Well what do you know

well what do you know

wuc-news.com/2016/08/auschwitz-prisoner-says-his-story-was.html

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=pW0Kg_rBi2k
youtube.com/watch?v=TiarNVGOXr0
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223831/How-Britain-tortured-Nazi-PoWs-The-horrifying-interrogation-methods-belie-proud-boast-fought-clean-war.html
ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p389_faurisson.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

All the article says is he made his story up. But he also used the tattoo of an inmate and that he doesn't want to overshadow what did happen there.

Non story. Try harder.

bumping out of patriotic sense of brotherhood

Bumping because we're all za dom spremni

He's just backpedaling.

These kikes are stretching this holohoax tripe too thin.

so he still made up the fictional story about what happened there, because it is all obviously a lie.

he is not the first to have done this. you idiot brit have to consider what it means that so many juden have been making up bullshit stories about what happened at the camps to reinforce the holocaust meme.

People make up stories for attention all the time. People even harm their own children, so that they can get attention (Munchausen).

He used details from the prison camps to paint it as if he was there. All this shows is that his story was false, nothing else.

Try harder folks.

>Non story. Try harder
Thank you for Correcting the record(TM).

But seriously, a man fabricates a claim that he was a holocaust survivor, tours the country spreading disinformation, probably taking money for false speeches, and getting free publicity to sell books and merchandise.

Verdict: a Jew, through and through

does not legitimize the holocaust story, this is a perfectly reasonable article and should rightfully be brought up.

I repeat, he is not the first one to have done this. jews have been writing fictional books abotu the holocaust since the war ended and today we still have the nation state of israel founded upon the lies of the holocaust.

this isn't a "non story" just because you want it to be so.

>In my mind it was real

this is what i was aiming at , am not a stormfag i swear

bumping for comradeship

And again, people have been telling falsehoods to further their own lives for many hundreds of years. This is nothing new, this is a non story.

Does not disprove it either. It just disproves his story.

>BREAKING NEWS
Man lies to further his own interest. No one has ever done this before. Ever.

Stay dense kids.

what part of falsifying a primary source do you not understand? this is a major event. it casts doubt on all other holohoax victims' stories.

If he said he had made it all up, I would agree to some extent. But the fact he used details of other prisoners (he essentially made himself into them) only shows that he used fake details.

It's practically the same as committing ID fraud, he claimed to be someone else. That's all.

It's still a good story, who strengthen the stereotype of the joos being liars and evil.

Good for redpilling people.

lel
that same logic could be applied in reverse to all all those holocauts story tellers

>Does not disprove it either.

burden of proof is not on us

Just because some holocaust survivor stories turned out to be a fraud and a total fiction you shouldn't stop believing into the official story goyim, we need to further shame you and collect reparations

No, it isn't. It's stupid to try and use this.

>Hey look guys, a jew made up a story. NO ONE EVER DOES THAT. BE REDPILLED. JEWS ARE BAD.

lel kek m8. Except he used real details, he just pretended he was a different person.

topkek memes.

You could just simply apply logic and stop being dense.

Someone lied, this has never happened before. Change your beliefs.


It's funny but I swear at times you guys leak liberal tactics.

Ain't anything new.
Every once in a while you see article about how some prisoner lied about everything and they all have totally different stories.

>liberal tactic
what the fuck is that?

>You could just simply apply logic and stop being dense.

I apply logic, burden of proof is on the person making a claim.

Not guilty until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

>It's stupid to try and use this.

Anyway, I have added this to my list of fake survivors.

desu i posted this here because pol as a magical place that hates joos so i knew ppl from this site would eat it up , but then again what you are saying is true ppl will lie to further their own interests regardless of race or ethnicity.
but its still a dick move and deserves to be exposed as much as possible, and this just proves that nothing is sacred

Act like someone doing something that everyone does is the worst thing and to make so much hype out of it. When I could link you to over 9000 articles where people have lied about something.

I think it's clear that someone lying, by using real details, does not disprove the holocaust. The fact you're even trying to use the "burden of proof" blah blah instead of trying to argue is sad. It was a nice attempt.

Stay dense 2016.

Ah, I guess that is the case with all fake holocaust stories then.

Move along folks, no pattern here.

:^)

>and this just proves that nothing is sacred
That has been proven many, many, many, many, many, many times throughout history.

Again, people are taking a pretty much non-story and blowing it up because muh jews.

Oh i'm not denying that he's lying, that was a response to you saying it doesn't disprove it.

Him lying does not disprove it, but independently of that, the burden of proof for the holocaust is on them. So it's not on us to disprove it but on them to prove it.

>Act like someone doing something that everyone does is the worst thing and to make so much hype out of it.
this doesn't look like a tactic at all, lying over something minor is somewhat acceptable but lying that about a major event in history like that should come with severe punishment, the jews lie about holocaust stories the more it casts doubt over the official story

yea but this is Sup Forums and you know whats the stance on joos here is like
also there are WAAAAY more legit reasons to hate them.

I wouldn't say he is lying about the event though, he is simply lying about his involvement in the event. The whole story here is that he lied about HIMSELF.

You've muddled your own story up.

>> jews lie about holocaust stories the more it casts doubt over the official story
and this is what needs more attention

>he isn't lying but he is lying
what if those survival stories he inserted himself in were a lie as well?

oy vey, in my imagination, in my mind, I believed it.
youtube.com/watch?v=pW0Kg_rBi2k

This is just another valid proof of the inconsistencies in the holohoax story.

You have to understand that the reason this article is interesting is not because "durr one man acts in his own interest by lying." it's because it adds another story to the pile of false stories about the holocaust.

If his story is false, how many others are also false and made up`? How many people have been tricked into believing the shit these people have been feeding them?

It is not OK to lie about these kinds of things, when large scale international politics are based on it in the end.

you shouldn't be calling anyone else dense, as you're the one failing to understand why this is an issue.

>he isn't lying but he is lying
Nice, you either didn't understand what I wrote, or you did and it's just much easier to twist what I said around so you can try and take a dig? Are you really this retarded that you'd do that in a thread where we discuss people lying? GG.

"what if"
Hypotheticals are not welcome.

you stormfags are pathetic

no he got BTFO by a history teacher and then backpedaled by crying that it really happened, just not to him so no one is around to prove it

youtube.com/watch?v=TiarNVGOXr0

video related

just a bunch of false histories

your country is a joke and shouldnt exist

>Stones used to prevent any excavation
according to who?

I've seen many videos like this and it makes me laugh when they say things like that but don't back it up with who actually said it. How did they come to that conclusion?

>But it's on youtube, it must be real

Non story, white boys being mad. Nothing new on Sup Forums today.

Stay dense 2016 and beyond.

Some guys lied about something and some Jews exaggerate details for propaganda purposes, guess that means industrial extermination of several million people corroborated by shitload of witnesses and material evidence, including Nazi officials and lower-ranked personnel, never happened.
It's totally possible to make up an event of such scale that occurred in 20th century and mislead 99% of real historians worldwide about it.
It's also totally logical that USSR that was opposed to the state of Israel and gave Arabs far more support than West gave to Israel agreed on same version of events that gave quite some legitimacy to the same state of Israel.

And it's totally possible that no high-ranked Nazis involved in this process ever denied it occurred, even when facing certain death sentence.

One of the most documented events in world history, and tens of thousands of historical works, is easily disproved by few infographics made by experts at Stormfront.

kys leddit

Top notch argument Spain. Don't kid yourself and think this makes you relevant though.

Unless you can explain why would nazis go through such great lengths just to kill jews, all you are doing is just parroting jew propaganda. And if you are dumb enough to believe the jewish lies, you are not worth our effort.

kys leddit

Furthermore, you people are so fucking pathetic, what's wrong with slaughtering Jews?
Literally nothing according to Nazi worldview. Jew is genetically a parasite and blahblahblah. So why this desperate and ridiculous attempt to deny something that happened beyond any reasonable doubt and that's totally okay and in line with Nazi ideology?
Why deny something that wasn't even denied by fucking Nazis who did it themselves?
Oh right, every single one of them was tortured and his family was intimidated or some shit like that.
But how do you explain that not a single one of these noble German patriots didn't shout ''IT NEVER HAPPENED'' to prevent the smearing of German nation, in spite of repercussions?

>Why would someone go to such great lengths to do something they think is right.

Hmmm, really makes you think...

you're not even arguing lad, trying really hard for those shekels are we?

it's a story lad.

Good goy question:
what about all the first person accounts by holocaust survivors?
Answer:
here are some examples
Herman Rosenblat-admitted liar,
"Angel at the Fence: The True Story of a Love" That Survived was a Holocaust memoir in which the author invented the story that, while he was imprisoned in the Buchenwald concentration camp, a young girl from the outside would pass him food through the fence daily and years later they accidentally met and married.Before the fabrication became public, the film rights to the book were purchased for $25 million by Harris Salomon of Atlantic Overseas Pictures
Binjmamin Wilkomorski- admitted liar,
Memories of a Wartime Childhood, was debunked by Swiss journalist and writer Daniel Ganzfried in August 1998. The subsequent disclosure of Wilkomirski's fabrications sparked heated debate in the German and English-speaking world.
Misha Defonseca admitted liar (said she escaped and was raised by wolves),
On 29 February 2008, the author as well as her lawyers admitted that the bestselling book was a hoax, despite its having been presented as autobiographical. In 2014 a court ordered Defonseca to repay her publisher $22 million
Joseph Hirt-admitted liar
For years, Hirt gave public speeches before school classes about his experiences in the second world war, including his Jewish family’s flight from Poland to Belgrade. But he also told people that he was arrested by the Nazis, sent to the concentration camp at Auschwitz,. Hirt claimed to have escaped under an electric fence at the camp.This man who claimed for years to have escaped from Auschwitz, met track and field star Jesse Owens and Nazi doctor Josef Mengele, confessed last month that he had fabricated the entire story. Man who claimed he escaped Auschwitz admits story a lie

Because they believed Jews were some mythical super-villains, exactly like you do.
They didn't just plan the extermination of Jews either, they wanted to do the same with Slavs in Russia and Poland.
But why is this such a problem? It's TOTALLY in line with Nazi ideology.

Joe Corry claims in a book that he was at a death camp that never existed:
Gena Turgel-survived an actual gassing, Dario Gabbai- he, his brother, and 2 of his cousins were ALL selected to work in the "gas chambers" and they ALL survived Auschwitz!,
Irene Zisblatt claims Nazis removed her Auschwitz tattoo.
In her autobiography years later, she claims Dr. Mengele personally removed it. She claims in the film "The Last Days" to have heard Jews tell about Nazis ripping babies in half with their bare hands and throwing them in a river in the Ukraine. Is this physically possible? While a promotion tour Zisblatt tells an story about defecated , dug out of excrement, and swallowed diamonds multiple times and still has the diamonds and escaping from inside a gas chamber, then being thrown over a barbed wire fence by a Jewish boy into an open train….
Klara Markus- survived gas chamber because the Germans ran out of gas
But, according to the official Holocaust Storyteller line, the Nazis did not pipe gas to the “gas chambers” but instead used Zyklon-B, an insecticide, to kill thousands of Jews in underground chambers at Auschwitz. Leaving aside the technical impossibility of killing thousands of people simultaneously in an underground chamber,* the Nazis would never have started an execution with thousands of people without making sure all the logistics were in place.

In a letter published in a January issue of The Stars and Stripes, a newspaper for US military service personnel, even Simon Wiesenthal re-confirmed, in passing, that "there were no extermination camps on German soil" during the Second World War. He made the identical statement in a letter published in the April 1975 issue of the British periodical Books and Bookmen.
Jews made into soap-lie, shrunken heads-lie, Jews into lampshades-lie, bear used to kill Jews while eagle used to pick at remains-lie,
As "Evidence" Presented at Nuremberg Trails introduced in court, where it was absolutely proven that the lampshades and shrunken heads were fabricated evidence. ,(Origin of the "evidence" - Albert G. Rosenberg of the Allied "Psychological Warfare Division")Nevertheless this story's were continue used in numerous holocaust lectures and movies as alleged reality

>auschwitz

was one of the nicer camps to be in, they had several cultural activities in the camp ranging from an inmate orchestra to football teams not to mention activities for children.

other "survivors" from the camp has been saying it like it was.

>Links to a post which is a response to something that's no an argument
>BETTER CALL HIM OUT ON IT

And please, your video is a guy who asserts things as true without backing up his arguments with sources or details. Have a pleasant day.

Stop playing dumb
>built several concentration "death" camps
>tattoo system just to identify everyone
>gas chambers system
>"huge" ovens that can burn corpses in 5 minutes
>guards to control all the prisoners and avoid riots (they know they are getting gassed and yet everybody waited in line for their deaths)
>food and fuel

A BULLET in the head, or even a beating with an IRON PIPE from the "sadistic" nazis would have been enough to kill the jews, but they had to allocate all these resources and manpower to kill joos.

Are we losing the war and running out of supplies? Make more of that expensive gas to gas the joos
Are we lacking on manpower? Better keep the nazi officials in the death camps to kill joos

That's a non-argument. Someone lying about something for attention doesn't erase material evidence and testimonies of those who were involved in it.
Even fucking Jews mention it, ''there's no business like Shoah business.'' It's propaganda and getting rich on that propaganda.
But Holocaust did occur. Do you seriously think it's possible to fabricate something so huge?

pot, meet kettle

>inb4 Bosnia

unofficially Serbia :^)

>t. croatia
yeah ok

what the fuck are you talking about? the video is a collection of stories from so called camp survivors.

the only thing you've posted here is

>not an arguement
>not a story
>not a this
>not a that

you're gonna have to try harder, shill.

But that was explained like 2000 times, only you are too dumb to read.
They did that, see Einsatzgruppen.
But shooting them brutalizes soldiers, do you think it was easy to shoot women and children, no matter how fanatic Nazi someone was?
Besides, gathering them and gassing them is far easier process logistically speaking, and it's also far better for disposing evidence, since you're doing it at limited number of locations.
You also avoid involving non-SS troops in killings. Most of Germans wouldn't really approve of the action their government undertook you know, it was bad for morale.
>Are we losing the war
They started with the project in early 1942.
>expensive gas
Zyklon B is literally pesticide. It's not really expensive.

I'm talking about the video, where the guy talks about the camp and how rocks were placed to stop people from excavating the site, but where he also fails to state who said that was the case or how that conclusion is made.

>shill

Cool buzzword, you're so hip.

> Do you seriously think it's possible to fabricate something so huge?

They're only numbers, Monty.

You didn't answer a single point I made in this thread.
Like for example: WHY DIDN'T NAZIS WHO ORGANIZED THIS OR WERE INVOLVED IN THIS DENY IT?
Dude, you WANT to believe Holocaust never happened, or you know it happened but you want to whitewash Nazism.
I refuse to believe someone is this fucking dumb and limited that you can't understand basic dumbed-down arguments and why your answers to them are totally idiotic.

Bumping for TITO
SMRT FASIZMU SLOBODA NARODU

>But that was explained like 2000 times, only you are too dumb to read.
That's a non-argument
>They did that, see Einsatzgruppen.
That's a non-argument
>>But shooting them brutalizes soldiers, do you think it was easy to shoot women and children, no matter how fanatic Nazi someone was?
>>Besides, gathering them and gassing them is far easier process logistically speaking, and it's also far better for disposing evidence, since you're doing it at limited number of locations.
>shooting them is a non-no, so let's waste our resources in building huge concentration camps to gas them
There are literally a hundred more economically and more efficient ways of killing large numbers of people than building huge concentration camps, guarded 24/7 by loyal officials, wasting manpower, food supplies to feed them, money to make the gas, cleaning the gas chambers in order to get the bodies to be burned in the ovens and people working 24/7 burning corpses
>You also avoid involving non-SS troops in killings. Most of Germans wouldn't really approve of the action their government undertook you know, it was bad for morale.
That's a non-argument
>>Are we losing the war
>They started with the project in early 1942.
Most of them keep "gassing" jews almost before the war ended, despite the own german population was starving
>>expensive gas
>>Zyklon B is literally pesticide. It's not really expensive.
>killing with industrial amounts of pesticide

>guarded 24/7 by loyal officials
I think your lack of understanding is showing.

I cba to go back and read your posts, but I'll answer you this one. Most of the confessions by nazi officers were made under duress and torture.

I'd like to refuse to believe that there's people who lack the ability of critical thought, putting things into perspective and analysing them, but that'd be ignorant of me.

>>guarded 24/7 by loyal officials
>I think your lack of understanding is showing.
That's a non-argument
>Have hundreds of thousands of jews in a concentration camp
>All of them somehow know they are going to be "killed"
>gassing was a method devised to kill them instead of shooting women and children because most of them would not agree
>not guarded 24/7 to avoid uprisings
I thing you are either a jew or a retard

Those weren't arguments, they were facts to fill in your gap in knowledge.
>hundred more economically and more efficient ways
Like what?
>almost before the war ended
So?
Do you understand they were fanatics?
They literally thought war is winnable until late 1944.
>killing with industrial amounts of pesticide
Zyklon-B was a mass-produced pesticide, and fairly cheap and effective. It was easy to transport and widely available.
Their problem was actually the fact they couldn't burn bodies fast enough, even with new and improved furnaces.

Elie Weisel — 'Some stories are true that never happened.'

>WHY ARE THE NAZIS NOT DENYING THE HOLOCAUST? IT'S NOT LIKE TORTURE, OR AD-HOC BIASED COURTS EXISTS, NOR THE NAZI OFFICIALS HAD FAMILIES THAT COULD HAVE BEEN USED TO BLACKMAIL

>Most of the confessions by nazi officers were made under duress and torture.
You have no evidence for that.
Furthermore, it's literally impossible that not a single one of them, and many KNEW they would be sentenced to death, didn't go up and say ''HOLOCAUST IS A FRAUD'', even at the scaffold.
How do you explain that?
Dude, Nazis who were trialed weren't kept in some top-secret CIA-style black site, many guards and other people interacted with them.

>IT'S NOT LIKE TORTURE
You have no evidence for torture. In fact, those trials were recorded. Do you see anyone on that bench looking like he was tortured?
>AD-HOC BIASED COURTS
That has nothing to do with the point I'm making. People not involved with trials observed trials. They commented on bias and illegitimacy of that court, but no one ever mentioned torture or anything like it.
>HAD FAMILIES
Weren't they German patriots?
I mean, people like Goebbels killed their children when the war was lost.
Besides, don't you think it would be too obvious if someone went after their families after they said Holocaust was fake?
You literally have no argument dude. You're ideologically biased retard who goes against logic and material evidence and tens of thousands of historical works with nothing but logical fallacies, snippets of data and speculation.
Literally kill yourself.

>buzzwords

nigger you've been repeating one buzzword all thread long. while providing nothing else, you're just dismissing everything anyone who disagrees with you says, based on nothing.

>not a X

you're not providing anything of substance, while others are. you're literally shilling.

whats poglavnik?

>Those weren't arguments, they were facts to fill in your gap in knowledge.
That's a non-argument
>Like what?
Since you said they were not able to shoot women and children (weren't they monsters that wanted to exterminate the jews? Even mudshits behead children as if nothing happened)
Throw them to the sea for example
>So? Do you understand they were fanatics?
Grasping as straws, I see. That's a non-argument
>Zyklon-B was a mass-produced pesticide, and fairly cheap and effective. It was easy to transport and widely available.
Let's forget that the pesticide itself would cost more than a bullet, or the cost of building designated chambers to gas the jews, or the ventilation system to get rid of the gases, etc
>Their problem was actually the fact they couldn't burn bodies fast enough, even with new and improved furnaces
But hey, despite this problem, they managed to burn almost all the 6 millions of corpses

>You have no evidence for that.
You have no evidence for your assumptions either
>Furthermore, it's literally impossible that not a single one of them, and many KNEW they would be sentenced to death, didn't go up and say ''HOLOCAUST IS A FRAUD'', even at the scaffold.
How do you explain that?
Perhaps all of them were imprisoned by allied forces, a biased ad-hoc tribunal, family hostages for the ones that were more willing to testify the holocaust happened, or lighter sentences?

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223831/How-Britain-tortured-Nazi-PoWs-The-horrifying-interrogation-methods-belie-proud-boast-fought-clean-war.html

Literally a google search away.

>Furthermore, it's literally impossible that not a single one of them, and many KNEW they would be sentenced to death, didn't go up and say ''HOLOCAUST IS A FRAUD'', even at the scaffold.

What would have been the point?

>Dude, Nazis who were trialed weren't kept in some top-secret CIA-style black site, many guards and other people interacted with them.

Dude, you don't need a top-secret CIA-style black site to torture people.

even mass media reports on allied torture now fucking nigger mountain

>dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223831/How-Britain-tortured-Nazi-PoWs-The-horrifying-interrogation-methods-belie-proud-boast-fought-clean-war.html

There are books written by english interrogators boasting about torturing nazis into admitting their parts in the holohoax.

Do some research.

>You have no evidence for torture. In fact, those trials were recorded. Do you see anyone on that bench looking like he was tortured?
>That has nothing to do with the point I'm making. People not involved with trials observed trials. They commented on bias and illegitimacy of that court, but no one ever mentioned torture or anything like it.
ayylmao
Your naivety is impressive. And again, that's a non-argument

Ever thought of the possibility that the patriots were killed during the war, or after the war by the allied forces when they were caught? It's not unlikely when the country had suffered millions of deaths

>don't you think it would be too obvious if someone went after their families after they said Holocaust was fake?
And who would believe them? Changing a death sentence for a permanent prison or moving them out of the country with a new identity is not unheard

>You literally have no argument dude. You're ideologically biased retard
That's a non-argument
>goes against logic
You are the one going against the logic, killing people through gas chambers kek

>material evidence
That's a non-argument

>tens of thousands of historical works
Written by jews, some of them who'd lied about being there and when caught, they had to say they weren't there, but the holocaust did happen

> with nothing but logical fallacies, snippets of data and speculation.
Why are you describing your own posts?

>Literally kill yourself.
kys serbian

>Rudolf Höss was the first of three successive commandants of the Auschwitz concentration camp. He is often called "the Commandant of Auschwitz," and the general public knows of him from a book published under the title Commandant in Auschwitz.

>He appeared before the International Military Tribunal as a witness on 15 April 1946, where his deposition caused a sensation. To the amazement of the defendants and in the presence of journalists from around the world, he confessed to the most frightful crimes that history had ever known. He said that he had personally received an order from Himmler to exterminate the Jews. He estimated that at Auschwitz 3,000,000 people had been exterminated, 2,500,000 of them by means of gas chambers. His confessions were false. They had been extorted from Höss by torture, but it took until 1983 to learn the identity of the torturers and the nature of the tortures they inflicted upon him.

ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p389_faurisson.html

>weren't they monsters that wanted to exterminate the jews?
Some were some weren't. Most Germans weren't ''monsters''.
>throw them to the sea for example
Are you serious?
>would cost more than a bullet
I already explained you why they didn't shoot them.
>they managed to burn almost all the 6 million of corpses
Less than 6 million, and some were burned in open pyres, and so on.
>You have no evidence
My evidence is literally any historical work dealing with this, by esteemed historians.
Your evidence is your own stupid assumptions.
>family hostages
>lighter sentences
First, do you think no one would suspect something if a guy who just said it's all a Jewish plot suddenly loses his family in some ''accident''?
Second, these were apparently GERMAN PATRIOTS. And not a single one of those patriots denied this shit. Because they were faced with overwhelming material evidence and unlike you they were somewhat smart people, they weren't IQ 85 Moor retards.
>Literally a google search away.
Those aren't related to Nuremberg trials.
>What would have been the point?
Eh, casting doubt on the whole trial?
And I used that as extreme example. Dude, there was shitload of non-involved people at those trials, many journalists. They could've easily shouted it was all a sham and journalists would pick it up.
It would cast doubt on the story.
>Dude, you don't need a top-secret CIA-style black site to torture people.
No but it's a lot harder to keep torture under carpet otherwise.
Like I said there was shitload of non-involved people there, plus guards were regularly rotated.
Someone would've said something.

You literally have no argument dude. You're ideologically biased retard who goes against logic and material evidence with nothing but logical fallacies, snippets of data and speculation.
Literally kill yourself.

>every historian ever is a jew
Hahahah okay I give up.
Not related to Nuremberg trials.

>In all likelihood, Höss was tortured by the British soldiers of the 92nd Field Security Section, but a confirmation of that hypothesis was necessary. Confirmation has come with the publication in England of a book containing the name of the principal torturer (a British sergeant of Jewish origin) and a description of the circumstances of Höss' arrest, as well as his third-degree interrogation.

>The book is by Rupert Butler. It was published in 1983. Butler is the author of three other works: The Black Angels, Hand of Steel and Gestapo, all published by Hamlyn. The book that interests us is entitled Legions of Death. Its inspiration is anti-Nazi. Butler says that he researched this book at the Imperial War Museum in London, the Institute for Contemporary History and Wiener Library, and other such prestigious institutions. At the beginning of his book, he expresses his gratitude to these institutions and, among others, to two persons, one of whom is Bernard Clarke ("who captured Auschwitz Commandant Rudolf Höss"). The author quotes several fragments of what are either written or recorded statements by Clarke.

>Bernard Clarke shows no remorse. On the contrary, he exhibits a certain pride in having tortured a "Nazi." Rupert Butler, likewise, finds nothing to criticize in that. Neither of them understands the importance of their revelations. They say that Höss was arrested on 11 March, 1946, and that it took three days of torture to obtain "a coherent statement." They do not realize that the alleged "coherent statement" is nothing other than the lunatic confession, signed by their quivering victim on the l4th or l5th of March 1946, at 2:30 in the morning, which was to seal Höss' fate definitely, a confession which would also give definitive shape to the myth. The confession would also shape decisively the myth of Auschwitz, the supposed high-point of the extermination of the Jews, above all due to the alleged use of homicidal gas chambers.

the accounts that historians base their textbooks on are jewish ones.

>They could've easily shouted it was all a sham and journalists would pick it up.

Any journalist doing that would have meant career suicide.

>It would cast doubt on the story.

Who would have taken them seriously? Anti-german propaganda was widespread in both the US and Britain.

>Those aren't related to Nuremberg trials.

Your statement concluded that nazi officers never underwent torture. I provided a link in opposition of that statement. Where it was conducted was besides the point, but the Norwegian below me was quick to provide a source of his own that should fit your criteria.

>No but it's a lot harder to keep torture under carpet otherwise.
Like I said there was shitload of non-involved people there, plus guards were regularly rotated. Someone would've said something.

Why would they? They considered Germans 'the enemy' after all. In spite of this, no doubt that some did raise concerns with their senior officials, who would have no doubt been quick to brush them aside.

There are laws against denying the holocaust. Truth is an important thing, but the average person isn't prepared to stake life as he knows it for it. Not to mention that most of their research would have been conducted using the kosher sources provided.

are directly linked to the nuremberg trials

fucking hell nigger mountain I have provided you with a perfectly reasonable source that you could read and research, that provides credible sources for it's articles.


>The Institute for Historical Review is an independent educational research and publishing center that works to promote peace, understanding and justice through greater public awareness of the past, and especially socially-politically relevant aspects of twentieth-century history. We strive in particular to increase understanding of the causes, nature and consequences of war and conflict. We vigorously defend freedom of speech and freedom of historical inquiry.

ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p389_faurisson.html

No one underwent torture at Nuremberg. What this Norwegian posted about when they discovered Höss. He made no relevant confessions (besides admitting his identity) there nor were those confessions valid since he was beaten and that much is known.
All his confessions came later, at Nuremberg, under controlled conditions, with no torture.
The fact he was forced to admit his identity is totally irrelevant to his later confessions, even though procedure was broken obviously.

Are you fucking retarded nigger?

Statement made voluntarily at ______ Gaol by Rudolf Höss, former Commandant of Auschwitz Concentration Camp on l6th day of March 1946.

I personally arranged on orders received from Himmler in May 1941 the gassing of two million persons between June/July 1941 and the end of 1943 during which time I was commandant of Auschwitz.

signed.
Rudolf Höss,
SS-Stubhr.
Eh. (?) Kdt. v. Auschwitz-Birkenau

(even the word "signed" was written in an English hand).


These are LITERALLY the statements provided by Höss at the nuremberg trials. Shut your whore mouth and research the subject.

Yes, and those laws were instituted for reasons other than Jewish conspiracy.
And this shit Norwegian posted is from some Nazi apologist site. Not real historians.

They cite their sources just as well.

They aren't nazi apologists. They are literally historical reviewers that review a massive range of historical events ranging from china to europe to africa and so on.

The fact of the matter is that the nuremberg trials were not a trial at all. The soviet judge even said himself that the nazis are already deemed guilty and criminals, there is no point in being impartial as that will only prolong the process.

you have to be a retard or a shill

No, are you fucking retarded?
This shit about beating is about when he was captured and they had to establish his identity.
He wasn't tortured at Nuremberg.
And even if he was, he reaffirmed the validity of his testimony later.

What the flying fuck you utter imbecile

of course he wasn't tortured AT THE TRIALS. Nobody would fucking torture somebody infront of an audience in a supposed court that is merely a play for the international stage.

Are you fucking retarded? They tortured him to obtain his statements on signed papers and made him reiterate them in the court before executing him.

You have to be a fucking fool to not understand this.

His testimony was not valid at all.

>Gewiss, ich habe unterschrieben, dass ich 2 Millionen Juden umgebracht habe. Aber ich hätte genausogut untershrieben, dass es 5 Millionen Juden gewesen sind. Es gibt eben Methoden, mit denen man jedes Geständnis erreichen kann -- ob es nun wahr ist oder nicht.

>"Certainly, I signed a statement that I killed two and a half million Jews. But I could just as well have said that it was five million Jews. There are certain methods by which any confession can be obtained, whether it is true or not."

-Rudolf Höss

>they cite their sources
Except nothing can be derived from the shit they cite.
This is their own opinion and honestly this is one of the worse texts I ever saw.
>they aren't nazi aplogists
>The IHR was founded in 1978 by David McCalden (also known as Lewis Brandon), a former member of the British National Front.
Sure.
>were not a trial
Hey now, if Nazis won there would be no trials, they'd just shoot people whom they didn't like.

He wasn't tortured when they obtained that statement. Not even your source claims that.
>made him reiterate them
How? Did they torture him again. He confirmed his statement much later.

Stop shilling. you haven't even read what is written there. Their sources are literal historical documents, first hand descriptions of events and so on.

You're a fucking retard who refuses to believe what's right in front of you.

>Founded in 1978, the IHR is non-partisan, non-ideological, and non-sectarian. Our offices are located in Orange County, southern California.

>The Institute's director is Mark Weber, a historian, lecturer, current affairs analyst and author. Born and raised in Portland, Oregon, he was educated in the US and Europe. He holds a Master's degree in modern European history from Indiana University.

Shit, because of this one guy we better throw out 1000s of testimonials.