Hoess Shirer


Mofo <[email protected]> writes:

> On 19 Jan 2000 08:52:10 -0800, William Daffer <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > Is there some particular reason that you posted a followup in which
> > the only ‘reply’ you made was to cut the PGP annotation and
> > signature?
> >
> >William
> I still don’t know whats up so I am going to cut my response in half.
> Maybe that will narrow it down.
> On 17 Jan 2000 22:38:46 -0800, William Daffer <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Before I embark on descent into the sewers with you, let me ask you
> > a question. Didn’t you say a few days ago that you were ‘not a
> > revisionist?’ That you had only recently taken an interest in this
> > subject.
> >
> > My, how quickly you come to quoting neo-nazi hate literature. Less
> > than a week and already you’re quoting anti-semitica. So much for
> > you claims, weak as they were, of any kind of objectivity.
> >
> >Mofo <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> >
> >> >Please specify which confessions were obtained by torture and provide
> >> >proof that these confessions were indeed obtained by torture.
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> > (still lacking that one blank line, aren’t we.)
> >
> >> No problem. The a major player in the whole holocaust myth is centered
> >> around Auschwitz Commander Rudolph Höss.
> >
> > Bullshit. He is not ‘the a (sic) major player’ in anything.
> WRONG. In William Shirer’s book “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”,
> Shirer used Hoss’s “confessions” almost exclusively as evidence for
> the “holocaust”. Even Kevin Mcvay relies heavily on his testimony for
> his defense. Hoss is a conerstone of the whole “holocaust” myth which
> is why so much effort has been put into proving most of his testimony
> was a lie.

First off, Shirer, although a good chronicaller, is a journalist
who happend to be in Germany at the time. But he is not a
professional historian. Shirer is not attempting to write the
history of the Holocaust. He is not operating as an historian
would, although he does a good job anyway. If you want to say
“the holocaust rests soley on Hoess’ confession, you have to come
up with some real historians.

That being said, let’s go have a look, shall we?

The index gives these pages for Hoess

664, 963, 967-69, 970 and 972-73

Under Auschwitz, we have.

272, 664, 949fn, 967-74, 981 and 988.

These two sets intersect in 664 and the 967-974 range. They are
disjoint at 272, 981 and 988.

272: This is in the chapter entitled “Justice in the Third Reich” A
discussion of various matters regarding the practice of law in
the 3rd reich. Auschwitz is mentioned in passing along with
Belzec, Treblinka and other death camps.

664: Sitskrieg in the West: A discussion of the establishment of
Auschwitz. Hoess is mentioned in passing and reference is made
to his testimony at Nurembug in 1946. Shirer is clearly
overstating his case here, I’ll grant you. I don’t think tha
Hoess actually ‘boasted’

Ah, here we are.

963: The Final Solution.

Well, what do we have? The first thing out of the gate is a
directive Goering sent to Heydrich dated July 1941 authorizing
him to implement the ‘final solution.’ No Hoess there.

Followed by an assertion from Hans Lammers, the head of the Reich
Chancellery, who testified at Nuremburg, of the Hitler order for the
final solution:

“I knew that a Fuehrer order was transmitted by Goering to Heydrich
. . . This order was called “Final Solution of the Jewish Problem.”[1]

No Hoess there either.

Following that, we have a discussion of the Wansee protocol, which
validated by Eichmann, the man who wrote it.

In the text of the Wansee protocol, we have the delightful…

‘The Jews should now in the course of the Final Solution be brought
to the East . . . for use as labor. In big labor gangs, with
separation of sexes, Jews capable of work are brought to these areas
and emplyed in road building in which task undoubtedly a great part
will fall through natural diminution.

The remnant that finally are able to survive all this– since this is
undoubtedly the part with the strongest resistance– must be treated
accordinly, since these people, representing a natural selection,
are to be regarded as the germ cell of the new Jewish development.’

As Shirer goes on to explain.

‘In other words, the Jews of Europe were first to be transported to
the conquered East, then worked to death, and the few tough ones
whoe survived simply put to death.’ (pps 965-966)

No Hoess there either.

We have severl Nazi officials complaining that the externination
isn’t moving fast enough.

Then we have the famous Posen speech to S.S. Generals that Himmler
made on October 4, 1943, wherein he says:

“. . . I also want to talk to you quite frankly on a very grave
matter. Among ourselves it should be mentioned quite frankly, and
yet we will never speak of it publicly. . .

I mean . . . the extermination of hte Jewish race . . . Most of you
must know what it means when 100 corpses are lying side by side, or
500, or 1000. To have stuck it out and at the same time — apart
from exceptions caused by human weakness- – to remained decent
fellows, that is what has made us hard. This is a page of flory in
our history which has never been written and is never to be written
. . .” [2]

No Hoess there.

Now we come to a section entitled “The Extermination Camps”

Do you think we might find Hoess there? I hope so, since he we the
director of the largest camp. The question is, will he be the only
one there.

The section starts with a discussion of the death toll among
registered inmates at several camps. He relates that Kogon, in _The
Theory and Practic of Hell_, p 227) claims that 7.125 million out of
a total of 7.820 million died of mistreatment of one form or another
but claims that this number is too high (No Hoess there!) And look,
another historian cited as support for the inhumanity of the camp

The we have a discussion of he extermination camps, Auschwitz,
Treblinka, Sobibor, Chelmno. Here Hoess is mentioned quite alot, so
I suspect this is the part you mean when you say ” Shirer used
Hoss’s (sic) confessions” almost exclusively as evidence for the

Except what he’s using is Hoess deposition at Auschwitz, but to you
it’s all the same.

It’s a remarkable deposition, and were it not for the fact that
everything Hoess says in the parts quoted by Shirer is corroborated
in other places by other means you might be forgiven in your
assertion that history of the Holocaust ‘depends’ completely on
Hoess’ confession. It is as much a demonstration of your limited
reading on this matter as anything. Alas, for you, this just isn’t

Also, you might be forgiven for saying that Shirer uses Hoess
‘almost exclusively’ to support the Holocaust considering how
dramatic the testimony is. I can see how you would overlook the
information I’ve just pointed out to you. But Shirer isn’t a
historian, he isn’t trying to ‘prove’ that the Holocast happened, he
isn’t trying to martial all the material to make a watertight
case. He’s touching upon the high points, and this is definitely

But let’s turn to my assertion that the information testified to by
Hoess in his deposition is corroborated elsehwere.

For instance, in the first part of the deposition as related by
Shirer, Hoess says “I visited Treblinka to find out how they carried
out their extermination. The camp commandant at Treblinka told me
that he had liquidated 80,000 in the course of half a year. He was
principally concerned with liquidating all the Jews from the Warsaw

Here we have an assertion that can be corroborated. Let’s see if it is.

In Appendix A, of _Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka, The Operation
Reinhart Camps_, entitled “The Deportation of the Jews from the
General Govenment, Bialystok General District and Osland, Table 3
gives the deportations from various locales to Treblinka.

Sure enough, we see deportations from Warsaw to Treblinka occurred
between July 22 through Nov 30.

There is corroboration of an assertion made by Hoess in his
deposition. If Hoess had died before he’d ever been deposed, we’d
still know the fact that almost 200,000 people were deported to
Treblinka, never to be seen again.

Let’s continue, shall we?

A little later, we have the following statement.

‘After the bodies were removed our special commandos took of the
rings and extracted the gold from the teeth of the corpses’

From _Auschwitz, A Doctors’ Eyewitness Account_ by Dr. Miklos
Nyiszli, describing what the Sonderkommando did after a group had
been gassed, we have:

‘At any rate, the dead were next sent to the “tooth-pulling”
kommando, which was stationed in front of the ovens. . . .the
kommando pried open the contracted jaw with his lever; then, with
his pliers, he extracted, or broke off, all gold teet, as well as
any gold bridgework and fillings. . .

The gold teeth were collected in buckets filled with acid which
burned off all pieces of bone an flesh. Other valuables worn by the
dead, such as necklaces, perls, wedding bands and rings, were taken
and drop through a slot in the lid of a strongbox. . . . I would
judge tha 18 to 20 points of it [gold] were collected daily in each
crematorium.’ P 53.

This particular practice is corroborated by others as well.

Again, if Hoess had died in 1944 and never been interviewed, we
would still know these things from the testimony of both survivors
and camp personal besides Hoess.

I could go on and on, but I’m getting tired.

Do you *really* believe that it all depends *only* on Hoess? Or are
you just so weakminded that you can’t understand the magnitude of
the documentary, testimonial and forensic support that has been

> > All the
> > information that he gave in his confessions has been corroborated by
> > other means.
> Wrong again. Very little of it has been “corroborated”. Tell me why
> his estimate of 2.5 million deaths has now been lowered to a bit more
> than half. Tell me where the “death camp” known as Wolzek can be
> found. Hoss said it existed but has never been found.

Try saying that again in light of what I wrote above.

> > Estimates of the death toll do not depend on his
> > testimony. You thinking that he is the major player in this way goes
> > a long way to belying your claim that you aren’t a ‘revisionist.’
> >
> > By the way, you do know that there was more than one confession,
> > don’t you?
> >
> Yes there was an oral one which contradicts the “confession” he was
> forced to sign under torture.

Yes, and how is it possible, given your hypothesis that it’s a put
up job, that he could say *anything* that contradicted the party
line? You don’t seem to realize that this is an inconsistency in
*your* theory of what happened, not mine.

> >> He signed a confession that
> >> states he ordered the death of 2.5 million people at Auschwitz. A copy
> >> can be found here:
> >> http://www.lebensraum.org/english/debate/graphics/hoess1-full.jpg
> >>
> >
> > The confession you quote only mentions 2 million people. Where’s the
> > other 500000?
> Where are the 1.5 million you claim?

Evasion noted. I asked you why you claimed 2.5 million while waving
around a confession from Hoess that said 2 million. Now you try to
evade my question.

In any case, this has been settled in another post from you. The
answer is that you haven’t even looked at the document you claim as
proof that something nefarious is going on. All you did was quote
yet another denier website without even investigating the very
evidence you were using. Not a very good investigator, are you?

> >
> > I wish you revisionists would get your story straight.
> >
> I wish you exterminationists would get your story straight. First it
> was 4 million now 1.5 million dead at Auschwitz. Make up your mind!

But *I* never said four million. You *did* say 2 million.

Nor does any historian say 4 million. Nor have they ever said 4

> > I suspect that this confession was that given to the British who
> > captured Hoess. They roughed him up until he confessed to his
> > identity. This was the only ocassion that Hoess suffered any overt
> > mistreatment, although he does describe some of the time he spent in
> > Polish prison as being hard. However, as he notes in his memoir, he
> > complained and received better treatment after his complaint. He
> > also describes his stay when a witness at Nuremburg as a ‘health
> > spa’ when compared to some of the German prisons he’d been in as a
> > young man (for murder)
> >
> Of course you fail to provide a source for these claims. Pretty
> typical.

The claim about his state at Nuremburg is in ‘Death Dealer’ Hoess’
memoirs, as are the claims about his mistreatment and subsequent
improvement of treatment by his Polish captors.

The claim about the ‘confession’ is a conjecture, which I can’t
substantiate. Why? Bbecause you’ve never made clear which of the
several confessions you are talking about. That is, you’ve never
provided a source for *ANY* of your claims. Except for web pages,
that is.

> > This is the *only* evidence you have to build the case that Hoess
> > was ‘tortured’ into confessing the murder of millions of people at
> > Auschwitz, the only evidence. If Hoess only mentioned the death toll
> > this one time, you might have a case, but he speaks about it at
> > least two more times, once in testimony given at the Nuremburg
> > trials and once in his memoirs.
> >
> Both written for him by the Allies.

His testimony before Nuremburg was written and oral, both in his
language, so your canard about not knowing English won’t fly, and
his memoirs were written in his own hand.

> > Now, here is a quiz for you. What were the death toll in those two
> > occasions and what justification does Hoess gave for each estimate? Be
> > specific. Remember that his memoir was written while a prisoner of
> > the Polish where he was awaiting his execution.
> >
> No point. Evidence has already been given to you to prove that
> everything that came out of the Nurnburg “trials” should be taken as
> lies invented by the prosecution.

Evasion noted. Inability to support your own case noted.

> >> 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.”
> >>
> >
> > When you quote a book, you should give attributions. How are we to
> > know that you, or the website that you claim you’re quoting, didn’t
> > just make this up? I have never seen the quote “there are certain
> > methods by which any confessions can be obtained, whether true or
> > not.” I’m wondering whether there’s an illicit interpolation in that
> > quote. The only book I know about the time he spent under British
> > control is a lurid and very biased account which was repudiated by
> > the Clarke himself.
> >
> Try, Robert Faurisson “How the British Obtained the Confessions of
> Rudolf Höß,” The Journal of Historical Review.

Which page? Must I read the whole thing in order to find two sentences?

> >> A picture of Hoss being at least verbally assaulted can be found here:
> >>
> >
> > Backtracking already? Is this your evidence that he was tortured? Is
> > torture been reduced to ‘being at least verbally assaulted?’ What
> > prisoner isn’t ‘verbally assaulted?’ Besides, he doesn’t look that
> > much the worse for wear in this picture. Where is your evidence that
> > he was actually tortured in to confessing the ‘facts in main’ of the
> > Holocaust.
> >
> You forget that he had a wife and childeren that the prosecution were
> going to hand over to the Poles. You also didn’t seem to read the
> caption explaining the photo. Try again.

My good, I’m beginning to hear a faint ‘physician, heal thyself.’

You forget, or rather you’ve never known, that the assertion that
Hoess was being threatened with the fate of his family has never
been shown to have the *slightest* substance and is nothing more
that baseless assertion.

You provide documentary and testimonial support for this allegation
in the form of depositions, testimonies before courts of law and
documents of the relevant police, army or secret service
organizations that pressured Hoess. If you don’t, and I feel certain
that you won’t because in the two years I’ve been seeing this charge,
no one has ever produced so much as a whisper of real proof, I’ll
consign you to the dustbin of deniers.

By the way, I did read the caption. It’s unsubstantiated conjecture.

> >> http://www.lebensraum.org/english/debate/graphics/hoess2-full.jpg
> >>
> >
> > Except that he doesn’t look all that beat up, does he?
> >
> >> This is just one man.
> >
> > And only one. One of the thousands that exist who could ‘blow the
> > whistle.’ And this only if we _accept_ that Hoess was tortured into
> > his confession.
> >
> Here is evidence that scores if not hundreds more were tortured:
> “What follows is a series of reports concerning the treatment Waffen
> SS soldiers received at the hands of the Allies. All documentation is
> taken from the book “Alliierte Kriegsverbrechen und Verbrechen gegen
> die Menschlichkeit.” Published by Dürer Verlag, Buenos Aires,
> Argentina ,1953.”
> In the POW camp Wolfhagen, a severely wounded SS corporal is tortured
> by Americans in order to extract a confession. He is kicked in the
> genitals and burned over and over again with lighted cigarettes. The
> young man is 20 years old.
> A machine technician had his head banged into a wall so many times
> that blood spurted out of his nostrils
> An SS member is burned repeatedly with cigarette butts all over his
> body.
> These are just a few, there are dozens more examples of how the
> victorious allies treated their prisoners.
> http://www.lebensraum.org/english/debate/019-20.html

Blahhh….. Blahhhhh…. Blahhh….

What’s interesting about this supposed expose of torture is that not
one German soldiers supposedly tortured is named, nor are any of the these
‘intrepid’ historians that uncovered these foul deeds.

Why is that? If these soldiers were all tortured to get them to
support that Holocaust, you should be able to name one that gave
some testimony on the subject, so that you could then say “look,
here’s a Nazi that gave testimony on the Holocaust that was tortured
into his confession”

Yet you can’t do that. Why is that?

Also notably absent is the assertion that any of these tortures and
*anything* to do with the Holocaust.



[1] note 53 in orignal text, Ch 27, which reads.
TMWC,XI, p141.
[2] note 55 in the original, Ch 27, which reads…
NCA,IV,P 563 (N.2D. 1919-PS)

– —
Outside of a dog, a book is man’s best friend.
Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read.
Groucho Marx.
Public Key: http://home.earthlink.net/~whdaffer/#PGP-public-key

Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5, an Emacs/PGP interface


Path: hub.org!hub.org!fu-berlin.de!enews.sgi.com!nntp.primenet.com!nntp.gctr.net!news.primenet.com!lsajca1-ar3-109-018.dsl.gtei.net!nobody
From: William Daffer <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: uk.politics.misc,alt.politics.british,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.uk,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Holocaust on trial
Date: 20 Jan 2000 21:54:53 -0800
Organization: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc.
Lines: 524
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lsajca1-ar3-109-018.dsl.gtei.net
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
X-Posted-By: @ (daffer)
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4
Xref: hub.org uk.politics.misc:377835 alt.politics.british:213109 alt.politics.nationalism.white:458618 alt.politics.uk:5862 alt.revisionism:706920