The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/s/stein.michael/1996/those-not-executed

[UseNet headers trimmed]

From: (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: And another question regarding those not executed
Date: 27 Jun 1996 17:19:42 -0400
Message-ID: <4qutte$>
References: <4qsnfc$> <4qsr12$>

In article <4qsr12$>, SF924  wrote:

[much snipped]

>To my mind, it begs creduility to believe that the greatest hoax of all
>time could be pulled off so flawlessly without a single lawyer raising an
>objection.   Look at what OJ Simson's lawyers went through just to imply
>that a glove had been planted.   

    To my mind, there is an even more puzzling question.  The revisionists
claim that all the prisoner testimony of gassing was hallucination,
hearsay, or motivated by revenge.  Let's accept that for the sake of
argument.  What about the confessions?  The response is that all
confessions were produced by torture or other forms of coercion - that
even in the trials conducted by West Germany, where brutality is not
alleged as it was in the early postwar days, it is held that the
defendants were afraid it would go harder on them if they denied "proven
fact" and the witnesses did not want to risk the social consequences of
doing the same.  (The Staeglich thesis.)

    However, it is a well-known phenomenon that even guilty convicted
criminals deny their guilt, often quite convincingly.  (Ask Bill Buckley
about Edgar Smith sometime.)  Yet there is something missing here,
something which I would expect to see if the Staeglich thesis were true. 
While Hoess was executed, many of the other defendants were jailed.  After
getting out of jail, when they could no longer be punished, why are there
not reports of massive recantations?  Why did nobody come out and say, "I
falsely confessed out of fear, but I never participated in these things." 
This kind of recantation would not fall afoul of Holocaust denial laws. 
It does not deny that the things happened, only that the specific person
did not take part. 

    Why are there no deathbed recantations reported?  Why did people like
Franz Suchomel repeat their self-incriminating stories when there was no
possible benefit to them?  Suchomel agreed to talk to Lanzmann only under
a promise of anonymity, a promise that Lanzmann broke.  Therefore Suchomel
cannot be explained away by a strange psychological desire for notoreity. 
He was ashamed of what he had done, and did not want attention called to

    The witnesses would not be expected to recant their testimony in West
German courts for fear of perjury charges.  However, when first approached
to testify, they could have recanted their original affidavits as having
been produced by beating.  So why did Wilhelm Pfannenstiel always testify
that he did, as Kurt Gerstein said, accompany him to witness a gassing in
one of the Reinhard camps?  (Oddly, Pfannenstiel says Gerstein got the
camp wrong, yet he corroborates the story of watching a gassing.)
Pfannenstiel could have told the prosecution that any postwar statements
were due to coercion to admit to what Gerstein said he did, but that he
now swears that Gerstein had him confused with someone else.  Again, no
violation of the denial laws, merely a denial of personal involvement or
even knowledge.

    Yet we do not see these people doing what I would expect innocent men
to do.  Any revisionists who want to try to explain this peculiar

Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.