Yuku free message boards

Quote:

---

In any case, most H-documents are not forgeries; they just never said or meant what the Hoaxsters today say they did then.

---

Quote:

---

[]Holocaust denier Ingrid Weckert has claimed that this document is a forgery. The Gas Vans: A Critical Assessment of the Evidence codoh.com/found/fndwagon.html,%2014-19 . She states that the origins of the document are unknown and dubious because of two letters which she claims attest to two different origins of the document. I have obtained the full set of PS 501 from the United States National Archives. Her claim of a contradiction in the origins of the document is without foundation. It is based on two memos. The first one is dated April 26, 1945 from the 12th Army Group. It states that the documents which comprise PS 501 were found in a Reich Main Security Reserve depot in Bad Sulza, Germany and were being forwarded to Paris. The second document, dated September 7, 1945, is from the United States Office of the Chief Counsel for the Prosecution of Axis Criminality. It states that the source of the original was unknown and that the copy it had was obtained from the OCC in London, the British prosecution for war crimes.
The most probable explanation for the September 7, 1945 memo is that the documents were passed along from Paris to the British, who then passed them along to the U.S. Chief Counsel to be used at the International Military Tribunal which prosecuted the war crimes. The U.S. Chief Counsel was probably not aware of who had discovered the documents and where they had been discovered. What is probable is that the Chief Counsel was not aware of the April 26 memo from the 12th Army which identified the source of the documents. Weckert tried to imply that the documents may have originated in Moscow, thus repeating a familiar denier claim that the Soviets forged evidence to incriminate innocent Germans. However, the April 26 document clearly shows that the Soviets had nothing to do with PS 501. The real issue raised by the April 26 and September 7 memos is that there was a communication problem between the various branches of the Allied powers, not that any forgery was involved.
Weckert also claimed that there were three different copies of PS 501. She does not, however, reveal from where she obtained these copies. One set of copies she apparently received from the National Archives. I received photocopies of PS 501 from the National Archives and could not find some of the physical characteristics on the documents Weckert claims she found (i.e. archival numbering). Therefore, she appears to have obtained to other sets of these documents from a source other than the National Archives. However, she did not claim that any of the three copies differed in contents from one another. One of her complaints is that what she calls Specimen B, a carbon copy of the original, has certain notations on the exact same places as Specimen A, also a carbon copy of the original. She states that this should not be the case because the notations would have been written after the receipt of the memos which comprise PS 501. Therefore, she claims there should only be writing on Specimen A. The idea is apparently that the notations were not written on the original copy. The obvious answer is that either (1) the notations were written on the original copy or (2) Specimen B is a copy of Specimen A. In fact, we can be absolutely certain that if the notations did not appear on the exact same places on both sets of documents, Weckert would claim PS 501 to be a forgery on that basis.
August Becker, the author of the principal memo of May 16, 1942 which comprises the series of documents known as PS 501, gave a deposition in 1960 on the nature of the gas vans. He was recruited because people like me, were specialists in extermination by gassing . Becker had a Ph.D in chemistry. Text in Ernst Klee, Willi Dressen and Volker Reiss, The Good Old Days (NY:1988), 67-71.[]

---

Quote:

---

[]Hinsichtlich der Judenvernichtungen in Russland weiss ich, dass dafr Gaswagen eingesetzt wurden. Ich kann aber nicht sagen, von wann an und in welchem Umfang dies geschehen ist.
Ich war frher der festen Meinung, dass die Sache mit den Gaswagen in der Zeit angelaufen ist, in der ich bei der Marine war. Heute habe ich daran Zweifel und halte es fr mglich, dass diese Angelegenheit erst in Gang gekommen ist, nachdem ich von der Marine zurckgekommen war. Jedenfalls weiss ich, dass ich irgendwann nach meiner Rckkehr im Hof zwei dieser Gaswagen stehen gesehen habe, die mir Pradel gezeigt hat.

Irgendwie habe ich dann auch erfahren, dass man die Gaswagen zur Vollstreckung von Urteilen wie auch zur Ttung der Juden benutzt hat.

Ich halte es fr ausgeschlossen, dass Pradel die Entwicklung der Gaswagen von sich aus vorgenommen hat. Er muss einen Befehl dafr entweder von mir oder von einem anderen Vorgesetzten, der noch ber mir stand, bekommen haben.

Ob ich damals Bedenken gegen den Einsat der Gaswagen hatte, kann ich nicht sagen. Fr mich stand damals im Vordergrund, dass die Erschiessungen fr dei Mnner, die damit befasst wurden, eine erhebliche Belastung darstellten und dass diese Belastung durch den Einsatz der Gaswagen entfiel.

Ich glaube nicht, dass seinerzeit Dr. Siegert mit diesen Dingen befasst worden ist, wenn er davon wohl auch gewusst hat.

Es ist richtig, dass ich ber den Einsatz der Gaswagen etwas von Becker bekommen habe. Ich selbst hatte Becker gesagt, mir einen entsprechenden Bericht zuzusenden.[]

---

Quote:

---

[]Regarding the annihilation of Jews in Russia I know that gas vans were used for this purpose. I cannot say, however, from when on and to what extent this happened. I used to think that the thing with the gas vans started at the time when I was at the navy. Today I have doubts about this and consider it possible that this matter only got going after I had returned from the navy. At any rate I now that at some time after my return I saw two of these gas vans standing in the yard, which Pradel showed to me. Somehow I then also learned that the gas vans were used for the execution of sentences and for the killing of Jews.

I consider it impossible that Pradel should have carried out the development of the gas vans on his own initiative. He must have received an order for this either from me or from another superior standing above me.

Whether at that time I had doubts against the use of gas vans I cannot say. The main issue for me at the time was that the shootings were a considerable burden for the man who were in charge thereof and that this burden was taken off them through the use of the gas vans.

I dont think that Dr. Siegert was involved in these matters at the time, although he probably knew about them.

It is correct that I received something from Becker about the used of gas vans. I myself had told Becker to send me a corresponding report.[]

---

Quote:

---

Rauff was not free to tell the truth anymore than Rudolf or General Remer, and Rauff had more to risk since he was an SS security officer.

---

Quote:

---

Very few Nazi documents do I say are forged--because they rarely say what they are purported to by the Hoaxsters, who love to see things through their own imaginative and jaundiced lenses--but this is one of them in my opinion.

---

Quote:

---

Taking an innocuous document and making some minor alterations to produce a smoking-gun is extremely easy, as I said.

---

Quote:

---

Roberto

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What you can demonstrate might be relevant, whereas your faith-oriented opinion is not. But as were at it, would you argue that the document shown under this link:

www.holocaust-history.org...ner-wolff/

doesnt say what it is purported to by the Hoaxsters (Plan A), or would you rather yell forgery (Plan B) right away?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refering to the sentence:

"Already some months ago, I shot dead all the Jews I could get my hands on in this area, concentrated all the Jewish women and children in a camp and with the help of the SD got my hands on a "delousing van," that in about 14 days to 4 weeks will have brought about the definitive clearing out of the camp, which in any event since the arrival of Meyssner and the turning over of this camp to him, was continued by him."

In this sentence in the German facsimile of this letter the word "erschiessen" is misspelled and should have been "erschieen",

---

Quote:

---

and the typing on the German facsimile looks as if some one tried to change or correct something. The "ie" is too close together. (second sheet, bottom part).
Of course it may have been a typo and the "e" was afterwards squeezed in, and the typewriter may not have had the German letter "".

---

Quote:

---

Also the SS-runes look somewhat odd.

---

Quote:

---

The question is, whether this letter was ever authenticated.

---

Quote:

---

(By the way, the English translation of the letter is lousy).

---

Quote:

---

Roberto:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feel free to provide a better one and offer it to THHP. They may gratefully accept it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wash your mouth!

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another example, in the last paragraph it says "einzigste", however this form of "einzig" does not exist. But it's a common mistake. Although linguistically incorrect, "einzigste" is frequently used by native German speakers. Even Goethe wrote about his "einzigste" girl!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I used the word einzigst myself as a young student. And the German teacher returned it with a big red sechs! (Not sex, Roberto!). Sechs or 6 stands in German school gradings for the equivalent of F in the US.

---

Quote:

---

Original German and English translation in Kogon et al, Nazi Mass Murder, 228-235 and THHP

Holocaust denier Ingrid Weckert has claimed that this document is a forgery. The Gas Vans: A Critical Assessment of the Evidence pp 24-29, discussed in note 13 herein. She offers three proofs. The document contains the word einzigste. Weckert notes that this form of the word einzig not exist in German, thereby suggesting the forger did not really know German. Mr. Jrgen Langowski, a native German speaker who lives in Germany, has had his name in 100 books because he is a professional translator. He informed me that the word is a common oral and written mistake made by many Germans. He writes in a communication to me dated April 1, 1999: ...Weckert assumes that German officials always and under all circumstances produced absolutely flawless documents. This is ludicrous. Ingrid Weckert has published a few books and articles, and since there is no book without mistakes, Im prepared to prove that Ingrid Weckert herself is a forgery and doesnt exist.[my emphasis]
Weckert also claimed that there are three versions of this document which differ from each other in text underlining and in handwritten additions ... In fact, this only means that the authors of the two books which reproduced the original from the Koblenz archives made comments and underlinings on the document. Interestingly, Weckert did not claim that any of these three versions differed as to text or content, which should have alerted her to the fact that she was looking at one and the same document in all three instances.
Her most important claim about this document, dated June 5, 1942, being a forgery is that it was written after a letter dated June 23, 1942. She claimed that the June 23 letter mentions a conversation that took place on June 16 and this same conversation is mentioned in the June 5 letter, eleven days before it took place. The context in which both of these letters place the subject matter does not preclude the fact that the June 5 letter was merely mentioning something that was spoken of again eleven days later. I have not had access to the June 23 letter. However, Stephane Bruchfeld of the Holocaust and Genocide Studies program at Uppsale University in Sweden has examined both letters. In a communication to me dated February 14, 1999, he writes:
... it is quite obvious that there is no necessary connection between the two events referred to in the letters, i.e. there is no reason that the two events would be identical.
The June 5 letter is a letter from Just to Rauff. Under item of that letter Just refers to a discussion with the manufacturer about the unwanted effects of shortening the van. There is no indication of who spoke to whom. The June 23 document is, as far as I understand, a memo to the RSHA [Reich Main Security Agency] and the SD chief about the construction of vans which speaks about letting the company Gaubschat continue building them despite the difficulties of the company ... There is no specific information about precisely what [the participants at the June 16 meeting] spoke about ... but the impression I get is that it concerned several of the problems connected to the new construction of the vans. Why the 16 June talk would preclude another one prior to 5 June is beyond me.
In fact, a memo by Just on June 16, 1942 gives no information about the nature of the discussions. It only states: For further action and immediate start of repairs. I request to be informed about arrival of vans.

PS 501 See the discussion in note 13 herein.

---