BA's case for orthodoxy

[Archie]

How about this Goebbel's diary entry (March 7, 1942)?

In my view this would be an example of a document that mildly contradicts the orthodox narrative. But Goebbels is clearly speculating -- he uses the word 'perhaps'. He was clearly aware of killings happening in occupied USSR but may not have been kept abreast of all developments concerning 'the final solution', which according to orthodoxy, was planned mainly within the SS.

I don't think it is a "mild" contradiction. We have a high-level Nazi using the term "final solution" and using it in such a way that unambiguously precludes the conventional interpretation. Moreover by the date and the content, it's clear that he's commenting on the Wannsee Conference discussion.

Goebbels was one of the "hardliners" on the Jewish question and, as is clear from his diaries, he discussed Jewish policy with Hitler with some regularity, and usually was lobbying for more radical policies. If you argue that Goebbels(!) wasn't in the loop, do realize that you can't then use statements by Goebbels as proof of the holocaust. Also, and more importantly, do realize that you've then committed to arguing that the extermination policy was so secret that not even Goebbels was aware of it. I think you will find that extreme secrecy position difficult to maintain.

Goebbels diary entry at the end of March shows he was definitely in the loop (he correctly identifies Globocnik ("the former Gauleiter of Vienna") as being the guy in charge of Action Reinhard.

So the theory is he was informed in late March, probably right before he penned the famous entry. After this date there is no mention of the 'final solution' nor any complications therein. I suppose from your perspective, the removal of millions from ghettos and their placement 'somewhere else' went so smoothly it never deserved mention.

I meant to mention that this suggestion of yours, that Goebbels did not learn about the "Final Solution" until late March of 1942, is NOT the standard position on your side. This is your own pet theory.

HistorySpeaks, for example, in his recent Substack post, says Hitler announced the "Final Solution" right after US entry into the war and he says Goebbels reported this supposed extermination announcement in his diary the next day.

Nazi Jewish Policy
Naturally, the extermination operations described above were not ad hoc measures. Copious wartime statements by Nazi leaders corroborate the existence of a general policy—broadly recognized and accepted by German leaders—to murder Jewish civilians.

On 12 December 1941, Goebbels reported on a speech given by Hitler the same day,

On the Jewish question, the Führer has decided to make a clean sweep. He prophesied to the Jews that, if they yet again brought about a world war, they would experience their own annihilation. That was not just a figure of speech. The world war is here, the destruction of the Jews must be the necessary consequence.

Removing any doubt that “destruction” (Vernichtung) of the Jews might be meant metaphorically, Goebbels concludes by noting that, for the crime of allegedly starting the war, the Jews “will have to pay . . . with their lives.”

https://historyspeaks.substack.com/p/hi ... mas-dalton

[Hektor]

I have not been following this thread closely, but I'm a bit surprised that there have been several pages now on Eichmann. Thinking big picture for a moment, if we are trying to determine whether the German government killed 6M from 1941-1945, the way to settle that question is NOT with statements made over a decade after the war, offered in a mysterious context, and recorded on tapes which virtually nobody has ever heard. Think of the absurdity for a moment of having to rely on this as your key piece of evidence. It is so laughably incommensurate with the scale of killing that is alleged and with the volume of evidence such killing would have unavoidably produced.

We simply do not have the full Eichmann story. His long history with the Zionists, the supposed discovery of Eichmann by some blind Jew in Argentina, followed by his abduction and highly illegal and irregular trial are all grounds for caution. ....

Holocaust = 6 million Jews / extermination program / and industrial style homicidal gassing.
There is no evidence *for* any of those points.
There is however good evidence for deportation and internment of Jews. The argument for more is a slippery slope, though. The National Socialists wanted to get rid of Jews, hence it's somehow plausible they would have killed all. Were it gets really absurd is that 'all those survivors' are considered a proof for this. If there was a killing program one would think that survivors are an absolute exception. And the Holocaust Industry knows this, hence they find all kinds of rescue devices, even suggesting that they somehow survived this miraculously.

Don't you just hate when you get brain splatter on your favorite leather coat? It's remarkable how Eichmann is so evil but in such a ... I daresay banal way.

The literary qualities of the Life article are reminiscent of a typical "Holocaust" memoir, just from the perspective of a stock Nazi character. The classic Nazi character is the boastfully and confidently evil Nazi. This later is a variation, the nuanced, banal Nazi.

One book on Eichmann is called 'the banality of evil'. And this shows you that the matter is approached in less then rational ways. It has to... approaching it with common sense and rationality would demolish the narrative.

Eichmann had an administrative function with the RSHA on Jewish affairs. That's virtually all. He didn't order killings. There is millions of administrators that serve their governments in such functions. Now imagine putting them on trial for this. After all, wouldn't it be possible that the government does do something considered to be 'criminal'? And this isn't far fetched at all. Governments Do indeed Do stuff that would be considered criminal, if a private entity would do them. They take people's money, they take people's freedom, they use violence against people the way they deem fit, etc. People generally accept that as a 'necessary evil', that is. So to get the swords on an administrator you need some 'exceptional evil' something that is "einzigartig" meaning unique. And that's exactly what the accusation did push something that sounds preposterous on its face and repeat it often enough that people would actually believe it to be true.

Back to the Eichmann trial. What evidence was actually given for what was assumed to be true a priori? Not much. Most of the testimony given simply assumed what has never been proven. And that's apparently the best way to make people believe something. Use something as a premise and people are prone to believe it. It's a bit like Christmas. The premise is that Santa brought the presents. Proof for this? The presents under the tree. If people talk about something AS IF that is a fact, most people will start believing that it is indeed a fact. Why would everybody treat it in that way otherwise.

There is by the way no photo of the Eichmann execution neither. Which is surprising. Since there are usually photos of high profile executions.

[Wilbur]

Sassen wasn't necessarily "convinced" of anything since it's obvious he was a hustler playing the part of being very anti-Jewish. Sassen seemed to have prompted Eichmann to tell "bad boy" Holocaust stories and Eichmann delivered.

How did he do this (in bold) exactly? Your 'selling stories' theory doesn't touch on Eichmann's motivations for saying what he said, nor does it explain Sassen's private dictations where he spouts conspiracy theories (about Wisliceny being alive) and voices his suspicions of Eichmann.

It also doesn't explain Eichmann's writings that predate his involvement with Sassen, which affirm mass genocide but also are revisionist in nature - eg he speculates that the Jewish elites consciously provoked Germany into mass killing to set up better conditions for the founding of a Zionist state.

How? In particular, see the course and evolution of the conversations in the Sassen transcripts - the confrontations Sassen creates are out of place given apparent previous statements. In the background, he proposed and agreed to a moneymaking plan, plied the subject with drinks and encouraged him to speculate and wild out a little to make for good content.

As Butterfangers pointed out, Stangneth adduced the example of Wilhelm Höttl, another Holocaust content creator who made good money out of it. Höttl was a wartime turncoat, later an Occupation operative and frequently left testimonies with authorities throughout his life. His old lark of an affidavit was used or attempted to be used in the Eichmann trial.

