Adolf Eichmann Tapes

[Hieldner]

Okay, pulling from the German transcript from user 'research' above, I had to go to Google Translate and just wanted to see the section on the "10.3 million Jews" which is quoted in most of the headlines about this new documentary... Here is what I found:

I'm telling you, comrade Sassen, I can't do that. I can't do that because I'm not ready, because inside I'm reluctant to say, for example, that we did something wrong. no I have to tell you quite honestly, if we had killed 10.3 million Jews out of the 10.3 million Jews whom Korherr expelled,[4] as we now know, I would be satisfied and would say, well, we have destroyed an enemy. Now, through the treachery of fate, the majority of these 10.3 million Jews have survived, I say to myself: fate wanted it that way.

Is this a correct translation? It seems pretty obvious Eichmann refers to deportation here and yet the headlines simply quote it as, 'If we had killed 10.3 million Jews, I would say with satisfaction, "Good, we destroyed an enemy"'.

Thoughts?

Tip: use DeepL / Linguee instead of Google Translate.

“Ausweisen” can have various meanings and I think it’s incorrect to translate it as “expelled” in this case, because Korherr didn’t personally expell the Jews but listed their numbers in his (is it really his?) report:

ausweisen (jdn./etw.Akk ~) verb
show v (showed, shown)
less common: disclose v, expel (sb.) v, earmark sth. v, deport sb. v, account for v

In my opinion, the translation of this paragraph in Neal Bascomb’s Hunting Eichmann makes more sense in this context:

But I must tell you that I cannot do that, because I am not prepared to, because my innermost being refuses to say that we did something wrong.
No, I must tell you quite honestly that if, of the 10.3 million Jews shown by Korherr [an SS statistician], we had killed 10.3 million, then I would be satisfied and I would say all right, we have destroyed an enemy. Since the majority of these Jews stayed alive through a trickery of fate, I tell myself that's what fate had intended, and I have to subordinate myself to fate and providence.

It's remarkable how he plays directly into the Hannah Ahrendt narrative of the inconspicuous bureaucrat contriving all sorts of beastly things behind a desk, then sets the stage for a possible Holocaust narrative escape hatch (“The Jews exaggerated the numbers, but there still was an extermination policy and the Nazis wanted to kill all the Jews - thank G-d the Allies bombed Germany to smithereens.”) and finally goes on and on about how smart and brave the Jews are. All of this expressed with the same strange sounding voice as during the Jerusalem trial so that every syllable can be recorded and understood very clearly.

[Hektor]

...
In my opinion, the translation of this paragraph in Neal Bascomb’s Hunting Eichmann makes more sense in this context:

But I must tell you that I cannot do that, because I am not prepared to, because my innermost being refuses to say that we did something wrong.
No, I must tell you quite honestly that if, of the 10.3 million Jews shown by Korherr [an SS statistician], we had killed 10.3 million, then I would be satisfied and I would say all right, we have destroyed an enemy. Since the majority of these Jews stayed alive through a trickery of fate, I tell myself that's what fate had intended, and I have to subordinate myself to fate and providence.

It's remarkable how he plays directly into the Hannah Ahrendt narrative of the inconspicuous bureaucrat contriving all sorts of beastly things behind a desk, then sets the stage for a possible Holocaust narrative escape hatch (“The Jews exaggerated the numbers, but there still was an extermination policy and the Nazis wanted to kill all the Jews - thank G-d the Allies bombed Germany to smithereens.”) and finally goes on and on about how smart and brave the Jews are. All of this expressed with the same strange sounding voice as during the Jerusalem trial so that every syllable can be recorded and understood very clearly.

And absent physical evidence, you'd need some juicy story-telling to keep people speculating about what happened.
For whom was Eichmann working post-1945. That's the key imo.

[Hieldner]

And absent physical evidence, you'd need some juicy story-telling to keep people speculating about what happened.
For whom was Eichmann working post-1945. That's the key imo.

My interpretation of the events surrounding Eichmann is that they’re part of Adenauer’s (chancellor of West Germany from 1949 to 1963) reconciliation policy with Israel. You already mentioned his statements about the power of world Jewry here. His 1952 speech regarding the Luxembourg agreement provides some background and underscores the absolute necessity to curb any “anti-Semitism” that could be perceived in Tel Aviv and New York in the new Germany of the occupiers. That could have been the motivation to “persuade” a supposed crown witness to get familiar with actual Holocaust publications and support the official narrative while also cautiously injecting some revisionist views regarding the victim numbers, so that Holocaust critiques could be silenced with “even Adolf Eichmann admitted it.” It’s also worth comparing Eichmann’s statements with those of his assistant Alois Brunner some decades later.

September 6, 1952
Address to the Federal Party Committee of the CDU in Bonn

...

The truth is that we are more vulnerable to economic disruption than any other country, despite the healthy currency and despite the great exports and despite the good standard of living in which many Germans live.

Let me draw a parallel with France and with Italy. Even if the economic prosperity of France and Italy lags behind us, these countries will be able to weather economic downturns better because their entire enterprises have a much better capital cover than the German ones. Therefore, it seems to be an absolute necessity that the London Debt Agreement becomes law as soon as possible in order for us to regain a base of capital.

...

When the debate on the debt agreement is about to start in Parliament, and the complaints about it are coming from the business community as well as from the opposing parties, please point out that economic morality bears interest and that if you pay your debts to the best of your ability, you have the best prospects of doing further business in the future.

Something similar is true of the agreement with Israel, about which I would like to speak some very frank words here.

...

There is also a certain legal reason for the demand of the State of Israel in that, as a result of measures ultimately initiated [by Germany], Israel has had to take in refugees, namely old people from Germany and from the territories occupied by Germany at the time, to such an extent that it has incurred heavy financial burdens as a result. It is planned that after a cabinet meeting, which will take place on Monday morning - I will go to Luxembourg afterwards, and in Luxembourg between the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Israel and myself a kind of symbolic declaration will take place, which shall express that the past shall now be past between the Jews and between Germany. The representatives of the great Jewish world organizations will also take part in this. I hope that the Cabinet will not cause me any special difficulties. If it were to do so, it would mean a foreign policy disaster of the first order. Not only would it be a political disaster, it would also affect our whole effort to get foreign loans again to a very great extent. Let us be clear about the fact that the power of Jewry in the economic field is still extraordinarily strong, so that this, well, the expression is perhaps somewhat exaggerated, this reconciliation with Jewry, both from the moral point of view and from the political point of view, as well as from the economic point of view, is an absolute necessity for the Federal Republic.

I have deliberately dwelt at some length on this subject, because I fear that there will be all kinds of talk about this question in Germany later on, and that difficulties will be raised. I was told at the time, and this need not be an absolute truth, what I am telling you now by a very influential American authority: If the Federal Government succeeds in reaching this settlement with Israel and with the Jewish world organizations, then this will be a political event for the Federal Republic of Germany which can be placed in the same row as the Treaty on Germany and the Treaty on the European Defense Community. So I ask you, if the matter comes about as I hope, and if the resistance also comes in our own ranks, to consider these words of mine and to help that one really appreciates that the settlement with Jewry is morally, politically and economically an absolute necessity.

...

https://www.konrad-adenauer.de/seite/6-september-1952/

[Hektor]

And absent physical evidence, you'd need some juicy story-telling to keep people speculating about what happened.
For whom was Eichmann working post-1945. That's the key imo.

My interpretation of the events surrounding Eichmann is that they’re part of Adenauer’s (chancellor of West Germany from 1949 to 1963) reconciliation policy with Israel. You already mentioned his statements about the power of world Jewry here. His 1952 speech regarding the Luxembourg agreement provides some background and underscores the absolute necessity to curb any “anti-Semitism” that could be perceived in Tel Aviv and New York in the new Germany of the occupiers. That could have been the motivation to “persuade” a supposed crown witness to get familiar with actual Holocaust publications and support the official narrative while also cautiously injecting some revisionist views regarding the victim numbers, so that Holocaust critiques could be silenced with “even Adolf Eichmann admitted it.” It’s also worth comparing Eichmann’s statements with those of his assistant Alois Brunner some decades later.

September 6, 1952
Address to the Federal Party Committee of the CDU in Bonn

...

The truth is that we are more vulnerable to economic disruption than any other country, despite the healthy currency and despite the great exports and despite the good standard of living in which many Germans live.

Let me draw a parallel with France and with Italy. Even if the economic prosperity of France and Italy lags behind us, these countries will be able to weather economic downturns better because their entire enterprises have a much better capital cover than the German ones. Therefore, it seems to be an absolute necessity that the London Debt Agreement becomes law as soon as possible in order for us to regain a base of capital.
......
...

https://www.konrad-adenauer.de/seite/6-september-1952/

All in terms of "reconciliation" and you can place into this "what the Germans did" based on imagination and innuendo.

