Documents

Article 8, Beaulieu Jean Francois

>Perhaps it is time to repost Albert Speers speers declaration to D.
>Diamond of the South African Board of Deputies (with thanks to Gord
>McFee for his translation).

[snip]

I will respond to you about this in another post. However, in your case, all I
can see is that despite I emailed you a copy you avoid completelly the questions
I asked you, and then I wonder if you are not one of those Wiesenthal supporters
who throw in the air that or that unreference statement to get a temporarary
point based on fictive(?) events:

************************************************************
>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
************************************************************
So now, will you explain me your sources for those 2 statements?
From [email protected] Sun Sep 1 09:26:27 PDT 1996
Article: 61452 of alt.revisionism
Path: 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: 1 Sep 1996 13:37:17 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne11.vir.com

[email protected] (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>
> Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >[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.
>
> Hilberg is here? Where? How about doing a first time thing. Show the
> reports that Hilberg was contradicted by. Cite them, and then all of
> us can compare and see what the devil you are talking about.

Mr Curtis, I have observed you for a while and it was easy to classify
you: most of the time, you can’t provide arguments. You are not a ‘brain’
here, someone who is doing research on their side, someone who will
visit librairies to find a rebutall. In short, a troll. Your preferate
tactic is to ‘ask evidence’, always and always, even when this evidence
was offered to you months before. It is the easiest method: asking references,
even for banalities, and fake that those references were not given to you
few weeks after. Because it’s the quicker and laziest approach. I know
your game. I gave the reference on the zundel site. So read it or shut up.

From [email protected] Sun Sep 1 11:44:52 PDT 1996
Article: 61485 of alt.revisionism
Path:news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!uunet!
in3.uu.net!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: Ausrotten again
Date: 1 Sep 1996 13:27:26 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 117
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne11.vir.com

[email protected] (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:

>And don’t forget the quote from the next paragraph:
>
> We have the moral right, we had the duty to our people to do it,
> to kill this people who would kill us.

Again, a lot of Jews were still there at the end of the war (and emigrated
later to 4 continents were they could expect better economic conditions often)
despite the Nazis had largelly the time to kill all of them. Again, Himmler
equate explicitelly ausrotten with evacuation at the begining of his speech.
He is often refering to jews as saboteurs, partisans, and if I consider the
explanation that killing several Jews, removing all their goods, uprooting
them is, indeed, ‘killing the jewry’, this sounds different. I know that
Frank and several Nazi leaders loved to show their musles with such declarations.
However, let me remind you this thing, that I said to Ken Lewis recently:

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 7,1942

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.

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 to Pakistan 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 Israeli’s 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] Sun Sep 1 13:42:11 PDT 1996
Article: 61493 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!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!
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:
Date: 1 Sep 1996 16:02:02 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<3226f2c[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<32283d[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne39.vir.com

Laurinda Stryker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> tom moran wrote:
> >
> > >Not all Israelis support their government’s policies.
> > >Not all supporters of Israeli policies re: the Palestinians are Jews.
> > >Not all Jews are Zionists.
> > >(For further clarification, see http://www.ariga.com/ )

(Page doesn`t exist) > >
> > >Mr. Moran, is that so difficult?
> >
> > >Laurinda Stryker
> >
> > I’ve seen this argument put forth before, when the facts are
> > given blunt like.
> >
> > The fact is, the latest election in Israel shows that the
> > majority chose the person who said he was going to break the
> > “agreements” and U.N. Resolutions. They voted for it.
>
> As you know, Netanyahu won by only the slimmest of margins (50.4
> percent to 49.5 percent): one can therefore hardly portray Israelis as
> monolithic.

If you consider the arab minory’s vote, it would be something like
60% or close for Netanyahu. And Rabin wasn’t really neither a pacifist.
In all the cases the only difference between those 2 parties is: should
we get out them fast or slowly? The only israeli’s party that was
really sincere was the Meretz.

From [email protected] Mon Sep 2 18:03:06 PDT 1996
Article: 61757 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!
usenet.eel.ufl.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.uoregon.edu!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: 2 Sep 1996 23:12:31 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <4volcc$i1t@grivel.une.edu.au> <[email protected]>
<4volcc$i1t@grivel.une.edu.au> <[email protected]>
<5[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne44.vir.com

[email protected] (Gord McFee) wrote:
>
>This has all been posted here many times. When applied to living things, the
>word means to “totally destroy” (voellig vernichten), or “exterminate”. DA
>has posted extensive examples of this, from dozens of dictionaries, and you
>have posted exactly ZERO, NADA contrary examples.

Wrongo. I’ve give engilsh-german dictionnaries and french-german dictionnaries were there was no specification for the livings. What I didn’t post is an example of a german-german dictionnary where there’s no specification for the livings, simply because I’ve not access here to as much dictionnaries than
Nele and I can’t selectivelly skip those where this specification is not given.
But I figure I’ll get one a day, it’s just a bit harder from Montreal.

>I have never claimed Himmler had to read a dictionary before giving his
>speech. He was speaking his native language, Mr. Beaulieu. Unlike you, he
>knew exactly what the word meant.

You refered later to a comparison with cat and dogs also. This is ridiculous.
I’ve use the word cat and dog hundreds of times more than the word eradication in my life. The words mean literraly wipe-out and is certanly not more current in german than the word eradiquer in french. I don’t know if Himmler knew this specification about the livings or not. Perhaps he knew but chose to use it in a its litteral sense. Perhaps he didn’t. Per Butz, who is half german, considered that as a possibility but had a preference for a forgery back those days.
His vision of the final solution involved less killings than what I think but
I don’t believe that this expelling program was a pacific one always. I gave Ingrid’s opinion, Irving’s opinion, Bjorn’s opinion but you will still claim in a month that nobody who is fluent in German has ever claim that Ausrotten could
mean somethings else.

If, the only times in my life that I used a word like ‘eradiquer’, I used it in connection to the removal of insects from an appartment, indeed, the ‘real’ sense here is killing for the living despite the word itself means ‘removal’.
If I would hate a people for racial reasons like Himmler did, qualified this people often as a nuisable vermin, and lead an uprooting program where violence is tolerate, the use of ‘eradiquer’ wouldn’t mean necessarelly ‘killing all of them’. Himmler equated evacuation to ausotten at the begining of the speech.
Morever, he’s talking in the same speech about jewish sabotage. As rblackmore pointed out recently, it is a monumental absurdity to think that Himler had in the mind the extermination of all the Jews across Europe in october 1943: Germany was loosing the war. He knew that french Jews, Hungarian Jews, Rumanian Jews couldn’t be deported for ‘extermination’, because of the logistic that it required, because there was problem with several of those governments and because there was no extermination program. Himmler wasn’t that crazy. The only sense ‘destroying this people’ could have in his mind was about massive represails in the east against partisans but also hostage executions. The first
German preoccupation was to resist to the soviet army and to eliminate any inside threat.

I’m tired about it now, I’ve said what I had to say, including comments about Goebbels diary, the Luther memorendum and other stuff in a post to Jamie McCarthy. You can reply, but I think we turn in round. I prefer to stop it here and to go on another topic, probably Hans Munch testimony or either Suchomel
testimony. I’ve to get some material before, I’ll see if next weekend I’ll have put that together.

post and email

From [email protected] Mon Sep 2 19:26:40 PDT 1996
Article: 61770 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: Ausrotten again
Date: 2 Sep 1996 13:52:25 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 166
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<jamie-3108961[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne20.vir.com

[email protected] (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:

I wrote my reply, but I’ve just receive after an email from
rblackmore that I found extermelly interesting, a couple of minutes
ago. I don’t believe he’ll be angry because I use it, but I like also
this explanation:

rblackmore:
************************************************************
Nazis. Obviously at this late date Germany was losing the war and
Himmler knew it, according to Van Pelt in his new book on Auschwitz. He
also obviously knew that France, Italy, and Hungary’s vast Jewish
population was not deported and would never BE deported, so the idea that
he was exterminating all Jews is a non-sequitor. This reference only
makes sense in the context of the
partisan war, where partisan bands were composed of men, women, and
youngsters. One band alone might number 11,000 individuals. The bloody
business he refers to where the men "knew" what it was like to
see thousands of bodies again should be taken in context. A speech to
military officers who are accustomed to
seeing the horrors of war, as well as reprisals against the enemy. The
French also announced a policy of reprisals when they occupied Germany:
for every Frenchman killed, they would kill 5 Germans.
*****************************************************************
Now the replied I wrote before to get his post:

>> Again, Himmler
>> equate explicitelly ausrotten with evacuation at the begining of his speech.

>”We have the moral right, we had the duty to our people to do it,
>to kill this people who would kill us.”

I’m not contesting that several Jews were killed by the Nazis. I’m not con-
testing the authenticity of Gobbels diary. The whole Goebbels diary, not just
the excerps that I would selectivelly use because they match my theory. The
whole diary. My purpose is not, like you, to skip the elements in it which
do not match my views. Such kind of statements exist in the Nazi rhetoric,
sometimes, as they were existing in other situations where a man want to show
his musles in a speech. So Himmler say in a speech ‘we have the moral right
so destroy (or kill) this people’? He was aware about atrocities that were
commited. This doesn’t transform an expelling program on the paper into an
official extermination policy. The Nazis were not writting the contrary of
their thoughts: when they wrote deportation to eastern ghettos, this was what
they had in the mind. Never any credible explanation was given about the
so-called ‘coding terminology’. Such a statement doesn’t proove gas chambers.
If there is contradictory datas that do not match your theory, than you
can’t run away and say ‘Himmler’s declaration abolish the Luther memorendum,
the excerps of Goebbels diary I decided to not mention on my site, the
Stroop report, the letter that Goerring wrote, and so on. Again, I’m not
contesting that a fraction of the Jews were liquidated, in the case of Lublin
especially but there’s a ground for uncertanty about the total fraction for
the whole war if we account for diseases, progroms from the Balts, Ukrenians,
and so on. There’s also a lot who survived to Nazis persecutions. The picture
that the Nazis had of them wasn’t one of an innocent people who was not a
threat. They knew that several Jews were involved in partisan activities.
There was blind retaliations, represails.

>In other words, if you squint your eyes, tilt your head, and pretend he meant
>something different, then it doesn’t look so bad.

>Open your eyes wide:

>”We have the moral right, we had the duty to our people to do it,
>to kill this people who would kill us.”

Open your eyes wide:

Should I include to that the Steengracht document mention by Butz on page
219 where it is clear that on 20 august 1943 the general Hildebrandt
ask to the German administrations of eastern ghettos to not employ Jews
for clerk’s work, and where he’s alarm by rumours about sexual relation
between germans and jewesses for the uprooted Jews in the east?
(NO-1624)

march 7,1942

(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?

From [email protected] Tue Sep 3 07:43:51 PDT 1996
Article: 61829 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
nntp.teleport.com!news.structured.net!news.cais.net!hunter.premier.net!
news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!nntp.primenet.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: 1-Auschwitz, a secret? (repost)
Date: 2 Sep 1996 14:15:19 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 152
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne25.vir.com

Thanks to Alexander Baron, who revided the first page of the text to
correct grammatical errors

This post is 50% based on a study from Enrique Aynat , the remaining by
either personnal research either Butz findings.

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] Tue Sep 3 13:21:04 PDT 1996
Article: 61936 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!nntp.primenet.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: 2-Auschwitz, a secret? (Repost)
Date: 2 Sep 1996 14:16:40 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 145
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne25.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] Wed Sep 4 23:30:13 PDT 1996
Article: 62454 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: 1 & 2 Auschwitz, a secret? (Repost)
Date: 5 Sep 1996 02:13:53 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne67.vir.com

Laurinda Stryker <[email protected]> wrote:

>There are numerous omissions and half-truths in this posting, but I’ll
>only point out a couple of the most egregious.

We’ll see….

>Mr. Beaulieu writes:

>>But often, messages were simply transmitted with the liberation of >inmates
(Laqueur, ‘The Terrible Secret’, page 169 and Garlinsi [sic],
>’Fighting Auschwitz’, pages 54-5 & 112).

>Cf. Josef Garlinski in _Fighting Auschwitz_ (Fawcett Publications,
>1975), p. 80: ‘In this preliminary period, when the underground was
>taking its first steps almost in the dark, sending reports via
>released prisoners was found to be the most practical method.
>Releases were very rare, but they did happen from time to time. It
>all depended on whether the released man was already a member of the
>secret camp organization. The risk of sending anything by someone who
>was not completely trustworthy was unacceptable for the underground
>and for Warsaw, as both sides would have had to reveal their secret
>contact.’

There are numerous omissions and half-truths in this reply, but I’ll
only point out a couple of the most egregious:
Releases were rare in the preliminary period (do you refer here to 1941??),
but there was 952 in the first 6 months of 1942 and 36 and the other 6
months, not all from Birkenau but since there was communications between
both camps, only a couple was suffisant. You forget an essential part,
the emettor receiver which was in activity the fall of 1942. Finally,
there was _no need_ to find someone trustable about the gassing story,
simply because such precautions had to be taken for other kind of material.
An inmate of Auschwitz 1 or Birkenau who was released or who escaped
(hundreds for 1942-43) couldn’t have shut up because the resistance in the
camp didn’t provide him documents.

>Mr. Beaulieu also writes:
>>Communications between Poland and London were relatively easy for the
>Resistance.

>He neglects to note what Garlinski states about the time lag involved
>in such communications. Garlinski says about the first report from
>Auschwitz: ‘Pilecki’s first report, transmitted to Warsaw orally in
>November 1940 by means of a released prisoner, was immediately made
>use of. The contents were included in the secret mail, sent by
>courier from the Commandant of the ZWZ, which arrived in London via
>Stockholm in March 1941.’ (Garlinski, p. 79).

4 months for a letter wasn’t and exception. But as I said, there was about
300 radio messages which were sent at speed light to London every month
by the A.K. It is the long messages containing important informations
which were bring that way, because they feared an interception. The German
were able to listen those communications. It is true that the letters took
weeks before to reach London, but not necessarelly as much as 4 months.

>Mr. Beaulieu also writes:
>>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. [deletion] Before
>t e mid >1944, the atrocities were generally not concerning Auschwitz and when
>it was th case, the mass gasing of jews was not mention.

> Mr. Beaulieu tends to confuse what is _reported_ with what is
> _publicized_. He fails to note that the first report on Auschwitz

For an average delay of few weeks, it doesn’t make a strong difference

>that provided details of the gassings there was a two-part report
>written on 10 and 12 August 1943. This, the first detailed report to
>reach the West, was received by the Office of Strategic Services in
>London in April 1944. It was based on information gathered by the
>Polish underground in Auschwitz, and contained information about the
>number of inmates at Auschwitz; the number of Jews gassed up to
>September 1942; the number of Romany who had been gassed; and the
>numbers of Jews arriving from various countries between September 1942
>and June 1943. The report added that of these, only two percent were
>still alive. The report also contained descriptions of the gassing
>procedure and of the crematoria as well as of the medical
>experimentation being conducted on inmates. Also included was
>information about the conditions in the camp and names of some key
>figures in the Nazi staff.

6 months to reach London???????? impossible. I’ll check your reference
later and comment, but a date like august 1943 leaves a year and a half
or close to it. I’ll see later and come back with this. But your story
on a first glance seems weird, since a large amount of publicity
was given about Treblinka and the other camps.

From [email protected] Thu Sep 5 07:28:53 PDT 1996
Article: 62469 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: Speer talks to Sereny
Date: 5 Sep 1996 03:48:45 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne50.vir.com

[email protected] (Ken Lewis) wrote:

[snip]

>If Speer had said so much in Nuremberg, he would have been
>hanged.”

