BA's case for orthodoxy

[bombsaway]

You require an assumption that Eichmann is telling the truth, whereas every courtroom on the planet takes seriously the fact that people often lie, for various reasons. You assume this, despite no doubt insisting that Eichmann lied profusely in court just a couple years later.

...what does memory recall have to do with anything here?

For example, some of your evidence that he's lying is he said he saw gassings at Majdanek (15+ years later he could have gotten the name of the camp wrong, it's a relatively minor detail)

Based on the testimony alone, I think there is a high likelihood he is telling the truth, because in my mind only an insane person would for weeks on end and in great detail affirm a mass killing program they knew didn't exist (and Eichmann as one of the highest ranking members of the SS, literally in charge of department for "Jewish affairs and evacuation" would have known whether or not it did. I haven't found your reasoning compelling and general to a fault. Honestly what you provided here viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14859&start=195#p109212 sound like the kind of answers ChatGPT would give

I ran a test here and it spit out these reasons, some similar to the ones you gave

It is possible that Eichmann could have lied to Sassen about the existence of a genocidal program for a variety of reasons. Here are a few possibilities:

To impress Sassen: Eichmann may have felt the need to exaggerate or fabricate details about his involvement in the Holocaust in order to impress Sassen and present himself as a more important figure in Nazi history than he actually was.

To save face: Even if Eichmann was involved in the persecution and deportation of Jews, he may have wanted to downplay his role or portray himself as having acted under duress or on orders from higher authorities in order to avoid being held fully responsible for his actions.

To spread propaganda: Eichmann may have deliberately spread false information about a genocidal program in order to sow fear and confusion among potential enemies of the Nazi regime or to bolster support for the Nazi cause among sympathizers.

You're going to go to the text (800 pages or so have been uploaded) and support your statements, they're too general to even respond to and I guess I'm content to leave the matter at that. I also am unfamiliar with the text (since I don't speak German) and rely on Stangneth's commentary and selected quotes, which obviously you would have some objections with. It does seem from the quotes she provides that Sassen and the entire circle were disturbed by Eichmann's statements about the existence of the mass killing program and it led to their relationship becoming quite strained towards the end (you can kind of see this in the long quote provided here viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14609#p105344).

Nothing was "automatically assumed". My reasons are clearly outlined, above. If Eichmann had said "Jews were resettled", you'd have a valid claim to suggest, "he's just motivated to avoid trial or conviction"! That's the nature of testimony. We don't know the motives and we don't know if it's true.

This "testimony" is Eichmann sitting in a chair and telling a combination of truth and lies (we don't know the true proportions of either since we only have transcripts from a "Nazi journalist" who sold them for profit). The original tapes are either vanished or deliberately kept away from "deniers". Christopher Browning acknowledges that Eichmann lies in his precapture testimony. Others insist he lies in his postcapture testimony (in Israeli court).

Where does Browning say Eichmann lied (knowingly uttering an untruth)?

If Eichmann in that context had spoken of resettlement very briefly it would be evidence of that, though pretty weak. If he had spoken of it in detail, talking about where the Jews had been sent, what had happened to them during the retreat, etc, then I would consider to have much stronger evidentiary value. If corroborated by other sources, even higher evidentiary value.

The real problem, bombsaway, is that you don't feel a need for there to be bodies in a murder investigation. If there is one murder, a body is almost always needed for a conviction. But you're content with millions of alleged murders and near-zero bodies.

Assuming the bodies were destroyed, with cremains dumped in rivers, scattered in fields, or mixed with sand and buried (so they say at Sobibor, Belzec, Chelmno), what do you do then? I asked this question earlier and no one gave me an answer.

Circular reasoning. You assume liquidation always means killing when applied to humans, and then you use that as "proof" that it is never used for killing when applied to humans.

No I would say it very likely does because that's how the word was always or almost always used. Your only example from the Times isn't quoted in full, and could have been imprecise language from the writer, but assuming that meaning was clear it wouldn't change my position much because Germans used liquidation to mean killing far more frequently from what I've seen. Really I haven't seen a single example, where any other meaning is clear when referring to people.

From a document on July 24:

After the end of the war, he [Hitler] will take the rigorous stand of squeezing one city after another until the Jews came out, ready to emigrate to Madagascar or to some other Jewish national state.

The "Extermination Camps" of "Aktion Reinhardt" page 365

Clearly there was no official abandonment of the plan and Goebbels was not "out of the loop" which would be very unlikely. This also shows that there was no extermination plan even by July 24. So clearly Goebbels was not talking about killing with his "liquidation" passage on March 27.

This is from Hitler's "Table Talks" a book some posters here have questioned, which were basically dinner conversations with assorted guests whose wives were often present. Personally I don't believe it has high evidentiary value, but this is something we could talk about
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13990&start=15

Anyway, we discussed this document earlier in this thread (from Feb 1942), so I would defer to that on this topic (sent to head of the Colonial. Department of the Foreign Office, Bielfeld)

On 10 February 1942, Franz Rademacher sent to another Third Reich official a memo, stating:
"The war against the Soviet Union has in the meantime created the opportunity to use other territories for the Final Solution. Accordingly, the Führer has decided that the Jews will not be shoved to Madagascar but rather to the east. Madagascar no longer needs to be earmarked for the Final Solution."

[Hektor]

Assuming the bodies were destroyed, with cremains dumped in rivers, scattered in fields, or mixed with sand and buried (so they say at Sobibor, Belzec, Chelmno), what do you do then? I asked this question earlier and no one gave me an answer.

I can tell you what you shouldn't do. And that is asserting that your narrative is true as if it is proven. Yet that's exactly what has been done.

What should you do? For starters admit that you don't have any evidence for what you are asserting. And not simply skip the issue and use "The destroyed all evidence" as a rescue device, when you are pressed.

My answer should actually be self evident. Imagine this would be done in private criminal matters as well. You don't have a corpse, you don't have traces, you don't have physical evidence at all. But you allege that Peter killed Paul and assert that matter over and over again. You are so assertive, people believe that you must have all the evidence. They now start to think that Peter did indeed kill Paul. Only when pressed you come up with a rescue device that "Peter made Paul's corpse vanish".

Dealt with this rationally, it turns out that Peter had a conflict with Paul. That Paul wasn't that innocent in this. And that you as a friend of Paul, do have an agenda. But since you are very assertive, people don't focus on this. They believe the story. Peter trying to reconcile even admits wrong-doing there. And that's taken as an admission that he killed Paul.

In this case we are dealing with individuals, which is a less complex matter. Now imagine going on a large scale with conflicts between nations. People loose oversight there. Far easier to spread rumors now and assert things that can't be proven. Also possible to hop from one issue to the other.

It needs quite some knowledge to refute the allegation. And refutation here means something like:
1. Demonstrating lack of evidence
2. Lack of plausibility
3. Motive to lie and to manipulate.

The lesson should actually be. If you don't have evidence... Don't assert that you do have it. Don't insist that your narrative is true. At best you can demand a proper investigation. But that is for some reasons never done. What is done is figuring out who worked at a concentration camp. And then claim that he 'participated in mass murder'. That mass murder will be asserted, but never been proven of course. That's exactly how the 'war crimes trials' worked. Accuse a group of people of murdering 100.000 people at a camp. Then bring some witnesses, block exculpatory witnesses, make sure there is pressure on judges to get a guilty verdict. Make sure juicy testimony goes through the press. That's the big issue. There is no interest into punishment or justice whatsoever. Meaning the accused, if convicted, get small sentences or probation. That's what the whole matter is about.

[fireofice]

This is from Hitler's "Table Talks" a book some posters here have questioned

I have no issue with the original German. I assume Mattogno and co did their due diligence and translated from the German. If not, maybe a dedicated anti-revisionist historian will check and correct them and we will be able to see if they used the bad translation.

As for Rademacher's memo, I would just say that: "the Jews will not be shoved to Madagascar but the east" which tells us nothing about if he put it off for a later time or not. He may have just meant "they will not be shoved off to Madagascar now but later". There is nothing in the text to discount this. Goebbels says in his diary that they will be pushed to the east, then to Madagascar, which could very well line up with what this memo was getting at. "no longer needs to be earmarked for the Final Solution" means they won't currently put resources towards it. That doesn't mean they've completely written it off. Since it is highly unlikely Goebbels was out of the loop on this, this is the more likely interpretation.

Here's how Kues put it:

By July 1942 Germany still had a chance to win the war against the Soviet Union so that Himmler could have believed in earnest in the feasibility of a future transfer of the Jews out of Europe. One might perhaps argue that a deportation of the Jews to a German-controlled location east of the Urals would still have placed them within a projected (vastly expanded) Occupied Eastern Territories, but as shown by contemporary documents (see Chapter 5, point 155), it is likely that at this point in time it was still envisaged (although unofficially) that Madagascar or some similar location would serve as the ultimate destination for the Jews following a German victory, so that they would indeed be removed from the Occupied Eastern Territories

The "Extermination Camps" of "Aktion Reinhardt" page 571

And in fact, if you read point 155 on page 364, evidence is given that the "Final Solution" was meant to be implemented after the war all the way up to September 1942.

No I would say it very likely does because that's how the word was always or almost always used.

"Almost always" so you allow it sometimes doesn't? Regardless, I see no reason to believe that without circular reasoning. I've read a bit of the documents and am not convinced it has to mean that. You are just putting your own spin on things. If the Times uses it in a sense to not mean killing, why can't the Nazis? I have seen no non-circular argument for this.

because in my mind only an insane person would for weeks on end and in great detail affirm a mass killing program they knew didn't exist

Or he was practicing a strategy. I am much more justified in writing off all of his testimony as fraudulent than you are in picking and choosing what to accept from him. And in fact, it is almost certainly the case that when Eichmann told the story of the Russian U-boat engine used to gas people, that he knew it was absurd. It was definitely a purposeful message on his part to signal to people who picked up on it to silently signal "hey, this is all bullshit and you shouldn't take what I am saying seriously". This is not a small thing he got wrong. Eichmann was in a position to know how silly this was. Sorry, but just acting like this is a small detail that we can ignore is not going to work.

[Hektor]

....

because in my mind only an insane person would for weeks on end and in great detail affirm a mass killing program they knew didn't exist

Or he was practicing a strategy. I am much more justified in writing off all of his testimony as fraudulent than you are in picking and choosing what to accept from him. And in fact, it is almost certainly the case that when Eichmann told the story of the Russian U-boat engine used to gas people, that he knew it was absurd. It was definitely a purposeful message on his part to signal to people who picked up on it to silently signal "hey, this is all bullshit and you shouldn't take what I am saying seriously". This is not a small thing he got wrong. Eichmann was in a position to know how silly this was. Sorry, but just acting like this is a small detail that we can ignore is not going to work.

Now, why would he have this recorded to begin with? Selling a story makes most sense, which doesn't exclude other motives of course.

And there are plenty of examples of people asserting and affirming falsehoods over and over again. Are they all insane? Or do they perhaps other motives with this?

It is the shear volume of BS uttered at the Eichmann show trial (held in a Community Theatre) that covers for single BS-stories, it seems. The big lie, if you want. People really should listen to the video recordings (I know it's long). But even the harmless parts of the stories don't add up. It's full of tell tales promoting Jewish partisans and of course a Narrative of 'innocently suffering' there. Meanwhile Eichmann was only a small official dealing with Jewish question. And they make as if he organized everything related with the 'extermination of the Jews'. Well, he probably organized deportations or had some say in this. But so what. If one blames Eichmann, one has to blame any other government official as well. Since governments do stuff that would be criminal, if a private person would do that. They use extortion to get money from people. They deal out punishments in cases of non-compliance, they force children to attend their schools, they engage in war, they have people killed, if they deem it fit, etc. Now the modern governments are generally more elegant in all this. But let a situation arise or a conflict where there interest is at stake and you'll see what they will be doing. Also bear in mind that many countries are under the hegemony of others. Nowadays for Western Countries that's mainly the hegemony of the US-government. And what does the US-administration engage in? Lots of foreign wars. The Gulf War one of the more recent examples, but there is also lots of other 'interventions' they do. And well, they kill people in those countries. And it isn't even in the interest of the US, not at all at times.

[hermod]

because in my mind only an insane person would for weeks on end and in great detail affirm a mass killing program they knew didn't exist

Or he was practicing a strategy. I am much more justified in writing off all of his testimony as fraudulent than you are in picking and choosing what to accept from him. And in fact, it is almost certainly the case that when Eichmann told the story of the Russian U-boat engine used to gas people, that he knew it was absurd. It was definitely a purposeful message on his part to signal to people who picked up on it to silently signal "hey, this is all bullshit and you shouldn't take what I am saying seriously". This is not a small thing he got wrong. Eichmann was in a position to know how silly this was. Sorry, but just acting like this is a small detail that we can ignore is not going to work.

Or perhaps the Sassen records were just a forgery and Eichmann merely repeated the story, including the absurd details, which his goalers had told him to tell before that Israeli kangaroo court.

[Hektor]

because in my mind only an insane person would for weeks on end and in great detail affirm a mass killing program they knew didn't exist

Or he was practicing a strategy. I am much more justifie...oing to work.

Or perhaps the Sassen records were just a forgery and Eichmann merely repeated the story, including the absurd details, which his goalers had told him to tell before that Israeli kangaroo court.

It isn't off the mark, but it is possible that Eichmann did cooperate in the recordings just for the fun of it. I think there is indication that he tried to brag with what he and his former comrades were accused of. And after all, he may have gotten money for this, funds he probably desperately needed. The shear fact that he was 'wanted' would become a problem for him and his social standing. One can compensate this with more funds, though.

The other issue is the links to the intelligence services. he and other 'former Nazis' had. Not sure how concrete this is with Eichmann. But Rauff is perhaps a better known example.

https://www.haaretz.com/2007-03-29/ty-a ... f7ee420000
https://newlinesmag.com/review/the-nazi ... by-israel/

So the Israelis/Mossad tried to hire 'ex-Nazis'. For their purposes of course. It should not be surprising that they could get some cooperation out of them. How far that went was another matter. Essentially getting them say stuff they could use was sufficient for them.

[Butterfangers]

For example, some of your evidence that he's lying is he said he saw gassings at Majdanek (15+ years later he could have gotten the name of the camp wrong, it's a relatively minor detail)

LOL, talk about a leaping assumption! The man allegedly saw a gassing of human beings and it slipped his mind where he was at at the time??

