Refuting Trent Horn on the Holocaust from a Christian & Historical Perspective
Trent Horn, a Judeo-Catholic speaks on how Christians should view the Holocaust, but the evidence he provides is often wrong, and others grossly misinterpreted.
This is the video in which I’ll be refuting, point by point. Let us begin by touching on his pre-evidence points. As we get into the historical part of the video, this article will become much more dense.
Easy Rebuttals
3:35 - Trent shows just how Judaized our Roman Papist former brothers have become, for Papist this is meant to be damning, but for Lutherans this is utterly irrelevant what a Pope has to say on this manner.
4:00 - All Genocide Denial is wrong, Trent says, yet only one would have me thrown in jail in over a dozen countries? Is this gross ignorance of willful gaslighting?
The following format will go as follows:
[TimeStamp in video] - Light overview of the subject discussed
7:58 - The Euthanasia program is so often overexaggerated and no one bothers to look into the process of this program.
In August 1939, Hitler let it be known to his close associates that he approved any measure which could be seen as delivering incurable patients from pain and suffering. Probably in the late autumn or winter of 1939, Hitler backdated a document to Sept. 1, 1939, that authorized the euthanasia program. The authorization states:
“Reich Leader Bouhler and Dr. Med Brandt are charged with the responsibility of enlarging the powers of specific physicians, designated by name, so that patients who, on the basis of human judgment, are considered incurable, can be granted mercy death after the most careful assessment of their condition.”
What did Trent claim with this signing?
“To kill mass numbers of sick patients”
Trent
Trent claims, with no citation, and doesn’t actually quote this document. Instead, Trent commits a gross logical fallacy and has the viewer believe the Nazis rounded up retards and killed them. The reality, even from Hitler’s personal orders, are entirely different.
Each person was viewed by a case-by-case basis and must be carefully examined with the upmost caution. Instead of acknowledging this, Trent brushes and ignores all this (willfully or ignorantly?) to he can continue to paint his fantasy image of the Nazis as he seems to believe they rounded up all the retards they could find and put them in a gas chamber.
Cost of disabled people was a REAL problem in Germany.
Statistics indicate that it cost far more to support Germany's defectives than it did to run the whole administrative side of Government—national, provincial, and local. This is a REAL problem that a Christian Population WOULD have to face, can charity solve this economic problem? In a pre-Hitler Europe, or in America where even more drastic Eugenics were being practiced, Trent doesn’t seem to have a problem with it? Even in pre-modern Christian Europe, a deformed child would have never lived long. Note that this should not be used as a justification for going around and killing disabled people, but an objective view must be established.
Any decent nation wants a high quality population of healthy people, to say otherwise would be cruel.
Let us return back to the program. The object of the statute is set forth in its official title: An Act for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring. The grounds for sterilization are specifically enumerated. They are:
Congenital Mental Deficiency;
Schizophrenia, or split personality;
Manic Depressive Insanity;
Inherited Epilepsy;
Inherited (Huntingtons) Chorea;
Inherited Blindness;
Inherited Deafness;
Any grave physical defect that has been inherited;
Chronic alcoholism, when this has been scientifically determined to be symptomatic of psychological abnormality.
It should be understood that all these defects and diseases have been proven to be hereditary by scientists throughout the world. It was estimated that at least 400,000 persons in Germany were known to be subjects for sterilization. But the law specifically forbids sterilization for any non-hereditary cause.
Even mentally diseased persons, habitual criminals, and ordinary alcoholics cannot be sterilized. Each case up for sterilization must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before special district courts, and appeals from their verdict can be taken, first to a regional court of appeals, and ultimately to the High Appellate Court sitting in Berlin. Such are the provisions of the Sterilization Law.
Note how Trent ignores the Sterilization, and instead runs to gas chambers this and gas chambers that. It also should be noted that the term “sterilization” does not mean castration. The law specifically prescribes methods which involve only a minor operation and result in no diminution of sexual activity other than incapacity to produce offspring.
Hearings were held in Germany’s Eugenic Supreme Court at Charlottenburg. The Judge on his right had a celebrated psychopathologist, Professor Zutt, and the on his left was a specialist in criminal psychology.
Case 1 of German Eugenics Court
In one case there was a candidate for sterilization. A man in his mid-thirties, he was rather ape-like in appearance receding forehead, flat nose with flaring nostrils, thick lips, and heavy prognathous jaw. His life-history was mildly anti-social—several convictions for minor thefts and one for a homosexual affair with another boy when a lad. He was now seeking to marry a woman who had already been sterilized as a moron.
The law forbids a non-sterilized individual to marry a sterilized person; so he was more than willing to be also sterilized. The lower court recommended sterilization. All three members of the High Court interrogated the man at length. Questions disclosed the fact that he conducted a newspaper delivery route in the suburbs, that he was able to run this simple business satisfactorily, and that he answered the Court's queries with a fair degree of intelligence. The Court concluded that sterilization had not been proven mandatory and sent back the case for further investigation.
Reminder of Trent: “To kill mass numbers of sick patients”
Case 2 of German Eugenics Court
Another Case in Nazi Germany was presented to the court, a swinging a cane gentleman entered Court with an “air,” which went incongruously with his shabby-genteel clothes and the battered felt hat tucked under his left arm.
