You are the defence for the Nazis in court, what do you do?

We can recall that the nazis were defended at the zundel trial. As I recall the pro holocaust authors showed that in fact they had very little to go on.

So in fact, to defend nazis all you need is a fair trial.

Dr Megele denied it, so did initially, the temporary commander of Auschwitz J Kramer when first giving statement. I read somewhere that SS man Gunter Frich admitted to gassing jews so maybe thats one for you.

"I gave life in Auschwitz, I did not take it."
Dr Mengele

Kramer;

“I have heard of the allegations of former prisoners in Auschwitz referring to a gas chamber there, the mass executions and whippings, the cruelty of the guards employed, and that all this took place either in my presence or with my knowledge. All I can say to all this is that it is untrue from beginning to end.”

He's denying his role in any nonsense. and avoids going further into other areas. Which again, is fair and reasonable.


Denying knowledge, denying the event. What's is the the difference?

Kramer's trial

www.bergenbelsen.co.uk/pages/trialtranscript/trial_day_001.html

From his defence solicitor;

" Kramer, No. 1, states in his first statement that he never heard of such a thing, that there could not have been a gas chamber in the camp; he must have known about it, and says in his second statement he saw it on his first inspection of the camp, although, of course, he says he had nothing to do with it, it was the responsibility of his senior officer. It was made clear to him he had no control over the gas chamber"

Kramer tried to lie, but in the face of the evidence, admitted there were gas chambers.

One can reasonably say that while one had nothing personally to do with it, the event is accepted as having occurred because the court tells me so.