Daniel Keren wrote
[email protected] :
>Among all the Nazi documents detailing dastardly acts of mass
>murder and other forms of barbarism, the “Jager Report” is
>perhaps one of the most horrifying.
[snips]
>(signed) Jager
>SS-Standartenfuehrer
Mr Keren, first I’ve not accees as I would like to many books this summer,
most of the librairies are just open during the working hours. So, I can
hardly check in the reference you gave. However, since the holocaust authors
are eager to bring proofs, if this signature is not typewritten but handwrit
ten, than I would expect you to mention explicitelly that a photo of the
document is reproduce with the signature of this man. If no photo was reprodu
ced, then I will assume a typewritten signature, as it appear in some other
soviets (ooops)… german documents ‘captured’ by the soviets. You know my
criterias about it: since *a lot* of SS died on the russian front, I don’t
consider as a formal proof the signature of a man captured by the soviets.
There’s some elements about the way the soviets put pressure on some SS
who were make prisonners, and even if you deny it, there’s suffisant evidence
in the revisionnist litterature to me.
So here, my standard is simple: the handwritten signature of a SS who died
without beeing capture by the soviets or the allieds. Second, this signature
(handwritten) on a relevant page. Third, an authentification that was make,
and that can still be done, with another document (letter or whatsover).
In this case, it is too strange that the soviets were able to present hundreds
of pieces of evidence that talk explicitelly about mass murders while the
documents captured by the allieds and which are supposed to proove something
are extremelly rare.
Finally, I wouldn’t be surprise that several documents which respect those
criterias exist, and I will have no difficulty to accept those ones. My opinion
actually is that the nazis did not just kill jewish commisars and their
famillies, but also sometimes jewish civilians in blind represails, as the
death squadrons in Salvador did. However, the number is another thing.
I’ve no way to know exactly. The soviets documents are suspect for some rea-
sons that I have expose here a couple of months ago.
There’s one of those documents that give me some difficulties actually.
It is the letter allegedly written by Hitler to Himmler which talk about
363,211 liquidated jews. That’s a huge number. It’s not totally impossible
neither, since the question of the Einsatzgruppens doesn’t sounds as much
fishy than the gas chamber story to me. My first opinion was that this
document was a forgery since Butz explanation ( Himmler’s initials on an
irrelevant page) was convincing to me. He added also that Himmler’s initials
were easy to forge. I saw a picture of this letter recently (your site)
and this is a bit confusing to me. First, the header of the page seems to
show that this is page 1, but there’s a -2- at the bottom of the same page.
There’s a handwritten notification on the upper right corner, but it doesnt
look like H-H. If it is suppose to be Himmler’s initial, I would like first
to compare with another document (genuine) were Himmler signed but I dont
know were to find actually, most of the libraries here a closed during the
working hours till the mid august. The initials(?) looks like a very simple
draw, something that I would say easy to forge. Some signatures are complex,
impossible to forge, but if we talk about initials, depends the way someone
signed. But I’m not an expert in graphology.
I’ve send and email 2 days ago to A.Butz, Greg Raven, R. Widmann and Jeff
to have an opinion, but up to now, no answer. I don’t know if it is possible
to proceed to an authentification with some graphologic test, with 10 or
15 sample (the same initials that some people would try to forge) and a
genuine document initial by Himmler. If no one can do a forgery that is not
detect and that such initials appear to be the right ones, than I would
accept this document as genuine. I suppose that it is not easy to do, even
on a photocopy but actually since the initials appear to be on a relevant
page, I’m curious to know if it is easy to forge this small handwritten
notification or not.
In any normal trial, such a thing would have to be done but since we talk
about Nuremberg, evidently the threasold to accept a document as genuine
was very low.
Post and email
From [email protected] Sat Aug 3 07:03:38 PDT 1996
Article: 55084 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!
laslo.netnet.net!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!nntp04.primenet.com!
news.shkoo.com!nntp.primenet.com!winternet.com!n1ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!
tor.istar!east.istar!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!
Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Wetzel Writes Lohse About The ‘Gassing Apparatuses’
Date: 2 Aug 1996 04:18:52 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne42.vir.com
[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>
# Wetzel wasn’t accused at any of the Nuremberg trials and the
# timid attempts to judge him didn’t get any results: the trials
# never materialized.
>He was tried by the Germans. Gerald Fleming writes about
>it in “Hitler and the Final Solution”. He never denied,
>of course, writing the letter.
He wasn’t even prosecute at Nuremberg and seems to had a special immunity
for years after. Some trials were postponed and if you have any indication
that he was a day sentence to something, let me know. Of course he didn’t deny
writting this letter: this can explain his luck over 20 years, don’t you
think?
# Do you have any evidence that this letter was ever sent?
> Let me guess – you’re going to say he wrote it because
> of his “morbid sense of humor”? This is what “leading
> revisionist scholar”, Matt Giwer, wrote about the
> mention of “gas chamber” and “gassing cellar” in the
> Birkenau crematoriums.
No, but you have not a proof of anything with that. He was captured by the
soviets and if he was torture like Hoess, or either if he feared that he could
be, than this letter is nothing special. I’ve not to proove that intimidation
was used against each german: as soon as it is proove that intimidation was
used against several, with a totalitarian state as USSR, than you can multiply
by 1,000 those kind of ‘proofs’ they are not showing your point more.
From [email protected] Mon Aug 5 07:04:55 PDT 1996
Article: 55405 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!
usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!nntp.coast.net!nntp.primenet.com!
winternet.com!n1ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!tor.istar!east.istar!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!news.interlink.net!
Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: A revisionist FAQ (1) (Repost)
Date: 4 Aug 1996 23:17:08 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 312
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne19.vir.com
Thanks to Alexander Baron, who revided the text (my english is not perfect)
and gave me several suggestions for this FAQ and the 2 pages that follow.
CREMATORIA
The first section of this FAQ deals with crematoria in Birkenau. The
Revisionist claim is usually supported by the affirmations of Ivan Legace,
a crematory operator from Calgary who has been subjected to smear attacks
>from the Holocaust lobby in alt.revisionism. I hadn’t really the time to
involve myself on this topic, I’m working 40 hours a week, and I’ve no
connection with the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which can raise billions of
dollars for the construction of Holocaust Museums. However, I never heard
about any crematory operator who was produced in a court case by the Ho-
locaust lobby to support the claim that 4 bodies can be reduced to ashes
in 30 or 45 minutes in a crematory oven. My first knowledge of the topic
was limited, than I got an interview with M. Marc Poirier (Funeral House
Magnus Poirier, Montreal) and a phone interview with a chemist who is main-
taining several crematoria in Quebec. Later, I got several phone interviews:
with M. Denis, from ‘Incineration Plus’ (Montreal); S. Ouellet (Urgel Bour-
gie Funeral House, Montreal); J. Choiniere, Crematorium d’Arche (Longueuil);
a man from ‘le Cimetiere du Bas du Fleuve’; M. Cloutier, from Le Cremato-
rium Mont-Royal.
The first thing that must be said is that Auschwitz crematoria were
operating at 800 degrees Celcius approximately, according to the annex of
an anti-Revisionist book, “Les chambres a gaz ont exist‚”, by G. Wellers.
An annex to the book shows the source: report of the Polish War Crime In-
vestigation Commission and Jan Sehn. This communist commission claimed
right after the war that the Nazis were able to cremate 3 or 4 people in
20 or 30 minutes per oven at a temperature of about 800 degrees. Cremato-
ries were not operating at 1,200 to 1,600 degrees like today’s crematoria
in those days; they were less technologically developed.
The first thing that must be said is that nowhere was I told that the
cremation took less than about 2 hours for a normal body. The range was
between two hours to two and a half hours. To that one must add a pre-
hea ting period of 30 minutes for the first cremation of the day. A Cana-
dian law states that the after-burner region must have a temperature above
1000 degrees Celsius before beginning the cremation. The after-burner is a
part of the structure where a little wall slows down the evacuation of the
combustion products and where a flame is applied to those ones. The purpose
is simply to burn the remains of the primary combustion and avoid the ex-
pulsion of pollutants into the atmosphere.
In the case of the Auschwitz ovens, we are told that the period of
operation was limited in the time: the Krema 1 at Auschwitz 1 (six ovens)
was just sufficient to dispose the bodies of the inmates who died from or-
dinary causes (typhus, other diseases) and the main crematoria of Birkenau
started to work only after February 1943. It was also documented by the
anti-Revisionist write Jean-Claude Pressac that those crematoria were sub-
jected to several breakdowns, especially Kremas 4 and 5 but also the other
two. One of the two latest was shut down finally in the same year but even
the other one stopped operating for several weeks in miscellaneous situa-
tions. The Auschwitz camp was evacuated in January 1945. Normally a crema-
tory must be cleaned up and is not operating 24 hours a day. Nevertheless,
the claim nowadays is that about a million people died in Auschwitz-Birkenau
and that most of them were cremated there. According to the latest version
of the Nizkor FAQ: more than 700,000 in Kremas 2 and 3. These had 15 ovens
each, the crematorium buildings 4 and 5 had 8 ovens each. All of that in
less than 18 months, with several breakdowns.
My inquiry gave me the possibility to learn also the average quantity
of air that is evacuated from a crematory in Quebec: about 625 cubic feet
per minute, or 1400 cubic metres per hour. In the case of the Auschwitz
ovens, the figure that can be derived from the data present in “Anatomy Of
A Death Camp” is about 2,000 cubic metres per oven. In that case, we have
a figure of 33% less air that is applied to the corpse in a crematory here,
but also a figure for a temperature that is 75% higher. The claim that a
body could be cremated in 30 minutes is difficult to support with physical
evidence here.
Multiple corpses in an oven:
The Auschwitz ovens dimensions were about 1 metre in diameter, and se-
veral corpses were allegedly incinerated at a time to increase their effi-
ciency. Everywhere I was told that the cremation of a body is directly re-
lated to the volume which is occupied. A normal corpse takes between two
hours to two and a half hours to be cremated, an extremely obese corpse much
more time, and the lower limit that the chemist and those crematory opera-
tors knew was about an hour and a quarter. In some other countries, the
cremation time seems to be faster (there are few variables on which one can
play) since some Revisionists have already given figures like 1 hour 30
minutes for a normal body. In that case, the oxygen intake is probably hi-
gher. The ratio surface/volume to burn is also one of the factor that in-
fluences the faster cremation. The combustion of the corpse is just the
oxidation of its molecules with the oxygen that is brought into the muffle.
An analogy could be drawn with the combustion of a log: cutting it into thin
slices will reduce the combustion time. In the case of the Birkenau ovens,
packing the muffles would result in a drastic drop in the air intakes. The
heads and shoulders of the corpses would stop the path of air molecules and
fewer could reach the most important part of the body that is offering a
large surface: the trunk.
A good analogy is that of a window you open lightly to let air in. Since
there’s little space available, several corpses piled up in the muffle would
not allow a maximisation of the surface that it offers to oxygen: abdomens
would be in contact with backs, etc…Cremation specialists often use the
equivalent in pounds to estimate the cremation time, they use datas like ‘a
150 pounds body’ or a ‘250 pounds body’, etc…
Nizkor claim that emaciated corpses wouldn’t take as much time to cremate,
and this is true, however they ignore the fact that most of the Jews allegedly
gassed were supposelly killed upon arrival. Photos of new inmates who arrived
at Auschwitz do exist (1) and these, contrarily to the Jews who were victims
of typhus and shortage over months in camps at the end of the war have nothing
in common with famished-looking persons. It is 90 % of the persons allegedly
cremated in the Holocaust story. There is also an attempt to use the argument
that most of the victims were children, but this is plainly wrong: a simple
study that uses the lists that are provided by the Holocaust lobby itself
(eg Danuta Czech in “Auschwitz Chronicle”) shows that the children among the
victims could not account for more than 20%.
The best way to cremate a million Jews was simply to built more cremato-
ria. The author Arthur Butz gave a wonderful parallel several years ago that
must be summarise (2):
There are two tables which are available for the crematory ovens. Most of the
deaths in Germany’s camps occurred at the end of the war when the chaotic con-
ditions of the defeat created large scale shortages and boosted the mortality
rate, according to mortality statistics that the SS were using for those camps
(the documentation related to the official mortality rate, registration books
and so on were seized by the Allies). On the other hand, most of the deaths in
Auschwitz occurred during the summer of 1942-1943 with typhus epidemics. It is
said usually, even on the Nizkor site, that the majority of Jews who were de-
ported to Auschwitz were not registered, and vanished without trace because
the Germans didn’t record their names in their files, they gassed them on
arrival. Only the Jews who died from ordinary death were registered in the
death book. Jews who were sent to other camps were not tattooed.
At the end of 1942 a campaign was launched by Himmler to fight typhus and,
as he stated in a letter, to reduce the mortality rate at ‘any cost’ (3). On
January 20, 1943 Gluecks, inspector of the camps, in a circular addressed to
all the Commandants of Nazi camps, ordered them to fight the too high mortali-
ty rate ‘with all the available means’. Other documents (4) attest of this
exchange between Pohl, Himmler and Glucks on that topic and one could also
find a more accesible source about this campaign by reading Reitlinger, _The
Final Solution_, First edition, page 127.
On September 30, 1943 Pohl was able to report progress in a letter to
Himmler. What is interesting is that he provides the statistics about mortali-
ty rates in miscellaneous camps: from July 1942 to February 1943 the mortality
rate was about 8% while it dropped to 2.8% in June 1943. An interesting aspect
is the August month:
August 1943
population death %
Dachau 17,300 40 0.23
Sachsenhausen 26,500 194 0.73
Buchenwald 17,600 118 0.67
Mauthausen 21,100 290 1.37
Auschwitz 74,000 2380 3.1
etc….
Again, exterminated Jews in gas chambers are not included in this internal
correspondence. If we look at mortality rates due to natural causes we can see
that the number of ovens is almost comparable with camps where there is no ex-
termination claim. In 1942, crematoria were constructed in Dachau and Sachen-
hausen: each had 4 ovens. At Dachau there were 2 ovens before 1942 (samething
for Sachsenhausen). At Buchenwald there were six. In Auschwitz the number of
ovens was between 30 and 46, depending on the period. The number of inmates
grew to 100,000 at the end of 1943.
But there’s another way: Dachau and Buchenwald wee in Germany and as ‘non-
extermination’ camps, they can be used for the comparison if we want to see
the intention of the Germans when they launched the construction of crematoria
rather than when they were functional and compare it with the death rate there.
In the previous case, Auschwitz seems a bit better equipped with crematoria
than the other camps if we take into account the mortality rate, but if we
look back at the moment when the decision to build crematoria was taken, here
we get even a lower proportion of crematoria/death record for Auschwitz than
for camps in Germany, sometimes by a factor of two.
If we just take the year 1942, 45,575 inmates died in Auschwitz and 2,470
in Dachau (5). But it is at this moment that the SS launched the construction
of most of the crematoria, so we can have a clear idea of what they had in the
mind: Auschwitz was half as well equipped with crematoria as Dachau, according
to normal death figures, probably for budgetary constraints.
The main reasons for the high death rates in Birkenau were the typhus epi-
demics of 1942-1943 for which Germans lost the control and also the fact that
many sick inmates were shipped to Birkenau, according to documents (it was,
indeed a death camp).
Permanent use?
I will add an observation here: if we are told that the crematories were
operating 24 hours a day, than we will need to substract 4 days from that.
The worst period of the extermination process, according to the legend, is
the summer of 1944, when 300,000 to 400,000 Hungarian Jews were allegedly
liquidated and cremated in Auschwitz in two months (6). The story is that
thousands of bodies were burned in open pits since even the ‘fantastic’ cre-
matoria of Auschwitz were not able to dispose of 5,000 to 10,000 bodies a day.
And in that story, the crematoria were working 24 hours a day over this period
also. It was normal for the U.S. Air force to take photos of a target before
and after the bombardment. Before, to evaluate the defense, after, to evaluate
the damaged. The I.G. Farben industrial complex of Auschwitz-Monowitz was
bombed at the end of the summer, and 4 photos, taken by U.S. airplanes, give
a picture of Birkenau during this critical period: The May 31, 1944, the June
26, 1944, the August 25, 1944 and the September 13, 1944. In none of the pho-
tos can one see any trace of thousands of bodies burned in open pits. Morever,
on the 4 photos, there is no smoke released by the crematoria chimneys! (7).
Nizkor do not use those air photos, but rather a classical one:
> in massive pits. Two gruesome photographs of these “burning pits”, taken
> in secrecy in Auschwitz-Birkenau, have survived. They are of reasonable
> quality, and show men standing by a pile of naked bodies, with the smoking
> pit in front of them. Some bodies are being dragged into the pit. The pho-
> tographs are reproduced by Pressac.
This photo was allegedly taken in Birkenau, but it could have been taken
anywhere else in Europe; no detail on the photo allows the reader to know
where it was taken.
The fuel:
The average quantity of fuel that is necessary to burn a body in a crema-
torium today is about 23 cubic metres of natural gas, or the equivalent of 30
to 35 kg of coke if we convert with calorimetric data. In the 20s, things were
not different, and since the author J.C. Pressac reproduces the documents that
deal with coke deliveries to Auschwitz-Birkenau ( A.T.O., 1989 ), it is possible
to estimate approximately the number of people who were cremated there. 2,200
tons of coke, or the equivalent of 70,000 to 100,000 persons if we account for
a proportion of 20% children. The coke shipments to Birkenau give a figure that
matches almost perfectly the death registers of the camp.
The documents:
There are very few documents that are normally adduced to ‘prove’ that Birke-
nau’s crematoria were able to dispose of so many people, most of the ‘proofs’
are based on post-war eyewitness testimonies. However, it is not bad to look
at the 2 main ones:
The Jahring document (28 June, 1943) says that the 52 muffles of Auschwitz-
Birkenau were able to reduce to ashes 4,756 corpses per day with a 24 hour a
day operation. The date of the document matches the period when several major
breakdowns were affecting Birkenau’s crematoria (the SS were trying desperately
to repair it at that time, as Pressac documented). The origin of the document
is the ‘Committee of the Anti-fascist Resistance of the German Democratic Repu-
blic. There was no reason for the SS to claim such an output at the moment that
they had so many difficulties with those crematoria: this document is a forgery.
Morever, in another document reproduce on page 224 the crematoria operated only
12 hours a day. One could check in ‘A.T.O’ where Pressac reproduce this one:
Jahring’s signature is completelly different than the signature we can
find on other documents signed by him (on the coke consumption).
Morever, the ‘Jahring document’ was miraculously discovered in 1981,
in eastern Germany, when revisionism became more popular.
There was no expertise about the signature that appear on it: if one look in A.T.O
and compare with other documents signed by him, it’s easy to guess why.
Another document that is used on the anti-Revisionist side: ‘Fritz Sander
and Paul Erdmann, Prufer’s superiors at Topf, estimated an output of 30 to 36
bodies in 10 hours […]’ (8). The reference is Weimar, LK 6451, letter Topf
July 14, 1941.
According to the rest of the text, the best I could understand is that this
was a double muffle furnace. In Pressac’s book there are several references to
contract invoices, and not only for Auschwitz: it seems that Pressac had access
to a huge amount of letters and documentation that were written over 10 years,
the number of quotations about the crematoria is impressive. I would not be
surprised if he met several references to lower cremation output in those let-
ters.
Nevertheless, the documents that are usually used to ‘prove’ those crematoria
output are rare: 2 or 3. It is possible that this letter exaggerates the outputs
a bit for ‘selling purposes’. It is said too that the first cremation was car-
ried on only on August 15, 1941 with that furnace. This means simply that this
claim in the letter, probably, was not based on something that was observed but
on an hypothetically optimistic estimate. In short, it is worthless.
Notes And References
(1) The Auschwitz Album
(2) “The Hoax of the Twentieth Century”, by Arthur Butz, 360
pages, published by the Institute for Historical Review, P.O. Box
2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659 U.S.A.
(3) (document 2172-PS, Reitlinger, “The Final Solution”, First edition, page 127).
(4) (1469-PS, NMT, Volume V, page 372)
(5) Butz, page 378
(6) “Debunking the Genocide Myth: A Study of the Nazi Concentration Camps and
the Alleged Extermination of European Jewry”, Introduction by Pierre Hofstet-
ter, Translated from the French by Adam Robbins, published by the Institute
for Historical Review, (1978), page 246.
(7) “Air Photo Evidence”, John Ball, Samizdat Publishers, 206
Carlton Street Toronto, Canada M5A-2L1. [Around 10$ US plus ship-
ment, (416) 922-9850].
(8) (Anatomy of a Death Camp, page 189).
From [email protected] Mon Aug 5 11:55:47 PDT 1996
Article: 55460 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in3.uu.net!newsflash.concordia.ca!
news.nstn.ca!ott.istar!istar.net!tor.istar!east.istar!newsjunkie.ans.net!
newsfeeds.ans.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!news.interlink.net!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Lagace’s testimony
Date: 4 Aug 1996 22:31:06 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 279
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne31.vir.com
IVAN LAGACÆ’[
Ivan Lagace was the fourteenth witness called by the defence. He
testified on Tuesday, April 5 and Wednesday, April 6, 1988.] Ivan LagacŽ was
tendered as an expert in the practical aspects of crematorium practices. LagacŽ
worked as a professional embalmer-funeral director, and crematory manager and
operator at the Bow Valley Crematorium in Calgary, Alberta. He had completed the
two and a half year Funeral Services programme at Humber College in Ontario and
in 1979 obtained his diploma and Ontario license. In 1983 he obtained his
Alberta license. (27-7383, 7393; qualified to give opinion evidence at
27-7394)) Lagace testified that while a crematoria business required licensing, the
personnel themselves required no licence or certification. This applied to Canada, the
United States and Mexico. Crematorium operators were trained by factory
representatives in the operation of the equipment. Most operators were members of the
Cremationists Association of North America, a self-governing association which
sets voluntary standards for crematorium operation. (27-7384, 7385) In the
course of his career, Lagace had dealt with over 10,000 bodies in his work and had
cremated over 1,000 bodies. The work involved bodies in a variety of physical
conditions, from accident and fire victims to people who died of highly
contagious diseases. (27-7385, 7386)Cremation Process With the use of a flow schematic
drawing, Lagace explained the three basic processes of cremation which applied
to any crematorium built from 1800 onwards. In the first stage, the human
remains (referred to by crematory operators as the “fuel”) were placed in the main
ignition chamber. The body could be in a container such as a casket or not, but
it was definitely easier to burn the body without a container because there was
less fuel to burn. Although it depended on the design of the unit, the body
would usually be placed through the loading door feet first. (27-7396, 7397, 7398)
At that point, the heat source was employed, most modern crematories using
gas-fired or oil-fired burners. The fuel (human remains) was ignited.
Temperatures became extremely hot, normally reaching 2,000 degrees, and depending upon the
fuel, could go as high as 2,250 degrees Fahrenheit. (27-7399) From the main
ignition chamber, the gasses were sucked at a high velocity into a mixing chamber
and thereafter through a series of baffles until the gasses were finally
expelled outside through a tall stack. The main purpose of the mixing chamber and
baffles was the elimination of any smoke or odour emissions. The baffles achieved
this by forcing the escaping gasses through a series of twists and turns,
creating turbulence or mixture. A secondary burner could be employed at this point
to burn off any remaining gasses and smoke particles, but, LagacŽ explained, it
was not usually necessary. Because of the high temperatures, all that was
needed to be introduced was more oxygen. This induced a secondary burn within the
after-burner portion of the crematory unit. (27-7399, 7400) Cremation reduced
the human remains to calcium. These particles were sucked from the cremation
chamber into a space called the settling chamber. Because of the larger size of the
settling chamber, the vacuum pressure dropped, causing the calcium
particulates to fall down. LagacŽ explained that the settling chamber filled rather
quickly and, depending on the number of cremations, had to be checked regularly and
cleaned at least once a month. Most crematoria usually maintained a log of
clean-ups. As a result of these processes, nothing but clean hot air escaped up the
stack. (27-7400 to 7402) LagacŽ testified that because of Bow Valley
Crematorium’s extremely high stack, 45 feet versus the normal 15 feet, a high velocity
draft was created drawing very large volumes of oxygen into the cremation
chamber. The more oxygen that was provided, the higher the temperatures would go. As a
result, crematory temperatures were passing 2,200 degrees Fahrenheit,
exceeding the tolerance level of the bricks. This caused Bow Valley’s refractory to
fail, requiring re-bricking of the entire machine besides the stack itself. (27-740
(27-7402, 7403) Nevertheless, because of its high stack, the Bow Valley Crematorium
was the hottest, and therefore, the fastest crematory in operation in North
America, with the capacity to cremate one adult human body in a minimum time of an
hour and a half under optimum circumstances. Children took much less time to
cremate simply because of their smaller size. Bodies with a moderate amount of
fat were easier to cremate than skinny people. Fat was a good fuel which ignited
instantly upon exposure to the flame. A tremendous surge of heat would result,
actually aiding in the cremation process. A person with no fat on their body
was very “stubborn” fuel to burn because it consisted mainly of wet tissues.
