Operation Reinhardt staff and the T4 connection

[Callafangers]

Why, when they were put on trial in West Germany, by German prosecutors, did none of the staff claim TII was a property sorting centre?

By the time of the West German trials, the means to challenge the narrative were more hopeless than ever. If everyone agrees that the Nazis had an endless murder-orgy, and you're under direct accusations of having participated in the orgies, does it make you look less guilty to say, "not only did I not participate - the whole thing is a lie!", contradicting all prior rulings by that time?

And in the earlier trials, describe how you (a Nazi) would feel, walking into a courtroom when:

• Your family is terrified and being supervised by Soviet/Allied rapists
• The enemy that hates you is running the trial and insists you did murder orgies
• Your lawyer tells you that there is no viable defense to deny these atrocities occurred, only to mitigate your alleged involvement
• Most of your fellow colleagues have already played along with this narrative
• The handful of fellow Nazis you know who have tried denying altogether were simply hanged
• The war is lost, your country has fallen and you have nothing left to fight for but your own life and your family's

What do you say, then, Nessie? Do you 'be a hero' and get yourself killed and your family harassed, deported, or far worse? Or is it now a lost cause and you have to 'play ball' in the ways of the psychopathic victors?

This isn't a rhetorical question. I want to know what you would actually do in such a situation.

[Nessie]

Why, when they were put on trial in West Germany, by German prosecutors, did none of the staff claim TII was a property sorting centre?

By the time of the West German trials, the means to challenge the narrative were more hopeless than ever. If everyone agrees that the Nazis had an endless murder-orgy, and you're under direct accusations of having participated in the orgies, does it make you look less guilty to say, "not only did I not participate - the whole thing is a lie!", contradicting all prior rulings by that time?

And in the earlier trials, describe how you (a Nazi) would feel, walking into a courtroom when:

• Your family is terrified and being supervised by Soviet/Allied rapists
• The enemy that hates you is running the trial and insists you did murder orgies
• Your lawyer tells you that there is no viable defense to deny these atrocities occurred, only to mitigate your alleged involvement
• Most of your fellow colleagues have already played along with this narrative
• The handful of fellow Nazis you know who have tried denying altogether were simply hanged
• The war is lost, your country has fallen and you have nothing left to fight for but your own life and your family's

What do you say, then, Nessie? Do you 'be a hero' and get yourself killed and your family harassed, deported, or far worse? Or is it now a lost cause and you have to 'play ball' in the ways of the psychopathic victors?

This isn't a rhetorical question. I want to know what you would actually do in such a situation.

Lets go through your made up list of objections, for which you provide no evidence.

[*] Your family is terrified and being supervised by Soviet/Allied rapists

There is no evidence of any threats made to the accused's families.

[*] The enemy that hates you is running the trial and insists you did murder orgies

German prosecutors ran the trial and conducted the investigations, even visiting TII.

[*] Your lawyer tells you that there is no viable defense to deny these atrocities occurred, only to mitigate your alleged involvement

There is a viable defence, which worked for the Belzec trial, which was to claim coercion and being forced to work at the camp. The reason why a defence of no crime was committed, is because of the lack of evidence TII was used for another purpose.

[*] Most of your fellow colleagues have already played along with this narrative

Again, that is because of the evidence. Mass murder was proven. You just do not want to accept that.

[*] The handful of fellow Nazis you know who have tried denying altogether were simply hanged

Which Nazi and what did they deny?

[*] The war is lost, your country has fallen and you have nothing left to fight for but your own life and your family's

The TII trials took place in Dusseldorf in the 1960s.

You clearly have a fantasy version of what took place.

[Stubble]

It is important to note, in the German legal system, one can not argue 'Established Facts'. After Nuremberg many questionable 'reports' become just exactly those 'Established Facts'.

The trials were therefore not to establish 'guilt' or 'innocence' but to establish the extent of 'guilt' and punishment.

There are of course other factors, which are well documented. To me, this is one of the most important however.

A video from ARMREG Holocaust Academy touching on just exactly this point;



The consequences of this can become painfully apparent when one reads the trial decisions...

[Nessie]

Any court system, has agreed evidence, where both defence and prosecution do not dispute its provenance or veracity. In the case of the Holocaust, the crime of mass murder was accepted as proven by both defence and prosecution. The defence then argued about individual responsibility.

Numerous Nazis were prosecuted for their role in T4. Again, no one accused of the killings disputed that they had happened.

[Stubble]

With regard to 'The Doctor Trials' and 'Aktion T4', some suggested reading.

https://codoh.com/library/document/the- ... locaust-5/

With regard to denying a defense to the defense, for that, there is NO defense.

[HansHill]

Any court system, has agreed evidence, where both defence and prosecution do not dispute its provenance or veracity. In the case of the Holocaust, the crime of mass murder was accepted as proven by both defence and prosecution. The defence then argued about individual responsibility.

Numerous Nazis were prosecuted for their role in T4. Again, no one accused of the killings disputed that they had happened.

can not dispute

Fixed it for you. Since existence of gas chambers was entered to court via Judicial Notice. Yes yes Nessie, I know you don't understand this point but please try pay attention

[Callafangers]

[*] Your family is terrified and being supervised by Soviet/Allied rapists

There is no evidence of any threats made to the accused's families.

The above is a prime example of Nessie's BS. Not only is there explicit evidence of threats made to certain families (e.g. Hoess), Nessie circumvents the point which is that the family of the German on trial were terrified and being supervised by Soviet/Allied soldiers who raped millions of German women during this time.

[Hektor]

Any court system, has agreed evidence, where both defence and prosecution do not dispute its provenance or veracity. In the case of the Holocaust, the crime of mass murder was accepted as proven by both defence and prosecution. The defence then argued about individual responsibility.

Numerous Nazis were prosecuted for their role in T4. Again, no one accused of the killings disputed that they had happened.

That remark is cringy and strange in an extreme. So nobody ever bother to proof the Holocaust first, it was accepted as proven a priori by both prosecution and defense. This while virtually all of the accused disputed to have had knowledge of 'the Holocaust' before May 8 1945.

[Stubble]

[*] Your family is terrified and being supervised by Soviet/Allied rapists

There is no evidence of any threats made to the accused's families.

The above is a prime example of Nessie's BS. Not only is there explicit evidence of threats made to certain families (e.g. Hoess), Nessie circumvents the point which is that the family of the German on trial were terrified and being supervised by Soviet/Allied soldiers who raped millions of German women during this time.

Anybody care to explain the 'immaculate conception' of Frau Koch?

I fear our flippered friend may have missed that one...

At least Hoess never got pregnant...

[Nessie]

Any court system, has agreed evidence, where both defence and prosecution do not dispute its provenance or veracity. In the case of the Holocaust, the crime of mass murder was accepted as proven by both defence and prosecution. The defence then argued about individual responsibility.

Numerous Nazis were prosecuted for their role in T4. Again, no one accused of the killings disputed that they had happened.

can not dispute

Fixed it for you. Since existence of gas chambers was entered to court via Judicial Notice. Yes yes Nessie, I know you don't understand this point but please try pay attention

How have you fixed it for me? Where is the evidence the lawyers were not allowed to dispute the evidence that proved mass murder? Rather than, they did not dispute mass murder, because it was so well evidenced?

[Nessie]

[*] Your family is terrified and being supervised by Soviet/Allied rapists

There is no evidence of any threats made to the accused's families.

The above is a prime example of Nessie's BS. Not only is there explicit evidence of threats made to certain families (e.g. Hoess), Nessie circumvents the point which is that the family of the German on trial were terrified and being supervised by Soviet/Allied soldiers who raped millions of German women during this time.

You only ever bring up Hoess, who was tried at the IMT in 1946. What about the lack of evidence of anyone, tried in Frankfurt, in the 1960s, by German prosecutors, being subject to any coercion?

[Nessie]

Any court system, has agreed evidence, where both defence and prosecution do not dispute its provenance or veracity. In the case of the Holocaust, the crime of mass murder was accepted as proven by both defence and prosecution. The defence then argued about individual responsibility.

Numerous Nazis were prosecuted for their role in T4. Again, no one accused of the killings disputed that they had happened.

That remark is cringy and strange in an extreme. So nobody ever bother to proof the Holocaust first, it was accepted as proven a priori by both prosecution and defense. This while virtually all of the accused disputed to have had knowledge of 'the Holocaust' before May 8 1945.

The Holocaust was accepted as proven, not a priori, but because of the evidence it had happened. Millions of Jews had been arrested during the war, but by 1945, only a few hundred thousand of those people were alive. Every country was missing Jewish citizens. Whilst many denied knowledge of what had happened, there were Nazis admitting to mass killing and documentation was being traced, that recorded mass killings and the huge population drops. Then there was the evidence of motive to kill Jews and the disabled and the opportunity the Nazis had to do so. Plus, the opportunity others took to join with them and evidence of collaboration all over Europe. Citizens from countries such as Romania, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, had been active in the killing of Jews. The Dutch authorities now knew that their worst fears had come true, that their assistance had resulted in the deaths of a high number of their Jewish citizens and there had been no resettlement programme.

Millions of arrested Jews surviving to 1945, would have left a lot of evidence and a huge displaced persons problem. Instead, whilst there were millions of displaced people, only a few hundred thousand were Jewish and camp liberations had only found a few hundred thousand. That lack of evidence of survival, was a key part of the overall evidence of mass murder.

Mass murders had been widely reported during the war and by 1945, it was already evidence and proven that millions of Jews had been killed.

[Hektor]

Any court system, has agreed evidence, where both defence and prosecution do not dispute its provenance or veracity. In the case of the Holocaust, the crime of mass murder was accepted as proven by both defence and prosecution. The defence then argued about individual responsibility.

Numerous Nazis were prosecuted for their role in T4. Again, no one accused of the killings disputed that they had happened.

That remark is cringy and strange in an extreme. So nobody ever bother to proof the Holocaust first, it was accepted as proven a priori by both prosecution and defense. This while virtually all of the accused disputed to have had knowledge of 'the Holocaust' before May 8 1945.

The Holocaust was accepted as proven, not a priori, but because of the evidence it had happened. ....

I leave this here. If you accept as proven without any proof being done, then it is an a priori being done. And that was btw. also the case with the follow up trials that had to accept the IMT's fore-gone conclusions as fact. So no accused could dispute that assertion ever leading to the Myth that "No Nazi ever denied the Holocaust".

[Nessie]

That remark is cringy and strange in an extreme. So nobody ever bother to proof the Holocaust first, it was accepted as proven a priori by both prosecution and defense. This while virtually all of the accused disputed to have had knowledge of 'the Holocaust' before May 8 1945.

The Holocaust was accepted as proven, not a priori, but because of the evidence it had happened. ....

I leave this here. If you accept as proven without any proof being done, then it is an a priori being done. And that was btw. also the case with the follow up trials that had to accept the IMT's fore-gone conclusions as fact. So no accused could dispute that assertion ever leading to the Myth that "No Nazi ever denied the Holocaust".

From the first reports of mass shootings in 1941, Polish intelligence, reporting back to the Government in Exile, in London, had been gathering evidence. I see on X, a quote from the British intelligence officer, Victor Cavendish-Bentinck, about not believing the gassing claims. But, it is from 1943. By 1945, there was irrefutable evidence of mass gassing, along with the mass shootings and he became the UK's ambassador to Poland.

The evidence came from captured documents, used at the IMT and subsequent Holocaust specific trials. Eyewitnesses, from escaped prisoners, to some Nazis that the prosecutors used as part of their case. Camp site examinations in 1945, had found large ares of buried cremated remains and what was left of the gas chambers at A-B. Forensic tests proved remains recovered from Sobibor were human and that Zyklon B had been used in the Kremas. The camp's Construction Office provided a record of the construction of the gas chambers and ovens for multiple corpse cremations. The accused Nazis offered no evidence to the contrary, because there was none. The prosecution had proven motive, opportunity and the crime.

You are deluded to think that in 1945, there was no evidence of the mass murder of millions of Jews.