gl0spana wrote:I'm glad you're not going to spend 100s of hours on this since I actually kind of like you for some reason. I gather your search so far, which seemingly didn't even hit a proper font match, demonstrated to you the futility of such a venture. I'm happy about this.
It was futile from the get-go because the "typewriter analysis" doesn't prove the veracity of the claims in the document.
I've read the longer report which is def anti semitic and fairly exterminationist " one comes to the conclusion that this problem has to be cleared up completely to free the world once and for all of this pestilence." but these views were shared by millions. Isn't working for mi6 enough to be spared denazification?
Working for MI6 means he was happy to do whatever the British told him to. And his release without any charges suggests they were happy to go easy on the guy, most likely he cooperated with them whenever they asked.
the typewriter wasn't his, but von herff's, who didn't continue using it. Could mi6 have tracked it down with FG's help? Possibly. Then created the false document, then conveniently "lost" it (for 80 years lol) knowing that someone would eventually be able to "authenticate" it using type analysis.
Maximilian von Herff was also in British captivity but died in 1945. The "Allies" were obviously looking for documents and naturally, the typewriter would be accompanied by numerous documents that were typed up with it. If you have a typewriter that you know someone used (because you have documents typed by him from it) and wanted to type up a document and say that he wrote it, you would by default use that same typewriter and whatever blank paper came along with it.
And how exactly was the document "lost"? Was it not just sitting in the archives the entire time along with countless other documents? Who found it and brought it to the archives 80 years later then?
Sure all that is possible. Is it likely*? This my friend is the story of revisionism.
*Ask yourself, for example, how likely is it that the Soviets (or whoever else) were able to destroy/suppress every single German witness, document pertaining to the "resettlement" (Himmler's words) of millions of Jews from the GG in the USSR?
Except they did not do such a thing, plenty of Germans testified that there was no policy of extermination and/or that what was happening was [at a certain time] resettlement. Multiple documents confirm this interpretation. This has been explained to you, examples were given. Very few people would have known the entire process, as nearly all military matters this would have been on a "need-to-know" basis. The people in charge of getting the train to the camp would not have been told where it was to go after because that did not matter. After the war, there were millions of refugees who got up and traveled around Europe.
The Soviets were great at suppressing speech and documents. Why would someone behind the iron curtain come out and make statements contradicting what the government had said unless they wanted to be sent to the Gulag?
If you wanted to collect "Holocaust reparations" why would you come out to contradict the official story if you did not believe it?
The "story of exterminationists" is to claim enormous quantities of physical/material evidence exists in exactly known locations, and then refuse to show it (and prevent anyone from investigating) because you don't need to, as everyone else is legally/socially obligated to accept whatever you claim anyway.
"Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading."-- U.S. vs. Prudden, U.S. Court of Appeals - Fifth Circuit, April 1970
... and those reading this thread may not have seen them.
