From email@example.com Fri Jun 28 12:30:01 PDT 1996 Article: 46487 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: firstname.lastname@example.org (SF924) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: A question for revisionists re: defenses at N'burg Date: 26 Jun 1996 22:18:10 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Lines: 67 Sender: email@example.com Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> References: <email@example.com> Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org (SF924) NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com I have reviewed your two submissions with interest. I cannot comment on the nature of Hoess' testimony as to whether it was direct or rebuttal testimony. My point in highlighting Franck was two-fold. First, he was alleged to be at the Wannsee conference. Secondly, the noose was around his neck, so to say, primarily for the count related to the liquidation of the Jews which was alleged to have occurred in Poland, the area over which he had governmental authority. The main Nazi killing centers (i.e death camps as opposed to concentration/labor camps) were all in Poland; Auzswitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, Chelmno, etc. Allegedly, Franck was present at the Wannsee Conference because of the need for his coordinatation in the killing activities as head of the General-Government. Kaltenbrunner, who was the highest ranking member of the SS after Himmler, also faced the gallows in large part because of the "Extermination" count in the indictment. It is doubtful whether Franck would have been executed without the success of the Extermination Count of the indictmenrt. He was originally Hitler's lawyer but throughout the period of the Third Reich, prior to his appointment in Poland, he was a party and administrative official who held domestic posts. He committed no war crimes and did not plan the war. Absent the Extermination Count, Franck would have been a secondary figure who may have never been brought to trial at all. For this reason, Franck had the greatest incentive to forcefully challenge the "gas chamber" story if untrue. If the gas chambers (i.e. final solution) were a hoax, he would have surely known. While it is true that the evidence was presented at the trial as you say, the defendants knew well advance what the substance of the prosecution case was. Franck and his lawyers knew well in advance that his life depended upon his ability to rebut the extermination evidence. It was common knowledge that the "gas chambers" would be a central part of the prosectution's case. As I understand it, the theory of the revisionists is that the gas chambers were a hoax and that there was no systematic plan to kill the Jews. If this was true, Franck would have surely known. He would have known that the extermination camps were merely resettlement camps and there was no plan to kill the Jews via lethal gas. All of these camps were on his territory and he had the civil responsibility over the ghettoes such as Lodz and Warsaw where the Jews were held. In short, he would have known that the "gas chamber" story was a complete hoax and fabrication if not the greatest hoax of all time. He would have told this to his lawyers. Yet, he never even raised this issue. >From a legal standpoint, this is strong corroboration that the gas chambers were real and that Franck's defense was one of having no direct involvement in the gassings and of following orders. Parenthetically, wasn't it Franck who cried out that Germany would be racked with guilt for 1000 years because of the Holocaust. This is hardly exculpatory. I think that it is important to stress that while my 2 posts have focussed on the Nuremburg Trial, in all of the subsequent trials, this argument (i.e. the gas chambers were a hoax) was never raised or argued. This includes the so-called "Zyklon B" trials as well as numerous trials of apparatchiks involved with the Holocaust. To my mind, it begs creduility to believe that the greatest hoax of all time could be pulled off so flawlessly without a single lawyer raising an objection. Look at what OJ Simson's lawyers went through just to imply that a glove had been planted. . From email@example.com Fri Jun 28 20:44:58 PDT 1996 Article: 46611 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: firstname.lastname@example.org (SF924) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Question #2: Evidence of a Conspiracy Date: 28 Jun 1996 21:09:34 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Lines: 30 Sender: email@example.com Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Reply-To: email@example.com (SF924) NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com My first posting appeared to generate some interesting comments. I think that it would be constructive, in view of the comments, to focus on the trials after Nuremburg and particularly, those trials where charges of complicity in mass gassings were essential to the case. Such cases would probably involve the trial of camp guards, camp officials and the like. In these cases, participating in gassings would be central to the case and it should be examined if any of these defendants ever claimed that the gassings were a hoax. This dovetails into my second question. As I understand it, the revisionist position is that the gas chamber story and the plan to exterminate the Jews was a conspiratorial hoax perpetrated by one or more of the following: World Jewry, Zionists and one or more of the allies. It is alleged that this is one of the greatest hoaxes in history Is there any evidence of this conspiracy: For example: 1. Who are the individuals who participated? 2. Were there any meetings to plan the conspiracy? If so, when and where and who participated? 3. Did the allied leadership participate in the conspiracy? If so, who participated? 4. Who knew about this conspiracy? 5. Are there documents or notes relating to the conspiracy? From firstname.lastname@example.org Sun Jun 30 09:33:22 PDT 1996 Article: 47054 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!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: email@example.com (SF924) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Question #2: Evidence of a Conspiracy Date: 30 Jun 1996 08:25:47 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Lines: 22 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Message-ID: <email@example.com> References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Reply-To: email@example.com (SF924) NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com Mr Giwer: If you are going to respond to me, please do so in a professional manner and kindly refrain from using insulting and ad hominum terms such as "holohugger". Your last two responses have left me entirely confused. I have reviewed Mr. Zundel's site, Mr. Smith's site, and the IHR site. All of these people claim that the extermination story is a carefully concocted plot by Jews and Zionists to trump up support for Israel and sympathy for Jews in general. Now you are claiming that this is not a central theme of revisionist philosophy. You claim that the only conspirators were the Soviet secret police. You have no documents and you can identify noone as particpating in the plan. In four years, the old Soviet archives have been used to corroborate such minor points as the guilt of Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs. Nonetheless, there has emerged absolutely no evidence of the greatest hoax and conspriacy of all time.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor