prussian_blue wrote:His argument seems to be that something so great involving so many people simply could not be fake.
The thing so great & involving so many people is Shoah 2.0. The victorious Allies didn't come at Nuremberg with their Nazi conspiracy to exterminate the Jews (as the accusers themselves used to put it at that time)
and all kinds of Hogan's-Heroes-style Nazi tricks intended to preserve the secrecy of their alleged mass slaughter (alleged genocidal code words and euphemisms in documents, obliteration units tasked with making the alleged Nazi graves disappear without leaving a trace, gas chambers disguised as shower rooms to fool the doomed Jews, etc.)
because the 'Holocaust' was known to all as claimed in today's narrative.
This is the reason why Churchill could state before the House of Commons on August 1, 1946: “I must say that I had no idea, when the war came to an end, of the horrible massacres which had occurred; the millions and millions that have been slaughtered. That dawned on us gradually after the struggle was over.
And that also dawned on Goering (and other Nazi leaders) gradually after the struggle was over. The only way Goering could reconcile what he had seen and heard at Hitler's side during the war and what was alleged by the victors and their star 'witnesses' at Nuremberg after the war, was by deducing that Himmler had done it behind his back and behind Hitler's back. Quite laughable but understandable.
The most logical conclusion is most often the correct one. If almost everybody - Roosevelt, Churchill, the International Red Cross, the Vatican, some non-Zionist Jewish leaders, etc. - behaved during WW2 as if no genocide was taking place (as claimed in Shoah 2.0), that's simply because no genocide was taking place, not because almost everybody was a bastard not caring at all about Europe's Jews or being even happy that the latter were being mass slaughtered in Nazi death factories (as claimed in Shoah 2.0). A few impressive wartime statements by some Allied leaders such as Churchill and FDR against their enemies of the day did not cost anything. That was just consistent with the essence of atrocity propaganda (i.e. them=evil, us=good)
, especially in times of war. But what they did and didn't do at that time is much more telling about what those high-ranking insiders knew to be true and false. Actions [and inactions] speak louder than words...