In his post of Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:09 am, Drew J spins silly
conjectures about Goebbels' diaries not being authentic. The only "indication" he can offer is that in a certain diary entry I mentioned (which was brought to my attention by Drew J's fellow believer "Thomas Dalton" via a lower-ranking rambler who calls himself Ralph Gordon, see my RODOH post 11943) Goebbels shows no compunction to write about death and executions, as I pointed out. For Drew J this suggests that Goebbels' diaries are not authentic. Why Goebbels should not have called things by their proper names in his own private diary entry - a document not meant for public disclosure - Drew J doesn't explain, instead turning to imbecilic "Robert knows deep down inside but will never admit it" - accusations and babbling that "There seems to be no good reason to think those are authentic Goebbels diaries.". That the diary entries fit the historical context in which they were written in a manner suggesting contemporary insider knowledge (for instance, the diary entry of 27.03.1942 was written ten days after the start of deportations from Lublin to Belzec extermination camp and mentions the head of Aktion Reinhard(t), Odilo Globocnik, as "the former Gauleiter of Vienna"), that they were never used for propaganda purposes (one doesn't make forgeries to keep them in the drawer) but gradually became known as historians analyzed them and realized their significance, that neither historians nor criminal justice authorities referring to these diary entries (the entry of 27 March 1942 is mentioned, for instance, in the judgment at the Sobibor trial in Hagen in 1966) have found any reason to doubt the authenticity of these diaries (that includes erstwhile "Revisionist" favorite David Irving, who pointed out that he had personally been in Moscow and examined the originals of the diaries), plus his own inability to point out indications of forgery (Goebbels' having written about deaths and executions is none) - all this is no "good reason" for Drew J to "think those are authentic Goebbels diaries". His lack of arguments makes his forgery claims look increasingly desperate.
What is especially funny is that, while on the one hand "Revisionists" like "Dalton" and Gordon are pathetically trying to explain away the incriminating content of Goebbels' diaries, including but not limited to the one of 27 March 1942, other followers of the "Revisionist" creed such as Drew J are yelling "forgery" and thereby confirming that they consider Goebbels diary entries to have incriminating contents incompatible with their articles of faith. For if they didn't consider these diary entries to have incriminating contents, why would they be claiming that they are not authentic? A discussion between the two schools of "Revisionist" nonsense ("Dalton"/Gordon vs. Drew J/Heink) should be most amusing to watch.
The one good thing about Drew J is that he still seems to disagree with the cowardly disfigurement of links to the RODOH forum, which like other CODOH practices speaks volumes about the hypocrisy of their claim to "open debate". Drew J wrote:
Sorry but I have not reproduced hyperlinks here as codoh will not allow rodoh links to go unsubstituted with the old 'aliceinwonderland' thing.
I wonder long will it take for Drew J to also swallow this "thing" and fully tow the party line.
Drew J's obsession with this writer furthermore shows in his post of Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:09 am, where he writes the following:
Let's talk about how Hoess was tortured and how other nazis were tortured to say things to fit the propaganda. I went over this many times with Roberto Muehlenkamp, but he refuses to acknowledge reality. He eventually budged but said Hoess wasn't tortured. Just MISHANDLED. Can you believe that?
Drew J's claim that he "went over this" with me is funny insofar as the discussion took place on two different forums (me writing on the RODOH forum, where Drew J wouldn't show up, he writing on the CODOH forum where I was not allowed to write). The "budged" crap shows Drew J's eagerness to convince himself that he gained the upper hand (he must be so desperate to have an experience of success that he claims them in the absence of any). As to the "tortured" vs. "mishandled" thing, I'd call that a false dilemma as it doesn't matter which of the two terms one uses for the treatment that Hoess received at the hand of his British captors, which Hoess himself described as follows in the memoirs he later wrote in Polish captivity (from the translation by Constantine FitzGibbon published by Phoenix Press under the title "Commandant of Auschwitz", pages 173f.):
I was arrested on 11 March, 1946.
My phial of poison had been broken two days before.
When I was aroused from sleep, I thought at first I was being attacked by robbers, for many robberies were taking place at that time. That was how they managed to arrest me. I was maltreated by the Field Security Police.
I was taken to Heide where I was put in those very barracks from which I had been released by the British eight months earlier.
At my first interrogation, evidence was obtained by beating me. I do not know what is in the record, although I signed it. Alcohol and the whip were too much for me. The whip was my own, which by chance had got into my wife’s luggage. It had hardly ever touched my horse, far less the prisoners. Nevertheless, one of my interrogators was convinced that I had perpetually used it for flogging the prisoners.
After some days I was taken to Minden-on-the-Weser, the main interrogation center in the British Zone. There I received further rough treatment at the hands of the English public prosecutor, a major.
What matters, as I remember having pointed out to Drew J as we "went over this", was that Hoess stated nothing under the influence of this mishandling or torture (whichever term is Drew J's preference) that he didn't state, even in more detail, on later occasions when he was far removed from the influence of physical violence, namely in his testimony for the defence of Kaltenbrunner before the IMT and in his writings in Polish captivity, including his notes under the title The Final Solution of the Jewish Question in Auschwitz. In the latter he even told his captors where they could stick their 4 million figure for the death toll of Auschwitz-Birkenau. From the translation in "Commandant of Auschwitz", pages 193 and following (emphasis added):
I myself never knew the total number and I have nothing to help me make an estimate of it.
I can only remember the figure involved in the larger actions, which were repeated to me by Eichmann or his deputies.
From Upper Silesia and Polish territory under German rule … 250,000
Germany and Theresienstadt … 100,000
Holland … 95,000
Belgium … 20,000
France … 110,000
Greece … 65,000
Hungary … 400,000
Slovakia … 90,000
I can no longer remember the figures for the smaller actions, but they were insignificant in comparison with the numbers given above.
I regard a total of two and a half millions [stated by Hoess earlier interrogations including his IMT deposition - RM] as far too high. Even Auschwitz had limits to its destructive possibilities.
Figures given by former prisoners are figments of the imagination and lack any foundation.
Those Poles must have been squeezing Hoess's balls like hell for him to write this.
The figures given by Hoess add up to 1,130,000.
The figure estimated by the Soviet investigation in 1945, on the basis of the theoretical capacity of the installations and the depositions of former captives, was 4,000,000. This figure was officially upheld by the Polish government until 1992.
What Hoess was doing here was to directly challenge the reliability of his captors’ other sources, of their and the Soviet investigation commissions and of the eyewitnesses on which these commissions had relied. The latter he attacked in the strongest terms, calling them "figments of the imagination".
Why would the Poles let Hoess get away with this, if they had been bent on dictating his statements?
Why, if "Revisionists" were to be believed, would they even have coerced him into producing these highly inconvenient, counterproductive statements?
Were they so boundlessly dumb as to induce Hoess into shooting them in the foot, into openly writing into his memoirs that their own estimates of the death toll of his camp were wildly exaggerated?
Or is the "Revisionist" contention that what Hoess wrote was dictated or "doctored" by his captors what Hoess himself would have called "figments of the imagination" lacking any foundation?
I'll leave my friend Drew J to wonder about this (once more). Let's see if he can come up with something better than simply ignoring these and other inconvenient statements of Hoess that render absurd the claim that everything the man said or wrote was extracted from him by torture, or lamely claiming that the above-quoted writings of Hoess are not authentic.
As you will be reading this, Drew J, can I ask you for a favor? Please remind the CODOH moderator of reactivating my account, so that we can continue our conversation on the CODOH forum. Thanks in advance!
See my RODOH posts nos 11981, 11982 and 11983.