I have already cited the example of G. Gordon Liddy, a case of what kids these days call "main character syndrome." Sassen encouraged him and he responded to encouragement. The problem with Eichmann's statements, of course, is that he was a bit player with a coordinating role set up by Heydrich that severely diminished after Heydrich died. He was a more autonomous player from 1938-1941 than later. He had more say in the expulsion of Poles from German-annexed areas in former western Poland to the East than later on.

We know what the Eichmann offices did - the French office failed to do the routine destruction of its documents, so their working documents are preserved. It was only a partial arranging of deportations and handling of property from the sender side, interfacing with Jewish leaders, the German Foreign Ministry, foreign government officials and other police. That Eichmann paid some courtesy service visits to camps (e.g. Auschwitz, Minsk) does not change the calculus.

Only in the case of deporting Hungarian Jews did Eichmann receive a more prominent on the ground role, where it's even worth asking him what he picked up on - and it is precisely for that case that he strongly doubts the Holocaust claims. Even then, it's obvious that he was not privy to a lot details.

Gerlach's work is instructive in that regard, both in the older HGS article, where he critiques Eichmann's various statements, and more importantly in a later-published chapter contribution called "Der Eichmann-Koeffizient" in Globale Machtkonflikte und Kriege (2016) where he critiques and compares portrayals of Eichmann in Holocaust historiography and warns historians to flee from him: "From the frequency of mention of Adolf Eichmann, a relatively subordinate organizer in the hierarchy, in scholarly syntheses about the extermination of the Jews - including, unfortunately, my own - I attempt to derive inferences about the nature of the historiography therein." He talks about the "Eichmannization of History" and the "strong Eichmann fixation," and praises Raul Hilberg for making Eichmann a less dominant figure. He blames in part the court historians of the Nuremberg trials and the narrative they set out.

Gerlach discusses some wide-ranging interpretations of Eichmann's role asserted by various historians, many after the Sassen material was publicly researchable. He ends as follows "The figure of Eichmann is used in such a way as to create a problematic image of the persecution and extermination of the Jews as a monolithic overall process and to exaggerate its centralized character. And this happens not only in some obscure books, but in the leading scholarly survey works."

What he neglects to do in his newer article is cite the Sassen material or Stangneth (although the article may have been written ca. 2012). Neither is Sassen or Stangneth cited in Gerlach's 2016 book The Extermination of the European Jews, where he again makes remarks diminishing Eichmann's role.

If Eichmann's musings in Sassen's presence were to be credited as a true account of Eichmann's role, then one wouldn't even need to begin to wade through how historians characterize him; one would simply include Eichmann's own descriptions in their writings as authoritative interspersed with other Holocaust claims. Historians are increasingly wary of that. The self-characterization on the transcripts/tapes is obviously untrue.

From the HGS article The Eichmann Interrogations in Holocaust Historiography:

"Eichmann's statements in particular, mixing truth, outright lies, dissimulation, and other tactical maneuvers—not to mention his terrible attitude and notorious abuse of the German language—belong to the most challenging sources of knowledge. This has not stopped historians from using them, often with little concept of how to deal with the problems. [...] In any case, countless factual contradictions show that Eichmann's statements are extremely unreliable. Quite aside from other factors, we know that in Argentina Eichmann had read a great deal of literature on the Holocaust, clearly confusing some of the contents with his personal recollections."

It seems Eichmann/Sassen has been farmed out to philosopher/journalist Stangneth so historians won't need to deal with him and his problematic material. Just as historians fled from Hitler, they now flee from Eichmann after having thoroughly suckered themselves thanks to his suggestive job title.

Back to Eichmann's motivations: It's entirely consistent with everything that he got convinced to produce shock material to be used upon his death to benefit, in part, Eichmann's family. Holocaust content creation was and remains lucrative. For a supposed expert manipulator, Eichmann would have known that his edgelording was catnip for the press and with a little bit of editing would have resulted in the LIFE headline the story received, which if I recall correctly included the word "damning."

As for Sassen's "private dictations," I would not trust this Mossad worker as far as I could throw him. Some of these are not even supposed dictations (taped over so unverifiable), but extra sheets added to the purported tape transcript, and their inclusion even varies across versions. They could have been added after well after 1957 as a publicist trick to make the material more shocking and appealing with a "doe-eyed hayseed Nazi denier confronts Holocaust architect, gets burned" hook, e.g. in preparation for the release to the media or in other circumstances. In any case, Sassen himself never publicly authenticated any particular set of materials.

Finally, as to Eichmann's earlier claims that you cite: A polemicist could argue that position, given the fervent support of the blockade and other Allied policies that Nazis vowed to boomerang on Jews. But you obviously recognize that Eichmann is not the best source for the thinking of Jewish elites, even though he actually spent a considerable amount of time both studying them and discussing with local elite Jewish figures as part of his job and he's the quintessential qualified expert witness, right?

So limiting ourselves to sure things, what particular controversial claim of Eichmann's earlier writings do you find authoritative and convincing and decidedly based on his first-hand experiences, in which Eichmann explains with clarity what he knows and how he knows it and the guaranteed completeness of his knowledge and that he isn't actually LARPing based on what he read elsewhere?

Speaking of revisionist access to cutting edge research in archives, the book makes it clear that the one could only get access to relevant BND files for merely personal use with an expensive lawsuit (or a friendly journalist leak). If you think it's fairly easy to get access to important material, I'll just direct you to three archives revisionists have hard access to. Given your interest in the Holocaust story you're free to write letters on your own and say whether you've gained access to each of them and what the mass digital reproduction conditions are.

What's an archive they have had trouble accessing? From what I know most are accessible to even non-credentialed people. There are some concerns about handling of original materials yes, but aside from this I don't see what the problem could be.

What stops you from saying "from what I read" instead of pretending? Have you ever been to an European archive? They generally require stated scholarly purposes for research or reproduction, and in many cases even a signed statement that you will supply a courtesy copy of whatever work you produce to the archive's library.

1) Central FSB Archive in Moscow: RG 20869 ("Guards"); RG K-779, fund 16, opis 312e (Trawniki camp files). These are an incomplete and mutilated set of Trawniki personnel records and other Ausbildungslager Trawniki-related captured German documents. These contain information as to the taskings of the Trawniki, including at the so-called Reinhardt camps. Credentialed Holocaust historians have privileged access to a subset of these courtesy of Uncle Sam.

2) Russian Museum of Military Medicine in St. Petersburg: Apparently unpublished Auschwitz camp complex documents of the "Evil Germans destroyed all camp documentation to cover up their crimes" variety ended up there. There are also some testimonies and medical reports. Aside from what's shown to the public, the archive is closed shut to the public and possibly to any non-staff. There are some indications that material on more than Auschwitz is there.

Anyway, some Russian historian managed to get access to it, probably in the course of approval of investigating some early Sonderkommando tales for his book, but I presume even his access was sort of limited and now non-existent. He leaked some photos to your favorite cult blog. See https://web.archive.org/web/20190626171129/https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2018/12/a-new-document-mentioning-special.html

3) The ZStL Ludwigsburg collection of wartime documents and testimonies from German criminal investigations. First, it used to be very tightly controlled although name Holocausters had access and were let to publish from it. They've since been sent to the Bundesarchiv (Signatur: B 162), and even more recently they were completely digitized, presumably in high quality. To request access to or reproduction of documents you must convincingly pitch them your future Holocaust product. You have to have a verifiable credentialed Holoscholar vouch for you and your scholarly pursuits. You will be prohibited from spreading them to others. You will be tracked on this. Bundesarchiv does this even though older copies of part of the documents side have been digitized and freely reproduced online on the Yad Vashem and Arolsen websites.

Given digitization in the third case, there is no excuse of rubes mishandling documents. So, in your words, "I don't see what the problem could be" in your producing these documents.

In conclusion, I await your smashing success in getting full access to all three. If you can do it as a concerned member of the public without coasting on any other person's credentials, I'll be very impressed. Feel free to post correspondence (censoring your own info) indicating you got access and the permitted means of reproduction. You don't need to actually travel anywhere to obtain institutional approval, of course. Thanks.

[curioussoul]

I meant to mention that this suggestion of yours, that Goebbels did not learn about the "Final Solution" until late March of 1942, is NOT the standard position on your side. This is your own pet theory.

He also neglects to mention Goebbel's diary entries in april, immediately following the "incriminating" entry:

24 April 1942:

Nothing new is happening in the East. The Bolsheviks have already responded to our propaganda and portray our troops as cannibals. It’s a shame how the other side slanders and lies. But wherever you look, the wire-puller in the background is international Jewry. We will be doing humanity a great service if we finally remove them from public life and stick them in quarantine.

27 April 1942:

I spoke again to the Führer in detail about the Jewish Question. His attitude toward this problem is unrelenting. He absolutely wants to push the Jews out of Europe. That’s how it should be. The Jews have brought so much misery to our continent that the harshest punishment imposed on them is still too mild. Himmler is presently implementing a large resettlement of Jews from German cities to the eastern ghettos. I have arranged to film this extensively. We urgently need this material for the later education of our people.

29 April 1942:

The SD gave me a police report on conditions in the East. The partisan danger continues to exist in unmitigated intensity in the occupied areas. The partisans have, after all, caused us very great difficulties during the winter, and these difficulties have by no means ceased with the beginning of spring. Short shrift is made of the Jews in all eastern occupied areas. Tens of thousands must bite the dust, and the Führer’s prophecy is fulfilled for them, that Jewry has to pay for triggering a new world war with the complete uprooting of their race.

Tens of thousands? Surely, Goebbels would have known that millions were supposedly already exterminated at this point.

11 May 1942:

Schach reports to me on questions regarding the Berlin district. Above all, we must deal again with the Jewish problem. Despite the heavy blows dealt them in Berlin, they are still insolent and rebellious. There are still 40,000 Jews in Berlin. It’s exceedingly difficult to deport them to the East because a large part of them are at work in the munitions industry, and because Jews are to be deported only by families. The rest are old people, against whom we can’t do anything right now.

None of this makes any sense of they were indeed exterminating everybody.

30 May 1942:

How little Jews can in reality adjust themselves to West European life can be seen from the fact that, where they are led back into the ghetto, they quickly become ghettoized. West European civilization represents only an external coat of paint to them. However, there are also Jewish elements that work with a dangerous brutality and vindictiveness. Therefore the Führer does not want the Jews to be evacuated to Siberia. There, under the harshest living conditions, they would undoubtedly again develop a strong life-element. He would much prefer to resettle them in central Africa. There they would live in a climate that would certainly not make them strong and resistant. In any case, the Führer’s goal is to make Western Europe completely Jew-free. They can no longer have their homeland here.

Again, none of this makes any sort of sense given that millions were purportedly being exterminated in the Reinhardt camps at this very time. The only explanation is to fall back on the ludicrous code-word fallacy, which would mean that Goebbels made up entire conversations and quotes from Hitler as late as May 1942.

There are more examples further along in the timeline of the war, but these entries suffice to demonstrate that nothing clear can be drawn from the 27th of March entry.

[Wilbur]

The complete transcripts were uploaded https://fragdenstaat.de/dokumente/7747-sassen/

Some sections are blurry but I'd say most of it is legible. Where did you see that they're unavailable to the public?

Either extreme ignorance or more lies from BA, here. Only about half of those pages are legible, particularly in the later sections where the conversation becomes more relevant to our discussion here. To say anything else is, well, false and, in your case, most likely just lying.

Your responses to my "surface narrative" of my last response are not even worth addressing.

"BA's case for orthodoxy" is officially debunked and I'd say this thread is so far off the rails it's no longer worth participating in.

I have no idea why he'd lie about the legibility of pages of a document he linked (and can't read), but he's a strange duck and might have some problems past mendacity. I'm worried and I think he should really have someone screen him with the Clock-Drawing Test (CDT). His later statement suggesting that anyone implied "the photos with text out of focus were taken on purpose to hide something" is even more worrying, quite past a lame bad faith fib.

There's nothing stopping the Holocaust scribes from publishing a modern transcription of the Sassen material in an edited volume. Indeed, Gerlach called for such a publication before he completely soured on Eichmann. It's easy work and easy grant money. There's no major technological hurdle for Bundesarchiv to prioritize digitizing these audio holdings and placing them online. It's not a priority because the Sassen content is embarrassing from the perspective of throwing shock Holoadmissions in Germans' faces because they're not historically defensible, though with the recent Israeli documentary the audo may be released on some point.

In any case, a couple of months ago Yad Vashem uploaded a more legible variant, they're under O.65 in four parts:
https://documents.yadvashem.org/ I also have another different legible copy around somewhere, but I'm too lazy to search for it.

[Archie]

The complete transcripts were uploaded https://fragdenstaat.de/dokumente/7747-sassen/

Some sections are blurry but I'd say most of it is legible. Where did you see that they're unavailable to the public?

Either extreme ignorance or more lies from BA, here. Only about half of those pages are legible, particularly in the later sections where the conversation becomes more relevant to our discussion here. To say anything else is, well, false and, in your case, most likely just lying.

Your responses to my "surface narrative" of my last response are not even worth addressing.

"BA's case for orthodoxy" is officially debunked and I'd say this thread is so far off the rails it's no longer worth participating in.

This thread is messy, but I find this is almost unavoidable in holocaust debates. CODOH threads are usually supposed to stay on one topic at a time but I think it makes sense to grant some latitude here since the topic is a very broad one, "BA's case for orthodoxy." We don't want BA to feel encumbered in this important task by overly strict rules. We have to let BA show us what he's got.

[Archie]

I meant to mention that this suggestion of yours, that Goebbels did not learn about the "Final Solution" until late March of 1942, is NOT the standard position on your side. This is your own pet theory.

He also neglects to mention Goebbel's diary entries in april, immediately following the "incriminating" entry:

24 April 1942:

Nothing new is happening in the East. The Bolsheviks have already responded to our propaganda and portray our troops as cannibals. It’s a shame how the other side slanders and lies. But wherever you look, the wire-puller in the background is international Jewry. We will be doing humanity a great service if we finally remove them from public life and stick them in quarantine.

27 April 1942:

I spoke again to the Führer in detail about the Jewish Question. His attitude toward this problem is unrelenting. He absolutely wants to push the Jews out of Europe. That’s how it should be. The Jews have brought so much misery to our continent that the harshest punishment imposed on them is still too mild. Himmler is presently implementing a large resettlement of Jews from German cities to the eastern ghettos. I have arranged to film this extensively. We urgently need this material for the later education of our people.

