How do You Explain Non-Coercive Confessions by Perpetrators?

[Whodunnit?]

I admire people's patients with this guy.

Oh, so there was no conspiracy to forge evidence at Nuremberg?

Gustave Gilbert, "The Nuremberg Diaries", page 57:

"Justice Jackson proceeded to describe the specific actions undertaken in this program leading to extermination: the infamous Nuremberg Laws of 1935; the well-planned "spon- taneous" uprising of November 9-10, 1938; the instigated pogroms and mass executions in the East from 1941 on; the
sadistic cruelty, torture, starvation and mass murder in the concentration camps—not to mention such sidelights as "scientific experiments" like freezing male victims almost to death and warming them back to life and sexual intercourse with the "animal heat" of naked gypsies. "Here Nazi degeneracy reached its nadir. I dislike to encumber your records with such morbid tales, but we are in the grim business of trying men as criminals . . . Our proof will be disgusting, and you will say I have robbed you of your sleep. But these are the things that have turned the stomach of the world and set every civilized hand against Nazi Germany."


Can we just agree that this experiment never happened, or do you have a piece of paper that says otherwise? And if this never happened, what does this say about the whole tribunal?

Btw, Goering was the only one who at the Nuremberg trial remained spiteful. But here is his reaction to this "evidence" for the gypsy-sex-freeze-thing:

"I [Gilbert] remained silent, and he [Goering] knew he was evading my question, and I was waiting for an answer. Finally he (Goering) said: "I still
can't grasp all those things. Do you suppose I'd have believed it if somebody came to me and said they were making freezing experiments on human guinea pigs—or that people were forced to dig their own graves and be mowed down by the thousands? I would just have said, 'Get the hell out of here with- that fantastic nonsense!'" He was dramatizing the hypothetical dialogue with such conviction, that I wondered whether it hadn't actually taken place. "It was all just too fantastic to believe I Why, if a couple of zeros had only been left off the figures the foreign radio gave, I might have thought it conceivable, but—my God!—that's the damnable thing—it just didn't seem possible.—I just shrugged it off as enemy propaganda."

So they got even Goering to believe it for some reason. Even if he adds that he didn't know about anything.

Something like the Nuremberg trials has never happened in history. Besides the fact that many of them wanted to save their lives, and besides the fact that many of them had been tortured - i think that a lot of the defendents couldn't make sense of the whole thing. Because they respected at least the Western Allies and actually considered them to have integrity, and of course couldn't see through what was being played there, they could not believe that this was all made up. If they say it, if they repeat it over and over, if they pull off this huge court case, make the movies and so on - maybe it's true? Goering also said:

"Of course, it's not the prosecution's job to look for excuses on our side.—That's our job.But there are certain things they deliberately overlook—likethe way a command gets changed on its way down the chainof-command. For instance, as Chief of the Four Year Plan,I might say that foreign workers will be paid on the samebasis as German workers, but they should have to pay highertaxes. Then the Finance Ministry writes a directive, then it
goes to the Labor Ministry, and finally it turns out that theforeign workers are in some cases paying Ys of their salaryin taxes. That doesn't mean that I said the foreign workersshould starve."

This is not an "excuse". What he says is that the only way how that could have happened is if it happened behind his back. And either this whole case is the biggest farce in history, arragned for unknown reasons by people that in Germany had a reputation for being honorable, honest and upright people - OR something happened behind his back. In Goering's situation, what seems more likely?

I never ran an 80 million-country that just conquered all of Europe and fights the biggest war in history with about 90 million soldiers participating, just in Europe, but I guess that IN FACT even people like Goering, Speer or even Hitler didn't know what every person was doing and what was happening every corner of Europe. Goering had an IQ of 137, but even that isn't enough to know everything in this situation.
So he probably thought "Maybe... this guy... he hated jews, he said we should just kill them all.... maybe he did something... or something was misunderstood". For him, this is more likely than "Oh, the capitalist part of the world colludes with the communist empire and mobilize tens of thousands of people to make up this weird alternative reality". That had never happened before. So what else were they supposed to say? They couldn't even understand a motive. The Germans couldn't even make sense of the Treaty of Versaille, because before WW1 it had been a custom in Europe to come to agreeable peace terms and then make "tabula rasa". And now this. They were puzzled, I would have been puzzled as well. This was a completely new world. Even today, most people believe this stuff, because they can't believe that somebody would make something this enormous up and keep it going for such a long time.

[Hektor]

....
It is on the same level as this joke from a “letter recently discovered” in 2017.

Adolf Hitler ate a meal of pasta and tomato sauce hours before he killed himself.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/hitlers-last-ever-meal-revealed-11573513

It strikes me as rather odd that both Holocaust promoters and revisionists simply accept as genuine documents whose authenticity cannot be independently confirmed. The completely fraudulent Hitler diaries are a testament to the fact that the Allied forgers and their employees go to extreme lengths to try to shape history to their liking.

What fits and feeds the narrative is take at face value. And there is indeed no feasible way to establish authenticity, when it is some typewritten document with stamps and signatures. Even more difficult it gets, when it's just a piece of paper with type-written text.
I consider the bulk of records from the era to be authentic, but then they don't say stuff that leads to the conclusion that there was a genocidal extermination program neither.

As far as apparent non-coercive testimony is concerned. There is ways and means to pressure people to make them say what one wants them to say. It's a huge problem in criminal investigation and really something distressing police investigators have to put up with. But those folks are barely heard. "It's there job, they are paid for it, so let them deal with it" is the general attitude.

One can take a look at the key 'perpetrator confessions'. But one would have to know the details of those cases, which isn't readily available. But my personal impression of those SS-men that 'confessed' or rather 'testified against other SS-men' is in the following lines:
* Simply structured individuals without much of ambition and used to do what others especially 'authority' figures expected from them. And they'd be easy to impress as well. That type is a low hanging fruit to get to admit to anything and also testify anything. They simply make the suggestive story their own and even stick to it.
* Hunger for attention.
* Grudge against their former comrades. And supporting accusations gives them something of revenge.

There is also no incentive for them to revise previous statements. Who would believe them anyway. If the 'rest of the world' believes a myths, better don't challenge that. Perhaps they will leave you alone then?

An own goal may however have been scored with 'confessions' like the one of Rudolf Hoess, simply because he stated lots of stuff that is preposterous on its face. And that kind of statements may actually break the camels back in the end. But I don't see that happen to soon right now. As long as the narrative is useful (or at least bearable) for the power structure, it will persist.

[Hieldner]

For example, take Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jersualem and Nazi collaborator who spent the war in Berlin. He never faced any prosecution for his wartime collaboration with the Nazis, on whose behalf he sought to win over the Arab world. But he wrote in his memoirs that he was well aware of the extermination of millions of Jews, and had been briefed on this matter by Himmler.

This diary was introduced as evidence in the Eichmann trial and published in 1999, decades after the Mufti's death in 1974. An article by Wolfgang Schwanitz, which I include below, contains the incriminating quotations, but they were not even hinted at during the trial.

Attorney General: The diary of the Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin, was also amongst the documents that fell into the hands of the Allies. Mr. Arazi authenticated it. It is our No. 1306.

The Trial of Adolf Eichmann, Session 62. http://nizkor.com/hweb/people/e/eichmann-adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-063-03.html.

It is a document from the hands of the Allies concerning a political figure who must be considered an opponent of the State of Israel. This “piece of evidence” was introduced in a trial that is not merely a show trial, but can, in my opinion, be placed in the category of bizarre Allied joke trials with fatal outcomes. The prosecution was mainly concerned with the Mufti preventing a transport of Jewish children to Palestine in spring 1943, shortly after the Bermuda conference ended without any results.

I have included the full translation of Schwanitz’s article because email registration is required to view it, however, I have omitted the URLs and images. The German version is available here http://www.trafoberlin.de/pdf-Neu/Amin%20al-Husaini%20und%20das%20Dritte%20Reich%20WGS.pdf.

Amin al-Husaini and the Holocaust. What Did the Grand Mufti Know?
Wolfgang G. Schwanitz
May 8, 2008

Amin al-Husaini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, remains a controversial figure. The Palestinian leader, who was born in 1895 and died in 1974, first sparked controversy during his lifetime. As an officer in the Ottoman army during the First World War, he implemented the German idea of organizing jihad and terror behind enemy lines. (See my discussion here.) Later, he led the resistance against the British mandate authority in Palestine during uprisings in 1929 and in 1936. He fiercely opposed Jewish settlement.

But it is, above all, the Grand Mufti’s close ties to National Socialist Germany that are the subject of ongoing debates. From 1941 to 1945, he lived for the most part in Berlin as a guest of the German government. The Nazis provided office space, vehicles and money, so that the Mufti and his entire entourage could stay active. In return, the Mufti used his influence in the Middle East on the Nazis’ behalf and recruited Muslims for the Nazi war effort. On the airwaves of Nazi Germany’s Arab language radio service, he called for a Holy War, a jihad, against the Allies and the Jews.

Some German authors, like René Wildangel, claim that it is still unclear whether and to what extent Amin Al-Husaini was informed about the Nazis’ exterminationist policies toward the Jews. In a recent review of Klaus Gensicke’s biography of the Grand Mufti, John Rosenthal expresses some doubts as well: noting that the fact that members of the Grand Mufti’s entourage visited the Sachsenhausen concentration camp in 1942 is not sufficient evidence for concluding that he also knew what was transpiring in the death camps further to the East.

But in fact the full record of the available evidence, including both German and Arabic sources, leaves no room for doubt anymore. Indeed, the Grand Mufti’s own words provide the most compelling proof. Memoirs of the Grand Mufti, edited by Abd al-Karim al-Umar, were published in Damascus in 1999. (See cover photo below.) In the memoirs, al-Husaini openly discusses his close relationship to SS chief Heinrich Himmler.

According to his account, he often met Himmler for tea and during these meetings the Nazi leader confided some of the secrets of the German Reich to him. Thus, for example, in the middle of 1943, Himmler is supposed to have told him that German nuclear research had made great progress: In three years, Germany could have an atomic weapon that would guarantee its “ultimate victory.” As Rainer Karlsch’s recent book on “Hitler’s Bomb” has shown, this assessment was not far off. Himmler presumably confided this information to the Grand Mufti on July 4, 1943. That is the date on a photo of the two men with a signed dedication from Himmler: “to his Eminence the Grand Mufti — a Memento” (see below).

In the memoirs, the Grand Mufti also describes what Himmler said to him in that summer of 1943 about the persecution of the Jews. Following some tirades on “Jewish war guilt,” Himmler told him that “up to now we have liquidated [abadna] around three million of them” (p. 126 — see Arabic excerpt below).

There is evidence, moreover, that the Grand Mufti knew about the Nazis’ plans still earlier. In 1946, Dieter Wisliceny, a close collaborator of Adolf Eichmann in the “Jewish Affairs” division of the Reich Central Security Office, provided a written statement on the Grand Mufti to the Nuremberg Tribunal.

According to Wisliceny, at the beginning of 1942 Eichmann made a detailed presentation to al-Husaini on the “solution of the European Jewish question.” The presentation took place in Eichmann’s “map room” in Berlin: “where he had collected statistical graphics on the Jewish population in the various European countries.” The Grand Mufti, Wisliceny recalls, was “very impressed.” Furthermore, al-Husaini is supposed to have put in a request to Himmler to have Eichmann send one of his assistants to Jerusalem after Germany had won the war. The representative of Eichmann was to serve as the Grand Mufti’s personal advisor: i.e. when the Grand Mufti would then set about “solving the Jewish question in the Middle East.”

We can infer from other documentation that this was not just a vague idea. A declassified document on Nazi war crimes from the National Archives in Washington indicates that as of mid-1942 a special SS commando unit had plans to liquidate the Jews of Cairo following the capture of the city by German forces. (See detail below.) Gen. Erwin Rommel was supposedly disgusted by the proposition. The head of the SS unit, Walter Rauff, had earlier been involved in developing vans that served as mobile gas chambers. It should be noted that he was a German and not a Pole, as suggested in the U.S. government document.

In his memoirs, however, the Grand Mufti feigns astonishment at Himmler’s remark. On his account, Himmler asked him how he would solve the problem of the Jews in his country. Amin al-Husaini says that he answered that they should go back to where they came from. To which Himmler is supposed then to have replied: “Come back to Germany — we will never allow them to do that.” But the Grand Mufti is here white-washing his own role in history. After all, in Berlin on November 2, 1943, he publicly declared that Muslims should follow the example of the Germans, who had found a “definitive solution to the Jewish problem.”

https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/amin-al-husaini-and-the-holocaust-what-did-the-grand-mufti-know/.

So now we know. The Nazis really did build the bomb in their converted beer cellar. And, of course, they killed off everything that wasn't living on top of the trees. But why didn’t anyone take notice of these diary entries much earlier, especially during the Eichmann trial?

[hermod]

When Netanyahu claimed that the alleged extermination of the Jews was an idea of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, he merely repeated one of the lies told by the prominent false witness Dieter Wisliceny at the Nuremberg show trials in order to try to save his own neck.

https://postimg.cc/vxGjDJRL

https://postimg.cc/hQ0jPG86

[Otium]

Finally, consider Albert Speer, Hitler's Minister of Armaments and the so-called "Good Nazi." He denied knowing about the Holocaust at Nuremberg! But in a private letter to a Belgian resister,* he admitted that he had been present at the Posen speeches, in which, according to Speer, Himmler said "that all Jews would be killed". Why would Speer (who always denied knowledge of the Holocaust *publicly*) say he knew about the extermination of the Jews in a private letter?

I refuted the Jeanty letter here:

Albert Speer Letter to Hélène Jeanty - 23 December 1971 - Speer Admits to the Holocaust?
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14655

For one thing, the entire letter has never surfaced, but this hardly matters since the content lacks context, which is extremely important in understanding why/what Speer was saying.

To be brief, Speer had a mental breakdown because of an article written about him by Erich Goldhagen (entitled 'Albert Speer, Himmler und die Endlösung'), who accused him of having been at Himmler's posen speech while Speer was sure that he hadn't been, and he was afraid of further legal action being taken against him.

Speer supposedly wrote in this letter to Jeanty that he must've been at the speech, but this was only because he had been convinced of it by Goldhagen's article, and not because he actually remembered being there. Which is why, in the letter Speer supposedly wrote of it mulling around in his 'subconcious' and that he had suppressed it mentally, he wrote: "Who will believe me that I suppressed this, that it would have been easier to write all this in my memoirs as Schirach did? But doesn't the whole book portray this truth between the lines? How many years has this been working in my subconscious?" He further elaborated on this to Joachim Fest, and he later responded to Goldhagen in a reply of his own in 1972 after the Jeanty letter was written (entitled, 'Antwort an Erich Goldhagen') in which he detailed how it was impossible for him to have actually been at Himmler's speech, and thus why he didn't remember it.

Also, Speer did not say that Himmler said "that all Jews would be killed", Speer wrote to Jeanty that: "There is no doubt. I was present when Himmler announced on 6 October 1943 that all Jews would be killed." Which obviously isn't a direct quote from Himmler, but a paraphrase of why the speech is supposedly significant. It's a summary.

All of this is made more or less clear in the original Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung article which broke the 'story' in 2007, although in an editorialised and sensationalist manner which undoubtedly left the wrong impression in the public mind.

