Bernard wrote:Did anyone read through Roberto's translation of the Robt Mulka trial excerpt? < snip >
I read it over. Kudos to Roberto but same old story. Yawn. The eyewitnesses have to affirm the grand design of the postwar political belief system because they have to: the infallibility of the Pope, the divinity of Jesus, there is no God but Allah, and like Sgt. Schultz, "I knew nothing, noth-ing!"
Supposedly they incriminate themselves in mass-murder somehow because they signed an order for floor wax for the Death House at Sing Sing, or pesticide for the morgue. As if the mere existence of a crematoria or an invoice for Zyklon-B could not mean anything other than mass-murder.
Then of course the court gives them time off of a dozen life sentences for mass-murder accessorizing or something like that, and then they go about their business and keep mum. You dodge a bullet and you keep a low profile. When pressed for details about your wartime service you didn't like the style of the striped uniforms that prisoners wore.
This is pretty much the scenario anytime you look at it that passes for evidence. No lemon freshness added to the furniture polish that you ordered during the war? That obviously means mass-murder, doesn't it? Kah-zing! The epistemology of postwar courts could not have been written better as a Monty Python skit.
Over in Crazy Whites we can read where Scott Smith recycles some revisionist cliches about "what passes for evidence," innocent pesticides, and now floor wax.
Really? That is all? Floor wax and lemon freshness? Or their moral equivalent?
Scott's playback of Mulka's utterly self-serving and self-contradictory testimony is dishonest and reductionist - in the snese that Scott has made it into a few revisionist slogans. But here are some excerpts - and one needs to read the Q&A to see how forthcoming Mulka is about the so-called floor wax and other cleaning agents, which, were the wax and other orders nothing to hide, raises the sharp question why did Mulka not just give a direct and forthcoming answer?
Having lied that he only learned the full story after the war, Mulka muddies his message more than a little, we can see in the transcript, by also saying the following:
Presiding Judge: Was it known to you that they burned corpses daily?
Mulka: One smelled it. And at night one saw the pyres light all the way to Kattowitz. The whole population knew what was happening. But there was no inquiry by court or public prosecutors office.
Mulka: They issued a fifth of a liter of brandy and a higher meat ration.
Public Prosecutor Kügler: As an adjutant in Auschwitz you were in charge of supervising the economic enterprises. Do you remember that gas tight doors with a peephole for the crematoria in Birkenau were ordered from the Deutsche Ausrüstungswerke, which belonged to the Auschwitz Economic Area?
Mulka: I do not recall such an order for doors, but it is well possible that the head of this factory submitted one such order to me.
Presiding Judge: How then is the sickeningly sweetish smell supposed to have come into being, if only eight corpses were burned?
Mulka: In my time the burning was done in the open, this fire light I saw. It is also known to me that transports arrived and were gassed. This made the rounds. I also saw telexes, in which transports were announced. In these telexes it was stated that the transports were meant for SB. The term SB only gradually became clear to us all, also to me.
After a statement by the prosecutor handing over questioning to the court due to Mulka's lack of responsiveness on the stand, and Mulka's dancing around some more, we read this:
Presiding Judge: But the people were disciplinarily subordinated to you. Did you condone the drives to the gas chamber? If not, what did you do against them?
Mulka: In my time the respective persons even went on foot to the gas chamber.
And finally we get this abject performance from the defendant, other witnesses having testified against him and his own jumping to and fro having put him into a pickle:
Presiding Judge: Defendant Mulka, did you issue driving orders to Dessau?
Mulka: I only know of one such occasion. A driving order was signed by Glücks and underwritten by me on the left below. It was about disinfectants.
Presiding Judge: Here it reads: For resettlement of Jews and For the correctness of the copy Mulka. What resettlements of Jews were you knew, didn’t you?
Mulka: Yes, that was known to me.
Presiding Judge: And what were these materials for the resettlement of Jews?
Mulka (in a very low voice): Yes, raw material.
Presiding Judge: Well then, that was Zyklon B.
Mulka (in an even lower voice): Yes, Zyklon B.
Presiding Judge: Mr. Mulka, until know you always said that you had nothing to do with the gassing of the Jews. Isn’t that so?
Mulka: Yes, Mr. President, I gave a driving order to Dessau.
Defense Attorney Dr. Stolting II: May I ask to reproduce the conversation. It is hard to understand, as Mr. Mulka did not speak into the microphone.
Scott's ruminations and recyclings come off as beyond ludicrous in the light of the trial transcript, thanks to Roberto Muehlenkamp's work.
Lemon fresh: what a repulsive bit of Jew baiting we're given here, too, I have to add, mockery of the whole situation and the victims, the situation that made even Mulka, publicly confronted, declare
Mulka: Yes, of course. The things that were going on there had a strong shock effect on me from the beginning.
Presiding Judge: What was going on?
Mulka: Well, the people in the striped clothes.
Presiding Judge: Only the clothing?
Mulka: No, that was not all. The whole tone.
But our deniers, from the safety of their laptops, feel free to insult and belittle those who went through all that.
Note to Scott: It wasn't funny, Scott, and neither are you.