29 April 1942:

The SD gave me a police report on conditions in the East. The partisan danger continues to exist in unmitigated intensity in the occupied areas. The partisans have, after all, caused us very great difficulties during the winter, and these difficulties have by no means ceased with the beginning of spring. Short shrift is made of the Jews in all eastern occupied areas. Tens of thousands must bite the dust, and the Führer’s prophecy is fulfilled for them, that Jewry has to pay for triggering a new world war with the complete uprooting of their race.

Tens of thousands? Surely, Goebbels would have known that millions were supposedly already exterminated at this point.

11 May 1942:

Schach reports to me on questions regarding the Berlin district. Above all, we must deal again with the Jewish problem. Despite the heavy blows dealt them in Berlin, they are still insolent and rebellious. There are still 40,000 Jews in Berlin. It’s exceedingly difficult to deport them to the East because a large part of them are at work in the munitions industry, and because Jews are to be deported only by families. The rest are old people, against whom we can’t do anything right now.

None of this makes any sense of they were indeed exterminating everybody.

30 May 1942:

How little Jews can in reality adjust themselves to West European life can be seen from the fact that, where they are led back into the ghetto, they quickly become ghettoized. West European civilization represents only an external coat of paint to them. However, there are also Jewish elements that work with a dangerous brutality and vindictiveness. Therefore the Führer does not want the Jews to be evacuated to Siberia. There, under the harshest living conditions, they would undoubtedly again develop a strong life-element. He would much prefer to resettle them in central Africa. There they would live in a climate that would certainly not make them strong and resistant. In any case, the Führer’s goal is to make Western Europe completely Jew-free. They can no longer have their homeland here.

Again, none of this makes any sort of sense given that millions were purportedly being exterminated in the Reinhardt camps at this very time. The only explanation is to fall back on the ludicrous code-word fallacy, which would mean that Goebbels made up entire conversations and quotes from Hitler as late as May 1942.

There are more examples further along in the timeline of the war, but these entries suffice to demonstrate that nothing clear can be drawn from the 27th of March entry.

One of their other favorite fixes also doesn't work with Goebbels: The euphemistic language fix. The few passages they selectively quote from the diaries to prove the holocaust show conclusively that Goebbels was hardly euphemistic or hyper-cautious with his language. While revisionists have some trouble with these passages, the ones the contradict the holocaust position are more numerous and less dependent of strong assumptions. I recently made the point that their proofs typically rely to a great extent on "holocaust priming." That is to say that if you looked at all these documents fresh without any holocaust indoctrination, you would not jump to the conclusion that Jews were being executed by the millions. Rather, they have primed everyone with that assumption and then they cite things that seem "consistent" with but which do not truly substantiate that belief, in hopes that this will be accepted as vague confirmation.

[Hektor]

....
There's nothing stopping the Holocaust scribes from publishing a modern transcription of the Sassen material in an edited volume. Indeed, Gerlach called for such a publication before he completely soured on Eichmann. It's easy work and easy grant money. There's no major technological hurdle for Bundesarchiv to prioritize digitizing these audio holdings and placing them online. It's not a priority because the Sassen content is embarrassing from the perspective of throwing shock Holoadmissions in Germans' faces because they're not historically defensible, though with the recent Israeli documentary the audo may be released on some point.
....

That's indeed a plausible explanation. But there is plausible deniability from their side as well.

They did publish the "Kommandanturbefehle" of Auschwitz, though. Albeit at an exorbitant price and it took some while before this was actually picked up. The content was difficult to harmonize with the Holocaust narrative. It's perfectly in line with what Revisionists keep on saying though. And with the non-exterminationist witnesses.

As far as the Sassen/Eichmann tapes are concerned, I got the following suspicions:
* Eichmann clearly stating that he didn't know about anything obnoxious stated after world war two. Perhaps admitting some knowledge of executions and then stating that it was related to partisan warfare.
* Eichmann and Sassen going over the top with what they are claiming, perhaps after having had a few really good drinks there.
* Sassen admitting that he must have a good story that will sell and perhaps enticing Eichmann to give his best, there.
* Admission of links to intelligence organizations.

The Holocaust narrative is already dead in many ways, what's short is more nails for the coffin. And that's not going to happen easily. They probably drop the story only after it doesn't have any use anymore. But it's still useful. To Israel, To Zionists, to German and western woke elites. To pretty many in the fields of academia and publishing. If it became common knowledge that the Holocaust was an atrocity swindle, this would have major consequences first in the cultural landscape and then downward in the political landscape. The effect could be similar to the reformation and present elites losing a lot of their power and influence. In fact those that pushed the Holocaust most, would be quickly looking for positions like flipping burgers at McDonalds. Well, a milder version is thinkable as well. Their favorite, most useful cartoon character, Hitler2.0, would lose all his power.

[bombsaway]

I meant to mention that this suggestion of yours, that Goebbels did not learn about the "Final Solution" until late March of 1942, is NOT the standard position on your side. This is your own pet theory.

HistorySpeaks, for example, in his recent Substack post, says Hitler announced the "Final Solution" right after US entry into the war and he says Goebbels reported this supposed extermination announcement in his diary the next day.

I was talking about Goebbels learning about Action Reinhard, which was the killing of Jews in non-USSR territory. There was a genocidal policy in place already in occupied USSR, yes. It's unclear when a decision was made to kill all non-employable Jews in German custody, if it all. Some remained under army protection in Ostland and also at Theresienstadt after 1943. Jews in Axis allied states were also kept around, to varying degrees.

I have no idea why he'd lie about the legibility of pages of a document he linked (and can't read), but he's a strange duck and might have some problems past mendacity. I'm worried and I think he should really have someone screen him with the Clock-Drawing Test (CDT). His later statement suggesting that anyone implied "the photos with text out of focus were taken on purpose to hide something" is even more worrying, quite past a lame bad faith fib.

Butterfangers said:

I will add all of this a reminder that:

The legible, complete transcripts are still unavailable to the general public or to Revisionists
The existing audio is still unavailable to the general public or to Revisionists

We know why.

"We know why", yeah I took this to mean that there was a reason for the illegible transcripts. But apparently good scans have been uploaded so the whole issue is moot. Still you voice some concerns with the tape. Are you saying the transcripts aren't accurate? (Stangneth says they are)

I asked you how he "prompted" (your word) Eichmann and you respond

How? In particular, see the course and evolution of the conversations in the Sassen transcripts - the confrontations Sassen creates are out of place given apparent previous statements. In the background, he proposed and agreed to a moneymaking plan, plied the subject with drinks and encouraged him to speculate and wild out a little to make for good content.

When you say Sassen "encouraged him to speculate and wild out", what is the evidence of this? Is it in the transcripts?

