https://www.darkmoon.me/2015/torture-and-testicle-crushing-at-nuremberg/
In which it's written
The startling revelation that almost all the German defendants at Nuremberg had had their testicles crushed must make us sit up and think. How can testimonies obtained under testicle crushing be regarded in any way as reliable?
Following reports that defendants were tortured at the Malmedy massacre trial, the US Army formed the “Simpson Commission” to investigate the alleged misconduct. Judge Edward L. Van Roden was part of this commission. According to Van Roden’s book, American Atrocities in Germany, out of 139 cases of treatment of alleged German “war criminals” who were investigated by the commission—and who were subsequently put on trial by the American Military Tribunal in Dachau after World War II—”137 of these Germans were tortured by having their testicles crushed.”Other methods used by the American interrogators included brutal beatings, placing a hood over prisoners and punching them in the face with brass knuckles, breaking their jaws, knocking out their teeth, putting them on starvation rations, and subjecting them to solitary confinement. The prisoners were then presented with prepared statements to sign. Confess or face more torture!
It emerged that Jewish prosecutors and interrogators had obtained complete control over the US Military tribunal that was to put German officials on trial for war crimes. This is seldom mentioned, as to do so is regarded as “anti-Semitic”. To state the unvarnished truth—that 137 Germans had their testicles mangled at Nuremberg by largely Jewish interrogators in order to obtain proof for the Holocaust—is regarded as “hate speech”.
From Darkmoon I was linked to a website now offline, but archived on the Wayback Machine
https://web.archive.org/web/20151220203026/https://exposing-the-holocaust-hoax-archive.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-holocaust-legend-is-built-on.html
Here I found the source.
Almost all defendants at Dachau trials had their testicles crushed
Following reports that defendants were tortured at the "Malmedy massacre" trial, the U.S. Army formed the "Simpson Commission" to investigate the alleged misconduct. Judge Edward L. Van Roden was part of this commission.
According to Van Roden's book American Atrocities in Germany, out of 139 cases of treatment of alleged German “war criminals” that were investigated by the commission (who were put on trial by the American Military Tribunal in Dachau after World War II), 137 were tortured by having their testicles crushed. Other methods used by the American interrogators included brutal beatings, placing a hood over the prisoner and punching them in the face with brass knuckles, breaking jaws, knocking out teeth, starvation rations, and solitary confinement. The prisoners were then presented with prepared statements to sign, "confessing" to various crimes.
I could've stopped here. But I didn't. I wanted to know more, so I googled Van Roden's book but instead of finding it, I found articles. Two of the sources I found were articles posted by David Irving and CODOH. Both having the source as 'E. L. Van Roden, "American Atrocities in Germany", The Progressive. February 1949, p. 21f.' https://codoh.com/library/document/1129/ http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Dachau/VanRoden1948.html
I also found another link. A link to an article published by the notorious Holocaust Controversies bloggers in which they claim to debunk the testicles 'meme' as they called it http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2017/04/137-crushed-lies-or-why-denial-is.html
The average online denier is not a sophisticated creature. He is usually satisfied with a few memes he has found on Twitter or at some forum and repeats them ad infinitum, never bothering to fact-check them, thus regurgitating the deceptive tidbits that have been debunked over and over and over again. One such moldy debunked meme is the myth about the crushed testicles of 137 German defendants in the Dachau trials.
They also cite the David Irving article, and make some disparaging comments towards Hannover where they cite a word search in which Hannover makes the testicles claim over and over again seemingly without criticism.
So of course this is repeated ad nauseam on Twitter and at trashy forums like CODOH, where this is a favorite of its know-nothing Aufseher "Hannover" .
They go on to cite other revisionists who have used the claim, in their article apparently without criticism. Simply accepting the story as a fact.
But the meme is used not only by online clowns. More "serious" sources quote it as if it were a proven fact. Germar Rudolf, writing under pseudonym "Manfred Köhler", insists in his article "The Value of Testimony and Confessions Concerning the Holocaust" that "... Americans extorted confessions from accused persons ... the methods used were [a list of allegedly used methods ending in] crushed testicles". Robert Faurisson, in a letter to the Journal of Historical Review, quotes Manstein's not quite honest lawyer Paget, who claimed that the Simpson Inquiry Commission "reported among other things that of the 139 cases they had investigated, 137 had had their testicles permanently destroyed by kicks received from the American War Crimes Investigating Team". Carlo Mattogno repeats the meme in Intervista sull'olocausto,in My Banned Holocaust Interview and in "The Myth of the Extermination of the Jews: Part II". The claim is repeated by Richard Harwood in Did Six Million Really Die? and by Roger Garaudy in The Founding Myths of Modern Israel, by Arthur Butz in The Hoax of the Twentieth Century and by Serge Thion in Historical Truth or Political Truth?.
Which basically means that the average denial guru has not evolved far from the average denier chimp.
Anyway, the claim is of course false and of course none of the individuals mentioned above have bothered to verify it. It was decisively debunked during the Malmedy massacre investigation hearings in the US Senate in 1949.
I don't want to quote the entire article, but it's not too long and really just relies on courtroom evidence, nevertheless it is interviews with those sources we revisionists have used to make the original claim.
I will just some from the article some of the relevant passages.
Gordon Simpson, of the Simpson Commission (composed of Simpson and Judge Van Roden), a former justice of the Texas Supreme court, was examined about the claim in 29.04.1949 (MMI, vol I, p. 197):
Mr. CHAMBERS. Today in the examination of other witnesses and in some of the printed stories based on the Simpson report, there is reference made to the fact that a rather surprising percentage - I think out of 139 cases all but 2 of the Germans had had their testicles damaged beyond repair. Where did you find the evidence on that?
Mr. SIMPSON. None at all.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Were there charges made to that effect?
Mr. SIMPSON. No; no claim was made to that effect in any of the records we inspected, and we diligently tried to find them.
Senator MCCARTHY. Just a second. Did you read Colonel Everett's affidavit, Judge?
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. You say there was no claim made. You read that before you conducted your investigation?
Mr. SIMPSON. I suppose you are correct. When I say no claim was made, I am too broad in that. I like to separate between the realm of allegation and the realm of proof. I want to say I found no proof of that.
Judge Van Roden was examined on 04.05.1949 (MMI, vol I, p. 244):
Senator MCCARTHY. Yes. Am I correct in saying that you did find evidence to indicate that a sizable number of those men sentenced to die were crippled to at least some extent because of having been kicked in the testicles?
Judge VAN RODEN. We found that to be so. But I have seen some of the articles in the papers and some were exaggerated. I read one the other day saying that all but two of the men had been injured for life. We did not find that.
Senator MCCARTHY. But you found -
Judge VAN RODEN. That some of them had been injured in their testicles. We could not find out how many.
On the 'progressive article'.
bout the article in Progressive (MMI, vol I, pp. 256-7):
Senator HUNT. Judge Van Roden, I have here before me a magazine known as the Progressive, I believe it is called.
Judge VAN RODEN. I have seen that.
Senator HUNT. Which carries, I presume, a written article by you, at least it accredits the article to you, and that makes some rather serious, very serious and direct charges, and I would like to ask you some questions with reference to the source of your information for making those charges.
Judge VAN RODEN. Before you do so, Senator, I want this to be made very definitely of record. I did not write that article. I had made a talk at a Rotary Club meeting in our county and a gentleman who was there took some notes on the talk, and I understand that is supposed to be a condensation of the things, some of the things that I said at that Rotary Club gathering. The gentleman who actually did write that article, actually is the author of it, telephoned to me that it was to have a byline. I did not know what a byline was, believe it or not, gentlemen. Then I was startled by receiving a copy of that as the author of that article. I am not the author of that article.
Senator HUNT. Let me ask you, Judge, after having read the article, would you like to say that the statements in there are statements made by you, or are they incorrect statements attributed to you?
Judge VAN RODEN. Well, some are correct and some are not correct. Senator HUNT. Judge, in your report of January 6, 1949, which you signed along with Colonel Simpson and Col. Charles W. Lawrence, this paragraph appears:
There was no general or systematic use of improper methods to secure prosecution evidence for the use at the trials.
Now, does that statement reflect your position as a member of the board?
Judge VAN RODEN. I would say so as stated therein.
And later (05.05.1949), commenting on the individual passages of the article in Progressive (MMI, vol I, p. 312):
Now, in the next paragraph where it says "All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair," I did not say that. What I said was that all but two were recommended for commutation to life imprisonment, and the other two for other sentences. I do not know how many we heard or how many may or may not have been kicked or kneed in the testicles. We learned some had been but that figure is absolutely wrong. I do not know how many were kicked or abused in the testicles.
It goes on for a bit, but you get the idea.
They conclude.
While there undoubtedly were some improper interrogation methods used in some cases during the Malmedy Massacre investigations (the methods, the allegations about which caused a public scandal and a whole Senate subcommittee hearing), the claim that 137 of 139 accused were kicked in the testicles rendering them beyond repair and that it was somehow standard operating procedure among the American investigators is simply false. It was categorically refuted both by Van Roden and Simpson.
Which, of course, will not prevent the deniers from citing this debunked zombie meme again and again and again and again...
This evidence, these testimonies seem pretty conclusive but I wanted to make a post about it anyway because I think as revisionists we need to admit when we have made mistakes, but not without investigating for ourselves.
I'm curious as to whether anyone has more information on this? Perhaps something is missing? Or there is more testimony which would contradict these statements?
My first impression is that it's probably not politically correct to make the testicles claim, even if you discovered what was going on, so denying it when questioned is for the best in order to save yourself. But that's just my own speculation and it won't stop me from throwing out this talking point if it isn't true.
I'm very keen to hear the thoughts of others on the forum about this. Cheers lads.
