Archive/File: holocaust/usa/ihr raven.1094
Last-Modified: 1994/11/01

Article 17058 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!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: Pressac's book
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 1994 02:48:57 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 38
Message-ID: 
References: 
   <36kqhl$sde@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
   <0FVZk0yNUUWH069yn@world.std.com>
   <36lmb0$b5b@access3.digex.net>
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-03.dialip.mich.net

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

> What is your evidence for this? I know that Pressac has said this, but in
> the new book by Berenbaum et al (Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp?),
> Pressac's bio contains the information that he was on the Klarfeld's
> payroll as early as 1982.

To save everyone the trouble, I'll post the quote and a full cite, since
I happen to have the book in my lap.

   Jean-Claude Pressac is a pharmacist and an independent scholar
   working in La Ville du Bois, France.  Since 1982, the work of
   Mr. Pressac has been promoted and supported on a documentary,
   editorial, and financial level by the Beate Klarsfeld Foundation,
   which has published in English the following works of Pressac....
 
      (Yisrael Gutman and Michael Berenbaum, Eds., _Anatomy of the
       Auschwitz Death Camp_, Indiana University Press in assoc.
       with the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, Bloomington and
       Indianapolis, 1994, p. xiii)

I'm not interesting in investigating this further, but perhaps someone
else is.  I would be interested in knowing exactly when Pressac made
the split with Faurisson, but not interested enough to go looking for
it, myself.  :-/


Mr. Raven -- we last exchanged email three days ago, when I wrote you
a long letter explaining again exactly why your analysis of Himmler's
Poznan speeches was totally invalid.  I haven't heard from you since.

Please reassure me that you're not going to drop the issue.

Not emailed to Mr. Raven, as per his repeated request.
-- 
 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 17084 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!spool.mu.edu!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pressac's book
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 1994 07:32:09 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 23
Message-ID: 
References:  
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com

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

> Mr. Raven -- we last exchanged email three days ago, when I wrote you
> a long letter explaining again exactly why your analysis of Himmler's
> Poznan speeches was totally invalid.  I haven't heard from you since.
> 
> Please reassure me that you're not going to drop the issue.
> 
> Not emailed to Mr. Raven, as per his repeated request.

I am not going to drop the issue. I am, however, still busy, and your
message is quite long, as you might remember. I have saved it, and will
respond to it asap.

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
For free information, write to:
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 17208 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!scripps.edu!misrael
From: misrael@scripps.edu (Mark Israel)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Holocaust in history - 10/6
Date: 7 Oct 1994 18:18:53 GMT
Organization: The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, California, USA
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <3743ed$c36@riscsm.scripps.edu>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: struct.scripps.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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

> 10/6/46: Senator Bob Taft (R-Ohio) speaks out against the Nuernberg War
> Crimes Trials, and throws away his and the Republican partyUs chances for
> the presidency in the upcoming elections.

   Did Taft express doubt that the Nazis had committed genocide?

   If so, please provide an exact citation.

   And if not, WHAT'S YOUR POINT?

--
misrael@scripps.edu			Mark Israel


Article 17217 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!newshub.sdsu.edu!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!news.hal.COM!olivea!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!cobra.uni.edu!sunfish!choover
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Holocaust in history - 10/6
Message-ID: 
From: choover@usd.edu (Christopher J Hoover )
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 19:11:49 GMT
Sender: news@sunfish.usd.edu
References:  
Organization: University of South Dakota
Nntp-Posting-Host: sunbird
Lines: 27

bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:

>From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
>>10/6/46: Senator Bob Taft (R-Ohio) speaks out against the Nuernberg War
>>Crimes Trials, and throws away his and the Republican partyUs chances for
>>the presidency in the upcoming elections.

>Strange, Dewey nearly beat Truman, so close that some papers actually
>printed advance headlines for their morning editions declaring Dewey
>triumphant. They're collector's items today.

Not to mention the fact that the "upcoming" elections in 1946 wouldn't 
have even been presidential elections.  Dewey/Truman was in _1948_.  And, 
if memory serves me correctly, 1946 was the off-year election during 
Truman's administration in which the Republican Party actually took 
control of Congress (at least until the 1948 elections, or maybe 1950).  
Which makes one wonder just what the hell Mr. Raven is talking about.

Going to demonstrate, once again, that a Holocaust revisionist historian 
is no historian at all.



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


Article 17218 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!newshub.sdsu.edu!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!news.hal.COM!olivea!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!cobra.uni.edu!sunfish!choover
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pressac's book
Message-ID: 
From: choover@usd.edu (Christopher J Hoover )
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 19:18:17 GMT
Sender: news@sunfish.usd.edu
References:   
Organization: University of South Dakota
Nntp-Posting-Host: sunbird
Lines: 27

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

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

>> Mr. Raven -- we last exchanged email three days ago, when I wrote you
>> a long letter explaining again exactly why your analysis of Himmler's
>> Poznan speeches was totally invalid.  I haven't heard from you since.
>> 
>> Please reassure me that you're not going to drop the issue.
>> 
>> Not emailed to Mr. Raven, as per his repeated request.

>I am not going to drop the issue. I am, however, still busy, and your
>message is quite long, as you might remember. I have saved it, and will
>respond to it asap.

Maybe, while you're at it, we can talk historiography one of these days.



Just a thought,

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


Article 17268 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!pipex!uunet!heifetz.msen.com!lpi.pnet.msen.com!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pressac's book
Date: Sat, 08 Oct 1994 14:37:43 -0400
Organization: Msen, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, MI (account info: +1 313 998-4562)
Lines: 34
Message-ID: 
References: 
   
   
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: lpi.pnet.msen.com

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

> greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:
> 
> >k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:
> 
> >> Mr. Raven -- we last exchanged email three days ago, when I wrote you
> >> a long letter explaining again exactly why your analysis of Himmler's
> >> Poznan speeches was totally invalid.  I haven't heard from you since.
> >> 
> >> Please reassure me that you're not going to drop the issue.
> 
> >I am not going to drop the issue. I am, however, still busy, and your
> >message is quite long, as you might remember. I have saved it, and will
> >respond to it asap.
> 
> Maybe, while you're at it, we can talk historiography one of these days.

Chris,

One of the things I brought up with Mr. Raven in that piece of email
was your analysis of his (totally bogus) historiography.  I believe
I offered to email him the excellent article you posted that referenced
the book your father co-authored;  if I didn't, I make that offer now.

So, if he's going to make a complete response, a defense of his (bogus)
historiography should be one of his main points.  Not that it's very
defensible.

Emailed and posted.
-- 
 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 17275 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!newsflash.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!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: The Holocaust in history - 10/6
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: 6 Oct 1994 06:35 MST
Organization: University of Arizona (BPA)
Lines: 17
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <6OCT199406352523@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...
>10/6/46: Senator Bob Taft (R-Ohio) speaks out against the Nuernberg War
>Crimes Trials, and throws away his and the Republican partyUs chances for
>the presidency in the upcoming elections.

    That's as stupid as saying that Dewey lost because he had a moustache
    that reminded people of Hitler.

    You will note that Taft was not even the nominee in the end, that there
    was labor unrest in the steel industry, that there was racial unrest in
    the South leading to a Dixiecrat party, that there was fallout from the
    dropping of the atomic bomb (pun intended), and that there was lots of
    hoopla over the beginning of the cold war.  Anything Taft may have said
    about Nurenburg has to be measured against all of the other issues of
    the day.  In the end it was at best a small issue in the election.
===========================================================================
daniel david mittleman     -     danny@arizona.edu     -     (602) 621-2932


Article 17289 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access3.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Raven distorts Pressac once more (*yawn*)
Date: 9 Oct 1994 00:45:20 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <377sh0$b00@access3.digex.net>
References:  <0FVZk0yNUUWH069yn@world.std.com> <36lmb0$b5b@access3.digex.net> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: access3.digex.net

    Not content to leave well enough alone after being caught 
distorting p. 181 of Pressac (he's run away from my challenge to submit 
his paraphrase to an independent panel of English teachers for 
comparison with Pressac's original text),  In article 
,
Greg Raven  wrote:
>In article <36lmb0$b5b@access3.digex.net>, mstein@access3.digex.net
>(Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>> Pressac is very interesting because he almost became a "revisionist" 
>> himself.  However, he saw holes in Faurisson's arguments and investigated 
>> the matter himself.
>
>What is your evidence for this? I know that Pressac has said this, but in
>the new book by Berenbaum et al (Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp?),
>Pressac's bio contains the information that he was on the Klarfeld's
>payroll as early as 1982.

    As AnnyA666@aol.com posted, Greg Raven (who, it must be remembered, is
so intimately familiar with Pressac's book that he thought he was entitled
to sneer at me, "If you were familiar with Pressac's work," and refuse to
give me the page number I asked for) left something out of his post - that
Pressac broke with Faurisson two years before he went on the Klarsfeld
payroll.  This was in Pressac's book.  I am truly shocked that someone so
familiar with the book as Mr. Raven could have overlooked that. 

    Is Greg asking me to prove that Pressac is telling the truth about his
state of mind?  How does he expect me to do that?  But I'll make a deal
with him.  I'll give him proof that Pressac is telling the truth the day
Raven proves to me he's an honest, fair-minded individual who can and will
objectively evaluate evidence for the existence of homicidal gas chambers at
Auschwitz, or a Nazi plan or policy to kill Jews.

    Greg, what's your BEST EVIDENCE that you are both consistent and 
honest in evaluating the evidence for historical occurrences?

    Perhaps Mr. Raven could ask Dr. Faurisson what he thinks about
Pressac's intentions before the break, and go by that.  That is - assuming
Dr. Faurisson will speak to Mr. Raven.  You see, the night I had dinner
with Faurisson, when Raven's name came up, Dr. Faurisson muttered the name
and got an expression on his face that I usually associate with someone
who has just stepped in dogshit.  But maybe it was just that the Indian
food didn't agree with him.  As Bradley Smith might say, who can tell. 

-- 
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 17337 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!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!schultz
From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Greg Raven, historian extraodinaire
Date: 10 Oct 1994 00:42:10 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <37a2l2$ga4@agate.berkeley.edu>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:

>10/6/46: Senator Bob Taft (R-Ohio) speaks out against the Nuernberg War
>Crimes Trials, and throws away his and the Republican party's chances for
>the presidency in the upcoming elections.

Alt.revisionism readers may be interested in the following, which I
quote without comment.

					Richard Schultz
============================================
Senator Robert A. Taft, Republican, of Ohio, charged today at the Kenyon
College conference of the heritage and responsibility of the English-speaking
peoples that the verdict at Nuremberg was a miscarriage of justice which the
American people would long regret.
The Senator said that at Nuremberg, the United States had helped clothe
vengeance in the forms of legal procedure. . .
Senator Taft deplored the decree of death by hanging for eleven German
leaders and for a twelfth who was tried in absentia.  In a reply to a 
question from the floor, he contended that life imprisonment, "just as
was given Napoleon," would have been sufficient punishment. . . .
Professor [Harold J.] Laski [of the University of London Political
Science department] challenged the consistency of the Senator's remarks,
asserting that if it were proper judicial porcedure to send a man to 
prison for life in an ex-post-facto proceeding, it was equally proper
to impose a more severe penalty.
			-- New York Times, 6 October 1946, page 1


REPUBLICANS CONTROL CONGRESS WITH 51 IN SENATE, 249 IN HOUSE
--
LANDSLIDE RESULT
--
Party Also Has Majority of Governors in the Nationwide Overturn
			-- New York Times, 7 November 1946, page 1 headline


Senator Robert A. Taft, Republican, of Ohio, reviewing the election results,
today declared that "for the first time in fourteen years the United States
no longer is in a state of emergency."
"The results of the election show that the American people definitely are 
opposed to giving an arbitraty central government the power and money to
regulate their daily lives," he continued.
"Under Republican leadership we can sit down calmly and work out the 
constructive measures necessary for peace, for full employment under private
enterprise and for social welfare, while leaving the people free to 
run their own affairs."
			-- New York Times, 7 November 1946 


Article 17354 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!torn!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!news
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Collins: Out of the Closet
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 1994 21:52:02 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 87
Distribution: world
Message-ID: 
References: <1994Oct05.234523.1724@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: greg-ihr.earthlink.net
X-Newsreader: NewsHopper Demo

In article <1994Oct05.234523.1724@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>,
kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) wrote:

>Right-wing columnist Doug Collins came out of the closet yesterday and
>denied the Holocaust occurred.
>
>"I don't believe in the gas-chamber story," he said. "I don't believe
>the six-million figure."

Not believing that six million Jews died as a plan or policy of the Nazis
is NOT the same as denying the Holocaust.

>Collins, whose columns for the North Shore News are being reprinted by
>a prominent anti-Semitic group in the U.S., claimed only one million
>Jews died - of starvation and disease and not in gas chambers.

The Institute for Historical review is NOT an anti-Semitic group. The IHR
has no official position on the number of Jews who died during the Second
World War.

>Several of his columns have been reprinted in the journal of the
>Institute for Historical Review. The Newport Beach, Calif.,
>organization is described by Nazi-fighters as a cornerstone of the
>U.S. neo-Nazi movement.

Poor description. The IHR has nothing to do with Nazis, neo or otherwise,
on any organizational basis. If Nazis, neo or otherwise, or anyone else
wishes to make use of the findings of our research, that is their affair.
The IHR is non-political.

>The group's publications include The Hoax of the Twentieth Century,
>The Auschwitz Myth and Is the Diary of Anne Frank Genuine?
>
>"It is the headquarters for the Holocaust-denial movement," said
>University of B.C. history professor Christopher Friedrichs.

Again, false. The IHR does NOT deny the Holocaust.

>"No serious historian would waste his time debating whether (the
>Holocaust) took place. It's like asking if the First World War took
>place."

The IHR does not Rwaste ... time debating whether (the Holocaust) took
place.S We investigate specific Holocaust related claims for accuracy.

>Said Ken McVay, the Vancouver Island man who fights Nazi propaganda on
>the Internet: "It's sort of hitting the big time of racism by
>associating with these guys."

False. This is an unsupported and unsupportable statement.

>"The motive behind it goes back to Hitler-cleansing. They want fascism
>to become respectable. To become respectable you must get rid of the
>Holocaust."

Utterly false. The motive is accuracy in reporting the historical record.
The IHR rejects the implication that the truth leads to facism, just as it
does the implication that falsehoods lead to other, non-facist forms of
government.

>Collins said he is not a member of the IHR, but attended one of its
>conventions in 1990 to speak about his experiences as a Second World
>War prisoner.

The IHR has no members. During his speech, Collins made quite clear that he
does not agree with all the positions taken by the IHR.

>Said Dr. Robert Krell, president of the Vancouver Holocaust Centre
>Society for Education and Remembrance: "It saddens me that in this day
>and age of accessible factual information that what happened is
>distorted for other means. We do not have to look far in our world
>today to see the evidence of renewed racist assaults and genocides."

Inaccurate and nonsequitous. The IHR is increasing our store of factual
information, not decreasing it. The IHR is not knowingly distorting
anything. REvidence of ... racist assaults and genocidesS has nothing to do
with the work of the IHR.





Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
For free information about historical revisionism, the IHR can be reached at:
P.O. Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659
The IHR publishes a bi-monthly journal, The Journal of Historical Review
Subscriptions are $40 per year (six issues)


Article 17355 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!torn!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!news
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Debunk these exterminationist LIES!
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 1994 21:52:06 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 35
Distribution: world
Message-ID: 
References:    <3710os$4e0@eis.calstate.edu> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: greg-ihr.earthlink.net
X-Newsreader: NewsHopper Demo

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

>I've been waiting for a long time for someone who will actually
>dedicate some time to discussing the issues with me, because it is
>my firm belief that the only barriers to proving that Holocaust-denial
>is a load of bull are dedication and time.  All I want is one denier,
>the more prominent the better, to commit to sticking to one topic for
>as long as it takes to hash it out.  That's all I need.
>
>And I'll have to keep waiting, because no one has taken me up on that
>yet.  (Though I'm still holding out for the possibility that Mr. Raven
>will continue to discuss Poznan with me;  I haven't yet dismissed the
>possibility that his failure to respond is due solely to software and
>network difficulties.)  So wait I will.

I am happy to see that that McCarthy does not explicitly call me a
Rdenier,S as I am not such. However, it is misleading for him to claim to
be waiting for a RdenierS to debate, when a non-denier, myself, has for
months urged him and others like him to stick to the one simple topic I
proposed. He and the others, of course, have not only failed to stick to
the topic, they have, as far as I can tell, failed to respond
substantively.

If Mr. McCarthy would accept a single-topic discussion with me instead of a
Rdenier,S he knows where to find me.




Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
For free information about historical revisionism, the IHR can be reached at:
P.O. Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659
The IHR publishes a bi-monthly journal, The Journal of Historical Review
Subscriptions are $40 per year (six issues)


Article 17356 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!torn!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!news
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Debunk these exterminationist LIES!
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 1994 21:52:09 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 24
Distribution: world
Message-ID: 
References:  <3722sh$e1r@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: greg-ihr.earthlink.net
X-Newsreader: NewsHopper Demo

In article <3722sh$e1r@newsbf01.news.aol.com>,
annya666@aol.com (AnnyA666) wrote:

>In article ,
>k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) writes:
>
>< All I want is one denier,
>
References: <36u5pu$k1o@agate.berkeley.edu> <36vln2$nvi@newsbf01.news.aol.com> <3717bq$equ@access4.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: greg-ihr.earthlink.net
X-Newsreader: NewsHopper Demo

In article <3717bq$equ@access4.digex.net>,
mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:

>In article <36vln2$nvi@newsbf01.news.aol.com>,
>AnnyA666  wrote:
>>Funny thing about German...words like "exekutiert" mean exactly what they
>>sound like.  I've noticed that deniers take a powder when you bring up the
>>Einsatzgruppe Reports.
>
>    Actually, Greg Raven *is* willing to address them.  He merely said a) 
>they were exaggerated (though he gives absolutely no evidence to support 
>this claim), and b) the fact that they list the murder of hundreds of 
>thousands of Jews is in no way evidence of a plan or policy of killing 
>Jews.  (He did admit this was a fine point.)

The lengths to which some people will go to misrepresent the revisionist
position is breathtaking.

You do not need to take my word for it that the Einsatzgruppen reports are
exaggerated. Check what the reports claim to be the death toll, and check
to see what Hilberg says is the death toll. You will see, I believe, that
Hilberg does not believe that all deaths claimed by the Einsatzgruppen
actually occurred.

I have never said anything about plans or policy with regards to the
Einsatzgruppen. My statements about plans and/or policies are related to
the alleged gas chambers.




Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
For free information about historical revisionism, the IHR can be reached at:
P.O. Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659
The IHR publishes a bi-monthly journal, The Journal of Historical Review
Subscriptions are $40 per year (six issues)


Article 17358 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!torn!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!news
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mass paperback edition of Pressac????
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 1994 21:52:14 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 25
Distribution: world
Message-ID: 
References: <-54bk0yNU68E069yn@world.std.com>  <1994Oct7.114055.23012@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de>  <3780hc$c57@access3.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: greg-ihr.earthlink.net
X-Newsreader: NewsHopper Demo

In article <3780hc$c57@access3.digex.net>,
mstein@access3.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:

>In article ,
>  wrote:
>>Wrong. With the appearance of the mass-paperback edition, Pressac added
>>several appendixes which dealt with questions of documentation, etc. Good
>>stuff.
>
>    Huh?  When did this come out?  I've been lugging that 11"x17" 
>hardcover of "Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers" to
>the photocopier for nothing? 

I believe the hardcover edition was sent to libraries and research
facilities. The RpaperbackS edition was the one sold to customers, from
what I have been able to tell. Both editions are the same size.




Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
For free information about historical revisionism, the IHR can be reached at:
P.O. Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659
The IHR publishes a bi-monthly journal, The Journal of Historical Review
Subscriptions are $40 per year (six issues)


Article 17359 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!torn!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!news
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mechanics of the hoax?
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 1994 21:52:16 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 19
Distribution: world
Message-ID: 
References: <1560600023@cdp>  <1994Oct5.230447.30679@miavx1>
NNTP-Posting-Host: greg-ihr.earthlink.net
X-Newsreader: NewsHopper Demo

In article <1994Oct5.230447.30679@miavx1>,
bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Raskolnikov) wrote:

>See Joseph Halow, Siegerjustiz in Dachau. Druffel Verlag, Berg am See,
>> Germany. Halow was a young clerk at Dachau for the Americans and he tells
>> it like it was. I think there is an English edition under another title.
>> How is that for a start?

The English-language edition was published by the Institute for Historical
Review under the title, RInnocent at Dachau.S




Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
For free information about historical revisionism, the IHR can be reached at:
P.O. Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659
The IHR publishes a bi-monthly journal, The Journal of Historical Review
Subscriptions are $40 per year (six issues)


Article 17370 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!agate!maverick
From: maverick@cork.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Vance Maverick)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Debunk these exterminationist LIES!
Date: 10 Oct 1994 08:46:51 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 15
Distribution: world
Message-ID: 
References: 
	<3722sh$e1r@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
	
NNTP-Posting-Host: cork.cs.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com's message of Sun, 09 Oct 1994 21:52:09 -0800

In article  greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:
> Aside from the fact that I cannot devote hours and hours to this debate,
> McCarthy has described exactly what I tried to do, that is, state a simple
> topic, and then discuss it. Neither McCarthy nor anyone else on this
> newsgroup choose to stick to the topic. Now he wants to? He knows where he
> can find me!

Lest this start to look like Greg and Jamie shouting mere
contradictory assertions, let me record what I saw as a lurker: far
from "stating a simple topic", Greg stated an extremely broad topic
(the entire Holocaust) with a crippling, silly restriction on the form
of debate -- the infamous "best single piece of evidence".  There's a
big difference between a topic and a piece of evidence....

	Vance


Article 17404 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!torn!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Debunk these exterminationist LIES!
In-Reply-To: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com's message of Sun, 09 Oct 1994 21:52:09 -0800
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References: 
	<3722sh$e1r@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
	
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 20:43:58 GMT
Lines: 18


From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
>Aside from the fact that I cannot devote hours and hours to this debate,
>McCarthy has described exactly what I tried to do, that is, state a simple
>topic, and then discuss it. Neither McCarthy nor anyone else on this
>newsgroup choose to stick to the topic. Now he wants to? He knows where he
>can find me!

What claptrap, you have devoted hours and hours to repeating over and
over that you cannot devote hours and hours.

Such transparent claptrap.

-- 
        -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 17499 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!swrinde!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: What Holocaust could be so proved?
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 1994 22:04:33 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 41
Message-ID: 
References:  
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com

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

> Over the past few months, Mr. Raven has made it abundantly clear that
> he will settle for one (or possibly two) pieces of evidence, and that
> those alone must prove the Holocaust.  Mr. Raven has defined the
> Holocaust as inherently involving gas chambers, and he insists that
> the evidence specifically address gas chambers.  He has refused even to
> look at evidence regarding a gassing of 900 Russian POWs, because they
> weren't Jewish, and Mr. Raven has defined the Holocaust to deal
> exclusively with Jews.

As usual, my comments are being completely mischaracterized.

I have NEVER said that I want to see the one piece of evidence that proves
the Holocaust. I have said that I want to discuss the claim that there was
a Nazi plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers,
and that I want to discuss this claim by looking at the best evidence
first.

I do not define the Holocaust as a single event, or even as only those
events that include gas chambers. I agree that a holocaust took place. What
I am trying to get at is what comprises that holocaust? I contend that
there is no evidence to support claims that homicidal gas chambers were
part of the Holocaust.

As to Keren's "evidence," Keren did not supply evidence, he supplied
testimonies. Testimonies may support evidence, but they are not themselves
evidence. Even if Keren's testimonies were evidence, my request was
specifically for evidence of a Nazi plan or policy to exterminate Jews in
gas chambers. Keren's testimony about a "trial gassing" of Russion POW is
'way off point.

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
For free information, write to:
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 17500 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Himmler's speech
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 1994 22:14:40 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 36
Message-ID: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com

I fail to understand how so many people in alt.revisionism could be so
interested in what I have to say about Himmler's speech of Oct 4, and yet
have missed what I had to say about this earlier.

I will not recreate the entire message, but briefly my point was this:

There are only two ways to look at Himmler's speech, if you are looking for
evidence that the Nazis had a plan or policy of exterminating the Jews in
gas chambers, which as anyone knows who has been paying attention, is what
I have repeatedly asked to discuss.

The first way of looking at it is to see what it says, without comparing
the speech to anything else. Himmler says some grim things, but he does not
mention gas chambers. Thus, if this is the best evidence of the use of gas
chambers to kill Jews, we see there is no evidence.

The second way of looking at it is to compare it with other similar
speeches he made at about that same time. In December of that same year,
Himmler gave basically the same speech (yes, this so-called "secret" plan
to exterminate the Jews was apparently either not so secret or not so much
of an extermination that Himmler told audience after audience about it),
only he was more clear about what was happening to the Jews. In this
speech, which I have posted earlier and will not repost now, Himmler makes
no mention of gas chambers, but does say roughly what is happening to the
Jews. It is still grim business, but there are no gas chambers involved.

Is this really what everyone has been in a lather about?

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
For free information, write to:
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 17502 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: 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!EU.net!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: What Holocaust could be so proved?
In-Reply-To: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com's message of Wed, 12 Oct 1994 22:04:33 -0800
Message-ID: 
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References:  
	
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 06:27:28 GMT
Lines: 65


From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
>I do not define the Holocaust as a single event, or even as only those
>events that include gas chambers. I agree that a holocaust took place. What
>I am trying to get at is what comprises that holocaust? I contend that
>there is no evidence to support claims that homicidal gas chambers were
>part of the Holocaust.

Here, a stunningly specific and clear excerpt from a report written by
SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Alfred Franke-Gricksch for SS-Colonel M. Von Herff
and RF-SS Heinreich Himmler describing gassing and cremation of Jews
at Auschwitz after an inspection on May 14-16, 1943. Includes the
estimate of 500,000 victims thus far.

Now, unless you can prove this is somehow a forgery, or that somehow
this report written by one Nazi officer for two other Nazi officers of
the highest ranks and in the course of their duties was somehow
fabricated or done under duress I think we are done. You may consider
any other evidence as supporting, of course. But it is hard to
conceive of a more convincing bit of evidence than the following
internal Nazi government report prepared for themselves:


                        --------------------


  "..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 17512 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!ctp.org!not-for-mail
From: jpark@eis.calstate.edu (John Park)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's speech
Date: 13 Oct 1994 08:15:20 -0700
Organization: California Technology Project of The Calif State Univ
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <37jiu8$sgc@eis.calstate.edu>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: eis.calstate.edu

greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:
> I fail to understand how so many people in alt.revisionism could be so
> interested in what I have to say about Himmler's speech of Oct 4, and yet
> have missed what I had to say about this earlier.
> 
Well, gee Greg. Going for many months between postings do make for a 
tendancy to wonder where in the world you are.

> I will not recreate the entire message, but briefly my point was this:
> 
I think you should recreate or repost earlier messages. There might be 
some flaky newsreaders out there.

> There are only two ways to look at Himmler's speech, if you are looking for
> evidence that the Nazis had a plan or policy of exterminating the Jews in
> gas chambers, which as anyone knows who has been paying attention, is what
> I have repeatedly asked to discuss.
> 
Well, golly gee Greg. I thought you wanted the best evidence for the 
Holocaust, not use of gas chambers. I thought the Holocaust was a plan to 
exterminate the Jews and that gas chambers were one of the techniques 
used. It seems to you that Himmler saying more-or-less that they intend 
to exterminate the Jews is not evidence that they intend to use gas 
chambers. I suppose you then have agreed, by your silence, that there was 
a plan to exterminate the Jews. Good. Now, move on to the evidence that 
gas chambers were used.

> The first way of looking at it is to see what it says, without comparing
> the speech to anything else. Himmler says some grim things, but he does not
> mention gas chambers. Thus, if this is the best evidence of the use of gas
> chambers to kill Jews, we see there is no evidence.
> 
See, here's the trap. Suppose someone submits evidence about gas 
chambers. Then you say "Ah, but the _best evidence_ for gas chambers has 
already ben submitted to me and it wasn't evidence at all. Yours must be 
a forgery."

> The second way of looking at it is to compare it with other similar
> speeches he made at about that same time. In December of that same year,
> Himmler gave basically the same speech (yes, this so-called "secret" plan
> to exterminate the Jews was apparently either not so secret or not so much
> of an extermination that Himmler told audience after audience about it),
> only he was more clear about what was happening to the Jews. In this
> speech, which I have posted earlier and will not repost now, Himmler makes
> no mention of gas chambers, but does say roughly what is happening to the
> Jews. It is still grim business, but there are no gas chambers involved.
> 
The so-called "secret" plan. Maybe Himmer didn't care who knew because he 
knew no one could stop them.

"will not repost now." Why the hell not? Are you afraid of something? It 
must be that you feel your side of the story is unsupportable, that's 
what I think.

> Is this really what everyone has been in a lather about?

No. What has everyone in a lather is your failure to address the evidence 
submitted, to play fast-and-loose with the truth, and to use a double 
standard even more blatant than my rebellious sixteen-year-old stepdaughter.

Answer the questions submitted to you time and time again. In addition, 
don't answer me. I do not have the resources or time. Answer J. McCarthy, 
Keren, etc. Deal with the May 4th post which they will be happy to 
repost. Answer how Himmler saying we will exterminate the Jews is not 
evidence of a plan to exterminate the Jews.

Quit with the baby talk. Quit with the manipulative little word games.


John Park
jpark@eis.calstate.edu


Article 17519 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!world!wmcguire
From: wmcguire@world.std.com (Wayne McGuire)
Subject: Re: Himmler's speech
Message-ID: 
Sender: wmcguire@world.std.com (Wayne McGuire)
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
References:  <37jiu8$sgc@eis.calstate.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 19:31:11 GMT
Lines: 69

In article <37jiu8$sgc@eis.calstate.edu>,
jpark@eis.calstate.edu (John Park) wrote:

//Well, golly gee....

Let me give you some friendly advice. When you say "Well, golly
gee" once, not to mention twice, you look like a moron.

Could I please have a list of the works you are willing to
discuss and defend in this newsgroup? Thanks. My list appears in
another message. Feel free to query me about any of the works on
the list.

With regard to the Himmler speech, I just noticed some
interesting relevant material in Mayer on pages 306-307.

On January 25, 1942, five days after the Wannsee Conference,
Hitler spoke the following words to Himmler:

     The Jew must get out of Europe. Otherwise we will get no
     European understanding. The world over he is the chief
     agitator against us.... All I say is that he must go away.
     If, in the process, he is bruised, I can't help it. If he
     does not leave voluntarily, I see no solution other than
     extermination.

Now, this is interesting. Certainly the remarks indicate that the
Nazi leadership had the extermination of the Jews on their mind
as an option in the early forties. But it also striking that the
better option in Hitler's mind in 1942 was migration, evacuation,
deportation, or resettlement.

According to Mayer, the Nazis did NOT have a deliberate plan in
place for exterminating the Jews for as late as the late thirties
or early forties. In fact, there is an abundance of evidence that
nearly all along they wished to push the Jews out of Germany and
Europe, not murder them. That is why they cooperated so closely
with Zionists for years. According to Mayer, the Judeocide began
in earnest when Germany's drive on the Soviet Union faltered, and
all avenues of escape for Jewish emigration were cut off.

How would you interpret Hitler's comment above, and do you have
any informed and rational criticism of Mayer's thesis?

Did the attitudes of Germans towards Jews in the thirties differ
very greatly from the current attitude of Israeli Jews towards
Arabs? High Israeli leaders have compared Palestinians to
cockroaches and insects and wild beasts that need to be crushed.
If Israel's back was against the wall and she was facing a
military defeat, I have no doubt whatever that Israel would lob
nuclear devices all over the Arab world, destroying as many tens
of millions of Arabs as possible. I have even seen supporters of
Israel on the net claim that Israel would try to destroy as much
of the entire world as possible, including the U.S., with a
doomsday device if she were facing a military defeat.

The crimes of the Nazis were monstrous. How unique they were is
another question. Marxists murdered many more innocent civilians
than did the Nazis, and while it was happening leading lights of
Western opinion like The New York Times couldn't have cared less.
If there had been an appropriate response of moral outrage in the
West to the crimes of the Soviet Union, it's quite possible that
the Holocaust could have been averted. Once the green light was
given to that mass murder, other mass murders were inevitable.

According to Paul Johnson in Modern Times, Soviet Marxists
helped provoke and set the standards for what later came to be
known as the Holocaust. He makes a powerful case, one which I am
willing to discuss with anyone here who has read his book.


Article 17536 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.kei.com!uhog.mit.edu!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 22:02:39 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 220
Message-ID: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com

At 18:32 10/13/94 -0400, Jamie McCarthy wrote:

>By the way, are you planning on mentioning Usenet happenings in the
>Journal?

We are planning some sort of article relating to revisionism and the
Internet, yes.

>> I thought I saw and responded to a couple of your replies to the Himmler
>> piece. I don't keep a record of either incoming or outgoing posts, however,
>> so I cannot repost anything.
>
>You're using NewsWatcher, right?
>
>You can set it up to point to a folder that you use to archive articles,
>and do mass saves by selecting the articles in the newsgroup window and
>just pressing cmd-S.  It will then save each article that's selected out
>to disk for later browsing.  If you'd like more explicit directions, let
>me know.

I am using NewsWatcher over a serial connection, and this does not seem to
work (I had tried it before you suggested it). Perhaps over a PPP
connection, it does work.

>> 1) the Himmler Posen speech does not
>> satisfy the request for "best evidence" because it does not mention gas
>> chambers,
>
>With regards to your first point, you have two alternatives.  Either you
>can accept proof of the Nazis' plan for mass murder that was carried out
>in gas chambers in two parts (one to prove the plan, and another to
>prove that it was carried out in gas chambers) -- or, you are insisting
>that there be one single piece of evidence that proves all of the
>following:  (1) that there was a plan, (2) the fact that millions were
>killed, (3) the fact that the victims were Jews, and (4) the totally
>ancillary fact that the agent of death, in many cases, was a gas chamber.

Any proof of the type I envision (remembering that there is alleged to be a
mountain of proof from which to choose) would cover all the bases. Saying
that the Himmler speech constitutes a "plan," and then introducing some
other unconnected piece of evidence about some sort of gas chamber doesn't
cut it. Remember, I am not trying to question or disprove all Holocaust
claims, just the ones relating to the gas chambers. Therefore, the gas
chambers are not "totally ancillary," as you state.

What I envision happening is that someone, if not yourself, will admit a)
there is NOT a mountain of evidence supporting Holocaust extermination
claims (something which should be self-evident at this point), and b)
"sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and
unreliable," so to speak.

>If the former -- if you will accept proof in two parts -- then I will be
>happy to direct you to other pieces of evidence which detail the gas
>chambers' role in the Holocaust.

If you have evidence (not testimony, mind you) as to the role of the gas
chambers, you should present that first. The Himmler speech has nothing to
do with it.

>But it appears that you are going to go with the latter, not the former
>-- that you are going to insist that one single piece of evidence prove
>not only the core of the Holocaust (the plan to exterminate European
>Jewry) but one aspect of the _way_ in which it was done.

I am NOT asking for a single piece of evidence that proves the "core of the
Holocaust," as you put it. I am asking for the BEST piece of evidence that
supports the claim that the Nazis had a plan or policy of exterminating
Jews in gas chambers.

>My question to you, then, would be:  why?  Why will you not accept
>Himmler's saying "the Jews are being exterminated," if you _would_
>accept him saying "the Jews are being exterminated in gas chambers"?

Trick question, right? Himmler never says that Jews are being exterminated
in gas chambers, so I wouldn't accept that, either. However, not to put too
fine a point on it, neither I nor other revisionists I know claim that the
Nazis did not persecute a large number of Jews. I accept what Himmler said
about Jews being exterminated (semantics aside for the moment) because, the
way he describes it, that could be regarded as an accurate description of
what is happening.

>At this point, it seems that your choice of gas chambers is totally
>arbitrary.  Why does Himmler have to mention gas chambers and not,
>e.g., the Einsatzgruppen, or the fact that Jews were being worked to
>death at Auschwitz?  What rationale do you have for insisting on this?

My choice of the gas chambers is far from arbitrary. If you believe it is,
then all you have to do is admit that there were no homicidal gas chambers,
and then see how many of your so-called friends remain friendly! The gas
chambers are NOT beside the point ... the ARE the point.

>> 2) when looked at in the context of other versions of the
>> speech given around that same time, we can see that Himmler was not talking
>> about gassings of any kind.
>
>With regard to your second point, I still don't get what you're saying.
>The snippet you posted from December 1943 was of Himmler talking about
>his actions in villages, against what he referred to as "partisans or
>Jewish commissars."  He stated that, in these villages, he was killing
>the partisans and Jewish commissars down to the women and children.
>
>Now, I guess your claim is that, because Himmler said in December that
>he was killing Jewish commissars (and others) in villages, then in
>October he could not possibly have been speaking of what was going on
>in gas chambers in Auschwitz.  Do I have that right?

No. I am saying that what Himmler is talking about is the so-called
"extermination" previously referred to. I agree that he COULD have been
gassing millions in Auschwitz and elsewhere too, for that matter. But let's
see some evidence of these gassings. That is the point.

>Perhaps I don't understand what you meant by "other versions of the
>speech given around that same time."  Is it your claim that Himmler was
>giving nearly the same speech, and simply chose to rephrase that part
>slightly differently, keeping the same meaning?  If so, you may be
>a little confused.  There were two speeches at Poznan, on the 4th and
>6th of October.  The excerpt from the December speech you quote sounds a
>lot like a section of the October 6th speech, in which he asks "how was
>it with the women and children?" and explains that they had to die as
>well.  But that's different from the October 4th speech.  And it's the
>October 4th speech that I'm quoting:  "'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.'"
>Different versions of the October 6th speech will provide insight as to
>nuances of meaning in _that_ speech, of course, but will have no impact
>on the October 4th speech.

Well, we differ in our interpretations of this (off point) detail. I
believe that Himmler's speeches of October 4 and 6, as well as others of
the time (including the December speech), are variations on the same theme.
The way I remember it, Himmler was giving the same basic speech to group
after group. Because he was to some extent speaking extemporaneously, each
version was slightly different in actual verbiage, but the intended message
was similar, if not the same. This, however, is a minor point, as none of
this concerns the so-called gas chambers.

>Finally, I will address the other two points you made:  that you might
>argue that it's a forgery, and that, in your words, "even if it did
>mention gas chambers, it would not be evidence, it would still be
>nothing more than a speech."
>
>Regarding the possible-forgery argument:  my response is, if you have a
>case, make it!  If you don't have a case, drop it.  There's so much to
>discuss that I have little patience for hints and innuendo.

I merely mentioned this because others have brought it up. If and when we
get some agreement on the gas chamber issue, we can discuss the ins and
outs of Himmler's speech, if you wish. However, this is a pretty small
detail, and not really worth discussing at this point. What I am saying is
that even if the commonly-held version of Himmler's speech is completely
accurate and genuine, it still has no bearing on the gas chamber issue.

>Regarding speeches not being evidence, I have two replies.  The first is
>that, indeed, speeches most certainly are evidence that historians use
>to evaluate what happened at some point in history.  Christopher Hoover
>wrote a marvelous discussion of how historians use oral testimony, and
>he should know.  His father, a professional historian, is the author of
>the 1975 book _The Practice of Oral History_.  Mr. Hoover has worked
>with his father rather extensively, as I understand it, and is well
>qualified to represent his views (and those of the co-authors of that
>book).

I will agree that "oral history" is a type of history, but it is hardly
unimpeachable. I would be more inclined to accept an oral history about
something of little import, or of something that could not possibly have
any evidence. However, the construction and use of multiple homicidal gas
chambers for the destruction of hundreds of thousands of human beings
cannot be said to be such a trivial matter that no physical evidence
exists.

>The second reply to "speeches are not evidence" regards a comment you
>made _after_ you said that speeches are not evidence, a comment which I
>found truly interesting.  While this doesn't directly relate to the
>Poznan speeches, I found it very curious.  I'll simply repeat what I
>wrote on September 20th, and if you choose to reply, fine.
>
>> 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?

No, because there is no linkage between the two.

>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.

"Convergence of evidence" is something else, as I understand it, which is
to say that none of the so-called "evidence" is enough to stand alone, so
one must prop it up with other "evidence" that is also not enough by
itself. I reject this methodology.

Let me give you a trivial example. If you and one hundred of your friends
swore to me that there was a 15-story MacDonald's hamburger stand in your
city, I would doubt your claims (even if I had never been in your city).
However, if I had seen the building, photos of the building, or some other
tangible, physical evidence of the building's existence, and then you or
someone made a statement relative to this monster burger hut, it would be a
fairly simple matter to evaluate your claim based on the actual evidence.


-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
For free information, write to:
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 17540 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: The other Himmler
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 07:25:38 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 57
Message-ID: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com

May 1940 memo to Hitler: RI hope to see the complete elimination of the
concept of the Jew through the possibility of a large-scale emigration of
all Jews to Africa or otherwise in a colony;S Rout of inner convictionS the
idea of Rphysical elimination of a people [must be rejected] as un-Germanic
and impossible.S

October 29, 1942 letter to Inspector General Richard Gluecks and Gestapo
head Heinrich Mueller: REffective immediately, I authorize that the
prisoners may receive food packages from their relatives. The number of
packages that a prisoner may receive is unlimited. This order includes not
only Germans but all other prisoners I Any SS member who takes away a food
package from a prisoner will be punished with death.S

November 20 (or 30?), 1942 letter to Gestapo chief Mueller in response to
an announcement by Rabbi Stephen Wise of the American Jewish Congress and
World Jewish Congress that the Germans were exterminating the Jews: RYou
are to see to it that an investigation is carried out at once in all
quarters to find out if there have been any such abuses, as claimed in the
doubtless mendacious rumors disseminated in the world. All such abuses are
to be reported to me on the SS oath of honor.S

December 15, 1942 letter to camp administration chief Oswald Pohl: urges
more raw vegetables in the camp diet to improve the inmatesU health.

December 28, 1942: orders camp commandants to reduce the death rate at all
costs.

January 1943 directive to concentration camp officials: RThe responsible SS
leaders are to see to it that, while we have to be hard and cannot tolerate
softness, no brutality is to be allowed either.S

February 16, 1943 memo from Brandt to Kaltenbrunner: RThe ReichsFhrer SS
[Himmler] does not wish the transport of Jews from Theresienstadt because
that would disturb the tendency to permit the Jews in the old peopleUs
ghetto of Theresienstadt to live and die there in peace.S

March 5, 1943 letter to Oswald Pohl: give serious attention to setting up a
brothel at Buchenwald; trained workers must receive a salary; every man in
camp must have the opportunity to visit the camp brothel once or twice a
week.

1943-44: Fully supports extensive internal SS investigation of reports of
murder and mistreatment of inmates in the camps.

February 10, 1944 letter to HitlerUs secretary Martin Bormann: Majdanek
commandant Herman Florstedt has been arrested because of the terrible
conditions at the camp; Rabuses are being ruthlessly rooted out and
remedied in a sweeping judicial action.S

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
For free information, write to:
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 17542 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!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: Himmler's speech
Date: 14 Oct 1994 07:16:33 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 104
Message-ID: <37lb8h$4i8@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References:  <37jiu8$sgc@eis.calstate.edu> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu

Wayne McGuire  wrote:

# According to Mayer, the Nazis did NOT have a deliberate plan in
# place for exterminating the Jews for as late as the late thirties
# or early forties. 

It's hard to say when exactly the decision to physically 
exterminate the Jews was arrived at. Personally, I think the
idea was always there, but even the Nazis needed to pass
some psychological barrier before deciding to kill millions
of men, women and children. A truly remarkable document on
this is the following speech by Frank, governor of Nazi-occupied
Poland:

Speech by Frank [Governor of occupied Poland], December 16 1941
[Documents on the Holocaust - Edited by Y. Arad, Y. Gutman, A. Margaliot,
NY, Ktav Pub. House in Association with Yad-Vashem, 1981, p. 247, Nazi 
Conspiracy and Aggression - Washington, U.S Govt. Print. 
Off., 1946 Vol. II p. 634]
---------------------------------------------------------------
One way or another -- I will tell you quite openly -- we must finish 
off the Jews. The Fuehrer put it into words once: should united Jewry
again succeed in setting off a world war, then the blood sacrifice
shall not be made only by the peoples driven into war, but then the
Jew of Europe will have met his end....

But what should be done with the Jews? Can you believe that they will
be accommodated in settlements in the Ostland? In Berlin we were told:
why are you making all this trouble? We don't want them either, not in
Ostland nor in the Reichskommissariat; liquidate them yourselves!
Gentlemen, I must ask you to steel yourselves against all
considerations of compassion. We must destroy the Jews wherever we
find them, and wherever it is at all possible, in order to maintain
the whole structure of the Reich...

The Jews represent for us also extraordinary malignant gluttons. We
have now approximately 2,500,000 of them in the General Government
[Nazi occupied Poland], perhaps with the Jewish mixtures and
everything that goes with it, 3,500,000 Jews. We cannot shoot or
poison those 3,500,000 Jews, but we shall nevertheless be able to take
measures which will lead somehow to their annihilation, and this in
connection with the gigantic measures to be determined in discussions
with the Reich.



Frank's words reveal how, slowly, the Nazi policy changed from
"resettlement" to "annihilation".

# In fact, there is an abundance of evidence that
# nearly all along they wished to push the Jews out of Germany and
# Europe, not murder them. 

No, "nearly all along" is hardly accurate.

# According to Mayer, the Judeocide began
# in earnest when Germany's drive on the Soviet Union faltered, and
# all avenues of escape for Jewish emigration were cut off.

Is this what he writes? It seems rather strange, because the
Nazis began killing every Jew they could find in the USSR
immediately after they invaded it. The only ones spared were
those who were used for forced labor, and these didn't survive
for a long time either.

# Did the attitudes of Germans towards Jews in the thirties differ
# very greatly from the current attitude of Israeli Jews towards
# Arabs? High Israeli leaders have compared Palestinians to
# cockroaches and insects and wild beasts that need to be crushed.

Can you give the exact citations to this? I recall such a saying
was attributed to ex-Chief-of-Staff Refael Eitan, who is indeed
a rather vulgar individual. I recall such a saying was also 
attributed to Begin, but he was talking about terrorists. BTW,
I recall Eitan saying he was misunderstood and misquoted.

Let's be careful with such attributions. While they might be
accurate, we have seen Israel bashers lie very often. We have
seen Bradley Smith, for instance, lie about Dr. Krakowski
from Yad-va'Shem (Holocaust memorial center in Israel), quoting
him as saying something he never said. Gannon also lied about
various Holocaust historians, again quoting them as saying
something they never said. So, if and when you see such quotes,
I suggest you seriously try to verify them.

# If Israel's back was against the wall and she was facing a
# military defeat, I have no doubt whatever that Israel would lob
# nuclear devices all over the Arab world, destroying as many tens
# of millions of Arabs as possible. 

Ok, so you have no doubt.

# I have even seen supporters of
# Israel on the net claim that Israel would try to destroy as much
# of the entire world as possible, including the U.S., with a
# doomsday device if she were facing a military defeat.

Assuming someone did post this, so what? Is he/she an official
representative of the Israeli government? 


-Danny Keren.




Article 17543 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!paris.ics.uci.edu!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Hilberg on the Einsatzgruppen (I)
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 07:28:23 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 34
Message-ID: 
References: <36u5pu$k1o@agate.berkeley.edu> <36vln2$nvi@newsbf01.news.aol.com> <3717bq$equ@access4.digex.net>  <37j8pc$l80@agate.berkeley.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com

In article <37j8pc$l80@agate.berkeley.edu>, schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu
(Richard Schultz) wrote:

> In article ,
> Greg Raven  wrote:
> 
> >You do not need to take my word for it that the Einsatzgruppen reports are
> >exaggerated. Check what the reports claim to be the death toll, and check
> >to see what Hilberg says is the death toll. You will see, I believe, that
> >Hilberg does not believe that all deaths claimed by the Einsatzgruppen
> >actually occurred.
> Thus, Hilberg says the death toll was over 900,000, and the reports claim
> that it was about one million.  Offhand, I would say that this means that
> Hilberg does not think that the reports were exaggerated by very much.
> 
> May I suggest that if you are going to lie about the contents of a book, you
> find a more obscure one?

From the contents of your post, it would seem that you did not do what I
suggested. I suggested you compare the reports with what Hilberg says about
the reports, roughly. What you have done is compare what Hilberg says about
the reports with what Hilberg says about the reports ... or have you really
gone through each and every one of these reports, tallying up the Jewish
death toll? You would have to have worked very quickly to have done this so
soon after my initial posting.

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
For free information, write to:
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 17561 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!news.dfn.de!kfk.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: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Message-ID: <1994Oct14.154635.18638@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:  
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 15:46:35 GMT
Lines: 29

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

[Gas-chamber obsession - we already dealt with it, but Mr. Raven
 chooses to ignore it]

|> "Convergence of evidence" is something else, as I understand it, which is
|> to say that none of the so-called "evidence" is enough to stand alone, so
|> one must prop it up with other "evidence" that is also not enough by
|> itself. I reject this methodology.

You must live in constant state of insecurity. Certainly the fact that
a single unsupported piece of rock tends to move downward is not
enough evidence for a general law of gravity. Propping it up with
thousands and thousends of other examples of dropping items is not a
viable methodology (especially if a small child cites "my baloon flew
UP" - contradicting the vast majority of the other testimonies). 

So, how do you come to any conclusions? Almost everything accepted as
fact on this planet is the result of many different observations, and
most of these observations would not, taken alone, be enough to be
considered a (juristic? common sense?) proof.


Stephan

-------------------------- It can be done! ---------------------------------
    Please email me as stschulz@informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Schulz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------



Article 17578 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: 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!EU.net!uunet!zib-berlin.de!gs.dfn.de!gwdu03.gwdg.de!uroessl1
From: uroessl1@gwdu03.gwdg.de (Roessler  Ulrich)
Subject: Re: The other Himmler
Message-ID: <33GTBG8F@gwdu03.gwdg.de>
Organization: GWDG, Goettingen
References: 
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 20:25:34 GMT
Lines: 9

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

[Out of context quotes deleted]

Could you please use simple ASCII code. - Your "quotes" come 
in a questionable shape  through the net, i.e. without references 
to your sources and moreover disfigured with "M-R"s etc.

u.roessler                               uroessl1@gwdg.de


Article 17579 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: 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!EU.net!uunet!zib-berlin.de!gs.dfn.de!gwdu03.gwdg.de!uroessl1
From: uroessl1@gwdu03.gwdg.de (Roessler  Ulrich)
Subject: Revisionist Practice Revisited
Message-ID: 
Organization: GWDG, Goettingen
References: 
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 21:50:30 GMT
Lines: 62

Revisionist theory is a bit shaky recently. - Bradley Smith said
one key-subject would be 'no plan', while Greg Raven now said,
that Himmler had some grim things to say about Jews in his Posen-speech.
Though, it's still unclear, whether in Mr.Raven's opinion Himmler speaks 
about a plan to exterminate the Jews ("it's in our
program, elimination (Ausschaltung) of the Jews and we're doing it,
extermination (Ausrottung) is what we're doing."),
and whether this plan was already implemented in the Nazi policy by
october 1943
("Most of you must know what it means when 100 corpses are lying 
side by side, or 500, or 1,000.")  ... 

So let's have a glance at Revisionist practice instead :

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

>9/26/88: 'The Christian News' reproduces a map issued by the International
>Tracing Service (ITS) that shows Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, and Dachau as
>concentration camps, not as death camps. The so-called death camps are
>shown as being Riga Jungfernof, Minsk, Treblinka II, Chelmno, Sobibor, and
>Belzec. 

For one thing, Mr.Raven posting this seems to admit, that there
were 'death camps', i.e. camps with a killing-facility and the
sole purpose to kill Jews there. Why should he otherwise think 
this quote interesting? But he'll surely deny this.

The list of the death camps is incomplete though, but Auschwitz-Birkenau,
and Majdanek were concentration camps - and death-camps in the same place.

In Riga, Minsk, Chelmno (and Semlin in Yugoslavia) gas-vans were used.
Treblinka II (Treblinka I was a forced-labor camp for Polish POWs),
Sobibor and Belzec were the death camps of the Reinhard action. 
So far the quote isn't unreasonable.
(see e.g. R.Hilberg: The destruction of the European Jews).

>The accompanying article points out that at one time the
>International Red Cross said that about 300,000 Jews died during WWII from
>all causes.

Now, the International Red Cross never said anything like this. 
In a small useful booklet (W.Benz (ed.): Legenden Luegen Vorurteile, 
dtv: Muenchen 1982), which investigates revisionist and other lies,
two letters by the IRC to the former head of the Inst.f.Zeitgeschichte, 
H.Krausnick, are printed in facsimile (pp.108-111).

Both letters state, that the IRC had never published numbers about Jewish
victims during WWII, and would never do so. 
The number of 300,000 Jews mentioned above must therefore be fabricated, 
and the attribution to the IRC is false.
It is interesting that these letters were written in 1955 and 1965. 
Krausnick subsequently published these letters as rebuttal of 
Neo-nazi propaganda.

And the IRC keeps saying they never issued any estimate about the Jewish 
victims during WWII.

In conclusion, Mr.Raven finds it somehow profitable to his reputation 
as "Revisionist scholar" to post here old lies, which were proved wrong 
for 30 or 40 years.

u.roessler                                       uroessl1@gwdg.de


Article 17584 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu!miavx1!bpharmon
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Message-ID: <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1>
From: bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Raskolnikov)
Date: 15 Oct 94 01:10:10 -0500
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
References: 
Organization: Miami University
Lines: 80

In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:
> At 18:32 10/13/94 -0400, Jamie McCarthy wrote:
> 
> Any proof of the type I envision (remembering that there is alleged to be a
> mountain of proof from which to choose) would cover all the bases. Saying
> that the Himmler speech constitutes a "plan," and then introducing some
> other unconnected piece of evidence about some sort of gas chamber doesn't
> cut it. Remember, I am not trying to question or disprove all Holocaust
> claims, just the ones relating to the gas chambers. Therefore, the gas
> chambers are not "totally ancillary," as you state.
> 
> What I envision happening is that someone, if not yourself, will admit a)
> there is NOT a mountain of evidence supporting Holocaust extermination
> claims (something which should be self-evident at this point), and b)
> "sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and
> unreliable," so to speak.

You've got to be joking.

When you first appeared on this group, many months ago via Ross 
Vicksell, you made a claim just like this one:  That no mountain
of evidence supporting the Holocaust exists.  

I responded with a list of thirty-five volumes, taken from 
Miami University's very meager library.  My response to you 
was there is a mountain of evidence, look at what I was able
to find.  

You then changed your whole argument and said that 35 volumes
is too many, and couldn't I just pick one or two documents.
Ignoring, of course that this was (in essence) a retraction of 
your statement that no large body of documentation exists on the
Holocaust.  

What followed soon after was the fabled May 4th posting, which you
have never adressed.

Would you like me to _repost_ the bibliography for you?
 At least then you'd know that there are lots of documents 
out there, even when one looks at a relatively unremarkable state
university library.

>>My question to you, then, would be:  why?  Why will you not accept
>>Himmler's saying "the Jews are being exterminated," if you _would_
>>accept him saying "the Jews are being exterminated in gas chambers"?
> 
> Trick question, right? Himmler never says that Jews are being exterminated
> in gas chambers, so I wouldn't accept that, either. However, not to put too
> fine a point on it, neither I nor other revisionists I know claim that the
> Nazis did not persecute a large number of Jews. I accept what Himmler said
> about Jews being exterminated (semantics aside for the moment) because, the
> way he describes it, that could be regarded as an accurate description of
> what is happening.

!!!!!!

So let me get this straight...  

The only part of the Holocaust you worry about is the gas
chambers, and you accept all the rest???

I assume this is true since you agree that Himmler was talking about
exterminating the Jews.


> "Convergence of evidence" is something else, as I understand it, which is
> to say that none of the so-called "evidence" is enough to stand alone, so
> one must prop it up with other "evidence" that is also not enough by
> itself. I reject this methodology.
 
You reject the methodology of every historian and 
lawyer in the world.


-- 
=======================================================================
Brian Harmon         "We are most unfair to God: we do not allow
Miami University	   	him to sin.." 
Oxford, Ohio 45056  			-- Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu--------------------------


Article 17585 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!pipex!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
In-Reply-To: bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu's message of 15 Oct 94 01:10:10 -0500
Message-ID: 
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References:  <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 1994 05:33:17 GMT
Lines: 54


In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:
> 
> Any proof of the type I envision (remembering that there is alleged to be a
> mountain of proof from which to choose) would cover all the bases. Saying
> that the Himmler speech constitutes a "plan," and then introducing some
> other unconnected piece of evidence about some sort of gas chamber doesn't
> cut it. Remember, I am not trying to question or disprove all Holocaust
> claims, just the ones relating to the gas chambers. Therefore, the gas
> chambers are not "totally ancillary," as you state.


Once again...(for about the tenth time, so he can make like he hasn't
seen it for the tenth time and just keep lying):

  "..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 17587 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Franke-Gricksch "report"
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 23:19:38 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 31
Message-ID: 
References:   
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com

In article , bzs@world.std.com (Barry
Shein) wrote:

> Here, a stunningly specific and clear excerpt from a report written by
> SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Alfred Franke-Gricksch for SS-Colonel M. Von Herff
> and RF-SS Heinreich Himmler describing gassing and cremation of Jews
> at Auschwitz after an inspection on May 14-16, 1943. Includes the
> estimate of 500,000 victims thus far.
> 
> Now, unless you can prove this is somehow a forgery, or that somehow
> this report written by one Nazi officer for two other Nazi officers of
> the highest ranks and in the course of their duties was somehow
> fabricated or done under duress I think we are done. You may consider
> any other evidence as supporting, of course. But it is hard to
> conceive of a more convincing bit of evidence than the following
> internal Nazi government report prepared for themselves:
> (text deleted)

Well, I guess it had to happen sooner or later ... the old F-G "report"
bobs to the surface again. Before I respond to this, are you saying that
this, finally, is the best evidence that the Nazis had a plan or policy to
exterminate Jews in gas chambers?

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
For free information, write to:
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 17588 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 23:22:17 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 36
Message-ID: 
References:  <1994Oct14.154635.18638@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com

In article <1994Oct14.154635.18638@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de>,
stschulz@informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Schulz) wrote:

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

> |> "Convergence of evidence" is something else, as I understand it, which is
> |> to say that none of the so-called "evidence" is enough to stand alone, so
> |> one must prop it up with other "evidence" that is also not enough by
> |> itself. I reject this methodology.
> 
> You must live in constant state of insecurity. Certainly the fact that
> a single unsupported piece of rock tends to move downward is not
> enough evidence for a general law of gravity. Propping it up with
> thousands and thousends of other examples of dropping items is not a
> viable methodology (especially if a small child cites "my baloon flew
> UP" - contradicting the vast majority of the other testimonies). 
> 
> So, how do you come to any conclusions? Almost everything accepted as
> fact on this planet is the result of many different observations, and
> most of these observations would not, taken alone, be enough to be
> considered a (juristic? common sense?) proof.

I completely reject your analogy. Have you nothing substantive to say to
support the claim that the Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate the
Jews in gas chambers? I know I have been asking for this evidence for
months now, but until I get it, I intend to keep asking. Someone has to do
it.

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
For free information, write to:
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 17597 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Was Hitler a great man?
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 23:25:47 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 58
Distribution: world
Message-ID: 
References: <1994Oct05.234523.1724@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>  <37j09r$ko6@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <37lcg2$3qo@netaxs.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com

In article <37lcg2$3qo@netaxs.com>, btrosko@netaxs.com (Brian Trosko)
wrote:

> Danny Keren (dzk@cs.brown.edu) wrote:
> : Raven, is the following quote from GEnie authentic or not?
> : 
> : Category 15,  Topic 4
> : Message 33        Fri Mar 13, 1992
> : G.RAVEN                      at 03:02 EST
> : My only concern is in  going after the
> : facts. As such, I am not interested in defending  Adolf Hitler to my dying
> : breath. I will say, however, that he was a  great man ... certainly greater
> : than Churchill and FDR put together,  and possibly the greatest leader of our
> : century, if not longer. This  is not to say that he was perfect, but he about
> : the best thing that  could have happened to Germany.
> : 
> 
> Assuming the quote is authentic (and I have no reason to believe its not, 
> Mr. Keren...just covering the bases), I am bewildered. What did Hitler do 
> for Germany that was so great? Sure, maybe there was a unity of purpose 
> among the Germans who weren't being killed en masse, and maybe the 
> Fatherland did acquire large tracts of land, at least temporarily. But in 
> the end result, Germany suffered big time.  Aside from large segments of 
> its population being killed by a government they had trusted up till 
> then, a large percentage of the German youth died horribly fighting a 
> futile, stupid war.  Was the annexation of France really worth all the 
> casualties, expecially from a modern perspective?  Additionally, as a 
> direct end result of World War II, half of Germany became a puppet nation 
> under the control of a hostile foreign power, and remained that way for 
> almost a half century.  If Hitler was such a wonderful leader, why did 
> the course he charted for his country end up that way?  A great leader? 
> How?  Charismatic, I'll grant you (well, to the Germans), but great?

Like I said, I have no real interest in defending Hitler. However, 1) he
did pull Germany out of a deeper depression than America had, and he did it
in less time than FDR. 2) The starting of the Second World War was the
result of Britain and France declaring war on Germany, not the other way
around. The transparency of their claimed desires for the autonomy of
Poland is obvious. Therefore, the wars against France and Britain, while
extremely regrettable, cannot be laid fully at Hitler's door. 3) Had not
Hitler, virtually alone among the world leaders, accurately accessed the
danger of Soviet communism, ALL of Europe would have been part of the
Soviet Union, not just part of Germany (and the eastern countries). 4)
Although there are some subjective factors involved, it must be admitted
that Hitler did gain the confidence of his people in a way that no other
20th century politician did, to the best of my knowledge.

None of this makes him good, of course, and I'm not certain that I would
have enjoyed living in Nazi Germany, given my political leanings.

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
For free information, write to:
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 17604 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The other Himmler
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 1994 08:10:34 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 24
Message-ID: 
References:  <33GTBG8F@gwdu03.gwdg.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com

In article <33GTBG8F@gwdu03.gwdg.de>, uroessl1@gwdu03.gwdg.de (Roessler 
Ulrich) wrote:

> greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:
> 
> [Out of context quotes deleted]
> 
> Could you please use simple ASCII code. - Your "quotes" come 
> in a questionable shape  through the net, i.e. without references 
> to your sources and moreover disfigured with "M-R"s etc.

I apologize. My messages appear normally on my (Mac) screen, so I assumed
that everything was fine. I thought my software was supposed to translate
"special" characters for easy digestibility by others, but perhaps that is
only for other MIME-formatted readers. Does your newsreader support MIME?

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
For free information, write to:
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 17605 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!pipex!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Franke-Gricksch "report"
In-Reply-To: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com's message of Fri, 14 Oct 1994 23:19:38 -0800
Message-ID: 
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References:  
	
	
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 1994 21:28:37 GMT
Lines: 51


From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
>Well, I guess it had to happen sooner or later ... the old F-G "report"
>bobs to the surface again. Before I respond to this, are you saying that
>this, finally, is the best evidence that the Nazis had a plan or policy to
>exterminate Jews in gas chambers?

Just respond or admit defeat.

Stop playing these transparent and childish games.


  "..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 17606 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!pipex!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
In-Reply-To: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com's message of Fri, 14 Oct 1994 23:22:17 -0800
Message-ID: 
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References: 
	<1994Oct14.154635.18638@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de>
	
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 1994 21:30:12 GMT
Lines: 54


From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
>I completely reject your analogy. Have you nothing substantive to say to
>support the claim that the Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate the
>Jews in gas chambers? I know I have been asking for this evidence for
>months now, but until I get it, I intend to keep asking. Someone has to do
>it.

You've been handed it on a silver platter.

But you retreat back into ``but is this the best single evidence''
bullsh*t and evade it.


  "..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 17607 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!pipex!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Was Hitler a great man?
In-Reply-To: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com's message of Fri, 14 Oct 1994 23:25:47 -0800
Message-ID: 
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References: <1994Oct05.234523.1724@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
	
	<37j09r$ko6@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <37lcg2$3qo@netaxs.com>
	
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 1994 21:42:18 GMT
Lines: 83


From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
>Like I said, I have no real interest in defending Hitler. However, 1) he
>did pull Germany out of a deeper depression than America had, and he did it
>in less time than FDR.

And then got Germany flattened. The "thousand year reich" lasted
around, well, 12 years at most.

Oh right that doesn't count, that was all someone else's fault.

Ya know, I can hold up a gas station or liquor store and take all my
friends out for a great night too, even unemployed.

I suppose that if I end up in jail for it that shouldn't count, that's
the police's fault, not mine, I gave them a great time.

People like yourself operate on such a grade-school level mentality
it's truly staggering.

>2) The starting of the Second World War was the
>result of Britain and France declaring war on Germany

Yeah yeah yeah blah blah blah, Hitler was just a little angel and how
dare anyone lay any blame, even some of the most earth-shatteringly
pig-headed non-diplomacy the world has witnessed, at his feet?

He knew what he was doing, he blew it, 50M or more people died, many
of them the people he was claiming to aid (I'd say his fellow
countrymen but he was an Austrian after all.)

>Therefore, the wars against France and Britain, while
>extremely regrettable, cannot be laid fully at Hitler's door.

It's a little late for that, buck-o. You shoulda tried Berlin in late
spring 1945, there wasn't a door to lay it at.

Perhaps we can get a written excuse from the teacher for der Fuehrer.

Hitler certainly believed in the "justice" of the battlefield, and he
sure got it, in spades. It's unfortunate he had to drag so many people
down with him.

>3) Had not
>Hitler, virtually alone among the world leaders, accurately accessed the
>danger of Soviet communism, ALL of Europe would have been part of the
>Soviet Union, not just part of Germany (and the eastern countries).

Had there not been a winter in Russia in 1943...

Gak.

>4)
>Although there are some subjective factors involved, it must be admitted
>that Hitler did gain the confidence of his people in a way that no other
>20th century politician did, to the best of my knowledge.

Yeah, particularly in April 1945.

It's unbelievable that someone can have such a puerile and adolescent
view of the world as to believe this garbage. Hitler destroyed his
country, got tens of millions of people killed including those he
claimed to be helping.

It didn't have to be that way. He could have sat down at the tables
instead of rolling the tanks, etc. It's happened before and with much
more intransigent situations.

But, hey, we know what happened. Pride cameth before the fall, in a
big, big way.

You must be a product of an abusive father or something, hey, but he
fed ya and kept the rain off your head, right? So what if he liked to
put a red hot poker to your cheek when he was drunk, some things need
forgiving...

Yikes.

-- 
        -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 17632 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!newstf01.cr1.aol.com!newsbf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: annya666@aol.com (AnnyA666)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's speech
Date: 16 Oct 1994 10:28:05 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 33
Sender: news@newsbf01.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <37rd9l$f16@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf01.news.aol.com

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

>... Himmler makes
>no mention of gas chambers, but does say roughly what is happening to the
>Jews. It is still grim business, but there are no gas chambers involved.

>Is this really what everyone has been in a lather about?

The lathering, Mr. Raven, seems to be generated by your frantic attempts
to backpedal furiously away from the rather unfortunaste public image
theIHR has created int he past few years.  After years of quesitoning
nearly every aspect of the murder of millions of men, women and children
during WWII, you suddenly announce that your only intention is to question
whether of not there were homicidal gas chambers employing HCN in use by
the Third Reich... .  

I have a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon in my desk:  Calvin is asked on a test:
What important event took place on December 16, 1773?  He responds: "I do
not believe in linear time. There is no past and future: all is one, and
existence in the temporal sense is illusory.  This question, therefore, is
meaningless and impossible to answer." He looks at us and comments:  "When
in doubt deny all terms and definitions."

You remind me very much of Calvin, Greg. 

 It's a little late to be narrowing the terms of the argument, I think,
especially in light of the volumes published int he past by the IHR,
Noontide Press and Carto's organizations--not to mention the hapless
imitators.  I notice you guys are making no attempt to ensure that you are
quoted correctly in publications like Instauration and Truth at
Last...Free publicity is good publicity?



Article 17639 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!newstf01.cr1.aol.com!newsbf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: annya666@aol.com (AnnyA666)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Date: 16 Oct 1994 11:11:03 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 28
Sender: news@newsbf01.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <37rfq7$fkp@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf01.news.aol.com

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


>At 18:32 10/13/94 -0400, Jamie McCarthy wrote:

>By the way, are you planning on mentioning Usenet happenings in the
>Journal?

>>We are planning some sort of article relating to revisionism and the
>>Internet, yes.

Oh, I hope you guys don't do that!  Whenever you write about getting
deniers online, every looney-tune wack-o crawls out of the woodwork and
clutters up Cyberspace with half-baked conspiracy theories.  Show a little
responsibility, won't you.? 

If you let the worms out of the can, at least make an attempt to see that
facts are presented correctly and untruths are rebutted.  I've seen folks
online who read JHR yet hold positions even you guys admit are false. 
Will you take responsibilty for that?  A girl on Prodigy, for instance,
regularly quotes IHR literature.  She also beleives that the Protocols of
the ELders of Zion are the truth and that Anne Frank's diary was written
in ball-point pen.  Of course you can't be responsible for her
misinformation, but when you send out an invitation to your readers to
come join the fun, you should try to keep things fair, don't you think?




Article 17641 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!gs.dfn.de!gwdu03.gwdg.de!uroessl1
From: uroessl1@gwdu03.gwdg.de (Roessler  Ulrich)
Subject: Re: Was Hitler a great man?
Message-ID: 
Organization: GWDG, Goettingen
References: <1994Oct05.234523.1724@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>  <37j09r$ko6@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <37lcg2$3qo@netaxs.com> 
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 1994 15:34:42 GMT
Lines: 48

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

>Like I said, I have no real interest in defending Hitler. However, 1) he
>did pull Germany out of a deeper depression than America had, and he did it
>in less time than FDR. 

What is your single best piece of evidence for this claim?


2) The starting of the Second World War was the
>result of Britain and France declaring war on Germany, not the other way
>around. The transparency of their claimed desires for the autonomy of
>Poland is obvious. Therefore, the wars against France and Britain, while
>extremely regrettable, cannot be laid fully at Hitler's door. 

What is your single best piece of evidence for this claim?

>3) Had not
>Hitler, virtually alone among the world leaders, accurately accessed the
>danger of Soviet communism, ALL of Europe would have been part of the
>Soviet Union, not just part of Germany (and the eastern countries). 

What is your single best piece of evidence for this claim?

>                                                                     4)
>Although there are some subjective factors involved, it must be admitted
>that Hitler did gain the confidence of his people in a way that no other
>20th century politician did, to the best of my knowledge.

What is your single best piece of evidence for this claim?


>None of this makes him good, of course, and I'm not certain that I would
>have enjoyed living in Nazi Germany, given my political leanings.

Your political leanings are unimportant here, yet they are obvious.

Judging from the experiences with Mr.Raven's practice here,
I don't expect him to answer only one of my four questions. 

>-- 

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

u.roessler                                          uroessl1@gwdg.de

"Das Fuerchterlichste ist, 
 wenn platte unfaehige Menschen zu Phantasten sich gesellen."


Article 17642 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!pipex!uunet!Germany.EU.net!netmbx.de!zib-berlin.de!gs.dfn.de!gwdu03.gwdg.de!uroessl1
From: uroessl1@gwdu03.gwdg.de (Roessler  Ulrich)
Subject: Re: The other Himmler
Message-ID: 
Organization: GWDG, Goettingen
References:  <33GTBG8F@gwdu03.gwdg.de> 
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 1994 15:51:21 GMT
Lines: 15

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

>I apologize. My messages appear normally on my (Mac) screen, so I assumed
>that everything was fine. I thought my software was supposed to translate
>"special" characters for easy digestibility by others, but perhaps that is
>only for other MIME-formatted readers. Does your newsreader support MIME?

No. Apparently the problem are the apostrophs. May be a question of
the archaic equipment here in the German backwoods.

>-- 

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

u.roessler                                           uroessl1@gwdg.de


Article 17644 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: Raven Can't Answer a Simple Question (was: Re: Was Hitler a great m
Date: 16 Oct 1994 20:59:03 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <37s46n$guh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References: <1994Oct05.234523.1724@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> <37lcg2$3qo@netaxs.com>  
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu

Why is it impossible to get a straight answer from these "revisionist
scholars"?

Raven, did you post the excerpt below on GEnie? Yes or no? Can't you
answer a simple question? What's the matter with you?



Category 15,  Topic 4
Message 33        Fri Mar 13, 1992
G.RAVEN                      at 03:02 EST

My only concern is in  going after the
facts. As such, I am not interested in defending  Adolf Hitler to my dying
breath. I will say, however, that he was a  great man ... certainly greater
than Churchill and FDR put together,  and possibly the greatest leader of our
century, if not longer. This  is not to say that he was perfect, but he about
the best thing that  could have happened to Germany.




-Danny Keren.




Article 17648 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!jobone!heifetz.msen.com!lpi.pnet.msen.com!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 1994 19:51:10 -0400
Organization: Msen, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, MI (account info: +1 313 998-4562)
Lines: 37
Message-ID: 
References: 
   <1994Oct14.154635.18638@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de>
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: lpi.pnet.msen.com

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

> stschulz@informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Schulz) wrote:
> 
> > greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:
> >
> > > "Convergence of evidence" is something else, as I understand it, which is
> > > to say that none of the so-called "evidence" is enough to stand alone, so
> > > one must prop it up with other "evidence" that is also not enough by
> > > itself. I reject this methodology.
> > 
> > You must live in constant state of insecurity. Certainly the fact that
> > a single unsupported piece of rock tends to move downward is not
> > enough evidence for a general law of gravity. Propping it up with
> > thousands and thousends of other examples of dropping items is not a
> > viable methodology (especially if a small child cites "my baloon flew
> > UP" - contradicting the vast majority of the other testimonies). 
> 
> I completely reject your analogy.

I think it's a very fine analogy.

Why do you reject it, Mr. Raven?

Would you give a brief explanation?

Or will you simply reject it, without comment, leaving your readers to
wonder what you're thinking?

It's not a very noble debating style, to say "I reject this" and not
elaborate.  I'm sure it helps you insulate your belief system against
the truth.  But it won't win you many converts (except those who don't
care about the truth in the first place).
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "I am taking landpost's spelling as correct,
  I realize that is not risk-free"  - Daniel Rice


Article 17656 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: Was Hitler a great man?
Date: 17 Oct 1994 00:59:01 GMT
Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc.
Lines: 51
Message-ID: 
References: <1994Oct05.234523.1724@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>  <37j09r$ko6@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <37lcg2$3qo@netaxs.com>  
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 , uroessl1@gwdu03.gwdg.de (Roessler 
Ulrich) wrote:

> greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:
> 
> >Like I said, I have no real interest in defending Hitler. However, 1) he
> >did pull Germany out of a deeper depression than America had, and he did it
> >in less time than FDR. 
> 
> What is your single best piece of evidence for this claim?

The German Revolution. Greenwood. London 1934.
> 
> 
> 2) The starting of the Second World War was the
> >result of Britain and France declaring war on Germany, not the other way
> >around. The transparency of their claimed desires for the autonomy of
> >Poland is obvious. Therefore, the wars against France and Britain, while
> >extremely regrettable, cannot be laid fully at Hitler's door. 
> 
> What is your single best piece of evidence for this claim?

The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed. Hoggan.

> 
> >3) Had not
> >Hitler, virtually alone among the world leaders, accurately accessed the
> >danger of Soviet communism, ALL of Europe would have been part of the
> >Soviet Union, not just part of Germany (and the eastern countries). 
> 
> What is your single best piece of evidence for this claim?

Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War? Suvorow. London. 1991??

> 
> >                                                                     4)
> >Although there are some subjective factors involved, it must be admitted
> >that Hitler did gain the confidence of his people in a way that no other
> >20th century politician did, to the best of my knowledge.
> 
> What is your single best piece of evidence for this claim?

Ein anderer Hitler: Bericht seines Architekten Hermann Giesler. Munich
> 

I think that Herr Scharping and Herr Gysi will be seeking other types of
work, now that they lost they to Bundeskanzler Kohl. We're partying
tonight Stasi boy!

Tim McCarthy
landpost@clark.net


Article 17660 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!kmcvay
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Subject: Re: Was Hitler a great man?
References:   
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac
Message-ID: <1994Oct17.114059.24794@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 94 11:40:59 GMT

In article  landpost@clark.net writes:

>> >Like I said, I have no real interest in defending Hitler. However, 1) he
>> >did pull Germany out of a deeper depression than America had, and he did it
>> >in less time than FDR. 
 
>> What is your single best piece of evidence for this claim?

>The German Revolution. Greenwood. London 1934.

Asked for a single best piece of evidence you offer an entire BOOK?

>> 2) The starting of the Second World War was the
>> >result of Britain and France declaring war on Germany, not the other way
>> >around. The transparency of their claimed desires for the autonomy of
>> >Poland is obvious. Therefore, the wars against France and Britain, while
>> >extremely regrettable, cannot be laid fully at Hitler's door. 
 
>> What is your single best piece of evidence for this claim?

>The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed. Hoggan.

Asked for a single best piece of evidence you offer an entire BOOK?

>> >3) Had not
>> >Hitler, virtually alone among the world leaders, accurately accessed the
>> >danger of Soviet communism, ALL of Europe would have been part of the
>> >Soviet Union, not just part of Germany (and the eastern countries). 
 
>> What is your single best piece of evidence for this claim?

>>Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War? Suvorow. London. 1991??

Asked for a single best piece of evidence you offer an entire BOOK?

>> >Although there are some subjective factors involved, it must be admitted
>> >that Hitler did gain the confidence of his people in a way that no other
>> >20th century politician did, to the best of my knowledge.
 
>> What is your single best piece of evidence for this claim?

>Ein anderer Hitler: Bericht seines Architekten Hermann Giesler. Munich

Asked for a single best piece of evidence you offer an entire BOOK?

Really, Mr. Raven! By your own rules of "evidence," this cannot be
permitted. Perhaps if you first offer your _single_ best piece of
evidence, so we might understand your position better, we might then
procede to consider a second or third, but surely your case cannot
rest upon entire books? We loose focus this way, Mr. Raven - please
put your entire books aside, and provide what has been requested.

-- 
  "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 17665 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!caen!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!news
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 1994 22:27:57 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 28
Distribution: world
Message-ID: 
References:    <1994Oct14.154635.18638@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de>    
NNTP-Posting-Host: greg-ihr.earthlink.net
X-Newsreader: NewsHopper Demo

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

>> I completely reject your [Stephan SchulzU] analogy.
>
>I think it's a very fine analogy.
>
>Why do you reject it, Mr. Raven?
>
>Would you give a brief explanation?
>
>Or will you simply reject it, without comment, leaving your readers to
>wonder what you're thinking?

As I mentioned from the very first, I will not be coaxed into long and
pointless side discussions or metadiscussions. If you are Mr. Schulz have
something substantive to say regarding the oft-alleged Nazi plan or policy
to exterminate the Jews in gas chambers, then provide that. When you do
otherwise, it tends to lead me to the conclusion that you have nothing
substantive with which to back up your position on this matter.



Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
For free information about historical revisionism, the IHR can be reached at:
P.O. Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659
The IHR publishes a bi-monthly journal, The Journal of Historical Review
Subscriptions are $40 per year (six issues)


Article 17666 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!caen!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!news
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: My email to Mr. Raven re Poznan
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 1994 22:27:59 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 32
Distribution: world
Message-ID: 
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: greg-ihr.earthlink.net
X-Newsreader: NewsHopper Demo

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

>On October 3rd, I emailed a long letter to Mr. Raven (200 lines).
>The main topic was his comments on Himmler's Poznan speeches.
>
>On October 6th, not having received a response, I posted a short
>article directed to Mr. Raven, saying:
>
>> Mr. Raven -- we last exchanged email three days ago, when I wrote you
>> a long letter explaining again exactly why your analysis of Himmler's
>> Poznan speeches was totally invalid.  I haven't heard from you since.
>> 
>> Please reassure me that you're not going to drop the issue.
>
>Later on the 6th, Mr. Raven responded on Usenet:
>
>> I am not going to drop the issue. I am, however, still busy, and your
>> message is quite long, as you might remember. I have saved it, and will
>> respond to it asap.

I have now, in fact, responded, the title of the post being something like
RHimmlerUs Oct. 4 speech, take 15.S




Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
For free information about historical revisionism, the IHR can be reached at:
P.O. Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659
The IHR publishes a bi-monthly journal, The Journal of Historical Review
Subscriptions are $40 per year (six issues)


Article 17667 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!caen!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!news.sprintlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!news
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Raven's May 4th. Myopia...
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 1994 22:28:00 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 70
Distribution: world
Message-ID: 
References: <1994Oct12.185450.18685@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> <37hrs8$4ho@eis.calstate.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: greg-ihr.earthlink.net
X-Newsreader: NewsHopper Demo

In article <37hrs8$4ho@eis.calstate.edu>,
jpark@eis.calstate.edu (John Park) wrote:

>I believe the original May 4th article listed 10 pieces of evidence 
>numbered 1 to 10. Mr. Raven was invited to discuss the first item and 
>then when discussion was done, proceed to the second and so on through 
>all ten.

I do not remember seeing any "evidence" presented this way. The only
multiple "evidence message I remember seeing was an early one of Keren's.

>I suggest that the next reposting of this letter to Mr. Raven contain 
>only the first item with an invitation to discuss. The message should 
>make clear that this is simply the first item, that more remain. This may 
>assist Mr. Raven by cutting down his processing time 
>so that a response might be forthcoming in, say, 30 days rather than the 
>several months it has been to date with still no response.

One item at a time would be nice. I don't care how many more remain ...
that's up to you.

>However, I do realize this gives him an out. He will ask if this is your 
>"best evidence." If someone falls in the trap, he will point out that the 
>"best evidence" is probably fake and, even if it is real, it's crummy 
>evidence because it doesn't mention __________ [fill in the blank]. The 
>claim will then be "You call this your best evidence and it doesn't even 
>fit the bill. The rest of your evidence is crap also, since this was your 
>best. I won't discuss any more with you because your best is rotten to 
>the core." Aside to Mr. Raven - sure sounds like a great way of 
>determining the "truth," doesn't it?

You are overlooking a couple of very important points. First, it is often
(and loudly) claimed that there is a mountain of evidence to support the
Holocaust extermination myths, and that it is the best-documented event in
history. I have studied this topic for a couple years now, and can
truthfully say that I have seen neither hide nor hair of this "mountain of
evidence." Because I am a fair-minded person, I don't need a "mountain" to
convince me, I just need one piece. Thus, I ask only for one piece.

I realize that this is somewhat restrictive, but if there is truly a
mountain of evidence, then there should be no problem. If, on the other
hand, there is not a mountain of evidence, then someone should come forward
and say so. You see, this is but the first step in finding the truth.
Either there is a mountain of evidence or there isn't.

Now, if we were all together in a room with a big table and you could
spread out samples from this mountain, it would be a different matter. But,
having participated in this on-line discussions before, I know that it is
very difficult to keep everyone on the same "page," so to speak. So, I ask
that we look at one piece of evidence at a time. It seems only fair, and
judging by the nearly total failure of others is this forum to provide
"evidence" to support the claim that the Nazis had a plan or policy to
exterminate the Jews in gas chambers, it would seem that my restrictions
are well-founded.

>What I really believe is that Raven has seen all the posts and will not 
>respond. This is because he really does know that the Holocaust occured. 

You are wrong explicitly and implicitly. I have not seen all posts. I have
not responded to posts I did not see. I do know the Holocaust occurred, I
just do not believe that it involved homicidal gassings.




Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
For free information about historical revisionism, the IHR can be reached at:
P.O. Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659
The IHR publishes a bi-monthly journal, The Journal of Historical Review
Subscriptions are $40 per year (six issues)


Article 17669 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!caen!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Raven's May 4th. Myopia...
In-Reply-To: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com's message of Sun, 16 Oct 1994 22:28:00 -0800
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References: <1994Oct12.185450.18685@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> <37hrs8$4ho@eis.calstate.edu>
	
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 06:20:34 GMT
Lines: 513


From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
>It seems only fair, and
>judging by the nearly total failure of others is this forum to provide
>"evidence" to support the claim that the Nazis had a plan or policy to
>exterminate the Jews in gas chambers, it would seem that my restrictions
>are well-founded.


Here, below, more for Raven to ignore and then, in a few days, type in
that he's seen no evidence of homicidal gassing by the Nazis.

Mr Raven, do you honestly believe you are fooling anyone? Are you
really so deluded that you think just because you can type in the
words above that they're not just laughable lies?

I can type also:

	Mr Raven knows for a fact that homicidal gassings occurred by the
	Nazis as he denies above. He has seen incontrovertible evidence
	many, many times.

	Why does he then make statements like the above? Either he
	is insane, or he is seriously deluded, or perhaps he makes
	his living (or hopes to) from stirring up this controversy
	like some carnival huckster who knows he doesn't really
	stick the swords into the woman, but so long as the rubes
	will pay a dollar per each who is he to say otherwise?

Take your pick.

My opinion? He's a willful huckster trying to make a buck, and perhaps
a little notoriety, from all this lying. As are several so-called
"deniers" we've seen here.

As P.T. Barnum once said: There's a sucker born every minute. Mr Raven
has studied that sentence rather carefully, no doubt.

--------------------
1945

2 April         Hitler dictates his will: ``Eternal gratitude
                will be owed to National Socialism because I
                exterminated the Jews in Germany and Central
                Europe''.

--------------------

  "..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.

--------------------

"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

--------------------

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

--------------------

``On Wirth's instructions I traveled by truck to Lvov [Lemberg] and
picked up a gassing engine there, which I transported to Sobibor...It
was a heavy Russian gasoline engine (probably a tank or train engine)
of at least 200 horsepower (V-engine, eight cylinders, water cooled).
We stood the engine on a concrete base and connected the exhaust to
the pipe conduit. Then I tried out the engine. To beign with, it did
not function. I managed to repair the ignition and the valves, so that
the moter finally started. The chemist, who I already knew from
Belzac, entered th gas chamber with a measuring instrument to test the
gas concentration. Next, an experimental gassing was carried out. I
seem to recall that thirty to forty women were gassed in one
chamber. The Jewesses had to undress in a shelter open at the sides,
nothing more than a covered piece of wodded ground, near the gas
chamber. They were driven into the gas chamber by ... members of the
SS as well as Ukranian volunteers. When the women were locked into the
gas chamber, I, together with Bauer, operated the engine. Initially
the engine idled. We both stood next to the engine and switched from
free-exhaust so that the gases were conducted into the chamber. At the
suggestion of the chemist, I adjusted the engine to a certain number
of revs per minute so that no more gas had to be supplied. After
approximately ten minutes all the women were dead. The chemist and the
SS Fuhrer gave the signal to switch off the motor. I packed up my
tools and saw how the corpses were removed...''

                SS-Unterscharfuhrer Erich Fuchs


                From: "Nazi Mass Murder -- A documentary
                history of the use of poison gas", Eugen
                Kogon, Hermann Langbein and Adalbert Ruckerl,
                ed., Yale University Press, 1993, pp 112-113.


--------------------

1945Testimony of Treblinka's second commandant, Stangl:
[Quoted in "BELZEC, SOBIBOR, TREBLINKA - the Operation Reinhard 
Death Camps", Indiana University Press - Yitzhak Arad, 1987, p. 184].
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Michel [the sergeant-major of the camp] told me later that
Wirth suddenly appeared, looked around on the gas chambers
on which they were still working, and said: 'right, we'll
try it out right now with those twenty-five working Jews.
Get them up here'. They marched our twenty-five Jews up
there and just pushed them in and gassed them. Michel said
Wirth behaved like a lunatic, hitting at his own staff with
his whip to drive them on...

--------------------

Testimony of SS-Unterscharfuehrer Schluch, In the Belzec-Oberhauser
trial:
[Quoted in "BELZEC, SOBIBOR, TREBLINKA - the Operation Reinhard 
Death Camps", Indiana University Press - Yitzhak Arad, 1987, p. 70-71]. 
---------------------------------------------------------------
After leaving the undressing barracks, I had to show the Jews the
way to the gas chambers. I believe that when I showed the Jews
the way they were convinced that they were really going to
the baths. After the Jews entered the gas chambers, the doors
were closed by Hackenholt himself or by the Ukrainians
subordinated to him. Then Hackenholt switched on the engine
which supplied the gas...

I could see that the lips and tips of the noses were a bluish
color. Some of them had their closed, other's eyes rolled. The
bodies were dragged out of the gas chambers and inspected by a
dentist, who removed finger rings and gold teeth...

--------------------

Testimony of SS-Oberscharfuehrer Kurt Bolender, In the 
Belzec-Oberhauser trial:
[Quoted in "BELZEC, SOBIBOR, TREBLINKA - the Operation Reinhard 
Death Camps", Indiana University Press - Yitzhak Arad, 1987, p. 76]. 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Before the Jews undressed, Oberscharfuehrer Michel made a speech
to them. On these occasions, he used to wear a white coat to
give the impression that he was a physician. Michel announced to
the Jews that they would be sent to work, but before this they
would have to take baths and undergo disinfection so as to
prevent the spread of diseases... After undressing, the Jews
were taken through the so-called Schlauch. They were led to the
gas chambers not by the Germans but by the Ukrainians...After
the Jews entered the gas chambers, the Ukrainians closed the
doors. The motor which supplied the gas was switched on by
a Ukrainian named Emil and by a German driver called Erich
Bauer from Berlin. After the gassing, the doors were opened
and the corpses removed....

--------------------

SS-Untersturmfuehrer Oberhauser on the death camp at Belzec
[Quoted in 'The Good Old Days' - E. Klee, W. Dressen, V. Riess, The 
Free Press, NY, 1988., p. 228-230]
----------------------------------------------------------------
The camp of Belzec was situated north-east of the Tomaszo'w to Lemberg
[Lvov] road beyond the village of Belzec. As the camp needed a siding
for the arriving transports the camp was built about 400 meters from
Belzec station. The camp itself was divided into two sections: section
1 and section 2. The siding led directly from Belzec station into
section 2 of the camp, in which the undressing barracks as well as the
gas installations and the burial field were situated...

The gassing of Jews which took place in Belzec camp up till 1 August
1942 can be divided into two phases. During the first series of
experiments there were two to three transports consisting of four to
six freight cars each holding twenty to forty persons. On the average
150 Jews were delivered and killed per transport. At that stage the
gassings were not yet part of a systematic eradication action but were
carried out to test and study closely the camp's capacity and the
technical problems involved in carrying out a gassing...

At the beginning of May 1942 SS-Oberfuehrer Brack from the Fuehrer's
chancellery suddenly came to Lublin. With Globocnik he discussed
resuming the extermination of the Jews. Globocnik said he had too few
people to carry out this programme. Brack stated that the euthanasia
programme had stopped and that the people from T4 would from now on be
detailed to him on a regular basis so that the decisions taken at the
Wannsee conference could be implemented. As it appeared that it would
not be possible for the Einsatzgruppen to clear individual areas of
Jews and the people in the large ghettos of Warsaw and Lemberg by
shooting them, the decision had been taken to set up two further
extermination camps which would be ready by 1 August 1942, namely
Treblinka and Sobibor. The large-scale extermination programme 
[Vernichtungsaktion] was due to start on 1 August 1942.

About a week after Brack had come to Globocnik, Wirth and his staff
returned to Belzec. The second series of experiments went on until
1 August 1942. During this period a total of five to six transports
(as far as I am aware) consisting of five to seven freight cars
containing thirty to forty people came to Belzec. The Jews from two
of these transports were gassed in the small chamber, but then Wirth
had the gas huts pulled down and built a massive new building with a 
much larger capacity. It was here that the Jews from the rest of the
transport were gassed.

--------------------

SS-Untersturmfuehrer Oberhauser on the death camp at Belzec
[Quoted in 'The Good Old Days' - E. Klee, W. Dressen, V. Riess, The 
Free Press, NY, 1988., p. 228-230]
----------------------------------------------------------------
The camp of Belzec was situated north-east of the Tomaszo'w to Lemberg
[Lvov] road beyond the village of Belzec. As the camp needed a siding
for the arriving transports the camp was built about 400 meters from
Belzec station. The camp itself was divided into two sections: section
1 and section 2. The siding led directly from Belzec station into
section 2 of the camp, in which the undressing barracks as well as the
gas installations and the burial field were situated...

The gassing of Jews which took place in Belzec camp up till 1 August
1942 can be divided into two phases. During the first series of
experiments there were two to three transports consisting of four to
six freight cars each holding twenty to forty persons. On the average
150 Jews were delivered and killed per transport. At that stage the
gassings were not yet part of a systematic eradication action but were
carried out to test and study closely the camp's capacity and the
technical problems involved in carrying out a gassing...

At the beginning of May 1942 SS-Oberfuehrer Brack from the Fuehrer's
chancellery suddenly came to Lublin. With Globocnik he discussed
resuming the extermination of the Jews. Globocnik said he had too few
people to carry out this programme. Brack stated that the euthanasia
programme had stopped and that the people from T4 would from now on be
detailed to him on a regular basis so that the decisions taken at the
Wannsee conference could be implemented. As it appeared that it would
not be possible for the Einsatzgruppen to clear individual areas of
Jews and the people in the large ghettos of Warsaw and Lemberg by
shooting them, the decision had been taken to set up two further
extermination camps which would be ready by 1 August 1942, namely
Treblinka and Sobibor. The large-scale extermination programme 
[Vernichtungsaktion] was due to start on 1 August 1942.

About a week after Brack had come to Globocnik, Wirth and his staff
returned to Belzec. The second series of experiments went on until
1 August 1942. During this period a total of five to six transports
(as far as I am aware) consisting of five to seven freight cars
containing thirty to forty people came to Belzec. The Jews from two
of these transports were gassed in the small chamber, but then Wirth
had the gas huts pulled down and built a massive new building with a 
much larger capacity. It was here that the Jews from the rest of the
transport were gassed.


During the first experiments and the first set of transports in the
second series of experiments bottled gas was still used for gassing;
however, for the last transports of the second series of experiments
the Jews were killed with the exhaust gases from a tank or lorry
engine which was operated by Hackenholt.

--------------------

Professor Wilhelm Pfannenstiel, Waffen-SS hygienist, on a gassing 
at Belzec
[Quoted in 'The Good Old Days' - E. Klee, W. Dressen, V. Riess, The 
Free Press, NY, 1988., p. 238-244]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When I am asked about executions of Jews I must confirm that on 19 August
1942 I witnessed an execution of Jews at Belzec extermination camp. I
would like to describe how I came to be there. During my conversations
with SS-Brigadefuehrer Globocnik, he told me about the large
spinning-mills that he had set up in Belzec. He also mentioned that
work at this camp would considerably outstrip German production. When
I asked him where the spinning materials came from, he told me proudly
that they had come from the Jews. At this point he also mentioned the
extermination actions against the Jews, who for the most part were
killed at the the camp at Belzec...

During this first visit I was taken to around by a certain
Polizieihauptmann named Wirth, who also showed and explained to me the
extermination installations at the camp. He told me that the following
morning a new transport of about 500 Jews would be arriving at the
camp who would be channeled through these extermination chambers. He
asked me whether I would like to watch one of these extermination
actions, to which, after a great deal of reflection, I consented. I
planned to submit a report to the Reichsarzt-SS about the
extermination actions. In order to write a report I had, however,
first to observe an action with my own eyes. I remained in the camp,
spent the night there and was witness to the following events the next
morning.

A goods train traveled directly into the camp of Belzec, the freight
cars were opened and Jews whom I believe were from the area of Romania
or Hungary were unloaded. The cars were crammed fairly full. There
were men, women and children of every age. They were ordered to get
into line and then had to proceed to an assembly area and take off
their shoes...

After the Jews had removed their shoes they were separated by sex. The
women went together with the children into a hut. There their hair was
shorn and they had to get undressed... The men went into another hut,
where they received the same treatment. I saw what happened in the
women's hut with my own eyes. After they had undressed, the whole
procedure went fairly quickly. They ran naked from the hut through a
hedge into the actual extermination centre. The whole extermination
centre looked just like a normal delousing institution. In front of
the building there were pots of geraniums and a sign saying "Hackenholt
Foundation", above which there was a star of David. The building was
brightly and pleasantly painted so as not to suggest people would be
killed here...

Inside the buildings, the Jews had to enter chambers into which was
channeled the exhaust of a [100(?)]-HP engine, located in the same
building. In it there were six such extermination chambers. They were
windowless, had electric lights and two doors. One door led outside so
that the bodies could be removed.  People were led from a corridor
into the chambers through an ordinary air-tight door with bolts. There
was a glass peep-hole, as I recall, next to the door in the wall.
Through this window one could watch what was happening inside the room
but only when it was not too full of people. After a short time the
glass became steamed up. When the people had been locked in the room
the motor was switched on and then I suppose the stop-valves or vents
to the chambers opened.  Whether they were stop-valves or vents I
would not like to say. It is possible that the pipe led led directly
to the chambers. Once the engine was running, the light in the
chambers was switched off. This was followed by palpable disquiet in
the chamber. In my view it was only then that the people sensed
something else was in store for them. It seemed to me that behind the
thick walls and door they were praying and shouting for help.

--------------------
Willi Mentz testifies about his days in Treblinka
[Quoted in 'The Good Old Days' - E. Klee, W. Dressen, V. Riess, The 
Free Press, NY, 1988., p. 245-247]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
When I came to Treblinka the camp commandant was a doctor named Dr. Eberl.
He was very ambitious. It was said that he ordered more transports
than could be "processed" in the camp. That meant that trains had to
wait outside the camp because the occupants of the previous transport
had not yet all been killed. At the time it was very hot and as a
result of the long wait inside the transport trains in the intense
heat many people died. At the time whole mountains of bodies lay on
the platform. The Hauptsturmfuehrer Christian Wirth came to Treblinka
and kicked up a terrific row. And then one day Dr.  Eberl was no
longer there...

For about two months I worked in the upper section of the camp and
then after Eberl had gone everything in the camp was reorganized. The
two parts of the camp were separated by barbed wire fences. Pine
branches were used so that you could not see through the fences. The
same thing was done along the route from the "transfer" area to the
gas chambers...

Finally, new and larger gas chambers were built. I think that there
were now five or six larger gas chambers. I cannot say exactly how
many people these large gas chambers held. If the small gas chambers
could hold 80-100 people, the large ones could probably hold twice
that number...

Following the arrival of a transport, six to eight cars would be
shunted into the camp, coming to a halt at the platform there. The
commandant, his deputy Franz, Kuettner and Stadie or Maetzig would be
here waiting as the transport came in. Further SS members were also
present to supervise the unloading: for example, Genz and Belitz had
to make absolutely sure that there was no one left in the car after
the occupants had been ordered to get out.

When the Jews had got off, Stadie or Maetzig would have a short word
with them.  They were told something to the effect that they were a
resettlement transport, that they would be given a bath and that they
would receive new clothes. They were also instructed to maintain quiet
and discipline. They would continue their journey the following day.

Then the transports were taken off to the so-called "transfer" area.
The women had to undress in huts and the men out in the open. The
women were than led through a passageway, known as the "tube", to the
gas chambers. On the way they had to pass a hut where they had to hand
in their jewellery and valuables..

--------------------


Kurt Franz testifies on his days in Treblinka
[Quoted in 'The Good Old Days' - E. Klee, W. Dressen, V. Riess, The 
Free Press, NY, 1988., p. 247-249]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I cannot say how many Jews in total were gassed in Treblinka. On
average each day a large train arrived. Sometimes there were even two.
This however was not so common.

In Treblinka I was commander of the Ukrainian guard unit as I had been
in Belzec. In Treblinka as in Belzec the unit consisted of sixty to
eighty men.  The Ukrainians' main task was to man the guard posts
around the camp perimeter.  After the uprising in August 1943 I ran
the camp more or less single-handedly for a month; however, during
that period no gassings were undertaken.

It was during that period that the original camp was demolished.
Everything was leveled off off and lupins were planted...


--------------------
Testimony of SS Oberscharfuehrer Heinrich Matthes about Treblinka
[Quoted in "BELZEC, SOBIBOR, TREBLINKA - the Operation Reinhard 
Death Camps", Indiana University Press - Yitzhak Arad, 1987, p. 121]
------------------------------------------------------------------
During the entire time I was in Treblinka, I served in the upper camp.
The upper camp was that part of Treblinka with the gas chambers,
where the Jews were killed and their corpses laid in large pits and
later burned.

About fourteen Germans carried out services in the upper camp. There
were two Ukrainians permanently in the upper camp. One of them was
called Nikolai, the other was a short man, I don't remember his name...
These two Ukrainians who lived in the upper camp served in the gas
chambers. They also took care of the engine room when Fritz Schmidt
was absent. Usually this Schmidt was in charge of the engine room. In
my opinion, as a civilian he was either a mechanic or a driver...

All together, six gas chambers were active. According to my estimate,
about 300 people could enter each gas chamber. The people went into
the gas chamber without resistance. Those who were at the end, the
Ukrainian guards had to push inside. I personally saw how the
Ukrainians pushed the people with their rifle butts...

The gas chambers were closed for about thirty minutes. Then Schmidt
stopped the gassing, and the two Ukrainians who were in the engine
room opened the gas chambers from the other side.


--------------------

Testimony of SS Oberscharfuehrer Erich Bauer
[Quoted in "BELZEC, SOBIBOR, TREBLINKA - the Operation Reinhard 
Death Camps", Indiana University Press - Yitzhak Arad, 1987, p. 77]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Usually the undressing went smoothly. Subsequently, the Jews were
taken through the "tube" to Camp III - the real extermination
camp. The transfer through the "tube" proceeded as follows: one
SS man was in the lead and five or six Ukrainian auxiliaries were
at the back hastening the Jews along. The women were taken through a 
barracks where their hair was cut off. In Camp III the Jews were
received by an SS man... As I already mentioned, the motor was then
switched on by Gotringer and one of the auxiliaries whose name I
don't remember. Then the gassed Jews were taken out.

--------------------

Testimony of SS-Unterscharfuehrer Herman Lambert about Sobibor
[Quoted in "BELZEC, SOBIBOR, TREBLINKA - the Operation Reinhard 
Death Camps", Indiana University Press - Yitzhak Arad, 1987, p. 123]
----------------------------------------------------------------
As I mentioned at the beginning, I was in the extermination camp
of the Jews for about two to three weeks. It was sometime in
autumn 1942, but I don't remember exactly when. At that time I
was assigned by Wirth to enlarge the gassing structure according
to the model of Treblinka. I went to Sobibor together with Lorenz
Hackenholt, who was at that time in Treblinka...

We reported to the camp commander, Reichsleitner. He gave us exact 
directive for the construction of the gassing installations. The
camp was already in operation, and there was a gassing installation.
Probably the old installation was not big enough, and reconstruction
was necessary. 

--------------------


-- 
        -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 17677 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!schultz
From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Hilberg on the Einsatzgruppen (I)
Date: 17 Oct 1994 13:54:03 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <37tvlr$tj@agate.berkeley.edu>
References: <36u5pu$k1o@agate.berkeley.edu>  <37j8pc$l80@agate.berkeley.edu> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:

>From the contents of your post, it would seem that you did not do what I
>suggested. I suggested you compare the reports with what Hilberg says about
>the reports, roughly. What you have done is compare what Hilberg says about
>the reports with what Hilberg says about the reports ... or have you really
>gone through each and every one of these reports, tallying up the Jewish
>death toll? You would have to have worked very quickly to have done this so
>soon after my initial posting.

You made a very nive try at creative editing of my original post.  I 
will repost here the relevant sentence that you deleted.

>> Earlier in the same chapter, for example pp. 295-298,
>> he quotes the figures from the Operational Situation Reports without
>> questioning them.

When Hilberg calculated the number of Jews killed by the Einsatzgruppen,
he simply took the numbers that they reported themselves.  Nowhere does
he say that he considered the reports exaggerated.  If he had considered
them exaggerated, presumably, he would have given the method that he used 
to "correct" the figures.  But he did not.  The other part of your 
query, how I "tallied" the Jewish death toll, was also explained in
my previous post.

>> The first part of volume 4 of "Trials of War Criminals" is the 
>> "Einsatzgruppen trials."  The prosecutors claimed that their 
>> entire case was based on the Operational Situation Reports.  On
>> page 427 (to give just one example) the number cited is "one million."
>> This figure includes non-Jews (Hilberg's number is only of Jews. . .

I simply took the number of murders ascribed to the Einsatzgruppen by
the War Crimes trials prosecutors, who explicitly stated that they
derived the firgures from the reports.

But to some extent, this is all silly.  You made a claim about what
Hilberg said, namely, that he said that the Einsatzgruppen reports
were exaggerated.  I presented the evidence that he had said no such
thing.  All you have to do is rather than misread what I said is simply
present how you arrived at your conclusion.  This may be a little
more difficult, I realize.
--
				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 17679 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!schultz
From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Was Hitler a great man?
Date: 17 Oct 1994 14:06:12 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <37u0ck$1lg@agate.berkeley.edu>
References: <1994Oct05.234523.1724@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> <37j09r$ko6@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <37lcg2$3qo@netaxs.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:


>Therefore, the wars against France and Britain, while
>extremely regrettable, cannot be laid fully at Hitler's door. 

Yes, but what about the wars against Denmark, Norway, Belgium,
the Netherlands, Yugoslavia, Greece, and the USSR?  Most of
them were neutral, Germany had signed peace treaties with at
least two of them, and I do not believe Germany formally
declared war on any of them before invading.

					Richard Schultz


Article 17685 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!news.duke.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!news.dfn.de!gs.dfn.de!gwdu03.gwdg.de!uroessl1
From: uroessl1@gwdu03.gwdg.de (Roessler  Ulrich)
Subject: Re: Was Hitler a great man?
Message-ID: 
Organization: GWDG, Goettingen
References: <1994Oct05.234523.1724@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>  <37j09r$ko6@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <37lcg2$3qo@netaxs.com>   
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 15:45:26 GMT
Lines: 52


Mr.Landpost now advertises his sources. In his opinion arbitrary books
are "single best pieces of evidence":

landpost@clark.net writes:

...

1. A fascist propaganda outfit. -It's at least in English: 

>The German Revolution. Greenwood. London 1934.


2. A retrospective piece of trash, not to say an anachronism:

>The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed. Hoggan.


3. More anachronism - i.e. a chilly piece of cold-war phantasy 
   written under a pen-name. The book bears as many traces of evidence 
   as a snowball in hell:
  
>Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War? Suvorow. London. 1991??
                                                                ^^^^^^
                                                                Indeed.

4. And a Biedermeier hagiography by one of Hitler's buddies:

>Ein anderer Hitler: Bericht seines Architekten Hermann Giesler. Munich
>> 

>I think that Herr Scharping and Herr Gysi will be seeking other types of
>work, now that they lost they to Bundeskanzler Kohl. We're partying
>tonight Stasi boy!

Well, I do not. But Gregor Gysi is partying as well, he won his electorate
in Berlin.

BTW: Helmut Kohl and almost all of his christian-democrats MP voted YES, 
when the Bundestag recently passed the bill, which threatens Holocaust denial 
with prison up to five years.

I'm rather sure, that Kohl would despise Mr.Landpost's opinions, not to say 
the complete person "Landpost".
So I cannot understand Mr.Landpost's celebration of Kohl's success.

>Tim McCarthy
>landpost@clark.net

u.roessler                              uroessl1@gwdg.de

"Gewissen Geistern muss man ihre Idiotismen lassen."


Article 17688 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!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: Was Hitler a great man?
Date: 17 Oct 1994 18:50:12 GMT
Organization: Mits BBS, Helsinki, Finland (40+ Nodes +358-0-4582066)
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <37uh14$6fo@prime.mdata.fi>
References: <1994Oct05.234523.1724@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>   
NNTP-Posting-Host: mits.mdata.fi

In article ,
  wrote:

>I think that Herr Scharping and Herr Gysi will be seeking other types of
>work, now that they lost they to Bundeskanzler Kohl. We're partying
>tonight Stasi boy!

Can somebody explain to me why Timboy is partying tonight? For Kohl?
Is Timboy a devouted supporter of the Christiandemocratic party of
Germany or what? An who is "Stasi" boy? Is Timboy partying with Stasi
boy, or with his warm friend Mr. Kleim? Maybe Mr. Bergs comes along,
too. And Mr. Smith. And they'll dance lambada together. Wow, what
a jumping roomfull of brainless flesh! 

>
>Tim McCarthy
>landpost@clark.net


-- 
Kari Nenonen   - kauhunen@mits.mdata.fi          - Skepsis r.y.
Maavallintie 4 - Tel: 358-0-5636625              - Helsingin Scifiseura
00430 Helsinki - The Finnish Dramatists' Society - Wan.Her.Tiet.Kirj.N.H
Finland        - The Writers' Union of Finland   - The International J.C.


Article 17696 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: 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!swiss.ans.net!news.dfn.de!news.belwue.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: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Message-ID: <1994Oct18.003401.22528@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:  <1994Oct14.154635.18638@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de> 
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 00:34:01 GMT
Lines: 61

In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:
|> In article <1994Oct14.154635.18638@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de>,
|> stschulz@informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Schulz) wrote:
|> 
|> > In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:
[He does not believe in the methodology of "convergence of evidence"]

[My Example: physical laws are generated by generalizing _many_ examples]

|> > So, how do you come to any conclusions? Almost everything accepted as
|> > fact on this planet is the result of many different observations, and
|> > most of these observations would not, taken alone, be enough to be
|> > considered a (juristic? common sense?) proof.
|> 
|> I completely reject your analogy. Have you nothing substantive to say to
|> support the claim that the Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate the
|> Jews in gas chambers? I know I have been asking for this evidence for
|> months now, but until I get it, I intend to keep asking. Someone has to do
|> it.

I think that my comment is quite substantive (although it does not deal
with the Holocaust directly). Before we try to look at the facts we need
to agree to some common standards of _reasoning_, or we will never get
any results. You need both facts (or axioms) _and_ an inference mechanism
to find any conclusion.

I think that "convergence of evidence" is a valid concept for every kind
of proof except for mathematical proofs (which occur in a formalized
environment and do not use evidence at all). Accumulating many different
pieces of evidence and considering the impact of _all_ of these pieces is
common among scientists, in the courts, and among every reasonable
historian I have read or met.

As I wrote before (and you choose to misinterpret my very clear sentence
back then) I have nothing (either substantive or not) to say to support
the claim that "the Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in
gas chambers", because the Nazis did not have a "plan or policy to
exterminate the Jews in gas chambers". They had a plan to exterminate
(among others) the Jews. They used gas chambers as one of the _means_ as
they tried to realize that plan.

In addition to that, just in case you (perhaps) wanted to talk about "the
traditional view of the Holocaust": There are pieces of evidence about
this posted every day on this group. However, you either ignore them,
dismiss them completly (didn't mention the gas chambers, "Ausrotten" does
not men to exterminate, eyewitness testimony is no evidence...), or, like
a parrot, ask "Is this the _best_ piece of evidence?", even though people
repeatedly have told you that "best" is not a defined (or even valid)
concept for pieces of evidence.

If I didn't know that you are Greg Raven, the eminent and responsible
historian from the well-know Institute of Historical Review, I could get
the impression that you evade any attempt of a discussion... :-)


Stephan

-------------------------- It can be done! ---------------------------------
    Please email me as stschulz@informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Schulz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------



Article 17697 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!wupost!waikato!comp.vuw.ac.nz!newshost.wcc.govt.nz!QUIRKE_A@ix.wcc.govt.nz
From: quirke_a@ix.wcc.govt.nz
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Was Hitler a great man?
Date: 18 Oct 1994 01:53:55 GMT
Organization: Wellington City Council, Public Access
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <37v9rj$msk@golem.wcc.govt.nz>
References: <1994Oct05.234523.1724@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>  <37j09r$ko6@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <37lcg2$3qo@netaxs.com>  ,
Reply-To: quirke_a@ix.wcc.govt.nz
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix.wcc.govt.nz

landpost@clark.net writes:

>The German Revolution. Greenwood. London 1934.

>The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed. Hoggan.

>Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War? Suvorow. London. 1991??

>Ein anderer Hitler: Bericht seines Architekten Hermann Giesler. Munich

   Heresay [sic], all of it !

- Tony Q.
---
Tony Quirke, Wellington, New Zealand (email for phone no)
"Give me back the Berlin Wall, give me Stalin and St. Paul.
"Give me Christ or give me Hiroshima.
"Destroy another fetus now, we don't like children anyhow.
"I've seen the future, baby: it is murder." - Leonard Cohen


Article 17706 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Response to golux
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 00:27:23 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 144
Message-ID: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com

At  0:10 10/18/94 -0600, golux@mcs.com (The only Golux in the World, and
not a mere Devi wrote:

>Perhaps you actually believe that asking for "one piece" of evidence makes
>you a "fair-minded person."  However, as you have repeatedly been shown,
>what it really makes you is a bad historian (or no historian at all, to be
>more accurate).  History does not consist of single pieces of evidence. 
>No historical event can be demonstrated by reference to a single piece of
>evidence.  Witness your failure to provide a single piece of evidence that
>World War II ever happened.

We seem to have a major communications problem here. One more time, then, I
am NOT saying that one piece of evidence will "prove" the Holocaust
extermination claims. What I am asking is that any and all such evidence be
presented one piece at a time so we can look at it in a deliberate fashion.

>On a related point -- another example of your lousy grasp of
>historiography -- you continue to insist that "testimony is not
>evidence."  Pretty clearly, you have never been near a courtroom, or even
>a TV courtroom drama.  Testimony of an eyewitness is the single most
>probative kind of evidence possible.  Much of our history consists of
>testimony, often oral, often written down by subsequent historians.  What
>direct evidence do we have of the Peloponnesian Wars?  All we have,
>really, is Herodotus.  Do you doubt the Peloponnesian Wars occurred?  If
>not, what is your single best piece of evidence that they did happen?

Equally clearly, history is not decided in courtrooms, and neither is
truth. The evidence in legal actions only resembles the truth and/or
history to the extent that it helps the prosecution or the defense. The
prosecution's task is to win the case. The defense's task is to obtain a
not-guilty verdict for the client. Neither truth nor history need be
involved. Eyewitness testimony, I think you will find, is NOT the single
most probative kind of evidence possible. Witness the recent Israeli
Supreme Court case of John Demjanjuk, in which six "eyewitnesses" claimed
that Demjanjuk was the culprit. The ISC let Demjanjuk go because other
evidence to the contrary was more compelling. Here in the United States, I
believe eyewitness testimony must be corroborated by some form of evidence,
or at the very least be backed up by other eyewitness testimony. However,
if the eyewitness testimony conflicts with known facts (such as physical
laws), then the testimony is discarded, not the known facts.

As to testimony as it appears in TV courtroom dramas, one common dramatic
tool is to get the witness to reverse himself on the stand, proving that
the witness had erred or perjured himself earlier.

In historiography, we are interested in determining exactly what happened,
regardless of who is innocent or guilty.

As for your challenge about the Peloponnesian Wars, this seems to be but
another attempt to side-track the issue. Do you have substantive evidence
to support Holocaust gassing claims or not? It would seem that if you had
any, you would present it rather than try to shift the topic to something
else entirely.

>> I realize that this is somewhat restrictive, but if there is truly a
>> mountain of evidence, then there should be no problem. If, on the other
>> hand, there is not a mountain of evidence, then someone should come forward
>> and say so. You see, this is but the first step in finding the truth.
>> Either there is a mountain of evidence or there isn't.
>
>There is.  But you insist on looking at each individual rock and saying,
>"Well, this is a rock, not a mountain.  Bring on the next rock."  Do you
>see why this is not a valid means of conducting *either* historical
>research *or* a debate of any sort?

Even a mountain must be climbed one step at a time, regardless of its size.
And by the way, I never claimed that this forum was a valid one for
conducting historical research or debate. In fact, antics of those who
claim to believe in the Holocaust extermination myth make it obvious that
if it were a valid forum, they would be doing even more to disrupt the
discourse.

>Greg, do you agree with the following propositions, and if not, why not:
>1. There has been evidence that the Nazis had a plan to exterminate at
>least the Jews.
>2. There has been evidence that the Nazis had gas chambers built at
>Auschwitz and other camps, with which they killed hundreds of thousands,
>perhaps millions, of Jews and others.
>Regardless of whether you agree with the evidence, or what it purports to
>show, do you at least agree that it has been presented for consideration?

1. Your question is awkward. I can best answer it by saying I do not
believe the Nazis had a plan to exterminate the Jews or anyone else during
WWII.
2. Again, an awkward question, to which I will answer that there is
absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there was even one single Nazi
homicidal gas chamber. Therefore, millions of Jews could not have been
killed this way.
As to your third, unnumbered question, I agree that materials have been put
forth as proof, but that on examination these proofs have been shown to be
unworthy of the name.

