The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/h/hoess.rudolf.ferdinand/2000/usenet.0001

From: John Morris 
Newsgroups: uk.politics.misc,alt.politics.british,alt.politics.nationalism.white,,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Holocaust on trial
Organization: University of Alberta
Reply-To: John.Morris@UAlberta.CA
Message-ID: <>
References: <8571jc$87e$>   <> <85u62s$27vv$> 
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 292
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 18:25:27 GMT
X-Trace: 948219927 (Tue, 18 Jan 2000 11:25:27 MST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 11:25:27 MST
Xref: uk.politics.misc:376831 alt.politics.british:212490 alt.politics.nationalism.white:457768 alt.revisionism:706263

Hash: SHA1

In  in alt.revisionism, on Mon,
17 Jan 2000 23:23:48 -0800, Mofo  wrote:

>On 17 Jan 2000 04:33:32 GMT, (Kenneth
>McVay OBC) wrote:

>>In article <>,
>>Mofo   wrote:

>>>>Please specify which confessions were obtained by torture and
>>>>provide  proof that these confessions were indeed obtained by

>>>No problem. The a major player in the whole holocaust myth is
>>>centered around  Auschwitz Commander Rudolph Höss. He signed a
>>>confession that states he ordered the death of 2.5 million people
>>>at Auschwitz. A copy can be found here:

>>And you have researched this issue in depth, and know how he was
>>"tortured?" Why don't you tell us about it?

>>Then perhaps, given your status as Yet Another Revisionist Scholar,
>>you can relate his confession with his memoirs, and his testimony
>>at Nurnberg, and explain why other testimony, from people he didn't
>>know and never met, agreed with his.

>His written testimony at Nurenberg was written by his prosecuters.
>See this:

>Rudolf Höss was the Auschwitz commandant whose "confessions" have
>"proven" that Hitler gassed six million Jews (or five million, the
>figure usually used at Nuremberg).  Document 3868-PS.

That is simply false.  How could Hoess's affidavit at Nuremberg be
proof that six million were gassed when *no* historian has claimed
that six million were gassed and when Hoess does not even claim (as
you point out below) that all of the inmates in his custody were
gassed ?
>At Nuremberg, there was never the slightest pretense that Höss wrote
>this document.  If that had been the case, it would not state, "I
>understand English as it is written above", but rather, "I have
>written this statement myself". 

>Care to refute this claim?

What's to refute?  No one has claimed that Hoess wrote his statement
out himself.  Only your Revisionists source claims that anyone made
that claim.

The question is why the observation is significant when in ordinary
criminal cases the police write out as a statement based upon their
questioning and then ask for it to be emended and signed.

Since raise the question of torture below, I should point out that
PS-3868 is based upon Robert Storey's interrogation of Hoess not on
the British interrogation.

>Also explain how a man who claimed to have ordered the death of 2.5
>million people (this, you have already said, could not be true.

As he says in his memoirs and as he said at Nuremberg, that was the
figure that Eichmann gave him.

You did know that Hoess revised his figure to 1.1 million in memoirs?

>Current "research" comes to a little more than half that) would also
>say something like this:

>"If any ill-treatment of detainees by guards occurred - I myself
>have never observed any - then this was possible only to a very
>degree, since all officers in charge of the camps took care that as
>few SS men as possible had immediate contact with the inmates,
>because in the course of the years the guard personnel had
>deteriorated to
>such an extent that the former standards could no longer be

No.  You explain why Hoess would be allowed to say that if the
standard story is that prisoners were ill-treated.

>Also please tell me why this testimony has been ignored by you and
>the rest of the Exterminationists:

>"The catastrophic situation at the end of the war was due to the
>fact that as a result of the destruction of railways and of the
>continuous bombings of the industrial works, it was no longer
>possible to
>properly care for these masses, for example, at Auschwitz, with its
>140,000 detainees. Improvised measures, truck columns, and
>everything else tried by the commandants to improve the situation,
>were of little or no avail. The number of sick became immense. There
>were next to no medical supplies; plagues raged everywhere. "

Just because CODOH tells you that it has been ignored, doesn't mean
that it has been ignored.  Historians have written extensively on
death from disease at Auschwitz.

In alt.revisionism, one of the perennial discussions is whether the
52 crematoria were planned in 1940 and 1941 to deal with the typhus
epidemic of 1942.

>Dosen't this seem to be very different Rudolf Höss than the one who
>claimed to have written "Those who were fit to work were sent into
>the camp. Others were sent immediately to the extermination plants."

Where is the contradiction?  Why is it impossible that there should
have been outbreaks of disease among the population that was
preserved for labour?

>Of course we will never know what to Rudolf Höss was the truth. He
>was murdered by the Polish a year or so after he signed this

Murdered?  I believe there was a trial first.
>>Take your time,, and do your homework like a good little Bubba.

>I did and I find more evidence that all your "confessions" by German
>officers were lies. A common tactict was for the prosecution  to
>write confessions for the prisoners in english and then have them
>sign them.  


>When the prisoners were later read back what they had signed there
>were some rather interesting incidents. Here are some examples from
>Nurenburg documents:

>General Westhoff, who contradicted his unsworn "statement" 27 times;

Why was he allowed to contradict his statement?  If these people were
being railroaded as you say, how is it that his contradiction is
recorded for historians?

>and a "germ warfare witness", Schreiber; Paul Schmidt's affidavit
>(Schmidt was Hitler's interpreter), Document 3308-PS - presented to
>him for signature when he was too sick to read it carefully - was
>partially repudiated by him, but used in evidence against Von
>Neurath, despite Schmidt's repudiation.

Why was he allowed to repudiate his statement?  If these people were
being railroaded as you say, how is it that his repudiation is
recorded for historians?

> Ernst Sauckel signed an affidavit
>written prior to his arrival at Nuremberg and signed under duress
>(his wife and 10 children were to be handed over to the Poles or

You have evidence of this threat?  Or is it just on CODOH's say so?

>>>But evidence that he was tortured came up later. I quote this from
>>>the site above:

>>>" British military intelligence sergeant Bernard Clarke described
>>>how he and five other British soldiers tortured the former
>>>commandant to obtain his "confession." Höss himself privately
>>>explained his ordeal in these words: "Certainly, I signed a
>>>statement that I killed two and half million Jews. I could just as
>>>well have said that it was five million Jews. There are certain
>>>methods by which any confession can be obtained, whether it is
>>>true or not."

Yet he gave the same answer to the Americans who did not torture him.
 At so he says in his memoirs.  If you are going to argue that the
"Polish Communists" fabricated his memoirs explain two things: why
the Polish allowed him to let the Americans of the hook and why they
allowed him to say that he was initially mistreated by his Polish

>>He didn't say a thing about his being tortured... or have I missed

>You apparently missed the confession of Bernard Clarke that said he
>tortured Höss.

>>>A picture of Hoss being at least verbally assaulted can be found


>>>This is just one man. It is therefore fair to say that all German
>>>officer confessions were obtained under the same conditions and
>>>therefore must be ignored. If you do not agree, explain why?

>>There is no evidence that he was tortured. None. There is evidence
>>of abuse, and that is clear. There is, however, no evidence that
>>memoirs were produced under torture, and, given that he was already
>>condemned, no evidence of corecion, either.

>Thats not what Rupert Butler says in his book "Legions of Death".

I would take that with a grain of salt.  Unlike most people, I have
actually read _Legions of Death_.  It is basically an historical
novel.  Hoess's abuse at the hands of his British-Jewish captors is a
highly dramatized moment and provides a considerable and visceral
satisfaction for the reader who has had to endure a couple of hundred
pages of the most outrageous abuse of the Jews.

Butler, meanwhile, discusses only Hoess's treatment by the British. 
He says nothing at all about Hoess's treatment by the Americans or
his treatment by the Poles.

Also unlike other people, I consider it a semantic quibble to
distinguish Hoess's treatment by British as abuse rather than
torture.  For instance, besides the initial beating, and possibly
subsequent beatings, he was sleep-deprived.  Amnesty International
calls sleep-deprivation a torture, and that's good enough for me.  By
today's standards, Hoess was tortured.

But it's important to realize that Hoess was never questioned in any
court case on the statement he gave to the British nor was it ever
entered into evidence against him.

>>So talk about his memoirs, won't you?

>Why, he didn't write them. Somebody else wrote them and forced him
>to sign.

I'm afraid you are mistaken.  They were written in his own hand.  And
why would the Poles force him to write that the Russians at Auschwitz
behaved like animals and the Poles like criminals, and that he was
mistreated by his Polish guards?  Why, for that matter, would they
allow him revise downwards his figure for the numbers killed at
Auschwitz to 1.1 million especially considering that official Polish
figure was 4 million?

>>>>>Exagerated documents?

>>>>Please specify which documents used to support the Holocaust
>>>>numbers  were "exaggerated" and prove that they were exaggerated.

>>>Hoss claimed he killed 2.5 million at Auschwitz. Nobody today
>>>believes this number as even the holocaust pro Ken Mcvay will

So?  Upon reflection he revised the figure himself, to about a
quarter of what his Polish captors believed the figure was.

>>Does that mean he was lying, or that he didn't know? Why don't you
>>provide his testimony in context? Some reason you didn't want to do

>It means he was lying. He made up that number because it sounded
>good. He could "just as easily said that it was 5 million Jews."
>The official number is 1.5 million. He said 2.5 million. He was the
>camp commander, who else would know but him?

But he was not supposed to know, and testified under *defence*
questioning at Nuremberg that he did not know but relied on
Eichmann's estimate.  Considering when Eichmann must have told him,
the figure may even be accurate but for the entirety of the
extermination camps system.

>>Is this an issue you would rather not discuss? You know, like some
>>of the other asinine claims made here lately, like:

>>The Holocaust victims were Gypsies, not Jews, or, my personal
>>fav... Some idiot has claimed that 6 million Jews were gassed and

>>Can't say I blame you for not wanting to touch those... no one by a
>>follower of the, ah, "intellectual failure of the century" would.

>I will just stick to the facts thank you.

Let us know when you have some facts to stick to.  Certainly, you
should realize that CODOH's information is not terribly reliable.

- -- 
 John Morris                                
 at University of Alberta  

Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use 


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.