The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/p/pokrifka.kenneth/1996/pokrifka.1096


From ken@sgi.net Thu Oct 17 10:13:26 PDT 1996
Article: 39136 of misc.activism.militia
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Approved: militia-request@atype.com (f3595a1cfda211a7f07ce33eef19291f)
References: <845224399$14330@atype.com> <845230691$15056@atype.com> <845405283$26617@atype.com> <845438656$28846@atype.com>
From: "Ken P." 
Organization: Stargate Industries, Inc.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-Path: taurus!news@uunet.uu.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!olivea!grapevine.lcs.mit.edu!atype.com!militia-request
Newsgroups: misc.activism.militia
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 96 4:49:57 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; U)
Message-ID: <845527797$3318@atype.com>
Subject: Re: Militia Studies
Lines: 85


> > H. McDaniel (haji@u.washington.edu) wrote:
> >
> > : "And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian
> woman whom
> > : he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian [ie: Black woman]...
> > : [And God said Moses had done nothing wrong.]  And the anger of the Lord
> was
> > : kindled against them.... Miriam became leprous.  And Aaron said unto
> Moses,
> > : Alas, my Lord I beseech thee, lay not this sin upon us wherein we have
> > : done foolishly, and wherein we have sinned."  Numbers 12:1-11

Admittedly, I am way out of my element debating biblical passages. 
However, in this case it does not appear to be too difficult.  It seems
that a number of anti-racialist posters here have misrepresented 
chapter 12 of Numbers.  Upon close inspection, even a person of
limited biblical scholarship, such as myself, can see that the Lord's anger
toward Miriam and Aaron is due to something other than their opinion of
Moses' choice of wife.  

For those without a Bible at their elbow, I will quote the chapter
in its entirety (as opposed to the selective quotations with self-serving
bracketed comments used by my opponents).  I am using the King James Version.

*1  And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman
whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.
*2  And they said, Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not
also spoken to us?  And the Lord heard it.
*3  (Now the man Moses was very meek above all the men which were upon the
face of the earth.)
*4  And the Lord spake suddenly unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto Miriam, 
Come out yethree unto the tabernacle of the congregation.  And
they three came out.
*5  And the Lord came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the
door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came
forth.
*6  And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the
Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him
in a dream.
*7  My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine houses.
*8  With him I will speak mouth to mouth, and even apparently, and not in
dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold: wherefore
then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?
*9  And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them; and he departed.
*10  And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam
became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold;
she was leprous.
*11  And Aaron said unto Moses, Alas my lord, I beseech thee, lay not the
sins upon us, wherein we have done foolishly, and wherein we have sinned.
*12  Let her not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he
cometh out of his mother's womb.
*13  And Moses cried unto the Lord, saying, Heal her now, O God, I beseech
thee.
*14  And the Lord said unto Moses, If her father had but spit in her face,
should we not be ashamed for seven days? let her be shut out from the camp
for seven days, and after that let her be received in again.
*15  And Miriam was shut out of the camp for seven days: and the people
journeyed not till Miriam was brought in again.
*16  And afterward the people removed from Hazeroth, and pitched in the
wilderness of Paran.

Here we see that the Lord spake suddenly unto the three at the point where
Miriam and Aaron claimed to share Moses' communicative power with the Lord. 
The Lord reprimands these two in language that clearly indicates divine
anger over this claim.  The Lord then affirms for the three, Moses' 
communicative power with the deity, which is even greater than that of a
prophet.  The Lord indicates that because of this power, others should be
afraid to speak against Moses.  The Lord then condemns Miriam to 
contracting leprosy.  However, upon petition by Moses, the punishment is
greatly reduced.

>From  my reading, this chapter does not really work for the anti-racialists
because we see in it that the Lord actually expresses *no* opinion regarding 
Moses' marriage to an Ethiopian.  Nor is the Lord's anger at
Miriam and Aaron due to their criticism of this marriage.  His anger,
again, is over their false claims of prophecy.

I think we can assume that the anti-racialist, wanting to make a forceful
argument for divine approval of miscegenation, would bring forth to the NG
the most persuasive biblical passage(s) possible to that end.  If Numbers
12:1-11 is the best they can do, then it is not the racialists who should
fear Hell.

Ken P.


From ken@sgi.net Thu Oct 17 10:17:06 PDT 1996
Article: 37670 of misc.activism.militia
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Approved: militia-request@atype.com (9599e7a80e77bfa26375e7e09906ce07)
References: <844135394$24928@atype.com> <844207384$28336@atype.com> <844414392$8404@atype.com> <844423402$8766@atype.com>
From: "Ken P." 
Organization: Stargate Industries, Inc.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-Path: taurus!news@uunet.uu.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!nntp.portal.ca!newsfeed.direct.ca!portc01.blue.aol.com!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!howland.erols.net!EU.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in3.uu.net!atype.com!militia-request
Newsgroups: misc.activism.militia
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 96 6:48:08 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; U)
Message-ID: <844584488$15611@atype.com>
Subject: Re: POLAND?
Lines: 102


Kaa Byington wrote:
> 
> "Ken P."  wrote:
> >
> >AHABIZ wrote:

> >

> 1) The Goldman letter is imaginary.

O.K., if you say so.  I assume your comment is directed at
Waffle, since he is the one who introduced the letter into
evidence.

> 2) We only have your word that this is what the Kaufmann book says:
> nobody has a copy available.  I doubt if it says that.

My source is _Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich_ by best-
selling author and prominent WWII historian, David Irving.  On
page 369 he writes: "As Goebbels flew down for the Mozart
festival he dipped into a one-hundred page book by an American,
entitled _Germany Must Perish!_  The author, Theodore N.
Kaufmann, proposed the 'summary sterilization' of all Germans. 
'Germany must perish forever!' wrote Kaufmann.  'In fact--not in
fancy.'  The dust cover carried endorsements from *Time*
magazine, the *Washington Post*, and the *New York Times.*"
 
> 3) Germany was in such bad economic straits (Still) in 1933 that a Jewish
> boycott (if it occurred, another very dubious proposition) would hardly
> have been noticeable.

I cannot asses the actual effects, but we do have the March 24,
1933, London *Daily Express* reporting on various Jewish efforts
to damage the German economy.  The point my of bringing up the
boycott was not to argue whether or not it was effective.  I
wanted to show that the boycott, as well at the Kaufmann book,
would cause the Germans to be less than pleased with the Jews.
 
> 4) There is., among intelligent people, a very good understanding today
> of the causes of Nazi opinions of Jews, and it's good reliable
> scholarship, not manufactured evidence posted to internet newsgroups.
> The major cause goes back to the middle ages, as Arlin said, and it has
> to do with the medieval belief in the Church that the Jews "killed
> Christ."  The real reason, however, was that the Jews, in Western
> Europe, being educated and being entrepreneurial, and not having the
> religious strictures the Christians did against usury--lending money at
> interest--prospered.  The Christians, being illiterate and superstitious,
> as well as greedy, did not like this.  THe Jews were therefore beaten up
> by passing Crusaders, thrown out of England and France, (not to mention
> Spain in the Inquisition)--so that their wealth could be confiscated.  In
> later centuries, however, in most of Western Europe, Jews had returned
> and were accepted.  Disraeli, Victoria's greatest prime minister, was
> Jewish, for instance.  The great Jewish banking families financed the
> Renaissance, and the exploration of the New World.  They also financed
> much of Germany's rise to power. And her high culture before the
> lumpenproletariat got hold of it.

Whatever the cause of latent antisemitism in Germany, I think I
have shown that world Jewry did their part to help rekindle it
during the Third Reich.

> But Germany was a different case. There, a bunch of ignorant
> supersititious German peasants and semi-literate urban trash who knew
> nothing of history and had no cognitive abilities, happily swallowed
> Hitler's bait--convinced they were the super race--and ultimately killed
> six million Jews, and  thirty million others in the war they started.

Six Million Jews.  Yes, I believe I've heard that figure before. 
For some time, Auschwitz was supposed to account for 4 million of
that total.  Recently, the Auschwitz amount was reduced to 1
million.  Yet we still hear the 6 million figure.  Shouldn't the
total be reduced by 3 million also?  How do you believe they
died, in gas chambers?

> >> right, and the Kaufmann book was published *after* the beginning of WWII
> >
> >For what it's worth, the book was published
> >in 1941 prior to August.
> >
> >> and *long* after the beginning of the nazi's slaughter of the Jews,
> >> Gypsies, pacifists, gays, communists, and anybody else in general who they
> >> either didn't like or who spoke out against them.
> >
> >All this happened before the book was
> >published?  Can you prove this?
> 
> Look at the dates in any history book.  Yes, he's right. By August of
> 1941 Hitler had Poland, France, the Lowlands, and was blitzing England.
> The camps were going full steam.  

I acknowledge the military actions.  My question was related to
the murder of non-combatants.

> Do you good to read Eichmann's
> confession--he explains it very neatly, very proudly.

Again, I asked for proof, not the supposed confession of a man
who would say whatever his captors wanted to hear in the hope of
saving his neck from the hangman's noose.

Ken


From ken@sgi.net Sun Oct 20 23:37:10 PDT 1996
Article: 76032 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!zdc!super.zippo.com!zdc-e!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!newspump.sol.net!news.mindspring.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!taurus.bv.sgi.net!usenet
From: "Ken P." 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Just the facts, please, Mr. Pokrifka.
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 00:08:09 -0700
Organization: Stargate Industries, Inc.
Lines: 120
Message-ID: <326B2159.4D9E@sgi.net>
References: <844135394$24928@atype.com> <844414392$8404@atype.com> <844423402$8766@atype.com> <844584488$15611@atype.com> <845573583$6053@atype.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dialup106.bv.sgi.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; U)

Ken McVay OBC wrote:
> 
> In article <844584488$15611@atype.com>, "Ken Pokrifka"
>  wrote:
> 
> >> 2) We only have your word that this is what the Kaufmann book says:
> >> nobody has a copy available.  I doubt if it says that.
> 
> >My source is _Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich_ by best-
> >selling author and prominent WWII historian, David Irving.  On
> >page 369 he writes: "As Goebbels flew down for the Mozart
> >festival he dipped into a one-hundred page book by an American,
> >entitled _Germany Must Perish!_  The author, Theodore N.
> >Kaufmann, proposed the 'summary sterilization' of all Germans.
> >'Germany must perish forever!' wrote Kaufmann.  'In fact--not in
> >fancy.'  The dust cover carried endorsements from *Time*
> >magazine, the *Washington Post*, and the *New York Times.*"
> 
> Given Time Magazine's rather scathing review of the Kaufmann
> book, that's unlikely:
> 
> _Time_ magazine, March 24, 1942, p. 96.  (Book review.)
> 
>    A Modest Proposal
> 
>    Germany Must Perish! -- Theodore N. Kaufman -- Argyle Press ($1).



I did some checking on the dust cover comments.  One source
had the original book, but the dust cover was lost.  The other
source had a verbatim reprint by Liberty Bell in 1980.  This
second source had no dust cover, but the comments from the
original dust cover were printed on the inner side of the cover.
The comments are as follows:

*Time* - "A sensational idea"
*Washington Post* - "Provocative theory, interestingly presented"
*New York Times* - "A plan for permanent peace among civilized
nations"
*Philadelphia Record* - "Frankly presents the dread background of
the Nazi soul."

Going back to the *Time* review, we have . . .

>    _Germany Must Perish!_ proved to be a brief (104-page)
>    enshrinement of a single sensational idea.



Whether the other three supposed endorsements were so starkly in
contrast to the intent of the reviewers, I cannot tell at this point.
>From  their appearance, though, it does seem that the others would be
somewhat more difficult to so misrepresent, but you never know.  I
understand that the NYT keeps very good archives, so maybe someone
will look into that at some point.

The main point that I tried to make earlier here, however, was that
such a book, written by a Jew as it was, would not engender fond
feelings for Jews when read by the average German.

Are you sure you have the date right for the *Time* review (March
24, 1942)?  The book was published in 1941.  The review would have
had to have been published prior to the book publication in order
for the book to have and review excerpt appear on the dust cover.

Thank you for providing the review.  There had been some skepticism
on this NG as to whether such a book was ever published.

> >I cannot asses the actual effects, but we do have the March 24,
> >1933, London *Daily Express* reporting on various Jewish efforts
> >to damage the German economy.  The point my of bringing up the
> >boycott was not to argue whether or not it was effective.  I
> >wanted to show that the boycott, as well at the Kaufmann book,
> >would cause the Germans to be less than pleased with the Jews.
>
> And what was it, one is tempted to ask, that prompted the
> Jewish call for a financial boycott? Let's refer to the
> article you cite, and see what it offers, shall we?
>
> Daily Express. London, March 24, 1933, pp. 1-2.
>
>   J U D E A   D E C L A R E S   W A R   O N   G E R M A N Y
>
>   [A composite photo with Hitler before a presumably Jewish court]
>
>   JEWS OF ALL THE WORLD UNITE
>   BOYCOTT OF GERMAN GOODS
>   MASS DEMONSTRATIONS



Unfortunately, the article *does not* provide any specificity as to
the cause of the boycott.  There are only generalities: "Jew baiting,
. . . persecution, . . . onslaught, . . . terrorized, . . . campaign
of violence and suppression, . . . antagonism, . . . attacks, . . .
terror, . . . plight, . . . oppression."  It seems that one needs to
look elsewhere for a detailed chronicling of the persecution of Jews
in Germany prior to March 24, 1933.

Again, thank you for bringing this.  There had been doubt on this NG
as to whether world Jewry had declared war on Germany in 1933.  The
*Daily Express* article also shows that Jews were quite influential
to be able to bring about the boycott and embargo, and that these
were actually highly effective economic weapons.

And also again, the point of my original post was that these economic
acts against Germany, by Jews, should be expected to cause resentment
with a Depression-stricken Germany.

> >Whatever the cause of latent antisemitism in Germany, I think I
> >have shown that world Jewry did their part to help rekindle it
> >during the Third Reich.
>
> Perhaps, but, as we have seen, you have yet to make a case
> that this is true.

Well, I tried.  But I think you've made my case better than I have.

Ken P.


From ken@sgi.net Mon Oct 21 07:56:19 PDT 1996
Article: 39958 of misc.activism.militia
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Approved: militia-request@atype.com (e07f748a2e383fa6110692dcef512b65)
References: <845224399$14330@atype.com> <845230691$15056@atype.com> <845405283$26617@atype.com> <845438656$28846@atype.com> <845527797$3318@atype.com> <845574510$6134@atype.com>
From: "Ken P." 
Organization: Stargate Industries, Inc.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-Path: taurus!news@uunet.uu.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!olivea!grapevine.lcs.mit.edu!atype.com!militia-request
Newsgroups: misc.activism.militia
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 96 4:18:51 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; U)
Message-ID: <845871531$26728@atype.com>
Subject: Re: Militia Studies
Lines: 55


Taking a second bite at the apple, Kaa Byington wrote:
 
> Uh, Ken P.  Song  of Solomon, one of the books of the Bible, is a love
> poem, Solomon describing his love:  thy breasts are like twin roes. . .
> Solomon's ladylove is black.  "Thou art lovely and thou art black."
> God didn't  say anything at all at this ghastly piece of miscegenation,
> and in fact since Biblical literalists believe that God himself wrote the
> Bible, and Biblical non-literalists believe the writers were "divinely
> inspired" it would seem that God highly approves, any way you look at it.


In the Helps to Bible Study of my KJV, The Song of Solomon is described
as "another of the Bible's remarkable poems.  It has been regarded as
telling in allegory of the love between Christ and His Church.  It
contains twelve chapters and is doubtfully attributed to Solomon."

To my less than scholarly reading, SOS seems to be a romantic dialogue,
with His Church analogous to the female.  In chapter 1, we have the
female speaking:

*5  I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the Tents
of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.
*6  Look not upon me because I am black, because the sun hath looked
upon me: my mother's children were angry with me; they made me the
keeper of the vineyard; but mine own vineyard I have kept not.

When the female says, "I am black, because the sun hath looked upon
me," does she mean that she is a Negro, or that she very tanned from
exposure to sunlight?  Does the anger of her siblings have to do with
her complexion, which differs from that of her siblings?  If so, why
is she different than her siblings?

Later, in chapter 7, we have the male speaking:

*1  How beautiful are thy feet with shoes, O prince's daughter! the
joints of thy thighs are like jewels, the work of the hands of a
cunning workman.
*2  Thy navel is like a round goblet, which wanteth not liquor: thy
belly is like an heap of wheat set about with lilies.
*3  Thy two breasts are like roes that are twins.
*4  Thy neck is a tower of ivory; thine eyes like fishpools in Heshbon
by the gates of Bathrabbim: thy nose is as the tower of Lebanon which
looketh toward Damascus.
*5  Thine head upon thee is like Carmel, and the hair of thy head like
purple; the king is held in the galleries.
*6  How fair and how pleasant art thou; O love for delights!

Certainly not the morphology of a Hottentot Venus!  But why the
transformation?  Is this an allegory for redemption?

At any rate, it hardly advocates miscegenation.  Try again,
Kaa.

Ken P.


From ken@sgi.net Mon Oct 21 07:56:20 PDT 1996
Article: 39966 of misc.activism.militia
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Approved: militia-request@atype.com (9dedbc573f04be08218c7bdd3adf55a0)
References: <845602392$8561@atype.com> <845630317$10038@atype.com>
From: "Ken P." 
Organization: Stargate Industries, Inc.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-Path: taurus!news@uunet.uu.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!olivea!grapevine.lcs.mit.edu!atype.com!militia-request
Newsgroups: misc.activism.militia
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 96 4:19:26 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; U)
Message-ID: <845871566$26785@atype.com>
Subject: Re: Patriotism vs Nationalism
Lines: 33


Kaa Byington wrote:

> In your utopia, don't forget to take the inscription off the Statue of
> Liberty (in New York Harbor,not far from Ellis Island) which reads:
> 
> Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore
> Send these, the homeless tempest-tossed to me
> I lift my lamp beside the Golden Door.

Ah, yes.  The old "Statue of Liberty" argument.  We've been brainwashed
by that darned poem.  Emma Lazarus, pretending to speak for all Americans
said: "Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses."  How
inspiring!  How magnanimous of us to offer to share our wealth with all
the world's wretched!  But who made this commitment?  Our own poor, our
unemployed, our homeless?  Not on your life.  The poet was a wealthy
woman who proposed sharing the opportunities of our own poor with the
new arrivals.

As a matter of historical fact, the poem is not a proper part of the
statue.  It was added to the base 17 years after the statue was
dedicated.  And who added it?  Congress?  No.  Some of Lazarus' wealthy
friends put it there.  Congress wasn't consulted.  Nor were the homeless
and unemployed.  Nor were the Americans working on the lowest rungs of
the economic ladder, where they can easily lose their jobs to new
immigrants.

The wealthy don't suffer from such "generosity."  In fact they gain --
they are able to hire cheaper servants.

Ken P.


From ken@sgi.net Tue Oct 22 23:54:45 PDT 1996
Article: 40635 of misc.activism.militia
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Approved: militia-request@atype.com (72e50df2e41b2ee7e25f7e58c4b5a03e)
References: <845871531$26728@atype.com> <845907506$28860@atype.com>
From: "Ken P." 
Organization: Stargate Industries, Inc.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-Path: news@taurus.bv.sgi.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!olivea!grapevine.lcs.mit.edu!atype.com!militia-request
Newsgroups: misc.activism.militia
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 96 3:48:28 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; U)
Message-ID: <846042508$15224@atype.com>
Subject: Re: Militia Studies
Lines: 28


AHABIZ wrote:
> 
> In article <845871531$26728@atype.com>, "Ken P."  writes:
> 
> >The Song of Solomon is described
> >as "another of the Bible's remarkable poems.  It has been regarded as
> >telling in allegory of the love between Christ and His Church.  It
> >contains twelve chapters and is doubtfully attributed to Solomon."
> 
> *ahem*, tell you what ken - take a look at a good (i.e. non-nazi) book on
> scriptural development and you will find that the Song of Songs was
> written before there was a Christian Church.  It's a study in love -
> people had as much interest in it back then as they do now...in otherwords
> Kaa's example is valid.

This is a familiar pattern with you and a few others here--disparage the 
character of any source inconsistent with your racial egalitarianism.  
Nazi, good ol' boy, liar, disgrace to his field, . . . any pretext will 
do.  Now we have the Authorized King James Version of The Holy Bible (with 
Selected Helps to Bible Study, Holman Bible Publishers, 1979) 
characterized as a Nazi book.  Unbelievable.

BTW, Kaa and I were arguing over Song of Solomon.  Song of Songs does 
not appear in the KJV, nor does it appear in the Jerusalem Version.  
Song of Songs can only be found in Hebrew Scriptures.

Ken P.


From ken@sgi.net Fri Oct 25 09:01:04 PDT 1996
Article: 76800 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!taurus.bv.sgi.net!usenet
From: "Ken P." 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: David Irving: Liar
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 01:52:58 -0700
Organization: Stargate Industries, Inc.
Lines: 97
Message-ID: <326C8B6A.2803@sgi.net>
References: <844135394$24928@atype.com> <844414392$8404@atype.com> <844423402$8766@atype.com> <844584488$15611@atype.com> <845756283$17730@atype.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dialup112.bv.sgi.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; U)

Ken McVay OBC wrote:
> 
> In article <844584488$15611@atype.com>, "Ken P."  wrote:
> 
> >> 2) We only have your word that this is what the Kaufmann book says:
> >> nobody has a copy available.  I doubt if it says that.
> 
> >My source is _Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich_ by best-
> >selling author and prominent WWII historian, David Irving.  On
> >page 369 he writes: "As Goebbels flew down for the Mozart



> >festival he dipped into a one-hundred page book by an American,
> >entitled _Germany Must Perish!_  The author, Theodore N.
> >Kaufmann, proposed the 'summary sterilization' of all Germans.
> >'Germany must perish forever!' wrote Kaufmann.  'In fact--not in
> >fancy.'  The dust cover carried endorsements from *Time*
> >magazine, the *Washington Post*, and the *New York Times.*"
> 
> It is interesting - and typically Irving - to note that Irving
> "forgot" to mention two things - first, that Kaufmann wrote
> his book in response to a German author's book about the
> destruction of the Jews. Second, that no-one took Kaufmann
> seriously - the Time Magazine review, which David Irving lies
> openly about, is archived on Nizkor, for those who would like
> to learn how the country viewed the book...

I cannot understand why you are citing the Time Magazine review, as
it actually refutes the two points you are trying to make here.  Right
off, the review refutes your premise that no one took Kaufmann seriously:
"In 1929, the great Dean Swift made his famed 'Modest Proposal' for
curing the economic ills of Ireland: sell its starving children as
dressed meat.  Last week U.S. book reviewers were in receipt of a modern
modest proposal.  No less grizly than Dean's, it was not even supposed
to be ironic."

Two paragraphs later the review refutes your first premise--that the book
was a response to a German author's book about the destruction of the
Jews.  "_Germany Must Perish_ proved to be a brief (104 page) enshrinement
of a single sensational idea.  Since Germans are the perennial disturbers
of the world's peace, says the book, they must be dealt with like any
homicidal criminals.  But it is unnecessary to put the whole German nation
to the sword.  It is more humane to sterilize them."  Nowhere in this
review is there any mention of a German author that supposedly influenced
Kaufmann.

> [snip]
>
> >I cannot asses the actual effects, but we do have the March 24,
> >1933, London *Daily Express* reporting on various Jewish efforts
> >to damage the German economy.  The point my of bringing up the
> >boycott was not to argue whether or not it was effective.  I
> >wanted to show that the boycott, as well at the Kaufmann book,
> >would cause the Germans to be less than pleased with the Jews.
>
> Then why, Sir, did you neglect to mention what that Daily
> Express article said about _why_ some Jewish leaders called
> for this boycott? Was there something there that you did not
> want MAM readers to know? Was it your intention to conceal the
> fact that the boycott was a direct reaction to Nazi treatment
> of German Jews? If not, why didn't you quote the article?

In an earlier post, you included the article from the Daily Express.  
This was worthwhile.  I already had the article in _Goebbels_, but as
Irving had reduced an entire broadsheet to one page of his book, this
made for difficult reading and very difficult transcription to computer.  
It should be obvious that any entity that calls a boycott feels they 
have some legitimate basis for doing so.  However, the DE article only 
contained vague references to "Jew baiting," "harassment," "persecution," 
and the like.  The article offers no specifics regarding Nazi treatment 
of German Jews.  There is nothing worth quoting in this regard.

The article does, however, go into the specific of the economic acts 
against Germany.  Had I quoted these, it would have made my argument 
stronger.  According to the article, the boycott was highly effective.

Having said all this, I have, just since reading your post here, gone 
back to the Irving book and found that there is another article (on the 
same page of the DE as the article we have been discussing) that *does* 
specify adverse Nazi treatment of German Jews.  "More Jews Shot Dead," 
discusses two Jews who were taken to the outskirts of Berlin and shot.  
The article also discusses "aleg[ations of] fifty-seven cases in which 
Jews in Germany have been beaten and tortured"  The article also states 
that "[t]he ousting of Jews from public offices and positions in Germany 
continues."

Within the context of our discussion here, I would appreciate if you 
could tell me how Irving has lied.

> Who, by the way, is this "World Jewry" you're talking about?

The DE refers to "Judea," and "Jews Of All The World."  "World Jewry" 
is synonymous with these.  (There is a synagogue in my area that for 
years that had a banner that read, "Save Soviet Jewry")

Ken P.



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.