Vaporizing device context
> At the Nuremberg Tribunal, chief U.S. prosecutor Robert Jackson charged that
> the Germans invented” a device to instantaneously “vaporize” 20,000 Jews near
> Auschwitz “in such a way that there was no trace left of them.” IMT blue
> series, Vol. 16, p. 529-530. (June 21, 1946). No reputable historian now
> accepts this fanciful tale.
Obviously, Herr Wankermeister is sharing whatever swill of the week the
gonadotoxic Giwer-swine is guzzling. The fallacy of this particular denier
lie has already been exposed by Mr. McCarthy or the duplicitous sham it
[archival note: the following article was originally posted on
October 22, 1995. knm]
In article , [email protected]
(Jamie McCarthy) wrote:
> What you are about to read is a long and crystal-clear demonstration of
> the goal of Holocaust-denial, or Holocaust “revisionism.” It has taken
> me a while to prepare all this documentation, but I feel that it’s worth
> the effort, because rarely have I seen such a perfectly obvious
> demonstration of what the goal of revisionism is.
> That goal is: to fool you.
> Normally, when I prepare a refutation of some piece of Holocaust-denial,
> I start with their lies and work my way around to the truth. Normally,
> I feel that doing this will help people recognize the process that’s
> involved in evaluating and analyzing their lies. Those of us who would
> remember the Holocaust can only do so much to oppose the endless stream
> of lies, and it is more important to know the _process_ of refutation
> than the refutations of the individual lies themselves.
> This time, however, I’m going to start with the truth and wend my way
> through the various lies. My reasons will become clear.
> Rather than “lies,” I should perhaps say “half-truths.” I’ve found that
> Holocaust-deniers prefer to take statements out of context, to twist
> their meaning slightly, rather than to actually make up facts out of
> thin air.
> This is the history of one such half-truth: a single paragraph of
> distortion, tracked over the last seven months
> I said I’d start with the truth, and here is the truth. At the famous
> Nuremberg trials, on June 21st, 1946, the United States’ Chief of
> Counsel, Mr. Justice Jackson, was cross-examining the war criminal
> Albert Speer. This is documented in the so-called “blue series,”
> offically titled _Trial of the Major War Criminals_, Volume 16,
> pp. 529-530:
> MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And certain experiments were also conducted
> and certain researches conducted in atomic energy, were they not?
> SPEER: We had not got as far as that, unfortunately, because the
> finest experts we had in atomic research had emigrated to America,
> and this had thrown us back a great deal in our research, so that
> we still needed another year or two in order to achieve any results
> in the splitting of the atom.
> MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The policy of driving people out who didn’t
> agree with Germany hadn’t produced very good dividends, had it?
> SPEER: Especially in this sphere it was a great disadvantage to
> MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, I have certain information, which was
> placed in my hands, of an experiment which was carried out near
> Auschwitz and I would like to ask you if you heard about it or knew
> about it. The purpose of the experiment was to find a quick and
> complete way of destroying people without the delay and trouble of
> shooting and gassing and burning, as it had been carried out, and
> this is the experiment, as I am advised. A village, a small village
> was provisionally erected, with temporary structures, and in it
> approximately 20,000 Jews were put. By means of this newly invented
> weapon of destruction, these 20,000 people were eradicated almost
> instantaneously, and in such a way that there was no trace left of
> them; that it developed, the explosive developed, temperatures of
> from 400 to 500 degrees centigrade and destroyed them without
> leaving any trace at all.
> Do you know about that experiment?
> SPEER: No, and I consider it utterly improbable. If we had such a
> weapon under preparation, I should have known about it. But we did
> not have such a weapon. It is clear that in chemical warfare
> attempts were made on both sides to carry out research on all the
> weapons one could think of, because one did not know which party
> would start chemical warfare first.
> MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The reports, then, of a new and secret weapon
> were exaggerated for the purpose of keeping the German people in
> the war?
> SPEER: That was the case mostly during the last phase of the war.
