Wyatt admits to torture of Hoess; claims he's a reliable source despite "no evidence" for the absurd claims

[Lamprecht]

Wyatt from Twitter: viewtopic.php?t=12715

wyit‏ @Wyatt1116 Mar 27

However even with all this evidence that cant be refuted. You still need somebody to admit to the crime. We have that person. Rudolf hoess. The commendant of the camp. You should read his open court testimony (not a document he signed under torture) https://www.famous-trials.com/nuremberg ... stestimony


wyit @Wyatt1116 Mar 27

Ultimately it was this testimony that allowed me to reach the final conclusion that history is as it was written and there was no "hoax". People will complain about the hoess testimony and nuremburg as a whole and they have some points. but the reality is this.


wyit @Wyatt1116

rudolf hoess was tortured. We know this from allied soldiers biographies. However him being tortured can only be used as an argument for him to sign a confession. or some other thing like giving up other nazis locations. It cannot be used to coerce somebody to testify in court.
5:07 PM - 27 Mar 2019

So Wyatt admits Hoess was tortured before making statements at the Nuremberg show trials, but his testimony is still credible. Why? If someone tortures you until you do what they say, wouldn't you expect them to torture you even worse if you flip-flopped? He claims torture cannot possibly coerce someone into making false testimony in court. I'd like to see him tell that to a lawyer...

More on Hoess' torture:
Commandant of Auschwitz—Rudolf Höss, His Torture and His Forced Confessions
PDF: https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/35-coa.pdf

In the above text you will find that not only was Hoess tortured, but they threatened to send his son to Siberia.

In another thread Wyatt claims:

Im not in denial i just go by evidence and realism. Witness testimony is only useful if it is backed up by documents or other evidence. In the case of "2000" being gassed at a time per gas chamber. There simply is no evidence other than some witness testimony.

viewtopic.php?p=93710#p93710

Yet, from the link he posted on twitter:

COL. AMEN:

"7 Another improvement we made over Treblinka was that we built our gas chamber to accommodate 2,000 people at one time whereas at Treblinka their 10 gas chambers only accommodated 200 people each..."
Is that all true and correct, Witness?

HOESS: Yes.

Hoess also claims the following is true in that transcript:

I commanded Auschwitz until 1 December 1943, and estimate that at least 2,500,000 victims were executed and exterminated there by gassing and burning, and at least another half million succumbed to starvation and disease making a total dead of about 3,000,000.

But even Wyatt knows that is just not true.

English historian and 'Holocaust' believer Mark Roseman in his 2002 book "The Wannsee Conference and the Final Solution: A Reconsideration" claims:
"Both Rudolf Hoess's and Eichmann's testimonies lack credibility."

Hoess also claimed that the workers ate and smoked while dragging out the cyanide covered corpses, the bodies were removed immediately from the chambers (rather than waiting for ventilation), and that gas masks weren't even used. He also said that they scooped the fat from burning corpses and poured it back over them, which is impossible.

Wyatt, being a purveyor of conspiracy theories, will simply ignore the fact that Hoess got basically everything wrong on this, and say "well, he admitted that gassings happened!" Wyatt will also claim all of the testimonies by Nazis that gassings did not occur was just them lying; even though there is no document proving that jews were gassed with Zyclon-B.

Initially, SS-Hauptsturmführer Josef Kramer claimed:
"I have heard of the allegations of former prisoners in Auschwitz referring to a gas chamber there, the mass executions and whippings, the cruelty of the guards employed, and that all this took place either in my presence or with my knowledge. All I can say to all this is that it is untrue from beginning to end."
Kramer later claimed that "The gas chamber existed, there is no doubt about it" once he realized what the nature of the trial was. This is a perfect example of the standard strategy for the defense: the defendant "knew" but was not "responsible" for the gassing of Jews.

Hans Aumeier, deputy commandant of Auschwitz, said in a statement on 29 June 1945:
"In the main camp was one crematorium with two ovens... During my time tie two or three crematoria were built at Berkenau. I know nothing about gas chambers, and no prisoner was gassed in my time."

Dr. Horst Pelckmann, defense counsel for the SS at Nuremberg, exposed the fact that over 97% of the SS men who mentioned "The Jewish Problem" denied that it was to be solved by extermination. On 21 August 1946 (IMT Proceedings, vol. 21, p. 368): "On the question of whether the SS members recognized the destruction of Jewry as an aim of the leaders, 1,593 out of 1,637 affidavits which mention this problem state that the Jewish problem was not to be solved by killing..."

And why are those testimonies nonsense, but Hoess is credible?

[borjastick]

On a side note as per torture claims. I am currently reading a book about SS Colonel Jochen Peiper, and very good it is too. It is clear that all his subordinates in his SS unit involved in the actions in and around Malmedy, including the massacre of US troops, were tortured and forced to sign pre prepared admissions of guilt.

[Otium]

On a side note as per torture claims. I am currently reading a book about SS Colonel Jochen Peiper, and very good it is too. It is clear that all his subordinates in his SS unit involved in the actions in and around Malmedy, including the massacre of US troops, were tortured and forced to sign pre prepared admissions of guilt.

What is the book? If you don't mind my asking?

[Otium]

"7 Another improvement we made over Treblinka was that we built our gas chamber to accommodate 2,000 people at one time whereas at Treblinka their 10 gas chambers only accommodated 200 people each..."
Is that all true and correct, Witness?

HOESS: Yes.

This is weird, because in the documentary I linked to Wyatt, Dario Gabbai claims the maximum accomodation at Auschwitz gas chambers was 500 people which could fit 2,000 or so if packed in tightly enough, or in a military style fashion. How odd....

http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=1005&play=96#watch

Hoess also claims the following is true in that transcript:

I commanded Auschwitz until 1 December 1943, and estimate that at least 2,500,000 victims were executed and exterminated there by gassing and burning, and at least another half million succumbed to starvation and disease making a total dead of about 3,000,000.

But even Wyatt knows that is just not true.

English historian and 'Holocaust' believer Mark Roseman in his 2002 book "The Wannsee Conference and the Final Solution: A Reconsideration" claims:
"Both Rudolf Hoess's and Eichmann's testimonies lack credibility."

Hoess also claimed that the workers ate and smoked while dragging out the cyanide covered corpses, the bodies were removed immediately from the chambers (rather than waiting for ventilation), and that gas masks weren't even used. He also said that they scooped the fat from burning corpses and poured it back over them, which is impossible.

Wyatt, being a purveyor of conspiracy theories, will simply ignore the fact that Hoess got basically everything wrong on this, and say "well, he admitted that gassings happened!" Wyatt will also claim all of the testimonies by Nazis that gassings did not occur was just them lying; even though there is no document proving that jews were gassed with Zyclon-B.

Initially, SS-Hauptsturmführer Josef Kramer claimed:
"I have heard of the allegations of former prisoners in Auschwitz referring to a gas chamber there, the mass executions and whippings, the cruelty of the guards employed, and that all this took place either in my presence or with my knowledge. All I can say to all this is that it is untrue from beginning to end."
Kramer later claimed that "The gas chamber existed, there is no doubt about it" once he realized what the nature of the trial was. This is a perfect example of the standard strategy for the defense: the defendant "knew" but was not "responsible" for the gassing of Jews.

Hans Aumeier, deputy commandant of Auschwitz, said in a statement on 29 June 1945:
"In the main camp was one crematorium with two ovens... During my time tie two or three crematoria were built at Berkenau. I know nothing about gas chambers, and no prisoner was gassed in my time."

Dr. Horst Pelckmann, defense counsel for the SS at Nuremberg, exposed the fact that over 97% of the SS men who mentioned "The Jewish Problem" denied that it was to be solved by extermination. On 21 August 1946 (IMT Proceedings, vol. 21, p. 368): "On the question of whether the SS members recognized the destruction of Jewry as an aim of the leaders, 1,593 out of 1,637 affidavits which mention this problem state that the Jewish problem was not to be solved by killing..."

And why are those testimonies nonsense, but Hoess is credible?

Could you cite me the sources of these remarks my Kramer and Aumeier please Lamprecht?

On the affidavits

The second subsection of Group III is intended to provide an answer to the question of what the members recognized as the actual aim of the organization. It is a problem of ascertaining whether there was a contradiction between the theoretical training and the real actions of the leaders. 688 affidavits deal with the question of whether the power in Germany was to be achieved through suppression of political opponents. On the question of whether the SS members recognized the destruction- of Jewry as an aim of the leaders, 1,593 out of 1,637 affidavits which mention this problem state that the Jewish problem was not to be solved by killing or the so-called "final solution," and that they had no knowledge of these intentions of the leaders. They point out that the SS members were forbidden to undertake individual acts against Jews. As evidence, numerous members refer to the fact that many death or other severe sentences were passed because of crimes against Jewish persons or Jewish property. Another question was whether the SS members believed that the actual aim of the leaders was to dominate Europe through war. 12,596 affidavits say that neither statements of the SS leaders nor statements of Hitler made plain that the conquest of Europe was an aim of the SS.

Source: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/08-21-46.asp

I presume these affidavits are the National Socialist testimonies you were referring to that Wyatt would accuse them of lying? If there are others i'd like to see those as well

On Hoess, see my post here: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9066&p=92512#p92512

By early 1946 British military police had finally located his wife and children in Schleswig-Holstein. They kept her under close surveillance and on March 11 forced her to reveal that her husband working as a farm labourer near Flensburg under the assumed name of ‘Franz Lang’. The posse found Höss at eleven P.M. that night, sleeping on a bunk in the farm’s slaughter-house. Two days earlier he had accidentally broken the phial of cyanide which he possessed; he was unable now to escape the consequences of his ill-starred career. To make doubly sure, he was immediately handcuffed and the cuffs were not removed for the next three weeks. He was dragged off his bunk, stripped naked, dumped onto one of the slaughter tables in the barn and manhandled until a medical officer accompanying the unit murmured, ‘Call them off unless you want to take back a corpse.’ As the car pulled into the British unit’s barracks at Heide, a blizzard was blowing. Höss was marched naked across the parade ground to a cell. For the next three days he was kept awake and repeatedly interrogated in German – he understood no English. Kenneth Jones, a private with the Fifth Royal Horse Artillery, and two other soldiers were detailed to take turns to sit in his cell, armed with pick-axe handles to jab him every time he fell asleep. ‘After three days and nights without sleep,’ said Jones, ‘Höss finally broke down and made a full confession to the authorities.’ Höss himself wrote later, ‘At my first interrogation, evidence was obtained by beating me. I do not know what is in the record, although I signed it. Alcohol and the whip [his own] were too much for me.’ The ‘record’ was an eight-page text typed in German, which Höss signed in the early hours of March 15, having the presence of mind even now to add the time, ‘2:30 A.M.’ after the date. This confession, which subsequently came to be submitted to the Nuremberg tribunal as document NO–1210, had taken three days of torture, as his captor, Sergeant Bernard Clarke himself would describe, to obtain. It contained numerous perhaps deliberate errors, for instance the identification by Höss of an extermination camp at ‘Wolzek near Lublin,’ in addition to those at ‘Belzek’ and ‘Tublinka,’ all spelt thus. Wolzek has never existed; and the other two camps, Belzec and Treblinka, were not in existence at the time that Höss testified to. Having signed this document, Höss was transferred to British Intelligence regional headquarters at Minden-on-the-Weser. ‘There,’ he would later complain, ‘I received further rough treatment at the hands of the English public prosecutor, a major.’ His interlocutor here was Gerald Draper, a thirty-one-year-old lawyer who was chief interrogator of the British War Crimes Group. Höss’ confession would be listed as the high point of his career. This encounter was probably the source of a brief statement, set down in an English (i.e. not American or German) hand, which has survived and which reads in full as follows:

Statement made Voluntarily at [sic] Gaol
by Rudolf Hoess, former Commandant of
Auschwitz Concentration Camp on 16th day of March 1946.
– – – – –
I personally arranged on orders received from Himmler in May 1941
the gassing of two million persons between June/July 1941 and the end of
1943 during which time I was commandant of Auschwitz.
signed.

Höss signed this statement: ‘Rudolf Höss, SS-Ostubaf., fr. Kdt. v. Auschwitz–Birkenau’. He was also interrogated on March 20, 1946 at Minden, but that report is lost or not yet in the public domain. Shackled to another prisoner Höss was driven eleven days later to the American Zone in southern Germany, where he was housed in the Nuremberg jailhouse as a witness. His companion on this road journey was Moritz von Schirmeister, Dr Joseph Goebbels’ former press officer, for whose production Hans Fritzsche had applied as a defence witness. ‘Sure,’ Höss told Schirmeister before they were unshackled, ‘I signed to the effect that I had bumped off two and a half million people. But I could equally well have signed that it was five million. There are methods to get anybody to confess to anything regardless of whether it is true or not.’ Höss would describe the regime imposed on the jailhouse inmates by the American colonel Andrus as a ‘rest-cure’ compared to what he had been through in the British zone. -- Nuremberg: The Last Battle, David Irving, Focal Point Publications, pp. 349-351

Hoess is totally unreliable. This has been known for ages no matter how hard people like Wyatt screech. These exterminationists are so utterly morally bankrupt they they're willing to take evidence obtained by torture as gospel, they cannot bare their golden goose being taken from them. This shows me how utterly cruel these people can be, we revisionists are accused of every vile act and belief. Yet we don't think torture is acceptable, nor do we accept such tainted evidence. Who here at the end of the day is truly morally contemptible?

It's ironic too, that the exterminationists want so badly to accuse the Nazis of being evil savages that tortured their victims, and yet here they are, or were in 1945 doing the same while today they justify it.

[Lamprecht]

Could you cite me the sources of these remarks my Kramer and Aumeier please Lamprecht?

Aumeier, in German: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Aumeier/MS2_290645.html
I went ahead and Google translated: https://paste2.org/LE2GcvU9

Kramer's statements are from the Belsen trial: http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/thottc/16.html

Also:

The example of the Belsen trial is typical in this sense. Belsen was
the first major post-war trial, held by the British from 17 September to
17 November 1945. The principal defendant was SS-Hauptsturmführer
Josef Kramer, who had been commandant of Auschwitz-II concentra-
tion camp (Birkenau) between October 1942 and May 1944, then com-
mandant at Bergen-Belsen. For this reason, the trial involved both
Auschwitz and Belsen. In his first statement, Kramer ingenuously told
the truth:130
“I have heard of the allegations of former prisoners in Auschwitz refer-
ring to a gas chamber there, the mass executions and whippings, the cruelty
of the guards employed, and that all this took place either in my presence
or with my knowledge. All I can say to all this is that it is untrue from be-
ginning to end.”
But he soon came to understand the ideological and political func-
tion of the trial. The only permissible defense strategy consisted of
complete accordance with the dogma of the “gas chambers”; even his
defense attorney could not help but accept it:131
“The gas chamber existed, there is no doubt about it.”
“It [is] clear that thousands of people [were] killed in the gas chambers
at Auschwitz…”
For this reason, Kramer was compelled to retract his denial as the
trial proceeded. Thus emerged the strategy which was soon to become
standard practice for the defense in the post-war courts: the defendant
“knew,” but was not directly “responsible.” In this specific case, Kra-
mer declared:132
“I received a written order from him [Rudolf Höss] that I had nothing
to do with either the gas chambers or the incoming transports.”

130
Trial of Josef Kramer and Forty-Four Others (The Belsen Trial). Edited by Raymond Phillips.
William Lodge and Company, Limited. London, Edinburgh, Glasgow, 1949, p. 731.
131
Ibid., p. 150, 512, resp. Both statements were taken by Major Thomas Claude M.Winwood,
defense counsel for Kramer and three other defendants
132
Ibid., p. 157

From:
The “Extermination Camps” of “Aktion Reinhardt” - an Analysis and Refutation of Factitious “Evidence,” Deceptions and Flawed Argumentation of the “Holocaust Controversies” Bloggers (PART ONE OF TWO)
https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/28-tecoar.pdf

[borjastick]

On a side note as per torture claims. I am currently reading a book about SS Colonel Jochen Peiper, and very good it is too. It is clear that all his subordinates in his SS unit involved in the actions in and around Malmedy, including the massacre of US troops, were tortured and forced to sign pre prepared admissions of guilt.

What is the book? If you don't mind my asking?

Bought secondhand off ebay for about £3 - SS Peiper by Leo Kessler.

[Lamprecht]

From Wyatt's twitter:

‏@Wyatt1116
more specifically it cannot be used to have somebody remember so many contextually important things backed up by documentary , photographic , and witness testimony. Nuremburg was a circus. With the german high command often making a mockery of the court throughout its proceedings

they stood in complete silence during his testimony. They never called out. They never shouted "LIAR". They were either so shocked at what they were hearing because they didnt know. Or they did know and were shamed into silence. One thing we do know is this.

2 days after this testimony. goerring was described by a german speaking US intelligence agent as FREAKING THE FUCK OUT. and claiming this was impossible because *squints* he had jewish friends.



Later during his own trial , after which he committed suicide because he didnt want to be hanged like "a common criminal". Evidence was presented that he was absolutely aware of the extermination of the hungarian jewish population. As well as other atrocities (Białowieża Forest)

Firstly, please prove that "Evidence was presented that [Goering] was absolutely aware of the extermination of the hungarian jewish population"

Secondly, Nuremberg was indeed a circus, and various American and British intellectuals acknowledged this (see bottom of this post for just a few example quotes). This is handled in the following thread:

Nuremberg - Fair Trial or Show Trial ?
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11053

It was the "Allies" which made a mockery of justice, not the Germans. The court took 'Judicial notice' of the alleged extermination, so claiming it did not occur was not a real defense (although many did make this argument).

Article 19 of the Nuremberg Charter: "The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence... and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value."

Article 21 of the Nuremberg Charter: "The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United [Allied] Nations, including acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and the records and findings of military and other Tribunals of any of the United [Allied] Nations."

And why would they scream "LIAR"? That's not how a court with adults works, Wyatt. I think you've been watching too many of those Japanese cartoons

Why wouldn't Goering "Freak the f*ck out" specifically after fraudulent "confessions" were made? Wouldn't he have been freaking out initially, if he believed in his own guilt? Probably because he had no idea of any extermination of Jews, and then when he saw that they were accusing them of such he thought "Well, this is how it's going to be then. It's a show trial".

Goering in fact did deny the extermination of Jews, but you're being deliberately disingenous when you say it was *because* he had Jewish friends. That makes no sense at all.

If you and your buddies were put on trial for murder in, say, China, and you all knew you were innocent, but then you saw your first friend put on the stand *admitting* that there was a huge murder operation going on, and you knew it was nonsense... wouldn't you start freaking out? You just realized the alleged crime is already assumed to have happened, even if it did not. It changes everything.

More on Goering's testimony:
"Why Didn't Any Nazi Deny" and the scope of the "conspiracy"
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12287


Quotes about the Nuremberg show trials:

U.S. Senator Robert A. Taft:

About this whole judgment there is the spirit of vengeance, and vengeance is seldom justice. The hanging of the eleven men convicted will be a blot on the American record which we will long regret. In these trials we have accepted the Russian idea of the purpose of trials -- government policy and not justice -- with little relation to Anglo-Saxon heritage. By clothing policy in the forms of legal procedure, we may discredit the whole idea of justice in Europe for years to come.

Delivered at Kenyon College, Ohio, Oct. 5, 1946. Vital Speeches of the Day, Nov. 1, 1946, p. 47. Text also published in: Jay W. Baird, ed., From Nuremberg to My Lai (Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1972), pp. 107-113. See also: William Bosch, Judgment on Nuremberg (1970), pp. 73-81. Taft's devotion to principle during a time of widespread anti-German hysteria impressed John F. Kennedy, who praised the Ohio senator's stand in his award-winning best seller, Profiles in Courage.

---

U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas:

I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled. Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time.

H. K. Thompson and H. Strutz, eds., Dönitz at Nuremberg: A Reappraisal (IHR, 1983), p. 196.

---

Edgar N. Eisenhower, American Attorney, brother of President Dwight D. Eisenhower:

I think the Nuremberg trials are a black page in the history of the world...I discussed the legality of these trials with some of the lawyers and some of the judges who participated therein. They did not attempt to justify their action on any legal ground, but rested their position on the fact that in their opinion, the parties convicted were guilty...This action is contrary to the fundamental laws under which this country has lived for many hundreds of years, and I think cannot be justified by any line of reasoning. I think the Israeli trial of Adolf Eichmann is exactly in the same category as the Nuremberg trials. As a lawyer, it has always been my view that a crime must be defined before you can be guilty of committing it. That has not occurred in either of the trials I refer to herein.

Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.168

---

T.S. Eliot, English poet and author:

I was from the beginning very unhappy about the Nuremberg trials... the weak points of such trials are obvious: they are trials of the vanquished by the victors instead of by an impartial tribunal; furthermore the trials are only of the crimes committed by the vanquished, and the fact that the Katyn massacre of Polish officers was never properly investigated casts doubt on the conduct of such trials.

Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 5

---

George B. Fowler, Ph.D., Professor of History, University of Pittsburgh:

I shall always have doubts about the whole 'War Crimes Trials,' both in Germany and in Japan. I am unable to understand how one can try an officer for obeying orders or for doing his duty. It makes no difference what flag he fights under. To me, the War Crimes Trials of Nuremberg and elsewhere are one illustration of the greatest danger of our times: mass pressure based largely on little information and perilously close to mass hysteria.

Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 111

---

Rear Admiral, U.S.N. Dan V. Gallery:

This kangaroo court at Nuremburg was officially known as the 'International Military Tribunal.' That name is a libel on the military profession. The tribunal was not a military one in any sense. The only military men among the judges were the Russians.... At Nuremberg, mankind and our present civilization were on trial, with men whose own hands were bloody sitting on the judges' seats. One of the judges came from the country which committed the Katyn Forest massacre and produced an array of witnesses to swear at Nuremberg that the Germans had done it.

Thompson, and Strutz ed., pp.XXI-XXII