Eichmann tapes

[grettir]

A jew sent me a link to this article in the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -Jews.html

as the supposed evidence to remove all doubt. I wonder if anyone here has dug up any information on the Eichmann recordings? I am also curious about why they should be trotted out now.

[Hans]

The existence of those recordings is well known and reworked extracts of the interviews were already published in 1960 in LIFE and Stern magazines:

http://www.einsatzgruppenarchives.com/trials/profiles/confession.html

Some studys on Eichmann cite directly from the recordings and also a short recording has been posted at youtube, where Eichmann says if the 10.3 Million European Jews listed in Korherr report had been killed, they would have fulfilled their task:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwoS1WN8MKM

All in all those interviews are not so nice for Revisionism, especially since they were not conducted by investigators or a Jew (buhh!) but by a National Socialist himself and while Eichmann was in freedom.

[The Warden]

So the proof of mass murders is a statement saying they didn't accomplish murdering millions of people?

[grettir]

Hans,
Many thanks for your references which confirm my understanding.

To the Warden,
Yup. That's about the size of it : claims of hard fact which dissolve in a mist of interpretation.


Really helpful, I wish I had joined long ago

[Wings]

I have not looked in to this yet, so, not having time to answer my own questions about it, I would like to put a few questions here -


A) When were these interview tapes supposedly made, in relation to Eichman's kidnapping and removal to Israel? And how is the date of their having been made verifiable or verified?

B) How do we know it is even Eichman who is heard on the tapes?

C) Does the voice and manner of speaking in fact even resemble that seen of Eichman during the preserved Sound Films of his 'trial'?

D) If the content of the interviews appear to provide the 'evidence' of intentions or deeds
which were and which continue to be entirely absent and entirely lacking in all other areas of investigation and existence and authentication, then it would indeed seem oddly convenient to the interest of his enemies, that this were to be so. So "D" is then the question of does it seem odd to you ( anyone - plural you, ) who compares the things said in the interviews, with all other known records or artefacts or internal Nazi paperwork and official ledgers and everything else, or any and all actual authentic evidence of the time period in question?

[Hans]

So the proof of mass murders is a statement saying they didn't accomplish murdering millions of people?

Who was saying that it is?

The statement Eichmann gives in this short recording means essentially that they had the task to wipe out the European Jewry and that killing - even of non-combatant groups such as children or women - was a valid and allowed method, and that even the killing of each single European Jew would have been an accepted policy.

This is of course incompatible with most Revisionist views on National Socialist anti-jewish policy, where the idea of killing of non-combatant Jews is virtually not existing.

But indeed there are also statements in the interviews which are even more contradicting Revisionist dogmas, for instance about the reality of homicidal gassing (see the LIFE extracts) or that he acknowledges some guilt that the "the concept of total elimination" was not carried out succesfully as intented by some authorities or himself (see Wojaks study).

[The Warden]

Hans, you're always good for a laugh.

I think, "ESSENTIALLY", what it says it that not only was the practice never established, but its acceptability was never formatted either.
As an added bonus, it was never carried out, which seems a lot more damaging to the standard storyline rather than any Revisionist work I've read.

But I guess when you're on the other side of the aisle, you have to read into everything to make the story seem believable.

[Kageki]

The tapes themselves are suspect.

Even if he did admit to gas chambers he explained that it was exaggerated because Auschwitz was a labor camp after all. The way I interpret that it wasn't 6 million so believers would have to at least concede on the figure.

He talks about all sorts of things because it's a lengthy interview and I read the entirety of it that appeared in LIFE magazine. He mentions Kastner for instance that clearly shows the collaboration between Zionist Jews and Nazis. Believers have yet to acknowledge how it was the Zionists that sold out the Jews. Then there is the whole submarine engine nonsense.

We're not even sure of it's authenticity anyways and it's frankly pathetic believers need to cling on to more testimonies like this to support the Holocaust.

[grettir]

I start from a certainty that the jew stories are an impossibility. Surely looking to Life magazine as a source is even weaker than accepting Soviet paper at Nuremberg. But this makes the Eichmann tapes and memoirs more interesting. How were they constructed? How many versions? Why not published in full?
Butz and Harwood make reasonable comments.

[stefanob]

I took a peek at the link above to einsatzgruppenarchives.com

Eichmann says that he never saw an Auschwitz gas chamber, and the only actual mass murder evedences he saw are extremely unlikely, because he talks about charred bodies. Charred bodies don't disappear, the Holocaust requires incinerated bodies... he seems to fumble upon typical Holocaust statements which we have debunked so many times. It really seems to me he is sending out fiction. However we know he wasn't jailed at the time of the recordings... any idea about his possible motivations?

P.S. Is there any in-depth text about these tapes available? I want to know more.

[Hannover]

The Eichmann tapes are old news for Revisionists, they have handled them with ease, as usual. Here's some of my earlier posts on the matter.

Additional info. about Eichmann.

Here is some critical information about Eichmann which I have taken from some of my previous posts on the subject.

The alleged Sassen recordings have never been released for scrutiny. Why not? Why should we believe edited and alleged excerpts that were printed in Life magazine but the alleged tapes never released. What are they hiding?

Taken from the recently released Eichmann 'diaries' :

[5] AE: 1 P.S "It just isn't so easy as a prisoner to give a manuscript of oneself, which is then first submitted to censorship; one doesn't feel free enough; this must be taken into account. If it were only a reader's censorship; or if I were back, then it would surely be easier for me as a writer".

- "Es ist eben doch nicht so leicht, als Gefangener ein Manuskript von sich zu geben, welches dann erst noch einer Zensur unterzogen wird; da fühlt man sich beim Schreiben nicht frei genug; dies muß man berücksichtigen. Wäre es nur eine „Lektorenzensur"; oder wäre ich zurück, dann würde es sicherlich für mich als Skribent einfacher sein."

The story of six million Jews exterminated during the war was given final authority at the Nuremberg Trials by the statement of Dr. Wilhelm Hoettl. He had been an assistant of Eichmann's, but was in fact a rather strange person in the service of American Intelligence who had written several books under the pseudonym of Walter Hagen. Hoettl also worked for Soviet espionage, collaborating with two Jewish emigrants from Vienna, Perger and Verber, who acted as U.S. officers during the preliminary inquiries of the Nuremberg Trials. It is remarkable that the testimony of this highly dubious person Hoettl is said to constitute the only "proof' regarding the murder of six million Jews. In his affidavit of November 26th, 1945 he stated, not that he knew but that Eichmann had "told him" in August 1944 in Budapest that a total of 6 million Jews had been exterminated. Needless to say, Eichmann never corroborated this claim at his trial. Hoettl was working as an American spy during the whole of the latter period of the war, and it is therefore very odd indeed that he never gave the slightest hint to the Americans of a policy to murder Jews, even though he worked directly under Heydrich and Eichmann.
========================
But then, when interrogated separately Eichmann even offers substantiation for the six-million claim - he says he's worked out the numbers from reading ***Jewish almanacs***, he persistently rejects the accusation that he was the organizer of the "Final Solution" or the "flywheel of the extermination machine." Indeed, Eichmann scored some telling points. Why carry several weeks provisions, footgear, and blankets, as one deportation order provides, if the deportees are to be gassed as soon as they alight, is Eichmann's plaintive question, to which Less (Israeli interrogator) has no good reply.

It gets worse:

Hoettl later confided in a published letter that the '6,000,000' account was a lie....which he had claimed to have heard from Eichmann.
========================

Tom Segrev, Jewish reporter:

"The government of Israel has always been afraid that the Eichmann book would compete with the verdict of the court"

After Gideon Hausner, the prosecutor in the Eichmann trial, cautioned that publication of the memoirs could compete with the verdict, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion ordered the manuscript locked away for 15 years at which time that decision would be reviewed. "But the decision was not reviewed and the document continued to remain under lock.

Eichmann was very meticulous in his recording and refers to some sketches and diagrams. One of the diagrams outlines the Gestapo hierarchy with Eichmann being near the bottom.

see: Los Angeles Times, Feb.29, 2000

from: Eichmann Interrogated, transcripts from the Archives of the Israeli Police, edited by Jochen von Lang in collaboration with Claus Sibyll. Translated from the German by Ralph Manheim. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, New York, 1983, 293pp:

Eichmann claims to have witnessed mass slaughter on a grand scale at Auschwitz in the fall of 1941, where the camp commandant, Rudolf Hoess, informed him that the great, factory- like buildings, the chimneys of which belch smoke, are "working to capacity: Ten thousand!" This months before the Auschwitz crematoria were constructed, let alone in use.

Eichmann talks of Treblinka - but then he's not sure if it's Treblinka - where gassings are being carried out with a submarine engine; places near Minsk and Lemberg, where mass shootings are taking place (including one mass grave from which "blood was gushing out ... like a geyser," although it had already been filled in); and again Treblinka (this time there's no doubt: phony railway station and all) where gassings are being carried out with the insecticide Zyklon-B. The gushering geysers are a nice touch, and jibe well with the propensity of other "Holocaust" mass graves to quake and spew forth blood, sometimes for months after the killings; Treblinka, however, is supposed not to have been functioning as an extermination center until the summer of 1942, nor was Zyklon-B ever claimed to have been employed there.

Eichmann even offers substantiation for the six-million claim-he says he's worked out the numbers from reading ***Jewish almanacs***, he persistently rejects the accusation that he was the organizer of the "Final Solution" or the "flywheel of the extermination machine." Indeed, Eichmann is allowed to score occasionally some telling points. Why carry several weeks provisions, footgear, and blankets, as one deportation order provides, if the deportees are to be gassed as soon as they alight, is Eichmann's plaintive question, to which Less has no good reply.

so called 'holocaust historian' rejects Eichmann testimony:

An interesting letter on Eichmann by Paul Grubach. Here we see that the 'holocaust' Industry's own have rejected Eichmann's 'testimonies

excerpt:

Mark Roseman:

"Eichmann, for his part, was at pains to establish a clear set of orders that absolved him of responsibility."

"Adolf Eichmann spoke more openly, but his testimony is unreliable, particularly on his own aspirations, concerned as he was to portray himself as a dutiful errand boy, with neither initiation nor knowledge."

"Both Rudolf Hoess's and Eichmann's testimonies lack credibility."

Grubach:

"On pages 97-98, he claims that Eichmann invented false claims. Then, on page 104, he again claims that Eichmann's defense strategy "was to establish that his superiors had given clear killing orders."

full text:
http://fpp.co.uk/Letters/History_03/Grubach230103.html

On Eichmann's diaries, Charles M. Sennott, Boston Globe, March 1, 2000, included this little tid-bit of information:

"From this self-absorbed focus on his own death he shifted easily to explaining in graphic detail how, in the death camps, ' ''round cotton wool filters were soaked with this poison and thrown into the rooms where the Jews were assembled. The poison was instantly fatal.''

In the New York Times we had:

"There was also concerns about the impact of publication on perceptions of the Holocaust. An Israel panel decided to release last summer the memoirs, but in annotated scholarly edition that, it was hoped, would put Eichmann's assertions in perspective and prevent their use to discredit the verdict" [of his trial].

This latest revelation citing Eichmann's account of the poison being 'soaked into wool fibers' would be one of those things that would have to be put "in perspective" since we all know that Zyklon-B was supposed to have been in the form of fumigation pellets and not some liquid as Eichmann's account states.

The original German, on page 235, reads:

Hoess, der Kommandant sagte mir, daß er mit Blausäure, töte. Runde Pappfilze waren mit diesem Giftstoff getränkt und wurden in die Räume geworfen, worin die Juden versammelt wurden. Dieses Gift wirkte sofort tötlich.

translation:

"Hoess, the Kommandant, told me that he used **sulphuric acid** to kill. Round cotton wool filters were soaked with this poison and thrown into the rooms where the Jews were assembled. The poison was instantly fatal.

But then in a different version we read:

The commandant, Hoess, told me that he used **prussic acid** to kill. Round wood-fibre discs were impregnated with this poison, and then thrown into the spaces where the Jews were gathered. The poison killed immediately.

The problem is, everyone from the sanitation officers on up claim that the insecticide, Zyklon-B, was a gypsum composite. And of course, survivors all insist it was "crystals" of various hues; blue, green, mauve, take your pick.

