tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post3452083908112917133..comments2024-03-29T02:19:32.860+00:00Comments on Holocaust Controversies: 137 Crushed Lies, or Why Denial Is Beyond RepairNicholas Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14852758011968360596noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-58126635088937421192019-10-01T21:11:42.218+01:002019-10-01T21:11:42.218+01:00Wow how can anybody deny the holocaust after thisWow how can anybody deny the holocaust after thisAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00772307089469445089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-82950418718338645812018-09-29T20:42:03.672+01:002018-09-29T20:42:03.672+01:00Hi, It seems that the whole Malmedy Trial misrepre...Hi, It seems that the whole Malmedy Trial misrepresentation by deniers, nazi-loving authors and ill inspired germanophile authors has been definitely put to rest by historian Steven P. Remy in his book The Malmedy Massacre: The War Crimes Trial Controversy (Harvard University Press, 2017). Cheers.Gilles Karmasynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08674513064151621351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-13700938014249315942018-08-27T05:33:10.960+01:002018-08-27T05:33:10.960+01:00As an update to my comment, Willy Wallwey was inde...As an update to my comment, Willy Wallwey was indeed a real revisionist that died in 2014, which is apparent from the court documents on Rudolf's trial and also Codoh's brief description of him. According to the documents , he has been involved in colloboration with Rudolf since 1993. H<br /><br /> I think it is really fun to research these more obscure revisionists, since it could give even more information on the origin of the revisionist movement. This is the last comment I am posting on this blog post since I am beginning to stray of topic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-8573362514211632592018-08-26T20:56:57.823+01:002018-08-26T20:56:57.823+01:00Oh, so he did reveal this Gerner's real name, ...Oh, so he did reveal this Gerner's real name, which is Willy Walwey. Oops, I missed that for some reason when i was reading the annotation where he said he died in 2014. Hm, I am going to have to Google this Willy Walwey and see what comes up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-22854074954136644292018-08-26T20:23:37.070+01:002018-08-26T20:23:37.070+01:00"Manfred Gerner is the pen name of a German e..."Manfred Gerner is the pen name of a German engineer whose real name I cannot reveal because he lives in Germany and would probably have the police visit him if I uncovered him [Note 2016: Dipl.-Ing. Willy Wallwey, deceased in 2014]."<br />http://germarrudolf.com/en/germar-private/interviews/that-really-bugs-me-2004/<br /><br />The more interesting point about "Koehler" is how Rudolf has barely added to the corresponding section of Lectures on the Holocaust that is based on "Koehler" from 1994 discussing witnesses and trials, despite new editions appearing through to the 2010s.<br /><br />Nicholas Terryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14852758011968360596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-52843993064423363972018-08-26T19:07:12.927+01:002018-08-26T19:07:12.927+01:00Yep, you are right. I took a look at the interview...Yep, you are right. I took a look at the interview one more time and he said it was Manfred Gerner( not Kohler) that was the pseudonym of an alleged engineer, whose name he is a apparently afraid to reveal(he also mentions this alleged engineer died in 2014, and I could only find 3 articles from this alleged engineer on the Vho site, that from what I can can see have nothing to do with any technical aspects) . For some reason, I recalled that it was Kohler, so it was a glitch in memory on my part. My bad!<br /><br />As a matter of , he also clarifies that some of the names that were claimed to be his psrudonyms were pen names of other people and some of them were actually real people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-23930711378932586832018-08-26T10:39:35.931+01:002018-08-26T10:39:35.931+01:00Rudolf claims Manfred Koehler is one of his pseudo...Rudolf claims Manfred Koehler is one of his pseudonyms in his bibliography on his personal site. You may be mixing him up with another engineer.<br />http://germarrudolf.com/en/germars-views-2/402-list-of-publications-by-germar-rudolf/Nicholas Terryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14852758011968360596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-76530361218465096892018-08-26T03:54:33.220+01:002018-08-26T03:54:33.220+01:00Regarding Manfred Kohler, in an interview from 200...Regarding Manfred Kohler, in an interview from 2004 that can be found on his Rudolf's website, Rudolf claims that it is actually a pseudonym of a real German engineer and that, according to Rudolf, he is afraid of revealing this engineer's real name out of fear of the German police coming to this alleged "engineer's" house. I have found only two articles on the VHO site by this alleged "engineer" one of the two is the one you refer to. Outside out of these two articles, I cannot find any traces of this mysterious "engineer". Very intriguing, if you ask me. If I recall correctly , I actually saw Rudolf cite one of "Kohler's" book in his report, so that further deepens the mystery. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-79979066128395937842017-04-08T17:24:49.231+01:002017-04-08T17:24:49.231+01:00This may refer to the following (MMI vol. I, p. 11...This may refer to the following (MMI vol. I, p. 1197ff., Clay's Board's report):<br /><br />"The Board also received in evidence additional affidavits of several individuals submitted by the defendant Peiper in the Malmedy case (Ex. 36) and a number of affidavits submitted by Cardinal Frings, Archbishop of Cologne, the latter being duplicates of certain of the affidavits in Exhibit 23 (Ex. 37)."<br /><br />Explained by Harbaugh during the hearings thus (op.cit, p. 1151):<br /><br />"Senator BALDWIN (reading) : "The Board also received in evidence additional affidavits of several individuals submitted by the defendant Peiper in the Malmedy case (exhibit 36) and a number of affidavits submitted by Cardinal Frints[sic], archbishop of Cologne, the latter<br />being duplicates of certain of the affidavits in exhibit 23 (exhibit 37)."<br />That is the petition, I assume.<br />General HARBAUGH. Yes, sir.