ok but it seems like we're kind of going around in circles. I keep asking for specifics... and you keep saying " google it" :)
here is my starting point... tell me if you disagree with any of this:
WANNSEE CONFERENCE AND THE "FINAL SOLUTION"
On January 20, 1942, 15 high-ranking Nazi Party and German government officials gathered at a villa in the Berlin suburb of Wannsee to discuss and coordinate the implementation of what they called the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question."
KEY FACTS
- 1
The mass murder of the Jews by Nazi Germany and its collaborators required the coordination and cooperation of governmental agencies throughout Axis-controlled Europe.
- 2
The Wannsee Conference was a high-level meeting of German officials to discuss and implement the so-called “Final Solution of the Jewish Question” (mass killing).
- 3
The SS envisioned that some 11 million Jews, some of them not living on German-controlled territory, would be eradicated as part of the Nazi program.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/wannsee-conference-and-the-final-solution
Sorry for the very late reply, did not see your last reply.
-"I keep asking for specifics... and you keep saying " google it"
(Interesting interpretation, I thought that it was me who was asking for several rounds now for anything specific regarding the material/data /amount you actually have researched/read about that specific topic, without sofar much success it seems..anyways, not too important.)
With all due respect (and as said I have a lot of respect for your work in general), No, my actual point/question was/is "Why have you not done that (looked/googled at both/all sides/data of the picture) long ago already before (if) forming any strong opinion either way?"
Again-not meant polemically, I would just very much appreciate to have a level 3 (4?)discussion, 360 degree skeptical discussion. We all except me have biases I guess and would be nice to keep a skeptikal eye on those ours as well...?
So, I presume we shall simply continue in this thread, fair enough.
-"here is my starting point... tell me if you disagree with any of this.."
Agreeing or dis- I find that a very strange question here must say, nobody would ask if one (dis)agrees or not with f.ex. NDE, Flat Earth Theory or any Crime in Court, should not the only thing mattering be the scientific data/proof and whether it holds up to scrutiny according to science/law and common sense?
With that in mind I wonder practically about the page you link to: purely objectively seen it presents a narrative of "statements" (titled "Key facts") and that is of course fair enough as such, but what are those based upon exactly?
As pure statements they are no more no less than any others like f.ex."the universe is meaningless","Earth is flat after all" or "Saddam Hussein bought tubes for centrifuges to build WMD" and in our (alternative) community I think our reaction to all those latter would naturally be "Ok. But what are these statements/claims based upon, please present the objective evidence so we can scrutinize that and see if it actually holds water to scientific/lawfull investigation!".
So, presuming that we agree(?)that this of course also applies to the statements you/they present (off the USHMM site), could you please give an exact direct link to the primary source data on which those claims (at least the main ones) are based upon and which personally (if) convinced you that those are true as stated (please as exact as possible-If it is a document, please link to that original text with page and paragraph number of the exact phrases concerning the claim. If witness testimony, please name and link/pagenumber to the text, if forensic evidence, please link to the specific scientific report and page, as in standard historiography, so we can all have a look and effectively investigate)?
Must admit me being very surprised to find nothing of that kind on the whole USHMM site, proporting to be an encyclopedia and objective, no direct sources refered at all, no independant links, no footnotes?
As comparison, normal mainstream standard encyclopedia entries regarding other controversial topics (f.ex. even low bar Wikipedia at least gives sources and links to alternate/conflicting views):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychic_detective
Why this difference of style of presentation?
And if I may ask you:
In general- as starting point and to get exactly where you are coming from and avoid picking unimportant details-
Regarding the total overall mainstream picture/depiction, according to what I`ve read you write sofar I`d preliminarily assume:
1. That probably your position is not an extreme one that necessarily absolutely ALL in those general depictions/stories/testimonies is true, but a more pragmatic one that probably/surely the gist/most (if so, scale fom 10 (ALL is true) to 1 (a LITTLE CORE of it is) where approximately?)of it is and that is by far enough as well. Or maybe I am wrong?
2. Your main point seems to be- NO apologists for evil deeds/atrocities during WW2, free of partisanship to any side. According to international law and common (including spriritual) sense Germany/Axxispowers are to be held responsible for every atrocity they commited, as are the US/Allies for every they committed during that conflict. No apologists/justification one for the other..,correct assumed?
Lastly, would you agree that:
3. Generally the 3 worst sources for establishing what really happened in the camps (and other crime sites) are probably
a)the german accused perpetrators and
b)the (mostly jewish) victims/inmates and
c)(to maybe a lesser degree or maybe not..) the war time enemies of Germany (mainly Allies), for all having definitely something to gain (legal defence, emotion/revenge-, distraction from own crimes, reparation payment...)here-
a)-from minimizing what happened and
b)-and c) from maximising it.
Which practically casts doubt on all sides, which is of course impossible, so, as general rule, we have to accept the general flaw, all sides/testimonies etc must probably be taken with a (or several) grain(s) of salt?
(-Regarding specifics what I personally found informative:
The Holocaust Industry (Norman Finkelstein),
Why did the Heavens not darken (Arno Meyer).)