Challenge to bombsaway on allegedly convincing "confession"

[bombsaway]

There are other aspects of witness statements that I find compelling. re gas vans, the orthodox narrative during the 60s were diesel engines were primarily used. Yet the actual drivers of these cars went against the narrative and identified these vehicles as having gasoline engines in all cases where such a distinction was made. Possibly the conspirators, now embedded in the German governments prosecution efforts, had the foresight to realize the diesel engines made less sense from a scientific standpoint. But revisionists hadn't even raised this issue at the time, so this seems unlikely to me.

Did you survey these gas van testimonies and come to that conclusion yourself or did you read Holocaust Controversies and are taking their claims as gospel? They are not necessarily giving you a complete picture and much of their argument is very strained. The fact remains that many prominent witnesses such as Gerstein refer to a diesel engine over and over. All they can do is speculate that he must not have had a good look at the engine. Or maybe he "heard" it was a diesel.

In the early Soviet material the gas vans are described as diesel (or not specified). From the Krasnodar and Kharkov trials in 1943,
https://archive.org/details/peoplesverdictfu00unse

The accused was questioned about the “murder vans,” i.e., the motor vehicles specially equipped for the purpose of brutally putting Soviet citizens to death. Tishchenko answered in great detail showing that he was quite familiar with the whole business. These vans were five-ton or seven-ton motor trucks, he said, with bodies built over them. These had double walls and false windows which gave them the appearance of motor buses. At the rear of each vehicle there was a door which closed hermetically. The floor consisted of a grating under which ran the exhaust pipe from the Diesel engine by which the vehicle was driven. The exhaust gas penetrated the interior of the vehicle. When the vehicle was standing with the engine running, death ensued within seven minutes ; when it was in motion death ensued in ten minutes. The prisoners learned that a horrible death awaited them in these vans and, therefore, strongly resisted when they were being forced into them and shouted for help. When that happened the Gestapo officials grabbed their victims and bundled them into the vans by main force. The loading of these “murder vans” was usually supervised by Colonel Christmann, Chief of the Gestapo, Rabbe, and other German officers. Tishchenko stated that one day he was present when 67 adults and 18 children were bundled into a “murder van.” (pg 17--18)

These vans, as testified by the German defendants in the present case and also by witnesses who witnessed the crimes committed by the Germans, are large closed trucks of dark grey colour, driven by Diesel engines.

The vans are lined inside with galvanized iron and have air-tight folding doors at the back. The floor is equipped with a wooden grating under which passes a pipe with apertures. This pipe is connected to the exhaust pipe of the engine. The exhaust gases of the Diesel engine, containing highly concentrated carbon monoxide, enter the body of the van, causing rapid poisoning and asphyxiation of the people locked up in the van. (pg 50)

Given the richness of the detail provided (galvanized iron etc) by these witnesses, it seems they were claiming to be intimately familiar with these vans.

Yeah but all the alleged drivers / actual operators of the machinery contradicted the diesel narrative whenever they made the distinction. I would expect them to be able to provide the most reliable info.

Witness testimony is generally unreliable when it comes to details, as I said in my first post in the thread. There are a variety of reasons for this which you can read about in the literature.

[fireofice]

Yeah but all the alleged drivers / actual operators of the machinery contradicted the diesel narrative whenever they made the distinction. I would expect them to be able to provide the most reliable info.

That was shown to be false. Archie showed that there were those among the accused that testified to diesel gassings. You are just wrong. You also haven't given any reason that those who do say gasoline was used is giving "more reliable info". If anything, we should expect them to talk about producer gas being used the most, which they don't.

Witness testimony is generally unreliable when it comes to details, as I said in my first post in the thread. There are a variety of reasons for this which you can read about in the literature.

The whole point was that they are up close and "operators of the machinery" as you claimed. So how much details people get right is not a relevant response.

[bombsaway]

Archie showed that there were those among the accused that testified to diesel gassings.

The whole point was that they are up close and "operators of the machinery" as you claimed. So how much details people get right is not a relevant response.

Who? Can you be specific and provide testimony, as HC blog did here http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... s-why.html

All it says are German defendants. When doing specific research of this type I wouldn't rely on secondary sources.

[fireofice]

Archie showed that there were those among the accused that testified to diesel gassings.

