Some, food for thought;
https://www.wral.com/story/isabel-kersh ... /20363390/
From the article;
[...]The documentary was recently screened for commanders and officers of the intelligence corps — an indication of the importance with which it has been viewed in Israel.[...]
So, it would appear that this documentary at least, is 'Hasbara Approved'...
Also from the article;
The German authorities and the owner of the tapes gave the filmmakers free access to 15 hours of surviving audio. (Sassen had recorded about 70 hours, but he had taped over many of the expensive reels after transcribing them.) Mozer said that the owner of the tapes and the archive had finally agreed to give the filmmakers access, believing that they would treat the material respectfully and responsibly.
And thus, what was actually on the tapes, will never be known...
What is known is that they represent a valuable 'tool' for 'holocaust promoters'.
Do I doubt that Mr Geysers of Blood himself may have promoted the exterminationist narrative in the tapes?
>no<
The man claimed a Soviet submarine engine was used as an instrument of death and made all sorts of other ludicrous claims.
With the 'event' being considered an 'established fact' under the law, after the tortured confession of Hoess, what was left for him as a legal defense was 'just following orders'.
In the end he still danced at the end of a rope, as did so many others.
A thing that gets ignored by holocaust promoters is the simple problem presented by the confession of Hoess given the legal framework in place. None
could deny as a defense. Many incorporated the insane into their confessions, in my opinion, as a tell to the future and as a grounds for appeal did they not dance at the end of a rope.
Of course, this bit of legal fact is
always dismissed, as with the controlling of the narrative by judges and other nefarious goings on, and yet, it remains, a matter of record.
The Einsatzgruppen commanders were hung because there was no order, Eichmann was hung because he said there was. In the end, there was no defense that could exonerate the accused after the narrative was set. All Eichmann could do, and did do, was try to get as many details about the orthodox narrative as possible and to downplay any responsibility. Even this failed to spare his neck.
Had he 'denied' the 'established facts', he would have been excluded from speaking on his own behalf.
Had I been in his shoes, I wouldn't have tried to 'play the game' to 'save my skin'. I'd have told the unvarnished truth such as I knew it and let the chips fall.
Unfortunately, Mr Eichmann was not such a man.