From: "Gary Wiltshire" 

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 06:08:45 -0400, Phil Payne
 wrote:

>
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-04
-17T081949Z_01_L17772051_RTRUKOC_0_UK-IRAQ-SADDAM-TRIAL.xml&archived=False
>
> "BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Saddam Hussein and seven co-accused returned to
> court
> on Monday and proceedings focussed on attempts to prove the ousted Iraqi
> president signed documents implicating him in crimes against humanity, a
> witness said."
>
> This could be fun.  There are almost no documents surviving that prove
> Hitler knew about the Holocaust.  He was very clever about that - almost
> never putting pen to paper.  His name doesn't appear on meeting minutes,
> etc.  Even in the Wannsee Protokol he's only mentioned as wanting forced
> expatriation of Jews.  A lot of neo-NAZIs sieze on this as part of their
> evidence that he never knew about it and his teachings are unsullied.
>
> It's ridiculous, of course.  Prosaically, the Holocaust cost a lot of
> money
> at a time when the Reich was pretty hard pressed - it's completely
> naiive to
> suggest that hundreds of millions of RM were spent without the
> Reichskanzellor knowing EXACTLY what they were being used for.  But
> there's
> next to no Hitler handwriting on the critical documents. G”ring signed
> the
> Vollmacht that authorised the Final Solution, not Hitler.  He could not
> have
> done it without Hitler's permission and agreement to a budget, but that
> is
> not actually recorded.  II wonder if Saddam insulated himself as well.
>
> Saddam could be fun. Whether or not he gives a handwriting sample is
> immaterial - there are plenty of examples of his signature outside Iraq.
> But are the presented documents genuine?
>

Ok, this is an interesting take.  Do you or do you not believe that Hitler
was responsible for the Holocaust?  If he was so clever with his signature,
what should that say about relieving Saddam of his culpability?

--
Gary Wiltshire

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5