(27-7405, 7406, 7407) The torso was the most difficult part of the human body to
cremate because of its bulk and thickness. (27-7426) After the initial surge of
heat from the ignition of body fat, the temperature in the retort would drop to
around 1,900 degrees and would remain at that level until the cremation was at
least 80 percent complete. Thereafter, the temperature further declined to
about 1,600 degrees until the end of the cremation cycle. (27-7425, 7426) Lagace
next took the jury through the Operations of Cremation Equipment Manual which
set out operating procedures for crematories. The manual warned the operator, for
the first case of the day, to “check and see that the ash tray is installed in
the ash pit” and warned that “failure to have the ash tray installed can
cause/or result in fire outside the Retort!” (27-7407: Manual filed as Exhibit 105
at 27-7422) ) LagacŽ explained the importance of this procedure, especially in
the case of obese cases, where incomplete combustion of body fats occurred. In
such an event, the burning body fats dripped into the waterproof ash pan and
continued to burn there. If the ash pan wasn’t there, however, the fluid would
leak outside of the retort and cause a fire outside the crematory. (27-7407, 7408)
After checking for the ash pan, an operator started the preheat cycle for the
afterburn chamber. This chamber was heated to create or establish the draft in
the stack. The preheat cycle took approximately twenty minutes to reach 800
degrees Fahrenheit. After the preheating, the fuel (human remains) was introduced
into the ignition chamber on rollers, the main burner ignited and the cremation
process commenced. (27-7408, 7409, 7410) LagacŽ pointed out that the Manual
contained the warning that: “Use of any metal type roller will cause excessive
wear on the floor tile and shorten the life period of the floor tile.” He
explained that the refractory tiles used on the floor of the ignition chamber tended
to wear out very quickly because of the wear and tear of the rollers and because
this was where the fuel ignited and burned. LagacŽ himself had worn out floor
titles after only 250 cremations by using metal rollers. Once the wear started
it was extremely difficult to stop. (27-7410, 7411) To repair the unit in such
circumstances the operator had to cease operation of the retort, allow the
machine 48 hours of cooling down time with the door fully open, and preferably with
a fan flowing through the machine. The bricks or tiling then had to be
removed and new ones cemented. The average life expectancy of floor refractory was
1,500 cremations. The bricks of the retort’s walls and ceilings were rated for
3,000 cremations while the bricks of the afterburn chamber were rated for roughly
2,000 cremations. (27-7411) The time to cremate a human being (the cremation
cycle) took an average of two hours. After the first cremation of the day was
completed, the operator must let the retort cool-down for a minimum of one hour
before beginning the second case. After the second cremation, a cool-down period
of at least two hours was required. Even with cool-down times, LagacŽ
testified that cremations could not be done “24 hours a day, round the clock, day after
day…the refractory will not tolerate it.” Factory recommendation for normal
operation was a maximum of three cases per day in a normal eight hour work day.
No more than 50 – 60 cases should be processed in any month so that the
refractory life was prolonged. That was an average of 2 cases a day. (27-7412 to 7415;
There was no way to speed up this process, LagacŽ testified,
without effecting the refractory brick and endangering the life of the operator. If
no cool-down period was allowed between cremations, the temperature would go
out of control and probably exceed the 2,200 degrees Fahrenheit rated for the
bricks. This would cause excessive spalling, or flaking, of the bricks. Secondly,
the operator could not safely open a retort having an internal temperature of
2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. “I have to allow for cool-down time, for my safety,”
said LagacŽ, “and to bring the temperature in the retort to a point where there
is safe loading of the next case.” (27-7412, 7413) LagacŽ testified that he had
“burned my hair and my face often enough to learn that I don’t attempt to open
the door when the temperatures are excessive. It just can’t be done, unless
perhaps you are wearing a full asbestos suit. From my experience with asbestos
garment, they prevent flame from contacting you, but they still get very hot.”
(27-7414) LagacŽ emphasized the real dangers involved if the cool-down periods
were not followed. If an operator attempted to introduce a body into the retort
when temperatures were still excessive, a “flash ignition” could occur whereby
the body would ignite before it was fully introduced into the retort. In such a
case, the operator would be engulfed in flames from the burning body and would
be unable to close the door to the retort. To put it simply, he said, “you can
basically walk away and watch your building burn down.” (27-7415, 7416) You can
introduced a sample brick into evidence which the jury was allowed to handle.
The brick was extremely light and brittle making it an extremely good insulator,
insulator, but also very delicate: “I could take an ordinary handsaw and cut it in
half.” The brick was able to withstand 2,600 degrees Fahrenheit, and was therefore a
little better than the average firebrick. (27-7422, 7423, 7424; brick entered
as Exh. 106 at 27-7423) In a new crematory, the new refractory brick had to be
cured or dried out during a break-in cycle of one cremation per day for 25
days. If this number was exceeded, refractory failure would certainly be caused.
(27-7428) During normal cremations, there was some flaking of brick, wearing it
from the inside to the outside. If the brick was overheated, however, it would
simply crack along its length to about one half of its depth, thereby causing
premature failure. In such a case, the fire would not be contained within the
retort and the metal superstructure, which supported the retort, would buckle.
Eventually, testified LagacŽ, the retort would collapse and a fire would occur
outside the cremation chamber. (27-7424, 7425) During cool-down, LagacŽ shut down
the natural gas burner used to fire the crematory and pumped air through the
chamber. Older furnaces, he said, had been coal-fired, and had been difficult to
cool down simply because the operators could not shut the heat off: “Once coal
is burning, unless you remove it, the heat is still being produced.” Coal-fired
furnaces thus prevented any quick cool-down to occur and in fact required
“enormous amounts” of time to cool. (27-7426)Birkenau Crematories LagacŽ testified
that the plans for the Birkenau crematory indicated that it had been built to
almost the exact specifications of the Bow Valley Crematorium. Using an
overhead of the Birkenau plan, LagacŽ pointed out the crematory’s cremation chamber,
the flame port, the smoke channel and settling chamber and the afterburner. He
testified that it was obvious that the Germans were concerned with environmental
effects. (27-7430) LagacŽ found the most amazing and unique part of the
Birkenau crematory to be the stack, calculated to be 45 feet high, and therefore very
similar to Bow Valley Crematorium’s stack. In LagacŽ’s opinion, the rate of
burn of the Birkenau unit would be as efficient but not more than his own unit in
Calgary. (27-7432) The only technology difference that LagacŽ could see
between his own crematory and those of Birkenau was the burner section. LagacŽ’s as
crematory used a natural gas burner while Birkenau used a stoking system with coal
or something of a similar nature. The technology of LagacŽ’s crematory allowed
him to shut the gas off for cooling. Coal was very cumbersome in that regard
and this would affect the time limit since the operator could not go through a
cooling cycle as quickly. (27-7450) LagacŽ was shown a photograph of one of the
Birkenau crematories taken during the war and asked if the units looked familiar
to his own crematory. LagacŽ agreed that they were. He indicated, however,
that the Birkenau retorts had been built in units of three with common walls
between them. This would have eliminated the need for extra bricks and been much
easier and quicker to construct. However, he noted, “should one of these need to
be maintained or need any repairs, it would necessitate the shutdown of the
other two [retorts]…attached to it, because you can’t have temperatures of 2,000
degrees radiating into an area where you’re working on another retort.” LagacŽ
believed that this design would never be used in a modern crematory simply
because, as a business, it could not afford to have a shutdown of three units if
one broke down. (27-7438, 7439)Holocaust Claims of Numbers ofCremations at
Auschwitz-Birkenau: LagacŽ was asked to comment on the claims made by Raul Hilberg in
The Destruction of the European Jews (2nd ed., page 978) with respect to the
capacities of the 46 retorts in the four crematories at Birkenau. Hilberg
claimed: The theoretical daily capacity of the four Birkenau crematoria was somewhat o
over 4,400, but, with breakdowns and slowdowns, the practical limit was almost
always lower. LagacŽ stated that this claim was “preposterous” and “beyond the
realm of reality.” To claim that 46 retorts could cremate over 4,400 bodies in
a day was “ludicrous.” Based on his own experience, LagacŽ testified that it
would only have been possible to cremate a maximum of 184 bodies a day at
Birkenau. (27-7436, 7437, 7438) LagacŽ was referred to page 17 of Did Six Million Reall
Really Die? where Harwood stated: Â¥ Although Reitlinger’s 6,000 a day would mean a
total by October 1944 of over 5 million, all such estimates pale before the
wild fantasies of Olga Lengyel in her book Five Chimneys (London, 1959). Claiming
to be a former inmate of Auschwitz, she asserts that the camp cremated no less
than “720 per hour, or 17,280 corpses per twenty-four hour shift.” She also
alleges that, in addition, 8,000 people were burned every day in the “death-pits”,
and that therefore “In round numbers, about 24,000 corpses were handled every
day” (p. 80-1). This, of course, would mean a yearly rate of over 8-1/2
million. Thus between March 1942 and October 1944 Auschwitz would finally have
disposed of over 21 million people, six million more than the entire world Jewish
population. Comment is superfluous. LagacŽ testified that from his own experience
in cremating approximately 1,000 bodies, the figures cited by Reitlinger and
Lengyel were not realistic. The person citing such figures, he said, was,
“irresponsible… with his facts because this doesn’t even begin to enter reality at
all. It’s just physically unrealistic.” LagacŽ said that even with present
disaster plans, which provide for massive mobilization and the handling of large
numbers of human remains, it would be “unimaginable” to cremate such numbers.
(27-7447) Under the disaster plans of LagacŽ’s association, bodies would be
transported from a disaster scene to a local temporary morgue, which usually would be
the nearest arena and the bodies placed on the ice. The person orchestrating
the actions of the crematory managers would be the medical examiner. At his
instructions, after he had completed any investigations, the bodies would be removed
from the temporary facilities and normal funeralization would proceed. If all
corpses were to be cremated, the bodies would have to be placed in refrigerated
storage to allow time to cremate. (27-7448, 7449) LagacŽ referred to the 1985
issue of a statistical sheet compiled yearly by the Cremation Association of
North America, showing the numbers of retorts located on the continent and the
number of cremations done annually. The statistics indicated that in 1985, there
were a total of 338,370 bodies cremated in 931 crematories in North America. In
Canada alone, a total of 49,216 cremations were performed in 94 crematories.
(27-7432, 7433, 7434)Open Air Burning: LagacŽ testified that he had observed the
results of burning people in the open in a case involving a homicide where the
murderer had attempted to burn the remains of his victim with gasoline in an
open area in the woods of northern Ontario. He had been unable to do so. Human
bodies did not burn completely in open spaces. In 90 percent of the cases, it
would be the epidermis or the skin that would be charred; maybe perhaps the limbs
would be burnt, but the torso was very difficult to cremate. It took high
temperatures over a prolonged period of time in order to fully cremate a human
being. (27-7441) Moreover, an open air burning would require far more fuel. In a
retort there was a controlled optimum atmosphere. In open air, heat constantly
escaped so that it was very difficult to concentrate all the heat into one area.
(27-7446)Decomposition of Corpses and Handling ofTyphus Infected Corpses:
LagacŽ testified that there would be a problem with decomposition if bodies were
left for a period of one to two days. Upon death, the body’s defence systems shut
down, leaving any bacteria or viruses in the body “a free rein to wreak their
havoc.” There was a rise in the body temperature and gasses began to be
produced. Within hours to a day, bloating caused by tissue gas would cause, for
example, a leg to quadruple in its size. It would be an extremely unpleasant and
dangerous situation if contagious diseases were involved. Tissue gas was highly
contagious and adhered to any equipment such as the floor, the tables, any
instruments used on the bodies. (27-7443, 7444) LagacŽ described the procedures
enforced by the Alberta government in the case of corpses infected with typhus. At his
discretion, the medical officer of health may step in before the body is even
removed from the hospital and specify and order the funeral home to follow
certain procedures in dealing with the body. These included the wearing of
protective clothing when handling the remains, the destruction of that clothing and the
containers that the body was placed in. In a case of typhus, the medical
officer would likely order a direct cremation as this was the most effective way of
dealing with something that volatile. If the body was buried, it had to be
encased in a hermetically sealed container which would last over a prolonged period
of time and only when the soil conditions allowed this, in order to avoid
contamination of the water-table or underground streams. (27-7444, 7445)
Cross-Examinination:
In response to a question by Judge Thomas, LagacŽ testified that there
were six retorts in Calgary, a city with a population of about 650,000; the
ratio thus being roughly one retort for every 100,000 persons. Crown counsel
Pearson asked LagacŽ that if this ratio was applied to the 46 retorts at Birkenau,
the number would be 4.6 million. LagacŽ agreed. (27-7452 to 7454) Crown counsel
suggested to Lagace that when he ran his crematory he did so in conformity with
Alberta law, conscious of ecology, operating the facility with the safety of
employees as a paramount consideration with a view to maximizing profit and
minimizing costs, and maximizing the life of the equipment by minimizing wear and
tear. Lagace agreed. He also agreed that he had no experience operating in a
system that placed no legal restrictions on how many bodies could be cremated,
that had as its goal, not profit, but simply disposing of as many bodies as
possible. (27-7454 to 7456) Wasn’t it true, asked Pearson, that many facilities such
as municipal garbage disposal facilities or blast furnaces had furnaces that
ran continually? Lagace replied that he was not familiar with blast furnaces or
other such facilities and had not enquired into their operation. As to his
knowledge of ceramics, he testified that the thermocouple, a giant thermometer used
in the crematory to record temperatures, was encased in ceramic but had to be
changed about every 1,000 cremations because the ceramic would burn out.
(27-7456, 7457) Lagace agreed that he was very surprised that the Birkenau crematory
was a facility which rivalled the Calgary operation as far as efficiency and
design were concerned. He agreed that Auschwitz was forty years ahead of its time
when it came to cremating. (27-7458) On re-examination, LagacŽ testified that
there had not been any typhus epidemics in Calgary recently. He agreed that any
economic motivation he might have did not affect his capacity to complete
cremations. (27-7458, 7459)
From [email protected] Mon Aug 5 11:55:50 PDT 1996
Article: 55462 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
nntp.teleport.com!news.structured.net!news.uoregon.edu!hunter.premier.net!
news.cais.net!nntp.primenet.com!winternet.com!n1ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!
tor.istar!east.istar!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!
news.interlink.net!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Auschwitz, a secret?(1) repost
Date: 5 Aug 1996 01:26:16 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 151
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne56.vir.com
Thanks to Alexander Baron, who revided the first page of the text to
correct grammatical errors
First of all, the usual statement that the Germans have tried to keep secret
their extermination policy is completely ridiculous. This ‘attempt to preserve
the secret’ is often used to explain why the high level German documents
captured by the Allies refer to the ‘Final Solution’ as a program for the
expulsion of the Jews from Europe.
The Auschwitz complex was built close to an important agglomeration. Many ci-
vilians worked there during the day and went home in the evening. On page 62
of his 1993 study ‘Les Crematoires d’Auschwitz’, the anti-Revisionist author
Jean-Claude Pressac (who uses German documents) writes: “For the Birkenau
cremator- ies, the Germans gave the contracts to 12 civilian enterprises […]
Each working site was employed between 100 and 150 workers, a third of them
civilians.” The number of ovens was growing with years with the expansion of
the camp, and the maintenance was unavoidable. Auschwitz was critical for the
Allies: Synthetic rubber production was important for the Americans, and it is
not surprising that many air photo missions concerning this camp took place.
The huge backwardness of the Americans concerning the fabrication of synthetic
rubber after the lost of their usual source in Malaysia in 1941-42 didn’t permit
them any choice: they had to know everything about Auschwitz, and there’s no
doubt that they took measures to pick up as much information as possible. We
know, that the Americans had broken the German military codes. Over two and a
half years there was no mention of mass gassing in any intercept in spite of
the Germans being unaware that their codes had been cracked.
But there is even more, in ‘The Terrible Secret’, the Jewish historian Walter
Laqueur gives some hints in spite of being no manner of Revisionist. From him
we learn (page 25), that Auschwitz was an archipelago, that thousands of
inmates were frequently shipped to annex camps, mixed with civilians across
Silesia, that hundreds of civilians were working at Auschwitz 1, that journa-
lists were travelling freely in this region…This is the same author who says
that there were hundreds of liberations in 1942-4, among them several Jews
(page 169). But also there were hundreds of escapes in those years!
In ‘The Final Solution’, Reitlinger talks also of a a radio receiver that was
active in the inmate barracks over a period of months. Admiral Canaris, chief
of the counter-spying agency of the Third Reich, was a double agent. He gave
much information to the Allies during the war, but said nothing about alleged
mass liquidations at Auschwitz.
There was organised resistance in the camps. Groups of communists, Jews and
others were able to send information out of the camp. A fairly accurate picture
of this resistance is given by the book ‘Fighting Auschwitz’.
As stated, it was impossible for the Germans to avoid some contacts between
the inmates and the local population. Many Poles were, indeed, members of the
resistance, and some inmates had conversations with local populations when they
were brought out of Auschwitz to execute miscellaneous labour tasks. Sometimes
these civilians hid food and for the inmates. Often, the SS in charge of the
commandos were faking ignorance about those things in exchange for food or
gifts. (See for example Garlinski, ‘Fighting Auschwitz’, pages 43-5). The
contacts with the local population were developed in such a way that letters
and parcels could be sent out of the camp by the internal resistant cells of
Birkenau and Auschwitz on a regular basis. A group of the Cracovia resistance
was in regular touch via letters. In this town were preserved 350 of those
letters, ‘a small fraction of a very much more important total’ (Langbein,
‘Hommes et femmes a Auschwitz’, page 252). Letters successfully reached the
Netherlands also. In spite of this, such records are used to endorse the
extermination claim. As Butz pointed out, quoting L. Dawidowicz in her intro-
ductory chapter (page 221):
“One impediment was inadequacy of Jewish documentation in spite
of its enormous quantity… The absence of vital subjects from
the records may be explained by the predicament of terror and
censorship; yet, lacking evidence to corroborate or disprove, the
historian will never know with certainty whether that absence is
a consequence of an institutional decision not to deal with such
matters or whether it was merely a consequence of prudent policy
not to mention such matters. The terror was so great that even
private personal diaries, composed in Yiddish or Hebrew, were
written circumspectly, with recourse to Scripture and the Talmud
as a form of esoteric expression and self-imposed reticence.”
Garlinski mention also this story about the radio transmitter/receiver which
was active over 7 months in 1942 in Auschwitz and due to its contacts, the
direction of the Silesia local AK ceil (Armia Krajowa) was soon able to find
the wavelength used by the transmitter. (Garlinski, ‘Fighting Auschwitz’, page
126).
The Armia Krajowa, or the interior (or secret) army was formed in 1942 from
a previous resistance movement. It was organised like a real army. In 1944
the AK could count on about 300,000 members. In Birkenau there was a secret
organisation created in April 1942 by Colonel Karcz. Contact between the
Birkenau organisation and the main camp of Auschwitz took place on a daily
basis. The main task of the Karcz group was to provide information to the AK
elements outside. In 1942 the organisation of W. Pilecki, an ex-Polish officer,
could count on 1000 members between Auschwitz and Birkenau (Garlinski,
‘Fighting Auschwitz’, pages 97-8). In 1942-43 the resistant groups in Auschwitz
were so powerful that they controlled the Hospital, the kitchens, the main
office and had their agent in key positions.
The activity of the resistance in the camp had a specific purpose: feed the
Polish government in exile with exhaustive information about the events that
were occurring in the Nazi camps. The AK could count also on the complicity of
a few SS to transmit some messages outside (Garlinski, ‘Fighting Auschwitz’, pages
206-8). But often, messages were simply transmitted with the liberation of
inmates (Laqueur, ‘The Terrible Secret’, page 169 and Garlinsi, ‘Fighting
Auschwitz’, pages 54-5 & 112).
Communications between Poland and London were relatively easy for the Resis-
tance. The general Bor-Komorowski, commandant of the AK, said that clandestine
radio messages were regularly transmitted to London and that for the year
1942-43-44, there were almost 300 such messages per month. (T. Bor-Komorowski,
‘The secret Army’, page 150). Another source of information was the microfilms
which were sent to London on a monthly basis. The Polish Resistance had about
100 radio transmitters which were able to reach England. But other messages
were brought by newsmongers who were travelling to Sweden (neutral) and then
Great Britain.
Recently I obtained a copy of one of the most notorious Revisionist pamphlets:
‘The Auschwitz Lie’, by Thies Christophersen. Christophersen is an ex-German
officer who had worked in one of the camps peripheral to Auschwitz: Raisenko.
This booklet is not notorious not because one could qualify it as a big scien-
tific contribution to Revisionism, it’s just a small pamphlet where an
officer talks about his personnel experiences, (he visited Birkenau several
times in 1944).
The notoriety of this pamphlet, published in 1973, is mainly due to a false
reference that can be found: a fictive Red Cross report that is supposed to
claim that no more than 300,000 Jews died in WWII. Because of that, ‘The
Auschwitz Lie’ received immediately the status of ‘Bible of the Revisionists’,
and one still finds frequent reference in European books or magazine to this
pamphlet and this fictive reference with the development (hint as sth): this
is the Bible of the Revisionists, it contains a lie, so the Revisionist are
just liars and it is a good thing that Revisionist material is banned since
the public must be protected against those lies by people who will tell them
what they must read. What amazed me the first time I took a look at it wasn’t
the fact that this false reference was just an isolated one among several
others that were valid, it was to see that Christophersen didn’t invent it:
he just quoted a real Brazilian newspaper that didn’t check before publishing
this report about the ‘Red Cross Report’. Anyway, from Christophersen, we
learn that SS families were able to visit the soldiers without any major
problems in Auschwitz. We learn too that inmates from Birkenau were frequently
shipped to other camps and could establish contact with the local population.
This fact, as I said, was subsequently confirmed by the anti-Revisionist
historian Laqueur.
Now, first statement: Hoess, in his ‘confession’, supposedly given without
any coercion, testified that when Himmler ordered him to establish a program
of mass extermination in his camp (a verbal order to keep the secret) he
received also instructions not to discuss it with Gluecks, general inspector
of the camps, because absolute secrecy was necessary. Can you believe that?
From [email protected] Mon Aug 5 14:50:14 PDT 1996
Article: 55468 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
news.emf.net!news.uoregon.edu!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!nntp.coast.net!
nntp.primenet.com!winternet.com!n1ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!tor.istar!
east.istar!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!
news.interlink.net!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: +A revisionist FAQ (2) (Repost)
Date: 4 Aug 1996 23:18:27 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 270
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne19.vir.com
1.0 U.S Gas chambers, how it works
2.0 Auschwitz gas chambers
3.0 The gassing procedure
4.0 Ferro-cyanides traces
5.0 The stupidity of the method
6.0 Question related to the morgues
7.0 Leuchter dishonest?
1.0 US gas chambers
Zyklon B is not used in American gas chambers, mainly because it requires too much time to drive the gas from the inert carrier. The method is to generate
the gas on site by chemical reactions of sodium cyanide and 18 % of sulphuric
acid. At the time of use, the HCN is already vaporised and is released through
valves into the gas chambers. The door is gasketed with a single pressure seal.
Because the chamber contains such a lethal gas, it is operated at a negative
pressure to guarantee that any leak would be inward. The pressurised system
also insures a quick evacuation of the gas through the top of the chamber and
an exhaust stack is normally require to avoid serious health problems around.
Walls are of welded steel construction or of plastic PVC. After an execution,
it is preferable to wash the walls carefully to avoid residual emissions. During
the execution, a mechanical system is required to distribute the gas quickly in
the chamber (1).
This technology has existed since the 1920s, but actually, it has been almost
abandoned since it’s a too complex and costly method. It’s also dangerous for
the executioners. The first considerations which led to this system was the
wrong belief that it could give a more ‘humane’ death, without pain, but later
it was establish that this was not true.
2.0 Auschwitz gas chambers
It’s sometimes difficult to describe the Auschwitz gas chambers: most of the
books on that topic talk about gas chambers without describing the mechanism
they were suppose to have used. There are very, very few photos of the alleged
gas chambers of Krema 2 and 3, even though the buildings are still there (but
not totally intact). Some eyewitness claimed that showers were used to introduce
Zyklon B (a gas lighter than the air) while others talked about SS men throwing
cans of Zyklon B into the chamber. Actually, there are roof vents on the top of
Krema 2 at Auschwitz, and the Auschwitz Museum claims they were there before
the Russians captured the camp. (The Communist authorities allowed any visitor
to come there after 1958). In this version, Zyklon B was poured from those roof
vents in a metallic wiremesh. However, Hoess, in his ‘memoirs’, describes it as
follows (2)
“The extermination process in Auschwitz took place as follows:
Jews selected for gassing were taken as quietly as possible to
the crematoria, the men being separated from the women. In the
undressing room, prisoners of the special detachment, detailed
for this purpose, would tell them in their own language that they
were going to be bathed and deloused, that they must leave their
clothes neatly together and above all remember where they had put
them, so that they would be able to find them again quickly after
delousing. The prisoners of the special detachment had the great-
est interest in seeing that the operation proceeded smoothly and
quickly. After undressing, the Jews went into the gas chambers,
which were furnished with showers and water pipes and gave a
realistic impression of a bath house….The door would now be
quickly screwed up and the gas immediately discharged by the
waiting disinfectors through vents in the ceilings of the gas
chambers, down a shaft that led to the floor. This ensured the
rapid distribution of the gas…It can be said that about one-
third died straight away…The door was opened half an hour after
the induction of the gas, and the ventilation switched on.” from
pages 223-4 (Appendix 1).
There was no fan for either Krema 4 or Krema 5 in the story. This one is sup-
posed to have exisex for Kremas 2 and 3 only, despite a project for the
installation of an evantual ventilation system for krema 5 tardivelly is
discussed in another book but there’s no doubt that Hoess talk here
about those 2 main kremas. According to Rudolph Hoess in his memoirs we can
thus conclude that the Germans were opening the door and
then used the fan to spread…the gas in all the crematoria building!
In A.T.O, page 258, a drawing of the eyewitness David Olere shows pellets
wich were spread on the floor and Pressac comments that: It can be entirely
fictive or based on what the artist saw, anyway this picture is the only one
wich show a homicidal gassing.
The walls are of mortar and bricks, there are no gaskets to isolate the
alleged homicidal room, no distribution system, no pressurised system neither,
no mechanical constructions (pipes or other) which are used in a normal gas
chamber.
3.0 The gassing procedure:
The first mass gassing of Jews is supposed to have occur out of
Bikernau, in 2 little farmhouses converted for the sake of mass killing. It
was a total absurdity to reship the Jews from Bikernau there rather than to
shot them on the spot. The reason why the legend was built around those 2
farmhouses is simply that it was judged as preferable to use Kramer’s diary
as a starting base to draw the main elements of the story. In the first part
of the legend, pellets were allegedly throw in the house through a hole in
the wall (3). Since Zyklon B (according to the manufacturer) sticks adheres
strongly to surfaces and that the special disinfection team needed to wait
20 hours after use before entering a normal room without a gas mask (4),
then the removal of bodies immediately afterwards would be extremely difficult
if we rely on the Hoess memoirs. In this biography, the ex-commandant of
Auschwitz stated explicitely that the Sonderkommando were eating and smoking
while they were working (ie without gas masks). However, if we consider someone
who would be equipped with a heavy gas mask, the removal wouldn’t be easy
neither. In the case of the so-called gas chambers, HCN could adhere to the
walls, the ceilling, the corpses but much more to the hairs of hundreds of
victims before being released gradually. In the case of the 2 farmhouse of
1942 also, the remaining pellets on the ground would be a danger for the Son
derkommandos if they had to accomplish their task without any delay.
There is an interesting remark here: Degesh facilities, those small rooms
which were used by the Germans for disinfecting clothes, were equipped with
exhaust stacks and systems to heat the gas in pipes before re-injecting it
into the room: they wanted to avoid condensation on walls. But nothing like
that exists in the ‘homicidal gas chambers’, less developed technologically.
4.0 Ferro-cyanide traces:
The Revisionist claim is that since delousing chambers (Degesh facilities)
contain up to 1,000 times more ferro-cyanide traces on the walls than ‘homicide
gas chambers’ in the Leuchter original samples than there was no mass gassing of
Jews and the mortuaries where few cyanide compounds were found had just been
disinfected once during the war. It might be said here that the original claim
of the anti-Revisionist (Raul Hilberg) was that most of the Zyklon B was used
for killing people according to ‘reliable sources’, but since Leuchter’s fin-
dings in 1988 the Holocaust lobby decided to adopt a new version (Pressac)
where more than 95% of the Zyklon B was use for disinfections.
Although Revisionists are more interested in the ferro-cyanide traces
(Prussian blue) which forms a stable element, the Cracow team and their
sleeping partner (the Auschwitz Museum) decided to play on the confusion
that may exist with potassium cyanide which is, indeed, soluble in water
and the ferro-cyanide. The claim that acid rain could have washed cyanide
away compounds is true for potassium cyanide, but not for ferro-cyanide
compounds. An excellent rebuttal of the Nizkor argument can be found on:
http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg/Â (Page doesn`t exist)
under the section Journal of Historical
Review , Winter 1992-93, Volume Twelve, Number 4, especially the article
by Paul Grubach: The Leuchter Report Vindicated.
The Revisionist interpretation of the minor traces of ferro-cyanide pig-
mentation on the ‘gas chamber’ walls is that the entire building was probably
evacuated once or twice during the war to be disinfected. Such traces were
found on other rooms which were not supposed to be either gas chambers or
Degesh facilities (for example, the washroom of Krema 1) and the level were
comparable. The conclusion is thus that those buildings were just disinfected.
Since lice was the reason for the typhus epidemics, one can expect the lice
to quit the hairs of the bodies and invade the buildings where several persons
were working, so there’s nothing abnormal with the hypothesis that the Germans
disinfected the mortuaries with Zyklon B.
If someone claims that Leuchter falsified the samples of the washroom, then
it might be asked why he planted a sample with few cyanide compounds for the
gas chamber rather than a sample with no cyanide compound. One of Leuchter’s
suggestion after his findings was to allow a neutral international commission
that could solve the problem forever with a transparent and open inquiry,
but as usual the Holocaust lobby did not follow the suggestion and preferred,
after 7 years only, to use his own usual commission rather than a mixed team
with pure random samples.
Another argument is that the disinfection was taking 10 to 20 hours while
the gassing of people was taking just 10 to 30 minutes. In that case, it is
claimed that it’s not surprising to find far less ferro-cyanide compounds on
the walls of the ‘gas chambers’. This argument is not responding to the fact
that the level of cyanide between the ‘gas chamber’ of Krema 1 and the washroom
of the same building are comparable. Moreover, things do not work that way in
real life: the physical absorption of a gas by a surface is a very quick process.
Some experiments were conducted on the adsorption of gases by solids: what they
show, mainly, is that most of the gases are absorbed within a few minutes at 0
degrees Celsius on charcoal. (5) There is a saturation level for the solids,
over which you can’t expect to see more gas to be absorbed by it (adsorption
is the word used rather than absorption for such a process). Experiments were
conducted on oxygen, nitric oxide, CO, nitrogen, etc…: the conclusion was
that an average of 80% was adsorbed within 15 minutes while 20% was adsorbed
in the reminding 72 hours of the experience (5).
In that case, chemical adsorption is coming right after the physical adsor-
ption, but due to the time that is necessary for the gas to be released by a
surface, it is wrong to say that a gassing over ’10 hours’ will create 20
times more compounds than a gassing over 30 minutes. Some HCN molecules will
react with iron if the microscopic conditions are favourable at a moment,
the others will be released.
5.0 The stupidity of the method
The best way to kill people is not to transport them over 1,000 kilometres
with all the cost involves and to put them in those ‘gas chambers’ but to shoot
them on site. The reason for which the gas chamber story was used in connection
with Zyklon B can be found in one of Hilberg’s books: he shows proof over many
pages (mainly Zyklon B invoices) that Zyklon B was produced in Germany, and
carried to Auschwitz. No one contests that Zyklon B was used at Auschwitz to
eliminate lice which were bringing typhus into the camp, even on the anti-Revi-
sionist side: there’s too much proof of that. It was essential at Nuremberg to
maximise the proofs and minimise the risk with the use of such documents for
which a dual interpretation is necessary: Zyklon B was use to disinfect clothes
and fight typhus epidemics which were killing Jewish manpower, but Zyklon B was
also used to liquidate them.
6.0 Questions related to the morgues.
A couple of years ago, Jean-Claude Pressac brought forth a new version of
the story in which the absence of details and schemas about gas chambers in
the documentation seased in the hands of the Germans was not due to an official
Nazi policy to ‘keep the secret’ but to the fact that the mortuaries were transf-
ormed by technicians in gas chambers late. The question is quite simple: if 200
to 300 people died from ordinary death (epidemies) in Auschwitz each day, where
did the Germans put the bodies of those peoples before to cremate them?
The morgues of Krema 2 and 3 were there to receive bodies before their cre-
mation, 30 ovens for those 2 buildings were insufficient to reduce to ashes all
the corpses immediately. But the Jews who were dying from epidemics didn’t stop
dying after the transformation of the mortuaries into gas chambers, so where
did they put them? Was the truck bringing one body at a time from the hospital
afterwards? Or were they piled up outside while dozens to hundreds of civilians
were working at the camp, without counting the SS families who were visiting
the camp? ‘Scuze us, that’s because of our secret gas chambers that we are
coding in our documents’. Were they piled up in the room were the ovens were
used? If this is the case, one could expect that the same Sonderkommandos who
allegedly brought the corpses from the ‘gas chambers’ to the ovens were also
in charge of the disposal of those other bodies. Unfortunately, their tales
do not mention this interesting problem.
It might be notice that Pressac’s tardive version, the transformation of
the morgues in gas chambers, is an attempt to avoid an important revisionnist
argument: the fact that those mortuaries were described as Leichenkellers
on the engineering drawings. This revisionnist argument appeared in the 70’s.
In the version that is commonly accept now, the Nazis didnt built the cremato
ries for an extermination purpose, but decided tardivelly to modifyu those
buildings. However, right after the war, the ‘confessions’ that were got from
SS were explicitelly refered to the construction of the buildings _for_
this purpose.
7.0 Leuchter, dishonest?
The main argument which was developed against Leuchter is that he’s not an
engineer. In this case, experience is more important than an academic training.
He has worked several years for the American Navy and the American Air Force,
creating equipment for civil and military applications. He has patents in do-
mains like optics, meteorology, navigation, etc. He has already been described
by a penitentiary director as a highly competent consultant(6). He knows what
he’s talking about, even though he can, like anyone, make mistakes. In Massa-
chusetts, only a fraction of the engineers have licences (I think it’s 5,000
out of 50,000) and there is no legislation about the specific topic of ‘gas
chambers’. In such a case, Leuchter was the only one of the 50,000 engineers
who was prosecuted, after his report: this is not because he used false repre-
sentation, this is simply because he was victimised.
(1) The first Leuchter report
(2) COMMANDANT OF AUSCHWITZ: The authentic confessions of a mass
murderer, by Rudolf Hoess, Introduction by Lord Russell of Liver-
pool, Pan paperback edition, (1961).
(3) Kremmer’s diary
(4) NI-9912
(5) Absorption Of Gases By Solids, by McBain, published by George Routledge
& Sons, London, (1932), page 124.
(6) See the same issue of the Journal of Historical Review issue at
the IHR
From [email protected] Mon Aug 5 14:50:17 PDT 1996
Article: 55469 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
op.net!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!news.sover.net!news.monad.net!
news.sprintlink.net!news-pen-14.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!
new-news.sprintlink.net!nntp.primenet.com!winternet.com!n1ott.istar!ott.istar!
istar.net!tor.istar!east.istar!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!
rcogate.rco.qc.ca!news.interlink.net!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: demography, the missing jews
Date: 5 Aug 1996 01:25:09 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne56.vir.com
One of the arguments that is used often in front is the case of the ‘missing
jews’. Four months ago, I had a discussion with Yale Eideken who claimed that
Butz figure for Israel, a demographic growth of 500,000 between 1944 and 1949,
were irrelevant since many sepharadims immigrated in Israel after 1948.
My point was to say that the bulk of the sepharadim could not have leaved
their country in the early 1949 but later. I brought some other elements.
However, Yale insisted and took Hilberg’s figure, something like 142,000
holocaust survivors who went there. I was in New York 2 months ago and I
found something interesting in the archives: Los Angeles times, 23 january
1995. Lemberger, the director of Amicha, said that he believed that 300,000
holocaust survivors were still alive in Israel. Amicha seems to be a jewish
organization that deal with such issues. But Ingrid gave this information
in a recent zgram. What is interesting however is that the same man, in this
article, said also that there was 550,000 holocaust survivors in Israel in
the early 50’s. Bye bye Yale.
For United States, I’m not sure of the exact number, the usual figure that
was given by UNRRA doesn’t give necessarelly the right total, especially
if we take in account illegal immigration that jewish organizations had
valid reasons to minimized, but perhaps even those organizations never
tried to count the real number.
For USSR, we know that the statistics that were given by the soviets were
unreliables. As a matter of fact, we have this article:
In the New-York Post, 1 july 1991 (p.16) an article from Uri Dan,
journalist of Tel Aviv, say that up to now Israelis authority
were estimating the jewish russians to a number between 2 and
3 millions. ‘But the israelis emissaries who can now travel freely
there report that a numer of 5 millions would be more accurate’.
In that case, what we can conclude is that the post war soviet claim was
not significant. Not that all those 2 millions extra Jews are descent of
deported Jews, but at least if we take in account boundary changements,
the fact that even in the 30’s there was a vast movement of emigration
from Europe to other countries in the Jewish population, that they had
much more reasons to emigrate in 1945 due to economic reasons, than
one can hardly claim that the vanishing of a lot of Jews is a ‘mystery’.
I don’t know how many died, one million, two, that’s another question.
But certanly not six.
From [email protected] Mon Aug 5 14:50:19 PDT 1996
Article: 55470 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
op.net!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!news.sover.net!news.monad.net!
news.sprintlink.net!news-pen-14.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!
new-news.sprintlink.net!nntp.primenet.com!winternet.com!n1ott.istar!ott.istar!
istar.net!tor.istar!east.istar!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!
rcogate.rco.qc.ca!news.interlink.net!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: the jahrling document (repost)
Date: 5 Aug 1996 00:51:02 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne50.vir.com
This one was post 2 months ago, anyway
The preferate document of D. Keren is the Jahrling document, something
allegedly written by a SS name Jahrling who claimed that the crematoria
capacities in Auscwitz-Birkenau was 4,756 corpses in 24 hours of operations
(28 june, 1943). I’ve already give some reasons why I thought it was a
forgery. Since I had an opportunity to take a look at Auschwitz, techniques
and operations of the gas chambers, recently,
I was able to make some interesting comparisons:
On pages 223-224, 2 letters from Jahrling about coke consumption are
reproduces: (documents 32 et 33). The references given are:
P.M. BW/3034 page 68
P.M BW 30/34 P54
When I compared those 2 signatures, they were identical for those
2 genuine documents, but totally different from the signature that appear
on the famous document that claim 4,756 corpses a day!
Morever, the circunstances about the discovery of this ‘document’ are
a bit nebulous:
>Jahrling BW 30/42 2 pages
> letter of the 28 th june 1943 from the Auschwitz Bauleitung to the WVHA-SS
> in Berlin concerning the cremation capacity of the five krematorien at Auschwitz-Birkenau.
> photocopy transmitted on 15 th may 1981 to the curator of the Auschwitz
> Museum by the committee of anti-fascist resistants of the German democratic
> republic
> Jahrling sent this letter to the general SS Kammler in Berlin
This is what I wrote on my sheet a week ago. So you have the picture: the
other Jahrling documents were microfilm right after the war among a lot
of other documents, but the ‘4,756 corpses’ 2 pages document was ‘discovered’
35 years after the NMT trials by the committee of anti-fascist resistants
of the German democratic republic’, at a moment where revisionism started
to put some pressure…
From [email protected] Mon Aug 5 14:50:20 PDT 1996
Article: 55471 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
op.net!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!news.sover.net!news.monad.net!
news.sprintlink.net!news-pen-14.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!
new-news.sprintlink.net!nntp.primenet.com!winternet.com!n1ott.istar!ott.istar!
istar.net!tor.istar!east.istar!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!
rcogate.rco.qc.ca!news.interlink.net!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Auschwitz, a secret?(2) repost
Date: 5 Aug 1996 01:27:30 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 146
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne56.vir.com
We will take a look now at the usual propaganda over the war. The american
Arthur Butz, especially, was the first to do an exhaustive inquiry about
it. What is clear from his review of american newspapers is that the
propaganda about mass extermination started as sson as 1942. It was
mainly statements made by zionist officials, Chaim Weizman among others,
that were often related to an appeal for the opening of Palestine to
jewish immigration. Several camps or atrocities are mentionned, Belzec,
Chelmo, Sobibor, Treblinka, and the accusations take miscellaneous forms:
jews who are shot, report about mass electrocution of jews in Belzec,
gasing methos in Treblinka, poison, sometimes the use of wagons were
lethal gas is used. It looks like the usual scrap that any war is
normally generating: propaganda. Several of those accusations were drop
after the war.
I was able to find recently a rare book: ‘the black book of the polish
jewry’, publish at the end of 1943. This book is totally consistent
with the war propaganda that can be found in the newspapers: Chelmo,
Treblinka, story of atrocities, in some cases details: 250 jewish
children allegedly killed in a jewish sanatorium, elsewhere 50 jews
executed in a township, the book is a collection of war propaganda,
probably a mix of thruth an falsehoods, an over few hundreds pages
we have an idea of what kind of stories were used by several jewish
organisations which had their large network of informant across
Europe. Nowhere Auschwitz is mention, despite the mass gasing of jews
is supposed to have start in the spring of 1942. The index, that contains
a large amount of places were atrocities are allegedly comitted,
do not contain the name of Auschwitz. Several minor stories, but
nothing about the gasing of hundreds of thousand of jews there.
Enrique Aynat made a deep inquiry with the review published
by the polish government in exile in London, the ‘Polish fighting
review’. It is similar stuff. Several stories about atrocities
against jews were put in circulation by this review ( the informations
were received in the same way that what was explained earlier, from
the A.K.) but Auschwitz appear just few times before 1945. But
there’s more: when it appear, it is not in connection with mass
gasing of jews. It is about case of torture, hard work, the
tough conditions of the inmates who have to work for the military
production. An example of that can be find in the 1 july 1942 article
(n0 47) where it is mention that the German use syringue to kill
prisonners of Bikernau. There’s a base of thruth: the method
was at least used for the dying prisonners who were affect by the
catastrophic typhus epidemy of 1942, but there’s no evidence that
it was use to liquidate them because of an extermination policy:
euthanasy was the real purpose. In several other articles during
2 years, very ‘low level’ details about some inmates who died
are given, and in a case it is say that few hundred russian
prisonners were gased at a specific date. What is astonishing here
is that over 2 years and a half, the systematic murder of hundreds
of thousands of jews seems to be ignored while the polish resistance
is suppose to be aware of a single gasing of russian pows at a time.
There is also a reference to the gasing of polish childrens at the end of
1943, despite today we never speak about the gasing of poles. But
among the huge amount of propaganda that was published over those
years, this is all. Before the mid 1944, the atrocities were generally
not concerning Auschwitz and when it was th case, the mass gasing
of jews was not mention. I said a couple of weeks ago that perhaps
I saw once such a story, but I’m unsure if I’ve not dream it.
The story about the mass gasing of jews in Auschwitz began
really in the summer of 1944 in the allied newspapers, and then we
can say that the persons who were spreading the atrocities stories
had no choice: the other camps were shut down several months before.
First remark: such stories are not ‘a proof’ of mass gasing,
simply because propaganda and false accusations were always a
part of war, and second because those accusations were made
in connection with a call to allied countries for negotiations
with germans. The zionist leaders of that time had clearly an objective
in the mind: put pressure on the British and force them to allow
the opening of the Palestine borders to jewish immigration.
Israel was not existing yet, and the arabs were the majority there.
Several declarations in the newspapers let no ambiguity about it.
Second remark: the real problem is that it is hard to believe that
such mounstruous events, the gasing of hundreds of thousand of jews
over 2 years, could be absent of publications like the ‘black book
of the Polish jewry’ while minor stories about the executions of
50 jews in a small township are present. That book was publish
expresselly for the sake of propaganda, to talk exhaustivelly about
the anti jewish persecutions. And it is not because Auschwitz was
‘secret’. We can have a clear indication of that with the anti-revisionnist
author Martin Gilbert in ‘Auschwitz and the allied’, p 340. After
an exhaustive review of the documentation, he conclude that Auschwitz
was absent of the war propaganda before the mid 1944.
There it’s like to say that events like those that happend in
Rwanda did exist over 2 years but that despite information was
collected on a daily based by A.K. agents in Bikernau and Auschwitz 1,
nobody seem aware of it. Imagine 2 Rwandas over 2 years and nobody
within that country noticed anything during this period except
at the end.
Third remark: such an absence of propaganda would be more acceptable
for camps like Belzec, simply because those one were isolated,
there was not an important towniship beside, there was not hundreds
of civilians who worked there, inmates were not frequently reshiped
in the vicinity of the camps and able to have contact with civilians,
Belzec was not of any strategical importance for the american
since it hadn’t any Buma plan industry: the inmates were suppose
to arrive there and to be killed quickly, nothing else.
But what we have in the WWII propaganda is the opposite: no possible
secret for Auschwitz, but it is there that an unexplanable silence
was keepen. It must be say also that according to the post war
confessions, Auschwitz was suppose to be the ‘metropol’ of the
extermination, the main camp. At Nuremberg, the bulk of the
extermination story was built on Auschwitz.
Fourth remark: The story about the ‘revelation of the secret’ is
of an uncommensurable absurdity. The WRB report, published in 1944,
is suppose to be an accurate description of the nature of Auschwitz.
The american press revealed that 2 inmates escaped and were able to go
in Switzerland to give a very accurate description of the gassing
procedure and the installations in Auscwitz. The authors of the WRB
report stayed anonymous during 16 years despite it had be more credible
to present those ones immediatelly.
They stayed anonymous for 16 years and the jewish
writter Reitlinger was a bit bothered in the first edition of the final
solution about this fact but those ones were produced before the
second edition of his book 150 miles away from his Sussex domicile
(London). Rudolph Vrba, author of a best seller a bit later, ‘I
cannot forgive’. Vrba is suppose to had the false identity of Walter
Rosenberg in Auschwitz despite he wrote that the other inmates called
him ‘Rudi’.
Several, a lot of contradictions exist in Vrba’s ‘memories’,
and Alexander Baron talk about it in the book he wrote. Vrba
affirmations were so contradictory that he was obligated to admit
that he lied at the Zundel trial. Just those contradictions could take
few hundreds lines.
Let say just that when I read Vrba’s book, I saw that his escape
had a specific purpose: give a warn to the whole world about the fate
of the jews in Auschwitz, ‘breaking the secret’ in other words. One
have just to read the previous message to realize that it is ridicoulous.
There was hundreds of escapes and liberations before him
Despite the inconsistences in his testimony, Vrba’s credibility is
essantial. The defenders of the legend can conceed that an obscur
eye witness could have lie, but Vrba is a kind of detonnator, a domino:
since he talk about his entertainment with F. Muller at the camp, since
the key eyewitness Sonderkommando F. Muller said also that he spoke
with Vrba several times in Auschwitz, if one of the testimony is false,
the other collapse. If Vrba testimony is false, then one would have
to explain why the real authors of the WRB report never challendge
Vrba’s story. And then we would conclude that the WRB report wasn’t
writen by an ex-inmate but by higher rank propagandist who had a large
amount of datas available: this is where the story began.
From [email protected] Fri Aug 9 21:39:35 PDT 1996
Article: 56167 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!
usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!hunter.premier.net!
news.cais.net!chi-news.cic.net!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!van-bc!n1van.istar!van.istar!
west.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!tor.istar!east.istar!newsjunkie.ans.net!
newsfeeds.ans.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: demography, the missing jews
Date: 10 Aug 1996 03:58:10 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne39.vir.com
[email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
>> Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> One of the arguments that is used often in front is the case of the ‘missing
>> jews’. Four months ago, I had a discussion with Yale Eideken who claimed that
>> Butz figure for Israel, a demographic growth of 500,000 between 1944 and
1949,
>> were irrelevant since many sepharadims immigrated in Israel after 1948.
> No. What I said was that your time scale was inaccurate since it
>included events both before and after the British left Israel. Further you dishonstly
>fudged your numbers by adding in “illegal immigration” to justify your numbers.
I don’t think I’ve talk about illegal immigrants in Israel, for USA yes.
>> holocaust survivors who went there. I was in New York 2 months ago and I
>> found something interesting in the archives: Los Angeles times, 23 january
>> 1995. Lemberger, the director of Amicha, said that he believed that 300,000
>> holocaust survivors were still alive in Israel. Amicha seems to be a jewish
>> organization that deal with such issues. But Ingrid gave this information
>> in a recent zgram. What is interesting however is that the same man, in this
>> article, said also that there was 550,000 holocaust survivors in Israel in
>> the early 50’s. Bye bye Yale.
> No. I’m still here and you are still a liar.
The word is given. Lets see the remaining…
>> In that case, what we can conclude is that the post war soviet claim was
>> not significant. Not that all those 2 millions extra Jews are descent of
>> deported Jews, but at least if we take in account boundary changements,
>> the fact that even in the 30’s there was a vast movement of emigration
>> from Europe to other countries in the Jewish population, that they had
>> much more reasons to emigrate in 1945 due to economic reasons, than
>> one can hardly claim that the vanishing of a lot of Jews is a ‘mystery’.
>> I don’t know how many died, one million, two, that’s another question.
>> But certanly not six.
> A starting point for the accurate figures, as has been pointed out
>before, can be found in a report made to the president by Earl G. Harrison which
>can be found in “The Department of State Bulletin” Sptember 30, 1945 (pages
>456-463). This led to the “Truman Directive” and th DP Acts of 1948 and 1950.
