His obsessions for World War 2 revisionism was, and is, pretty creepy. Why was it so important for him to defend John Demnjanjuk, or to endorse a claim that Eisenhower starved a million German POWs, or that Britain should have made peace with Hitler?
Probably because he had reasonable doubt about Demnjanjuk's guilt, coupled with a sense of fair play in the treatment of an American citizen.
If I recalled, Demnjanjuk was convicted of war crimes based, in part, on the sworn testimony of eye witnesses that he was “Ivan the Terrible.” That conviction and death sentence was overturned by an Israeli court because it did not stand up to scrutiny on appeal.
It then occurred to German officials to charge Demnjanjuk with being an entirely different war criminal. He was convicted once again but died before his appeal on that sentence was completed.