BA's case for orthodoxy

[bombsaway]

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

Why didn't he tell the truth?

What difference would that make?

Why have revisionists devoted millions of words to the subject and endured so much persecution while sticking to their ideals (the sad case of Vincent R attests to this)?

I assume you believe that your arguments are good and eventually people will see the light and the history books will be rewritten.

In the 1950s the evidence for the Holocaust was weaker than it is today. The West German Trials hadn't happened yet, and a lot of documents that are important to orthodox case hadn't yet been discovered or presented by historians. The first truly cohesive narrative about the Holocaust (Hilberg 61) hadn't been written yet.

Eichmann, as one of the main officials in charge of Jewish evacuation and resettlement would have had inside info unknown to both revisionist and orthodox historians (eg from the revisionist perspective, he would have details about what happened to the unregistered non-employable Jews who arrived at Auschwitz)

At this point I don't think a serious revisionist argument had even been presented (Rassinier, early 60s was the first I think). Assuming orthodox claims were groundless, Eichmann would have been pretty foolhardy to believe that there was no chance he could succeed. This was Sassen's motivation in setting up the interview (and if things had worked out, it probably would have made him rich to boot).

[Hektor]

Revisionists have dedicated quite some arguments and texts to the question. True that general Holocaust Believe was quite weaker in the 1950s. But that also means there is less to be concerned about. My guess would be that a lot of people didn't really take the allegations made around 1945 to seriously afterwards. In Allied countries it may have been seen as a 'noble lie' and in Germany many may still have realized that it was 'war propaganda'. Those people had however other issues to pay their attention to. E.g. rebuilding their lives, their firms, their houses, their social life. Some aspect of history is a specialty era. Not many going into this. And many didn't really grasp the relevance the subject still was going to have.

Doubts were there always. But Germans are not prone to assert things without being knowledgeable and having prove on a subject. So all you will get there is that they did not know about it, since they didn't observe it. They won't say it didn't happen, since it may have happened elsewhere. That makes it easier for ruthless accusers of course. They would say stuff without proof, e.g. the Holocaust Allegations. Given the assertiveness this is done by, many people are prone to believe in this then. Because they can't imagine somebody outrightly lying about this.

But again. It's fairly irrelevant what people say and how sincere they are in it. What is relevant is what is (or what was in this case).

[fireofice]

Assuming orthodox claims were groundless, Eichmann would have been pretty foolhardy to believe that there was no chance he could succeed.

It's called weighing options. There doesn't have to be "no chance" a strategy can succeed to choose not to do it. All that is required is that you think one strategy has a better chance of succeeding than another. For whatever reasons, Eichmann thought what he did would have a better chance of success than another option. He may have seen the propaganda and seen the writing on the wall on where this was all going. And that's all the explanation needed. You really have nothing to say otherwise. And as already mentioned, he was an attention seeking person. Lots of people make voluntary confessions to crimes that didn't happen, one motive being attention seeking. You acting like voluntary false confessions are this bizarre thing that doesn't happen is completely without merit. It happens all the time.

Alternatively, people sometimes confess to a notorious crime because of the attention they receive from such a confession. About 250 people confessed to the 1932 kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby which received headlines around the world. Approximately 500 people confessed to the murder of Elizabeth Short (known as the "Black Dahlia") in 1947 which also received enormous media attention—some of those who confessed were not even born when she died.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_confession

Frankly, with all the buzz surrounding the extermination story, I'm surprised there weren't more false confessions that weren't made in the context of a defense strategy. The fact that there aren't way more is a problem for you, not me.

And on top of all that, we know he said false things to Sassen. So how can you act like a false confession can't be the case here when he literally said false things in his confession? That is the definition of a false confession, but somehow he can't be making one. Instead you resort to unproven and frankly absurd psychoanalysis that he "misremembered" big things that someone in a position he was in would know was false, but special pleading in a way that doesn't apply to the whole thing. Whereas my conclusion, he was lying, is much simpler and supported by the fact that we know false confessions exist.

