19 - 20 are treated in this section together

19. If Auschwitz was not an extermination camp, why did the commandant, Rudolf Hoess, confess that it was?

20. Is there any evidence that it was American, British, French and Soviet policy to torture German prisoners in order to extract confessions before the trials at Nuremberg and elsewhere?


Ernst Zündel
replies to Nizkor # 19 - 20

These two points address the question of alleged Allied torture to obtain confessions of war crimes.

Part of this content was already covered extensively in QA #1. Please re-read that material to get a good overview. Specifically, re-read "Nuremberg: The Crime That Will Not Die" to appreciate how Auschwitz Commander Rudolf Hoess was tortured.

The content below is, therefore, only meant to round out the record of Allied-inflicted torture so as to strengthen their political stance.

Probably the one question most frequently asked by people who express an interest in Revisionism is: "Do you have any proof that Germans were tortured in order to extract confessions?"

It must be clearly understood that the entire Holocaust-gassing myths stands and falls with the "confession" of Rudolf Hoess, one-time commandant of Auschwitz - an Allied prisoner who was sadistically tortured. The bulk of this rebuttal offered below will address itself to the nature of the Nuremberg Trials in general, and Hoess's "confession" in particular, since these trials were the bench mark on which the entire extortion "reparations" scheme was constructed, and in which Hoess was a key figure.

However, it behooves the reader to understand that torture - either to obtain confessions or simply for sadistic purpose - was a fact of life in post-war Germany. It went on for many years.

A number of able historians have done an admirable job in exposing the facts relating to the shocking use of torture by the Allies. Admittedly, documentation is often difficult to obtain, due to the fact that the Allied "interrogators" generally covered their tracks well, yet the persistence of historians and researchers interested in the truth has begun to pay off.

If I were to point to one particular event which signaled the allies policy in regard to treatment of the vanquished, I would designate the meeting of the so-called "Big Three" at Teheran in 1943. It was a telling episode forecasting what was yet to come and illustrating the cavalier attitude against a soon-to-be-vanquished foe.

As described by both Churchill and Elliott Roosevelt in their memoirs,

"Stalin rose and proposed a blood-curdling toast. The strength of the German army depended, he said, upon fifty thousand high officers and technicians. His toast was a salute to shooting them, ". . . as fast as we can, all of them."

Quick as a flash, Churchill sprang to his feet - his face and neck were red, says Elliott Roosevelt, who was present - and announced, quite hypocritically, as it turned out, that British conceptions of law and justice would never tolerate such butchery.

Into this breach stepped President Roosevelt. He had a compromise to suggest.

Instead of executing fifty thousand, perhaps

". . . we should settle on a smaller number. Shall we say, 49,500?"

Here is another telling vignette, as recounted by American author Marguerite Higgins visited Germany following the war and later wrote of her experiences in "News Is a Singular Thing".

Higgins described a visit to a GI "Interrogation Center":

"The GI led us to the main door of the camp . . . Behind the bars of the cell we saw 3 uniformed Germans. Two of them, beaten and covered with blood, were lying unconscious on the floor. A third German was lifted up by the hair on his head, and I shall never forget, he had red hair like a carrot. A GI turned his body over and struck him in the face. When the victim groaned, the GI roared, "Shut your mouth, damned Kraut!". . . . It turned out that for almost a quarter of an hour, the doubled rows of 20 to 30 GI's stood aligned taking turns methodically beating the six captured Germans. . . It came out later that the worked-up GI's had captured six young German boys, who had never even been members of the SS. The youngsters had only recently been inducted into a government work battalion. The boy with the red hair was 14 years old. The other 5 German boys in the cell blocks were between 14 and 17 years old."

The book "Vorsicht! Faelschung!" reproduces a photograph of 2 German youngsters taken after their "interrogation" by Allied investigators. The photo speaks for itself. The faces of the two youngsters are bruised, swollen, and bloody.

These beatings were endemic. These were not isolated occurrences. And if this was the treatment meted out to the innocent - to youngsters in particular - it is only logical to assume that "Nazis" accused of "heinous crimes" were treated far, far worse.

The episodes recounted below are only a small fraction among thousands and thousands of documented cases. The SS were particularly targeted.

Long before the Nuremberg Trials even began, the Allies looked upon the SS as a criminal organization. There was ample reason for that, for the SS happened to be the most determined adversaries of the Allied forces, and offered the most resistance. Allied casualties were generally much higher whenever they were thrown into combat opposite seasoned SS troops. The SS were both feared and admired for their military prowess. Consequently, the members of the SS received the most brutal treatment at the hands of the allied forces. The Allies sought to expunge the very memory of this elite Nazi formation.

Yet the truth of the matter is that the Waffen SS was no more criminal than any other fighting unit, Allied OR axis. The treatment its members received at the hands of the Allies was unjust and often criminal. Particularly since SS members were often stationed at concentration camps as guards, the Allies took advantage of this fact and used it to condemn the members of the SS as a whole. Yet it should go without saying that simply because someone was a guard at a camp does not mean he or she was a criminal.

What follows is a series of reports concerning the treatment Waffen SS soldiers received at the hands of the Allies. All documentation is taken from the book "Alliierte Kriegsverbrechen und Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit." Published by Dürer Verlag, Buenos Aires, Argentina ,1953.

May 1945

June 1945

July 1945

August 1945

So it went, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year. The dungeons of the Spanish Inquisition could hardly have appeared more sinister than these "centers for interrogation'. It even appears that the Spanish Inquisition served as a model for the Allied Torquemadas.

One curious fact concerning these trials is that most of them were held by "Americans", as is evidenced by the following excerpt:

"The British, French, and the Russians withdrew from Nuremberg after the first and only "International Military Tribunal' . . . the other twelve trials which subsequently took place at Nuremberg and only came to an end in 1948, were all-American shows. The judges and prosecutors were all American citizens; the trials were held under the American flag; the proceedings began each morning by the Marshal of the Court asking God's blessing on the United States of America, plaintiff versus the defendants. Nevertheless the tribunals were supposed to be "international" and to derive their authority from the Allied Control Council even after the latter ceased to exist."

Needless to say, not one of the interrogators employed by these modern day inquisitors was ever charged with a crime or brought to justice. The dark deeds of their crimes might never have seen the light of day had it not been for the persistence and courage of the few who documented their offenses.

How absurd and ignorant it is for Nizkor to claims that confession were never extracted from the Germans by coercion or torture! Whoever needs further proof of the kangaroo court called "Nuremberg Trials" is referred to the Carlos Porter trial transcript summaries. They are available on the Zundelsite in 5 languages (English, German, French, Portuguese and Spanish) and can be accessed by anyone who values truth in history.

September 10, 1996


This summary was compiled with the able assistance of Roger Bartlett.