>Which regulated the DPs were admitted to the U.S. In point of fact, as of June
>30, 1952, 393, 542 DPs were admitted to the U.S. Of those DPs 137, 450 were
>Jewish DPs. Likewise the number of DPs admitted to Palestine between May
>1945 and June 30, 1947 was 86,384 (source “The International Refugee
>Organization” Senate Report to the 81st Congress, 1st Session, No. 476, June
>8, 1949.
> Your number are handwaving lies. Those interested in the accurate
>figures and a detailed statistical breakdown are invited to read “America and the
>Survivors of the Holocaust” Leonard Dinnerstein, Columbia University Press,
>1982.
Here we have an example of Yale’s approach: I’m not interest by the number
of Jews who emigrated in Palestine before june 30, 1947. I’m interest by
the total of Holocaust survivors who get there before 1950. Now that Lemberger
contradict your prior claim, you use, as you did in the past, a specific
period that doesn’t cover all the immigration wave but you call me a liar.
From [email protected] Sat Aug 10 12:13:24 PDT 1996
Article: 56283 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.uoregon.edu!hunter.premier.net!news1.erols.com!
howland.erols.net!agate!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!
newsfeed.direct.ca!news.total.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A revisionist FAQ (1) (Repost)
Date: 10 Aug 1996 04:03:52 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 100
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne39.vir.com
[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>
>I suggest looking at the image files of the Topf
>patent submitted shortly after the war. Topf,
>remember, is the firm that built the Auschwitz-
>Birkenau furnaces.
>This is for someone interested in the facts, not
>in “revisionist conjectures”.
>https://nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?orgs/german/topf-und-soehne/images – Broken link
>tp4907-lrg-1b.gif (ref)
>tp4907-lrg-2.gif (ref)
>tp4907-lrg-3.gif (ref)
The main things that can affect the cremation time are:
1) the temperature
2) the air intake (capacity)
3) the volume to cremate
It’s interesting here to follow the evolution of the anti-revisionnist
arguments in this newsgroup. First, it was claimed before I came here in
November and for few months after that the real cremation time in a modern
oven was less than an hour. The coffin was supposed to be the main impedment
to a quick cremation. Now that this nonsense was drop (apparently), and the
majority in front seems to accept a figure of 1 hour 1/2 to 2 hours in an
oven. However, we are told that there’s a difference between a civilian and
a ‘military’ crematorium. In Auschwitz-Birkenau, the temperature of operation,
as several know here, was about 800 degrees while it is at least 500 degrees
more today. The ex-crematory specialist of this newsgroup used often the air
intake at Birkenau, but as I said sevral months ago, the air intake for
the average crematory in Quebec (2 hours 1/2 for a cremation) is about 25%
less than what was existing in Birkenau. Not so big, if we account for the
temperature difference.
Nizkor claim in its QAR 42 that several emaciated bodies could be burn
more quickly. It is true that an emaciated body take less time, the problem,
as they know, is that 90% of the victims in the Holocaust story are Jews
who were allegedly gased upon arrival, people who were not emaciated.
Finally they used an argument which was brought by M.P. Stein, the fact
that if you don’t cremate totally a body, than it take less time. There’s
many problem with this argument. This claim is right, but…
Why no post war testimony talk about it? Why do we have stories for which
the ashes were spread almost everywhere, in a river, etc.. Those stories
never mentionned this caracteristic. In such a case, bones would be harder
to crunch. Less you cremate, les the bones are friables. I don’t know any
story neither by the survivors about the use of an acid to remove the car-
bonized flesh. Since Nizkor reduce the cremation time from 2 hours to
30 to 45 minutes, we could expect a lot of human remains. The construction
of crematorias, an expensive operation, has a specific purpose: reducing
completelly the body, a thing that can’t be obtain with as much efficiency
if you burn bodies with wood and gasoline. Also, it is possible with such
a method to collect the ashes individually, a thing you can’t do when you
burn several bodies together. If one want just to burn partially bodies
to avoid epidemies than it is more economical to do it with gazoline and
wood: no breakdown that can slow down the extermination process also.
One photo was reproduced in Pressac’s book ‘Les crematoires d’Auschwitz’
page 97. It is the picture of a Buchenwald oven, right after the liberation
of the camp in 1945. Buchenwald wasn’t an ‘extermination camp’, but with
the fuel shortage and the necessity to proceed efficiently, we have a
similar situation. The photo show some bones, white, no flesh around.
There’s ashes on a corner, but the bones are definitivelly white and the
Nazis knew perfectly that they had to cremate normally to dispose the
remaining, ie crunching the bones.
I’ve not look at those pictures, but I’ve a pretty good idea of what
I will find: I know your usual arguments.
Now, what you show us, Mr. Keren, is a patent. I’ve few things to add
on that.
1) If a patent claim 30 minutes in 1951, does it mean that the authors
did an innovation that was never done before?
2) Why weren’t you able to find in any trial against revisionist, or else-
where, with the huge means that you have, a place in the world where the
cremation time take 30 minutes. Does it mean that the patent was too optimis
tic?
3) 30 minutes for a normal corpse or a baby?
It is a fact that nowhere the cremation take less than 1 our 1/4 to 1 hour
1/2 for a normal body. Nowhere in the world to my knowledge. It could be
done, yes: if we rise up the temperature, if we boost drastically the oxygen
intake, but then we face other problems. It’s not so easy. The average time
is 2 hours. If we want to improve the efficiency, than we have to deal with
physical factors.
I can tomorrow register a patent for a new kind of tire. With a synthetic
rubber of my own, I can say in the patent that this tire will be able to
roll an average of 138,000 km without a flat. That’s my estimation. If 8
years later it is proven that the average in real time situations was 39,000
kilometers, that’s another question. A patent hasn’t the same value then
real time outputs, true experiments. It is a subjective document where any
optimistic value can be put. I prefer to base my opinion on facts rather than
a patents. If you would say ‘Since then, it take 30 minutes to cremate
people’, that would have some value. But this is not the case.
From [email protected] Sat Aug 10 12:13:26 PDT 1996
Article: 56292 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sgi.com!spool.mu.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!
news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.erols.net!
news.sprintlink.net!new-news.sprintlink.net!news.infi.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
news.total.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: demography, the missing jews
Date: 10 Aug 1996 04:01:27 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne39.vir.com
[email protected] (Ehrlich606) wrote:
>>> In that case, what we can conclude is that the post war soviet claim
was
>>> not significant. Not that all those 2 millions extra Jews are descent
of
>>> deported Jews, but at least if we take in account boundary
changements,
>>> the fact that even in the 30’s there was a vast movement of emigration
>>> from Europe to other countries in the Jewish population, that they had
>>> much more reasons to emigrate in 1945 due to economic reasons, than
>>> one can hardly claim that the vanishing of a lot of Jews is a
‘mystery’.
>>> I don’t know how many died, one million, two, that’s another question.
>>> But certanly not six.
>>>
>> Neither the US nor Russia keep statistics by religion so there is
no
>>way to find out what happened in either country.
>Ah, but this is where there is a possible answer: the Soviets _do_ keep
>statistics on ethnic groups, and *Jewish* i.e., *yevrei* is a recognized
>ethnic category.
If one belive in the postwar communist statistics. If one avoid the fact
that the bulk of the russian Jews were evacuated before the German invasion
and could not account for 700,000 victims thus. I don’t know the real number
of German, Polish Jews who were liquidates by bullets for the whole war
after their deportation in Eastern territories, but in their case, the number
is irrelevant to explain jewish loss for Soviet Union. You know probably
as me that there’s evidence that the bulk of the Jews living in USSR were
evacuated before the German invasion.
From [email protected] Mon Aug 19 16:04:11 PDT 1996
Article: 57976 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
op.net!netaxs.com!news.dra.com!news.mid.net!mr.net!nntp04.primenet.com!
nntp.primenet.com!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!van-bc!n1van.istar!van.istar!west.istar!
ott.istar!istar.net!tor.istar!east.istar!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!
rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: <Seufze> Wieder mit dem
Date: 17 Aug 1996 16:03:12 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 359
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne19.vir.com
The ausrotten game seems on the way, as usual here, and since I remember almost
nothing or very few of that langage, it will be the usual arrogant approach
that will prevail: “I’m a native german speaker, or I speak perfectly german,
you don’t know german, so shut up, no german could or has deny the meaning of
thiw word as extermination.” This kind of attitude seems frequent here, and
obviously that does not take in consideration some basic facts, a German living
in that country would face some troubles if he’s denounce to the Gestapo there
as a dangerous political deviant by some puppet (hi Nele). However, this is
not totally true neither, as we know Irving, who is perfectly fluent, had
some reserves on that, accounting for the nature of the langage 60 years ago
and the fact that this word is now much more frequently use to describe the
a nazi extermination policy in the medias. Some brought X dictionnaries that
show this specification: extermination when we talk about the livings. However,
several other dictionnaries gives 2 definitions, eradication and extermination,
without specifying anything about the livings.
The opinion of an eminent grammarian is not relevant, simply because Himmler
was a military. He was speaking of a violent program of expulsion, and the way
someone learn about the meaning of a word is not necessarelly in a dictionnary,
but from the parents, or from someone else that he know, in other circunstances
also. Litterally it mean wipe out. And even if Himmler learned this word in a
dictionnary, why should he have take the one which gives this specification
about the livings rather than those which do not gives this specification?
It is a certanty that a large amount of Jews survived to Nazi’s persecutions,
despite several of them died from direct or indirect causes. I’ve talk about
demographical datas for Israel (550,000 holocaust survivors there just at the
begining of the 50’s, just for this country, one fifth childrens) and Germany
had the time to liquidate all of them if there was a central decision that was
taken in Berlin to kill them all. But we are still playing with this word,
where 2 meanings are possible, except if we shift the context and consider
that some dictionnaries are better than others because such grammarian has
decided in the 80’s that the best translation was ‘extermination’, one of
Mazal’s argument if memory deserve.
However, I must mention here that it is untrue that no german denied the
meaning ‘eradication’ one applied for the livings. He may had done a ‘gram-
matical’ mistake, because he didn’t open 20 dictionnaries to make up his mind,
or this can be for another reason, but when jamie McCarthy posted me that one,
I said: this is what I expected:
**** old email from Jamie McCarthy, which was also post publically,
so I feel free to use it in this case ******
*************************************************************************
The following is a record of my discussion with Bjorn Conrad on the
germanica-l mailing list about the meaning of Himmler’s Oct. 4th, 1943
speech at Posen, and in particular the meaning of the word
“ausrotten.” This discussion picks up right after I’d posted the
English and German text of the critical part of the speech.
We open with Mr. Conrad excorciating my translating skills and
hinting, not very subtlely, that I was dishonest in my translation.
By the close of this discussion six days later, Mr. Conrad had nothing
to say except to ask me quite a few probing questions. After I
answered those questions, including going into more detail about my
sources than I had previously, Mr. Conrad had nothing more to say.
A month later, I emailed him to ask if he had any further response.
His answer exemplified Holocaust-denial: he added “Rejected email” to
the subject line and bounced my query back to me. So what you see
here is the complete record on this topic — Mr. Conrad’s promise
about just needing “a bit more time to put things together”
notwithstanding.
The only changes I have made have been to reformat into 70 columns
wherever possible. The text remains unchanged and complete.
Since Mr. Conrad raises many of the same points that I remember Mr.
Beaulieu raising back in January (?), I consider this a good starting
place for discussion. I tried to lay out my claims pretty clearly,
and I gave bibliographic citations for all the dictionaries I used and
what they said.
Subject: 89- Not a translation but a fabricated smear
Sent: 4/1/96 12:14 AM
Received: 4/1/96 12:28 PM
From: Bjorn Conrad, [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Jeremy submitted the following:
But first, one step at a time! …. From now on Jeremy, when you give
us your so-called “proof” of something, don’t even bother to submit
the English translation only! This translation is so bad, incorrect,
and vicious, that it makes my point far more than it does yours. If
this is what you supply as proof, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised that
your orig. German transcriptions are “accidentally-on-purpose” falsely
transcribed (quoted) or misrepresented as well. Your German is
obviously not good enough to see this. Mine is!!!! This is a
defamatory abomination!!! Propagandistic disinformation at its
worst…! The poor American public is of course are not in a position
to see through this Mist (manure).
And you wanted to take this discussion to a less educated and
thoughtful milieu. I for one know why now! Perhaps I’ll go there TOO
now !!!!!!
No wonder the revisionist movement is picking up so much steam!
_R__E__A__D_ _T__H__I__S_ _E__V__E__R__Y__O__N__E_ !!!!!
>(2) Himmler’s own words, recorded from a speech to SS officers on
>October 4th, 1943:
>
> I refer now to the evacuation of the Jews, the EXTERMINATION* of the
> Jewish PEOPLE*. This is one of those things that is easily said: “the
> Jewish PEOPLE* are being EXTERMINATED*,” says every Party member,
> “quite true, it’s part of our plans, the ELIMINATION* of the Jews,
> EXTERMINATION*, we’re doing it.”
>
> Ich meine jetzt die Judenevakuierung, die AUSROTTUNG* des juedischen
> VOLKES*. Es gehoert zu den Dingen, die man leicht ausspricht. – “Das
> juedische VOLK* wird AUSGEROTTET*”, sagt ein jeder Parteigenosse,
> “ganz klar, steht in unserem Programm, AUSSCHALTUNG* der Juden,
> AUSROTTUNG*, machen wir.”
>
> (Trial of the Major War Criminals, 1948, Vol. XXIX, p. 145)
*These words were changed to all upper case lettering by me for
emphasis only.
As I’ve noted above this translation is an abomination! The
capitalized words are those that have clearly been intentionally
mistranslated or have had their intended meaning obscured in the
English translation.
Some additional comments are in order before I give you MY translation
of this paragraph. My intention here is to give you the best possible
reflection of the original underlying feeling that the speaker was
trying to convey. This is obviously never a perfect process —
however, I know that I can come pretty close.
Also, German and English as languages have both changed since these
words were spoken. It is therefore not really appropriate to use
modern German-English dictionaries without some significant
reservation. Indeed it has become obvious to me that the Second World
War actually resulted in certain changes to the way political language
was interpreted in the German speaking world. This served another
important propaganda function in the Allied deNazification campaign.
This shift is evident here too.
An interesting realization is that in the modern dictionaries the
translations used above are, for the most part, tagged on at the end
of the definitions as special interpretations of certain figurative
language. …indeed very interesting!
I would challenge any of you to check up on what I’m saying.
Now, I was raised here in this country, but I learned German (my first
language) from the native German generations that grew up before and
to some extent during the Third Reich. So this type of translation
comes incredibly easy to me. It’s the modern German “newspeak” that I
sometimes have some difficulty with.
Just to double check myself I am using my German language dictionary
“Das Deutsche Wort” by Richard Pekrun, Georg Dollheimer Verlag,
Leipzig, 1934 (writing project completed Jan 1, 1933 per the author) I
will primarily be drawing my multiple definitions from this source,
for obvious reasons. I will confess, that I used my Oxford
German-English Dictionary a bit as well.
Repeating what I _hope_ is an accurate German transcription from
Jeremy (again capitalization was my doing):
> Ich meine jetzt die Judenevakuierung, die AUSROTTUNG* des juedischen
> VOLKES*. Es gehoert zu den Dingen, die man leicht ausspricht. – “Das
> juedische VOLK* wird AUSGEROTTET*”, sagt ein jeder Parteigenosse,
> “ganz klar, steht in unserem Programm, AUSSCHALTUNG* der Juden,
> AUSROTTUNG*, machen wir.”
I refer now to the evacuation of the Jews, the ROOTING OUT (1) of
the Jewish PEOPLE (2) as an ETHNIC NATION. This is one of those
things that is easily said: “the Jewish NATION is being ROOTED
OUT*,” says every Party comrade, “it’s quite clear (3), it’s in our
program, SHUTTING the Jews DOWN and OUT (4), ROOTING them OUT,
that’s what we’re doing.”
This is a far cry from THEIR translation don’t you think? Consider
these definitions:
(1) ausrotten = ausreuten (mit der Wurzel, ganz tilgen oder
herausstechen), vertilgen (mit der Wurzel beseitigen,
wegschaffen oder vernichten) [chiefly agricultural and
figurative] (-ung = -tion)
(out-rooten) = root out, remove root and all, dig out, uproot and
discard, weed out, eliminate, exterminate
(2) Volk (n.) = Gesamtheit Stamm – und sprachverwandter Menschen
= people, nation, tribe, ethnic population (culturally
and or racially distinguishable population)
(3) ganz klar = quite clear; completely clear; understood, crystal
clear; of course. (expression)
(4) ausschalten = ausschliessen (durch schliessen loesen, befreien:
durch schliessen fernhalten), unterbrechen, abstellen
(out-switch) = cut off, shut out, switch off, turn out, shut down,
dispose of, lock out, throw out, correct, exclude,
interupt.
As you can see the definitions used in THEIR translation were neither
the most appropriate for the piece, nor did they reflect the most
comon interpretation of the day. They are clearly little more than the
most negative definitions imaginable. But, did anyone really ever
think that such a translation would be objective. Consider the source.
Now you might begin to understand why revisionists are having such a
field day with the so-called proof that the Holocaust promotion lobby
is providing for their spiel! They seem to be totally unable to shoot
straight. Now they couldn’t be trying to hide something could they?
Jeremy, please let me know where I can get my hands on the ORIGINAL
version of this speech. Is it available online? But I guess, you’re
probably not the person to ask. You most likely wouldn’t tell me now
even if you knew … I might then expose more of the disinformation
you rely on so much. That wouldn’t be much fun would it?
If anyone else knows any sources for this or any other original Third
Reich speeches and historically relevant documents and or books, pleas
let me know. I’m interested in both the original German and the
English translations or so-called translations. … for obvious
reasons.
——————————————————–
“He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is
a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.”
(Sir William Drummond, 1585-1649)
———————————————————
“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility
of servitude greater than the animating contest for
freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your
counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand
that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you;
and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
Samuel Adams
———————————————————
Bjorn Conrad
Subject: Re: 89- Not a translation but a fabricated smear
Sent: 4/1/96 3:02 PM
From: Jamie McCarthy, [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Bjorn Conrad ([email protected]) writes:
>From now on Jeremy,
My name is Jamie, not Jeremy, as you know; why must you be childish?
>when you give us
>your so-called “proof” of something, don’t even bother to submit the
>English translation only! This translation is so bad, incorrect, and
>vicious…
Why thanks! I translated it myself!
Seriously — if any native speakers want to enter this discussion,
feel free. I am not a native speaker myself. But I have yet to find
a single native speaker who says that “ausrotten” (the main word in
question) means anything other than “extermination” or “killing” when
used in the context of living things. “Ausrotten,” when it refers to
living things and not abstract concepts, means “killing.”
I’ve shown my translation to a number of native and fluent German
speakers; I even put it together with their help. No native speaker
has objected to my translation to date. I welcome the opportunity for
the germanica-l list to confirm or critique it; if you are a native
speaker, I’d very much appreciate it if you would read through this
post and share your thoughts with me.
Bjorn, may I ask, are you a native speaker of the language?
Keep in mind that the context is important.. Since the subject of the
verb was das juedische Volk, the definitions that apply to plants etc.
are irrelevant. And the definitions that apply to abstract concepts
are irrelevant. Unless one considers Jews to be plants or abstract
concepts, which I would doubt.
>Just to double check myself I am using my German language dictionary “Das
>Deutsche Wort” by Richard Pekrun, Georg Dollheimer Verlag, Leipzig, 1934
>(writing project completed Jan 1, 1933 per the author) I will primarily be
>drawing my multiple definitions from this source, for obvious reasons.
I see. My list of dictionaries was rather long. I’ll list about half
of them here:
Deutsches Woerterbuch von Jacob Grimm und Wilhelm Grimm, Leipzig,
1854.
Deutsches Woerterbuch von Dr. Friedrich Ludwig Karl Weigand, Giessen,
1881.
Deutsches Woerterbuch von Hermann Paul, 1897.
Fluegel-Schmidt-Tanger, Woerterbuch der Englischen und Deutschen
Sprache fuer Hand- und Schulgebrauch, Brunswick, 1898.
Muret-Sanders enzyklopaedisches englisch-deutsches und
deutsch-englishes woerterbuch (Unabridged, Revised and Corrected
Edition), Berlin-Schoeneberg, 1906.
Heath’s German and English Dictionary, Boston, 1906.
[snip]
My claim is that ausrotten always means “extermination, killing” when
applied to living things in general.
(Here Jamie brought elements that he took in his dictionnaries )
******************************************************************************
I’m not stating that his interpretation was the only one, or that with
an exhaustive research one couldn’t find that according to eminent linguist,
there’s just one meaning for the living: I’m denying that no German has ever
deny that this is ‘obvious’ that it mean extermination, simply. Because
with such a litteral sense, ‘wipe out’, accounting with the fact that several
dictionnaries doesn’t give a specification for the livings, we have also to
figure that Himmler made long reserchs through 30 dictionnaries to find the
definition Gord Mcphee wanted. I’m not claiming that there was no blind re-
presails, no atrocities, the Nazis considered the Jews as a plague for 2
reasons: a fifth column (sabotage, murders of German soldiers) and for racial
reasons. But the claim that there’s ‘no ambiguity’ and that it mean ‘extermi-
nation’ is often support by irrelevant arguments, or falsehood, like ‘no german
has ever contest it’ or the use of ‘ausrotten’ in another speech by another
German in the future time in connection with a threat of anihilation, or the
use of such dictionnary rather than another one. It can avoid to confront some
interesting problems, like: why did Hitler still considered the Madagascar plan as
a solution in july 1942 according to Goebbel diary (from Irving’s article)
Why in march of the same year Goebbel’s reported that the fuhrer wanted the
jews to ‘leave Europe’, and why Goebbel say himself in his diary in march
that ‘after the war’, an island should be given to the Jews? Nizkor quote
only the elements that can match their theory, like the (very probably)
genuine part about the 60% liquidation for Lublin, but make no effort to explain
these other parts, nor why Luther talk about ‘eastern ghettos’ rather than
extermination, or why he talks about the Jews who will ‘be moved on further
to the occupied Eastern territories as soon as the technical onditions for it
are given’.
It is difficult to reconstruct the puzzle to know exactly how much of the
Jews who where deported were really killed by the Nazis, and how much perished
>from other reasons and how much survived, there’s contradictory elements on
that if we look at all the datas, not those that are selectivelly taken.
But is seems easier to quote selectivelly and shake the ‘ausrotten’ rattle
rather than to take in account as much data as possible.
From [email protected] Mon Aug 19 16:04:12 PDT 1996
Article: 57985 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
news.total.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: <Seufze> Wieder mit dem
Date: 17 Aug 1996 16:13:30 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne19.vir.com
[email protected] (Miloslav Bilik) wrote:
>
> [email protected] (Ehrlich606) wrote:
>
> >>>> Der Angeklagte Ley erklaerte: ‘Wir schwoeren, wir werden
> >>>> den Kampf nich aufgeben, bis der letzte Jude in Europa
> >>>> ausgerottet und wirklich tot ist. Es is nicht genug,
> >>>> den Juden, den Feind der Menschheit, auzugliedern —
> >>>> der Jude muss vernichtet werden.’
>
> >>It was not “ausgerottet **oder** wirklich tot ist”, but “ausgerottet
> >>**und** wirklich tot ist”. It is unequivocal.
> >>
> >Which _means_ that ausgerottet by itself is _not_ unequivocal.
>
> No. “wirklich tot ist” emphasizes only “ausgerottet”.
>
> But let’s try again. Is the **sentence** equivocal ? Do this sentence
> mean that all the Jews in Europa will be killed until the end of the
> war or not ?
>
Whether the sentence was equivocal or not… where they?
There’s at least close to a million victims of German persecutions
who survived, a prooven number if we account for Israel, USA,
Canada, Argentina and so on. There’s also another million or
so who were not necessarelly deported but who stayed in Europe
after the war. The bulk of the soviet Jews, eastern polish Jews
were evacuated before to the German invasion according to several
reliable sources that I have here. Several were able to
leave Europe during the war also. And there’s no reliable statistic
for soviet Union, contradictory statistics. It is hard to know
the exact number of those who perished, but since one can find
similar threats of exterminations in the future mode against the germans
in the declaration of british officials, such a threat in the future
time do not explain why so much survived if there was a centralized
extermination policy that was decided in Berlin in 1942.
From [email protected] Mon Aug 19 16:04:13 PDT 1996
Article: 58034 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!
laslo.netnet.net!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!
nntp04.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.asu.edu!ennfs.eas.asu.edu!
cs.utexas.edu!howland.erols.net!agate!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!
portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!
rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: gassing evidence bears interest
Date: 17 Aug 1996 17:40:19 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<4uheoq$gf[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<4ujifm$8k[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne26.vir.com
[email protected] (Miloslav Bilik) wrote:
>
> Some questions: what could be the use of a sealed door and especially
> of a judas hole in the door of a morgue ? and why did the Germans
> study (and ever command a heating system) for these morgues ?
>
Faurisson’s opinion is that it was frequent to protect buildings
from an evetual bombardment with sealed doors. I didn’t try to find
where he found this ‘often’, he had study a lot of material that
I’ve not access to so I can’t say with certanty: this is the reason.
Perhaps in another book he gaves more precisions, don’t know.
For the heating device, the project was drop something like 19
days after the prior suggestion. Probably it was to avoid the freezing
of pipes, or something like that.
From [email protected] Mon Aug 19 16:04:13 PDT 1996
Article: 58262 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!
laslo.netnet.net!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!van-bc!n1van.istar!
van.istar!west.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!tor.istar!east.istar!newsjunkie.ans.net!
newsfeeds.ans.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: gassing evidence bears interest
Date: 19 Aug 1996 01:20:01 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<4uheoq$gf[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<4ujifm$8k[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<4v061p$[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne63.vir.com
[email protected] (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
It’s not my intention to start a 3 months discussion on irrelevant details
as you sems to like it Mark, but since you chosed to attack on that I
will simply give more infos, as much as I can, from this publication (revue
d’histoire revisionniste, no 3) where Faurisson gives his explanation. BTW,
since Ehrlich had a recent discussion about the shower heads and since this
is also a part of the article, I’ll send him a duplicata.
Concerning the tight door for the krema: in page 430 of A.T.O. , Pressac
talk about it as a ‘definitive’ proof about mass gasing there despite he
add on page 439 that it is just an ‘indirect’ proof. In Faurison’s view,
a tight door was a banality since before and during the war, every room
that could be used as a shelter was equiped with an hermetic door accounting
for eventual bombardment. There’s also another possibility, since crematory
ovens which works at hight temperatures were in the vicinity, there was some
risks of explosion, gas emission, explosions. You stated that other buildings
were never equipped with an hermetic door, but bring no evidence to support
your claim. Faurisson claim also that most of the crematories had a room where
the bodies were wash. In another excerp (p.234) it is say by Pressac that
Bischoff asked the 15 may 1943 to Tpf & Sons to draw the installations for
100 showers that had to use to water heated by the garbage incinerator of
krema lll. There was a shower room there since the map show it, and since
Bishop letter’s talk about a REAL connection with hot water, this mean that
those shower heads had to be use there not for gasing but for another purpose.
So why not in other crematorias?
In 1987, G. Wellers, who was ready normally to accept any kind of proof,
said to the VSD magazine:
So, this story about shower heads, you know, it doesnt proove anything.
(Zero, Interview, may 1987, p.73)
I’ve not study more those aspects. I know that C. Porter has a tendency to
disclaim more often the authenticity of documents than Faurisson, but one
is free to do what he want with that (yap now Mark)
post and email to M.V. Alstine, Ehrlich
From [email protected] Wed Aug 21 11:38:51 PDT 1996
Article: 58724 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
torn!news.unb.ca!familynews.cycor.ca!bignews.cycor.ca!news.nstn.ca!ott.istar!
istar.net!tor.istar!east.istar!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!
rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: <Seufze> Wieder mit dem
Date: 19 Aug 1996 01:25:32 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne63.vir.com
[email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
>
> > Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]> writes:
> > after the war. The bulk of the soviet Jews, eastern polish Jews
> > were evacuated before to the German invasion according to several
> > reliable sources that I have here.
>
> Which, as usual, you do not name. Your sources for this are, at best,
> fabrications.
As usual, you take the traditionnal approach. Before friday, I will
enumerate those sources in a list, but you will not apologized for
those accusations, you will simply say: those are not valid!, the
way you acted for the 550,000 holocaust survivors who emigrated in
Palestine after WW ll. Before friday. It’s a bit long to build a whole
text, not to convince you, but to make another faq.
From [email protected] Thu Aug 22 09:19:26 PDT 1996
Article: 58918 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
op.net!nntp04.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.asu.edu!ennfs.eas.asu.edu!
cs.utexas.edu!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.ac.net!
news.bconnex.net!clicnet!news.clic.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!
usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: <Seufze> Wieder mit dem 89- Not a translation but a fabricated
smear Re: 89- Not a translation but a fabricated smear
Date: 21 Aug 1996 11:48:10 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]><[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne7.vir.com
[email protected] (Gord McFee) wrote:
>
> In message <[email protected]> – Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>17 Aug
> 1996 16:03:12 GMT writes:
> :>
> :>The ausrotten game seems on the way, as usual here, and since I remember almost
> :>nothing or very few of that langage, it will be the usual arrogant approach
> :>that will prevail: “I’m a native german speaker, or I speak perfectly german,
> :>you don’t know german, so shut up, no german could or has deny the meaning of
> :>thiw word as extermination.” This kind of attitude seems frequent here, and
> :>obviously that does not take in consideration some basic facts, a German living
> :>in that country would face some troubles if he’s denounce to the Gestapo there
> :>as a dangerous political deviant by some puppet (hi Nele). However, this is
> :>not totally true neither, as we know Irving, who is perfectly fluent, had
> :>some reserves on that, accounting for the nature of the langage 60 years ago
> :>and the fact that this word is now much more frequently use to describe the
> :>a nazi extermination policy in the medias. Some brought X dictionnaries that
> :>show this specification: extermination when we talk about the livings. However,
> :>several other dictionnaries gives 2 definitions, eradication and extermination,
> :>without specifying anything about the livings.
>
> Mr. Beaulieu, I have already posted on this, a post that you chose to ignore.
> I even took the time to write my reply in French so it would be crystal clear.
> I have to wonder why you persist in this. I don’t believe you are stupid, so
> I will conclude it is deliberate.
>
> [end quote]
>
> I find it somewhat annoying that you make a bald statement, and then simply
> dismiss any possible opposing argument before it is made. If that is to be
> your methodology, I suggest you debate with yourself.
>
I suggest that you shot yourself in the foot. First you claim that no
German speaking native has ever claim the opposite, and my point
was to say that I saw at least one, and I quoted him. Second, my
point was to say that some dictionnaries are giving 2 definitions,
one which is extermination, the other eradication, the first french-
german dictionnary that I opened didn’t give any specification for the
living, and I’m sure several german-german dictionnaries dot not
specify ‘for the living’, despite otehrs do.
Ibokor sent that quotation recently:
Langenscheidt’s Encyclopaedic Dictionary (1974), German-English, Vol
I, p. 182:
“ausrotten 2. (Volk, Rasse, etc.) exterminate, wipe out, extirpate;
diese Krankheit rottete die ganze Bevoelkerung aus
this disease wiped out the entire population;
die Urbevoelkerung des Landes wurde ausgerottet
the native population of the country was exterminated.”
Here a 1974 dictionnary gives 2 definitions, extirpate and exterminate:
Do you claim that no German-German dictionnary gives eradicate
or exterminate without specifying anything about the livings?
You are ready to put money on that?
From [email protected] Fri Aug 23 06:27:22 PDT 1996
Article: 59047 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
noc.van.hookup.net!eloi.vir.com!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: gassing evidence bears interest
Date: 23 Aug 1996 01:01:06 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<4uheoq$gf[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<4ujifm$8k[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<4v061p$[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne14.vir.com
[email protected] (Miloslav Bilik) wrote:
>
> [email protected] (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
>
> >In article <4v5063$iah@Vir.com>, Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> [email protected] (Miloslav Bilik) wrote:
> >> > Some questions: what could be the use of a sealed door and especially
> >> > of a judas hole in the door of a morgue ? and why did the Germans
> >> > study (and ever command a heating system) for these morgues ?
> >>
> >> Faurisson’s opinion is that it was frequent to protect buildings
> >> from an evetual bombardment with sealed doors.
>
> >Interesting, then, that _only_ the entrances to the delousing and
> >homicidal gas chambers had such doors while the rest of the entrnaces to
> >buildings in the camp did not, yes? Mr. Faurisson’s “opinion” on this is
> >absurd.
>
> It’s indeed interesting, but what was the use of the judas hole ? to
> see if the planes were gone ?
>
Again, the only explanation I have on that is from the same review,
page 103: here Faurisson refer to page 456 of A.T.O. where Pressac
show is 34 criminal proof, another gas tight door with a juda whole
and the door is literally mention in German as a ‘gas chamber door’
In 1980, during the Faurisson trial , la LICRA tried to use this document
against Faurisson but he replied that this was a door for the delousing
facility. I’ve not the other book where he present perhaps more details,
all I know is that in the german sentence he quoted there’s no reference
to any leichenkeller in association with this juda hole. The way Faurisson
wrote it, it seems that Pressac recognize that it is for a delousing
facility, but the paragraph is a bit confuse here. I don’t know if
there’s a juda hole for A door which is explicitelly refered as a
Leichenkeller’s door.
However, I don’t find really extraordinnary the fact that a door,
wether it is for an appartment, a house, a morturaty or a delousing
facility as a juda hole or a window. Some doors have it, some other
not.
From [email protected] Sat Aug 24 08:18:24 PDT 1996
Article: 59321 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
nntp.teleport.com!news.serv.net!news.cstone.net!newshost.cyberramp.net!
news.onramp.net!newshost.convex.com!cnn.exu.ericsson.se!eua.ericsson.se!
news.algonet.se!eru.mt.luth.se!newsfeed.luth.se!news.luth.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!
news01.sunet.se!sunic!02-newsfeed.univie.ac.at!01-newsfeed.univie.ac.at!
Austria.EU.net!EU.net!nntp04.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!newsflash.concordia.ca!news.nstn.ca!
ott.istar!istar.net!tor.istar!east.istar!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!
rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: <Seufze> Wieder mit dem
Date: 23 Aug 1996 01:07:22 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne14.vir.com
[email protected] (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:
>
> dvdth[email protected] (DvdThomas) attacks Nele Abels for attributing text
> to the wrong person:
>
> And you, sir, call yourself a “linguist”??? You rant at
> greater length than shown here at “Mr. Beaulieu” when you are
> in fact pontificating over a mix of quotes from Bjorn Conrad
> and Jamie McCarthy, who were arguing AGAINST one another. Yet
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> your great grasp of language couldn’t pick out that fact, which
> is not only obvious, it was explicitly stated in the post
> quoted. Further, Mr. Beaulieu has a very distinctive style of
> English which it doesn’t take a linguist to recognize, AND YOU
> DO NOT QUOTE HIM ONE TIME IN YOUR LENGTHY DIATRIBE SUPPOSEDLY
> DIRECTED AT HIM!!!
>
> Ahem. In Mr. Abels’ article <[email protected]>,
> DThomas, which you are replying to, there is not a single word written
> by me.
There was several of your statements in the original article I
posted, this is what he had in the mind certanly.
From [email protected] Sat Aug 24 08:18:25 PDT 1996
Article: 59368 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!
chi-news.cic.net!news.math.psu.edu!news.iag.net!news.worldpath.net!imci3!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.ac.net!news.bconnex.net!clicnet!news.clic.net!
rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: nizkor people’s archives
Date: 23 Aug 1996 02:02:05 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne78.vir.com
That’s really curious, if someone can explain it to me:
They seems to preferably register the revisionist claims,
but there’s exception: they started to keep track of Yale’s
postings, and I saw the name of Jamie McCarthy at least. They don’t
keep track of all my posts neither, like several others, and
they do not recortd ehrlich posts. What are your critrias, guys?
the weather?
From [email protected] Sat Aug 24 08:18:25 PDT 1996
Article: 59400 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!
usenet.eel.ufl.edu!spool.mu.edu!agate!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
in2.uu.net!newsflash.concordia.ca!news.nstn.ca!ott.istar!istar.net!tor.istar!
east.istar!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!
Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Beaulieu and Butz
Date: 24 Aug 1996 12:11:11 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne11.vir.com
>miloslav Billik wrote:
>>It’s precisely the opposite for me. Butz convinced me that’s he’s willingfully
>>lying. He made such claims that I was thinking of taking some ones as tag
>>lines.
>>By the way: (p.121, about the L1 of K2: “that building is just a big
>>carburetor”). It’s funny (or sad) for anyone who saw ones a coke oven gas.
>>I can post a sketch of it if you want, photos, report the witnesses of workers
on
>>such coke ovens aso). Like if the tower of Eiffel was in my cellar but
destroyed
>>after the war without any trace.
>>First of all, I doubt strongly that you took that quote in But’s book, but
>>probably more in an anti-revisionist book or on Nizkor’s archives.
The >>question of the Vergasungkeller is probably one of the rare quotes that is
>>usedsystematically by the professional anti-revisionist, and it is a very
>>minor>point in the book were he tried to give an explanation about this
>>document.
>You can ever strongly doubt, but I gave the reference.
>I try again: “The Hoax of the XXth century”, Arthury R. Butz, IHR, ISBN
>0-939484-46-3.
I read the remaining, ok, I’m sorry but you read it indeed, contrarelly to what I thought. I was surprised but life is like that…
>It’s quite clear that Butz never saw a monument as a coke oven and hasn’t the
>beginning of an idea of the job and furnitures to remain it in an operating
>state. In the opposite case the lie is obvious. In fact the lies by omissions
>are obvious all along the book.
Everybody has his own threasold. In my case I found it convincing, despite
2 or 3 suppositions appeared to be not correct later, among them the Goebbel’s
diary for which he made suppositions with the material he had, and up to know it seems that the fate of the jews in Lublin was much more dramatic than what he estimated. But thanks a lot to recommand this book: you are immune, my conviction is that a majority of the people who will weight his arguments and those that exist in the classical books will not make the same choice. I’m not expecting anything else than a gradual, slow victory for revisionism, probably a quite one. The ‘lie by omission’ is another matter, sevral of the arguments
that appear here seems to me not accurate, if someone else judge those ones
as important, like the juda whole story, that’s up to everyone judgment.
>The most amazing is that Butz is responding to the affidavit of Hoess: (I quote
>Butz again) “Another improvement we made over Treblinka was that we built our
>gas chambers to accomodate 2000 people at one time, whereas at Treblinka their
>10 gas chambers only accomodated 200 people each”. (p.102). Butz omitted
>completly this account, and doesn’t tell one word about furnacies at Treblinka.
>Thus, his “oven coke gas generator” was for 2000 people, but we have to guess
>for what use, and why 2000 is better than 10*200..
Here you lost me. He quoted Hoess affidavit. ‘He doesn’t tell a word about
furnacies at Treblinka’? But there was no furnacies at Treblinka. And ‘we have
to guess why 2000 is better than 200*10’ ??? Well, it is the statement that Hoess signed, he could have use this point but he skipped it indeed, why should he feel embarass because another part of Hoess affidavit was weird? He probably forgot to exploit this point also.
>In fact, I recommend the reading of the Butz’s book. You will give a few money
>to the IHR (and I am sorry to do have so), but as this revisonnist book is >known
>as one’s of the better of the revisionnists, I think that it is one of the best
>reading to understand what is the negationnism. Beaulieu said that this >question
>is “one of the rare quotes used systematically by the professionals
>anti-revisionists”. I’m certainly not a professional anti-denier, but the
>problems are certainlys no rare, reading it is worth some days; you will get >the
>major thesis and if you know only a bit about the holocaust, you will never be
>caught but will see a lot of lies, guess-works and omissions.
Good..
post and email
From [email protected] Sun Aug 25 09:52:01 PDT 1996
Article: 59666 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!
news.umbc.edu!haven.umd.edu!hecate.umd.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!
agate!howland.erols.net!nntp04.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!
van-bc!n1van.istar!van.istar!west.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!tor.istar!east.istar!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Apologies to Yale Edeiken
Date: 25 Aug 1996 03:50:55 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 6
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <4vnk[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne75.vir.com
I apologise Yale for my comportment this week. I humiliated you twice
in the same week, about the number of Holocaust survivors in Israel
and the evacuation of the soviet Jews. I promiss I’ll spare you more
in the future.
From [email protected] Sun Aug 25 09:52:01 PDT 1996
Article: 59701 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.campus.mci.net!uky.edu!
cpk-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!
cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!nntp04.primenet.com!
nntp.primenet.com!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!van-bc!n1van.istar!van.istar!west.istar!
ott.istar!istar.net!tor.istar!east.istar!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!
rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Anti-anti-semitism
Date: 25 Aug 1996 04:33:15 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <4vg5p[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne75.vir.com
[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>
> [email protected] (Kurt Stele) writes:
> Nazi-boy here also claimed that the Talmud “tells how to
> have sex with dogs”. Has he documented that? No. He
> probably pulled it from some old copy of “Der Stuermer”,
> that fine Nazi rag. Its editor, BTW, was hanged. And it
> served him right.
>
> As every day passes, this miserable little Nazi coward
> gets more and more entangled in his own lies and absurdities.
>
> But what can you expect. He’s a “Holocaust revisionist”,
> after all.
An objective reader here could see that Mr Keren used only the
words ‘coward’, ‘Nazi’, ‘miserable’, and ‘lies’. He completelly
forgot to use the traditionnal ‘stupid’, ‘idiot’, and then it
is clear that a changement is now on the way in mr Keren’s mind,
he’s close to turn his coat and become one of our fellow revisionist.
This is an encouraging sign.
From [email protected] Sun Aug 25 09:52:02 PDT 1996
Article: 59713 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!eloi.vir.com!
rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: <Seufze> Wieder mit dem
Date: 22 Aug 1996 02:40:19 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 93
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<4v4r3a$[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne13.vir.com
[email protected] (Miloslav Bilik) wrote:
>
> Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >[email protected] (Miloslav Bilik) wrote:
> I do not want to add (very) hypothetical survivors, this would be
> endless as one of the frontiers was soon closed after the war. Even if
> it is between 1M or 5M deathes, such statistics are whimsical (I speak
> the yours, of course).
>
> I prefer to resume some arguments from the French historian
> Vidal-Naquet to try to show what is the method of the deniers (or the
> revisionnists, to be polite).
>
> 1/ A direct witness, if he is Jewish, is a liar.
>
> 2/ A witness, a document earlier at the end of the war is faked or a
> rumor (the “bottles” of the SK in Auschwitz, aso).
>
> 3/ the documents concerning deportations (ghettos, summary executions,
> trains,..) are faked.
>
> 4/ a Nazi document, if it is “coded”, is authentic. But otherwise, as
> for example that of Himmler’s, is valueless.
>
> 5/ postwar witnesses are valueless (torture, or intimidation).
>
> 6/ “technical” arguments “proving” the “impossibility” of gassings.
>
> 7/ the same word can have two meanings. For example if Borszat wrote
> “keine Vergasung in Dachau”, Vergasung means homicidal gassing; but in
> the documents of the Bauleitung, it means “vaporization cellar” (see
> Butz).
>
> 8/ all comparison giving weight to the documents are avoided.
> Einsatzgruppen, Babi Yar, relationship between employed them of T4 and
> these of Treblinka, and so on.
..Except he forgot to add that they bring arguments to support their claims.
But this remind me an event, Vidal-Naquet is the man who broke my last
reticences against revisionism. Four years ago I spent a whole month to
read books after books since I was unemployed. I was skeptical, I couldn’t
be sure if the revisionist were right or not. Butz definitivelly impressed
me more than any other. I ran across librairies, Lipstadt just desapointed
me, she didn’t even try to give a convincing rebutal to chapters like
‘hungarian jews’, ‘Auschwitz’, ‘The Final Solution’ or ‘Washington and
New-York’. I did verify 20 or 30 references over perhaps 150 or 200,
everything was clean. Than I found ‘les assasins de la memoire’, were
Vidal-Naquet exposed those points that you wrote, and finally I got this
kind of masterpiece. In a paragraph, he explained how the invention of
documents was a current practice for revisionist, and gave the notorious
exemple of this false red-cross report that Thie Christophersen used without
checking if the original Brasilian newspaper’s article was accurate or not
(but of course, Vidal Naquet didn’t talk about this brasilian newspaper
which seems to have start that )
Than, to discredit Butz, rather than to attack directly his arguments,
he used the fact that Christophersen is quote in Butz’ book. The way this
paragraph was written, a reader who hadn’t access to the hoax could only
think that Christophersen was a proeminent witnes for Butz rather than a
minor one, and that Butz’ claim was that nazi camps were nice places.
So since this red-cross report was false, Christophersen was a liar and
Butz arguments collapse.
When I checked back in the Hoax the pages Vidal-Naquet gave in his ‘exposure’,
I discovered that the only minor use of Christophersen was
1) to say that Christophersen claim on low mortality rate in Birkenau
accounting for what he saw briefly in the summer of 1944 was not a relevant
point. As soon he (Butz)checked the Nazi letter’s exchange during the 1942=
43 period, it was clear that the mortality rate was heavy
2) When he talked about a letter exchange with him on the origin of the
stench in Birkenau, an origin that he finally attributed to the rubber
factories contrarelly to Christophersen
3) To evaluate, among 5 or 6 witness plus a book about US military aerial
operation, the date of the first bombardment in Birkenau. It is true
that Christophersen was working kilometers away from Birkenau as Vidal
Naquet said, but this was irrelevant for the case. His point was simply
that this first raid was on 25 august and not in december (Hilberg’s
early version) and that since an evaluation of the defenses had to be
done weeks before, the US air force took certanly photos during the
Hungarian jews period.
That’s all. When I saw that a notorious man like Vidal-Naquet was just
able to find such a cheap trick to ‘unmask’ Butz after 10 years, then
I knew it was superflous to continue. That’s how I turned revisionist.
From [email protected] Sun Aug 25 09:52:03 PDT 1996
Article: 59783 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!
eloi.vir.com!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Apologies to Yale Edeiken
Date: 25 Aug 1996 13:31:57 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 194
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne14.vir.com
[email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
>
> > Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > I apologise Yale for my comportment this week. I humiliated you twice
> > in the same week, about the number of Holocaust survivors in Israel
> > and the evacuation of the soviet Jews. I promiss I’ll spare you more
> > in the future.
>
> You “humiliated” me neither times. You are still mistaken about the
> number of survivors who immigrated to Israel insofar as the dates are concerned.
> Nor have you provided any proof that more than a fraction of the Jews in the path
> of the nazi armies escaped by exacuation. In particular you presented no
> numbers on the evacuation of Polish Jews.
>
> Sorry. You are still providing phony numbers.
*******************************
========
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: <Seufze> Wieder mit dem
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Date: 21 Aug 1996 12:00:41 GMT
[email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
e
> > the
> > way you acted for the 550,000 holocaust survivors who emigrated in
> > Palestine after WW ll. Before friday. It’s a bit long to build a whole
> > text, not to convince you, but to make another faq.
> Yes, you lied about the dates of immigration and built a phony case on
> it padding your numbers with a hand-waving statement about “illegal
> immigration.” Remember your point was not the total immigration to Isreal since
> WW II but the immigration *immediately after the war.*
Yes or No: are you claiming that this article I found, Los Angeles
Times, january 23 1995 were Lemberger , the director of Amicha
and a specialist of this question claim that 300,000 holocaust survivors
lives in Israel today and that their estimated number in the early
50’s was 550,000, are you claiming that I invented it? Yes or no?
And if yes, do you claim you got this newspaper and verify before
to call me a liar? If so I’ll keep a track of that post and find
a way to get the photo of the text, I’m returning in New York
in september. Your point is to talk only about a part of the european
immigration for a short period and call me a liar because I’m
supposed to play on the confusion and include sepharadic immigration.
Sepharadic were count as ‘holocaust survivors’ by Lemberger?
So say it clearly: are you claiming that you’ve check in this newspaper
and didn’t find anything, and that it’s the reason you call me a liar?
If so, we’ll havve some fun as soon I’ll get a scanner
***********************************************************
====
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Russian Jews were evacuated
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Date: 21 Aug 1996 11:51:09 GMT
[email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
> > Before friday, I will
> > enumerate those sources in a list, but you will not apologized for
> > those accusations, you will simply say: those are not valid!,
My first intention was to complete that with some further references,
but since I’ve few time I prefer to give only a fragment, the begining of
Walter Sanning ‘The dissolution of Eastern European Jewry’. Yale will say that
this is a fraudulent reference since it is revisionist, but since I give
also the neutral references he used, thatn Yale will have to point which
one are fraudulent.
W. Sanning:p.91
The Jewish population was accorded a very special attention within the
framework of the Soviet clearing measures. The Zionist Institute of Jewish
Affairs (Institute) wrote for instance:
In numerous cities and towns, p[articularly in the Ukraine and White
Russia, Jews were among the first to be evacuated.
[(Institute of Jewish affairs, ‘Hitler’s ten-year war on the Jews,
New York, 1943 , p 186)]
The reason for this preferential treatment was seen by the Institute to
be connected with the high percentage of Jews in the Soviet administration,
among the office and blue-collar workers and the intelligentsia; it added;
For this reason, despite the Army’s urgent need for transportation,
thousands of trains were provided for evacuation. Thus, not only
were hundreds of thousands of human lives saved, but military highways
were quickly cleared of millions of refugees.
The Institute emphasized that there was no shortage of time to remove the
civilian population, especially in the larger cities such as Kiev, Odesa,
Smolensk, etc:
… there was time enough to evacuate the civilian population.
[(Institute of Jewish affairs, ‘Hitler’s ten-year war on the Jews,
New York, 1943 , p 186)]
The technica prerequisites had been met and the same means of transportation
which brought the masses of the Red Army to the western front, were used on
their return trip for the evacuation and the deportation of the civilian
population. Also, one must assume that the Soviets, following their own
example of the spring of 1940 when they deported the Polish Jewish refugees
from Eastern Poland to Siberia, were not overly concerned with the comfort
of the population scheduled to be removed.
Shitomir, which contained 50,000 Jes before the war, was presented by the
institute as an example of the relatively high percentage of Jews evacuated.
Of theses, 44,000 (88%) left with the Soviet troops; considering that 53,000
of the 95,000 inhabitants (minimum) of Shitomir had been evacuated, the
Jewish share amounted to four-fifths of all evacuees!
[(Institute of Jewish affairs, ‘Hitler’s ten-year war on the Jews,
New York, 1943 , p 186)]
Minsk, too, confirms Zionist reports of a preferential treatment accorded
the Jews by the Soviets in the evacuation program. After the occupation of
Minsk within the first few days of the war, General Halder found no more
than 100,000 of the former population of 240,000 (1939); the rest had fled,
been evacuated or deported.
[ Reitlinger, the final solution, p 223]
Kube, the German Reich Commissar for White Russia, stated that all but a
few thousands of the Jews of Minsk had gone with the Red Army
[(Institute of Jewish affairs, ‘Hitler’s ten-year war on the Jews,
New York, 1943 , p 186)]
Before the war, there were approximately 90,000 Jews in Minsk
[ Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol 11, p 57 ]
Assuming that the words ‘few thousands’ refer to 5,000, we obtain the
following picture: About 60% of all evacuees (85,000 of 140,000) were
Jews even though they constitued only 38% of the population.
A Soviet Union specialist, Joshua Rothenberg of the Brandeis University
put it bluntly:
Much of the Jewish population of the conquered territories escaped
annihilation by fleeing before the invading armies arrived
[ Rothenberg, Joshua: “Jewish Religion in the Soviet Union”, The Jews in
Soviet Russia since 1917 (Lionel Kochan, Ed) London, 1970, p172]
[…]
Of Vitebsk’s 100,000 Jews only 22,000 remained behind according to a report
by the Soviet Jewish author David Bergelson of the Jewish Anti-Fascist
committee in the Moscow newspaper Eynikeyt dated 9/5/1942.
Reitlinger, who estimated the number of Jews in Soviet White Russia (borders
of 1941) at 861,000, said the Germans found no more than 172,000 of them
[ Reitlinger, The Final Solution, p 498]
Kishinev in Bessarabia was occupied by the Axis on July 17, 1941.
The Rumanian count of August 16, 1941, however found only 201 Jews of
the former 70,000 living there before the war.
Publikationsstelle Wien. Die Bevolkerungszahlung in Rumanien 1941
(Geheim), Vienna, 1943, p.73
[…]
No wonder that David Bergelson was able to declare that at the end of 1942
80% of the Jews in the conquered areas had been evacuated. He continued in
the Moscow newspaper Eynikeyt of December 5, 1942 […]
**********************************************************************
Those operations started even before the German invasion, simply because
Staline didn’t trust Hitler and had already in the mind to move as much
as possible the machinery and the qualified labor toward east.
Now Yale, if you claim that Sanning invented those sources, or one or
two of it, I wonder why Wiesenthal spend so much time to promote
censorship rather than to blast Sanning’s credibility. If it’s so easy
to demolish his claims by other means, why?
From [email protected] Sun Aug 25 15:59:34 PDT 1996
Article: 59840 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!
eloi.vir.com!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Put up or shut up, Mr. Giwer: The Himmler tape
Date: 25 Aug 1996 17:52:26 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <4vlmmh$[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne4.vir.com
[email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
>
> > [email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes:
” was nover made this is irrelevant.
> > But if that presentation was true then it is the creation of someone
> > else.
>
> It is. It is the creation of Matt Giwer.
>
> You have claimed the tape is fraudulent.
>
> Why are you not willing to have your ideas tested?
>
> Is it because you know you are a fraud?
>
> Even the “lurkers” you claim that you play to are able to see the truth.
>
> –YFE
An interesting aspect about it is that since there’s two definitions
for ausrottung, the revisionist are just avoiding real issues when
they use the term ‘wipe out’ or eradicate because a very, very accurate
definition would say that it means only ‘extermination’ for the livings.
Then, despite some dictionnaries do not gives this specification, the revisionist
who claim that Himmler used ausrottung in a semi-figurative way in connection
to the expulsion of the Jews are supposed to lie.
However, if I ask why Himmler equated ‘evacuation of the jews’ (jUDENEVAKUIERUNG)
to ausrottung at the begining of his speech, guess what will be the answer:
Himmler used the word ‘evacuation’ in a figurative way!
From [email protected] Sun Aug 25 18:23:55 PDT 1996
Article: 59894 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!
laslo.netnet.net!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!van-bc!n1van.istar!
van.istar!west.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!tor.istar!east.istar!newsjunkie.ans.net!
newsfeeds.ans.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Why are
Date: 25 Aug 1996 04:48:18 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne75.vir.com
[email protected] (Gord McFee) wrote:
>
> I wonder why it is that such a large percentage of “revisionists” post under
> pseudonyms, or anonymously? If they are such great and brave believers in the
> truth, why can’t they screw up the courage to post under their real names? I
> have nothing against pseudonyms and anonymity in general, but it is intriguing
> that *this* particular crew favours it to such a high degerr.
>
> Could it be that they are gutless jellyfish? Or are they secretly aware what
> scumbags they are and don’t want their mommies to find out?
>
> I hope this message isn’t taken as provocative. I really want to know. };->
>
Well, in my case I could face serious legal problems if I use my
real name. It seems ‘obvious’ to you that any revisionist should
post under his name, but it’s not wishable for a guy like me who run
the diesel of the Treblinka’s gas chambers to use my real name.
From [email protected] Sun Aug 25 22:29:17 PDT 1996
Article: 59926 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!
eloi.vir.com!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re:Apologies to Yale Edeiken
Date: 26 Aug 1996 01:23:06 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne62.vir.com
[email protected] (Gord McFee) wrote:
:>In message <[email protected]> – Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>25 Aug
:>1996 03:50:55 GMT writes:
:> I apologise Yale for my comportment this week. I humiliated you twice
:> in the same week, about the number of Holocaust survivors in Israel
:> and the evacuation of the soviet Jews. I promiss I’ll spare you more
:> in the future.
>M. Beaulieu! Votre facon a “gagner” est de simplement le dire?
No problem Gord, I respect confidentiality.
>Donc, vous avez battu M. Edeiken simplement parce que vous le dites?
>Voyons!
Well, I know that some african tribals use the powder of elephant’s tusk
to solve erection problems, but I can’t really help you more than that.
Smile, Jesus loves you Gord.
From [email protected] Mon Aug 26 07:22:14 PDT 1996
Article: 60041 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!
eloi.vir.com!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Apologies to Yale Edeiken: who needs none
Date: 26 Aug 1996 10:29:22 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 297
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne4.vir.com
[email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
>> [email protected] (Skipp OBC) writes:
>> In <4vomtb$[email protected]> [email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) writes:
>>
>> ! Sorry. You are still providing phony numbers.
>> You mean he’s failing to provide enough personal data so you can harass
>> him better? How evil! This must be what Dr. Godhagen said about the
>> evil citizens who won’t do what Jews want them to.
> No. I mean his numbers are phony. That is, he fudges them to get the
>results he wants. His use of the number of Jews who immigrated from Europe to
>Israel after WW II is a godd example.
>
> JFB claimed that about 500,000 survivors immigrated to Israel in the
>period from 1945-50. In fact, that number is the total number of suvivors — to the
>present who found their way to Israel. He arrived at this phony number by adding
>in Sephardic Jews who immigrated between 1948-50. The dishonesty is that he
>then reports the number of survivors in Europe in 1950 and *adds* them to the
>number of survivors who went to Isreal. In other words, he counts them twice.
>
> He played similar games with U.S. refugee immigration. In the period
>before 1950, less than 70,000 refugee Jews were admitted to the U.S. JFB first
>claimed that no records were kept by religion. This is not true; they were. He
>then speculates that 100,000s of non-Jews were, in reality Jews. This flies in the
>face of the reports given to Congress and the president. Finally, to make his
>numbers even larger, he tells us that about 500,000 Jews illegally immigrated to
>the U.S.
>
> His latest claim is that there were never 3,000,000 Polish Jews under
>nazi control because the Soviets “evacuated” the bulk of the Jews before the
>nazi armies arrived. This is simply not the case. Approximately 2,500,000 Jews
>were trapped in the part of Poland controlled by the nazis. Few of the remaining
>1,500,000 ever made it to the Soviet Union as JFB claims. Operation Barbarossa
>simply moved too fast. Soviet Poland fell in less than a week.
>
For the case of the polish Jews, a lot on the eastern part were evacuated
in 1940 by the soviets and I’ll give my references about that next weekend.
I’ll verify later but I don’t think the Koehrer report gives anything else then
estimations based on the pre-German invasion for those territories, but we’ll
take a look at that next weekend. My claim was only restricted to soviet jews,
jews who were both exterminated according to ‘eizengruppen reports’ and saved
for the bulk of them according to jewish sources in 1942-43.
> Likewise while there wer attempts to evacuate Jews from White Russia
>during Barbarossa, the bulk of the Jews were caught by the advancing German
>army. According to Dawidowicz “Most Jews in the Baltics, White Russia, the
>Ukraine, Bessarabia, and the Crimea [the targets of the opening campaing of
>Barbarossa] were caught by the German invasion, which advanced too rapidly to
>permit large scale flight or sytematic evacuation.” (“The War Against the Jews”;
>page 499)
>
> JFB claims there were few Jews left in cities such as Kiev or Minsk
>when the Germans arrived. Clearly this is incorrect. The Babi Yar murders in
>September 1941 killed 33,000 Jews. Far more than JFB claims were left in the
>city. Likewise JFB claims there were less than 5,000 Jews in Minsk when the nazi
>armies arrived. Again the facts contradict this claim. In August 1941 Himmler
>visited Minsk and, at his own request, saw a mass execution of Jews (Reitlinger;
>”The SS: Alibi of a Nation” page 183 of the 1989 paperback edition). Although
>Himmler did stay for the whole show, the series of executions, according to the
>Eisatzguppen accounts were far greater than 5,000 people.
>
> In short, JFB’s numbers cannot be substantiated. They are figments of
>his imagination.
>
> I note that the only response you make is a gratuitous charge that I
>have harrassed JFB. A charge that he does not make and that you cannot
>substantiate.
>
> –YFE
So I’ll need to repost those 3 ones:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: <Seufze> Wieder mit dem
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Date: 21 Aug 1996 12:00:41 GMT
[email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
e
> > the
> > way you acted for the 550,000 holocaust survivors who emigrated in
> > Palestine after WW ll. Before friday. It’s a bit long to build a whole
> > text, not to convince you, but to make another faq.
>
> Yes, you lied about the dates of immigration and built a phony case on
> it padding your numbers with a hand-waving statement about “illegal
> immigration.” Remember your point was not the total immigration to Isreal since
> WW II but the immigration *immediately after the war.*
Yes or No: are you claiming that this article I found, Los Angeles
Times, january 23 1995 were Lemberger , the director of Amicha
and a specialist of this question claim that 300,000 holocaust survivors
lives in Israel today and that their estimated number in the early
50’s was 550,000, are you claiming that I invented it? Yes or no?
And if yes, do you claim you got this newspaper and verify before
to call me a liar? If so I’ll keep a track of that post and find
a way to get the photo of the text, I’m returning in New York
in september. Your point is to talk only about a part of the european
immigration for a short period and call me a liar because I’m
supposed to play on the confusion and include sepharadic immigration.
Sepharadic were count as ‘holocaust survivors’ by Lemberger?
So say it clearly: are you claiming that you’ve check in this newspaper
and didn’t find anything, and that it’s the reason you call me a liar?
If so, we’ll havve some fun as soon I’ll get a scanner
***********************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Apologies to Yale Edeiken
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Date: 25 Aug 1996 18:13:35 GMT
[email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
>
> > Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > I apologise Yale for my comportment this week. I humiliated you twice
> > in the same week, about the number of Holocaust survivors in Israel
> > and the evacuation of the soviet Jews. I promiss I’ll spare you more
> > in the future.
>
> You “humiliated” me neither times. You are still mistaken about the
> number of survivors who immigrated to Israel insofar as the dates are concerned.
> Nor have you provided any proof that more than a fraction of the Jews in the path
> of the nazi armies escaped by exacuation. In particular you presented no
> numbers on the evacuation of Polish Jews.
>
> Sorry. You are still providing phony numbers.
The problem Yale, is that you disclaim my sources in a too much
generalistic way. Let say that in 1 month 1/2 I’m comming with this picture. Then
you will say: well, with your records Beaulieu, is was normal to think that you
lied. However, if you claim: I’ve look your reference, and you lie! than I’ll be
able to call you a liar in a month and a half. Some people don’t care about their
reputation, someone who follow Grynspan and McVay during a whole year could fill
perhaps a gigabyte of FAQS abou this or this lie, one more will not make any difference.
In your case however, you prefer to be carefull and ‘lie by omission’ or otherwise to
claim something in a way too keep a minimum of reputation. This is why you havn’t the
balls to claim: _I’ve check_ and you lied. One objective observer could see that the
method of guys like Curtis and you is to ask for references, even when they were already
given several times in the past (for any topic), but to disclaim it as ‘lies’ when a guy give
it, but without taking the risk to state _I’ve check_. You know that I would seased the
opportunity to harass you over a year if you would do that.
The samething can be said about Sanning: here, it is not sure that I could find his sources,
but I’m asking you to point _which one_ is fabricated, and for that you could search in newspapers,
anti-revisionist books, but here again they failed to accuse Sanning
of that. ‘Liar’ in a generalistic way is less risky.
***********************************************************
====
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Russian Jews were evacuated
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Date: 21 Aug 1996 11:51:09 GMT
[email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
>
> > Before friday, I will
> > enumerate those sources in a list, but you will not apologized for
> > those accusations, you will simply say: those are not valid!,
>
My first intention was to complete that with some further references,
but since I’ve few time I prefer to give only a fragment, the begining of
Walter Sanning ‘The dissolution of Eastern European Jewry’. Yale will say that
this is a fraudulent reference since it is revisionist, but since I give
also the neutral references he used, thatn Yale will have to point which
one are fraudulent.
W. Sanning:p.91
The Jewish population was accorded a very special attention within the
framework of the Soviet clearing measures. The Zionist Institute of Jewish
Affairs (Institute) wrote for instance:
In numerous cities and towns, p[articularly in the Ukraine and White
Russia, Jews were among the first to be evacuated.
[(Institute of Jewish affairs, ‘Hitler’s ten-year war on the Jews,
New York, 1943 , p 186)]
The reason for this preferential treatment was seen by the Institute to
be connected with the high percentage of Jews in the Soviet administration,
among the office and blue-collar workers and the intelligentsia; it added;
For this reason, despite the Army’s urgent need for transportation,
thousands of trains were provided for evacuation. Thus, not only
were hundreds of thousands of human lives saved, but military highways
were quickly cleared of millions of refugees.
The Institute emphasized that there was no shortage of time to remove the
civilian population, especially in the larger cities such as Kiev, Odesa,
Smolensk, etc:
… there was time enough to evacuate the civilian population.
[(Institute of Jewish affairs, ‘Hitler’s ten-year war on the Jews,
New York, 1943 , p 186)]
The technica prerequisites had been met and the same means of transportation
which brought the masses of the Red Army to the western front, were used on
their return trip for the evacuation and the deportation of the civilian
population. Also, one must assume that the Soviets, following their own
example of the spring of 1940 when they deported the Polish Jewish refugees
from Eastern Poland to Siberia, were not overly concerned with the comfort
of the population scheduled to be removed.
Shitomir, which contained 50,000 Jes before the war, was presented by the
institute as an example of the relatively high percentage of Jews evacuated.
Of theses, 44,000 (88%) left with the Soviet troops; considering that 53,000
of the 95,000 inhabitants (minimum) of Shitomir had been evacuated, the
Jewish share amounted to four-fifths of all evacuees!
[(Institute of Jewish affairs, ‘Hitler’s ten-year war on the Jews,
New York, 1943 , p 186)]
Minsk, too, confirms Zionist reports of a preferential treatment accorded
the Jews by the Soviets in the evacuation program. After the occupation of
Minsk within the first few days of the war, General Halder found no more
than 100,000 of the former population of 240,000 (1939); the rest had fled,
been evacuated or deported.
[ Reitlinger, the final solution, p 223]
Kube, the German Reich Commissar for White Russia, stated that all but a
few thousands of the Jews of Minsk had gone with the Red Army
[(Institute of Jewish affairs, ‘Hitler’s ten-year war on the Jews,
New York, 1943 , p 186)]
Before the war, there were approximately 90,000 Jews in Minsk
[ Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol 11, p 57 ]
Assuming that the words ‘few thousands’ refer to 5,000, we obtain the
following picture: About 60% of all evacuees (85,000 of 140,000) were
Jews even though they constitued only 38% of the population.
A Soviet Union specialist, Joshua Rothenberg of the Brandeis University
put it bluntly:
Much of the Jewish population of the conquered territories escaped
annihilation by fleeing before the invading armies arrived
[ Rothenberg, Joshua: “Jewish Religion in the Soviet Union”, The Jews in
Soviet Russia since 1917 (Lionel Kochan, Ed) London, 1970, p172]
[…]
Of Vitebsk’s 100,000 Jews only 22,000 remained behind according to a report
by the Soviet Jewish author David Bergelson of the Jewish Anti-Fascist
committee in the Moscow newspaper Eynikeyt dated 9/5/1942.
Reitlinger, who estimated the number of Jews in Soviet White Russia (borders
of 1941) at 861,000, said the Germans found no more than 172,000 of them
[ Reitlinger, The Final Solution, p 498]
Kishinev in Bessarabia was occupied by the Axis on July 17, 1941.
The Rumanian count of August 16, 1941, however found only 201 Jews of
the former 70,000 living there before the war.
Publikationsstelle Wien. Die Bevolkerungszahlung in Rumanien 1941
(Geheim), Vienna, 1943, p.73
[…]
No wonder that David Bergelson was able to declare that at the end of 1942
80% of the Jews in the conquered areas had been evacuated. He continued in
the Moscow newspaper Eynikeyt of December 5, 1942 […]
**********************************************************************
Those operations started even before the German invasion, simply because
Staline didn’t trust Hitler and had already in the mind to move as much
as possible the machinery and the qualified labor toward east.
Now Yale, if you claim that Sanning invented those sources, or one or
two of it, I wonder why Wiesenthal spend so much time to promote
censorship rather than to blast Sanning’s credibility. If it’s so easy
to demolish his claims by other means, why?
From [email protected] Mon Aug 26 07:22:15 PDT 1996
Article: 60074 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!eloi.vir.com!
rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Apologies to Yale Edeiken
Date: 25 Aug 1996 18:13:35 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne4.vir.com
[email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
>
> > Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > I apologise Yale for my comportment this week. I humiliated you twice
> > in the same week, about the number of Holocaust survivors in Israel
> > and the evacuation of the soviet Jews. I promiss I’ll spare you more
> > in the future.
>
> You “humiliated” me neither times. You are still mistaken about the
> number of survivors who immigrated to Israel insofar as the dates are concerned.
> Nor have you provided any proof that more than a fraction of the Jews in the path
> of the nazi armies escaped by exacuation. In particular you presented no
> numbers on the evacuation of Polish Jews.
>
> Sorry. You are still providing phony numbers.
The problem Yale, is that you disclaim my sources in a too much
generalistic way. Let say that in 1 month 1/2 I’m comming with this picture. Then
you will say: well, with your records Beaulieu, is was normal to think that you
lied. However, if you claim: I’ve look your reference, and you lie! than I’ll be
able to call you a liar in a month and a half. Some people don’t care about their
reputation, someone who follow Grynspan and McVay during a whole year could fill
perhaps a gigabyte of FAQS abou this or this lie, one more will not make any difference.
In your case however, you prefer to be carefull and ‘lie by omission’ or otherwise to
claim something in a way too keep a minimum of reputation. This is why you havn’t the
balls to claim: _I’ve check_ and you lied. One objective observer could see that the
method of guys like Curtis and you is to ask for references, even when they were already
given several times in the past (for any topic), but to disclaim it as ‘lies’ when a guy give
it, but without taking the risk to state _I’ve check_. You know that I would seased the
opportunity to harass you over a year if you would do that.
The samething can be said about Sanning: here, it is not sure that I could find his sources,
but I’m asking you to point _which one_ is fabricated, and for that you could search in newspapers,
anti-revisionist books, but here again they failed to accuse Sanning
of that. ‘Liar’ in a generalistic way is less risky.
From [email protected] Mon Aug 26 08:43:59 PDT 1996
Article: 60074 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!eloi.vir.com!
rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Apologies to Yale Edeiken
Date: 25 Aug 1996 18:13:35 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne4.vir.com
[email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
>
> > Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > I apologise Yale for my comportment this week. I humiliated you twice
> > in the same week, about the number of Holocaust survivors in Israel
> > and the evacuation of the soviet Jews. I promiss I’ll spare you more
> > in the future.
>
> You “humiliated” me neither times. You are still mistaken about the
> number of survivors who immigrated to Israel insofar as the dates are concerned.
> Nor have you provided any proof that more than a fraction of the Jews in the path
> of the nazi armies escaped by exacuation. In particular you presented no
> numbers on the evacuation of Polish Jews.
>
> Sorry. You are still providing phony numbers.
The problem Yale, is that you disclaim my sources in a too much
generalistic way. Let say that in 1 month 1/2 I’m comming with this picture. Then
you will say: well, with your records Beaulieu, is was normal to think that you
lied. However, if you claim: I’ve look your reference, and you lie! than I’ll be
able to call you a liar in a month and a half. Some people don’t care about their
reputation, someone who follow Grynspan and McVay during a whole year could fill
perhaps a gigabyte of FAQS abou this or this lie, one more will not make any difference.
In your case however, you prefer to be carefull and ‘lie by omission’ or otherwise to
claim something in a way too keep a minimum of reputation. This is why you havn’t the
balls to claim: _I’ve check_ and you lied. One objective observer could see that the
method of guys like Curtis and you is to ask for references, even when they were already
given several times in the past (for any topic), but to disclaim it as ‘lies’ when a guy give
it, but without taking the risk to state _I’ve check_. You know that I would seased the
opportunity to harass you over a year if you would do that.
The samething can be said about Sanning: here, it is not sure that I could find his sources,
but I’m asking you to point _which one_ is fabricated, and for that you could search in newspapers,
anti-revisionist books, but here again they failed to accuse Sanning
of that. ‘Liar’ in a generalistic way is less risky.
From [email protected] Mon Aug 26 11:05:43 PDT 1996
Article: 60100 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!gatech!
news.akorn.net!news.his.com!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!van-bc!news.rmii.com!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Nazis Vs. Catholics (Re: HItler and Stalin)
Date: 25 Aug 1996 23:43:57 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne19.vir.com
[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>
> Alexander Kimel <[email protected]> writes:
>
> # Dear Kurt:
>
> Kurt isn’t his real name, BTW. He’s a cowardly Nazi scum
> who uses an alias.
how can you know that?
like the 4 allias for Dan Gannon, on what do you base your
statement?
From [email protected] Mon Aug 26 18:50:41 PDT 1996
Article: 60211 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!
eloi.vir.com!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Put up or shut up, Mr. Giwer: The Himmler tape
Date: 27 Aug 1996 00:36:18 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <4vlmmh$[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<4vq3s[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne32.vir.com
[email protected] (Nele Abels) wrote:
>Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]> wrote:
>> An interesting aspect about it is that since there’s two definitions
>> for ausrottung, the revisionist are just avoiding real issues when
>Was fuer ein Schwachkopf. Allmaehlich kann ich’s wirklich nicht mehr
>hoeren. Kein Deutsch koennen aber dumm in der Gegend herumfaseln –
>welch ein Vollidiot.
And Abels should think a bit before to write tons of insults. In all the
cases you play the same arrogant game, despite the datas are quite clear for
a while. Nobody here need to know very good german to understand that matter:
it was said by Jamie McCarthy that the word has 2 meanings, eradication
(wipe out) and extermination, but that a more accurate definition is extermi-
nation when the word is applied to the livings. Indeed, some dictionnaries
gives this specification and some other just talk about either eradication
either extermination. I don’t need to be fluent in german to understand that,
since it was said by several others. However, when someone use his common
sense with a dictionnary, rather than to argument you immediatelly advise
him to learn german correctly. When a guy know german reasonnably like
Ehrlich, you jump on few othograph faults, as if it would ‘show’ your point.
When a guy know german perfectly, as this guy (Conrad) than you claim that
his opinion is worthless because ‘he falsified a translation’.
>> they use the term ‘wipe out’ or eradicate because a very, very accurate
>> definition would say that it means only ‘extermination’ for the livings.
>> Then, despite some dictionnaries do not gives this specification, the revisionist
>> who claim that Himmler used ausrottung in a semi-figurative way in connection
>> to the expulsion of the Jews are supposed to lie.
>Ich wuerde niemals “to wipe out” als Synonym fuer “ausrotten” benutzen, sondern
No, it means wipe out litterally, you know that.
>bestenfalls “ausloeschen”, “voellig vernichten”, “restlos umbringen” und so weiter.
>Beaulieu ist eine solche grenzenlose Dumpfbacke, dass er nicht mal erkennt,
>dass er jetzt Englisch und Deutsch durcheinanderbrinkt. Irgendwie typisch fuer
>den infantilen Intellekt der “Revisionisten”.
My english is not so bad when I’m taking the time to revise. Personnal attacks
just show an immature character. La bave du crapeau glisse sur le pelage de la
blanche colombe (ou plutot du paon ici)
>> However, if I ask why Himmler equated ‘evacuation of the jews’ (jUDENEVAKUIERUNG)
>> to ausrottung at the begining of his speech, guess what will be the answer:
>> Himmler used the word ‘evacuation’ in a figurative way!
>Schon mal was von “Euphemismus” gehoert, du Schwachkopf?
And I repeat it: in what german dictionnary can we find a dual definition
for evakuieren, herr Abel? Himmler equate explicitelly the word evacuation
to ausrottung at the begining of his speech:
“I mean the evacuation of the Jews (die Judenevakuierung) the Ausrottung of
the Jews.”
Ausrottung: litterally wipe out, in several dictionnaries, eradication
or extermination, with an emphasis on the second word when talking about
the livings. In other dictionnaries, eradication or extermination, without
any specification.
Now you claim that Himmler didn’t try to explain his use of Ausrotten with
the word Evacuation, but… the opposite! And that the word ‘evakuieren’,
a word for which there’s not 2 definitions, take suddenly a new sense, not
eradication, which is the closest synonym, but extermination. By which
miracle?
From [email protected] Wed Aug 28 07:32:16 PDT 1996
Article: 60506 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!eloi.vir.com!
rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Ausrotten again
Date: 25 Aug 1996 15:58:06 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne43.vir.com
I saw a message fron rblackmore were he talked about the word
‘ausrotten’ which is tempered by the use of ‘Ausschaltung’, and that
the meaning is changed there. I will not comment on that except to say
that something escape me untill now…
Revisionist like Irving provided some example, I saw at least one, where
the meaning is, in his mind, different than extermination. Since the
words means literraly wipe out, the revisionist point of view is to
say that Himmler used it in a figurative sense, in my mind it refer
to a violent (sometimes) eradication of the Jews. Annie Halpert brought
her definition in a dictionnary where there was 2 definitions, eradication
and extermination. I saw the samthing in a dictionnary, where the question
of the livings wasn’t mention. Here we are supposed to be liars because our
interpretation about a figurative sense is suppose to be fishy. Indeed they
will say, nothing allow seriously anyone to consider that in Himmler’s mind
it meant eradication or evacuation, with some reference to 500 or 1000
bodies as bodies of jews who were partisans, despite Himmler refers often
to jews as saboteurs in his speeches. So the revisionist claim that in Himmler’s
mind the word ‘ausrotten’ refer to a figurative, litteral sense like ‘wipe-out’
is suppose to be a poor contorsion to avoid a fact since nothing in the speech
can lead anyone to think that it mean ‘evacuation’ in Himmler’s mind.
But what’s about the fact that Himmler say explicitelly at the begining of his
speech:
“I mean the evacuation of the Jews (die Judenevakuierung), the extermination
(Ausrottung)?
Well, here we are told, the word ausrottung is equate to evacuation
explicitelly, but this is because Himmler is using a secret terminoloy. Beautiful…
From [email protected] Wed Aug 28 07:32:17 PDT 1996
Article: 60537 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
portc01.blue.aol.com!chi-news.cic.net!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!van-bc!
news.mindlink.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.msfc.nasa.gov!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.ac.net!news.bconnex.net!clicnet!news.clic.net!
rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: <Seufze> Wieder mit dem
Date: 25 Aug 1996 22:51:33 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<jamie-200896[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne15.vir.com
Nele Abels <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]> wrote:
> …]
> >> Ahem. In Mr. Abels’ article <[email protected]>,
> >> DThomas, which you are replying to, there is not a single word written
> >> by me.
>
> > There was several of your statements in the original article I
> > posted, this is what he had in the mind certanly.
>
> As I have already remarked, I mistook your quoting Conrad with your own
> remarks because you neglected to mark the quotations appropriatly. My
It was clearly indicated at the begining of the post
> fault, sorry for that. But this should be no big deal anyway, because
> it’s usually the “revisionists” who demand that a 100% consensus has to
> be between everybody, else a claim would not be valid. This means that
> logically there should be no difference between your thoughts and
> Conrad’s.
>
> If you had read and understood my comments you would have realized that I
> was by no means referring to Mr. McCarthy’s remarks but only to the
> manipulated translation by Mr. Conrad.
>
> What I am really puzzled about is, that you and the other “revisionists”
> have started to be so quiet about the piece of translation offered by
> Conrad. Don’t you have any remarks on this?
What I realized today is the nature of the syllogism. You calim that
your knowledge of german gives you a kind of authority, however it doesn’t
proove me your honesty. Now, despite the bulk of the dictionnaries
gives 2 meanings, eradication and exterminations, I’m told that it is the
second interpretation that is the only possible one because the word is applied
to the living since a fraction of those dictionnaries gives this specfication.
In that case one who believe that Himmler used it in a figurative way is ‘obviously’
wrong. However, Himmler state explicitelly at the begining of this paragraph:
I mean the evacuation of the Jews (die Judenevakuierung) the ‘extermination’ of
the Jews (Ausrottung).
In your claim it is ridicoulous to say that Himmler bring back one of the two
meaning of Ausrottung (eradication) to ‘evacuation’, the first word, but it is
‘logical’ to say that he bring back the first word, a word for which I never eared
anyone who claim that it has a dual meaning in any dictionnary, to the non ‘evacuation’
meaning of Ausrottung. Beautifull.
From [email protected] Thu Aug 29 07:27:36 PDT 1996
Article: 60749 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
nntp.teleport.com!news.structured.net!news.uoregon.edu!hunter.premier.net!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!news1.erols.com!news.bconnex.net!
clicnet!news.clic.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: <Seufze> Wieder mit dem
Date: 27 Aug 1996 00:49:34 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <4vr5qv$g8v@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne32.vir.com
[email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
>
> > [email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes:
>
> > Of course I would invite someone with vast library resources to find
> > not only the newspaper account of this speech being given but also the
> > editorial commentary upon it. That would indicate how it was taken to
> > mean by the people who heard the speech.
>
> Don’t be sillier than you have to be, Matty poo.
>
> You can read the speeches (actually there were two) for yourself. A
> transcript of both was entered into evidence at the Nuremberg Trials as document
> 1919 PS.
>
> One person who was in a good position to determine what they meant to
> the nazis who heard them was Albert Speer. He wrote:
Speer claimed at Nuremberg that he wasn’t aware about an extermination policy.
Since Speer is a credible source for you, this mean simply that a post-war
claim from him is based either on the Numremberg documentation and the ‘con-
fessions’ that were generated there, either by the atmosphere of the time
which placed the gas chamber story as a dogma. Since Speer is not suppose to
have ear about it from Hitler or Himmler, than a post-war opinion in his case
hasn’t any further autority than the average german.
From [email protected] Fri Aug 30 08:40:05 PDT 1996
Article: 60947 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
op.net!news.ironhorse.com!news.uoregon.edu!hunter.premier.net!news1.erols.com!
news.bconnex.net!clicnet!news.clic.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!
usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Apologies to Yale Edeiken: who needs none
Date: 28 Aug 1996 10:46:24 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 157
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne6.vir.com
[email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
> The sources you cite do not support your contention. The evacuations,
>according to the sources you cite (as demonstrated by the full quotes from both
>Hilberg and Dawidowicz) indicate that evacuations were only attempted *after*
>the largest concentrations of Jews had been over-run. Moreover you ignore
>Hilberg’s statement that the Germans moved so fast that the evacuations were
>ineffective because they did not evacuate far enough. Finally you ignore the
The Troll Hilberg may have his opinion, it doesn’t change to the fact that
his opinions are contradicted by reports that came out during the alleged events.
Mr Hilberg is, as far as I can determine, a troller who’s only interest is
to bring phony numbers. While he can sound superficially plausible, he has lied
about an ‘extermination order’ (while accusing others of lying) , misrepresented
documents in his book, refused to document other claims, pretended not to see
documented refutation of his claims (even when they were shown to him in
court), refused to be confront in 1988 a second time and generally conducted
himself with such complete lack of intellectual and factual integrity that
there seems to be no point in taking the time to give any value to his unreference
opinion.
For detailed and documented evidence of this, please refer to
http://www.webcom.com/~ezundel/english/01.ftp.kulaszka.6M/09.Hilberg
Did six million really die?, Hilberg’s testimony at Zundel’s trial. A bit
long to read but the Troll Hilberg destroy himself more and more and his
self-confidance of the begining melt gradually as Christie is conducting
cross-examination.
>figures. The best evidence is that approximately 4,000,000 Jews lived in the
>Soviet territories overrun by the Wehrmacht. The simple logistics make an
>evacuation of over 3,000,000 Jews (and the Soviet evacuation policy was not
>limited to Jews) — which is the figure required to make your numbers work —
>impossible. To assert that it occurred is laughable.
Mr Edeinken, impossible is not soviet, despite I judge your 4,000,000 figure
doubtious, but the evacuation started even before the German invasion. If
you want to complain, you can fill a letter of protestation to the officials
of the institue of jewish affairs who wrote that book in 1943, and the relatives
of David Bergelson. But perhaps are you denying that the soviets brought
millions of soldiers to the zone of hostility? the same railroad cars were used
to evacuate Jews and skill labor when they got back.
> Like virtually every person who has studied the matter, I believe that the
>best evidence as to how many Jews were killed by the Einsatzgruppen are the
>figures compiled by the Einsatzgruppen.
If they are authentic. No doubt that the Einsatzgruppen killed many people,
jewish commisars, their famillies, and civilians in blind represails: in that
case, all we would need is to authentify the couple of reports that bears
a handwritten notification. A small fraction apparently, but this is possible
and the case could be prooven especially for the SS who didn’t fall in the
hand of the soviets after the war, no cohercition could be make in their
cases. Unfortunatelly, this wasn’t done.
Dawidowicz and all the others based their claim on the Einsatzgruppen reports
because they chose to trust the soviets and to accept them as genuine, and
also because it is their job to feed the post war propaganda.
> According to Dawidowicz “Most Jews in the Baltics, White Russia, the
>Ukraine, Bessarabia, and the Crimea [the targets of the opening campaing of
>Barbarossa] were caught by the German invasion, which advanced too rapidly
>to permit large scale flight or sytematic evacuation.” (“The War Against the
>Jews”;page 499)
“Pitcher Pedro Martinez returns to winning forms as the visitings Expos
dump the San Francisco Giants for the third straight day”
The gazette, august 25 1996, page A1
> JFB claims there were few Jews left in cities such as Kiev or Minsk
> when the Germans arrived. Clearly this is incorrect. The Babi Yar murders in
> September 1941 killed 33,000 Jews. Far more than JFB claims were left in the
Aaaaaaah! Babi Yar, those bodies that the German dug up an burned to remove
all the criminal traces, I remember, I was there also. It was a long job.
The odd was to erase any tank’s wheel’s traces since we were afraid about
air photos. But perhaps it wasn’t necessary since no fuel was required.
>city.Likewise JFB claims there were less than 5,000 Jews in Minsk when the nazi
>armies arrived. Again the facts contradict this claim. In August 1941 Himmler
>visited Minsk and, at his own request, saw a mass execution of Jews
(Reitlinger;
> “The SS: Alibi of a Nation” page 183 of the 1989 paperback edition).
>Although
> Himmler did stay for the whole show, the series of executions, according to the
> Eisatzguppen accounts were far greater than 5,000 people.
Again, the question is open: the soviet records on such a matter are not
lighter than the Gestapo records. What would you say to someone who
say that it is fishy to claim that the Gestapo may have forge documents
or torture prisonners to get confessions? You need more than to quote a
sov.. Einsatzgruppen report, you need to explain why no forgery or cohercition
was possible. A SS who didn’t fall in the hands of the soviets, a ss who
signed a document on a relevant page AND than I consider that it’s enough
serious for an ultimate expertise, graphologic. I’m not saying that such
reports are necesserally falses in all the cases: I’m mefiant. For any normal
crime a scientific expertise is required, and I’m told there that for a
huge crime this wasn’t done.
>>Yes or No: are you claiming that this article I found, Los Angeles
>>Times, january 23 1995 were Lemberger , the director of Amicha
>>and a specialist of this question claim that 300,000 holocaust survivors
>>lives in Israel today and that their estimated number in the early
>>50’s was 550,000, are you claiming that I invented it? Yes or no?
> I checked with the Los Angeles Times. The article you cite does not
>state that over 500,000 survivors of the Holocaust immigrated to Isreal in the
>period from 1945-1950. If you are amending you original statement, please delete
Mr Edeiken like to play with words. Indeed, the way I remember it, and
I didn’t read it a long time ago but 2 months ago, it was said that
300,000 Holocaust survivors lives in Israel today and that their estimated
number was 550,000 in the early fifties. Since most of them have now 60, 70
or 80 years old, Lamberger’s claim make sense. Indeed, the article didn’t say
1945-50.
>the number of Holocaust survivors in Europe in 1950 which you counted twice.
No Mr Edeiken. I said once without checking in my books that a rough number
for the Jews who lived in the non-soviet part of Europe was about 1 million
in the early fifties. It was impossible back those days to lead an accurate
census because Jews were moving around from countries to countries, there
was a lot of displaced persons. However, if there’s no way to know exactly
the number of Jews who lived in Europe in 1950, or 1953 if you want, but
there’s an indirect way:
AJYB, quoted by Sanning (probably the annual Jewish Year Book), 1971 vol 72
p 476: an exhaustive description country by country which gives 860,000
Jews in Europe in 1970, excluding Soviet Union. More than 180,000 European
Jews immigrated in Israel between 1952-1970 also. Even if you want to consider
that ‘the early fifties’ in Lamberger’s mind meant 1953, if we consider the
fact that Jews even back those days were assimilated to some extent and
hadn’t a strong demographical growth, that USA, Canada and South America
received also Jewish immigrants from Europe after 1950 (or 1952-53 whatsover)
So an estimation of about half a million Holocaust survivors in the early
fifties, based on Lamberger’s claim, let say in 1952, in Israel, an estimation
of a million or even more Jews in Europe the same year is absolutelly not
a bad estimation. To that we should add the number of those who emigrated
in USA,Canada, Argentina and other countries between 1945-1952, plus the
large number who emigrated illegally in USA during the war and those who
immigrated in Israel after the war WITHOUT BEING LABEL AS EUROPEAN IMMIGRANTS.
Sepharadics immigrants, who were not sepharadic, but European refugees from
the Balkans who went in Turkey, Iran or in the Maghreb via France for other
Jews, and who had to live there a couple of years because no other country
was ready to accept them. It is your numbers that are phony Yale. What,
you want me to backup my last claim also? this evening or tomorrow. Despite
I conceed the number of Jews who perished _in the hand of the nazis_ could
be more than a million, perhaps even 2 millions, there’s a gap for uncertanty
here, adding the casualties of the Soviet Jews and the Polish Jews who
perished in Siberia can’t lead to a 5 million figure.
From [email protected] Fri Aug 30 08:40:06 PDT 1996
Article: 60963 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!
eloi.vir.com!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: <Seufze> Wieder mit dem
Date: 30 Aug 1996 02:33:10 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <4vr5qv$g8v@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne71.vir.com
[email protected] (Ken Lewis) wrote:
For the remaining, see my post to Yale on Speer.
>It is amazing how Speer was the darling of the revisionist set until
>he started marking statements that didn’t quite conform to what was
>expected to him.
Duh???? Where did you take that? I don’t recall any revisionist book where
Speer was ever described as a hero.
>Of course, that doesn’t stop Mark Weber from fabricating quotes out of
>thin air or attributing them to documents that do not contain them.
Duh???? references please?
Post and email
From [email protected] Fri Aug 30 08:40:06 PDT 1996
Article: 60968 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!
usenet.eel.ufl.edu!spool.mu.edu!newshub.tc.umn.edu!mr.net!nntp04.primenet.com!
nntp.primenet.com!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!van-bc!n1van.istar!van.istar!west.istar!
ott.istar!istar.net!tor.istar!east.istar!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!
rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ausrotten again
Date: 30 Aug 1996 03:23:31 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne1.vir.com
Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > <end quote>
> > -Danny Keren.
> Here you mixed two speeches. I’m not sure if there’s a recording
Since you respond normally quicker than your shadow, may I assume
that for those 2 speeches, the first one where ‘Ausrotten’ is translate
by extermination, and the second one (6 oct.) there’s no phonographic
record for the most incriminating part (second paragraph, second speech)?
I didn’t eared in the past about a phonographic record for the 6 octoober
speech. Were ear less frequently about this one, despite there’s no
ambiguity about the translation here. You mixed both in such a way that
one could think there’s a tape record for both, no?
From [email protected] Fri Aug 30 08:40:07 PDT 1996
Article: 60978 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
news.total.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ausrotten again
Date: 29 Aug 1996 01:46:03 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 80
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne20.vir.com
[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> <end quote>
> -Danny Keren.
>
Here you mixed two speeches. I’m not sure if there’s a recording
of the 6 october speech, however, If so, for this one, I don’t see
any possible ambiguity. For the 6 october speech, I’ve no hypothesis
except that the speech may be false. In that case, I’ve not 10,000$, I
havn’t even 1,000$ at the bank. Probably I’ll have in a year or two.
I remember 7 or 8 months ago how J. MOrris appeared so much self-confident
on his claims about crematories untill… someone decided to verify
and the what appeared to be a certanty due to the level of ‘arrogance’
of Nizkor collapsed. I’m not 100% impress by McVay’s challendge. If we talk
about the 6 october speech, not the 4 october, it is highly possible that
I’ll have the money in a year or two. However, I want to check something
before:
-Voice recognition: how is it accurate?
I havn’t any reference on that. Signature recognition is 99.99% accurate,
but I know also that the polygraph test is not recognized as suffisantly
accurate in court cases. You can’t expect any one to take up this challendge
if there’s no way to know in advance if the accuracy is just 70%, especially
when we deal with the relevant part of the speech. Any reference?
-Again, the ‘ausrotten’ excerp is not relevant to me, it is the 6
october speech that wake up my curiosity. Do you mean tha Nizkor would
accept an expertise from any laboratory? Not their single choice?
I’m curious about the 6 october speech now. This one I would like
to know definitivelly what to think about it. I’m too poor actually,
but this one is more interesting than the other, and I hope I’ll be
able to gather 5,000$ in a delay of 18 months.
From [email protected] Fri Aug 30 08:40:08 PDT 1996
Article: 60996 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!
imci5!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!howland.erols.net!
newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!
usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Speer
Date: 30 Aug 1996 02:35:38 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne71.vir.com
[email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
> Speer knew both Hitler and Himmler, not from books but from
>intimate and personal contact. He also had a long period of time in when he
>was confined in a very small space — his cell — to think about what what he had
>done and what he had witnessed. His opinion obviously carries far more weight
>than that of the “average German.”
> “Inlfiltration” was written at a time when his only real concern was
>what history would say about him and what he would be saying to St. Peter.
>His book (and I’ll bet you have never read it) is clear that he knew what was
>going on.
>
> I have, as well, read Speer’s testimony at Nuremberg (going for the
>perfecta, I ‘ll bet as well that you have not). The main charge against Speer
>was not the extermination of teh Jews but the use of slave labor. His testimony,
>in which he attempted to justify his conduct was hardly favorable to either Hitler
>or Himmler. He charged that Himmler was was running the camps with the
>purpose of exterminating the inmates while he was trying to preserve them as
>workers for his armaments industry. Nor does he leave Hitler out of the
>equation. He related several instances during his testimony when he
>complained directly to Hitler about Himmler’s policies. He left no doubt that
>Hitler agreed with Himmler.
Another lie by omission. Firts you claimed that in this New York Times article
(23 january 1995) where Lamberger spoke there was no claim that about half
a million holocaust survivors immigrated in Israel between 1945-50. Indeed, it
was just claim that there was about half a million holocaust survivors there
in the early fifties, which is something completelly different obviously 🙂
Second you accused me of misrepresenting Hilberg by quoting him selectivelly
while I quoted Reitlinger via Sanning (and it was explicitelly said). Defini-
tivelly it is not your week Yale, despite in this case I think simply you made
an error. But now you claim to be an expert in that field (Speer) and that
he claim at Nuremberg that he was aware about an extermination policy:
>or Himmler. He charged that Himmler was was running the camps with the
>purpose of exterminating the inmates while he was trying to preserve them as
>workers for his armaments industry. Nor does he leave Hitler out of the
You doubt that I ever read Speer’s book and also Speer’s testimony at
Nuremberg. In the first case, I read fragments of his books 2 years ago,
mainly those related to Jews and what stroke me was that despite Speer was
in contact with Himmler and Hitler in the chapters I read he relied upon
Nuremberg documents mainly. Nowhere I remember to have see a statement like
‘When Hitler explain me what happened to the Jews’, or ‘I was in conflict
with Himmler when he exposed to us the mass gassing of Jews’, nothing of that
kind. He used the same documents than Laqueur or Hilberg, and from such a
proeminent man, who would have, in your theory, first hand informations
rather than Nuremberg documents, this sound incredible. But not so much…
I didn’t read Speer testimony directly, as I said, but I based my claim
on a book, ‘Albert Speer, la fin d’un mythe’ (Matthias Schmidt) who described
his testimony at Nuremberg. It is true that in several occasions he could
proove that he involve himself to improve the life conditions of the inmates,
and this can be for the camps in Germany also (more food, etc..)
However, the main element of his defense on that was that he ‘didn’t know’.
In another book, ‘l’immortalite du pouvoir’ (the immortality of power)
page 50:
“Mr Speer, at Nuremberg, you stated that you were not aware about the murder
of Jews. And in the Spandau journal, you wrote: “It is at the latest in 1939
that I should have guess their fate. After 1942, I should have know”
It is quite possible that due to the atmosphere at Nuremberg, and after,
he believed really the propaganda claim. The main elements of his testimony
were definitivelly that he wasn’t aware about any hidden sense for ‘deportation
to the East’ and that he wasn’t curious about it. As a specialist of Speer
Yale, you can’t ignore that but you chose to selectivelly skip this big aspect
and to use a minor one, some interventions to get more food for the inmates
(I’m not even sure that it was for Auschwitz).
There’s still another possibility: it’s posssible to me that Speer didn’t
believed the charges at Nuremberg and chose to save his head. Indeed, it is
what he did when he used this fishy story about hi so called plannified
murder attempt against Hitler. He prooved that he was able to lie against
his fellows to save his head, and he prooved also that he was eager for pu-
blicity after the war, he wanted to rehabilitate himself in the eyes of
Germans. He knew that he had a superstar status. In the Schmidt books,
a non-revisionist book, Speer’s editor , Siedler, who wanted to make a best
seller with Speer’s book, sent him back often his pages saying: Mr Speer,
you can’t write it like that, impossible! (page 18, french version). In all
the cases, Speer’s had a strong ego and he wasn’t enough stupid to contest
Nuremberg’s charges in his memoirs: he wrote this book over a long period,
and he did it to become a star, from the description of Speer’s character
in this book, this is clear and net. Rudolf Wolters, his friend for 40 years,
wrote him after the reading of this book: “I’m now in conflict with myself,
between my old friendship for you and an instinctive repulsion.” He concluded:
“One couldn’t write a better detective novel than that” (page 20)
In all the cases, Speer used Nuremberg records in the chapter which deal
with Jews, and he never claimed that he was aware about an extermination
policy.
From [email protected] Fri Aug 30 14:13:03 PDT 1996
Article: 61089 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!
eloi.vir.com!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Beaulieu break the 1 Meg psychological bareer
Date: 29 Aug 1996 03:20:48 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne16.vir.com
I havn’t yet receive any response to my question about the strange
way Nizkor keep track of people’s posts here, but for a while, I was
looking at my name in the people directory: it happened! I broke the
1 Meg bareer recently I joined A. Baron, Tom Moran, M. Giwer and a couple
of others in the millionaire club (while Matt may have join it after a month).
Perhaps one could say I’m a bit emotive (or nut), but this is an important
moment in my life, perhaps as much as when I swam a 100 meters below 1 minute
15 seconds.
From [email protected] Fri Aug 30 21:02:18 PDT 1996
Article: 61156 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!
eloi.vir.com!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: <Seufze> Wieder mit dem 89- Not a translation but a fabricated
smear Re: 89- Not a translation but a fabricated smear
Date: 31 Aug 1996 01:10:26 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <4volcc$i1t@grivel.une.edu.au> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne53.vir.com
[email protected] (Gord McFee) wrote:
In message <[email protected]> – <[email protected]> writes:
:>
:>Jean-Francois Beaulieu wrote to Gord McFee:
:>> I suggest that you shot yourself in the foot. First you claim
:>that no
:>> German speaking native has ever claim the opposite, and my point
:>> was to say that I saw at least one, and I quoted him. Second, my
:>> point was to say that some dictionnaries are giving 2 definitions,
:>> one which is extermination, the other eradication, the first
:>french-
:>> german dictionnary that I opened didn’t give any specification
:>for the
:>> living, and I’m sure several german-german dictionnaries dot not
:>> specify ‘for the living’, despite otehrs do.
:>d.A. quotes:
:>
:>Langenscheidts Grosses Schulwoerterbuch Deutsch-Franzoesisch
:>(1984) p.135
:>
:>”ausrotten v/t. extirper; ({vernichten}) exterminer”.
:>
:>Could Monsieur explain the difference between “exterminer”
:>in French and “exterminate” in English?
>I have explained this to monsieur in French as well, a post he simply ignored.
Please, stop to lie Mr McFee. I never contest that the word Ausrotten had,
among two definitions, this one: exterminate. I said that it had 2 definitions,
and the quote you reproduce is similar to the one I found in a German-French
dictionnary: _extirper_ OR exterminer. So I said that ‘eradication’ (extirper
or eradication) was the other possibility. To show your point, you bring some
dictionnaries that seems to put an emphasis on ‘exterminate’ when this word
is applied to the livings, however, as I said:
1) There’s dictionnaries that do not gives this specification about the livings
and you can’t certanly proove that Himmler decided to read the dictionnary
you decided to quote before to make his speech
2) The litteral sense is wipe-out, as it was stated by Jamie McCarthy
Furthermore, you insist on the ‘fact’ that nobody who is fluent in German has
ever accept the ‘eradication’ equivalent here. This is wrong: first Bjorn
Conrad, who’s name is not less german than Gord McFee, learned German in
a German shool and was involved in German issues, other than revisionist.
Second, Ehrlich, who understand not so bad german criticized your statement.
But there’s more: I’ve contact Ingrid Rimmland, and despite she said that
this is ‘a strong word’, she said the interpretation ‘wipe-out’ sounds correct
to her. She’s a native german. I know, you will bring again your sophisticated
dictionnary and claim that after a lenghtly analysis and the opinion of such
eminent grammarian the meaning ‘extermination’ is the only right one here if
we want to be ultra-accurate, , but Himmler, as Ingrid, didn’t study 25
dictionnaries and 6 grammar books published in 1980 before to use it: he
took the litteral meaning. Or perhaps, you will say that since Ingrid is
revisionist, her opinion hasn’t any value since it is a subjective one? and what
about yours? I bet it is the ontological argument of the hollohugers. Perhaps
we should start to newsgroups, one for the revisionist ans one for the anti-
revisionist, 2 newsgroups for the price of one.
>Based on his latest posts, I am beginning to wonder if he even is French.
No, I’m using a false name from the begining to mask an incapacity to write
correctly english due to a mental disease. Any other hypothesis Cluso?
>Behold his latest offering from just a day or so ago.
>[begin quote]
>
>In message <4vqu9q$3e3@Vir.com> – Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
>writes:
>:>
>:> [email protected] (Gord McFee) wrote:
>:>
>:>:>In message <[email protected]> – Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>25
Aug
>:>:>1996 03:50:55 GMT writes:
>:>:>
>:>:> I apologise Yale for my comportment this week. I humiliated you twice
>:>:> in the same week, about the number of Holocaust survivors in Israel
>:>:> and the evacuation of the soviet Jews. I promiss I’ll spare you more
>:>:> in the future.
>:>
>:>>M. Beaulieu! Votre facon a “gagner” est de simplement le dire?
>:>
>:> No problem Gord, I respect confidentiality.
>
>??? You have lost it, Mr. Beaulieu. Perhaps you would like to tell us your
>*real* name?
>:>
>:>>Donc, vous avez battu M. Edeiken simplement parce que vous le dites?
>:>>Voyons!
>:>
>:> Well, I know that some african tribals use the powder of elephant’s tusk
>:> to solve erection problems, but I can’t really help you more than that.
>:>
>:> Smile, Jesus loves you Gord.
>
>You’re nuts, aren’t you?
Yopu don’t like french humour?
From [email protected] Sat Aug 31 10:04:26 PDT 1996
Article: 61220 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
op.net!nntp04.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.cais.net!van-bc!news.rmii.com!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Apologies to Yale Edeiken
Date: 30 Aug 1996 02:39:51 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne71.vir.com
[email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
> I have checked several of your references and you mispresented
>them. One example is Hilberg. You claim that he figures show that the bulk of
Wrongo. I gave Reitlinger, via Sanning, not Hilberg. Your ‘demonstration is
thus not related to a ‘misrepresentation’ from me.
>Soviet Jews were evacuated. You failed to report the cavaets he put on his
>statements. He states specifically that the evacuations were from the *eastern*
>portions of the territory invaded by the Germans. Altogether he estimates that
>only about 1,500,000 Jews were able to flee or be evacuated. But he also adds
>a caution which you omit. Specifically he writes: “These figures are not an
>accurate indication of the number of Jews who succeeded in getting away, for
>many of the victims fled only a short distance and — overtaken by the German
>Army — drifted back into the towns.” (“The Descruction of the European Jews”
>1961 edition; page 192). Moreover you omit his statement “By
>October-November, 1941, the largest concentrations of Jews had already been
>left behind; in the Eastern Ukraine and beyond the White Russian areas around
>Smolensk [the areas which you cite for evacuations] the Jewish communities
>were smaller and more widely dispersed.” (ibid.; page 191).
The Troll Hilberg may have his opinion, it doesn’t change to the fact that
his opinions are contradicted by reports that came out during the alleged events.
Mr Hilberg is, as far as I can determine, a troller who’s only interest is
to bring phony numbers. While he can sound superficially plausible, he has lied
about an ‘extermination order’ (while accusing others of lying) , misrepresented
documents in his book, refused to document other claims, pretended not to see
documented refutation of his claims (even when they were shown to him in
court), refused to be confront in 1988 a second time and generally conducted
himself with such complete lack of intellectual and factual integrity that
there seems to be no point in taking the time to give any value to his unreference
opinion.
For detailed and documented evidence of this, please refer to
http://www.webcom.com/~ezundel/english/01.ftp.kulaszka.6M/09.Hilberg
Did six million really die?, Hilberg’s testimony at Zundel’s trial. A bit
long to read but the Troll Hilberg destroy himself more and more and his
self-confidance of the begining melt gradually as Christie is conducting
cross-examination.
> In other words the complete statements from the sources you cite do
>not support your thesis.
Again, Sanning _didnt_ use Hilberg as a source in the text I posted, but
Reitlinger.
Post and email
From [email protected] Sat Aug 31 19:39:48 PDT 1996
Article: 61343 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!
usenet.eel.ufl.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!nntp04.primenet.com!
nntp.primenet.com!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!van-bc!n1van.istar!van.istar!west.istar!
ott.istar!istar.net!tor.istar!east.istar!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!
rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Speer
Date: 31 Aug 1996 23:32:20 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 93
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne4.vir.com
[email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
>> Another lie by omission. Firts you claimed that in this New York Times article
>> (23 january 1995) where Lamberger spoke there was no claim that about half
>> a million holocaust survivors immigrated in Israel between 1945-50. Indeed, it
>> was just claim that there was about half a million holocaust survivors there
>> in the early fifties, which is something completelly different obviously 🙂
> At this point JFB you have descended into Giwerisms. You have claimed
>that the number of survivors who immigrated to to Israel in the period from 1945-50
>was about 500,000. You have now supported that allegation by referring to
>”something completely different obvious.”
It was ironical. Could you explain me now what is the main difference
between stating that half a million holocaust survivors emigrated to Israel
between 1945-1950 and claiming that there was about half a million Holocaust
survivors in Israel in the early fifties? The last one was Lamberger’s claim,
but you stated that ‘he never said that half a million emigrated to this coun-
try during the 1945-1950 period.
>> Second you accused me of misrepresenting Hilberg by quoting him selectivelly
>> while I quoted Reitlinger via Sanning (and it was explicitelly said).
> You neglect to point out that I quoted Reitlinger as well. By the way I did
>the man the service of reading what he wrote and quoting him directly. Why didn’t
>you?
No, you didn’t, you used Hilberg. You havn’t quote Reitlinger in this post.
Why I didn’t quote Reitlinger directly? Because I hadn’t the book with me and
it was quicker to use Sanning. Weird question. I’ll ask you a similar one:
why don’t you deposit your pay check in my bank account? There’s unexplanable
things like that for which there’s no answer.
>> Nowhere I remember to have see a statement like
>> ‘When Hitler explain me what happened to the Jews’, or ‘I was in conflict
>> with Himmler when he exposed to us the mass gassing of Jews’, nothing of that
>> kind.
> But then you didn’t read the book under discussion.
I’ve already state that I read the chapters which deals with the Jewish
question 2 years ago. I’ve already say that I read about Speer testimony in
Nuremberg in a book and it was say explicitelly by him that he claimed to
be unaware about a mass liquidation of Jews. Reading few hundred pages in
miscellaneous NMT volumes to learn what I already know (through a non-revi
sionist author who read it) is worthless. Is it a tactic for pushing me to
waste my time? I’ve just open 12 NMT books today and Speer’s testimony was
in 3 of those ones. In a case he refer to Mathausen (it’s probably the question
you rise up about his intervention to get bearable conditions for the inmates
or to ‘stop’ the extermination of Jews). Mathausen isn’t described as an ex-
termination center for Jews in the Holocaust version. It is suffisant for me
to know that an author who studied carefully Speer’s testimony state that
Speer denied knowledge about it, and the fact that Speer in an interview (in
the book) stated it again.
>> It is quite possible that due to the atmosphere at Nuremberg, and after,
>> he believed really the propaganda claim. The main elements of his testimony
>> were definitivelly that he wasn’t aware about any hidden sense for ‘deportation
>> to the East’ and that he wasn’t curious about it. As a specialist of Speer
>> Yale, you can’t ignore that but you chose to selectivelly skip this big aspect
>> and to use a minor one, some interventions to get more food for the inmates
>> (I’m not even sure that it was for Auschwitz).
> The “big aspect” was what he was charged with: the use of slave labor.
> That was the substance of his testimony. He was *not* charged with the murder of
>Jews. This line of argument is a bit like arguing that Al Capone could not have
>ordered the St. Valentine’s Massacre because it was not mentioned at his trial for
>tax evasion.
I’m not stupid, never I imagined that he was charged, as a minister of arming,
of killing directly the Jews. But as I said, his own words where:
> In another book, ‘l’immortalite du pouvoir’ (the immortality of power)
> page 50:
> “Mr Speer, at Nuremberg, you stated that you were not aware about the murder
> of Jews. And in the Spandau journal, you wrote: “It is at the latest in 1939
> that I should have guess their fate. After 1942, I should have know”
> Perhaps you can explain as well why the only possibility you did not
>consider is that Speer was telling the truth and used the documents he used to
>supplement his memory because he knew they were accurate.
Because he claimed himself that he was unaware: see the book “l’immoprtalite
du pouvoir’ above.
From [email protected] Sat Aug 31 19:39:48 PDT 1996
Article: 61348 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
nntp.teleport.com!psgrain!iafrica.com!pipex-sa.net!plug.news.pipex.net!pipex!
tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!nntp04.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!ddsw1!
news.mcs.net!van-bc!n1van.istar!van.istar!west.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!
tor.istar!east.istar!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!
Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ausrotten again
Date: 31 Aug 1996 23:24:20 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne4.vir.com
[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>AFAIK, the recording covers only the first paragraph.
AFAIK?
>The one with the “most of you know what it is to see 100 corpses
>lying side by side, or 500, or a 1,000”.
>Some “evacuation”.
A small comment, 500 or 1,000 bodies is not 6 millions and it is not
obvious to me that this refer to an extermination policy. As you know,
Himmler rejected the responsability of the war on Jews, the sabotage against
german interest, the killing of german soldiers and saw them as a fifth
column. Furthermore, the allied bombardments which were causing heavy casual-
ties in the civilian population really disgusted the Nazi leaders. One can say
that they were hypocrits when they fake indignation about the Katyn mass
grave, but in the case of the german civilians, no doubt this time they were
sinceres in there indignation. Since in the Nazi circles the Jews were seing
as the real responsables (i.e. the press in USA) who pushed to war, it is
also possible that Himmler refered to the corpses of German civilians. In that
case, the final solution was often described as a way to preserve the unity
of the German nation. Hitler’s views was that Germany lost the first world
war because of the presence of Jews (marxist, pacifist) in that country.
There’s another possibility, it is that he refered to the bodies of Jewish
partisans killed by them. The frontier between a jewish fighter an a jewish
civilian wasn’t clearly defined in their mind, all the Jews were classified
as ennemies. Indeed, there was anyway jewish resistance. Finaly, it is possible
that Himmler refered to Jewish civilians, since their expulsion program was
sometimes violent. See my messages today about Goebbel’s diary.
>BTW, the paragraph where Himmler speaks on the Slavs as “human
>animals”, and states that he doesn’t care if 10,000 Russian
>women die while digging an anti-tank ditch for Germany, is
>also in the recording, and as a .wav file on Nizkor’s site.
So? You can score a point with that against someone who would like to describe
Himmler as a sensitive humanist, but I never said he wasn’t a criminal.
From [email protected] Sat Aug 31 19:39:49 PDT 1996
Article: 61359 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
op.net!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!van-bc!n1van.istar!van.istar!
west.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!tor.istar!east.istar!newsjunkie.ans.net!
newsfeeds.ans.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Apologies to Yale Edeiken: who needs none
Date: 31 Aug 1996 23:29:26 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne4.vir.com
[email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
>> > Like virtually every person who has studied the matter, I believe that the
>> >best evidence as to how many Jews were killed by the Einsatzgruppen are
>the
>> >figures compiled by the Einsatzgruppen.
>
>> If they are authentic.
> JFB resorts to his second usual strategy. Has he any reason for
>believing that the numbers in the Einsatzgruppen are not authentic? No. They
>just disagree with his numbers so he makes a statement based in nothing more
>than an opinion based on the need to deny his figures..
> case, all we would need is to authentify the couple of reports that bears
> a handwritten notification. A small fraction apparently, but this is possible
> and the case could be prooven especially for the SS who didn’t fall in the
> hand of the soviets after the war, no cohercition could be make in their
> cases. Unfortunatelly, this wasn’t done.
>
> Nor was it needed. You have claimed that the reports are not
>accurate. The onus is upon you to present some evidence. I’ll wait for it.
The evidence I provided was based on miscellaneous jewish source which
stated during WWll that the bulk of the soviet Jews were evacuated before tthe
germans came. This leaves less than 700,000 behind. I’m not claiming that
those reports are all forgeries: I’m saying that I have doubts. I’m sure that
they killed many jewish commissars, their families, other Jews in blind
represails: but I’ve no certanty about the real number. Most of those reports
are not signed despite some are, in that case what interest me is those which
were signed by SS who didn’t fall into soviet or allieds hands. But I still
don’t know if the report where about 363,000 Jews are described as liquidated
is genuine or not. This one is an interesting one: I’ve read Irving statements
about it (at the Zundel trial) and he present some interesting arguments
against it. I think I asked to D. Keren if the initials that appear on the
page were the murders are count (it’s on his site) are supposed to be Himmler’s
initials but I didn’t get any answer.
> Again JFB, having no answer stats that the Eissatzgruppen reports
>were provided by the Soviets. They weren’t. The Bristish found them.
Wrongo. I’ve check and it’s the americans. I made an error here, despite
it is also true that some of them were provided by the soviets. In this
case, it doesn’t change so much the things if I consider other similar cases
were the US american staff was involved. See Carlos Porter’s article on
the codoh:
From [email protected] Sat Aug 31 20:44:35 PDT 1996
Article: 61376 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-200.sprintlink.net!
nntp04.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!van-bc!n1van.istar!
van.istar!west.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!tor.istar!east.istar!newsjunkie.ans.net!
newsfeeds.ans.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Speer
Date: 31 Aug 1996 23:39:56 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 180
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne4.vir.com
[email protected] (Ken Lewis) wrote:
>The Gauleiter of Lower Silesia, Karl Hanke, visited me in the Summer
>of 1944. Hanke had distinguished himself with his bravery in the
>Polish and French campaigns. He was certainly no man who would be
>frightened easily. Thus, it had particular weight when he told me,
>shaken, that horrible things were taking place in a concentration
>camp in his neighboring Gau, Upper Silesia. He had been there and he
>would never be able to forget the dreadful things he had seen there.
>He mentioned no name, but it must have had to do with Auschwitz
>which was in Upper Silesia. From the excitement of this
>battle-proven soldier, I could deduce that something outrageous was
>taking place, if it could make one of Hitler’s old Party leaders so
>disconcerted.
I read a lot of stuff about Nuremberg’s trials. I’m not claming that torture
was systematically used, this wasn’t the case for the majority of the proemi-
nent leaders. However, it was clear for the defendent that those trials hadn’t
anything to do with justice but were established to show to the German people
who there leaders were mad, by charging them with all the possible accusations,
true or falses. The defendant faced a tribunal establish by the winners of the
war, it wasn’t a ‘normal’ trial, an impartial trial. They knew that. They knew
that their best way to avoid the gallow was to shift responsability on people
who were no longer there (example:Himmler) rather than to contest the charges.
Claiming to their judges, wether they were jews or not: keep your bulshit for
you, this is just a parody of justice, was a stupid attitude. The majority
knew that the only intelligent approach was either to claim ignorance, either
when such an approach was impossible due to their position in the Reich to
shift responsability on someone else an claim that they did try to stop an
extermination policy, or to invent, like Speer, a so-called attempt to murder
Hitler. The article 19 and 21 were quite clear. In no case this tribunal, and
the defense, consider that hey had to proove the charges or to disclaim it.
It wasn’t in the agenda. Several proeminent people back those days in USA and
elsewhere rejected the legitimacy of those trials and claimed that it was a
parody of justice, something that was establish to built a posteriori proofs
by confessions and statements from people who hadn’t any other choice than to
play the game.
Now, I don’t know if Karl Hanke really had this enterteinment with Speer.
Speer was a pragmatic, while in Nuremberg the defendant usually avoided to
attack Hitler directly because they kept some respect for their ex-fuehrer,
Speer did it (a so-called murder attempt). You will state again “You didn’t
read Speer’s testimony”, I read a book however which described his testimony.
Speer, according to some of his friends, completelly changed after the war.
He was eager for publicity. He wanted to rehabilitate himself in the mind of
the Germans. He wanted to start his new career for a while. He received advices
>from his future publisher along years. I don’t know if he invented this story
about Karl Hanke to show his image of ‘a good guy among the scums’, or if he
really had this enterteinment. It’s possible that Hanke told him that horrible
things were taking place in Upper Silesia. It’s possible that Hanke refered
to the high date rate in the camp in 1942, or the hard condition of life,
or executions of inmates suspected of sabotage. Speer could have interpret
that after the war as gassing of Jews. It’s possible that Hanke told him
about horrific things in Poland (execution of Jews somewhere) and that Speer
mixed several things years after. Or perhaps Speer invented this story.
I’m considering much more what get out of Auschwitz during the alleged events
than a story of the man who saw the man who saw the man who saw the bear.
>Shirach confirmed in a confidential discussion during the trial that
>he had been present at a speech of Himmler to the Gauleiters in
>Posen (on October 6, 1943), in which Himmler clearly and
>unmistakably described the killing of the Jews as an essentially
>completed program. He returned to this experience, which disturbed
>him psychologically, during the incarceration in Spandau.
Again, it is a question of wether this entertainment occured really in such
a way. Schirach was apparently one of the less anti-jewish among the defendants,
and it’s a certanty that brutalities against the Jews disgusted him. He got
semi-disgrace from that during the war. There was
executions. I believe the Gobbels diary. I consider it as entirelly genuine.
The expelling of the Jews was not a pacific rellocation. We know the words
Himmler used in the 4 october speech. In that case, Shirach is supposed to
have confirm that Himmler talked about a systematic extermination policy the
4 october. The ambiguity between a violent expelling program and an extermina-
tion policy is there. Schirach may have understand the speech as a violent
expelling program back those days. And he could, 3 years after, remember it
in a different way if he believed the gas chamber story when he learned about
those ones. He could also have say to Speer that he was shocked by the way
Himmler talked about the Jews and Speer could interpret that as a systematic
liquidation. We are told by a man decades after what Shirach allegedly
described in a private (was it so much private?) entertainment something odd
about that story and I have to rely upon Speer’s memory. But that is enough
with the hypothesis now, lets get to the facts. Why do I reject what you
consider as ‘obvious?’. It is because I have contradictory datas. like the
Goebbel’s diary. datas for which Nizkor hasn’t any response. This diary can
not be explain by a ‘faulty memory’ or an attempt of a man who wanted to
rehabilitate himself in the eyes of the germans. It was written during the
alleged events.
Nizkor use the excerp where Goebbels describe how 60% of the Jews are
liquidated in the process of evacuation. Nowhere in the diary the gas chamber
are mentionned. The way Goebbels talk about it, it seems that he was shown
reports about what happened at a specific moment when the Jews were evacuated
>from Lublin. Clearly something odd happened. Probably that several were gunn
machined. Perhaps sme others were used to walk in mine’s fields and remove
them when they exploded with it. I don’t know. But during a certan period, in
a specific location, we are sure that several Jews were liquidated for their
race, not for anti-Nazi activities. They use also an irrelevant excerp of the
6 march 1942 where Goebbels state that the greater the number of Jews liquidated,
the more consolidated will the situation in Europe after the war. ‘Irrelevant’
here, because in the peragraph above Goebbels described the actions of sabotage
in russia and jewish partisans. Now, the excerp Nizkor doesn’t mention:
march 7
I read a detailed report from the SD and police regarding a final solution
of the Jewish question. Any final solution involves a tremendous number of
viewpoints. The Jewish question must be solved within a Pan-European frame.
There are 11 million Jews still in Europe. They will have to be concentrated
later, to begin with, in the east. Possibly and island, such as Madagascar,
can be assigned to them after the war. In any case there can be no peace in
Europe untill the last Jews are eliminated from the continent.
(the goebbels diaries, Louis P Lochner, 1948)
page 138, march 19:
Finally we talked about the Jewish question: here the fuhrer is as uncompromissing
as ever. Jews must be got out of Europe, if necessary by applying most brutal
methods.
The Luther memorendum, written in august 1942:
[…]
to the governments there as to whether they wanted to recall their
Jews from Germany in due time or to agree to their deportation to
the ghettos in the East. To the issuance of this instruction agreement
[…]
The German Legation in Bucharest reports with reference to D lll
602 Secret, that the Rumanian Gouvernment would leave it to the
Reich Government to deport their Jews along with the German Jews
to ghettos in the East. They are not interest in having the Rumanian
jews return to Rumania.
[…]
The Legation in Bratislava reported with reference to D lll 661 Secret
that the Slovak Government is fundamentally in agreement with the
deportation to the eastern ghettos. But the Slovak claims to the proper-
ty of these Jews should not be endammaged.
[…]
The intended deportations are a further step forward on the way of the
total solution and are in respect to the other countries (Hungary) very
important. The deportation to the Government General is a temporary
measure. The Jews will be moved on further to the occupied Eastern
Territories as soon as the technical conditions for it are given.
And the list is long. A ‘coding terminology’? You mean that Goebbels used
a ‘coding terminology’ in his own diary the 7 march while he considered,
6 weeks after Wansee that the last step of the final solution could be
an ultimate deportation to Madagascar for the Jews deported earlier in
eastern ghettos? That the 19 march he said that the fuhrer considered that
Jews must leaves Europe if necessary by brutal means? Why Luther would have
use a coding terminology (eastern ghettos) to describe ‘gassing operations’
in a report that was not massivelly distributed, a report that was classified
in a file? why did he add that Jews should be move further east later?
Goebbel wasn’t aware about a systematic extermination policy: he was aware
about atrocities at a specific moment, but day by day according to his mood
he could say that his wish was to exterminate the Jews while another day
he could see them as still there at the end of the war. Because there was no
extermination policy that was clearly decided: the only clear decision was
to deport Jews in the east. The atrocities were due to the lattitude left
to the local SS commandant. Goebbels hadn’t in the mind a definitive project
for the Jews kind off: we will kill all of them. If this had been the case,
there wouldn’t be so much survivors. Can you explain, if really you believe
that things are so simple, why Goebbel stated those things the 7 march? Can
you explain the way Luther explained the solution to the jewish problem?
Of course not, you won’t.
The brutal treatment of the Jews looks to me like the brutal treatment of the
muslin hinduish who were expelled from this country while several were killed
on the way or like the atrocities commited by the zionist for Ramleh, Lydda
Deir Yassine and several other places where the palestinian were partly killed
while others were expelled following the lebensraum policy.
Just the numbers differs. First, because the war was shorter in that case,
second, because the israelis didn’t suffer millions of casualties that could
have push them further in the escalation of atrocities.
From [email protected] Sat Aug 3 07:03:36 PDT 1996
Article: 55083 of alt.revisionism
Path:news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!
laslo.netnet.net!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!nntp04.primenet.com!
news.shkoo.com!nntp.primenet.com!winternet.com!n1ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!
tor.istar!east.istar!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!
Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: SS-Standartenfuehrer Jager Writes a Report
Date: 2 Aug 1996 04:15:23 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne42.vir.com