[fireofice]

Eichmann was literally on the run and hiding out in Argentina to avoid capture. So while holocaust propaganda wasn't as strong then as later, from Eichmann's perspective, it was still pretty strong. It's rather silly to take the perspective of the population at large and project that onto someone who is literally a fugitive based on these claims.

[bombsaway]

It's called weighing options. There doesn't have to be "no chance" a strategy can succeed to choose not to do it. All that is required is that you think one strategy has a better chance of succeeding than another. For whatever reasons, Eichmann thought what he did would have a better chance of success than another option. He may have seen the propaganda and seen the writing on the wall on where this was all going. And that's all the explanation needed. You really have nothing to say otherwise. And as already mentioned, he was an attention seeking person. Lots of people make voluntary confessions to crimes that didn't happen, one motive being attention seeking. You acting like voluntary false confessions are this bizarre thing that doesn't happen is completely without merit. It happens all the time.

You provide no substantiation of what "it happens all the time" means, but I'll take a bite.

According to studies it happens 7-16% of the time during interrogation https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... a-analysis

These are 'coerced' however. The prevalence in other situations would be lower still, with the lowest coming in private settings like where the Sassen interviews were conducted. The prevalence of confessions that are heavily substantiated by the confessor (Eichmann spent spoke of a genocidal plan in great detail over a period of many sessions) are lower still. The fact that Sassen clearly desired Eichmann to corroborate the revisionist narrative (social pressure was pushing Eichmann the other way) makes it even less likely.

Finally, unlike people awaiting trial, Eichmann had little to lose. He was already a fugitive living under a fake name and assumed guilty by most of the world.

So on the face of it, since there is no strong evidence he made a false confession (eg some writing of his surfaced that contradicted his other accounts), this possibility cannot be considered likely. While we can't say there is a 100% chance Eichmann was telling the truth or the interviews are authentic (then this alone would prove the orthodox narrative), all revisionist explanations that have been offered thus far are improbable for various reasons. So it is strong evidence, the kind that doesn't really exist for the revisionist side.

Eg we can examine what they have offered for resettlement https://codoh.com/library/document/evid ... in-the/en/

This would be mostly unsourced newspaper articles emanating from Nazi controlled countries, and witnesses speaking of rumors of Jews being killed in places where maybe they weren't supposed to be.

I think a comparative study is useful because if you are applying a sufficiently high level of skepticism, any piece of evidence can seem questionable. What I would ask of people here is to try to be as objective possible when doing these evaluations.

[fireofice]

So on the face of it, since there is no strong evidence he made a false confession

There absolutely is. The physical evidence contradicts it. He made absurd statements that I've already pointed out. That is strong evidence it is a false confession.

The prevalence in other situations would be lower still, with the lowest coming in private settings like where the Sassen interviews were conducted.

The prevalence drastically increases with attention seeking individuals regarding a famous event (I've already demonstrated this) and with people who make false claims in their "confession". If you really want to make this a probability thing, the context surrounding Eichmann and Eichmann's statements themselves makes this extremely likely to be a false confession.

[Hektor]

One can not go by hearsay and statements. You need to have physical evidence for what is said. And yes: False confessions are common. Plenty of examples on this in the Literature. Just not with 'the Holocaust'. There any statement fitting the narrative become 'true', because someone said so.

[Butterfangers]

The prevalence of confessions that are heavily substantiated by the confessor (Eichmann spent spoke of a genocidal plan in great detail over a period of many sessions) are lower still.

I unfortunately do not have the time to get too immersed in all of this again but, wow, he's still going...

bombsaway seems to forget there are people who write entire books about the "Holocaust" filled with claims of everything from masturbation machines, rollercoasters of death, piles of burning babies -- you name it. Others tour elementary schools across the nation(s) for years at a time to tell/sell the same kind of stories. The "Holocaust" is and always has been "big business". The liars surely have their motives as individuals for making the claims that they do but, perhaps, one outcome they all desire in common is that... others react to their stories.

bombsaway says that because he thinks it is improbable that Eichmann would do this (which he's informed us of repeatedly, despite clear evidence to the contrary laid out in this thread), that he's somehow made a compelling "case for orthodoxy".

If Eichmann told an elaborate, extraordinary story about slimy aliens landing in his backyard and probing his dog, would you believe him? Even if he told the story over the course of multiple meetings?

• Betty and Barney Hill: In September 1961, Betty and Barney Hill reported being abducted by aliens in rural New Hampshire. Over the years, they underwent hypnosis to recall details of their experience and remained consistent in their claims. The Hills' story is one of the most famous and well-documented alien abduction cases.
• Travis Walton: Travis Walton, an American logger, claimed to have been abducted by aliens in November 1975 while working in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in Arizona. Walton disappeared for five days, and his story was later turned into a book and a movie, "Fire in the Sky." He has continued to defend his claims in interviews and conferences.
• Whitley Strieber: Whitley Strieber, a well-known author, claimed to have been abducted by aliens in December 1985 at his cabin in upstate New York. Strieber wrote a book about his experiences, "Communion," which became a bestseller. He has continued to discuss his encounters in various interviews, conferences, and other media appearances.
• Bob Lazar: Bob Lazar, a controversial figure in the UFO community, claimed in 1989 that he had worked on reverse engineering alien technology at a site called S-4, near Area 51 in Nevada. Lazar has maintained his story in numerous interviews and documentaries, including "Bob Lazar: Area 51 & Flying Saucers" (2018).
• Jim Penniston and John Burroughs: In December 1980, United States Air Force servicemen Jim Penniston and John Burroughs were involved in the Rendlesham Forest incident in the UK. They claimed to have encountered a triangular-shaped craft with hieroglyphic-like symbols. Over the years, they have continued to share their experiences in interviews and documentaries, including "The Rendlesham Forest Incident: Britain's Roswell" (2014).
• Charles Hickson and Calvin Parker: In October 1973, Charles Hickson and Calvin Parker reported being abducted by aliens while fishing on the Pascagoula River in Mississippi. They both underwent hypnosis to recover details of their experience and continued to defend their claims in interviews and media appearances until Hickson's death in 2011. Parker has since written a book about the encounter, "Pascagoula: The Closest Encounter."
• Antonio Villas Boas: Antonio Villas Boas, a Brazilian farmer, claimed to have been abducted by aliens in October 1957 while working in his fields. According to his account, he was taken aboard an alien spacecraft, where he had a physical encounter with a female alien. Villas Boas continued to defend his claims until his death in 1991.
• George Adamski: George Adamski was a prominent contactee in the 1950s and 1960s who claimed to have had multiple encounters with aliens from Venus. Adamski authored several books on his experiences, including "Flying Saucers Have Landed" (1953) and "Inside the Space Ships" (1955). He continued to discuss his alleged encounters until his death in 1965.
• Billy Meier: Eduard Albert "Billy" Meier is a Swiss man who claims to have had ongoing contact with extraterrestrial beings from the Pleiades star cluster since the 1970s. Meier has published numerous books, photographs, and films related to his encounters, and he has a dedicated following. Critics argue that Meier's evidence is fabricated, but he continues to defend his claims.
• Jesse Marcel: Jesse Marcel was a U.S. Army intelligence officer involved in the 1947 Roswell incident. He claimed to have handled debris from a crashed extraterrestrial spacecraft. Marcel maintained his story until his death in 1986 and has been supported by his son, Jesse Marcel Jr., who also claimed to have seen the debris.

Personally, bombsaway, I think it is highly improbable that these people would stick with their story for so long. I cannot understand their motives, therefore I will simply declare that I find it improbable that they are lying. This means I win the argument about aliens.

The fact that Sassen clearly desired Eichmann to corroborate the revisionist narrative (social pressure was pushing Eichmann the other way) makes it even less likely.

Do you now suppose or assume that Eichmann and Sassen sat down to have a conversation about what Sassen wanted before the interviews began? That's an interesting assumption that I do not think any Revisionist has proposed. What's been suggested here is, rather, that Eichmann was a demonstrable liar in his pretrial statements and that he had plausible motives for telling (or rather, "confirming") the elaborate stories about him which had by then already earned him fame in his community (and further abroad).

Finally, unlike people awaiting trial, Eichmann had little to lose. He was already a fugitive living under a fake name and assumed guilty by most of the world.

What you are confirming is that Eichmann felt comfortable in making whatever claims he felt like making. We all agree he was comfortable in saying just about anything. We also know that he was already quite comfortable by the time he spoke with Habel, who confirmed this explicitly. And yet, you have already been forced to concede that Eichmann lied to Habel and/or Sassen. And it has already been made clear that even the most prominent establishment historian C. Browning had concerns about Eichmann's pre-trial credibility for yet another reason (Majdanek 'gassings'). You fumble in every direction but just keep filling more posts with words so that the rest of us stay busy. I appreciate the effort but I hope you will provide some more challenging arguments so that we can add to the value of the forum. So far, you've primarily been dragging on a weak, defeated case for pages at a time.

So on the face of it, since there is no strong evidence he made a false confession (eg some writing of his surfaced that contradicted his other accounts), this possibility cannot be considered likely.

While we can't say there is a 100% chance Eichmann was telling the truth or the interviews are authentic (then this alone would prove the orthodox narrative), all revisionist explanations that have been offered thus far are improbable for various reasons.

For. Various. Reasons.

So it is strong evidence, the kind that doesn't really exist for the revisionist side.

Surely, any suggestions to the contrary are "improbable".

Eg we can examine what they have offered for resettlement https://codoh.com/library/document/evid ... in-the/en/

This would be mostly unsourced newspaper articles emanating from Nazi controlled countries, and witnesses speaking of rumors of Jews being killed in places where maybe they weren't supposed to be.

I think a comparative study is useful because if you are applying a sufficiently high level of skepticism, any piece of evidence can seem questionable. What I would ask of people here is to try to be as objective possible when doing these evaluations.

Ah, so an article published by one Revisionist, Thomas Kues, thirteen years ago (in 2010) can now be assumed to represent the entirety of "what [Revisionists] have offered" on this subject. Nevermind the spanking bombsaway has received on the topic throughout this thread or the numerous books and articles Revisionists have written on this over the last decade plus.

Oh, and nevermind the lack of actual dead bodies (crushed or otherwise) where it is said there are dead people.

"Why be bothered with such trivial matters as physical evidence when we have Jewish testimony and Soviet documents on our side?"

[fireofice]

Here's an important thing to add:

One of the most interesting aspects of the Irving-Lipstadt trial was the debate about the famous "Schlegelberger document." This March 1942, memorandum of Nazi State Secretary Franz Schlegelberger reads as follows:

“Reich Minister Lammers [Hitler’s top civil servant] informed me that [Hitler] had repeatedly explained to him that he wanted the solution of the Jewish Question put back until after the war. Accordingly the present discussions possess merely theoretical value in the opinion of Reich Minister Lammers. But he will be in all cases concerned that fundamental decisions are not reached by a surprise intervention from another agency without his knowledge.”

...

But more importantly. In volume 13 of the Nuremberg Military Tribunal (NMT) publications, there is a discussion of Nazi Jewish policy. One part, NG-2586-J, a memo written by Nazi official Martin Luther, dated August 21, 1942, is a summary of this policy. Under point number 8 it contains this most telling statement:

"On the occasion of a reception by the Reich Foreign Minister on 26 November 1941 the Bulgarian Foreign Minister Popoff touched on the problem of according like treatment to the Jews of European nationalities and pointed out the difficulties that the Bulgarians had in the application of their Jewish laws to Jews of foreign nationality."

"The Reich Foreign Minister answered that he thought this question brought by Mr. Popoff not uninteresting. Even now he could say one thing to him, that at the end of the war all Jews would have to leave Europe. This was the unalterable decision of the Führer and also the only way to master this problem, as only a global and comprehensive solution could be applied and individual measures would not help much."

...

Many years after the end of WWII, Adolf Eichmann wrote a passage in his memoirs that Evans believes supports the theory that Hitler ordered the complete extermination of the Jewish people. Nazi official Reinhard Heydrich allegedly told Eichmann in July 1941 that:

“I’ve [Heydrich] come from the Reichsführer [Heinrich Himmler]. [Hitler] has given orders for the physical destruction of the Jews.”

https://codoh.com/library/document/holo ... -evans/en/

So Eichmann's story of when he was told about the extermination of the Jews (and indeed that there was a Hitler extermination order at all) is completely false according to contemporary documents. This is another lie that Eichmann told. Will BA try to tell us that the extermination order by Hitler is just another unimportant small detail that doesn't matter?

[bombsaway]

bombsaway seems to forget there are people who write entire books about the "Holocaust" filled with claims of everything from masturbation machines, rollercoasters of death, piles of burning babies -- you name it.

Sure people lie for various reasons, eg money and clout. Your first example, the masturbation machines, comes from a book written by a gentile pretending to be a Jew : https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/bo ... dkbx4.html

You have provided no good reason for Eichmann to lie.

If Eichmann told an elaborate, extraordinary story about slimy aliens landing in his backyard and probing his dog, would you believe him? Even if he told the story over the course of multiple meetings?

You are making a pretty simple error here. Basically pointing out it's common for people to make up stories like this or (actually believe things happened to them). It's not. There are hundreds of millions of Americans and a few hundred at most have extensive stories like this. The chances are one in a million or one in a hundred thousand. And Eichmann wasn't an average guy, a "random sample" so to speak, but the most influential person in the Reich when it came to the evacuation of the Jews, or at least the most powerful official who was actively involved here.

For. Various. Reasons.

Yep I've given many of them for all the different hypotheses offered (telling a nice story/Mossad psyop/etc). See my previous posts which you may have missed.

Ah, so an article published by one Revisionist, Thomas Kues, thirteen years ago (in 2010) can now be assumed to represent the entirety of "what [Revisionists] have offered" on this subject..

Well I never said it was the entirety (you're showing your bias here) but it is pretty much that. Everything that's in the HC blog riposte is in there, plus a lot more. If there's a more substantive offering by a revisionist, please let me know.

Here's an important thing to add:

re Schlegelberger the document says Hitler "solution of the Jewish Question put back until after the war"

Yet "the final solution" was implemented, or at least partially so. The Korherr report is a report concerning "The Final Solution of the European Jewish Problem"

Schlegelberger was in the Reich judiciary and responsible for the legal status of German Mischlings, including their possible deportation/castration (as outlined at Wannsee). This was a sensitive issue for the homefront, as many full German citizens had mixed relatives. The best interpretation of the document is that the 'solution' mentioned was what to do with mixed Germans- your interpretation is nonsensical in light of documents like the Korherr report.

So Eichmann's story of when he was told about the extermination of the Jews (and indeed that there was a Hitler extermination order at all) is completely false according to contemporary documents. This is another lie that Eichmann told. Will BA try to tell us that the extermination order by Hitler is just another unimportant small detail that doesn't matter?

You are again reading into documents and imagining things that aren't present in the text in your determined effort to find contradictions. An order can be given orally, as Eichmann describes.

Somewhere around the end of the year 1941 early 1942,
the Chief of the Sipo and SD, Heydrich, informed me verbally
that the Führer had ordered the physical liquidation of the
Jewish enemy. What reasons may have caused Hitler to
suddenly issue this order I did not and do not know. Today,
as then, I can only suppose that because Hitler had often
publicly announced that the war that Jewry itself had
unleashed against the Third Reich, however it may fare, would
prove Jewry to be the losers. The whole world was aware of
this declaration.
At the end of 1941, it was clear that the Russian campaign
did not proceed so rapidly as expected. There was now a
two-front war, which was for Germany dangerous, nay,
devastating. Already for a long time the leaders of international
Jewry had declared war against the German Reich. The last
possible obstacles had now clearly disappeared. These are my
conjectures; they could be right, but they do not have to be.
For I have never myself seen the liquidation decree from
Hitler

If even Eichmann didn't see "the liquidation decree" who would have? Eichmann's statements corroborate the hypothesis that there was no written order, Himmler and Heydrich were informed verbally, and then passed on the message to their subordinates in this fashion.

