From firstname.lastname@example.org Wed Jun 26 22:02:00 PDT 1996 Article: 46184 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-9.sprintlink.net!gatech!arclight.uoregon.edu!chi-news.cic.net!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: email@example.com (Ehrlich606) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: A question for revisionists re: defenses at N'burg Date: 26 Jun 1996 20:08:02 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Lines: 100 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Message-ID: <email@example.com> References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader In article <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org (SF924) writes: > >I am a lawyer and I have a question for revisionists that I have not seen >answered satisfactorily. This is my first post to this group so please >excuse me if my comments seem elementary or I misspell names. > > At the Nuremburg Trial, 23 (I believe that was the number) high ranking >Nazi officials were tried including Frank (the head of the general >government in Poland), Kaltenbrunner, Seyss Inquart ansd Salcal (sic) >Frank was also alleged to have participated in the Wannsee Conference of >January, 1942 and the "alleged" exterminations were to take place on >territory within his jurisdiction. . > >All of these men were represented by counsel. How come none of them, not >even Goring the most defiant of the defendants, alleged that the gas >chambers were a hoax or concoction of the allies in conjunction with >Jewish interests. None of these men raised this as a defense. As I >understand it, the defense of all the defendants was either lack of >knowledge or fear of disobeying orders. > >As a lawyer, if my client was Frank, and I knew the gas chambers were a >hoax, that fact of that hoax would have been my lead defense. I would >have aggressively attacked all of the physical evidence as a forgery. I >would have argued that Zyklon B couldn't kill anyone. I would have >challenged the photographs. I would have grilled Rudolph Hoess, the >Auscwitz commandant on cross examination. In short, I would have argued >that "It is a hoax!! There were no gas chambers!!" After all, my client >would have been on trial for his life. > >It is extremely telling that this defense was never raised. > >As a lawyer, I find it surprising that these principal defendants, on >trial for their lives, with the most intimate knowledge of the facts and >within one year or two of the alleged incidents, never even alleged the >existence of this hoax. Not a single one of them. > > This is an excellent post and you raise an excellent question. The fact of the matter is that the defendants generally believed the stories. (Ref. GM Gilbert, *Nuremberg Diary* The introduction of extermination evidence came in several phases. First, there was the showing of the atrocity film, 11/29/45. (p. 45) The defendants were shocked, outraged, and claimed no knowledge. On 12/14/45, there was testimony and documents -- including the Stroop Report -- on extermination in Poland. Again, there was generally no questioning of the truth of this evidence (which included the *steaming* to death evidence.) (p. 69f) In January, there was evidence of mass shootings. No one questioned it then, and no one does now. When the Russians presented their case, 2/8/46, there was a change in mood. Namely, skepticism. (p. 135ff) At one point, Gilbert, conversing with Goering said, *You can't shrug off 6 million murders!* -- To which Goering responded, *Well, I doubt if it was 6 million, but as I have always said, it is sufficient if only 5 per cent of it is true ...* The reaction to the _Soviet_ atrocity film was markedly different. Goering, for one, considered it phony, with the parts of the corpses probably played by German soldiers. (p. 162.) February 27 and 28 gave the balance of Soviet testimony, namely, on Auschwitz and Treblinka. (p. 174ff) There is a revealing episode here. During a break, Dr. Kranzbuhler, Doenitz' attorney, asked him, *Didn't _anybody_ know _anything_ about _any_ of these things?*Doentiz shook his head and shrugged sadly. Goering turned around, *Of course not ...* On April 15 there was a climax of sorts when Rudolf Hoess testified. (p. 264ff) There was initial disbelief, but no one seems to have thought that he might not be telling the truth. Of course, at that time, Hoess testified to the gassing of 2.5 million. To sum up, the defendants generally believed the testimony. But there was no point in cross examining because no one at Nuremberg was convicted on the basis of atrocity stories alone. No one hanged because of Auschwitz. As a matter of fact, Hoess was only at Nuremberg to testify in Kaltenbrunner's defense. Bad move. The defendants were shown the same film of inmates dead of disease and malnutrition, and then accepted the rest without question. As have most of us, most of the time. Because, in the final analysis, Goering was right. Even if only 5% were true.... As Bradley F. Smith points out, *Reaching Judgment at Nuremberg*, the German lawyers seemed content on focussing on rebutting the accusation of the Katyn Forest massacre. (p. 107) One final point. The defendants in all of these trials were out to save their lives. They were subject to a number of discovery restrictions which would not apply in a normal case. They could cross examine witnesses, but they could not dispute every affidavit.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor