Taubner Verdict - Proof of extermination?

[Hektor]

About the alleged source:

The German version of the title cited by Dr. Keren
is: Klee, Ernst; Wille Dressen, Volker Riess: _"Schoene
Zeiten": Judenmord aus der Sicht der Taeter und Gaffer_,
Frankfurt/M.: Fischer, 3rd ed., 1988.

Allegedly the original German passage:

...1.) Wegen der Judenaktion als solcher soll der Angeklagte
nicht bestraft werden. Die Juden muessen vernichtet werden,
es ist um keinen der getoeteten Juden schade. Wenn sich auch
der Angeklagte haette sagen muessen, dass die Vernichtung der
Juden Aufgabe besonders hierfuer eingerichteter Kommandos
ist, soll ihm zugute gehalten werden, dass er sich befugt
gehalten haben mag, auch seinerseits an der Vernichtung
des Judentums teilzunehmen. Wirklicher Judenhass ist der
treibende Beweggrund fuer den Angeklagten gewesen. Er hat
sich dabei allerdings in Alexandria zu Grausamkeiten
hinreissen lassen, die eines deutschen Mannes und SS-Fuehrers
unwuerdig sind. Diese Uebergriffe lassen sich auch nicht,
wie es der Angeklagte will, damit rechtfertigen, dass sie
nur gerechte Vergeltungen fuer das Leid seien, das die Juden
dem deutschen Volke angetan haben. Es ist nicht deutsche
Art, bei der notwendigen Vernichtung des schlimmsten Feindes
unseres Volkes bolschewistische Methoden anzuwenden. An
solche grenzt die Handlungsweise des Angeklagten bedenklich.
[The English translation is not quite accurate here. Better:
"The acting of the accuses is dangerously close to such
methods.", N.A.] Der Angeklagte hat es zu einer so ueblen
Verrohung seiner Maenner kommen lassen, dass sie sich unter
seinem Vorantritt wie eine wueste Horde auffuehrten [...]
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/t/ ... verdict-ad

English Translation:

1. The accused shall not be punished because of the actions against
the Jews as such. The Jews have to be exterminated and none of the
Jews that were killed is any great loss. Although the accused should
have recognized that the extermination of the Jews was the duty of
Kommandos which were set up especially for this purpose, he should
be excused for considering himself to have the authority to take
part in the extermination of Jewry himself. Real hatred of the Jews
was the driving motivation for the accused. In the process he let
himself be drawn into committing cruel actions in Alexandriya which
are unworthy of a German man and an SS-officer. These excesses cannot
be justified, either, as the accused would like to, as retaliation
for the pain that the Jews have caused the German people. It is not
the German way to apply Bolshevic methods during the necessary
extermination of the worst enemy of our people. In so doing the
conduct of the accused gives rise to considerable concern. The
accused allowed his men to act with such vicious brutality that
they conducted themselves under his command like a savage horde...
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/t/ ... 43-verdict

Any comments?

[Hannover]

Yawn, this has already been debunked, here:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=1201

Take note there are no authentic documents to verify this laughable text.

There are no mass graves as alleged, there is no physical evidence, the gas chambers as alleged are impossible, there are no authentic documents. That's the so called 'holocaust' in a nutshell. Simple.

Search 'Taubner' at this forum for more.

- Hannover

[Hektor]

Yawn, this has already been debunked, here:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=1201

Take note there are no authentic documents to verify this laughable text.
...

It is indeed not possible to get a picture of an original looking document on the net. Which is strange, since the Holocaustians usually will give a .jpg in addition, if they think a document supports their position.

I found another hint on that document:

(Anmerkung: Dieses Dokument lag 1981 einem Prozess in Heilbronn gegen Untergebene Max T.s zugrunde. T., der bereits 1943 von dem Obersten SS- und Polizeigericht rechtskräftig verurteilt worden war, trat neben seinen noch lebenden damaligen Richtern selbst nur als Zeuge vor Gericht auf.)
http://www.blinkbits.com/de_wikifeeds/S ... gshauptamt

translation:

Remark: This document was the foundation of a trial in Heilbronn against Max T. T., who was already convicted in 1943 by the "Obersten SS- und Polizeigericht", acted besides his still living formerly judges only as a witness in the trial.

Still no original document has been shown.