The lower courts had decided he was either a schizophrenic or a manic-depressive, and both defects came under the law. But which of the two it was had to be clearly determined before the operation could be legally performed. This man wanted to marry an unsterilized woman, so he was strongly opposed to sterilization. His case-history showed two prolonged mental breakdowns, irrational violent quarrels, and queer actions. Ten years previously he had evolved a plan for a Utopian State and had been arrested when he tried to lay it personally before President Hindenburg. He answered questions intelligently, revealing education, but he got excited easily; and his eyes, which were never normal, became wild on such occasions. The Court inclined to think him a manic-depressive, but they also detected schizophrenic symptoms. Since they were not absolutely sure, the case was remanded for further clinical investigation.
Reminder of Trent: “To kill mass numbers of sick patients”
Case 3 of German Eugenics Court
An eighteen-year-old girl who was a deaf-mute, she talked through an interpreter. She was obviously not feeble-minded, but had a poor family record. The parents, who also appeared, were most unprepossessing. Her case had first come before the lower court two years ago. It then decided against sterilization because no hereditary deafness was shown in the family record. Recently it had recommended sterilization because several unfortunate hereditary factors in the family had been disclosed by further investigation. The High Court ordered the girl sent to a clinic for observation. It also ordered more research into the family record.
Notice how Trent described events is nothing of how it actually turned out to be? Keep this in mind as you read.
Case 4 of German Eugenics Court
Another seventeen-year-old girl who’s issue was feeblemindedness. She sat below the bench, hunched in a chair, with dull features and lackluster eyes. Left an orphan at an early age, she had had a haphazard upbringing. The record showed her to have been always shy, backward, and unable to keep up with normal schooling. At present she was employed as helper in a cheap restaurant. When her case first came before the lower court, its verdict was: Wait and see. Perhaps this is a case of retarded intelligence due to environmental factors, which will ripen later. But it did not ripen; so there were further hearings, at which two specialists had disagreed.
The members of the High Court examined this poor girl carefully and with kindly patience. She had no knowledge of or interest in even the most elementary current events. For instance, she barely knew there was a war going on. But the psychologist discovered that she was able to make change for small customers bills in her restaurant and that she could perform other duties of her humble job. So the Court finally concluded that, despite her most unprepossessing appearance and her simple, childlike mind, she was not a moron within the meaning of the law and therefore should not be sterilized.
There were other cases throughout Germany which all conducted in the same painstaking, methodical fashion.
7:58 - Mark Webber and the Institute for Historical Review
This is just a another appeal to false authority fallacy, since when has revisionism had authorities of which cannot be questioned? Unlike Trent, we don’t appeal to these fallacies like he does. It’s the 21st century, we can examine the evidence for ourselves now.
Yes, Jews died in Europe, mostly from the Einsatzgruppen, which if you read their reports they are not as black and white as you’d assume. There is no quantitative number of total Jewish deaths, so I do not feel comfortable in good conscious to give you a number of deaths of an entire event that stretched the whole of Europe. Maybe Trent, in dishonesty can say such, but I will not.
9:38 - Debunking the Goebbels quotes
Firstly, there is a contention around the authenticity of the Goebbels diaries beyond 1938. Dr. Joseph Goebbels' handwritten diaries from 1941 do exist, although they are not complete for every day. For 1941 specifically, few original handwritten manuscripts survive. The glass plate records are incomplete as well. The period after October 16, 1938, is notably not covered by the microfilm tape of Joseph Goebbels' diaries. Nonetheless, the revisionist position is so strong, that incomplete diaries held by the Soviets do not even support Trent’s views.
9:39 Joseph Goebbels February 14th, 1942
The Führer once more expressed his determination to pitilessly clear out (aufzuräumen) the Jews from Europe. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction (Vernichtung) will go hand in hand with the destruction (Vernichtung) of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness. We shall thereby render an inestimable service to a humanity tormented for thousands of years by the Jews. This uncompromising anti-Semitic attitude must prevail among our own people despite all objectors.
According to the German Einsatzgruppen Reports, upwards of 1,000,000 Jews were Partisans, so I believe it is more than fair for the Germans to consider the Jew their enemies and vice versa is also valid. This quote from Goebbels does not support the mass extermination of Jews in death camps, nor mass gassings. The ‘rooting out’ phrase was translated by Lochner as “radically eliminated”—an unnecessary exaggeration. Goebbels also refers to the Vernichtung of the enemy nations—which obviously cannot mean total elimination or murder, but rather domination and defeat. It could hardly be clearer.
9:50 - Joseph Goebbels March 27th, 1942
Goebbels says literally nothing about extermination; he's literally describing the liquidation of the Lublin ghetto into the work camps via the Operation Reinhard disinfection transit camps per the Wannsee Conference. When he actually speaks of the Jews, he speaks of deportation, see below:
“I read a detailed report from the SD and police regarding a final solution of the Jewish Question. Any final solution involves a tremendous number of new viewpoints. The Jewish Question must be solved within a pan-European frame. There are 11 million Jews still in Europe. They will have to be concentrated later, to begin with, in the East; possibly an island, such as Madagascar, can be assigned to them after the war. In any case there can be no peace in Europe until the last Jews are shut off (ausgeschaltet) from the continent.
March 7, 1942
Using Lochner’s translation, he believes ausgeschaltet means, once again, “eliminated.” He is quite fond of this word as is Trent. Strange, since the German language has the verb eliminieren, and presumably Goebbels would have used it if that in fact was his intended meaning.
10:00 - Joseph Goebbels April 29, 1942.
This is just a gross mistranslation.
Short shrift (kurzen Prozess) is made of the Jews in all eastern occupied areas. Tens of thousands must bite the dust, and the Fuhrer’s prophecy is fulfilled for them, that Jewry has to pay for inciting a new World War with the complete removal (Ausrottung) of their race.”
Here is the last sentence in the original:
“Zehntausend müssen daran glauben, und an ihnen erfüllt sich die Prophezeiung des Führers, dass das Judentum einen von ihm entfachten neuen Weltkrieg mit der Ausrottung seiner Rasse wird bezahlen müssen.”
Even those readers with no knowledge of German should be able to discern that the following Lochner translation is dishonest: “Tens of thousands of them are liquidated.”
A short comment by Hitler in mid-May:
“It does not occur to any of those who howl when we transport a few Jews to the east that the Jew is a parasite, and as such is the only human being cap”
Jewish Partisans however were being wiped out, by the thousands according to Einsatzgruppen Reports.
10:27 - Posen Speech
Controversial terms used by Himmler:
Ausrotten,
Ausmerzen
Umbringen
Totschlagen
Besides his translation of these German terms, all of these terms are used multiple times during the speech and that each is used at least once in a figurative sense. The less suspicious phrases in which these terms are used are never quoted in the traditional literature.
Many of those who accept the orthodox version of the Holocaust story refuse to accept Carlos' Porter's translation of Ausrottung, and the other terms which are typically translated to mean extermination. Porter's translation shows that there can be a benign interpretation of these words, especially when taken within the context of the entire speech.
The Document uses at least 4 different words which can be translated as “kill or exterminate”:
“ausrotten” and “ausmerzen”, almost exactly equivalent terms, are usually translated as “extirpate, exterminate, kill”, with a number of figurative meanings;
“umbringen” and “totschlagen” are usually translated as “kill”, in a literal sense.
In this text, all four terms are used figuratively at least once: see page 94, 96, 101 of original Posen Speech:
“Killing the Third Reich”, “killing loyalty”, “extirpating disputatiousness”, “exterminating laziness”).
“Ausrotten” is also used figuratively by Hitler in his famous Berlin Sportpalast speech of February 1933: “den Marxismus und seine Begleiterscheinungen aus Deutschland auszurotten” — “to extirpate Marxism and its accompanying phenomena from Germany”.
“Ein Volk auszurotten” can be translated “exterminate or kill a people or race”, or, alternatively, “get rid of a rabble, crowd, mob”, etc.
“Umfallen” , translated at Nuremberg as “die”, means “to fall down”, and is used figuratively on page 50.
“Ausnutzen”, translated at Nuremberg as “exploit”, can also mean “use”.
In 1993, Robert Wolfe, supervisory archivist for captured German records at the National Archives admitted that a more precise translation of Ausrottung would be extirpation or tearing up by the roots. Wolfe also pointed out that in Himmler's handwritten notes for the speech, that Himmler used the term, Judenevakuierung, or evacuation of the Jews, not extermination. But of course, Trent seems to give no charity for Revisionist, even though he claimed at the start of his video Christians should practice charity (except for Holocaust Revisionism I guess?)
11:28 - The photographs
Bodies burning does not automatically conclude that they were gassed or mass exterminated as apart of Hitler’s secret plan. Nor gas chambers.
At the end of the war the US sent a team of forensics investigators into the camps headed by Dr. Charles Larson. They conducted more than 100 autopsies at Dachau and twenty other camps including Auschwitz. Not a single body showed signs of poisoning of any sort. Larson wrote a book, ‘Crime Doctor’, which is available on Amazon.
“I did a lot of toxicological analysis to determine the facts and removed organs from a cross-section of about 30 or 40 bodies and sent them into Paris to the Army's First Medical Laboratory for analysis, since I lacked the proper facilities in the field. The reports came back negative. I could not find where any of these people had been poisoned.”
More from Larson, a prominent American forensic pathologist, who performed autopsies at Dachau and some of its sub-camps. At Dachau Dr. Larson performed about 25 autopsies a day for 10 days and superficially examined another 300 to 1,000 bodies. He autopsied only those bodies that appeared to be questionable. Dr. Larson stated regarding these autopsies at Dachau:
“Many of them died from typhus. Dachau’s crematoriums couldn’t keep up with the burning of the bodies. They did not have enough oil to keep the incinerators going. I found that a number of the victims had also died from tuberculosis. All of them were malnourished. The medical facilities were most inadequate. There was no sanitation…
…
A rumor going around Dachau after we got there was that many of the prisoners were poisoned. I did a lot of toxicological analysis to determine the facts and removed organs from a cross-section of about 30 to 40 bodies and sent them into Paris to the Army’s First Medical laboratory for analysis, since I lacked the proper facilities in the field. The reports came back negative. I could not find where any of these people had been poisoned. The majority died of natural diseases of one kind or another.”
Dr. Larson did report that some inmates had been shot and that the living conditions in the German camps were atrocious. The average daily caloric intake of the inmates was far short of requirements, thus accounting for the extreme emaciation of many of the inmates. However, since Dr. Larson’s autopsy reports were inconsistent with a German program of extermination or genocide, they were not introduced into evidence at the Nuremberg trials.
Most of the photos are indeed real, however they do not provide any proof of the alleged mass exterminations of Jews in “extermination camps.” They are from camps in west Germany, such as Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, Nordhausen and Dachau, and show the victims of epidemics, malnutrition, exhaustion and Allied air-raids.
Look at this photo, if Trent so this, he’d automatically assume gassed victims, or maybe they were mass executed. Why do I say this? Because Trent himself said:
"Crematorium's and mass disposals of bodies in pits would ONLY be needed for mass extermination, NOT for disposing people who die naturally from things like disease.”
Well let’s take a look again at what this photo is really showing:
During the advance of the Red Army, the Germans had evacuated the eastern camps in order not to let potential soldiers and workers fall into the Soviet’s hands. In the western camps, where these transferred inmates were detained in overburdened facilities, an uncontrollable outbreak of epidemics occurred in the overcrowded barracks; frequently, neither medical supplies nor food could reach the camps anymore due to the destruction of the German infrastructure by the Allied air-raid campaign.
As a result, for instance in Dachau, where a total of 12,445 detainees had died between the beginning of 1940 and the end of 1944, no less than 15,348 died in the first four months of 1945, hence more than during the entire preceding five years (See Neuhäusler 1981).
Let’s look at another photo, Trent would see this as mass murdered victims, probably gassed or shot right?
11:39 - 4,756 people Cremated a day
This is practically a lie and forgery. The writing of the SS building site manager Bischoff from 2 June 1943 to the WVHA in Berlin, in which he reports the completion of all four crematoria in Birkenau, of two big crematoria I and II with 15 muffles (chambers for incinerating a corpse) each as well as the two smaller crematoria III and IV (which are only above ground) in Birkenau with 8 muffles each
In this letter Bischoff assiduously establishes an incinerating performance (which was not at all substantiated through reality) of the crematoria I and II of 1440 people each, and of the crematoria III and IV of 768 people each in an operating time of 24 hours; in total (inclusive of the old crematorium in the main camp of Auschwitz, which was, however, out of service) 4756 corpses daily.
The French expert Jean-Claude Pressac had already called this writing “an internal propaganda lie” of the SS seven years previously. Jean-Claude Pressac was an advent defender of the Holocaust narrative.
The Crematoria were not in service permanently, but often broke down. The crematorium I which had been taken into service on 15 March 1943 was already damaged after nine days, and the repair work only “neared completion” on 18 July. The repair of 20 oven doors of the two big crematoria was ordered on 3 April 1944 and completed only on 17 October.
Mainstream Holocaust Historian say It likely overstated the capabilities of the crematoria, yet Trent states them as if fact? What is Trent’s math I wonder? How many were gassed a day, how many were cremated day Trent? How will we get to your figure, please elaborate.
11:48 - Trent’s Lies, Crematorium = Mass Murder?
Trent then says:
Crematorium's and mass disposals of bodies in pits would ONLY be needed for mass extermination, NOT for disposing people who die naturally from things like disease.
Trent
I do not even know what to say, this crazy correlation that crematorium = mass extermination? Some American camps had Crematorium's, does that suddenly mean they were mass exterminating people? Disease was BRUTAL in World War 2, Black Fever and Typhus being the most brutal, so much so that even SS Guards were dying from it in the camps:
The conditions in the camps are, of course, difficult. Many of my men have died from disease in these camps—typhus, dysentery... It’s a terrible burden to carry.
Henrich Himmler
But I assume Trent will only use Himmler when he CONFIRMS his view, and not when he speaks directly against it.
Himmler’s Views are confirmed by the death records:
In Auschwitz [All 3 Subcamps] alone, over 70,000 deaths were from Typhus, so yes the crematorium's WERE used for disposing people dying of things such as disease. Estimates put the deaths from disease in WW2 in the millions. To write off disease as NOT being a reason for crematorium capacity is utterly and totally ignorant, and goes to show how disingenuous Trent's arguments really are.
The decodes with the death stats were intercepted for less than a year by the British from the spring of 1942 to January of 1943, when they stopped (F. H. Hinsley et al., British Intelligence in the Second World War. Its Influence on Strategy and Operations, 1981, vol. 2, p. 673).
What was Hinsley's analysis of the telegrams?
The return from Auschwitz, the largest of the camps with 20,000 prisoners, mentioned illness as the main cause of death, but included references to shootings and hangings. There were no references in the decrypts to gassings."
- Sir Francis Harry Hinsley
11:58 - Steel Mesh Glass Peepholes for Gas Chamber doors
“[The Steel Mesh protected, glass Peepholes] which wouldn't be needed if the chambers were just for delousing”
Trent
Trent makes a horrible error, he could have said “this likely wouldn’t have been needed if it was for delousing” but instead he says thoroughly that the existence of Glass Peepholes means it WAS NOT for Delousing and THEREFORE automatically makes it a homicidal gas chamber because of the peepholes.
Well, as usual, Trent is wrong:
This door on display at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC, is portrayed as the door of an extermination gas chamber. The caption describes the door as “a casting of the door to the gas chamber at Majdanek … from the outside, SS guards could observe the killing through a small peephole.”
They make the exact statement as Trent does. However, Jean-Claude Pressac concedes (on pages 555 and 557 of his 1989 “Auschwitz” book), this was a delousing chamber used to disinfect clothing. Similar doors, Samuel Crowell points out, were also commonly used with standard German wartime bomb shelters, as a protection against possible poison gas attacks. So yes Trent, Delousing Chambers did have these Peeps, and your automatic assumption that peepholes necessitates homicidal intentions has no ground.
Another article in Gasschutz und Luftschutz appearing in 1939, this one detailing “Practical Lessons for Work Place Bomb Shelters,” recommends Baustahlgewebe, described as “wire mesh of varying gauges that has been welded together at certain points,” to protect bomb shelter apertures. This is a good substitute, readers are told, especially for constructing covers.
As for gas tight doors that had glass peepholes, they were used usually to protect from damage with a perforated steel plate, although other means could be, and were, used, see the following:
In this booklet Scholle also describes the need for bomb shelter doors to be gas tight and to have a gas tight peephole:
Every anti-gas bomb shelter door must be equipped with a peephole. The peephole should be made round, without the use of putty or other easily hardened materials to be made gas tight, and it should have a view of 40 millimeters. The disc of multi-layered glass of at least six millimeters in thickness should be protected from damage with a perforated steel plate.
The Repal company of Leipzig offers “air defense shelter doors and shutters, in steel” in this advertisement, which appeared in a 1942 issue of the German trade periodical “Baulicher Luftschutz.” Such doors were gas resistant. Note the protected peep hole.
Trent’s asserted that glass peepholes MEANT the chambers were used for homicide, according this logic as would the rest of these examples, but they weren’t. If your base assumption is all chambers were used for murder, then you will conclude ridiculous conclusions of anything related to chambers being for murder. The same goes for Euphemisms.
12:13 - Hundreds of Eyewitness testimonies
Which one is Trent referring to exactly? This is a gross generalization fallacy.
Is he referring to Maria van Herwaarden? Who was in Auschwitz I, near Auschwitz II, as a Prisoner at Auschwitz from December 1942 to January 1945, also testified in a court and was cross-examined without changing her testimony in 1988. She testified that she did not ever see:
"any indication of a mass murder or extermination of Jews”
Or is Trent referring to Marika Frank? Who arrived at Auschwitz-Birkenau from Hungary in July 1944, when 25,000 Jews were supposedly gassed and cremated daily. She testified after the war that she heard and saw nothing of gas chambers during the time she was interned at Auschwitz. She heard the gassing stories only later.
Perhaps Trent was referring to Esther Grossman? Who was an Auschwitz-Birkenau prisoner, who stated that she saw no gas chambers and did not hear of them until after the war.
Maybe Trent trusts the Germans more, such as Wilhelm Stäglich, who was a German postwar judge, stated that he had visited Auschwitz several times during the war and did not see any evidence of a genocide.
Trent doesn’t specify the eyewitnesses, and moves onto the Nazi Officials who “admitted to their crimes”.
12:20 - Nazi Officials admitted to their crimes, and were not tortured?
The dishonesty continues. Rudolf Hoss, the Commandant of Auschwitz, who better could tell us the death count of Auschwitz right? At Nuremberg, von Schirmeister was a witness to the defense and was about to be released soon. In the car carrying him, he sat in the backseat together with Höss, with whom he could speak freely during transit; in particular, he remembered Höss’s following outburst (see Document below):
“On the things he is accused of, he told me: ‘Certainly, I signed a statement that I killed two and a half million Jews. But I could just as well have said that it was five million Jews.*There are certain methods by which any confession can be obtained, whether it is true or not.’
Rudolf Hoss, Commandant of Auschwitz
Firstly, today the figure is 1,000,000 by Modern Holocaust Orthodoxy, so Rudolf Hoss DID LIE under oath. As for torture, just as Trent denies the Jewish sacrifices of Christian Children (ironically even though his own church canons them as Saints) he also denies the torture of the Germans.
Note the traces of physical abuse in his face. While in prison at Minden, Höss was brutally treated to induce him to “confess,” as Ken Jones reported in 1986 (Mason 1986):
Mr Ken Jones was then a private with the Fifth Royal Horse Artillery stationed at Heidi in Schleswig Holstein.
‘They brought him to us when he refused to co-operate over questioning about his activities during the war. He came in the winter of 1945/46 and was put in a small cell in the barracks,’ recalls Mr Jones. Two other soldiers were detailed with Mr Jones to join Hoss in his cell to help break him down for interrogation.
‘We sat in the cell with him, night and day, armed with axe handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to help break down his resistance,’ said Mr Jones.
When Hoss was taken out for exercise, he was made to wear only jeans and a thin cotton shirt in the bitter cold. After three days and nights without sleep, Hoss finally broke down and made a full confession to the authorities.”
This “confession” consists of the interrogation minutes signed by Höss at 2:30 AM on March 14, 1946. It had to be expected that this confession ends with an assertion claiming that it was made voluntarily and is truthful, but in the light of what was revealed here, this sounds tragically ironic: The document states indeed that its content corresponds to the statements made by the interrogatee and constitutes “die reine Wahrheit” – “the pure truth.”
This is followed by the signatures of two witnesses and by Captain William Cross’s assertion that Höss had made this statement “voluntarily”! It is worthwhile keeping in mind what Höss wrote about it in his Cracow notes:
“I do not know what is in the protocol, although I signed it.”
Rudolf Hoss
Rudolf Höss estimated that of 3 Million people that had been exterminated at Auschwitz under his watch, 2.5 Million had been killed by means of gas chambers. Hoss is a primary source, yet, he lied, influenced by his torture which Trent denies. Hoss himself wrote that he was tortured, so why does Trent blatantly lie to his audience? In his confession, Höss stated that he had been subjected to physical and psychological torture while in custody, which he claimed led him to provide his detailed testimony about his role in the Holocaust. One key passage from his statement reads:
"I was tortured and I had to make the confession. The Allies used all kinds of methods to get information from me... They were not gentle. After I was taken into captivity, I was treated badly and tortured, which caused me to make statements about things I had not experienced."
Rudolf Hoss
Numerous Allies have confessed to torturing and intimidating German soldiers into making false confessions. For example, Benjamin Ferencz, who was a Harvard Law School graduate and enjoyed an international reputation as a world peace advocate, related a story concerning his interrogation of an SS colonel. Ferencz explained that he took out his pistol in order to intimidate him:
“What do you do when he thinks he’s still in charge? I’ve got to show him that I’m in charge. All I’ve got to do is squeeze the trigger and mark it as auf der Flucht erschossen [shot while trying to escape]… I said ‘you are in a filthy uniform sir, take it off!’ I stripped him naked and threw his clothes out the window. He stood there naked for half an hour, covering his balls with his hands, not looking nearly like the SS officer he was reported to be. Then I said ‘now listen, you and I are gonna have an understanding right now. I am a Jew – I would love to kill you and mark you down as _auf der Flucht erschossen_, but I’m gonna do what you would never do. You are gonna sit down and write out exactly what happened – when you entered the camp, who was there, how many died, why they died, everything else about it. Or, you don’t have to do that – you are under no obligation – you can write a note of five lines to your wife, and I will try to deliver it…’ I then went to someone outside and said ‘Major, I got this affidavit, but I’m not gonna use it – it is a coerced confession. I want you to go in, be nice to him, and have him re-write it.’ The second one seemed to be okay – I told him to keep the second one and destroy the first one. That was it.”
The fact that Ferencz threatened and humiliated his witness and reported as much to his superior officer indicates that he operated in a culture where such illegal methods were acceptable. Any Harvard law graduate knows that such evidence is not admissible in a legitimate court of law.
Ferencz further acknowledged the unfairness of the Dachau trials
“I was there for the liberation, as a sergeant in the Third Army, General Patton’s Army, and my task was to collect camp records and witness testimony, which became the basis for prosecutions… But the Dachau trials were utterly contemptible. There was nothing resembling the rule of law. More like court-martials… It was not my idea of a judicial process. I mean, I was a young, idealistic Harvard law graduate.”
The defense counsel in the Mauthausen trial at Dachau insisted that signed confessions of the accused, used by the prosecution to great effect, had been extracted from the defendants through physical abuse, coercion, and deceit. Benjamin Ferencz admitted in an interview that these defense counsel’s claims were correct. Ferencz stated:
“You know how I got witness statements? I’d go into a village where, say, an American pilot had parachuted and been beaten to death and line everyone up against the wall. Then I’d say, “Anyone who lies will be shot on the spot.” It never occurred to me that statements taken under duress would be invalid.”
Defense witnesses at the Mauthausen trial repeatedly testified to improper interrogation techniques used by the prosecution. For example, defendant Viktor Zoller, the former adjutant to Mauthausen commandant Franz Ziereis, testified that U.S. Lt. Paul Guth said:
“I received special permission and can have you shot immediately if I want to.”
When Zoller refused to sign a confession, Guth acted as if he was going to shoot Zoller. Zoller still refused to sign the confession and wrote:
“I won’t say another word even though the court might think I am a criminal who refused to talk.”
Defendant Georg Goessl testified that Guth told him to add the words “and were injected by myself” to his statement. If Goessl did not write down what Guth dictated, Guth visually demonstrated to Goessl that he would be hanged. Goessl testified that he then signed the false statement and planned to clear up the matter in court.
Defendant Willy Frey testified that a prosecution witnesses had never seen him before and wouldn’t be able to identify him if he didn’t have a number hanging around his neck. Frey testified that he had been severely beaten in Mossburg by an American officer. Frey signed his confession only because he was afraid that he would be beaten again.
Defendant Johannes Grimm testified that he signed a false statement that Lt. Guth had dictated to Dr. Ernst Leiss. When asked why he signed this false statement, Grimm replied:
“I already described my mental condition on that day. I had memories of the previous interrogations. My left cheekbone was broken and four of my teeth were knocked out…”
Grimm further testified:
“The only superior I had to obey was Lt. Guth telling me to write this sentence.”
American attorney Willis N. Everett, Jr. also reported the torture and abuse of German defendants in the Malmédy trial at Dachau. Everett was assigned to defend the 74 German defendants accused of the Malmédy incident. The trial took place from May 16 to July 16, 1946, before a military tribunal of senior American officers operating under rules established by the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal. Everett and his staff of defense lawyers, interpreters and stenographers divided into several teams to interview the defendants. Everett wrote to his family of the experience:
>“Several defendants today said they thought they had had a trial… a Col. sat on the Court and his defense counsel rushed the proceedings through and he was to be hanged the next day so he might as well write up a confession and clear some of his other fellows seeing he would be hanged… another kind of court had black curtains… The Lt. Col. sat as judge at a black-draped table which had a white cross on it and the only light was two candles on either end. He was tried and witnesses brought in and he was sentenced to death, but he would have to write down in his own handwriting a complete confession. Then the beatings and hang-man’s rope, black hoods, eye gougers which they claimed would be used on them unless they confessed. Not a one yet wrote out his statement but each stated that the prosecution dictated their statements and they said it made no difference anyway as they would die the next day. So, on and on it goes with each one of the defendants. The story of each must have some truth because they have each been in solitary confinement.”
Many of the investigators in the Allied-run trials were Jewish refugees from Germany who hated Germans. These Jewish investigators gave vent to their hatred by treating the Germans brutally to force confessions from them. Joseph Halow, a Dachau trial court reporter, quit his job because he was outraged at what was happening there in the name of justice. He later testified to a U.S. Senate subcommittee that the most brutal interrogators had been three German-born Jews.
The interrogations in the Russian Zone were also typically brutal and inhumane. A German physician reported his experience of the interrogations at a Russian camp:
“The cellars of all the barracks are crammed with people, about 4,000 men and women, many of whom are interrogated every night by the NKVD officials. The purpose of these interrogations is not to worm out of the people what they knew – which would be uninteresting anyway – but to extort from them special statements. The methods resorted to are extremely primitive: people are beaten up until they confess to having been members of the Nazi Party. But the result is almost the opposite of what most of the people probably expect, that is, that those who hadn’t been party members would come off better. The authorities simply assume that, basically, everybody has belonged to the Party. Many people die during and after these interrogations, while others, who admit at once their party membership, are treated more leniently.”
Tuviah Friedman was a Polish Jew who survived the German concentration camps. Friedman said he beat up to 20 German prisoners a day to obtain confessions and weed out SS officers. Friedman stated:
“It gave me satisfaction. I wanted to see if they would cry or beg for mercy.”
There’s almost a dozen more examples, but this gets the point across. Trent has once again, lied to his audience. Does he lack a conscience? Proverbs 18:13:
"To answer before listening—that is folly and shame."
Trent clearly hasn’t done any research, nor listened to any meaningful revisionism. Trent instead of listening or learning, goes against any good conscious and lies that confessions were never done under torture.
12:31 - Survivors of Concentration camps
Is he referring to Maria van Herwaarden? Who was in Auschwitz I, near Auschwitz II, as a Prisoner at Auschwitz from December 1942 to January 1945, also testified in a court and was cross-examined without changing her testimony in 1988. She testified that she did not ever see:
"any indication of a mass murder or extermination of Jews”
Or is Trent referring to Marika Frank? Who arrived at Auschwitz-Birkenau from Hungary in July 1944, when 25,000 Jews were supposedly gassed and cremated daily. She testified after the war that she heard and saw nothing of gas chambers during the time she was interned at Auschwitz. She heard the gassing stories only later.
Perhaps Trent was referring to Esther Grossman? Who was an Auschwitz-Birkenau prisoner, who stated that she saw no gas chambers and did not hear of them until after the war.
Maybe Trent trusts the Germans more, such as Wilhelm Stäglich, who was a German postwar judge, stated that he had visited Auschwitz several times during the war and did not see any evidence of a genocide.
In academia as well as in the justice system of a state under the rule of law, there is a hierarchy of evidence reflecting the evidential value. In this hierarchy, material and documentary evidence is always superior to eyewitness testimony. We have enough documentary evidence, and even forensic evidence, that prove these eye witnesses wrong. Lampshades, purses made of Jewish skin, electrocuting Jews with “near atomic” energy, these were lies, all of them. Frank Wallace accused by 11 people of being a Nazi murderer, but ultimately they were all lies. Moshe Peer, who claimed that in Bergen-Belsen (where according to the orthodox history no gas chamber existed) he survived no less than six gassings (Seidman 1993).
The quality of Trent’s witnesses are horrible. He does mention the Sonderkommandos but doesn’t substantiate any of their testimonies, so for the sake of brevity we’ll leave it, but I’ll mention just one thing regarding a specific Sonderkommando:
Dov Paisikovic, who as a member of the Sonderkommandos claims to have taken part in the incineration of the corpses of gassed people in Crematory II of Auschwitz-Birkenau (Poliakov 1964, p. 162):
“Cremating a corpse lasts roughly four minutes.”
The cremation duration quoted by Poliakov is therefore approximately fifteen times less than the actual duration. This cannot be called an “error” or “exaggeration”; Paisikovic has lied through his teeth. But according to Trent, we ought to trust all these countless eyewitnesses?
12:44 - Scholars say so, so its true
This is and adhering to authority fallacy, if Trent was honest, he’d present the math used to get to the 6 million figure, and define if 6 million were all Jews or not.
13:30 - Deniers don’t look at data, they ignore the data
Trent once again typical of his dishonesty, makes more combative and unsubstantiated claims.
Which data has been ignored? The death records go against you, the forensic evidence is against you, even Jean-Claude Pressac who agrees with Trent on most of the Holocaust Narrative and yet stated upwards of 90% of gas chambers were for delousing. Which Trent seems to deny.
Deniers just say it’s a lie, it’s a forgery
Trent
You cited a forgery that even mainstream Holocaust Historians agree it is. (See my answer on 11:39 - 4,756 people Cremated a day). Eye witnesses UNDER OATH did lie, they were caught lying as well. Frank Wallace accused by 11 people of being a Nazi murderer, but ultimately they were all lies. Same with John Demjanjuk (Read here).
15:40 - Survivors were FORCED to play Soccer, the horror!
Trent once again asserts that the Soccer and Orchestra were forced plays, and not authentic. We are going to keep it related to the supposed Extermination Camps ONLY, so below is related to Auschwitz, where apparently 1,000,000 Jews died, estimates which range that half of them were gassed. Eye witnesses disagree with Trent. In the video above, see:
0:46 - Auschwitz Orchestra and Plays, never described as forced, they played it over the weekend [every weekend?].
1:20 - Pianos and Theatre, performances done in Auschwitz and it was “very peaceful” to do the piano paper notes. They picked leaves (3:28) and made tea for the WHOLE camp.
6:57 - The Soccer Game, every weekend they got a group together, a soccer team and played Soccer. Trent claimed "inmates were forced to play soccer with guards” yet the eye witness never states as such.
