Plus, I'm not sure of the exact percentage, but it is well known that in everyday legal proceedings many people confess to criminal acts they had nothing to do with.
Have a look at what Revisionist Paul Eisen has to say about Groening.
source: http://pauleisen.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12 ... oning.html
The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of Truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.The Not-So-Strange Case of Oskar Groning by Paul Eisen
I received this email and link
"Tell me what do you make of the testimony of Oskar Groning?
You can click the link and learn about Oskar Groning's experiences at Auschwitz and his subsequent testimony, all of which, strongly affirms the Auschwitz extermination narrative.
Well, Groning is not alone. The Holocaust narrative has lots of ‘perpetrators’ who have nearly fallen over themselves to plead guilty with graphic statements and lurid confessions - all supporting the gas-chamber narrative. The trouble is, that the forensic, topographical, documentary, chemical, photographic etc. evidence, all contradict the narrative.
So what gives? Why would these perpetrators incriminate themselves?
Here are a few possible explanations:
1. The statements and confessions were tortured or threatened out of them – this certainly happened to the main perpetrator witness, Rudolph Hoess and many others. As background, you can research the treatment meted out to captured Nazis at the site of the concentration camps, in pre-Nuremberg interrogations and elsewhere.
2. Many probably agreed to what their interrogators wanted in order to gain a lighter sentence (I would have).
3. Because the story became so established, these alleged witnesses put together things they really had seen (I’m sure there were executions etc. at Auschwitz) and out of those (true) events created for themselves confirmation of the whole (false) extermination narrative. Loads of people will say things like “I saw the piles of bodies” or “I saw the piles of shoes”. Well, they probably did see those things and then, when confronted with the 'incontrovertible reality' of the extermination narrative, made what they had seen fit. We all do it and I'm sure there's some psychological term to describe the phenomenon.
Similarly, they may well have heard from others (the camps and elsewhere were buzzing with stories) who said they saw the gas-chambers. In fact, this has happened time and time again when, on the witness-stand, a ‘witness' to gassings is forced to admit (and maybe, realise) that they didn’t actually see it themselves but they had met someone who did. As we all know, any story is so much more engaging in the first person
4. Many captured Nazis may well have felt they might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb. If you're going to hang anyway, there may well been something quite attractive about being hung for the greatest crime of all time. I think Eichmann, a notable loser, may have fallen into this category.
5. People love to be part of the crowd. This would have been true both in the immediate post-war climate and also in the present-day. This would be especially true in Germany where to worship the Holocaust is de riguer. But even here in the U.K., Holocaust worship has its perks. I’ve personally met loads of Jews who have made a career out of being a survivor. It's great: you’re feted wherever you go and, above all, people listen to you. Also, you can make quite a good living.
6. Some people just love Jews and are true Holocaust worshippers. Like so many people, they simply 'believed'.
In the case of this guy, I’d say that his testimony is a mixture of numbers 3, 5 and 6.