The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/nyms/ehrlich606/1996/early-ehrlich


From ehrlich606@aol.com Sat Apr 27 06:12:03 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Three Holocausts
Date: 27 Apr 1996 08:12:03 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 87
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4lt2uj$rt0@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

There was not one, but three, Holocausts.  I call these the Holocaust of
the living, the Holocaust of the dead, and the Holocaust of faith.

The first of these -- the Holocaust of the living -- is the one discussed
on this board.  Here, we debate whether it was six million or two million,
whether Hitler knew about it, or ordered it, whether it was centralized or
"polycratic", whether there was gas or no gas, or what kind, in what
amounts, for how long, in what ovens, and so forth.  There is a certain
legitimacy in discussing these issues -- it is very difficult to sift the
truth from a congeries of testimony and sometimes vague documents [at
least to ME] -- to arrive at some firm truths.  But, frankly,  this was
not the main atrocity, IMHO, and it is also clear that the denizens of
this board usually fall into one of two classes: those who feel compelled
to reject everything, and those who feel compelled to accept everything. 
I take it for granted that no one would feel compelled to be so maximalist
without an ideological prime mover, and I pity their lack of independence
for that reason.

But the 20th Century witnessed many Holocausts of the living: not just the
Jews, but also Armenians, Poles, Germans (especially after the war),
Russians, Crimean Tartars, Ukrainians, and many others.  Far more serious
in my mind with respect to the Jewish experience was what I call the
Holocaust of the dead -- and this is what makes the Jewish Holocaust
uniquely terrible.

To grasp what I am getting at here one has to understand the Hegelian
concept of spirit as it applies to institutions.  The house I live in is
not just wood, brick, mortar.  It is also the physical embodiment of the
intentions of the builder, and its modifications the physical extension of
its residents.  It is a physical thing:  but it contains the wishes,
hopes, aspirations, ambitions, fears, and consolations of everyone who
ever lived here.  And so with a Church, or a synagogue: such buildings
resonate with the spirit of those long gone who made it so.  And so with
other, less physical institutions: language, culture, folklore,
literature, custom, dress, music: these are the sum total of all that has
gone before in whatever culture we reside, and the way we speak or dress
or express or divert ourselves is in many ways the tangible immortality of
our ancestors.

So now what happened with the Jews was this:  all of that was destroyed. 
In 1939, 90% of the Polish Jewish population spoke Yiddish as their mother
tongue. By 1945, maybe tens of thousands.  The lifestyle, the networks,
the customs, the dress -- almost completely vanished.  Those that
survived, in the USSR, USA, Israel, elsewhere, lost these things, because
even if they tried to hold on, fragmentation, destruction, and murder were
just too much.  The Yiddish culture that had evolved largely in
German-speaking areas, and had evolved over a millenium, was utterly
destroyed, and consigned to the museum.  So in this second Holocaust, the
dead died a second time.

I consider this to have been far more destructive than the Holocaust which
is so much discussed here.  My reasoning is simple.  Look at Dresden: 
bombed to bits by the Allies, but immediately at war's end there were
Germans there to pick up the rubble and rebuild.  Even if it took 50
years, the Semper Opera reopened, the Saxon treasures returned.  Without
wishing to sound callous,  the living can always be replaced.  The dead,
never.  Now compare to the Warsaw ghetto, or the Jewish presence in
Lemberg (Lviv), Wilno (Vilnius), or other Eastern towns.  Destroyed -- and
no one to rebuild.  Gone.

Such devastation of a people's past is unprecedented in modern European
history.  One would have to go back to the suppression of the Catharii and
Albigensians to find such complete eradication of a culture.  It might
conceivably be compared to the cultural rootlessness of Americans of
African descent.

Such a state of affairs, and the violence and destruction that accompanied
it, engendered what I call the Holocaust of faith.  I am thinking of the
manner in which this destruction shook the Jewish faith, offering the
alternatives of Zionism and (usually) American assimilationism without
really addressing the theodical issues as to why a beneficent Providence
would ever have visited such evil on the Jewish people.  But it extends
far and wide from there.  The death of the idea of progress, the studied
rejection of Western Culture, the sloth, inattention, and despair so
common in our culture, have I believe, at least in part an ideological
root in the decision to reject a culture which in its broadest outlines
blossomed forth with two world wars, a holocaust, and a police empire of
impressive longevity and cruelty (I mean USSR).

Within this framework, then, there are many things to discuss, and, yes,
some of that is that nuts and bolts of who died where, how many, with
what, and so forth.  But I still maintain that such details are in a very
profound way not very important nor a suitable goal for our thoughts and
aspirations.

copyright 1996 Ehrlich606@aol.com


From ehrlich606@aol.com Sat Apr 27 10:52:33 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!news.nstn.ca!news.dal.ca!torn!csn!news-1.csn.net!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Grand gas experiment
Date: 27 Apr 1996 12:52:33 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 2
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4ltjch$2r9@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4lt4hn$fb1@Vir.com>
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

One of many reasons why the Hoess affidavit should be handled with extreme
care, IMHO.

From ehrlich606@aol.com Sat Apr 27 10:59:03 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!news.nstn.ca!news.dal.ca!torn!csn!news-1.csn.net!imci3!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Death Rates, Burn Rates
Date: 27 Apr 1996 12:59:03 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 19
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4ltjon$2ug@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4ltg7t$ppg@news.enter.net>
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

I disagree.  I believe it has been the Holocaust historians who, ab ovo,
have stressed the murderousness of the gas chambers.  There are several
(innocuous) reasons for this, which I will write a longer post on, but one
of the reasons is if the gas chambers were not stressed the suffering of
the Jews would have been minimized, at least in the court of public
opinion.  The fact is, that, if most Jews (however many) had died of
exposure, starvation, disease and so on many would feel that it was
nothing but an accident of war.  Of course, that is not true.

But it is true -- at least in my experience in reading on this -- that
over the years since Reitlinger's first edition (cca. 1954) those who
argue for lowering numbers in the camps are subjected to sharp criticism. 
That has changed in the last decade, IMHO, because of revisionists.

Suffice to say at this time that it is wise, IMHO, not to overstress the
death camp aspect.  As to Goldhagen's book, as stated elsewhere, more
details on the greater complex REALITY of Jews in WW2 is not only good, I
predict there will be more of it.  But his thesis was, IMHO, foolish in
the extreme.

From ehrlich606@aol.com Sat Apr 27 14:52:46 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!torn!csn!news-1.csn.net!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Jewish Holocaust - 99.999 % of the story
Date: 27 Apr 1996 16:52:46 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 3
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4lu1eu$716@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4ltias$c35@boris.eden.com>
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

I will elaborate on your churlish response later, but let's try not to be
so grumpy.  As for the sources that I have consulted over the years it is
ridiculous to ask me to provide you with a list.

From ehrlich606@aol.com Sun Apr 28 15:36:46 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!torn!csn!news-1.csn.net!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Jewish Holocaust - 99.999 % of the story
Date: 28 Apr 1996 17:36:46 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 208
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4m0ode$26a@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4lu9ha$h23@boris.eden.com>
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

The method employed on this board of cutting and cross cutting posts and
responding to them in media res is hopelessly confusing to me, therefore I
am responding to all and sundry who remarked on my original post re:
99.99% something or other.

Obviously, my identity is pseudonymous and I am surprised that someone
hasn't commented on what I think is a rather clever nom de cyber.  My main
reason for anonymity is twofold.  First, I have received too many
cyberposts from cyberladies here and there who are attracted by my
impressive intellect, rapier wit, and comprehensive knowledge.  My wife
resents the hell out of this, and I suspect she also doesn't want one of
them to find out just how "impressive" I really am.  

The second reason has to do with authority.  One of the benefits of
cyberspace is that it makes it possible for people to communicate without
going through the hierarchy of authority as it exists these days.  People
are judged here not by their looks, their degrees, their publications,
their wealth, or the whiteness of their teeth, but solely by the content
of what they say.  I like that.  I also don't like ad hominem attacks -- a
favorite stratagem of academics.

Now, as to my status as a denier or revisionist.  Well, one thing I know
is that labels only carry you so far.  I am not quite sure what I accept
100% about this topic and what I do not.  I analyzed -- ten years ago --
the operation of the extermination facilities quite extensively 10 years
ago, partly in an attempt to refute Butz, and partly because, as you all
know, this is a historical subject that can get quite engrossing.

But I can promise you that I am not on this board to say nasty things
about Germans or Jews, much less about Israel or current stuff like that.

Now, someone in this group seems to think that a lot of literature about
the Holocaust as it comes out these days promotes hate against Germans. 
Perhaps some of it does.  But first of all, the Germans can take care of
themselves.  Secondly, if a Jewish friend of mine is oblivious to Kant or
Wagner (to name two Germans) because of the Holocaust, that is his
problem, not mine.  As for myself, I am proud of my heritage that is
German, and as to the six million, well, people and nations sometimes do
terrible things.  Generally, I think we can shun evil without having to be
weighted down with guilt forever.  As Aldous Huxley used to say, "rolling
in the muck is not the best way to get clean."

Another person in this group wanted to know what I had read.  I found his
note "churlish" because he dissed a very mild initial post with
monosyllables and asked me to list everything I had read on the subject. 
I have to say that I am a little handicapped in reconstructing here.  Most
of my books are in boxes in the attic (as you may have guessed, I have a
real life to deal with, not just this board) and, because of their nature,
most of the texts that I read on this subject I never owned anyway.  Also,
I have not read hard on this subject in ten years so I may get names and
titles wrong from time to time.

But I will try to give a brief conspectus.  The first books on this
subject I read back cca. 1965 covered such popularizations as Eugen Kogon,
Miklos Nyiszli, and Hoss memoirs.  Also about this time I began to read
military history of the War (ETO), stuff about espionage, the Nazi state
and the SS,  biographies of prominent Nazis, and paperback editions of
books on Nuremberg (BTW, I thought Gilbert's books on Nuremberg were
excellent: where can I get copies?)

For the next ten years or so I would say that I probably read everything
that was widely available in American libraries on most of these subjects.
 As to this topic, that would include Reitlinger, both editions, Hilberg,
1 and 2 editions (I read the 3rd edition later), Nora Levin, Lucy
Dawidowicz (both of her books on this -- I know the slimmer one came out
cca. 1980), Isaiah Trunk (both books -- a historian I respected, but not
very critical).

Somewhere in here my reading on this subject tapered off, due to other
intellectual interests such as music, philosophy, Russian history,
linguistics and some other interests like women, alcohol, and drugs. 
During these "shadow years" in my career as a Holocaust historian I did
not go to England to live with my brother, or come to New York to live
with a relative, or set up shop in Greenwich Village writing science
fiction.

Around 1983 my interest in this subject was reawakened due to a school of
thought then prevalent among Russian historians, which was to dismiss the
claims of Stalinist atrocities as lies.  I found this peculiar that you
could say this, while you could not say the same thing about atrocities in
Germany.  I won a lot of arguments this (tu quoque) way, but that got me
to thinking, and so I started reading agan.  In the following two-three
year span, I plowed through mostly primary sources, including The
Nuremberg transcripts (all those big blue books!), what primary material
from the the "smaller" Nuremberg trials that I could locate, the Polish
White Book that I mentioned once before (yes, I once held it in my hand),
a lot of material reprinted in German historical journals, Polish
historical journals,  Hungarian historical journals, Russian historical
journals, including the Soviet History of the Great Patriotic War (po
russki), also the Yad Vashem series of journals, and lots of back issues
of Patterns of Prejudice and Commentary.

In addition, since I now had at my command a lot of languages that I
didn't have before, I read personal memoirs and/or comtemporary
journalistic reprints, in the original languages only if I had to, or if
the wording was such that I wanted to examine specific passages.  Ilya
Ehrenburg, Francois Steiner, JG Burg, Tadeusz Borowski, and Emanuel
Ringblum are a few of the names that come to mind as I try to reconstruct.
 Also a woman who wrote about gassings at Ravensbruck.  Most of these I
read at least in part in the original language.  And, needless to say, I
read all of the primary materials in the original.

Also, I read such pop memoirs as appeared in English, such as Wiesel or
Eisner, and whatever popular texts on the subject as I could get hands on.
 I can't remember all the names!  The guy who wrote "They Fought Back" --
I though that book was good and bad.
I also encountered the revisionists in this splurge, and read the French
guy who started it all (name? I forget) the current crop of German stuff,
and, of course, Butz.

I stopped pursuing the topic in 1986 because I had more important things
to do, such as supporting a family.  Since that time I don't think I have
read 20 books on the subject.  I have perused such texts as I come idly
across in bookstores and public libraries, but I am persuaded that there
is not much new under the sun.  I reviews extensively, beyond that I have
neither the time nor money to do more.  I am aware of the Leuchter
material, the Faurrison material, and the Plessac material, but I have not
read them except in a very fragmentary way.  

Now that I have finished this brief list I am sure that after I log off I
will remember some other vein of reading in this subject that I have done.
 But enough.  Suffice to say that if someone mentions a document, or a
book, and I don't know it, I will ask about it.

Now someone else wanted to know the origin of my myths.  What myths?  My
reading of Russian and Soviet history, and Hungarian history, to say
nothing of Germany history, leads me to believe that there were a lot of
Jews doing various things east and south of the line described by the
vertical line of the transit camps of Belzec, Treblinka, Sobibor, and
Majdanek, and south of Transylvania as late as the time of the Bagration
Offensive of June 21, 1944.  From this innocuous observation, I conclude
that the extermination camps on the Eastern Front were not the complete
terminus that they are usually characterized as.  BTW, my observation of
this does not contradict the Wannsee minutes, a document that I consider
the most crucial piece of evidence of German policy of ultimate
extermination.  I also don't think it is mythmongering to point out that
many of the death tolls at A-B and environs are hard to support.  I don't
say these things in malice.  I say them because that's what it looks like
to me.

That is why over the years my thinking on this subject has evolved so that
my opinions are, charitably, heterodox.  If I offer a concept about three
holocausts, I do that because I WANT to preserve the uniqueness of the
Holocaust without, at the same time, being forced to phrase it
numerically. (BTW, I didn't get nearly enough cards and letters praising
me for this)  If I offer the suggestion about down-playing the
extermination camps, I do so not only because I think it wise -- sapienti
sat -- but also because it allows us to portray the Jewish catastrophe in
a much more variegated, and IMHO, much more true way.  WHEN I offer
further conceptualizations on this topic, including on the importance of
Auschwitz, I will also do that in what I consider to be a positive spirit.

As to the things I cited in "That's Incredible!" -- well, I just don't
believe every thing I read. Dkeren sent me a post on this, and I told him
that I had also read extensively about German POWs, German expellees, and
GULAG inmates.  I told him I didn't believe everything I read there,
either.  In my opinion, a lot of this testimony is basically oral history,
and oral history is by its nature unreliable.  It makes no difference if
some one has a "hot button" about how no one who has suffered so much, or
who is a "witness" might embroider the truth or tell an outright lie for
whatever reason.  I am sorry.  I was trained to be a historian, although I
am not one, and historians are taught to treat oral history with care, and
that the writing of oral history is an art.  THAT means that the
individual historian has to make judgments about the veracity of
testimony.  I am sorry that my judgments don't match yours.

As to the tendency of Holocaust historians to leave NOTHING out, where do
you think I got these stories from?  Answer: Bauer, Dawidowicz, Trunk, and
Konnilyn Feig.

Now, as to who I think is a good historian on this subject, I think
Reitlinger is the best, because he is the most detailed.  But I also note
that the 1968 edition left out some critical comments that were in the
original edition.  My guess is because he took too much heat.

As to the revisionists actually contributing to the evolution of the
history of this subject, Exhibit A would be Butz' assertion in 1974 asking
why there had been no photos taken of Auschwitz.  Two years later, the CIA
issued a pamphlet providing the photos.  Martin Gilbert then wrote what I
considered a rather jejune book on the subject.  My guess is that there
was cause and effect here.

In conclusion, I don't have any problem with a baseline credo that says
that 6 million Jews died in WW2, and that part of this involved gassing. 
I also don't have a problem with the assertion that this occurred largely
(but not exclusively) due to the agency of the National Socialist
government, which was a German government.  None of this shakes my
admiration for German culture, literature, poetry, music, philosophy,
science, military virtue, or military performance in the period 1866-1945.

Nor does it shake my admiration for the period of German Jewish symbiosis
from 1783 (Mendelssohn's Jerusalem) to 1933 (Hitler's ascension), a period
which IMHO redounds to the immortal fame of both peoples.  Indeed, the
events from 1933 to 1945 tend to obscure the fact that there was a
thousand year period of extensive German Jewish interaction that came
before, most of which was quite positive.  I would like to see the recent
historical bruises healed.  We'll see.

 
PS:  Call me Ishmael.  Just kidding.  Call me Ehrlich, 606, PE or whatever
you please,sir.





         


From ehrlich606@aol.com Tue Apr 30 08:53:32 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.csu.net!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Grand gas experiment
Date: 30 Apr 1996 10:53:32 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 56
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4m59hc$g56@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark van Alstein wants to know why I don't buy Hoess' memoirs.  Reasoning:
 when I first read them years ago, I bought them hook, line, and sinker. 
A few years later, reading Gilbert's "Judgment at Nuremberg", I came to
the conclusion that the man was in fear of his life.  But that, per se,
didn't make me skeptical of his testimony.

The main reason I grew to be skeptical of his memoirs is that, when
juxtaposed to his Nuremberg testimony, and on their own terms, they
contain a number of inconsistencies which don't make any sense.  As to
saying 3-4 million on one occasion, or 1-2 million on another occasion, I
don't recall him using Eichmann as an excuse, but I consider that a
ludicrous excuse in any case.  I do recall that Konnilyn Feig wrote that
Hoess was a liar, and that he bragged about 3-4 Mill because he was a
liar, and what would expect from a Nazi, anyway .... Which means to me
that if a Nazi says what you want him to say he is telling the truth, and
if a Nazi says what you don't want to hear --- well, then he is being a
Nazi.

As to the inconsistencies which I adumbrated above,  they involve mostly
timing questions, planning questions, and usage questions.  If I had the
source at my disposal, as well as time, I could elaborate more fully.  But
then again, better not to, because I am not really interested into
pursuing denial topics.

Suffice to say that when I read a text -- ANY text -- I am concerned with
the intentionality of statements, not just the content thereof.  And my
impression of Hoess' memoirs when I last perused them is that the man was
writing for his captors rather than for posterity.

Furthermore,  Hoess was in the custody of Russian and Polish communists
most of the time until his hanging and any testimony produced under that
aegis is bound to be suspect, IMHO.  After all, this was the same source
as the testimony that tried to pin Katyn Forest on the Germans, also at
Nuremberg, to the embarrassed silence, but silence nonetheless, of the
other Allies.

Also, and this is my intuition, I think it interesting that Hoess claims
that his first victims were Russian POW's -- that at a time when he was in
Soviet captivity.  Common sense would dictate that the first victims were
Jews.  After all, they comprised the largest single population in nearly
all camps, they were the most likely (as recent civilians) to be unable to
adapt to quasi-military life, and to be debilitated by it so as to be
"useless mouths", and they were specifically targeted for ultimate
eradication, as per the Wannsee minutes.

PS:  I also think that attempts by historians to say that there was a
fixed plan for extermination prior to these minutes (generated cca.
February, 1942) force the evidence too far.  But I will leave it to you to
accuse me likewise.





  
  

From ehrlich606@aol.com Tue Apr 30 08:54:47 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.csu.net!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Nerve Gas Update
Date: 30 Apr 1996 10:54:47 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 58
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4m59jn$g5s@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark van Alstein wants to know why I said the the Germans probably gassed
some people with nerve agents.  He also quotes an interesting letter.

Frankly, I wasn't thinking of any evidence in particular when I made that
statement.  My historical intuition -- which is generally good -- made it
seem likely to me.  As I have indicated elsewhere, I am not in a position
to test my intuitions against the evidence any more.

But in any case the reason I made that statement -- REALLY -- was because
I wanted to show what non-denial or non-revisionist bona fides as I can. 
I know that my opinions on these matters, after the course of several
years, are bound to be impressionist and intuitive, but I also know that
they are bound to be skeptical, because most of  the people here are
clearly true believers on one side or the other.  I saw the opportunity to
make explicit my endorsement of the concept of lethal gassings and I took
it.  Let that stand as Exhibit A of the need to understand the motivation
and intention of statements, not just the content thereof.

But as a matter of fact, my intuition is suggested by other things.  The
first explicit reference to nerve gas usage that I ever read was in an
article in the Village Voice in 1984.  I recall at the time at how
unsubstantiated and how casually the statement was made.  But then again,
it was the Village Voice.

Somewhere in here too I read one of Speer's books (Infiltration?) in which
he talks about how the SS gradually co-opted much of the
military-industrial complex in Germany, and that correlated with what I
knew about how the best equipped units (late in the war) in the Wehrmacht
were usually Waffen SS.  I recall Speer also said something in here about
how the SS had a corner on the production of Tabun, Sarin, Soman.  Now you
may ask, why would I believe Speer?  Well, because he wasn't making a big
deal about it, he wanted to talk about yet another heroic attempt on his
part to kill Hitler (yeah, right.)

So far I gathered that the SS is intimately involved in the production of
nerve agents, BTW I also came across the letter you cite, the SS also had
the administration to apply it to prisoners, and the SS endorsed all kinds
of experiments  (e.g., the hypothermia experiments) with a military
purpose.  Given also the well documented ruthlessness towards the weak,
elderly, and non-German elements of the greater German area, among far too
many Germans at this time, I consider the probability of some testing on
prisoners (likely candidates: Jews; politically correct candidates:
Russian POWs) to be a proverbial lead pipe cinch.

But at the same time I would be irresponsible to put something like that
as fact in a book or in a post.  That would just push the hot button of
some Germanophile, who would waste no time in pointing out that it was a
German Jew, Fritz Haber, who first came up with the idea of using all of
this chlorine gas lying around the BASF plant for military purposes in the
first place, thus ushering in the modern era of gas warfare, and thus
pushing the hot button for the folks on the other side of the board.

And round and round it goes!






From ehrlich606@aol.com Tue Apr 30 09:33:16 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: The word "anti-Semitic" (theorem)
Date: 30 Apr 1996 11:33:16 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 17
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4m5brs$gqb@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <30APR199608064512@bpavms.bpa.arizona.edu>
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com
Xref: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca alt.politics.white-power:58273 alt.revisionism:84015 soc.culture.jewish:246520

I don't normally intend to respond to non-WW2 era posts, but this is truly
preposterous.  You have phrased your definition of anti-semitism with so
many qualifications that you are almost bound to say that any comments
about Jews (or a Jew) that does not condone/excuse/justify whatever
conduct is under examination is anti-semitic.  Utterly insane.

As per Israelis, you are correct that there are two circles here and they
overlap but are not the same circle.  As per recent Israeli conduct, to
excuse the killing of civilians by insisting on the history of world first
is like the Wizard saying, "Pay no attention to the man behind the
curtain!  The all powerful OZ has spoken!"

In fact, Israel is killing civilians as an exercise in collective
responsibility.  I will post something on this anent terrorism and such in
the WW2 context another time.  But the main thing is that nations do this
kind of thing all the time, and Israel is no better or worse than others
in that respect.  So let's drop it, Moran.

From ehrlich606@aol.com Tue Apr 30 12:46:58 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!news.nstn.ca!news.dal.ca!torn!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.dacom.co.kr!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Nostradamus, Elvis, UFOs -- Future of Holocaust Studies
Date: 30 Apr 1996 14:46:58 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 58
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4m5n72$k78@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

First of all, the hot poop on Nazi UFOs goes like this: they weren't Nazi,
they were Japanese.

Towards the end of WW2, the Japanese sent a bunch of paper balloons over
the Pacific with explosives attached.  Several of these reached the West
Coast, where most exploded harmlessly.  One, however, in Washington State,
killed half a dozen people, including some children.  The scuttlebutt is
that the government kept a lid on things for decades, make up your own
rationale.  Correlate this with the recent posts on Nazi UFOs, Carl Sagan,
the name "flying saucers", Roswell, and ruminate.

The invention of the concept of UFOs in the immediate aftermath of WW2 is
well known.  More of a problem is figuring out what it means.  Mass
psychopathy and projection have been suggested.  Of course, this is not
the forum to explore THAT concept.

On another level as far as UFOs go, it is only normal that the Germans
would be accused of creating these things.  Or are we forgetting that it
was their technological expertise that got us to the moon!  Or, as the US
government said to Arthur Rudolf, "What have you done for us RECENTLY?" 
Those of you who know about comics should know that Will Eisner and
Wallace Wood teamed up on a wonderful strip piece, entitled, "A DP on the
Moon", which in its original sketches had Adolf Hiter hiding out up there.

I recently was given a secret codicil to the Prophecies of Nostradamus,
which, incredibly, discusses the Holocaust and its aftermath.  Other
topics contained therein are revelations that clearly refer to Elvis being
alive and working in a gas station in Michigan, and the likelihood of
Laverne and Shirley reruns on Nickelodeon (in the section entitled, "The
End of Things").  I was going to question the veracity of this document,
but the guy who gave it to me threatened to start telling me about what
happened to him in the war, so I guess it must be true.

Relevant revelations include:

1)  The truth about the Holocaust will become clearer the less the
Holocaust becomes a political football;

2)  The former Soviet Union will be the source of a great deal of
documentation in the next decade that will require a great deal of
re-evaluation;

3)  The conceptual basis for the Holocaust is overall sound, but the
anti-German venom should be dropped forthwith, because it no longer
fulfills the political purpose of justifying the division of Germany, and
it is beginning to sound pretty childish;

4)  If you want to remain sensitive to all parties in the Holocaust, you
had better start refining a conceptual basis that treats all parties with
respect and which is not tied to this or that specific piece of dubious
evidence.

I said: Sure!






From ehrlich606@aol.com Tue Apr 30 14:42:55 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!news.nstn.ca!news.dal.ca!torn!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.dacom.co.kr!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Grand gas experiment
Date: 30 Apr 1996 16:42:55 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 20
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4m5u0f$m6m@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Dan:

When you consult the text, and I cannot, be careful of the ethnicity of
the
"Russian" POWs.  That would be an important clue.  Furthermore,  when did
he
go from Soviet to Polish custody?  Remember there is a lot of infighting
among Slavs, esp. Polish-Russian, Polish-Ukrainian, Ukrainian-Russian, and
so
forth.  Do me a favor and consider the possible audience!

Also, I know that Auschwitz was originally a Polish POW camp.  But I still
think for the reasons stated the POWs would hardly be the likely
candidates
for a test run.

Since you neglect the other portions of my post, I assume I am allowed to
generally doubt Soviet generated testimony for the reasons given.



From ehrlich606@aol.com Tue Apr 30 14:44:00 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!news.nstn.ca!news.dal.ca!torn!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.dacom.co.kr!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: That's Incredible!
Date: 30 Apr 1996 16:44:00 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 29
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4m5u2g$m7d@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <318516f1.32721814@news.srv.ualberta.ca>
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Under the sub-heading of "That's Incredible!", and in response to MGiwer,
John Morris launched into a lengthy dissertation about soap factories
which was just a long way around to admitting that the stories were phony.
 BTW, he also lathered up Dan Keren pretty good, IMHO.

Since I am still learning the ground rules for a-r, forgive me for not
grasping that the only way you ever get attention around here is by either
insulting some ethnic group, discussing some aspect of the Holocaust in an
insulting or (preferably) disbelieving tone, or, correcting someone on
their facts.  So here goes!

1)  John Morris claims that survivors can't be blamed for what they were
told.  Details, Mr. Morris?  Sources, Mr. Morris?  Or is this just -- ahem
-- anecdotal evidence?  If you consult Reitlinger, 1954, inter alia, you
will find discussion of this.  The soap was apparently embossed with "RIF"
which was fancifully translated as "reiner iudische fett" -- pure jewish
fat.  Beyond that, I don't suppose it ever occurred to anyone that out the
6 millions of Jews who perished, and the 2 million who survived, there
could be one or two who might have had a predilection for shading the
truth once in awhile?  Speaking of probabilities, I would think so.

2)  Mr. Morris also claims that the soap claims were dissed as early as
1960 in German courts (**NB: new semantic curve to "diss")  "long before
the revisionists ..." WRONG!  Paul Rassinier, or whatever his name was,
was doing revisionist stuff long before then.
Read the book by that gal in Georgia.

Cheers!


From ehrlich606@aol.com Tue Apr 30 21:12:07 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!news.nstn.ca!news.dal.ca!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Alex Baron: A Sad Clown (Re: Dan Keren: anti-Semite)
Date: 30 Apr 1996 23:12:07 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 13
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4m6kq7$1r2@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

After reading this edifying exchange between Mssrs. Baron and Keren, I
would like to suggest that you step outside to exchange blows.

As a newbie to this board, I was expecting greater civility especially
from Mr. Keren who hitherto has demonstrated at least a certain scholarly
air.  But this kind of intemperance only invites further incivility on the
board.

When I chose to question a half dozen aspects of the legend, I tried to
use restraint and respect.  Apparently Mr. Keren understands neither
concept, and it is not to his credit.  Moreover, his attempt to push Mr.
Baron's button by dissing only the testimony of Dresden bespeaks a
fundamental inhumanity that IMHO has no place in a public forum.

From ehrlich606@aol.com Wed May 01 00:11:17 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!news.nstn.ca!news.dal.ca!torn!csn!news-1.csn.net!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Message for Hitler's birthday - zgram960420
Date: 1 May 1996 02:11:17 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 27
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4m6va5$66m@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4m6dml$jmb@news1.panix.com>
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)

It is simply false to say that no ever claimed that Soviet depredations
were exaggerated or false.  On the contrary, it was a truism of the
American Left for 70 years that these atrocities were either lies,
propaganda, or hopelessly exaggerated.  Strangely, this frenzy of denial
reached its peak in the early 1980's.

