Adolf Eichmann interview before Israeli capture [Archive]

Thunder

15th February 2011, 07:07 PM

little grey rabbit

15th February 2011, 07:11 PM

It was certainly an odd thing for the arch genocidal criminal to do. If it had been me I would have been trying to fake my own death.

Does anyone know if there exists a photo of the specially constructed crematorium oven that cremated Eichie?

Thunder

15th February 2011, 07:17 PM

It was certainly an odd thing for the arch genocidal criminal to do.

he had evaded capture for 15 odd years and lived in a state friendly and helpful to former nazis. plus the world already knew much about the Holocaust.

so, what did he have to lose?

little grey rabbit

15th February 2011, 07:18 PM

Apparently nothing, unless someone can show me a photo of the purpose build crematorium that Israel constructed in 1961.

It was a completely risk free thing to do, by the looks of it.

Thunder

15th February 2011, 07:21 PM

http://books.google.com/books?id=0U0EAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false

here is a better copy. you can magnify the image and read it much easier.

interview starts on page 24 and continues on page 101.

little grey rabbit

15th February 2011, 07:23 PM

Does it have a picture of the crematorium oven?

Perhaps he got royalties for the interview and was hoping to get on the rotary speaking circuit?

Thunder

15th February 2011, 07:29 PM

Does it have a picture of the crematorium oven?

Perhaps he got royalties for the interview and was hoping to get on the rotary speaking circuit?

translation= "I am speechless and have no idea how to respond to this amazing new evidence. I shall just make jokes instead, for I got nuthin'."

little grey rabbit

15th February 2011, 07:31 PM

Translation = I would like to see a photo of the specially built crematorium oven for cremating Adolf Eichmann.

Is that such an unreasonable request?

Thunder

15th February 2011, 07:33 PM

the end of the 2nd article is fascinating. Eichmann actually respected the Jewish people, even though he helped slaughter them.

what an *******.

Thunder

15th February 2011, 07:35 PM

Translation = I would like to see a photo of the specially built crematorium oven for cremating Adolf Eichmann.

Is that such an unreasonable request?

this thread is not about the trial and execution of Adolf Eichmann.

it is about his interview before his capture by the Israelis and all he has to say about the Holcoaust. if you cannot deal with the info in this thread and in the articles, troll somewhere else.

little grey rabbit

15th February 2011, 07:39 PM

I figure if we can't find a photo of a specially constructed crematorium oven to cremate Eichmann then we have a very good idea why he gave these interviews.

Thunder

15th February 2011, 07:43 PM

check out what he says at the end of the interview

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=492&pictureid=4320

Thunder

15th February 2011, 07:44 PM

I figure if we can't find a photo of a specially constructed crematorium oven to cremate Eichmann then we have a very good idea why he gave these interviews.

he gave the interview to a Dutch Nazi. a Dutch Nazi who hung out with Peron in Argentina and made lots of contacts with former Nazis over there. and he wrote for a major neo-nazi magazine in Holland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_Sassen#The_Eichmann_interviews

little grey rabbit

15th February 2011, 07:49 PM

I shouldn't be so harsh, Thunder, I've wanted this interview for some time and now I read it, it is a hoot.

After the [Wannsee] conference, as I recall, Heydrich, Mueller and your humble servant say cozily around a fireplace. I noticed for the first time that Heydrich was smoking. Not only that, but had a cognac. Normally he touched nothing alcoholic. The only other time I had seen him drinking was at an office party years before. We all had drinks then. We sang songs. After a while we got up on the chairs and drank a toast, then on the table and then round and round - on the chairs and on the table again. Heydrich taught it to us. It was an old North German custom.

Superb, thanks for digging it out.

I have said it before and I will say it again. If you can or can't find a photo of the specially constructed crematorium then I will be able to tell you why he gave this interview.

Thunder

15th February 2011, 07:54 PM

I have said it before and I will say it again. If you can or can't find a photo of the specially constructed crematorium then I will be able to tell you why he gave this interview.

why don't you be a sport and tell us why he gave this interview while free in Argentina with no reason to suspect he would be captured by the Israelis, Americans, Soviets, or anyone else...considering he changed his name and had avoided capture for 15 years.

yes, please do tell us, how the entire interview is a Zionist fabrication.

or...tell us how Eichmann made up the whole story as part of his defense before an Israeli tribunal, as he was psychic and new the day would eventually come.

hell, he could have just put a bullet in his head. he didn't have to admit to anything. but I guess its just one big hoax, ay?

little grey rabbit

15th February 2011, 07:55 PM

The chambers of Maidanek
It was in the latter part of 1941 that I saw some of the first preparations for annihilating the Jews. General Heydrich ordered me to visit Maidanek, a Polish village near Lublin. A German police captain there showed me how they had managed to build airtight chambers disguised as ordinary Polish farmers' huts, seal them hermetically, then inject the exhaust gas from a Russian U-boat motor. I remember it all very exactly because I never thought that anything like that would be possible, technically speaking.

Well he got that last bit right, Eichmann is obviously taking the p. here.

little grey rabbit

15th February 2011, 07:59 PM

Eichmann was definitely a comedian
After the war the Auschwitzers sprouted like mushrooms out of the forest floor after a rain. Hundreds of thousands of them are today in the best of health

Thunder

15th February 2011, 07:59 PM

Eichmann didn't have to go on trial anywhere. He could have kept a capsule of cyanide in a false tooth. Quick death, no trial, no conviction, no testimony that would further embarrass the Nazis and their ass-kissers.

There was NO compelling reason for Eichmann to admit to anything. NO reason period.

At least not while free under the protection of the Fascist Argentinians.

Thunder

15th February 2011, 08:02 PM

Eichmann was definitely a comedian

translation= "I am speechless. I have nothing of any consequence to say regarding this interview. Eichmann clearly spilled the beans while under no duress or pressure to do so. As Thunder stated, he could have kept a cyanide capsule in a tooth, insuring himself a quick death and no need for trial, defense, confession, etc etc.

I....am....dumbfounded."

little grey rabbit

15th February 2011, 08:02 PM

Eichmann didn't have to go on trial anywhere. He could have kept a capsule of cyanide in a false tooth. Quick death, no trial, no conviction, no testimony that would further embarrass the Nazis and their ass-kissers.

Doesn't seem to be a purpose build crematorium oven either.

Thunder

15th February 2011, 08:03 PM

yep, serious Holocaust deniers are gonna avoid this thread like a Kosher deli. :)

little grey rabbit

15th February 2011, 08:04 PM

This thread is going rather well, isn't it Thunder?

little grey rabbit

15th February 2011, 08:08 PM

All told, we succeeded in processing about half a million Jews in Hungary. I once knew the exact number that we shipped to Auschwitz, but today I can only estimate that it was around 350,000 in a period of about four months. But, contrary to legend, the majority of the deportees were not gassed at all but put to work in munitions plants. that is why there are thousands of Jews happily alive today who are included in the statistical totals of the "liquidated". Besides those we sent to Auschwitz, there were thousands and thousands who fled, some secretly, some with our connivance. It was child's play for a Jew to reach the relative safety in Romania if he could muster the few pongii to pay for a railroad ticket or an auto ride to the border. There were also 200,000 Jews left in a huge ghetto when the Russians arrived, and thousands more waiting to emigrate illegally to Palestine or simply hiding out from the Hungarian Government

Yes, Eichmann was definitely enjoying himself here.

Found a photo of that specially built crematorium oven yet?

Thunder

15th February 2011, 08:11 PM

Eichmann lived in a fascist and friendly country, surrounded by fellow former Nazis. he was under no pressure to confess his crimes.

And if Eichmann did think he would someday get caught, he could have kept a cyanide capsule in a tooth. instant death. no confession, interrogation, torture, trial, execution, etc etc etc.

his secrets would have died with him.

I think this interview rings the death toll for Holocaust denial at JREF.

little grey rabbit

15th February 2011, 08:17 PM

It looks to me like he has reached an agreement with the Zionists but still can't resist cracking a few jokes along the way.

Have you found that photo yet?

Thunder

15th February 2011, 08:22 PM

Have you found that photo yet?

its your BS claim. you find it.

little grey rabbit

15th February 2011, 08:23 PM

I don't think it existed.

Matthew Ellard

15th February 2011, 08:36 PM

He gave the interview to a fellow former-Nazi in Argentina. Life magazine got a copy of it and published some of it in 1960. In the interview, Eichmann admits to the Final Solution ordered by Hitler, the gas chambers, the mass deportations, and the mass murders.

Thank you for posting this Thunder.

Please don't worry about Little Grey Rabbit. It is obvious that Little Grey Rabbit is trying to avoid and deny this clear evidence. I agree with you, the other holocaust deniers will probably avoid posting in this thread.

Thunder

15th February 2011, 08:38 PM

Thank you for posting this Thunder.

Please don't worry about Little Grey Rabbit. It is obvious that Little Grey Rabbit is trying to avoid and deny this clear evidence. I agree with you, the other holocaust deniers will probably avoid posting in this thread.

this is an amazing interview. Eichmann sure was an arrogant, bigoted, psychotic bastard.

but you should thank member Wroclaw, who originally posted the link in another thread.

Redtail

15th February 2011, 10:43 PM

this is an amazing interview. Eichmann sure was an arrogant, bigoted, psychotic bastard.

but you should thank member Wroclaw, who originally posted the link in another thread.

Yay! My favorite Nazi! If it helps, his grand niece married a black guy.
:D

Eddie Dane

16th February 2011, 01:01 AM

Good find, Thunder.

Not so much as ammunition against the deniers.
No evidence can sway them. it's their religion.

But as a slice of history, it's very interesting.

Sword_Of_Truth

16th February 2011, 02:15 AM

he gave the interview to a Dutch Nazi.

Anyone we know? ;)

Revdude

16th February 2011, 02:53 AM

He gave the interview to a fellow former-Nazi in Argentina. Life magazine got a copy of it and published some of it in 1960. In the interview, Eichmann admits to the Final Solution ordered by Hitler, the gas chambers, the mass deportations, and the mass murders.

http://books.google.com/books?id=0U0...page&q&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=0U0EAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false)

......interview starts on page 24 and continues on page 101.

here is the 2nd part of the interview, and begins on page 146

http://books.google.com/books?id=900EAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&rview=1&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false

This interview was given BEFORE he was on trial. He had no reason to believe he would be captured, as he had avoided it for almost 15 years. He had NO reason to admit to what he saw. Yet he did it anyways.

He admits to it all...the whole Holocaust.

What say you, Holocaust deniers?

I would say you are getting desperate.
So we are to believe that Eichmann while living under an assumed name in Argentina begins telling of his involvement in the Holocaust.
And, he is broadcasting into a tape recorder to an unknown journalist.
In all else, he is so desperate to hide his identity that he changes his name to Klement, yet he is making a recording for all posterity..
I'm guessing here that the recording was actually made while he was in custody...That's just my opinion though.

1. Eichmann had already been in Israeli custody for five months when this article came out.
2. His frank admission to events exactly as they were claimed by his captors smacks of a promise of a plea bargain.
3. The article is in English (obviously, since it is in Life) and is not "Eichmann's confession" unless perhaps he was fluent in english and dictated it.
The intent is obviously an effort to sway public opinion against Eichmann.
4. Since he was illegally kidnapped and put on trial, does that invalidate the trial findings?
5. His half-assed defense team did not even cross-examine the prosecution witnesses.

Too many flaws (just like the IMT) for it to be beyond reasonable doubt.
I applaud your efforts though.
Keep trying.

gtm

16th February 2011, 03:48 AM

David Irving says he got his hands on Eichmanns written memoirs which were written prior to his capture during his sojourn in Argentina (in other words not beaten out of him by an enraged Mossad agent). In these memoirs Eichmann specifically says Heydrich told him Hitler had ordered him (Heydrich that is) to start the genocide. This was a rather unpleasant development for Irving who had previously argued there was no direct evidence Hitler had anything to do with the Holocaust

little grey rabbit

16th February 2011, 03:50 AM

David Irving says he got his hands on Eichmanns written memoirs. In these memoirs Eichmann specifically says Heydrich told him Hitler had ordered him (Heydrich that is) to start the genocide. This was a rather unpleasant development for Irving who had previously argued there was no direct evidence Hitler had anything to do with the Holocaust

This is what Eichmann said in this interview, what he said in Eichmann Interrogated (the book) and what he said in his trial.

It might even be what he said in his purpose build crematorium, if only we were able to lay out hands on a photo of it.

That Deborah Lipstadt thought that was a significant point, simply shows how woefully ignorant of the documentation she is.

dafydd

16th February 2011, 03:57 AM

I figure if we can't find a photo of a specially constructed crematorium oven to cremate Eichmann then we have a very good idea why he gave these interviews.

"'You twist and turn like a twisty turny thing."'-Lord Melchett.

dafydd

16th February 2011, 03:59 AM

I would say you are getting desperate.
So we are to believe that Eichmann while living under an assumed name in Argentina begins telling of his involvement in the Holocaust.
And, he is broadcasting into a tape recorder to an unknown journalist.
In all else, he is so desperate to hide his identity that he changes his name to Klement, yet he is making a recording for all posterity..
I'm guessing here that the recording was actually made while he was in custody...That's just my opinion though.

1. Eichmann had already been in Israeli custody for five months when this article came out.
2. His frank admission to events exactly as they were claimed by his captors smacks of a promise of a plea bargain.
3. The article is in English (obviously, since it is in Life) and is not "Eichmann's confession" unless perhaps he was fluent in english and dictated it.
The intent is obviously an effort to sway public opinion against Eichmann.
4. Since he was illegally kidnapped and put on trial, does that invalidate the trial findings?
5. His half-assed defense team did not even cross-examine the prosecution witnesses.

Too many flaws (just like the IMT) for it to be beyond reasonable doubt.
I applaud your efforts though.
Keep trying.
I've highlighted the apposite word. On the one hand we have the mountain of evidence and on the other your guesses. The Holocaust happened,live with it.

TSR

16th February 2011, 04:06 AM

And, he is broadcasting into a tape recorder to an unknown journalist.

.
No, Willem Sassen is not unknown, except to those willfully ignorant of the history they so viscerally need to deny.
.

In all else, he is so desperate to hide his identity that he changes his name to Klement,

.
You mean, in all else except the fact that his children kept the Eichmann name...
.

I'm guessing here that the recording was actually made while he was in custody...That's just my opinion though.

.
And like so many of your "opinions", demonstrably wrong: the interviews took place in the late 50's
.

1. Eichmann had already been in Israeli custody for five months when this article came out.

.
Because, as everyone knows, a fellow Nazi is going to go running to the nearest media outlet which will make sure the article is published in the very next issue since there's no need to do any fact checking or editing....
.

2. His frank admission to events exactly as they were claimed by his captors smacks of a promise of a plea bargain.

.
As were the personal diaries he kept, which formed the basis of the later book, all of which he conveniently wrote and backdated before he was hung.
.

3. The article is in English (obviously, since it is in Life) and is not "Eichmann's confession" unless perhaps he was fluent in english and dictated it.

.
Because, as everyone knows, there's no process by which information ini one language can possibly be translated into another. That's why we have no such word as "translation" -- if you aren't fluent in every language, you're SOL.
.

The intent is obviously an effort to sway public opinion against Eichmann.

.
Obviously, since everyone thought he was such a nice young man before this...
.

4. Since he was illegally kidnapped and put on trial, does that invalidate the trial findings?

.
From the wiki entry on Eichmann:

"Eventually the Council passed Resolution 138, which requested Israel 'to make appropriate reparation', while stating that 'Eichmann should be brought to appropriate justice for the crimes of which he is accused' and that 'this resolution should in no way be interpreted as condoning the odious crimes of which Eichmann is accused.'"

and

"Argentina has condoned the violation of her sovereignty and has waived her claims, including that for the return of the Appellant, any violation of international law that may have been involved in this incident has thus been remedied."

So that would be a big "no".
.

5. His half-assed defense team did not even cross-examine the prosecution
witnesses.

.
Remind me again -- who hired that team?

Oh, yes, it was Eichmann.

Did he ever even hint at a complaint of the way they conducted the defense?

Why, no he didn't.

And why was that?

Because they were trying the Nuremberg Defense: yeah, it happened, but I was just following orders.

The defense submitted dozens of depositions from other Nazis, none of whom disputed the facts of the Holocaust (even tho they had immunity), nor did Eichmann do so at any time.

The verdict was announced in December '61, the appeal denied in May of '62 -- can you document another "show trial" before or since that was even allowed such an appeal?
.

Too many flaws (just like the IMT) for it to be beyond reasonable doubt.

.
You have to show a single such flaw that does not ultimately come down to "I don't like the verdict."
.

angrysoba

16th February 2011, 05:06 AM

this is an amazing interview. Eichmann sure was an arrogant, bigoted, psychotic bastard.

but you should thank member Wroclaw, who originally posted the link in another thread.

Thanks for putting up this thread, Thunder, as I might have missed the link otherwise.

Thanks to Wroclaw also for digging it up.

As it happens, I had just heard about this article for the first time the other day. As well as reading Richard Evans' Third Reich Trilogy, in the evenings I've been reading through about four or five pages of Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem and she mentions this article a few times in there.

I'll have to read through that article at some point but one thing that Arendt does mention is that Eichmann had bragged to someone that he had been responsible for the deaths of five million Jews and would jump into his grave laughing. I'm flicking back through the book now to see whether or not it was something he said in this interview or not. (I suppose I could always read the interview instead).

TSR

16th February 2011, 05:26 AM

I'll have to read through that article at some point but one thing that Arendt does mention is that Eichmann had bragged to someone that he had been responsible for the deaths of five million Jews and would jump into his grave laughing. I'm flicking back through the book now to see whether or not it was something he said in this interview or not. (I suppose I could always read the interview instead).

.
The quote you're looking for was introduced into evidence at the trial, and is:

"I will leap into my grave laughing because the feeling that I have five million human beings on my conscience is for me a source of extraordinary satisfaction."

It was ISTR from '45, and not sure of the source, but you can check "Great World Trials; The Adolph Eichmann Trial, 1961" I'm not at home right now, or I would do it for you. I'm sure it's footnoted.
.

Thunder

16th February 2011, 05:39 AM

I'm guessing here that the recording was actually made while he was in custody...That's just my opinion though..

evidence?

2. His frank admission to events exactly as they were claimed by his captors smacks of a promise of a plea bargain...

evidence?

3. The article is in English (obviously, since it is in Life) and is not "Eichmann's confession" unless perhaps he was fluent in english and dictated it.

The Life article clearly says this is a translation.

The intent is obviously an effort to sway public opinion against Eichmann..

no intent is necessary. he admits to genocide to a fellow Nazi. he was under no duress, pressure, threats, etc etc.

he has evaded capture for 15 years. there is no evidence he knew of any impending capture.

he could have lied through his teeth if he wanted.

angrysoba

16th February 2011, 05:52 AM

.
The quote you're looking for was introduced into evidence at the trial, and is:

"I will leap into my grave laughing because the feeling that I have five million human beings on my conscience is for me a source of extraordinary satisfaction."

It was ISTR from '45, and not sure of the source, but you can check "Great World Trials; The Adolph Eichmann Trial, 1961" I'm not at home right now, or I would do it for you. I'm sure it's footnoted.
.

Ah! Thanks for that.

According to Wikipedia it was a quote that the prosecutor, Hausner, confronted Eichmann with:

During cross-examination, prosecutor Hausner asked Eichmann if he considered himself guilty of the murder of millions of Jews. Eichmann replied: "Legally not, but in the human sense ... yes, for I am guilty of having deported them". When Hausner produced as evidence a quote by Eichmann in 1945 stating: "I will leap into my grave laughing because the feeling that I have five million human beings on my conscience is for me a source of extraordinary satisfaction." Eichmann countered the claim saying that he was referring only to "enemies of the Reich".

Great World Trials; The Adolph Eichmann Trial, 1961. pages 332-337; 1997

This is interesting as Eichmann did seem to argue that he was just some kind of cog in a machine but unfortunately for the Holocaust deniers he absolutely does maintain that millions of Jews were killed by that very machine of which he was part (cog or not).

Arendt's book was very controversial for treating Eichmann sympathetically but again, it is unfortunate for Holocaust deniers that even she (who had strong objections to the way the trial was held) still agrees that Eichmann was as guilty as Hell for his part in the Holocaust.

Thunder

16th February 2011, 05:59 AM

lets not let the Nazis derail this thread into a discussion about the trial and his memoirs written during the trial. anything Eichmann said or wrote while in custody is controversial due to his captivity, and I doubt he had the "right to remain silent". plus he was on trial for his life.

but this interview, given to a fellow Nazi while he had total freedom, a new name, and lived under the protective wing of a fascist state and surrounded by hundreds if not thousands of fellow Nazis, is NOT controversial.

he had no reason to lie, no need to lie. if he thought he was close to capture, he could have kept a cyanide pill in a fake tooth and just swallow it upon capture, taking his secrets to the grave.

I wish I had known about this interview earlier. I wish it was much better publicized.

for some reason it is not...and I think its a tragedy. to me, this is key evidence of the Holocaust and turns Holocaust-denial upside down.

TSR

16th February 2011, 06:04 AM

Ah! Thanks for that.

.
NP. I don't spend time memorizing Nazi crap, but that specific quote is so chilling, it has kinda stayed with me.

And haunted my dreams...
.

twinstead

16th February 2011, 06:11 AM

He may have been scum, but unlike these current nazis who post here, Eichmann at least had the guts to say what he was REALLY thinking.

Thunder

16th February 2011, 06:32 AM

He may have been scum, but unlike these current nazis who post here, Eichmann at least had the guts to say what he was REALLY thinking.

what do you think about the end of his interview...where he says "nice" things about Jews?

very strange stuff.

twinstead

16th February 2011, 06:58 AM

what do you think about the end of his interview...where he says "nice" things about Jews?

very strange stuff.

Personally I found that part creepy as hell.

Thunder

16th February 2011, 07:00 AM

Personally I found that part creepy as hell.

Eichmann had been known for a creepy yet sadistic respect for the Jews.

Wroclaw

16th February 2011, 07:20 AM

This is what Eichmann said in this interview, what he said in Eichmann Interrogated (the book) and what he said in his trial.

It might even be what he said in his purpose build crematorium, if only we were able to lay out hands on a photo of it.

That Deborah Lipstadt thought that was a significant point, simply shows how woefully ignorant of the documentation she is.

If I recall correctly, the papers that Irving was given in Argentina were actually different from the above sources, and Irving ended up handing over the stuff to the IfZ in Munich.

Is the LGR implying that Eichmann was lying?

Wroclaw

16th February 2011, 07:23 AM

LGR, you're being incredibly annoying, so why don't you just say what's on your mind. What's the deal with Eichmann's cremation?

Wroclaw

16th February 2011, 07:25 AM

A note of clarification:

At the time he gave the interviews, Eichmann knew his time was running short. He believed that, by telling people that he was merely following orders from superiors, he might mitigate his circumstances. Ergo, the interviews. The guy he did them with was, if I recall correctly, a neo-Nazi and admirer of his "work."

garethdjb

16th February 2011, 07:27 AM

LGR, you're being incredibly annoying,

I think that's the general idea. . . .

Thunder

16th February 2011, 08:04 AM

A note of clarification:

At the time he gave the interviews, Eichmann knew his time was running short.

He was protected by the Peron regime, had lots of friendly fellow Nazis around him, had changed his name, and had evaded capture for 15 years.

What evidence do you have that he "knew" his time was short?

Biscuit

16th February 2011, 08:07 AM

TSR

16th February 2011, 08:41 AM

The guy he did them with was, if I recall correctly, a neo-Nazi and admirer of his "work."

.
Not a neo, an old school Nazi who was also hiding out in Argentina. A Dutch Untersturmführer in the SS. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_Sassen)

And no, at that time, and in fact right up to the time of his arrest, he had no reason to believe that his life in Argentina was about to end.
.

Wroclaw

16th February 2011, 08:47 AM

.
Not a neo, an old school Nazi who was also hiding out in Argentina. A Dutch Untersturmführer in the SS. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_Sassen)

And no, at that time, and in fact right up to the time of his arrest, he had no reason to believe that his life in Argentina was about to end.
.

I stand corrected. But was it not the case at the time of the interviews that West Germany began requesting his extradition from Argentina? I'd thought that Israel did not act in the case of Eichmann until legal means for extradition had been exhausted. I could be (again) wrong, however.

headscratcher4

16th February 2011, 09:51 AM

I don't find it odd at all that he would voice certain admiration and respect for Jews...he wanted to see himself as a noble and honorable soldier, to make his cause noble he would in some way have to know his enemy and come to respect them in order to deal with them. In this way, he is trying to elevate himself above the henchmen who worked for and under him and who did the dirty deeds directly. He wants us to think of him as a cultivated, civilized person...that is for all of his ugly.

Wroclaw

16th February 2011, 10:19 AM

Part of understand Eichmann is, I think, recognizing that he didn't consider himself to be an anti-Semite. Just a really good soldier. He'd have treated any other group the way he treated Jews, he would argue, and that's likely true.

Saggy

16th February 2011, 10:54 AM

Apparently Irving is the first person to make the original transcripts of the Sassen interviews available, he tells the story here ....

http://www.codoh.com/irving/irveichgoebb.html

Rather than discuss the article, which is 2nd hand, why not discuss these transcripts.

Are they available? Are they available online?

As for the revisionist position, I think that testimony, to be of probative value, has to correspond to physical evidence. So, for example, Irving mentions that Eichmann states that he personally witnesses mass shooting(s) by the Einsatzgruppen, where the bodies were buried in a ditch. Now, since bodies in any context other than the holohoax do not simply vanish into thin air, even when buried, we would expect to find a mass grave corresponding to the mass killing he witnessed. I'll guess the mass grave has not been found, and I'll futher guess that no one has looked for it.

Google check - Minsk mass grave - apparently they did look for a mass grave and found one ...... odd that it is empty though .....

http://collections.yadvashem.org/photosarchive/en-us/5854513_30854.html

Eichmann's mass grave remains to be found.

Wroclaw

16th February 2011, 11:14 AM

Apparently Irving is the first person to make the original transcripts of the Sassen interviews available, he tells the story here ....

If the interview was published in 1960, and Ich, Adolf Eichmann was published in 1980 (Irving has the date wrong), then why are the transcripts so important? Are we supposed to assume that at some point in the interviews, he said, "Just kidding!"

Rather than discuss the article, which is 2nd hand, why not discuss these transcripts.

Are they available? Are they available online?

You'll have to ask Irving. It appears the tapes themselves are actually at Koblenz in a federal archive. They are not available in transcription online.

As for the revisionist position, I think that testimony, to be of probative value, has to correspond to physical evidence. So, for example, Irving mentions that Eichmann states that he personally witnesses mass shooting(s) by the Einsatzgruppen, where the bodies were buried in a ditch. Now, since bodies in any context other than the holohoax do not simply vanish into thin air, even when buried, we would expect to find a mass grave corresponding to the mass killing he witnessed. I'll guess the mass grave has not been found, and I'll futher guess that no one has looked for it.

Wrong again!

See:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/07/neither-soviets-nor-poles-have-found.html

Google check - Minsk mass grave - apparently they did look for a mass grave and found one ...... odd that it is empty though .....

http://collections.yadvashem.org/photosarchive/en-us/5854513_30854.html

Eichmann's mass grave remains to be found.

Wrong, wrong, wrong...

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/07/neither-soviets-nor-poles-have-found.html

There are mass graves a plenty, my boy. You just have to look for them, apparently.

Thunder

16th February 2011, 11:24 AM

Am I getting this right? Holocaust-deniers are now accusing Eichmann of being a liar?

Wroclaw

16th February 2011, 11:33 AM

Am I getting this right? Holocaust-deniers are now accusing Eichmann of being a liar?

Imagine!

TSR

16th February 2011, 11:42 AM

Apparently Irving is the first person to make the original transcripts of the Sassen interviews available, he tells the story here ...

http://www.codoh.com/irving/irveichgoebb.html

.
No, Irving *claims* to be the first. Of course, Irving *also* claimed that La Lipstadt libeled him, and got thoroughly trounced.

Let's face it -- he *starts* with a lie -- that in 1992 he had done nothing to gain the media's attention. Free hint: he had been convicted of Holocaust denial in Germany, and gotten arrested and deported from Canada (after telling yet another lie about his entry, then exit, the entry to the country), not to mention being barred from entry to Australia, and having his book contract with Macmillan cancelled over his selective editing of the Goebbels diary.

Of course, none of this was his fault nor newsworthy in any way.

Well, that last might be true...
.

Rather than discuss the article, which is 2nd hand, why not discuss these transcripts.

.
You mean the ones that Irving claims were the "direct cause" of Eichmann's arrest, as if Lothar Hermann and Fritz Bauer never existed?
.

Are they available?

.
They were given back to his widow, Veronika, in 1980. Irving claims in your cited article he turned them over to the Koblenz Bundesarchiv, so ,since you take everything he says as gospel but once again have shown you don't even read your own sources, it may be understood why you have to ask.
.

Are they available online?

.
Would it matter -- you don't read either German or Dutch, so what would you do if they were?

Oh, that's right: whine that they weren't in English, and then whine that any translation may not be accurate.
.

As for the revisionist position, I think that testimony, to be of probative value, has to correspond to physical evidence. So, for example, Irving mentions that Eichmann states that he personally witnesses mass shooting(s) by the Einsatzgruppen, where the bodies were buried in a ditch. Now, since bodies in any context other than the holohoax do not simply vanish into thin air, even when buried, we would expect to find a mass grave corresponding to the mass killing he witnessed. I'll guess the mass grave has not been found, and I'll futher guess that no one has looked for it.

Google check - Minsk mass grave - apparently they did look for a mass grave and found one ...... odd that it is empty though ...

.
Really? (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1996-06-19/news/9606181365_1_minsk-grave-submachine-guns)
.
Once again, you're spectacularly wrong, as has been shown above.

Don't you *ever* get tired of being made a fool of?
.

headscratcher4

16th February 2011, 11:43 AM

They (revisionists) ultimately have to accuse all Nazis of being liars and what is worse, spectacular failures. All of the statements the Nazis made from the early 20s onward warning of the Jewish conspiracy and peril, how told people that they were the ones needed to stop the Jews and then claimed that they went to war because the Jews forced them to, etc. In short, the Nazis apparently made all kinds of threats but were all boast and no action. They said that they would wipe out international Jewry, but all they apparently did was run a few inefficient refugee camps...and badly at that. Eichmann is just another big talking Nazi who let the side down by claiming to do what he said he did but that we all know -- because of the expose of the holohoax -- he didn't. In short, their mad at Eichmann for setting high goals and than falling so terribly short.

little grey rabbit

16th February 2011, 03:32 PM

If I recall correctly, the papers that Irving was given in Argentina were actually different from the above sources, and Irving ended up handing over the stuff to the IfZ in Munich.

I think you are correct. There are the
1. the Sassan tapes (of which we have the Life interview)
2. Eichmann trial transcripts (online in full)
3. Interrogation transcripts (released in full and also a selection in Eichmann Interrogated)
4. Eichmann memoirs that he compiled in prison in Israel. This make a brief appearance in Lipstadt's book on her (silent) day in court. I don't believe this document really adds anything much to what the other 3 record sets already in the public domain had. You can see a small evolution from the Sassan tapes to the Trial as errors got sorted it out. Such as the gas chamber at Majdanek etc. But on the whole they fit together.

The Eichmann papers, otoh, were compiled before he went to Israel. Logically you would expect that he would have compiled some kind of insurance and maybe this was it. If so, David Irving did is job very well - the crusty closet Nazi sympathiser to draw out any awkward documents and papers that might be lying in attics - and sucked them up.

I am not aware of Irving citing them (welcome corrections here). I am have not heard them going to the IfZ - it seems unlikely as he is banned from German archives and the Bundesarchiv felt obliged to go to the trouble of returning a series of documents he had donated to them. I also understand that he had personality difficulties with Martin Brozat the long time head of the IfZ.

In fact, as far as I know, they have sunk without a trace.

Thunder

16th February 2011, 06:24 PM

if Hitler came back from the grave, and appeared before the world and said "yes, we did kill millions of Jews. it is a fact".

Neo-Nazis would yell: "liar!!!!!!"

;)

...or they would yell "Hitler was a crypto-Zionist stooge!!!!"

:)

Dogzilla

16th February 2011, 09:22 PM

He gave the interview to a fellow former-Nazi in Argentina. Life magazine got a copy of it and published some of it in 1960. In the interview, Eichmann admits to the Final Solution ordered by Hitler, the gas chambers, the mass deportations, and the mass murders.

http://books.google.com/books?id=0U0...page&q&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=0U0EAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false)

......interview starts on page 24 and continues on page 101.

here is the 2nd part of the interview, and begins on page 146

http://books.google.com/books?id=900EAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&rview=1&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false

This interview was given BEFORE he was on trial. He had no reason to believe he would be captured, as he had avoided it for almost 15 years. He had NO reason to admit to what he saw. Yet he did it anyways.

He admits to it all...the whole Holocaust.

What say you, Holocaust deniers?

This was published after he was captured. I thought Life magazine published an interview with him before he was captured. Is this suppose to be it?

He doesn't exactly admit to it all...the whole holocaust. But the article is quite interesting. I've heard about these Jewish Nazis but I never believed there were any. Eichmann confirms there were actually Jews in the SS!

I wonder why Eichmann would say the gas chambers at Majdanek were disguised as ordinary Polish farmer huts that killed with carbon monoxide generated by a captured Russian U-boat engine? I thought they looked like shower rooms and used Zyklon B.

I was also under the impression that the ghettos in Poland were established by the Nazis. I didn't know the Polish authorities isolated the Jews into ghettos before the German invasion or that the Jews liked living that way. Abraham Bomba said something about life in the ghetto being the happiest days of his life but I don't trust a word he says. I guess ol' Abe wasn't spouting out rubbish here.

I also found Eichmann's description of Jews being shot interesting. Hilberg described Jews as being led like sheep to the slaughter. Elie Wiesel conjures up the pathetic imagery of Jews walking to the edges of burning pits and falling into them with nary a whimper. I found it difficult to believe that anybody's sense of self-preservation would be so limited. But here Eichmann confirms that the Jews really didn't resist. I'm still not sure I buy it.

Interesting stuff here. But I'd still prefer an actual interview with Eichmann prior to his capture.

Dogzilla

16th February 2011, 09:31 PM

This is what I get for getting to the party late. LGR, what is this crematorium oven for which you want to see a photograph?

Dogzilla

16th February 2011, 09:37 PM

yep, serious Holocaust deniers are gonna avoid this thread like a Kosher deli. :)

I'm late but I think we're all here now. And I love kosher delis! Canter's and Nate n' Als count as kosher delis, don't they?

Dogzilla

16th February 2011, 09:51 PM

I think you are correct. There are the
1. the Sassan tapes (of which we have the Life interview)
2. Eichmann trial transcripts (online in full)

Are these transcripts available somewhere besides Hatezkor?

little grey rabbit

16th February 2011, 09:55 PM

This is what I get for getting to the party late. LGR, what is this crematorium oven for which you want to see a photograph?

Nobody knows Dogzilla, what it was or where it was.

But since Jewish religious law forbids cremation apparently there was no crematorium in which to dispose of Eichmann. So rather than ship the body back to Argentina - where it might become a neo-nazi shrine - they decided to build the first every crematorium ever in Israel and then dismantle it again after the one and only use.

Now the press reports I have seen said the crematorium was either
1. Actually built on a police boat and then ashes tipped out on the Med.
2. Constructed in the corner of the prison yard where he was hung
3. constructed some distance from Jerusalem in the middle of an orange grove (then ashes to police boat-> Med. etc)

Frankly, why anyone would choose an orange grove to build a crematorium is beyond me, but I think the consensus has gone with the orange grove.

I can't help feeling that if we had a photo of this crematorium we would know whether it was in a prison yard, a police boat or an orange grove.

Alas, Israelis don't seem embued with the same thirst for historical knowledge as myself and would rather go on Marches of the Living.

Dogzilla

16th February 2011, 10:21 PM

if Hitler came back from the grave, and appeared before the world and said "yes, we did kill millions of Jews. it is a fact".

Neo-Nazis would yell: "liar!!!!!!"

But holocaust revisionists would yell: "Prove it!!!!!"

Dogzilla

16th February 2011, 10:24 PM

Nobody knows Dogzilla, what it was or where it was.

But since Jewish religious law forbids cremation apparently there was no crematorium in which to dispose of Eichmann. So rather than ship the body back to Argentina - where it might become a neo-nazi shrine - they decided to build the first every crematorium ever in Israel and then dismantle it again after the one and only use.

Now the press reports I have seen said the crematorium was either
1. Actually built on a police boat and then ashes tipped out on the Med.
2. Constructed in the corner of the prison yard where he was hung
3. constructed some distance from Jerusalem in the middle of an orange grove (then ashes to police boat-> Med. etc)

Frankly, why anyone would choose an orange grove to build a crematorium is beyond me, but I think the consensus has gone with the orange grove.

I can't help feeling that if we had a photo of this crematorium we would know whether it was in a prison yard, a police boat or an orange grove.

Alas, Israelis don't seem embued with the same thirst for historical knowledge as myself and would rather go on Marches of the Living.

Why didn't they just lay his body on top of some scrap metal and toss a match onto some straw stuffed below? Aren't Germans as flammable as Jews?

gtm

17th February 2011, 02:55 AM

Why didn't they just lay his body on top of some scrap metal and toss a match onto some straw stuffed below? Aren't Germans as flammable as Jews?

I'd have fed him to the most repulsive animals I could find. I think the Israelis wasted time & money cremating him.

little grey rabbit

17th February 2011, 03:41 AM

I'd have fed him to the most repulsive animals I could find.

Now you are just being silly. Where are you going to find man-eating animals in Israel?

gtm

17th February 2011, 04:09 AM

Now you are just being silly. Where are you going to find man-eating animals in Israel?

They have flies who lay eggs that grow into maggots who thoroughly enjoy feasting on carrion.

Thunder

17th February 2011, 05:35 AM

Interesting stuff here. But I'd still prefer an actual interview with Eichmann prior to his capture.

and this is it. wish granted.

Wroclaw

17th February 2011, 06:57 AM

But holocaust revisionists would yell: "Prove it!!!!!"

And then when proof was offered, deniers would, well, deny it.

Dogzilla

17th February 2011, 09:13 AM

Wroclaw

17th February 2011, 09:20 AM

If Hitler or Heydrich were on trial, then Eichmann's testimony would be hearsay and, therefore, inadmissible. Since it was Eichmann on trial, it was perfectly admissible, particularly since it was entered as being exculpatory.

But history is not a criminal trial, is it?

Dogzilla

17th February 2011, 09:45 AM

and this is it. wish granted.

I hate to be a Philadelphia lawyer here but this is written as an autobiography, not an interview.

Wroclaw

17th February 2011, 10:07 AM

I hate to be a Philadelphia lawyer here but this is written as an autobiography, not an interview.

If a person is asked questions, do you expect him to answer in the third person?

Eichmann answered the questions in the first person. Deal.

TSR

17th February 2011, 10:07 AM

I hate to be a Philadelphia lawyer here but this is written as an autobiography, not an interview.
.
Ummmmm. No.

It is written as an *interview* during which which questions were asked and answered.

It is made very clear in the second para that this was an interview given to a German (actually Dutch) journalist but of course since he was talking about his own actions much of it is in the first person -- but then, so are *most* interviews.

Why do you feel this is unusual in any way?

TheRedWorm

17th February 2011, 11:09 AM

.
...<snip> Why do you feel this is unusual in any way?

Grasping at straws?

Thunder

17th February 2011, 11:11 AM

I hate to be a Philadelphia lawyer here but this is written as an autobiography, not an interview.

he speaks for himself. he uses the word "I".

how is this a problem?

how does this change the evidence presented by this interview?

Biscuit

17th February 2011, 12:35 PM

I hate to be a Philadelphia lawyer here but this is written as an autobiography, not an interview.

I am guessing what you are looking for is

Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:

However if it was in that format you would claim that it needs to be more of an autobiography. How does the format affect the evidence presented?

Thank you thunder and wroclaw for finding this and brining to my attention. I have shared it with a number of people. Really a chilling interview.

Dogzilla

17th February 2011, 11:29 PM

If a person is asked questions, do you expect him to answer in the third person?

Eichmann answered the questions in the first person. Deal.

Unless he was de Gaulle, no. But an interview is written in a Question/Answer format. That's not what this is.

Dogzilla

17th February 2011, 11:33 PM

I am guessing what you are looking for is

Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:

However if it was in that format you would claim that it needs to be more of an autobiography. How does the format affect the evidence presented?

Thank you thunder and wroclaw for finding this and brining to my attention. I have shared it with a number of people. Really a chilling interview.

Without knowing the questions, the answers don't have context. There is nothing wrong with the format in which this article is written. It's just that it's not an interview.

TSR

18th February 2011, 01:48 AM

Unless he was de Gaulle, no. But an interview is written in a Question/Answer format. That's not what this is.
.
Really? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/8259964/Black-Swan-Natalie-Portman-interview.html)

Always reported in the popular press in a strict Q&A format (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5036814-503544.html)?

Is that your final answer? (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:INTERVIEW_Jackie_Robinson_U.pdf)

Shall I continue?
.

TSR

18th February 2011, 01:57 AM

Without knowing the questions, the answers don't have context. There is nothing wrong with the format in which this article is written. It's just that it's not an interview.
.
The questions are implied by the answers.

Unless you have evidence that Sassen successfully lied to Life, and no credible person has noticed this lie, or that Life themselves altered what was said, have you a point you can demonstrate doesn't rely on your own need to deny history?
.

Biscuit

18th February 2011, 06:41 AM

Without knowing the questions, the answers don't have context. There is nothing wrong with the format in which this article is written. It's just that it's not an interview.

Also it is only written words, we can't actually hear his voice. Perhaps he was being really sarcastic the entire time!

:rolleyes:

Thunder

18th February 2011, 06:59 AM

Without knowing the questions, the answers don't have context. There is nothing wrong with the format in which this article is written. It's just that it's not an interview.

Yes!!

Perhaps the reported said to Eichmann:

"Hey Arty, lets play a funny game!! Let's say the exact opposite of what is true, and tell the Jews what they want to hear about WW2..so they can then use it as evidence against Der Fuhrer and der Deutschen Volke".

;)

dafydd

18th February 2011, 09:09 AM

Yes!!

Perhaps the reported said to Eichmann:

"Hey Arty, lets play a funny game!! Let's say the exact opposite of what is true, and tell the Jews what they want to hear about WW2..so they can then use it as evidence against Der Fuhrer and der Deutschen Volke".

;)

Apart from organizing the transport to the death camps,Eichmann was known for his wacky sense of humour.

Cleon

18th February 2011, 09:19 AM

Wroclaw

18th February 2011, 09:32 AM

Without knowing the questions, the answers don't have context.

Yeah, 'cause, like, we know Eichmann said, "I was in charge of shipping Jews to their deaths." But what if the question he was answering was, "Okay, Adolf, tell me what you didn't do..."

Dogzilla

19th February 2011, 05:45 PM

.
The questions are implied by the answers.

Unless you have evidence that Sassen successfully lied to Life, and no credible person has noticed this lie, or that Life themselves altered what was said, have you a point you can demonstrate doesn't rely on your own need to deny history?
.

Unless you have, ya know, some of that evidence that Life magazine actually checked the source thoroughly enough to know that the author of the article actually interviewed Eichmann, you have nothing more than a fabricated 'interview' that you choose to believe because it fits your preconceived hate.

You can start by proving this Sassen had access to Eichmann and explain how he tracked down Eichmann prior to the Israeli's finding him.

I'll be waiting right here.

Dogzilla

19th February 2011, 05:48 PM

.
The questions are implied by the answers.
.

Second page. Third paragraph from the bottom. What was the question?

(here's a hint: it wasn't "Why do you hate the Jews?")

tsig

19th February 2011, 06:03 PM

Apart from organizing the transport to the death camps,Eichmann was known for his wacky sense of humour.

Yeah he used to walk thru camp wearing black and carrying a scythe like he was the Grim Reaper. Heads would roll.

Thunder

19th February 2011, 06:03 PM

Unless you have, ya know, some of that evidence that Life magazine actually checked the source thoroughly enough to know that the author of the article actually interviewed Eichmann, you have nothing more than a fabricated 'interview' that you choose to believe because it fits your preconceived hate.

You can start by proving this Sassen had access to Eichmann and explain how he tracked down Eichmann prior to the Israeli's finding him.

maybe you should be asking Life magazine yourself.

.....as if a corroborated interview with Eichmann would still make Holocaust-deniers believe Eichmann's words anyway.

even if it was proved that Sassen did indeed interview Eichmann, the deniers would still find some BS reason to handwave it away, probably by suggesting Eichmann somehow knew his arrest was eminent. and if he didn't know it was eminent, then he knew it was an inevitability/eventuality. so he therefore "told the Jews" what they wanted to hear.

its interesting, how Holocaust-deniers see their heroes as such lieing, cowardly men. sooo quick and easy to lie through their teeth in order to save their skins..even though they knew they were gonna get the noose anyway.

...which makes Zero sense, for why would men who knew they were gonna die anyway, lie about what they did? what would be the purpose?

tsig

19th February 2011, 06:05 PM

Thunder

19th February 2011, 06:41 PM

why is it soooo hard for Holocaust-deniers to accept that their heroes not only were proud of what they did, but we happy to talk about it?

do they think these men were cowardly little schmucks, willing to "tell the Jews" whatever they wanted to hear, even though they knew they would get the death pentalty either way?

do they think their heroes were cowardly little rats, who would lie about der Fuhrer and implicate their former co-Nazis and ruin the reputation of millions of Germans, just to get a noose instead of a bullet?

TSR

19th February 2011, 08:31 PM

Unless you have, ya know, some of that evidence that Life magazine actually checked the source thoroughly enough to know that the author of the article actually interviewed Eichmann, you have nothing more than a fabricated 'interview' that you choose to believe because it fits your preconceived hate.

You can start by proving this Sassen had access to Eichmann and explain how he tracked down Eichmann prior to the Israeli's finding him.

I'll be waiting right here.
.
No, I'll start by pointing out that neither Eichmann nor any of his heirs (including his widow, Veronika) ever disputed the the reality of these interviews.

Then, I'll point out that Sassen's work for Der Weg made him what Uki Goñi described as a "magnet" for former Nazis, as can been seen in the documentary "Profiel: Willem Sassen."

*Then* I'll point out that the Bundesarchiv Koblenz is not in the habit of accepting documents whose background cannot be verified.

So, now it's your turn to try to offer any evidence to impeach any of these facts. If you feel the details of how contact was made are significant *you* supply them, and show what the significance is.

I'll wait right here...
.

TSR

19th February 2011, 08:39 PM

Second page. Third paragraph from the bottom. What was the question?

(here's a hint: it wasn't "Why do you hate the Jews?")
.
Well, why don't you actually quote what the h*ll you're talking about, since the third para from the end of of page two of the article (page 31 in the actual magazine) states

But I am getting ahead of my story. It is time to outline my rank and duties in the events which I shall discuss, and to introduce myself:
Name: Adolf Otto Eichmann
Nationality: German
Occupation: Lieutenant Colonel SS (retired)

.

angrysoba

20th February 2011, 12:01 AM

Thunder

20th February 2011, 06:00 AM

Thunder

20th February 2011, 06:01 AM

Pre-conceived hate?

Pre-conceived hatred of what or of whom?

of the German people, obviously. Even though there was no Holocaust, we Jews hate the Germans anyway.

why do we hate the Germans? who knows. we just hate them cause its fun. ;)

Saggy

20th February 2011, 06:13 AM

of the German people, obviously. Even though there was no Holocaust, we Jews hate the Germans anyway.

why do we hate the Germans? who knows. we just hate them cause its fun. ;)

Jews hate the entire human race minus the Jews, and have for 3000 years (rf: Shahak). The list of other references is endless, btw.

As for evidence that the Sassen 'interview' as published is bogus, you are playing the usual Zionist game, ask a question, ignore the answer, and then ask the question again. I don't usually play, but will this once .... the evidence has been given, the only person who has seen the actual transcripts and written about them, David Irving, states that there are no references to gas chambers in the transcripts, that Eichmann is unequivocal that the 'final solution' was Madagascar, etc.

Thunder

20th February 2011, 06:48 AM

Jews hate the entire human race minus the Jews, and have for 3000 years

if you say so. and yet, Jews donate tens of millions of dollars to help hungry and poor non-Jews throughout the world. fascinating paradox.

did you see how Israel's hospital tents in Haiti were the most successful? not many Jews in Haiti now are there.

and yet, Orthodox Jews around the USA preach to non-Jews about the Laws of Noah, basically telling them that non-Jews need not become Jews to be in God's favor. interesting paradox.

and yet, Jewish volunteer ambulance services in the USA gladly save the lives of non-Jews, including my Orthodox cousin. stimulating paradox.

As for evidence that the Sassen 'interview' as published is bogus, you are playing the usual Zionist game,

how is asking for evidence a "game"?

In the Life interview, Eichmann clearly talks about the murder of millions of Jews, gas chambers, death squads, etc etc. Are you calling Eichmann a liar?

Saggy

20th February 2011, 07:06 AM

if you say so.

Shahak said so.

Or, we have Rabbi Ya'acov Perin in his eulogy at the funeral of mass murderer Dr. Baruch Goldstein. ...

“One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail.”

Jewish love !

fuelair

20th February 2011, 07:12 AM

I shouldn't be so harsh, Thunder, I've wanted this interview for some time and now I read it, it is a hoot.

Superb, thanks for digging it out.

I have said it before and I will say it again. If you can or can't find a photo of the specially constructed crematorium then I will be able to tell you why he gave this interview.

While I am certain I will find the answer hilarious, would you mind telling us why you feel someone would have taken a picture of said crematorium?

My suspicion is the Israelis would not have taken any pictures and would have destroyed the crematorium shortly after it's use - why give the little brained nazis still infesting the world something to slobber over and pray to.

Same as the reason (at least one of them) they cremated it anyway - no place to go worship at it's grave. Just like the Vietnamese burning outhouse waste in Vietnam: it's just fecal matter. :D

Thunder

20th February 2011, 07:40 AM

Shahak said so.

Or, we have Rabbi Ya'acov Perin in his eulogy at the funeral of mass murderer Dr. Baruch Goldstein. ...

“One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail.”

Jewish love !

Martin Luther called for the burning of Jewish synagogues and expelling the Jews. and do you know why? because the Jews refused to become Christian.

ah...Christian love!!

Saggy

20th February 2011, 07:44 AM

Martin Luther called for the burning of Jewish synagogues and expelling the Jews. and do you know why? because the Jews refused to become Christian.

ah...Christian love!!

Martin Luther read the Talmud (or a translation). That did it for him.

Thunder

20th February 2011, 07:46 AM

Holocaust-deniers: "prove that the Holocaust took place".

-we have the testimony of one of the head Nazis, Adolf Eichmann.

Holocaust-deniers: "that evidence was given in captivity under Zionist torture, so the evidence is worthless".

-ok, we also have an interview given by Eichmann to a former Nazi before he was arrested by the Israelis. He give lots of details of the Holocaust.

Holocaust-denier: "you have no proof that this interview was not a hoax".

-do YOU have any evidence that the interview is a hoax, that Eichmann was lieing, or that Eichmann was just saying what he thought his eventual captors would want to hear?

Holocaust-denier: "I don't have to prove anything. I don't have to provide evidence for anything".

-Eichmann could have just stuck a cyanide pill in a false-tooth, and teken it upon capture. he had no reason to admit to anything, he had no reason to implicate the Nazis & Hitler in any genocide. and he had no reason to lie, for it was clear that he would be executed if he went to trial in Israel, so why lie?

Holocaust-denier: "lets get back to the death camps...shall we?"

;)

Wroclaw

20th February 2011, 07:53 AM

Jews hate the entire human race minus the Jews, and have for 3000 years (rf: Shahak). The list of other references is endless, btw.

And here we have yet another example of a Holocaust denying, Jew-hating loony who's also an expert on Jewish culture!

Wroclaw

20th February 2011, 07:56 AM

Shahak said so.

Or, we have Rabbi Ya'acov Perin in his eulogy at the funeral of mass murderer Dr. Baruch Goldstein. ...

“One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail.”

Jewish love !

Perhaps you could demonstrate the broad authority of either of these two men in the worldwide Jewish community?

Wroclaw

20th February 2011, 07:57 AM

Martin Luther read the Talmud (or a translation). That did it for him.

I suppose you've also read the Talmud? Or just the anti-Gentile bits taken out of context?

Thunder

20th February 2011, 08:02 AM

Martin Luther read the Talmud (or a translation). That did it for him.

I doubt Martin Luther read even 10% of the Talmud.

Saggy

20th February 2011, 08:25 AM

I doubt Martin Luther read even 10% of the Talmud.

That was enough.

tsig

20th February 2011, 08:56 AM

That was enough.

For what?

Wroclaw

20th February 2011, 09:16 AM

kageki

20th February 2011, 09:42 AM

Have they ever found this hermetically sealed, airtight chamber disguised as an ordinary Polish farmers' huts that was injected with the exhaust gas from a Russian U-boat motor at Majdanek?

tsig

20th February 2011, 09:43 AM

Why, to make the same kind of muddle-headed conclusion that Saggy made.

Let me clue you in, Saggy: When a guy like you with opinions about the Holocaust like you have starts going on about the Talmud, you just come off like a skinhead idiot.

I might believe he read the Cliff Notes version of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" but the Talmud, never.

TSR

20th February 2011, 10:53 AM

Jews hate the entire human race minus the Jews, and have for 3000 years (rf: Shahak). The list of other references is endless, btw.

.
And yet, instead of using any of these other "endless references", you choose one who has admitted to lies in support of his self loathing, and been contradicted by the *highest* Jewish authorities in that lie.

You keep forgetting, Saggs -- I have read the entire thread over at the Tiger, and so know that you have been spanked on this before...
.

As for evidence that the Sassen 'interview' as published is bogus, you are playing the usual Zionist game, ask a question, ignore the answer, and then ask the question again.

.
Of course, Saggs cannot point to a *single* such answer in this thread, but moving on...
.

I don't usually play, but will this once .... the evidence has been given, the only person who has seen the actual transcripts and written about them,

.
You mean, other than Sassen and Life and the Koblenz Bundesarchiv?
.

David Irving, states that there are no references to gas chambers in the transcripts, that Eichmann is unequivocal that the 'final solution' was Madagascar, etc.

.
And again, Saggs own goals by citing yet another liar -- this one, court proven, and has even lost sight of the fact that the actual question zie was supposed to have been responding to was about the factuality of the interview, which zie seems here to be affirming, in direct contradiction to DZ's claims.
.

TSR

20th February 2011, 11:37 AM

Jewish love !

.
... is why the "shrine" around Goldstein's grave was bulldozed more than a decade ago.

There are extremists in every group of people: I see your Goldstein, and raise you Matthew Williams, who was actually ordained by Christ's Covenant Church after he had set three synagogues on fire. Of course, like your hero, he took The Last Way Out while in jail. Does this mean we should condemn every member of that sect?

Further, I raise you Alexander Koptsev -- which of course means all Russians hate all Jews...

H*lls, I raise you the entire Ku Klux Klan showing all white Americans hate all blacks, and the Westboro Baptist Church showing that all Christians hate all gays.

I could keep going all day -- shall I?
.

TSR

20th February 2011, 11:50 AM

Have they ever found this hermetically sealed, airtight chamber disguised as an ordinary Polish farmers' huts that was injected with the exhaust gas from a Russian U-boat motor at Majdanek?
.
The gas chamber was never lost. (http://www.scrapbookpages.com/poland/majdanek/Majdanek02.html)

Has any denier ever found a *primary* source (that means something more that "I was told...") for this claim about a "hermetically sealed, airtight, disguised" chamber?

Or found any of the ~80,000 people who lost their live there?
.

Dogzilla

20th February 2011, 04:24 PM

maybe you should be asking Life magazine yourself.

True. If anybody can answer that question it would be Life.

.....as if a corroborated interview with Eichmann would still make Holocaust-deniers believe Eichmann's words anyway.

It is true that even it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the interviewer talked to Eichmann--even if I personally talked to Eichmann--I wouldn't believe the fantastical holocaust claims unless they could be explained. As it stands, Eichmann is just another eyewitness who told us what he saw and did and was not asked, or was not able to answer, questions about the detail.

Dogzilla

20th February 2011, 04:30 PM

of the German people, obviously. Even though there was no Holocaust, we Jews hate the Germans anyway.

why do we hate the Germans? who knows. we just hate them cause its fun. ;)

I'm glad you finally admitted your krautophobia.

kageki

20th February 2011, 04:59 PM

TSR

20th February 2011, 05:45 PM

The claim about hermetically sealed huts is right from this article by Eichmann.

That link doesn't mention anything about farmers' huts or U-boat engines.
.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of "primary source" even though I explained it in the post to which you responded.

What the article says is that Eichmann was *told* this by some anonymous police captain, which makes him at best a secondary source, reporting hearsay.

He never actually *saw* these huts, let alone saw them in use.

Try again.
.

Wroclaw

20th February 2011, 05:59 PM

Sorry, but who said there was a U-boat engine at Majdanek?

Thunder

20th February 2011, 06:00 PM

I'm glad you finally admitted your krautophobia.

I don't hate Germans, I was joking. Germans have always been very nice to me, and I have a good friend who is Austrian.

kageki

20th February 2011, 06:02 PM

.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of "primary source" even though I explained it in the post to which you responded.

What the article says is that Eichmann was *told* this by some anonymous police captain, which makes him at best a secondary source, reporting hearsay.

He never actually *saw* these huts, let alone saw them in use.

Try again.
.

Eichmann says he went to Majdanek.

A German police captain there showed me how they managed to build airtight chambers...

It seems like he did see these things himself. He even mentioned these U-boat gas chambers during his trial.

TSR

20th February 2011, 06:20 PM

Eichmann says he went to Majdanek.

It seems like he did see these things himself. He even mentioned these U-boat gas chambers during his trial.
.
"Showed me how."

Could mean plans / blueprints, especially since he never saw them in use, which is unambiguous, since in the very next para, he specifies that it was only later that year that he witnessed his *first* execution of Jews, in Minsk.

"Primary source", please. "Mentioning," not enough.

Try again.
.

kageki

20th February 2011, 06:38 PM

.
"Showed me how."

Could mean plans / blueprints, especially since he never saw them in use, which is unambiguous, since in the very next para, he specifies that it was only later that year that he witnessed his *first* execution of Jews, in Minsk.

"Primary source", please. "Mentioning," not enough.

Try again.
.

So what are you suggesting? That this claim about U-boat gas chambers from Eichmann is unreliable and that it didn't exist?

He also never saw the gas chambers operated in Auschwitz so that's also hearsay. I don't see how this article proves anything.

Dogzilla

20th February 2011, 06:46 PM

.
The gas chamber was never lost. (http://www.scrapbookpages.com/poland/majdanek/Majdanek02.html)

Has any denier ever found a *primary* source (that means something more that "I was told...") for this claim about a "hermetically sealed, airtight, disguised" chamber?

Or found any of the ~80,000 people who lost their live there?
.

Your link shows us pictures of rooms with blue staining on the walls. This indicates Zyklon B usage, not CO that Eichmann talks about in this article.

Eichmann in this article talks about the hermetically sealed airtight gas chambers disguised as a Polish farmers hut. Has any anti-denier ever found a *primary* source (that means a German wartime document) for the claim about a hermetically sealed, airtight, disguised gas chamber or any homicidal gas chamber of any kind at all?

Wroclaw

20th February 2011, 06:52 PM

Your link shows us pictures of rooms with blue staining on the walls. This indicates Zyklon B usage, not CO that Eichmann talks about in this article.

Eichmann in this article talks about the hermetically sealed airtight gas chambers disguised as a Polish farmers hut. Has any anti-denier ever found a *primary* source (that means a German wartime document) for the claim about a hermetically sealed, airtight, disguised gas chamber or any homicidal gas chamber of any kind at all?

Yeah. Pressac found this inconvenient little document that has this crazy word on it: Vergasungskeller.

Wroclaw

20th February 2011, 06:54 PM

There's also this one:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/01/thereafter-kube-had-shown-italians-gas.html

Wroclaw

20th February 2011, 06:55 PM

Oh yeah, and this:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/62/218938661_0acaa33180.jpg

Wroclaw

20th February 2011, 06:56 PM

Ventilation needed in one of them here:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.py?camps/auschwitz/images/bischoff-430211-ventillation.jpg

Getting the picture?

kageki

20th February 2011, 07:02 PM

Sorry, but who said there was a U-boat engine at Majdanek?

http://books.google.com/books?id=0U0EAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false

The chambers at Maidanek

It was in the latter part of 1941 that I saw some of the first preparations for annihilating the Jews. General Heydrich ordered me to visit Maidanek, a Polish village near Lublin. A German police captain there showed me how they had managed to build airtight chambers disguised as ordinary Polish farmers' huts, seal them hermetically, then inject the exhaust gas from a Russian U-boat motor. I remember it all very exactly because I never thought that anything like that would be possible, technically speaking.

This doesn't sound like hearsay at all. To me at least, it sounds like Eichmann actually saw these things.

You haven't provided anything that specifically corroborates this claim. I would think there should be a picture or even the gas chamber itself to still exist. Did this really exist or was Eichmann making this up?

TSR

20th February 2011, 07:03 PM

So what are you suggesting? That this claim about U-boat gas chambers from Eichmann is unreliable and that it didn't exist?

.
No, I am flat out stating that you have no *primary* source for this claim, and suggesting that you are using this claim to attempt to discredit the Holocaust as a whole, which does not depend upon one man's reporting hearsay about a specific installation at a specific camp, which attempt is doomed due to the wealth of other evidence available.
.

He also never saw the gas chambers operated in Auschwitz so that's also hearsay. I don't see how this article proves anything.

.
*His* statements about Auschwitz are hearsay. Unfortunately for you his statements aren't all we have to show about what happened there.

But we *do* have things he directly witnessed, such as the shootings in Minsk. And the gas van originating at Lodz.

No single piece of evidence ever *proves* anything in terms of history. Look up "the convergence of evidence" and get back to me.
.

Dogzilla

20th February 2011, 07:13 PM

.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of "primary source" even though I explained it in the post to which you responded.

What the article says is that Eichmann was *told* this by some anonymous police captain, which makes him at best a secondary source, reporting hearsay.

He never actually *saw* these huts, let alone saw them in use.

Try again.
.

Yeah, I agree. What Eichmann "said" in the article doesn't really substantiate much of anything about the holocaust.

Dogzilla

20th February 2011, 07:17 PM

Yeah. Pressac found this inconvenient little document that has this crazy word on it: Vergasungskeller.

Vergasungskeller means hermetically sealed, airtight, disguised homicidal gas chamber? I thought it meant something else.

Dogzilla

20th February 2011, 07:22 PM

Ventilation needed in one of them here:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.py?camps/auschwitz/images/bischoff-430211-ventillation.jpg

Getting the picture?

Yeah. No such document exists so you need to pretend evidence of morgues/crematorium and/or delousing chambers proves homicidal gas chambers.

kageki

20th February 2011, 10:49 PM

.
No, I am flat out stating that you have no *primary* source for this claim, and suggesting that you are using this claim to attempt to discredit the Holocaust as a whole, which does not depend upon one man's reporting hearsay about a specific installation at a specific camp, which attempt is doomed due to the wealth of other evidence available.
.

.
*His* statements about Auschwitz are hearsay. Unfortunately for you his statements aren't all we have to show about what happened there.

But we *do* have things he directly witnessed, such as the shootings in Minsk. And the gas van originating at Lodz.

No single piece of evidence ever *proves* anything in terms of history. Look up "the convergence of evidence" and get back to me.
.

Actually I believe it is a primary source.

Thunder

21st February 2011, 01:02 AM

Yeah, I agree. What Eichmann "said" in the article doesn't really substantiate much of anything about the holocaust.

:p

TSR

21st February 2011, 02:35 AM

Actually I believe it is a primary source.
.
Then you believe wrong, unless you can demonstrate that Eichmann actually saw the "huts" and had some way to determine the state of their "airtightness" from that sight.

Otherwise, he was reporting what he had been told by someone whom he doesn't even identify by name.

And we seem to be agreed that he personally witnessed the shootings at Minsk, and the gas van at Lodz -- how many more killings need he have seen to confirm that a Holocaust was actively in progress?
.

kageki

21st February 2011, 03:24 AM

.
Then you believe wrong, unless you can demonstrate that Eichmann actually saw the "huts" and had some way to determine the state of their "airtightness" from that sight.

Otherwise, he was reporting what he had been told by someone whom he doesn't even identify by name.

And we seem to be agreed that he personally witnessed the shootings at Minsk, and the gas van at Lodz -- how many more killings need he have seen to confirm that a Holocaust was actively in progress?
.

Read the whole quote again:

It was in the latter part of 1941 that I saw some of the first preparations for annihilating the Jews. General Heydrich ordered me to visit Maidanek, a Polish village near Lublin. A German police captain there showed me how they had managed to build airtight chambers disguised as ordinary Polish farmers' huts, seal them hermetically, then inject the exhaust gas from a Russian U-boat motor. I remember it all very exactly because I never thought that anything like that would be possible, technically speaking.

"I remember it all very exactly.."

I take that as seeing it.

angrysoba

21st February 2011, 03:51 AM

I want Dogzilla to answer this question. (That means I don't want Thunder or anyone else to answer it for him.

Unless you have, ya know, some of that evidence that Life magazine actually checked the source thoroughly enough to know that the author of the article actually interviewed Eichmann, you have nothing more than a fabricated 'interview' that you choose to believe because it fits your preconceived hate.

Pre-conceived hate?

Pre-conceived hatred of what or of whom?

Kevin.Silbstedt

21st February 2011, 04:12 AM

Yeah. No such document exists so you need to pretend evidence of morgues/crematorium and/or delousing chambers proves homicidal gas chambers.

The documentary evidence was presented to you a thousand times.

There is no need for 14 "brausen" (=shower heads) AND a gas tight door in neither a delousing chamber nor a morgue:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/image_files/430.01.jpe

The selected room for this is "Leichenkeller I" (which is FAR to big for just 14 shower heads). If you can't read it:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/19430624-inventory/inventory-closeup.jpg

Vergasungskeller means hermetically sealed, airtight, disguised homicidal gas chamber? I thought it meant something else.

Yeah, it means gassing cellar, but that doesn't help your point either.

There is absolutly no doubt about the function of Leichenkeller I in Krematorium II and III. Eyewitnesses tell us, that it was a homicidal gas chambers, their discription (shower heads, wire net introduction devices) match the documents that were found, forensic research also prooves, that cyanid gas was used in these rooms and perpretrators like Höß tell us the same.

So on the other side, what do you have? "Duh, it's called "Leichenkeller" (=morgue), so it must be a morgue."
Wow, what amazing evidence, a morgue with a gas tight door, 14 shower heads, 4 wire net introduction devices with wooden covers, cyanid resisues in the walls and which had to be PREheated for some reason.

This had to be a really weird morgue.

why do we hate the Germans? who knows. we just hate them cause its fun. ;)

Pssst, don't forget that you are totally evil. :)

Germans have always been very nice to me, and I have a good friend who is Austrian.

Beware, the last Austrian, that we trusted, wasn't too good for us Germans. :D

TSR

21st February 2011, 06:03 AM

"I remember it all very exactly.."

I take that as seeing it.

.
And since he never saw them in operation, or ever mentioned even a demonstration, or had a way to determine their air tightness, I take it that he reported an installation he had been told a lot about which he could not have known from personal experience and for which he maybe saw the plans. He might could have had a glance at them -- in what way could he determine the sealing procedure or the airtightness from that?

"Primary source." "Convergence of evidence."

Still waiting.

And what *did* happen to those ~80,000 victims documented to have been shipped to but who never left the camp? Can you tell us what they had personally done to have deserved such a fate?
.

Wroclaw

21st February 2011, 10:51 AM

Didn't some of those shower heads end up being drilled into wood, not being connected to any plumbing?

Kind of a smoking gun, that.

Biscuit

21st February 2011, 11:01 AM

True. If anybody can answer that question it would be Life.

So go do some research.

It is true that even it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the interviewer talked to Eichmann

You have yet to enter any evidence that he didn't.

--even if I personally talked to Eichmann--

You would come up with some phony half-assed excuse as to why he lied to to you.

I wouldn't believe the fantastical holocaust claims unless they could be explained.

Explained how? What more to you need? Do you need to know how locomotives work before you can understand they were used to transport millions of jews to their deaths?

You have eyewitness testimony from multiple party's

You have documents detailing and ordering the holocaust

You have the physical remains of victims

You have the murder scenes and the equipment used

You have the orders to destroy the remains of mass killings

You even have an interview given of free will by Adolf Eichmann admitting to it.

But you need it explained? What more could possibly need to be explained about the most well documented mass murder in the history of mankind?

The only thing that needs to be explained is your irrational denial of facts.

As it stands, Eichmann is just another eyewitness who told us what he saw and did

An eyewitness who was in the inner Nazi circle and privilege to a view of the machine that exterminated millions. He is an expert on Nazi's and Nazi war policy and strategy. He is the ideal witness for a prosecutor. He later became a defendant that admitted to the crimes.

and was not asked, or was not able to answer, questions about the detail.

What details are you looking for? He was giving an interview not writing a technical manual.

There have been plenty of threads where people, including myself, have shown the details on how the gas chambers worked, how the jews were transported, and how the final solution was fermented. What more do you want now?

kageki

21st February 2011, 05:16 PM

.
And since he never saw them in operation, or ever mentioned even a demonstration, or had a way to determine their air tightness, I take it that he reported an installation he had been told a lot about which he could not have known from personal experience and for which he maybe saw the plans. He might could have had a glance at them -- in what way could he determine the sealing procedure or the airtightness from that?

"Primary source." "Convergence of evidence."

Still waiting.

And what *did* happen to those ~80,000 victims documented to have been shipped to but who never left the camp? Can you tell us what they had personally done to have deserved such a fate?
.

What is your point?

Is there evidence for this gas chamber or not?

Dogzilla

21st February 2011, 05:34 PM

I want Dogzilla to answer this question. (That means I don't want Thunder or anyone else to answer it for him.

Just hate. Non-specific, all encompassing, irrational, unjustifiable hate. Directed at everybody and everything. The kind of hate that only a hater can feel. You know, hate.

TSR

21st February 2011, 06:16 PM

What is your point?

Is there evidence for this gas chamber or not?
.
I've given you evidence for the gas chamber at Majdanek.

This *specific* installation, using the submarine or tank engine, depending on which version Eichmann is saying he was told about, no.

Unless you have a *primary* source? You know, like someone that built the installation, or actually used it? Or even *saw* it used, personally?

No?

Then what is *your* point? I mean, other than the fact that you cannot account for the ~80,000 people sent the camp aand were nver heard from again?
.

kageki

21st February 2011, 11:23 PM

.
I've given you evidence for the gas chamber at Majdanek.

This *specific* installation, using the submarine or tank engine, depending on which version Eichmann is saying he was told about, no.

Unless you have a *primary* source? You know, like someone that built the installation, or actually used it? Or even *saw* it used, personally?

No?

Then what is *your* point? I mean, other than the fact that you cannot account for the ~80,000 people sent the camp aand were nver heard from again?
.

So you are suggesting that Eichmann made it up?

If there is no evidence and no other primary sources then what else are you suppose to conclude?

abaddon

21st February 2011, 11:48 PM

Have they ever found this hermetically sealed, airtight chamber disguised as an ordinary Polish farmers' huts that was injected with the exhaust gas from a Russian U-boat motor at Majdanek?

People commit suicide via CO in their own garages. No "hermetically sealed, airtight chamber" required.

People die in their own homes due to faulty gas or oil fired boilers. No "hermetically sealed, airtight chamber" required.

Why is it, do you think, that most hardware stores carry a line of CO detectors of various types?

ETA: have a linky, it may make you thinky
http://www.carbonmonoxide.ie/htm/poisoning.htm

kageki

22nd February 2011, 01:38 AM

People commit suicide via CO in their own garages. No "hermetically sealed, airtight chamber" required.

People die in their own homes due to faulty gas or oil fired boilers. No "hermetically sealed, airtight chamber" required.

Why is it, do you think, that most hardware stores carry a line of CO detectors of various types?

ETA: have a linky, it may make you thinky
http://www.carbonmonoxide.ie/htm/poisoning.htm

What is your point?

kageki

22nd February 2011, 02:20 AM

Interestingly enough this article is part of the evidence offered in the Irving trial:
http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/en/trial/defense/browning/540

Christopher Browning and the Testimony of Adolf Eichmann
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Eichmann/Grubach%20on.html

In his precapture statements, Eichmann claimed that he saw the alleged homicidal gas chambers of Majdanek, a concentration camp in Poland. Browning informed his readers in 2003 that these "observations" are not credible: "In both precapture accounts, Eichmann's dating is vague. Furthermore, the claims that gassing was already taking place in this first camp, or that it was Majdanek, are contrary to what we know from other sources. The precapture testimonies, in short, are helpful to neither the historian nor Eichmann's credibility [p.23]." In plain language, Eichmann never saw the "gas chambers" he claimed to have seen at Majdanek.

So apparently Eichmann just flat out lied about this gas chamber at Majdanek.

dafydd

22nd February 2011, 03:03 AM

Yeah, I agree. What Eichmann "said" in the article doesn't really substantiate much of anything about the holocaust.

Yeah,right. Clutch at straws much? Why do you hate Jews?

angrysoba

22nd February 2011, 03:48 AM

Just hate. Non-specific, all encompassing, irrational, unjustifiable hate. Directed at everybody and everything. The kind of hate that only a hater can feel. You know, hate.

This makes no sense at all.

What you are saying is that believing Eichmann gave an interview to a fellow fugitive Nazi means you have an irrational, unjustifiable hatred directed at everybody and everything.

While, you, Dogzilla don't have such a thing because all you assert is that the Nazis weren't that bad and all the evidence that we have for the systematic murder of millions of Jews, Gypsies and the mentally ill comes from a vast conspiracy of lies told by the British, the Americans, the Soviets, the Jews, the Nazis themselves and pretty much everyone who was around at the time of the events and lived to tell the tale.

Don't tell me that this pro-Nazi stance of calling everyone a liar is born from love. No doubt it is, but a love of whom? Now, that's the question.

TSR

22nd February 2011, 03:54 AM

So apparently Eichmann just flat out lied about this gas chamber at Majdanek.
.
No.

Eichmann's interview and later testimony are ambiguous about whether he actually personally saw the installation in question, and Browning (as do I) thinks he did not, since he was talking about airtightness which is not something he could have determined by sight. So he was quite obviously reporting things he had been *told*, making him at best a secondary source.

Why are you so invested in this one small detail of one man's narrative?

What is your point (you keep running from this question -- do you believe no one notices?)

Have you found those ~80,000 yet?

And one has to wonder why you even included the first link, in which Browning does not even mention Majdanek, and why you choose to cite the court-proven liar Irving citing a known anti-semite, rather than the actual book it came from? Is it perhaps because you've never read the book, so haven't the slightest hint of a suggestion of a clue of the context in which this comment was offered?
.

garethdjb

22nd February 2011, 04:30 AM

.
No.

Eichmann's interview and later testimony are ambiguous about whether he actually personally saw the installation in question, and Browning (as do I) thinks he did not, since he was talking about airtightness which is not something he could have determined by sight. So he was quite obviously reporting things he had been *told*, making him at best a secondary source.

Here's Eichmann's version as told to his interrogator Avner Less:

As ordered, I went to Lublin, located the headquarters of SS and Police Commander Globocnik, and reported…. Globocnik sent for a certain Sturmbannführer Höfle, who must have been a member of his staff. We went from Lublin to, I don’t remember what the place was called, I get them mixed up, I couldn’t say if it was Treblinka or some other place. There were patches of woods, sort of, and the road passed through—a Polish highway. On the right side of the road there was an ordinary house, that’s where the men who worked there lived. A captain of the regular [Order] police welcomed us. A few workmen were still there. The captain, which surprised me, had taken off his jacket and rolled up his sleeves, somehow he seemed to have joined in the work. They were building little wooden shacks, two, maybe three of them; they looked like two- or three-room cottages. Höfle told the police captain to explain the installation to me. And then he started in. He had a, well, let’s say, a vulgar, uncultivated voice. Maybe he drank. He spoke some dialect from the southwestern corner of Germany, and he told me how he had made everything airtight. It seems they were going to hook up a Russian submarine engine and pipe the exhaust into the houses and the Jews inside would be poisoned.
I was horrified. My nerves aren’t strong enough…I can’t listen to such things…such things, without their affecting me. Even today, if I see someone with a deep cut, I have to look away. I could never have been a doctor. I still remember how I visualized the scene and began to tremble, as if I’d been through something, some terrible experience. The kind of thing that happens sometimes and afterward you start to shake. Then I went to Berlin and reported to to the head of the Security Police.

From Eichmann Interrogated. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_Interrogated)

TSR

22nd February 2011, 05:57 AM

From Eichmann Interrogated. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_Interrogated)
.
As I said, what he had been *told*, not what he *knew*. H*lls, he couldn't even say where it was -- so much for remembering it *exactly*.
.

kageki

22nd February 2011, 06:18 AM

.
No.

Eichmann's interview and later testimony are ambiguous about whether he actually personally saw the installation in question, and Browning (as do I) thinks he did not, since he was talking about airtightness which is not something he could have determined by sight. So he was quite obviously reporting things he had been *told*, making him at best a secondary source.

Why are you so invested in this one small detail of one man's narrative?

What is your point (you keep running from this question -- do you believe no one notices?)

Have you found those ~80,000 yet?

And one has to wonder why you even included the first link, in which Browning does not even mention Majdanek, and why you choose to cite the court-proven liar Irving citing a known anti-semite, rather than the actual book it came from? Is it perhaps because you've never read the book, so haven't the slightest hint of a suggestion of a clue of the context in which this comment was offered?
.

What is your point that it's a secondary source then?

Whether Eichmann saw it or not, the question still remains whether it is true or not.

This quote:

http://books.google.com/books?id=0U0EAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false

It was in the latter part of 1941 that I saw some of the first preparations for annihilating the Jews. General Heydrich ordered me to visit Maidanek, a Polish village near Lublin. A German police captain there showed me how they had managed to build airtight chambers disguised as ordinary Polish farmers' huts, seal them hermetically, then inject the exhaust gas from a Russian U-boat motor. I remember it all very exactly because I never thought that anything like that would be possible, technically speaking.

I mean otherwise I guess this is proof of the Holocaust right?

kageki

22nd February 2011, 06:31 AM

.
As I said, what he had been *told*, not what he *knew*. H*lls, he couldn't even say where it was -- so much for remembering it *exactly*.
.

So much for a reliable testimony huh?

Wroclaw

22nd February 2011, 06:56 AM

Interestingly enough this article is part of the evidence offered in the Irving trial:
http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/en/trial/defense/browning/540

Christopher Browning and the Testimony of Adolf Eichmann
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Eichmann/Grubach%20on.html

So apparently Eichmann just flat out lied about this gas chamber at Majdanek.

The link offered is by Paul Grubach, a Holocaust denier. The page he cites is available here:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DtXfbzYgG1UC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=in%22Christopher+Browning%22+%22in+both+precapt ure+accounts%22&ots=6wlBB_BZav&sig=JgKUchBOH9JxM6EynTPGFjT7NqE#v=onepage&q=precapture&f=false

Read the very next freaking paragraph.

These people assume you will not check their sources. They are wrong.

Biscuit

22nd February 2011, 07:07 AM

So much for a reliable testimony huh?

Are you suggesting that because Eichmann's memory isn't perfect in this one case that the rest of the information he gives is all lies?

There is a reason that eye witness testimony is not the most reliable form of evidence in court rooms these days. I do not know what it was like back then. The human memory is not perfect but in this case the majority of what is said is backed up by physical evidence or other testimony.

The forest you are missing by looking at this one particular tree is that the interview is just another piece of evidence that corroborates the mountains of other evidence. That Eichmann has a faulty memory does not suggest he is lying about everything in the interview, unless you have some evidence that he was?

As for the barn/gas chambers themselves - Perhaps they were destroyed by bombs or perhaps they were dismantled by the Nazi's has part of their efforts to hide their crimes.

kageki

22nd February 2011, 07:19 AM

The link offered is by Paul Grubach, a Holocaust denier. The page he cites is available here:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DtXfbzYgG1UC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=in%22Christopher+Browning%22+%22in+both+precapt ure+accounts%22&ots=6wlBB_BZav&sig=JgKUchBOH9JxM6EynTPGFjT7NqE#v=onepage&q=precapture&f=false

Read the very next freaking paragraph.

These people assume you will not check their sources. They are wrong.

Actually what is your point?

kageki

22nd February 2011, 07:32 AM

Are you suggesting that because Eichmann's memory isn't perfect in this one case that the rest of the information he gives is all lies?

There is a reason that eye witness testimony is not the most reliable form of evidence in court rooms these days. I do not know what it was like back then. The human memory is not perfect but in this case the majority of what is says is backed up by physical evidence.

The forest you are missing by looking at this one particular tree is that the interview is just another piece of evidence that corroborates the mountains of other evidence. That Eichmann has a faulty memory does not suggest he is lying about everything in the interview, unless you have some evidence that he was?

As for the barn/gas chambers themselves - Perhaps they were destroyed by bombs or perhaps they were dismantled by the Nazi's has part of their efforts to hide their crimes.

No not all.

Do you have evidence that the Nazis dismantled it as part of their effort to hide their crime?

Wroclaw

22nd February 2011, 07:59 AM

Actually what is your point?

My point is that Browning didn't completely dismiss Eichmann's statements. He merely said that the statements made before capture were less reliable than statements made during interrogation, on the stand, and while awaiting execution. Browning, by the way, in the very book chapter that Grubach cites, notes three good reasons why Eichmann's statements, in the main, are very reliable. But Grubach doesn't say that, does he?

Can you identify those three points?

Biscuit

22nd February 2011, 08:01 AM

No not all.

Then what is your point?

Do you have evidence that the Nazis dismantled it as part of their effort to hide their crime?

I never claimed I did. There is evidence that the Nazis destroyed other physical evidence of their crimes so we know it is a possibility.

TSR

22nd February 2011, 08:32 AM

Whether Eichmann saw it or not, the question still remains whether it is true or not.

.
Was it true that Eichmann was told these things?

Unless you have evidence to the contrary, it can assumed he was.

Was what he was told true? No way to tell, but since it agrees with the general policy of the Nazi regime, I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.
.

I mean otherwise I guess this is proof of the Holocaust right?

.
No, as I have explained to you (here, let me type it slow for you)

N O

S I N G L E

P I E C E

O F

E V I D E N C E

E V E R

P R O V E S

A N Y T H I N G .

Since you are apparently too lazy or too dishonest to look up the term, here is a good discussion of the concept of "convergence of evidence" (http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/american/skeptic-magazine/skeptic-8.html). Get back to us with any specific criticism you have of this concept, so we can point out where you're wrong.
.

kageki

22nd February 2011, 09:01 AM

.
Was it true that Eichmann was told these things?

Unless you have evidence to the contrary, it can assumed he was.

Was what he was told true? No way to tell, but since it agrees with the general policy of the Nazi regime, I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.
.

.
No, as I have explained to you (here, let me type it slow for you)

N O

S I N G L E

P I E C E

O F

E V I D E N C E

E V E R

P R O V E S

A N Y T H I N G .

Since you are apparently too lazy or too dishonest to look up the term, here is a good discussion of the concept of "convergence of evidence" (http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/american/skeptic-magazine/skeptic-8.html). Get back to us with any specific criticism you have of this concept, so we can point out where you're wrong.
.

So what was your point about it being a secondary source?

There is no evidence then?

kageki

22nd February 2011, 09:05 AM

My point is that Browning didn't completely dismiss Eichmann's statements. He merely said that the statements made before capture were less reliable than statements made during interrogation, on the stand, and while awaiting execution. Browning, by the way, in the very book chapter that Grubach cites, notes three good reasons why Eichmann's statements, in the main, are very reliable. But Grubach doesn't say that, does he?

Can you identify those three points?

Can you?

kageki

22nd February 2011, 09:08 AM

Then what is your point?

I never claimed I did. There is evidence that the Nazis destroyed other physical evidence of their crimes so we know it is a possibility.

That it's not entirely reliable?

Browning even says this.

Wroclaw

22nd February 2011, 09:40 AM

Can you?

I'll take that as a "no" from you.

Thanks for playing.

(Freaking pathetic...)

Biscuit

22nd February 2011, 10:30 AM

Do you have evidence that the Nazis dismantled it as part of their effort to hide their crime?

I never claimed I did. There is evidence that the Nazis destroyed other physical evidence of their crimes so we know it is a possibility.

That it's not entirely reliable?

I am going to go ahead and assume you got confused answering multiple posts and are not being intentionally obtuse.

The possibility I am referring to is that the barns were dismantled on orders intended to hide the true full scope of the Nazis crimes.

TSR

22nd February 2011, 11:19 AM

So what was your point about it being a secondary source?

There is no evidence then?
.
Ummm. My point is that Eichmann is secondary source, and that no denier has ever brought forward a primary source for this claim -- is this really such a hard concept for you?

My further point is that, based on your continued ducking of the question, that *your* point was apparently to simply introduce a well-known denier canard to attempt the falus in uno fallacy but you haven't got the cojones to come right out and say it, because you *know* it is a fallacy based on a canard and so will make you look even more foolish than you currently do.

As if that were possible, but deniers manage it all the time. Come clean on why you asked the question, and why it matters to you.

Secondary evidence is *still* evidence, absent better. Misremembering =! lying, which is what you seem to be trying to imply.

You got any evidence of your own, or would you care to actually *state* where you are trying to go with this argument in case I got it wrong?
.

kageki

22nd February 2011, 04:10 PM

.
Ummm. My point is that Eichmann is secondary source, and that no denier has ever brought forward a primary source for this claim -- is this really such a hard concept for you?

My further point is that, based on your continued ducking of the question, that *your* point was apparently to simply introduce a well-known denier canard to attempt the falus in uno fallacy but you haven't got the cojones to come right out and say it, because you *know* it is a fallacy based on a canard and so will make you look even more foolish than you currently do.

As if that were possible, but deniers manage it all the time. Come clean on why you asked the question, and why it matters to you.

Secondary evidence is *still* evidence, absent better. Misremembering =! lying, which is what you seem to be trying to imply.

You got any evidence of your own, or would you care to actually *state* where you are trying to go with this argument in case I got it wrong?
.

That is not a point. That's a statement. A point would be to come to a conclusion from that statement.

The point seems to be to cast doubt on the reliability of the claim because it is secondary and that no other primary source exists. If this is not acceptable for you then again you need to clarify your point since you haven't made one.

TheRedWorm

22nd February 2011, 04:41 PM

Neither have you. Care to try and make one now?

kageki

22nd February 2011, 04:57 PM

Neither have you. Care to try and make one now?

I was asking a question on whether the claim was true or not. I have yet to get a clear answer.

TSR

22nd February 2011, 08:05 PM

I was asking a question on whether the claim was true or not. I have yet to get a clear answer.
.
No, you quite clearly asked whether a specific piece of physical evidence existed.

And you *have* been answered on the question of the claim, you just don't like the answer: Yes, Eichmann was likely told what he reported to have been told.

Whether what he had been told was true or not, cannot be said to a certainty, since no primary source confirms it and no physical evidence remains. It's also been explained to you that the Nazis made a concerted effort to eliminate such physical evidence, so there's nothing unusual about that.

Since you refuse to supply such a primary source, or explain why you feel such physical evidence *must* have survived, one must come to the conclusion that you are using the time-honoured tactic of JAQing around to imply something you haven't the courage to just state.

Now, you could demonstrate that this is not your goal by just coming out and stating your point: You've been spoon fed all of the information you need. Do you agree with the facts and conclusions I have summarized in the first three paras above, or not?

A simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice, but if your answer is "No" you will likely be expected to explain exactly why not.
.

Dogzilla

22nd February 2011, 08:27 PM

Yeah,right. Clutch at straws much? Why do you hate Jews?

God are you ever a one trick pony.

Some of the people here are Jews.

kageki

22nd February 2011, 09:12 PM

.
No, you quite clearly asked whether a specific piece of physical evidence existed.

And you *have* been answered on the question of the claim, you just don't like the answer: Yes, Eichmann was likely told what he reported to have been told.

Whether what he had been told was true or not, cannot be said to a certainty, since no primary source confirms it and no physical evidence remains. It's also been explained to you that the Nazis made a concerted effort to eliminate such physical evidence, so there's nothing unusual about that.

Since you refuse to supply such a primary source, or explain why you feel such physical evidence *must* have survived, one must come to the conclusion that you are using the time-honoured tactic of JAQing around to imply something you haven't the courage to just state.

Now, you could demonstrate that this is not your goal by just coming out and stating your point: You've been spoon fed all of the information you need. Do you agree with the facts and conclusions I have summarized in the first three paras above, or not?

A simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice, but if your answer is "No" you will likely be expected to explain exactly why not.
.

So you're saying there is no evidence to confirm his claim, but it is still possible?

I still don't understand the point of you JAQing around about primary and secondary sources.

TSR

22nd February 2011, 10:12 PM

So you're saying there is no evidence to confirm his claim, but it is still possible?

I still don't understand the point of you JAQing around about primary and secondary sources.
.
No, I am saying that the *specific piece of ***physical*** evidence* you asked about doesn't exist, and a reasonable and verifiable explanation for this lack has been presented you.

That there is collaborating testimony of this method being used elsewhere, but not a primary source that it was used at Majdanek, and that despite his "remembering exactly" Eichmann could not later identify the camp he was told about.

That you have *yet* to explain why this single detail from the testimony of a single man is so important to you.

And I am not JAQing around, I'm flat out stating that there is no primary source, since Eichmann is obviously reporting something he has been told which he had no way of determining himself.

Now, once again, Yes or No: do you agree with the facts and conclusions as summarized in my previous post?

Yes Or No, not more questions.

Yes or No -- can I make it any clearer for you?

Yes or No? It's really a simple question.

Yes or No?
.

little grey rabbit

22nd February 2011, 10:38 PM

My point is that Browning didn't completely dismiss Eichmann's statements. He merely said that the statements made before capture were less reliable than statements made during interrogation, on the stand, and while awaiting execution.

Speaking of his execution, how we getting along locating a photo of the purpose built cremation oven.

Time to get a wriggle on.

kageki

23rd February 2011, 12:44 AM

.
No, I am saying that the *specific piece of ***physical*** evidence* you asked about doesn't exist, and a reasonable and verifiable explanation for this lack has been presented you.

That there is collaborating testimony of this method being used elsewhere, but not a primary source that it was used at Majdanek, and that despite his "remembering exactly" Eichmann could not later identify the camp he was told about.

That you have *yet* to explain why this single detail from the testimony of a single man is so important to you.

And I am not JAQing around, I'm flat out stating that there is no primary source, since Eichmann is obviously reporting something he has been told which he had no way of determining himself.

Now, once again, Yes or No: do you agree with the facts and conclusions as summarized in my previous post?

Yes Or No, not more questions.

Yes or No -- can I make it any clearer for you?

Yes or No? It's really a simple question.

Yes or No?
.

Yes or no what exactly? That's basically what I've been asking you to explain this whole time.

You have said there is no evidence and that this part of Eichmann's testimony is secondary and that seems to suggest this claim about U-boat gas chambers is unreliable.

Yes this claim is unreliable?

or

No it is reliable and it existed although there is no evidence?

TSR

23rd February 2011, 01:27 AM

Yes or no what exactly? That's basically what I've been asking you to explain this whole time.

You have said there is no evidence and that this part of Eichmann's testimony is secondary and that seems to suggest this claim about U-boat gas chambers is unreliable.

Yes this claim is unreliable?

or

No it is reliable and it existed although there is no evidence?
.
Which part of "do you agree with the facts and conclusions as summarized in my previous post" is confusing you?

I have given you my *opinion* and explained the possible problems with this specific detail several times in this thread.

While you are still unable to give a straight answer to a question. Or is that too dishonest to do so?

Here, let me repeat those facts and those conclusions:

Yes, Eichmann was likely told what he reported to have been told.

Whether what he had been told was true or not, cannot be said to a certainty, since no primary source confirms it and no physical evidence remains. It's also been explained to you that the Nazis made a concerted effort to eliminate such physical evidence, so there's nothing unusual about that.

< ... >

There is collaborating testimony of this method being used elsewhere, but not a primary source that it was used at Majdanek, and ... despite his "remembering exactly" Eichmann could not later identify the camp he was told about.

.
Do you agree or disagree with this? If you disagree, why? And why is this one single detail from one single man so important to you?
.

kageki

23rd February 2011, 02:29 AM

.
Which part of "do you agree with the facts and conclusions as summarized in my previous post" is confusing you?

I have given you my *opinion* and explained the possible problems with this specific detail several times in this thread.

While you are still unable to give a straight answer to a question. Or is that too dishonest to do so?

Here, let me repeat those facts and those conclusions:

.
Do you agree or disagree with this? If you disagree, why? And why is this one single detail from one single man so important to you?
.

Right so there is no evidence and that Eichmann's testimony regarding this seems unreliable. I still don't get what you've been rambling about secondary sources.

By the way, who else testified about using U-boat engines for gas chambers disguised as Polish farmer's huts? What does a Polish farmer's hut look like anyways out of curiosity?

Wroclaw

23rd February 2011, 05:53 AM

Speaking of his execution, how we getting along locating a photo of the purpose built cremation oven.

Time to get a wriggle on.

How about you just tell us all what's on your mind and stop being so freaking annoying?

TSR

23rd February 2011, 06:28 AM

Right so there is no evidence and that Eichmann's testimony regarding this seems unreliable.

.
No, that's not what I wrote, so I'll thank you to stop trying to put words in my mouth.

I've stated that there is no physical evidence (which not the only kind of evidence that there is) remaining for this specific installation and no primary testimonial evidence, but since Eichmann only ever said he was told about it and perhaps saw some plans and viewed the cottages from a distance, it's my opinion as well as that of most mainstream historians that Eichmann is entirely reliable in what he actually said. Your opinion apparently differs which is fine, but you keep refusing to say why you think this specific detail even matters.

Odd, that.
.
I still don't get what you've been rambling about secondary sources.

.
Well, that would appear to be because you don't want to, since no one else here has any problem at all with the distinction I've drawn.

Perhaps you should study a bit about historical sources and evidence before commenting further on this topic.
.

By the way, who else testified about using U-boat engines for gas chambers disguised as Polish farmer's huts? What does a Polish farmer's hut look like anyways out of curiosity?

.
Well, for example, Sobibor survivor Thomas Blatt describes such an installation there in an interview with The Independent in January, 2010.

As to what the hut looked like, about like any other farmer's hut I would suppose. What is the relevance to this discussion what it looked like?
.

kageki

23rd February 2011, 07:50 AM

.
No, that's not what I wrote, so I'll thank you to stop trying to put words in my mouth.

I've stated that there is no physical evidence (which not the only kind of evidence that there is) remaining for this specific installation and no primary testimonial evidence, but since Eichmann only ever said he was told about it and perhaps saw some plans and viewed the cottages from a distance, it's my opinion as well as that of most mainstream historians that Eichmann is entirely reliable in what he actually said. Your opinion apparently differs which is fine, but you keep refusing to say why you think this specific detail even matters.

Odd, that.
.

.
Well, that would appear to be because you don't want to, since no one else here has any problem at all with the distinction I've drawn.

Perhaps you should study a bit about historical sources and evidence before commenting further on this topic.
.

.
Well, for example, Sobibor survivor Thomas Blatt describes such an installation there in an interview with The Independent in January, 2010.

As to what the hut looked like, about like any other farmer's hut I would suppose. What is the relevance to this discussion what it looked like?
.

I don't have a problem with you saying it is a secondary source. I just don't get the point of you insisting it is secondary although you still say it is reliable. Saying a source is secondary normally suggests that it is not entirely reliable. Does it not? If not then what was your point about it?

So now you're saying this U-boat gas chamber did exist although you have no evidence or other primary sources?

Thomas Blatt:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sobibor-survivor-i-polished-ss-boots-as-dying-people-screamed-1870221.html

"We heard the whine of the generator that started the submarine engine which made the gas that killed them."

Do you consider that a primary or secondary source? Did he actually see the submarine engine? Even if he did see it, how would he know what a submarine engine looks like?

Have they ever found this U-boat/submarine engine attached to a gas chamber?

TheRedWorm

23rd February 2011, 08:16 AM

You really do have a problem with honesty, don't you?

Biscuit

23rd February 2011, 08:24 AM

Have they ever found this U-boat/submarine engine attached to a gas chamber?

What is the point you wish to make by brining up this very specific part of the Eichmann interview?

kageki

23rd February 2011, 08:25 AM

Apparently Blatt changed his claim from a submarine engine to a tank engine:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/01/sobibor-survivor-thomas-blatt-sets.html

Dear Mr. Romanov

This is the first time I heard about submarine engine in Sobibor.
It was a Tank engine.
Must be a mistake by the journalist.

Sorry, but I guess Blatt's testimony will not do regarding the U-boat gas chamber.

kageki

23rd February 2011, 08:28 AM

What is the point you wish to make by brining up this very specific part of the Eichmann interview?

It was a question.

Biscuit

23rd February 2011, 09:54 AM

It was a question.

So you had no point to make what-so-ever in asking that question?

In that case you agree that what Eichmann discusses, details of the holocaust, occurred largely in the manner in which he portrayed them?

TSR

23rd February 2011, 10:09 AM

I don't have a problem with you saying it is a secondary source. I just don't get the point of you insisting it is secondary although you still say it is reliable. Saying a source is secondary normally suggests that it is not entirely reliable. Does it not? If not then what was your point about it?

.
What was *your* point in obsessing about this single specific detail about the testimony of a single man, who was only reporting what he had been told?

I've answered every one of your questions, you *still* refuse to say.

When you have answered *mine* I will entertain more questions from you.

And no, saying a source is secondary, in the context of historiography does not suggest that it not entirely reliable, just that it is uncorroborated unless there is a primary source -- nothing more, nothing less. I once again suggest that you learn what the term means in this context before you comment again -- all you are doing right now is exposing a profound and intentional ignorance of the use of sources in history.

Eichmann is a secondary source about the existence of the engine, but a primary source for what he was told about it.

Do you see the difference?
.

So now you're saying this U-boat gas chamber did exist although you have no evidence or other primary sources?

.
What was *your* point in obsessing about this single specific detail about the testimony of a single man, who was only reporting what he had been told?

I've answered every one of your questions, you *still* refuse to say.

When you have answered *mine* I will entertain more questions from you.
.

Thomas Blatt:

Do you consider that a primary or secondary source? Did he actually see the submarine engine? Even if he did see it, how would he know what a submarine engine looks like?

.
What was *your* point in obsessing about this single specific detail about the testimony of a single man, who was only reporting what he had been told?

I've answered every one of your questions, you *still* refuse to say.

When you have answered *mine* I will entertain more questions from you.
.

Have they ever found this U-boat/submarine engine attached to a gas chamber?

.
Asked and answered.

What was *your* point in obsessing about this single specific detail about the testimony of a single man, who was only reporting what he had been told?

I've answered every one of your questions, you *still* refuse to say.

When you have answered *mine* I will entertain more questions from you.
.

abaddon

23rd February 2011, 10:26 AM

What is your point?

Simple. It is self evident that a "hermitically sealed, airtight building" is not required for CO poisoning.

You believe it is, or was that a spurious claim made purely for ego purposes?

abaddon

23rd February 2011, 10:34 AM

Apparently Blatt changed his claim from a submarine engine to a tank engine:

Sorry, but I guess Blatt's testimony will not do regarding the U-boat gas chamber.

Only a mechanic would have even a chance of identifying any given engine by sight

The fact remains that an engine was there. What precisely was the origin of that engine remains largely irrelevant.

The fact remains that it was used to murder people.

To suggest that it might have come from Mars via a*al probing Hitlers b*tt does not excuse the nefarious purposes to which it was subsequently applied.

Dogzilla

23rd February 2011, 02:19 PM

The forest you are missing by looking at this one particular tree is that the interview is just another piece of evidence that corroborates the mountains of other evidence.

But it doesn't. Most of Eichmann's "interview" is vague enough to not contradict other eyewitness testimony. Where he does provide specific detail about the Madjanek gas chamber, he is wrong.

To answer the question in the OP "He admits to it all...the whole Holocaust. What say you, Holocaust deniers?" I'd say that you guys might want to not publicize this "interview" so much.

Matthew Ellard

23rd February 2011, 02:44 PM

Only a mechanic would have even a chance of identifying any given engine by sight The fact remains that an engine was there. What precisely was the origin of that engine remains largely irrelevant.

I agree. The engine has also been identified as a "T-34 tank engine" yet the same T-34 engine was used in other Russian tanks. We should just say "engine" and move along.

abaddon

23rd February 2011, 03:31 PM

I agree. The engine has also been identified as a "T-34 tank engine" yet the same T-34 engine was used in other Russian tanks. We should just say "engine" and move along.

Yeah, heard that before. I do not see how the origin of the engine makes any difference to its usage. It remains 'an engine'. CO is produced. People died in large numbers.

Nitpicking over which particular engine was used will not obviate the fact that people died regardless of where the engine came from.

ETA: The germans did like to recycle captured equipment...
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/ger_t34.jpg

kageki

23rd February 2011, 04:40 PM

Simple. It is self evident that a "hermitically sealed, airtight building" is not required for CO poisoning.

You believe it is, or was that a spurious claim made purely for ego purposes?

I never said that. I only quoted Eichmann.

kageki

23rd February 2011, 05:30 PM

Yeah, heard that before. I do not see how the origin of the engine makes any difference to its usage. It remains 'an engine'. CO is produced. People died in large numbers.

Nitpicking over which particular engine was used will not obviate the fact that people died regardless of where the engine came from.

ETA: The germans did like to recycle captured equipment...
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/ger_t34.jpg

The reason even that Holocaust blog felt compelled to ask Blatt was to determine whether it was a diesel or gasoline engine and that's because they have been debating that a diesel engine would not work as a killing device (as opposed to a gasoline one). The fact still remains that Blatt specified and clarified the type of engine so I wonder how was he able to tell the difference and why did he do so? Blatt also accuses the journalist for making a mistake over that.

But I guess that means Eichmann was just wrong about a Russian U-boat engine because it's diesel? Did the Germans even have access to a Russian U-boat? Why a submarine engine and not a tank engine then? Isn't there a technical and logistical difference between a submarine and tank engine?

So they at least found the engine Blatt was referring to?

USSManhattan

23rd February 2011, 07:24 PM

Speaking of his execution, how we getting along locating a photo of the purpose built cremation oven.

Time to get a wriggle on.

LGR,

I cannot for the life of me understand your obsession with the cremation oven. What is it that you think this is going to say? I don't understand the point you're trying to make, outside of it being out of Jewish tradition to cremate the dead. But I don't understand what this is supposed to say about anything. If you were asking for, say, his SS ID card or something regarding the time period between 1933 and 1945, I'd get it. But, why are you harping on this? It's like demanding to see the pizza box that held the pizza Mohammad Atta ate on 9/10. It has nothing to do with anything. It hasn't a thing to do with the Holocaust or Eichmann's role.

A further question... why do you expect there to be a picture, anyway? The Israelis were clearly wanting to be rid of the body in a way that both prevented it from being an enshrined icon and didn't sully the soil of Israel. They just wanted to be done with it. Why do you expect them to take a picture of it?

beren

23rd February 2011, 09:27 PM

I just thought if we had a photograph of said mysterious crematorium, we might be able to answer this thorny issue.

No hurry, take your time.

does it matter? Does anyone care?

Wroclaw

23rd February 2011, 10:06 PM

Saying a source is secondary normally suggests that it is not entirely reliable.

That's nonsense.

little grey rabbit

23rd February 2011, 10:10 PM

does it matter? Does anyone care?

Yes, I am interested.

Wroclaw, neither Kagacki or TSR have a clue what they are talking about. They mean the difference between eyewitness accounts and hearsay or second hand accounts.
Unfortunately they both use the terms primary and secondary source - but since they know what each other means - who are we to complain?

And in the framework of the agreed terminology here, a "secondary source" aka a second hand account is indeed usually seen as less reliable as an eyewitness or first hand account.

Wroclaw

23rd February 2011, 10:17 PM

And in the framework of the agreed terminology here, a "secondary source" aka a second hand account is indeed usually seen as less reliable as an eyewitness or first hand account.

But that's not what he said; he said it was "not entirely reliable." It may, in fact, be completely reliable. That was the point of my objection.

kageki

24th February 2011, 01:39 AM

LGR,

I cannot for the life of me understand your obsession with the cremation oven. What is it that you think this is going to say? I don't understand the point you're trying to make, outside of it being out of Jewish tradition to cremate the dead. But I don't understand what this is supposed to say about anything. If you were asking for, say, his SS ID card or something regarding the time period between 1933 and 1945, I'd get it. But, why are you harping on this? It's like demanding to see the pizza box that held the pizza Mohammad Atta ate on 9/10. It has nothing to do with anything. It hasn't a thing to do with the Holocaust or Eichmann's role.

A further question... why do you expect there to be a picture, anyway? The Israelis were clearly wanting to be rid of the body in a way that both prevented it from being an enshrined icon and didn't sully the soil of Israel. They just wanted to be done with it. Why do you expect them to take a picture of it?

Well it is rather peculiar why there would be such major discrepancy over what should be a simple fact, but technically I'm also curious to the exact relevance of this to the Life interview.

I don't know what LGR is suggesting, but if reports vastly conflict and there is no evidence such as a photograph then how can one ascertain this occurred? That is a question that comes to my mind.

TSR

24th February 2011, 02:20 AM

I don't know what LGR is suggesting, but if reports vastly conflict and there is no evidence such as a photograph then how can one ascertain this occurred? That is a question that comes to my mind.

.
What reports about the nature of the disposal of Eichmann's remains "vastly conflict?"
.

kageki

24th February 2011, 03:01 AM

.
What reports about the nature of the disposal of Eichmann's remains "vastly conflict?"
.

Now the press reports I have seen said the crematorium was either
1. Actually built on a police boat and then ashes tipped out on the Med.
2. Constructed in the corner of the prison yard where he was hung
3. constructed some distance from Jerusalem in the middle of an orange grove (then ashes to police boat-> Med. etc)

Wouldn't you say those are conflicting reports? I think what LGR's request of a photograph is to ask which is it?

Now I still think this is slightly off-topic because the subject matter is the Life interview and I don't exactly see how Eichmann's cremation is relevant to that.

Wroclaw

24th February 2011, 07:20 AM

LGR has not demonstrated that there are conflicting reports. He has merely alleged it.

Biscuit

24th February 2011, 07:55 AM

But it doesn't. Most of Eichmann's "interview" is vague enough to not contradict other eyewitness testimony.

Vague? Like watching a child get shot in the head? He provides names, dates, methods, and motive for the final solution. Seeing as how your devotion to the Nazis is based on emotion and not fact I doubt he could ever be specific enough for you. This interview is one of your nazi heros admitting to the Holocaust yet still you refuse to listen.

Where he does provide specific detail about the Madjanek gas chamber, he is wrong.

He provides specifics throughout the interview and no one has proved him wrong about Madjanek. At best it will remain unknown until more evidence is found.

To answer the question in the OP "He admits to it all...the whole Holocaust. What say you, Holocaust deniers?" I'd say that you guys might want to not publicize this "interview" so much.

Why not? Neither you nor anyone else has yet to provide anything that would cast doubt on Eichmann's interview. You have tried and failed but as it stands we have a top nazi admitting to, providing motif for, and details of how the holocaust occurred.

On your side you have nothing.

beren

24th February 2011, 04:42 PM

Yes, I am interested.
Then you find the picture.
Why should I be your gofer?

Of course, the reality is that you are *trying* to make a point and failing miserably.
Maybe you should stop lying and make your point in plain English?

kageki

24th February 2011, 07:15 PM

Vague? Like watching a child get shot in the head? He provides names, dates, methods, and motive for the final solution. Seeing as how your devotion to the Nazis is based on emotion and not fact I doubt he could ever be specific enough for you. This interview is one of your nazi heros admitting to the Holocaust yet still you refuse to listen.

He provides specifics throughout the interview and no one has proved him wrong about Madjanek. At best it will remain unknown until more evidence is found.

Why not? Neither you nor anyone else has yet to provide anything that would cast doubt on Eichmann's interview. You have tried and failed but as it stands we have a top nazi admitting to, providing motif for, and details of how the holocaust occurred.

On your side you have nothing.

The thing is there are different versions and it might have been Majdanek or not. Then some other quote that the motor was not there yet.

http://books.google.com/books?id=jHQdRHNdK44C&pg=PA363&lpg=PA363&dq=eichmann+gas+chamber+browning&source=bl&ots=KuvdSavIjU&sig=hZ7xVzDhF5--n5yVTsw71tnB9KY&hl=en&ei=SR1nTeOAOIGqvQOknpDkAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=eichmann%20gas%20chamber%20browning&f=false

So I guess he didn't actually see the engine, just that they were thinking about it? I mean exactly what are we to believe here?

TSR

24th February 2011, 07:29 PM

T I mean exactly what are we to believe here?

.
We are to believe you don't have the b*lls to directly respond to any question put to you.

Such a brave aryan warrior....
.

Dogzilla

24th February 2011, 07:29 PM

Vague? Like watching a child get shot in the head? He provides names, dates, methods, and motive for the final solution. Seeing as how your devotion to the Nazis is based on emotion and not fact I doubt he could ever be specific enough for you. This interview is one of your nazi heros admitting to the Holocaust yet still you refuse to listen.

I'm listening and it sounds like he doesn't know what he's talking about. He says he went to a camp located in the direction of Lublin but he doesn't know the name. He describes a gas chamber at Majdanek that nobody else has described and which nobody talks about today. This Eichmann dude was one of the big players in the holocaust. If he doesn't know the names of the camps or how the gas chambers work, who does?

This is a big problem for your side. This was touted as important evidence for the holocaust in the OP. Now it whittled down to the fact that Eichmann was wrong about certain things only means that he was talking about what he had heard, not what he had seen and just because he was wrong doesn't mean the holocaust didn't happen because one piece of evidence doesn't prove anything. That's what happens to all the evidence if you just scratch the surface--it falls apart.

Thunder

24th February 2011, 07:35 PM

That's what happens to all the evidence if you just scratch the surface--it falls apart.

wait, so ALL the evidence for the Holocaust falls apart if you scratch the surface? is that whay you are now claiming?

Dogzilla

24th February 2011, 10:27 PM

wait, so ALL the evidence for the Holocaust falls apart if you scratch the surface? is that whay you are now claiming?

You don't need to really scratch the surface for most of it to fall apart. This isn't new. I've always said the holocaust debunks itself.

uke2se

25th February 2011, 09:56 AM

You don't need to really scratch the surface for most of it to fall apart. This isn't new. I've always said the holocaust debunks itself.

:eye-poppi

That's some serious disconnect with reality you got there, Dogzilla, especially considering you have failed to debunk a single piece of evidence of the holocaust in your stay here at JREF.

Biscuit

25th February 2011, 10:10 AM

The thing is there are different versions and it might have been Majdanek or not. Then some other quote that the motor was not there yet.

http://books.google.com/books?id=jHQdRHNdK44C&pg=PA363&lpg=PA363&dq=eichmann+gas+chamber+browning&source=bl&ots=KuvdSavIjU&sig=hZ7xVzDhF5--n5yVTsw71tnB9KY&hl=en&ei=SR1nTeOAOIGqvQOknpDkAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=eichmann%20gas%20chamber%20browning&f=false

So I guess he didn't actually see the engine, just that they were thinking about it? I mean exactly what are we to believe here?

That Nazis systematically killed millions of people in an event referred to as the holocaust.

Biscuit

25th February 2011, 10:14 AM

I'm listening and it sounds like he doesn't know what he's talking about. He says he went to a camp located in the direction of Lublin but he doesn't know the name. He describes a gas chamber at Majdanek that nobody else has described and which nobody talks about today. This Eichmann dude was one of the big players in the holocaust. If he doesn't know the names of the camps or how the gas chambers work, who does?

This is a big problem for your side. This was touted as important evidence for the holocaust in the OP. Now it whittled down to the fact that Eichmann was wrong about certain things only means that he was talking about what he had heard, not what he had seen and just because he was wrong doesn't mean the holocaust didn't happen because one piece of evidence doesn't prove anything. That's what happens to all the evidence if you just scratch the surface--it falls apart.

Way to miss the forest once again but I am curious about one thing. If the holocaust never happened

1. Why did Eichmann lie?
2. Where did he get these lies from?
3. Why are the lies backed up with independent evidence?

Oh and I know you can't but I will ask you to provide evidence.

Hans

25th February 2011, 10:19 AM

wait, so ALL the evidence for the Holocaust falls apart if you scratch the surface? is that whay you are now claiming?

This goes back to a question I asked long ago, how did the (in the Dogzilla world view) did the fakers of the holocaust get every single detail wrong?

I mean nothing supports the holocaust, all documents are forgeries, all witnesses are liars....man talk about a badly put together conspiracy...LOL

Wroclaw

25th February 2011, 10:20 AM

Way to miss the forest once again but I am curious about one thing. If the holocaust never happened

1. Why did Eichmann lie?
2. Where did he get these lies from?
3. Why are the lies backed up with independent evidence?

Oh and I know you can't but I will ask you to provide evidence.

I'm going to predict (correctly, by the way) that Eichmann "lied" because he thought he would get off the hook.

This is patently false so don't even try it. Eichmann knew he was a dead man from the moment he figured out who had him.

But yes, do tell us why Eichmann lied...

Wroclaw

25th February 2011, 10:24 AM

Thunder

25th February 2011, 10:35 AM

kageki

26th February 2011, 03:00 AM

And don't try the torture angle, because that doesn't explain why his statements pre-capture match the ones made afterward. Nor was Israel practicing torture in the 1960s.

I have an idea: Try out that he was a secret Zionist agent. I need a laugh today.

It's no secret. Maybe not an agent, but he said he was a Zionist right in this interview:

"[H]ad I been a Jew, I would have been a fanatical Zionist. I could not imagine being anything else. In fact, I would have been the most ardent Zionist imaginable."

Zionism isn't a dirty word per se. In fact I would say National Socialism shared a similar goal as Zionism. Just for different reasons.

Now I think you did mention that his pre-capture testimony was less reliable though. Whatever "less reliable" exactly means. Also there has so far been no evidence presented to back up his claim about a U-boat gas chamber either.

dafydd

26th February 2011, 04:41 AM

I've always said the holocaust debunks itself.

Not in the real world.

TSR

26th February 2011, 04:57 AM

It's no secret. Maybe not an agent, but he said he was a Zionist right in this interview:

.
No, he didn't.

Look at the first clause of the excerpt you posted and get back to us.
.

Now I think you did mention that his pre-capture testimony was less reliable though. Whatever "less reliable" exactly means.

.
And like so many things your claim to 'think', you're wrong. What was said was that secondary evidence, in general, is considered less reliable. Not necessarily completely unreliable (as you also tried to twist it earlier in this thread) nor necessarily completely reliable ***all by itself***, but somewhere in between.

Is this really so hard for you to grasp?
.

Also there has so far been no evidence presented to back up his claim about a U-boat gas chamber either.

.
His claim was that he was told about the engine.

Is there any reason at all to believe that he wasn't?

And once again, you're running from telling why, exactly, this single detail from this single man in this single interview is so troubling to you?
.

kageki

26th February 2011, 05:51 AM

.
No, he didn't.

Look at the first clause of the excerpt you posted and get back to us.
.

.
And like so many things your claim to 'think', you're wrong. What was said was that secondary evidence, in general, is considered less reliable. Not necessarily completely unreliable (as you also tried to twist it earlier in this thread) nor necessarily completely reliable ***all by itself***, but somewhere in between.

Is this really so hard for you to grasp?
.

.
His claim was that he was told about the engine.

Is there any reason at all to believe that he wasn't?

And once again, you're running from telling why, exactly, this single detail from this single man in this single interview is so troubling to you?
.

As though you think your lawyer tactics in any way diminishes the meaning. It shows his support of Zionism how about that? He also says he allowed Jews to emigrate to Palestine against the orders of the British. That is supportive of the Zionist cause. Anyways I don't think some people have a clear understanding of what a Zionist means.

What was said was this:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6904664&postcount=172

My point is that Browning didn't completely dismiss Eichmann's statements. He merely said that the statements made before capture were less reliable than statements made during interrogation, on the stand, and while awaiting execution.

It's amusing to think you are fooling anyone with your incessant lawyer tactics, but that's how it goes in "JREF world".

Interestingly enough now that you ask, how do you know that he was even told about it?

TSR

26th February 2011, 06:53 AM

It shows his support of Zionism how about that?

.
No, it shows support of his own self interest, since what he's saying is that only if it served that self interest as a Jew, would he have been a Zionist
.

He also says he allowed Jews to emigrate to Palestine against the orders of the British. That is supportive of the Zionist cause.

.
Not in the interview under discussion he didn't.

But even if it had, it is supportive of getting rid of Jews.
.

Anyways I don't think some people have a clear understanding of what a Zionist means.

.
Including you, since you seem to be trying to equate simple emigration with the establishment of a homeland.
.

What was said was this:

.
Ah, so it wasn't Wroclaw who said it, it was Wroclaw citing Browning.

Whom you still haven't read, and so do not know the context, every tho Wroclaw spoon fed it to you.
.

It's amusing to think you are fooling anyone with your incessant lawyer tactics, but that's how it goes in "JREF world".

Interestingly enough now that you ask, how do you know that he was even told about it?

.
What was *your* point in obsessing about this single specific detail about the testimony of a single man, who was only reporting what he had been told?

I've answered every one of your questions, you *still* refuse to say.

When you have answered *mine* I will entertain more questions from you.
.

kageki

26th February 2011, 10:09 AM

.
No, it shows support of his own self interest, since what he's saying is that only if it served that self interest as a Jew, would he have been a Zionist
.

.
Not in the interview under discussion he didn't.

But even if it had, it is supportive of getting rid of Jews.
.

.
Including you, since you seem to be trying to equate simple emigration with the establishment of a homeland.
.

.
Ah, so it wasn't Wroclaw who said it, it was Wroclaw citing Browning.

Whom you still haven't read, and so do not know the context, every tho Wroclaw spoon fed it to you.
.

.
What was *your* point in obsessing about this single specific detail about the testimony of a single man, who was only reporting what he had been told?

I've answered every one of your questions, you *still* refuse to say.

When you have answered *mine* I will entertain more questions from you.
.

The interest is with Zionism regardless. Since he was a Nazi he couldn't have called himself a Zionist, but he goes on to explain that:

"As a matter of fact, there was a very strong similarity between our attitudes in the SS and the viewpoint of these immensely idealistic Zionist leaders who were fighting what might be their last battle."

This strong similarity and his expression of wanting to be a Zionist had he been a Jew by all means shows support of Zionism whether you want to call it self-interest or not.

Negotiations with the Zionist Jew, Rudolf Kastner where Eichmann agrees to his request for Jews to illegally emigrate to Palestine with Himmler's permission:

This Dr. Kastner was a young man about my age, an ice-cold lawyer and a fanatical Zionist. He agreed to help keep the Jews from resisting deportation-and even keep order in the collection camps-if I would close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine. It was a good bargain.

It is not tenable to suggest it's a "simple emigration" because the Nazis had seriously discussed Madagascar as a homeland for Jews and besides that he was negotiating with a Zionist! He certainly must have known that Zionism was a movement to establish a homeland. It is also true in a manner of speaking that it would be "supportive of getting rid of the Jews" as in emigration, but that is to say National Socialism and Zionism both had such desires in general. Zionists NEEDED Jews to emigrate for their homeland... at least some:

I believe that Kastner would have sacrificed a thousand or a hundred thousand of his blood to achieve his political goal. He was not interested in old Jews or those who had become assimilated into Hungarian society. But he was incredibly persistent in trying to save biologically valuable Jewish blood-that is, human material that was capable of reproduction and hard work. "You can have the others," he would say, "but let me have this group here."

You haven't answered every one of my questions. You just ignored my last one. Should I take that as a "no I don't know that he was even told about it"?

TSR

26th February 2011, 01:13 PM

You haven't answered every one of my questions. You just ignored my last one. Should I take that as a "no I don't know that he was even told about it"?

.
True, but I have been saying for days I will only entertain another question of yours *after* you answer all of mine that were outstanding at the time I first stated this, on the 23rd (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6908848&postcount=200).

Let's add to this the question about what page in the interview under question contains the exchange Kastner or even any mention of Zionism?

You first, *then* we can talk about your other nonsense.
.

Wroclaw

26th February 2011, 01:23 PM

This is getting amusing...

TSR

26th February 2011, 02:13 PM

.
I wouldn't say amusing, myself, but it is ... entertaining in the same way a movie is entertaining without being funny how transparently K is running from my questions.
.

kageki

26th February 2011, 05:08 PM

.
True, but I have been saying for days I will only entertain another question of yours *after* you answer all of mine that were outstanding at the time I first stated this, on the 23rd (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6908848&postcount=200).

Let's add to this the question about what page in the interview under question contains the exchange Kastner or even any mention of Zionism?

You first, *then* we can talk about your other nonsense.
.

How do you know he was even told about it or what he was told about happened?

This is from part 2:
http://books.google.com/books?id=900EAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&rview=1&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false

This interview certainly is "amusing" if you actually read the whole thing.

angrysoba

26th February 2011, 05:42 PM

Eichmann. Could be a Jewish name?

Hmm.....:cool:

Oh, believe me, the Nazi apologists/Holocaust deniers have most certainly tried that one.

Hmmm...didn't he speak Hebrew? They ask. Didn't he visit Palestine? Doesn't he look a bit Jewish?

They try these things on just as they will try anything on if it muddies the waters.

From there it is not quite clear what they really want to say. For some of them the thought that Eichmann was Jewish is irresistable. They might even start believing in the Holocaust if that was true. They could claim that, yes, there was a Holocaust and the Jews did it to their own people. Probably to make the Nazis look bad despite the fact that...er...the Nazis were Jews. Wait! That doesn't make sense...

I know... Adolf Eichmann was a fanatical Zionist Jewish agent who infiltrated the Nazi movement just to make the Nazis look bad even though Hitler was trying to save all the Jews from...er.... the Nazis...no, wait...

I know...Adolf Eichman infiltrated the Nazis, knowing that eventually they would be defeated by the Soviet Union and the Western Allies, ran away to Argentina and then assented to a kidnapping to Israel and then martyred himself to Israel as a true Zionist by bolstering the claims that the other Nazis had already made up because they were tortured into it... or something like that...

It suffers from all the usual pretzel logic problems that Nazis get themselves into when trying to exonnerate the Fuhrer.

Things like, "Well the Holocaust was all made up by scheming Jews which only proves Hitler was right about them in the first place even though he wanted to defend them from the Holocaust which he knew nothing about and anyway never happened."

dafydd

26th February 2011, 06:21 PM

"Well the Holocaust was all made up by scheming Jews which only proves Hitler was right about them in the first place even though he wanted to defend them from the Holocaust which he knew nothing about and anyway never happened."

That is a very good summing up of the denier mindset,if you can call it a mind.

angrysoba

26th February 2011, 06:31 PM

That is a very good summing up of the denier mindset,if you can call it a mind.

It does lend some credence to the argument that you can't debate Holocaust deniers because there is simply no reasoning with people whose beliefs are already so contradictory.

TSR

26th February 2011, 06:45 PM

How do you know he was even told about it or what he was told about happened?

This is from part 2:
http://books.google.com/books?id=900EAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&rview=1&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false

This interview certainly is "amusing" if you actually read the whole thing.
.
When you have answered *mine* I will entertain more questions from you.

Here, let me use smaller words:

You say me what I ask, *then* I say you what you ask.

Ask your mommy if you don't know the words.

.

dafydd

26th February 2011, 07:18 PM

It does lend some credence to the argument that you can't debate Holocaust deniers because there is simply no reasoning with people whose beliefs are already so contradictory.

You need a modicum of brain cells to make a cogent argument,so that rules most of them out.

kageki

26th February 2011, 07:51 PM

.
When you have answered *mine* I will entertain more questions from you.

Here, let me use smaller words:

You say me what I ask, *then* I say you what you ask.

Ask your mommy if you don't know the words.

.

My question is basically my point.

We can't seem to be sure that he was even told about it or that what he was told happened or was even possible. Thus this part of the testimony seems unreliable.

TSR

26th February 2011, 08:01 PM

My question is basically my point.

We can't seem to be sure that he was even told about it or that what he was told happened or was even possible. Thus this part of the testimony seems unreliable.

.
Then why not just say, "He wasn't told what he claimed to have been told" ***and support it***?

What "seems" to you, personally, is immaterial.

What can you *document*?

What, exactly, *seems* to be 'impossible'?

And what about the other questions?
.

kageki

26th February 2011, 08:41 PM

.
Then why not just say, "He wasn't told what he claimed to have been told" ***and support it***?

What "seems" to you, personally, is immaterial.

What can you *document*?

What, exactly, *seems* to be 'impossible'?

And what about the other questions?
.

You can't even support it. The source is unnamed and Eichmann doesn't even know the name of the camp so why do you believe he was even told about it?

There seems to be no document or evidence at all.

TSR

27th February 2011, 02:01 AM

You can't even support it. The source is unnamed and Eichmann doesn't even know the name of the camp so why do you believe he was even told about it?

.
Still congenitally unable to answer straight questions, hmmn?

I've already supplied another source who mentions an engine being used in this manner.

Why does this *one* detail by *one* man trouble you so? If it was Manjdanek or Sobibor, if it was a tank or a submarine engine, or even if it was none of the above: what does this change about our fundamental understanding of these events?

~80,000 died at Majdanek.
Upwards of 200,000 at Sobibor.

These are established facts.

Does it really matter what one man remembers at second hand about how?
.

There seems to be no document or evidence at all.

.
Like so much that you say, wrong.

But until you grow a pair and give straight answers to the questions put to you, I'm done enabling your JAQing off. Until you do, the only response from me will be "got any answers yet?" and I strongly encourage others to do the same. Start with why this whole thing with the engine even matters.
.

kageki

27th February 2011, 03:29 AM

.
Still congenitally unable to answer straight questions, hmmn?

I've already supplied another source who mentions an engine being used in this manner.

Why does this *one* detail by *one* man trouble you so? If it was Manjdanek or Sobibor, if it was a tank or a submarine engine, or even if it was none of the above: what does this change about our fundamental understanding of these events?

~80,000 died at Majdanek.
Upwards of 200,000 at Sobibor.

These are established facts.

Does it really matter what one man remembers at second hand about how?
.

.
Like so much that you say, wrong.

But until you grow a pair and give straight answers to the questions put to you, I'm done enabling your JAQing off. Until you do, the only response from me will be "got any answers yet?" and I strongly encourage others to do the same. Start with why this whole thing with the engine even matters.
.

I've covered these things already. You have just chosen to ignore them. That other source suffers the same problems with this source. I find it troubling that the detail may not be correct or even possible.

What exactly is the "fundamental understanding of these events"?

Are these "established facts" the same as what they say in court as "judicial notice"? Those figures don't even seem to be supported by the Hoefle telegram.