Daily Mail on torture of German prisoners in and after war

[Mkk]

As usual though the torture can't just stand on it's own, Nazi "atrocities" such as the KZs and the "blitz" are invoked - but as seen in the comments people are won over by this argument, seeing that anything was nessecary to win over that evil man Hitler.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2ATIk4WPz

[Hektor]

"...but as seen in the comments people are won over by this argument, seeing that anything was necessary to win over that evil man Hitler. ..."

So on what basis are they condemning the "Nazis" then. Assuming the charges were right, couldn't they just argue in the same way?

I added the following:

With this in mind. Wouldn't it be plausible to make up Nazi atrocities, if they weren't that evil anyway of course.

And yes, they got it:

Thank you for adding a comment to MailOnline.

Comments on this article are being checked in advance. We aim to publish as many as possible. MailOnline receives thousands of comments every day, so please be patient.

If your comments do not appear, this may be due to the volume we receive or due to the content of your comment.

Why not follow us on Facebook and Twitter

[NewHistory]

Interesting article for revisionists, possibly better in the Holocaust forum? given the weight the Hoess confession carries for the exterminationalist's argument. The first paragraph:

The German SS officer was fighting to save himself from the gallows for a terrible war crime and might say anything to escape the noose. But Fritz Knöchlein was not lying in 1946 when he claimed that, in captivity in London, he had been tortured by British soldiers to force a confession out of him.

The keywords being to force a confession, not just mistreatment or abuse, although this was POW's in London, not Nuremberg, it proves Allied soldiers did extract confessions with torture if reliable.
Bottom of page says Extracted from Cruel Britannia by Ian Cobain, published by Portobello Books

[Kingfisher]

It took the Mail a long time to find out, given that the Guardian had this in 2005 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/dec/17/secondworldwar.topstories3

Official documents discovered last month at the National Archives at Kew, south-west London, show that the London Cage was a secret torture centre where German prisoners who had been concealed from the Red Cross were beaten, deprived of sleep, and threatened with execution or with unnecessary surgery.

[blacksmith]

It looks like that slowly historians are getting to the real truth that was behind the Churchillian regime. I find it interesting that the so called "Butcher " of Lyons did not believe in torture, due mainly to his police training and in the belief that a tortured person will say anything to stop the torture. Commandant Hoess admitted that he would have agreed to five or even more millions of Jews being gassed in Auschwitz just to make sure that nothing happened to his family and of course stop his own torture.

To-day, we find that our American cousins are equally adept at applying torture and humiliation in order to get confessions. So we find that the object of the torture exercise is to get a confession not to get at the truth. Thus the story of the holocaust was invented and confessions were extracted by any means to prove that everything the torturers claimed was true. Again, the objective was to make the Germans too terrified that they not only admitted to unspeakable crimes but in the end actually believed that they had committed them. I forget who said it, but it is clearly true: a nation is totally defeated when it starts to look at the war from the enemy's point of view. This fits the Germans to a tee. All the leaders of the Germans since the end of WW II should be considered war criminals and I hope that one day that great nation will wake up and clean that garbage out.

Blacksmith

[Kingfisher]

As usual though the torture can't just stand on it's own, Nazi "atrocities" such as the KZs and the "blitz" are invoked - but as seen in the comments people are won over by this argument, seeing that anything was nessecary to win over that evil man Hitler.

True, but when I clicked "Best rated first", this what came out on top. It would not be out of place on Codoh:

I was not aware that anyone who has ever done any serious reading on the WWII was of the impression Britain had fought a "clean war"... but why does the article limit it to PoW Camps? The RAF could easily be said to have conducted a much less clean war than the Luftwaffe, and the same for the Royal Navy and US Navy when compared to the Kriegsmarine (one of the reasons why they couldn't hang Donitz at Nuremberg) - and there aren't enough characters left to go in to detail about the Red Army. The problem is that our historical perspective is based on the findings of the Nuremberg Show Trail and a general air-brushing from our own darker deeds from the historical record after the end of hostilities - all sides do bad things during war-time, what matters is the ultimate reason why a nation chooses to fight... N.B: we do know how Hess was treated in prison, he was a prisoner in UK from 1941 to 1945 where he was drugged interrogated and beaten repeatedly as he was Hitler's Deputy...

- Kaka, Shanghai, 27/10/2012 3:21

[Hektor]

I would like to see more on this. Especially the evidence. At the moment this seems to be mostly tell tale stuff. But are there any original documents on this? Might be very interesting.

I was able to find the following:
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.u ... /C11044946
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.u ... /C11045675

But they want you to order their stuff, nothing downloadable.