He was injured during the campaign in southern france. At that point he may been assigned to divisional HQ. I'm not totally sure...
www.bitchute.com
Why wouldn't the USSR lie? Many of the estimates for Holodomor alone are upwards of 7 million deaths, and the very lowest estimates are still around 4 million. We don't even know the actual number for the purges committed by Stalin despite there being some physical records of this which have gotten out over the years. The whole thing of it is, is that the USSR had even up to that point a very well established track record of lying about genocides for political purposes, and they had the means to lie about Holocaust numbers since all of the death camps fell on their side of the border after the war ended. Likewise, almost everyone at any real level of leadership within the USSR was at least part Jewish which is actually true to this day. In addition to that fact alone being a very strong motive, wouldn't it make sense for them to try and play up the Holocaust to take attention off of them?
Bit of a strange question to be honest.
"are victims bullshitters?"
The way that question is phrased already assumes sequence of events, like asking "do raped women lie?" Or "do abused men always tell the truth?"
First, no matter how much of a victim someone is, it is still possible for them to lie as long as they can speak and some subsect of victims will lie.
Second, the lie may be part of what the claimed victimisation is about. It's like the "raped women don't lie" meme. Even if that were true, you still have to identify the non-raped women from the raped women, as there is no reason why someone couldn't claim to be raped when they're not.
Third besides the victim status itself, it is also possible for victims to exaggerate the degree of victimisation.
So to get back to your question. Are victims bullshitters? No. Of they're victims, then they're not bullshitting about being victims, because the qualification itself is that they're victims.
Do some that claim to be victims lie? Of course. This particular lie led to the "it was not true. But in my mind, it was real".
View attachment 1238741
Phoenix_Party_Fascists
Ha-Ha-Holocaust - Herman Rosenblat: "It was real in my mind" (Feb 2009)
Note that it doesn't say anything about the veracity of the holocaust. Only something we all know. That people can lie.
As for your other questions.
Is it illegal to question the number of russian deaths in my country? In Russia itself?
Do people who investigate details about it in russia that result in conclusions that deviate from mainstream get harassed, imprisoned etcetera? Were the millions of russians casualties of war or intentionally murdered? That's the central difference between the two things you're comparing.
As to what can be gained, I've already discussed that. Lots if money, political immunity. But there are many more motivations. The guy above did it for fame. I think spite and vengeance can be another motive. I'm not saying that everything was a lie. I'm saying there is more than ample motive.
If you consider the theory that the holocaust was smaller than it is in the official version and if you consider that it wasn't a complete death machine. Assume that for a second, the way you asked me to assume whether victims could be liars. Would it really be hard to understand that someone like Otto Frank, anne franks father, would have motive to embellish events to exact greater vengeance on the people who brought the conditions that caused his daughter to die hundreds of miles from her home?
I think in essence you were asking about motives, so I return the question about motives.
Lol I meant there's still a lot of Jews in Russian leadership, Putin himself for one.There still is a USSR high command today?
No, get it right, I was asking simply what death count would warrant the special moniker "holocaust".
Not discreprancies. Not relating to the changing of mind. It was a simple definition question.
Well thank you for being clear with your perspective on lying. I agree he doesn't need to lie. I agree he has plenty of motive and reason for revenge. I agree that Anne Frank died in a Nazi German camp. But your question is still illuminating. Why would it matter if he embellished? Well, because it wouldn't be the truth.
If you killed my mother in front of my eyes, I could then claim you first raped and then killed her. I would have motive. People would kinda be understanding. It's just an embellishment. But does it not matter at all whether you raped her first or not? Does truth cease to matter if you have sufficient cause for redress?
I know odd things happen during wars, but how did an American get to the russian front to be there to liberate auschwitz as part of the Red Army?
View attachment 1238760
View attachment 1238752
Why would the US divisional HQ be in Czechzslovakia? I made a map to try and make sense of what you're saying and what the movements of the 1st infantry were. It doesn't make sense at all for him to have been at the liberation of auschwitz.
View attachment 1238823
View attachment 1238806
Supposedly someone injured in the road to the battle of the bulge, was sent 600 miles to a divisional headquarters in an already secured czechoslovakia. An already secured area which they would then later liberate a couple of cities of when their army finally got there.
I think it's one of those things where old people tell their stories and they embellish their stories, or misspeak and instead of correcting themselves, continue. Or misremember. I'm just saying that the facts as you line them up are very hard to believe. Maybe he was there at the liberation of another camp? Maybe he saw the auschwitz camp later after it had already been liberated?
But as you said earlier, it doesn't matter if it's embellished or not, right? Who cares about truth when there's justifiable cause to be aggresive towards someone, right?
At first I took your claim of your grandfather finding piles of naked children at face value, but as much as I don't expect someone to make that up, the facts don't seem to stack up right. Tell me where I'm wrong. I want to hear what mistake I'm making, if any.
Not to be more of a pedantic asshole than I already am, but how could your grandfather have been in the Red Army and a GI? I'm assuming he probably liberated Dachau or Buchenwald rather than Auschwitz, which was hundreds of miles east of the Allied lines.
People only care about the Rwandan Genocide because its victims were the ultimate winners of the war. No one gives a shit about how the RPF's victory led to a mass exodus of Hutu from Rwanda into neighboring Zaire, which ultimately led to millions of people dying in the Congo Wars, or how the RPF engaged in retaliatory executions against their enemies and innocent civilians.
There still is a USSR high command today?
No, get it right, I was asking simply what death count would warrant the special moniker "holocaust".
Not discreprancies. Not relating to the changing of mind. It was a simple definition question.
Well thank you for being clear with your perspective on lying. I agree he doesn't need to lie. I agree he has plenty of motive and reason for revenge. I agree that Anne Frank died in a Nazi German camp. But your question is still illuminating. Why would it matter if he embellished? Well, because it wouldn't be the truth.
If you killed my mother in front of my eyes, I could then claim you first raped and then killed her. I would have motive. People would kinda be understanding. It's just an embellishment. But does it not matter at all whether you raped her first or not? Does truth cease to matter if you have sufficient cause for redress?
I know odd things happen during wars, but how did an American get to the russian front to be there to liberate auschwitz as part of the Red Army?
View attachment 1238760
View attachment 1238752
Why would the US divisional HQ be in Czechzslovakia? I made a map to try and make sense of what you're saying and what the movements of the 1st infantry were. It doesn't make sense at all for him to have been at the liberation of auschwitz.
View attachment 1238823
View attachment 1238806
Supposedly someone injured in the road to the battle of the bulge, was sent 600 miles to a divisional headquarters in an already secured czechoslovakia. An already secured area which they would then later liberate a couple of cities of when their army finally got there.
I think it's one of those things where old people tell their stories and they embellish their stories, or misspeak and instead of correcting themselves, continue. Or misremember. I'm just saying that the facts as you line them up are very hard to believe. Maybe he was there at the liberation of another camp? Maybe he saw the auschwitz camp later after it had already been liberated?
But as you said earlier, it doesn't matter if it's embellished or not, right? Who cares about truth when there's justifiable cause to be aggresive towards someone, right?
At first I took your claim of your grandfather finding piles of naked children at face value, but as much as I don't expect someone to make that up, the facts don't seem to stack up right. Tell me where I'm wrong. I want to hear what mistake I'm making, if any.
this was really well said.