[EtienneSC]

I am adding a version of one of my recent contributions to the Skeptics' forum to this thread, as it contains information on the Taubner verdict not already available on CODOH forum. The judge in the case was Günther Reinecke:

I have some residual doubts [about the genuineness of the Taubner verdict] for the following reasons: a) Wilhelm Staeglich and others have pointed out the general difficulty in accessing original documents on this subject; b) parts of the document go against legal norms, particularly in countenancing extra-judicial killings. This is out of character for someone with the legal training, which predated the NS era, of the judge in the case, that Reinecke, describes in his Nuremberg testimony. In particular, the verdict is radically inconsistent with Reinecke's testimony at Nuremberg, when he is asked:

PELTZMANN: [...] I have to ask you: Did the Waffen-SS commit crimes against the civilian population in the occupied territories and at the front, and were these crimes committed systematically and in violation of international agreements, in violation of the penal law existing in the countries concerned, and in violation of the general principles of penal law of all civilized nations?
REINECKE: No, there can be no question of that. [...] the courts in every theater of war and during the entire duration of the war passed sentences for murder, looting, man-slaughter, assault, rape, ill-treatment, and also for killing prisoners of war; and in trying such cases the race or nationality of the person concerned had no influence whatever.

So if that reply is false, we have two lawyers (Morgen being the other) lying under oath at Nuremberg. d) it's not part of a series, but extracted from a personnel file (see below); e) it is clearly a significant document, others are accessible online, why not this; f) no material confirmation of the killings has been sought, despite approximate locations being given; and g) in principle, throwing up doubts tends to produce new documents that neither side in a debate has foreseen, increasing the documentary evidence under consideration and thus improving the chances of getting at the truth in the widest context. (Initially I was swayed by the indecisive discussion on CODOH, but we have now got beyond this.)

With regard to g), it turns out that there is a history of the SS and Police Court in a chapter by Christopher Theel of the collection Nazi Ideology and Ethics (Ed. Bialas. Cambridge Scholars, 2014, 343). It emerges that Himmler decreed that the head of the SS court could not be a lawyer (344-45). This would help explain the neglect of legal norms in the Taubner verdict, but it seems to be contradicted by the Reinecke testimony (see below). Puzzling. The SS Court is said to have destroyed its records at the end of the war (346). Theel says that the Taubner verdict survives as part of his personnel file, not as part as a series (346n13). He states that it "may have been an extreme exception" (346). The destruction of records contrasts with the Wehrmacht war crimes bureau that De Zayas studied. Neither courts had independent jurisdiction according to law (347).

The head of the court's legal office and judge in the Taubner case (The Good Old Days, 286), Günther Reinecke, testified at Nuremberg. Incidentally, it contains an interesting remark about Aktion Reinhard:

Aktion Reinhard was divided into four parts: (a) resettlement, (b) use of labor, (c) use of materials, (d) seizure of hidden values and real estate.
It's remarkable what happens when the defense springs to life. There were further investigations into Taubner in the 1950/60s and an appeal decision not to prosecute him in 1970. I would have found none of this out if I had not raised the initial doubt.

On the other hand, there is independent evidence of the verdict being given from the later pardon. I wonder what happened to Reinecke when the Taubner verdict was discovered?

Frankly, I was on the point of conceding the argument, but reading Reinecke's words in his Nuremberg testimony makes me uncertain again. Were both statements really given by the same man? I suggest that you might read Reinecke's Nuremberg testimony (links above) as background.

[hermod]

About the alleged source:

The German version of the title cited by Dr. Keren
is: Klee, Ernst; Wille Dressen, Volker Riess: _"Schoene
Zeiten": Judenmord aus der Sicht der Taeter und Gaffer_,
Frankfurt/M.: Fischer, 3rd ed., 1988.

Allegedly the original German passage:

...1.) Wegen der Judenaktion als solcher soll der Angeklagte
nicht bestraft werden. Die Juden muessen vernichtet werden,
es ist um keinen der getoeteten Juden schade. Wenn sich auch
der Angeklagte haette sagen muessen, dass die Vernichtung der
Juden Aufgabe besonders hierfuer eingerichteter Kommandos
ist, soll ihm zugute gehalten werden, dass er sich befugt
gehalten haben mag, auch seinerseits an der Vernichtung
des Judentums teilzunehmen. Wirklicher Judenhass ist der
treibende Beweggrund fuer den Angeklagten gewesen. Er hat
sich dabei allerdings in Alexandria zu Grausamkeiten
hinreissen lassen, die eines deutschen Mannes und SS-Fuehrers
unwuerdig sind. Diese Uebergriffe lassen sich auch nicht,
wie es der Angeklagte will, damit rechtfertigen, dass sie
nur gerechte Vergeltungen fuer das Leid seien, das die Juden
dem deutschen Volke angetan haben. Es ist nicht deutsche
Art, bei der notwendigen Vernichtung des schlimmsten Feindes
unseres Volkes bolschewistische Methoden anzuwenden. An
solche grenzt die Handlungsweise des Angeklagten bedenklich.
[The English translation is not quite accurate here. Better:
"The acting of the accuses is dangerously close to such
methods.", N.A.] Der Angeklagte hat es zu einer so ueblen
Verrohung seiner Maenner kommen lassen, dass sie sich unter
seinem Vorantritt wie eine wueste Horde auffuehrten [...]
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/t/ ... verdict-ad

English Translation:

1. The accused shall not be punished because of the actions against
the Jews as such. The Jews have to be exterminated and none of the
Jews that were killed is any great loss. Although the accused should
have recognized that the extermination of the Jews was the duty of
Kommandos which were set up especially for this purpose, he should
be excused for considering himself to have the authority to take
part in the extermination of Jewry himself. Real hatred of the Jews
was the driving motivation for the accused. In the process he let
himself be drawn into committing cruel actions in Alexandriya which
are unworthy of a German man and an SS-officer.These excesses cannot
be justified, either, as the accused would like to, as retaliation
for the pain that the Jews have caused the German people. It is not
the German way to apply Bolshevic methods during the necessary
extermination of the worst enemy of our people. In so doing the
conduct of the accused gives rise to considerable concern. The
accused allowed his men to act with such vicious brutality that
they conducted themselves under his command like a savage horde...
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/t/ ... 43-verdict

Any comments?

A proper translation of vernichtet /vernichtung is annihilated/annihilation, not exterminated/extermination. Annihilation literally means reduction to nothing and comes from the Latin words ad (to) and nihil (nothing). A full territorial eviction of course reduces a specific group to nothing in a given area. That's what the Nazi annihilation of Jewry (Endlösung der Judenfrage, Judenaktion) was about in reality. Not about mass murder.

In May 1940 Himmler wrote: “we reject the Bolshevist method of physical destruction of a people as un-Germanic and impossible…”

Good to see the Nazi views on the matter had remained unchanged in 1943, as shown by this verdict (which makes sense only with the explanation & Himmler's quote above) if genuine.

How do Holohoaxers explain a mass murder without brutality and cruel actions? You must mass murder the Jews but you can't brutalize them?!? WTF???

[EtienneSC]

Three points:

1. The natural meaning of vernichten in the Taubner verdict seems to be killing. Killing by Taubner is clearly being referred to. As for the etymology, das Nichts in German is the same as nihil in Latin or nothing in English, but ver (not a stand-alone word) is not quite the same as ad (to). Hitler typically uses vernichten to mean nullify, deprive of power, but not always. Sometimes it means kill.

2. The judge (Dr Günther Reinecke) in the case seems not to have disputed the authenticity of the document when he was questioned about it in 1961. He stated instead that the vernichten sentence was a quote from Himmler. That could be plea bargaining or something similar, but the document does seem to exist.

3, As yet, no-one has produced images of any actual documents online.

[Hektor]

Do we have a transcript for review? The introductory part is a bit thick, as if the author wanted to make sure by repeating himself:"Look, dear Reader, tse evil Germans are exterminating the Jews". A jurist may have mentioned the background once, but the focus would be on the accused an what he personally is accused of. The German jurist style is also very dry.

My opinion: This wasn't written by a German Jurist, especially not one with military background.

[EtienneSC]

Do we have a transcript for review?
My opinion: This wasn't written by a German Jurist, especially not one with military background.

Not sure what you mean by a transcript. The book was originally published in German and contains most of the verdict.

Reinecke did not have a military background in WW1 as he was born in 1908. He was in the SS though.

