Archive/File: holocaust/usa/ihr raven.0994
Last-Modified: 1994/09/30

Article 15794 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mr. Raven, isn't Leuchter either a fool or a fraud?
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 1994 23:19:06 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 16
Message-ID: 
References:   <33up68$j3u@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com

In article <33up68$j3u@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
wrote:

> But there are cyanide traces in the gas chamber of Auschwitz I, right?
> So what the hell is your point?
> 
> Phew.

There is/was no homicidal gas chamber at Auschwitz I.

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659
The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40
The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping


Article 15795 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!uunet!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mr. Raven, please answer some questions about Treblinka
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 1994 23:20:12 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 22
Message-ID: 
References:   <33us3k$l5r@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com

In article <33us3k$l5r@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
wrote:

> # Please tell me which piece of evidence you
> # consider to be the single best piece of evidence to show that the Nazis had
> # a plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers.
> 
> Such evidence is posted here daily. It was explained to you at length
> that it is impossible to choose "the best piece of evidence" because
> there is no criterion which makes such a choice possible. It seems you
> are just not intelligent enough to understand this very simple matter.

If this proof is so commonplace, please say which piece it is. Typically,
there are many pieces of testimony posted, but no proof, and certainly not
one that you are willing to claim as the BEST evidence.

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659
The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40
The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping


Article 15796 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!uunet!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mr. Raven, please answer some questions about Treblinka
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 1994 23:21:46 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 34
Message-ID: 
References:   <33ushm$led@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com

In article <33ushm$led@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
wrote:

> Raven, Jamie McCarthy and I asked you a question. How can you rely 
> on an aerial photo of Treblinka taken at Sept. 1944, when the camp was
> destroyed in the end of 1943? What exactly did you conclude from that 
> photo?
> 
> Hey, I know! The photo was taken from one of the UFOs Raven's
> colleague, "revisionist" Ernst Zundel, keeps talking about. The UFO
> taking the photo was a light-year away from Earth, and thus the photo,
> although taken at 1944, really shows what happened in Treblinka at 1943!
> Is this what you claim, Raven?
> 
> And please, no "I don't have enough time" excuses. Hell, McCarthy and 
> me are working people. We have full time jobs, yet we find time to
> read articles directed to us and respond to them. Denying the
> Holocaust is your bloody job, isn't it? How come you don't find the
> time?

Obviously, you have not looked at the photo. Why not look at the photo,
which can be found either in the issue of the Journal to which I referred,
or in John Ball's Air Photo Evidence, and then tell me if you are still
confused. While you are at it, please tell me if there is something about
the shape of the Treblinka camp that you feel is the best evidence that the
Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas
chambers.

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659
The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40
The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping


Article 15797 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!uunet!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mr. Raven, do you want evidence in order, or in isolation?
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 1994 23:24:00 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 26
Message-ID: 
References:  
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com

In article ,
k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:

> Mr. Raven, I'm confused.

Yes, I know. What I would like to do is look at the evidence that YOU SAY
supports your contention that the Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate
the Jews in homicidal gas chambers. I would like to do this one piece of
evidence at a time, starting with what you think is the BEST evidence. I
believe that you and others have claimed that there is a mountain of such
evidence, yet when I ask for it you do everything but produce it. You post
testimonies. You post confessions. You post long messages that seek to
discuss everything else except the one issue in which I am currently
interested: What is your best evidence? Do you understand that a testimony
is not evidence? Do you understand that without evidence, a testimony is
just what someone is alleged to have said? Show me evidence ... save the
testimony for later. There will be plenty of time to look at the contexts
for these pieces of evidence and testimonies ... after you produce them.
First, however, let us see that one, BEST piece of evidence.

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659
The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40
The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping


Article 15803 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mr. Raven, isn't Leuchter either a fool or a fraud?
Date: 2 Sep 1994 07:13:18 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <346jae$ihg@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References:   <33up68$j3u@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu
X-ORIGINAL-NEWSGROUPS: alt.revisionism

Greg Raven  wrote:
# dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) wrote:

## But there are cyanide traces in the gas chamber of Auschwitz I, right?
## So what the hell is your point?

# There is/was no homicidal gas chamber at Auschwitz I.

From the statement of Hans Stark, registrar of new arrivals, Auschwitz:
[Quoted in "'The Good Old Days'" - E. Klee, W. Dressen, V. Riess, The 
Free Press, NY, 1988, p. 255].
--------------------------------------------------------------
At another, later gassing -- also in autumn 1941 -- Grabner* ordered
me to pour Zyklon B into the opening because only one medical orderly
had shown up. During a gassing Zyklon B had to be poured through both
openings of the gas-chamber room at the same time. This gassing was
also a transport of 200-250 Jews, once again men, women and children.
As the Zyklon B -- as already mentioned -- was in granular form, it
trickled down over the people as it was being poured in. They then
started to cry out terribly for they now knew what was happening to
them. I did not look through the opening because it had to be closed
as soon as the Zyklon B had been poured in. After a few minutes there
was silence. After some time had passed, it may have been ten to
fifteen minutes, the gas chamber was opened. The dead lay
higgledy-piggedly all over the place. It was a dreadful sight.

   * Maximillian Grabner, Head of Political Department, Auschwitz




-Danny Keren.



Article 15804 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mr. Raven, please answer some questions about Treblinka
Date: 2 Sep 1994 07:16:19 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <346jg3$iii@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References:   <33ushm$led@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu
X-ORIGINAL-NEWSGROUPS: alt.revisionism

I repeat my question: what does a photo taken in Sept. 1944 prove,
when the camp was destroyed late 1943?


-Danny Keren.









Article 15822 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!schultz
From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mr. Raven, do you want evidence in order, or in isolation?
Date: 2 Sep 1994 12:05:05 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <3474dh$afa@agate.berkeley.edu>
References:   
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:
#In article ,
#k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:
#
#> Mr. Raven, I'm confused.
#
#Yes, I know. What I would like to do is look at the evidence that YOU SAY
#supports your contention that the Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate
#the Jews in homicidal gas chambers. I would like to do this one piece of
#evidence at a time, starting with what you think is the BEST evidence. I
#believe that you and others have claimed that there is a mountain of such
#evidence, yet when I ask for it you do everything but produce it. You post
#testimonies. You post confessions. You post long messages that seek to
#discuss everything else except the one issue in which I am currently
#interested: What is your best evidence? Do you understand that a testimony
#is not evidence? Do you understand that without evidence, a testimony is
#just what someone is alleged to have said? Show me evidence ... save the
#testimony for later. There will be plenty of time to look at the contexts
#for these pieces of evidence and testimonies ... after you produce them.
#First, however, let us see that one, BEST piece of evidence.

Sigh.
Shake head.
Tap finger to temple.

-- 
				Richard Schultz

"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean.  Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"


Article 15823 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!library.ucla.edu!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!schultz
From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mr. Raven, do you want evidence in order, or in isolation?
Date: 2 Sep 1994 12:09:03 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <3474kv$afm@agate.berkeley.edu>
References:   
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article ,
Greg "Gramophone" Raven  wrote:

Leaving aside for the moment the numerous answers you have already gotten
to your questions for the last four months, which I am sure others will
point out in more detail, has it ever occurred to you that if you were
to stop typing in the same thing over and over again, you might actually
have the time to do something constructive?

Like answer my question about the best single piece of evidence for
World War II.  Or explain why you continue to distort the passage
from "Night."  Or any of dozens of other things you could do with you
time here that would be infinitely more productive than complaining 
about how no one ever answers your questions.
-- 
				Richard Schultz

"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean.  Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"


Article 15832 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-01.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mr. Raven, please answer some questions about Treblinka
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 1994 10:43:40 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 43
Message-ID: 
References: 
   
   <33ushm$led@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-01.dialip.mich.net

greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote:

> Obviously, you have not looked at the photo. Why not look at the photo,
> which can be found either in the issue of the Journal to which I referred,

I don't have access to that.

> or in John Ball's Air Photo Evidence,

I'll check my library for that book, or another W.W. II air photo book
if I can find one, as soon as I have the time -- hopefully this weekend.
I hope John Ball isn't another crackpot from the IHR, because if he is
my chances for finding his book are very slim.

> and then tell me if you are still
> confused.

I'm not confused.  I want to know why a photo taken in late 1944 is
good evidence for how the camp looked, given that it was dismantled
in late 1943.

> While you are at it, please tell me if there is something about
> the shape of the Treblinka camp that you feel is the best evidence that the
> Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas
> chambers.

Don't change the subject.  _You_ brought this one up, Mr. Raven.
Ken McVay posted testimonies from several SS guards at Treblinka, and
your sole response was that they couldn't have known what they were
talking about because they may or may not have gotten the shape of the
camp wrong.  I've asked you at least once if that is your only objection
to their testimony, and I here ask you again:  if you have other reasons
to doubt their testimony, please present at least one more.

If you can't, then our only conclusion must be that you are grasping at
straws in an effort to disbelieve the testimony.  You'd have been better
off to just ignore them in the first place, Mr. Raven, than to post such
a transparent attempt to discredit them.

Emailed to Mr. Raven as usual.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 I speak for no one but myself.


Article 15835 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-01.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Mr. Raven, your May 4th myopia, incredibly, persists
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 1994 11:06:53 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 41
Message-ID: 
References: 
   
   <33us3k$l5r@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-01.dialip.mich.net

greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote:

> If this proof is so commonplace, please say which piece it is. Typically,
> there are many pieces of testimony posted, but no proof, and certainly not
> one that you are willing to claim as the BEST evidence.

Greg, I'm really amazed.  I'm just in awe.

It's been explained to you many, many times that if you want to start
with something you must call "the BEST evidence," you're free to start
with document #1 in the May 4th reply.

I think the whole concept of "BEST EVIDENCE" is flawed, and I've
explained why in the May 4th reply, but you seem to have paid that
no notice.  That's your loss;  even your colleague Bradley Smith
sees the value of the concept of convergence of evidence.  If you
don't, it only hurts your own credibility as a historian (not that
you have all that much to begin with).

Anyway, I asked you if you really wanted it reposted, given that it's
been posted here half a dozen times, and that it's been emailed to you
at least once, and that I have email back from you confirming its
receipt.  You didn't answer.  I again make you that offer:  if you
really want me to repost it, if you're really going to address the
issues it raises this time, just let me know and I will do so.

Let me repeat that in words of one syllable, because you haven't
understood it all the previous times that it's been said:  if you
insist on calling something "BEST EVIDENCE," you will find our "BEST
EVIDENCE" in the documents of the May 4th reply.  If you insist on
classifying them, then document #1 is our "BEST EVIDENCE," document #2
is our "SECOND-BEST EVIDENCE," and so on.  I think that classification
system is silly and useless, as I've explained, but it reflects on your
credibility, not mine, so if you insist on it you're welcome to it.

Got that?

Emailed to Mr. Raven as usual.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 I speak for no one but myself.


Article 15839 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-01.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mr. Raven, do you want evidence in order, or in isolation?
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 1994 11:38:33 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 51
Message-ID: 
References: 
   
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-01.dialip.mich.net

greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote:

> k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:
> 
> > Mr. Raven, I'm confused.
> 
> Yes, I know.

Well, you're not helping, are you.

You addressed everything but what I asked for.

I wanted to know:  do you want evidence in order, or in isolation?
That is, do you want to look at each piece of evidence without
reference to other evidence?  Because that's not what historians do.
If you want to focus on one topic at a time, simply to avoid chaos,
that's fine.  But if your focus gets too tight, if your focus can
only include one piece of paper at a time, I find that invalid.

I guess I'm asking:  how much will you include within your focus?
One document, with references to anything else verboten?  Or one
collection of related documents?

> What I would like to do is look at the evidence that YOU SAY
> supports your contention that the Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate
> the Jews in homicidal gas chambers. I would like to do this one piece of
> evidence at a time, starting with what you think is the BEST evidence. I
> believe that you and others have claimed that there is a mountain of such
> evidence, yet when I ask for it you do everything but produce it.

Document #1, Mr. Raven.

Document #1, as you know, is a transcription of a tape recording made of
a speech given by Himmler in which he explicitly says "we are exterminating
the Jews."

How long are you going to ignore it, and how long are you going to
wrongly insist that we have yet to produce it?

> You post
> testimonies. You post confessions. You post long messages that seek to
> discuss everything else except the one issue in which I am currently
> interested: What is your best evidence?

How long are you going to ignore it, and how long are you going to
wrongly insist that we have yet to produce it?

Emailed to Mr. Raven to ensure he sees it.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 I speak for no one but myself.


Article 15840 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-01.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Mr. Raven, what then _is_ evidence?
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 1994 11:40:06 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 54
Message-ID: 
References: 
   
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-01.dialip.mich.net

greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote:

> Do you understand that a testimony
> is not evidence?

Oh?  Oh really?

Let me get this straight:  when a man stands up in court, under oath,
and says, I helped gas people to death -- that's not evidence?

When a man writes his memoirs and rambles on at length about the various
faces he remembers seeing walk into the gas chambers -- that's not
evidence?

> Do you understand that without evidence, a testimony is
> just what someone is alleged to have said?

Leaving aside the question of the awkwardly-inserted "alleged"...

I don't understand that a testimony is "just" what someone said.  This
Usenet article is not "just" me typing.  Your question is not "just"
a collection of ASCII characters.

When a man says, yes, I did horrible medical experiments on Jews
because I knew they were going to be killed anyway, that is not
"just what someone is alleged to have said."

> Show me evidence ... save the
> testimony for later. There will be plenty of time to look at the contexts
> for these pieces of evidence and testimonies ... after you produce them.
> First, however, let us see that one, BEST piece of evidence.

Perhaps we've had a misunderstanding, Mr. Raven.

When you say "evidence," do you mean that you will allow only direct,
still-existing, tangible, physical evidence?  Do you mean that you
will exclude all words spoken or written?

You've thrown me a curve, Mr. Raven, and I'm not sure what to say.
It sounds like your criteria are such that you will not accept anything
that anyone has said or written -- as if we are supposed to approach
the Holocaust as deaf illiterates.  Is that right?

If so, maybe you had better give us an example of two of something that
_is_ evidence.  Maybe you'd better spell out exactly what you mean by
that word "evidence."  You've been asked to do so before, and you have
not -- but this time I think you really should.  Because if you truly
believe that "a testimony is not evidence," then you must be using a
definition of "evidence" with which I am not familiar.

Emailed to Mr. Raven to ensure that he sees it.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 I speak for no one but myself.


Article 15842 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!schultz
From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mr. Raven, your May 4th myopia, incredibly, persists
Date: 2 Sep 1994 15:51:42 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <347hme$e87@agate.berkeley.edu>
References:  <33us3k$l5r@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article ,
Jamie McCarthy  wrote:

>I think the whole concept of "BEST EVIDENCE" is flawed, and I've
>explained why in the May 4th reply, but you seem to have paid that
>no notice.  That's your loss;  even your colleague Bradley Smith
>sees the value of the concept of convergence of evidence.  If you
>don't, it only hurts your own credibility as a historian (not that
>you have all that much to begin with).

Actually, even Greg Raven himself has admitted, albeit indirectly,
that he agrees with the concept of convergence of evidence as well.
The only time he has brought himself to address the question of the
"Best Evidence (tm)" for World War II, he gave a list of pieces of
evidence.  Further queries about why he gave a list instead of a
single piece of evidence were met with the usual silence.

-- 
				Richard Schultz

"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean.  Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"


Article 15866 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Mr. Raven, do you want evidence in order, or in isolation?
In-Reply-To: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com's message of Thu, 01 Sep 1994 23:24:00 -0800
Message-ID: 
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References: 
	
	
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 1994 02:51:28 GMT
Lines: 126


From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
>I
>believe that you and others have claimed that there is a mountain of such
>evidence, yet when I ask for it you do everything but produce it.

Oh bullshit Raven, you are simply a liar of the lowest sort.

You've seen tons of evidence here, with references.

You're simply a liar.

The question is: Who do you think you are fooling?

>Do you understand that a testimony
>is not evidence?

As far as you are concerned anything that proves you wrong is not
evidence. What transparent bullshit, you have the mind of a petulant
child.

But what about, for example, the memos written between Nazi officers
during the course of their duties and during the war that have been
posted here dozens of times and are readily available in many books on
the subject.

Every time I mention this you ignore it. Well, lah-dee-dah.

You are quite simply a liar.

What bullshit, what unabashed and absolutely shameless bullshit.

This entire revisionism thing is nothing but a willful, cheap hoax
perpetrated to create controversy and earn people like Greg Raven a
buck for themselves.

It's a psuedo-intellectual form of geek show, those sideshows where
people charge a buck a person to watch them bite the heads off of live
chickens.

Who do you think you are kidding?


==================================================

"Since December 1941, for example, 97,000 were processed using three
vans, without any faults occuring in the vehicles."

	Dr August Becker on 5 June 1942 to SS-Obersturmbannfuhrer Rauff

**********

"Apart from that I gave orders that all men should stand as far away
as possible from van during the gassings, so that their health would
not be damaged by any escaping gases. I would like to take this
opportunity to draw your attention to the following: Some of the
Kommandos are using their own men to unload the vans after the
gassing. I have made commanders of the Sonderkommandos in question
aware of the enormous psychological and physical damage this work can
do to the men, if not immediately then at a later stage."

	Dr August Becker on 16 May 1942 to SS-Obersturmbannfuherer Rauff

**********

Einsatzgruppe C
Standort Kiev

In collaboration with the group staff and two Kommandos of Police
Regiment South, on 29 and 30 September 1941 Sonderkommando 4a executed
33,771 Jews in Kiev.

	Ereignismeldung UdSSR, No. 101, 2 October 1941

**********

During my visit to Kumhof I also saw the extermination installation,
with the lorry which had been set up for killing by means of motor
exhaust fumes. The head of the Kommando told me that this method,
however, was very unreliable, as the gas build-up was very irregular
and was often insufficient for killing.

	Rudolf Hoss, Commandant of Auschwitz, on a visit to Chelmno
	on 16 September 1942

**********

  "..the unfit go to cellars in a large house which are entered
   from outside.  They go down five or six steps into a fairly long, 
   well-constructed and well-ventilated cellar area, which is lined 
   with benches to the left and right. It is brightly lit, and 
   the benches are numbered.  The prisoners are told that they are to 
   be cleansed and disinfected for their new assignments.  They must therefore 
   completely undress to be bathed. To avoid panic and to prevent
   disturbances of any kind, they are instructed to arrange their
   clothing neatly under their respective numbers, so that they will
   be able to find their things again after their bath.  Everything
   proceeds in a perfectly orderly fashion.  Then they pass through 
   a small corridor and enter a large cellar room which resembles a
   shower bath.  In this room are three large pillars, into which
   certain materials can be lowered from outside the cellar room.
   When three- to four-hundred people have been herded into this room,
   the doors are shut, and containers filled with the substances are
   dropped down into the pillars.  As soon as the containers touch 
   the base of the pillars, they release particular substances that put
   the people to sleep in one minute. A few minutes later, the door opens
   on the other side, where the elevator is located. . . . Then
   the corpses are loaded into elevators and brought up to the first
   floor, where ten large crematoria are located. (Because fresh
   corpses burn particularly well, only 50-100 lbs. of coke are needed
   for the whole process.)  The job itself is performed by Jewish
   prisoners, who never step outside this camp again.
      The results of this `resettlement action' to date: 500,000 Jews
   Current capacity of the `resettlement action' ovens: 10,000 
   in twenty-four hours."
                  --from report entitled "Resettlement of Jews"
                    written by SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Alfred Franke-Gricksch
                    for SS-Col. M. von Herff and RF-SS H. Himmler, after
                    inspection of Auschwitz camp on 14-16 May 1943.  This
                    excerpt from "Hitler and the Final Solution" by
                    Gerald Fleming, ISBN 0-520-05103-3.
-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD


Article 15871 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!casaba.srv.cs.cmu.edu!spok
From: spok+@cs.cmu.edu (John Ockerbloom)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mr. Raven, please answer some questions about Treblinka
Date: 2 Sep 1994 22:08:12 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <3487oc$50r@casaba.srv.cs.cmu.edu>
References:   <33us3k$l5r@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: gs1.sp.cs.cmu.edu

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:
>In article <33us3k$l5r@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
>wrote:
>> Such evidence is posted here daily. It was explained to you at length
>> that it is impossible to choose "the best piece of evidence" because
>> there is no criterion which makes such a choice possible. It seems you
>> are just not intelligent enough to understand this very simple matter.
>
>If this proof is so commonplace, please say which piece it is. Typically,
>there are many pieces of testimony posted, but no proof, and certainly not
>one that you are willing to claim as the BEST evidence.

Your first sentence conflates "proof" and "piece" yet again.
Either you haven't been listening, or you're arguing dishonestly.

Care to post which piece you're willing to claim as the BEST evidence
that World War II occurred?  You were asked this a while back, and at
one point you said it would not be too difficult to find such a piece,
yet I haven't seen you post one.

Why should anyone listen to your demands for proof, if you're
not willing to make clear what your standards of proof are,
and show that you apply them consistently?  (For instance,
to the question of whether "World War II" was fought.)

These are not rhetorical questions.  I'm interested in knowing your
answer to the two questions I asked, and that others have asked before me.

John Ockerbloom
-- 
==========================================================================
ockerbloom@cs.cmu.edu  CMU School of Computer Science, Pittsburgh PA 15213


Article 15973 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!panix!ddsw1!godot.cc.duq.edu!news.duke.edu!convex!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.intercon.com!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access3.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: A challenge to Greg Raven
Date: 13 Sep 1994 01:44:26 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <353e7q$biv@access3.digex.net>
References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>   
NNTP-Posting-Host: access3.digex.net

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:
>In article , golux@mcs.com (The only
>Golux in the World and not a mere Device.) wrote:
>> In addition to answering this BEST EVIDENCE (tm), could you also address
>> your blatant misrepresentation of Pressac in regard to the Bo"ck statement?
>
>I have already supported my representation of Pressac's position on Boeck.

    Simply repeating your misrepresentation is hardly supporting it.

    I have asked if you would be willing to submit your interpretation to
a randomly-chosen panel of, say, ten high school English teachers to see
if they would support your text as an honest and accurate interpretation
of Pressac's comments on Bo"ck.  You have not responded.  Are you ready to
accept my challenge now?  Would you care to wager some money on the
outcome?

    Emailed to Mr. Raven.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


Article 16038 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!uunet!UB.com!pacbell.com!amdahl!netcomsv!netcom.com!codfish
From: codfish@netcom.com (Ross Vicksell)
Subject: Re: "Polish Historical Society"
Message-ID: 
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <1994Sep03.050330.2051@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>   <352ei7$stf@casaba.srv.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 07:02:24 GMT
Lines: 49

spok+@cs.cmu.edu (John Ockerbloom) writes:

>In article ,
>Greg Raven  wrote:
>>In article , codfish@netcom.com (Ross
>>Vicksell) wrote:
>>
>>> Ken Mcvay (kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca) wrote:
>>> (text deleted)
>>>                      Irene Zdziarski
>>>                      Stamford, Conn, Dec. 23, 1993
>>> 
>>> The writer is chairwoman, holocaust Committee, Polish Historical Society.
>>
>>I'm sure that what Mcvay meant to say is that "Irene Zdziarski" is put
>>forward as the chairwoman of the Holocaust Committee of the PHS, as he
>>certainly must know that this is a pseudonym.

It's unfortunate but true that many revisionists are still in the 
closet.  They have jobs, and families to support.

>Er, despite the way you've got it presented here, the attribution you
>quoted was provided by Vicksell, not McVay.  (I'm willing to assume

Actually, the attribution is the NYT's, not mine.  Check it if you don't 
believe me: 1/1/94.

>this was an honest confusion in reading Vicksell's article, which
>quoted McVay's signature at the end even though there was no text of
>his in the vicinity.)  But I'm curious: since you seem to know, who is
>"Irene Zdziarski" a pseudonym for?

>Of course, don't let this distract you from trying to explain how the
>Posen speech, which mentions more than once that the Jews are to be

My friend Jack Wikoff is working on a piece about the Posen speech, which 
will presumably post when he hooks up to the net within the next couple 
of weeks.

>exterminated, didn't really mean it.  Or what standards you require for
>deciding the trurth of historical events (like, say, the existence of
>World War II.)  Or... well, there are a bunch of unanswered questions pending,
>actually, but if you've got a spare minute or two, I'd also find the
>pseudonym question interesting.  (Or, if anyone else knows, post away!)

>John Ockerbloom
>-- 
>==========================================================================
>ockerbloom@cs.cmu.edu  CMU School of Computer Science, Pittsburgh PA 15213


Article 16065 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: More about Rudolf Hoess
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 21:51:38 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 157
Message-ID: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com

RUDOLF HOESS

Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Hoess is one of the most important witnesses to
the "Holocaust," if not the most important. His affidavit and his testimony
were quoted extensively both by the prosecution and in the judgment of the
International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. It was his testimony, and the
later confirmation of its truthfulness, that laid the foundation for and
validated the extermination story of Auschwitz.

NAZI CONSPIRACY AND AGGRESSION (Volume VI, page 787. Translation of
Document 3868-PS)

"I, Rudolf Franz Ferdinand Hoess, being first duly sworn, depose and say as
follows:

"2. ... I commanded Auschwitz until 1 December 1943, and estimate that at
least 2,500,000 victims were executed and exterminated there by gassing and
burning, and at least another half million succumbed to starvation and
disease making a total dead of about 3,000,000. This figure represents
about 70% or 80% of all persons sent to Auschwitz as prisoners, the
remainder having been selected and used for slave labor in the
concentration camp industries." [end of quote]

TRIAL OF THE MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS (Morning Session of Monday, 15 April 1946;
page 396)

"DR. KAUFFMANN: ... From 1940 to 1943, you were the Commander of the camp
at Auschwitz. Is that true?

"HOESS: Yes.

"... Col. AMEN: I will omit the first paragraph and start with Paragraph 2
[of HoessU affidavit, the text of which is shown above].

"UI commanded Auschwitz until 1 December 1943, [etc.] ....U This is all
true, Witness?

"HOESS: Yes, it is." [end of quote]

His testimony and affidavit have been heavily relied upon by "Holocaust"
researchers from Raul Hilberg to Jean-Claude Pressac. Hundreds of
histories, testimonies, and treatments of the Third Reich era quote Hoess
to show the brutality and evilness of the Nazis. Visitors to the U.S.
Holocaust Memorial Museum are confronted with a plaque bearing HoessU words
upon entering the Museum.

We now know from the book LEGIONS OF DEATH that Hoess was beaten almost to
death by Jewish members of the British Field Police upon capture and badly
mistreated thereafter until he gave his "testimoney" and "affidavit." His
wife and children were threated with deportation to Siberia.

LEGIONS OF DEATH (Rupert Butler. Great Britain: 1983. Hamlyn Paperbacks;
page 237)

"Clarke yelled: UWhat is your name?U

"With each answer of UFranz Lang,U ClarkeUs hand crashed into the face of
his prisoner. The fourth time that happened, Hoess broke and admitted who
he was.

"The admission suddenly unleashed the loathing of the Jewish sergeants in
the arresting party whose parents had died in Auschwitz following an order
signed by Hoess.

"The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pyjamas ripped from his body.
He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where it seemed
to Clarke the blows and screams were endless.

"Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: UCall them off, unless
you want to take back a corpse.U

"... The party arrived by at Heide around three in the morning. The snow
was swirling still, but the blanket was torn from Hoess and he was made to
walk completely nude through the prison yard to his cell.

"It took three days to get a coherent statement out of him. But once he
started talking, there was no holding him." [end of quote]

He also spoke of his mistreatment in his "autobiography," COMMANDANT OF
AUSCHWITZ.

COMMANDANT OF AUSCHWITZ (London: 1959. Weidenfeld and Nicolson; page 174.
Recently re-released with additional material as DEATH DEALER by Prometheus
Books.)

"I was taken to Heide where I was put in those very barracks from which I
had been released by the British eight months earlier.

"At my first interrogation, evidence was obtained by beating me. I do not
know what is in the record, although I signed it. Alcohol and the whip were
too much for me. The whip was my own, which by chance had got into my
wifeUs luggage. It had hardly ever touched my horse, far less the
prisoners. Nevertheless, one of my interrogators was convinced that I had
perpetually used it for flogging the prisoners.

"After some days I was taken to Minden-on-the-Weser, the main interrogation
center in the British Zone. There I received further rough treatment at the
hands of the English public prosecutor, a major.

"The conditions in the prison accorded with this behavior." [end of quote]

Historians today are finally admitting that Hoess is an unreliable witness.
The figures of dead he gave for Auschwitz are totally false. He swore that
2,500,000 people were gassed and burned at Auschwitz and a further half
million died of disease for a total dead of 3,000,000. Today, the figure of
dead claimed for Auschwitz is 800,000, a figure that is in danger of
further downward revisions. Hoess also spoke of a concentration camp by the
name of "Wolzek," which does not and never did exist.

WHOSE HISTORY IS IT? (Christopher Hitchens. Vanity Fair, December 1993;
pages 117)

"... The revisionists sent me an article by a Frenchman named Robert
Faurisson, which claimed that Rudolf Hoess, one of the commandants of
Auschwitz, had been tortured by the British into confessing to a fantastic
and unbelievable number of murders. UI declare herewith under oath that in
the years 1941 to 1943, during my tenure in office as commandant of
Auschwitz Concentration Camp, 2 million Jews were put to death by gassing
and 1/2 million by other means.U This statement, specially mounted and
reproduced, is an important exhibit at the Holocaust Memorial.

"I then got in touch with [Deborah] Lipstadt and [Christopher] Browning for
their responses, which were surprising: UHoess was always a very weak and
confused witness,U said Browning, who has been an expert witness at trials
involving Auschwitz. UThe revisionists use him all the time for this
reason, in order to try and discredit the memory of Auschwitz as a whole.U
And Professor Lipstadt directed me to page 188 of her book, which is quite
a page. It says that the stories about the Nazis making Jews into soap are
entirely untrue, and it also says that while the memorial stone at
Auschwitz itself lists the number of victims -- Jews and non-Jews -- at 4
million, the truer figure is somewhere between 1.5 and 2 million. Since
Hoess was the commandant of the place for only part of its existence, this
means that -- according to the counter-revisionists -- an important piece
of evidence in the Holocaust Memorial is not reliable. A vertiginous
sensation if you like.

"UItUs the same with the soap story,U said Lipstadt. UI get protests from
survivors, saying that I shouldnUt admit itUs not true, because it gives
ammunition to the enemy. But IUm only interested in getting at the truth.U
An old-fashioned concept." [end of quote]

But as we have shown, it is not the revisionists who have used HoessU
affidavit and testimony, but rather the traditional "Holocaust" historians.
It is only through the efforts of the revisionists that we have begun to
catch a glimpse of the true value of HoessU affidavit and testimony. In a
meeting between French revisionist Robert Faurisson and Michael Berenbaum,
an official of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in September 1994,
Berenbaum admitted to Faurisson in front of witnesses that the Hoess quote
on display at the Museum was misleading, and that it would be taken down.