>Next question: What is your single best piece of evidence that anybody has
>ever claimed that the Nazis had a plan or policy to kill the Jews in gas
>chambers?  Let's be clear here: I want a piece of evidence showing that
>someone -- anyone -- has claimed that the Nazis sat around one day and
>said, essentially, "Hey, let's kill all the Jews in gas chambers!"  You
>see, Greg, as has been pointed out frequently to you, the "generally
>accepted view of the Holocaust" has the Nazis sitting around saying,
>essentially, "Hey, let's kill all the Jews!" and then going out and
>shooting, starving, overworking and gassing them to death.  The gas
>chambers were a single method out of many by which the Nazis tried to
>carry out their plan.  Thus, when Himmler says "We are exterminating the
>Jews, it is in our program," that shows the plan or policy; and the
>internal memoranda and letters of the SS and others, and the eyewitness
>testimonies of those who were in the camps, well those show the gas
>chambers that formed a part of the execution of that plan.  The
>Einsatzgruppen reports show other aspects of the plan execution.
>
>What is it about this that you don't understand?  And who has ever claimed
>"The Nazis had a policy of killing the Jews in gas chambers"?

I love this run-on questions. First, again I reject your attempt to shift
the discussion to some other topic. Second, if you are saying that you have
to "add" the "essentials" of what a "bunch of Nazis" said while sitting
around, to something Himmler allegedly said, to some plainly false and/or
impossible "eyewitness" testimony in order to prove your point, then in
essense what you are saying is that there is no direct evidence to support
the Holocaust extermination claims. Because this is so, why not simply
admit it so we can go on?

>But you have defined the Holocaust as the Nazi mass murder of Jews, many
>of them in gas chambers, have you not?  So if the "mass murder of Jews,
>many of them in gas chambers" did not involve homicidal gassings...well,
>what exactly DO you believe the Holocaust was, anyway?

This definition of the Holocaust is not mine, it is just the starting point
for the discussion. I do not want to get into a long discussion of what I
believe happened during the Holocaust, so I will just say that many Jews
were mistreated, some of them egregiously, some of them lost their lives as
a result, and some Jews were killed just because they were Jews. However,
this is an extremely complex situation with many nuances, and simply
statements do not begin to cover the territory. I do not believe that the
Nazis used gas chambers to kill Jews.


-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
For free information, write to:
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 17708 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 00:31:58 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 98
Message-ID: 
References:  <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com

In article <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1>, bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
(Raskolnikov) wrote:

> When you first appeared on this group, many months ago via Ross 
> Vicksell, you made a claim just like this one:  That no mountain
> of evidence supporting the Holocaust exists.  
> 
> I responded with a list of thirty-five volumes, taken from 
> Miami University's very meager library.  My response to you 
> was there is a mountain of evidence, look at what I was able
> to find.  
> 
> You then changed your whole argument and said that 35 volumes
> is too many, and couldn't I just pick one or two documents.
> Ignoring, of course that this was (in essence) a retraction of 
> your statement that no large body of documentation exists on the
> Holocaust.  

Disregarding the argumentative portions of this posting that claim I have
changed my position, I ask you to put yourself it my place for a moment. Do
you really think I haven't read volume after volume of Holocaust-related
material? Do you really think I would make a blanket statement about
evidence without having had some idea what I would be getting? Would you do
such a thing? I certainly hope not! I even own a rather large collection of
Holocaust-related books, and try to be familiar with all of them. Now, when
I ask for best evidence, I am trying to avoid the impression that I am
setting up strawmen that are easily knocked down. I am saying, "tell me
what YOU think is the strongest evidence to support the Holocaust gassing
stories." This allows you and others who believe these stories to respond
with the most substantive evidence. It might be said that there is a risk
that you and the others might turn up something of which I was not aware,
but I welcome that, too. Either you will produce something I have already
considered, which makes me feel better about the position I have taken on
this matter, or you will turn up something new, at which time I will
evaluate the new material and reevaluate, if necessary, the position I have
adopted on this matter.

> What followed soon after was the fabled May 4th posting, which you
> have never adressed.

As I posted early on, if you do not see my respond to a post, repost it to
make sure I have seen it. You and the others refer to this only as the May
4th post. What's the matter, is there no evidence in it, so you have to
refer to it by the date alone? If it is so important to you, repost it. How
many times do I have to ask for this? Do you want me to see it or don't
you?

> Would you like me to _repost_ the bibliography for you?
>  At least then you'd know that there are lots of documents 
> out there, even when one looks at a relatively unremarkable state
> university library.

Asked and answered. However, I take this to mean that you do not have any
one piece of evidence you consider to be the BEST. Thanks anyway.

> >>My question to you, then, would be:  why?  Why will you not accept
> >>Himmler's saying "the Jews are being exterminated," if you _would_
> >>accept him saying "the Jews are being exterminated in gas chambers"?

Am I alone in seeing that there is a fundamental difference between these
two statements?

> So let me get this straight...  
> The only part of the Holocaust you worry about is the gas
> chambers, and you accept all the rest???
> I assume this is true since you agree that Himmler was talking about
> exterminating the Jews.

You assume too much. As I have stated and restated repeatedly, I am trying
to contain the discussion by looking only at the claims of Nazi gas
chambers.

> > "Convergence of evidence" is something else, as I understand it, which is
> > to say that none of the so-called "evidence" is enough to stand alone, so
> > one must prop it up with other "evidence" that is also not enough by
> > itself. I reject this methodology.
>  
> You reject the methodology of every historian and 
> lawyer in the world.

As I have stated elsewhere, the study of history and the practice of law
are only incidentally similar, and there are fundamental differences
between the two that make it impossible to conflate them, as you have
attempted to do.

As for your representations about the way historians work, I know
historians who do NOT work that way, and I respect their work, even when I
disagree with their conclusions. Convergence of evidence is fine for
witchcraft trials: it has no place in the search for truth.

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
For free information, write to:
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 17709 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!spool.mu.edu!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 00:45:10 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 57
Message-ID: 
References:  <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com

In article , bzs@world.std.com (Barry
Shein) wrote:

> Once again...(for about the tenth time, so he can make like he hasn't
> seen it for the tenth time and just keep lying):
> 
>   "..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.

I have seen your posting of this before. However, you have so far failed to
answer my question about it, which is: Is this what you consider to be the
BEST EVIDENCE that the Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate the Jews
in gas chambers? I hope your answer is "yes," because I have been waiting
for months now for someone to quote the Franke-Gricksch "report" as
"evidence." It is not in my best interest to do so, but I urge you to
consider carefully your response to this question.

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
For free information, write to:
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 17711 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!schultz
From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Response to golux
Date: 18 Oct 1994 13:17:00 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <380hsc$c8a@agate.berkeley.edu>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:

>I do not believe that the Nazis used gas chambers to kill Jews.

Then why do you demand evidence of a "plan or policy" to use
gas chambers?  Why not demand evidence for the *use* of gas 
chambers?  If there were no gas chambers, then the question of
whether there was a policy to use them is irrelevant.

In fact, documentary evidence -- much of it from the Nazis themselves --
for the use of gas chambers to kill Jews has been presented here.  You 
have not (to my knowledge) ever responded to any of this evidence in
any substantive way.

The questions you insist on dodging are not "side issues" or attempts
to divert the discussion.  They go directly to the heart of your 
claim above.  If you make as preposterous a claim as you do above,
then it is *up to you to prove it,* not for everyone else to 
disprove it.

For example, you claim to be familiar with Hilberg's work.  Your 
misrepresentation of what he said about the Einsatzgruppen makes
me doubt that claim, but let that pass.  He went to great lengths
to document the details of what happened to the Jews of Europe, and
much of his documentation is from what the Nazis themselves wrote.
One example is the Jews of Salonika.  He documented that they were
transported to Auschwitz, and even found the discounted rate the
train company gave for "group travel."  He did not document their
transport *from* Auschwitz, and came to the obvious conclusion --
they were not transported from Auschwitz because they were killed there.
Now, if you believe that they were not killed there, it is up to 
you to demonstrate exactly what did happen to them.  If you have
some evidence, present it.  My request for evidence is *not* an
attempt to sidetrack the discussion -- it is an attempt to get
you to provide even a particle of evidence for your claims.

Several people have asked the same question, and it is the basic
question:  what evidence do you have that the Holocaust did *not*
occur?  It is a question that you have so far avoided answering,
and it is telling that you avoid answering it.  I can think of
an obvious reason why that might be so.
--
				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 17712 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!news.dfn.de!gs.dfn.de!gwdu03.gwdg.de!uroessl1
From: uroessl1@gwdu03.gwdg.de (Roessler  Ulrich)
Subject: Re: Was Hitler a great man?
Message-ID: 
Organization: GWDG, Goettingen
References:    <1994Oct17.114059.24794@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 13:24:01 GMT
Lines: 25

kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:

>In article  landpost@clark.net writes:

...

>Asked for a single best piece of evidence you offer an entire BOOK?

>Really, Mr. Raven! By your own rules of "evidence," this cannot be
>permitted. Perhaps if you first offer your _single_ best piece of
>evidence, so we might understand your position better, we might then
>procede to consider a second or third, but surely your case cannot
>rest upon entire books? We loose focus this way, Mr. Raven - please
>put your entire books aside, and provide what has been requested.

I want to point out that it was Mr.Landpost - not Mr.Raven -
who advertised here his books. As far I remember, Mr.Landpost
was my invention. If he was Mr.Raven's double in the same place
the bizarre identity of Mr.Landpost would be even more unbelievable:
A rare case of coherence between the individual and the mind - 
dubious in the highest degree.

u.roessler                                       uroessl1@gwdg.de

"Gewissen Geistern muss man ihre Idiotismen lassen."


Article 17713 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uhog.mit.edu!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Franke-Gricksch "report"
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 07:30:17 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 26
Message-ID: 
References:   
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com

In article , bzs@world.std.com (Barry
Shein) wrote:

> 
> From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
> >Well, I guess it had to happen sooner or later ... the old F-G "report"
> >bobs to the surface again. Before I respond to this, are you saying that
> >this, finally, is the best evidence that the Nazis had a plan or policy to
> >exterminate Jews in gas chambers?
> 
> Just respond or admit defeat.
> 
> Stop playing these transparent and childish games.

I'll take that as a "yes," although you don't seem very certain of
yourself. I will prepare an analysis of the Franke-Gricksch "report" and
post it here in a couple of days.

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
For free information, write to:
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 17714 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uhog.mit.edu!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: What Holocaust could be so proved?
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 07:32:27 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 35
Message-ID: 
References:  <37o20e$j7f@newsbf01.news.aol.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com

In article , bzs@world.std.com (Barry
Shein) wrote:

> Whether or not some specific detail such as the use of coke which
> SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Alfred Franke-Gricksch wrote in his report (a
> parenthetical remark at that) to Himmler and von Herff is irrelevant.
> 
> Do you suppose he was also fabricating to Himmler et al that Jews were
> being killed by use of gassing, 10,000 per day (perhaps it wasn't
> exactly 10,000, highly unlikely it was, but would that shed any doubt
> on the thrust of what he was saying? I don't think so)?
> 
> Can you think of any reason why Franke-Gricksch might write a report
> to Heinrich Himmler and von Herff describing the success thus far of
> killing about 10,000 Jews per day by gassing, 500,000 total thus far,
> if something very like this WASN'T going on? If the Nazi govt did NOT
> have a policy of doing this? Was this some sort of murder confession
> by Franke-Gricksch to Himmler et al? Was he admitting he was doing
> something very bad that would displease them when they read his
> report?

This should be fun. You obviously have no idea about the "source" of the
Franke-Gricksch "report." I tried to warn you that you should check your
sources before stating that you thought this to be the BEST evidence to
support the Holocaust gassing myth, but no. You should enjoy my upcoming
post on this matter.

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
For free information, write to:
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 17716 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!kmcvay
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
References:  <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1> 
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac
Message-ID: <1994Oct19.223332.13487@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 94 22:33:32 GMT

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

>In article <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1>, bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
>(Raskolnikov) wrote:

>> What followed soon after was the fabled May 4th posting, which you
>> have never adressed.

>As I posted early on, if you do not see my respond to a post, repost it to
>make sure I have seen it. You and the others refer to this only as the May
>4th post. What's the matter, is there no evidence in it, so you have to
>refer to it by the date alone? If it is so important to you, repost it. How
>many times do I have to ask for this? Do you want me to see it or don't
>you?

I have asked my system to repost this article, on the fourth day of
each month, to provide you with ample opportunity to consider it. If
it would help, I'd be happy to add an automated private emailing on
the 4th. of the month as well, to help you locate it.

-- 
  "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 17717 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!kmcvay
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Subject: Re: Response to golux
References: 
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac
Message-ID: <1994Oct19.223715.13627@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 94 22:37:15 GMT

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

>At  0:10 10/18/94 -0600, golux@mcs.com (The only Golux in the World, and
>not a mere Devi wrote:

>>Perhaps you actually believe that asking for "one piece" of evidence makes
>>you a "fair-minded person."  However, as you have repeatedly been shown,
>>what it really makes you is a bad historian (or no historian at all, to be
>>more accurate).  History does not consist of single pieces of evidence. 
>>No historical event can be demonstrated by reference to a single piece of
>>evidence.  Witness your failure to provide a single piece of evidence that
>>World War II ever happened.

>We seem to have a major communications problem here. One more time, then, I
>am NOT saying that one piece of evidence will "prove" the Holocaust
>extermination claims. What I am asking is that any and all such evidence be
>presented one piece at a time so we can look at it in a deliberate fashion.

We seem to have a major communications problem here. One more time,
then, I am saying that you have been presented with several pieces
of evidence, and asked to consider them individually, one following
the other. The original presentation, of course, appeared on the
4th. of May, and has since been both emailed to you (and receipt
confirmed) and reposted here again and again. (It will be reposted
here on the 4th. of every month, just to jog your memory.)

-- 
  "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 17719 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!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!jobone!heifetz.msen.com!lpi.pnet.msen.com!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 11:34:46 -0400
Organization: Msen, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, MI (account info: +1 313 998-4562)
Lines: 87
Message-ID: 
References: 
   <1994Oct14.154635.18638@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de>
   
   
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: lpi.pnet.msen.com

Stephan Schulz pointed out that we accept the law of gravity as true,
not because we see a rock fall to earth once, but because that
observation is corroborated by hundreds and thousands of other
similar observations.

He pointed out that, while one can find exceptions to the law of
gravity (helium balloons), the law nonetheless holds.  We must
therefore, he argued, not look at single instances, but at the mass
of evidence as a whole -- and since objects fall much more often
than they rise, we say that there is such a thing as a "law of
gravity."

This is a good example of how scientists and historians work.
A bit simplistic, to be sure.  It's not the kind of thing that will
win anyone a Ph.D.  But Mr. Raven has rejected scientific and
historical methodology so completely that, in order to try to
reach him, one must go back to very simple beginnings.

So, Mr. Raven:

The Holocaust is proved by a tremendous number of corroborating
facts.  No one fact is definitive, just like no one instance of
something falling can prove the law of gravity.  But taken
together, the mass of evidence proves the Holocaust, just as it
proves the law of gravity.

And so, looking at single facts will be fruitless either way.
No one dropping rock proves the case, so there's no point in
examining only one rock.  And no one fact about the Holocaust
can possibly prove the murders of over ten million people.
To arrive at a conclusion, we must examine a multitude of facts.

> As I mentioned from the very first, I will not be coaxed into long and
> pointless side discussions or metadiscussions.

This is none of the above:  it will not take long.  It's not a side
discussion, as the question of your methodology is _crucial_ to
how and whether we may communicate.

And above all, it's not pointless.  The point is that you reject the
methodology used by every scientist and historian worth his or her
salt.  Until and unless you accept it, we aren't talking on the same
wavelength -- you're not engaged in the practice of science or history,
you're practicing cheap sophistry.  That's the point.

In rejecting the analogy, you've effectively said that you accept that
we prove the law of gravity by examining a multitude of facts.  The
question is, why should proving the Holocaust be any different?


> If you are Mr. Schulz have
> something substantive to say regarding the oft-alleged Nazi plan or policy
> to exterminate the Jews in gas chambers, then provide that. When you do
> otherwise, it tends to lead me to the conclusion that you have nothing
> substantive with which to back up your position on this matter.

There are many substantive things which you will not address, Mr. Raven,
because you refuse to examine more than one piece of evidence at a time.

How dare you accuse _me_ of not wanting to discuss anything substantive,
when it is explicitly because of your bogus methodology that _you_ have
not addressed more than one piece of evidence out of the deluge of facts
and documents that are posted to this forum on practically a daily basis!

And when you refuse to explain your methodology!

And when, in refusing, you say that you don't want to get bogged down in
unsubstantive matters!

To use the vernacular -- that takes a lot of balls!

Go ahead, Mr. Raven.  Dozens of pieces of documentation have been posted
to this forum so far this month, none of which you have addressed except
the Poznan speeches.  Go ahead and say something substantive about any
of this documentation.  I'll be happy to gather them together and email
them all to you, to make it easy for you to do so.

Keep in mind that continually asking "is this your best evidence?", as
you've been doing so far, is not the slightest bit substantive.

Go ahead -- start giving us substantive replies.

I'm waiting.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "I am taking landpost's spelling as correct,
  I realize that is not risk-free"  - Daniel Rice


Article 17720 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!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!jobone!heifetz.msen.com!lpi.pnet.msen.com!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 11:35:49 -0400
Organization: Msen, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, MI (account info: +1 313 998-4562)
Lines: 449
Message-ID: 
References: 
   <1994Oct14.154635.18638@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de>
   
   
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: lpi.pnet.msen.com


Mr. Raven has responded to my request, and has defended his comments
about Himmler's Poznan speech.

I have five main points:

(1) Mr. Raven is being misleading about his methodology for
examining each piece of evidence.

(2) Mr. Raven is speaking unclearly about how gas chambers fit into
his thesis, and needs to be more careful in his phrasing.

(3) Mr. Raven is still wrong about testimony not being evidence.

(4) Mr. Raven is insisting that gas chambers be addressed, without
explaining why.

(5) Most baffling and astounding of all:  Mr. Raven has _admitted_
that the Nazis had a plan to exterminate the Jewish people.

I also have a few minor points as well, but I will bring those up
in a later article.  


(1) Let's begin with his demand that we look at each piece of evidence
in isolation.  Now, most historians work by considering evidence
together -- they don't demand that each single document proves their
thesis, when considered seperately from all the others.  But Mr. Raven
wants the "Holocaust mythologists" to prove the murders of millions of
people, spread across half a continent and half a decade, with one
piece of evidence.

He denies that this is what he wants, but when it comes time to examine
the evidence, this is exactly the methodology he uses.

Let's look at this denial.  First let's see how Mr. Raven has denied it
before.  A good example can be found just a few days earlier;  on
October 10th, Mr. Raven wrote:

   I have NEVER said that I want to see the one piece of evidence that
   proves the Holocaust. I have said that I want to discuss the claim
   that there was a Nazi plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in
   homicidal gas chambers, and that I want to discuss this claim by
   looking at the best evidence first.

Now let's see how he denies it in his most recent reply, on the 13th of
October:

   I am NOT asking for a single piece of evidence that proves the "core
   of the Holocaust," as you put it. I am asking for the BEST piece of
   evidence that supports the claim that the Nazis had a plan or
   policy of exterminating Jews in gas chambers.

But the actual methodology that he uses, when it comes time to evaluate
evidence, is far different from what he claims in those two quotes
above.  I suggest that the reader not naively swallow what Mr. Raven
_says_ his discussion technique is;  rather, the reader should examine
what that technique actually _is_ and make up his or her mind based on
that.

On April 26th, Danny Keren put forth a number of pieces of evidence. In
his reply, Mr. Raven rebutted Dr. Keren's claims by arguing, in part:

   ...none of these pieces, by itself, would normally be considered
   definitive. (This can be seen in the very fact that Keren presented
   them all together, rather than relying on one or two.) Thus, what
   we are faced with might be called "adminicles," which Robert
   Faurisson describes thus:
   
   [T]he Exterminationists all employed the all-too-facile system of
   "converging bundles of presumptions" or again, as it was called in
   past times, "adminicles" (parts of a proof, presumptions, traces).
   Each of their alleged proofs, rather shaky, was supported by
   another proof, itself rather fragile.

   [irrelevant discussion of testimonial evidence deleted -JRM]

   In other words, the blind man leans on the cripple, aided by a deaf
   man. In the past, at the time of the witchcraft trials, judges made
   great use of adminicles and, in order to condemn witches and
   wizards, relied on a strange accounting method whereby a quarter of
   a proof added to a quarter of a proof, itself added to half a
   proof, are considered to equal a real proof....

This makes it clear that Mr. Raven wants to consider each piece of
evidence alone.  In his mind, any piece of evidence which does not
prove his whole thesis "definitively" is an "adminicle," and adminicles
are "crippled";  they are "a quarter of a proof";  putting adminicles
together to reach a conclusion is "a strange accounting method"; they
do not add together "to equal a real proof."

To take a more recent example, namely the very article of Mr. Raven's
to which I am responding, I had asked:

   ...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?

Mr. Raven's reply was:

   No, because there is no linkage between the two.

It is clear that Mr. Raven is not interested in seeing a linkage. As a
matter of fact, Hoess' memoirs regarding the use of the gas chambers
have already been provided to Mr. Raven as evidence. Elsewhere in those
memoirs, Hoess writes of the time when Himmler first told him that
Hitler had ordered the extermination of the Jews:

   Himmler greeted me with the following:  "The Fuehrer has ordered the
   Final Solution of the Jewish question.  We the SS have to carry out
   this order.  The existing extermination sites in the East are not
   in a position to carry out these intended operations on a large
   scale.  I have, therefore, chosen Auschwitz for this purpose. 
   [...]  The Jews are the eternal enemies of the German people and
   must be exterminated.  All the Jews within our reach must be
   annihilated during this war.  If we do not succeed in destroying
   the biological foundation of Jewry now, then one day the Jews will
   destroy the German people."
   
      (Rudolf Hoess, published in _Death Dealer:  The Memoirs of the
       SS Kommandant at Auschwitz_, Steven Paskuly, Ed., Prometheus
       Books, Buffalo, 1992, p. 27.)

The "linkage" between Himmler, Hoess, and the gas chambers is clear, but
Mr. Raven has dismissed it as nonexistant before he has even had a
chance to see it.  Obviously, he wants Himmler's speech and the
evidence of the gas chambers to each stand on their own.

Not to beat this point to death, but:  in this same article Mr. Raven
rejected the notion that historians examine multiple pieces of evidence
to arrive at a conclusion.  This absolutely straightforward process is
sometimes known as coming to a conclusion by the "convergence of
evidence."  His comment on that was:

   "Convergence of evidence" is something else, as I understand it,
   which is to say that none of the so-called "evidence" is enough to
   stand alone, so one must prop it up with other "evidence" that is
   also not enough by itself.  I reject this methodology.

After rejecting that methodology, one need only declare a thesis so
specific that no one single piece of evidence could be "enough by
itself."  Mr. Raven has succeeded in doing this.  His thesis is that
there was a Nazi plan or policy to exterminate six million Jews in gas
chambers.  And as far as historians can tell, there never was a policy
to kill Jews _specifically_ in gas chambers -- the policy was to kill
them however possible, and gassing turned out to be the best way to do
this, because mass shootings were bad for morale.


(2) Mr. Raven's thesis has been presented ambiguously.  His original
phrasing was as follows:

   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.

Given that he intends to argue against such evidence, I think it's safe
to assume that his thesis is that there is no real "evidence that the
Nazis had a plan to exterminate millions of Jews in homicidal gas
chambers."

But as I stated above, it was not an intrinsic part of the plan to kill
people specifically in gas chambers.  Though gassing did turn out to be
the most effective means of killing, that was not part of the plan or
policy.

To take a more modern example, one might ask whether the U.S. Government
has a plan or policy to repel a possible Iraqi invasion of Kuwait with
A-10 "Tank Killer" aircraft.  Certainly the government is currently
moving against such an invasion.  But that particular model of
aircraft, though it plays a pivotal role in the President's agenda, is
nowhere mentioned in the President's announcements of our policy toward
Iraq.

Mr. Raven surely knows that the gas chambers were not central to the
plan, else why would he ask?  I would imagine that he's even aware of
the decision-making process that resulted in the gas chambers being
built.

(The Nazis first discovered that the SS men who were ordered to
participate in mass shootings became disenchanted with the prospect of
shooting hundreds of people a day, every day.  Providing them with
large amounts of alcohol helped somewhat, but did not alleviate the
problem.  Then Jews were loaded into special vans whose tailpipes could
be directed into the back of the van.  That worked more successfully. 
Then the vans were gathered together into installations of "stationary
gas vans," at Chelmno.  Then engines were removed from captured tanks,
and their exhaust was directed into specially-built chambers, at the
Reinhard camps.  Finally, Hoess determined that Zyklon-B would be more
effective than engine exhaust, and built the gas chambers at Birkenau
with that poison in mind.  Far from gas chambers being planned from
the start, their use evolved naturally, as ever-more-effective means of
mass extermination became necessary.  All of this is well-documented.)

Indeed, Mr. Raven's own definition of the word "Holocaust" differs from
his phrasing in his thesis.  He defined the word for us as "the murder
of six million Jews as a central act of state by the Nazis during the
Second World War, many in gas chambers."  In this phrasing, the fact
that gas chambers are involved is a secondary clause, as it should be.

And he himself has put a fine point on this difference in his most
recent reply.  He writes:

   I am NOT asking for a single piece of evidence that proves [the plan
   to exterminate European Jewry].  I am asking for the BEST piece of
   evidence that supports the claim that the Nazis had a plan or
   policy of exterminating Jews in gas chambers.

In other words, Mr. Raven is not strictly interested in looking at
evidence for or against the Holocaust.  He's not interested in knowing
whether the Nazis had a plan to exterminate European Jewry!  Rather, he
is looking for one single piece of evidence that proves not only the
plan, which did exist, but that the gas chambers were _part_ of that
plan, which doesn't happen to be the case.

Perhaps I've been assuming, incorrectly, that Mr. Raven actually has
discussion of quasi-important historical points in mind.  It appears
that this has not been the case:  that he's had a red herring in mind
all these months, and that I've been unhelpfully trying to provide him
with something of more importance.  If that is the case, I regret
wasting so much of my time, and can only wonder why he will not address
the topics that matter.


(3) Mr. Raven still is confused about the role that testimony plays in
the historical process.  He still maintains that it is not evidence; 
at one point he asks for "evidence (not testimony, mind you)."

In my earlier message, my comments on this topic were:

   Regarding speeches not being evidence, I have two replies.  The
   first is that, indeed, speeches most certainly are evidence that
   historians use to evaluate what happened at some point in history. 
   Christopher Hoover wrote a marvelous discussion of how historians
   use oral testimony, and he should know.  His father, a professional
   historian, is [one of the authors] of the 1975 book _The Practice
   of Oral History_.

Mr. Raven's response:

   I will agree that "oral history" is a type of history, but it is
   hardly unimpeachable.

Impeachment is the process of bringing to trial.  All evidence is
"tried" by historians, because all evidence is evaluated for its
validity and reliability.  Thus no sort of evidence is "unimpeachable";
it is all "impeached" as a matter of course.

If Mr. Raven has a case to make against oral history, then he should
make it.

He continued:

   I would be more inclined to accept an oral history about something
   of little import, or of something that could not possibly have any
   evidence. However, the construction and use of multiple homicidal
   gas chambers for the destruction of hundreds of thousands of human
   beings cannot be said to be such a trivial matter that no physical
   evidence exists.

He here provides two criteria, one of which must be met before he will
accept testimony.  Why has he chosen these two?  What's his reasoning?
He doesn't offer any.  Perhaps he should read the book co-authored by
Chris Hoover's father, to determine whether real historians use similar
criteria. Mr. Raven has no degree in history, and yet he offers only
his unsupported opinion.  Why should that count more than that of a
historian, let alone four historians, who have years of study,
research, and work in the trenches under their collective belts?

His first criterion for acceptance of oral evidence -- matters of little
import -- is bizarrely interesting.  Why should historians play by one
set of rules for small matters and another for large?  Odd.

It is worth noting the life of Huey Long is hardly of "little import" to
any historian of 20th Century American politics.  And yet, one of the
most significant works on his life, T. Harry Williams' biography, is
based entirely on oral accounts.  In this particular instance, oral
history is the "type of history" that wins Pulitzer Prizes.  It is
further worth noting that to the historian of Indian-White relations in
the 19th century, the Minnesota Sioux War of 1862 is hardly of "little
import."  And yet, hardly a single significant historical work of that
war exists that doesn't rely heavily on oral accounts, and rightly so.
Of course, they also rely heavily on documentary records from federal
officials, Indian Agents, missionaries, etc. -- but many of _them_ are
based on personal impressions as well.  In any event, oral and
documentary evidence do not cancel each other out here -- they can be,
and should be, quite complementary.

Both documentary and physical evidence on the life of Huey Long exist.
The same is true of the Minnesota Sioux War.  By what historiographic
authority would Mr. Raven presume to demand that oral testimony not be
used in researching the historical record regarding these events?  Or,
if he would not make such demands regarding these two issues, then why
is he applying a _different_ standard to the Holocaust?

And his second criterion is telling.  Mr. Raven is saying that he will
not accept testimony unless it regards something "that could not
possibly have any evidence."

Now, of course, there is a fair amount of physical evidence for the gas
chambers.  The best of it, in my opinion, is the simple fact that the
Nazis dynamited the Auschwitz gas chambers as the Russians approached.
Why would they blow them up if they had nothing to hide?  Why blow up
only the homicidal gas chambers, and not anything else at the camp?

But that act of destruction, and the dismantling of the gas chambers
prior, removed most of the physical evidence that was there before.

Does he expect there could possibly be any evidence for the gas
chambers, after they had been blown up?  What about the Reinhard camps'
gas chambers, after they were dismantled?

What evidence does Mr. Raven think there should be?

If he will provide us with a list of evidence that should be there, but
is missing, then his claim will have some merit.  Otherwise, it would
seem that he's merely latched on to an excuse.

I hasten to point out that the reason that I have not provided physical
evidence to contradict Mr. Raven's thesis, is that the thesis' central
concern is the Nazi plan of extermination.  Evidence for a single gas
chamber certainly does not point to a plan -- if I had provided such,
then I'm sure Mr. Raven would be the first to point that out to me!

If his thesis were that the gas chambers did not exist, I would provide
physical evidence (as well as testimony) that they did.


(4) Mr. Raven has attempted to explain why he has singled out gas
chambers for special recognition, but has done a rather poor job of it.
I encourage him to try again.

When I wrote:

   At this point, it seems that your choice of gas chambers is totally
   arbitrary.  Why does Himmler have to mention gas chambers and not,
   e.g., the Einsatzgruppen, or the fact that Jews were being worked
   to death at Auschwitz?  What rationale do you have for insisting on
   this?

Mr. Raven responded:

   My choice of the gas chambers is far from arbitrary. If you believe
   it is, then all you have to do is admit that there were no
   homicidal gas chambers, and then see how many of your so-called
   friends remain friendly! The gas chambers are NOT beside the point
   ... the ARE the point.

Apparently, Mr. Raven's criterion for determining whether or not a given
facet of the Holocaust is fundamental, is what one's friends think if
and when one denies it.  Curious.

But, very well -- what does Mr. Raven think Holocaust scholars would
think of someone who denies, e.g., that the Einsatzgruppen slaughtered
Jews because they were Jewish, or that Jews were being worked to death
at Auschwitz?  Surely historians would take an unfriendly attitude
toward anyone who advanced those ideas, as well. And I suspect my
friends would be a little suspicious too.

So Mr. Raven's response brings us no closer to determining why he has
singled out the gas chambers.  Until he explains his reasoning, my
stance remains that this is a totally arbitrary choice, included only
to make his thesis so specific that no single piece of evidence could
possibly suffice.

This may seem to be quibbling, but I think it's rather important to
determine exactly what Mr. Raven is requesting.  And he, too, seems to
want to resolve it;  he writes:  "If and when we get some agreement on
the gas chamber issue, we can discuss the ins and outs of Himmler's
speech."  So we agree that he needs to address it.

And, indeed, without the "gas chamber clause," Mr. Raven's thesis is
easily disproved, as he himself has, amazingly, admitted.  To wit:


(5) Mr. Raven has agreed to accept that Himmler, in his Poznan
speeches, is saying that the Nazis were exterminating the Jews!

When I asked him:

   Why will you not accept Himmler's saying "the Jews are being
   exterminated," if you _would_ accept him saying "the Jews are
   being exterminated in gas chambers"?

His response was:

   Trick question, right?  Himmler never says that Jews are being
   exterminated in gas chambers, so I wouldn't accept that, either.
   However, not to put too fine a point on it, neither I nor other
   revisionists I know claim that the Nazis did not persecute a large
   number of Jews.

Fair enough so far.

But pay very careful attention to his next sentence:

   I accept what Himmler said about Jews being exterminated (semantics
   aside for the moment) because, the way he describes it, that could
   be regarded as an accurate description of what is happening.

I'm not totally sure what the parenthetical comments about semantics
refers to.  Himmler's exact words, on October 4th, 1943, were:

   "Das juedische Volk wird ausgerottet," sagt ein jeder Parteigenosse,
   "ganz klar, steht in unserem Programm, Ausschaltung der Juden,
   Ausrottung, machen wir."

This means:

   "The Jewish people are being exterminated," says every Party member,
   "it's quite clear, it is in our program -- elimination of the Jews,
   extermination, we're doing it."

The semantics of that sentence are not especially confusing.

Anyway, please note these exact words of Mr. Raven:  "I accept what
Himmler said about Jews being exterminated...that could be regarded as
an accurate description of what is happening."

I'm sure that Mr. Raven wants to go on to talk about the fact that
Himmler did not specifically mention gas chambers.  I'm sure that Mr.
Raven believes this to somehow be a very important point. 
Unfortunately for him, it's not, except in his own mind.  I've
explained why that's so in points 1, 2, and 4 above.

And I'm sure that Mr. Raven will attempt to explain away Himmler's
comments later, as he has already done, by pointing to a speech in
December in which Himmler makes reference to the killing of Jewish
commissars and communists.

But the fact remains that, on October the 4th, 1943, Himmler said that
the "juedische Volk" -- the Jewish people -- were being exterminated.

And the fact remains that Mr. Raven, having been backed into a corner,
has accepted that Himmler said this.  He has accepted that Himmler's
saying "The Jewish people are being exterminated" "could be regarded as
an accurate description of what is happening."

And that, as they say, is that.


Thanks go to Mike Stein and Chris Hoover for collecting articles,
providing valuable insight and input, and contributing a few
paragraphs' worth of the above text.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "I am taking landpost's spelling as correct,
  I realize that is not risk-free"  - Daniel Rice


Article 17721 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Analysis of the Franke-Gricksch "report"
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 08:24:34 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 174
Message-ID: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com

In response to my request for the best evidence that the Nazis had a plan
or policy to exterminate the Jews in gas chambers, Barry Shein has
presented the obviously fabricated Franke-Gricksch "Resettlement Action
Report." Wow!
.
The F-G Report is considered by many (apparently including Shein) to be an
extremely important document in making the case for mass exterminations.
Gerald Fleming, for example, devotes an entire chapter of his book "Hitler
and the Final Solution" to an evaluation of this document.
.
According to legend, the original document was supposedly found in Major
Alfred Franke-Gricksch's career file by Eric Lipman, an officer with the
War Crimes Branch of the U.S. Third Army (supposedly Lipman was tipped to
its existence after finding a carbon copy of the document somewhere in
Bavaria ). Lipman supposedly excerpted the Report from the document by
making a typescript copy (that is, typing a copy in German from the German
original). The carbon copy of the original was then turned over to the
prosecution team at Nuremberg, while the original (according to Pressac) is
now thought to be preserved in the National Archives Collection reference
NA RG 238. However, the original seems to have become lost, and as of the
middle of 1991 no one else has seen hide nor hair of it.
.
The American prosecution team at Nuremberg never made use of this document,
which raises the question as to whether they ever received it, which in
turn raises questions at to whether it even exists.
.
On Gerald Fleming's part, on February 19, 1991, Brian Renk requested a copy
of the carbon copy of the original document from which the Report was
allegedly excerpted. Fleming responded by sending a photocopy of the Report
ONLY, this in spite of the fact that Fleming has claimed to have in his
possession one of three carbon copies of the original document.
.
Fleming doesn't mention that the Franke-Gricksch "report" is but part of a
larger document, and that is just one of the problems he has with this
document. For example, in his book he fails to state that the document to
which he devotes an entire chapter is nowhere signed by Franke-Gricksch. He
also erroneously stated in a private letter to F-G's widow that her husband
had signed this Report. He also avoids mentioning the peculiarities in the
document (discussed below). He also finds fault with only one portion of
the Report, and then goes on to quote Filip Mueller as an expert on the
topic! Therefore, Fleming is ignorant of the true source of the document,
and overlooks (conceals? misrepresents?) problems in the document in order
to make his point.
.
Fleming does not let the F-G report off the hook completely, however. He
states:
"Franke-Gricksch's account of 'the execution of the Fuehrer-order," namely,
the lowering of 'certain materials' into a large cellar room resembling a
'shower bath' and activation and release of 'particular substances that put
people to sleep in one minute' is a fraudulent and cynical white-washing of
death by gassing."
.
What we are left with then, is no original or carbon copy thereof, and the
only evidence we have of this document's existence is the excerpted Report,
the deficiencies of which I shall examine now.
.
Among of the most obvious things wrong with this "document" is the
accidental use of English words in place of German words. Some of these
anglicisms were corrected on the typescript copy, some where not. For
example, on the first line of the report, "had" for "hat;" "der," the
second word of line 2, typed over "the;" and on line 3, "hier" typed over
"here." On line 8 of the second page of the report, the alleged copyist
typed "had," but corrected it to "hat," only to begin the following word
with "t" (evidently for "the") before catching that and typing the correct
German definite article "die." Furthermore, in the final paragraph of page
1, the English participial ending "d" is twice typed for the German "t,"
that is "ausgestatted" for "ausgestattet" on line 5, which has been
corrected, and "gebaded" for "gebadet" on line 9. Last but not least, the
verb "kommt" is used twice with the same subject in the sentence beginning
on line 6 of the third paragraph of line 1.
.
All that aside, any reasonable person reading this "report" would
immediately suspect something is wrong. Where is this "house?" Where are
the hollow pillars? What "certain substances are used? How is it possible
to open the doors a few minutes after a lethal gassing when a deadly poison
is supposedly still rampant in the air? How can the hair be cut off without
first rinsing it of the poison gas? Just how big is this house that it has
elevators for hundreds of dead people? Is it normal for large Polish houses
to have ten large crematories? By what amazing physical property do fresh
corpses burn particularly well? If it takes a modern crematory 2 to 3 hours
to partially dispose of a human corpse, how can 10,000 corpses be disposed
of in 24 hours with only 10 crematories?
.
Pressac says (on page 244), "On 28th June, following the handover of
Krematorium III, the last one to be completed, Jaehrling calculated the
overall throughput for the five Krematorien as 4,756 people in 24 hours,
and sent this information to SS General Kammler in Berlin (Document 68).
This official figure, coolly doubled when explaining operations to
high-ranking visitors (ef. SS Major Franke-Gricksch's report above, giving
a figure of 10,000 in 24 hours), had no basis in practice, and probably has
to be divided by two or three to arrive at the true figure."
.
Pressac is also much less generous than Fleming regarding other aspects of
the Franke-Gricksch "report." Among the points he notes in this report are:
1) The "large house" is actually Krema II at Birkenau.
2) There are not 5 or 6 steps into the Leichenkeller, but 10.
3) There are not 3 pillars inside the "gas chamber" but 4.
4) The "doors" cannot be closed when there is only one door involved.
5) There is no door to open "on the other side" because again there is only
one door.
6) The lift does not take the corpses to the first floor, but to the ground
floor.
7) There are not 10 crematoria furnaces but 5 three-muffle furnaces.
8) There were probably not 500,000 Jews in killed in May, 1943, and true
number is somewhere between 200,000 and 250,000.
9) The capacity of Krema II was not 10,000 per 24 hours, but rather 4,756
for all FIVE crematoria combined, and even this is a theoretical output
"that was never achieved in 1943, as proved by the Krematorium coke
consumption." Pressac calls this claim "another Auschwitz SS propaganda
figure passed on by Franke-Gricksch."
.
To make up for these deficiencies, Pressac follows his usual procedure of
concocting an elaborate scenario in an attempt to preserve the desirable
portions of the Report while shrugging off the ridiculous portions.
.
Even at this, Pressac misses some of the problems with this document. For
example:
1) He fails to explain how the Sonderkommando members could have resisted
the lingering Zyklon B gas as they went to work hauling bodies from the gas
chamber, removing gold teeth, etc., only "a few minutes" after the
killings.
2) Anyone visiting the ruins of Leichenkeller I can see that the four
pillars are not hollow at all, but are solid, which would have prevented
anything from being dropped down them.
3) Pressac fails to address the assertion that "fresh corpses burn
particularly well."
4) Pressac ignores the Report's mention of a "special rail track into an
area of the camp specifically set aside for this purpose." Although there
was a rail spur into Birkenau, work was not begun on it until January,
1944. (This single reference, by the way, is enough by itself to show that
this document is almost certainly a post-war forgery.)
.
Unmentioned by both Fleming and Pressac is the fact that nowhere in the
report does it say that Franke-Gricksch SAW the process he describes. In
fact, the report claims he was given a tour of the facilities and the
process was explained to him. We know from the records at Auschwitz that
Franke-Gricksch was there from May 14-16, 1943.
.
These are certainly remarkable characteristics for what Fleming, Pressac,
and others advance as a simple transcription of a German original. A less
trusting (or perhaps more scrupulous) interpreter would be well within his
rights to suggest that this document was based on an English-language, not
German-language, source.
.
In short, what we have here is 1) a carbon copy of a typed copy of a carbon
copy of an original document, and this original document has never
surfaced, 2) gross errors in the typed copy that would lead any scholar to
suspect that the "Report" was not copied from a German document, but
translated from an English original (that is, forged), and 3) several
inaccuracies in the Report itself, at least one of which damns the Report
as a forgery.
.
Ask yourself this question: with all the tons and tons of papers removed
from Germany after the war, with all the code intercepts during the war,
with all the intelligence activity during the war, why do exterminationists
find themselves forced to refer to transparent fabrications such as the
Franke-Gricksch Report to support their position? The mass gassing of
millions of Jews (and millions of others) is no easy task, and would
certainly leave behind some trace. Without this trace, the only conclusion
is that it never happened.
.
Anyone interested in a fuller treatment of this document are directed to
"The Franke-Gricksch 'Resettlement Action Report': Anatomy of a
Fabrication," by Brian Renk, which appeared in the Fall 1991 Journal of
Historical Review, page 261.

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
For free information, write to:
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 17730 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!ctp.org!not-for-mail
From: jpark@eis.calstate.edu (John Park)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Franke-Gricksch "report"
Date: 18 Oct 1994 10:26:53 -0700
Organization: California Technology Project of The Calif State Univ
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <3810gt$gk9@eis.calstate.edu>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: eis.calstate.edu

greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:
> Well, I guess it had to happen sooner or later ... the old F-G "report"
> bobs to the surface again. Before I respond to this, are you saying that
> this, finally, is the best evidence that the Nazis had a plan or policy to
> exterminate Jews in gas chambers?
> 
Hey Greg, I got an idea.

Why don't _YOU_ find the best single piece of evidence for the Holocaust 
and then zap it? Why does the best piece have to be provided to you? Are 
you not a "scholar?" Do you not have "research skills?"

See, what you do is this. You post a message in which you state your 
opinion as to the best piece of evidence for the Holocaust, quote it, and 
provide proper documentation. (Proper = sufficient information that 
someone so inclined could locate another copy of the document you are using.)

Then you blow it all to pieces with devastating "analysis."

However, someone else will come along and say that they have some other 
piece of evidence better than yours. You say great and proceed to subject 
it to "scholarly analysis" and discard it as being no good.

And so the process continues. After all, you having been begging for the 
"best" evidence for months. Since, to your view, no one has properly 
provided the "best," I suggest you go get it and start the process. After 
all, it seems you are claiming the Holocaust didn't happen nearly to the 
degree claimed. Wouldn't it be reasonable for you to begin providing 
evidence for this? Wouldn't it be reasonable for you to blow apart the 
"bad" evidence of the other side? Why wait for the "best?" Why not just 
start?

After all, Greg, one can look at your non-participation and wonder why. 
Then one realizes the non-participation springs from lack of evidence. 
One then realizes that Greg Raven will _NEVER_ engage in open debate 
without loads of conditions. Why not?

Come on Greg, respond with point-by-point refuatations, cite scholarly 
analysis accepted by the historical community, give citations, but make 
sure you start off with your "best." How about say, the "best" evidence 
of WWII? Oh, BTW, respond to Keren's points, J. McCarthy's points, the 
May 4th message, etc. Don't respond to me. I just want you to respond to 
them. However, you won't.

John Park
jpark@eis.calstate.edu


Article 17731 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: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 14:42:16 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 13
Message-ID: 
References: 
   <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1>
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-06.dialip.mich.net

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

> As for your representations about the way historians work, I know
> historians who do NOT work that way, and I respect their work, even when I
> disagree with their conclusions. Convergence of evidence is fine for
> witchcraft trials: it has no place in the search for truth.

Name two historians who arrive at conclusions by examining each individual
piece of evidence, without considering how they all fit together.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "I am taking landpost's spelling as correct,
  I realize that is not risk-free"  - Daniel Rice


Article 17732 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: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 15:01:33 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 60
Message-ID: 
References: 
   <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1>
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-06.dialip.mich.net

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

> > What followed soon after was the fabled May 4th posting, which you
> > have never adressed.
> 
> As I posted early on, if you do not see my respond to a post, repost it to
> make sure I have seen it. You and the others refer to this only as the May
> 4th post. What's the matter, is there no evidence in it, so you have to
> refer to it by the date alone?

No, there is too _much_ substantive information in it:  ten documents and
four points of contention.

> If it is so important to you, repost it. How
> many times do I have to ask for this? Do you want me to see it or don't
> you?

It's already been reposted four times, and it's been emailed to you twice.
You have confirmed numerous times that you've already seen it.

> > >>My question to you, then, would be:  why?  Why will you not accept
> > >>Himmler's saying "the Jews are being exterminated," if you _would_
> > >>accept him saying "the Jews are being exterminated in gas chambers"?
> 
> Am I alone in seeing that there is a fundamental difference between these
> two statements?

That wasn't the question.

The difference is obvious.

The question is:  why will you accept him saying the one thing, but not
the other?

Please answer the question.

> You assume too much. As I have stated and restated repeatedly, I am trying
> to contain the discussion by looking only at the claims of Nazi gas
> chambers.

Speak precisely, Mr. Raven.  I don't think the sentence above is what you
really mean.

If you want to look, quote, "only at the claims of Nazi gas chambers,"
I'll be happy to oblige you.  My own starting point would be the
descriptions of the gassing process as given by the commandant of the
camp in his memoirs.  In fact, I've provided one such description for
you in the May 4th article.

But I think what you really want to look at is this alleged plan by the
Nazi government to exterminate people _specifically_ in gas chambers.
As I and others have pointed out, the gas chambers were not an
intrinsic part of the Nazi attempt to exterminate European Jewry;  they
arose as it became clear that no other means of murder was as effective.

Please clarify exactly what you mean.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "I am taking landpost's spelling as correct,
  I realize that is not risk-free"  - Daniel Rice


Article 17733 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!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: A triumvirate of evidence
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 16:02:57 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 134
Message-ID: 
References: 
   
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-06.dialip.mich.net

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

> As usual, my comments are being completely mischaracterized.
> 
> I have NEVER said that I want to see the one piece of evidence that proves
> the Holocaust. I have said that I want to discuss the claim that there was
> a Nazi plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers,
> and that I want to discuss this claim by looking at the best evidence
> first.

Very well.

I propose that the best evidence for the Holocaust is a triumvirate of
evidence, which I present below.

I take Mr. Raven's definition of the word "Holocaust," to wit:  the 
murder of six million Jews as a central act of state by the Nazis during 
the Second World War, many in gas chambers.

Note that this differs in a subtle but important way from Mr. Raven's
phraseology above.  In his definition, he makes it clear that gas chambers
were simply the means by which the policy was carried out.  In his quoted
article above, he implies that the gas chambers were part and parcel of the
plan.  That is false.  The plan was to exterminate European Jewry;  the
gas chambers turned out to be the best means of doing so, but they were
not an expressed part of the policy.


So:  how best to prove that the Nazis had a plan to kill millions of Jews,
and that many such killings were done en masse in gas chambers?

Well, obviously there are two parts to that challenge:  the plan, and the
fact of the killings.

To prove the plan, I present the first document of the triumvirate.  This
happens to be the same one we've been discussing all this time, the first
document from the May 4th article:  Himmler's speeches on October 4th and
6th, 1943, to SS officers and Gauleiter, at a place called Poznan.

We've all seen this speech many times over the last few months, so I'll
just review the "highlights":  on October 4th, Himmler said:

    I am referring now to the evacuation of the Jews, to the
    extermination of the Jewish people.  This is something that is
    easily said:  "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."

Note that this document is, by necessity, a transcript of a speech by a
man holding a high position in the Nazi government.  There is, as far as
I can see, no better way to prove that a government intended one thing or
another than to quote a high-ranking official in that government.  And
Himmler was second in command, taking orders only from Hitler.  So these
speeches by the Reichsfuehrer-SS, and especially those few "highlights"
from them that have been posted to this newsgroup, must surely be some of
the best evidence proving the Nazi policy, if not the best.  I can hardly
imagine better.


The second document of the triumvirate is the fact that the gassings were
occurring.  For this document, I cite Hoess' memoirs, specifically the
fourth document from the May 4th article:

    On the railroad ramp the Jews, who up till then had been under the
    supervision of the state police, were taken over by a squad from the
    camp.  They were led by the head of the detention camp, in two
    detachments, to the bunker.  That was what we called the extermination
    installations.  The luggage stayed on the ramp, from where it was
    carried to the sorting area - called Kanada - between the buildings
    of the DAW [weapons factory] and the courtyard.  The Jews had to
    undress near the bunker.  They were told that they had to go into
    what were called delousing rooms.  All these rooms, five in all, were
    filled simultaneously.  The doors were hermetically sealed, and the
    contents of the cans of gas were dropped in through the holes in the
    ceiling provided for this purpose.
    
    Half an hour later the doors were opened;  there were two in each
    room.  The corpses were removed and taken to the ditches on tip wagons
    that ran on rails.  Trucks carried the clothes to the sorting area.
    All the work, including help in undressing, filling the bunker,
    emptying the bunker, burying the corpses, as well as digging and
    filling up the mass graves, was done by a special detail of Jews who
    were housed separately and who, in accordance with Eichmann's
    instructions, were also exterminated after each big operation.

Again, I've tried to come up with the best possible source for proving
that gassings were occurring.  And who better to serve as a witness than
the commandant of the camp himself?  He was obviously there;  he was
obviously in a position to know.  He had no reason to lie, because his
memoirs were written after he'd been convicted and condemned to death.
Surely Rudolf Hoess was one of the best sources available -- if not the
best.  I can hardly imagine one better.


The third document ties the first two together conclusively.  The two
by themselves do not prove that the gassings were a result of the plan
to exterminate European Jewry.  (True, Hoess does mention above that
the killing of the Sonderkommando was "in accordance with Eichmann's
instructions," but this isn't the strongest link possible.)

To demonstrate the connection, I again turn to Hoess' memoirs, in which
he makes it clear.  Again, I point out that this evidence has been
posted to this newsgroup before:

    Himmler greeted me with the following:  "The Fuehrer has ordered the
    Final Solution of the Jewish question.  We the SS have to carry out
    this order.  The existing extermination sites in the East are not
    in a position to carry out these intended operations on a large
    scale.  I have, therefore, chosen Auschwitz for this purpose. 
    [...]  The Jews are the eternal enemies of the German people and
    must be exterminated.  All the Jews within our reach must be
    annihilated during this war.  If we do not succeed in destroying
    the biological foundation of Jewry now, then one day the Jews will
    destroy the German people."

Again, what evidence could possibly be better than this to prove this
point?  We want to demonstrate that the Auschwitz exterminations were
the result of an order from above, expressing the desire to exterminate
European Jewry;  in Hoess' memoirs, we find his account of receiving
exactly that order to do exactly that.  So, again, this is surely one
of the best sources available to prove the connection, if not the best.
I can hardly imagine one better.


Please address this triumvirate of evidence, Mr. Raven.  Do you now
accept that there was a Nazi plan or policy to exterminate European
Jewry -- a policy that was carried out, in part, with gas chambers?

Emailed to Mr. Raven, because I've posted a lot to the net recently
and I don't want this important article to get lost in the shuffle.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "I am taking landpost's spelling as correct,
  I realize that is not risk-free"  - Daniel Rice


Article 17739 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!cobra.uni.edu!sunfish!choover
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Message-ID: 
From: choover@usd.edu (Christopher J Hoover )
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 14:16:43 GMT
Sender: news@sunfish.usd.edu
References:      
 <1994Oct14.154635.18638@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de>     
   
Organization: University of South Dakota
Nntp-Posting-Host: sunbird
Lines: 92

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

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

>>> I completely reject your [Stephan SchulzU] analogy.
>>
>>I think it's a very fine analogy.
>>
>>Why do you reject it, Mr. Raven?
>>
>>Would you give a brief explanation?
>>
>>Or will you simply reject it, without comment, leaving your readers to
>>wonder what you're thinking?

>As I mentioned from the very first, I will not be coaxed into long and
>pointless side discussions or metadiscussions.

While the topic may technically qualify as a "metadiscussion," it is 
far from pointless.  It speaks directly to Mr. Raven's credibility as a 
commentator on history.  It demonstrates a tendency on Mr. Raven's part 
to attempt to stack the deck in his favor by pre-defining as invalid any 
evidence he may be presented.

Let us review.

Mr. Raven has repeatedly demanded a "single best piece of evidence," or, 
at best, two pieces.  He has _also_ repeatedly conceded that this is not 
a valid methodology, maintaining that he requests just the one or two 
pieces because he's far too busy a man to address _all_ the documents 
that are posted in his general direction (though he _also_ maintains, 
curiously enough, that there is _not_ a "mountain of evidence" to support 
the factuality of the Holocaust).

Then, when repeatedly presented with public and private replies to his
"single best piece of evidence" demand, he insists that he's never seen
the replies. 

Not satisfied, Mr. Raven further narrows what he will accept as evidence: 
in spite of a complete lack of legal _or_ historiographic precedent for
such a belief, he insists that testimony is not evidence.  When presented
with substantive historiographic discussion of the legitimacy of oral 
history, he casually dismisses the opinions of accomplished professional 
historians in favor of his own, that oral history is only "a type of 
history"--not like it's _real_ history, or of any concern when great 
events are being addressed.

Finally, he rejects the fundamental principles of corroboration and
convergence of evidence--rejecting the notion that historians build their
perceptions of historical truth by examing pieces of evidence in relation
to each other.  He rejects the notion that pieces of historical evidence
can corroborate or support each other, or that they can be converged or
synthesized into a cohesive whole.  It seems that Mr. Raven thinks each
piece of evidence must simply stand on its own for the _entire_ Holocaust,
or it is invalid--this _despite_ his earlier insistence that he never
intended "single best piece of evidence" to be a serious methodology, but
instead a convenient shorthand for wading through the mountain of evidence
presented to him (although, according to him, there is no mountain). 
Although he makes this claim, it is becoming increasingly clear that in
_practice_, this is in fact the only "methodology" Mr. Raven will accept. 

Mr. Raven's approach to historical methodology is plagued by such 
internal inconsistencies; but more importantly it is plagued by an utter 
lack of resemblance to legitimate, scholarly historiography.  Mr. Raven's 
severely limited understanding of historiography wouldn't hold up for 
five minutes under the scrutiny of, say, the editorial board of _The 
Journal of Modern History_.  It is little wonder the _JHR_ isn't juried.

But of course, Holocaust "revisionism" isn't really about historical truth
at all.  It's about politics, and ugly politics at that.  The standards of
proof demanded by Holocaust revisionists are nothing like the
methodological tools of the professional historian, which are designed, at
least, to help arrive at historical truth; the revisionists' standards are
designed, instead, to keep their narrow agenda afloat. 

>If you are Mr. Schulz have
>something substantive to say regarding the oft-alleged Nazi plan or policy
>to exterminate the Jews in gas chambers, then provide that. When you do
>otherwise, it tends to lead me to the conclusion that you have nothing
>substantive with which to back up your position on this matter.

If Mr. Raven is unable to recognize the substantive nature of the reply 
he has been given here in the last few months, there is, perhaps, little 
we or anyone else can do to help him in this matter.  If so, this is most 
unfortunate, but we will continue to try....


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


Article 17740 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!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: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Date: 18 Oct 1994 23:36:39 GMT
Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc.
Lines: 39
Message-ID: 
References:  <37rfq7$fkp@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
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 <37rfq7$fkp@newsbf01.news.aol.com>, annya666@aol.com (AnnyA666)
wrote:

> In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com
> (Greg Raven) writes:
> 
> 
> >At 18:32 10/13/94 -0400, Jamie McCarthy wrote:
> 
> >By the way, are you planning on mentioning Usenet happenings in the
> >Journal?
> 
> >>We are planning some sort of article relating to revisionism and the
> >>Internet, yes.
> 
> Oh, I hope you guys don't do that!  Whenever you write about getting
> deniers online, every looney-tune wack-o crawls out of the woodwork and
> clutters up Cyberspace with half-baked conspiracy theories.  Show a little
> responsibility, won't you.? 
> 
> If you let the worms out of the can, at least make an attempt to see that
> facts are presented correctly and untruths are rebutted.  I've seen folks
> online who read JHR yet hold positions even you guys admit are false. 
> Will you take responsibilty for that?  A girl on Prodigy, for instance,
> regularly quotes IHR literature.  She also beleives that the Protocols of
> the ELders of Zion are the truth and that Anne Frank's diary was written
> in ball-point pen.  Of course you can't be responsible for her
> misinformation, but when you send out an invitation to your readers to
> come join the fun, you should try to keep things fair, don't you think?

-------------

Well, this is a first. An AOLer(in) flaming netters for bringing people
onto the net. 

I think I've really heard it all now. Wow!!

Tim McCarthy
landpost@clark.net


Article 17742 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.kei.com!eff!wariat.org!malgudi.oar.net!sun!oucsace!dspiegel
From: dspiegel@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Dan Spiegel)
Subject: Re: Response to golux
Message-ID: 
Organization: Ohio University CS Dept,. Athens
References: 
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 00:17:15 GMT
Lines: 39

In article  greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:
> [deleted]
>                                          Witness the recent Israeli
>Supreme Court case of John Demjanjuk, in which six "eyewitnesses" claimed
>that Demjanjuk was the culprit. The ISC let Demjanjuk go because other
>evidence to the contrary was more compelling. 

I submit that this is incorrect. I will stipulate that, unlike other
distortions by Mr. Raven that have been proven here, I don't believe
that this one was intentional.

The reason Iwan Demjanjuk was released was based on "doubt". I challenge
Mr. Raven to quote the part of the court's opinion that states that 
"evidence to the contrary was *more* compelling". 

While I believe that there was compelling evidence to the contrary, I
must take issue with the word _more_. I also believe that the quoting
of the word "eywitnesses" implies that Mr. Raven has some doubts either
about their veracity or something, but I don't want Mr. Raven to strain 
himself on two issues at once. Maybe later we can ask him what documents or
evidence led him to quote that word.

>
> [deleted]
>
>Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
>For free information, write to:
>Institute for Historical Review.....
>---------------------------------------------------
>The Journal of ....
>The .............

Mr. Raven continues to advertise impolitely. Hmmm, think he makes 
money off this?

| -DS 	I speak for myself only.  No unsolicited e-mail, please. 	  |
|	    Please do not use my name in any subject headers.		  |
| Obligatory quote: "Sometimes one must cut off a finger to save a hand"  |
|		    -Po, lowly priest of Hunan province, Shao-Lin Master  |


Article 17745 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: 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!EU.net!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
In-Reply-To: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com's message of Tue, 18 Oct 1994 00:45:10 -0800
Message-ID: 
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References:  <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1>
	
	
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 01:43:31 GMT
Lines: 77


From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
>I have seen your posting of this before.

What a git, he ignores it 20 times when he asks for evidence and then
finally, after months, comes back with ``I have seen your posting of
this before'' as if the repetition is annoying.

Well golly-gee Mr Raven, maybe if you'd acknowledged it the last 20 or
50 times you decided, instead, to post how you've never seen any good
evidence of homicidal gas chambers etc we wouldn't now have to be
discussing how many times you've seen it!

>However, you have so far failed to
>answer my question about it, which is: Is this what you consider to be the
>BEST EVIDENCE that the Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate the Jews
>in gas chambers?

I don't have to answer anything Mr Raven, you've got some evidence,
have a ball, the issue is the evidence, not me. If you have something
to add do add it.

>I hope your answer is "yes," because I have been waiting
>for months now for someone to quote the Franke-Gricksch "report" as
>"evidence."

Well I do hope it's something more interesting than you merely doubt
its authenticity.

There's certainly more where that came from, but if you just cast it
all off as "forgeries all forgeries" then I doubt there's anything
short of transporting you by time machine to Auschwitz which will
convince you.

But that's not the point, nobody cares what you are convinced of,
really, we can't save your soul. Just so long as nobody else swallows
your lies.

Remember, Mr Raven, to prove something occurred one only really needs
a few bits of good evidence.

However, to prove it did not occur, you must disprove virtually every
single bit of evidence (or at least so much so it ceases to hold
together.) If I have 10 pieces of evidence and you find fault with
five that's ok, the other five still prove it occurred, unless you
can show they say the contrary.

But certainly claiming some document is of questionable origin hardly
proves anything other than that we can then go on to the next. If we
should run out of such things then perhaps a point has been made.

You have a tough row to hoe, Mr Raven. If I were you I would just get
to it and stop wasting your and everyone else's time with this
irrelevant bickering.

Either you have a case, or you don't.

Thus far it's quite clear that you don't.

--------------------

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



-- 
        -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 17746 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: 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!EU.net!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Franke-Gricksch "report"
In-Reply-To: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com's message of Tue, 18 Oct 1994 07:30:17 -0800
Message-ID: 
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References:  
	
	
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 01:45:07 GMT
Lines: 16


From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
>I'll take that as a "yes," although you don't seem very certain of
>yourself. I will prepare an analysis of the Franke-Gricksch "report" and
>post it here in a couple of days.

And then we can go on to the next.

You will have to show them all to be unsupporting to make your point.


-- 
        -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 17747 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: What Holocaust could be so proved?
In-Reply-To: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com's message of Tue, 18 Oct 1994 07:32:27 -0800
Message-ID: 
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References:  <37o20e$j7f@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
	
	
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 01:51:14 GMT
Lines: 49


From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
>This should be fun. You obviously have no idea about the "source" of the
>Franke-Gricksch "report." I tried to warn you that you should check your
>sources before stating that you thought this to be the BEST evidence to
>support the Holocaust gassing myth, but no. You should enjoy my upcoming
>post on this matter.

I never said it was the BEST (QUOTE PLEASE!), you said that in another
one of your cheap and childish tricks and attributed it to me.

But I do understand, because that is all you are made of Mr Raven,
silly and transparent games which would hardly fool a small child.

When we have looked at Franke-Grisch we shall go on to the next.

Merely showing one piece of evidence is of uncertain origin is hardly
a case, Mr Raven. You still must deal with all the rest.

Or, even better, just ONCE show something even resembling evidence for
your own point of view rather than making vague and inconclusive
complaint about others' evidence.

Like who masterminded this "hoax". Names, places, dates, not vagaries
like "the allies" or "the zionists". People, there must have been
people involved.

Have you anything at all to say on behalf of your bizarre theories
about the matter, Mr Raven? Or only endlessly play games with the
evidence, discount every testimony a priori, claim every document is a
forgery, etc.

--------------------

"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
-- 
        -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 17751 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!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!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Analysis of the Franke-Gricksch "report"
In-Reply-To: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com's message of Tue, 18 Oct 1994 08:24:34 -0800
Message-ID: 
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References: 
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 03:36:54 GMT
Lines: 532


As predicted we are merely treated to one of these tiresome analyses
that in the end says: Mr Raven would like something else and doubts
the F-G Report's authenticity (ie, the "forgeries all forgeries"
defense.)

[I have attached the text in question to the bottom of this message.]

From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
>On Gerald Fleming's part, on February 19, 1991, Brian Renk requested a copy
>of the carbon copy of the original document from which the Report was
>allegedly excerpted. Fleming responded by sending a photocopy of the Report
>ONLY, this in spite of the fact that Fleming has claimed to have in his
>possession one of three carbon copies of the original document.

What's the distinction being made here between a photocopy of the
"Report ONLY" versus a carbon copy of the original document?

Sounds like about the same thing unless your claim is that the
document was somehow altered in the photocopying process.

That's a claim that demands substantiation, in what way do you believe
it was altered or fabricated in photocopying?

>Fleming does not let the F-G report off the hook completely, however. He
>states:
>"Franke-Gricksch's account of 'the execution of the Fuehrer-order," namely,
>the lowering of 'certain materials' into a large cellar room resembling a
>'shower bath' and activation and release of 'particular substances that put
>people to sleep in one minute' is a fraudulent and cynical white-washing of
>death by gassing."

So? What's your point? Apparently Fleming was disgusted with
Franke-Grisch. Would you be more comfortable if Fleming considered F-G
a hero? F-G didn't write this to somehow condemn the gassing of Jews,
he was a Nazi officer reporting to his boss. He wasn't in a
confessional.

>Among of the most obvious things wrong with this "document" is the
>accidental use of English words in place of German words. Some of these
>anglicisms were corrected on the typescript copy, some where not. For
>example, on the first line of the report, "had" for "hat;" "der," the
>second word of line 2, typed over "the;" and on line 3, "hier" typed over
>"here." On line 8 of the second page of the report, the alleged copyist
>typed "had," but corrected it to "hat," only to begin the following word
>with "t" (evidently for "the") before catching that and typing the correct
>German definite article "die." Furthermore, in the final paragraph of page
>1, the English participial ending "d" is twice typed for the German "t,"
>that is "ausgestatted" for "ausgestattet" on line 5, which has been
>corrected, and "gebaded" for "gebadet" on line 9. Last but not least, the
>verb "kommt" is used twice with the same subject in the sentence beginning
>on line 6 of the third paragraph of line 1.

I don't see any of this as particularly damning.

Transcripts, particularly if done by someone who is not fluent in a
language, will be prone to errors.

These are all small errors, you don't seem to claim that they bring
into question what was said in the report.

>All that aside, any reasonable person reading this "report" would
>immediately suspect something is wrong. Where is this "house?" Where are
>the hollow pillars?

Those are fine questions but I don't see how they would lead someone
to suspect anything is wrong.

The report also does not describe what the weather was like on the day
it is written. So what?

It is what it is. You cannot fault it for what it isn't or doesn't
say. It says plenty.

>What "certain substances are used?

This is a complaint?

It says what it says.

>How is it possible
>to open the doors a few minutes after a lethal gassing when a deadly poison
>is supposedly still rampant in the air?

This has been gone over many times before:

	1. It's not difficult to vent out cyanide gas.

	2. Sonderkommandos, those who emptied the gas chambers,
	are often described as wearing gas masks and other
	protective gear.

	3. Unless it was truly lethal taking some chances was no
	great problem since the Sonderkommandos whose job it
	was to empty the chambers were also prisoners also under
	death sentence.

As per usual Mr Raven attempts to appeal to "the sensibilities" of his
audience, but fails to provide them with the information to assess
whether or not these sensibilities are really being challenged.

Why does Mr Raven fail to mention that those used to empty the
chambers were also usually Jewish (or perhaps Russian POW) prisoners?

He clearly tries to give the audience the impression that these are
Nazi officers emptying the chambers, or similar, paid workers or some
such whose lives or health their Nazi overseers would be concerned
with.

>How can the hair be cut off without
>first rinsing it of the poison gas?

You don't normally "rinse off" gas. What are you talking about? A
simple gas mask and some rubber gloves would be more than sufficient.

I've personally worked with cyanide, it doesn't jump up and chase you
around the room. It takes some amount of concentration to be harmful.

You just make this stuff up hoping people, not knowing much anything
about the subject, will just dumbly nod their heads in agreement.

But more importantly, where in the report does it say ANYTHING about
this hair cutting? I don't see the word mentioned.

>Just how big is this house that it has
>elevators for hundreds of dead people?

Huh? What's your objection here exactly? It didn't say it took them
all up on one trip. Is that what you are trying to make people believe
it said? That the "hundreds of dead people" were brought up in one
trip?

   Then
   the corpses are loaded into elevators and brought up to the first
   floor, where ten large crematoria are located.

That's the only sentence you are referring to here. What in that
sentence leads you to believe that this was done in one or even a few
trips? What in that sentence would make you doubt it may have been 10
trips? And it seems to say there were multiple elevators.

And although a naive audience might take the use of the term
"elevators" to mean the sort of thing one has in a hotel or office
building I have no particular reason to believe this. In industrial or
military situations the word might well be used to mean something more
like makeshift dumbwaiters or conveyor belts or some pully and box
arrangements.

>Is it normal for large Polish houses
>to have ten large crematories?

Huh? Ok, F-G starts with:

  "..the unfit go to cellars in a large house which are entered


So now you claim that this "house" is some sort of residence? Is that
what you are reading into this? Why? What's the 1943 common German
colloquial use of a word like Haus or grosse Haus (pardon my German)
in a military bureaucratic context?

Again, you attempt to appeal to a naive audience like some sort of
carnival show huckster working the yokels.

>By what amazing physical property do fresh
>corpses burn particularly well?

I don't know, do you have any evidence to the contrary or do you
merely expect to beat this whole thing by asking some questions?

Maybe F-G was wrong about this detail, so what? It's unlikely he
personally manned the crematoriums.

It's one thing to watch such a killing operation, that would be quite
obvious and plain to see on casual observation, and quite another to
form an educated opinion on how well corpses cremate.

>If it takes a modern crematory 2 to 3 hours
>to partially dispose of a human corpse, how can 10,000 corpses be disposed
>of in 24 hours with only 10 crematories?

We don't know. But we don't know otherwise either.

Perhaps F-G is boasting to his boss, Himmler, a little.

Perhaps he was given bad numbers, again there's a world of difference
between seeing what he initially describes as the killing process
which appears to be something he could easily witness (and from the
details presented, did witness) versus his one sentence summary at the
end of how many per 24 hours are being killed which one could
reasonably assume he got from someone else unless we have reason to
believe he sat there for days counting and calculating averages etc.

Perhaps it was 1,000 and not 10,000 per day, you were the one
complaining about minor transcription errors. His total figure of
about 500,000 killed would only take about two years of "business
days" at that rate. That's well within what else we know of
Auschwitz-Birkenau etc.

Otherwise, at 10,000/day it would be 50 days, about two months. Do you
have any time bounds on the period he is referring to? Is it more
likely two months or two years by 1943 when he writes the report? I
think two years is quite reasonable. So perhaps we should suspect a
slipped digit. But we don't know.

>Pressac says (on page 244), "On 28th June, following the handover of
>Krematorium III, the last one to be completed, Jaehrling calculated the
>overall throughput for the five Krematorien as 4,756 people in 24 hours,
>and sent this information to SS General Kammler in Berlin (Document 68).
>This official figure, coolly doubled when explaining operations to
>high-ranking visitors (ef. SS Major Franke-Gricksch's report above, giving
>a figure of 10,000 in 24 hours), had no basis in practice, and probably has
>to be divided by two or three to arrive at the true figure."
.

So Pressac basically comes to the same conclusion I do, perhaps the
figure was inflated a bit for the boss. I add in the possibility that
it's a typo, or since we have no reason to believe that F-G measured
the rate himself he merely believed what someone else told him. You do
say yourself he was only there about two days, he hardly could have
measured these numbers for himself.

So what?

From this you conclude that nobody was killed?

I think I find it a bit easier to believe that perhaps F-G exagerrates
the numbers for his boss, or some typographical error has occurred, or
in the mere two days he was there for an inspection someone gave him a
bad number than to leap from 10,000/day to zero killed per day.

You certainly have not shown anything to indicate that the correct
number is zero.

What's far more interesting is that F-G, who we assume was not insane
nor an idiot, might have found the 10,000/day figure plausible (even
if as a bit of an exagerration.) That speaks volumes.

>1) The "large house" is actually Krema II at Birkenau.
>2) There are not 5 or 6 steps into the Leichenkeller, but 10.

Oh gasp, I'm sure this is what F-G was trying to get absolutely
accurate, whether there were 5 or 6 or rather 10 steps.

It seems close enough to assume he was working from memory some short
time later.

I could understand if there were no steps, if the steps went up rather
than down, if there were 100 steps (or some number that couldn't
possibly be remembered as 5 or 6) but this is hardly a quibble.

In fact, it seems more like a confirmation, seems hard to believe
that F-G or whoever else you believe fabricated this would just
come up with something like:

	They go down five or six steps into a fairly long, 
	well-constructed and well-ventilated cellar area, which is lined 

out of thin air and be so close to a reasonable description of Krema
II at Auschwitz-Birkenau. Quite a coincidence, wouldn't you say?

>3) There are not 3 pillars inside the "gas chamber" but 4.

Again, that there are roughly this many "pillars" would seem
confirming rather than denying. Do you think he could come up with
this many details which are so close to an accurate description out of
thin air?

>4) The "doors" cannot be closed when there is only one door involved.
>5) There is no door to open "on the other side" because again there is only
>one door.

   A few minutes later, the door opens
   on the other side, where the elevator is located. . . . Then

You're making a lot out of a particular reading of those words
originally written in German, how about:

	the door opens...on the other side where the elevator is
	located.

that is, "on the other side" refers to where the elevator is, not the
door. Reasonable? I think so.

>6) The lift does not take the corpses to the first floor, but to the ground
>floor.

This term is used differently in different countries. Americans call
the "ground floor" the "first floor". The British call the "first
floor" what Americans call the second floor and use the terminology
"ground floor" for what Americans generally (tho not always) call the
first floor. Etc. You'll have to be more specific, like what does a
German call it? ErdgeschoB, right? I'm hardly expert on this but my
German dictionary seems to indicate that the Germans use the American
usage and indicate this is what the British call etc etc.

But I'm sure we have plenty of people available to clear this up I
just know enough to know that this is a valid question regarding your
remark.

And you are still only dealing with a semantic quibble with the
ENGLISH translation. If it said, in the German, ErdgeschoB (I think
that's right) then that's that, no quibble, other than the word(s) the
translator used to render that word into English choosing perhaps the
Americanism rather than the Britishism for "ground floor".

Seems awfully thin, Mr Raven.

>7) There are not 10 crematoria furnaces but 5 three-muffle furnaces.

Perhaps there were 10 at the time. Perhaps they weren't all as fancy
as the ones which survived. Perhaps, given the exact 2:1 ratio of your
number and his there is some obvious explanation like each was used
for two cremations by some device (eg, an iron partition.) Perhaps he
didn't count them himself.

>8) There were probably not 500,000 Jews in killed in May, 1943, and true
>number is somewhere between 200,000 and 250,000.

Again, this is a far cry from your claim that zero were killed.

I have no problem with quibbling F-G's exact numbers, the question at
hand is whether any of it happened at all.

Surely your point is NOT that only 200,000 were gassed? You claim
absolutely none were gassed.

None of what you say supports that at all.

>9) The capacity of Krema II was not 10,000 per 24 hours, but rather 4,756
>for all FIVE crematoria combined, and even this is a theoretical output
>"that was never achieved in 1943, as proved by the Krematorium coke
>consumption." Pressac calls this claim "another Auschwitz SS propaganda
>figure passed on by Franke-Gricksch."

Fine, sounds reasonable to me, F-G exagerrated a bit to impress the
boss. Or whoever gave him the information did. As you say F-G was only
there 2 days, he hardly had time to verify these exact numbers for
himself.

But it would be quite a leap to go from that observation to the
conclusion that ZERO were gassed.

>To make up for these deficiencies, Pressac follows his usual procedure of
>concocting an elaborate scenario in an attempt to preserve the desirable
>portions of the Report while shrugging off the ridiculous portions.
.

Well, your own vague summary of Pressac aside (certainly we know you
do not like the man) I think I've provided rather credible and hardly
interesting (to the meat of the matter) explanations:

F-G is most interesting when he describes what he obviously personally
witnessed, and perhaps is mistaken (in favor of the success of the
operation, not an unusual esprit d'corps in the military) when
reporting precise numbers to present to the boss. Numbers no doubt
obtained from others, F-G was not the bookkeeper, nor was he there
long enough to have possibly measured these himself (two days.)

He was certainly there long enough to personally witness what he
spends most of the report's detailed description on: The killing
process.

>1) He fails to explain how the Sonderkommando members could have resisted
>the lingering Zyklon B gas as they went to work hauling bodies from the gas
>chamber, removing gold teeth, etc., only "a few minutes" after the
>killings.

Rubber gloves and cheap gas masks and decent ventilation. Really quite
minor.

And you were the one who was complaining that no mention of Zyklon B
was mentioned. So how can you therefore conclude this is what they
were dealing with? Or is this true only when it suits your point of
view for the moment?

And the quote I have has nothing about removing gold teeth etc (are
you sure they weren't removed after cremation? I have no idea, but
gold would survive the fires and short of them getting lost it would
be easier to remove the gold then.)

>2) Anyone visiting the ruins of Leichenkeller I can see that the four
>pillars are not hollow at all, but are solid, which would have prevented
>anything from being dropped down them.

Again, dropped down the side, whatever.

We CAN safely assume F-G, if he was able to write the report at all,
was not INSIDE the gas chambers as this was done and perhaps only
inferred the specific mechanics as best as he could see observing from
the outside.

>3) Pressac fails to address the assertion that "fresh corpses burn
>particularly well."

So do you.

>4) Pressac ignores the Report's mention of a "special rail track into an
>area of the camp specifically set aside for this purpose." Although there
>was a rail spur into Birkenau, work was not begun on it until January,
>1944. (This single reference, by the way, is enough by itself to show that
>this document is almost certainly a post-war forgery.)

I don't see any mention of a rail track in the quote I have.

Small sections of rail are relatively easy to lay and undo. What is
your source for any of this claim? Perhaps it only indicates that in
fact there was some sort of rail present and your source is mistaken?
Why do you believe the source you cite over the F-G's mention of this?

If it's a post-war forgery (predictable response) then why so sloppy?

Why couldn't they count the steps or the pillars? Why fabricate rail
tracks as you claim? Why so exagerrate the numbers? Even reporting
1,000/day, one-tenth of what is reported, would surely make the point.

The small errors in detail would seem to validate the report,
forgeries would not likely be so sloppy.

It all sounds, particularly after reading your analysis, much more
like the work of a bureaucrat quickly zipping off what he is required
to produce in a report without checking his facts carefully, relying
on what others told him vis a vis specific numbers etc. He couldn't
measure these numbers in the two days in which he inspected
Auschwitz-Birkenau.

I completely disagree with your conclusions and find them to indicate
quite the opposite.

It is naive to say that if the F-G report were authentic then it must
be factually absolutely accurate in its every detail.

In practice, in the world of evidence, things that are too perfect are
generally more suspect.

Small errors, such as the wrong number of stairs or pillars in the
room, tend to lead to the conclusion that this was someone writing
extemporaneously and without great or sinister purpose.

Forgers tend to be more careful. They're not as likely to make
little errors (eg, pillars or number of stairs) that can easily
be checked.

Most likely a forger would just leave out such minutiae, "several
stairs", "a few pillars" would be sufficient if there were any doubt.
Who would care or notice unless there were no stairs or hundreds of
stairs etc.

>Unmentioned by both Fleming and Pressac is the fact that nowhere in the
>report does it say that Franke-Gricksch SAW the process he describes.

True, so what? It seems fairly clear what he saw and what he didn't,
what he is just summarizing (eg, the number of corpses processed per
day.)

>In
>fact, the report claims he was given a tour of the facilities and the
>process was explained to him. We know from the records at Auschwitz that
>Franke-Gricksch was there from May 14-16, 1943.

Well, that he was there and only for 2 days tells us a lot.

One, that he was there and could well have witnessed much of what he
writes about and two, that he was there only briefly so small errors
of detail would be natural to expect. It would be different perhaps if
he worked in the room or area daily. But on a quick two-day tour
(which no doubt involved other sights at the facility) little things
like whether the pillars were hollow, or not, can easily be understood
to have been overlooked or mistaken in memory.

But I still find it a bit hard to believe that he saw nothing, that no
one was being killed, or no one was being killed by gas, and yet he
wrote this report to Himmler!

>trusting (or perhaps more scrupulous) interpreter would be well within his
>rights to suggest that this document was based on an English-language, not
>German-language, source.

Suggest? Sure. But what have you got? Your hands seem remarkably empty
other than innuendo and rather questionable challenges based mostly on
some strange theory that if it were authentic then every last detail
in the report would be unfailingly accurate.

Forgeries, all forgeries...we've heard it all before Mr Raven.

Doesn't seem likely.

I think you inadvertantly disprove your case.


The report in question, for reference:

  "..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 17756 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.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: Response to golux
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 00:20:22 -0600
Organization: MCSNet Services
Lines: 241
Message-ID: 
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: golux.pr.mcs.net

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

> At  0:10 10/18/94 -0600, golux@mcs.com (The only Golux in the World, and
> not a mere Devi wrote:
> 
> >Perhaps you actually believe that asking for "one piece" of evidence makes
> >you a "fair-minded person."  However, as you have repeatedly been shown,
> >what it really makes you is a bad historian (or no historian at all, to be
> >more accurate).  History does not consist of single pieces of evidence. 
> >No historical event can be demonstrated by reference to a single piece of
> >evidence.  Witness your failure to provide a single piece of evidence that
> >World War II ever happened.
> 
> We seem to have a major communications problem here. One more time, then, I
> am NOT saying that one piece of evidence will "prove" the Holocaust
> extermination claims. What I am asking is that any and all such evidence be
> presented one piece at a time so we can look at it in a deliberate fashion.

Yet when presented with a list of ten pieces of evidence and asked to
address EACH ONE, SEQUENTIALLY, you ignored them all.  And further, when
presented with Himmler's Poznan speech, you say it doesn't mention gas
chambers, hence can't be the "best evidence" of (your definition of) the
Holocaust; and you refuse to address Himmler's speech in conjunction with
other evidence, such as SS memos regarding gassing chambers.

You don't do history by looking at one thing, putting it aside and looking
at another, and so on.  You do history by examining each piece of evidence
as it relates to other available evidence.  You have been told this
repeatedly, yet you refuse to understand it.

> >On a related point -- another example of your lousy grasp of
> >historiography -- you continue to insist that "testimony is not
> >evidence."  Pretty clearly, you have never been near a courtroom, or even
> >a TV courtroom drama.  Testimony of an eyewitness is the single most
> >probative kind of evidence possible.  Much of our history consists of
> >testimony, often oral, often written down by subsequent historians.  What
> >direct evidence do we have of the Peloponnesian Wars?  All we have,
> >really, is Herodotus.  Do you doubt the Peloponnesian Wars occurred?  If
> >not, what is your single best piece of evidence that they did happen?
> 
> Equally clearly, history is not decided in courtrooms, and neither is
> truth. The evidence in legal actions only resembles the truth and/or
> history to the extent that it helps the prosecution or the defense. The
> prosecution's task is to win the case. The defense's task is to obtain a
> not-guilty verdict for the client. Neither truth nor history need be
> involved. Eyewitness testimony, I think you will find, is NOT the single
> most probative kind of evidence possible. Witness the recent Israeli
> Supreme Court case of John Demjanjuk, in which six "eyewitnesses" claimed
> that Demjanjuk was the culprit. The ISC let Demjanjuk go because other
> evidence to the contrary was more compelling. Here in the United States, I
> believe eyewitness testimony must be corroborated by some form of evidence,
> or at the very least be backed up by other eyewitness testimony. However,
> if the eyewitness testimony conflicts with known facts (such as physical
> laws), then the testimony is discarded, not the known facts.

Eyewitness testimony need not be corroborated.  If five people saw you
shoot someone down in cold blood on a busy street, then the fact that the
gun can't be found is not going to do you a lot of good.  Now, admittedly,
with time, memory fades, or becomes less reliable.  Hence testimony long
after the fact may be of less value than testimony immediately after the
fact.  (I suspect that the traumatic extent of the event being recalled
may affect the duration of accurate memory.)  This is what we saw with
Demjanjuk: some 40 years later, six eyewitnesses made an apparently
erroneous identification.  Note that the wrongness of the details does not
mean that these six witnesses didn't see SOMEONE committing atrocities;
certainly the Israeli Supreme Court did not come close to suggesting that
the crimes the witnesses said they had seen never actually occurred.  (And
let us not forget that a major part of the evidence that exculpated
Demjanjuk was evidence that he had been off committing atrocities in a
completely different camp.)

The point being, of course, that an error of detail (in your words, a
"conflict" with "known facts" (and just how are they "known"?)) does not
invalidate a witness's entire testimony; and that eyewitness testimony is
generally considered highly probative.  (Even "physical evidence" requires
testiony to be admissible -- someone has to tell what the evidence is, who
has had access to it, and so on.  Physical evidence must often be
authenticated, and how is that done?  Yep, by testimony.)

> As to testimony as it appears in TV courtroom dramas, one common dramatic
> tool is to get the witness to reverse himself on the stand, proving that
> the witness had erred or perjured himself earlier.

Yes, but that rarely happens.  The primary goal of a cross-examination is
to damage the credibility of the witness.  If witness testimony were not
so probative, there would be little need to discredit it.

> In historiography, we are interested in determining exactly what happened,
> regardless of who is innocent or guilty.

Explain how you can figure out "exactly what happened" over the course of
a campaign of warfare that lasted several years by looking at a single
piece of evidence, or even a string of isolated single pieces of evidence.

> As for your challenge about the Peloponnesian Wars, this seems to be but
> another attempt to side-track the issue. Do you have substantive evidence
> to support Holocaust gassing claims or not? It would seem that if you had
> any, you would present it rather than try to shift the topic to something
> else entirely.

Ah, but there are plenty of others who have been doing just that:
presenting substantive evidence about the gas chambers, presenting
substantive evidence about the Einsatzgruppen, presenting substantive
evidence of the Nazi extermination program.  I have never intended to
duplicate their efforts.  Instead, I intend to (and do) focus attention on
your flawed methodology.  Unless you can demonstrate the validity of your
approach to historiography, the rest of your arguments (or, more often,
your refusal to engage in discussion), being based on such methodology,
are so much wasted electrons.

> >> I realize that this is somewhat restrictive, but if there is truly a
> >> mountain of evidence, then there should be no problem. If, on the other
> >> hand, there is not a mountain of evidence, then someone should come forward
> >> and say so. You see, this is but the first step in finding the truth.
> >> Either there is a mountain of evidence or there isn't.
> >
> >There is.  But you insist on looking at each individual rock and saying,
> >"Well, this is a rock, not a mountain.  Bring on the next rock."  Do you
> >see why this is not a valid means of conducting *either* historical
> >research *or* a debate of any sort?
> 
> Even a mountain must be climbed one step at a time, regardless of its size.
> And by the way, I never claimed that this forum was a valid one for
> conducting historical research or debate. In fact, antics of those who
> claim to believe in the Holocaust extermination myth make it obvious that
> if it were a valid forum, they would be doing even more to disrupt the
> discourse.

This is certainly a valid forum for exposing you deniers and your bogus
approach to history, to argument, to logic.  Every time you post another
article that asks "Is THIS your best evidence?" you emphasize how full of
holes your entire position is.

> >Greg, do you agree with the following propositions, and if not, why not:
> >1. There has been evidence that the Nazis had a plan to exterminate at
> >least the Jews.
> >2. There has been evidence that the Nazis had gas chambers built at
> >Auschwitz and other camps, with which they killed hundreds of thousands,
> >perhaps millions, of Jews and others.
> >Regardless of whether you agree with the evidence, or what it purports to
> >show, do you at least agree that it has been presented for consideration?
> 
> 1. Your question is awkward. I can best answer it by saying I do not
> believe the Nazis had a plan to exterminate the Jews or anyone else during
> WWII.
> 2. Again, an awkward question, to which I will answer that there is
> absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there was even one single Nazi
> homicidal gas chamber. Therefore, millions of Jews could not have been
> killed this way.
> As to your third, unnumbered question, I agree that materials have been put
> forth as proof, but that on examination these proofs have been shown to be
> unworthy of the name.

OK, so now we have two relatively clear position statements from Mr.
Raven:  He does not believe that the Nazis had a plan to exterminate the
Jews, and he does not believe that the Nazis used any homicidal gas
chambers.

Yet you maintain, Mr. Raven, that you do not deny the Holocaust.  Please
reconcile the latter with your two positions above.

> >Next question: What is your single best piece of evidence that anybody has
> >ever claimed that the Nazis had a plan or policy to kill the Jews in gas
> >chambers?  Let's be clear here: I want a piece of evidence showing that
> >someone -- anyone -- has claimed that the Nazis sat around one day and
> >said, essentially, "Hey, let's kill all the Jews in gas chambers!"  You
> >see, Greg, as has been pointed out frequently to you, the "generally
> >accepted view of the Holocaust" has the Nazis sitting around saying,
> >essentially, "Hey, let's kill all the Jews!" and then going out and
> >shooting, starving, overworking and gassing them to death.  The gas
> >chambers were a single method out of many by which the Nazis tried to
> >carry out their plan.  Thus, when Himmler says "We are exterminating the
> >Jews, it is in our program," that shows the plan or policy; and the
> >internal memoranda and letters of the SS and others, and the eyewitness
> >testimonies of those who were in the camps, well those show the gas
> >chambers that formed a part of the execution of that plan.  The
> >Einsatzgruppen reports show other aspects of the plan execution.
> >
> >What is it about this that you don't understand?  And who has ever claimed
> >"The Nazis had a policy of killing the Jews in gas chambers"?
> 
> I love this run-on questions. First, again I reject your attempt to shift
> the discussion to some other topic. Second, if you are saying that you have
> to "add" the "essentials" of what a "bunch of Nazis" said while sitting
> around, to something Himmler allegedly said, to some plainly false and/or
> impossible "eyewitness" testimony in order to prove your point, then in
> essense what you are saying is that there is no direct evidence to support
> the Holocaust extermination claims. Because this is so, why not simply
> admit it so we can go on?

I admit, my question in the large paragraph above was not clear.  However,
it is clear in the very short followup: Who has ever said "The Nazis had a
policy of killing the Jews in gas chambers"?

You see, if that quoted sentence is what you are denying, then you are
arguing against a strawman.  Plenty of people say "The Nazis had a policy
of exterminating the Jews."  Himmler himself said so at Poznan.  Plenty of
people also say, "The Nazis used gas chambers as one means of carrying out
their policy of extermination."  And plenty of evidence exists to support
that.

As for this group, others have invited you to address each of these points
(the plan, and the gas chambers) in any order you wish.  You, for some
inexplicable reason, insist on addressing the non-point (the plan requires
gas chambers).

Here you go, Greg: I admit, there is no evidence to support a claim that
the Nazis planned to exterminate the Jews using gas chambers.  However, I
maintain -- and others post frequently to show -- that there is a mountain
of evidence that (a) the Nazis planned to exterminate the Jews and (b) one
of the means they used to try to achieve this goal was homicidal gas
chambers.

> >But you have defined the Holocaust as the Nazi mass murder of Jews, many
> >of them in gas chambers, have you not?  So if the "mass murder of Jews,
> >many of them in gas chambers" did not involve homicidal gassings...well,
> >what exactly DO you believe the Holocaust was, anyway?
> 
> This definition of the Holocaust is not mine, it is just the starting point
> for the discussion. I do not want to get into a long discussion of what I
> believe happened during the Holocaust, so I will just say that many Jews
> were mistreated, some of them egregiously, some of them lost their lives as
> a result, and some Jews were killed just because they were Jews. However,
> this is an extremely complex situation with many nuances, and simply
> statements do not begin to cover the territory. I do not believe that the
> Nazis used gas chambers to kill Jews.

Another clear statement of position.  Now that we have established this
position, Mr. Raven, perhaps you will engage in some discussion about it. 
Why not address the testimonies, memoranda, and other evidence of the gas
chambers?  I'm sure Jamie McCarthy, Danny Keren, Barry Shein and Ken McVay
would be delighted to provide you with the evidence, one piece at a time.

Posted 'n' emailed

-- 
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 17761 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu!miavx1!bpharmon
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Message-ID: <1994Oct19.023458.31721@miavx1>
From: bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Raskolnikov)
Date: 19 Oct 94 02:34:58 -0500
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
References:   
Organization: Miami University
Lines: 133

In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:
> In article <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1>, bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
> (Raskolnikov) wrote:
>> 
>> You then changed your whole argument and said that 35 volumes
>> is too many, and couldn't I just pick one or two documents.
>> Ignoring, of course that this was (in essence) a retraction of 
>> your statement that no large body of documentation exists on the
>> Holocaust.  
> 
> Disregarding the argumentative portions of this posting that claim I have
> changed my position, I ask you to put yourself it my place for a moment. Do
> you really think I haven't read volume after volume of Holocaust-related
> material? 

Well, I honestly don't know if you've looked at the evidence
or not.  Since you claimed that no large body of evidence 
existed, I simply assumed that you had never seen it.  

Now that you claim to have looked at volumes of material 
including documents and such, I take it we can agree that 
this evidence exists (by your own admission).

Your gripe seems to be that the evidence doesn't say what 
the rest of the world thinks it says, not that said evidence
doesn't exist.  

> Holocaust-related books, and try to be familiar with all of them. Now, when
> I ask for best evidence, I am trying to avoid the impression that I am
> setting up strawmen that are easily knocked down. I am saying, "tell me
> what YOU think is the strongest evidence to support the Holocaust gassing
> stories." This allows you and others who believe these stories to respond
> with the most substantive evidence. 

Then why are you so inflexible on the _amount_ presented?  I fail 
to see why ten relatively short documents would be so much more
difficult to deal with than just _one_.  

If it's a matter of us saying that these ten are the best evidence,
than I'm sure that could be arranged.

In all the time you have spent telling us how you'll only respond
to just one piece of evidence, you could have easily responded to 
ten or twenty.

>> What followed soon after was the fabled May 4th posting, which you
>> have never adressed.
> 
> As I posted early on, if you do not see my respond to a post, repost it to
> make sure I have seen it. You and the others refer to this only as the May
> 4th post. What's the matter, is there no evidence in it, so you have to
> refer to it by the date alone? If it is so important to you, repost it. How
> many times do I have to ask for this? Do you want me to see it or don't
> you?

Well then, perhaops we can repost it and e-mail a copy to you.  
It's the one with ten pieces of evidence in it, including Himmler's
Ponzan speech.  Does that jog your memory at all?

[snip]
>> > "Convergence of evidence" is something else, as I understand it, which is
>> > to say that none of the so-called "evidence" is enough to stand alone, so
>> > one must prop it up with other "evidence" that is also not enough by
>> > itself. I reject this methodology.
>>  
>> You reject the methodology of every historian and 
>> lawyer in the world.
> 
> As I have stated elsewhere, the study of history and the practice of law
> are only incidentally similar, and there are fundamental differences
> between the two that make it impossible to conflate them, as you have
> attempted to do.

Perhaps you misunderstand why people are making connections
between historical proof and the legal ins and outs of a courtroom.

   It is much harder to prove someone guilty in a criminal case
than to prove an event occured in history.

  In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove beyond any 
shadow of a doubt that the defendant is guilty, per the 
Jury's decision.  They must provide evidence showing that the 
defendant had the means, the s/he was there at the time the crime 
was committed, that an opportunity presented itself, and that the 
defendant actually did the deed.

   If there is any doubt whatsoever that the defendant may actually
be innocent, s/he must be acquitted.  This means that a guilty 
person walks if the necessart evidence cannot be located -- the 
body is gone, the prosecution bungled the case, etc.

   No court case in history has ever been proven on a single 
piece of evidence.  It takes many, and they all have to point
towards the defendant's guilt.  

Now then, given the extremely rigorous standards for demonstrating
guilt in a courtroom, why is it then invalid to use this approach 
towards a historical event like the Holocaust?  

Why is just one piece of evidence pointing to an event more
acceptable than ten or a thousand or any other number?

> As for your representations about the way historians work, I know
> historians who do NOT work that way, and I respect their work, even when I
> disagree with their conclusions. 

Name them.  

Give me a historian who does not use several
pieces of evidence from different sources to provide a
complete picture of a historical event.

I'm serious, I want names.

> Convergence of evidence is fine for
> witchcraft trials: it has no place in the search for truth.

Let me make a request.  Why don't you just outline for us how
any historical event can be proven by a single piece of evidence?
Please be somewhat specific and name an example, like WWI or II, 
the vietnam war, or even the last presidential election.  

I think if you do this, it will become quite evident why
your claim is unreasonable.

Hell, cite your single best evidence that you ate breakfast yesterday, 
if it suits you.


Posted and emailed.

Brian Harmon
--------------bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu--------------------------


Article 17762 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!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: Franke-Gricksch "report"
Date: 19 Oct 1994 06:50:29 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 83
Message-ID: <382fjl$i8d@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References:    
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu
X-ORIGINAL-NEWSGROUPS: alt.revisionism

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

# All that aside, any reasonable person reading this "report" would
# immediately suspect something is wrong. Where is this "house?" 

In Auschwitz. You couldn't figure this out yourself?

# Where are the hollow pillars? 

In the gas chamber. You couldn't figure this out yourself?

# What "certain substances are used? 

Franke-Gricksch was not a chemist, or a toxicologist. So, he didn't
specify the exact type of gas used. So what?

# How is it possible
# to open the doors a few minutes after a lethal gassing when a 
# deadly poison is supposedly still rampant in the air? 

The underground gas chambers had powerful ventilation systems. This
is well-known and even the "revisionists" don't deny this.

# How can the hair be cut off without
# first rinsing it of the poison gas? 

Using gloves, perhaps?

# Just how big is this house that it has
# elevators for hundreds of dead people? 

"House" might be a bad choice of a word, or maybe the meaning is
lost in the translation. He's obviously talking about Krema II
or III.

# Is it normal for large Polish houses to have ten large crematories? 

See above. But, what I really want to know is the following:

IS IT NORMAL FOR A "WORK CAMP" OR A "TRANSIT CAMP" TO HAVE FIVE
HUGE CREMATORIUMS WITH A TOTAL OF 52 CREMATION FURNACES?

What do you say, you "revisionist scholar" you?

# Anyone visiting the ruins of Leichenkeller I can see that the four
# pillars are not hollow at all, but are solid, which would have prevented
# anything from being dropped down them.

As Pressac and others note, the Zyklon was dropped in through
perforated metal columns, which were lowered into the chambers,
and not through the pillars which hold the roof.

# The mass gassing of
# millions of Jews (and millions of others) is no easy task, and would
# certainly leave behind some trace. 

Oh, it left many traces. "Revisionists" simply ignore them, or
claim they are forgeries, or not reliable, or whatever.


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.




-Danny Keren.



Article 17772 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx10.cs.du.edu!not-for-mail
From: choover@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Christopher Hoover)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Elevators Re: Analysis of the Franke-Gricksch "report"
Date: 19 Oct 1994 09:19:43 -0600
Organization: University of Denver, Math/CS Dept.
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <383def$kuh@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
References:  
NNTP-Posting-Host: nyx10.cs.du.edu
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #3 (NOV)

bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:

[Quoting Greg Raven]

>>Just how big is this house that it has
>>elevators for hundreds of dead people?

>Huh? What's your objection here exactly? It didn't say it took them
>all up on one trip. Is that what you are trying to make people believe
>it said? That the "hundreds of dead people" were brought up in one
>trip?

>   Then
>   the corpses are loaded into elevators and brought up to the first
>   floor, where ten large crematoria are located.

>That's the only sentence you are referring to here. What in that
>sentence leads you to believe that this was done in one or even a few
>trips? What in that sentence would make you doubt it may have been 10
>trips? And it seems to say there were multiple elevators.

>And although a naive audience might take the use of the term
>"elevators" to mean the sort of thing one has in a hotel or office
>building I have no particular reason to believe this. In industrial or
>military situations the word might well be used to mean something more
>like makeshift dumbwaiters or conveyor belts or some pully and box
>arrangements.

I'm just thinking out loud here, but it occurs to me that to a 
Midwestern, Tim-McCarthy-approved "shit kicker" [tm], such as myself, 
another meaning of the word "elevator" might come to mind.  To wit:  an 
inclined conveyer-belt mechanism such as the one that was used to move  
corn up into the top of the corn crib on the farm I grew up on.  This 
contraption was called an "elevator" too.  

Now, I've no idea whether this is what they used, but I imagine such a 
contraption would be fairly useful in moving bodies up from a lower level.


Chris
-- 
Christopher J. Hoover    choover@nyx.cs.du.edu     Kibo flavor:  Unlisted
Disclaimer:  standard    It's *always* September, *somewhere* on the Net.


Article 17776 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!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: What do you mean, "best interest?"
Date: 19 Oct 1994 13:25:58 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <383kr6$49a@access4.digex.net>
References:  <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1>  
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:
>It is not in my best interest to do so, but I urge you to
>consider carefully your response to this question.

    What a curious statement.  Mr. Raven seems to be framing this in terms
of some personal interest, not the best interest of truth and historical
accuracy.  Why is that, I wonder?

-- 
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 17777 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uhog.mit.edu!sgiblab!sgigate.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!ames!waikato!comp.vuw.ac.nz!newshost.wcc.govt.nz!QUIRKE_A@ix.wcc.govt.nz
From: quirke_a@ix.wcc.govt.nz
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Date: 19 Oct 1994 21:08:54 GMT
Organization: Wellington City Council, Public Access
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <3841t6$lhs@golem.wcc.govt.nz>
References:    <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1>   ,
Reply-To: quirke_a@ix.wcc.govt.nz
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix.wcc.govt.nz

k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) writes:
> Greg Raven writes:

>> As for your representations about the way historians work, I know
>> historians who do NOT work that way, and I respect their work, even when I
>> disagree with their conclusions. Convergence of evidence is fine for
>> witchcraft trials: it has no place in the search for truth.

>Name two historians who arrive at conclusions by examining each individual
>piece of evidence, without considering how they all fit together.

   Let's be specific. Name two historians with Masters or Doctorate degrees
who have had a thesis or refereed paper accepted by their peers as
legitimate who based said thesis or paper on an individual piece of evidence
without providing any context or additional supporting evidence.

- Tony Q.
---
Tony Quirke, Wellington, New Zealand (email for phone no)
"Give me back the Berlin Wall, give me Stalin and St. Paul.
"Give me Christ or give me Hiroshima.
"Destroy another fetus now, we don't like children anyhow.
"I've seen the future, baby: it is murder." - Leonard Cohen


Article 17790 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!casaba.srv.cs.cmu.edu!spok
From: spok+@cs.cmu.edu (John Ockerbloom)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Another self-contradiction (Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15)
Date: 19 Oct 1994 19:24:12 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <383ros$f9i@casaba.srv.cs.cmu.edu>
References:    
NNTP-Posting-Host: gs1.sp.cs.cmu.edu

Add this one to the list of Greg Raven's self-contradictions:

In article ,
Jamie McCarthy  wrote:
>(5) Most baffling and astounding of all:  Mr. Raven has _admitted_
>that the Nazis had a plan to exterminate the Jewish people. [...]

>When I asked him:

>   Why will you not accept Himmler's saying "the Jews are being
>   exterminated," if you _would_ accept him saying "the Jews are
>   being exterminated in gas chambers"?

[part of Raven's reply to this question is]

>   I accept what Himmler said about Jews being exterminated (semantics
>   aside for the moment) because, the way he describes it, that could
>   be regarded as an accurate description of what is happening.

Yet in article greg.ihr-181094002723@DialupNewsWatcher, posted on Oct 18,
Greg Raven says:

> 1. Your question is awkward. I can best answer it by saying I do not
>  believe the Nazis had a plan to exterminate the Jews or anyone else during
> WWII.

Well, there you have it.  Himmler says the Jews are being exterminated
as per Party program.  (Himmler's full quotes are available in the
referenced article Jamie McCarthy wrote.)  Greg Raven says he accepts
what Himmler says.  But he also says in another acricle that he
doesn't believe the Nazis had a plan to exterminate them.

Sorry, you can't get away with saying both of those, at least not in a
forum like Usenet where people can recall what you've said previously.
So, which statement are you going to retract: the one that the Nazis
had no extermination plan, or the one that Himmler's description is
acceptable to you?

Or are you going to try to argue that Himmler didn't really mean what
he said?  But if you are going to try that tack, you now not only have
to make that case, but also explain why your reply to Jamie's
question makes any sense.

Your attempts to obscure the truth are becoming more and more obvious.  

John Ockerbloom
-- 
==========================================================================
ockerbloom@cs.cmu.edu            1603 Beechwood Blvd., Pittsburgh PA 15217


Article 17791 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!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Elevators Re: Analysis of the Franke-Gricksch "report"
In-Reply-To: choover@nyx10.cs.du.edu's message of 19 Oct 1994 09:19:43 -0600
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References:  
	<383def$kuh@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 00:31:26 GMT
Lines: 35


From: choover@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Christopher Hoover) [responding to me]
>>And although a naive audience might take the use of the term
>>"elevators" to mean the sort of thing one has in a hotel or office
>>building I have no particular reason to believe this. In industrial or
>>military situations the word might well be used to mean something more
>>like makeshift dumbwaiters or conveyor belts or some pully and box
>>arrangements.
>
>I'm just thinking out loud here, but it occurs to me that to a 
>Midwestern, Tim-McCarthy-approved "shit kicker" [tm], such as myself, 
>another meaning of the word "elevator" might come to mind.  To wit:  an 
>inclined conveyer-belt mechanism such as the one that was used to move  
>corn up into the top of the corn crib on the farm I grew up on.  This 
>contraption was called an "elevator" too.  

Yes, and this has been translated from the German to English so at the
very least someone would need to examine the exact German word used
and its connotation in the context. Even the British call an office
building or residential elevator a "lift", etc.

On the other hand I believe enough of Krema II exists to simply know
what he was referring to. Somehow Raven would prefer readers instead
to speculate on the facts, the meaning of the word "elevator" in that
context etc when the simple facts are probably known and probably
answer his leading questions well enough.




-- 
        -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 17792 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: Himmler's speech
Date: 13 Oct 1994 23:52:22 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <37kh7n$agn@agate.berkeley.edu>
References:  <37jiu8$sgc@eis.calstate.edu> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet-fddi.berkeley.edu

In article ,
Wayne McGuire  wrote:

>Now, this is interesting. Certainly the remarks indicate that the
>Nazi leadership had the extermination of the Jews on their mind
>as an option in the early forties. But it also striking that the
>better option in Hitler's mind in 1942 was migration, evacuation,
>deportation, or resettlement.

What about Hitler's Reichstag speech of 10 January 1939?

>According to Mayer, the Judeocide began
>in earnest when Germany's drive on the Soviet Union faltered, and
>all avenues of escape for Jewish emigration were cut off.
>
>How would you interpret Hitler's comment above, and do you have
>any informed and rational criticism of Mayer's thesis?

You might try reading Hilberg's _The Destruction of the European Jews_,
which is one of the standard works on the Holocaust even though it was
not published by Harvard University Press, or look at the primary
source documents he uses.  In another thread, I posted a report from
the Einsatzgruppen that they had killed several hundred thousand Jews
by December 1941.  This seems like a refutation of Mayer's thesis
without having to go any further.
--
				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 17809 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!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Date: 20 Oct 1994 00:25:52 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <384rgg$97u@access4.digex.net>
References:    
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article ,
Christopher J Hoover   wrote:
>Finally, he rejects the fundamental principles of corroboration and
>convergence of evidence--rejecting the notion that historians build their
>perceptions of historical truth by examing pieces of evidence in relation
>to each other.  He rejects the notion that pieces of historical evidence
>can corroborate or support each other, or that they can be converged or
>synthesized into a cohesive whole.  It seems that Mr. Raven thinks each
>piece of evidence must simply stand on its own for the _entire_ Holocaust,
>or it is invalid

    Except that he is not consistent there either.  When presented with 
the Himmler speech, all of a sudden he insisted it *must* be evaluated in 
relation to other Himmler speeches, not on its own!
-- 
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 17811 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!gatech!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!news.duke.edu!solaris.cc.vt.edu!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Eyewitnesses and Demjanjuk
Date: 20 Oct 1994 00:40:10 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <384sba$9oi@access4.digex.net>
References:  
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article ,
Dan Spiegel  wrote:
>In article 
>greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:
>> [deleted]
>>                                          Witness the recent Israeli
>>Supreme Court case of John Demjanjuk, in which six "eyewitnesses" claimed
>>that Demjanjuk was the culprit. The ISC let Demjanjuk go because other
>>evidence to the contrary was more compelling. 
>
>I submit that this is incorrect. I will stipulate that, unlike other
>distortions by Mr. Raven that have been proven here, I don't believe
>that this one was intentional.
>
>The reason Iwan Demjanjuk was released was based on "doubt". I challenge
>Mr. Raven to quote the part of the court's opinion that states that 
>"evidence to the contrary was *more* compelling". 

    It should be kept in mind that the *only* thing in question was the
identification of John Demjanjuk as the *same* person who was known in the
camp as "Ivan the Terrible."  There was no question as to the fact that
such a person existed and committed terrible crimes.  There is quite a
difference between making a positive identification of someone over forty
years after the fact, and becoming confused over seeing a murder
committed.

-- 
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 17812 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: 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!EU.net!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Eyewitnesses and Demjanjuk
In-Reply-To: mstein@access4.digex.net's message of 20 Oct 1994 00:40:10 -0400
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References:  
	<384sba$9oi@access4.digex.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 05:38:48 GMT
Lines: 67


From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
>>>                                          Witness the recent Israeli
>>>Supreme Court case of John Demjanjuk, in which six "eyewitnesses" claimed
>>>that Demjanjuk was the culprit. The ISC let Demjanjuk go because other
>>>evidence to the contrary was more compelling. 
>>
>>I submit that this is incorrect. I will stipulate that, unlike other
>>distortions by Mr. Raven that have been proven here, I don't believe
>>that this one was intentional.
>>
>>The reason Iwan Demjanjuk was released was based on "doubt". I challenge
>>Mr. Raven to quote the part of the court's opinion that states that 
>>"evidence to the contrary was *more* compelling". 
>
>    It should be kept in mind that the *only* thing in question was the
>identification of John Demjanjuk as the *same* person who was known in the
>camp as "Ivan the Terrible."  There was no question as to the fact that
>such a person existed and committed terrible crimes.  There is quite a
>difference between making a positive identification of someone over forty
>years after the fact, and becoming confused over seeing a murder
>committed.

There was also little doubt that he had falsified his identity to gain
entry to the United States after the war (he was convicted of that.)

That alone is a fairly serious crime, particularly when it becomes
evident what he was trying to cover up.

That answers the common complaint that Mr Demanjuk was somehow
unfairly inconvenienced.

Had he been concerned about that, and believed he was right or even
deserving of mercy, he might have attempted to come clean about it in
the previous forty odd years. I'm sure he wouldn't have been the
first. But instead he chose to live his life as a lie, and eventually
it caught up with him.

There's really not much good to say about the man other than that he
managed to get off the hook on the major charges mainly because he
plausibly appeared to be off comitting crimes elsewhere at the time.

It's hardly an abortion of justice.

It's also always hard for me to understand why those who want to speak
ill of Israel (or well of the Nazis or whatever it is) in some big way
harp on this case, it's a terrible example for their point of view.

The only conclusion is that the court, after considering the evidence,
allowed him to walk away free. Hardly the stuff of nightmares, and Mr
Demanjuk was hardly an innocent babe. His convictions on falsifying
his entry identity in the US already made him a criminal, and were
quite relevant to the charges he then had to face. It certainly helped
establish reasonable cause by any respected standard.

I don't even know that Demanjuk complains of being ill-treated the way
the revisionists and others with an agenda make of it.

For all we know his views are closer to the rest of the world's; he
did bad things, he knows that, he got off easy, not only justice but
mercy was well-served.

-- 
        -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 17817 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!caen!spool.mu.edu!agate!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: One step at a time
Date: 20 Oct 1994 20:18:20 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <386jac$lk1@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu
X-ORIGINAL-NEWSGROUPS: alt.revisionism

Willi Mentz testifies about his days in Treblinka
[Quoted in 'The Good Old Days' - E. Klee, W. Dressen, V. Riess, The 
Free Press, NY, 1988., p. 245-247]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
When I came to Treblinka the camp commandant was a doctor named Dr. Eberl.
He was very ambitious. It was said that he ordered more transports
than could be "processed" in the camp. That meant that trains had to
wait outside the camp because the occupants of the previous transport
had not yet all been killed. At the time it was very hot and as a
result of the long wait inside the transport trains in the intense
heat many people died. At the time whole mountains of bodies lay on
the platform. The Hauptsturmfuehrer Christian Wirth came to Treblinka
and kicked up a terrific row. And then one day Dr.  Eberl was no
longer there...

For about two months I worked in the upper section of the camp and
then after Eberl had gone everything in the camp was reorganized. The
two parts of the camp were separated by barbed wire fences. Pine
branches were used so that you could not see through the fences. The
same thing was done along the route from the "transfer" area to the
gas chambers...

Finally, new and larger gas chambers were built. I think that there
were now five or six larger gas chambers. I cannot say exactly how
many people these large gas chambers held. If the small gas chambers
could hold 80-100 people, the large ones could probably hold twice
that number...

Following the arrival of a transport, six to eight cars would be
shunted into the camp, coming to a halt at the platform there. The
commandant, his deputy Franz, Kuettner and Stadie or Maetzig would be
here waiting as the transport came in. Further SS members were also
present to supervise the unloading: for example, Genz and Belitz had
to make absolutely sure that there was no one left in the car after
the occupants had been ordered to get out.

When the Jews had got off, Stadie or Maetzig would have a short word
with them.  They were told something to the effect that they were a
resettlement transport, that they would be given a bath and that they
would receive new clothes. They were also instructed to maintain quiet
and discipline. They would continue their journey the following day.

Then the transports were taken off to the so-called "transfer" area.
The women had to undress in huts and the men out in the open. The
women were than led through a passageway, known as the "tube", to the
gas chambers. On the way they had to pass a hut where they had to hand
in their jewellery and valuables..


Article 17818 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!swrinde!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Mountains of evidence
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 23:33:54 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 57
Message-ID: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com

At  2:36 10/19/94 -0400, Raskolnikov wrote:

>In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:
>> Disregarding the argumentative portions of this posting that claim I have
>> changed my position, I ask you to put yourself it my place for a moment. Do
>> you really think I haven't read volume after volume of Holocaust-related
>> material? 
>
>Well, I honestly don't know if you've looked at the evidence
>or not.  Since you claimed that no large body of evidence 
>existed, I simply assumed that you had never seen it.  
>
>Now that you claim to have looked at volumes of material 
>including documents and such, I take it we can agree that 
>this evidence exists (by your own admission).

No. I agree that there is material being put forth as evidence, while in
fact it is nothing of the kind.

>Then why are you so inflexible on the _amount_ presented?  I fail 
>to see why ten relatively short documents would be so much more
>difficult to deal with than just _one_.  
>
>In all the time you have spent telling us how you'll only respond
>to just one piece of evidence, you could have easily responded to 
>ten or twenty.

Again, please give me a little credit. I have engaged in on-line
discussions such as this before, and I know from experience that unless you
focus on something specific, the discussion ranges everywhere but where it
ought. The difficulty I have had in getting anyone to provide their one
best piece of evidence that the Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate
the Jews in gas chambers should attest to that, in spades.

>Let me make a request.  Why don't you just outline for us how
>any historical event can be proven by a single piece of evidence?
>Please be somewhat specific and name an example, like WWI or II, 
>the vietnam war, or even the last presidential election.  

As I have stated over and over and over and over, I do NOT believe that any
historical event can be proven by a single piece of evidence!!! I only want
to look at what you and others say is the BEST evidence one piece of
evidence at a time. To you use precious "courtroom" analogy, lawyers don't
dump all their evidence on the court at the same time. They produce each
piece one at a time. That is all I am asking. If you think you have 5,038
pieces of evidence to support the Holocaust extermination claims, fine.
Start be showing me what YOU think is the very BEST piece of that evidence,
and we'll go on from there.

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
For free information, write to:
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 17819 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!swrinde!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: One step at a time
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 23:34:34 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 68
Message-ID: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com

At  0:20 10/19/94 -0600, golux@mcs.com (The only Golux in the World, and
not a mere Devi wrote:

>> We seem to have a major communications problem here. One more time, then, I
>> am NOT saying that one piece of evidence will "prove" the Holocaust
>> extermination claims. What I am asking is that any and all such evidence be
>> presented one piece at a time so we can look at it in a deliberate fashion.
>
>Yet when presented with a list of ten pieces of evidence and asked to
>address EACH ONE, SEQUENTIALLY, you ignored them all.  And further, when
>presented with Himmler's Poznan speech, you say it doesn't mention gas
>chambers, hence can't be the "best evidence" of (your definition of) the
>Holocaust; and you refuse to address Himmler's speech in conjunction with
>other evidence, such as SS memos regarding gassing chambers.

You seem to be getting desperate. I never saw the list, and whenever I did
see elements of that list, I responded to them. By the way, that is not MY
definition of the Holocaust. I merely quoted it. Just about everyone else
accepted it for the sake of the discussion. If you want now to say that
there were no gas chambers involved in the so-called Holocaust, that's fine
too. After all, that is one of the points I am trying to make here.

>Eyewitness testimony need not be corroborated.  If five people saw you
>shoot someone down in cold blood on a busy street, then the fact that the
>gun can't be found is not going to do you a lot of good.

I believe that in U.S. courts, five essentially identical eyewitness
testimonies would tend to collaborate each other.

>The point being, of course, that an error of detail (in your words, a
>"conflict" with "known facts" (and just how are they "known"?)) does not
>invalidate a witness's entire testimony; and that eyewitness testimony is
>generally considered highly probative.  (Even "physical evidence" requires
>testiony to be admissible -- someone has to tell what the evidence is, who
>has had access to it, and so on.  Physical evidence must often be
>authenticated, and how is that done?  Yep, by testimony.)

Here we have a major difference between your position and mine. I believe
that physical laws and material facts are more than "details."

>Here you go, Greg: I admit, there is no evidence to support a claim that
>the Nazis planned to exterminate the Jews using gas chambers.  However, I
>maintain -- and others post frequently to show -- that there is a mountain
>of evidence that (a) the Nazis planned to exterminate the Jews and (b) one
>of the means they used to try to achieve this goal was homicidal gas
>chambers.

Fine. Now, show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber.

>Why not address the testimonies, memoranda, and other evidence of the gas
>chambers?  I'm sure Jamie McCarthy, Danny Keren, Barry Shein and Ken McVay
>would be delighted to provide you with the evidence, one piece at a time.

I would be delighted to view the evidence (assuming, of course, that you
are referring to evidence of the existence of Nazi gas chambers). However,
if their past posts are any guide, they have no evidence to show that even
one Nazi gas chamber existed, let alone that they dotted the European
landscape, and were constantly in use murdering Jews, as their many
messages imply.

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
For free information, write to:
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 17820 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!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uhog.mit.edu!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: A triumverate of wishful thinking
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 23:35:14 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 68
Message-ID: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com

At 16:03 10/18/94 -0400, Jamie McCarthy wrote:

>I propose that the best evidence for the Holocaust is a triumvirate of
>evidence, which I present below.
>
>To prove the plan, I present the first document of the triumvirate.  This
>happens to be the same one we've been discussing all this time, the first
>document from the May 4th article:  Himmler's speeches on October 4th and
>6th, 1943, to SS officers and Gauleiter, at a place called Poznan.
>
>The second document of the triumvirate is the fact that the gassings were
>occurring.  For this document, I cite Hoess' memoirs, specifically the
>fourth document from the May 4th article:
>
>The third document ties the first two together conclusively.  The two
>by themselves do not prove that the gassings were a result of the plan
>to exterminate European Jewry.  (True, Hoess does mention above that
>the killing of the Sonderkommando was "in accordance with Eichmann's
>instructions," but this isn't the strongest link possible.)
>
>To demonstrate the connection, I again turn to Hoess' memoirs, in which
>he makes it clear.  Again, I point out that this evidence has been
>posted to this newsgroup before:
>
>Again, what evidence could possibly be better than this to prove this
>point?  We want to demonstrate that the Auschwitz exterminations were
>the result of an order from above, expressing the desire to exterminate
>European Jewry;  in Hoess' memoirs, we find his account of receiving
>exactly that order to do exactly that.  So, again, this is surely one
>of the best sources available to prove the connection, if not the best.
>I can hardly imagine one better.
>
>Please address this triumvirate of evidence, Mr. Raven.  Do you now
>accept that there was a Nazi plan or policy to exterminate European
>Jewry -- a policy that was carried out, in part, with gas chambers?

NO WONDER you get so cranky with me for taking the position I do on the
Holocaust extermination myth! You have absolutely nothing on which to base
your belief.

Your first "evidence" is the Himmler speech, with which I have dealt
repeatedly, and which I have conclusively shown not to have referred to gas
chambers.

Your second and third pieces of "evidence" are the Hoess memoirs, Hoess
being so discredited that Deborah Lipstadt, Christopher Browning, and (if
he is as good as his word) Michael Berenbaum say is untrustworthy!

None of the three pieces of "evidence" is evidence at all. The two Hoess
pieces are post-war writings from a time after he had been tortured and
broken. You offer no solid evidence whatsoever, merely a loose collection
of some things that people said that have no factual counterpart (that is,
no gas chambers).

If this is your best evidence, even YOU should be skeptical of Holocaust
gassing claims. Your position on these claims is bereft of support.

Now please, let's hear no more lies about Greg Raven not responding to the
"May 4th evidence." Sheesh. Get serious.

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
For free information, write to:
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 17821 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!caen!spool.mu.edu!agate!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: One step at a time
Date: 20 Oct 1994 20:19:01 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <386jbl$lkm@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu
X-ORIGINAL-NEWSGROUPS: alt.revisionism

SS-Untersturmfuehrer Oberhauser on the death camp at Belzec
[Quoted in 'The Good Old Days' - E. Klee, W. Dressen, V. Riess, The 
Free Press, NY, 1988., p. 228-230]
----------------------------------------------------------------
The camp of Belzec was situated north-east of the Tomaszo'w to Lemberg
[Lvov] road beyond the village of Belzec. As the camp needed a siding
for the arriving transports the camp was built about 400 meters from
Belzec station. The camp itself was divided into two sections: section
1 and section 2. The siding led directly from Belzec station into
section 2 of the camp, in which the undressing barracks as well as the
gas installations and the burial field were situated...

The gassing of Jews which took place in Belzec camp up till 1 August
1942 can be divided into two phases. During the first series of
experiments there were two to three transports consisting of four to
six freight cars each holding twenty to forty persons. On the average
150 Jews were delivered and killed per transport. At that stage the
gassings were not yet part of a systematic eradication action but were
carried out to test and study closely the camp's capacity and the
technical problems involved in carrying out a gassing...

At the beginning of May 1942 SS-Oberfuehrer Brack from the Fuehrer's
chancellery suddenly came to Lublin. With Globocnik he discussed
resuming the extermination of the Jews. Globocnik said he had too few
people to carry out this programme. Brack stated that the euthanasia
programme had stopped and that the people from T4 would from now on be
detailed to him on a regular basis so that the decisions taken at the
Wannsee conference could be implemented. As it appeared that it would
not be possible for the Einsatzgruppen to clear individual areas of
Jews and the people in the large ghettos of Warsaw and Lemberg by
shooting them, the decision had been taken to set up two further
extermination camps which would be ready by 1 August 1942, namely
Treblinka and Sobibor. The large-scale extermination programme 
[Vernichtungsaktion] was due to start on 1 August 1942.

About a week after Brack had come to Globocnik, Wirth and his staff
returned to Belzec. The second series of experiments went on until
1 August 1942. During this period a total of five to six transports
(as far as I am aware) consisting of five to seven freight cars
containing thirty to forty people came to Belzec. The Jews from two
of these transports were gassed in the small chamber, but then Wirth
had the gas huts pulled down and built a massive new building with a 
much larger capacity. It was here that the Jews from the rest of the
transport were gassed.

During the first experiments and the first set of transports in the
second series of experiments bottled gas was still used for gassing;
however, for the last transports of the second series of experiments
the Jews were killed with the exhaust gases from a tank or lorry
engine which was operated by Hackenholt.


Article 17822 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Elevators Re: Analysis of the Franke-Gricksch "report"
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 23:37:01 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 32
Message-ID: 
References:   <383def$kuh@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com

In article <383def$kuh@nyx10.cs.du.edu>, choover@nyx10.cs.du.edu
(Christopher Hoover) wrote:

> >And although a naive audience might take the use of the term
> >"elevators" to mean the sort of thing one has in a hotel or office
> >building I have no particular reason to believe this. In industrial or
> >military situations the word might well be used to mean something more
> >like makeshift dumbwaiters or conveyor belts or some pully and box
> >arrangements.
> 
> I'm just thinking out loud here, but it occurs to me that to a 
> Midwestern, Tim-McCarthy-approved "shit kicker" [tm], such as myself, 
> another meaning of the word "elevator" might come to mind.  To wit:  an 
> inclined conveyer-belt mechanism such as the one that was used to move  
> corn up into the top of the corn crib on the farm I grew up on.  This 
> contraption was called an "elevator" too.  
> 
> Now, I've no idea whether this is what they used, but I imagine such a 
> contraption would be fairly useful in moving bodies up from a lower level.

You certainly had to ignore a ton of other material to seize on this one
aspect. What about the dozen or so other errors I identified in the
Franke-Gricksch "report?"

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
For free information, write to:
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 17823 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!swrinde!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Holocaust "Revisionists" (Deniers) are pure scum
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 23:39:09 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 20
Message-ID: 
References: <380vqs$6kd@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com

In article <380vqs$6kd@newsbf01.news.aol.com>, jcrcpen@aol.com (JCRCPEN)
wrote:

> To all who subscribe to and believe in the IHR and other Holocaust denial
> organizations, I say this in the name of the six million:
> 
> F     U     C     K          Y     O    
> U!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I take it, then, that "yo" have nothing substantive to add to the
discussion?

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
For free information, write to:
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 17824 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!swrinde!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Raven Can't Answer a Simple Question (was: Re: Was Hitler a great m
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 23:40:24 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 36
Message-ID: 
References: <1994Oct05.234523.1724@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> <37lcg2$3qo@netaxs.com>   <37s46n$guh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com

In article <37s46n$guh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
wrote:

> Why is it impossible to get a straight answer from these "revisionist
> scholars"?
> 
> Raven, did you post the excerpt below on GEnie? Yes or no? Can't you
> answer a simple question? What's the matter with you?
> 
> 
> 
> Category 15,  Topic 4
> Message 33        Fri Mar 13, 1992
> G.RAVEN                      at 03:02 EST
> 
> My only concern is in  going after the
> facts. As such, I am not interested in defending  Adolf Hitler to my dying
> breath. I will say, however, that he was a  great man ... certainly greater
> than Churchill and FDR put together,  and possibly the greatest leader of our
> century, if not longer. This  is not to say that he was perfect, but he about
> the best thing that  could have happened to Germany.

Why are you being so pointlessly argumentative? I have never denied saying
this, and in fact recently amplified my thoughts on this matter in this
very forum. Does this mean that you are finally admitting that you have
nothing substantive to saying regarding your so-far unsubstantiated claim
that the Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate Jews in gas chambers?

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
For free information, write to:
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 17826 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!caen!spool.mu.edu!agate!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: One step at a time
Date: 20 Oct 1994 20:19:35 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <386jcn$lld@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu
X-ORIGINAL-NEWSGROUPS: alt.revisionism

Professor Wilhelm Pfannenstiel, Waffen-SS hygienist, on a gassing 
at Belzec
[Quoted in 'The Good Old Days' - E. Klee, W. Dressen, V. Riess, The 
Free Press, NY, 1988., p. 238-244]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When I am asked about executions of Jews I must confirm that on 19 August
1942 I witnessed an execution of Jews at Belzec extermination camp. I
would like to describe how I came to be there. During my conversations
with SS-Brigadefuehrer Globocnik, he told me about the large
spinning-mills that he had set up in Belzec. He also mentioned that
work at this camp would considerably outstrip German production. When
I asked him where the spinning materials came from, he told me proudly
that they had come from the Jews. At this point he also mentioned the
extermination actions against the Jews, who for the most part were
killed at the the camp at Belzec...

During this first visit I was taken to around by a certain
Polizieihauptmann named Wirth, who also showed and explained to me the
extermination installations at the camp. He told me that the following
morning a new transport of about 500 Jews would be arriving at the
camp who would be channeled through these extermination chambers. He
asked me whether I would like to watch one of these extermination
actions, to which, after a great deal of reflection, I consented. I
planned to submit a report to the Reichsarzt-SS about the
extermination actions. In order to write a report I had, however,
first to observe an action with my own eyes. I remained in the camp,
spent the night there and was witness to the following events the next
morning.

A goods train traveled directly into the camp of Belzec, the freight
cars were opened and Jews whom I believe were from the area of Romania
or Hungary were unloaded. The cars were crammed fairly full. There
were men, women and children of every age. They were ordered to get
into line and then had to proceed to an assembly area and take off
their shoes...

After the Jews had removed their shoes they were separated by sex. The
women went together with the children into a hut. There their hair was
shorn and they had to get undressed... The men went into another hut,
where they received the same treatment. I saw what happened in the
women's hut with my own eyes. After they had undressed, the whole
procedure went fairly quickly. They ran naked from the hut through a
hedge into the actual extermination centre. The whole extermination
centre looked just like a normal delousing institution. In front of
the building there were pots of geraniums and a sign saying "Hackenholt
Foundation", above which there was a star of David. The building was
brightly and pleasantly painted so as not to suggest people would be
killed here...

Inside the buildings, the Jews had to enter chambers into which was
channeled the exhaust of a [100(?)]-HP engine, located in the same
building. In it there were six such extermination chambers. They were
windowless, had electric lights and two doors. One door led outside so
that the bodies could be removed.  People were led from a corridor
into the chambers through an ordinary air-tight door with bolts. There
was a glass peep-hole, as I recall, next to the door in the wall.
Through this window one could watch what was happening inside the room
but only when it was not too full of people. After a short time the
glass became steamed up. When the people had been locked in the room
the motor was switched on and then I suppose the stop-valves or vents
to the chambers opened.  Whether they were stop-valves or vents I
would not like to say. It is possible that the pipe led led directly
to the chambers. Once the engine was running, the light in the
chambers was switched off. This was followed by palpable disquiet in
the chamber. In my view it was only then that the people sensed
something else was in store for them. It seemed to me that behind the
thick walls and door they were praying and shouting for help.


Article 17827 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!caen!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: One step at a time
Date: 20 Oct 1994 20:21:09 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <386jfl$lvk@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu
X-ORIGINAL-NEWSGROUPS: alt.revisionism


Testimony of Hans-Heintz Schutt, SS-officer at Sobibor
[Quoted in "'The Good Old Days'" - E. Klee, W. Dressen, V. Riess, The 
Free Press, NY, 1988, p. 240]
-------------------------------------------------------------
Getting the detainees into the gas chambers did not always proceed
smoothly. The detainees would shout and weep and they often refused to 
get inside. The guards helped them on by violence. These guards were
Ukrainian volunteers who were under the authority of members of
the SS Kommando. Members of the SS held key positions in the camp, i.e.
one SS man oversaw the unloading, a further SS man led the detainees
into the reception camp, a further SS man was repsonsible for leading
the detainees to the undressing area, a further SS man oversaw the
confiscation of valuables and a further member of the Kommando had
to drive the detainees into the so-called tube which led to the
extermination camp. Once they were inside the so-called tube, which
led them from the hut to the extermination camp, there was no longer
any escape.




-Danny Keren.


Article 17828 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!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uhog.mit.edu!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Hilberg on the Einsatzgruppen (I)
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 23:43:12 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 31
Message-ID: 
References: <36u5pu$k1o@agate.berkeley.edu>  <37j8pc$l80@agate.berkeley.edu>  <37tvlr$tj@agate.berkeley.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com

In article <37tvlr$tj@agate.berkeley.edu>, schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu
(Richard Schultz) wrote:

> But to some extent, this is all silly.  You made a claim about what
> Hilberg said, namely, that he said that the Einsatzgruppen reports
> were exaggerated.  I presented the evidence that he had said no such
> thing.  All you have to do is rather than misread what I said is simply
> present how you arrived at your conclusion.  This may be a little
> more difficult, I realize.

Yes, but not as difficult as the task you continue to skirt. I stated,
based on inside information the source for which I am not at liberty to
divulge, that Hilberg believes the death tolls in the Einsatzgruppen
reports to have been overstated. I don't ask anyone to believe me. All
anyone has to do is look at the original reports, add up the numbers, and
compare them against what Hilberg says.

This is a big chore to go through for a relatively small reward. However,
the basic point is that one cannot automatically believe everything one
reads, even in "official" German documents. There are other facts and
factors involved that can, at times, cause us to revise our view of the
contents of these documents.

-- 

Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)
For free information, write to:
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 17830 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!news.kei.com!uhog.mit.edu!sgiblab!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: One step at a time
Date: 20 Oct 1994 20:21:45 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <386jgp$m0s@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu
X-ORIGINAL-NEWSGROUPS: alt.revisionism

Testimony of Engineer Karl Schultze
[Quoted from the interrogation transcripts by Prof. Gerald Fleming
from the University of Surrey, in an NYT article, July 18 1993]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. What was your personal part in these "Krema" building operation and
   what was Prufer's part?

A. Prufer was an expert. he designed and constructed these
   crematoriums and led the building operations in the concentration 
   camps. I was responsible for the ventilation systems and for its air 
   injection into the muffles. In specific instances, I led the 
   installation operations personally. I personally led the installation 
   work in Auschwitz crematoriums and gas chambers. For this purpose, I 
   traveled to Auschwitz three times in 1943.
 .
 .
 .

   I did not know that in the crematoriums in Auschwitz-Birkenau
   innocent human beings were being liquidated. I thought criminals were 
   being killed there who who had partly been sentenced to death because 
   of the crimes they had committed against the German army in Poland and 
   other occupied territories. I am a German and supported and am 
   supporting the Government in Germany and the laws of our Government. 
   Whoever opposes our laws is an enemy of the State, because our laws 
   establish him a such. I did not act on personal initiative but as 
   directed by Ludwig Topf. I was afraid of losing my position and of 
   possible arrest.

Q. Your views do not really differ from the views of a Nazi.

A. No, I was not a member of the NSDAP [National Socialist German
   Workers Party]. I only respected and acted according to the laws of 
   my country.




-Danny Keren.


Article 17833 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!news.kei.com!eff!news.umbc.edu!haven.umd.edu!news.ubalt.edu!hmorrell
From: hmorrell@ubmail.ubalt.edu
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mountains of evidence
Message-ID: <1994Oct20.172836.1710@ubmail.ubalt.edu>
Date: 20 Oct 94 17:28:36 -0500
References: 
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Organization: University of Baltimore
Lines: 44


> 
>>In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:
>>> Disregarding the argumentative portions of this posting that claim I have
>>> changed my position, I ask you to put yourself it my place for a moment. Do
>>> you really think I haven't read volume after volume of Holocaust-related
>>> material? 
>>
>>Well, I honestly don't know if you've looked at the evidence
>>or not.  Since you claimed that no large body of evidence 
>>existed, I simply assumed that you had never seen it.  
>>
>>Now that you claim to have looked at volumes of material 
>>including documents and such, I take it we can agree that 
>>this evidence exists (by your own admission).
> 
> No. I agree that there is material being put forth as evidence, while in
> fact it is nothing of the kind.

Why? Because the material being put forth isn't to your liking? The truth
is the truth whether you like it or not.

 
> As I have stated over and over and over and over, I do NOT believe that any
> historical event can be proven by a single piece of evidence!!! I only want
> to look at what you and others say is the BEST evidence one piece of
> evidence at a time. To you use precious "courtroom" analogy, lawyers don't
> dump all their evidence on the court at the same time. They produce each
> piece one at a time. That is all I am asking. If you think you have 5,038
> pieces of evidence to support the Holocaust extermination claims, fine.
> Start be showing me what YOU think is the very BEST piece of that evidence,
> and we'll go on from there.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com)

	Sure you do. I have noticed people posting pieces evidence (such as 
Himmler's speech), which you usually ignore, or you dismiss the individual
pieces as bogus without substantiating why you think they are bogus. I have
yet to see you rebut ANY evidence that has been proferred (because you cannot).

Harvey Morrell 



Article 17837 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: 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!EU.net!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Elevators Re: Analysis of the Franke-Gricksch "report"
In-Reply-To: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com's message of Wed, 19 Oct 1994 23:37:01 -0800
Message-ID: 
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References:  
	<383def$kuh@nyx10.cs.du.edu> 
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 08:04:59 GMT
Lines: 616


From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
>You certainly had to ignore a ton of other material to seize on this one
>aspect. What about the dozen or so other errors I identified in the
>Franke-Gricksch "report?"

*I* went through point by point. That was my text he's responding to,
not yours. You might have noticed that.

Christopher Hoover, who you quote, is just responding to one of my
points and expanding on it. There was nothing in his note that
indicated he was responding to your note except indirectly.

Why do you respond to him with this complaint yet ignore the original
point-by-point message I provided?

Ok, maybe you'll say you never saw my post or whatever. I'll copy it
right here and you can have another chance rather than us doing that
cycle.

What I'm most interested in, besides the usual ``you say it does, i
say it don't, that ain't proof either way'' waste of time (can you
ventilate a gas chamber so it's safe enough? yes! no! yes! no! etc) is
a response to the things you find faulty that aren't even in the
document which has been posted. Such as the rail spur and the hair
cutting and the gold teeth.

Obviously you weren't reading from the one I provided, so what were
you working from?

You have to grant it's a bit disturbing to see you claim you made a
dozen points and a few of them don't even seem to relate to the
document in question. I can accept that there's a fuller version, I'm
not drawing any immediate conclusion, but it would be nice to know
that and perhaps even see its text.

At least one of your points made about F-G seems to only rely on
reading a particular sentence with one stress or another ("the door
opens on the other side, where the elevator is located", you complain
there's no door on the other side, I say it can be read to say that
the *elevator* is on the other side, not the door, the other side of
the hall from the gas chamber door or whatever, nothing strange,
nothing conclusive, but it is a translation.)

But I only point this out to say that I think we both should be able
to read the same text being referred to. Your reference to first floor
versus ground floor (a simple matter of country to country custom,
Brits eg say ground floor, Americans say first floor, etc) revealed a
similar problem of mere interpretation of the text, nothing
interesting.

The hollow pillar complaint has also now been shot down, you're
reading that to mean the structural pillars, apparently Pressac and
others refer to wire-mesh pillars used to introduce the Zyklon-B into
the chamber. etc. Unless you have some evidence otherwise this all
makes perfect sense and is consistent, a mere misreading on your part
or perhaps desire to believe it was wrong so you didn't question
whether or not perhaps something else was being referred to.

Your claim about the rail spur not being built, one item that's not in
the text, is only by assertion, no source is given. And there are
other questions (like was there something else validly called a rail,
without the text it's impossible to tell.)

Those few items seem to put more than half of your complaints into
serious question. Remove the quibbling about the accuracy of F-G's
numbers, obtained only during a two-day inspection, and there isn't a
lot left. But that's dealt with also, every bit of it.

The ONLY complaint I see which has merit is that the original has been
lost. I agree, that lessens its value. It hardly refutes it, it would
still be nice to know something other than this nit-picking about the
number of stairs etc that would lead us to believe it is actually a
forgery. But I will say it would be a stronger bit of evidence if the
original were available. It may yet turn up.

But it still seems remarkably consistent with what we know (even you
perhaps inadvertantly show that) and the idea that it's a forgery
needs to be examined just as critically as you would like to examine
its authenticity.

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


As predicted we are merely treated to one of these tiresome analyses
that in the end says: Mr Raven would like something else and doubts
the F-G Report's authenticity (ie, the "forgeries all forgeries"
defense.)

[I have attached the text in question to the bottom of this message.]

From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
>On Gerald Fleming's part, on February 19, 1991, Brian Renk requested a copy
>of the carbon copy of the original document from which the Report was
>allegedly excerpted. Fleming responded by sending a photocopy of the Report
>ONLY, this in spite of the fact that Fleming has claimed to have in his
>possession one of three carbon copies of the original document.

What's the distinction being made here between a photocopy of the
"Report ONLY" versus a carbon copy of the original document?

Sounds like about the same thing unless your claim is that the
document was somehow altered in the photocopying process.

That's a claim that demands substantiation, in what way do you believe
it was altered or fabricated in photocopying?

>Fleming does not let the F-G report off the hook completely, however. He
>states:
>"Franke-Gricksch's account of 'the execution of the Fuehrer-order," namely,
>the lowering of 'certain materials' into a large cellar room resembling a
>'shower bath' and activation and release of 'particular substances that put
>people to sleep in one minute' is a fraudulent and cynical white-washing of
>death by gassing."

So? What's your point? Apparently Fleming was disgusted with
Franke-Grisch. Would you be more comfortable if Fleming considered F-G
a hero? F-G didn't write this to somehow condemn the gassing of Jews,
he was a Nazi officer reporting to his boss. He wasn't in a
confessional.

>Among of the most obvious things wrong with this "document" is the
>accidental use of English words in place of German words. Some of these
>anglicisms were corrected on the typescript copy, some where not. For
>example, on the first line of the report, "had" for "hat;" "der," the
>second word of line 2, typed over "the;" and on line 3, "hier" typed over
>"here." On line 8 of the second page of the report, the alleged copyist
>typed "had," but corrected it to "hat," only to begin the following word
>with "t" (evidently for "the") before catching that and typing the correct
>German definite article "die." Furthermore, in the final paragraph of page
>1, the English participial ending "d" is twice typed for the German "t,"
>that is "ausgestatted" for "ausgestattet" on line 5, which has been
>corrected, and "gebaded" for "gebadet" on line 9. Last but not least, the
>verb "kommt" is used twice with the same subject in the sentence beginning
>on line 6 of the third paragraph of line 1.

I don't see any of this as particularly damning.

Transcripts, particularly if done by someone who is not fluent in a
language, will be prone to errors.

These are all small errors, you don't seem to claim that they bring
into question what was said in the report.

>All that aside, any reasonable person reading this "report" would
>immediately suspect something is wrong. Where is this "house?" Where are
>the hollow pillars?

Those are fine questions but I don't see how they would lead someone
to suspect anything is wrong.

The report also does not describe what the weather was like on the day
it is written. So what?

It is what it is. You cannot fault it for what it isn't or doesn't
say. It says plenty.

>What "certain substances are used?

This is a complaint?

It says what it says.

>How is it possible
>to open the doors a few minutes after a lethal gassing when a deadly poison
>is supposedly still rampant in the air?

This has been gone over many times before:

	1. It's not difficult to vent out cyanide gas.

	2. Sonderkommandos, those who emptied the gas chambers,
	are often described as wearing gas masks and other
	protective gear.

	3. Unless it was truly lethal taking some chances was no
	great problem since the Sonderkommandos whose job it
	was to empty the chambers were also prisoners also under
	death sentence.

As per usual Mr Raven attempts to appeal to "the sensibilities" of his
audience, but fails to provide them with the information to assess
whether or not these sensibilities are really being challenged.

Why does Mr Raven fail to mention that those used to empty the
chambers were also usually Jewish (or perhaps Russian POW) prisoners?

He clearly tries to give the audience the impression that these are
Nazi officers emptying the chambers, or similar, paid workers or some
such whose lives or health their Nazi overseers would be concerned
with.

>How can the hair be cut off without
>first rinsing it of the poison gas?

You don't normally "rinse off" gas. What are you talking about? A
simple gas mask and some rubber gloves would be more than sufficient.

I've personally worked with cyanide, it doesn't jump up and chase you
around the room. It takes some amount of concentration to be harmful.

You just make this stuff up hoping people, not knowing much anything
about the subject, will just dumbly nod their heads in agreement.

But more importantly, where in the report does it say ANYTHING about
this hair cutting? I don't see the word mentioned.

>Just how big is this house that it has
>elevators for hundreds of dead people?

Huh? What's your objection here exactly? It didn't say it took them
all up on one trip. Is that what you are trying to make people believe
it said? That the "hundreds of dead people" were brought up in one
trip?

   Then
   the corpses are loaded into elevators and brought up to the first
   floor, where ten large crematoria are located.

That's the only sentence you are referring to here. What in that
sentence leads you to believe that this was done in one or even a few
trips? What in that sentence would make you doubt it may have been 10
trips? And it seems to say there were multiple elevators.

And although a naive audience might take the use of the term
"elevators" to mean the sort of thing one has in a hotel or office
building I have no particular reason to believe this. In industrial or
military situations the word might well be used to mean something more
like makeshift dumbwaiters or conveyor belts or some pully and box
arrangements.

>Is it normal for large Polish houses
>to have ten large crematories?

Huh? Ok, F-G starts with:

  "..the unfit go to cellars in a large house which are entered


So now you claim that this "house" is some sort of residence? Is that
what you are reading into this? Why? What's the 1943 common German
colloquial use of a word like Haus or grosse Haus (pardon my German)
in a military bureaucratic context?

Again, you attempt to appeal to a naive audience like some sort of
carnival show huckster working the yokels.

>By what amazing physical property do fresh
>corpses burn particularly well?

I don't know, do you have any evidence to the contrary or do you
merely expect to beat this whole thing by asking some questions?

Maybe F-G was wrong about this detail, so what? It's unlikely he
personally manned the crematoriums.

It's one thing to watch such a killing operation, that would be quite
obvious and plain to see on casual observation, and quite another to
form an educated opinion on how well corpses cremate.

>If it takes a modern crematory 2 to 3 hours
>to partially dispose of a human corpse, how can 10,000 corpses be disposed
>of in 24 hours with only 10 crematories?

We don't know. But we don't know otherwise either.

Perhaps F-G is boasting to his boss, Himmler, a little.

Perhaps he was given bad numbers, again there's a world of difference
between seeing what he initially describes as the killing process
which appears to be something he could easily witness (and from the
details presented, did witness) versus his one sentence summary at the
end of how many per 24 hours are being killed which one could
reasonably assume he got from someone else unless we have reason to
believe he sat there for days counting and calculating averages etc.

Perhaps it was 1,000 and not 10,000 per day, you were the one
complaining about minor transcription errors. His total figure of
about 500,000 killed would only take about two years of "business
days" at that rate. That's well within what else we know of
Auschwitz-Birkenau etc.

Otherwise, at 10,000/day it would be 50 days, about two months. Do you
have any time bounds on the period he is referring to? Is it more
likely two months or two years by 1943 when he writes the report? I
think two years is quite reasonable. So perhaps we should suspect a
slipped digit. But we don't know.

>Pressac says (on page 244), "On 28th June, following the handover of
>Krematorium III, the last one to be completed, Jaehrling calculated the
>overall throughput for the five Krematorien as 4,756 people in 24 hours,
>and sent this information to SS General Kammler in Berlin (Document 68).
>This official figure, coolly doubled when explaining operations to
>high-ranking visitors (ef. SS Major Franke-Gricksch's report above, giving
>a figure of 10,000 in 24 hours), had no basis in practice, and probably has
>to be divided by two or three to arrive at the true figure."
.

So Pressac basically comes to the same conclusion I do, perhaps the
figure was inflated a bit for the boss. I add in the possibility that
it's a typo, or since we have no reason to believe that F-G measured
the rate himself he merely believed what someone else told him. You do
say yourself he was only there about two days, he hardly could have
measured these numbers for himself.

So what?

From this you conclude that nobody was killed?

I think I find it a bit easier to believe that perhaps F-G exagerrates
the numbers for his boss, or some typographical error has occurred, or
in the mere two days he was there for an inspection someone gave him a
bad number than to leap from 10,000/day to zero killed per day.

You certainly have not shown anything to indicate that the correct
number is zero.

What's far more interesting is that F-G, who we assume was not insane
nor an idiot, might have found the 10,000/day figure plausible (even
if as a bit of an exagerration.) That speaks volumes.

>1) The "large house" is actually Krema II at Birkenau.
>2) There are not 5 or 6 steps into the Leichenkeller, but 10.

Oh gasp, I'm sure this is what F-G was trying to get absolutely
accurate, whether there were 5 or 6 or rather 10 steps.

It seems close enough to assume he was working from memory some short
time later.

I could understand if there were no steps, if the steps went up rather
than down, if there were 100 steps (or some number that couldn't
possibly be remembered as 5 or 6) but this is hardly a quibble.

In fact, it seems more like a confirmation, seems hard to believe
that F-G or whoever else you believe fabricated this would just
come up with something like:

	They go down five or six steps into a fairly long, 
	well-constructed and well-ventilated cellar area, which is lined 

out of thin air and be so close to a reasonable description of Krema
II at Auschwitz-Birkenau. Quite a coincidence, wouldn't you say?

>3) There are not 3 pillars inside the "gas chamber" but 4.

Again, that there are roughly this many "pillars" would seem
confirming rather than denying. Do you think he could come up with
this many details which are so close to an accurate description out of
thin air?

>4) The "doors" cannot be closed when there is only one door involved.
>5) There is no door to open "on the other side" because again there is only
>one door.

   A few minutes later, the door opens
   on the other side, where the elevator is located. . . . Then

You're making a lot out of a particular reading of those words
originally written in German, how about:

	the door opens...on the other side where the elevator is
	located.

that is, "on the other side" refers to where the elevator is, not the
door. Reasonable? I think so.

>6) The lift does not take the corpses to the first floor, but to the ground
>floor.

This term is used differently in different countries. Americans call
the "ground floor" the "first floor". The British call the "first
floor" what Americans call the second floor and use the terminology
"ground floor" for what Americans generally (tho not always) call the
first floor. Etc. You'll have to be more specific, like what does a
German call it? ErdgeschoB, right? I'm hardly expert on this but my
German dictionary seems to indicate that the Germans use the American
usage and indicate this is what the British call etc etc.

But I'm sure we have plenty of people available to clear this up I
just know enough to know that this is a valid question regarding your
remark.

And you are still only dealing with a semantic quibble with the
ENGLISH translation. If it said, in the German, ErdgeschoB (I think
that's right) then that's that, no quibble, other than the word(s) the
translator used to render that word into English choosing perhaps the
Americanism rather than the Britishism for "ground floor".

Seems awfully thin, Mr Raven.

>7) There are not 10 crematoria furnaces but 5 three-muffle furnaces.

Perhaps there were 10 at the time. Perhaps they weren't all as fancy
as the ones which survived. Perhaps, given the exact 2:1 ratio of your
number and his there is some obvious explanation like each was used
for two cremations by some device (eg, an iron partition.) Perhaps he
didn't count them himself.

>8) There were probably not 500,000 Jews in killed in May, 1943, and true
>number is somewhere between 200,000 and 250,000.

Again, this is a far cry from your claim that zero were killed.

I have no problem with quibbling F-G's exact numbers, the question at
hand is whether any of it happened at all.

Surely your point is NOT that only 200,000 were gassed? You claim
absolutely none were gassed.

None of what you say supports that at all.

>9) The capacity of Krema II was not 10,000 per 24 hours, but rather 4,756
>for all FIVE crematoria combined, and even this is a theoretical output
>"that was never achieved in 1943, as proved by the Krematorium coke
>consumption." Pressac calls this claim "another Auschwitz SS propaganda
>figure passed on by Franke-Gricksch."

Fine, sounds reasonable to me, F-G exagerrated a bit to impress the
boss. Or whoever gave him the information did. As you say F-G was only
there 2 days, he hardly had time to verify these exact numbers for
himself.

But it would be quite a leap to go from that observation to the
conclusion that ZERO were gassed.

>To make up for these deficiencies, Pressac follows his usual procedure of
>concocting an elaborate scenario in an attempt to preserve the desirable
>portions of the Report while shrugging off the ridiculous portions.
.

Well, your own vague summary of Pressac aside (certainly we know you
do not like the man) I think I've provided rather credible and hardly
interesting (to the meat of the matter) explanations:

F-G is most interesting when he describes what he obviously personally
witnessed, and perhaps is mistaken (in favor of the success of the
operation, not an unusual esprit d'corps in the military) when
reporting precise numbers to present to the boss. Numbers no doubt
obtained from others, F-G was not the bookkeeper, nor was he there
long enough to have possibly measured these himself (two days.)

He was certainly there long enough to personally witness what he
spends most of the report's detailed description on: The killing
process.

>1) He fails to explain how the Sonderkommando members could have resisted
>the lingering Zyklon B gas as they went to work hauling bodies from the gas
>chamber, removing gold teeth, etc., only "a few minutes" after the
>killings.

Rubber gloves and cheap gas masks and decent ventilation. Really quite
minor.

And you were the one who was complaining that no mention of Zyklon B
was mentioned. So how can you therefore conclude this is what they
were dealing with? Or is this true only when it suits your point of
view for the moment?

And the quote I have has nothing about removing gold teeth etc (are
you sure they weren't removed after cremation? I have no idea, but
gold would survive the fires and short of them getting lost it would
be easier to remove the gold then.)

>2) Anyone visiting the ruins of Leichenkeller I can see that the four
>pillars are not hollow at all, but are solid, which would have prevented
>anything from being dropped down them.

Again, dropped down the side, whatever.

We CAN safely assume F-G, if he was able to write the report at all,
was not INSIDE the gas chambers as this was done and perhaps only
inferred the specific mechanics as best as he could see observing from
the outside.

>3) Pressac fails to address the assertion that "fresh corpses burn
>particularly well."

So do you.

>4) Pressac ignores the Report's mention of a "special rail track into an
>area of the camp specifically set aside for this purpose." Although there
>was a rail spur into Birkenau, work was not begun on it until January,
>1944. (This single reference, by the way, is enough by itself to show that
>this document is almost certainly a post-war forgery.)

I don't see any mention of a rail track in the quote I have.

Small sections of rail are relatively easy to lay and undo. What is
your source for any of this claim? Perhaps it only indicates that in
fact there was some sort of rail present and your source is mistaken?
Why do you believe the source you cite over the F-G's mention of this?

If it's a post-war forgery (predictable response) then why so sloppy?

Why couldn't they count the steps or the pillars? Why fabricate rail
tracks as you claim? Why so exagerrate the numbers? Even reporting
1,000/day, one-tenth of what is reported, would surely make the point.

The small errors in detail would seem to validate the report,
forgeries would not likely be so sloppy.

It all sounds, particularly after reading your analysis, much more
like the work of a bureaucrat quickly zipping off what he is required
to produce in a report without checking his facts carefully, relying
on what others told him vis a vis specific numbers etc. He couldn't
measure these numbers in the two days in which he inspected
Auschwitz-Birkenau.

I completely disagree with your conclusions and find them to indicate
quite the opposite.

It is naive to say that if the F-G report were authentic then it must
be factually absolutely accurate in its every detail.

In practice, in the world of evidence, things that are too perfect are
generally more suspect.

Small errors, such as the wrong number of stairs or pillars in the
room, tend to lead to the conclusion that this was someone writing
extemporaneously and without great or sinister purpose.

Forgers tend to be more careful. They're not as likely to make
little errors (eg, pillars or number of stairs) that can easily
be checked.

Most likely a forger would just leave out such minutiae, "several
stairs", "a few pillars" would be sufficient if there were any doubt.
Who would care or notice unless there were no stairs or hundreds of
stairs etc.

>Unmentioned by both Fleming and Pressac is the fact that nowhere in the
>report does it say that Franke-Gricksch SAW the process he describes.

True, so what? It seems fairly clear what he saw and what he didn't,
what he is just summarizing (eg, the number of corpses processed per
day.)

>In
>fact, the report claims he was given a tour of the facilities and the
>process was explained to him. We know from the records at Auschwitz that
>Franke-Gricksch was there from May 14-16, 1943.

Well, that he was there and only for 2 days tells us a lot.

One, that he was there and could well have witnessed much of what he
writes about and two, that he was there only briefly so small errors
of detail would be natural to expect. It would be different perhaps if
he worked in the room or area daily. But on a quick two-day tour
(which no doubt involved other sights at the facility) little things
like whether the pillars were hollow, or not, can easily be understood
to have been overlooked or mistaken in memory.

But I still find it a bit hard to believe that he saw nothing, that no
one was being killed, or no one was being killed by gas, and yet he
wrote this report to Himmler!

>trusting (or perhaps more scrupulous) interpreter would be well within his
>rights to suggest that this document was based on an English-language, not
>German-language, source.

Suggest? Sure. But what have you got? Your hands seem remarkably empty
other than innuendo and rather questionable challenges based mostly on
some strange theory that if it were authentic then every last detail
in the report would be unfailingly accurate.

Forgeries, all forgeries...we've heard it all before Mr Raven.

Doesn't seem likely.

I think you inadvertantly disprove your case.


The report in question, for reference:

  "..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 17838 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!news.kei.com!eff!wariat.org!malgudi.oar.net!sun!oucsace!dspiegel
From: dspiegel@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Dan Spiegel)
Subject: Re: Eyewitnesses and Demjanjuk
Message-ID: 
Organization: Ohio University CS Dept,. Athens
References:   <384sba$9oi@access4.digex.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 14:53:15 GMT
Lines: 45

In article <384sba$9oi@access4.digex.net> mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) writes:
>In article ,
>Dan Spiegel  wrote:
>>In article 
>>greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:
>>> [deleted]
>>>                                          Witness the recent Israeli
>>>Supreme Court case of John Demjanjuk, in which six "eyewitnesses" claimed
>>>that Demjanjuk was the culprit. The ISC let Demjanjuk go because other
>>>evidence to the contrary was more compelling. 
>>
>>I submit that this is incorrect. I will stipulate that, unlike other
>>distortions by Mr. Raven that have been proven here, I don't believe
>>that this one was intentional.
>>
>>The reason Iwan Demjanjuk was released was based on "doubt". I challenge
>>Mr. Raven to quote the part of the court's opinion that states that 
>>"evidence to the contrary was *more* compelling". 
>
>    It should be kept in mind that the *only* thing in question was the
>identification of John Demjanjuk as the *same* person who was known in the
>camp as "Ivan the Terrible."  There was no question as to the fact that
>such a person existed and committed terrible crimes.  There is quite a
>difference between making a positive identification of someone over forty
>years after the fact, and becoming confused over seeing a murder
>committed.
>

   Thanks, Mike. Of course, the Israeli court applied the word _doubt_
to whether or not Iwan Grozny=Iwan Demjanjuk, NOT to whether there 
existed Iwan Grozny. 
   I forgot where I was for a second, and I certainly wouldn't want 
to leave somthing that wide open to distortion. At the minimum, I'd
expect a nasty letter from Distorters Anonymous, which could populate 
a chapter or two from this group alone.

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

| -DS 	I speak for myself only.  No unsolicited e-mail, please. 	  |
|	    Please do not use my name in any subject headers.		  |
| Obligatory quote: "Sometimes one must cut off a finger to save a hand"  |
|		    -Po, lowly priest of Hunan province, Shao-Lin Master  |


Article 17844 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!caen!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: A triumverate of wishful thinking
Date: 20 Oct 1994 20:40:24 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <386kjo$n4k@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu
X-ORIGINAL-NEWSGROUPS: alt.revisionism

Greg Raven  wrote:

# Your first "evidence" is the Himmler speech, with which I have dealt
# repeatedly, and which I have conclusively shown not to have referred to gas
# chambers.

While Himmler didn't go into the details, he did tell a group
of top SS officers that "we are exterminating the Jews". He added
that the Jewish women and children have to be killed also, in
order to "make this people disappear from the earth".

One has to be a real moron, or absolutely crazy, to hear this
speech and still claim that the Nazis didn't have a plan to
exterminate the Jews.

Himmler, BTW, goes on to talk about Slavs and Russians as 
sub-human animals, to be used for labor. He doesn't say that
there is a plan to exterminate them, but says that he
doesn't care if "10,000 Russian females fall from exhaustion
while digging an anti-tank ditch for Germany". 

I'll post in the next messages the relevant quotes from Himmler's
speeches at Poznan.


-Danny Keren.



Article 17845 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!caen!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!satisfied.elf.com!news2.near.net!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Himmler About Exterminating the Jews (was: Re: A triumve
Date: 20 Oct 1994 20:44:59 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <386ksb$ncs@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu
X-ORIGINAL-NEWSGROUPS: alt.revisionism


Speechs by Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler before senior SS officers in Poznan, 
October 4 and 6, 1943
[Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals - 
Washington, U.S Govt. Print. Off., 1949-1953, Vol. XIII, p. 323, and 
Himmler, Reichsfuehrer-SS - P. Padfield, Henry Holt and Co, NY, 1990, 
p. 469]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish
race. It's one of those things it is easy to talk about, "the Jewish
race is being exterminated", says one party member, "that's quite
clear, it's in our program, elimination of the Jews, and we're doing
it, exterminating them". 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 those who talk this way
has watched it, not one of them has gone through it. Most of you 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 - apart from
exceptions caused by human weakness - to have remained decent fellows,
that is 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.

.
.
.

I ask of you that what I say in this circle you really only hear and
never speak of. We come to the question: how is it with the women and
the children? I have resolved even here on a completely clear
solution. That is to say I do not consider myself justified in
eradicating the men - so to speak killing or ordering them killed -
and allowing the avengers in the shape of the children to grow up for
our sons and grandsons. The difficult decision has to be taken, to
cause this Volk [people] to disappear from the earth.




-Danny Keren.



Article 17851 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!news.kei.com!uhog.mit.edu!sgiblab!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!satisfied.elf.com!news2.near.net!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Himmler About "Human Animals" (was: Re: A triumverate
Date: 20 Oct 1994 21:04:45 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <386m1d$otc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu
X-ORIGINAL-NEWSGROUPS: alt.revisionism

From the speech of Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler, speaking to SS
Major-Generals, Poznan, October 4 1943
[Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression - Washington, U.S Govt. Print. 
Off., 1946, Vol. IV, p. 559]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
One basic principal must be the absolute rule for the SS man: we
must be honest, decent, loyal, and comradely to members of our own
blood and to nobody else. What happens to a Russian, to a Czech,
does not interest me in the slightest. What the nations can offer
in good blood of our type, we will take, if necessary by kidnapping
their children and raising them with us. Whether nations live in
prosperity or starve to death interests me only in so far as we
need them as slaves for our culture; otherwise, it is of no interest
to me. Whether 10,000 Russian females fall down from exhaustion
while digging an anti-tank ditch interest me only in so far as
the anti-tank ditch for Germany is finished. We shall never be rough
and heartless when it is not necessary, that is clear. We Germans,
who are the only people in the world who have a decent attitude
towards animals, will also assume a decent attitude towards these
human animals. But it is a crime against our own blood to worry
about them and give them ideals, thus causing our sons and
grandsons to have a more difficult time with them. When someone
comes to me and says, "I cannot dig the anti-tank ditch with women
and children, it is inhuman, for it will kill them", then I
would have to say, "you are a murderer of your own blood because
if the anti-tank ditch is not dug, German soldiers will die, and
they are the sons of German mothers. They are our own blood".




-Danny Keren.



Article 17852 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!agate!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Raven Can't Answer a Simple Question (was: Re: Was Hitler a great m
Date: 20 Oct 1994 09:09:27 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <385c47$aqv@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References: <1994Oct05.234523.1724@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>  <37s46n$guh@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:

##  Why is it impossible to get a straight answer from these "revisionist
##  scholars"?
##  
## Raven, did you post the excerpt below on GEnie? Yes or no? Can't you
## answer a simple question? What's the matter with you?
##  
## 
##  
## Category 15,  Topic 4
## Message 33        Fri Mar 13, 1992
## G.RAVEN                      at 03:02 EST
##  
## My only concern is in  going after the
## facts. As such, I am not interested in defending  Adolf Hitler to my dying
## breath. I will say, however, that he was a  great man ... certainly greater
## than Churchill and FDR put together,  and possibly the greatest
## leader of our century, if not longer. This  is not to say that he
## was perfect, but he about the best thing that  could have
## happened to Germany.

# Why are you being so pointlessly argumentative? I have never denied saying
# this, 

I consider it important that one of the "leading revisionists", and
an employee of the IHR, is a Hitler admirer. I will try to make this
fact as well known as possible. It is important to expose the true
face of Holocaust deniers, and the fact that the large majority of
them are Nazis, Hitler admirers, and racists. In addition, it seems
nearly all deniers have no qualifications and no reputation as
historians. 

# and in fact recently amplified my thoughts on this matter in this
# very forum. 

Indeed you have.

# Does this mean that you are finally admitting that you have
# nothing substantive to saying regarding your so-far unsubstantiated claim
# that the Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate Jews in gas chambers?

No. Plenty of evidence regarding Nazi mass murder in gas chambers and by
other means is posted here daily. So far, no "revisionist" succeeded
to cast doubt on this evidence.


-Danny Keren.


Article 17854 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!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: Hilberg on the Einsatzgruppen (I)
Date: 20 Oct 1994 12:54:31 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <385pa7$hke@agate.berkeley.edu>
References: <36u5pu$k1o@agate.berkeley.edu>  <37tvlr$tj@agate.berkeley.edu> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:

>I stated,
>based on inside information the source for which I am not at liberty to
>divulge, that Hilberg believes the death tolls in the Einsatzgruppen
>reports to have been overstated. I don't ask anyone to believe me. All
>anyone has to do is look at the original reports, add up the numbers, and
>compare them against what Hilberg says.

I'm glad you don't ask anyone to believe you.  Given the number of lies
you have posted to the net so far, your credibility on this one
("the source for which I am not at liberty to divulge"!  Give me a
break, Mr. Phelps) is, shall we say, limited.  I note that you do not
say by what factor Hilberg considers the reports to be exaggerated.

I have already posted that Hilberg stated that the Einsatzgruppen
killed upwards of 900,000.  I have already posted that at the 
"Einsatzgruppen" trial (Ohlendorf et al.), the prosecution claimed
to base its case entirely on the Operational Situation reports, and
that the number of murders committed by the Einsatzgruppen was one
million.  From where did they get their numbers if not from adding
up the totals stated in the reports?
--
				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 17855 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!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!schultz
From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Analysis of the Franke-Gricksch "report"
Date: 20 Oct 1994 12:58:16 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <385ph8$hld@agate.berkeley.edu>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu


Barry Shein has already addressed some of Raven's more obvious
obfuscations in article , for example
Raven's seeming unawareness that typographical errors in a transcript
do not say anything about the authenticity of the original from
which the tanscript was made.  I want to point out a couple of
more subtle examples of Raven's "scholarly" style.

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:

> The American prosecution team at Nuremberg never made use of this document,
> which raises the question as to whether they ever received it, which in
> turn raises questions at to whether it even exists.

At first, this might seem like a reasonable objection.  But it is 
in reality nonsense.  First, against whom would the Franke-Gricksch
report been evidence?  Presumably it would have been Hoess or Wirth.
But neither of them was tried at Nuremberg!  It would have been 
unnecessary to bring it in evidence against those who were tried
at Nuremberg (perhaps Kaltenbrenner) because they had the 
testimony of Hoess (among others) who did not deny that mass gassings
took place at Auschwitz.  So why *should* the Amreican prosecution
team have used it?

> For example, in his book he fails to state that the document to
> which he devotes an entire chapter is nowhere signed by Franke-Gricksch. He
> also erroneously stated in a private letter to F-G's widow that her husband
> had signed this Report. 

When Raven says that Fleming "devotes a whole chapter" to the Franke-
Gricksch report, it implies that doing so is somehow unusual.  What
Raven fails to mention is that Fleming's book is a collection of 
specific documents and commentary thereon on the issue of to what
extent was Hitler personally involved in the decision to exterminate
the Jews.  Each chapter is devoted to a single document, so Fleming's
spending a whole chapter on this document is hardly worthy of
particular note.  Observe that as usual, Raven failed to provide
bibliographic details or page references.

Could you provide page references for the above claims?  I think you may be
confusing the Franke-Gricksch report with another document he wrote
after the war and gave to his wife. 

In listing the "faults" that Pressac finds in the Franke-Gricksch report,
Raven includes 

> 8) There were probably not 500,000 Jews in killed in May, 1943, and true
> number is somewhere between 200,000 and 250,000.

Since Raven believes that *no* Jews were killed in gas chambers, why
does he think that Pressac is believable in the other details, but
wrongs about this one?

Raven also says that 
> Pressac ignores the Report's mention of a "special rail track into an
> area of the camp specifically set aside for this purpose." Although there
> was a rail spur into Birkenau, work was not begun on it until January,
> 1944. (This single reference, by the way, is enough by itself to show that
> this document is almost certainly a post-war forgery.)

If you read the comment about the "special rail track" in context, I
think it is reasonable to interpret it as meaning simply the rail
spur into Auschwitz.

> The mass gassing of
> millions of Jews (and millions of others) is no easy task, and would
> certainly leave behind some trace. Without this trace, the only conclusion
> is that it never happened.

This is simply amazing.  The mass gassing of millions of Jews left
behind more than a "trace".  Simply declaring it to have not done so 
cannot possibly affect the truth.
--
				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 17859 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!caen!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-08.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A triumverate of wishful thinking
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 18:54:33 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 173
Message-ID: 
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-08.dialip.mich.net

Please note that the misspelling of "triumvirate" in the subject line
was not mine.  Mr. Raven renamed this thread;  I'll let him keep the
name if he wants.

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

> >Please address this triumvirate of evidence, Mr. Raven.
> 
> NO WONDER you get so cranky with me for taking the position I do on the
> Holocaust extermination myth! You have absolutely nothing on which to base
> your belief.
> 
> Your first "evidence" is the Himmler speech, with which I have dealt
> repeatedly, and which I have conclusively shown not to have referred to gas
> chambers.

Hardly!

You've conclusively shown that, two months later, in a different speech,
Himmler _also_ referred to killing Jewish commissars by shooting them.
Why you think this has any impact on Himmler's saying, two months
earlier, that the "juedishe Volk" were being exterminated, is beyond me.

> Your second and third pieces of "evidence" are the Hoess memoirs, Hoess
> being so discredited that Deborah Lipstadt, Christopher Browning, and (if
> he is as good as his word) Michael Berenbaum say is untrustworthy!

This, you'll note, is Mr. Raven's chief attack on Hoess.  Because, he
alleges, the above three people say he is "untrustworthy," then we are
expected to throw out all Hoess evidence.

And indeed, we should be wary of Hoess' testimony if it is
"untrustworthy."  The question is, did Lipstadt, Browning, and
Berenbaum actually say that?

Well, this is the first I've heard of Berenbaum's having an opinion on
Hoess, so I guess I'll have to just ask for a source and sit back and
wait for Mr. Raven to provide Berenbaum's original words to me.

But as far as Lipstadt and Browning go, I know exactly what he's talking
about.  It's worth noting that, the last time Mr. Raven tried to
explain Lipstadt's and Browning's views on Hoess to us, he said that
they "have admitted that the Hoess statements are useless."  Now he's
saying that they merely think he was "untrustworthy."  Quite a
difference!  One questions what made him modify his opinion to that
degree.

The answer is, that I called his bluff.

And I'll call it again.

Mr. Raven, your critical sentence above is missing a pronoun, but we can
infer it from the number of your verb.  "...Hoess being so discredited
that [Browning/Lipstadt/Berenbaum] say [he] is untrustworthy."

And what did Browning say to give that impression to Mr. Raven?

He said "Hoess was always a very weak and confused witness."  _Witness_.
Not a word about his memoirs.

What did Lipstadt say to give that impression to Mr. Raven?

She directed a Mr. Christopher Hitchens to read page 188 of her book
_Denying the Holocaust_.  That page points out that Hoess' testimony,
as a _witness_, was that inaccurate.

In fact, both of them are referring to Hoess' _testimony_, as a
_witness_, that 2.5 million people were killed at Auschwitz.  We know
this to be an exaggeration;  in fact, under two million people were
killed.  And Hoess, in his _memoirs_, indicates that his _testimony_
was based on information he'd received from Eichmann, which even Hoess
doubted.  Hoess' own estimates came to a bit over 1.3 million, which
is a lot closer to the truth.

We've been over all this before.

So what do we have?

We have Mr. Raven distorting the words of Browning and Lipstadt, saying
that they thought Hoess was "useless."  Then we have Mr. Raven being
corrected.  Then, months later, we have Mr. Raven coming back and
saying that they thought Hoess was "untrustworthy."  But, as we've just
seen, this is also false -- Browning and Lipstadt said not a word about
Hoess' _memoirs_, they referred only to Hoess' _testimony_.

And only one section of Hoess' testimony, at that -- the section where
he gave an incorrect figure.  And in his _memoirs_, he explains that
he himself doubted the figure, but that it was the best he could do!

That makes his memoirs pretty damn trustworthy, to me.

And in any case, if Mr. Raven wants to argue that Hoess' memoirs are
untrustworthy, he'd better make the case himself, and not rely on
someone else saying it. He should give us reason to believe that the
rest of Hoess' testimony, the part that has nothing to do with the
numbers, is wrong.  And then he should explain what impact that has
on Hoess' _memoirs_, written after he had testified, been convicted,
and been sentenced to death.

> None of the three pieces of "evidence" is evidence at all. The two Hoess
> pieces are post-war writings from a time after he had been tortured and
> broken.

How does that make them not evidence?

I am far from convinced, by the way, that Hoess was tortured.  But let's
assume for the sake of argument that he was tortured into giving his
testimony at trial.  Why, then, after the trial was over, would he not
only repeat his earlier testimony, but add to it, explain it, point out
what he thought were errors in it?  (Those errors being confirmed by
historians, years later.)  Why would he go into detail about some of
the gassings he witnessed?  About his childhood experiences and how
they shaped him into who he was?

And what does their being post-war have to do with anything?  Of course
they were post-war;  the Allies could hardly get confessions from Nazis
_during_ the war, because, well, there was a war going on at the time.

> You offer no solid evidence whatsoever, merely a loose collection
> of some things that people said that have no factual counterpart (that is,
> no gas chambers).

Mr. Raven, you make two points in that sentence above.

The first is that "things that people said" are not evidence.  This is
rubbish and nonsense.  Have you examined the long article by Chris
Hoover regarding testimony and the historical process?  If so, why do
you reject that oral and written statements are evidence?  If not,
don't you think you owe it to your readers to do so?

The second is that there is no "factual counterpart" to Hoess'
statements, "no gas chambers."  On the contrary -- every gas chamber
that Hoess describes is exactly where he said it would be.  He
describes the gassings in the farmhouse, and you can go to Auschwitz
today and see the farmhouse.  He describes the gassings in Bunker II,
in Krema IV, in Krema V, and those buildings are there.  He describes
the oven systems in Krema II and II, and he gets them exactly right. 
He describes the rooms in the Krema, and those rooms are still there
today.

What exactly do you mean, "no factual counterpart"?

You're wanting something else, Mr. Raven.  Tell me what it is that
you're looking for, what it is that would convince you of Hoess'
memoirs' reliability.

> If this is your best evidence, even YOU should be skeptical of Holocaust
> gassing claims. Your position on these claims is bereft of support.

"Bereft of support" indeed.

We have the Reichsfuehrer-SS saying "the Jewish people are being
exterminated."

We have the commandant of Auschwitz explaining the gassing process.

And we have the commandant's description of the order given by the
Reichsfuehrer to begin the extermination process.

"Bereft of support" -- yah right.

Again, Mr. Raven -- what evidence could possibly be better?  Tell me
what it is that you're looking for.

> Now please, let's hear no more lies about Greg Raven not responding to the
> "May 4th evidence." Sheesh. Get serious.

