25.01.2015 Views

Arthur R. Butz – The Hoax Of The Twentieth Century

Arthur R. Butz – The Hoax Of The Twentieth Century

Arthur R. Butz – The Hoax Of The Twentieth Century

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>Arthur</strong> R. <strong>Butz</strong>, <strong>The</strong> <strong>Hoax</strong> of the <strong>Twentieth</strong> <strong>Century</strong><br />

those who still believe the claims these facts are “mysteries.” <strong>The</strong> inconsistencies<br />

and implausibilities and obvious lies will appear and finally the crushing blow, a<br />

fact contradicting the claims, so huge in significance that there can be no mumbling<br />

about “mysteries.”<br />

<strong>The</strong> Höss ‘Confession’<br />

<strong>The</strong> commandant of Auschwitz from May 1940 to late 1943 was SS Colonel<br />

Rudolf Höss. During the IMT trial he had signed some affidavits for the prosecution,<br />

the most noted being signed on April 5, 1946. 166 In accord with a common<br />

IMT and NMT practice, he was then called by the Kaltenbrunner defense on April<br />

15, 1946. 167 <strong>The</strong> major content of his testimony was in his assenting, during crossexamination,<br />

to his affidavit of April 5, and also in certain points of supporting<br />

testimony.<br />

Höss is universally considered the star prosecution witness and, despite the<br />

origins of the Auschwitz hoax in the WRB report, the extermination mythologists<br />

essentially treat the Höss affidavit as the Auschwitz extermination story or, more<br />

precisely, the framework for the story. All pleaders of the Auschwitz extermination<br />

legend present a story that is the Höss affidavit, with only numerical variations,<br />

as supplemented by the IMT, NMT, and similar evidence. None of the principal<br />

extermination mythologists gives prominence to the WRB report, and only<br />

Reitlinger seems to perceive a problem of some sort of importance in connection<br />

with it.<br />

Thus, it is convenient to allow the Höss affidavit to act as framework for our<br />

analysis also. It is presented in full here, and then the individual points are reviewed<br />

with due regard for the supplemental and additional evidence. <strong>The</strong> fateful<br />

duality will emerge as an undeniable feature. <strong>The</strong> contradictions, inconsistencies,<br />

wild implausibilities, and lies will appear. <strong>The</strong> analysis will reveal something of<br />

the psychological context of the trials.<br />

Due regard is also given to verifiable interpretation of sources, including instances<br />

where it is deemed better to reference Hilberg or Reitlinger rather than an<br />

original document, to which the reader is not likely to have convenient access.<br />

“I, RUDOLF FRANZ FERDINAND HSS, being first duly sworn, depose<br />

and say as follows:<br />

1. I am forty-six-years-old, and have been a member of the NSDAP since<br />

1922; a member of the SS since 1934; a member of the Waffen-SS since 1939.<br />

I was a member from 1 December 1934 of the SS Guard Unit, the so-called<br />

Deathshead Formation (Totenkopf Verband).<br />

2. I have been constantly associated with the administration of concentration<br />

camps since 1934, serving at Dachau until 1938; then as adjutant in<br />

Sachsenhausen from 1938 to May 1, 1940, when I was appointed commandant<br />

166<br />

167<br />

130<br />

3868-PS<br />

IMT, vol. 11, 396-422.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!