Hannover wrote:Michael Hoffmann:
As I said, and you obviously ignored, you had the time to post your beliefs at a debate site which, admit it, you cannot back-up now that you have been challenged. That's the obvious fact of the matter, you are fooling no one with your weak excuses.
In the time it took you to post just once in this thread you could have told us why you belief in what you believe in, IF you really believe it in the first place.
I'd accept that someone is engaged elsewhere not having time for debate right now. But to post some evidence for some historical feat, like Einsatzgruppen killings behind the Eastern front should be feasible. However I take the guess that Mr Hoffman's evidence, may require some discussion before one can accept or dismiss it.
- The Blobel cop-out has been debated here. No physical remains, since Blobel made it vanish.
- The Jaeger Report has been discussed here. And it has been shown that it's quite dubious in its history, but als as a document.
- Then there is Babi Yar, Einsatzgruppen show trials etc.
That Einsatzgruppen and Auxiliaries killed politruks, communist party officials, partisans and their helpers is also not really in dispute. Good question of course what the evidence is there and how hard it is. Although it would be astonishing, if the Axis forces wouldn't have dealt with them rigorously. That's how such problems are solved in war time. Any army has done it that way in history, should the need arise. And the need for this behind the Eastern Front was more the urgent and severe. That part is of course blinded out in the mainstream debate.
We don't have to agree on everything facet of the Holocaust narrative being horse dung. At the moment some Revisionists seem however to be agreeable to some Holocaust lite version with "some gassings" in Treblinka or so. Why they say so is a mystery to me, but open for speculation. I don't see that from the evidence presented to us so far. It's obviously that the whole claim, name and blame game that the Holocaust is, is actually widely based on innuendo and not on empirically established and testable facts.
If the Holocaust Industry had hard facts and proof available, they won't utilize such denunciation and threatening tactics like they did against Irving, calling out Amaleks and avoiding debate. In fact they probably embrace it. Despite the pretense of belief, it seems that many actors in the industry deep down have a sense that what they're spreading isn't exactly the truth.