Moderator: Moderator
Hektor wrote:What is suggested is that there is a high probability of lying and twitching, when it is suitable to him. It was suitable for him to say things that would bring him into favor with his captors, wouldn't you agree.
fireofice wrote:....
Eichmann is clearly describing Jews being gassed in front of him. Also, the gassing procedure he describes is impossible (he says the same thing when talking about a Russian U-boat engine being used). He is in a position to know that this is an impossible gassing procedure if he was really overlooking all this stuff. He is clearly lying, not mistaken. If he is lying here, he can be lying about the whole thing.
You've already been provided explanations for his false confessions. There's no point in repeating a question that's already been answered.
fireofice wrote:Hektor wrote:What is suggested is that there is a high probability of lying and twitching, when it is suitable to him. It was suitable for him to say things that would bring him into favor with his captors, wouldn't you agree.
We're talking about the Sassen interviews here, where there were no captors.
Hektor wrote:What do you think the motivation was for Sassen to set up and record the interviews and for Eichmann to cooperate in it?
bombsaway wrote:Where did I claim Eichmann never lied during any of his pretrial statements?
I think the only people that agree Eichmann lied (consciously uttering mistruths) in his pre-capture statements are revisionists.
In all of the excavations to date, how many human bodies' worth of "cremains" were found at Sobibor? Please do not dodge.
In all of the excavations to date, how many human bodies' worth of "cremains" were found at Treblinka? Please do not dodge.
In my mind there's no way to know because the ashes weren't DNA tested for unique IDs, and the ashes were mixed with sand making calculation near impossible.
But you can see it's a lot, eg in Treblinka based on the ash field there, which according to witnesses contained part of the ash
In the northwestern section of the area, the surface is covered for about 2 hectares by a mixture of ashes and sand. In this mixture, one finds countless human bones, often still covered with tissue remains, which are in a condition of decomposition. During the inspection, which I made with the assistance of an expert in forensic medicine, it was determined that the ashes are without any doubt of human origin (remains of cremated human bones).
2 hectares is 20,000 square meters. A 100 pound body yields 100 cubic inches of ash according to the web. There are 1550 inches in a square meter. Therefore if the ash layer was 1 inch deep, 20,000 cubic meters would yield 20,000 x 15 or 300,000 bodies worth of ash. At a 10th of an inch that's 30,000 bodies. This is, again, partial since not all the ashes are believed to have been spread on the field.
We can continue this discussion in the appropriate thread.
We can't because just because Eichmann lied frequently, as many many people do, it doesn't mean everything he said was a lie. It hurts his credibility to some degree, but I think we agree that when he lied, it was for a reason. asked you this before:
What's your best reason for why (for months!) he pretended to be a near caricature of the Hollywood 'murderous bureaucrat'? I'll respond in detail.
fireofice wrote:Hektor wrote:What do you think the motivation was for Sassen to set up and record the interviews and for Eichmann to cooperate in it?
Sassen definitely wanted a juicy story to sell. Some say he was going into it trying to get Eichmann to disprove the holocaust. I haven't found any good evidence of this, or if I have seen it I have forgotten it. There were definitely some in the room who weren't comfortable with what Eichmann was saying, as in the documentary I posted earlier, a tape is played where some think it is a good idea to stop because it wasn't what they were expecting. But Sassen is a different story. If he really wanted to "disprove" the holocaust story, he wouldn't have continued on with the interview. Eichmann knew Sassen was a journalist, and he even says at his trial that Sassen was egging him on. Now that could be a made up defense, but it could also be true. Even if Sassen was looking to disprove the holocaust at first, Eichmann probably knew what he really wanted, and that was a juicy story of someone at the center of mass extermination. Once he did that, they both really got into it.
Butterfangers wrote:bombsaway wrote:
Where did I claim Eichmann never lied during any of his pretrial statements?
Right here, page 16 of the current thread:
I think the only people that agree Eichmann lied (consciously uttering mistruths) in his pre-capture statements are revisionists.
Please do your best to explain this away.
Butterfangers wrote:So, in other words, your answer is zero? Fill in the blank: the minimum number of human bodies-turned-ash we know for certain (through physical examination and measurement, unreliant on testimony) to be buried underneath Treblinka is ______? For Sobibor, is ______? Belzec is ______?
But you can see it's a lot, eg in Treblinka based on the ash field there, which according to witnesses contained part of the ash
Lol what? We know property was burned in massive pyres at Treblinka. No one denies there were fires. So, how much ash can you say has been estimated at Treblinka, and how much of that is human? Do we know for certain (through verifiable, physical tests of any kind) that at least 100 Jews' worth of ashes are present there?
Opinion On grounds of the postmortem examination made I find that the aforementioned bones and soft tissue parts as well as the ash are predominantly of human origin. A very small part comes from wood. Judging by the huge amount of ash and bones I assert that the same must be from a very large quantity of human bodies. The small soft tissue parts of human bodies that are in the ash and not completely carbonized issue a smell that is caused by the decomposition process of the remains of human soft tissue parts. This smell is also caused by the fact that the soil is soaked by the masses of decomposing human corpses that were burned after having been extracted from the soil. Considering the sandy soil in which the human corpses were burned and the state of decomposition of the body parts found, one has to assume that these corpses were presumably buried about 3 years ago.
Butterfangers wrote:You bring up an excellent question regarding "why (for months!) [Eichmann] pretended to be a near caricature of the Hollywood 'murderous bureaucrat'" but I think a better way to phrase that question is simply:
Why did Eichmann spend four months and some 70+ hours of his time just to help some guy [Sassen] gather material for a book he wanted to write? Did Eichmann offer up his time for free? Or did he have some other motivation? If so, what was that motivation? Are we just to assume it was a burning desire to tell the truth (as your position requires), even after what we know about him and his lies??
bombsaway wrote:There's no evidence he was a pathological liar, so a plausible motivation should provided, just as one might be provided for why he would tell the truth.
bombsaway wrote:....Butterfangers wrote:You bring up an excellent question regarding "why (for months!) [Eichmann] pretended to be a near caricature of the Hollywood 'murderous bureaucrat'" but I think a better way to phrase that question is simply:
Why did Eichmann spend four months and some 70+ hours of his time just to help some guy [Sassen] gather material for a book he wanted to write? Did Eichmann offer up his time for free? Or did he have some other motivation? If so, what was that motivation? Are we just to assume it was a burning desire to tell the truth (as your position requires), even after what we know about him and his lies??
There's no evidence he was a pathological liar, so a plausible motivation should provided, just as one might be provided for why he would tell the truth.
Stangneth and most historians I think conclude that the reason he talked to Sassen was because he was frustrated with his anonymity and lowly position as a rabbit farmer, and wanted to reclaim some of his former 'great man' status. He also wanted to get his "truth" out, which was both his ethical framework as well as insider details about specifics of deportation, and decision making behind the killing. Ultimately he believed he had acted correctly and in the interests of his country and wanted people to know this. He certainly tried to convince the Sassen group.
I think it's definitely possible he wanted to make money, though I haven't seen evidence here if you're saying Sassen paid him. But I don't see what that has to do with him being motivated to present himself in this way. ....
Hektor wrote:After all, it appears they were having a good Time while they were telling stories.
fireofice wrote:Hektor wrote:After all, it appears they were having a good Time while they were telling stories.
Yeah, it's basically just absurd campfire horror stories told by Eichmann.
Imagine clinging to this as "evidence" and continuing to argue that it's legit evidence for an extended period of time. Embarrassing.
Basson's trial began on 4 October 1999 in Pretoria. At the time, the South African media had dubbed him "Dr Death". Basson faced 67 charges, including drug possession, drug trafficking, fraud and embezzlement of a total of R36,000,000, 229 murders and conspiracy to murder and theft. Basson refused to seek amnesty from the Truth Commission. The prosecution presented 153 witnesses, but the case soon began to turn against them. On 11 October 1999 Judge Willie Hartzenberg dismissed six important charges, including four charges of murder and possible involvement in 200 deaths in Namibia, because he stated that the South African court could not prosecute crimes committed in other countries. Basson was also included in the Namibian amnesty of 1989. Hartzenberg then adjourned the trial for two weeks. After 18 months of trial, he reduced the number of charges to 46.
Basson called only one witness – himself. In July 2001 Basson began to present his own evidence, speaking for 40 days. He stated that he had learned about weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein, that he had indeed had free rein in the project and that he had exchanged information with foreign governments. Technically, all that was legal. The defence argued that Basson should have immunity for anything that had happened in Namibia. On 22 April 2002 Judge Hartzenberg dismissed all the remaining charges against Basson and acquitted him. In his judgement, the judge called the state's case "fragmented and confusing", and that it was largely superficial, hoping to convince the court of Basson's guilt in a manner which fell far short of the standard "beyond reasonable doubt". Judge Hartzenberg further added that the state seemed to have decided what the truth was and had urged the court not to believe anything that contradicted the state's version of the truth.[11] The trial had lasted 30 months. The state tried to appeal the judgement due to legal inaccuracies, but the Supreme Court of Appeal refused to order a retrial in 2003, a step reserved for appeals that had no chance of success.
Sassen, the keen poker player, had overplayed his hand. His notes give us a
clue as to why he took such a great risk: he was convinced that Wisliceny was
still alive. “Personally, I want to assert once more,” he dictates for the tape,
“that I do not believe Wisliceny is dead. Wisliceny is being held in reserve as
long as they remain unsure about Eichmann.”242 Who “they” were was self
evident to Sassen—they were the Jews again, with their secret machinations,
pretending to the world that Wisliceny had been executed in Bratislava. In
reality, “international Jewry” needed someone who could repeat on demand
that millions of Jews had been murdered. Then—as Sassen’s fairy tale
continues—Israel could extort payments from Germany. But because the
millions were only a “legend,” “international Jewry” couldn’t be sure that
Eichmann would confirm it. Significantly, Sassen told Eichmann nothing of
this crazy theory, because in reality it was Sassen himself who was “unsure
about Eichmann.”
bombsaway wrote:In your campfire story hour theory, you guys aren't taking into account that Sassen was a committed revisionist and disturbed enough by Eichmann's statements to suspect he was working for the Jews. There was no alignment between them when it came to Eichmann's statements and views on genocide.Sassen, the keen poker player, had overplayed his hand. His notes give us a
clue as to why he took such a great risk: he was convinced that Wisliceny was
still alive. “Personally, I want to assert once more,” he dictates for the tape,
“that I do not believe Wisliceny is dead. Wisliceny is being held in reserve as
long as they remain unsure about Eichmann.”242 Who “they” were was self
evident to Sassen—they were the Jews again, with their secret machinations,
pretending to the world that Wisliceny had been executed in Bratislava. In
reality, “international Jewry” needed someone who could repeat on demand
that millions of Jews had been murdered. Then—as Sassen’s fairy tale
continues—Israel could extort payments from Germany. But because the
millions were only a “legend,” “international Jewry” couldn’t be sure that
Eichmann would confirm it. Significantly, Sassen told Eichmann nothing of
this crazy theory, because in reality it was Sassen himself who was “unsure
about Eichmann.”
Hektor wrote:
Not sure what your point (or source) is in or on this. How was Sassen a "committed Revisionist"?
bombsaway wrote:Hektor wrote:
Not sure what your point (or source) is in or on this. How was Sassen a "committed Revisionist"?
As you can see above, in Sassen's dictation he says the Holocaust was a "legend" and had been manufactured in part to get Israel to extort payments from Germany.
He was convinced of this, at least initially, which is why he suspected Eichmann of being in league with the Jews. In your theory you were speculating that they were in lockstep and this is counter evidence to that.
The source is given as "BA tape 08A, 42:13 onward" (from 'Eichmann Before Jerusalem')
Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests
