Why the term "holocaust denier" is meaningless; and why so many still don't get it.

There's ample written on the torture of Rudolph Hoss

The Institute for Historical Review .... an extract
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p389_faurisson.html

 

How Jews tortured innocent Germans to make Holocaust Evidence

Introduction by Friedrich Paul Berg

No evidence is more supportive of the holocaust hoax than the statements or “confessions” of Rudolf Hoess, the former camp commandant of Auschwitz-Birkenau. The reasons such “confessions” were not only important but essential for Allied prosecutors was that they had no real evidence for their monstrous claims; they had no autopsies, or documents, or even any credible theory as to how crimes of such magnitude could have been committed. By comparison, getting confessions was childishly easy. And, of course, who could possibly object to torture of people who were regarded as guilty as Hoess even long before he was tortured. Herbert Marcuse thought such torture was entirely appropriate even many years kater. Sane people, however, know enough to totally reject statements or “evidence” generated by such methods.

The text which follows is from pages 236 through 238 of Legions of Death by Rupert Butler, originally published in 1983 by Hamlyn Publishing in Great Britain. Some of the text has been enhanced with itallics and color. The image is from: Blind Eye to Murder by Tom Bower (Granada Publishing: 1983) page 272, figure 8. The caption for the image reads: “Colonel Gerald Draper of the British War Crimes Group photographed as he finally secured the confession of Rudolph Hoess, the commandant of Auschwitz, to the murder of three million people.” Who could possibly believe such a confession? Yad Vashem actually shows a postcard with the same image, apparently supplied to them by Draper himself. On the back of the card, the following note appears: Minden, March 1946 The moment when Col. Draper asked the question ‘How many millions have you gassed in your camp Auschwitz-Birkenau?’ Answer: ‘Between 2-1/2 and 3-1/2 millions in my time.’

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



There was a burning thirst for revenge on those who had executed Hitler's notorious eastern policy. But it could not be slaked immediately. In the case of Rudolf Hoess, Commandant of Auschwitz, it was to take over a year from the war's end.

There had been many fugitive Nazis who had burnt their uniforms, dug up the family jewels and sped to cattle ranches in Argentina. For those who stayed in Germany there was a general exodus north; SchleswigHolstein, an agricultural area which was to remain fanatically pro-Nazi for years, was a favourite spot. Here, it was reasoned, a man might be protected until the worst of the hunt was over. There could then be a bid for a fresh set of papers, a new identity and skilful dodging of the various denazification courts.

It was the latter course which appealed to that intensely sentimental family man, Obersturmbannfueher Rudolf Franz Ferdinand Hoess, Kommandant of Auschwitz from May 1940 until December 1943, when he had been promoted by Himmler to a desk job at the SS Central Economic and Administration Office. Before that, he had returned briefly to Auschwitz as commander of the SS garrison there.

Hoess had first been arrested in May 1945, along with hundreds of thousands of other Germans. But he had not been recognized and was soon rleased to go and work on a farm. Not that he was in any way forgotten. Britain's Field Security section of Counter Intelligence stepped up the search. Soon its personnel were showing close interest in one particular apartment block in the Schleswig-Holstein town of Heide.

Bernard Clarke, a British Jew and a sergeant in 92 Field Security Section who had already been involved in a fruitless search for the elusive Nazi Party Secretary Martin Bormann and is today successful businessman working in the south of England, explains:

‘We knew that Frau Hannah Hoess, her son and a daughter had an upstairs apartment in this block, furthermore that Hoess was in the habit of sneaking in once a month to see them. A round-the-clock watch, however, produced not so much as a shadow of him.

Nonetheless, Hoess had somehow got in ans aomehow seen the family. The news came from the army of informers at our disposal — wretched Germans who were keen to keep on the right side of the occupation authorities and were quite prepared to betray neighbors and friends for a few tins of bully-beef and a packet of cigarettes.

The time to act had obviously arrived...’

At 5 pm on 11 March 1946, Frau Hoess opened her front door to six intelligence specialists in British uniform, most of them tall and menacing and all of them practised in the more sophisticated techniques of sustained and merciless investigation.

No physical violence was used on the family; it was scarcely necessary. Wife and children were separated and guarded. Clarke's tone was deliberately low-key and conversational.

He began mildly: ‘I understand your husband came to see you as recently as last night.’

Frau Hoess merely replied: ‘I haven't seen him since he absconded months ago.’

Clarke tried once more, saying gently but with a tone of reproach: ‘You know that isn't true.’ Then all at once his manner had changed and he was shouting: ‘If you don't tell us we'll turn you over to the Russians and they'll put you before a firing squad. Your son will go to Siberia.’

It proved more than enough. Eventually, a broken Frau Hoess betrayed, the whereabouts of the former Auschwitz Kommandant, the man who now called himself Franz Lang. Suitable intimidationof the son and daughter produced precisely identical information.

A heavy snowstorm carpetedthe roads out of Heide as around midnight the convoy of some thirty men, comprising officers of the military government, reinforced with medical personnel and troops, began the journey to the lonely farmhouse standing in its own grounds at Gottrupel.

The convoy slowed to a halt; then came the order to douse lights and extinguish cigarettes.

Clarke and Captain Cross edged forward, the sergeant cocking his service revolver as the silence was fractured by repeated knockings on the front door.

The elderly black-clad woman who eventually answered was soon denying that anyone else was in the house. The troops moved in, firmly placing her under arrest. The search began.

Examination of every room, cupboard and alcove produced nothing. It was now around 2 am; Cross was getting impatient.

He sighed: ‘Maybe this is another of your Bormann escapades. There's certainly no one here and I'm getting tired.’

Clarke insisted: ‘We haven’t tried the stable block.’

It included the slaughter room with its enormous benches. The troops fanned out and began a methodical search, which ended in one the numerous alcoves.

Clarke recalls vividly: ‘He was lying on top of a three-tier bunker wearing a new pair of silk pyjamas. We discovered later that he had lost the cyanide pill most of them carried. Not that he would have had much chance to use it because we had rammed a torch into his mouth.’

Hoess screamed in terror at the mere sight of British uniforms.

Clarke yelled: ‘What is your name?

With each answer of ‘Franz Lang’, Clarke's hand crashed into the face of the prisoner. The fourth time that happened, Hoess broke and admitted who he was.

The admission suddenly unleashed the loathing of the Jewish sergeants in the arresting party whose parents had died in Auschwitz following an order signed by Hoess.

The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pyjamas ripped from his body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where it seemed to Clarke the blows and screams were endless.

Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: ‘Call them off, unless you want to take back a corpse.’A blanket was thrown over Hoess and he was dragged to Clarke's car, where the sergeant poured a substantial slug of whiskey down his throat. Then Hoess tried to sleep.

Clarke thrust his service stick under the man's eyelids and ordered in German: ‘Keep your pig eyes open, you swine.’For the first time Hoess trotted out his oft-repeated justification: ‘I took my orders from Himmler. I am a soldier in the same way as you are a soldier and we had to obey orders.’

The party arrived back at Heide around three in the morning. The snow was swirling still, but the blanket was torn from Hoess and he was made to walk completely nude through the prison yard to his cell.

It took three days to get a coherent statement out of him. But once he started talking, there was no holding him.

The man who suffered most during the interrogation, however, was not the prisoner but Bernard Clarke.

He recalls:

‘Prior to the capture, my hair was jet black. After the three days, a white streak suddenly appeared in the centre, which stayed there until the rest of my hair went white as well.

‘It was not due to the strain of events. I could cope with that. But Hoess had repeated with pride the instructions that he had given to prisoners to dig pits in which they were subsequently shot. He revealed how the bodies were ignited and how oozing fat from them was poured over others.

‘He admittted without a trace of remorse that he had been responsible for around two million deaths and that killings had frequently been carried out at the rate of 10,000 a day.

‘And yet this was the man whose letters to his wife and children I had the job of censoring. Someimes a lump came to my throat. There were two different men in that one man. One was brutal with no regard for human life. The other was soft and affectionate.’

