Giwer on UN

I note in passing that Mr. Giwer did not email me a copy of this post
which he made 29th February 02:26 GMT. It arrived at Nizkor on 1st March at
7:24 GMT but (at the time of this writing) still hasn’t arrived at Digital
Express. This post also seems overtaken by events, as Mr. Giwer has
decided to start lying about what he first said, but I’m making it anyway.

In article <[email protected]>, Matt Giwer
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] (Michael P. Stein) says:
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Matt Giwer continues to ignore the challenge
>>on the table about the United Nations, and wrote:
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>[email protected] (Harry Katz) says:
>>> If you find blue skin, frozen in position of death and being
>>>stacked like cordwood not only in those positions but higher than
>>>people can reach plausible it is easy to see why you believe everything
>>>your read on the subject.
>> No, the problem is that unlike the illiterate Mr. Giwer, many of us
>>understand that not all language is meant to be taken in strict literal
>>terms. “Blue” skin need not mean brilliant blue, only that red coloration
>>has been lost and therefore the skin has shifted in tone towards the blue.
> But it doesn’t shift to the blue. You should know that.

So you are saying that all skin except for the lips retains the exact
same color no matter how poorly oxygenated the blood? Is that what you are

>>”Frozen” need not mean physically stiffened in this kind of writing – does
>>the policeman’s command “Freeze!” mean that the person is supposed to jump
>>into an icebox? Does that mean that rigor mortis had set in?
> It means you can find some way for the story of Santa Claus to
>be true. Or perhaps just the Easter Bunny.

Rubbish. The point is that some words can have multiple meanings, but
you are pretending that only the meaning you decide to assign to it is

> Or perhaps you can explain why the approved stories are never
>metaphoric save where they have problems?

Metaphoric is the wrong word, but we already knew you were illiterate.
Perhaps you can document who made such a claim? Exact quote, article ID,
subject line, and date, please.

> And if they are metaphoric, why are they not presented as such?

I have never read a nonfiction account where metaphoric language was
preceded by a disclaimer, “NOTE: The following sentence contains
metaphoric language.” Have you, Mr. Giwer? The same goes for other forms
of language which are not meant to be taken in the most literal sense. It
is simply something that a literate reader is expected to know how to
recognize. It is quite clear that you have never mastered this skill, but
that is your problem.

>>> What does forgery mean? At no time did I say it was true and
>>>I left every obvious hint in addition to the content such as not faking a
>>>”in an article” line.
>> I have seen many such articles which had no invention of quoted text,
>>and no “xxx writes” line. It’s not strong evidence.
> And you believed those posts? Why?

Because, o peerless master of analytical thinking, I had previously seen
the posts which were quoted in the improperly-threaded articles. It
happened at a time when there were not newsfeed problems.

>>>And also when it was noted the original message
>>>did not reach Nizkor I said there was a very good reason why it did not
>>>reach Nizkor.

Actually, I have gone back and checked. What you said in article
<[email protected]> on 12th February 1996 was:

>That’s a reasonable request; where is the original article? It
>didn’t reach my site either.

The original article did reach your site.

Nothing was mentioned about a reason in this post, only in a later
one. You really should learn not to lie about what you said previously.
It is a trivial matter to pull your posts up from the archives and prove
that you are lying.

>> Yes, well, I don’t trust your ability to choose which are good reasons
>>and which are not. For example, you said that there was a good reason to
>>reject someone’s testimony as forged because the United Nations as we
>>know it today was not in existence at that time. I have $100 on the
>>table saying I can prove that your reason is _not_ a good reason. Now
>>that your newsfeed is repaired, perhaps you would like to respond to that
>> Yoo-hoo, anyone home?
> A good reason for rejection? Perhaps not a strong reason but it
>certainly does not enhance the credibility of the story but …

Oh, you had other reasons to declare the story a forgery? What were
they? I never saw them. Please quote the post in which they appeared,
including article ID, date, and subject line.

> The old “accept the bet or I won’t tell you” gambit has been used
>to death, I had thought, apparently not. But at least you should get it
>clear what you are going to demonstrate.

I did that in a post which was emailed to you. Your inability to pay
attention and read correctly is your problem.

>You will have to address BOTH the
>United Nations reference AND that he had been designated a war criminal
>by it or them and that he knew it.

A pathetic attempt at weaseling out. That was not the issue and you
have good reason to know that.

You declared the Hoettl statement a forgery. Your only stated reason
for this is that it mentioned the U. N. anachronistically. You later
declared unequivocally that the only references to “United Nations”
between 1942 and 1944 after the “Declaration of United Nations” were to
the negotiations for the formation of what we call the UN today. Your
claims about the use of the term “United Nations” are wrong, and their
falsity is independent of the truth of Hoettl’s account of the
conversation. I reproduce the relevant items, with some (reasonable)
editing – none of your text relevant to “United Nations” is cut – and

From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Jewish Census
Date: 7 Feb 1996 00:21:59 GMT
Organization: Images Incarnate
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <[email protected]>

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (pgroff) says:


>Sir, quoting from “Nazism a history in documents and eyewitness
>accounts 1919 – 1945.
> Vol 2 Page 1206, The following statement was made after the war by
>Wilhelm Hoettl, a member of Amt VI (Foreign Intelligence) in the RSHA:
>”At the end of August 1944, I had a conversation with SS
>Oberststrumbannfuhrer Adolf Eichmann, whom I had known since 1938.
>The Conversation took place in my flat in Budapest.
>At this time, according to my information, Eichmann was a section
>chief in Amt IV (Gestapo) of the Reich Security Main Office and, in
>addition, had been commissioned by Himmler to get hold of the Jews
>throughout Europe and transport them to Germany.

To Germany? Whatever for? If you are going to respond with the obvious
please name the places in GERMANY where the obvious occurred.

>At that time,
>Eichmann was very much affected by Romania’s withdrawal from the war,
>which had occurred then. It was for this reason that he had visited
>me in order to enquire about the military situation, which I received
>daily news from the Hungarian Honved (War) Ministery and from the
>commander of the Waffen SS in Hungary. He expressed his conviction
>that Germany had los the war and that he saw no future for himself.
>He knew that he was regarded by the United Nations

In August 1944 (fourty FOUR) how could the United Nations have
regarded him as anything when it would not even come into existence until 15
months later?

>as one of the main
>war criminals because he had millions of Jews on his conscience. I
>asked him how many there were, to which he replied that, although the
>number was s great Reich secret, he would probably not return from his
>commando’s operation in Romania. He had recently prepared a report
>for Himmler, since he had wanted to know the exact number of Jews and
>who had been killed. On the basis of the information at his disposal,
>he arrived at the following result.
>Around four million Jew had been killed in the various extermination
>camps, while two million had dided by other means, of whom the
>majority had been shot by the Einsatzkommandos of the Security Police
>during eh campaign agains Russia.
>Himmler was not satisfied with the report, since in his view the
>number of Jews who had been killed must larger than six million.
>Himmler declard that he would send a man from his statistical office
>to Eichmann so that he could produce a new report on the basis of
>Eichmann’s material in which the exact number could be worked out.”

>This is but one, document from the Nazis.

Given the references within this “document” it was most likely created
by someone with little appreciation of the damaging effect of anachronisms
to the credibility of creations.

Further the reference to the “everyone knows” at the time it was written
that the “exterminations” were being carried out in Germany while today’s
“everyone knows” is different does not make up for the anachronism.

From [email protected] Wed Mar 6 15:43:52 PST 1996
Article: 26343 of alt.revisionism
Path: not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Mike Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: he tells his story
Date: 6 Mar 1996 14:38:20 -0800
Organization: The Nizkor Project
Lines: 668
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <4h09ms$gkp@w <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]

From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Jewish Census
Date: 8 Feb 1996 10:21:49 GMT
Organization: Images Incarnate
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <[email protected]>

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) says:
>> [email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes:
>> In August 1944 (fourty FOUR) how could the United Nations have
>> regarded him as anything when it would not even come into existence
>> until 15 months later?
> This doesn’t refer to the organization. During WWII the allies
>fighting your nazi friends in Europe referred to themselves as “the United
>Nations.” Look at some newreels from that period.

Nice try but no save. The words are capitalized as in United Nations.
Sorry, it is a forgery.

> >This is but one, document from the Nazis.
>> Given the references within this “document” it was most likely
>> created by someone with little appreciation of the damaging effect of
>> anachronisms to the credibility of creations.
>> Further the reference to the “everyone knows” at the time it was
>> written that the “exterminations” were being carried out in Germany while
>> today’s “everyone knows” is different does not make up for the anachronism.
> Unfortunately the “anachronism” exists only in your mind.

Or in your lack of literacy.

Remember when it was supposed to have been said. If it were a true
recounting the author would have known the capitalization was an
anachronism. As it is, it is only to sucker in the uncultured.

From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Jewish Census
Date: 9 Feb 1996 09:59:39 GMT
Organization: Images Incarnate
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <[email protected]>

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Gord McFee) says:
>In <[email protected]>, [email protected] said:
>>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken)
>>says: >
>>>> [email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes:
>>>> In August 1944 (fourty FOUR) how could the United Nations have
>>>> regarded him as anything when it would not even come into existence
>>>> until 15 months later?
>>> This doesn’t refer to the organization. During WWII the allies
>>>fighting your nazi friends in Europe referred to themselves as “the United
>>>Nations.” Look at some newreels from that period.
>> Nice try but no save. The words are capitalized as in United
>>Nations. Sorry, it is a forgery.
>Sorry, you’re full of shit, as my recent post demonstrates. There was an
>entity called the United Nations during the war, not to be confused with the
>United Nations Organization, which we popularly call the United Nations. I
>gave you a reference for that.

You either gave me no such thing or it never arrived by mail or on this
group. Please repost the evidence fot this organization that not only
existed but was able to declare war crimes.

And PLEASE do not go into the “I posted it and will not do it again”
mode of pretension of evidence.

And PLEASE post the organization that existed under such name AND AND
AND explain to those claiming it was a common name for the allies where they
are wrong and it was really a reference to what you are claiming.

>But since you are so stunned, how about another one:
>[begin quote]
>As I have completed survey of the immediate and long-range problems of the
>military situation facing the United Nations, I have come to certain
>conclusions which are so vital that I want you to know the whole picture and
>to ask your approval. [letter, FDR to Winston Churchill, dated 2 April
>1942, quoted in Winston S. Churchill, _The Second World War_, Volume IV (The
>Hinge of Fate), Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1950, page 280]

Faked capitalization by you or them do not pass the test of considering
one a war criminal, a status that did not exist prior to WW II. Nor does it
explain that a minor functionary in relation to the war crimes would ever
know the SECRET determinations !!! Which exist NO PLACE ELSE!!! in the
record that he was so considered.

The statement is a fucking fraud. Live with it.

>[end quote]
>Note that “United Nations” is capitalized.
>Here is yet another:
>[begin quote]
>Returning to Washington by train, Churchill agreed on New Year’s Day 1942 to
>a declaration, prepared by Roosevelt, to be issued by the ‘United Nations’,
>those twenty-six states which were either fighting Germany or Japan, or were
>under German and Japanese occupation, expressing their determination to
>secure complete victory over Germany and Japan.
>[Martin Gilbert, _Churchill: A Life_, Henry Holt and Company, New York,
>1991, page 715]
>[end quote]
>Note that “United Nations” is capitalized.

Note that it is also either your or the author’s fabrication or the
failure of the editor.

>That’s *three* separate references, Mr. Giwer. Why don’t you just admit you
>are wrong, Mr. Giwer? Or are you just in this to be a shit disturber?

Sorry about that. It is simply another piece of shit the true believers
are promoting like the current “he tells his story” thread.

From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A pattern is forming….
Date: 19 Feb 1996 19:50:47 GMT
Organization: Images Incarnate
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <[email protected]>

In article ,
[email protected] (MORRISON KEITH MURRAY) says:
>In article <[email protected]>
[email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes:
>>> Since Giwer the Omniscient
>> I only appear omniscient to you because of your point of view. You
>>truly believe your modest accomplishments are impressive.
>And if yours are truly so impressive, please, O All Knowing One, tell us all
>once again about how there could not possibly be any mention of the United
>Nations before the founding in 1945 of the present organization, and any
>such referance must be a forgery.

Do you have access to the web? Do you have at least lynx on
the machine you use? If so I direct your attention to the UN page and
view something about its history. You will find this.


The name “United Nations” was devised by United States President Franklin D.
Roosevelt and was first used in the “Declaration by United Nations” of 1
January 1942, during the Second World War, when representatives of 26
nations pledged their Governments to continue fighting together against the
Axis Powers.

The United Nations Charter was drawn up by the representatives of 50
countries at the United Nations Conference on International Organization,
which met at San Francisco from 25 April to 26 June 1945.


You will note it specifically says it was the devise of a name, not of
an organization. You will find no further reference to it during the course
of the war as relates to the war but rather only to the negotiations to
establish it after the war. Further there is no support for any claim that
it was any kind of organization that could declare certain people war

If you are in need of further support for that, why did not these
“United Nations” who had declared him a war criminal try him, or anyone else
or at least one person just for show, as a war criminal?

Now that I have refreshed your conveniently spotty memory ….

> No, I am not going to play the game. We do not have to talk about
>reasonableness here. All one needs to do is to name the organization that
>was designating war criminals during the war

I do not know if they were making public announcements of specific
names, but as I shall explain below that is not necessary. I can indeed
name an organization which had as its announced purpose the identification
of war crimes and war criminals for prosecution after the war. This
organization had “United Nations” in its name. In fact, if you had been
paying attention, you would have seen its complete and exact name at least
once already: United Nations War Crimes Commission. As anyone can see
>from what you wrote above, you had declared categorically and without
qualification that the references you had been given were forgeries or
editing errors. I’ve got $100 that says I can convince a neutral arbiter
you were wrong.

>and then note if they were routinely making names public.

As I said: I do not know this, but it is not relevant to the matter at
hand. “He knew that he was regarded by the United Nations as one of the
main war criminals because he had millions of Jews on his conscience” does
not say that the reason for the knowledge was because his name had been
announced in print or on the radio. Rather, the words after the word
“because” clearly imply that the knowledge came by logical inference.

He had been a major participant in what would be called a “war crime”
if anything could be called such. If there are war crimes, then there
must be war criminals who committed them. He could therefore draw the
reasonable logical inference that he must be considered a war criminal
without ever actually hearing his name on the radio – indeed, without the
Allies knowing his name at that time.

He did not even have to be correct about the United Nations branding
him a war criminal (a hypothesis not tested, as he escaped to South
America). People often say “I know” when it would be more accurate to
say, “I have a belief approaching certainty.”

You made a claim of forgery – that the statement purportedly made by
Hoettl was not merely false, but attributed to Hoettl words which came
>from someone other than Hoettl. Burden of proof is on the one making the
claim as you well know. Your only stated “evidence” was the supposed
anachronism. I said I could completely refute that “evidence,” and all
that is required to do so is to prove there is no anachronism.

>Playing the game that Allied Forces can be
>translated as United Nations only addresses one third of the problem.

No need to play any game. I can name and cite evidence proving the
existance of an organization which a) held its first meeting in January,
1944 (that is, seven months prior to the conversation described by
Hoettl), b) had “United Nations” in its official name, in capital letters
(thus eliminating any need for translation), and c) was publicly known to
be assembling war crimes documentation.

You declared categorically that there could be no such organization,
trumpeting your abysmal ignorance of history as if it were superior
knowledge. You’ve got a whole henhouse full of egg on your face, and I
have no qualms about rubbing it in as long as you insist on pretending you
didn’t make a mistake and compound it by stubbornly and stupidly insisting
that everyone else was wrong no matter how much evidence was dropped in
your lap.

Once upon a time you presumed to lecture others on responsibility. I
actually agreed with you then, but you didn’t go far enough. Another part
of responsibility is trying to ensure the accuracy of what you tell
people, and admitting your errors promptly. That’s obviously a kind of
responsibility you never learned. I’m proposing to charge you $100 for
the lesson, plus any incidental costs.

>>> You what you write implies I was at some time trying to
>>>maintain that what I faked was in some manner true. At no time did I do
>>>that. Did you want references to the original? Why would you want
>>>references to something I cleared stated was made up, untrue, purple
>>>prose and a few other descriptive terms I have forgotten?
>> The problem is that I cannot know for certain your reason for
>>declaring something untrue and made up.
> I gave you my reasons and they were all true.

You did not explicitly say from the outset that you had written the
text yourself. You merely stated that you knew. Some time earlier Al
Baron had made almost identical declarations about other text which he had
_not_ written himself. So how were we to know for sure that you were not
merely doing the same thing as Baron?

Your three supposed reasons why I should have spotted the forgery are
not good. I took the stacking height into account, but exaggeration is
not the same thing as forgery. Of course you know that. Two rely on
words having only one possible meaning in the context given. Sorry, they

One that you mentioned, referring to the mechanics of cyanide
poisoning (which you were also ignorant of until others here corrected
you), merely reflects once again your own stupendous ignorance. You see,
the text never said “Auschwitz.” At some camps engine exhaust was used to
kill, and though there are no autopsy reports, the testimony suggests that
the actual cause of death was asphyxiation rather than acute carbon
monoxide poisoning. While the three main Reinhard camps (Treblinka,
Sobibor, and Belzec) had no crematoria, Majdanek did. There was nothing
in the text clearly inconsistent with Majdanek.

>Why is it you say you can not know my reasons? Are you now denying that I
>gave true and correct reasons?

You did not give the reasons until later. I cannot know your reasons
until you give them, and even then it is open to question whether you are
telling the truth. You’ve made many false statements already, including
proven lies about the contents of your own prior posts. But you know that.

>>For example, the testimony about
>>the United Nations you also declared a forgery, but not because you had
>>made it up yourself.
> You appear to be avoiding the subject.

No, the United Nations is a subject _you_ have been avoiding. But I’m
glad to see I finally got your attention. Let’s see, how many tries did it

>> So are you going to accept that $100 wager? Or are you a gutless
>>wonder who talks big but runs like a rabbit when challenged to back up
>>his fat mouth?
>Lets see. The terms are that you will demonstrate all three points, as I
>named above correct?

No, those were not the terms. They were emailed to you as well as
posted. Do please learn how to pay attention.

The terms were, and I quote:

> I am willing to wager $100, payable to a 501(c)(3) organization of the
>winner’s choice, that I can produce documentary support for the following
>claim: that in 1944 there was a formal body, with “United Nations” in its
>name, with an express mandate to deal with the subject of war crimes.

I will even raise the bar: that the documentary support produced will
be sufficient to convince a neutral arbiter beyond a reasonable doubt that
this body existed, and that it met in January, 1944.

This is all that is necessary for me to prove. This documentation would
refute your assertion that there could be no legitimate reference to the
United Nations, capital letters and all, as an entity capable of naming war
criminals prior to the founding of the institution currently using that
name and prior to the conversation described by Hoettl. It would therefore
refute your “proof” that the Hoettl statement was a forgery because it
contained an anachronism.

>OK, we have gone that far. Now, what criteria of good are you proposing in
>> I can prove that your reason is _not_ a good reason.

Any criterion a neutral arbiter decides to use when asked, “Do you
agree this is not a good reason?”

> What shall be considered to be evidenciary?

Whatever a mutually-selected neutral arbiter considers acceptable

>Which method of proof, logic, beyond a reasonable doubt or preponderance
>of the evidence or scientific are you proposing?

Logical and scientific proofs are not applicable in this case, as you
should know. I am quite willing to be held to the “beyond a reasonable
doubt” standard rather than the lower “preponderance of the evidence.” I
have no doubt whatsoever that I can meet the higher standard in this case.

> Which person or persons are you proposing to judge your success in this?

Again, you need to learn how to pay attention. I offered to let YOU
make any reasonable suggestion as to a neutral arbiter. My suggestion is
the American Arbitration Association. Loser pays their fee.

>What method of determination shall they use?

I do not understand how this question differs from “what is
evidence” and/or “what method of proof.” Please clarify.

>What safeguards of impartiality are you proposing?

I both accept and offer the professional reputation of the AAA as being
a sufficient guarantee of impartiality.

>What method of arbitration of disagreements and disputes are you

I propose that the decision of the arbiter is final and cannot be

>Who are you proposing will hold the money?

I propose that each of us write a check for $100 payable to the
501(c)(3) organization of the other’s choice (I will also allow you to
designate the Libertarian Party), to be held by the arbiter. When the
arbiter announces that both checks have arrived, I will submit your quoted
posts above, plus my evidence with full citations as to where they may be
independently verified. The arbiter is instructed that the loser’s check is
mailed to the recipient organization with instructions to report any bounce
to the arbiter; the winner’s is returned uncashed.

> The failure to answer such questions is why I don’t play such games.

Well, I can hardly answer them before I see them. However, one of them
was answered in the initial challenge which was both posted and emailed:
that _you_ were invited to make reasonable suggestions as to an arbiter.
Use my suggestion, or come up with one of your own.

>However, if you can provide answers acceptable to me I may re-evalutate my

There was one question which was too ambiguous to answer. Rephrase it
so that it is unambiguous and I will answer. I believe I have given
reasonable answers to the others. If you disagree, please describe your
objections and what it would take to overcome them. Note that some of
these answers may only apply to this specific wager; should I issue a
different wager challenge I will try to remember to specify which answers
(if any) change.

In other words, your bluff is called. It is already obvious to
everyone (except perhaps you) that your mouth has outrun your knowledge on
this issue. All that really remains to be seen is just how long you can
continue to delude yourself into thinking your stupidity and your evasions
are fooling anyone but yourself. You could simply decline the wager
outright, though of course that will be a clear admission that you shot
your mouth off without any regard for the truth. I hope your email secret
admirers (assuming you weren’t lying about them) are enjoying your

In the future, please email me a copy of anything you want to make sure
I see in a timely manner, with a clear indication that it is a copy of a
public post.


“K’firim rashu v’ra’eivu.”