hermod wrote:Hektor wrote:Indeed.
But they are riding on the fact that there has been a poisoning of the well for decades now. So the bias is against 'Nazi sources' and in favor of "Jewish Sources".... From there the argumentative question: "Are you saying all those Holocaust Survivors are lying"... Well, the vast majority doesn't claim to have witnessed industrial style homicidal gassings, so they don't really help you. Just that deportation and detentions are now "proof of the Holocaust".
Anyway Jewish psychologist Elizabeth Loftus has demonstrated that memories are far from being a reliable source of information. And carte blanche for the theft of another people's homeland (Zionist 'survivors') is a very good motive for lying.....
Indeed a problem. One that is usually ignored. Unless it's about witnesses testifying about Anti-German atrocities. The Anti-German pogroms in Poland being one example another famous example being the strafing of civilians by Allied air forces in Dresden. There the court historiographers will gladly attest that this testimony is "unreliable" and "lack physical evidence". Well, that isn't an argument in a certain other context or is it?
As for the NS sources on Anti-German atrocities.
https://archive.org/details/Auswaertige ... 3/mode/2up
They admit that a large part of those they presumed to have been murdered, are actually missing. Compare that to Jews allegedly being gassed or killed otherwise. They were immediately counted as murdered. There is no list with names or figures of Jews that is subdivided into:
a) dead b) missing c) found.
In fact the public interest in Jews previously believed to be dead, but later found alive isn't exactly overwhelming... And imagine, if you were told that "your relatives were all murdered in Auschwitz" in an assertive manner, would you still spend efforts to find them? Unlikely. On the contrary Germans did try finding their missing relatives and Arolsen still had 2.000.000 cases they considered unsolved during the 1990s. After all, this never was intended to be used for propaganda purposes. In fact it was quite an embarrassment for the post-WW2 elites in Germany. They even managed to hide this subject from the broader public a "No-Talk" policy about e.g. the expulsion of Germans from Eastern Germany/Europe was thoroughly followed. You either had to have relatives that were affected by this or you may never have heard about this, unless you were pro-actively researching "the other side of the story". I'd guess that the more bright students of History will know about this and at least acknowledge that there were some Anti-German atrocities, while attributing a lot to it to "Nazi Propaganda" and after all, weren't the "Germans the Aggressors" will be one of those attempts at rationalizing this. Clearly they have a hierarchy of victims in all this with some victims being considered less worthy depending on their ethnicity... With Jews being on top of the totem pole and Germans being on the bottom. The rest seems to be graded by skin color. The more white, the less might.
