From ehrlich606@aol.com Mon Nov  4 12:37:49 PST 1996
Article: 78482 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.ptd.net!news.ptd.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Response to the SRRS
Date: 4 Nov 1996 02:28:16 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 82
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <55k5ug$s00@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.news-fddi.aol.com
X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader

In article ,
jamie@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy) writes:

>
>You're wrong.  Logic is not truth.
>
>For starters, I suggest Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.  To get you
>thinking along the right track, I might ask you how you would rebut
>someone who claims to have proof of life on Mars and can present you
>with scientific jargon that is way over your head.  Does that person
>necessarily have a deadlock on truth simply because you haven't
>researched the subject yet?  Or, in what sense could you "debate" with
>someone who has no compunctions about flagrantly and repeatedly lying
>about evidence?  Those are two simple cases in which reason alone is
>insufficient.

If you are going to invoke the title of Kant's famous critique, then you
might want to make more reference to it than to merely state the title. 
In addition, having read this critique, I don't recall the passage where
Kant tried to explain the problem of the antinomies of pure reason by
reference to alleged life on the Red Planet. Imagine if someone had said,
*For starters, read Freud's *Interpretation of Dreams*.  You see like you
got three ways to do it: suck, f**k, and anal, and that's what it is.*  I
am sure you would agree that, here, too,  there is quite a come down from
the impressive opening to the rather pedestrian continuation.  

A variety of interpretations of masterpieces are possible, for example, it
is possible to detect, according to a feminist critique, a blunted orgasm
in the first movement of Beethoven's D minor, but you go to far if you
imply that the purpose of the KdRV was to show anything so trivial as
*reason is not enough.*

On the contrary, the Critique clearly shows by its structure that it is
attempting to assert fundamental a priori values of Reason, in
contradiction to Hume, and it is further attempting to mark out the
_limits_ of rational speculation, such that speculation that exceeds these
limits -- whatever it is, is _not_ reason, and not philosophy _per se_. 
Admittedly, the *starry skies above, moral law, etc.* stuff is tacked on
later, and pursued in other writings, but these fall under the general
rubric of morals.  If you wanted to say that the Holocaust is a moral
truth, then I suppose that would be fine, but morals are not rational nor
are they facts. And you know that.

What is most apt about a reference to the KdRV is the idea of the
antinomies of pure reason, that is, statements that neither can or cannot
be proved, e.g., the world has a beginning, the world has no beginning,
etc.  Kant lists four of these, but several could be applied to 20th
Century history, and to this topic in particular.  Another time.

You then say that a person's expertise does not necessarily imply a
deadlock on truth.  True!  But then one must ask why the efforts of so
many conventionalists are directed towards either buttressing the
authorities they like (degrees, chairs held, books published) or
ruthlessly tearing down the authorities they do not like (e.g., David
Irving.)

Then you say how one can debate the other side when it flagrantly and
repeatedly lies about evidence?  Obviously, there is only one honorable
way to debate: to rationally and calmly point out what you consider the
demerits in your opponent's arguments and let the reader decide.  If the
other side repeats the same lies, then you are bound either to repeat the
refutations, or else to be quiet.

But perhaps when you say that such debating techniques are not enough, and
that *reason alone* is not enough, you really wish to endorse using other
tactics against your opponents.  You know, like calling them racists,
antisemites, nazi boys, c**ck******s [this last a favorite of Van
Alstine's], and similar things.  Or else by setting up truly repulsive
phony web pages and directing readers to them.  Or by engaging in ruthless
personal attacks including telephone harrassment and ISP harrassment. And
the old stand by, tellings lies about your opponents. Verily, Reason is
_not_ enough to justify such behavior.

Just for the heck of it, let the browser point to and access
*www.codoh.com* and hot link to Ihrgreg@kaiwan.com's site, CODOH's site,
and others.  Some you may accept, much you may reject, but make no
mistake: the sacred fire that inflames the foul mouths of the
conventionalists derives from their desire that you should never visit
these sites, and least of all with an open mind.  But you know that.





From ehrlich606@aol.com Tue Nov  5 06:58:32 PST 1996
Article: 78524 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!clicnet!news.clic.net!news.bconnex.net!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!EU.net!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!psinntp!psinntp!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Soviets were fighting Hitler in 1956 in Hungary?
Date: 4 Nov 1996 02:01:02 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 24
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <55k4be$raf@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <55bk7e$6cr@newsfeeder.total.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.news-fddi.aol.com
X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader

In article <55bk7e$6cr@newsfeeder.total.net>, jtoth@infobahnos.com (Judith
Toth) writes:

>	TOTH: <<of his  information or replying intelligently to my posting, probably
>took David Irving's book UPRISING flipped a few pages and ... voila...
>selected a few words, names, even a town he thought I would spend my
>afternoon on analyzing,... perhaps write an essay for alt.revisionism
>on the lives of, ... Jahve forbid!... on the religious affiliations,
>nationality, political views and the roles of named individuals. One
>by one perhaps I should, but I don't think Rich will be pleased at
>all... 
>	On the other hand, if you are so curious about the people above
> why not read Mr. Irving's excellent book the UPRISING which he wrote
>for the 25th anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian Fight for Freedom?...
>Judit Toth

It is nice to see that someone has found the time to mention the '56'ers,
whose 40th anniversary we now celebrate.  They follow in the tradition of
Hungarian exiles from the '20's, 1945 and therafter, and, of course, 1848.
 There is a particular nostalgia to these exiles, who are really twice
removed exiles.  


From ehrlich606@aol.com Sat Nov  9 05:37:58 PST 1996
Article: 78960 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!feed1.news.erols.com!uunet!in3.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Soviets were fighting Hitler in 1956 in Hungary? [DI/After]
Date: 9 Nov 1996 02:54:19 GMT
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) (1.10)
Lines: 111
Sender: news@aol.com
Message-ID: <19961109025700.VAA07400@ladder01.news.aol.com>
References: <19961109013300.UAA05888@ladder01.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com
X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader

In article <19961109013300.UAA05888@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
ehrlich606@aol.com writes:

A Late Addition to Previous Response

>Subject:	Re: Soviets were fighting Hitler in 1956 in Hungary?
[David Irving]
>From:	ehrlich606@aol.com
>Date:	9 Nov 1996 01:30:44 GMT
>
>In article <560b1o$2l3@atlas.uniserve.com>, hostrov@uniserve.com (Hilary
>Ostrov) writes:
>
>>In <19961108160100.LAA25334@ladder01.news.aol.com>, ehrlich606@aol.com
>>wrote:
>>
>>[deletia]
>
>>
>>And I see you are back to . Are we
>>to be treated to another round of lectures on the contribution of
>>class and economics, Ehrlich?
>
>No, I don't have the time to prepare the arguments with the level of
>detail which Mike would like to see, but OTOH I am persuaded of the
>thesis, so I will let it alone.  But I recently obtained Dubnow's
*History
>of the Jews in Russia and Poland from Earliest Times* and I will follow
on
>when I have something to add.
>

I will tell you this:  What happened in the 20th Century was not that
complicated.  You had an extremely heterogeneous and multicultural East
European community that was being impinged upon by two, or rather two
sets, of empires.  On the one side you had two mostly Germanic empires
which sought to modernize and industrialize the region under German
hegemony.  On the other side you had a Russian empire which was undergoing
an even more rapid and thus more painful attempt at modernization and
industrialization in the same region, with the same desire for hegemony. 
The emphases of both sides were clearly statist in the region, which is
why the region gave rise not only to modern Slavic nationalism in Bohemia
and Poland, but also Ukraine, the Baltics, and among the area's Jews
(i.e., Zionism, which was only one of the alternatives developed). 
Similarly it is no accident that the attempts at artificial languages
(Esperanto, Volapuk) emanated from this region.

The scheme of modernization in western countries at least has focussed
largely on the demand for homogeneous populations.  Hence, the course of
anti-Gypsy and anti-Jewish actions developed long before the Nazis and
indeed continued after in several communist countries which were committed
to their own course of rapid *Gleichschaltung.*  In all cases, and
especially outside of the Nazi experience, there appears to have been a
positive correlation between assimilation on the one hand and acceptance
on the other, which tends to support the notion that *racism* per se was a
reflection of social and economic tensions, and not a simple set of ideas
that grew out of nothing, committed a Holocaust, and then moved to
America.

Further, the scheme of industrialization in all Western countries,
following Gerschenkron, seems to indicate a greater dislocation the
greater the technological and economic *distance* to be covered. 
Sociologically, following Peter Berger, Max Scheler, and many of the
Frankfurt School, industrialization engendered extreme dislocation,
anxiety, resentment, and consequent susceptibility to charismatic
leadership on the one hand and scapegoating on the other.  Hence the
intensity and unilateral nature of local hatreds.

Finally, following Kliuchevsky and McNeil, industrialization processes
seemed to always follow on a model of military preparedness.  Hence war
was a natural expression as well as catalyst to the industrialization
process.  That in fact is what happened.  The world wars were in fact wars
between Germans and Russians over the hegemony of Eastern Europe.  The
first round went to the Germans, the result was voided, there was a pause
to rearm, and then a second round, that went to the Russians.  Then the
Russians were able to implement their plan without interference, much to
the resentment of their subject peoples.

All of the people caught in the middle were treated shamefully.  This
included any German, Pole, or Hungarian who happened to be on the wrong
side of an international border when hostilities were concluded.  Most
were uprooted and deported.  Many were also killed.  In this context, the
great Jewish suffering (along with that of the Gypsies) took place.  They
suffered worst, part because of longstanding enmity which had multifarious
roots, part because their greatest dislocation took place during wartime,
part because the German treatment was partly designed as retribution, part
because the regnant German government had little or no compunction about
killing them, and part because they had no local homeland to go to -- this
last the most eloquent justification, whatever its faults, for the Zionist
enterprise.

There will never be another Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.  The
dramatic structural forces that led to their creation, as well as to the
cruel ideologies that were installed to justify their remorseless
progress, have mercifully run their course.  The idelogies still hold some
sway, like scabs on a healing wound.  They will fall away in time, leaving
behind a proud flesh that will stand as a reminder as well as a sign for
what I hope will be a more pacific and constructive future.  But as in the
Garden of Eden, blame only divides and separates: the apple was proffered,
taken, and eaten.  

It is within this context that I am adamant that the Holocaust should be
placed, and understood.  And we should approach the skeleton of this
process with as much inclusiveness, breadth, humanity, and understanding
as we can muster.



   




From ehrlich606@aol.com Sat Nov  9 05:37:58 PST 1996
Article: 78966 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!feed1.news.erols.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Soviets Hitler 1956 Hungary? -- November 9
Date: 9 Nov 1996 04:46:22 GMT
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) (1.10)
Lines: 16
Sender: news@aol.com
Message-ID: <19961109044901.XAA09433@ladder01.news.aol.com>
References: <19961109025700.VAA07400@ladder01.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com
X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader


An awesome day.

1918 -- The Hohenzollern Dynasty departs.

1923 -- AH leads an unsuccessful rebellion in Munich -- the Beer Hall
Putsch

1938 -- A Nazi pogrom inaugurates the longest ordeal of the Jewish People

1989 -- The lifting of travel restrictions makes the Wall a Bridge: 
Germany is united.

What words for the conflicting emotions this day brings?  Silence.




From ehrlich606@aol.com Sun Nov 10 06:53:39 PST 1996
Article: 79025 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: David Irving blaming the Holocaust on Jews: page numbers for Ehrlich
Date: 9 Nov 1996 23:57:21 GMT
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) (1.10)
Lines: 30
Sender: news@aol.com
Message-ID: <19961110000001.TAA24363@ladder01.news.aol.com>
References: <561h2i$l4g@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com
X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader


Rich --

One more thing on this bit about David Irving.  A while ago, I received a
query from a Jerusalem scholar seeking information about some events in
the pre-war period.  I was able to come up with several bits of
information from various sources, but I was not able to answer his
specific question until I picked up my copy of Irving's much maligned
*Goebbels*.  There I not only found the answer to the query, but the
end-notes contained detailed references citing all of the primary sources
that lay behind it (and their location!).  I sent the material on with a
covering note apologizing for the source.  I received back an e-mail
thanking me profusely for the information, not the least hint of
irritation that Irving's scholarship had helped him.  I am sure that this
kind of thing happens all the time.  Which makes the persecution of David
Irving -- now, I understand, with the imprimatur of the Australian
government -- doubly shameful.  Playing to vulgar prejudices to negate
other vulgar prejudices is a dangerous and distasteful game.

Posting here, because I don't expect to repeat my recent spate of activity
over the last 48 hours (and two notes last weekend!) again soon.  Too many
other things to do, most of which are more interesting and more positive
than this.  Of course, I do not mean by this to reflect negatively on the
quality of my posts, let alone

yours,

ABK




From ehrlich606@aol.com Sun Nov 10 06:53:40 PST 1996
Article: 79045 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!swrinde!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Soviets were fighting Hitler in 1956 in Hungary? [DI/Race]
Date: 9 Nov 1996 17:17:35 GMT
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) (1.10)
Lines: 79
Sender: news@aol.com
Message-ID: <19961109172000.MAA18132@ladder01.news.aol.com>
References: <19961109025700.VAA07400@ladder01.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com
X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader


While we are on the subject, I will take to opportunity to nail racism,
and particularly that species of racism that seeks to use historical
analyses of the Holocaust (aka Holocaust Revisionism) to further its
agenda.

It is customary on this board to dictate conduct and idelogies by means of
ex cathedra pronunciamentoes from the Pope, Mark Van Alstine.  This
doesn't work, and furthermore it sounds insufferably puritanical and anal
retentive.  All in all, I have come to the conclusion that arguments that
are pegged to such words as *moral*, *immoral*, *morality* and so on are
not only stupid-sounding but also bound to fail.  Therefore it follows
that anyone who is really concerned about racism should avoid such types
of argument.

The reason racism is a non-starter is not that it is *bad* (whatever that
means).  Racism should be abandoned because it won't work.  Period.

Europe and America represent the greatest concentration of wealth in the
history of the world, and furthermore, this great wealth is concentrated
among only perhaps 10% of the world's population.  Therefore it is
_inevitable_ that these centers of wealth will attract people who live
outside this concentration of wealth, until such time as a level of
redistribution of wealth occurs.  You may wish to stop it.  Good Luck. 
Nothing can stop it.

Now, given the history of the world, most of the people who live outside
this fabulous concentration of wealth are not *White folks.*  This means,
again _inevitably_ that the browning of Western Civilization will proceed
apace.

The question is what do you do about it?  If you stand in its way, then
the new immigrants will resent the culture that many of us ostentatiously
hold dear, they will reject it, and opt for something else.  If we are
truly concerned about the survival of our culture and our Western values,
there is only one thing we can do: be as inclusive as possible!  The
alternative is an evolving ideology of rigidity, hostility, and paranoia,
which is not only unhealthy but a sign of decay and weakness.

Therefore a multiracial society is not only a fact of life, an even
greater multiracial society is an unavoidable fact of the future.  That
means that Blacks and Whites and Asians and such are all going to be
hanging around each other all the time.  Now this is where human nature
kicks in.

Human beings are designed, among other things, to reproduce.  But it is
interesting to note that people invariably select -- consciously or
unconsciously -- mates who have qualities that complement them.  Short
attracted to tall, thin attracted to bulk, dumb attracted to smart, small
nose attracted to big nose -- every one has seen this! In a racial
mixture, it is inevitable that you will get individuals falling in love,
making love, and having children.  The combining of the races will then be
an accomplished fact, the putative laws of mankind or states or even
social engineers will be overcome by the unstoppable power of love and
desire.

OTOH, if one pursued a racist agenda, the only way the _inevitable_
combination of the races could be stopped [and it is _inevitable_ once any
man and woman are in propinquity] would be by _laws_ _forbidding_ one's
sexual partners.

Yet picking who one sleeps with is not only contrary to the most basic
values of freedom in our western heritage but it is also bound to fail. 
Just wait until _your_ kids become sexually active.

Therefore, racism is bound to fail.  It cannot work, and attempting to
resuscitate racial ideologies by using a serious analysis of an historical
event (in this case, the Holocaust) is _bound_ to fail.  To put it another
way, even in the absence of the Holocaust, nothing will resuscitate the
racial theories of the early 20th Century, either in Nazi Germany or
anywhere else.  They are just plain -- stupid; and contrary to Natural
Law.

Now that I have spelled it out I am sure that all racists will depart
alt.revisionism and never post here again.  Yeah, right.






From ehrlich606@aol.com Sun Nov 10 12:06:57 PST 1996
Article: 79091 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!clicnet!news.clic.net!news.alfred.edu!news.sprintlink.net!news-pen-14.sprintlink.net!news-stock.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-tokyo.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-hk.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!howland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Soviets were fighting Hitler in 1956 in Hungary? [David Irving]
Date: 8 Nov 1996 15:58:26 GMT
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) (1.10)
Lines: 82
Sender: news@aol.com
Message-ID: <19961108160100.LAA25334@ladder01.news.aol.com>
References: <55rva0$55f@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com

 Subject: Re: Soviets were fighting Hitler in 1956 in Hungary? [David
Irving]
From: rcgraves@ix.netcom.com (Rich Graves)
Date: 6 Nov 1996 22:24:00 -0800
Message-ID: <55rva0$55f@Networking.Stanford.EDU>

[People offended by flames and understated responses might wish to skip to
the string "redound," after which the tone grows more scholarly. I
probably should have made that a separate post...]

Rich then follows on in this thread ....

1. To understand and counter the propaganda generated by the Irving of
   today. For me and for everyone for whom I see myself writing, I think
   it's a given that the Irving *of today* is despicable.

I don't believe the Irving of today is despicable, but I for one don't
have problems with differences of opinion.  Someone has to be doing
something real bad in real time for me to use characterizations like that,
and stand by them [i.e., not excuse myself at a later time for using
inflammatory rhetoric.]  I, too, have read *Goebbels* and most of his
other work, and, while I consider his interpretations idiosyncratic and
his far-fetched, I do not at the same time consider him a real threat. 
There is too much in his book about the *heathen criminality* of the
Holocaust (his words) for that to be an accurate assessment in my view. 
By the way, I did not get the book from the IHR.

Irving's interpretations are not my own, but they contain a wealth of
detail on many minor matters that other historians either ignore or give
short shrift.  That is why I find myself in agreement with Gordon Craig,
who is a much better writer but whose interpretations I frequently find
Germanophobe, when he says that Irving should not be ignored, and that his
work is useful, and that he is in fact an authority in this field.

2. To understand how Irving became the way he is today (I have some very
   tentative ideas at this point -- and it might please you to know that 
   I think the attacks from Lipstadt et al helped harden him), and to
   explore ways to avoid the creation of more people like him (very few
   ideas on this point, mostly from Milton Kleim's experience, which I
   know to be quite different).

I think you are absolutely correct about the attacks from Lipstadt et al.
having helped to harden him.  Absolutely!  I think another factor that has
to be recognized is that Irving has spent decades developing a rapport
with many Germans who -- while not killers themselves -- lived under
Hitler, admired Hitler, trusted him, and sacrificed all that they had in
the war.  Hence I think that Irving has evolved in his thinking to tend to
place Hitler outside of the *destruction loop* anf further to play up the
courage and sacrifice of ordinary Germans who were not executioners.

Comments like *the traditional enemy* (that he made) should  be recognized
as being deeply cynical and bitter.  Such thinking is very unhealthy, and
also wrong.  But I think the reason why people like Irving are created has
a lot to do with the vociferous treatment received by those who disagree
with traditional points of emphasis [i.e., Nazis evil, evil, evil,
everybody else, good, good, good] not out of ill will but because they are
considered overly simplistic and monocausal, or, as is usually rehearsed
on this board, because of arguments over _details_ i.e., the veracity of
this or that witness, the usage or non-usage of gas in executions, the
number of victims, etc.

My feeling is that if somebody has questions or doubts or alternate
conclusions about _details_ then let them go.  They need not be accepted
by the common mentality on the subject at hand.  But if alternate
conclusions derive ultimately from an inability to reconcile
contradictions, and/or believe in testimony, I accept their right to
exist, even if -- at your preference -- it is to be filed with the
Velikovsky, Freud on Moses, Daeniken, and Madame Blavatsky materials.

Unfortunately as we all know the reactions are much more heated than that,
the reactions are much more heated than that, so instead of communication
we get polarization that draws people inward where they fester.

But thanks for laying some cards out so we could talk this over.  These
are the kind of constructive exchanges I originally envisioned for this
board.

Best,

ABK




From ehrlich606@aol.com Mon Nov 11 07:03:42 PST 1996
Article: 79102 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!feed1.news.erols.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!uunet!in3.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Information for Holocaust Revisionists
Date: 10 Nov 1996 22:29:27 GMT
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) (1.10)
Lines: 36
Sender: news@aol.com
Message-ID: <19961110223201.RAA14265@ladder01.news.aol.com>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com
X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader

In article ,
pazpax@clark.net (Peter Zuckerman) writes:

> 
>The date was July 18, 1941, less than a month after Nazi Germany's
>blitzkrieg attack on the Soviet Union. As was his custom, the German
>commander in the western Soviet republic of Belarus provided his
superiors
>in Berlin with a daily update of the activities of the men under his
>command.
> 
>"In yesterday's cleansing action in Slonim, carried out by Police
regiment
>center," wrote Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski, in the dry, matter-of-fact
>tone of the German military bureaucrat, 1,153 Jewish plunderers were
>shot."
> 

There are in my opinion many interpretative inaccuracies and some factual
inaccuracies in this article, but only a revisionist blinded by a desire
to make the Nazi period of German history an unqualified good would deny
that a great many Jews died and most at German hands.  The only real
questions are: (a) how planned was the process, (b) how much of it
involved gassing, and (c) how do we fit all of this into an overall
structure of 20th Century history. 

The release of these documents is an unqualified good.  For one thing, it
may serve as a spur to the British government to start releasing the other
documents they are still holding.  It would also be nice if the Soviets
would release more of their holdings and it would further be nice if
people stopped treating all Soviet Special Commissions with such
credulity.

Revisionism is truly on the march and this is good to see.




From ehrlich606@aol.com Mon Nov 11 07:03:43 PST 1996
Article: 79143 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!swrinde!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: David Irving blaming the Holocaust on Jews: page numbers for Ehrlich
Date: 9 Nov 1996 18:25:39 GMT
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) (1.10)
Lines: 35
Sender: news@aol.com
Message-ID: <19961109182800.NAA19232@ladder01.news.aol.com>
References: <561h2i$l4g@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com
X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader

In article <561h2i$l4g@Networking.Stanford.EDU>, rcgraves@ix.netcom.com
(Rich Graves) writes:

>
>ehrlich606@aol.com writes:
>>In article <560b1o$2l3@atlas.uniserve.com>, hostrov@uniserve.com (Hilary
>>Ostrov) writes:
>>
>>>Indeed such thinking as Irving gives vent to is "unhealthy and wrong."
>>>And it is as deceitful of him to attempt to whitewash Hitler and the
>>>Nazis actions (by blaming the Jews) as it is of you to attempt to
>>>whitewash Irving (by blaming those who remind the world that -
>>>regardless of his "expertise"  - Irving is _not_ an honest historian.)
>>
>>Well, I think you are engaging in precisely the kind of of simplistic
>>analysis I deplore when you say that Irving *blames the Jews*.  What
page
>>is _that_ on?
>
>Page 272 subtly suggests that Herschel Grynszpan was responsible for the
>Kristallnacht.


And so on.  Come on, Rich, is he explicit or is he not?  That goes for the
other things that are in the book: Kauffmann, the Boycott, etc.  These are
_proximal_ causes, or if you like, _sufficient_ causes, _none_ of these
are _explicit_ or _necessary_ causes. Meaning:  The Jews were blameless in
the general thrust of their destruction, even if individual Jews in their
actions _may_ have provided the casus belli for specific events.  Since
you are so good as seeing *sublte* suggestions, catch the subtlety of the
distinction, if you may.

Best!




From ehrlich606@aol.com Mon Nov 11 07:03:44 PST 1996
Article: 79144 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!swrinde!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Soviets were fighting Hitler in 1956 in Hungary? [DI/After]
Date: 9 Nov 1996 18:25:38 GMT
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) (1.10)
Lines: 88
Sender: news@aol.com
Message-ID: <19961109182800.NAA19231@ladder01.news.aol.com>
References: <561i9e$l70@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com
X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader

In article <561i9e$l70@Networking.Stanford.EDU>, rcgraves@ix.netcom.com
(Rich Graves) writes:

>
>There is something to this, but it flies in the face of the fact that
>Nazism arose in Germany after a decade or two of increasingly successful
>assimilation of Jews into German society and culture. Reuter and
>Rothschild lived in ghettos; the German Jew of the late 20's and early
>30's, especially in the cities, was nearly indistinguishible from other
>Germans. Intermarriage was over 50% in some areas. Hate propaganda like
>the Protocols and Der Steurmer were *extremely* important autonomous
>factors, especially as the Nazi regime clamped down on dissent and the
>press became a Goebbels vehicle.

The assumption that I am making here, Rich, is that the assimilated Jews
of Germany and elsewhere were caught up by an indeology directed mainly at
unassimilated *Ostjuden* in Poland and Russia.  I think this is borne out
by the obsession Nazi propaganda had with *Ostjuden.*

>
>Homogeneous populations were not necessary. Heterogeneous populations
were
>*working* in many urban areas. It was irrational hate.

Then we have to figure out where it came from.  I figure it arose from
longstanding animosity -- even among German Jews, compare Heine -- against
*Ostjuden.*
>
>>There will never be another Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.  The
>>dramatic structural forces that led to their creation, as well as to the
>>cruel ideologies that were installed to justify their remorseless
>>progress, have mercifully run their course.  The idelogies still hold
some
>>sway, like scabs on a healing wound.  They will fall away in time,
leaving
>>behind a proud flesh that will stand as a reminder as well as a sign for
>>what I hope will be a more pacific and constructive future.  But as in
the
>>Garden of Eden, blame only divides and separates: the apple was
proffered,
>>taken, and eaten.  
>>
>>It is within this context that I am adamant that the Holocaust should be
>>placed, and understood.  And we should approach the skeleton of this
>>process with as much inclusiveness, breadth, humanity, and understanding
>>as we can muster.
>
>Which may be a little, or a lot, depending on the individual.

Of course.
>
>Fine words, but they disagree with the one point of Irving's book on
>Goebbels that I think deserves to be emphasized: the centrality of
>propaganda. In an unfree system, people can be manipulated into
committing
>heinous crimes. This isn't the "natural consequence" of
industrialization; 
>it's the result of the conscious decisions of evil leaders to seek
>scapegoats.

Again, I disagree.  Friedrich's analysis seems to suggest that
*centralized media* are a function of totalitarian states alone.  On the
contrary, I think centralized media and thus the potential for
brainwashing and propaganda are an inevitable consequence of modernization
and industrialization.  Compare the identical slant, even on story
sequence, with the National media, and see if you don't get my drift.

As to evil leaders seeking scapegoats -- why do they do that if there is
not political benefit to be derived therefrom?  In other words, what puts
a society in a position that it looks for scapegoats?

>
>That's the part that could happen again. Our findamental disagreement is
>that I believe personal accountability for war crimes and crimes against
>humanity is *good*. Morally significant decisions were made; you can't
>blame it all on "the system," and certainly not on some pseudo-
>existential BS.

I do not disagree about personal responsibility.  I am not trying to blame
it all on system.  The fact that Hitler and Stalin were *bad* guys is of
course obvious, but it is precisely because I don't believe in *Great Man*
theories of History a la Carlyle that I phrase myself thus.  Accept my
apologies and RSVP by e-mail if you like.

Best,

ABK



From ehrlich606@aol.com Wed Nov 13 06:27:59 PST 1996
Article: 79297 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!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: ehrlich606@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Soviets were fighting Hitler in 1956 in Hungary? [David Irving]
Date: 9 Nov 1996 01:30:44 GMT
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) (1.10)
Lines: 171
Sender: news@aol.com
Message-ID: <19961109013300.UAA05888@ladder01.news.aol.com>
References: <560b1o$2l3@atlas.uniserve.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com
X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader

In article <560b1o$2l3@atlas.uniserve.com>, hostrov@uniserve.com (Hilary
Ostrov) writes:

>In <19961108160100.LAA25334@ladder01.news.aol.com>, ehrlich606@aol.com
>wrote:
>
>[deletia]
>
>>Comments like *the traditional enemy* (that he made) should  be
recognized
>>as being deeply cynical and bitter.  Such thinking is very unhealthy,
and
>>also wrong.  But I think the reason why people like Irving are created
has
>>a lot to do with the vociferous treatment received by those who disagree
>>with traditional points of emphasis [i.e., Nazis evil, evil, evil,
>>everybody else, good, good, good] not out of ill will but because they
are
>>considered overly simplistic and monocausal, or, as is usually rehearsed
>>on this board, because of arguments over _details_ i.e., the veracity of
>>this or that witness, the usage or non-usage of gas in executions, the
>>number of victims, etc.
>
>Indeed such thinking as Irving gives vent to is "unhealthy and wrong."
>And it is as deceitful of him to attempt to whitewash Hitler and the
>Nazis actions (by blaming the Jews) as it is of you to attempt to
>whitewash Irving (by blaming those who remind the world that -
>regardless of his "expertise"  - Irving is _not_ an honest historian.)
>

Well, I think you are engaging in precisely the kind of of simplistic
analysis I deplore when you say that Irving *blames the Jews*.  What page
is _that_ on?


>
>Sorry, but speaking of "simplistic and monocausal,"  notwithstanding
>your temporary (?) return to civility, your agenda is showing again,
>Ehrlich.
>
>And I see you are back to . Are we
>to be treated to another round of lectures on the contribution of
>class and economics, Ehrlich?

No, I don't have the time to prepare the arguments with the level of
detail which Mike would like to see, but OTOH I am persuaded of the
thesis, so I will let it alone.  But I recently obtained Dubnow's *History
of the Jews in Russia and Poland from Earliest Times* and I will follow on
when I have something to add.

_By the way_, I would note that I am being accused either of (a) not
discussing the details, or (b) discussing the details, which means, that
no matter what I do I am going to be criticized.  There are two things to
say here.  I am not here to persuade you, nor even the phantom lurkers. I
am here -- not very often these days -- to express what is on my mind.  It
is I think rather presumptuous to expect anything otherwise.  

>
>>My feeling is that if somebody has questions or doubts or alternate
>>conclusions about _details_ then let them go.  
>
>Really?!  How fascinating, Ehrlich.  This of course explains your
>lengthy discourses on whether the Zyclon pellets were blue or mauve or
>perhaps your "contributions" to understanding Nyiszli - to name but a
>few examples.

Precisely because after setting the structure that I had in mind I started
reading some of this literature for the first time in 30 years.  Nyiszli
came first, and I was amazed at how inaccurate he was.  Please note that
_I_ was not the one who was _insisting_ that Zyklon was blue.  Therefore
when I found that he described it as _mauve_ I was surprised, to put it
mildly.  Then a lengthy discussion ensued, where it was insisted that it
could have been both colors, insofar as the Zyklon _must_ have used silica
gel as a carrier.  Then I translated (in haste, and none too well) a
document that had been in Nizkor's archives _for months_ which
conclusively showed that silica gel _could not_ have been used (BC forms a
sticky paste) and furthermore that the variations in outgassing times was
a function of the amount of _gypsum_ (which is _white_) added to the
diagreiss.  What does any of this prove? Not much, actually.  Which is why
I did not pursue it.

>
>Or are we to take your exhortation to "let them go" as your
>rationalization for the countless dangling threads you have left
>during previous visits when you graced us with your presence?
>

Again, I am not obligated to pursue threads once I determine that they are
cold, unproductive, reduced to trolling, irrelevant, or not edifying.  And
again, I think it rather presumptuous that you would expect otherwise.  

>[...]
>
>>Unfortunately as we all know the reactions are much more heated than
that,
>>the reactions are much more heated than that, 
>
>You are quite right, Ehrlich.  Some of us do react very heatedly when
>confronted with dishonest scholarship such as you demonstrated, as a
>matter of fact, in the following:
>
>
>
><4unkhi$fsf@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ehrlich606@aol.com (Ehrlich606)
>wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>Lucy Dawidowicz claimed 2 million, from the context I assume she is
>>referring to Jews only. 
>
Here follows Hilary's rebuttal, which stressed the approximate nature of
Dawidowicz' numbers.  I delete.

On this subject, you are right, I did not pursue the thread.  The argument
had to do with the assertion that no one had ever claimed that more than
one million Jews had perished at AB.  I quoted from memory, you had the
source.  I think on balance I made my point and you made yours.  But there
is no reason to call my honesty into question.  After all, she _did_ say
two million.  And that was all I was trying to say.

>
>>so instead of communication
>>we get polarization that draws people inward where they fester.
>
>I don't suppose it has ever occurred to you that such polarization
>could be ameliorated by the occasional retraction and apology,
>Ehrlich.  Your blatant dishonesty certainly doesn't draw me inward.
>But if you want to "fester" in your dishonesty, be my guest.

I am a bit puzzled by this. Are you implying that if I had more
retractions and apologies you would have been _kinder_?  I doubt it.  Your
constant accusations of *dishonesty* don't exactly give a warm feeling all
over about you, either.

>
>>But thanks for laying some cards out so we could talk this over.  These
>>are the kind of constructive exchanges I originally envisioned for this
>>board.
>
>Perhaps you will also be kind enough to enlighten us as to how you
>reconcile your vision for this board with the troll's destructive
>exchanges - to which you have repeatedly given your blessing and full
>support in the past.

OK, I am well aware that this is the $64,000 question.  I don't agree with
all of Matt's rhetoric, nor do I agree with his namecalling.  At the same
time, I don't agree with it when it comes from Mark Van Alstine, Gord
McFee, or Yale Edeiken, either.  The nature of the polarization on this
board is such that when Matt has gotten into that mode, he uses
anti-Jewish epithets.  But my experience is that the use of anti-Jewish
epithets does not an anti-semite make, much less a dangerous person. 
_Especially_ in the context of this board, where more energy seems to be
expended on trolling each other than anything else.

Now I have corresponded with Matt about this.  He knows I deplore this
language.  But he is going to say what he wants to say.  I think it is
very significant that never in any e-mail I have exchanged with him has he
ever expressed privately the kinds of expressions or even sentiments that
he ostentatiously throws into the teeth of those who endlessly revile and
harrass them.  Something to think about.

The Matt Giwer I know is an extremely bright man, with great energy,
perception and humanity.  He has a lot to offer, and it is a pity that so
few can realize this.  Whatever the lengths of his intemperance or faults
of expression, he is my friend, and I do not turn on my friends, or desert
them in an hour of need.



  

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor