In an interview in 1999, Hagel said quite openly
that in Tucuman he had asked Eichmann
about the real number of Jews killed.
"I don't know how many died.
[Maybe] half a million maximum."
Said by Herbert Hagel in an interview to Joshua Goltz and Abel Basti conducted between 1988 and 1989.
Reference: Odessa by Goni, p.282, note 494.
Quoted by Bettina Stangneth. Eichmann before Jerusalem, p.108
Information is WORSE than useless if we don't know how to correctly intepret it.
As George Bernad Shaw warned: beware of false knowledge, it is more dangerous than ignorance.
Take as an example the quote above. In the anecdote, Hagel asked Eichmann how many Jews were killed!
Yet Eichmann answered with an estimate of how many he believed 'died'!
Obviously that is a quite different thing, how many died during the war (e.g. disease, hunger, hardship, cold) and how many were actively killed.
And is this anecdote from Hagel accurate? Who knows whether Eichmann really said that?
And even if he did, what reliance can be placed on this figure? Was Eichmann being honest to Hagel? Again, who can decide that now, and how?
For most people, what they decide will depend upon what their prior belief is. And most people believe six million were 'killed'.
People who boast that they have read much about 'the holocaust' and therefore 'KNOW' much about it, invariably have concentrated their study upon books pushing the currently consensus, compulsory understanding.
Like the Christian 'intellectuals' and scholars in the time of Copernicus and Galileo, those in that time with much reading and study, were fiercely resistant to alternative interpretations of reality that refuted their own beliefs. For example those based upon their false Biblical interpretation positing a geocentric universe.
I suggest the situation is similar here with 'the holocaust'.
What is required for a correct understanding of this fiercely protected WW2 'holocaust' narrative of deliberate genocide is an ability to consider alternative explanations
As an example of an inability to do that, I am currently reading Bettina Stangneth's book on Eichmann. I started out with a positive assumption, that because it was written by someone who is not a historian but a philosopher it would be written by a person with some self-awareness and understanding of how historical narratives are constructed, created and become accepted through the process of generating agreement. So I was suprised by the confirmation bias throughout her book which I found to be quite staggering. She has clearly started out with an a priori assumption and then everything she reads is made to fit that prior assumption.
Being a German this is perhaps not surprising. She has been conditioned since infancy to obediently 'believe'. Plus she must know that any other approach would have resulted in her also being shunted off to a bogus trial and then jail.
She claims in the filmed interview (above) that her criteria for choosing the subject of her book was that she wanted to look at a liar, as that is her interest as a philosopher. That is why she claims she chose Eichmann. (Pffhh! Yeah, sure. )Bettina Stangneth wrote her dissertation on Immanuel Kant and the concept of radical evil. Ever since then she has been researching a theory of the lie...
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/auth ... stangneth/
But given how academic 'expert historians' on the H subject are in agreement that Eichmann's testimony is deeply problematical, how could she a philosopher know when Eichmann was lying and when he wasn't?
Obviously, unless she had made an in depth study of the relevant historical details before — and WITHOUT an a priori belief — she couldn't know.
In other words, Bettina Stangneth's confirmation bias throughout her book is so blatant as to maker her opinions on the primary sources she is collating almost useless as an accurate recording of actual historical reality. I regard her whole book as not an attempt at accurate history, but instead an exercise in belief-buttressing. Plus, from what I have read so far, this is NOT a book about a supposed liar and his lies at all. It is instead a rather dry book about exactly what the title suggests: detailing Eichmann's life before his illegal kidnapping and illegal smuggling to 'the Jewish state of Israel' for a televised show trial.
I predict future generations will look back on this book as we today look back on the Catholic scholars writings rejecting the evidence of our heliocentic solarsystem.
“Copernicus gained ridicule from Protestant Christians, who condemned heliocentricity as heresy. While the Catholic Church initially accepted heliocentricity, Catholics eventually joined the wave of Protestant opposition and banned the book in 1616. The Protestant churches accepted Copernicus’ findings after more evidence emerged to support it. The Catholic Church, however, remained grounded in its anti-Copernican beliefs until the 19th century.
The ban on Copernicus's views was lifted in 1822, and the ban on his book wasn't lifted until as late as 1835.”
I have long been interested to read what Adolf Eichmann said as a free man (i.e. without coercion) in Argentina. So I sought out a translated transcript of Eichmann's own unedited words. It was very hard to find. They also — like the uncoerced words, thoughts, memories, explanations of Mengele — are NOT given much publicity nor are they encouraged reading in the way that the coerced Höß 'confessions' are.
I suspect there is a reason and simple explanation for why:
1.) there are mountains of books, documentaries and many websites with writings about this 'holocaust' allegation of a partly-completed planned genocide mainly in homicidal gas-chambers in extermination camps. There are mountains of books written by people who believe this allegation, and these are made freely and easily available. They are encouraged reading.
2.) the unedited writings or recorded sayings of those who are alleged to have perpetrated it — and who wrote/spoke as free men without constraint — are NOT made freely and easily available. They are not so easy to find. They are not encouraged reading.
I suspect its because it is feared greater familiarity by more people of THAT primary, UNCOERCED source material would result in greater skepticism and thus MORE people questioning the currently enforced belief about all that.
Complete English translations can only be read in the translations of Alexander Jacob. He has translated Ich, Adolf Eichmann into English as The Eichmann Tapes, and Goetzen as 'False Gods'.[/quote]
And lo, behold!
POINT ONE — PROBLEMATICAL SEMANTICS:
Historical books researching 'the holocaust' are currently divided into two categories by academics: i.) there are what are considered acceptable studies and then there is ii.) a list of what are called 'revisionist' works.
But if a historical narrative is not open to revision, then it is not a history at all, but is something else. So the attempt to categorise writings into 'revisionist' versus an unexpressed but presumed 'real historys' immediately shows the subconscious confirmation bias that is informing all analysis.
Who decides what is a 'revisionist' writing?
How is that decided? I.e. what is the criteria?
E.g. by what criteria is Joel Hayward's student thesis included in a list compiled by Dr. Nick Terry?? (After making this observation, Hayward's name was removed by Dr. Terry).
POINT TWO — ACCESSIBILITY:
A great many books, films, documentaries (plus articles reviewing them) exist about Adolf Eichmann that support the compulsory consensus view, and these are made EASILY ACCESSIBLE to the public.
Yet his own writings are NOT easily accessible. On the contrary they WERE kept secret and/or kept "under lock and key". What has been subsequently released to the public is selected extracts or "abstracts".
POINT THREE — CONCEALMENT:
Not only have Eichmann's own writings been unavailable to the public for decades, but they are often not even mentioned as existing in the entries about Eichmann in encyclopedias.
POINT FOUR — CENSORSHIP:
As with Mengele, the writings and sayings of Eichmann that HE HIMSELF wanted to be available to the public have not been made available. I suggest it is a form of censorship.
In support of the above, I have highlighted key passages in the following book review, to try to help people understand the relevance of these following quotes.
Since Eichmann’s capture in 1961, several shelves worth of books about Eichmann have appeared, including tomes by:
— Isser Harel, the then Israeli Mossad Intelligence chief;
— Zvi Aharoni and Peter Malkin, members of the Israeli abduction team;
— Gideon Hausner and Gabriel Bach, the Israeli prosecutors;
— as well as by Nazi hunters [war-criminals and professional deceivers] Simon Wiesenthal and Tuviah Friedman.
Eichmann figures in books, documentaries, and films about the Wannsee Conference; the deportation of Hungarian Jewry to Auschwitz; about his dealings in Budapest with Jewish leaders Joel Brand and Rudolf Kasztner, as well as with Swedish diplomat and rescuer Raoul Wallenberg; and about his apprehension in Argentina and trial in Jerusalem.
In the course of her persuasive [confirmation biased] work, Stangneth reviews Eichmann’s writings going back to 1937, publications about Eichmann by his contemporaries, and a number of other sources, some just recently available: the extensive trove of “Argentina Papers” which include
- Eichmann’s own attempts at autobiography;
- the Sassen interviews, some 1,300 pages transcribing more than 60 tapes Dutch Nazi collaborator Willem Sassen made with Eichmann in Argentina, some annotated by Sassen and some in Eichmann’s own hand;
- the transcripts of Eichmann’s interrogations while in captivity in Buenos Aires;
- his interrogations in Jerusalem and his writings during the trial and after, including another attempt at autobiography (which was published in Israel in 2000),
- and his last letters to his family.
As Stangneth points out, although some of this material has been hidden or not fully accessible to the public until recently and was dispersed across several archives, none of it is new. Until Stangneth’s work, though, the entire corpus of Eichmann’s dissembling had not been reviewed and subjected to any systematic study. Stangneth doesn’t just share her findings; she takes on the role of dogged and opinionated [i.e. confirmation biased] investigator telling us the story of every archival revelation.
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/lia ... -eichmann/Eichmann was constantly writing. Early in his Nazi service, Eichmann claimed to have written a book on implementing 'The Final Solution', which he said had to be destroyed before war’s end. He also claimed to have begun writing a memoir immediately after the war, in Northern Germany, which he professed to have burned before leaving. In Argentina, he wrote a 260-page manuscript to explain himself to his family, which remains in their possession, as well as a 107-page draft autobiography called The others spoke, now I want to speak.
Q1. Why do reasonable people suppose European settler/invader Jews in occupied Palestine kept Eichmann's final autobiography "secret" and "under lock and key" for decades?
Q2. How to explain why encyclopedias and books about him do not even mention his autobiographical writings, whilst simultaneously perpetuating the deceitful narrative that he admitted and confirmed the 'final solution' “annihilation” mass-gassing mythology?
Q3. Does anyone believe that if his autobiographies confirmed the 'Holocaust' mass-gassing narrative, that they would be unmentioned?
Q4. Do you think that Mengele's uncoerced writings would ALSO have been concealed from the the world had they confirmed the Auschwitz mythology and confirmed the 'Holocaust' mass-gassing narrative?
Q5. Where do you suppose Bettina Stangneth got the money from to support herself and her research while writing her book for x number of years and then to get it published?
Q6. There is of course a reason and simple explanation for why Mengele's uncoerced autobiographical writings were bought by a Jew and concealed. Why do you suppose it was that when asked, no erudite 'holocaust' enthusiasts on another forum could work out for themselves what that was, nor would venture a guesss?
Check this out, for an insight into the mindset of faithful, indoctrinated true-believers.
In the following excerpt from her book on Eichmann, Bettina Stangneth admits so-called 'holocaust' "survivors" lied, invented stories and exaggerated their wartime experiences.
Here she is justifying and excusing all the self-glorifying, Jewish 'survivor' liars who claimed to have met Eichmann personally.
So even though she admits that these accounts are obviously ludicrous lies, in her delusional view she still gives them value, saying they represent a meaningful and accurate “projection”.“This explains the memories of many Holocaust survivors of encounters with Adolf Eichmann when in all likelihood they never met him.
...In the end a desperate desire... leads people to create FALSE MEMORIES.
...The value of these memories lies in the element of projection involved...”
--Eichmann before Jerusalem. p.35.
Further proof/evidence of the delusional nature of current holocaust historiography.
In this delusional world view, even clear falsehoods and blatant lies carry "value".
I regard it as psychotic. It's slighly insane.