Scrapbookpages Blog

February 1, 2016

The Theresienstadt gas chamber — the story that won’t die

Filed under: Holocaust — Tags: , , , — furtherglory @ 8:43 am
Theresienstadt ghetto were Jews were confined in World War II

An old building in the Theresienstadt ghetto where Jews were confined during World War II

I am taking a comment, made by Wolf Murmelstein, out of the comment section of my blog and making it public in my new blog post today. As I write this, I recall that I previously posted this same comment.  I am posting it again because there are many new readers of my blog, who might like to weigh in on this subject.

The alleged gas chamber at Theresienstadt was located near this spot

The alleged gas chamber at Theresienstadt was located near this gate into the camp

The following article was written in a recent comment made by Wolf Murmelstein, the son of Benjamin Murmelstein, the last Jewish Elder at Theresienstadt:

How the things went on is clearly exposed in my Father’s Book. THERESIENSTADT, EICHMANN’S MUSTERGHETTO which cannot find any USA publisher due to the interests of the Shoah Business as proved by the circulation of this tale.
At any rate, I will summarize the real story:
1. In January, an order came to start works for an adaption of a room in the fort walls and for a wall enclosing a place in the moat surrounding the town but only following oral instructions without any written design.
2. Going on with the work, the engineer alarmed the Elder [Benjamin Murmelstein] who too found it strange as, furthermore, not being called to accompany certain visitors who came to control those works.
3. A group [of prisoners], arriving from Slovakia at  the end of December 1944, had the first alarming information.
4. At a certain moment, the Elder Murmelstein, after having given instructions for the events of his arrest, faced the Commander who spoke about a bombsafe warehouse and a lake for growing ducks. But next day the Commander suddenly left for Prague and returned after three days with the order to stop those works. The only one having authority to give such an order had been SS General and Governor of the Protectorate Karl Hermann Frank.
5. Little Fortress Commander Heinrich Joecke admitted that the Gas Chamber had been aimed for the liquidation o the political prisoners, adding wrongly that Zyklon B had been available. The so called lake in the moat had been aimed as a place for a mass shooting of all Ghetto inmates.

6. Ghetto Commander Karl Rahm in his trial strangely did not show how he had obtained the order to stop the works, holding the version of the Bombsafe Warehouse and the lake for growing ducks, renouncing so as to plea for a prison sentence. One can conjecture that he had been afraid of disclosing the real envolvment of some one able to escape his former “comrades”  who would take revenge on his family at Vienna.
At any rate, things had been made certain in a proper court – Litomerice, Czech Republic – where files can be controlled.
Should such a tale have been put into circulation here in Italy, I would address the State Attorney to investigate whether there had been simple fraud – when asking to buy tickets to follow a speech – or heavy fraud – when sponsored by public pecuniary aid. And in the USA?

I have previously blogged about this in these blog posts:

https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/tag/theresienstadt-gas-chamber

https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2013/05/18/the-plan-to-gas-all-the-jews-at-theresienstadt-or-if-that-wasnt-enough-to-drown-them

https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2015/11/14/the-plan-to-gas-the-prisoners-at-theresienstadt-near-the-end-of-world-war-ii

 

46 Comments »

  1. Any neutral observer reading Wolf Murmelstein’s six points, in which he attempts to explain that a “homicidal gas chamber” was under construction at Theresienstadt, would come away totally unconvinced by the evidence that he produces. Everything he says is either supposition, hearsay or verbal assertion. There is no documentation, detailed plans, or precise dates. The engineer responsible for the project is unnamed, as are the mysterious visitors who controlled the work. The prisoners who arrived from Slovakia had no evidence of mass-gassings, and thus they were just repeating war-time rumours that they had overheard.

    Dr. Murmelstein’s father did not attend the meeting in Prague between the Ghetto Commander and SS General Frank, and so he has no idea at all what was discussed between these two men. The testimony of both the Ghetto Commander, and the neighbouring “Little Fortress” Commander at their post-war trials is practically worthless, because today, we now know that many of these men were tortured, threatened, bullied or induced by various means into compliance with their captors demands.

    What to make of the “duck-pond” story – is really beyond anyone’s guess. It does sound lame – crazy even! But it could be that that this area – which lay within the moat between the town walls – was being prepared as an execution site for some of the political prisoners – who knows?

    Comment by Talbot — February 1, 2016 @ 10:46 am

    • TALBOT. I said that only SS General and Governor of Bohemia Moravia had had the authority to give the order to stop those works. At any rate things had been made certain by proper Court – Litomeric, Czech Republic.
      I read again the article quoted here and the error is due to a miss printing. or miss translation as explained in the post bellow. Simply in USA and UK they have no right knowledge of German. Clear?

      Comment by Wolf Murmelstein — February 1, 2016 @ 11:20 am

  2. Right Rudolf I wonder if you could go back to your camp and build a gas chamber because I have it in mind to kill 11 million people…oh and by the way don’t tell a soul ok?