Everything that Stangneth references shows me the opposite, eg here

His listeners react in different ways. Dr. Langer starts talking about the
torture and extermination he heard about in Mauthausen, but the
confrontation with reality renders Sassen and Fritsch speechless. They make
no queries, in the main: they have already heard more than enough. Sassen
instructs the transcriber to leave out repeated accounts of extermination
campaigns. The listeners’ horror and revulsion are obvious: Sassen the
novelist might have indulged in excesses of violence when it came to the
torture allegedly inflicted on Germans by the “victorious powers,” but the
suffering of the Jews silenced him. And not because he didn’t believe
Eichmann and Langer. While these two had both been involved in
concentration camps and were able to share their experiences and their selfpity with each other, Sassen was quite clearly horrified. But he granted
Eichmann’s wish for recognition, as he then dictated a trenchant sentence
with which Eichmann could doubtless identify: “The battlefields of this war
were called death camps.”
220 Here was the respect that Eichmann was
demanding for his “frontline experience.” However, the long dictation in
which Sassen recorded his thoughts also includes the assertion that the crimes
against humanity in which Eichmann, Höß, and Odilo Globocnik were
involved could “not be forgiven.”
221 Sassen then hurriedly says their actions
could be “understood”: Eichmann, and other people all the way up to Hitler,
had simply been manipulated. Still, Sassen never revised his opinion that
these crimes were unforgivable. And in the transcript, when the group reaches
the reports of the children’s transports—which Eichmann refers to in all
seriousness as the “children story”—even Sassen’s “understanding” deserts
him temporarily.222 Eichmann clearly notices Sassen’s horror and shamelessly
denies that any such thing had happened: “But you have found so many
documents and papers, and now I am wondering where the documents on the
matter of the children are, I mean documents that can be believed. And so I
have nothing further to say on this matter for the moment.”2

So the transcripts, which can now be verified, suggest Sassen's (due to his antipathy to Eichmann's views) if anything caused Eichmann to take more of a revisionist friendly stance.

Can you give me details on the moneymaking plan? I must have missed this while rereading. I remember something about Eichmann saying the materials could only be disclosed in the event of his capture.

You also mention Sassen's confrontations "are out of place given apparent previous statements." Can you elucidate here? What statements?

If Eichmann's musings in Sassen's presence were to be credited as a true account of Eichmann's role, then one wouldn't even need to begin to wade through how historians characterize him; one would simply include Eichmann's own descriptions in their writings as authoritative interspersed with other Holocaust claims. Historians are increasingly wary of that. The self-characterization on the transcripts/tapes is obviously untrue.

I don't think historians discount Eichmann's statements, even Gerlach doesn't. Here's a quote from Browning's book "Collected Memories"

Clearly anyone who wants to dismiss Eichmann’s testimonies
on the grounds of their demonstrated unreliability and shameless
self-serving lies can easily do so, and many of my colleagues have
done precisely this. But what if our default position is not to dismiss everything Eichmann said and wrote just because he was
lying most of the time, but rather to ask what among this mass of
lies might nonetheless be of help to the historian, given his unique
vantage point and the sheer volume of his testimony? Christian
Gerlach is justifiably cautious but not totally dismissive. He argues
that these testimonies “cannot serve as the exclusive, or even the
main, basis of any historiographical arguments” and “that even
the most thorough interpretation of Eichmann’s accounts alone
(italics mine) cannot achieve a sure evaluation of what really happened.” He continues: “All of Eichmann’s statements are fundamentally unreliable, and none of them can, by themselves (italics
mine), provide firm ground for any factual interpretation. The
only method that can ensure some certainty is to use the interrogations merely as supportive evidence in tandem with a sufficient
mass of contemporary documents, and possible observations by
other witnesses.”33

This was my original mention of Eichmann's testimony

As I said before, I wouldn't believe the studies absent of other evidence. Witness testimony and documents are evidence, and I don't think the claim that they were all coerced or key documents were fabricated is convincing. Perpetrators affirmed the mass killing inside and outside of trial, for decades after the war, in countries that had American style legal systems (eg West Germany). The USSR and Western Allies have no history of fabricating documents from other nationalities (governments of course 'lie' internally) and I haven't seen a single document that rises to the level of 'definitely a forgery'. This includes not just written documents, but recordings, like of the Posen speeches or Eichmann's conversations with Sassen in Argentina.

So I wasn't bringing it up as a smoking gun which could prove the Holocaust by itself, but in tandem with the mass of other evidence. The uniqueness of the Sassen materials to this debate is not their value as a historical document, but rather that they would be much more difficult to forge than a single document.

This also hits at your question about why they haven't been more discussed by historians. As Browning shows in his book, the Holocaust related historical claims are present in both pre-capture and post-capture testimony. What the pre-capture testimony has is Eichmann saying the genocide was a good thing, he doesn't regret it, it was alluded to in Hitler's speeches, etc . So the value of this testimony would be primarily in understanding Eichmann's psychology and also perpetrator psychology in general. I expect other historians to follow up with this study.

Back to Eichmann's motivations: It's entirely consistent with everything that he got convinced to produce shock material to be used upon his death to benefit, in part, Eichmann's family. Holocaust content creation was and remains lucrative. For a supposed expert manipulator, Eichmann would have known that his edgelording was catnip for the press and with a little bit of editing would have resulted in the LIFE headline the story received, which if I recall correctly included the word "damning."

As for Sassen's "private dictations," I would not trust this Mossad worker as far as I could throw him. Some of these are not even supposed dictations (taped over so unverifiable), but extra sheets added to the purported tape transcript, and their inclusion even varies across versions. They could have been added after well after 1957 as a publicist trick to make the material more shocking and appealing with a "doe-eyed hayseed Nazi denier confronts Holocaust architect, gets burned" hook, e.g. in preparation for the release to the media or in other circumstances. In any case, Sassen himself never publicly authenticated any particular set of materials.

Finally, as to Eichmann's earlier claims that you cite: A polemicist could argue that position, given the fervent support of the blockade and other Allied policies that Nazis vowed to boomerang on Jews. But you obviously recognize that Eichmann is not the best source for the thinking of Jewish elites, even though he actually spent a considerable amount of time both studying them and discussing with local elite Jewish figures as part of his job and he's the quintessential qualified expert witness, right?

All of these points are speculative aren't they? Sassen helping the Israelis track down Nazis in Argentina may cast some doubt about his loyalty and honesty, but there are other aspects of his character that say otherwise, like how he didn't reveal the identities of Dr. Langer or Alvensleben, and even so, this isn't evidence he was working for the Mossad in 57. Again I'm not arguing that the Sassen materials alone prove the Holocaust, but rather that they are part of the body of evidence. They have probative value, and we can compare their value as evidence to what revisionists have offered for their claims. Butterfangers earlier claimed that substantial resettlement took place in occupied USSR, but was unable corroborate this with a single document or witness statement. A Goebbels diary entry where he talks about tens of thousands of Jewish being killed is apparently evidence that millions weren't being killed. High level revisionists trying to evidence resettlement place importance on the diary of Herman Kruk, who reported a rumor of Dutch Jews making it to far off Lithuania, but later clarified it was only their furniture that had arrived there (and they had been killed earlier).

If you have a sufficiently high level of skepticism and a healthy appetite for speculation I'm sure you could pick apart any piece of conceivable Holocaust evidence, the maxim "history is written by the victors" gives enough impetus here.

So limiting ourselves to sure things, what particular controversial claim of Eichmann's earlier writings do you find authoritative and convincing and decidedly based on his first-hand experiences, in which Eichmann explains with clarity what he knows and how he knows it and the guaranteed completeness of his knowledge and that he isn't actually LARPing based on what he read elsewhere?