No Soviet artist was ever denied entry, or had his performances boycotted,
in this country because of his country's atrocities.  MANY German artists
suffered this fate. No country, at no time, has ever banned the music of
Soviet or Russian composers.  MANY German composers, at different times,
have been banned in many countries.

No Soviets were ever tried, convicted, or hanged for crimes against
humanity, either involving Great Russians or any other nationality over
which they had control.  (Germany, '45 & '53, Hungary '56, Czechoslovakia
'68, Poland).  Many Germans were.

No one ever claimed that Soviet atrocities laid bare the essentially
uncivilized nature of the Russian people, or of their culture, or
recommended their permanent suppression or division.  But this was said as
late as 1989 by many "respectable" people about Germany.

I don't expect people to be consistent.  I DO expect them to be
intellectually honest enough to recognize that they are being
inconsistent.



From ehrlich606@aol.com Wed May 01 11:28:28 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!news.nstn.ca!news.dal.ca!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Message for Hitler's birthday - zgram960420
Date: 1 May 1996 13:28:28 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 40
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4m86vs$i36@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com


In article <4m6va5$66m@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ehrlich606@aol.com
(Ehrlich606) wrote:

> It is simply false to say that no ever claimed that Soviet depredations
> were exaggerated or false.  On the contrary, it was a truism of the
> American Left for 70 years that these atrocities were either lies,
> propaganda, or hopelessly exaggerated.  Strangely, this frenzy of denial
> reached its peak in the early 1980's.

>>No, I'm sorry, you're wrong.  No one has denied that the Soviets were as
>>bad as the Germans.  It's funny how you expect people to believe your
>>little revision when you place the "peak of denial" of Russian badness
>>smack in the middle of the cold war Reagan years.  Downright laughable.

Sorry, Mr. Silverman, you are wrong, and the only thing that is laughable
here is your rudeness.  As a matter of fact, the reason the peak of denial
came during the Reagan years is because Sovietologists were hysterically
afraid that Reagan was going to get us into a nuclear war, what with the
controversies over moving nuclear weapons into Western Europe, Flight 007,
and Star Wars.  If you don't believe me, consult The Nation, NY Review of
Books, Slavic Studies, Russian Review, or numerous other pubs from 1983
through 1985. passim!

>>Secondly, there IS a reason that Germans were tried, etc., and Russians
>>were not.  It's because of a fact that YOU and people like YOU have an
>>awfully hard time accepting.  It was because the Germans were LOSERS and
>>the Russians were WINNERS.  And when you are a LOSER and you started the
>>damn war in the first place, you have to do what the WINNER tells you. 
>>What, you expect that the Americans would attempt to try people from
>>Russia?  That would be stupid, dangerous, and impractical.

People like me?  You mean there are other people like me? And on what
basis do you make that statement?  Of course Germany lost the war, in
fact, Germany lost two wars.  That is not what we are talking about.

What you are saying is precisely what revisionists, deniers, and neo-Nazis
say: that the cry after WW2 was NOT "Justice!" but "Vae Victis!"  Glad to
have the clarification.


From ehrlich606@aol.com Wed May 01 12:11:42 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!news.nstn.ca!news.dal.ca!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Grand gas experiment
Date: 1 May 1996 14:11:42 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 80
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4m89gu$iq9@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Subj:	Re: Grand gas experiment
Date:	96-05-01 02:22:36 EDT
From:	dkeren@world.std.com (Daniel Keren)

#ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606) writes:
>dkeren@world.std.com (Daniel Keren) writes:

# When you consult the text, and I cannot, be careful of the 
# ethnicity of the "Russian" POWs.  That would be an important clue.

>I can't see why.

Well, it would be important because normally in memoirs, testimony, and
oral
histories one mark of authenticity involves how different things are
characterized.  If the first victims were Soviets, and the people fighting
over the potatoes were Ukrainians, that would be very indicative of a bias
that a German would be unlikely to have, but which would be politically
correct to Soviets, at a time when Stalin was still pissed off at the Ukes
for "collaborating" with the Germans.


# Also, I know that Auschwitz was originally a Polish POW camp.  
# But I still think for the reasons stated the POWs would hardly be 
# the likely candidates for a test run.

>Why? They had, perhaps, different physical characteristics than 
>Jews? Explain this statement.

Not different physical characteristics!  Did you READ what I said, or are
you
just trying to bait me?  Civilians do not adapt to quasi-military life
easily.  Soldiers adapt MORE easily. That's all I mean by that.  I suppose
you want me to provide a reference!  How about a reference for my opinion
that the sun will come up tomorrow?  (NB to MV: prepare nasty post to
Ehrlich606 informing him that the sun does not actually come up.)

# Since you neglect the other portions of my post, I assume I am 
# allowed to generally doubt Soviet generated testimony for the 
# reasons given.

>Don't assume I agree with something just because I don't respond
>to it. To answer your apparent question: I have not seen any
>testimony given by former SS-men in Polish or Soviet captivity
>that I have reason to suspect is not genuine.

Here's the nub.  The show trials of the 1930's, anecdotal evidence in
Solzhenitsyn, Koestler's Darkness at Noon, numerous secondary sources
provide
proof that the Soviet Judicial system coerced confessions all the time. 
The
case of Katyn Forest further proves that they faked evidence and testimony
for a war crime at the IMT.  I submit that ALL evidence from Soviet
sources
therefore has a real problem.

Does that mean that I doubt EVERYTHING I read?  No.  I am mostly skeptical
of
extravagant death counts, reasons given for perjury, and methods of
execution
that do not make sense to me.  As a matter of fact, I think the content of
the testimony of MOST former SS IS true.  I am saying that the source of
that
testimony is tainted, and I would rather not use it, or use it sparingly,
if
I can.  Agnosticism is not equivalent to atheism.

=====================================================
"Without going out of my door, I can know all things on earth,
without looking out of my window, I can know the Tao of Heaven,
The father one travels, the less one knows" -- Lao Tse, Tao te Ching

I, too, can irrelevantly quote dead Chinese!








From ehrlich606@aol.com Wed May 01 14:47:21 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!news.nstn.ca!news.dal.ca!torn!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.dacom.co.kr!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Goldhagen's thesis (was Re: Alternate Introductory Systems)
Date: 1 May 1996 16:47:21 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 21
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4m8ikp$lr4@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

I don't know who is responsible for this statement, but here it is:


> 
> We all bear blame for what happened to the Jews in WWII.  Those who
actively
> did it, those who encouraged them, those who sat back smugly and washed
> their hands a la Pontius Pilate--all bear part of the blame.
> 

I would like to know three things:  1) Where was the author in WW2?  2) 
What does assigning blame have to do with the study of history, much less
with historical understanding?  (Gad, Ranke must be spinning in his
grave!)  3)  What kind of person has so few personal defects and or
failures and or sins in life that they must feel compelled to assume the
burden of guilt about something that happened 50 years ago?

I submit:  an utterly ridiculous, self-indulgent display of
self-laceration.



From ehrlich606@aol.com Wed May 01 15:21:41 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!torn!csn!news-1.csn.net!decwrl!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Antichrist Identity
Date: 1 May 1996 17:21:41 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 11
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4m8kl5$ml9@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4m8jhd$m73@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

I believe it was Colonel House who dubbed Leon Trotsky, "A four-square son
of a bitch, but the greatest Jew since Jesus Christ."

Indeed, there were a lot of Jewish Bolsheviks, and a lot of Communist
functionaries who were Jewish.  This is just a fact.  If someone perceives
it as slander, that is not my problem.  It does, however, explain how the
(totally erroneous) conflation of Bolshevism and Judaism could have taken
place.

And that is what history is about: understanding why things happen.  It is
not about ethnic cheerleading.

From ehrlich606@aol.com Wed May 01 20:33:55 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: WOW "100 MEGABYTES" WOW
Date: 1 May 1996 22:33:55 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 18
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4m96uj$1er@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3187e9bd.3569377@news.srv.ualberta.ca>
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com


On Wed, 01 May 1996 02:30:10 GMT, mgiwer@ix.netcom.com (Matt Giwer)
wrote:

>	And who was it who said, Jews never forget?  

I think it was the Elephants.

--
 John Morris                               
 at University of Alberta     

Ehrlich606 added:

No:  I forget his name, Jewish historian in Lithuania, he said:

"Yidn, farschreibt!"  i.e., Jews, write it down!


From ehrlich606@aol.com Thu May 02 10:03:58 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: That's Incredible!
Date: 2 May 1996 12:03:58 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 36
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4mamde$dej@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

 
# The witnesses also testified to electrocution, suffocation and
# steaming.  
 
Name one SS-man from Treblinka, Belzec, or Sobibor, who
testified to murder by such methods.
 
To the best of my knowledge, no such person exists. All testified
that the victims were murdered by poison gas.
 
The statement that "claims of steaming, electrocution etc are
supported by eyewitness testimony just as claims of gassing
are", is a blatant lie. But what can one expect from you? After
you lied so much on this newsgroup, it's no surprise.
 
Re the steaming etc stories:
 
These were misinterpretations of members of the Polish underground
who were spying on the camps from a distance. They realized that
numerous people were being murdered there, but couldn't see what
was happening inside the gas chambers; they did see the corpses
taken out and buried. 
 
For instance, seeing the door of the gas chamber open and a cloud
of the engin's exhaust coming out, someone spying on the camp from
a distance could easily mistake the killing procedure to
"steaming". The same mistake could be made by someone who was
in the camp (and escaped), but who never saw the gas chambers from
close range and never spoke to the sonderkomman, on this one I have to go
with Giwer.  I distinctly recall Isaiah Trunk providing witness testimony
about steam.  I also remember Trunk's pious footnote: "not attested to by
any other source."

Did it ever occur to you that not only gas chambers but also real-live
showers would generate clouds of mist that would look like steam?  Why
must you feel that you have to defend everything?

From ehrlich606@aol.com Thu May 02 10:33:46 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!torn!csn!news-1.csn.net!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Antichrist Identity
Date: 2 May 1996 12:33:46 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 76
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4mao5a$dso@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4ma3j5$hei@atlas.uniserve.com>
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Hilary Ostrov is giving me a hard time, to wit:

Mr. Ehrlich606:

I don't know if you have taken advantage of the opportunity to apprise
yourself of the recycled themes that so frequently float through the
ether of alt.revisionism.  Quantities (and precision in the expression
thereof) are a major concern to those who mistakenly call themselves
"revisionists", and to Mr. Moran in particular.

So it would be most helpful to all of us if you could define "a lot".
And since you assert that this is "explains" the "conflation of
Bolshevism and Judaism", you will, of course, be able to provide us
with the comparative numbers of Jewish and non-Jewish "Bolsheviks and
Communist functionaries" to substantiate the "fact" that there were "a
lot" of both.

>And that is what history is about: understanding why things happen.  
>It is not about ethnic cheerleading.

It seems to me that this "totally erroneous conflation" can be given
explanatory status in this particular ethnic characterization of the
non-cheerleading kind, only if it can be shown that "a lot" means a
significant majority.  Or are you suggesting some sort of
inverse-Gestalt, i.e. that the whole is determined by the percentage
of its smallest paru provide an example of "non-erroneous
conflation"?)

hro


Ms. Ostrov:  Thank you for being proof of the fact that, while no man is
an
island, at least one woman is.

I expected to take heat for that assertion.  I have nothing to gain by
going
through the history of the Social Democracy in Russia, the
Menshevik/Bolshevik division, the sizable Yiddish Labor groups in Eastern
Russia, or the subsequent evolution of Bolshevism.  Nor do I have anything
to
gain by going into the text-book explanation as to why Ashkenazi Jews were
natural candidates for Bolshevism, just as the German Jews were natural
candidates for neo-Kantianism.  In the context of THIS board, that would
qualify as an excuse, and I note that people on YOUR side are never
interested in reasons why Germans would be Nazis.

The idea of going back in history to count up people by ethnicity is truly
repugnant, even if I had the time.  Suffice that no one well versed in
Russian or Soviet history, or for that matter, in the conduct of the
Communist International would deny that "a lot" of Jews were involved in
Bolshevism.  If I say "a lot" I submit that your request for "numbers"
lies
in the fact you think I am attacking your favorite team.  (Especially
since you go out of your way to insinuate that Jews comprised "the
smallest part")  It would be like
saying that "a lot" of Germans participated in the Holocaust.  Next
question:
HOW MANY??  As if that makes any difference.

Nevertheless, the conflation of German, Nazism, and the murder of Jews is
one
of the prime articles of faith on this board.  That conflation is just as
erroneous, just as destructive, but just as understandable, as the
conflation
of Jew and Bolshevik.  That was what I was trying to say.

Do I know of any conflations that are NOT erroneous?  In terms of
empirical
events, I would say no.  In terms of philosophy, I could think of many. 
But
in terms of this Board, I am almost tempted to conflate the true believers
on
both poles of this Board and call them "The Fifth Antinomy of Pure Reason"

Regards!

From ehrlich606@aol.com Thu May 02 10:38:48 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Historians Agree: Goldhagen is a Schmuck
Date: 2 May 1996 12:38:48 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 18
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4maoeo$e2k@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

A week ago I posted a review of Goldhagen's Book, "Hitler's Willing
Executioners", castigating the obvious anti-German bias of this foolish
book.
I further pointed out that the one of main problems with the book is that
thesis was a-historical, because it was subjective.  No one responded to
that review, because moderately worded entries never get responses on THIS
board.

Gordon Craig, professor emeritus at Stanford, in the latest New York
Review
of Books (p. 52, Number 9) writes:  "My reservations are rooted in the
fact
that G. argues a case that requires historical proof if it is to be
accepted
with almost no reference to historical evidence."  -- Nice to know a heavy
hitter is on the side of truth and justice, AKA my side.



From ehrlich606@aol.com Thu May 02 13:42:01 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!torn!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Goldhagen's thesis (was Re: Alternate Introductory Systems)
Date: 2 May 1996 15:42:01 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 28
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4mb369$gnp@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com


Marty Kelley  (mkelley@U.Arizona.EDU)

As to question #2, I think that discussion of _respnsibility_ ( a less 
loaded term than "blame") is indeed a valid focus of historical inquiry.  

Ehrlich606 responds:

For the life of me, I cannot understand how a discussion of responsibility
is a legitimate focus of historical inquiry, unless:  a) one wants to get
someone to pay for something (e.g., Article 231 of Versailles Treaty), b)
one wants to identify with a larger group and by "historical inquiry" be
empowered to feel morally superior to some other larger group, or c) one
wants to indulge oneself in the intellectual equivalent of trading
baseball cards.

Historical responsibility, because of its semantic content, is even harder
to establish than historical causes.  But establishing historical chains
of cause and effect are always speculative, and the best historians
recognize this.  That is why the only historians that we remember and
continue to consult are those who put questions of responsibility and
cause and effect far enough in the background so as to make it possible
for the content of primary source material to shine through.

But to look for "responsibility" for an event, IMHO, overloads the
investigative enterprise.  It is a moral judgment.  But as Schiller so
aptly put it, "Die Weltgeschichte is die Weltgericht"  i.e., the history
of the world is its OWN moral judgment.

From ehrlich606@aol.com Thu May 02 18:42:29 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!torn!nott!bcarh189.bnr.ca!nrchh45.rich.nt.com!news.utdallas.edu!news.starnet.net!news.dra.com!news2.interlog.com!news2.toronto.istar.net!news3.ottawa.istar.net!istar.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Antichrist Identity
Date: 2 May 1996 20:42:29 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 46
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4mbkpl$o0d@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <2MAY199616165503@bpavms.bpa.arizona.edu>
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

This string has had the following chronology: someone identified Jews with
the Antichrist, someone else said not true, some else said maybe BC
several
Jews were in the Party, then Ehrlich606 said "a lot" of Jews were
Bolsheviks,
and Hilary Ostrov pedantically asked me to define "a lot".  After that,
Dan Mittleman chided me.  But, hey, Dan I THOUGHT I was drawing
distinctions.

TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE DEPT.

So Ehrlich606, who has been away from books for a long time, but wants to
be
FAIR, dropped by the local bookstore on his lunch hour and pulled down the
first book on
Russian history he could find. And he read that "very many Jews joined the
[communist] party" after 1917, and it goes on to say that they were
"heavily"
disproportionately represented in the cadres that Stalin marked out for
his
purges in 1938.  (Robert C. Tucker, Stalin as Revolutionary: Revolution
from
Above, pp. 490-491)

Which would mean that, IF we employ the logic of all the German haters on
this board:  not only that "very many" Jews were Bolsheviks, but that 
"very
many" Jews were RESPONSIBLE and involved in such depredations as the
forced
collectivization of the Ukraine, the mass murders of the 25,000-ers,AG,
the first round of show trials (the "wrecker"
trials), and altogether the mass murder of tens of millions (well, that's
overstating it: but overstatement is no stranger to this area).

IT WOULD ALSO FOLLOW that some one could write a book, let's see, good
title,
hmmm.... how about "Stalin's Willing Executioners" which would suggest all
kinds infamies about Jewish people because of what some other Jewish
people
did.  Of course, such a book would be deeply offensive to Ms. Ostrov and
others.  Precisely!
And that is why Goldhagen's opus deserves to be painted in just colors of
detestation and contempt.




From ehrlich606@aol.com Fri May 03 07:18:08 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!news.nstn.ca!news.dal.ca!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Grand gas experiment
Date: 3 May 1996 09:18:08 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 2
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4md12g$78h@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

I am with you on this -- sort of.  It still doesn't address the fact that
his Nuremberg testimony was radically different.

From ehrlich606@aol.com Fri May 03 09:05:59 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!news.nstn.ca!news.dal.ca!torn!csn!news-1.csn.net!decwrl!spool.mu.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.dacom.co.kr!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Burning pits
Date: 3 May 1996 11:05:59 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 7
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4md7cn$8j3@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <318a1a42.3317524@news.pacificnet.net>
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

I am sure that I am regarded with suspicion, even though I have gone out
of my way to present such non-denier bona fides as I can, and even though
I have tried to express sincere sympathy for what the Jewish people lost
in World War Two.  But these postings about rivers of fat are just too
much for me.  How can anyone be so credulous as to believe something like
this?


From ehrlich606@aol.com Fri May 03 09:28:55 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Revise This, Revise That!  Enough Already!
Date: 3 May 1996 11:28:55 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 34
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4md8nn$8qf@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

This is an open letter to the Huber man (homo huber) who e-mail bombed my
newsgroup file with a bunch of stupid posts in the middle of the night.

Cycling through these files I was impressed with their excitability, and
their general lack of even interesting content.  Let's face it, this board
is a SINK in which a lot of subterranean venom is spilled out as therapy. 
No one here is going to change their minds about the facts, unless they
change their attitudes about themselves and the people they are arguing
against.  But that ain't gonna happen!

Therefore, let's at least try to be entertaining and coherent, Huber!  And
your stupid statements which you are obviously fixed on are not worth your
time to write or my time to delete.  For example:

1)  OK, Congress passed a resolution.  What the resolution means is:
"Can't we all just get along?"  How does that correlate with Revisionism? 
Because of PEOPLE LIKE YOU who give skepticism a bad name with tireless
nasty attacks about Jews and Israel.

2)  Elie Wiesel is not my favorite author, and I find many of his insights
trite.  But I also recognize that in the last 10 years since he won the
Nobel he has tried to become a kind of Moral Conscience, and I respect
that, and I respect what he has said about the suffering in the former
Yugoslavia.  Yes, at one time he said some pretty harsh things about
Germany.  I would bet that he would soften them if not eliminate them if
he were confronted with them again.  People change.

3)  Blue smoke = Hungarians, Yellow smoke = Poles.  This kind of detail
confirms my suspicions that all embarrassing posts that are inherently
ridiculous derive from a massive revisionist cache of stupid statements
about the Holocaust which they are always prepared to draw on as a
diversionary tactic.  My advice: get some better writers.

 

From ehrlich606@aol.com Fri May 03 09:29:25 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revenge,alt.revisionism,alt.rhode_island,alt.rissa,alt.rmgroup
Subject: Re: CyberChat // CyberChat // CyberChat // CyberChat // CyberChat
Date: 3 May 1996 11:29:25 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 2
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4md8ol$8qt@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4m9uhq$pqg@kenya.visinet.ca>
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com
Xref: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca alt.revenge:20392 alt.revisionism:84829 alt.rhode_island:16754 alt.rissa:106 alt.rmgroup:228

Uh ... I'm looking for a girl that I can talk about the Holocaust with?


From ehrlich606@aol.com Fri May 03 13:34:04 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!van-bc!news1.vancouver.istar.net!news.vancouver.istar.net!west.news.istar.net!news3.ottawa.istar.net!istar.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Rekindle the ovens, man
Date: 3 May 1996 15:34:04 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 12
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4mdn3c$epi@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark van Alstine has got a good quote from "The Crime Doctor" which
carries a strong implication of gassings at Dachau.  But a couple of
questions:  is the doctor saying "in his opinion" that few of the inmates
"were" or "could have been"? I don't mean to take the words out of the
doctor's mouth, but the primary thrust of that passage is to scotch rumors
that large scale gassings were taking place there, n'est-ce pas?

If your quote of the doctor contradicts someone else's characterization of
him, that is fine.  But I would want to know why there has not been any
consensus among historians hitherto on this subject, along with quotations
from the doctor.  PS:  it would be good to know when the book was written
and published.

From ehrlich606@aol.com Fri May 03 14:53:58 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!torn!nott!bcarh189.bnr.ca!nrchh45.rich.nt.com!news.utdallas.edu!news01.aud.alcatel.com!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Goldhagen's thesis (was Re: Alternate Introductory Systems)
Date: 3 May 1996 16:53:58 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 60
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4mdrp6$gev@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

To sum up:  Ehrlich606 holds that the proper atmosphere of historical
speculation should be value-free, and concerned with cause and effect to
the extent that these can be determined.  Jason Silverman -- in a post
that is much improved over prior communications -- argues that this
"German romantic Heidiggerian" concept doesn't work for everyone.  Mark
van Alstine then stepped in to suggest that ALL history much be informed
with a "moral sense" and cites in this regard John Keegan.  Both of my
opponents in this dispute suggest that value-free speculation is the true
intellectual equivalent of trading baseball cards.

Minor matters first:  Jason, for using the locution "German romantic
Heidiggerian" you are condemned to spend the weekend visualizing Martin
Heidegger and Hannah Arendt in the sack, and Mark, the formula is "to
wit."

I don't deny that our lives should be informed with a moral sense.  Nor do
I deny that history can be used for moral instruction: indeed, that is one
of its main purposes.  When I speak of the "intellectual equivalent of
trading baseball cards" I mean the extent to which kaffeeklatsch
discussions of "responsibility" have little or no relationship to the
facts of history, but are more akin to discussions of whether the 1927
Yankees were a "better" team than the 1955 Brooklyn Dodgers.  Indeed, for
those who are addicted to moral pronouncements, you will find no lack of
them in that discussion!

On the other hand, no one comes to the study of history value-free,
because we all have values.  But we must in the study of history set aside
our values in order to analyze correctly, otherwise we may inadvertently
highlight or suppress evidence which compromises a particularly cherished
notion.  When it therefore comes time to make up our mind, we must have
the integrity and honesty to ourselves to arrive at the conclusion that is
true, and never mind if it conflicts with a preconceived opinion.

On this board, however, and I have had occasion to satirize it, historical
facts are used in a discontinuous manner to score points, feel good,
confirm prejudices.  Probably it could not be otherwise on a Board.  But
that is not "historical inquiry" that IS a kaffeeklatsch.  In graduate
school, you would get thrown out of the seminar room expressing half the
overheated sentiments recorded here.  It is just not professional.  If,
when you sum up, you wish to make a moral appeal -- if you insist -- you
are supposed to use restraint.  And another lesson that I learned:  you
must never phrase a thesis that is a moral judgment -- moral judgments
cannot be tested by evidence.  You may not believe it, but 20 years ago I
was just like you two.

As for John Keegan and the "moral sense" -- in this context he is
castigating Irving for being insensitive, and for carrying the
Hitler-was-like-everyone-else theme so far as to be offensive to many. 
But Keegan's remarks, while very pious, and while an excellent exemplar of
"inclusive" history (e.g., 6 Armies in Normandy), neglects at the same
time the problem of the Soviet Union.  Furthermore,  he is clearly working
from an embattled position: in other words, he really thinks that how we
perceive WW2 has implications for the future of our civilization; so what
he is really saying is that Irving is irresponsible.  But this is
mythopoesis, not history, IMHO.

I can see I have already gone on too long.  I will elaborate another time.
 Regards!
  


From ehrlich606@aol.com Fri May 03 15:13:13 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!news.nstn.ca!news.dal.ca!torn!news.bconnex.net!news.ac.net!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Goldhagen's thesis (was Re: Alternate Introductory Systems)
Date: 3 May 1996 17:13:13 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 12
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4mdst9$gq4@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4mdrp6$gev@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Further on the point of the proper object of historical study:

I think it is a far more important to ask why something happened, than to
ask, who is responsible for this or that thing happening.  A historian who
wants to research "how many" Germans were involved in the Holocaust, or
"how many" Jews were Communists, is, in my view, barking up the wrong
tree.  Of far greater value would be to ask: now, how did these terrible
things happen?  Pursuit of the latter question, I submit, is more likely
to lead to the insights that will prevent a recurrence.

And so it is in real life too: some people like to fix blame, others like
to fix problems.

From ehrlich606@aol.com Sat May 04 15:57:35 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!news.nstn.ca!news.dal.ca!torn!csn!news-1.csn.net!imci3!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Goldhagen's thesis (was Re: Alternate Introductory Sys
Date: 4 May 1996 17:57:35 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 111
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4mgjsf$d5p@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4mes5d$o89@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606) wrote >:
 mcurtis@eden.com (Mike Curtis) wrote::

:How do human beings do this? Your articles do not reflect value-free
:attitudes. 

Yes, and I notice that you are quick to inaccurately judge and snip
posters (are you the resident mohel here?)  Meanwhile, when I provided
exhaustive clarification of my background you failed to get on your knees
and kiss my feet.

> Both of my
>opponents in this dispute suggest that value-free speculation is the true
>intellectual equivalent of trading baseball cards.

:I agree. One can present all sides to an historical event without:
:commenting on the actions of the participants. This would allow the
:participants to speak for themselves.

Precisely my point.

:When one writes a history one wants to present it as it happened with
:the attitdes of the participants included. This in itself is not
:value-free for values are contained within the words of the
:participants. These values are different, in some cases, form our
:modern values.

No kidding!  But presenting a sentiment is not the same thing as solemnly
repeating bromides about how we should love each other or whatnot.

:[snip]

>I don't deny that our lives should be informed with a moral sense.  Nor
do
>I deny that history can be used for moral instruction: indeed, that is
one
>of its main purposes. 

:History, is that which we as the parents of the next generation(simply
:put), want to pass on to that generation.

[skip stupid sermonette about saving the children]

:[snip sports analogy that doesn't work]

Shows me what you know about baseball.

>On the other hand, no one comes to the study of history value-free,
>because we all have values.  But we must in the study of history set
aside
>our values in order to analyze correctly, 

:We do and that is what the discipline is about. Any good historian
:takes all the data in whether he likes it or not and should make use
:of it ALL. This is where integrity comes in. This is where the
:failureof distortionists and deniers mostly lay: they do not take it
:all in. They refuse to use it all. They refuse to move from a to b to
:c in an honest an value-free attitude. 

I am half in agreement with you here.  What you fail to say is that both
sides do it.

>On this board, however, and I have had occasion to satirize it,
historical
>facts are used in a discontinuous manner to score points, feel good,
>confirm prejudices. 

:I see. You want to go back to square 1. Well, some of us can do that.
:Let's go back to 1918 and work our way forward through the social,
:political, and economic record of Germany in a honest fashion.[snip!] 
This board
:has a history older than both our introductions and it is up to you to
:start at the beginning and this is NOT what you did. 

No, that is not what I did. I made a mild initial post and I was attacked
by a guy with a pair of scissors (you).  I posted a generous post about
Three Holocausts and I got no response.  I posted a little piece referring
to some absurdities of the legend, and I get tons of e-mail.  It is a
simple case of supply and demand.

> Probably it could not be otherwise on a Board.  But
>that is not "historical inquiry" that IS a kaffeeklatsch.  In graduate
>school, you would get thrown out of the seminar room expressing half the
>overheated sentiments recorded here.  It is just not professional.  

:When did this board become a graduate history seminar? Where is the
:membership listed as for schaolars only. It'll get real quiet here for
:very few of the deniers are historians or have degrees in the
:discipline.

Do you want to have intelligent debate here or do you just want to shoot
Giwer-trolls in the barrel?

:[snipped more dictations to the group}

Perhaps you just want to play with your scissors.

:[does he want to discuss the USSR or Nazi Germany. We are dealing with
:two separate histories here and two different perspective histories.]

Not as different as you might think.  The only problem is, the larger our
sample, the less easy to deliver anti-semitic or anti-German comments, and
the more the requirements for real synthetic thinking.

:Bah!
 
Bah:  the sound of the impotent gnashing of teeth.  Does not recognize
that the history of the USSR and Nazi Germany are tightly woven.  Probably
doesn't have the qualifications or skills to pursue the comparison anyway.
 If I need a suit made, I will call you.


From ehrlich606@aol.com Sat May 04 17:37:16 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Burning pits
Date: 4 May 1996 19:37:16 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 103
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4mgpnc$ess@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4mf3g3$9f2@atlas.uniserve.com>
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

In <4md7cn$8j3@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
wrote:

>I am sure that I am regarded with suspicion, even though I have gone out
>of my way to present such non-denier bona fides as I can, and even though
>I have tried to express sincere sympathy for what the Jewish people lost
>in World War Two.  But these postings about rivers of fat are just too
>much for me.  How can anyone be so credulous as to believe something like
>this?

Then, hostrov@uniserve.com (Hilary Ostrov) epistolated:

:Mr. Ehrlich606, notwithstanding your self-professed "non-denier bona
:fides ... [and] sincere sympathy", I am somewhat puzzled by your
:reference to "postings about rivers of fat", explicit mention of which
:is not even found in the Moranic Post (tm) to which you were
:apparently responding.

:Strange that an erudite scholar such as you profess to be should
:choose to follow the "straw man" rather than addressing the salient
:points of Mr. Van Alstine's factual post (and Mr. Curtis' confirmation
:thereof) 

:Or perhaps you were simply conflating credulity and antipathy.

Ehrlich606 pedantically responded:

I don't think I am conflating credulity with antipathy, although in the
realm
of circumlocations I think you should stick with close encounters of the
non-ethnic cheeleading kind.

As I followed the string in question, someone asked about burning pits,
and
someone else, I believe it was Mr. Van Alstine, started providing a lot of
specs that I found incredible.  If you think that the expression of
incredulity is synonymous with hostility then you are inviting not only
silence but also indifference to the "historical memory" that you profess
to
be so concerned about.

If I was really out to cause trouble I would have made a bigger stink
about
the "blue smoke = fat Hungarians, etc. etc." type of testimony posted by
El
Huber man the other day.  Puh-leez!

While we are on the subject, I have seen many posts by Nizkorites claiming
that the death tolls at the "Big Six" camps as they stand as of May 4,
1996
have always been the accepted death tolls.  This reminds me of post WW2
Polish historical atlases, which pretend that back in the 9th Century, the
borders of the original Polish state were EXACTLY what they are now.   As
recently as 1974, Dawidowicz was claiming huge numbers at A-B, and 1.2
mill
at Majdanek.  In 1954, Reitlinger argued that the overall death toll was
probably between 2-4 million, and he adduced several plausible reasons
(mainly involving the Soviet Union) why this was likely.  One of the
Nizkor
historians, just as a public service, should recap the extent to which
Gerald
was reamed for this.  Meanwhile, I don't have a problem with six million
victims, German responsibility, and some usage of lethal gas.  So where is
my
"antipathy"?

The fact that there is an ebb and flow to Holocaust studies, that body
counts
go up and down, that overall counts go up and down, that historians judge
much testimony wanting, and demonstrate their judgment by passing over it
in
silence,  that there is not nor has there ever been a complete consensus
on
the meaning of the various documents -- all of this should be well known
to
anyone who has read widely in Modern European history, the history of
World
War 2, the history of the Holocaust or the History of the Soviet Union. 
It
is clear as day to me, and I am not even a specialist on this topic.  I
guess
that must mean that I am "antipathetic."

Only here, on this board, are we presented with a monolithic
interpretation
which supposedly has existed for all time and which will never change for
all
time.  This is absurd.  Anyone the least familiar with historiography
knows
that the interpretations of events change constantly over time, and
ultimately lead to a more or less Procrustean reconciliation of opposites
(cf., the historiography of Charles I/Cromwell, the American Civil War,
the
French Revolution, even to a large extent WW1).  But such a reconciliation
will not take place here, so long as the advocates on both sides are
unwilling to admit mistakes, or insist on maximalist positions.

If this board is going to be a forum where we can -- more or less --
coolly discuss problems of evidence, chronology, participation,
responsibility, and where-do-we-go-from-here's, we can do that. On the
other hand, if this board is going to be a place where "deniers" lie in
ambush for "holohuggers" and vice versa, we can do that to. You pays your
money and you takes your choice.

From ehrlich606@aol.com Sat May 04 18:23:14 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!torn!news.bconnex.net!news.ac.net!imci4!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Historians Debate: Goldhagen a Schmuck? [snip]
Date: 4 May 1996 20:23:14 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 69
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4mgsdi$fma@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

On 2 May 1996, Ehrlich606 wrote>
then Marty Kelley  (mkelley@U.Arizona.EDU) >>

>>I wouldn't be so quick to read this as an utter rejection of Goldhagen, 
>>Mr./Ms. Ehrlich606.  Craig has reservations about Goldhagen's book, but 
>>seems fairly supportive of Goldhagen's basic thesis, as a reading of 
>>Craig's full review will show.  In the context of the full review, it 
>>appears that Craig essentially agrees with much of Goldhagen's analysis,

>>but thinks that Goldhagen should have provided further examples to 
>>support some aspects of that analysis.

>>I haven't found the issue of _NYRB_ that you refer to yet;  
>>I'm assuming that Craig is responding to 
>>a letter about his full review of Goldhagen, which ran in the April 18 
>>issue of the _NYRB_ (#7, pp. 4-8).  I *have* read that review, and while

>>it's certainly not a glowing review of the book, neither does it reject 
>>Goldhagen out of hand, as you imply.

At this point Marty launches into a long but very good review of Craig's
review, warts and all.  Furthermore, he is correct:  I was referring not
to the original review, but to a response to a letter in #9.  Not wanting
to belabor the point, his overall comments are -- in my view -- even more
devastating than the one I quoted. 

[]

>>I invite you to read Craig's full review of _Hitler's Willing 
>>Executioners_.  I'd be interested in hearing your reactions to it.

I have been reading the NYRB every two weeks for 20 years.  A truly trashy
publication, but a good source for the latest lingo, jargon, and academic
hobby horses.  I am glad that they aren't running as many articles about
transexuality, gender transformation, and about how Akhenaten was a
transvestite, or whatever it was Carl Schorske was getting at on that
occasion ....

Anyway, I DID read the initial review, but the review combines a review of
Goldhagen with a review of a book on Jews in Germany:  you have to read
both together to get an accurate account of how Craig feels.  In a couple
of places in the second review he adverts back to Goldhagen in passing.

The only thing I will add is that wanting to solve the "Jewish Problem" is
not equivalent to agreeing to, let alone acclaiming, mass murder.  And
EVERYBODY in those days, even the Jews, recognized that there was a
"Jewish Problem" -- how do you think Zionism got started?  Read Leo
Pinsker's "Auto-Emancipation", which I read in German or Russian but which
I am confident is in English somewhere.

Making a comparison to current events, something I don't like to do, I
have talked to several Jews who feel that the only way to solve the
Palestinian Problem is with resettlement.  The people who say this are
quite decent, and would NEVER condone murder, but they know there is a
problem and they are looking for solutions.  But one thing we learn from
the Holocaust, the expulsions of the Germans, the Bosno-Serbian "ethnic
cleansings" and even the Greek-Turk transfers after WW1, population
transfers always disintegrate into promiscuous violence, even when their
ultimate aim is not ultimate extermination, as it was with the Jewish
Resettlement by the Germans in WW2 (see the Wannsee minutes).

>>Finally, I would note, as I mentioned in my previous reply to your post,

>>that nowhere in the article does Craig call Goldhagen a schmuck.  

ROTFLMAO!

Of course, Craig would never use such language and I never said he did.  I
know a good headline when I see it, and I'd rather be read than dead.

From ehrlich606@aol.com Sun May 05 08:26:36 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Historians Agree: Goldhagen is a Schmuck
Date: 5 May 1996 10:26:36 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 49
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4midqs$qo4@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4mib4v$15ci@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com


In article <4maoeo$e2k@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ehrlich606@aol.com
(Ehrlich606) said >

and then Gord McFee said >>

>
>A week ago I posted a review of Goldhagen's Book, "Hitler's Willing
>Executioners", castigating the obvious anti-German bias of this foolish
>book.
>I further pointed out that the one of main problems with the book is that
>thesis was a-historical, because it was subjective.  No one responded to
>that review, because moderately worded entries never get responses on
THIS
>board.

>>I for one did not see the post.  Allow me to say now that your analysis
is
>>wrong.  The thesis is not a-historical, although it may be wrong.

I still maintain that the thesis -- that an "eliminationist ideology" had
seized the minds of the German people cannot be anything BUT a-historical.
 Reading minds can be supposed, much intellectual history consists of
this.  But to extrapolate from a few texts what G. thinks was on
everyone's mind is a no-no.  The most that can be said is that the mind
set of a typical German might have been such and so, or that some Germans
would have had thoughts like this.  Note the qualifications!  But G. does
not qualify, or meet his thesis.  How could he?

>Gordon Craig, professor emeritus at Stanford, in the latest New York
>Review
>of Books (p. 52, Number 9) writes:  "My reservations are rooted in the
>fact
>that G. argues a case that requires historical proof if it is to be
>accepted
>with almost no reference to historical evidence."  -- Nice to know a
heavy
>hitter is on the side of truth and justice, AKA my side.

>>Professor Craig is not supporting your position--he is disagreeing with
>>Goldhaegen's *methodology*.  

Nevertheless, I must demur.  "reservations rooted ... requires historical
proof ... with almost no reference to historical evidence" is, I submit,
merely a polite and subtle way of saying what I said.





From ehrlich606@aol.com Sun May 05 08:29:02 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!van-bc!news.rmii.com!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Goldhagen's thesis (was Re: Alternate Introductory Sys
Date: 5 May 1996 10:29:02 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 98
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4midve$qpu@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4mib4o$2p4c@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

(Ehrlich606) said:
gmcfee said: >>

>As to question #2, I think that discussion of _respnsibility_ ( a less
>loaded term than "blame") is indeed a valid focus of historical inquiry. 


>Ehrlich606 responds:

>For the life of me, I cannot understand how a discussion of
responsibility
>is a legitimate focus of historical inquiry, unless:  a) one wants to get
>someone to pay for something (e.g., Article 231 of Versailles Treaty), b)
>one wants to identify with a larger group and by "historical inquiry" be
>empowered to feel morally superior to some other larger group, or c) one
>wants to indulge oneself in the intellectual equivalent of trading
>baseball cards.

>>Would you not agree that a study of responsibility is indeed very
germane to
>>the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany between the two world wars?  One
of
>>the great debates amongst historians is precisely on the point of the
extent
>>to which clause 231 of the Versailles Treaty was right or wrong. 
Certainly
>>Hitler used the "guilt clause" extensively in his speeches and
propaganda,
>>right to the end.

Here I must differ.  The question is not whether article 231 is right or
wrong.  The question is whether -- ideologically -- it increased
resentment among the German people.  I have skipped the financial
implications of the article, because they were never met.

>>Real historical research requires understanding of cause and effect and
>>responsibility is an essential part of that enquiry.

I agree with you here.

>Historical responsibility, because of its semantic content, is even
harder
>to establish than historical causes.  But establishing historical chains
>of cause and effect are always speculative, and the best historians
>recognize this.  That is why the only historians that we remember and
>continue to consult are those who put questions of responsibility and
>cause and effect far enough in the background so as to make it possible
>for the content of primary source material to shine through.

>>You are confusing primary documentation and research with
historiography. 
>>They are not the same thing.  The historian must attempt to interpret,
or
>>else he has simply recited facts, and that is no help to anyone.  One
does
>>not empirically establish cause and effect--one interprets events.

>>Would you suggest that Gibbons and Thucydides did deal with cause and
effect
>>and responsibility?  I would hope not.  Gibbons in particular has it as
one
>>of the main elements of his work.  Would you happen to know what that
theme
>>is?

Gord, you mean "Gibbon", who tried to attribute the Fall of the Roman
Empire to Christianity.  But nobody reads Gibbon anymore!  Nobody reads
MaCaulay either, who had an even greater bias but who was a much better
writer!  However, when we do research and we reference secondary works, we
do not consult these historians.

And, again, I am not denying that a mere chronology is effective.  There
is no structure.  That is why I believe that the structure should suit the
primary material the historian is trying to put forth.  Which is why I
referenced Dilthey.   

>But to look for "responsibility" for an event, IMHO, overloads the
>investigative enterprise.  It is a moral judgment.  But as Schiller so
>aptly put it, "Die Weltgeschichte is die Weltgericht"  i.e., the history
>of the world is its OWN moral judgment.

>>I believe Schiller said: "Die Weltgeschichte ist das Weltgericht". 
There is
>>nothing there about a *moral* judgement.  It simply means that the
history
>>of the world is the world's judgment.  And it would seem that such a
>>statement requires an analysis of responsibility, does it not?

You got me on the Schiller, I was quoting from memory and recalled the
gender fault too late.  But I believe that what the quote means -- as a
kind of pre-Hegelianism -- is that what happens happens because it is
meant to happen.  Remember that Schiller made the statement (I believe) in
the Fall after the storming of the Bastille.  But in that case we are
talking about God, or Fate, or karma, we are not talking about
individuals, who, by simply doing this or that, could have changed the
broad course of history.  As I age, the wisdom of the later conception
seems -- alas! -- clearer to me.


From ehrlich606@aol.com Sun May 05 08:47:03 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Historians Debate: Goldhagen a Schmuck? [snip]
Date: 5 May 1996 10:47:03 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 45
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4mif17$r3f@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com


In article <4mgsdi$fma@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ehrlich606@aol.com
(Ehrlich606) wrote:>

 rich@c2.org (Rich Graves)>>

> The only thing I will add is that wanting to solve the "Jewish Problem"
is
> not equivalent to agreeing to, let alone acclaiming, mass murder.  And
> EVERYBODY in those days, even the Jews, recognized that there was a
> "Jewish Problem" -- how do you think Zionism got started?  Read Leo
> Pinsker's "Auto-Emancipation", which I read in German or Russian but
which
> I am confident is in English somewhere.

>>I don't have a problem with Jews. I don't think Jews have a problem with
>>me. What's the problem?

>>What was the problem, exactly? Did "everyone" agree on what the problem
>>was?

The problem, or "Question" (Judenfrage) was simply this:  with the
destruction of the Kingdom of Poland, the Ashkenazi Jews found themselves
in one of three empires (Germany, Austria, and Russia) which were
interested in having the Jews assimilate to their nations so that the
"machinery of government would run more smoothly" (ref. to JS Mill), and
that involved putting the Jews in the grip of bureaucracies that were
intolerant of Halachic restrictions and observances, freedom of worship,
and much else besides, and which were also antagonistic if not hateful to
Jews in the first place.

The issue for Jews was:  how do we survive as Jews?  By assimilation?
(Moses Mendelssohn), By founding our own state? (Pinsker) By Zionism?
(Theodor Herzl), By reforming our religion to adjust to the Gentile world?
(NB: conservatism and reformed Judaism both arose in Germany for these
reasons), By abandoning Judaism and embracing Christianity?  By abandoning
Judaism and embracing something ELSE? (Ethical Humanism, Socialism,
Kantianism, Nationalism, etc.) By emigration to the United States?  By
retreating into our own world?  (note that 90% of the 3 Million Polish
Jews in 1939 still spoke Yiddish as their mother tongue -- an index of
retreat or non-assimilation.  Note also that survival rates APPEAR to have
been higher among assimilated Jews overall (cf. Budapest Jews versus
Transylvanian Jews, Hungarian Jews versus Polish Jews) but this is a VERY
controversial topic.


From ehrlich606@aol.com Sun May 05 12:24:25 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A serial Leuchter
Date: 5 May 1996 14:24:25 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 47
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4mirop$215@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4mi5hm$4d9@access1.digex.net>
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:

   > So if homicidal gassing with cyanide is really so dangerous why does
>delousing cyanide suddenly become safe to vent at ground level?  Is this
>more "evil intelligence" on the part of the cyanide, where it gets nasty
>after killing someone but is peaceful after killing lice?  (Sorry, I
>forgot, I said I would be serious.)  :) 

   >The point I am making is that much of what is done in US executions
>seems to be going far beyond what is _really_ needed for safety.

Personally, I don't think the issue is whether or not homicidal gassing is
dangerous, while delousing gassing is benign.  Fumigations (for which
Zyklon
B were designed) can take up to 3 days for deep-down infestations, and
houses
are to be cleared room by room over the course of up to several hours.  My
guess is that the barracks usage of Zyklon followed such a timetable.  If
a
barracks was therefore cleared of all of its gas in fifteen minutes with
large
fans to make room for inhabitants it would follow that the concentrations
outside of the barracks could be at least momentarily harmful. 

Those who insist on very high death rates via Zyklon B gassings (as
opposed
to very high death rates from a combination of factors) must therefore, I
guess, assert that the German program for extermination insisted upon
overriding safety precautions so that their victims would die from Zyklon
B
inhalation, rather than from other means.  Otherwise, the Germans could
have
pursued their known homicidal agenda by simply penning the extra inmates
at
A-B into barbed wire enclosures and allowing them to die from hunger and
exposure.  Such was the fate of countless Soviet POWs.

But please note that these kinds of issues are only important for those
who insist a) that no gassings took place, or, b) that mindboggling
amounts of gassings took place at specific locations.  Those of us who
accept the principle of lethal gassings, but who have no vested interest
in defending either a number of zero per day or 20,000 per day don't have
a problem.  

   



From ehrlich606@aol.com Sun May 05 13:47:12 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: The word "anti-Semitic" (theorem)
Date: 5 May 1996 15:47:12 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 28
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4mj0k0$3be@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4miv7u$3no@moe.cc.emory.edu>
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com
Xref: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca alt.politics.white-power:59061 alt.revisionism:85413 soc.culture.jewish:248372

Subject: Re: The word "anti-Semitic" (theorem)
From: libwca@curly.cc.emory.edu (william c anderson)
Date: 5 May 1996 19:23:42 GMT
Message-ID: <4miv7u$3no@moe.cc.emory.edu>

Bud (budwrite@niven.imsweb.net) wrote:

: What you are trying 
: to do is ignore some of the truth in his statement.  I suggest you read
a 
: copy of a book recently published in Australian entitled "The Hand That 
: Signed the Paper."  A graphic book telling about some of the atrocities 
: done in Russian under "some" Jews leadership.  

: libwca@curly.cc.emory.edu (william c anderson) replied:

>>Excuse me--is this another "Stalin was secretly Jewish" argument?  If 
>>so, I'm going to need to see some proof before we continue.

No, it is not an argument about Stalin being Jewish.  Consult the
literature on Soviet History, reference "anti-semitism" and you will find
ample reference to Jews (in the ethnic sense, of course) who occupied high
places in the government of the Soviet Union (at least until 1938, when
many were purged, because Stalin was an anti-semite.)  But as I said
elsewhere, Jews are no more accountable as a group for such (ethnic) Jews,
than Germans are accountable as a group for what other Germans may have
done.


From ehrlich606@aol.com Mon May 06 09:57:32 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Zyklone B - Unlikely Agent
Date: 6 May 1996 11:57:32 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 86
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4ml7hc$oh4@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com


> mvanalst@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
 
> >GIWER HEAD-UP-ASS ALERT: What is most amazing is that Giwer, after
being
> >told about the killiing operations by the Einsatzgruppen in the East,
the
> >preparations for Aktion Reinhard, the Wetzel-Lohse letter, Ho"ss's
> >memoirs, and Eichmann's interrogation- all of which indicate that
either
> >systematic killing took place or was in planning prior to the Wannsee
> >Conference -continues to bleat that the "official" Nazi policy in
regards
> >to the Jewish Question prior to the Wannsee Conference was merely
> >"emigration to the east." Truly it is hard to imagine a person being
this
> >dense. Mr. Curtis's observation that Giwer is like a huge rock is quite
> >apropo, as a huge rock approaches Giwer's intellectual density. 
> 
>         You refuse to answer questions.

Although it is true in many languages that repetition is the mother of
learning, the constant repetitions of the above paragraph in this post,
are not, IMHO, very instructive.

I would think that there is certainly enough latitude for interpretation
on the issue of the significance of the Wannsee minutes that we could
discuss this without going crazy.  After all, some historians think that
the "Final Solution" began with Goering's famous letter of July, 1941,
other think that it began with the Commissar Order of the month before,
Lucy Dawidowicz opined that the Madagascar Plan was a "code word" for mass
murder, and so on.

Yes, it would appear that Jews were killed or died in large numbers before
the Wannsee Conference.  Although we refer to the Holocaust in a global
sense to describe the destruction of the (mostly) East European community,
that doesn't mean that every Jew who was killed or who died perished on
the basis of their ethnicity or their religion.  To argue that every
single Jew who died in WW2 died as a result of a German master plan is,
IMHO, simply pushing the meager documentary evidence we have too far.

For example, I am sure that some Jews died in the crossfire, some Jews
died in reprisals, some Jews died in combat, some Jews died engaged in
partisan activities, and some Jews died because they were intellectuals
(cf. the Polish intelligentsia). I am also relatively sure that some died
because they were affiliated with the Communist Party (ref. the Commissar
Order), and that still others were killed by local populations (Latvians,
Lithuanians, Ukrainians) without any prompting from the Germans.

The turning point, or so it would seem to me, is when the Germans/Nazis
stopped killing Jews because they believed they were communists, and
started killing them just because they were Jews -- in an ethnic or racial
sense.  That turning point, it seems to me, can be dated to Aktion
Reinhardt, which naturally comes after Wannsee because it came after
Heydrich's assassination.  And, precisely because it comes after
Heydrich's assassination, I think one could easily suggest that the Aktion
took on a completely different character than originally envisioned at the
Wannsee Conference.

The minutes to the Wannsee Conference are explicit:  the Jews are to be
expelled beyond the borders of the General Gouvernment and broken up into
single sex labor gangs.  Cutting through the euphemism, they are to serve
as slave laborers until they die.  Cutting through another euphemism,
those that survive should probably be exterminated.

There: the document says EXACTLY what is says.  Moreover, there is plenty
of corroboration to the document: populations were gathered, expelled,
concentrated into ghettoes, and drawn off for labor (and, yes, early in
the process, drawn off for extermination).  There were several ghettoes
and labor camps in Eastern Europe within and beyond the General
Gouvernment right up to the Summer of 1944.

There is also plenty of corroboration for the fact that the implementation
of the Wannsee minutes exceeded the original plan, e.g., labor draw offs
that end in extermination camps, population relocations that end in mass
shootings near railheads, etc. etc.

Historians have spent 50 years looking for the "smoking gun" articulating
the German/Nazi program for genocide.  I submit that it has been under our
nose the whole time:  right there in the Wannsee minutes.  Why do we have
to insist otherwise, refer to oral orders that we have no evidence were
ever given, push documents to say what they do not say?  And why do we
have to get so upset about differences of opinion?




From ehrlich606@aol.com Mon May 06 10:27:56 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Nizkor searching
Date: 6 May 1996 12:27:56 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 46
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4ml9ac$p1b@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4mk2d4$nja@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il>
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com


Laura Finsten (finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca) wrote:

:>Thank God.  For a moment I thought maybe I was/am Ehrlich606, whose
gender
:>hasn't even been determined yet.

: I think it is pretty safe to guess that Ehrlich is male.

>>It is probably pretty safe to guess that Ehrlich's *sex* is male, but 
>>Ehrlich's *gender* remains to be determined.  I vote for neuter (das
>>Ehrlich, des Ehrlichs, dem Ehrlich, das Ehrlich).

>>Richard Schultz  


Who, ME?  Although in the 10 days since my discovery of this board I have
attempted to remain au courant I must admit that I had no idea that my
identity had become such a topic for discussion.

Under normal circumstances I would have had no problem in emerging from my
commodious, pile carpeted, and oak paneled hall closet to reveal my true
identity.  It never occurred to me that there was anything wrong with
pseudonyms, since I have used a variety of same under non-Internet
auspices for some time (there is a family harmony issue here.)  Yet I will
admit that, given the vehemence of expression characteristic of this
forum, I see nothing to be gained by instructing my servants to type my
real name at the end of these little missives.

I can assure you all that I would not be Doubting Thomas, nor he be me. 
OTOH, I may be a doubting Thomas, but that does not make me he.  Are you
as confused as I am now?

Since so much of this board involves projections of attitudes onto others,
I am tempted to remain anonymous permanently, just to see what other
identities or characteristics are projected onto me.  Perhaps I am Howard
Hughes, or a Space Alien, or maybe I am just an undergraduate sociology
student writing a paper on projections to be derived by using a pseudonym
on alt.rev. Qui le sait?

Best Regards!  --  Ehrlich606






From ehrlich606@aol.com Mon May 06 14:33:59 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!news.nstn.ca!coranto.ucs.mun.ca!news.unb.ca!torn!csn!news-1.csn.net!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 960505: Jamie's response acked; Toronto conference on postwar occupation
Date: 6 May 1996 16:33:59 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 140
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4mlnnn$uo@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4mjoof$jdh@news.enter.net>
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com


>   ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606) writes:

and  yawen@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken) responds>>
>  
>  
>  It is evident that the respondent has been appropriately programmed to
>  consider the activities of the Western Allies as being morally
scrupulous
>  and imbued with justice and democracy.  He makes no mention of the
forced
>  expulsion of several millions of Germans after WW2, whose ethnic
cleansing
>  from Eastern Europe was no less severe than the "cleansing" of Jews,
>  except that there was not a planned homicidal agenda.

>>this is a fairly significant difference.  Almost the kind of analogy
that 
>>Giwer would make.  The question of why the Germans were relocated is an 
>>interesting one.  I don't think there is an instance where such
relocations
>>are not a tragedy.  The open question is whether the cure is worse than
the disease.
>>In the long run the tragedy of the relocation was a lesser tragedy than
a replay
>>of WWII.  Note that the failure to relocate lead Northern Ireland,
Bosnia, and 
>>Lebanon.

The question is not merely "interesting" although in this case
"interesting" is being used as a means of isolating the expulsions to the
realm of museum curiosities. Similarly, the use of the word "tragedy"
implies that no one was to blame.  Hey, you can't say that on this board! 
To say that it is an "open question whether the cure is worse than the
disease", means, I guess, that you consider population expulsions a
realistic proposal for solving ethnic problems.  But I would maintain that
such a position is antithetical to individual rights, as well as to the
concept of tolerance.

>  These expulsions
>  were carried out with extreme violence and brutality, did nothing to
stop
>  them. 

>>Nonsense.

[Note: I had meant to say .... the Allies did nothing stop them .... but
that statement was snipped in the transfer.  Overstatement? Perhaps.  But
once the decision was made by the Allies together there was no turning
back.  Moreover, YFE's non-response leads me to assume that he is denying
the first, intact, clause.]

Generally speaking, disyllabic obiter dicta are not convincing.  You may
perhaps wish to elaborate, beginning with a refutation of Victor Gollancz'
writings on the subject, starting with "In Darkest Germany" and continuing
on to such widely available books from the past ten years as "In the Ruins
of the Reich."  I suppose you may also wish to call Vaclav Havel to
account, who, in his capacity as President of Czechoslovakia, publicly
apologized for the manner in which the expulsions of the Sudeten Germans
was carried out.

In addition, there was a great deal of  witness testimony recorded by the
then West German Government on the Expulsions.  (Three volumes, at least,
are available in English.)  You may also choose to deny the veracity of
this testimony, if you like.

>  
>  There are those who fancy that Nazism grew peculiarly out of the German
>  tradition, and that no one else could have ever achieved it.  Get Real!

>  The roots of National Socialism lay in attitudes common to all
Europeans,
>  and, indeed, in attitudes still prevalent among many in Western
>  Civilization.  The difference between freedom and justice and the
Nazis? 
>  It is the difference of whether or not you choose to recognize yourself
in
>  the mirror.

>>That, of course, is the riddle of the Holocaust.  If the same root 
>>caused existed in France, in England, and in Italy,  then there must be
some 
>>explanation as to why they happened in Germany.  Yet whenever someone 
>>asks that question (Goldhagen, for example) the knee-jerk naziphiles
start 
>>screaming.

The reason why the Germans perpetrated the Holocaust, as opposed to
France, England, or Italy, is because of what Bismarck said:  "My map of
Africa lies in the East."  Then you should read about Leopold II's Belgian
Congo, Roger Casement's role in exposing colonial atrocities in the late
19th Century, Britain's activities in India, China, and South Africa,
France's activities in Algeria, Indochina, and elsewhere in Africa, and
Italy in Ethiopia.  None of these cases even involved colonization, just
pure economic exploitation.  But I guess everybody does these things, so
no big deal.

Then you should reflect on what happens when non-German colonists confront
populations whose land they covet -- and you have the history of the
United States.  Of course, the various massacres and expulsions that
occurred here ("Trail of Tears," et al.) as well as the peculiar
institution upon which this nation's early wealth was built (African
American slavery) are just plain old run of the mill bad things, anybody
would do them.

I also note that you do not reference the Soviet Union, whose expulsions
and mass murders were defined both along racial and ethnic lines (e.g.,
Volga Germans, Crimean Tartars) but also on economic lines ("kulaks" --
which essentially involved large numbers of Ukrainians).  But again, let
such things not detain us.

The riddle of the Holocaust lies in this: that it was the first time that
a significant minority  was essentially wiped out IN EUROPE since the time
of the Albigensians and the Catharii. But, mutatis mutandis, I do not
believe that the German program was of an order of wickedness
incommensurable to the actions of other Europeans ELSEWHERE at analogous
times.

Yet one rarely find large heavy books with pompous theses about how
"colonialist ideologies" or "dominationist idelogies" took over the
British or Russian mind.  When such books are produced they are about as
useful as doorstops as Mr. Goldhagen's.

Whereas Mr. Goldhagen finds himself in the midst of a veritable cottage
industry of social scientists, each arriving at a fancy theory about how
the Germans are uniquely bad, and the Holocaust thus uniquely evil.  (See
my post, "Three Holocausts" for my take on that aspect of the Holocaust's
uniqueness)  All such attempts involve some hypostasis of mental
attitudes, a technique which in itself  is a throwback to German Romantic
metaphysics (Fichte, Schelling, Hegel -- Seidel's book is in fact an
excellent intro), and these hypostases are allowed to internally evolve
like big fat clouds in a child's imagination, metamorphosizing from a dog,
to a cat, to a giraffe, and finally to an ideology of necessary evil.  And
all the while the cloud just rolls along, high above the earth, which is
to say -- high above human experience or empirical evidence!






From ehrlich606@aol.com Mon May 06 14:37:02 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!news.nstn.ca!coranto.ucs.mun.ca!news.unb.ca!torn!news3.ottawa.istar.net!istar.net!news1.ottawa.istar.net!news.ottawa.istar.net!winternet.com!mr.net!news.mr.net!cdshub.cdc.com!sloc223.cds.sloc.net!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Rekindling Ovens:  Dachau Gassings?
Date: 6 May 1996 16:37:02 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 23
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4mlnte$11i@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com


In a message dated 96-05-05 05:49:21 EDT, Ehrlich 606 wrote:


>>Mark van Alstine has got a good quote from "The Crime Doctor" which
>>carries a strong implication of gassings at Dachau.  But a couple of
>>questions:  is the doctor saying "in his opinion" that few of the
inmates
>>"were" or "could have been"? I don't mean to take the words out of the
>>doctor's mouth, but the primary thrust of that passage is to scotch
rumors
>>that large scale gassings were taking place there, n'est-ce pas?
>>
>>If your quote of the doctor contradicts someone else's characterization
of
>>him, that is fine.  But I would want to know why there has not been any
>>consensus among historians hitherto on this subject, along with
quotations
>>from the doctor.  PS:  it would be good to know when the book was
written
>>and published.
>>
>

From ehrlich606@aol.com Mon May 06 15:35:44 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!news.nstn.ca!news.dal.ca!torn!csn!news-1.csn.net!imci3!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Grand gas experiment
Date: 6 May 1996 17:35:44 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 8
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4mlrbg$2fa@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark:

You seem to be one of a few historians who consider this kind of flip-flop
credible.  I do not.  Neither do many mainstream historians.  Let's face
it, Hoess has a bad rep as a witness.

OK, so don't face it.


From ehrlich606@aol.com Tue May 07 02:39:28 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!van-bc!news1.io.org!winternet.com!news1.ottawa.istar.net!news.ottawa.istar.net!news3.ottawa.istar.net!istar.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 960505: Jamie's response acked; Toronto conference on postwar occupation
Date: 7 May 1996 04:39:28 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 277
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4mn280$hjp@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4mmopi$fh8@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com


In article <4mlnnn$uo@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ehrlich606@aol.com
(Ehrlich606) wrote:

and mvanalst@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine) responds: >>

Mark Van Alstine:

>>Also of "interest" is your semantic interpretation of the meaning of
>>"tragic" in this context. As I see it, the use of "tragic" can be
>>understood in one of two ways: As in ancient (i.e Greek) drama where an
>>unhappy or disasterous ending is brought about by fate or character
flaw;
>>or, as in the modern dramatic context, by moral weakness, physchological
>>maladjustment, or social pressures, etc. Personally, I prefer the modern
>>dramatic context in this case, as I'm somewhat discinclined to blame
fate,
>>as I'm particularly fond about the idea of free will, and am disinclined
>>to place the scope of human activities wholly on the doorstep of
>>determinism. 

The use of quotations to indicate irony is getting out of hand here.  The
concept of tragedy is in both cases the same: some cause, internal or
external, over which voluntarism has only fitful control.  "Fate" is just
the grab bag term for the same thing, just as character flaw is identical
to moral weakness, psychological maladjustment and so forth.

Since you are an aficionado of free will, and I am not surprised that you
are, it seems to me that you must reject either conception of tragedy. (I
am well aware that the definitions of tragedy in the ancient and modern
contexts as we are using them are really quite inadequate.)

Ehrlich606:

 >There are those who fancy that Nazism grew peculiarly out of the German
 >tradition, and that no one else could have ever achieved it.  Get Real! 
 >The roots of National Socialism lay in attitudes common to all
Europeans,
 >and, indeed, in attitudes still prevalent among many in Western 
 >Civilization.  The difference between freedom and justice and the Nazis?

 >It is the difference of whether or not you choose to recognize yourself
 >in the mirror.

Mark Van Alstine:

>>I would call this a gross over-simplification of the problem. The roots
of
>>National Socialism were _political_ anti-Semitism and German Volkdom.
>>There is, arguably a vague similarity, for instance, in the roots of
>>American Slavery and "Manifest Destiny." The ameliorative difference,
IMO,
>>was that the U.S. was deeply influenced by the Enlightenment and was
able
>>to, eventually, to overcome (to a great degree) the evils of both on its
>>own (with much American blood shed in the case of Slavery).

What I am saying in the above paragraph is really no different than Gord
McFee's assertion that we are all responsible for the Holocaust, except
that I am leaving the "responsibility" part out.  I also think the roots
of Nazism were more varied than you put out.  I further have to say that I
consider Anti-Semitism a species of racism, and Volkdom [this is not a
good translation!] a species of nationalism.  My point is that I think
that racism and nationalism are still with us and could still combine into
the same explosive mixture.

As to the ameliorative difference between the US and Germany, what did the
Enlightenment have to do with Abolitionism?  As if John Brown was reading
Rousseau instead of Isaiah!  The case could just as easily be made that
Slavery was put to ground because of a religious re-awakening in the
1840's, which means Christianity, and it is rare to see religion discussed
in terms of the Enlightenment, or, one could reference Transcendentalism,
which was in fact German Romantic Philosophy.  You might want to reference
Emerson or Thoreau in this regard.

Mark Van Alstine:

>>Germany was not. Germay was deeply influenced by Romanticism and only
under the >>French was it dragged, kicking and screaming, into the
Enlightenment. In fact,
>>Germany starting in 1800's became recividistic, chafing under the
>>political and social liberalizations emposed by the French. It was in
the
>>social/economic upheavals of the 1870's that the seeds of political
>>anti-Semtism and German Volkdon were sown. 

Come again?  Don't confuse the interioriety of Sturm und Drang with the
pantheism and state-sponsored Christianity of "Romanticism" -- although
you would help your case for ideologies determining history (I thought you
believed in free will?) if you would cite philosophers by name, along with
the concepts that you consider most operative.  Kicking and screaming you
say?  No, the Germans were afraid of an orgy of violence such as took
place in the Terror -- the Enlightenment run amok.  They sought to
interpose aesthetics as a means for meliorating the rifts in German
society, precisely because they did not have the mechanisms for doing it
politically, and because they were fearful of revolution.  That is the
message of Beethoven's D minor symphony, with Schiller's Ode as text.  

Kicking and screaming?  That does not explain the popularity of Kantian
philosophy. It does not explain the popularity of Kantian philosophy among
new Jewish immigrants to Germany.  German national identity arose in this
period as a response to a "French fried" culture that most Germans found
corrupt; and let's also grant that the Germans were tired of being pushed
around by the French.  Nobody embraced this German national identity more
fervently than the recently emancipated Jews and the immigrants who
continued in a steady stream from the East.  Now THAT'S a tragedy.
 
> The reason why the Germans perpetrated the Holocaust, as opposed to
> France, England, or Italy, is because of what Bismarck said:  "My map of
> Africa lies in the East."  Then you should read about Leopold II's
Belgian
> Congo, Roger Casement's role in exposing colonial atrocities in the late
> 19th Century, Britain's activities in India, China, and South Africa,
> France's activities in Algeria, Indochina, and elsewhere in Africa, and
> Italy in Ethiopia.  None of these cases even involved colonization, just
> pure economic exploitation.  But I guess everybody does these things, so
> no big deal.

>>The salient question, of course, is did they also carry out a
>>state-sponsored progrom of genocide? Not only against non-citizens, but
>>their own citizens as well? And where they as widly successful at it as
>>the nazis were? 

I don't have time to write a book on the subject!  No, they did not
involve genocide (except perhaps, in South Africa) because colonization
was not an issue.  Their activities DID involve, IMHO, a contempt for life
commensurable to Nazism due to the racism and national arrogance of the
parties involved.  On the subject of "own citizens"  -- I confess a
certain irrationality on this subject -- but the vilest thing the Nazis
did, IMHO,  was to kill their own Jews, who had given themselves to
Germany.  However, I submit that if you analyze the process the German
Jews were mostly caught in the cross fire.  You know the evidence about
Germans hesitant to turn in their own Jews, Kube's reluctance to kill them
in Minsk, the special exceptions made to German Jews here and there, and
so forth as well as, and probably even better than I do!  Furthermore,
racist literature of the '30's invariably focussed on "Ostjuden", i.e.,
non-assimilated Eastern Jews.

As to being wildly successful, there are two points.  Technology is one,
and by that I do not mean the technology of the gas chamber so much as the
technology of the machine gun.  Second, the Germans were not alone in
wanting to get rid of the Jews in Eastern Europe, because all the people
in Eastern Europe had imbibed these phony ideas about homogeneous nation
states where everyone followed the same calendar, judicial system, school
system, and spoke the same language.  Whether that is an Enlightenment
concept or not, I will let someone else decide.

>Then you should reflect on what happens when non-German colonists
confront
> populations whose land they covet -- and you have the history of the
> United States.  Of course, the various massacres and expulsions that
> occurred here ("Trail of Tears," et al.) as well as the peculiar
> institution upon which this nation's early wealth was built (African
> American slavery) are just plain old run of the mill bad things, anybody
> would do them.

>>Being admittedly somewhat biased in this regard, you will forgive me for
>>saying that is purile nonsense? Admittedly, there was a pogrom of forced
>>ethnic expulsion against Native Americans. Often bloody and often
>>duplicitious. There were instances of atrocities (on both sides). There
>>was, however, no systamatic state-sponsored pogrom of genocide.
(Inclusive
>>of the myth of the handing of out of smallpox "infected" blankets to the
>>Indians.) Was this a moral failure on American leadership? Yes. On the
>>American people? Yes. But pre-meditated genocide? No. 

I don't know what your bias may be, since I was born in the United States
and served my nation with pride.  I guess you consider it "puerile" to
suggest that [nationalist chauvinism + racism = reckless disregard for
human life] has no applicability to the American context, which is all
that I am saying here?  Also, pogrom is not equal to program -- but I
assume your fingers are tired.  Not premeditated genocide?  You should
have done public relations work for General "The only good Indian is a
dead Indian" Hancock.

>>And there's the difference, so you can stop trying to find (im)moral
>>equivalency, as there is none. 

On the contrary, there is NO difference.  You want to assert that their is
a difference, because on the one hand you want the Holocaust to be
absolutely unique, but on the other hand you claim that you want no
Holocausts in the future.  Isn't that part of the whole idea, or are you
just an antiquarian?  I am saying that if you want no Holocausts in the
future you have to define the uniqueness of the Jewish Holocaust in terms
other than the ones you have been using so far, so that you can step back,
and precipitate out the factors that were common to the Jewish Holocaust
and which still obtain in Western Civilization.  Needless to say, that
means the threat of future Holocausts involves others besides Jews.

> I also note that you do not reference the Soviet Union, whose expulsions
> and mass murders were defined both along racial and ethnic lines (e.g.,
> Volga Germans, Crimean Tartars) but also on economic lines ("kulaks" --
> which essentially involved large numbers of Ukrainians).  But again, let
> such things not detain us.

>>Well, being as this is a newsgroup basically dedicated to Holocaust
>>revisionism, I'm not terribly suprised it was not brought up. Nor am I
>>terribly suprised when people try to show (im)moral equivalency of
>>Stalin's atrocities to Hilter's Final Solution. Generally, it is
Holocaust
>>deniers who attempt this in an effort of white-wshing Nasizm. I would
>>certainly hope this was not your intent? 

The first two sentences are confused.  Are you surprised, or are you not
surprised?  I will grant you that some invoke Soviet atrocities to
distract our attention from Nazi atrocities.  Others invoke Holocaust
denial to distract our attention from the similarities between the conduct
of the Soviet Union and Germany from the mid-20's forward.  OTOH, I think
these similarities are pregnant with significance, at least to those who
really don't want to see a repetition of the Holocaust.  Surely, that is
not your intent?

>>The historical/political/social/moral issues of Soviet
atrocities/genocide
>>are certainly  legitimate ones. I do fail, however, to see what it has
to
>>do specifically with the Holocaust or the Nazi perpetration of it. I'm
>>sure there are other newsgroups dedicated to it....

I guess you must be getting tired, or maybe you just want me to go away! 
If you know of a newsgroup where earnest discussions of European history
are allowed please send me the address.  OTOH, if you just want to get
into street fights with Giwer-troll or Tom Moran that is also fine.  Don't
worry:  I can see that there is a predictable orthodoxy on this board and
I will be leaving you alone soon.  I will however reserve the right to
post my thoughts on this topic, analogous topics, and German Jewish
history as I dredge up insights I find worthwhile.  And you in turn have
the right to ignore them.

As to the content of your paragraph above,  I am not arguing tu quoque,
that is, that because the Soviets did similar things it's OK that the
Germans did what they did.  On the contrary!  I am saying that two
different nations, with two different ideologies, fighting over the same
turf in two world wars, and in preparation for the second of these wars,
did similar things to their own and subject populations.  It seems to me
that this is very important for those who take the Holocaust seriously.

OTOH, if I wanted to play around I could tweak you about the fact that no
one plays the blame game on the Soviet side.  Historians don't write books
about the failings of the Russian character, or hold Soviet artists,
authors, or musicians responsible for actions taken by political leaders
50 years ago.  While, as we well know, such books about Germans are a
staple of the book trade.  

> The riddle of the Holocaust lies in this: that it was the first time
that
> a significant minority  was essentially wiped out IN EUROPE since the
time
> of the Albigensians and the Catharii. But, mutatis mutandis, I do not
> believe that the German program was of an order of wickedness
> incommensurable to the actions of other Europeans ELSEWHERE at analogous
> times.

>>Perhaps and perhaps not. What the Holocaust was however, IMO, a moral
and
>>philosophical frontal assalt on the foundations of the Enlightenment,
and
>>by implication, on modern Western Civilization. 

I will agree to that!  But it was not the only such assault, the
contemporaneous Soviet actions being similarly anti-Enlightenment.

>>Perhaps. (Though I find Mr. Goldhagen's book for from being a doorstop.)
>>However, you are begining to sound a bit pompus yourself. Beware of
>>casting stones in glass houses....

Pompous is as pompous does.  I at least have no problem with people who
disagree with me; I do not insinuate motive, or call them names.  Might we
then simply agree to disagree?

>>I was particulary amused by your mention of empirical evidence. You
should
>>consider more of it when you hop on your soap box! };-> 

I note also a similar aversion to empirical evidence at least in the
present post.  :)


From ehrlich606@aol.com Tue May 07 09:38:36 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!van-bc!news.rmii.com!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Goldhagen's thesis (was Re: Alternate Introductory Systems)
Date: 7 May 1996 11:38:36 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 192
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4mnqps$mkn@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4mmjd0$m7e@boris.eden.com>
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com


[Background: Ehrlich606 logged on to this newgroup on April 26 or
something because he heard there was stuff about the Unabomber on the
Internet.  Just for the hell of it, he searched on "revisionism" and got
this board.  After perusing the board for about 1/2 hour, Ehrlich606 felt
compelled to pen a brief, and what he thought was conciliatory, comment. 
One response that he received was a churlish note from mcurtis@eden.com.
After a couple of days, Ehrlich606 set forth a detailed list of relevant
readings he had done and relevant intellectual interests.  Mcurtis, who
had "demanded" the list, and who was e-mailed a copy,  failed to reply. 
The following week found Mcurtis jumping into a discussion of
historiography, again quite rudely.  Ehrlich606 believes that at a certain
point, rudeness should be greeted with rudeness and ridicule.  The
dynamics of the following responses by Mcurtis demonstrate the degree to
which this tactic drew blood.] 

Legend:

>   Original Ehrlich606 ruminations OR Ehrlich606's rejoinders
>:  Mike Curtis' first comments
>> Curtis' protestations
>>> Ehrlich's bemused observations

>ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606) wrote >:
> mcurtis@eden.com (Mike Curtis) wrote::

>:How do human beings do this? Your articles do not reflect value-free
>:attitudes. 

>Yes, and I notice that you are quick to inaccurately judge and snip
>posters (are you the resident mohel here?)  Meanwhile, when I provided
>exhaustive clarification of my background you failed to get on your knees
>and kiss my feet.

>>I wasn't impressed. You come through clear as a bell. sorry I wasn't
>>fooled for a second.

>>>What could this possibly mean?  It certainly seems ominous and
all-knowing...

[Here follows an excerpt from original Gmcfee-Ehrlich606 debate]

>:When one writes a history one wants to present it as it happened with
>:the attitdes of the participants included. This in itself is not
>:value-free for values are contained within the words of the
>:participants. These values are different, in some cases, form our
>:modern values.

>No kidding!  But presenting a sentiment is not the same thing as solemnly
>repeating bromides about how we should love each other or whatnot.

[Mcurtis jumps in]

And where do you see this in this discusion? I see it no where. Making
up stuff not in the discussion is a tactless form of debate.

>>>Obviously, you need to go farther back in the string, young man. 
Interruption
>>>where I come from is also seen as tactless.

>:History, is that which we as the parents of the next generation(simply
>:put), want to pass on to that generation.

>[skip stupid sermonette about saving the children]

>>Stupid? Isn't this what you distortionists do? You want to distort the
>>history to influence others do you not? Don't you want the blank
>>slates to agree with you so that they can ignorantly follow?

>>>I was deliberately insulting here. Quite a response!

>>>At this point, Mcurtis, IMHO, starts to get real uncool.  He is rudely
piling up
>>>question marks and making wild accusations.  Apparently he is not
>>>used to the idea that someone might pursue an intellectual interest
>>>just because it is a problem to pursue.  I have pursued a variety of
>>>obscure intellectual topics over my lifetime because I want people to
>>>follow me?  OK!
  
>>I would like everyone here to note the different tone coming into Mr.
>>Ehrlich's responses. Don't they seem a lot less rigorous and immature
>>now that his arguments are being torn to shreds?

>>>This is getting positively insane!  Because I deliberately insulted his
ideas
>>>about passing things onto kids as a response to his insulting rudeness?

>:[snip sports analogy that doesn't work]

>>Prove it. Saying this is a typical distortionist cop-out.

>>>Unbelievable!  Now MCurtis, who wrote the line about snipping the
sports
>>>analogy that doesn't work, is calling it a "distortionist cop-out"!  He
is
>>>ATTACKING HIMSELF!

>Shows me what you know about baseball.

>: They refuse to use it all. They refuse to move from a to b to
>:c in an honest an value-free attitude. 

>I am half in agreement with you here.  What you fail to say is that both
>sides do it.

>>I don't. I can't speak for others. I can only speak for myself.
>>However, I can read a piece of history and evaluate the performance of
>>the historian. If I know the documentation well then it makes my
>>evaluation easier. Good historians can tell when a writer is fudging.
>>The distortionist side, well, distorts. Day after day people catch
>>them at it and use documented evidence to make their point. When the
>>distortionist has been defeated they say things like:

>>"Shows me what you know about baseball."
>>"[skip stupid sermonette about saving the children]"

>>>Let me get this straight: I rudely diss a couple of your statements --
>>>about that life-threatening topic, historiography, and I am a
distortionist?
>>>And I am DEFEATED because you failed to entertain a BASEBALL ANALOGY?
>>>ROTFLMAO!

>>I grant you that I snip Giwer because he isn't worth the time and
>>effort. You started out better but your stripes are really blazing
>>now.

>>>Not half as much as your temper, is my guess.

>No, that is not what I did. I made a mild initial post and I was attacked
>by a guy with a pair of scissors (you).  I posted a generous post about
>Three Holocausts and I got no response.

>>We are discussing one and its history. Mixing metaphors is what
>>distortionists do and you do it darn well.

>>>MY Three Holocausts ARE the ONE Holocaust!  Or didn't you READ IT?
>>>What metaphors did I mix, by the way?

>I posted a little piece referring
>to some absurdities of the legend, and I get tons of e-mail.  It is a
>simple case of supply and demand.

>>I e-mailed you not. 

>>>Er, I e-mailed you yes?

DON'T ASK ME WHERE THE FOLLOWING COMES FROM:

[snip] There is no need to post the whole thing. It takes time to
download and it is confusing at times. Quote the protion you want to
comment on. If you choose not to comment on something well just leave
it to later discussion.

COULD THE ABOVE BE SECRET INSTRUCTIONS?!

>Perhaps you just want to play with your scissors.

>:[does he want to discuss the USSR or Nazi Germany. We are dealing with
>:two separate histories here and two different perspective histories.]

>Not as different as you might think.  The only problem is, the larger our
>sample, the less easy to deliver anti-semitic or anti-German comments,
and
>the more the requirements for real synthetic thinking.

>>I was born in Germany. The Germans are anti-German. That is what is
>>funny. You ask a German where he is from and he says. "Europe." I
>>don't know how many times I've heard this. I agree that Germans need
>>to be proud to be Germans again. 

>>>I can't say I am that concerned about it.  But considering the
interpretative model
>>>of the Holocaust that you feel the need to protect from
"distortionists" I find it 
>>>amazing that you want Germans to be proud.  How can they, when you
won't
>>>let them?


>:Bah!
> 
>Bah:  the sound of the impotent gnashing of teeth.  Does not recognize
>that the history of the USSR and Nazi Germany are tightly woven. 
Probably
>doesn't have the qualifications or skills to pursue the comparison
anyway.
> If I need a suit made, I will call you.

>>Take the easy way out, eh? Scared?

>>>Jeeves!  My gloves!  I believe we are going to have FISTICUFFS!


From ehrlich606@aol.com Tue May 07 10:16:11 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!news.nstn.ca!news.dal.ca!torn!csn!news-1.csn.net!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!lexis-nexis!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 960505: Jamie's response acked; Toronto conference on postwar occupation
Date: 7 May 1996 12:16:11 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 77
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4mnt0b$n7l@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4mm0m5$55k@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com


ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606) writes:
and  rich@c2.org (Rich Graves) responds >>

>The reason why the Germans perpetrated the Holocaust, as opposed to
>France, England, or Italy, is because of what Bismarck said:  "My map of
>Africa lies in the East."  Then you should read about Leopold II's
Belgian
>Congo, Roger Casement's role in exposing colonial atrocities in the late
>19th Century, Britain's activities in India, China, and South Africa,
>France's activities in Algeria, Indochina, and elsewhere in Africa, and

>>I am far more familiar with these cases than with the Holocaust, and
>>have discussed them, at great length, in other forums. But this forum is
>>about the Holocaust. Your crocodile tears about these cases say nothing
>>about Nazi apologists who deny the Holocaust.

Your use of the term "crocodile tears" is a completely unwarranted
attribution of motive ad hominem.  Please note that the breach of civility
came from your side.  This forum is about the Holocaust:  says who?  It is
called "alt.revisionism" not "alt.holocaust"  Furthermore, the argument
here is not about Nazi apologists who deny the Holocaust.
If you are saying that the only permissable statements herein are attacks
on Nazi apologists who deny the Holocaust, and counter-statements by Nazi
apologists, then I can see why this board is the way it is.

>Italy in Ethiopia.  None of these cases even involved colonization, just
>pure economic exploitation.  But I guess everybody does these things, so
>no big deal.

>>Italy's attempt to dominate Ethiopia was largely a joke, but the others
>>were a big deal, and mainstream historians recognize that they were a
>>big deal. No one here has ever said that these cases were not a big
>>deal. The kind of people who would argue that these cases were no big
>>deal are the same kind of people that deny the Holocaust.

Good!  But overall, what I am trying to say here is that other nations
have
demonstrated tendencies that COULD HAVE elicited a Holocaust.

>Yet one rarely find large heavy books with pompous theses about how
>"colonialist ideologies" or "dominationist idelogies" took over the
>British or Russian mind.

>>Sure you do. I've got a library full of them. You will find no books
>>about totalitarianism or planned genocide among the British or Russians
>>(before Stalinism got into full swing in 1940, that is) because that did
>>not happen; totalitarian terror for the purpose of genocide only
>>occurred in Nazi Germany.

You are right: I forgot about books under the classification "political
science" --
but PoliSci is not History or vice versa. Anyway, I believe you are wrong,
Franz Neumann's "Behemoth" had already adumbrated the idea in 1938.  I am
inclined to accept the latter statement, as long as you define what you
mean by "totalitarian", "terror" and "genocide".  If you are as familiar
with the literature as you claim, you know these terms have about 20-30
different definitions.

>Whereas Mr. Goldhagen finds himself in the midst of a veritable cottage
>industry of social scientists, each arriving at a fancy theory about how
>the Germans are uniquely bad, and the Holocaust thus uniquely evil.

>>Where does Mr. Goldhagen say this? The Nazi experience was uniquely bad
>>in the 20th century. It was a uniquely bad application of advanced means
>>of totalitarianism for the purpose of genocide. 

Ditto, supra.

>all the while the cloud just rolls along, high above the earth, which is
>to say -- high above human experience or empirical evidence!

>>An excellent summary of this post.

A good riposte!  But fails to address the issue.  But -- what ELSE is new?



From ehrlich606@aol.com Tue May 07 14:41:07 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!news.nstn.ca!news.dal.ca!torn!csn!news-1.csn.net!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!lexis-nexis!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 960505: Jamie's response acked; Toronto conference on postwar occupation
Date: 7 May 1996 16:41:07 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 72
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4moch3$s59@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4mnt0b$n7l@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com


Ehrlich606 surveys the crime scene and provides a rueful chronology:

1> Someone  says the Allies had "truth & justice" on their sides in WW2

2>Ehrlich606 is angered by this, because he thinks, in general, that the 
Allies, and particularly the Soviets, were not THAT much better than the
Nazis.

3>Therefore Ehrlich606 briefly adduces pre- and post-war Allied
wrongdoing.

4>YFE comes on board, and dismisses the arguments as "nonsense" and goes
off musing about the "riddle"  of the Holocaust.

5>Ehrlich606 is angered by this, because he thinks that YFE is dissing the
Germans.
In his zeal to detract from the Soviets, he now is making the argument
that the 
Allies (in general) were no better than the Nazis, which is an obviously
indefensible
argument.  (Or, at any rate seems indefensible)  Moreover, he commits a
fundamental
rhetorical error:  he attempts to make his point by quantity.  A argument
by quantity
seeks the counterpart to a known quantity by citing numerous examples that
approximate the known quanity.  This is bad argument: because this opens
the door
for the opponent to cite counter quantities, or, to question the
quantities mentioned
seriatim, furthmore, it presumes that the approximation will be accepted.

6>Finally, Ehrlich606 uses YFE's musings to once again pile on to
Goldhagen's 
book, which to a certain extent is the surrogate for the many hundreds of
unfair 
characterizations about Germans that Ehrlich606 has encountered in his
lifetime.

7>Mvanalst attempts to refute the post, cleverly granting that the
treatment of Germans
after World War 2 was brutal, cruel, and unjust, and thus drawing out much
of Ehrlich606's
poison.  He then takes on Ehrlich's little row of ducklings, and sinks
some, misses others.
He does however grant that the Soviet Union was about as bad as Nazi
Germany, and ergo
was not a bastion of truth and justice.  This grants Ehrlich606 the only
point he sought all
along, because he was going to wait awhile to set forth his
"structuralist" or "functionalist"
theory of the Holocaust.  But he is an inveterate arguer so he in turn
details Mvanalst's reply.

8>Rich Graves gets on and expounds on colonialism, but since he missed the
beginning
(or so it seems) he completely misses the irony.  He also grants that the
Soviet Union is no
bastion of truth and justice.  He also weakens himself by argumentam ad
hominem.

9>Neither post really successfully confutes the rough identities.  But
Ehrlich606 wants to 
make it clear here and now that to him the destruction of the National
Socialist government
was essential, because government by racial principles is inherently
disgraceful.






From ehrlich606@aol.com Tue May 07 15:26:41 1996
Path: pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!news.nstn.ca!news.dal.ca!torn!nott!bcarh189.bnr.ca!nrchh45.rich.nt.com!news.utdallas.edu!news01.aud.alcatel.com!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!lexis-nexis!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Matt Giwer's Wasted Breath
Date: 7 May 1996 17:26:41 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 39
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4mof6h$suf@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com


RANDOM THOUGHTS FOR MATT GIWER


After observing this board for something like two weeks, it is obvious to
me that no concessions about anything are going to be made here.  Now, I
was able to vent a bit about a handful of details of the Holocaust that
always made me roll my eyes, and, interestingly, I got several e-mails
from people who would grant me that one or the other was probably a
fantasy.  Eventually, all of my points were covered.

On the other hand, no matter how mindboggling a detail may be, if it is
mentioned in public, that is, on the board, one of the relevant experts
who has a copy of the two to three books that comprise the source material
for this board will quote from the source material (usually, witness
testimony) and that will be it -- ipse dixit.

Now at this point, you either believe it, or you don't.  Of course, you
can try to argue the technical details, but in the end it always comes
down to the testimony, and no one is going to admit doubts to (most)
testimony in public.

There is probably a reason for that.  So let's continue the thought
experiment: what if all the incredible details were false?  Does that
really change how we perceive Nazi Germany or the Jewish Holocaust?  It
might conceivably affect some associations in our minds, but I don't think
it would change the fundamental picture.

So let's stand the standard revisionist/denier question on its head: if
you are so sure that this or that detail is false, why are you making such
a big deal about it?  Go on with your life.  But if you are asking for a
public statement that this or that detail is wrong, then the suspicion is
that the detail is not the thing, but rather the public statement.  With a
view to what end, and who is going to benefit by such a statement?  And
besides, you should know by now that you aren't going to get the
statement.

So let's move on to other things, and if you hear something you don't
believe, ignore it.


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.