[Hektor]

Do we have a transcript for review?
My opinion: This wasn't written by a German Jurist, especially not one with military background.

Not sure what you mean by a transcript. The book was originally published in German and contains most of the verdict.

I actually meant a facsimile of any supposedly original records.

Reinecke did not have a military background in WW1 as he was born in 1908. He was in the SS though.

He was quite high up in the SS one of their top judges AND he was interrogated during the Nuremberg show trials.
What he said there is more than just revealing:

RA. PELCKMANN: Herr Zeuge! Welche Dienststellungen haben Sie in der SS bekleidet?

[453] REINECKE: Ich war SS-Oberführer, Amtschef im Hauptamt SS-Gericht und Chefrichter des Obersten SS- und Polizeigerichts.
http://www.zeno.org/Geschichte/M/Der+N% ... agssitzung

So he was essentially a SS-general, chief of office in the Main Office SS-Court and Chief Judge of the supreme SS- and Police Court.
He got a phD in law in a time that still meant something in Germany. My take: He didn't author the text above. He's not telling the truth, when he later confirmed this. In his position he was subject to immediate arrest and I deem him intelligent and perceptive enough to have realized what the consequences of non-cooperation would have been. But why do I say the text is false?

Because he claims that during his activities as SS-judge he never came to have learned anything about killing Jews! He testified that at the Nuremberg trial:

RA. PELCKMANN: Die Einzelheiten dieses dramatischen Spieles zwischen Pohl, Himmler und dem SS-Gericht schildert ebenfalls das Affidavit Dr. Morgen – die Affidavits des Dr. Morgen, Nummer 65 bis 67.
Sind Ihnen, Herr Zeuge, im Laufe dieser Untersuchungen Maßnahmen oder Befehle Hitlers oder Himmlers zur

biologischen Ausrottung

des Judentums bekanntgeworden?

REINECKE: Nein, wir haben weder solche Befehle jemals gesehen, noch ist es uns auf Grund unserer Untersuchungsarbeit gelungen, ihrer habhaft zu werden oder sie anderswie zur Kenntnis zu bekommen. Solch ungeheuerliche Befehle waren uns unvorstellbar. Uns gegenüber hatte Himmler stets nur sein ideales Gesicht gezeigt: Sauberkeit, Anständigkeit, Verbrechensbekämpfung um jeden Preis. Mir persönlich hat er Ende des Jahres 1943 in einem Vortrag ausführlich diese Grundsätze bestätigt. Daß hier ein System der Massenvernichtung vorliegen würde, auf diese Idee konnte nach den vorhandenen Umständen und dieser Situation niemand kommen. Wir haben in den Konzentrationslagern grauenerregende Zustände vorgefunden. Wir haben manche Dinge erfahren, die uns erschüttert haben. Aber dieser Gedanke war nicht vorhanden. Namen wie Höß und Eichmann sind in unseren Verfahren aufgetaucht. Gegen beide lief auch ein Verfahren, das bei Kriegsende noch in den Anfängen steckte. Höß und Eichmann waren uns aber Namen wie beispielsweise Müller oder Maier. Kein Mensch konnte eine Ahnung davon haben, daß hinter diesen Personen sich die Handlanger eines furchtbaren Ausrottungssystems verbargen. Als wir um die Jahreswende 1944/1945 annähernd an den eigentlichen [483] Verbrechenskomplex in den Konzentrationslagern herankamen, nämlich daß Verbrechen auf Befehl begangen wurden, auch da erschien dieses Verteidigungsvorbringen von Pohl, Müller und Grawitz zunächst unglaubwürdig.
Denn wenn tatsächlich Befehle von oben vorgelegen hätten, die diese drei Personen ausgeführt haben, dann wäre es ihnen wohl ein leichtes gewesen, zu Himmler zu gehen, und die Ausschaltung des Gerichtswesens aus diesen Dingen zu erreichen.
So kam es, daß wir selbst trotz dieser erarbeiteten, mühsamen Ergebnisse keine justizmäßig einwandfreien Belege dafür hatten, daß Massenvernichtungen großen Stiles – gar nicht zu denken an die biologische Ausrottung des Judentums – vorgenommen worden seien und wir nach wie vor die Verbrechen, allerdings in erschreckendem Umfange und erschreckender Vielzahl, aber von dem Standpunkt des Einzelverbrechens aus, untersuchten.

http://www.zeno.org/Geschichte/M/Der+N% ... agssitzung

He confirms that they investigated SS-Staff working at concentration camps. He gives more details on this during his trials. But he never came to know something that hinted into the direction of "biological extirpation of Jewry" in a large style. With other words no knowledge about mass extermination of Jews, despite investigating some people supposedly being key characters in this. This contradicts the text of the Tauber verdict.

