Do we have evidence of torture to extract confessions?

[David]

It seems a lot of revisionism relies on the belief that Nazi prisoners like Hoess and other concentration camp officers were tortured in order to coerce false statements acknowledging a clear intent to gas Jews.

However I am curious as to why we don't even have a shred of evidence to support this claim. Or is there? If revisionists are serious scholars, their beliefs must be supported by facts and evidence, just as they demand of Holocaust historians.

David

[Hannover]

David:
Hoess ‘confession’ by way of torture? Glad to help out.

An explanation for Hoess's wild testimony is the evidence that Hoess was tortured by his captors. Hoess wrote of such torture:

"During the first interrogation they beat me to obtain evidence. I do not know what was in the transcript, or what I said, even though I signed it, because they gave me liquor and beat me with a whip. It was too much even for me to bear. The whip was my own. By chance it had found its way into my wife's luggage. My horse had hardly ever been touched by it, much less the prisoners. Somehow one of the interrogators probably thought that I had used it to constantly whip the prisoners."(11)

An account by Rupert Butler on the capture and interrogation of Rudolf Hoess, includes the following episode:

"The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pyjamas ripped from his body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where it seemed to [Bernard] Clarke he blows and screams were endless. Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: 'Call them off, unless you want to take back a corpse.'"(12)

11.R. Hoess, p. 179.
12.R. Butler, Legions of Death, Hamlyn, (London, 1983), p.237. Also:
R. Faurisson, "How the British Obtained the Confessions of Rudolf Hoess." The Journal of Historical Review (JHR) 7(4) (1986) pp.389-403.

and:

The admission of Bernard Clarke was corroborated by Mr. Ken Jones in 'The Wrexham Leader', October 17, 1986.
Mr. Jones was then a private with the Fifth Royal Horse Artillery stationed at Heid in Schleswig-Holstein.

"They brought him to us when he refused to cooperate over questioning about his activites during the war. He came in the winter of 1945/6 and was put in a small jail cell in the barracks," recalls Mr. Jones. Two other soldiers were detailed with Mr. Jones to join Hoess in his cell to help break him down for interrogation."

"We sat in the cell with him, night and day, armed with axe handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to help break down his resistance," said Mr. Jones.

When Hoess was taken out for exercise, he was made to wear only jeans and a thin cotton shirt in the bitter cold. After three days and nights without sleep, Hoess finally broke down and made a full confession to the authorities.

I suppose Hoess was fortunate in one respect, many Germans lost the use of their testicles after their walk in the park.


- Hannover

[Hannover]

in addition:

U.S. Congressional Representative, Lawrence H. Smith of Wisconsin said:

" The Nuremberg Trials are so repugnant to the Anglo-Saxon principles of justice that we must forever be ashamed of that page in our history."

- Congressional Record, appendix, v.95, sec.14, 6/15/49

American judge, van Roden:

"Statements admitted as evidence were obtained from men who had first been kept in solitary confinement for three, four and five months..The investigators would put a black hood over the accused's head, punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with rubber hoses"

Judge van Roden's allegation of torture to gain "confessions" is confirmed by Texas Supreme Court Judge, Gordon Simpson. He confirmed that savage beatings, smashing of testicles, and months of solitary confinement occurred.
- Congressional Record, appendix. v. 95,sec.12, 3/10/49.

and:

Lt. Col. Ellis and Lt Perl of the Prosectution pleaded that it was difficult to obtain competant evidence. Perl told the court, "We had a tough case to crack and we had to use persuasive methods."

He admitted to the court that the persuasive methods included various "expedients, including some violence and mock trials." He further told the court that the cases rested on statements obtained by such methods.

The statements which were admitted as evidence were obtained from men who had first been kept in solitary confinement for three, four, and, five months. They were confined between four walls, with no windows, and no opportunity of exercise. Two meals a day were shoved in to them through a slot in the door. They were not allowed to talk to anyone. They had no communication with their families or any minister or priest during that time.

This solitary confinement proved sufficient in itself in some cases to persuade the Germans to sign prepared statements. These statements not only involved the signer, but often would involve other defendants.

Our investigators would put a black hood over the accused's head and then punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him, and beat him with rubber hose. Many of the German defendants had teeth knocked out. Some had their jaws broken. All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair. This was Standard Operating Procedure with American investigators. Perl admitted use of mock trials and persuasive methods including violence and said the court was free to decide the weight to be attached to evidence thus received.

One 18 year old defendant, after a series of beatings. was writing a statement being dictated to him. When they reached the 16th page, the boy was locked up for the night. In the early morning, Germans in nearby cells heard him muttering. "I will not utter another lie." When the jailer came in later to get him to finish his false statement, he found the German hanging from a cell bar, dead. However the statement that the German had hanged himself to escape signing was offered and received in evidence in the trial of the others.

Sometimes a prisoner who refused to sign was led into a dimly lit room, where a group of civilian investigators, wearing U. S. Army uniforms. were seated around a black table with a crucifix in the center and two candles burning, one on each aide. "You will now have your American trial," the defendant was told. The sham court passed a sham sentence of death. Then the accused was told, "You will hang in a few days, as soon as the general approves this sentence: but in the meantime sign this confession and we can get you acquitted." Some still wouldn't sign. We were shocked by the crucifix being used so mockingly.

In another case, a bogus Catholic priest (actually an investigator) entered the cell of one of the defendants, heard his confession, gave him absolution, and then gave him a little friendly tip: "Sign whatever the investigators ask you to sign. It will get you your freedom. Even though it's false, I can give you absolution now in advance for the lie you'd tell."

- E. L. Van Roden, "American Atrocities in Germany", The Progressive. February 1949, p. 21f.

- Hannover

[ClaudiaRothenbach]

We do not need such evidence for three reasons:

1. The first reason is that the "causties" themselves say that the Hoess confession is a result of torture (see J. C. Pressac 1994, Die Krematorien von Auschwitz, Appendix and F. Meyer 2002, Die Totenzahlen von Auschwitz, Osteuropa 5 (May 2002).

2. The second reason is that Hoess himself said that his confession at Nuremberg was caused by torture.

3. His "Erinnerungen" from Poland contain so many impossibilities and obvious lies that you have to be stupid or ignorant to believe in them. Even Martin Broszat only published part of it because it was too much (for example: 4 M jews from Romania)

[Sailor]

Also read:

The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust
Chapter on: Torture
http://vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/12/2/Weber167-213.html

I read that some 90% of the SS men who were interrogated by the Americans during the NMT, Dachau and Buchenwald trials had their testicles permanently damaged. Ouch!!

It is generally understood that the American concentration camp in Guantanamo is not exactly a ressort place either!



fge

[TruthSeeker]

"During the first interrogation they beat me to obtain evidence. I do not know what was in the transcript, or what I said, even though I signed it, because they gave me liquor and beat me with a whip. It was too much even for me to bear. The whip was my own. By chance it had found its way into my wife's luggage. My horse had hardly ever been touched by it, much less the prisoners. Somehow one of the interrogators probably thought that I had used it to constantly whip the prisoners."(11)

Indeed. The ironic thing is that people are willing to believe Hoss's "confessions" because "he said them" and therefore it must be the truth, whereas they disregard other things he said, like the above, dismissing it as lies.. Talk about double standards.

[rrohde]

Very, very interesting and enlighthening!

[Willing to Learn]

2. The second reason is that Hoess himself said that his confession at Nuremberg was caused by torture.

When?

Where?

[Hannover]

from Hoess himself:

"During the first interrogation they beat me to obtainevidence. I do not know what was in the transcript, or what I said, even though I signed it, because they gave me liquor and beat me with a whip. It was too much even for me to bear. The whip was my own. By chance it had found its way into my wife's luggage. My horse had hardly ever been touched by it, much less the prisoners. Somehow one of the interrogators probably thought that I had used it to constantly whip the prisoners."(11)
11.R. Hoess, p. 179.

An account by Rupert Butler on the capture and interrogation of Rudolf Hoess, includes the following episode:

"The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pyjamas ripped from his body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where it seemed to [Bernard] Clarke he blows and screams were endless. Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: 'Call them off, unless you want to take back a corpse.'"(12)
12.R. Butler, Legions of Death, Hamlyn, (London, 1983), p.237. Also:
R. Faurisson, "How the British Obtained the Confessions of Rudolf Hoess." The Journal of Historical Review (JHR) 7(4) (1986) pp.389-403.

The admission of Bernard Clarke was corroborated by Mr. Ken Jones in 'The Wrexham Leader', October 17, 1986.
Mr. Jones was then a private with the Fifth Royal Horse Artillery stationed at Heid in Schleswig-Holstein.

"They brought him to us when he refused to cooperate over questioning about his activites during the war. He came in the winter of 1945/6 and was put in a small jail cell in the barracks," recalls Mr. Jones. Two other soldiers were detailed with Mr. Jones to join Hoess in his cell to help break him down for interrogation."

"We sat in the cell with him, night and day, armed with axe handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to help break down his resistance," said Mr. Jones.

When Hoess was taken out for exercise, he was made to wear only jeans and a thin cotton shirt in the bitter cold. After three days and nights without sleep, Hoess finally broke down and made a full confession to the authorities.

- Hannover

[Willing to Learn]

Hmm, I'm a little confused about the Hoess situation.

I thought that he was only a witness at Nuremburg?

I've read what he said, and this is what I found:

DR. KAUFFMANN: Is it furthermore true that Eichmann stated to you that in Auschwitz a total sum of more than 2 million Jews had been destroyed?

HOESS: Yes.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/p ... .htm#hoess

Am I missing something here?

All that says is that he was told that many people died, not that he witnessed it.

[Trojan]

Did Hoess specifically recant any of his testimony (if so, what was it)? Or did he merely say he was tortured and was not sure what he said?

[deathonacracker]

I thought that he was only a witness at Nuremburg?

Exactly.

Let's see:
1. Affidavit from March 14, 1946. No trials used this affidavit
2. Affidavit from April 5, 1946. Nuremberg deposition
3. Affidavit from May 17, 1946.
4. Affidavit from January 11, 1947.

And so there were 4 and the first was never used.

MSC

[Trojan]

So if Hoess doesn't recant his testimony ... why is his torture an issue when considering that accuracy of his statements?

[Scott]

So if Hoess doesn't recant his testimony ... why is his torture an issue when considering that accuracy of his statements?

Maybe because an extorted confession is not valid in a real court.

[Trojan]

So if Hoess doesn't recant his testimony ... why is his torture an issue when considering that accuracy of his statements?

Maybe because an extorted confession is not valid in a real court.

If the statement is given years after the torture, in a different county, under guard by different handlers ... I doubt that premise would hold true.

Would a US court through out a statement made by a prisioner in US custody when he was in US custody, just because that prisioner was tortured in a different county? I doubt it.