Burned alive citations, Faurisson Robert

DvdThomas wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]

> Dan Keren wrote:
> >Faurisson claims that historians “no longer believe” testimony
> >about throwing people alive into the “burning ditches” in
> >Birkenau. If he’s not lying, he should present a large number
> >of historians who indeed say that they don’t believe this ever
> >happened. Until he does, he’s lying about this point.
> In street parlance, this is known as “jive.”

In a discussion, such a reply is known as “meritless” and “argumentum ad

> Let me get this straight. Every non-referenced assertion is a lie? What
> is your reference for that assertion? Oh. You didn’t give one. I’ll be
> darned. (Or are only Faurisson’s assertions to be treated this way?)
> >We know, BTW, that the SS burned people alive in other camps,
> >and in Lidice if memory serves me right.
> Why, silly me! You do give your reference–your right serving memory.

Ahem. Silly you indeed. To reference but a few instances were prisoners
were burned alive:

Auschwitz. S. Smaglewska, witness before the IMT (1946).

Auschwitz. Hilbert, _The Destruction of the European Jews_, p.629.

Auschwitz. Nyiszli, _Auschwitz: a doctor’s eyewitness account_, p.87.

Fu”rstengrube A.C. Czech, _Auschwitz Chronicle 1939-1945_, p.803.

Gardelegan. Gutman, _Encyclopedia of the Holocaust_, p.353.

Kaufering Camp #4. Larson, _Crime Doctor_; p.57.

Kaufering Camp #4. Suddeneutsche Zeeitung, 29.11.1945. _Concentration Camp
Dachau 1933-1945_, p.221.

Tschechowitz-Vacuum A.C. Czech, _Auschwitz Chronicle 1939-1945_, p.795.

Warsaw ghetto, Gilbert, _Nuremburg Diary_, p.69.

> Jive talk, sir, classic jive talk.

Indeed. Best you hold that jive-tongue of yours next time when you feel
like pulling somebody’s chain, yes?

> To be able to conduct a conversation in a reasonable time frame, some
> element of trust and common sense is required. If you said that you had
> searched for a historian who does believe it and found one, or if you said
> that you could not find any historian who supports Faurisson’s assertion,
> after reasonably diligent search, then and only then would you have earned
> the right to legitimately claim that perhaps Faurisson is mistaken. To
> call his comment a lie based on your reasoning is not a lie, but it sure
> isn’t true.

Does this mean I can say “Faurisson is mistaken?”

[drivel snipped]


posted/e-mailed to Dr. Keren and DvdThomas

“Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes
not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties–but
right through every human heart–and all human hearts.”

— Alexander Solzhenitsyn, “The Gulag Archipelago”

From [email protected] Tue Jul 2 06:57:47 PDT 1996
Article: 47608 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!ra.nrl.navy.mil!news.math.psu.edu!
From: [email protected] (Mark Van Alstine)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Elie Wiesel, a Prominent false Witness (repost)
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 20:35:26 -0700
Organization: rbi software systems
Lines: 76
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbi142.rbi.com