.... I will go to Luxembourg afterwards, and in Luxembourg between the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Israel and myself a kind of symbolic declaration will take place, which shall express that the past shall now be past between the Jews and between Germany. The representatives of the great Jewish world organizations will also take part in this. I hope that the Cabinet will not cause me any special difficulties.....

... No mentioning of retraction of Jewish aggression against Germany there. That they have declared Germans to be "Amalek". That they had anti-German campaigns running, etc. All about being afraid that something could happen to 'Germany's prosperity' based on damage to reputation. Well, admitting to accusations without real substance feeds into that damage to reputation. So, if you are "admitting everything" and omitting the harm done to you by the other side, you neither are "reconciling", nor protecting yourself from reputational damage or its consequences... And the consequences were policy drift in Germany as well as ever new demands and extortion by Jews that were playing the eternal victims.

[hermod]

Fabricating audio simulations out of thin air is a breeze...

Did David Rockefeller actually say in 1991 the words 'quoted' below?

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine
and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings
and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years.
It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world
if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.
But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government.
The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers
is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
- David Rockefeller

Audio simulation:

Are the Eichmann tapes an audio simulation of things Eichmann never said?

[fireofice]

Trailer here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPjUAzSEiIs

It seems like the actual movie is not publicly available.

It looks like the main thrust of the movie is that he "admitted" to things that he denied later. However, even if his later "confession" under capture was more sanitized, that doesn't mean his original "confession" was "more true". His first "confessions" to Sassen were still trying to create a defense for himself.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n2p14_Irving.html

https://codoh.com/library/document/an-e ... ocaust/en/

If Eichmann changed his story after capture to lessen his responsibility even more than the story he told Sassen, that doesn't make the original story he told more reliable. All of the stories he told were false.

[Lamprecht]

Trailer here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPjUAzSEiIs

It seems like the actual movie is not publicly available.

It hasn't been released in the USA yet. Only Israel. From: https://www.ilholocaustmuseum.org/event ... ann-tapes/

NORTH AMERICAN FILM PREMIERE: “THE DEVIL’S CONFESSION: THE LOST EICHMANN TAPES”

January 19, 2023 | 5:15pm CST

9603 Woods Drive, Skokie, IL 60077

5:15 PM RECEPTION, 6:15 PM SCREENING

Illinois Holocaust Museum & Education Center, in association with MGM Television, SIPUR, Toluca Pictures, Alice Communications, and Menemsha Films, will host the North American premiere of The Devil’s Confession: The Lost Eichmann Tapes on January 19, 2023.

[Hektor]

Trailer here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPjUAzSEiIs

It seems like the actual movie is not publicly available.

It hasn't been released in the USA yet. Only Israel. From: https://www.ilholocaustmuseum.org/event ... ann-tapes/

NORTH AMERICAN FILM PREMIERE: “THE DEVIL’S CONFESSION: THE LOST EICHMANN TAPES”

January 19, 2023 | 5:15pm CST

9603 Woods Drive, Skokie, IL 60077

5:15 PM RECEPTION, 6:15 PM SCREENING

Illinois Holocaust Museum & Education Center, in association with MGM Television, SIPUR, Toluca Pictures, Alice Communications, and Menemsha Films, will host the North American premiere of The Devil’s Confession: The Lost Eichmann Tapes on January 19, 2023.

They make sure they have talking points first.

The recordings from the Eichmann show trial are actually riddled with gem as well. Although I noticed that Holocaustians mostly don't notice this.
They think they have so much at hand with Eichmann in court and 'not disputing the Holocaust'. In fact this seems to be the run to argument... something like "No Nazi ever Denied the Holocaust".

There is some allegation that Eichmann and Israeli Intelligence did actually cooperate prior to the trial and events of the 1960s.

[fireofice]

It appears to now be publicly available on Amazon Prime.

“The Devil’s Confession: The Lost Eichmann Tapes” is a three-part documentary series that combines interviews from Holocaust survivors, key witnesses at the Eichmann trial, historians, and experts on the Holocaust with reenactments of the historical events.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-s ... zon-video/

Amazon link:
https://www.amazon.com/Part-One-The-Hunt/dp/B0B8T147WL/

I plan on watching it. I'll be interested to see the reaction of others on this forum.

