From: Kineahora@cup.portal.com (Chana - Braun) Message-ID: <email@example.com> Date: Sat, 16 May 92 13:42:59 PDT References:
pfaust@b-cpu.UUCP (Pete Faust) writes: > You holocaust GENTLEMEN say Revisionists are not worth > debating; however, Elie Wiesel promised to debate Mark Weber, > then refused to do so. Is this kosher? There is, I am > certain, a far more important motive for not debating... > being TOTALLY DEVASTATED. Let's be truthful here, Mr. Faust. Elie Wiesel never PROMISED to debate Mark Weber, did he? Elie Wiesel does not break promises and I have excellent evidence that Mark Weber colors the truth (to put it mildly) in regards to debates. Let's look at this evidence, shall we? On another computer network, there was someone who was presenting Holocaust Denial and was very frustrated because he was so successfully rebuted. He then said that he would get someone from the IHR to enter the discussion and he was told that anyone was welcome on the system - even someone from the IHR. Now, let's see how that situation developed. The following is an exchange between the Holocaust Denier who had made the statement above and his opponent who had told him that anyone was welcome to join the discussion. The Holocaust Denier's words will follow the ">" and the replies will follow the ">>". This exchange took place last November. > Your insistent demands for a debate with a representative from the > Institute for Historical Review have been accepted. I sent them your > private proposal for this (which followed earlier proposals I had made > to them along these lines) and they have just contacted me accepting, > but with several standard provisos as to how the debate should be > conducted. > I have submitted a public message on the Arts Club Board outlining the > provisos and also contacted the Board leadership concerning this. Also, > Mr. X's public message about a Holocaust debate has been publicly > replied to by me. > I am hoping that these two public messages will appear shortly. Please > review the Board to see them when they appear. > I strongly urge you to deal with me privately to iron out the details > rather than a series of public board messages. > Mr. Weber from the IHR will be the representative of the revisionist > position but he will have to submit his statements through me because > the IHR is not set up for modem communications and does not have a > [network] membership. He is an expert in this field. > Please reply to me privately about this as soon as you can; I will need > to get back to Mr. Weber on your response. > Thankyou. --------- The reply to the above letter is missing but the following letter from the Holocaust Denier allows us to understand what the response was. --------- > I am still awaiting the Arts Club leader's response to the message I > sent her about the debate. Before I get back to you on this, I have to > hear from her that the debate is ok by her. Once I hear from her I will > send your response, and hers, to Mr. Weber. > The two public board messages that I submitted have both been returned > to me with the note that she will be privately contacting me about this > thing. > Then when both responses are sent to Mr. Weber, and assuming that the > Arts Club will allow the debate, he can give more details as to how the > debate should be run, you and I can discuss it (privately that is via > E-mail), and then we can work out agreement on the format. > I hope you noted that Mr. Weber will be sending all his input through > me; i.e. his input will appear under my I.D. but each time with a brief > one-liner noting that it is HIS input, not mine. I presume this is ok > with you? > Will you be the individual debating him? And if so do you agree to be > the ONLY person, i.e. with no assistance from others? > I think we'll both have to discuss how to put up messages so that the > censors don't start chopping away and thus destroy the whole thing. > We've both had a problem with this so we're both in the same boat there. > As from NOW I am putting up no more public messages on the Arts Club AT > ALL so that if/when the debate starts everything that appears under my > I.D. will be clearly only from Mr. Weber. Mr. X suggested a good idea > also, that NEITHER of us submit any messages at all until the debate is > over. If we both desist as of now, then within a few weeks all of our > messages will have disappeared. Thus there will be nothing improper > happening in the sense that one side or the other would appear to be > putting up more than the agreed-upon number of statements and rebuttals > (whatever we do agree upon, that is). Will you agree to this? If so, > I repeat that this means that you would have to stop putting up messages > as of NOW. Private E-mail, of course, is another story. > I agree that once we agree on the format of the debate, the details > should go onto the public board beforehand. I would also like to somehow > persuade the Arts Club, and I'm sure you would too, to make an > announcement on the Club's opening page for perhaps a week or so > beforehand. > This means that you, I, and anybody else interested in this should be > encouraged to urge the Arts Club 'leader' to make this announcement > a.s.a.p. Note that Mr. Weber made this an important proviso to his > participation, and we all will benefit. Your thoughts? > As to sources, documentation and so on, once I have the response from > [Art's Club Leader) and I send that response along with your replies to > me, to Mr. Weber, we will see what he passes on to me as to his ideas on > this. The interpretation as to what constitutes 'documented facts', > second party accounts, eyewitnesses' statements and scholarly works may > be entirely relative, but we'll see what Mr. Weber says about this issue > - at any rate I'm sure that you and he can work this issue of source > material out satisfactorily, and quickly too I hope. > So already we seem to agree on almost everything you put in your note to > me. I have no doubt that the details of format, sources, etc. will > similarly be worked out, so long as we are both sincere in wanting a > free and fair public debate. > Thankyou for getting back to me. I look forward to your response to > these two notes. ------------ >> Frankly, I don't understand your need to get any type of approval from >> the Arts Club leader. Throughout [the network] there are >> confrontations, discussions and debates on various issues. This is just >> one more. None of the others are advertised in any manner and I see no >> need to advertise this one. In fact, involving the Arts Club leader >> might be counter-productive in that it calls attention to this single >> debate and, if it ever begins, our messages might undergo closer >> scrutiny by the censors. I don't think either of any of us wants that. >> Also, you seem to be stating or implying that *I* am the one >> responsible for Mr. Weber's willingness to become a party to the >> discussion. If I remember correctly, this whole discussion started >> because you posted some messages championing the position of the IHR. >> I responded. Then you started a thread to discuss Leuchter and his >> report. I responded to that and you left that thread altogether. >> Perhaps it was because of a lack of time (which you stated in several >> messages) but, if so, there will be just as much time required if you >> are going to input all of Mr. Weber's remarks. >> I am an amateur (i.e. I don't get paid by anyone to research the >> Holocaust, I am not employed by anyone or any organization that has an >> interest in the Holocaust and/or Holocaust Denial, etc.). You have >> presented yourself in the same manner. Mr. Weber, I think you would >> agree, is a professional. There is no prohibition against him joining >> the discussion but I do think it odd that you ask that *I* not ask for >> any outside help when you are bringing in a professional. >> I guess the main question is: Do you and Mr. Weber desire to have an >> open discussion or not? If so, post a message (either on your own or >> one on behalf of Mr. Weber). That is the manner in which all other >> discussions are initiated on [the network] and I don't see any need to >> make an exception for this one. --------------- There was absolutely no response to that reply and nothing more was heard concerning the possibility of an open discussion on that network until the February 1992 issue of the IHR Newsletter. Here, then is the way that it was reported (and keep in mind that Mark Weber is the editor of the Newsletter). "In the January Newsletter I told about an IHR activist who had received a challenge to publicly debate the Holocaust on [the network] open forum bulletin board computer service - the largest interactive computer network. ...After we promptly offered Mark Weber to represent that Revisionist [sic] side, XXX suddenly flip-flopped. Deciding that she is not a 'scholar' after all, but merely an 'amateur,' she complined that it would be 'unfair' for her to have to face a professional historian." ----------- The plot in this story thickens. The one opposing the Holocaust Deniers on that network wrote a letter to the editor of the Newsletter (i.e. Mark Weber). Since the IHR is such a staunch champion of Freedom of Speech, it seems strange that 3 months later, that letter has still not received a reply much less been printed in the IHR Newsletter. Here, then, is the letter that the IHR Newsletter refuses to print or even acknowledge: February 27, 1992 Mark Weber, Editor IHR Newsletter Institute of Historical Review 1822 1/2 Newport Blvd. Suite 191 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear Mr. Weber: I read with interest the article in your IHR Newsletter #85 February 1992 concerning [the network] and me. This is truly a work of revisionism (e.g. distorting the facts to fit into your personal view of the world) and, since those connected with the IHR claim that they are eager to be taken seriously, it is surprising that I was not contacted for comment before you went to press. Let's get the facts straight. Your "IHR activist" was posting messages denying the Holocaust. I responded. He claimed that no one was willing to debate the Holocaust. This, of course, is absurd. I told him that he could name his sources and begin. He posted a message about The Leuchter Report. I rebutted his erroneous statements. (By the way, I don't believe he has read the report. You might want to check on that before you encourage his "activism" too much.) He then suddenly claimed on the public board that he didn't have time to debate and he was trying to get someone online from the IHR. I responded by telling him that everyone was welcome. That is when he contacted you and you agreed to come online. What your "IHR activist" presented to me were a set of ridiculous conditions. They included that the debate take place only between you and me and that it be advertized on [the network]. I was told to contact the "Arts Club Leader" to urge her to agree. First, [the Arts Club Leader] doesn't have the authority to grant such requests. Even if she did, as I told your "activist," there are no precedents to such a closed debate on Prodigy and that involving the Arts Club Leader might even be counter- productive. My reasoning was this: "In fact, involving the Arts Club leader might be counter-productive in that it calls attention to this single debate and, if it ever begins, our messages might undergo closer scrutiny by the censors. I don't think either of us wants that." In fact, since you are such a champion for "open debate," I was very surprised that you wished for this one to be closed to others. One of the amusing requirements for your participation in the debate was an agreement by me that I would have no outside help (whatever that means). This amusement I expressed to your "activist" in the following quote: "I am an amateur (i.e. I don't get paid by anyone to research the Holocaust, I am not employed by anyone or any organization that has an interest in the Holocaust and/or Holocaust Denial, etc.). You have presented yourself in the same manner. Mr. Weber, I think you would agree, is a professional. There is no prohibition against him joining the discussion but I do think it odd that you ask that I not ask for any outside help when you are bringing in a professional." If you notice, I claim amateur status because I don't get paid - not because I am not a "scholar" or because it would be "unfair" for me to have to debate a professional. Yet, you are apparently so frightened of debating in a situation where you cannot control all the factors that I heard nothing else from you or your "activist." Please notice, I did not say I wouldn't agree to your terms regarding outside help. I only said that I found it "odd" that a professional would insist on such a term before debating an amateur. However, the greatest part of your article had to be the sub-headline of "Another Anti-Revisionist Gets Cold Feet." I assure you, Mr. Weber, that my feet are toasty warm. In fact, I closed my message to your "activist" with the following: "I guess the main question is: Do you and Mr. Weber desire to have an open discussion or not? If so, post a message (either on your own or one on behalf of Mr. Weber). That is the manner in which all other discussions are initiated on [the network] and I don't see any need to make an exception for this one." I am still waiting for an answer to that question. What temperature are your feet, Mr. Weber? Sincerely, ---------------------- Knowing all of the above, Mr. Faust, I hope you realize why I so cynically view your claims about Elie Wiesel as similar in nature and, therefore, more revisions of the truth. BTW, why don't you check with Mark Weber and find out why he refuses to print the above letter or acknowledge it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Kineahora - Never Again! | If the Party could reach into the | | Kineahora@cup.portal.com | past and say of this or that event | | | -=it never happened=- | | | surely that was more terrifying than | | My opinions are my own but my | mere torture and death. | | facts belong to the world. | George Orwell - 1984 | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kineahora@cup.portal.com (Chana - Braun) Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc Subject: GEORGE MARTIN EXPOSED Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 23 May 92 02:54:30 GMT Article-I.D.: cup.59461 References: Organization: The Portal System (TM) THE EXPOSURE OF GEORGE MARTIN PART I George Martin says: > I will quote some of the unbelievable testimony given at the Nurenberg > trials. Much of the information comes from the book "Made in Russia, > The Holocaust", by Carlos Whitlock Porter. > All documents and exhibits were introduced into evidence under the laws > of Communists countries. Yet, does he indeed quote from TESTIMONY and produce documents and exhibits that were introduced into EVIDENCE? Perhaps George Martin could have found a more productive use of his time....such as looking up the words which I capitalized! Let's take a look at what George Martin claims is TESTIMONY and what has been introduced into EVIDENCE. > Document 3311-PS. > "The German authorities acting under the authority of Governor General > Dr. Hans Frank established in March 1942 the extermination camp at > Terblinka, intended for mass killing of Jews by suffocating them in > steam-filled chambers." > "The best known of these death camps are those of Treblinka, Belezc and > Soliber /in the Lubin district/. In these camps the Jews were put to > death by the thousands by hitherto unknown new methods, gas and steam > chambers as well as electric current employed on a large scale." > The techinical details are described in great detail. But by 1946 all > this had been forgotten (except for the gas). Because of the notation of "Document 3311-PS", I can only assume that this is one of those documents that George believes was introduced into evidence. After all, with such a designation, he certainly cannot think that it was testimony, can he? Okay, what is 3311-PS? The summary immediately after the document number says: "CHARGE NUMBER 6 of the Polish government against Hans Frank: Mass murders of Jews systematically carried out at the extermination camp of Treblinka. Established 1942; description of atrocities there perpetrated; Frank's responsibility for these crimes." This is laughable, isn't it. George Martin just quoted from the CHARGES that were made against Hans Frank! In other words, this is what the prosecution was stating that they were going to PROVE and not the proof itself! And what about George's claim that everything he was posting was "evidence under the laws of Communists countries?" Well, if 3311-PS really were such evidence, then Communist countries must be in pretty good company. After all, 3311-PS is also called USA-293! Yes, dear readers, this was submitted by the United States of America! George, a word to the wise, read the small print and don't believe everything that you read in books published by Historical Review Press! All of what I've disclosed can be found on page 2 of the source you cite! THE EXPOSURE OF GEORGE MARTIN PART II George Martin says: > Document 3319-PS. > "Special electrical appliances for the mass murder of the doomed, > crematoria, and also Zyklon banks.". "...it was in 1942 that the > special electrical appliances were built for mass extermination of > people. Under the pretex that the people were being led to the bath- > house, the doomed were undressed and then driven to the building where > the floor was electrified in a special way; there they were killed." > Doesn't sound like the usual story we hear about gas coming out of the > shower heads does it? > "The Belzec camp is built underground. It is an electric crematorium. > There are two halls in the underground buildings. People were taken out > of the railway cars into the first hall. Then they were led naked to the > second hall. Here the floor resembled an enormous plate. When the crowd > of men stood on it, the floor sank deep into a pool of water. The moment > the men sank up to their necks, a powerful electric current of millions > of volts was passed through, killing them all at once. The floor rose > again, and a second electric current was passed through the bodies, > burning them until nothing was left of the victims save a few ashes." Now this document is also known as GB-287. That's right, folks, it was presented by Great Britain! I wonder if George Martin believes that the American Revolutionary War was fought against the Red Menance? So, right off, we know that this is not one of the documents submitted by the "Communist countries" and have to wonder why Carlos Whitlock Porter included it in his book whose title claims that the Holocaust was an invention of the Russians. What is so incredibly funny, though, is that the above quote is NOT from 3319-PS! You see, Porter's book is nothing more than copies of certain pages taken out of the IMT. At the bottom of page 7 of Porter's book (which is a photocopy of IMT XXXII page 158), we find the heading for 3319-PS. However, Mr. Martin's first paragraph of quotes come from pp 8-9 which are copies of pp 576-577 of IMT VII! So, in this case, Mr. Martin is attempting to make his readers believe that the above quotes are part of the documents which were submitted as EVIDENCE when, in fact, this is not even part of ANY document. What is it then? Could it be TESTIMONY? Not at all. That first paragraph one of the presentations of one of the prosecuting attorneys but there is no indication in Porter's book as to WHICH attorney is speaking! I wonder if Mr. Martin realizes that speeches by attorneys are not considered EVIDENCE? If not, then how does he have the audacity to belittle the justice system in Communist countries? What about the second paragraph of the above quote? I can tell you that it is NOT part of 3319-PS and that such a quote is not part of the pages of IMT VII 576-577 nor is it located anywhere near that portion of Porter's book. In fact, I have yet to find that exact quote! All I know for certain is that it is NOT what George Martin claims it to be. THE EXPOSURE OF GEORGE MARTIN PART III George Martin says: > A quote by Mr. Justice Jackson; "Now, I have certain information, which > was placed in my hands, of an experiment which was carried out near > Auschwitz... The purpose of the experiment was to find a quick and > complete way of destroying people without the delay and trouble of > shooting and gassing and burning, as it had been carried out, and this > was the experiment...A small village was provisionally erected, with > temporary stuctures, and in it approximately 20,000 Jews were put. By > means of this newly invented weapon of destruction, these 20,000 people > were eradicated almost instantaneously, and in such a way that there > was no trace." This quote was made after mention of experiments by the > Nazis in atomic energy. This was supposed to mean the Nazis blasted > them to kingdom come by atomic bombs. Of course this did not happen. What a fanciful imagination Mr. Martin has. Once again, this is Mr. Justice Jackson speaking. That makes this neither TESTIMONY nor EVIDENCE, doesn't it? But what about Mr. Martin's characterization of this excerpt? Have any of you wondered why he didn't quote the "mention of experiments by the Nazis in atomic energy" and only told you that that was what had just been discussed and, therefore, to what Mr. Justice Jackson (an American, BTW) was referring? Let's see if we can figure it out, shall we? "Q [Jackson]: And certain experiments were also conducted and certain researches conducted in atomic energy, were they not? "A [Speer]: We had not got as far as that, unfortunately, because the finest experts we had in atomic research had emigrated to America, and this had thrown us back a great deal in our research, so that we still needed another year or two in order to achieve any results in the splitting of the atom. "Q: The policy of driving people out who didn't agree with Germany hadn't produced very good dividends, had it? "A: Especially in this sphere it was a great disadvantage to us." Then we find the above quote that Mr. Martin used. Now, what could Jackson mean if he really accepted Speer's answers about the splitting of the atom by the Nazis as he seems to have done? Well, let's look at Speer's testimony immediately BEFORE this part. "SPEER: No, that is an error. Actually, ordinary gas evaporates at normal atmospheric temperature. This gas would not evaporate until very high temperatures were reached and such very high temperatures could only be produced by an explosion; in other words, when the explosives detonated, a very high temperature set in, as you know, and then the gas evaporated. The solid substance turned into gas, but the effects had nothing to do with the high temperature. "JACKSON: Experiments were carried out with this gas, were they not, to your knowledge? "A: That I can tell you. Experiments must certainly have been carried out with it. "Q: Who was in charge of the experimentations with the gases? "A: As far as I know it was the research and development department of the OKH in the Army ordnance office. I cannot tell you for certain." It seems then, that Jackson was getting back to these experiments or, at least, phrasing a question concerning the method or means that would have been employed to destroy the village. Yet, Mr. Martin puts a period at the end of his quote (i.e. after "and in such a way that there was no trace") when, in reality, he should have placed a "..." since this was not the end of Jackson's question. From Porter's book, other than the lack of the period after "trace," it is impossible to ascertain what Jackson's full question could have been. You see, Porter then skips in the book from IMT XVI p. 529 to IMT X p 199! THE EXPOSURE OF GEORGE MARTIN PART IV George Martin says: > On 14 Jan 1945, Herr Babel testified that, "I performed many autopsies > on people either shot or beaten to death at their work (at the camps), > and made official reports on the cause of death." In other words, they > would shoot them and then try to find out what caused them to die? > Sounds crazy to me. Well, at least Mr. Martin has finally quotes some TESTIMONY....too bad that testimony wasn't that of "Herr Babel" as he claims, though, isn't it? You see, Herr Babel was an ATTORNEY for the DEFENSE! I guess this must mean that Mr. Martin thinks that the German attorneys for the defense were really from "Communist countries," huh? The testimony was that of Blaha. And does it really sound strange that autopisies would have been performed on people "either shot or beaten to death?" Maybe it does to Mr. Martin since it is so obvious that he knows so little....and his reading skills are abominable. But, let's look at one of the primary documents and the "strangeness" suddenly disappears. 26 October 1942 SS Judge at Reichsfuehrer-SS and Chief of German Police RE: Judging the unauthorized shooting of Jews. To the SS Court Head Office Munich I have spoken to the Reichsfuehrer-SS about this important matter. The Reichsfuehrer-SS has come to the following decision: The most important factor to consider when deciding whether and how to punish men for shooting Jews who have not been ordered or authorized to do so is the motive for this action. (1) Execution for purely political motives shall result in no punishment, unless punishment is necessary for the purpose of maintaining order. If the latter is the case, according to the case in question the defendant should be judged under section 92 or 142 of the MStGB, or some other disciplinary punishment should be enforced. (2) Men acting out of self-seeking, sadistic or sexual motives should be punished by a court of law and, where applicable, on charges of murder or manslaughter. Court personnel and courts involved in such cases are asked duly to note these guidelines. ------------------- Now, is it reasonable to assume that the above document and Blaha's autopsies might be related? Certainly. From a section that Mr. Martin did NOT quote: "BLAHA: The bodies were brought to me from the place of work and it was my duty to ascertain the cause of death; that the men had been beaten to death, for example, that the skull or ribs had been fractured, that the man had died of internal hemorrhage, or that he had been shot; I had to make an offical report on the cause of death. Sometimes, but this was rare, when an investigation was conducted, I was called in as witness." > It was also stated that in Kiev the Nazis "invented the following > method of murder: Several Soviet prisoners would be forced to climb a > tree and others had to saw it down. The prisoners would fall togeather > with the tree and be killed.". What an efficient way to do people in! > Why would they fool with gas when such a foolproof and trouble free way > to kill could be used? Where is the EVIDENCE and TESTIMONY that Mr. Martin promised us? Again this is nothing more than a prosecuting attorney's courtroom soliloquy. > On 18 Feb 45, it was said that the Germans invented "...a machine for > grinding human bones. Next to the machine stands the prisoner of war > who feeds the machine. It can grind the bones of 200 persons at a time. > As has been proved to the commission, it has a constant yield of 200 > cubic meters of bone flour." Not suprisingly, this photo and all the > other photos given during this testimony, have disappeared. I by > chance have talked to a GI who was shown a supposed "bone crusher". He > happened to work with heavy equiptment and knew that it was a common > rock crusher. Just think of all those that took this lie at face > value. Once again, this is not EVIDENCE but a statement made by an attorney. As far as Mr. Martin's GI friend, perhaps Mr. Martin would like to put his head into a rock crusher! The fact that someone has seen such a machine and a rock crusher could certainly be used as a bone grinder, does not make the attorney's statement suspect. In fact, it lends credence to it! THE EXPOSURE OF GEORGE MARTIN PART V George Martin says: > Mr. Goldsman, an inhabitant of Lvov testified, "At Auschwitz the most > beautiful women were set apart, artificially fertilized, and then > gassed." Why on earth would they do that? Shall I assume that Mr. Martin is asking a sincere question? If so, it deserves a sincere answer. Well, even if he isn't sincere, there are others out there who might be wondering the same thing. Therefore, I will answer. There were two types of eugenic experiments being conducted at Auschwtiz by Dr. Claus. First, there were sterilization experiments with X-Rays. Also, there were experiments on how to create a higher fertility rate. These "positive" eugenic experiments were not to benefit the Jews but to benefit the German people. However, human experimentation could not be done on German Frauen so the inmates at Auschwitz were used instead. Perhaps Mr. Martin should do some actual research into this time instead of quoting out of context material that is other than what he claims it is. > Pictures were shown of "Torture cabinets". "Iron cupboards which were > specially manufactured by the firm of Krupp to torture Russian civilian > workers to an extent that cannot possibly be described by > words,...frequently even two people were kicked and pressed into one > compartment. At the top of the cupboard there are a few sievelike air > holes through which cold water was poured on the unfortunate victims > during the ice-cold winter." Here after came one of the few objections > from Speer, "what is pictured here is quite a normal locker as was used > in every factory. These photos have absolutely no value as evidence." > This seems to be a standard procedure during the trials; pick almost > any everyday object and make up horrible stories about its > use to kill people. I suppose you have to do that when there are no > "real" items to show. Mr. Martin would have us believe that the Nuremberg Trials were extremely unfair and unjust because of things such as the above. Yet, doesn't every trial here in the US have evidence introduced which is disputed? Isn't that exactly what the above represents? Isn't it amazing that with all the claims that the Nazis were tortured to spew forth whatever the Allies wanted them to say, that Speer somehow managed not only to refute the Allies but also to be given a rather light sentence? > Many of the affidavits were signed by a witness whose veracity, > credibility, and existence are left unproven. The 'statement' may be > entirely typewritten, INCLUDING the signature! Typically, it is a > 'certified true copy' of an orginal whose whereabouts are unknown, even > today. Aw, the famous "unsubstantiated statement" that is so common from B-CPU! Isn't it too bad that copiers didn't exist back then? Then all these documents could have been copied instead of retyped whenever another copy was needed. And, are the originals no where to be found? Isn't that incredible to believe? Yes, it is. The originals are stored in various archives. > Much of the testimony was from Russian sources. Document 165-l. > "...from 1943, fearing retribution for their crimes...the Hitlerites > began to destroy the traces of their crimes. They exumed and burned > corpses, ground bones, and strewed the ashes on the fields; they also > used the slag formed by the corpses cremated, as well as the bone > flour, for repairing the roads and fertlizing the fields." Repairing > the roads? What do they mean by 'slag'? This was not an iron foundry. > We now know, by admission of the Russians, that many of these stories > were made up to cover up their slaughters and blame it on the Germans > (the Katyn forest massacre for one. The Germans tried to tell the world > about how the Russians did the killing even before the end of the war, > but no one would listen to them. Now the Russians admit to it). Page > after page was devoted to the Katyn massacre during the trials. The > Russians said the Germans dug up the bodies in Kaytn and put false > documents in their pockets to make it look like the Russians did it and > then buried them again. All is proved false now. This is getting to be too funny! "Much of the testimony was from Russian sources" and "Document 165-I" is used to substantiate this. What IS "Document 165-I?" Let me quote from the summary right after the document number designation. "Article on the Jewish food situation in German-occupied Poland from the "Polish Fortnightly Review" published in London 15 December 1942." It has obviously nothing to do with the quote that follows. But, what makes this really funny is that "Document 165-I" is also known as "Exhibit USA- 287"! Another document submitted by the United States of America and not from a "Russian source" at all! What about the quote, then? Once again, this is an attorney's speech - not evidence or testimony at all! Then, even though Mr. Martin hasn't presented anything about the Katyn Forest Massacres, he continues with the implication that because the Russians tried to blame the Nazis for the massacre at Nuremberg, that (1) this was believed by the Tribunal; and, (2) that all the evidence was of the same calibre. What is the truth about the Katyn Forest Massacre vis a vis the Nuremberg Tribunal? "The testimony offered by both sides on July 1 and 2 was anything but conclusive; the German witnesses, however, proved far more credible...Aside from the fact that the Russians were clearly apprehensive about any examination of the affair, and that two of their witnesses were of doubtful reliability, the prepondernace of circumstantial evidence weighted heavily against them..." ("Justice at Nuremberg" by Robert E. Conot) THE EXPOSURE OF GEORGE MARTIN PART VI CONCLUSION George Martin says: > Talking about the gassing victims, a Mr. Morgan says, "By means of a > special procedure which Wirth had invented, they were burned in the > open air without the use of fuel." Too bad this guy is not around > today. He could make a 'special' carburator for automobiles that could > run on air. What doesn't Mr. Martin tell us about this excerpt? First, he doesn't tell us that this was a witness for the DEFENSE! He doesn't tell us that he doesn't know how to spell the man's name, either. The witness was MorgEn and not MorgAn! > On the famous 'human soap', here is one quote, "I boiled the soap out > of the bodies of women and men. The process of boiling alone took > several days-from 3 to 7. During two manufacturing processes, in which > I directly participated, more than 25 kilograms (about 55 lbs) of soap > were produced. The amount of human fat necessary for these two > processes was 70 to 80 kilograms collected from some 40 bodies." The > amount of time he states is completely rediculous. Can you imagine the > amount of energy to do such a thing, in comparison to the small amount > of finished product. Another formula stated was, "...(corpses) were put > into large metal containers where they were then left for approx. 4 > months. Owing to the preservative mixture in which they were stored, > this tissue came away from the bones very easily. The tissue was then > put into a boiler about the size of a small kitchen table...After > boiling the liquid it was put into white trays about twice the size of > a sheet of foolscap and about 3 centimeters deep...Approx. 3 to > trayfuls per day were obtained from the machine." Here again a crazy > story, why would they just not use the standard method used to make > soap from animals? I guess it would not sound terrible enough. Several > other equally strange formulas are also quoted. Think of all the > trouble for such a small reward. Not like the efficient Germans, I > would think. With one exception, EVERY ONE of the 'human soap ' > documents has disappeared. What doesn't Mr. Martin tell us about these quotes? The second description comes not from the Soviets (although they did present this evidence) but directly from John Henry Witton, a soldier of the Royal Sussex Regiment who had witnessed the above while a POW! I wish that Mr. Martin would be so kind as to give us a list of the archives he has checked (and/or that Porter has checked) to ascertain that these documents no longer exist. After all, Staeglich (another Holocaust Denier) claims that the originals of Himmler's Posen speeches do not exist and yet the recordings of them (along with the handwritten notes from which Himmler made those speeches and the polished transcription of the speeches) are carefully preserved at the National Archives in Washington, DC! From this, I've learned not to trust the claims that documents do not exist without further statements as to which archives have been investigated. > There is an amazing amount of documents that disappeared having to do > with the trials. For something so important, you would think special > care would be taken to protect them. We keep jaywalking records > hanging around for years and years. Another favorite trick of Holocaust Deniers. Let's play "compare apples and oranges!" The trials were held in Nuremberg because that was the only facility available that was relatively intact! WWII had just ended. Europe of that day was entirely different than Europe (or America) of today. > Almost all of the reports on Auschwitz originated from Russian > information. We all know how reliable they are, don't we? Actually, the bulk of the reports on Auschwitz originated from official Nazi documentation which was captured by the Americans! However, one must wonder if what Mr. Martin claims has any validity, why hasn't he cited a single example above of EVIDENCE or TESTIMONY from "Russian information?" Thus far, his cites are inacurrate, from the US, Great Britain, or merely attorney speeches. > The "confession" of Rudolf Hoess was written entirely in English and > partially hand-written by a U.S. Army officer, without any interpreter, > stenographer, lawyer or witnesses. This appears to be somewhat of a contradiction with Mr. Martin's claim that "almost all of the reports on Auschwitz originated from Russian information." Or, does Mr. Martin include that US Army officer as a conduit of "Russian information?" > The defendents were not allowed to take the stand to contradict > the prosecution witness. > Testimony was curtailed whenever it was feared someone might > contradict a favourite prosecution witness. Reality Check: Earlier in this same message, Mr. Martin said: > Pictures were shown of "Torture cabinets". "Iron cupboards which were > specially manufactured by the firm of Krupp to torture Russian civilian > workers to an extent that cannot possibly be described by > words,...frequently even two people were kicked and pressed into one > compartment. At the top of the cupboard there are a few sievelike air > holes through which cold water was poured on the unfortunate victims > during the ice-cold winter." Here after came one of the few objections > from Speer, "what is pictured here is quite a normal locker as was used > in every factory. These photos have absolutely no value as evidence." > This seems to be a standard procedure during the trials; pick almost > any everyday object and make up horrible stories about its > use to kill people. I suppose you have to do that when there are no > "real" items to show. --------------- > Defense attorneys were reprimanded for 'confusing' the witnesses > on cross-examination. Who handed out the "reprimand"? "THE PRESIDENT [of the Tribunal]: That is exactly what he said, that these triangles were completely mixed up. "M.DUBOST [prosecuting attorney]: I think, that the statement by this second witness will definitely enlighten the Tribunal on this point, whatever the efforts of the Defense might be to mislead us." Ah ha! One attorney makes a statement about an opposing attorney! Gee, I bet this NEVER happens in an American court of law! Well, Mr. Martin did go on further for more "other items" and more irrelevant, non-testimony/non-evidence. I would expose it all but after all that I've done, I think you all have gotten the point. If, though, there is a particular passage in Mr. Martin's message which I did NOT cover and about which you have questions, just let me know and I will be more than happy to provide the fallacy of his statement for all the readers to see. One more minor point to note, Mr. Martin began by citing 3311-PS which was one of the charges against Hans Frank made by the US. When he first used this document, he did so in such a way that would make it appear that it was from a "Communist country." However, it is also one of the documents with which he ends his message to "prove" that the US should be embarassed about our participation in the Nuremberg Tribunal. Smoke and mirrors, Smoke and mirrors.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor