BA's case for orthodoxy

[borjastick]

As you can see above, in Sassen's dictation he says the Holocaust was a "legend" and had been manufactured in part to get Israel to extort payments from Germany.

Doesn't this statement prove that the holocaust was a post war construct? Israel wasn't created until 1948.

[Hektor]

As you can see above, in Sassen's dictation he says the Holocaust was a "legend" and had been manufactured in part to get Israel to extort payments from Germany.

Doesn't this statement prove that the holocaust was a post war construct? Israel wasn't created until 1948.

Did he really say "Holocaust" then?
Calling something a 'legend' actually doesn't mean that it is not true. When I say "Eichmann is a legend" it doesn't mean that he never existed. It means that he is kind of famous. Legends tend to get their 'own lives' and I don't think this is in dispute with 'the Holocaust'. Narratives are constructed over time usually with a large number of participants therein. Again, this is true about 'the Holocaust'. It is a powerful Myth and is used by Jews, Leftist, but also the elites in Allied countries like the US used as such. That it is a myth doesn't mean that each and every aspect of it is untrue. That's not what Revisionists are alleging. What they allege is that this is a mixture of fact (e.g. deportation of Jews) and fiction (e.g. industrial style homicidal gassing in Auschwitz). There is evidence of deportations, but there is no credible evidence for homicidal gassings in Auschwitz whatsoever. One can of course not exclude that homicidal gassings occurred under the NS-administration somewhere. Neither can I exclude that those are happening somewhere at all. It just isn't alleged usually. Commonly, there is no interest in this. There is however powerful interest in the Holocaust Myth. And that means that there is good reasons for scrutiny there. The fact that Holocaust Skepticism is suppressed is enough reason to doubt it, nay it is reason to dismiss the theory in total. If it was true, given the interest, they'd have come up with concrete evidence for their claims long ago. We would have clarity on this. But we don't.

[Wilbur]

Not sure what your point (or source) is in or on this. How was Sassen a "committed Revisionist"?

As you can see above, in Sassen's dictation he says the Holocaust was a "legend" and had been manufactured in part to get Israel to extort payments from Germany.

He was convinced of this, at least initially, which is why he suspected Eichmann of being in league with the Jews. In your theory you were speculating that they were in lockstep and this is counter evidence to that.

The source is given as "BA tape 08A, 42:13 onward" (from 'Eichmann Before Jerusalem')

Bettina Stangneth in the cited book wrote about how Sassen had some crew professionally wire up his home (first part of chapter "The So-Called Sassen Interviews"). Sassen strangely fails to account for the episode in any way. Stangneth generally makes the case that Sassen consciously wanted to stage a particular narrative of himself as much as Eichmann did.

Playing anti-Semite and the staged confronting of Eichmann with Hololiterature is extremely shady. At the minimum, Sassen used his previous career, which he got over, to exploit a social network he had access to and make money off the ever-sensationalist topic of Nazis. At least later in his life Sassen became a paid Mossad worker, as Stangneth notes. How many "committed Revisionists" worried about people "being in league with the Jews" do paid work for the Mossad?

[bombsaway]

Playing anti-Semite and the staged confronting of Eichmann with Hololiterature is extremely shady.

As I said there is a possibility that the entire thing was some sort of set up, in my mind a more likely theory than the previous ones offered here. But when you actually run through what this would have entailed, it seems far fetched.

eg Sassen was under employ of Mossad or similar intelligence agency for years while being active in revisionism and Nazi apologia (as part of the Dürer circle). Then he met Eichmann who was similarly compromised and together with their handlers hatched a plan to create one of the most convincing "non-coerced" confessions ever. 30 hours of recordings + hundreds pages of transcription with handwritten notes and corrections by Eichmann. To make it especially convincing they manufactured a conflict between Eichmann and Sassen, in which Sassen tried to screw with his head, leading to a breakdown in their previously friendly relationship. In the meantime several other people were involved who also had negative feelings toward Eichmann leading to heated arguments, eg here when he was questioned about his relatively easy life as a bureaucrat, when other patriots were dying on the front:

217 But by the time he screams at someone in Sassen’s living room,
“You ridiculous pipsqueak! Did you fight at the front?,”
he has obviously come to believe in his own frontline experience. “Just take a moment to
think,” he continues, “about how I told you that we had a total war, and the
front and the hinterland had become completely blurred, and today I have to
expressly oppose and fight against obstinate intellects, including Germans,
who are of the opinion that the last war was fought only on the front lines.…
There is no difference between the annihilation of enemy powers when a total
war has been declared.”

So the entire thing comes off as an extended experiment in method acting by non-actors, with plenty of witnesses (presumably not involved). Also there is no corroboration by any evidence or testimony.

