The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/nyms/dthomas/1996/germanica-pontificus

From Tue Jul 23 09:53:02 PDT 1996
Article: 52486 of alt.revisionism
From: (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 00:33:07 -0400
Organization: Absence Software
Lines: 295
References:  <4t0kp6$>
NNTP-Posting-Host: (DvdThomas) wrote:

> Jamie McCarthy wrote:
> >What happened to your insisting on extreme care and tremendous amounts
> >of proof before accusing people of crimes they did not commit?  When
> >we're speaking of _German_ atrocities, you require a confession stamped
> >by a notary public and signed in triplicate by God Himself.  But when
> >we're speaking of _American_ atrocities, it's quite enough to say that
> >"it is quite unbelievable" that the Americans were able to resist
> >brutally torturing their captives.
> Where on earth did you get your idea of what I insist on?

>From  reading what you write.

> I believe you
> attribute the viewpoints of others, or perhaps the viewpoints that a black
> or white analysis leads to in your own mind with my own outlooks.

You are wrong.

> You argue in extremes.

No.  I don't.

> That does not fit into any valid description of my
> opinions, thank you just the same.  This is one of the major reasons I
> don't care to discuss the subjects with you.  I spend more time wiping
> thrown balls of tar off myself than I do addressing the topics.  That gets
> old in a hurry.

You've said all that before.  It makes for a nice-sounding argument:
those darn guys on alt.revisionism just assume so much, they don't
bother trying to get to know people, and they lump everyone together
under the "Nazi" category.

Trouble is, I haven't done any such thing.  Your argument sounds nice,
it's just wrong is all.  I've been reading your words on Usenet and in
email and recently on Germanica-l for somewhat over a year now, DThomas.
I pay attention when you write me email.  I always read it at least
twice.  In short, I got my idea of what you think from _you_.

What is my basis for saying that you have a double standard when it
comes to German atrocities vs. American atrocities?  Well, when I wrote
the above, I had the exchanges below in mind.

Note that you dismiss the Mazur soap story as a "fantastic story"
because the _only_ evidence is three eyewitness testimonies and
corroborating physical evidence. Compare this to your statements earlier
in this thread, which dismiss the necessity of skepticism regarding the
alleged torture of captive Nazis.  Proof is unnecessary because "it is
quite unbelievable that no Germans were subjected to this treatment."
It's unbelievable that a Nazi would commit atrocities, and it's
unbelievable that the Americans would not commit atrocities.  Nuff said
about that.  I assume you now understand why I described your opinions
the way I did.

   Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 06:31:35 -0400
   Subject: Re: Nizkor Project
   H. Morrell writes:
   >Mr. Thomas is not being truthful when he claims that Nizkor
   >parrots some of the wild claims (soap from corpses, etc..) made
   >concerning the holocaust. I offer the following as a demonstration
   >as to what is on the Nizkor site as a demonstration:
   You, sir, are mistaken in saying that I was not being truthful.
   Note that I say you are mistaken, not that you are not being
   truthful or that you are lying.  My opinion is that you believe
   what you wrote above, but it is wrong. Even if my opinion were
   that you are lying, common courtesy would dictate that I not use
   that description in the absence of some compelling reason to do
   Nizkor contains 100 megabytes of data, of which you quoted perhaps
   one thousandth of one percent.  I participated in lengthy
   arguments in alt.revisionism wherein it was attempted to point out
   that the publicly accepted tales of making soap from human corpses
   was first circulated in World War I, and carried over to World War
   II.  The point being made was that when confronted with this
   statement, instead of agreeing that it was an outright, egregious
   lie that should be laid to rest by common agreement on its
   falsity, the tacit proponents would respond with stories about an
   alleged soap-making experiment (Mazur), making the specious case
   that "it wasn't totally untrue, and that's why we can't agree
   totally that it was a lie." Using this logic, the slightest shred
   of truth prevents a fantastic story from being branded a lie.  One
   could thus say, "Today I say a herd of pigs flying across the blue
   sky." and not be lying because indeed the sky is blue, and
   besides, there was an experiment where a Midwest farmer was said
   by a witness to have launched pigs through the air with a large
   slingshot and they did fly for a short distance.  What rubbish.
   Further, they even challenged the documented connection with the
   World War I propaganda stories and indeed the existence of those
   stories themselves.  At that point it is easy to make the
   conclusion that there was a lack of good faith in their arguments.
   There may be more technical terms for it, but this is what is
   commonly known as "weaseling."  Crawling through a tight, narrow
   verbal space to allow the lie to continue to hold some vestige of
   credence. Because of attitudes like this, the contemptible lie
   lives on in large segments of the public consciousness, and you
   will see it repeated on occasion in the media and by people
   described as survivors of the concentration camps.
   The text of the posts involved in the arguments I describe are
   contained in Nizkor's archives.  That is what I meant in my
   statement, and that, my friend, is the truth.  Please be more
   thorough in your investigations before directing such terms at
   someone.  Even if I thought you were a liar, I would not dream of
   saying so publicly without hard proof and a damned good reason to
   do so.  You had neither in this case.
   (As for the comments on Mazur, who constitutes the weaseling
   material, he does a pretty good job of discrediting himself in his
   own Soviet inspired "testimony.")

   Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 10:32:00 -0400
   Subject: Re: *Nizkor Project on "Soap"
   Michael Palmer writes:
   >Holding a democratic nation responsible for the actions of its government
   >is hardly a novel or outrageous concept.  If I am anti-German in this
   >respect then so is every Bundeskanzler since Adenauer, every
   >Bundespr"asident since Heuss, and every leader of the CDU, FDP, and SPD
   >since the War.
   You're getting warm, very warm!
   >No rational person considers another anti-American simply
   >because (s)he points out the injustices visited upon the American Indians
   >by the White Man.
   That's true now, but would it have been if the time frames were
   similar.  In other words, what do you think the response to the
   above would have been in, say, 1915?
   >Quite frankly, the incessant whining, the taking great offense at small or
   >non-existent insults, and the puffy proclamations that "anyone who
   >disagrees with my contention that I am a victim because I am a German" is
   >an enemy of God and society, that fill a significant number of posts here
   >is far more anti-German than anything I post, since it reinforces to the
   >casual reader many of the standard negative--albeit incorrect--stereotypes
   >of Germans.
   That you would refer to what in some cases is righteous anger as
   "whining" says a lot in itself.  The reactions you so negatively
   characterize are quite natural ones born of frustration, i.e. "I'm
   mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore."
   >The issue of German civilian deaths at the close of the war and in
   >the immediate postwar period is a red herring, like a 6-year-old
   >boy caught with his hand in the cookie jar pointing to his
   >7-year-old brother and saying, "But he took *more* cookies than I
   >did!"  Certainly there were atrocities committed by the victors,
   >but that is an entirely separate issue:  in the history of man's
   >inhumanity to man there is plenty of blame to go around.  The fact
   >that the the atrocities committed by party A are numerically fewer
   >than those committed by party B does not exonerate party A from
   >responsibility for the atrocities it committed.
   The issue is not using one atrocity to excuse another, the issue is
   party A eternally pilloried and party B never mentioned?  If we are
   truly to "learn from the experience" a common line used to continue
   wallowing in morbidity, then should not all the experience be
   included?  What justification can you give for being selective in
   identifying murderers and condemning their actions?  I know the
   justification of others, and it is to keep A's face in the mud as
   long as possible.
   >The present palaver over whether anyone made soap from the bodies
   >of dead concentration camp inmates is another issue blown
   >completely out of proportion:  if it was attempted at all it was
   >only once or twice, and by one of the pseudo-scientific types that
   >hung on the fringes of the concentration camp apparat.
   You miss the point entirely.  "It" is two things.  One is the soap
   myth, a long-standing completely false piece of propaganda.  The
   other is the Mazur testimony, a probably false Soviet inspired
   contribution to the Nuremberg trials.  The soap myth predates Mazur
   by 25 years.  They are quite independent things.  Yet people persist
   in connecting them as you do by referring to "it," and insisting on
   including Mazur in any discussion of the soap myth.  Why?  What is
   the justification and purpose if not to infer that, well, the myth
   is basically untrue, but.....  In other words, they only made a
   little bit of soap, so there was some truth to "it."  Discussion
   gets "blown out of proportion" because the inability to see or
   accept this simple differentiation leads to unnecessary verbiage. 
   The soap myth is a self-contained despicable myth.  End of
   discussion on that one subject.
   >The great majority of post-war German society recognizes this
   >responsibility of the pre-war generations, but has learned to
   >incorporate it into their past and to move forward, to make its
   >own reputation in the world.  It is time that you stop blaming
   >life's disappointments on "anti-Germanism", grow up, and do
   Your advice would be good if the premise on which it is based were
   true.  It isn't and thus it isn't.

   Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 12:05:18 -0400
   Subject: Re: *Nizkor Project on "Soap"
   Michael Palmer wrote:
   >To castigate those who acknowledge Germany's responsibility
   >completely misses the mark:  you should direct your anger against
   >those other countries that refuse to acknowledge their complicity
   >in the Holocaust.

   And, of course, in the making of soap, excuse me, the experimental
   making of soap which is highly likely based your understanding of
   the demented minds of a class of people (camp staff).

   >I believe I make it perfectly clear that making soap from the
   >corpses of prisoners was never considered seriously, if at all, on
   >either the national or even the camp level.

   "never considered seriously, if at all"  Isn't that like saying
   "almost", or "only a little bit"?  What justification do you offer
   for continued waffling on this?  Why is it so hard for you to just
   blow it completely off, without adding a "but..."?  Perhaps because
   it gives partial justification to your bigoted analysis of the
   demented?  Some people just have to have their demons.  Perhaps not
   all Satanic cults involve the occult.

   Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 10:45:48 -0400
   Subject: Re: Euro-American Students' Union
   Karl Marten writes:
   >Fifty years of German-bashing is enough.
   >Let us celebrate our German heritage.

   Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 05:00:35 -0400
   Subject: Re: *Nizkor Project on "Soap"
   G. Holford writes:
   I continue to be astonished at the degree to which germanic peoples
   are subordinated in this society.
   Let my people go!
   Tell old Pharoah, brother!

(Psychic prediction:  now that I have taken the time to explain to
DThomas that I am reading what he writes, and that I'm not judging him
merely by the company he keeps, nor am I calling him a "Nazi," and after
I have taken the time to dig up the original source material explaining
my reasoning, DThomas will become very quiet on this subject.  Until the
next time he brings it up, at which point Jamie McCarthy's views will
once again be caricatured as "I'm 24 years old and know everything and
you are a hater and a liar."  [quote from germanica-l, 5/2/96])

Posted;  not emailed to DThomas, because he has told me not to send
him email.
 Jamie McCarthy        Co-Webmaster of
 Hate mail will be posted.

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.