I can't speak German so have no way of knowing the full contents of this material. It's for sure possible that Eichmann could have mentioned something unknown to the record which later was corroborated by other witnesses or documents. But if not this doesn't make it likely he was lying. As you alluded to he wasn't very involved in the killing aspect of the Holocaust, and was squeamish when it came to bloodshed, so yes his knowledge here was plausibly general. If he had claimed to have been involved in the construction of the gas chambers on a technical level at Auschwitz it would be a different story. This is another speculative line of argumentation. Appreciate your post though, and will get back to you about the Bundesarchiv.

[Hektor]

.....
I can't speak German so have no way of knowing the full contents of this material. It's for sure possible that Eichmann could have mentioned something unknown to the record which later was corroborated by other witnesses or documents. But if not this doesn't make it likely he was lying. As you alluded to he wasn't very involved in the killing aspect of the Holocaust, and was squeamish when it came to bloodshed, so yes his knowledge here was plausibly general. If he had claimed to have been involved in the construction of the gas chambers on a technical level at Auschwitz it would be a different story. This is another speculative line of argumentation. Appreciate your post though, and will get back to you about the Bundesarchiv.

You could get a good translation on what was said or written down. I realize that this can be tricky.
Testimony that can't be corroborated independently is a problem. You essentially have to rely on 'faith in the source'. There is good reason to distrust humane sources. Especially, when it is a highly politicized issue. And that can be demonstrate without any dispute that could be taken seriously.
Before you can allude that there was a 'killing issue', you need prove that there was one and what that was. Eichmann indeed seems to have been involved in a transport issue. Now the assertion is that this was to 'kill people' , because the allegation is that e.g. the camps were 'killing centers', but where they. Can't prove that with circular reasoning and question begging. With the issue at hand, it's one rescue device after the other. All to keep the paradigm alive. Fundamental research was/is avoided. Critics face persecution. That alone is sufficient reason to reject the assertions, but they keep on being uphold, because there is a politicized interest in the matter.

The Eichmann affair is still informative. Just look at the trial proceedings. It is one big propaganda show. Now, if there was hard evidence, this would have been unnecessary. Instead it was a theatrical exercise in Myth creation.

[Wilbur]

They did publish the "Kommandanturbefehle" of Auschwitz, though. Albeit at an exorbitant price and it took some while before this was actually picked up. The content was difficult to harmonize with the Holocaust narrative. It's perfectly in line with what Revisionists keep on saying though. And with the non-exterminationist witnesses.

Formally, yes, though there was a certain amount of corruption and command burdens at the camp. Allied camps routinely had worse discipline problems, though, especially Soviet camps.

As far as the Sassen/Eichmann tapes are concerned, I got the following suspicions:
* Eichmann clearly stating that he didn't know about anything obnoxious stated after world war two. Perhaps admitting some knowledge of executions and then stating that it was related to partisan warfare.
* Eichmann and Sassen going over the top with what they are claiming, perhaps after having had a few really good drinks there.
* Sassen admitting that he must have a good story that will sell and perhaps enticing Eichmann to give his best, there.
* Admission of links to intelligence organizations.

Eichmann is all over the place and only a number of copies of tapesof the last sessions have surfaced. The Sassen "transcriptions" of the few surviving tapes are incomplete. Here is a description of the ten tapes:

Sassen Interviews

TAPES

Audio material in Eichmann Estate, BA Koblenz, N/1497. Ten tapes (29.5 hrs.), audiocassettes (K) (32 hrs.), and DAT cassettes (DAT) (32 hrs.) (Shelf mark Ton 1367, 6-1 to 6-10). Not all tapes are originals from Argentina but are later copies, as traces of more modern recordings underneath the conversations reveal. Audio and DAT cassettes are copies of the originals and are largely identical. The audio material also contains some conversations that were not transcribed.

DAT cassettes are already digital, they can be losslessly dumped to files and placed online. But for some reason as of last year the Eichmann tapes weren't marked "digitized," making for a lonely look:

You see, the philosopher tells us that Sassen didn't have sufficient money for extra tapes to avoid overwriting the audio of older tapes... but may have wired up his own home for covert audio recording, which at that time was way more expensive than extra tapes.

I read the exchange about intelligence organizations, but I failed to understand what either of you were discussing and the timeframe. There were some theories back in the day that phlio-Semite Eichmann cooperated in some Israeli theatrical production and retired on a kibbutz with his beloved Jews, but that seems very far-fetched. (Aside from Eichmann's philo-Semitism.)

I have no idea why he'd lie about the legibility of pages of a document he linked (and can't read), but he's a strange duck and might have some problems past mendacity. I'm worried and I think he should really have someone screen him with the Clock-Drawing Test (CDT). His later statement suggesting that anyone implied "the photos with text out of focus were taken on purpose to hide something" is even more worrying, quite past a lame bad faith fib.

Butterfangers said:

I will add all of this a reminder that:

The legible, complete transcripts are still unavailable to the general public or to Revisionists
The existing audio is still unavailable to the general public or to Revisionists

We know why.

"We know why", yeah I took this to mean that there was a reason for the illegible transcripts. But apparently good scans have been uploaded so the whole issue is moot. Still you voice some concerns with the tape. Are you saying the transcripts aren't accurate? (Stangneth says they are)

Butterfangers was correct. The transcripts were not released in an edited book on the topic, and it's not for lack of funding. The complete transcripts are still unavailable to the general public, and they're edits anyway. The issue is not moot at all. You chose to cut the next paragraph of my post which already answered this, and there is a reason for that too - probably to be a time-waster.

I asked you how he "prompted" (your word) Eichmann and you respond

How? In particular, see the course and evolution of the conversations in the Sassen transcripts - the confrontations Sassen creates are out of place given apparent previous statements. In the background, he proposed and agreed to a moneymaking plan, plied the subject with drinks and encouraged him to speculate and wild out a little to make for good content.

When you say Sassen "encouraged him to speculate and wild out", what is the evidence of this? Is it in the transcripts?

I assume you can read the text you quoted. The "transcripts" do not have details of the contract and the discussions that led to it, of course. The text shows the odd discussions, Butterfangers quoted you Eichmann on the topic; friend of the Mossad never disputed it.

Everything that Stangneth references shows me the opposite, eg here

Oh, the unidentifiable SD officer from Vienna "Dr. Langer." whom Stangneth describes as an unknown helper and introduces him in a namesake chapter as follows:

Keep drilling! —Sassen whispering to Dr. Langer

As in, keep egging Eichmann on. Eichmann called him a "pipsqueak" and entered a pissing contest with him. The reality TV school of journalism. The full "Langer" part is supposed to be on tape - but not your dear transcript. Then we jump back to an older "transcript 36," which Stangneth calls a "dictation." She wants to pretend the material is reliable and usable, so she claims it's not purported to be derivative of Eichmann's exact words, despite other author's assessments. Somehow Sassen is "hurried" in his own "monologue" despite nothing in the text to reflect that.

So the transcripts, which can now be verified, suggest Sassen's (due to his antipathy to Eichmann's views) if anything caused Eichmann to take more of a revisionist friendly stance.

And for the final part we again jump to "transcript 52," followed by "transcript 54" for the next quotation, in her compressed, meandering narrative. "Can now be verified." Yeah, not by you - plus, what you decided to make an argument about isn't on Sassen's transcript. Or, well, you could say the illegible document actually suffices here - her shifting references and constantly describing textual material in a flowery way already "verifies" we're dealing with a tendentious narrative.

Can you give me details on the moneymaking plan? I must have missed this while rereading. I remember something about Eichmann saying the materials could only be disclosed in the event of his capture.

You also mention Sassen's confrontations "are out of place given apparent previous statements." Can you elucidate here? What statements?

I think you're referring to a document your girl found suspicious (German typewriter in Argentina)... Contract to split benefits with a modest advance, collaboration for approved publication, in case of death Sassen directs how to exploit the material and the rightwise proceeds go to Eichmann's family or something like that. IIRC Eichmann discusses it in detail with his lawyer, see the notes later donated/sold by Eichmann's lawyer to the BA and even surreptitious audio recordings by Israeli security services disclosed to the Israeli cabinet at the time of the trial.

The statements I'm referring to are recorded in the Sassen transcripts; I already said "see the course and evolution of the conversations in the Sassen transcripts". Sassen was not confrontational due to any putative learning curve. For your philosopher's narrative to even have some flow she has to jump around from tape transcript to tape transcript. Can it stand if written in tape-chronological order? I doubt it. As you can't do German, you can always work back from the endnotes, then rearrange the text in tape-chronological order. It seems like a productive use of your time.

So I wasn't bringing it up as a smoking gun which could prove the Holocaust by itself, but in tandem with the mass of other evidence. The uniqueness of the Sassen materials to this debate is not their value as a historical document, but rather that they would be much more difficult to forge than a single document.

This also hits at your question about why they haven't been more discussed by historians. As Browning shows in his book, the Holocaust related historical claims are present in both pre-capture and post-capture testimony. What the pre-capture testimony has is Eichmann saying the genocide was a good thing, he doesn't regret it, it was alluded to in Hitler's speeches, etc . So the value of this testimony would be primarily in understanding Eichmann's psychology and also perpetrator psychology in general. I expect other historians to follow up with this study.

Ah, yes, it adds to the Irreducible Complexity of the Holocaust (whatever that is) but by golly that it's unreliable nonsense doesn't matter at all. Eichmann already proved it's easy to forge a purported transcript. See for instance the fake bio in the first three pages from the Yad Vashem collection.

It doesn't hit at the question at all. They complained about Ich, Adolf Eichmann, they have resources, and yet they don't pony up with an improvement. You're obviously just trafficking in generalities. The allusion to Hitler's speeches. if not an impromptu tale, inspired by the Hololiterature of the age which Gerlach notes Eichmann conflates with his own purported memories.. "Perpetrator psychology," has nothing to do with psychology, it's just political agitation mixed with theology. Glad to know the Sassen tapes are useful for pseudodisciplines. The book is part philosophical follow-up to Arendt, part political thriller and not a serious historical study despite the underlying research. (Arguably, Arendt's take was better and bolstered even by Irmtrud Wojak who also listened to the tapes.) It's like an airport book, not something you can safely reference and mine for information.

The Sassen material will not be comprehensively integrated in the scholarly Final Solution liturgy, just throwaway quotes and references. We'll mostly see slop for the public like the recent Israeli documentary calling him "the architect of the Final Solution" and making it out to be as the first time a Nazi leader of his caliber ever copped to the accusations. How very unlucky that the admissions are not historically supportable then.

To digress a little further,, the conversion of her book into a multi-part documentary makes perfect sense. She cites other documentaries in her book and already worked on one. A career journalist, she could have decided to write some good documentary fodder in hopes for a future payoff. It reminds me of the recent HBO documentary McMillions that started out as a 2018 Daily Beast article:. The author later admitted his narrative was designed to be so gripping as to start a bidding war for the movie rights.

All of these points are speculative aren't they? Sassen helping the Israelis track down Nazis in Argentina may cast some doubt about his loyalty and honesty, but there are other aspects of his character that say otherwise, like how he didn't reveal the identities of Dr. Langer or Alvensleben, and even so, this isn't evidence he was working for the Mossad in 57. Again I'm not arguing that the Sassen materials alone prove the Holocaust, but rather that they are part of the body of evidence. They have probative value, and we can compare their value as evidence to what revisionists have offered for their claims. Butterfangers earlier claimed that substantial resettlement took place in occupied USSR, but was unable corroborate this with a single document or witness statement. A Goebbels diary entry where he talks about tens of thousands of Jewish being killed is apparently evidence that millions weren't being killed. High level revisionists trying to evidence resettlement place importance on the diary of Herman Kruk, who reported a rumor of Dutch Jews making it to far off Lithuania, but later clarified it was only their furniture that had arrived there (and they had been killed earlier).

If you have a sufficiently high level of skepticism and a healthy appetite for speculation I'm sure you could pick apart any piece of conceivable Holocaust evidence, the maxim "history is written by the victors" gives enough impetus here.

Oh, yeah, "Dr. Langer." Good one. See, I think you're a little confused. If I were to say

this is a picture of Sassen and his homosexual lover, Zvi Aharoni, who coincidentally happened to be guy previously in charge of tracking Eichmann, then that would be speculation (in part). And it would be on par with much of the philosopher's book, speculating on details big and small, even purporting to divine the feelings of participants and pace of discussions from a transcript (or several at the same time). She continually fills in the gaps and frames things a certain way without delineating it as speculation.

I offered my assessment based on what I think is the best available evidence, including for example what Eichmann said in a serious setting believing to have the benefit of secure communications. When you say in relation to Sassen "there are some aspects of his character that say otherwise," yes, it's a cute speculative chain the author has going. Reveal Ludolf-Hermann von Alvensleben to whom and why?

Thanks for reiterating the Irreducible Complexity stuff. I understand; you just get "genocide" vibes from Eichmann and so those vibes are probative. I see a future Mossad worker arranging some exiled Germans to banter with designated bad boy Eichmann, so designated by the very darlings of the regime that exiled them, on the very subject of those darlings - to enhance the content creation process.

Psst Butterfangers, here's a document. Have fun:

Really sounds like you haven't read Kruk and are relying on blogger gibberish. It's even been translated to English. You wouldn't do that to us would you?

I can't speak German so have no way of knowing the full contents of this material. It's for sure possible that Eichmann could have mentioned something unknown to the record which later was corroborated by other witnesses or documents. But if not this doesn't make it likely he was lying. As you alluded to he wasn't very involved in the killing aspect of the Holocaust, and was squeamish when it came to bloodshed, so yes his knowledge here was plausibly general.

Well, this goes back to the last point, which you mysteriously called speculative... I asked you a question and you avoid it. Eichmann is an expert on Jews and Jewish leaders, interacted with them, studied them, wrote white papers on them - and also admired them for some reason. Based on your avowed methodology, why should a man listen to the Sassen tapes and not accept Eichmann's "Jewish perfidy" vibes as factual too? Even if you couldn't pinpoint an individual specific claim you'd vouch for, then surely he was still on to something? Something plausibly general?

If he had claimed to have been involved in the construction of the gas chambers on a technical level at Auschwitz it would be a different story. This is another speculative line of argumentation..

Whoa, speculative you say? You'll never guess the Israeli prosecution theory and findings of their court system...

In Israel, the power to grant pardons lies with the President, who can do so on the recommendation of the Justice Minister and after consulting with the Minister of Defense.

To petition for posthumous pardoning, a request should be submitted to the Israeli Ministry of Justice, including information on the deceased person and any relevant legal documents or evidence. The petition should also state the reasons for seeking a posthumous pardon, such as new evidence of innocence, mitigating circumstances, or a change in public opinion.

The Ministry of Justice will review the petition and may consult with legal experts or other relevant parties before making a decision. If the petition is granted, the posthumous pardon will be issued by the Israeli President, who has the authority to grant pardons under certain conditions.

Posthumous pardoning is a rare occurrence in Israel, and petitions are usually only successful in exceptional cases where there is strong evidence of innocence or significant public interest. However, posthumous pardoning can provide a measure of closure and redress for the families of deceased individuals who may have been wrongly convicted or unfairly treated by the legal system.

I hope the above helps!!! You can also protest in front of your closest Israeli Embassy.

[hermod]

What the pre-capture testimony has is Eichmann saying the genocide was a good thing, he doesn't regret it, it was alluded to in Hitler's speeches, etc .

No, it wasn't. Hitler's speeches allegedly referring to that nonexistent genocide were all repetitions of Hitler's January 30, 1939 warning to Jewry in the event of a second world war. But a full quote of that warning and a proper translation of the word Vernichtung unambiguously show that Hitler was talking about a continentalization of the means used in Germany and Austria between 1933 and 1938 to kick the Jews out of power and out of the living space of the German people. In other words, the Vernichtung of Europe's Jews was to be enforced through anti-Jewish public education ("enlightenment," in Nazi terminology), laws, and deportations, not through a mass slaughter policy as Holohoaxers claim. In that speech, Hitler even stated that "there is more than enough room for settlement on this earth" regarding the need for a final solution of the Jewish problem in Europe. And he also rephrased his often-selectively-and-deceptively-quoted Vernichtung warning when he said: "Should indeed this one Volk attain its goal of prodding masses of millions from other peoples to enter into a war devoid of all sense for them and serving the interests of the Jews exclusively, then the effectiveness of an enlightenment will once more display its might. Within Germany, this enlightenment conquered Jewry utterly in the span of a few years." (see the 2nd pic below). Clearly a job for Joseph Goebbels' Ministry of Public Enlightenment and for National Socialist legislators, not for some gruesome Terminator-like death squads.

https://postimg.cc/vcgx5HrN

https://postimg.cc/2q9XvM57

https://postimg.cc/HVFFnVxs

https://postimg.cc/ppkptMXZ

https://postimg.cc/fVYvMbpd

https://postimg.cc/8sB2y1tZ

https://postimg.cc/ZvrqC1Sw

https://postimg.cc/6yzXYdBj

https://postimg.cc/zHvWdnBK

Was nothing new. Just an old propaganda trick. The corpse-factory hoax (the star propaganda lie of WWI) was almost entirely based on a deliberate mistranslation of the word kadaver by British propagandists.

https://postimg.cc/qhxyzqrr

https://postimg.cc/18xMqhQW

https://postimg.cc/xNNCzCzS

[Hektor]

What the pre-capture testimony has is Eichmann saying the genocide was a good thing, he doesn't regret it, it was alluded to in Hitler's speeches, etc .

No, it wasn't. Hitler's speeches allegedly referring to that nonexistent genocide were all repetitions of Hitler's January 30, 1939 warning to Jewry in the event of a second world war. But a full quote of that warning and a proper translation of the word Vernichtung unambiguously show that Hitler was talking about a continentalization of the means used in Germany and Austria between 1933 and 1938 to kick the Jews out of power and out of the living space of the German people. In other words, the Vernichtung of Europe's Jews was to be enforced through anti-Jewish public education ("enlightenment," in Nazi terminology), laws, and deportations, not through a mass slaughter policy as Holohoaxers claim. In that speech, Hitler even stated that "there is more than enough room for settlement on this earth" regarding the need for a final solution of the Jewish problem in Europe. And he also rephrased his often-selectively-and-deceptively-quoted Vernichtung warning when he said: "[i]Should indeed this one Volk attain its goal of prodding masses of millions from other peoples ....

Indeed. The language is hyperbole, but it turns out that this isn't about 'physical extermination'. That Vernichtung doesn't have that meaning there. In fact Hilter says that Jews are even reformable. They can find a place somewhere in the world, settle there and then live from their own work...

The citing of the speech to prove the Holocaust turns out to do the opposite, if one has thoroughly analyzed the text. But only few people can do that, while even less people will actually do that. And when they realize how they are being played, they won't like the feeling of that neither.

[hermod]

Indeed. The language is hyperbole, but it turns out that this isn't about 'physical extermination'. That Vernichtung doesn't have that meaning there. In fact Hilter says that Jews are even reformable. They can find a place somewhere in the world, settle there and then live from their own work...

The citing of the speech to prove the Holocaust turns out to do the opposite, if one has thoroughly analyzed the text. But only few people can do that, while even less people will actually do that. And when they realize how they are being played, they won't like the feeling of that neither.

I wouldn't call it an hyperbole. The neutralization, ostracization and expulsion of the Jews from Europe was indeed what the Nazi final solution of the Jewish problem was all about (in accordance with what the original devisers of that program --- that is, the first Zionists --- had planned decades before WWII) and what would have been completely achieved (thus actually reducing Jewry to nothing* in Europe) after the war if Nazi Germany had won WWII.


(*) Annihilated literally means reduced to nothing.

[Hektor]

Indeed. The language is hyperbole, but it turns out that this isn't about 'physical extermination'. That Vernichtung doesn't have that meaning there. In fact Hilter says that Jews are even reformable. They can find a place somewhere in the world, settle there and then live from their own work...

The citing of the speech to prove the Holocaust turns out to do the opposite, if one has thoroughly analyzed the text. But only few people can do that, while even less people will actually do that. And when they realize how they are being played, they won't like the feeling of that neither.

I wouldn't call it an hyperbole. The neutralization, ostracization and expulsion of the Jews from Europe was indeed what the Nazi final solution of the Jewish problem was all about (in accordance with what the original devisers of that program --- that is, the first Zionists --- had planned decades before WWII) and what would have been completely achieved (thus actually reducing Jewry to nothing* in Europe) after the war if Nazi Germany had won WWII.
....

Got to agree. The NS solution to he Jewish problem was from neutralising Jews in public German life up to removing them from Germany on from anywhere where they could become a problem in the future. This didn't include killing more of them, than was necessary. The Revisionist POV is 100% in line with this. So is the evidence. Although Revisionists of course admit that there was also a psychological warfare campaign as well as a international propanda campaign against Germany... Which was even prepared prior to Hitler become chancellor. There were conferences held by Jews in 1932 that dealt with the question of what to do about Hitler taking over (This was half a year before the NSDAP became strongest party).
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/arti ... Conference
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/arti ... Conference
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/arti ... Conference