04-12-2025, 05:41 PM
You say victims and perpetrators tell the same story—but I’d ask, which perpetrators? Most of the so-called “confessions” at Nuremberg came after intense psychological and sometimes physical pressure. Rudolf Höss’s confession, for example, was taken after beatings and sleep deprivation. Would such a confession hold in any fair court today?
You refer to the Wannsee Conference—everybody always does—but the language used remains vague. It talks of deportation and "special treatment," but nowhere is gas chamber or systematic extermination mentioned. Euphemism? Maybe. But that's guesswork piled on top of bureaucratic obscurity.
And as for consistency, let me point out the inconsistency of the numbers. Auschwitz's death toll was revised from 4 million to just over 1 million. The number six million wasn't revised along with it. That alone should raise an eyebrow. If this is one of the best-documented crimes in history, why are the numbers so flexible?
The Red Cross, an autonomous, neutral organization, made visits to camps like Theresienstadt and said nothing of gas chambers or industrial slaughter. That does not prove that the Holocaust never took place, but it does invalidate the argument that it was wholly transparent and self-evident at the time.
And trials? Let's remember—those were held by the victors, on their terms. Justice in war's wake has rarely been impartial. I'm not saying all the trials were a sham, but we must consider the political context. The Allies themselves committed atrocities—Dresden, Hiroshima—and had a vested interest in presenting the Nazis as exceedingly evil.
Now, when someone like me asks questions—why so many sealed archives? Why criminal laws against revisionism in Europe? Why is archaeology at extermination sites so limited?—we’re treated as heretics, not scholars. That’s not how truth works. That’s how dogma works.
You claim the history I dispute is true. I claim the history you're defending deserves questioning—not out of hate, but out of a desire for intellectual honesty. If it's as strong as claimed, it should be able to withstand questioning. The fact that it's protected by law suggests fear—not certainty.
You refer to the Wannsee Conference—everybody always does—but the language used remains vague. It talks of deportation and "special treatment," but nowhere is gas chamber or systematic extermination mentioned. Euphemism? Maybe. But that's guesswork piled on top of bureaucratic obscurity.
And as for consistency, let me point out the inconsistency of the numbers. Auschwitz's death toll was revised from 4 million to just over 1 million. The number six million wasn't revised along with it. That alone should raise an eyebrow. If this is one of the best-documented crimes in history, why are the numbers so flexible?
The Red Cross, an autonomous, neutral organization, made visits to camps like Theresienstadt and said nothing of gas chambers or industrial slaughter. That does not prove that the Holocaust never took place, but it does invalidate the argument that it was wholly transparent and self-evident at the time.
And trials? Let's remember—those were held by the victors, on their terms. Justice in war's wake has rarely been impartial. I'm not saying all the trials were a sham, but we must consider the political context. The Allies themselves committed atrocities—Dresden, Hiroshima—and had a vested interest in presenting the Nazis as exceedingly evil.
Now, when someone like me asks questions—why so many sealed archives? Why criminal laws against revisionism in Europe? Why is archaeology at extermination sites so limited?—we’re treated as heretics, not scholars. That’s not how truth works. That’s how dogma works.
You claim the history I dispute is true. I claim the history you're defending deserves questioning—not out of hate, but out of a desire for intellectual honesty. If it's as strong as claimed, it should be able to withstand questioning. The fact that it's protected by law suggests fear—not certainty.