[fireofice]

So I just watched all 3 parts and this is my takeaway. There's not much in the way of tapes here. Of the hours of tapes that supposedly exist, we don't get to hear much of it, although I guess that's expected with the time constraints inherent to documentaries like this. However, there is not all that much new here. No "big revelations" that people who already looked into this didn't already know about. We also hear the "10.3 million Jews" line from the trailer as well as the use of cyanide. However, they didn't include the more absurd parts of the tapes, like this:

It was the latter part of 1941 that I saw the first preparations for annihilating the Jews. General Heydrich ordered me to visit Maidanek [sic], a Polish village near Lublin. A German police captain showed me how they had managed to build airtight chambers disguised as ordinary Polish farmers’ huts, seal them hermetically, then inject the exhaust gas from a Russian U-boat motor. I remember it all very exactly because I never thought that anything like that would be possible, technically speaking.

https://codoh.com/library/document/an-e ... ocaust/en/

I guess they didn't want to cause the viewers any doubts.

From the little we get from the tapes, Eichmann is heard to be saying that they received orders, and one line where he said he received orders from Hitler himself. This is clearly a defense strategy. Although sometime at the end of the tapes he says he doesn't want the tapes to be released until after his death. What I make of this is that he was planning out a defense strategy in these tapes as a kind of first practice attempt, but he didn't like how it turned out.

It's clear that Eichmann did play a bigger role in the Nazi government than he let on at the trial. In the trial, he claimed not to be very ideological and not anti-Semitic, but the claims he made in the tape clearly showed that he was. Eichmann wanted to boast about how much of a role in the Nazi government he played, but then he realized that this didn't jive well with the defense he wanted to give. So in the tapes he was trying to give a defense strategy, but at the same time he also wanted to talk about the glory days with his Nazi buddies at the same time. He clearly realized later that this wouldn't fly as an actual defense. However, this mistake in his first attempt at a defense strategy doesn't "prove" the holocaust happened as some try to claim.

In the trial, he was asked about his "10.3 million Jews" line. At first he said he never said it, then he said he might have said it but was drunk. If he was drunk as he claimed, he may have just been blowing steam about his feelings about the Jews at the time, and making this into some serious statement would be kind of ridiculous. This reminds me of when Hitler said of some of Mein Kampf that it was "fantasies behind bars".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf

A side note, they did bring in a "survivor" to interview in the documentary that claimed fire came out of the chimneys, something we know didn't happen. It's always amusing when they bring in a "survivor" into a "serious" documentary that makes a ridiculous claim.

[fireofice]

From Christopher Browning's “Perpetrator Testimony: Another Look at Adolf Eichmann.” in the book Collected Memories: Holocaust History and Postwar Testimony:

Yet at the trial in Jerusalem, it was the prosecutor Gideon Hausner who wanted the Sassen transcripts admitted into evidence, since they included remarks revealing of Eichmann's own sense of self-importance and his anti-Semitism contrast to his carefully crafted statements to the contrary in court. Eichmann vigorously opposed their being admitted into evidence. It was mere "pub talk," he claimed, since he had been drinking red wine throughout the interviews.

pages 6-7

A note later in the book confirms that wine was indeed present:

Wojak, Eichmanns Memoiren, p. 50, confirms that the occasional pop from the uncorking of wine bottles can be heard on the tapes.

page 89

Eichmann's ridiculous statement to Sassen that I quoted above certainly back up Eichmann's claim here. It seems he then used some of this ridiculous pub talk in his actual testimony to troll the Jews putting him on trial.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/2ZF79zpGF91Y/

Taking anything in these tapes and transcripts seriously as "evidence" for the holocaust is quite ridiculous. Even if Eichmann wasn't practicing any kind of strategy here, which I think he was, it's still not good evidence at all.

[curioussoul]

Taking anything in these tapes and transcripts seriously as "evidence" for the holocaust is quite ridiculous. Even if Eichmann wasn't practicing any kind of strategy here, which I think he was, it's still not good evidence at all.

Even Browning has admitted that Eichmann is not a serious Holocaust witness and he isn't used much at all by orthodox historians.

The infamous "10.3 million" line doesn't really say much about the Holocaust, and neither does anything in Eichmann's interviews. The biggest problem is still that Eichmann said all these things long after the war. He knew the Holocaust narrative and knew he was a key player in the Rudolf Hoess trials/testimonies.

It's always amusing when they bring in a "survivor" into a "serious" documentary that makes a ridiculous claim.

They all make ridiculous claims, unless they are extremely well-read on the official Holocaust narrative, which few are. And while most people will swallow every word they say uncritically, people like us who know what's up can easily dismiss them based on these ridiculous claims.

[borjastick]

The infamous "10.3 million" line doesn't really say much about the Holocaust, and neither does anything in Eichmann's interviews.

Yes but the figure does sort of follow the Wannsee conference figures. Maybe he was just repeating what he remembered from the 'minutes' of the meeting.