[Hektor]

It should actually be clear that one can not go by statements of this. People can say anything all day long. And with rumors making the rounds, you can be sure that there will be an appearance of 'many witnesses' or 'consensus'. That's how prejudices are formed. At best you can take statements as a starting point for further research. In the end you'll need physical evidence for events that will produce physical evidence. Now, is that there?

[fireofice]

Yet "the final solution" was implemented, or at least partially so. The Korherr report is a report concerning "The Final Solution of the European Jewish Problem"

Nothing in the Korherr report contradicts the notion that the Final Solution was to be fully implemented after the war.

Schlegelberger was in the Reich judiciary and responsible for the legal status of German Mischlings, including their possible deportation/castration (as outlined at Wannsee). This was a sensitive issue for the homefront, as many full German citizens had mixed relatives. The best interpretation of the document is that the 'solution' mentioned was what to do with mixed Germans- your interpretation is nonsensical in light of documents like the Korherr report.

Nope, the Schlegelberger document was about the Jewish question as a whole, not just Mischlings, as corroborated by the Lammers memo.

You are again reading into documents and imagining things that aren't present in the text in your determined effort to find contradictions. An order can be given orally, as Eichmann describes.

An oral order is impossible, as it would not be possible to carry out one of the most severe crimes without written authorization from Hitler.

https://codoh.com/library/document/the-plum-cake/en/

https://codoh.com/library/document/murd ... -reich/en/

And on top of that, the Schlegelberger and Lammers documents confirm that there was never an extermination order given by Hitler in the Third Reich, written or oral, ever. It was the unalterable decision of the Führer. It didn't happen, yet Eichmann lied and said it did. Case closed.

[fireofice]

It should actually be clear that one can not go by statements of this. People can say anything all day long. And with rumors making the rounds, you can be sure that there will be an appearance of 'many witnesses' or 'consensus'. That's how prejudices are formed. At best you can take statements as a starting point for further research. In the end you'll need physical evidence for events that will produce physical evidence. Now, is that there?

Of course there isn't. He accepts obviously false and absurd testimonies over actual physical evidence. Least biased holocaust believer.

[Hektor]

...Of course there isn't. He accepts obviously false and absurd testimonies over actual physical evidence. Least biased holocaust believer.

Did they search for the evidence, given that they were convinced it happened or did they simply ignore this and repeat that they 'got witnesses'?

"...Schlegelberger was in the Reich judiciary and responsible for the legal status of German Mischlings, including their possible deportation/castration (as outlined at Wannsee). This was a sensitive issue for the homefront, as many full German citizens had mixed.."

Just on a note there. How do you know this was outlined at Wannsee (deportation/castration of Half Jews)?
It's not implausible that this was discussed, of course. But how would one know what was discussed at the meeting.

E.g. Heydrich was dead. After WW2 a number of participants were still alive, but it appears none of them was ever questioned about it. Except Dr. Joseph Buehler that is. He was questioned about this at the IMT. Dr. Buehler was executed. There were other participants, but to my knowledge they were never questioned on this.

It should be noted that despite his prominent position and knowledge about measures regarding Jews. Dr. Buehler did not know anything about 'the Holocaust' prior to the IMT proceedings

If you have testimony for both contradicting and opposing an accusation. What is the best explanation for this?

[bombsaway]

Nothing in the Korherr report contradicts the notion that the Final Solution was to be fully implemented after the war.

So it was said to be partially implemented in the Korherr report?