.

.

Saturday, 10 November 2012

Konrad Morgen's completely contradicting testimony



"We informed Frau Hoess that the train outside was to take her three sons to Siberia, unless she told us where her husband was,"

— Captain Victor Cross, 92 Field Security Section, Report 15 March 1946 *


Former SS Judge Konrad Morgen, who testified under oath:
In 1946: That the Auschwitz gas chambers were at Monowitz not Birkenau
In 1964: That the Auschwitz gas chambers were at Birkenau not Monowitz


Below is the 2007 German documentary Verdict on Auschwitz: The Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial 1963-1965, with—very dodgy at times—subtitles in English. More about the film can be read here. It is a propaganda circus, but, it does contains a huge amount of film footage from the trial, any many of the original recordings of witnesses and defendants testifying.

Hearing the voice of former-SS Judge Konrad Morgen is truly fascinating, and a little disturbing, when you understand what was really going on during his testimony (from 49:30 on the first video). Morgen describes in precise detail Krema II of Auschwitz II (Birkenau)—the gas chamber. It is as if Morgen has been forced to memorise every single feature of one of the highly detailed models of Krema II, which are still on display in Block 4 of Auschwitz I today. The 1948 Polish film Ostatni etap (The Last Stage), shot on location at Auschwitz II (Birkenau), featured (at 6:23) a model which bears an uncanny similarity to the smaller of the two detailed models of Krema II in Block 4.

Morgen testified as a prosecution witness at the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial on March 9, 1964, but almost 18 years earlier, on August 8, 1946, Morgen had testified at the main Nuremberg trial as a defence witness. He had been called by Horst Pelckmann, the defence council for the SS as an organisation, he wasn't counsel for any of the 21 defendants, physically present, at the trial.

Morgen had sung like a bird at the Nuremberg trial, admitting that he had personally; "... investigated the entire stretch of territory and studied the layout and installations", meaning the Auschwitz gas chambers. But unfortunately for the Holocaust Industry, Morgen had gotten a rather major detail about the gas chambers utterly wrong: "By "Extermination Camp Auschwitz" I did not mean the concentration camp. It did not exist there. I meant a separate extermination camp near Auschwitz, called "Monowitz."" Morgen, insisted four separate times that the Auschwitz extermination camp was the "Monowitz" camp, and not the "concentration camp", meaning either Auschwitz I, but more probably Auschwitz II (Birkenau). This rather major slip by Morgen, would not have gone unnoticed by those who had invited him testify to the gas chambers, and escape at least a lengthy prison sentence, but far more probably, the gallows.

When you hear Morgen's voice at the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial, you can not miss the fear and trepidation it reveals. The Industry must have made sure that this time, Morgen's testimony would be about gas chambers in Auschwitz II (Birkenau) and not Monowitz (one the 40 odd camps known as Auschwitz III). According to the documentary's English subtitles of the comments made by trial prosecutor Joachim Kügler, Morgen "broke down during his testimony and wept bitter tears" (from 53:51 on the first video).



* As quoted in Baxter, Ian. The Commandant. Rudolf Hoess, the Creator of Auschwitz. Meath, RoI: Maverick. 2008. pp.174-175 & 217 & 222.


6 comments:

  1. Bernard Schlink the celebrated author of "The Reader" ( Der Vorleser auf deutsch) put the character of Hanna Schmitz ( played by the charming Kate Winslett) as a defendant in a quasi Frankfurt trial. Bernard Schlink is a typical BRD post war clone but i did find it interesting when one of the neutral student characters in the film said on entering the court room , " wow this is just like a circus"

    ReplyDelete
  2. There is a TV feature about three of the defendands of the Auschwitz Trial revisited in prison, in the seventies or early eighties, I guess. In this footage they admit,yes, it was all true. Former SS-man Josef Erber describes as he wrote from his prison cell a reader´s letter to a publishing company who offered revisionistic books, stating "You are wrong. I, an SS man here in prison have seen how the cyclon B was poured in the gas chamber." I mean, there in prison he had nothing to lose, and that makes his case different to the many ridiculous claims from the black book and so on. Here is the youtube-video, unfortunately without subtitles:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-T3IOQR_08&feature=relmfu

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ah good your blog must have been noted by the HET guardians and put on a watch list . Expect more from the priests of the orthodoxy . Here is also something from the trial and in case the Guardian from the HET looks in again I will add a translation at the end .
    "Denn dem Gericht fehlten fast alle in einem normalen Mordprozeß zur Verfügung stehenden Erkenntnismöglichkeiten, um sich ein getreues Bild des tatsächlichen Geschehens im Zeitpunkt des Mordes zu verschaffen. Es fehlten die Leichen der Opfer, Obduktionsprotokolle, Gutachten von Sachverständigen über die Ursache des Todes und die Todesstunde, es fehlten Spuren der Täter, Mordwaffen usw. Eine Überprüfung der Zeugenaussagen war nur in seltenen Fällen möglich."
    The court lacks all the usual available evidence of a murder trial ie time of death, bodies, expert reports about how it was done murder weapons etc and checking of the eyewitnesses was only rarely available.

    Auch die Angeklagten haben dem Gericht keine Anhaltspunkte gegeben für die Erforschung der Wahrheit. Im wesentlichen haben sie geschwiegen, in großen Teilen die Tat geleugnet und die Unwahrheit gesagt.“

    The defendants have given the court no clues for finding the truth but in most repects denied their activities .
    The only evidence presented was that of Jewish eyewitnesses because no FORENSIC evidence is ever allowed in these trials.
    As for the three old men who were all serving life sentences you would say anything to get out. One of them says he never saw anything but " he heard about it ". Another who strikes me as a rather elderly fantasist gives an orthodox account.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I´m the one who posted about the three SS-men. Let me make very clear: I support free speech and an open discussion about holocaust and WWII. I´m not a guardian of holocaust-orthodoxy. I just try to keep an open mind. Of course I see the lack of forensic evidence in all these trials. Certainly I see all the absurd claims about extermination in steamchambers, human soap, shrunken heads, mengeles musical dogs, flames on top of the chimneys and all this bullshit. And yes, it seems not to be very logical, when Rudolf Hoess first takes a trip to Treblinka to find out about the most efficient method of extermination and than they build the Krema II site in Auschwitz NOT for the purpose of gassing, and finally they make rough holes with crowbars in the concrete roof to turn the morgue into a gas chamber. But on the other hand I must say: I´m not an expert about forensic chemistry. I can´t say, if Germar Rudolf or David Green is right about cyclon b traces in the chambers. It is clear to me, that all numbers are exaggerated to get the most of money out of Germany. But I can´t say for sure what really happened. How could I? And I still ask my self: Why should an SS-man serving a live sentence don´t tell the truth about his experiences? I mean Josef Erber telling about the gassings. What could be another reason to make him tell these things? I really want to discuss this. Sorry for my dodgy english.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 1. He was serving a life sentence. To get parole you must confess to your crime.
    See the case below;
    http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/stephendowning/index.html
    2. He was in his 80s , and this was 40 years after the events.
    3. People confess to all manner of crimes
    http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200304/the-false-confession

    NO FORENSIC EXAMINATION allowed because there is NO FORENSIC EVIDENCE.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I´m still thinking about this. Kurt Franz of Treblinka actually got conditional home leave, there is a photo allegedly showing him at home:
    http://www.deathcamps.org/euthanasia/franzstory.html
    Why did the court staff not take samples of the buildings as Leuchter and Rudolf did 25 years later? Why there were no diggings to find the alleged fire pits? Why there were no analyses of air photos? Why did the court not hear experts on chemistry, toxilogy, archeology, furnace construction... At the time when the Frankfurt trial took place, Krema I in Auschwitz was "sold" to be genuine, so why didn´t the court examine it? If they really would have done so, they would have found out, that the chimney is not connected to the ovens for example. This would have been a sensation and probably given the trial another direction. In the 2007 documentary the trial prosecutor says proudly, that communist poland fully cooperated with the west german court staff. It´s no wonder, because twenty years ago Poland annexed huge parts of east germany and expelled it´s population. Poland also run concentration camps after war, now filled with german prisoners. The more guilt was put on germany, the better it was for communist Poland. Can anyone be so naively?

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.