Archive/File: orgs/american/ihr/press NYT.122191 In an article posted by Jamie McCarthy <1992May20.firstname.lastname@example.org> on May 20, 1992, Jamie provided insight into the veracity of b-cpu postings. While considering the "information" offered by the Holocaust-denial folks, it is well to keep this example in mind... "Ralph Winston" offered the following paragraphs in support of a posting thoughtfully provided by the IHR: > After years of stonewalling, both the _New York Times_ > (December 21, 1991) and the _Washington Post_ (January > 15, 1992) now editorially acknowledge that it is both > ethical and permissable to debate the historical issues > surrounding the Holocaust story. > The nation's two premier newspapers thus reject statements > by officials of major Jewish organizations... To which Mr. McCarthy responded: "You must not have counted on anyone looking up those references. They both are blatant lies." "The only thing vaguely related to the Holocaust on the NYT's 21Dec91 editorial page is a Letter to the Editor (!) from one Milton Goldin, who argues against a previous Letter. Goldin talks about ex-Nazi Martin Bormann--whether he's conclusively dead, whether his "death camp" booty of Jewish jewelry is in Europe or Argentina, and so on. I mention this only for completeness--the issue being debated has nothing to do with anything the IHR has ever asserted, and even if it were, it's still just a Letter to the Editor!" "It's even harder to find anything near the topic on the Post's 15Jan92 editorial page. The best I could do was a column by Evans and Novak that talks about James Baker and loan guarantees to Israel. Talk about a stretch." The reader is left to draw his own conclusions with regard to the value of the "facts" provided by the "historians" of the neo-nazi IHR...
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor