Did the Nazis use prisoners as Christmas decorations?

[Scott Smith]

Well, look who believes in Blaha's bonfired baby B.S.! And it ain't me...

Looks who's running from his claim that Blaha represents a lie used as evidence in writing the history of the Holocaust.

Charles, this is called proving-a-negative.

Proving that someone lied is not proving a negative.

Never took logic either, I see.

Chuck, I'm beginning to wonder if English is your native language or if you are using Babelfish or something.


So, was Blaha telling the truth about burning the babies alive?

YES, or NO...

Or, maybe we should just chalk it up to a dream involving a burning bush and a golden calf...

[Scott Smith]

YAWN...

Oh, hi Roberto!

Yeah, two points:

1) As I told Mr. Kaschner, I do not support Herr Zündel, except that I DO support his right to free-speech. Furthermore, Zündel might have some justifiable points considering that the pendulum has swung so far to one side vis-a-vis the Good War. A historiographical "corrective" is in order, IMHO. Oh, forgot, that would be illegal in so many advanced countries of the world.

2) Anyone can see that Blaha's testimony was fishy--except the Nuremberg court--which begs the question as to WHY they would use such schlock propaganda if their motives were so pure. I submit that they were not pure--tainted from start to finish, in fact.

See ya' later,
Scott

[Roberto]

YAWN...

Oh, hi Roberto!

Yeah, two points:

I strongly doubt that Smith has a single point, but let's see.

1) As I told Mr. Kaschner, I do not support Herr Zündel, except that I DO support his right to free-speech. Furthermore, Zündel might have some justifiable points considering that the pendulum has swung so far to one side vis-a-vis the Good War. A historiographical "corrective" is in order, IMHO. Oh, forgot, that would be illegal in so many advanced countries of the world.

Smith's dreams and fantasies in a nutshell, coupled with irrelevant
howling about Zündel-style hate speech being illegal in some countries of the world (as if that would make it look any better).

Smith obviously felt vexed by the following passage of Mr. Kaschner's quote:

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.

Mr. Kaschner gently conceded that Smith's favorite IHR is "not much" (but a little) better than Zündelsite. I wonder if Smith can explain why he considers the IHR to be better than Zündel's crap, and what it is that makes him reject one and embrace the other. Is it that the IHR convey their propaganda nonsense more discreetly than Mr. Zündel, perhaps?

2) Anyone can see that Blaha's testimony was fishy--except the Nuremberg court--

Tell us, Mr. Smith, what did the Nuremberg court make of Blaha's testimony? Did they consider gassings at Dachau a proven fact on account of it? A quote from the judgement demonstrating this would be appreciated.

which begs the question as to WHY they would use such schlock propaganda if their motives were so pure. I submit that they were not pure--tainted from start to finish, in fact.

Of course, Mr. Smith. If they made a mistake in the assessment of one among thousands of pieces of evidence, this necessarily means that the assessment of all other pieces of evidence is also vitiated. The good old falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus imbecility.

Poor Smith, who seems to have a somewhat strange idea of what trial procedures are all about, should again read Mr. Kaschner's statements in this respect:

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.

Emphases are mine.

What is is in your case, Reverend? Sophomoric idealism or some ulterior motive?

[Scott Smith]

Anyone can see that Blaha's testimony was fishy--except the Nuremberg court--

Tell us, Mr. Smith, what did the Nuremberg court make of Blaha's testimony? Did they consider gassings at Dachau a proven fact on account of it? A quote from the judgement demonstrating this would be appreciated.

Yeah, right, the prosecution put him on the stand without knowing what he would say. And he said plenty, even still being used today by the faithful.

[Roberto]

Anyone can see that Blaha's testimony was fishy--except the Nuremberg court--

Tell us, Mr. Smith, what did the Nuremberg court make of Blaha's testimony? Did they consider gassings at Dachau a proven fact on account of it? A quote from the judgement demonstrating this would be appreciated.

Yeah, right, the prosecution put him on the stand without knowing what he would say.

What's wrong with that, Reverend?

And he said plenty, even still being used today by the faithful.

The Faithful indeed use it to make a big bloody fuss about the alleged failures of criminal justice and historiography, even though neither gave credence to Dr. Blaha's utterances.

[Hebden]

A look at the plan of the crematorium in the book Auschwitz 1270 to the Present shows that the gas chamber was originally designated as a morgue. Vrba's characterisation of it as a 'garage' defies obvious explanation. Furthermore, his description, apparently positing a third entrance to the room, does not accord with the original plan either.

Can anyone help resolve these apparent discrepancies?

It has come to my notice that when the Germans converted the former gas chamber into an air-raid shelter in 1944 they apparently created a new entrance into the chamber, in the form of an airlock. Reportedly, this airlock is (or has been) missrepresented to visitors as an 'entrance for the victims'. Assuming arguendo that this is indeed correct, could Mr. Vrba's third entrance (a 'garage door') actually be this airlock? But if so, how in November 1942 could he have seen an entrance not put in place until the autumn of 1944 (by which time, of course, he had escaped from Auschwitz)? Could it be the case that Mr. Vrba visited the camp at some point after the war and mistook the airlock for a garage-type entrance? To test such a hypothesis, we would like to see a photograph of the airlock.

We realise that such a hypothesis rather implies that Mr. Vrba, under oath, told untruths to the court. Naturally, we do not do so lightly. However, given our understanding of his testimony and our present knowledge of the architectural construction of the crematorium (commonly known as Krema I) our hypothesis strikes us as both reasonable and compelling.

[Roberto]

We realise that such a hypothesis rather implies that Mr. Vrba, under oath, told untruths to the court.

Or that he mixed up postwar recollections of his with the information he had collected from other prisoners before escaping from Auschwitz.

Did Vrba mention anything about this "third entrance" in his original report?

The first comprehensive analysis of Auschwitz was written by two prisoners who escaped from the camp on April 7, 1944. They were Walter Rosenberg and Alfred Wetzler. Rosenberg would change his name to Rudolph Vrba during the escape. The essentials of the Vrba-Wetzler report were released to the public in July 1944.
The report is based on information the two authors colleceted from other prisoners and Sonderkommandos, along with their own experiences, while they were in Auschwitz. Briefly summarized, "it described the extermination mechanism that was used in Auschwitz-Birkenau in unflinching detail." The authors described the actual gassing procedures which they never personally observed, but learned about from other prisoners with first hand knowledge.

[...]

The question arises as to the overall accuracy of the report. Obviously deniers have repeatedly attacked the report. Butz, as might be expected, suggested that Vrba and Wetzler did not even author the report. However, the essentials of the report were published by the New York Times on July 3, 1944. The report was passed along to the American War Refugee Board. Over the years the report has been referred to as the War Refugee Board Report or the Auschwitz Protocols.
Deniers have been quick to point to certain inaccuracies in the report. Like many descriptions of the events under consideration there were some technical inaccuracies. However, deniers have had a difficult time refuting the above description of the gassing because it is consistent with other testimony given after the war and it describes the gassing procedure thoroughly. Therefore, the inaccuracies and verifiable information in the report must be examined to determine its overall probative value. Deniers never discuss those aspects of the report which are correct.

Source of quote:

John C. Zimmerman, Holocaust Denial, pages 82/83.

[Charles Bunch]

Well, look who believes in Blaha's bonfired baby B.S.! And it ain't me...

Looks who's running from his claim that Blaha represents a lie used as evidence in writing the history of the Holocaust.

Charles, this is called proving-a-negative.

Proving that someone lied is not proving a negative.

Never took logic either, I see.

Chuck, I'm beginning to wonder if English is your native language or if you are using Babelfish or something.

And you are being revealed as a fool who makes breezy statements about a subject he knows little about and when challenged to support them with evidence, runs away.

Have you figured out how silly your comment about proving a negative is? That's what happens when you take logic lessons from Hannover!

So, was Blaha telling the truth about burning the babies alive?

You claimed he was lying. Where's your evidence? Or do deniers not need evidence? We're getting tired of seeing your backside disappearing into the distance.

[Hebden]

We realise that such a hypothesis rather implies that Mr. Vrba, under oath, told untruths to the court.

Or that he mixed up postwar recollections of his with the information he had collected from other prisoners before escaping from Auschwitz.