Bettina Stangneth in the cited book wrote about how Sassen had some crew professionally wire up his home (first part of chapter "The So-Called Sassen Interviews"). Sassen strangely fails to account for the episode in any way.

This to me helps with Stangneth's credibility as a researcher. If she was part of the intelligence operation why would she bring in potentially compromising information, especially from something non-obvious? (Sassen's daughter is the only source here, who reported seeing mics installed as a 10 year old) Assuming the memories of a child can be trusted, what Sassen wiring up his house has to do with the actual interviews is not clear, since all of them were conducted using room mics.

At least later in his life Sassen became a paid Mossad worker, as Stangneth notes. How many "committed Revisionists" worried about people "being in league with the Jews" do paid work for the Mossad?

As I said before, by the end of the interviews Sassen was seemingly convinced that Eichmann was telling the truth so he wasn't a revisionist anymore (in that he believed in death camps) . The fact that he was later paid by the Mossad to help them track down ex-Nazis shows him to be a dishonorable (if he was still presenting himself as Nazi friendly at this point) and self-serving individual but this doesn't help much with the major reasons for why the psy op theory is implausible.

[Hektor]

Playing anti-Semite and the staged confronting of Eichmann with Hololiterature is extremely shady.

As I said there is a possibility that the entire thing was some sort of set up, in my mind a more likely theory than the previous ones offered here. But when you actually run through what this would have entailed, it seems far fetched.

eg Sassen was under employ of Mossad or similar intelligence agency for years while being active in revisionism and Nazi apologia (as part of the Dürer circle). Then he met Eichmann who was similarly compromised and together with their handlers hatched a plan to create one of the most convincing "non-coerced" confessions ever. 30 hours of recordings + hundreds pages of transcription with handwritten notes and corrections by Eichmann. To make it especially convincing they manufactured a conflict between Eichmann and Sassen, in which Sassen tried to screw with his head, leading to a breakdown in their previously friendly relationship. In the meantime several other people were involved who also had negative feelings toward Eichmann leading to heated arguments, eg here when he was questioned about his relatively easy life as a bureaucrat, when other patriots were dying on the front: .....

Was Eichmann working for intelligence services during his life? For which ones would that be?

[bombsaway]

Was Eichmann working for intelligence services during his life? For which ones would that be?

He worked in the German intelligence (helped with an anti freemason museum) for a few months but then transferred to the Jewish Affairs department.

[Hektor]

He worked in the German intelligence (helped with an anti freemason museum) for a few months but then transferred to the Jewish Affairs department.

OK, you mean he worked for the RSHA... Which was the then German equivalent to the CIA.

Is there any reason to believe that he worked with intelligence services after World War Two?
This doesn't have to be 'officially'. His work for the RSHA was of course official.

[bombsaway]

He worked in the German intelligence (helped with an anti freemason museum) for a few months but then transferred to the Jewish Affairs department.

OK, you mean he worked for the RSHA... Which was the then German equivalent to the CIA.

Is there any reason to believe that he worked with intelligence services after World War Two?
This doesn't have to be 'officially'. His work for the RSHA was of course official.

Technically it was the SD.

As far as I know there's no evidence he was unofficially employed anywhere.

[Hektor]

He worked in the German intelligence (helped with an anti freemason museum) for a few months but then transferred to the Jewish Affairs department.

OK, you mean he worked for the RSHA... Which was the then German equivalent to the CIA.

Is there any reason to believe that he worked with intelligence services after World War Two?
This doesn't have to be 'officially'. His work for the RSHA was of course official.

Technically it was the SD.

As far as I know there's no evidence he was unofficially employed anywhere.

The RSHA was the umbrella organization.
Well, I think there are some researchers that will disagree with you that there is 'no evidence'. In fact it is highly likely that he did have connection with even several intelligence services. That there is no pay-slip stating 'Adolf Eichmann' is of course another matter.

[Wilbur]

Playing anti-Semite and the staged confronting of Eichmann with Hololiterature is extremely shady.

As I said there is a possibility that the entire thing was some sort of set up, in my mind a more likely theory than the previous ones offered here. But when you actually run through what this would have entailed, it seems far fetched.

eg Sassen was under employ of Mossad or similar intelligence agency for years while being active in revisionism and Nazi apologia (as part of the Dürer circle). Then he met Eichmann who was similarly compromised and together with their handlers hatched a plan to create one of the most convincing "non-coerced" confessions ever. 30 hours of recordings + hundreds pages of transcription with handwritten notes and corrections by Eichmann. To make it especially convincing they manufactured a conflict between Eichmann and Sassen, in which Sassen tried to screw with his head, leading to a breakdown in their previously friendly relationship. In the meantime several other people were involved who also had negative feelings toward Eichmann leading to heated arguments, eg here when he was questioned about his relatively easy life as a bureaucrat, when other patriots were dying on the front:

217 But by the time he screams at someone in Sassen’s living room,
“You ridiculous pipsqueak! Did you fight at the front?,”
he has obviously come to believe in his own frontline experience. “Just take a moment to
think,” he continues, “about how I told you that we had a total war, and the
front and the hinterland had become completely blurred, and today I have to
expressly oppose and fight against obstinate intellects, including Germans,
who are of the opinion that the last war was fought only on the front lines.…
There is no difference between the annihilation of enemy powers when a total
war has been declared.”