    Comment by peter — February 1, 2016 @ 10:14 am

    • I’ve always thought that these verbal orders handed down from Himmler to the SS camp commandants is how the Nazis came to make shrunken heads!. You see, if nothing was allowed to be written down on paper, then each commandant would have to store all the orders and directives in his own head, and thus could easily forget or misconstrue what he had been told by the Reichsfuehrer.

      It is possible that Rudolf Hoess had attended a meeting in Berlin, where the subject of overcrowding in the camps was discussed, and the last thing that Himmler had told him before the meeting adjourned was that he must “shrink the number of heads in Auschwitz by five thousand. Well, by the time Hoess returned to Auschwitz next day, there were so many verbal orders swirling around in his mind, that he couldn’t quite remember what he was required to do about the shrinking heads – and came to the wrong conclusion, that Himmler had told him to make “5,000 shrunken heads in Auschwitz.”

      So this is what Hoess proceeded to do – he converted one of the Kremas in Birkenau into a workshop where the manufacture of large numbers of shrunken heads could take place. The heads were first guillotined off the recently gassed corpses, shrunk down to a manageable size, and then mounted on to pedestals. Afterwards, they were sold to the public in the old market squares down in Krakow and Lemburg. But while the pelvic ashtrays, human lampshades and Jewish soap sold like hot-cakes, no one really wanted to purchase a shrunken head. And as Rudolf Hoess thought to himself rather ruefully; “What would anyone need a shrunken head for anyway – I suppose they could be used for doorstops or bookends but…

      Comment by Talbot — February 1, 2016 @ 11:46 am

      • Ha ha ha. Hilarious, Talbot. Can you imagine 6 million shrunken heads displayed at the Yad Vashem today, with Netanyahu singing ‘The Mufti told Hitler to do that’ in the background? What a sight!!

        Comment by hermie — February 3, 2016 @ 4:04 pm

  3. only following oral instructions without any written design

    How convenient.

    As I recall, Rudolf Höss also supposedly received only oral instructions from Himmler to start killing Jews at Auschwitz.

    Comment by eah — February 1, 2016 @ 8:50 am

    • Rudolf Höss said this in his confession after he was beaten half to death by the British. He had to say that the instructions were oral because there were NO instructions to build a gas chamber and no gas chamber was ever built.

      Comment by furtherglory — February 1, 2016 @ 9:01 am

      • He may have been beaten after he was captured, but here are some extracts from his questioning with Otto Moll on April 16, 1946 at Nuremberg.

        Full text here: http://madness-visible.blogspot.fi/2011/02/nuremberg-rudolf-hoess-and-otto-moll.html

        Question directed to Otto Moll

        Q. What is being said here, as I told you this morning, is that you are responsible for this operation, namely for killing and destruction of the bodies in the first improvised slaughter house.
        A. I was responsible to see that the corpses were burned after the people were killed. I was never responsible for the actual supervision of the killing. It was always the officers or the physicians who were present at the time. As my commandant, at the time, Hoess should be able to confirm this.

        Questions directed to Rudolf Hoess

        Q. What do you say about this?
        A. As I said this morning, Moll is only partly correct. As I explained, the gas was actually thrown into the chamber by the medical personnel and Moll was not responsible for supervising the entire process, beginning with the arrival of the transport and the burning of the corpses, he was only responsible for a part of this process, at least initially.
        Q. You did say that he was responsible for seeing that these people were exterminated.
        A. I could have been misunderstood. What I said, or meant to say, was that Moll was responsible in the buildings where he worked. At first, to see that people were undressed in orderly fashion, and after they were killed, to see that the bodies were disposed of in an orderly fashion, later on when the extensive extermination plant was completed, he was responsible for the entire plant.
        Q. Just what operations in the plant was he responsible for?
        A. He was responsible for everything up to and including the actual leading into the gas chambers of the people and after that, to remove the bodies to burn them.
        Q. Will you please repeat about Moll shooting people through the neck.
        A. As I explained this morning, those that were too weak to be moved to the gas chamber, or who could not be moved for some other reason, were shot through the neck by him or[ellipses in original PM] some of the other fellows around, with small caliber arms.

        Questions directed to Otto Moll

        Q. Well, what do you say about that?
        A. It may be possible that some of them were shot by me, but it was a comparatively small number and I would like to know if Hoess ever saw me do it.
        Q. I told you this morning that Hoess said he saw you do it many times and so did many others.

        Questions directed to Rudolf Hoess

        Q. Hoess, isnt that right?
        A. Yes, it is true. I mentioned this morning that there were comparatively few killed in that manner.
        Q. You could not tell if it was a few dozen or a few hundred. That was your problem.
        A. I cannot quote you an exact numberthat is impossible for so many years; there were many. Sometimes there were a few out of each incoming transport and sometimes there were none. That is why I cannot tell you the exact number.

