SS Testimonies

[Barncat]

"Your assumption about the origin of his [Gerstein's] statement - that incredible piece of filth - in which inventions exceed by far the truth is in my opinion very correct."

Lohengrin, did Pfannensteil write to Rassinier that there were no gas chambers at Belzec?
If this is the case, then please provide the link as this would be important to see.
Pfannensteil, it is well known, took issue with Gerstein's reference to the doctor's
alleged callous, flippant attitude at a supposed gassing. If Pfannensteil did not disavow
the gas chambers of Belzec, his animosity toward Gerstein implies absolutely nothing
about recanting.

Likewise, Lohengrin, this statement

Another example of 'recant' is that of Jupp Aschenbrenner, who signed a document (in Russian which he did not understand) in which he confessed to have worked in a "gas van". In 1954 he was able to prove that at the time he was in Munchen. (You can find this also in Solzjenitsyn, The Goelag Archipelago.)

is completely meaningless, for our purposes, unless you can provide a statement that
Aschenbrenner stated that no gassing vans were utilised in an alleged death camp site
in which the traditional history deemed their use i. e. Chelmno. Any accused individual is
going to be motivated to explain that he had an alibi, and was deployed somewhere else.
So what?

A significant recantation by an important SS "perpetrator" would be important news for
revisionist argument. This isn't.

[Kurland]

Finally something about "confessions" and not recanting of SS-men in the Sixties of the past Century.
Those 'processes' were nothing else than an attempt to create "proof" for 'the Holocaust'. Until then, there wasn't any proof at all for 'mass gassing', nope, so they had to be proved yet.
The first thing accused were told (most of them were earlier in prison in Soviet territory and had build up a proper civilian career already) was that 'the Holocaust' in the Courts eyes was "common knowledge" ('juridical notice') and denying to be absolute senseless. On the contrary, denying would be regarded as an extra crime and should undoubtedly lead to very high punishments.
In this way, the first part of the "confession" was already scored by the prosecution and the Holocaust Mafia.
In the second place, cooperation and subjection were abundantly rewarded, see the many acquittals, early releases and very, very mild sentences.
In the third place, the accused - if they ware sensible - "confessed" that they "saw" the mass gassing, but. . . , but they themselves did nothing wrong, because other colleagues (what a pity, nearly all of those already dead or missing) did all the dirty work.
What a good chance! The accused happy (they get off with a fright) and the prosecutors happy (at last they now got 'proof' of 'the Holocaust')!
Before leaving, the accused was threatened to be jailed still if (only if) he dared to recant or criticize his "confession" later.

Dan B please keep in mind that this Lohengrin has actually relied upon the very testimonies which he rightly declares to be fraudulent.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6055

I say this because I am skeptical like yourself of everything and am suspicious of those whose motives appear dubious. Just keep that in mind while you post to this forum. Do not put anything past the Holo playwrights. The same holds true for things they use as evidence. The puppets and stooges who were put on trial were likely given scripts to talk from-we know that they werent truthful by the contradictions on grave sizes, gassing engines, and every other detail shown to be bunk. These )shall we call them problems) come in matters that are outside of the script that the Jewish puppet masters provided to their little toys. But they have also exposed themselves on other matters such as staging areas and falsifying the history of whole camps. The scrapbook page creator has shown me a wonderful blog which documents some very interesting fake holo episodes as well. You would benefit from checking it out.
http://littlegreyrabbit.wordpress.com/

Anyway DanB I understand that you have actually lived the idea of free speech and speakng truth to Jews and their workers. For that we and the truth all express our gratitude. Thank you.

[Pappy Yokum]

Now, my questions are (in order of importance):

1) Do the testimonies of SS guards contradict one another? If so, how?

2) Did any SS guards recant their testimonies?

3) Did any Revisionists get in touch with any of the SS who gave this testimony before they passed away?

4) Did any SS guards (at the camps in question) flat out deny the existence of gas chambers? (I know of Thies Christophersen but haven't read any of his work yet. Is any of it available online?)

Sources for any claims that are not undisputed would be much appreciated.

I don't know that I can answer your questions, but I have some questions of my own.
1) Since the gas chamber story was published in Allied newspapers and broadcast on radio with many SS personnel having access to it as well as the interrogators knowing the general outline of it by autumn 1944, does SS guard contradictory or corroborating testimony in 1945 and thereafter mean anything?

2) Since a recantation indicates at some point the person giving testimony lied, what does this imply about the testimony? If there was no recantation, how does that lend to its credence one way or the other?

3) Since anyone who was in a position to know could be brought up on new war crimes charges at any time and since family was also threatened with reprisals, what incentive would such a person have for attempting to set the record straight?

4) What evidence is there for gas chambers before 1945 that verifies post-war testimony?

5) Why do we have to depend on post-war testimony when the government archives of defeated Nazi Germany is an open book for the victors?

6) Does the testimony of Nazi policy makers who said the extermination of the Jews story was false at the IMT trials count for anything?

7) What is the threshold at which false testimony becomes true? Are 20 false testimonies that agree enough, or do you need more?

[Dan B]

1) Since the gas chamber story was published in Allied newspapers and broadcast on radio with many SS personnel having access to it as well as the interrogators knowing the general outline of it by autumn 1944, does SS guard contradictory or corroborating testimony in 1945 and thereafter mean anything?

Not necessarily, no. Good point.

