In article ,
Richard J Green wrote:
>Mr. Marques,
>Can I assume that the URL
>http://www.codoh.com/newrevoices/nrmarques/nrmgreen.html
>will contain my complete and unedited replies to your nonsense. If not,
>aren’t you being a bit hypocritical to complain about Ken McVay’s
>archiving techniques?
>Best,
>Rich Green
From [email protected] Mon Aug 3 03:08:41 EDT 1998
Article: 195749 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!
news2.ais.net!jamie!ais.net!
ameritech.net!uunet!in4.uu.net!world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Why won’t the cowardly hypocrit Marques answer a simple question?
Message-ID:
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 01:01:10 GMT
Lines: 28
Xref: trends.ca alt.revisionism:195749
————————————————————————-
>Richard J. Green http://holocaust-history.org
>[email protected] http://world.std.com/~rjg/exposing-denial.html
>http://world.std.com/~rjg
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] Mon Aug 3 03:08:41 EDT 1998
Article: 195754 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.revisionism,
talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!
feed.nntp.acc.ca!newsfeed.nyu.edu!
wesley.videotron.net!Pollux.Teleglobe.net!
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: <01bdbc6a$e25330e0$60975ccf@mycomputer> <01bdbd2e$d38cb080$24421ecc@mycomputer>
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 02:13:51 GMT
Lines: 315
Xref: trends.ca alt.politics.libertarian:302050 alt.revisionism:195754 talk.politics.libertarian:304606 talk.politics.misc:665402
In article <01bdbd2e$d38cb080$24421ecc@mycomputer>,
Hansjoerg Walther wrote:
>I am not sure I understand this argument. Does this refer to a situation
>prior to the last century? What does she mean by the State, and why would
>it be the _only_ institution? What other institutions does she think of?
>And in what sense are they supposed to protect Jews?
She is discussing the 19th and early 20th centuries. Her argument is
that the class structure of society was very strong, that workers
parties would look out for workers, bourgeois parties for the
bourgeoisie and nobility for the nobility. She sees the Jews as being
very much outside of this structure so that only an institution that is
supposed to protect the rights of all citizens could protect the Jews.
By the State she means to generalize, but she is mostly talking about
France, Germany, and Austria-Hungary. This is not a discussion of how
government ought to be, but an attempt to place an interpretation upon
the historical fact.
>
>While I think I grasp the basic line of the argument, I have quite a few
>problems with it. E. g. a State monopolizes the use of force, so that
>leaves anyone who wants protection from a forceful attack with no other
>option than to hope the State will help, be they Jews or not. If I must not
>defend myself and organize for the purpose, then I have to rely on the
>police, etc. Whether the State was such a good protector is pretty
>debatable. It was often not, and worse, was often even the agent of
>persecution.
How good the State was at doing it is certainly debatable.
>
>There is another line of argument which makes much more sense to me:
>exactly because arbitrary States were no good protectors and even
>persecutors, it was plausible that especially Jews were drawn to the idea
>of an impartial State which has as its sole purpose the protection of the
>rights of all citizens alike and otherwise does not intrude in private
>affairs (religion, economy, etc.): the ideal of Classical Liberalism.
That is actually in line with Arendt’s thinking which is much more
nuanced than what I’ve put forward. However, she also discusses the
realities of imperialism which she argues showed that without National
Rights there are no human rights. E.G. rights as an Englishman were
guaranteed, but rights as an Indian or African under the British Empire
were not. She extends this discussion to what she calls the zone of
mixed populations (Austria-Hungary-Poland etc.) and tries to explain
that groups sought to establish themselves as National entities in order
to achieve rights to life, liberty and property (ok, it’s a long book
:-)). The Hapsburg’s were ultimately unable to protect the citizen qua
citizen.
>Indeed e. g. in Germany many of the leading Classical Liberals (Lasker,
>Bamberger, Oppenheim, Loewe, etc.) were Jewish. Likewise they were drawn to
>laissez-faire capitalism because it left that part of society intact that
>was the best protector for Jews: markets, trade, free enterprise; and did
>away with all those restrictions that had kept Jews out.
Right, but this freedom depends on the Liberal State to maintain it.
Additionally, Liberal States despite their rhetoric have been a bit
stingy about who they consider citizens and worthy of these rights.
>
>> 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.
>
>Then she is utterly mistaken because she misses a lot. If you look at the
>1870/80s in Germany when _political_ anti-Semitism was first articulated,
>this was part of an attack on Classical Liberalism and laissez-faire
>capitalism (which were perceived as international and to use a modern
>buzzword “globalization” which could well be visualized by pointing to the
>Rothschilds]. Ludwig Bamberger wrote in 1880 in his “Deutschthum und
>Judenthum” [Jewry and Germandom]:
I don’t see how that makes here mistaken. She separates the contents
of conspiracy theories from the origins. Also, she goes on for 400
pages or so and misses very little. Again, I’m just trying to
paraphrase some of her arguments but the book is very complex.
She definitely addresses the international character of the Rothschild’s
etc., but I think she would disagree with your characterization of
Laissez-faire capitalism which historically was laissez-faire within the
nation-state, but used the power of the nation-state to guard its
overseas investments without also exporting the liberal rights to the
inhabitants of Africa, for example.
>
>Feldzuge gegen den Liberalismus, […]” [The attack on the Jews is only a
>diversion in the contemporary campaign against Liberalism, […]],
>http://nineties.com/bamberger
>
>The hope for Jews was not the State. As late as 1898, Eugen Richter in his
>”Politisches ABC-Buch” (entry “Juden” [Jews], cf.
>http://nineties.com/eugen-richter) writes that it was practically
>impossible for Jews to succeed in such State institutions as the military,
>administration, and there were only restricted opportunities as judges,
>teachers or in academia. But in the fields where the State had
>comparatively little to say, Jews could be very successful: as businessmen,
>lawyers, doctors, in the media, arts, or classical fields as trade and
>banking.
Again this is not out of line with Arendt’s except that liberalism
depends on a state strong enough to protect life, liberty and property.
Thus the Jews were portrayed as the behind the scenes controllers of
Franz-Josef etc.
She points out also, btw, that most Jews were poor and not bankers etc.
Yet, those few who were identified as typical in many minds.
>
>Why this is so, can best be explained by an argument which many think works
>against capitalism: market failure. Persecution of Jews (or for that sake
>any other minority) is a “public good,” i. e. something which you can’t
>exclude anyone else from who hasn’t paid for its production. They can
>”enjoy” it, but are free-riders. Therefore public goods tend to be
>underproduced on a free market. And that’s just fine: less persecution. And
>then comes the argument for production of public goods by the State: if we
>could force everyone to support the persecution, then we can produce the
>public good. The State can produce the persecution: more persecution.
I’m not arguing for or against Libertarianism here, and neither is
Arendt, I do not think.
>
>This is also evident in the examples Eugen Richter gives: if I want to have
>optimal capabilities of an army to defend me, I am not in the least
>interested in supporting them when they think they have to keep Jews out
>even if they can do a better job. But the government can force people to
>support such a nonsense. If that were a good on the free-market and a
>businessman decided not to hire Jews even if they can do a better job, he
>will work at a disadvantage compared to his competitors who aren’t that
>silly, and use the potential of Jews. Bottomline: the anti-Semitic
>businessman tends to lose against his competitors and will go out of
>business.
>
>Tyler Cowan argues along similar lines in his “The Socialist Roots of
>Anti-Semitism” (title off of my head) which was published in the Freeman
>and where he also reviews the pretty strong connection of Socialist and
>anti-Semitic thought. He also points to many examples that Jews have done
>very well in the context of thoroughly capitalist societies (e. g. the
>USA).
>
>> She argues also that it is the goal of Totalitarian movements to destroy
>> the state and replace it with the Party.
>
>But then she confuses something: the Party is then a new State. There is
>for Jews nothing inherently benevolent in a State. What she means to say is
>at most that such totalitarian movements destroy those States which in a
>wide sense subscribe to Classical Liberal principles as equality before the
>law, constitutional rights the State promises not to violate and thus
>securing some private sphere and sphere of society where the State must not
>interfere.
No, I think the Party is still distinct form the state. I think there
is some reason in the fact that the Nazi Party and the SS were branded
criminal organizations whereas the Wehrmacht was not. She argues that
Totalitarian movements are not content merely to destroy and replace the
state, they must expand beyond their borders, engage in mass murder, and
eventually try to regulate the behavior of each individual.
>
>> 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.
>
>I think she should differentiate the two cases of Nazi Germany and the
>Soviet Union. In Germany, the Nazis had different institutions (army,
>administration, churches) which were not their creation and while
>cooperative were not as well under their control as their own institutions.
>Therefore they tended to rely for critical parts on party institutions. But
>sometimes they did not. E. g. in 1934 Hitler made the decision to rely on
>the Wehrmacht and not the SA when he purged the SA leadership. Many of the
>party leaders had little influence (e. g. Rosenberg), and party
>organizations were not paramount. Formally, the leadership appeared as
>representatives of the State, not so much of the party. I doubt that the SS
>had the relationship to the Wehrmacht, as the KGB to the Red Army. I am
>pretty certain that they could not have purged generals for nothing, even
>late in the war.
I think that it is one of Arendt’s weaknesses that she tries to hard to
argue the similarities between the SU and Germany when clearly there are
such differences and you bring up some good points here.
But her image of an ideologically based movement (race-thinking, or
class-thinking) that aims to destroy the institutions of state (and yes
replace them, but it doesn’t stop there) is quite compelling.
I’m a bit reluctant to try to keep summarizing her because you might
read her differently than I do and we might very well disagree about
what she is saying.
>In the Soviet Union, the old State was abolished and a new one was built.
>At first there were also some institutions which were not strictly
>communist (Soviets, etc.). The Communists revamped them when they had the
>power. The KGB developed out of the Cheka which was an organ of the State,
>not the party. The party was much more intertwined with the State than in
>the case of Germany.
>
>
>But in both cases this is not too important if one defines as State all
>those institutions which can legally exert force whether they developed out
>of a party or an older State institution.
I don’t think she uses this definition of state. Also, she argues that
a truly Totalitarian movement will keep destroying the State which
reminds me of the idea of permanent revolution.
>
>> She argues that these
>> systems are Internationalist in nature and must destroy everything in
>> their path to achieve a kind of “permanent revolution.”
>
>Then she uses the word “internationalist” in a strange way. If I understand
>this right, she means something like “imperialist” (perhaps encompassing
>the whole world, although I am not sure this was really the case with the
>Nazis who were AFAIK “only” interested in creating a European empire
>including parts of Russia).
I think she would argue that their aims would have expanded or else that
they would have become a dictatorship. When the Soviet State became
stable, i.e., when there were no longer purges and “Doctor’s plots”
etc., she argues that it became a dictatorship that was in danger of
regaining its totalitarian character, but no longer totalitarian.
>
>> 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.
>
>I think that’s true. The Fascist party was pretty weak (although they could
>oust him in 1943!). Then he made no efforts to bring all possible
>institutions (monarchy, church, business, media, art, etc.) under his
>complete control.
>
>> He was content to master the institutions of State rather than destroy
>> them.
>
>Depends: a parlament was e. g. not part of his system. But in general I
>think that is right.
>
>> 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 know too little about this. But I can recall another explanation that
>Khrushchev was supported by higher party ranks who were simply fed up with
>the continuous fear of the Stalin regime.
>
>> I am only paraphrasing her argument and interested people should read
>> the book,
>
>Since someone else also pointed me to it, I think I’ll do that, although I
>am not too convinced with the arguments above.
>
>> but it is in line with the fact that the Nazis destroyed the
>> Weimar Republic
>
>They didn’t destroy the State. They took it over, purged its personnel,
>revamped it, expanded it and integrated the party into it. It was a
>different State afterwards, but it was not the destruction of a State (as
>perhaps in the case of Lenin).
If I understand you correctly, you mean to point out that they did not
literally destroy every institution of state. For example the courts
and the Order Police still existed; yet they did radically reshape them
to fit the needs of the Party. Would you agree, at least, that there is
a difference between what Mussolini did to the State (basically take the
helm for his party but leave the institutions intact) and what the Nazis
did to the State?
>
>> and that the Republic was the only possible bulwark
>> against this or the other Totalitarian movement.
>
>By definition if you focus only on States.
>
>No, I think one could make an argument that in 1932/33 the best choice
>against the Nazis would have been transforming the Weimar Republic into
>some authoritarian regime dominated by rightwing forces without the Nazis
>and maybe even an attempt to restore the monarchy to give it more of a
>stature (this all with the knowledge of the time, the acting people and
>parties of the time, etc.). The argument would rely on different other
>countries (like Austria) where such an alternative was tried and succeeded
>in eliminating the Nazis (or similar movements) who were notoriously bad a
>putsching against an existing regime.
Hmm. Didn’t Pappen and Hindenberg try just that at first?
>
>That would not have been a nice choice, but one I think that might have
>delivered the important result that the Nazis could not get hold of the
>German State.
>
>If I have some free wishes, I could also come up with a different
>alternative: a well-armed citizenry with a commitment to individual liberty
>and the will to defend this with the necessary force. But that was nowhere
>in sight at the time.
I guess my pipe-dream would be for the parties of the center (Social
Democrats and Catholic Center) to realize that they had more to gain
form each other than the left and right extremes.
In the US I get frustrated when the Democrats call Republicans Nazis
(except for Pat Buchanan, who is at least a Nazi sympathizer in my
opinion.) and the Republicans call the Democrats communists. The parties
really have more in common with each other, namely via the commitment to
Constitutional process.
I’ll be out of town for awhile; so if I do not respond in this thread
in a timely manner, it is not for lack of interest.
Best,
Rich Green
—
————————————————————————-
Richard J. Green http://holocaust-history.org
[email protected] http://world.std.com/~rjg/exposing-denial/
http://world.std.com/~rjg
From [email protected] Mon Aug 3 03:08:42 EDT 1998
Article: 195845 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.revisionism,
talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!
news2.ais.net!jamie!ais.net!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: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 01:15:22 GMT
Lines: 152
Xref: trends.ca alt.politics.libertarian:302129 alt.revisionism:195845 talk.politics.libertarian:304716 talk.politics.misc:665768
In article ,
Tim Starr wrote:
>In article ,
>Richard J Green wrote:
>>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.
>
>And I gave you the URL of a review of a history book that was published in
>a law journal. That’s one reference, which indicates two others, too: the
>book being reviewed, & the other book cited by Kopel in his review.
>
>>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 don’t understand what you mean by “real historical evidence,” then.
That is becoming obvious.
>
>>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.
>
>It most certainly is evidence. What on earth do you mean by denying that
>it’s evidence?
I do not have the time to teach you how to conduct research in a
scholarly manner. The fact that a URL quotes a review of a book that
was published in a Law Journal is not a basis for taking at face value
what is reported. Likewise the lead I provided is promising but it is
not good enough for someone wishing to make a claim and believing that
they have backed it up.
>
>Rummel also mentions this briefly in DEATH BY GOVERNMENT:
>
>”Although concentrated in the northeast, Armenians lived throughout Turkey;
>in some places they dominated districts, such as van, and inhabited their
>own towns and villages. They had their own political party and vigorous
>political leadership. Moreover, many Armenians had survived previous
>massacres. Few held illusions about the hatred and brutality that the
>government could unleash against them. If forewarned they could well mount
>a spirited defense, as was later proven at Van and Musa Dagh, where 4,000
>Armenians withstood the onslaught of superior Turkish forces until relieved
>after 40 days by a French naval unit.”
> – R.J. Rummel, DEATH BY GOVERNMENT, pp. 215-216
What evidence does he cite? Quoting someone at random is not evidence.
Now the fact that some of the details agree with what I posted looks
promising, but if we wish to convince ourselves of the historical
accuracy of these statements we need to dig deeper.
>
>There’s a minor discrepancy in the number of days here, but if they actually
>held out for 53 days instead of 40 then that just makes my argument stronger.
On the contrary, it makes it look like Rummel took Werfel’s book at face
value as historical evidence since the 40 days was explicitly invented
by Werfel as a Biblical reference.
>He footnotes a book by David Marshall Lang, titled THE ARMENIANS: A PEOPLE
>IN EXILE, as his source on this.
More promising, that sounds at least like a history book. Now seeing
what Lang’s sources are might lead somewhere.
>
>>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.).
>
>You seem to be equating “evidence” with “primary sources.” While I admit
>that it’s preferable to be able to track down things to primary sources, I
>don’t think that disqualifies any other kind of source material as being
>”evidence” at all.
No, I do not require the original documentation etc., but I want a
Secondary source that cites primary sources, i.e. documents, newspapers
of the time, eyewitnesses etc. A source that only cites secondary and
tertiary sources is very dangerous to take as evidence. Many writers
with an agenda will take at face value a fact merely because they read
it somewhere.
