On challenges to produce contrary ("revisionist") witnesses

[bombsaway]

Quote reply which question of yours I have dodged. If it's your Reddit bait about "why did he lie" then consider my answer to be refusal (not a dodge) based on it being bait into cat and mouse games which I'm not here to do. I've already told you i'm not here to psychoanalyze why X or Y person was motivated into Z or N action. It feels like you want me to attribute this to ethnic hatred of Germans, revenge fantasy or whatever - but again I'm not here to discuss that.

That's the difference between your camp and mine. There aren't any questions that I flat out refuse to answer. Though of course I'm time bound and things of that nature.

If you think the revenge fantasy narrative might reasonably explain your "invented" 1005 weather reports and Kula columns, you are battier than I would suppose. It's about conspiracy.

[Stubble]

Archie, what are your thoughts on the situation with Kramer. Am I being 'insane and pedantic' about the conflict between his earlier denial and then his impossible testimony? Or is it indeed curiously vexing?

One would wonder how someone could be made to makes such a confession, no? And how something so incongruous with reality could be 'established legal fact' after his confession?

[Archie]

Archie, what are your thoughts on the situation with Kramer. Am I being 'insane and pedantic' about the conflict between his earlier denial and then his impossible testimony? Or is it indeed curiously vexing?

One would wonder how someone could be made to makes such a confession, no? And how something so incongruous with reality could be 'established legal fact' after his confession?

Pressac discards Kramer as a witness even though he believes in Natzweiler gassings. So I would say no. If they accuse your sanity for questioning Kramer's story, they would also have to question Pressac's.

[Stubble]

How about that human rodent Pery Broad?

Speaking more broadly to the absolutely ludicrous becoming 'uncontestable legal fact'.

Not that I'm not interested in pursuing how Kramer came to dance at the end of a rope after lying about killing people with a garden spigot, or how that came to be in the record, more that I'm interested in showing the pattern that emerges when you start to dive into these 'confessions'.

[Archie]

I split off most of the Kula vs Tauber discussion (which I think is very worthwhile). That shouldn't be buried in this very broad thread.

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=774

[Stubble]

I would like to stress that Kramer initially said none of this happened, was tortured, entered a confession into evidence that is ridiculous and would have killed him deader than a door nail, then he danced at the end of a rope. (My earlier post was moved in the split)

This is what happened to 'contrary witnesses'. There's also the matter of this;

An event that spans years and a continent, cannot be proved with one piece of evidence. You are being unrealistic. Even if a document ordering the mass gassing of Jews, signed by A Hitler, was found, it would be dismissed as fake.

Why do you always write ridiculous things like this? Yes, my very point was that it cannot be proved with one piece of evidence.

There is very little contemporaneous evidence to support revisionism. There are no eyewitnesses at all.

You are totally unserious. Nearly all revisionist material is contemporaneous. It is the exterminationists who rely heavily on increasingly late post-war materials as their proof.

Among the eyewitnesses that outright denied the Holocaust, there is Heinrich Himmler, Richard Baer, Josef Kramer, Joseph Mengele, Thies Christophersen, Paul Rassinier, Maria Van Herwaarden, Walter Schreiber, Marian Olszuk. There were so many deniers in 1946 that at the IMT prosecutor Fyfe declared outright that all of the defense's 102 witnesses and 312,022 affiants were "untrue". This is putting aside the many witnesses who pled ignorance to the Holocaust, many of whom could not actually have been ignorant of those events if they happened because of their own supposed role in them, and also the accusatory witnesses who have been caught in so many factual inaccuracies, contradictions, and lies that they demonstrate an unmistakable effort to fabricate. All of this comports very well with revisionism but not with exterminationism.

To say that "there are no eyewitnesses at all" is such a gross distortion that it could only be done in bad faith. I won't waste any more time speaking to you on this.

[Archie]

(My earlier post was moved in the split)

Oops. I'll move the Kramer posts back here.

[Stubble]

(My earlier post was moved in the split)

Oops. I'll move the Kramer posts back here.

I wouldn't sweat it, it probably bears repeating and would look clunky without the rest of the posts.

Edit: I see you already moved some of them, thanks Archie!