Never once did Hoess attempt to evade responsibility or deny what he had done.

He was left seemingly unmoved by the death sentence following his trial before a special Polish people's court. He reasoned that Allies had their orders and that there could be absolutely no question of these not being carried out.

Rudolf Hoess was hanged on 7 April 1947 next to the house inside the camp where he had lived with his wife and children.

 

Manufactured Evidence as a result of Torture.



The above appeared after the “Forward” in the 1960 (hardcover) first edition of Auschwitz by Dr. MIKLOS NYISZLI. Although the signature with title and rank of RUDOLF HOESS may well be genuine, the text of his outlined “confession statement” is in English and clearly in a different handwriting. No doubt, United Press International was quite proud of itself when it distributed this “scoop” world-wide to its wire service subscribers. Here was all the proof needed to convince the world that HOESS had “personally arranged on orders received from Himmler in May 1941 the gassing of two million persons between June/July 1941 and the end of 1943 during which time I [Hoess] was commandant of Auschwitz.” This “voluntary evidence” from March 1946 was obviously manufactured so as to condemn HEINRICH HIMMLER as well.

For more info about the torture of Rudolf Hoess see the work of Joe Bellinger and the discussion on the CODOH Revisionist Forum. See also the essay by Robert Faurisson on just how Hoess was tortured and by whom.

The “confession” (left) from May, 1946 expands on the earlier “confession” of March, 1946 by adding 1/2 million more who were killed by other means. But here is also the additional claim that the 2 million who were supposedly gassed were Jews. The earlier “confession” while in British custody merely mentioned “persons.” Josef B. Maier who witnessed the May confession and signed the bottom of the page was Jewish and an active member of the so-called “Frankfurt School” of extreme leftist Jewish fanatic emigrés which included characters like Herbert Marcuse (OSS during the war and CIA after the war). Maier's signature is followed by his title: “Chief, Analysis Section Interrogations Division, Office of U. S. Chief of Counsel.” That office was overwhelmingly jewish and the results of their “investigations” are precisely as one should expect: Jews, far above all others, were the victims of the alleged Nazi genocide. But the “proof” amounted to essentially nothing more than “eyewitness testimony” and manufactured “confessions” such as the ones above .

For more information about Marcuse and Maier, please see the discussion on the CODOH Forum. For the connections of Maier to peculiarly jewish political causes already before the war, see the essay by Judith Marcus. Just as Arthur Butz and others have shown, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg was far from “international” but rather, it was a carefully stacked and staged Jewish tribunal of the hapless German defendants and the broken German nation. In hindsight, the trials themselves show that when the Nazis had put creatures such as Maier and Marcuse in concentration camps, they certainly had the right idea.



The great depth of Jewish involvement at the most critical levels of the Nuremberg Trials was a major point in Arthur Butz's The The Hoax of the Twentieth Century which included many revelations about Col. David (Mickey) Marcus. Butz's work and conclusions regarding Marcus are supported by a Wikepdia essay about Marcus' life. That Jewish involvement would be comparable to trying to conduct fair trials today of alleged Serbian war criminals with Bosnian muslims.

 

Doesn't make sense...propaganda for what purpose, and why now? The only agenda is making money, and you are doing a great job in promoting the film for them.

 

Wow, talk about a wall of text.

Got anything from somewhere other than a white supremist run disgraced web site like the hateful IHR and unconfirmed images from a upostit site?

 

Excellent job!

 

The best gas chambers they could come up with had doors that opened inward, with handles on the inside, that were not hermetically sealed, let alone with windows... and a captured soviet sub that emitted diesel exhaust?

I will bet anything that Hollywood does not mention this!

 

Absolutely!

 

Too bad it's a biased Denial site run by a white supremist and worthless as a source.

 

For those on the fence or unsure what this topic is even about, please check this out:

[video=youtube;c9ZF_DipeXA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=c9ZF_DipeXA[/video]

 

It turns out Lipstadt is not even a historian which is why she will not debate historians in a public forum. Her degree is in religious studies, go figure. And look at the actress they chose compared to the lying pig, herself.