-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659
The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40
The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping


Article 16075 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-04.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: "Polish Historical Society"
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 12:25:07 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 24
Message-ID: 
References: <1994Sep03.050330.2051@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
   
   
   <352ei7$stf@casaba.srv.cs.cmu.edu>
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-04.dialip.mich.net

codfish@netcom.com (Ross Vicksell) wrote:

> My friend Jack Wikoff is working on a piece about the Posen speech, which 
> will presumably post when he hooks up to the net within the next couple 
> of weeks.

Hope it'll be better than the Wikoff reply you posted for him a few months
ago.  You know, the one where he was taken to task for actually getting
_aerial photos_ of a camp to prove that Goeth couldn't have shot inmates
from his villa balcony, without taking the trouble to simply read the book
in the first place and learn that, at the time, he was taking the shots
from his temporary villa on the other side of the camp?

And wasn't that the same Wikoff who, upon having his disinformation attempt
exposed, demanded that we provide proof that Goeth _could_ have taken the
shots from the temporary villa, as if the burden of proof were on us not
him?  A charming character, Wikoff.  Look forward to his explanation of
"auszurotten - sprich also, umzubringen," since you, Ross, respond with
silence when confronted with that quote.  As does Raven, apparently.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "You seem to be selectively defining words to suit yourself, and then
  demanding that I accept your definitions."          - Greg Raven, 8/26/94
 "Do you understand that a testimony is not evidence?" - Greg Raven, 9/1/94


Article 16093 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: More about Rudolf Hoess
Date: 15 Sep 1994 13:24:39 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <359hun$hsq@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu
X-ORIGINAL-NEWSGROUPS: alt.revisionism

Before I respond to this, it would be helpful to know if Raven
claims Hoess' autobiography was doctored, and if so, does he have
any proof it was.


-Danny Keren.















Article 16095 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!netnews.summit.novell.com!netnews.summit.novell.com!langsvr1!mattk
From: mattk@summit.novell.com (Kaufman M.E.)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Posen--the clearest admission
Date: 15 Sep 1994 13:27:01 GMT
Organization: Novell
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <359i35$ke8@bird.summit.novell.com>
References:  
NNTP-Posting-Host: langsvr1.summit.novell.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) wrote:


: Is there anyone out there who believes that this speech is the best
: evidence of the Holocaust extermination myth?

Err, myth? Say what? Maybe in your mind. I have yet to see *anything*
from Mr. Raven or any of the IHR flunkies that *proves* anything. If anything,
their tireless efforts have *reaffirmed* the *fact* of the Holocaust,
mostly due to their bungling and inability to disprove *anything*.

Is this the best evidence of the Holocaust? No, not taken by itself, but
it is an important part of the overwhelming mountain of evidence.

And isn't this the guy that posted that testimony is not evidence?
Is that the 'rules' by which the 'revisionists' (what a farcical name)
evaluate things -- if testimony is not evidence, what then *is* evidence?

Tell us Greg - do you deny Himmler said what was scripted here?
What do you think he does mean - we get lots of innuendo and content-free
analysis from you, but what exactly do *you* think Himmler meant?

: Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
: Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659
: The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40
: The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping


What's the netnews policy on advertising on the net? 

Matt
--
It is, indisputably,|copyright 1994, mattk@summit.novell.com. All rights
a fact.             |reserved. Permission for reproduction by USENET and like
                    |free facilities explicitly allowed. No other reproduction
                    |rights are granted or implied.


Article 16098 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mr. Raven, please address your misrepresentation of Pressac
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 08:04:43 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 12
Message-ID: 
References: <33hbmn$pch@access1.digex.net>    <353cqk$ad2@access3.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com

Your yeomanlike efforts to sidetrack the discussion are noted, but I do not
have time to engage in your meta-discussions and word games. Please supply
what you feel is the best evidence that the Nazis had a plan or policy of
exterminating the Jews of Europe in homicidal gas chambers. Then we can
talk.

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659
The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40
The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping


Article 16099 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A challenge to Greg Raven
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 08:07:07 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 38
Message-ID: 
References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>    <353e7q$biv@access3.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com

In article <353e7q$biv@access3.digex.net>, mstein@access3.digex.net
(Michael P. Stein) wrote:

> In article ,
> Greg Raven  wrote:
> >In article , golux@mcs.com (The only
> >Golux in the World and not a mere Device.) wrote:
> >> In addition to answering this BEST EVIDENCE (tm), could you also address
> >> your blatant misrepresentation of Pressac in regard to the Bo"ck statement?
> >
> >I have already supported my representation of Pressac's position on Boeck.
> 
>     Simply repeating your misrepresentation is hardly supporting it.
> 
>     I have asked if you would be willing to submit your interpretation to
> a randomly-chosen panel of, say, ten high school English teachers to see
> if they would support your text as an honest and accurate interpretation
> of Pressac's comments on Bo"ck.  You have not responded.  Are you ready to
> accept my challenge now?  Would you care to wager some money on the
> outcome?

Your "challenge" seems to be nothing more than an attempt to sidetrack the
discussion. Why not answer my challenge, posted many, many months ago, to
produce what you feel is the best evidence that the Nazis had a plan or
policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers? Do you have any
such evidence to support your position?

>     Emailed to Mr. Raven.

Don't bother. E-mailed copies of your newsgroup posts are deleted without
being read.

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659
The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40
The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping


Article 16101 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 130 days later, Mr. Raven accepts the challenge
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 08:14:07 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 43
Message-ID: 
References:  <355c39$lrd@eis.calstate.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com

In article <355c39$lrd@eis.calstate.edu>, jpark@eis.calstate.edu (John
Park) wrote:

> k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) writes:
> > greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote:
> > 
> > > Second, those who like to quote this speech virtually always do so in
> > > isolation of other speeches given by Himmler around this time, other
> > > speeches in which Himmler made it abundantly clear what he meant in this
> > > passage. By removing the context from the speech, the exterminationists
> > > hope to convince the unwary that the "smoking gun" has been found.
> > 
> > I believe your claim here, Mr. Raven, is that the _context_ is such that
> > "the Jewish people will be exterminated" means something other than "the
> > Jewish people will be exterminated."
> > 
> 
> If Mr. Raven would be kind enough to provide the Himmler speeches to 
> which he refers, I believe this would be helpful if he wishes to convince 
> _anyone_ about his point. The use of "abundantly clear" by Mr. Raven 
> inclines me to wonder why the speeches are not provided. Could it be that 
> he is misrepresenting the context of Himmer's speeches given at this time?

I did not provide any additional information because, as I have from the
beginning, I want to make sure that I am not discussing some irrelevant
document. However, someone has now claimed that this speech is the BEST
EVIDENCE of a Nazi plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas
chambers (even though there is no reference to gas chambers of any type in
this speech), so it looks as if soon I will be addressing some of the
specifics.

> If Mr. Raven does provide these speeches, would he be so kind as to also 
> provide a bibliographic citation so that others may independently check 
> the text and/or the translation.

I will do this.

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659
The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40
The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping


Article 16102 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: More about Rudolf Hoess
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 08:17:36 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 26
Message-ID: 
References:  <359hun$hsq@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com

In article <359hun$hsq@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
wrote:

> Before I respond to this, it would be helpful to know if Raven
> claims Hoess' autobiography was doctored, and if so, does he have
> any proof it was.

If you read the item to which you claim you are prepared to respond, you
will see that I make no representation that it was doctored in any way
(which, of course, does not mean that it was not). If you read the item in
question, you will see that there are two points I have made: 1) Hoess'
affidavit and testimony have been instrumental in establishing the
"Holocaust" extermination story, and 2) historians, scholars, and
researchers are not claiming that Hoess' affidavit and testimony are not to
be trusted.

The conclusion that most normal people would reach from this information is
that all the books and other materials that quote Hoess in support of their
contentions about the "Holocaust" extermination story must be re-examined.

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659
The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40
The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping


Article 16103 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Reports of Polish Underground About the Death Camps
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 08:21:40 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 31
Message-ID: 
References: <357rk7$8jh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com

In article <357rk7$8jh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
wrote:

> The "Delegatura" in Nazi-occupied Poland served both as an
> "underground government" and the Polish Government in exile.
> From  Poland, the Delegatura sent long reports about the
> situation in the country. These reports also describe the
> mass murder in the "Operation Reinhard" camps. While these reports
> contain errors - which is understandable, as most were written
> by people watching the camps from the outside - nontheless 
> they are an important source of information.
> 
> (text deleted)
> 
> This report, written shortly after Belzec began operaing, is not as
> detailed or accurate as testimonies of people who were in the camp;
> nontheless, it is an important piece of evidence about the early 
> history of one of the most horrible Nazi death camps.

I find it interesting how camps other than Auschwitz, which used to be the
main extermination camp in traditional "Holocaust" lore, are now gaining
prominence as it becomes less and less possible to deny the truth of what
actually did happen at Auschwitz, that is, no gas chambers, no open pits
for burning bodies (alive or dead), and generally no mass exterminations. 

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659
The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40
The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping


Article 16104 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: "Revisionists" Quiet About Hitler?!
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 08:24:43 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 39
Message-ID: 
References: <359iie$icv@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com

In article <359iie$icv@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
wrote:

> Strangely enough, our "revisionist scholars" are very quiet about
> the quotes from Hitler posted here.
> 
> Hitler expressed his desire to see Jews exposed to poison gas.
> No one denies this.

This is a mischaracterization of Hitler's comments. What Hitler was
referring to (in Mein Kampf) is the poison gas in use on battlefields
during WWI, not poison gas in gas chambers.

> Hitler said in more than one public speech that the result of a new
> world war will be the "annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe".
> No one denies this.

So? Hitler didn't want Jews in Germany. We don't deny this and never have.
What's your point?

> Surely, this must mean something, right? Hitler, after all, was the
> absolute ruler of Nazi Germany. These two statements from him are
> therefore very important.  
> 
> One would expect that they be addressed.

One would also expect that they be properly quoted and referenced, which
you have not done. Perhaps if you read Mein Kampf again, you will see your
error.

Or, are you claiming that this is the BEST EVIDENCE that the Nazis had a
plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers? :-)

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659
The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40
The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping


Article 16105 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!cobra.uni.edu!sunfish!choover
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: More about Rudolf Hoess
Message-ID: 
From: choover@usd.edu (Christopher J Hoover )
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 14:49:29 GMT
Sender: news@sunfish.usd.edu
References: 
Organization: University of South Dakota
Nntp-Posting-Host: sunbird
Lines: 46

greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:

>His [Hoess's] testimony and affidavit have been heavily relied upon by 
>"Holocaust"
>researchers from Raul Hilberg to Jean-Claude Pressac.

[snip]

>Historians today are finally admitting that Hoess is an unreliable witness.
>The figures of dead he gave for Auschwitz are totally false. He swore that
>2,500,000 people were gassed and burned at Auschwitz and a further half
>million died of disease for a total dead of 3,000,000. Today, the figure of
>dead claimed for Auschwitz is 800,000, a figure that is in danger of
>further downward revisions.

Hogwash.  You assert that Hilberg "relied heavily" upon Hoess's testimony. 
You also seem to be asserting, in this last paragraph, that until, oh, the
last few years, when all you revisionist "historians" chipped away at the
numbers until they just _had_ to admit it, "official historians"
subscribed to a strict orthodoxy that 3,000,000 died at Auschwitz.

But there's a hole in your thesis large enough to drive a truck trough,
Mr. Raven.  Hilberg, in _The Destruction of the European Jews_, published
in _1961_ (that's _33_ years ago, Mr. Raven), estimated Auschwitz Jewish
dead at about 1 million.  How could he have done this, Mr. Raven, if he
had relied on Hoess as heavily as you claim?  (One answer that leaps to
mind is that you have no idea what sources Hilberg relied upon, Mr.
Raven.)  Further, Hilberg estimates total Jewish dead in the Holocaust at
5.1 million. 

If Hilberg published these figures in a _major_ work on the Holocaust in
1961, then how exactly can there have been an "exterminationist"
conspiracy to shove the figures of 3 million dead at Auschwitz and 6
million total down our throats all these years, until those courageous and
intrepid folk such as Faurisson and Leuchter came along to pull the scales
from our eyes? 

I guess Hilberg's IJC masters must have been a bit less than vigilant, eh?



Chris
E-mailed to Mr. Raven, of course.
--
Christopher J. Hoover    choover@usd.edu       University of South Dakota
Disclaimer:  standard    It's *always* September, *somewhere* on the Net.


Article 16106 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!kmcvay
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Subject: Re: Mr. Raven, please address your misrepresentation of Pressac
References:  <353cqk$ad2@access3.digex.net> 
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac
Message-ID: <1994Sep15.180739.21152@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 94 18:07:39 GMT

In article  greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:

>Your yeomanlike efforts to sidetrack the discussion are noted, but I do not
>have time to engage in your meta-discussions and word games. Please supply
>what you feel is the best evidence that the Nazis had a plan or policy of
>exterminating the Jews of Europe in homicidal gas chambers. Then we can
>talk.

Translation: Not only will I not address my deliberate
misrepresentation of Mr. Pressac's work, or my lack of interest in
reading anything anyone has to say about it, I also demand the right
to remain myopic and completely ignore the joint response to my
sophomoric "challenge." By doing this, I will lend credence to those
who maintain revisionists have, after all, little of substance to
add to these discussions.

I also demand, in spite of the many responses pointing out how
specious my behavior, the right to pretend, in spite of evidence to
the contrary, that the Holocaust was _only_ concerned with homocidal
gassings.. the fact that millions died through other means is
trivial in the face of my contempt for UseNet's readers.. if I
simply maintain the lie long enough, I will surely attract a few
more idiots like Gannon et al to the Cause: the rehabilitation of
Adolf Hitler and his murderous thugs, and the revival of the Nazi
state.

-- 
  "Everything I do is done with the full knowledge of the Fuehrer." 
  (Himmler, Heinrich.  See Jochen von Lang, "Der Adjutant: Karl Wolff,"
                Munich: Herbig, 1985, pp .  140ff)


Article 16107 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!kmcvay
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Subject: A challenge to Greg Raven: May 4th. Myopia lives!
References:  <353e7q$biv@access3.digex.net> 
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac
Message-ID: <1994Sep15.181606.21253@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 94 18:16:06 GMT

In article  greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:

>In article <353e7q$biv@access3.digex.net>, mstein@access3.digex.net
>(Michael P. Stein) wrote:

>> >I have already supported my representation of Pressac's position on Boeck.
 
>>     Simply repeating your misrepresentation is hardly supporting it.
 
>>     I have asked if you would be willing to submit your interpretation to
>> a randomly-chosen panel of, say, ten high school English teachers to see
>> if they would support your text as an honest and accurate interpretation
>> of Pressac's comments on Bo"ck.  You have not responded.  Are you ready to
>> accept my challenge now?  Would you care to wager some money on the
>> outcome?

>Your "challenge" seems to be nothing more than an attempt to sidetrack the
>discussion. Why not answer my challenge, posted many, many months ago, to
>produce what you feel is the best evidence that the Nazis had a plan or
>policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers? Do you have any
>such evidence to support your position?

Your May 4th. Myopia seems to be nothing more than an attempt to
sidetrack the discussion. Why not acknoledge our joint response to
your "challenge", posted many, many months ago, to get this
discussion back on track?

Not only have you ignored, to a degree beyond rational behavior, our
response, but you have, in the intirim, been proven to be a blatent
and consistent liar, as your Pressac debacle demonstrated (not to
mention your amazing mental gynastics with regard to the Vanity Fair
article, within which you openly lied about what Lipstadt et al had
to say.


>>     Emailed to Mr. Raven.

>Don't bother. E-mailed copies of your newsgroup posts are deleted without
>being read.

Having admitted, several times, that you not only do not read our
responses in this forum, but also those arriving in your personal
mailbox, your insistence that you are here to address issues looks
ridiculous in the extreme. For that, I thank you, for you have done
an enormous service to those unfamiliar with denial technique, and
exposed yourself as a complete intellectual fraud.
-- 
  "Everything I do is done with the full knowledge of the Fuehrer." 
  (Himmler, Heinrich.  See Jochen von Lang, "Der Adjutant: Karl Wolff,"
                Munich: Herbig, 1985, pp .  140ff)


Article 16108 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!kmcvay
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Subject: 130 days later, Mr. Raven still plays word games
References:  <355c39$lrd@eis.calstate.edu> 
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac
Message-ID: <1994Sep15.182201.21329@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 94 18:22:01 GMT

In article  greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:

>I did not provide any additional information because, as I have from the
>beginning, I want to make sure that I am not discussing some irrelevant
>document. However, someone has now claimed that this speech is the BEST
>EVIDENCE of a Nazi plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas
>chambers (even though there is no reference to gas chambers of any type in
>this speech), so it looks as if soon I will be addressing some of the
>specifics.

I think it is clear, from the discussions here, and from history
itself, that the Nazis didn't much care how they killed the Jews, so
long as they died. Mr. Raven's continued word-game in this regard
notwithstanding, that isn't going to change.

By the way, does Mr. Raven admit that this speech was made by
Himmler? If not, is he prepared to put up half the cash for
voiceprint analysis? 

Really, Mr. Raven, is this the best the IHR has to offer? Are you
_really_ representative of the intellectual level within that
organization? Amazing.. a _senior_editor_ demonstrates how
intellectually bereft the denial movement really is.

-- 
  "Everything I do is done with the full knowledge of the Fuehrer." 
  (Himmler, Heinrich.  See Jochen von Lang, "Der Adjutant: Karl Wolff,"
                Munich: Herbig, 1985, pp .  140ff)


Article 16109 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!kmcvay
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Subject: Re: Reports of Polish Underground About the Death Camps
References: <357rk7$8jh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac
Message-ID: <1994Sep15.182449.21402@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 94 18:24:49 GMT

In article  greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:

>I find it interesting how camps other than Auschwitz, which used to be the
>main extermination camp in traditional "Holocaust" lore, are now gaining
>prominence as it becomes less and less possible to deny the truth of what
>actually did happen at Auschwitz, that is, no gas chambers, no open pits
>for burning bodies (alive or dead), and generally no mass exterminations. 

Unlike the Aktion Reinhard camps, which existed for no other reason
that the extermination of human beings, Auschwitz was a labour camp
as well as a death camp. That has always been clearly understood,
Mr. Raven's misrepresentations and fantasies notwithstanding.

-- 
  "Everything I do is done with the full knowledge of the Fuehrer." 
  (Himmler, Heinrich.  See Jochen von Lang, "Der Adjutant: Karl Wolff,"
                Munich: Herbig, 1985, pp .  140ff)


Article 16110 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!kmcvay
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Subject: Re: More about Rudolf Hoess
References:  <359hun$hsq@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac
Message-ID: <1994Sep15.183225.21490@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 94 18:32:25 GMT

In article  greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:

>In article <359hun$hsq@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
>wrote:

>> Before I respond to this, it would be helpful to know if Raven
>> claims Hoess' autobiography was doctored, and if so, does he have
>> any proof it was.

>If you read the item to which you claim you are prepared to respond, you
>will see that I make no representation that it was doctored in any way
>(which, of course, does not mean that it was not). If you read the item in
>question, you will see that there are two points I have made: 1) Hoess'
>affidavit and testimony have been instrumental in establishing the
>"Holocaust" extermination story, and 2) historians, scholars, and
>researchers are not claiming that Hoess' affidavit and testimony are not to
>be trusted.

>The conclusion that most normal people would reach from this information is
>that all the books and other materials that quote Hoess in support of their
>contentions about the "Holocaust" extermination story must be re-examined.

The conclusion anyone studying Hoess will reach is that his memoirs,
court testimony, and associated statements not only agree with each
other, but with other testimony and documentation as well. As Hoess
pointed out in his memoirs, he couldn't even _remember_ what he said
in his statement to the British, and that's that. Given the
consistency of the Hoess writings and statements, and the remarkable
consistency they hold with similar material from other Nazis,
survivors, and Allied sources, it should be of no surprise to
anyone, other than that collection of mentally challenged "editors"
at the IHR, that folks continue to accept what the man had to say as
valid.

Perhaps, now that he's shot his wad with regard to Mr. Hoess, Mr.
Raven will deal with his apparent inability to read, and then
address our response to his challenge of so many months ago, his
lies about Pressac, and his misrepresentation of the Vanity Fair
article.... not to forget his "single best evidence" that WWII even
happened... which he has yet to produce, and indeed, as he knows
full well, cannot produce.

Perhaps now he will respond to those who have asked him to provide
the name of a single historian who has promoted his "single best
evidence" theory of historic research by providing the appropirate
academic journal citations....

But then, I doubt it, for, as Mr. Raven himself admits regularly, he
doesn't read anything he doesn't agree with here... or in his
personal mailbox. Myopia indeed.

-- 
  "Everything I do is done with the full knowledge of the Fuehrer." 
  (Himmler, Heinrich.  See Jochen von Lang, "Der Adjutant: Karl Wolff,"
                Munich: Herbig, 1985, pp .  140ff)


Article 16113 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-05.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: More about Rudolf Hoess
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 13:32:32 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 31
Message-ID: 
References: 
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-05.dialip.mich.net

choover@usd.edu (Christopher J Hoover ) wrote:

> Hogwash.  You assert that Hilberg "relied heavily" upon Hoess's testimony. 
> 
> But there's a hole in your thesis large enough to drive a truck trough,
> Mr. Raven.  Hilberg, in _The Destruction of the European Jews_, published
> in _1961_ (that's _33_ years ago, Mr. Raven), estimated Auschwitz Jewish
> dead at about 1 million.  How could he have done this, Mr. Raven, if he
> had relied on Hoess as heavily as you claim?

There are numerous other flaws in what Mr. Raven has shared with us.  The
main one is his overlooking Hoess' memoirs, in which Hoess explains how
he got the 2.5 million figure that he testified to -- essentially, he had
to go by Eichmann's figures, and Eichmann was wrong.

He also omits to mention Hoess' memoirs, written under no threat,
under no influence of torture, and with nothing that could possibly bribe
him (he was sentenced to die).   They have many stories that clearly spell
out the gassing process -- both the fact that the gassings occurred
regularly, and specific instances that weighed heavily upon Hoess' mind.

But the most-curious thing is that Raven in another article backed down
from discussing Himmler, and in this one offered his take on Hoess.  I
thought you were trying to get things organized by talking about one thing
at a time, Mr. Raven.  Why are you suddenly dragging Hoess into the ring?
Please talk about Himmler's Poznan speeches.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "You seem to be selectively defining words to suit yourself, and then
  demanding that I accept your definitions."          - Greg Raven, 8/26/94
 "Do you understand that a testimony is not evidence?" - Greg Raven, 9/1/94


Article 16115 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-05.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: More about Rudolf Hoess
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 13:55:59 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 37
Message-ID: 
References: 
   <359hun$hsq@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-05.dialip.mich.net

greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote:

> dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) wrote:
> 
> > Before I respond to this, it would be helpful to know if Raven
> > claims Hoess' autobiography was doctored, and if so, does he have
> > any proof it was.
> 
> If you read the item to which you claim you are prepared to respond, you
> will see that I make no representation that it was doctored in any way
> (which, of course, does not mean that it was not). If you read the item in
> question, you will see that there are two points I have made: 1) Hoess'
> affidavit and testimony have been instrumental in establishing the
> "Holocaust" extermination story,

You have been proved wrong on that point just a few minutes ago.

> and 2) historians, scholars, and
> researchers are not claiming that Hoess' affidavit and testimony are not to
> be trusted.

Whoa, double negative.  Did you mean that?  Please restate.

> The conclusion that most normal people would reach from this information is
> that all the books and other materials that quote Hoess in support of their
> contentions about the "Holocaust" extermination story must be re-examined.

Nonsense.

Talk about Poznan, please.  We'll deal with Hoess later (and I think Hoess
has a lot of important things to say on the subject -- but we were just
about to discuss Himmler, remember?)
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "You seem to be selectively defining words to suit yourself, and then
  demanding that I accept your definitions."          - Greg Raven, 8/26/94
 "Do you understand that a testimony is not evidence?" - Greg Raven, 9/1/94


Article 16118 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!cobra.uni.edu!sunfish!choover
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Reports of Polish Underground About the Death Camps
Message-ID: 
From: choover@usd.edu (Christopher J Hoover )
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 17:25:23 GMT
Sender: news@sunfish.usd.edu
References: <357rk7$8jh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
Organization: University of South Dakota
Nntp-Posting-Host: sunbird
Lines: 27

greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:

>I find it interesting how camps other than Auschwitz, which used to be the
>main extermination camp in traditional "Holocaust" lore, are now gaining
>prominence as it becomes less and less possible to deny the truth of what
>actually did happen at Auschwitz, that is, no gas chambers, no open pits
>for burning bodies (alive or dead), and generally no mass exterminations. 

Huh?

I trust you can document this claim, Mr. Raven.  While it's true that 
Chelmno, Majdanek, and the Reinhard camps are getting _more_ attention 
than they used to (Auschwitz getting the lion's share of attention 
because it _was_ the most significant), I challenge you to demonstrate, 
in the recent flurry of _new_ publications regarding Auschwitz, that 
_less_ attention is being paid to Auschwitz.

Whoops...silly me.  You don't have to provide _any_ documentation in this
newsgroup until someone answers yours spurious "best evidence" question,
even though you've had a reply sitting on your plate since May.  What
_was_ I thinking. 


Chris
--
Christopher J. Hoover    choover@usd.edu       University of South Dakota
Disclaimer:  standard    It's *always* September, *somewhere* on the Net.


Article 16119 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!usenet.elf.com!news2.near.net!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: "Revisionists" Quiet About Hitler?!
Date: 15 Sep 1994 18:08:16 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <35a2ig$576@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References: <359iie$icv@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu
X-ORIGINAL-NEWSGROUPS: alt.revisionism

Greg Raven  wrote:
# dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)

## Hitler expressed his desire to see Jews exposed to poison gas.
## No one denies this.

# This is a mischaracterization of Hitler's comments. What Hitler was
# referring to (in Mein Kampf) is the poison gas in use on battlefields
# during WWI, not poison gas in gas chambers.

Makes no difference. He wanted to see Jews exposed to poison gas. He
later did what he wanted to do. It's as simple as that.

If Raven could read, he would not slander me with "This is a
mischaracterization of Hitler's comments". It was not. I said 
that he wanted to see Jews exposed to poison gas, and this is true.

## Hitler said in more than one public speech that the result of a new
## world war will be the "annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe".
## No one denies this.

# So? Hitler didn't want Jews in Germany. We don't deny this and never have.
# What's your point?

The point is, again, that Raven can't read. Hitler used the term
"annihilation". And he was talking about the Jews of Europe, not
only those of Germany.


-Danny Keren.


Article 16120 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!usenet.elf.com!news2.near.net!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: More about Rudolf Hoess
Date: 15 Sep 1994 18:15:27 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <35a2vv$5n0@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References:  <359hun$hsq@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu
X-ORIGINAL-NEWSGROUPS: alt.revisionism

It's just impossible to get a direct response from these "revisionist
scholars".

I asked Raven if he believes that the autobiography of Hoess
was doctored. He failed to answer. I still expect a reply.

Note that Raven quoted from the autobiography, so I assume he thinks
it's authentic and reliable. Is that so? If not, why did he quote from
it?


-Danny Keren.



Article 16121 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!ceylon!news2.near.net!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Reports of Polish Underground About the Death Camps
Date: 15 Sep 1994 18:23:35 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <35a3f7$66r@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References: <357rk7$8jh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu
X-ORIGINAL-NEWSGROUPS: alt.revisionism

Raven's response is insane. I post something about a different
death camp (Belzec) and he concludes from this that I have doubts
about what happened in Auschwitz?!

Auschwitz was not the only death camp; there were others, like Belzec
(a major death camp), and the fact that I mentioned it does not
mean that I have any doubts as to what happened in Auschwitz. This
is insanity, plain and simple.


-Danny Keren.



Article 16122 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!ceylon!news2.near.net!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Raven the Clown (was: Re: More about Rudolf Hoess)
Date: 15 Sep 1994 18:39:27 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <35a4cv$739@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu
X-ORIGINAL-NEWSGROUPS: alt.revisionism

Greg Raven  wrote:

# In a
# meeting between French revisionist Robert Faurisson and Michael Berenbaum,
# an official of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in September 1994,
# Berenbaum admitted to Faurisson in front of witnesses

Ah, you just have to love this Raven clown.

This guy never fails to make an ass of himself. He's a real treasure.

For some bloody months now, Raven keeps telling us - again and again 
and again and again - that witness testimony does not count. Actually,
it's his major point; the argument he uses to reject what every
person who was in the camps says is: "testimony is not evidence".

So how come he relies on testimony of witnesses, when it suits
his goals?

What a funny guy. What a great "revisionist scholar". 


-Danny Keren.


Article 16123 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-03.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: "Revisionists" Quiet About Hitler?!
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 16:06:35 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 137
Message-ID: 
References: <359iie$icv@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-03.dialip.mich.net

greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote:

> dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) wrote:
> 
> > Strangely enough, our "revisionist scholars" are very quiet about
> > the quotes from Hitler posted here.
> > 
> > Hitler expressed his desire to see Jews exposed to poison gas.
> > No one denies this.
> 
> This is a mischaracterization of Hitler's comments. What Hitler was
> referring to (in Mein Kampf) is the poison gas in use on battlefields
> during WWI, not poison gas in gas chambers.

You're quite the one to be talking about mischaracterization of
peoples' comments, Mr. Raven!

You're the one who mischaracterized Pressac's comments on page 181
of his book, then, when presented with his actual text and your
distortion of it, you're the one who simply dropped it without
having anything to say for yourself!

You're the one who said that Lipstadt and Browning had "admitted that
the Hoess statements are useless," when they have said absolutely
no such thing.

You're the one who told me that I'd admitted that there was no
physical evidence of the gas chambers after I'd _explicitly_ said
that I was putting that question aside to talk about something
else first!

Glass houses!

That said -- I don't know if what you say is true, I haven't seen
that section of _Mein Kampf_.  I don't believe it's been quoted in
alt.revisionism.  Does anyone has that section of the book handy?
I'd like to read what Hitler actually wrote.  And was it in
_Mein Kampf_ that Hitler made reference to "seeing Jews exposed to
poison gas," or was it elsewhere?

> > Hitler said in more than one public speech that the result of a new
> > world war will be the "annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe".
> > No one denies this.
> 
> So? Hitler didn't want Jews in Germany. We don't deny this and never have.
> What's your point?

Hitler stated many times that he was going to annihilate the Jewish
race in Europe.  And you ask "what's your point?"  You're seriously
warped, Mr. Raven.