So the entire thing comes off as an extended experiment in method acting by non-actors, with plenty of witnesses (presumably not involved). Also there is no corroboration by any evidence or testimony.

It's obvious from his behavior that Sassen planned to exploit the circle of German escapees he had access to, probably to sell stories. Whether he did it for undercover sensationalist journalism at his own direction to catch Evil Nazis in SHOCK ADMISSIONS and sell it further, or whether he acted at the direction of another party is irrelevant. I think the motive was monetizing his access, whether it was yellow journalism or brokering information.

Staging and recording confrontations between former Nazis in hiding is tabloid gold, which bolsters what I said. And if he could double-dip and get paid by Nazi-hostile intelligence agencies, that's even better for Sassen. Ironically, German officials privately blasted the Dutch as eminently flaky and untrustworthy fenceshifters; these would have been better off heeding their own warnings.

What he certainly wasn't in any case was a committed Revisionist. or a committed Nazi.

Bettina Stangneth in the cited book wrote about how Sassen had some crew professionally wire up his home (first part of chapter "The So-Called Sassen Interviews"). Sassen strangely fails to account for the episode in any way.

This to me helps with Stangneth's credibility as a researcher. If she was part of the intelligence operation why would she bring in potentially compromising information, especially from something non-obvious? (Sassen's daughter is the only source here, who reported seeing mics installed as a 10 year old) Assuming the memories of a child can be trusted, what Sassen wiring up his house has to do with the actual interviews is not clear, since all of them were conducted using room mics.

If Stangneth was part of what intelligence operation? She wrote a German book on Eichmann published in 2011. You seem to be attempting to impute strange theories to others. It's very clear that Sassen didn't respect senior Nazi officials in any way and planned to monetize the get-togethers that were set up. Stangneth explained why it would have happened: in case he couldn't coax any approval for recordings, they would have been was entirely involuntary. Not very respectful of hierarchy, this Sassen guy.

Stangneth's credibility as a researcher is impaired because she fails to comprehensively contrast the "theory of the case" in the Eichmann trial with what was presented in the Sassen material and with what the Holocaust liturgy suggested at the time of her writing the book (ca. 2011) or even the "evidence" developed in the Krumey trial as to Hungarian Jews. There's only a few anecdotes addressed. The focus on sensationalist statements mirrors that of Sassen. She also has some issues keeping a coherent narrative of Sassen's aims.

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

At least later in his life Sassen became a paid Mossad worker, as Stangneth notes. How many "committed Revisionists" worried about people "being in league with the Jews" do paid work for the Mossad?

As I said before, by the end of the interviews Sassen was seemingly convinced that Eichmann was telling the truth so he wasn't a revisionist anymore (in that he believed in death camps) . The fact that he was later paid by the Mossad to help them track down ex-Nazis shows him to be a dishonorable (if he was still presenting himself as Nazi friendly at this point) and self-serving individual but this doesn't help much with the major reasons for why the psy op theory is implausible.

The dishonor appears much earlier, as suggested by the daughter remembering Sassen wiring the home with a crew.

Sassen wasn't necessarily "convinced" of anything since it's obvious he was a hustler playing the part of being very anti-Jewish. Sassen seemed to have prompted Eichmann to tell "bad boy" Holocaust stories and Eichmann delivered. In that regard he's a figure like G. Gordon Liddy, whose post-imprisonment career trajectory was to internalize the Democrats' accusations (related to what was in reality a clownish rush job) and play the mastermind persona to the max, while also disputing some of the allegations in some respects. He even became the bad guy/crime boss in Hollywood productions and TV shows.

[bombsaway]

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

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

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

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

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

[fireofice]

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

What you wrote sounds perfectly good motivation to me. Instead of convincing people genocide never occurred, he would claim that it was the Jews fault. Writing something down doesn't make it true, and whatever he wrote done earlier he probably had a plan to publish, but saw a better opportunity with Sassen. He wanted to get attention and put out his own version of "the real story". There is no value in these kinds of testimonies, written or otherwise.

Eichmann may have said he was never interested in the “limelight,” but his behavior clearly shows he was fascinated by publicity.

...

Even as the evidence mounted that Sassen had betrayed him and his family, Eichmann still spoke of him with admiration and only reluctantly accepted the unfavorable reports he was given. In Israel, Eichmann named Sassen as his “co-author,” adding that a “friendship” had developed between them “over the years.” Even Vera Eichmann found “Herr Sassen” to be a helpful man, who seemed to be doing everything he could to aid her and her family. The change that the Sassen discussions wrought in her husband cannot have escaped her notice, even if she was seeing much less of him on the weekends. In her husband’s eyes, Sassen was providing a gateway back into political life, back to dynamism and importance.

Eichmann Before Jerusalem

[Hektor]

.....

It's obvious from his behavior that Sassen planned to exploit the circle of German escapees he had access to, probably to sell stories. Whether he did it for undercover sensationalist journalism at his own direction to catch Evil Nazis in SHOCK ADMISSIONS and sell it further, or whether he acted at the direction of another party is irrelevant. I think the motive was monetizing his access, whether it was yellow journalism or brokering information.

Staging and recording confrontations between former Nazis in hiding is tabloid gold, which bolsters what I said. And if he could double-dip and get paid by Nazi-hostile intelligence agencies, that's even better for Sassen. Ironically, German officials privately blasted the Dutch as eminently flaky and untrustworthy fenceshifters; these would have been better off heeding their own warnings.

What he certainly wasn't in any case was a committed Revisionist. or a committed Nazi.
.....

Get them into the mood with drinks and loose talking and they will talk loosely. They will make all kinds of statements that sound dead serious, while they actually are not. With Austrian Germans it isn't discernable, whether they are talking nonsense or not. Experienced several times, while they told us that they were talking nonsense later. On tape those would certainly sound incriminating, if one believes the underlying narrative that is. And that's of course why they are believed, people already believe 'unbelievable horror stories' and so they will take this dead serious.

It's telling that media and historians are hustling for stuff like on the tapes. Their problem is of course that they don't have anything tangible for their assertions. So they have to resort to 'recordings' and 'confessions'. Meanwhile there is millions of records, documents from the WW2 era. Shouldn't they demonstrate what is asserted? Then we're not even talking about physical evidence her, which can not simply be made vanished.

As for Sassen, but also other former sympathizers, I'd say they were mostly disillusioned. Holocaustesque assertions weren't really that big on their radar. What concerned them was the future. What should become of them and what should become of Germany? How would things develop in the future. As a refugee, especially when aging, you would be concerned about your financial matters (and your security) as well.

What you wrote sounds perfectly good motivation to me. Instead of convincing people genocide never occurred, he would claim that it was the Jews fault. Writing something down doesn't make it true. He wanted to get attention and put out his own version of "the real story". There is no value in these kinds of testimonies, written or otherwise.

This indeed seems to be the defense strategy. Once the accusation is asserted repetitively and widely believe, it's institutionally. Can't go now and 'deny' that. Rather not dispute it, 'accept' it, if you want and then build a defense strategy around it. That's also the case with most of the concentration camp related trials. They all *assume* that the bigger accusation is basically true and that it is only about the details. Only if they accused did do something that would make him guilty in some way. The key here is 'judicial notice', which means other court proceedings must have assumed it to be proven. The presumption here is that the accusation/thesis was proven in those prior court cases, eg. at the IMT. Did they proof the accusation to be true in Nuremberg? No, they didn't. What they did do was having the Hoess-statements, several other statements as well as the death mill movie and a shrunken head. as physical evidence. Now how does that prove 'the Nazis killed 5 million Jews', as they asserted during the proceedings. It didn't! But the court accepted this in their verdict. The media accepted this as well. And that got the narrative going. Afterwards it was picked up on by Zionists and Communists, who used that in their agitation over and over again. For the Zionists it had a double function of delivering national cohesion, which Jews didn't have as strongly at that time (most Jews saw this mostly as 'common religion' and many of them weren't exactly religious). Additionally it was a pressure device for them, when pushing through demands against others like getting 'Israel' recognized. For the Communist it was useful to slam militant Anti-Communists (which the National Socialists were) and to soften up conservative opposition. They don't care that much about Liberals and Socialists, since they are not really that big a hinderance in their pursuit of power. They also could portray and legitimize themselves that way, since the Red Army and Communist partisans did most of the fighting against the Axis during world war two. When one takes note of this and looks at the bigger picture, it becomes plausible what happened and what the motivations were.

[bombsaway]

What you wrote sounds perfectly good motivation to me. Instead of convincing people genocide never occurred, he would claim that it was the Jews fault.

Why didn't he tell the truth?

[Hektor]

What you wrote sounds perfectly good motivation to me. Instead of convincing people genocide never occurred, he would claim that it was the Jews fault.

Why didn't he tell the truth?

What difference would that make?