You should be more careful when you describe these things. There is no excuse for why you 'HistorySpeaks' misunderstood the details and nuance of the story, not to mention the facts and context. Instead, you seem to have willingly decided to misprepresent what Speer wrote and believed, all to advance a political and historical agenda. Very bad form.

[Hektor]

Finally, consider Albert Speer, Hitler's Minister of Armaments and the so-called "Good Nazi." He denied knowing about the Holocaust at Nuremberg! But in a private letter to a Belgian resister,* he admitted that he had been present at the Posen speeches, in which, according to Speer, Himmler said "that all Jews would be killed". Why would Speer (who always denied knowledge of the Holocaust *publicly*) say he knew about the extermination of the Jews in a private letter?

I refuted the Jeanty letter here:

Albert Speer Letter to Hélène Jeanty - 23 December 1971 - Speer Admits to the Holocaust?
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14655

For one thing, the entire letter has never surfaced, but this hardly matters since the content lacks context, which is extremely important in understanding why/what Speer was saying.

To be brief, Speer had a mental breakdown because of an article written about him by Erich Goldhagen (entitled 'Albert Speer, Himmler und die Endlösung'), who accused him of having been at Himmler's posen speech while Speer was sure that he hadn't been, and he was afraid of further legal action being taken against him.
....

The mental breakdowns of previous NS-functionaries / staff are taken as evidence of the 'heaviness of their guilt'. Meanwhile it is far more plausible that an innocent person will suffer a mental break-down when vicious accusations are made against him or her. One thing is however remarkable and that is that most former NS-functionaries or people in positions of authority during the 'Third Reich' are usually rather sober in their approach and don't show any signs of 'guilt' or 'shame' for their positions... What they do signify is however attitudes of second thought and also disappointment... So they may actually search for answers on 'what did we do wrong that it ended this way'.... And that's also were gaslighting kicks in on Germans that seek for some 'metaphysical explanation' for their own suffering and the suffering of Germans they did observe. Being told: "You tried to genocide all the Jews" can be a 'handy rescue device' in such a situation. "That explains it, we are guilty, that's why we suffered'... That approach was followed by the so-called 'Evangelical Churches' after WW2. It was not used against the 'left-wing', which were supporters of dialectical and modern theology as for example formulated by Karl Barth and other liberal theologians, since they already had a hostile attitude against (German) Nationalism, National Socialism and German culture in total. It was especially used against the 'right-wing' those that are theologically and socially more conservative. The 'pietists' if you want. The 'left-wing' did then win the battle for hegemony in the churches and today those are new-left to woke churches. Their influence did shrink, that's true. But they still have some degree of influence on a larger part of the population, especially those middle-aged and older that 'seek answers'. Influencing those folks comes in handy, because it will taint what they are going to give through to their children and later grand children when subjects of history, politics, religion, culture, etc. come up. I by no means say that this is the case with virtually every 'Protestant Christian', but that's the norm. I recall some conservative evangelical Christians that were however quite 'based', when it came to world war two. They realize that the Holocaust is a religion, they also realize that there are problems with the narrative. They however not in the position to take on "Holocaustianity" in their own churches, ministries, parishes. They will be worked out over time, by their 'brethren' for not being 'on the bus' with what is 'socially acceptable'. I should add that their knowledge on the subject is mostly limited and I think a lot is based on intuition, since they can see what the 'animal does'. And the same folks are also the ones most 'reluctant' to embrace wokeness, Christian Zionism and all the other agendas floating around in present day German society. What they don't comprehend fully is the role 'the Holocaust' plays in the general 'struggle against Christianity'. I think they may realize that it is weaponized history against Germany and perhaps the Occident as a whole. They don't really realize that this is even more against 'Christianity'... And well, they may be busy with all the story tellers and frauds in their own churches first... But it doesn't look like a 'winning battle'.