There is more in the transcripts of interest. But I save that for later. Anyway, we can add him to the long list of "Nazis that denied the Holocaust".

Given his position he must have had detailed knowledge of any mass extermination program, but he didn't and the Allied prosecutors at this trial didn't have anything to prove otherwise.

I also have found someone claiming to be a relative of him. This may become useful at a later stage, when someone has got the resources to investigate this matter further. PM me, if you want more information.

[EtienneSC]

I actually meant a facsimile of any supposedly original records.

I can write off for a copy. The "original" is in Berlin, so I'm told, with copies held elsewhere.

Given his position he must have had detailed knowledge of any mass extermination program, but he didn't and the Allied prosecutors at this trial didn't have anything to prove otherwise.

That works for his testimony in 1946, which powerful, reads authentically and is in line with his personal training and background. However, his statements in 1961 are inconsistent with this. It may be that there he was under duress of some kind in 1961 and persuaded to incriminate himself and Himmler. There was a later appeal, the result of which I'm not sure and an earlier decision not to prosecute Taubner. Reocrds of these exist. However, German court records can be inadequate and we have no evidence (other than your hunch) that this is what actually happened.

I'm also not clear on the evidence for the statement that the SS destroyed their court records.

I also have found someone claiming to be a relative of him. This may become useful at a later stage, when someone has got the resources to investigate this matter further. PM me, if you want more information.

It might, particularly if there were records available not yet in the public domain. I will PM you.

[Hektor]

I actually meant a facsimile of any supposedly original records.

I can write off for a copy. The "original" is in Berlin, so I'm told, with copies held elsewhere.

With present technology it shouldn't be too difficult to make and publish scans of this.

Otherwise it's playing hide and seek with the evidence, hence: A time wasting exercise.

Given his position he must have had detailed knowledge of any mass extermination program, but he didn't and the Allied prosecutors at this trial didn't have anything to prove otherwise.

That works for his testimony in 1946, which powerful, reads authentically and is in line with his personal training and background. However, his statements in 1961 are inconsistent with this. It may be that there he was under duress of some kind in 1961 and persuaded to incriminate himself and Himmler. There was a later appeal, the result of which I'm not sure and an earlier decision not to prosecute Taubner. Reocrds of these exist. However, German court records can be inadequate and we have no evidence (other than your hunch) that this is what actually happened.

My argument solely rests on critically analyzing the texts. And Dr. Reineke's initial, unchallenged statement that he didn't carry any knowledge about any extermination of Jews. There is no way that he didn't know about this, if it was real. So why didn't anyone challenge him on this.

I should add that he's quite open about the problems people in the concentration camp system had. But I guess having thousands of people dying of typhus or other diseases isn't really a pleasant idea.

However we should also bear in mind that the concentration camps and the Tauber case are two separate environments, since this is supposedly about killing Jews outside the concentration camps.

I'm also not clear on the evidence for the statement that the SS destroyed their court records.

Eh, why should they've done that anyway? One hypothesis could be that they "wanted to destroy evidence for the Holocaust". Not implausible, if that was real.

But hows this one for an equivalently valid argument:: It's not the SS that destroyed their records. They mostly fell into Allied hands. But it didn't fit their desired narrative, so they either destroyed them or hid them in some special archives.

I also have found someone claiming to be a relative of him. This may become useful at a later stage, when someone has got the resources to investigate this matter further. PM me, if you want more information.

It might, particularly if there were records available not yet in the public domain. I will PM you.

I responded.

About this Dr. Reineke. I wonder what work he exactly did after world war 2. I recall from the "Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial" that some of the SS-men who investigated alleged crimes by concentration camp staff (who however didn't dispute the gassing narrative), did continue to work for the police in Germany after the war. A possible hunch would be that their employer told them what and what not they'd have to testify. A hunch, but one that one certainly could find numerous other examples for. It is however again the situation where one claim contradicts the other without certainty which one is right.

