hermod wrote:Hektor wrote:That's the thing with motives or what goes on within a persons mind. One can not know this with certainty for sure. One can however hypothesis about this and come to a plausible statement on this. But in this case you'd need to know ALL relevant facts to say anything sufficiently meaningful about this. Otherwise one needs to give him the benefit of the doubt on this.
If he did it for money, what is the evidence that he got or was offered money. How much exactly? When was that money offered to him. From what I read it seems he was modestly wealthy and of an age were 'big money' doesn't make much of a difference anymore.
There are many real things which one can not know with certainty. Millions of people cheat on their partners every day and most of them won't get caught most of time. But their cheating is real nevertheless. Not all bribes and threats leave a paper trail or a public statement behind.Hektor wrote:Immunity is also implausible. Since after all he was put on trial, even if the verdict was merely symbolic. Immunity for what exactly.
For being a former member of a group labelled as a criminal organization and for helping to run an alleged extermination camp.
....
I'm not excluding bribery or extortion. But the psychological setting seems to me the most plausible, hence the best explanation. This can also be demonstrated, although it isn't too easy to explain. the normie sees an ex-SS officer affirming the gassing narrative and thinks that this was what he experienced. It's especially potent, when the person saying this appears to be earnerst and honest. And to the normie this was the case with Groening.
Indeed, the labelling of the SS as criminal organisation may do wonders as the trials as well. It's essentially muddying the waters, right from the beginning, before even a trial starts.
There is legal issues with the statehood of Germany. It isn't really sovereign and the debate on the issue is strongly supressed in Germany.
And there is no defense possible, when one is accused of "denying the Holocaust". Total suppression of debate that way. Doesn't mean there are pseudo-debates. There are plenty of those. Usually shifted away from the subject. You can be a "Dresden Denier" in Germany and even get public funding for this. This double standard is actually pretty blatant, but the masses don't seem to notice it... Since it isn't denounced or proclaimed by leaders. The leading strata avoid the subject, although I knew some Germans (residing there as well) that realised that the Holocaust narrative is a campaign driven by influential Jewish organisation. I mean even Konrad Adenauer admitted this.
As Logic, fallacious thinking can be found everywhere... with localised Adaptions of course. The concepts of deception can be applied generally. What is unique is that they could go on with this for several decades. And actually the fact that they could dupe so many people for such a long time seems to affirm the 'trueness' of the Holocaust in the minds of normies.
Indeed... What would happen to a previously 'confessing accused', when he later states that he wasn't honest about this, but had given in to pressure and made up his confession? He would be dismissed, he would be seen as unrepentant, he would be called all kinds of names and could expect even more charges against him. Highly unlikely that he would do this. One needs to bear in mind that those that were put on trial are usually older people, that want to enjoy their later life without further harassment. There is plenty of cases were the accused were harassed and also assaulted, when it became known that they were defiant.