2) Since a recantation indicates at some point the person giving testimony lied, what does this imply about the testimony? If there was no recantation, how does that lend to its credence one way or the other?

If some of them had recanted after being set free, saying that no gas chambers ever existed, that would certainly have demolished the credibility of the rest of them completely. I find it very sad that they didn't. In the cases of those who got lenient sentences in exchange for this foul betrayal of their country and their race, I hope they all burn in hell.

3) Since anyone who was in a position to know could be brought up on new war crimes charges at any time and since family was also threatened with reprisals, what incentive would such a person have for attempting to set the record straight?

Defending Germany's honour? Setting the record straight? Giving their countrymen the truth? Standing up against tyranny?

4) What evidence is there for gas chambers before 1945 that verifies post-war testimony?

None that I know of.

5) Why do we have to depend on post-war testimony when the government archives of defeated Nazi Germany is an open book for the victors?

Because those evil nazis managed to find and destroy every last document about it. (No, I don't believe that.)

6) Does the testimony of Nazi policy makers who said the extermination of the Jews story was false at the IMT trials count for anything?

Of course it does. Which ones of the NS policy makers said that?

7) What is the threshold at which false testimony becomes true? Are 20 false testimonies that agree enough, or do you need more?

Six million false testimonies should do the trick.

[Barncat]

Does the testimony of Nazi policy makers who said the extermination of the Jews story was false at the IMT trials count for anything?

If we revs are not going to be honest, we are no better than the hoaxters. No "Nazi policy
makers" said the "story was false." If they had done so, that would tear apart the revisionist
view that one was severely punished for failing to comply with the hoax story.

Nazi policy makers did often testify that they, personally, were unaware of the extermination
of the Jews. I.E. Albert Spear. That is quite different from stating that the exterminations did
not happen.

[Pappy Yokum]

Does the testimony of Nazi policy makers who said the extermination of the Jews story was false at the IMT trials count for anything?

If we revs are not going to be honest, we are no better than the hoaxters. No "Nazi policy
makers" said the "story was false." If they had done so, that would tear apart the revisionist
view that one was severely punished for failing to comply with the hoax story.

Nazi policy makers did often testify that they, personally, were unaware of the extermination
of the Jews. I.E. Albert Spear. That is quite different from stating that the exterminations did
not happen.

That is simply not true. See the topic: '"But, but, No Nazi ever Denied"- oogah boogah.' I have posted some of the testimony there.
The man in charge of the occupied eastern territories, Alfred Rosenberg testified unambiguously that there was no physical extermination program.
Julius Streicher testified he did not believe there was an extermination program and was of the opinion that killing five million people was technically impossible. He also stated he saw no evidence of such a program presented at the trial.
Additionally, Dr. Jur. Hans Heinrich Lammers, head of the Reich Chancellery, testified he looked into the rumor of the Jewish extermination himself - even asking Himmler about it. He testified Himmler told him the Jews were being resettled.
This goes beyond simply being unaware. These men were very aware and said either they did not believe it, or personally knew there was no such program.

Since these men were hanged, I don't see that as contradicting the view "that one was severely punished for failing to comply with the hoax story."
Being hanged by the neck until dead, I think, is severe punishment. Don't you agree?

[Dan B]

Ok, let's organize this a little better.

The Exterminationists have "69 SS testimonies". These are, according to Kogon:

• 40 SS men from Auschwitz who were tried in Poland in 1946 and 1947
• Rudolf Höss.
• 19 SS men tried in the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) from 1963 to 1965.
• Baer, Dejaco and 7 other SS men, questioned as witnesses, who admitted having seen the Birkenau gas chambers functioning.

What do we know of these? I thought I'd begin with the first 40 and see what we can come up with. I'm especially interested in what they actually testified to, but, not much to my surprise, such information has been hard to come by.

"40 SS men from Auschwitz who were tried in Poland in 1946 and 1947"
Actually the trial took place between 24th November 1947 and 22nd December, 1947, according to this page: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=49800, which also lists all of these SS men (some more info is available on the linked page):

Aumeier Hans; SS-Sturmbannführer (9.11.1944) -- hanged
Bogusch August -- hanged
Brandl Therese -- hanged
Breitwieser Arthur -- death commuted to life imprisonment
Buntrock Fritz ; SS Nr: 259 831 -- hanged
Büllow Alexander -- 15 years imprisonment
Danz Luise -- life imprisonment
Dinges Erich -- 5 years Imprisonment
Gehring Wilhelm -- hanged
Götze Paul -- hanged
Grabner Maximilian -- hanged
Hoffmann Hans -- 15 years imprisonment
Jeschke Karl -- 3 years imprisonment
Josten Heinrich -- hanged
Kirschner Hermann -- hanged
Koch Hans -- life imprisonment (died 14.7.1955 prison, Gdañsk)
Kollmer Josef ; NSDAP Nr: 4 263 096 ; SS Nr: 267 573 -- hanged
Kraus Franz -- hanged
Kremer Johann Dr ; SS-Obersturmführer -- death commuted to life imprisonment (died 8.6.1965 Münster)
Lächert Hildegard -- 15 years imprisonment
Lätsch Otto -- hanged
Lechner Anton -- life imprisonment
Liebehenschel Arthur -- hanged
Lorenz Eduard -- 15 years imprisonment
Ludwig Herbert -- hanged
Mandl Maria -- hanged
Medefind Adolf -- life imprisonment
Möckel Karl -- hanged
Muhsfeld Erich -- hanged
Müller Kurt -- hanged
Münch Hans Dr -- acquitted
Nebbe Detlef -- life imprisonment
Orlowski Alice -- 15 years imprisonment
Plagge Ludwig -- hanged
Romeikat Franz -- 15 years imprisonment
Schröder Richard -- 10 years imprisonment
Schumacher Hans -- hanged
Seufert Karl -- life imprisonment
Szczurek Paul -- hanged
Weber Johannes -- 15 years imprisonment

As far as I have been able to tell, very little information is available on these SS men. What little I have so far:

Dr Hans Münch
The only one who was acquitted at the Krakow trial. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_M%C3%BCnch. An interesting passage in the Wikipedia text is this:

Until the year 2000, the public prosecutor of Frankfurt-on-Main had only knowledge about the judgement of the Kraków proceedings but not about the protocols and the witness hearings. Dr. Münch had stated that he had been forced into the Waffen-SS and that he had come to Birkenau at the end of 1944. During the discussion of the second hearing he corrected himself, stating that he had already arrived in 1943.

The documents of the witness hearing provided the answer of Dr. Münch to the precise questions of the prosecutor during the main hearing of 1947:
"The camp doctor demanded me to participate in the selections and officially I could not refuse it, because this would have meant insubordination. But I had found a way to avoid these things as a physician."

If this is to be believed, there are documents of the witness hearings from the Krakow trials. Does anyone know where these documents are kept and if they are available for examining by neutral parties?

Münch's actual testimony at the Frankfurt trial (or the Krakow trial) would be of much interest. Some sources quote passages of things he said both during the trials and later in life:
http://www.historiography-project.com/m ... munch.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... htest.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... Munch.html
http://remember.org/imagine/doctors.html

The dear doctor seems to have contradicted himself a few times. He claimed on several occasions to have refused to participate in the "selections". According to an interview for the Jewess who runs the CANDLES website (http://www.candlesholocaustmuseum.org/) he "went to Berlin immediately to the head of the hygiene institute and told him "I cannot do it. I will not do it, regardless of the consequences."" However, in an interview in the documentary Healing by Killing by Tel Aviv filmmaker Nitzan Aviram, he "relates how he traveled by train to Berlin to "tell Himmler in person the [he] was refusing orders to join the selection team. [Himmler] accepted [his] refusal, and [he] resumed [his] work at the Hygienic Institute without a pause"" (emphasis mine). When this interview was conducted, Dr Münch probably already suffered from Alzheimers though, and while it's clearly dishonest to use an old senile man in a documentary, it doesn't really say anything about the reliability of his testimony before the courts earlier.

According to the testimony cited at the Jewish Virtual Library (second link above, only says "at the Nuremburg trial") he said that he "saw one gassing at one time". However, according to the Jewess who runs the CANDLES website (http://www.candlesholocaustmuseum.org/), and quoted at the other link to the Jewish Virtual Library (third link above):

After he answered Kor's questions regarding Dr. Mengele, she wanted to know what he knew about Auschwitz, if he, by any chance, knew something about the operation of the gas chambers, and she asked him and he said, "This is the nightmare I live with." He said, "I had to watch the operation of the gas chambers and then, when the bodies were dead, I had to sign the death certificates."

This sure doesn't sound like something that happened only once, and in the document he signed in 1995 (with the express purpose of "proving the gas chambers existed") it says:

I further attest that I saw thousands of people gassed here at Auschwitz. Children, old people, the sick and those unable to work were sent to the gas chambers. These were innocent human beings: Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Hitler's political opponents...anyone who did not fit Hitler's idea of a pure Aryan race.

Unfortunately he never says anything about how many gassings he witnessed; neither does he say anything about how, when or who. At most gassings no death certificates are supposed to have been signed, but since he doesn't give any information about the supposed gassings, we can't disprove anything with certainty. What we can do, however, is ask the pertinent question: "Why did this supposed eyewitness, in a document written with the express purpose of proving the gas chambers, provide no details at all?"

Of course, this does not hold water.

Best revisionist argument I can think of against Dr Münch as a supposed eyewitness for the "gas chambers": No court in the civilized world would, in a real murder case, settle for a testimony saying basically "Yes, I witnessed it. It was very horrible. Can I go now please?"

Sturmbannführer Hans Aumeier
According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Aumeier), Aumeier "stated that if he was found guilty and sentenced to death, he would "die as a 'Sündenbock' (scapegoat) for Germany". He told the court that he had never killed anyone at Auschwitz and neither had any of his men and denied knowledge of the gas chambers." (emphasis mine)

Arthur Breitwieser
Later, at the Frankfurt trial, charged with having thrown Zyklon B into a gas chamber, but acquitted.

Luise Danz
According to Wikipedia:

In 1996, Luise Danz was tried in a German court for allegedly stomping a young girl to death at the Malchow concentration camp. The doctor overseeing the trial told the court that the proceedings were too much for the elderly woman and all charges were dropped. As of 2010 Danz is still alive at the age of 92. (emphasis mine)

Is there any way at all to get in touch with this old lady a.s.a.p?

