Rudolf Franz Ferdinand Höß (in English commonly spelt Hoess or Höss; 25 November 1900 - 16 April 1947) was an Auschwitz commandant. He was probably the most important witness at the Nuremberg trials. Höß was hanged in 1947 following another trial in Warsaw, Poland.
Höß and the Holocaust
While being imprisoned, Höß allegedly signed or wrote several different "confessions". In one case he even signed a "confession" written in English. At the Nuremberg Trials, excerpts from one of these "confessions" were read out aloud by another person, with Höß at intervals being asked if this was what he had written. Höß in each case answered affirmatively (usually only with the one word "Jawohl", an affirmative response, but with the implication of being a response to an order). In one case he made "a two sentence response (containing an obvious error about the Hungarian Jews supposedly having been killed at Auschwitz as early as 1943 even though the first convoy of them did not arrive at Auschwitz until May 2 of 1944)". No one asked Höß any further questions.
See the article "How the British Obtained the Confessions of Rudolf Höss" in the "External links" section regarding more details on the different versions.
Memoirs on being tortured to gain a "confession"
While being a prisoner in Communist Poland, Höß allegedly wrote his memoirs. Robert Faurisson has written on "The texts generally collected under the title Commandant in Auschwitz. Höss is alleged to have written these texts in pencil under the watchful eye of his Polish-Communist jailers, while in a prison at Cracow awaiting his trial. He was condemned to death on 2 April 1947 and hanged at the Auschwitz concentration camp fourteen days later. The world had to wait 11 years, until 1958, for the publication in German of his alleged memoirs. They were edited by the German historian Martin Broszat without regard for scholarly method. Broszat went so far as to suppress several fragments which would have too clearly made it appear that Höss (or his Polish jailers) had offered outrageous statements which would have called into question the reliability of his writings in toto. [...] In his memoirs Höss recounts the circumstances of his arrest and what followed. The treatment that he underwent was particularly brutal. At first sight it is surprising that the Poles allowed Höss to make the revelations he did about the British military police. On reflection, we discover that they might have done so out of one or more of the following motives:
- to give the confession an appearance of sincerity and veracity;
- to cause the reader to make a comparison, flattering for the Polish Communists, between the British and Polish methods, Indeed Höss later said that during the first part of his detention at Cracow, his jailers came very close to finishing him off physically and above all morally, but that later they treated him with "such decent and considerate treatment" that he consented to write his memoirs;
- to furnish an explanation for certain absurdities contained in the text (NO-1210) that the British police had had Höss sign".
Höß stated that "On March 11, 1946, at 11 p.m., I was arrested. […] I was treated terribly by the (British) Field Security Police. […] During the first interrogation they beat me to obtain evidence. I do not know what is in the transcript, or what I said, even though I signed it, because they gave me liquor and beat me with a whip. It was too much even for me to bear. […] Minden on the Weser River […]. There they treated me even more roughly, especially the first British prosecutor, who was a major. […] I cannot really blame the interrogators [at the IMT] – they were all Jews. I was for all intents and purposes psychologically dissected. […] They also left me with no doubt whatsoever what was going to happen to me."
1983 account on use of torture to gain a "confession"
A 1983 "anti-Nazi" book by Rupert Butler included an interview the Jewish-British Bernard Clarke, who was one of the interrogators of Höß. Faurisson stated in a description of the book that "Bernard Clarke shows no remorse. On the contrary, he exhibits a certain pride in having tortured a "Nazi." Rupert Butler, likewise, finds nothing to criticize in that. Neither of them understands the importance of their revelations. They say that Höss was arrested on 11 March, 1946, and that it took three days of torture to obtain "a coherent statement." They do not realize that the alleged "coherent statement" is nothing other than the lunatic confession, signed by their quivering victim on the l4th or l5th of March 1946, at 2:30 in the morning, which was to seal Höss' fate definitely, a confession which would also give definitive shape to the myth. The confession would also shape decisively the myth of Auschwitz, the supposed high-point of the extermination of the Jews, above all due to the alleged use of homicidal gas chambers."
Criticisms of Holocaust testimonies
The testimonies of Höß have been criticized for argued problems, such as:
- Höß stated 3 million killed at Auschwitz under his command. This likely to fit with the official Soviet version of a total of 4 million victims at Auschwitz. It has later been admitted that this number is by far too high. Politically correct sources now states much lower numbers. See also Holocaust demographics: 4 million killed at Auschwitz claim.
- In order to make this number realistic, he exaggerated the numbers living in various European countries by an approximate factor of ten.
- Höß mentioned "Wolzec" as another “extermination camp”, despite that there was no camp named Wolzec/Wolzek. Faurisson states that it was "a place which never existed on any Polish map: "Wolzek near Lublin"; confusion with Belz is not possible since Höss talks about three camps: "Belzek (sic), Tublinka (sic) and Wolzek near Lublin.""
- Höß stated that these three camps were already in operation by June 1941, but Belzec began operating in March 1942 and Treblinka in July 1942.
- Höß stated that he received orders to begin murdering Jews in June 1941, at which time he stated that gassings began at Auschwitz. Established historiography, however, dates the alleged “final solution” orders in the fall of 1941, with the alleged gassings beginning early in 1942.
- Höß stated that the members of the prisoner’s cremation detail had no need for gas masks while "immediately" removing the corpses from the gas chambers after the gassing period ended.
- Höß mentioned technically inappropriate, even absurd methods of disposing of the corpses, such as blowing them up with dynamite.
- "an obvious error about the Hungarian Jews supposedly having been killed at Auschwitz as early as 1943 even though the first convoy of them did not arrive at Auschwitz until May 2 of 1944."
The Holocaust revisionist Carlos Porter has criticized various Nuremberg and Polish claims and documents associated with Höß, many contradictions in claims allegedly made by Höß, instances when Höß made statements such as "the aim wasn't to have as many dead as possible or to destroy as many detainees as possible. The Reichsfuhrer was constantly concerned with the problems of engaging all forces possible in the armament industry", and punishments of Germans for any mistreatment of prisoners.
Porter has also written that "It is not true that Höss's court appearance at Nuremberg consisted chiefly of assenting to his affidavit [...] Instead, Höss appeared to testify, and, as usual, contradicted his affidavit and himself as much as possible [...] Höss's motivation appears to have been to protect his wife and 3 children, and to save the lives of others by testifying that only 60 people knew of the mass killings. Höss attempted to save Kaltenbrunner by implicating Eichmann and Pohl, who had not yet been apprehended. [...] Höss's famous "autobiography" Kommandant in Auschwitz, probably prepared in question and answer from through interrogation like a gigantic "affidavit", then written up to be copied in his handwriting [...] The Polish "translation" of this book, published prior to the publication of the German "original text", seems to agree with the German text, except that place names and dates are missing, indicating that the Polish was probably written first, these details being inserted later in the German translation."
In the book Commandant of Auschwitz—Rudolf Höss, His Torture and His Forced Confessions by the Holocaust revisionist Carlo Mattogno, "Using various British documents, the author of the present study pieces together an almost minute-by-minute recounting of how the British managed to find Höss in his hiding place, and how they abused him after his capture to extract various “confessions” from him. To separate truth from fiction, the author next presents essential excerpts from all the statements made by Höss after his capture: 85 individual documents in total (affidavits, memos, essays, interrogation protocols, etc.). By analyzing them meticulously, he demonstrates that Höss’s statements about the so-called “Final Solution of the Jewish Question” contradict one other and are refuted by historical facts established by solid documentation and material evidence. Höss, the author concludes, initially “was a coerced liar, but then he found a taste for the grandiloquent lie.”"
Alleged writings by Höß published by Communist Poland mentioned Soviet atrocities known to the Germans. This has been seen as evidence against the writings being Communist fabrications. Regarding this, see Holocaust motivations: Some of the Allies allowing criticism of other Allies and not emphasizing Jewish Holocaust uniqueness.
The criticisms mentioned above are just some examples of the many criticisms made by Holocaust revisionists. See the "External links" section regarding many other criticisms.
- How the British Obtained the Confessions of Rudolf Höss
- Rudolf Höss: Pillar of the Holocaust extermination thesis
- Rudolf Hoess: The Legal Implications of his Forced Confession
- On Rudolf Höss alleged visit to Treblinka
- Death Dealer: The Memoirs of the SS Kommandant at Auschwitz. A Review
- British Torture: What Does it Mean for Revisionism?z
- Rudolf Hoess
- NOT GUILTY AT NUREMBERG: The German Defense Case - detailed descriptions and criticisms of the alleged evidence against each of the accused and witnesses at the IMT
In downloadable books
- Commandant of Auschwitz—Rudolf Höss, His Torture and His Forced Confessions
- The Hoax of the Twentieth Century—The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry - Chapter 4: Auschwitz: The Höss ‘Confession’
- Lectures on the Holocaust—Controversial Issues Cross Examined - 4.5.4. Rudolf Höß, also page 330-331
- The Real Case for Auschwitz—Robert van Pelt’s Evidence from the Irving Trial Critically Reviewed - Part Three: The Witnesses Henryk Tauber and Rudolf Höss
- Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence - Chapter Three: Testimony and Personal Accounts: The Cracow Memoirs of Rudolf Höss, Commandant of Auschwit
Note that besides the external sources listed here, an alleged Holocaust confessor/witness may be extensively discussed in the external sources listed in the articles on the particular Holocaust camps and/or other Holocaust phenomena the individual is associated with.
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Holocaust Handbooks, Volume 15: Germar Rudolf: Lectures on the Holocaust—Controversial Issues Cross Examined 2nd, revised and corrected edition. http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=15
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Robert Faurisson (1986) How the British Obtained The Confessions Of Rudolf Höss, The Journal for Historical Review Winter 1986 Volume 7', page 389. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p389_Faurisson.html
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 NOT GUILTY AT NUREMBERG: The German Defense Case http://cwporter.com/innocent.htm
- ↑ Rudolf Höss, Carlo Mattogno: Commandant of Auschwitz—Rudolf Höss, His Torture and His Forced Confessions http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1&page_id=35
- ↑ Re: quora.com / Tim O'Neill: Nazis never denied 'holocaust' https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8165&start=60#p66296