The series of articles in this issue of The Revisionist addresses the question how it could be explained that many witnesses to the so-called 'Holocaust' testified about events that did not take place in the way described or not at all.
From a psychological standpoint of trying to make the revisionist position understandable to Johnny Doe, it is even more important to explain how defendants, who are accused - whether in trials or only in public - to have participated in, or merely been indifferent to, certain crimes, could confess their guilt even though it can be shown that they are innocent - most radically because the reported crimes did not happen at all.
In my analysis of "The Value of Testimony and Confessions Concerning the Holocaust," I pointed out several factors, which can lead a defendant to believe against his own recollection that he is guilty for a crime he did not commit or which did not happen in the first place. Third degree torture, that is the infliction of painful physical injuries, is only one means to this end. Although it certainly was occasionally applied during interrogations in the early years after the war - Rudolf Höß and the infamous Dachau trials being the most prominent examples - it is correct to conclude with Arthur Butz that physical violence is hardly ever capable to changing the mind and mindset of a defendant permanently. He might sign a statement right after the torture, but he is not likely to support it once he is out of reach of his torturers.
Much more effective are various brain washing techniques - also referred to as second degree torture - which change the memory and the mindset of the defendant. If not treated psychologically, this can have dramatic lasting effects. The following example, taken from a recent media report, highlights that such techniques are quite frequently used and have little to do with sophisticated psychological techniques or psycho-pharmaceuticals - quite contrary to popular belief. All that is needed is to isolate the defendant for an extended period of time from the outside world, to put him under emotional stress, and to expose him repeatedly to the stories he is supposed to endorse.
If we consider the situation of almost all defendants involved in trials of so-called National Socialist Violent Crimes, then it can easily be seen that in these cases the situation of the defendant was as extreme as it could get, whether it was during the trials in Dachau, Nuremberg, Krakow and elsewhere in 1945-1948, or during all the post-war trials held since 1949 in West Germany, or the Eichmann and Demjanjuk trials in Jerusalem: All defendants were locked away for years prior to the actual start of the trial proceedings. They were for years exposed to massive accusation of involvement of the most atrocious crimes, facing the destruction of their lives, either by capital punishment or by high prison sentences, and heard 'Holocaust' stories from public prosecutors, police officers, witnesses, the media, and sometimes perhaps even from their own defense lawyers. It would have required an enormously strong will and psychological resistance to withstand such tremendous mind-mending pressure.
Most defendants, of course, were not that strong. Eichmann, for example, succumbed totally. Others, like most defendants of the Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Majdanek trials, did not dare or could not imagine to contest the general story, but merely tried to save their own skin as good as possible, which was the only realistic defense strategy anyway, objectively seen, since trying to contest the entire story would have brought the wrath of the entire world upon both defendants and - more importantly and effectively - the defense lawyers.
Reading the following dramatic story of everyday life in the United States should make everybody think twice before taking confessions of defendants in 'Nazi' trials at face value.
|||In Germar Rudolf (ed.) Dissecting the Holocaust, Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago, IL, 2003, pp. 85-131.|
|||Ibid., p. 96|
|||Ibid., p. 92ff.|
|||Arthur R. Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, 3rd ed., Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago, IL, 2003, pp. 235f.|
|||The only lawyer who ever went a little into that direction while defending an alleged 'perpetrator' by challenging witness testimony in general was defense lawyer Ludwig Böck during the Majdanek trial, and he subsequently felt the heat of public outrage, cf. M. Köhler, op. cit. (note 1), pp. 109f. Today, it is illegal in Germany even for defense lawyers to challenge the 'Holocaust' as such, cf. ibid., p. 110.|
Additional information about this document
|Title:||Forced Confessions, Why Innocent Defendants Admit their "Guilt"|
|Sources:||The Revisionist 1(4) (2003), pp. 465f.|
|First posted on CODOH:||June 24, 2012, 7 p.m.|