Tell that to every person who remembers exactly where they were and what they were doing at the time of 9/11, JFK assassination, or any important event in their life.

Based on the testimony alone, I think there is a high likelihood he is telling the truth,

Here you go again. "I tHiNk tHeR's a HiiGh liekLeeHoOd hE's tRuTh.."

That's a lovely opinion you have there but it does not approach the realm of proof, which is what you invariably lack.

because in my mind only an insane person would for weeks on end and in great detail affirm a mass killing program they knew didn't exist (and Eichmann as one of the highest ranking members of the SS, literally in charge of department for "Jewish affairs and evacuation" would have known whether or not it did.

A person that had been immersed in media telling lies which portray his people as powerful villains, after being defeated by a sadistic enemy that now runs the world, would absolutely find motivation to tell stories which inflate the amount of harm they had inflicted upon their enemy. It isn't hard to fathom, it's just hard for you to speak honestly about.

I haven't found your reasoning compelling and general to a fault. Honestly what you provided here viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14859&start=195#p109212 sound like the kind of answers ChatGPT would give

I ran a test here and it spit out these reasons, some similar to the ones you gave

I know you think you [somehow?] have a "gotcha" moment here but I have no problem admitting that I use ChatGPT frequently nowadays (anyone who doesn't will fall behind personally and professionally). Previously, I've also admitted to using Google at times (big shock). Unfortunately, ChatGPT refuses to "deny the Holocaust" and so the vast majority of what I attempt to use it for fails in this regard. There is exactly one section which I plugged into ChatGPT for some brainstorming and inspiration, presumably what you had gathered, as shown here:

Attention-seeking: Eichmann may have wanted to draw attention to himself by making sensational claims. By 'admitting' to actions he did not commit, he could have hoped to provoke a reaction from Sassen or others who might learn of the conversation.
Empowerment/Revenge/Coping: Eichmann might have felt motivated to claim a role in "extermination" which did not actually occur, in order to strike fear into the hearts of his enemies, after a heavy and brutal defeat in WW2.
Establishing camaraderie: Eichmann might have believed that admitting to these actions would help him establish a sense of camaraderie or shared experiences with Sassen or others who held similar ideological beliefs. By doing so, he could have hoped to strengthen relationships and build alliances.

The above is after I had edited and restructured the output received from GPT (i.e. made it my own) as what it provided was not exactly relevant/accurate. What remains above is what I agreed could indeed be plausible. My goal was to provide examples of motives. Some were obvious but it's much like asking for a second opinion, which is exactly what GPT is good for.

I've been planning on starting a thread on how ChatGPT can be useful for Revisionists, despite its filters and lack of relevant training data (e.g. it has never "read" Revisionist books or materials). It can be an excellent tool for learning about the "Holocaust" narrative landscape, in general. Stay tuned.

[ChatGPT wrote:]

It is possible that Eichmann could have lied to Sassen about the existence of a genocidal program for a variety of reasons. Here are a few possibilities:

To impress Sassen: Eichmann may have felt the need to exaggerate or fabricate details about his involvement in the Holocaust in order to impress Sassen and present himself as a more important figure in Nazi history than he actually was.

To save face: Even if Eichmann was involved in the persecution and deportation of Jews, he may have wanted to downplay his role or portray himself as having acted under duress or on orders from higher authorities in order to avoid being held fully responsible for his actions.

To spread propaganda: Eichmann may have deliberately spread false information about a genocidal program in order to sow fear and confusion among potential enemies of the Nazi regime or to bolster support for the Nazi cause among sympathizers.

Notice that "to save face" doesn't make sense but the other two are entirely valid.

You're going to go to the text (800 pages or so have been uploaded) and support your statements, they're too general to even respond to and I guess I'm content to leave the matter at that. I also am unfamiliar with the text (since I don't speak German) and rely on Stangneth's commentary and selected quotes, which obviously you would have some objections with.

What are you even talking about here? What does any of this have to do with the audio, which is missing (or has prohibitory access, explicitly barring Revisionists)?

It does seem from the quotes she provides that Sassen and the entire circle were disturbed by Eichmann's statements about the existence of the mass killing program and it led to their relationship becoming quite strained towards the end (you can kind of see this in the long quote provided here viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14609#p105344).

Cool story. So, anyway, we don't have the audio. Sassen sold that transcript for big money, to Life Magazine. You admitted yourself the entire reason he took the recordings was to write a book about it (and not to retain the original audio). We don't know Sassen's motives and, most importantly, we don't know Eichmann's. We all agree he's a liar. So, what is it that he wanted us to believe?

Where does Browning say Eichmann lied (knowingly uttering an untruth)?

Browning quite clearly casts doubt on Eichmann's credibility. No one denies he's lying at trial. You seem to think him sitting in a campfire circle and relaying "extermination tales" he might have read in newspapers the day before necessarily ensures he was being truthful. What's more interesting of a story: "I shipped Jews to the East", or, "I gassed all of my enemies, for my race and my people! And I'd do it again!". You know the answer.

If Eichmann in that context had spoken of resettlement very briefly it would be evidence of that, though pretty weak. If he had spoken of it in detail, talking about where the Jews had been sent, what had happened to them during the retreat, etc, then I would consider to have much stronger evidentiary value. If corroborated by other sources, even higher evidentiary value.

You have no rational concept of "evidentiary value". You consider testimony to be on par with physical evidence and verified & relevant documentation. You won't even state otherwise because doing so invalidates your position, so you instead slip away to talk about more testimony (or more Soviet documents, undated/unsigned/unverifiable German documents, Jewish letters and diary entries).

Assuming the bodies were destroyed, with cremains dumped in rivers, scattered in fields, or mixed with sand and buried (so they say at Sobibor, Belzec, Chelmno), what do you do then? I asked this question earlier and no one gave me an answer.

Where did the fuel (wood) come from? Which river(s)? How do millions of pounds of bone chips disappear by being "scattered in fields" or "mixed with sand and buried"?

That's a whole lot of "what ifs" for a guy who claims he has proof.

Do you need to see more examples of physical evidence (or lack thereof), bombsaway? Are you sure you understand the limitations of testimonial evidence, or may we help clarify for you? Have you considered the inconsistencies between much of the testimony you endorse and the physical evidence of crimes alleged? We're here, offering our support and patience for you to be able to process this information. If you need additional resources, we are happy to assist. Worst-case scenario, we can agree to disagree, right?

[fireofice]

The other issue is the links to the intelligence services. he and other 'former Nazis' had. Not sure how concrete this is with Eichmann. But Rauff is perhaps a better known example.

Another example is Otto Skorzeny. After Israeli intelligence got to him, he essentially betrayed his former Nazi comrades and started assassinating them for Israel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr3jHiMZTFk

[Hektor]

The other issue is the links to the intelligence services. he and other 'former Nazis' had. Not sure how concrete this is with Eichmann. But Rauff is perhaps a better known example.

Another example is Otto Skorzeny. After Israeli intelligence got to him, he essentially betrayed his former Nazi comrades and started assassinating them for Israel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr3jHiMZTFk

There is no evidence that Skorzeny ever murdered any Jew as the video alleges.
Cooperation with Mossad or other intelligence services is however possible. But one should be advised that this is also a world wherein rumors, flourish, too.

And as we can see, rumors can have children as well. In this case a youtuber. One that wonders how the "Mossad could work with a NAZI".

Also be careful with info one only has some obscure sources for. And Israeli sources are obscure per (their own )definition. Even the mossad motto says that.
https://archive.ph/sBFhi

[curioussoul]

Based on the testimony alone, I think there is a high likelihood he is telling the truth, because in my mind only an insane person would for weeks on end and in great detail affirm a mass killing program they knew didn't exist

Who's to say he knew there was no extermination program? The only people who most definitely would have known that there never was an extermination program literally numbered in the single digits, and they were all dead by the time the war ended (in particular: Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich, Globocnik). Every other witness appealed to higher authority and, in my opinion, could have easily been convinced by the Allies that a secret extermination program was actually ongoing behind their backs - this notoriously includes Eichmann, who consumed Holocaust information for decades after the war and confusingly alluded to extermination after his arrest.

The most important eyewitness in this regard is Rudolf Hoess, and we know how unreliable and outright ridiculous his testimony is. If Hoess was telling the truth, his story would jive with the story given by other prominent SS leaders in Auschwitz, such as Maximilian Grabner who was head of the Political Department at the Main Camp for over 3 years, and who's testimony is so littered with falsities that he's barely mentioned by orthodox historians at all.

[bombsaway]

I have no issue with the original German. I assume Mattogno and co did their due diligence and translated from the German. If not, maybe a dedicated anti-revisionist historian will check and correct them and we will be able to see if they used the bad translation.

the problem, as you can see in the comments on the thread, is that the content of the talks themselves and the dating are questionable to some extent

"Almost always" so you allow it sometimes doesn't? Regardless, I see no reason to believe that without circular reasoning. I've read a bit of the documents and am not convinced it has to mean that. You are just putting your own spin on things. If the Times uses it in a sense to not mean killing, why can't the Nazis? I have seen no non-circular argument for this.

if liquidation is used in this manner (kill) 99.9% of the time, then I think it's much more valid to interpret this sort of usage in a document, assuming the meaning is unclear.

Or he was practicing a strategy.

What was this strategy exactly?

For example, some of your evidence that he's lying is he said he saw gassings at Majdanek (15+ years later he could have gotten the name of the camp wrong, it's a relatively minor detail)

LOL, talk about a leaping assumption! The man allegedly saw a gassing of human beings and it slipped his mind where he was at at the time??