> From August, or rather June or July 1944 on I very often went to the
> front. I visited about 40 front-line divisions in their sectors and
> could not help seeing that the troops, just like the German people,
> were given hopes about a new weapon coming, new weapons and
> wonder-weapons which, without requiring the use of soldiers, without
> military forces, would guarantee victory. In this belief lies the
> secret why so many people in Germany offered their lives, although
> common sense told them that the war was over. They believed that in
> the near future this new weapon would arrive.
> Justice Jackson’s line of questioning was to analyze the mentality of
> the German people and the German troops throughout the war. In this
> cross-examination, he was interested in the techniques of Nazi internal
> propaganda, and what role it played in the Nazi committment to fighting
> the war until the very end, to fighting “total war.”
> In other words, he indulged in this line of questioning about “atomic
> energy” and the “experiment near Auschwitz” in order to ascertain that
> they _were_ propaganda stories, and to ascertain _why_ such propaganda
> was being spread.
> In March of 1995, Don Van Handel ([email protected]) posted an article to
> Usenet called “Fact File No. 4.” In this so-called “Fact File,” we saw
> a number of quotations from the “blue series,” all taken out of context
> in an effort to give the wrong impression. Here is the “setup” for the
> various quotations:
> Note: The fact file series is intended to present facts of history,
> free from the polemics and misinformation so often presented in this
> medium.Hopefully the facts contained herein will serve the cause of
> truth in history.
> Note to educators and students: Fact File no. 4 presents actual
> excerpts from the Nuremberg Trial Transcripts. The Nuremberg Trials
> documented countless Nazi atrocities including the now infamous gas
> chambers. What most people do not realize is that many of the claims
> documented at Nuremberg are no longer accepted by any reasonable
> historians. Many of these “atrocities” have simply been
> forgotten about. To many, these claims are nothing but a product of
> allied war-time propaganda and post-war hysteria.
> (Mr. Van Handel’s point was that, because the Nuremberg prosecutors were
> wrong about these various Nazi atrocities, they were therefore wrong
> about the entire Holocaust. Specious reasoning, at best.)
> The Jackson/Speer cross-examination was one of the quotations, given in
> bastardized form:
> IMT XVI – Mr. Justice Jackson: And certain experiments were also
> conducted and certain researches conducted in atomic energy… An
> experiment… was carried out near Auschwitz … The purpose of the
> experiment was to find a quick and complete way of destroying people
> without the delay and trouble of shooting and gassing and burning,
> as it had been carried out, and this is the experiment, as I am
> advised. A village, a small village was provisionally erected, with
> temporary structures, and in it approximately 20,000 Jews were put.
> By means of this newly invented weapon of destruction, these 20,000
> people were eradicated almost instantaneously, and in such a way
> that there was no trace.
> As you can see, the cross-examination testimony has been _so_ thoroughly
> mangled that it’s not even evident that Mr. Jackson is examining a
> defendant — it’s presented as a monologue!
> The entire section was carefully and selectively edited, to make it
> appear that Mr. Jackson was presenting a “claim documented at Nuremberg”
> about a wartime atrocity, instead of merely cross-examining a witness as
> to Nazi propaganda techniques.
> And everything that might give away the fact that Mr. Jackson was
> _questioning_, not _accusing_, was carefully edited out. The ellipses in
> the passage above represent the following bits of text which might have
> given it away:
> 1. “…were they not?”
> 2. “Now, I have certain information, which was placed in my
> hands, of…”
> 3. “…and I would like to ask you if you heard about it or
> knew about it.”
> There is obviously no way that someone could transcribe the passage from
> its source and _accidentally_ leave out all these phrases, so this is
> clearly a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader. That’s nothing new
> in Holocaust-denial; Don Van Handel is simply one of the latest in a
> long line of deliberate falsifiers and “creative editors.” But how Greg
> Raven and Bradley Smith reacted to being told about this fraud turns out
> to be very interesting.
> This article was first replied to by Ken McVay, shortly after it was
> posted, on March 14th of this year. He responded to most of the “Fact
> File,” including this section, to which his response was:
> You omitted Justice Jackson’s question to Speer, and Speer’s
> response. Was there a reason you did that? (Jackson followed the
> above comment with the question “Do you know about that
> experiment?”, to which Speer replied, “No, and I consider it utterly
> improbable. If we had had such a weapon under preparation, I should
> have known about it. But we did not have such a weapon.”)
