This is an apolitical forum for discussions on the Axis nations, as well as the First and Second World Wars in general hosted by Marcus Wendel's Axis History Factbook in cooperation with Michael Miller's Axis Biographical Research and Christoph Awender's WW2 day by day.
fredric wrote:Canaris, like the others hanged at Flossenburg, was not garotted with an iron collar. This technique was not used in the Reich. The story is nonsense. The hangings were done by short-drop suspension with a rope attached to a hook. The condemned were made to climb a short ladder which was pulled away. The executioners reported that Canaris took a long time and that they lifted him twice. This was manual lifting and possibly designed not to prolong but to expedite his death.
It amazes me how these myths warp executions whether in Plotzensee or elsewhere.
You don't have to look far to find accurate accounts.
Hanging a person from a beam after removing any supports from beneath is conducive to death by slow strangulation. If the SS used a running noose without a stay, then the odds are strong that the victim will die of strangulation rather than having his cervical spine broken.
fredric wrote:Anyone interested in documentation of the execution should check the deposition of Flossenburg's medical officer, SS-Sutmbannfuhrer Dr. Hermann Fischer, published in Die Welt, October 1, 1955. Salient portions of his deposition can be found in Canaris, Hitler's Master Spy by Heinz Hohne. Also included is a detailed description of the hanging of Canaris, Oster, Sack, Bonhoeffer adn Gehre. They were hanged with rope nooses attached to hooks that were embedded into the overhanging wooden roof of one of the Flossenburg buildings.
fredric wrote:For information from the deposition, see Hans Hohe's book Canaris, Hitler's Master Spy.
Until I came across some of the posts in this thread, I thought that perhaps I had finally found a forum with a focus on German/Axis participation in WWII which was extremely informative, and had many members who were very serious, almost academic, about their studies of the subject and their desire to accumulate and share knowledge without an ideological subtext.
But then I saw the posts of those who would revise history, or who support those who deny the existence of the Holocaust, and/or deny Hitler's culpability in the "Final Solution". I also some solipsistic attempts at muddying the record, using the red herring of a "government job", and pretending history is so confused as to be unknowable. This is all truly disappointing, because I thought AHF had somehow found a way to avoid having its site used as a sounding board for sentiments and arguments that would have pleased Joe Goebbels.
The policy and general purpose of the forum is to provide for an exchange of views and facts on the topic, and to allow discussion of the different points of view. The viewpoints expressed by contributors to this forum are so divergent that general agreement on almost any aspect of the holocaust is unlikely and disagreement will be the rule.
Under these circumstances, in my opinion the best policy is to provide as many facts on the issue as possible, allow the contributors to state their point of view in a civil manner, and let the readers make up their own minds.
I am surprised no one examined the facts about Mr. David Irving.
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 1 guest