The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/nyms/aol/1996/sf924.0696

From Fri Jun 28 12:30:01 PDT 1996
Article: 46487 of alt.revisionism
From: (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
Message-ID: <4qsr12$>
References: <4qsnfc$>
Reply-To: (SF924)

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

  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

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 Fri Jun 28 20:44:58 PDT 1996
Article: 46611 of alt.revisionism
From: (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
Message-ID: <4r1voe$>
Reply-To: (SF924)

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

4.  Who knew about this conspiracy?

5.  Are there documents or notes relating to the conspiracy?


From Sun Jun 30 09:33:22 PDT 1996
Article: 47054 of alt.revisionism
From: (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
Message-ID: <4r5rob$>
References: <4r5dan$>
Reply-To: (SF924)

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

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.

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.