The Eichmann trial

[_Mads_]

I will first list all the links that will be referred to in this topic.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Video 1, Wannsee Conference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqbWOYO6bAg

Video 2, last words and "execution": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8i5nz1oh5bc

Video 3, Cholm, Kulmhof, Chelmno: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qgoT8YNiLM

Video 4, Eichmann interviewed by Sassen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwoS1WN8MKM

Photograph 1, 1940: http://history1900s.about.com/library/h ... chmann.htm

Photograph 2, 1942: http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia ... 05BBEF.jpg

Photograph 3, Israeli trial:
http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Comp ... .widec.jpg

Eichmann photo gallery: http://images.google.dk/imgres?imgurl...


“Jewish News of greater Phoenix”, about Eichmann memoirs: http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/000303/trial.shtml

Richard Evans, Eichmann memoirs: http://www.hdot.org/trial/defense/evans/6

Wikipedia, life of Eichmann: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Eichmann

Paul Rassinier about the Eichmann trial: http://www.heretical.com/miscella/eichmann.html

Arthur Butz about the Eichmann trial: http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/thottc/10.html (scroll down, third of page)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In video 2 at about 00:08 there is a close-up photo of Eichmann. You can stop the video here and then simultaneously open video 1. Comparing the photo of Eichmann from video 2 to Eichmann in the glass case, I don´t think there can be any doubt: it is not the same person. At least one of them is not Adolf Eichmann.

The person in the glass case differs from the video 2-photo in (at least) the following respects: his eyebrows are more bushy, his mouth is more elongated, his nose is not slightly curved to the right, the form of his cheeks is different, and, as opposed to the round and broad face on the video 2-photo, his face is narrow and lengthy. The space form the top of the ears to the top of the head is much larger. He appears younger as well as darker. It also seems that his upper lip is thinner. One of the most striking differences concerns the forehead wrinkles. The video 2-photo shows a man with deep furrows just above the nose, of the kind that is created by lowering brows. Wrinkles of the kind stemming from raised brows are visible, but scarcely. This is the opposite of the man in the glass case. Further, this man wrinkles the forehead by raising eyebrows – particularly visible in video 1, 02:00 to about 03:00 – whereas the video 2-photo shows a man who has for his entire life primarily wrinkled the forehead by lowering eyebrows. Apart from the circumstance that lowering the brows would psychologically seem more appropriate in this situation, people do not change such habits. A person who is used to lowering the eyebrows will not suddenly start raising them instead.

I believe Photo 1 shows the same person as the one in video 2, 00:08. The same is probably true for photo 2, although there may be a slight doubt. But assuming it is the same, we do at least see that his left eyelid is hanging down, which also seems to be the case on the video 2-photo. And apparently the left eyebrow is the same, being in both cases much thinner to the left than to the right. The eyes of Eichmann in the glass case are mostly hidden behind large glasses, probably not co-incidentally. Compare the photos to video 3, however, especially the sequence from 01:10 and 10-15 seconds onwards. There is no trace of the hanging left eyelid at all. It would also seem that this man does not have the marked wrinkles around the eyes that can be seen on the video 2-photo (he wears glasses that enlarge the eyes (for improving close vision); there ought to be visible wrinkles).

Photograph 3 might have been subjected to some manipulation regarding forehead wrinkles and maybe other traits, but it still looks different than photograph 1 and video 2-00:08. He is looking down which means that his eyes cannot be seen.

What is called the “Eichmann photo gallery“ seems to be a gallery of fake photos.

