I have previously addressed an article by retired Holocaust affirmer, Myles Power, on his review of Chemistry of Auschwitz, by Germar Rudolf. As is the custom of Holocaust affirmers Power brought witness testimony into a discussion about forensic science and because it was not actually related to the book I did not address the testimony of Oskar Gröning. I will do so now.
The thing that strikes me first is the fact that Gröning was able to lead a normal life. When ‘just following orders’ was no excuse for the Nazis how did Gröning avoid prison or execution? It is also important to remember that Gröning was a German resident, Germany being a country where it is illegal to deny the Holocaust. It is for that reason alone that these statements can not be used as evidence for the Holocaust. But there’s more!
Next, Myles makes it seem that Gröning made these statements to his own self-detriment. He does this by omitting key information. Those statements appeared on a 2005 documentary called Auschwitz: The Nazis and ‘The Final Solution’. This was well before the legal precedent set in 2011.
Power also neglects to mention another important bit of information that is actually quite easy to find. The sentence that was given to Gröning for being an ‘accessory to the murder of at least 300,000 people’ was four years. That’s less than a slap on the wrist! Could it be that Gröning’s Holocaust affirming statements had anything to do with his light sentence? That is a question that Power does not want his readers to ponder.
Gröning’s, or anyone else’s, testimony can not be considered evidence unless there is something to back it up. As I demonstrated in my previous article Power did nothing to debunk Germar Rudolf’s findings that there is no Prussian Blue in the alleged gas chambers when there should be. Gröning’s confessions are further compromised because they were given under duress due to the fact he was a resident of a country where denial of the Holocaust is illegal. Call us bigots all you want, Myles, we don’t require lies and manipulations to argue our points. As you said; “scientific discoveries do not happen in a vacuum and if you purposely ignore the mountain of contradictory evidence to reach your distasteful conclusion as [you] did you are not doing science”.
It wasn’t illegal to deny until the 1980s, he had decades before that to “clear” his country’s name yet weirdly chose not to. And when he did fess up he got prosecuted anyway at the end of his life, he could have also denied it then and there since it wouldn’t matter but still chose not to.
You ask why he waited so long to clear his country’s name. I could just as easily ask why he waited so long to confess to clear his conscience.
What about the testimony of Germans that did not go along with the Holocaust story?
Thies Christophersen and Dr. Wilhelm Stäglich who both said they they never saw any evidence of gassings or genocide during their time in Auschwitz/Birkenau.
Thies Christophersen was charged with contempt against the state after he published ‘The Auschwitz Lie’ in 1973. He spent a year in prison.
Stäglich’s public challenge to the official version of the Holocaust brought severe reprisals from the German government and he was forced to resign from his job as a judge in Hamburg. He was also deprived of the doctoral degree he had earned at the University of Göttingen in 1951.
Both of these men were punished for Holocaust denial before the law was enacted in 1985.
And why would he change his story as an old man just to make things worse for himself? There is no incentive for going against the Holocaust story besides the truth.
Christophersen was prosecuted for libel and neo-Nazism, not denial, and Staglich was fired and discredited, not prosecuted, for the same reasons, and the fact that both openly denied it to their deaths is evidence against your allegation of coercion, not for it. Moreover, Groning could have simply kept his mouth shut and lived out the rest of his life but instead brought attention and the associated consequences to himself by acknowledging it.
I said punished, not prosecuted. I would appreciate it if you would not misrepresent my argument. If you are unwilling to have a honest discussion then I will have to block you from commenting on my site.
That said, what was the libel Christophersen prosecuted for? What was Steglich discredited for? It was for going against the victors story of what happened in WW2. You know this and that is why you are resorting to hair splitting.
It’s a very odd thing to say that because Christophersen and Staglich stuck to their guns that means they didn’t face coercion (I actually used the word incentive, but that’s just more misrepresentation and hair splitting). Especially since you agree that they both faced negative consequences for their actions. It is possible to stand by your convictions despite the fact that you are being threatened. It’s called having honor and principles.
Gröning could have stayed quiet, but he didn’t. Perhaps he was taking preventative measures in case he was ever brought to trial. Perhaps the BBC paid him to be on their show. One can only speculate as to his motivations.
None of your arguments actually refute the main points in my article. Those being that Gröning’s confession can not be used as evidence of the Holocaust and that Myles left important information out of his article because if he knew that if he would have included it he wouldn’t have been able to make his argument. If you want to address these points then so be it, but you’re not going to get me to go down into a hair splitting rabbit hole.
You know full well there’s a difference between social ostracism and being compelled by the guns of the state to behave in a certain way, and in Staglich’s case especially so since it was befor any such legislation existed or the ubiquity of social media. Christophersen was prosecuted for insulting the dead which is a type of defamation under German law.
With regards to Groning, this is just special pleading. Why would Groning except a bribe just to incriminate himself and risk prosecution? Why say anything at all when it isn’t even certain you’re going to be found out? The logic here, or lack thereof, is incredible.
It’s also pretty rich you threaten to ban me yet complain how Germany censors people for saying things it doesn’t like.
Yes I know there’s a difference and that is why I used the words punished and incentive.
I am not a government enmity, there is nothing wrong with me, as an individual person, deciding who I will and won’t associate with. I am all for having an open and honest discussion about the events of WW2. If you chose not to be honest there is no reason I, as an individual person, have to tolerate that on my website if I don’t want to.
I’m really not interested in getting into the weeds about the semantics of Christophersen and Staglich’s punishments and Gröning’s motivations. The arguments in my article still stand.
The principle is the same. You can’t talk about duress if the consequences were loss of employment (like what could happen in the U.S. where Holocaust denial is legal), and in Germany (where it’s illegal as per your original contention).
Except for the fact the risk of prosecution was not apparent until 5 years after his “confession” genius where a precedent was set that resulted in his conviction.
And in wrt Staglich, we’re speaking of Holocaust being *illegal* not just *disapproved of*, so talking about the law is completely germane