A Real Holocaust Committed by Jewry: The Annihilation of Canudos

[Kretschmer]

In academia and media, not only across the world, but even in Brazil, (where whites are still the largest racial group, contrary to the popular misconception of Brazilians almost all being mixed Pardos) it seems that Europeans are always blamed for a variety of atrocious acts against the populations of other countries, whether real, (the exploitation of India by the British) wildly exaggerated, (the Herero Wars) or entirely imagined (the so-called "genocide" in the Congo Free State mystified by Adam (((Hochschild))), and of course the Big Lie.)

However, many truly nightmarish events which took place at the behest of other peoples are either downplayed or ignored entirely, and these don't just include the Barbary Slave Trade or the Holodomor. In fact, largely unknown even in South America is that one of the worst war crimes in human history that exceeded the cruelty of even the USSR or the Western Allies, took place from 1896 - 1897 in the Brazilian state of Bahia.

Its name was the War of Canudos, which while in all senses of the term a war, is a rather misleading title for an event of its nature. The "War" of Canudos was in reality, a campaign of annihilation waged by the Brazilian republican government (then known as the Republic of the United States of Brazil) against the dissident monarchist settlement of Canudos that rejected the legal authority of the republic.

Like many violent events in Brazil during the tumultuous 1890's, the establishment of Canudos was a product of the ousting of Emperor Pedro II, who at the time of his deposition in 1889, had been admired by almost the entire country's population; he had industrialized significant parts of the country, founded most of Brazil's important cultural institutions, helped abolish slavery, had made the Brazilian Imperial Navy the fifth-most powerful in the world in the mid-1880's, had won wars against Argentina and Paraguay, secured economic domination of the Río de la Plata, peacefully resolved two diplomatic crises with Britain, and most importantly, turned Brazil into what was then the jewel of Latin America.

Ironically, the new and supposedly "egalitarian" republic backed in its creation by former slave owners (of whom many were Jews) cared far less for the working classes than Pedro II ever did, who had been responsible for creating one of the first welfare states in the world. Quite telling of this fact is that not a single one of the infamous favelas so commonly associated with Brazil today appeared in the country until after the semi-aristocratic landowner class led in great part by Jews seized power.

Not surprisingly, large parts of the country openly rejected this seizure of power, and violently rebelled even several years after Pedro II died in Parisian exile in 1891.The last of these major monarchist rebellions in Brazil began in the year 1896 when quasi-Catholic preacher Antônio Conselheiro founded the settlement of Canudos in Bahia, and had its local militiamen repel attempts by the regular Brazilian Army to claim authority over it.

While Canudos itself was no metropolis and the construction of its infrastructure was very primitive in comparison to that in most of Bahia, its mere existence still represented a rejection of landowner (and Jewish) control. As a result, the settlement was finally destroyed the following year on the orders of Brazil's third President, Prudente de (((Morais))), with the operation being carried out by five senior officers of the Army.

Of these five commanders in question, four of them bore surnames which are carried by "Portuguese" Sephardi Jews, including Antônio Moreira César, Febrônio de Brito, Virgílio Pereira de Almeida, and Pires Ferreira. In some of the most brutal fashions imaginable, the Brazilian Army under their command did not merely clear out the settlement and arrest its leaders, instead massacring almost every one of the 25,000 men, women, and children who lived in Canudos, through shooting, beheading, and mass torching.

Even some of the less gruesome reports of the campaign written mostly by foreign correspondents say that one of these five commanders ordered for captured men to be publicly hacked to death in front of their families, and Conselheiro himself was allegedly decapitated post mortem, with his head being placed upon a pike. By the end of the War of Canudos, only 150 or so of the settlement's civilians remained alive, with many of the women being shipped off against their will thereafter to the local brothels.

Today, of course, the Jewish role in this very real Holocaust is ignored almost completely in Brazil, instead largely being blamed on "white racism against black people" (as Brazil's Northeast, including Bahia, is its blackest region, and conveniently its most violent by far.) This ridiculous excuse completely ignores that Conselheiro was in fact white, and that no similar actions were ever taken by the Brazilian government against blacks in particular, either before or after the War of Canudos.

Because I am not Latin American, let alone a Brazilian, I am not exactly the most qualified person in the world to talk about this subject, and it is likely that I have made several errors in this post. Nonetheless, I view it as a relevant example of an actual war of annihilation and campaign of extermination, and one in which International Jewry should certainly be held accountable.

[Merlin300]

Thank you for the interesting historical tidbit.

[Hektor]

One would indeed need to know what's documented and have to visit the area. Understanding Portuguese would be vital.

[Kretschmer]

Hektor wrote:
One would indeed need to know what's documented and have to visit the area. Understanding Portuguese would be vital.

Currently, the best means of research available to uncovering the truth about Canudos most probably rests in the archives of nearby towns or those of the Brazilian Army, as it has been extremely difficult to uncover the area's human remains or the artifacts of the settlement's surviving remnants.

However, this is not because Brazil has any particularly stringent laws on grave excavation, but because the construction of the Cocorobó Dam flooded the area of what was once Canudos for several decades, under no less than 15 meters of water. As a result, an excavation mission was only made possible by a severe draught in 1999, and to my understanding, only one human skeleton was removed from the site for further study.

Because of this, it will probably take many more years for a similar draught to occur before organized recovery efforts of Canudos' human remains can resume.

[Sannhet]

Here is an Associated Press story from the time (Dec. 1896) which characterizes the rebels as "Religious Fanatics":

RELIGIOUS FANATICS
Their Uprising in Bahia, Brazil, Assumes a Grave Character

[....] The chief leader of the religious insurgents is Antonio Conselheiro, who calls himself the "Good Jesus." When his followers take possession of a village the municipal head is always superseded by one of the so-called apostles of Conselheiro.

Government troops which were sent to disperse the fanatics met a large band near Joasiro. A conflict ensued and 150 of the rebels were killed. The Federal loss was one officer, one sergeant and eight privates killed. The rebels, after the battle, retreated across the border into the state of Matto Grosso, where they entrenched themselves.

The religious disturbances are the direct result of the machinations of the monarchist faction in this trouble.

It sounds like that group was -- or at least was characterized as, by a correspondent in Rio de Janeiro -- something like the Jim Jones group of eighty years later in South America: A White self-declared man-god with Black followers, with doomsday-cult overtones. While Jim Jones and his people chose mass suicide, these Canudos chose the risky path of fighting the state (more like 1990s Waco), thinking they might get away with it because of recent instability. A gamble which they lost, with heavy losses. That is one reading of the story.

The Holocaust analogy is shaky because the Canudos were not an ethnic group (as Jews were/are), the fighting was two-way, and it was really characterizable as an internal rebellion rather than an attempt at mass internment to keep politically unreliable people out of action for the duration of a general war. I think the first pioneering case of the latter was only a few years after this Canudos War, in southern Africa with the Boer internment.

[Hektor]

In academia and media, not only across the world, but even in Brazil, (where whites are still the largest racial group, contrary to the popular misconception of Brazilians almost all being mixed Pardos) it seems that Europeans are always blamed for a variety of atrocious acts against the populations of other countries, whether real, (the exploitation of India by the British) wildly exaggerated, (the Herero Wars) or entirely imagined (the so-called "genocide" in the Congo Free State mystified by Adam (((Hochschild))), and of course the Big Lie.)
.....

Indeed, narrative creation and a rather distorted and malicious one. How shall I say? The King of Belgium did of course have people envying him as well. And what is easier then to pick up on some stories that nobody in Europe will be able to test. But people do not remember that there was a major propaganda campaign around the 'Congo Free State' around the 1900s


https://www.bitchute.com/video/FTeBg4j36AAO/


Chief propagandists were people like Edmund Dene Morel, Arthur Conan Doyle and some others. They picked up hear stories that could not be tested and not be refuted, which then was put into publication creating a narrative. Were there abuses in the Congo? Probable. Was there a Congocaust, as is alleged by Hochschild? It's actually the least likely version of events.

This type of bad-mouthing became the mode of operation for other propaganda campaigns. Including the Germanophobic campaigns of both world wars. Who ever can mass produce articles and distribute them in the biggest mass, wins this game. No need for truthfulness. In fact working thoroughly will be a hindrance, since this takes far more time to do and requires far more effort in terms of thought. It is the stories that grasp emotion that will win in the end.

[Whodunnit?]

Not everything is fake. I don't know why the British would make up atrocity propaganda against the Belgians just a few years before WW1 and "the rape of Belgium". The only reason I can think of is that the Anglos wanted to distract from what they had just done to the Boers.

[fireofice]

Not everything is fake. I don't know why the British would make up atrocity propaganda against the Belgians just a few years before WW1 and "the rape of Belgium". The only reason I can think of is that the Anglos wanted to distract from what they had just done to the Boers.

Because they wanted control of the Congo for themselves, so making up fake stories about Leopold's genocide was part of their strategy of ousting him. Most of the atrocities were committed by the blacks there and had nothing to do with anything Leopold or his people did.

"Not everything is fake" yeah but a lot is, the "Congo genocide" being one of them. The Armenian genocide is also fake and didn't happen. Read The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide by Guenter Lewy. There is no good evidence that the Turkish government tried to wipe out the entire Armenian nation. In fact, it seems to have set a precedent for using "forced relocation = genocide" nonsense for the holocaust.

[Hektor]

Not everything is fake. I don't know why the British would make up atrocity propaganda against the Belgians just a few years before WW1 and "the rape of Belgium". The only reason I can think of is that the Anglos wanted to distract from what they had just done to the Boers.

Because they wanted control of the Congo for themselves, so making up fake stories about Leopold's genocide was part of their strategy of ousting him. Most of the atrocities were committed by the blacks there and had nothing to do with anything Leopold or his people did.

"Not everything is fake" yeah but a lot is, the "Congo genocide" being one of them. The Armenian genocide is also fake and didn't happen. Read The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide by Guenter Lewy. There is no good evidence that the Turkish government tried to wipe out the entire Armenian nation. In fact, it seems to have set a precedent for using "forced relocation = genocide" nonsense for the holocaust.

And that approach was repeated later in the case of South West Africa (after diamonds were discovered there). The Herreros started a war against the Germans (murdering hundreds of people) and the Germans crushed this. The Herreros flew into the desert were many died and when they were captured the Blacks siding with the Germans did abuse them (as revenge for abuses the Herreros previously inflicted on them, since they were themselves slavers). From this pundits hostile to the Germans created a 'genocide narrative'.... This was continued during the past 20 years after the Communist first had picked up the Genocide Narrative and also pushed this in Western Countries. The FRG-regime has 'accepted' this now and also calls it officially a genocide... Which only exists by declaration (and not by evidence) . There is also a compensation industry attached to this. And humanities students and academics are part of the beneficiaries of this industry. The Holocaust Industry is of course the mother of it. But when German Industry was confronted with demands for 'reparations', there was also a foundation founded that employs people with humanities degrees that otherwise would find it difficult to find gainful employment in their respective fields.

[Whodunnit?]

Not everything is fake. I don't know why the British would make up atrocity propaganda against the Belgians just a few years before WW1 and "the rape of Belgium". The only reason I can think of is that the Anglos wanted to distract from what they had just done to the Boers.

Because they wanted control of the Congo for themselves, so making up fake stories about Leopold's genocide was part of their strategy of ousting him. Most of the atrocities were committed by the blacks there and had nothing to do with anything Leopold or his people did.

"Not everything is fake" yeah but a lot is, the "Congo genocide" being one of them. The Armenian genocide is also fake and didn't happen. Read The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide by Guenter Lewy. There is no good evidence that the Turkish government tried to wipe out the entire Armenian nation. In fact, it seems to have set a precedent for using "forced relocation = genocide" nonsense for the holocaust.

One of the things that is a criminal offence in many countries is not only denying that a "genocide" had happened, but also to relativize or justify the genocide. This has a reason. In several countries you are not supposed to add a context. I read quite a lot about WW1 in Turkey. The Turks did deport the Armenian population. But what's usually left out is the context. There was no "we suck so let's bully little minority". The Russians had been inciting and arming the Greek and Armenian minorities in the Ottoman Empire for years. Against the British the war was going pretty well for the Turks, but not against the Russians in the east, where the Armenians lived. The Armenians were defecting to the Russians and enlisting in their army by the hundreds of thousands. If you believe the turkish reports then in some villages the entire male population was gone. There were also local insurgencies/partisan aka terrorist attacks.

Even the atrocity-propaganda-peddling Wikipedia admits this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_volunteer_units

The Armenian volunteer units, mostly from the Caucasus region, were impatient to take arms "to liberate their homeland".[2] In several towns occupied by the Russian forces, Armenian students were ready to join the Russian Empire's Armenian volunteer army.[...] The size of these units increased during the war and Boghos Nubar gave the summary of these units in a public letter to the Paris Peace Conference, 1919 as 150,000 Armenians in the Russian Empire's volunteer units and around 40,000 Armenian irregular units

So now: what is a country supposed to do when there is a war and a problem in that war is a population behind enemy lines? At what point is it justified to say "ok, these people are a problem, so now they have to leave this place"? Or are you just supposed to give up, accept the wishes of whoever is shooting from the hedges, and then roll over and die? Are you allowed to do something effective against a insurgency, espionage and other forms of subversion in a war?

On top of it the allies also blocked the coasts of the Ottoman Empire which led to starvations. This was supposed to cause revolts, what it famously did. The Arabs didn't just rise up bevause the British send a good looking chap by the name of Laurence, but because the naval blockade was causing food shortages. This is also a trick of the "allied" propaganda: they cause massive civilians deaths, and when they win the war, they just claim that all people who died were "murdered" by the subjugated enemy, because they were losing and threw a hissy fit.

A lot of the Armenian population was in fact gone after WW1. But nobody knows how many of them died of diseases, how many of them were killed, and how many of them emigrated to Russia. But over all, I think the Armenians "f*** around and found out".

[Hektor]

.....

One of the things that is a criminal offence in many countries is not only denying that a "genocide" had happened, but also to relativize or justify the genocide. This has a reason. In several countries you are not supposed to add a context. I read quite a lot about WW1 in Turkey. The Turks did deport the Armenian population. But what's usually left out is the context. There was no "we suck so let's bully little minority". The Russians had been inciting and arming the Greek and Armenian minorities in the Ottoman Empire for years. Against the British the war was going pretty well for the Turks, but not against the Russians in the east, where the Armenians lived. The Armenians were defecting to the Russians and enlisting in their army by the hundreds of thousands. If you believe the turkish reports then in some villages the entire male population was gone. There were also local insurgencies/partisan aka terrorist attacks.

I'd assume that there was already friction between the minorities in the Ottoman empire. What kept it together was an iron fist. But also to allow minorities to run their own affairs. The empire was majority Muslim, but did also have large minority from a Christian background like the Greeks and Arminians. Them being associated with a hostile power did for sure not improve 'race relations' in the Ottoman empire.

Ethnic minorities also tend to occupy certain economic niches within the broader societies they reside in. And competition or monopolization can lead to more conflict between groups as well. That's the thing 'rugged individualists' aren't getting. Just because they do 'fight as individuals' and may actually be quite successful like that, they think everyone else operates in the same manner. Indeed people of North-Western European decent tend to be individualistic. And this can be a motivator to act responsibly and use initiative and be 'successful' that way. Doesn't mean everybody else does. Most cultures are collectivistic (and authoritarian). They know that the individual success depends on collective success of the group and act accordingly. This is def. the case with the Jews, which are ethnocentric and well-versed in networking and organizing the community. It's fine when they 'help each other', but there is also a dark side, when the group turns against other groups and actually tries to subvert those populations community and authority structures trying to subvert the culture for opportunities of exploitation and putting people in authority that essentially work for them.

Even the atrocity-propaganda-peddling Wikipedia admits this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_volunteer_units
The Armenian volunteer units, mostly from the Caucasus region, were impatient to take arms "to liberate their homeland".[2] In several towns occupied by the Russian forces, Armenian students were ready to join the Russian Empire's Armenian volunteer army.[...] The size of these units increased during the war and Boghos Nubar gave the summary of these units in a public letter to the Paris Peace Conference, 1919 as 150,000 Armenians in the Russian Empire's volunteer units and around 40,000 Armenian irregular units
So now: what is a country supposed to do when there is a war and a problem in that war is a population behind enemy lines? At what point is it justified to say "ok, these people are a problem, so now they have to leave this place"? Or are you just supposed to give up, accept the wishes of whoever is shooting from the hedges, and then roll over and die? Are you allowed to do something effective against a insurgency, espionage and other forms of subversion in a war?

Once that gets a 'security problem', expect people to become more aggressive. Especially clandestine war will become a problem and lead to paranoia as well.

On top of it the allies also blocked the coasts of the Ottoman Empire which led to starvations. This was supposed to cause revolts, what it famously did. The Arabs didn't just rise up bevause the British send a good looking chap by the name of Laurence, but because the naval blockade was causing food shortages. This is also a trick of the "allied" propaganda: they cause massive civilians deaths, and when they win the war, they just claim that all people who died were "murdered" by the subjugated enemy, because they were losing and threw a hissy fit.

A lot of the Armenian population was in fact gone after WW1. But nobody knows how many of them died of diseases, how many of them were killed, and how many of them emigrated to Russia. But over all, I think the Armenians "f*** around and found out".

Economic problems, especially lack of food security will be the next nail in the coffin. Once this goes over a certain level, tension will raise to a level were it breaks into common violent behavior. People will kill whoever they perceive as a threat. Unless the government acts and interns minorities as to prevent the paranoia, mayhem as well as espionage and partisan activities.

[hermod]

In academia and media, not only across the world, but even in Brazil, (where whites are still the largest racial group, contrary to the popular misconception of Brazilians almost all being mixed Pardos) it seems that Europeans are always blamed for a variety of atrocious acts against the populations of other countries, whether real, (the exploitation of India by the British) wildly exaggerated, (the Herero Wars) or entirely imagined (the so-called "genocide" in the Congo Free State mystified by Adam (((Hochschild))), and of course the Big Lie.)
.....

Indeed, narrative creation and a rather distorted and malicious one. How shall I say? The King of Belgium did of course have people envying him as well. And what is easier then to pick up on some stories that nobody in Europe will be able to test. But people do not remember that there was a major propaganda campaign around the 'Congo Free State' around the 1900s


https://www.bitchute.com/video/FTeBg4j36AAO/


Chief propagandists were people like Edmund Dene Morel, Arthur Conan Doyle and some others. They picked up hear stories that could not be tested and not be refuted, which then was put into publication creating a narrative. Were there abuses in the Congo? Probable. Was there a Congocaust, as is alleged by Hochschild? It's actually the least likely version of events.

This type of bad-mouthing became the mode of operation for other propaganda campaigns. Including the Germanophobic campaigns of both world wars. Who ever can mass produce articles and distribute them in the biggest mass, wins this game. No need for truthfulness. In fact working thoroughly will be a hindrance, since this takes far more time to do and requires far more effort in terms of thought. It is the stories that grasp emotion that will win in the end.

As a Jew, wasn't Adam Hochschild just trying to make the Holocaust a more plausible story by turning it into a logical outcome of European culture and history? In other words, wasn't some old British Imperialist atrocity propaganda about the Congo Free State (together with atrocity propaganda about the Herero Wars and White Colonialism in general) recycled by some Zionist propagandists in order to counter the revisionist debunking of Israel's dear founding myth with a narrative making the Holocaust seem inevitable and thus true in most people's minds?

https://postimg.cc/d7T926yJ

[Hektor]

In academia ... mystified by Adam (((Hochschild))), and of course the Big Lie.)
.....

Indeed, narrative ....in the end.

As a Jew, wasn't Adam Hochschild just trying to make the Holocaust a more plausible story by turning it into a logical outcome of European culture and history? In other words, wasn't some old British Imperialist atrocity propaganda about the Congo Free State (together with atrocity propaganda about the Herero Wars and White Colonialism in general) recycled by some Zionist propagandists in order to counter the revisionist debunking of Israel's dear founding myth with a narrative making the Holocaust seem inevitable and thus true in most people's minds?

...

One can wonder, what the motives were.

But I'd guess from other activities in academia that this was actually something written to add to the 'evil Whites' narrative. This time it was about the Belgians and actually the person that was their Monarch at the time. While this was actually a personal possession of the Monarch there.

It also was more from the 'oral history' type of method. Collecting more hearsay reports and also extrapolating those into a 'vast genocide'.

So it's bad methodology plus the 'blame Whithey' game.

Even if it is to push further the "Holocaust Culture", this can also backfire, when stories of this kind turn out to be unbelievable. On the other hand it is of course difficult to disprove anything that is back a long period of time. But there are still mass graves from the Roman era... So absolutely not getting anything from 120 years ago is rather suspect.

[hermod]

As a Jew, wasn't Adam Hochschild just trying to make the Holocaust a more plausible story by turning it into a logical outcome of European culture and history? In other words, wasn't some old British Imperialist atrocity propaganda about the Congo Free State (together with atrocity propaganda about the Herero Wars and White Colonialism in general) recycled by some Zionist propagandists in order to counter the revisionist debunking of Israel's dear founding myth with a narrative making the Holocaust seem inevitable and thus true in most people's minds?
...

One can wonder, what the motives were.

But I'd guess from other activities in academia that this was actually something written to add to the 'evil Whites' narrative. This time it was about the Belgians and actually the person that was their Monarch at the time. While this was actually a personal possession of the Monarch there.

It also was more from the 'oral history' type of method. Collecting more hearsay reports and also extrapolating those into a 'vast genocide'.

So it's bad methodology plus the 'blame Whithey' game.

Even if it is to push further the "Holocaust Culture", this can also backfire, when stories of this kind turn out to be unbelievable. On the other hand it is of course difficult to disprove anything that is back a long period of time. But there are still mass graves from the Roman era... So absolutely not getting anything from 120 years ago is rather suspect.

Probably one of the motives of the 'evil Whites' narrative. But the dispossession of the Palestinians (Zionism) and the dispossession of the White men (Globalism) are both parts of the same agenda, the Messianic hopes of Jewry's repatriation & world domination, anyway.

Regarding the 'evil Whites' narratives, it's good to know that British propagandists had planned to reuse the alleged Herero genocide (anti-German atrocity propaganda concocted during WWI for the British confiscation of German colonies) during World War II, but that they finally dropped the idea for the reason that the 'report' supposed to prove it "should not be used for publicity purposes" because "it was composed in the heat of the last war and it is somewhat historically suspect."

https://postimg.cc/xJ068GsX

https://postimg.cc/NKFY9TzP

[Hektor]

As a Jew, wasn't Adam Hochschild just trying to make the Holocaust a more plausible
...

...."Holocaust Culture", this can also backfire, when stories of this kind turn out to be unbelievable. On the other hand it is of course difficult to disprove anything that is back a long period of time. But there are still mass graves from the Roman era... So absolutely not getting anything from 120 years ago is rather suspect.

Probably one of the motives of the 'evil Whites' narrative. But the dispossession of the Palestinians (Zionism) and the dispossession of the White men (Globalism) are both parts of the same agenda, the Messianic hopes of Jewry's repatriation & world domination, anyway.

Regarding the 'evil Whites' narratives, it's good to know that British propagandists had planned to reuse the alleged Herero genocide (anti-German atrocity propaganda concocted during WWI for the British confiscation of German colonies) during World War II, but that they finally dropped the idea for the reason that the 'report' supposed to prove it "should not be used for publicity purposes" because "it was composed in the heat of the last war and it is somewhat historically suspect."
....

There is the culture of critique... That favors defamation, slander and gossip being used against one's perceived enemies. It's clear with the Germans by now. It may not be as clear with the Belgians. But I wonder what the motive may has been, with the Belgians then. Fact is that collecting accusatory stories and reports and then extracting a diabliography from it, isn't exactly a good historiographic method. And it's especially suspicious, when there are ulterior motives at work. And well, that they are overwhelmingly present in the humanities isn't exactly a secret by now. The pattern is simply to clear by now. Even if those in the humanities don't want to see it. Because that would discredit the field. And their own career prospects does highly depend on the the credibility of their field. Otherwise they'd end up like Astrologers and other charlatans. Credentialism, pushing reputation, while denigrating others is a malpractice that is rife in academia. If somebody critiques this obnoxious behavior, they will portrayed as 'not qualified', regardless what their actual qualifications are or not. And well 1+1=2 regardless, if the person saying this is qualified to do so or not. And well, guess what happens when an academic steps on the toes of his colleagues with public statements. He can count on being put under scrutiniy himself. His dissertation may be looked at, or journal articles or whatever else may be investigated there. Those with advanced degree and working in academia of course do know this and will act accordingly. They will stick to their field of study and avoid commenting on anything else. They know perfectly will, that if they know they will have to be careful what they are saying. I know plenty of examples of this. One unrelated to this, actually happened in a theology department here (Not saying which university or name names there). One of the theology students actually noticed that the professors do not believe in the key doctrines of reformed teachings at all. Now they didn't say this straight-forwardly to their students, but it was noticable in the way they are explaining things in class and also how they marked homework, etc. So that students, who was a bit more senior then his comillitones, addressed this issue with the faculty and also with his church (where the Profs were members as well)... In the result the academic staff came together and started targeting the 'rebellious' student, investigating him until they found an argument how they could get him kicked out of university. And kicked out he was. He completed his studies elsewhere and has a phD in theology now. I'm sure that was an unpleasant experience for him. But it worked as a wake-up call for him. He published on the affair and exposes the agendas of this kind of 'professors' and 'theologians' now. Those theologians are essentially an extreme example of the far left that still come over as relatively conservative and scholarly. And they are networked well in academia and the churches. In South Africa this started in the 1980s, while this was already longer going on in the Netherlands, Germany and also the United states and England. It's essentially cultural deconstruction they are doing, corroding one teaching after the other and also changing methodological approaches and language in the process. The end-game is 'woke Christianity', which is rather obnoxious to observe. But back from that faculty towards historiography. The modus operandi will be exactly the same in the history departments, especially with the politically loaded subjects relating to WW2, 'the Holocaust', Colonialism, etc. Add to this 'Critical Race Theory' and you approach the end game in this as well. Now some people will think it's just in the humanities a problem... The soft, talk subjects. But 'philosophy of science', 'logic', 'epistemology' are also subjects stemming from this department. And you need those to do 'good hard science' in physics, chemistry, biology and engineering. You also need it to do 'good law', which affects business and government in the long run. If the humanities 'die' so will all the other aspects of a culture. The result will be a social collapse that will also affect government, law, commerce, etc. over time. And it will become unbearable over time.

So, this isn't only about some little historical or theological or philosophical detail we are talking about there. It is far more fundamental, what we are dealing with here. Made up Holocausts and diabliographies to ultimately genocide complete populations on a global scale. What to do about this is however another question. And of course what can be done at all about it.