<br />Perhaps I can explain about those affidavits. In my capacity as staff JA of EUCOM, I received petitions and affidavits from a great many people. A great many of them would be duplicates. For instance, a great many of these affidavits that we received from Cardinal Frints[sic] were duplicates of the affidavits which were attached to Mr. Everett's petition, and I think we received some from the Pope, but they were all the same identical affidavits, in most cases."<br /><br />If I understand correctly, he is merely saying that those were copies of the affidavits already submitted, and Chatwin may have misunderstood this as meaning that they were duplicates of each other. (Unless I'm missing something else.)<br /><br />As for Koessler, he was not describing the exculpatory affidavits but rather the initial confessions, quite a different issue altogether.Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-60235815357994338312017-04-08T15:25:23.194+01:002017-04-08T15:25:23.194+01:00Margret Chatwin>>> "At this time, ho...Margret Chatwin>>> "At this time, however, it became apparent that all the accused had made identical statements. The texts of the affidavits were identical in every word."<br /><br />That's not what Maximilian Koessler told the Senate Commission:<br /><br />[Mr. KOESSLER] I consider improper the fact that their so-called statements were dictated by the Investigator in such a way that if you compare some of the statements, they are almost literally identical. It is for every experienced lawyer, I believe, a reason to be skeptical about statements under oath of several defendants having exactly the same wording. It may be said "Well the investigator only formulated—"<br />Mr. CHAMBERS. When you say "exactly the same wording," you don't mean the entire affidavit?<br />Mr. KOESSLER. No, certain features.<br />Mr. CHAMBERS. But, certain expressions they used?<br />Mr. KOESSLER. No, certain features. For instance, it would have been difficult for me to describe it altogther. I would have to study again the record. But certain features, the description of an incident in which several defendants were involved, each of them, or at least more than one of them giving exactly or almost exactly the same description. <br /><br />P.1355: http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/Malmedy_hearings-2.pdf<br /><br />Could you show us some examples of these identical statements, Nathan?The Black Rabbit of Inléhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12083144769375557650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-74702663677396572162017-04-08T06:34:41.133+01:002017-04-08T06:34:41.133+01:00I will always maintain that the Malmedy trial hurt...I will always maintain that the Malmedy trial hurts the case of the deniers more than it helps. As Sergey showed, the claims of "torture" in this trial were nothing more than a massive, coordinated hoax. Roberto shared an article once showing exactly where this hoax came from. It came from Rudolf Aschenauer, Princess Isenburg, and German bishops, all of whom worked with underground SS movements and a generally sympathetic population. It was observed that "the accused had made identical statements; The texts of the affidavits were the same in every word" regarding torture. In this case, the "witness consistency" was because the Neo Nazi scumbags mentioned above fed them a story, as part of an actual hoax. This is actually an excellent illustration of how witness testimony actually works, and how to analyze it carefully. The statements of the Malmedy defendants in the Malmedy torture hoax all matched to the last detail precisely because they were part of a hoax: a coordinated attempt to spin a yarn. In contrast, Holocaust testimonies have mistakes and inconsistencies because each different person is trying to relate in their own words their own experiences from their own perspectives. The key word is "in their own words"- they're not doing it as part of a "hoax" or because they got together to prepare this hoax in advance: they're honestly trying to find the right words to explain their own unique experiences. <br /><br />Roberto's article also undermines the deniers' fantasy of a "hoax" for other reasons. Namely, it shows that the US government occupying authorities really weren't interested in fabricating any such "hoax". In 1947, Aschenauer was already bringing forth claims before the US occupying authorities that "coercion" was used to procure statements. While the Army and the Inspector General did not see this, they either failed or refused to see that Aschenauer was planting the seeds for the Malmedy torture Hoax. It also cannot be understated that one of the key proponents of the Malmedy Hoax was then US Senator Joseph McCarthy, who was an antisemite and did not hesitate to accuse Jewish investigators like William Perl of collaboration with Communists; a very serious charge at the time. Finally, even though the American commissions saw the Malmedy Hoax for what it was, the US eventually showed leniency to the Malmedy defendants and commuted all the death sentences to prison terms. They would all be released by 1958. Thus, there was no "Hoax" on the American side. The US government had no shortage of Antisemites like Joseph McCarthy, and their agenda was to show leniency to West Germany and have them as an ally against the USSR. All of the captured wartime records are therefore genuine, and could not have been forged; no one wanted to fake them. The Holocaust happened, and the only "Hoax" here was the Hoax of the Malmedy defendants' "crushed testicles", created by Neo Nazi Hoaxsters.<br /><br />Deniers love to accuse everyone of Faking the Holocaust, but they're the only ones who've been caught faking shit.<br /><br />http://holocaustcontroversies.yuku.com/topic/1903/Malmedy-Trial-Myth-Confessions-extracted-Torture#.WOhpXPmGPIUNathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02660486969581542489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-46774885852848739072017-04-06T17:55:42.612+01:002017-04-06T17:55:42.612+01:00There's a classical mistake here. If 137 *guys...There's a classical mistake here. If 137 *guys* are concerned, the whole thing is about *274* testicles (let's exclude monorchidia for the sake of realism and simplicity). So this blog has finally rescued 274 testicles. Good job!Gilles Karmasynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08674513064151621351noreply@blogger.com