Documents

Green Richard 1998-4

In article <[email protected]>,
Dieselzykl wrote:
>>
>>The BUCK stops here!
>>
>>Stolen from Harry Truman, one of the greatest American Presidents ever
>>elected.
>>
>>Chuck Ferree
>
>Ferree might have also added that it was Truman who ordered the mass murder of
>the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by incineration–in order, supposedly, to
>achieve unconditional surrender. That made Truman one of the truly great mass
>murderers of all time.

I suppose that Mr. Berg can present some evidence that it is possible to
split an atom? The fission bomb hoax has at best a year or two before
it is seen through.

Best,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Fri Jul 24 20:48:10 EDT 1998
Article: 193568 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!newsfeed.direct.ca!news2.ais.net!jamie!ais.net!uunet!in4.uu.net!world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: Diesel suicides anyone?
Message-ID:
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 02:55:49 GMT
Lines: 28
Xref: trends.ca alt.revisionism:193568
Richard J. Green
[email protected] http://world.std.com/~rjg/exposing-denial.html
http://world.std.com/~rjg

From [email protected] Fri Jul 24 20:48:11 EDT 1998
Article: 193570 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.mideast,
talk.politics.misc,alt.revisionism
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!nntp-out.monmouth.com!
newspeer.monmouth.com!
howland.erols.net!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!mtu.ru!Pollux.
Teleglobe.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: Holocaust denial and not stepping in piles of
Message-ID:
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected] <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 03:08:47 GMT
Lines: 41
Xref: trends.ca alt.conspiracy:286504
talk.politics.mideast:69426 talk.politics.misc:657131 alt.revisionism:193570

Greetings,

I am impressed at the level of scholarship shown by these two typical
“revisionist scholars.” What intellect! What historical and scientific
literacy they display!

Best,

Rich Green

In article <[email protected]>,
ASMarques wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>…
>> De Camptown Ladies
>>
>> Auschwitz Juden sing this song
>> Oy vey, Oy vey
>> Auschwitz Juden sing this song
>> All the live long day.
>>
>> Gwine ta burn all night
>> Gwine ta burn all day
>>
>> Auschwitz Juden sing this song
>> All the live day.
>
>Spielberg really ought to make a Gilbert & Fleming musical while we wait
>fom the big “Holocaust” animation movie from Disney. He could use the
>incredibly funny holo-vigilantes from alt.revisionism as the joyous
>troupe of bumbling cops.
>
>ASMarques

—
————————————————————————-
Richard J. Green
[email protected] http://world.std.com/~rjg/exposing-denial.html
http://world.std.com/~rjg

From [email protected] Fri Jul 24 20:48:13 EDT 1998
Article: 193890 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy,alt.usage.german,
de.soc.politik.deutschland,soc.culture.german,alt.revisionism
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!chippy.visi.com!
news-out.visi.com!news-nyc.telia.net!masternews.telia.net!Cabal.
CESspool!bofh.vszbr.cz!news.cs.utwente.nl!
newshunter.cosy.sbg.ac.at!wuff.mayn.de!nntp.abs.net!
news2.ais.net!jamie!ais.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: Cracow reports (reposted)
Message-ID:
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 02:59:26 GMT
Lines: 49
Xref: trends.ca talk.politics.misc:658255 alt.conspiracy:
286958 alt.usage.german:7297 de.soc.politik.deutschland:38427 soc.culture.german:82675 alt.revisionism:193890

Greetings,

So strange that Mr. Marques should repost his drivel so long after its
been refuted.

Markiewicz, Gubala, and Labedz of the Institute of Forensic Research,
Crakow, demonstrated that HCN was present in the homicidal gas chambers at
levels above background.

I quote from their paper available at:

https://nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/

The results of analyses are presented in Tables I-IV. They
unequivocally show that the cyanide compounds occur in all the
facilities that, according to the source data, were in contact with
them. On the other hand, they do not occur in dwelling accomodations,
which was shown by means of control samples.

The IFRC researchers used a calibrated method that they checked against
samples of known concentration as they went along. They discriminated against
Prussian blue whose origin is not clear. Leuchter and Rudolf did not do so,
and their attempt to disprove the possibility of homicidal gassings
fails.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/blue
https://nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/forensic.html
https://nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/

Best,

Rich Green

PS I suspect that Marques is reposting this material because his handler
is curious about what I intend to do about Rudolf’s misrepresentation of
his source on the formation of Prussian Blue. I won’t bite; you’ll have
to wait and see the article I write.
—
————————————————————————-
Richard J. Green
[email protected] http://world.std.com/~rjg/exposing-denial.html
http://world.std.com/~rjg

From [email protected] Sun Jul 26 13:32:04 EDT 1998
Article: 194232 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.mideast,
talk.politics.misc,alt.revisionism
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!falcon.america.net!
newsfeed.atl.bellsouth.net!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!
news2.ais.net!jamie!ais.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: Holocaust denial and not stepping in piles of
Message-ID:
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 03:37:23 GMT
Lines: 36
Xref: trends.ca alt.conspiracy:287372 talk.politics.mideast:69566
talk.politics.misc:659466 alt.revisionism:194232

In article <[email protected]>,
ASMarques wrote:
>Richard J Green wrote:
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> I am impressed at the level of scholarship shown by these two typical
>> “revisionist scholars.” What intellect! What historical and scientific
>> literacy they display!
>
>If I were you, Mr. Chemist, I would be protesting Nizkor’s use of my
>successsive posts *without* showing the replies to them. But then, I
>understand it’s the only way of escape left to you people…
>
>Still, it’s quite dishonest and in your place I would be ashamed of
>these easy cop-outs.
>
>Oh well. I guess you said your piece, you may run now…

Mr. Marques,

Next time you might try posting in English.
If you have complaints about Nizkor, direct them to Nizkor.
Anyone wanting to find successive replies can go to dejanews; not that
your replies have any content to them…

Best,

Rich Green

—
————————————————————————-
Richard J. Green http://holocaust-history.org
[email protected] http://world.std.com/~rjg/exposing-denial.html
http://world.std.com/~rjg

From [email protected] Sun Jul 26 13:34:13 EDT 1998
Article: 82675 of soc.culture.german
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy,alt.usage.german,
de.soc.politik.deutschland,soc.culture.german,alt.revisionism
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!news-nyc.telia.net!masternews.telia.net!Cabal.
CESspool!bofh.vszbr.cz!news.cs.utwente.nl!
newshunter.cosy.sbg.ac.at!wuff.mayn.de!nntp.abs.net!news2.
ais.net!jamie!ais.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: Cracow reports (reposted)
Message-ID:
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 02:59:26 GMT
Lines: 49
Xref: trends.ca talk.politics.misc:658255 alt.conspiracy:

286958 alt.usage.german:7297 de.soc.politik.deutschland:38427 soc.culture.german:82675 alt.revisionism:193890

Greetings,

So strange that Mr. Marques should repost his drivel so long after its
been refuted.

Markiewicz, Gubala, and Labedz of the Institute of Forensic Research,
Crakow, demonstrated that HCN was present in the homicidal gas chambers at
levels above background.

I quote from their paper available at:

https://nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/

Best,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Thu Jul 30 18:39:58 EDT 1998
Article: 194705 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.mideast,talk.politics.misc,alt.revisionism
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!newsfeed.direct.ca!newsfeed.nyu.edu!

wesley.videotron.net!Pollux.Teleglobe.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!

world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: Holocaust denial and not stepping in piles of
Message-ID:
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
References: <[email protected]>

<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 03:19:41 GMT
Lines: 51
Xref: trends.ca alt.conspiracy:288138 talk.politics.mideast:

69711 talk.politics.misc:661234 alt.revisionism:194705

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

>Okay I’ll post two of those you didn’t answer, just to give you another
>oportunity at getting the content.

If you are referring to the ones I answered over a year ago go for it.
If you have something new to say on the topic, please present it.

Just be sure to include a.r., if you expect me to read it.

Best,

Rich Green

Markiewicz, Gubala, and Labedz of the Institute of Forensic Research,
Crakow, demonstrated that HCN was present in the homicidal gas chambers at
levels above background.

I quote from their paper available at:

https://nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/

From [email protected] Thu Jul 30 18:39:58 EDT 1998
Article: 194715 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.mideast

,talk.politics.misc,alt.revisionism
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!falcon.america.net!sunqbc.risq.

qc.ca!wesley.videotron.net!Pollux.Teleglobe.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: Green’s Hiroshima doubts
Message-ID:
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
References: <[email protected]>

<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 04:22:53 GMT
Lines: 278
Xref: trends.ca alt.conspiracy:288151 talk.politics.

mideast:69717 talk.politics.misc:661270 alt.revisionism:194715

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

[snip]
>> Reparations do not bear on the topic.
>
>Of course they don’t. The Japanese aren’t getting any ! But the Jews
>are. I was just pointing that out as an interesting side matter.

Liar, I am a Jew and I receive no reparations.

>
>> An atom is an indivisible
>> particle.
>
>”Particle” means a little piece. What is the little piece a piece of,
>Mr. Chemist ?
>
>> Therefore atoms cannot be split.
>
>No. Therefore “atom” is an imaginary conceptual way of speaking about
>”matter”. There are no atoms other than the atoms in the ontological
>experimental context in which they are fabricated. You should be
>speaking about atomic *events* in the global event we call the
>experiment, etc.

Reread Lucretius, hoaxer! He claims that atoms are the smallest
possible particles. You cannot have a part of an atom. You hoaxers
keep changing the definition. The fact that you are also ignorant of
the modern understanding shows nothing.

I point out also, that you cannot make a fission bomb with U238 and that
plutonium is not a naturally occurring element. That rules out Uranium
and Plutonium for you so-called fission bomb. It’s physically
impossible. Next thing you’ll be claiming that nuclear reactions do not
conserve mass when we all know that conservation of mass is a LAW.

>Profound philosophical/scientific concepts, however, are not needed to
>disbelieve the gas chambers. They are on the “square triangle” level,
>rather than on the “mysterious link between consciousness, causality and
>quantum results”. Unless, of course, you’ll next claim all the gas
>chambers existed but in different alternative universes…

You are speaking gibberish. What is the mysterious link between
consciousness and causality and quantum results, ignorant one (this
ought to be interesting…:-)
>
>> You people keep changing
>> what you mean by atoms.
>
>Here we go: “since human knowledge is not complete, the gas chambers
>exist”. Okay, but why not “since human knowledge is not complete, the
>moon is inhabited by penguins” ?

You just put words in my mouth and responded; that’s called a strawman,
nazi-boy.

>
>I mean you don’t prove your points by successive “negatives”. Please
>state why the “Holocaust gas chambers” seem true to you, if you have
>stopped believing in the concept of “truth” itself ?

We have testimony, missing Jews, physical evidence and in general a
convergence of all the evidence. The same as for the moon, atomic
weapons, the Hiroshima bombing etc.

See for more detail:

http://holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/
>
>> You cannot post physical evidence.
[of the bombing of Hiroshima]

>Let’s see if I can explain this to you. You cannot post evidence in the
>*material* sense you wish. You can only post words. However you can post
>words that lead you to the evidence and you can post words that lead you
>to the holo-Wonderland.

In other words, Mr. Marques admits that he can post no physical evidence
that Hiroshima was bombed.

>My words are: “Look for the evidence by asking the prefecture and city
>of Hiroshima for it.

Prove they aren’t lying.

>You’ll find tons and tons of documents
>(photographic among others) about the destruction and reconstruction of
>the city at all levels (the Japanese are very good at this).

Prove they are not forgeries.

>Then do the
>same in the US Department of Defense and you’ll find more tons of
>evidence (so are the American Armed Forces)”.

If there are “tons” of evidence, i am sure that you can present at least
a dozen or so citations of such evidence held by DoD. Please do so.
Of course you will come up with something about the Enola Gay, a plane
that never existed.

>
>Your words are: “Here is some gas chambers marked “morgues” in all the
>German documentation, but the markings were wrong, here is some Jewish
>human soap,

Liar, those are not my words. Please present evidence that I have ever
claimed that soap made of Jews exists. The best that you can do is to
lie about my words.

>here is some golden teeth because all the bodies were
>vaporized by being burned in deep ground pits full of water, and here is
>some speeches in which people talked about ausrotten”.

You’ve got it backwards, old son. Those examples are brought up by
Nazis like you and refuted by people like me. I thought that by now you
would be embarrassed to discuss Ausrotten, btw, after you were shown up
for such a fool in alt.revisionism.

>Are we playing rotten games, Mr. Chemist ? Do you sell snake elixir too
>? I’ve seen your site, and I think you do. Only interesting thing in
>there is the blonde in the hot tube.

I cannot make sense of what you are trying to say here.

>
>> >But okay then. Listen to this: the material evidence is *the ruins of
>> >Hiroshima*: they didn’t vanish.
>>
>> So you say, prove it.
>
>Try Altavista: “Hiroshima City Hall” and e-mail them for proofs. I’m
>sure you’ll be satisfied.

Nope, just forgeries.

>I won’t care to because I don’t see any
>particular reason to doubt the bombing. Hoess’s confession of *3*
>million dead at Auschwitz, however, is — together with about one
>thousand similar items — a strong telltale soemone has been telling
>lies in shoa-business…

Where is your evidence of this vast conspiracy to lie. Who forged all
the documents; show us some criminal traces.

>
>> >How do you beat that ? Will you show me
>> >a couple of human soap bars like they do in museums and cemeteries ?
>>
>> https://nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/soap-01.html
>
>Thank you. I stand corrected. Now will you show me some human toothpaste
>? And give me two bottles of snake oil, please.

In other words, when I prove that you have your head up your ass, the
best you can do is to post an irrelevant point about claims that I have
never made.
>
>(This is getting amusing; you completely fail to understand that even
>most gas chamber believers have stopped believing in the extension of
>the soap “canard” from WWI to WWII…)

Apparently, you did not read the URL above, idiot. I have never claimed
the RIF story is true it is not. The Nazis did not mass produce soap
out of Jews and I never claimed that they have. Learn how to read,
idiot.
>
>> >Maybe some lampshades and a bathtubload of human legs like they do at
>> >Nizkor…
>>
>> https://nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/clay-koch.html
>
>Hey ! So you won’t show us the lampshades and the bathtubload of legs
>they have got in there, uh ? I knew you didn’t have Keren’s guts…

Learn how to read. Please quote where I have made any claim as to the
existence of human lampshades. The best that you can do is to lies bout
what I have said and hope that no one notices. You are despicable.
>
>> >Surely you’ll be able to grasp a slight difference of weight in your and
>> >my evidence.
>>
>> Yes, you’ve just engaged in a typical denier tactic that’s been exposed
>> for all to see. You simply ignore the process of history, what real
>> historians say, adn hope that no one will notice.
>
>I like your “real historians”. If there is a specialized historical
>field under its own self-segregated crew of incestuous amateurish
>”scholars”, instead of the usual “real historians”, it’s the “Holocaust
>Study” field. When real historians write the truth, ny dear fellow, the
>pages are torn away by the editors, like Springer Verlag did to Nolte.

In other words, you dismiss the evidence presented by historians and the
legitimate process of revision because you don’t want to believe it, but
you have nothing to say except to repeat the soap rumors that we all
agree are untrue. You are a typical “revisionist scholar.”

>
>> >Please note that even though you believe vaporising corpses by burning
>> >them by the thousands in oxygenless pits full of water in Birkenau makes
>> >them completely vanish, a *nuclear* explosion over a populated city in
>> >Japan does not completely vaporize all the ruins and remains…
>>
>> Please post physical evidence of these ruins. Where are the bodies?
>> How come you cannot tell us where the bodies are?
>
>Where are the bodies after a city is atomized into rubble, ashes and
>ruins ? Maybe their destruction is a little more advanced than the ones
>they took intact from the mythic gas chambers and had to cremate by
>digging pits and burning them below water, don’t you think so ?…

I see; you can produce no bodies. Yet, you claim that people were
killed. You can present no feasible murder weapon either.

>
>> >If only the Americans had thought of this they would have secretly
>> >dumped the whole city of Hiroshima in one of the Birkenau pits and no
>> >one would have known. All the Hiroshima victims could well have been
>> >vanishing into mud pit number 3 behind the big oak near crematory number
>> >4, since 100.000 Japanese are no fatter than 100.000 Jews.
>>
>> OK, so where are the bodies since the Americans did not do this?
>
>They didn’t really care about collecting all the separate atoms (yup,
>the “little pieces”) of the ones near ground zero, you know, and
>nevertheless they have burial grounds for the ashes of those that were
>extricated from the rubble.

You have no evidence.

>
>But how did you know the Americans didn’t use the Birkenau pit # 3 ?
>Don’t you believe in the magic mud pit where the vaporization by fire
>went on ? How about the tooth-fairy ?
> 😉
>
>Seriously now. Sometimes you sound like a half-rational being. Why do
>you insist in this sort of idiotic diversion ? I find it amusing, but
>am curious about your motives. Can’t you see every reader will think
>”God, it’s true ! The gas chambers are no more than a hoax. And this guy
>is idiotically spliting scholastic hairs, because HE KNOWS IT TOO !”
>(And feels no shame ?)

I have more faith in the rationality of the average reader. They are
not all crackpots like you.

>
>> No historical fact can survive “revisionist methodology.”
>> >
>> >> Best,
>> >
>> >Always a pleasure, nazoid, and my apologies for having wrongly posted
>> >another reply message to yours.
>>
>> Whatever you say, Nazi-boy.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rich Green
>
>Do you really enjoy your shameful pastime, nasoid ? Do you dare looking
>into mirrors and seeing your true face beneath the snake oil ? What a
>shame…

I enjoy showing you up as you are, fool and Nazi-parrot.

Best,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Thu Jul 30 18:39:59 EDT 1998
Article: 194727 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.mideast,t

alk.politics.misc,alt.revisionism
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!falcon.america.net!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!wesley

.videotron.net!Pollux.Teleglobe.net!uunet!in4.uu.net!world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: Green’s Dresden doubts
Message-ID:
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
References: <[email protected]>

<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 05:12:26 GMT
Lines: 358
Xref: trends.ca alt.conspiracy:288163 talk.politics.mideast:69721

talk.politics.misc:661297 alt.revisionism:194727

In article <[email protected]>,
ASMarques wrote:
>Richard J Green wrote:
>>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> ASMarques wrote:
>> >Mike Curtis wrote:
>> >>
>> >> What evidence do you have that Dresden was bombed? We are going to use
>> >> the same requirements you put on the Holocaust. Ready?
>> >
>> >Okay.
>> >
>> >1) Documentation:
>> >
>> >Dresden – Piles of clear documents in Bomber Command and the USAAF (for
>> >instance), government documentation, official Allied historians attest
>> >to it under no compulsion to do so, etc.
>>
>> Obviously forgeries.
>
>Not at all. Let’s try to make this understandable to you. I’ll try to
>speak slowly.
>
>Scientific inquiry and the systematic doubt that should always be
>present do *not* require doubting every possible fact in an *equal way*.
>Judgement must be exercised at all times. This is the golden rule of
>rationality, without which you cannot reason or maintain a coherent
>discourse.
>
>For instance, Dresden forgeries are indeed possible (maybe the civil
>defence documents are indeed forgeries). However, if so then the
>forgeries would have been made on all sides. This is a powerful
>difference. The equivalent would have to be piles of both Allied and
>German documents on all levels detailing everything about the
>”Holocaust”. This is not the case. The Allies are supposed to have
>ignored all the gas chambering, and the Germans are supposed to have
>hidden it by avoiding any paper trails, etc.

Please present citations for these supposed documents on both sides that
supposedly prove Dresden. So far, you have not done so; perhaps, they
do not exist.
>
>The difference is documentation exists in overwhelming profusion on
>Dresden, and in extremely small ammounts, conspicuosly suspect on the
>”Holocaust”. These include, for instance, the “confessions” at odds
>with all possible facts writen under Alllied custody like the Hoess one
>by people who shortly after that met their deaths in prison in obscure
>ways (Ziereis, Gerstein, etc).
>

Please present citations for these supposed documents on both sides that
supposedly prove Dresden. So far, you have not done so; perhaps, they
do not exist.

[snip]

>> Since when is a firestorm a conventional weapon.
>
>True and an excellent point if I had claimed a firestorm is a
>conventional weapon, but — alas – I didn’t, sorry about that.
>
>The firestorm (your choice of words) is the *result* of the conventional
>weapons for whose existence and efficiency there is excellent evidence.
>See the difference ? The killing is by phosphorous bombs (not an unusual
>way of mass murder in modern warfare) instead of the unique historical
>killing devices known as commercial pesticide pellets, water
>electrocution chambers, Diesel fumes, “salts” and “white powders”. It’s
>a little less odd, I’m sure you’ll agree, and the required proof
>standards ought to be maybe a trifle less rigorous. Your scientific
>background as a chemist will no doubt help you understand this.

No, you are claiming that a conventional weapon was unconventional.
Seems like a contradiction to me. BTW- do you mean to claim that Zyklon
pellets do not exist? Do you deny that HCN can kill?

>
>> You hoaxers cannot
>> keep your stories straight.
>
>My compliments. Again an excellent point if indeed you would be able to
>show the Dresden firebombing story was a skewed one. Let’s wait till you
>do. Would be wonderful if I was saying Dresden was bombed with pianos or
>quicklime, for instance. That would be the equivalent of the Zyklon B
>and water electrocution mass slaughterhouses and the magic crematories.
>Would be very odd indeed. But no, they just droped bombs. It was as if
>the “Holocaust” had been as all other holocausts: shoot, dump, shoot,
>dump. It was just “bombs away” with no more ado in Dresden.

Here we have Mr. Marques claiming Dresden was bombed with quicklime.
That is clearly impossible. As a “revisionist scholar” I am allowed to
misconstrue what my opponents say. If they point out the tactic, it is
censorship.

>> [snip]
>
>I noticed, thank you.
>
>> >3) Vestigial crime proofs:
>> >
>> >Dresden – One completely destroyed city (all the photos you might wish
>> >for in the German provincial and city archives of Dresden, plans for the
>> >reconstruction, all the paperwork the said reconstruction implies, etc).
>> >If you doubt their existence, try visiting the Dresden state archives
>> >and ask for them.
>>
>> Where is this supposed archive? Give their e-mail address.
>
>I didn’t put it in the singular, you did. But sorry, I’m not the
>Internet yellow pages. They will inform you at the Dresden City Hall or
>indeed at any one of the German historical archives. Would you say they
>would show me a *single photo* of a mass water electrocution or Zyklon
>gassing at, say, the Yad Vashem ? That would be great !

Mr. Marques expects us to believe him on faith. He presents absolutely
no evidence.

I note again that he intentionally obfuscates the legitimate process of
history. He cannot show a single serious historian who claims that
“mass water electrocution” occurred. The fact that people sometimes
make false statements does not prove that all statements are false.
My reasoning is every bit as good as Marques.

For example. My parents lied to me about the tooth fairy. They also
told me that Dresden happened. Clearly, they must have been lying about
that too.
>
>> [snip]
>
>I noticed, thank you.
>
>> >4) Witnesses of the crime:
>> >
>> >Dresden – They all tell the same story. The suffocating heath, the
>> >violent winds, the living incineration (lots of photos of charred
>> >bodies, though not very common in the media).
>>
>> Why don’t you post some of these testimonies and we’ll see if they all
>> tell the same story.
>
>Because it wouldn’t prove a thing. I might be chosing similar
>testimonies, don’t you agree ? More to the point, this is something you
>must discover for yourself if you’re interested in becoming a Dresden
>firebombing doubter. Certainly you’ll have a long and difficult task
>ahead of you. Me, I chose the easy way: I became a “Holocaust”
>revisionist denier even if I didn’t ask for any “isms” ! It’s really
>easy, the whole holo-contraption is falling apart. . .

Because Mr. Marques says so; yet he can post no testimonies of Dresden
and we are to believe it happened.
>
>There isn’t any unusual standard of consistency about any Dresden
>testimony, please note. It’s rather the opposite. Dresden testimony is
>on the usual level of consistency. ”

Evidence? Do you expect me to take this on faith?

>Holocaust” testimony, on the other
>hand, is — shall we say — slightly inconsistent. Let’s say about a
>million different stories, strong on the sensational sex side etc. No
>two witnesses put the gas chambers in the same place. Most say they saw
>fantastic flames shooting skywards from the crematoria chimneys
>(cremation produces no flame and *very little* smoke; go to your local
>cemetery and observe this for yourself; it was even more so in the 40s
>with the coke ovens).

I see; so we should compare modern cremation with respect for the dead
to the cremation in the camps. Likewise we should compare Dresden’s
fire to my barbecue. Dresden was supposed to kill people by starving
them of oxygen. My barbecue _never_ does that!

>
>> [snip]
>
>I noticed. Thank you.
>
>> >5) The location of the crime:
>> >
>> >Dresden – It’s Dresden since 1945.
>>
>> What is the name of the country in which Dresden resides? It seems to
>> have changed a couple of times since 1945.
>
>What’s the relevance ? Are you implying the only reason the gas chambers
>have been constantly jumping around is because the names of the
>countries changed ?

In other words, you cannot agree on what country Dresden is in.
Kremas I-V have not jumped around; bunker 11 has not jumped around.
I am using the very same type of reasoning that you do and you cannot
refute it, Nazi-boy.
>
>What I’m asking is why do the gas chambers constantly change their
>*physical* location, not why do any fixed locations change their
>national or administrative residence. See the difference ? Try again
>with a little effort.

Where was Krema II in 1948, 1965, 1983, and 1997? Please demonstrate
that it has moved.

You may make some specious claim about an individual chamber or two, but
you are ignoring the legitimate process of history.

Please demonstrate that Hilberg, Gilbert, or Piper has located a gas
chamber in a place where there is no longer consensus that it is
located.
>
>It was gas chambers in Dachau and Belsen at first, then it was only in

See Harry Mazal’s excellent essay on the very real gas chamber at Dachau
at
http://holocaust-history.org

Whether this gas chamber was ever actually used, I do not know, but
there is some evidence for its use.

>the big six camps in Poland, then the enormous Auschwitz monstruosity
>almost alone, then suddenly the big six again plus a host of “small”
>amateurish gas chambers in the West, then several of the six began
>vanishing and the Maly Trostinets and Riga “extermination” camps took
>their place, then a little here and a little there all over the place.
>See what I mean ?

Yes, you are lying about history. Legitimate historians never
attributed most of the deaths to Auschwitz almost alone.
You ought to know better than to try that one.

https://nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/four-million-01.html
>
>It’s not “Hey, they said Auschwitz was in Germany, and now they say
>Oscwiezim is in Poland”. Do try a little more sophistication, please.

On the contrary, deniers use exactly that kind of reasoning along with
misinterpreting intentionally the claim that there were no extermination
camps on German soil. It’s _exactly_ the same game and you cannot beat
it when applied to Dresden.

>
>6) The number of victims:
>> >
>> >Dresden – Normal nethods have been used for establishing the number of
>> >victims, though this is still a politically sensitive issue. Documents
>> >from the local police indicate something between 200.000 and 250.000 and
>> >this looks like a reasonable number given the population + refugees. The
>> >number is not precisely known but it doesn’t need to be revised every
>> >three months either.
>>
>> Most accurate estimates (Cf. Gilbert _the Second World War_) put the
>> victims at about 35, 000. You’ve inflated that figure by a factor of
>> 6-8.
>
>Well, it’s quite possible I did inflate, but why would Gilbert’s be the
>most accurate estimate ? Have you studied his methods ? Did it come to
>him in a dream ? This is indeed where the discussion ought to begin. I
>explicitly stated “this looks like a reasonable number given the
>population + refugees. The number is not precisely known but it doesn’t
>need to be revised every three months either”. What I meant was the
>*way* one reaches any conclusion or indeed revises any previous
>conclusion, is the normal one. It’s not necessary to ask any priesthood
>of the 6 million oracle. It’s the *method*, not the *number*, see ?

No. have shown a number that is significantly different than yours.
Last week 250,000, this week 35,000 next week 170. The Dresden hoax is
diminishing.

Deniers do not address Hilberg’s method, or Gilbert’s method either.
That the numbers are different is sufficient by revisionist method
(tm).
>
I gave a cite for Gilbert. Learn to read and you can trace his methods.

>I readily agree with you no magic 6 million number exists for Dresden.
>My choice of the 200.000-250.000 number is by no means definitive. It’s
>based on the “Tagesbefehel nr. 47″ document dated Dresden 22.3.45 from
>”Der hoehere Polizei-und SS-fuehrer, Der Befehlshaber der
>Ordnungspolizei”, which I didn’t see contested yet. It reports the
>number of dead so far (one month after the bombing) as 202.040 and puts
>final expectations as 250.000. Is it a document open to inquiry and
>investigation ? Of course it is ! Indeed it may well be false. No dogmas

On the contrary, you resist the smaller numbers by insisting on other
sources. Historians disagree; therefore the event did not happen.

I’ll remind you that Reitlinger estimated 4.8 million victims of the
final solution, Hilberg 5.1 million, and Gilbert 5.7 million. No dogmas
exist. No one calls Reitlinger or Hilberg Holocaust-deniers. That’s
because they rely on legitimate evidence for their claims unlike you.
>
>> [snip]
>
>I noticed, thank you. Here you forgot the following (tell me whether you
>agree or not):
> 😉
>
>7) The investigation of the crime:
>
>Dresden – If you have any doubts about the fire bombing of Dresden you
>will be considered simply as an inoffensive eccentric. Nobody is
>extracting money via the miserable wartime episode, no political or
>religious causes depend on it, no special laws are needed to avoid
>”Dresden denial”. Truth does not require special laws in order to
>prevail.
>
>Holocaust – If you have any doubts about the amazing gas behemots you
>will be considered public ennemy number one and at least a son of Satan
>himself. In most countries of the European Union “Holocaust” denial
>censorship exists (it’s being put in place in the remaining ones). A lot
>of *powerful* people and organizations (and not only old innocent
>”survivors”) exploit the “Shoa-business”. Political and religious causes
>depend on it for survival. More and more special laws will be needed to
>avoid “Holocaust” denial because lies cannot stand on their own feet.

My opposition to censorship is well known. I agree that you have the
right to lie. The fact that some would improperly censor your lies does
not make them into truths. They are still lies.

>
>8) Conclusion:
>
>> >The Dresden fire bombing was a true war crime.
>> >
>> >The “Holocaust” was the biggest political hoax of all time.
>>
>> On the contrary, using “revisionist methodology” it is possible to
>> disprove any event, Nazi-boy.
>
>Hmmm. Let me give you a piece of advice. The silly “nazi-boy” thing is
>entirely counter-productive. It doesn’t help your case, it doesn’t make
>you look bold or brave (quite on the contrary, since we are not even
>within eyesight of each other), and it does tend to show your lack of
>intellectual amunition, even though you don’t sound stupid at all (must
>be the “Holocaust” lost cause, not you, I guess).

Whatever you say Nazi-boy. I guess you are not proud of your friends
and cohorts, e.g., the antisemite Giwer.
>
>> Best,
>
>Always a pleasure. How’s the Ida Bell hotspring ?
>
>ASMarques

Best,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Thu Jul 30 18:39:59 EDT 1998
Article: 194871 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.white-power,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!news.eecs.umich.edu!newsfeed.ecrc.net!

newsfeed.nyu.edu!wesley.videotron.net!Pollux.Teleglobe.net!

uunet!in2.uu.net!world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: Debunking the Holohoax: Prussian Blue
Message-ID:
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
References: <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 02:53:06 GMT
Lines: 43
Xref: trends.ca alt.revisionism:194871 alt.politics.white-power:135181 alt.skinheads:93110 alt.politics.nationalism.white:104417

Greetings,

Actually, Prussian Blue does not always form as I will demonstrate by
referencing Rudolf’s own source in the near future.

