Article 6537 of alt.revisionism: Xref: kzoo misc.test:69077 alt.revisionism:6537 Newsgroups: misc.test,alt.revisionism Path: kzoo!k044477 From: email@example.com (Jamie R. McCarthy) Subject: A quick note on Jeff Roberts Message-ID: <1995Jul1.firstname.lastname@example.org> Followup-To: alt.revisionism Organization: Kalamazoo College, Kalamazoo MI 49006 Date: Sat, 1 Jul 1995 13:51:38 GMT It may be worth pointing out that Jeff Roberts' private discussions with me about the starvation policy of the Nazis reveal a slightly different picture than what, to my knowledge, he's last said publicly. Let me give a quick review to bring everyone up to speed on his latest stance. First, I pointed out on the 20th of June that, in Hans Frank's diary, in one of the many entries which took down the minutes of an official Nazi policy-making meeting, an explicit reference to deliberate starvation of Jews was made: Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 15:24:34 GMT From: email@example.com (Jamie R. McCarthy) Subject: A deliberate policy of starvation Message-ID: <1995Jun20.firstname.lastname@example.org> p. 900: In whatever difficulties you observe some place here, in the form of the sicknesses of your workers, the breakdown of your associations, etc., you must always think of the fact that it is still much better when a Pole breaks down than that a German succumb. That we sentence 1.2 million Jews to die of hunger should be noted only ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ marginally. It is a matter, of course, that should the Jews not starve to death it would, we hope, result in a speeding up of anti-Jewish measures. On the 21st, Jeff Roberts replied to this very message, but he deleted the above quote from his reply and made no mention of it. He began that article by flatly contradicting the direct quotation which he had deleted: Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 21:26:53 GMT From: Jeff Roberts
Subject: NO NO DELIBERATE STARVATION POLICY FOR INMATES Message-ID: <email@example.com> Overwhelming evidence? So far Ive seen none. There WAS insufficent food to go round. That the Nazi Goverment fed its soldiers and people first, is what I think ANY government would do in their situation. It is NOT evidence that they deliberately starved camp inmates as a matter of policy. No documents have been produced, which say: Starve the inmates, and no witnesses have said that Kramer or anyone else ordered the inmates to be starved. On the 22nd, I called him on this: Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 00:17:04 GMT From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Jamie R. McCarthy) Subject: Re: NO NO DELIBERATE STARVATION POLICY FOR INMATES Message-ID: <1995Jun22.email@example.com> ...he began his article by saying "Overwhelming evidence? So far Ive seen none." On the contrary -- he has seen it, it says clearly "we sentence 1,200,000 Jews to die of hunger," but he just deleted it and hoped it would go away. On the 27th, he again repeated the lie that no such citation had been presented: Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 16:33:34 GMT From: Jeff Roberts Subject: Re: starvation Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Ross replied by asking for a citation that will prove that it was deliberate policy to starve concentration camps inmates. ********** This citation is STILL awaited. ***** On the 28th, in response to some email of his, I emailed a long article in which I mentioned the fact that, a week prior, I'd presented him with something which he deliberately ignored: From k044477 Wed Jun 28 15:23:41 1995 Subject: Re: email copy of posted article To: Jeff@stumpy.demon.co.uk Date: Wed, 28 Jun 95 15:23:41 EDT I have a hard time with your being so concerned about "avoiding bias" when your reply to my article started out "Overwhelming evidence? So far Ive seen none" and then you proceeded to delete the quote that showed _deliberate_intent_ to starve 1.2 million Jews. You, sir, are a walking, talking bias. That same day, in response to me, he admitted that it was a "strong point." Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 21:49:11 GMT From: Jeff Roberts Message-Id: <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Re: email copy of posted article The discussion was about camp inmates, remember? Also, the Hans Frank diary is not an official document. But its a strong point. In later email, I went on to state the obvious point that the Jews which Frank had sentenced to die of starvation in 1942 were the same ones who had been put into camps by the end of the war. And I also questioned him as to what he meant by "not an official document" -- it's as official as can be, it was the minutes taken of official meetings where official policies toward the governing of Poland were decided, attended by a couple dozen official people. The diary was handed over to the Allies by Herr Frank, and was entered into the official documents of the official International Nuremberg Trial, and given an official code number of 2233-PS, and entered into the official records of the trial (both the "red series" and the "blue series"). Mr. Roberts appears to have been merely ignorant of this, rather than deliberately deceitful -- I'll give him that much. So, to summarize: the same citation which he says publicly is "STILL awaited," he admits privately is "a strong point." And it's not that he just changed his mind between Tuesday publicly and Wednesday privately. My email on Wednesday, to which he responded, did not give a full citation of the diary; I only quoted that single line and pointed out that the full citation was posted the week prior. So Mr. Roberts must have realized, when he deleted it the previous week, that it was a "strong point." It's just that he needed a reminder from me in order to admit it. I have a hard time understanding that kind of discussion tactics. -- Jamie McCarthy email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.kzoo.edu/~k044477/ I speak only for myself.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor