The bogus Bruns document

[Hannover]

I quote from Sailor at the old Forum:

"David Irving found in 1977 documents in the Public Record Office, London, according to which a Generalmajor Walter Bruns, while in British custody in April 1945, was overheard to relate to another prisoner that he witnessed the shooting of 42,000 Jewish women and children close to Riga in 1941. This was recorded through a hidden microphone. And David Irving thinks that the tape is authentic."
see:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/Bruns/index.html

It' simply amazing that anyone, even the reknowned David Irving would take stock in this obvious absurd 'document'.

Some points about it:

- Upon quick viewing, anyone know of 'SKIOTAWA'?

- 42,000 allegedly murdered & buried in one place, but no physical/forensic evidence. Why don't they get a shovel and find the evidence? The answer is obvious.

- And ofcourse they just stood around and merrily waited to be shot,
I quote:
"here they stood in a queue 1 1/2 km long which approached step by step - a queueing up for death. As they drew nearer they saw what was going on."

- another quote:
"I said: "FÜHRER's orders?" "Yes", whereupon he showed me his orders." - Okay, let's see them.

More howlers:

- Irving himself makes a point, I quote:
"Werner Altemeyer, the 21-year-old Stabsleiter (chief of staff) attached to the Nazi mayor of Riga, trained at the Nazi Ordensburg at Crössinsee/Pommern. Remarkable for the general reader, perhaps, the fact that a 21-year-old should have had the authority to execute this crime in the name of the German people."

- Right, a 21 yr. old chief of staff making such decisions?

- But then again, what decision? There was, according to the text of the alleged statements, a Fuehrer order which would have required no decision, I quote:
"He said: "Well, they're to be shot in accordance with the Fuehrer's orders! I said: "FÜHRER's orders?" "Yes", whereupon he showed me his orders."

- But wait! There is no order, since a way of informing Hitler must be figured out, I quote:
"We didn't quite know how to tell the Fuehrer. We'd better do it through CANARIS." CANARIS had the unsavoury task of waiting for the favourable moment to give the FÜHRER certain gentle hints. A fortnight later I visited the Oberbürgermeister or whatever he was called then, concerning some other business. ALTENMEYER(?) triumphantly showed me: "Here is an order, just issued, prohibiting mass-shootings on that scale from taking place in future. They are to be carried out more discreetly."

- The entire things sounds ridiculous on the face of it. Forgetting for the moment that the alleged text doesn't make sense, we are stuck again with text allegedly taken from an original source (the actual recording); but we have not seen that original source, only a claim that a tape exists....somewhere.

- This sham 'document' was found in British archives, which means someone put it there. I don't need to say what that implies.

We must apply the same crime solving techniques to things 'holocaustian' (where logic, science, and rational thought seem to have been suspended) as we would for other alleged crimes.

Hannover

[Sailor]

This is Rudolf's comment about Bruns:

Ich kann erklären, warum Bruns, der in britischer Gefangenschaft saß, diese Aussage getätigt hat (wenn er sie denn gemacht hat). Womöglich wußte er, daß seine Gespräche mit seinen Mitgefangenen belauscht wurden, und seine Aufgabe war es, eine solche Aussage auf das Band zu sprechen und womöglich ähnliche Aussagen aus seinen Mitgefangenen herauszuholen.
Ein weiterer Hinweis, daß dem so ist, gibt uns sein Verhalten während des Internationalen Militärtribunals. Während diesem versuchte er nämlich, sich selbst von seiner Aussage zu distanzieren, indem er behauptete, dies nicht selbst gesehen, sondern angeblich von Dritten berichtet bekommen zu haben - die, so müssen wir schließen, entweder ihrerseits logen, oder die Bruns völlig mißverstanden haben muß. Schließlich wußte Bruns, daß schon die bloße Anwesenheit seiner Person bei einem solchen hypothetischen Massenmord für ihn selbst gefährlich werden konnte.

[My translation:]
I can explain why Bruns, who was in British captivity, made this statement (if he did make it at all). He possibly knew, that his discussions with his fellow inmates were overheard, and that his task was to make such a statement on tape and possibly get similar statements out of his fellow inmates.

A further indication that this is so, is indicated by his conduct during the IMT. During this he tried to distance himself from his earlier statement by maintaining, that he did not see it himself, but that this was allegedly reportet by third persons - who, we have to conclude, either themselves lied or who Bruns must have totalltally misunderstood. After all Bruns knew, that already only his personal presence at such a hypothetical mass murder could become dangerous to himself.

[Peptic]

This is Rudolf's comment about Bruns:

[My translation:]

I can explain why Bruns, who was in British captivity, made this statement (if he did make it at all). He possibly knew, that his discussions with his fellow inmates were overheard, and that his task was to make such a statement on tape and possibly get similar statements out of his fellow inmates.

I don't get it. Why should Bruns be trying to implicate fellow prisoners?

The murders of Jews in Riga in late November and early December 1941, including the Berlin Jews who were shot by mistake, are probably the best attested to massacres of Jews in the Soviet Union.

A further indication that this is so, is indicated by his conduct during the IMT. During this he tried to distance himself from his earlier statement by maintaining, that he did not see it himself, but that this was allegedly reportet by third persons - who, we have to conclude, either themselves lied or who Bruns must have totalltally misunderstood. After all Bruns knew, that already only his personal presence at such a hypothetical mass murder could become dangerous to himself.

Again, Rudolf's logic escapes me or something was lost in translation. How does Bruns' self-evident motive in denying his attendance at the massacres tie in with an attempt to implicate other officers?

[Hannover]

Because his captors wanted him to, that's why. He would gain from serving their interests. Nothing new about why people lie to make things easier for themselves. And as Rudolf implies, we're not sure Bruns actually even said this silliness.

I see you are avoiding the contents of the Bruns document itself, which as I originally posted, is absurd.

- Hannover

[Sailor]

By Peptic: I don't get it. Why should Bruns be trying to implicate fellow prisoners?

The British wanted confessions, they had certain ways with some of their POW's. Höß was beaten half to death with a horse whip, sleep deprivation and alcoholization before he signed a ridiculous affidavit.

The murders of Jews in Riga in late November and early December 1941, including the Berlin Jews who were shot by mistake, are probably the best attested to massacres of Jews in the Soviet Union.

Did they find the mass graves?

Again, Rudolf's logic escapes me or something was lost in translation. How does Bruns' self-evident motive in denying his attendance at the massacres tie in with an attempt to implicate other officers?

I don't think that I fully understand the question. A lot of people were hanged for nothing. The justice system of today in the US cannot be compared with the victor's justice in Germany then.

The paragraph I quoted is from:
Das üben wir jetzt bis zur Vergasung!
"Wie Lämmer zur Schlachtbank" · Analyse eines Zeugenaussagen-Schemas
(We practice this now until we drop dead! "Like lambs to the slaughterhouse". An Analysis of the Scheme of Witness Testimonies) (German only)
http://www.vho.org/VffG/2000/2/Rudolf165-167.html

It is in Germany against the law to publicly criticize any part of the orthodox Holocaust story, and it is also against the law to make fun in any form of witness testimonies, no matter how unrealistic or plain stupid these stories are.

In this article Rudolf discusses and ridicules several of these testimonies, and among them is this Bruns' overheard and taped statement.

Rudolf is puzzled how a German general could talk such nonsense. He goes into great details about some of the rediculous statements, which are in line pretty much with Hannover's comments above.

Rudolf speculates in the paragraph I quoted why this general may have possibly said this. The British wanted confessions. "General, we got your wife, your kids. If you don't do as we tell you, off they go to Russia, Siberia!"
If I were the General I would do what they wanted in order to protect my family. How about you, Peptic?

fge

[Peptic]

Because his captors wanted him to, that's why. He would gain from serving their interests. Nothing new about why people lie to make things easier for themselves. And as Rudolf implies, we're not sure Bruns actually even said this silliness.

But earlier in the thread you wrote: "This sham 'document' was found in British archives, which means someone put it there." This suggest that you are sure that Bruns never said this silliness. Are you now accepting the possibility that Bruns did say these things?

[Hannover]

I'm saying that the contents of this alleged document are a farce. It's the contents that you continue to dodge, why is that? Comment on the contents please.

- Hannover

[Hannover]

I further recommend:

'Bruns admits confession was fake'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=1311

- Hannover

[Laurentz Dahl]

Alleged recordings of conversations - so where are the tapes?

[Wahrheit]

Some points about it:

- Upon quick viewing, anyone know of 'SKIOTAWA'?

Bruns in his admission states that 'Skiotawa' is some 8 km from Riga. It is almost certain that Bruns was discussing the city of Skirotava, which does exist immediately outside Riga.

Check this map:
http://www.traveljournals.net/explore/l ... otava.html

Bruns' German accent, excited talk, or other environmental noises could have garbled the word, leading to the slight misspelling.

Hannover wrote:

- 42,000 allegedly murdered & buried in one place, but no physical/forensic evidence. Why don't they get a shovel and find the evidence? The answer is obvious.

Bruns admits to only later hearing of this number, not actually being present. I would also call into question this figure, which one could certainly not rely upon Bruns' hearsay to verify.

I do not agree, however, that Bruns' eyewitness testimony is refuted by this one piece of hearsay evidence, which he clearly included to add to the impact of his statement, not as the basis of it. Rather the basis was what he witnessed with his own two eyes.

- And ofcourse they just stood around and merrily waited to be shot,
I quote:
"here they stood in a queue 1 1/2 km long which approached step by step - a queueing up for death. As they drew nearer they saw what was going on."

I do not believe that all people must be counted upon to run away from such an event. Had they done so, they were likely put right back in line by armed guards. Of course, the Soviets accomplished deeds of similar nature.

- another quote:
"I said: "FÜHRER's orders?" "Yes", whereupon he showed me his orders." - Okay, let's see them.

There were no such orders. Typed copies and facsimiles would exist had there been so. Bruns' was likely shown something else, perhaps something on the general nature of policing the newly occupied regions, which he took as a Hitler order. My problems with this statement are not enough, however, to justify the exclusion of his witness testimony regarding the massacre of Berlin Jews outside Riga..especially when it sits perfectly with other pieces of evidence from Himmler, which I have posted elsewhere

- Irving himself makes a point, I quote:
"Werner Altemeyer, the 21-year-old Stabsleiter (chief of staff) attached to the Nazi mayor of Riga, trained at the Nazi Ordensburg at Crössinsee/Pommern. Remarkable for the general reader, perhaps, the fact that a 21-year-old should have had the authority to execute this crime in the name of the German people."

- Right, a 21 yr. old chief of staff making such decisions?

A chief of staff to the appointed mayor of an occupied city is not that far-fetched, I am afraid. We are not talking Stabsleiter to die Fuehrer here.

Look at how young some of the American troops in the CPA were, who governed Iraq for many months.

- The entire things sounds ridiculous on the face of it. Forgetting for the moment that the alleged text doesn't make sense, we are stuck again with text allegedly taken from an original source (the actual recording); but we have not seen that original source, only a claim that a tape exists....somewhere.

Perhaps the tapes do exist, perhaps they do not. I do not think that it is central to the issue at all unless one can prove a conspiracy of forging these documents.

We are left with the transcripts one way or the other.

- This sham 'document' was found in British archives, which means someone put it there. I don't need to say what that implies.

I think much evidence is needed to suggest a forging or possible alteration of these CSDIC tapes, which have been used by researchers since the 1960s (Irving).

In short, all we have is a bunch of ideas and hot air, but nothing of real substance to enable us to discount these tape recordings.