Maximilian Grabner
I have found nothing substantial on Grabner, as with most of the defendants. However, just for entertainment purposes, I wanted to share with you a ridiculous piece of Holohoax legend about his staff member Wilhelm Boger. Read and be astonished over the "Boger Swing". There are so many holes in the story of the supposed "eyewitness" to this fiendish torture device that I don't even know where to begin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Boger
http://calitreview.com/33

Hans Koch
The only source of information I have found so far is Wikipedia, according to which:

Koch was born in Tangerhütte. He worked as a laboratory assistant. A member of the SS, he was at Auschwitz from 1940 to 1945. On the basis of his professional background, he worked in the medical department dealing with disinfection. One of his responsibilities (along with SS-Oberscharführer Josef Klehr among others) was to insert the Zyklon B into the gas chambers.[1] He later admitted that after participating in an extermination action, he was unable to sleep without drinking large quantities of alcohol beforehand.

The only reference given is Auschwitz, 1940-1945: central issues in the history of the camp. http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/m/index.php? ... 3&Itemid=8. (Now that volume would really be something for a dedicated Revisionist to sink his teeth into.)


I'll have to continue this another day. Just thought I'd get things a bit more organized to make it easier to build upon.

One last interesting thing that I found while surfing the web for info is this list:

Nazis Known to be alive

• Milivoj Ašner, (born 1919) Former police chief in eastern Croatia who enforced racist laws under Croatia’s World War II Nazi-allied regime, which persecuted thousands of Serbs, Jews and Roma. He currently resides in Austria.
• Søren Kam, (born 1921) Member of the DNSAP, the Danish Nazi Party, who fled from Denmark to Germany after the war, and is now a German citizen. On September 21, 2006, Kam was detained in the German town of Kempten im Allgäu. He is wanted in Denmark for the assassination of Danish newspaper editor Carl Henrik Clemmensen in Copenhagen in August 1943.
• Herta Bothe, (born 1921) Aufseherin who served at both Stutthof and Bergen Belsen during the war.
• Luise Danz, (born 1917) Aufseherin at various camps, including Plaszów, Majdanek, Auschwitz-Birkenau, and Malchow. Was tried and convicted as part of 1946 Auschwitz trial in Poland. She was released in 1956. Was brought to trial in 1996 for her activities at Malchow, but was dismissed due to her age.
• Erich Priebke, (born 1913) Hauptsturmführer of the SS, he participated in the Ardeatine massacre in Rome, on March 24, 1944, where he had a hand in the deaths of 335 Italian civilians.
• Karl Frenzel, (born 1911) Oberscharführer who served at Sobibór extermination camp. Frenzel aided in the implementation of the Final Solution, taking part in the industrial-scale extermination of thousands of inmates as part of Operation Reinhard. Sentenced to life imprisonment in 1966 but released in 1982 due to ill health.
• Paul Schäfer, (born 1921) founder of the Colonia Dignidad cult in Chile after the war, charged of child-abuse and of the 1976 disappearance of Juan Maino and possible involvement in Boris Weisfeiler’s disappearance. Currently serving a 20 year prison sentence for the sexual abuse of 25 children.
• John Demjanjuk, (born 1920) SS alleged guard at Treblinka extermination camp.
• Martin Sandberger (born 1911) SS Standartenführer and commander of Einsatzkommando 1a of the Einsatzgruppe. As of August 2008 he is the highest ranked SS officer known to be alive.

http://askville.amazon.com/Luise-Danz-9 ... d=36442154

Apart from Demjanjuk, who as far as I know has denied ever being near a gas chamber, Frenzel, who actually died in 1996, and Schäfer, who seems to be a very sick individual, is there any chance of contacting any of these people before they die?

[Pappy Yokum]

1) Since the gas chamber story was published in Allied newspapers and broadcast on radio with many SS personnel having access to it as well as the interrogators knowing the general outline of it by autumn 1944, does SS guard contradictory or corroborating testimony in 1945 and thereafter mean anything?

Not necessarily, no. Good point.

2) Since a recantation indicates at some point the person giving testimony lied, what does this imply about the testimony? If there was no recantation, how does that lend to its credence one way or the other?

If some of them had recanted after being set free, saying that no gas chambers ever existed, that would certainly have demolished the credibility of the rest of them completely. I find it very sad that they didn't. In the cases of those who got lenient sentences in exchange for this foul betrayal of their country and their race, I hope they all burn in hell.

3) Since anyone who was in a position to know could be brought up on new war crimes charges at any time and since family was also threatened with reprisals, what incentive would such a person have for attempting to set the record straight?

Defending Germany's honour? Setting the record straight? Giving their countrymen the truth? Standing up against tyranny?

4) What evidence is there for gas chambers before 1945 that verifies post-war testimony?

None that I know of.

5) Why do we have to depend on post-war testimony when the government archives of defeated Nazi Germany is an open book for the victors?

Because those evil nazis managed to find and destroy every last document about it. (No, I don't believe that.)

6) Does the testimony of Nazi policy makers who said the extermination of the Jews story was false at the IMT trials count for anything?

Of course it does. Which ones of the NS policy makers said that?

7) What is the threshold at which false testimony becomes true? Are 20 false testimonies that agree enough, or do you need more?

Six million false testimonies should do the trick.

Now consider this. The Allies demanded unconditional surrender of Germany. When the country surrendered it ceased to be a sovereign state. The victors inherited everything that remained, including all of Germany's archives, and all of the official documents. In addition to this, the Allies had access to all of the mass murder sites. It had all of the photos, all of the recordings. The Allies had control of the Nazi government records of all types. Many metric tons of the stuff and sixty-five years to sort through it all.

Now add all of the intelligence gathered by the Allies from Germany. There were cipher intercepts. There were spies. There were diplomatic agents of all sorts.

With these resources available, what are people offered as proof of an extermination? 69 testimonies. Please explain the testimonies!

Testimony is the worst kind of evidence. It is what you start with. You use the other 9,000,000 kilos of stuff to try to verify it. Once verification is found, you can throw the testimony out. What is offered instead? One testimony is used to verify another testimony. When the testimonies disagree, instead of throwing them out as contradictory, they are "averaged" or "triangulated" to arrive at the truth. This is because there is nothing else.

Testimony is all talk. Blah, Blah, Blah. The God of Genesis can say something and make it be, but for mere mortals saying it don't make it so. Asking you why 69 people didn't retract or denounce their statements is sophistry. It has nothing to do with anything: It proves nothing. If you look hard enough, I am sure testimony of 69 lunatics could be gathered on just about any topic.

Please explain the testimonies? Please explain the lack of everything but testimonies!

[Barncat]

Alfred Rosenberg testified unambiguously that there was no physical extermination program.

Pappy Yokum, Alfred Rosenberg testified unambiguously that he didn't know
what was going on, and that the level of atrocities, as he came to understand
them, were so unfathomnable that he wouldn't "have believed them if Himmler,
himself had told me."

He went on to state that he only knew the names of two concentration camps
and that he had never been to either. He further stated that he was so occupied
with various matters that he missed details alluding to atrocities.

Here is a snippet of his Nuremburg testimony:

But I am unable to say here what measures Heydrich took. Yet, as may be seen from this, I could not assume that an order- which was attested to by the witness here yesterday-was given to Heydrich or Himmler by the Fuehrer. This report, and many other communications which came to my ears, regarding shootings of saboteurs and also shootings of Jews, pogroms by the local population in the Baltic States and in the Ukraine, I took as occurrences of this war. I heard that in Kiev a larger number of Jews had been shot, but that the greater part of the Jews had left Kiev; and the sum of these reports showed me, it is true, terrible harshness, especially some reports from the prison camps. But that there was an order for the individual annihilation of the entire Jewry, I could not assume and if, in our polemics, the extermination of Jewry was also talked about, I must say that this word, of course, must make a frightful impression in view of the testimonies we think are available now, but under conditions prevailing then, it was not. interpreted as an individual extermination, an individual annihilation of millions of Jews. I must also say that even the British Prime Minister, in an official speech in the House of Commons on 23 or 26 September 1943, spoke of the extermination in root and branch of Prussianism and of National Socialism. I happened to read these words from this speech. However, I did not assume that in saying this he meant the shooting of all Prussian officers and National Socialists.

Pappy Yokum, from this, there is absolutely no doubt that Rosenberg testified
that he did not know of the order to exterminate the Jews during the war although
he does not deny awareness of "terrible harshness" and, "that in Kiev a larger
number of Jews had been shot" (Babi Yar).

At no point does he ever suggest that he currently believed that no extermination program
existed. Please consult The Avalon Project IMT archives before you spout complete
nonsense that embarrasses revisionists.

I believe that revisionists need to confront one another directly if standards of serious
investigation are inadequate, or, in this case, completely absent.

[Dan B]

Now consider this. The Allies demanded unconditional surrender of Germany. When the country surrendered it ceased to be a sovereign state. The victors inherited everything that remained, including all of Germany's archives, and all of the official documents. In addition to this, the Allies had access to all of the mass murder sites. It had all of the photos, all of the recordings. The Allies had control of the Nazi government records of all types. Many metric tons of the stuff and sixty-five years to sort through it all.

Now add all of the intelligence gathered by the Allies from Germany. There were cipher intercepts. There were spies. There were diplomatic agents of all sorts.

With these resources available, what are people offered as proof of an extermination? 69 testimonies. Please explain the testimonies!

Testimony is the worst kind of evidence. It is what you start with. You use the other 9,000,000 kilos of stuff to try to verify it. Once verification is found, you can throw the testimony out. What is offered instead? One testimony is used to verify another testimony. When the testimonies disagree, instead of throwing them out as contradictory, they are "averaged" or "triangulated" to arrive at the truth. This is because there is nothing else.

Testimony is all talk. Blah, Blah, Blah. The God of Genesis can say something and make it be, but for mere mortals saying it don't make it so. Asking you why 69 people didn't retract or denounce their statements is sophistry. It has nothing to do with anything: It proves nothing. If you look hard enough, I am sure testimony of 69 lunatics could be gathered on just about any topic.

Please explain the testimonies? Please explain the lack of everything but testimonies!

Agreed. There should have been a lot more than just testimonies if the orthodox story had been anywhere near the truth. In fact, I made a point of that in another forum the other day (http://www.nordisk.nu/showthread.php?t=45970&page=2, in case any of you understand Swedish) where I basically said that of course there exists some circumstantial evidence, but the same would have been true if the Germans had invaded the United States and Britain and set up kangaroo trials against real and imagined war criminals.

The Germans could have pointed to the book Germany Must Perish!, to a bunch of documents relating to the more extreme versions of the Morgenthau Plan, and in all likelihood also to a lot of secret documents that we don't even know of, precisely because the Germans did not invade the U.S. and Britain, in which cynicism and callousness against German civilians was displayed just as much as it was against the Jews in secret German documents. Surely the Germans would have had little trouble "convincing" some American/British pilots to "testify" that the mass bombings directed at German civilians had been a part of this supposed "extermination policy". There would have been tons of circumstantial evidence to back up that claim: the special mix of bombs that was calculated towards killing as many civilians as possible, the quote from sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris (not sure if it's genuine, it's from a docu-drama called Bomber Harris, but he did say similar things anyway) that "all the German towns put together aren't worth the bones of a British grenadier". And I'm sure there are other things as well that I can't think of right now.

Now that I think of it, it may be a worthwhile endeavour to expand on this as much as possible (unless someone has already done it?). Seems like a pretty powerful Revisionist argument IMHO. I'll start a thread.

[Pappy Yokum]

Alfred Rosenberg testified unambiguously that there was no physical extermination program.

Pappy Yokum, Alfred Rosenberg testified unambiguously that he didn't know
what was going on, and that the level of atrocities, as he came to understand
them, were so unfathomnable that he wouldn't "have believed them if Himmler,
himself had told me."

He went on to state that he only knew the names of two concentration camps
and that he had never been to either. He further stated that he was so occupied
with various matters that he missed details alluding to atrocities.

Here is a snippet of his Nuremburg testimony:

But I am unable to say here what measures Heydrich took. Yet, as may be seen from this, I could not assume that an order- which was attested to by the witness here yesterday-was given to Heydrich or Himmler by the Fuehrer. This report, and many other communications which came to my ears, regarding shootings of saboteurs and also shootings of Jews, pogroms by the local population in the Baltic States and in the Ukraine, I took as occurrences of this war. I heard that in Kiev a larger number of Jews had been shot, but that the greater part of the Jews had left Kiev; and the sum of these reports showed me, it is true, terrible harshness, especially some reports from the prison camps. But that there was an order for the individual annihilation of the entire Jewry, I could not assume and if, in our polemics, the extermination of Jewry was also talked about, I must say that this word, of course, must make a frightful impression in view of the testimonies we think are available now, but under conditions prevailing then, it was not. interpreted as an individual extermination, an individual annihilation of millions of Jews. I must also say that even the British Prime Minister, in an official speech in the House of Commons on 23 or 26 September 1943, spoke of the extermination in root and branch of Prussianism and of National Socialism. I happened to read these words from this speech. However, I did not assume that in saying this he meant the shooting of all Prussian officers and National Socialists.

Pappy Yokum, from this, there is absolutely no doubt that Rosenberg testified
that he did not know of the order to exterminate the Jews during the war although
he does not deny awareness of "terrible harshness" and, "that in Kiev a larger
number of Jews had been shot" (Babi Yar).

At no point does he ever suggest that he currently believed that no extermination program
existed. Please consult The Avalon Project IMT archives before you spout complete
nonsense that embarrasses revisionists.

I believe that revisionists need to confront one another directly if standards of serious
investigation are inadequate, or, in this case, completely absent.

I have read this snippet of testimony and more.
Here says he is aware of pogroms and reprisal shootings related to the guerrilla war in the East. He says he cannot assume there was an order to exterminate the Jews (the individual annihilation of the entire Jewry) based on that. Nazi rhetoric about "the extermination of Jewry" was not to be interpreted as meaning that either.

What we are talking about here is not whether Jews were shot or not. Or whether Rosenberg knew there was a "terrible harshness" to the war on the Eastern Front -including conditions in some prison camps. What we are talking about is whether there was a program to exterminate the Jews by killing all of them. Rosenberg says here Jews were being killed "as occurrences of this war," not as a Nazi policy to exterminate the Jews.

The Germans were fighting guerrillas in the East. Guerrillas are very mobile, usually don't wear uniforms, and are very difficult to catch. What regular armies do when fighting guerrillas is hold the local populations accountable for acts of sabotage and attacks on military personnel. If a soldier is shot by a sniper, the local town pays. The assumption is guerrillas cannot operate without local support. Townspeople are shot in reprisal for the guerrilla attacks. Towns are burned or bulldozed. This is what was happening in the East that Rosenberg was talking about. It has nothing to do with an extermination of the Jews.

In addition, as the Soviets withdrew from the Baltic states in 1941, they shot a lot of political prisoners held in local jails. The Jews were seen by the locals as collaborators with the earlier Communist invasion and occupation. The Soviet withdrawal left Jews who remained behind exposed to vengeful retribution for what the Soviets did. These are the pogroms Rosenberg refers to.

I disagree with your interpretation that "[a]t no point does he ever suggest that he currently believed that no extermination program
existed".

What Rosenberg does say is there was a program to exterminate Jewry not one to kill the .

MR. DODD: This is something you will be interested in. Will you look up
and read out to the Tribunal what the definition of "Ausrottung" is?

ROSENBERG: I do not need a foreign dictionary in order to explain the
various meanings "Ausrottung" may have in the German language. One can
exterminate an idea, an economic system a social order, and as a final
consequence, also a group of human beings, certainly. Those are the
many possibilities which are contained in that word. For that I do not
need an English-German dictionary. Translations from German into
English are so often wrong-and just as in that last document you have
submitted to me, I heard again the translation of "Herrenrasse." In the
document itself "Herrenrasse" is not even mentioned; however, there is
the term "en fallacious Herrenmenschentum" (a false master mankind).
Apparently everything is translated here in another sense.

MR. DODD: All right, I am not interested in that. Let us stay on this
term of "Ausrottung." I take it then that you agree it does mean to
"wipe out" or to "kill off," as it is understood, and that you did use
the term in speaking to Hitler.

ROSENBERG: Here I heard again a different translation, which again used
new German words, so I cannot determine what you wanted to express in
English.

MR. DODD: Are you very serious in pressing this apparent
inability of yours to agree with me about this word or are you trying
to kill time? Don't you know that there are plenty of people in this
courtroom who speak German and who agree that that word does mean to
"wipe out," to "extirpated?"

ROSENBERG: It means "to overcome" on one side and then it is to be used
not with respect to individuals but rather to juridical entities, to
certain historical traditions. On the other side this word has been
used with respect to the German people and we have also not believed
that in consequence thereof 60 millions of Germans would be shot.

MR. DODD: I want to remind you that this speech of yours in which you
use the term "Ausrottung" was made about 6 months after Himmler told
Hoess, whom you heard on this witness stand, to start exterminating the
Jews. That is a fact, is it not?

ROSENBERG: No, that is not correct, for Adolf Hitler said in his
declaration before the Reichstag: Should a new world war be started by
these attacks of the emigrants and their backers, then as a consequence
there would be an extermination and an extirpation. That has been
understood as a result and as a political threat. Apparently, a similar
political threat was also used by me before the war against America
broke out. And, when the war had already broken out, I have apparently
said that, since it has come to this, there is no use to speak of it at
all.

MR. DODD: Well, actually, the Jews were being exterminated in the
Eastern Occupied Territories at that time and thereafter, Weren't they?

ROSENBERG: Then, may I perhaps say something about the use of the words
here? We are speaking here of extermination of Jewry; there is also
still a difference between "Jewry" and "the Jews."

My interpretation of Rosenberg's testimony is that he is very aware of what was going on both in the occupied East during the war and in the court room after it. The court was talking about killing Jews. Rosenberg was talking about destroying Jewish culture and political influence. I see no ambiguity here. He is definitely not saying "there was a program to kill all Jews, but I didn't know about it."

[Barncat]

Pappy, you must think I am a complete idiot. Rosenberg had many opportunities
to deny the mass murder of Jews, and in each instance he chose to merely say
that he was out of the loop. The entire testimony is one long effort at self-
excusal. Read this:

MR. DODD: Now, then, let's look at it: "Combating of partisans and Action against Jews in the District General of White Ruthenia." It says:

"In all the clashes with partisans in White Ruthenia it has been proved that Jewry, in the former Polish part"-and so on-"is the main exponent of the partisan movement. In consequence, the treatment of Jewry in White Ruthenia is mainly a matter of political concern...."

Then, moving down a sentence or two:

"In exhaustive discussions with the SS Brigadefuehrer Zenner and the exceedingly capable leader of the SD, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. jur. Strauch, it was ascertained that we have liquidated in the last 10 weeks about 55,000 Jews in White Ruthenia. In the area of Minsk, Jewry has been completely eliminated, without endangering the manpower commitment. In the predominantly Polish district of Lida, 16,000 Jews; in Slonim, 8,000 Jews"-and so forth-"have been liquidated. Owing to an encroachment by the Army supply and

559

17 April 46

communications zone already reported to you, the preparations made by us for liquidation of the Jews in the Glebokie area, have been disturbed. The Army supply and communications zone, without contacting me, has liquidated 10,000 Jews, whose systematical elimination had been provided for by us in any event. In the city of Minsk approximately 10,000 Jews were liquidated on 28 and 29 July, 6,500 of them Russian Jews, predominantly aged persons, women and children; the remainder consisting of Jews unfit for commitment to labor, the greater majority of whom were deported to Minsk in November of last year from Vienna, Brunn, Bremen, and Berlin, by order of the Fuehrer.

"The area of Sluzk, too, had been relieved of several thousand Jews. The same applies to Novogrodek and Vileika. Radical measures are imminent for Baranowicze and Hanzewitschi. In Baranowicze alone, approximately 10,000 Jews are still living in the city itself; of these, 9,000 Jews will be liquidated next month."

And it goes on to say:

"In the city of Minsk 2,600 Jews from Germany are left over. In addition, all 6,000 Russian Jews and Jewesses who during the action stayed with the units to which they were assigned for work are still alive. Even in the future Minsk will still retain its character as the strongest center of the Jewish labor commitment, necessitated for the present by the concentration of the armament industries and by the rail problems. In all other areas, the number of Jews to be drafted for labor commitment will be limited by the SD and by me to 800 at the most, but if possible to 500..."

And so on. It tells of other situations with respect to Jews, all of which I do not think it is necessary to read. But I do want to call your attention to the last paragraph, the last sentence:

"I fully agree with the Commander of the SD in White Ruthenia, that we shall liquidate every shipment of Jews which is not ordered or announced by our superior offices, to prevent further disturbances in White Ruthenia."

And up above I did omit one sentence or two that I wanted to read:

"Naturally, after the termination of the economic demands of the Wehrmacht, the SD and I would like it best definitely to eliminate Jewry in the District General of White Ruthenia. For the time being, the necessary demands of the Wehrmacht, which are the main employers of Jews, are considered."

560

17 April 4G

I ought to tell you as well that this document was also found in your office in Berlin. Now, that is a letter...

ROSENBERG: That seems very improbable to me, that it has been found in my office in Berlin. If so, it can be at most only that the Reich Commissioner for the Ostland had sent all his files to Berlin, packed in boxes. It was not in my office at that time, and this letter was also never presented to me. There is stamped here, "The Reich Commissioner for the Ostland," not the Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories. I stated yesterday, however, that a number of such happenings were reported to me as individual actions in the fighting, and that I received this one report from Sluzk personally, and Gauleiter Meyer was immediately charged to protest to Heydrich and to order an investigation. That presupposes that he, the Gauleiter Meyer, did not know of and did not think of such a general action on order of a central command.

MR. DODD: Well, I only want to suggest to you that it is a strange coincidence that two of your top men were in communication in this tone in 1942 without your knowledge.

Rosenberg was presented with communication (probably hoaxed) between two
of his subordinates attesting to the Einsatzgruppen murders of tens of thousands
of men, women and children.

Does he say, Pappy, that never happened? Or does he say, I never saw those
communications?

Rosenberg is trying to save his own behind and being real careful not to ruffle
Tom Dodd's feathers.

[Barncat]

Of course, Pappy Yokum, you must realise that ultimately, not only
did Rosenberg fail to refute the extermination of the Jews, he flat out
confessed to being a top level perpetrator. Now, he may have been tortured,
deprived of sleep, had his family threatened, but this is what he said

MR. DODD: I think you will agree that in the Ukraine your man Koch was doing all kinds of terrible things, and now I don't understand that you dispute that Lohse and Kube were helping to eliminate or liquidate the Jews, and that Brautigam, an important member of your staff, and that Leibbrandt, another important member of your staff, were informed of the program. So that five people at least under your administration were engaged in this kind of conduct, and not small people at that.

561

17 April 46

ROSENBERG: I should like to point out that a decree by the Reich Commissioner for the Ostland is at hand, which in agreement . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Will you answer the question first? Do you agree that these five people were engaged in exterminating Jews?

ROSENBERG: Yes. They knew about a certain number of liquidations of Jews. That I admit, and they have told me so, or if they did not, I have heard it from other sources. I only want to state one thing: That according to the general law of the Reich, the Reich Commissioner for the Ostland issued a decree according to which Jewry, which of course was hostile to us, should be concentrated in certain Jewish quarters of the cities. And until the end, until 1943-1944, I have heard that in these cities such work was still carried out in these Jewish ghettos to a very large extent.

And may I supplement this with still another case which came to my knowledge, namely that a district commissioner...

MR. DODD: I don't want you to point out anything else. You have answered the question, and you have explained your answer. I don't ask you further...

Again, Pappy Yokum, either you need to read more carefully or simply be honest.
Did Alfred Rosenberg deny the Holocaust?

[nathan]

Dan B listed Richard Baer among those who “questioned as witnesses,... admitted having seen the Birkenau gas chambers functioning.”

NickTerry has also listed Baer among “confirmed” SS witnesses

I somewhere predicted that Baer would have admitted, or at least not denied, the existence of gas chambers. But I did not know that he gave an eyewitness account of a gassing. Is there a source for this?

[Pappy Yokum]

Of course, Pappy Yokum, you must realise that ultimately, not only
did Rosenberg fail to refute the extermination of the Jews, he flat out
confessed to being a top level perpetrator. Now, he may have been tortured,
deprived of sleep, had his family threatened, but this is what he said

MR. DODD: I think you will agree that in the Ukraine your man Koch was doing all kinds of terrible things, and now I don't understand that you dispute that Lohse and Kube were helping to eliminate or liquidate the Jews, and that Brautigam, an important member of your staff, and that Leibbrandt, another important member of your staff, were informed of the program. So that five people at least under your administration were engaged in this kind of conduct, and not small people at that.

561

17 April 46

ROSENBERG: I should like to point out that a decree by the Reich Commissioner for the Ostland is at hand, which in agreement . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Will you answer the question first? Do you agree that these five people were engaged in exterminating Jews?

ROSENBERG: Yes. They knew about a certain number of liquidations of Jews. That I admit, and they have told me so, or if they did not, I have heard it from other sources. I only want to state one thing: That according to the general law of the Reich, the Reich Commissioner for the Ostland issued a decree according to which Jewry, which of course was hostile to us, should be concentrated in certain Jewish quarters of the cities. And until the end, until 1943-1944, I have heard that in these cities such work was still carried out in these Jewish ghettos to a very large extent.

And may I supplement this with still another case which came to my knowledge, namely that a district commissioner...

MR. DODD: I don't want you to point out anything else. You have answered the question, and you have explained your answer. I don't ask you further...

Again, Pappy Yokum, either you need to read more carefully or simply be honest.
Did Alfred Rosenberg deny the Holocaust?

Here you confuse the extermination or killing of Jews with the liquidation of Jewish ghettos. He says Ghettos were being liquidated and Jews were being concentrated in certain Jewish quarters of the cities. Ghettos were being closed and the inhabitants were being concentrated into Jewish quarters of certain cities. This is a resettlement program, not the killing of Jews. This is a "denial" in that it is an explanation of what was going on. Does he say anything about mass gassings at concentrations camps or shootings? No. He uses term liquidation in conjunction with reference to the relocation of Jews to designated cities. If Jews were being killed, what is the point of talking about moving Jews to "certain Jewish quarters of the cities?"