So in other words, Eichmann's testimony here goes against the other 'testimonies' about Zyklon-B at Auschwitz, which themselves contain vast contradictions. It sure is hard keeping the lies straight.

On his alleged pre-arrest 'memoirs', well...these 'memoirs' also have him describing himself as being more of a Zionist than an SS officer, right...sure.

Eichmann clearly copy-catted now debunked material given him:
- He refers to reading the 'holocaust' Industry's Reitlinger for 'information'.
- He had a heavily annotated copy of the discreditied Hoess memoirs, published in Germany in 1957.
- His preposterous statements that diesel submarine motors were used in gas chambers and that the hair of the victims was used to make slippers are from the bogus Gerstein claims. Gerstein's affidavit became very widely known right after the war. Gerstein made many different & absurdly conflicting 'confessions' as has been demonstrated by Frenchman Henri Rocques.
- Eichmann claims being ordered to go to Lemberg:

"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".

Which was taken from laughable testimony at the Einsatzgruppen Show Trials of 1947.

When a man is kidnapped, held in solitary confinement, and fighting for his life it's not difficult to see why he would say just about anything.

We must also ask how the accusers can conduct a trial of the accused? It is necessarily a bogus, unfair trial.

And then we're back to the fact that there is no physical evidence, no documentary evidence, and the 'extermination' methods as alleged are scientifically impossible.

for more:
http://vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/6/2/OKeefe237-240.html

- Hannover

[Hannover]

and this gem from yours truly:

Eichmann claims being ordered to go to Lemberg:

"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".

Gee, where did he get that from ?

Elie Wiesel claimed that at Babi Yar, a place in the Ukraine where the Germans allegedly executed 34,000 Jews:

Later, I learn from a witness that, for month after month, the ground never stopped trembling; and that, from time to time, geysers of blood spurted from it.

Paroles d'étranger (Editions du Seuil, 1982), p. 86

This is too easy.

- Hannover

[polishheritage]

The existence of those recordings is well known and reworked extracts of the interviews were already published in 1960 in LIFE and Stern magazines:

http://www.einsatzgruppenarchives.com/trials/profiles/confession.html

Some studys on Eichmann cite directly from the recordings and also a short recording has been posted at youtube, where Eichmann says if the 10.3 Million European Jews listed in Korherr report had been killed, they would have fulfilled their task:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwoS1WN8MKM

All in all those interviews are not so nice for Revisionism, especially since they were not conducted by investigators or a Jew (buhh!) but by a National Socialist himself and while Eichmann was in freedom.

Many people here have already answered your questions and thoroughly refuted you, but let me give you a little more information on this already addressed topic. http://www.codoh.com/viewpoints/vppgsym.html

Quote- In this 2004 book, Browning gently offers this cautionary caveat about the value of Eichmann’s testimony: “As with any detailed eyewitness testimonies after so many years, Eichmann’s various accounts differ from one another and are not free of puzzling contradictions with other evidence.”3
...
Even Browning’s colleagues, the mainstream historians of the Final Solution, are very skeptical about Eichmann’s testimonials, for he admitted: "When I [Browning] have suggested to my colleagues that we must take seriously Eichmann's repeated testimony to the effect that he learned from Heydrich in the fall of 1941 of Hitler's order for the physical destruction of the Jews, I have met with either embarrassed silence or open skepticism. How can I be so gullible? Don't I know that Eichmann's testimony is a useless conglomeration of faulty memories on the one hand and calculated lies for legal defense and self-justification on the other? From it we can learn nothing of value about what actually happened during the war, only about Eichmann's state of mind after the war. These are documents that reveal how Eichmann wished to be remembered, not what he did [pp. 4-5]."

In 2003, Browning concluded: “Clearly, anyone who wants to dismiss Eichmann’s testimonies on the grounds of their demonstrated unreliability and shameless self-serving lies can easily do so, and many of my colleagues have done precisely this [p.11].”
...
In his precapture statements, Eichmann claimed that he saw the alleged homicidal gas chambers of Majdanek, a concentration camp in Poland. Browning informed his readers in 2003 that these “observations” are not credible: “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].” In plain language, Eichmann never saw the “gas chambers” he claimed to have seen at Majdanek.

end quote.

http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=5262

So just to summarize Eichmann's precapture "testimony" is worthless as it contains so many errors and contradictions that it can be just completely ignored!

[grettir]

Ah Hannover, you are very, very good.

It would be wonderful if a little team could be formed to write up your points comprehensively.

Today we can say, Once upon a time you spread lies about Dachau, why should we listen to your Treblinka stories? Likewise we can say, You quote Gerstein, but the whole of what is attributed is obvious rubbish and possible fabrication, now why should I be made to bother with yet another supposed confession. The Eichmann tapes are different. Their necessary fraudulence must lead directly to the fabricators. If we could do for the Eichmann tapes what has been done for the Dachau fable and Gerstein's "report", it would be another big nail in the coffin. And it would spare me the annoyance of being asked to respond to smug childishness.

[nathan]

HANNOVER asks:

The alleged Sassen recordings have never been released for scrutiny. Why not?

That is the question. Where are they? The few surviving recordings, according to Irving, were at some point purchased from Eichmann’s family by a Swiss weekly Die Weltwoche. I assume someone must long ago have made Weltwoche a generous offer. Eichmann repeatedly challenged the Prosecution to play back the recordings, so evidently they did not have them. The tapes are the basis of various published pre-capture writings which seem unlikely to be accurate verbatim transcripts. The two sentences in the Hans Youtube clip are the only ones I have ever heard.


Hans Youtube clip:

Und aus diesen Motivierungen heraus mussen Sie verstehen wenn ich sage: "Wenn 10,3 Millionen dieser Gegner getötet worden wären, dan hätten wir unsere Aufgabe erfüllt."
[interruption] Nun das nicht so ist, werde ich Ihnen sagen, dass das Leid und das Ungemach unserer noch nicht Gebohrenen zu gestehen habe. Vielleicht werden sie uns verfluchen.

“And based on this motivation you must understand when I say: "If 10,3 million of these adversaries had been killed, we would have completed our task.". [interruption by irritating German historian] Since that is not the case, I tell you, we have to answer for the misery and pain of our as yet unborn children. Perhaps they will curse us.

From the Jerusalem trial:

Q In 1957 you also said the following - pay attention: "No, I have no regrets at all, and I am not eating humble pie at all. In the four months during which you have recorded the whole matter, during which you have endeavoured to refresh my memory, a great deal has been refreshed...it would be too easy, and I could perfectly reasonably, for the sake of current opinion, play a role as if a Saul had turned into a Paul. But I must tell you that I cannot do that, because I am not prepared to, because my innermost being refuses to say that we did something wrong. No - I must tell you quite honestly that if, of the 10.3 million Jews shown by Korherr, as we now know, we had killed 10.3 million, then I would be satisfied and I would say all right, we have destroyed an enemy."
Is that what you said?
ACCUSED No I did not say that, I did not say that at all. That has been patched together from a mixture of fact and fiction.....

From Hunting Eichmann by Neil Bascomb:

No, I must tell you quite honestly that if, of the 10.3 million Jews shown by Korherr we had killed (all) 10.3 million, then I would be satisfied and I would say all right, we have destroyed an enemy.

Since the majority of these Jews stayed alive through a trickery of fate, I tell myself that's what fate had intended, and I have to subordinate myself to fate and providence. We would have fulfilled our duty for our blood, for our people, and for the liberty of all people, if we had destroyed the most cunning spirit of today's mankind.

Since that is not the case, I will tell you that our children will have to deal with the agony and misfortune of our failure, and maybe they will curse us

Korherr must have been mentioned in this conversation somewhere, but not within the often quoted sentence. The Jerusalem Court omits, or does not have, Bascomb’s second and third paragraph, which shows Eichmann in no good light but does claim that a majority of the Jews had survived. The irritating interruption on Youtube may represent an excision of the second paragraph. Talking to his fellow anti-Semite Sassen, Eichmann suggests that the survival of so manyJews would be a misfortune for Germany’s unborn. But the The Life magazine edition brings in a passage where he says Jews are a superior race. It is probably something he did actually say. In his racist heart Eichman probably did feel that the Jews were a superior “race” - not because of their long development or their high level of culture, as he claims, but simply because they had won. In the true Nazi perspective those who survive thereby prove they are fittest to do so