From email@example.com Thu Nov 30 00:49:42 PST 1995 Article: 14356 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!sparky.insinc.net!atlas.odyssee.net!news From: jean-francois beaulieu
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Jewish immigration in USA Date: 26 Nov 1995 22:21:33 GMT Organization: Odyssee Internet Lines: 93 Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: pool12_10.odyssee.net Recently I think that somebody here claimed that the number of 500,000 jews who came in United States after the war is wrong. I've look in one of Hilberg book this afternoon and he gave something like 70,000. Here there's a subtility. I said that the UNRRA was obligated to declare the DP's who immigrated in USA and this is true: for the period 1948-1952 it's 409,674. It is said somewhere that some UNRRA officials told that just a small fraction of them were jews. Lets take a look at the UNRRA story. Thw war refugee board was set up in 1944as an apparently joint venture of the US State, Treasury and War Departement but it was, in the fact, under the control of secretary of Treasury Morgenthau. The WRB worked very closely with the Joint Distribution Comittee and the World Jewish Congress. The UNRRA had been set in 1943, and its first director, appointed by Roosevelt, was Herbert Lehman, ex-Governor of New-York state. Lehman was succeded in 1946 by Fiorello LaGuardia, who's mother was jewish. This organisation did a lot to help jew and was largely under 'jewish control'. I mentioned earlier the lage amount of jews who were crossing the border between poland and germany (us officials declarations) but there's other elements: in 1946, British General Sir Frederic E. Morgan made a public issue about UNRRA operations: At a conference press in Frankfurt he charged that an organized Jewish group was sponsering an exodus of jews from Poland into the U.S. zone in Germany. He ridiculed 'all that talk about progroms within Poland", pointing out that jews arriving in trainload in Berlin were well fed, well dressed and had plenty of money: 'They certanly do not look like a persecuted people. I believe that they have got a plan to get out of Europe". He added that their money was in a great extent occupation marks, printed by the Russians. Here I have a claim, that just a fraction of the DP's admitted by the UNRRA where jews. I have a statement that the bulk of the half million DP, if not more if we count other periods and illegal immigration, were mainly goyim that the leaders of the UNRRA were helping 5 times more non jews than jews. There's also many strange coincidences about the original country: it wasn't a state policy to ask to a jew to declare himself as one after WWII, but the board reproduce was clear: Regular immigration DP's, 1948-52 jewish pop 1941-1950 int the 30's Austria 24,860 8,956 230,000 Belgium 12,189 951 60,000 Czechoslovakia 8,347 12,638 260,000 Denmark 5,393 62 7,000 Estonia 212 10,427 5,000 France 38,809 799 250,000 Germany 226,578 62,123 500,000 Greece 8,973 10,277 75,000 Hungary 3,469 16,627 320,000 Italy 57,661 2,268 50,000 Latvia 361 36,014 80,000 Lithuania 683 24,698 160,000 Netherland 14,860 64 120,000 Poland 7,571 135,302 3,100,000 Rumania 1,076 10,618 900,000 USSR 548 35,747 3,000,000 Yugoslavia 1,576 33,367 70,000 For the third column, I'll mention that for germany and Austria data are not reliable since jewish population drop drastically at the end of the 30's (40,000 for Austria and 180,000 for germany I think) I'm interest also to mention the ration jews/population in the third column: in latvia,80,000 jews over 2 or 3 millions was a lot more than 75,000 in Greece for this ratio. So I have the statement that in countries were jews were massivelly present before WW2, there 's a large proportion of DP's admission wich is often much important than regular immigration (Poland, Rumania,USSR, Yugoslavia,Lituania,Latvia,Hungary,Estonia) while in countries wehe there was a lower proportion of jews in the 30's (Germany,Greece,Austria, Czecoslovakia) data's of regular immigration and DP'S are comparable while in countries were there was a small % of jews (Italy,Denmark) there's almos no DP's who came. Netherland is the only enigma in that. Obviously the statement that a small fraction of those DP were jews is a lie. If one would like to bring a serious proof that there wasn't 500,000 jews or more admitted in USA, he'll have to bring a story in wich jews were obligated to declare themself as 'jews' on a sheet that they signed when they immigrated, because in such a case it would be a non sense to immagine 500,000 jews lying for an obscur reason, an impossible large scale plot. But the classification in the category 'jews among other races' was drop, and the data wich claim that 70,000 jews came in USA were given by a couple of officials. This is the reason why I stated earlier that a claim maden by a top level jew who was in contact with the Nuremberg prosecution staff is not a proof: there's many coincidence to explain. And then I'm not rejecting such a claim that few jes immigrated in USA because it is convenient but because the story of the UNRRA doesn't fit with the official claim, and also because of the coincidence with the countries of origin for those jews. From email@example.com Thu Nov 30 08:12:27 PST 1995 Article: 14385 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!sparky.insinc.net!atlas.odyssee.net!news From: jean-francois beaulieu Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Argumentum ad populum Date: 27 Nov 1995 03:45:29 GMT Organization: Odyssee Internet Lines: 57 Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> References: <email@example.com> <11NOV199507415758@bpavms.bpa.arizona.edu> <12NOV199514290328@bpavms.bpa.arizona.edu> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20NOV199512323402@bpavms.bpa.arizona.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: pool7_7.odyssee.net email@example.com (Daniel Mittleman) wrote: > > In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com (tom moran) writes... > >firstname.lastname@example.org (Daniel Mittleman) wrote: > >>In article <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org (tom moran) writes... > > >>> Notice that I use the word "theory" when stating certain things and > >>>you make absolute statements. > > > >> Yes, I noticed. What of it? > > > > You need to be led by the hand all the way. "What of it?" At least I > >avoid professing the absolute. > > I only profess things to be absolute when I am quite sure of them. I > am quite sure of the *fact* of the Holocaust because: > > 1. Every accredited WWII and Jewish Studies Historian in the world > accepts the Holocaust as fact; ...and those who don't loose their jobs, are victims of arsons, are jail or sue in law.... > > 2. There are *no* competing hypotheses circulating among these > accredited Historians to explain the trace evidence of the Holocaust; > ????? > 3. I came to alt.revisionism in the Spring of 1993 from the newsgroup > sci.skeptic looking to see if there was any legitimate and defensible > argument against the reality of the Holocaust - I have seen dozens of > deniers try to make such arguments - I have seen none of those > arguments hold up against the documentation and the logic presented by > the archivists. > Strange, I read dozens of revisionnist or anti-revisionnist studies on paper and I have the opposite impression. > I am left with the conclusion that there is no legitimate argument > against the reality of the Holocaust and therefor the Holocaust is a > fact. > > That is an absolute. I am comfortable with it. I will continue to > entertain arguments that I am wrong and if someday a solid argument is > presented I will reconsider my assertion. But as time goes on and I > learn more, I more and more doubt that will happen. I'm not concern with your 'conversion', revisionism is growing slowly but increase its influence year after years. We don't need laws against earth-flat theoricians. Isn't Edgard Bronfman who stated a couple of months ago in a letter that 'we should do anything to stop revisionnism now, before it's too late'? From email@example.com Thu Nov 30 08:12:28 PST 1995 Article: 14391 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!sparky.insinc.net!atlas.odyssee.net!news From: jean-francois beaulieu Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: butz et l'holocauste Date: 27 Nov 1995 03:51:24 GMT Organization: Odyssee Internet Lines: 38 Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: pool7_7.odyssee.net Subject: Re: butz et l'holocauste From: email@example.com (Ulrich Roessler) : case, I can refer to the Luther memorendum : 'The German legation in Bucharest reports with reference to D lll 602 : Secret, that the Rumanian Government would leave it to the Reich : Government to deport their Jews along with the German Jews to the : ghettos in the East. They are not interested in having the Rumanian >This one seems a strange quote - looks more like a note about diplomatic >correspondence and not like a memorand. Would you, please, post a proper >reference, allowing to identify the paragraph? Recently you gave me a reference, 'the destruction of hungarian jews', who is suppose to proove that the Luther memorendum is not signed while it is, and now you ask for a reference to find the NG-2586-J document, the Luther memorendum, NMT, vol 13, 243-249. I don't know what you're talkin about, if you have the complete text of the memorendum in your book and you don't recognize this sentence...! >I'll investigate the fate of these Rumanian Jews in Transnistria >possibly later. However, note that at first you are speaking here about >the Rumanian military sector and occupation zone in any case - >although _Einsatzgruppe_ D was operating there along with Rumanian units >in 1941. Apparently, the Rumanian Jews where deported there only later. It is say in the report that jews were submit to german brutallity some times, not mass murders but brutallity, while germans troops where patrolling this sector (1942-43). It doesn't require a genius to guess that the troops were einzengruppen SS in charge of the liquidation of partisans activities. The text state explicitly that jews there had often problems with german troops passing through this sector, and I don't believe that the Wermach is the first suspect if we talk about brutalities against jews.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor