From jmorris@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca Sun Sep 24 07:38:38 PDT 1995
Article: 9028 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!netnet2.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.uoregon.edu!news.bc.net!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news
From: jmorris@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (John Morris)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: FORGED DOCUMENTS AT NUREMBERG
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 00:49:07 GMT
Organization: University of Alberta
Lines: 484
Message-ID: <442a0s$gl2@rover.ucs.ualberta.ca>
References: <494311434wnr@stumpy.demon.co.uk> <42tbs4$cki@rover.ucs.ualberta.ca> <615884381wnr@stumpy.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lydgate.remote.ualberta.ca
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Jeff  wrote:

[Note: I have had to delete the quotation brackets, because my server
will not let me post this article with so much quoted text. For
clarity, I have inserted the name of the person who wrote each
passage. The discussion is about a passage which Jeff Roberts posted
>from  pages 231-233 of The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses by
Paul Rassinier].
 

In article: <42tbs4$cki@rover.ucs.ualberta.ca
jmorris@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (John Morris) writes:

[Discussion of the variation in the IMT record between French and
English pagination deleted]

Rassinier:
>At Nuremberg, the Prosecution and the Judges got sensational results
>by this method. Notice this curious document P.S. 3319 (N.M.T. XXXII,
>pp. 159-92) 

Morris:
We can only deduce from what follows that "this method" refers to
having forged documents admitted into evidence and to refusing to
allow defendants and their counsel to view documents admitted into
evidence. As I hope to show below, Rassinier has so thoroughly
misrepresented the conduct of the trials, the documents, and the
contexts in which documents were examined that his own account itself
constitutes a "forgery." 

Roberts:
Rassinier correctly quotes the page number and Note number in Hilbergs
Book. [1961 version page 502 note 709], and I expect correctly quotes
all the IMT references. Not a good way to tell a lie.


Morris:
Irrelevant. Whether Rassinier has correctly cited page numbers has no
bearing on whether he has accurately represented what is actually on
those pages.

In fact telling a partial truth is an excellent way to tell a lie. And
it is precisely partial truths that Rassinier tells in order, as I say
to misrepresent the conduct of the trials, the document in question,
and the contexts in which the documents were presented.

I note with some irritation and frustration that this is the point
which your reply ignored in favour of an extrememly selective
representation of the "truth" of Rassinier's claims.

Rassinier:
>which Mr. Raul Hilberg cites and comments upon (1961 pp. 502-709). In 
>question is the organisation, by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of 
>the Third Reich, of an anti-Jewish congress at Krummhubel on April 
>3 and 4, 1944, with all the representatives at foreign posts participating.
>In 27 pages a certain Ludwig Kohlhammer, Landesgruppenleiter, reports very 
>exactly on the number of participants - 31 persons - and their names 
>and what each one said. Now, this congress never took place. 
>[snip]

Morris:
It is not at all clear from testimony given by Steengracht,
Ribbentrop's deputy, and later by Ribbentrop, that the congress never
took place. It is only clear that they both denied that the congress
took place.

Roberts:
It is also not clear, whether the Congress did take place. I have seen
no reference whatsoever to it in any book. I checked Hilberg,
Reitlinger, Irving, and several others, no reference to any such
anti-Jewish congress.

Morris:
Yes, the one follows from the other. But the central issue is not
whether the congress took place, but whether Rassinier's claim that
the document PS-3319 is a forgery and that forged documents were
entered into evidence.

Rassinier:
>March 27, 1946, [Adolf] von Steengracht (Secretary of State, Foreign 
>Affairs, Third Reich) is interrogated by Colonel Philimore deputy 
>prosecutor-general for the English, who asks him:
>"I would now like to bring up the question of the Jews. You told us 
>yesterday that you yourself and Mr. Ribbentrop had prevented the anti-Jewish 
>Congress of 1944 from taking place. Is that true?
> 
>"Yes," answered von Steengracht. (T.X., p. 137.) [X.127]

Morris:
Steengracht's assertion that the anti-Jewish congress never took place
must be viewed in light of his testimony as a witness called by the
defense in which he denies any involvement by the Foreign Office in
anti-Jewish actions. Yet he admits to having signed a document
establishing that the Foreign Office did indeed undertake anti-Jewish
actions. If anything, Phillimore demonstrated Steengracht's complete
unreliability as a witness and his willingness to lie.