The whole point was that they are up close and "operators of the machinery" as you claimed. So how much details people get right is not a relevant response.

Who? Can you be specific and provide testimony, as HC blog did here http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... s-why.html

All it says are German defendants. When doing specific research of this type I wouldn't rely on secondary sources.

The source cited:

https://archive.org/details/peoplesverdictfu00unse

It's a primary source on the testimony given.

[Hektor]

without a single recanted testimony, nor protest from their families

This is false. Rudolf Hoss's family, apart from one of his grandsons, are holocaust deniers and believe Hoss is innocent despite his "confession". Other families of the Nazis also don't believe in the holocaust.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/6L9l23GKVZ5h/

And I see bombsaway hasn't commented on the fact that hermod destroyed his "no one recanted" claim. Does he still believe this?

Now that's interesting. One reads the books (pushed through bestsellers) of kids. grandkids of ex NS-leadership figures that essentially join in the choir to accuse their relatives. But one barely hears about relatives 'denying the Holocaust' and it seems there are plenty. Of course media attention will not be on them, because many more people may think: "If they say so, maybe the narrative is wrong on a more fundamental level".

I recall the Hoess grandson, but didn't know he is the only one in his family that isn't a "Holocaust Denier". I also recall the Mengele son, apparently believing this, while his dad actually told him that the stories about him were untrue.

There is of course quite some pressure on the families/kids of famous NS-figures. And they may be caught up between two narratives there. One narrative being a highly publicized diablography that comes over persuasive to the unsuspecting observer. The other narrative of older relatives, who are throughout rather good characters, but denying the Holocaust. It looks of course a bit self-serving if you bluntly say that a disparaged relative wasn't as bad as claimed. But it doesn't mean that it isn't true. Those relatives turning against their ancestors are of course rewarded tremendously, if they publicly accuse those relatives that were NS-figures. Imagine publishing book that sell by the 100.000s. One can live from this comfortably and receive lots of appraisal.

The Hoess grandson comes over like a rebel and rather arrogant figure as well. It seems as if he tries to benefit from his grand-fathers fame. But one shouldn't underestimate the effect of being related to a figure that is accused of murdering millions. A supposed crime that is repeated over and over again in the media. The perpetual shaming can't be healthy to those individuals.

[Webmaster]

Bombsaway: your previous post was deleted and messaged back to you for being off topic. You can make another thread about gas van confessions, or post in an already existing thread about the subject. This thread is about confessions relating to mass graves at three specific camps.
From the OP:

Q: What "confession" regarding 100s of thousands of Jews being dumped into pits at Treblinka 2, Sobibor, and/or Belzec do you find so convincing to justify ignoring the complete lack of verifiable physical evidence for any of these pits?

The same goes for anyone else that wishes to discuss testimonies relating to gas vans.
From the rules:

Keep your threads / posts limited to one point.

Web.

[bombsaway]

Bombsaway: your previous post was deleted and messaged back to you for being off topic.
Web.

Thanks for saving my post. I think this part was relevant because it deals with Reinhard witnesses changing their testimony. I'll save my post about gas vans for a future date.

This would include the Reinhard camps. These specific trials are irrelevant. Do you admit your claim is false?

I meant to respond to this but missed it because I'm having so many different convos at once (I'm going to limit myself here from now on).

My claim about witnesses recanting was this (second post on this thread): "Finally the biggest reason the West German testimonies are convincing to me is that not a single person sentenced recanted"

You're asking me to take back something that I never said, and I reject your reframing. West German trials were much less chaotic and more ethical than Nuremberg, which is why I place a higher value on them. Nevertheless if can find an affidavit declaring existence of a Reinhard extermination center and then testimony where the signatory repudiates said affidavit, this would be a really good point for revisionism, and might get me to reconsider some things.

Please use direct quotes, and if it's not trial transcript, provide references.

[hermod]

Basically I am looking for evidence that defendants were tortured or under extra judicial coercion during the West German trials, or maybe that it was an episode of mass psychosis. So far I've seen nothing but speculation (this seems to be a running pattern here, just being brutally honest). If you can provide hard evidence of course I will reconsider my position on the witnesses.

Not only torture and coercion can provide false confessions (or alleged confessions (because blaming others for a crime is no confession)). Bribes (i.e. offers of perjury for immunity or soft treatment) can achieve that very well too. Wasn't West Germany criticized for its soft treatment of so-called Nazi criminals after all? But wasn't that alleged leniency just the price to pay for false confessions?

https://postimg.cc/4KhkKQS1

IN WEST & UNITED GERMANY ONLY 6,656 CONVICTED OF NAZI CRIMES

Historian exposes Germany’s minute number of convictions for Nazi war crimes

In new book, Mary Fulbrook notes that while up to a million actively took part in genocide,
only a few thousand were ever sentenced to more than 3 years in prison

By TOI STAFF
10 November 2018

Though up to a million people are believed to have actively participated in the extermination of millions of Jewish people during the Holocaust, only around 20,000 were ever found guilty of crimes, and fewer than 600 received heavy sentences, a British Holocaust historian writes in a new book.

In “Reckonings: Legacies of Nazi Persecution and the Quest for Justice,” Mary Fulbrook examines the German justice system’s prosecution of Nazi war crimes following World War II, and the relatively minuscule number of heavy punishments meted out to perpetrators of genocide.

Fulbrook, professor of German History and Dean of the Faculty of Social and Historical Sciences at University College London, notes that “perhaps 200,000 people, and possibly closer to a million, were at one point or another actively involved in killing Jewish civilians. And the ranks of those who made this possible were far wider.”

But while in West Germany and united Germany between 1946 and 2005, cases were brought against 140,000 individuals, only 6,656 were convicted of Nazi crimes. And “the vast majority of sentences — just under five thousand (4,993) — were relatively lenient, with terms of imprisonment of up to two years,” Fulbrook writes.

“Of those perpetrators actually brought to court in the Federal Republic of Germany before the end of the twentieth century, only 164 individuals were eventually sentenced as perpetrators of murder, rather than for lesser crimes,” she writes. “In view of the hundreds of thousands of individuals who had been involved in the machinery of mass murder and the six million people who had died in what we now call the Holocaust, 164 convictions for murder is not an impressive total.”

She adds that “The total number of persons convicted under the Federal Republic for Nazi crimes was in itself fewer even than the number of people who had been employed at Auschwitz alone.”

In the East the situation was somewhat better, with a total of 12,890 guilty verdicts pronounced between 1945 and 1989, when Germany was reunited. On average individuals also faced harsher sentences if found guilty. But again the majority, 7,372 sentences, were for prison terms of under three years.

In all, 567 individuals throughout Germany were sentenced to death or life imprisonment for their actions.

“New generations in the unified Federal Republic of Germany of the late twentieth and early twenty-first century have sought to make amends for the dilatory conduct of previous generations by seeking with renewed energy to try to track down and bring to court every last Nazi,” she says.

However, with so few left to prosecute, Fulbrook laments that the “continuing imbalance” in Germany’s prosecution of its war criminals “can only be recognized, and no longer rectified.”

https://www.timesofisrael.com/historian ... ar-crimes/

[Lamprecht]

My claim about witnesses recanting was this (second post on this thread): "Finally the biggest reason the West German testimonies are convincing to me is that not a single person sentenced recanted"

You're asking me to take back something that I never said, and I reject your reframing. West German trials were much less chaotic and more ethical than Nuremberg, which is why I place a higher value on them. Nevertheless if can find an affidavit declaring existence of a Reinhard extermination center and then testimony where the signatory repudiates said affidavit, this would be a really good point for revisionism, and might get me to reconsider some things.

In a previous post you brought up "incentive" - viewtopic.php?p=107764#p107764

Exactly what incentive would any of these people you're referring to have had for declaring publicly that they gave false testimony (which is a crime, right?) in these trials? You seem to think it's something that should be expected to exist but I don't see why anyone would think so. I mean, it's not like the pits which not only are expected to exist but must exist if the story is true.

