Ship of Fools wrote:To return to the subject at hand.This is a misquote. Hoess states in NO-1210, p.6, that the killings of Soviet POWs were done on the order 'von den zustandigen Gestapoleitern', not Himmler.
Since we have the complete set of RSHA and IKL orders from Heydrich, Gluecks and others concerning Einsatzbefehl Nr 8 and the so called 14 f 13 category of killings of Soviet commissars, there is no reason to doubt the fact of such killings other than sheer perversity. The only question that is open is their scale.
There is very good reason to doubt this statement. I only have the English version (NO1210)
The German is available at the link given above.
"I personally remember my time as Camp Commandant the order from the Gestapo to gas 70000 Russian POWs"
He never had 70 000 Russian POWs to gas. Nor has any order emerged to gas any Russian POWs at any time.
Orders to execute Soviet POWs existed in abundance. The method was left up to the KZs and the Gestapo, also as to who did the killing. In Stutthof, the Gestapo did the killing because the camp was not yet properly part of the IKL. Elsewhere, it was the camp staff who dreamed up a wide variety of methods of dispatching "Jewish Bolshevik commissars", as they were stereotyped. These methods included the first gassing at Auschwitz in Block 11
Does Ship of Fools doubt that there was a gassing of Soviet POWs in Block 11?
Does Ship of Fools deny that anyone was gassed at Auschwitz? I think we should stop beating about the bush and hear from him where he stands.
Even if there was, what on earth would possess Hoess to volunteer such information?
Because it could not be denied that Soviet POWs and Jews alike had been murdered ay Auschwitz, one of the means being to gas them.
There is interesting quote from a Defense Attorney at the Mauthausen trialOne of the defense attorneys in the Mauthausen case, Lt. McMahon, stated the following regarding these confessions:
Regarding the statements of the accused, there is grave doubt that they were freely given and, further, that they contained any language except that desired by the interrogator. Abundant proof is given by the striking similarity of language.
After citing several examples of similar language, Lt. McMahon went on to say:
And so it goes with Drabek, Entress, Feigl, with Trauner, Niedermayer, Haeger, Miessner, Riegler, Zoller, with Blei, with Eckert, with Striegel, with Eigruber, with Eisenhoefer, with Mack and Riegler. Let the court note the unbelievable accusations that the affiants make against themselves. It is contrary to normal human conduct. People just don't talk that way about themselves. Beyond any doubt, threats and duress were used to induce the signing of the untruthful statements in evidence.
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScr ... sen06.html
It such a commonsense proposition that I struggle to find why Nick has such difficulty accepting it.
Quoting a defense lawyer? It is in the interests of every defense lawyer to cast doubt on the evidence put forth by the prosecution, up to and including lying.