In the meantime:

Markiewicz, Gubala, and Labedz of the Institute of Forensic Research,
Crakow, demonstrated that HCN was present in the homicidal gas chambers at
levels above background.

I quote from their paper available at:

https://nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/

From [email protected] Thu Jul 30 18:40:00 EDT 1998
Article: 194872 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!nntp-out.monmouth.com!

newspeer.monmouth.com!

news2.ais.net!jamie!ais.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: Green’s Dresden doubts
Message-ID:
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
References: <[email protected]>

<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 03:03:11 GMT
Lines: 38
Xref: trends.ca alt.revisionism:194872

In article <[email protected]>,
Richard Schultz wrote:
>Richard J Green ([email protected]) wrote:
>
>: Please present citations for these supposed documents on both sides that
>: supposedly prove Dresden. So far, you have not done so; perhaps, they
>: do not exist.
>
>How could “documents” be used to prove the bombing of Dresden? I have
>given Mr. Cuddles a list of what we need, and what we need is physical
>evidence. I even cut Mr. Cuddles a break — I’m willing to accept
>for the sake of argument that Dresden was not in ruins prior to the
>start of World War II. As I explained to Mr. Cuddles, given the nature
>of armed forces, propaganda, and politics, I find it much more reasonable
>to assume that the Allied Air Forces, rather than admit to their
>incompetence and inability to hit any target at which they were aiming
>(as extensively documented in _Catch-22_), picked a city that was
>already destroyed from other causes and made false and fraudulent claims
>”see that massive destruction — we did that” in order to save face and
>to avoid having to explain just what did happen to all of that
>ordnance anyway.

To be sure to meet “revisionist standards” tm it is necessary to post
physical evidence (not just forged photos and claims that physical
evidence exists, but actual physical evidence.) Yet, Mr. Marques cannot
even cite testimony or documents yet claims that “tons” of such material
exists.

Everyone knows that combustion itself is physically impossible.

Best,

Rich Green
—
————————————————————————-
Richard J. Green http://holocaust-history.org
[email protected] http://world.std.com/~rjg/exposing-denial.html
http://world.std.com/~rjg

From [email protected] Thu Jul 30 18:40:00 EDT 1998
Article: 195121 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.revisionism,

talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!

uunet!in1.uu.net!world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: JEWS MUST UNITE TO COMBAT THE MUSLIMS AND NAZI SCUM
Message-ID:
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 00:42:14 GMT
Lines: 25
Xref: trends.ca alt.politics.libertarian:301401 alt.revisionism:195121 talk.politics.libertarian:303822 talk.politics.misc:662539

In article <[email protected]>,
Hansjoerg Walther wrote:

>I can’t see how arms in the hands of Jews could have hurt them. It could
>have been useless if they had been tricked into surrendering them or not
>fighting, it could have made some difference, and it might even have made a
>considerable difference.

Well, it could have been used as a pretext to kill them. In the Ottoman
Empire, Armenians in general were armed, not with much, outdated weapons
without a lot of firepower. Still Ittihad used that as an excuse to
murder them.

Of course, if your’re going to die either way, maybe it’s just as well
to go out fighting.

Best,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Fri Jul 31 15:54:02 EDT 1998
Article: 195418 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.mideast,talk.politics.misc,alt.revisionism
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!newsfeed.torontointernetxchange.net!

island.idirect.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!199.0.154.208!

news2.ais.net!ameritech.ais.net!jamie!ais.net!ameritech.net!uunet!

in1.uu.net!world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: Green’s Hiroshima doubts
Message-ID:
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 02:31:39 GMT
Lines: 846
Xref: trends.ca alt.conspiracy:288976 talk.politics.mideast:

69893 talk.politics.misc:663493 alt.revisionism:195418

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

[snip]

>> >Of course they don’t. The Japanese aren’t getting any ! But the Jews
>> >are. I was just pointing that out as an interesting side matter.
>>
>> Liar, I am a Jew and I receive no reparations.
>
>Do I detect a complaint ? I hope not. After one sees Mr. Rabbi Marvin
>Hier on TV claiming the Jews were thrown by the Swiss in terrible camps
>with big dogs that *ate them* (sic), one never knows what will come
>next…

Is this the quality of content you promised us? You lied; I pointed it
out.

>> >> An atom is an indivisible
>> >> particle.
>> >
>> >”Particle” means a little piece. What is the little piece a piece of,
>> >Mr. Chemist ?
>> >
>> >> Therefore atoms cannot be split.
>> >
>> >No. Therefore “atom” is an imaginary conceptual way of speaking about
>> >”matter”. There are no atoms other than the atoms in the ontological
>> >experimental context in which they are fabricated. You should be
>> >speaking about atomic *events* in the global event we call the
>> >experiment, etc.
>>
>> Reread Lucretius, hoaxer! He claims that atoms are the smallest
>> possible particles. You cannot have a part of an atom. You hoaxers
>> keep changing the definition. The fact that you are also ignorant of
>> the modern understanding shows nothing.
>
>Hmmm.. You’re talking about the smallest possible pieces of *something*,
>without telling us what’s the nature of the something you’re breaking in
>pieces. Rephrase your query and you may get an answer.

I refer you to Lucretius. If you are unable to read the literature on
the topic, it is not my fault.

>> I point out also, that you cannot make a fission bomb with U238 and that
>> plutonium is not a naturally occurring element. That rules out Uranium
>> and Plutonium for you so-called fission bomb.
>
>No problem since the material for the Hiroshima bomb was U235, and you
>don’t doubt Nagasaki.

And where does this supposed U235 come from? I suppose you will give us
the usual story of using Graham’s Law of Effusion to separate different
isotopes of uranium in uranium hexafluoride. I note that the inverse
ration of the square roots of the masses is negligible and that anyway
the common story does not address the existence of other isomers of
fluorine. Clearly this is a bunch of fiction. It is not possible to
separate U235 from U238.

Of course I doubt Nagasaki. It is supposed to have taken place with the
element “plutonium.” There is no such natural element. I refer you to
Dalton’s atomic theory which says that atoms cannot be created or
destroyed but that only their arrangement can be changed.

>> It’s physically impossible.
>
>What seems nearly impossible is the degree of silliness you reach in
>your attempt to show that once the “Holocaust” is questioned, all truth
>becomes equally indifferent to you and you opt for intellectual
>retirement from the cruel World. This is religious angst, not reason at
>work.

On the contrary, my arguments are every bit as good as those of your
Nazi heroes.

>> Next thing you’ll be claiming that nuclear reactions do not
>> conserve mass when we all know that conservation of mass is a LAW.
>
>Same.

Evasion noted! I point out that the atomic bomb story violates a LAW of
nature and you merely evade the question. Give it up, splitting the
atom is a myth.

>
>> >Profound philosophical/scientific concepts, however, are not needed to
>> >disbelieve the gas chambers. They are on the “square triangle” level,
>> >rather than on the “mysterious link between consciousness, causality and
>> >quantum results”. Unless, of course, you’ll next claim all the gas
>> >chambers existed but in different alternative universes…
>>
>> You are speaking gibberish. What is the mysterious link between
>> consciousness and causality and quantum results, ignorant one (this
>> ought to be interesting…:-)
>
>So it seems. 🙂
>
>It goes more or less like this: if you want mutually contradictory
>holocausts to co-exist in a mysterious profitable limbo you must not
>look. Once you do, you’ll be stuck with one of them and will have to
>abandon all the others. It’s called the collapse of the confusion wave.

You have no clue what you are babbling about. Perhaps, you’d be so good
as to explain what collapsing a wavefunction has to do with splitting an
atom. Of course, you’d have to know what a wavefunction is first.

>> >> You people keep changing
>> >> what you mean by atoms.
>> >
>> >Here we go: “since human knowledge is not complete, the gas chambers
>> >exist”. Okay, but why not “since human knowledge is not complete, the
>> >moon is inhabited by penguins” ?
>>
>> You just put words in my mouth and responded; that’s called a strawman,
>> nazi-boy.
>
>I know. I believe you’re one and I find this exchange amusing.

It demonstrates that you are incapable of addressing the content of an
argument. Your entire post consists of asserting that I made claims
that I never made, evading rational discourse, and engaging in
personality issues. The fact remains that you cannot demonstrate the
existence of an atom bomb to the same standard that you demand for the
Holocaust.
>
>> >I mean you don’t prove your points by successive “negatives”. Please
>> >state why the “Holocaust gas chambers” seem true to you, if you have
>> >stopped believing in the concept of “truth” itself ?
>>
>> We have testimony, missing Jews, physical evidence and in general a
>> convergence of all the evidence.
>
>Not at all. The “evidence” is not only flimsy and divergent, but you can
>even understand how it got to be so, i.e. you can understand the reasons
>for its being flimsy and divergent, exactly as you understand the
>evidence for witchcraft or intercourse with the devil being similarly
>invalid, in spite of testimony, missing children, claimed physical
>evidence, confessions, etc.

Because you say so!

>That sort of incoherent “evidence” is the usual result of
>”investigation” through rigged trials under conditions of religious or
>political mass hysteria.

The same kind of evidence that is given for the existence of the moon,
the atomic bomb and the bombing of Dresden. You cannot demonstrate the
existence of those things/events to the same standard.

>> The same as for the moon, atomic
>> weapons, the Hiroshima bombing etc.
>
>No. The same as for intellectual bankrupcy and a childish retreat into
>blanket denial of everything but one’s own religious navel.

Evasion noted. You provide no substantiation for this claim.

>
>> See for more detail:
>>
>> http://holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/
>> >
>> >> You cannot post physical evidence.
>> [of the bombing of Hiroshima]
>>
>> >Let’s see if I can explain this to you. You cannot post evidence in the
>> >*material* sense you wish. You can only post words. However you can post
>> >words that lead you to the evidence and you can post words that lead you
>> >to the holo-Wonderland.
>>
>> In other words, Mr. Marques admits that he can post no physical evidence
>> that Hiroshima was bombed.
>
>Mr. Green, were you expecting radioactive Japanese meat would start
>oozing from your monitor? You should resort to Mr. Spielberg at Holowood
>for that sort of special effect.

In other words, Mr. Marques admits that he can post no physical evidence
that Hiroshima was bombed. He fails the “revisionist” challenge. Like
Mr. Phillips, I demand physical evidence.

>> >My words are: “Look for the evidence by asking the prefecture and city
>> >of Hiroshima for it.
>>
>> Prove they aren’t lying.
>
>I don’t think they will claim miraculous events, and the story they’ll
>tell you and the evidence they — and everybody else around — will show
>you, will have a very strong consistency indeed. Of course you and only
>you, will be the judge of your own beliefs. Should you prefer to believe
>in mass abductions by Spielberg’s ETs, you’ll find a lot of witnesses,
>but their testimony will be more on the “Holocaust” level.