Roberts:
Remember that; Mr Morris claims Steengracht was a DEFENCE witness. 
And says "If anything, Phillimore demonstrated Steengracht's complete 
unreliability as a witness and his willingness to lie."   

Quote:

"The crushing written evidence was reinforced by oral testimony from
former subordinates of the defendents, such as Staatssekretare [Josef]
Buhler and [Adolf] Steengracht and SS men [Otto] Ohlendorf, [Dieter]
Wisliceny, [wilhelm] Hottl, [Rudolf] Hoess and [Oswald] Pohl. 
The sight of these men provoked consternation in the defence and when 
Himmlers own favoured general, Obergruppenfurhrer von dem
Bach-Zelewski, testified for the prosecution, the prisoners were
unanimous in calling him a schwein."
(cf Hilberg Destruction...1961, p 688) 

Morris:
Irrelevant. The reactions of the defendants to the appearance of
witnesses in the court room has no bearing on whether Rassinier has
misrepresented the IMT proceedings for 26-27 March and 3-4 April 1946.

Maybe the prisoners were unsure as to how each witness would testify.
There is no indication in Hilberg's quote that the prisoners showed
any signs of consternation at the appearance of Steengracht
specifically.

Roberts:
Why should the sight of Steengracht, who Mr Morris states is a DEFENCE

witness provoke "consternation in the defence" ?  The answer I suspect
was Steengracht was NOT a defence witness. Or maybe he was called by
the 

Morris:
You "suspect," but in fact you don't know. Steengracht was first
called by Horn, the defense counsel, and sworn in on March 26, 1946 (X
106). Witnesses called by the defense are defense witnesses.

Roberts:
prosecution as well as being a defence witness. This may have been
allowed by the IMT. Who knows what the rules of the IMT were then as
it seems that were er still making them [up] as Mr Morris says. This
is a trial of course of which a top american Judge was a "high-grade
lynching party".  

Morris:
The opinions of an American judge are not relevant to whether
Rassinier has misrepresented the IMT proceedings of 26-27 March and
3-4 April 1946.

Rassinier:
> And this is what he stated the day before in reply to a question put by 
>Dr. Horn, von Ribbentrop's counsel:
>"Our liaison with Hitler informed us that the latter, informed by    
>Bormann, had ordered Rosenberg's office to organize an anti-Semitic 
>congress. Ribbentrop did not want to believe it, but after having had a 
>conversation with the liaison agent, he had to believe it. Since this 
>decision made it impossible for us to prevent the congress through official 
>channels, we tried to prevent it with a policy of hesitation, delay and 
>obstruction And, although the order had been issued in the spring of 1944, 
>and the war was still not over in April 1945, the congress never took 
>place." (T.X., p.125.)[X.116]
> 

Morris:
Yes, defense witness Steengracht under questioning from defense
counsel Horn testified on 26 March 1946 that he and Ribbentrop tried
to prevent the anti-Jewish congress which had been ordered by Hitler.
However, document PS-3319, in part containing the proceedings of the
congress, was not entered into evidence until 27 March 1946 (X.127).
It is plain that the existence of the conference was known from other
documents and testimonies and not, as Rassinier implies below, solely
through PS-3319.

Rassinier:
> On April 2, 1946, von Ribbentrop is interrogated by Mr. Edgar Faure, who 
>the time was  deputy prosecutor-general for France, and who later was to 
>become President of Council in France:
>Mr. Edgar Faure (to Ribbentrop): "During the examination of your witness 
>Steengracht, the English prosecutor brought forth document P.S. 3319,  which 
>has the English No. G.B. 287. I would like to refer to this document just 
>for one question: In this document appear the minutes of a congress, of a 
>gathering at which were present all the reporters on Jewish matters in the 
>various diplomatic missions in Europe. This congress was held at Krummhubel 
>on April 3 and 4, 1944. It had been organized by Schleier.  That was read 
>the other day. You knew about this congress, I suppose?"
>von Ribbentrop: "No, I am hearing about it for the first time. What was that 
>congress? I have not even heard that such a congress took place. What sort 
>of a congress was it?"

Morris:
Ribbentrop, who was present in the court during Steengracht's
testimony, could hardly have been hearing about the congress for "the
first time." His defence counsel had access to PS-3319 for one full
week from its introduction by Col. Phillimore for the prosecution on
27 March 1946 until Ribbentrop was questioned about it on 2 April
1946. But Ribbentrop's mode of response throughout his testimony on 2
April 1946 is deny everything presented to him and to evade answering
direct questions by claiming not to understand what he is being asked.
Note also that Ribbentrop denies any knowledge of a congress which his
deputy had testified they worked together to prevent.
 
Rassinier:
>Mr. Faure: The document has been filed with the Tribunal and I simply want 
>to ask you one question. You have testified that you did not know about this 
>gathering at which were pre-sent thirty one persons, almost all of them 
>diplomatic personnel. I point out to you that during this reunion Counsellor 
>of Embassy von Thadden made a declaration which was reported
>in the following terms: 
>'The orator is showing why the Zionist solution of Palestine and other
>similar solutions should be rejected, and why there are grounds for the
>deportation of the Jews to the eastern territories.'
>I suggest that this declaration made by a Counsellor of Embassy before 
>thirty one persons in your department represented your own thesis on the 
>subject."
>von Ribbentrop: "Yes, but I do not know at all what you are trying to say. 
>Will you please put the document at my disposal so that I may answer?"
>Mr Faure. "I have no intention of showing you this document ..(T.X.,p.420)."

Morris:
But what is the whole of Faure's remark, and what context is it
presented in?
 
   Mr Faure. "I do not intend to show you this document. I read one
   sentence contained in this document, and I am merely asking you if
   this phrase [on rejecting the Palestine option] represents your
   opinion or not."
 
Faure was simply asking a question about a single sentence in the
account of the proceedings of the anti-Jewish congress. The sentence
was not even attributed to Ribbentrop but to one of his officials, and
Faure wanted to know if Thadden's sentiments were shared by
Ribbentrop. There was no good reason to pass the document over to
Ribbentrop.

Roberts:
How long would have taken? a minute. 
 
Morris:
Does it really matter?

Morris:
Now, if Faure was so interested in denying the defence and the
defendants access to documents, why did Faure pass several documents
to Ribbentrop while he stood on the witness stand on 2 April 1946?
Anyone who cares to look will see that Faure gave Ribbentrop an
affidavit on the deportation of Jews from Denmark by Mildmer of the
Danish Police (X.397), a note from Luther from Ribbentrop's own files
citing the order to evacuate the Jews from Europe (PS-3388, X.397),
Ribbentrop's own definition of the purpose of Abetz' ambassadorship in
Vichy France (which was to loot art treasures) (X.399), and another
>from  Ribbentrop's files on the settlement of the Jewish question
(X.399).

Ribbentrop's response to each and every document that was handed to
him was that he either had never heard of the document, had never
heard of the people named in them (sometimes his own officials), or
that he did not understand what was being asked of him. No matter how
absurd his denials became in the face of the documentary evidence
presented to him, Ribbentrop was consistent in denying anything and
everything presented to him.
 
If Ribbentrop had indeed prevented the anti-Jewish congress from
occurring, it would have been the only truthful thing he said on
matters of substance in the whole of his testimony on 2 April 1946. 

Rassinier:
>THAT WAS THE PROOF OF FORGERY. It was also a typical breach Of the 
>Rule of 

That was no proof of forgery at all. The document was introduced into
evidence one week prior to Ribbentrop's testimony and had been
available to his defense counsel through the whole of that week. When
PS-3319 was introduced, Ribbentrop's counsel did not object, though he
may been seen objecting several times during the testimonies given on
26 and 27 March and 2 April 1946. It was certainly not the case that
defense counsel was stripped of the rights and powers normally
available to counsel in the course of a trial. 
 
>Procedure No. 2 of the Tribunal itself which provided that "all the 
>documents appended to the Indictment shall be put at the disposition of 
>the defendants not less than 30 days before the trials" (T.I., p. 21).
>This matter was never spoken of again. If one looks in the Index of 
>Names (T., 24) for information on landesgruppenleiter Ludwig Kohlhammer,
>he is not listed. But, Document P.S. 3319 was admitted into evidence.
 

PS-3319 was admitted into evidence because it contained, among other
things, a memo from Steengracht showing that the Reich Foreign
Ministry was involved in anti-Jewish actions.

Morris:
I am not certain if a distinction should be made between documents
appended to the indictment and documents entered into evidence in the
course of the trial. I do know, however, that the protocols for 

Morris:
But now I am certain that documents appended to the idictment refer to
things like pretrial motions, rulings on those motions, and so on. As
below, the Rules of Procedure distinguish between sych documents and
documents enetered in evidence as exhibits.

entering documents were different at different stages of the trial and
that any change in protocols was made by the mutual consent of the
court, the defence, and the prosecution. The defence was allowed
access to all documents entered, and they were allowed to, and
frequently did, call recesses to examine documents entered into
evidence including PS-3319.
 

One thing that interests me about Rassinier's account is that he would
have to have searched pretty hard to find Faure's refusal to hand a
document over to Ribbentrop and that he could hardly have missed the
context of that refusal and the many times that Ribbentrop was handed
documents by Faure. I can only conclude that Rassinier's account of
Ribbentrop's testimony on the anti-Jewish congress is a complete and
deliberate fraud.
 
Rassinier's claim that PS-3319 was a forgery because the defence was
not allowed to look at the document is palpable nonsense that is not
borne out by the published record of the trials, and his implication
that it was standard practice in the trials to deny the defence access
to evidence presented against the defendants is a misrepresentation of
the conduct of the trials and the protocols under which they
operated.In addition, Rassinier misrepresents the contents of PS-3319
by implying that its sole contents are the proceedings of the
anti-Jewish congress and represents the evidence that the congress
took place by implying that PS-3319 was the only evidence that the
congress took place.
 
Mr. Robert's post is an excellent example both of the "scholarly"
procedures of the chief Revisionist writers in distorting and
misrepresenting the historical record in order to prove their absurd
thesis that the Holocaust is a hoax and of how easy it is to spread
falsehood compared to exposing it: in the case of this rebuttal, it
was a week before I had the time to do the research, and I spent a
good couple of hours reading the IMT trial records as part of that
research. None of this effort would have been expended if Mr. Roberts
had bothered to check the accuracy of what he was posting. 
 
In the thread on the Lachout forgery, which he also posted, Mr.
Roberts declared that he never knowingly posted falsehoods and he
promised not to repost the Lachout forgery again.

I invite Mr. Robert to live up to the spirit of that promise and to
publicly undertake not to post any further excerpts from Mr.
Rassiner's book _The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses_ which,
as would appear from this excerpt, is laced with falsehoods.

Roberts:
Is this case, Rassinier:-

1) Correctly identifies the page number and the note number in
Hilbergs book. 

Morris:
Irrelevant. Citing the page number correctly does not change the fact
that Rassinier was dishonestly selective in his reading of the
transcript.

Roberts:
2) Gives and identifies the IMT numbers in the blue series.

Morris:
Irrelevant for the same reason.

Roberts:
3) Correctly identifies the document number.  

Morris:
But deliberately misrepresents its contents. He leads the reader to
believe that sole contents of the file entered as document PS-3319 was
the report of the proceedings of the anti-Jewish congress.

Roberts:
4) Correctly identifies the witnesses.

Morris:
Irrelevant, as above.

Roberts:
5) Correctly identifies the counsels. 

Morris:
Irrelevant, as above.

Roberts:
6) Correctly identifies the dates on which the events took place.

Morris:
Irrelevant, as above.

Roberts:
Doesn't sound like a deliberate falsehood to me.

Morris:
Your six points suggest a very narrow definition of the "truth" of
Rassinier's contentions. Rassinier is indeed correct in every one of
your points, but misrepresents everything else.

Roberts:
If you can answer these 4 questions then I will refrain from posting
this claim by Rassinier. 

QUESTION 1: Was Steengracht a defence or prosecution witness?

Morris:
Steengracht was first called by Horn, Ribbentrop's defence counsel.
Witnesses called by the defense are defense witnesses.

Roberts:
QUESTION 2: Have you any proof outside the IMT that the congress took
place?

Morris:
The question of whether the congress took place is barely relevant
here. The context of the hearings for the dates in question shows that
the issue before the Tribunal was whether the Reich Foreign Ministry
played any part in anti-Jewish actions of any kind. The memo signed by
Steengracht in PS-3319 was one of the proofs that the Foreign Ministry
was involved in anti-Jewish actions. The memo was produced from
PS-3319 after Steengracht denied any involvement in anti-Jewish
actions by the Foreign Ministry. Once the issue of the congress had
been raised and denied by both Steengracht and Ribbentrop, it was
dropped by the prosecutors who were interested in evidence of
anti-Jewish actions of any kind by the Foreign Ministry.

Nevertheless, Rassinier seizes upon the question of the congress in
order to deceive his readers into believing that is was the common
practise of the Tribunal to enter forged documents and to deny the
defendants access to documents. He asserts that Ribbentrop was denied
access to the dossier PS-3319 which is patently untrue. The defense
had access to the dossier for a week before Ribbentrop was questioned
by the prosecution. All that happened was that Faure refused to pass
the dossier up to Ribbentrop on the stand, though he had been passing
documents to Ribbentrop all afternoon. The refusal to pass a single
document up to the stand does not in any way constitute evidence of
any of Rassinier's assertions.

Roberts:
QUESTION 3: Is Ludwig Kohlhammer listed in the index of names?

Morris:
No. He was not a participant in the trial.

Roberts:
QUESTION 4: Was this a document that was appended to the indictment?

Morris:
No. PS-3319 was not a document appended to the indictment. Documents
to be appended to the indictment fall under the definition of
"official documents" as defined in Rule 9b. These are "the Indictment,
rules, written motions, orders that are reduced to writing, findings
and judgments of the Tribunal." These are quite clearly distinguished
>from  "exhibits suitably indentified and marked with consecutive
numbers" in Rule 9a, "documents [which] are submitted by the
Prosecution or Defense as evidence" in Rule 10.

Roberts:
>["all the documents appended to the indictment shall be put at the 
>disposition of the defendents not less than 30 days before the trials"]

And they were.

Mr. Roberts, Rassinier has misrepresented the contents of PS-3319, the
access that defendants had to documents, and the circumstances under
which Ribbentrop was not passed a document while on the witness stand.
His claim that PS-3319 was a forgery has no basis in fact.

In the thread on the Lachout forgery, which you also posted, you
declared that you never knowingly posted falsehoods, and you
promised not to repost the Lachout forgery again.
 
I invite you again, Mr. Roberts, to live up to the spirit of that
promise and to publicly undertake not to post any further excerpts
>from  Mr. Rassiner's book _The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses_
which, as would appear from this excerpt, is laced with falsehoods.

--
 John Morris                               
 at University of Alberta     
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
 The Nizkor Project: An Electronic Holocaust Resource
  File archives - ftp://ftp.almanac.bc.ca
  Web page - http://nizkor.almanac.bc.ca

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor