capitalism allows mostly free markets. Yes, that's what it looks like, in market economies, individual buyers and sellers are free to make deals and exchange items according to the terms of those deals.
They do, if we only listen to them and give them a fair hearing. Try, for starters, the NMT courtroom testimony of the Einsatzgruppen leaders, first of all Otto Ohlendorf (come to think of it, with Ohlendorf reading from his interrogations and both his IMT and NMT testimony is illuminating). Invigorating material. But you have to be open minded for it to make any sense. When someone like Clayton Moore sets out with all sorts of mental barriers about what can and can't be done, he shows that he isn't receptive, for example, to Ohlendorf's narration of his accomplishments and he goes nowhere, learns nothing, doesn't grow as a person. Goebbels, in his diaries, and Himmler, in his Posen and Sontfhofen speeches for example, also have very interesting things to day, as did Speer, even if he weaseled a great deal, about Nazi innovations and accomplishments. There are many more, but these guys give a nice start. if you will listen to them, of course, and given them a chance to tell their story.
You are correct on two points: (1) I quoted Wiernik accurately, or as best I am able, in this case using copy/paste due to my proclivity to mistype. And (2) individuals like Wiernik can make poor witnesses for certain facets of what they witness, e.g., technical details, points which they consider unimportant at the time, actions which they do not focus on because of their focus on other actions. Their weak testimony in some regards does not, of course, mean that in other aspects their testimony is also weak. In fact, as noted upthread, historians use many witnesses, situated differently, partly for this very reason, that individuals have limits due to situation, perspective, focus, and prior knowledge. So historians use multiple sources and compare them (testimonies, documents, etc.) one with the other, and compare across types of evidence, to make judgments about witnesses, their strengths and weaknesses, as well as to draw conclusions about events. All this is so elementary it is hard to imagine its needing explanation or even repetition amongst literate adults. But here we are.
Scroll back a page or two. This is not a proper history but an episodic collection of random points. We dealt with its inadequacies just a couple days ago. I want a proper historical narrative, not this collection of mistaken musings. Try again. And in your own words. Not a random point, but a narrative explaining the evolution of this historical phenomenon. Please.
Scroll back. I've already read it; I was in a book club. The book was terrible--laughable even. And has been thoroughly shredded. Stop hiding: set down the history of hoaxing in your own words.
I want the evidence for the hoaxing. Not another referral to a nitwit book. Or another supposed debunking of Rabbi Wise, as though the genocide is encapsulated in his exchanges or a list of names without explanation, as though the names themselves demonstrate a case. Something that explains how this thing developed and spread and shows how Hilberg, for example. and Angrick & Klein and Longerich and Engelking and both Freidlanders and so on tarted things up, spread lies, deceived their readers. And, again, not a one-off swipe at this or that point but a coherent narrative telling how this thing was spun up and made persuasive.