THIS is the manner in which the conformist German historians protect their famous "consensus". Those who are rightly skeptical about any aspect of the legends of World War II are imprisoned or subjected to ruinous fines.
Conclusion: their consensus isn't worth the toilet paper it is written on. As Auberon Waugh once famously asked in The Daily Telegraph (before it fell into the hands of Conrad Black), What kind of historical fact is it that has to be protected by draconian measures such as these?
Historical Truth should be masculine enough to stand on its own two feet -- not crawl and cringe behind its "bodyguard of lies."
Why isn't the phrase 'notorious far-left winger' ever used to describe those that oppose free speech?
Kilroy, here and there