In this case, no doubt something happened at Musa Dagh. Whether we have
an accurate account of it yet, I do not know. Maybe we have a lot of
people who read Werfel.
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] Mon Aug 3 03:08:42 EDT 1998
Article: 195867 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.revisionism,
talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!falcon.america.net!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!
news2.ais.net!jamie!ais.net!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: <01bdbc6a$e25330e0$60975ccf@mycomputer>
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 02:20:35 GMT
Lines: 55
Xref: trends.ca alt.politics.libertarian:302140 alt.revisionism:195867 talk.politics.libertarian:304729 talk.politics.misc:665801
In article ,
Tim Starr wrote:
>In article ,
>Richard J Green wrote:
>>In article <01bdbc6a$e25330e0$60975ccf@mycomputer>,
>>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.
>
>The most obvious rebuttal of this argument is the historical fact that the
>State did not protect the victims of the Holocaust. I can’t comment on it
>further because I haven’t read that book yet, but it strikes me as being
>highly implausible.
It was not her claim that the State could protect them from a
Totalitarian Movement. In fact, she shows quite the opposite.
>
>>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.
>
>Then the Party becomes the State. What’s the difference? She must be using
>some sort of strange definition of “State.”
She is being somewhat careful in what she means by “State” because in
the context of Totalitarian movements, traditional ideas of “State” do
not function well. The Party continues to destroy the State and
attempts to keep constant upheaval. If it were merely a case of the
Party becoming the State, we’d be talking about dictatorship not
Totalitarianism.
Best,
Rich Green
—
————————————————————————-
Richard J. Green http://holocaust-history.org
[email protected] http://world.std.com/~rjg/exposing-denial/
http://world.std.com/~rjg
From [email protected] Sun Aug 9 15:57:38 EDT 1998
Article: 196591 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.revisionism,
talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!newsin.pe.net!news.pe.net!
news.corpcomm.net!news.gate.net!news1.acsi.net!
news!news.packet.net!daver!news.sgi.com!
enews.sgi.com!news.idt.net!newsfeed.nyu.edu!
wesley.videotron.net!Pollux.Teleglobe.net!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: <01bdbc6a$e25330e0$60975ccf@mycomputer> <01bdbd2e$d38cb080$24421ecc@mycomputer>
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 02:13:51 GMT
Lines: 315
Xref: trends.ca alt.politics.libertarian:302931 alt.revisionism:196591 talk.politics.libertarian:305877 talk.politics.misc:669398
In article <01bdbd2e$d38cb080$24421ecc@mycomputer>,
Hansjoerg Walther wrote:
>I am not sure I understand this argument. Does this refer to a situation
>prior to the last century? What does she mean by the State, and why would
>it be the _only_ institution? What other institutions does she think of?
>And in what sense are they supposed to protect Jews?
She is discussing the 19th and early 20th centuries. Her argument is
that the class structure of society was very strong, that workers
parties would look out for workers, bourgeois parties for the
bourgeoisie and nobility for the nobility. She sees the Jews as being
very much outside of this structure so that only an institution that is
supposed to protect the rights of all citizens could protect the Jews.
By the State she means to generalize, but she is mostly talking about
France, Germany, and Austria-Hungary. This is not a discussion of how
government ought to be, but an attempt to place an interpretation upon
the historical fact.
>
>While I think I grasp the basic line of the argument, I have quite a few
>problems with it. E. g. a State monopolizes the use of force, so that
>leaves anyone who wants protection from a forceful attack with no other
>option than to hope the State will help, be they Jews or not. If I must not
>defend myself and organize for the purpose, then I have to rely on the
>police, etc. Whether the State was such a good protector is pretty
>debatable. It was often not, and worse, was often even the agent of
>persecution.
How good the State was at doing it is certainly debatable.
>
>There is another line of argument which makes much more sense to me:
>exactly because arbitrary States were no good protectors and even
>persecutors, it was plausible that especially Jews were drawn to the idea
>of an impartial State which has as its sole purpose the protection of the
>rights of all citizens alike and otherwise does not intrude in private
>affairs (religion, economy, etc.): the ideal of Classical Liberalism.
That is actually in line with Arendt’s thinking which is much more
nuanced than what I’ve put forward. However, she also discusses the
realities of imperialism which she argues showed that without National
Rights there are no human rights. E.G. rights as an Englishman were
guaranteed, but rights as an Indian or African under the British Empire
were not. She extends this discussion to what she calls the zone of
mixed populations (Austria-Hungary-Poland etc.) and tries to explain
that groups sought to establish themselves as National entities in order
to achieve rights to life, liberty and property (ok, it’s a long book
:-)). The Hapsburg’s were ultimately unable to protect the citizen qua
citizen.
>Indeed e. g. in Germany many of the leading Classical Liberals (Lasker,
>Bamberger, Oppenheim, Loewe, etc.) were Jewish. Likewise they were drawn to
>laissez-faire capitalism because it left that part of society intact that
>was the best protector for Jews: markets, trade, free enterprise; and did
>away with all those restrictions that had kept Jews out.
Right, but this freedom depends on the Liberal State to maintain it.
Additionally, Liberal States despite their rhetoric have been a bit
stingy about who they consider citizens and worthy of these rights.
>
>> 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.
>
>Then she is utterly mistaken because she misses a lot. If you look at the
>1870/80s in Germany when _political_ anti-Semitism was first articulated,
>this was part of an attack on Classical Liberalism and laissez-faire
>capitalism (which were perceived as international and to use a modern
>buzzword “globalization” which could well be visualized by pointing to the
>Rothschilds]. Ludwig Bamberger wrote in 1880 in his “Deutschthum und
>Judenthum” [Jewry and Germandom]:
I don’t see how that makes here mistaken. She separates the contents
of conspiracy theories from the origins. Also, she goes on for 400
pages or so and misses very little. Again, I’m just trying to
paraphrase some of her arguments but the book is very complex.
She definitely addresses the international character of the Rothschild’s
etc., but I think she would disagree with your characterization of
Laissez-faire capitalism which historically was laissez-faire within the
nation-state, but used the power of the nation-state to guard its
overseas investments without also exporting the liberal rights to the
inhabitants of Africa, for example.
>
>Feldzuge gegen den Liberalismus, […]” [The attack on the Jews is only a
>diversion in the contemporary campaign against Liberalism, […]],
>http://nineties.com/bamberger
>
>The hope for Jews was not the State. As late as 1898, Eugen Richter in his
>”Politisches ABC-Buch” (entry “Juden” [Jews], cf.
>http://nineties.com/eugen-richter) writes that it was practically
>impossible for Jews to succeed in such State institutions as the military,
>administration, and there were only restricted opportunities as judges,
>teachers or in academia. But in the fields where the State had
>comparatively little to say, Jews could be very successful: as businessmen,
>lawyers, doctors, in the media, arts, or classical fields as trade and
>banking.
Again this is not out of line with Arendt’s except that liberalism
depends on a state strong enough to protect life, liberty and property.
Thus the Jews were portrayed as the behind the scenes controllers of
Franz-Josef etc.
She points out also, btw, that most Jews were poor and not bankers etc.
Yet, those few who were identified as typical in many minds.
>
>Why this is so, can best be explained by an argument which many think works
>against capitalism: market failure. Persecution of Jews (or for that sake
>any other minority) is a “public good,” i. e. something which you can’t
>exclude anyone else from who hasn’t paid for its production. They can
>”enjoy” it, but are free-riders. Therefore public goods tend to be
>underproduced on a free market. And that’s just fine: less persecution. And
>then comes the argument for production of public goods by the State: if we
>could force everyone to support the persecution, then we can produce the
>public good. The State can produce the persecution: more persecution.
I’m not arguing for or against Libertarianism here, and neither is
Arendt, I do not think.
>
>This is also evident in the examples Eugen Richter gives: if I want to have
>optimal capabilities of an army to defend me, I am not in the least
>interested in supporting them when they think they have to keep Jews out
>even if they can do a better job. But the government can force people to
>support such a nonsense. If that were a good on the free-market and a
>businessman decided not to hire Jews even if they can do a better job, he
>will work at a disadvantage compared to his competitors who aren’t that
>silly, and use the potential of Jews. Bottomline: the anti-Semitic
>businessman tends to lose against his competitors and will go out of
>business.