So you admit that you've seen the "May 4th" article?  Funny, in another
article posted a day or two ago, you say you've never seen it.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "I am taking landpost's spelling as correct,
  I realize that is not risk-free"  - Daniel Rice


Article 17868 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx10.cs.du.edu!not-for-mail
From: choover@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Christopher Hoover)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Elevators Re: Analysis of the Franke-Gricksch "report"
Date: 20 Oct 1994 08:42:19 -0600
Organization: University of Denver, Math/CS Dept.
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <385vkb$18v@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
References:   <383def$kuh@nyx10.cs.du.edu> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: nyx10.cs.du.edu
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #3 (NOV)

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

>In article <383def$kuh@nyx10.cs.du.edu>, choover@nyx10.cs.du.edu
>(Christopher Hoover) wrote:

>> >And although a naive audience might take the use of the term
>> >"elevators" to mean the sort of thing one has in a hotel or office
>> >building I have no particular reason to believe this. In industrial or
>> >military situations the word might well be used to mean something more
>> >like makeshift dumbwaiters or conveyor belts or some pully and box
>> >arrangements.
>> 
>> I'm just thinking out loud here, but it occurs to me that to a 
>> Midwestern, Tim-McCarthy-approved "shit kicker" [tm], such as myself, 
>> another meaning of the word "elevator" might come to mind.  To wit:  an 
>> inclined conveyer-belt mechanism such as the one that was used to move  
>> corn up into the top of the corn crib on the farm I grew up on.  This 
>> contraption was called an "elevator" too.  
>> 
>> Now, I've no idea whether this is what they used, but I imagine such a 
>> contraption would be fairly useful in moving bodies up from a lower level.

>You certainly had to ignore a ton of other material to seize on this one
>aspect. What about the dozen or so other errors I identified in the
>Franke-Gricksch "report?"

Mr. Raven obviously missed the part where I said I was "thinking out 
loud," even though he _quotes_ it.  I did not "ignore" the other 
material; it's just that others are doing just fine at carrying on 
_those_ particular parts of the discussion.  What happened was simply 
this:  while reading Barry's post, I was struck by an odd thought:  could 
the "elevators" under discussion be something other than the "lifts" we 
usually associate with the term?  I impulsively hit the "f" key and typed 
up that thought.  Why Mr. Raven has a problem with this is beyond me.

It has been suggested to me in e-mail that it was probably _not_ the sort 
of elevator I was talking about.  If so, that's just fine with me--it 
_was_ just a random thought.



Chris
-- 
Christopher J. Hoover    choover@nyx.cs.du.edu     Kibo flavor:  Unlisted
Disclaimer:  standard    It's *always* September, *somewhere* on the Net.


Article 17879 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-08.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 19:58:26 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 57
Message-ID: 
References: 
   <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1>
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-08.dialip.mich.net

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

> As I posted early on, if you do not see my respond to a post, repost it to
> make sure I have seen it.

(From October 13th, 1994:)

The snippet you posted from December 1943 was of Himmler talking about
his actions in villages, against what he referred to as "partisans or
Jewish commissars."  He stated that, in these villages, he was killing
the partisans and Jewish commissars down to the women and children.

Now, I guess your claim is that, because Himmler said in December that
he was killing Jewish commissars (and others) in villages, then in
October he could not possibly have been speaking of what was going on
in gas chambers in Auschwitz.  Do I have that right?

If I do, then I really don't see how you expect anyone to buy that.
It simply makes no sense.  Perhaps you could try explaining it again.

Part of the problem may be what you think Himmler meant by "partisans
and Jewish commissars."  Since Himmler explicitly said in October that
they were killing every Jew, then his December speech would only be
relevant if he were referring to Jews as a whole.  But he was not --
he was referring to "Jewish commissars."  Those being a subset of Jews
as a whole.

Now, I'll grant you that the Nazis were trying to exterminate Jewish
commissars, because that follows directly from the fact that they were
trying to exterminate Jews as a whole.  But I don't see how Himmler's
_affirming_ that Jewish commissars were being killed in any way _denies_
that the Jews as a whole were being killed.

Is it your claim that, because the Jewish commissars (and others) were
not being killed in gas chambers, that therefore no Jews were being
killed in gas chambers?  Again, I don't see how you could expect anyone
to buy that;  it makes no sense.

Perhaps I don't understand what you meant by "other versions of the
speech given around that same time."  Is it your claim that Himmler was
giving nearly the same speech, and simply chose to rephrase that part
slightly differently, keeping the same meaning?  If so, you may be
a little confused.  There were two speeches at Poznan, on the 4th and
6th of October.  The excerpt from the December speech you quote sounds a
lot like a section of the October 6th speech, in which he asks "how was
it with the women and children?" and explains that they had to die as
well.  But that's different from the October 4th speech.  And it's the
October 4th speech that I'm quoting:  "'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.'"
Different versions of the October 6th speech will provide insight as to
nuances of meaning in _that_ speech, of course, but will have no impact
on the October 4th speech.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "I am taking landpost's spelling as correct,
  I realize that is not risk-free"  - Daniel Rice


Article 17880 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-08.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 19:59:32 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 24
Message-ID: 
References: 
   <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1>
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-08.dialip.mich.net

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

> As I posted early on, if you do not see my respond to a post, repost it to
> make sure I have seen it.

(From August 15th, 1994:)

Mr. Raven, perhaps you'd care to explain to us the difference between a
quadrangular and a rectilinear figure?

Since your math classes were apparently less than enlightening, perhaps you
could look those words up in a dictionary.

I am amazed that you can read no fewer than eight transcriptions of
testimony from former SS guards at the Reinhard camps, and dismiss them
all based on the word "quadrangle."

Do us a favor, Mr. Raven, please _do_ go through that article (and the
other seven) line by line.  If your analysis of each line is as amusing
as your analysis of "quadrangle," I'd enjoy reading it.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "I am taking landpost's spelling as correct,
  I realize that is not risk-free"  - Daniel Rice


Article 17881 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-08.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 20:00:26 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 29
Message-ID: 
References: 
   <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1>
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-08.dialip.mich.net

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

> As I posted early on, if you do not see my respond to a post, repost it to
> make sure I have seen it.

(From August 15th, 1994, in an article by Mike Stein:)

    Speaking of previous posts, Daniel Keren posted the interview with
former SS guard Franz Suchomel as seen in the film *Shoah*.  At the time,
Mr. Raven posted a completely irrelevant essay by Mark Weber which
mentioned not one word about Suchomel.  Raven made some other comments.

    I'd like to repeat the question I posted in response and which Mr. 
Raven never answered.  Since Mr. Raven is a proponent of the novel school
of discussing evidence one piece at a time starting with the best, I
assume something in his long and largely irrelevant post must have been
his *best evidence* that the testimony of Franz Suchomel is "shakey,"
"erroneous and/or unbelievable."

    Which is it?  The fact that Daniel Keren misspelled the name of the
film director?  The fact that Keren translated the name of the film from
the Hebrew "Shoah" to the English "Holocaust?"  Or something else?  I'd
like Mr. Raven - who has yet to explain his blatant distortion of the
comments of Pressac regarding the testimony of Bo"ck - to pick one so we
can discuss it.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "I am taking landpost's spelling as correct,
  I realize that is not risk-free"  - Daniel Rice


Article 17882 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-08.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 20:01:32 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 55
Message-ID: 
References: 
   <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1>
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-08.dialip.mich.net

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

> As I posted early on, if you do not see my respond to a post, repost it to
> make sure I have seen it.

(From August 16th, 1994:)

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

> k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:
> 
> > Evidence...you mean like the ten documents we provided for you over three
> > months ago, each of which demonstrates the reality of the Holocaust,
> > none of which you have yet addressed?
> 
> Yes, ten, when I asked for one or two. And when I asked (about each
> document I saw) whether this was the best evidence, I never received a
> response in the affirmative.

BULL.

Mr. Raven, you take the cake for being the most blatant liar I have yet
seen on alt.revisionism -- and that's saying a lot!

I hereby ask you to produce for me the article you wrote that asked
to know whether the evidence presented to you on May 4th was the best
evidence.

You won't be able to do it, because you never wrote such an article.

I have every single article you've ever written on Usenet archived,
all 72 of them (not counting email from you that was posted by other
users, but including the twelve articles you posted before the May 4th
reply).  You really should have realized this by now, Mr. Raven.  If
you'd like I can email all 60 post-May-4th articles directly to you,
and you can sift through your own words, looking for a place where you
"asked...whether [the May 4th documents were] the best evidence."  I'm
dead serious about that -- if you can't find the article where you asked
this, please, let me email you everything you've written, and you can
search through it.

But you won't find a damned thing.  I know.  I've looked.

Perhaps when you're "debating" the Holocaust on a radio show where no
one has time to respond, or in a magazine where you control the
content, you can get away with this crap.  But not on an electronic
forum where every word you write can be stored on a hard disk
somewhere.

Welcome to the 1990s, Mr. Raven!  I don't imagine you'll find it very
comfortable here!
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "I am taking landpost's spelling as correct,
  I realize that is not risk-free"  - Daniel Rice


Article 17883 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-08.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 20:02:22 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 37
Message-ID: 
References: 
   <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1>
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-08.dialip.mich.net

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

> As I posted early on, if you do not see my respond to a post, repost it to
> make sure I have seen it.

(From August 18th, 1994:)

These paragraphs are extracted from an article which I posted on August 2nd.
They're self-explanatory out of context, but if anyone wants to see the
original article with the complete quotes from Mr. Raven, all it will take
is sending me some polite email.  :-)


Mr. Raven, you state that you are "willing to accept [the definition above]
as a starting point."

That definition assigns the word "Holocaust" to mean "the murder of six
million Jews as a central act of state by the Nazis during the Second World
War, many in gas chambers."

And you state that you "cannot accept" that "the Nazis had a plan or policy
to exterminate the Jews, that they loaded Jews into gas chambers to murder
them, and that they wiped out 6 million Jews as part of this plan/policy."

By absolutely straightforward syllogistic logic, it seems evident to me
that you, therefore, "cannot accept" the Holocaust.  That is, you deny it.

I'm no logician, but I don't think I'm missing anything.   Your position
has changed, it appears.

I really hope we can resolve this first, simplest, issue quickly.  If you
waffle on this one, Mr. Raven, I'm afraid I'll have little hope that any
of the more serious issues will be tackleable.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "I am taking landpost's spelling as correct,
  I realize that is not risk-free"  - Daniel Rice


Article 17884 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-08.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 20:02:50 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 15
Message-ID: 
References: 
   <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1>
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-08.dialip.mich.net

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

> As I posted early on, if you do not see my respond to a post, repost it to
> make sure I have seen it.

(From August 18th, 1994, in an article by Danny Keren:)

Perhaps Raven can also explain why he relies on an aerial photograph
of Treblinka to arrive at conclusions about the camp, when Treblinka
was dismantled at the end of 1943 and the photographs were taken
in September 1944?
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "I am taking landpost's spelling as correct,
  I realize that is not risk-free"  - Daniel Rice


Article 17885 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-08.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 20:04:43 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 77
Message-ID: 
References: 
   <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1>
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-08.dialip.mich.net

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

> As I posted early on, if you do not see my respond to a post, repost it to
> make sure I have seen it.

(From August 30th, 1994, an article by Barry Shein:)

From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
>I will repeat that the Holocaust
>extermination myth is unique in Western history in that it is the only
>event for which we have only "testimony" and "eyewitness" accounts.

Repeat all you like but that's not true no matter how you read that
sentence; it's neither the only such event nor is it limited to such
evidence.

Ultimately all you have is eyewitness testimony, in some sense. If I
were to let you gaze into a crystal ball that allowed you to see the
events at issue in the end all you would be is another eyewitness
testifying to what you see. At some ontological level all we can
possibly have are the recordings of human perceptions. Your silly
arguments appear to border on that sort of sophistic reasoning.

Unless each and every person who cares is allowed to personally study
every bit of evidence then all one will have is something akin to
eyewitness testimonies.

Now, you don't seem to fit into this idea you have the numerous
documents such as memos written between Nazi officers during the war
which report the events you doubt occurred. Are they also only
"eyewitnesses"? Is anyone who has viewed such a document only an
eyewitness? And thus all irrelevant?

No, what you, plural, do (and we've seen it here numerous times) is
simply discount anything other than eyewitness as forgeries or
similar.

So that which isn't eyewitness is forgeries, and that which is
eyewitness is simply discredited by definition. How convenient.

The truth of the matter is much more simple: You don't believe any of
this occurred, a priori, so you have built this ridiculous story to
try to defend your bizarre ideas. Like the way flat-earthers insist
that the US space launches were all staged in some hollywood movie
lot. Why? Because the earth is flat, so no one could have orbited it,
period, anything proving otherwise is to be discounted as a fraud or
hearsay.

Why don't you deal with the evidence? And I don't mean simply waving
your hand and saying something is a forgery BECAUSE it doesn't agree
with your beliefs.

Show us where all these supposed forgeries came from, who manufactured
them, who masterminded such a reasonably consistent story.

Oh of course there were some contradictions as no doubt you would
mechanically point out to the previous paragraph; such is the lot of
vast arrays of evidence, but by and large a very consistent picture
comes through. And I don't know of any inconsistencies that you would
otherwise accept as evidence in any case, all I've seen have been
drawn from the very same eyewitness testimony you so roundly object
to, so what's the point?

But if two cars crash and there are ten eyewitnesses, and eight insist
one car was blue and the other red and two that the other was white
few other than yourself would immediately conclude that there
therefore was no car crash. A much simpler and more plausible
explanation is that someone was a little mistaken in some details of
their recollections.

As to being the only such event in history: Prove to the degree you
demand for events surrounding the Holocaust that Black slavery ever
existed in the United States. As just one easy example.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "I am taking landpost's spelling as correct,
  I realize that is not risk-free"  - Daniel Rice


Article 17888 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!uunet!world!wmcguire
From: wmcguire@world.std.com (Wayne McGuire)
Subject: Re: Himmler About "Human Animals"
Message-ID: 
Sender: wmcguire@world.std.com (Wayne McGuire)
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
References:  <386m1d$otc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 23:54:51 GMT
Lines: 50

In article <386m1d$otc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) wrote:

//From the speech of Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler, speaking to SS
//Major-Generals, Poznan, October 4 1943

Disturbing words, Danny.

Problem is, I just finished reading Israel Shahak's _Jewish
History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years_
(London: Pluto Press, 1994), in which one can find similar
sentiments expressed in classical Judaism towards "goyim" over
the millennia. I could post dozens of quotes from Shahak's book
in this very newsgroup--perhaps I will. If you would like to
discuss the book here--perhaps you would like to correct any
misinformation that Shahak might have presented--please do.

The ability of nearly any human group to dehumanize or demonize
all outgroups has been quite well-illustrated throughout history.
Read Richard Pipes, for instance, on the fanatical hatred for
outsiders which motivated Leninism and Leninists.

What's disturbing about Shahak's book is that he claims that
these anti-human doctrines are still being taught today
officially in important sectors of the Jewish world, including in
Israel. As far as I know--correct me if I am wrong--Western
Europe and the U.S. have largely expunged these loathsome ideas
from their mainstream social and political groups.

Why shouldn't the non-Jewish world expect the Jewish world to
expunge all traces of bigotry from its official religious and
secular texts, much in the same way that the Jewish world has
requested Christians to expunge anti-Semitism from their texts?
You could call the process mutual ideological disarmament. Either
we all disarm ideologically, or we will all be at one another's
throats yet again. Everyone has to lay down their chosen people
ideologies simultaneously, it seems to me, or we will be facing
Armageddon.

In reading Shahak's book I found myself wondering how much
anti-Semitism throughout the centuries has been a mirror image of
the virulent "anti-Gentilism" in the Jewish tradition that Shahak
describes at length.

Shahak's book has now been praised by Christopher Hitchens, Gore
Vidal, and Noam Chomsky. I would be interested in reading an
INTELLIGENT critique of the book--not an ignorant tirade--if you
or anyone else can produce one.

I've got a copy right here at my desk, next to Richard Pipes'
_Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime_.


Article 17889 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-08.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 20:05:43 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 20
Message-ID: 
References: 
   <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1>
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-08.dialip.mich.net

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

> As I posted early on, if you do not see my respond to a post, repost it to
> make sure I have seen it.

(From August 29th, 1994, in an article by Mike Stein:)

    You made a claim that 1944 aerial photos support your case about a 
camp that was abandoned and stripped in late 1943.  Please explain how 
this astonishing claim can be true.  Inquiring minds want to know.

    Sorry, Greg.  Remember, we *did* warn you at the very start we were 
wise to *all* the tricks.

    Answer the question of how 1944 aerial photos support your claim 
about a camp planted over in 1943.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "I am taking landpost's spelling as correct,
  I realize that is not risk-free"  - Daniel Rice


Article 17890 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-08.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 20:07:49 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 17
Message-ID: 
References: 
   <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1>
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-08.dialip.mich.net

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

> As I posted early on, if you do not see my respond to a post, repost it to
> make sure I have seen it.

(From August 30th, 1994, an article by Richard Schultz:)

As I (and others) have stated repeatedly, we do not have time to go through
your (and others) posts line by line.  Please tell me which piece of 
evidence you consider to be the single best piece for evidence to show 
that World War II occurred.  If you cannot do this, then please do me the
favor of ceasing to claim that there was such a large-scale war, involving
so many soldiers from so many countries, until you can provide such proof.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "I am taking landpost's spelling as correct,
  I realize that is not risk-free"  - Daniel Rice


Article 17891 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-08.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 20:09:25 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 35
Message-ID: 
References: 
   <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1>
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-08.dialip.mich.net

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

> As I posted early on, if you do not see my respond to a post, repost it to
> make sure I have seen it.

(From August 30th, 1994:)

Mr. Raven continues to insist that he can put words in my mouth.

I reject this, and demand that he actually read what I write.

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

> Sorry. I believe if you read the original message, you will see that
> McCarthy refers only to testimonies and eyewitness accounts, or somesuch. I
> take this to mean that there is no substantive evidence to support his view
> of the Holocaust extermination myth.

You're changing the subject again, Mr. Raven.

Greg, in article , regarding
whether or not the gas chambers are reconstructions, I wrote,  "We can deal
with the truth or falsity of this statement later."  You later said that
I had "admitted" that they were reconstructions, and thus that no direct
evidence of the tools used to kill the people still exists.

I want you to quote the text where I "admitted" this, Mr. Raven....

If you like, I'll email you all articles I've written since you first came
up with this thing about the gas chambers being reconstructions.  I'll be
happy to.  Just ask.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "I am taking landpost's spelling as correct,
  I realize that is not risk-free"  - Daniel Rice


Article 17892 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-08.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 20:10:07 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 54
Message-ID: 
References: 
   <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1>
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-08.dialip.mich.net

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

> As I posted early on, if you do not see my respond to a post, repost it to
> make sure I have seen it.

(From an article on August 30th, 1994:)

On July 31st, Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) wrote:

> By the way, for all the protests directed my way for trying to bring a
> little order to this discussion, no one has offered an alternative plan,
> workable or not.

On August 1st, I responded:

Liar.

In that article that first appeared on May the 4th, we asked Mr. Raven to
"provide us with what he thinks are the one or two best pieces of evidence
that the Nazis did _not_ exterminate millions of people in homicidal gas
chambers."  I personally have repeated that request several times.

This is not only an alternative plan, it's highly superior to Mr. Raven's
suggestion, for reasons which have been detailed many times on this
newsgroup, in the May 4th article and in my personal remarks thereon.

In fact, I've been making this request of Dan Gannon since about a month
after I started reading alt.revisionism, which would be around the spring
or summer of 1991.  And, as other Nazi apologists and Holocaust-deniers
have wandered through these electronic halls, I believe at one point or
another I've directed the question to each of them individually.

If not, I hereby ask anyone who believes that the Nazis did not try to
exterminate millions of civilians in the early 1940s:

Pick the topic.  Name the one area in which we should focus discussion,
that you think will best make your case.  For example:  Leuchter's
forensic findings;  diesel engines and Reinhard;  population reports;
the difficulty of using HCN.  I've looked into all of these examples
and have found them all to be bogus claims.  If your argument is that
I'm simply not looking deeply enough, then pick the one claim that you
think is your best, and we will focus all our efforts thereon, looking
as deeply as it takes.


Mr. Raven, what's wrong with this alternative plan?  And, would you like
me to again explain why this plan makes more sense than your ridiculous
request to examine each piece of evidence for the Holocaust in isolation?

And, if nothing is wrong with it -- why haven't you taken up the offer?
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "I am taking landpost's spelling as correct,
  I realize that is not risk-free"  - Daniel Rice


Article 17893 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-08.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 20:10:48 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 21
Message-ID: 
References: 
   <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1>
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-08.dialip.mich.net

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

> As I posted early on, if you do not see my respond to a post, repost it to
> make sure I have seen it.

(From August 30th, 1994, in an article by Mike Stein:)

Greg Raven  wrote:
> Pressac casts doubts on Boeck's having
>witnessed more than one [gassing]

    This is (to say the least) a very creative reading of Pressac's text, 
which has been posted here several times.

    Say, Greg, want to get some high school English teachers together and 
place a little wager on what they'd say about your interpretation of 
Pressac's text?
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "I am taking landpost's spelling as correct,
  I realize that is not risk-free"  - Daniel Rice


Article 17894 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-08.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 20:13:19 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 16
Message-ID: 
References: 
   <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1>
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-08.dialip.mich.net

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

> As I posted early on, if you do not see my respond to a post, repost it to
> make sure I have seen it.

(From August 27, 1994:)

_Assuming for the sake of argument_ that the gas chambers are totally
reconstructions, isn't the section of Mr. Leuchter's report that deals
with the chemical analysis of their walls either (1) a fraudulent
worthless sham, or (2) evidence of Mr. Leuchter's complete ineptitude
and ignorance?
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "I am taking landpost's spelling as correct,
  I realize that is not risk-free"  - Daniel Rice


Article 17895 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-08.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 20:14:13 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 30
Message-ID: 
References: 
   <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1>
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-08.dialip.mich.net

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

> As I posted early on, if you do not see my respond to a post, repost it to
> make sure I have seen it.

(From September 2nd, 1994:)

Greg Raven wrote:

> 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.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "I am taking landpost's spelling as correct,
  I realize that is not risk-free"  - Daniel Rice


Article 17896 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-08.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 20:20:49 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 55
Message-ID: 
References: 
   <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1>
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-08.dialip.mich.net

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

> As I posted early on, if you do not see my respond to a post, repost it to
> make sure I have seen it.

(From August 15th, 1994, in an article by Barry Shein:)

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

>Furthermore, to say that the Germans had time to destroy so-called gas
>chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau but not at Dachau, where, we are told, there
>are false shower heads (!) [deletia -JRM]

        "There is much additional proof of the Dachau gas
        chamber's existence. On 3 May 1945, after the
        liberation of the camp, an American war correspondent
        took moving pictures in Dachau that show in detail
        the inside rooms of the crematorium, the room called the
        morgue, the room with four crematory ovens, and finally
        the gas chamber. This last was a windowless room; metal
        strips pierced with holes had been set into the concrete
        ceiling; on one of the iron doors was the inscription:
        ``Showers.'' On the left side of the building were four
        little disinfestation rooms, also closed with iron doors,
        which bore the inscription, under a death's-head [bzs -
        the symbol of the SS]: ``Attention! Gas! Danger of Death.
        Do Not Open.'' (87)

                        ibid, pp 203


        87 U.S. Army documentary film, ADC 4468/SPX-G LIB 6572 of
           3 May 1945, Army Pictorial Center, Long Island City, N.Y.

                        ibid, pp 272

I assume we will now be subjected to the revisionist's usual response
of either:

        a) Forgeries all forgeries!

        b) Silence, and then repeat the same claims later when
        perhaps there are some new people reading the list.

        c) Demands that someone else produce the ORIGINAL film
        mentioned above, not a copy!, for them personally and
        right here or else forget it, they don't believe any of
        it.

Well, hey, whatever. Long Island City is in Queens, NYC very close to
La Guardia airport.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "I am taking landpost's spelling as correct,
  I realize that is not risk-free"  - Daniel Rice


Article 17897 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-08.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 20:23:16 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 30
Message-ID: 
References: 
   <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1>
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-08.dialip.mich.net

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

> As I posted early on, if you do not see my respond to a post, repost it to
> make sure I have seen it.

(From August 16th, 1994:)

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

: I had no luck
: whatsoever locating the last two pieces of so-called evidence you claimed
: to have ... they simply did not exist in the sources to which you referred.

That's because you were looking in the _wrong_place_.

And you would be aware of that, if you bothered to read this newsgroup.
You _do_ read this newsgroup, right, Mr. Raven?

Danny Keren, on August 2:

: Ah, what a clown this Raven is.
: 
: You got the wrong series, you "revisionist scholar" you. I am not
: quoting from the "blue series", but from the series of volumes about
: the later trials (such as the Farben Trial, the Doctor's Trial etc;
: I hope Raven heard about these).
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "I am taking landpost's spelling as correct,
  I realize that is not risk-free"  - Daniel Rice


Article 17898 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-08.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 20:25:50 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 33
Message-ID: 
References: 
   <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1>
   
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-08.dialip.mich.net

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

> As I posted early on, if you do not see my respond to a post, repost it to
> make sure I have seen it.

(From September 2nd, 1994:)

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?

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."

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.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "I am taking landpost's spelling as correct,
  I realize that is not risk-free"  - Daniel Rice


Article 17915 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu!miavx1!bpharmon
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Analysis of the Franke-Gricksch "report"
Message-ID: <1994Oct21.000750.31892@miavx1>
From: bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Raskolnikov)
Date: 21 Oct 94 00:07:50 -0500
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
References: 
Organization: Miami University
Lines: 118

In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:
> In response to my request for the best evidence that the Nazis had a plan
> or policy to exterminate the Jews in gas chambers, Barry Shein has
> presented the obviously fabricated Franke-Gricksch "Resettlement Action
> Report." Wow!

um, Where did anyone say it was the _best_?

> Fleming doesn't mention that the Franke-Gricksch "report" is but part of a
> larger document, and that is just one of the problems he has with this
> document. For example, in his book he fails to state that the document to
> which he devotes an entire chapter is nowhere signed by Franke-Gricksch. He
> also erroneously stated in a private letter to F-G's widow that her husband
> had signed this Report.

I assume you have citations for this?

> Fleming does not let the F-G report off the hook completely, however. He
> states:
> "Franke-Gricksch's account of 'the execution of the Fuehrer-order," namely,
> the lowering of 'certain materials' into a large cellar room resembling a
> 'shower bath' and activation and release of 'particular substances that put
> people to sleep in one minute' is a fraudulent and cynical white-washing of
> death by gassing."

Sounds more to me like he's slamming Franke-Gricksch for
putting a pretty picture on murder.

> What we are left with then, is no original or carbon copy thereof, and the
> only evidence we have of this document's existence is the excerpted Report,
> the deficiencies of which I shall examine now.

Well, I don't know exactly _where_ you got your info about
the report, perhaps you could post your bibliography?

> .
> Among of the most obvious things wrong with this "document" is the
> accidental use of English words in place of German words. Some of these
> anglicisms were corrected on the typescript copy, some where not. For
> example, on the first line of the report, "had" for "hat;" "der," the
> second word of line 2, typed over "the;" and on line 3, "hier" typed over
> "here." On line 8 of the second page of the report, the alleged copyist
> typed "had," but corrected it to "hat," only to begin the following word
> with "t" (evidently for "the") before catching that and typing the correct
> German definite article "die." Furthermore, in the final paragraph of page
> 1, the English participial ending "d" is twice typed for the German "t,"
> that is "ausgestatted" for "ausgestattet" on line 5, which has been
> corrected, and "gebaded" for "gebadet" on line 9. Last but not least, the
> verb "kommt" is used twice with the same subject in the sentence beginning
> on line 6 of the third paragraph of line 1.

Well, If an English speaking transcriber copied a German 
document into German, It doesn't surpise me that hat sometimes 
become "had".  Given that German grammar is much more rigorous than 
english, I wonder why the only errors found are typos, and not
glaring misuses of German grammar.

Havnig studied German for about five years, including acting
in several all-German cabaret style plays, It's been my 
experience that English-German translation errors are usually 
quite different than merely placing a D where a T should go.

One major difference between English and German is word order. 
How you order words in a sentence is often different in German 
than in English.  For example, to say "I have eaten a radish"  The correct 
word order in German is actually "I have a radish eaten."  Like this:

 Eng:  I have eaten dinner.   German:  I habe ein Radi gegessen.

If the document was forged from a shoddily transcribed english 
original, why is there only the occaisonal typo without any word
order mistakes?  

Specifying what case verbs are in also is very specific in German, 
and i'm curious that if this was a poorly translated forgery, why 
no errors in case would be found.

Any native German speakers please correct me on this.

> the hollow pillars? What "certain substances are used? How is it possible
> to open the doors a few minutes after a lethal gassing when a deadly poison
> is supposedly still rampant in the air? 

gas masks. 

I can send you excerpts from the Degesch manual 
that list the only real protection from the gas itself 
is a gas mask.  

I'll also repost (and mail to you, if you wish) excerpts from 
a piece I put together about cyanide that focuses on major
modes of poisoning and protection.

> 8) There were probably not 500,000 Jews in killed in May, 1943, and true
> number is somewhere between 200,000 and 250,000.
> 9) The capacity of Krema II was not 10,000 per 24 hours, but rather 4,756
> for all FIVE crematoria combined, and even this is a theoretical output
> "that was never achieved in 1943, as proved by the Krematorium coke
> consumption." Pressac calls this claim "another Auschwitz SS propaganda
> figure passed on by Franke-Gricksch."

I take it that you now accept people were being gassed?

> Even at this, Pressac misses some of the problems with this document. For
> example:
> 1) He fails to explain how the Sonderkommando members could have resisted
> the lingering Zyklon B gas as they went to work hauling bodies from the gas
> chamber, removing gold teeth, etc., only "a few minutes" after the
> killings.

  as said before, gas masks.  Besides, If a sonderkommando dropped 
dead, that was one less the nazis would have gassed later.

=======================================================================
Brian Harmon           "...God sets us nothing but riddles.."
Miami University             -Dostoyevski's _The Brothers Karamazov_
Oxford, Ohio 45056                yeech! ackphtbt! ungh!
--------------bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu--------------------------


Article 17917 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: 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!swrinde!sgiblab!uhog.mit.edu!news.kei.com!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
In-Reply-To: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu's message of Thu, 20 Oct 1994 20:20:49 -0400
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References:  <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1>
	
	
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 04:12:00 GMT
Lines: 61


From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
>Furthermore, to say that the Germans had time to destroy so-called gas
>chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau but not at Dachau, where, we are told, there
>are false shower heads (!) [deletia -JRM]


To add a bit more:

As has been pointed out before, Auschwitz-Birkenau was in
Poland. Dachau is nearly in the center of Germany proper (what the
Nazis referred to as the Altreich, the old reich.)

When the Nazis (the SS specifically) saw the Russian troop advancement
and the likelihood of losing Poland as fairly inevitable, they began
to cover up what they had done prior to retreat.

They had some time, they had some warning. But more importantly they
still had Germany. This means they still had resources (in the
simplest sense), purpose, no doubt some hope of brokering a peace for
Germany. Brokering peace would no doubt be more difficult if it were
left evident what terrible things they had done.

So they tried to erase the evidence, they blew up the camps'
facilites, marched out whatever remaining prisoners they had (the
famous death marches), attempted to reduce whatever corpses were still
identifiable as corpses to a fine ash (sometimes in open pit fires in
their rush, and the crematoria), threw the ash into rivers etc.

By the time Dachau was likely lost, in the center of Germany, there
were no doubt other things on their mind as exigent. It was over, and
why bother erasing Dachau beforehand when it's clear that if any
allies ever saw Dachau it's only because there *IS* no Nazi government
left. And indeed that was the case, it wasn't very hard for them to
come to this conclusion.

Other than the scope and particular crimes this is nothing new or
unusual to the Nazis. If you still hold out hopes of brokering peace
and you have committed atrocities then it's a very good idea to hide
them. They're not good things to come up at the bargaining table,
particularly if you're already bargaining from a weak position of
near-surrender.

However, if all is lost, the Russians in Berlin, the Americans
marching through Frankfurt, etc then I daresay the more likely
reaction would be ``it's not my job!'' and run like hell.

It's not at all hard to understand.

Perhaps Mr Raven hoped his readers would not know that
Auschwitz-Birkenau was in Poland while Dachau was in the center of
Germany? Or not be familiar enough with the very different situations
to realize he's not made a very interesting point?



-- 
        -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 17918 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!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: Mountains of evidence
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 22:15:28 -0600
Organization: MCSNet Services
Lines: 39
Message-ID: 
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: golux.pr.mcs.net

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

> As I have stated over and over and over and over, I do NOT believe that any
> historical event can be proven by a single piece of evidence!!! I only want
> to look at what you and others say is the BEST evidence one piece of
> evidence at a time. To you use precious "courtroom" analogy, lawyers don't
> dump all their evidence on the court at the same time. They produce each
> piece one at a time. That is all I am asking. If you think you have 5,038
> pieces of evidence to support the Holocaust extermination claims, fine.
> Start be showing me what YOU think is the very BEST piece of that evidence,
> and we'll go on from there.

Yes, fine.  But, in the courtroom analogy, each piece of evidence is part
of an overall structure, a combination that tells the story of WHAT
HAPPENED.  Nobody dismisses any single, incomplete piece of evidence
because it is not the "BEST evidence" of WHAT HAPPENED.

Similarly -- in fact, moreso -- with a historical event, in order to
determine WHAT HAPPENED, we have to look at each piece of evidence and put
it together with every other piece of evidence.  The phrase "BEST piece of
evidence" is basically meaningless with regard to any large-scale event. 
What is the "BEST evidence" that World War II happened?  Why should there
be a single "BEST" piece of evidence?

The only reason to ask for the "BEST" evidence is because you hope to
somehow invalidate it.  Having invalidated the "BEST" piece ofevidence,
all the other pieces that come after are, by definition, not the best;
hence their value can be called into question.  "Hey, if the BEST piece of
evidence was unhelpful (or bogus or mistaken), imagine how much worse all
the rest must be."  That's dishonest, and it sure isn't history.

Post/email

-- 
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 17920 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!sol.ctr.columbia.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: One step at a time
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 22:18:35 -0600
Organization: MCSNet Services
Lines: 140
Message-ID: 
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: golux.pr.mcs.net

Greg sent me this response in email, and I replied in email.  Finding it
here, I guess I should post my reply as well.  (Let's see if I can do
this.  Wait here....)

>At  0:20 10/19/94 -0600, golux@mcs.com (The only Golux in the World, and
>not a mere Devi wrote:
>
>>> We seem to have a major communications problem here. One more time, then, I
>>> am NOT saying that one piece of evidence will "prove" the Holocaust
>>> extermination claims. What I am asking is that any and all such evidence be
>>> presented one piece at a time so we can look at it in a deliberate fashion.
>>
>>Yet when presented with a list of ten pieces of evidence and asked to
>>address EACH ONE, SEQUENTIALLY, you ignored them all.  And further, when
>>presented with Himmler's Poznan speech, you say it doesn't mention gas
>>chambers, hence can't be the "best evidence" of (your definition of) the
>>Holocaust; and you refuse to address Himmler's speech in conjunction with
>>other evidence, such as SS memos regarding gassing chambers.
>
>You seem to be getting desperate. I never saw the list, and whenever I did
>see elements of that list, I responded to them. By the way, that is not MY
>definition of the Holocaust. I merely quoted it. Just about everyone else
>accepted it for the sake of the discussion. If you want now to say that
>there were no gas chambers involved in the so-called Holocaust, that's fine
>too. After all, that is one of the points I am trying to make here.

I have some difficulty believing you never saw the list of ten pieces of
evidence that was originally posted on May 4.  However, I know that it
will be reposted and re-emailed to you, so you will be sure to see it.

As for the definition of the Holocaust, you were never "quoting"
anything.  In one of your first postings, you said you were taking, as
your definition of the Holocaust something like "the Nazis' murder of
millions of Jews, many of them in gas chambers."  I don't recall the words
"plan or policy," but if they were there, the plan or policy was not
linked to gas chambers as the chosen method.  I do remember that your
exact words were "many of them in gas chambers."

There WERE gas chambers "involved" in the Holocaust.  Others have provided
considerable evidence of that, from SS memoranda to eyewitness testimonies
to blueprints to the Nazi-destroyed ruins.  The gas chambers were a means
to the Nazis' avowed ends -- the extermination of the Jews.

Now, you may dispute that the Nazis intended to exterminate the Jews.  If
so, you will have to deal with Himmler's comments in Poznan that the
extermination of the Jews "is part of our program."

You may also dispute that the Nazis used gas chambers as a means to carry
out that extermination.  If so, then you will have to address every
eyewitness testimony, every Nazi memorandum, and all the other evidence
that others have posted in the newsgroup.

Instead, you establish a strawman to argue against, and demand evidence
that the Nazis had a plan to use gas chambers to exterminate the Jews. 
Perhaps you don't understand the distinction between this latter position
-- which to my knowledge is not a position held by any historian -- and
the position that accords with the reality of the Holocaust -- i.e., that
the Nazis planned to exterminate the Jews, and that they used gas chambers
as part of their effort to carry out that plan.  But if you can't
understand the distinction, then perhaps you have chosen the wrong line of
work.

>>Eyewitness testimony need not be corroborated.  If five people saw you
>>shoot someone down in cold blood on a busy street, then the fact that the
>>gun can't be found is not going to do you a lot of good.
>
>I believe that in U.S. courts, five essentially identical eyewitness
>testimonies would tend to collaborate each other.

You mean corroborate, not collaborate.  Now, you may be right that five
eyewitness testimonies would tend to support each other.  However, there
is no such thing as "essentially identical eyewitness testimony."  The
witnesses may agree in the general picture, may all identify the same
person, but there will be differences of detail based on the witnesses'
different positions and angles, their memories, how much attention they
were paying, and so on.  (I should note that the number five was
arbitrary.  In the right circumstances, a single eyewitness can be plenty
to get a conviction.)  The point is, there is no requirement that an
eyewitness's testimony be corroborated by physical or any other evidence. 
It's just that the more evidence you can compile -- you know, that "one
piece supports another" stuff -- the better a case you can make.

The same is true with history, of course, although the degree to which one
must "prove" the case is actually less with history than with crime.

>>The point being, of course, that an error of detail (in your words, a
>>"conflict" with "known facts" (and just how are they "known"?)) does not
>>invalidate a witness's entire testimony; and that eyewitness testimony is
>>generally considered highly probative.  (Even "physical evidence" requires
>>testiony to be admissible -- someone has to tell what the evidence is, who
>>has had access to it, and so on.  Physical evidence must often be
>>authenticated, and how is that done?  Yep, by testimony.)
>
>Here we have a major difference between your position and mine. I believe
>that physical laws and material facts are more than "details."

Which "physical laws" contradict the eyewitness testimony of gas
chambers?  And what do you mean by "material fact" other than a fact --
which might as well be shown by testimony as by anything else -- that
signifies something as opposed to a fact that is irrelevant?


>>Here you go, Greg: I admit, there is no evidence to support a claim that
>>the Nazis planned to exterminate the Jews using gas chambers.  However, I
>>maintain -- and others post frequently to show -- that there is a mountain
>>of evidence that (a) the Nazis planned to exterminate the Jews and (b) one
>>of the means they used to try to achieve this goal was homicidal gas
>>chambers.
>
>Fine. Now, show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber.

That is neither my job nor my area of expertise.  Perhaps you should hire
an architect or an artist for that.  However, plenty of evidence and
pointers to further evidence has been provided that would allow you to
draw your own Nazi gas chamber.

>>Why not address the testimonies, memoranda, and other evidence of the gas
>>chambers?  I'm sure Jamie McCarthy, Danny Keren, Barry Shein and Ken McVay
>>would be delighted to provide you with the evidence, one piece at a time.
>
>I would be delighted to view the evidence (assuming, of course, that you
>are referring to evidence of the existence of Nazi gas chambers). However,
>if their past posts are any guide, they have no evidence to show that even
>one Nazi gas chamber existed, let alone that they dotted the European
>landscape, and were constantly in use murdering Jews, as their many
>messages imply.

No, Greg.  As someone else pointed out last night, the evidence is there,
and plenty of it; what you are disputing is not its existence, but instead
its probative value.  Rather than continuing to ask "Where is the
evidence?" why not just start by addressing the evidence that's been
presented?

Posted only, this time, since I already emailed it to him.

-- 
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 17922 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!uunet!world!wmcguire
From: wmcguire@world.std.com (Wayne McGuire)
Subject: Re: The other Himmler
Message-ID: 
Sender: wmcguire@world.std.com (Wayne McGuire)
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
References:   
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 23:08:29 GMT
Lines: 50

In article ,
uroessl1@gwdu03.gwdg.de (Roessler  Ulrich) wrote:

//Concerning the quoted piece - we may conclude, that in May 1940
//the leading Nazis weren't sure what to do about the "Judenfrage".

This was a brilliant post. You are the most valuable contributor
to this newsgroup hands down. Thanks.

The great majority of your analysis is quite compatible with that
of Arno Mayer, in my opinion. I agree with Mayer, and I agree
with what I read in your post. If I have foolishly failed to
detect any contradictions, please let me know.

The plan to exterminate the Jews was far from a monolithic and
predetermined policy during the life of Nazism. This is the
bottom line on this issue. Any suggestion that it was is
misleading at best, and a propagandistic lie at worst.

The exterminationist efforts that did occur were horrendous
enough without exaggerating them. Anyone who exaggerates any
aspect of the Holocaust gives critics an opening to pick away at
the credibility of the Holocaust in general.

Again, I've seen the process at work in considerable detail
concerning Israel. I no longer automatically believe anything
that Israel or Israeli supporters say about anything. Instead I
filter all their statements through rigorous truth-checking
devices, with the expectation of being able to weed out many
misrepresentations and lies. Seldom are my expectations
disappointed.

For instance, I am a big fan of the Rabin/Peres government, but
when the Israeli government recently claimed that the kidnappers
of the Israeli soldier (Waxman) were holed up in Gaza, my
bullshit detector went off noisily. How did they know the
kidnappers were operating in Gaza? It sounded like gas. And it
WAS gas. The kidnappers were actually in the West Bank, near
Jerusalem, in territory under Israeli, not Palestinian control.

Why in the world would anyone make strident assertions about
anything unless they were assured of the truth? Every time you
are caught out in a lie or misrepresentation, your credibility
sinks lower and lower. And at some point, your credibility can be
totally destroyed.

I'm not quite at this point of skepticism about the Holocaust
yet; but I would advise anyone who cares about the Holocaust to
be scrupulous about telling the truth and avoiding exaggerations
or misrepresentations of any kind.


Article 17923 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu!miavx1!bpharmon
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mountains of evidence
Message-ID: <1994Oct21.001218.31893@miavx1>
From: bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Raskolnikov)
Date: 21 Oct 94 00:12:18 -0500
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
References: 
Organization: Miami University
Lines: 38

In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:
> At  2:36 10/19/94 -0400, Raskolnikov wrote:
> 
>>In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:
>>
>>Now that you claim to have looked at volumes of material 
>>including documents and such, I take it we can agree that 
>>this evidence exists (by your own admission).
> 
> No. I agree that there is material being put forth as evidence, while in
> fact it is nothing of the kind.

So then, your arguments about "not having seen the evidence"
we presented were purely semantic?  


>>Then why are you so inflexible on the _amount_ presented?  I fail 
>>to see why ten relatively short documents would be so much more
>>difficult to deal with than just _one_.  
>>
>>In all the time you have spent telling us how you'll only respond
>>to just one piece of evidence, you could have easily responded to 
>>ten or twenty.
> 
> Again, please give me a little credit. I have engaged in on-line
> discussions such as this before, and I know from experience that unless you
> focus on something specific, the discussion ranges everywhere but where it
> ought. 

Well then, if what you want is a garauntee that we'll only talk 
about those ten pieces of evidence (and in sequential order) 
perhaps we can come to some sort of an agreement.

=======================================================================
Brian Harmon           "...God sets us nothing but riddles.."
Miami University             -Dostoyevski's _The Brothers Karamazov_
Oxford, Ohio 45056                yeech! ackphtbt! ungh!
--------------bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu--------------------------


Article 17927 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!EU.net!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Analysis of the Franke-Gricksch "report"
Date: 21 Oct 1994 01:08:40 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <387ico$qn1@access1.digex.net>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:
>[long involved post deleted]

    Surely it should not be necessary to swarm us with a mass of 
adminicles.  Which of these is your BEST EVIDENCE that the F-G report is 
a forgery?  Pick one and let's discuss it.  When we're finished, we can 
go on to the next objection.

    Emailed, of course.
-- 
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 17931 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The other Himmler
Date: 21 Oct 1994 13:59:38 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <388via$oj7@access4.digex.net>
References:  <33GTBG8F@gwdu03.gwdg.de> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:
>In article <33GTBG8F@gwdu03.gwdg.de>, uroessl1@gwdu03.gwdg.de (Roessler 
>Ulrich) wrote:
>> Could you please use simple ASCII code. - Your "quotes" come 
>> in a questionable shape  through the net, i.e. without references 
>> to your sources and moreover disfigured with "M-R"s etc.
>
>I apologize. My messages appear normally on my (Mac) screen, so I assumed
>that everything was fine. I thought my software was supposed to translate
>"special" characters for easy digestibility by others, but perhaps that is
>only for other MIME-formatted readers. Does your newsreader support MIME?

    I had the same problem with your post.  I don't think my reader 
supports MIME.

    MIME must be very powerful indeed if it not only translates the funny 
characters correctly, but also supplies the literature references to 
quotations.

    Could you please help us out by supplying the sources for these 
quotations yourself rather than relying on MIME to supply them for us?
-- 
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 17932 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The other Himmler
Date: 21 Oct 1994 23:01:33 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <389h8d$n15@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References:  
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu

One reason I didn't respond to Raven's article is that he
gave no references to his quotes. 

Another reason - it's old stuff. It is no secret that, early
in the war, the Nazis didn't yet start a systematic genocide
against the Jews. The final decision to kill all the Jews in
Europe (and elsewhere) was adopted later.

My opinion is that the idea was always there, but even the
Nazis needed to pass a certain psychological barrier in 
order to go ahead and do it. Even Himmler, the arch-murderer,
talks about a "difficult decision that had to be taken to make
this people disappear from the earth". It seems from some
testimonies and documents that, especially, the decision
to kill all Jewish women and children was not easy. Some
might have objected it.

Re a different question you posed:

One has to be very careful when analizing Nazi
documents that contain words like "removal", "resettlement",
etc. It was demonstrated here many times that these are just
common codewords for murder. One example among many:

Letter from SS Major-General Stahlecker to SS General Heydrich, 
January 31, 1942
[The Final Solution: The Attempt to Exterminate the Jews of Europe,
1939-1945 - G. Reitlinger, South Brunswick, T. Yosellof, 1968, p. 233]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The complete removal of Jewry from the eastern territories has been
substantially attained, with the exception of white Russia, as a result
of the execution up to the present time of 229,052 Jews.



So, when you read a plan to "resettle" the Jews, you have to
understand what it really means. The fact that Zyklon-B was
described in one Nazi document as "material for resettlement
of Jews", really leaves no doubt.

I seriously suggest that you do some reading on the Holocaust.
Just a short time ago, you knew nothing about the history of
the Holocaust. In such a short period, I can't believe you
became an expert.


-Danny Keren.



Article 17942 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!swiss.ans.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!news.duke.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: The other Himmler
In-Reply-To: wmcguire@world.std.com's message of Fri, 21 Oct 1994 19:16:59 GMT
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References:  
	<388k6g$q3b@agate.berkeley.edu> 
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 23:29:05 GMT
Lines: 152


From: wmcguire@world.std.com (Wayne McGuire)
>My point is that I agree with Arno Mayer: I don't think the Nazis
>had a deliberate plan to exterminate the Jews until 1941 or
>later.

There's a common semantic problem with this statement: What's meant by
"the Nazis", exactly?

It's a very important question and just the sort of thing that sets
off analysis on the wrong foot.

For example, the Nazi govt was organized in a totalitarian way around
Adolph Hitler. Few would argue that, but even that is
obfuscating. Certainly Hitler did not personally carry out every
policy, avoid advice or never seek some sort of consensus among at
least some select group. His generals for example.

But this really is dangerous ground and must be traversed with great
care.

In a democratic republic such as the US (or modern Germany) which are
by and large constituted carefully and with some real balance of power
etc around laws and procedures one can speak fairly easily about "when
did thus and such policy come into being". To answer we can, if
nothing else, try to follow the lawmaking, the budgeting process,
signed documents, etc. Even very secret operations tend to have large
paper trails, chains of authority etc, the only difficulty is getting
at that documentation.

We know those systems, particularly vis a vis major policy decisions,
require ponderous methodologies which can be examined and measured.

Can we say the same of the Nazi govt? Who had the authority to make
such a decision? What were the requirements to divulge that decision?

As a more concrete measurement; a decision like that would require
allocation of resources (money, manpower, etc.) Who approved this?
What were the reporting requirements? How difficult was it to keep
something like this secret, at least for a time? Could it be initiated
without writing anything down within that govt? Was there a media
available likely to publicize and memorialize observed changes that
resulted from govt policy, even if not wholly understood?

It factors into this question in a very essential way.

To ask a question we at least need some idea of when we would know we
had an answer, can we recognize that we have received an answer?

What might the answer to this question be? What would it look like? A
memo? A speech? Indication of resource allocations, a budget? A
recorded vote of some sort?

I think therein lies the difficulty in answering this question. And I
find the brief statement of Arno Meyer's conclusions very
unsatisfactory though admit I haven't read his work.

>Until then the desired policy was to drive the Jews out of
>Europe to anywhere else in the world, an action which was
>directly CONTRADICTORY to any scheme for exterminating Jews.

Well, holding for a moment that the antecedent to this claim is still
very fuzzy why would it be CONTRADICTORY (sic)? Except in some
idealized fashion.

Consider the death marches. Was that a deportation effort or an
extermination effort, marching thousands of people relentlessly day
and night without food or water or in many cases proper clothing in
winter conditions?

When does reckless disregard for human life become something more than
what it might be claimed?

For there to be a plan of deportation there would have to be, a plan!

What was the plan? Vague musings of sending all Jews to Madagascar?
How would that work? What resources were committed to this? If this
was carried out by tossing them all into the ocean off Germany's coast
and ordering them to swim would you accept this as a mere deportation?
How about if loaded, incredibly crowded and with no food or fresh
water, onto non-seaworthy boats? etc. (this sort of thing actually did
happen, tho not to madagascar.)

As another historical example, were the slave ships that brought
blacks to America merely a sort of deportation effort?

>If Israel began to lose a
>war with the Arabs and Muslims, I also don't doubt for a second
>that Israelis would exterminate every Arab and Muslim they could
>reach with nuclear weapons, and that the number of their victims
>would greatly exceed six million.

You do admit, however, that this is 100% sheer speculation being
placed against millions of very real deaths.

How, for example, does this gibe with the current peace process where
Israel appears to be providing for and cooperating (we can quibble
that but they're hardly uninvolved) with formulating a Palestinian
state right now?

Is Israel merely doing this as an act of surrender? Have they been
militarily subdued? I don't think so.

It's not even as extreme as the situation you pose, your hypothetical
example does require some sort of military and invasionary attack
which did not occur at all (by the German Jews) in Nazi Germany.

It also is completely hypothetical and speculative, it simply never
has happened and is being weighed against events that really did
happen.

Thus, other than for some propagandistic value I don't see where it
has the slightest merit, particularly in the face of real and
verifiable behavior that would seem to completely contradict your
speculations: Apparently the reality is that in the face of extreme
tension the Israelis have made great concessions at this point in
order to stave off further hostilities, and continue to do so. And the
world at large (including the mainstream Palestinian community,
INCLUDING Yasser Arafat) appears to accept this as such.

Be careful of being, as the expression goes, more Catholic than the
Pope!

>In the popular version of the Holocaust tale, one which I
>believed in for many years, the Nazis had a systematic plan from
>the outset to annihilate every last Jew on the planet in a
>systematic fashion.

And this has yet to be disproven, particularly inasmuch as it is
obscured by the phrase "the Nazis" in conjunction with policy. Who,
exactly?

It would also seem to be somewhat contradicted by what is written in
Mein Kampf, for example. Certainly if we are looking at a totalitarian
government and the absolute, supreme leader of that government had
said even before rising to power that this shall be the policy then we
have to consider that the above characterization is not entirely
without merit.

You may want to apply a different standard to when that policy
"actually" came into being, when resources were applied, when some
sort of consensus was achieved, when it began to be carried out.

But it's only fair to be clear, and to recognize that you may be
applying a completely different standard than the above
characterization was using. And the latter may be well within reason.

-- 
        -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 17945 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 triumverate of wishful thinking
Date: 21 Oct 1994 23:45:04 GMT
Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc.
Lines: 45
Message-ID: 
References:  <386kjo$n4k@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
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 <386kjo$n4k@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) wrote:

> Greg Raven  wrote:
> 
> # Your first "evidence" is the Himmler speech, with which I have dealt
> # repeatedly, and which I have conclusively shown not to have referred to gas
> # chambers.
> 
> While Himmler didn't go into the details, he did tell a group
> of top SS officers that "we are exterminating the Jews". He added
> that the Jewish women and children have to be killed also, in
> order to "make this people disappear from the earth".
> 
> One has to be a real moron, or absolutely crazy, to hear this
> speech and still claim that the Nazis didn't have a plan to
> exterminate the Jews.
> 
> Himmler, BTW, goes on to talk about Slavs and Russians as 
> sub-human animals, to be used for labor. He doesn't say that
> there is a plan to exterminate them, but says that he
> doesn't care if "10,000 Russian females fall from exhaustion
> while digging an anti-tank ditch for Germany". 
> 
> I'll post in the next messages the relevant quotes from Himmler's
> speeches at Poznan.
> 
> 
> -Danny Keren.

------------

Keren, you or none of the exterminationists here has ever heard one
sentence of the alleged 190 minute speech of Himmler. We'll see what it
says when the copies arrive from the National Archive. 

We'll also see just how much the speech differs from the text that
appeared in the IMT, which is what you are referring to here.

Tim McCarthy
landpost@clark.net

p.s. I'm already suspicious about this speech after speaking to the
archivist. He said, after my questioning which had him rattled, that the
recording was found "in a barn somewhere in Germany" and who found
precisely is not known. How nice.


Article 17950 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!panix!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: Himmler About "Human Animals"
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 19:12:22 -0600
Organization: MCSNet Services
Lines: 19
Message-ID: 
References:  <386m1d$otc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: golux.pr.mcs.net

In article , wmcguire@world.std.com
(Wayne McGuire) wrote:

> In reading Shahak's book I found myself wondering how much
> anti-Semitism throughout the centuries has been a mirror image of
> the virulent "anti-Gentilism" in the Jewish tradition that Shahak
> describes at length.

Wayne, are you ever going to answer my long-standing question: Why do you
feel it necessary to lay the blame for antisemitism on the Jews, rather
than the antisemites?

Posted/emailed.

-- 
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 17952 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.kei.com!world!wmcguire
From: wmcguire@world.std.com (Wayne McGuire)
Subject: Re: The other Himmler
Message-ID: 
Sender: wmcguire@world.std.com (Wayne McGuire)
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
References:  
	<388k6g$q3b@agate.berkeley.edu>  
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 1994 00:42:16 GMT
Lines: 46

In article ,
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) wrote:

See, Barry, you CAN write cool posts when you are in the mood to
do so. But I already knew that. You may be hot-headed, but you
ain't no dope.

//For example, the Nazi govt was organized in a totalitarian way around
//Adolph Hitler.

You make many good points in the section that follows. Let me
recommend highly again Richard Pipes' _Russia Under the Bolshevik
Regime_, and particularly the chapter on Communism, Fascism and
National Socialism.

Trying to figure out how policies come to be made and executed in
totalitarian and dictatorial regimes is indeed problematic, to
say the least.

To cut to the quick of the debate: I see a good deal of
documentation, much of it provided in Mayer but by no means only
in Mayer, which indicates that the Nazis for years wanted and
intended to drive the Jews out of Europe, not exterminate them. I
see in the writings of Hitler certainly, in Mein Kampf and
elsewhere, an exterminationist attitude and intent, one which
flowered fully during 1941 and after into an explicit
exterminationist policy, but until that year the Nazi regime as a
whole, by their statements and actions, seemed to be seriously
interested in resettling European Jews outside of Europe. This
explains their close communications with the Zionists of the
time, which Hannah Arendt discusses, as I recall, in The Banality
of Evil.

The picture seems a trifle more complex than has been presented
in popular renditions of the Holocaust, in which the Nazis have
been portrayed as systematically plotting the comprehensive
physical annihilation of the Jews worldwide from the outset. For
me, this is a form of legitimate revisionism, looking into these
gray areas that have been oversimplified in the popular versions
of the Holocaust.

This more complex version of events is going to do little to
improve the reputation of the Nazis, so I wouldn't worry about it
very much. Mayer is in no respect whatever a Holocaust
denier--far from it. But he does have a fetish for ferreting out
and telling the truth to the best of his ability.


Article 17954 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!uunet!zib-berlin.de!gs.dfn.de!gwdu03.gwdg.de!uroessl1
From: uroessl1@gwdu03.gwdg.de (Roessler  Ulrich)
Subject: Re: The other Himmler
Message-ID: 
Organization: GWDG, Goettingen
References:  
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 21:09:40 GMT
Lines: 158

wmcguire@world.std.com (Wayne McGuire) writes:

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

>//May 1940 memo to Hitler: "I hope to see the complete elimination of the
>//concept of the Jew through the possibility of a large-scale emigration of
>//all Jews to Africa or otherwise in a colony; out of inner conviction the
>//idea of physical elimination of a people [must be rejected] as un-Germanic
>//and impossible".

>I just came across this thread, and was surprised to see that
>none of the anti-revisionists answered Raven's initial posting.
>Instead they complained about Raven's quoting conventions.

Well, a list of citations without references isn't very compelling. 
I don't imply the quotes weren't genuine - but there should be a
fair chance to check the nature and context of these snippets.
Anyhow, Mr.Raven didn't make any further argument here. 
The quotes DO NOT contradict the known facts about the Holocaust.

Concerning the quoted piece - we may conclude, that in May 1940
the leading Nazis weren't sure what to do about the "Judenfrage".
This isn't new - there were different plans for an expulsion of the 
German or European Jews by the Nazis. The foreign office prepared,
still in 1940 after the defeat of France, plans for a Jewish colony 
in Madagaskar.

These old schemes provided the later usage of "deportation", "resettlement"  
as euphemisms for mass-murder in the Nazi-files.(cf. the May 4th -article)
But in the same place, we see by that quote "physical elimination" 
was already discussed in 1940, though rejected as possibility by Himmler.
Himmler was yet only second man to Hitler. 