[jnovitz]

Presumably not on magnetic tape as the Allies did not have that technology.
It could have been on something like this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_recorder

As soon as I heard those
1will be added to the list of war criminals: 'Listen to
2me, they represent valuable manpower!' 'Do you call Jews
3valuable human beings, sir?'" That was the answer. "I
4said: 'Listen to me properly, I said valuable manpower. I
5didn't mention their value as human beings'. He
6said: 'Well, they're to be shot in accordance with the
7Fuhrer's orders!' I said: 'Fuhrer's orders?' 'Yes',
8whereupon he showed me his orders. This happened at
9Skiotawa()?) eight kilometres from Riga, between Siaulai
10and Jelgava, where 5,000 Berlin Jews were suddenly taken
11off the train and shot.

Skiotawa is probably Skirotava which is about 8 km from the center of Riga and a trainstation, although nowadays part of the metropolis.

It is nowhere near Jelgava which is around 45 kilometers away, which a German would have called Mitau in anycase and not the Latvian name.

As for Siaulai, is that supposed to be Šiauliai a rather large town in Lithuania? Again even further than Jelgava from Riga and/or Skirotava and today in another country!

A German would have called it Schaulen and not the Lithuanian name.

Of course, hypothetically, a train might have passed through Siauliai and then Jelgava and then onto Riga stopping at the suburban station Skirotava. But even so I would have expected a German to use the German names for theses places.

[jnovitz]

Perhaps if I post a google map (with German names) to make things a bit clearer.

Skirotava is, of course, subsumed into Riga suburbs and does not show up. But you can see Mitau (Jelgava) and Schaulen. It makes his wording seem rather odd to me.

[Hannover]

Wahrheit said:

In short, all we have is a bunch of ideas and hot air, but nothing of real substance to enable us to discount these tape recordings.

This is getting old, but he is simply dodging what's posted, examples:

'Bruns admits confession was fake'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=1311

- 42,000 allegedly murdered & buried in one place, but no physical/forensic evidence. Why don't they get a shovel and find the evidence? The answer is obvious.

- And ofcourse they just stood around and merrily waited to be shot,
I quote:
"here they stood in a queue 1 1/2 km long which approached step by step - a queueing up for death. As they drew nearer they saw what was going on."

- another quote:
"I said: "FÜHRER's orders?" "Yes", whereupon he showed me his orders." - Okay, let's see them.

More howlers:

- Irving himself makes a point, I quote:
"Werner Altemeyer, the 21-year-old Stabsleiter (chief of staff) attached to the Nazi mayor of Riga, trained at the Nazi Ordensburg at Crössinsee/Pommern. Remarkable for the general reader, perhaps, the fact that a 21-year-old should have had the authority to execute this crime in the name of the German people."

- Right, a 21 yr. old chief of staff making such decisions?

- But then again, what decision? There was, according to the text of the alleged statements, a Fuehrer order which would have required no decision, I quote:
"He said: "Well, they're to be shot in accordance with the Fuehrer's orders! I said: "FÜHRER's orders?" "Yes", whereupon he showed me his orders."

- But wait! There is no order, since a way of informing Hitler must be figured out, I quote:
"We didn't quite know how to tell the Fuehrer. We'd better do it through CANARIS." CANARIS had the unsavoury task of waiting for the favourable moment to give the FÜHRER certain gentle hints. A fortnight later I visited the Oberbürgermeister or whatever he was called then, concerning some other business. ALTENMEYER(?) triumphantly showed me: "Here is an order, just issued, prohibiting mass-shootings on that scale from taking place in future. They are to be carried out more discreetly."
- The entire things sounds ridiculous on the face of it. Forgetting for the moment that the alleged text doesn't make sense, we are stuck again with text allegedly taken from an original source (the actual recording); but we have not seen that original source, only a claim that a tape exists....somewhere.

- This sham 'document' was found in British archives, which means someone put it there. I don't need to say what that implies.

We must apply the same crime solving techniques to things 'holocaustian' (where logic, science, and rational thought seem to have been suspended) as we would for other alleged crimes.

I request that Wahrheit stop dodging points.

The content of these tapes is absurd and contradictory.

- Hannover