conclusions." (B558, footnote 396.)

Unfortunately, Benz does not enlighten his readers as to what might be erroneous about Sanning’s arguments. While Benz assumes that approximately 3 to 3.2 million Soviet Jews came under the sphere of influence of German troops (B509), Sanning again shows, on the basis of unimpeachable sources, that the number must have been less than one million (S103). He documents the fact that in most Russian cities a large part of the population that was fit to work, and especially the intelligentsia, had already been evacuated by the time German troops moved in. It is beyond the scope of the present work to detail Sanning’s plethora of documentation and proof at this point, but one of his arguments shall be discussed in greater detail. It is generally accepted that some 600,000 Jews wore the Red Army uniform. If one considers that many Jews were deported to labor camps beyond the Ural Mountains, and that the normal recruiting level did not exceed 30% of the male population in any of the nations involved in World War Two (all of which has been documented), then according to Sanning at least 4 million Jews must have lived in the non-occupied parts of the Soviet Union.

Now it may well be that these 600,000 Jews were already conscripted before the war, since as we know the USSR was planning her own large-scale attack on Europe,[54] and for that the Soviets had deported most of the male population fit for military service during the German advance. This would mean for Benz that only few men of an age for military service would have been left to fall into the hands of the Germans, so that in the occupied regions more than 90% of the female Jews would have been exterminated while the conscripted and deported men in the hinterland and in the army would have had a considerably better chance for survival. According to Benz, the mortality rate among the women would thus have been greater than or at least equal to that among the men. From this it follows that a demographic analysis of the Soviet Union today should reveal greater or equal numbers of men in the age group that was of military age at the time in question. However, this is clearly not the case. Rather, the sex distribution corresponds to that of the other Soviet peoples, in other words, there is a similar deficit of men. This means either that men and women were deported in roughly equal numbers and consequently relatively few Soviet Jews actually fell into German hands, or that Jewish women who fell into German hands were generally not killed.

Regarding the number of Jews to be found in the post-war Soviet Union, Benz cites Soviet census data only. He sets out that "doubts about the reliability of Soviet censuses […] are not justified" because these data served as the basis and foundation of the Soviet national economy (B558).

But every child knows nowadays that all conceivable kinds of data have been falsified in the service of precisely this national economy so as to manifest Soviet superiority in economic competition with the capitalist western world. Domestically speaking, these falsifications served to close Russian eyes, ears and mouths to the inexorably approaching collapse. But where the number of Jews identified by the censuses is concerned, there is not even any need for falsification. After all, the radically atheistic Soviet Union was one of those nations that made it especially difficult for the Jews to profess their faith. Therefore, the numbers of Jews that voluntarily acknowledged their faith in 1959 and 1970 (2.2 and 2.1 million, respectively; B559; S117) says nothing at all about the number of survivors in the Soviet Union. Jewish estimates dating from the 1970s suggest 3 to 4 million Soviet Jews (S117ff.). More recent newspaper reports even speak of 5 million Jews and more, which, however, seems unlikely in light of the stagnating demographic trends.[55] Since Zionist circles are striving for the emigration of Jews from Russia to Israel after the collapse of the Soviet Union, it is possible that they tend to exaggerate the number of Jews in Russia, with the intent to dramatize their hard lot during 70 years of Stalinist oppression. The numbers of presumably present or missing Jews thus serve as politically strategic putty in other respects as well.

[...]

4.4. Corrections for Wolfgang Benz

If one deducts the approximately 1 million unregistered emigrants from the 5.3 to 6 million victims that Benz claims he found, this leaves him with 4.3 to 5 million victims. From this, one must further deduct the difference between the Soviet Jews who appeared in Soviet statistics and the real number (some 1.5 million), the number of Jews who died in the Soviet Union from other causes (deportation, war, partisan warfare, at least 500,000), the number of statistically fabricated additional Polish Jews (some 700,000) as well as the number of Hungarian Jews who probably did not succumb in their entirety (300,000), in other words, a total of roughly 4 million. This would leave Benz with a remainder of at most 1.3 to 2 million unsolved cases.
http://www.germarrudolf.com/work/dth/fndstats.html
(Emphasises mine.)


Soviet Union's Jewish population after the war: (About 5,3 - 5,5 million before the war)
- 3 - 4 million Jews alive at the beginning of 1970's.
Source: Encyclopaedia Judaica, Vol. 9, p. 542
- 4,5 million Jews alive said professor Michael Zand who is teaching at the Hebrew University, according to a report by Beth Shalom, an Israeli Newspaper.
Source: Kern, Erich. Die Tragödie der Juden, Preussisch Oldendorff, 1979, p. 260.
- 4 million [up to 4,000,000] Jews alive: "... [American Jewish Year Book] admitted that well-informed Russian Jews in the USSR and Soviet Emigrants continue assert that there are up to 4,000,000 Jews still alive in the Soviet Union." (Quote from The Dissolution, p. 117)
Source: American Jewish Year Book, 1977, Vol. 78, p. 432.
- 4 million [up to 4,000,000] Jews alive
Source: New York Times, 1/22/1975, quoted in American Jewish Year Book, 1976, Vol. 77, p. 460.

Sources found in Walter Sanning in his book The Dissolution Of Eastern European Jewry, p. 117-124. Sanning came to the conclusion that Soviet Union's Jewish population after the war at 1970 was about 3,5 - 4 million. Sanning concluded, after his calculations, that after WW2 the Jewish population must have been about 4,3 million, at most.


How many Jews were at the German occupied areas?

Walter Sanning in his book The Dissolution calculated that 3,5 million Jews came under the German occupied areas.

Sanning's calculations are supported by the representative of the World Jewish Congress:
The wartime representative of the World Jewish Congress in Switzerland, Gerhard Riegner, confidentially reported to London and Washington in August 1942 that the total number of Jews in the countries occupied or controlled by Germany was three and a half to four million. [See note] This figure presumably referred to Jews in the "Greater" German Reich (including Poland), as well as in France, Holland, Belgium, Slovakia, and the occupied Soviet territories. If one adds the approximately 1.2 million Jews estimated to be living in Hungary and Romania, the total number of Jews that came under direct or indirect German control during the war years could not have been more than 5.2 million.
(Note/Source: Walter Laqueur, The Terrible Secret (Boston: Little Brown, 1980; New York: Henry Holt, 1998), p. 77.)
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n5p25_Weber.html
Riegner also speaks of 3,5 – 4 million Jews in Euorope during the Second World War at a documentary Hitler's Holocaust - 4 of 6 - Death Factory [runtime 16:50-17:20 min]. "[...] 3,5 or 4 million Jews are to be killed [...]"

So there was no six million.


How Many Jews Alive - Have Six Million Really Died?
Lets return to wikipedia:

Total population

According to the World Jewish Population Survey of 2002[1], "The size of world Jewry at the beginning of 2002 is assessed at 13,296,100." According to a 2002 study by the Jewish Agency[2], "There are 12.9 million Jews in the world..."

Estimates for 2006 usually place the world population of Jews around 14 million. Adherents.com cites sources stating that there are 14 million Jews in the world in 1970, 1977, 1983, 1992, 1995, and 1998. Additional sources cite the population at numbers ranging from 12.8 million to 18.2 million.[3]


Largest Jewish populations by country

This table represents data from 2002.Top 50 countries by Jewish populationRank Country Jews % Jewish % of all Jews
1 United States 5,914,682 2% 40.5%
2 Israel 5,640,506 80% 34.4%
3 Russia 717,101 0.5% 4.91%
4 France 606,561 1% 4.16%
5 Canada 393,660 1.2% 2.70%
6 United Kingdom 288,000 0.45% 2.00%
7 Germany 220,000 0.21% 1.375%
8 Argentina 195,000 0.52% 1.32%
9 Ukraine 142,276 0.3% 0.975%
10 Australia 120,000 0.55% 0.619%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population

As I pointed out earlier the Russian Jewish population was 3-4 million in the beginning of 1970s. So wikipedia's Russia's Jewish population is too low. The real number would propably be at least one million more (1,7 million). Also the world population seems to be a bit too low.

I myself would believe the current World Almanac figures (2007), which estimated the Jewish population at about 15 million. Assuming that the Jewish population was about 16 million before the war, then it would make sense to me that the current Jewish world population would be about 15 million. The demographic research which I have read, indicates that about 1 - 1,5 million Jews died during the war. However, I dont know. Nobody knows. Everyone just guesses. Figures range from 12 to 18 million, so nobody can seriously claim that 6 million have died. So the fact is that there is no certainty that 6 million have died. Figures do not prove it, rather they are in contradiction. Therefore they are not the definitive evidence about anything. Walter Sanning's research also completely demolishes the myth about "historians having concluded that six million died". Historians have not proven any such thing. Also the argument: "Oh well maybe 1 million didnt die at Auschwitz, but because six million died (the figures) they must have died somewhere else" is demolished.

So now the definitive evidence will be the physical evidence (concentration camps, aerial photographs, mass graves, wartime documents and forensic investigations). Soon I will evaluate the worth of the eyewitness claims also.

Quote:Welcome Konev to CC and thanks for doing the Radio ConCen with me

Hello, and thanks for having me. I'm now documenting my claims here. As you can see it would have taken about a 5 hours long show for me to have manage to say EVERYTHING. :shocked:
But luckily I can do it here. By the way, it would be good if you could put a link of this discussion to the audio file torrent. People could get more out of that audio.

Introduction about me

Yes I'm the same guy who was being interviewed by Ognir at August 19th 2007 "Konev the Finnish Holocaust Researcher".

If it interests someone, I became fascinated of the holocaust about a year ago and watched all these holocaust documentaries, especially David Cole's videos, and started looking at these things in more detail.

I've read about 5 books: The Rudolf Report, 2003; The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry, 1983; The Leuchter Reports Critical Edition, 2005; Lectures on the Holocaust, 2005 (the best); Dissecting the Holocaust, 2003. I've also read some chapters of Auschwitz Lies, 2005; The Hoax of The Twentieth Century, 1976, Giant with the Feet of Clay, 2001 and also many articles at http://www.ihr.org and at http://www.vho.org. In addition I have also read some criticism from http://www.nizkor.org and http://www.holocaust-history.org, AND I have also read the revisionists' responses to them eons ago (something which holocaust believers NEVER do).

I also went to Auschwitz recently for 4 days (a free trip, 9.-12.8.2007). I had a cheap hotel at the town of Oswiecim (=Auschwitz) and I spent every day at the Auschwitz camp and at the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp looking at the place. I also took few hundred photos.

So its a byline throughout history.

But Jewish ghetto villages did exist and some other than non Jews filled up the camps.

OK, we did not check the DNA on every dead person but if some one wanted to
call it persecution for no reason they sure could.

The Holocaust perhaps is central to the ancient Jewish practice of animal sacrifice.
Ever think of that. The ultimate animal sacrifice being Jesus.
It was a set up perhaps but it happened.

Perhaps its a way of explaining things to those of Jewish faith and others have no
business misinterpreting their language of faith.

To them it makes sense, to us its boasting or fakery.


Ed: I vote less than a million but I am not in to this research.. its only a matter of faith
that it is called a Holocaust is my spin.

3) Red Cross, Intelligence agencies and Allied Leaders

I'm going to refer many times to a book called Lectures on the Holocaust. In my opinion it is the best holocaust book there is (a revisionist book). It is an easy to read - made with an interesting conversational style; the author makes claims, audience asks questions and then the author substantiates his claims in more detail - it is also very well documented. If you are thinking of buying a book: buy this one. (There's also about 1,300 footnotes to further reading.)


Atrocity propaganda during the First World War

It is an admitted fact that the follwing claims were simply atrocity propaganda during the First World War:
- Germans made soap* from the bodies of the Allied (Entente) soldiers
- Germans had corpse factories in which they made war materials out of Allied soldiers
- Germans crucified Canadian soldiers
- Germans mutilated Belgian babies
(Reference to allied atrocity propaganda during WWI; cf. Arthur Ponsonby, Falsehood in war-time
http://vho.org/tr/2002/4/tr13propaganda.html
http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/1/Grubach104-109.html)
(* Later more about the soap.)


Red Cross

Germany invited Red Cross to inspect the German concentrations. Red Cross visited the concentration camps, including Auschwitz, during the Secon World War. Auschwitz was visited on September 1944 by ICRC delegates, who were able to interview British POWs. According to Red Cross the extermination claims could not be verified.
Source: [Note 10]. A. Butz, Hoax (cited above), pp. 110f. ICRC, Documents sur l'activité du CICR en faveur des civils détenus dans les camps de concentration en Allemagne (1939-1945), (Geneva: 1947), pp. 91f. The propaganda claims of exterminations at Auschwitz had by then (September 29) received wide circulation, but the ICRC reported that the British POWs were unable to get confirmation of such rumors from other inmates. When they were interrogated by the Soviets in 1945 they still "knew nothing at all" of exterminations.)
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n4p19_Butz.html
http://www.vho.org/aaargh/franvres/PRwahr.pdf (p. 246)
Lectures on the Holocaust, p. 476: http://vho.org/GB/Books/loth/
Tijudar Rudolph, a former German Security Service member, fluent in five languages including Yiddish and Polish, Rudolph was involved with organizing Red Cross inspection tours of Auschwitz and other camps during the war. He wrote numerous Revisionist articles. He accompanied Fred Leuchter as translator to Auschwitz and Maidanek in 1988. He was charged and convicted for publishing a newsletter disputing the "Six Million" story. He was a Zündel witness in the 1985 and 1988 Great Holocaust Trials, testifying among other things, having organised Red Cross inspection tours.
http://www.revisionists.com/revisionists/rudolph.html
http://www.ihr.org/books/kulaszka/22rudolph.html

Does it make any sense to anyone that Germany would invite the Red Cross to come and visit the extermination camps during exterminations? Unless of course...

Red Cross estimated that ~300,000 Jews died in the German concentration camps during World War 2, of all causes:



These Red Cross estimates also support Walter Sanning's calculations, which I cited earlier.


How about the intelligence agencies?

R: The Vatican, with the whole Catholic Church in Poland part of the opposition,
surely had the best of all intelligence services, and the Jewish organizations operating
internationally made a practice of a constant exchange of information
with the local Jewish groups in the German occupied territories. The Allies finally
cracked all German radio codes during the war and had hundreds of thousands
of underground fighters upon whom they could rely. For that reason it
must be taken as given that all these organizations knew in detail all that was
going on. If they did not take seriously the atrocity reports reaching them, then
probably this was so because they knew what quality of information they were
dealing with. In regard to this, the British Chairman of the Allied “Joint Intelligence
Committee,” Victor Cavendish-Bentinck, made the following comment
in 1943:[139]
“I feel certain that we are making a mistake in publicly giving credence to
this gas chambers story. […] As regards putting Poles to death in gas
chambers, I do not believe that there is any evidence that this has been
done.”
(http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/Cave...tinck.html
[139] Public Record Office, London, FO 371/34551, Aug. 27, 1943)
Lectures on the Holocaust, p. 83: http://vho.org/GB/Books/loth/)

More concerning this:
27th August, 1943

In my opinion it is incorrect to describe Polish Information regarding German atrocities as "trustworthy". The Poles, and to a far greater extent the Jews, tend to exaggerate German atrocities in order to stoke us up. They seem to have succeeded.

Mr. Allen and myself have both followed German atrocities quite closely. I do not believe that there is any evidencewhich would be accepted in a Law Court that Polish children have been killed on the spot by Germans when their parents were being deported to work in Germany, nor that Polish children have been sold to German settlers.As regards putting Poles to death in gas chambers, I do not believe that there is any evidence that this has been done. There have been many stories to this effect, and we have played them up in P.W.E. rumours without believing that they had any foundation. At any rate there is far less evidence than exists for the mass murder of Polish officers by the Russians at Katyn. On the other hand we do know that the Germans are out to destroy Jews of any age unless they are fit for manual labour.

I think that we weaken our case against the Germans by publicly giving credence to atrocity stories for which we have no evidence. These mass executions in gas chambers remind me of the story of employment of human corpses during the last war for the manufacture of fat, which was a grotesque lie and led to the true stories of German enormities being brushed aside as being mere propaganda.

[...]

[Telegram from London Dominions Office to Empire prime ministers, August 28, 1943, 2:30 p.m.]

FROM: D.O.

TO: CANADA (GOVT)

AUSTRALIA (GOVT)

NEW ZEALAND (GOVT)

SOUTH AFRICA (GOVT)



(sent 2.30 p.m. 28th August 1943)

D. No. 605 SECRET

Following for Prime Minister. Begins.

My telegram D No. 596 of 27th August. Declaration regarding German atrocities in Poland.

On further reflection we are not convinced that evidence regarding use of gas chambers is substantial enough to justify inclusion in a public declaration of concluding phrase of paragraph 2 of draft contained in my telegram D.No. 597 of 27th August and we are therefore suggesting to United States Government that sentence in question should end at "concentration camps". Ends.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/Cave...tinck.html
(Public Record Office, London, FO 371/34551, Aug. 27, 1943)


R: The Dutch cultural mainstream historian Robert J.
van Pelt (pro holocaust expert; 'exterminationist') argues precisely this, and therefore concludes:[140]
“The long-term effect of stories that told [during WWI…] of human bodies
used as raw material for the production of soap was that few were prepared
to be fooled once again by such a fabrication. […] There is no historical justification
for judging and dismissing the accounts of German atrocities during
the Second World War within the context of the atrocity propaganda of
the First World War: the attitude of the public of 1939-1945 was radically
different from that of twenty-five years earlier, and it is clear that any attempt
to generate the kind of propaganda symbolized by the notorious [WWI stories about corpse exploitation establishment] would have merely generated mockery [during WWII].”
[140] Robert Jan van Pelt, The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial, Indiana University Press,
2002, pp. 131, 134.
(Lectures, p. 83-84)


R: In other words, van Pelt says that during World War II the Allied authorities
would not have invented similar stories as were invented by them during WWI,
because nobody would have believed them anyway. If such stories circulated
during WWII nevertheless, it must have been because they were true.
The problem with that assumption is that during the Second World War there
were dozens of reports similar to the World War I stories that the National Socialists
were making use of camp inmates as a source for raw materials of every
possible sort: hair for felt boots and mattress stuffing, fat for soap, skin for
leather, ashes for fertilizer.[141] Nobody ever laughed about them or mocked the
Allies for these stories. These claims were even part of the Allied charges in
various war crime trials after the war. People who dared to laugh publicly about
these claims at that time got into trouble, and even today I cannot advise doing
so.
[141] Cf. Paul Grubach, “World War I Atrocity Propaganda and the Holocaust,” TR 1(1) (2003), pp. 104-109.
http://vho.org/tr/2002/4/tr13propaganda.html
http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/1/Grubach104-109.html
(Lectures, p. 84)

L: So van Pelt’s argument isn’t tenable.
R: Absolutely untenable, at least with regard to what the Allied intelligence services
and governments wanted the world to believe. The citation of Cavendish-
Bentinck mentioned above proves only that the very parties, which had invented
the lies in the First World War, were skeptical during the Second World
War. After the Second World War, the public itself, on the other hand, swallowed
still much more uncritically what had even struck it as fishy after the
First World War. As for the lie about soap of the Second World War, which
was only officially exploded 40 years after the war’s end, it is still kept alive in
popular accounts to this day (see chapter 2.9). The reason for this is again
found in the files of the British government liars. Thus, the British propaganda
ministry circulated a memo to the Church of England and the BBC on February
29, 1944, which stated:[142]
“We know how the Red Army behaved in Poland in 1920 and in Finland, Estonia,
Latvia, Galicia and Bessarabia only recently.
We must, therefore, take into account how the Red Army will certainly behave
when it overruns Central Europe. […]
Experience has shown that the best distraction is atrocity propaganda directed
against the enemy. Unfortunately the public is no longer so susceptible
as in the days of the ‘Corpse Factory,’ and the ‘Mutilated Belgian Babies,’
and the ‘Crucified Canadians.’[143]
Your cooperation is therefore earnestly sought to distract public attention
from the doings of the Red Army by your wholehearted support of various
charges against the Germans and Japanese which have been and will be put
into circulation by the Ministry.”
[142] Edward J. Rozek, Allied Wartime Diplomacy, John Wiley & Sons, New York 1958, pp. 209f.
[143] Reference to allied atrocity propaganda during WWI; cf. Arthur Ponsonby, Falsehood in war-time, Garland, New York 1971.
(Lectures, p. 84)

So it seems that not everyone believed these things, and that some people were using these claims as "a distraction directed against the enemy". That's interesting.


What did Eisenhower, Churchill and de Gaulle say about the Six Million?

Three of the best known works on the Second World War are General Eisenhower's Crusade in Europe (New York: Doubleday [Country Life Press], 1948), Winston Churchill's The Second World War (London: Cassell, 6 vols., 1948-1954), and the Mémoires de guerre of General de Gaulle (Paris: Plon, 3 vols., 1954-1959). In these three works not the least mention of Nazi gas chambers is to be found.

Eisenhower's Crusade in Europe is a book of 559 pages; the six volumes of Churchill's Second World War total 4,448 pages; and de Gaulle's three-volume Mémoires de guerre is 2,054 pages. In this mass of writing, which altogether totals 7,061 pages (not including the introductory parts), published from 1948 to 1959, one will find no mention either of Nazi "gas chambers," a "genocide" of the Jews, or of "six million" Jewish victims of the war.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n2p19_Faurisson.html

Ok, so they just forgot to mention the Six Million exterminated Chosen People? Or, maybe...

4) Defining The Evidence

Defining the evidence is, in my opinion, explained very clearly in the following. I couldnt put this any better which is the reason for me quoting it straight from Lectures on the Holocaust, p. 189-193:

3.1. Defining Evidence
R: Now let’s forget about the Holocaust and its controversies for a little while and
talk about evidence in general, so that we can better evaluate it.
L: How do you define “evidence?” I mean, when does an allegation become evidence?
R: Basically, evidence has to satisfy two main kinds of criteria, logical and formal.
Let’s take logical first. Evidentiary allegations must not be based on circular
reasoning such as “A is true because B is true and B is true because A is true.”
Circular reasoning is quite tricky because it often passes through several intermediate
steps before it closes the circle. Sometimes it branches off as well,
making it even more difficult to identify. Next, an allegation must be principally
open to attempts of refutation. Thus evidentiary allegations such as “A is
true because or although it cannot be proven” are inadmissible.
L: Surely no one would claim that.
R: Oh, but they do! It is often claimed that the absence of evidence does not refute
an allegation, but rather proves that the evidence has been destroyed. I gave an
example of this in the Second Lecture (see p. 175). Such an allegation is logically
irrefutable and is inadmissible for that reason. Or take the argument that
evidence for an event was not just lost, but could never have existed. According
to this reasoning, if someone asserts that there is indeed evidence, it proves
that such evidence was wrongly interpreted or even falsified. Again this is legally
inadmissible, because the argument that an event leaves no traces is logically
irrefutable.
L: Could you give us an example of this?
R: Of course. We hear such pseudo-arguments over and over again in this dispute.
We are told that the National Socialists would never have left behind documents
referring to mass murder, since they did not want to incriminate themselves.
Then, when such a document does turn up, there is the immediate suspicion
that it is falsified.
L: But that might be right, because we cannot expect that mass murderers would
deliberately leave proof of their crimes.
R: Your point is basically correct. It is the same idea expressed by Mayer and
other Holocaust experts: Either the National Socialists left no evidence, or else
they saw to it that the evidence was destroyed. But even if such argumentation
is credible, it is still no substitute for the absence of evidence of a crime or any
other event. Because, if absence of evidence is admitted in place of evidence of
a crime, then everyone can be charged with any crime. If we admit logic like
that, absolutely everything can be “proven” in court or in science.
Finally, from the logical standpoint, it is just as inadmissible to maintain that
evidence supports the exact opposite of what it suggests.
L: What do you mean by that?
R: Well, if I have a document that says “We are going to bring Person A to place
B and make him work there,” this does not justify the claim that Person A was
murdered.
L: But that is just obvious.
R: That is what one would expect, but unfortunately it is not the case. According
to the established historiography, if a National Socialist document states that
“The Jews from place X are to be transported to the east for forced labor,” this
is proof that they are to be murdered, not transported as laborers. We are told
that the document means something different than what it says; that the expressions
used are code words which have to be “interpreted.”
L: But we know that so and so many Jews were deported and that from there on
all traces of most of them are lost.
R: That may be so, but lack of evidence of someone’s whereabouts does not prove
that they were murdered in a certain way at a certain time in a certain place. We
discussed the problems of locating survivors in the first lecture, to which I refer.
L: But there is indeed evidence for the use of code words.
R: When there is such evidence, then these interpretations may be admissible. But
the practice of interpretation cannot be generalized, or else everything can be
reinterpreted at will. I will deal with this complex of false logic later in more
detail.
For now, let’s move on to the formal criteria for evidence. These criteria demand
that evidence be capable of physical examination. For example, they require
that we must be able to locate a source, which is quoted as prove for a
claim. In the case of scientific experiments, it means that they must be repeatable
or reproducible by third parties. This is why it is so important to give the
exact circumstances of an experiment. Where calculations or other forms of
logical argumentation are concerned, they must correspond to certain laws and
rules and be repeatable by others, bearing in mind that every professional discipline
has its own rules. Furthermore, evidence should be supported and corroborated
by similar evidence. This is known as “evidentiary context.”

3.2. Types and Hierarchy of Evidence
R: Now I would like to pose a question to the whole room: what do you consider
the most convincing evidence of the Holocaust?
L: I was most convinced by heartrending testimony given by an Auschwitz survivor,
who once gave a lecture about his experiences in my home town.
L: For me, the confessions of former SS criminals were more convincing – we
cannot accuse them of wanting to exaggerate what happened.
L: What made the strongest impression on me, was the sight of mountains of dead
bodies discovered and filmed in the concentration camps at war’s end.
L: For me, visiting the gas chamber at Auschwitz was the most convincing thing.
R: Good. Now, let’s proceed systematically with our discussion. The first two
types of evidence you mentioned belong to the category of party witnesses.
L: And what is a “party witness?”
R: A party witness is someone who has personally participated in an event under
discussion and is therefore not an impartial observer. In a civil court case, it
would be either a member of the litigating or of the litigated party, or when
talking about criminal cases, that would be the alleged victims and alleged perpetrator.
The third type of evidence is documentary evidence, and the fourth is
actual observation of a material item of evidence.
To review, the various types of evidence are as follows:
1. Party testimony
2. Witness testimony
3. Documentary evidence
4. Observation
5. Material evidence, if necessary interpreted by an expert
L: And what is “material evidence?”
R: That is a tangible, concrete trace of an event, which in most cases must still be
interpreted through expert knowledge.
Let me give an example: A person is accused of having run a red light at a
specific time and struck a pedestrian, but maintains that he was sitting in an
airplane at the time of the event. The court is presented with the following evidence:
1. The assertion of the defendant concerning his airplane flight (party testimony.)
2. The testimony of a pedestrian who claims that he was struck by the defendant
(party testimony.)
3. The testimony of an airplane passenger who was unacquainted with the defendant,
who stated that he had seen the defendant in the airplane (witness
testimony.)
4. The testimony of an uninvolved automobile driver who stated that, from a
side street, he had seen the automobile of the defendant run a red light while
the defendant was sitting behind the steering wheel (witness testimony.)
5. The passenger list of the corresponding airplane containing the name of the
defendant (documentary evidence.)
6. A photograph of the subject intersection made by a surveillance camera,
showing the automobile of the defendant (documentary evidence.)
7. The report of an examination of an airplane pillow from the seat in which the
defendant claimed he had been sitting during his flight. The pillow contained
traces of the passenger’s hair and skin which under analysis provided the
DNA “fingerprint” of the defendant (material evidence, analyzed and interpreted
by an expert.)
Now, what would your verdict be if you were the judge?
L: All the pieces of evidence contradict one another.
R: But that is the daily routine for judges, sometimes historians and researchers as
well. How are we going to proceed?
L: We have to rank the evidence according to its persuasiveness.
R: More precisely, the court follows the same principle as science. If there is a
conflict, the evidence with a higher ranking refutes or supersedes that with a
lower ranking. Conversely, evidence of higher persuasiveness cannot be refuted
by evidence of lower persuasiveness. In the above listing, I gave the types of
evidence according to the generally accepted rankings of credibility.[416]
L: According to that, testimony by a member of a party has the lowest credibility
value on the scale.
R: That’s right, because people who are involved in an event or have been involved
in the past, are most likely to have a distorted view, whether deliberately
or inadvertently; or even to lie.
The testimony of a party witnesses is inferior to that of witnesses who were not
directly involved in the event and are therefore less engaged emotionally. With
that I mean the proverbial impartial bystander. Next in the hierarchy are documents
that were produced during the event and thus have preserved aspects of
the case in the form of data. Here, documents in which humans are the minor
factor are superior to documents directly created by people. Thus, depictions
made by automated devices are more convincing than those created by bureaucrats.
All these types of evidence can be overridden by material evidence properly
interpreted by expert witnesses, however. In the above example, expert determination
that hair and skin cells of the defendant were found on the seat of the
airplane, would lead to his exoneration.
L: But what about the witness statements and the photo taken by the surveillance
camera?
R: There are always explanations for false testimony, whether it is made deliberately
or inadvertently. Documents can be erroneously interpreted because
someone other than the owner may have been sitting in the car; or it can be
simply inaccurate, as for example if the camera clock malfunctioned and
printed the wrong time or date; or a filthy rich relative of the litigating person
might have paid to have the photo falsified. There is no limit to the capacity of
witnesses to falsify evidence. The fact is that the defendant was sitting in the
airplane at the time of the accident.
L: But maybe he had been sitting there at a different time.
R: That could be true, but it would be the job of the expert witness to determine it.
L: And what if the guy who was struck by the car hired another expert who gave
conflicting testimony?
R: In that case, it would be a contest over interpretation of material evidence. At
any rate, material evidence cannot be refuted by witness testimonies or documents,
and certainly not by the testimony of parties to the suit.[417]
L: But ultimately, expert witnesses interpreting such material evidence are still
just witnesses, even if they are experts in their field.
R: Of course. It can be argued that ultimately all evidence is subject to human
interpretation. But there are objective differences between the credibility of
normal witnesses and that of an impartial expert witness – provided he is really
impartial. The difference is so great that witness testimony is sometimes treated
as circumstantial evidence in courts of law on account of its unreliability – that
is, not even treated as direct evidence.[418]
In the next lecture we will consider party witnesses and impartial witnesses in
detail. In this lecture we are concerned primarily with the essential, higher
ranking kinds of evidence: material evidence and documentary evidence.
L: Fine, but where is the link to revisionism and the Holocaust?
R: Holocaust revisionism respects this hierarchy of evidence and focuses on the
discovery and proper interpretation of material and documentary evidence contemporary
to the time in question. That is something that cannot be claimed by
mainstream historiography, where material evidence interpreted by experts did
not play any role until the late 1980s, and where documentary evidence is only
used out of context to support witness claims. It was only the permanent pressure
of revisionist research results that finally forced mainstream Holocaust
scholars to pay attention to this hierarchy of evidence, even though they still do
not respect it.
[416] Cf. E. Schneider, Beweis und Beweiswürdigung, 4th ed., F. Vahlen. Munich 1987, pp. 188, 304; even
though this is German expert literature, these standards are fairly universal.
[417] Cf. for this the already quoted statements of the court expert witness Walter Lüftl, p. 186 of this book.
[418] R. Bender, S. Röder, A. Nack, Tatsachenfeststellung vor Gericht, 2 vols., Beck, Munich 1981, vol. 1, p.
173.
(End of quote from Lectures on the Holocaust, p. 189-193.)


The obvious point I'm making is that material evidence always has a higher value, than eyewitness testimony. Next we will analyse the value of the eyewitness testimonies concerning the Holocaust.

5) The Value of the Eyewitness Testimonies Concerning the National Socialist Atrocities


The Value of Eyewitness Evidence in General
In academia as well as in the justice system of a state under the rule of law, there is a hierarchy of
evidence reflecting the evidential value. In this hierarchy, material and documentary evidence is always
superior to eyewitness testimony.[4] Thus, academia as well as the justice system regard eyewitness
testimony as the least reliable form of evidence, since human memory is imperfect and easily manipulated.[5] According to Rolf Bender, a German expert on the evaluation of evidence, its unreliable
nature renders eyewitness testimony merely circumstantial evidence, in other words, not direct evidence.[6]
What standards must be met for eyewitness testimony to be usable in court?[7]
1. The witness must be credible.
While making no claims to completeness, the following lists a few criteria for determining credibility:
a) Emotional involvement. If witnesses are emotionally too involved in the cases under investigation,
this may distort the testimony in one direction or the other, without this necessarily being a
conscious process.
B)Veracity. If it turns out that a witness is not overly concerned about truthfulness, this casts doubts
upon his further credibility.
c) Testimony under coercion. The frankness of testimony may be limited if a witness is subjected to
direct or indirect pressure that makes him deem it advisable to configure his testimony accordingly.
d) Third-party influence. A person’s memory is easy to manipulate. Events reported by acquaintances
or in the media can easily become assimilated as ‘personal experience’. Thus, if a witness has
been exposed intensively to one-sided accounts of the trial substance prior to testifying, this can
very well affect his testimony to reflect these impressions.
e) Temporal distance from the events to be attested to. It is generally known that the reliability of
eyewitness testimony diminishes greatly after only a few days, and after several months has been
so severely influenced and altered by the replacement of forgotten details with subsequent impressions
that it retains hardly any value as evidence.[8]
2. Testimony must be plausible.
a) Internal consistency. Testimony must be free of contradictions and in accordance with the rules
of logic.
B)Correctness of historical context. Testimony must fit into the historical context established conclusively by higher forms of evidence (documents, material evidence).
c) Technical and scientific reality. Testimony must report such matters as can be reconciled with
the laws of nature and with what was technically possible at the time in question.
[4] Cf. E. Schneider, Beweis und Beweiswürdigung, 4th ed., F. Vahlen, Munich 1987, pp. 188 and 304; additional forms of evidence are "Augenscheinnahme" [visual assessment of evidence by the Court], and "Parteieinvernahme" [the questioning of disputing parties, i.e., prosecution and defense], a particularly unreliable form of testimony.
[5] E.g., cf. §373, German Code of Civil Procedure.
[6] R. Bender, S. Röder, A. Nack, Tatsachenfeststellung vor Gericht, 2 vols., Beck, Munich 1981, vol 1, p.173.
[7] Cf. also the detailed accounts of E. Schneider, op. cit. (note 4), p. 200-229, and R. Bender, S. Röder, A. Nack, op. cit. (note 6), v. 1 part 1.
[8] Cf. esp. R. Bender, S. Röder, A. Nack, ibid., pp. 45ff.
(End of quote from Dissecting the Holocaust, p. 85-86:
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndvalue.html )


So these are the basic requirements for an eyewitness testimony to be taken seriously.


Now lets have an expert opinion concernig the value Holocaust eyewitnesses:

There is currently no topic of human history that is treated more emotionally and one-sidedly in public than the Holocaust. It represents the central taboo of western civilization, and to question it is the epitome of heresy, and punishable by imprisonment in many western democracies.

Given this state of affairs, the expert on the evaluation of eyewitness testimony, Professor Elisabeth Loftus (she is Jewish), pointed out in 1991 that, for many different reasons, testimony pertaining to actual (or merely alleged) National Socialist atrocities, witnessed in a particularly high stage of emotion, is less reliable than almost any other testimony. Elaborating, she observes:
a) The time elapsed since the end of World War II has contributed to an inevitable fading of recollections.
B)In trials of alleged National Socialist criminals pre-trial publicity has meant that witnesses had generally known the identity of the defendants and the crimes they were charged with already before the trial.
c) Prosecutors have asked witnesses leading questions, such as whether they could recognize the accused as the perpetrator. Witnesses have rarely been called on to identify the accused from a number of unknown people.
d) It is fairly certain that witnesses have discussed identifications among themselves, which facilitated subsequent ‘identifications’ by other witnesses.
e) Photos of defendants have been exhibited repeatedly, each additional showing of the pictures making witnesses more familiar with the face of the accused, and thus increasingly certain.
f) The extremely emotional nature of these cases further increases the risk of a distortion of memory, since the accused to be identified by the witnesses were more than alleged tool of the National Socialists – they were devils incarnates: said to have tortured, maimed and mass-murdered prisoners. They were allegedly responsible for the murder of the witnesses’ mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, wives and children.[22]
Professor Loftus, herself Jewish, uses her own experience to describe how a false sense of loyalty to her heritage and her people and "race", as she puts it, prevented her from taking a stand against the obviously false testimony of her fellow Jews. It is safe to assume that this is a widespread, common reflex among Jews.[23]

However, she omits three further factors that can contribute additionally to the massive distortion of memory where the Holocaust is concerned:
g) Accounts of witnesses’ personal experiences have always – and not only during criminal trials – been widely disseminated by word of mouth, print and broadcast media, and particularly among the witnesses themselves through personal correspondence and all sorts of relief organizations.
h) Since at least the late 1970s the topic of the Holocaust has been ever-present in the mass media, and in an extremely one-sided manner, so that memories inevitably become standardized.
i) Where the Holocaust is concerned, it is not only unforgivable but at times even a criminal offense not to know, not to admit, or perhaps only to doubt, certain things. There is thus a very strong social (or even legal) pressure on witnesses in particular to recall certain ‘facts’ and to repress others.

If one considers all these factors and combines them with studies on the manipulability of human memory, such as the one recently published by Prof. Loftus in a leading scientific journal,[24] then one cannot help but conclude that there is in fact no eye witness testimony less reliable than those on the Holocaust. If in normal scientific and legal proceedings one accepts as a rule that eyewitness testimony is the least reliable kind of evidence, then insofar as the Holocaust is concerned it is necessary to observe that here the eyewitness testimony may only serve to flesh out the framework of historical events as established by documentary evidence, and perhaps to give clues to events whose occurrence has yet to be proven by documents or material evidence. But anyone who relies chiefly on eyewitness testimony and assigns it a greater value as evidence than documentary or even material evidence cannot seriously claim to adhere to the scientific method in his work.

[22] E. Loftus, K. Ketcham, Witness for the Defense, St. Martin’s Press, New York 1991, p. 224; cf. review in J. Cobden, Journal of Historical Review (JHR), 11(2) (1991) pp. 238-249 (online: http://vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/11/2/Cobden238-249.html). The author thanks R. Faurisson for the latter reference.
[23] Ibid., pp. 228f.
[24] E. Loftus, "Creating False Memories", Scientific American, September 1997, pp. 50-55, with more references to more recent expert literature; German: "Falsche Erinnerungen", Spektrum der Wissenschaft Januar 1998, pp. 62-67; see also David F. Bjorklund (ed.), False-Memory Creation in Children and Adults, Lawrence Erlbaum Ass., Mahwah, NJ, 2000.
(End of quote from Dissecting the Holocaust, p. 89-91:
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndvalue.html )

So this is the opinion of the Jewish expert on the evaluation of eyewitness testimony. She is saying that the eyewitness testimonies concerning the holocaust are very unreliable, "less reliable than almost any other testimony". I wonder would Rolf Bender, a German expert on the evaluation of evidence, want to use Holocaust eyewitnesses as direct evidence...
(Earlier brought up: "Rolf Bender, a German expert on the evaluation of evidence, its unreliable
nature renders eyewitness testimony merely circumstantial evidence, in other words, not direct evidence".)


Read the entire chapter from Dissecting the Holocaust, I'm not going to copy paste the entire book here. In it, it is documented in detail how the testimonies were obtained in courts (by manipulation, intimidation or even by torture, among other things).


Other factors affecting the reliability of human memory
On Lectures on the Holocaust on pages 345-359, there are numerous factors and documented examples, showing how incredibly easy it is to manipulate human memory. Constant rumors, lack of valid information, atrocity propaganda, oppressive interrogators, threats, unfamiliarity with certain habits and machines (such as rural Polish Jews entering a brand new Finnish sauna at Auschwitz, Zentralsauna, caused many people to fear it as a somekind of a torturemachine at first). Read there, especially the examples are enlightening.
(I'm not going to quote an entire book here.)

But one thing I will quote, which I believe you dont know, the fact that typhus actually has a mental affect; it drives people crazy.
Quote from Lectures, p. 359-360:

4.2.3. The Phantom Disease
R: In the witness reports on the events in the former German concentration camps
and alleged extermination camps, one finds testimonies in which the inmates
report how they fell ill with typhus.[901] As we already saw, in various camps of
the Third Reich typhus epidemics broke out over and over again, from which
tens of thousands of inmates – as well as many guards – died. For our purposes,
it is interesting to note how physicians having treated typhus describe the influence
of the disease upon human perception and memory. Dr. Otto Humm has
given us a vivid description of the symptoms of the disease based on typical
case histories.[902] One characteristic of the disease is that the patient, at the
height of the disease, acts like an extreme psychotic. He is in a state of delirium.
[903] Dr. Hans Kilian describes, for example, a case in his memoirs he had
seen on the eastern front during World War II. Under the heading “The Phantom
Disease” he writes, I quote a few extracts:[904]
“March 17th. Today I will be doing something unique; I will be driving to
Chilowo in order to see cases of typhus with patients accommodated in a
designated hospital. […] The general practitioner whispers to me: ‘Don’t be
frightened, Professor, the men are terribly distraught, some are lunatics!’
[…]
Three men actually move about in stupor. One taps along gesticulating,
mumbling about, going from bed to bed. He does not know what he is doing
or saying, or where he is. Another tries opening a window, apparently wanting
to leave. An orderly holds him gently, trying to persuade him to stop, but
he understands not a word. There is no reply, no reaction, the patient seems
to follow his inner urge, and like an obstinate animal he will not alter his attitude.
A third with a swollen red discolored face and reddened eyes meanders
about with threatening gestures but with an absolutely absent look to
his eyes; he staggers towards us. While shouting, he keeps coming closer
and closer. One gets the impression that he takes us for Russians. We
quickly grab his arms, try to sooth him, to turn him around, to bring him to
his bed. He screams in brute panic, thrashes about violently, and defends
himself so that two other orderlies have to help us contain that insane man.
We finally manage to lay the poor, totally disoriented chap down and to
cover him with a blanket. An orderly remains at his side. […]
I keep getting the impression that the claim that typhus is predominantly a
disease of the brain, i.e. a form of encephalitis, is correct because the most
apparent symptoms are all related to the brain’s malfunctioning. This would
explain the senseless rounds, the total disorientation of the afflicted, the erratic
speech and finally, the colossal stupefaction.”
R: Now, think of the following: A typhus epidemic broke out in Auschwitz in the
summer of 1942, killing many thousands of inmates until it was brought completely
under control by the end of 1943. Thousands of other inmates, however,
recovered from the disease while they were still interned in the camp, where
thousands of typhus victims were first buried in mass graves, since the crematory
was overloaded; where the half-decomposed bodies were dug up again and
burnt on pyres because of the danger of pollution of the extremely high water
table; where death sentences were constantly carried out against inmates after
waiting months for decisions on appeals for clemency, but who were unable to
communicate with other inmates, so that the executions must have appeared arbitrary
to other inmates;[905] where there were frequent selections of inmates who
then disappeared from the recollections of other inmates. When some of these
inmates suffered nightmare-like hallucinations due to infection by typhus, hallucinations
which they could hardly distinguish from reality, if at all, when they
recovered: what kind of “memories” would remain with these inmates when
they were released from the camp at the end of the war?
L: Do you mean to say that the witness reports of mass exterminations were hallucinations?
R: None of the factors mentioned here to explain false testimonies make any claim
to explain everything. But I believe that all the factors tending to diminish the
reliability of testimonies must be taken into account. Not all testimonies can be
explained by typhus delirium, but I believe that some of the thousands of bedridden
inmates who suffered from typhus would have had hallucinations resembling
the atrocity stories, which we hear over and over again about Auschwitz.
Finally, one cannot assume that the inmates of German concentration
camps received the medical and psychiatric care which would have been required
to prevent the long-term physical and psychiatric effects of typhus. The
above quote by Prof. Kilian makes it obvious that this epidemic had not even
been correctly understood.
At any rate, the hallucinations of sick inmates must have aggravated many
camp rumors already current.
[901] Cf. the case of Jakob Freimark, described by Claus Jordan, op. cit. (note 576).
[902] Cf. Otto Humm, “Typhus – The Phantom Disease,” TR 2(1) (2004), pp. 84-88.
[903] Robert Heggelin, Differential-Diagnose innerer Krankheiten, Thieme Verlag, Zürich 1951.
[904] Hans Kilian, Im Schatten der Siege, Ehrenwirth, Munich 1964, pp. 220-225.
[905] SS judge Konrad Morgen testified in front of the IMT that he investigated against Maximilian Grabner,
head of the Political Department at Auschwitz, for 2,000 cases of arbitrary homicides during the war
(IMT, vol. 20, p. 507). However, Morgen’s testimony is not very reliable, as he testified under duress
(see p. 381) and made numerous false statements, e.g., about soap made of human fat (see note 184).
His claims might therefore be exaggerated. On the other hand, Boger himself claimed that he testified
in proceedings initiated against his former superior Grabner on Oct. 13 and 14, 1944 (Staatsanwaltschaft
beim LG Frankfurt (Main), op. cit. (note 462), vol. 5, p. 825).
(End of quote from Lectures, p. 359-360.)

