Eichmann and the Sassen Tapes

[bombsaway]

Not everyone has the end goal of "sticking it to their enemies". People have all kinds of motivations and desires. Bombsaway is doing history in a very silly way by assuming everyone must have his ends and goals in mind but just under different ideologies. Very ridiculous.

Think about how a jury would react to repeated private confessions like this, of involvement in a murder.

[Nessie]

Eichmann did not use the trial defence of no crime was committed and that the accusation of mass murder was false.

[Wahrheitssucher]

Not everyone has the end goal of "sticking it to their enemies". People have all kinds of motivations and desires. Bombsaway is doing history in a very silly way by assuming everyone must have his ends and goals in mind but just under different ideologies. Very ridiculous.

Think about how a jury would react to repeated private confessions like this, of involvement in a murder.

What latter-day promoters of the holocaust narrative increasingly seem unaware of is that during WW2 there was a ‘war’ going on.

[Wahrheitssucher]

There are a fair few false premises, imprecise/vague implications and weasel-words here.

One, the claim that Eichmann said or wrote that Jews were his “enemies”. FALSE. He never did.

[Eichmann:] I’m telling you, Comrade Sassen… I must tell you quite honestly, if we had killed 10.3 million Jews out of the 10.3 million Jews that Korherr, as we now know, discovered, then I would be satisfied and would say: Good, we have destroyed an enemy.

Ok. I stand corrected. You are right. I was wrong.

What Eichmann could have denied was the existence of a program of mass killing Jews. This is what Sassen had hoped to disprove.

That is what I just explained he probably wasn’t himself sure of. Didn’t you understand my explanation?

It's one thing to say guards in one section of Auschwitz wouldn't necessarily know about extermination activities in another, but make no mistake Eichmann was high up in hierarchy, if not in title than responsibility, answering directly to Himmler, Muller, Kaltenbrunner. I don't know what the argument is here exactly.

Then maybe try reading it again until you do understand it?

Even if he didn't know for sure it would still be silly (probably he would have to be psychotic) for him to take this route.

Why?

[Nessie]

Eichmann was in charge of the transportations. So, why was he unable to say where all the millions of Jews he organised transporting, were, in 1944?

[bombsaway]

What Eichmann could have denied was the existence of a program of mass killing Jews. This is what Sassen had hoped to disprove.

That is what I just explained he probably wasn’t himself sure of. Didn’t you understand my explanation?

You're saying that there's little chance that HAD there been an extermination program, Eichmann, as a highly ranked SS official reporting directly to Himmler, would have known about it. I suppose it's POSSIBLE he wouldn't have known, but within orthodox historiography quite unlikely. Himmler at Posen: " It's one of those things that is easily said: 'The Jewish people are being exterminated', says every party member, 'this is very obvious, it's in our program, elimination of the Jews, extermination, we're doing it, hah, a small matter.' " Within orthodoxy, the reason that people like Goerring claimed ignorance was as a trial defense strategy.

Why?

Did Eichmann like the Jews? Why would he want to make the Jews stronger by affirming their fake genocide narrative, and their narrative about HIM, as a major war criminal. It doesn't make sense. You're falsely accused of heinous crime and then in a social situation where it is making people uncomfortable, you unabashedly say you did it.

You guys are speculating about POSSIBILITY here, but it would serve you to think in a probabilistic lens. A jury, faced with someone making repeated, private confessions to involvement in a crime is going to convict 1000/1000 times, absent any compelling reason given for why the defendant might be lying. You think that him wanting to troll Nazi sympathizers is a compelling reason to lie, I beg to differ but we can leave it at that I guess.

[Wahrheitssucher]

What Eichmann could have denied was the existence of a program of mass killing Jews. This is what Sassen had hoped to disprove.

That is what I just explained he probably wasn’t himself sure of. Didn’t you understand my explanation?

You're saying that there's little chance that HAD there been an extermination program, Eichmann, as a highly ranked SS official reporting directly to Himmler, would have known about it.

No, I am not exactly arguing that.
I made no mention of “chance”.
I argued that… oh, I haven’t the patience right now to repeat all that. Please re-read it. It isn’t very complicated.

Within orthodoxy, the reason that people like Göring claimed ignorance was as a trial defence strategy.

Well, then ‘orthodoxy’ is wrong!
In actuality, Herman Göring didn’t INITIALLY claim “ignorance”. Instead he categorically and emphatically stated that the Nuremberg accusations were false!

And he CORRECTLY refuted the coerced confession of Rudolf Höß as being physically impossible in numerous ways, including the claimed time scale.

He pointed this out to the other defendants AFTER Höß’s testimony at the following meal time when they were all eating together.

Everybody else had believed Höß and so were downcast and experiencing “emotional shock”. Göring KNEW the statements were FALSE atrocity propaganda and managed to convince most of the others of that.

All this was recorded for posterity by the Prison psychologist Captain Gilbert who was present and listening / eavesdropping. He was a Jew from New York, the son of Jewish-Austrian immigrants and so spoke German fluently.

Later, as the trial progressed, even Göring came to doubt his own knowledge and understanding and wondered if there actually HAD been a top-secret extermination policy. He even came to believe the false accusations by the trial tribunal against Heinrich Himmler.

I [Leon Goldensohn] asked him about his impression of Höß, the commandant at Auschwitz, who had testified before the tribunal that he exterminated men, women, and children of all ages.
"I didn't know anything about it. As Höß said before the tribunal, it was kept secret.
I can hardly believe it — the numbers were so great. I can't see it.
I can't believe that Hitler knew it.
Of course, it's sufficient what did happen — but that the numbers could be so large, I can't envisage.
Of course, there were rumours at the time, but I never believed them. People like Höß and Himmler and the smaller SS folk who carried out these orders must have known about them, but even so, I can't understand it. How they did such a thing is beyond me.
The order to do away with certain groups of people was never discussed because if it had been discussed there would have been very much resistance against the idea.

Himmler was undoubtedly a criminal and he should not have committed suicide. It was different with Hitler, whose suicide I condone. Himmler should not have left Kaltenbrunner and others to be responsible for his misdeeds.

The only way Himmler got away with the atrocities he ordered was by either influencing Hitler in a wrong direction or by taking advantage of the great preoccupation Hitler had with the war and doing things on his own.

I heard of a case once where the rumour said that a few thousand people had been killed. I thought it was enemy propaganda.
When I asked about it I was told that it was only enemy propaganda.

All of us knew that people were tried expeditiously in the concentration camps and were sentenced to death, but we didn't know of innocent people being exterminated.

I heard the name Eichmann here for the first time.

That the Jews should be evacuated from Germany was clear.
That the Jews should go to the general government in Poland was also clear.
But not that they should be exterminated.

After the war the Jews were to be brought to Palestine or elsewhere. The plan to evacuate them existed before the war. Such plans were made for the next ten years. For example, there was also a plan about how foreign exchange of money should be handled.

I take all the responsibility for what happened in National Socialist Germany but not for the things I knew nothing about, such as the concentration camps and the atrocities."

[Nessie]

...Did Eichmann like the Jews? Why would he want to make the Jews stronger by affirming their fake genocide narrative, and their narrative about HIM, as a major war criminal. It doesn't make sense...

Eichmann and all the Nazis who fled to South America, had the best opportunity to blow a Holocaust hoax and cause significant, lasting damage to Zionism and Israel. None of them did so, which makes no sense.

[Archie]

Here is the statement that Eichmann signed "voluntarily" when he was captured by the Israelis.

I, the undersigned, Adolf Eichmann, state herewith of my own free will: Since my true identity has now been revealed, I realise that there is no point in my continuing to try to avoid justice. I declare myself willing to proceed to Israel and to stand trial there before a competent court.

It is understood that I will receive legal counsel and I shall try to recount, without any embroidery, the facts relating to my last years of service in Germany, so that a true picture of the events may be transmitted to future generations. I am submitting this declaration of my own free will, I have not been promised anything and I have not been threatened. I want at last to achieve inner peace.

As I am unable to remember all the details and may also mix things up, I request that I be helped by putting at my disposal of documents and testimony to assist me in my endeavor to establish the truth.

Does anyone seriously believe this was voluntary? The language used here, saying that he wants to provide a true picture for "future generations" is extremely similar to what Ben Gurion was saying at the time about the purpose of the trial.

Note at the end as well that there's a reference to having Eichmann study from other sources. In his interrogation notes it says as well they were using Reitlinger's books as a reference. That contaminates the testimony and completely defeats the point of getting a primary source testimony.

[Archie]

Eichmann did not use the trial defence of no crime was committed and that the accusation of mass murder was false.

Lmao, once again exposing your stupendous ignorance and naivete. You think Eichmann was just going to casually announce in an Israeli court that the Holocaust is fake and they would have allowed him to do this? The same people who violently kidnapped him from Argentina?

Also, Nessie, Eichmann didn't personally work in the Kremas so according to you he is worthless as a witness (see our recent discussion about Himmler's denial of the Holocaust).

[Wahrheitssucher]

Here is the statement that Eichmann signed "voluntarily" when he was captured by the Israelis.

I, the undersigned, Adolf Eichmann, state herewith of my own free will: Since my true identity has now been revealed, I realise that there is no point in my continuing to try to avoid justice. I declare myself willing to proceed to Israel and to stand trial there before a competent court.

It is understood that I will receive legal counsel and I shall try to recount, without any embroidery, the facts relating to my last years of service in Germany, so that a true picture of the events may be transmitted to future generations. I am submitting this declaration of my own free will, I have not been promised anything and I have not been threatened. I want at last to achieve inner peace.

As I am unable to remember all the details and may also mix things up, I request that I be helped by putting at my disposal of documents and testimony to assist me in my endeavor to establish the truth.

Does anyone seriously believe this was voluntary? The language used here, saying that he wants to provide a true picture for "future generations" is extremely similar to what Ben Gurion was saying at the time about the purpose of the trial.

Note at the end as well that there's a reference to having Eichmann study from other sources. In his interrogation notes it says as well they were using Reitlinger's books as a reference. That contaminates the testimony and completely defeats the point of getting a primary source testimony.

Excellent points!
As mentioned previously, a very powerful tool of coercion concerns threats to a victim’s family, viz threats against the life of his wife and children.

Even as someone completely innocent of any involvement in the treatment of jews in wartime Europe, I myself curtailed for a considerable period my activity arguing against the obviously false aspects of the narrative. And the reason was to protect my children from embarrassment, awkward situations and possible career damage.

We all know what happened to courageous German soldiers who had been at Auschwitz like Thies Christophersen and Wilhelm Stäglich.
We also know the persecution and career destruction of uninvolved, noble, Germanic people like Walter Lüfftl, Ernst Zündel, Júrgen Graf and Ursula Haverbeck.
If that can happen to people completely uninvolved in any way with the alleged crimes, then I suggest decent, fair-minded, honest people should be able to acknowledge that the likelihood of threats being made to Adolf Eichmann regarding the safety of his family in order to get him to make certain statements is EXTREMELY LIKELY!

[Callafangers]

As mentioned previously, a very powerful tool of coercion concerns threats to a victim’s family, viz threats against the life of his wife and children.

The more I have pondered on this in recent months/years, the more I feel it is one of the more understated arguments for the revisionist position, across all postwar "Nazi" testimony. Imagine you're shooting and blowing up your enemy for 5+ years straight, killing all of his friends and brothers, or locking him in camps... and then, at the end of this war, this same enemy -- who you know with certainty has little or no moral opposition to raping/killing innocent people (especially your people) en masse -- now has your entire family under their administration, while you are locked away awaiting trial.

Who in the hell can be expected to prioritize giving truthful testimony in such circumstances, with even the slightest hint that their family may be put into jeopardy if they do not comply with the enemy's intended narrative?

Men might sacrifice their own lives when it comes to defending their nation and fellow countrymen... but they will seldom sacrifice their wives and children for the same.

[Wahrheitssucher]

As mentioned previously, a very powerful tool of coercion concerns threats to a victim’s family, viz threats against the life of his wife and children.

The more I have pondered on this in recent months/years, the more I feel it is one of the more understated arguments for the revisionist position, across all postwar "Nazi" testimony. Imagine you're shooting and blowing up your enemy for 5+ years straight, killing all of his friends and brothers, or locking him in camps... and then, at the end of this war, this same enemy -- who you know with certainty has little or no moral opposition to raping/killing innocent people (especially your people) en masse -- now has your entire family under their administration, while you are locked away awaiting trial.

Who in the hell can be expected to prioritize giving truthful testimony in such circumstances, with even the slightest hint that their family may be put into jeopardy if they do not comply with the enemy's intended narrative?

Men might sacrifice their own lives when it comes to defending their nation and fellow countrymen... but they will seldom sacrifice their wives and children for the same.

Exactly!

[bombsaway]

As mentioned previously, a very powerful tool of coercion concerns threats to a victim’s family, viz threats against the life of his wife and children.

The more I have pondered on this in recent months/years, the more I feel it is one of the more understated arguments for the revisionist position, across all postwar "Nazi" testimony. Imagine you're shooting and blowing up your enemy for 5+ years straight, killing all of his friends and brothers, or locking him in camps... and then, at the end of this war, this same enemy -- who you know with certainty has little or no moral opposition to raping/killing innocent people (especially your people) en masse -- now has your entire family under their administration, while you are locked away awaiting trial.

Who in the hell can be expected to prioritize giving truthful testimony in such circumstances, with even the slightest hint that their family may be put into jeopardy if they do not comply with the enemy's intended narrative?

Men might sacrifice their own lives when it comes to defending their nation and fellow countrymen... but they will seldom sacrifice their wives and children for the same.

Exactly!

These reasons (from the Revisionist frame) make it all the more likely Eichmann wouldn't have started parroting the opposition's false narratives almost exactly in a private setting to Nazi sympathizers.

[Callafangers]

These reasons (from the Revisionist frame) make it all the more likely Eichmann wouldn't have started parroting the opposition's false narratives almost exactly in a private setting to Nazi sympathizers.

The Hoettl example confirms motives to "parrot the opposition's false narratives" existed among 'Nazis'. Eichmann is proven to have lied about Jewish gassing/extermination, specifically at least twice in his precapture testimony. His other motives have already been outlined here.

The matter of having one's family held captive is much more applicable to Germans in Germany post-war, when the entire government/establishment was under Soviet/Allied (and Jewish) control. This wasn't the case in Argentina.