Provide citations for your “accurate” Hiroshima testimony. Let’s see
how accurate this testimony is. Post some right here.
>
>I guarantee you the Hiroshima consistency will be on an altogether
>different level from the gas/steam/diesel/electrocuting chambers that
>change their location every couple of years, the human saponification,
>the general holocaustic head-shrinking and human skin lady hand-bagging
>etc, on account of which people were hanged and *some* people (I mean
>the active organised few, not the passive many that no longer know any
>better than going along) are now — in 1998 ! — claiming the right to
>blackmail the entire World for a few years more…

So post some of this testimony and let’s see, or do you just assert it
exists despite the fact that you’ve never read it yourself, hoaxer?
>
>> >You’ll find tons and tons of documents
>> >(photographic among others) about the destruction and reconstruction of
>> >the city at all levels (the Japanese are very good at this).
>>
>> Prove they are not forgeries.
>
>No proof from me will ever excuse you from looking into it, if you have
>doubts. You should not expect others to do your work for you. By all
>means start investigating and I don’t think anyone will ever attempt to
>hide anything from you or outlaw your views. If you find out you cannot
>believe in the Hiroshima bombing, it will be fine with me, and you’ll be
>looked upon as simply another inoffensive eccentric. No problem at all;
>the Hiroshima survivors will laugh you away, instead of hysterically
>claiming you are a menace to them.

So you say. I’m looking for evidence not empty speculation.
Apparently, you can provide no evidence. You fail the revisionist
challenge.

>You see, the Japanese don’t hold up other nations for money and power,
>nor do they attempt to blackmail all the rest of mankind for ever
>through the Hiroshima bombing. They buried their dead and went on
>living. This is what the powerful Jewish organisations will not
>tolerate, and they won’t change this attitude while there is little
>visible Jewish resentment over their conduct (I’m glad to say I’ve met
>some vestiges of this, though). You should try to learn something, every
>now and then, for your own benefit. I think the end result if this goes
>on, will be disaster for everybody.

Evasion noted. Mr. Marques can post no physical evidence; he can post
no documentary evidence; he can post no testimonial evidence.
>
>> >Then do the
>> >same in the US Department of Defense and you’ll find more tons of
>> >evidence (so are the American Armed Forces)”.
>>
>> If there are “tons” of evidence, i am sure that you can present at least
>> a dozen or so citations of such evidence held by DoD. Please do so.
>> Of course you will come up with something about the Enola Gay, a plane
>> that never existed.
>
>Hmmm. Let’s see if I manage to at least teach you something about
>vanishing evidence.
>
>I have no reason to doubt the existence of the Enola Gay (this will be
>the line kept by Nizkor when they affix your smart-ass challenges
>without my replies, as they are doing in the world famous “Richard Green
>files” over there).

In other words, you can post no evidence that this supposed Enola Gay
existed.

>Indeed I’ve seen the Enola Gay in photos that agree quite well with all
>the other consistent evidence around the bombing of Hiroshima.

Post this photo and demonstrate that it is authentic.

>The whole
>thing starting with Szilard, Einstein, and the letter to Roosevelt,
>through the Manhatan Project and Alamogordo.

>through the Manhatan Project and Alamogordo. Even though it was a

Post this letter and demonstrate its authenticity.

Even though it was a
>top-secret project, they weren’t communicating by nudging and
>eye-winking and silent nods, and they did leave all the official
>paperwork trails one would expect. Also a clear chain of causality to
>individual actions will be there: you’ll find that the testimonial
>diaries, the memoirs, and the profuse official records agree with the
>overall picture to a high degree of accuracy and consistency.

Ah, yes a project that was supposedly top-secret yet which was also
supposedly employed an enemy alien (Enrico Fermi) and was supposedly
discussed with a Niels Bohr openly. these stories seem a bit
inconsistent wouldn’t you say?

>Then you have the discussion of the final decision, and this seems to be
>highly consistent too. Truman, and most of the remaining people involved
>in the top-level reunions, voluntarily contributed their versions
>without going through interrogation by Japanese kempetai agents and
>subsequent rigged show-trials in Japan, and, in spite of that, their
>versions are consistent too.

Right, the story that a President of the United States did not know of
such a weapon. What a ridiculous fairy tale.

Post evidence that these versions were consistent. Post the accounts
right here and let’s compare them.

>Then comes the operational part of the wondrous deed. U.S. Navy and Army
>historical archives will furnish you — if you want to go to all the
>trouble, which I obviously won’t

Because you know that I will be able to show that your archives are
absurd, contradictory, physically impossible, and deceitful.

You cannot demonstrate the truth of an historical event that you believe
to be true to the standard that you demand for the holocaust. You’ve
been exposed for the fraud that you are.

>, unless perhaps you give me some real
>indication that will set me suspecting a Hiroshima hoax was on — with
>consistent material about the trip of the Indianapolis carrying the
>bomb, the technical and historical detailed data of the Enola Gay
>mission (both from the higher level military command and the base unit
>at Guam), the consistent biography of Col. Tibbets who didn’t commit
>suicide in prison after confessing to having bombed Nagoya with
>radioactive cans of Potassium 832, and so on. You will also find his
>post-war voluntary impressions of how he felt about the episode, given
>to newspapers under no apparent pressure and for no apparent gain, etc.

Citations? Evidence that there was not torture? Let’s examine these
impressions and see how plausible they are. Please post them here.
>
>Then you will have the main body of evidence — once more entirely
>consistent with what preceded. You will have *both* the Japanese and the
>American official materials about the destruction and the reconstruction
>of the city: it was *never* supposed possible to keep it a secret, and
>no measures were taken to “erase the episode from history” since this
>was impossible. Apparently only the Nazis could think of exterminating a
>vast population — worse than that, an entire race — while keeping the
>whole thing a “nudge, nudge, wink, wink” secret, in the hope nobody
>would notice and everybody would forget the previous historical
>existence of the Jews.

Post this supposed material. Your assertion that it exists is not good
enough. Like the “revisionist scholars” that you esteem so highly, I
demand proof.
>
>Of course, I have not gone through the exhaustive Hiroshima
>documentation that I mentioned and believe exists on all levels. Why
>didn’t I ?

Because it does not exist.

>Because I didn’t see any reason to do it, no obvious
>inconsistency, no visible distortion of facts or scientific law, no
>attempt at opinion control through rigged show-trials and the extension
>of war propaganda into peacetime, no cynical attempt to transform the
>agony of the victims into a device for money-making and political
>profit, susceptible of creating entrenched interests in hiding truth
>away from view.

Evasion noted.

>
>Why, will you ask, do I then believe in the Hiroshima bombing and not in
>the gas chambers of the “Holocaust”? And here is the answer to your
>question in a concise form, in case you haven’t been following me:
>
>******* ANSWER TO MR: GREEN *******
>
>1) The evidence for the Hiroshima bomb is *EXTREMELY* consistent on the
>surface, and I have no reason to think it is not convincing in depth if
>one delves into it.

You have yet to demonstrate that claim. All we have is your assertions.

>
>2) The evidence for the “Holocaust” is *EXTREMELY* contradictory on the
>surface, and indeed little more than a mishmash of absurdities at all
>levels once you lift the thin veil hiding this.

You have not shown that it is more absurd than any other historical
event. I am asking you to do so. All you have done is evade and
assert.

>
>3) To understand 2) it will not be enough for you to browse through
>Lipstadt’s ignorant ramblings about the foreign revisionist devils or
>Nizkor’s effort to press back into service every shrunken head with
>shoulder length hair (this was apparently the fashion among the hippies
>strolling about in the concentration camps…). You will have to go to
>the trouble of actually reading a vast — but practically
>clandestine — existing body of hard to find serious revisionist
>historical investigation.

In other words, the best you can do is to misrepresent the views of Ken
McVay and Deborah Lipstadt and that is supposed to prove the nonexistence
of a historical event or at least fool the gullible.

>
>**************************************
>
>What motivates belief or disbelief in a rational person is simply the
>degree of consistency of the evidence. If you would care to present to
>the World your analysis of the Hiroshima episode as, say, just a public
>relations stunt directed at intimidating the USSR, *and* your evidence
>for this was any good, I would be glad to look into it. You might turn
>out to be the Faurisson of the Hiroshima Cold War hoax!

You have yet to show the existence of such consistency for any
historical event that you believe. You are engaging in empty
assertion.

>Unfortunately for you, this is not what happens. For you make it quite
>clear that you do not doubt any Hiroshima bombing. Indeed you use it as
>an exemplary iron paradigm of reality, established beyond any reasonable
>doubt. What you are saying is “convince me that this obviously real
>event is real”. Then you take a childish pleasure in showing no one will
>possibly prove he has convinced you of anything, as long as you are able
>to say “Nah, I don’t believe in that”.

I use precisely the tactics that deniers use. They refuse to believe in
an a historical event. No matter what evidence is presented, they will
demand more. No matter what documents are provided, they argue that
they are forged or do not say what they clearly say. They operate on
the public’s ignorance of history and science to make what is true seem
implausible, just as I can make fission seem implausible based on
“facts” known to the public. You cannot prove the existence of a
historical event that you believe to be real to the same standard that
you demand for the Final Solution. All you have done is evade my
arguments; why not try addressing them?

>You do not ask for reason or common sense. You ask for the suspension of
>both, in order to spare your dear “Holocaust” from going into the
>dust-bin of history where it belongs.

On the contrary, I ask you to prove a historical event to the same
absurd standards that “revisionist scholars” demand. You failed and in
so doing demonstrate the bankruptcy of your position.
>
>> >Your words are: “Here is some gas chambers marked “morgues” in all the
>> >German documentation, but the markings were wrong, here is some Jewish
>> >human soap,
>>
>> Liar, those are not my words. Please present evidence that I have ever
>> claimed that soap made of Jews exists. The best that you can do is to
>> lie about my words.
>
>I’m afraid your effort at avoiding reality at all costs is having some
>unexpected side-effects on your memory. If you’ll care to look some
>paragraphs below, you’ll see you yourself gave me one of those Nizkor
>URLs where it is claimed that the Germans were “experimenting” with
>human soap-making. And you keep a similar sort of “experimental”
>nonsense in your own personal site as an attempt to resurrect the Dachau
>gas chamber. You see, it’s always the same method. Once some idiotic
>holo-claim is proved wrong, it will enter the “just some experiments”
>phase.

Yes, now compare that URL with the your words above. The article does
not claim that _any_ soap was made from Jews. In fact, it indicates
that the people experimented upon were probably not Jews. It does not
say that the experiment was successful and it does not say that any such
soap exists. Yet, you dishonestly twist this into the claim that Jewish
soap exists. You lied and you were caught.

Additionally, the URL explicitly claims that the RIF story was a false
wartime rumour.

https://nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/soap-01.html
>
>Hilse Koch’s lampshades? Oh, they were false (goatskin according to Gen.
>Lucius Clay), but — lo! — an entire set of tanned human skin with
>tattoos (some of them bloated away probably to avoid their
>identification in time) and a couple of South-American shrunken heads
>”were found” at Buchenwald (never mind their shoulder-length hair: these
>particular Jivaros were Polish hippies !) And — by golly! — another
>shrunken head at *Dachau*, just to prove they all kept their little
>playthings around in all the camps!

I suggest you read the URL I gave you that agrees with your claim about
Clay. Yet, you dishonestly, claim that the author is trying to deceive
about the human ornaments:

https://nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/clay-koch-01.html

or maybe

https://nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/clay-koch.html

>Dachau gas chamber ? Well, it used to be the big thing. Many Americans
>will remember seeing the false showerheads and the heavy door to the gas
>chamber trumpeted along in the movies. Then it was gone and forgotten,
>but — lo!– there really was a gas chamber that was never used (!)
>unless it was really used but just for the duration of a few
>”experimental” tiny gassings. What a gas, Mr. Green ! The Germans have
>this gas chamber ready for service — false showers and all — and yet
>they prefer to jam the wartime railroad traffic to take their western
>victims to the Polish gas chambers ! Then they surrender Dachau and
>forget to dismantle the false showerheads, even though they are supposed
>to have completely erased all traces of the Eastern gas chambers at
>Belzec, Sobibor etc and even rooted out the buildings themselves. If
>they didn’t forget to dismantle the false showerheads of the gas chamber
>at Dachau that didn’t function, then someone else put them in place,
>since they can still be seen there.

Instead of talking out of your ass, why do you not address the evidence
presented by Harry Mazal OBE at http://holocaust-history.org

>And the same with your own idiotic “experimental” human soap. It used to
>be the big thing in World War One. Then, for World War Two, the human
>saponification myth grew into Wiesenthal’s industrial RIF soap made from
>Pure Jewish Fat, as he puts it. Then the soap started melting. But —
>lo! — there really was some “experimenting”. And just to make sure, the
>”experimenting” was double, like the Jivaro shrunken heads of Dachau and
>Buchenwald! At Nuremberg it’s Prof. Spannen human soap laboratory, and
>then at the deposition of Konrad Morgen it’s Oskar Dirlewanger himself
>that cuts the Jews into tiny little bits and tries to make soap in a
>cauldron for the German War effort while he camps on the ruins of Warsaw
>with his tired troops. Then comes Mr. Green, the professional chemist,
>and he gives me the URL to his own favorite “experimental” human soap…

You lied and you were caught. There is evidence that small scale
experiments were performed. Why do you not address the evidence?
I thought you promised us content. You have no content.

>
>You should be ashamed of yourself, human soap peddler.

Liar.

>
>> >here is some golden teeth because all the bodies were
>> >vaporized by being burned in deep ground pits full of water, and here is
>> >some speeches in which people talked about ausrotten”.
>>
>> You’ve got it backwards, old son. Those examples are brought up by
>> Nazis like you and refuted by people like me. I thought that by now you
>> would be embarrassed to discuss Ausrotten, btw, after you were shown up
>> for such a fool in alt.revisionism.
>
>The main discussion was not at alt.revisionism, dummy. Alt.revisionism
>is where I fish out the holohuggers when I need them. If you want to see
>the real discussion go to alt.conspiracy or soc.culture.german, for
>instance. And if you want to participate in a real discussion without
>the constant name-calling, and marginal character assassinations most of
>you attempt whenever they have the opportunity, go to the CODOH message
>board:
>
>http://www.codoh.com/bbs/

Or, if you want accurate information go to

http://holocaust-history.org

Home

http://world.std.com/~rjg/exposing-denial/
>
>> >Are we playing rotten games, Mr. Chemist ? Do you sell snake elixir too
>> >? I’ve seen your site, and I think you do. Only interesting thing in
>> >there is the blonde in the hot tube.
>>
>> I cannot make sense of what you are trying to say here.
>
>I’m saying your gas chambers are not worth the visit, in case you didn’t
>get the message. One might as well go to the Auschwitz or Dachau
>museums. They are on the whole more honest than a knowledgeable chemist
>trying to erase the catastrophic *first* Cracow Report on the Auschwitz
>gas chambers that confirmed Leuchter & Faurisson, with the expeditious
>second report devised as a transparent attempt to repair the damage by
>”factoring out” the cyanide compounds of the blue stains in the
>disinfection chambers from the search for cyanide compounds !

On the contrary, their first experiments demonstrated unequivocally the
presence of cyanides in Krema II. Their later, more detailed and
sensitive experiments found cyanides in Kremas I-V and bunker 11.

Markiewicz, Gubala, and Labedz of the Institute of Forensic Research,
Crakow, demonstrated that HCN was present in the homicidal gas chambers at
levels above background.

I quote from their paper available at:

https://nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/

The results of analyses are presented in Tables I-IV. They
unequivocally show that the cyanide compounds occur in all the
facilities that, according to the source data, were in contact with
them. On the other hand, they do not occur in dwelling accommodations,
which was shown by means of control samples.

[snip]

>> Where is your evidence of this vast conspiracy to lie. Who forged all
>> the documents; show us some criminal traces.
>
>I would suggest to you the usual investigative roads: who might be
>interested, who was there with the power to commit the forgeries and so
>on. The best collective candidates to the existence of a well organised
>conspiracy are the Jewish organisations and the Allied powers. But —
>even though I might give you an opinion on the subject — I will wait
>for the evidence, if you don’t mind.

Evasion noted. You have no evidence.

>As for the lesser conspiracy, the one simply involving uncritical
>acceptance, rather than actual hands-on documentary forgery, all you
>have to do is look in the mirror. Then go to your own site and re-read
>the rubbish you put in there. You don’t need a criminal mastermind to
>have a conspiracy of silence and make-believe going on. In fact, you
>don’t even need a mind.

Perhaps, you can demonstrate that something that I wrote is rubbish.
>
>> >> >How do you beat that ? Will you show me
>> >> >a couple of human soap bars like they do in museums and cemeteries ?
>> >>
>> >> https://nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/soap-01.html
>> >
>> >Thank you. I stand corrected. Now will you show me some human toothpaste
>> >? And give me two bottles of snake oil, please.
>>
>> In other words, when I prove that you have your head up your ass, the
>> best you can do is to post an irrelevant point about claims that I have
>> never made.
>
>Okay then. I stand corrected. Now will you show me some “experimental”
>human toothpaste ? And give me two bottles of “experimental” snake oil,
>please.

Again you assert claims that no historian makes. You lied about the
soap and you were caught. You claimed that I believed in the existence
of “Jewish soap.” That’s an outright lie.
>
>> >(This is getting amusing; you completely fail to understand that even
>> >most gas chamber believers have stopped believing in the extension of
>> >the soap “canard” from WWI to WWII…)
>>
>> Apparently, you did not read the URL above, idiot. I have never claimed
>> the RIF story is true it is not. The Nazis did not mass produce soap
>> out of Jews and I never claimed that they have. Learn how to read,
>> idiot.
>
>So back to our little “experiments” right out of War World One
>propaganda, is it ? Is it Dirlewanger in Warsaw cooking up some soap
>bars out of the Jews just because there was a shortage of it, or Prof.
>Spanner grinning over his large bubbling cauldron out of some comic
>book?

You lied and you were caught; yet you try to change the topic.

If you can refute the evidence of experimentation, I would be very
interested. Dishonestly skirting the issue and hoping that no one
notices that you are lying about what people say won’t cut it.
>
>As I said, you should be ashamed of yourself — *at least* for your
>human soap peddling.

Liar.

>
>> >> >Maybe some lampshades and a bathtubload of human legs like they do at
>> >> >Nizkor…
>> >>
>> >> https://nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/clay-koch.html
>> >
>> >Hey ! So you won’t show us the lampshades and the bathtubload of legs
>> >they have got in there, uh ? I knew you didn’t have Keren’s guts…
>>
>> Learn how to read. Please quote where I have made any claim as to the
>> existence of human lampshades. The best that you can do is to lies bout
>> what I have said and hope that no one notices. You are despicable.
>
>Okay, stop crying and tell me whether you work for Nizkor. That’s what
>you seem to be implying when you resent what I am saying concerning the
>Nizkor galleries of unidentified atrocities and assorted shrunken heads.

I do not work for Nizkor. Over a year ago, I did some html’ing on a
volunteer basis for the Nizkor site. The only material on the Nizkor
site regarding human heads and lampshades that I am familiar with is the
article by Jamie McCarthy, and some supporting materials

https://nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/

I suggest that you read them before you lie about what people said.

Of course, it’s too late for that.

>
>> >> >Surely you’ll be able to grasp a slight difference of weight in your and
>> >> >my evidence.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, you’ve just engaged in a typical denier tactic that’s been exposed
>> >> for all to see. You simply ignore the process of history, what real
>> >> historians say, adn hope that no one will notice.
>> >
>> >I like your “real historians”. If there is a specialized historical
>> >field under its own self-segregated crew of incestuous amateurish
>> >”scholars”, instead of the usual “real historians”, it’s the “Holocaust
>> >Study” field. When real historians write the truth, ny dear fellow, the
>> >pages are torn away by the editors, like Springer Verlag did to Nolte.
>>
>> In other words, you dismiss the evidence presented by historians
>
>Not at all. I’m saying the “Holocaust Studies” field is *not* in the
>hands of historians who know honesty in the matter is not a career
>booster.

In other words, you dismiss the evidence presented by historians despite
the fact that you are unfamiliar with most of it.
>
>> and the
>> legitimate process of revision
>
>Please explain what that is. “Experimental” tiny bars of soap instead of
>the Industrial RIF Works Conglomerate, is that it ? How about calling
>lies by their name ?

False war time rumors is what historians call the RIF story. Seems like
an accurate account to me, or do you have evidence that people who
spread these untrue rumors knew them to be untrue?

>
>> because you don’t want to believe it, but
>> you have nothing to say except to repeat the soap rumors that we all
>> agree are untrue.
>
>Not at all. You at least didn’t, a while ago when you recommended the
>”soap experiments” URL. That sort of thing is a true lithmus test to see
>where you stand: whether you keep “experimenting” with human soap or
>instead will even remotely ever think of *apologising*.

You lied and you were caught. You claimed that I believed in the
existence of Jewish soap. You deliberately confused two separate
incidents. The false wartime rumors and the the claims of
experimentation which are supported by evidence.

https://nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/soap-01.html
>
>> You are a typical “revisionist scholar.”
>
>Not at all. I just was curious enough to read them, starting with
>Faurisson.

Like I said.

