Hermann Goering Denying His Guilt

[Revision]

Hermann Goering Denying His Guilt (length: 18 min 10 sec)


This video contains basically all the same contents that the text below but it also has audio recordings or video footage of all those 'Nuremberg Trial Proceedings' parts.

---

Wikipedia: Hermann Goering (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_G%C3%B6ring):

Hermann Wilhelm Göring was a German political and military leader and a convicted war criminal. He was one of the most powerful figures in the Nazi Party, which ruled Germany from 1933 to 1945.

Following the establishment of the Nazi state, Göring amassed power and political capital to become the second most powerful man in Germany.

---

History.com: Preparations for the Final Solution begin (https://www.history.com/this-day-in-his ... l-solution):

On July 31, 1941, Hermann Göring, writing under instructions from Hitler, ordered Reinhard Heydrich, SS general and Heinrich Himmler’s number-two man, “to submit to me as soon as possible a general plan of the administrative material and financial measures necessary for carrying out the desired final solution of the Jewish question.”

---

Wannsee Protocol, January 20, 1942 (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/wannsee.asp):

"Chief of the Security Police and of the SD, SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich, reported that the Reich Marshal [Goering]  had appointed him delegate for the preparations for the final solution of the Jewish question in Europe"


The Reichsfuhrer-SS [Himmler] and the Chief of the German Police (Chief of the Security Police and the SD) [Heydrich] was entrusted with the official central handling of the final solution of the Jewish question without regard to geographic borders.

The Chief of the Security Police and the SD then gave a short report of the struggle which has been carried on thus far against this enemy, the essential points being the following:

a) the expulsion of the Jews from every sphere of life of the German people,

b) the expulsion of the Jews from the living space of the German people.

In carrying out these efforts, an increased and planned acceleration of the emigration of the Jews from Reich territory was started, as the only possible present solution.


By order of the Reich Marshal [Goering], a Reich Central Office for Jewish Emigration was set up in January 1939 and the Chief of the Security Police and SD was entrusted with the management. Its most important tasks were

a) to make all necessary arrangements for the preparation for an increased emigration of the Jews,

b) to direct the flow of emigration,

c) to speed the procedure of emigration in each individual case.

[...]

In the meantime the Reichsfuehrer-SS and Chief of the German Police had prohibited emigration of Jews due to the dangers of an emigration in wartime and due to the possibilities of the East.

III. Another possible solution of the problem has now taken the place of emigration, i.e. the evacuation of the Jews to the East, provided that the Fuehrer gives the appropriate approval in advance.

---

Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 9 - Thursday, 21 March 1946 - Morning Session (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/03-21-46.asp):

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Do you still say neither Hitler nor you knew of the policy to exterminate the Jews?

GOERING: As far as Hitler is concerned, I have said I do not think so. As far as I am concerned, I have said that I did not know, even approximately, to what extent these things were taking place.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You did not know to what degree, but you knew there was a policy that aimed at the extermination of the Jews?

GOERING: No, a policy of emigration, not liquidation of the Jews. I knew only that there had been isolated cases of such perpetrations.

---

Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 9 - Friday, 22 March 1946 - Morning Session (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/03-21-46.asp):

GEN. RUDENKO: Were you in accord with this principle of the master race and education of the German people in the spirit of it, or were you not in accord with it?

Goering: No, and I have also stated that I have never used that expression either in writing or orally. I definitely acknowledge the differences between races.

GEN. RUDENKO: But do I understand you correctly that you are not in accord with this theory?

Goering: I have never expressed my agreement with the theory that one race should be considered as a master race, superior to the others, but I have emphasized the difference between races.

GEN. RUDENKO: You can answer this question; it seems, you do not consider it right?

Goering: I personally do not consider it right.

---

Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 9 - Thursday, 21 March 1946 - Morning Session (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/03-21-46.asp):

GEN. RUDENKO: Is it not true that the directives and the orders of the OKW with regard to the treatment of the civilian population and prisoners of war in the occupied Soviet territories were part of the general directives for the extermination of the Slavs? That is what I want to know.

Goering: Not at all. At no time has there been a directive from the Fuehrer, or anybody I know of, concerning the extermination of the Slavs.

---

Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 9 - Thursday, 21 March 1946 - Morning Session (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/03-21-46.asp):

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Fuehrer, at any rate, must have had full knowledge of what was happening with regard to concentration camps, the treatment of the Jews, and the treatment of the workers, must he not?

Goering: I already mentioned it as my opinion that the Fuehrer did not know about details in concentration camps, about atrocities as described here. As far as I know him, I do not believe he was informed. But insofar as he ...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not asking about details; I am asking about the murder of four or five million people. Are you suggesting that nobody in power in Germany, except Himmler and perhaps Kaltenbrunner, knew about that?

Goering: I am still of the opinion that the Fuehrer did not know about these figures.

---

From 'The Nuremberg Interviews' by Leon Goldensohn (a psychiatrist at the Nuremberg trial):

"All of us knew that people were tried expeditiously in the concentration camps and were sentenced to death, but we didn’t know of innocent people being exterminated."


"That the Jews should be evacuated from Germany was clear. That the Jews should go to the general government in Poland was also clear. But not that they should be exterminated. After the war the Jews were to be brought to Palestine or elsewhere. The plan to evacuate them existed before the war. "


[Goldensohn:] "Did not Goering introduce the first concentration camps in 1933 or 1934?"

[Goering:] “Yes, I frankly admit concentration camps for Communists and other enemies of National Socialism at that time, but certainly not with the idea of killing people or of using them as extermination camps.”


"I think that the atrocities, if they existed — and mind you, I don’t believe they were technically possible, or if they were, I don’t believe Hitler ordered them — it must have been Goebbels or Himmler."


“The charge of conspiracy is a farce. It all goes back to the Versailles Treaty and the fact that Germany was forced to take steps to regain its dignity as a nation.


“I said in court and I repeat to you that this war was not started by Hitler or Germany but by the Allies. Your country obliged England to go to war when we invaded Poland.


"I am fully convinced that this trial is a mockery and that someday when you Americans have your hands full of Russian troublemaking [Cold War], you will see me and my activities in a different light."


"I am sure that I will go down in history as a man who did much for the German people. This trial is a political trial, not a criminal one. If there were criminal things perpetrated by the party, or the SS, or even the army, as is charged, I certainly had nothing to do with them. It is true that my position as second in command politically next to Hitler makes such a statement seem ridiculous."


"But none of Himmler’s subordinates ever came to me, and as far as I knew, atrocities did not exist. I am a man who is basically opposed to atrocities or ungentlemanly actions. In 1934 I promulgated a law against vivisection. You can see, therefore, that if I disapprove of the experimentation on animals, how could I possibly be in favor of torturing humans?"

---

From 'Nuremberg Diary' by Gustave Gilbert (a psychologist at the Nuremberg trial):

"For heaven's sake, do you think I would ever have supported it if I had had the slightest idea that it would lead to mass murder? I assure you we never for a moment had such things in mind."


"That guy Rudenko [Soviet prosecutor] was more nervous than I was, that's a sure thing. Hoho! but he pulled a boner [made a silly mistake] when I slipped in that one about the Russians transporting 1,680,000 Poles and Ukrainians to Russia. Instead of saying, 'We are not interested in your accusations,' he said, 'You do not have to bring up Soviet actions.'—'Actions,' he said. Hoho! I bet he gets a hot wire from old Joe on that one!"


[Gilbert:] "He [Goering] mentioned off-handedly that he did not think America would get away with its Negro problem so easily. This was apparently recently borrowed from Rosenberg, indicating the Nazi fear lest they die without leaving behind some heritage of racial hatred somewhere, to prove in a macabre sort of way that they were right after all."


"We weren't a band of criminals meeting in the woods in the dead of night to plan mass murders like figures in a dime novel."

---

Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 9 - Friday, 22 March 1946 - Morning Session (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/03-21-46.asp):

GEN. RUDENKO: On 8 March, here in the Tribunal, your witness Bodenschatz stated that you told him in March 1945 that many Jews were killed and that for that you will have to pay dearly. Do you remember this testimony of your witness?

Goering: This testimony, in the form in which it was translated now, I do not recollect at all. The witness Bodenschatz never said it that way. I ask that the record of the session be brought in.

GEN. RUDENKO: How did Bodenschatz say that? Do you remember?

Goering: That if we lost the war we would have to pay dearly.

GEN. RUDENKO: Why? For the murders which you had perpetrated?

Goering: No, quite generally, and after all, we have experienced just that.

---

From Hermann Goering's Final Statement (Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Volume 22 - Saturday, 31 August 1946 - Morning Session: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/08-31-46.asp):

HERMANN WILHELM GÖRING: "The prosecution, in its final speeches, has treated the defendants and their testimony as completely worthless. The statements made under oath by the defendants were accepted as absolutely true when they could serve to support the indictment, but conversely the statements were characterized as perjury when they refuted the indictment. That is very elementary, but it is not a convincing basis for demonstration of proof.

The prosecution uses the fact that I was the second man of the State as proof that I must have known everything that happened. But it does not present any documentary or convincing proof in cases where I have denied under oath that I knew about certain things, much less desired them. Therefore it is only an allegation and a conjecture when the prosecution says: "Who should have known that, if not Göring who was the successor of the Führer?".

Repeatedly we have heard here how the worst crimes were veiled with the most secrecy. I wish to state expressly that I condemn these terrible mass murders to the utmost and cannot understand them in the least. But I should like to state clearly once more before the High Tribunal that I have never decreed the murder of a single individual at any time and neither did I decree any other atrocities or tolerate them while I had the power and the knowledge to prevent them.

The new allegation presented by Mr. Dodd in his last speech, that I had ordered Heydrich to kill the Jews, lacks every proof and is not true either."


"Out of all the happenings of these 25 years, from conferences, speeches, laws, actions and decisions, the prosecution proves that everything was desired and intended from the beginning according to a deliberate sequence and an unbroken connection. This is an erroneous conception which is entirely devoid of logic and which will be rectified some day by history, after the proceedings here have proved the incorrectness of these allegations.

Mr. Jackson in his final speech, points out the fact that the signatory states are still in a state of war with Germany, and that because of the unconditional surrender merely a state of truce prevails now. Now, international law is uniform. The same must apply to both sides. Therefore, if everything which is being done in Germany today on the part of the occupying powers is admissible under international law, then Germany was formerly in the same position, at least as regards France, Holland, Belgium, Norway, Yugoslavia and Greece. If today the Geneva Convention no longer has any validity so far as Germans are concerned, if today in all parts of Germany industry is being dismantled and other great asserts in all spheres can be carried away to the other states, if today the property of millions of Germans is being confiscated and many other serious infringements on freedom and property are taking place, then measures such as taken by Germany in the countries mentioned above cannot have been criminal according to international law either."


"I did not want a war, nor did I bring it about. I did everything to prevent it by negotiations."


"I stand up for the things that I have done but I deny most emphatically that my actions were dictated by the desire to subjugate foreign peoples by wars, to murder them, to rob them or to enslave them or to commit atrocities or crimes.

The only motive which guided me was my ardent love for my people, its happiness, its freedom and its life. And for this I call on the Almighty and my German people to witness."

---

---

Additional:

Revision: Heinrich Himmler Denied the Holocaust: http://www.bitchute.com/video/5C17yVoHIBOK/

Hermann Goering's letter to Reinhard Heydrich, 31 July 1941 (with a German transcript and an English translation): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... B6ring.JPG

[Rockartisten]

But Lipstadt told me that no one denied anything. I have never had to lie once to tell the truth, during my lifetime. Weird how difficult it is to just say it as it is with the Holocaust. Anyway. I liked the additional at the end, specifically Göring's letter. So Göring wanted to be fully informed by the "main architect of the Holocaust", as wikipedia puts it, about the "organizational, factual and material measures to carry out the desired final solution of the Jewish question!, but he never gets any letters back. Or what? (Rhetorical)

It seems like a huge organisation to make 6 million people disappear, but I gues RH went rogue and financed it all by himself with jew gold.

[Moderator]

But Lipstadt told me that no one denied anything.

Here are two more threads which discuss quite the opposite.
M1

quora.com / Tim O'Neill: Nazis never denied 'holocaust' / WRONG
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8165

"Why Didn't Any Nazi Deny" and the scope of the "conspiracy"
viewtopic.php?t=12287

[Revision]

Here is an excellent article by Carlo Mattogno on the "Final Solution":

The Myth of the Extermination of the Jews: Part I: www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p133_Mattogno.html

[borjastick]

Does anyone actually buy into the 'suicides' of Goering and Himmler? Moreover do they believe in cyanide capsules? I have always thought this is the stuff of a febrile and over active mind.

[Wachtman]

I thought a U.S. Army dentist probably would have found the capsule hidden in their teeth.

[Revision]

Does anyone actually buy into the 'suicides' of Goering and Himmler? Moreover do they believe in cyanide capsules? I have always thought this is the stuff of a febrile and over active mind.

I don't see why Goering could not have committed suicide and what exactly we would gain if this hypothesis happens to be true. Goering had very negative view of the Nuremberg process and he didn't want to give the honor of killing him to the enemies. Killing of Himmler, instead of his "suicide", on the other hand, would disprove the thesis that he tried to "evade justice" for his "vast crimes". Of course there could have been other motives if he really committed suicide, like enormous pressures, after all he was possibly the most demonized man at the time, but at least the "evading justice" myth would be smashed if he was killed instead.

Was Heinrich Himmler Killed? (David Irving): http://www.bitchute.com/video/wXQFdM4bWJfj/

It would have been very interesting if Himmler would have been a defendant in the Nuremberg trials. Himmler was a Holocaust denier in the literal sense, he didn't just deny knowledge of it or personal guilt but he really denied that it ever happened.

Heinrich Himmler Denied the Holocaust: http://www.bitchute.com/video/5C17yVoHIBOK/


Here is what Wikipedia says about the death of Hermann Goering:

Göring made an appeal asking to be shot as a soldier instead of hanged as a common criminal, but the court refused. He committed suicide with a potassium cyanide capsule the night before he was to be hanged.

One theory as to how Göring obtained the poison holds that US Army Lieutenant Jack G. Wheelis, who was stationed at the Nuremberg Trials, retrieved the capsules from their hiding place among Göring's personal effects that had been confiscated by the Army and handed them over to the prisoner, after being bribed by Göring, who gave him his gold watch, pen, and cigarette case. In 2005, former US Army Private Herbert Lee Stivers, who served in the 1st Infantry Division's 26th Infantry Regiment—the honour guard for the Nuremberg Trials—claimed he gave Göring "medicine" hidden inside a fountain pen that a German woman had asked him to smuggle into the prison. Stivers later said that he did not know what was in the pill until after Göring's suicide.

[Otium]

Does anyone actually buy into the 'suicides' of Goering and Himmler?

I do not know enough details regarding the alleged suicide of Goering, but I'm not willing to believe he killed himself at face value.

Himmler was murdered by British thugs, anyone who believes otherwise hasn't familiarised themselves with the details as to the standard narrative, which should be proof enough in its absurdity to convince any normal person that the story is false. Not to mention the various omitted details, such as the fact that nobody conducted an autopsy, and nobody confirmed the cause of death. Himmler had no drillings or missing teeth to possibly conceal a cyanide capsule in his mouth either. One look at Himmler's death mask shows you many signs of the brutality metered out to the Reichsführer by the hands of his peace-loving captors who only wanted to bring him to "justice".

[Hektor]

But Lipstadt told me that no one denied anything. I have never had to lie once to tell the truth, during my lifetime. Weird how difficult it is to just say it as it is with the Holocaust. Anyway. I liked the additional at the end, specifically Göring's letter. So Göring wanted to be fully informed by the "main architect of the Holocaust", as wikipedia puts it, about the "organizational, factual and material measures to carry out the desired final solution of the Jewish question!, but he never gets any letters back. Or what? (Rhetorical)

It seems like a huge organisation to make 6 million people disappear, but I gues RH went rogue and financed it all by himself with jew gold.

Well, they've been duped that it "essentially was true" via the sykewar footage from concentration camps, which was sort of action theatre.

They disputed knowledge though. Text made this clear. And a historian pretending to be familiar with the sources claiming that they "didn't deny anything" insinuating that they "admitted everything" is simply lying. That should tell one enough about the likes of Lipstadt.

The technique is affirming the consequent. Put pics in front, play on the impression that "This is where a Holocaust happened" and then claim you have proven your thesis. It's kind of trying to prove a virus by pointing to sick people in hospitals or worse to stats of "positive tests". That's why I call it Coronacaust, as the same playbook is used again here, and on a global scale.

[Rockartisten]

But Lipstadt told me that no one denied anything. I have never had to lie once to tell the truth, during my lifetime. Weird how difficult it is to just say it as it is with the Holocaust. Anyway. I liked the additional at the end, specifically Göring's letter. So Göring wanted to be fully informed by the "main architect of the Holocaust", as wikipedia puts it, about the "organizational, factual and material measures to carry out the desired final solution of the Jewish question!, but he never gets any letters back. Or what? (Rhetorical)

It seems like a huge organisation to make 6 million people disappear, but I gues RH went rogue and financed it all by himself with jew gold.

Well, they've been duped that it "essentially was true" via the sykewar footage from concentration camps, which was sort of action theatre.

They disputed knowledge though. Text made this clear. And a historian pretending to be familiar with the sources claiming that they "didn't deny anything" insinuating that they "admitted everything" is simply lying. That should tell one enough about the likes of Lipstadt.

The technique is affirming the consequent. Put pics in front, play on the impression that "This is where a Holocaust happened" and then claim you have proven your thesis. It's kind of trying to prove a virus by pointing to sick people in hospitals or worse to stats of "positive tests". That's why I call it Coronacaust, as the same playbook is used again here, and on a global scale.

Yes, the insinuation is a form of deception, even if confronted you could say it wasn't a lie, technically. But in laymans terms, deception is lying. And when it comes to important historical facts, well, then deception of any kind when it comes to research probably has many terms I am not familiar with. You know, fraudster, in latin or something...hahaha. I don't know.

I started watching a documentary on Swedish state media, about the Holocaust and Auschwitz and apparently new witnesses. Original title is Auschwitz Untold. I tried to search it here but didn't find anything. Anyway. I haven't finished, because 10 minutes in or so, they said that the Nazis started a boycott on jewish businesses, jews couldn't work, and jewish businesses got banned, and then they didn't really expand on the story, so I got stuck because I got caught in the simplified story. It's interesting that they don't mention that the jews banned the germans internationally the week before, and that the germans warned them of doing so. I think it was even Hitler himself that told them the consequences a few days before.

These types of deceptions and complete omissions of the whole story paints a completely different picture for the average student or moderately interested person. So I can only assume, that when a person like Lipstadt does that, it's not because she is clueless, it's because she doesn't give a shit. My interpretation of such a person is that it's solely self interests. Maybe she doesn't even care what the real history is. She's done this for a long time. She knows more than she likes to talk about. She could probably win againt herself in a debate as a revisionist.

Although, I did see the Ted talk. And all those academics applauding her politically charged scientific method is quite alarming. It's a mad world. What more can you say.

[Hektor]

.....
Yes, the insinuation is a form of deception, even if confronted you could say it wasn't a lie, technically. But in laymans terms, deception is lying. And when it comes to important historical facts, well, then deception of any kind when it comes to research probably has many terms I am not familiar with. You know, fraudster, in latin or something...hahaha. I don't know.

That's what I don't get. People think "lying" is only something that is obviously not true, like the claim that moon got a cubic shape and spreads violet light or something. But this isn't what it means. Lying is kind of laying out something to someone so he's going to get the wrong impression about an event or matter. It might still be obvious that someone representing a POV may give you a a subjective perspective and may even be inclined to exaggerate or downplay something putting his favoured party in a bad light. But as far as the Holocaust is concerned it goes further. They try to promote an outlandish version of even and portray this than as the naked objective truth. Additionally they try to subvert anyone that somehow questions this. This approach alone should already demonstrate that there is something seriously wrong with that narrative.

I started watching a documentary on Swedish state media, about the Holocaust and Auschwitz and apparently new witnesses. Original title is Auschwitz Untold. I tried to search it here but didn't find anything. Anyway. I haven't finished, because 10 minutes in or so, they said that the Nazis started a boycott on jewish businesses, jews couldn't work, and jewish businesses got banned, and then they didn't really expand on the story, so I got stuck because I got caught in the simplified story. It's interesting that they don't mention that the jews banned the germans internationally the week before, and that the germans warned them of doing so. I think it was even Hitler himself that told them the consequences a few days before.

Yes, that would deal with the question of "Who initiated the conflict" - An important question the Holocaustians don't want to deal with directly. They'll insist that "The Nazis were jealous towards the Jews, because they were more successful". In the light of how Jews were expanding their assets and influence during the Weimar era, this is kind of rich. And well, why not research this subject thoroughly. And also have a look onto the policy decision that lead to widespread impoverishment of middle class Germans as well as the misery in which many working class Germans had to live. I could think of policy insecurity (bad for business planning and hence investing) // inflation and a few other policies. Also bullying tactics against businesses that are struggling as a result of this. If you want to talk about the NS-Policy against the Jew, you first have to deal with the Jewish-policy against Germans Weimar.

These types of deceptions and complete omissions of the whole story paints a completely different picture for the average student or moderately interested person. So I can only assume, that when a person like Lipstadt does that, it's not because she is clueless, it's because she doesn't give a shit. My interpretation of such a person is that it's solely self interests. Maybe she doesn't even care what the real history is. She's done this for a long time. She knows more than she likes to talk about. She could probably win againt herself in a debate as a revisionist.

Lipstadt got serious conflicts of interest there. Not only because she is Jewish. She's also an ardent Zionist as well as described as a "historian" - I think historiographer would be more appropriate and this is really the most neutral expression one could find. Well, she also publishes books in that direction, which she understandable would like to continue selling. Imagine the Holocaust paradigm would crash into irrelevance, that would mean that the interest in her books would diminish. So you can not expect her to publish something counter to the narrative depending to "where the evidence leads". If she would get solid evidence on the table that would proof the Holocaust to be untrue, I don't think she would publish that, but remain silent on the matter.

Although, I did see the Ted talk. And all those academics applauding her politically charged scientific method is quite alarming. It's a mad world. What more can you say.

It' s not "scientific method" she is using.
What she (and other historiographers) do is to have a vague thesis in mind (Holocaust - six million - genocide - plan - gas chambers - etc.) and then collect any snippets, factoids, claims etc. that more or less will support her thesis. Anything that contradicts it will be ignored or reinterpreted in line with that thesis.

She/they will occasionally dismiss or critique some of the more outlandish claims, but the motive for this is purely self-serving, since that way they can gain credibility for themselves and actually make people believe that "false claims have been dismissed by the historians", hence the other claims must be true and proven. But bear in mind, this is about credibility not actual truth or pursuit thereof.

As for academic historiography pertaining to WW2, the Holocaust is a paradigm and dogma. It's literary an IDOL that needs to be worshipped by anyone entering the field of history - or it's to the dungeons. It complies with Baconian idols in more than one way. It's the traditional dogma there, it's a idol of the cave, since it is the preferred view of those entering the profession. It's already inserted by prejudicial wording e.g. "death camp", And there is more, due to the fact that anyone questioning the dogma is vilified.

A totally irrational, emotionally charged atmosphere has been created. One that isn't exactly conducive towards getting a sober and objective view on "what happened to Jews during WW2".

[Rockartisten]

.....
Yes, the insinuation is a form of deception, even if confronted you could say it wasn't a lie, technically. But in laymans terms, deception is lying. And when it comes to important historical facts, well, then deception of any kind when it comes to research probably has many terms I am not familiar with. You know, fraudster, in latin or something...hahaha. I don't know.

That's what I don't get. People think "lying" is only something that is obviously not true, like the claim that moon got a cubic shape and spreads violet light or something. But this isn't what it means. Lying is kind of laying out something to someone so he's going to get the wrong impression about an event or matter. It might still be obvious that someone representing a POV may give you a a subjective perspective and may even be inclined to exaggerate or downplay something putting his favoured party in a bad light. But as far as the Holocaust is concerned it goes further. They try to promote an outlandish version of even and portray this than as the naked objective truth. Additionally they try to subvert anyone that somehow questions this. This approach alone should already demonstrate that there is something seriously wrong with that narrative.

I started watching a documentary on Swedish state media, about the Holocaust and Auschwitz and apparently new witnesses. Original title is Auschwitz Untold. I tried to search it here but didn't find anything. Anyway. I haven't finished, because 10 minutes in or so, they said that the Nazis started a boycott on jewish businesses, jews couldn't work, and jewish businesses got banned, and then they didn't really expand on the story, so I got stuck because I got caught in the simplified story. It's interesting that they don't mention that the jews banned the germans internationally the week before, and that the germans warned them of doing so. I think it was even Hitler himself that told them the consequences a few days before.

Yes, that would deal with the question of "Who initiated the conflict" - An important question the Holocaustians don't want to deal with directly. They'll insist that "The Nazis were jealous towards the Jews, because they were more successful". In the light of how Jews were expanding their assets and influence during the Weimar era, this is kind of rich. And well, why not research this subject thoroughly. And also have a look onto the policy decision that lead to widespread impoverishment of middle class Germans as well as the misery in which many working class Germans had to live. I could think of policy insecurity (bad for business planning and hence investing) // inflation and a few other policies. Also bullying tactics against businesses that are struggling as a result of this. If you want to talk about the NS-Policy against the Jew, you first have to deal with the Jewish-policy against Germans Weimar.

These types of deceptions and complete omissions of the whole story paints a completely different picture for the average student or moderately interested person. So I can only assume, that when a person like Lipstadt does that, it's not because she is clueless, it's because she doesn't give a shit. My interpretation of such a person is that it's solely self interests. Maybe she doesn't even care what the real history is. She's done this for a long time. She knows more than she likes to talk about. She could probably win againt herself in a debate as a revisionist.

Lipstadt got serious conflicts of interest there. Not only because she is Jewish. She's also an ardent Zionist as well as described as a "historian" - I think historiographer would be more appropriate and this is really the most neutral expression one could find. Well, she also publishes books in that direction, which she understandable would like to continue selling. Imagine the Holocaust paradigm would crash into irrelevance, that would mean that the interest in her books would diminish. So you can not expect her to publish something counter to the narrative depending to "where the evidence leads". If she would get solid evidence on the table that would proof the Holocaust to be untrue, I don't think she would publish that, but remain silent on the matter.

Although, I did see the Ted talk. And all those academics applauding her politically charged scientific method is quite alarming. It's a mad world. What more can you say.

It' s not "scientific method" she is using.
What she (and other historiographers) do is to have a vague thesis in mind (Holocaust - six million - genocide - plan - gas chambers - etc.) and then collect any snippets, factoids, claims etc. that more or less will support her thesis. Anything that contradicts it will be ignored or reinterpreted in line with that thesis.

She/they will occasionally dismiss or critique some of the more outlandish claims, but the motive for this is purely self-serving, since that way they can gain credibility for themselves and actually make people believe that "false claims have been dismissed by the historians", hence the other claims must be true and proven. But bear in mind, this is about credibility not actual truth or pursuit thereof.

As for academic historiography pertaining to WW2, the Holocaust is a paradigm and dogma. It's literary an IDOL that needs to be worshipped by anyone entering the field of history - or it's to the dungeons. It complies with Baconian idols in more than one way. It's the traditional dogma there, it's a idol of the cave, since it is the preferred view of those entering the profession. It's already inserted by prejudicial wording e.g. "death camp", And there is more, due to the fact that anyone questioning the dogma is vilified.

A totally irrational, emotionally charged atmosphere has been created. One that isn't exactly conducive towards getting a sober and objective view on "what happened to Jews during WW2".

Yeah, I get it now, more than before. I never called it a scietific method. I challenged what is a scientific method. I know there is somthing wrong here. And I will never let my lands be destroyed by this. So there is a lie. That explains alot. WW 1 and 2 and 3, now I see. It's all the same.

But I do admit. I don't care what happend to the jews. I care of my own.

[Hektor]

....

Yeah, I get it now, more than before. I never called it a scientific method. I challenged what is a scientific method. I know there is something wrong here. And I will never let my lands be destroyed by this. So there is a lie. That explains alot. WW 1 and 2 and 3, now I see. It's all the same.

But I do admit. I don't care what happend to the jews. I care of my own.

The issue isn't the scientific method where one proves that specific events are caused by specific action. What is concluded has to follow from the observable facts logically. And especially the logically part has been thrown under the bus in postmodern "science".

[Rockartisten]

.....

Although, I did see the Ted talk. And all those academics applauding her politically charged scientific method is quite alarming. It's a mad world. What more can you say.

It' s not "scientific method" she is using.

That's why I said "politically charged". And I apologize for my intellectual laziness after that. Beer game night with friends. I should have closed the forum and continued another day. I tripple posted and created all sorts of shenanigans.

Can you point to other good sites where I can see translated testimonies from the Nuremberg trials? Somewhere where it's gathered, filed, archived...something like that. I need a vpn on bitchute for this subject, and can only see it when embedded through these servers.

[forasanerworld]

But Lipstadt told me that no one denied anything. I have never had to lie once to tell the truth, during my lifetime. Weird how difficult it is to just say it as it is with the Holocaust. Anyway. I liked the additional at the end, specifically Göring's letter. So Göring wanted to be fully informed by the "main architect of the Holocaust", as wikipedia puts it, about the "organizational, factual and material measures to carry out the desired final solution of the Jewish question!, but he never gets any letters back. Or what? (Rhetorical)

It seems like a huge organisation to make 6 million people disappear, but I gues RH went rogue and financed it all by himself with jew gold.

Well, they've been duped that it "essentially was true" via the sykewar footage from concentration camps, which was sort of action theatre.

They disputed knowledge though. Text made this clear. And a historian pretending to be familiar with the sources claiming that they "didn't deny anything" insinuating that they "admitted everything" is simply lying. That should tell one enough about the likes of Lipstadt.

The technique is affirming the consequent. Put pics in front, play on the impression that "This is where a Holocaust happened" and then claim you have proven your thesis. It's kind of trying to prove a virus by pointing to sick people in hospitals or worse to stats of "positive tests". That's why I call it Coronacaust, as the same playbook is used again here, and on a global scale.

Same playbook, I've been thinking exactly that too and have been putting that out where such suggestions can get out "beneath the radar" of main news site's censors, there does appear to be some positive reception to it too, comedian Jimmy Carr just stuck his neck out and David Badiel rose to the bait, could this be going mainstream at last?