 

Part 2 is up:

[video=youtube;hhz4_aCBnMQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhz4_aCBnMQ[/video]

 

Actually it was more like 8 to 12 million 6 million of whom were Jews. The Nazis themselves said as much but just to clarify the gas chambers were a relatively late addition, to the proposed final solution to the so-called Jewish solution. Prior to that bullets were used as often as not especially during the early days of Operation Barbarossa. The inexactitude of the numbers is also a function of the operational pace of the Russian Campaign.

 

Actually, the 6 million was a number that was just made up and even after many mainstream revisions... it's the number that keeps on giving.

 

She won in court after laying out all the counter proof to show the Holocaust was an historical fact.

Put the liar Irving into the poorhouse as well I might add.

Oh, your silly meme says something about Auschwitz death toll being 4 million and was rather a million Jews or so. Historians always knew that was false so never used that figure to add to the six million rather only used the one million that they knew about so it's just another canard from the antisemite Holocaust Denial crowd, similar to the lies about the Red Cross we have to keep exposing.

 

Somehow bogus numbers from dozens of absolutely awful sources are supposed to trump real number from the Nazis themselves. But keep denying reality, it just makes you look silly and destroys your credibility on other subjects.

 

I'm going to do this with you and assume you are an honest poster and simply confused by the propaganda.

The graph represents the OFFICIAL Majdanek revisions. Note that at the Nuremberg trials that they were still claiming 1.5 million. The plaques are THE ACTUAL plaques at the Auschwitz museum, showing the official revision from the Nuremberg trials to 1.5 total in around 1990. This figure has been further revised in the mainstream story.

While I agree that the Nuremberg trials were a farce and "awful sources," it is what it is.

Post any nazi sources you like to make your point. And remember what disgusting, horrible liars they are and how they can't be trusted. That is what I keep hearing anyways. That being said, I will go out on a limb and say you are just confused here. Those numbers are hardly nazi propaganda. The numbers you are buying into are Soviet propaganda. But post what you got. Let's check it out together.

By the same token, what do you think this does for your credibility if you can be so easily fooled?

 

lol, this film really upsets you.
This picture you posted perfectly demonstrates what Hollywood is about. Making things look nice to the audience to make money. That applies to the actors or the story.
As I've said, the film is not particularly about facts - just like "Frozen" is not about facts.

If this were a documentary, then that's a different matter - it must honor the facts and would usually endeavor to keep actors looking like their counterparts.


Embelishment to make a great story is absolutely nothing new in Hollywood and has no bearing on what or what is not fact.

 

Dude, so a million and a half at Auschwitz? A fact almost no one disputes, but you're going to act like the other camps didn't exist, no one was rounded up and shot during the early days of Barbarossa when in fact whole villages were exterminated.

 

There are no records of the Holocaust beside a handful ofintercepted reports that in no way explicitly refer to anything about the Holocaust; they have to be 'decoded'.

 

It's funny really. We have had multiple threads here and this seems to be true. It seems like all the "evidence" presented by the exterminationists are easily shown to be propaganda or are not even evidence of anything.

 

there are legitimate questions that are raised by some of Irving's criticisms:

1. the engineering of the gas chamber
2. no documentation of holocaust plans

i don't see the problem with having a scientific and archeological exploration of these points of interest.
people's reactions are usually purely emotional and thus they outright condemn any questioning content. that violates free speech. it is a form of censorship.
history is extremely important obviously and thus it deserves to be questioned in the pursuit of truth more than anything.

I think Christopher Hitchens sums it up more elegantly than any human walking right now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vucizcuvYxkw:

 

So are the Armenian and Holodomor Genocides that Progressives and Snow Flakes continue to deny and ignore.

 

Like that Jew Abe Foxman who denied the Armenian Genocide, minimized the Holodomor, while crying profusely about those who deny the Holocaust?

 

It takes all kinds of idiots to make up this world. If we were all of one opinion who would we discuss our differences and argue with?