> Do you have further evidence which demonstrates that Mr. Speer was
> not telling the truth?
> Is there some reason you neglected to include the rest of the
> exchange between Jackson and Speer?
> Jackson: The reports, then, of a new and secret weapon were
> exaggerated for the purpose of keeping the German people in the war?
> Speer: That was the case mostly during the last phase of the war…
> Ken’s article, as far as I can tell from my archives, received no
> further discussion. (Mr. McVay’s responses to most of the rest of Mr.
> Van Handel’s article, though good points, won’t be gone into here.)
> Note especially that no further discussion from Greg Raven or any other
> Holocaust-denier was to be found.
> Within a month of this being posted, Greg Raven had converted it into
> HTML format and made it available at his web site.
> Fast-forward three months.
> On July 19th, I sent email to Greg Raven concerning errors at his web
> site. Since Mr. Raven has made it known that he deletes email copies of
> Usenet articles, I made sure to give my email the subject line:
> not from Usenet — request to abide by your promise
> I began this email by noting that Mr. Raven’s home page contained the
> following promise:
> If you find material on this Web site that is untrue, please tell
> me and I will change it.
> And I said:
> I am hereby telling you.
> I then proceeded to identify fifteen errors on his web site. Among them
> was the “creative editing” quoted above. (The other fourteen errors I
> identified won’t be gone into here.)
> I did not explain _why_ they were errors; I merely noted that they
> _were_ errors. I had introduced the email by saying:
> If you don’t believe me at my word (and I don’t expect that you
> will), please simply respond to this email and I will be happy to
> explain each falsehood to you.
> This email elicited no response.
> A few days later, Mr. Raven posted an unrelated article to Usenet.
> I responded to this on July 19th by noting that, since he had time to
> post to the net, I hoped he would have time to make good on his web
> site’s promise to change any material which was false. I noted that my
> earlier email had been ignored, and reposted that email, again listing
> the fifteen errors. I sent a copy of this article to Mr. Raven in
> email. No response.
> On July 28th, a Usenetter suggested that I post my proof that each of
> these fifteen items was in fact in error.
> On August 4th, I did just that. In a 400-line Usenet article, I went
> through each item and posted an explanation of why it was an error. For
> the Jackson/Speer item, I posted the full text from the “blue series,”
> with the parts omitted by Don Van Handel and Greg Raven in all-caps.
> This, too, was emailed to Mr. Raven.
> No response.
> Fast-forward two months.
> On October 16th, I sent email to Bradley R. Smith. In this email,
> I wrote:
> Browsing your web site, I notice you have some of what Mr. Raven
> dubbed the “fact files.”
> I just thought you might like to know that they contain several
> “facts” which are questionable at best. For example, possibly the
> most ridiculous “fact” in the bunch is the second quoted paragraph
> on this page:
> I invite you to look up the source for Mr. Jackson’s supposed
> comments about “atomic energy.” You will find that the ellipses
> obscure some very important details!
> Since you presumably are interested in promoting the truth on your
> web site, not half-truths, I thought I’d let you know about this
> mistake. I tipped off Mr. Raven to the ridiculous ellipses in that
> paragraph quite a while ago (a month or two, it seems), but I never
> heard back from him. I hope you are more honest than Mr. Raven.
> The very next day, I heard back, not from Bradley Smith, but from a
> fellow by the name of Richard Widmann, who has been maintaining the
> “thought crimes” section of Bradley Smith’s web site. Mr. Widmann began
> by writing:
> I have been requested by Bradley Smith to examine the following
> passage which has been posted to his web-site to verify its
> accuracy. It seems that this passage has been questioned by you
> when posted by Greg Raven.
> It is your contention that the ellipses distort the meaning of
> this passage.
> Mr. Widmann did not comment one way or the other on whether he _agreed_
> with this contention of mine. However, he did say:
> In its entirety I have found the following in IMT vol. XVI. I will
> see that the complete quote is forwarded to Greg Raven. I have no
> way to change Greg’s text. However, I do not see any reason that
> Greg should be opposed to doing so.
> I responded to Mr. Widmann that evening, in a piece of email I Cc’d to
> both Bradley Smith and Greg Raven. I summarized the situation briefly,
> and appealed to Mr. Widmann and Mr. Smith to encourage Mr. Raven to
> correct the error:
> I understand that you have no way of changing Mr. Raven’s text.
> However, if you could drop him a note, Mr. Smith, and ask him to
> consider correcting the quote on his site as well, I would be
> grateful. As I’m sure you will agree, you would be serving not only
> me, but the truth.
> And then, if you felt like it, you could ask him to address the
> other fourteen errors which I identified over two months ago.
> Open Debate and all.
> I received no response to this email from Mr. Widmann, Mr. Smith, or
> Mr. Raven.
> However! — and here is the exciting part! — Mr. Raven has changed the
> web page! On the 20th or 21st, Mr. Raven changed the page to provide a
> bit more context for the quotation. Mr. Smith updated his page, too,
> shortly thereafter, apparently copying the text from Mr. Raven.
> The new quotation does not, however, provide _enough_ context, and this
> is what I find to be interesting.
> Here is the new “Jackson/Speer” paragraph, as it appears on Greg
> Raven’s web site today:
> ” MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, I have certain information, which was
> placed in my hands, of an experiment which was carried out near
> Auschwitz and I would like to ask you [Albert Speer] if you heard
> about it or knew about it. The purpose of the experiment was to find
> a quick and complete way of destroying people without the delay and
> trouble of shooting and gassing and burning, as it had been carried
> out, and this is the experiment, as I am advised. A village, a small
> village was provisionally erected, with temporary structures, and in
> it approximately 20,000 Jews were put. By means of this newly
> invented weapon of destruction, these 20,000 people were eradicated
> almost instantaneously, and in such a way that there was no trace.”
> IMT XVI – p.529.
> Note what has been done here. The ellipses have been removed, but there
> is still not enough context presented to tell what the quote is about.
> It is obvious that Mr. Raven’s intent is not to educate his readers as
> to the fact that, on June 21st, 1946, Mr. Justice Jackson was trying to
> ascertain the extent of the Nazi committment to “total war,” and Albert
> Speer’s involvement in and knowledge of this committment.
> No, Mr. Raven is _still_ trying to make people think that Justice
> Jackson actually believed that this propaganda was true. And Bradley
> Smith’s text at the corresponding page on his web site is exactly the
> This, ladies and gentlemen, is the goal of revisionism. First of all,
> revisionism does not listen to people like me. As Mr. Raven wrote to
> me, in the last email he has written me, in February:
> One of main reasons why I spend so little time responding to you (I
> rarely even bother to read your posts) is that for some reason you
> seem incapable of getting any facts straight.
> What he means, of course, is that I so _often_ get my facts straight.
> Ken McVay posted the truth about the Jackson/Speer testimony mere days
> after the deceitful “Fact File” was posted, and I continued to remind
> Mr. Raven of the error in the months following. Mr. Raven found this
> truth to be uncomfortable, and so ignored me. As he has been ignoring
> everything I’ve written to him in the last eight months.
> However, when the revisionist Richard Widmann contacted him, he
> grudgingly accepted that the original quote was misleading enough to
> merit a correction.
> Was Ken McVay thanked by Mr. Raven for doing the basic research
> necessary to correct the misleading “editing”? Was I thanked? No.
> Was Ken McVay thanked by Mr. Smith? Was I thanked? No.
> Was Mr. Widmann thanked by them? Well, I don’t know. I’d ask, but none
> of them has returned my last email, so I don’t think I’d get an answer.
> Has there been any acknowledgement of the fact that Mr. Raven and Mr.
> Smith have had, on their web sites, material that was written with the
> _deliberate_ intent to _misinform_ readers, material that had the gall
> to preface itself by saying that it was “free from the polemics and
> misinformation so often presented in this medium”? No.
> Have Mr. Raven and Mr. Smith taken the other “fact files” in the series
> off their web sites, while they investigate them for similar half-truths
> and deliberately misleading propaganda? No.
> Did Mr. Raven, having seen that I was correct to criticize one error on
> his web site, then decide that it might be prudent to examine my
> analysis of the other fourteen errors I pointed out? No.
> Is he then keeping his promise, on his home page, that untrue material
> will be changed? No.
> And, finally, did Mr. Raven and Mr. Smith put in enough context in the
> “new and improved” quotation — context sufficient to clue the reader in
> to the fact that Mr. Jackson was seeking information about Nazi
> propaganda and not making false accusations against the Nazis? No.
> What they did was to put in a bit more context. Not enough to make it
> honest. Not enough to let the reader know the truth. But a bit more.
> Just enough to eliminate the ellipses, really: enough to make it _look_
> a bit less suspicious at first glance.
> Meanwhile, my battle to bring some sort of accountability and
> back-and-forth discussion to the world-wide web continues. You’ve just
> been reading about one effort to correct a half-truth; here’s the
> beginning of another. On the 19th, I sent the following email to Greg
> Raven, and Cc’d it to Bradley Smith and Ernst Zuendel, because of their
> interest in “open debate” on the net. As they say, “here we go again”:
> I just noticed a few minutes ago that your web site now includes a
> conversion of a Usenet article by “Yggdrasil”:
> As you probably know, I responded to this article about a week after
> it was written. It seems disingenuous that you publish the article,
> but fail to mention that it uses quotes out of context to change
> their meaning, as I made clear with my reply back in March.
> Especially considering that you have accused _me_ of
> “mischaracterizing” a quote from _you_ (but have failed to explain
> what you meant). If you feel so strongly about mischaracterized
> quotations, why do you promote them at your web site?
> In any case, I have converted my response, the same one I posted
> back in March 1995, and have put _it_ on the web. I, of course,
> have linked back to your web page with the original article.
> I now ask you to aid the process of open discussion by adding a link
> from “Yggdrasil”‘s article to my response. To do otherwise is to
> cheat your readers.
> I am also sending this email to Bradley Smith, whose organization,
> the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust, will surely be in
> favor of such cross-linking. I am also sending this email to Ernst
> Zuendel, with whom Nizkor has been discussing the possibility of
> such cross-links.
> A response is requested.
> Needless to say, no response was received (except from Bradley Smith,
> who asked me to please not send him any more email which wasn’t directly
> related to him — apparently the issue of open debate on the web is not
> interesting to him, despite the name of his organization being
> “Committee for Open Debate On the Holocaust”). I don’t really expect to
> make any more progress with this pageful of half-truths and misused
> quotations than I did with the “Fact File No. 4” page, but I will
> continue to try.
> I encourage the reader to examine Greg Raven’s and Bradley Smith’s web
> sites, to verify that the deliberately-misleading paragraph in the
> deliberately-misleading “fact file” is still present:
> And remember that the goal of those web pages, like all the others on
> those sites, like all Holocaust-denial propaganda, is to fool you.
> Why else would Greg Raven ignore my corrections for months, and then,
> even after he effectively admitted that I had been right all along,
> fail to add enough context to allow the reader to discern that Justice
> Jackson was not charging Speer with a crime, but rather inquiring about
> Nazi propaganda techniques?
> Why else would Greg Raven and Bradley Smith continue to use the “Fact
> Files” of Don Van Handel, who, they have effectively admitted, wrote
> those files with the intent to deceive?
> Posted to alt.revisionism, and emailed to Messrs. Raven, Smith,
> Zuendel, Van Handel, and McVay.
> Jamie McCarthy [email protected] [email protected] http://www.kzoo.edu/~k044477/
> I speak only for myself. Co-Webmaster of http://www.almanac.bc.ca/
> Unless otherwise specified, I consider pro-“revisionism” email public domain.
“Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes
not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties–but
right through every human heart–and all human hearts.”
— Alexander Solzhenitsyn, “The Gulag Archipelago”
From [email protected] Mon Oct 28 13:08:38 PST 1996
Article: 77536 of alt.revisionism
From: [email protected] (Mark Van Alstine)
Subject: Re: The Hoess Testimony BITES THE DUST!!!!
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 12:02:18 -0800
Organization: rbi software systems
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.0.5b5