But they didn't fake that - they just said it existed, and it doesn't.
There's no physical evidence for it, never has been.
Witness testimony is utterly trash as evidence goes, and especially given the circumstances of that testimony being acquired (ie torture, etc - just look into the circumstances of the Nuremburg trials).
This is a shit-tier point in this context, particularly when one takes note of the fact that the Soviets controled the only presently-claimed 'death camps'.
Basically, her - or rather, your - argument here is: "The Soviets couldn't have made a bunch of shit up, which was accepted by the West (because it justified post-war atrocities) and pushed by their Jewish-controlled media machine".
Tell anyone pushing this: "Look into General Patton's journal."
Why? There's no explanation for this.
Why were these people put in camps to begin with? Because they were a hazard.
They were probabilistically much-more likely to engage in things like sabotage, treachery, espionage, etc.
The US put people in camps for the exact same reasons, as have many others throughout history, because to not do so is utterly foolish during war time - you're basically creating an opening for your enemy to stab you.
In fact, in ancient times, you'd just kill these people - fuck the camps, put them to the blade. Done.
The Germans - and Americans, in turn - were showing great compassion by putting people who were high-risk for such behaviors into camps, instead of simply executing them immediately upon discovery.
So why should they be released if you can no longer care for them? At that point, after containment and failure of supply routes to containment areas, they're only MORE likely to engage in such actions - again, you're expecting a nation to open itself up to being back-stabbed during a war-time scenario for the sake of… What? The well-being of these effectively-enemy combatants, the partisans to be?
That's just stupid. Get fucked.
Yes, in fact, sometimes it is.
Which is more immoral, as the German government: Releasing these prisoners, who are quite-likely to go about taking actions that will cost German lives (civilian and/or military) and which will inhibit the war effort which is being exercised for the purpose of securing the lives and well-being of the German people… Or starving, due solely to lack of resources/rampant illness which cannot be treated due to lack of resources, those same prisoners upon said population?
That's like saying, "Its immoral to kill someone to take what is theirs", which is obviously faulty - is it immoral to kill someone who hates you and is your enemy to take their food to feed your starving children?
Perhaps, in a sense… Does that matter to you, as the father of those children? It fucking well shouldn't.
One sided, half-blind morality is not morality at all, its just Jewish warbling.
LETS TALK ABOUT FUCKING POLAND, NIGGER.
