Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 12:00 pm
Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 8:26 am
Read any history of the camp, from online summaries by USHMM and Wikipedia to Dachau, The Official History and you will find that the evidence has been gathered, assessed and insufficient corroborating evidence was found to establish any claims of mass gassing at the camp.
This is a narrative that was concocted after the retractation of the Dachau gas chamber(s) in order to justify the retractation and avoid damaging the credibility of the unretracted fake gas chambers. Pure late damage control. Read any Allied newspaper and official statement from 1945 to 1960 (and even many years later) and you will see that the Dachau gas chamber(s) was (were) described as an undeniable established fact as evidenced as any other alleged Nazi gas chamber. In reality, the Dachau gas chamber used to be the best-proven & most notorious gas chamber of the entire Holohoax myth!! It was even the only "gas chamber" seen in the famous horror movie screened at the Nuremberg show trial in 1945!
...
The reason for the retraction, was because war crimes investigators and historians failed to find sufficient evidence to support the original claims and rumours. The camp staff were primarily tried by the Americans, and those staff denied mass gassings.
https://www.expostfacto.nl/dtrr/dtrrintro.html
"From 1945 to 1948, U.S. Army Courts (military commissions and special or general military courts) tried 1672 individuals in 489 proceedings."
According to you, for the hoax you allege to work, the Americans could not get the SS at Dachau to make false confessions to mass gassings at Dachau, but the British who tried Hoess and the Germans and Poles who tried the A-B SS camp staff, were able to get false confessions from them.
Or, the simpler, evidenced reason is that the gas chambers at Dachau were not used, whereas the ones at A-B were.
That is an odd way to run a hoax. You would think that no confession would be exposed as false. In fact, the confessions that were proved, were the ones that were corroborated, and the confessions exposed as false were the ones not corroborated, or there was evidence they were false. You don't do evidence, so you do not understand how evidence determines truthfulness and accuracy.
Sanity Check - "Thus, currently revisionists can console themselves by affirming their incredulity..."