10:00 - British POW’s in an Extermination Camp Playing Soccer
10:50 - Auschwitz daycare, painting for children’s wall, the Germans provide it. Jewish children wrote a play as well, not forced like Trent claimed. The plays were held by the JEWS only and SS men APPEARED unexpectedly, so Trent just totally lied in this part.
Trent then says:
They did all that [Soccer and Plays] as long as they were useful, and then they could be disposed of. (Killed I assume?)
But they weren’t disposed of, and they are alive telling us the tale in the video above. Again, Trent lies.
17:39 - March 27th, 1942 Goebbels
Important REMINDER for Trent: You do not interpret Goebbels, Goebbels interprets himself, so we will be using his words and interpretations.
Before we discuss March 27th entry, the March 19 entry we find the first occurrence of the word, ‘liquidation’. Appearing in eight different entries, and in many cases, it means something other than killing. Goebbels speaks of liquidating the “Jewish danger” (30 May 1942) and of liquidating Jewish marriages (6 December 1942).
The word ‘liquidation’ means, primarily, ‘to make fluid.’ And this in fact is a fairly apt description of the deportation process: a large, entrenched Jewish community who had to be uprooted, made liquid, and then to flow out across the borders. Nothing in this entails killing. Nor at the time, in the 1940s, did the word necessarily mean murder. An article in the London Times had this to say:
“The rest of the Jews in the General Government […] would be liquidated, which means either transported eastward in cattle trucks to an unknown destination, or killed where they stood” (4 December 1942; p. 3).
Holocaust survivor Thomas Buergenthal (2009) writes of his experience in the Kielce ghetto:
“The ghetto was being liquidated or, in the words bellowing out of the loudspeakers, Ausseidlung! Ausseidlung! (‘Evacuation! Evacuation!’).”
And later he comments:
“After the liquidation of the labor camp […]” (p. 56).
Clearly the word means, and meant, something other than killing. Now that we’ve used Goebbels to define Goebbels, and other sources from his time, let us tackle Trent’s March 27th quote of Goebbels:
“Beginning with Lublin, the Jews in the General Government are now being evacuated (abgeschoben) eastward. The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 percent of them will have to be liquidated (liquidiert) whereas only about 40 percent can be used for forced labor.
…
The ghettos that will be emptied in the cities of the General Government will now be refilled with Jews thrown out (ausgeschobenen) of the Reich. This process is to be repeated from time to time. There is nothing funny in it for the Jews, and the fact that Jewry’s representatives in England and America are today organizing and sponsoring the war against Germany must be paid for dearly by its representatives in Europe—and that’s only right.”
Trent ignores the third paragraph from Goebbels in the same entry, where he seems to more clearly define his meaning.
On 19:32 Trent says Jews aren’t an enemy of humanity, and Trent points out that this sort of rhetoric led to millions of humans being slaughtered.
Regarding Jews not being an enemy of humanity, or mankind, how does Trent reconcile with 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15?
You suffered from your own countrymen the very things they suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men.
Now what is the Greek word used for men? ἀνθρώποις which means: A man, one of the human race. So the Jews displease God, and are hostile to ALL (πᾶσιν) the human race. So in Trent’s logic, Saint Pauls’ writing in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15 led to the mass slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust. This is not be straw manning him, in his own words he believes that Jews are not an enemy of humanity. If enemy and “hostile” are different to Trent, then he can wiggle his way out of this. But going with this same logic, Trent would condemn the greatest of the Church Fathers and later Saints.
“Certainly it's the time for me to show that demons dwell in the Synagogue, not only in the place itself but also in the souls of the Jews.”
- Saint John Chrysostom
"Jews are slayers of the Lord, murderers of the prophets, enemies and haters of God, adversaries of grace ... advocates of the devil, a brood of vipers, slanderers, scoffers, men of darkened minds, the leaven of Pharisees, a congregation of demons, sinners, wicked men, haters of goodness!"
- Saint Gregory of Nyssa
Jews, in consequence of their sin, are or were destined to perpetual slavery; so that sovereigns of states may treat their goods as their own property; with the sole proviso that they do not deprive them of all that is necessary to sustain life.
- Saint Thomas Aquinas, Selected Political Writings
"The Jewish people, following their irrational customs, are not only cursed but are in league with the devil himself, who leads them astray."
- Epiphanius of Salamis
"The Jews are stubborn by nature, inheritors of the sins of their fathers, their lineage steeped in wickedness. They will always remain a stiff-necked people, cursed by their very bloodline."
- Saint Jerome (This is real)
Just a quick test here:
The Jews are stubborn by nature, inheritors of the sins of their fathers, their lineage steeped in wickedness. They will always remain a stiff-necked people, cursed by their very bloodline."
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (This is fake)
Can you even tell a difference if I were to use Saint Jerome or Hitler in this instance?
Conclusion
Trent’s arguments aren’t in good faith, he willingly lied on multiple subjects, and from what I can tell, he’s not arguing as a Christian, but as a Jew. So Trent, as you stated, is my Holocaust denial here “immoral” because I think what is truly objectively immoral, is lying to a Christian audience, which you have clearly done. I’ll end with a Germar quote:
If 100 witnesses and 100 confessions state that the moon is made of green cheese or that 870,000 corpses can be burned within a few months without fuel and without leaving traces, both assertions being of a similar intellectual quality, then we have to conclude—in light of all the forensic evidence—that the witnesses and the defendants are wrong.