>
>Tyler Cowan argues along similar lines in his “The Socialist Roots of
>Anti-Semitism” (title off of my head) which was published in the Freeman
>and where he also reviews the pretty strong connection of Socialist and
>anti-Semitic thought. He also points to many examples that Jews have done
>very well in the context of thoroughly capitalist societies (e. g. the
>USA).
>
>> She argues also that it is the goal of Totalitarian movements to destroy
>> the state and replace it with the Party.
>
>But then she confuses something: the Party is then a new State. There is
>for Jews nothing inherently benevolent in a State. What she means to say is
>at most that such totalitarian movements destroy those States which in a
>wide sense subscribe to Classical Liberal principles as equality before the
>law, constitutional rights the State promises not to violate and thus
>securing some private sphere and sphere of society where the State must not
>interfere.
No, I think the Party is still distinct form the state. I think there
is some reason in the fact that the Nazi Party and the SS were branded
criminal organizations whereas the Wehrmacht was not. She argues that
Totalitarian movements are not content merely to destroy and replace the
state, they must expand beyond their borders, engage in mass murder, and
eventually try to regulate the behavior of each individual.
>
>> 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.
>
>I think she should differentiate the two cases of Nazi Germany and the
>Soviet Union. In Germany, the Nazis had different institutions (army,
>administration, churches) which were not their creation and while
>cooperative were not as well under their control as their own institutions.
>Therefore they tended to rely for critical parts on party institutions. But
>sometimes they did not. E. g. in 1934 Hitler made the decision to rely on
>the Wehrmacht and not the SA when he purged the SA leadership. Many of the
>party leaders had little influence (e. g. Rosenberg), and party
>organizations were not paramount. Formally, the leadership appeared as
>representatives of the State, not so much of the party. I doubt that the SS
>had the relationship to the Wehrmacht, as the KGB to the Red Army. I am
>pretty certain that they could not have purged generals for nothing, even
>late in the war.
I think that it is one of Arendt’s weaknesses that she tries to hard to
argue the similarities between the SU and Germany when clearly there are
such differences and you bring up some good points here.
But her image of an ideologically based movement (race-thinking, or
class-thinking) that aims to destroy the institutions of state (and yes
replace them, but it doesn’t stop there) is quite compelling.
I’m a bit reluctant to try to keep summarizing her because you might
read her differently than I do and we might very well disagree about
what she is saying.
>In the Soviet Union, the old State was abolished and a new one was built.
>At first there were also some institutions which were not strictly
>communist (Soviets, etc.). The Communists revamped them when they had the
>power. The KGB developed out of the Cheka which was an organ of the State,
>not the party. The party was much more intertwined with the State than in
>the case of Germany.
>
>
>But in both cases this is not too important if one defines as State all
>those institutions which can legally exert force whether they developed out
>of a party or an older State institution.
I don’t think she uses this definition of state. Also, she argues that
a truly Totalitarian movement will keep destroying the State which
reminds me of the idea of permanent revolution.
>
>> She argues that these
>> systems are Internationalist in nature and must destroy everything in
>> their path to achieve a kind of “permanent revolution.”
>
>Then she uses the word “internationalist” in a strange way. If I understand
>this right, she means something like “imperialist” (perhaps encompassing
>the whole world, although I am not sure this was really the case with the
>Nazis who were AFAIK “only” interested in creating a European empire
>including parts of Russia).
I think she would argue that their aims would have expanded or else that
they would have become a dictatorship. When the Soviet State became
stable, i.e., when there were no longer purges and “Doctor’s plots”
etc., she argues that it became a dictatorship that was in danger of
regaining its totalitarian character, but no longer totalitarian.
>
>> 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.
>
>I think that’s true. The Fascist party was pretty weak (although they could
>oust him in 1943!). Then he made no efforts to bring all possible
>institutions (monarchy, church, business, media, art, etc.) under his
>complete control.
>
>> He was content to master the institutions of State rather than destroy
>> them.
>
>Depends: a parlament was e. g. not part of his system. But in general I
>think that is right.
>
>> 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 know too little about this. But I can recall another explanation that
>Khrushchev was supported by higher party ranks who were simply fed up with
>the continuous fear of the Stalin regime.
>
>> I am only paraphrasing her argument and interested people should read
>> the book,
>
>Since someone else also pointed me to it, I think I’ll do that, although I
>am not too convinced with the arguments above.
>
>> but it is in line with the fact that the Nazis destroyed the
>> Weimar Republic
>
>They didn’t destroy the State. They took it over, purged its personnel,
>revamped it, expanded it and integrated the party into it. It was a
>different State afterwards, but it was not the destruction of a State (as
>perhaps in the case of Lenin).
If I understand you correctly, you mean to point out that they did not
literally destroy every institution of state. For example the courts
and the Order Police still existed; yet they did radically reshape them
to fit the needs of the Party. Would you agree, at least, that there is
a difference between what Mussolini did to the State (basically take the
helm for his party but leave the institutions intact) and what the Nazis
did to the State?
>
>> and that the Republic was the only possible bulwark
>> against this or the other Totalitarian movement.
>
>By definition if you focus only on States.
>
>No, I think one could make an argument that in 1932/33 the best choice
>against the Nazis would have been transforming the Weimar Republic into
>some authoritarian regime dominated by rightwing forces without the Nazis
>and maybe even an attempt to restore the monarchy to give it more of a
>stature (this all with the knowledge of the time, the acting people and
>parties of the time, etc.). The argument would rely on different other
>countries (like Austria) where such an alternative was tried and succeeded
>in eliminating the Nazis (or similar movements) who were notoriously bad a
>putsching against an existing regime.
Hmm. Didn’t Pappen and Hindenberg try just that at first?
>
>That would not have been a nice choice, but one I think that might have
>delivered the important result that the Nazis could not get hold of the
>German State.
>
>If I have some free wishes, I could also come up with a different
>alternative: a well-armed citizenry with a commitment to individual liberty
>and the will to defend this with the necessary force. But that was nowhere
>in sight at the time.
I guess my pipe-dream would be for the parties of the center (Social
Democrats and Catholic Center) to realize that they had more to gain
form each other than the left and right extremes.
In the US I get frustrated when the Democrats call Republicans Nazis
(except for Pat Buchanan, who is at least a Nazi sympathizer in my
opinion.) and the Republicans call the Democrats communists. The parties
really have more in common with each other, namely via the commitment to
Constitutional process.
I’ll be out of town for awhile; so if I do not respond in this thread
in a timely manner, it is not for lack of interest.
Best,
Rich Green
—
————————————————————————-
Richard J. Green http://holocaust-history.org
[email protected] http://world.std.com/~rjg/exposing-denial/
http://world.std.com/~rjg
From [email protected] Sun Aug 9 15:57:39 EDT 1998
Article: 196770 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.mideast,
talk.politics.misc,alt.revisionism
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!WCG!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!
digex!NetNews1!
arclight.uoregon.edu!news.cc.ukans.edu
news.vt.edu!solaris.cc.vt.edu!newspump.monmouth.com!
newspeer.monmouth.com!Supernews60!
supernews.com!coop.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]>
<35C0035[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 19:27:30 GMT
Lines: 21
Xref: trends.ca alt.conspiracy:291286 talk.politics.mideast:70363
talk.politics.misc:669898 alt.revisionism:196770
Greetings,
The point of bringing up Lucretius was that the process of science, just
like the process of history evolves. Just as early on, some may have
taken the soap rumors seriously, does not mean that all history is
rumor. In the case, of Lucretius, we have fundamentally changed the
definition of an atom. What we call atoms, cannot be said to be what
was originally meant my the term.
At any rate, Mr. Marques has essentially acknowleged that he cannot
prove that a historical event that he accepts occurred, if we hold him
to the standards demanded by “revisionists” for the Final Solution.
Best,
Rich Green
—
————————————————————————-
Richard J. Green http://holocaust-history.org
[email protected] http://world.std.com/~rjg/exposing-denial/
http://world.std.com/~rjg
From [email protected] Mon Aug 10 10:04:13 EDT 1998
Article: 197044 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!
uunet!in5.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]>
<35C431C[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 02:39:26 GMT
Lines: 73
Xref: trends.ca alt.conspiracy:291564 talk.politics.mideast:70464
talk.politics.misc:670755 alt.revisionism:197044
In article <[email protected]>,
ASMarques wrote:
>Richard J Green wrote:
>>
>> Greetings,
>
>Hi there, Mr. Green.
>
>> The point of bringing up Lucretius was that the process of science, just
>> like the process of history evolves. Just as early on, some may have
>> taken the soap rumors seriously, does not mean that all history is
>> rumor.
>
>I presume the brand new methods of identifying human soap are the basis
>for your denial of mass human soap-making, while apparently retaining
>the experimental human saponification program.
>
> ——–
> [To be or ~ to be ?]~~ | 🙁 |
I notice that you dodged your lie that that I had claimed that bars of
Jewish soap exist.
> ——–
>
>And, well, if rumor is not promoted as history, where does that leave
>the Hollow Cause ?
>
>> In the case, of Lucretius, we have fundamentally changed the
>> definition of an atom. What we call atoms, cannot be said to be what
>> was originally meant my the term.
>
>The truth of what we call atoms bears no parallel at all to the truth of
>what we call the extermination of millions of people in gas chambers or
>the mass murder of hundreds of thousands by dropping nuclear explosive
>devices on them. In the first case it’s a matter of finding the right
>philosophical approaches to very complex and mysterious
>physical/mathematical problems. In the other two cases it’s simply
>collecting factual evidence for macroscopic everyday occurrences.
>
>They are different things, you see. Atoms are philosophical speculation,
>the A-bomb over Hiroshima unfortunately is real history, and the
>”Holocaust”, I’m happy to say, is self-contradictory rumor.
Prove that the A-bomb was dropped. Post physical evidence,
corroborating non-contradictory testimony, documentary evidence, and
show that an atom bomb is physically possible.
By the way, do you intend to put my unedited replies on your CODOH
webpage, hypocrite?
>
>> At any rate, Mr. Marques has essentially acknowleged that he cannot
>> prove that a historical event that he accepts occurred, if we hold him
>> to the standards demanded by “revisionists” for the Final Solution.
>
>Seems to me revisionists only demand the same accuracy and consistency
>standards be applied to the “Holocaust” that are used regarding any
>other alleged event of a historical nature. The standards of
>holo-scholarship, fall a little short of this…
Prove it. Demonstrate that the atom bomb was dropped; so far you have
failed to do that.
Best,
Rich Green
—
————————————————————————-
Richard J. Green http://holocaust-history.org
[email protected] http://world.std.com/~rjg/exposing-denial/
http://world.std.com/~rjg
From [email protected] Mon Aug 10 10:04:14 EDT 1998
Article: 197047 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!
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]>
<35C45C06.115[email protected] <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 02:51:01 GMT
Lines: 47
Xref: trends.ca alt.conspiracy:291569 talk.politics.mideast:70472
talk.politics.misc:670768 alt.revisionism:197047
In article <[email protected]>,
wrote:
>ASMarques wrote:
>>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> >
>> > > > and it is true that most
>> > > > French jews who lived in unoccupied France did escape. But what is your
>> > > > point here?
>> > >
>> > > You’re getting it wrong. It’s not “unoccupied France” alone. It’s the
>> > > whole country. Jews of French origin were for their most part left alone
>> > > in occupied France too.<
>> >
>> > Nonsense. They were rounded up and deported to places like Auschwitz
>> > where most died.
>>
>> Not at all. The numbers I give you in the previous posts are agreed upon
>> by everybody. On the “exterminationist” camp, however, these things are
>> always whispered about and hushed up instead of clearly spoken about.
>>
>> Sometimes amusing episodes take place. Here is one of them from Pierre
>> Guillaume’s article whose URL I gave you before; sorry, I don’t have the
>> time to translate; I hope you’ll understand it):
>>
>
>I’m afraid I can’t read French. If more Jews had time to get from
>occupied France into VIchy France, all the power to them. You say
>”only” 75,000 out of 300,000 French Jews were deported and died. I do
>not know.
According to Gilbert _Atlas of the Holocaust_,
83,000 French Jews were killed, 200,000 survived.
According to Hilberg, _Destruction of the European Jews_, 75,000 were
killed.
Best,
Rich Green
—
————————————————————————-
Richard J. Green http://holocaust-history.org
[email protected] http://world.std.com/~rjg/exposing-denial/
http://world.std.com/~rjg
From [email protected] Mon Aug 10 10:04:15 EDT 1998
Article: 197072 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.revisionism,talk.
politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!cyclone.news.idirect.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
204.186.110.126!ptdnetP!newsgate.ptd.net!newsfeed.fast.net!
uunet!uunet!in2.uu.net!world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: Party and State (Was Re: JEWS MUST UNITE TO COMBAT THE MUSLIMS AND NAZI SCUM)
Message-ID:
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
References: <01bdbde4$a6593820$e2421ecc@mycomputer> <01bdbe7d$6b2c59a0$92d923c7@mycomputer>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 03:48:37 GMT
Lines: 243
Xref: trends.ca alt.politics.libertarian:303205 alt.revisionism:197072 talk.politics.libertarian:306362 talk.politics.misc:670816
>Hello Mr. Green,
Hello!
[snip]
>Thanks for the quotes (and the work of typing them in). I think I now
>understand her better. But before you have to post also the other 400
>pages, it would be fair that I read the book. (BTW, you may call me
>Hansjoerg.)
Thanks, I will do that in private conversation or in chit-chat, but my
habit is to be more formal in serious public (usenet) conversations even
with my friends.
[snip]
>German: long sentences and engendering new word monsters all the time (but
>she seems to be a rather mild variety of it). I find it symptomatic that
>the English “common sense” is so hard to translate into German that most
>leave it untranslated.
>
>My personal theory is that this is related to the status in society of
>those who do philosophy (and all the fields which have sprung from
>philosophy, especially political philosophy).
One must remember that Arendt was a student of Heidegger and therefore
learned in that tradition, even if her later writings reached a larger
audience.
>In Britain or the US, everyone has the right to do philosophy (it’s notable
>how many philosophers did not have a background in professional philosphy,
>e. g. Herbert Spencer was an engineer which would disqualify you for life
>in Germany) and when they do they appeal to the common sense of their
>fellow citizens and try to be as clear as possible. The ideal is to be
>understood and convince others. The worst thing you could say about a
>philosopher is that he is obscure and outright wrong.
>
>In Germany those who do philosophy are a caste, people who don’t appeal to
>the populace at large, but to their colleagues, other professional
>philosophers and a class of “Gebildete” (educated people), and since
>academia has always been state-run in Germany, they also have to convince
>politicians that what they do is deep and important. So if they are clear
>and appeal to common sense, this is counterproductive for them. Their
>colleagues will discard them as shallow thinkers and politicians will
>conclude that they can do without them and do the common sense thinking
>themselves. Therefore a good strategy is to be as obscure as possible, to
>hide one’s insights (if there are any) beneath layers and layers of words,
>that others have to work through before they can criticize them. The ideal
>is to sound deep, not to be understood. Popper (himself an Anglo-Saxon by
>choice) works that out in his “The Open Society and its Enemies” for Hegel
>(Kant got the style started, but less with this purpose, I guess simply
>because he was not addressing anyone at all when he was in Koenigsberg).
>The worst thing is to sound shallow and to show that one does not have the
>magic formula to explain each and everything.
>
>In as much as academia is now state-run everywhere and also many other
>things have converged, the German approach (also through the assistance of
>many emigres in the 30s) has taken hold to some extent also in Anglo-Saxon
>countries.
>
>> I think Arendt’s project is to understand history rather than just list
>> historical facts. In doing so, I think she occasionally falls into the
>> trap of the “ideologies” (she identifies two: class-thinking and race-
>> thinking) in thinking that she has the secret key to history. If it
>
>Libertarians are already in the trap, so we can live with this 🙂
I think that some of them _are_ in that trap, but I have also learned
that it is not a good idea to over generalize about people who call
themselves libertarians.
>
>> were really possible to explain history so thoroughly, it seems to me
>> that one ought to be able to predict the future.
>
>Good point.
>
>> I promised to go on vacation, but I thought it would be worthwhile to
>> examine in Arendt’s own words the relationship between Party and State.
>
>Thanks a lot, and enjoy your vacation.
>
>> I cannot find an explicit definition where she says “this is what I mean
>> by these terms,” but I think the following passage (with some ellipsis)
>> helps to illustrate it [I will omit the many footnotes]:
>
>To a certain extent it does, and I think she has some very good points,
>especially when she describes the need for party ideologies. Something
>which strikes many commentators in Germany about American politics is that
>Democrats and Republicans are so little organized and that it is mostly
>about parading the DNC and RNC before an election.
Another aspect of this is that these two parties each encompass factions
that are at each other’s throats half the time. The party platforms
tend to be more of an expedient compromise between competing interests
than a truly coherent program.
>The German constitutions
>states that the parties _participate_ in forming public opinion which has
>been clutched on by them to justify all kinds of subsidies and
>semi-official functions within the State. The German view is that parties
>do politics and politicians are their representatives (also reinforced by
>proportional representation and party lists in the elections).
[snip]
>> 1) Arendt suggest that the stated platform of totalitarian parties
>> should not be taken too litreally.
>
>That’s why it would be too shallow to point to the name “National
>Socialist” and take this _alone_ as proof for the Socialism of the Nazis.
>Hitler was perfectly willing to carry things along which he had long
>discarded. One striking example is the original party program which he
>declared as sacrosanct, but which was not too important for his policies in
>its definiteness.
I agree. There seem to have been some disagreements among leaders of
the various factions, and undoubtedly some of the platform was useful
propaganda at one time or another, but to take it literally as the
program of the Nazis is simplistic at best.
>
>> Their followers will accept
>> flip-flops and outright contradictions without batting an eye. It is
>
>In effect: yes. Nonetheless the Hitler-Stalin pact of 1939 confused quite a
>few people on both sides. But they simply didn’t have a ground for
>criticizing it since the leaders/parties have to be axiomatically right all
>the time.
Yes, and, in fact, it appears to be that it was an axiom of Stalin’s
that Hitler was trustworthy and would not attack the SU. Apparently,
Hitler was not bound by that axiom. Stalin actually, punished generals
for preparing for the eventuality of war with Germany.
>
>> the mood or feeling of the party that is more important to spawning a
>> movement.
>
>True, although I guess there are differences. As far as I understand the
>situation in the Stalinist Soviet Union, it must have been much more
>oppressive and created a pervasive atmosphere of fear and intimidation.
>That was also part of the story in Nazi Germany, but the Nazis were much
>better at creating a good mood something which made it much easier for
>people to cooperate. In Germany I think there were far more people who saw
>the Nazi regime as _their_ regime working for them.
My gut feeling is to agree with you, but I think that we may be
underestimating also the extent to which Stalin was loved and adored by
many if not all or most.
>
>(As to the intimidation part of it, there is this little story my father
>told me. My father was just a boy then (he was 9 years old at the end of
>the war), and they had indoctrinated him in school that the Fuehrer had
>”Wunderwaffen” (miraculous weapons) which would win the war for Germany. So
>my father with the superciliousness of a child who knows what makes the
>world tick because they said it in school, explained this to my grandfather
>late in the war. My father says he can still recall the strange reaction of
>my grandfather who did not believe it. My grandfather did not dare to speak
>out and tell my father that this was bunkum. My father says he could only
>perceive that my grandfather did not believe it, but did not want to say
>so. {That could have got you into deep trouble for defaitism.) The
>situation was somewhat like in 1984 where the children spy on their
>parents. Perhaps Harold Covington would want to comment on this as he is so
>fond to use his “Winston Smith” pseudonym to propagate Nazism.)
Fascinating, that one could be intimidated against speaking openly with
one’s children. Surely, such an occurrence is indicative of
extraordinary circumstances.
[snip]
>You’ve got me interested in the book. I must admit that I was expecting
>more of a Marxist-inspired line of argument which is willing to sweep over
>contradictory facts, but she appears to be too serious for that.
I think she is more serious than that yes. To say that she draws no
inspiration from Marx’s ideas would be wrong, but she is no Marxist.
>I can recall an old interview I saw on German TV with her (must have been
>in the 60s, black and white, and she was IIRC outrageously smoking one
>cigarette after the other). I really liked her somewhat rough style, and
>while I can’t recall what the interview was about, I found what she said
>pretty interesting and it made sense.
>
>> We may disgree with her interpretations of these events, but it would be
>> wrong to think she has not thought about and addressed most objections.
>
>Okay. I was somewhat astounded by certain assertions, e. g. about Jews
>being barred from “bourgeois” parties which I think is pretty much not the
>truth for Imperial Germany, her rather Marxist interpretation of
>imperialism, or certain claims about “destruction of the State” and Nazi
>Germany or the Soviet Union.
Hmm. I don’t think she says that, and I don’t think I said she said
that. I may not have been clear enough about her claim that Jews were
outside the class system. She does not mean party affiliation, but
rather in social terms. She goes into great detail about bourgeois
attitudes toward Jews, anti- and philo- semitism, the fascination with
Jews in salon-like settings, and the private/public compartmentalized life
that some successful Jews lived. I won’t describe too much of this in
detail; I merely want to correct the apparent misunderstanding.
>
>OTOH, I found her interpretation of Fascist Italy far above average
>compared to the usual leftist interpretation under a hold-all concept of
>”Fascism.” I guess she draws a line in 1938 because then the Fascists
>adopted an equivalent of the Nurremberg Laws and started to embrace
>anti-Semitism (although they never went as far as the Nazis). Yet I think
>even after 1938, Fascist Italy was still far from the totalitarianism of
>Nazi Germany, and still more authoritarian.
I think her assertion that it was not Totalitarian before 1938 need not
be read as a strong assertion that it was so thereafter. Perhaps, she
merely believes the case is clear up to 1938 and not necessarily so
after 1938.
>
>> Composing a work to criticize her (and that’s what it would have to be)
>> would be a major undertaking which one would undoubtedly wish to
>> publish.
>
>On this newsgroup 🙂
>
>
>Best regards,
>
>Hansjoerg Walther.
>
>
>P. S.
>
>Good idea to change the subject line.
Equating Muslims and Nazis as the composer of the old subject line did
offends me, quite frankly.
Best,
Rich Green
—
————————————————————————-
Richard J. Green http://holocaust-history.org
[email protected] http://world.std.com/~rjg/exposing-denial/
http://world.std.com/~rjg
From [email protected] Mon Aug 10 10:04:18 EDT 1998
Article: 197075 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.revisionism,
alk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!newsfeed.wli.net!newsfeed.corridex.com!
ameritech.ais.net!jamie!ais.net!ameritech.net!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:
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 03:59:44 GMT
Lines: 52
Xref: trends.ca alt.politics.libertarian:303208 alt.revisionism:197075 talk.politics.libertarian:306367 talk.politics.misc:670825
In article ,
Tim Starr wrote:
[snip]
>Then I don’t know what these “traditional ideas of ‘State'” are. The one
>I’m familiar with is the Weberian definition of the State as a geographical
>monopoly of legitimate violence, & that doesn’t seem to conflict with
>totalitarianism at all.
I hope some of text I posted may have helped.
>As I understand it, totalitarianism simply means that the State has unlimited
>jurisdiction, that it is what was called “despotic” in 18th-century Anglo-
>American political philosophy. That is, that totalitarianism is merely one
>kind of State, a totally unlimited one.
To political theorists, despotism and Totalitarian government are completely
different entities. BTW- I think that Arendt is often used the
definition of the term. To Arendt the first Totalitarian governments were
the Nazis and the Bolsheviks. She sees these movements as new and
unprecedented.
>>The Party continues to destroy the State and attempts to keep constant
>>upheaval. If it were merely a case of the Party becoming the State, we’d
>>be talking about dictatorship not Totalitarianism.
>
>I agree, if you mean that if it were simply that the Party took over an
>existing non-totalitarian State & left it non-totalitarian, then you wouldn’t
>have totalitarianism. I don’t see how you would necessarily have dictatorship,
>though. However, what I was responding to was the claim that if the Party
>takes over an existing non-totalitarian State, then transforms it into a
>totalitarian one, that you no longer have a State.
>
>This is probably just semantic confusion coming from my ignorance of her
>definitions of her terms.
Again, see my post quoting some of her text for clarification.
Regarding our conversation about evidence, I think that we each
understood what the other meant and that is probably as close to
resolution as we will get beyond repeating ourselves.
Best,
Rich Green
—
————————————————————————-
Richard J. Green http://holocaust-history.org
[email protected] http://world.std.com/~rjg/exposing-denial/
http://world.std.com/~rjg
From [email protected] Sun Aug 16 13:36:40 EDT 1998
Article: 198385 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!feeder1.wwnet.net!newsroute.bconnex.ca!
news.lightlink.com!news.mv.net!world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: Danny Keren and the Leuchter Report
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 17:05:48 GMT
References: <[email protected]>
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
Lines: 30
Xref: trends.ca alt.revisionism:198385
In article <[email protected]>,
Dieselzykl wrote:
>The pseudo-technical posts of Dan Keren and Mark Van Alstine about cyanide
>”prove” that they are simply in way over their heads.
>
>But such technical discussions are a step in the right direction.
>
>All of the issues raised have been dealt with at length within the revisionist
>literature and I will not try to reiterate the arguments here. If you want a
>debate on these things with me, you must demonstrate at least a college
>entrance level understanding of chemistry. I’ll be happy to dabate these
>subjects with someone like a Richard Schultz but not with fools like Keren and
>Van Alstine. Walk before you try to run. Read the numerous essays on these
>subjects at the CODOH website and elsewhere.
In other words, Mr. Berg can tell lies, but he cannot address technical
issues once they are raised. The best that he can do is to engage in
name calling and personal attacks on those who disagree with him.
Best,
Rich Green
—
————————————————————————-
Richard J. Green http://holocaust-history.org
[email protected] http://world.std.com/~rjg/exposing-denial/
http://world.std.com/~rjg
From [email protected] Sun Aug 16 13:36:42 EDT 1998
Article: 198401 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!data.pa.vix.com!news1.digital.com!
su-news-feed2.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!
cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!
news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
209.244.253.199!newsfeed.xcom.net!news.mv.net!world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: Why won’t the cowardly hypocrit Marques answer a simple question?
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 16:39:26 GMT
References: <[email protected]>
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
Lines: 46
Xref: trends.ca alt.revisionism:198401
Greetings,
Still no response from the coward ASMarques. No doubt he fears
admitting his own hypocrisy.
Best,
Rich Green
In article ,
Richard J Green wrote:
>In article ,
>Richard J Green wrote:
>>Mr. Marques,
>>
>>Can I assume that the URL
>>
>>http://www.codoh.com/newrevoices/nrmarques/nrmgreen.html
>>
>>will contain my complete and unedited replies to your nonsense. If not,
>>aren’t you being a bit hypocritical to complain about Ken McVay’s
>>archiving techniques?
>>
>>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
>
>
>–
>————————————————————————-
>Richard J. Green http://holocaust-history.org
>[email protected] http://world.std.com/~rjg/exposing-denial.html
>http://world.std.com/~rjg
—
————————————————————————-
Richard J. Green http://holocaust-history.org
[email protected] http://world.std.com/~rjg/exposing-denial/
http://world.std.com/~rjg
From [email protected] Sun Aug 16 13:36:43 EDT 1998
Article: 198477 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!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!
news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!199.125.85.9!
news.mv.net!world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: Fred Leuchter Report Smashes “Holocaust” Claims
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 16:42:03 GMT
References:
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
Lines: 36
Xref: trends.ca alt.revisionism:198477
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/
—
————————————————————————-
Richard J. Green http://holocaust-history.org
[email protected] http://world.std.com/~rjg/exposing-denial/
http://world.std.com/~rjg
From [email protected] Sun Aug 16 13:36:45 EDT 1998
Article: 198483 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!falcon.america.net!newspump.monmouth.com!
newspeer.monmouth.com!news-peer-east.sprintlink.net!
news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!199.125.85.9!news.mv.net!
world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: freddie berg and the crakow Report
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 17:00:48 GMT
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
Lines: 63
Xref: trends.ca alt.revisionism:198483
In article <[email protected]>,
Dieselzykl wrote:
>Dear Klarsj,
>
>Since you think you’re so smart– please do tell me what you think I missed
>from the Cracow Institute report.
>
>Not the whole blah-blah, please; just the explanation for why they ignored the
>most obvious evidence–namely, the intense Prussian blue coloration of the
>walls of the delousing stations.
They did not ignore it. They mention it explicitly; so your accusation
is a lie. They were interested in quantitative results not empty
polemics. Discriminating against iron blues is the only serious method
to make such a comparison.
>
>Perhaps that Prussian blue staining of the exterior and interior walls was a
>sign from Yahweh to all Yids to repent–and stop telling LIES. Perhaps that’s
>the explanation of the great mystery. Perhaps that’s the true explanation for
>what you had earlier said the Cracow Institute could not explain at all.
>Yahweh must have done it!!
Note that when confronted with facts (namely, that Rudolf and Leuchter’s
work relies on an assumption that they could not demonstrate) that Mr.
Berg launches into an antisemitic polemic, rather than addressing the
facts.
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/
—
————————————————————————-
Richard J. Green http://holocaust-history.org
[email protected] http://world.std.com/~rjg/exposing-denial/
http://world.std.com/~rjg
From [email protected] Tue Aug 18 15:55:11 EDT 1998
Article: 198836 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!
news-nyc.telia.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
206.229.87.25!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!199.125.85.9!
news.mv.net!world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: Danny Keren and the Leuchter Report
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 03:20:09 GMT
References: <[email protected]>
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
Lines: 23
Xref: trends.ca alt.revisionism:198836
In article <[email protected]>,
Dieselzykl wrote:
>Now let’s try some basic chemistry. Please do ask Richard Schultz or someone
>with some real qualifications, there must be some Jewish chemists out there
>somewhere,–.whether or not one can have cyanide condense on surfaces at 68
>degrees Fahreneit for example? Your insistence that it is not possible is
>really quite funny.
Yes, Mr. Berg, let us discuss chemistry. Perhaps, you’d like to tell us
what the partial pressure of HCN would have to be to condense at 68 F.
You do know what a dew point is, don’t you? So, again, tell us at what
partial pressure HCN will condense at 68F.
Best,
Rich Green
—
————————————————————————-
Richard J. Green http://holocaust-history.org
[email protected] http://world.std.com/~rjg/exposing-denial/
http://world.std.com/~rjg
From [email protected] Tue Aug 18 15:55:11 EDT 1998
Article: 198837 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!
cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!
news.lightlink.com!news.mv.net!world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: Danny Keren and the Leuchter Report
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 03:23:44 GMT
References: <[email protected]>
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
Lines: 29
Xref: trends.ca alt.revisionism:198837
In article <[email protected]>,
Dieselzykl wrote:
>Don’t give up on that business about how cyanide can not possibly condense at
>68 degrees Fahrenheit–or on a corpses. That shows real intellect on your
>part–just like your idiotic claims about how “very easy” it is to “tune” a
>Diesel to give 6%CO.
Perhaps, the brilliant Mr. Berg will tell us what the partial pressure
of HCN has to be to condense at 68F. Big Hint: at 50% relative humidity
water will not condense out of air at 25 F.
Best,
Rich Green
>
>Holocaust is a hoax.
>
>Bye-bye for now!!
>
>FPBerg
>alt.revisionism
—
————————————————————————-
Richard J. Green http://holocaust-history.org
[email protected] http://world.std.com/~rjg/exposing-denial/
http://world.std.com/~rjg
From [email protected] Wed Aug 19 12:54:56 EDT 1998
Article: 199051 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!nntp-out.monmouth.com!
newspeer.monmouth.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
209.244.253.199!newsfeed.xcom.net!news.mv.net!
world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: Danny Keren and the Leuchter Report
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 02:57:08 GMT
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
Lines: 39
Xref: trends.ca alt.revisionism:199051
In article <[email protected]>,
John Morris wrote:
>In , on Tue, 18 Aug 1998 03:23:44 GMT,
>[email protected] (Richard J Green) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Dieselzykl wrote:
>
>>>Don’t give up on that business about how cyanide can not possibly condense at
>>>68 degrees Fahrenheit–or on a corpses. That shows real intellect on your
>>>part–just like your idiotic claims about how “very easy” it is to “tune” a
>>>Diesel to give 6%CO.
>
>>Perhaps, the brilliant Mr. Berg will tell us what the partial pressure
>>of HCN has to be to condense at 68F. Big Hint: at 50% relative humidity
>>water will not condense out of air at 25 F.
>
>Just continuing my education in basic chemistry: I gather a) that the
>vapor pressure of water is a great deal lower than that of HCN and, b)
>that water condenses a geat deal more readily than HCN.
>
>I assume that, under the conditions specified by Berg, HCN would not
>condense on the corpses in a gas chamber.
Right see Danny’s calculation. HCN will condense when its partial
pressure equals its equilibrium vapor pressure at a given Temperature.
At 8 g/m^3 that is very cold indeed. Perhaps, Mr. Berg will tell us at
what temperature such a concentration of HCN would start to condense, or
perhaps, he’ll ignore the question like the coward that he is.
Best,
Rich Green
—
————————————————————————-
Richard J. Green http://holocaust-history.org
[email protected] http://world.std.com/~rjg/exposing-denial/
http://world.std.com/~rjg
From [email protected] Wed Aug 19 12:54:57 EDT 1998
Article: 199082 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!199.125.85.9!
news.mv.net!world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: Danny Keren and the Leuchter Report
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 03:17:33 GMT
References: <[email protected]>
<6rafds$1k[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
Lines: 31
Xref: trends.ca alt.revisionism:199082
Greetings,
Does Mr. Berg think that adsorption is independent of vapor pressure?
While it is indeed quite likely that fluids especially will absorb (in
the case of water) HCN, skin contact with such material (i.e. 0.1 molar
HCN) is not the end of the world. Even skin contact with pure HCN is
rarely deadly.
>From DuPont’s _Hydrogen Cyanide: properties, Uses, Storage and Handling_
…even severe skin contact usually will not require treatment if (1)
no inhalation or swallowing occurred and (2) the cyanide is promptly
washed from the skin and contaminated clothing and shoes are removed.
If skin contact is prolonged, cyanide poisoning may occur with nausea
and unconsciousness; death is possible if the source of cyanide is not
removed and treatment [not-RJG] provided. Even after washing the skin
patient should be watched for 1 to 2 hours because absorbed cyanide can
continue to work in the bloodstream. Wash clothing before reuse and
destroy contaminated shoes.
Note that this is for direct contact with the pure liquid!
—
————————————————————————-
Richard J. Green http://holocaust-history.org
[email protected] http://world.std.com/~rjg/exposing-denial/
http://world.std.com/~rjg
From [email protected] Sun Aug 23 12:34:09 EDT 1998
Article: 199789 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!newsxfer.visi.net!europa.clark.net!
206.229.87.25!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!199.125.85.9!news.mv.net!
world!see_sig
From: [email protected] (Richard J Green)
Subject: Re: GREEN: Berg’s answer about adsorption
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 06:27:17 GMT
References: <[email protected]>
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
Lines: 111
Xref: trends.ca alt.revisionism:199789
In article <[email protected]>,
Dieselzykl wrote:
>A Mr. Green, perhaps Dr. Green–a chemist(?), lost his way in alt.reviso land
>and could not find a prevous answer of mine. . The answer which follows this
>introduction helps explain why there should have been abundant Prussian Blue
>staining in the alleged homicidal gas chambers also–and not just in the
>interior and exterior walls of the two delousing stations near the Kremas–if
>the Holocaust claims were true.
Nothing that you have posted shows that. The presence of cyanides
is not sufficient to form Prussian blue. You need a way to reduce
Fe(III) to Fe(II). Rudolf’s proposed mechanism for such a reduction
would not have been operative in the conditions present in the
gaschambers.
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.
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/hweb/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/
See also
http://world.std.com/~rjg/exposing-denial/auschwitz/chemistry/more-blue/
> The fact that there is no staining at all in
>the walls of the alleged gas chambers is dramatic proof of the fact that the
>Holocaust gassing claims are a hoax!! It never happened!
Why? Because you say so? Please explain how Fe(III) would have been
reduced to Fe(II) in the gaschambers. Perhaps, you can succeed where
Germar Rudolf failed.
[snip]
>Keep in mind what I wrote on this thread [Danny Keren and the Leuchter Report]
>already and about the small size of the HCN molecule and the low heat of
>vaporization. Then to understand what is involved, one can look at some of the
>literature on “adsorption” and “absorption.”
We’ve established that Mr. Berg does not understand adsorption or
absorption. Absorption by water is much more relevant to the case than
adsorption onto surface. Neither can pose a threat to the
Sonderkommando as Berg has acknowledged. How either process is supposed
to explain the reduction of Fe(III) to Fe(II) is beyond me. Perhaps,
Mr. Berg will elaborate.
As far as any threat to the Sonderkommando:
>From DuPont’s _Hydrogen Cyanide: properties, Uses, Storage and Handling_
…even severe skin contact usually will not require treatment if (1)
no inhalation or swallowing occurred and (2) the cyanide is promptly
washed from the skin and contaminated clothing and shoes are removed.
If skin contact is prolonged, cyanide poisoning may occur with nausea
and unconsciousness; death is possible if the source of cyanide is not
removed and treatment [not-RJG] provided. Even after washing the skin
patient should be watched for 1 to 2 hours because absorbed cyanide can
continue to work in the bloodstream. Wash clothing before reuse and
destroy contaminated shoes.
Note that this is for direct contact with the pure liquid!
[snip]
>READ CODOHWeb at http://www.codoh.com
I have.
>No gassings—no holocaust
Prove it. We can start with your proof that Prussian blue would have
formed in the gaschambers.
Best,
Rich Green
—
————————————————————————-
Richard J. Green http://holocaust-history.org
[email protected] http://world.std.com/~rjg/exposing-denial/
http://world.std.com/~rjg
From [email protected] Mon Aug 24 15:02:45 EDT 1998
Article: 199951 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: trends.ca!hub.org!newsfeed.direct.ca!su-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: Danny Keren and the Leuchter Report
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 04:30:01 GMT
References: <[email protected]>
Organization: The Holocaust History Project
Lines: 94
Xref: trends.ca alt.revisionism:199951
Mr. Berg’s article finally made it to my server:
In article <[email protected]>,
Dieselzykl wrote:
[snip]
>The same cookoo logic applied to Galileo would be as follows:
>Given that Galileo could not explain the precise mechanism for the formation of
>the moons around Jupiter, therefore excluding those moons and only allowing
>stars to appear through the telecope would make perfect sense–and solid
>science. (according to Van Alstine)
>
>Obviously, Van Alstine and I do see the world quite differently.
Yes, Mr. Van Alstine has a better understanding of the issues
surrounding Prussian blue formation.
>If Green is a chemist–perhaps he would like to refute what I quoted about
>adsorption and absorption of cyanide by corpses.
Mr. Berg has admitted his ignorance on this subject; I cannot refute him
on that point: he is ignorant.
>Perhaps Green would also like to explain to the world just what Zyklon-B
>”crystals” are. Those things were supposedly the great murder weapon used to
>kill millions of Jews. What?? You don’t even know what that was–and yet you
>have the chutzpah to accuse people of mass murder using such a substance??
>Shame on you.
Yes, I do know what Zyklon B was as a perusal of my articles would have
shown. It is dishonest of you to imply that I have ever claimed that
Zyklon B is a crystal. It is also dishonest of you to take a historians
use of the word crystal to imply the nonexistence of Zyklon B.
See my article on the chemistry of Auschwitz
http://holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry
>Hilberg claimed the following on page 566 of The Destruction of the European
>Jews:
>”The hydrogen cyanide, solidified in pellets, was shaken into the Leichenkeller
>through shafts, into the Badeanstalten through side walls. In the gas chamber
>the material IMMEDIATELY passed into the gaseous state.” [emphasis added]
>
>Now Dr. Green, doctor of chemistry–if that is what you are–please explain
>that claim by one of the great holocaust experts, perhaps the greatest of them
>all. Please explain how you would go about “solidifying” hydrogen cyanide into
>pellets.
I would use a solid support such as diatomite or ERCO and impregante
them with the liquid.
>Please explain how it later goes “immediately” into the gaseous
>state. If you don’t know, just say so.
HCN has an incredibly high vapor pressure. Certainly much of it will
pass immediatly into the gaseous state. For all of the HCN to
evaporate depends on Temperature of course, but Peters, Irmscher, and
Rasch and Peters have already answered these questions. Why do you
pretend such ignorance? Is it the case that the best you can do is to
play on the public’s ignorance of these things and that you have no
substantive arguments to offer?
I have answered your questions please answer mine. What was the
reducing agent to convert Fe(III) to Fe(II) in the delousing chambers?
At what concentrations of this reducing agent does such reduction occur?
Demonstrate that such conditions applied to the gaschambers.
If you cannot answer just say so, and I will accept your inability to
explain how Prussian Blue formed and thus allow you to undermine your
own criticism of the IFRC Report.
>Hilberg’s story sure don’t sound scientific to me–no how. Obviously, neither
>Hilberg nor any of the hoaxers on this thread have any idea as to what
>Zyklon-B, their great murder weapon, actually was.
When did Hilberg claim to be a scientist? Is this the best that you can
do or do you have a real argument?
>
>Leuchter was right on target.
Because you say so.
Best,
Rich Green
—
————————————————————————-
Richard J. Green http://holocaust-history.org
[email protected] http://world.std.com/~rjg/exposing-denial/
http://world.std.com/~rjg
Home · Site Map · What’s New? · Search Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
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.
