The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/v/van-handel.don/donvh.0595


From donvh@aol.com Mon May  8 06:29:11 PDT 1995
Article: 21165 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!agate!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e1a.megaweb.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: donvh@aol.com (DonVH)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Churchill's Role in the Bombing War
Date: 6 May 1995 17:01:28 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 40
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3ogo38$jns@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3nnvk3$6u8@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: donvh@aol.com (DonVH)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Fifty years after the conclusion of the second world war, an attempt is
being made to discuss the events of that catastrophic event without the
emotionality and distortions so common during wartime itself.  Fifty years
after the war the general public is still unaware of Churchill's role in
the Bombing war.   Unfortunately, fifty years after a war, in a forum
designed to discuss revisionist perspectives on historical matters,
emotion rather than honest thought and debate  still rules supreme.   To
cite Churchill's role is not in anyway to justify the regime or actions of
Adolf Hitler.  The bombing war discussed in my initial post was the war
between Great Britain and Germany.  The quote from Milch did not include
the Netherlands, France, Spain, etc.  Similarly I did not discuss the
origins of the conflict or for that matter the origins of the first world
war, or the Franco-Prussian war or...ad infinitum.  To not examine or
question the leaders of the Allied countries whether we are discussing
WWII, Korea, Vietnam, WWI, etc. is to deceive ourselves.  We will never
even notice that we are conquered by an authoritarian regime when that
regime gets its power from within.  The people have given up their
freedom, the freedom to speak, the freedom to think, the freedom to
evaluate.  I stand opposed to all authoritarian regimes and ways of
thinking.  My short post did not intend to discuss the crime of Rotterdam.
 One account of the disaster at Rotterdam follows: from John Toland's
volume, ADOLF HITLER Ballantine 1976 p.440             "...Hitler was
disturbed by the stubborn defense put up by the outnumbered Dutch troops
and, on the morning of the fourteenth, issued a directive to break this
resistance 'speedily.' Detachments of the Luftwaffe were sent from the
Belgian area 'to facilitate the rapid conquest of Fortress Holland.' 
Within hours the Luftwaffe dropped ninety-eight tons of high explosives on
Rotterdam.  The intent was to eliminate Dutch resistance at the bridges
over the Nieuwe Maas but the bombs slammed into the center of the city,
killing 814 civilians.  The facts were grossly misrepresented by the
democratic press, which listed the death toll as between 25,000 and
30,000.  Nor did Western newspapers reveal that the tacit agreement
between the two sides to limit bombing to military targets had been first
violated by the British.  Three days earlier, over strenuous French
objections, thirty-five Royal Air Force bombers had attacked an industrial
city in the Rhineland, killing four civilians, including an English-woman.
 Despite Hitler's frightful retaliation in Holland, he resisted proposals
to bomb London itself.  He was not willing to go that far- as yet.  The
tragedy of Rotterdam ended Dutch resistance, the commander-in-chief- of
the Dutch forces ordering his men to lay down arms a few hours later."


From donvh@aol.com Mon May  8 19:15:13 PDT 1995
Article: 21165 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!agate!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e1a.megaweb.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: donvh@aol.com (DonVH)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Churchill's Role in the Bombing War
Date: 6 May 1995 17:01:28 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 40
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3ogo38$jns@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3nnvk3$6u8@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: donvh@aol.com (DonVH)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Fifty years after the conclusion of the second world war, an attempt is
being made to discuss the events of that catastrophic event without the
emotionality and distortions so common during wartime itself.  Fifty years
after the war the general public is still unaware of Churchill's role in
the Bombing war.   Unfortunately, fifty years after a war, in a forum
designed to discuss revisionist perspectives on historical matters,
emotion rather than honest thought and debate  still rules supreme.   To
cite Churchill's role is not in anyway to justify the regime or actions of
Adolf Hitler.  The bombing war discussed in my initial post was the war
between Great Britain and Germany.  The quote from Milch did not include
the Netherlands, France, Spain, etc.  Similarly I did not discuss the
origins of the conflict or for that matter the origins of the first world
war, or the Franco-Prussian war or...ad infinitum.  To not examine or
question the leaders of the Allied countries whether we are discussing
WWII, Korea, Vietnam, WWI, etc. is to deceive ourselves.  We will never
even notice that we are conquered by an authoritarian regime when that
regime gets its power from within.  The people have given up their
freedom, the freedom to speak, the freedom to think, the freedom to
evaluate.  I stand opposed to all authoritarian regimes and ways of
thinking.  My short post did not intend to discuss the crime of Rotterdam.
 One account of the disaster at Rotterdam follows: from John Toland's
volume, ADOLF HITLER Ballantine 1976 p.440             "...Hitler was
disturbed by the stubborn defense put up by the outnumbered Dutch troops
and, on the morning of the fourteenth, issued a directive to break this
resistance 'speedily.' Detachments of the Luftwaffe were sent from the
Belgian area 'to facilitate the rapid conquest of Fortress Holland.' 
Within hours the Luftwaffe dropped ninety-eight tons of high explosives on
Rotterdam.  The intent was to eliminate Dutch resistance at the bridges
over the Nieuwe Maas but the bombs slammed into the center of the city,
killing 814 civilians.  The facts were grossly misrepresented by the
democratic press, which listed the death toll as between 25,000 and
30,000.  Nor did Western newspapers reveal that the tacit agreement
between the two sides to limit bombing to military targets had been first
violated by the British.  Three days earlier, over strenuous French
objections, thirty-five Royal Air Force bombers had attacked an industrial
city in the Rhineland, killing four civilians, including an English-woman.
 Despite Hitler's frightful retaliation in Holland, he resisted proposals
to bomb London itself.  He was not willing to go that far- as yet.  The
tragedy of Rotterdam ended Dutch resistance, the commander-in-chief- of
the Dutch forces ordering his men to lay down arms a few hours later."


From donvh@aol.com Mon May  8 19:42:12 PDT 1995
Article: 21165 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!agate!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e1a.megaweb.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: donvh@aol.com (DonVH)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Churchill's Role in the Bombing War
Date: 6 May 1995 17:01:28 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 40
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3ogo38$jns@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3nnvk3$6u8@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: donvh@aol.com (DonVH)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Fifty years after the conclusion of the second world war, an attempt is
being made to discuss the events of that catastrophic event without the
emotionality and distortions so common during wartime itself.  Fifty years
after the war the general public is still unaware of Churchill's role in
the Bombing war.   Unfortunately, fifty years after a war, in a forum
designed to discuss revisionist perspectives on historical matters,
emotion rather than honest thought and debate  still rules supreme.   To
cite Churchill's role is not in anyway to justify the regime or actions of
Adolf Hitler.  The bombing war discussed in my initial post was the war
between Great Britain and Germany.  The quote from Milch did not include
the Netherlands, France, Spain, etc.  Similarly I did not discuss the
origins of the conflict or for that matter the origins of the first world
war, or the Franco-Prussian war or...ad infinitum.  To not examine or
question the leaders of the Allied countries whether we are discussing
WWII, Korea, Vietnam, WWI, etc. is to deceive ourselves.  We will never
even notice that we are conquered by an authoritarian regime when that
regime gets its power from within.  The people have given up their
freedom, the freedom to speak, the freedom to think, the freedom to
evaluate.  I stand opposed to all authoritarian regimes and ways of
thinking.  My short post did not intend to discuss the crime of Rotterdam.
 One account of the disaster at Rotterdam follows: from John Toland's
volume, ADOLF HITLER Ballantine 1976 p.440             "...Hitler was
disturbed by the stubborn defense put up by the outnumbered Dutch troops
and, on the morning of the fourteenth, issued a directive to break this
resistance 'speedily.' Detachments of the Luftwaffe were sent from the
Belgian area 'to facilitate the rapid conquest of Fortress Holland.' 
Within hours the Luftwaffe dropped ninety-eight tons of high explosives on
Rotterdam.  The intent was to eliminate Dutch resistance at the bridges
over the Nieuwe Maas but the bombs slammed into the center of the city,
killing 814 civilians.  The facts were grossly misrepresented by the
democratic press, which listed the death toll as between 25,000 and
30,000.  Nor did Western newspapers reveal that the tacit agreement
between the two sides to limit bombing to military targets had been first
violated by the British.  Three days earlier, over strenuous French
objections, thirty-five Royal Air Force bombers had attacked an industrial
city in the Rhineland, killing four civilians, including an English-woman.
 Despite Hitler's frightful retaliation in Holland, he resisted proposals
to bomb London itself.  He was not willing to go that far- as yet.  The
tragedy of Rotterdam ended Dutch resistance, the commander-in-chief- of
the Dutch forces ordering his men to lay down arms a few hours later."


From donvh@aol.com Thu May 25 16:51:22 PDT 1995
Article: 21554 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e1a.megaweb.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: donvh@aol.com (DonVH)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: (no subject)
Date: 24 May 1995 07:48:56 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 46
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3pv6f8$btd@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3pt4nc$rsq@rover.ucs.ualberta.ca>
Reply-To: donvh@aol.com (DonVH)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

John Morris makes assertions about Prof. Rassinier of which he is unaware.
(John is this being done in the name of Truth- or is this just a righteous
crusade?)  Morris writes, "                                               
          Rassinier used his authority as an eyewitness to put forward the
claim that 
there were no mass exterminations.  Rassinier was an inmate at Dora and 
Buchenwald, both concentration camps, and was never an inmate at an 
extermination camp.

In the interests of Truth, I am sure your next posting will advise us of 
which academic position earned Rassinier the title of professor. So far as
I 
know, Rassinier made his living in publishing materials which deny the 
Holocaust."                                                               
                                      John, Perhaps you should read some
of the works of Rassinier before you condemn him.  I suggest "The Real
Eichmann Trial or the Incorrigible Victors."  In regard to Rassinier's
biography-   Paul Rassinier was born on March 18, 1906, in Beaumont, a
small village near Montbeliard, the son of a farmer.  He received his
formal education in the schools of the area and passed the necessary
examinations which allowed him to teach history and geography at the
secondary school level and to use the title of "professor."  He taught in
the secondary school at Faubourg de Montbeliard.  It was at this school
that he was arrested by the Gestapo in October 1943.  Having joined the
Socialist Party, SFIO, in 1934, Paul Rassinier became the head of that
party in the Belfort area when the war broke out in 1939.  Following the
German occupation of France, he participated in the founding of the
"Libre-Nord" organization which became involved in various forms of
"passive resistance," including the smuggling of Jewish refugees over the
Franco-Swiss border into Switzerland in cooperation with the Swiss Jewish
Committee.  Rassinier's activities eventually came to the attention of the
German authorities who caused him to be arrested and to be deported to the
concentration camp at Buchenwald.  Later he was sent to the camp at Dora
where he was incarcerated until the end of the war.  Upon his liberation
in 1945, he returned to France where he was elected to the Assemblee'
Nationale as a Socialist deputy.  He served for one year and then retired.
 He was awarded the highest decoration which the French government
bestowed for service in the wartime resistance movement.  Due to his frail
health, a consequence of his two years imprisonment at Buchenwald and
Dora, he retired from teaching a received a small pension from the French
government.   Starting in 1948, Rassinier began publishing works dealing
with his and others wartime experiences at the concentration camps. 
Rassinier spent the rest of his years on earth examining and researching
the events known as the Final Solution.   He died on July 29, 1967 at his
home in Paris-Asnieres.  



From donvh@aol.com Sun May 28 10:03:00 PDT 1995
Article: 21640 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e1a.megaweb.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: donvh@aol.com (DonVH)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: owg   Focus Group History Revisionism
Date: 26 May 1995 23:23:29 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 36
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3q65vh$2kk@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3purfc$mai@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: donvh@aol.com (DonVH)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

It is interesting to note that the earliest revisionist historians were
correctly self-described as "liberals."  Their perspective on history was
certainly a "liberal" one.  See for example the works of Harry Elmer
Barnes and James J. Martin.  It is more correctly a "conservative"
position to attempt to maintain history as it was originally written. 
Note the conservative "flag waving" and controversy over the intended
display of the Enola Gay in Washington D.C..  The conservative historians
refuse to acknowledge that World War II was anything other than what Frank
Capra claimed it was in 1942 and 1943.  Even John F. Kennedy (in his
liberalism) dared to support Robert Taft's criticism of the Nuremberg War
Crimes Trials in his volume, Profiles in Courage.  Early in Revisionism's
history, left-wing journals were very sympathetic to the revisionist cause
(for example, The Nation).  In the September 1994 issue of American
Heritage, John Lukacs writes, "Twenty or more years later we may detect
the rise of a fourth wave of revisionism, coming again from the so-called
Right rather than from the Left."  This is an important point.  Here
Lukacs categorizes Revisionist's as coming from the "Right" politically.
Is this categorization truly correct?  Perhaps the political continuum has
merely shifted (been inverted)?  Examine the following: 1.  Revisionists
are quick to criticize the atomic bombing of Japan - (Liberal view) 2.
Revisionists generally criticize U.S. involvement in all foreign wars
including Vietnam and Korea - (Liberal View) 3. Revisionists believe that
the U.S. had prior warning to the bombing of Pearl Harbor and may have
coerced the Japanese to attack - (Liberal view)   I could go on and on. 
In conclusion, the confusion over this issue is generally caused by those
who are considered liberal's today.  President Clinton, surely liberal in
1995 terms, would not (publicly) hold any of the views given above. 
Historically, he is conservative.  Politically, he as well as most
Democrats  and 1990's Liberals favor big, authoritarian government. 
Someone has convinced you that Big Brother is a liberal and that all
liberals are Nazi's.  How far off was George Orwell when he wrote, "War is
Peace...Freedom is Slavery...Ignorance is Strength?"  When did Newspeak
become the official language of the United States?
* "Our highest insights must - and should - sound like folly and sometimes
like crimes" *                                                            
                                       ...Nietzsche


From donvh@aol.com Sun May 28 10:03:05 PDT 1995
Article: 21641 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e1a.megaweb.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: donvh@aol.com (DonVH)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Revisionism, UFO's etc.
Date: 26 May 1995 23:29:47 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 153
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3q66bb$2ne@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3pflba$19oq@acs3.acs.ucalgary.ca>
Reply-To: donvh@aol.com (DonVH)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Since you seem to have so little understanding of Historical Revisionism I
have included the following article.  Hopefully it will be enlightening. 
Your theory of the connection between Historical Revisionism and UFO's and
other odd theories does nothing for the cause of Truth.  It seems that
your thesis only attempts to discredit all but the orthodox version of
history.                                                   THE TRADITION
OF HISTORICAL REVISIONISM
By Tom Marcellus

“Truth is always the first war casualty.  The emotional distubances and
distortions in historical writing are greatest in wartime.”

These are the words of American historian, sociologist and criminologist
Prof. Harry Elmer Barnes, who founded a school of historical thought and
analysis following World War One that became known as “Revisionist.”
But why “Revisionist?”  What is Historical Revisionism?  And what makes it
different from the history we are taught in school and see portrayed in
the popular media?  For the late Dr. Barnes, Revisionism meant:
“...nothing more or less than the effort to correct the historical record
in the light of a more complete collection of historical facts, a more
calm political atmosphere, and a more objective attitude.”
The term “Revisionism” first originated with a group of scholars (French,
British, American, German and others) whose post World War I rearches
undermined the presumption of unique German responsibility for the
outbreak of that war in 1914.  Although the term initially applied to
revising the causes of World War I, it has subsequently come to embrace
all historical findings at odds with the Establishment or “politically
correct” version.  Thus Revisionism, the effort to describe past events in
the light of facts, is freedom of speech in history.
The early Revisionists, and those who followed the tradition, recognized a
fact of life pertaining to the writing of history: where wars are
concerned, historians of victorious nations tend to write historical
accounts that ignore relevant facts not favorable to the victor while, at
the same time, misrepresenting or inventing other facts in order to cast
the vanquished enemy in an unfavorable light.  Most of these World War I
historians had played an active role in that war, many in propaganda and
intelligence; after the Second World War, it was not uncommon for them to
continue to have links with intelligence agencies.
The efforts of Establishment historians to remain on the good side of the
powers-that-be (like the court historians who served kings and emperors of
old) thus created a historical record that often resembled the products of
their wartime propaganda more than honest and independent scholarship.
“To the victor go the spoils” is a well known quote from American
president Andrew Jackson.  And certainly on the great spoils of winning a
war is being able to write the history of it from your own perspective.
When history is written by partisan historians from a victor nation, the
winning side emerges simplistically as the “good guys.”  The losers, of
course, are the “bad guys.”  Questions about the origins of the war (for
instance, about the real story behind the sinking of the Lusitania or the
attack on Pearl Harbor), about its conduct (did the “Huns” really cut off
infants’ hands in Belgium?  Were we justified in annihilating the
populations of whold cities like Dresden and Tokyo from the air?), and
about its consequences (such as the wisdom of the Treaty of Versailles or
the secret deals at Teheran and Yalta) are ignored or swept aside.
Following the First World War Harry Elmer Barnes and other historians,
both in the victor nations and the vanquished, “revised” the official
version of the winners by gaining access to the secret records of the
wartime governments - their ministers, generals and diplomats.  The
documents demonstrated that there was a tremendous difference between what
the leaders were saying in public and what they were doing in private. 
The Revisionists, by unearthing and marshalling the facts, successfully
demonstrated that millions of men had gone to their deaths for ideals at
which those in power secretly scoffed.  A great and healthy revulsion
against war and warmakers set in, and Americans set their faces against
further “crusades” across the oceans.
But the upheaval which the First World War had brought about in Europe and
Asia, along with the short-sighted settlements which the victors had
imposed on the defeated nations, led to another war.  This time, however,
the ruling Establishments in the victor nations determined that there
would be no “revision” of their wartime propaganda, no “bringing history
into accord with the facts.”  The men who wrote the authorized histories
of the Second World War were tied to their society’s ruling elites- both
public and private- just as closely as the court historians of bygone
days.  They enjoyed privileged access to the records, many of which they
had helped create themselves with their wartime roles in propaganda and
intelligence.  Dissident historians - the “Revisionists”- were excluded.
It is crucial, however, that we gain an understanding of the actual
origins, course and  consequences of World War II and of all modern war. 
“Good guys” vs. “bad guys” history accomplishes nothing but a
reinforcementof wartime propaganda and spurious stereotypes.  Carried over
into peacetime, it stands in the way of understanding and reconciliation,
fostering an atmosphere in which all the world’s conflicts are viewed as
monumental struggles between Good and Evil.
It is the Revisionists’ aim to understand wars, not to continue to fight
them in endless polemical battles.  Revisionist search for the underlying
causes of wars, hold the self-serving claims of all parties to those
struggles to critical review, and investigate the role of often shadowy
third parties that sought to profit from wars waged ostensibly on behalf
of nation-states.
Revisionist scholars are working in many nations.  The movement defies
political classification on the conventional “left-right” spectrum. 
Revisionists are dedicated first to discovering the truth that is often
hidden away in secret archives that governments and established powers
everywhere would seal up in perpetuity.  They are further dedicated to the
principle that citizens have a right to know what their governments are
actually doing behind the scenes.  
The Revisionists are deeply concerned with the imposition of a monolithic
orthodoxy in any area of historical research.  The Revisionists have
challenged, in particular, some of the most sacrosanct dogmas of World War
II propaganda, form the unmitigated evil and aggressiveness of Germany,
Japan, and their allies, to the unquesitoning acceptance of the so-called
Holocaust in all its improbable details.
Revisionists have learned, and teach, that a misunderstanding of the
nature of conflicts between nations allows politicians, often fronting for
special interests, to lead us blindly into wars and “police actions” in
which the great majority of the citizenry has no real interest and there
is no clear and present danger.  The failure to properly understand our
own involvement in the European wars has lured Americans into one crisis
after another in the decades following World War II, from Korea to Vietnam
to Beirut.  Each time the politicians have assured us that we are
repelling “agression,” staving off “bloodbaths,” “fighting Communism” or
“terrorism,” or what have you.  And each time the interventions have ended
not in victory, but in death, frustration and dishonor.
Still, special interests conjure up new Bad Guys, new devils.  The tangle
of rivalries and hatreds that outside intervention has created in the
Middle East continues to provide our leaders with excuses for new
adventures, from Libya to the Persian Gulf.  Will the kind of popular
hatred manufactured by professional propagandists against foreign leaders
like Khadafy, Khomeini, or Hussein lure us into new crusades?  Or even
into a catastrophic nuclear conflict?
Not if the findings of Revisionist are heeded.  Barnes and his colleagues,
and their successors, working from a deep conviction that war is
unneccessary, have demonstrated how specious were the justifications and
how injurious the results have been of the wars America has blundered into
over the past century.  Rather than make us stronger and freer, these wars
have diminished our freedoms, undermined our wealth, and created a false
illusion of national rectitude.
The Revisionists are perhaps the only students of the past who have heeded
the warning of George Orwell that: “Who controls the past controls the
future; who controls the present controls the past.”  By wresting control
of the past from established interests and returning it to those who live
and suffered it, Revisionist may make possible a brighter and more
genuinely secure future for all.
And if we can face up to and acknowledge the existence of underlying
causes of war, and what our own leaders have done to encourage war,
prolong it and make it more destructive than at any other time in history,
we may be on our way to achieving the just and lasting peace that every
person of good will desires.
The Insitute for Historical Review, founded in 1978, is the world’s
leading organization carrying on the proud tradition of Historical
Revisionism.  The IHR is non-ideological and non-partisan.  We are not
interested in rehabilitating this or that regime.  We are interested only
in rehabilitating the truth, or, as Dr. Barnes put it: “Bringing history
into accord with the facts.”

For more information write to:
Institute for Historical Review
Post Office Box 2739
Newport Beach, California 92659

* "Our highest insights must - and should - sound like folly and sometimes
like crimes" *                                                            
                                       ...Nietzsche


From donvh@aol.com Sun May 28 10:03:08 PDT 1995
Article: 21642 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e1a.megaweb.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: donvh@aol.com (DonVH)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Legitimate and illegitimate revisionism
Date: 26 May 1995 23:06:29 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 87
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3q64vl$2al@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3pt1df$s91@access5.digex.net>
Reply-To: donvh@aol.com (DonVH)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mr. Stein has cited Mark Weber’s article regarding the size of the
Treblinka burial ditches on numerous occasions.  I have researched this
matter and present the following.  The source of Mark Weber’s post appears
to be an article which he published entitled, “Treblinka.”  This was
co-authored by Andrew Allen and appeared in the Summer 1992 issue of The
Journal of Historical Review.  The passage which rightly troubles Mr.
Stein follows: “Poland’s ‘Central Commission’ announced shortly after the
war that the burial or ‘ditches’ area where the bodies of Treblinka’s
victims were buried (before they were supposedly later dug up for burning)
was about two hectares or five acres (or some 20,235 square meters).  And
according to a diagram in a book about Treblinka by Jewish Holocaust
historian Alexander Donat, the camp’s ‘ditches’ area was not more than 80
or 100 meters in length and about 50 meters wide- that is a maximum of
5,000 square meters or half a hectare.  By comparsion, the mass graves
area in the Katyn forest (near Smolensk), which held the bodies of some
4,500 Polish officers who had been killed by Soviet secret police and
buried there in 1940, measured about 500 square meters.  In short, it is
very difficult to accept that anything like 700,000 or 800,000 bodies
could have been buried in the minuscule area allegedly set aside at
Treblinka for this purpose.” (JHR Vol. XII, No. 2  p.141)               
Mr. Stein appropriately points out that bodies can not be buried in square
measurements.  It is necessary to determine the cubic measurements to
rationally discuss this issue.  We do get more information regarding Mr.
Weber’s sources if we check his footnotes.  Footnote #58, which is
referenced following the phrase, “500 square meters” reveals the
following, “According to one informed historical researcher, the 1944
aerial reconnaissance photographs indicate that the burial area of the
Treblinka II camp was about one-fifth smaller than the mass graves area in
the Katyn forest.”  This rather cryptic footnote probably points to the
work of one John C. Ball.  In 1992, Mr. Ball published  a 116 page study
entitled, “Air Photo Evidence: Auschwitz, Treblinka, Majdanek, Sobibor,
Bergen Belsen, Belzec, Babi Yar, Katyn Forest.  The entire basis of this
report is an analysis of aerial photographs of the above mentioned places.
  On numerous pages, Mr. Ball analyzes the Katyn Forest graves.  Mr. Ball
summarizes regarding Katyn as follows: “The average depth of the graves
was about 3.5 meters.  They had steep walls because the organic rich soil
in the forest held together well.”  Mr. Ball claims that 7 graves held
4,100 persons.  He writes, “...placed end to end the 7 graves were 96
meters (312 feet) long by 6 meters (20 feet) wide.”  Mr. Ball goes on to
discuss mass graves at Bergen Belsen where he claims once again that the
depth of the pits was “about 3.5 meters.”  He also goes on to discuss mass
graves which were dug in Hamburg as result of allied saturation bombing. 
He writes, “The depth of the graves is assumed to have 3.5 meters (11
feet).  Of Hamburg he writes, “each of 4 graves held 10,000....each grave
was 130 meters long by 16 meters wide.”  Finally, regarding Treblinka, Mr.
Ball writes, “According to maps and descriptions from alleged eye-witness
survivors, the mass graves were dug in an area of about 90 by 70 meters.” 
 
Thus the argument follows: At Katyn 4,100 bodies were buried in graves
which were 96 meters long x 7 meters wide x 3.5 meters deep, a total of
2,352 cubic meters.  Mr. Ball apparently assumes the same depth for the
ditches at Treblinka.  There does not appear to be any verification of the
actual depth anywhere in his report.  If we assume the 3.5 meter depth,
then we can calculate 90 meters long x 70 meters wide x 3.5 meters deep. 
A total of  22,050 cubic meters.  Utilizing the following formula  we can
calculate the number of persons buried at Treblinka: 
      ( 4,100 / 2,352) x ( X / 22,050)
       X = 38,437.5
Therefore, assuming the same depth (3.5 meters), all things being equal,
38,438 victims could have been buried in the designated area at Treblinka.
 Similarly we can calculate the depth required to have buried the 800,000
which are claimed.
       (4,100 /  2,352) x (800,000 / X)  :  Here we calculate the cubic
meters to be                         
        X = 458,926.8 cubic meters
To determine depth we can calculate as follows: 90 x 70 x D = 458,926.8
                                                                          
   D = 72.8 meters
If we assume as did Mr. Ball that the Treblinka “ditches” were 3.5 meters
deep , then the area required to bury 800,000 would have to be 20.81 times
as large as generally specified.   
In conclusion, I do NOT claim to know the depth of the “ditches” at
Treblinka.  I am assuming (as did Mr. Ball) a depth of 3.5 meters. 
Similarly, I do not claim to know the actual dimensions of the burial area
at Treblinka.  I have used Mr. Ball’s dimensions (to show where I believe
Mr. Weber was getting his information.)  Clearly if the Poland Central
Commission estimate of the burial size is more accurate then this would
greatly increase the number of persons possibly buried there.  If anyone
has more information regarding this issue, it would be interesting to
determine if Ball’s and Weber’s theories have merit.  Also, if anyone
determines an error in my  calculations, I would certainly be glad to be
made aware of the error.  It is late at night, but I believe the
calculations to be valid. 

* "Our highest insights must - and should - sound like folly and sometimes
like crimes" *                                                            
                                       ...Nietzsche



Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.