Several Holocaust eyewitnesses must have had typhus during the war. Not all, but several Holocaust eyewitnesses were crazy and had hallucinations. That explains at least few of the atrocity stories, especially the most absurd stories (which are quoted at the following).


The Holocaust eyewitnesses have NEVER* been cross-examined in courts
(One important exception is the first Zündel trial in 1985, which will be later discussed in detail.)

The eyewitnesses have never* been allowed to be cross-examined by the defence. In all the trials after the war the eyewitnesses have been allowed unquestionably made their stories in courts. Lets see what is the consequence of the dozens of eyewitnesses making their claims, when nobody is allowed to doubt them (also some claims made by the Soviet Union):

Examples of Absurd Claims Regarding the Alleged National Socialist Genocide[355]
- child surviving six gassings in a gas chamber that never existed;[356]
- woman survived three gassings because Nazis kept running out of gas;[357]
- fairy tale of a bear and an eagle in a cage, eating one Jew per day;[358]
- mass graves expelling geysers of blood;[359]
- erupting and exploding mass graves;[360]
- soap production from human fat with imprint "RIF " – ‘Reine Juden Seife’ (pure Jewish soap), solemn burial of soap;[361]
-the SS made sausage in the crematoria out of human flesh (‘RIW’– ‘Reine Juden Wurst’?);[362]
- lampshades, book covers, driving gloves for SS officers, saddles, riding breeches, house slippers, and ladies handbags of human skin;[363]
- pornographic pictures on canvasses made of human skin;[364]
- mummified human thumbs were used as light switches in the house of Ilse Koch, wife of KL commander Koch (Buchenwald);[365]
- production of shrunken heads from bodies of inmates;[366]
- acid or boiling-water baths to produce human skeletons;[367]
- muscles cut from the legs of executed inmates contracted so strongly that they made the buckets jump about;[368]
- an SS-father potshooting babies thrown into the air while 9-year old SS-daughter applauds and shrieks: "Papa, do it again; do it again, Papa!"[369]
- Jewish children used by Hitler-Youth for target practice;[370]
- wagons disappearing on an incline into the underground crematoria in Auschwitz (such facilities never existed);[371]
- forcing prisoners to lick stairs clean, and collect garbage with their lips;[372]
- injections into the eyes of inmates to change their eye color;[373]
- first artificially fertilize women at Auschwitz, then gas them;[374]
- torturing people in specially mass-produced "torture boxes" made by Krupp;[375]
- torturing people by shooting at them with wooden bullets to make them talk;[376]
- smacking people with special spanking machines;[377]
- killing by drinking a glass of liquid hydrogen cyanide (which, scientifically considered, evaporates quickly and would endanger those who pouring it into said glass);[378]
- killing people with poisoned soft drinks;[379]
-underground mass extermination in enormous rooms, by means of high voltage electricity;[380]
- blast 20,000 Jews into the twilight zone with atomic bombs;[381]
- killing in vacuum chamber, hot steam or chlorine gas;[382]
- mass murder in hot steam chamber;[383]
- mass murder by tree cutting: forcing people to climb trees, then cutting the trees down;[384]
- killing a boy by forcing him to eat sand;[385]
- gassing Soviet POWs in a quarry;[386]
- gas chambers on wheels in Treblinka, which dumped their victims directly into burning pits; delayed-action poison gas that allowed the victims to leave the gas chambers and walk to the mass graves by themselves;[387]
- rapid-construction portable gas chamber sheds;[388]
- beating people to death, then carrying out autopsies to see why they died;[389]
- introduction of Zyklon gas into the gas chambers of Auschwitz through shower heads or from steel bottles;[390]
- electrical conveyor-belt executions;[391]
- bashing people’s brains in with a pedal-driven brain-bashing machine while listening to the radio;[392]
- cremation of bodies in blast furnaces;[393]
- cremation of human bodies using no fuel at all;[394]
- skimming off boiling human fat from open-air cremation fires;[395]
- mass graves containing hundreds of thousands of bodies, removed without a trace within a few weeks; a true miracle of improvisation on the part of the Germans;[396]
- killing 840,000 Russian POWs at Sachsenhausen, and burning the bodies in 4 portable ovens;[397]
- removal of corpses by means of blasting, i.e., blowing them up;[398]
- SS bicycle races in the gas chamber of Birkenau;[399]
out of pity for complete strangers – a Jewish mother and her child – an SS-man leaps into the gas chamber voluntarily at the last second in order to die with them;[400]
- blue haze after gassing with hydrogen cyanide (which is colorless);[401]
- singing of national anthems and the Communist International by the victims in the gas chamber; evidence of atrocity propaganda of Communist origin;[402]
- a twelve-year old boy giving an impressive and heroic speech in front of the other camp children before being ‘gassed’;[403]
- filling the mouths of victims with cement to prevent them from singing patriotic or communist songs.[404]

Notes:
[355] Thanks to Jeff Roberts, Greg Raven, Orest Slepokura, Ted O’Keefe, Art Butz, Carlos Porter, Tom Moran, Jonnie A. Hargis and Joseph Bellinger for assisting me in completing this list; more can be found at http://www.corax.org/revisionism/nonsense/nonsense.html and http://www.cwporter.co.uk/partone.htm.
[356] Moshe Peer, regarding Bergen-Belsen, in K. Seidman, "Surviving the horror", The Gazette (Montreal, Canada), August 5, 1993. Facsimile reprint in JHR, 13(6) (1993), p. 24.
[357] Montreal Gazette, February 10, 2000.
[358] Morris Hubert about Buchenwald, acc. to Ari L. Goldman, "Time ‘Too Painful’ to Remember", New York Times, November 10, 1988: "‘In the camp there was a cage with a bear and an eagle,’ he said. ‘Every day, they would throw a Jew in there. The bear would tear him apart and the eagle would pick at his bones.’"
[359] A. Rückerl, op. cit. (note 144), p. 273f.; E. Wiesel, Paroles d’Etranger, Edition du Seuil, Paris 1982, p. 86; Wiesel, The Jews of Silence, New American Library, New York 1972, p. 48; A. Eichmann, in H. Arendt, op. cit. (note 182), p. 184; B. Naumann, op. cit. (note 145), p. 214.
[360] Michael A. Musmanno, The Eichmann Kommandos, Peter Davies, London 1962, pp. 152f.
[361] This imprint really meant "Reichstelle für Industrielle Fettversorgung" (Imperial Office for Industrial Fat Supplies), see S. Wiesenthal, Der neue Weg (Vienna), 15/16 & 17/18, 1946; Career affadavit of SS-Hauptsturmführer Dr. Konrad Morgen, National Archives, Record Group 28, No 5741, Office of Chief Counsel for War Crimes, December 19, 1947; Filip Friedman, This Was Oswiecim. The Story of a Murder Camp, United Jewish Relief Appeal, London 1946; the Soviets wanted to make this one of the charges at the IMT (exhibit USSR-393), but this plan failed due to the other Allies; IMT, op. cit. (note. 127), v. VII, pp. 597-600; cf. H. Härtle, Freispruch für Deutschland, Schütz, Göttingen 1965, pp. 126ff.; the Greenwood Cemetery in Atlanta (Georgia, USA) is not the only site to boast a Holocaust-memorial gravestone for 4 bars of "Jewish soap". Cf. also the following corrections: R. Harwood, D. Felderer, JHR 1(2) (1980) pp. 131-139 (online: vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/1/2/HarwoodFelderer131-139.html) ; M. Weber, JHR 11(2) (1991) pp. 217-227 (online: …/11/2/Weber217-227.html); R. Faurisson, "Le savon Juif", Annales d’histoire révisionniste, 1 (1987), pp. 153-159 (online: abbc.com/aaargh/fran/archFaur/1986-1990/RF8703xx3.html).
[362] David Olère, in J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 17), p. 554, fourth column, lines 17-22.
[363] IMT, op. cit. (note. 127), v. XXXII, pp. 258, 259, 261, 263, 265, v. III, p. 515; v. XXX, pp. 352, 355; v. VI, p. 311; v. V, p. 171.
[364] Ibid., v. XXX, p. 469.
[365] Kurt Glass, New York Times, April 10. 1995.
[366] H. Langbein, Menschen in Auschwitz, op. cit. (note 155), p. 381; IMT, op. cit. (note. 127), v. III, p. 516 , v. XXXII, p. 267-271.
[367] F. Müller, in H. Langbein, op. cit. (note 154), v. 1, p. 87; witness Wells in the Eichmann Trial, in F. J. Scheidl, op. cit. (note 77), v. 4, p. 236; Lawrence L. Lange, "Pre-empting the Holocaust", The Atlantic Monthly, November 1998, p. 107.
[368] F. Müller, op. cit. (note 395), p. 74.
[369] IMT, op. cit. (note. 127), v. VII, p. 451.
[370] Ibid., p. 447f.
[371] SS-judge Konrad Morgen, acc. to Danuta Czech, Auschwitz Chronicle, 1939-1945, Henry Holt, New York, 1990, p. 818.
[372] IMT, op. cit. (note. 127), v. VII, p. 491.
[373] H. Langbein, Menschen in Auschwitz, op. cit. (note 155), pp. 383f.
[374] IMT, op. cit. (note. 127), v. V, p. 403.
[375] Ibid., v. XVI, pp. 556f.; v. XVI, pp. 561, 546.
[376] World Jewish Congress et al. (eds.), The Black Book: The Nazi Crime Against the Jewish People, New York 1946, p 269.
[377] IMT, op. cit. (note. 127), v. VI, p. 213.
[378] Verdict of the Hannover District Court, Ref. 2 Ks 1/60; cf. H. Lichtenstein, op. cit. (note 88), p. 83.
[379] IMT, op. cit. (note. 127), v. VII, p. 570.
[380] Aside from C. Mattogno, op. cit. (note 353), cf. esp. S. Szende, Der letzte Jude aus Polen, Europa-Verlag, Zürich 1945; S. Wiesenthal, Der neue Weg (Vienna), 19/20, 1946; IMT, op. cit. (note. 127), v. VII, 576-577, 369, for Bergen-Belsen!; The Black Book of Polish Jewry, Roy Publishers, New York 1943, p. 313.
[381] IMT, op. cit. (note. 127), v. XVI, p. 529
[382] Aside from C. Mattogno, op. cit. (note 353), cf. esp. W. Grossmann, Die Hölle von Treblinka, Verlag für fremdsprachige Literatur, Moscow 1947; The Black Book of Polish Jewry, op. cit. (note 380).
[383] IMT, op. cit. (note. 127), v. XXXII, pp. 153-158; M. Weber, A. Allen, JHR 12(2) (1992) pp. 133-158, here 134-136 (online: vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/12/2/WeberAllen133-158.html).
[384] IMT, op. cit. (note. 127), v. VII, p. 582; Eugen Kogon, The Theory and Practice of Hell, Berkley Medallion (NY) 1960, p. 99
[385] Rudolf Reder, Belzec, Kraków 1946, p. 16; found in Martin Gilbert, The Holocaust, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York 1985, p. 419.
[386] IMT, op. cit. (note. 127), v. VII, p. 388.
[387] Reports of the Polish underground movement, Archiv der Polnischen Vereinigten Arbeiterpartei, 202/III, v. 7, pp. 120f., quoted in P. Longerich, op. cit. (note 285), p. 438.
[388] R. Aschenauer (ed.), Ich, Adolf Eichmann, Druffel, Leoni 1980, pp. 179f.
[389] IMT, op. cit. (note. 127), v. V, p. 199.
[390] M. Scheckter and a report of June 4, 1945, written by an officer of the 2nd Armored Division, about Auschwitz; Französisches Büro des Informationsdienstes über Kriegsverbrechen (ed.), op. cit. (note 395), p. 184, Wolfgang Benz , (ed.), Dimension des Völkermords, Oldenbourg, Munich 1991, p. 462.
[391] Pravda, Feb. 2, 1945, cf. U. Walendy, Historische Tatsachen No. 31: "Die Befreiung von Auschwitz 1945", Verlag für Volkstum und Zeitgeschichtsforschung, Vlotho 1987, p. 4.
[392] IMT, op. cit. (note. 127), v. VII, pp. 376f.
[393] H. von Moltke, Briefe an Freya 1939-1945, Beck, Munich 1988, p. 420; cf. P. Longerich (ed.), op. cit. (note 285), p. 435; Pravda, Feb. 2, 1945.
[394] See Arnulf Neumaier’s article in this handbook; IMT, op. cit. (note. 127), v. XX, p. 494.
[395] R. Höß, in M. Broszat (ed.), op. cit. (note 74), p. 130; H. Tauber, in J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 17), pp. 489f.; F. Müller, Sonderbehandlung, Steinhausen, Munich 1979, pp. 207f., 217ff.; H. Langbein, Menschen in Auschwitz, op. cit. (note 155), p. 148; B. Naumann, op. cit. (note 145), pp. 10, 334f., 443; S. Steinberg, according to Französisches Büro des Informationsdienstes über Kriegsverbrechen (ed.), Konzentrationslager Dokument 321, Reprint 2001, Frankfurt/Main 1993, p. 206; and many more.
[396] Aside from note 382, cf. also W. Benz, Dimension des Völkermords, Oldenbourg, Munich 1991; pp. 320, 469, 479, 489, 537ff.
[397] IMT, op. cit. (note. 127), v. VII, p. 586
[398] R. Höß, in M. Broszat (ed.), op. cit. (note 74), pp. 161f.; A. Rückerl, NS-Prozesse, op. cit. (note 131), p. 78; H. Grabitz, NS-Prozesse…, op. cit. (note 194), p. 28.
[399] Nürnberger Nachrichten, Sept. 11, 1978, report about eyewitness testimony in the jury court trial in Aschaffenburg.
[400] E. Bonhoeffer, op. cit. (note 216), pp. 48f.
[401] R. Böck, Frankfurt Public Prosecutor’s Office, Ref. 4 Js 444/59, pp. 6881f.
[402] H. G. Adler, H. Langbein, E. Lingens-Reiner (eds.), Auschwitz – Zeugnisse und Berichte, Europäische Verlagsanstalt, Cologne 1984, p. 76.
[403] Filip Friedman, This Was Oswiecim. The Story of a Murder Camp, United Jewish Relief Appeal, London 1946, p. 72.
[404] IMT, op. cit. (note. 127), v. VII, p. 475.
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndvalue.html


The point is these are eyewitnesses among other eyewitnesses. If one wants to write history based on Holocaust eyewitnesses, then these stories must be aknoweledged also. None of these have been verified by any real evidence. So if one believes just one or two these stories, why wouldnt one believe all the rest of them also?!


Experiences of Paul Rassinier about the Holocaust eyewitnesses
(Quote from Lectures on the Holocaust, p. 61-63)

R: At the beginning of this second lecture, I would like to speak about the French
history and geography teacher Paul Rassinier, who can be viewed as the father
of critical historiography dealing with the Holocaust. Before the Second World
War, Rassinier was an avowed communist, and for that reason he was also active
as a partisan fighter in the Resistance after France fell to the Wehrmacht.
As such, he was arrested in the war by the German occupation forces and deported
into the Buchenwald concentration camp.
[...]
R: Germans preferred deploying Paul Rassinier and
his fellow prisoners as forced labor in firms important to the war effort rather
than executing them. So, after several weeks in quarantine custody in Buchenwald,
Rassinier finally landed in the Dora-Mittelbau camp, where the German
assembled their rockets to remotely attack the British mainland. Toward the
end of the war, he, along with the other prisoners, was transferred aimlessly
from one place to the other by the SS, which by this time was pretty headless.
Rassinier reports concerning the violent excesses of the unnerved SS men during
this transport. Rassinier finally escaped his guards and was liberated by advancing
American units.[80]
In the post-war period, Rassinier sat in the French parliament as a representative
of the Socialists.
As is probably generally known, during the period directly after the war, a
number of former concentration camp inmates began to publish articles and
books about their experiences.
One of these concentration camp authors was a French priest called Abbé Jean-
Paul Renard, who had written:
“I saw how thousands upon thousands of people entered the showers in
Buchenwald, from which then lowed suffocating gas instead of a liquid.”
R: When Rassinier objected to this that he knew from his own experience that
there were no gas chambers, Abbé Renard responded:[81]
“Well, this is a poetic expression, so to say.”
R: Another of these former inmates turned authors was Eugen Kogon, who was a
political prisoner during the war and a former fellow inmate of Rassinier in the
Buchenwald concentration camp. When Rassinier read Kogon’s book,[82] he became
so upset over what, in his view, were the distortions, exaggerations, and
plain lies written in it – particularly the blotting out of the responsibility of his
communist comrades for many of the atrocities committed in the camps – that
he wrote a book of his own, in which he criticized Kogon’s account.[83]
[...]
R: In later books, Rassinier concerned himself on an ever broadening basis with
claims of German atrocities during the Second World War and especially with
the question of whether there had been at that time a German policy of systematic
extermination of the European Jews. In Le Mensonge d’Ulysse, Rassinier
still assumed that there had been gas chambers somewhere, because he thought
that there must be fire where there is smoke. Yet as his research progressed,
Rassinier came more and more to the conclusion that there never was a systematic
program to exterminate the Jews, and with every book his certainty grew
that there were never any gas chambers in which Jews had been killed in
masses.[85] Thus, in his book Le Drame des Juifs Européens he wrote in 1964:[86]
“Each time when I was told during the last fifteen years that there was a
witness in the part of Europe not occupied by the Soviets who claimed to
have experienced a gassing himself, I immediately traveled to him in order
to listen to his testimony. But in every case it ended the same way: With my
folder in my hands, I asked the witness a series of precise questions, to
which he could respond only with quite obvious lies, so that he finally had to
admit that he had not experienced this himself, but that he had related only
the story of a good friend, who had died during his internment and whose
honesty he could not question. This way I traveled thousand upon thousands
of miles throughout all of Europe.”

[80] For this see Paul Rassinier’s auto-biographical description in Passage de la Ligne, La Librairie française,
Paris 1948; Engl.: The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses, 2nd ed., Institute for Historical
Review, New Port Beach 1990.
[81] Paul Rassinier, Le Mensonge d’Ulysse, La Librairie française, Paris 1950, p. 133.
(http://www.vho.org/dl/FRA/mu.pdf).
[82] Eugen Kogon, Der SS-Staat. Das System der deutschen Konzentrationslager, Verlag Karl Alber, Munich
1946 (Engl.: The Theory and Practice of Hell. The German Concentration Camps and the System
behind them, Secker & Warburg, London 1950 / Berkley Books, New York 1998).
[83] Paul Rassiner, op. cit. (note 81), chapter V; Engl. see note 80.
[84] LG München 1, 10th civil court (ref.: 10-0 409/58), judgment of Dec. 13, 1958.
[85] Paul Rassinier, Ulysse trahi par les siens (http://www.vho.org/dl/FRA/uts.pdf): Further critical remarks on
false statements by former co-inmates; Le Drame des juifs européens, (http://www.vho.org/dl/FRA/dje.pdf):
critical analysis of Raul Hilberg’s book The Destruction of the European Jews (op. cit., note 39); Le
véritable procès Eichmann ou les vainqueurs incorrigibles (http://www.vho.org/dl/FRA/vpe.pdf; Engl.: The
Real Eichmann Trial or The Incorrigible Victors, Institute for Historical Review, Torrance 1976;
http://www.vho.org/aaargh/franvres2/PRreal.pdf): critical analysis of the evidence on the extermination of
the Jews on the occasion of the Jerusalem Eichmann trial; L’opération Vicaire
(http://www.vho.org/dl/FRA/ov.pdf): Critique of the theater play The Deputy by Rolf Hochhuth on Kurt Gerstein
and the role of the Vatican in the alleged cover-up of the Holocaust. See also the Engl. language
compilation of some of Rassinier’s works: Debunking the Genocide Myth, The Noontide Press, Torrance,
CA, 1978.
[86] Paul Rassinier, Le Drame des Juifs Européns, Paris 1964, p. 79.
(End of quote from Lectures on the Holocaust, p. 61-63)

My point is: the first person who publicly started to critically question these Holocaust eyewitnesses was a French communist, partisan fighter, and former concentration camp prisoner.


The Only Trial Where The Holocaust Witnesses Were Cross-Examined, The First Zündel Trial, 1985

German-Canadian Ernst Zündel was prosecuted for distributing Did Six Million Really Die, in 1985, later again in 1988. In this trial the prosecutor had called two Holocaust witnesses to testify, what they had experienced in Auschwitz, during the War; Arnold Friedman and Rudolf Vrba. Friedman had claimed that he saw flames shooting out of chimneys and that he had guessed from which country the burned bodies were from. Vrba testified that he saw gassings and cremations of bodies. Under cross-examination, both of these eyewitness testimonies completely collapsed. The eyewitnesses had to admit that they had not seen what they claimed.
In the end, a bit of drama unfolded: Mr. Griffiths, the prosecutor who had himself solicited the presence of this witness numero uno and yet now apparently exasperated by Dr. Vrba's lies, fired off the following question:
"You told Mr. Christie several times in discussing your book I Cannot Forgive that you used poetic license in writing that book. Have you used poetic license in your testimony?" (p. 1636).
The false witness tried to parry the blow but prosecutor Griffiths hit him with a second question equally treacherous, this time concerning the number of gassing victims which Vrba had given; the witness responded with garrulous nonsense; Griffiths was getting ready to ask him a third and final question when suddenly, the matter was cut short and one heard the prosecutor say to the judge:
"I have no further questions for Dr. Vrba" (p. 1643).
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndwitness.html


I draw the following conclusion from the first Zündel trial; the prosecutor must have called the best eyewitnesses, whom he could possibly get. Before these witnesses he saw his expert holocaust-scholar witness' (Raul Hilberg's) testimony to collapse, or at least shaking.
http://www.ihr.org/books/kulaszka/09hilberg.html He wouldnt want to see the same thing happening to eyewitnesses. So if the best, or at least one of the best, possible eyewitness testimonies collapsed under cross-examination, what would happen to 'not-so-good' eyewitnesses under cross-examination? (Eyewitnesses had also collapsed many times before when, Paul Rassinier had questioned them.)


The point which I have here documented is: The value of the Holocaust eyewitness testimonies, concerning some alleged atrocities, is so low that it must be viewed with skepticism and they need to be verified with documentary evidence, or the eyewitness testimonies can only be used as to support documentary evidence. Eyewitness testimonies CANNOT BE TAKEN AS DIRECT EVIDENCE about anything (unfortunately "holocaust experts" have accepted them as a direct evidence).

Next we will look at the 'confessions' from the Germans.

6)Show Trials and The Value Of The Confessions From The Germans

Quote:R: First, let us have a look at what is going on during interrogations in our socalled
“nations under law.” In this regard, I would like to refer to a news report
by the U.S. TV channel ABC on the manner in which innocent people can be
made to confess to the crime of murder through the use of perfectly ordinary
interrogation techniques, after which their confessions are deemed sufficiently
probative to secure a murder conviction. The real murderers were only caught
later, by accident, resulting in a scandal revealing the truth about certain common
methods of police interrogation:[935]
“Every year, thousands of criminals are convicted on the basis of confessions
obtained from police interrogations. Experts say law enforcement interrogation
techniques are so effective that they can break down the most
hardened criminal – and even people who are innocent of the crime they are
being accused of. Experts believe there have been hundreds of cases where
innocent men succumbed to interrogation and confessed to crimes they did
not commit.”
R: Rich Fallin, former police officer in Maryland, himself a specialist in interrogation,
says:
“You take someone who is vulnerable, like a grieving family member or
someone who isn’t used to being confronted by police. If interrogated long
enough, they’ll probably confess.”
R: The methods are quite simple: the interrogators confront the suspect with evidence,
such as horrible photos of the crime scene or the testimonies of other
witnesses, and simply suggest – mendaciously – that they can prove that he is
guilty. The interrogation lasts many hours, often without interruption. Food and
drinks are refused or restricted to very small portions, visits to the toilet are delayed
or refused. The interrogation room is deliberately designed to be uncomfortable
and is insufficiently heated. The interrogators take turns questioning
the suspect until late in the night. The suspect is persuaded that they’ve “got the
goods on him,” that his denials will only get him a stiffer sentence, so that confession
is the only way out. Under these conditions – exhaustion, fatigue, and
emotional stress – most suspects break down, whether they are guilty or innocent.
Due to a long series of unjust convictions based on this kind of extorted confession,
the state of Illinois, to set an example, instituted a moratorium on the execution
of death sentences in the year 2000.[936]
L: That is one good reason why lawyers tell you not to say anything without a
lawyer present, whenever you get arrested or receive a summons.
R: That is quite right, because everything you say will be used against you. Unfortunately,
many people are naïve enough to believe that the police are invariably
men of integrity. But that is not so. Police men in the crime squad deal with the
most reprehensible sorts of people on a daily basis and act accordingly.

[935] ABC, March 15, 2003: cf. the entire text: Manfred Köhler, “Forced Confessions: Why Innocent Defendants Admit their Guilt,” TR 1(4) (2003), pp. 465f.
[936] Cf. “Illinois suspends death penalty,” CNN, Jan. 13, 2000
(http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/01/31/il...ions.02/).

(End of quote from: Lectures p. 372-373)

Thousands of innocent people in jail because of the "effective" police interrogation technicues. So this is the situation today, at peace time.


How about right after the second World War?

Quote:3.3.1. Allied Post-War Trials

In order to assess the value of eyewitness testimony and confessions relating to the Holocaust, one must first examine the conditions prevailing in the Allied post-war trials in Nuremberg and elsewhere. For it is the verdicts handed down in these trials which recorded, in sketchy outlines, the accounts of the Holocaust given by eyewitness testimony and putative confessions. These Allied trials may be roughly divided into two types, namely those carried out by the respective occupying powers as these saw fit, and those carried out with at least initial co-operation between the victorious powers within the framework of the International Military Tribunal (IMT) in Nuremberg.[25]

3.3.1.1. American Trials

Immediately after the end of the war the Americans placed all Germans who held leading positions in the Party, the state or the economy under "automatic arrest" without trial.[26] In this way hundreds of thousands ended up in prison camps consisting in the main only of fenced-in meadows. Shortly after the end of the war all German prisoners were stripped of their status as prisoners-of-war.[27] The Allies considered civilian internees to have no rights whatsoever; particularly in the American and French spheres of influence, these prisoners lived mostly in burrows in the ground, received insufficient food, were denied all medical assistance, and neither the International Red Cross nor other organizations nor even private individuals were allowed to help. In this way the prisoners in the American run camps died like flies by the hundreds of thousands.[28]

Military Government Ordinance No. 1 required every German, on pain of lifetime imprisonment, to give the Allies any and all information they required.[29] Thus German witnesses could be forced to give evidence by imprisoning them for years, subjecting them to hours of interrogation, or threatening to hand them over to the Russians.[30] A separate department, "Special Project", was responsible for obtaining incriminating evidence against reluctant witnesses. The material obtained in this way was used to bend the witnesses to the Allies’ will, since this information was used to threaten them with prosecution if they refused to give incriminating evidence against others.[31]

This fact alone shows that after the war every German was practically outlawed and became fair game for persecution, and found himself unexpectedly in a situation where he would give the Allies any information they sought – even if such information was false – rather than suffer the blows of arbitrary despotism looming over him at every turn.

In the American Occupation Zone, trials against various defendants were conducted under the United States’ or U.S. Army’s sovereignty in Dachau, Ludwigsburg, Darmstadt and Salzburg.[32] These trials fell roughly into three categories:
1) crimes in concentration camps (including the cases of euthanasia);
2) murders of bailed-out Allied plane crews;
3) the alleged war crime of Malmedy at the Ardennes Offensive.

Preparation for these trials included the interrogation of suspects and witnesses in various camps and prisons known as torture chambers today, such as Ebensee, Freising, Oberursel, Zuffenhausen and Schwäbisch Hall.[33] Rückerl (West Germany’s official top “Nazi hunter”) comments succinctly:
"Even the Americans themselves soon objected to the way in which some American military tribunals conducted their trials, particularly to the fact that what was repeatedly used as evidence in these trials were confessions of the accused which had been obtained in preliminary hearings, sometimes under the worst possible physical and psychological pressure."[34]
[...]
The manner in which the Americans extorted confessions from accused persons, or statements from reluctant witnesses subjected to automatic arrest both in the prisons for those awaiting trial as well as during the main hearing in Dachau, left clearly visible marks: the methods used were:
- skin burns
- destruction of the bed of the (finger-, i.e., toe-)nails with burning matches
- torn-out fingernails
- knocked-in teeth
- broken jaws
- crushed testicles
- wounds of all kinds due to beatings with clubs
- brass knuckles and kicks
- being locked up naked in cold, damp and dark rooms for several days
- imprisonment in hot rooms with nothing to drink
- mock trials
- mock convictions
- mock executions
- bogus clergymen, and many more.[41],[42]

According to Joachim Peiper, principal defendant in the Malmedy Trial, what was even worse than these so-called third-degree interrogation methods was the feeling of being completely at the mercy of others while being totally cut off from the outside world and one’s fellow prisoners. Another method the Americans used, which was often successful, was to play the prisoners off against each other with threats and promises in order to obtain false incriminating statements. This would help to break the prisoners’ resistance, which had its roots in the solidarity among them (second-degree interrogations).[43]

The protocols of these interrogations, which lasted for hours and even days, were cut-and-pasted into so-called affidavits by the prosecution; those parts which exonerated the accused were deleted, and contents were frequently distorted by re-wording.[44] Aside from these dubious affidavits, anything and everything was admissible as evidence, including, for example, un-notarized copies of documents as well as third-hand statements (hearsay).[45] In one case even the unfinished, unsigned affidavit of one accused whom all the abuse had driven to suicide was used as evidence![46] And Order SOP No. 4 promised that any accused who offered to give State’s evidence to incriminate others would be set free.[47] The effects of this regulation was demonstrated by Lautern, who described two cases in which the accused bought their freedom with false statements incriminating third parties.[48]

Up to the start of the trials the accused had no legal representation whatsoever, and even during the trials the defense attorneys rarely provided effective support, since these defense counsels (appointed by the Court) in many cases were themselves citizens of the victorious powers, usually with a poor command of the German language. They showed little interest in defending their clients and sometimes even acted blatantly as prosecutors, going so far as to threaten the defendants and to persuade them to make false confessions of guilt.[49] But even if, like American attorney W. M. Everett for example, they were willing to carry out their duties as defense counsels, the prosecution and the Court made this almost impossible for them: the defense was reluctantly given only partial access to pertinent documents, and conversations with the accused were not possible until just before and sometimes not even until after the trials had begun, and only ever under Allied supervision. Frequently it was not until just before the trial that the defense was informed of the charges, which tended to be sweeping and general in nature.[50] Motions to hear witnesses for the defense, or to contest evidence such as extorted statements, were usually refused.[51] And this was fully in accordance with the regulations of the American Occupation Power; Article 7 of Ordinance Number 7 of the Military Government for the American Zone states, with respect to the charter of certain military tribunals:

"The Tribunals shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence […] The tribunal shall afford the opposing party such opportunity to question the […] probative value of such evidence as in the opinion of the tribunal the ends of justice require."[52]

It was left to the Court to decide what was necessary. In other words, the protocol was purely arbitrary.

It is an interesting matter to determine how the incriminating statements, especially those made by former inmates of the concentration camps, are to be evaluated. The prosecution used a special technique to obtain these statements – so-called "stage shows" or "revues".[53] For this purpose the prosecution gathered up former concentration camp inmates and put them into an auditorium. The accused were placed on a well-lit stage while the former inmates sat in the darkened room and could bring any and all conceivable accusations against the accused, accompanied at times by furious yelling and the most vile curses. In those cases where, contrary to expectation, no charges were made against an accused, or when those accusations that were made seemed insufficient, the prosecution helped matters along by persuading and sometimes even threatening the witnesses.[54] If this shameful tactic still did not suffice to obtain incriminating statements, the prosecution nevertheless did not shy away from a trial; exonerating statements were simply destroyed by the prosecution.[55] These stage-shows continued until an American officer donned an SS uniform and appeared on the stage before the howling witnesses, who promptly incriminated him as a concentration camp thug.[56]

Defense witnesses from the concentration camps were withheld, threatened, sometimes even arrested and abused by the prosecution.[57] Many former concentration camp inmates threatened their one-time fellow sufferers with reprisals against their families or even with incriminating statements and indictments against them if they failed to give sufficiently incriminating testimony or statements against third parties. Even threats of murder are documented to have been made against fellow prisoners.[58] The VVN (Vereinigung der Verfolgten des Naziregimes = Organization of Persons Persecuted by the Nazi Regime),[59] the organization that decided which former inmates living in the starving Germany of those days would receive food rations, housing authorization etc., used its power to pressure many former fellow prisoners into not taking the stand as defense witnesses. It even expressly forbade the former fellow prisoners to give exonerating testimony.[60]

Those witnesses who were willing to give incriminating evidence were conspicuous by virtue of their frequent appearance, sometimes in groups, at various trials where they could expect to receive considerable compensation, both financial and in goods. In many cases these "professional witnesses", who openly coordinated their testimony amongst themselves, were criminal ex-convicts who had been promised exemption from punishment in return for their cooperation.[61] Judges G. Simpson and E. L. van Roden, whom the U. S. Army had appointed as investigating commission, are said to have used the term "scum of humanity" in this context.[62] Even when such or other witnesses were found to have perjured themselves, they were never prosecuted.[63] On the contrary: only if a witness told the Court of the methods with which his testimony had come about, and thus rescinded his statements – only then did the prosecution take steps against him.[64]

In principle, the trials in Dachau were all the same, regardless of whether they dealt with crimes in the concentration camps, with murders of airmen, or with the Malmedy Case. F. Oscar correctly points out[65] that torture was worse in the Malmedy Case due to the dearth of ‘witnesses’, while the superfluity of ‘witnesses’ in the concentration camp cases resulted in "stage shows" instead. In the euthanasia and physicians cases the method of choice was the confiscation of exonerating documents and the suppression of exculpatory statements.[66] Freda Utley stated[67] that the concentration camp cases were even worse than the Malmedy Case, which was already unparalleled.[68]

What must one think of historians who, like Thomas A. Schwartz, claimed as late as 1990 and in Germany’s foremost periodical on contemporary history, that the American trials had been conducted in accordance with the stipulations of the Geneva Convention; that the main problem with these trials had merely been the lack of opportunity for appeal and the uncertain future treatment of the convicted; that the cases of Ilse Koch63 and Malmedy were the only ones of particular significance; and that the committee appointed by the U.S. Senate had exonerated the American occupation authorities from the more serious charges?[69] One must think that Schwartz was either extremely ignorant or extremely perverse!


3.3.1.2. British Trials

In the first post-war years the British, on the whole, acted no differently than the Americans. According to Aschenauer, the main features of the American post-war trials also characterized those British trials taking place in Werl,[70] where leading officers of the Wehrmacht as well as concentration camp guards from Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen and Natzweiler were tried.[71] One fundamental difference, however, was that no investigating commissions were introduced during or after these trials, so that the internal proceedings of, for example, the British interrogation camps and prisons – most notably Minden,[72] Bad Nenndorf[73] and Hameln – remained sub-surface.

From two examples, however, it becomes clear that interrogation methods of second and third degree were the rule there as well. The first example is the torture of the former Commandant of Auschwitz, Rudolf Höß, in the prison of Minden. This torture was not only mentioned by Höß himself in his autobiography,[74] but has also been confirmed by one of his torturers[75] who, rather as an aside, also mentioned the torture of Hans Frank in Minden.[76] And further, in his testimony before the International Military Tribunal (IMT), Oswald Pohl reported that similar methods were used in Bad Nenndorf and that this was how his own affidavit had been obtained.[77] The example of Höß is especially important since his statement was used at the IMT as the confession of a perpetrator, to prove the mass murder of the Jews (see 3.3.1.5). In 2001, Patricia Meehan revealed some ugly features of the network of secret "Direct Interrogation Centres" the British had set up in their occupational zone of Germany. Those centers are indeed best characterized as torture chambers to receive ‘evidence’ for the upcoming trials.[78]

3.3.1.3. French Trials

We know comparatively little about the French trials of the camp staff of the concentration camps Neue Bremme and Natzweiler.[79] However, judging from the French conduct towards German civilians under "automatic arrest"[80] as well as towards the population of the occupied territories[81] – which was just as bad as, if not worse than, the conduct of the Americans – one may conclude that the French were equal to the Americans in every way.

3.3.1.4. Soviet-Russian Trials

The trials in the Soviet Occupation Zone can be considered as part of the continuation of the war crimes tribunals that had been held in the Soviet Union ever since the outbreak of hostilities in 1941. In 1950, an official report confirmed that these war crimes trials were a violation of international law.[82] Maurach reports that the preliminary hearings were characterized by continuous, i.e., non-stop interrogations, physical abuse of all kinds, distorted protocols, playing prisoners off against each other, forced denunciation of others, etc; and the main hearings by summary mass trials before special courts governed by arbitrary rules of procedure.[83] There is a general consensus of opinion regarding these procedures, and even the Federal German Ministry of Justice has commented to this effect.[84] In a recent publication by a renowned Russian historian and based on original Russian archives, these early German expert reports were confirmed.[85] The same goes for comparable trials held by the Soviet satellite states in the first few years following the war. Buszko, for example, reports that in Poland, just as with the IMT, a special court was set up whose verdicts were incontestable.[86] Further, the Federal Ministry of Justice has described the early trials in the German Democratic Republic as arbitrary trials[87] whose darkest chapter, the so-called Waldheim Trials, was recently set out in detail by Eisert.[88]

3.3.1.5. The International Military Tribunal and its Successor Tribunals

The actual International Military Tribunal consisted of prosecutors and judges from the four Allies Powers – hardly an objective tribunal.
[...]
Three articles pertaining to the rights of the Court are particularly significant. Article 18, for example, determined that the Court should
"confine the Trial strictly to an expeditious hearing of the issues raised by the charges [sic]"

and that it could refuse any and all questions and explanations it deemed unnecessary or irrelevant. Article 19 states verbatim:
"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 have probative value."

And Article 21 – the effect of this article still today gives the cloak of respectability to anti-scientific legal conclusions:
"The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof […]"

According to the London Agreement, these "facts of common knowledge" included anything which any office or commission from any Allied nation claimed in documents, files, reports and protocols. Thus, all ‘evidence’ produced in the trials discussed in 3.3.1.1 to 3.3.1.4 was deemed to be a matter of fact needing no further substantiation. The IMT categorized the SS and the Waffen-SS, for example, as criminal organizations primarily on the basis of the ‘evidence’ produced in the Dachau Trials.[91]

In the time leading up to the trial, the Soviets bluntly stated that they wished to execute the accused without a trial or at most after a summary show-trial, since their guilt was self-evident anyhow.[92] While some voices were raised in agreement on the side of the western Allies,[93] the understanding that only a ‘real’ trial could be effective did predominate.[94]
[...]
The newspaper Neues Österreich shed new light on the quality of this type of media reporting when it commented on witness testimony in an NSG trial in the following way, which unfortunately is typical for our media:
"Whatever the accused cannot disprove did obviously take place, as incredible as it may sound."[330]

In other words, the public consents to the practice that in NSG trials it is not the guilt of the accused that must be proven, but rather that the accused must prove his innocence of any and all conceivable accusations, in the tradition of the Inquisition of medieval times.


[25] A remarkable study about the Nuremberg Trials was presented by M. Weber, JHR 12(2) (1992) pp. 167-213 (online: ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_Webera.html).
[26] R. Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, Quadrangle Books, Chicago 1961, p. 691; M. Lautern, Das letzte Wort über Nürnberg, Dürer, Buenos Aires 1950, p. 18; cf. the accounts of personal experience by J. Gheorge, Automatic Arrest, Druffel, Leoni 1956; J. Hiess, Glasenbach, Welsermühl, Wels 1956; L. Rendulic, Glasenbach – Nürnberg – Landsberg, Stocker, Graz 1953; M. Brech, W. Laska, H. von der Heide, JHR 10(2) (1990) pp. 161-185 (online: vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/10/2/Brech161-166.html and following).
[27] D. Irving, Der Nürnberger Prozeß, 2nd ed., Heyne, Munich 1979, p. 26; R. Tiemann, Der Malmedy-Prozeß, Munin, Osnabrück 1990, pp. 70, 93f. Since D. Irving published a more sophisticated book about Nuremberg, (D. Irving, Nuremberg. The Last Battle, Focal Point, London 1996) the reader should refer to this, even though it could not be included in detail in this study which was written prior to its publication.
[28] J. Bacque, Other Losses, Stoddart, Toronto 1989.
[29] Enacted on Aug. 16, 1945; A. von Knieriem, Nürnberg. Rechtliche und menschliche Probleme, Klett, Stuttgart 1953, p. 158.
[30] F. Utley, The High Cost of Vengeance, Regnery, Chicago 1949, p. 172.
[31] Op. cit., p. 171; M. Lautern, op. cit. (note 26), p. 24.
[32] R. Aschenauer, Macht gegen Recht, Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Recht und Wirtschaft, Munich 1952, p. 5; cf. also ibid., Zur Frage einer Revision der Kriegsverbrecherprozesse, pub. by author, Nuremberg 1949, see esp. pp. 14ff.
[33] R. Tiemann, op. cit. (note 27), pp. 71, 73; F. Oscar, Über Galgen wächst kein Gras, Erasmus-Verlag, Braunschweig 1950, pp. 77ff.
[34] A. Rückerl, NS-Verbrechen vor Gericht, C. F. Müller, Heidelberg 1984, p. 98.
[35] Regarding G. Froeschmann cf. O. W. Koch, Dachau – Landsberg, Justizmord – oder Mord-Justiz?, Refo-Verlag, Witten 1974.
[36] Regarding W. M. Everett cf. R. Tiemann, op. cit. (note 27), esp. pp. 82, 103ff. This also contains the best account of the activities of the various investigative committees.
[37] R. Tiemann, ibid., p. 144.
[38] Ibid., esp. pp. 160ff., 175ff., 282ff.; R. Aschenauer, Macht gegen Recht, (note 32), p. 65f.
[39] R. Tiemann, op. cit. (note 27), p. 181.
[40] Congressional Record-Senate No. 134, July 26, 1949, pp. 10397ff., reprinted in its entirety in R. Tiemann, op. cit. (note 27), pp. 269ff.
[41] Aside from McCarthy, op. cit. (note 40), also cf. R. Aschenauer, Macht gegen Recht, (note 32), F. Utley, op. cit. (note 30), esp. pp. 190ff.; F. Oscar, op. cit. (note 33), pp. 38ff.
[42] J. Halow, JHR 9(4) (1989) pp. 453-483 (online: vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/9/4/Halow453-483.html); J. Halow, Siegerjustiz in Dachau, Druffel, Leoni 1993; for a typical example, cf. the case of Ilse Koch in A. L. Smith, Die "Hexe von Buchenwald", Böhlau, Cologne 1983; for Malmedy cf. also R. Merriam, JHR 2(2) (1981) pp. 165-176 (online: …/2/2/Merriam165-176.html).
[43] R. Tiemann, op. cit. (note 27), pp. 86, 220f.
[44] A. von Knieriem, op. cit. (note 29), pp. 159, 169; M. Lautern, op. cit. (note 26), p. 41ff.; see also the chapter by I. Weckert, this volume.
[45] R. Aschenauer, Macht gegen Recht, (note 32), pp. 32f.; cf. Article 7, Ordinance No. 7 of the Military Government of the American Zone, in A. von Knieriem, op. cit. (note 29), p. 558.
[46] R. Tiemann, op. cit. (note 27), p. 102.
[47] Address by J. McCarthy, op. cit. (note 40); R. Tiemann, op. cit. (note 27), p. 275.
[48] M. Lautern, op. cit. (note 26), p. 32, regarding E. von dem Bach-Zelewski and F. Gaus. The cases of W. Höttl and D. Wisliceny are similar – and the list could go on.
[49] R. Aschenauer, Macht gegen Recht, (note 32), pp. 29f., 43f.
[50] R. Aschenauer, ibid., pp. 26ff.; F. Utley, op. cit. (note 30), p. 197.
[51] R. Tiemann, op. cit. (note 27), pp. 91, 96f., 103.
[52] A. von Knieriem, op. cit. (note 29), p. 558.
[53] Cf. R. Aschenauer, Macht gegen Recht, (note 32), pp. 18ff.; O. W. Koch, op. cit. (note 35), p. 127.
[54] R. Aschenauer, ibid., p. 24ff., 33f.
[55] R. Aschenauer, ibid., p. 21.
[56] Gesellschaft für freie Publizistik, Das Siegertribunal, Nation Europa, Coburg 1976, pp. 69f.
[57] R. Aschenauer, Macht gegen Recht, (note 32), pp. 42f.; R. Tiemann, op. cit. (note 27), p. 98ff., 103.
[58] F. Utley, op. cit. (note 30), pp. 195.
[59] Later on the VVN was declared an unconstitutional Communist association.
[60] R. Aschenauer, Macht gegen Recht, (note 32), pp. 42f.; F. Utley, op. cit. (note 30), p. 198; O. W. Koch, op. cit. (note 35), p. 53; Gesellschaft für freie Publizistik, op. cit. (note 56), p. 67.
[61] R. Aschenauer, Macht gegen Recht, (note 32), pp. 21, 24ff.; F. Utley, op. cit. (note 30), pp. 195, 198; O. W. Koch, op. cit. (note 35), pp. 48, 55; cf. note 48 (‘Crown witness’).
[62] Gesellschaft für freie Publizistik, op. cit. (note 56), p. 69.
[63] M. Lautern, op. cit. (note 26), pp. 33, 51.
[64] M. Lautern, ibid., pp. 42f., describes such a case; cf. also the fate of E. Puhl, Vice President of the Reichsbank, during the IMT: H. Springer, Das Schwert auf der Waage, Vowinckel, Heidelberg 1953, pp. 178f.
[65] R. Aschenauer, Macht gegen Recht, (note 32), p. 13; F. Oscar, op. cit. (note 33), pp. 67f.
[66] For the best-documented example of a miscarriage of justice concerning a physician, cf. Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt (ed.), Der Fall Rose. Ein Nürnberger Urteil wird widerlegt, Mut-Verlag, Asendorf 1988.
[67] F. Utley, op. cit. (note 30), p. 194.
[68] To date, the only example of a Dachau trial that has been reviewed in detail: cf. A. L. Smith, op. cit. (note 42), esp. pp. 110ff.
[69] T. A. Schwartz, "Die Begnadigung deutscher Kriegsverbrecher", VfZ 38 (1990) pp. 375-414.
[70] R. Aschenauer, Macht gegen Recht, (note 32), pp. 72ff.
[71] A. Rückerl, op. cit. (note 34); for a comprehensive discussion of the British trial of the suppliers of Zyklon B to Auschwitz, cf. W. B. Lindsey, op. cit. (note 1).
[72] According to R. Faurisson, Annales d’Histoire Révisionniste 1 (1987) p. 149 (online: abbc.com/aaargh/fran/archFaur/1986-1990/RF8703xx1.html); Minden/Weser was the interrogation headquarters of the British military police.
[73] R. Aschenauer, Macht gegen Recht, (note 32), p. 72, tells of the infamous Special Camp Bad Nenndorf, where preliminary hearings culminated in severe physical abuse.
[74] R. Höß, in M. Broszat (ed.), Kommandant in Auschwitz, dtv, Munich 1983, pp. 149f.; cf. R. Faurisson, op. cit. (note 72), p. 137-152; in English: JHR 7(4) (1986) pp. 389-403; in German: DGG 35(1) (1987) pp. 12-17 (online: vho.org/D/DGG/Faurisson35_1.html); cf. also R. Faurisson, NV 33 (1994) pp. 111-117.
[75] B. Clarke, as quoted in R. Butler, Legions of Death, Arrow Books Ltd., London 1986, pp. 236f.
[76] R. Butler, ibid., pp. 238f.
[77] O. Pohl, "Letzte Aufzeichnungen", in U. Walendy, Historische Tatsachen Nr. 47, Verlag für Volkstum und Zeitgeschichtsforschung, Vlotho 1991, pp. 35ff.; M. Lautern, op. cit. (note 26), pp. 43ff.; D. Irving, Der Nürnberger Prozeß, op. cit. (note 27), pp. 80f.; Pohl considered himself legally innocent, since he had neither caused nor tolerated any atrocities: cf. O. Pohl, Credo. Mein Weg zu Gott, A. Girnth, Landshut 1950, p. 43; cf. also A. Moorehead’s account of the rough interrogation methods used by the British in Bergen-Belsen, published in the British monthly The European, March 1945; quoted from: F. J. Scheidl, Geschichte der Verfemung Deutschlands, pub. by author, Vienna 1967, v. 3, pp. 83ff.; cf. Alan Moorehead’s essay "Belsen", in Cyril Connolly (ed.), The Golden Horizon, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London 1953, pp. 105f.
[78] Patricia Meehan, A Strange Enemy People: Germans Under The British 1945-50, Peter Owen Publishers, 2001
[79] A. Rückerl, op. cit. (note 34), p. 99.
[80] Aside from J. Bacque, op. cit. (note 28), see also the accounts of brutal torture of internees in Landesverband der ehemaligen Besatzungsinternierten Baden-Württemberg (ed.), Die Internierung im Deutschen Südwesten, pub. by ed., Karlsruhe 1960, esp. pp. 73ff.; cf. also A. L. Smith, VfZ 32 (1984) pp. 103-121, who bases his study exclusively on official accounts of Allied sources. Would it be equally appropriate to report about the conditions in German concentration camps exclusively on the basis of official contemporaneous accounts of German governmental and administrative sources?
[81] F. Utley, op. cit. (note 30), pp. 287ff.
[82] C. Roediger, Völkerrechtliches Gutachten über die strafrechtliche Aburteilung deutscher Kriegsgefangener in der Sowjetunion, Heidelberg 1950.
[83] R. Maurach, Die Kriegsverbrecherprozesse gegen deutsche Gefangene in der Sowjetunion, Arbeitsgemeinschaft vom Roten Kreuz in Deutschland (British Zone), Hamburg 1950, pp. 79ff.
[84] Reproduced in part in A. Rückerl, op. cit. (note 34), p. 100. See also the chapter by I. Weckert, this volume.
[85] A.E. Epifanow, H. Mayer, Die Tragödie der deutschen Kriegsgefangenen in Stalingrad von 1942 bis 1956 nach russischen Archivunterlagen, Biblio, Osnabrück 1996; cf. E. Peter, A. Epifanow, Stalins Kriegsgefangene, Stocker, Graz 1997.
[86] J. Buszko, Auschwitz. Geschichte und Wirklichkeit des Vernichtungslagers, Rowohlt, Reinbek 1980, pp. 193ff.; R. Henkys, op. cit. (note 9), p. 191, believes that in 1947 the Polish took care to ensure that trials were conducted in accordance with the principles of rule-of-law. But since hardly any of these trials at that time in the sphere of influence of Stalin were conducted as such, one wonders on which information Henkys relies.
[87] A. Rückerl, op. cit. (note 34), p. 211.
[88] W. Eisert, Die Waldheimer Prozesse, Bechtle, Munich 1993; for an account of a more recent trial regarding Oradour and Lidice, cf. H. Lichtenstein, Im Namen des Volkes?, Bund, Cologne 1984, pp. 132ff. According to Lichtenstein, the defense acted as secondary prosecution in this trial.
[89] A. Rückerl, op. cit. (note 34), pp. 95ff.
[90] Reprinted in its entirety in T. Taylor, The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials, Little, Boston 1992, pp. 645ff. For accounts of the IMT, cf. also H. Härtle, Freispruch für Deutschland, Schütz, Göttingen 1965; H. H. Saunders, Forum der Rache, Druffel, Leoni 1986; F. J. P. Veale, Advance to Barbarism, Institute for Historical Review, Newport Beach, CA 1983; W. Maser, Das Exempel, Blaue Aktuelle Reihe 9, Mut-Verlag, Asendorf 1986; W. E. Benton, G. Grimm (eds.), Nuremberg. German Views of the War Trials, Southern Methodist UP, Dallas 1955; C. Haensel, Der Nürnberger Prozeß, Moewig, Munich 1983; M. Bardèche, Nürnberg oder die Falschmünzer, Priester, Wiesbaden 1957; Reprint: Verlag für ganzheitliche Forschung und Kultur, Viöl 1992; A. R. Wesserle, JHR 2(2) (1981) pp. 155-164 (online: vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/2/2/Wesserle155-164.html); C. Porter, Not Guilty at Nuremberg: The German Defense Case, Historical Review Press, Brighton 1990 (online: codoh.com/trials/trintglt.html); Porter, Made in Russia: The Holocaust, ibid. 1988 (online: codoh.com/trials/trimirth.html).
[91] E.g., L. Greil on the Malmedy Trial in Oberst der Waffen-SS Jochen Peiper und der Malmedy-Prozeß, Schild, Munich 1977, p. 90; for the view taken of the SS and Waffen-SS in the IMT, cf. G. Rauschenbach, Der Nürnberger Prozeß gegen die Organisationen, L. Röhrscheid, Bonn 1954; cf. also R. Hilberg, op. cit. (note 26), p. 692.
[92] A. von Knieriem, op. cit. (note 29), pp. 127f.
[93] D. Irving, Der Nürnberger Prozeß, op. cit. (note 27), pp. 24ff.; R. Hilberg, op. cit. (note 26), pp. 684, 691; cf. C. Haidn, DGG 34(3) (1986) pp. 11-14.
[94] A. von Knieriem, op. cit. (note 29), pp. 128f.; for a detailed description of the creation of the IMT ‘Lynch Law’ cf. D. Irving, Nuremberg. The Last Battle, op. cit. (note 27), pp. 1-119.

http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndvalue.html

Quote:But back to history. The interrogations on the Holocaust, which determined the
version of history accepted today, occurred between 1944 and 1947, i.e., during
the various war crimes trials, mostly in the Soviet Union, Poland, and Germany.
[...]
During the Nuremberg Military Tribunals, which the Americans conducted all
by themselves after the IMT, the president of that tribunal, Lee B. Wyatt, stated
the following during the trial against responsible members of the former German
Race and Resettlement Main Office (Rasse- und Siedlungs-Hauptamt,
Case 8):[961]
“During the course of the trial several witnesses, including some defendants,
who made affidavits that were offered as evidence by the prosecution,
testified that they were threatened, and that duress of a very improper nature
was practiced by an interrogator.”
[...]
After the former Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höß was arrested by the British,
he was tortured for days, until he was finally ready to sign the “confession”
presented to him. This is not only revealed by his memoirs, which Höß wrote in
a Polish prison:[967]
“On March 11, 1946, at 11 p.m., I was arrested. […] I was treated terribly
by the (British) Field Security Police. […] During the first interrogation
they beat me to obtain evidence. I do not know what is in the transcript, or
what I said, even though I signed it, because they gave me liquor and beat
me with a whip. It was too much even for me to bear. […] Minden on the
Weser River […]. There they treated me even more roughly, especially the
first British prosecutor, who was a major. […] I cannot really blame the interrogators
[at the IMT] – they were all Jews. I was for all intents and purposes
psychologically dissected. […] They also left me with no doubt whatsoever
what was going to happen to me.”
L: But who would believe a former Auschwitz commandant?
R: We don’t have to take his word for it. In the 1980s, his torturers personally
described the manner in which they tormented him, providing independent corroboration:
[968]
“Höss screamed in terror at the mere sight of British uniforms.
Clarke yelled ‘What is your name?’
With each answer of ‘Franz Lang,’ Clarke’s hand crashed into the face of
his prisoner. The fourth time that happened, Höss broke and admitted who
he was.
The admission suddenly unleashed the loathing of the Jewish sergeants in
the arresting party whose parents had died in Auschwitz following an order
signed by Höss.
The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pyjamas ripped from his body.
He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where it seemed
to Clarke the blows and screams were endless.
Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: ‘Call them off, unless
you want to take back a corpse.’
A blanket was thrown over Höss and he was dragged to Clarke’s car, where
the sergeant poured a substantial slug of whisky down his throat. Then Höss
tried to sleep.
Clarke thrust his service stick under the man’s eyelids and ordered in German:
‘Keep your pig eyes open, you swine.’
For the first time Höss trotted out his oft-repeated justification: ‘I took my
orders from Himmler. I am a soldier in the same way as you are a soldier
and we had to obey orders.’
The party arrived back at Heide around three in the morning. The snow was
swirling still, but the blanket was torn from Höss and he was made to walk
completely nude through the prison yard to his cell.”

R: We can see from the same book that the former General Governor of Poland,
Hans Frank, was also tortured by the British at Minden, Germany.[969] Oswald
Pohl, former head of the Economic Administrative Main Office (Wirtschaft-
Verwaltungshauptamt) of the SS and, as such, responsible for all financial and
administrative accessory matters related to the concentration camps, described
the illegal methods employed at the interrogation center at Bad Nenndorf,
where he signed his affidavit.[970] The IMT transcript itself contains an informative
passage relating to the testimony of Julius Streicher. His testimony describes
the manner in which he was tortured. In response to a prosecution objection,
the passage was expunged from the transcript, but not the Court’s dis-
cussion of whether or not the passage should be expunged.[971] Karlheinz
Pintsch, Adjutant to Rudolf Hess, was tortured for months by the KGB in Moscow.
[972] The Soviets also tortured a “confession” out of Jupp Aschenbrenner relating
to the alleged gas vans on the eastern front.[973] August Eigruber, former
Gauleiter of Austria, was mutilated and castrated at the end of the war. Josef
Kramer, last commandant of Bergen-Belsen camp, as well as other SS men and
women, were tortured until they begged to be allowed to die.[974] The British
journalist Alan Moorehead reports as follows:[975]
“As we approached the cells of the SS guards, the [British] sergeant’s language
become ferocious. ‘We had had an interrogation this morning,’ the
captain said. ‘I am afraid they are not a pretty sight.’ […] The sergeant unbolted
the first door and […] strode into the cell, jabbing a metal spike in
front of him. ‘Get up,’ he shouted. ‘Get up. Get up, you dirty bastards.’
There were half a dozen men lying or half lying on the floor. One or two
were able to pull themselves erect at once. The man nearest me, his shirt and
face spattered with blood, made two attempts before he got on to his knees
and then gradually on to his feet. He stood with his arms stretched out in
front of him, trembling violently.
‘Come on. Get up,’ the sergeant shouted [in the next cell]. The man was lying
in his blood on the floor, a massive figure with a heavy head and bedraggled
beard […] ‘Why don’t you kill me?’ he whispered. ‘Why don’t you
kill me? I cannot stand it any more.’ The same phrases dribbled out of his
lips over and over again. ‘He’s been saying that all morning, the dirty bastard,’
the sergeant said.”
L: That’s pretty bad.
[...]
R: [...] let my quote
Edward L. van Roden, who served in World War II as U.S. Chief of the
Military Justice Division for the European Theater. Together with Justice
Gordon Simpson of the Texas Supreme Court, van Roden was appointed in
1948 to another extraordinary commission charged with investigating the
claims of abuse during U.S. trials in Dachau. Here is an excerpt of what he
wrote:986
“AMERICAN investigators at the U. S. Court in Dachau, Germany, used the
following methods to obtain confessions: Beatings and brutal kickings.
Knocking out teeth and breaking jaws. Mock trials. Solitary confinement.
Posturing as priests. Very limited rations. Spiritual deprivation. Promises of
acquittal. […] We won the war, but some of us want to go on killing. That
seems to me wicked. […] The American prohibition of hear-say evidence
had been suspended. Second and third-hand testimony was admitted, […] Lt
Perl of the Prosecution pleaded that it was difficult to obtain competent evidence.
Perl told the court, ‘We had a tough case to crack and we had to use
persuasive methods.’ He admitted to the court that the persuasive methods
included various ‘expedients, including some violence and mock trials.’ He
further told the court that the cases rested on statements obtained by such
methods. […] The statements which were admitted as evidence were obtained
from men who had first been kept in solitary confinement for three,
four, and, five months. They were confined between four walls, with no windows,
and no opportunity of exercise. Two meals a day were shoved in to
them through a slot in the door. They were not allowed to talk to anyone.
They had no communication with their families or any minister or priest
during that time. […] Our investigators would put a black hood over the
accused’s head and then punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick
him, and beat him with rubber hose. Many of the German defendants had
teeth knocked out. Some had their jaws broken. All but two of the Germans,
in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond
repair. This was Standard Operating Procedure with American investigators.
Perl admitted use of mock trials and persuasive methods including violence
and said the court was free to decide the weight to be attached to evidence
thus received. But it all went in.
One 18 year old defendant, after a series of beatings, was writing a
statement being dictated to him. When they reached the 16th page, the boy
was locked up for the night. In the early morning, Germans in nearby cells
heard him muttering. ‘I will not utter another lie.’ When the jailer came in
later to get him to finish his false statement, he found the German hanging
from a cell bar, dead. However the statement that the German had hanged
himself to escape signing was offered and received in evidence in the trial of
the others.
Sometimes a prisoner who refused to sign was led into a dimly lit room,
where a group of civilian investigators, wearing U. S. Army uniforms, were
seated around a black table with a crucifix in the center and two candles
burning, one on each aide. ‘You will now have your American trial,’ the
defendant was told.
The sham court passed a sham sentence of death. Then the accused was told,
‘You will hang in a few days, as soon as the general approves this sentence:
but in the meantime sign this confession and we can get you acquitted.’
Some still wouldn’t sign. […]
In another case, a bogus Catholic priest (actually an investigator) entered
the cell of one of the defendants, heard his confession, gave him absolution,
and then gave him a little friendly tip: ‘Sign whatever the investigators ask
you to sign. It will get you your freedom. Even though it’s false, I can give
you absolution now in advance for the lie you’d tell.’”
[...]
R: [...] Similar to the IMT, most later trials of NS crimes degenerated to show trials as
well, during which many defendants were accused at once, hundreds of witnesses
testified, thousands of spectators gaped, and the mass media layed it all
out to uncounted millions all over the world. Not a single one of these cases
was ever supported by any forensic evidence. A statement from the verdict of
the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial is a symbol for this gross negligence:[1041]
“The court lacked almost all possibilities of discovery available in a normal
murder trial to create a true picture of the actual event at the time of the
murder. It lacked the bodies of the victims, autopsy records, expert reports
on the cause of death and the time of death; it lacked any trace of the murderers,
murder weapons, etc. An examination of the eyewitness testimony
was only possible in rare cases.”

[961] Trials of war criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council law no. 10,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1949-1953, vol. 15, p. 879.
[967] S. Paskuly (ed.), op. cit. (note 511), p. 179f.
[968] R. Butler, Legions of Death, Arrows Books Ltd., London 1986, pp. 236f.; cf.: R. Faurisson, op. cit.
(note 366); D. Irving, op. cit. (note 23), pp. 241-246.
[969] R. Butler, ibid., pp. 238f.
[970] O. Pohl, Letzte Aufzeichnungen, in: U. Walendy, HT no. 47, Verlag für Volkstum und Zeitgeschichtsforschung,
Vlotho 1991, pp. 35ff.; M. Lautern, op. cit. (note 955), pp. 43ff.; D. Irving, op. cit. (note
23), pp. 80f.; Pohl referred to himself as legally innocent, since he had never ordered or condoned any
atrocities: see Credo. Mein Weg zu Gott, A. Girnth, Landshut 1950, p. 43.
[971] IMT, vol. 12, p. 398; cf. Keith Stimely, “The Torture of Julius Streicher,” JHR, 5(1) (1984), pp. 106-
119; R. Butler, op. cit. (note 968), pp. 238f.; cf. W. Maser, Nürnberg. Tribunal der Sieger, Droste,
Düsseldorf 1988 (Econ-Verlag, Düsseldorf 1977).
[972] Wolf Rüdiger Hess, My Father Rudolf Hess, London 1986, p. 62.
[973] Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago I-II, Harper & Row, New York 1974, p. 112.
[974] Cf. Montgomery Belgion, Victor’s Justice, Regnery, Hinsdale, IL, 1949, pp. 80f., 90.
[975] Alan Moorehead, op. cit. (note 775), pp. 105f.
[986] E.L. van Roden, “American Atrocities in Germany,” The Progressive, February 1949, pp. 21f.
(http://www.corax.org/revisionism/documen...den.html).
[1041] Verdict in the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial, ref. 50/4 Ks 2/63, pp. 108ff.; cf. I. Sagel-Grande, H.H. Fuchs,
C.F. Rüter (ed.), Justiz und NS-Verbrechen, vol. XXI, University Press, Amsterdam 1979, p. 434.

(End of quote from Lectures, p. 381-184)


What did some of the Germans confess?
Few examples:

Quote:RUDOLF HÖSS:
Höß was the first commandant of Auschwitz and is the indispensable
prime witness of the mass annihilation in that camp. Hilberg refers to him
twenty-six times.[142]
In his confession given during an intensive three-day interrogation by
a British torture team led by the Jewish Sergeant Bernard Clarke,[143] the first
Auschwitz commandant stated that already by November 1943 in Auschwitz
2.5 million persons had been gassed and a further 500,000 had died
of sickness, starvation and other factors.[144] Naturally Hilberg - who picks
and chooses his statistics to suit his fancy - does not mention these statements,
since these crassly exaggerated numbers, large even by Hilberg's
standards, show that the Höß confession was not voluntarily given and is
therefore worthless.
In his 'confession', Höß stated further that he had visited the Treblinka
camp - remember it was opened in July 1942 - in June 1941 and
talked about a camp called 'Wolzek', which has never been heard of since.
When he was turned over to Poland, he was put in the Cracow prison, where
he wrote his 'memoirs', in which he penned down what he was told by his
jailers.[145]
[...]
KURT GERSTEIN:
Main witness to mass gassings in Belzec, was used by Hilberg as a
source six times.[166] SS sanitation officer Gerstein described these gassings
in a confession given after the war - or, better put, in six confessions, since,
as Frenchman Henri Roques has shown, there are no less than six versions
of the Gerstein confession, sometimes differing markedly from each
other.[167] Gerstein killed himself in July 1945 in a French prison. He claimed
that between 20 and 25 million people were gassed. He said that in Belzec
700 to 800 Jews were stuffed into a gas chamber with a floor area of 25 m2,
which is 28 to 32 persons per square meter. Of Auschwitz, which he never
entered, he affirmed that millions of children were killed by holding cotton
wads soaked with hydrogen cyanide under their noses. Hallucinations about
35 to 40 m (115 to 130 ft) high piles of clothes and shoes of murdered prisoners
top off this confession appropriately.[168]

http://vho.org/GB/Books/Giant/Chapter7.pdf

(In addition Höss said impossible things about the gassings. Höss' and Gerstein's "confessions" are also described well in the video [url=http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com[/url] )




So, if no real evidence is required to prove anything, and nobody is allowed to question or doubt - it could be 'proven that "UFOs rule the world" or that "Witches and Devil are real"!

Some have even compared the witchtrials of 1450-1650 to Holocaust trials:

Quote:R: In the same way, the views of a thousand years could not be wrong when, in
the 17th century, it was stressed that the earth was flat. Giordano Bruno was
sent to the stake because of that, and Galileo Galilei was banned for the same
reason. And what about the fact that witches were riding on broomsticks and
had intercourse with the Devil? That too was an obvious fact for centuries.
[...]
R: No. Since we have already touched upon the methods of medieval witch trials,
let me elaborate a little more on this. Other parallels between medieval witch
trials and the trials on NS crimes are for instance that the alleged perpetrators
were and are not allowed to rest in peace even after their deaths. The corpses of
those suspected of sorcery were exhumed, sometimes paled and chopped into
pieces, and the graves of alleged NS perpetrators were not left alone either.
They were exhumed in order to identify them – just consider the fuss about the
remains of Josef Mengele – and the mass media reported repeatedly about the
“monstrosity” in certain graves. The crimes under consideration were considered
self-evident centuries ago as they are today.
L: Witchcraft was considered self-evident?
R: The existence of the devil, of sorcery, and of witches with their evil activities
was considered just as self-evident during medieval times[1060] as are the alleged
NS crimes today. All motions to refute or verify this “truth” or to challenge
“common knowledge,” in particular with the help of forensic evidence, are rejected
in Germany and many other European nations without assessment of the
offered evidence. Such motions to introduce evidence are considered to be
mere delaying tactics,1061 and since the mid-1990, even defense lawyers who
defend their clients to ambitiously, for example by filing motions to introduce
“denying” evidence, are prosecuted in Germany, according to a decision of the
German Federal Supreme Court:1062
“He who, as a defense lawyer in a trial about inciting the masses, files a motion
to introduce evidence, which denies the genocide against the Jews
committed under the rule of National Socialism, invariably commits a crime
according to Sec. 130 III Penal Code.”
R: That German law outlaws “Holocaust denial.” This is another parallel to witch
trials, during which defense lawyers that did not keep sufficient ideological distance
to their clients, could be accused of sorcery or collaboration with a witch.
The crimes of which the defendants were accused were considered the most
atrocious crimes one could think of – today’s buzzword is the “uniqueness” of
German crimes, centuries ago the term used was “crimen atrox,” the atrocious
crime. Then and now such crimes, or the denial of them, had to be prosecuted if
they came to the knowledge of the authorities. No criminal complaint was necessary.
Then and now the judicial system is even obligated not to follow the
usual procedural rules – consider the creating of central “Nazi”-hunter organizations,
the appointment of politically reliable personnel, the uncritical acceptance
of all sorts of incriminating statements and the refusal of forensic investigations.
Then and now rude torture was used initially to make the defendants
compliant, but then as well as now such methods declined with time and were
replaced with more sophisticated psychological interrogation methods and
long, grueling incarceration during the investigations. Then and now all details
of the alleged crime were written down and defined in official books and were
prescribed as the absolute truth (then it was the Hexenhammer (witch hammer),
now it is the official history books). Then and now all available media saw to it
that the stories of these crimes were distributed all over the know world, so that
everybody knew what it was all about. Therefore all witness statements centuries
ago as well as today were very similar, often down to details, so that third
parties had to think that the statements of so many independent witnesses must
somehow be true.
Then as well as toady, many witnesses testified anonymously. Incriminating
witnesses that were obliged to swear a holy oath in court as to the truth of their
statement frequently received generous rewards for their services then and now.
As a rule, their statements were not then and not today critically examined.
Then and now they were not cross-examined by lawyers. Even if they were
caught committing perjury, they usually were not held responsible for it, either
then or now. Neither obviously contradictory or nonsensical, nor even outright
impossible statements were considered untrustworthy then and now.
However, if witnesses or defendants would deny the deed or their involvement,
they were prosecuted and punished even more severely for their stubborn denial
– then and now – because they were apparently not willing to confess their
evil acts, to show remorse, and to swear to turn away from the diabolical. Then
as well as now, every defendant knew that the only way to receive mercy from
the court was by confessing, so that even in cases, where torture was not applied,
confessions were frequent. In many cases the defendants tried then as
well as nowadays to get leniency and even to buy their liberty by cooperating
with the court by virtue of incriminating third parties.
In former centuries, material evidence on the alleged crimes were hardly ever
accepted, and nowadays they are always rejected, and even if it could be shown
that the individuals who are said to have been murdered by the defendant were
still alive or had died a natural death many years before, the courts then and
now often were unimpressed by this.
Then and now, defense lawyers were not allowed to challenge the deed as such
and had to display the commonly held views about the topic, if they wanted to
avoid being persecuted or even prosecuted, as I already mentioned. In former
centuries, defense lawyers only rarely got complete access to court documents,
and could not talk to their clients privately, as it was during the immediate
post-WWII trials.
If the defense lawyer, the defendant, or a third party decides to doubt the reality
of the alleged crimes as such – witchcraft revisionism then, Holocaust revisionism
now – then this was considered to be even worse than the crime itself. It
was the worst crime of all: “Haeresis est maxima opera maleficorum non credere.”
– “Not to believe in the deeds of the criminals is the worst heresy.”[1063]

[1060] W. Behringer, Hexen und Hexenprozesse in Deutschland, dtv, Munich 1988, p. 182. )
[1061] The German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) rubberstamped this procedure as
perfectly legal, ref. 1 StR 193/93.
[1062] Sigmund P. Martin, “Volksverhetzung – Leugnen des Holocaust durch Verteidigerhandeln,” Juristische
Schulung, 11/2002, pp. 1127f., in a case against defense lawyer Jürgen Rieger; based on BGH, ref. 5
StR 485/01; cf. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2002, p. 2115; Neue Strafrechts-Zeitung, 2002, p. 539;
cf. also BGH, ref. 1 StR 502/99, in a case against defense lawyer Ludwig Bock, see Rudi Zornig,
“Rechtsanwalt wegen Stellung von Beweisantrag verurteilt,” VffG 3(2) (1999), pp. 208f.

(Lectures on the Holocaust, p. 413 -> )


Conclusion: Witnesses were never cross-examined, confessions were obtained with brutal methods (even by torture), courts were set up to punish not to investigate and the courts had the rules of their own. What would be a better word to describe these trials, than SHOW TRIALS. With these kind of trials one can prove absolutely anything!