Stress effects memory encoding. Also Eichmann (according to him) saw a lot of killings, at multiple camps with gas chambers, riding in a gas van, and at a shooting in occupied USSR. So it wasn't some singular event for him.

He could have been subconsciously effected by Soviet Propaganda about the camp (I assume that like Reitlinger, the orthodox historian he read the most thoroughly, he didn't believe it was a major extermination center) . Majdanek was also heavily associated with the Reinhard camps, and probably the most discussed and least secretive.

A person that had been immersed in media telling lies which portray his people as powerful villains, after being defeated by a sadistic enemy that now runs the world, would absolutely find motivation to tell stories which inflate the amount of harm they had inflicted upon their enemy. It isn't hard to fathom, it's just hard for you to speak honestly about.

This is contradicted by his testimony, where he constantly underplays the numbers by mainstream historians like Reitlinger (the first historian to really cover the event, he gave a death toll of ~4.5 mil) . This is evident in the 10 minute audio clip (https://ia601507.us.archive.org/12/item ... nichts.mp4) posted here.

The problem with ChatGPT and your approach is that it's not an evidence based one. ChatGPT has very limited knowledge about the Sassen conversations. I asked it some questions about specifics and it could only give me fake quotes. It hasn't digested anything more than the wikipedia summary probably. So it and you can only address the situation in generalities, some of which are contradicted even in the single audio excerpt we have.

We don't know Sassen's motives and, most importantly, we don't know Eichmann's. We all agree he's a liar.

Guilty people generally have much less reason to lie in a private setting than at trial. That's why criminals are wiretapped.

I think the only people that agree Eichmann lied (consciously uttering mistruths) in his pre-capture statements are revisionists. Where does Browning, or any other orthodox historian, say Eichmann lied in these statements?

I' think I've said my piece on the Eichmann topic, and want to move on to Transnistria. But I think it is telling that the posters here aren't united behind any version of events, with I think many assuming it was some sort of Mossad/Cia fabrication. Your interpretation (he lied continuously to the Sassen group) isn't too convincing apparently.

Where did the fuel (wood) come from? Which river(s)? How do millions of pounds of bone chips disappear by being "scattered in fields" or "mixed with sand and buried"?

Based on the archeological findings (relatively low amount of wood charcoal) and witness statements, gasoline was a major fuel source. At Belzec, Sobibor, and Chelmno the cremains were buried and have been undisturbed so the question is how might they be proven to exist to the satisfaction of revisionists. In another thread you pointed out that the Soviets could have introduced the cremains at Soldau. This would be a fairly trivial frame job yes, at any of the camps, so photos alone shouldn't do the trick.

[Butterfangers]

if liquidation is used in this manner (kill) 99.9% of the time

Please walk us through exactly how you calculated this "99.9%" figure, showing your analysis of all uses of "liquidierung" (not just those which are widely-published) by the Germans prior to and throughout WW2. I am very interested in your methodology.

The man allegedly saw a gassing of human beings and it slipped his mind where he was at at the time??

Stress effects memory encoding. Also Eichmann (according to him) saw a lot of killings, at multiple camps with gas chambers, riding in a gas van, and at a shooting in occupied USSR. So it wasn't some singular event for him.

He could have been subconsciously effected by Soviet Propaganda about the camp (I assume that like Reitlinger, the orthodox historian he read the most thoroughly, he didn't believe it was a major extermination center) . Majdanek was also heavily associated with the Reinhard camps, and probably the most discussed and least secretive.

He was stressed, therefore...

"...he could have..."
"...he could have..."
"...I assume that..."
"...probably..."

That sure is a lot of explaining away from someone who claims to defend a proven narrative.

Perhaps, as you suggest, Eichmann could have meant to tell the truth and was honestly mistaken... OR, and just hear me out... he was lying.

This is contradicted by his testimony, where he constantly underplays the numbers by mainstream historians like Reitlinger (the first historian to really cover the event, he gave a death toll of ~4.5 mil) . This is evident in the 10 minute audio clip (https://ia601507.us.archive.org/12/item ... nichts.mp4) posted here.

Him "adjusting" numbers and figures is a way to take control and place more importance on himself. "They wouldn't know, I'm the one that would know, this is what it was."

Liars also mix truth and fiction because they see it as adding to their credibility.

The problem with ChatGPT and your approach is that it's not an evidence based one. ChatGPT has very limited knowledge about the Sassen conversations. I asked it some questions about specifics and it could only give me fake quotes. It hasn't digested anything more than the wikipedia summary probably. So it and you can only address the situation in generalities, some of which are contradicted even in the single audio excerpt we have.

I didn't ask ChatGPT, "What should I say to bombsaway?". Nor did I ask it much of anything that requires actual knowledge of the Sassen conversations. I asked about potential motives of someone in Eichmann's shoes in that particular sort of conversation and, assuming Eichmann knew such things did not actually happen, what could have been his motivations to say them anyway. Those were just a few of the examples which came up immediately, some aligning with what I already had in mind.

Guilty people generally have much less reason to lie in a private setting than at trial. That's why criminals are wiretapped.

What do you know of Eichmann's "reasons to lie"? His nation is decimated, his enemy thrives, and defamation toward all that he'd known and loved circulates the entire planet and surrounds him. Can you or I really relate to that? I won't pretend to. Either you have proof of the crimes Eichmann talks about or you don't.

Why do many states/countries throw a recorded conversation out of court if it was recorded without consent? It's because sometimes people "shoot the shit" and say things for any number of reasons. You cannot assume they are delivering the truth when they don't believe they risk being held accountable in doing so. Eichmann believed he was telling a story that wouldn't be heard for many years (until after his death) but that it would ultimately be published and widely heard. In the moment, it was a conversation with peers and supporters, a captive audience who wanted a story worth telling.

I think the only people that agree Eichmann lied (consciously uttering mistruths) in his pre-capture statements are revisionists. Where does Browning, or any other orthodox historian, say Eichmann lied in these statements?

I' think I've said my piece on the Eichmann topic, and want to move on to Transnistria. But I think it is telling that the posters here aren't united behind any version of events, with I think many assuming it was some sort of Mossad/Cia fabrication. Your interpretation (he lied continuously to the Sassen group) isn't too convincing apparently.

Browning's statement was cited earlier in this thread, shown again here:

“In both precapture accounts, Eichmann’s dating is vague. Furthermore, the claims that gassing was already taking place in this first camp, or that it was Majdanek, are contrary to what we know from other sources. The precapture testimonies, in short, are helpful to neither the historian nor Eichmann’s credibility [p. 23].”

Here's a challenge from me that you seem to have ignored:

And what type of 'misuse' do you suppose [the German archive holding the 15 hours of Sassen recordings] have in mind? Please answer, and be specific.

Please answer the above, and let us know whether you feel such censorship is justified.

As for any disagreements between Revisionists on this forum, we are perfectly within reason to disagree on the how/why/what was said in the Eichmann conversation (or any other topic) without in any way compromising the Revisionist position, since it is one grounded in better-quality evidence than your own.

Your position has narrative built primarily by Jews, Soviets, and Allied officials with an axe to grind. Yet the science, the forensics, the physical evidence is firmly on the side of Revisionists and has remained so.

"Your piece" is a laughable, and you have been free to "move on to Transnistria" whenever you desire; it all depends on which topic you wish to be humiliated.

Based on the archeological findings (relatively low amount of wood charcoal) and witness statements, gasoline was a major fuel source.

"Based on the findings of a low amount of wood charcoal, it must have been gasoline. And based on the lack of Jew corpses, it must have been Jewish ghosts!

Six million Jewish ghosts brutally slaughtered by the Nazis... "

A lack of something now counts as evidence of something. Brilliant.

At Belzec, Sobibor, and Chelmno the cremains were buried and have been undisturbed so the question is how might they be proven to exist to the satisfaction of revisionists. In another thread you pointed out that the Soviets could have introduced the cremains at Soldau. This would be a fairly trivial frame job yes, at any of the camps, so photos alone shouldn't do the trick.

The Soviets occupied Soldau, engaged in mass killing everywhere they traveled, were the developers of many of the false narratives about Germany throughout and after the war.

What I would suggest with regard to Belzec, Sobibor, Chelmno, Treblinka, etc., is not complicated, nor is it asking too much. It's saying, "there are accusations of millions dead buried there---let's see if there are millions dead buried there."

You cannot claim that anyone has verified that millions (or even hundreds of thousands) are buried there. It simply has not happened. It's really that simple.

Just to wrap-up this issue regarding Eichmann, since you're intent on "moving on", I want to be clear on one thing:

If I can find at least one example of Eichmann in private conversation with another Nazi(s) where he is clearly speaking openly and says that he did not, in fact, send millions of Jews to their death at any point in time, would you say this counts as substantiation to suggest that his statements to Sassen et al might be less than 100% credible?

Please answer yes or no.

And with regard to the above as well as my question regarding the German archive's reasons in citing 'misuse' to prohibit access to Revisionists, please note that it is part of the rules of this forum that one must respond to a direct challenge (i.e. no 'dodging').

[Hektor]

....
He could have been subconsciously effected by Soviet Propaganda about the camp (I assume that like Reitlinger, the orthodox historian he read the most thoroughly, he didn't believe it was a major extermination center) . Majdanek was also heavily associated with the Reinhard camps, and probably the most discussed and least secretive.

