|
|
Post by jeff8675309 on May 6, 2022 6:15:30 GMT
LOL! Suuuuure, Jeffy, Hoess taught himself perfect English while a prisoner 20 years previously so that it became his preferred language. First, you should be grateful that I taught you something that you didn’t know. Second, I didn’t say anything about “perfect” or “preferred.” Work on your reading comprehension, there’s a good fellow. Oh, Turnagain? Insults and related Turnagain garbage will simply be deleted. Who knows? Unlike been-there I don’t claim to be a mind reader. If I had a guess I assume it was an attempt to shift blame to someone conveniently absent at the time. Right, now you are learning. His confession is not a cornerstone to the history of the Holocaust. It’s a piece but not the only piece. The IMT wasn’t based around the Holocaust nor was it a Holocaust trial. It was a trial of the highest members of the Nazi government the Allies had in custody at the time. Sure it was brought up and evidence provided. But it was not centered around it. I’ve forgotten how much you struggle with the basics and how you struggle with reading comprehension. The IMT and subsequent trials used a variety of evidence, from testimony to German documents. Evidence is a piece of the puzzle. Jackson actually preferred that the IMT rely mostly on German documents, he thought documents were more reliable. Oh, yeah, again, I have to walk you through the basics. I’m sorry, Turnagain, I think the people I talk with have at least basic knowledge but I realize with you I need to be a bit more specific. Hoess wrote his memoirs while imprisoned in Poland awaiting his execution so, sometime in the Spring of 1947. This is what Hoess wrote: I forgot that Hoess mentioned he had trouble remembering, mea culpa. He gave that number based upon what he was told by Eichmann which does contradict what he testified to at the IMT. What is interesting is that the number he gave at the IMT and his memoir contradict the number the Soviets gave. I never said his English was “perfect.” You made that up in your head. Only a moron would babble about a confession without considering Hoess’s memoirs plus what other SS personnel said about Auschwitz. Only a moron would solely rely on a confession without considering what Hoess said actually lined up with what documents and other testimony later said. |
|
|
|
Post by jeff8675309 on May 6, 2022 6:51:03 GMT
One aspect of the trial that I doubt many will give much thought to, I’ve barely given that trial a moment’s thought. If she keeps breaking German law then it is persistent…. Courts consider not only what is in front of them but similar convictions that occurred in the past. I gave you a timeline which shows several convictions over the past 15 years or so. It is the definition of persistent. I deleted the silly yammering but just to touch on an actual, semi-valid point: If the couple used drugs repeatedly then we can say they are persistent drug users and abusers….addicts. It’s a pattern of behavior that leads us to that conclusion. Understand? We can call it persistent. Now let’s relate that behavior to arrests. If either one kept getting busted for possession, DUI’s and DWI’s, public intoxication…the court considers that during sentencing. The US actually has classes of defenders that places them under first offense, second offense, third offense…the penalties increase during every step because the person is showing they can’t stop doing the behavior even after penalty. IOW they are engaging in a persistent behavior that keeps getting them arrested. You can see examples here, note fines go up, prison time increases…. wisconsindot.gov/documents/safety/education/drunk-drv/owi-penchrt.pdfI assume Germany does the same. As for why they aren’t arrested during court for admitting to drug use…. I suppose the judge could issue an arrest warrant depending on how long ago the offense was (statute of limitations) but I don’t know why they would. Saying you did drugs a year ago seems like a kinda hazy reason to arrest someone. They were compelled to testify in civil court but the drug use wasn’t why they were testifying. It might be the basis of a search warrant but that seems like an iffy proposition getting a DA to sign off on it and a judge to order it. |
|
|
|
Post by 𝐎𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐝 on May 6, 2022 7:13:43 GMT
Gentlemen please keep 'the lounge" for friendly conversation, no animosity please. Discussion of Auschwitz etc can be discussed elsewhere more appropriate. Keep this space reserved for the lady under discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by been_there on May 6, 2022 7:17:45 GMT
LOL! Suuuuure, Jeffy, Hoess taught himself perfect English while a prisoner 20 years previously so that it became his preferred language. Who knows? Unlike been-there I don’t claim to be a mind reader... Ha ha! 🤣😅 Well here is proof that Jeff has no legitimate argument. As I have NEVER “claimed” to be a mind-reader. Just the opposite, in fact. I ONLY claimed to be able to read Jeff’s replies. 🙂 So all this dishonest argument, just to avoid simple facts about Ursula Haverbeck’s persecution for past thought-crimes, and Jeff’s hate-motivated illogical insistence that alleged thought-crimes that happened six years ago are ” persistent law-breaking’. Obfuscatory pedantry from the faithful true-believer. As I remember it, Höß’s english was by his own admission, extremely basic. So the FACT being dodged is that he could NOT have dictated the confession in English that he was tortured into signing. The other FACT being dodged, is that confessions made after torture are not accepted as reliable evidence. Er... accept for this holocaust mass-gassing mythology. 🙂 Read more on that here
|
|
|
|
Post by Turnagain on May 6, 2022 8:22:54 GMT
Jeff (numbers) wrote:
That Hoess wrote his confession in English speaks for his preference for that language over German, his mother tongue. That or the supposed confession beaten out of him by his Jew interrogator is worthless as a factual document. Jeffy stoutly stands up for the validity of a coerced confession and Hoess's preference for English as his principle language.
At any rate, this thread is supposed to be about Ursula Haverbeck and her persecution for speaking the truth. If Jeffy wants to carry on with his Hoess fantasy he can do so in Nessie's forum or start a new thread. I cheerfully admit to not having much interest in the Jew's lies about Auschwitz-Birkenau. The impossibilities described for not only the AR camps but the A-B complex are obvious to anyone except for those with an axe to grind or the most gullible of dimwitted fools.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeff8675309 on May 6, 2022 17:07:55 GMT
But how is she a political prisoner when what she believes is some silly conspiracy? Some would suggest it is you who believe in a conspiracy, a hoax no less. Nazi Granny was born in 1928, was at the impressionable age of 13 at the height of the third Reich. She was National Socialist, still is. proud of it like so many other Germans today. The law is just an excuse to shut her up and make her pay for non existent sins. They can suggest it. What’s to be proud of? |
|
|
|
Post by jeff8675309 on May 6, 2022 17:09:45 GMT
Jeff (numbers) wrote: That Hoess wrote his confession in English speaks for his preference for that language over German, his mother tongue. That or the supposed confession beaten out of him by his Jew interrogator is worthless as a factual document. Jeffy stoutly stands up for the validity of a coerced confession and Hoess's preference for English as his principle language. At any rate, this thread is supposed to be about Ursula Haverbeck and her persecution for speaking the truth. If Jeffy wants to carry on with his Hoess fantasy he can do so in Nessie's forum or start a new thread. I cheerfully admit to not having much interest in the Jew's lies about Auschwitz-Birkenau. The impossibilities described for not only the AR camps but the A-B complex are obvious to anyone except for those with an axe to grind or the most gullible of dimwitted fools. You drove this off the rails like you enjoy doing, Turnagain. I won’t bother to reply to your off-topic spew so take it elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by jeff8675309 on May 6, 2022 17:26:27 GMT
that happened six years ago are ” persistent law-breaking’ I had to cut out a lot of dribble to get to anything substantive. Been-there continues to blindly insist that he can’t understand the concept of “persistent.” This after I showed him why she is a persistent law breaker and why the German government would continue to prosecute her. It sounds like a personal problem that I can’t help with. Obfuscatory pedantry from the faithful true-believer. As I remember it, Höß’s english was by his own admission, extremely basic. So the FACT being dodged is that he could NOT have dictated the confession in English that he was tortured into signing. [/quote] All of this is off-topic. But…. It was written in English, it doesn’t mean that he spoke English but that he could understand the really basic level English on the paper. But his subsequent conviction in Poland isn’t based on this singe confession. The reason why he was testifying on Kaltenbrunner’s behalf wasn’t due to this confession. The both of you acting all outraged about it are ignoring his own memoirs which match in detail other witness and documents, particularly those widely released after 1990. Personally I’m surprised at both of you. Hoess said in his testimony that concentration camp prisoner were not routinely abused and that Allied bombing caused the deterioration in the camps. I’m surprised you two didn’t pick up on that. Again, off-topic…. But no one tortured Hoess at Nuremberg or in Poland. Do you have evidence otherwise? Certainly no one would accuse the West German government of torturing it’s own citizens during their trials. Or do you have evidence otherwise? The original IMT wasn’t really a Holocaust trial but no one would accuse the Allies of torturing the defendants. Or do you have evidence otherwise? Now, people, let’s leave the off-topic stuff off this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by been_there on May 7, 2022 8:11:38 GMT
Thought crimes in the 21st century! 😕 Just check out the crazy logic and genuine denial of reality there. The judge apparently said Ursula “showed no insight into the criminal nature of her behaviour”. Of course she didn’t. Because there obviously is nothing universally accepted as ’criminal’ in a free country to expressing one’s honestly-held views and supporting them with verifiable evidence. What is universally accepted as ’criminal’ is forcing people to deny their honestly-held views by persistently persecuting them with court cases and imprisoning them. Only people who hate the pursuit of historical truth and accuracy would deny that!  |
|
|
|
Post by jeff8675309 on May 9, 2022 20:10:51 GMT
The judge apparently said Ursula “showed no insight into the criminal nature of her behaviour”. Well, if Nazi grandma persists in breaking the law then why suspend her sentence? |
|
