Monday, April 22, 2013

Further information about what death in a gas van could be like

In the blog Friedrich Paul Berg yelled for "PHOTOS photos of gassing victims"..., I posted a translation of an excerpt from the Munich Court of Assizes' judgment against members of Einsatzkommando 10a dated 14 July 1972, which describes in harrowing detail the murder in a gas van of handicapped children from an asylum at Jeissk (Eysk), a town by the Sea of Azov 247 km away from Krasnodar, which took place on 9 and 10 October 1942.
  


In his usual infantile and obnoxious manner (see for instance his RODOH post of Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:07 pm, commented in my post of Thu Apr 18, 2013 6:59 pm) prominent "Revisionist" Friedrich Paul Berg challenged my assumption, which was based on previous West German court judgments I had read, that the court’s findings of fact about what the children’s death had been like had been based on the assessment of someone with expert knowledge as concerns death from the effects of engine exhaust.

Yesterday I received, from the University of Amsterdam's Justiz und NS-Verbrechen collection, the complete text of the judgment LG München I vom 14.07.1972, 114 Ks 4/70, which includes the court’s rendering of the assessment of evidence that lead to the court’s findings of fact translated in my aforementioned blog.

The court’s rendering of its assessment of evidence as concerns the gas van murder of the Jeissk (Eysk) asylum's children (which precedes the court’s assessment of the evidence regarding the defendant Dr.med. Heinrich Gö’s participation in that crime) translates as follows:
4. The children’s asylum operation at Jeissk

The findings of fact about the children’s asylum operation at Jeissk, the defendant Dr. Gö.’s participation therein, and his attitude towards National Socialism and the operation, were mainly based on the statements of defendants Tri. and Dr. Gö., insofar as they could be considered credible, the testimonies of witnesses Ame., Boc., Bö., Dwo., Dr. Gäb., Get., Hir., Ker., Ko., Lik., Ni., Schl., Schu., Su., Syl., Vol. and Dr. Wes., the assessment of expert Prof.Dr. Ger., the contents of the final report by Local Command (Ortskommandantur) I (V) 296 dated 25.9.1942 and the forensic-medical examination of 214 children’s corpses on 15.4.1943, as well as the viewed photographs of the children’s asylum in Jeissk and the viewed sketch of the asylum’s area.

a) The "gas van" was described by defendants Tri. and Dr. Gö. as well as witnesses Boc., Dwo., Get., Hir., Ko., Lik., Ni., Schl. and Vol., in an essentially coincident and credible manner, as rendered in section II (B) 2a of the reasons. As concerns the time of the event the witness Vol. claimed that the operation had taken place not only in October but earlier. In accordance with this the witness Bö. dated the occurrence to "April 1942".

The court, however, reached the conviction that the operation was carried out on 9 and 10 October 1942. Apart from the witnesses Lik., Ko. and Get. having stated that the children had been taken away in "September or October", "on about 10 October" or on "9 October", and the dates 9 and 10 October being stated in the forensic-medical examination of the corpses, the court bases itself materially on the testimony of witness Dwo. This witness mentioned 9 and 10 October 1942 as the time of the operation. Dwo. had at that time been about 19 years old and accommodated in the building at Shtsherbinovskaia-/Gogol Street. He stated credibly and convincingly that after the operation he had written a poem about it, which he had titled "9 October" and which had also been published. In the night from the first to second day of the operation Nina Sholokhova had furthermore told him that she would be 18 years old on 10 October.

The findings of fact about the sequence of events (section II (B) 2a of the reasons) are based especially on the corresponding information provided by witnesses Boc., Bö., Dwo., Get., Ko., Lik., Su. and Vol. Assessment of the testimonies of witnesses Boc., Bö., Dwo., Ko., Lik., Su. and Vol. especially revealed in this context that on the operation’s first day the children accommodated in the building at Shtsherbinovskaia-/Gogol Street and thereafter the bedridden sick children from the building at Budienny Street, and on the second day – though without participation by members of the partial detachment stationed at Jeissk – the moronic and imbecilic children accommodated in the asylum’s central complex had been taken away with the gas van and killed.

As concerns the deception of children and supervising personnel the witness Bö. stated that he assumed that the children had of course not been told that death awaited them. Like the witness Boc. the witnesses Dwo., Get. und Ko. stated that, after the gas van had driven up to the building at Shtsherbinovskaia-/Gogol Street, an interpreter had told Ko. or the children that the children would be taken for medical treatment to Krasnodar. The witness Dwo. furthermore stated that they had prior to the occupation read in the papers that the "German fascists" had in hermetically sealed vans taken people out of the city and destroyed them. The witness Get. stated that she had also not believed the claims about taking the children to Krasnodar, as she had still in Simferopol read in the papers that the Germans had burned down the children’s asylum at Nikolaiev. She had immediately had the feeling that something terrible would happen and therefore also told the other girls that nothing good could be expected. The witness Ko. furthermore stated, in accordance with the information provided by the witness Lik., that the children taken away on the second day had been told that they would be taken for a ride.

The court has no misgivings about basing its findings of fact as concerns the sequence of events on the information provided by the mentioned witnesses.

As becomes apparent from the testimonies of witnesses Ko., Lik., Dwo. and Get., they still have a good memory of the event. For them this operation was a unique, shocking and stirring event that they could not forget. The witness Ko., who at that time had been 27 years old and head of the instruction and education department, was still deeply shocked about the occurrence when she testified on 7.8.1970, according to the credible statements of witness Dr. Wes. Also the witness Dwo. had been deeply moved internally when testifying on 6.8.1970. The witnesses Lik., at that time 45 years old and manager of the economy department, Dwo. and Get., at that time about 19 and 13 years old and accommodated in the asylum, could watch what was happening from close up. Their descriptions are detailed, clear and illustrative. According to the credible statements of witness Dr. Wes. the instruction of these witnesses was thorough and careful, the interrogation extraordinarily correct and the right to ask questions unlimited. Furthermore there had been no indication of any influence being exercised on the witnesses.

Additionally the description of the sequence of events provided by the witnesses Ko., Lik., Dwo. and Get. is largely confirmed by the statements of witnesses Boc., Bö., Su. and Vol. The court also considers credible the information provided by these witnesses in this context. The witness Boc. had himself participated in the operation. The same applies to the witnesses Vol., Bö. and Su. Vol. pointed out that the operation been one of the ugliest he had experienced. Both Bö. and Su. made their statements as defendants. Bö. admitted to having helped in loading the children [onto the van]. Su. conceded to have taken part in the loading of the children and to have thrown the dead children out of the van. The accounts of these witnesses are objective and precise and largely consistent with each other.

As concerns the cause of the children’s death the expert Prof.Dr. Ger. essentially stated the following:

The death of the affected children had occurred due to brain paralysis, caused by lack of oxygen, which had in the first place been due to poisoning with carbon monoxide. The engine exhaust of the "gas van" had contained carbon monoxide, between 3 and 10 % depending on what load was on the motor. Carbon monoxide is bound by the red blood substance with an affinity 210 times higher than that of oxygen. Therefore red blood substance is lost for the transport of oxygen. If the amount lost is 50 %, death generally occurs (inner asphyxiation). The course of the poisoning depends especially on the respective carbon monoxide concentration in the room’s air as well as the breathing volume. When the carbon monoxide concentration in the room’s air is 0.1 %, transitory poisoning symptoms occur. Death only happens after hours of breathing. With a concentration of 0.3 %, on the other hand, death could already occur after about two hours. With a concentration of 0.5 % there could be unconsciousness already after a few minutes and death after a short time.

Poisoning by carbon monoxide is often not noticed by the victims. When it is noticed, it is often too late already, as the increased need of oxygen caused by the salvation attempt leads to unconsciousness. In other cases, however, it causes an intense sensation of choking. If loading of red blood substance with carbon monoxide reaches 25 %, blood pressure increases. This leads to faster heartbeat, nausea, eye scintillation, buzzing in the ears, pounding in the temples and headaches in the front and temple areas. Further loading of red blood substance with carbon monoxide then leads to sickness and urge to vomit, finally to cramps, vomiting and emission of urine and excrement.

The course of the affected children’s poisoning had been dependent on how large the room in the gas van had been, how many children had been loaded into that room, how high the engine exhaust’s carbon monoxide concentration had been, with what speed it had been introduced, and how high the children’s breathing volume had been. In this respect it was significant that children as a rule have a higher breathing frequency than adults and that the breathing volume increases under stress, especially when screaming.

Additionally hydro-cephalic children may, according to the degree of hydrocephaly, have been more sensitive to the poison. Additionally one has to take into account that the children may also have choked on the vomit, that due to the constriction of the sealed room the exhaled carbon dioxide may have had an additional toxic function and that children lying underneath other children could for this reason alone have suffocated after about three to five minutes.

Summarizing, it could be established that the children in the "gas van" had with certainty not all died at the same time but rather, according to their special situation, died one after the other. It is possible that some children had already shown the most severe signs of poisoning while other children had witnessed these symptoms, especially the cramps, the vomiting, the emission of excrement and urine, while their consciousness was still relatively clear.

The court fully accepts this expertise. It is supported by expert knowledge, coherent, intelligible, convincing and partially also confirmed by the results of the forensic-medical examination of the corpses on 15.4.1943.

As concerns the number of children killed the witnesses Dwo., Ko., Lik. and Su. coincided in stating that there had been a total of 214 children. They pointed out that this number resulted from the asylum’s administrative documents. It is also stated in the corresponding forensic-medical examination of the corpses and, according to the witness Ame.’s credible statement, on the memorial at Jeissk.

About the purpose of the whole undertaking neither the defendants nor the witnesses could provide precise information. However, from the final report of the Ortskommandantur I (V) 296 dated 25.9.1942, in which it is stated that 500 beds in School III and in the children’s asylum at M-Street would be made available to Sick Collection Point 604, the court concludes that by clearing out the children’s asylum in question rooms were to be obtained for a sick collection point. In this context it is of special significance that according to the defendant Tri. there had also been a war hospital at Jeissk, while the witness Schu stated that, after Tri. had moved on, he had still remained at Jeissk and transferred two field hospitals to Rostov.

As concerns the legal qualification of the crime, the court reached the following conclusion:
The legal assessment of the findings of fact regarding the children’s asylum operation at Jeissk leads to the conclusion that this was murder (Section 211 of the Criminal Code).

[…]

bb) In this operation 214 persons, namely 214 children accommodated at the respective children’s asylum, were killed deliberately and partially in a cruel manner (Section 211, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code).

Those of the children who, while still in a state of relatively clear consciousness, had to witness the death struggle of their companions in suffering with cramps, vomiting, emission of urine and excrement, suffered excessive torments. Especially their death panic was significantly increased thereby.

The deliberate order to carry out this action stemmed from an unfeeling attitude devoid of mercy for the children’s suffering (see Federal Supreme Court, Decisions in Criminal Matters 3, [pp.] 180, 264).

The court is convinced that he who gave the order to use the gas van for the operation in question was aware of the fact that the simultaneous killing of a multitude of persons with the gas van would at least for a part of the victims necessarily lead to excessive psychological and physical torments. Nevertheless he gave priority to obtaining rooms for a sick collection point, without there being any indication that it was even considered to try sparing the victims their excessive torments.

Murder is defined in the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch) as follows:
Section 211 Murder

(1) The murderer shall be punished with imprisonment for life.

(2) A murderer is, whoever kills a human being out of murderous lust, to satisfy his sexual desires, from greed or otherwise base motives, treacherously or cruelly or with means dangerous to the public or in order to make another crime possible or cover it up.

The defendant Dr. Gö’s participation in the murder of the Jeissk (Eysk) asylum’s handicapped children was found by the court to have been the following:
Who gave the respective order and who commanded the operation can no longer be established.

Together with other members of the delegation that had arrived at Krasnodar and the partial detachment stationed at Jeissk, the defendant Dr. Gö. participated in the operation. In execution of the corresponding order he stood by the gas van on the first day, 9 October 1942, during the loading of the children and observed the operation, without having any noteworthy influence on its execution. He gave instructions to the Russian auxiliaries and the asylum’s nurses and told them what they were to do.

According to prevailing German jurisprudence at the time, this didn’t make Dr. Gö. a murderer but a mere accessory to murder. The distinction between a murderer and an accessory to murder was explained as follows by the court, in its considerations about the culpability of Dr. Gö’s co-defendants Tri. and Sev., who were on trial for their participation in a mass execution of Jews by shooting in the "Petrushinskaia-Balka" near Taganrog on 26 October 1941 (this mass execution is mentioned in the blog The Atrocities committed by German-Fascists in the USSR (2)):
For the differentiation between a perpetrator and an accessory the participant’s inner attitude towards the deed is the determining factor (see Federal Supreme Court, Decisions in Criminal Matters 18, [p.] 87). This attitude is to be established from the overall picture of all the deed’s circumstances.

In this respect an own interest in the deed as well as command over the sequence of events are evidence indications pointing to a perpetrator. Especially he who carries out the deed by his own hand must as a rule, though not without exception, be considered a perpetrator. The accessory, on the other hand, is characterized by his subordination to another person’s will. He means to give assistance to the main perpetrator, to further his deed. Who in this respect shows particularly concurrent eagerness, however, can as a rule not claim to be a mere accessory. While acting under orders does not exclude the obeying subordinate's being a co-perpetrator, in that he also wants the deed as one of his own, the essence of acting under orders is generally that the subordinate wants to commit the deed not by his own will but in fulfillment of a duty, albeit without recognizing its limits.

As concerns the defendant Dr. Gö’s behavior in connection with the handicapped children’s gassing on 9 October 1942, the court’s assessment was the following:
The defendant Dr. Gö., through his contribution to the children’s asylum operation at Jeissk, made himself guilty of a crime of jointly executed accessorizing to murder in 214 legally coincident cases (Sections 211, 47, 49, 73 of the Criminal Code), with the main deed having been committed cruelly.

a) The court reached the conviction that at the children’s asylum operation the defendant Dr. Gö. participated not as perpetrator, but - in conjunction with others – as accessory. Assessment of the overall picture resulting from all circumstances reveals that he did not provide his contribution with a perpetrator’s will of his own. To be sure, he participated in the operation insofar as he stood by the gas van during the loading of the children on 9 October 1942, observed the operation and gave instructions to the Russian auxiliaries and the asylum’s nurses. In doing so, however, he acted under a corresponding order and without an interest of his own in the deed. He rather disapproved of the operation. There are no indications that he had a noteworthy influence on the operation’s execution or showed particular eagerness.

The defendant, however, knowingly and actively provided assistance, in conjunction with others (Sections 47, 49 of the Criminal Code), to a crime of murder in 214 legally coincident cases (Sections 211, 73 of the Criminal Code).

Through his contribution to the deed, through his instructing the Russian auxiliaries and nurses of the asylum and telling them what they were to do, the defendant furthered the deed, without however acting out of an own unfeeling, merciless attitude towards the victims’ suffering. To be sure, he provided his contribution to the deed conscious of the fact that excessive suffering was being inflicted on the children. However, as already mentioned, he disapproved of the operation. It also didn’t become apparent that in his activity he exceeded the scope of the orders given to him or had the possibility of diminishing the victims’ suffering. According to the testimony of witness Schl. the defendant was never taken seriously.

The defendant, however, provided his contribution to the deed in awareness of the fact that he was thereby furthering the premeditated killing of the affected children, 214 in total. As becomes apparent from his own statements, he also knew the circumstances that made the operation a cruel deed. It was especially clear to him that the order to carry out the operation, under circumstances that caused the victims excessive torment, had emanated from an unfeeling, merciless attitude. Finally he was also aware, also due to his intelligence and his consolidated values, that this order was unlawful. It was known to him that the children to be killed were completely innocent, that they were killed indiscriminately and under horrendous circumstances.

As concerns Dr. Gö’s punishment, the court ruled as follows:
5. The penalty range

For the crimes of accessorizing to murder committed by the defendants in the years 1941/1942 the Criminal Code stipulates a penalty range of 3 to 15 years imprisonment or – the conditions of Section 50 Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code are not present – lifetime imprisonment (Sections 211 Paragraph 1, 49 Paragraph 2, 44 Paragraph 1 and 2 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Section 4 of the Decree against Violent Criminals dated 5.12.1939 – Reich Official Gazette I, 2378).

[…]

6. Fixation of the penalty

When fixing the penalty the jury court let itself be guided essentially by the following considerations:

a) In favor of all defendants it was taken into account that they provided their contribution to the deed only under orders, that they internally disapproved of the deed and didn’t pursue any personal goals in contributing thereto, that before and after their time of belonging to Einsatzkommando 10a they always led an orderly and laborious life, that due to the long duration of the proceedings they were subject to increased psychological pressure, and that none of the defendants requires re-socialization, as they all found their way back to civilian life.

[…]

In favor of defendant Dr. Gö. is was additionally taken into consideration that his experiences while being part of Einsatzkommando 10a still haunt him and are a considerable psychological burden for him to this day, that he, even when this was difficult for him, granted his patients the same medical treatment regardless of their person, and that he is in a bad health condition.

b) Against the defendants it was taken into consideration that their respective contribution to the deeds furthered the killing of at least 200 Jews respectively of 214 children.

c) After assessing the entire culpability content of the defendants’ deeds and their personality the court saw itself compelled to, according to Section 49 Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code, derive the penalty from the penalty range of Article 44 Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code. The decisive factor for this, in the end, was the fact that the defendants had provided their contribution to the respective deed only under orders.

d) Again taking into account all circumstances speaking in favor of and against the defendants, the court considered that, within the penalty range of 3 to 15 years imprisonment, a prison sentence of 4 (four) years was appropriate in each case, the circumstance that none of the defendants requires re-socialization being the main factor weighing in their favor.

The defendant Dr.med. Heinrich Gö. was thus sentenced to 4 years imprisonment. He was furthermore deprived from holding public office for a period of 5 years.

57 comments:

Nathan said...

Hi, Roberto,

I'm not sure if this is on topic, but it might be, as you discussed the German Criminal code's definition of Murder at the end of your article.

Are you familiar with this case?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/war-crimes-report-explores-world-war-ii-nazi-brutality-in-italy-a-874024.html

It's mentioned here that even while an Italian court sentenced 10 SS defendants to life imprisonment in absentia, the German government won't deport any of them. Also, a court in Stuttgart refused to pursue the case "Because murderous intent could not be proven". Is the narrow definition outlined in the German criminal code the reason why the Stuttgart court won't pursue the case?

There are some updates on this case here:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/critical-report-could-reopen-case-of-1944-ss-massacre-in-italy-a-894027.html

Thanks a lot for the information in the article.

Unknown said...

Could you address the issue of Ziereis confession? Is it true or fake? Cf. http://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/the-confession-of-frank-ziereis-commandant-of-mauthausen/ and http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Mauthausen/KZMauthausen/ZiereisDeath.html

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Hi Nathan,
Thanks for the links, which were not yet known to me.
The problem with prosecuting participants in such massacres is that they will come up with all sorts of self-apologetic stories, like their having been in the hospital or on furlough on the day of the massacre, or having watched others shoot but not done any shooting themselves. Unless there is documentation proving their presence at the crimes site and on the date of the crime, or witnesses who are able to identify them as having been participated in the killing, there's no way such people can be brought to justice. Also, German criminal investigators are often not as thorough as they should be in procuring incriminating evidence that would refute the suspects' self-apologetic accounts of their behavior. Add to that the fact that survivors of such massacres were often in a state of shock and this makes it rather difficult for them to identify individual perpetrators, moreover decades after the event, and that surviving witnesses are dying out, and you'll understand why a great many killers of innocent civilians have remained and probably will remain unpunished.
In my next blog I will address one of the largest massacres of non-Jewish civilians that took place in the occupied Soviet territories (Kortelisy in Ukraine, 23 September 1942, 2,875 victims including 1,620 children), whose perpetrators were never brought to justice for the reasons mentioned above.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Could you address the issue of Ziereis confession? Is it true or fake? Cf. http://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/the-confession-of-frank-ziereis-commandant-of-mauthausen/ and http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Mauthausen/KZMauthausen/ZiereisDeath.html»

How is Frank Ziereis' deathbed confession related to the subject matter of this blog?

The sources you are linking to probably tell you that Ziereis' confession is false, if only because this notion fits their ideological agenda and they hope to challenge the historical record of Mauthausen concentration camp by spinning conspiracy theories.

I may address the Ziereis confession in a future blog, or I may not. It's not something I'm particularly interested in, and I don't write on order.

Jonathan Harrison said...

This seems to have been just one of several Einsatzgruppe D trials that converge on the same conclusion:

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/german/einsatzgruppen/esg/documents/mcc.html

AHF on the defendants in the Munich case:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=99461

Do we know the names of the witnesses and how they came to testify? Written testimonies from the USSR or were they in person or in Israel?

Jonathan Harrison said...

Alvarez and Marais, Gas Vans, pages 231-232, omit "the final report of the Ortskommandantur I (V) 296 dated 25.9.1942, in which it is stated that 500 beds in School III and in the children’s asylum at M-Street would be made available to Sick Collection Point 604."

They also dismiss the defendant's identification of the van, despite the fact that the defendant's admission seems to be incriminating.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/106466197/Alvarez-Santiago-The-Gas-Vans

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Off-topic blather from our old friend "Franz" was removed, as all future such blather will be.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Alvarez and Marais, Gas Vans, pages 231-232, omit "the final report of the Ortskommandantur I (V) 296 dated 25.9.1942, in which it is stated that 500 beds in School III and in the children’s asylum at M-Street would be made available to Sick Collection Point 604."

They also dismiss the defendant's identification of the van, despite the fact that the defendant's admission seems to be incriminating.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/106466197/Alvarez-Santiago-The-Gas-Vans»

And more than that, see this blog.

Franz Holtzhäuser said...

One says: "see this post", because you're linking within your own blog. This is only one blog and it contains posts, not blogs.
FRANZ

Alan Rembach said...

Jonathan Andersson, off topic troll attempt. How pathetic.

Franz Holtzhäuser said...

That's still not my name, and it isn't even flattering any longer that you think so - Rantback. It shows only how meagre your comprehensive skills are. I mean, I have sort of informed you and your cohorts since late 2008 that this name isn't mine.
As for off-topic troll comment; neither of those assertions hold any water. It is not off-topic, nor trolling, to remark upon faulty usage of terms.
Roberto Muehlenkamp is what? Fifty years old? He's been blogging for how many years? Certainly one expects this man to know the terminology. If he doesn't, what's so wrong about informing him about his errors?
FRANZ

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Roberto Muehlenkamp is what? Fifty years old? He's been blogging for how many years? Certainly one expects this man to know the terminology. If he doesn't, what's so wrong about informing him about his errors?»

Small designation matters irrelevant to the subject worry the small mind of a small self-denominated "IT peasant", with nothing else to offer.

Correct or not, I don't like the word "post" for an article written on a blog site (which I presume is also a mistaken designation according to IT-"Franz", who will now holler that the correct term is simply "blog"). I prefer calling it a "blog article" or simply a "blog".

Franz Holtzhäuser said...

Well, maybe this way of thinking is reflective in other areas too. Like, pathetic ramblings on how death in fantasy "gas vans" could've been like, or how a perfectly ordinary and benevolent crematorium is converted to a hellish apparatus of death with pesticide raining from above.

Nah, don't worry Roberta, I will not correct you again on this matter. I honestly thought you simply made an error and not a deliberate fault.
FRANZ

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Wishful thinking is just the kind of thinking I was expecting from "Franz". His apparently projecting tendencies of his own is also no surprise.

Franz Holtzhäuser said...

You sound less friendly than usual. Could it be because you're knotting a noose for yourself in online discussions..?
Funny also how one of your underlings is worried about Ziereis 'confession' and want's you to produce some obfuscated progeny to support your own agenda.
Isn't it the flawed confessions of Ziereis that actually supports your own ideological agenda, Robarta? The jews even desecrated his body after he confessed by throwing it onto the barbed wire where it hung. Very gross, but typically jewish.
FRANZ

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«You sound less friendly than usual. Could it be because you're knotting a noose for yourself in online discussions..?»

Knotting nooses for himself I leave to "Franz", he's a specialist at it.

«Funny also how one of your underlings is worried about Ziereis 'confession' and want's you to produce some obfuscated progeny to support your own agenda.»

As he is in projecting realities of "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land (apparently they have "underlings" there, they certainly produce lots of "obfuscated progeny", and their agenda is all too obvious) onto the real world.

«Isn't it the flawed confessions of Ziereis that actually supports your own ideological agenda, Robarta?»

The agenda Franz projects is an ideological one, right. And at least one inhabitant of "Revisionst" cloud-cuckoo-land is obviously projecting problems with his male identity (or some secret tendencies or wishes of his) when calling an opponent by the female version of that opponent's name.

«The jews even desecrated his body after he confessed by throwing it onto the barbed wire where it hung. Very gross, but typically jewish»

Here "Franz" kindly reveals once more what the ideological agenda of "Revisionists" is all about. They hate Jews, the poor souls.

Franz Holtzhäuser said...

Ziereis was not a jew. Nor is it hateful against jews to say that throwing a tortured man onto a barbed wire is 'gross' and that this behaviour is typical of jews - because it is.
Do you want me to post other examples, with pictures, where jews exact the same horrible behaviour against other men (and in a lot of cases even women)?
FRANZ

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

As I said, the poor fellow hates Jews. They are demons in his twisted mind, while his Nazi heroes are angels.

Franz Holtzhäuser said...

I never said such a thing, Aborto. I never did.
You on the other hand worship your darling Jews like a worker bee worships his queen bee. What for, if I may be so brazen as to ask this question? Do they really pay you that much to slander Germans and propagate their inane, lying filth?
As for believing in "demons"...I'll leave such instructive beliefs to you, Mr. Aborto. Also, saying that I find it gross to mutilate somebody does not equal that I find the victim to have been a hero. Your way of utilizing logic is way off.
I watched some of your latest debates, or whatever it is you call that repetitive shit you do, and you were throughly owned...yet try to weasel yourself out of it as the guy with the better argument. What a crock you are.
FRANZ

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«I never said such a thing, Aborto. I never did.»