[EtienneSC]

I have now received a photocopy version of the Taubner verdict. It is a typescript copy from 1959 signed (I presume by a Federal German legal investigator, court officer or similar) prepared for the then ongoing investigation into Reinecke. I'm not sure what use to make of it. Perhaps it would be as well to pause and consider what conclusions and hypotheses we wish to make before seeking further evidence.

Any thoughts?

[Moderator]

Please scan it / take a photo and post it here.
Thanks, M1

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

EtienneSC,

You can order a digital copy of the following microfilm from the NARA for $125.00:

Roll List for SS Officers, Microfilm Publication A3343, Series SSO

- Roll 171B [Svatschina, Emil to Tali, Juhan]

http://downloads.sturmpanzer.net/Guides/NARA_A3343_Guide_SSOfficerIndex.pdf

It contains a copy of Täubner's personnel file and according to the authors quoted below it should contain copies of the original judgment and other documents relating to his trial.

It takes roughly a week for the NARA to process an order for a digital copy of a MF. They'll email you a link so you can download your copy.

Alternatively you could contact a research firm such as this and ask them to get you photos of just Täubner's file [frames 118-237] from the MF. That will probably cost around $50.00 but as they only take photos of the documents as displayed on a MF reader monitor, the quality won't be as good as what you can expect from ordering a digital copy of the MF.

Documentation of the SS case against Täubner can be seen in NARA, BDC [Berlin Document Centre] file A 3343-SSO, Roll B-171.

- Hitler's Warrior: The Life and Wars of SS Colonel Jochen Peiper, p.346

BDC-file Max Täubner, National Archives, College Park (NARA), A 3343, reel B-171, frames 118–237;

p.239: http://kislenko.com/data/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Matthaus.pdf

[Hannover]

EtienneSC,

You can order a digital copy of the following microfilm from the NARA for $125.00:

Roll List for SS Officers, Microfilm Publication A3343, Series SSO

- Roll 171B [Svatschina, Emil to Tali, Juhan]

http://downloads.sturmpanzer.net/Guides/NARA_A3343_Guide_SSOfficerIndex.pdf

It contains a copy of Täubner's personnel file and according to the authors quoted below it should contain copies of the original judgment and other documents relating to his trial.
It takes roughly a week for the NARA to process an order for a digital copy of a MF. They'll email you a link so you can download your copy.
Alternatively you could contact a research firm such as this and ask them to get you photos of just Täubner's file [frames 118-237] from the MF. That will probably cost around $50.00 but as they only take photos of the documents as displayed on a MF reader monitor, the quality won't be as good as what you can expect from ordering a digital copy of the MF.

Documentation of the SS case against Täubner can be seen in NARA, BDC [Berlin Document Centre] file A 3343-SSO, Roll B-171.
- Hitler's Warrior: The Life and Wars of SS Colonel Jochen Peiper, p.346

BDC-file Max Täubner, National Archives, College Park (NARA), A 3343, reel B-171, frames 118–237;

p.239: http://kislenko.com/data/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Matthaus.pdf

It's telling that this 'information' hasn't been made openly available by the 'holocaust' Industry.
They are trying to hide something.

It contains a copy of Täubner's personnel file and according to the authors quoted below it should contain copies of the original judgment and other documents relating to his trial.

IOW, irrelevant information useless in reviewing the veracity of the case. No verbatim court testimony transcripts, no cross examination transcripts, and no list of evidence presented.

again:

"Max Taubner, Aircraft engineer, joined NSDAP 1932 (expelled for unpunctual payment of membership dues and readmitted in 1937), joined SS January 1933. SS-Untersturmfuhrer in 1. Werkstattzug in Kommandostab RFSS-Nachschubfuhrer. Attempt to bring Taubner to trial after the war failed in 1960. Memmingen Landesgericht and the Munich Oberlandesgericht (Provincial High Court) refused to open the main trial on the grounds that the existence of a prior verdict by the SS court prohibited the carrying out of new criminal proceedings (although Taubner had neither been accused or judged for the murder of Jews). The Bundesgerichthof (Federal Court) upheld this decision on 24 May 1972 (2 ARs 80/72)."

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.