> > Surely, this must mean something, right? Hitler, after all, was the
> > absolute ruler of Nazi Germany. These two statements from him are
> > therefore very important.  
> > 
> > One would expect that they be addressed.
> 
> One would also expect that they be properly quoted and referenced, which
> you have not done.

Like they were on July 20, when Ken McVay posted Michael Shermer's
_Skeptic_ article to the net?  An excerpt from that article follows.

But please, Mr. Raven -- don't forget to address Himmler's Poznan
speeches.  You finally chose to address them, 130 days after we'd
presented them as an answer to your request for "best evidence."
I do hope another 130 days won't go by before you reply again.

I mean, really -- is all you have to say that Himmler was "vague"
and "far removed" from the Holocaust, when what he said was "The
Jewish people will be exterminated, this is very obvious, it is in
our program."  Doesn't seem very vague to me.

Please respond re the Poznan speeches.

From the _Skeptic_ magazine article:


   And, finally, there are the words of the Fuehrer himself. In Hitler's
speech of January 30, 1939, he said:

      Today I want to be a prophet once more: If international finance
      Jewry inside and outside of Europe should succeed once more in
      plunging nations into another world war, the consequence will
      not be the Bolshevization of the earth and thereby the victory
      of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.

In September, 1942, Hitler recalled:

      In my Reichstag speech of September 1, 1939 [above, wrong date
      here], I have spoken of two things: first, that now that the war
      has been forced upon us, no array of weapons and no passage of
      time will bring us to defeat, and second, that if Jewry should
      plot another world war in order to exterminate the Aryan peoples
      in Europe, it would not be the Aryan peoples which would be
      exterminated but Jewry.  .  .  .

   At a public speech in Munich, November 8, 1942, Hitler told his
audience (see Jaeckel, 1989 for this and above Hitler quotes):

      You will recall the session of the Reichstag during which I
      declared: If Jewry should imagine that it could bring about an
      international world war to exterminate the European races, the
      result will not be the extermination of the European races, but
      the extermination of Jewry in Europe.  People always laughed
      about me as a prophet.  Of those who laughed then, countless
      numbers no longer laugh today, and those who still laugh now
      will perhaps no longer laugh a short time from now.  This
      realization will spread beyond Europe throughout the entire
      world.  International Jewry will be recognized in its full
      demonic peril; we National Socialists will see to that.

   From his earliest political ramblings to the final Goetterdammerung,
Hitler had it in for the Jews. On April 12, 1922, in a Munich speech
later published in the Voelkischer Beobachter, he told his audience
(Snyder, 1981, p. 29):

      The Jew is the ferment of the decomposition of people.  This
      means that it is in the nature of the Jew to destroy, and he
      must destroy, because he lacks altogether any idea of working
      for the common good.  He possesses certain characteristics given
      to him by nature and he never can rid himself of those
      characteristics.  The Jew is harmful to us.

   Thirty-three years later, on April 29, 1945, at 4:00 A.M., just one
day before his suicide, Hitler commanded his successors in his political
testament to carry on the fight: "Above all I charge the leaders of the
nation and those under them to scrupulous observance of the laws of race
and to merciless opposition to the universal poisoner of all peoples,
International Jewry" (Snyder, p. 521). How many more quotes do we need
to prove the Holocaust--100, 1,000, 10,000? The convergence of evidence
is overwhelming.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "You seem to be selectively defining words to suit yourself, and then
  demanding that I accept your definitions."          - Greg Raven, 8/26/94
 "Do you understand that a testimony is not evidence?" - Greg Raven, 9/1/94


Article 16134 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!gumby!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-05.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A challenge to Greg Raven
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 18:26:19 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 32
Message-ID: 
References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
   
   
   
   <353e7q$biv@access3.digex.net>
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-05.dialip.mich.net

greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote:

> Why not answer my challenge, posted many, many months ago,

...and answered many, many months ago...

> to
> produce what you feel is the best evidence that the Nazis had a plan or
> policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers? Do you have any
> such evidence to support your position?

Ten pieces of such evidence, Mr. Raven, as you've known for many, many
months now, and which you've been ignoring, and which you're still
ignoring.  Please address Himmler's Poznan speeches, Mr. Raven;  they
were the first piece of evidence presented to you many, many months
ago, and you still haven't begun to discuss them.

Unless you count calling Himmler "vague" a discussion -- it's not,
it's a lie.  He was exactly as precise as his audience required, which
was pretty damn precise -- how vague was he being when he said "the Jews
are being exterminated"?

> E-mailed copies of your newsgroup posts are deleted without
> being read.

A strange practice for someone whose news connection is flaky.  Why are
you deleting these posts unread, Mr. Raven?
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "You seem to be selectively defining words to suit yourself, and then
  demanding that I accept your definitions."          - Greg Raven, 8/26/94
 "Do you understand that a testimony is not evidence?" - Greg Raven, 9/1/94


Article 16135 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!usenet.elf.com!news2.near.net!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: More about Rudolf Hoess
Date: 15 Sep 1994 22:54:35 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <35ajbb$lci@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu
X-ORIGINAL-NEWSGROUPS: alt.revisionism

Greg Raven  wrote:

# We now know from the book LEGIONS OF DEATH that Hoess...

We don't know anything from any book, unless there is some
supporting evidence. The book might report the truth, but it
is impossible to figure this out from Raven's article because
he tells us nothing about the author and nothing about how the
author got his information (was he there?).

And, again, we are faced with Raven's big problem. He wasn't there
when Hoess was questioned, therefore, he must rely on the testimony of
someone who he claims was there.

Perhaps Greg "Hitler was a great man" Raven will finally tell us:

Does witness testimony count or not?

Just a few days ago, he wrote "testimony is not evidence". Now,
he relies on testimony. Perhaps we're dealing with a split
personality here?


-Danny Keren.


Article 16139 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access3.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: A challenge to Greg Raven
Supersedes: <35aqmr$hla@access3.digex.net>
Date: 15 Sep 1994 21:23:10 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 80
Message-ID: <35as1u$ihl@access3.digex.net>
References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  <353e7q$biv@access3.digex.net> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: access3.digex.net

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:
>Your "challenge" seems to be nothing more than an attempt to sidetrack the
>discussion.

    My challenge was by no means an attempt to sidetrack the discussion. 
I think it's quite proper to investigate whether one of the people in the
discussion is not being honest. 

    I take your answer to mean you know quite well you'd lose, for quite 
obvious reasons.


> Why not answer my challenge, posted many, many months ago, to
>produce what you feel is the best evidence that the Nazis had a plan or
>policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers?  Do you have any
>such evidence to support your position?

    Well, as I've told you at least twice before, the policy was to
exterminate Jews, *simpliciter*.  Gas chambers were but one means.  Your 
attempt to bundle the goal and the means is another bit of dishonesty.  

    But I do see you've dropped the "millions," which is good - the policy
was to exterminate however many Jews were necessary to make the Reich
"Judenrein" - there was no preset numeric goal; had there only been
100,000 Jews within the area controlled by Germany, that would have been 
the target number (eventually - they did decide to defer extermination of 
those who could provide useful slave labor).

    I've got an idea.  Look, Greg, you wanted focus, right?  Therefore you
surely can't object to getting more focused, right? 

    First, let's determine whether there was a policy of exterminating
Jews, period.  Once we settle that issue, we'll examine the evidence for
whether any particular means were used to carry out the policy.  Then 
we'll look at the evidence for the total number of deaths.  Now there's 
focus!  You wanted an alternate plan; there it is, and it's better than 
yours for meeting your stated goal of focus.

    I've said before that the best evidence is the fact that there is a
convergence of evidence.  That is, if there were an explicit extermination
order signed by Hitler (e.g., "I order that all Jews be put to death in
homicidal gas chambers once their usefulness as slave workers is at an
end."), but *nothing else* - no testimonies, no other documents, no
missing Jews, no suspiciously large concentration of crematoria, etc. -
the lack of any support would lead me to conclude that the supposed Hitler
order was indeed a forgery.  It is the fact that there is so much 
independent evidence which converges on the same conclusion which forms 
the "best evidence" for the reality of the Holocaust.

    However, if you wish to look first at the single piece of evidence
which does the most, on its own, to show that there was a policy to
exterminate Jews, for the sake of argument I'll go with Jamie on the
Himmler speech.  But frankly, I think there are other documents which are
all about as good.  As I said before, it's rather like being asked to pick
the "best" dollar bill in a wallet.

    So you have it from Jamie, and now from me.  Tell us why, when 
Himmler said "extermination," he didn't *really* mean it.

    And remember - we're getting more focused now, which is what you
wanted.  So forget about specific numbers and gas chambers for right now -
we'll get to them later.  Just discuss whether the Himmler speech is or
isn't evidence of a policy to kill Jews on a systematic and large-scale
basis.  Focus on that one thing - a policy to kill Jews on a systematic 
basis.


>>     Emailed to Mr. Raven.
>
>Don't bother. E-mailed copies of your newsgroup posts are deleted without
>being read.

    However, quite often the posts seem to be unread.  And if they are, 
how can you possibly know that they are copies of the newsgroup posts?  
Therefore I shall continue to email them.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


Article 16141 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access3.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: The truth about Auschwitz
Date: 15 Sep 1994 21:29:58 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <35asem$ivl@access3.digex.net>
References: <357rk7$8jh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: access3.digex.net

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:
>I find it interesting how camps other than Auschwitz, which used to be the
>main extermination camp in traditional "Holocaust" lore, are now gaining
>prominence as it becomes less and less possible to deny the truth of what
>actually did happen at Auschwitz, that is, no gas chambers, no open pits
>for burning bodies (alive or dead), and generally no mass exterminations. 

    Of course, "denying the truth" is precisely what Greg Raven is in the 
business of doing.

    Since Greg Raven wants focus, let's just deal with one of the issues
he raised.  There are photographs of open pit burning in Pressac -
*exactly* the kind of evidence Mr. Raven has elsewhere said he wants. 

    Greg, what is your BEST EVIDENCE that these photos are forgeries or 
were taken someplace other than Auschwitz?
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


Article 16144 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access3.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Raven admits he has no evidence of Hoess's torture
Date: 15 Sep 1994 22:23:24 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <35avis$l0r@access3.digex.net>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: access3.digex.net

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:
>We now know from the book LEGIONS OF DEATH that Hoess was beaten almost to
>death by Jewish members of the British Field Police upon capture and badly
>mistreated thereafter until he gave his "testimoney" and "affidavit." His
>wife and children were threated with deportation to Siberia.

    Really, Greg!  Butler's book is, after all, just testimony - as is
Hoess's assertion that he was mistreated.  Don't you have photographs of
this mistreatment?  A signed order to carry out this mistreatment?  What? 
You don't have those?

    Aren't you the person who said that testimonies are not evidence?  And
the person who believes in presenting the BEST EVIDENCE first?  So
apparently by your OWN STANDARDS you admit that you have NO EVIDENCE that
Hoess was beaten into his confession!

    How interesting, though, that in the same autobiography in which Hoess
claims to have been beaten into a confession, he still repeats his
assertion that there was mass murder at Auschwitz.  If he was beaten into
confessing, Greg, why did he write the book?  If he was forced into
writing the book, why wasn't he forced to leave out the part about being
beaten?  Very strange oversight on the part of those trying to fabricate
testimony! 


>Historians today are finally admitting that Hoess is an unreliable witness.

    On the numbers, yes.  Which historians admit his testimony about 
ordering gassings is not reliable?  Name names and cite publications, 
including page numbers.


>The figures of dead he gave for Auschwitz are totally false. He swore that
>2,500,000 people were gassed and burned at Auschwitz and a further half
>million died of disease for a total dead of 3,000,000.

    Bzzt.  Another distortion by Greg Raven, though small beer compared to
his prior whoppers.  I reproduce the exact quote from earlier in Raven's
post: 

>"2. ... I commanded Auschwitz until 1 December 1943, and estimate that at
                                                          ^^^^^^^^
>least 2,500,000 victims were executed and exterminated there by gassing and
>burning, and at least another half million succumbed to starvation and
>disease making a total dead of about 3,000,000.

    He swore it was an *estimate.* Later he decided his estimate had been
inflated, and lowered it - but even that was still an estimate.  Hoess was
a bad estimator.  I am too, for that matter - ask me to estimate the
number of people in a room, and I'm likely to be off by a third or more. 
Hoess later said he based this first estimate on figures he got from
others, not really his own thinking.


>Today, the figure of
>dead claimed for Auschwitz is 800,000, a figure that is in danger of
>further downward revisions.

    So?  I'd still call that mass murder.  I'd call 400,000 mass murder.  
Deliberate killing of 100,000 is mass murder.  Don't you agree, Greg?  Or 
do you think that while gassing 800,000 is mass murder, gassing 100,000 
people could be just a little misunderstanding?

    Murder is murder, while numbers are numbers.  I appreciate your 
yeomanlike efforts to try to convince people that if Hoess mis-estimated 
the numbers, his claim of murder somehow goes away too.  However, I think 
most people can see what kind of game you're playing here.

    Heck, here in Washington, there was a gay rights march where the
organizers estimated 1,000,000, but the Park Police estimated almost half
that.  On your logic, Greg, the march therefore never happened at all! 

    But to repeat, Greg.  Hoess's numbers are unimportant for the purpose
of establishing murder; murder is murder regardless of the precise body
count.  I want an exact quote from a legitimate Holocaust historian - with
full bibliographic information - which explicitly says that Hoess's
testimony that he personally ordered and witnessed a gassing is
unreliable.  Have you got one? 

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


Article 16146 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access3.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Raven wants proper citations!  Film at 11!
Date: 15 Sep 1994 22:57:01 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <35b1ht$n1d@access3.digex.net>
References: <359iie$icv@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: access3.digex.net

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:
>In article <359iie$icv@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
>dzk@brown.cs.edu (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>> Hitler said in more than one public speech that the result of a new
>> world war will be the "annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe".
>> No one denies this.
>
>So? Hitler didn't want Jews in Germany. We don't deny this and never have.
>What's your point?

    Is it your contention, then, that "annihilation" and "deportation" 
mean exactly the same thing?

>> One would expect that [the statements] be addressed.
>
>One would also expect that they be properly quoted and referenced, which
>you have not done.

    *guffaw* Greg, you wouldn't know a proper quote and reference if you
fell over it.  Your blatant distortion of Pressac's comments on Boeck's
testimony on p. 181 (remember, you didn't quote any of Pressac's text, and
refused to tell me what page it was on - I had to dig it up for myself)
proves your hypocrisy on this issue.

    So, Greg, do you promise to start giving us proper quotes and 
references from now on?  No more of those dishonest paraphrases?


    Why do I think that the odds of the Pope converting to Judaism are 
about a million times better?
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


Article 16150 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!malgudi.oar.net!news.ysu.edu!yfn.ysu.edu!ah731
From: ah731@yfn.ysu.edu (Steve Butcher)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 130 days later, Mr. Raven accepts the challenge
Date: 16 Sep 1994 00:48:13 GMT
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <35aq0d$f0i@news.ysu.edu>
References:   <355c39$lrd@eis.calstate
Reply-To: ah731@yfn.ysu.edu (Steve Butcher)
NNTP-Posting-Host: yfn2.ysu.edu


In a previous article, greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) says:

>
>I did not provide any additional information because, as I have from the
>beginning, I want to make sure that I am not discussing some irrelevant
>document. However, someone has now claimed that this speech is the BEST
>EVIDENCE of a Nazi plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas
>chambers (even though there is no reference to gas chambers of any type in
>this speech), so it looks as if soon I will be addressing some of the
>specifics.
>
Mr. Raven, as a mere lurker with no particular ax to grind and no wisdom other
than the conventional to impart, I would like to ask you a fairly simple
question.  Why do you persist in asking for, and I quote:

"the best evidence of a Nazi plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in
homicidal gas chambers," 

when, for as long as I've been lurking, no one has made the claim that there 
was "a Nazi plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers"?

The claim that the Nazis intended to exterminate the Jews has certainly been 
made and, IMHO, overwhelming evidence has been provided to support this.  Do 
you really believe that the specific means used to  accomplish  this are 
relevant?  I am really curious about this and hope that you will favor me 
with a reply.

Steve Butcher
Math and CS
University of Central Arkansas
-- 


Article 16159 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!redstone.interpath.net!ddsw1!news.kei.com!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: "Revisionists" Quiet About Hitler?!
In-Reply-To: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com's message of Thu, 15 Sep 1994 08:24:43 -0800
Message-ID: 
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References: <359iie$icv@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 04:39:32 GMT
Lines: 25


From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
>> Hitler said in more than one public speech that the result of a new
>> world war will be the "annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe".
>> No one denies this.
>
>So? Hitler didn't want Jews in Germany. We don't deny this and never have.

Ya know, call me simple-minded, but you would think that if someone
like Adolph Hitler really meant that he wanted the Jews out of Germany
that he wouldn't have said he will annihilate the Jewish race in
Europe.

This sounds like one of those Woody Allen absurdist comedy skits about
some banana republic where the diplomat says something like ``when our
glorious prime minister said that he intended to invade Glorbia and
crush them underfoot what he *really* meant was he would like to visit
their beautiful country soon and participate in the winemaking
festival''.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD


Article 16162 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news.unt.edu!hermes.oc.com!news.kei.com!ddsw1!golux.pr.mcs.net!user
From: golux@mcs.com (The only Golux in the World, and not a mere Device)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: "Revisionists" Quiet About Hitler?!
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 00:03:07 -0600
Organization: MCSNet Services
Lines: 61
Message-ID: 
References: <359iie$icv@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: golux.pr.mcs.net

In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com
(Greg Raven) wrote:

> In article <359iie$icv@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
> wrote:
> 
> > Strangely enough, our "revisionist scholars" are very quiet about
> > the quotes from Hitler posted here.
> > 
> > Hitler expressed his desire to see Jews exposed to poison gas.
> > No one denies this.
> 
> This is a mischaracterization of Hitler's comments. What Hitler was
> referring to (in Mein Kampf) is the poison gas in use on battlefields
> during WWI, not poison gas in gas chambers.

I tend to agree with this, based on the quotation posted earlier.  If
someone could repost it, I would like to confirm.  However, he did say,
basically, that he wished more Jews had been exposed to that gas in WWI
(thus relieving him, perhaps, of the task of having to kill them later).

> > Hitler said in more than one public speech that the result of a new
> > world war will be the "annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe".
> > No one denies this.
> 
> So? Hitler didn't want Jews in Germany. We don't deny this and never have.
> What's your point?

I don't know what Danny's point was, but Hitler's point was clearly not
directed at anything other than killing all the Jews in Europe. 
"Annihilation" is a pretty straightforward word.  (Even without knowing
the word from which it was translated, I am willing to bet that it
wouldn't translate as "deportation" or "expulsion," which would be more
appropriate if we wanted to take your interpretation on this particular
quote.

> > Surely, this must mean something, right? Hitler, after all, was the
> > absolute ruler of Nazi Germany. These two statements from him are
> > therefore very important.  
> > 
> > One would expect that they be addressed.
> 
> One would also expect that they be properly quoted and referenced, which
> you have not done. Perhaps if you read Mein Kampf again, you will see your
> error.
> 
> Or, are you claiming that this is the BEST EVIDENCE that the Nazis had a
> plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers? :-)

And here we see that Mr. Raven has recognized (or perhaps always known and
merely finally admitted) that his "best evidence" criterion is a sham and
a parody of true historical discussion.  Why else the smiley face, Mr.
Raven?

Emailed to Mr. Raven.

-- 
D. J. Schaeffer |       The Todal looks like a blob of glup.
golux@mcs.com   |     It makes a sound like rabbits screaming,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^        and smells of old, unopened rooms.
                            -- Thurber, _The 13 Clocks_


Article 16177 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!schultz
From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Reports of Polish Underground About the Death Camps
Date: 16 Sep 1994 14:13:19 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <35c95v$o2s@agate.berkeley.edu>
References: <357rk7$8jh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  <35a3f7$66r@cat.cis.brown.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article <35a3f7$66r@cat.cis.brown.edu>,
Danny Keren  wrote:

>Auschwitz was not the only death camp; there were others, like Belzec
>(a major death camp), and the fact that I mentioned it does not
>mean that I have any doubts as to what happened in Auschwitz. This
>is insanity, plain and simple.

I think that another reason why Auschwitz receives more attention is
simply that in addition to being a death camp, it was also a slave
labor camp, which means that there were more survivors of Auschwitz than
of Belzec or Treblinka.  Thus, if one were to go up to a concentration
camp survivor and ask him about his experiences, the odds that he 
would start by saying "I was at Auschwitz" are much greater than the
odds he would say "I was at Belzec".  Thus, statistics alone can
explain the relative amount of published material.

-- 
					Richard Schultz
             "an optimist is a guy
              that has never had
              much experience"


Article 16182 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!news.duke.edu!eff!news.kei.com!news.byu.edu!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A challenge to Greg Raven
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 07:23:05 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 23
Message-ID: 
References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com

In article ,
k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:

> greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote:

> > E-mailed copies of your newsgroup posts are deleted without
> > being read.
> 
> A strange practice for someone whose news connection is flaky.  Why are
> you deleting these posts unread, Mr. Raven?

1) There is no sense in reading something to which I cannot reply, and 2)
so far, the "responses" to my original request for the best evidence of a
Nazi plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers that
I have seen have not been responses at all, but rather attempts to divert
the discussion to some other area. Why waste my time?

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659
The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40
The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping


Article 16183 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!gumby!yale!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!news.duke.edu!eff!news.kei.com!yeshua.marcam.com!uunet!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Reports of Polish Underground About the Death Camps
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 07:48:45 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 24
Message-ID: 
References: <357rk7$8jh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  <35a3f7$66r@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com

In article <35a3f7$66r@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
wrote:

> Raven's response is insane. I post something about a different
> death camp (Belzec) and he concludes from this that I have doubts
> about what happened in Auschwitz?!
> 
> Auschwitz was not the only death camp; there were others, like Belzec
> (a major death camp), and the fact that I mentioned it does not
> mean that I have any doubts as to what happened in Auschwitz. This
> is insanity, plain and simple.

Was it not you who, in your posting, described Belzec as "one of the most
terrible Nazi death camps," or somesuch? If you study this matter, you will
see that at one time or another, virtually all the major camps have been
labelled the "worst death camp." Your reference to Belzec is clearly in
line with this practice.

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659
The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40
The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping


Article 16184 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!redstone.interpath.net!ddsw1!news.kei.com!news.byu.edu!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A challenge to Greg Raven
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 07:25:54 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 92
Message-ID: 
References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  <353e7q$biv@access3.digex.net>  <35as1u$ihl@access3.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com

In article <35as1u$ihl@access3.digex.net>, mstein@access3.digex.net
(Michael P. Stein) wrote:

>     However, if you wish to look first at the single piece of evidence
> which does the most, on its own, to show that there was a policy to
> exterminate Jews, for the sake of argument I'll go with Jamie on the
> Himmler speech.  But frankly, I think there are other documents which are
> all about as good.  As I said before, it's rather like being asked to pick
> the "best" dollar bill in a wallet.
> 
>     So you have it from Jamie, and now from me.  Tell us why, when 
> Himmler said "extermination," he didn't *really* mean it.
> 
>     And remember - we're getting more focused now, which is what you
> wanted.  So forget about specific numbers and gas chambers for right now -
> we'll get to them later.  Just discuss whether the Himmler speech is or
> isn't evidence of a policy to kill Jews on a systematic and large-scale
> basis.  Focus on that one thing - a policy to kill Jews on a systematic 
> basis.

And you accuse me of not paying attention! My request was for someone to
state what he felt was the best evidence that the Nazis had a plan or
policy to exterminate Jews in homicidal gas chambers.

You and Mr. McCarthy now say that you feel the Himmler Posen speech of 4
October 1943 is this best evidence. The text of this speech is along these
lines:

"I also want to talk to you, quite frankly, on a very grave matter. Among
ourselves it should be mentioned quite frankly, and yet we will never speak
of it publicly. Just as we did not hesitate on June 30, 1934 to do the duty
we were bidden and stand comrades who had lapsed up against the wall and
shoot them, so we have never spoken about it and will never speak of it ...
 "I mean the evacuation of the Jews (die Judenevakuierung), the
extermination (Ausrottung) of the Jewish race. ItUs one of those things it
is easy to talk about, RThe Jewish race is being exterminated
(ausgerottet),S says one Party Member, RthatUs quite clear, itUs in our
program Q elimination (Ausschaltung) of the Jews and weUre doing it,
extermination (Ausrottung) is what weUre doing.S And then they come, 80
million worthy Germans, and each one has his decent Jew. Of course the
others are vermin, but this one is an A-1 Jew. Not one of all those who
talk this way has watched it, not one of them has gone through it. Most of
you must know what it means when 100 corpses are lying side by side, or
500, or 1,000. To have stuck it out and at the same time Q apart from
exceptions caused by human weakness -- to have remained decent fellows,
that it what has made us hard. This is a page of glory in our history which
has never been written and is never to be written, for we know how
difficult we should have made it for ourselves, if with the bombing raids,
the burdens and the depravations of war we still had Jews today in every
town as secret saboteurs, agitators, and trouble-mongers. We would now
probably have reached the 1916-1917 stage when the Jews were still in the
German national body.
 "We have taken from them what wealth they had. I have issued a strict
order, which SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl has carried out, that this wealth
should, as a matter of course, be handed over to the Reich without reserve.
We have taken none of it for ourselves I We had the moral right, we had the
duty to our people, to destroy this people (dieses Volk umzubringen) which
wanted to destroy us. But we have not the right to enrich ourselves with so
much as a fur, a watch, a mark, or a cigarette, or anything else. Because
we exterminated (ausrotteten) a germ, we do not want in the end to be
infected by the germ and die of it ...  Wherever it may form, we will
cauterize it."

There are any number of responses I could make. I could, as did Butz and
Staeglich, point out the many problems with verifying the text of this
speech as being accurate. I could also point out that on 16 December 1943,
Himmler said:

"Whenever I was forced to take action in a village against partisans or
Jewish commissars -- I speak of this to you and only for you in this circle
-- as a basic rule I also gave the order to have the women and children of
these partisans and commissars killed as well ... Believe me, it is not
easy to give such an order, and it is not as simple to carry out as it is
to think through and put into words in a meeting hall. But we must always
remain aware of the primitive and basic nature of the racial struggle in
which we find ourselves."

In fact, Himmler gave other very similar speeches during this period, and
from looking at those other speeches we can tell he is talking about
something quite different than the exterminationists would like to have us
believe.

However, the main point as it applies to this discussion is that this
Himmler speech makes no mention of gas chambers. Therefore, it fails to
satisfy my request for the best evidence.

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659
The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40
The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping


Article 16185 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!gumby!yale!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!news.duke.edu!eff!news.kei.com!yeshua.marcam.com!uunet!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: "Revisionists" Quiet About Hitler?!
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 07:51:40 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 14
Message-ID: 
References: <359iie$icv@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  <35a2ig$576@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com

In article <35a2ig$576@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
wrote:
> Makes no difference. He wanted to see Jews exposed to poison gas. He
> later did what he wanted to do. It's as simple as that.

More wishful thinking. Please provide the exact words of Hitler that lead
you to make this statement.

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659
The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40
The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping


Article 16186 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!redstone.interpath.net!ddsw1!news.kei.com!news.byu.edu!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 130 days later, Mr. Raven accepts the challenge
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 07:38:16 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 21
Message-ID: 
References:  
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com

In article ,
k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:

> greg-ihr@earthlink.net (Greg Raven) wrote:
> > Just to be sure that we understand each other, you are saying that this
> > October 4 speech by Himmler at Posen as your BEST EVIDENCE that the Nazis
> > had a plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers?
> 
> I repeat myself:
> Himmler's Poznan speeches are the "best evidence" of the Holocaust.
> 
> Happy now?

Yes. See my response elsewhere in this newsgroup

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659
The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40
The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping


Article 16187 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-04.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A challenge to Greg Raven
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 13:04:28 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 33
Message-ID: 
References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
   
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-04.dialip.mich.net

greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote:

> k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:
> 
> > A strange practice for someone whose news connection is flaky.  Why are
> > you deleting these posts unread, Mr. Raven?
> 
> 1) There is no sense in reading something to which I cannot reply,

Nonsense.  When my newsfeed goes down, as it occasionally does, I quickly
ask friends to email to me any articles that I might find interesting.
Just because I'm dumb doesn't mean I have to be deaf, too.

> and 2)
> so far, the "responses" to my original request for the best evidence of a
> Nazi plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers that
> I have seen have not been responses at all, but rather attempts to divert
> the discussion to some other area.

(A)  How would you know, if you don't read them?

(B)  We've been trying to get you to address document #1, Himmler's Poznan
speeches, for the last four months.  If we've been talking about other
things as well, it's because you've stubbornly pretended, for the last
four months, that you haven't seen that document.

> Why waste my time?

Please begin wasting time by addressing the Poznan speeches.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "...just consider alt.revisionism a suburb of talk.bizarre
  and everything starts falling into place."  - Steve Miller


Article 16189 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-04.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Reports of Polish Underground About the Death Camps
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 13:37:21 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 38
Message-ID: 
References: <357rk7$8jh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
   
   <35a3f7$66r@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-04.dialip.mich.net

greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote:

> dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) wrote:
> 
> > Raven's response is insane. I post something about a different
> > death camp (Belzec) and he concludes from this that I have doubts
> > about what happened in Auschwitz?!
> 
> Was it not you who, in your posting, described Belzec as "one of the most
> terrible Nazi death camps," or somesuch? If you study this matter, you will
> see that at one time or another, virtually all the major camps have been
> labelled the "worst death camp." Your reference to Belzec is clearly in
> line with this practice.

Belzec and the other two Reinhard camps were the worst to get sent to,
because they had the lowest survival rate period.  (I think;  I haven't
done the numbers, but I believe somewhat under 2,000 people escaped,
with about 2,000,000 gassed to death.)  They weren't internment camps,
though, so at least death was quick, except for those poor souls who
drew the duty of corpse-carrying, -burying, and -burning.

Auschwitz was the worst overall, with more victims than any other
single camp, but as an individual, all else being equal, your odds were
a lot better at Auschwitz than at Belzec, Sobibor, or Treblinka.  Not
that Auschwitz had a whole lot of survivors.

Given the many ways of defining "worst" (was it Mauthausen that had the
unbelievably cruel and sadistic guards?), it's pretty much a given that
"virtually all the major camps have been labelled the 'worst death camp.'"
What would you expect?  That minor camps would be called the worst?
That major camps would be called the least bad?  What were you expecting?

Please stop changing the subject, Mr. Raven -- address Himmler's Poznan
speeches.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "...just consider alt.revisionism a suburb of talk.bizarre
  and everything starts falling into place."  - Steve Miller


Article 16190 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news1.digex.net!access.digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: A truthful answer from Greg Raven!
Date: 16 Sep 1994 12:34:51 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <35chfb$6rb@access2.digex.net>
References:    
NNTP-Posting-Host: access2.digex.net

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:
>In article , golux@mcs.com (The
>only Golux in the World, and not a mere Device) wrote:
>> Are you saying that you would consider a forensic report, a blueprint or
>> photograph of a gas chamber, or an example of a Nazi gas chamber to be
>> convincing evidence of the Holocaust?  But how can the existence of a
>> forensic report indicate a policy?  How would a photograph prove any more
>> than the words of the Nazi leadership?  Can you explain how you arrived at
>> your criteria, and why they are acceptable while other types of evidence
>> -- testimony from eyewitnesses, for example -- is not?
>
>It is a moot point: none of them exist, to the best of my knowledge.

    In case anyone is wondering, this is actually a direct and accurate
answer to the question which was asked; probably the most truthful thing
Greg Raven has ever posted here.  His criteria for acceptable evidence is
indeed whatever doesn't exist, to the best of his knowledge.  Were
any of these things to come to light, he'd suddenly decide they weren't 
acceptable evidence either.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


Article 16191 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!uunet!news1.digex.net!access.digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Raven fights a strawman...
Date: 16 Sep 1994 13:02:15 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <35cj2n$7q4@access2.digex.net>
References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  <35as1u$ihl@access3.digex.net> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: access2.digex.net

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:
>In article <35as1u$ihl@access3.digex.net>, mstein@access3.digex.net
>(Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>>     And remember - we're getting more focused now, which is what you
>> wanted.  So forget about specific numbers and gas chambers for right now -
>> we'll get to them later.  Just discuss whether the Himmler speech is or
>> isn't evidence of a policy to kill Jews on a systematic and large-scale
>> basis.  Focus on that one thing - a policy to kill Jews on a systematic 
>> basis.
>
>And you accuse me of not paying attention! My request was for someone to
>state what he felt was the best evidence that the Nazis had a plan or
>policy to exterminate Jews in homicidal gas chambers.

    I have been paying very careful attention.  You set up a strawman, as
I have pointed out to you four times.  You have consistently ignored that
point. 

    You said you wanted focus.  Why are you afraid of my plan to bring 
even more focus?

>You and Mr. McCarthy now say that you feel the Himmler Posen speech of 4
>October 1943 is this best evidence.

    I have been very explicit in saying *what* I think the Himmler speech 
is evidence of.  Your attempt to distort my words is duly noted.

>There are any number of responses I could make. I could, as did Butz and
>Staeglich, point out the many problems with verifying the text of this
>speech as being accurate.

    Are you then willing to accept Ken McVay's challenge to submit the 
tape to voiceprint analysis?

>I could also point out that on 16 December 1943,
>Himmler said:

    Could you also point out where he said it, and what your source is?

    Didn't you just complain about Danny Keren not giving a proper
reference?  Or are you going to revise that bit of history too?


>[speech about "Jewish commissars" omitted]
>
>In fact, Himmler gave other very similar speeches during this period, and
>from looking at those other speeches we can tell he is talking about
>something quite different than the exterminationists would like to have us
>believe.

    Is this, then, your best evidence that he didn't mean what he said in
the 4 October speech?  Are you saying this proves Himmler didn't know the
difference between "Jews" and "partisans" or "Jewish commissars?"  Of
course, if he identified *every* Jew as a partisan, then a policy of 
exterminating partisans would ipso facto be a policy of exterminating 
Jews.  Q.E.D.


>However, the main point as it applies to this discussion is that this
>Himmler speech makes no mention of gas chambers. Therefore, it fails to
>satisfy my request for the best evidence.

    Is that your only objection?  Do you admit, then, that it *does* show
a policy of exterminating Jews?

    Why are you suddenly afraid of focus, the very thing you said you 
wanted, Greg?

    Emailed to Mr. Raven, who seems to claim he psychically knows whether or 
not it's a copy of a post he missed due to a flaky newsreader.  :)
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


Article 16192 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!uunet!news1.digex.net!access.digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: The most terrible death camp
Date: 16 Sep 1994 13:15:53 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <35cjs9$8bc@access2.digex.net>
References: <357rk7$8jh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  <35a3f7$66r@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: access2.digex.net

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:
>In article <35a3f7$66r@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
>wrote:
>
>> Raven's response is insane. I post something about a different
>> death camp (Belzec) and he concludes from this that I have doubts
>> about what happened in Auschwitz?!
>> 
>Was it not you who, in your posting, described Belzec as "one of the most
>terrible Nazi death camps," or somesuch?

    If you were half the historian you want us to think you are, you'd 
know that it was I.  You should also be aware that my posting had a rather 
sarcastic bent to it.

    If you can't even keep posts on this newsgroup straight, why should 
anyone believe you're capable of keeping the events of fifty years ago 
straight?

>If you study this matter, you will
>see that at one time or another, virtually all the major camps have been
>labelled the "worst death camp."

    Ho hum, yet another unsupported assertion from the man who griped only 
a day or two ago about Danny Keren's lack of citation in *one* post.

    Of course, "worst death camp" is a rather subjective term; it rather
depends on the criteria used.  If you are looking at total number of
deaths, that's probably Auschwitz (though remember, the death tolls *are*
all estimates).  Highest *percentage* of deaths is certainly Belzec; most
inhumane treatment could well be another (I have no information on this).

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


Article 16194 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!kmcvay
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Subject: Inexperience + Myopia = Raven
References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac
Message-ID: <1994Sep16.223008.28773@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 94 22:30:08 GMT

Greg Raven, writing in response to Jamie McCarthy's comment that his
practice of deleting email without reading it was strange for
someone who claimed his news connection was unreliable, had this to
say:

>1) There is no sense in reading something to which I cannot reply, and 2)

This begs clarification, Mr. Raven. Do you mean that you do not know
how to use your mailer's R)eply function, or do you mean that you
do not know how to respond to email via this newsgroup, or do you
mean that you can't always reply via this newsgroup, because your
connection is unreliable?

Since email replies from you have been posted to this newsgroup, I
will assume you do indeed understand how that process works - i.e.
you can respond to email.

If you mean that you cannot reliably post an article to this
newsgroup, be aware that several sites (including mine, by the way)
will transfer email messages to alt.revisionism. In the case of my
system, all you have to do is send your article, via email, to
"arevise@oneb.almanac.bc.ca," and my system will post your article
for you. My system is slow to react, however, and other, directly
connected (to the internet) sites will do the job more quickly.

If you mean that you do not understand how to save and edit the
email message, and turn it into a public article, then I invite you
to describe your access site's features (mail reader, news reader,
operating system or bulletin board software, shell access, etc.) so
that we can explain things to you, using, of course, our single best
evidence that our processes will be effective.

>so far, the "responses" to my original request for the best evidence of a
>Nazi plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers that
>I have seen have not been responses at all, but rather attempts to divert
>the discussion to some other area. Why waste my time?

May 4th. Myopia is one hellacious disease! Like HIV, it propagates
at an alarming level, and seems to quickly mutate into the more
generalized June '94 Myopia, July '94 Myopia, August '94 Myopia,
and, it seems apparent now, even September '94 Myopia!

Either that, of course, or Mr. Raven is simply hoping that some of
the lurking readers here are _real_ stupid, and don't understand the
utter contempt with which he obviously views their intellectual
capacities.

Does the IHR have _anyone_ on board who can actually walk and chew
gum at the same time, or is Mr. Raven truly the "best of the bunch?"
If so, Holocaust denial is doomed by its own hand.

-- 
  "Everything I do is done with the full knowledge of the Fuehrer." 
  (Himmler, Heinrich.  See Jochen von Lang, "Der Adjutant: Karl Wolff,"
                Munich: Herbig, 1985, pp .  140ff)


Article 16198 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!uunet!news1.digex.net!access.digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 130 days later, Mr. Raven accepts the challenge
Date: 12 Sep 1994 12:19:27 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <351v2f$a49@access2.digex.net>
References:   
NNTP-Posting-Host: access2.digex.net

In article ,
Jamie McCarthy  wrote:
>greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote:
>
>> This whole "Posen speech" matter is interesting, for many reasons, of which
>> I will deal with only a couple at this time.
>
>Please, deal with as many as you feel you need to deal with.

    You really should make him deal with ONE at a time, starting with his 
BEST reason why the Posen speech is not evidence for the Holocaust.  Only 
fair, you know.... :)
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


Article 16199 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!uunet!news1.digex.net!access.digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Is Greg Raven telepathic?
Date: 12 Sep 1994 12:24:20 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <351vbk$afp@access2.digex.net>
References: <1994Sep03.050330.2051@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>  
NNTP-Posting-Host: access2.digex.net

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:
>I'm sure that what Mcvay meant to say is that "Irene Zdziarski" is put
>forward as the chairwoman of the Holocaust Committee of the PHS, as he
>certainly must know that this is a pseudonym.

    What is your BEST EVIDENCE that Ken McVay knows this?  Do you now
claim telepathic powers?

    (Come to think of it, what's your BEST EVIDENCE that it's a
pseudonym?)

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


Article 16200 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!news.Arizona.EDU!misvms.bpa.arizona.edu!dmittleman
From: dmittleman@misvms.bpa.arizona.edu (Daniel Mittleman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Posen--the clearest admission
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: 12 Sep 1994 07:18 MST
Organization: University of Arizona (BPA)
Lines: 33
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <12SEP199407181976@misvms.bpa.arizona.edu>
References:  
NNTP-Posting-Host: misvms.bpa.arizona.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.50    

In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes...

>This whole "Posen speech" matter is interesting, for many reasons, of which
>I will deal with only a couple at this time. First, it is interesting that
>it is put forth as proof of the "Holocaust" when, in fact, it is far
>removed from what is often defined as the "Holocaust," and is remarkably
>vague. Are we to believe that there is no better evidence than this of the
>murder of 6 million Jews?

>Second, those who like to quote this speech virtually always do so in
>isolation of other speeches given by Himmler around this time, other
>speeches in which Himmler made it abundantly clear what he meant in this
>passage. By removing the context from the speech, the exterminationists
>hope to convince the unwary that the "smoking gun" has been found.

>Is there anyone out there who believes that this speech is the best
>evidence of the Holocaust extermination myth?

    Yes.  I will bite.  I am not a holocaust scholar, but I have been
    reading this conference off and on for over a year.  Of all of the
    evidence I have seen posted in this conference (obviously the evidence
    consists of reprinted statements by people as physical evidence doesn't
    transmit over usenet) I find this speech to be the strongest I have
    seen.  I guess for me it is "the best single piece of evidence."

    I am very interested to hear your organized rebuttal to it.  If there
    are other Himmler statements which give it context, by all means let me
    see them.  If this speech means something other than what it has been
    purported in this conference to mean, but all means demonstrate that to
    me.

===========================================================================
daniel david mittleman     -     danny@arizona.edu     -     (602) 621-2932


Article 16201 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!library.ucla.edu!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!schultz
From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Posen--the clearest admission
Date: 12 Sep 1994 17:04:48 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <3521ng$kql@agate.berkeley.edu>
References:  
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:

>This whole "Posen speech" matter is interesting, for many reasons, of which
>I will deal with only a couple at this time. First, it is interesting that
>it is put forth as proof of the "Holocaust" when, in fact, it is far
>removed from what is often defined as the "Holocaust," and is remarkably
>vague. Are we to believe that there is no better evidence than this of the
>murder of 6 million Jews?

I thought that Greg Raven was the revisionist who had accepted, as a 
working definition for the Holocaust, "the systematic policy by the 
Nazi government to murder Jews, gypsies, etc."  This might not be the exact
wording, but I thought that the question of the number of Jews murdered
is independent of the question about whether there was a Nazi government
policy to murder them.  And that the Posen speech is given as best 
evidence for the latter, not the former.

But as for me, I am still waiting for someone to provide me with a
single piece of "best evidence" that World War II happened.


Article 16203 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!kmcvay
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Subject: Is Greg Raven telepathic, or just lying again?
References:   <351vbk$afp@access2.digex.net>
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac
Message-ID: <1994Sep16.230053.867@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 94 23:00:53 GMT

In article <351vbk$afp@access2.digex.net> mstein@access.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) writes:

>In article ,
>Greg Raven  wrote:
>>I'm sure that what Mcvay meant to say is that "Irene Zdziarski" is put
>>forward as the chairwoman of the Holocaust Committee of the PHS, as he
>>certainly must know that this is a pseudonym.

>    What is your BEST EVIDENCE that Ken McVay knows this?  Do you now
>claim telepathic powers?

I have a much better question: What is Mr. Raven's single best
evidence that I even _said_ that?

Given that I most certainly did _not_ write anything about Irene
Zdz~, it will be more than a little amusing to see how this "senior
editor" can explain how, given his patent inability to keep track of
who said what a _day_ or two ago, he should be believed in any
respect with regard to his assertions about what folks said fifty or
so _years_ ago....

Then, of course, there was his recent complaint about the Posen
speech being posted out of context (i.e. without comparision to
other Himmler speeches of the period), which is an amazing complaint
from the man who flat _insists_ that we can only deal with _one_
document at a time. Talk about your double standards....

Pot. Kettle. Black.

-- 
  "Everything I do is done with the full knowledge of the Fuehrer." 
  (Himmler, Heinrich.  See Jochen von Lang, "Der Adjutant: Karl Wolff,"
                Munich: Herbig, 1985, pp .  140ff)


Article 16204 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!kmcvay
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Subject: Re: Posen--the clearest admission (...of Raven's duplicity)
References:   <12SEP199407181976@misvms.bpa.arizona.edu>
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac
Message-ID: <1994Sep16.230810.949@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 94 23:08:10 GMT

In article <12SEP199407181976@misvms.bpa.arizona.edu> dmittleman@misvms.bpa.arizona.edu (Daniel Mittleman) writes:

>In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes...

>>Second, those who like to quote this speech virtually always do so in
>>isolation of other speeches given by Himmler around this time, other
>>speeches in which Himmler made it abundantly clear what he meant in this
>>passage. By removing the context from the speech, the exterminationists
>>hope to convince the unwary that the "smoking gun" has been found.

Note the above well. Mr. Raven, who has, for month after month,
insisted upon a "single best evidence" tack, now asserts that we
must view this evidence IN CONTEXT. In other words, Mr. Raven
asserts that, for HIM, and HIM ALONE, convergence of evidence is in
fact the ONLY way to determine historical fact. For US, however,
that is those who routinely catch him lying, misrepresenting facts,
etc., for US, no such convergence may be employed.

Mr. Raven, by your own rules, you cannot, under any circumstances,
provide more than ONE SINGLE BEST PIECE OF EVIDENCE to deal with
Himmler's speech.... unless, shudder the thought, you are an
intellectual fraud and hypocrite of the highest order.

>>Is there anyone out there who believes that this speech is the best
>>evidence of the Holocaust extermination myth?

>    Yes.  I will bite.  I am not a holocaust scholar, but I have been
>    reading this conference off and on for over a year.  Of all of the
>    evidence I have seen posted in this conference (obviously the evidence
>    consists of reprinted statements by people as physical evidence doesn't
>    transmit over usenet) I find this speech to be the strongest I have
>    seen.  I guess for me it is "the best single piece of evidence."

>    I am very interested to hear your organized rebuttal to it.  If there
>    are other Himmler statements which give it context, by all means let me
>    see them.  If this speech means something other than what it has been
>    purported in this conference to mean, but all means demonstrate that to
>    me.

Yes, indeed... and, given his own rules, upon which he has insisted
without restraint (and, of course, failed to follow, but that's
another tale...), he cannot employ but a single best piece of
evidence in rebuttal.

How he plans to weasel out of this little box, which he himself
created, and still explain how "exterminate the Jews" means
something other than "exterminate the Jews" should be quite
entertaining...

Remember, Mr. Raven - only your single best evidence please - leave
your "convergence crap" at the door.

Ah, the irony, the irony!

(Quothe the Raven, "Nevermore!")

-- 
  "Everything I do is done with the full knowledge of the Fuehrer." 
  (Himmler, Heinrich.  See Jochen von Lang, "Der Adjutant: Karl Wolff,"
                Munich: Herbig, 1985, pp .  140ff)


Article 16205 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!gumby!yale!news2.near.net!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Posen--the clearest admission
Date: 12 Sep 1994 17:33:46 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <3523dq$ptd@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References:  
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu
X-ORIGINAL-NEWSGROUPS: alt.revisionism

greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:

# This whole "Posen speech" matter is interesting, for many reasons,
# of which I will deal with only a couple at this time. First, it is
# interesting that it is put forth as proof of the "Holocaust" when,
# in fact, it is far removed from what is often defined as the
# "Holocaust," and is remarkably vague.

It's really vague. All he says is that the Jewish women and children
have to be killed too, in order to make this people "disappear from
the face of the Earth". 


-Danny Keren.




Article 16212 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!insosf1.infonet.net!convex!hermes.oc.com!news.unt.edu!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!usenet.elf.com!news2.near.net!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Reports of Polish Underground About the Death Camps
Date: 16 Sep 1994 22:56:36 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 8
Message-ID: <35d7r4$38p@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References: <357rk7$8jh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  <35a3f7$66r@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu
X-ORIGINAL-NEWSGROUPS: alt.revisionism

According to the German "Institute for Contemporary History" and
other sources, 600,000 people were murdered at Belzec. I think
this makes it a rather terrible death camp.


-Danny Keren.




Article 16214 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-01.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Greg Raven addresses the Poznan speeches -- kinda
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 16:22:36 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 255
Message-ID: 
References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
   
   <353e7q$biv@access3.digex.net>
   
   <35as1u$ihl@access3.digex.net>
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-01.dialip.mich.net

greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote (to Michael Stein):

> You and Mr. McCarthy now say that you feel the Himmler Posen speech of 4
> October 1943 is this best evidence.

As we've been saying for the last four months or so.

> The text of this speech is along these
> lines:

Greg, I'm going to replace your first two paragraphs with the text I
uploaded ten days ago (did you see it? were you paying attention?).
I find it useful to have English and German side-by-side.

Ich will hier vor Ihnen in aller    I also want to refer here very
Offenheit, auch ein ganz            frankly to a very serious matter.
schweres Kapitel erwaehnen.
Unter uns soll es einmal ganz       We can now very openly talk about
offen ausgesprochen sein, und       this among ourselves, and
trotzdem werden wir in der          yet we will never discuss this
Offentlichkeit nie darueber         publicly.
reden. Genau so wenig, wie wir      Just as we did not hesitate
am 30. Juni 1934 gezoegert          on June 30, 1934, to perform
haben, die befohlene Pflicht zu     our duty as ordered and
tun und Kameraden, die sich         put comrades who had
verfehlt hatten, an die Wand zu     failed up against the wall
stellen und zu erschiessen,         and execute them,
genau so wenig haben wir            we also never spoke about it,
darueber jemals gesprochen und      nor will we ever speak about it.
werden je darueber sprechen. 
Es war eine, Gottseidank in uns     Let us thank God that we had
wohnende Selbstverstaendlichkeit    within us enough self-evident
des Taktes, dass wir uns            fortitude never to discuss it
untereinander nie darueber          among us, and we never talked
underhalten haben, nie darueber     about it.
sprachen. Es hat jeden              Every one of us was
geschaudert und doch war sich       horrified, and yet
jeder klar darueber, dass er es     every one clearly understood
das naechste Mal wieder tun         that we would do it next time,
wuerde, wenn es befohlen wird       when the order is given
und wenn es notwendig ist.          and when it becomes necessary.

Ich meine jetzt die                 I am now referring to the
Judenevakuierung, die               evacuation of the Jews, to the
Ausrottung des juedischen           extermination of the Jewish
Volkes.  Es gehoert zu den          people.  This is something
Dingen, die man leicht              that is easily
ausspricht.  - "Das juedische       said:  "The Jewish
Volk wird ausgerottet", sagt        people will be exterminated,"
ein jeder Parteigenosse, "ganz      says every Party member, "this
klar, steht in unserem              is very obvious, it is in our
Programm, Ausschaltung der          program -- elimination of the
Juden, Ausrottung, machen wir."     Jews, extermination, will do."
Und dann kommen sie alle an,        And then they turn up,
die braven 80 Millionen             the brave 80 million
Deutschen, und jeder hat seinen     Germans, and each one has his
anstaendigen Juden.  Es ist ja      decent Jew.  It is of course
klar, die anderen sind              obvious that the others are
Schweine, aber dieser eine ist      pigs, but this particular one is
ein prima Jude.  Von allen, die     a splendid Jew.  But of all those
so reden, hat keiner zugesehen,     who talk this way, none had
keiner hat es durchgestanden.       observed it, none had endured it.
Von Euch werden die meisten         Most of you here
wissen, was es heisst, wenn 100     know what it means when 100
Leichen beisammen liegen, wenn      corpses lie next to each other,
500 daliegen oder wenn 1000         when 500 lie there or when 1000
daliegen.  Dies durchgehalten       are lined up.  To have endured
zu haben, und dabei - abgesehen     this and at the same time to have
von Ausnahmen menschlicher          remained a decent person - with
Schwaechen - anstaendig             exceptions due to human weaknesses
geblieben zu sein, das hat uns      - has made us tough.
hart gemacht.  Dies ist ein         This is an honor roll in our
niemals geschriebenes und           history which has never been and
niemals zu schreibendes             never will be put in writing,
Ruhmesblatt unserer Geschichte,
denn wir wissen, wie schwer wir     because we know how difficult
uns taeten, wenn wir heute noch     it would be for us if we still had
in jeder Stadt - bei den            Jews as secret saboteurs,
Bombenangriffen, bei den Lasten     agitators and rabble rousers in
und bei den Entbehrungen des        every city, what with the
Krieges - noch die Juden als        bombings, with the burden and with
Geheimsaboteure, Agitatoren und     the hardships of the war.
Hetzer haetten.

I'll let your third paragraph stand, as I don't have the original
German at hand.

>  "We have taken from them what wealth they had. I have issued a strict
> order, which SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl has carried out, that this wealth
> should, as a matter of course, be handed over to the Reich without reserve.
> We have taken none of it for ourselve. We had the moral right, we had the
> duty to our people, to destroy this people (dieses Volk umzubringen) which
> wanted to destroy us. But we have not the right to enrich ourselves with so
> much as a fur, a watch, a mark, or a cigarette, or anything else. Because
> we exterminated (ausrotteten) a germ, we do not want in the end to be
> infected by the germ and die of it ...  Wherever it may form, we will
> cauterize it."

Let's summarize what Mr. Raven is facing.

Himmler has said that he is referring to "the evacuation of the Jews, the
extermination of the Jewish people."  It's clear that "evacuation" is
a code word for "extermination" -- the German word for extermination,
Ausrottung, has no other meaning when applied to human beings.  And,
Himmler himself defined the word for us in a speech two days later, saying
"auszurotten - sprich also, umzubringen."  That is, "to exterminate,
in other words, to kill."

Himmler has said that "it is in our program -- elimination of the Jews,
extermination."

Himmler has said that the Nazis had the "moral right" and the "duty to our
people to destroy this people."  "This people" clearly refers to the Jews.
I would argue that "destroy this people" is not the best translation;
the verb, according to Raven, is "umbringen," which never means anything
else but "kill."  So Himmler has said that the Nazis have the right and
the duty to kill the Jewish people.

> There are any number of responses I could make.

And, I think you'll agree, they had better be damn convincing ones if
you have any hope of explaining away Himmler's remarks.

> I could, as did Butz and
> Staeglich, point out the many problems with verifying the text of this
> speech as being accurate.

Ah, you could, couldn't you.

But then you'd have to make a case.

Either make a case for its being a forgery, Mr. Raven, or don't.  It's
not acceptable to say "I could argue X," and then expect that we treat
you as if you _had_ argued X.

If you want to claim that it's a forgery, make your case.  If not, don't.

And by the way, anti-revisionists on the net have put up over $1000
toward a voice-print analysis of that speech.  If you really feel it's
a forgery, you're welcome to put your money where your mouth is,
pony up the remainder of the dough, and see what the lab results say.

> I could also point out that on 16 December 1943,
> Himmler said:
> 
> "Whenever I was forced to take action in a village against partisans or
> Jewish commissars -- I speak of this to you and only for you in this circle
> -- as a basic rule I also gave the order to have the women and children of
> these partisans and commissars killed as well ... Believe me, it is not
> easy to give such an order, and it is not as simple to carry out as it is
> to think through and put into words in a meeting hall. But we must always
> remain aware of the primitive and basic nature of the racial struggle in
> which we find ourselves."

This must be the speech that you think will provide "context" that will
demonstrate that Himmler was not really talking about Jews in his
October 4th speech above.  I guess you think that this December 16th
speech will prove that Himmler was talking about partisans all along,
or something.

The problem, Mr. Raven, is that in his October 4th speech, Himmler very
clearly was referring to Jews.  "I am now referring to the evacuation
of the Jews," he says, "to the extermination of the Jewish people."

Why do you feel that a speech two months and twelve days later provides
"context" for the first speech?

That would be like quoting Clinton saying "we must invade Somalia" and
then turning around and using a speech he made a year later about Haiti,
and putting the two together to prove that Clinton was really talking
about invading Haiti the whole time, that he never really meant to do
anything with Somalia.

That's nonsensical, Mr. Raven.

Indeed, you've only dug yourself a deeper hole by bringing up Himmler's
comment that the Nazis "must always remain aware of the...nature of the
racial struggle."  The _racial_ struggle.  In other words, the struggle
against the Jews.

> In fact, Himmler gave other very similar speeches during this period, and
> from looking at those other speeches we can tell he is talking about
> something quite different than the exterminationists would like to have us
> believe.

...like...?

Don't dance around the point.

If you have a case, make it.  If you don't, you might as well not even
bring it up.

Take another shot at it, Mr. Raven:  _what_ other speeches?  And _what_
is in those speeches that tells us to hear "the Jewish people will be
exterminated," and to understand something other than "the Jewish people
will be exterminated"?

Don't hint.  If you've got something to say, say it.

> However, the main point as it applies to this discussion is that this
> Himmler speech makes no mention of gas chambers. Therefore, it fails to
> satisfy my request for the best evidence.

And this is the most astonishing point of all.

Himmler has said, explicitly, that the Nazis are murdering the Jews.  All
of the Jews.  They're exterminating them, wiping them out, it's their duty
to kill the Jewish people.  Himmler is the Reichsfuehrer-SS, the man second
only to Hitler, the author of the war against the Jews, the one who
orchestrated it all.  The evidence is from a speech he's giving to fellow
SS officers, to whom he has no reason to lie or be deceptive.  It's simply
a plain, honest evaluation of what the Nazis were doing to the Jews:
killing them all, every single one, so that the Jewish race would vanish
from the earth.

And Raven stands back and says "this is not proof of what I asked for,
because he doesn't mention _how_ the Jews were being killed."

With this comment, Mr. Raven -- with your "main point" -- you have once and
for all established that you are utterly without the capacity to be an
objective, honest observer.  You have made it plain to even the most callous
reader that you are biased through and through, that you will twist and turn
however much necessary to achieve what you see as tactical victories based
on wordplay, not caring one bit about history or truth.

And for that, Mr. Raven, I thank you.  You've made my case better than I
could ever have hoped to.


But your own case -- you haven't made one at all.  Your points were:

1- "I could point out that it might be a forgery."
   (So go ahead and make your case.  That's what we're here for.)

2- "On December 12th, he talked about killing partisans and commissars,
    ergo on October 4th he wasn't really talking about Jews."
   (Totally illogical.  If you really believe that logically follows,
    Mr. Raven, I wonder about your sanity.)

3- "Other similar speeches show us that the October 4th speech doesn't
    really mean what you think it means."
   (We asked you to explain this already;  don't just repeat the same vague
    accusations over and over.  If you have a case, make it.)

4- "Himmler doesn't mention gas chambers, so technically my challenge
    was not met."
   (This isn't a high-school debate.  We're trying to get at the truth
    here.  And the truth is that the Nazis had a policy to kill all the
    Jews.  Period.  You can't deny that.)

Please try again, Mr. Raven.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "...just consider alt.revisionism a suburb of talk.bizarre
  and everything starts falling into place."  - Steve Miller


Article 16222 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!insosf1.infonet.net!convex!hermes.oc.com!news.unt.edu!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!cobra.uni.edu!sunfish!choover
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: More about Rudolf Hoess
Message-ID: 
From: choover@usd.edu (Christopher J Hoover )
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 19:17:26 GMT
Sender: news@sunfish.usd.edu
References:   
Organization: University of South Dakota
Nntp-Posting-Host: sunbird
Lines: 60

greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:

>In article , choover@usd.edu (Christopher J
>Hoover ) wrote:
>> Hogwash.  You assert that Hilberg "relied heavily" upon Hoess's testimony. 
>> 
>> But there's a hole in your thesis large enough to drive a truck trough,
>> Mr. Raven.  Hilberg, in _The Destruction of the European Jews_, published
>> in _1961_ (that's _33_ years ago, Mr. Raven), estimated Auschwitz Jewish
>> dead at about 1 million.  How could he have done this, Mr. Raven, if he
>> had relied on Hoess as heavily as you claim?

>Really? If you read Hilberg, you see that he uses sources such as Hoess and
>Gerstein very selectively, using the parts that support his thesis and
>discarding those that do not.

That's odd.  As a matter of fact, I'm reading Hilberg right now, and I'd 
say he relies on a very broad and numerous range of sources (a fair 
amount of which can be found in the 44 IMT volumes).  For instance, how, 
exactly, could he rely on Hoess or Gerstein to describe 
activities of the _Einsatzgruppen_?

>He was forced to admit this on the witness
>stand in the 1985 Zuendel trial, when, for example, he claimed not to have
>used Gerstein as a source. When the defense pointed out that he had in fact
>used Gerstein extensively, albeit selectively, Hilberg had to back down.
>Only by attempting to interpret items out of context have the
>exterminationists been able to support their case.

You can, of course, document this.  I'm just sure of it.  From somewhere 
_other_ than the _JHR_, preferably.

The casual reader may notice that Mr. Raven has wholly avoided the central
point of my post, which is that while one of Mr. Raven's chief objections
to Hoess is his inaccurate Auschwitz death estimates, Hilberg clearly does
_not_ rely on Hoess in the least for one of the central issues regarding
the Holocaust, that being the total tally of dead.  Hilberg estimates
Auschwitz dead at about 1 million, Hoess at 3 million. 

1 million, 3 million.  Not very close, are they?  If Hilberg depended on 
Hoess anywhere near as much as Mr. Raven would have us believe, he would 
surely have used Hoess's numbers.  Seeing as the numbers game matters so 
much to Holocaust deniers, wouldn't Hoess's numbers make the Nazis look 
even worse?  Wouldn't they make Hilberg's case all the stronger?

Well, then, why didn't Hilberg use them?  I hold that the answer is 
simple.  I believe Hilberg's purpose wasn't to make the Nazis look bad so 
much as it was to accurately depict what happened.  Thus, his death 
figures are quite conservative.  Hilberg is a scholar, and as a scholar, 
he apparently found Hoess's numbers to be unreliable (remember, they came 
form Eichmann--why Eichmann would overestimate is a whole separate 
issue), so he didn't use them.

Which part of this don't you understand, Mr. Raven?


Chris
--
Christopher J. Hoover    choover@usd.edu       University of South Dakota
Disclaimer:  standard    It's *always* September, *somewhere* on the Net.


Article 16223 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!insosf1.infonet.net!convex!hermes.oc.com!news.unt.edu!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!cobra.uni.edu!sunfish!choover
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Reports of Polish Underground About the Death Camps
Message-ID: 
From: choover@usd.edu (Christopher J Hoover )
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 19:30:40 GMT
Sender: news@sunfish.usd.edu
References: <357rk7$8jh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  
 <35a3f7$66r@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
Organization: University of South Dakota
Nntp-Posting-Host: sunbird
Lines: 29

greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:

>Was it not you who, in your posting, described Belzec as "one of the most
>terrible Nazi death camps," or somesuch? If you study this matter, you will
>see that at one time or another, virtually all the major camps have been
>labelled the "worst death camp." Your reference to Belzec is clearly in
>line with this practice.

Hmm.  "One of the most terrible death camps."  "The worst death camp."  
You don't actually believe these two phrases mean exactly the same thing, 
do you, Mr. Raven?

Yes, Belzec was certainly a terrible place to be.  But the prize of "worst
death camp" is really of no consequence to me, or to the truth of the
Holocaust. 

If Belzec, rather than Auschwitz, was "the worst death camp," Mr. Raven, 
does that mean that the Holocaust didn't happen?

If, in turn, Treblinka, rather than Belzec, was "the worst death camp," 
Mr. Raven, does that mean that the Holocaust didn't happen?

Why, exactly, does this even matter?


Chris
--
Christopher J. Hoover    choover@usd.edu       University of South Dakota
Disclaimer:  standard    It's *always* September, *somewhere* on the Net.


Article 16224 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!news.eunet.fi!prime.mdata.fi!mits.mdata.fi!kauhunen
From: kauhunen@mits.mdata.fi (Kari Nenonen)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A challenge to Greg Raven
Date: 16 Sep 1994 19:53:32 GMT
Organization: Mits BBS, Helsinki, Finland (40+ Nodes +358-0-4582066)
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <35ct3s$jct@prime.mdata.fi>
References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  
NNTP-Posting-Host: mits.mdata.fi

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:

>1) There is no sense in reading something to which I cannot reply, and 2)
>so far, the "responses" to my original request for the best evidence of a
>Nazi plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers that
>I have seen have not been responses at all, but rather attempts to divert
>the discussion to some other area. Why waste my time?

Are you trying to explain that your time is somehow important?
Hah! You fuck. You and your time is "important" only here and
only because you little piece of shit are an object of contemt and
hatred. Don't you understand it?  The world is launghing at you,
Raven, really, most of the "aryan world" is laughing at you, you
pathetic clown. If you ever came to any Nordic country and opened
your dirty mouth in a public place you would be laughed to dead.


>Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
>Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659
>The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40
>The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping


-- 
Kari Nenonen                    kauhunen@mits.mdata.fi
Maavallintie 4
00430 Helsinki
Finland


Article 16232 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!jobone!news1.oakland.edu!vtc.tacom.army.mil!ulowell!wang!uunet!usenet.elf.com!news2.near.net!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: "Revisionists" Quiet About Hitler?!
Date: 16 Sep 1994 23:41:13 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <35daep$58j@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References: <359iie$icv@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  <35a2ig$576@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu
X-ORIGINAL-NEWSGROUPS: alt.revisionism

I am currently not near a library, and can't take a look at
"Mein Kampf", written by Raven's big hero, Adolf Hitler (who
Raven described as a "great man" and "the best thing that
could have happened to Germany").

I think Jamie McCarthy posted the relevant excerpt yesterday. But
the point is moot. Raven agrees that Hitler expressed his desire
to see Jews exposed to poison gas. So now he starts saying yes,
but it wasn't that kind of gas, it was another kind of gas. 

Hitler also said, in a very well-known public speech, that if
a new world war breaks out, the result will be the "annihilation
of the Jewish race in Europe". The term he used was "vernichtung",
a term that even the craziest "revisionist" will agree means 
"annihilation". Raven responds to this by saying that it's well
known Hitler wanted all Jews out of Germany. It seems Raven learned
to read in the same school in which Fred Leuchter learned engineering.


-Danny Keren.



Article 16236 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!news.eunet.fi!prime.mdata.fi!mits.mdata.fi!kauhunen
From: kauhunen@mits.mdata.fi (Kari Nenonen)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Reports of Polish Underground About the Death Camps
Date: 17 Sep 1994 00:47:53 GMT
Organization: Mits BBS, Helsinki, Finland (40+ Nodes +358-0-4582066)
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <35debp$k6j@prime.mdata.fi>
References: <357rk7$8jh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  <35a3f7$66r@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: mits.mdata.fi

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:

>Was it not you who, in your posting, described Belzec as "one of the most
>terrible Nazi death camps," or somesuch? If you study this matter, you will
>see that at one time or another, virtually all the major camps have been
>labelled the "worst death camp." Your reference to Belzec is clearly in
>line with this practice.

Another example of the ultimate stupidity of this Raven person. Even I, with
English as my fourth language, can understand the diference between "one of
the most terrible" and "worst".

>Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
>Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659
>The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40
>The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping

And why is this Raven character constantly advertizing IHR crap in his
posts? At least in this side of Atlantic it's against the rules of
usenet/internet.



-- 
Kari Nenonen                    kauhunen@mits.mdata.fi
Maavallintie 4
00430 Helsinki
Finland


Article 16239 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.cic.net!ddsw1!golux.pr.mcs.net!user
From: golux@mcs.com (The only Golux in the World, and not a mere Device)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 130 days later, Mr. Raven accepts the challenge
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 22:47:52 -0600
Organization: MCSNet Services
Lines: 46
Message-ID: 
References:     
NNTP-Posting-Host: golux.pr.mcs.net

In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com
(Greg Raven) wrote:
[I asked:]
> > Are you saying that you would consider a forensic report, a blueprint or
> > photograph of a gas chamber, or an example of a Nazi gas chamber to be
> > convincing evidence of the Holocaust?  But how can the existence of a
> > forensic report indicate a policy?  How would a photograph prove any more
> > than the words of the Nazi leadership?  Can you explain how you arrived at
> > your criteria, and why they are acceptable while other types of evidence
> > -- testimony from eyewitnesses, for example -- is not?
> 
> It is a moot point: none of them exist, to the best of my knowledge.

But my question is not moot.  How have you come to the criteria you have
imposed on what constitutes "evidence"?  Why is one type valid and the
other dismissable?  You have repeatedly asked for the "best evidence" that
there was a Nazi policy to exterminate Jews -- Himmler's speech provides
the clearest example of such evidence.  You also ask for evidence that
much of this policy was carried out by means of gas chambers -- the
eyewitness testimonies of those who were there are very clear on that
point, as are the memoranda from various Nazis to each other about the
gassings.

What I want to know is, are you suggesting that you will not believe in
*either* the policy *or* the gas chambers unless someone produces a single
piece of evidence that demonstrates both of them clearly, and that such
evidence must be in the nature of a photograph, a blueprint, or some other
tangible item?

If this is what you are saying -- and it is certainly what you imply -- I
need you to explain what HYPOTHETICAL piece of evidence would demonstrate
both the policy and the gas chambers.  I also want you to explain how you
could be convinced of both the policy and the gas chambers if that
hypothetical pieced of evidence does not exist.

You are, in my opinion, playing rather fast and loose with the "rules" for
this discussion.  I'd rather you set them down so we all know what your
standards really are.

Emailed to Mr. Raven, whose newsfeed is occasionally flaky.

-- 
D. J. Schaeffer |       The Todal looks like a blob of glup.
golux@mcs.com   |     It makes a sound like rabbits screaming,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^        and smells of old, unopened rooms.
                            -- Thurber, _The 13 Clocks_


Article 16244 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!redstone.interpath.net!ddsw1!golux.pr.mcs.net!user
From: golux@mcs.com (The only Golux in the World, and not a mere Device)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: More about Rudolf Hoess
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 23:47:44 -0600
Organization: MCSNet Services
Lines: 19
Message-ID: 
References:   
NNTP-Posting-Host: golux.pr.mcs.net

In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com
(Greg Raven) wrote:

> Only by attempting to interpret items out of context have the
> exterminationists been able to support their case.

And yet, you demand that we provide a single piece of "best evidence" --
entirely and definitively out of context -- to support "our case."

Which is it, Greg?  Should we provide evidence out of context, or will you
accept the entire context?

Emailed to Mr. Raven.

-- 
D. J. Schaeffer |       The Todal looks like a blob of glup.
golux@mcs.com   |     It makes a sound like rabbits screaming,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^        and smells of old, unopened rooms.
                            -- Thurber, _The 13 Clocks_


Article 16247 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!redstone.interpath.net!ddsw1!golux.pr.mcs.net!user
From: golux@mcs.com (The only Golux in the World, and not a mere Device)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Greg Raven addresses the Poznan speeches -- kinda
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 00:05:29 -0600
Organization: MCSNet Services
Lines: 47
Message-ID: 
References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  <353e7q$biv@access3.digex.net>  <35as1u$ihl@access3.digex.net>  
NNTP-Posting-Host: golux.pr.mcs.net

In article ,
k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:

[Re Greg Raven's "response" to the Himmler Poznan speech]

> 4- "Himmler doesn't mention gas chambers, so technically my challenge
>     was not met."
>    (This isn't a high-school debate.  We're trying to get at the truth
>     here.  And the truth is that the Nazis had a policy to kill all the
>     Jews.  Period.  You can't deny that.)

More than this, Jamie, it's not even consistent with Greg's original
"challenge."  As I recall -- and if somebody still has his original
"debate rules" posting, please repost it -- he originally defined the
Holocaust as something like "a Nazi policy to exterminate the Jews, many
of them in gas chambers."  I believe some people challenged him on his
definition.  While it is patently clear that the Himmler speech addresses
the Nazi policy to exterminate the Jews, it is deficient in describing the
means by which such extermination is taking place.

However, Mr. Raven seems to think that this lack removes the speech
entirely from the discourse.  In that case, I have the following challenge
for Mr. Raven:

I maintain that the Himmler speech at Poznan is the best piece of evidence
extant that the Nazis had a policy to exterminate the Jews.  I further
maintain that this meets your original criterion.  I request that you
either address the Himmler speech -- hit it with your best shots: forgery,
misinterpretation, whatever you got -- or admit that it discusses the Nazi
policy to exterminate the Jews.

If you can come up with convincing evidence that the Himmler speech (a) is
not genuine or (b) does not mean what it appears to say, then I will admit
you have done so, and perhaps the existence of a Nazi policy will be
called into question.  If you can not come up with convincing evidence, or
if you admit that it indicates that policy, then we can move on to the
methods used by the Nazis to carry out their policy.  We can argue gas
chambers, if you really think it's necessary.

If you refuse to do either, for whatever reason, your credibility and good
faith will be called into question.

-- 
D. J. Schaeffer |       The Todal looks like a blob of glup.
golux@mcs.com   |     It makes a sound like rabbits screaming,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^        and smells of old, unopened rooms.
                            -- Thurber, _The 13 Clocks_


Article 16249 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!redstone.interpath.net!ddsw1!panix!zip.eecs.umich.edu!umn.edu!newsdist.tc.umn.edu!urvile.msus.edu!TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU!HERMANN
From: hermann@TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU (MILTON JOHN KLEIM, JR.)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: "Revisionists" Quiet About Hitler?!
Date: 16 Sep 1994 14:42:24 GMT
Organization: ST. CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY, ST. CLOUD, MN
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <35casg$3ls@urvile.MSUS.EDU>
References: <359iie$icv@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>   ,
Reply-To: hermann@TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: tigger.stcloud.msus.edu

Jamie McCarthy writes:

>From the _Skeptic_ magazine article:

>   And, finally, there are the words of the Fuehrer himself. In Hitler's
>speech of January 30, 1939, he said:

>      Today I want to be a prophet once more: If international finance
>      Jewry inside and outside of Europe should succeed once more in
>      plunging nations into another world war, the consequence will
>      not be the Bolshevization of the earth and thereby the victory
>      of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.

>In September, 1942, Hitler recalled:

>      In my Reichstag speech of September 1, 1939 [above, wrong date
>      here], I have spoken of two things: first, that now that the war
>      has been forced upon us, no array of weapons and no passage of
>      time will bring us to defeat, and second, that if Jewry should
>      plot another world war in order to exterminate the Aryan peoples
>      in Europe, it would not be the Aryan peoples which would be
>      exterminated but Jewry.  .  .  .

>   At a public speech in Munich, November 8, 1942, Hitler told his
>audience (see Jaeckel, 1989 for this and above Hitler quotes):

>      You will recall the session of the Reichstag during which I
>      declared: If Jewry should imagine that it could bring about an
>      international world war to exterminate the European races, the
>      result will not be the extermination of the European races, but
>      the extermination of Jewry in Europe.  People always laughed
>      about me as a prophet.  Of those who laughed then, countless
>      numbers no longer laugh today, and those who still laugh now
>      will perhaps no longer laugh a short time from now.  This
>      realization will spread beyond Europe throughout the entire
>      world.  International Jewry will be recognized in its full
>      demonic peril; we National Socialists will see to that.

>   From his earliest political ramblings to the final Goetterdammerung,
>Hitler had it in for the Jews. On April 12, 1922, in a Munich speech
>later published in the Voelkischer Beobachter, he told his audience
>(Snyder, 1981, p. 29):

>      The Jew is the ferment of the decomposition of people.  This
>      means that it is in the nature of the Jew to destroy, and he
>      must destroy, because he lacks altogether any idea of working
>      for the common good.  He possesses certain characteristics given
>      to him by nature and he never can rid himself of those
>      characteristics.  The Jew is harmful to us.

>   Thirty-three years later, on April 29, 1945, at 4:00 A.M., just one
>day before his suicide, Hitler commanded his successors in his political
>testament to carry on the fight: "Above all I charge the leaders of the
>nation and those under them to scrupulous observance of the laws of race
>and to merciless opposition to the universal poisoner of all peoples,
>International Jewry" (Snyder, p. 521). 

>How many more quotes do we need to prove the Holocaust--100, 1,000, 10,000? 
                                    ^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
>The convergence of evidence is overwhelming.
                    ^^^^^^^^

This is evidence of a program to physically exterminate six million members of 
the Jewish People in Europe via "gas chambers"?!?!  

I hope you didn't hurt yourself when you fell off your rocker, Jamie.

When Reagan made a comment about "missles are on the way" back in the early
'80's in reference to the Soviet Union, Jamie McCarthy would apparently use 
that as "proof" the Soviet Union endured a nuclear attack by the United States.



"We must secure the existence of our People and a future for White children."




Article 16276 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!torn!spool.mu.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!news.Arizona.EDU!misvms.bpa.arizona.edu!dmittleman
From: dmittleman@misvms.bpa.arizona.edu (Daniel Mittleman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A challenge to Greg Raven
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: 16 Sep 1994 09:22 MST
Organization: University of Arizona (BPA)
Lines: 22
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <16SEP199409224227@misvms.bpa.arizona.edu>
References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  
NNTP-Posting-Host: misvms.bpa.arizona.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.50    

In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes...
>1) There is no sense in reading something to which I cannot reply, and 2)
>so far, the "responses" to my original request for the best evidence of a
>Nazi plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers that
>I have seen have not been responses at all, but rather attempts to divert
>the discussion to some other area. Why waste my time?

    Your request is a compound request.  You seem to want evidence of:
    a] a nazi plan or policy to exterminate Jews, and
    b] that is was done in homicidal gas chambers.

    Would you accept two pieces of evidence, one piece addressing each part
    of your request?

    If you were given two pieces of evidence, would you actually address
    them?

    Frankly, I think this is a pretty silly way to conduct historography,
    but if it will move the discussion forward I will provide you with two
    such pieces.
===========================================================================
daniel david mittleman     -     danny@arizona.edu     -     (602) 621-2932


Article 16293 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gatech!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!news.duke.edu!eff!news.kei.com!yeshua.marcam.com!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: "Revisionists" Quiet About Hitler?!
In-Reply-To: hermann@TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU's message of 16 Sep 1994 14:42:24 GMT
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References: <359iie$icv@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
	,
	<35casg$3ls@urvile.MSUS.EDU>
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 23:44:25 GMT
Lines: 33


From: hermann@TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU (MILTON JOHN KLEIM, JR.)
>When Reagan made a comment about "missles are on the way" back in the early
>'80's in reference to the Soviet Union, Jamie McCarthy would apparently use 
>that as "proof" the Soviet Union endured a nuclear attack by the United States.

No, but if 100M Soviets lay dead and glowing in the dark I think we'd
know whose door to knock on to ask some questions about what happened.

There's not a lot of point in investigating murders that didn't occur.

That's irrelevant to the Holocaust, however, since there were millions
of murders.

As every freshman student of law knows about murder:

	Motive
	Method
	Opportunity

And of course "corpus dilecti", the court generally likes to see some
evidence that anyone at all died. Your analogy seems a bit weak on
that point.

Hitler's ravings in Mein Kampf and thereafter are what's known as
"Motive". Stop acting stupid and analyzing them as if they were one of
the other two. It's transparently dumb.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD


Article 16300 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!convex!news.duke.edu!eff!news.kei.com!travelers.mail.cornell.edu!cornell!rochester!casaba.srv.cs.cmu.edu!spok
From: spok+@cs.cmu.edu (John Ockerbloom)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A challenge to Greg Raven
Date: 16 Sep 1994 16:32:42 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <35chba$o4o@casaba.srv.cs.cmu.edu>
References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  <353e7q$biv@access3.digex.net> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: gs1.sp.cs.cmu.edu

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:
>Your "challenge" seems to be nothing more than an attempt to sidetrack the
>discussion. Why not answer my challenge, posted many, many months ago, to
>produce what you feel is the best evidence that the Nazis had a plan or
>policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers? Do you have any
>such evidence to support your position?

Summary of the response to this "challenge":

* A number of pieces of evidence have been posted to support the position.
  In particular, a set of ten documents was posted on May 4 in response
  to Mr. Raven's challenge, and has been reposted several times since then.
  Mr. Raven was invited to respond to them, starting with document 1.
  Mr. Raven has failed to do so in any meaningful way.  
  (He has made some as-yet unsubstantiated claims about the context of
   document 1.  He has also noted that document 1 doesn't mention "gas
   chambers" specifically as the means to annihilate the Jews, even though
   document 1 does talk about instructions to exterminate the Jews, and other
   documents get more specific about the means.)

  Despite this and other evidence posted, Mr. Raven still insinuates,
   as shown in the last sentence quoted above, that no such evidence
   has been supplied.  This is a lie.

* Mr. Raven has so far been unwilling to address any of the evidence
   presented to him unless he can get someone to designate a *particular
   piece* as the "BEST EVIDENCE".  It was pointed out to him that the *best*
   evidence to prove an event generally comes from the convergence of
   several pieces of evidence, not just a single piece in isolation.
   Mr. Raven had ample opportunity to dispute this point.  (For instance,
   he was invited several times to show how a single piece of "BEST EVIDENCE"
   would prove that World War II occurred.)  He has failed to do so.

  Mr. Raven may claim that he simply wants to focus discussion on one piece
   at a time.  But the May 4 posting has already explicitly provided a means
   for focusing on one piece at a time, and has been largely ignored.

  Mr. Raven has thus personally stalled discussion for several months
   on a point that he has not justified, despite numerous requests for
   him to do so.  Claims that he wants open debate. then, are also lies.

I suggest that this article, or an article like it, be posted whenever
Mr. Raven makes claims addressed here, until he actually starts responding
to the evidence in a meaningful way, or rebuts the charges here.

John Ockerbloom
-- 
==========================================================================
ockerbloom@cs.cmu.edu  CMU School of Computer Science, Pittsburgh PA 15213


Article 16301 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!redstone.interpath.net!ddsw1!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access3.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Raven's reputation
Date: 17 Sep 1994 22:04:41 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <35g77p$got@access3.digex.net>
References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>   <35ct3s$jct@prime.mdata.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access3.digex.net

In article <35ct3s$jct@prime.mdata.fi>,
Kari Nenonen  wrote:
>The world is launghing at you,
>Raven, really, most of the "aryan world" is laughing at you, you
>pathetic clown.

    Kari, I must protest falsehood everywhere I find it, and your posting 
is false.  Not everyone laughs at Raven.  For example, when I mentioned 
his name at dinner with Robert Faurisson, Faurisson did *not* laugh.

    He *did* get an expression on his face which I usually associate with
finding *physical evidence* of the recent presence of a dog with one's
best dress shoes.... 

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


Article 16306 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!redstone.interpath.net!ddsw1!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access3.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: More about Rudolf Hoess
Date: 17 Sep 1994 23:23:14 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <35gbr2$ltq@access3.digex.net>
References:   <35a2vv$5n0@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: access3.digex.net

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:
>In article <35a2vv$5n0@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
>wrote:
>
>> It's just impossible to get a direct response from these "revisionist
>> scholars".
>> 
>> I asked Raven if he believes that the autobiography of Hoess
>> was doctored. He failed to answer. I still expect a reply.
>> 
>> Note that Raven quoted from the autobiography, so I assume he thinks
>> it's authentic and reliable. Is that so? If not, why did he quote from
>> it?
>
>I suppose you mean that it is impossible for you to understand my direct
>responses.

    No, given your evasiveness, it's impossible to tell when you're 
making one.  I still don't see that you are.


>I made no representation about the Hoess autobiography.

    Yes, that's the point exactly.  Why don't you tell us just what you
believe about it, in simple, direct language?  If you don't believe it,
why are you using it?  If you do, then why do you fail to take into
account the fact that Hoess reconfirms his confession? 

    Do you believe that Hoess was coerced in some way into writing his 
autobiography?  Yes or no?

    Do you believe that the text was in whole or in part authored by
someone other than Hoess?  Yes or no? 

>Why are you attempting to imply that I did?

    He's not implying, he's asking.  Don't you understand the difference 
between a question and a statement?
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


Article 16307 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access3.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: More about Rudolf Hoess
Date: 17 Sep 1994 23:47:49 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <35gd95$o4e@access3.digex.net>
References:   
NNTP-Posting-Host: access3.digex.net

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:
>In article , choover@usd.edu (Christopher J
>Hoover ) wrote:
>Really? If you read Hilberg, you see that he uses sources such as Hoess and
>Gerstein very selectively, using the parts that support his thesis and
>discarding those that do not.

    Unsupported assertion.  Please supply exact references and quotes.


>He was forced to admit this on the witness
>stand in the 1985 Zuendel trial, when, for example, he claimed not to have
>used Gerstein as a source.  When the defense pointed out that he had in fact
>used Gerstein extensively, albeit selectively, Hilberg had to back down.

    Paraphrase, presumably as distorted as Raven's previous paraphrase of 
p. 181 of Pressac.  I can envision the following exchange:

    Defense counsel: "Mr. Hilberg, did you use Gerstein as a source for
                      A?"

    Hilberg: "I did not use Gerstein as a source."

    Defense: "Really?  On p. X, you quote Gerstein.  Please explain the
              contradiction in your testimony."

    Hilberg: "I simply meant I did not use Gerstein as a source for A, not 
              that I did not use Gerstein at all.  The reference on p. X
              was to support B."

    Raven has shown he is quite capable of distorting text like the above 
into "Hilberg had to back down."  Until and unless he posts a complete 
and unedited transcript of the testimony, I shall simply assume Raven is 
engaging in more of his usual distortion.


>Only by attempting to interpret items out of context have the
>exterminationists been able to support their case.

    Greg, can you really keep a straight face as you post such whoppers?
Especially since taking things out of context is a staple of *revisionist*
methodology?  (Such as your quotation of Hoess's autobiography about his
having been beaten, while ignoring the fact that in the same document in
which he says he was beaten into his initial confession, he nonetheless
reaffirms the central truth of the confession: that mass murder by means
of poison gas was indeed carried out at Auschwitz.)

    Pot.  Kettle.  Black.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


Article 16310 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: More about Rudolf Hoess
Date: 18 Sep 1994 06:17:42 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <35gm26$bgg@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References:  <35a2vv$5n0@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  <35gbr2$ltq@access3.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu

Raven trapped himself again. It proves, once more, how difficult
it is to maintain a whole structure based on nothing but lies.

Raven quoted from the Hoess autobiography, in order to prove
something. If he quoted from it, it means he thinks it's reliable.
If he thinks it's reliable, he has to accept what Hoess writes
about the mass gassings in the camp. If not, he has to admit he
applies a double standard - he chooses which part of the *same
document* to accept and which not to accept. Anyway, he is in
trouble.


-Danny Keren.



Article 16317 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!news.Arizona.EDU!misvms.bpa.arizona.edu!dmittleman
From: dmittleman@misvms.bpa.arizona.edu (Daniel Mittleman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Reports of Polish Underground About the Death Camps
Date: 17 Sep 1994 02:00 MST
Organization: University of Arizona (BPA)
Lines: 19
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <17SEP199402002628@misvms.bpa.arizona.edu>
References: <357rk7$8jh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  <35a3f7$66r@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <35debp$k6j@prime.mdata.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: misvms.bpa.arizona.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.50    

In article <35debp$k6j@prime.mdata.fi>, kauhunen@mits.mdata.fi (Kari Nenonen) writes...
>Greg Raven  wrote:

>>Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
>>Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659
>>The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40
>>The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping

>And why is this Raven character constantly advertizing IHR crap in his
>posts? At least in this side of Atlantic it's against the rules of
>usenet/internet.

    In the news.admin.* groups they seem to have concluded that it is
    permissible for anyone to say most anything they want in their
    signature provided they keep it to four lines or less.  Your local site
    may have rules that limit what you can say, but your site cannot limit
    what other people say. 
===========================================================================
daniel david mittleman     -     danny@arizona.edu     -     (602) 621-2932


Article 16326 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-03.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 130 days later, Mr. Raven accepts the challenge
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 16:28:25 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 104
Message-ID: 
References: 
   
   
   
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-03.dialip.mich.net

greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote:

> I want to make sure that
> you want to put forward as your BEST EVIDENCE a speech given many times in
> various forms over a period of days, rather than true evidence such as a
> forensic report, a blueprint or photograph of a gas chamber, an example of
> an actual Nazi gas chamber, etc

k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:

> Are you saying that you would consider a forensic report, a blueprint or
> photograph of a gas chamber, or an example of a Nazi gas chamber to be
> convincing evidence of the Holocaust?  But how can the existence of a
> forensic report indicate a policy?  How would a photograph prove any more
> than the words of the Nazi leadership?  Can you explain how you arrived at
> your criteria, and why they are acceptable while other types of evidence
> -- testimony from eyewitnesses, for example -- is not?

In reponse, Greg Raven underlined the words "true evidence" above, and
issued the following one-liner:

> It is a moot point: none of them exist, to the best of my knowledge.

Well, let's see.

I scanned in a picture of a blueprint of Leichenkeller I, the gas chamber
for Krema II at Auschwitz/Birkenau, and uploaded it to Dan Gannon's BBS
over two years ago.  I'd be happy to upload it to alt.revisionism, but
it's considered rude to put binaries onto non-binary newsgroups.  Since
both you and I use Eudora, Mr. Raven, I could email it to you and it
would be extracted into a file on your hard drive almost automatically.
Would you like me to do so?

There are plenty of photographs of the gas chambers -- I've got two or
three in digital form lying around -- but of course they're all postwar.
The Nazis had this thing about not taking too many incriminating
snapshots, pictures of the extermination process were expressly verboten.
I could email them to you.

If you want a wartime shot, I've digitized the famous picture of the
bodies being burned in ditches, the one with the off-balance Kapo walking
through a sea of corpses.  That was secretly taken by inmates and
smuggled out of the camp during the war.  I could email it to you.
I'd be interested to see your reaction.  I've heard two reactions from
"revisionist scholars" -- Butz says it was an aerial shot (taken from
a plane flying at shoulder-level) and Dan "Nazi-boy" Gannon says that
the smoke could be from a burning building.  One of those very flat
buildings, I guess, the kind that has heaps of corpses in front of it.
Your third point of view would be interesting, Mr. Raven.

But what would any of those prove?

You've asked us to demonstrate that "the Nazis had a plan to exterminate
millions of Jews in homicidal gas chambers."  A blueprint of a gas
chamber certainly doesn't show a plan.  It doesn't show that millions were
killed.  It doesn't show that the victims were Jews.

A postwar photo of a gas chamber doesn't really prove anything.

The photo of the field of corpses doesn't prove anything either, not by
itself.  The fact that it was taken and snuck out of the camp at great
risk is more important than what it actually shows.  The victims could
have died of, say, typhus -- that's what I imagine you'd say.  There's
no way to tell that they died in gas chambers.  Or that they were part
of millions killed.  Or that they were Jewish.  Or even that the Nazis
killed them.

Admit it, Mr. Raven -- that's what you'd say if we chose any such pieces
of "tangible physical evidence."

So I'd say it was a pretty smart idea on our part to go with documentary
evidence like speeches, diaries, testimonies.  A photo only tells you
about what was in front of the camera at the time, and since the Holocaust
was millions of actions taken by thousands of people over a span of many
years, a photo is worthless as "proof" of the Holocaust.

Note that it's your insane demand for "proving the Holocaust" one
document at a time that forces that result.  Historians, of course, take
photos into account when they piece together what happened where.  But
you're not a historian, Mr. Raven.

So photos are worthless, ditto blueprints or the actual chambers
themselves.  They can't possibly cover the scope of the Holocaust, they
can't cover half of Europe and half a decade.

But statements by the people who orchestrated the Holocaust, who were
there, who saw it, who took part?  _Those_ can cover the vast stretch
of time and space.  Himmler's speeches, Hoess' memoirs, the
Einsatzgruppen's reports, Kremer's diaries -- those are powerful,
far-reaching evidence, which is what you're requiring us to present.
That's why we chose such things.


Now, Mr. Raven, one more point:  you said above that "none of them
exist," with reference to blueprints of gas chambers.  Yet I have this
blueprint to Leichenkeller I currently open in a Photoshop window.  Were
you (A) ignorant of this blueprint, or (B) bluffing us -- lying to us --
when you said it didn't exist?

After you answer, please get back to addressing Himmler's Posen speeches.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "...just consider alt.revisionism a suburb of talk.bizarre
  and everything starts falling into place."  - Steve Miller


Article 16327 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-03.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The most terrible death camp
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 16:41:55 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 24
Message-ID: 
References: <357rk7$8jh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
   
   <35a3f7$66r@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
   
   <35cjs9$8bc@access2.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-03.dialip.mich.net

Greg Raven  wrote [to Danny Keren]:

>Was it not you who, in your posting, described Belzec as "one of the most
>terrible Nazi death camps," or somesuch?

mstein@access.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) replied:

>     If you were half the historian you want us to think you are, you'd 
> know that it was I.

Actually, Mike -- Danny referred to Belzec as "one of the most horrible
Nazi death camps" in his original article, <357rk7$8jh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>.

Just keepin' ya honest.

I should point out that Greg's short-term memory for Usenet attributions
is not necessarily indicative of his competency to engage in historical
analysis -- nor, I might add, is yours.  :-)

Emailed to Greg and Mike.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "...just consider alt.revisionism a suburb of talk.bizarre
  and everything starts falling into place."  - Steve Miller


Article 16329 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-03.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: "Revisionists" Quiet About Hitler?!
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 17:14:05 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 58
Message-ID: 
References: <359iie$icv@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
   ,
   <35casg$3ls@urvile.MSUS.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-03.dialip.mich.net

hermann@TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU wrote:

> >How many more quotes do we need to prove the Holocaust--100, 1,000, 10,000? 
>                                     ^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
> >The convergence of evidence is overwhelming.
>                     ^^^^^^^^
> 
> This is evidence of a program to physically exterminate six million members of 
> the Jewish People in Europe via "gas chambers"?!?!  
> 
> I hope you didn't hurt yourself when you fell off your rocker, Jamie.

If you'd read the article, Mr. Kleim, you would know that the Hitler quotes
followed on the heels of:

Himmler saying "the Jews will be exterminated,"

Himmler telling Hoess "All Jews...must be exterminated,"

Himmler telling his underlings that the Romans ausrotteten the Christians
(establishing the meaning of ausrotten), 

Goebbels saying to the press that the Jews "will be packed off the East and
delivered up to a murderous fate,"

Goebbels' diary, saying "the Jews...shall experience their own annihilation,"
and the war "would end with [Jewry's] annihilation,"

Hans Frank saying "we cannot shoot these 3 1/2 million Jews, nor can we
poison them, yet we will have to take measure which will somehow lead to the
goal of annihilation,"

Hans Frank saying "We must annihilate the Jews,"

Hans Frank saying "I could not ausrotten all lice and Jews in only one year.
But...this end will be attained."

Rudolf Brandt writing to Ernst Kaltenbrunner about "the ausrotten of the
Jews in Occupied Europe,"

Rudolf Brandt writing to Dr. Grawitz about "the Ausrottung of tuberculosis,"

Alfred Rosenbersaying to Hitler that the Jews will be ausrotten,

and a few more pages' worth of evidence that I don't have time to type in.

_That_, Mr. Kleim, is a small part of the evidence for the program to
physically exterminate six million members of the Jewish people in Europe.

Anytime you feel like debating the facts, Mr. Kleim, you go right ahead.

> "We must secure the existence of our People and a future for White children."

I'll help secure a future for all children, thanks.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "...just consider alt.revisionism a suburb of talk.bizarre
  and everything starts falling into place."  - Steve Miller


Article 16330 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-03.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Greg Raven addresses the Poznan speeches -- kinda
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 17:36:03 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 69
Message-ID: 
References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
   
   <353e7q$biv@access3.digex.net>
   
   <35as1u$ihl@access3.digex.net>
   
   
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-03.dialip.mich.net

golux@mcs.com (The only Golux in the World, and not a mere Device) wrote:

> k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:
> 
> [Re Greg Raven's "response" to the Himmler Poznan speech]
> 
> > 4- "Himmler doesn't mention gas chambers, so technically my challenge
> >     was not met."
> >    (This isn't a high-school debate.  We're trying to get at the truth
> >     here.  And the truth is that the Nazis had a policy to kill all the
> >     Jews.  Period.  You can't deny that.)
> 
> More than this, Jamie, it's not even consistent with Greg's original
> "challenge."  As I recall -- and if somebody still has his original
> "debate rules" posting, please repost it -- he originally defined the
> Holocaust as something like "a Nazi policy to exterminate the Jews, many
> of them in gas chambers."

You were thinking of his definition of the word Holocaust, which was
essentially what you have in quotes up there.

Raven's request for "proof" of the Holocaust has undergone
microfluctuations in the last five months, but for the most part it's
been pretty close to the original request, which was:

   Provide me with what you think is the one or two best pieces of
   evidence that the Nazis had a plan to exterminate millions of Jews
   in homicidal gas chambers.

It's worth pointing that, in the paragraph just prior to that one, he
summarized the revisionist position as:

   a) there is no evidence that the Nazis had a plan or policy of
      exterminating the Jews, 
   b) there is no evidence that there were homicidal gas chambers
      for murder Jews, and
   c) the figure of six million Jewish victims is an exaggeration.

Notice that Mr. Raven has clearly broken up the revisionist viewpoint
for us into three discrete, easy-to-handle chunks.  The first is that
there was no plan or policy;  the second is that there were no gas
chambers;  the third is that there were not six million killed.

I find it hard to believe, then, that Mr. Raven can object to evidence
which address those chunks one at a time.  _He_ made it clear that
those were three seperate claims.  Why does the evidence refuting
each of those claims have to come all at once in one big triumvirate
of a document?

Ridiculous!

> If you can come up with convincing evidence that the Himmler speech (a) is
> not genuine or (b) does not mean what it appears to say, then I will admit
> you have done so, and perhaps the existence of a Nazi policy will be
> called into question.  If you can not come up with convincing evidence, or
> if you admit that it indicates that policy, then we can move on to the
> methods used by the Nazis to carry out their policy.  We can argue gas
> chambers, if you really think it's necessary.

Sounds perfectly fair to me.  More than fair -- if Himmler meant
something other than "the Jewish people will be exterminated," then
the policy of extermination would hardly be called into question.
The Nazi policy has been spelled out many other times, and there are
many other documents that make it clear.  The whole ball of wax
doesn't depend on Himmler's Posen speeches.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "...just consider alt.revisionism a suburb of talk.bizarre
  and everything starts falling into place."  - Steve Miller


Article 16345 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-01.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: "Revisionists" Quiet About Hitler?!
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 1994 16:28:45 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 45
Message-ID: 
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-01.dialip.mich.net



dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) wrote:

> [Hitler] wanted to see Jews exposed to poison gas. He
> later did what he wanted to do. It's as simple as that.

greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) replied:

> More wishful thinking. Please provide the exact words of Hitler that lead
> you to make this statement.

Very well.

   If one only, at the beginning of the war and during the war, had exposed
   twelve to fifteen thousand of these hebraic corrupters of the people to
   poison gas as were hundreds of thousands of our very best German
   workers from all camps and professions, then the sacrifice of millions
   at the front would not have been in vain.

   Adolf Hitler: Mein Kampf, ungekuerzte Gesamtausgabe, 85. - 94. Auflage,
   Muenchen 1934, p. 772.

A retraction of your "wishful thinking" comment would be in order,
Mr. Raven.

The only question is -- why did you assert it was "wishful thinking"
in the first place?  And the answer is -- you were bluffing, and
hoping your bluff would not be called.  That's not how historians
are supposed to do their work.  Tsk tsk.

Interestingly, the expression Hitler uses is "haette unter Giftgas
gehalten," which is literally "held under poison gas."  I suppose that
could be an idiom.  But it does sound like he was speaking of the sort
of gassing that actually ended up taking place, not gassing on the
battlefield.  Native speakers, feel free to comment.

(And, man -- "wishful thinking" that Hitler wanted to and did expose
Jews to poison gas!  How sardonic and cynical can you get!  Phew!)

Emailed to Mr. Raven and Dr. Keren.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "...just consider alt.revisionism a suburb of talk.bizarre
  and everything starts falling into place."  - Steve Miller


Article 16354 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-04.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 130 days later, Mr. Raven accepts the challenge
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 1994 17:42:34 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 26
Message-ID: 
References: 
   
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-04.dialip.mich.net

greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote:

> k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:
> 
> > Himmler's Poznan speeches are the "best evidence" of the Holocaust.
> > Happy now?
> 
> Yes. See my response elsewhere in this newsgroup

This suddenly occurred to me today:

Mr. Raven, you are entitled to snip out the context of my sentence
above when you're making an immediate reply, as you were doing when
you wrote that article.  That's Usenet courtesy -- you don't quote
the entire context for everything you reply to, especially if your
reply is a one-liner.  Saves bandwidth.

But don't you dare snip the context if you quote that sentence a few
weeks or months from now, when it's been forgotten.

Emailed to Mr. Raven, who claims to be able to determine from the
subject line whether his email is worth reading.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "...just consider alt.revisionism a suburb of talk.bizarre
  and everything starts falling into place."  - Steve Miller


Article 16364 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!torn!spool.mu.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!cobra.uni.edu!sunfish!choover
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A challenge to Greg Raven
Message-ID: 
From: choover@usd.edu (Christopher J Hoover )
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 04:28:40 GMT
Sender: news@sunfish.usd.edu
References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
  
  <16SEP199409224227@misvms.bpa.arizona.edu>
Organization: University of South Dakota
Nntp-Posting-Host: sunbird
Lines: 27

dmittleman@misvms.bpa.arizona.edu (Daniel Mittleman) writes:

>    Your request is a compound request.  You seem to want evidence of:
>    a] a nazi plan or policy to exterminate Jews, and
>    b] that is was done in homicidal gas chambers.

>    Would you accept two pieces of evidence, one piece addressing each part
>    of your request?

>    If you were given two pieces of evidence, would you actually address
>    them?

>    Frankly, I think this is a pretty silly way to conduct historography,

Actually, as any _real_ historian could tell you, it's no way to conduct 
historiography at all.  I can't quite decide which is worse:  the 
prospect that after all this time, Mr. Raven still doesn't know this, or 
the prospect that he knows it quite well, and yet continues with the charade.

Take your pick.



Chris
--
Christopher J. Hoover    choover@usd.edu       University of South Dakota
Disclaimer:  standard    It's *always* September, *somewhere* on the Net.


Article 16366 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!torn!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!news.hal.COM!olivea!uunet!UB.com!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A challenge to Greg Raven: May 4th. Myopia lives!
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 1994 22:52:09 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 34
Message-ID: 
References:  <353e7q$biv@access3.digex.net>  <1994Sep15.181606.21253@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com

In article <1994Sep15.181606.21253@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>,
kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) wrote:

> Your May 4th. Myopia seems to be nothing more than an attempt to
> sidetrack the discussion. Why not acknoledge our joint response to
> your "challenge", posted many, many months ago, to get this
> discussion back on track?
> 
> Not only have you ignored, to a degree beyond rational behavior, our
> response, but you have, in the intirim, been proven to be a blatent
> and consistent liar, as your Pressac debacle demonstrated (not to
> mention your amazing mental gynastics with regard to the Vanity Fair
> article, within which you openly lied about what Lipstadt et al had
> to say.

Why is it that you and the others make repeated reference to this "May 4th"
posting, which I did not see, without simply reposting it so I can see it?
This may surprise you, but I do not live and breath the alt.revisionism
newsgroup. There are a lot of postings I never see. I do not save all
postings for later reference. If you want me to respond to something, post
it so I can see it. Do not assume that I can access some archive somewhere,
or divine what you are talking about.

This seems the most logical way for you to promote your side of this
discussion ... unless, of course, the May 4th posting is as weak as the
others you have posted, so that you are in a better position if you simply
refer to it rather than reposting it.

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659
The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40
The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping


Article 16383 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!husc.harvard.edu!fas!stara
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: "The Strain on the Furnaces was Colosall"
Message-ID: <354ajt$p6b@scunix2.harvard.edu>
From: stara@fas.harvard.edu (Felix Vagabond)
Date: 13 Sep 1994 13:48:45 GMT
References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
 
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
NNTP-Posting-Host: fas.harvard.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Lines: 52

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) wrote:
: In article <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
: wrote:

: > 
: > Kurt Prufer, senior engineer of Topf and Sohne, testifying in Erfurt,
: > Germany, March 5, 1946
: > [Quoted from the interrogation transcripts by Prof. Gerald Fleming
: > from the University of Surrey, in an NYT article, July 18 1993]
: > --------------------------------------------------------------------
: > (text deleted)
: > 
: > Q. Why was the brick lining of the muffles so quickly damaged?
: > 
: > A. The bricks were damaged after six months because the strain on the
: >    furnaces was colossal.

: As Carlo Mattogno pointed out at the 12th Revisionist Conference, replacing
: the bricks in the crematories was definitely a non-trivial task. Yet,
: although we have the complete records of the Auschwitz Construction Office,
: there are no records to indicate that the bricks were changed as they would
: have to have been, had there been a million or so cremations. Conclusion:
: there were not a million or so cremations, but rather 130,000 to 150,000
: cremations. By the way, the 130,000 figure is supported by the coal usage
: in the crematories in the camp.





  Greg you are definitely in good company with Carlo Mattogno!
  Carlo has openly said that he prefers the Nazis to today's Germany cause
  there will be no Jews in Germany.
  Just wondering! How about you Greg? Tell us about your feeling about 
  the Jews in general. I can assure you no harm will betide to you.


: -- 

: Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
: Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659
: The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40
: The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping

--
==============================================================================
  ( No memorial can ever exhibit or impart the holocaust of SIX MILLION Jews)

                   VIGILANS.ET AUDAX.SEMPER PARATUS.
              
==============================================================================



Article 16390 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!news1.digex.net!access.digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Raven's problem may not be myopia....
Date: 19 Sep 1994 08:51:23 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <35k1gb$lge@access2.digex.net>
References:   <1994Sep15.181606.21253@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: access2.digex.net

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:
>Why is it that you and the others make repeated reference to this "May 4th"
>posting, which I did not see, without simply reposting it so I can see it?

    The article was not only posted multiple times, but emailed to Raven 
on several occasions.

    Yet Raven claims not to have seen it.  Either he is deleting it 
unread from his mailbox in order to avoid seeing it, or his problem is 
not myopia but Alzheimer's.

    Emailed to Mr. Raven, who must be eagerly hoping for the passage of a 
health care bill to take care of his obvious and severe medical problems.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


Article 16394 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-06.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A challenge to Greg Raven: May 4th. Myopia lives!
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 10:39:50 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 48
Message-ID: 
References: 
   <353e7q$biv@access3.digex.net>
   
   <1994Sep15.181606.21253@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-06.dialip.mich.net

greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote (in full):

> Why is it that you and the others make repeated reference to this "May 4th"
> posting, which I did not see, without simply reposting it so I can see it?
> This may surprise you, but I do not live and breath the alt.revisionism
> newsgroup. There are a lot of postings I never see. I do not save all
> postings for later reference. If you want me to respond to something, post
> it so I can see it. Do not assume that I can access some archive somewhere,
> or divine what you are talking about.
> 
> This seems the most logical way for you to promote your side of this
> discussion ... unless, of course, the May 4th posting is as weak as the
> others you have posted, so that you are in a better position if you simply
> refer to it rather than reposting it.

Absolutely amazing.  Mr. Raven, I am astounded again.

The May 4th article was posted on May 4th, and again three more times to
this newsgroup.  You yourself made a reference to it once, saying you'd
get around to answering the "long posts" "asap."  (That was three months
ago, I point out.)

You've had that same article emailed to you twice.

The first time, you sent me a note to confirm that you'd received it!

The second time, you responded to it publicly!

You can't honestly expect us to believe that you "did not see" this article!

I don't expect you to access some archive somewhere, Mr. Raven.  I expect
you to read your incoming email, and I will forward to your mailbox any
article which I expect you to respond to.  But, since you have started
deleting everything in your mailbox without reading it (!?), that route
appears to be closed to me.  Tell me, Mr. Raven, if you can't read news
often enough to catch articles before they roll over into some "archive,"
and if you can't read email, how on earth do you expect to hold a
conversation?  I would suggest that you stop deleting incoming mail!

I would also suggest that you address the Poznan speeches.  Your first weak
attempt at rebuttal was torn apart some days ago, and you haven't offered
a response since then.  Is this the best the editor of the JHR can do?

Emailed to Mr. Raven -- hope he reads it!
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "...just consider alt.revisionism a suburb of talk.bizarre
  and everything starts falling into place."  - Steve Miller


Article 16395 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!kmcvay
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Subject: Re: A challenge to Greg Raven: May 4th. Myopia lives!
References:  <1994Sep15.181606.21253@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> 
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac
Message-ID: <1994Sep19.221305.18415@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 94 22:13:05 GMT

In article  greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:

>Why is it that you and the others make repeated reference to this "May 4th"
>posting, which I did not see, without simply reposting it so I can see it?

It has been reposted here at least a dozen times, and I have, from
time to time, provided instructions for those wishing to simply
retrieve it from my archives. It is rather long, which is why I
haven't posted it lately. If you want a copy, send the command 
GET HOLOCAUST/USA/IHR RAVEN.002 to listserv@oneb.almanac.bc.ca.

>This may surprise you, but I do not live and breath the alt.revisionism
>newsgroup. There are a lot of postings I never see. I do not save all
>postings for later reference. If you want me to respond to something, post
>it so I can see it. Do not assume that I can access some archive somewhere,
>or divine what you are talking about.

I assume nothing, except that it would be wasteful of bandwidth to
repost it every time Mr. Raven ignores it - since he's done that
with consistency for over three months, in nearly every one of his
articles, you can see my problem :-)

>This seems the most logical way for you to promote your side of this
>discussion ... unless, of course, the May 4th posting is as weak as the
>others you have posted, so that you are in a better position if you simply
>refer to it rather than reposting it.

See the instructions, above, for requesting it from my server...
judge for yourself.

-- 
  "Everything I do is done with the full knowledge of the Fuehrer." 
  (Himmler, Heinrich.  See Jochen von Lang, "Der Adjutant: Karl Wolff,"
                Munich: Herbig, 1985, pp .  140ff)


Article 16401 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Holocaust history - Sept. 19
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 08:20:54 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 15
Message-ID: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com

9/19/91: Professional Holocaust survivor Mel Mermelstein drops his $11
million, 6-year-long court case against the Institute for Historical
Review. Mermelstein had sued the IHR in hopes of forcing them to stop their
Holocaust revisionist activities, but after losing virtually all of the
pre-trial hearings, MermelsteinUs high-powered Beverly Hills legal team
threw in the towel, voluntarily withdrawing complaints of libel, conspiracy
to inflict emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional
distress. Truth and justice prevail!

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659
The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40
The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping


Article 16402 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A challenge to Greg Raven
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 08:21:33 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 39
Message-ID: 
References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com

In article , choover@usd.edu (Christopher J
Hoover ) wrote:

> dmittleman@misvms.bpa.arizona.edu (Daniel Mittleman) writes:
> 
> >    Your request is a compound request.  You seem to want evidence of:
> >    a] a nazi plan or policy to exterminate Jews, and
> >    b] that is was done in homicidal gas chambers.
> >    Would you accept two pieces of evidence, one piece addressing each part
> >    of your request?
> >    If you were given two pieces of evidence, would you actually address
> >    them?
> >    Frankly, I think this is a pretty silly way to conduct historography,
> 
> Actually, as any _real_ historian could tell you, it's no way to conduct 
> historiography at all.  I can't quite decide which is worse:  the 
> prospect that after all this time, Mr. Raven still doesn't know this, or 
> the prospect that he knows it quite well, and yet continues with the charade.
> 
> Take your pick.

I admit that it is not ideal. However, we are constantly told that there is
a mountain of evidence to support the traditional view of the "Holocaust"
extermination stories. I believe I have seen a lot of this so-called
mountain, but I am willing to be shown evidence I have not yet seen.
However, rather than dally with the worse of the evidence, I am asking to
see the best of the evidence. Surely, this is not an unreasonable request.

I would think you would reserve your scorn for those who continue to put
forth testimonies and statements, claiming that these testimonies and
statements are evidence. Now, there's a pretty silly way to conduct
historiography.

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659
The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40
The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping


Article 16403 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Segev on the Bogus Soap Story
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 08:25:12 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 30
Message-ID: 
References: <1994Sep17.230857.6209@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> <35gk51$sj8@newsbf01.news.aol.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com

In article , choover@usd.edu (Christopher J
Hoover ) wrote:

> bradleyrs@aol.com (BradleyRS) writes:
> 
> >The Auschwitz numbers scam is only the most notorious.  While I believe
> >most readers will agree that the Soviets published no proof that 4
> >millions were murdered at Auschwitz, I have not seen the research that
> >proves the 4 million figure wrong. Where is it?
> 
> Try Raul Hilberg, _The Destruction of the European Jews_ (Chicago:  
> Quadrangle Books, 1961).  Hilberg estimated the Auschwitz count at around 
> 1 million _33 years ago_, Mr. Smith.  So, uhm, where, exactly is the 
> "scam?"  That a Communist government told a lie that no one took seriously, 
> even at the time?  Is this somehow supposed to surprise us?

Are you sure Hilberg was talking about 1 million total victims, or 1
million Jewish victims? As for "no one" taking it seriously, I believe that
if you look you will find that not only in the Nuremberg war crimes trials,
but also in subsequent trials, the 4 million figure was accepted as
truthful. Also, the Pope visited Auschwitz in 1979 and prayed for the 4
million victims, who were memorialized on plaques in 19 different
languages.

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659
The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40
The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping


Article 16404 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Will the real soap story please stand up?
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 08:29:24 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 32
Message-ID: 
References: <64EUk0yNUc3U069yn@world.std.com> <35ivl7$bgf@access1.digex.net> <35jc7k$ri8@prime.mdata.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com

In article <35jc7k$ri8@prime.mdata.fi>, kauhunen@mits.mdata.fi (Kari
Nenonen) wrote:

> As the naziis did not respect human life, then why would they have
> respected dead bodies - if they provided some material value to
> them? They used their hairs for producing matresses, they too their
> golden teeth, grinded bones were (at least in some degree) used
> for fertlisation... Although I personally would find using soap
> made of human fat too disgusting for emotional reasons, I know
> that chemically it would be perfect soap, as good that any soap
> made of any animal fats. So it's no wonder if those experiments
> were made when there was shortage of soap in Germany towards the
> end of the war. But considering how the Jewish religion views dead
> bodies (the impurity laws) I can well understand that the soap
> stories must have been extremly disgusting and horrid especially
> amongst the Jewish people and that is why much spoken, much more
> than it's importance is in the wholeness of the holocaust.

I have an paper that examines the Mazur statement (USSR-197) that deals
with the making of soap from humans. However, I do not yet have it typed
in, and once I get it typed in, I will have to get permission of the author
to post it. However, if everything goes well, I should have this piece
ready to post in a week or so. This should answer some of your questions,
and it should satisfy Mr. Mcvay's request for some kind of examination of
the Mazur document.

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659
The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40
The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping


Article 16406 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!schultz
From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Holocaust history - Sept. 19
Date: 19 Sep 1994 17:02:45 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <35kg7l$agg@agate.berkeley.edu>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:

>. . .Mermelstein's high-powered Beverly Hills legal team
>threw in the towel, voluntarily withdrawing complaints of libel, conspiracy
>to inflict emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional
>distress. Truth and justice prevail!

How much money did the IHR end up paying Mermelstein?  Didn't they
have to pay him damages on top of the $50,000 they owed him but
wouldn't pay?
-- 
					Richard Schultz
             "an optimist is a guy
              that has never had
              much experience"


Article 16407 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!usenet.elf.com!news2.near.net!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Holocaust history - Sept. 19
Date: 19 Sep 1994 16:53:42 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <35kfmm$5i@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu
X-ORIGINAL-NEWSGROUPS: alt.revisionism

I'll say, Greg "Hitler was a great man" Raven begins to sound like
Dan "truth will prevail" Gannon.

Don't forget that the IHR and some other Nazis had to pay $90,000
to Mermelstein, after promising to pay $50,000 to anyone who
proves there were gas chambers in Auschwitz.

As I recall, both the IHR and Mermelstein then sued each other
for different reasons, and both dropped their charges. I really
don't find this important. If anything, Raven's ridiculous and
childish article proves that there is no legal persecution of
his funny little Nazi bunch.


-Danny Keren.




Article 16408 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!usenet.elf.com!news2.near.net!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Raven the Clown (was: Re: Holocaust history - Sept. 19)
Date: 19 Sep 1994 16:59:26 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <35kg1e$ch@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu
X-ORIGINAL-NEWSGROUPS: alt.revisionism

Instead of writing about irrelevant matters, perhaps Raven can answer
if he considers witness testimony to be evidence or not.

A few days ago, he wrote that Berenbaum (of the Holocaust museum)
told Faurisson something. Raven added that this was seen by
"witnesses" (he didn't say who).

Why are these "witnesses", whoever they are, reliable? Raven keeps
writing that witness testimony doesn't count.

Well?


-Danny Keren.




Article 16410 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news1.digex.net!access.digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A challenge to Greg Raven
Date: 19 Sep 1994 13:55:25 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <35kjad$t2t@access2.digex.net>
References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  
NNTP-Posting-Host: access2.digex.net

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:
>In article , choover@usd.edu (Christopher J
>Hoover ) wrote:
>> dmittleman@misvms.bpa.arizona.edu (Daniel Mittleman) writes:
>> 
>> >    Your request is a compound request.  You seem to want evidence of:
>> >    a] a nazi plan or policy to exterminate Jews, and
>> >    b] that is was done in homicidal gas chambers.
>> >    Would you accept two pieces of evidence, one piece addressing each part
>> >    of your request?
>> >    If you were given two pieces of evidence, would you actually address
>> >    them?
>> >    Frankly, I think this is a pretty silly way to conduct historography,
>> 
>> Actually, as any _real_ historian could tell you, it's no way to conduct 
>> historiography at all.
>
>I admit that it is not ideal.

    Great!

    Why don't we go with my plan then, which first deals solely with the 
issue of whether there was a plan or policy to kill Jews - forget about 
method(s), forget about numbers; let's just *focus* (you wanted focus, 
right?) on that one issue.  Then we can move on to the others.

>I would think you would reserve your scorn for those who continue to put
>forth testimonies and statements, claiming that these testimonies and
>statements are evidence. Now, there's a pretty silly way to conduct
>historiography.

    Really?  Perhaps you can show us the work of reputable historians who
work entirely from physical evidence and written orders, no eyewitness
accounts accepted.

    What's your BEST EVIDENCE that World War II occurred?

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


Article 16412 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!uunet!news1.digex.net!access.digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: An examination of the Mazur statement
Date: 19 Sep 1994 15:16:45 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <35ko2t$2uu@access2.digex.net>
References: <64EUk0yNUc3U069yn@world.std.com> <35ivl7$bgf@access1.digex.net> <35jc7k$ri8@prime.mdata.fi> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: access2.digex.net

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:
>I have an paper that examines the Mazur statement (USSR-197) that deals
>with the making of soap from humans. However, I do not yet have it typed
>in, and once I get it typed in, I will have to get permission of the author
>to post it. However, if everything goes well, I should have this piece
>ready to post in a week or so. This should answer some of your questions,
>and it should satisfy Mr. Mcvay's request for some kind of examination of
>the Mazur document.

    I will of course be happy to look at it, but given that we are
constantly being told that "Jewish holocaust scholars" have repudiated
"the soap story," why can't you just point us to where we can find their
own discussions of Mazur? 

    Perhaps it's churlish and ungrateful of me given that Greg is going to
so much trouble, but not only would I like "some kind" of examination of
the Mazur statement, I'd really like an *honest* kind.  Well, I suppose
there's a first time for everything.... 

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


Article 16420 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!Germany.EU.net!news.dfn.de!gs.dfn.de!fauern!uni-regensburg.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!stepsun.uni-kl.de!uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de!informatik.uni-kl.de!stschulz
From: stschulz@informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Schulz)
Subject: Re: A challenge to Greg Raven
Message-ID: <1994Sep19.223208.27030@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de>
Sender: news@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de (Unix-News-System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: isis.informatik.uni-kl.de
Organization: University of Kaiserslautern, Germany
References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 22:32:08 GMT
Lines: 56

In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:

[Criticism of Ravens methodology deleted - everybody can see his
 bickering, anyways...]

|> I admit that it is not ideal. However, we are constantly told that there is
|> a mountain of evidence to support the traditional view of the "Holocaust"
|> extermination stories. I believe I have seen a lot of this so-called
|> mountain, but I am willing to be shown evidence I have not yet seen.
|> However, rather than dally with the worse of the evidence, I am asking to
|> see the best of the evidence. Surely, this is not an unreasonable request.

This is an entirely unreasonable request. First, you keep twisting and
turning around a clean definition of what you want evidence of. Now we
have 'the traditional view of the "Holocaust"' - could you please tell
us what exactly this view is?
 
Just in case you come up with the old "the Nazis had a plan or policy
to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers", let me remind you
of the fact that _nobody_ in this group has ever claimed such a thing.

Here is an abridged version of _my_ view of the Holocaust:

The Nazis had a policy to exterminate "life not worthy to live
(lebensunwertes Leben)". Included in this group were mentally retarded
persons, Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and a number of other groups. 
They carried out this policy to the extend that approximately 11 to 12
million people died in the process, about half of them Jews.

The means of extermination were manifold and included : shooting,
gassing (in your beloved "homicidal gas chambers") and starving.

Now to the second point: You want to see the _best_ evidence, however,
you fail to specify what is best. Evidence can be judged according to
a large number of criteria. Reliability is one criterion, coverage is
another, and availability is yet another.
 
Finally, as the holocaust was a compound crime there is, of course, no
_single_ piece of evidence that proves _all_ claims. If a murderer
kills 100 victims, all in front of different witnesses and with a
different weapon, there will be _no_ single piece of evidence proving
that he killed 100 times. The picture has to be build from the many
different pieces of evidence. Demanding "the best piece of evidence
that 100 persons have been killed" is not reasonable, especially not
if all second hand information is dismissed as "unreliable hearsay".

(Not emailed to Greg Raven, as he ignores things at whim, anyways.)


Stephan

-------------------------- It can be done! ---------------------------------
    Please email me as stschulz@informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Schulz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------




Article 16422 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!cobra.uni.edu!sunfish!choover
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Segev on the Bogus Soap Story
Message-ID: 
From: choover@usd.edu (Christopher J Hoover )
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 00:36:34 GMT
Sender: news@sunfish.usd.edu
References: <1994Sep17.230857.6209@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> <35gk51$sj8@newsbf01.news.aol.com> 
  
Organization: University of South Dakota
Nntp-Posting-Host: sunbird
Lines: 46

greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:

>In article , choover@usd.edu (Christopher J
>Hoover ) wrote:

>> Try Raul Hilberg, _The Destruction of the European Jews_ (Chicago:  
>> Quadrangle Books, 1961).  Hilberg estimated the Auschwitz count at around 
>> 1 million _33 years ago_, Mr. Smith.  So, uhm, where, exactly is the 
>> "scam?"  That a Communist government told a lie that no one took seriously, 
>> even at the time?  Is this somehow supposed to surprise us?

>Are you sure Hilberg was talking about 1 million total victims, or 1
>million Jewish victims? 

A fair point, Mr. Raven.  This is sloppy on my part--indeed, Hilberg's 
estimate of 1 million is specifically _Jewish_ dead.  Given the title of 
his book, I don't know whether it would even include estimates of total 
Auschwitz dead; you'd probably have to read it with a fine-toothed comb 
in hand.  In any event, I imagine if Hilberg were to estimate _total_ 
Auschwitz dead, it'd be a bit higher, though--maybe something like 1.5 
million, but that's just _my_ guess.  Thank you for pointing out my 
error, Mr. Raven.

>As for "no one" taking it seriously, I believe that
>if you look you will find that not only in the Nuremberg war crimes trials,
>but also in subsequent trials, the 4 million figure was accepted as
>truthful. Also, the Pope visited Auschwitz in 1979 and prayed for the 4
>million victims, who were memorialized on plaques in 19 different
>languages.

Well, I'm more concerned with whether reputable historians bought the 4
million figure than with whether the Pope did.  It's entirely plausible,
however, that the Pope might have very well known the 4 million figure was
suspect, but given the tenuous and volatile status of the Church in Poland
in 1979, and of his own visit to his homeland, he didn't see it as worth
making waves over. 

I frankly don't know the answer, though.  I'd be interested in knowing, 
but I don't think it's a terribly significant issue, either.



Chris
--
Christopher J. Hoover    choover@usd.edu       University of South Dakota
Disclaimer:  standard    It's *always* September, *somewhere* on the Net.


Article 16423 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Holocaust history - Sept. 19
In-Reply-To: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com's message of Mon, 19 Sep 1994 08:20:54 -0800
Message-ID: 
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References: 
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 01:24:37 GMT
Lines: 23


Ceasing to be sued (again) is what I'd call a pyrrhic victory at best.

Particularly when the situation is that other side merely gave up
trying, rather than any court decision. Y'all've lost most of the
cases that actually made it to a decision, to the tune of at least
$100,000.

From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
>9/19/91: Professional Holocaust survivor Mel Mermelstein drops his $11
>million, 6-year-long court case against the Institute for Historical
>Review. Mermelstein had sued the IHR in hopes of forcing them to stop their
>Holocaust revisionist activities, but after losing virtually all of the
>pre-trial hearings, MermelsteinUs high-powered Beverly Hills legal team
>threw in the towel, voluntarily withdrawing complaints of libel, conspiracy
>to inflict emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional
>distress. Truth and justice prevail!

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD


Article 16442 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-02.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A challenge to Greg Raven
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 08:48:49 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 44
Message-ID: 
References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
   
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-02.dialip.mich.net

greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote:

> choover@usd.edu (Christopher J Hoover) wrote:
> 
> > Actually, as any _real_ historian could tell you, it's no way to conduct 
> > historiography at all.  I can't quite decide which is worse:  the 
> > prospect that after all this time, Mr. Raven still doesn't know this, or 
> > the prospect that he knows it quite well, and yet continues with the charade.
> > 
> > Take your pick.
> 
> I admit that it is not ideal. However, we are constantly told that there is
> a mountain of evidence to support the traditional view of the "Holocaust"
> extermination stories. I believe I have seen a lot of this so-called
> mountain, but I am willing to be shown evidence I have not yet seen.

Fair enough so far.  Now let's look at Mr. Raven's next sentence:

> However, rather than dally with the worse of the evidence, I am asking to
> see the best of the evidence. Surely, this is not an unreasonable request.

But Mr. Raven, that's not what you're asking.

What you've done is look at Himmler's speech, where he explicitly says
that the Jews are being exterminated, and you have dismissed it because
Himmler does not explicitly mention gas chambers.

_That's_ unreasonable.

> I would think you would reserve your scorn for those who continue to put
> forth testimonies and statements, claiming that these testimonies and
> statements are evidence. Now, there's a pretty silly way to conduct
> historiography.

Oh?

I'll email this to Mr. Hoover and cc it to Mr. Raven.  Perhaps Mr. Hoover,
who's worked with a professional historian (his father) for quite some
time, could tell us whether or not his father considers "testimonies and
statements" to be evidence.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "...just consider alt.revisionism a suburb of talk.bizarre
  and everything starts falling into place."  - Steve Miller


Article 16450 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!news.byu.edu!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A challenge to Greg Raven
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 08:34:33 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 71
Message-ID: 
References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>   <1994Sep19.223208.27030@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com

In article <1994Sep19.223208.27030@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de>,
stschulz@informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Schulz) wrote:

> In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:
> |> I admit that it is not ideal. However, we are constantly told that there is
> |> a mountain of evidence to support the traditional view of the "Holocaust"
> |> extermination stories. I believe I have seen a lot of this so-called
> |> mountain, but I am willing to be shown evidence I have not yet seen.
> |> However, rather than dally with the worse of the evidence, I am asking to
> |> see the best of the evidence. Surely, this is not an unreasonable request.
> 
> This is an entirely unreasonable request. First, you keep twisting and
> turning around a clean definition of what you want evidence of. Now we
> have 'the traditional view of the "Holocaust"' - could you please tell
> us what exactly this view is?

I posted it months ago, and don't have it on hand. But basically, the
traditional view seems to be that 6 million Jews were exterminated by one
means or another, including by gassing in homicidal gas chambers.

> Just in case you come up with the old "the Nazis had a plan or policy
> to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers", let me remind you
> of the fact that _nobody_ in this group has ever claimed such a thing.

I asked for others to supply their version of the term "Holocaust."
However, it is more to the point that, if as you imply no one here has said
that there were homicidal gas chambers, a staggering amount of effort has
gone into proving the existence of something you imply no one believes in.

> Here is an abridged version of _my_ view of the Holocaust:
> 
> The Nazis had a policy to exterminate "life not worthy to live
> (lebensunwertes Leben)". Included in this group were mentally retarded
> persons, Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and a number of other groups. 
> They carried out this policy to the extend that approximately 11 to 12
> million people died in the process, about half of them Jews.
> 
> The means of extermination were manifold and included : shooting,
> gassing (in your beloved "homicidal gas chambers") and starving.

Fine. Now, let's look at the gas chambers specifically.

> Now to the second point: You want to see the _best_ evidence, however,
> you fail to specify what is best. Evidence can be judged according to
> a large number of criteria. Reliability is one criterion, coverage is
> another, and availability is yet another.

I will let you decide what evidence is best. If it were up to me, I would
look for something scientific and/or medical in nature. Testimony is not
evidence, and neither are forced confessions.

> Finally, as the holocaust was a compound crime there is, of course, no
> _single_ piece of evidence that proves _all_ claims. If a murderer
> kills 100 victims, all in front of different witnesses and with a
> different weapon, there will be _no_ single piece of evidence proving
> that he killed 100 times. The picture has to be build from the many
> different pieces of evidence. Demanding "the best piece of evidence
> that 100 persons have been killed" is not reasonable, especially not
> if all second hand information is dismissed as "unreliable hearsay".

I am not saying and I never have said that one piece of evidence could (or
should be expected to) prove all "Holocaust" extermination claims. All I
want is to look at the evidence, starting with the best evidence first.
This is really very simple.

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659
The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40
The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping


Article 16451 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!news.byu.edu!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Is Greg Raven _Really_ This Confused?
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 08:40:54 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 24
Message-ID: 
References: <35kb32$ja5@nyx10.cs.du.edu> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com

In article ,
k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:
> But I'd like even more for Mr. Raven to continue on with his analysis --
> and I use the word loosely -- of Himmler's speeches.

For someone who spends as much time in alt.revisionism as you do, it is
amazing that you have not seen my analyses of Himmler's Posen speech.

As I have posted before, 1) it makes no mention of gas chambers, therefore
it does not satisfy my request for best evidence of the use of gas chambers
to exterminate Jews, 2) even if it did mention gas chambers, it would not
be evidence, it would still be nothing more than a speech; if there was
evidence to support the existence of homicidal gas chambers, then this
speech would support that evidence, and 3) when viewed in context (such as,
the Himmler speech of December of that same year that I posted earlier) we
clearly see that Himmler was not speaking of exterminating people in
homicidal gas chambers.

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659
The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40
The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping


Article 16470 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-04.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Is Greg Raven _Really_ This Confused?
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 19:51:49 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 159
Message-ID: 
References: <35kb32$ja5@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
   
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-04.dialip.mich.net

greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote:

> k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:
> > But I'd like even more for Mr. Raven to continue on with his analysis --
> > and I use the word loosely -- of Himmler's speeches.
> 
> For someone who spends as much time in alt.revisionism as you do, it is
> amazing that you have not seen my analyses of Himmler's Posen speech.

Indeed I have.  For someone who spends as much time in alt.revisionism
as you do, it is surprising that you do nothing but repeat yourself.

> As I have posted before, 1) it makes no mention of gas chambers, therefore
> it does not satisfy my request for best evidence of the use of gas chambers
> to exterminate Jews,

This is absolutely insane.

I could take this argument apart in itsy-bitsy logical steps, Mr. Raven,
but it wouldn't be worth it.

Any observer will note that you've been given Himmler's speech in which
Himmler says "the Jews are being exterminated...it's in our program."
Hello?!  Hello?  You're saying he had to explain to everyone exactly
how he was going about it, or you won't accept what he's saying!?

That's NUTS!

And everyone reading knows it.

But let's do the itsy-bitsy steps, anyway.  What the hell.  Go ahead and
ignore my paragraphs above, Mr. Raven;  they're just rhetoric, they're
just me pointing out that everyone sees through your pitiful sophistry.
Instead, address the following logic, which I present to you here:

(1) Your definition of the Holocaust is, and I quote, "the murder of
six million Jews as a central act of state by the Nazis during the
Second World War, many in gas chambers."

(2) In that definition, the clause "many in gas chambers" is,
semantically speaking, inessential.  While it's true that many Jews
were killed in gas chambers, many Jews were killed otherwise.

(3) So, your definition could as well have been "the murder of six
million Jews as a central act of state by the Nazis during the Second
World War, many by starvation and overwork in concentration camps."
Or "...many by mass shooting carried out by the Einsatzgruppen."
Or even "...many in lands outside the German Altreich."  Or even
"...during the Second World War, which occurred between the years
1939-1945."  Why you chose to mention the gas chambers is beyond me;
perhaps you'd like to explain?

(4) If your inessential clause had been "many by starvation," then
by your logic, Mr. Raven, you would require that Himmler's speech
mention that the Jews were starving.  If it had been "many in
camps that have the letter 'Z' in their names," you would have
required that Himmler delve into lexicography.  Clearly there are
an infinity of inessential clauses that you could have specified,
all of which capriciously place demands upon Himmler's words,
or the words of whomever else we choose to offer you.

(5) Thus, it is my contention that, for purposes of "proving" that
the Holocaust occurred, we should at least deal with the main clause
of your definition and the inessential clause seperately.  It may
be possible to meet the demands of that clause, indeed I submit that
it is quite easy to do so.  But, and here's the crux of the matter:

Because your inessential clause places demands upon evidence that
are irrelevant to the main issue -- the reality of the Nazi plan to
kill millions of European Jews -- those demands should either
(1) be met seperately from the main demand, or (2) be ignored
entirely in favor of the main demand.  Since the gas chambers are
a fairly major _detail_ of the Holocaust, I see no reason to ignore
them.  Thus, I will present seperate evidence to deal with the
gas chambers.

But I will do so _after_ we deal with the main demand, the main issue:
the reality of the Nazi attempt to exterminate European Jewry.

Now, Mr. Raven.  You've had it thoroughly explained to you, in
itsy-bitsy steps, why your demand that Himmler mention gas chambers
in all his speeches is not acceptable.  Either argue this point,
or grant it.

And if you don't argue it, then I don't want to see you bring it up
again.  Though I have a sneaking suspicion that you will anyway.

> 2) even if it did mention gas chambers, it would not
> be evidence, it would still be nothing more than a speech;

Speeches are indeed evidence.

> if there was
> evidence to support the existence of homicidal gas chambers, then this
> speech would support that evidence,

Let me be sure I understand that sentence, Mr. Raven.  You're saying
that, if I provide you with evidence that gas chambers were used to
kill Jews en masse, then Himmler's Poznan speeches would indeed be
corroborative evidence that would strengthen the evidence of the
gas chambers?

Because you've previously pooh-poohed the concept of corroboration,
of "convergence of evidence" as the buzzword du jour has it.

But now you say that Himmler's speech "would support" evidence of
gas chambers.  That is nothing less than an affirmation of the
concept of convergence of evidence.

So I'll assume you now accept that concept, Mr. Raven, unless you
tell me otherwise.

> and 3) when viewed in context (such as,
> the Himmler speech of December of that same year that I posted earlier) we
> clearly see that Himmler was not speaking of exterminating people in
> homicidal gas chambers.

I really have a hard time believing you're trying this argument again.

OK, let's summarize.

Himmler said in December, and I repeat in full the quote that you gave:
"Whenever I was forced to take action in a village against partisans or
Jewish commissars -- I speak of this to you and only for you in this circle
-- as a basic rule I also gave the order to have the women and children of
these partisans and commissars killed as well ... Believe me, it is not
easy to give such an order, and it is not as simple to carry out as it is
to think through and put into words in a meeting hall. But we must always
remain aware of the primitive and basic nature of the racial struggle in
which we find ourselves."

But Himmler said in October, and I quote:  "'The Jewish people will be
exterminated,' says every Party member, 'this is very obvious, it is
in our program -- elimination of the Jews, extermination, will do.'"

Please explain to me how Himmler's December comment in some way negates
his October comment.  You say that "we clearly see that Himmler was not
speaking of exterminating people."  What then does "the Jewish people
will be exterminated" mean?

I see a little dissonance here.

Himmler:  "The Jewish people will be exterminated...elimination of the
Jews, extermination, will do."

Raven:  "Himmler was not speaking of exterminating people."

Help me out here, Mr. Raven.  Try to harmonize those two statements
for me.

(And I'll repeat Mr. Stein's request that you document that December
speech.  Not that I doubt he said it -- but I want to find it for
myself as well.)

Emailed to Mr. Raven.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "...just consider alt.revisionism a suburb of talk.bizarre
  and everything starts falling into place."  - Steve Miller


Article 16474 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-04.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A challenge to Greg Raven: May 4th. Myopia lives!
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 20:06:05 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 67
Message-ID: 
References: 
   
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-04.dialip.mich.net

greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote:

> I don't know if I saw this article or not. I didn't respond to any "May
> 4th" article, I respond to things by other names. If you are so keen on
> this "May 4th" article, why not share the big secret of what it deals with,
> instead of dancing around the subject.  By the way, if I responded
> publicly, as you state I have, then what is all the fuss about?

The May 4th article is the big article that was published on May 4th.
Each time it's been reposted to the net, it's had the date, May 4th,
at the top of the article.

It was the article that takes exception four ways with your April 20th
article (the one asking for "best evidence" of the Holocaust).  And
it also had ten pieces of "best evidence" for you to examine and deal
with, in order.

The big fuss is that you steadfastly denied that you'd seen such "best
evidence" for months after the article was published.  The fuss is that
you said you were working on a reply to it and that you'd publish it
"asap," and then you never did.  The fuss is that you responded
publicly merely to take note of it in a one-liner, and then you
_continued_ to act as if you'd never seen the ten documents that had
been presented to you.  The fuss is that you _confirmed_ receipt of
the article by email, and then continued to act as if you'd never seen
the ten documents.

> > I would suggest that you stop deleting incoming mail!
> 
> If I do not have time to log on to get messages in the
> newsgroup, I also do not have time to read the often pointless posts that
> are e-mailed to me. If I do not have time to respond to a newsgroup post, I
> will also not have time to respond to a post that is e-mailed to me.

I use the same mail software that you do, Mr. Raven.

To trash an incoming piece of email, you must select it, and either
choose "-> Trash" from the Transfer menu, or press delete.  It's
exactly as easy to choose another mailbox besides the Trash mailbox.
For example, I beta-test a product called BBEdit.

In fact, it's easier to just leave them sitting in your in-box.
Why do you have to go to the extra time of trashing them?

No, never mind, don't answer that, just answer the bloody questions
about Poznan that I raised in the other article I just posted.
Never mind...

> Weak attempt? I am asking for the best evidence that the Nazis had a plan
> or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers. Himmler's
> Posen speech is 1) not evidence (if there was evidence, it might provide
> support, but statements such as this are not evidence), 2) it makes no
> mention of gas chambers (so it cannot possibly be responsive to my
> request), and 3) when viewed in context it can be seen that Himmler was not
> talking about extermination camps at all.

Those three weak attempts to dismiss Himmler's statement ("the Jewish
people will be exterminated, it is in our program") are dissected in
the article I just posted.  Please respond to it this time, instead
of reposting your original claim again.  We don't need you to post the
same thing again and again -- that's what Dan Gannon was for.

Emailed to Mr. Raven as usual.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "...just consider alt.revisionism a suburb of talk.bizarre
  and everything starts falling into place."  - Steve Miller


Article 16485 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.clark.net!landpost_ppp.clark.net!user
From: landpost@clark.net
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A challenge to Greg Raven
Date: 21 Sep 1994 01:22:21 GMT
Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc.
Lines: 42
Message-ID: 
References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>   <35ct3s$jct@prime.mdata.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: landpost_ppp.clark.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

In article <35ct3s$jct@prime.mdata.fi>, kauhunen@mits.mdata.fi (Kari
Nenonen) wrote:

> In article ,
> Greg Raven  wrote:
> 
> >1) There is no sense in reading something to which I cannot reply, and 2)
> >so far, the "responses" to my original request for the best evidence of a
> >Nazi plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers that
> >I have seen have not been responses at all, but rather attempts to divert
> >the discussion to some other area. Why waste my time?
> 
> Are you trying to explain that your time is somehow important?
> Hah! You fuck. You and your time is "important" only here and
> only because you little piece of shit are an object of contemt and
> hatred. Don't you understand it?  The world is launghing at you,
> Raven, really, most of the "aryan world" is laughing at you, you
> pathetic clown. If you ever came to any Nordic country and opened
> your dirty mouth in a public place you would be laughed to dead.
> 
> 
> >Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
> >Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659
> >The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40
> >The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping
> 
> 
> -- 
> Kari Nenonen                    kauhunen@mits.mdata.fi
> Maavallintie 4
> 00430 Helsinki
> Finland

------------------------------------------------------

Kari, why don't you give us the details on Finland's attack on the Soviet
Union, in what is known here anyway as the "Winter War" which preceded WW
II?


Tim McCarthy
landpost@clark.net


Article 16488 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.clark.net!landpost_ppp.clark.net!user
From: landpost@clark.net
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Reports of Polish Underground About the Death Camps
Date: 21 Sep 1994 01:53:36 GMT
Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc.
Lines: 43
Message-ID: 
References: <357rk7$8jh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  <35a3f7$66r@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  <35debp$k6j@prime.mdata.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: landpost_ppp.clark.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

In article <35debp$k6j@prime.mdata.fi>, kauhunen@mits.mdata.fi (Kari
Nenonen) wrote:

> In article ,
> Greg Raven  wrote:
> 
> >Was it not you who, in your posting, described Belzec as "one of the most
> >terrible Nazi death camps," or somesuch? If you study this matter, you will
> >see that at one time or another, virtually all the major camps have been
> >labelled the "worst death camp." Your reference to Belzec is clearly in
> >line with this practice.
> 
> Another example of the ultimate stupidity of this Raven person. Even I, with
> English as my fourth language, can understand the diference between "one of
> the most terrible" and "worst".
> 
> >Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
> >Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659
> >The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40
> >The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping
> 
> And why is this Raven character constantly advertizing IHR crap in his
> posts? At least in this side of Atlantic it's against the rules of
> usenet/internet.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Kari Nenonen                    kauhunen@mits.mdata.fi
> Maavallintie 4
> 00430 Helsinki
> Finland

-------------------------------------------------------------

Kari, you linguistic giant, tell us about Finland's attack on the Soviet
Union before WW II, won't you????


Tim McCarthy
landpost@clark.net

(all e-mail suspected of coming from alt.revisionism is trashed)


Article 16493 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!news.eunet.fi!prime.mdata.fi!mits.mdata.fi!kauhunen
From: kauhunen@mits.mdata.fi (Kari Nenonen)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A challenge to Greg Raven
Date: 21 Sep 1994 04:57:38 GMT
Organization: Mits BBS, Helsinki, Finland (40+ Nodes +358-0-4582066)
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <35oeg2$49n@prime.mdata.fi>
References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  <35ct3s$jct@prime.mdata.fi> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: mits.mdata.fi

In article ,
  wrote:

>Kari, why don't you give us the details on Finland's attack on the Soviet
>Union, in what is known here anyway as the "Winter War" which preceded WW
>II?

Finland did not attack on the Soviet Union. Read any history book: Soviet
Union attacked on Finland. What details you are interested of? The "Winter
War" is very well documented both in Finland and in former SU and even
Russia agrees today that the Winter War was one of Stalin's imperialistic
aggressions. If you confuse Winter War with the "Continuention War" so
there is a real revisionistic issue, which is under a debate even today
among well respected historians. The real reason for that is the fact
that during the Existence of the SU that kind of issue was, shall we
say tabu in Finland for not awaking the "Sleeping Big Bear". Frankly,
the freedom of speech was somewhat limited in Finland almost fortyfive
years for the sake of national security. So if you have any questions
about those two wars, don't hesitate to ask: I will answer.

>
>Tim McCarthy
>landpost@clark.net


-- 
Kari Nenonen                    kauhunen@mits.mdata.fi
Maavallintie 4
00430 Helsinki
Finland


Article 16494 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!news.eunet.fi!prime.mdata.fi!mits.mdata.fi!kauhunen
From: kauhunen@mits.mdata.fi (Kari Nenonen)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Reports of Polish Underground About the Death Camps
Date: 21 Sep 1994 05:12:03 GMT
Organization: Mits BBS, Helsinki, Finland (40+ Nodes +358-0-4582066)
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <35ofb3$4cr@prime.mdata.fi>
References: <357rk7$8jh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  <35debp$k6j@prime.mdata.fi> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: mits.mdata.fi

In article ,
  wrote:

>Kari, you linguistic giant, tell us about Finland's attack on the Soviet
>Union before WW II, won't you????

I cannot tell you about something that did not happen. I'm not that much
of a revisionist. 

>
>Tim McCarthy
>landpost@clark.net
>
>(all e-mail suspected of coming from alt.revisionism is trashed)



-- 
Kari Nenonen                    kauhunen@mits.mdata.fi
Maavallintie 4
00430 Helsinki
Finland


Article 16520 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!nntp.msstate.edu!olivea!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: An examination of the Mazur statement
Date: 22 Sep 1994 02:25:15 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <35r80b$bau@access4.digex.net>
References: <64EUk0yNUc3U069yn@world.std.com>  <35ko2t$2uu@access2.digex.net> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:
>That's just it. When traditional "Holocaust" scholars say they repudiate
>the soap stoy, they do not give any reasons why it is repudiated, what
>references others might check, what studies they have done, etc. This has
>been left to the revisionists.

    Well, when Wayne McGuire posted the Segev reference, it was quite 
obvious that "the" soap story was the rumor of soap with "RIF" on it 
being made with Jewish fat.  Connilyn Feig said the Mazur/Stutthof soap 
did *not* have "RIF" on it.  So it may just be that "the" soap story 
being repudiated is one which was never claimed by any serious historian 
in the first place.  Was the "RIF" claim advanced at Nuremberg?

    For you see, when "revisionist" "scholars" say that traditional
Holocaust historians repudiate "the" soap story, they do not give actual
quotes as to exactly what was repudiated, who repudiated it, what
references others might check, etc.  This has been left to people like me. 

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


Article 16523 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!csus.edu!netcom.com!codfish
From: codfish@netcom.com (Ross Vicksell)
Subject: Re: Holocaust history - Sept. 19
Message-ID: 
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References:  <35kg7l$agg@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 23:37:20 GMT
Lines: 0



Article 16536 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Greg Raven addresses the Poznan speeches -- kinda
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 21:09:57 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 44
Message-ID: 
References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com

In article , staff@rabbit.augs.se (Staffan
Friberg) wrote:
> In article  k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) writes:
> 
> > Raven's request for "proof" of the Holocaust has undergone
> > microfluctuations in the last five months, but for the most part it's
> > been pretty close to the original request, which was:
> > 
> >    Provide me with what you think is the one or two best pieces of
> >    evidence that the Nazis had a plan to exterminate millions of Jews
> >    in homicidal gas chambers.
> 
> Yes, that's how I remember it as well. It should, I think, be noted that he
> can accept two pieces of evidence.
> 
> 1. The speech by Himmler should prove that there was a plan to exterminate
> the jews.
> 
> 2. There was a document telling about a "shower room" which should be fitted
> with false shower heads and a gas-tight door.
> 
> When used together this would address both the gas chambers and the plan,
> right?

I don't think so. This is the type of "proof" that has been offered for
many years now, which would lead any inquisitive person to wonder if there
was any real evidence at all.

The Himmler speech and the document regarding fitting out a shower room,
even if they said what you think they say (which they do not, but that is
another matter), are so far separated that it is unreasonable to connect
the two as you have described connecting them.

I thank you, however, for at least attempting to further the discussion
along the lines that I proposed many months ago. I believe you are the
first person to have done so without having to have been dragged kicking
and screaming into it.

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659
The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40
The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping


Article 16537 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: History of the Holocaust
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 21:15:23 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 16
Message-ID: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com

9/22/89: The Associated Press reports that the Soviet Red Cross has turned
over information regarding the deaths of over 74,000 [actually closer to
69,000] wartime internees of Auschwitz to the International Red Cross. The
news story, which cites Valentina Fatyukhina, head researcher at the Soviet
Red Cross, as saying, RThe deaths of over 74,000 people were neatly
recorded, day after day, hour after hour, in 46 huge volumes. Their names,
the birthdates, and the names of parents were written down.S These volumes,
which have been hidden away by the Soviets for 45 years, remain hidden
until 2/11/92 for fear that revisionists will make use of them(!).

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659
The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40
The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping


Article 16542 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!convex!news.duke.edu!eff!news.kei.com!ddsw1!golux.pr.mcs.net!user
From: golux@mcs.com (The only Golux in the World, and not a mere Device)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A challenge to Greg Raven
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 00:39:36 -0600
Organization: MCSNet Services
Lines: 57
Message-ID: 
References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  
NNTP-Posting-Host: golux.pr.mcs.net

In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com
(Greg Raven) wrote:


> I admit that it is not ideal. However, we are constantly told that there is
> a mountain of evidence to support the traditional view of the "Holocaust"
> extermination stories. I believe I have seen a lot of this so-called
> mountain, but I am willing to be shown evidence I have not yet seen.
> However, rather than dally with the worse of the evidence, I am asking to
> see the best of the evidence. Surely, this is not an unreasonable request.

If indeed that were your request -- "to see the best of the evidence" --
then it would not be an unreasonable request, it is true.  (In fact, on
May 4th, you were presented with ten pieces of the "best of the evidence,"
which ten pieces of evidence you have almost entirely failed to address.) 
However, this is not your "request"; instead you originally asked to see
"the one or two best pieces of evidence," and since then you have asked
whether each specific piece of evidence posted is "the best piece of
evidence."  You insist that you will only address a single piece of
evidence at a time (not unreasonable) -- and in total isolation from all
other evidence (quite unreasonable).

> I would think you would reserve your scorn for those who continue to put
> forth testimonies and statements, claiming that these testimonies and
> statements are evidence. Now, there's a pretty silly way to conduct
> historiography.

You really don't get it, do you?  You haven't the foggiest idea of what
"historiography" is, let alone how to conduct it.  It's the study of
history, the methodology for studying history.  Historians frquently rely
on eyewitness testimonies -- the words of people who were there -- in
studying the events of history, and I challenge you to find me a scholarly
work about any significant historical even that does *not* include
testimony and statements of witnesses.

You also have a completely bizarre understanding of "evidence."  While it
is true that eyewitnesses and their stories must always be weighed for the
credibility and the capacity of the witness in question, it is also true
that those stories -- statements, testimonies -- are unquestionably
"evidence," and usually the best kind: direct evidence.  "I saw X."  "It
happened this way."  Anything from which an inference must be drawn (e.g.,
a photograph of a single scene that merely implies other events) is called
"circumstantial" evidence, and is less favored than direct evidence.

So, let us review.  You have ignored the May 4th ten pieces of evidence,
you demand the "best piece of evidence" and want to review it in isolation
from all other evidence, and you insist that eyewitness testimonies are
not evidence.  You may be many things, Mr. Raven, but an historian you
clearly are not.

Emailed to Mr. Raven.

-- 
D. J. Schaeffer |       The Todal looks like a blob of glup.
golux@mcs.com   |     It makes a sound like rabbits screaming,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^        and smells of old, unopened rooms.
                            -- Thurber, _The 13 Clocks_


Article 16543 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!redstone.interpath.net!ddsw1!golux.pr.mcs.net!user
From: golux@mcs.com (The only Golux in the World, and not a mere Device)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A challenge to Greg Raven: May 4th. Myopia lives!
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 01:00:19 -0600
Organization: MCSNet Services
Lines: 80
Message-ID: 
References:   
NNTP-Posting-Host: golux.pr.mcs.net

In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com
(Greg Raven) wrote:

[Jamie McCarthy (I think) wrote:]
> > I would also suggest that you address the Poznan speeches.  Your first weak
> > attempt at rebuttal was torn apart some days ago, and you haven't offered
> > a response since then.  Is this the best the editor of the JHR can do?
> 
> Weak attempt? I am asking for the best evidence that the Nazis had a plan
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers. Himmler's
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Posen speech is 1) not evidence (if there was evidence, it might provide
> support, but statements such as this are not evidence), 2) it makes no
> mention of gas chambers (so it cannot possibly be responsive to my
> request), and 3) when viewed in context it can be seen that Himmler was not
> talking about extermination camps at all.

Look at the underlined sentence there, Greg.  Look at it carefully.  Is
this the question you are really asking?  Because if it is, you will find
absolutely no takers.  Nobody -- professional historian down to lowly
Internet alt.revisionism poster -- has ever claimed, to my knowledge, that
the Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate the Jews, and that they
specifically contemplated the use of homicidal gas chambers to effectuate
their plan or policy.

The definition of the Holocaust given by Mr. Schultz seems to be
reasonable, and in fact matches something you said in a post approximately
contemporaneous with the above comment:

> In article <1994Sep19.223208.27030@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de>,
> stschulz@informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Schulz) wrote:
[...]
> > This is an entirely unreasonable request. First, you keep twisting and
> > turning around a clean definition of what you want evidence of. Now we
> > have 'the traditional view of the "Holocaust"' - could you please tell
> > us what exactly this view is?
> 
> I posted it months ago, and don't have it on hand. But basically, the
                                                                    ^^^
> traditional view seems to be that 6 million Jews were exterminated by one
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> means or another, including by gassing in homicidal gas chambers.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Those are your words, Mr. Raven, and they seem pretty good to me.  The one
element missing is the Nazi policy to carry out that extermination (by
whatever means necessary).  The Poznan speech, of course, addresses the
policy/plan, as well as indicating that the extermination was in
progress.  Note, your definition above does not require, as you put it
above, "that the Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in
homicidal gas chambers."

And again, no matter how many times you say it to try to convince yourself
and others, it is not true that statements and testimony are not
evidence.  Himmler's speech is EVIDENCE of the extermination policy of
which he speaks.  It is no more nor less relevant to proving the existence
of such a policy than a written order signed by Hitler saying the same
thing.  Both types of evidence must be assessed in terms of reliability,
authenticity and credibility -- but THEY ARE BOTH EVIDENCE.

In the same article I quoted just above, the following exchange also took place:

> > The means of extermination were manifold and included : shooting,
> > gassing (in your beloved "homicidal gas chambers") and starving.
> 
> Fine. Now, let's look at the gas chambers specifically.

Are you, by this comment, finally admitting that there was indeed a Nazi
policy to exterminate the Jews?  May we assume that the policy is
established to your satisfaction, and that now you wish to discuss one of
the methods by which that policy was executed?

Emailed to Mr. Raven.

-- 
D. J. Schaeffer |       The Todal looks like a blob of glup.
golux@mcs.com   |     It makes a sound like rabbits screaming,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^        and smells of old, unopened rooms.
                            -- Thurber, _The 13 Clocks_


Article 16544 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!redstone.interpath.net!ddsw1!golux.pr.mcs.net!user
From: golux@mcs.com (The only Golux in the World, and not a mere Device)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Raven's problem may not be myopia....
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 01:25:23 -0600
Organization: MCSNet Services
Lines: 27
Message-ID: 
References:   <1994Sep15.181606.21253@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>  <35k1gb$lge@access2.digex.net> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: golux.pr.mcs.net

In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com
(Greg Raven) wrote:

> You and the others must be very proud to refer to this posting only by its
> date of posting, rather than by something more descriptive.

Oh for Pete's sake, Greg, who do you think you're fooling?  The May 4th
article has also been referred to several times since its original posting
and its repostings descriptively: the article in which your bizarre
methodology was exposed as worthless, and in which you were presented with
ten pieces of evidence to address.

You yourself said you would post a response "real soon now" (to borrow a
phrase from the thriving vaporware industry).  Apparently you acknowledged
seeing it in email to Jamie McCarthy.

You know the article.  You know what is meant by "May 4th Article."  You
have seen it at least once.  You have not answered it.  Now you seem to
want to discuss how it is referred to, rather than its substance.

I ask again: Who do you think you are fooling?

-- 
D. J. Schaeffer |       The Todal looks like a blob of glup.
golux@mcs.com   |     It makes a sound like rabbits screaming,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^        and smells of old, unopened rooms.
                            -- Thurber, _The 13 Clocks_


Article 16547 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-03.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Greg Raven addresses the Poznan speeches -- kinda
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 14:30:27 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 161
Message-ID: 
References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
   
   
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-03.dialip.mich.net

greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote:

> The Himmler speech and the document regarding fitting out a shower room,
> even if they said what you think they say (which they do not, but that is
> another matter),

Mr. Raven, I wearily ask you, again, to address Himmler's Poznan speeches.
Your last arguments have been found wanting.  Please attempt to do better.

Wantonly wasting bandwidth, I repeat my article from three days ago:


greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote:

> As I have posted before, 1) it makes no mention of gas chambers, therefore
> it does not satisfy my request for best evidence of the use of gas chambers
> to exterminate Jews,

This is absolutely insane.

I could take this argument apart in itsy-bitsy logical steps, Mr. Raven,
but it wouldn't be worth it.

Any observer will note that you've been given Himmler's speech in which
Himmler says "the Jews are being exterminated...it's in our program."
Hello?!  Hello?  You're saying he had to explain to everyone exactly
how he was going about it, or you won't accept what he's saying!?

That's NUTS!

And everyone reading knows it.

But let's do the itsy-bitsy steps, anyway.  What the hell.  Go ahead and
ignore my paragraphs above, Mr. Raven;  they're just rhetoric, they're
just me pointing out that everyone sees through your pitiful sophistry.
Instead, address the following logic, which I present to you here:

(1) Your definition of the Holocaust is, and I quote, "the murder of
six million Jews as a central act of state by the Nazis during the
Second World War, many in gas chambers."

(2) In that definition, the clause "many in gas chambers" is,
semantically speaking, inessential.  While it's true that many Jews
were killed in gas chambers, many Jews were killed otherwise.

(3) So, your definition could as well have been "the murder of six
million Jews as a central act of state by the Nazis during the Second
World War, many by starvation and overwork in concentration camps."
Or "...many by mass shooting carried out by the Einsatzgruppen."
Or even "...many in lands outside the German Altreich."  Or even
"...during the Second World War, which occurred between the years
1939-1945."  Why you chose to mention the gas chambers is beyond me;
perhaps you'd like to explain?

(4) If your inessential clause had been "many by starvation," then
by your logic, Mr. Raven, you would require that Himmler's speech
mention that the Jews were starving.  If it had been "many in
camps that have the letter 'Z' in their names," you would have
required that Himmler delve into lexicography.  Clearly there are
an infinity of inessential clauses that you could have specified,
all of which capriciously place demands upon Himmler's words,
or the words of whomever else we choose to offer you.

(5) Thus, it is my contention that, for purposes of "proving" that
the Holocaust occurred, we should at least deal with the main clause
of your definition and the inessential clause seperately.  It may
be possible to meet the demands of that clause, indeed I submit that
it is quite easy to do so.  But, and here's the crux of the matter:

Because your inessential clause places demands upon evidence that
are irrelevant to the main issue -- the reality of the Nazi plan to
kill millions of European Jews -- those demands should either
(1) be met seperately from the main demand, or (2) be ignored
entirely in favor of the main demand.  Since the gas chambers are
a fairly major _detail_ of the Holocaust, I see no reason to ignore
them.  Thus, I will present seperate evidence to deal with the
gas chambers.

But I will do so _after_ we deal with the main demand, the main issue:
the reality of the Nazi attempt to exterminate European Jewry.

Now, Mr. Raven.  You've had it thoroughly explained to you, in
itsy-bitsy steps, why your demand that Himmler mention gas chambers
in all his speeches is not acceptable.  Either argue this point,
or grant it.

And if you don't argue it, then I don't want to see you bring it up
again.  Though I have a sneaking suspicion that you will anyway.

> 2) even if it did mention gas chambers, it would not
> be evidence, it would still be nothing more than a speech;

Speeches are indeed evidence.

> if there was
> evidence to support the existence of homicidal gas chambers, then this
> speech would support that evidence,

Let me be sure I understand that sentence, Mr. Raven.  You're saying
that, if I provide you with evidence that gas chambers were used to
kill Jews en masse, then Himmler's Poznan speeches would indeed be
corroborative evidence that would strengthen the evidence of the
gas chambers?

Because you've previously pooh-poohed the concept of corroboration,
of "convergence of evidence" as the buzzword du jour has it.

But now you say that Himmler's speech "would support" evidence of
gas chambers.  That is nothing less than an affirmation of the
concept of convergence of evidence.

So I'll assume you now accept that concept, Mr. Raven, unless you
tell me otherwise.

> and 3) when viewed in context (such as,
> the Himmler speech of December of that same year that I posted earlier) we
> clearly see that Himmler was not speaking of exterminating people in
> homicidal gas chambers.

I really have a hard time believing you're trying this argument again.

OK, let's summarize.

Himmler said in December, and I repeat in full the quote that you gave:
"Whenever I was forced to take action in a village against partisans or
Jewish commissars -- I speak of this to you and only for you in this circle
-- as a basic rule I also gave the order to have the women and children of
these partisans and commissars killed as well ... Believe me, it is not
easy to give such an order, and it is not as simple to carry out as it is
to think through and put into words in a meeting hall. But we must always
remain aware of the primitive and basic nature of the racial struggle in
which we find ourselves."

But Himmler said in October, and I quote:  "'The Jewish people will be
exterminated,' says every Party member, 'this is very obvious, it is
in our program -- elimination of the Jews, extermination, will do.'"

Please explain to me how Himmler's December comment in some way negates
his October comment.  You say that "we clearly see that Himmler was not
speaking of exterminating people."  What then does "the Jewish people
will be exterminated" mean?

I see a little dissonance here.

Himmler:  "The Jewish people will be exterminated...elimination of the
Jews, extermination, will do."

Raven:  "Himmler was not speaking of exterminating people."

Help me out here, Mr. Raven.  Try to harmonize those two statements
for me.

(And I'll repeat Mr. Stein's request that you document that December
speech.  Not that I doubt he said it -- but I want to find it for
myself as well.)

Emailed to Mr. Raven.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "...just consider alt.revisionism a suburb of talk.bizarre
  and everything starts falling into place."  - Steve Miller


Article 16550 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!kmcvay
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Subject: Re: History of the Holocaust
References: 
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac
Message-ID: <1994Sep25.080532.14313@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 94 08:05:32 GMT

In article  greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:

>9/22/89: The Associated Press reports that the Soviet Red Cross has turned
>over information regarding the deaths of over 74,000 [actually closer to
>69,000] wartime internees of Auschwitz to the International Red Cross. The
>news story, which cites Valentina Fatyukhina, head researcher at the Soviet
>Red Cross, as saying, RThe deaths of over 74,000 people were neatly
>recorded, day after day, hour after hour, in 46 huge volumes. Their names,
>the birthdates, and the names of parents were written down.S These volumes,
>which have been hidden away by the Soviets for 45 years, remain hidden
>until 2/11/92 for fear that revisionists will make use of them(!).

1. For which month, and which year, do these documents apply?

2. Given that the SS did _not_ record the deaths of those selected
   as "unfit," i.e. those who were gassed upon arrival, what
   relevance do you feel these Soviet records have with regard to
   the vast majority of Auschwitz victims,  who were neither
   registered nor tattooed?

3. In short, explain the relevance, if any, of these Soviet records.

-- 

"However, it is sophistry to proclaim that something must have happened a
certain way because your `reason' demands it." (Greg Raven, Institute for
Historical Review)


Article 16558 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.cic.net!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!sunic!seunet!news2.swip.net!seunet!augs.se!rabbit!staff
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
From: staff@rabbit.augs.se (Staffan Friberg)
Subject: Re: Reports of Polish Underground About the Death Camps
References: <357rk7$8jh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  <35a3f7$66r@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  <35debp$k6j@prime.mdata.fi> 
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 2.1 Feb 19, 1994
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: 
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 94 22:44:05 CET
Organization: Amiga User Group Sweden
Lines: 26


In article  landpost@clark.net writes:

> Kari, you linguistic giant, tell us about Finland's attack on the Soviet
> Union before WW II, won't you????

Tim, why don't you post the translation of that german text as you promised
to do?

> (all e-mail suspected of coming from alt.revisionism is trashed)

That's why I make this a public post if anyone thinks it's inapropriate.

-- 

                                                            //
                                                           //
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ \\ //  AMIGA +++
+ Staffan Friberg                   +  EMail:           \X/           +
+ Undergraduate student  Chemistry  +                                 +
+ Linkvping University              +  InterNet: staff@rabbit.augs.se +
+ Sweden                            +  FidoNet:  2:204/404.2  or      +
+                                   +            2:204/418.9          +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Don't laugh - this is science"
                     (James Randi)


Article 16572 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!sunic!seunet!news2.swip.net!seunet!augs.se!rabbit!staff
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
From: staff@rabbit.augs.se (Staffan Friberg)
Subject: Re: Greg Raven addresses the Poznan speeches -- kinda
References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>   
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 2.1 Feb 19, 1994
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: 
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 94 19:31:00 CET
Organization: Amiga User Group Sweden
Lines: 57


In article  greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:

> > Yes, that's how I remember it as well. It should, I think, be noted that he
> > can accept two pieces of evidence.
> > 
> > 1. The speech by Himmler should prove that there was a plan to exterminate
> > the jews.
> > 
> > 2. There was a document telling about a "shower room" which should be fitted
> > with false shower heads and a gas-tight door.
> > 
> > When used together this would address both the gas chambers and the plan,
> > right?
> 
> I don't think so. This is the type of "proof" that has been offered for
> many years now, which would lead any inquisitive person to wonder if there
> was any real evidence at all.

Yes, that may be so but do you agree that the speech at least SUGGESTS what
we are trying to say?

You wish to discuss each item separately but you agree that they should be
put together sp that we can see the whole picture, right?

> The Himmler speech and the document regarding fitting out a shower room,
> even if they said what you think they say (which they do not, but that is
> another matter), are so far separated that it is unreasonable to connect
> the two as you have described connecting them.

I really don't think that it is another matter. As far as I can see this is
what you have requested for a long time. You have "one or two items", now
please address them. I can't see how the Himmler speech could mean anything
but a systematic extermination of the jews. If you have other information or
another interpretation, please share it with the rest of the group. This has
been asked by several people.

> I thank you, however, for at least attempting to further the discussion
> along the lines that I proposed many months ago. I believe you are the
> first person to have done so without having to have been dragged kicking
> and screaming into it.

Well, how about it? What do you have to say about the Himmler speech?

-- 

                                                            //
                                                           //
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ \\ //  AMIGA +++
+ Staffan Friberg                   +  EMail:           \X/           +
+ Undergraduate student  Chemistry  +                                 +
+ Linkvping University              +  InterNet: staff@rabbit.augs.se +
+ Sweden                            +  FidoNet:  2:204/404.2  or      +
+                                   +            2:204/418.9          +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Don't laugh - this is science"
                     (James Randi)


Article 16574 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Greg Raven addresses the Poznan speeches -- kinda
Date: 24 Sep 1994 23:03:53 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <362b8p$6a1@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>   
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu

We have Hitler writing that he wants to see Jews exposed to poison
gas, and saying (just before the war) that in case a new world
war breaks out, the Jews in Europe will be annihilated.

And we have Himmler saying that the Jews are being exterminated, 
and that the "difficult decision" had to be taken to kill the 
Jewish women and children too, in order to "make this people 
disappear from the earth".

Why should anyone think that Hitler and Himmler didn't mean what
they said? Is this some kind of "psychological revisionism"?


-Danny Keren.



Article 16604 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!usc!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!news.Arizona.EDU!misvms.bpa.arizona.edu!dmittleman
From: dmittleman@misvms.bpa.arizona.edu (Daniel Mittleman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: History of the Holocaust
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: 24 Sep 1994 08:42 MST
Organization: University of Arizona (BPA)
Lines: 29
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <24SEP199408425373@misvms.bpa.arizona.edu>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: misvms.bpa.arizona.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.50    

greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes...
>9/22/89: The Associated Press reports that the Soviet Red Cross has turned
>over information regarding the deaths of over 74,000 [actually closer to
>69,000] wartime internees of Auschwitz to the International Red Cross. The
>news story, which cites Valentina Fatyukhina, head researcher at the Soviet
>Red Cross, as saying, RThe deaths of over 74,000 people were neatly
>recorded, day after day, hour after hour, in 46 huge volumes. Their names,
>the birthdates, and the names of parents were written down.S These volumes,
>which have been hidden away by the Soviets for 45 years, remain hidden
>until 2/11/92 for fear that revisionists will make use of them(!).

    No Greg, she probably meant *real revisionists*.  Not you guys.

    Though I do agree with your sentiment: governments should not be hiding
    documents like this.  We should all be able to see the documents and
    analyze their contents.

    My first questions are: what date range do these books cover?  Do these
    books cover the all prisoner population groups at Aushcwitz or only a
    subset?  If these books do not cover everyone for the entire camp
    duration, when we extrapolate from these books, how many deaths would
    we estimate?

    I have no idea the answers, but I think these are legitimate questions;
    don't you?

    BTW: why did you amend her 74,000 to 69,000?
===========================================================================
daniel david mittleman     -     danny@arizona.edu     -     (602) 621-2932


Article 16608 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: History of the Holocaust
Date: 25 Sep 1994 15:39:06 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 51
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3645iq$8dp@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References:  <24SEP199408425373@misvms.bpa.arizona.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu
X-ORIGINAL-NEWSGROUPS: alt.revisionism

This is to comment on "landpost's" claim that the death lists in
Auschwitz "prove" that only about 70,000 people died in the camp
during the five years it was in operation.

The claim is totally absurd, as can be proved by some simple
arithmetic. 70,000 dead people in 5 years amounts to about 40 dead
people a day. To dispose of such a number of corpses, the SS would
have built one small crematorium, with 3,4, or perhaps 5 cremation
furnaces. However, as everyone agrees, the camp had 5 crematoriums
with a total of 52 cremation furnaces, and, at times, even these
were not enough and corpses had to be burned in ditches.

I hope even "landpost" is not crazy enough to claim that, in order 
to burn 40 corpses a day, 52 cremation furnaces were needed!

The explanation as to why the "death lists" show a much smaller
number of victims than the number of those who actually died in the
camp is simple. First, as I recall, the lists don't cover the whole
1940-1945 period. Second, they refer only to those who were
assigned serial numbers (and later died). The majority of people
transferred to the camp were classified as "unfit for work" and
gassed immediately. This fact is noted, for instance, in a report
written by top SS officer Franke-Gricksch to Himmler (this report 
is included in our file of Nazi documents, in the archives). These
people were not registered anywhere, and no one recorded their
names; it would make no sense to write down the names and other
personal details of people who were about to be gassed in a few
minutes.


See testimony of Polish prisoner Aloiz Oskar Kleta, Shelly, p. 284;
Fertig, 12; Fleming, 174.  Also, see testimony of Henryk Tauber,
Pressac, page 488, as to how the SS routinely burned documents
regarding the number of victims.

Shelly, "Secretaries of Death", Edited and Translated by Lore Shelly,
Shengold Publishers INC., NY 1986

Fertig, Howard.  The History of KL-Auschwitz.  New York: 1982

Fleming, Gerald.  Hitler and the Final Solution.  University of
California Press, 1984

Pressac, J.C.  Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas
Chambers.  New York: Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, 1989


-Danny Keren.


 


Article 16619 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uhog.mit.edu!news.kei.com!ddsw1!golux.pr.mcs.net!user
From: golux@mcs.com (The only Golux in the World, and not a mere Device)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A challenge to Greg Raven: May 4th. Myopia lives!
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 1994 13:38:21 -0600
Organization: MCSNet Services
Lines: 23
Message-ID: 
References:    
NNTP-Posting-Host: golux.pr.mcs.net

In article , golux@mcs.com (The
only Golux in the World, and not a mere Device) wrote:

> ... Nobody -- professional historian down to lowly
> Internet alt.revisionism poster -- has ever claimed, to my knowledge, that
> the Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate the Jews, and that they
> specifically contemplated the use of homicidal gas chambers to effectuate
> their plan or policy.

Rereading this, I see it is a bit unclear.  What I meant is that the Nazis
clearly had a plan to exterminate the Jews, but the plan itself did not
contemplate the use of any single specific means to that end, such as gas
chambers.  The fact that the Nazis used such other methods as mass
shootings, starvation and forced overwork to effect their plan
demonstrates that fact.

Not emailed to myself.

-- 
D. J. Schaeffer |       The Todal looks like a blob of glup.
golux@mcs.com   |     It makes a sound like rabbits screaming,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^        and smells of old, unopened rooms.
                            -- Thurber, _The 13 Clocks_


Article 16623 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!swiss.ans.net!news.dfn.de!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!uunet!world!wmcguire
From: wmcguire@world.std.com (Wayne McGuire)
Subject: Re: A challenge to Greg Raven: May 4th. Myopia lives!
Message-ID: 
Sender: wmcguire@world.std.com (Wayne McGuire)
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
References:    
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 1994 19:34:17 GMT
Lines: 64

In article ,
golux@mcs.com (The only Golux in the World, and not a mere Device) wrote:

//Look at the underlined sentence there, Greg.  Look at it carefully.  Is
//this the question you are really asking?  Because if it is, you will find
//absolutely no takers.  Nobody -- professional historian down to lowly
//Internet alt.revisionism poster -- has ever claimed, to my knowledge, that
//the Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate the Jews, and that they
//specifically contemplated the use of homicidal gas chambers to effectuate
//their plan or policy.

I think this is the popular impression of the Holocaust: "that
the Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate the Jews, and that
they specifically contemplated the use of homicidal gas chambers
to effectuate their plan or policy."

This has always been my impression, the one I derived from
television, movies, novels, comic books, and other artifacts of
popular culture. Until I started reading this newsgroup, I
assumed that 6 million Jews had been murdered in gas chambers in
a diabolical assembly line fashion. I'll wager that if I polled
the average person, the great majority would assume the same
thing.

It was the planning element, and the industrial science element
(by means of the gas chambers), that provided the aura of
unmatched horror around the Holocaust. Is there a spookier phrase
in the English language than "gas chamber"?

No historian and no one here is now claiming that this occurred,
according to you? In that case, the popular understanding of the
Holocaust would differ significantly from the reality. If the gas
chamber angle has been exaggerated in popular culture, then that
probably is a mistake.

The Communists worked to death, starved to death, and shot to
death many more millions of people than the Nazis, and by
considerable design and planning. If the gas chambers are not
nearly as significant an element in the Holocaust as has been
popularly thought, then the Nazis were just a small-time version
of the Communists.

Then the question arises: why are we paying so much more
attention to Nazi crimes than Communist crimes in our popular
culture? The Communists murdered around ten times as many
innocent civilians as the Nazis. TEN TIMES. And this doesn't take
into account the massive violations of human rights and the
economic and cultural destruction that occurred under the
Communists for many decades.

Some sort of readjustment in our historical perceptions regarding
twentieth century political mass murder would seem to be in
order. With the Eugene Genovese article in Dissent, the
readjustment may already be underway.

As for Greg Raven's performance in this thread, it would be
comical if it weren't so depressing. Why is it so difficult for
him to work up moral outrage about the fact that Himmler clearly
intended to annihilate as many Jews as possible, by whatever
means possible? The Holocaust may not be quite as unique as it
has been portrayed in popular culture, but it is easily one of
the greatest horrors in all of human history, regardless of
whether gas chambers were the sole or dominant means of execution
or not.


Article 16627 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!torn!news.unb.ca!lysithea.sun.csd.unb.ca!t08o
From: t08o@lysithea.sun.csd.unb.ca (Morrison)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A challenge to Greg Raven: May 4th. Myopia lives!
Date: 25 Sep 1994 20:21:44 GMT
Organization: University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <364m4o$26l@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca>
References:    
NNTP-Posting-Host: lysithea.sun.csd.unb.ca

From: wmcguire@world.std.com (Wayne McGuire)
Subject: Re: A challenge to Greg Raven: May 4th. Myopia lives!
Message-ID: 
References:    
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 1994 19:34:17 GMT

>Then the question arises: why are we paying so much more
>attention to Nazi crimes than Communist crimes in our popular
>culture? The Communists murdered around ten times as many
>innocent civilians as the Nazis. TEN TIMES. And this doesn't take
>into account the massive violations of human rights and the
>economic and cultural destruction that occurred under the
>Communists for many decades.

You cannot in truth compare these two crimes for the simple reason 
that they were motivated by two different rationalities.
Communism, at its heart, is not racist.  Never have I ever heard any
any Communist say that a certain ethnic/cultural group should be simply
destroyed, wiped off the face of the planet.  Why?  Because Communist
thought and theory on class transcends race.  Sure, you can probably
point to many instances where racism and prejudice played a role in
actions of communist countries, the conflict between the USSR and China
possibly being an example, but even at the heights of that struggle
when border clashes were taking place never was a word said about
annihilating the other because of their race.

Any crimes committed by communism were motivated, as has been stated
previously, for political means.  You were thrown into Siberian gulags
for being a political prisoner, not because you were Azerbaijani or
Georgian or Latvian by origin.

On the other hand, Nazi doctrine takes as its heart the concept of
racial, as opposed to class, conflict.  Jews and Gypsies and the
mentally handicapped and homosexuals were thrown into camps just for
being born outside the Nazi ideal of the perfect human.  

[That in itself is worth noting.  At least the Communists had some     ]
[sort of rationale for what they did (elimination of potential threats ]
[to the state).  I'm interested in to hear what "not antisemitic       ]
[revisionists" (oxymoron! oxymoron!) have to say to explain that.  Jews]
[had fought for Germany before, so why lock them up, hmmm?             ]

And that is what makes the Holocaust stick in our collective craws
and makes us loathe those who knowingly dismiss the Holocaust as
fiction.  It had no reason except to kill those who were different
because of their birth.  It is maybe a little easier to except a
political murder because we are used to it.  When you come right
right down to it, war is political murder, but we can understand the
reasons to have a war.  

But to kill someone just because they don't have blond hair and blue
eyes, because they cannot care for themselves very well, that is
probably a good definition of pure evil.


>As for Greg Raven's performance in this thread, it would be
>comical if it weren't so depressing. Why is it so difficult for
>him to work up moral outrage about the fact that Himmler clearly
>intended to annihilate as many Jews as possible, by whatever
>means possible? The Holocaust may not be quite as unique as it
>has been portrayed in popular culture, but it is easily one of
>the greatest horrors in all of human history, regardless of
>whether gas chambers were the sole or dominant means of execution
>or not.

Don't forget Smith and that epitome of illogical thought, landpost.

Keith Morrison
************************************************************
*t08o@unb.ca  *  My views are not those of the University  *
***************  of New Brunswick.  UNB never has views on *
*             *  on anything, ever.                        *
************************************************************


Article 16630 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!library.ucla.edu!agate!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A challenge to Greg Raven: May 4th. Myopia lives!
Date: 25 Sep 1994 21:29:28 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <364q3o$lhi@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References:    
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu

Wayne McGuire   wrote:

# I think this is the popular impression of the Holocaust: "that
# the Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate the Jews, and that
# they specifically contemplated the use of homicidal gas chambers
# to effectuate their plan or policy."

True; however, not all the victims were killed in gas chambers, but 
approximately half of them.

# Then the question arises: why are we paying so much more
# attention to Nazi crimes than Communist crimes in our popular
# culture? 

Possibly, because communism is dead and Nazism seems to be 
trying to raise its head?

# As for Greg Raven's performance in this thread, it would be
# comical if it weren't so depressing. Why is it so difficult for
# him to work up moral outrage about the fact that Himmler clearly
# intended to annihilate as many Jews as possible, by whatever
# means possible? 

Greg Raven wrote on a different net (GEnie) that he greatly
admires Hitler. He described him as a "great man" and "the
best thing that could have happened to Germany". I don't think he
has any problem with what Hitler tried to do. 


-Danny Keren.





Article 16636 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.clark.net!landpost_ppp.clark.net!user
From: landpost@clark.net
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A challenge to Greg Raven
Date: 26 Sep 1994 00:19:31 GMT
Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc.
Lines: 32
Message-ID: 
References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  <35ct3s$jct@prime.mdata.fi>  <35oeg2$49n@prime.mdata.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: landpost_ppp.clark.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

In article <35oeg2$49n@prime.mdata.fi>, kauhunen@mits.mdata.fi (Kari
Nenonen) wrote:

> In article ,
>   wrote:
> 
> >Kari, why don't you give us the details on Finland's attack on the Soviet
> >Union, in what is known here anyway as the "Winter War" which preceded WW
> >II?
> 
> Finland did not attack on the Soviet Union. Read any history book: Soviet
> Union attacked on Finland. What details you are interested of? The "Winter
> War" is very well documented both in Finland and in former SU and even
> Russia agrees today that the Winter War was one of Stalin's imperialistic
> aggressions. If you confuse Winter War with the "Continuention War" so
> there is a real revisionistic issue, which is under a debate even today
> among well respected historians. The real reason for that is the fact
> that during the Existence of the SU that kind of issue was, shall we
> say tabu in Finland for not awaking the "Sleeping Big Bear". Frankly,
> the freedom of speech was somewhat limited in Finland almost fortyfive
> years for the sake of national security. So if you have any questions
> about those two wars, don't hesitate to ask: I will answer.
> 
--------------

I was just testing a theory within some circles that leftists have no
sense of humor or sense of sarcasm. Thanks for proving that this is
correct.


Tim McCarthy
landpost@clark.net


Article 16702 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.clark.net!landpost_ppp.clark.net!user
From: landpost@clark.net
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: History of the Holocaust
Date: 26 Sep 1994 23:30:57 GMT
Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc.
Lines: 49
Message-ID: 
References:  <24SEP199408425373@misvms.bpa.arizona.edu> <364vfh$pfs@access4.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: landpost_ppp.clark.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

In article <364vfh$pfs@access4.digex.net>, mstein@access4.digex.net
(Michael P. Stein) wrote:

> In article <24SEP199408425373@misvms.bpa.arizona.edu>,
> Daniel Mittleman  wrote:
> >greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes...
> >>9/22/89: The Associated Press reports that the Soviet Red Cross has turned
> >>over information regarding the deaths of over 74,000 [actually closer to
> >>69,000] wartime internees of Auschwitz to the International Red Cross. The
> >>news story, which cites Valentina Fatyukhina, head researcher at the Soviet
> >>Red Cross, as saying, RThe deaths of over 74,000 people were neatly
> >>recorded, day after day, hour after hour, in 46 huge volumes. Their names,
> >>the birthdates, and the names of parents were written down.S These volumes,
> >>which have been hidden away by the Soviets for 45 years, remain hidden
> >>until 2/11/92 for fear that revisionists will make use of them(!).
> >
> >    No Greg, she probably meant *real revisionists*.  Not you guys.
> 
>     No, Daniel, she never said anything about revisionists at all.  Look
> again - the line about the revisionists is outside the quotes.  It could
> be that this is Raven's insertion trying to make us think these are the
> thoughts of Fatyukhina.  Raven did the same thing with Pressac's comments
> on the testimony of Boeck.
> 
>     Raven gave a date and a general source, but no more concrete reference
> (such as a newspaper which picked up the AP story).

One can read stories like this on-line, and you would know this if you
didn't spend all of your time in alt.revisionism.

  But if it is indeed a
> deliberate attempt to mislead, it's rather clumsy, as it refers to a date
> 2-1/2 years after the AP story - thus it could not possibly have been part
> of the story!  In any event, this supposed evidence of the fear that
> revisionists strike into the hearts of us hoaxers would certainly seem to
> be just more wishful thinking on Greg's part.
> 

Supposed evidence??? Supposed evidence??? I really can't believe you Stein
could say this whopper!!! These are the REAL DOCUMENTS Stein, you know,
what historians use. 74,000 dead at Auschwitz, not even a single night's
work for the Tory swine British Royal Air Force. The hoax is finished. 

I think that there is much more to come from the Soviet archives. It is
going to get very ugly for the western exterminationist establishment. 


Tim McCarthy
landpost@clark.net

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