The Nazis radicalized the persecution of the Jews in several steps. 
Only in 1941 the "final solution", i.e.  systematic mass-murder, 
was implemented. From Hitler's writings and speeches, we may conclude that he
at least had the long-time perspective to use almost all means to solve
the "Judenfrage", especially in case of another war - but in the same
place he unleashed just this war. 
A possible interpretation might stress, that the crusade or struggle 
for "Lebensraum" in the East and the future of the German race, threatened 
by the Jews, were probably two closely related subjects in his mind.
In any case, the leading Nazis somehow believed in their anti-Semitic
ideas about a Jewish conspiracy, and hence the "Judenfrage" was of foremost
importance with them.

But the implementation of the plan, if this wasn't rather a vague perspective, 
met the difficulty to build the murderous machinery. One shouldn't overlook
the fact, that Hitler or the whole regime didn't know exactly, how far they
could go with their policy. 
E.g. the murders of the Einsatzgruppen in Poland 1939/40 still met some 
protest, especially by leading generals (most notably General Blaschkowitz 
head of the High Command in the East in winter 1939-40). When preparing the
Barbarossa onslaught, the Generals' complicity with the SS was settled in
formal agreements (with Heydrich) and the complex of criminal orders.

On the other hand, the mere fact, that certain groups of people, 
who were viewed as dangerous or as vermin, were rounded up, 
kept in camps without any outside control over long time, just installs
the absolute assymmetry between murderer/torturer and victim. 
The very set-up of the camps and the mentality of the guards allowed them
to become the master over life or death of the inmates. There is clearly
a sort of automatism built in, which led to ever more radical measures.
It is probable, that the obedient reactions of the henchmen to the orders 
from above, convinced the leaders that they could go further. 
It is known that the 'Einsatzgruppen' were in the beginning relatively
free to interprete the orders, which weren't given completely unequivocal.
All of them started to shoot communists, partisans, and male Jews, only
later the orders were given more precisely, to clarify that they were
expected to kill every Jew, men, women and children, they could find.

The idea of Nazi Germany as a monolithic block moving in one direction
is misleading. 
There was permanent rivalry between different partitions of the military 
and civil NSDAP- and State-administrations. Orders from the top
were clearly decisive, but they weren't rational in the sense of 
a rationally organized administration. Often, they set only some frame, 
which was altered later or overruled by another commission. The chaos of the
different agencies, commissions and special task forces in the 
armament production is a well known example. Most of the seeming 
inconsistencies in the sources are derived from that form of 
organized chaos.

We cannot reconstruct the discussions in the highest ranks, especially
in the most important time between end 1940 end spring 1942, 
between Hitler, Himmler, Goering, Goebbels and a few others,
nor the orders issued from there. About most of it no written sources 
from the top level exist. Goebbels writes in his diary in spring 1942
that Hitler was the advocate of the most radical solution. And Goebbels
was later precisely informed about the 'Aktion Reinhard'. Himmler was
probably more an obedient administrator, and a true believer in Hitler's
genius. It is rather improbable, that he or Heydrich acted alone.

>So how about it? How does one explain these quotes from Himmler
>arguing against the extermination of the Jews? 

Some of the quotes apparently refer to a later time, when the
need of workforce compelled the Nazis to preserve at least skilled
Jewish workers. One fraction inside the SS (Pohl and his WVHA) had 
understood that the SS-industries and -fortune could benefit from 
the exploitation of slave-workers from the concentration camps. 
But then (1944-45) destruction by inhuman conditions and overwork 
had replaced plain and simple murder. 
Jews unfit for work were still killed in any case.

In the rivalry between different branches of the SS, the army and the
armament production, the importance of large building projects (for 
instance the V1/2-production, shelters for the armament production etc.) 
could then prevail for a certain time. 
The lack of workforce made it necessary to slow down the mass-dying
in the concentration camps. 

Especially, as it became increasingly difficult to get hold of 
compulsory or volunteering workers from the occupied countries, 
who were imported to the Reich by ten-thousands anyhow. 

For the system of concentration camps which was built then,
including dozens of sub-camps near industrial sites, there exist
rather precise data by the SS-administration. They indicate very
high mortality in these camps. As this endangered important projects,
these conditions led to complaints by the 'users' of the slave-work. 
Here again letters, memos still exist, which specify the importance of 
the slave-workers. Himmler's interventions to better feed the inmates of 
the concentration camps to keep them alive are meaningful only 
in that context. 

After the end of the systematic murders (Nov 1944), Himmler had obviously 
the bizarre idea, that he could use the remaining Jews in his power as 
hostages. 
He expected that he could use these hostages to exert pressure 
in negotiations with the the Western Allies.
At that time he issues several orders again to improve conditions in 
the concentration camps.
Yet this didn't stop murders everywhere. Moreover, in many cases the
aim to destroy witnesses prevailed. In the very end of the war, 
the attitude of the local commanders and guards of the camps were
apparently decisive.

>                                             And why did Hitler
>after the Wannsee Conference continue to talk about deporting
>Jews from Europe, and this in a conversation with Himmler?

This quote, I'd like to see first. But, what Hitler said in semi-
public, i.e. with many people, officers etc. around, can be different
from his meetings with Himmler alone. Actually, Himmler was one of
the few people who could speak with Hitler alone in 1940-45.

>Something is not adding up here....

It is just the technique of Revisionist citations - 
selective usage of documents, no context, no references.

Note: The course of events which constitute the Holocaust 
is probably best described in Raul Hilberg's comprehensive book 
"The Destruction of the European Jews".

u.roessler                                        uroessl1@gwdg.de


Article 17957 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!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: Was Hitler a great man?
Date: 21 Oct 1994 12:44:40 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <388d3o$o1i@agate.berkeley.edu>
References: <1994Oct05.234523.1724@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> <37j09r$ko6@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <37lcg2$3qo@netaxs.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

Jamie McCarthy has be re-posting some of the numerous questions that 
Greg Raven has not answered, presumably because he never saw them [sic].
This is a somewhat revised version of a question that I asked Raven.  I
think that this one is important because, if I understand Raven's post
correctly, it says a lot about his true agenda.

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:

>2) The starting of the Second World War was the
>result of Britain and France declaring war on Germany, not the other way
>around. The transparency of their claimed desires for the autonomy of
>Poland is obvious. Therefore, the wars against France and Britain, while
>extremely regrettable, cannot be laid fully at Hitler's door. 

While your claim about Poland is highly questionable, as there is 
evidence that Hitler was planning an invasion as early as the spring
of 1939, let us for the moment accept your claim that the wars against
France and Britain "cannot be laid fully at Hitler's door."

How do you explain Germany's wars against:

Denmark (with which Germany had a peace treaty)
Norway
The Netherlands
Belgium (history's unluckiest neutral country)
Yugoslavia
Greece
Italy (invaded in 1943 after the overthrow of Mussolini)
The USSR (with which Germany had a non-aggression pact)
The USA (Germany delcared war against the U.S. after Pearl Harbor)

especially in light of Hitler's famous 1938 claim that "this is my last
territorial demand in Europe"?

[This was not in my original posting, but I'd like to know anyway]

>Although there are some subjective factors involved, it must be admitted
>that Hitler did gain the confidence of his people in a way that no other
>20th century politician did, to the best of my knowledge.

Others have pointed out that this statement is somewhat ambiguous, and 
I would like Raven to clarify its meaning as well.  Surely he is aware
that Albania's Hoxha and North Korea's Kim routinely got over 99.999%
of the votes in their countries' elections.
--
				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 17958 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!psgrain!m2xenix!jhunix1.hcf.jhu.edu!jobone!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!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: The other Himmler
Date: 22 Oct 1994 10:38:55 GMT
Organization: Mits BBS, Helsinki, Finland (40+ Nodes +358-0-4582066)
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <38aq3v$m4c@prime.mdata.fi>
References:   <388k6g$q3b@agate.berkeley.edu> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: mits.mdata.fi

In article ,
Wayne McGuire  wrote:

>My point is that I agree with Arno Mayer: I don't think the Nazis
>had a deliberate plan to exterminate the Jews until 1941 or
>later. Until then the desired policy was to drive the Jews out of
>Europe to anywhere else in the world, an action which was
>directly CONTRADICTORY to any scheme for exterminating Jews.

Maybe there was no deliberate plan, but for instance the whole
Estonian Jewish population was already exterminated by the end
of 1941.

>The attitude of the Nazis during the thirties was not unlike that
>of many Zionists towards the Arabs in Israel proper and Biblical
>Greater Israel today: they wanted what they considered to be an
>alien and hostile people out of their hair, out of their culture,
>and out of their land. When Germany began to lose the war with
>the Soviet Union and "Judeobolshevism" in 1941, the Nazis
>exploded in an orgy of apocalyptic vengeance against whatever
>enemies they could lay their hands on. If Israel began to lose a
>war with the Arabs and Muslims, I also don't doubt for a second
>that Israelis would exterminate every Arab and Muslim they could
>reach with nuclear weapons, and that the number of their victims
>would greatly exceed six million.

I think you make weird assumptions and conclusions here. You seem
to claim that there is basically no difference between the State
of Israel and the Nazi Germany. Yes or no? You seem to claim that
the Jews of the world (and especially of Israel) learned nothing
about the Holocaust. Yes or no? You seem to claim that the Holo-
caust was maybe regretable but understandable happening in the
history and the Jews are to be blamed on it and that there is
nothing evil or rotten in the core of the Nazi ideology. Yes or
no? 

>In the popular version of the Holocaust tale, one which I
>believed in for many years, the Nazis had a systematic plan from
>the outset to annihilate every last Jew on the planet in a
>systematic fashion.

It was in Hitler's agenda ringht from the beginning, you cannot
deny it. At first the rich Jews were valuable merchandise. The
emigration from Germany was not made easy for any meaning of the
word. First the Jews were exploited their human dignity, then
their lives. It just took some time to make the murder machinery
work. The plan was there, at least in Hitler's brains if not
in paper.

> Probably the average person still believes
>this. The truth is quite monstrous enough, but not quite as
>monstrous as this. And so my thoughts have been adjusted by
>legitimate revisionism on this point, as well on quite a few
>other points. Long live legitimate revisionism, and down with the
>Hollywood approach to history, in my opinion. And down with those
>goofy revisionists who deny that the Nazis NEVER attempted to
>exterminate the Jews under their control.

I have nothing against real revisionism, it happens all the time,
mostly in minor details of history but also in major questions like
what were the motives of people to act like they did in some
historical event. But your transparent bias with the Zionists and
the Jews and the Judeobolshevism greatly degrades your theories.

-- 
Kari Nenonen   - kauhunen@mits.mdata.fi          - Skepsis r.y.
Maavallintie 4 - Tel: 358-0-5636625              - Helsingin Scifiseura
00430 Helsinki - The Finnish Dramatists' Society - Wan.Her.Tiet.Kirj.N.H
Finland        - The Writers' Union of Finland   - The International J.C.


Article 17960 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!uunet!world!wmcguire
From: wmcguire@world.std.com (Wayne McGuire)
Subject: Re: Himmler About "Human Animals"
Message-ID: 
Sender: wmcguire@world.std.com (Wayne McGuire)
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
References:  <386m1d$otc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 1994 01:26:14 GMT
Lines: 37

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

//> In reading Shahak's book I found myself wondering how much
//> anti-Semitism throughout the centuries has been a mirror image of
//> the virulent "anti-Gentilism" in the Jewish tradition that Shahak
//> describes at length.
//
//Wayne, are you ever going to answer my long-standing question: Why do you
//feel it necessary to lay the blame for antisemitism on the Jews, rather
//than the antisemites?

Is it really your point of view that all the friction between
Jews and non-Jews throughout the millennia is entirely the fault
of non-Jews? Now that really WOULD be a racist point of view. Are
you a Jewish racist or a Jewish chauvinist?

We have a notable example before us of friction between Jews and
non-Jews in the Middle East. For years I was told, and I
believed, that the Arabs in the region were entirely to blame for
this ugly mess. Then I learned more about the real history of the
Israeli-Arab conflict, and discovered that the story was really
much more complex. The line that Palestine was a land without a
people for a people without a land was nothing, in fact, but a
big lie. A people already lived on that land and were
understandably attached to it. They understandably resented, and
resented deeply and implacably, the invasion of their land by
European Jews.

Israel Shahak argues in his new book _Jewish History, Jewish
Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years_ that classical
Judaism has been rife with hateful and racist attitudes towards
non-Jews for many centuries. The book has been praised by Noam
Chomsky, Gore Vidal, and Christopher Hitchens, and I just read it
the other day and feel ready to talk about any point or passage
in it. If you would like to discuss the book here, and correct
any misinformation that may be in it, by all means do so.


Article 17961 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!psgrain!m2xenix!jhunix1.hcf.jhu.edu!jobone!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!news.unb.ca!adrastea.sun.csd.unb.ca!t08o
From: t08o@adrastea.sun.csd.unb.ca (Morrison)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The other Himmler
Date: 21 Oct 1994 23:48:56 GMT
Organization: University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <389k18$lt1@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca>
References:  
NNTP-Posting-Host: adrastea.sun.csd.unb.ca

In article ,
Wayne McGuire  wrote:
>In article ,
>greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote:
>
>//May 1940 memo to Hitler: RI hope to see the complete elimination of the
>//concept of the Jew through the possibility of a large-scale emigration of
>//all Jews to Africa or otherwise in a colony;S Rout of inner convictionS the
>//idea of Rphysical elimination of a people [must be rejected] as un-Germanic
>//and impossible.S
>
>I just came across this thread, and was surprised to see that
>none of the anti-revisionists answered Raven's initial posting.
>Instead they complained about Raven's quoting conventions.
>
>So how about it? How does one explain these quotes from Himmler
>arguing against the extermination of the Jews? And why did Hitler
>after the Wannsee Conference continue to talk about deporting
>Jews from Europe, and this in a conversation with Himmler?
>
>Something is not adding up here....

..and it is your logic.  How _exactly_ do you evacuate a few million people
out of your territory while you are at war and surrounded by enemies?


Keith Morrison

The Well, Yes Actually We Do Quote of the Week

"Do you really think I haven't read volume after volume of Holocaust-related
 material?  Do you really think I would make a blanket statement about
 evidence without having some idea what I would be getting?"
                         
                                            - Greg Raven

************************************************************
*t08o@unb.ca  *  My views are not those of the University  *
***************  of New Brunswick.  UNB never has views on *
*             *  on anything, ever.                        *
************************************************************


Article 17962 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!world!wmcguire
From: wmcguire@world.std.com (Wayne McGuire)
Subject: Re: The other Himmler
Message-ID: 
Sender: wmcguire@world.std.com (Wayne McGuire)
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
References: 
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 13:53:17 GMT
Lines: 19

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

//May 1940 memo to Hitler: RI hope to see the complete elimination of the
//concept of the Jew through the possibility of a large-scale emigration of
//all Jews to Africa or otherwise in a colony;S Rout of inner convictionS the
//idea of Rphysical elimination of a people [must be rejected] as un-Germanic
//and impossible.S

I just came across this thread, and was surprised to see that
none of the anti-revisionists answered Raven's initial posting.
Instead they complained about Raven's quoting conventions.

So how about it? How does one explain these quotes from Himmler
arguing against the extermination of the Jews? And why did Hitler
after the Wannsee Conference continue to talk about deporting
Jews from Europe, and this in a conversation with Himmler?

Something is not adding up here....


Article 17970 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!world!wmcguire
From: wmcguire@world.std.com (Wayne McGuire)
Subject: Re: The other Himmler
Message-ID: 
Sender: wmcguire@world.std.com (Wayne McGuire)
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
References:   <388k6g$q3b@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 19:16:59 GMT
Lines: 58

In article <388k6g$q3b@agate.berkeley.edu>,
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) wrote:

//>So how about it? How does one explain these quotes from Himmler
//>arguing against the extermination of the Jews? And why did Hitler
//>after the Wannsee Conference continue to talk about deporting
//>Jews from Europe, and this in a conversation with Himmler?
//
//The quote from Himmler was from 1940.  Most sources agree that the decision
//to kill all of the Jews of Europe was made sometime in 1941 (see, for
//instance Hilberg, _The Destruction of the European Jews_ and Fleming,
//_Hitler and the Final Solution_).  While the "Final Solution" was certainly
//implicit in Hitler's writings at least as early as "Mein Kampf", and
//the physical destruction of the Jews mentioned by Hitler as least as
//early as his famous Reichstag speech of January 1939, it seems that the
//actual decision to kill (rather than, say deport) the Jews grew in over time.
//Thus, there is absolutely no inconsistency between Himmler saying in 1940
//that the Jews should not be exterminated but rather deported and his
//saying in 1943 that the Jews were being exterminated.  Furthermore, even
//as the Jews were being exterminated, some of the people in the machinery of
//the destruction were arguing that killing the Jews was not in the economic
//interests of the Reich, and that the Jews should be used instead for
//slave labor.

Good post, Richard. This makes sense to me.

//In other words, what exactly is your point?

My point is that I agree with Arno Mayer: I don't think the Nazis
had a deliberate plan to exterminate the Jews until 1941 or
later. Until then the desired policy was to drive the Jews out of
Europe to anywhere else in the world, an action which was
directly CONTRADICTORY to any scheme for exterminating Jews.

The attitude of the Nazis during the thirties was not unlike that
of many Zionists towards the Arabs in Israel proper and Biblical
Greater Israel today: they wanted what they considered to be an
alien and hostile people out of their hair, out of their culture,
and out of their land. When Germany began to lose the war with
the Soviet Union and "Judeobolshevism" in 1941, the Nazis
exploded in an orgy of apocalyptic vengeance against whatever
enemies they could lay their hands on. If Israel began to lose a
war with the Arabs and Muslims, I also don't doubt for a second
that Israelis would exterminate every Arab and Muslim they could
reach with nuclear weapons, and that the number of their victims
would greatly exceed six million.

In the popular version of the Holocaust tale, one which I
believed in for many years, the Nazis had a systematic plan from
the outset to annihilate every last Jew on the planet in a
systematic fashion. Probably the average person still believes
this. The truth is quite monstrous enough, but not quite as
monstrous as this. And so my thoughts have been adjusted by
legitimate revisionism on this point, as well on quite a few
other points. Long live legitimate revisionism, and down with the
Hollywood approach to history, in my opinion. And down with those
goofy revisionists who deny that the Nazis NEVER attempted to
exterminate the Jews under their control.


Article 17974 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!news.dfn.de!news.belwue.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: Himmler About "Human Animals"
Message-ID: <1994Oct21.201048.19158@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de>
Sender: news@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de (Unix-News-System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: osiris.informatik.uni-kl.de
Organization: University of Kaiserslautern, Germany
References:  <386m1d$otc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 20:10:48 GMT
Lines: 78

In article , wmcguire@world.std.com (Wayne McGuire) writes:
|> In article <386m1d$otc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) wrote:
|> 
|> //From the speech of Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler, speaking to SS
|> //Major-Generals, Poznan, October 4 1943
|> 
|> Disturbing words, Danny.
|> 
|> Problem is, I just finished reading Israel Shahak's _Jewish
|> History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years_
|> (London: Pluto Press, 1994), in which one can find similar
|> sentiments expressed in classical Judaism towards "goyim" over
|> the millennia. I could post dozens of quotes from Shahak's book
|> in this very newsgroup--perhaps I will. If you would like to
|> discuss the book here--perhaps you would like to correct any
|> misinformation that Shahak might have presented--please do.

[...]

|> Shahak's book has now been praised by Christopher Hitchens, Gore
|> Vidal, and Noam Chomsky. I would be interested in reading an
|> INTELLIGENT critique of the book--not an ignorant tirade--if you
|> or anyone else can produce one.

Is it just possible that you employ a certain double standard? I tried
to "get a feel for the publisher" and queried the Library of Congress
Information System (locis). As I mentioned earlier I am not very well
versed in this system, but I found out some interesting data.

Israel Shahak seems to be an author from Israel. He also seems to be
"on the very fringe of the publishing world". His books and papers (I
found 6 of them) have been published by 

NEEBII (a Beirut publisher, I cannot make anything from the Acronym)
Pluto Press (London, Boulder CO)
Association of Arab-American University Graduates (Belmont, MA)
Arab Dawn (London)
G. Authier (Paris)
Arab League Office (London)

His works sport titles like "Israel's global role : weapons for
repression", "Le racisme de l'Etat d'Israel : Ligue israelienne des
droits de l'homme et du citoyen (The Racism of the State Israel:
Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights)" and "Israelis versus
Israel".

He often colaborates with Arab authors or editors (which is not a bad
thing per se, but together with the list of publishers and the titles
indicates a certain slant to his writings).

Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky probably support his works, at least both
written a foreword for one of Shahaks books. Who is Christopher
Hitchens (please remember that not everbody well known in the US is
prominent world wide)?

Now, we have an author colaborating with Arabs (again, which is not,
in itself, a bad thing...) published by publishers like "Arab Dawn"
and with books titled "Israelis versus Israel". At least for me this
contains strong hints that the works of this author will be quite
one-sided and contain a lot of radical anti-Israel material. This does
not automatically invalidate whatever he writes. However, for someone
who rejects Pressac, a careful and generally respected compilation of
source material with a few comments, because his book has been
published by "a fringe publisher", taking everything stated by Shahak
at face value seems strange.

BTW, Wayne, I do not have to much respect for your style or knowledge,
but I acknowledge that you usually state the sources for your
material. I would prefer it if you would look at a more diverse set of
literature, though.


Stephan

-------------------------- It can be done! ---------------------------------
    Please email me as stschulz@informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Schulz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------



Article 17976 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!scripps.edu!misrael
From: misrael@scripps.edu (Mark Israel)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: One step at a time
Date: 22 Oct 1994 01:35:16 GMT
Organization: The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, California, USA
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <389q8k$qu5@riscsm.scripps.edu>
References:  
NNTP-Posting-Host: struct.scripps.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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

> I have some difficulty believing you never saw the list of ten pieces of
> evidence that was originally posted on May 4.  However, I know that it
> will be reposted and re-emailed to you, so you will be sure to see it.

   Weren't those the ten pieces of evidence that Greg Raven responded
to in the post where he introduced the word "adminicle", and to which 
the famous "Joint Reply" was in turn a reponse?  Or am I getting mixed
up?

--
misrael@scripps.edu			Mark Israel


Article 17979 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!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: The other Himmler
Date: 21 Oct 1994 14:45:36 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <388k6g$q3b@agate.berkeley.edu>
References:  
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article ,
Wayne McGuire  wrote:

>So how about it? How does one explain these quotes from Himmler
>arguing against the extermination of the Jews? And why did Hitler
>after the Wannsee Conference continue to talk about deporting
>Jews from Europe, and this in a conversation with Himmler?

The quote from Himmler was from 1940.  Most sources agree that the decision
to kill all of the Jews of Europe was made sometime in 1941 (see, for 
instance Hilberg, _The Destruction of the European Jews_ and Fleming, 
_Hitler and the Final Solution_).  While the "Final Solution" was certainly
implicit in Hitler's writings at least as early as "Mein Kampf", and
the physical destruction of the Jews mentioned by Hitler as least as
early as his famous Reichstag speech of January 1939, it seems that the
actual decision to kill (rather than, say deport) the Jews grew in over time.
Thus, there is absolutely no inconsistency between Himmler saying in 1940
that the Jews should not be exterminated but rather deported and his 
saying in 1943 that the Jews were being exterminated.  Furthermore, even
as the Jews were being exterminated, some of the people in the machinery of 
the destruction were arguing that killing the Jews was not in the economic
interests of the Reich, and that the Jews should be used instead for
slave labor.

The inconsistency in Hitler's discussing deportation of the Jews in 1942
is not what you seem to think it is.  Rather, the inconsistency is that it
was illegal for the Jews to leave the Reich and occupied territories 
starting in 1941.  In any case, to where exactly do you propose they should
have been deported, and how exactly do you propose the Germans to have 
deported them, given the realities of the war situation?

In other words, what exactly is your point?
--
				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 17999 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!pipex!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Willi Mentz' testimony
In-Reply-To: uroessl1@gwdu03.gwdg.de's message of Sat, 22 Oct 1994 18:27:13 GMT
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References:  <386jac$lk1@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
	 
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 1994 23:50:54 GMT
Lines: 44


From: uroessl1@gwdu03.gwdg.de (Roessler  Ulrich)
>So again, why is testimony no evidence? And why is it worthless 
>currently?

Because Raven asserts that every single post-war testimony by Nazi
officers, survivors, allied soldiers, etc is a lie, coercion or
forgery.

What proof he has for any of this is, in his mind, not relevant. To
him it is axiomatic.

It allows him to simply toss out that which he cannot otherwise deal
with.

What a dim view he must have of humanity, dimmer even than any shadow
cast by The Holocaust.

To believe that all those people allowed themselves to be coerced or
made confederates to such horrible lies and apparently rehearsed with
great care (their stories certainly are remarkably consistent, that
could not happen by accident.)

To believe that not one person, not even a Nazi officer, military men
of high rank, would even after coercion not stand up when their time
came to testify and say ``It's a pack of lies! They have put me up to
this! Shoot me right here if you must but...'' is quite simply
breathtaking.

It doesn't prove anything one way or another, but it has to be one of
the darkest views of humanity I have ever seen. Particularly when you
consider what Raven claims they would have to be knowingly lying
about, to a one.

Who would really care about the Holocaust if we are forced to live in
a world of such human beings? It becomes a minor issue, in its way.



-- 
        -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 18002 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!news.sprintlink.net!EU.net!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Was Hitler a great man?
In-Reply-To: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com's message of Fri, 21 Oct 1994 22:56:21 -0800
Message-ID: 
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References: <1994Oct05.234523.1724@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> 
	<37s46n$guh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
	
	<385c47$aqv@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
	
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 1994 00:08:20 GMT
Lines: 70


From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
>However, the German people seemed pretty happy with
>Hitler,

*SOME* German people, to make a blanket statement like that you first
have to buy into Hitler's own racialist view of his own countrymen
(well, of Germans, he wasn't German himself, of course.)

Ya know, I could probably turn you into a slave and make some of my
friends pretty happy also. I suspect you wouldn't see that as a great
accomplishment.

It also didn't last long enough to really judge, a few years, and the
ultimate misery and millions of deaths (of your GERMANS even) tends to
weigh negatively on your assessment.

>and given what he did for his country and for the world at large,
>you have to give him credit, whether you like him or not.

What did Hitler do for the world at large? I'm quite serious, the best

I can imagine it being said that for a few brief years he improved the
standard of living, selfishly, for some subset of Germans, and at
great expense to others.

It's not clear about the same wouldn't have happened under any leader,
the depression was ending. Certainly the US and other countries didn't
need a Hitler to accomplish this. But pray tell, what else are you
referring to?

>Perhaps you have not been following my posts. You repeatedly post post-war
>testimonies, that are not evidence that the Nazis had a plan or policy to
>exterminate the Jews in gas chambers.

And *YOU* repeatedly ignore the direct evidence, shit head.

It's really unbelievable, I am beyond treating you like someone
who deserves civility.

You are quite simply a lying bonehead who fools no one except maybe
your little Schickelgruber Fan Club.

--------------------

"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

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

-- 
        -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 18004 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Will Mr. Raven please make up his mind?
Date: 22 Oct 1994 20:28:25 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <38can9$bds@access4.digex.net>
References:   <383def$kuh@nyx10.cs.du.edu> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:
>In article <383def$kuh@nyx10.cs.du.edu>, choover@nyx10.cs.du.edu
>(Christopher Hoover) wrote:
>
>[discussion of one point of Raven's analysis omitted]
>
>You certainly had to ignore a ton of other material to seize on this one
>aspect. What about the dozen or so other errors I identified in the
>Franke-Gricksch "report?"

    Mr. Raven can't seem to make up his mind.  First he wants to talk
about things one at a time.  Then in his own post he forgot about that
rule and threw out a sloppy barrage of adminicles when one good piece of
evidence would have been sufficient.  Worse, when Chris Hoover tries to
bring order to the discussion by returning to the one-thing-at-a-time
method which Mr. Raven himself proposed, Raven seems to get very upset! 

    Mr. Raven is certainly a terribly inconsistent fellow.
-- 
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 18007 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!pipex!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx10.cs.du.edu!not-for-mail
From: choover@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Christopher Hoover)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Schutt's testimony
Date: 22 Oct 1994 09:07:49 -0600
Organization: University of Denver, Math/CS Dept.
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <38b9s5$lac@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
References:   <386jfl$lvk@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: nyx10.cs.du.edu
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #3 (NOV)

ai292@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Gordon McFee) writes:


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

>>In article <386jfl$lvk@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Testimony of Hans-Heintz Schutt, SS-officer at Sobibor
>>> [Quoted in "'The Good Old Days'" - E. Klee, W. Dressen, V. Riess, The 
>>> Free Press, NY, 1988, p. 240]
>>
>>This is not evidence. This is post-war testimony. Please provide some
>>evidence first, then you may post your currently worthless testimonies.

>Unless the judicial system has changed lately, testimonies are admissible
>as evidence, especially when they are supported by *mountains* of
>documentary evidence.

And unless historiography has changed radically in recent times, 
testimonies are considered valid historical evidence.  I explained why to 
Mr. Raven at considerable length, with references, last month.  He has 
yet to reply directly to this analysis, and I doubt he will.  The only 
_in_direct reply he's given has been to dscribe oral history as "a type 
of history"  that shouldn't be used for anything important.  Of course, 
Mr. Raven has provided no historiographic cites to support this peculiar 
opinion, but that hasn't stopped hom from asserting it....



Chris
-- 
Christopher J. Hoover    choover@nyx.cs.du.edu     Kibo flavor:  Unlisted
Disclaimer:  standard    It's *always* September, *somewhere* on the Net.


Article 18008 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: One step at a time
Date: 22 Oct 1994 20:40:34 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 82
Message-ID: <38cbe2$bp8@access4.digex.net>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:
>At  0:20 10/19/94 -0600, golux@mcs.com (The only Golux in the World, and
>not a mere Devi wrote:
>>The point being, of course, that an error of detail (in your words, a
>>"conflict" with "known facts" (and just how are they "known"?)) does not
>>invalidate a witness's entire testimony; [...]
>
>Here we have a major difference between your position and mine. I believe
>that physical laws and material facts are more than "details."

    What physical laws are broken by the testimony that there were gas 
chambers?  Are you saying that the State of California does not have a 
cyanide gas chamber, because it is physically impossible?  

    Which material facts are violated by the testimony that there were 
gas chambers?

>>Here you go, Greg: I admit, there is no evidence to support a claim that
>>the Nazis planned to exterminate the Jews using gas chambers.  However, I
>>maintain -- and others post frequently to show -- that there is a mountain
>>of evidence that (a) the Nazis planned to exterminate the Jews and (b) one
>>of the means they used to try to achieve this goal was homicidal gas
>>chambers.
>
>Fine. Now, show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber.

    Obviously Mr. Raven is not aware of the latest developments in
revisionist scholarship.  Friedrich Berg has already done so in Liberty
Bell, Oct. 1993, p. 29.

    However, it is also apparent Mr. Raven contradicts himself again!  He
seems to be saying that a gas chamber would for him be proof of a Nazi
plan or policy to kill Jews in gas chambers.  Yet earlier he would appear
to have had a different idea. 



From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Joint response to Greg Raven
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 1994 20:44:41 -0800
Message-ID: 
[...]
Let's say for the sake of argument that Boeck did witness one gassing. Does
this one gassing imply a Nazi plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in
homicidal gas chambers? If your answer is no, as it must be, then Keren has
not been responsive in providing this testimony. That was (and is) my
point.



How does the gas chamber, all by itself, prove how it was used, what plan
or policy there was for its use?  Therefore it would seem that an actual
gas chamber would be no more responsive.

    I wish Mr. Raven could make up his mind about what proof would look
like.  One day he seems to say one thing, and another day he says another. 
Of course, I know his memory is failing, as he denied saying something 
which I had an archived copy of him saying.  Perhaps that's his problem.


>I would be delighted to view the evidence (assuming, of course, that you
>are referring to evidence of the existence of Nazi gas chambers). However,
>if their past posts are any guide, they have no evidence to show that even
>one Nazi gas chamber existed, let alone that they dotted the European
>landscape, and were constantly in use murdering Jews, as their many
>messages imply.

    Since Mr. Raven himself has admitted that he does not see all posts, 
even when they are emailed to him multiple times, how can he know what 
was in them?  In fact there have been many contemporaneous documents 
(*not* postwar testimonies) posted here.

    Mr. Raven is wrong in his assessment of what the messages imply.  
However, his analysis of Pressac's comments on the testimony of Boeck 
have already proven that Mr. Raven has very poor reading comprehension.  
Perhaps that is his problem.
-- 
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 18009 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Willi Mentz' testimony
Date: 22 Oct 1994 20:42:11 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <38cbh3$brn@access4.digex.net>
References:  <386jac$lk1@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:
>In article <386jac$lk1@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
>wrote:
>
>> Willi Mentz testifies about his days in Treblinka
>> [Quoted in 'The Good Old Days' - E. Klee, W. Dressen, V. Riess, The 
>> Free Press, NY, 1988., p. 245-247]
>
>This is not evidence. This is post-war testimony. Please provide some
>evidence first, then you may post your currently worthless testimonies.

    Oh, dear.  Greg Raven, whose megalomania was already hinted at in his 
.plan file, seems to have slipped over the edge.  He seems to think that 
he now has the authority to dictate what people can post here.

    Besides, that's Wayne McGuire's job.
-- 
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 18010 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Oberhauser's testimony
Date: 22 Oct 1994 20:43:17 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <38cbj5$bth@access4.digex.net>
References:  <386jbl$lkm@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:
>In article <386jbl$lkm@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
>wrote:
>
>This is not evidence. This is post-war testimony. Please provide some
>evidence first, then you may post your currently worthless testimonies.

    Oh, dear.  Greg Raven, whose megalomania was already hinted at in his 
.plan file, seems to have slipped over the edge.  He seems to think that 
he now has the authority to dictate what people can post here.

    Besides, that's Wayne McGuire's job.
-- 
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 18011 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pfannenstiel's testimony
Date: 22 Oct 1994 20:44:01 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <38cbkh$bv3@access4.digex.net>
References:  <386jcn$lld@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:
>In article <386jcn$lld@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
>wrote:
>
>This is not evidence. This is post-war testimony. Please provide some
>evidence first, then you may post your currently worthless testimonies.

    Oh, dear.  Greg Raven, whose megalomania was already hinted at in his 
.plan file, seems to have slipped over the edge.  He seems to think that 
he now has the authority to dictate what people can post here.

    Besides, that's Wayne McGuire's job.
-- 
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 18012 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Schutt's testimony
Date: 22 Oct 1994 20:45:19 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <38cbmv$c11@access4.digex.net>
References:  <386jfl$lvk@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:
>
>This is not evidence. This is post-war testimony. Please provide some
>evidence first, then you may post your currently worthless testimonies.

    Oh, dear.  Greg Raven, whose megalomania was already hinted at in his 
.plan file, seems to have slipped over the edge.  He seems to think that 
he now has the authority to dictate what people can post here.

    Besides, that's Wayne McGuire's job.
-- 
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 18013 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Raven on documents
Date: 22 Oct 1994 20:50:55 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <38cc1f$ca7@access4.digex.net>
References: <36u5pu$k1o@agate.berkeley.edu>  <37tvlr$tj@agate.berkeley.edu> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:
>However,the basic point is that one cannot automatically believe everything 
>one reads, even in "official" German documents. There are other facts and
>factors involved that can, at times, cause us to revise our view of the
>contents of these documents.

    Mr. Raven had previously demanded that evidence consist of physical 
evidence and contemporaneous documents.  However, now he seems to be 
hedging his bets, so that even if a document turns up which says, "We 
have gassed all the Jews as you ordered," and which Raven cannot think of 
even a halfway-credible reason to call a forgery, he has an out.
-- 
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 18020 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A triumverate of wishful thinking
Date: 22 Oct 1994 21:10:12 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <38cd5k$ctj@access4.digex.net>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:
>At 16:03 10/18/94 -0400, Jamie McCarthy wrote:
>
>[trirumvirate of evidence]
>
>Your first "evidence" is the Himmler speech, with which I have dealt
>repeatedly, and which I have conclusively shown not to have referred to gas
>chambers.

    Nobody said it did.  However, it conclusively shows a plan or policy 
to exterminate Jews, regardless of means.  This is something you had 
previously denied as a point entirely separate from the gas chambers:

   "Second, here is what Holocaust revisionists REALLY say: The Jews of 
   Europe suffered a great tragedy before and during the Second World War.
   Many were mistreated, and many died under horrific conditions. However,
   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." 

    I take it you are now willing to abandon point a) of the above claim,
since Himmler's recorded speech - a contemporaneous statement which is
just as documentary as if it had been preserved in writing rather than in 
audio form - provides clear and convincing proof all by itself.


>Your second and third pieces of "evidence" are the Hoess memoirs, Hoess
>being so discredited that Deborah Lipstadt, Christopher Browning, and (if
>he is as good as his word) Michael Berenbaum say is untrustworthy!

    Only the number of deaths, which is not at issue at this time.


>None of the three pieces of "evidence" is evidence at all. The two Hoess
>pieces are post-war writings from a time after he had been tortured and
>broken.

    Assuming facts not in evidence.  Please present your BEST EVIDENCE for
this, one at a time. 


>You offer no solid evidence whatsoever, merely a loose collection
>of some things that people said that have no factual counterpart (that is,
>no gas chambers).

    There are large dynamited structures which nonetheless contain the
necessary elements of a workable homicidal gas chamber - including cyanide
traces as confirmed by Fred Leuchter - as well as contemporaneous
documents listing those elements, and a documentary reference to a
"Vergasungskeller" (gassing cellar).  The eyewitness testimonies provide
corroboration that the physical elements - which are fully consistent with
a workable homicidal gas chamber - and contemporaneous documents do in
fact describe a gas chamber. 


>Now please, let's hear no more lies about Greg Raven not responding to the
>"May 4th evidence." Sheesh. Get serious.

    We are.  Please make a *serious* response.  You may start with your 
best evidence that Hoess was tortured and broken.
-- 
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 18021 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: The Posen speech, again
Date: 22 Oct 1994 21:21:02 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <38cdpu$dq0@access4.digex.net>
References:  <386kjo$n4k@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article ,
  wrote:
>Keren, you or none of the exterminationists here has ever heard one
>sentence of the alleged 190 minute speech of Himmler. We'll see what it
>says when the copies arrive from the National Archive. 
>
>We'll also see just how much the speech differs from the text that
>appeared in the IMT, which is what you are referring to here.

    At least in my case this is true.  I am merely assuming that the 
transcript was accurate, as I imagine the defendants would have raised 
the issue themselves at the trial if it were not.


>p.s. I'm already suspicious about this speech after speaking to the
>archivist. He said, after my questioning which had him rattled, that the
>recording was found "in a barn somewhere in Germany" and who found
>precisely is not known. How nice.

    This is what he told me as well.  I'm sure the Army unit who found
them had no playback equipment handy and therefore had no idea what they
had - they just turned it over.  If it could have been known at the time
how important they would turn out to be, perhaps they would have recorded
the name of the person who made the find.  It would appear someone had
some attachment to the speeches and wanted to try to save them by hiding
them.  Alas, they were discovered.

    Mark is *not* an archivist; his position is "Archives Technician" and
he had to speak to an archivist to answer some of my questions.  By the
way, Mark did not seem "rattled" when I asked those questions about
provenance.  However, if Mr. McCarthy's manners when speaking to people
are similar to his normal writing style here, I imagine he could similarly
"rattle" the counter person at McDonald's simply by asking for a Happy
Meal. 

    

-- 
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 18022 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mountains of evidence
Date: 22 Oct 1994 21:25:19 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <38ce1v$e1d@access4.digex.net>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:
>As I have stated over and over and over and over, I do NOT believe that any
>historical event can be proven by a single piece of evidence!!!

    However, you have clearly said that *all* aspects of the claim *must* 
be addressed by the single piece of evidence, or else it is not 
evidence.

    On this basis you have no evidence that World War II occurred.  I 
notice you have not tried to address this challenge, which was made to 
you before.
-- 
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 18024 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!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: The "Jager Report" (was: Re: The other Himmler)
Date: 22 Oct 1994 16:36:40 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 365
Message-ID: <38bf2o$5ki@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References:  <388k6g$q3b@agate.berkeley.edu>  <38aq3v$m4c@prime.mdata.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu

Wayne, please read the document below. It's a report of one
of the commanders of the "Einsatzkommandos". It reports 
the killing of over 130,000 people, the large majority of
them Jews, in one area of Nazi-occupied USSR. Note that:

1) The report was submitted before 1942.
2) The report gives, for most days, a breakdown of the murdered
   Jews to men, women, and children. Note the large number
   of children executed.

From this report, when do you conclude that the Nazis decided
to exterminate the Jews and when did they begin this extermination 
action?


Detailed report by SS-Standartenfuehrer Jager about mass killings
in Nazi occupied USSR, July-November 1941
['The Good Old Days' - E. Klee, W. Dressen, V. Riess, The Free Press, 
NY, 1988, p. 46-58].
****************************************************************

The Commander of
the security police and
the SD
Einsatzkommando 3     Kauen [Kaunas], 1 December 1941

--------------------------
|Secret Reich Business!  |             5 copies
--------------------------             4th copy

      Complete list of executions carried out in the EK 3 area
      up to 1 December 1941

Security police duties in Lithuania taken over by Einsatzkommando 3 on
2 July 1941.
(The Wilna [Vilnius] area was taken over by EK 3 on 9 Aug. 1941, the
Schaulen area on 2 Oct. 1941. Up until these dates EK 9 operated in
Wilna and EK 2 in Schaulen.)
On my instructions and orders the following executions were conducted by
Lithuanian partisans:

4.7.41       Kauen-Fort VII    416 Jews, 47  Jewesses                463
6.7.41       Kauen-Fort VII    Jews                                  2,514

Following the formation of a raiding squad under the command of
SS-Obersturmfuherer Hamman and 8-10 reliable men from the
Einsatzkommando. the following actions were conducted in cooperation
with Lithuanian partisans:

7.7.41       Mariampole        Jews                                  32
8.7.41       Mariampole        14 Jews, 5 Comm. officials            19
8.7.41       Girkalinei        Comm. officials                       6
9.7.41       Wendziogala       32 Jews, 2 Jewesses, 1 Lithuanian
                               (f.), 2 Lithuanian Comm., 1
                               Russian Comm.                         38
9.7.41       Kauen-Fort VII    21 Jews, 3 Jewesses                   24
14.7.41      Mariampole        21 Jews, 1 Russ., 9 Lith. Comm.       31
17.7.41      Babtei            8 Comm. officials (incl. 6 Jews)       8
18.7.41      Mariampole        39 Jews, 14 Jewesses                  53
19.7.41      Kauen-Fort VII    17 Jews, 2 Jewesses, 4 Lith.
                               Comm., 2 Comm. Lithuanians (f.),
                               1 German Comm.                        26
21.7.41      Panevezys         59 Jews, 11 Jewesses, 1
                               Lithuanian (f.), 1 Pole, 22 Lith.
                               Comm., 9 Russ. Comm.                  103
22.7.41      Panevezys         1 Jew                                 1
23.7.41      Kedainiai         83 Jews, 12 Jewesses, 14 Russ.
                               Comm., 15 Lith. Comm., 1 Russ.
                               O-Politruk                            125
25.7.41      Mariampole        90 Jews, 13 Jewesses                  103
28.7.41      Panevezys         234 Jews, 15 Jewesses, 19 Russ.
                               Comm., 20 Lith. Comm.                 288

                                      Total carried forward        3,384


Sheet 2
                                      Total carried over           3,384

29.7.41      Rasainiai         254 Jews, 3 Lith. Comm.               257
30.7.41      Agriogala         27 Jews, 11 Lith. Comm.               38
31.7.41      Utena             235 Jews, 16 Jewesses, 4 Lith.
                               Comm., 1 robber/murderer              256
31.7.41      Wendziogala       13 Jews, 2 murderers                  15
1.8.41       Ukmerge           254 Jews, 42 Jewesses, 1 Pol.
                               Comm., 2 Lith. NKVD agents, 1
                               mayor of Jonava who gave order
                               to set fire to Jonava                 300
2.8.41       Kauen-Fort IV     170 Jews, 1 US Jewess, 33 Jewesses,
                               4 Lith. Comm.                         209
4.8.41       Panevezys         362 Jews, 41 Jewesses, 5 Russ. Comm.,
                               14 Lith. Comm.                        422
5.8.41       Rasainiai         213 Jews, 66  Jewesses                279
7.8.41       Utena             483 Jews, 87 Jewesses, 1 Lithuanian
                               (robber of corpses of German soldiers)571
8.8.41       Ukmerge           620 Jews, 82 Jewesses                 702
9.8.41       Kauen-Fort IV     484 Jews, 50 Jewesses                 534
11.8.41      Panevezys         450 Jews, 48 Jewesses, 1 Lith. 1 Russ.500
13.8.41      Alytus            617 Jews, 100 Jewesses, 1 criminal    719
14.8.41      Jonava            497 Jews, 55 Jewesses                 552
15-16.8.41   Rokiskis          3,200 Jews, Jewesses, and J. Children,
                               5 Lith. Comm., 1 Pole, 1 partisan     3207
9-16.8.41    Rasainiai        294 Jewesses, 4 Jewish children       298
27.6-14.8.41 Rokiskis          493 Jews, 432 Russians, 56 Lithuanians
                               (all active communists)               981
18.8.41      Kauen-Fort IV     689  Jews, 402 Jewesses, 1 Pole (f.),
                               711 Jewish intellectuals from Ghetto
                               in reprisal for sabotage action       1,812
19.8.41      Ukmerge           298 Jews, 255 Jewesses, 1 Politruk,
                               88 Jewish children, 1 Russ. Comm.     645
22.8.41      Dunanburg          3 Russ. Comm., 5 Latvian, incl. 1
                               murderer, 1 Russ. Guardsman, 3 Poles,
                               3 gypsies (m.), 1 gypsy (f.), 1 gypsy
                               child, 1 Jew, 1 Jewess, 1 Armenian
                               (m.), 2 Politruks (prison inspection
                               in Dunanburg                          21


                                      Total carried forward        16,152


Sheet 3
                                      Total carried forward        16,152

22.8.41      Aglona            Mentally sick: 269 men, 227 women,
                               48 children                           544
23.8.41      Panevezys         1,312 Jews, 4,602 Jewesses, 1,609
                               Jewish children                       7,523
18-22.8.41   Kreis Rasainiai   466 Jews, 440 Jewesses, 1,020
                               Jewish children                       1,926
25.8.41      Obeliai           112 Jews, 627 Jewesses, 421
                               Jewish children                       1,160
25-26.8.41   Seduva            230 Jews, 275 Jewesses, 159
                               Jewish children                       664
26.8.41      Zarasai           767 Jews, 1,113 Jewesses, 1 Lith.
                               Comm., 687 Jewish children, 1 Russ.
                               Comm. (f.)                            2,569
28.8.41      Pasvalys          402 Jews, 738 Jewesses, 209
                               Jewish children                       1,349
26.8.41      Kaisiadorys       All Jews, Jewesses, and Jewish
                               children                              1,911
27.8.41      Prienai           All Jews, Jewesses, and Jewish
                               Children                              1,078
27.8.41      Dagda and         212 Jews, 4 Russ. POW's               216
             Kraslawa
27.8.41      Joniskia          47 Jews, 165 Jewesses, 143
                               Jewish children                       355
28.8.41      Wilkia            76 Jews, 192 Jewesses, 134
                               Jewish children                       402
28.8.41      Kedainiai         710 Jews, 767 Jewesses, 599
                               Jewish children                       2,076
29.8.41      Rumsiskis and     20 Jews, 567 Jewesses, 197
             Ziezmariai        Jewish children                       784
29.8.41      Utena and         582 Jews, 1,731 Jewesses, 1,469
             Moletai           Jewish children                       3,782
13-31.8.41   Alytus and
             environs          233 Jews                              233

1.9.41       Mariampole        1,763 Jews, 1,812 Jewesses, 1,404
                               Jewish children, 109 mentally sick,
                               1 German subject (f.), married to a
                               Jew, 1 Russian (f.)                   5090

                                      Total carried over           47,814


Sheet 4
                                      Total carried over           47,814

28.8-2.9.41  Darsuniskis       10 Jews, 69 Jewesses, 20
                               Jewish children                       99
             Carliava          73 Jews, 113 Jewesses, 61
                               Jewish children                       247
             Jonava            112 Jews, 1,200 Jewesses, 244
                               Jewish children                       1,556
             Petrasiunai       30 Jews, 72 Jewesses, 23
                               Jewish children                       125
             Jesuas            26 Jews, 72 Jewesses, 46
                               Jewish children                       144
             Agriogala          207 Jews, 260 Jewesses, 195
                               Jewish children                       662
             Jasvainai         86 Jews, 110 Jewesses, 86
                               Jewish children                       282
             Babtei            20 Jews, 41 Jewesses, 22
                               Jewish children                       83
             Wendziogala        42 Jews, 113 Jewesses, 97
                               Jewish children                       252
             Krakes            448 Jews, 476 Jewesses, 97
                               Jewish children                       1,125
4.9.41       Pravenischkis     247 Jews, 6 Jewesses                  253
             Cekiske           22 Jews, 64 Jewesses, 60
                               Jewish children                       146
             Seredsius         6 Jews, 61 Jewesses, 126
                               Jewish children                       193
             Velinona          2 Jews, 71 Jewesses, 86
                               Jewish children                       159
             Zapiskis          47 Jews, 118 Jewesses, 13
                               Jewish children                       178
5.9.41       Ukmerge           1,123 Jews, 1,849 Jewesses, 1,737
                               Jewish children                       4,709
25.8-6.9.41  Mopping up in:    16 Jews, 412 Jewesses, 415
             Rasainiai         Jewish children                       843
             Georgenburg       all Jews, all Jewesses, all
                               Jewish children                       412
9.9.41       Alytus            287 Jews, 640 Jewesses, 352
                               Jewish children                       1,279
9.9.41       Butrimonys        67 Jews, 370 Jewesses, 303
                               Jewish children                       740
10.9.41      Merkine           223 Jews, 640 Jewesses, 276
                               Jewish children                       854
10.9.41      Varena            541 Jews, 141 Jewesses, 149
                               Jewish children                       831
11.9.41      Leipalingis       60 Jews, 70 Jewesses, 25
                               Jewish children                       155
11.9.41      Seirijai          229 Jews, 384 Jewesses, 340
                               Jewish children                       953
12.9.41      Simnas            68 Jews, 197 Jewesses, 149
                               Jewish children                       414
11-12.9.41   Uzusalis          Reprisal against inhabitants who
                               fed Russ. partisans; some in
                               possession of weapons                  43
26.9.41      Kauen-F.IV        412 Jews, 615 Jewesses, 581
                               Jewish children (sick and
                               suspected epidemic cases)             1,608

                                      Total carries over           66,159


Sheet 5
                                      Total carried over           66,159

2.10.41      Zagare            633 Jews, 1,107 Jewesses, 496
                               Jewish children (as these Jews were
                               being led away a mutiny rose, which
                               was however immediately put down;
                               150 Jews were shot immediately; 7
                               partisans wounded)                    2,236
4.10.41      Kauen-F.IX        315 Jews, 712 Jewesses, 818
                               Jewish children (reprisal after
                               German police officer shot in ghetto) 1,845
29.10.41     Kauen-F.IX        2,007 Jews, 2,920 Jewesses, 4,273
                               Jewish children (mopping up ghetto
                               of superfluous Jews)                  9,200
3.11.41      Lazdijai          485 Jews, 511 Jewesses, 539
                               Jewish children                       1,535
15.11.41     Wilkowiski        36 Jews, 48 Jewesses, 31
                               Jewish children                       115
25.11.41     Kauen-F.IX        1,159 Jews, 1,600 Jewesses, 175
                               Jewish children (resettlers from
                               Berlin, Munich and Frankfurt am main) 2,934
29.11.41     Kauen-F.IX        693 Jews, 1,155 Jewesses, 152
                               Jewish children (resettlers from
                               from Vienna and Breslau)              2,000
29.11.41     Kauen-F.IX        17 Jews, 1 Jewess, for contravention
                               of ghetto law, 1 Reichs German who
                               converted to the Jewish faith and
                               attended rabbinical school, then 15
                               terrorists from the Kalinin group     34

EK 3 detachment in Dunanburg
in the period 13.7-21.8.41:    9,012 Jews, Jewesses and Jewish
                               children, 573 active Comm.            9,585

EK 3 detachment in Wilna:
12.8-1.9.41  City of Wilna     425 Jews, 19 Jewesses, 8 Comm. (m.),
                               9 Comm. (f.)                          461
2.9.41       City of Wilna     864 Jews, 2,019 Jewesses, 817
                               Jewish children (sonderaktion because
                               German soldiers shot at by Jews)      3,700

                                      Total carried forward        99,084


sheet 6

                                      Total carried forward        99,804

12.9.41      City of Wilna     993 Jews, 1,670 Jewesses, 771
                               Jewish children                       3,334
17.9.41      City of Wilna     337 Jews, 687 Jewesses, 247
                               Jewish children and 4 Lith. Comm.     1,271
20.9.41      Nemencing         128 Jews, 176 Jewesses, 99
                               Jewish children                       403
22.9.41      Novo-Wilejka      468 Jews, 495 Jewesses, 196
                               Jewish children                       1,159
24.9.41      Riess             512 Jews, 744 Jewesses, 511
                               Jewish children                       1,767
25.9.41      Jahiunai          215 Jews, 229 Jewesses, 131
                               Jewish children                       575
27.9.41      Eysisky           989 Jews, 1,636 Jewesses, 821
                               Jewish children                       3,446
30.9.41      Trakai            366 Jews, 483 Jewesses, 597
                               Jewish children                       1,446
4.10.41      City of Wilna     432 Jews, 1,115 Jewesses, 436
                               Jewish children                       1,983
6.10.41      Semiliski         213 Jews, 359 Jewesses, 390
                               Jewish children                       962
9.10.41      Svenciany         1,169 Jews, 1,840 Jewesses, 717
                               Jewish children                       3,726
16.10.41     City of Wilna     382 Jews, 507 Jewesses, 257
                               Jewish children                       1,146
21.10.41     City of Wilna     718 Jews, 1,063 Jewesses, 586
                               Jewish children                       2,367
25.10.41     City of Wilna     1,776 Jewesses, 812 Jewish children   2,578
27.10.41     City of Wilna     946 Jews, 184 Jewesses, 73
                               Jewish children                       1,203
30.10.41     City of Wilna     382 Jews, 789 Jewesses, 362
                               Jewish children                       1,553
6.11.41      City of Wilna     340 Jews, 749 Jewesses, 252
                               Jewish children                       1,341
19.11.41     City of Wilna     76 Jews, 77 Jewesses, 18
                               Jewish children                       171
19.11.41     City of Wilna     6 POW's, 8 Poles                      14
20.11.41     City of Wilna     3 POW's                               3
25.11.41     City of Wilna     9 Jews, 46 Jewesses, 8 Jewish
                               children, 1 Pole for possession of arms
                               and other military equipment          64

EK 3 detachment in Minsk from
28.9-17.10.41:

             Pleschnitza       620 Jews, 1,285 Jewesses,
             Bischolin         1,126 Jewish children and 19
             Scak              Comm.
             Bober
             Uzda                                                    3,050
                                                                     --------
                                                                     133,346
Prior to EK 3 taking over security police duties, Jews liquidated
by pogroms and executions (including partisans)                      4,000
                                                                  -----------
                                                             Total 137,346


Today I can confirm that our objective, to solve the Jewish problem for
Lithuania, has been achieved by EK 3. In Lithuania there are no more
Jews, apart from Jewish workers and their families.

 .
 .
 .

The distance between from the assembly point to the graves was on average
4 to 5 Km.

 .
 .
 .

I consider the Jewish action more or less terminated as far as
Einsatzkommando 3 is concerned. Those working Jews and Jewesses still
available are needed urgently and I can envisage that after the winter
this workforce will be required even more urgently. I am of the view
that the sterilization program of the male worker Jews should be
started immediately so that reproduction is prevented. If despite
sterilization a Jewess becomes pregnant she will be liquidated.

 .
 .
 .

(signed) Jager
SS-Standartenfuehrer




Article 18025 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!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Will Mr. Raven please make up his mind?
In-Reply-To: mstein@access4.digex.net's message of 22 Oct 1994 20:28:25 -0400
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References:  
	<383def$kuh@nyx10.cs.du.edu> 
	<38can9$bds@access4.digex.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 1994 01:40:32 GMT
Lines: 583


From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
>>You certainly had to ignore a ton of other material to seize on this one
>>aspect. What about the dozen or so other errors I identified in the
>>Franke-Gricksch "report?"
>
>    Mr. Raven can't seem to make up his mind.  First he wants to talk
>about things one at a time.  Then in his own post he forgot about that
>rule and threw out a sloppy barrage of adminicles when one good piece of
>evidence would have been sufficient.  Worse, when Chris Hoover tries to
>bring order to the discussion by returning to the one-thing-at-a-time
>method which Mr. Raven himself proposed, Raven seems to get very upset! 
>
>    Mr. Raven is certainly a terribly inconsistent fellow.

Not to mention that lengthy, thorough and detailed replies which
raises serious doubts about Raven's so-called rebuttal to
Franke-Grisch have been posted.  One (mine) not once, but twice.

Yet Raven continues to jump from topic to topic, mainly to complain
that he is jumping from topic to topic, but somehow never gets around
to sticking to exactly what he asked for, focusing on one topic.

He's certainly responded to many posts newer than the full responses
to his Franke-Grisch "analysis".

Is it possible he has missed all these posts? Shall we try again?  Why
not? Attached below...

As a start I'd like him to respond to comments he makes about details
in the report that don't even appear in the posted texts (rail spurs,
cutting of hair of corpses, gold teeth, etc.) As I've said, it's
possible that he has access to a fuller version, but it certainly
would seem harmless enough for him to simply say if this is the case
and tell us his source, or even just provide us with the missing text
he is referring to.

When at least a third and perhaps half of his claimed "dozen" problems
with the text don't even appear in the text as presented I think we do
have a problem that should be resolved quickly so we may all be
working from the same text.

Is this unreasonable nit-picking? I don't think so.

Then we can continue with the rest.

--------------------

As predicted we are merely treated to one of these tiresome analyses
that in the end says: Mr Raven would like something else and doubts
the F-G Report's authenticity (ie, the "forgeries all forgeries"
defense.)

[I have attached the text in question to the bottom of this message.]

From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
>On Gerald Fleming's part, on February 19, 1991, Brian Renk requested a copy
>of the carbon copy of the original document from which the Report was
>allegedly excerpted. Fleming responded by sending a photocopy of the Report
>ONLY, this in spite of the fact that Fleming has claimed to have in his
>possession one of three carbon copies of the original document.

What's the distinction being made here between a photocopy of the
"Report ONLY" versus a carbon copy of the original document?

Sounds like about the same thing unless your claim is that the
document was somehow altered in the photocopying process.

That's a claim that demands substantiation, in what way do you believe
it was altered or fabricated in photocopying?

>Fleming does not let the F-G report off the hook completely, however. He
>states:
>"Franke-Gricksch's account of 'the execution of the Fuehrer-order," namely,
>the lowering of 'certain materials' into a large cellar room resembling a
>'shower bath' and activation and release of 'particular substances that put
>people to sleep in one minute' is a fraudulent and cynical white-washing of
>death by gassing."

So? What's your point? Apparently Fleming was disgusted with
Franke-Grisch. Would you be more comfortable if Fleming considered F-G
a hero? F-G didn't write this to somehow condemn the gassing of Jews,
he was a Nazi officer reporting to his boss. He wasn't in a
confessional.

>Among of the most obvious things wrong with this "document" is the
>accidental use of English words in place of German words. Some of these
>anglicisms were corrected on the typescript copy, some where not. For
>example, on the first line of the report, "had" for "hat;" "der," the
>second word of line 2, typed over "the;" and on line 3, "hier" typed over
>"here." On line 8 of the second page of the report, the alleged copyist
>typed "had," but corrected it to "hat," only to begin the following word
>with "t" (evidently for "the") before catching that and typing the correct
>German definite article "die." Furthermore, in the final paragraph of page
>1, the English participial ending "d" is twice typed for the German "t,"
>that is "ausgestatted" for "ausgestattet" on line 5, which has been
>corrected, and "gebaded" for "gebadet" on line 9. Last but not least, the
>verb "kommt" is used twice with the same subject in the sentence beginning
>on line 6 of the third paragraph of line 1.

I don't see any of this as particularly damning.

Transcripts, particularly if done by someone who is not fluent in a
language, will be prone to errors.

These are all small errors, you don't seem to claim that they bring
into question what was said in the report.

>All that aside, any reasonable person reading this "report" would
>immediately suspect something is wrong. Where is this "house?" Where are
>the hollow pillars?

Those are fine questions but I don't see how they would lead someone
to suspect anything is wrong.

The report also does not describe what the weather was like on the day
it is written. So what?

It is what it is. You cannot fault it for what it isn't or doesn't
say. It says plenty.

>What "certain substances are used?

This is a complaint?

It says what it says.

>How is it possible
>to open the doors a few minutes after a lethal gassing when a deadly poison
>is supposedly still rampant in the air?

This has been gone over many times before:

	1. It's not difficult to vent out cyanide gas.

	2. Sonderkommandos, those who emptied the gas chambers,
	are often described as wearing gas masks and other
	protective gear.

	3. Unless it was truly lethal taking some chances was no
	great problem since the Sonderkommandos whose job it
	was to empty the chambers were also prisoners also under
	death sentence.

As per usual Mr Raven attempts to appeal to "the sensibilities" of his
audience, but fails to provide them with the information to assess
whether or not these sensibilities are really being challenged.

Why does Mr Raven fail to mention that those used to empty the
chambers were also usually Jewish (or perhaps Russian POW) prisoners?

He clearly tries to give the audience the impression that these are
Nazi officers emptying the chambers, or similar, paid workers or some
such whose lives or health their Nazi overseers would be concerned
with.

>How can the hair be cut off without
>first rinsing it of the poison gas?

You don't normally "rinse off" gas. What are you talking about? A
simple gas mask and some rubber gloves would be more than sufficient.

I've personally worked with cyanide, it doesn't jump up and chase you
around the room. It takes some amount of concentration to be harmful.

You just make this stuff up hoping people, not knowing much anything
about the subject, will just dumbly nod their heads in agreement.

But more importantly, where in the report does it say ANYTHING about
this hair cutting? I don't see the word mentioned.

>Just how big is this house that it has
>elevators for hundreds of dead people?

Huh? What's your objection here exactly? It didn't say it took them
all up on one trip. Is that what you are trying to make people believe
it said? That the "hundreds of dead people" were brought up in one
trip?

   Then
   the corpses are loaded into elevators and brought up to the first
   floor, where ten large crematoria are located.

That's the only sentence you are referring to here. What in that
sentence leads you to believe that this was done in one or even a few
trips? What in that sentence would make you doubt it may have been 10
trips? And it seems to say there were multiple elevators.

And although a naive audience might take the use of the term
"elevators" to mean the sort of thing one has in a hotel or office
building I have no particular reason to believe this. In industrial or
military situations the word might well be used to mean something more
like makeshift dumbwaiters or conveyor belts or some pully and box
arrangements.

>Is it normal for large Polish houses
>to have ten large crematories?

Huh? Ok, F-G starts with:

  "..the unfit go to cellars in a large house which are entered


So now you claim that this "house" is some sort of residence? Is that
what you are reading into this? Why? What's the 1943 common German
colloquial use of a word like Haus or grosse Haus (pardon my German)
in a military bureaucratic context?

Again, you attempt to appeal to a naive audience like some sort of
carnival show huckster working the yokels.

>By what amazing physical property do fresh
>corpses burn particularly well?

I don't know, do you have any evidence to the contrary or do you
merely expect to beat this whole thing by asking some questions?

Maybe F-G was wrong about this detail, so what? It's unlikely he
personally manned the crematoriums.

It's one thing to watch such a killing operation, that would be quite
obvious and plain to see on casual observation, and quite another to
form an educated opinion on how well corpses cremate.

>If it takes a modern crematory 2 to 3 hours
>to partially dispose of a human corpse, how can 10,000 corpses be disposed
>of in 24 hours with only 10 crematories?

We don't know. But we don't know otherwise either.

Perhaps F-G is boasting to his boss, Himmler, a little.

Perhaps he was given bad numbers, again there's a world of difference
between seeing what he initially describes as the killing process
which appears to be something he could easily witness (and from the
details presented, did witness) versus his one sentence summary at the
end of how many per 24 hours are being killed which one could
reasonably assume he got from someone else unless we have reason to
believe he sat there for days counting and calculating averages etc.

Perhaps it was 1,000 and not 10,000 per day, you were the one
complaining about minor transcription errors. His total figure of
about 500,000 killed would only take about two years of "business
days" at that rate. That's well within what else we know of
Auschwitz-Birkenau etc.

Otherwise, at 10,000/day it would be 50 days, about two months. Do you
have any time bounds on the period he is referring to? Is it more
likely two months or two years by 1943 when he writes the report? I
think two years is quite reasonable. So perhaps we should suspect a
slipped digit. But we don't know.

>Pressac says (on page 244), "On 28th June, following the handover of
>Krematorium III, the last one to be completed, Jaehrling calculated the
>overall throughput for the five Krematorien as 4,756 people in 24 hours,
>and sent this information to SS General Kammler in Berlin (Document 68).
>This official figure, coolly doubled when explaining operations to
>high-ranking visitors (ef. SS Major Franke-Gricksch's report above, giving
>a figure of 10,000 in 24 hours), had no basis in practice, and probably has
>to be divided by two or three to arrive at the true figure."
.

So Pressac basically comes to the same conclusion I do, perhaps the
figure was inflated a bit for the boss. I add in the possibility that
it's a typo, or since we have no reason to believe that F-G measured
the rate himself he merely believed what someone else told him. You do
say yourself he was only there about two days, he hardly could have
measured these numbers for himself.

So what?

>From this you conclude that nobody was killed?

I think I find it a bit easier to believe that perhaps F-G exagerrates
the numbers for his boss, or some typographical error has occurred, or
in the mere two days he was there for an inspection someone gave him a
bad number than to leap from 10,000/day to zero killed per day.

You certainly have not shown anything to indicate that the correct
number is zero.

What's far more interesting is that F-G, who we assume was not insane
nor an idiot, might have found the 10,000/day figure plausible (even
if as a bit of an exagerration.) That speaks volumes.

>1) The "large house" is actually Krema II at Birkenau.
>2) There are not 5 or 6 steps into the Leichenkeller, but 10.

Oh gasp, I'm sure this is what F-G was trying to get absolutely
accurate, whether there were 5 or 6 or rather 10 steps.

It seems close enough to assume he was working from memory some short
time later.

I could understand if there were no steps, if the steps went up rather
than down, if there were 100 steps (or some number that couldn't
possibly be remembered as 5 or 6) but this is hardly a quibble.

In fact, it seems more like a confirmation, seems hard to believe
that F-G or whoever else you believe fabricated this would just
come up with something like:

	They go down five or six steps into a fairly long, 
	well-constructed and well-ventilated cellar area, which is lined 

out of thin air and be so close to a reasonable description of Krema
II at Auschwitz-Birkenau. Quite a coincidence, wouldn't you say?

>3) There are not 3 pillars inside the "gas chamber" but 4.

Again, that there are roughly this many "pillars" would seem
confirming rather than denying. Do you think he could come up with
this many details which are so close to an accurate description out of
thin air?

>4) The "doors" cannot be closed when there is only one door involved.
>5) There is no door to open "on the other side" because again there is only
>one door.

   A few minutes later, the door opens
   on the other side, where the elevator is located. . . . Then

You're making a lot out of a particular reading of those words
originally written in German, how about:

	the door opens...on the other side where the elevator is
	located.

that is, "on the other side" refers to where the elevator is, not the
door. Reasonable? I think so.

>6) The lift does not take the corpses to the first floor, but to the ground
>floor.

This term is used differently in different countries. Americans call
the "ground floor" the "first floor". The British call the "first
floor" what Americans call the second floor and use the terminology
"ground floor" for what Americans generally (tho not always) call the
first floor. Etc. You'll have to be more specific, like what does a
German call it? ErdgeschoB, right? I'm hardly expert on this but my
German dictionary seems to indicate that the Germans use the American
usage and indicate this is what the British call etc etc.

But I'm sure we have plenty of people available to clear this up I
just know enough to know that this is a valid question regarding your
remark.

And you are still only dealing with a semantic quibble with the
ENGLISH translation. If it said, in the German, ErdgeschoB (I think
that's right) then that's that, no quibble, other than the word(s) the
translator used to render that word into English choosing perhaps the
Americanism rather than the Britishism for "ground floor".

Seems awfully thin, Mr Raven.

>7) There are not 10 crematoria furnaces but 5 three-muffle furnaces.

Perhaps there were 10 at the time. Perhaps they weren't all as fancy
as the ones which survived. Perhaps, given the exact 2:1 ratio of your
number and his there is some obvious explanation like each was used
for two cremations by some device (eg, an iron partition.) Perhaps he
didn't count them himself.

>8) There were probably not 500,000 Jews in killed in May, 1943, and true
>number is somewhere between 200,000 and 250,000.

Again, this is a far cry from your claim that zero were killed.

I have no problem with quibbling F-G's exact numbers, the question at
hand is whether any of it happened at all.

Surely your point is NOT that only 200,000 were gassed? You claim
absolutely none were gassed.

None of what you say supports that at all.

>9) The capacity of Krema II was not 10,000 per 24 hours, but rather 4,756
>for all FIVE crematoria combined, and even this is a theoretical output
>"that was never achieved in 1943, as proved by the Krematorium coke
>consumption." Pressac calls this claim "another Auschwitz SS propaganda
>figure passed on by Franke-Gricksch."

Fine, sounds reasonable to me, F-G exagerrated a bit to impress the
boss. Or whoever gave him the information did. As you say F-G was only
there 2 days, he hardly had time to verify these exact numbers for
himself.

But it would be quite a leap to go from that observation to the
conclusion that ZERO were gassed.

>To make up for these deficiencies, Pressac follows his usual procedure of
>concocting an elaborate scenario in an attempt to preserve the desirable
>portions of the Report while shrugging off the ridiculous portions.
.

Well, your own vague summary of Pressac aside (certainly we know you
do not like the man) I think I've provided rather credible and hardly
interesting (to the meat of the matter) explanations:

F-G is most interesting when he describes what he obviously personally
witnessed, and perhaps is mistaken (in favor of the success of the
operation, not an unusual esprit d'corps in the military) when
reporting precise numbers to present to the boss. Numbers no doubt
obtained from others, F-G was not the bookkeeper, nor was he there
long enough to have possibly measured these himself (two days.)

He was certainly there long enough to personally witness what he
spends most of the report's detailed description on: The killing
process.

>1) He fails to explain how the Sonderkommando members could have resisted
>the lingering Zyklon B gas as they went to work hauling bodies from the gas
>chamber, removing gold teeth, etc., only "a few minutes" after the
>killings.

Rubber gloves and cheap gas masks and decent ventilation. Really quite
minor.

And you were the one who was complaining that no mention of Zyklon B
was mentioned. So how can you therefore conclude this is what they
were dealing with? Or is this true only when it suits your point of
view for the moment?

And the quote I have has nothing about removing gold teeth etc (are
you sure they weren't removed after cremation? I have no idea, but
gold would survive the fires and short of them getting lost it would
be easier to remove the gold then.)

>2) Anyone visiting the ruins of Leichenkeller I can see that the four
>pillars are not hollow at all, but are solid, which would have prevented
>anything from being dropped down them.

Again, dropped down the side, whatever.

We CAN safely assume F-G, if he was able to write the report at all,
was not INSIDE the gas chambers as this was done and perhaps only
inferred the specific mechanics as best as he could see observing from
the outside.

>3) Pressac fails to address the assertion that "fresh corpses burn
>particularly well."

So do you.

>4) Pressac ignores the Report's mention of a "special rail track into an
>area of the camp specifically set aside for this purpose." Although there
>was a rail spur into Birkenau, work was not begun on it until January,
>1944. (This single reference, by the way, is enough by itself to show that
>this document is almost certainly a post-war forgery.)

I don't see any mention of a rail track in the quote I have.

Small sections of rail are relatively easy to lay and undo. What is
your source for any of this claim? Perhaps it only indicates that in
fact there was some sort of rail present and your source is mistaken?
Why do you believe the source you cite over the F-G's mention of this?

If it's a post-war forgery (predictable response) then why so sloppy?

Why couldn't they count the steps or the pillars? Why fabricate rail
tracks as you claim? Why so exagerrate the numbers? Even reporting
1,000/day, one-tenth of what is reported, would surely make the point.

The small errors in detail would seem to validate the report,
forgeries would not likely be so sloppy.

It all sounds, particularly after reading your analysis, much more
like the work of a bureaucrat quickly zipping off what he is required
to produce in a report without checking his facts carefully, relying
on what others told him vis a vis specific numbers etc. He couldn't
measure these numbers in the two days in which he inspected
Auschwitz-Birkenau.

I completely disagree with your conclusions and find them to indicate
quite the opposite.

It is naive to say that if the F-G report were authentic then it must
be factually absolutely accurate in its every detail.

In practice, in the world of evidence, things that are too perfect are
generally more suspect.

Small errors, such as the wrong number of stairs or pillars in the
room, tend to lead to the conclusion that this was someone writing
extemporaneously and without great or sinister purpose.

Forgers tend to be more careful. They're not as likely to make
little errors (eg, pillars or number of stairs) that can easily
be checked.

Most likely a forger would just leave out such minutiae, "several
stairs", "a few pillars" would be sufficient if there were any doubt.
Who would care or notice unless there were no stairs or hundreds of
stairs etc.

>Unmentioned by both Fleming and Pressac is the fact that nowhere in the
>report does it say that Franke-Gricksch SAW the process he describes.

True, so what? It seems fairly clear what he saw and what he didn't,
what he is just summarizing (eg, the number of corpses processed per
day.)

>In
>fact, the report claims he was given a tour of the facilities and the
>process was explained to him. We know from the records at Auschwitz that
>Franke-Gricksch was there from May 14-16, 1943.

Well, that he was there and only for 2 days tells us a lot.

One, that he was there and could well have witnessed much of what he
writes about and two, that he was there only briefly so small errors
of detail would be natural to expect. It would be different perhaps if
he worked in the room or area daily. But on a quick two-day tour
(which no doubt involved other sights at the facility) little things
like whether the pillars were hollow, or not, can easily be understood
to have been overlooked or mistaken in memory.

But I still find it a bit hard to believe that he saw nothing, that no
one was being killed, or no one was being killed by gas, and yet he
wrote this report to Himmler!

>trusting (or perhaps more scrupulous) interpreter would be well within his
>rights to suggest that this document was based on an English-language, not
>German-language, source.

Suggest? Sure. But what have you got? Your hands seem remarkably empty
other than innuendo and rather questionable challenges based mostly on
some strange theory that if it were authentic then every last detail
in the report would be unfailingly accurate.

Forgeries, all forgeries...we've heard it all before Mr Raven.

Doesn't seem likely.

I think you inadvertantly disprove your case.


The report in question, for reference:

  "..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 18026 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!agate!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The other Himmler
Date: 22 Oct 1994 16:48:38 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <38bfp6$63c@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References:   
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu

In addition to Mr. Roessler's excellent article, I would like
to add one piece of documentary evidence. 

Note that towards the end, the suggestion is made to preserve the
Jews who are "fit for work", and to kill the rest. Other documents
also indicate this plan.

Wayne: note when this letter was written.

Letter from Dr. Erhard Wetzel to Reichskommissar Lohse, October 25, 1941
[Hitler and the Final Solution - G. Fleming, University of California
Press, 1984, p. 70]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to my letter of 18 October 1941, please be informed that
Oberdiensleiter [Chief Executive Officer] Brack from the Fuehrer's
Chancellory has stated his readiness to assist in the construction of
the necessary accommodations and gassing apparatuses, so they must
first be constructed. Brack's view is that, since construction of the
apparatuses within the Reich would present far greater difficulties
than on-site production, the most expedient course of action is to
send his people directly to Riga, in particular his chemist Dr.
Kallmeyer, who will take the necessary steps from there.
Oberdiensleiter Brack further points out that the procedure in
question is not without its hazards, and that therefore special safety
precautions are needed. Under these circumstances, I ask you to
contact Oberdiensleiter Brack in the Fuehrer's Chancellory through
your higher SS and Police leader. Please request from him the
dispatching of the chemist Dr. Kallmeyer and any further assistants
that are needed. I might further point out that Sturmbannfuehrer
Eichmann, the adviser on Jewish affairs in the Reich main security
office, is in complete accord with this procedure. According to the
information received here from Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, camps for
Jews will be set up in Riga and Minsk, where Jews from the Altreich
[Germany proper] might also be sent. Jews are currently being
evacuated from the Altreich to Lodz and other camps, from which those
fit for work will be transferred to work forces in the east. Given the
present situation, Jews who are not fit for work can be eliminated
without qualms through use of the Brack device. Incidents such as
those that took place during the shootings of Jews in Vilna, according
to a report I have on my desk, can hardly be sanctioned, keeping in
mind that the executions were undertaken openly, and the new
procedures assure that such incidents will no longer be possible. Jews
fit for work, on the other hand, will be transported to work forces in
the east. That the men and women in this latter group must be kept
apart from each other goes without saying. Please keep me informed as
to any further measures you take.




-Danny Keren.


Article 18027 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!EU.net!uunet!dziuxsolim.rutgers.edu!crab.rutgers.edu!not-for-mail
From: btucker@crab.rutgers.edu (Bill Btucker)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The other Himmler
Date: 22 Oct 1994 21:40:59 -0400
Organization: Rutgers University
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <38cevb$blj@crab.rutgers.edu>
References:   <388k6g$q3b@agate.berkeley.edu> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: crab.rutgers.edu

wmcguire@world.std.com (Wayne McGuire) writes:

> When Germany began to lose the war with
>the Soviet Union and "Judeobolshevism" in 1941, the Nazis
>exploded in an orgy of apocalyptic vengeance against whatever
>enemies they could lay their hands on. If Israel began to lose a
>war with the Arabs and Muslims, I also don't doubt for a second
>that Israelis would exterminate every Arab and Muslim they could
>reach with nuclear weapons, and that the number of their victims
>would greatly exceed six million.

The purpose of this post is not to quarrel with the above comment
by Mr. McGuire but to ensure that I understand it.  Is it your assertion, 
Mr. McGuire, that Israel is the moral equivalent of the Third Reich?

Bill Tucker
btucker@crab.rutgers.edu



Article 18029 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: 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!swiss.ans.net!news.dfn.de!gs.dfn.de!gwdu03.gwdg.de!uroessl1
From: uroessl1@gwdu03.gwdg.de (Roessler  Ulrich)
Subject: Re: Willi Mentz' testimony
Message-ID: 
Organization: GWDG, Goettingen
References:  <386jac$lk1@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 1994 18:27:13 GMT
Lines: 33

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

>In article <386jac$lk1@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
>wrote:

>> Willi Mentz testifies about his days in Treblinka
>> [Quoted in 'The Good Old Days' - E. Klee, W. Dressen, V. Riess, The 
>> Free Press, NY, 1988., p. 245-247]

>This is not evidence. This is post-war testimony. Please provide some
>evidence first, then you may post your currently worthless testimonies.

Why bears a testimony no evidence? So far, we heard only that historic 
truth isn't settled in court-rooms. But part of the truth IS settled 
by jurisdiction - the truth about deeds and circumstances related with 
individual responsibility, to be precise. The analytic procedure of
a trial is in many ways different from historiography, but it is often
more severe. Witnesses,e.g., risk a lot, when lying before the judges.
Judges have to decide the fate of individuals - normally one would
expect them to be more careful with hypotheses than historians.
Even accused people may find it profitable to cooperate in the trial 
- this may allow for a milder sentence. 
Quite surprising then, penal courts deal in their investigations mainly 
with testimony and base their decisions on them.

So again, why is testimony no evidence? And why is it worthless 
currently?

>-- 

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

u.roessler                               uroessl1@gwdg.de


Article 18030 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!library.ucla.edu!galaxy.ucr.edu!not-for-mail
From: jdolan@ucrmath.ucr.edu (james dolan)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The other Himmler
Date: 22 Oct 1994 20:14:29 -0700
Organization: fair play for neptune committee
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <38ckel$74u@ucrmath.ucr.edu>
References:    
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucrmath.ucr.edu

barry shein writes:


-One interesting and disturbing data point: Go rent (if you haven't
-already seen it and thought about it in this light) "The Great
-Dictator" starring (and directed by I believe) Charlie Chaplin.
-
-It was released in 1939. In it are scenes "joking" (dark humor) about
-the concentration camps the Jews are being sent to. At one point a
-Nazi is half-jokingly threatened, by another Nazi, with his being sent
-to one of these concentration camps (if he doesn't cooperate in some
-way) and it's made clear to him that of course no one returns from
-these camps alive. There are no great details, but the thoughts come
-through loud and clear as if everyone already knows what's going on.
-
-Ok, it's possible Chaplin was just remarkably lucky or just
-extrapolating fairly easy-to-hit-upon dark thoughts. But, well, go
-rent it and tell me if much of that doesn't look precisely like the
-picture we get post-war or thereabouts, yet is unarguably being
-presented with great clarity in 1939 (which means it was probably
-mostly scripted in 1938 or previous.) Tell me if some of the stuff
-depicted doesn't sound like it *had* to done after (or very late in)
-the war, but it wasn't, there's no question that it wasn't.
-
-It was hardly an obscure movie, Chaplin was hardly an obscure star in
-1939, he was near the peak of his career.
-
-Besides, it's a pretty funny movie in its rather strange way.
-
-I mean, if Chaplin knew something is it really likely that ONLY
-Chaplin knew something? Seems odd.


i'm not sure you've got much of an argument here, barry.  in
particular, i thought i had heard that after the war, when more
information about what had really been going on in germany began to
come out, chaplin expressed considerable surprise at how bad it had
been, and some remorse about having made light of it.

actually this is just a vague memory i have of something i read
somewhere, perhaps here on usenet, in which case maybe you should
forget i mentioned it.


Article 18035 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.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: Mountains of evidence
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 1994 14:40:03 -0600
Organization: MCSNet Services
Lines: 46
Message-ID: 
References:  <1994Oct20.172836.1710@ubmail.ubalt.edu> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: golux.pr.mcs.net

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

> In article <1994Oct20.172836.1710@ubmail.ubalt.edu>,
> hmorrell@ubmail.ubalt.edu wrote:
> 
> >       Sure you do. I have noticed people posting pieces evidence (such as 
> > Himmler's speech), which you usually ignore, or you dismiss the individual
> > pieces as bogus without substantiating why you think they are bogus. I have
> > yet to see you rebut ANY evidence that has been proferred (because you 
> > cannot).
> 
> I have responded to the Himmler speech question several times. Perhaps you
> have missed my posts. I admit that I do not see everything on this
> newsgroup. I have a lot of other things to do with my time. As I posted
> many, many moons ago, however, if you think I have missed something, repost
> it so I will see it. I will get to everything substantive as soon as I can.

But then in another post, he wrote:

> In article <386jac$lk1@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
> wrote:
> 
> > Willi Mentz testifies about his days in Treblinka
> > [Quoted in 'The Good Old Days' - E. Klee, W. Dressen, V. Riess, The 
> > Free Press, NY, 1988., p. 245-247]
> 
> This is not evidence. This is post-war testimony. Please provide some
> evidence first, then you may post your currently worthless testimonies.

So Greg, where is your EVIDENCE that you have previously responded to the
Himmler speech question, hmm?  Here we have only your worthless testimony
that you have done so, and even if someone else were to say "OH yes, I saw
Greg's responde" that would be merely more worhtless testimony.  So where
is your EVIDENCE, Greg?  How are we to believe you ever responded if you
don't provide any EVIDENCE?

Gads, sometimes you make it so easy.

Posted and emailed, because Greg has trouble seeing things.

-- 
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 18036 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!jobone!heifetz.msen.com!zib-berlin.de!gs.dfn.de!gwdu03.gwdg.de!uroessl1
From: uroessl1@gwdu03.gwdg.de (Roessler  Ulrich)
Subject: Re: Was Hitler a great man?
Message-ID: 
Organization: GWDG, Goettingen
References: <1994Oct05.234523.1724@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>  <37s46n$guh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  <385c47$aqv@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 1994 18:45:42 GMT
Lines: 27

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

>First, I am not a leading revisionist ... at least, not in my book. I
>simply work at the IHR. You want to talk with a leading revisionist? There
>are plenty out there. I'm just a worker.

Names, please ?

>Second, some of the things Hitler did are admirable. Facts are facts. I am
>pretty sure that I would not have enjoyed living in Hitler's Germany (even
>pre-war), because as a libertarian there are many things about National
>Socialism I don't buy. However, the German people seemed pretty happy with
>Hitler, and given what he did for his country and for the world at large,
>you have to give him credit, whether you like him or not.

Ok, what did Hitler? Please post a short outline of Hitler's deeds,
and produce - well not the single best - but at least something like
evidence for your claims.

May be I'm wrong, but as far I can see, Hitler transformed Europe 
into a slaughterhouse, and in 1939-45, as direct result of his policy, 
the continent was turned into rubbles with heaps of corpses everywhere.
Should I give Hitler credit for this?

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

u.roessler                                       uroessl1@gwdg.de


Article 18038 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.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: Himmler About "Human Animals"
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 1994 15:00:32 -0600
Organization: MCSNet Services
Lines: 89
Message-ID: 
References:  <386m1d$otc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>   
NNTP-Posting-Host: golux.pr.mcs.net

In article , wmcguire@world.std.com
(Wayne McGuire) wrote:

> In article ,
> golux@mcs.com (The only Golux in the World, and not a mere Device) wrote:
> 
> //> In reading Shahak's book I found myself wondering how much
> //> anti-Semitism throughout the centuries has been a mirror image of
> //> the virulent "anti-Gentilism" in the Jewish tradition that Shahak
> //> describes at length.
> //
> //Wayne, are you ever going to answer my long-standing question: Why do you
> //feel it necessary to lay the blame for antisemitism on the Jews, rather
> //than the antisemites?
> 
> Is it really your point of view that all the friction between
> Jews and non-Jews throughout the millennia is entirely the fault
> of non-Jews? Now that really WOULD be a racist point of view. Are
> you a Jewish racist or a Jewish chauvinist?

I hope you have the brains to realize, Wayne, that the position you
attempt to ascribe to me is not the logical alternative to your habit of
blaming the Jews for antisemitism.  In case you do not have those brains,
I will elucidate:

1.  The "friction" between Jews and non-Jews does not bear a one-to-one
relationship with antisemitism.  It is possible to oppose acts of Jewish
leaders and even Jewish populations without hating the Jews for being
Jews.

2.  Even if your "friction" concept were my position, it is not the sole
alternative to your habit of blaming the Jews for the fact of antisemitism
(e.g., through the alleged "chosen people" mentality, the involvement with
Marxism, whatever).  In fact, antisemitism is, like all bigotry and
racism, a complex sociological pattern, with complex antecedents and,
undoubtedly, a multitude of causes.  In fact, antisemitism at different
times and among different populations probably has different "reasons" for
arising.

However, as with most bigotry and racism, I suspect that the core or root
cause is the fear of the unknown.  Xenophobia.  And xenophobia, which I
think all cohesive populations have to some degree, does not require that
the stranger do or say anything to instigate the hatred; it is merely
enough that he is different.  He may speak differently, pray differently,
behave differently, or just look different.  Sophisticated xenophobes will
often attempt to deflect their own responsibility by blaming the stranger
for the bigotry -- he eats our children in secret cabalistic rituals, for
instance, or he conspires against us in the shadows.

And to answer your questions: No, I do not believe that the friction
between Jews and non-Jews through the millennia is solely the
responsibility of the non-Jews; no, I am not a Jewish racist; and no, I am
not a Jewish chauvinist.     

Will you now, at long last, answer MY question?  Why do YOU strive so hard
to blame antisemitism on the Jews and absolve the non-Jews of any
responsibility for it?

> Israel Shahak argues in his new book _Jewish History, Jewish
> Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years_ that classical
> Judaism has been rife with hateful and racist attitudes towards
> non-Jews for many centuries.

Well I can see that it would instantly become a classic of modern
scholarship in your eyes, then.  After all, it accords with your own
prejudices.

> The book has been praised by Noam
> Chomsky, Gore Vidal, and Christopher Hitchens, and I just read it
> the other day and feel ready to talk about any point or passage
> in it. If you would like to discuss the book here, and correct
> any misinformation that may be in it, by all means do so.

As a political theorist, Noam Chomsky is a wonderful linguist.  The fact
that these three men praised Shahak's book, by the way, does not impress
me as much as it obviously impresses you.  Nor would the identity of its
publisher (which you have somehow failed to note in your list of reasons
why you accept Shahak's book as gospel).  I hope to read it as soon as I
get the time, Wayne -- of course, not at anything like 5000 words per
minute -- and I'll be glad to discuss its merits then.  Meanwhile, why
don't you answer my question?

Posted 'n' emailed.

-- 
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 18040 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!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: The other Himmler
In-Reply-To: jdolan@ucrmath.ucr.edu's message of 22 Oct 1994 20:14:29 -0700
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References:  
	 
	<38ckel$74u@ucrmath.ucr.edu>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 1994 03:33:41 GMT
Lines: 50


From: jdolan@ucrmath.ucr.edu (james dolan)
>i'm not sure you've got much of an argument here, barry.  in
>particular, i thought i had heard that after the war, when more
>information about what had really been going on in germany began to
>come out, chaplin expressed considerable surprise at how bad it had
>been, and some remorse about having made light of it.

I have little doubt Chaplin regretted having made jokes about
concentration camps and so forth. But I still think, upon watching the
movie made in 1938-9, that it disabuses, somewhat, ideas like no one
knew what was going on and that the Nazis had no extermination plans,
unless one can devise some other explanation for these things
appearing in the movie.

Ok, it's hardly hard proof, but I think anyone watching the movie
would be fairly shocked at its near-accuracy at that early date,
Chaplin's clowning aside.

I actually don't think, in retrospect, there is anything there for
Chaplin to have apologized for. No doubt Chaplin, like so many others,
was probably so overtaken by the final reality of what had gone on
(and the moment) that he probably felt compelled to say something like
this. But the movie is really quite sympathetic, much of it is good
political satire, and it's really quite funny (at least abstractly.)

>actually this is just a vague memory i have of something i read
>somewhere, perhaps here on usenet, in which case maybe you should
>forget i mentioned it.

I think you read that here, I remember someone saying something like
that but I don't see the real point of the observation.

I have a better idea, go rent the movie, watch it, and tell us your
own impressions. Regardless of anything else the movie is the movie,
it was made when it was made, it is what it is.

Even if Chaplin did say he regretted having made it, in retrospect, he
could well be wrong for having felt that later. He wouldn't be the
first artist to have felt some remorse over something he did. In fact,
that's probably one of the most common emotions in (metaphorically
speaking) Hollywood, no? Why listen to that kind of thing when you can
go see the movie for yourself? It's really only a bit of trivium.


-- 
        -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 18041 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!caen!msuinfo!netnews.upenn.edu!netaxs.com!btrosko
From: btrosko@netaxs.com (Brian Trosko)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Was Hitler a great man?
Date: 23 Oct 1994 03:37:32 GMT
Organization: The Trilateral Commission
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <38clps$a8a@netaxs.com>
References: <1994Oct05.234523.1724@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>  <37s46n$guh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  <385c47$aqv@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  
NNTP-Posting-Host: unix3.netaxs.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]

Roessler  Ulrich (uroessl1@gwdu03.gwdg.de) wrote:
: May be I'm wrong, but as far I can see, Hitler transformed Europe 
: into a slaughterhouse, and in 1939-45, as direct result of his policy, 
: the continent was turned into rubbles with heaps of corpses everywhere.
: Should I give Hitler credit for this?


No, silly. After all, all that rubble and everything was due to the 
resistance. If England and all those other nasty Euro countries had just 
surrenderred, no one would have been killed. Besides, the only reason 
Hitler ever invaded anywhere was in self-defense.


Article 18042 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!news.unb.ca!adrastea.sun.csd.unb.ca!t08o
From: t08o@adrastea.sun.csd.unb.ca (Morrison)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A triumverate of wishful thinking
Date: 22 Oct 1994 18:19:37 GMT
Organization: University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <38bl3p$9pf@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca>
References:  <386kjo$n4k@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: adrastea.sun.csd.unb.ca

From: landpost@clark.net
Message-ID: 

>We'll also see just how much the speech differs from the text that
>appeared in the IMT, which is what you are referring to here.

Oh, wonderful.  We get to see Tim compare a recording of someone talking
in German to the transcription of the German text.  I can't wait :-/


Keith Morrison

The Well, Yes Actually We Do Quote of the Week

"Do you really think I haven't read volume after volume of Holocaust-related
 material?  Do you really think I would make a blanket statement about
 evidence without having some idea what I would be getting?"
                         
                                            - Greg Raven

************************************************************
*t08o@unb.ca  *  My views are not those of the University  *
***************  of New Brunswick.  UNB never has views on *
*             *  on anything, ever.                        *
************************************************************



Article 18048 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!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: Willi Mentz' testimony
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 1994 10:15:29 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 22
Message-ID: 
References: 
   <386jac$lk1@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
   
   
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-01.dialip.mich.net

bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) wrote:

> To believe that all those people allowed themselves to be coerced or
> made confederates to such horrible lies and apparently rehearsed with
> great care (their stories certainly are remarkably consistent, that
> could not happen by accident.)

Come on Barry.  You know and I know that Raven doesn't believe any of
this crap for a second.  He's seen too much and read too much to know
that the "revisionist scholars" are correct.

It's all a propaganda scam, an effort to get people to subscribe to
his magazine, and subscribe to beliefs that he knows are false.  Or at
least he knows they're in serious need of repair.

Hell, he's been reading this newsgroup for the last six months, he's
seen all the evidence, he knows he has to resort to tricks like "is this
your BEST EVIDENCE?" to avoid getting his thesis demolished.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "I am taking landpost's spelling as correct,
  I realize that is not risk-free"  - Daniel Rice


Article 18057 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!torn!news.unb.ca!ganymede.sun.csd.unb.ca!t08o
From: t08o@ganymede.sun.csd.unb.ca (Morrison)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The other Himmler
Date: 23 Oct 1994 17:26:48 GMT
Organization: University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <38e6co$6f4@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca>
References:   <38ckel$74u@ucrmath.ucr.edu> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ganymede.sun.csd.unb.ca

Subject: Re: The other Himmler
Message-ID: 

>I mean, if Chaplin knew something is it really likely that ONLY
>Chaplin knew something? Seems odd.

Although its veracity may be questioned, I think one of the best scenes
in the film _Chaplin_ was when he was introduced to a Nazi at a Hollywood
party and quite coldly refused to shake his hand, much to the shock of
the other guests.  And I loved the parting line about his regret that he
had not been born Jewish.  If that incident indeed happened, my respect
for the man is truly great.


Keith Morrison

The Name is Bond, James Bond Quote of the Week

"I stated, based on inside information the source for which I am not at
 liberty to divulge..."                         
                                            - Greg Raven

************************************************************
*t08o@unb.ca  *  My views are not those of the University  *
***************  of New Brunswick.  UNB never has views on *
*             *  on anything, ever.                        *
************************************************************




Article 18081 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!agate!ames!waikato!comp.vuw.ac.nz!newshost.wcc.govt.nz!QUIRKE_A@ix.wcc.govt.nz
From: quirke_a@ix.wcc.govt.nz
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A triumverate of wishful thinking
Date: 24 Oct 1994 04:12:29 GMT
Organization: Wellington City Council, Public Access
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <38fc7d$t57@golem.wcc.govt.nz>
References:  <386kjo$n4k@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>,
Reply-To: quirke_a@ix.wcc.govt.nz
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix.wcc.govt.nz

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

>I'll leave the expertise in identifying morons to you. If you can get some
>time to read my posts fully, however, you might notice that I am asking, as
>I have repeatedly asked in the past, for the best evidence that the Nazis
>had a plan or policy to exterminate Jews IN GAS CHAMBERS.

   No one has stated (here) that the Nazis had a plan or policy to
exterminate Jews in gas chambers. This is a strawman of your own
design.

   They had a policy to get rid of the Jews. Initially this was via
emigration and killing, but then descended into straight killing as
time went on. As part of this, they developed the use of the gas
chamber as one means of *implementing* the planned mass extermination.

  In short, Greg, you're indulging in sophistry.

- Tony Q.
---
Tony Quirke, Wellington, New Zealand (email for phone no)
"...For Mercy has a human heart,   | "Cruelty has a Human Heart,
 Pity a human face,                |  And Jealousy a Human Face,
 And Love, the human form divine,  |  Terror the Human Form Divine,
 And Peace, the human dress." - SoI|  And Secrecy the Human Dress." -SoE.


Article 18090 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: Hilberg on the Einsatzgruppen (I)
Date: 24 Oct 1994 12:37:52 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <38g9r0$prp@agate.berkeley.edu>
References: <36u5pu$k1o@agate.berkeley.edu>  <385pa7$hke@agate.berkeley.edu> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:

>Thank you for making my point for me again, and for restating my (implied)
>question.

What exactly was your point?  I had thought that your point was your claim
that Hilberg thinks the Einsatzgruppen reports were "exaggerated".  I have
posted here, more than once, the figure he arrived at (more than 900,000
Jews) and compared it with the number (one million) mentioned at the
"Einsatzgruppen" trial.  Now, if you believe that the sum of the actual
deaths recorded by the Einsatzgruppen is smaller than these two numbers,
all you have to do is saywhat you think the total is and how you arrived 
at it.  If when you said "exaggerated" you meant "exaggerated by about
10%" then all you have to do is say that.  In neither case is there any
necessity for cryptic comments about making your point for you (when what
I did was show that your claim appears to be incorrect), or to make
dark references to "source which I cannot divulge."  Either say how many
people you think the Einsatzgruppen killed and how you arrived at the
figure, or accept the figures above.  There isn't any necessity for
lengthy discussion of the matter.
--
				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 18095 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu!miavx1!bpharmon
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mountains of evidence
Message-ID: <1994Oct23.224114.32094@miavx1>
From: bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Raskolnikov)
Date: 23 Oct 94 22:41:14 -0500
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
References:   
Organization: Miami University
Lines: 37

In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:
> In article <1994Oct20.172836.1710@ubmail.ubalt.edu>,
> hmorrell@ubmail.ubalt.edu wrote:
> 
>> 	Sure you do. I have noticed people posting pieces evidence (such as 
>> Himmler's speech), which you usually ignore, or you dismiss the individual
>> pieces as bogus without substantiating why you think they are bogus. I have
>> yet to see you rebut ANY evidence that has been proferred (because you cannot).
> 
> I have responded to the Himmler speech question several times. Perhaps you
> have missed my posts. I admit that I do not see everything on this
> newsgroup. I have a lot of other things to do with my time. As I posted
> many, many moons ago, however, if you think I have missed something, repost
> it so I will see it. I will get to everything substantive as soon as I can.

Actually, I have seen your responses to the
Ponzan speech (Himmler).  
 
The one thing I'm still curious about is wether or not
you agree that Himmler is talking about exterminating
the Jews when he says:

"I mean the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the race. 
It's one of those things it is easy to talk about, "the race is 
being exterminated", says one party member, "that's clear, it's in 
our program, elimination of the Jews, and we're doing it, exterminating 
them". 

In the interests of staying on the topic, I'd like to hear your
views on this section before we move on to discussing the
gas chambers.  

Do you agree that Himmler states quite clearly that the Nazis are
exterminating the Jews, yes or no?  

Brian Harmon
--------------bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu--------------------------


Article 18096 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu!miavx1!bpharmon
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Schutt's testimony
Message-ID: <1994Oct23.224326.32095@miavx1>
From: bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Raskolnikov)
Date: 23 Oct 94 22:43:25 -0500
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
References:   
Organization: Miami University
Lines: 20

In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes:
> In article <386jfl$lvk@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
> wrote:
> 
>> Testimony of Hans-Heintz Schutt, SS-officer at Sobibor
>> [Quoted in "'The Good Old Days'" - E. Klee, W. Dressen, V. Riess, The 
>> Free Press, NY, 1988, p. 240]
> 
> This is not evidence. This is post-war testimony. Please provide some
> evidence first, then you may post your currently worthless testimonies.

Here's a valid question:

On what basis do you automatically reject all post-war
confessions?

I mean, have all of these witnesses recanted?

Brian Harmon
--------------bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu--------------------------


Article 18100 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!schultz
From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Hilberg on the Einsatzgruppen (I)
Date: 24 Oct 1994 23:21:14 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <38hfha$dhu@agate.berkeley.edu>
References: <36u5pu$k1o@agate.berkeley.edu>  <37tvlr$tj@agate.berkeley.edu> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article ,
Greg Raven  wrote:

>. . .All anyone has to do is look at the original reports, add up the 
>numbers, and compare them against what Hilberg says.
>
>This is a big chore to go through for a relatively small reward. 

Because I have been a little imprecise in previous posts, let me first restate
what Hilberg said in _The Destruction of the European Jews_.  In the
chapter about the mobile killing operations, he went through the
Einsatzgruppen reports and came up with a figure of 900,000 Jews killed
which he states is only about two thirds of the total killed in mobile 
killing operations.  Indeed, on page 1219 in his table of "Deaths by Cause,"
he lists the number of Jewish deaths due to Einsatzgruppen and other related 
open-air shootings as 1.3 million.

In any case, the task of consulting the original reports has been 
done in detail already.  I refer the interested reader to _Messages of
Murder:  A Study of the Reports of the Einsatzgruppen of the Security
Police and the Security Service, 1941-1943_, by Ronald Headland 
(Rutherford, NJ: Farleigh Dickinson University Press, 1992).  In this 
study, Headland goes into a detailed analysis of the reports and the total
number of murders reported by, and committed by, the Einsatzgruppen.
In particular, on pages 98-101 he presents a series of "Tables of Killing
Statistics" with explicit reference to the reports from which he obtained
his figures.  On page 105 he obtains a "minimum total for the period
ending December 1942" of "at least 1,152,731 persons."  This figure is 
solely from the reports themselves.  Headland states that this number is
imcomplete due to inexactnesses in the reports.  He discusses
at length, by the way, the issue of to what extent the reports were 
exaggerated.  Headland concludes his tabulation by noting that

	It is unlikely that historians will ever get beyond
	educated estimates as to the number of persons killed
	in the eastern territories as well as in other areas.
	We may conclude, given our total cited above, and the
	fact that we have limited our inquiry to the end of 1942
	only, that the estimate of Raul Hilberg that over 1,300,000
	Jews were killed in the east by the Einsatzgruppen and
	other SS agencies and collaborators is as close to a true
	figure as we are likely to find.[31]  Bearing in mind that
	Hilberg's total refers to Jews only, we recognize that
	the addition of numbers of non-Jews liquidated (many of
	which are included in our above total) would raise this 
	number considerably higher. (page 106)

Note 31 is the reference to p. 1219 of Hilberg discussed above.

To put it simply:  if you do what Raven recommends and add up the 
total number of deaths reported by the Einsatzgruppen and compare
it with the number calculated by Hilberg, you find that, contrary
to Raven's claim, Hilberg does not appear to consider the numbers
exaggerated.

So once again I will ask Raven:  if you believe that the numbers
of murders reported by the Einsatzgruppen is an exaggeration, please
present a source for your claim.  If you believe that Hilberg thinks
that the numbers are exaggerated, please present a source for that
claim.

Now that I think of this, hasn't this whole subject been discussed
before here, down to Raven's refusal to give his source for his
claims about Hilberg?  Or am I thinking of something else entirely?
I hope I can be forgiven my confusion here, and can only plead
Raven's exceptionally low claim/evidence ratio.
--
				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 18102 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The other Himmler
Date: 24 Oct 1994 21:06:00 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <38hllo$9eo@access1.digex.net>
References:  
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article ,
Wayne McGuire  wrote:
>In article ,
>greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote:
>
>//May 1940 memo to Hitler: RI hope to see the complete elimination of the
>//concept of the Jew through the possibility of a large-scale emigration of
>//all Jews to Africa or otherwise in a colony;S Rout of inner convictionS the
>//idea of Rphysical elimination of a people [must be rejected] as un-Germanic
>//and impossible.S
>
>I just came across this thread, and was surprised to see that
>none of the anti-revisionists answered Raven's initial posting.
>Instead they complained about Raven's quoting conventions.

    You have to understand, Wayne, that one of Raven's conventions is that
when he quotes, you will be a sure winner if you always bet that he's
taking quotes out of context, especially so when he does not give the
published source and page from which he draws his material.  For example,
he has quoted Mayer out of context, citing snippets from pp. 362-363 as if
Mayer supports his position, while carefully omitting the fact that Mayer
just a couple of sentences later explicitly affirms that there can be no
question that gas chambers were used at Auschwitz. 

    And when Raven paraphrases, well, hold on to your wallet.  (I think it
may be time for a repost of my article concerning Raven's distortion of
the comments of Pressac on the testimony of Boeck.)


>So how about it? How does one explain these quotes from Himmler
>arguing against the extermination of the Jews?

    Before trying to explain anything, one goes looking for the original
context in which the quotes were made.  At least, I do whenever
revisionists do the quoting.  (I *did* catch Holocaust denier Jack Wikoff
quoting honestly and in context once.  I wonder if they drummed him out of
the revisionist movement for conduct unbecoming.)

-- 
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 18105 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!swiss.ans.net!news.dfn.de!gs.dfn.de!gwdu03.gwdg.de!uroessl1
From: uroessl1@gwdu03.gwdg.de (Roessler  Ulrich)
Subject: The other Himmler
Message-ID: <8GSTB0ZM@gwdu03.gwdg.de>
Organization: GWDG, Goettingen
References:    
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 02:30:18 GMT
Lines: 99


Wayne McGuire writes:

>In article ,
>uroessl1@gwdu03.gwdg.de (Roessler  Ulrich) wrote:

[..]

>The great majority of your analysis is quite compatible with that
>of Arno Mayer, in my opinion. I agree with Mayer, and I agree
>with what I read in your post. If I have foolishly failed to
>detect any contradictions, please let me know.
>

You read too much into my last article in this thread.
My analysis was concerned only with the existence of seemingly
inconsistent orders or memos by Himmler, i.e. inconsistent with
a too simplistic view of the Holocaust. It was necessary here
to point out that Nazi Germany wasn't organized in a rational way.
Barry Shein has further given a good explication of the problem 
to understand the decision-making and implementation of policies
in that sort of totalitarian system. So we cannot expect to find
sources about plans or schemes before they aren't implemented and
working. Only in the history of mentalities or in biographies,
there may be traces of any plan. And there begins the dubious 
realm of motivations and ideologies. The point was yet, that
even in a dictatorship, the motives or schemes of the top ranks
are transformed by the realities of the society and of the 
state-machinery.

I am very reluctant to wage elaborate hypotheses about
the "Why",  before one doesn't know exactly WHAT happened.
May be, it is even better not to try any answer to the difficult 
questions - at least in this newsgroup.
In an earlier note about Mayer's book I pointed out this problem, 
as Mayer's grasp even of known facts seems somewhat uneven.

Arno Mayer's book is flawed in many ways. Several contributors 
have remarked this here. So did a lot of reviewers. 
His thesis about the "Judeoecide" as a sort of revenge, when the
crusade against Soviet Union got stuck, contradicts known facts.

Here, as in the larger context of the Nazi-ideology about the
"Judeobolshevism", Mayer seems to rely far too much on 
the rationalization of the perpetrators themselves.
If you look at the beginning of the Nazi mass-killings in Soviet Union, 
you'll find always some sort of pretext for all these actions. 
The mass-murders were disguised as reprisal for partisan assaults, 
or it was the fight against "Bolshevist commissars and agents".
This sort of rationalization was the more necessary, as the arbitrary 
selection of the victims must have been apparent even to the henchmen. 
Himmler's frequent reasoning about the need to kill women and children 
indicates this.

The perpetrators, in any case, are the first individuals to begin 
with victim-bashing, along the lines "They get what they deserve". 
Unfortunately, the perpetrators aren't alone to do so. 

>The plan to exterminate the Jews was far from a monolithic and
>predetermined policy during the life of Nazism. This is the
>bottom line on this issue. Any suggestion that it was is
>misleading at best, and a propagandistic lie at worst.
>

Take care. There are reputable people, who maintain the opinion
that there was a premeditated plan. Mr. "golux" Schaeffer posted
recently a pointer to the struggle between "intentionalists" and
"functionalists" in the historiography about the Holocausts. 
The biographical studies on Hitler by E.Ja"ckel may show, 
why the "intentionalists" have a point - but they 
cannot answer the fervent or obedient reactions of German society 
and state to the murderous intentions of Hitler's regime. 
That's probably more the domain of the "functionalists". 
Here, Mayer's book is really interesting -
e.g. his parallelization of the years 1914-45 with the Thirty Years War, 
or his description of the brutalized mentality of soldiers in permanence.

[Refs: (Engl. translations)
      Eberhard Ja"ckel: Hitler's Weltanschauung, a blueprint for
     power.  [1st ed.]  Middletown, Conn., Wesleyan University Press [1972]
      Eberhard Ja"ckel: Hitler in history /  Hanover, NH : Published
     for Brandeis University Press by University Press of New England, 1984.]

>The exterminationist efforts that did occur were horrendous
>enough without exaggerating them. Anyone who exaggerates any
>aspect of the Holocaust gives critics an opening to pick away at
>the credibility of the Holocaust in general.

I agree, a faithful description of the events should speak for itself.

>
>Again, I've seen the process at work in considerable detail
>concerning Israel. 

[Deletia. I must admit, that I start to read Wayne McGuire's 
 articles at a speed of 10,000 words per second
 as soon I encounter the word "Israel".]

u.roessler                                      uroessl1@gwdg.de


Article 18254 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!skypoint.com!winternet.com!interlog.com!news.cais.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!noao!news.Arizona.EDU!misvms.bpa.arizona.edu!dmittleman
From: dmittleman@misvms.bpa.arizona.edu (Daniel Mittleman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler About "Human Animals"
Date: 21 Oct 1994 22:06 MST
Organization: University of Arizona (BPA)
Lines: 12
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <21OCT199422060558@misvms.bpa.arizona.edu>
References:  <386m1d$otc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  <1994Oct21.201048.19158@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: misvms.bpa.arizona.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.50    

>In article , wmcguire@world.std.com (Wayne McGuire) writes:

>|> Shahak's book has now been praised by Christopher Hitchens, Gore
>|> Vidal, and Noam Chomsky. I would be interested in reading an
>|> INTELLIGENT critique of the book--not an ignorant tirade--if you
>|> or anyone else can produce one.

    I would be interested in a pointer to where I can find what Vidal and
    Chompsky have to say about the book.

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


Article 18328 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-00.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Analysis of the Franke-Gricksch "report"
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1994 10:40:16 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 42
Message-ID: 
References: 
   <387ico$qn1@access1.digex.net>
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-00.dialip.mich.net

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

> As clearly mentioned in my post, the best evidence that the Franke-Gricksch
> "report" is a fraud is that it mentions a rail line going into Birkenau
> that did not go into Birkenau at the time the "report" allegedly was
> written.

I have to admit that this particular bit of information intruiges me,
Mr. Raven.

If it is true that nothing that could be called a "rail spur" (or whatever
the original German was) existed at the time the F-G Report was written,
then I think you have indeed uncovered conclusive evidence that it's a
post-war forgery.  Or, to be precise, that that section of the document
was a post-rail-spur forgery.  But I agree that, if any section of the
document can be shown to be a forgery, the whole thing should probably be
tossed out.

This would be a landmark, being the first time in the last few years that
I would have seen strong and convincing evidence that a document relating
to the Holocaust was indeed forged.

But, given the source of this information, namely the Journal of Historical
Review, I have yet to be convinced that what the F-G Report refers to as a
"rail spur" could not have been something else -- or that the rail line
that you assert was built in 1944 was actually built, say, in 1942.  Surely
you understand.  The JHR has published so many things that are just plain
wrong, that I don't trust anything in it until it's been corroborated.

So, Mr. Raven -- does this article explaining the still-only-alleged
forgery have a source for its assertion that (1) the rail line was not
built before 1944, and (2) there was nothing else around that could
reasonably be called a "rail spur" (or whatever the original German was)?

If not, would you like to join me in chasing this down?  I'm interested in
getting to the bottom of this.  Are you?

Emailed.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "I am taking landpost's spelling as correct,
  I realize that is not risk-free"  - Daniel Rice


Article 18329 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-00.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1994 10:41:21 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 11
Message-ID: 
References: 
   <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1>
   
   
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-00.dialip.mich.net

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

> This is no doubt in reference to an early exchange about Treblinka. I admit
> I got a little sloppy with my response. Treblinka is neither quadrangular
> nor rectilinear. It had five sides.

You still don't know what "rectilinear" means, do you?
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "I am taking landpost's spelling as correct,
  I realize that is not risk-free"  - Daniel Rice


Article 18330 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-00.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1994 10:48:38 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 29
Message-ID: 
References: 
   <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1>
   
   
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-00.dialip.mich.net

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

> Thank you for supporting my statement that I never saw this silly "May 4th"
> posting.

On the contrary, you have -- you just never asked whether its evidence
was the "best."

Would you like me to email to you, Mr. Raven, the articles in which you
referred to the May 4th article?

> Once again, I must point out that there must not be very much to
> it, because it is only called the "May 4th" posting instead of something
> substantive.

Once again, I must reply to this claim of yours by pointing out that
it is called that because there is _so_much_ substantive in it.  There
are four main points of logic and ten documents.

> However, I have a sneaking suspicion that components of this "May 4th"
> posting are being reposted under other names, so that there will be no risk
> of me responding to them, while protecting the unprotectable "May 4th"
> posting,

You're getting a little paranoid, Mr. Raven.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "I am taking landpost's spelling as correct,
  I realize that is not risk-free"  - Daniel Rice


Article 18347 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!noao!news.Arizona.EDU!bpavms.bpa.arizona.edu!dmittleman
From: dmittleman@bpavms.bpa.arizona.edu (Daniel Mittleman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Analysis of the Franke-Gricksch "report"
Date: 30 Oct 1994 15:40 MST
Organization: University of Arizona (BPA)
Lines: 22
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <30OCT199415401141@bpavms.bpa.arizona.edu>
References:  <387ico$qn1@access1.digex.net> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: bpavms.bpa.arizona.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.50    

In article , bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes...

>From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
>>As clearly mentioned in my post, the best evidence that the Franke-Gricksch
>>"report" is a fraud is that it mentions a rail line going into Birkenau
>>that did not go into Birkenau at the time the "report" allegedly was
>>written.

>One problem is that the text of the F-G report posted here doesn't
>mention any rail line.

    I have been thinking about this issue today.  My question is: if the
    rail line did not exist in '43 as Raven asserts, how did they get
    prisoners into Birkenau?  What form of transportation was used?

    But I too would welcome Mr. Raven to more fully produce evidence to
    support his point.  If he has the documentation to support what he
    asserts, I would be happy to acknowledge it.  But I have to see it
    first.

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


Article 18357 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!news.ucdavis.edu!agate!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Date: 30 Oct 1994 07:04:18 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 15
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <38vghi$bpe@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References:    
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu

Hitler admirer and IHR employee Greg Raven  wrote:

# I mentioned these other failings with regards to Keren's post to show that
# although he puts himself forward as being knowledgeable, he frequently
# makes errors of all kinds. 

1) I never described myself as "knowledgeable", or an "expert", or
   a "historian".

2) So far, the only mistake Raven found in my articles is a typo in
   the name of the person who directed "Shoa". He seems to be trying
   to make a really big issue out of this.


-Danny Keren.


Article 18358 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!news.ucdavis.edu!agate!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15
Date: 30 Oct 1994 07:09:30 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 15
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <38vgra$bqn@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References:    
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu

Greg Raven  wrote:

# No. Leuchter was trying to determine only if the buildings/rooms currently
# being displayed to tourists (and being put forward by many historians) as
# authentic gas chambers could function as such. His finding was that they
# could not. 

The problem is that Leuchter is a liar and a fraud; he's not an
engineer, as he claimed to be, and his "report" is a piece of rubbish. 

If Raven believes the "Leuchter report" has any value, he can tell
us what he thinks the major points of the "report" are.


-Danny Keren.


Article 18364 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!news.ucdavis.edu!agate!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Raven's Admiration for Hitler (was: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speec
Date: 30 Oct 1994 07:24:25 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 17
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <38vhn9$ccr@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References:    <38vghi$bpe@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu



Category 15,  Topic 4
Message 33        Fri Mar 13, 1992
G.RAVEN                      at 03:02 EST

My only concern is in  going after the
facts. As such, I am not interested in defending  Adolf Hitler to my dying
breath. I will say, however, that he was a  great man ... certainly greater
than Churchill and FDR put together,  and possibly the greatest leader of our
century, if not longer. This  is not to say that he was perfect, but he about
the best thing that  could have happened to Germany.




-Danny Keren.

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