The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/s/smith.bradley.r/1994/bs.0794


Archive/File: holocaust/usa/codoh bs.0794
Last-Modified: 1994/08/18

From: bradleyrs@aol.com (BradleyRS)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: open debate
Date: 24 Jul 1994 16:48:07 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 4
Sender: news@search01.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <30uk27$qtg@search01.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: search01.news.aol.com

Is it agreed by all that the Holocaust story should be open to free
inquiry,  that it is proper that any question whatever can be asked about
the story, that anyone can do the asking, and that there is nothing
intrinsically wrong with asking?


From oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!newstf01.cr1.aol.com!search01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Sun Jul 31 04:27:40 PDT 1994
Article: 14433 of alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!newstf01.cr1.aol.com!search01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: bradleyrs@aol.com (BradleyRS)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: open debate
Date: 29 Jul 1994 12:24:01 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 56
Sender: news@search01.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <31baf1$hg1@search01.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: search01.news.aol.com

re Gordon McFee's message (I've lost his original) that we can discuss the
Holocaust as a "fact" but not whether it happened or not. I run into this
assertion all the time and am always left a little confused by it.

In Lipstadt's new preface for the paperback edition of her Denying the
Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, she lists a number of
Holocaust issues that are debated openly by historians and others (p.xiv),
including:

Who initiated the Final Solution, can the Holocaust be compared to other
events of similar nature, could Jews have resisted more forcefully, the
actions of non-Jewish rescuers, the Judenrat, and the role of American
Jewish organizations (I don't see that she intends these to be all, only a
sampling of the questions that are commonly "debated.")

She then notes: "There is a categorical difference between debating these
types of questions and ebateing the very fact of the Holocaust." 

In my work, which is not to prove anything did or didn't happen but to
help create a public environment in which the any question whatever can be
asked by anyone about the Holocaust story, I am constantly told that "my"
questions can not be asked because they deny established fact, the fact of
the "Holocaust" and that my questions demonstrate that I am a "hater" of
Jews, which in turn, then, becomes another reason for not responding to my
question.

So I suppose I need to be told  (1)  what the "Holocaust" was so that I
can operate inside the boundries that have been layed out for it and  (2)
why, specifically, the questions I do ask are either irrelevant or hateful
and in either case are not to be answered because they "deny" established
fact.

Example: In an advertisement that I have been running in student
newspapers at universities around the country (A Revisionist Challenge to
the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum) I refer to a claim in Michael
Berenbaum's
The World Must Know: The History of the Holocaust as Told in the United
States Holocaust Memorial Museum (Little, Brown & Co.) that a homicidal
gassing chamber was operated by the Gemans which "may have been ... near
Giessen .... " (p.6)

In the ad I write: "`May have been?' That's the best historical writing
$200 million can buy?" 

I would like to know, if I ask what proof there is that Germans operated a
homicidal gassing chamber "near Giessen," is this one of the questions
that I am allowed to ask; if it is, what is the answer; if it isn't, why
isn't it?

My e-mail number is BradleyR.aol.com.  I give it here because I'm still
uncertain how to go back and forth on Internet. I'm waiting for the aol
people to explain "quoting" to me.

   

 


From oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!world!bzs Sun Jul 31 04:27:42 PDT 1994
Article: 14457 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: open debate
In-Reply-To: bradleyrs@aol.com's message of 29 Jul 1994 12:24:01 -0400
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References: <31baf1$hg1@search01.news.aol.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 1994 03:13:25 GMT
Lines: 254


From: bradleyrs@aol.com (BradleyRS)
>re Gordon McFee's message (I've lost his original) that we can discuss the
>Holocaust as a "fact" but not whether it happened or not.

Well, here are Gordon McFee's exact words:

>Questioning history is one of the intrinsic aspects of the art--without
>it, history would be nothing more than a series of events and dates. 
>Questioning established positions on issues is also important to the
>proper use of history.
>
>Interpreting history is also perfectly acceptable, assuming of course the
>interpretation is at least based on verifiable or probable facts, and not
>based on invented or contrived facts.  It also assumes that events are not
>denied, or simply disregarded because they do not support the author's
>point of view.
>
>The holocaust is an example of this.  The meaning of it, or its relevance
>to history, can be debated; its existence cannot.
>-- 
>Gordon McFee ai292

(back to Bradley Smith):

>In my work, which is not to prove anything did or didn't happen but to
>help create a public environment in which the any question whatever can be
>asked by anyone about the Holocaust story, I am constantly told that "my"
>questions can not be asked because they deny established fact, the fact of
>the "Holocaust" and that my questions demonstrate that I am a "hater" of
>Jews, which in turn, then, becomes another reason for not responding to my
>question.

The answer to that is easy.

The problem is not the question, the problem is that you and those
several people who hold your view assert answers, not questions.

And those answers have been demonstrated over and over again to range
from just plain wrong to nonsensical forays into pop epistemology
(what can we know, how can we know what we know, etc.)

But you (plural) accept no such answers, because you believe the
holocaust didn't occur and assert, axiomatically, that anything
contrary to that belief must be flawed, prima facie.

Also, your (plural) answers overflow with political agenda

Surely some recognition has to be made of Berg, eg, referring to those
he disagrees with as (and I quote) "Jewish trash" and wishing myself
into a concentration camp (full message available on request, it was
actually much uglier than that indicates.)

What would you expect people to conclude?

Berg, Gannon, Raven, et al get far more intolerant when *their*
"answers" are challenged than vice-versa.

Virtually all the angry words exchanged on this list go like this:

1. A revisionist states something as fact (eg, there exist no Nazi
documents memorializing homicidal gassings.)

2. Someone else points out that this is just plain wrong with suitable
reference and quotation (here's a document, reference, etc, ...,
here's another, and another.)

3. The revisionist flatly denies that these documents can possibly
exist, asserting they must be forgeries or similar.

Why? Because he axiomatically believes that no such documents exist!

He's exasperated BECAUSE HE'S ALREADY TOLD US ALL THAT THEY DON'T
EXIST! I find *that* exasperating to say the least.

4. So the revisionist is treated like one treats anyone who asserts
without evidence and ignores the obvious: He is scorned and ridiculed.

That's only natural. What else can one do with a person who simply
closes his eyes to evidence handed to him on a silver platter? Refute
the evidence? Fine. Merely *deny* the evidence because it disagrees
with one's beliefs? No thank you.

Obviously you cannot convince that person of anything, not in a
rational manner. That was tried and rejected, by him. So point out
that regardless of the differences over the debate *he* is a moron and
go on with your life.

All of us have disagreed with someone in our lives. Even heatedly.
That's nothing new, really.

But confronting someone who will deny outright evidence to the
contrary is not something to waste much time on.

>In my work, which is not to prove anything did or didn't happen but to
>help create a public environment in which the any question whatever can be
>asked by anyone about the Holocaust story,

Oh bullshit, Mr Smith.

Who do you think you are kidding?

Not I.

Did you or did you not write the following:

--------------------
	...

     Revisionists part company with establishment historians in that
Revisionists deny that the German State had a policy to exterminate the
Jewish people (or anyone else) by putting them to death in gas chambers
or killing them through abuse or neglect.  Revisionists also maintain
that the figure of 6 million Jewish deaths is an irresponsible
exaggeration, and that no execution gas chambers existed in any camp in
Europe which was under German control...

     During the war, and in the postwar era as well, Zionist
organizations joined with the Allied Governments and became deeply
involved in creating and promulgating anti-German hate propaganda.
There is little doubt that their purpose was to drum up world sympathy
and political and financial support for Jewish causes, especially for
the formation of the State of Israel.  Today, while the political
benefits of the Holocaust story have largely dissipated for the others,
the story still plays an important role in the ambitions of Zionist and
other organizations in the Jewish community.  It is the leaders of
these political and propaganda organizations who continue to work to
sustain the orthodox Holocaust legend and the myth of German
monstrosity during the Second World War.

	...

--------------------

That's your idea of "not to prove anything did or didn't happen..."?

BULLSHIT SMITH, SIMPLY UNADULTERATED BULLSHIT!

Caught again, huh?

(quote from: "The Holocaust Controversy: The Case for Open Debate", by
Bradley R. Smith, apparently available directly from Mr Smith's own
CODOH.)

>I am constantly told that "my"
>questions can not be asked because they deny established fact,

I am sure you are.

So what? You know what they say about kitchens and heat.

But the truth of the matter is it's not the questions; it's the
answers you and your buddies offer, like the above.

You don't just raise questions. You raise questions, offer answers,
and then when proven wrong you just ignore the evidence to the
contrary and repeat yourselves hoping that the next audience is too
naive or ignorant to spot the errors.

>the fact of
>the "Holocaust" and that my questions demonstrate that I am a "hater" of
>Jews

Well, it can't possibly have anything to do with people who associate
themselves with your IHR:

1. Spouting things like his detractors are "Jewish trash"

2. Wishing people into concentration camps for their "talmudic logic".

3. Posting completely fabricated texts claiming them to be from the
Jewish Talmud (the ancient Jewish text of commentaries on the Bible)
which happen to be stuff like it's ok for a Jew to kill or steal from
a non-Jew and other such filthy nonsense.

4. Claiming that the US and other Western nations govts are completely
controlled by Jews, and marches to their agenda in some vast and
all-powerful secret conspiracy.

5. Claiming that Hollywood, the press, and other media world-wide are
controlled by Jews in yet another vast and all-powerful secret
conspiracy.

6. Claiming that The Holocaust was cooked up by Jews to drum up
support for the state of Israel (I mean, c'mon, yet this is one of the
most common claims made here by revisionists when asked for mere
evidence for their beliefs, no evidence but, uh, it helps dem jooos in
israel get money so "I" don't need any facts, uh-huh.)

etc.

Gosh, I can't imagine why anyone would associate your viewpoint with
hate-mongering against jews...NOT!

>which in turn, then, becomes another reason for not responding to my
>question.

There have been reams of responses here. What's lacking is a response
to the answer other than the conspiracy theories and blanket claims of
forgeries all forgeries.

Besides, didn't Deborah Lipstadt write an entire book responding to
your questions, more or less?

I mean, if you didn't like her answers, well, sorry.

But that hardly justifies these crocodile tears claiming that you are
never responded to.

Methinks the man doth protest too much.

>So I suppose I need to be told  (1)  what the "Holocaust" was so that I
>can operate inside the boundries that have been layed out for it 

Oh stop the disingenousness, gak, I can't stand it!

If you don't know what it is than I am absolutely certain we have no
disagreements between us.

>and  (2)
>why, specifically, the questions I do ask are either irrelevant or hateful
>and in either case are not to be answered because they "deny" established
>fact.

That's false, as I have amply demonstrated.

>Example: In an advertisement that I have been running in student
>newspapers at universities around the country (A Revisionist Challenge to
>the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum) I refer to a claim in Michael
>Berenbaum's
>The World Must Know: The History of the Holocaust as Told in the United
>States Holocaust Memorial Museum (Little, Brown & Co.) that a homicidal
>gassing chamber was operated by the Gemans which "may have been ... near
>Giessen .... " (p.6)
>
>In the ad I write: "`May have been?' That's the best historical writing
>$200 million can buy?" 

Ok, it's poor writing. Perhaps you should ask Berenbaum why the
uncertainty. With some writers it's just a bad habit to hedge their
words, but who knows.

You hardly need to take newspaper ads out to ask Berenbaum where the
uncertainty in his statement arises from. Personally I have no idea,
nor do I think it very important tho I can see why someone might find
it interesting. I hope you get the answer to your question.

Next question?

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD


From oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.ans.net!newstf01.cr1.aol.com!search01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Mon Aug  1 04:21:28 PDT 1994
Article: 14515 of alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.ans.net!newstf01.cr1.aol.com!search01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: bradleyrs@aol.com (BradleyRS)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: open debate
Date: 31 Jul 1994 17:15:02 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 62
Sender: news@search01.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <31h48m$7f8@search01.news.aol.com>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: search01.news.aol.com

In article , bzs@world.std.com (Barry
Shein) writes:

(I still don't know how to "quote" but will respond anyhow as best I can)

re how I "assert answers, not questions:"  I probably do sometimes, but
that's not my job.  My job is to promote open debate on the controversy.
Now that I have found a few individuals here on Internet who will actually
respond to questions I will try to be more disiplined.

re Fritz and "Jewish Trash:" I don't like that stuff. I've told Fritz I
don't like it. At the same time, revisionists are routinely name-called by
those who don't want revisionist research discussed openly. You and Fritz
are going to have to learn how to talk to each other by yourselves. 

re feeling "exasperated:"  I imagine almost everyone in this controversy
has those feelings. It comes from talking and not listening--as you
say--but on the part of many people, not just revisionists.

re my claim that my work is not to "prove" anything:  you quote a long
statement by me in my article/advertisement The Holocaust Controversy: The
Case for Open Debate. In it I make the assertion that the Holocaust story
is in the hands of mainline Zionist organizations which are "deeply
involved in creating and promulgating anti-German hate propaganda." I
believe that's so. It's a statement of opinion. When you claim that my
opinion about this is "bullshit," that's your opinion. 

(Because I pushed the wrong button a few minutes ago, I have temporarily
lost McGee's --McCrees?--message. I'd like to respond to it here.)

You speak of the "mountains of evidence" that support the gas chamber
stories. It's clear that revisionists look at those mountains differently
than 
most. That's exactly the core of what the "controversy" is about. It won't
do, if you really want to talk about it, to posit that no revisionist
criticism of any part of the orthodox story has any value whatever. That
closes the debate rather than getting it started.

Re Lipstadt's questions about the Holocaust that are routinely debated: I
agree that all the questions she noted are relevant. I would only say that
there are additional questions and issues that I, and others, would like
to see tackled. One of them is Berenbaum's claim about the existence of a
homicidal gassing chamber "near Geissen."
 
You allow that it is a legitimate question but "irrelevant" to "the
reality of the Holocaust." I don't think it's irrelevant. Maybe I'm wrong,
but that's the question I'm asking now. What proof is there that the
Germans gassed Jews and/or others in a homicidal gassing chamber "near
Geissen?"  The reason I believe the question is relevant is that it goes
to the academic standards maintained by Berenbaum, and perhaps to his
character. Berenbaum is relevant to me because he represents the U.S.
Holocaust Memorial Museum. 

The alleged gas chamber "near Geissen" then goes directly to the
credibility of The Museum itself. It's not the whole enchilada, but it's
the question I'm posing now. It's a simple question compared to many of
the questions that need to be asked. Nevertheless, if it doesn't interest
you, it doesn't, and there we are. 

 

 


From oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!psgrain!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!eunet.no!nuug!EU.net!uunet!newstf01.cr1.aol.com!search01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Mon Aug  1 04:21:29 PDT 1994
Article: 14516 of alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!psgrain!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!eunet.no!nuug!EU.net!uunet!newstf01.cr1.aol.com!search01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: bradleyrs@aol.com (BradleyRS)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: open debate
Date: 31 Jul 1994 17:17:01 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 4
Sender: news@search01.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <31h4cd$7g7@search01.news.aol.com>
References: <31ec6e$lop@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: search01.news.aol.com

In article <31ec6e$lop@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
writes:

re "Geissen" or "Gusan?":  it's Geissen.


From oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!swrinde!pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!eunet.no!nuug!EU.net!uunet!newstf01.cr1.aol.com!search01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Mon Aug  1 04:21:30 PDT 1994
Article: 14517 of alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!swrinde!pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!eunet.no!nuug!EU.net!uunet!newstf01.cr1.aol.com!search01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: bradleyrs@aol.com (BradleyRS)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: open debate
Date: 31 Jul 1994 17:23:02 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 13
Sender: news@search01.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <31h4nm$7id@search01.news.aol.com>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: search01.news.aol.com

In article ,
k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) writes:

Thanks for answering:

re the "approximately 11 million murdered:"  your response goes to one of
the problems in the controversy. I think we should talk about the alleged
"genocide" (11 million, for example) rather than the "Holocaust."  But
it's a lost cause. Revisionists are always accused of denying the
"Holocaust," which implies the German State did not persecute Jews. It's
confusing for the citizenry.

re my e-mail number:  yes. I gave the wrong one. You have the right one.


From oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!swrinde!pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!eunet.no!nuug!EU.net!uunet!world!bzs Mon Aug  1 04:21:31 PDT 1994
Article: 14525 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!swrinde!pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!eunet.no!nuug!EU.net!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: open debate
In-Reply-To: bradleyrs@aol.com's message of 31 Jul 1994 17:23:02 -0400
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References:  <31h4nm$7id@search01.news.aol.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 1994 00:01:28 GMT
Lines: 178


From: bradleyrs@aol.com (BradleyRS)
>re the "approximately 11 million murdered:"  your response goes to one of
>the problems in the controversy. I think we should talk about the alleged
>"genocide" (11 million, for example) rather than the "Holocaust."  But
>it's a lost cause. Revisionists are always accused of denying the
>"Holocaust," which implies the German State did not persecute Jews. It's
>confusing for the citizenry.


Although we can perhaps kick around the word "persecute" there have
certainly been revisionists here, claiming to subscribe to the IHR and
CODOH line, who basically claim that the Nazis never mussed a hair on
a Jew's (or Gypsy or whatever) head, or nearly so.

Berg for example has claimed here that Auschwitz was a great place to
sit out the war.

Any number of holocaust deniers here (I'm sure I have some quotes if
you doubt this) have claimed that the vast majority of supposed Jewish
(et al) victims actually survived.

The usual reasoning offered is that they, millions of them, went to
the Soviet Union and somehow this fact, not to mention their
well-being, has escaped everyone.

The evidence offered for this idea seems to be limited to cold war
images of Soviet secrecy regarding these people's whereabouts.

That's not my idea of evidence, it's just a vague hand-wave and not
even a very good one.

For example, consider the huge amount of work which revolved around
allowing tens of thousands of Jews in the Soviet Union to emigrate to
Israel, particularly through the 1970's and 1980's.

None of the people organizing this, inside or out, ever noticed all
these people who were thought dead? None of them were re-united with
families etc? No one noticed?

Or perhaps all these people doing this work were conspirators? Or made
into conspirators, to a one?

Worse, much worse...

The cold war is over, the Soviet Union is dead.

Although it's been 50 years surely out of millions of these supposed
survivors many, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of these
people thought dead must still be alive.

Many would not even be very elderly.  How many WWII veterans are still
alive, by comparison? Many, right?  There are a half dozen WWII
veterans alive just counted among my father and uncles.

So where are these millions of survivors that supposedly died in the
camps but the revisionsts claim actually escaped to the Soviet Union?

Or their children, friends, relatives, etc?

How many such stories would it take to get some notice? A dozen?
Probably not. One hundred? Maybe that would be interesting, "100
people who supposedly died in concentration camps found alive and well
in the former Soviet Union", I think that would capture some interest
from the media, from someone (perhaps revisionists even?)

But the claim by the revisionists is millions!

It's *their* number.

And I don't think it's outrageous to say that there must therefore be
tens of thousands of such people alive today.

A fair number is probably at least in the hundreds of thousands if not
over a million, but even merely ten thousand people thought dead being
discovered alive and well should captivate some interest, wouldn't
escape notice.

And surely this should be obvious by now with the Soviet Union gone
for almost 5 years.

Why the silence? Another vast conspiracy? Seems hard to imagine.

Or was that a convenient story by revisionists only until the collapse
of the Soviet Union?

And now that the facts can be checked and the claim achieves its
natural absurdity they are not so interested in this claim?

Of course, that *still* leaves the question of what happened to these
millions of people?

It was so convenient for revisionists to at least admit they existed
and then sweep it under the rug with claims that they mostly survived
but went to the Soviet Union and you know (wink-wink) how hard it is
to get any straight answers out of those commies!

It's really all quite outlandish. Not to mention conveniently
slippery.

To begin to claim the Nazis did not kill millions of people one would
at least be obliged to consider the question of "OK, so where are
these people then?"

It's not like there aren't lists of missing people. There are such
lists.

It's not nearly as mysterious as revisionists would like one to
believe.

And I can understand why people with only a passing exposure to the
history of the period might believe that it's all quite vague. But
it's not as vague as the revisionists would have one believe. Entry
records to Auschwitz and other camps survived, I've personally seen
some.

Yad Vashem (I think that's the right name) and other Jewish
organizations have over the years collected names and other
information of missing people from relatives and other sources. Much
of this was necessitated to make claims of restitution for property
confiscated by the Nazis.

I know of such people in my own family. Why don't they call? Where are
they? Until they disappeared they were in contact with their sisters
and brothers in NYC and elsewhere, they know how to find them, it's
not that difficult. These were people who were very close, they
wouldn't forget each other. They'd find each other if they were alive,
it wouldn't be too difficult. Several phone calls made in one
afternoon would do it. Some of their close relatives still live in NYC
and are listed under the names they would know. They were, on average,
rather educated people, sophisticated business people etc. They'd
figure it out in a few days, in five years they'd phone!

So what happened to them? Well, perhaps they were just unfortunate
casualties of war and not of any interest to anyone here. Perhaps. We
can always explain away the one in front of us, but millions?

Doesn't make sense.

Doesn't make any sense at all.

The revisionists ply their trade mostly on an image of the vagaries of
history, on the assumption that to most people much of this can't be
known. Personal relationships were lost in the confusions of war,
people forgot each other, can't find each other, are just statistics,
etc.

It's bullshit, to be blunt.

My mother and father visited me earlier this month, a few weeks
ago.

Practically out of the blue my mother began speculating out loud about
what might have happened to her aunt and her sons I refer to, she
choked back tears as she spoke.

I don't know why these people remember each other like it was
yesterday. But don't tell me they don't, that's bullshit, they do,
they sure as hell do, don't tell me they just forgot to call.

Where the hell are they if they're not all dead?

WHERE IN THE HELL ARE THEY?

Maybe the revisionists think this is all some abstract exercise in
historiography and epistemology, trying to know things that are
unknowable, speculate on the validity of evidence, etc., an
intellectual game about far away people in a distant time.

Well, sorry, to some people it's not a game. It's their f*cking
family, their brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles, and their
children. Where the hell are they?

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD


From oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!news.hal.COM!decwrl!uunet!newstf01.cr1.aol.com!search01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Mon Aug  1 04:21:32 PDT 1994
Article: 14526 of alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!news.hal.COM!decwrl!uunet!newstf01.cr1.aol.com!search01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: bradleyrs@aol.com (BradleyRS)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: open debate
Date: 31 Jul 1994 20:05:05 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 24
Sender: news@search01.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <31he7h$a1u@search01.news.aol.com>
References: <31h6h5$b82@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: search01.news.aol.com

In article <31h6h5$b82@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
writes:

"This assertion implies that not only did "Zionists" control the
Allies and inspired them to hold the Nurnberg trials, etc, it
also implies that the "Zionists" control Germany, as German
historians conducted some of the most serious study of the
Holocaust. The "Zionists" control, it seems, also the German
legal system, which held many trials for Nazi war criminals.
The "Zionists" also control, it would appear, all the Jews,
Poles, Germans, Soviets, Czechs etc who were in the camps and
testified about what happened in them. They also control, I
guess, all the Poles who lived near the camps and saw trains
with thousands of people coming in daily and no one coming out."

What I wrote in the article was that "Zionist organizations joined with
the Allied Governments and became deeply involved in creating and
promulgating anti-German hate propaganda."

Became "involved with".... I didn't write "control."  Relax.

Bradley




From oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!eff!news.duke.edu!solaris.cc.vt.edu!news.ans.net!newstf01.cr1.aol.com!search01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Mon Aug  1 04:21:33 PDT 1994
Article: 14527 of alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!eff!news.duke.edu!solaris.cc.vt.edu!news.ans.net!newstf01.cr1.aol.com!search01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: bradleyrs@aol.com (BradleyRS)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: open debate
Date: 31 Jul 1994 20:13:02 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 28
Sender: news@search01.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <31heme$a5l@search01.news.aol.com>
References: <31h7j8$bsr@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: search01.news.aol.com

In article <31h7j8$bsr@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
writes:


>Recently, some "leading revisionists" have joined this group. It's
not only Gannon, the obnoxious Nazi brat, "hermann", etc, it's
the people Gannon used to quote - "professional revisionists", who
make their living from it. 

>One such person is Bradley Smith, who publishes "revisionist" ads
in college newspapers. Smith, if I understand correctly, is about
65 years old; he holds, to the best of my knowledge, a highschool
diploma. In the "60 minutes" program about Holocaust deniers, he
was described as a "former construction worker and longshoreman".

All the above is more or less correct.

>As far as I know, Smith was not in the death camps while they
operated. I am posting some testimonies of people who were in
them while they operated. I am curious to know why Smith claims
to know better than them what happened in the camps. Maybe he
doesn't claim that - his position is unclear. 

I don't claim to be an expert on what went on in the camps half a century
ago. 

I would like to know what proof Berenbaum has that Jews or others were
gassed in a camp "near Geissen."  One thing at a time. 



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.