Max Täubner - Revision history

𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗹: Text replacement - "Holocaust" to "Holohoax"

2024-02-25T11:37:03Z

Text replacement - "Holocaust" to "Holohoax"

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:37, 25 February 2024
Line 4:		Line 4:
	[[Wikipedia]] states that Täubner was part of a Waffen-SS unit conducting anti-[[partisan]] operations and assisting the [[Einsatzgruppen]] (also part of the SS) in the [[Soviet Union]]. Täubner, together with subordinate SS-personal, were defendants at an SS court in 1943, for atrocities against jews and for Täubner taking photos of atrocities and showing them to his wife and friends. He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, while the case against his subordinates was dismissed.<ref name=wp>1st SS Infantry Brigade https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1st_SS_Infantry_Brigade&oldid=788534988</ref>		[[Wikipedia]] states that Täubner was part of a Waffen-SS unit conducting anti-[[partisan]] operations and assisting the [[Einsatzgruppen]] (also part of the SS) in the [[Soviet Union]]. Täubner, together with subordinate SS-personal, were defendants at an SS court in 1943, for atrocities against jews and for Täubner taking photos of atrocities and showing them to his wife and friends. He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, while the case against his subordinates was dismissed.<ref name=wp>1st SS Infantry Brigade https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1st_SS_Infantry_Brigade&oldid=788534988</ref>

	== ~~Holocaust~~ revisionism and anti-revisionism ==		== Holohoax revisionism and anti-revisionism ==
	[[~~Holocaust~~ revisionists]] have not disputed that the [[Einsatzgruppen]] killed certain jews, as discussed in the article on this topic. That Täubner was punished does not fit well with the politically correct view that the Einsatzgruppen were conducting indiscriminate atrocities. See also [[World War II German punishments for mistreatment of jews]].		[[Holohoax revisionists]] have not disputed that the [[Einsatzgruppen]] killed certain jews, as discussed in the article on this topic. That Täubner was punished does not fit well with the politically correct view that the Einsatzgruppen were conducting indiscriminate atrocities. See also [[World War II German punishments for mistreatment of jews]].

	However, ~~Holocaust~~ anti-revisionists have been more interested in an alleged and arguably strange, confusing, and contradictory part of the 1943 judgment, as stated in the book ''[["The Good Old Days": The ~~Holocaust~~ As Seen by Its Perpetrators and Bystanders]]'' and translated as "''The accused shall not be punished because of the actions against the jews as such. The jews have to be exterminated and none of the jews that were killed is any great loss. Although the accused should have recognized that the extermination of the jews was the duty of Kommandos which were set up especially for this purpose, he should be excused for considering himself to have the authority to take part in the extermination of jewry himself. Real hatred of the jews was the driving motivation for the accused. In the process he let himself be drawn into committing cruel actions in Alexandriya which are unworthy of a German man and an SS-officer. These excesses cannot be justified, either, as the accused would like to, as retaliation for the pain that the jews have caused the German people. It is not the German way to apply Bolshevic methods during the necessary extermination of the worst enemy of our people. In so doing the conduct of the accused gives rise to considerable concern. The accused allowed his men to act with such vicious brutality that they conducted themselves under his command like a savage horde... (...)''". The book also rather strangely states that "''Taubner had neither been accused or judged for the murder of jews''".		However, Holohoax anti-revisionists have been more interested in an alleged and arguably strange, confusing, and contradictory part of the 1943 judgment, as stated in the book ''[["The Good Old Days": The Holohoax As Seen by Its Perpetrators and Bystanders]]'' and translated as "''The accused shall not be punished because of the actions against the jews as such. The jews have to be exterminated and none of the jews that were killed is any great loss. Although the accused should have recognized that the extermination of the jews was the duty of Kommandos which were set up especially for this purpose, he should be excused for considering himself to have the authority to take part in the extermination of jewry himself. Real hatred of the jews was the driving motivation for the accused. In the process he let himself be drawn into committing cruel actions in Alexandriya which are unworthy of a German man and an SS-officer. These excesses cannot be justified, either, as the accused would like to, as retaliation for the pain that the jews have caused the German people. It is not the German way to apply Bolshevic methods during the necessary extermination of the worst enemy of our people. In so doing the conduct of the accused gives rise to considerable concern. The accused allowed his men to act with such vicious brutality that they conducted themselves under his command like a savage horde... (...)''". The book also rather strangely states that "''Taubner had neither been accused or judged for the murder of jews''".

	~~Holocaust~~ revisionists have questioned the authenticity of the supposed quote. One problem is the absence of written genocidal order to Einsatzgruppen. See [[Einsatzgruppen#Not_genocidal_orders_to_the_Einsatzgruppen\|Einsatzgruppen: Not genocidal orders to the Einsatzgruppen]]. One non-revisionist explanation for this is that subordinates started genocidal killings on their own initiative (see "[[~~Holocaust~~ functionalism]]"). However, the alleged judgment quote alleges that "''the extermination of the jews was the duty of Kommandos which were set up especially for this purpose''". Another non-revisionist explanation for the absence of written orders to the Einsatzgruppen is supposed use of oral-only orders for secrecy. However, this makes it unclear how the court knew about and could authenticate these secret oral-only orders and also raises the question of why the court did not continue to conceal these secret oral-only orders.		Holohoax revisionists have questioned the authenticity of the supposed quote. One problem is the absence of written genocidal order to Einsatzgruppen. See [[Einsatzgruppen#Not_genocidal_orders_to_the_Einsatzgruppen\|Einsatzgruppen: Not genocidal orders to the Einsatzgruppen]]. One non-revisionist explanation for this is that subordinates started genocidal killings on their own initiative (see "[[Holohoax functionalism]]"). However, the alleged judgment quote alleges that "''the extermination of the jews was the duty of Kommandos which were set up especially for this purpose''". Another non-revisionist explanation for the absence of written orders to the Einsatzgruppen is supposed use of oral-only orders for secrecy. However, this makes it unclear how the court knew about and could authenticate these secret oral-only orders and also raises the question of why the court did not continue to conceal these secret oral-only orders.

	Wikipedia states that there are different versions on what occurred at the trial.<ref name=wp/>		Wikipedia states that there are different versions on what occurred at the trial.<ref name=wp/>
Line 27:		Line 27:
	Another German trial, that is sometimes mentioned in association with the Täubner trial, is the 1942 trial of the Unteroffizier Hans Röttgermann. He was a member of the regular army and not the SS. Röttgermann had shot several jews in a military prison. The judgment, which found him guilty, stated that "''Therefore the shootings of jews by the [[SD]] [one part of the SS] are also in the end acts of the State, which ordered the destruction of these enemies in a certain way and which also allowed for it to be undertaken. For these measures deemed necessary by the State dedicated institutions are established. These institutions are themselves subject to tight bylaws.''"<ref name=HH28/>		Another German trial, that is sometimes mentioned in association with the Täubner trial, is the 1942 trial of the Unteroffizier Hans Röttgermann. He was a member of the regular army and not the SS. Röttgermann had shot several jews in a military prison. The judgment, which found him guilty, stated that "''Therefore the shootings of jews by the [[SD]] [one part of the SS] are also in the end acts of the State, which ordered the destruction of these enemies in a certain way and which also allowed for it to be undertaken. For these measures deemed necessary by the State dedicated institutions are established. These institutions are themselves subject to tight bylaws.''"<ref name=HH28/>

	As stated above, ~~Holocaust~~ revisionists have argued that the SS had (tight) non-genocidal orders to kill certain jews, which fits with the quote from the judgment. Furthermore, the quote is problematic for claims that the regular army was sanctioned to participate in killings of jews.		As stated above, Holohoax revisionists have argued that the SS had (tight) non-genocidal orders to kill certain jews, which fits with the quote from the judgment. Furthermore, the quote is problematic for claims that the regular army was sanctioned to participate in killings of jews.

	== See also ==		== See also ==
Line 44:		Line 44:
	{{references}}		{{references}}

	[[Category:Alleged ~~Holocaust~~ confessors]]		[[Category:Alleged Holohoax confessors]]

𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗹: Text replacement - "Jew" to "jew"

2024-02-21T01:20:17Z

Text replacement - "Jew" to "jew"

𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗹: 1 revision imported

2024-02-06T22:16:12Z

1 revision imported

← Older revision	Revision as of 13:16, 6 February 2024
(No difference)

en>Upplysning at 05:24, 18 July 2020

2020-07-18T05:24:27Z

New page

__NOTOC__
'''Max Täubner''' (sometimes '''Taubner''' in English) was an SS-Untersturmführer.

[[Wikipedia]] states that Täubner was part of a Waffen-SS unit conducting anti-[[partisan]] operations and assisting the [[Einsatzgruppen]] (also part of the SS) in the [[Soviet Union]]. Täubner, together with subordinate SS-personal, were defendants at an SS court in 1943, for atrocities against Jews and for Täubner taking photos of atrocities and showing them to his wife and friends. He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, while the case against his subordinates was dismissed.<ref name=wp>1st SS Infantry Brigade https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1st_SS_Infantry_Brigade&oldid=788534988</ref>

== Holocaust revisionism and anti-revisionism ==
[[Holocaust revisionists]] have not disputed that the [[Einsatzgruppen]] killed certain Jews, as discussed in the article on this topic. That Täubner was punished does not fit well with the politically correct view that the Einsatzgruppen were conducting indiscriminate atrocities. See also [[World War II German punishments for mistreatment of Jews]].

However, Holocaust anti-revisionists have been more interested in an alleged and arguably strange, confusing, and contradictory part of the 1943 judgment, as stated in the book ''[["The Good Old Days": The Holocaust As Seen by Its Perpetrators and Bystanders]]'' and translated as "''The accused shall not be punished because of the actions against the Jews as such. The Jews have to be exterminated and none of the Jews that were killed is any great loss. Although the accused should have recognized that the extermination of the Jews was the duty of Kommandos which were set up especially for this purpose, he should be excused for considering himself to have the authority to take part in the extermination of Jewry himself. Real hatred of the Jews was the driving motivation for the accused. In the process he let himself be drawn into committing cruel actions in Alexandriya which are unworthy of a German man and an SS-officer. These excesses cannot be justified, either, as the accused would like to, as retaliation for the pain that the Jews have caused the German people. It is not the German way to apply Bolshevic methods during the necessary extermination of the worst enemy of our people. In so doing the conduct of the accused gives rise to considerable concern. The accused allowed his men to act with such vicious brutality that they conducted themselves under his command like a savage horde... (...)''". The book also rather strangely states that "''Taubner had neither been accused or judged for the murder of Jews''".

Holocaust revisionists have questioned the authenticity of the supposed quote. One problem is the absence of written genocidal order to Einsatzgruppen. See [[Einsatzgruppen#Not_genocidal_orders_to_the_Einsatzgruppen|Einsatzgruppen: Not genocidal orders to the Einsatzgruppen]]. One non-revisionist explanation for this is that subordinates started genocidal killings on their own initiative (see "[[Holocaust functionalism]]"). However, the alleged judgment quote alleges that "''the extermination of the Jews was the duty of Kommandos which were set up especially for this purpose''". Another non-revisionist explanation for the absence of written orders to the Einsatzgruppen is supposed use of oral-only orders for secrecy. However, this makes it unclear how the court knew about and could authenticate these secret oral-only orders and also raises the question of why the court did not continue to conceal these secret oral-only orders.

Wikipedia states that there are different versions on what occurred at the trial.<ref name=wp/>

The judge at the trial, [[Günther Reinecke]], in 1946 stated that during his activities as SS-judge he never gained any knowledge of mass extermination of Jews. It has also been argued that Reinecke, with a Ph.D. in law, would not have used the language style claimed in the alleged quote, with German judicial language being very formal and dry.<ref>Taubner Verdict - Proof of extermination? https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?p=80866</ref>

Allegedly, [[Himmler]] advised the court on orders issued on his behalf on 26 October 1942, despite that the case concerned events before this in 1941.<ref name=HH28/>

Revisionists have quoted the 1942 orders by Himmler and stated that "''It can be deduced from this that single shootings did require a specific “order and authority,” outside of which killings were allowed only based on certain motivations. This was in effect for the Eastern territories in the battle against “Judeo-Bolshevism” but not for example for the concentration camps, starting with [[Auschwitz]], where a different norm was in force for everybody, including Jews:''<ref name=HH28/>
:''“It is known to me that the Führer alone decides about life or death of an enemy of the State. I am not allowed to physically harm any State enemy (inmate) or to cause his death. Every killing of an inmate in a concentration camp requires the personal approval of the Reichsführer-SS.”''"<ref name=HH28>The “Extermination Camps” of “Aktion Reinhardt" http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1&page_id=28</ref>

See also [[Auschwitz_camp#General_description_of_the_Auschwitz_punishment_system|Auschwitz camp: General description of the Auschwitz punishment system]].

Various other criticisms have also been made. See the "External links" section.

== Röttgermann trial ==
Another German trial, that is sometimes mentioned in association with the Täubner trial, is the 1942 trial of the Unteroffizier Hans Röttgermann. He was a member of the regular army and not the SS. Röttgermann had shot several Jews in a military prison. The judgment, which found him guilty, stated that "''Therefore the shootings of Jews by the [[SD]] [one part of the SS] are also in the end acts of the State, which ordered the destruction of these enemies in a certain way and which also allowed for it to be undertaken. For these measures deemed necessary by the State dedicated institutions are established. These institutions are themselves subject to tight bylaws.''"<ref name=HH28/>

As stated above, Holocaust revisionists have argued that the SS had (tight) non-genocidal orders to kill certain Jews, which fits with the quote from the judgment. Furthermore, the quote is problematic for claims that the regular army was sanctioned to participate in killings of Jews.

== See also ==
*[[National Socialist Germany and partisans/resistance movements]]
*[[World War II German punishments for mistreatment of Jews]]

== External links ==
*[http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1&page_id=28 The “Extermination Camps” of “Aktion Reinhardt"] - Täubner and Röttgermann are discussed in section "5.5. The “Gas Vans”"
*[http://codoh.com/library/document/2590/ 'Irrefutable Response' Falls Flat, Book Review] - review of ''"The Good Old Days"''

=== Forum threads ===
*[https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=1201 Nizkorite Taubner]
*[https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=3693 Taubner Verdict - Proof of extermination?]
*[https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11801 SS-Untersturmführer Max Taubner's Court Decision]

{{references}}

[[Category:Alleged Holocaust confessors]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:20, 20 February 2024
Line 2:		Line 2:
	'''Max Täubner''' (sometimes '''Taubner''' in English) was an SS-Untersturmführer.		'''Max Täubner''' (sometimes '''Taubner''' in English) was an SS-Untersturmführer.

	[[Wikipedia]] states that Täubner was part of a Waffen-SS unit conducting anti-[[partisan]] operations and assisting the [[Einsatzgruppen]] (also part of the SS) in the [[Soviet Union]]. Täubner, together with subordinate SS-personal, were defendants at an SS court in 1943, for atrocities against ~~Jews~~ and for Täubner taking photos of atrocities and showing them to his wife and friends. He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, while the case against his subordinates was dismissed.<ref name=wp>1st SS Infantry Brigade https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1st_SS_Infantry_Brigade&oldid=788534988</ref>		[[Wikipedia]] states that Täubner was part of a Waffen-SS unit conducting anti-[[partisan]] operations and assisting the [[Einsatzgruppen]] (also part of the SS) in the [[Soviet Union]]. Täubner, together with subordinate SS-personal, were defendants at an SS court in 1943, for atrocities against jews and for Täubner taking photos of atrocities and showing them to his wife and friends. He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, while the case against his subordinates was dismissed.<ref name=wp>1st SS Infantry Brigade https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1st_SS_Infantry_Brigade&oldid=788534988</ref>

	== Holocaust revisionism and anti-revisionism ==		== Holocaust revisionism and anti-revisionism ==
	[[Holocaust revisionists]] have not disputed that the [[Einsatzgruppen]] killed certain ~~Jews~~, as discussed in the article on this topic. That Täubner was punished does not fit well with the politically correct view that the Einsatzgruppen were conducting indiscriminate atrocities. See also [[World War II German punishments for mistreatment of ~~Jews~~]].		[[Holocaust revisionists]] have not disputed that the [[Einsatzgruppen]] killed certain jews, as discussed in the article on this topic. That Täubner was punished does not fit well with the politically correct view that the Einsatzgruppen were conducting indiscriminate atrocities. See also [[World War II German punishments for mistreatment of jews]].

	However, Holocaust anti-revisionists have been more interested in an alleged and arguably strange, confusing, and contradictory part of the 1943 judgment, as stated in the book ''[["The Good Old Days": The Holocaust As Seen by Its Perpetrators and Bystanders]]'' and translated as "''The accused shall not be punished because of the actions against the ~~Jews~~ as such. The ~~Jews~~ have to be exterminated and none of the ~~Jews~~ that were killed is any great loss. Although the accused should have recognized that the extermination of the ~~Jews~~ was the duty of Kommandos which were set up especially for this purpose, he should be excused for considering himself to have the authority to take part in the extermination of ~~Jewry~~ himself. Real hatred of the ~~Jews~~ was the driving motivation for the accused. In the process he let himself be drawn into committing cruel actions in Alexandriya which are unworthy of a German man and an SS-officer. These excesses cannot be justified, either, as the accused would like to, as retaliation for the pain that the ~~Jews~~ have caused the German people. It is not the German way to apply Bolshevic methods during the necessary extermination of the worst enemy of our people. In so doing the conduct of the accused gives rise to considerable concern. The accused allowed his men to act with such vicious brutality that they conducted themselves under his command like a savage horde... (...)''". The book also rather strangely states that "''Taubner had neither been accused or judged for the murder of ~~Jews~~''".		However, Holocaust anti-revisionists have been more interested in an alleged and arguably strange, confusing, and contradictory part of the 1943 judgment, as stated in the book ''[["The Good Old Days": The Holocaust As Seen by Its Perpetrators and Bystanders]]'' and translated as "''The accused shall not be punished because of the actions against the jews as such. The jews have to be exterminated and none of the jews that were killed is any great loss. Although the accused should have recognized that the extermination of the jews was the duty of Kommandos which were set up especially for this purpose, he should be excused for considering himself to have the authority to take part in the extermination of jewry himself. Real hatred of the jews was the driving motivation for the accused. In the process he let himself be drawn into committing cruel actions in Alexandriya which are unworthy of a German man and an SS-officer. These excesses cannot be justified, either, as the accused would like to, as retaliation for the pain that the jews have caused the German people. It is not the German way to apply Bolshevic methods during the necessary extermination of the worst enemy of our people. In so doing the conduct of the accused gives rise to considerable concern. The accused allowed his men to act with such vicious brutality that they conducted themselves under his command like a savage horde... (...)''". The book also rather strangely states that "''Taubner had neither been accused or judged for the murder of jews''".

	Holocaust revisionists have questioned the authenticity of the supposed quote. One problem is the absence of written genocidal order to Einsatzgruppen. See [[Einsatzgruppen#Not_genocidal_orders_to_the_Einsatzgruppen\|Einsatzgruppen: Not genocidal orders to the Einsatzgruppen]]. One non-revisionist explanation for this is that subordinates started genocidal killings on their own initiative (see "[[Holocaust functionalism]]"). However, the alleged judgment quote alleges that "''the extermination of the ~~Jews~~ was the duty of Kommandos which were set up especially for this purpose''". Another non-revisionist explanation for the absence of written orders to the Einsatzgruppen is supposed use of oral-only orders for secrecy. However, this makes it unclear how the court knew about and could authenticate these secret oral-only orders and also raises the question of why the court did not continue to conceal these secret oral-only orders.		Holocaust revisionists have questioned the authenticity of the supposed quote. One problem is the absence of written genocidal order to Einsatzgruppen. See [[Einsatzgruppen#Not_genocidal_orders_to_the_Einsatzgruppen\|Einsatzgruppen: Not genocidal orders to the Einsatzgruppen]]. One non-revisionist explanation for this is that subordinates started genocidal killings on their own initiative (see "[[Holocaust functionalism]]"). However, the alleged judgment quote alleges that "''the extermination of the jews was the duty of Kommandos which were set up especially for this purpose''". Another non-revisionist explanation for the absence of written orders to the Einsatzgruppen is supposed use of oral-only orders for secrecy. However, this makes it unclear how the court knew about and could authenticate these secret oral-only orders and also raises the question of why the court did not continue to conceal these secret oral-only orders.

	Wikipedia states that there are different versions on what occurred at the trial.<ref name=wp/>		Wikipedia states that there are different versions on what occurred at the trial.<ref name=wp/>

	The judge at the trial, [[Günther Reinecke]], in 1946 stated that during his activities as SS-judge he never gained any knowledge of mass extermination of ~~Jews~~. It has also been argued that Reinecke, with a Ph.D. in law, would not have used the language style claimed in the alleged quote, with German judicial language being very formal and dry.<ref>Taubner Verdict - Proof of extermination? https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?p=80866</ref>		The judge at the trial, [[Günther Reinecke]], in 1946 stated that during his activities as SS-judge he never gained any knowledge of mass extermination of jews. It has also been argued that Reinecke, with a Ph.D. in law, would not have used the language style claimed in the alleged quote, with German judicial language being very formal and dry.<ref>Taubner Verdict - Proof of extermination? https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?p=80866</ref>

	Allegedly, [[Himmler]] advised the court on orders issued on his behalf on 26 October 1942, despite that the case concerned events before this in 1941.<ref name=HH28/>		Allegedly, [[Himmler]] advised the court on orders issued on his behalf on 26 October 1942, despite that the case concerned events before this in 1941.<ref name=HH28/>

	Revisionists have quoted the 1942 orders by Himmler and stated that "''It can be deduced from this that single shootings did require a specific “order and authority,” outside of which killings were allowed only based on certain motivations. This was in effect for the Eastern territories in the battle against “Judeo-Bolshevism” but not for example for the concentration camps, starting with [[Auschwitz]], where a different norm was in force for everybody, including ~~Jews~~:''<ref name=HH28/>		Revisionists have quoted the 1942 orders by Himmler and stated that "''It can be deduced from this that single shootings did require a specific “order and authority,” outside of which killings were allowed only based on certain motivations. This was in effect for the Eastern territories in the battle against “Judeo-Bolshevism” but not for example for the concentration camps, starting with [[Auschwitz]], where a different norm was in force for everybody, including jews:''<ref name=HH28/>
	:''“It is known to me that the Führer alone decides about life or death of an enemy of the State. I am not allowed to physically harm any State enemy (inmate) or to cause his death. Every killing of an inmate in a concentration camp requires the personal approval of the Reichsführer-SS.”''"<ref name=HH28>The “Extermination Camps” of “Aktion Reinhardt" http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1&page_id=28</ref>		:''“It is known to me that the Führer alone decides about life or death of an enemy of the State. I am not allowed to physically harm any State enemy (inmate) or to cause his death. Every killing of an inmate in a concentration camp requires the personal approval of the Reichsführer-SS.”''"<ref name=HH28>The “Extermination Camps” of “Aktion Reinhardt" http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1&page_id=28</ref>

Line 25:		Line 25:

	== Röttgermann trial ==		== Röttgermann trial ==
	Another German trial, that is sometimes mentioned in association with the Täubner trial, is the 1942 trial of the Unteroffizier Hans Röttgermann. He was a member of the regular army and not the SS. Röttgermann had shot several ~~Jews~~ in a military prison. The judgment, which found him guilty, stated that "''Therefore the shootings of ~~Jews~~ by the [[SD]] [one part of the SS] are also in the end acts of the State, which ordered the destruction of these enemies in a certain way and which also allowed for it to be undertaken. For these measures deemed necessary by the State dedicated institutions are established. These institutions are themselves subject to tight bylaws.''"<ref name=HH28/>		Another German trial, that is sometimes mentioned in association with the Täubner trial, is the 1942 trial of the Unteroffizier Hans Röttgermann. He was a member of the regular army and not the SS. Röttgermann had shot several jews in a military prison. The judgment, which found him guilty, stated that "''Therefore the shootings of jews by the [[SD]] [one part of the SS] are also in the end acts of the State, which ordered the destruction of these enemies in a certain way and which also allowed for it to be undertaken. For these measures deemed necessary by the State dedicated institutions are established. These institutions are themselves subject to tight bylaws.''"<ref name=HH28/>

	As stated above, Holocaust revisionists have argued that the SS had (tight) non-genocidal orders to kill certain ~~Jews~~, which fits with the quote from the judgment. Furthermore, the quote is problematic for claims that the regular army was sanctioned to participate in killings of ~~Jews~~.		As stated above, Holocaust revisionists have argued that the SS had (tight) non-genocidal orders to kill certain jews, which fits with the quote from the judgment. Furthermore, the quote is problematic for claims that the regular army was sanctioned to participate in killings of jews.

	== See also ==		== See also ==
	*[[National Socialist Germany and partisans/resistance movements]]		*[[National Socialist Germany and partisans/resistance movements]]
	*[[World War II German punishments for mistreatment of ~~Jews~~]]		*[[World War II German punishments for mistreatment of jews]]

	== External links ==		== External links ==