As you might have noticed, I think that the person in the glass case is not Adolf Eichmann. The person on photo 1 and 2 and in video 2, 00:08 would be Adolf Eichmann, in my opinion. I base that partly on conflicting facial traits in different appearances of what is supposed to be Adolf Eichmann, but not solely.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rather, what first caught my attention was the peculiar behavior and statements of Eichmann in the glass case. In video 2, beginning at 00:10, he says: “Well, since you, Mr. President, have requested me to give a clear answer, let me say that I consider this murder, this annihilation of the Jews to be one of the greatest crimes in human history.“ The real Adolf Eichmann maybe could have pronounced these words, but the context and surrounding circumstances obvious in all videos from the trial suggest somebody else did. The atmosphere is relaxed, not tense in any way. There is no real animosity. Eichmann himself is calm and stable (but does appear clueless, as is without doubt the intention). He and the judge are not enemies, rather, they seem to be co-operating. They seem to be co-operating about promoting the “holocaust“ story.

In video 3, 01:10 to 01:20, Eichmann says: “In Cholm, too, I already did say that in my testimony, that I was sent there by my boss, and I saw that Jews were gassed.” Supposing the real Eichmann had made this confession, it would be a singular incident. Höss also testified to having murdered millions of people, but he had been beaten and he retracted the confession during the Nuremberg trial. Speer, eager to please, completely accepted the notion of the “holocaust”, but maintained that he had known nothing about it at the time.

Video 2, 00:52 to 01:08, shows Eichmann at the beginning of his final speech (there is a translation of this speech at the end of Rassinier´s “The Real Eichmann Trial”; what Eichmann says in video 2 is translated to “I was unfortunate enough to have been mixed up in these horrors. But, these misdeeds were not of my own doing. It was not my desire to kill people.”) Neither the words nor his way of presenting them – monotonously reading from a script – seem fitting for a man who has just been sentenced to death. They particularly do not seem appropriate because neither Eichmann nor other Germans had committed the crimes he was convicted for.

Video 3 contains a quite interesting talk about camp localities, and I will translate most of it here:

Prosecutor. As you ordered…the transports to go to Cholm, where were they supposed to go?

Eichmann. (hesitantly studying the piece of paper in his hand) Well, it says, “to Cholm”, obviously.

Prosecutor. That means to Sobibor, doesn´t it?

Eichmann. (insecure) As far as I know Cholm is a different place than Sobibor…

Prosecutor. Yes, and in reality you sent these people from the railway station to Sobibor, to Treblinka and to Maidanek.

Eichmann. (pointing to the paper) Here it says “Cholm”, so it must be Cholm.

The judge appears discontented with this exchange, making a movement with the mouth.

Prosecutor. (annoyed) “It says: “towards Cholm”!

Eichmann. You mean people were afterwards transported away from Cholm?… well –

Prosecutor. As you ordered the transports to go to Cholm, what was the final destination? The extermination camps. Are you finally going to say it? You´re not going to talk your way out of this, are you?

Eichmann. To Cholm? In Cholm, too, I already did say that in my testimony, that I was sent there by my boss, and I saw that Jews were gassed. I´ve reported that.

Prosecutor. No, you talked about Kulmhof, Chelmno -

Eichmann. Yes, and that´s the same camp!

Prosecutor. No, that´s not the same camp.

At 01:53:

Supreme Judge. But what is Kulm or Kulmhof in Polish?

Prosecutor. Kulmhof? That´s Chelmno.

At 02:38:

Eichmann. Yes, I read that, “Generalgouvernement”; sorry, I assumed that “Cholm” was “Kulm”, “Kulmhof”…

At 03:03:

Eichmann. I never visited Cholm, but it is very well possible that it also was an extermination camp, and I´m not going to dispute that and will leave that possibility open. I don´t know for sure, however.

- The accused searches for the answer only on his piece of paper, instead of trying to recall anything from the experience he has allegedly had. The word exchange leaves the impression that he has no idea what he is talking about and has never worked in the German bureaucracy during the Second World War.

It is worth noting that the accused, in the video 2-sequence already mentioned, says “diesen Mord, diese Vernichtung an die Juden…” (“this murder, this annihilation of the Jews”) If you use the word “Vernichtung”, you would normally connect it with the genitive: “Vernichtung der Juden”. But if you use the word “Mord”, the correct expression is “Mord an den Juden”, with dative, not “Mord an die Juden”, with accusative. I personally cannot say whether a native speaker would make such a mistake, or whether it indicates that German is not his first language, but maybe somebody else can.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Sassen recordings are an important part of the trial. Sassen had allegedly met Eichmann in Argentina and they had decided to tape record Eichmann´s memories about the persecution of Jews in order to write a book about it. The Sassen recordings contain passages like: “if 10.3 millions of these opponents had been killed, we would have accomplished our task” (video 4), and “if I had had the post of concentration camp commandant, I wouldn´t have acted differently. And if I had been ordered to gas or shoot Jews, I would have carried out the order.” (video 2, 01:12)

In my opinion, the Sassen recordings are to be understood as a complete fabrication, created to complement the words of Eichmann during the trial. Eichmann concedes major crimes have happened, but he sustains he personally was not responsible. The Sassen recordings, however, very conveniently show his true face.

It would seem that the viewer is supposed to think that it would be impossible for Eichmann to deny that these crimes happened, because the “holocaust” is an undeniable fact. So he resorts to the claim that he did not order it and did not have any say in the process. But even if being a cog in that sort of machine could be considered criminal, the plotters behind the trial would rather that the accused be considered a person of truly criminal convictions and ideas; and that he had only sought to hide that reality during the trial. The Sassen recordings seem to have been produced for this purpose.

Oddly, the accused himself presents a similar scheme in a strange comment: “…and they very bluntly spoke about the thing as it was [the killing of Jews; the particular ways of killing them], not using the words I myself had to use for the protocol…” (video 1, 02:25 to 02:35). If Eichmann is during the trial repudiated by his own words (as seems to be the case), doesn´t it seem strange that he himself tells a story about an alleged difference between the truth, as it may come out in private conversation, and what can be written in a protocol? Wouldn´t it seem that the same propagandists are behind this Eichmann quote as well as the overall proceedings?

Further, why would Eichmann say this? Does the above-mentioned quote have anything to do with what happened during the Wannsee conference?

Why would Eichmann and Sassen tape record his memories, instead of simply beginning to write the book? Why would Eichmann want a book of such content to be published? Was he a lunatic who wanted to inform the world that he himself would have considered “10.3 millions” a success, as opposed to the mere six millions (or whatever) allegedly killed? Presumably it was to be published after his death, so that his wife and children could cash in the revenue. Is that plausible?

“The Real Eichmann Trial” by Rassinier contains a letter from Eichmann in which he comments rather extensively on the Sassen recordings. But as much as he criticizes Sassen, this letter strikes me as being as un-authentic as everything else. It could easily be read as a false letter that intends to convey to the reader the idea that Eichmann is afraid of the Sassen recordings and afraid that Sassen will make them or parts of them public, because he does not want the truths he have voiced in the company of Sassen to be considered during the trial.

Eichmann in this letter also praises Israeli police and writes regarding the murder of Jews, the “holocaust”: “To be sure, all this has happened, one cannot deny it.”

We also must ask why Sassen, apparently a friend of Eichmann and “former SS man”, would suddenly start co-operating with the Israeli court and “Life” magazine. Maybe he was an Israeli agent who made himself acquainted with Adolf Eichmann, and betrayed him. And maybe he was an Israeli agent selected to pose as “former SS man, connected to Adolf Eichmann”.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The “Eichmann memoirs“ were released in the year 2000 by the Israeli state (see story in “Jewish News“). Eichmann apparently claims in these memoirs that Heydrich in July 1941 had said to him: “I've come from the Reichsführer SS. The Führer has given orders for the physical destruction of the Jews.“ (Richard Evans, item 6.10)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But would it even be possible to stage a “trial” in this way, to let an agent perform as the accused “nazi butcher” Adolf Eichmann? Well, yes.

Eichmann´s family is mentioned several times – wife and children, “brothers and sisters”. Acoording to Rassinier, the family wanted defence counsel Dr. Servatius to get in touch with him. But having somebody to act as “Eichmann family” would be the slightest problem in the world - these people probably didn´t have to appear on stage one single time. And like Eichmann himself, it would seem that the Eichmann family was suspiciously tolerant and sympathetic with the Israeli court.

If “holocaust” propagandist wanted to set up such a trial, all they would have to do would be to find a moderately high-ranking bureaucrat who had been working with the Jewish question (or a camp commandant etc.), and whose relatives and colleagues had all been killed during or after the war. They may have begun looking for possibilities for such a trial as early as at the time of the end of the war. Who were the people living in Buenos Aires claiming to be the Eichmanns, or rather the Klements? According to Wikipedia, the oldest son Klaus had made “boastful remarks about his father´s life as a Nazi and direct responsibility for the Holocaust” to a Jewish girlfriend. Were these people really the true Eichmanns? If Klaus were such a convinced evil Nazi, why would he have a relationship with a Jewish girl, daughter of a former Dachau inmate?

The trial was aired on television, but ordinary people obviously could not be record it on video. Germans who had known Eichmann would not have seen him for years. And even if they had pictures, they would only start comparing them to the man on television if they had become suspicious for some other reason. And how many people even imagine that something like that is possible?

Further, the world was at that time divided in two more or less hostile camps, and both of them were controlled by “holocaust” propagandists or their allies. If anybody thought the man in the glass case was not Adolf Eichmann, how would he get that message out to the public? Rassinier claims that Eichmann had a superior called Müller who “later became a very high police functionary in East Germany.” Obviously, a person who had done that, for whatever reason, did not pose a threat. He would not get himself into a camp or executed by uttering anything about this trial.

If they can make the world believe in the “holocaust”, then they can make the world believe in a phoney “Eichmann trial” as well.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Butz writes about the proceedings:

“It is worth mentioning that the major thrust of the prosecution's cross-examination of Eichmann did not treat wartime events directly. The prosecution's chief effort was to hold Eichmann, in court, to whatever he was supposed to have said to Israeli interrogators during his year of imprisonment prior to the trial and also to what he was supposed to have said to one Sassen in Argentina in 1957.”

Wouldn´t it be correct to say that the trial marks a turning point in the perception of the Second World War and the “holocaust”: the actual events are slowly effacing in the minds of people and are being replaced by an invention, the “holocaust”? Wouldn´t it be correct to say that this trial was a very important step in this process?

* I did a google search on the words "Mord an die Juden". Five hits appeared. Of these, one was written by a Turkish-born participant in an internet forum, the second was from an information e-mail filled with grammatical errors, the third appeared in a text by a certain Alfred de Zayas, an American historian teaching in Germany, the fourth was from an internet debate about Turkish admission to the EU and probably was written by a Turkish-German, too, and the fifth was an obvious misquote, because the title of a certain work was supposed to be "Die Mord an die Juden" ("Mord" is masculine; it is "der Mord").

Result: There are no credible examples of Germans saying "Mord an die Juden". What you do find is that people who speak German well, but who are not native speakers, may make this mistake.

If you search for "Mord an den Juden", you will have 21.300 results.

"Vernichtung an die Juden" produced no results at all, "Vernichtung an den Juden" a single one, "Vernichtung der Juden" 78.800.

[Hannover]

There's plenty more at this forum on Eichmann, this one is good:

'Eichmann's diaries - even more absurdities'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=733

There's also convenient links there to other threads on Eichmann.

You'll love such gems like:

"There had been a pit there, it was already filled in, and blood was gushing out of it...how shall I say?...like a geyser. I've never seen anything like it. I'd had enough of that mission".

- Hannover

[jnovitz]

I am not sure I understand the "Two Eichmanns" at the trial claim but I do know that Eichmann in Israel was supposed to be able to speak Hebrew rather well.

And speak german with a difficult accent.



versus

[Breker]

In video 2 at about 00:08 there is a close-up photo of Eichmann. You can stop the video here and then simultaneously open video 1. Comparing the photo of Eichmann from video 2 to Eichmann in the glass case, I don´t think there can be any doubt: it is not the same person. At least one of them is not Adolf Eichmann.

I fail to see that there are two Eichmanns here. Anything is possible from the Israelis, but I do not agree with this particular claim. There is so very much which easily refutes the required, but incorrect, beliefs about Eichmann, that a claim of this sort is superfluous.
Breker

[_Mads_]

I am not sure I understand the "Two Eichmanns" at the trial claim but I do know that Eichmann in Israel was supposed to be able to speak Hebrew rather well.

I am not surprised to hear that, as he does in one case answer very quickly, and you would suppose that the translator - who presumably would be talking through his head phones - would not have finished talking at the time he answers.

My claim was that the person in the glass case is not Eichmann.

And speak german with a difficult accent.

Hmm. What about speaking non-correct German?

Breker,

Sorry, but as long as you do not state any reasons, you´re not doing anything sensible.

Hannover,

It only adds to the lengthy list I have put together that the accused at the Israeli trial is using Elie Wiesel-style "holocaust" rhetorics. Actually, everything I have now read in several humorous threads about Eichmann fits very well in with the view I already had.

[Haldan]

Adolf Eichmann was fluent in Hebrew and Yiddish; in case this was not made clear earlier in the thread.

-haldan

[_Mads_]

Adolf Eichmann was fluent in Hebrew and Yiddish; in case this was not made clear earlier in the thread.

-haldan

Ok, interesting. Feel free to state your sources, so that we can learn more.

[_Mads_]

I am not sure I understand the "Two Eichmanns" at the trial claim...

Maybe I should make clear that I have continued to use mostly the name "Eichmann" for the person in the glass case, because he is in any case supposed to represent Eichmann.

[_Mads_]

jnovitz,

Having taken a good long look at the two pictures, I still think they may portray the same person. I cannot say for sure; it is possible that the mouth as well as the ear is different.

However, I think the pictures I have referred to show obvious differences, as opposed to these two.

[Breker]

Mads:

Breker,

Sorry, but as long as you do not state any reasons, you´re not doing anything sensible.

Well, there are not many reasons except that they both look like Eichmann.
Breker

[jnovitz]

Adolf Eichmann was fluent in Hebrew and Yiddish; in case this was not made clear earlier in the thre

While I understand that the post war Eichmann was fluent in Hebrew I would be surprised if the pre-war Eichmann was. It is a very different language with (before Israel's foundation) no native speakers.

The idea you can get fluent in Hebrew by taking a few lessons from a Rabbi a week is not credible.

Yiddish is a different matter.

[_Mads_]

Well, there are not many reasons except that they both look like Eichmann.
Breker

I don´t know why you think there is any point in writing such contributions.

As you may have noticed the first post here is quite lengthy and contains a lot of reasons for my opinion that the man in the glass case is not Adolf Eichmann. I´m not going to repeat the things I´ve already said.

If you have any objections to make, you can make them.

[Breker]

Well, there are not many reasons except that they both look like Eichmann.
Breker

As you may have noticed the first post here is quite lengthy and contains a lot of reasons for my opinion that the man in the glass case is not Adolf Eichmann. I´m not going to repeat the things I´ve already said.

Allow me to repeat what you said:

In video 2 at about 00:08 there is a close-up photo of Eichmann. You can stop the video here and then simultaneously open video 1. Comparing the photo of Eichmann from video 2 to Eichmann in the glass case, I don´t think there can be any doubt: it is not the same person. At least one of them is not Adolf Eichmann.

Concerning the comparison that you claimed 'removed any doubt', I object. There is plenty of doubt.

I don´t know why you think there is any point in writing such contributions.
If you have any objections to make, you can make them.

On the other hand, I can say there is no point in making claims of an Eichmann stand-in based upon images which do not look like two different people. That is my objection.

The fact that Eichmann made the most ridiculous, contradictory, unsubstantiated statements is well known. Citing discrepancies in various statements is helpful, indeed. However, making a claim of an Eichmann stand-in is not supported by the comparison you suggested.
Breker

[ClaudiaRothenbach]

There is an absolutely assured method to identify or distinguish between people: in German "Gesichtsvermessung" (facial measurement). This is used in courts (for example in traffic suits with speed camera photos) or for passports (at least planned).

With this method we could prove whether the glass box "Oakman" is the real Eichmann or not.

EXCURSUS:
About two years ago I saw a film in the German (government owned) TV channel ZDF where they proved with the same method that Saddam Hussein worked with at least one body double. Everybody remembers the films in the various news shows where Saddam showed up with a gun in his hand on a balcony somewhere in a southern country in front of a cheering crowd - and shot in the air, smiling. The ZDF film used the above described method to prove that the shooting Saddam was not the same as the normal Saddam in a film that was made in his palace.

btw: The ZDF film was only shown once - because probably the gunman films were produced by U$raelian desinformation centers (also called media) and that the ZDF became a hint not to show the film again.

[_Mads_]

Breker

Well, I still don´t know why you think I was wrong about this particular point. Your post can be boiled down to one word: “no!” Obviously, I am not going to change my opinion because you say “no!”

I did not say it “removed any doubt”. I said, “I don´t think there can be any doubt”. I still have the same opinion. Is that a problem to you, Breker?

Further, you fail to realize that my initial post was not solely about this comparison of photos.

Claudia Rothenbach,

Highly interesting, I would like to see that method applied, although I´m not waiting for it to form an opinion.

Just to add a few things to what has already been said, I´m not going to accept that a person who cannot speak German is supposed to be Adolf Eichmann. I just made a very brief search for grammatical errors, and found three in addition to the one mentioned, as well as two odd or unusal expressions. It seems that´s just the beginning.

The Oakman says, “…dass ich diesen Mord, diese Vernichtung an die Juden für eines der kapitalsten Verbrechen innerhalb der Menschheitsgeschichte betrachte.“

You can´t connect “für” and “betrachte”. You either have to say “halte für” or “betrachte als”.

”Innerhalb der Geschichte” is an unusual expression; you would normally say “in der Geschichte”.

In video 1, the Oakman says, „...von diesem Angelegenheit“. Correct is „von dieser Angelegenheit“. (01:40). 10 seconds earlier, he said, “…wie er das Protokoll aufgefasst zu wissen wünscht.“ Should that expression be considered clumsy or downright faulty language?

At about 01:33, he says, “…aber die Stimmen drangen eben zu mir herein…”; he then corrects himself and says, “…zu mir ran…”. However, the first version is correct, the second, unfortunately, is incorrect.

There are several other examples to be mentioned.

Only three-year-olds, drunken people or foreigners would make such mistakes. Maybe we can exempt the three-year-olds.

Does he make them because he is afraid, in chock, traumatized by the situation? Well, how come he doesn´t seem to be afraid, in chock or traumatized at all?

You can compare his language to that of Gabriel Bach, the prosecutor shortly interviewed in video 2. Bach probably has lived in Israel for 40-50 years at this point, but it´s likely that he was born in Germany and was originally a German Jew. And Bach speaks normal German, even if it is obvious that it isn´t a language he uses on a daily basis.

We´re seeing fascinating things in this thread, because this person, who cannot speak his mother tongue, and whose lack of culture is, I believe, commented on by Rassinier, is, well, fluent in Hebrew and Yiddish.

I wonder whether he could be considered “fluent” in German, too.