Archive/File: holocaust/usa/ihr raven.0494
Last-Modified: 1994/05/11

From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!utcsri!utnut!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!eff!news.kei.com!world!CODOHbos Thu Apr  7 17:52:16 PDT 1994
Article: 10336 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!utcsri!utnut!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!eff!news.kei.com!world!CODOHbos
From: CODOHbos@world.std.com (Ross Vicksell)
Subject: Re: note from Greg Raven
Message-ID: 
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
References:  <1994Apr3.015144.23911@miavx1>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 02:23:55 GMT
Lines: 93

bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu writes:

>In article , codfish@netcom.com (Ross Vicksell) writes:
>> Somehow the note from the IHR's Greg Raven that I was supposed to post got 
>> lost in the shuffle.  Here it is, along with Greg's email address:
>> 
>> From Greg_Raven@lamg.com Fri Apr  1 08:17:54 1994
>> 
>>> They had a well-organized system, and the 
>>> resources of a government at their disposal.
>> 
>> To say "they had a well-organized system" implies there ought to be some
>> documents of some kind establishing that organization. Organization is not


>        well gee Greg, let's see twhat a quick check at the library turned up:

> 1)      Hilberg, Raul, 1926-
>         Documents of destruction; Germany and Jewry, 1933-1945. Edited
>                with commentary by Raul Hilberg.
> IMPRINT      Chicago, Quadrangle Books, 1971.

>2)        America and the Holocaust : a thirteen-volume set documenting the
>                editor's book The abandonment of the Jews / edited by David S.
>                Wyman.
> IMPRINT      New York : Garland Pub., 1989-


>3)       Documents on the Holocaust : selected sources on the destruction
>                of the Jews of Germany and Austria, Poland, and the Soviet
>                Union / edited by Yitzhak Arad, Yisrael Gutman, Abraham
>                Margaliot ; [translations by Lea Ben Dor]
> IMPRINT      Jerusalem : Yad Vashem ; Oxford, England ; New York : Pergamon
>                Press, 1987, c1981.
>              Bibliography: p. 479-482.

>4)       The Einsatzgruppen reports : selections from the dispatches of
>                the Nazi Death Squads' campaign against the Jews July 1941-
>                January 1943 / edited by Yitzhak Arad, Shmuel Krakowski, Shmuel
>                Spector ; [translated by Stella Schossberger]
> IMPRINT      New York, N.Y. : Holocaust Library, c1989.

>5)  The Holocaust : selected documents in eighteen volumes / John
>                Mendelsohn, editor ; Donald S. Detwiler, advisory editor.
> IMPRINT      New York : Garland Pub., 1982.

>6)       "Schone Zeiten." English.
>              "The Good old days" : the Holocaust as seen by its perpetrators
>                and bystanders / edited by Ernst Klee, Willi Dressen, Volker
>                Riess ; foreword by Hugh Trevor-Roper ; translated by Deborah
>                Burnstone.
> EDITION      1st American ed.
> IMPRINT      New York : Free Press, 1991.

>--  note that if you add up all the volumes, that's a total of thirty-five
>books.  _Thirty-five_ books of documents at Miami University's library.  And
>this isn't even a good library.
>        The University of Cincinnati runs an archive of holocaust documents,
>and it's very well respected.  How about all of the documents there?

>> program. To get the extermination scenario to fly, you must create all kinds
>> of other unrecorded activities (the cover-up operation). The simpler
>> explanation is that there was no extermination program.

>        It is documented.  How about the dynamiting of the Gas chambers, for
>instance?

>> 
>> Greg Raven
>> 
>-- 

>=======================================================================
>Brian Harmon           "Everything has its wonders, even darkness and
>Miami University	  silence.."
>Oxford, Ohio 45056		-Helen Keller
>--------------bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu-------------------------
Here's Greg's reply:

>From Greg_Raven@lamg.com Wed Apr  6 03:12:33 1994

BPH> It [referring to the Holocaust story] is documented [referring to the
list of books posted].  How about the dynamiting of the Gas chambers, for
instance?

Obviously, I cannot respond to each document contained in all these books you
mention. Please select one document you feel proves that the Nazis had a plan
to exterminate Europe's Jews in homicidal gas chambers, and I will respond to
that.

By the way, in your last question you are assuming facts not in evidence: The
Nazis did dynamite the crematories (at Birkenau, for example), but there is
no evidence that there was any homicidal gas chambers there.


From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!panix!news.intercon.com!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!usenet Sat Apr 16 15:54:57 PDT 1994
Article: 10838 of alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!panix!news.intercon.com!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!usenet
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: PRUSSIAN BLUE: a short explanation
Date: 16 Apr 1994 05:28:34 GMT
Organization: KAIWAN Internet (310/527-4279,818/756-0180,714/741-2920)
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <2ont23$ipa@kaiwan.kaiwan.com>
References: <1994Apr15.014309.24390@miavx1>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com
X-Newsreader: Internet News version 1.0

In article <1994Apr15.014309.24390@miavx1>, bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu 
(Svidrigailov) wrote:

 >        
 >        Many Holocaust deniers claim that the use of Zyklon-B in 
Auschwitz did 
 >not occur, citing that very little cyanide traces were found in the 
 >Auschwitz-Birkenau gas chambers (Kremas I, II, III, IV, V; Bunkers I and 
II are 
 >neglected) {1,2}.   They claim that if gassing occurred in these 
structures, 
 >large traces of cyanide would remain complexed with iron as a compound 
called 
 >prussian blue.  Since large amounts of prussian blue can be found in the 
 >delousing chambers at Auschwitz, the lack of prussian blue in the 
homicidal 
 >chambers would seem to dismiss their use as a murder weapon.  The deniers
also 
 >claim that prussian blue simply does not "weather away" even when exposed
to 
 >the elements, and that significant amounts would form in the 
extermination gas 
 >chambers.  While this seems like a reasonable assertion, it clearly flies
in 
 >the face of facts.  Prussian blue is not eternally stable, it will 
"weather 
 >away", and its rate of formation is very slow, taking many hours.  
 
Are you saying that the clearly observable, deep blue staining on the 
exterior walls at Birkenau do nor exist, or that the absence of any blue 
staining on the interior walls of the "gas chambers" at Majdanek (and other
places) is due to weathering?

Greg Raven


From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!panix!news.intercon.com!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!usenet Mon Apr 18 15:48:37 PDT 1994
Article: 11016 of alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!panix!news.intercon.com!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!usenet
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Zyklon B: Indicator removed by order of the SS
Date: 18 Apr 1994 15:01:52 GMT
Organization: KAIWAN Internet (310/527-4279,818/756-0180,714/741-2920)
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <2ou7d0$gv7@kaiwan.kaiwan.com>
References: <1994Apr16.010316.24428@miavx1>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com
X-Newsreader: Internet News version 1.0

In article <1994Apr16.010316.24428@miavx1>, bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu 
(Svidrigailov) wrote:

> In article , codfish@netcom.com (Ross 
Vicksell) w:
 >> 
 >> I faxed your post to Fritz Berg, and he had a couple of comments to 
make:
 >> 
 >> 1. How would removing the irritant from Zyklon-B change the nature of 
the 
 >> alleged gassing operation?  After all, the gas supposedly wasn't 
introduced 
 >> into the "gas chamber" until AFTER the executees were locked inside, so

 >> whether they sensed right away what was happening or became aware a
 >> couple of minutes later wouldn't have made that much difference.
 >
 >       The indicator was needed to inform workers (in fumigation) of 
exposure
 >to HCN before concentrations became lethal. If you're going to kill 
people
 >with it the indicator is not needed.  The Nazis could save $$ by removing
it,
 >since it was no longer necessary.  
 >
 >        regardless of this explanation, the question of _why_ was the 
indicator
 >was removed still stands. 
 >
 >        If Zyklon was intended for benign purposes, why remove the 
indicator? 
 >It's been shown already that the indicator was removed under direct 
orders from
 >the Nazis, and not because "the factory that made the indicator was 
bombed" as
 >you claimed.  
 >
 >> 2. Peters, the guy who knew about the irritant being left out, with all

 >> its sinister implication, wasn't even convicted of anything, while at 
 >> least a couple of Zyklon-B executives were hanged.
 >
 >        your point being......
 >> 
 >> 3.  Borkin's book is full of it.
 >
 >        Really, and why is that? I assume you have ducments and 
referneces to
 >show this.
 >
 >>           Ross Vicksell
 >-- 
 >
 >        Speaking of which, Greg Raven's claims (and yours) about Prussian
blue
 >hanging around forever are just plain wrong.  If you;d like I can send 
you info
 >on the subject.

One possible explanation for the absense of indicator in the Zyklon B could
be that there was no need for it when it was used in the delousing 
chambers, only when disinfecting barracks. In fact, because of the 
relatively crude ventilation systems in the camp delousing chambers, it is 
possible that having the warning agent contributed to unwarranted concern 
in people outside the chamber while it was being ventilated. With less 
odor, there would be less concern. Just a hypothesis.

As for the "information" on Prussian blue, keep it. I have photos taken 
less than a year ago, and the staining (which apparently you say cannot be 
there) is clearly present.

Greg Raven


From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!panix!news.intercon.com!udel!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!usenet Mon Apr 18 15:52:04 PDT 1994
Article: 11014 of alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!panix!news.intercon.com!udel!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!usenet
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: PRUSSIAN BLUE: a short explanation
Date: 18 Apr 1994 14:52:19 GMT
Organization: KAIWAN Internet (310/527-4279,818/756-0180,714/741-2920)
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <2ou6r3$gv7@kaiwan.kaiwan.com>
References: <2opevg$44h@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com
X-Newsreader: Internet News version 1.0

In article <2opevg$44h@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) 
wrote:

 ># Are you saying that the clearly observable, deep blue staining on the 
 ># exterior walls at Birkenau do nor exist, or that the absence of any 
blue 
 ># staining on the interior walls of the "gas chambers" at Majdanek (and 
other
 ># places) is due to weathering?
 >
 >What's the point of this ongoing debate? The important thing is 
 >that HCN was used in the Auschwitz gas chambers, as the remaining
 >compounds prove. The fact that there are less traces in the
 >homicidal gas chambers than in the delousing chambers was
 >explained many times - it is because delousing requires a far
 >longer exposure than homicidal gassing, and the HCN had much
 >more time to interact with the walls. 
 >
 >The amazing thing is that I have read numerous articles by
 >Holocaust deniers "proving" that it would have been impossible
 >to use HCN gas in the Auschwitz gas chambers, for *any* purpose,
 >for various reasons. Now, they suddenly drop all these claims,
 >and admit the gas was used there, but, they claim, for "innocent
 >purposes". The fact that they "proved" it could not have been
 >used there at all is suddenly forgotten.
 >
 >
 >-Danny Keren.
 >

Revisionist have always claimed that Zyklon B was used in delousing 
chambers (which you can call "gas chambers" if you wish), but not in 
homicidal gas chambers, of which we say none existed.

My post is far from off-point, it is exactly on point. Someone stated that 
Zyklon B residues (Prussian blue) weathers away. As can clearly be seen on 
the exteriors of the delousing chambers (that is, surfaces exposed to the 
elements for the last 50 years), this is not true.
Greg Raven


From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!panix!news.intercon.com!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!usenet Mon Apr 18 15:52:41 PDT 1994
Article: 11015 of alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!panix!news.intercon.com!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!usenet
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: PRUSSIAN BLUE: a short explanation
Date: 18 Apr 1994 14:56:45 GMT
Organization: KAIWAN Internet (310/527-4279,818/756-0180,714/741-2920)
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <2ou73d$gv7@kaiwan.kaiwan.com>
References: <2osvqm$mgi@access3.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com
X-Newsreader: Internet News version 1.0

In article <2osvqm$mgi@access3.digex.net>, mstein@access.digex.net (Michael
P. Stein) wrote:

> 
 >Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) writes:
 >>Are you saying that the clearly observable, deep blue staining on the 
 >>exterior walls at Birkenau do nor exist, or that the absence of any blue

 >>staining on the interior walls of the "gas chambers" at Majdanek (and 
other
 >>places) is due to weathering?
 >
 >    His English seems clear enough to me.  What part of it don't you 
 >understand?
 >
 >    Revisionists have claimed that the prussian blue deposition at
 >Auschwitz-Birkenau is consistent with occasional delousing, not mass
 >homicide.  The clear implication is that you believe that there should be
 >more staining.  (If you think there should be less staining, please say
 >so.)  Where does Brian say that the stains don't exist?
 >
 >    Brian Harmon is saying two things:
 >
 >    a) Homicidal gassing forms less prussian blue than delousing,
 >       because it takes less HCN exposure to kill people than lice.
 >       This is not the same thing as saying *no* prussian blue would 
form.
 >
 >    b) The amount of prussian blue formed, which started out lower than
 >       what you say one would expect, will become even lower as (despite
 >       your claim) it *can* weather away over time.
 >
 >In what way do you think this is inconsistent with the physical evidence?
 >
 >    Unless I have missed it, the word "Majdanek" is not present in 
Brian's
 >article.  But there is no reason to mention it.  According to what I have
 >read, Majdanek used carbon monoxide, not Zyklon-B.
 >
 >    Are you saying that carbon monoxide also ought to create prussian
 >blue?  Or are you saying that Jews were gassed at Majdanek using 
Zyklon-B,
 >not carbon monoxide?

The precise reason for my question is that his statement is so precise, and
self-contradictory. Either Prussian blue weathers away relatively quickly, 
as he states, or it does not (as the revisionists say). Today, anyone can 
look at the exterior walls of the delousing chambers at Auschwitz and see 
deep blue staining. Why hasn't this weathered away?

I also understand his insistance on focussing on the "gas chambers" at 
Birkenau, because the "gas chambers" there were the only ones destroyed by 
the retreating Germans. In other camps, they destroyed the crematories but 
not the "gas chambers." Perhaps they destroyed only the crematories at 
Birkenau, as well.

Greg Raven


From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!panix!news.intercon.com!news1.digex.net!access.digex.net!not-for-mail Mon Apr 18 15:53:28 PDT 1994
Article: 11021 of alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!panix!news.intercon.com!news1.digex.net!access.digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: PRUSSIAN BLUE: a short explanation
Date: 18 Apr 1994 14:15:59 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <2ouiov$lcl@access2.digex.net>
References: <2osvqm$mgi@access3.digex.net> <2ou73d$gv7@kaiwan.kaiwan.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access2.digex.net

Greg Raven  wrote:
>The precise reason for my question is that his statement is so precise, and
>self-contradictory. Either Prussian blue weathers away relatively quickly, 
>as he states, or it does not (as the revisionists say).

    False dichotomy.  Revisionists seem to have this problem a lot.  Have
you ever seen paint weather away from a building?  Half of it may go away
in ten or twenty years.  However, even after fifty years it is not
*completely* gone.  There is no contradiction.

>Today, anyone can 
>look at the exterior walls of the delousing chambers at Auschwitz and see 
>deep blue staining. Why hasn't this weathered away?

    What remains on what you like to pretend are "delousing chambers" is
the lowest layer most closely bonded to the underlying surface.  It is the
most resistant to weathering.  The same physics applies to paint or any
other sort of stain.  Go out in the country and look at some old barns
with the remnants of "Mail Pouch"  tobacco advertisements.  Or are you
saying that paint doesn't weather away, and that they looked like that the
day they were painted? 

>I also understand his insistance on focussing on the "gas chambers" at 
>Birkenau, because the "gas chambers" there were the only ones destroyed by 
>the retreating Germans.

    No.  It is because those were the ones where HCN was used, and we are 
discussing HCN residues.

>In other camps, they destroyed the crematories but 
>not the "gas chambers." Perhaps they destroyed only the crematories at 
>Birkenau, as well.

    In Majdanek, they used *carbon monoxide*, NOT cyanide.  Again, we are
discussing one specific revisionist claim, namely that there is not enough
prussian blue residue to support a claim of mass gassing with HCN at
Auschwitz-Birkenau.  Thus the other camps where carbon monoxide was used
are irrelevant to this discussion.  I pointed this out last time.  Your
latest response seems to have been written without any notice having been
taken of this.  Why do you have such difficulty sticking to the point? 
Perhaps there is something wrong with your newsreader or system which is
causing the bottom of my posts to disappear so you don't see them?  Or is
there some other reason you keep raising irrelevancies even after it has
been pointed out that they are irrelevant?  I'd really like to know, Greg.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk Mon Apr 18 15:53:53 PDT 1994
Article: 11019 of alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: PRUSSIAN BLUE: a short explanation
Date: 18 Apr 1994 16:58:54 GMT
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <2oue8e$2vi@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu

Greg "Hitler was a great man" Raven writes:

# Revisionist have always claimed that Zyklon B was used in delousing 
# chambers (which you can call "gas chambers" if you wish), but not in
# homicidal gas chambers, of which we say none existed.

This is a rather insane theory, which is contradicted by a great
deal of evidence. Also, nearly all followers of this theory are
Nazis, Hitler admirers, and racists. Hardly anyone of them has any
credentials whatsoever as a historian.

# My post is far from off-point, it is exactly on point. Someone
# stated that Zyklon B residues (Prussian blue) weathers away. As can
# clearly be seen on the exteriors of the delousing chambers (that is,
# surfaces exposed to the elements for the last 50 years), this is not
# true.

You don't seem to be able to understand what is being written here,
over and over again. Homicidal gassing leaves much less traces
than delousing, because the exposure is a lot shorter. Therefore,
either no Prussian blue was generated, or the little that was
generated did vanish (if you have a small amount to start with,
it will fade away faster). The relevant fact, anyway, is that HCN
was used in the gas chambers, and therefore all the
pseudo-scientific claims about how "dangerous" it would have been
to use it there are not worth the paper they are written on. The
silly attempt to divert the debate to the *type* of the cyanide
residues does not work; the main fact is that there are residues
there.


-Danny Keren.



From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!utcsri!utnut!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!csulb.edu!paris.ics.uci.edu!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!usenet Wed Apr 20 23:33:09 PDT 1994
Article: 11117 of alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!utcsri!utnut!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!csulb.edu!paris.ics.uci.edu!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!usenet
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Can we talk?
Date: 20 Apr 1994 04:11:30 GMT
Organization: KAIWAN Internet (310/527-4279,818/756-0180,714/741-2920)
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <2p2a1i$ff0@kaiwan.kaiwan.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com
X-Newsreader: Internet News version 1.0

Dear Fellow alt.revisionists:

I have only just got my Internet connection up and running, so perhaps I am
judging the discussions I have seen on alt.revisionism too harshly, but the
discussion does not seem to be up to the level for which I was hoping. I 
saw a post in which Ken Mcvay denigrated the GEnie discussion of the 
Holocaust which took place several months ago, but this forum seems to be 
providing a lower quality discussion of the Holocaust than GEnie did, and 
the GEnie discussion was pretty poor.

If you will allow me to make a modest suggestion, I would like to get this 
discussion back on track, at least as far as Holocaust revisionism is 
concerned (I assumed that the less said about the Armenians-vs. Turks, the 
better). To this end, I would like to make a few simple statements 
concerning my position, and then ask for a fairly specific response, in 
order to prevent a splintering of discussions and energies.

First, I do not deny the Holocaust happened. Let me repeat that. I do not 
deny the Holocaust happened. For the purposes of this discussion, I am 
using a fairly generic definition of the word RHolocaust,S which is Rthe 
murder of six million Jews as a central act of state by the Nazis during 
the Second World War, many in gas chambers.S If anyone has a problem with 
this definition, I invite you to provide your version.

Second, here is what Holocaust revisionists REALLY say: The Jews of Europe 
suffered a great tragedy before and during the Second World War. Many were 
mistreated, and many died under horrific conditions. However, a) there is 
no evidence that the Nazis had a plan or policy of exterminating the Jews, 
b) there is no evidence that there were homicidal gas chambers for murder 
Jews, and c) the figure of six million Jewish victims is an exaggeration.

I imagine that some of you will take exception to at least some of these 
statements. What I ask from those who do is simply this: Provide me with 
what you think is the one or two best pieces of evidence that the Nazis had
a plan to exterminate millions of Jews in homicidal gas chambers. Once you 
provide what you think is the best evidence, I will respond.

You will note that I do not want long collages consisting of snippets of 
speeches, fragments of documents, etc. I want one or two pieces of 
evidence. I will not consider personal attacks, discussions of race, 
discussions about the meta-meaning of Holocaust Rdenial,S or other 
non-substantive, off-topic posts to address the issue at hand. I look 
forward to hearing from all who have something to say.

P.S. I do not have a lot of time to put into this discussion, but I will do
the best I can. I hope you understand, and try not to get too surly with me
if I skip a day or two while I attempt to meet my many deadlines.

Greg Raven
greg.ihr@kaiwan.com


From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!utcsri!utnut!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!fnnews.fnal.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!usenet Fri Apr 22 06:29:56 PDT 1994
Article: 11199 of alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!utcsri!utnut!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!fnnews.fnal.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!usenet
From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Can we talk?
Date: 21 Apr 1994 14:28:06 GMT
Organization: KAIWAN Internet (310/527-4279,818/756-0180,714/741-2920)
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <2p62hm$nhb@kaiwan.kaiwan.com>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com
X-Newsreader: Internet News version 1.0

In article , golux@world.std.com (and not a mere 
Device) apparently attempted to respond to my request for a couple of 
pieces of evidence to support his view of the Holocaust. Although he spent 
many lines in the attempt, he utterly failed to stay on the point. Am I to 
assume he has nothing substantive to say?

One of the reasons I tried to put limits on the discussion was to eliminate
meaningless posts such as his, so the discussion would not become 
sidetracked.

Greg Raven
greg.ihr@kaiwan.com


From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.intercon.com!news1.digex.net!access.digex.net!not-for-mail Fri Apr 22 09:52:01 PDT 1994
Article: 11223 of alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.intercon.com!news1.digex.net!access.digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Can we talk?
Date: 21 Apr 1994 20:35:00 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 174
Message-ID: <2p763k$19p@access2.digex.net>
References: <2p2a1i$ff0@kaiwan.kaiwan.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access2.digex.net

    Can we talk?  That's a good question, Greg.

Greg Raven  wrote:
>I have only just got my Internet connection up and running, so perhaps I am
>judging the discussions I have seen on alt.revisionism too harshly, but the
>discussion does not seem to be up to the level for which I was hoping.

    Well, your discussion does not seem to be up to the level for which I 
was hoping.  I will explain below how I would like to see it improve.

>If you will allow me to make a modest suggestion, I would like to get this 
>discussion back on track, at least as far as Holocaust revisionism is 
>concerned (I assumed that the less said about the Armenians-vs. Turks, the 
>better).

    Sorry, but we do have to share the playground with S*rd*r.  This is
alt.revisionism, not alt.holocaust.revisionism.  Just put him in your kill
file and be done with it.  If you need instructions on how to do this, 
ask me via email.

>Second, here is what Holocaust revisionists REALLY say: The Jews of Europe 
>suffered a great tragedy before and during the Second World War. Many were 
>mistreated, and many died under horrific conditions. However, a) there is 
>no evidence that the Nazis had a plan or policy of exterminating the Jews, 
>b) there is no evidence that there were homicidal gas chambers for murder 
>Jews, and c) the figure of six million Jewish victims is an exaggeration.

    Well, there is evidence.  You simply deny the existence of the 
evidence, or deny that it is genuine, or deny that it means what it 
clearly means.

    In one way, you are right - the Holocaust has not and cannot be 
proved, if you mean proof in a mathematically rigorous sense.  But 
neither can anything else; Rene Descartes could only be certain that he 
existed - and I'm not sure you'd argue that the fact that he thought 
didn't *necessarily* prove that he existed.  But such a discussion 
belongs over on talk.philosophy.misc.  And anyway, I don't think that's 
what you really mean.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but here I assume you 
mean evidence sufficient to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt in a 
court of law?  If not, you'd better explain what you mean by "proof," so 
nobody wastes energy shooting at the wrong target.

>I imagine that some of you will take exception to at least some of these 
>statements. What I ask from those who do is simply this: Provide me with 
>what you think is the one or two best pieces of evidence that the Nazis had
>a plan to exterminate millions of Jews in homicidal gas chambers. Once you 
>provide what you think is the best evidence, I will respond.

    Well, I have two problems with *this* part of what you say.  First, I
myself have never believed that there was, as you put it, "a plan to
exterminate millions of Jews in homicidal gas chambers."  I don't know
anyone who does.  I believe there was an intent formulated by specific
Nazis at the highest levels of the German government (who thus had the
power to see that the intent was carried out, and used that power to that
end) to exterminate millions of Jews.  Gassing in fixed installations -
what can fairly be called gas chambers, some of which used Zyklon-B and
some of which used CO - was adopted as one means by some people involved
in carrying out the plan.  Others involved in carrying out the plan used
shooting, starvation, mobile CO gassing vans, burning alive, bayoneting -
whatever happened to be convenient to get the job done.  So you are
setting up a strawman. 

    The second problem is your terms of debate.  Few non-tautological
cases can be made on two pieces of evidence.  Imagine we are having an
argument about what song was just played on the radio.  I tell you I do
not deny that the song was what you said it was, but I need proof.  But I
don't want to deal with the whole song; just sing me two notes that you
think best prove that the song is what you say it is, and I'll respond.
Now, I don't care what two notes you sing - they are not enough to
conclusively identify one particular song; I can find a different song
which contains those same two notes (even the starting two notes).  So it
would be extremely dishonest of me to force you to conduct the debate on
those terms.  You are being equally dishonest, Greg, and this has been
pointed out to you both in open posts and in email, and that is one reason
I said above that I am disappointed in your level of discussion.

    And yet, I *am* working on trying to satisfy you, just as an
intellectual exercise, although it is proving difficult to find things I
can be reasonably sure you won't just dismiss as a possible forgery.

>You will note that I do not want long collages consisting of snippets of 
>speeches, fragments of documents, etc.

    I grant that it is a reasonable request to be provided with the whole
document from which excerpts are taken.  It is very easy to distort things
by taking them out of context.  Did you see my responses to Milt Kleim?

    But all cases are collages.  I once sat on a jury for a "fencing" 
case.  The defendant was caught on videotape in a police sting.  Yet the 
prosecution, in order to completely prove the crime, had to prove:

    a) that the defendant attempted to sell a car,
    b) that the defendant did not own the car he attempted to sell, and
    c) that the defendant knew or had reason to know that the car was
       stolen when he sold it

   Even for something this simple, it required three pieces of evidence: 

    - Testimony from the officer to whom he attempted to sell it (A)
    - The legal owner of the car, with registration (B)
    - The NADA "Blue Book" to show that the amount for which the
      defendant sold the car was absurdly low in relation to the true
      market value of the car (C)

    No single piece, nor even any two of the pieces listed above, were
sufficient to prove all the elements of the crime.  The Holocaust is a far
larger pattern of activity, requiring more than just three pieces to prove
in the legal sense.  And yet you say:

>I want one or two pieces of evidence.

    If it is not just because you cannot hope to overcome a real case, I'd
like an explanation of why you set this restriction, now that I have
exhaustively explained (again) why it is completely unreasonable.  Or do
you now accept that it is unreasonable and withdraw it? 

>I will not consider personal attacks,

    But you appear to make them, and that is the other reason I am 
disappointed.  I am specifically referring to your response to Brian 
Harmon and myself on the prussian blue question.  You made a response 
in which it appeared you wanted to imply that the lack of blue stains at 
Majdanek contradicted his post.  I pointed out to you that he did not 
discuss Majdanek because Majdanek (at least to the best of my knowledge) 
had never been claimed as a Zyklon-B site, but a CO site, and CO does not 
form prussian blue.  You made a reply which to my mind insinuated that 
Brian was deliberately dodging discussions of other camps.  I pointed out 
once more that a place where cyanide was not used was irrelevant to the 
discussion of whether cyanide staining weathers away.  You failed to respond.

    Now, you are welcome to tell me that I misinterpreted your tone.  You
are welcome to tell me that I made a mistake, and some Holocaust scholar
*has* claimed mass gassings at Majdanek were performed with Zyklon-B
rather than carbon monoxide; plese tell me who and where.  You are welcome
to tell me that you were confused about what poison was claimed to have
been used where, and you withdraw your insinuation that Brian was dodging
anything.  But your complete silence seems very evasive to me.  Or may I
take it, as the old saying goes, that "silence gives consent," and you now
accept that you were wrong?

    Also in the discussion of cyanide staining, you attempted to argue a
false dichotomy: that either 100% of prussian blue will weather away in a
short time, or 0% will weather away, ever.  I pointed this out to you, and
explained in brief terms some of the mechanics involved.  Again, you
failed to respond.  Again, do you have some further argument to make (and
I would accept a temporary answer of "give me some time") or may I
conclude you now accept that the revisionist claim "there is not enough
prussian blue to be consistent with mass gassing at Auschwitz-Birkenau" is
now defeated?

>discussions of race, 
>discussions about the meta-meaning of Holocaust Rdenial,S or other 
>non-substantive, off-topic posts to address the issue at hand.

    This request is certainly reasonable.  However, I do think the terms 
under which a discussion is to be conducted is germane to the issue at 
hand, although it is in some sense a meta-discussion.

>P.S. I do not have a lot of time to put into this discussion, but I will do
>the best I can. I hope you understand, and try not to get too surly with me
>if I skip a day or two while I attempt to meet my many deadlines.

    As I have my deadlines too, I can certainly understand this.  Take
more than a day or two if you like; I certainly shall.  However, if you
fail to respond to a charge that your argument is invalid, yet repeat the
same discredited argument without at least attempting a counter-rebuttal,
you should be aware that people *will* get surly with you - myself
included.

    So, Greg, *can* we talk?  It really is up to you.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mala!access.digex.net!mstein Tue Apr 26 07:54:06 1994
X-Delivered: at request of kmcvay on oneb
Return-Path: 
Received: by oneb.almanac.bc.ca (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.18.1 #18.33)
	id ; Tue, 26 Apr 94 07:54 PDT
Received: by mala.bc.ca (DECUS UUCP /2.0//2.0/);
          Tue, 26 Apr 94 07:52:54 PST
Received: from access2.digex.net by MALINS.MALA.BC.CA (MX V3.3 VAX) with SMTP;
          Tue, 26 Apr 1994 07:52:35 PST
Received: by access2.digex.net id AA03495 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for Ken McVay
          ); Tue, 26 Apr 1994 10:52:23 -0400
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 10:52:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael P. Stein" 
Subject: Reply (fwd)
To: revision -- Daniel Keren , Jamie McCarthy
          , Ken McVay 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO


    More fun.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 07:27:21 -0700
From: Greg Raven 
To: "Michael P. Stein" 
Subject: Reply

GR>>I imagine that some of you will take exception to at least some of these 
>>statements. What I ask from those who do is simply this: Provide me with 
>>what you think is the one or two best pieces of evidence that the Nazis had
>>a plan to exterminate millions of Jews in homicidal gas chambers. Once you 
>>provide what you think is the best evidence, I will respond.
>
MS>    Well, I have two problems with *this* part of what you say.  First, I
>myself have never believed that there was, as you put it, "a plan to
>exterminate millions of Jews in homicidal gas chambers."  I don't know
>anyone who does.  I believe there was an intent formulated by specific
>Nazis at the highest levels of the German government (who thus had the
>power to see that the intent was carried out, and used that power to that
>end) to exterminate millions of Jews.  Gassing in fixed installations -
>what can fairly be called gas chambers, some of which used Zyklon-B and
>some of which used CO - was adopted as one means by some people involved
>in carrying out the plan.  Others involved in carrying out the plan used
>shooting, starvation, mobile CO gassing vans, burning alive, bayoneting -
>whatever happened to be convenient to get the job done.  So you are
>setting up a strawman.

I understand your reticence to adopt what you see as someone else's position on the Holocaust. However, there are many people and institutions, who claim the Nazis had a plan to exterminate the Jews (check the definition of the Holocaust as given by the
 U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, for example). If you think there was no plan, then you are engaging in revisionism. As to the "intent," intent doesn't kill people. When trying to kill millions of people, you need some kind of organization, which means
 some kind of communication. If you cannot establish intent, then at least provide us with some of the communication. As for my straw man, I realize that Jews died in a variety of ways during the Second World War. What I am interested in is the homicidal
 gas chamber claims.

>    The second problem is your terms of debate.  Few non-tautological
>cases can be made on two pieces of evidence.  Imagine we are having an
>argument about what song was just played on the radio.  I tell you I do
>not deny that the song was what you said it was, but I need proof.  But I
>don't want to deal with the whole song; just sing me two notes that you
>think best prove that the song is what you say it is, and I'll respond.
>Now, I don't care what two notes you sing - they are not enough to
>conclusively identify one particular song; I can find a different song
>which contains those same two notes (even the starting two notes).  So it
>would be extremely dishonest of me to force you to conduct the debate on
>those terms.  You are being equally dishonest, Greg, and this has been
>pointed out to you both in open posts and in email, and that is one reason
>I said above that I am disappointed in your level of discussion.

Your analogy doesn't hold.
>
>    And yet, I *am* working on trying to satisfy you, just as an
>intellectual exercise, although it is proving difficult to find things I
>can be reasonably sure you won't just dismiss as a possible forgery.
>
>>You will note that I do not want long collages consisting of snippets of 
>>speeches, fragments of documents, etc.
>
>    I grant that it is a reasonable request to be provided with the whole
>document from which excerpts are taken.  It is very easy to distort things
>by taking them out of context.  Did you see my responses to Milt Kleim?

I believe I saw them, but I did not read them.

>    But all cases are collages.  I once sat on a jury for a "fencing" 
>case.  The defendant was caught on videotape in a police sting.  Yet the 
>prosecution, in order to completely prove the crime, had to prove:
>
>    a) that the defendant attempted to sell a car,
>    b) that the defendant did not own the car he attempted to sell, and
>    c) that the defendant knew or had reason to know that the car was
>       stolen when he sold it
>
>   Even for something this simple, it required three pieces of evidence: 
>
>    - Testimony from the officer to whom he attempted to sell it (A)
>    - The legal owner of the car, with registration (B)
>    - The NADA "Blue Book" to show that the amount for which the
>      defendant sold the car was absurdly low in relation to the true
>      market value of the car (C)
>
>    No single piece, nor even any two of the pieces listed above, were
>sufficient to prove all the elements of the crime.  The Holocaust is a far
>larger pattern of activity, requiring more than just three pieces to prove
>in the legal sense.  And yet you say:
>
>>I want one or two pieces of evidence.
>
>    If it is not just because you cannot hope to overcome a real case, I'd
>like an explanation of why you set this restriction, now that I have
>exhaustively explained (again) why it is completely unreasonable.  Or do
>you now accept that it is unreasonable and withdraw it?

See my other message to you about this.

>>I will not consider personal attacks,
>
>    But you appear to make them, and that is the other reason I am 
>disappointed.  I am specifically referring to your response to Brian 
>Harmon and myself on the prussian blue question.  You made a response 
>in which it appeared you wanted to imply that the lack of blue stains at 
>Majdanek contradicted his post.  I pointed out to you that he did not 
>discuss Majdanek because Majdanek (at least to the best of my knowledge) 
>had never been claimed as a Zyklon-B site, but a CO site, and CO does not 
>form prussian blue.  You made a reply which to my mind insinuated that 
>Brian was deliberately dodging discussions of other camps.  I pointed out 
>once more that a place where cyanide was not used was irrelevant to the 
>discussion of whether cyanide staining weathers away.  You failed to respond.

I apologize for not responding, but I simply ran out of time. As for Majdanek, you are in error about the use of CO only, unless you are again revising history. I do not yet wish to become involved in a knock-down, drag-out discussion of Majdanek, so at
 this time I will only say that three of the four "gas chambers" at Majdanek show heavy blue staining. Ironically, the one that does not have staining does have roof holes (for the introduction of Zyklon B)!

>    Now, you are welcome to tell me that I misinterpreted your tone.  You
>are welcome to tell me that I made a mistake, and some Holocaust scholar
>*has* claimed mass gassings at Majdanek were performed with Zyklon-B
>rather than carbon monoxide; plese tell me who and where.  You are welcome
>to tell me that you were confused about what poison was claimed to have
>been used where, and you withdraw your insinuation that Brian was dodging
>anything.  But your complete silence seems very evasive to me.  Or may I
>take it, as the old saying goes, that "silence gives consent," and you now
>accept that you were wrong?
>
>    Also in the discussion of cyanide staining, you attempted to argue a
>false dichotomy: that either 100% of prussian blue will weather away in a
>short time, or 0% will weather away, ever.  I pointed this out to you, and
>explained in brief terms some of the mechanics involved.  Again, you
>failed to respond.  Again, do you have some further argument to make (and
>I would accept a temporary answer of "give me some time") or may I
>conclude you now accept that the revisionist claim "there is not enough
>prussian blue to be consistent with mass gassing at Auschwitz-Birkenau" is
>now defeated?

Either I missed your comment or I ran out of time. Again, I apologize. As before, I don't want to go into this now, but I will say that there are several rooms and buildings presented to us as having been either gas chambers. There is no consistent
 explanation that would make it possible for some of the gas chambers to have heavy blue staining, and some with negligible traces (that is, traces on a par with rooms we know were only disinfected with Zyklon B). Some have interior walls, some exterior
 walls. Some have been exposed to the weather, some not. And so on. I mean no disrespect to Mr. Harmon, but I simply do not have time to argue with people who claim that they have a formula they found in a book that "proves" that clearly visible blue
 staining is not there. Perhaps when David Cole's new video comes out, you will be able to see more clearly to what I am referring.
>
>>discussions of race, 
>>discussions about the meta-meaning of Holocaust Rdenial,S or other 
>>non-substantive, off-topic posts to address the issue at hand.
>
>    This request is certainly reasonable.  However, I do think the terms 
>under which a discussion is to be conducted is germane to the issue at 
>hand, although it is in some sense a meta-discussion.
>
>>P.S. I do not have a lot of time to put into this discussion, but I will do
>>the best I can. I hope you understand, and try not to get too surly with me
>>if I skip a day or two while I attempt to meet my many deadlines.
>
>    As I have my deadlines too, I can certainly understand this.  Take
>more than a day or two if you like; I certainly shall.  However, if you
>fail to respond to a charge that your argument is invalid, yet repeat the
>same discredited argument without at least attempting a counter-rebuttal,
>you should be aware that people *will* get surly with you - myself
>included.

Greg Raven
greg.ihr@kaiwan.com
(alternately, Greg_Raven@lamg.com)



From mala!access.digex.net!mstein Tue Apr 26 08:02:40 1994
X-Delivered: at request of kmcvay on oneb
Return-Path: 
Received: by oneb.almanac.bc.ca (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.18.1 #18.33)
	id ; Tue, 26 Apr 94 08:02 PDT
Received: by mala.bc.ca (DECUS UUCP /2.0//2.0/);
          Tue, 26 Apr 94 07:57:43 PST
Received: from access2.digex.net by MALINS.MALA.BC.CA (MX V3.3 VAX) with SMTP;
          Tue, 26 Apr 1994 07:57:20 PST
Received: by access2.digex.net id AA03578 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for Ken McVay
          ); Tue, 26 Apr 1994 10:56:49 -0400
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 10:56:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael P. Stein" 
Subject: Reply (fwd)
To: revision -- Daniel Keren , Jamie McCarthy
          , Ken McVay 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO


    ... in which the noted historian Greg Raven once again argues out of 
both sides of his mouth ...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 07:28:03 -0700
From: Greg Raven 
To: "Michael P. Stein" 
Subject: Reply

>Greg Raven  wrote:
>>One of the reasons I tried to put limits on the discussion was to eliminate
>>meaningless posts such as his, so the discussion would not become 
>>sidetracked.
>
>    I am not trying to sidetrack the discussion; merely get some
>clarification.  You are asking for evidence to "prove" the Holocaust.  In
>order to satisfy your request, I must know whether you mean "prove" in the
>sense used in American jurisprudence - i.e., sufficient to sustain a
>unanimous verdict from an impartial jury of twelve randomly selected
>adults that the case has been proved "beyond a reasonable doubt" prior to
>a jury returning a unanimous verdict of "not guilty."  If you are using
>some other meaning, please lay it out clearly so that nobody wastes time
>shooting at the wrong target.  This request is both meaningful and clearly
>in accord with your stated goal of not getting the discussion sidetracked,
>so you should have no objection to answering this very simple question:
>what standard of proof do you require?

In a court of law, although it would be nice to establish exactly what
happened, what is usually of more importance is for one side or the other
to "win." Historiography is different. Although we might be able to use
the legal system's standards on the admissibility and treatment of various
types of evidence, the legal paradigm only works so far. Historiography
should be concerned with reporting what actually happened. 

Faurisson has said that he would accept as proof anything that his
opponents accept as proof. By this he means to say that his opponents
always resort to multiple bits of evidence, none of which is capable of
standing up on its own, but delivered in a flurry so that it appears there
is evidence. I am not as clever as Faurisson, but perhaps this would be a
starting point. 

>
>    One other point of clarification: you say above "*One* of the reasons
>that I tried to put limits on the discussion...."  So you have other
>reasons.  Now, in a previous post (also emailed to you) which you have not
>yet answered, I noted that some other reasons were obvious and quite
>reasonable.  However, I would like to know why you want to limit the
>discussion to at most two pieces of evidence.  If two pieces of evidence
>don't sidetrack the discussion, then three or four should not sidetrack it
>either.  It would seem to me that if you are interested in the truth, you
>should be willing to discuss as much as needs to be discussed, even if
>that means considering three or four or even ten pieces of evidence.  So I
>ask one other very simple question: why are you setting a limit of two
>pieces of evidence?

A couple of reasons. First, as mentioned above "evidence" is typically
presented in a swarm, which makes it appear as if there is something going
on. This technique was used during the witch trials, whereby several
fractions of a truth would be combined to add up to a whole proof. Second,
I don't have a lot of time to wade through tens or hundreds of "little
proofs," rebutting each one. If there is some solid proof, it shouldn't be
necessary to swarm me with multiple documents. Third, if I had to time to
respond to a swarm of documents, the point of the discussion would soon
become lost. I want to try to focus fairly narrowly on one part of the
Holocaust that revisionists believe has been misrepresented. I think it is
only fair that the responses follow a somewhat similar narrowness of
focus. 

>    I'm just trying to get a handle on the ground rules, Greg.  If you
>think these are unreasonable or irrelevant questions, please explain why. 

After all these years, it is difficult to divine the ground rules. This is
most easily seen in the fact that when a revisionist claims that stories
about the gas chambers may be factually unsupportable, he is called a
Holocaust denier, an anti-Semite, a Nazi, a racist, etc. Being on the
receiving end of this, I appreciate your concern for the ground rules. 

Greg Raven
greg.ihr@kaiwan.com
(alternately, Greg_Raven@lamg.com)



From oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!panix!news.intercon.com!news1.digex.net!access.digex.net!not-for-mail Thu Apr 28 05:16:22 PDT 1994
Article: 11523 of alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!panix!news.intercon.com!news1.digex.net!access.digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Death Toll in Auschwitz-Birkenau - unedited email by permission
Date: 27 Apr 1994 13:40:01 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 92
Sender: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com
Message-ID: <2pm81h$dnd@access2.digex.net>
Reply-To: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: access2.digex.net

    Per agreement with Greg Raven, the following email is posted by 
permission.  Other than attempting to improve paragraph formatting and 
eliminate special characters, no changes have been intentionally made in 
Greg's text.  Errors called to my attention will be corrected.

Date: Wed, 20 Apr 1994 06:51:56 -0700
From: Greg Raven 
Message-Id: <199404201351.GAA00443@kaiwan.kaiwan.com>
To: mstein@access.digex.net ("Michael P. Stein")
Subject: Re: Belated answer to your question

I realize this may sound silly, but it is so relaxing to be able to
conduct business off-line through E-mail, rather than attempting to
respond to a newsgroup post before the server times out! At any rate, on
to your questions: 

>    After rereading your message, I have just a couple of other questions
>to satisfy my curiosity (they don't really change the argument; I just
>want to understand better what you are saying and why). 
>
>> According to the Auschwitz death registers, it would appear that
>>somewhere around 150.000 people died of all causes at Auschwitz/Birkenau
>>(69,000 accounted for in the registers that have been made public, with
>>the "total" figure being an extrapolation from the known deaths). 
>
>    I'm not sure why you make this extrapolation.  Is it due to deaths 
>not recorded in the official register because things were sort of falling 
>apart at the end?  (An entirely understandable phenomenon.)
>
>    And just for confirmation, you believe that 150,000 is a top figure 
>for ALL deaths (Jewish *and* non-Jewish) at Auschwitz-Birkenau due to ALL 
>causes, yes?

To date, we (meaning people in general) do not have a complete set of the
Auschwitz death registers. Some of the books are missing. They may, of
course, turn up later (probably in another ex-Soviet archive), but for now
we have to guess. From the ones we have, we know of the deaths of roughly
69,000 people. If we assume the same rate of deaths per month for the
"missing" months as for the months about which we know, then we come up
with a figure in the neighborhood of 150,000. I fully realize that there
are pitfalls in this calculation, but it beats what I consider to be the
utter guessing games played by others, who have substantially less upon
which to base their casualty estimates.

>>but the Einsatzgruppen reports, even though they are
>>generally acknowledged to be inflated, claim many more than this.
>
>    I'm not sure what you mean by "the Einsatzgruppen reports."  Are these
>general census and mortality figures for areas under German control, or
>something else?  And who inflated them?  If it was the "Holocaust
>Hoaxers," then why would you rely on them for any factual data at all?  If
>not, then (again) who would have inflated them, and more importantly why? 

The various Einsatzgruppen units reported back to headquarters (Berlin? I
could look it up but it clear across the room :->) about their activities.
The way I remember it, at first they reported in every day, but later
switched to once a week. In amongst entries recording the "housekeeping"
activities in which the Einsatzgruppen were involved, were casualty
figures, which often speak of the numbers of Jews killed. I haven't taken
the time to go through each and every one of them (as I remember, there
are between 200 and 300 reports), but from what I understand if you total
up the number of Jews claimed killed for all the reports, you come up with
more than 2,000,000 (two million). However, even Raul Hilberg doesn't buy
this figure (doesn't he claim something like 1,500,000?). I don't know
what his rationale is for disbelieving it, but my personal guess is that,
much as our troups did in Vietnam, the German troups tended to exaggerate.
I don't think we will ever know the true total.

As in Vietnam, there was a lot of guerilla activity going on. Today, this
is often euphemistically referred to as "partisan" activity, but what this
means is that saboteurs and underground fighters, working for the greater
good of Marxism and Uncle Joe, were doing what they could to torment the
Einsatzgruppen, which was sent into the eastern territories behind the
front line troups to create order prior to the arrival of the German
occupation government. As in many guerilla actions, I believe the Germans
in some cases told the locals that for each German killed, XXX locals
would be killed. This rarely stops guerilla fighters, of course, and leads
to an incredibly messy situation. It is probably impossible for someone
such as I, who have never been in a war, to imagine either the feelings
of the locals or the frustrations of the occupation forces. One of the
hopes of revisionists I know is that, by understanding history better, we
can avoid wars. Whenever I think of the situation that existed in the
eastern territories, I sincerely hope this is correct.

Greg Raven
greg.ihr@kaiwan.com
(alternately, Greg_Raven@lamg.com)

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!panix!news.intercon.com!news1.digex.net!access.digex.net!not-for-mail Thu Apr 28 09:37:32 PDT 1994
Article: 11530 of alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!panix!news.intercon.com!news1.digex.net!access.digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Discussion of Nazi Intent - unedited email by permission
Date: 27 Apr 1994 13:48:46 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 63
Sender: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com
Message-ID: <2pm8hu$e48@access2.digex.net>
Reply-To: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: access2.digex.net

    The following is an email message from Greg Raven, posted by 
permission.  Other than reformatting and elimination of special 
characters, any alteration of Greg's original text is accidental, and 
will be corrected if called to my attention.

Message-Id: <199404090651.XAA25522@netcomsv.netcom.com>
Date: 08 Apr 1994 23:33:40 -0000
From: Greg_Raven@lamg.com (Greg Raven)
Subject: Re(2): Re(2): note from Greg Raven
To: mstein@access.digex.net, codfish@netcom.netcom.com

MS> 1) Concentration camps and crematoria prove that the
Germans had the logistical system in place to make sure no body was left
around for autopsy after a gassing.

Incorrect. The crematories were to dispose of bodies so that hygiene could be
maintained. Every city of any size in Europe had at least one crematory, as
did every concentration camp. Because every concentration camp is not now
claimed to have been an extermination camp, we can see that crematories were
a normal fixture, not some instrument of mass murder.

MS> 2) It depends on what you consider "a trace"  [of mass murder]. . . .What
*would* you accept as "a trace?"  Documents? Witnesses (and not all of them
victims)?  Residue from cyanide?  Massive changes in Jewish population pre-
vs. post-war?

Assuming we are talking about mass murder in homicidal gas chambers, I would
consider any of these as proof. Since there are no documents, because there
are no credible eyewitnesses, because the cyanide residues are consistant
with fumigation and not homicide, and because there are no conclusive Jewish
population figures, I am on pretty safe ground in claiming that there was no
Nazi plan to exterminate six million Jews in homicidal gas chambers.

MS> 3) And if I *am* the police [investigating a murder], and all my fellow
cops [that is, Nazis] are in on the deal....  The situations are simply not
comparable [between an individual homicide and Nazi mass murder].

This is one of the problems with hypothetic arguments. This one implies that
the Nazis never punished any of their concentration camp commanders for
mistreatment of prisoners, which is false. Exterminationists would have us
believe that the Nazis punished concentration camp commanders for brutality,
but rewarded commanders of "extermination" camps.

MS> 4) why they were imprisoned in the first place, hmn?  What simple
explanation do you have for the fact that significant resources were diverted
from the fighting front to round up and imprison Jews, Gypsies, etc.?  Reason
tells me that if I were Fuhrer, I'd want every available
fighting man - including Jews, some of whom had served the Kaiser in WWI - on
the battle line.  It's apparent (to me, at least) that something very
unreasonable was going on.

Revisionists do not claim that Jews were not rounded up and subjected to any
number of horrible experiences. However, it is sophistry to proclaim that
something must have happened a certain way because your "reason" demands it.
Hitler and others in the Third Reich felt that the Jews were a threat to the
security of the state (with some justification), and so treated them
accordingly. This has nothing to do with homicidal gas chambers, however.

Greg Raven
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.

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