        Questions addressed to Otto Moll

        Q. Well, this is the first thing you have admitted, now you are telling the truth about which you lied this morning. Are you ready to tell us the truth regarding your responsibility about other operations?
        A. Yes, I will tell you the truth as long as my Commandant is present. Let my Commandant tell you what I did and what my duties were.
        Q. We know what Hoess said. What we want to know is your story. You are asking us for the opportunity to tell your story and that caused us to bring Hoess in here.
        A. No, I asked that I be interrogated in the presence of Hoess.

        Question addressed to Rudolf Hoess

        Q. You told us this morning that Moll was considered the best man for exterminations because he handled the teams of prisoners and guards better than your other subordinates. Is that right?
        A. Yes.

        Later in interview……….

        Questions addressed to Otto Moll

        Q. You have said that your detail was never exterminated. What do you say now?
        A. No, that is not true. The work detail with which I worked was never exterminated as long as I was there and as long as I worked. As regard to the first work detail I had for the excavation of mass graves, which I had to leave because of my attack of typhus, they may have been exterminated when I returned to duty. The only thing that I know of is when I left, the last work detail I worked with, was still alive and that is, every member of the detail was alive when I left. Sometime later when I left mutiny broke out in the camp. I know that the entire guard company at the camp was used to suppress this mutiny. I was not there, I was at Gleiwitz at the time. I do not know anything about this, but Hoess can tell you that.
        Q. Did you ever cremate any of your crematorium detail?
        A. No.
        Q. You mentioned that in the killing of the people in the gas chambers that it took only one half minute. On what do you base that?
        A. The gas was poured in through an opening. About one half minute after the gas was poured in, of course I am merely estimating this time as we never had a stop-watch to clock it and we were not interested, at any rate, after one-half minute there were no more heavy sounds and no sounds at all that could be heard from the gas chamber.
        Q. What kind of sounds were heard before that?
        A. The people wept and screeched.
        Q. You observed all this and heard the sounds?
        A. Yes, I had to hear this because I was near there with my work detail. There is nothing that I could do against this as I had no possibility of changing this in any way.
        Q. We are not interested in your opinions on that. You helped make the arrangements to put them in the gas chamber and burned them afterwards when they were killed. The only thing you failed to do personally was pour in the gas. Is that it?
        A. I was not responsible for the preparations as there were no special preparations. The victims were led to the gas chamber by the duty officer and then there was a work detail from the administrator, they told them to undress, there was a further detail from the proper administration [sic], which were responsible to collect all the valuables from the people. The whole thing happened very correctly and in no instance was there any reason to interfere. I had no right to interfere, always a doctor supervised the entire thing.
        Q. You recall yesterday, you said you were told that if any prisoners coming off of new transports detailed for the gas chamber would escape, you would be court-martialled.
        A. I was talking about the work detail, not about the transports.
        Q. This came at the time you were testifying about your responsibilities at the crematorium.
        A. No, I only say as far as the work detail is concerned for which I was responsible.
        Q. We will not argue about it, as the notes show otherwise.

        Questions addressed to Rudolf Hoess.

        Q. What do you say of the detail of Moll.
        A. Moll is not looking at this the right way. It actually is true and I have explained this before, that the officer was responsible for the entire transport, that is he was responsible to see that all were unloaded from each transport, the doctors were responsible for the phase of work to see that people were killed and all the bodies disposed of. It was the responsibility of the subordinate, like Moll, to see that the people actually got into the gas chambers under the doctors and then to see that their bodies were burned. As far as the subordinate leader was concerned, it was his responsibility to see that none of his work detail escaped and he would be responsible to see that none got away. In the last analysis I was responsible for the entire matter, that is for the entire situation dealing with these transports.
        Q. You have told us about some of the problems of making sure that everyone was exterminated. For instance, that mothers hid their children under their clothing after they undressed. Who was the person that gathered up the children, searched them out and put them into the gas chamber?
        A. I think this thing has been slightly misunderstood. The way this thing happened is that mothers had babies with them, who would be wrapped in blankets or cloth. The people had been told that they were going to take a bath, they had no idea that they were going to be killed. It was not the idea, the mothers did not want to take the children in with them to the bath and they left them outside. Later on, the work detail from the administration, which was responsible for them, would pick up the babies and put them in the gas chamber then.
        Q. Was it Molls responsibility to see that the children were disposed of?
        A. Yes, but it would not mean on the other hand that Moll would have the particular task of picking out the babies from under the blankets. I did not tell any one of the officers or non-coms [NCOs] that they would be responsible for any particular thing, but the entire team was responsible for the extermination. It was to be done and all of them carried out the orders smoothly and properly.

        Questions addressed to Otto Moll

        Q. You, Moll, said that your team respected you because you gave them a hand. Was this job of picking up small children and gassing them a part of the hand you loaned them?
        A. Possibly this was not expressed correctly by Hoess. I had nothing to do with the searching of the clothes because that was not my duty. As I said, the officers that had charge of the duty when the transport came in was responsible for them until the moment they entered the gas chamber. I had nothing to do with that, I never touched the babies or had anything to do with it.
        Q. Did any of your men have anything to do with that? Anyone under you?
        A. Yes, the prisoners were responsible for that. They had to clean up the room after it had been cleared of people, they would then take the babies and throw them into the gas chamber. There was a strict order against any SS men touching any of this property.
        Q. We are not talking about property. We are talking of people. Did you have a special operation to kill these babies or were they thrown into the room where people were still alive and all were gassed together?
        A. Such a thing happened rarely and I cannot remember a case where a baby was found, but if they were found they were thrown into the gas chamber.
        Q. How do you know?
        A. Well, that was an order for the officer responsible for the transport and if any children were found they were to be disposed of like all the rest in the gas chamber.
        Q. You carried out your orders?
        A. I emphasize again that I myself did not find any children, but if I did find any, I would have to do it too.
        Q. Did you shoot any babies in the neck, like you did the other victims?
        A. Such a thing never happened.
        Q. That is what you said about shooting other people this morning then we proved you a liar. Are you sure you are telling the truth this time?…

        Comment by srebrenica — February 2, 2016 @ 7:59 am

        • I’ve read that material before, srebrenica, but unfortunately it must be completely discredited as testimony, because both Otto Moll and Rudolf Hoess were both in the courtroom at the same time having questions and accusations put to them by the prosecutor. This is completely unheard of in any trial which purports to be a legitimate tribunal attempting to establish truth and justice.

          Both men are under trial for their lives – accused of the most heinous crimes, and should therefore be questioned and cross-examined separately, without them being able to incriminate one another face to face in open court.

          In fact, this scenario was so disgraceful, that it would prove to any independent observer of the utterly shoddy quality of these war crimes trials. What happened in that courtroom, would be almost like a “cock fight”, where two cockerels are trained to fight by being goaded and mistreated by their handlers in advance, and then put into the ring for both of them to peck at each other to death.

          Comment by Talbot — February 2, 2016 @ 10:04 am

          • Your outrage is understandable, Talbot.
            However, Moll insisted on having Hoess present.
            Also, this was an interrogation, not testimony in open court.
            http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=64198
            Also, click the link. It explains this.
            Jeff

            Comment by Jeff K. — February 2, 2016 @ 11:51 am

            • Jeff. Even if true, that Moll asked to be present in the courtroom in order to confront Hoess, the presiding judge in a properly established court or tribunal would reject such an application out of hand; plus the solicitor acting for Hoess would be on his feet immediately to object such an outrageous proposition.

              Comment by Talbot — February 2, 2016 @ 1:00 pm

              • It wasn’t in open court, it was an interrogation.
                Now, the interesting question that you did bring up is were attorneys present for the accused. That I do not know.

                Comment by Jeff K. — February 2, 2016 @ 1:38 pm

                • To be honest, Jeff, I don’t know if there were any attorneys present. I assumed that this exchange was taking place in an open court at one of the Nuremburg Tribunals. But if it was just an interrogation, then it is even more outrageous that attorneys were not present. In addition, these exchanges between Hoess, Moll and the Questioner are not sworn testimony at all. Thus, no one can establish the veracity of these wild claims and accusations. For all we know, this interrogation between Hoess and Moll never took place, but was simply conjured up on a typewriter by an imaginative Allied interrogator.

                  Comment by Talbot — February 2, 2016 @ 2:12 pm

              • The interrogations were recorded and transcribed, I’m sure in a similar fashion to a police interrogation today.
                I do think it would be interesting to find out if the prisoners were given an option to have an attorney present or if this was even a requirement in this time period. The idea of a “Miranda” requirement is relatively new (the right to have an attorney present). I’m sure that Britain has something similar to Miranda that you can tell me about.

                Comment by Jeff K. — February 2, 2016 @ 2:19 pm

              • I’m sure you get the gist of Miranda but here is a link that explains it better:
                http://www.mirandawarning.org/whatareyourmirandarights.html
                I’m just guessing but I think you would have something similar in Britain.
                Jeff

                Comment by Jeff K. — February 2, 2016 @ 2:23 pm

          • Disgraceful or not, these were the words that were recorded. Hoess provided similar testimony at Nuremburg, both in the trial and to Gustave Gilbert:

            “I asked Hoess how it was technically possible to exterminate 2.5 million people. “Technically?” he asked. “That wasn’t so hard – it would not have been hard to exterminate even greater numbers.” In answer to my rather naive questions as to how many people could be done away in an hour, etc., he explained that one must figure it on a daily 24 hour period. He explained that there were actually 6 extermination chambers. The 2 big ones could accommodate as many as 2000 in each and the 4 smaller ones up to 1500 making a total capacity of 10,000 a day. I tried to work out how this was done, but he corrected me. “No, you don’t work it right. The killing itself took the least time. You could dispose of 2,000 head in a half-hour, but it was the burning that took all the time. The killing itself was easy; you didn’t even need guards to drive them into the chambers; they just went in expecting to take showers and, instead of water, we turned on poison gas. The whole thing went very quickly.” He related all this in a quiet, apathetic, matter-of-fact tone of voice”

            Then there is his autobiography.

            Henryk Tauber described Moll as follows:

            “Hauptscharführer Moll was the most degenerate of the lot. Before by arrival at the camp, he was in charge of the work at the Bunkers, where they incinerated the gassed victims in pits. Then he was transferred for a while to another section. In view of the preparation necessary for the “reception” of convoys from Hungary in 1944, he was put in charge of all the Krematorien. It is he who organized the large-scale extermination of the people arriving in these convoys. Just before the arrival of the Hungarian transports, he ordered pits to be dug alongside Krematorium V and restarted the activity of Bunker 2, which had been lying idle, and its pits. In the yard of the Krematorium, there were notices on posts, with inscriptions telling the new arrivals from the transports that they were to go to the camp where work was waiting for them, but that first they had to take a bath and undergo disinfestation. For that, it was necessary for them to undress and put all their valuables in baskets specially placed for this purpose in the yard. Moll repeated the same thing in his speeches to the new arrivals. There were so many convoys that sometimes it happened that the gas chambers were incapable of containing all the new arrivals. The excess people were generally shot, one at a time. On several occasions, Moll threw people into the flaming pits alive. He also practised shooting people from a distance. He ill-treated and beat Sonderkommando prisoners, treating them like animals. Those who were in his personal service told us that he used a piece of wire to fish out gold objects from the box containing the jewels taken from new arrivals, and took them off in a briefcase. Among the objects left by the people who came to be gassed, he took furs and different types of food, in particular fat. When he took food, he said smilingly to the SS around him that one had to take advantage before the lean years came. Under his direction, the Sonderkommando was strengthened and increased to about 1000 prisoners.”

            I suggest you take a look at Hermann Langbein’s book ‘People in Auschwitz’ too.

            Comment by srebrenica — February 2, 2016 @ 11:55 am

            • There are two sides to the story of the Holocaust. I wrote about Otto Moll on this previous blog post: https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2015/11/08/holocaust-survivor-remembers-auschwitz-commandant-otto-moll-the-killer-of-auschwitz/

              Comment by furtherglory — February 2, 2016 @ 12:05 pm

              • FG, I read your previous blog post before I posted the transcript above. I agree there are two sides to every story, but you only posted the part of the interrogation where Moll claimed he was a gardener. You missed the part where Moll admitted shooting prisoners, and his recollections about the gas chambers that apparently never existed.

                Comment by srebrenica — February 2, 2016 @ 12:15 pm

            • srebrenica. You mention three holocaust authors in your post;-

              1) Gustave Gilbert – his words fall down flat at the very start of the quote, when he says;- “I asked Hoess how it was technically possibly to exterminate 2.5 million people…”

              Well, this turns out to be a totally absurd question to have asked Rudolf Hoess, because he wouldn’t have any idea at all. The official holocaust narrative claims that barely one million people were “exterminated” there, and so the fact that he attempted to answer such a ridiculous question, proves that he was talking nonsense and thus his testimony can be rejected.

              2) Henryk Tauber – who claims that he worked as a Sondercommando in the crematorias at Auschwitz from the end of 1942 until the “exterminations” ended in November 1944. But his words are highly suspect, because once again the official narrative says that the sondercommados were changed at the end of each three month period, with all the team members killed. So, for Mt Tauber’s account to be true, then he would have had to survive no less than eight changes of personnel ( I don’t think so! ) In addition, Mr Robert Van Pelt – who today is regarded as the technical expert on the official version of the holocaust – wrote a very harsh critique of Henryk Tauber’s claims back in the year 2000.

              3) Herman Langbein – who was an inmate at Auschwitz, and is described in Wikipedia as “one of the leaders of the international resistance groups within the camp.” Before the war, he also fought with the International Brigade in the Spanish Civil War. In other words Mr Langbein was a revolutionary communist. There’s nothing wrong with that – but his account of what went on in Auschwitz is hardly likely to be truthful or factually accurate. His writings will be completely polemical, designed to utterly denigrate his former political enemies – the nazis.

              Comment by Talbot — February 2, 2016 @ 1:56 pm

              • 1) Gustave Gilbert – his words fall down flat at the very start of the quote, when he says;- “I asked Hoess how it was technically possibly to exterminate 2.5 million people…”

                Hoess had an idea about this because Adolph Eichman told him this. Hoess later changed his mind, bringing the total down to 1.5 million.
                I don’t know where Eichman got his numbers from, there was a Reich Statistical Office the numbers were reported to. It’s possible that Hoess misunderstood Eichman.

                As far as Tauber, the SS favored experienced workers as long as they remained healthy. The SS based their selections on the health of the SK, not in some type of schedule. The numbers also fluctuated on need, more SK’s during the more active periods and less when it was quiet. My own opinion is that the whole “three month and then gassed” is based more on an average than any sort of realistic schedule.
                As far as Langbein, why do you automatically dismiss his testimony? Just because he opposed the Nazis does not make his testimony invalid.
                Jeff

                Comment by Jeff K. — February 2, 2016 @ 2:37 pm

                • I don’t automatically reject Herman Langbein’s testimony, Jeff, but his background certainly has to be taken into account when reading his manuscript, otherwise readers will just assume that he is an impartial, non-political personality with no axe to grind against his former jailors.

                  In regards to Tauber, you say “the SS favoured experienced workers as long as they remained healthy.” Well, yes, that’s what I would have thought – but the number of times that I’ve heard and read that sondercommando teams were all put to death after three months could fill an entire book in itself.

                  I know you make a reasonable attempt to justify the testimony of Rudolf Hoess – but I think we’ll just have to disagree on that.

                  In British police stations today, as soon as one is formerly charged with an offence, then all defendants are entitled to not answer any further questions unless an attorney is present. This right can be waived by the defendant – but not by the police themselves. Being formerly charged of course, takes place some time after the initial arrest. But immediately upon arresting a suspect, the police have to issue a caution, which until about ten years ago went like this;- “You have the right to remain silent, but what you do say, can and will be used against you as evidence later in court. This changed into something more favourable to the prosecution, and goes something like this ( but don’t quote me):- “You have the right to remain silent, but what you do or don’t say at this time can be used against you in court. The refusal to answer reasonable questions at this stage could possibly harm your defence”. Cheers.

                  Comment by Talbot — February 2, 2016 @ 3:28 pm

        • Thank you for posting the testimony.
          Deniers gleefully point out that the British tortured Hoess, what they don’t point out is that in his testimony Hoess denied that there was a deliberate policy of torture in the camps. Hoess testified that policy forbid the deliberate torture of prisoners. Hoess even blamed the conditions in the camps on the allies, stating that conditions were bearable until mass allied bombings made the transport of food difficult.
          If the allies forced Hoess to admit to the extermination of the Jews, why not force him to admit to torture and starvation? Why allow him to say anything critical of the allies? That does not make sense.
          What Hoess said about SS policy was true, they were not officially allowed to arbitrarily abuse prisoners. However, a great deal of unofficial punishment went on and official punishments were draconian. Hoess was also correct, many of the conditions in the camps were either an indirect or direct result of shortages caused by bombing. What Hoess did not say that rations were routinely cut, the SS stole and sold prisoner rations frequently and what was served was disgusting, of no nutritional value and often dangerous to consume.
          Prisoners had to survive by stealing or getting food through the black market.
          Jeff K.

          Comment by Jeff K. — February 2, 2016 @ 11:42 am

          • Thanks Jeff. I think you will find this an interesting read:

            https://archive.org/stream/HermannLangbeinPeopleInAuschwitz/Hermann_Langbein_People_in_Auschwitz_djvu.txt

            Comment by srebrenica — February 2, 2016 @ 12:49 pm

            • Thanks for the link, I’ll read it over tonight when I get home.
              Jeff

              Comment by Jeff K. — February 2, 2016 @ 1:40 pm

          • Jeff wrote: “If the allies forced Hoess to admit to the extermination of the Jews, why not force him to admit to torture and starvation? Why allow him to say anything critical of the allies? That does not make sense.”

            Because that made his testimony more credible and so more believable. Any talented liar in the world knows that the best stories are always a mixture of lies and real things. Hoess could have said that the SS camp guards were in fact werewolves eating Jewish children alive every full moon, but that would of course have spoiled his entire story. It’s not rocket science. And it was nothing new. In March 1933, British ambassador in Berlin Sir H. Rumbold wrote in a report entitled ‘Recent persecution in Germany of Jews and other persons’: “As in the case of the [German] “war atrocities” in Flanders [during WW1], falsehood and truth have already become so intermixed that it is impossible to disentangle them.”

            Comment by hermie — February 3, 2016 @ 8:16 am

    • EAH. So the Nazis could better hold secrecy.

      Comment by Wolf Murmelstein — February 1, 2016 @ 12:51 pm

      • So the Nazis could better hold secrecy.

        Wolf, do you know the story of ‘The Boy Who Cried Wolf’? If not, go read about it. Because it’s (sort of) applicable here. It’ll save you some keystrokes in the future.

        Comment by eah — February 2, 2016 @ 2:14 am

        • I said this about the whole 4 million dead at Auschwitz deal in response to you. Hopefully this will save YOU keystrokes in the future.
          If the plaque actually said “Jews” or “gassed” you might have a valid point. It does not. It says “murdered” and “people.”
          So, your point is invalid.
          Also, the plaque says “1940-1945.” The number of Jews in the entire KL system remained low until 1942. Auschwitz housed primarily Poles from 1940-1942.
          Also, serious Holocaust Historians never believed 4 million people died at Auschwitz.
          Hopefully I won’t have to bring this up again.
          Jeff

          Comment by Jeff K. — February 2, 2016 @ 8:47 am

          • you might have a valid point

            I didn’t make a point — I just posted images.

            You fucking stupid cretin.

            Comment by eah — February 2, 2016 @ 10:31 am

            • I think it’s funny when you swear at me.
              The point was there. The picture even underlined the whole “4 million” in red so that no one could miss it. Unfortunately the person that underlined “4 million” missed the whole “people” thing.
              But, then again, maybe deniers can’t figure out the difference between the spelling of Jews and people.
              So, please, swear at me again. It makes me laugh and emphasizes what a whiny little bitch you are.
              Jeff

              Comment by Jeff K. — February 2, 2016 @ 11:23 am

      • wolf wrote: “So the Nazis could better hold secrecy.”

        The entire secrecy thing is ridiculous and even nonsensical because it implies that the Nazi leaders regarded a mass slaughter of Jews as something wrong, as something to be ashamed of, as something to hide. As an anti-Semite myself, the last thing I would do, if I ordered a slaughter of millions of Jews, would be to try to hide my ‘masterwork’. On the other hand, one should concede that the secrecy thing is very convenient to explain the complete lack of documentary and physical evidence for the ‘Holocaust’.

        Everybody could charge anybody with anything by claiming that any specific individual has perpetrated this or that but has successfully managed to get rid of any tangible evidence of his/her actions afterwards. Holocaustianity is the triumph of judicial jungle law and unsubstantiated supersticious beliefs.

        Comment by hermie — February 2, 2016 @ 7:50 am

        • The entire secrecy thing is ridiculous and even nonsensical because it implies that the Nazi leaders regarded a mass slaughter of Jews as something wrong, as something to be ashamed of, as something to hide. As an anti-Semite myself, the last thing I would do, if I ordered a slaughter of millions of Jews, would be to try to hide my ‘masterwork’. On the other hand, one should concede that the secrecy thing is very convenient to explain the complete lack of documentary and physical evidence for the ‘Holocaust’.

          Hermie, I believe this is the silliest thing you have ever said.
          Blatantly admitting the mass killing of Jews, especially women and children, is a completely nonsensical.
          You risk adverse public and private reaction among those who support you, including those that supported some type of action against the Jews. The Nazis actually cared about public opinion, which separated it from other dictatorships.
          The Nazis learned this from the public reaction against the T-4 program.
          Also, the Germans risked active opposition from the countries they occupied and their allies. The Italians repeatedly defied German attempts to deport Italian Jews, as did the Hungarians.
          When knowledge of the massacre of the Jews did get out, many Germans became very uneasy about it. The allies used it as a propaganda tool.
          So, announcing to the world at large the outright mass killings of millions of Jewish men, women and children is a ridiculous idea.
          I know that is what you would do, Hermie. That does not mean the Germans wanted to do the same thing.
          Jeff

          Comment by Jeff K. — February 2, 2016 @ 6:23 pm

          • Jeff wrote: “Hermie, I believe this is the silliest thing you have ever said. Blatantly admitting the mass killing of Jews, especially women and children, is a completely nonsensical. You risk adverse public and private reaction among those who support you, including those that supported some type of action against the Jews.”

            Within the ‘Holocaust’ paradigm, a far more logical choice would have been to tell the German people about the need to slaughter the Jews of Europe, to explain to them through propaganda the reason(s) why such a hard task had to be implemented.

            And the Nazis did not only avoid admitting the mass killings of Jews. They openly denied some of the Soviet-Allied claims about that during the war. But, seeing that it was useless anyway, they didn’t persist much on that path. They had been defamed in foreign Jewish/Zionist vilifying propaganda with outright lies from early 1933 after all. To them, Zionist atrocity propaganda had become routine in the 1940’s.

            Comment by hermie — February 2, 2016 @ 7:11 pm

            • The German people reacted strongly against the T-4 Program even after years of propaganda. So, sorry, flat out telling the world that you are planning to kill every living Jew you could get your hands on is absolutely the wrong move.
              One other point on this:
              Not only do you risk overt and covert opposition among Gentiles but the Jews themselves would have fought this. One of the reasons to keep this a secret was to prevent armed opposition from the Jews. The Jews started fighting back in 1943 with the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, the revolts at Sobibor and Treblinka, Jews joining partisan groups, etc. Faced with the choice of dying like a rat in a gas chamber, shot naked over a pit or fighting back, I know what option I would choose. Better to die fighting than to die helpless.
              So, no, your idea makes no sense whatsoever.
              Jeff

              Comment by Jeff K. — February 3, 2016 @ 6:58 am

              • I have blogged about the T-4 program at https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/tag/t4-program/

                Comment by furtherglory — February 3, 2016 @ 7:07 am

                • I read your post on T-4.
                  Some of the replies I glanced through were quite enlightening.
                  I do think you are confusing eugenics with euthanasia. The US did have several states that required that prospective parents prove that they were fit to produce offspring. These states did sterilize those unfit for producing children but there was no active “euthanasia” program to kill the disabled.
                  It is true that Germany copied the Eugenics Laws enacted by the US.
                  Eugenics were a very popular pseudoscience in the early 20th century. There were those who advocated the mercy killing of the disabled, as far as I know only Nazi Germany put this into actual practice.
                  If you have Netflix there is a documentary called “Nazi Medicine.”

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 3, 2016 @ 8:22 am

              • Jeff wrote: “The German people reacted strongly against the T-4 Program even after years of propaganda. So, sorry, flat out telling the world that you are planning to kill every living Jew you could get your hands on is absolutely the wrong move.”

                The ‘people’ put to death in the T-4 program were Germans, not members of an alien race busy killing vast numbers of Germans every day and advocating their complete extermination openly. No surprise the Germans reacted against the T-4 program, the euthanasia of some of theirs. That would have been very different for an extermination of Jews. I suspect that another publication of Kaufman’s “Germany Must Perish!” by Goebbels would have been enough to make the idea admissible if not exciting and enthusiastically supported by most Germans.

                Jeff wrote: “One of the reasons to keep this a secret was to prevent armed opposition from the Jews. […] Faced with the choice of dying like a rat in a gas chamber, shot naked over a pit or fighting back, I know what option I would choose. Better to die fighting than to die helpless.”

                That doesn’t explain the alleged genocidal code words and euphemisms in Nazi internal documents, documents that no Jew was of course supposed to read. By the way, it also implies that Hitler’s public words about the annihilation/extermination of the Jewish race in Europe (his ‘prophecy’ and his numerous references to it) didn’t deal with mass slaughter as often alleged. Orthodox historians should stop quoting those statements to ‘prove’ their case.

                And the ‘Holocaust’ was common atrocity propaganda on the airwaves of the BBC and in various newspapers during the war. In an exterminationist perspective, the genie was out of the bottle anyway. From late 1942, any policy of secrecy would have been of no use to avoid Jewish resistance against such a program.

                Comment by hermie — February 3, 2016 @ 8:46 am

                • “Alien Race”
                  You mean, like the aliens in the movie franchise with acid for blood, retractable inner jaws and burst out of people’s chests?
                  I love those movies. I’m a sucker for scary movies.
                  Seriously, your idea is crazy but if that’s what you want to believe go ahead.
                  One thing about what you said about the alien race, you said that it was exterminating vast numbers every day. I don’t understand that bit. Could you elaborate?
                  Are you saying Jews were exterminating Germans?
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 3, 2016 @ 10:13 am

                • Jeff wrote: “you said that it was exterminating vast numbers every day. I don’t understand that bit. Could you elaborate?”

                  To an average German of that time, WW2 was a Jewish war that had been forced upon Germany, and the civilians killed by Allied bombs, as well as the German soldiers falling on various battlefields, were victims of International Jewry. No matter if that was a view in conformity with reality or not (we have debated that a lot previously). That’s what average Germans thought. And there was also the Kaufman Plan, advocating the postwar extermination of the entire German people and massively publicised by Goebbels. All this had created in Germany fertile ground for a large popular support of a public extermination of Jewry if such a thing had been implemented. This is why I don’t believe any kind of secrecy was really needed.

                  Comment by hermie — February 3, 2016 @ 3:47 pm

                • How do you know what ordinary Germans were thinking during the war?
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 3, 2016 @ 8:39 pm

                • In an effort to be helpful I have posted the gist of the Kaufman Plan:
                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany_Must_Perish!
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 3, 2016 @ 8:46 pm

                • What are the other types of Jewry besides International?

                  Comment by Anonymous — February 3, 2016 @ 5:05 pm

                • Anonymous wrote: “What are the other types of Jewry besides International?”

                  According to Winston Churchill in his 1920 article “Zionism versus Bolshevism”, there were national Jews, international Jews (Bolsheviks being international Jews) and Zionist Jews. I was refering to the “internationalen Finanzjudentum” (international Jewry of finance) mentioned by Hitler on several occassions.

                  Comment by hermie — February 3, 2016 @ 7:27 pm

                • Jeff wrote: “How do you know what ordinary Germans were thinking during the war?”

                  I know it by knowing that time’s Nazi propaganda. There exist very few original thinkers having ideas and views of their own. Most people just swallow and regurgitate what their country’s propagandists told them. This is of course also true for democratic propaganda. You can see many examples illustrating this every day.

                  Comment by hermie — February 4, 2016 @ 8:45 am

                • You take Nazi propaganda seriously?
                  For once you leave me speechless.
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 4, 2016 @ 9:20 am

                • Jeff wrote: “You take Nazi propaganda seriously?”

                  The way I take Nazi propaganda is off topic. The core of this topic is the way most Germans took it at that time.

                  Comment by hermie — February 4, 2016 @ 2:11 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: