the translated Sassen papers

[bombsaway]

According to AI the Life Magazine was compiled out of Sassen interview material as well as Eichmann's private and separate writings. The submarine comes from the latter, it's definitely not in the interviews.

Browning's interpretation, if I'm not mistaken, is that Eichmann visited an experimental site outside of the known extermination centers. Another witness testimony affirms the existence of such a site. OK.

We don't have the verbatim text from Argentina about the submarine visit, the Life magazine is text is edited. They may have inserted the Majdanek part (it is near Lublin) https://ia902905.us.archive.org/32/item ... chmann.pdf

so I'll analyze this

"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."

As I understand it most submarine engines are diesel but the timing can be changed to allow it to produce more CO. Regardless all we have is second hand suggestion that Eichmann wasn't even definitive about ("seems").

Your notion that this is a lie is speculative. There are other explanations - submarine engine was used - they planned to use one and then switched it for another engine, etc etc

Because of lack of information we're both speculating about this. It's not a strong point.

AI:

Where Archie goes further is in moving from an unreliable presentation to deliberate invention of the whole episode. Those are different conclusions. A statement can be inaccurate because of deliberate lying, mistaken recollection, someone else’s misinformation, transcription, translation, or editing. The evidence must distinguish them. That is not an excuse for accepting the statement; it is a reason to be precise about what has actually been disproved.

btw I've updated the site with some quotes from Eichmann about the psychological elements of hearing about the order, carrying it out, seeing gassings/shootings.

https://sassen-reading-room.pages.dev/e ... conscience

One of course can't say Eichmann's presentation here is absolutely true, but it's also clearly beyond any cartoonish 'Hans Landa' type appreciation of the situation.

[Archie]

According to AI the Life Magazine was compiled out of Sassen interview material as well as Eichmann's private and separate writings. The submarine comes from the latter, it's definitely not in the interviews.

Like I already said, the Israeli copy is NOT COMPLETE. Stangneth gives a detailed description of the different transcripts on page 423.

Life. Copy of 600 transcript pages and a few copies pages of handwriting. Not accessible to researchers.

Israel (Hagag)/Servtius. Israel State Archives 74/3156. ... Transcript of 62 tapes (1-5, 11-67 with pages missing) ... Transcript is 713 pages in total; including File 17, it totals 795 pages (the offical number of 798 is due to double paginations). No transcript of tapes 68-73.

Linz. ... The copy comprises 900 pages (tapes 1-5, 11-67), also with pages missing, but different pages from the Israel copy...

Sassen. Original manuscripts with original corrections, and Sassen's microfilm copy, which was given to the Eichmann family in 1979 and has now been deposited in BA Koblenz by a Swiss publisher, Eichmann Estate, N/1497. This copy is the most extensive, at 835 pages plus 78 pages of Eichmann's notes on the transcript. It includes tape transcripts 6-10 (except "7," which never existed), and the rest of 68-73, though without tape 29 and page 41:3.

Since it's not complete, you can't assume that just because you can't find it it in the Israeli copy that it wasn't on any of the tapes or that it wasn't in the Life transcripts. And I don't see why it would matter to you anyway since Eichmann repeated the story various times and you believe all of them.

Browning's interpretation, if I'm not mistaken, is that Eichmann visited an experimental site outside of the known extermination centers. Another witness testimony affirms the existence of such a site. OK.

Is that what your AI told you?

Browning struggled mightily to explain this and engages in mental gymnastics to try to salvage it. He is open about the "puzzling contradictions" in the Eichmann statements and admits that his solution is shaky. I would call it desperate.

Chapter 4 of Arad has a totally different timeline and he disagrees completely with Browning.

We don't have the verbatim text from Argentina about the submarine visit, the Life magazine is text is edited. They may have inserted the Majdanek part (it is near Lublin) https://ia902905.us.archive.org/32/item ... chmann.pdf

I suspect that they assumed Majdanek because that is the camp near Lublin. In the interrogation version he says he went to Lublin and then went another camp. I think it got a bit garbled. But the story is BS any way you slice it.

[bombsaway]

Is that what your AI told you?

Browning struggled mightily to explain this and engages in mental gymnastics to try to salvage it. He is open about the "puzzling contradictions" in the Eichmann statements and admits that his solution is shaky. I would call it desperate.

Actually no, my AI didn't know that. I knew it from a previous discussion about the Sassen topic. Haven't bothered looking it up.

I think Browning is just speculating where there are gaps in the record, and he is pointing that out. Cartoon conspiracists may take a black and white view of things, but historians are more subtle and appreciative of the limits of what can be known about any historical event. That doesn't stop them from forming hypotheses and explanations. This is true across all subjects in history.

But the story is BS any way you slice it.

That's just your opinion though. The problem with everything that you just said is that it doesn't preclude other explanations.

And you haven't even provided a hypothesis that may be critiqued.

This applies to the 'submarine' business as well the broader Sassen materials. There are other explanations (arguably much more plausible) and you also have provided no hypothesis at all. I think without a hypothesis, this is an automatic loss in terms of debate.

Now would be the time to put your best hypothesis forward about the papers, especially the interview transcriptions which are the subject of this thread.

[Archie]

That's just your opinion though. The problem with everything that you just said is that it doesn't preclude other explanations.

Can you please specify which explanation you are endorsing? Browning's?

[bombsaway]

Sure

https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6abb08659ff0819 ... 436928f9bf

I would ask that you give me your hypothesis about the sassen transcript as well, which is the forum topic. The U-boat stuff I think comes from Eichmanns private collection, which Sassen obtained but I wouldn't call his papers.

[JimPP6363]

I think it’s also important to note Eichmann is saying this some years after the event in question he could very easily have been muddled up by things he’s seen since for example if he read a newspaper article about camps and such that could influence he recollection this is noted in serval articles on psychology which I’m presently studying to evaluate eye witness testimony

[bombsaway]

the revisionist approach tends to start from the conclusion (it was impossible, therefore he's lying) and work backward from that, so they see these contradictory and incorrect aspects as confirming that.

It's a binary way of looking at the world.

In a vacuum, we can say for testimonies of this nature -- by perpetrators, given years after the events in question -- there should an expectation those testimonies will have problems. If they didn't, that would be maybe more suspicious.

w the Sassen papers revisionists have to make the argument that the explanation offered by orthodoxy is implausible. If Archie provides his explanation of the materials, we'll see how plausible that is, I suspect not very.

[JimPP6363]

But all eye witnesses naturally contradict each other….

If you applied that logic to the Kennedy assassination the Lincoln assassination or the sinking of the titanic you’d conclude because eye witness X says Wilkes booth said Sic semper tyrannis in the presidential box and eye witness Y says he said it on the stage when he jumped then eye witness Z says he didn’t say it at all they all contradict.

How is the natural conclusion Abraham Lincoln didn’t die? This makes zero sense all eye witnesses of major events eventually contradict each other an example I brought up previous is the splitting of the titanic many high ranking officers swore under oath titanic went down in 1 piece are these men also lying eye witnesses? Of course not! Once you accept they were mistaken then you accept an eye witness can see an event and remember details incorrectly but remember the main event (the sinking to titanic) correctly!

This should really be obvious