One misfortune awaited Prosecutor John Pearson: Raul Hilberg, in spite of repeated requests, refused to appear again. The defense, having heard rumors of an exchange of correspondence between Pearson and Hilberg, demanded and got the publication of the letters they exchanged and in particular of a "confidential" letter by Hilberg which did not hide the fact that he had some bitter memories of his cross-examination in 1985. He feared being questioned again by Douglas Christie on the same points. To quote the exact words of his confidential letter, Hilberg wrote that he feared "every attempt to entrap me by pointing out any seeming contradiction, however trivial the subject might be, between my earlier testimony and an answer that I might give in 1988." In fact as I have already mentioned, Hilberg had committed perjury and he may have feared being charged with that crime.
Here you'll find more background, in French: an explanation as to why he might well, in 1988, have been charged with perjury for what he'd stated in 1985 on the subject of interpretation of the German word Entwesung (from Ecrits révisionnistes (1974-1998), p. 1892-1895 – the very last article in volume IV), with two references to the 1985 Toronto trial transcript and three others (note 4) to his The Destruction... :
"L'autodestruction de Raul Hilberg"
PaLu, as you are demanding Tillerman do your bidding once again, perhaps you could provide us with evidence of any survivor or Nazi perpetrator of war crimes who was heard at Nuremburg subsequently retracting their statements and claiming that they either deliberately lied about the Holocaust (because they were told to by the Jews in order to get rich) or that the evidence they gave was under duress.
Or any good, solid evidence at all to support the claim that the Holocaust was invented by the Jews, eg - some document on headed Jewish notepaper, detailing the fraud and how it was to be carried out, signed by known Jews would do fine.
If you are unable to then the only conclusion we can draw is that you're making it all up again, as usual.
If you'd like to discuss whether or not Hilberg's statements on the witness stand amount to perjury or not I'd be open to that, but not by relying on an edited version of that testimony as interpreted by the likes of 'secret letter' Faurisson or Zündel. I'd want to look at the actual transcripts.
Says the guy who's willing to use Faurisson's fantasies as evidence of anything!
I've explained the alleged Höß 'torture' allegations here a number of times. Perhaps you missed those posts, or perhaps you've blocked them out.
But let's see what you know about Kremer. Allegations? Whip 'em out.
Last edited by Tillerman; 26-03-2012 at 09:03 PM.
If you decide to declare each and every document presented a forgery because it could be, without any evidence to support such a claim, you've already lost the debate.
Similarly, if you decide to doubt any and all perpetrator testimony on the basis that it might have been elicited by torture or threat, again without evidence to support such a claim in the instance being discussed, you lose again.
That's how debate works in the real world. It isn't my problem that you have no knowledge of the period being discussed and no evidence to back up any of your laughable counter-claims, but I won't permit you to reduce every debate about the events of the Holocaust into a hollow declaration of 'victory' on your part because you can't deal intelligently or honestly with evidence that's presented.
And as we all know, no Nazi was ever convicted on survivor testimony or copnfession alone. Or didn't you know that?As we all know, there have been so many spurious lies told
I'm not aware of these 'many known forgeries of alleged WWII documents'. I challenge you to demonstrate your knowledge of the topic by listing some of these 'many' suspicious documents' and delineating how they are forgeries and who is responsible for having forged them. The only documentary forgery relating to the Holocaust of which I'm aware is the so-called 'Lachout document' and its forger is well known.and so many known forgeries of alleged WWII documents,
I see you're setting up yet another parody of Monty Python's Argument Clinic sketch in which you're reduced to saying "Is NOT!!" to any and all evidence you're confronted with, rather than dealing with it like a man, let alone an intelligent man. It's rather like a child plugging its ears and saying "la-la-la-la. I can't hear you!" This is why I've described you as dishonourable and if you repeat that rather sad dialectical tack, you'll simply confirm my opinion of you to anyone reading the thread.that it is not possible for you to prove your case irrefutably and all you are left with is your unfailing desire to make us believe what you want to be regarded as the truth, rather than what you can prove.
