Paul
Grubach of
Ohio argues that Eichmann’s word is not proof enough,
[Hitler speaks]
Did
Hitler order it? is Eichmann’s word proof?
I AM writing a review of Mark Roseman’s The
Wannsee Conference and the Final Solution: A
Reconsideration (Henry Holt, Metropolitan Books, 2002) for Germar Rudolf’s English language journal. The book was very favorably reviewed by Ian
Kershaw and Richard
Evans.
[Memoirs]As you know, Adolf
Eichmann wrote a passage in his memoirs that Evans believes supports the theory that Hitler ordered the complete extermination of the Jewish people. Nazi official
Reinhard Heydrich allegedly told Eichmann in July
1941 that: “I’ve [Heydrich] come from the
Reichsfuhrer [Heinrich Himmler]. [Hitler]
has given orders for the physical destruction of the Jews (p.248, Evans’s Lying about Hitler).”
You claimed that Eichmann had inserted this phrase in his manuscript so that, if he was captured, his defense would be that he was merely following orders (pp.248-249). Evans claims you are simply trying to rationalize away the evidence that does not fit your views.
Lo and behold!! On page 54, Roseman makes the claim that
“Both [Rudolf]
Höss’s and Eichmann’s testimonies lack credibility.” A few sentences later he states:
“Eichmann, for his part, was at pains to
establish a clear set of orders that absolved him of
responsibility.”
On page 96, Roseman discusses how Eichmann spoke of the
Wannsee Conference after he was captured in the post-war years: [Eichmann]”Adolf
Eichmann spoke more openly, but his testimony is unreliable, particularly on his own aspirations, concerned as he was to portray himself as a dutiful errand boy, with neither initiation nor knowledge.” On pages 97-98, he claims that
Eichmann invented false claims.
Then, on page 104, he again claims that Eichmann’s defense strategy “was to establish that his superiors had given clear killing orders.”
Roseman’s claims support your position. If Eichmann’s testimony is unreliable, and if he had a vested interest in establishing that his Nazi superiors had given him a clear set of orders for mass murder that absolved him of responsibility, then it follows that he very well may have inserted the phrase–“…Hitler has given the orders for the physical destruction of the Jews.”–in his postwar
[1955/1956]
manuscript.
Thus, how can Richard Evans possibly castigate you for
“rationalizing away the evidence,” when a book of which he has given a favorable review offers evidence for your point of view on the Eichmann passage?
-
Our index on Adolf
Hitler - Daily transcripts of
hearings in the Lipstadt trial[single
days] [bulk
download: 1.6MB StuffIt
Expander needed].
get StuffIt Expander free: [Mac]
[Windows]Free
download
of David Irving’s books Bookmark
the download page to find the latest new
free
books