Scott Smith wrote: Charles Bunch wrote:
Scott wrote:Charles, if it is your contention that Blaha was telling the truth,
We're discussing your contention Scotty. You made a claim. Now you can't support it. But at least the readers will know what value to place on your mindless pronouncements - none.
Scott Smith wrote:Charles, my contention is that Blaha testified at Nuremberg that the Nazis threw babies alive into ovens at Dachau. That is not hard to demonstrate, as it is what he said. If you believe his bogum then perhaps you should demonstrate support for that. The burden-of-proof is for the Holocausters to demonstrate their claims, irrespective of who is stupid enough to believe them uncritically. Like I said, this crap was on the History Channel last night. Perhaps you should have a talk with Roger Mudd over evidence. Widely propagated lies are still lies.
Blah, blah, blah. Smith once again seems to be trying the good old "Revisionist" tactic known in the manual as "The Great Leap":
11. The Great Leap -- This tactic goes like this: If one piece of testimony about the Holocaust seems unreliable, then ALL testimony about the Holocaust is unreliable. If one Holocaust witness may have recanted something on the stand, then all other Holocaust witnesses are liars. If some camp prisoners did not starve to death, then NONE of them starved to death. etc. But be careful. This is a double-edged sword -- someone may use the well-documented lies of other revisionists to conclude that YOU are a liar as well.
Source of quote:
Michael Philips, How To Be A Revisionist Scholar
As to Dr. Frantisek Blaha, Smith is invited to demonstrate what criminal justice authority or historian ever believed the statements of this highly unreliable witness. Blaha was to only eyewitness who testified to gassings at Dachau, but a look at the current state of historical research in this respect shows that his utterings were not taken seriously, for it is not considered proven to this day that homicidal gassings took place at Dachau concentration camp.
The reasonable approach to witnesses like Blaha is epitomized by the following statements of our fellow poster Walter Kaschner in his post
# 243 (9/22/01 1:20:20 am) on the thread
Any information on the Nurenberg trials?
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... 61&stop=80
of the old forum:
I agree that Dr. Blaha’s testimony has a distinct odor of fish about it. But if you really want to get some fishy testimony look at the stuff the three Soviet witnesses on the Katyn massacre came up with, particularly Dr. Marko Markov, a Bulgarian who had originally served on the International Medical Commission which the GERMANS had organized to look into the massacre and which concluded that the Soviets were responsible!! At Nuremberg, now that Bulgaria was under Soviet domination, he wheeled 180 degrees and tried to pin the crime on the Germans!! This was the best the Soviets could do and was a great embarrassment to the other Allies.
But OF COURSE you will find confusing, contradictory, self serving, biased, muddled and purely erroneous testimony in that Trial. It lasted 10 months. Feelings were high. I once knew but have forgotten how many witnesses testified and how many documents were offered into evidence, but there were a lot. There was BOUND to be some chaff with the wheat. Any lawyer who has engaged in trial work will testify to that. You simply blink at reality to expect perfection in the workings of any system of justice – we are humans after all, laboring to do the best our frail natures are capable of in the real world, not gods on Olympus. And just because testimony is entered or a document is presented in evidence is no guarantee of its veracity or authenticity. Nor does it indicate that the trier of fact gave it any weight whatsoever. So I think you are quite right in concluding that history can not accept as gospel every piece of evidence offered just because it was offered at the Nuremberg Trial. But on the other hand to try to vitiate the legitimacy of the entire trial process by picking at a few isolated examples of phony-baloney testimony suggests to me either a sophomoric idealism or some ulterior motive. And frankly Scott, I am troubled and disappointed by the fact that most of your posts on this thread follow in lockstep with the stuff on Zundlesite, which IMHO is clearly neo-Nazi, and IHR, which is not much better. I think you have a better and more inquiring mind than that.
Emphases are mine.