The people in these trials are mainly in 3 categories:
1. Acquitted
2. Very light sentences (in terms of murder charges) / released early
3. Very long sentences / life sentence / execution

Who exactly should we expect to have publicly declared after the trial was over that the camp was not an extermination camp? Give an example. Is it not the case that judicial notice was taken, declaring these camps to be extermination camps?
This did not happen in 2023. They couldn't just go on Twitter and post "I was at Treblinka and nobody was gassed there!"
We have no idea what they told to people in private, and nobody would believe someone saying that they told them this later on.
If someone was acquitted, why would they have tried to bring any such attention to themselves by declaring these trials to be fraudulent?
If they had a sentence of only a few years (for mass murder) -- why would they have publicly recanted?
If they had a very long sentence and were released in old age with only a few years left to live, why would they have tried to bring all of this hatred upon themselves by becoming a public figure?
These people just wanted to be left alone.

I asked you to do this before but you did not do it. If you're trying to argue that some form of evidence should exist you have to make a case for why it should exist. I'm obviously not doing this for the alleged enormous pits because (a) they must exist, if your story is true, and (b) you actually believe they exist, despite no verifiable evidence that they do after multiple investigations of these sites.

Again: the evidence that must absolutely exist for your conspiracy theory to be true can not be shown to exist.
If you think some sort of evidence - a specific testimony/"confession"/document - must exist for the gigantic pits for the revisionist position[*] to be true, then make that case. I expect another thread on that because it's going too far off topic here. Your Transnistria thread appeared to be going that route but you didn't even answer basic questions about those testimonies which seemed extremely relevant to that line of thinking.

[*] the revisionist position is, as I understand it: the burnt/unburnt remains of hundreds of thousands are not buried in massive pits at Treblinka 2, Sobibor, or Belzec because these were not extermination camps with homicidal gas chambers. Instead, they were transit camps that played a role in "Final Solution" as defined in the documents that described this policy (one of mass resettlement/deportation, but later "postponed until after the war")

[Lamprecht]

Also has bombsaway come up with a name yet, regarding:

Q: What "confession" regarding 100s of thousands of Jews being dumped into pits at Treblinka 2, Sobibor, and/or Belzec do you find so convincing to justify ignoring the complete lack of verifiable physical evidence for any of these pits?

[bombsaway]

In a previous post you brought up "incentive" - viewtopic.php?p=107764#p107764

Exactly what incentive would any of these people you're referring to have had for declaring publicly that they gave false testimony (which is a crime, right?)

I'll answer one question at a time if that's ok. I think the biggest incentive would be clearing the name of the country they love and also themselves (in the eyes of their friends and family and the entire nation) from the most blackhearted of accusations. I think German men showed nobility and spirit while they sacrificed themselves for their country in the heart of battle, and I think they would not hesitate to do so again. Note the death penalty was abolished in Germany in 1949.

Also has bombsaway come up with a name yet, regarding:

Q: What "confession" regarding 100s of thousands of Jews being dumped into pits at Treblinka 2, Sobibor, and/or Belzec do you find so convincing to justify ignoring the complete lack of verifiable physical evidence for any of these pits?

Sorry, were you implying that I believe in the orthodox narrative based on a single confession? This is definitely not the case, so it's impossible for me to answer you.

I answered more generally before: "Broadly speaking, I find all the confessions made during the West German trials to be convincing. In terms of specifics, less so. 2 or 3 decades later, memory is fuzzy, witnesses have tendency to downplay their role, etc"

And I gave you a single confession that I find particularly compelling, Eichmann's pre-capture conversations with Sassen (we could also include his 'memoir' written here).

[fireofice]

I'll answer one question at a time if that's ok. I think the biggest incentive would be clearing the name of the country they love and also themselves (in the eyes of their friends and family and the entire nation) from the most blackhearted of accusations. I think German men showed nobility and spirit while they sacrificed themselves for their country in the heart of battle, and I think they would not hesitate to do so again. Note the death penalty was abolished in Germany in 1949.

Completely ridiculous. You have no idea what the personality of any of these people were like. Come up with something that doesn't involve pure speculation.

memory is fuzzy

If anything, this would make them less reliable. You're not making any sense.

witnesses have tendency to downplay their role

This is presupposing their guilt and thus "downplaying" which you have yet to demonstrate. I say they are up playing their involvement as a strategy. You have yet to respond to this.

Eichmann's pre-capture conversations with Sassen

Eichmann's "very credible statement" to Sassen:

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/

This ridiculous testimony is what you find convincing?

[bombsaway]

Completely ridiculous. You have no idea what the personality of any of these people were like. Come up with something that doesn't involve pure speculation.

Well I think Lamprecht's question necessitated such speculation, but I think you guys are speculating as well. The whole 'false confession' thing presupposes a repressive authority that used extra judicial means to coerce these statements. It also presupposes that West Germany was only an open and constitutional society in an illusory sense, and though these trials were public and reported on, defense teams really had no liberty to speak up about what was actually happening. All of this is entirely speculative, because no evidence of foul play at these trials exists as far as I know. Even judicial notice was not taken at these trials.

Unless you think the defendants really were free to deny the extermination hypothesis, but chose not to do so only in order to escape life imprisonment (which more than a few of them ended up getting anyway). I think this even more implausible. According to this,
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exone ... ticle1.pdf , for the worst crime --murder-- 6% of exonerees pled guilty. Humans who are innocent tend to fight for their innocence, despite pressure to take a plea deal for a lower sentence. I should remind you that as far as I know every defendant at these trials confirmed the extermination hypothesis.

This ridiculous testimony is what you find convincing?

I find it more convincing that Eichmann's memory was fuzzy than that he was practicing fake confessions to a circle of Nazi sympathizers (who judging by the transcripts were horrified by what he had to say).

[Lamprecht]

Again Bombsaway shows his confusion, and fails to give a single name so we can go into specifics about this particular "confession" in a West German trial.

I think the biggest incentive would be clearing the name of the country they love and also themselves (in the eyes of their friends and family and the entire nation) from the most blackhearted of accusations.

That's just silly. First off, the argument is that Germany itself wasn't even responsible (remember: at Nuremberg, it was claimed only 100 or so people were aware of the alleged extermination) for this. Second, saying "it happened (even if it didn't) but I was following orders / under duress" is clearing one's name.
Additionally, to clear their name in the eyes of friends/family they do not need to make a public statement at all.

I think German men showed nobility and spirit while they sacrificed themselves for their country in the heart of battle

OK. And yet conscription was still practiced.

and I think they would not hesitate to do so again

This is all speculation built upon a massive number of assumptions. Again, this was all happening as Germany was under military occupation. You can't even explain how these alleged post-war "confessions" of committing perjury would have helped anything in the first place. You take it as a given, when it is not.

Note the death penalty was abolished in Germany in 1949.

An argument can easily be made that a very long sentence is worse than execution.
That would certainly explain the "suicides" that took place in captivity.

Sorry, were you implying that I believe in the orthodox narrative based on a single confession? This is definitely not the case, so it's impossible for me to answer you.

No I didn't imply that. But you're telling me there are no convincing testimonies that make a case for massive pits at T2/B/S?

I answered more generally before: "Broadly speaking, I find all the confessions made during the West German trials to be convincing. In terms of specifics, less so. 2 or 3 decades later, memory is fuzzy, witnesses have tendency to downplay their role, etc"

OK, post the name of someone that alleged made a "confession during the West German trials" that makes the case for massive pits at Sobibor, Belzec, and/or Treblinka.

And I gave you a single confession that I find particularly compelling, Eichmann's pre-capture conversations with Sassen (we could also include his 'memoir' written here).

That was not in a West German trial, and Eichmann's "confession" was actually not actually much of a confession as it was a defense strategy.

Well I think Lamprecht's question necessitated such speculation, but I think you guys are speculating as well.

Speculation is necessary here since you refuse to provide a case for the pits. Two people enter a room and come out hours later. They can describe to you what happened, but it's just their word. People can lie. It's impossible to know what occurred without some recording.

The whole 'false confession' thing presupposes a repressive authority that used extra judicial means to coerce these statements.

No, it doesn't. Additionally, you keep going on about alleged "confessions" that are not actually confessions. You think that any time someone claims (or merely agrees with a claim) that Jews were shoved into gas chambers and murdered, they are confessing. That is not the case at all.

It also presupposes that West Germany was only an open and constitutional society in an illusory sense, and though these trials were public and reported on, defense teams really had no liberty to speak up about what was actually happening.

The goal of the defense team is to try to get the defendant out of prison time. That's it. If they're doing their job correctly, that is all they care about. Exposing corruption in the court system is not part of that if it's unlikely to result in the defendant getting let out, it only makes them a target.
West Germany was an occupied state, not a free society, entire political ideologies were banned and anything resembling them. Additionally, and you continue to ignore this very important fact, judicial notice was taken of the so-called "Holocaust"
What that means is that "it didn't happen" was no defense. It would have been as ridiculous of a defense as an accused with arguing "magic isn't real" to avoid being burned alive. Such a line of argument is ridiculous, despite being true, because the entire charge is based upon the lie that it is real. The only reasonable defense is "sure, it's real, but I'm not practicing it"

All of this is entirely speculative, because no evidence of foul play at these trials exists as far as I know.

You're complaining about speculation when that is all you have yourself! You're speculating that, if over 1m Jews were gassed and dumped into pits at Treblinka 2, Sobibor, and Belzec ... then the trials wouldn't have gone the way they did.
Go ahead, pick a specific person from the trials and make this case.
Not "all of them" - pick 1 and establish that what happened in his trial/life necessarily would not have happened that way if these camps weren't extermination camps with 100s of thousands of Jew remains dumped into massive pits.
Just one, to start, and then we can go onto another - unless your case is so strong that "this trial couldn't have gone the way it did if the pits exist at T2/B/S" is obviously true.

I mean look no further than the Belzec trial. What happened? A person accused of accessory to hundreds of thousands of murders, aiding and abetting many other murders, and multiple other crimes. In the USA today, such a crime would be multiple life sentences or execution (more lenient).
What happened? 4.5 years imprisonment and loss of the citizen's rights for three years.
People often end up with longer sentences and worse outcomes for non-violent crimes of merely having controlled substances without a prescription, for example.
And the rest? Acquittal on grounds of acting under duress (Putativnotstand)

Even judicial notice was not taken at these trials.

Yes it was. The claim of mass extermination was established at Nuremberg. Otherwise they would have had to spend a bunch of effort making a case for that in every single trial (unless they were using the "Jews were exterminated" defense strategy). They didn't.

Unless you think the defendants really were free to deny the extermination hypothesis, but chose not to do so only in order to escape life imprisonment (which more than a few of them ended up getting anyway). I think this even more implausible. According to this,
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exone ... ticle1.pdf , for the worst crime --murder-- 6% of exonerees pled guilty. Humans who are innocent tend to fight for their innocence, despite pressure to take a plea deal for a lower sentence. I should remind you that as far as I know every defendant at these trials confirmed the extermination hypothesis.

Again, you're not making sense. You're extremely confused. Saying Jews were killed and even being involved was a defense strategy. I already told you how this claim about murder does not apply. These people were "officially" accused of murder, sure, but actually there was a serious defense of "following orders under duress" - that is a much better strategy of defending against false murder charges than "actually, none of it happened."
If you disagree and seriously think "actually, none of it happened" then someone would have made that argument. It's not like they had actually established, using mass graves, that these murders happened.

I find it more convincing that Eichmann's memory was fuzzy than that he was practicing fake confessions to a circle of Nazi sympathizers (who judging by the transcripts were horrified by what he had to say).

It was a pre-emptive defense strategy. You don't seem to understand that claiming all sorts of egregious crimes against humanity happened under your watch can be a defense strategy - in fact, the best defense in this case for show trials - because of the "duress" or "just following orders" defense.
Also it's clearly not a "fuzzy memory" he is outright making falsehoods.

Again, I challenge you to give a single example of a "confession" from any of these trials that absolutely would not have been made unless there were massive pits full of human remains at these sites, and that Jews were gassed en masse at these sites. None of this "all of them" cop-out, we can go through all of them 1-by-1 if you with. But that starts with just one.

Additionally: it is all speculation that the testimony should be different if the pits don't exist. But it is not speculation that they should absolutely exist if the extermination conspiracy theory is true.
Judging by the nature of the sentences (or lack thereof) it appears that their "it happened but it's not my fault" strategy was usually extremely effective.

[hermod]

First off, the argument is that Germany itself wasn't even responsible (remember: at Nuremberg, it was claimed only 100 or so people were aware of the alleged extermination) for this.

Thats' true...

"not over 100 people in all were informed about the matter."
- U.S. Judge Leon W. Powers, Nuremberg show trial, April 14, 1949

https://postimg.cc/1Vq1Q2q1