Erik -- Your post suggests that perhaps Weber was only quoting from Wiesenthal, and that perhaps it was Wiesenthal who had exaggerated the claim in Ziereis' statement.Quote:
"Maybe the statement appears ‘according to the Ziereis “confession”’…”cited by Wiesenthal”?"
Earlier, Mr Thompson wrote:
I am familiar with the writer of the Wiesenthal article, Mark Weber, and have read other articles by the fellow. I have little respect for the man's works. The easiest way to get an appreciation of his method is to check him against his sources. For example, here is a paragraph from the Wiesenthal article:
What if Wiesenthal did not know about the Marsalek affidavit (signed 8 April 1946) contained in
Document 3870-PS, but had Ziereis’ confession from other sources when he wrote his book about Mauthausen in 1946?
And Weber had Wiesenthal’s book from 1946 as his source?
Then Weber cannot be checked “against his sources” in the Nuremberg Document 3870-PS, can he?
If Wiesenthal actually had distorted the Ziereis confession to change the numbers and add new material, and Weber could show that, he would have effectively discredited Wiesenthal. But that's not what Weber says in his Wiesenthal article, nor does Weber even accuse Wiesenthal of changing Ziereis' words. Weber doesn't even quote the passage from Ziereis to contrast it with Wiesenthal's version and show any supposed inaccuracy. That leaves us with another, more likely possibility -- that Weber is the one who has distorted Ziereis' statement.
“…nor does Weber even accuse Wiesenthal of changing Ziereis' words…”
Well, it seems that he accuses Wiesenthal of quoting Ziereis’ words, rather!!
Perhaps Weber didn’t care whether Wiesenthal misquoted Ziereis' numbers in Document 3870-PS (i.e., added “new material” to it’s “one million to one and a half million murdered human beings in Hartheim”) or not?
Didn’t Wiesenthal himself “discredit” both “the numbers” and the confession when he (according to Faurisson, that is!) left it all out in the German edition of 1995?
Weber then states: "In fact, this fraudulent "confession" was obtained by torture." Weber's claim has certainly been made repeatedly, but I have yet to see any factual basis for the statements that the confession was "fraudulent" or that it "was obtained by torture."
Hans Marsalek (the interrogator) found it necessary to point out to Ziereis “that this number was too high” (and he meant one to one and a half million human beings).
Did he think that Ziereis was “fraudulent”, even?
Ziereis was “seriously wounded” – “his body had been penetrated by three bullets” – and he was interrogated “for a period of six to eight hours”, during “the night from 22 May to 23 May 1945”.
Those bullets must have tortured him during the interrogation, at least, even if he deserved them. So the confession was perhaps “obtained by torture” – “de facto”?
As for exhibit NO-1973, as I recall the NO series was not used to designate exhibits in the IMT trial. If it's an exhibit from some other trial or some other case, Weber certainly hasn't taken the trouble to point out what it is.
Pastor Niemöller, a prisoner at Dachau, stated that 238,000 human beings were killed there, at Dachau. He had read the number on a sign at the crematory there in November 1945 (after having been liberated), stating the number of cremated corpses at Dachau. His wife fainted when she saw the said sign.
Wiesenthal can have read the number of four millions in the newspapers of 1945, reporting rumours concerning the Ziereis confession that was repeated in the “exhibit NO-1973”, and later corrected by the affidavit of Hans Marsalek.(?).
Perhaps Wiesenthal was unaware of the “correction” in 1946? His number was just as “informed” as was Niemöller’s from Dachau?
Weber says that this shows “the irresponsible character of this book” (Wiesenthal’s on Mauthausen).
But in 1946 responsibilities perhaps had other priorities.