"Franz" doesn't have to say he hates Jews. It becomes obvious from statements like ...

«You on the other hand worship your darling Jews like a worker bee worships his queen bee.»

... this one, which carry a distinct element of self-projection ("Franz" worships his darling Nazis, so he figures that whoever doesn't like his darlings must "worship" Jews.

«What for, if I may be so brazen as to ask this question?»

Unlike Franz, I don't worship anybody.

«Do they really pay you that much to slander Germans and propagate their inane, lying filth?»

And I neither slander Germans. I document proven facts about Franz's Nazi heroes (who happened to be mostly Germans, but that doesn't mean all Germans were Nazis) and discuss such facts with Hitler-kissers like "Franz", who get pissed off about their ideological garbage being slapped around their ears and end up stupidly squealing that I "slander Germans" and use terms like «inane, lying filth» for facts they are too cowardly to face up to.

I also don't get paid a cent by anybody, of course. I like to slap "Revisionists" because I consider them obnoxious and their denial of historical facts despicable, that's all.

«As for believing in "demons"...I'll leave such instructive beliefs to you, Mr. Aborto.»

Actually I have no beliefs at all - quite unlike "Franz", whose mouthfuls of manure suggest a demonic vision of Jews.

«Also, saying that I find it gross to mutilate somebody does not equal that I find the victim to have been a hero.»

Maybe not, but his persistently acting as a defense attorney for a certain regime suggests that "Franz" considers that regime's representatives his heroes.

«Your way of utilizing logic is way off.»

Not at all.

«I watched some of your latest debates, or whatever it is you call that repetitive shit you do, and you were throughly owned...yet try to weasel yourself out of it as the guy with the better argument.»

Wishful thinking is the only kind of thinking that "Franz" excels him. If he knew jack shit about the subject matter of the debates in question, he might try to give his coreligionists a help, which they are certainly in need of. But as lame rhetorical quips and invective are the best that "Franz" can produce, his fellows-in-faith are better off without him.

«What a crock you are.»

As I said before ... :-)

Franz Holtzhäuser said...

I don't act as an defense attorney for some Jewish regime. What gave you that impression? I do not condone Jewish crimes, nor any other crimes.
It is criminal to torture somebody and mutilate their remains afterward; I do not defend such behaviour. Your darling Jews apparently did this to Ziereis (amongst many, many other men, women and children). I have numerous other examples just waiting, want them, with pictures?

My friends do not appear to need any of my help, they can whop your overinflated ego and self-deluded megalomania all on their own accord, with style!
I also do not wish to register at that forum because it has a poor reputation for being a sandbox where data is collected and which is later used to frame people in criminal investigations. So no thank you! But I do enjoy seeing you muster nothing in defense for your fantastic theories.
And how in the hell, or in anybody's wildest dreams, can it be considered 'hateful' to say this:
«You on the other hand worship your darling Jews like a worker bee worships his queen bee.»
That is a true statement if anything and it contains no hate, either.
FRANZ

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«I don't act as an defense attorney for some Jewish regime. What gave you that impression?»

Try a little less stupidity when misrepresenting my words. You act as defense attorney for a specific non-Jewish regime, moreover like a particularly slimy and obnoxious defense attorney. And also one of the most ignorant and incompetent, admittedly in a field where even the best defense attorneys tend to be slimy and incompetent individuals.

« I do not condone Jewish crimes, nor any other crimes.»

I'm sure you have no problem with Nazi crimes. Why else the dedication in trying to whitewash the Nazis of their crimes, especially those committed against Jews?

«It is criminal to torture somebody and mutilate their remains afterward; I do not defend such behaviour.»

Actually you don't defend such behavior only where performed by people you don't like and/or against people you like. Where it is performed by people you like and/or against people you don't like, you go out of your way playing the particularly slimy and obnoxious defense attorney for the perpetrators, obviously (and unless you are way more stupid than I thought you were) because you condone those perpetrators' acts.

«Your darling Jews apparently did this to Ziereis (amongst many, many other men, women and children). I have numerous other examples just waiting, want them, with pictures?»

No, I have no doubt that Jews committed horrendous crimes. Unlike you, I'm not a denier skunk, and unlike you I know that every nation and ethnic group has its violent criminals and its peaceful law-abiding people, and that the latter are always more representative of any nation's or ethnic group's character than the former. And please don't project your adoration of certain perpetrators by claiming that I adore («darling») a certain ethnic group whose members were prominently represented among the victims of those perpetrators.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«My friends do not appear to need any of my help, they can whop your overinflated ego and self-deluded megalomania all on their own accord, with style!»

Boy, one can almost hear the laughter of reasonable folks who read the garbage produced by your friends and my deconstruction thereof. And thanks for what seems to be an accurate description of two apparent features marking your character (or lack thereof), an overinflated ego and an astounding capacity for self-delusion, also and especially as concerns what you expect to achieve by your hollow blather. Or do you not expect to achieve anything beyond giving the average reader the impression that «Revisionist» cloud-cuckoo-land is populated by self-deluded assholes with a big mouth and nothing to show for it?

«I also do not wish to register at that forum because it has a poor reputation for being a sandbox where data is collected and which is later used to frame people in criminal investigations. So no thank you!»

Why, now you're also showing your paranoid streak. Or your gullibility in believing the paranoid accusations made by others of your persuasion. Who is supposed to collect data about whom and use them to frame people in criminal investigations, by the way? RODOH is owned by «Revisionist» Scott Smith, and its chief moderator «Depth Check» is also an avowed «Revisionist». (In fairness I must say that both are an exception to the rule as concerns «Revisionist» sliminess, at least when they are not propagating «Revisionist» junk.)

«But I do enjoy seeing you muster nothing in defense for your fantastic theories.»

Actually that's the situation your friends are in right know. Pathetic little «Bob» is essentially reduced to bitching about supposed incompetent and/or deceitful calculation errors of mine and about why I did or did not follow certain links, go figure.

«And how in the hell, or in anybody's wildest dreams, can it be considered 'hateful' to say this:
«You on the other hand worship your darling Jews like a worker bee worships his queen bee.»
That is a true statement if anything and it contains no hate, either.»


Last but not least we have «Franz» the cynic trying to be funny. And lying a bit more as he goes along. For he should have come to know me well enough to realize that no nation or ethnic group is my «darling» and that I'm rather like a public prosecutor indicting the Nazi regime for its crimes against both Jews and non-Jews. Except, of course, that the indictment phase is long over and historiography as well as justice have spoken final verdicts about the criminal racist garbage known as National Socialism.

Franz Holtzhäuser said...

« Try a little less stupidity when misrepresenting my words. You act as defense attorney for a specific non-Jewish regime, moreover like a particularly slimy and obnoxious defense attorney. And also one of the most ignorant and incompetent, admittedly in a field where even the best defense attorneys tend to be slimy and incompetent individuals. »

I have not misrepresented anything you said, I only assumed you meant that racist state known as 'Israel' or a similar state occupied by the same people (the worst racists the world has ever seen, by the way). Have you ever listened in on a candid discussion amongst Jews? They're incredibly racist.

« I'm sure you have no problem with Nazi crimes. Why else the dedication in trying to whitewash the Nazis of their crimes, especially those committed against Jews? »

Whatever crimes were committed by any Jew the person responsible for it was punished by the Germans prior to 1945. The crimes you always howl about are so pitiful that I wonder why you even bother maximising on something that is so laughable as this. But I guess you're stuck with your darling Jews, and they are probably happy to have somebody propagating their tepid stories. Ah, how wonderful it must be. At least for now! :D

« Actually you don't defend such behavior only where performed by people you don't like and/or against people you like. Where it is performed by people you like and/or against people you don't like, you go out of your way playing the particularly slimy and obnoxious defense attorney for the perpetrators, obviously (and unless you are way more stupid than I thought you were) because you condone those perpetrators' acts. »

This is of course not true. I am not entirely sure what you think you'll gain by lying about something like this. But then again, you lie like just like some panic-stricken con artist forced to be strapped to a lie detecting device - you just can't help yourself. You even published an article here about somebody who claimed to have been a "holocaust revisionist" but he never even was that. Very low. And now you write this lie.

« No, I have no doubt that Jews committed horrendous crimes. »

Good. Too bad we are not forced to learn about this in school, too bad we're not forced to trek all over Eastern Europe and elsewhere to learn more about what your lovely, lovely darling Jews committed. All we hear are - as you love to say - hollow screams of Nazi "brutality" and stupid stories about death in "gas chambers". I want all those years back when those holocaust enforcers shoved this nonsense down our throats in school - you too, are just like them: a chicken hawk who prey on young people and want them to believe your horror stories.

« Unlike you, I'm not a denier skunk »

That's right, Bobo! You are something much worse. You also make yourself look really stupid by licking the ass of your darling Jews. You will gain nothing from doing that, see? Their stupid holocaust junkstory will be going down the drain soon enough, you'll see.


« I know that every nation and ethnic group has its violent criminals and its peaceful law-abiding people, and that the latter are always more representative of any nation's or ethnic group's character than the former. And please don't project your adoration of certain perpetrators by claiming that I adore («darling») a certain ethnic group whose members were prominently represented among the victims of those perpetrators. »

This is a horrendous misrepresentation of my character. Oh, and you do adore those Jews. What's wrong in admitting it, Bobo? I have no problem at all with your love of them. You should also know another thing that I've repeatedly told you; just because one doesn't love your Jews, doesn't automatically mean that one hates them. I always told you that I don't love them - and for that I'm a bad, bad villain! Hm.
FRANZ

Franz Holtzhäuser said...

« Boy, one can almost hear the laughter of reasonable folks who read the garbage produced by your friends and my deconstruction thereof. »

Wishful thinking is also thinking, I suppose.

« an overinflated ego and an astounding capacity for self-delusion »

Yes, this is a very accurate description of you, my always so dear Bobo. It matches perfectly!
I could even do:


I think that would work, yes.

« Or do you not expect to achieve anything beyond giving the average reader the impression that «Revisionist» cloud-cuckoo-land is populated by self-deluded assholes with a big mouth and nothing to show for it? »

But the description you give does again match yourself rather than your opponent, so why project this delusion upon me?

« Why, now you're also showing your paranoid streak. Or your gullibility in believing the paranoid accusations made by others of your persuasion. Who is supposed to collect data about whom and use them to frame people in criminal investigations, by the way? »

I have been a member of that forum since it was launched and have been the victim of infringement of my privacy by administrators who sat and collected data on their opponents, most notably Andy Mathis did this. But I'm sure others did too. I'm very sure you did it. As for that forum today, I don't know - but why would things suddenly just 'change'?

« RODOH is owned by «Revisionist» Scott Smith »
Scott owned the forum when you and Mathis harassed your opponents too. So what. This never stopped your foul tactics in the past, so why should it suddenly be fine now?

« Actually that's the situation your friends are in right know. Pathetic little «Bob» is essentially reduced to bitching about supposed incompetent and/or deceitful calculation errors of mine and about why I did or did not follow certain links, go figure. »

You brought up 'self-delusion' earlier and here we see a prime example of it above. You avoided almost everything by Bob and tried to change subject repeatedly so I'm not exactly so sure about your little victory dance here, Bobo. From what I could glean of that discussion you were the one who got spanked...and quite hard too!
I can only conclude that you're the only one with delusions here.

« Last but not least we have «Franz» the cynic trying to be funny. »

Why do you think it funny when I tell you a basic truism like this: "You worship your darling Jews like a worker bee worships his queen bee."? I do not understand what's funny about that. Perhaps its funny because you know that is true. As I say, you're perfectly free to love them. I don't..

« And lying a bit more as he goes along. »

I certainly did not!

« I'm rather like a public prosecutor »

Eh, you're a failed old lawyer with no future. But you may _think_ you're like a public prosecutor although I would add this to your delusions rather than the cold reality we live in.

« historiography as well as justice have spoken final verdicts about the criminal racist garbage known as National Socialism. »

Again, this is nothing but wishful thinking and erred delusion. You must be a very sad person, Roberta. A person with no prospect whatever, his only "reality" is those horror stories he keeps defending. Well you hang in there, old man! Your dedication is a proof of your unending love of the Jews, your darling, darling Jews. I find it rather cute!
FRANZ

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

I wondered if I should bother to respond to the litany of hateful gibberish and transparently self-projecting invective that "Franz" unleashed in response to my previous posts.

But then I decided that the worst thing one can do to "Franz"'s image, and to the image of "Revisionism" he transmits, is to let our audience enjoy "Franz" in all his "splendor". :-)

Franz Holtzhäuser said...

Oh, do feel free to follow up on my response, my dearest Roberta. I will respond in kind via posts on this blog, see:
http://k0nsl.org/blog/detox/franz-roberto-commentary-01/

Perhaps I should re-phrase that using the sort of deluded terminology that you understand, Roboera; I will follow up on any future comments via blogs on this k0nsl blog. There is a lot of blogs on that blog, check it out and see for yourself.

By the way, looks like you've been sm0ked big time by Bob. Yet you insist that you're the person who's winning the arguments...I doubt many people see it that way ;)
FRANZ

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

As I said in my previous post ...:-)

Readers wondering about this "Bob" fellow that "Franz" is bragging about are invited to look up the RODOH thread Krema capacity lies and the reality of the Buchenwald Kremas. There they can see how the increasingly hysterical "Bob" (who rivals "Franz" in obnoxiousness) is performing.

Franz Holtzhäuser said...

I'm hardly 'bragging', Robertas, I'm only noting that you've been smoked.
FRANZ

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Kindly let readers decide that. I gave them the link so they can visit the thread when they are through with the instructive self-portrayal of a "Revisionist" true believer, which "Franz" insists in providing.

Franz Holtzhäuser said...

I must say that your faithful underling "Balsamo" caused me to laugh out loud when he huffed „I won't go into the cremation capacity game.“ - this, in a thread about cremation capacity. Hilarious, to put it mildly.
FRANZ

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Looks like "Franz" is again projecting the realities of "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land, which consists of "faithful underlings" plus a couple of masters, gurus or whatever that those "underlings" look up to.

Franz Holtzhäuser said...

I think it would be beneficial for you — Mr. Roberto “Kinnstützenkamp” Muehlenkamp — if you crawled back from whence you came instead of embarrassing your laughable holocaust ideology further.
You truly dug your own mass grave in that thread. Pheeew!
FRANZ

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«I think it would be beneficial for you — Mr. Roberto “Kinnstützenkamp” Muehlenkamp — if you crawled back from whence you came instead of embarrassing your laughable holocaust ideology further.
You truly dug your own mass grave in that thread. Pheeew!»

"Franz" is apparently not the only self-projecting, ideologically motivated "Revisionist" puke who placed his bets on this "Bob" fellow.

This is further evidence to the "Revisionist" religion's intellectual bankruptcy, and to the deplorable state of mind of that religion's follower's.

Please continue supporting that image of "Revisionism" and your own, "Franz". Your ramblings are very instructive in both respects, thus highly appreciated. :-)

Franz Holtzhäuser said...

Wow, now you got a good pummelling by this "I was a number"-person, too. Gosh.
Your retort? Personal attacks, lengthy and totally irrelevant replies coupled with typical sleaze ball tactics suitable mainly for - to use your favourite wording - a thoroughly deplorable, unkempt and failed person.
It doesn't look good for the poor “Kinnstützenkamp” - too bad he can't realize it. You're contributing to your own demise, buddy.
FRANZ

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Wow, now you got a good pummelling by this "I was a number"-person, too. Gosh.»

So the number's self-deluded victory dances and notoriously dishonest bitching go down as "pummelling" in "Franz"'s distorted little mind?

Why, "Franz"'s standards are even lower than I thought.

«Your retort? Personal attacks, lengthy and totally irrelevant replies coupled with typical sleaze ball tactics suitable mainly for - to use your favourite wording - a thoroughly deplorable, unkempt and failed person.»

Actually I spent a mere two sentences on the number's latest blather (I don't have all the time in the world and "Franz"'s champion "Bob" is a more interesting though still feeble opponent, you see). But thanks for another of "Franz"'s accurate self-portrayals.

«It doesn't look good for the poor “Kinnstützenkamp” - too bad he can't realize it. You're contributing to your own demise, buddy.»

Something tells me that "Franz" will still be repeating this wishful thinking ten years from now, if I'm still alive then. One shouldn't blame the poor guy, though. Dreams are all he'll ever have.

Franz Holtzhäuser said...

«Something tells me that "Franz" will still be repeating this wishful thinking ten years from now, if I'm still alive then.»

You must be really sick in the head if you think you're going to die a mere sixty years old, or whatever it is. Unless you're run over by a buss.
But since you brought up your miserable life, I may as well speculate on it; I think you'll die from cardiac arrest - all that lying will come around and bite you one day - and nobody will probably be around to even call the ambulance. I'd call the ambulance, though. You're the best thing against the Holocaust ideology next to Pelt. Oh, sorry, I probably give you a lot more credit than you deserve! I shouldn't feed that overinflated ego of yours, Roberta.
FRANZ

Franz Holtzhäuser said...

Haha! your "embers versus flame"-argument had me rolling on the floor, laughing my white ass off.
Man, as Friedrich says, there certainly is no damn shame in you, Mr. Muehlenkamp!

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«You must be really sick in the head if you think you're going to die a mere sixty years old, or whatever it is. Unless you're run over by a buss.
But since you brought up your miserable life, I may as well speculate on it; I think you'll die from cardiac arrest - all that lying will come around and bite you one day - and nobody will probably be around to even call the ambulance. I'd call the ambulance, though. You're the best thing against the Holocaust ideology next to Pelt. Oh, sorry, I probably give you a lot more credit than you deserve! I shouldn't feed that overinflated ego of yours, Roberta.»

Poor deluded self-projecting "Franz" sure hates my guts.:-)

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Haha! your "embers versus flame"-argument had me rolling on the floor, laughing my white ass off.
Man, as Friedrich says, there certainly is no damn shame in you, Mr. Muehlenkamp!»

No shame to occasionally hold an eventually mistaken notion or accept a correction of such notion, you mean? Certainly not. I'm a reasonable fellow, always open to learning. Whether one can say the same of "Franz" I strongly doubt.

Franz Holtzhäuser said...

« Poor deluded self-projecting "Franz" sure hates my guts.:-) »

Hm, now we have the confirmation; you must be truly sick in the head - for how else can somebody interpret it? I just told you that I'd call the ambulance if you went into cardiac arrest. How is that hating your guts?

The fact is that I don't hate you. It is like with the case of your darling Jews, Robetero. One mustn't hate them just because one doesn't love them. I have always said I don't hate you, nor do I hate your darling Jews.
But I don't love neither one of you, as well. This does not equal hating any of the two. This is of course only logical, see?
FRANZ

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«But I don't love neither one of you, as well.»

Glad to hear that "Franz" doesn't love me. I was beginning to get worried ... :-)

Franz Holtzhäuser said...

Now I kind of feel sorry for you, Rob.
You've been pummelled so much lately that I'm afraid you'll be 'retired' and kept 'behind the scenes' and replaced with somebody with better knowledge and one that is considerably younger and more energetic. You're embarrassing yourself and your hateful ideology. Can't you see that?
But you just hang on there, RoboCop. Fight the good fight, and all that.
Keep your shoulder to the wheel, as somebody told me. Now that Johansen has entered your sandbox it'll be even more interesting. You got caught with your pants down on your childish reasoning with ember versus flame. Friggin' hell! This is grade school information! Anybody with even a smidgen of brainpower ought to know something like that, at least if they're European. I know we learned such things early - it is almost something natural. Something one takes for granted.
Amazing. Simply amazing.
FRANZ

Franz Holtzhäuser said...

Gosh, now you've been smoked by Ilol'd too.
I bet tonight you'll be praying extra hard to that demigod of the Hoaxco$t - the vile, lying scumbag Simon Wiesenthal.
FRANZ

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Now I kind of feel sorry for you, Rob.»

Feel sorry for yourself, pal. Unlike me, you have every reason for that.

«You've been pummelled so much lately that I'm afraid you'll be 'retired' and kept 'behind the scenes' and replaced with somebody with better knowledge and one that is considerably younger and more energetic. You're embarrassing yourself and your hateful ideology. Can't you see that?»

I can see that self-projecting "Franz" is embarrassing himself and his hateful ideology with his puerile cheering for his coreligionists, but then, when does "Franz" ever open up without embarrassing both?

«But you just hang on there, RoboCop. Fight the good fight, and all that.
Keep your shoulder to the wheel, as somebody told me. Now that Johansen has entered your sandbox it'll be even more interesting.»

Johansen? I thought the fellow called himself Jansson.

«You got caught with your pants down on your childish reasoning with ember versus flame. Friggin' hell! This is grade school information! Anybody with even a smidgen of brainpower ought to know something like that, at least if they're European. I know we learned such things early - it is almost something natural. Something one takes for granted.
Amazing. Simply amazing.»

Bullshit. I'm not the only one who asked that question, and it's a minor point anyway. If "Franz" sees a major victory there, it's a sure sign that his coreligionists haven't offered much more.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Gosh, now you've been smoked by Ilol'd too.»

You mean the simian who spammed some text and claimed that it refutes my "crap" but still has to explain how what "crap" exactly is supposed to be refuted by what information in the text? As I said before, your standards are even lower than I thought they were.

«I bet tonight you'll be praying extra hard to that demigod of the Hoaxco$t - the vile, lying scumbag Simon Wiesenthal.»

Never cared about the fellow, actually. But thanks for showing that the idea you have of your opponents is as delusional as the rest of your fantasy world.

Franz Holtzhäuser said...

«Bullshit. I'm not the only one who asked that question, and it's a minor point anyway. If "Franz" sees a major victory there, it's a sure sign that his coreligionists haven't offered much more.»

But you were the only dimwit who apparently embarrassed himself by openly admitting that you didn't understand the difference. As anybody with a working brain can see Roberta is merely gripping after each and every straw he can, anything to support his dumb shit - but unfortunately (for him) he almost always get it wrong. Hardly surprising since his belief is a patchwork of malicious lies and merely intangible junk stories which he tries to weave together intermittently with actual facts such as this "amber versus flame"-argument, where he of course failed big time.
Nothing major, I never said so. But interesting nonetheless.

«Johansen? I thought the fellow called himself Jansson.»

I stand corrected.

«You mean the simian who spammed some text and claimed that it refutes my "crap"»

Claiming that refutations of your bullshit is "spam" merely reflects badly upon yourself, Aborto.
FRANZ

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Calling spammed quotes refutations is further evidence of "Franz"'s wishful thinking, and of his low standards as concerns "Revisionist" performance. "Franz" should stick to his foul-mouthed and self-projecting bitching. It's not only what he does best, but also what he does that causes least damage to the image of "Revisionism".

As concerns the lol'ing fellow, I must in fairness report that he subsequently converted his spam quotes into arguments. Not very successful ones, though.

Franz Holtzhäuser said...

Holy Simon, you're being totally smoked from every direction. This must be the feeling many Germans had in late 1944, surrounded from all directions by enemies with stronger force (albeit not better, merely stronger in numbers), more weapons (and admittedly in some cases even better weapons).
You must be feeling so hopeless right now, Robert.
FRANZ

Franz Holtzhäuser said...

Jansson and some other guys have totally undressed Roberto's hateful, irrational and non-scientific bullshit. Now he's quiet, probably crying to his handlers on what the best approach would be. Luckily its a bit more difficult for him to trash the forum, again. Jansson said: «Roberto has been uncharacteristically silent. I hope he didn't burn down his house experimenting with allegedly self-extinguishing grease fires.»

Hey, Aboerto, did you burn own your shitty flat?
FRANZ

Franz Holtzhäuser said...

down*
/crappy software doesn't even have an 'edit button'.
FRANZ

Franz Holtzhäuser said...

You better call Jamie McKosher's right hand for some spiritual guidance and additional blather which might deceive people into thinking you've got yourself a sane case, which you obviously don't have, and many people are questioning whether or not your mental status is sane too. At a quick glance one is sure that's not the case.
You better check yourself in at the asylum again for more treatment. The wandering in churches apparently isn't working out too well for ya, buddy.
Must be feeling so hopeless fighting this loathsome battle for the Jew. What a waste!
FRANZ

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Four posts in a row from "Franz" the cheer-leader, with nothing but shit in them as usual. :-)

Franz Holtzhäuser said...

Your performance in all those recent debates are disgraceful to your cause, Roberta.
That is the only thing one can say.
FRANZ

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

I suggest that self-projecting cheer-leader "Franz" let our readers judge for themselves on hand of my latest replies to his idols "Bob" and "friedrichjansson":

Recovery of fat from burning pyres


Now that Mr. Jansson is with us ...

The rails would have bent in the heat
Krema capacity lies and the reality of the Buchenwald Kremas

Franz Holtzhäuser said...

Uh, so just because you get your dirty ass kicked by these guys (and lol'ed) they're my idols? Not true.

But I do admire them! You get all the help possible by your contacts via e-mail coaching and still can't seem to make even a somewhat reasonable defense for your rubbish claims.

You must be sooooo mad at Jamie McKosher right now. His help appears to have put you up there with Elie Wiesel, the 'Holocaust Clown'.
FRANZ

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Uh, so just because you get your dirty ass kicked by these guys (and lol'ed) they're my idols? Not true.»

If "Franz" really thinks his fellow simians are achieving something in their forum discussions with me, his capacity for self-delusion is even greater than I thought.

«But I do admire them! You get all the help possible by your contacts via e-mail coaching and still can't seem to make even a somewhat reasonable defense for your rubbish claims.»

Through this exercise in self-projection we learn that "Revisionist" true believers tend to help each other via "e-mail coaching" when in a discussion. Interesting.

«You must be sooooo mad at Jamie McKosher right now. His help appears to have put you up there with Elie Wiesel, the 'Holocaust Clown'.»

This remark is of no interest except as evidence that "Franz" has a lot of manure where other people have brain matter.