A person that had been immersed in media telling lies which portray his people as powerful villains, after being defeated by a sadistic enemy that now runs the world, would absolutely find motivation to tell stories which inflate the amount of harm they had inflicted upon their enemy. It isn't hard to fathom, it's just hard for you to speak honestly about.

This is contradicted by his testimony, where he constantly underplays the numbers by mainstream historians like Reitlinger (the first historian to really cover the event, he gave a death toll of ~4.5 mil) . This is evident in the 10 minute audio clip (https://ia601507.us.archive.org/12/item ... nichts.mp4) posted here.
....

So what were Reitlinger's evidences, what was his method in approaching the matter?
It gets a 'meet in the middle'-fallacy. When people hear 1 million they find that number high and then turn to 'perhaps 500.000'... that sounds more realistic. But it still assumes there still being a policy in that direction.

The thing is that the 'extermination of 5 million Jews' was already in the News. Lots of articles alleging this and this spread like a rumor as well. So people involved in the NS-state would definitely have discussed the matter. E.g. how it was possible that this happened (without them knowing). If something is talked about long enough and repetitively. People start believing it. Simply because you can't feasibly prove the negative.

That's also how the 'No Nazi ever denied the Holocaust'-Myth came about. That's not true of course. But most of those that had higher positions in the NS-State would say that they didn't know about this. Saying this never happened required knowledge they in all probability didn't have. If 'the Nazis landed on the moon' hypothesis was given, they couldn't say that didn't happen neither. All they could say would be that they did not know about it. But it wasn't postulated.

[fireofice]

the problem, as you can see in the comments on the thread, is that the content of the talks themselves and the dating are questionable to some extent

Well Richard Evans acknowledged that it is authentic, and he no doubt checked the original German if he is willing to acknowledge something that goes against his position is real.

On July 25, 1942, Hitler said to his associates “After this war is over, I will hold to the view…that the Jews will have to leave and emigrate to Madagascar or some other Jewish national state.” Evans claimed that once again Hitler was using camouflaged language to describe his plan to exterminate the Jews.

https://codoh.com/library/document/holo ... en/?page=2

Of course, this is a pretty ridiculous attempt on Evans' part to protect the extermination story. Pretty ironic coming from someone who accuses others of intentional distortion.

My view on the table talks is pretty similar to the one given in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8EWd-IH6HI

Regardless, Hitler's statement is pretty well corroborated:

September 1942, “Directives for the treatment of the Jewish question”: “All measures about the Jewish question in the occupied Eastern territories have to be taken while considering that the Jewish question will be generally solved for the whole of Europe after the war. They have to be designed as preparatory partial measures and need to be reconciled with the other decisions taken in this matter.”

The "Extermination Camps" of "Aktion Reinhardt" page 365

Of course, this doesn't explicitly mention Madagascar, but it corroborates what the Table Talks record Hitler as saying. We can make a pretty good inference that Madagascar is at least one of the possible destinations that they are thinking about based on Hitler's recorded words.

What was this strategy exactly?

A strategy to put the blame on Hitler, although imperfectly executed. Although what I propose is certainly not the only possibility. Butterfangers gave some good possibilities as well.

it was a conversation with peers and supporters, a captive audience who wanted a story worth telling.

I agree, this a good possibility. Although some would probably retort that the peers wanted him to deny the holocaust, and he let them down by doing so and therefore wasn't playing to them. My response to that would simply be that he gave them what he thought would be a more interesting story than what they initially came for. As you said, "I gassed my racial enemies for my race and nation, and I'd do it again" is more interesting of a story than "yeah we sent some Jews to camps and that's pretty much it". Also, Eichmann's defense in his trial was that he was engaging in "pub talk" and was drinking wine.

[curioussoul]

Please walk us through exactly how you calculated this "99.9%" figure, showing your analysis of all uses of "liquidierung" (not just those which are widely-published) by the Germans prior to and throughout WW2. I am very interested in your methodology.

He's not very careful with his words (or very serious in his arguments, for that matter). The Germans routinely used the word "liquidate" for rather innocuous purposes in official documents, such as with the liquidation of the Jewish ghettos in Poland. Liquidating the ghettos didn't mean the inhabitants were murdered. On the contrary, they were all gathered up and deported eastwards.

The same sort of thing applies to Hitler's infamous "prophesy", which was repeated many times not only by Hitler himself but also by Goebbels, Himmler, etc. Hitler claimed that if the Jews were to initiate another world war, it would "not mean the annihilation of the German people, but the annihilation of the Jews in Europe" (something to that effect). This statement was repeated many times by Hitler with varying phraseology, yet no serious historian actually believes Hitler was referring to genociding the Jews, let alone in public speeches. In some versions of the speech, Hitler explicitly uses the wording "the annihilation of the Jewish role in Europe" or "finance Jewry in Europe". Yet, the ominous word "annihilation" really has nothing to do with physically murdering all the Jews, just as "liquidation" didn't always mean murder, let alone "99.9% of the time".