"No Nazis Denied"

[fireofice]

There is this article as well:

https://codoh.com/library/document/nobo ... -happened/

[Eye of Zyclone]

And Kaltenbrunner did NOT admit either: a.) having knowledge of any mass-gassing extermination policy prior to being informed of it after the surrender, or b.) participation.

ehhh

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/04-11-46.asp

DR. KAUFFMANN: One further question to that. When did you hear, for the first time, that the camp at Auschwitz was an extermination camp?

KALTENBRUNNER: Himmler told me that in 1944, in February or March. That is, he did not tell me, he admitted it.

Who in the SS denied at a trial?

97.3% of them did at the 1st Nuremberg show trial. In affidavits.



But the victors didn't have them testify in person before their kangaroo courts. Surprisingly...

And the few SS-men who hadn't denied it at the 1st Nuremberg show trial, did it afterwards, in 1947, after changing their defense strategy, that is, when they had moved from subserviently collaborating with the victors through false confessions and testimonies to denying any wartime knowledge of it and just blaming it all on their former bosses (like Oswald Pohl, Heinrich Himmler, Karl-Otto Koch, Hans Kammler, Rudolf Hoess and Richard Glücks). George Baucum Fulkerson, an American prosecutor at the Pohl show trial, even exasperatedly complained about it before the "court."


https://postimg.cc/w10t8jv1

[Eye of Zyclone]

There is this article as well:

https://codoh.com/library/document/nobo ... -happened/

Great compilation !! Thanks for sharing it with us, fireofice !

[bombsaway]

Some questions for you guys about the affidavits

1. How many of SS were non officers (give a percentage)

2. How many of the SS would have been directly involved in extermination activities if we assume orthodoxy is correct?

It's funny and shows you that it wasn't a kangaroo court that the defense was allowed to do this (get affidavits from POWs). Stunning they couldn't find a single person to talk about mass resettlement.

[Nessie]

....

Just to be clear. In that case "Holocaust Denier" is also a total misnomer in case that is used for Revisionists..... Simply because all that Holocaust Revisionists say is that there is a lack of evidence for what Exterminationists are claiming...

Which is why you are not really revisionists, as you cannot revise the history, you just deny it due to an alleged lack of evidence, which is not true. What you really mean is that there is a lot of evidence, you just do not believe any of it. You do that to distract attention away from the actual lack of evidence of millions of Jews still alive in camps and ghettos, which is what would have happened, if millions had not been shot or gassed. History is revised from what happened, to another version of what happened, not from what happened, to what did not happen. The latter is denying an historical event took place.

Occasionally, so-called revisionists will try to revise history, but all they come up with are hypothesis, such as the Kremas were delousing chambers. But, they cannot evidence that happening, and many others disagree, due to the relative lack of residue of HCN and Prussian Blue staining.

[Nessie]

...

Cherry-picking headlines is evidentially and logically flawed.

http://www.bergenbelsen.co.uk/pages/tri ... ramer.html

"Will you explain to the Court how it is that, in the first statement you made, you said the allegations referring to gas chambers, mass executions, whipping and cruelty were untrue, whereas in your second statement you said that they were true? - There are two reasons for that. The first is that in the first statement I was told that the prisoners alleged that the prisoners alleged that the prisoners alleged that these gas chambers were under my command, and the second and main reason was that Pohl, who spoke my word of honour that I should be silent and should not tell anybody at all about the existence of the gas chambers. When I made my first statement I felt still bound by this word of honour which I had given. When I made the second statement in prison, in Celle, these persons to whom I felt bound in honour - Adolf Hitler and Reichsführer Himmler - were no longer alive and I thought then that I was no longer longer bound."

First statement;

"I have heard of the allegations of former prisoners in Auschwitz referring to a gas chamber there, the mass executions and whippings, the cruelty of the guards employed, and that all this took place either in my presence or with my knowledge. All I can say to all this is that it is untrue from beginning to end."

Second statement;

"The first time I saw a gas chamber proper was at Auschwitz. It was attached to the crematorium. The complete building containing the crematorium and gas chamber was situated in Camp No. 2 (Birkenau), of which I was in command. I visited the building on my first inspection of the camp after being there for three days, but for the first eight days I was there it was not working. After eight days the first transport, from which gas chamber victims were selected, arrived, and at the same time I received a written order from Hoess, who commanded the whole of Auschwitz Camp, that although the gas chamber and crematorium were situated in my part of the camp, I had no jurisdiction over it whatever. Orders in regard to the gas chamber were, in fact, always given by Hoess..."

[Nessie]

And Kaltenbrunner did NOT admit either: a.) having knowledge of any mass-gassing extermination policy prior to being informed of it after the surrender, or b.) participation.

ehhh

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/04-11-46.asp

DR. KAUFFMANN: One further question to that. When did you hear, for the first time, that the camp at Auschwitz was an extermination camp?

KALTENBRUNNER: Himmler told me that in 1944, in February or March. That is, he did not tell me, he admitted it.

Who in the SS denied at a trial?

97.3% of them did at the 1st Nuremberg show trial. In affidavits.



But the victors didn't have them testify in person before their kangaroo courts. Surprisingly...

And the few SS-men who hadn't denied it at the 1st Nuremberg show trial, did it afterwards, in 1947, after changing their defense strategy, that is, when they had moved from subserviently collaborating with the victors through false confessions and testimonies to denying any wartime knowledge of it and just blaming it all on their former bosses (like Oswald Pohl, Heinrich Himmler, Karl-Otto Koch, Hans Kammler, Rudolf Hoess and Richard Glücks). George Baucum Fulkerson, an American prosecutor at the Pohl show trial, even exasperatedly complained about it before the "court."


https://postimg.cc/w10t8jv1

That is evidence of the secrecy under which mass murders of Jews and the use of gas chambers operated. After the Action T4 scandal, and reaction in Germany and the known negative reaction to mass murdering Jews, that would come from many in Western occupied Europe, those responsible for mass murders acted such that only rumours circulated. It had been different in Eastern occupied Europe, where many joined with the Nazis killing Jews, so they did not need to operate under the same level of secrecy. The Nazis could restrict news of the mass shootings in the East, getting to the West, so that they were again limited to rumours.

Again, there is nothing, from any Nazi, when they were being confronted with the evidence of mas murders, to evidence what actually happened, and millions of Jews still alive in 1944 and liberated in 1945.

[Wahrheitssucher]

And Kaltenbrunner did NOT admit either: a.) having knowledge of any mass-gassing extermination policy prior to being informed of it after the surrender, or b.) participation.

ehhh

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/04-11-46.asp

DR. KAUFFMANN: One further question to that. When did you hear, for the first time, that the camp at Auschwitz was an extermination camp?

KALTENBRUNNER: Himmler told me that in 1944, in February or March. That is, he did not tell me, he admitted it.

Who in the SS denied at a trial?

First of all you gave no page number. Why is that? Did you read all that? If so why didn’t you give a more precise reference?

Secondly, if you HAD actually read it you’d know there is a discrepancy in the translation / transcription.
Why didn’t you mention the President said the question asked which drew this reply was when he learnt about the Auschwitz CONCENTRATION camp?

THE PRESIDENT: This is not an answer to your question. You asked him what he did when he found out that Auschwitz was a concentration camp.

I assume it is not a knowing deception but yet another example that you are arguing from ignorance the whole time.

ALLIED TAMPERED/INACCURATE TRANSLATION/TRANSCRIPTION

DR. KAUFFMANN: One further question to that. When did you hear, for the first time, that the camp at Auschwitz was an extermination camp?

KALTENBRUNNER: Himmler told me that in 1944, in February or March. That is, he did not tell me, he admitted it.

DR. KAUFFMANN: What was your attitude upon learning this?

KALTENBRUNNER: I did not hear the question.

DR. KAUFFMANN: What attitude did you adopt when you heard about it?

KALTENBRUNNER: I had no knowledge of Hitler's order to Heydrich regarding the final solution of the Jewish problem at the time I took up my office. In the summer of 1943 I gathered from the foreign press and through the enemy radio...

THE PRESIDENT: This is not an answer to your question. You asked him what he did when he found out that Auschwitz was a concentration camp. He is now making a long speech about Heydrich. You asked for his attitude.
I suppose you meant what he did when he first heard that Auschwitz was an extermination camp, in February or March 1944. He is now telling us a long story about something having to do with Heydrich…

Q1. Do you agree that this whole section is a mess of either translation or transcription?

Q2. Are you aware of what Kaltenbrunner said on this point in his interrogation in London immediately before the Nuremberg show-trial?

Q3. Do you know what he said on this point to the Prison psychiatrist’s interview in his Nuremberg cell?

Q4. And if you do not know the answers to Q2 & 3 will you finally concede that you are arguing from ignorance and cherry-picking ’evidence’ from tampered Allied files?

[Eye of Zyclone]

Cherry-picking headlines is evidentially and logically flawed.

... while cherry-picking testimonies & confessions is not.

(no cherry-picking on my part; Kramer was convicted and hanged for that, among other things)

The story of a guy not realizing that his alleged oath of secrecy was obsolete for more than 6 months after the death of Hitler and Himmler and then suddenly realizing under "interrogation" that it was, is one of the most ridiculous nonsenses ever imagined.

That is evidence of the secrecy under which mass murders of Jews ...

Conspiracy theory detector ringing like a fire station alarm !!

Again, there is nothing, from any Nazi, when they were being confronted with the evidence of mas murders, to evidence what actually happened, and millions of Jews still alive in 1944 and liberated in 1945.

Not the topic of this thread. And testimonies plus impressive pics of typhus victims are not evidence of mass murders, just like the numerous testimonies about Jewish ritual murders of Gentile children ("blood libels") are not evidence of those murders.



There was admittedly no postwar census on the Eastern side of the Iron Curtain.

[Nessie]

Cherry-picking headlines is evidentially and logically flawed.

... while cherry-picking testimonies & confessions is not.

(no cherry-picking on my part; Kramer was convicted and hanged for that, among other things)

You cherry-picked headlines and reports of his denial of gas chambers, ignoring that he admitted to knowing about them. That is the very definition of cherry-picking.

The story of a guy not realizing that his alleged oath of secrecy was obsolete for more than 6 months after the death of Hitler and Himmler and then suddenly realizing under "interrogation" that it was, is one of the most ridiculous nonsenses ever imagined.

Like may guilty people, he tried to lie his way out of being convicted, until he realised the evidence for gassings and his involvement, was undeniable.

That is evidence of the secrecy under which mass murders of Jews ...

Conspiracy theory detector ringing like a fire station alarm !!

There is evidence to prove that gassing operations were to be kept as secret as possible.

Again, there is nothing, from any Nazi, when they were being confronted with the evidence of mas murders, to evidence what actually happened, and millions of Jews still alive in 1944 and liberated in 1945.

Not the topic of this thread. And testimonies plus impressive pics of typhus victims are not evidence of mass murders, just like the numerous testimonies about Jewish ritual murders of Gentile children ("blood libels") are not evidence of those murders.



There was admittedly no postwar census on the Eastern side of the Iron Curtain.

The topic of the thread is that no Nazi, who worked at an AR camp, Chelmno or A-B Krema, denied they were used for gassings and revealled what really happened inside those places.

[bombsaway]

And Kaltenbrunner did NOT admit either: a.) having knowledge of any mass-gassing extermination policy prior to being informed of it after the surrender, or b.) participation.

ehhh

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/04-11-46.asp

DR. KAUFFMANN: One further question to that. When did you hear, for the first time, that the camp at Auschwitz was an extermination camp?

KALTENBRUNNER: Himmler told me that in 1944, in February or March. That is, he did not tell me, he admitted it.

Who in the SS denied at a trial?

First of all you gave no page number. Why is that? Did you read all that? If so why didn’t you give a more precise reference?

Secondly, if you HAD actually read it you’d know there is a discrepancy in the translation / transcription.
Why didn’t you mention the President said the question asked which drew this reply was when he learnt about the Auschwitz CONCENTRATION camp?

THE PRESIDENT: This is not an answer to your question. You asked him what he did when he found out that Auschwitz was a concentration camp.

I assume it is not a knowing deception but yet another example that you are arguing from ignorance the whole time.

ALLIED TAMPERED/INACCURATE TRANSLATION/TRANSCRIPTION

DR. KAUFFMANN: One further question to that. When did you hear, for the first time, that the camp at Auschwitz was an extermination camp?

KALTENBRUNNER: Himmler told me that in 1944, in February or March. That is, he did not tell me, he admitted it.

DR. KAUFFMANN: What was your attitude upon learning this?

KALTENBRUNNER: I did not hear the question.

DR. KAUFFMANN: What attitude did you adopt when you heard about it?

KALTENBRUNNER: I had no knowledge of Hitler's order to Heydrich regarding the final solution of the Jewish problem at the time I took up my office. In the summer of 1943 I gathered from the foreign press and through the enemy radio...

THE PRESIDENT: This is not an answer to your question. You asked him what he did when he found out that Auschwitz was a concentration camp. He is now making a long speech about Heydrich. You asked for his attitude.
I suppose you meant what he did when he first heard that Auschwitz was an extermination camp, in February or March 1944. He is now telling us a long story about something having to do with Heydrich…

Q1. Do you agree that this whole section is a mess of either translation or transcription?

Q2. Are you aware of what Kaltenbrunner said on this point in his interrogation in London immediately before the Nuremberg show-trial?

Q3. Do you know what he said on this point to the Prison psychiatrist’s interview in his Nuremberg cell?

Q4. And if you do not know the answers to Q2 & 3 will you finally concede that you are arguing from ignorance and cherry-picking ’evidence’ from tampered Allied files?

Q1, no I think the president misspoke and then corrected himself.

Q2, no, pray tell

Q3, no, pray tell

Q4, no I just don't have all the information. I'm sure you can justify to yourself the trial transcripts are all phony, no surprise there, it's an easy out for you. Auto win really.

[Hektor]

Cherry-picking headlines is evidentially and logically flawed.

... while cherry-picking testimonies & confessions is not.

(no cherry-picking on my part; Kramer was convicted and hanged for that, among other things)

The story of a guy not realizing that his alleged oath of secrecy was obsolete for more than 6 months after the death of Hitler and Himmler and then suddenly realizing under "interrogation" that it was, is one of the most ridiculous nonsenses ever imagined.
....

One has to bear in mind that there is no written order to exterminate the Jews. Not even a trace of it. Highly dubious that they would have killed them in the camps on purpose, if there was no such order. After all homicides without justification were a crime in Germany and the occupied territories as well.

[Wahrheitssucher]

First of all you gave no page number. Why is that? Did you read all that? If so why didn’t you give a more precise reference?

Secondly, if you HAD actually read it you’d know there is a discrepancy in the translation / transcription.
Why didn’t you mention the President said the question asked which drew this reply was when he learnt about the Auschwitz CONCENTRATION camp?

THE PRESIDENT: This is not an answer to your question. You asked him what he did when he found out that Auschwitz was a concentration camp.

I assume it is not a knowing deception but yet another example that you are arguing from ignorance the whole time.

ALLIED TAMPERED/INACCURATE TRANSLATION/TRANSCRIPTION

DR. KAUFFMANN: One further question to that. When did you hear, for the first time, that the camp at Auschwitz was an extermination camp?

KALTENBRUNNER: Himmler told me that in 1944, in February or March. That is, he did not tell me, he admitted it.

DR. KAUFFMANN: What was your attitude upon learning this?

KALTENBRUNNER: I did not hear the question.

DR. KAUFFMANN: What attitude did you adopt when you heard about it?

KALTENBRUNNER: I had no knowledge of Hitler's order to Heydrich regarding the final solution of the Jewish problem at the time I took up my office. In the summer of 1943 I gathered from the foreign press and through the enemy radio...

THE PRESIDENT: This is not an answer to your question. You asked him what he did when he found out that Auschwitz was a concentration camp. He is now making a long speech about Heydrich. You asked for his attitude.
I suppose you meant what he did when he first heard that Auschwitz was an extermination camp, in February or March 1944. He is now telling us a long story about something having to do with Heydrich…

Q1. Do you agree that this whole section is a mess of either translation or transcription?

Q2. Are you aware of what Kaltenbrunner said on this point in his interrogation in London immediately before the Nuremberg show-trial?

Q3. Do you know what he said on this point to the Prison psychiatrist’s interview in his Nuremberg cell?

Q4. And if you do not know the answers to Q2 & 3 will you finally concede that you are arguing from ignorance and cherry-picking ’evidence’ from tampered Allied files?

Q1, no I think the president misspoke and then corrected himself.

Q2, no, pray tell

Q3, no, pray tell

Q4, no I just don't have all the information. I'm sure you can justify to yourself the trial transcripts are all phony, no surprise there, it's an easy out for you. Auto win really.

Hmmm. Interesting.
I didn’t suggest — nor do I believe — that everything in the English Nuremberg trial transcripts is “all phony”. That is a rather pitiful strawman. You aren’t doing yourself any favours with such transparent misrepresentation.

Such a weak tactic rather confirms the impression that your replies here are not only arguing from ignorance the whole time but that your mission appears to be to obstruct fair and accurate understanding of the actual evidence.

Whatever… For your information the English transcripts of the Nuremberg show-trials were ALSO demonstrated to be unreliable on key points by David Irving. He also detected that they were inaccurate on key points when he compared them with the original audio tapes in German.
I tried to find his documentation of the discrepancies in his fpp.co.uk website but couldn’t. All I could find online was this acknowledgement of it:

Irving, with his book "Nuremberg: The Last Battle", sets his sites on the "farcical legality" of the trials and how they were political rather than judicial proceedings. In support of his thesis Irving presents material which, until the book’s publication, was previously unknown or "lost". He has become famously credited for his ability to unearth interesting and previously unheard of documents. Much of his "new material" consists of diaries and letters by the accused and by witnesses, themselves later tried for war crimes, plus complaints by defense counsel.
…Irving deliberately chooses not to use the 22 printed volumes of the proceedings of the Nuremberg Tribunal, …His purported excuse for not utilising the record is that it is inaccurate and incomplete…
https://phdn.org/negation/gravediggers/ ... mberg.html

Also, as another example of that, the transcript I recently provided of Herman Göring’s testimony regarding his order to Heydrich on the Endlösung die Judenfraga was also similarly amended. It misrepresented the question and his answer where he pointed out a mistranslation.

That you won’t concede such a simple fact of inconsistency in the English transcript of the question to Kaltenbrunner and the President’s repeating of it, I regard as proof that you go into denial when the actual evidence doesn’t match your expectations and undermines your cherished beliefs.

It is also noted that you didn’t answer if you had read that whole cross-examination, nor explained why you didn’t give a more helpful and precise reference.

For anyone who wants to read the relevant part of that day’s court transcripts of Kaltenbrunner and this exchange it is pages 273-274, down at the bottom.

And if anyone wants to read what Ernst Kaltenbrunner said to prison psychiatrist Leon Goldensohn on this, it is on page 140 of ‘the Nuremberg interviews’.

I’m not going to do any more ‘homework’ on Kaltenbrunner’s interrogation (torture) in London prior to the trial. It’s not worth it for someone who: i.) denies evidence they don’t like, ii.) cherry-picks only the evidence that fits their confirmation bias, and iii.) argues from ignorance.

[bombsaway]

That you won’t concede such a simple fact of inconsistency in the English transcript of the question to Kaltenbrunner and the President’s repeating of it, I regard as proof that you go into denial when the actual evidence doesn’t match your expectations and undermines your cherished beliefs.

It is also noted that you didn’t answer if you had read that whole cross-examination, nor explained why you didn’t give a more helpful and precise reference.

For anyone who wants to read the relevant part of that day’s court transcripts of Kaltenbrunner and this exchange it is pages 273-274, down at the bottom.

And if anyone wants to read what Ernst Kaltenbrunner said to prison psychiatrist Leon Goldensohn on this, it is on page 140 of ‘the Nuremberg interviews’.

I’m not going to do any more ‘homework’ on Kaltenbrunner’s interrogation (torture) in London prior to the trial. It’s not worth it for someone who: i.) denies evidence they don’t like, ii.) cherry-picks only the evidence that fits their confirmation bias, and iii.) argues from ignorance.

So what you're allegation? That part of the transcript is modified, and the person modifying it made a mistake - exposing their handiwork?

Bro, re the reference, it's called control F (or command F if you are on Mac). Useful tool.

With Kaltenbrunner, my statement was that he admitted first hand knowledge it was happening, and he did that. He did not deny. If you want to make some argument about torture or this or that, it's separate from this assertion, and you should go make that argument. You're the one asking me to do your homework.

[TlsMS93]

One has to bear in mind that there is no written order to exterminate the Jews. Not even a trace of it. Highly dubious that they would have killed them in the camps on purpose, if there was no such order. After all homicides without justification were a crime in Germany and the occupied territories as well.

The order was verbal, by winks, by consensus, a meeting of minds from a distant bureaucracy.