I dont know if Sereny reported 100% correctly her interview with Speer, but
anyway she certanly didn’t invent everything. First point, as I have repeated
and repeated and repeated: there was Jews who were murdered. It is a certanty
to me. As I said, I accept the Goebbels diary. The uprooting program wasn’t
a pacific one. It is obvious to me that Hitler in private entertainments never
said: Oh, those nice Jews, how about getting them back? I know also that never
in a private enterteinment Hitler ever mention gas chambers. There wasn’t.
As I said also, Speer wasn’t the same one… no, I will not repost always and
always here the same paragraphs. He would have been hang? Perhaps. But several
Nazi leaders, including Goerring, denied any knowledge of it and were hang.
The fact is simply that Speer couldn’t ‘confess’ a thing that he didn’t know.
I’m not claiming here that Speer wasn’t aware about that or that atrocity and
that he shut up at Nuremberg. It’s quite probable that he eared about rumors
like ‘x thousands of Jews in Poland were shot’, and such things. rblackmore
posted at least twice the testimony of Frank, were the man asked to Hitler
if the allied rumors about the extermination of Jews were true or false. I’m almost
sure that Speer didn’t tell everything he eared about in Nuremberg. This doesn’t
mean that he was aware a global extermination policy with or without gas chambers.
The bulk of your proof is based upon interpretation of what appear to be
carefull declarations of Speer that you immediatelly translate into an admission.
There’s big chances that Speer believed the post war propaganda. He was pragma-
tic. His will wasn’t to be a martyr but to rehabilitate himself in the eye
of the Germans. However, I consider that what Speer could feel in the Nazi
circles, hate against Jews, brutal declarations from man like Heydrich or
Goebbels like ‘if those bastards die a day, that’s a good thing!’, such thing
that were certanly said, had an influence on him. The ‘admission’ of Speer,
accounting for the fact that he was certanly aware about some atrocities,
is _nothing else_ than the evolution of a man who was pragmatic, who knew
that it was to his advantage to not disatisfy the Jewish circles who asked him
this ‘service’ accounting for his past and the reputation he tried to rebuilt,
a man who could, who had probably a guilt feeling toward jews if he believed
the post war propaganda, and even if he believed it only in part. The fact
is simply that in all the stuff you gave, I have to rely upon an ‘exegete’
on your side who explain me that Speer’s declarations were more than a post
war feeling based upon the violent anti-jewish rhetoric in the Nazi circles
rather than a declaration like: ‘I always knew that there was gas chambers,
we were talking often about it’. Looking away he said. Thanks to the exeget
K. Lewis, another coding terminology I suppose?
Goerring, a man, who was supposed to be much more aware about those things
due to his position in the Reich, had a quite different opinion. Gilbert,
the psychologist of the Nuremberg prison, reported this private exchange
he had with Goerring (Butz, p.177)
‘Those atrocity films!’ Goering continued. ‘Anybody can make an atrocity
film if they take corpses out of their graves and then show a tractor
shoving them back again’
‘You can’t brush it off that easily’, I replied. ‘We did find your concentra-
tion camp fairly littered with corpses and mass graves – I saw them myself
in Dachau and Hadamar.’
‘Oh, but but not piled up by the thousands like that’
‘Don’t tell me what I didn’t see! I saw corpses literally by the carload’
‘Oh, that one train’
‘-And piled up like cordwood in the crematorium – and half starved and
mutilated prisoners, who told me how the butchers had been going on for
years – and Dachau was not the worst by far! You can’t shrug off 6,000,000
murders!
‘-Well, I doubt it was 6,000,000,’, he said despondently, apparently he
had started the argument. ‘But as I’ve always said, it is sufficient
if only 5 percent of it is true’ A glum silence followed.

The question of the camps in Germany is another one, but really, I found
little in your response if we talk about more than atrocities, an extermination
policy with or without gas chambers.

From [email protected] Fri Sep 6 07:23:35 PDT 1996
Article: 62840 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: who needs none
Date: 5 Sep 1996 01:24:01 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 166
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne54.vir.com

APOLOGIES TO YALE EDEIKEN (or The me methodology of a troll)

[email protected] (Mike Curtis) wrote:

In a recent post I said:

> Mr Curtis, I have observed you for a while and it was easy to classify
>you: most of the time, you can’t provide arguments. You are not a ‘brain’
>here, someone who is doing research on their side, someone who will
>visit librairies to find a rebutall. In short, a troll. Your preferate
>tactic is to ‘ask evidence’, always and always,
>even when this evidence
>was offered to you months before.
> It is the easiest method: asking references,
>even for banalities, and fake that those references were not given to you
>few weeks after. Because it’s the quicker and laziest approach. I know
>your game. I gave the reference on the zundel site. So read it or shut up.

The quotes from M. Curtis that I found the most funny are those ones:

>And you provide none. Very good, sir. I see that name-calling is the
[snip]
>>even when this evidence
>>was offered to you months before.

>It was? When where? I haven’t seen you source a darn thing. Recently I
>saw a reference to this Sanning without explanation of his sources and
>what makes him so reputable.

In other words, I was right: here’s the post to wich I refered and who
he responded with the words above.
*********************************************************************
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?

CODOH http://www.codoh.com

ZUNDEL SITE: http://www.webcom.com/~ezundel/english/

G.RAVEN: http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg/

(Page doesn`t exist)

From [email protected] Fri Sep 6 07:23:36 PDT 1996
Article: 62841 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: who needs none
Date: 5 Sep 1996 01:25:12 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne54.vir.com

[email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:

(about the Einsatzgruppen reports)

> Now what is your evidence? If you have none be honest enough to
>say so.

The fact that statements done by Jewish officials during the war on the
evacuation of Jews contradict several of those reports (when the number
evacuate from a city leaves less Jews than what a report claim).
I still don’t know neither if the biggest one, the one which deals with
the extermination of 363,000 Jews or somewhat is initial by Himmler.
On the page where the claim occur there’s a small handwritten notification
but I still don’t know if it’s supposed to be Himmler’s initials. I’ll
email that one to D. Keren, perhaps he will respond, I’m curious.

CODOH http://www.codoh.com

ZUNDEL SITE: http://www.webcom.com/~ezundel/english/

G.RAVEN: http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg/

(Page doesn`t exist)

From [email protected] Fri Sep 6 07:23:37 PDT 1996
Article: 62842 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:Speer
Date: 5 Sep 1996 01:26:20 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 115
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne54.vir.com

[email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:

> Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]> writes:
> [email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:

>> > 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.

> There are no “chapters” that deal with the “Jewish question.” Nor
>would reading isolated passages help you to understand the theme of the book.

Mr. Edeiken, we havn’t read the same book. I read l’empire SS, from Speer,
which is the translation of one of the books he wrote, but I dont know which
one since I read no one of him in english. There was at least 2 chapters were
he talked about the jewish question and he quoted Nuremberg documents. I don’t
remember to have seen anything else then that and this is what stroke me since
he was close to Hitler, he didn’t seems to have first hand information.
I learned later that he claimed to be unaware about an extermination program
in Nuremberg. In the other book I quoted.

>> Because he claimed himself that he was unaware: see the book “l’immoprtalite
>> du pouvoir’ above.

> No. What he has said is that he deliberately ignored it. Please look at
>the dates cited and reconsider what you are writing.

I don’t know if I translated correctly:

> 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”

I should have know was ‘j’aurais du le savoir’, or something like ‘I didn’t
know but it’s my fault’. Furthermore, the interviewer (when I took that from
my photocopies a week ago I think it was Mathias Schmitdt) stated: at Nuremberg,
you claimed that you were aware about anything.

There’s many way to explain why Speer didn’t say ‘You are wrong! I claimed that
I knew!.

1) Maybe Schmidt forced Speer to give this interview with a gun

2) Maybe Schmidt rung at the wrong house and got an interview with Volwgang
Shultz who found this mistake so funny that he decided to play the game
because it could give him a funny tale for his cammarades at the saussage
factory.

3) Maybe this interview was a sick joke from Speer

4) May be Speer died in jail and was replaced by a double.

Now Yale, if Speer stated at Nuremberg that he knew about the gasing of Jews,
give the stuff! I know from this book that somewhere, either in court, either
out court, during the trials, he said that he was unaware. If I’m wrong, give
me the quotation and the Nuremberg volume, and I’ll retract my statement and
send a letter to ask Schmidt which one of the four possibilities is the real
one. All I know up to now is that decades after Speer wrote in a book or
said in a statement in S.Africa something like:

>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.

To which I responded:

> 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.

In other words, this story apparently appeared decades after and not at
Nuremberg. And the way Speer gave it decades after, there’s no mention of
gassing in Hanke testimony (if he really said that, if Speer remembered
correctly after decades, see above).

CODOH http://www.codoh.com

ZUNDEL SITE: http://www.webcom.com/~ezundel/english/

G.RAVEN: http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg/

(Page doesn`t exist)

From [email protected] Fri Sep 6 07:23:38 PDT 1996
Article: 62892 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!ddsw1!
news.mcs.net!news.abs.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: 1-Auschwitz, a secret? (repost)
Date: 6 Sep 1996 02:16:48 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <5[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne68.vir.com

[email protected] (Gord McFee) wrote:
>
In message <50eq5n$sap@Vir.com> – Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
writes:
:>
:> Thanks to Alexander Baron, who revided the first page of the text to
:> correct grammatical errors
:>
:>This post is 50% based on a study from Enrique Aynat , the remaining by
:>either personnal research either Butz findings.
:>
:>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.

>You just go on and on, don’t you Mr. Beaulieu? Could you provide a source for
>the statement that the Germans did not try to keep the Final Solution secret?

Because Auschwitz was transparent, it is ludicrous to say that this was an
ideal place for mass killing. But indeed, they didn’t try to keep secret
the final solution, they announce everywhere their program of deportation
toward eastern ghettos.

CODOH http://www.codoh.com

ZUNDEL SITE: http://www.webcom.com/~ezundel/english/

G.RAVEN: http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg/

(Page doesn`t exist)

From [email protected] Fri Sep 6 07:23:38 PDT 1996
Article: 62893 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.intersurf.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!
nntp.primenet.com!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!news.abs.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: Speer talks to Sereny
Date: 6 Sep 1996 02:19:19 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne68.vir.com

[email protected] (Ken Lewis) wrote:
>
>I tell you what. How about you read Speer in his own words instead of
>reading a book about him where someone else said something and then come
>back and talk some more.

I said _several times_ that I read Speer in his own words 2 years ago.
I’ve a lot of stuff to read. Perhaps I’ll read again his book but I don’t
see why I would see anything more than the first time.

CODOH http://www.codoh.com

ZUNDEL SITE: http://www.webcom.com/~ezundel/english/

G.RAVEN: http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg/

(Page doesn`t exist)

From [email protected] Fri Sep 6 07:23:39 PDT 1996
Article: 62894 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sgi.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!
ddsw1!news.mcs.net!news.abs.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: No criminal evidende in the Wannsee protocol
Date: 6 Sep 1996 02:38:06 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne68.vir.com

[email protected] (Nele Abels) wrote:
>
> [email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:
> >1/28/87
> > SS Gruppenfuehrer Gerhard Klopfer, who served as state secretary
> >in the Party Chancellery under Martin Bormann and was the last
> >surviving member of the Wannsee Conference (at which it was alleged
> >that details were worked out for the “final solution”) dies in
> >Heilbronn, West Germany. Klopfer was charged with war crimes at
> >Nuernberg, but the case was dropped for lack of evidence, and in fact
> >Klopfer was
> >permitted to resume practicing law in 1956. This lends credence to the
> >proposition that the Wannsee Conference had nothing to with with an
> >extermination program.
>
> BZZZT, wrong conclusion. The candidate has lost it all! No-one put to prison
> after the war (with the exception of Rudolf Hess*) ) had to serve more then
> 5 of 6 years. After that all of them were free. The judicial system in Western Germany
> has never been cleaned from Nazis after the war. The “Entnazifizierung” was a
> big joke. Therefore no conclusion about his role in the Wannsee conference is
> possible. The only conclusion possible is that the verdicts of the trials against
> SS-men in the 60s and 70s are to be trusted. No “axe to grind”, no torture, no
> excuses for “revisionists”.
>
No torture? Let just say that it didn’t transpire if it happened.
Poor Bauer, he chose to deny the gas chambers in his camp and died in his
early fifties…coincidence?

From [email protected] Sat Sep 7 18:06:52 PDT 1996
Article: 63306 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
globe.indirect.com!news.goodnet.com!news.dra.com!news.starnet.net!spool.mu.edu!
uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
chi-news.cic.net!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!news.abs.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: Speer talks to Sereny
Date: 6 Sep 1996 22:47:22 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne42.vir.com

[email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
>
> > Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > I said _several times_ that I read Speer in his own words 2 years ago.
> > I’ve a lot of stuff to read. Perhaps I’ll read again his book but I don’t
> > see why I would see anything more than the first time.
>
> Actaully you have claimed that you did *not* read Speer’s book
> “Infiltration” but only certain portions of it.
>
> –YFE

That’s why I used the formulation: I read Speer in his own words.
The other chapters were not related to the Jewish question and I don’t
know if ‘infiltration’ is the equivalent of “l’empire SS”

http://www.codoh.com

From [email protected] Sun Sep 8 08:01:24 PDT 1996
Article: 63460 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!
usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!
nntp.primenet.com!news.mindspring.com!uunet!in3.uu.net!en.com!op.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: Apologies to Yale Edeiken: who needs none
Date: 8 Sep 1996 00:16:53 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne28.vir.com

[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>
> Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]> writes:
>
> # ZUNDEL SITE: http://www.webcom.com/~ezundel/english/
>
> Site composed and maintained by Ernst Zundel, who openly
> admires Hitler, and also claims that the Nazi leadership
> built “secret UFO’s” and used them to flee to the inner
> earth, via a “hole in the South-Pole”. Zundel also called
> to ban the movie “Schindler’s List”, and the TV series
> “Holocaust” – which does not stop him from claiming that
> he “supports free speech”.

some pretty good elements like the book Did six million really die?
the long version about the 1988 trial on this site. By the way,
will you finally say to us if the small handwritten notification on
this report which claim that 363,211 jews were liquidated in the east
is supposed to be Himmler’s initials?

From [email protected] Sun Sep 8 08:01:25 PDT 1996
Article: 63465 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
op.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: No criminal evidende in the Wannsee protocol
Date: 8 Sep 1996 00:11:24 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<50jme[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne28.vir.com

[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>

Hi Pit

>#Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]> writes:

># Poor Bauer, he chose to deny the gas chambers in his camp

>I’ve seen this claim from you nazi-boys numerous times – that
>Baer “denied the gassings”. I’ve seen no evidence, no source,
>nothing whatsoever to prove this.
>
>Until you supply the evidence for this claim, you will be
>considered a liar. But then again, maybe you have no
>problem with it. You’re a “revisionist scholar”, are you not…

I’m not, if you mean by that somebody who has a an academical background in
that field. My statement was based on 2 revisionist authors, the first of
them Staeglich. In ‘Le mythe d’Auscwhitz’, Staeglich described extensivelly
the trial and speaks about Baer. I went back in the book and one of his
statements is that this appeared in the french press back those days.
Unfortunatelly, he doesn’t give a specific date, and since he probably
ignore french I suppose that he got that information from one of Rassinier’s
translation. A bit later, Staeglich said that ‘we know that he expected
acquittal from his wife’. No reference for this sentence, but I’m not
surprised neither: when someone write a book, if he got first verbal informations
or if those ones are in several newspapers that someone else read in french,
he will not necessarelly put it in his book. Later again, Staeglich gives
something more direct: ‘what leaves one to believe that he refused to back
the extermination charge, is the fact that his declarations during the pre-
limineries were not read publically during the trial.’ Since the purpose
of this trial was to bring other proofs to charge de defendents, it is
a good evidence to me that he didn’t confess gas chambers during the preli-
minaries. I can hardly imagine that he made positive declarations and that
the prosecution ‘forgot’ to use it. Below again, Staeglich stated: As Langbein
said, the preliminary was over the 19 october 1962 [61], in such a way that
nothing could have delayed seriously the trial except the obstinacy of
Baer. The trial took place only about a year later, after Baer death.
The [61] reference is Langbein, but I doubt that Langbein as a hollohuger
claimed nothing else in his book that the preliminaries were over in october
1962.

The other author is Butz, who said that he insisted that the gas chambers
were a myth (p186).At the end of the paragraph he said about his death that
‘his wife considered his death rather mysterious’. He gave two references
for the whole paragraph, Naumann (Auschwitz) page 8 and Emil Aretz, Hexen-Einmal
Eins einer Luege, third edition, 1973. page 58. I couldn’t find the first
one and I know that the last one is certanly not in Montreal. So Baer’s
wife is quoted, and I suppose it is in the German book. If not, he got an
interview with her personally.

I’ve try to read the only french-european archives that exist here, le
monde, but even between the 17 june and the 20 june 1963 Baer’s death is not
mention. I can try in the next two weeks for another date, when the trial
started, but there’s many french newspapers so really I’d have some troubles
to find those french press communiques unless I find the original claim in
one of Rassiniers’ book, but they were not reprinted. If you want to start
this game I will call you a liar each time that you’ll quote an exterminationist
author and say that his statement his an a priori lie. How would you like
it? The best direct evidence I found in those 2 books is the fact that
his statements during the preliminary were not used in court, and I find this
one very good. Seconly, Butz put quotes for Baer’s wife sentence, which means
that very probably he took it in a book that I can’t access (the second one).

codoh: http://www.codoh.com/

From [email protected] Sun Sep 8 08:01:25 PDT 1996
Article: 63484 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!
usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!
nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!news.cais.net!op.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: What Goering Knew
Date: 8 Sep 1996 01:17:37 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <50li[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne28.vir.com

[email protected] wrote:
>
> > [email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) writes:
> > Extract from the interrogation of Higher SS and Police Leader Friedrich Jeckeln
> > (December 14, 1945):

> > Q: What statement would you like to make?
>
> After the interrogaters remove their boots from his mouth, and the pins they stuck in
> his testicles…(Just a figure of speech…don’t ask me to prove it, but based on the
> treatment of Hoess and others, this was probably the truth.)
> >
> > A: I would like to state for the record that Goering shares in the guilt for
> > the liquidation of the Jewish convoys that arrived from other countries. In the
> > first half of February 1942 I received a letter from Heyrich. In this letter he wrote
> > that Reich Marshall Goering had gotten himself involved in teh Jewish question,
> > and that Jews were now being shipped to the East for annihilation only with
> > Goering’s approval.
> >
> > –quoted in Fleming “Hitler and the Final Solution” pp. 96-7

> OK. Now provide proof for these claims. Anyone can accuse anyone. He’s a witch!
> She’s a witch! And soon the mob is howling, “Burn, witch, burn!”

I’ve just read ‘Nuremberg diary’, written by this psychologist in
Nuremberg (Gilbert) this afternoon were he reported the entertainment he had with
the defendents of themain trials over weeks. Really aa claim that Goerring was ‘aware’
about a mass liquidation of Jews is ridicoulous. It is true that some of the defendants
started to have doubts after the projection of atrocity movies but not Goerring. When
Hoess testified however, even Goerring couldn’t believe it and his attitude in private
changed from denial to ‘perhaps’, but really he was obviously disturbed and his beha-
viour showed that he was asking himself questions, without knowing really. Some others
accepted Hoess testimony and believed that Himmler and Hitler did it
alone (Frank among others). They couldn’t know that Hoess was tortured, but Hoess had
a big effect on several of them. Despite Frank’s opinion is based on the strong impression
that Hoess testimony did on him, we are told now that Frank ‘knew’ because he assumed
a guilt feeling. In the context, Frank had an emotional shock and had already start,
during his captivity, his catholic ‘trip’ were admissions of sins were the best way
to be in agreement with God. However, since Frank’s decision was based on Hoess testimony,
this mean simply that he couldn’t ‘know’ the ‘gassing’ during the war, but we are still
given his diary as a proof of anything.

We are still present ‘proofs’ like Speer repentance as a proof of anything whatsover,
while his post war attitude, like the one of the other defendants, was based mainly
on Hoess testimony. They couldn’t figure that torture of a threath to
deport the familly of a SS in siberia were used since there only way to compare was
their own treatment (except for Streicher). Hoess was totally apathic
and had probably the hope to not be turn to the Russians. But you’ll see, even if
the proofs about Hoess treatment were posted here often and often they will still
claim that it wasn’t the case.

It is a strange case that Himmler decided to constitute himself prisonner, was left
alone (!) and ‘suicided’. He was perfectly aware about the atrocity stories that were
reported, the movie ‘Holocaust’ show him as if he had ‘discovered’ suddenly that the
allied were aware about is involvment(!) while such atrocities and accusations were
brought for months and that he commited a suicide because he had suddenly ‘realized’
that the allieds could accuse him of that! Anybody of a sane mind who studied a bit
this topic can see that he decided to constitute himself prisonner rather than to go
in south america because he wanted to testify the truth. That is for
Himmler ‘suicide’.

http://www.codoh.com/

From [email protected] Sun Sep 8 11:56:14 PDT 1996
Article: 63561 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!
news.umbc.edu!cs.umd.edu!ra.nrl.navy.mil!news.math.psu.edu!news.cse.psu.edu!
uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.erols.net!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!uunet!
in3.uu.net!en.com!op.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: McVay and PORNOGRAPHY
Date: 8 Sep 1996 01:28:55 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 6
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne28.vir.com

[email protected] wrote:

> For a breath of fresh air, visit: http://codoh.com/
>
well, no it seems that both adress works. Another holocaust miracle.

From [email protected] Sun Sep 8 17:24:01 PDT 1996
Article: 63573 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: The Vergasungskeller mystery solved?
Date: 8 Sep 1996 18:29:58 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 139
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne37.vir.com

Taken from a recent upgraded of A. Butz site:
Vergasungskeller
by Arthur R. Butz
Veteran revisionists recognize that an outstanding small problem has been the “Vergasungskeller”
that was evidently in or near Crematorium II at Auschwitz.

Crematorium II (and its mirror image Crematorium III) had two huge underground morgues,
Leichenkeller 1 (LK 1) and LK 2, and a smaller morgue LK 3. LK 1 and LK 2 were simple
concrete morgues in which bodies were simply laid on the floor. A letter from the Auschwitz
construction department dated 29 January 1943, when the construction of Crematorium II was
nearing completion, reports that frost prohibits removal of the formwork for the ceiling of the
“Leichenkeller” (without specifying which of the three is meant) but that this is unimportant, since the
“Vergasungskeller” can be used for that purpose, i.e. as a morgue. The document had the number
NO-4473 at the Nuremberg trials.

When NO-4473 is interpreted with the help of some documents reproduced by Pressac [1], it is
shown that the “Leichenkeller” is LK 2. Pressac believes that the Vergasungskeller is LK 1 and that
a “slip”, indeed “enormous gaff” (sic), caused the author of the document to betray the true purpose
of LK 1, referring to it as a “gassing cellar” (although the usual German word for such a concept is
“Gaskammer”). On no known set of engineering drawings is a “Vergasungskeller” indicated [2].

Many of those who would have us believe that there were homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz
insist on this interpretation. An interesting exception has been the Austrian-born Raul Hilberg. He
cites, and even quotes from, NO-4473 in the “Killing Center Operations” chapter of The
Destruction of the European Jews, but he is silent on the “Vergasungskeller”.

In my 1976 book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century I offered that this was a part of the
crematorium building devoted to generating a combustible gas for the ovens [3]. This interpretation
was linguistically correct and could be technically correct, depending on the design of the ovens.
The primary meaning of “Vergasung” is gas generation or carburetion, i.e. turning something into a
gas. A secondary meaning is application of a gas as in fumigation or in gas warfare. It is also the
word Germans use to refer to the alleged gassing of Jews; however, they use “Gaskammer” rather
than “Vergasungskammer” or “Vergasungskeller” for the facility imagined to have accomplished this.
Such usage also applies in the literature on fumigation [4].

By 1989 Robert Faurisson realized that my original interpretation was wrong and later in 1989
Pressac [5] conclusively showed that it was wrong, based on the design of the cremation ovens. In
1991 Faurisson offered a theory [6] that the Vergasungskeller was a storage area, for fumigation
supplies, within LK 3.

In 1992 I showed that there were many ways “Vergasung” can come up in sewage treatment
technology, and offered that the Vergasungskeller might be found in the sewage treatment plant
next to the crematorium. However I favored the interpretation that the Vergasungskeller was simply
a facility for generating fuel gas for the camp [7]. NO-4473 suggests, but does not require, that the
Vergasungskeller was located within the crematorium building.

The purpose of this note is to offer another interpretation which I now believe is more plausible than
any earlier offered by me or anybody else. Before I do that I should remark that the problem here
is what the Vergasungskeller was, not whether it was a homicidal gas chamber. Those who claim it
was a homicidal gas chamber focus their attention entirely on that one word in the document. If they
would instead focus on what the document says, they would realize that it is impossible to make
that interpretation work. The document shows that in January 1943 the Germans were in a great
rush to use the building as an ordinary crematorium.

As Faurisson discussed earlier [8], during World War II the combatants paid great heed that new
structures be considered, if possible, as air raid shelters. There were two principal dangers that
such shelters were to provide protection against: bombs and gas attacks. On account of World
War I experiences, the possibilities of the latter were taken very seriously. Indeed many simply
assumed that gas would be used, despite treaties outlawing its use. Typically, a gas shelter was
conceived of as a bomb shelter, preferably underground and very strong structurally, with some
features added to make it secure against gas; a gas shelter had to be gas tight but allow people to
breathe [9]. Since in many cases it was not economic to provide such structures for at most only
occasional use, it was recognized that such shelters could exist in the form of embellishments to
structures that exist for other purposes. However the number of suitable such structures was
limited. For example, the typical underground cellar belongs to a building with several stories; the
collapse of these in an air raid could prevent people from leaving the cellar.

My proposal is that the Vergasungskeller was a gas shelter. It need not have been located within
Crematorium II but I believe it most likely was, on account of the fact that Crematoria II and III,
with their large concrete cellars, were obviously ideal for adaptation as air raid shelters. Indeed
when this problem is looked at from the point of view of defense against air raids it seems there
was no better choice at Auschwitz. The German authorities responsible for providing air raid
shelters would have insisted that the necessary embellishments be made to these structures. My
reading of some of the relevant chemical warfare literature convinces me that Crematoria II and III
were conceived of by the Germans as having this additional role.

I have never seen the word “Vergasungskeller” in a lexicon; indeed I have seen it only in discussions
of NO-4473 [10] ! However I have seen two German-Russian dictionaries, one a military
dictionary, that say “Gaskeller” means “gas shelter” [11]. However we should not consider
ourselves bound to dictionaries on this. If one asks the question: In a World War II military context,
what might “Vergasungskeller” and/or “Gaskeller” mean?, I think that “gas shelter” is the answer that
comes naturally to mind, and that other meanings are somewhat strained. Of course other meanings
come naturally to mind in non-military contexts.

As a personal example, I can report that I have been unable to find the term “control lab” (or
“control laboratory”, “controls lab”, “controls laboratory”) in my IEEE Standard Dictionary of
Electrical and Electronics Terms (edition of 1972), although every university Dept. of Electrical
Engineering in the USA has a “control lab” and that is how we normally refer to such a place. I have
also been unable to find the term in an unabridged Webster’s, in an on-line version of the Oxford
English Dictionary, and in several other dictionaries I have.

If this theory is correct then we should view all three cellars in Crematorium II as air raid shelters,
with only one being provided with the additional measures to make it effective as a gas shelter. That
could only be LK 1, since NO-4473 implies it is not LK 2, LK 3 was very small and, conclusively,
because LK 1 was the only one of the three provided with a gas-tight door [12]. Moreover while
all parts of the building had motor driven air extraction systems, it appears that only LK 1 had a
motor driven air intake system [13].

Pressac also believes the Vergasungskeller was LK 1; under my theory he is then right on location
but wrong on function. LK 1 had the basic features of a gas shelter. Pressac admits that the air
exhaust (at the bottom) and air intake (near the top) systems of LK 1 were misplaced for a gas
chamber employing HCN [14]. Although HCN is only slightly lighter than air, there are various
practical reasons why gas chambers employing it normally expel the gas from the top when the
gassing process is completed [15]. Carbon dioxide, by contrast, is much heavier than air and is
most naturally expelled from the bottom of the relevant space.

Why would the author of NO-4473 not refer to a Leichenkeller as a Leichenkeller? I don’t think a
slip is involved. We normally do not consider ourselves bound to use only formal designations.
More commonly, we refer to things according to their function or in any case the function that
happens to be in mind at the time. The gas shelter features of LK 1 were its principal structural
distinction from LK 2 and those features were being taken into account in the construction at the
time. It was natural that LK 1 might be referred to as the gas shelter.

As another example of a use of terminology suggested by function, the engineers Jährling and
Messing referred to LK 2 of Crematoria II and III, during construction, via the terms
“Auskleideraum” and “Auskleidekeller” (undressing room or cellar), another one of what Pressac
considers “slips” that betrayed a criminal purpose [16]. This has been another point raised by those
who would put a homicidal interpretation on Crematoria II and III; the victims would according to
this theory undress themselves in LK 2 and then be gassed in LK 1.

It seems hard to believe these were “slips” because they were so frequently committed. Jährling
used this designation in a document of 6 March 1943, and then Messing used it in three documents
later in March. If these were “slips”, it would seem that by this time the bosses would have told
them to clean up their language. They evidently didn’t, because Messing used the designation in two
more documents in April [17].

The truth about the undressing is much more prosaic. Pressac believes that, when the Germans
viewed Crematoria II and III as ordinary crematoria, then the sequence of processing bodies was
contemplated to be LK 3 to LK 2 to LK 1, but that LK 3 was eventually eliminated from the
regular sequence [18]. However that may be, if the dead bodies were contemplated to start in LK
2 they would then be undressed there [19]. They would be stored in LK 1 while awaiting
cremation. Presumably LK 3 was only used when a body needed some sort of special processing,
e.g. dissection or the famous extraction of gold fillings from teeth.

I am struck by the humorous simplicity of the theory offered here.

From [email protected] Sun Sep 8 17:24:02 PDT 1996
Article: 63615 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
nntp.teleport.com!netaxs.com!news-out.microserve.net!news-in.microserve.net!
trellis.wwnet.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: McVay and PORNOGRAPHY
Date: 8 Sep 1996 00:40:20 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 6
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne28.vir.com

[email protected] wrote:

> For a breath of fresh air, visit: http://codoh.com/
>
Before they call you a liar for that, it is http://www.codoh.com/

From [email protected] Sun Sep 8 18:05:36 PDT 1996
Article: 63634 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
news.cloud9.net!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!panix!netaxs.com!
news-out.microserve.net!news-in.microserve.net!trellis.wwnet.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: 1-Auschwitz, a secret? (repost)
Date: 8 Sep 1996 00:20:03 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 157
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <5[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne28.vir.com

Laurinda Stryker <[email protected]> wrote:

>Jean-Francois Beaulieu wrote:
>>
>> Laurinda Stryker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >There are numerous omissions and half-truths in this posting, but I’ll
>> >only point out a couple of the most egregious.
>>
>> We’ll see….

[snip]

>> Releases were rare in the preliminary period (do you refer here to 1941??),
>> but there was 952 in the first 6 months of 1942 and 36 and the other 6
>> months,

>Please give the source for your figures.

Laqueur, the terrible secret, p 169, and Enrique Aynat, le gouvernement polo-
nais en exil, p 43. If you find it ‘very rare’ again, we could add the escapes.

> According to Garlinski – who, let it be noted, is a choice of your own
>choosing, transmissions _ended_ in the autumn of 1942 (Garlinski,
>_Fighting Auschwitz_, p. 133). Also, see my posting in response to
>that of Mr. Curtis re: what is or is not known about the content of
>the transmissions. Your point?

The mass-gassings allegedly started in may-june 1942 (anatomy of the Aus-
chwitz death camp, page 212). This leaves 3 to 4 months. It is hard to say
that the inmates ignored that unless you state that the S.K. were killed after
each gassing operation. The transmission didn’t contain anything about mass
gassing simply because the A.K. didn’t report anything about it that year,
or the year after, while the A.K. was working with jewish organisations and
spread several atrocity stories about other camps, or mass-electrocution
stories.

>>Finally,
>> there was _no need_ to find someone trustable about the gassing story,
>> simply because such precautions had to be taken for other kind of material.
>> An inmate of Auschwitz 1 or Birkenau who was released or who escaped
>> (hundreds for 1942-43) couldn’t have shut up because the resistance in the
>> camp didn’t provide him documents.

>Again, Mr. Beaulieu, you fail to make a crucial distinction. Yes,
>someone released from Auschwitz-Birkenau may well have told others of
>what they had seen there (though let it be noted that at least some of
>the people who were released report having had to sign non-disclosure
>statements); such personal communications, however, must be
>distinguished from communications which would have been relayed by
>members of the Polish resistance. For the Allies to have received
>information, a communications link – i.e. a contact in the Polish
>resistance – was necessary. You were, after all, not writing about
>what was known _in Poland_.

I have state in the original post that those communications WERE relayed
on a weekly basis to the polish resistance and back my claim with references.
The fact is simply that there was difficulty for the resistance in Auschwitz-
Birkenau to give documents to an inmate who was released, as you state:

>secret camp organization. The risk of sending anything by someone who
>was not completely trustworthy was unacceptable for the underground
>and for Warsaw, as both sides would have had to reveal their secret
>contact.’

simply because such documents could contain informations like the name
of that or that member of the A.K. in Birkenau, or that secret project
from the A.K., and it is understandable that they feared an interception.
But there was no risk to send something like a verbal story ‘they gassed
systematically jews here’, it is obvious that _any_ inmate who was liberated
would have been contact by the A.K. to bring up the so called main element
of the camp. There was hundreds of thousands of A.K. members in Poland,
and it is impossible to believes that no one of the inmates who was liberated
suceededed to contact the resistance! Add to that the letters which were
brought out the camp very often and picked up by the polish peasants, when
inmates were assigned to labour on farms…

>> 4 months for a letter wasn’t and exception. But as I said, there was about
>> 300 radio messages which were sent at speed light to London every month
>> by the A.K. It is the long messages containing important informations
>> which were bring that way, because they feared an interception.
>>The German
>> were able to listen those communications. It is true that the letters took
>> weeks before to reach London, but not necessarelly as much as 4 months.

>Not necessarily, perhaps – I don’t have information about the routing
>procedures for such communications; nor, I must add, have you supplied
>any such referenced information. Nevertheless, you just wrote that ‘4
>months for a letter wasn’t and [sic] exception.’ Your words.

I made a mistake, I wanted to say: 4 months for a letter was an exception.
The example you quoted was in the early days. Now, since you asked a reference,
I can give you one, Laqueur, the terrible secret, a jewish author (p 103):

“Courriers from Poland to London had to make their way to London in long
cumberstome ways. Some went via Sweden other through Western Europe. The
reports they were carrying would take weeks and sometimes more than a month
or even two. But shorter messages could be radioed daily to London,…”

In other words, the normal daily according to Laqueur, who studied that
aspect much more than me, was a month and even sometimes 2 months. Notice
the ‘even’ before the ‘2 months’.

This leads to your reference, a letter allegedly written in august 1943 and
‘received’ in London in april 1944. I’ve not locate it in Hilberg, despite
you gave the page and the edition, nor ‘the abandonment of the Jews’, but
there I found just the 1989 edition, not the 1984. For Hilberg, I figure
there’s some misunderstood due to the fact that I just found the 3 volumes
edition. The other books (5 for 1989, D. Wyman) are quite more interesting,
since the author reproduced documents everywhere, but he didn’t give an index
for the topics and I didn’t search more than 10 or 15 minutes, the page you
gave was irrelevant for this edition.

I’d prefer to locate the letter before to give my opinion, but since I didn’t
find it, my best guess actually is that it was written in 1944, april. I was
wrong when I stated ‘6 months’, indeed, I read back your claim and it is 8
months. Too long. 4 times more than the maximum given by Laqueur. The scenario
I’d have to imagine is that in spite of the presence of jews in the resistance,
in spite of the close contact that were existing between the A.K. and Zionist
organisations, the fact that the polish government in exile, who feared the
russians and searched deseperatly allieds, was spreading massivelly propaganda
claims against the germans ( for other camps ) than neither the A.K. nor the
zionist organisations over those 8 months decided to raise the alarm. Unbelie-
vable. Especially since the normal delivery time was a month (see Laqueur).
The coincidence here is that this report (and I’ll trust your word) was sub-
mitted to the OSS in april 1944, and this is very close to the date of the
WRB report appearance. This is a critical period for the zionist organisations
who were counting heavilly on immigration from hungaria to get a jewish
state in Palestine. In march 1944 the admiral Horthy suspended jewish emigra-
tion from Hungary due to German preassures, probably related to arab pressures
or either to the fact that those jews could serve in allied armies. Anyway,
it is clear that the gas chamber propaganda, which had a break over a certan
period, was resurected then but there was no longer any possibility to use
Treblinka, Belzec or Sobibor since those camps were shut down months before.
Auschwitz was used, and the zionist organisations tried to use it in the summer
of 1944 to get the public opinion on their side. I’ll not go into the details
here, what I say is that to me this report was a part of a strategy that was
adopted after march 1944 and used in the summer. It is impossible to believes
that it could have take 8 months to bring this report in London, nor that
a quicker method (radio emettor to London) were not used during this long
delay to give the main lines. The zionist organisations had a lot of contacts,
and were well informed.

In other words, between the early summer of 1942 and the summer of 1944,
there’s a gap of about two years, but an impossible silence exist. One
isolated reference could be find a day, but up to now, no one. And here
I’m talking about the publishing date, simply because it took ‘weeks, and
sometimes more than a month and even two’to bring the stuff in London.
And also because such an important information could be radioeded to London.

codoh: http://www.codoh.com/

From [email protected] Mon Sep 9 08:20:27 PDT 1996
Article: 63769 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: No criminal evidende in the Wannsee protocol
Date: 8 Sep 1996 15:27:40 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <508[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne29.vir.com

[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>
> Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]> writes:
>
> # Hi Pit
>
> Hello shmegege,
>
> # ‘what leaves one to believe that he refused to back
> # the extermination charge,
>
> Not good enough.
>
> Nor the irrelevant stuff from Butz.
>
> # If you want to start this game I will call you a liar
> # each time that you’ll quote an exterminationist author
> # and say that his statement his an a priori lie. How
> # would you like it?
>
> Whoa, I say, WHOA. Is this supposed to scare me?
>
> I mean, do you really think I care what a bunch of low-life
> Nazi scumbags thinks about me, or how they call me? This
> guy is unbelievable.
>
> I am still waiting for the direct and full quote from Baer
> in which he allegedly denies the gassings. You have made
> the claim that he did that; you failed to back your claim
> with facts.
>
> I wouldn’t bother too much with this, but you naziboys
> keep bringing this up here and there and I want to settle
> it once and for all.

> -Danny Keren.
>
From [email protected] Mon Sep 9 08:20:29 PDT 1996
Article: 63770 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: No criminal evidende in the Wannsee protocol
Date: 8 Sep 1996 15:38:30 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <508[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne29.vir.com

[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:

> I am still waiting for the direct and full quote from Baer
> in which he allegedly denies the gassings. You have made
> the claim that he did that; you failed to back your claim
> with facts.
>
I could I quote directly Baer if he wasn’t allowed to give a press
conference? I could I quote him directly since he was in jail?
According to Butz sources his wife found ‘mysterious” his death
and from Staeglich his wife apparently supported this claim. I
can’t access the german sources and I never met Baer’s wife, but
unless you proove me that the original sources are fabricated, I’m
trusting it. I can’t ask Butz to explain here his reference each time
you want me to find what exist in a german article or newspaper there.

From [email protected] Mon Sep 9 16:14:00 PDT 1996
Article: 63898 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!
news-dc.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!
www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!
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: Crematorium Rates
Date: 8 Sep 1996 20:25:20 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <32317280[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne29.vir.com

[email protected] (tom moran) wrote:
>
> [email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>
> >[email protected] (tom moran) writes:
> >
> ># Even though modern day cremation facilities take two
> ># and half hours to cremate one body,
> >
> >Senility, Tommy, is a sad thing to watch. You must have
> >forgotten that the sources posted here – taken directly
> >off the cremation web site – state that, when the furnace
> >is already hot, cremation takes less than one hour.
>
> “Less than an hour”? That is for one body right? Is it 59
> minutes, 40 minutes, 20 minutes 20 minutes, 5 minutes or 5 seconds.

again, he’s not talking about the huge difference of temperature
between the ‘super-crematories’ which gives an output in an hour
and those of Birkenau (about 800 or 900 degrees). The site he’s refering
also gives, if memory deserve, a gap, between ‘less than an hour
and 4 hours’ I think. Nowhere I’ve eared about 4 hours except for
very very fat persons. It is true however that among the 5 or 6 crematory
operators to whom I talked I eared a figure of 1 hour and a quarter,
but this was for very small corpses, probably babies or childrens.
In this case, the ‘less than an hour’ surprised me a lot but accounting
for what I eared in those interviews, the only explanation I have is
that it means ‘close to an hour’ since it is no said ‘half an hour’.
If I have in the mind half an hour or 45 minutes I will say 30 minutes
or 45 minutes, but if I have in the mind something like 50 to 60minutes
than I can use the words ‘less than an hour’. And since they give an
upper time of 4 hours, I must conclude that they talk about 2 extreme
cases: a children in a ultra-modern crematory and a big corpse in a less
develloped crematoria. The difference of temperature between Birkenau
crematories and the one he refers is about the double, I gave often
the reference (the report of the Polish War Crime Commision)

A patent however do not represent anything else than a supposition.
One can write any optimistic estimation in a patent, if they are unable
to find anywhere on earth a place where the cremation of a normal body
take less than an hour 1/4, than this mean that those crematories never
gaves the results that were estimated.

From [email protected] Wed Sep 11 07:13:41 PDT 1996
Article: 64317 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: The Vergasungskeller mystery solved?
Date: 11 Sep 1996 02:12:59 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <50v3b6$[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne75.vir.com

[email protected] (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:

>Actually, Dr.Miklos Nyiszli mentions the use of L.Keller 1 as an
>air-aid shelter:

You mean the same Nyiszli who stated something like that the Leichenkeller
1 was 200 meters long rather than 30 meters ?

>Of course, if we are to accept Dr. Nyiszli account of the Sonderkommado
>being ushered into the L.Keller 1 during an alert, we must then also take
>seriously his other accounts as well. Like, for instance, that he also
>saw people gassed to death with Zyklon B in L.Keller 1. I’m more than
>willing to accept this. Is Butz?

Doubtfull, unless he’s enough idiot to believe that a guy who is supposed
to have spend many months there is able to miscalculate the ‘gas chamber’
dimension by a factor 7. An were’s not talking about the other contradictions.
By the way could you tell me: where Nyiszli is born, if there’s any birth
certificate that can proove it, if his name figure on the Auschwitz registra-
tion books, or if he was burried somewhere, when he died, if he has ever
appear with his photo in a newspaper, if he as ever gives an interview to
a journalist, or a press conference ?

>Since when did air-raid shelters have HCN gas detectors? HCN munitions, to
>my knowledge, were not in the chemical weapons arsenal of any combatant
>during WWII. They certainly weren’t used. Other chemical warfare agents,
>such as phosgene, produced far more deaths and casualties than the combat
>use of Vincennite (HCN artillery) in WWI. (cf. Schulz, _Text-Book on the
>Chemical Service_, pp.13-14). Only the French used Vincennite in WWI -with
>dismal results. (cf. Vedder, _The Medical Aspects of Chemical Warfare_,
>p.84.) From such experiances with Vincennite on the battlefield it was
>concluded that HCN was not a very effective war gas and further
>development was curtailed in favor of blister, blood, and nerve agents.

I’ve already respond to that weeks ago. And as usual you bring back this
as if I hadn’t. They disinfected the morgues because of the typhus epidemy.
The gas detector that the german used were small colorimetric papers to
test the residual traces of zyklon B in a room. There’s several rooms
in the Krema 2, and if I remember well the only letter that Pressac
found talks about 10 ‘gas testers’ . Those colorimetric papers couldn’t be
reused. So they can’t account for hundreds of gassing. I’ve no problem
to explain why there was as much as 10 ‘gas testers’: there’s several rooms
in the crema 2, the underground part and the upper part also. So I accept
the explanation that this building was disinfect once or twice during the
war.

Leuchter found small cyhanide traces on the walls of the Leichenkeller
but he found also small traces of ferro-cyhanide on the walls of the
washrooms of Krema 1. To that you responded that head lice can’t be a
carrier of typhus and that bodie’s lice was the real danger, and that
bodie’s lice quit the corpse as soon as clothes are removed. Agreed.
So your claim was that the German didn’t need to disinfect a morgue (or
the entire crema building) since bodie’s lice had already quit the corpses
long before.
To that I responded that:
1) German shaved the inmates not only for industrial
purposes but also because they took rough measures to fight the typhus epidemy.
And to back this claim I gave Pressac as a reference. I can give it again,
he based his claim on a document. This mean simply that either the German
were unaware about this characteristic, either they decided to take, rough
measures to avoid any danger. They were military, one supplementary measure
to avoid the danger was preferable to those guys. And since Pressac back his
claim with a document, this mean also that they were not more ‘fancy’ in
their approach for the krema 2.
2) Inmates were working in the krema 2 and could bring lice there. Bodie’s
lice. In such a case, the crema 2 was nothing else than an ordinnary
building that needed to be disinfect since lice can lives hours without a
body.
3) Since the documents itself talks about an undressing room and I accept
the version that the bodies were undressed there (LK-2), than bodie’s
lice could invade the crema 2 by another way

Now what strike me today is that in spite of the fact that I never eared
about any witness (sonderkommando) who talked about the use of those small
gas testers before the removal of bodies, you make big noise about those
ones as if they would proove your case.

>Then there¹s also the little issue of the Zyklon B introduction columns in
>the homicidal gas chambers. What is interesting though is that along the
>roof of L.Keller 1 were four holes measuring about 70 cm x 70 cm. that led

They were not before 1945.

From [email protected] Wed Sep 11 07:13:42 PDT 1996
Article: 64318 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: Test – ignore
Date: 11 Sep 1996 02:26:37 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <500vl4$[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<qutDwz[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<50i5b3[email protected]><[email protected]>
<50[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<322cbde9.2902[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne75.vir.com

[email protected] (Ken Lewis) wrote:
>
> On 7 Sep 1996 17:49:37 GMT, [email protected] (Gord McFee) wrote:
>
> >In message <322cbde9[email protected]> – [email protected] (Ken Lewis)
> >writes:
> >:>
> >:>On 3 Sep 1996 20:44:19 GMT, [email protected] (Ken McVay)
> >:>wrote:

> >:>>Gotta love UNIX 🙂
>
> >:>You are a sick man, McVay! 🙂
> >
> >He’s also wrong. You don’t gotta love UNIX.
>
> Yes, over 20 years ago some Guys were setting around thinking about the
> future of computing. One of them opined that in the future someone would
> make a really bad operating system and call it DOS. After some more chatter
> they decided they would make an operating system worse than the future DOS
> now. Thus UNIX was born.

But then a mad man, a crazy sadic scientist created a virus called
OS2 in his laboratory.

From [email protected] Wed Sep 11 07:13:43 PDT 1996
Article: 64357 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: What Goering Knew
Date: 8 Sep 1996 20:29:49 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <50li[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne29.vir.com

Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]> wrote:
was asking himself questions, without knowing really. Some others
> accepted Hoess testimony and believed that Himmler and Hitler did it
> alone (Frank among others). They couldn’t know that Hoess was tortured, but Hoess had
> a big effect on several of them. Despite Frank’s opinion is based on the strong impression
> that Hoess testimony did on him, we are told now that Frank ‘knew’ because he assumed
> a guilt feeling. In the context, Frank had an emotional shock and had already start,
> during his captivity, his catholic ‘trip’ were admissions of sins were the best way
> to be in agreement with God. However, since Frank’s decision was based on Hoess testimony,
> this mean simply that he couldn’t ‘know’ the ‘gassing’ during the war, but we are still
> given his diary as a proof of anything.
>
> We are still present ‘proofs’ like Speer repentance as a proof of anything whatsover,
> while his post war attitude, like the one of the other defendants, was based mainly
> on Hoess testimony. They couldn’t figure that torture of a threath to
> deport the familly of a SS in siberia were used since there only way to compare was
> their own treatment (except for Streicher). Hoess was totally apathic
> and had probably the hope to not be turn to the Russians. But you’ll see, even if
> the proofs about Hoess treatment were posted here often and often they will still
> claim that it wasn’t the case.
>
> It is a strange case that Himmler decided to constitute himself prisonner, was left
> alone (!) and ‘suicided’. He was perfectly aware about the atrocity stories that were
> reported, the movie ‘Holocaust’ show him as if he had ‘discovered’ suddenly that the
> allied were aware about is involvment(!) while such atrocities and accusations were
> brought for months and that he commited a suicide because he had suddenly ‘realized’
> that the allieds could accuse him of that! Anybody of a sane mind who studied a bit
> this topic can see that he decided to constitute himself prisonner rather than to go
> in south america because he wanted to testify the truth. That is for
> Himmler ‘suicide’.

Fiou, I think I’ll bring an english version of this one a day:-)

From [email protected] Wed Sep 11 07:13:44 PDT 1996
Article: 64361 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: Are there any non-Jew-hating revisionists?
Date: 8 Sep 1996 20:34:57 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <50[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne29.vir.com

[email protected] wrote:
>
> In article <qutDx[email protected]>, [email protected] (Dave Harman OBC) wrote:

> > Tom Moran, Matt Giwer and Duncan Coons don’t hate Jews one way or
> > the other. I’m not a revisionist or a Jew hater, I like the
> > Jewish religion, it’s just their race leaves something that needs to be
> > controlled for their own good.
>
> Tom “I can spot a Jew” Moran doesn’t hate Jews?
>
> I beg to differ.
>
> Matt “call ’em Jewboy” Giwer doesn’t hate Jews?

You know, we may have a thing in a common: Except 2 cases, I
never met a jew who wasn’t a revisionist hater.

From [email protected] Wed Sep 11 14:18:30 PDT 1996
Article: 64441 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: McVay and PORNOGRAPHY
Date: 9 Sep 1996 09:12:11 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne8.vir.com

[email protected] (Joel Rosenberg) wrote:
>
> In article <50t4lk$m7s@Vir.com> Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]> writes:
> >From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
> >Subject: Re: McVay and PORNOGRAPHY
> >Date: 8 Sep 1996 00:40:20 GMT
>
> >[email protected] wrote:
> >
> >> For a breath of fresh air, visit: http://codoh.com/

> > Before they call you a liar for that, it is http://www.codoh.com/
>
> Err, Jeanie-Frankie? I think you reversed which mistake makes him
> a liar, and which mistake makes him an idiot.

sorry for you, both adress works, I realized later

From [email protected] Thu Sep 12 07:34:02 PDT 1996
Article: 64581 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: The Vergasungskeller mystery solved?
Date: 12 Sep 1996 04:02:15 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 205
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <50v3b6$[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<51577b$[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne57.vir.com

[email protected] (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:

>Indeed it is hard to suppose otherwise, considering Butz seems incapable
>of comprehending the self-evident meaning of “vergasungkeller,” given the
>contex it was used in by Bischoff.

Van Alstine, he gave a reference in a Germa-Russian dictionnary where
the word ‘gaskeller’ is used to define an air raid shelter in connection
with chemical warfare. One can applied a gaz on a cellar from outside or
from inside, but the synonym he gave is extremelly close, you know that.
You know also that nowhere in the documents that refer to the delousing
facilities the germans use the word ‘gaskeller’, or ‘vergasungskeller’,
they use gaskammer (gas chamber). You didn’t bring any german document
which show that at any time they used gaskellar to described an american
gas chamber or a delousing facility. They are using ‘gas chamber’, gaskammer,
not the word cellar (keller). It is thus clear that this document proove
that the Leichenkeller 1 was described as an air raid shelter by the man
who wrote this letter. An air raid shelter which had to take in account
an eventual attack with gas, the terror of the germans after the ‘vergasung’
to which they were submitted during World War 1. Of course, you will claim
that you know German far much than me, but I’ve still the dictionnary that
I used 8 years ago in this course. Claiming the opposite would be of a rare
dishonesty for someone who know perfectly german.

>> By the way could you tell me: where Nyiszli is born…

>Hungary.

I know. But where?

>>….if there’s any birth certificate that can proove it…

>Dr. Nysizli wrote that he graduated from the Medical School of Frederick
>Wilhelm in Breslau. Probably around 1929. (cf. Nysizli, _Auschwitz_,
>p.23.) Why don’t you check it out?

I can check in the book, what I’m saying is that I’m unaware about any
solid proof that he ever existed. There’s proofs that F. Muller did exist.
There’s proofs that Mulka existed. There’s proof that Vrba exist. They
testified at a trial, there’s records which show that they existed.

>> …if his name figure on the Auschwitz registration books…

>”May 29 [1944] … 2,000 Jews, given Nos. A-7741-A-9740, after selection
>from the RSHA transports from Hungary are admitted to the camp. Some of
>the young and healthy individuals are admitted as ‘depot prisoners.’ Women
>and girls are sent to Camp B-IIc. AMong these are the wife and daughter of
>Dr. Miklos Nyiszli, whi is given No. A-8450* and then transferred to the
>Monowitz A.C. of Auschwitz III. The remaining people are killed in the gas
>chambers.” (_Auschwitz Chronicles_, p.636.)

This is a begining. However, I don’t know if the autor based his statement
on the registers or a book.

>> …or if he was burried somewhere, when he died…

>That is generally the custom….

Ya, but normally a tombstone identify the person. For about 30 years the
revisionist doubt that he ever existed. What they ask is not 2 or 3 ‘eye-
witness’ who claimed that they saw him. In 30 years it was easy to proove
that he really existed, that it was not a surname taken by someone who was
never in Auschwitz, and the way to proove it is simple: to find a public
appearence of him that was reported, a birth certificate, to find his wife,
or were he died, a death certificate, such a thing. You mean that such an
extraordinnary witness never appeared in fron of journalist with the story
he had to tell? That no one can say exactly were he lived after the war,
which adress? That furthermore, no one was able to locate those simple
informations, were he’s burried? It seems to me that such informations were
are easy to find for someone who got in contact with his publisher.

>Oh, yes, I see. You were beating _that_ dead horse again. Perhaps you’d
>care to breifly explain again why, if Zyklon B was used to “disinfect” (I
>presume you meant _disinfest_?) L.Keller 1, the residual level of HCN
>found, as reported by the Institute of Forensic Research*, Cracow, don’t
>support your claim?

They have wait 7 years to do test, they do not allow a mixed team (revi-
sionist-exterminationist) to take sample for clarifying the things for ever,
and you would like me to believe them? It’s easy to take sample of different
materials at different places on the same wall to determine where you have
the best chances to find less cyhanide traces and where you have chances
to find more. And then after, when you know, to take official samples as
if it would be the first time. The Cracow institute did certanly not this
work without being paid by the Auschwitz Museum. As Leuchter didn’t go there
without being paid. If you ask for an analysis by a laboratory you have
to pay them. And if Leuchter wasn’t idiot enough to take samples where
there was few blue-stain on the wall of the Degesh, they were not enough
stupid to disatisfy the Auschwitz museum by taking it at the wrong place.
The Auschwitz museum employed many people who own their life with the
incomes of hundreds of thousands of visitors. They wanted to give a rebu-
tal to Leuchter’s analysis but they didn’t know what to do. They were
perfectly aware in 1989 of the Leuchter report but they waited 6 years
before to ask an investigation at the same degesh were Leuchter took his
samples? most irregular. It is my claim that they took CERTANLY a sample
in the degesh that Leuchter visited in 1988 and that they found results
which were comparable. It is impossible to believe that they slept during
all this time without thinking to take a sample in the same degesh. And
now I’ve a small comment about a plaster sample taken from the plaster
inside? But how much blue? I saw the pictures of the inside and outside
degesh walls, and there’s irregular blue large spots, but obviously blue.
The remaining inside the L-Keller 1 do not have this blue stain. So I’m
still asking if really the exterminationist have nothing to hide, why do
they refused a mixed team, with a camera, why would they refused a transparent
inquiry with random samples? I’ve not even access to the video taken by
the polish team.

>> …They disinfected the morgues because of the typhus epidemy.

> Oh, please. The typhus epidemic was around July-October of 1942,(cf.
> _Technique_, pp.187-188.) Krema II wasn’t handed over to the SS until
> March 31, 1943. (Ibid. p.227.) Kremas II-V didn’t even _exist_ when the
> typhus epidemic was raging. How, then, could L.Keller 1 be “disinfected”
> if it wasn’t even built yet?

IT WAS BUILT! You _know_ the vergasungskeller letters which state in
january 1943 that the ovens were used (the fired were started) and which
state that the Vergasungskeller can be used rather than the morgue (so
to stock bodies). It wasn’t finished but operationnal, according to the
letter, certanly. The same thing for the typhus epidemy: it never ended.
There was peaks, of course, but typhus was still there in 1943, there
was several epidemies, but weaker than the 1942 epidemy. Typhus continued
to kill to a lower extent after 1942.

>> …And since Pressac back his claim with a document, this mean also that
>> they were not more ‘fancy’ in their approach for the krema 2.

>Exact citation, please?

I _gave_ it to you few months ago:
********************************************************************
1 may 1996 0:3:11:43 <[email protected]>

> This was just one of my arguments, the others were simply that the
> SS who were facing a huge typhus epidemy were not adopting fancy measures,
> they took no risk. You stated after that hairs were used for industrial
> purpose, however this do not mean that this use was a single one. Your
> paragraph was quite interesting, I’ll quote now another one, from
> Pressac: ‘Les crematoires d’Auschwitz’, page 32:
>
> “Pour contrer ce danger, un Institut d’hygiene SS devait etre mont‚
> … Raisko, ce qui fut fait en en octobre. Mais le typhus les surprit. Ils
> pensaient que les mesures prophylactiques (quarantaine et tonte des
> cheveux) et d’hygiene (desinfection locale des poils, douches) appliquees
> aux detenus a leur arrivee, eviterait l’introduction de ce fleau dans le
> camp par l’eradication du vecteur, le pou.”
>
> “To fight the danger, an SS hygine institute had to be establish in Raisko,
> and this was done in October. But the thyphus surprrised them. They thought
> that prophylactic measures (quarantine and hair shaving) and hygienic
> measures (desinfection of body hair, showers) applied to inmates upon
> arrival could avoid the introduction of this plague in the camp by the
> eradication of the vector, louse”.
>
> The reference that Pressac gives is ACM 502-4-2 to 502-4-47, sey of the
> 46 “Sterebucher”, of KL Auschwitz.
> Everybody in the world know that document <GRIN>.
********************************************************************
>Do you realize that you are arguing that to _prevent_ the Sonderkommando
>from contracting typhus they came into lenghty contact with the victims’
>clothes (from undressing the “bodies”) and from moving the victims from
>L.Keller 2 to L.Keller 1? Then, to take the cake, you say that L.Keller 1
>was “disinfected” with Zyklon B to _prevent_ the Sonderkommando, after
>they would have handled lice-infested clothes and “bodies” for _hours_,
>from being infested with lice! How absurd.

Your logic is tortuous. I’m saying that someone had to remove the
clothes of people who died from natural causes, that this was done in the
undressing room, they had no choice to remove there clothes and this was
the normal place to do it. Thus, that lice could invade the building.
So the german couldn’t be sure that there was no remaining lice 5, 10
15 hours after somewhere. Nor into the inmates barracks that they were
desinfecting elsewhere (I remember perfectly the example Rassinier brought
for Buchenwald-Dora).

>down the stairs into L.Keller 2? Or why would the gas-tight door that
>could only opened from the _outside_, and which contained a protective
>wire grid over the peephole on the _inside_ be necessary for a morgue?
>Even more astounding, why was L.Keller 1, if it was indeed a morgue (which
>are generally kept cold to slow decomposition), intially _heated_ with hot
>air from the three small rooms housing the forced draft system? (cf.
>_Technique_, pp. 217, 223, 483, 486.)

I’m not responding to your questions when they are stupids.
I’ll check the one about the grid later but I expect another fiasco, kind
of ‘door for a delousing facility’, or either a reference to the Krema 1
which was partly rebuilt after the war, I’ll see.

http://www.codoh.com/

http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg/ (Page doesn`t exist)

From [email protected] Thu Sep 12 07:34:03 PDT 1996
Article: 64587 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: Where is our german linguist?
Date: 12 Sep 1996 04:16:01 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne57.vir.com

By the way, I’d like to know if our eminent German linguist can find
anywhere in a german dictionnary ‘vergasungskeller’ or its equivalent
‘gaskeller’ or in a newspaper, a book, anywhere, and a context for which
it is supposed to be a ‘gas chamber’ , I mean, something else than a post
war claim about this january 1943 letter. There’s now a strong argument
which show that the guy who used this word did it to described a kind of
air raid shelter in connection with chemical walfare (this russian-german
military dictionnary) in this famous letter. If everyone around him
used always ‘gaskammer’ to describe a gas chamber (the delousing faci-
lities and the american gas chambers) than one may hardly explain why
he decided suddenly to use the equivalent of ‘chemical air raid shelter’
while he was supposed to have in the mind ‘gas chamber’.

Post and email to Nele Abel

From [email protected] Thu Sep 12 13:08:33 PDT 1996
Article: 64740 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: thought for the day…
Date: 11 Sep 1996 03:38:51 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 6
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne27.vir.com

“When someone has in the mind the liquidation of hundreds of thousands
of people, he’s hardly ordering colorimetric gas testers by bunch
of ten”
-Confucius

From [email protected] Thu Sep 12 19:37:04 PDT 1996
Article: 64860 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: What Goering Knew
Date: 13 Sep 1996 00:32:40 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <50li[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<50t6rh$[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne64.vir.com

[email protected] (Miloslav Bilik) wrote:
>
> Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The title is about Goering but since the text is about Himmler..
>
> He tried seriously to escape with false papers; but these papers were
> so recent, in good condition, so perfect that it sounded weird and he
> was apprehended, just in case, in Meinstedt. Like his photo was sent
> for verifications, he choosed then to give his real name, what
> surprised a lot the Britishes.
>
> He commited suicid when a second searching was intended, in fact when
> he was asked to open his mouth. He had a vial of poison in it (a fist
> vial was hided in his clothes).
>
> Then: Himmler didn’t gave up, he tried to escape but was catched. He
> didn’t suicide alone, but in front of at least three persons: the
> commander of the post, a physisian and the colonel Murphy, and this
> when he saw that his last vial of poison will be lost for him.

I’m not goind back on my opinion about Gilbert’s book, but about
Himmler’s suicide I’ve check in a book today and you’re right.
I remembered few about it except a picture that I saw in ‘Holocaust’
a while ago but I accept the story of his suicide as plausible.
>
From [email protected] Sat Sep 14 08:50:43 PDT 1996
Article: 65349 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!
usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!
nntp.primenet.com!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!news.abs.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: The Vergasungskeller mystery solved?
Date: 14 Sep 1996 00:43:30 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <50v3b6$[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<518207$[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne73.vir.com

[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>
># Typhus continued to kill to a lower extent after 1942.
>
>So why did the camp need four new, huge crematoriums,
>completed in 1943? But you do know the answer, right?
>
It’s not the first time Daniel is trying this one. For an account
of what happened last time, see the part “foreword” on

http://www.codoh.com/newrevoices/nrjfb/nrjfbcrema.html (Page doesn`t exist)

and for the reason for the built of crematorium, see the section ‘multiple
corpses’ at the same adress.

>But never mind… keep playing your idiotic games. You
>must enjoy them.
>
>Nice to see, however, that you don’t post any more lies
>about Richard Baer. At least we have cleared that one.

I dont know if he retracted later, but indeed, since I’ve
not access to those other sources mentionned in the book,
especially Aretz, I can’t state it untill I find it or untill
I find something else that will clarify this thing to me. Aretz
did certanly not a study on the evolution of door’s handles between
the 17 th and the 18 th century. I’ll check the refe rence you gave
later however, I’m curious to see what sort of reference your author
used. I’ll see.

># that this was done in the undressing room, they had no
># choice to remove there clothes and this was the normal
># place to do it.
>
>What rubbish. You’re saying a huge cellar was built especially
>for undressing the corpses? They couldn’t just undress them
>in the morgue? They had to build this huge cellar, called
>the “undressing room”, undress the corpses there, and then
>move them to the “morgue”… can you really be so stupid
>to believe this?
>
I didn’t say they built it _just_ for that. But since they
were bringing many corpses at a time, it was logical for them
to undress the bodies in the first accesible room and bring
them after in the other room. Both rooms were morgues, but
it was logical to fill the last morgue (LK-1) before the first one
(LK-2) since they had to walk across the LK-2 before to reach
the other one. And they knew in advance that. I just figure
that they had such a habit, undressing the bodies always at the
same place, the closest place from the exit.

From [email protected] Sat Sep 14 16:27:43 PDT 1996
Article: 65515 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
nntp.teleport.com!netaxs.com!news-out.microserve.net!news-in.microserve.net!
news.sgi.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!
news.abs.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:Where is our german linguist?
Date: 14 Sep 1996 16:29:57 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne35.vir.com

Nele Abel wrote:

>> By the way, I’d like to know if our eminent German linguist can find
>> anywhere in a german dictionnary ‘vergasungskeller’ or its equivalent
>> ‘gaskeller’ or in a newspaper, a book, anywhere, and a context for which
>> it is supposed to be a ‘gas chamber’ , I mean, something else than a post
>> war claim about this january 1943 letter.

> No problem. “Vergasungskeller” is a compound noun, which falls apart
>into the two nouns “Vergasung” und “Keller”. The meaning of “Keller”
>should be clear. The method of qualifying the meaning of nouns by building
>compound forms is a very productive feature of the German language. (Many
>students of German know and detest this 🙂 ) But this functions in a
>similar fashion in English. The first particle qualifies the second.
>”Lesesaal” is the “Saal” where the “Lesen” takes place (reading-room),
>”Waschraum” is the “Raum” where the “Waschen” takes place (washing-room),
>”Vergasungskeller” is the “Keller” where the “Vergasung” takes place.
[snip]
I didn’t ask you to recover the question with a screen of smoke. I know
that vergasung may have the sense of killing with gas. You are just trying
to avoid the issue by stating that this mean necessarelly ‘killing people
in a gas chamber’. People were killed with gas during WW I also. I’m thus
perfectly able to understand why ‘vergasung’ exist in connection with
keller to described an air raid shelter back those days. The word vanished
gradually after the war, simply because chemical war was no longer a major
threath, nuclear weapons were far much a concern. But there’s traces
of it, in this russian-german military dictionnary.
What I asked you was to bring any german document, dealing with the delousing
facilities, or a newspaper, or a german book which described american gas
chambers, or a german report of amnisty international about death sentence,
anything of that kind were a gas chamber is defined with the words ‘gaskeller’
or ‘vergasungskeller’ rather than ‘gaskammer’. It is unbelievable, knowing
now that gaskeller was the word used to described an air raid shelter (in
connection with chemical bombardment) that a german decided suddenly to
write in a letter ‘vergasungskeller’ to describe a ‘gaskammer’ while there
was a common word for a gas chamber. All what you do is to build artificial
connection but you bring no source where the words ‘gaskeller’ or ‘vergasungs
keller’ are used to describe a gas chamber. The location of the building,
underground here, hasn’t any importance since it didn’t prevent this guy
to use ‘gaskammer’ if he wanted to be understood.

http://www.codoh.com/

From [email protected] Sun Sep 15 09:27:09 PDT 1996
Article: 65745 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!demos!news1.relcom.ru!EU.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!
nntp.primenet.com!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!news.abs.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: ‘kurtzi’ stele, the Untermench (Re: Jewish Al
Date: 14 Sep 1996 16:13:45 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <DxJ[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne35.vir.com

[email protected] (Ken Lewis) wrote:

Since you enjoy smear attacks rather than to adopt a low profile after what
you know…. I’m still reposting it:

>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?

http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg/

(Page doesn`t exist)

From [email protected] Sun Sep 15 09:27:10 PDT 1996
Article: 65746 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!demos!news1.relcom.ru!EU.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!
nntp.primenet.com!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!news.abs.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: holohugging traitors
Date: 14 Sep 1996 16:26:54 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne35.vir.com

[email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:
>
> We have no had more than a few American citizens support the murder of
> their fellow Americans on the USS Liberty.
>
> As such they are not really citizens but rather people who deserve
> death at best as they are unamerican and support the murderous regime
> is Israel.
>
> Anyone supporting Israel over US citizens and US military deserves to
> be deported to Antarctica at best and executed at worst.
>
> This include Joel Rosenblum as a traitor to the US.

How about condamning them to read Van Alstine’s posts?

From [email protected] Sun Sep 15 13:43:50 PDT 1996
Article: 65835 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
nntp.teleport.com!netaxs.com!op.net!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!
news.uoregon.edu!hookup!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: The Vergasungskeller mystery solved?
Date: 14 Sep 1996 03:38:53 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <50v3b6$[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<51577b$[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<518207$[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne79.vir.com

[email protected] (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:

[snip]

I read with some distraction your reply (did I ever said before that you
have a boring and long winded style?) and to summarize, you admit
that your claim that the krema 2 wasn’t at least partly operationnal in
march 1943 was a lie accounting for the Vergasungskeller letter in january
1943, you implicitelly call me a liar because I’m suppose to not take in
account the ‘fact’ that the typhus epidemy ‘ended’ in 1942 but you admit
youself that typhus continued to kill after 1942 to a lower extent, and
since you want the exact datas I can give it to you from Pressace’s book:
About 44,000 deaths in 1942 and about 36,000 in 1943 (Les crematoires
d’Auschwitz, death due to dieases) and you bring again this forgery,
the Jahrling document which refer to about 1,400 cremations a day in the
krema 2 while the first appearance of this document was in 1981, when
revisionism was in expension. As I said, in Pressac’s book (A.T.O.)
this document was sent to the Auschwitz museum by the Committee of Anti-
Fascist Resistants of German Democratic Republic and I compared the signatured
that appeared on this document with Jahrling’s signature on two other
documents (genuine those ones) in the same book and the hoaxers didn’t even
bother themselfs to get an original of Jahrling signature to do a professional
job, it is obvious to anyone who check in the book. I’ve no problem
to ‘put my money where is my mouth’, an authentification by a laboratory or
whatsover, even a million dollars, on a first glance it is evident
when someone compare with Jahrling signature elsewhere that it is not the
same. Without taking in account the ‘historical origin’.

From [email protected] Sun Sep 15 19:46:09 PDT 1996
Article: 65910 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: Streicher and Spinoza
Date: 16 Sep 1996 00:05:02 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<51cjlg$mdq@juliana.sprynet.com> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne31.vir.com

[email protected] (Ken Lewis) wrote:
>
> On 13 Sep 1996 21:28:16 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >> [email protected] (Rajiv K. Gandhi) writes:
> >> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> > Give me a break. I don’t give a damn aboout the nasty jooos, as you
> >> > put it. I’m not hung up about the “conspiratorial jooooos, much as you
> >> > would like me to be.
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> Of course, that’s why you made groundless accusations against the Simon
> >> Wiesenthal Center.

> >That’s a different issue altogether. And you will receive no reply to your questions
> >until you conduct yourself in a proper manner.
>
> Traslation: I will use any excuse so I don’t have to back up my claim.
>
And you, will you backup your claims about Weber and the so-called
way the revisionist considered Speer as a ‘hero’ a day, in your imagination?

From [email protected] Mon Sep 16 18:39:19 PDT 1996
Article: 66142 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!
usenet.eel.ufl.edu!spool.mu.edu!newspump.sol.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!
nntp.primenet.com!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!news.abs.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: Hoess Memoirs
Date: 16 Sep 1996 01:08:25 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<51cckt$igi@juliana.sprynet.com> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne27.vir.com

[email protected] (Ken Lewis) wrote:
>
> On 13 Sep 1996 19:28:29 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >> [email protected] (Mark Van Alstine) writes:
> >> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:

> >No comments from here until you cease and desist with your profanity and use
> >of epithets. Your statements are easily challenged.
>
> And you are easily avoiding the questions.

coucou!

speaking about avoidingg questions…
*****************************************************
Subject: Re: <Seufze> Wieder mit dem
From: [email protected] (Ken Lewis)
Date: 1996/08/28
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
References: <4vr5qv$g8v@dfw-Ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
Organization: Electric Zen
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism

On 27 Aug 1996 00:49:34 GMT, Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
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.

Duh!

Gee, I don’t know about you but I’ll bet that possibly Speer kept
quiet about what he knew at Nuremberg was so they didn’t slip a custom
made neck tie around his neck.

I’ll bet he kept quiet after he got out until all the other trials
were out of the way so he wouldn’t find his way back to Spandau.

In light of what he has said since I think it is all pretty clear.

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.

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.
**********************************************************
I’m still waiting ken…

From [email protected] Tue Sep 17 04:26:09 PDT 1996
Article: 66261 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!
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: The footnote heard from
Date: 17 Sep 1996 01:35:36 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <50sr[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne12.vir.com

[email protected] (Miloslav Bilik) wrote:
>
> [email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:
>
> >>> Let them know, too, that in France, there were about 250,000
> >>> deportees, of which about
> >>> 25,000 were French Jews. Between 80,000 and 100,000 returned, of which
> >>> about 15,000
> >>> were Jews.
>
> >>Estimates of Jewish losses for France, from Nora Levin, _The
> >>Holocaust_ (New York: Schocken, 1973):
> >>
> >> Estimates by Gerald Reitlinger, _The Final Solution_, 1953:
> >> Low: 60,000 High: 65,000
>
> >> Losses Estimated by Raul Hilberg, _The Destruction of the European
> >> Jews_, 1961: 70,000
>
> > I quoted fact, not fiction. You have more deaths than deportees.
>
> No. It is estimations and you could ever be foolish with it, taking
> the numbers from one and the deaths from another. The best estimates
> are from the books from Marrus and Paxton.
>
> It was 79 trains of Jews from France, accounting 69 from the camp of
> Drancy.
>
> About 75000 human beeings (considered as Jews) were deported. About
> 70000 transited by Drancy and less of 2000 came back. 73000 deaths.
>
I’ve check in Rassinier, the quote was from Hannah Arendt, The
New-Yorker 9 march 1963. Later in the paragraph, she reported at the end
of the summer 1943 52,000 jews deported, among them 6,000 french citizen
Jews. There’s ground for uncertanty here, for all the war also, but no
doubt that german, slovak and polish Jews who came there before 1941
are the majority. Those ones hadn’t any reason, or few reasons to return
in a country which was partly destroyed and confront with an economic
crisis. The American continent was a possibility, but there was also
incitment to drive them toward Palestine by the Jewish leaders.
Counting the real survivors is something more complex than that.

From [email protected] Tue Sep 17 08:56:27 PDT 1996
Article: 66288 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
op.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!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: The footnote heard from
Date: 17 Sep 1996 00:19:59 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <50sr[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne16.vir.com

Wrongo. I’m not contesting the total number of deportees, but it was
the policy of the Vichy government to accept less easily the deportation
of french citizens (Jews) than the deportation of Jewish refugees who
came in France in the 30’s, till 1940. Polish and German Jews first,
than some Jews from Netherland, but also other polish and German Jews
established in Belgium or Netherland recently. The last one, like millions
of other people escape in part toward the south in 1940 when Germany
invaded those countries. I’ve some fragmentary references, a declaration
from Anna Arendt in one of Rassinier’s book and despite I’m not taking
it as the only element, it is clear that the majority of those 75,000
Jews were not french citizens. A polish Jew or a German Jew who
came in France in 1938 and was deported in 1942 hadn’t any serious reason
to return in France rather than to emigrate in Palestine, USA, Canada
etc…Those one couldn’t, when they survived to the deportation, go
in France to give their name as ‘survivors’. Even for the French Jews
there’s no reliable account: depends if someone decided to go there and
give his name as a survivor, or wether if he came back from the deportation after.
Some of them may have emigrate elsewhere also, but in the case of French
citizens I think it is a minority, most of those survivors did probably return
in France. My belief actually is that this 2,000 figure is not a jewish fabrica-
tion, but I’m not sure about the circunstances of this count, I mean, I suspect
that several may not have consider as relevant to take the nece-
ssary steps to be ‘count’.

http://www.codoh.com/

From [email protected] Tue Sep 17 08:56:28 PDT 1996
Article: 66293 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!
news-dc.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-penn.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-lond.gsl.net!
news.gsl.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!arclight.uoregon.edu!nntp.primenet.com!
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: The footnote heard from
Date: 17 Sep 1996 01:37:29 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <50sr[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne12.vir.com

From [email protected] Tue Sep 17 08:56:29 PDT 1996
Article: 66303 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
op.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!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: CREMATORY RATES SHOW
Date: 17 Sep 1996 01:13:18 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <Dl2B37AB[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne12.vir.com

[email protected] (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (tom
> moran) wrote:
>
> > [email protected] (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
> >
> > >In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (tom
> > >moran) wrote:
> > >
> > >> [email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >https://nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?camps/auschwitz/images/ Broken link
> > >> >
> > >> >furnace-capacity.jpg
> > >> >
> > >> >Letter from Jahrling to Kammler, stating that the combined
> > >> >crematoriums in Auschwitz-Birkenau can cremate 4,756 corpses
> > >> >in 24 working hours.

> > >> >-Danny Keren.
> > >>
> > >> Mr.Keren would prefer to direct people to some Nizkor URL instead
> > >> of performing the service of presenting the stuff out here, directly.
> > >> This is because he wants you to see the reference and say to yourself,
> > >> ‘Oh he has the proof’ hoping you will just accept that on it’s own. He
> > >> knows the referred to evidence is absurd.
> > >
> > >What is absurd, Moran, is that you are scraping the bottom of the denier
> > >barrel here. For the rigii unimpared, verification of Dr. Kerens’s source
> > >is but a few mouse clicks away.
>
You can ignore my response to that if you want, but I’ll regive it
right now. This ‘document’, the Jahrling document, was allegedly ‘captured’
after the war while no one eared about it before 1981. At a time while revisionism
had a growing influence, it was ‘rediscovered’ by the comittee of anti-fascist
resistance of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) and sent to the Auschwitz
curator. It is hard to believe that such a document ‘escaped’ the attention of the
prosecution at Nuremberg, it is described in Pressac’s book, Auschwitz, Techniques
and Operation of the Gas chambers as a 2 pages microfilm document.
Most of his other sources, microfilms, contain several dozens when it is not sevral
hundreds pages but this document is an orphan. It was allegedly written.. when several
breakdown were affecting the crematories but it is suppose to claim triumphally a
fantastic output! Anyone who want to compare Jahrling’s ‘signature’ on this document
can go at pages 223 and 224 of A.T.O. where genuine documents from Jahrling
about coke consumptioon can be found on other documents. The two documents on page
223 and 224 bear an identical signature but the one which appear on this ‘1981 docu-
ment’ is completelly different. The forgers didn’t even try to get an original of
Jahrling’s signature before to make this document, a very poor amator job. If Keren
had really balls he would show on his site the signature of page 223 and 224 beside
the one which appear on the 4,756 corpses claim to let people make up their mind
with all the data.

http://www.webcom.com/~ezundel/english/

From [email protected] Tue Sep 17 08:56:29 PDT 1996
Article: 66304 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
op.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!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: CREMATORY RATES SHOW
Date: 17 Sep 1996 01:14:14 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <Dl2B37AB[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne12.vir.com

http://www.webcom.com/~ezundel/english/

From [email protected] Tue Sep 17 08:56:30 PDT 1996
Article: 66318 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
news.insinc.net!news.bc.net!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!
canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!news.nstn.ca!coranto.ucs.mun.ca!
news.unb.ca!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: Giwer Posts Fake Testimony
Date: 16 Sep 1996 03:52:30 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <DxBAMx.EC[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne27.vir.com

[email protected] (Danny Mittleman) wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
(Matt Giwer) writes…
> >On 13 Sep 1996 21:52 MST, [email protected] (Danny
> >Mittleman) wrote:
>
> > Whois Ken McVay?
> >
> >McVay, Kenneth (KM1343) [email protected]
> > 462 – 1150 North Terminal Avenue
> > Nanaimo, BC V9S 5T8
> > CA
> > 1-604-382-0615
>
> As Giwer has been so kind to point out in this Nizkor advertisement,
> the address above is a legitimate address to send your Nizkor donations
> to. However, as it is a drop box which is rarely checked, your
> donation will be processed faster (and you will receive your Canadian
> tax receipt more quickly) if you send it to:
>
> The Zikaron Society / Nizkor Project
>
> Please mail your cheque to
>
> The Zikaron Tolerance and Remembrance Society
> 6540 East Hastings Street, Suite 221
> Burnaby, BC V5B 4Z5
>
> In the United States, checks should be made payable to:
>
> “SAN ANTONIO AREA FOUNDATION – Nizkor Fund”
>
> and should be mailed to:
>
> San Antonio Area Foundation Nizkor Fund
> P.O. Box 120366
> San Antonio, TX
> 78212-9566
>
> Nizkor thanks Linda Thompson, Matt Giwer and Mr.
> Grosvenor-Gruber-Acumen-Wahrheit, for the continuing reminder of the
> importance of public education, and their contributions to the
> continuing success of the Nizkor Project.

The adresses above are correct, however there was some complaints
about unusual delays and a lack of security. For a safier approach,
please send your donations to:

jfbeaul
C.P 1802
Montreal, Canada

and I’ll redistribute it by safier channels

ps: cash only

http://www.codoh.com/

From [email protected] Tue Sep 17 08:56:31 PDT 1996
Article: 66320 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
nntp.teleport.com!netaxs.com!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: holohugging traitors
Date: 16 Sep 1996 23:47:11 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne16.vir.com

[email protected] (tom moran) wrote:
>
> Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >[email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:
> >>
> >> We have no had more than a few American citizens support the murder of
> >> their fellow Americans on the USS Liberty.
> >>
> >> As such they are not really citizens but rather people who deserve
> >> death at best as they are unamerican and support the murderous regime
> >> is Israel.
> >>
> >> Anyone supporting Israel over US citizens and US military deserves to
> >> be deported to Antarctica at best and executed at worst.
>
> Giwer:
> >> “This include Joel Rosenblum as a traitor to the US.”
>
> Ridiculous, Rosenberg is not an American, he is Jewish, therefore
> he could not be a “traitor”. He is only doing what comes natural,
> supporting anything Jewish.
>
> Beulieu:
> > “How about condamning them to read Van Alstine’s posts?”
>
> Ridiculous. Maybe if you condemned a goyim to read VanAlstine’s
> stuff it would be punishment, but to condemn a Rosenberger would be
> like giving a comic book to a kid, he would love it.
>
> How about making them submit to a debate on national television,
> on the campus and in the major medias? This is their ultimate fear.
> Having to defend their idiotic propostions directly under cross
> examination.
>
> Freedom of speech is the arch enemy of Judo-Zionism.

Submiting them would be perhaps hard. I read D. Lipstadt years
ago and she spend more time to explain why she don’t want to
debate rather than to give a rebuttal. I don’t believe that a single
T.V. debate could change everything and counter balance decades
of propaganda. But things change gradually, at least here in N. America,
and revisionism is growing by steps, with an occasional ‘coup d’eclat’,
and I’m confident that people will think more before to accept
any story that is offered to them. Here, we have to repeat and
repeat the same things before to be drag into irrelevant details, or
to be told ‘you didn’t bring any argument’ a month after. But the
debate, each one can do it with the free access to both sources today.

http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg/(Page doesn`t exist)

From [email protected] Wed Sep 18 09:13:09 PDT 1996
Article: 66541 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: A crematory operato talk at Zunde’s trial
Date: 18 Sep 1996 04:29:45 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 274
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne4.vir.com

IVAN LAGACƒ

[Ivan LagacŽ 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))
LagacŽ 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, LagacŽ 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, LagacŽ 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. (27-7402, 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)
LagacŽ 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; 7427, 7428)
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)
LagacŽ 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, 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 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 of
Cremations 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 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 Really Die? where Harwood stated:

¥ 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 of
Typhus 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-Examination:
In response to a question by Judge Thomas, Lagace 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 Lagace that if this ratio was applied to the
46 retorts at Birkenau, the number would be 4.6 million. Lagace 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. LagacŽ 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? LagacŽ 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)
Lagacé 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, Lagace 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)

http://www.webcom.com/~ezundel/english/ (Page doesn`t exist)

From [email protected] Thu Sep 19 07:41:05 PDT 1996
Article: 66762 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!
news.uoregon.edu!hunter.premier.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!
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: ‘Revisionists’ Support Freedom Of Speech? That’s a Joke.
Date: 19 Sep 1996 01:47:08 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne3.vir.com

[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>
> My opinion regarding the attack on the USS Liberty is
> different from Matt Giwer’s; I believe – and I have explained
> why – that the ship was attacked in the midst of the
> Arab-Israeli 1967 War because it was misidentified as
> an Egyptian ship.
>
> For that, Giwer called me a “murderer”, a “traitor”, and
> declared that “were you at my back in combat I would turn
> and kill you first”.
>
> It’s great to know that “revisionist scholars” are tolerant
> towards a view of history which is different from their
> own, isn’t it?
>
> Not long ago, a fellow from Germany proved that a certain
> story about Soviet atrocities against German civilians could
> not be true. In response, Horst Kleinsorg, another “revisionist
> scholar”, declared that this poster “deserves nothing better
> than to be hanged the same way the Nueremberg War Criminals
> were hanged. A meathook would be just right for him and his ilk”.
>
> And you have Ernst Zundel, probably the world’s “most well-
> known revisionist”, who screeches about freedom of speech, while
> simultaneously demanding to ban “Schindler’s List” and the TV series
> “Holocaust”.
>
> By far, the most spectacular article ever posted to this group
> was the piece by Dan Gannon, the original nazi-boy “revisionist”
> and ultra-spammer. It carried the text of Zundel’s flier, calling
> to ban “schindler’s List”, and was followed by Gannon’s .sig
> “BANISHED CPU SUPPORTS FREEDOM OF SPEECH!”…

> -Danny Keren.

And the others? There’s more than a hundred well known revisionists.
depends of what we choose to say ‘notorious’. But you have really few names
here.

From [email protected] Fri Sep 20 01:15:55 PDT 1996
Article: 66990 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!
imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!demos!news.stealth.net!
www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!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: A crematory operato talk at Zunde’s trial
Date: 19 Sep 1996 03:14:58 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne58.vir.com

Daniel Pitbull Keren <[email protected]> wrote:

># In the course of his career, Lagac had dealt with over 10,000
># bodies in his work and had cremated over 1,000 bodies.

>What did he do with the remaining 9,000 or so?

He sold them to the black market.
Or either it was a typo error. I’m still unsure between those 2 hypothesis.

# 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 be fore 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."

>There you have it, folks. More ‘revisionist’ science. Legace is
>trying to claim that continuous cremation is impossible, because
>if the corpse is inserted into a hot furnace, it may ignite like
>a napalm bomb and burn the crematorium down.

Perhaps such a flash is possible. Perhaps there was a mention of such kind
of danger in his manual, perhaps, since he knew how the epidermic fat burn
fast, it was his intuition. You never drop french fries fat accidentally ?
Try a day, but you’d better to find a good explanation in advance, tell the
cuds you had to verify something with a bacon slice experience. Perhaps it
wouldn’t be as worst he described, I don’t believe he tried that just to check
if his fear was right.

>The folks at the cremation web site must have never heard this; they
>write that after the furnace is already hot, the cremation time
>is reduced by a factor of two. This obviously means that they
>insert the corpses into a very hot furnace.

Here, I was told by several crematory operators that the first cremation of
the day take 1/2 hour more than the subsequent ones. It is because they need
to heat the after burner, it’s a legal obligation. Without that, the smoke
generated by the combustion of the corpse is not totally destroyed. I was
told in a place (le cimetiere du bas du fleuve) that it is a necessity to
cool down the oven. Evidently, I’m not rejecting the fact that some different
structures could allow an operator to not get close to the flammes, let say
if you have just to press a button and that the coffin is drive automatically
to the furnace 4 meters away, and if some kind of machine can remove the
previous skeleton before. But this wasn’t the case at Magnus Poirier crematorium,
nor at the other place I mentionned, nor at Birkenau, evidently. They had to
remove the skeleton manually or the bones that were left manually. Thus a
cooling down period was necessary. This doesn’t mean that the oven had to
be cool down to the room temperature neither. So your ‘reduction by a factor
2’ is based apparently mainly on the after burner pre-heating. Here, this
is 1/2 hour and the cremation time at Magnus Poirier, le crematoire d’Arche,
le cimetiere du bas du fleuve, le crematorium Mont-Royal, is between 2 hour
to 2 hour 1/2 for a normal body plus 1/2 hour for the first cremation of the
day. You have claim ‘less than one hour’, but the only time I visited this
site they gave a range, the upper range was something like 4 hours I think,
I’ll check later. Some crematories may be more powerfull than others, when we
talk about ovens that can reach twice or 2 1/2 time more the 800 or 900
degrees of the Birkenau ovens… But since I was told here that very small
bodies take 1 hour 1/4 and very fat bodies more than 3 hours, I think they
took in account the size of the body when they gave this range. And since in
the story most of the jews ‘gassed’ had been gassed upon arrival, they were
not emaciated, contrarely to the inmates who died from typhus or other diseases.

># 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.

>Yet we have testimony, and a photograph, of corpses being burned on
>large pyres in Dresden, after the city was bombed, in exactly the
>same manner as the corpses were burned in the death camps – in the
>open. Corpses are burned in India in this manner, BTW.

Ya, but they drop important human remains in the Gange, something that
create sanitary problems. The estimation about the real proportion of the
body that is burned in the open can vary, in Dresden they were evidently doing
that to reduce as much possible the flesh to avoid epidemies. Important
human remains, carbonized flesh and bones are left.

http://www.codoh.com/

From [email protected] Sun Sep 22 00:08:59 PDT 1996
Article: 67479 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!
nic.win.hookup.net!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!
news.ibm.net.il!news.stealth.net!imci4!pull-feed.internetmci.com!
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: The footnote heard from
Date: 21 Sep 1996 14:56:58 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 109
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <50sr[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<51kv98$[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne26.vir.com

[email protected] (Miloslav Bilik) wrote:

Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] (Miloslav Bilik) wrote:
>>
>> [email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:
>>
>> >>> Let them know, too, that in France, there were about 250,000
>> >>> deportees, of which about
>> >>> 25,000 were French Jews. Between 80,000 and 100,000 returned, of which
>> >>> about 15,000
>> >>> were Jews.
>>
>> >>Estimates of Jewish losses for France, from Nora Levin, _The
>> >>Holocaust_ (New York: Schocken, 1973):
>> >>
>> >> Estimates by Gerald Reitlinger, _The Final Solution_, 1953:
>> >> Low: 60,000 High: 65,000
>>
>> >> Losses Estimated by Raul Hilberg, _The Destruction of the European
>> >> Jews_, 1961: 70,000
>>
>> > I quoted fact, not fiction. You have more deaths than deportees.
>>
>> No. It is estimations and you could ever be foolish with it, taking
>> the numbers from one and the deaths from another. The best estimates
>> are from the books from Marrus and Paxton.
>>
>> It was 79 trains of Jews from France, accounting 69 from the camp of
>> Drancy.
>>
>> About 75000 human beeings (considered as Jews) were deported. About
>> 70000 transited by Drancy and less of 2000 came back. 73000 deaths.
>>
> I’ve check in Rassinier, the quote was from Hannah Arendt, The
> New-Yorker 9 march 1963. Later in the paragraph, she reported at the end
> of the summer 1943 52,000 jews deported, among them 6,000 french citizen
> Jews. There’s ground for uncertanty here, for all the war also, but no
> doubt that german, slovak and polish Jews who came there before 1941
> are the majority. Those ones hadn’t any reason, or few reasons to return
> in a country which was partly destroyed and confront with an economic
> crisis. The American continent was a possibility, but there was also
> incitment to drive them toward Palestine by the Jewish leaders.
> Counting the real survivors is something more complex than that.

The numbers are known from several sources. For French Jews, it gives
(it’s only for Drancy, but the most part was deported from Drancy):
French. 14669, naturalized French 7724, protected Frenchies (from
Tunisia and Maroc) 156, Frenchies subjects (French before the law of
Cremieux in october 40), 347. Then we are certainly over 20000 French
Jews deported.

>The fact remains that a total of less of 2000 came back in France,
>then less of 10% of the French part alone and 4% of the total: even if
>the economical situation wasn’t good in France, it was certainly
>better than in other parts of Europe.

I didn’t say that the non french citizens emigrated in Poland or Germany,
I said that it was more logical for them to emigrate in any american country
or either in Palestine for ideological reasons. For the french, I’ve no pro-
blem with that, the bulk of the survivors certanly returned in France. But
I don’t see why this 2,000 figure is supposed to be so accurate. I think I
saw in a book a while ago something which refered to a place where those
survivors had to go to be registered. If it’s the case, it is dubtious that
every one of those who came back from the deportation decided to make this
effort. There’s also a problem with the date of such a count, if it was
done while some deported jews were still out of the country. What you present
is a 2,000 figure, but you don’t give the circunstances surrounding it. I
would like to see it. I’m sure that 2,000 Jews gave their name in this case,
but to take just an example, if a questionnary is distributed by mail to
know your opinion on that and that, one can hardly expect to receive more
than 10% of the envelops.

There’s some elements which shows how these results are not reliable unless
were are given all the circunstances surrounding those numbers. Henri Krazucki
was deported from Drancy and untill 1977 according to the Auschwitz museum
(in collaboration with le Centre de Documentation Juive de Paris) he was gased
with all the convoy of the 26 june 1943. Simone Jacob (Veil) was counted as
dead till 1977 (and all the woman of the same shipment 16/04/44). In 1978,
Klarsfeld published a nominative list of the deported jews and it was impossi-
ble with those two notorious jews to maintain the story about those specific
convoys. In other words, I can’t trust a ponctual statistic like this 2,000
unless this figure is back by a suffisant evidence, if all the variables are
given. There was a day we were told that about 150,000 french jews were de-
ported to Auschwitz and now the real figure is 75,000. I’m sure that
the number of french citizens who survived deportation is certanly not more
than half of them, it can be under, I don’t know. Does your book say more
about the circunstances of this count?

>The others are dead. Murdered for an huge majority. Sufficient
>witnesses are known describing the arrival of trains from Drancy and
>what happened.

What most of them saw was selections and the lost of contact with relatives.
In some cases, families were partly reunificated after the war, in other cases
no. The fact that after the huge publicity generated in 1945 several of them
decided that year, or 20 years later to back the gas chamber story is another
thing. There was an open door for anyone who wanted to lie about it without
any risk of being criticized.

http://www.codoh.com/

From [email protected] Sun Sep 22 00:09:00 PDT 1996
Article: 67536 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
op.net!inter2.interstice.com!nanospace.com!pornstorm.eit.com!news.sprintlink.net!
news-chi-13.sprintlink.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.sgi.com!
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: Where was the jewish modesty?
Date: 21 Sep 1996 19:43:26 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne8.vir.com

One of the most incredible claim of the gassing story is that men and women
had to remove their clothes in the same room before to go in the gas chamber.
Back those days, modesty was largely present, more than today, and the Nazis
were definitivelly prudish. We have just to remember how they considered por-
nography. Many Jews also. Especially the religious.

In spite of the fact that some tales described few convoys were the Jews
were ‘aware’ about their fate and protested a bit, more often they were
supposed to be ignorant about it. I’ve just search in a couple of books
and there seems to be no reference to that.

It is hardly believable that the SS couldn’t figure that a unique undressing
room for both sex was a so good idea. First, it was going against their bigo-
try. Second, they could expect too much protestations from Jews. But the odd
here is that we should expect in the SK tales a frequent reference to Jewsness
who refused to undress in front of men, or the contrary. Disorder, protesta-
tions, since they were normally unaware about their fate. Of course the SS had
gunmachines, but what we are told is that they tried as much as possible to
fool the Jews. For _each_ gassing we should expect several men and women who
shout ‘In front of the men?’, loud protestations and a group of SS who would
be obligated to threat the Jews with their guns. And even in that case, sup-
plications, during minutes we would expect men or women asking to bring a cur-
tain, an protestations again, and SS repeating ‘do it or die!’. After two or
three of those scenes, since the purpose was allegedly to drive the Jews quie-
ly without incidents toward the gas chamber, the SS would perfectly realized
that the best method was to take in account the mentalities and to separate
them in two groups from the begining to the end. However, we have not such
tales. The stories are based upond mixed groups who removed their clothes
without protesting systematically.

http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg/ (Page doesn`t exist)

From [email protected] Sun Sep 22 07:51:57 PDT 1996
Article: 67626 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!
nic.win.hookup.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!
Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Van Alstine talking to himself
Date: 21 Sep 1996 15:18:14 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne26.vir.com

[email protected] wrote:
>
> I have been noticing many replies to my posts by M. Van Alstine….Is he talking to himself, or what?

Well, I’m forcing myself to read the stuff he writes almost only when it
is adress to me. In the case you mention, it seems he’s still there
since I saw his name somewhere but I didn’t pay attention. How about a
killfile?

From [email protected] Sun Sep 22 14:14:12 PDT 1996
Article: 67734 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!
usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The USS Liberty attack, no accident
Date: 22 Sep 1996 18:40:55 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <51ulbp[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne62.vir.com

[email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
>
> > [email protected] (DvdThomas) writes:
>
> > Or offense, as the case was in 1967, when Israel was “attacked” by firing
> > the first shots, and no military actions occurred within her borders. It
> > was a preemptive strike, carried out in a ruthless, efficient and
> > successful manner.
>
> You are in error on two counts.
>
> The war began with a military blockade of the Israeli port of Elath.
> That is an act of war.
>
> There was an invasion of Israeli territory by the Jordanian army. They
> got the snot kicked out of them but there was no fighting on the eastern front
> until that happened.
>
No lying Yale. Israel attacked first Syria and Egyptia and this is
why Jordania was drag in this conflict. The same way France declared war
to Hitler after his invasion of Poland. The united nations recognized
it back those days, Israel hadn’t any right to occupy those territories,
and the subsequent annexions of the Golan and growing parts of the
West Bank showed largelly how the arabs were right in their fears.

From [email protected] Sun Sep 22 14:23:55 PDT 1996
Article: 67747 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
op.net!netaxs.com!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: Where was the jewish modesty?
Date: 22 Sep 1996 17:21:50 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne34.vir.com

Annie Alpert wrote:

>> One of the most incredible claim of the gassing story is that men and women> had to remove their clothes in the same room before to go in the gas chamber.> Back those days, modesty was largely present, more than today, and the Nazis> were definitivelly prudish. We have just to remember how they considered por-> nography. Many Jews also. Especially the religious.>

>Why waster our time with this kind of clap-trap, J-F? Do al ittle
>research before you pontificate:

>”Men and women were separated for undressing in the barracks.” Raul
>Hilberg, “The Destruction of the European Jews” p 246. Followed by a
>detailed description of the different techniques used in different camps
>to separate victims from their clothing (and, of course, their
>valuables).

Hilberg wasn’t there. He’s a jewish writter, simply. Filip Muller
is a key eyewitness who claimed that he was there as a Sonderkommando.
I’ve reread most of his book yesterday and it is clear everywhere
that men and women had to undress in the same room. He described the
scenes were men and women walk together to the ‘gas chamber’, dialogs
comming from men and women in the same room. There was, also, just
one undressing room in krema 2 and 3 in the holocaust version. The only
way to separate both sex was to gassed them in different crematories.
But it is clear in Muller’s book that it is not the way things allegedly
happened. Unless a small paragraph escaped my attention, but I don’t
think so. Hilberg’s claim is worthless. Filip Muller (3 years in a gas
chamber) is supposed to be more accurate, no?
I’ve not yet check your reference but I noticed he used the word
‘barracks’, something that doesn’t sound like the the crematory rooms,
I’ll see if this reference refer to something else than gassing.

http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg (Page doesn`t exist)

From [email protected] Sun Sep 22 23:08:32 PDT 1996
Article: 67830 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
nic.win.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!
Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,soc.culture.palestine,soc.culture.lebanon
Subject: Re: 1967 Arab-Israeli War (Was; Re; The USS Li
Date: 23 Sep 1996 03:01:19 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <51ulbp[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne50.vir.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:67830 soc.culture.palestine:20251
soc.culture.lebanon:25830

[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>
> [email protected] (DvdThomas) writes:
>
> # Or offense, as the case was in 1967
>
> It looks like the former president of Egypt, Sadat, knew very
> well that Nasser wanted war in 1967. Here’s a quote from his
> book “In Search of Identity” (p. 172):
>
> “Nasser said ‘now, with our concentrations in Sinai, the chances of
> war are fifty-fifty. But if we close the strait, war will be one
> hundred percent certainty’. Then, turning to Amer, he asked ‘are the
> armed forces ready, Abdel Hakim?’ Amer pointed to his neck and said
> ‘on my neck be it, boss! Everything’s in tip-top shape'”.
>
> And then, of course, he closed the straits.
>
> Some examples of Arab propaganda, just before the 1967 War:
>
> TIME, June 2, p. 20: Damascus radio called on all Arabs to “undertake
> the liberation battle that will tear the hearts from the bodies of
> the hateful Jews and trample them in the dust”.
>
> TIME, June 16, p. 22: ..President Nasser had welcomed Iraq to the
> Egypto-Jordanian alliance against Israel, and proclaimed: “we are
> so eager for the battle in order to force the enemy to wake from
> his dreams and meet Arab Reality face to face”.
>
> TIME, June 2, p. 20: “At week’s end Nasser once more went to the radio
> to say that “any war with Israel will be total, and the objective
> will be to destroy Israel”.
>
> Churchill and Churchill, p. 52, quoting Shukairy (PLO chief): “the
> surviving Jews would be helped to return to their native countries,
> but my estimation is that none will survive”.
>
> <end quotes>
>
> Add all this to your wealth of knowledge, “Thomas”, or “Hunt”,
> or “agathist”, or whatever you’re calling yourself today.
>
It is called rhetoric, something that exist often when 2 people
are engaged in a war, or when a growing tension exist. The arabs
had the experience of the first israelo-arab war and had serious
reasons to not trust Israel. They had face a first invasion and
the lost of important pieces of land. It seems easy when you
invade a country and expell hundreds of thousands of people from
their land to claim after the accomplished fact: any rhetoric directed
toward us is ‘hate speech’, lets talk about peace now. The fact
is simply that the Israelis had in the mind for a while that the
west bank was their biblic land. Even if Jordania hadn’t attack
Israel in response to the Israeli’s agression against Egyptia and
Syria, Israel would have invade this land a day.

Comitee for an open debate on the Holocaust: http://www.codoh.com/

From [email protected] Tue Sep 24 07:37:41 PDT 1996
Article: 68276 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!
aurora.cs.athabascau.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!van-bc!
news.mindlink.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.msfc.nasa.gov!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!in3.uu.net!alpine.psnw.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,soc.culture.palestine,soc.culture.lebanon
Subject: Re: 1967 Arab-Israeli War (Was; Re; The USS Li
Date: 24 Sep 1996 00:15:09 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <51ulbp[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne38.vir.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:68276 soc.culture.palestine:20360
soc.culture.lebanon:25841

Nizan <[email protected]> wrote:
>

> 1. Before 1967 Israel didn’t occupy almost any Egyptian/Jordanian/Syrian
> land.

Yes, in 1955-56 they did so with Egypt. In 148-49 for Jordanian
land

>
> 2. Those Arab countries, that did not accept Israel’s existence sine
> 1948.

Well, they suspected certanly what would happen in the future.

> 3. Until 1948, no land has been stolen, but bought with full money.

Nice you stop it at 1948.

> 4. The Arab countries, which are very not democratic regard war as a
> fair solution

Israeli’s too, since the United Nations ‘gift’ wasn’t suffisant in
their mind.

> to internal problems. That way people will not think about
> hunger, lack of
> education, etc.

We know all how Israel have promote the standards of life there.
Let’s just take the last bombardment on an expensive power station
in Beyrouth few months ago in the christian area. A ‘retaliation’ to the
Hizbullah bombardments? Nice try, they just feared economic competition.
Another ‘accident’.

> 5. The 67 war was initiated by Nasser and his Arab colleges, Israel
> didn’t need it at all.

see my post to Yale

> 6. As the result of that war, we took the west bank, a destructive
> result as I see it.
> We grew a generation that don’t even know that Hebron, Jenin,
> Ramalla were taken
> by force, and worth:
> 120,000 Israeli actually live in the west bank, a serious matter
> that interrupt
> any attempt to reach a piece agreement with the Palestinians.

At least we share the same opinion on something, lets see the remaining…
> 7. “Even if Jordania hadn’t attack Israel in response to the Israeli’s
> agression
> against Egyptia and Syria, Israel would have invade this land a
> day.”
> What aggression are you talking about ? in 1967 ?
> If you mean the 1967, you’re all SO VERY WRONG.
> After reading many books I can assure you, that Israel didn’t mean
> to attack Jordan
> at all.

Pro-Israelis books? But I didn’t state that Israel _attacked_
Jordan in 1967. I said that they couldn’t drop their partners in
front of the Israeli’s agression against Egypt, because they knew
that a day they could need them also.
>
From [email protected] Wed Sep 25 22:37:52 PDT 1996
Article: 68877 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
nntp.teleport.com!psgrain!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-11.sprintlink.net!
www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!news.sgi.com!swrinde!
hookup!loki.tor.hookup.net!nic.ott.hookup.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Why is there no revisionist version of Nizkor?
Date: 22 Sep 1996 15:31:55 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <5206v6[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne14.vir.com

[email protected] (Derek Bell) wrote:
>
> [email protected] (Allan Matthews) writes:
> >So, I ask the revisionists – why is there on comparable site to this
> >supporting your side of the story?
>
> I have a few theories:
>
> 1. The deniers are incapable of behaving rationally about the
> Holocaust, which means that they don’t do the obvious thing, like creating
> a site of their own.
>
> 2. The deniers know that it would just make them look more foolish,
> by exposing themselves even more for the fools they are
>
> 3. ZOG orbital mind control lasers are constantly monitoring their
> “minds” (for lack of a better term) and removing all “ideas” (for lack of a
> better term) that deniers have about creating their own site of arguments for
> their cause.

I have a theory in your case: you made a fool of yourself or either
you are lying. There’s several revisionist sites, none which is as
big as Nizkor but the 3 main ones are:

http://www.codoh.com/
http://www.webcom.com/~ezundel/english/
http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg/ (Page doesn`t exist)

plus the adelaide institute, A. Butz site, for which a cross link
exist on the above site, plus at least 5 others (I don’t remember
their adresses). Several of those adresses were given often here,
so think a bit before to spread nonsenses here next time.

From [email protected] Sat Sep 28 02:09:26 PDT 1996
Article: 69556 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!
nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet
From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,soc.culture.palestine,soc.culture.lebanon,
soc.culture.syria
Subject: Re: 1967 Arab-Israeli War (Re: The USS Liber
Date: 28 Sep 1996 02:56:41 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne59.vir.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:69556 soc.culture.palestine:20628
soc.culture.lebanon:25963 soc.culture.syria:4125

[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>
> Jean-Francois Beaulieu <[email protected]> writes:
>
> # Israeli Air force General Ezer Weizmann declared bluntly
> # that ‘there was never any danger of extermination’.
>
> Irrelevant. The blocakde of the Tiran Straits was equivalent
> to a declaration of war by Egypt. Former Egyptian president
> Sadat admitted it. You want to deny it, fine.
>
> Military blockade of a country = declaration of war.
>
No my dear little Kosher. See my post to Van Alstine on the
same topic today. In this case also, I could add the Israeli’s
invasion of 1955 and 1956, plus the bombardment of Syria in April 67,
plus…

> And that, in addition to the Egyptians kicking the UN from
> Sinai, and, together with Syria, Jordan, and Iraq, massing
> huge forces around Israel.
>
> TIME, June 2, p. 20: Damascus radio called on all Arabs to
> “undertake the liberation battle that will tear the hearts from
> the bodies of the hateful Jews and trample them in the dust”.
>
Yes, they were expecting an invasion after Rabin’s declarations
in may and the previous Israeli’s attack.

> TIME, June 16, p. 22: ..President Nasser had welcomed Iraq to the
> Egypto-Jordanian alliance against Israel, and proclaimed: “we are
> so eager for the battle in order to force the enemy to wake from
> his dreams and meet Arab Reality face to face”.
>
…and Nasser DIDN’T sent enough troops close to the Israeli’s border
to lead a successfull attack according to Rabin in 1969 (see my article
to Van Alstine) and the US intelligence rapidly concluded that the
egyptian army was in a defensive position and told it to Israel.
According to Peled that I quoted previously, there was no serious danger.
In other words, they concluded back those day that Nasser was a loud mouth.
Simply because the quantity of men he sent in the Sinai was far
from the real capacity of Egyptia.

> “..Syrian, Egyptian and Arab propaganda blared over the radio their
> message of war, vengeance and victory and were listened to by millions
> of Arabs in the middle east. They claimed that the hour of reckoning
> was at hand and that the Israelis would receive the retribution they
> richly deserved. This produced a massive response in favor of war
> amongst the Arabs of Jordan…the pressure of public opinion in
> favor of war was so strong that king Hussein knew that if he failed
> to participate he ran the risk of civil war. King Hussein’s
> commanders warned him that they could not hold their men in check
> any longer and that there would be a serious crisis if Jordan failed
> to act”.
>
> Jordanian journalist Samir Mutawi, summerizing from interviews
> with king Hussein, major general Salim, field marshal Majali,
> Lt general Haditha and Ben Shaker, commander in chief of the
> Jordanian army.
>
> “There was in the country and all over the Arab world what you
> might call a mass euphoria about the possibility of war and that
> this was something we have been waiting for a long time – we
> were going to defeat Israel once and for all”.

YES, but this is the popular feeling. The fact is that Rabin himself
and the hight staff in Israel and the US intelligence concluded with
Nasser real acts that he wasn’t planning an attack against Israel.
You can state that you will destroy a nation of 1 million people
and its 50,000 soldiers, if you send only 20,000 of your 100,000 men
on the front, than one might conclude that you just want to get the
an extra popularity in the public opinion.
See the post to V.Alst.

> As told to Jordanian journalist Samir Mutawi in an 1983 interview
> by Zaid Rifai, a senior aid to king Hussein, and two times
> Jordanian prime minister.

> -Danny Keren.

From [email protected] Sun Sep 29 09:09:49 PDT 1996
Article: 69962 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!
imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!feed1.news.erols.com!
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: Who Stole the Records?
Date: 29 Sep 1996 01:43:57 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne41.vir.com

[email protected] (tom moran) wrote:

> Seems the Holocaust story uses the records from the manufacturer
> of Zyklon B to show that Zyklon B was shipped to Auschwitz. Seems some
> of these records are missing. Whole years worth.
>
> Now who did it?

Ya, last time I’ve check abou Zyklon B the deliveries were almost
the same for 1942,1943 and 1944, the typhus epidemy was stronger
in 1942 but the population of the camp increased also a lot
till 1944. They made a great deal with a letter where a SS stated
that ‘it could be used massivelly in a single shot’ or something like
that in the spring of 1944, but this can be for an eventual massive
desinfection of the camp in case of the resurgeance of the typhus
epidemy. Hilberg put some emphasis on those words, as a religious
mystic who would see a manifestation of God because a shadow appear
to have an irregular shape in the sky, but the hungarian jew episod
to which he’s refering is suppose to have take place in 2 months or
so, not in a single shot. But indeed, the records for the whole 1944
year are not supposed to be there, just some fragments. And those
ones are not spectacular when you compare it to other years.

The most weird aspect however concern the coke shipment: here the
records for the year 1944 are not there, we have a detailed description
in A.T.O. for 1943 months after months but after, a weird hole.
What should we expect in the summer of 1944 normally? But those one
are not there.

From [email protected] Sun Sep 1 08:14:48 PDT 1996
Article: 61397 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!nntp.primenet.com!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: Re: Speer
Date: 31 Aug 1996 23:41:59 GMT
Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal.
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne4.vir.com

The Aktion Reinhard Death Camps

Auschwitz Birkenau

Bergen-Belsen

Buchenwald

Chelmno

Dachau

Maidanek (Majdanek)

Mauthausen

Nordhausen

Belzec

Treblinka

Mittelbau Dora

Gusen

Westerbork

Matthias Giwer

John Hron

Ken McVay

Steve Thomas

Fairview Technologies

Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Muslim Brotherhood: Islamic Extremists and the…

The Heritage Front

The Anti-Defamation League

Article 8, Beaulieu Jean Francois

Latest article

Who’s On First: The Fairview Server

Fairview Technologies: BC Response

Fairview Technologies

The History of Lies

Materials