Advisedly, we used the term 'untruths' instead of 'lies'. We trust the distinction is not lost on non-native English speakers.

Let's refresh our memories as to Mr. Vrba's recollection of events regarding his trip into the gas chamber. We take the liberty of extending Mr. Vrba's account beyond that given previously.

Q. I asked you if you had been in Krema I in Auschwitz when people were being gassed, and I think the answer is no. Correct?

A. The answer is no. I went there for collecting their clothes from the gas chamber in Krematorium I.

Q. From the gas chamber?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you inside?

A. Yes.

Q. What did the gas chamber look like?

A. It was originally a garage which connected the S.S. barracks with that small crematorium.

Q. Mm-hmmm.

A. And there were garage doors.

Q. Mm-hmmm.

A. And the roof was reinforced with earth. The inside was dark. The door was opened ---

Q. How wide were the doors?

A. Like a good garage door, and two side opening to two sides.

Q. Mm-hmmm.

A. We went in under the pretext that we are collecting -- not under the pretext, under the order to collect the clothes which were there.

Consequently, as I understood, the people had to undress before they went into that gas chamber.

p. 1476

Q. You are telling us ---

A. Then they were gassed, and then, because there were clothes in the yard in front of the hospital, they were shoved in the gas chamber before they were taken out. So I understand that was my job at that time, so I collected the clothes.

Q. The clothes were in the gas chamber.

A. Right.

Q. Yes.

A. So we collected the clothes from there, and at that moment I saw through the window of the crematorium a friend of mine from Slovakia, Phillip Mueller.

Q. Who was he?

A. Phillip Mueller.

Q. Phillip Mueller in Auschwitz I?

A. . In Auschwitz I crematoria.

Q. Yes.

A. And I was also very well acquainted with his father.

Q. Yes.

A. Consequently, there was sort of an affinity between us because I took a little bit care of his father before he died in Auschwitz. We came together from Maidanek. I spoke with Phillip Mueller through the window. Phillip Mueller explained to me ---

Q. Is this the crematoria part, or the gas chamber part?

A. No. On the yard, between the -- on the yard in front of the crematorium, in front of the

p. 1477

gas chamber, and in front ---

Frankly, we fail to see quite how this account could plausibly be the result of a confused memory on Mr. Vrba's part. Considering this was the sole occasion that Mr. Vrba ever found himself in a gas chamber, we imagine that his recall of events would be quite vivid as to the essentials. His memory of seeing ('through a window') and meeting his friend Phillip Muller is very clear. The existence of a third entrance into the chamber seems to us integral to his description of the room as having served as a garage which connected the SS barracks to the crematorium. Given the other two doors in the chamber led into other parts of the crematorium (into the furnace room and into the washroon, respectively), we are forced to conclude that this 'garage' style door opened externally.

Did Vrba mention anything about this "third entrance" in his original report?

Mr. Vrba's visit to the gas chamber of Krema I is absent from both the original report and, more significantly, his book. Why he would choose to exclude such a dramatic episode from his camp memoirs is especially baffling.

Moreover, it is noteworthy that neither the Vrba-Wetzler Report nor the book mentions Krema I at all in connection with homicidal gassings.

No doubt, we shall, all in good time, come onto the Vrba-Wetzler report. This strikes us as the occasion on which to address the concerns of Messrs. Butz and Zimmerman.

[Scott Smith]

So, was Blaha telling the truth about burning the babies alive?

You claimed he was lying. Where's your evidence? Or do deniers not need evidence? We're getting tired of seeing your backside disappearing into the distance.

Chuck, it is not too difficult to grasp here. Either Blaha was 1) telling the truth at Nuremberg, and the Nazis DID throw babies alive into the crematoria at Dachau, or 2), he was lying, or 3) he was telling untruths.

Which do you think? Don't hold out on me.

[Charles Bunch]

Chuck, it is not too difficult to grasp here.

Oh, it's not a matter of grasping it Scotty, even you grasp it.

Either Blaha was 1) telling the truth at Nuremberg, and the Nazis DID throw babies alive into the crematoria at Dachau, or 2), he was lying, or 3) he was telling untruths.

And you claimed he's lying, as your only example of a Holocaust witness who in your words lied.

So what's your evidence he lied?

You realize how pathetic you appear, and how empty the claims with which you began this embarrassment are?

[Hans]

Chuck, it is not too difficult to grasp here. Either Blaha was 1) telling the truth at Nuremberg, and the Nazis DID throw babies alive into the crematoria at Dachau, or 2), he was lying, or 3) he was telling untruths.

Which do you think? Don't hold out on me.

Hi Scott,

According to your post Sat Jul 20, 2002 4:51 am (CLICK!) you have shown that Blaha is a liar, or you have not understand Charles's question.

In my opinion, you can either

1.) explain why you don`t want to answer Charles' question "Just what witnesses relied on by Holocaust historians have you shown to be liars?" , or

2.) name a different witness that you have shown to be a liar, or

3.) demonstrate that Blaha is a liar, or

4.) run away!

Asking him what he thinks about Blaha is no answer to his question and falls into category 4.)!
YOUR response (CLICK!) to Charles implied that Blaha is a liar and so YOU have to demonstrate that he really is.

If you ask me, I don't know if Blaha is a liar. I would need to study other testimonies from Dachau as well as the testimony from Blaha. What is a fact in my opinion is that they threw living people into burning pits in summer 1944 in Auschwitz-Birkenau. Therefore I cannot preclude that what is reported by Blaha is more than just Gräulpropaganda (note the new spelling). But what I know for certain is that you have to demonstrate that Blaha is a liar in order to back up that Blabla in post Sat Jul 20, 2002 4:51 am!

regards,
Hans

[Scott Smith]

Chuck, it is not too difficult to grasp here. Either Blaha was 1) telling the truth at Nuremberg, and the Nazis DID throw babies alive into the crematoria at Dachau, or 2), he was lying, or 3) he was telling untruths.

Which do you think? Don't hold out on me.

Hi Scott,

According to your post Sat Jul 20, 2002 4:51 am (CLICK!) you have shown that Blaha is a liar, or you have not understand Charles's question.

In my opinion, you can either

1.) explain why you don`t want to answer Charles' question "Just what witnesses relied on by Holocaust historians have you shown to be liars?" , or

2.) name a different witness that you have shown to be a liar, or

3.) demonstrate that Blaha is a liar, or

4.) run away!

Asking him what he thinks about Blaha is no answer to his question and falls into category 4.)!
YOUR response (CLICK!) to Charles implied that Blaha is a liar and so YOU have to demonstrate that he really is.

If you ask me, I don't know if Blaha is a liar. I would need to study other testimonies from Dachau as well as the testimony from Blaha. What is a fact in my opinion is that they threw living people into burning pits in summer 1944 in Auschwitz-Birkenau. Therefore I cannot preclude that what is reported by Blaha is more than just Gräulpropaganda (note the new spelling). But what I know for certain is that you have to demonstrate that Blaha is a liar in order to back up that Blabla in post Sat Jul 20, 2002 4:51 am!

regards,
Hans

Hi Hans,

Well, Chuck certainly does need some help here. As I see it, he presents me with a false dilemma without wanting to admit it: Unless I can prove Blaha is a liar, then Blaha affirms the truth. This is the same old story with Big-H Ghoulpropaganda (note the new spelling).

Without wanting to wax himself in with his own mythology, Chuck wants to know if Blaha is lying and accuses me of running away. Well, I can't know if Blaha is lying anymore than I can experience God for myself. I can only deal in probabilities, and underscore the penchant for political trials to rely upon convenient lies/untruths, and/or liars.

Furthermore, far from running away, I think skepticism is a quite reasonable and logical position.

It is a general maxim worthy of our attention that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish. (1758)

So, tell me Hans, is it more probable or more "miraculous" that your bonfired babies are truth or falsehood? Which story would be more miraculous--that the Nazis tossed babies into ovens and bonfires like in a Teutonophobic Eisenstein movie, or that they did not? Is there a different standard-of-proof for Auschwitz, long the Battleship of the Holocaust, than say, for Dachau or Buchenwald? Interesting questions...

Now, Hume categorized claims (Blaha made a claim at Nuremberg that babies were tossed alive into the crematoria ovens at Dachau) according to three branches or tines on a fork. Hume's Fork consists of:

1. Relations of Ideas, or Tautologies. These are conclusions that are always true or always false based on their own definitions or the assumptions of their premises: 2 + 2 = 4 or God is Good. Much Holocaust™ propaganda is nothing more than tautological; therefore the Big-H tells us little or nothing about the world and history.

2. Matters of Fact or Contingencies. These facts are either true or false depending on how they are experienced. "Either Caesar DID cross the Rubicon or Caesar did NOT cross the Rubicon" is a true-dilemma or self-evident tautology that tells us nothing about history; but if we categorically claim one or the other circumstance based on empirical observation, then we convey something about the world by this assertion (depending on the quality of the source or impression, as Hume called it). So we learn WHETHER Caesar did or did-not cross the Rubicon, according to the source.

3. Simple Nonsense. Unicorns are friendly animals. We may actually have Blaha in a nutshell here! Which only begs the question as to why Nuremberg put stock in him.

Untruths still repeated in the 21st century are still untruths!

(Or, in Babelfish: Die Lügen, die noch im 21. Jahrhundert wiederholt werden, sind noch Lügen!)

Does Blaha tell us something new about the world?

I submit that he does not--despite his bogus atrocity-propaganda--and furthermore, I find that the Nuremberg Inquisition didn't care about the quality of their source. From an epistemological standpoint Nuremberg only cared about the modern equivalent of unicorns: Sweeping German Guilt, and thereby, unalloyed Allied Grace.

Unless he can show us that Blaha did NOT lie, i.e., that he told the truth, that Blaha's observation is indeed a true fact, then Chuck's point is moot.

Blaha and his babies can thus be thrown out with the bathwater, where all good Greuelpropagandists should go.

Or, as Hume would say, "commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." (1751)

Best Regards,
Scott

In addition to documented evidence, oral testimony was used during the proceedings. Dr. Franz Blaha, a witness for the US prosecuting team, is seen here testifying before the Military Tribunal.



http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/gallery/pg0 ... 09064.html

[Roberto]

I see a lot of hollow blah-blah-blah about Mr. Blaha.

Much a do about nothing considering the very simple issue that Blaha was an unreliable witness and that his accounts were not confirmed by either other eyewitness accounts, defendants' confessions or other sources of evidence.

Blaha thus belongs in the category of "chaff" and has been considered as such by criminal justice and historiography. His deposition on the occurrence of homicidal gassings at Dachau, to which he was the only witness to testify, seems to have been dismissed already during the preliminary investigations for the trial against former staff of the Dachau camp held before a US military court between 15 November and 13 December 1945. The same seems to apply to his deposition about the burning of babies. At least this is what the fact that neither are mentioned in the charges against the defendants suggests:

1. THE CHARGES

Two charges alleged that the accused “ acted in pursuance of a common design to commit acts hereinafter alleged and as members of the staff of the Dachau Concentration Camp, and camps subsidiary thereto, did at or in the vicinity of Dachau and Landsberg, Germany, between about 1st January, 1942, and 29th April, 1945, wilfully, deliberately and wrongfully aid, abet and participate in the subjection of civilian nations ” (charge 1) and of “ captured members of the armed forces ” (charge 2) “ of nations then at war with the German Reich, to cruelties and mistreatments including killings, beatings and tortures, starvation, abuses and indignities, the exact names and numbers of such victims being unknown but aggregating many thousands. . . .”

2. EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

(i) General conditions in the camp

Dachau was the first concentration camp to be established in Germany, and was in existence from March, 1933, until April, 1945. The charges, however, cover only the period from January, 1942, to April, 1945. More than 90 per cent. of the prisoners were civilians, the remainder were prisoners of war. None of them had ever been tried by a court of law previous to being sent to a concentration camp. In April, l945, about half of the total population of the camp were Slavs (mainly Russians, Poles and Czechs), the other half consisting of nationals of almost every European country, including Italy, Hungary and Germany. The main camp was equipped for approximately 8,000 inmates. In April, 1945, it contained 33,000. The entire group of concentration camps administered by Dachau and situated in a circle with Dachau in the centre, could accommodate 20,000. It contained 65,000 people in ApriI, 1945.

The result of this overcrowding was that up to three men had to sleep in one bed, the latrines were constantly blocked, hospital blocks were proportionately crowded and prisoners were not segregated when suffering from contagious diseases, but had to share their beds with others not suffering from such diseases. A typhus epidemic was raging at the camp from December, 1944, until the liberation of the camp by American troops in April, 1945. Approximately 15,000 prisoners died of typhus during this period. No adequate measures were taken by the camp administration to

p.6

combat this epidemic. The food was grossly inadequate, especially in view of the long hours of work. The prisoners had to work 12 hours a day ; taking into account the cleaning of barracks and very prolonged parades and roll calls, this amounted to a 17-l 8 hour working day. When American troops entered the camp in April, 1945, a great majority of prisoners showed signs of starvation. Within the first month after the arrival of the American troops, 10,000 prisoners were treated for malnutrition and kindred diseases. In spite of this one hundred prisoners died each day during this first month from typhus, dysentry or general weakness. Clothing was insufficient to protect the prisoners from the cold. Individual clothing was not washed for periods up to 3 months. The prosecution alleged that a large warehouse full of clothing was found in the camp in April, 1945. Apart from the conditions created in the hospital blocks by overcrowding and insufficiency of medical supplies and gross lack of care, these hospitals were the scenes of numerous medical experiments, of which the prisoners were the involuntary victims. Experiments consisting of immersion of prisoners in cold water for periods of up to 36 hours, puncturing the lungs of healthy prisoners, injecting them with malaria bacteria and phlegmon matter in order to observe their reactions, were among the experiments carried out in the camp hospital. Numerous prisoners died as a result of any one of these experiments, Invalid prisoners who were considered incurably ill and those in the advanced stages of emaciation were periodically gathered into large convoys leaving Dachau for an unknown destination. It was common knowledge, according to the prisoners’ testimony, that these transports of people were sent elsewhere to be killed. Prisoners were subjected to strict discipline, which was enforced by a system of severe punishments. These punishments ranged from inflicting harder work and longer hours and deprivation of food to beatings, up to 100 lashes, hanging by the wrists for long periods and confinement in the arrest blocks, to the death penalty, which was inflicted mainly for stealing.

In spring, 1942, 6,000-8,000 Russian prisoners of war were killed. Around September, 1944, 90 Russian officers were hanged in the camp. The total death roll is not known. Over 160,000 prisoners went through Dachau in the three years forming the subject of the charges. The number of recorded deaths is 25,000, but there was evidence that thousands of others perished unrecorded.

[...]

(iii) Specific instances of ill-treatment and killings

There were numerous cases of grave ill-treatment, deliberate beating and starving of prisoners and a great number of cases of killing prisoners by the SS personnel in all camps. In most cases the names of the victims were unknown but the court were asked to take into consideration only those instances where at least the nationality of the victims was known. All those cases of ill-treatment or killing of prisoners of which detailed evidence was given, were attributed to one or more of the accused. The prosecution thus alleged against some of the accused that they held prominent positions in the hierarchy of the camps and were chiefly responsible for the conditions prevailing there, and against some of the accused acts of individual assaults or killings, against most accused, both. The case for the prosecution was that all the accused had participated in a common plan to run these camps in a manner so that the great numbers of prisoners would die or suffer severe injury and that evidence of the numerous indictments of ill-treatment and killings was only introduced to show that each individual accused took a vigorous and active part in the execution of this plan.

Source of quote:

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/dachau.htm

Which is not to say that the Nazis never burned people alive, of course. They did so on many occasions, if not at Dachau concentration camp.

[Charles Bunch]

Well, Chuck certainly does need some help here.

LOL! Typical Smith! It is clear Hans is trying to help you Scotty. He even provded you a list of options so you wouldn't be confused.

As I see it, he presents me with a false dilemma without wanting to admit it: Unless I can prove Blaha is a liar, then Blaha affirms the truth.

No such dilemma exists. If you call him a liar with respect to the statement you quoted you need evidence to support the claim. Absent evidence, you have nothing on which to make that statement, and the one feeble example you were able to offer of an eyewitness lying will be seen as a failure.

But you're used to that, eh Scott!