But there was, you see. It took on different forms in various times and various places from 1940-45, but from the onset of war until its very end, the Nazis set about ending the lives of as many Jews as they possibly could using various methods. That's beyond question.Clearly, Jewish survivors of the camps have a vested financial interest in maintaining that there was a deliberate plan by the Germans to commit genocide;
That's a rather back-handed admission. It's a set up for the Nazi apologist's standard line of shït that the Nazis were taking perfectly good care of their charges until the evil Allies interferred. Would you like to see evidence of the basic caloric count of food distributed to prisoners? Would you like to see stats for typhus deaths long before the camps were anywhere near the theater of war? For comparison purposes, would you care to see stats for typhus deaths of SS guards in those same camps? Of course you wouldn't. Because you have no background in the history you're so eager to whitewash, all you could do with that kind of information is wish it away with something like, "Those stats could have been forged, so they must be forgeries!" Sans evidence, of course. In short, your entire argument, such as it is, comes from ignorance.Clearly lots of people, including many Jews did die in ghastly conditions in many of the concentration camps during the final months of the war; and
There was nothing 'sporadic' about it. Nazi atrocities committed against innocents began long before the war commenced and continued up until its very end.Clearly some Jews and other Allied soldiers and civilians will have suffered sporadic acts of atrocity committed by the Germans;
Not if you require a signed order from Hitler to prove such a thing. But ask yourself why, if there are supposedly so 'many known forgeries' to support the Holocaust narrative, some enterprising forger didn't simply grind one out.But none of this proves a deliberate and systematic policy of genocide against the Jews by the Germans.
Very little of what we know today about the Holocaust is based on the evidence provided at those trials. The majority took place only a year or two after the war's end. Research has been ongoing for nearly seven decades since then-- not by investigators mandated to secure a conviction, but by thousands of academic historians compiling an internally-consistent narrative of events. Most of what we know today about the Holocaust is based on evidence that simply wasn't available in 1946-47.The evidence that you claim is so irrefutable;
Was garnered together by investigators for the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, a disproportionate number of which were biased as they were Communists and Jews;
So you keep insisting, without evidence of any kind and displaying a complete lack of understanding of historiography or the processes involved in the authentication of documentary evidence from that period.Consists of a number of dodgy looking, fake looking documents, most with no official marks, letter heading or proper signatures;
In all cases? I'd be most interested in seeing you prove that. Just because threats or torture could have been inflicted doesn't suggest that it definitely was. Suspicion on your part proves nothing, especially if you're seeing the name of a self-confessed perpetrator for the first time and you just can't be ärsed to investigate the conditions under which he was incarcerated. You seem to be inordinately willing to discount the fact that the perpetrator's confession on the witness stand might be motivated by genuine remorse.Was obtained under turture, following threats to the famillies of the accused and/or some other form of duress; and
The plan was to eliminate a resurgence of the country's ability to wage another war and to set out a plan for occupation to see to it that that aim succeeded. You won't get an argument out of me if you declare Morganthau a vengeful idiot, but nothing he did or said makes the events of the Holocaust any less real or any more justifiableWas obtained at a time when the German population was living under a reign of terror, JCS 1067, the Morgenthau Plan for the veritable destruction of Germany and the German people, a reign of terror which itself resulted in the deaths through starvation and worse, of several million innocent German civilians between 1945 and 1948.
If so, it won't be as a result of any compelling counter-evidence provided by you!In fact, so weak is the evidence of a deliberate plan of genocide by the Nazis, that the authorities in several major European countries have been forced to make it illegal to conduct a critical examination of the evidence for fear of the inadequacies therein becoming widely exposed. So, stop your pompous posturing before someone pops you like an overinflated balloon, you pompous old windbag!
The reason several European countries, democracies all, have enacted laws proscribing minimisation, trivialisation and defamation with regard to the Holocaust have been made quite plain and public. If you choose to believe that the legislation is a result of insufficient evidence, well, it just further demonstrates your lack of familiarity with 20th century history.
Explain why I shouldn't interpret that last sentence as a threat upon my person.
Last edited by Tillerman; 26-03-2012 at 09:17 PM.
How low does the BNP have to go before the Gri££otards see it?
Listen to your Papa, he knows best!