>> >> >Please note that even though you believe vaporising corpses by burning
>> >> >them by the thousands in oxygenless pits full of water in Birkenau makes
>> >> >them completely vanish, a *nuclear* explosion over a populated city in
>> >> >Japan does not completely vaporize all the ruins and remains…
>> >>
>> >> Please post physical evidence of these ruins. Where are the bodies?
>> >> How come you cannot tell us where the bodies are?
>> >
>> >Where are the bodies after a city is atomized into rubble, ashes and
>> >ruins ? Maybe their destruction is a little more advanced than the ones
>> >they took intact from the mythic gas chambers and had to cremate by
>> >digging pits and burning them below water, don’t you think so ?…
>>
>> I see; you can produce no bodies. Yet, you claim that people were
>> killed. You can present no feasible murder weapon either.
>
>Again idiocy in high gear to avoid the everyday business of having to
>deal with truth and falsehood. Read again starting with “Where are…”

No, again you evade the issue which you seemed interested in discussing.
You cannot demonstrate the existence of a historical event to the same
standard that you demand.
>
>And I’m sure you’ll agree that an atom bomb is a special instance of
>feasible mass murdering weapon that indeed vanishes with the use. If it
>was still there, no atomisation would have taken place. How dumb can you
>simulate?

No weapon, no murder. Hoaxer. You cannot produce the weapon.

>
>> >> >If only the Americans had thought of this they would have secretly
>> >> >dumped the whole city of Hiroshima in one of the Birkenau pits and no
>> >> >one would have known. All the Hiroshima victims could well have been
>> >> >vanishing into mud pit number 3 behind the big oak near crematory number
>> >> >4, since 100.000 Japanese are no fatter than 100.000 Jews.
>> >>
>> >> OK, so where are the bodies since the Americans did not do this?
>> >
>> >They didn’t really care about collecting all the separate atoms (yup,
>> >the “little pieces”) of the ones near ground zero, you know, and
>> >nevertheless they have burial grounds for the ashes of those that were
>> >extricated from the rubble.
>>
>> You have no evidence.
>
>So how do you know the Americans didn’t do as I said ? (see pit number 3
>behind the oak). What’s your evidence ?

The accuse must prove (so say “revisionist scholars”). All you have
done is evade the very issue you seemed interested in discussing.

Why did you bother to repost your nonsense, if you are not even
interested in discussing the topic.
>
>> >But how did you know the Americans didn’t use the Birkenau pit # 3 ?
>> >Don’t you believe in the magic mud pit where the vaporization by fire
>> >went on ? How about the tooth-fairy ?
>> > 😉
>> >
>> >Seriously now. Sometimes you sound like a half-rational being. Why do
>> >you insist in this sort of idiotic diversion ? I find it amusing, but
>> >am curious about your motives. Can’t you see every reader will think
>> >”God, it’s true ! The gas chambers are no more than a hoax. And this guy
>> >is idiotically spliting scholastic hairs, because HE KNOWS IT TOO !”
>> >(And feels no shame ?)
>>
>> I have more faith in the rationality of the average reader. They are
>> not all crackpots like you.
>
>The trouble with you is you don’t look like most holo-crackpots in
>alt.revisionism to me. You have a hypocritical tone and you don’t seem
>to foam at the corners of the mouth, though you do like to make it sound
>as if you did.
>
>I think you know exactly what you are doing: you believe in your gas
>chambers rubbish as I believe in flying elephants.

I do know what I’m doing; I’m showing that you are logically
inconsistent in the standard of proof that you demand.

I think I have done that adequately, now.

Best,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Fri Jul 31 15:54:03 EDT 1998
Article: 195419 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!falcon.america.net!

newsfeed.atl.bellsouth.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!

news.bbnplanet.com!

news2.ais.net!jamie!ais.net!ameritech.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!

world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: Debunking the Holohoax: Prussian Blue
Message-ID:
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
References: <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 02:45:36 GMT
Lines: 71
Xref: trends.ca alt.revisionism:195419

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

>The Prussian blue staining that one can clearly see at the two delousing
>stations in Birkenau is overwhelming evidence against the Holocaust hoax. The
>tricks used by the Krakau Forensic Institute to distort and subvert the true
>evidence have been discussed in great detail by revisionists such as Rudolf in
>their writings which can be seen at CODOH and elsewhere. In short, the Cracow
>report is a sham.

Unfortunately Rudolf did not tell the whole truth about his sources.
Perhaps, Mr. Berg will be so kind as to tell us under what conditions
aqueous solutions of HCN can reduce iron (III) to iron (II).

Markiewicz, Gubala, and Labedz of the Institute of Forensic Research,
Crakow, demonstrated that HCN was present in the homicidal gas chambers at
levels above background.

I quote from their paper available at:

https://nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/

The results of analyses are presented in Tables I-IV. They
unequivocally show that the cyanide compounds occur in all the
facilities that, according to the source data, were in contact with
them. On the other hand, they do not occur in dwelling accommodations,
which was shown by means of control samples.

[snip]

>Furthermore, even when there is a lethal concentration of cyanide in a
>well-designed gas chamber, death does not come quickly as has been proven again
>and again in hundreds of cyanide gas executions in the United States. Death
>still took normally, under ideal circumstances, from 10 to 13 minutes. In the
>last gas chamber execution in the US the agony lasted 18 minutes because Mr.
>Larsen in Raleigh, North Carolina chose to hold his breath to prolong the
>agony. See my essay on http://www.CODOH.com about his execution.

>From the 12th edition of the Merck index:

LC50 in rats, mice, and dogs: 544 ppm (5 min), 169 ppm (30 min), 300 ppm
(3 min) by inhalation.

Note that according to Pressac concentrations used were about 8g/m^3,
does Mr. Berg know how to convert that number to a mixing ratio?

Best,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Fri Jul 31 15:54:03 EDT 1998
Article: 195426 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.revisionism,talk.politics.

libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!falcon.america.net!newsfeed.

atl.bellsouth.net!newsfeed.nyu.edu!wesley.videotron.net!

Pollux.Teleglobe.net!uunet!in4.uu.net!world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: JEWS MUST UNITE TO COMBAT THE MUSLIMS AND NAZI SCUM
Message-ID:
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 03:26:06 GMT
Lines: 156
Xref: trends.ca alt.politics.libertarian:301658 alt.revisionism:195426 talk.politics.libertarian:304127 talk.politics.misc:663542

Greetings,

In article <[email protected]>,
Hansjoerg Walther wrote:

[snip]

>Good point, and also thank you for the example that I wasn’t aware of.
>
>
>Did they at first ask them to hand in their weapons? If not, this sounds
>like any pretext would do as well And then weapons don’t hurt either. More
>of them would raise the costs, dissuade an attack or at least slow it down.
>It is pretty hopeless in any way. If you are confronted with people who
>only need a flimsy pretext, it would not be reasonable to disarm yourself
>first.

My understanding is that the government did try to round up weapons
first. My knowledge is limited here; so I don not want to say too much.
I’m not sure how successful the round up was and how much it was
cooperated with. A lot of my understanding comes from Franz Werfel’s
novel. It is well researched, but it is only a novel, so without
further historical information, I’ll leave it at that.

>Otherwise, this looks somewhat like an argument I made in my discussion
>with Tim. Suppose Jews had been well-armed, the SS would have decided to
>exterminate them and it was not yet known that their goal was eventually
>complete annihilation (if that’s clear you can’t lose from fighting it
>out). Then the SS would be stupid if they tried a frontal attack.

I do not entirely agree. Whatever weapons Jews would have had would
have been far inferior to those available to the SS. Additionally, in
our “what-if” fantasy the general population might have been armed as
well and I’m sorry to say that I do not think they would have taken up
the cause of the Jews. The militias in Germany were quite well armed,
but most of them were co-opted by the NSDAP.

An interesting book on this topic is Martin Broszat’s _Hitler and the
Collapse of Wermer Germany_.

>My idea would be that they use a salami tactic then. First use wide
>propaganda about “gun loons,” and how dangerous guns are in the hands of
>private citizens. Then say, that you are willing to leave Jews alone if
>they behave themselves and dissociate from “criminals” who are the only
>people who want to have private guns. Use any incident as another piece of
>proganda to put more pressure on them. Then start with some minor things:
>ask everybody (or just all the Jews) to register their guns. At this point
>people have still a lot to lose (they aren’t aware of what is awaiting
>them), so few will take this as a life-and-death issue. Put pressure on
>them to ensure they comply (heavy fines, sending those to concentration
>camps who are identified as “criminals”, hold other Jews hostage and try to
>enlist other Jews who help you get this through for fear of being faced
>with even more hostile propaganda). After the guns are registered, walk
>around with Gestapo units and seize the guns. Again most people have a lot
>to lose. The father of a family will not want to fight it out because it is
>hopeless and will hurt his family. It still doesn’t look like a
>life-and-death issue. And then the guns are gone. (You can hide a gun so
>well, that they can’t find it, but then it is also useless if they come to
>deport you.)

Seems historically unlikely to me. The NSDAP after all grew up as part
of the Folkish militia movement. In order to get around Versailles,
private para-military forces were in vogue. The Wehrmacht was willing
to tolerate the SA and others partly because of these facts.

>It’s not much different from ensuring compliance with a deportation. That’s
>especially easy in a country like Germany where the government simply knows
>where you are because you have to tell them that, and where people are
>inclined to think the government is working for the common good, and a good
>citizen is who complies with what the government says. Jews in Germany were
>– lots of Nazi propaganda notwithstanding — Germans after all.

That’s a good point and is well in line with Hilberg’s thesis. By the
same token, if they were told to hand in their guns, one imagines the
same response. Perhaps, that’s the difficulty with hypothetical
history- it ignores the very real and significant cultural aspects of
history.

>So the only difference would be that an additional step to seize the guns
>is necessary (which unlike Tim I think is not that hard). It might make a
>difference if other people have a sense that the government exceeds its
>powers here and that that is also a threat to them, and that it might
>therefore alert them to the danger coming. But this argument may work for
>Americans (and not too well either), but for Germans this is pretty void.

I think we are in agreement. Except that it is my sense that the
Germans of today are different. When I see the large anti-Nazi
demonstrations I begin to think that Germany is the last place where
history will repeat itself.

>It might make a difference if those who could use the guns are aware of
>what is planned for them, and are willing to strike back at the least
>infringement of their rights. But that was something which was not clear
>enough in the 30s when the Nazis had plenty of time. Later on, Jews were
>mostly part of an occupied population who had surrendered to superior force
>and would also be rather easy to disarm.

It’s also the case that people have psychological coping mechanisms that
cause them to deny to themselves that they have no hope.

>So, all in all, it might make a difference, but I find claims not too
>convincing that it would have made a decisive difference.

A minor delay does not seem like that big of a difference to me. Also,
the propaganda value of claiming that Jews took up arms against Germany
would be immense. They might be able to garner even more public
support.

>
>> Of course, if your’re going to die either way, maybe it’s just as well
>> to go out fighting.
>
>That’s easy to say when you are perhaps 20. But if you have a family to
>take care of, I am not sure you want to leave them behind because you want
>to be a hero. And then it presupposes that you have the necessary
>information of what your chances will be which is arguing with hindsight
>because it may not have been as clear at the time since the SS took at
>least some care to fool their victims.

I’m 34, actually, but I don’t have a family and that truly is an issue.
Additionally, it’s an easy thing to say when one is not actually
confronted with such an impossible choice.

The bottom line is that when a totalitarian system is out to get you,
you’re screwed, if you’ll pardon my vernacular.

In Bosnia, the populace managed to get some small arms, but because of
the arms embargo the JNA had a virtual monopoly on big artillery and
tanks. I think the only think that limited the killing was the
introduction of US ground troops (and I do not mean to denigrate the
European effort, but US ground troops have a bigger deterrent effect.
I think that Kosovo will teach us the same lessons.

>I still think that on average it can’t hurt (I am backing down a bit)
>although your idea is reasonable that it might make a pretext more
>plausible that extermination is kind of a preemptive strike against people
>who threaten you.
>
>And Germans aren’t Americans. Sad to say this, but it really is somewhat
>like Lenin once complained: “If Germans want to storm a railway station,
>they first buy platform tickets.”

Do you think I am wrong to believe that today’s Germans would resist
another attempt at the Final Solution? Also, what if the victims were
Turks instead of Jews?

Best,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Fri Jul 31 15:54:03 EDT 1998
Article: 195430 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.revisionism,talk.

politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!nntp-out.monmouth.com!

newspeer.monmouth.com!news3.

bellglobal.com!news1.bellglobal.com!island.idirect.com!

mtu.ru!Pollux.Teleglobe.net!uunet!in5.uu.net!world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: JEWS MUST UNITE TO COMBAT THE MUSLIMS AND NAZI SCUM
Message-ID:
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
References: <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 03:32:24 GMT
Lines: 41
Xref: trends.ca alt.politics.libertarian:301659 alt.revisionism:195430 talk.politics.libertarian:304128 talk.politics.misc:663543

In article ,
Tim Starr wrote:

>It’s one of the worst examples he could’ve chosen, however:
>
>”The Armenian genocide differs from the six other genocides detailed in
>Lethal Laws in one important respect. Although many Armenians apparently
>complied with the gun control laws and the deportation orders, some did not.
>For example, in southern Syria (then part of the Ottoman Empire), ‘the
>Armenians refused to submit to the deportation order . . . . Retreating into
>the hills, they took up a strategic position and organized an impregnable
>defense. The Turks attacked and were repulsed with huge losses. They pro-
>ceeded to lay siege.'[10] Eventually 4,000 survivors of the siege were
>rescued by the British and French.[11] These Armenians who (p.358)grabbed
>their guns and headed for the hills are the converse to the vast numbers of
>Armenian and other genocide victims in Lethal Laws who submitted quietly;
>although many of the Armenian fighters doubtless died from lack of medical
>care, starvation, or gunfire, so did many of the Armenians who submitted. As
>was the case of the Jewish resistance during World War II, armed resistance
>was enormously risky, but the resisters had a far higher survival rate than
>the submitters.”

This event at Musa Dagh is precisely the event that Werfel chronicles.
I’d note two things:

1) I’m a bit suspicious that the source of this information might be
Werfel’s novel. Does Kopel or Simkin, Zelman and Rice, present a
historical source for their information?

2) What happened at Musa Dagh was the exception rather than the rule.
Most of the Armenians were mercilessly slaughtered.

Best,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Sat Aug 1 06:25:42 EDT 1998
Article: 195585 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.revisionism,

talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.

monmouth.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!denver-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!coop.net!world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: JEWS MUST UNITE TO COMBAT THE MUSLIMS AND NAZI SCUM
Message-ID:
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
References:
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 00:21:36 GMT
Lines: 89
Xref: trends.ca alt.politics.libertarian:301891 alt.revisionism:195585 talk.politics.libertarian:304444 talk.politics.misc:664616

In article ,
Tim Starr wrote:
>In article ,
>Richard J Green wrote:
>>In article ,
>>Tim Starr wrote:
>>
>>>It’s one of the worst examples he could’ve chosen, however:
>>>
>>>”The Armenian genocide differs from the six other genocides detailed in
>>>Lethal Laws in one important respect. Although many Armenians apparently
>>>complied with the gun control laws and the deportation orders, some did not.
>>>For example, in southern Syria (then part of the Ottoman Empire), ‘the
>>>Armenians refused to submit to the deportation order . . . . Retreating into
>>>the hills, they took up a strategic position and organized an impregnable
>>>defense. The Turks attacked and were repulsed with huge losses. They pro-
>>>ceeded to lay siege.'[10] Eventually 4,000 survivors of the siege were
>>>rescued by the British and French.[11] These Armenians who (p.358)grabbed
>>>their guns and headed for the hills are the converse to the vast numbers of
>>>Armenian and other genocide victims in Lethal Laws who submitted quietly;
>>>although many of the Armenian fighters doubtless died from lack of medical
>>>care, starvation, or gunfire, so did many of the Armenians who submitted. As
>>>was the case of the Jewish resistance during World War II, armed resistance
>>>was enormously risky, but the resisters had a far higher survival rate than
>>>the submitters.”
>>
>>This event at Musa Dagh is precisely the event that Werfel chronicles.
>>I’d note two things:
>>
>>1) I’m a bit suspicious that the source of this information might be
>>Werfel’s novel. Does Kopel or Simkin, Zelman and Rice, present a
>>historical source for their information?
>
>I gave the URL for Kopel’s review. Is there some reason why you couldn’t
>look it up yourself? In case you missed it:
>
>http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/lethal.html
>
>Kopel cites both LETHAL LAWS & another book in this paragraph. I can’t
>comment on the references in LETHAL LAWS, as I haven’t been able to get
>a copy of it to read yet.

What I asked for was a historical reference. It’s ok that you are
unable to provide one, but suggesting that the URL above is such a
reference is not a substitute for real historical evidence.

I may have a lead for what it’s worth. Peter Sourian in his
Introduction to the 1990 English translation of Werfel’s book quotes
French scholar Yves Ternon’s 1984 report to the Permanent People’s
Tribunal in Paris 1984 as saying:

…In Jebel Musa, or Musa Dagh, the Armenians refused to submit to the
deportation order issued on 13 July. Retreating into the hills they
took up a strategic position and organized an impregnable defense. The
Turks attacked and were repulsed with huge losses. They proceeded to
lay siege to Jebel Musa with fifteen-thousand men. Fifty-three days
later, French and British ships, intercepting signal, picked up the
four-thousand survivors and took them to Port Said.

Sourian notes that Werfel changed it to 40 days for a Biblical
reference. This is a lead, but not yet evidence. If one wants to be
sure this account is factual, one ought to trace down Ternon’s report
and follow the trail of evidence (being careful that it does not lead
back to Werfel’s book.).
>
>>2) What happened at Musa Dagh was the exception rather than the rule.
>
>Yes, resistance was the exception rather than the rule.
>
>>Most of the Armenians were mercilessly slaughtered.
>
>The survival rate of those who resisted was higher than that of those who
>submitted, evidently.

If we take the resisters at Musa Dagh to be the only resistors, yes,
but we don’t know that to be the case.

Best,

From [email protected] Sat Aug 1 06:25:43 EDT 1998
Article: 195587 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.revisionism,

talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!newsfeed.direct.ca!news2.ais.net!

jamie!ais.net!uunet!in4.uu.net!world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: JEWS MUST UNITE TO COMBAT THE MUSLIMS AND NAZI SCUM
Message-ID:
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 00:24:44 GMT
Lines: 21
Xref: trends.ca alt.politics.libertarian:301893 alt.revisionism:195587 talk.politics.libertarian:304446 talk.politics.misc:664621

In article <[email protected]>,
wrote:

>ancestral homeland. The German government officially recognized the
>Holocaust, where as the current Turkish government continues to deny the
>Armenian Genocide and uses great sums of money to deny it through
>establishing Turkish studies in US universities.

This is an aspect of the the Armenian genocide that disturbs me to no
end. Imagine if Greg Raven and friends had the resources of the German
Government behind them…

Best,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Sat Aug 1 06:25:43 EDT 1998
Article: 195590 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.revisionism,talk.

politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!

news2.ais.net!jamie!ais.net!uunet!uunet!in1.uu.net!world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: JEWS MUST UNITE TO COMBAT THE MUSLIMS AND NAZI SCUM
Message-ID:
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
References: <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 00:43:58 GMT
Lines: 48
Xref: trends.ca alt.politics.libertarian:301900 alt.revisionism:195590 talk.politics.libertarian:304447 talk.politics.misc:664635

In article <[email protected]>,
Hansjoerg Walther wrote:

>I doubt there was some overarching “interest of the State” at work. In the
>Weimar Republic I can’t see anything which would point to an increasing
>hostility to Jews by the STATE. Quite the opposite, the State was more of a
>bulwark against this. Then came the Nazis to power and they remodeled the
>State according to their views and made it into a tool for their own
>purposes which were driven by ideology, not some development of the State.
>You could never explain such a sudden swing of State policies against the
>Jews.

Hannah Arendt argues compellingly in _Origins_ that the State was the
only institution in Europe that could protect Jews, that Jews were
outside of the class system and therefore could only hope for defense by
the state. She sees this interest as well as the international
character of Jews and the prominence of the Rothschild’s and a few
others as being at the roots of modern antisemitism.

She argues also that it is the goal of Totalitarian movements to destroy
the state and replace it with the Party. In support of this claim she
points out the prominence of the SS and KGB w.r.t. the armies of the
Totalitarian countries. The real power was held in Party institutions
and not the traditional institutions of State. She argues that these
systems are Internationalist in nature and must destroy everything in
their path to achieve a kind of “permanent revolution.” As further
support for her argument, she argues that Mussolini, once in power, was
merely a dictator and no longer the leader of a Totalitarian movement.
He was content to master the institutions of State rather than destroy
them. She points out also that Khruschev’s ascendence to power depended
on the military and that the new prominence of the military heralded the
end of totalitarianism and the beginning of dictatorship.

I am only paraphrasing her argument and interested people should read
the book, but it is in line with the fact that the Nazis destroyed the
Weimar Republic and that the Republic was the only possible bulwark
against this or the other Totalitarian movement.

Best,

Rich Green

Home · Site Map · What’s New? · Search Nizkor

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.

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

Green Richard 1998-4

Latest article

Who’s On First: The Fairview Server

Fairview Technologies: BC Response

Fairview Technologies

The History of Lies

Materials