Archive/File: holocaust/usa/ihr raven.0994 Last-Modified: 1994/09/30 Article 15794 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Mr. Raven, isn't Leuchter either a fool or a fraud? Followup-To: alt.revisionism Date: Thu, 01 Sep 1994 23:19:06 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 16 Message-ID:References: <33up68$j3u@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com In article <33up68$j3u@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) wrote: > But there are cyanide traces in the gas chamber of Auschwitz I, right? > So what the hell is your point? > > Phew. There is/was no homicidal gas chamber at Auschwitz I. -- Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659 The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40 The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping Article 15795 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!uunet!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Mr. Raven, please answer some questions about Treblinka Followup-To: alt.revisionism Date: Thu, 01 Sep 1994 23:20:12 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: <33us3k$l5r@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com In article <33us3k$l5r@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) wrote: > # Please tell me which piece of evidence you > # consider to be the single best piece of evidence to show that the Nazis had > # a plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers. > > Such evidence is posted here daily. It was explained to you at length > that it is impossible to choose "the best piece of evidence" because > there is no criterion which makes such a choice possible. It seems you > are just not intelligent enough to understand this very simple matter. If this proof is so commonplace, please say which piece it is. Typically, there are many pieces of testimony posted, but no proof, and certainly not one that you are willing to claim as the BEST evidence. -- Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659 The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40 The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping Article 15796 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!uunet!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Mr. Raven, please answer some questions about Treblinka Followup-To: alt.revisionism Date: Thu, 01 Sep 1994 23:21:46 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 34 Message-ID: References: <33ushm$led@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com In article <33ushm$led@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) wrote: > Raven, Jamie McCarthy and I asked you a question. How can you rely > on an aerial photo of Treblinka taken at Sept. 1944, when the camp was > destroyed in the end of 1943? What exactly did you conclude from that > photo? > > Hey, I know! The photo was taken from one of the UFOs Raven's > colleague, "revisionist" Ernst Zundel, keeps talking about. The UFO > taking the photo was a light-year away from Earth, and thus the photo, > although taken at 1944, really shows what happened in Treblinka at 1943! > Is this what you claim, Raven? > > And please, no "I don't have enough time" excuses. Hell, McCarthy and > me are working people. We have full time jobs, yet we find time to > read articles directed to us and respond to them. Denying the > Holocaust is your bloody job, isn't it? How come you don't find the > time? Obviously, you have not looked at the photo. Why not look at the photo, which can be found either in the issue of the Journal to which I referred, or in John Ball's Air Photo Evidence, and then tell me if you are still confused. While you are at it, please tell me if there is something about the shape of the Treblinka camp that you feel is the best evidence that the Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers. -- Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659 The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40 The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping Article 15797 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!uunet!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Mr. Raven, do you want evidence in order, or in isolation? Followup-To: alt.revisionism Date: Thu, 01 Sep 1994 23:24:00 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 26 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com In article , k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) wrote: > Mr. Raven, I'm confused. Yes, I know. What I would like to do is look at the evidence that YOU SAY supports your contention that the Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers. I would like to do this one piece of evidence at a time, starting with what you think is the BEST evidence. I believe that you and others have claimed that there is a mountain of such evidence, yet when I ask for it you do everything but produce it. You post testimonies. You post confessions. You post long messages that seek to discuss everything else except the one issue in which I am currently interested: What is your best evidence? Do you understand that a testimony is not evidence? Do you understand that without evidence, a testimony is just what someone is alleged to have said? Show me evidence ... save the testimony for later. There will be plenty of time to look at the contexts for these pieces of evidence and testimonies ... after you produce them. First, however, let us see that one, BEST piece of evidence. -- Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659 The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40 The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping Article 15803 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Mr. Raven, isn't Leuchter either a fool or a fraud? Date: 2 Sep 1994 07:13:18 GMT Organization: Brown University Lines: 33 Message-ID: <346jae$ihg@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> References: <33up68$j3u@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu X-ORIGINAL-NEWSGROUPS: alt.revisionism Greg Raven wrote: # dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) wrote: ## But there are cyanide traces in the gas chamber of Auschwitz I, right? ## So what the hell is your point? # There is/was no homicidal gas chamber at Auschwitz I. From the statement of Hans Stark, registrar of new arrivals, Auschwitz: [Quoted in "'The Good Old Days'" - E. Klee, W. Dressen, V. Riess, The Free Press, NY, 1988, p. 255]. -------------------------------------------------------------- At another, later gassing -- also in autumn 1941 -- Grabner* ordered me to pour Zyklon B into the opening because only one medical orderly had shown up. During a gassing Zyklon B had to be poured through both openings of the gas-chamber room at the same time. This gassing was also a transport of 200-250 Jews, once again men, women and children. As the Zyklon B -- as already mentioned -- was in granular form, it trickled down over the people as it was being poured in. They then started to cry out terribly for they now knew what was happening to them. I did not look through the opening because it had to be closed as soon as the Zyklon B had been poured in. After a few minutes there was silence. After some time had passed, it may have been ten to fifteen minutes, the gas chamber was opened. The dead lay higgledy-piggedly all over the place. It was a dreadful sight. * Maximillian Grabner, Head of Political Department, Auschwitz -Danny Keren. Article 15804 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Mr. Raven, please answer some questions about Treblinka Date: 2 Sep 1994 07:16:19 GMT Organization: Brown University Lines: 12 Message-ID: <346jg3$iii@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> References: <33ushm$led@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu X-ORIGINAL-NEWSGROUPS: alt.revisionism I repeat my question: what does a photo taken in Sept. 1944 prove, when the camp was destroyed late 1943? -Danny Keren. Article 15822 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!schultz From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Mr. Raven, do you want evidence in order, or in isolation? Date: 2 Sep 1994 12:05:05 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 31 Message-ID: <3474dh$afa@agate.berkeley.edu> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu In article , Greg Raven wrote: #In article , #k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) wrote: # #> Mr. Raven, I'm confused. # #Yes, I know. What I would like to do is look at the evidence that YOU SAY #supports your contention that the Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate #the Jews in homicidal gas chambers. I would like to do this one piece of #evidence at a time, starting with what you think is the BEST evidence. I #believe that you and others have claimed that there is a mountain of such #evidence, yet when I ask for it you do everything but produce it. You post #testimonies. You post confessions. You post long messages that seek to #discuss everything else except the one issue in which I am currently #interested: What is your best evidence? Do you understand that a testimony #is not evidence? Do you understand that without evidence, a testimony is #just what someone is alleged to have said? Show me evidence ... save the #testimony for later. There will be plenty of time to look at the contexts #for these pieces of evidence and testimonies ... after you produce them. #First, however, let us see that one, BEST piece of evidence. Sigh. Shake head. Tap finger to temple. -- Richard Schultz "It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?" Article 15823 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!library.ucla.edu!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!schultz From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Mr. Raven, do you want evidence in order, or in isolation? Date: 2 Sep 1994 12:09:03 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 19 Message-ID: <3474kv$afm@agate.berkeley.edu> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu In article , Greg "Gramophone" Raven wrote: Leaving aside for the moment the numerous answers you have already gotten to your questions for the last four months, which I am sure others will point out in more detail, has it ever occurred to you that if you were to stop typing in the same thing over and over again, you might actually have the time to do something constructive? Like answer my question about the best single piece of evidence for World War II. Or explain why you continue to distort the passage from "Night." Or any of dozens of other things you could do with you time here that would be infinitely more productive than complaining about how no one ever answers your questions. -- Richard Schultz "It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?" Article 15832 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-01.dialip.mich.net!user From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Mr. Raven, please answer some questions about Treblinka Date: Fri, 02 Sep 1994 10:43:40 -0400 Organization: University of Michigan Lines: 43 Message-ID: References: <33ushm$led@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-01.dialip.mich.net greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote: > Obviously, you have not looked at the photo. Why not look at the photo, > which can be found either in the issue of the Journal to which I referred, I don't have access to that. > or in John Ball's Air Photo Evidence, I'll check my library for that book, or another W.W. II air photo book if I can find one, as soon as I have the time -- hopefully this weekend. I hope John Ball isn't another crackpot from the IHR, because if he is my chances for finding his book are very slim. > and then tell me if you are still > confused. I'm not confused. I want to know why a photo taken in late 1944 is good evidence for how the camp looked, given that it was dismantled in late 1943. > While you are at it, please tell me if there is something about > the shape of the Treblinka camp that you feel is the best evidence that the > Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas > chambers. Don't change the subject. _You_ brought this one up, Mr. Raven. Ken McVay posted testimonies from several SS guards at Treblinka, and your sole response was that they couldn't have known what they were talking about because they may or may not have gotten the shape of the camp wrong. I've asked you at least once if that is your only objection to their testimony, and I here ask you again: if you have other reasons to doubt their testimony, please present at least one more. If you can't, then our only conclusion must be that you are grasping at straws in an effort to disbelieve the testimony. You'd have been better off to just ignore them in the first place, Mr. Raven, than to post such a transparent attempt to discredit them. Emailed to Mr. Raven as usual. -- Jamie McCarthy Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu AppleLink: j.mccarthy I speak for no one but myself. Article 15835 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-01.dialip.mich.net!user From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Mr. Raven, your May 4th myopia, incredibly, persists Date: Fri, 02 Sep 1994 11:06:53 -0400 Organization: University of Michigan Lines: 41 Message-ID: References: <33us3k$l5r@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-01.dialip.mich.net greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote: > If this proof is so commonplace, please say which piece it is. Typically, > there are many pieces of testimony posted, but no proof, and certainly not > one that you are willing to claim as the BEST evidence. Greg, I'm really amazed. I'm just in awe. It's been explained to you many, many times that if you want to start with something you must call "the BEST evidence," you're free to start with document #1 in the May 4th reply. I think the whole concept of "BEST EVIDENCE" is flawed, and I've explained why in the May 4th reply, but you seem to have paid that no notice. That's your loss; even your colleague Bradley Smith sees the value of the concept of convergence of evidence. If you don't, it only hurts your own credibility as a historian (not that you have all that much to begin with). Anyway, I asked you if you really wanted it reposted, given that it's been posted here half a dozen times, and that it's been emailed to you at least once, and that I have email back from you confirming its receipt. You didn't answer. I again make you that offer: if you really want me to repost it, if you're really going to address the issues it raises this time, just let me know and I will do so. Let me repeat that in words of one syllable, because you haven't understood it all the previous times that it's been said: if you insist on calling something "BEST EVIDENCE," you will find our "BEST EVIDENCE" in the documents of the May 4th reply. If you insist on classifying them, then document #1 is our "BEST EVIDENCE," document #2 is our "SECOND-BEST EVIDENCE," and so on. I think that classification system is silly and useless, as I've explained, but it reflects on your credibility, not mine, so if you insist on it you're welcome to it. Got that? Emailed to Mr. Raven as usual. -- Jamie McCarthy Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu AppleLink: j.mccarthy I speak for no one but myself. Article 15839 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-01.dialip.mich.net!user From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Mr. Raven, do you want evidence in order, or in isolation? Date: Fri, 02 Sep 1994 11:38:33 -0400 Organization: University of Michigan Lines: 51 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-01.dialip.mich.net greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote: > k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) wrote: > > > Mr. Raven, I'm confused. > > Yes, I know. Well, you're not helping, are you. You addressed everything but what I asked for. I wanted to know: do you want evidence in order, or in isolation? That is, do you want to look at each piece of evidence without reference to other evidence? Because that's not what historians do. If you want to focus on one topic at a time, simply to avoid chaos, that's fine. But if your focus gets too tight, if your focus can only include one piece of paper at a time, I find that invalid. I guess I'm asking: how much will you include within your focus? One document, with references to anything else verboten? Or one collection of related documents? > What I would like to do is look at the evidence that YOU SAY > supports your contention that the Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate > the Jews in homicidal gas chambers. I would like to do this one piece of > evidence at a time, starting with what you think is the BEST evidence. I > believe that you and others have claimed that there is a mountain of such > evidence, yet when I ask for it you do everything but produce it. Document #1, Mr. Raven. Document #1, as you know, is a transcription of a tape recording made of a speech given by Himmler in which he explicitly says "we are exterminating the Jews." How long are you going to ignore it, and how long are you going to wrongly insist that we have yet to produce it? > You post > testimonies. You post confessions. You post long messages that seek to > discuss everything else except the one issue in which I am currently > interested: What is your best evidence? How long are you going to ignore it, and how long are you going to wrongly insist that we have yet to produce it? Emailed to Mr. Raven to ensure he sees it. -- Jamie McCarthy Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu AppleLink: j.mccarthy I speak for no one but myself. Article 15840 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-01.dialip.mich.net!user From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Mr. Raven, what then _is_ evidence? Date: Fri, 02 Sep 1994 11:40:06 -0400 Organization: University of Michigan Lines: 54 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-01.dialip.mich.net greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote: > Do you understand that a testimony > is not evidence? Oh? Oh really? Let me get this straight: when a man stands up in court, under oath, and says, I helped gas people to death -- that's not evidence? When a man writes his memoirs and rambles on at length about the various faces he remembers seeing walk into the gas chambers -- that's not evidence? > Do you understand that without evidence, a testimony is > just what someone is alleged to have said? Leaving aside the question of the awkwardly-inserted "alleged"... I don't understand that a testimony is "just" what someone said. This Usenet article is not "just" me typing. Your question is not "just" a collection of ASCII characters. When a man says, yes, I did horrible medical experiments on Jews because I knew they were going to be killed anyway, that is not "just what someone is alleged to have said." > Show me evidence ... save the > testimony for later. There will be plenty of time to look at the contexts > for these pieces of evidence and testimonies ... after you produce them. > First, however, let us see that one, BEST piece of evidence. Perhaps we've had a misunderstanding, Mr. Raven. When you say "evidence," do you mean that you will allow only direct, still-existing, tangible, physical evidence? Do you mean that you will exclude all words spoken or written? You've thrown me a curve, Mr. Raven, and I'm not sure what to say. It sounds like your criteria are such that you will not accept anything that anyone has said or written -- as if we are supposed to approach the Holocaust as deaf illiterates. Is that right? If so, maybe you had better give us an example of two of something that _is_ evidence. Maybe you'd better spell out exactly what you mean by that word "evidence." You've been asked to do so before, and you have not -- but this time I think you really should. Because if you truly believe that "a testimony is not evidence," then you must be using a definition of "evidence" with which I am not familiar. Emailed to Mr. Raven to ensure that he sees it. -- Jamie McCarthy Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu AppleLink: j.mccarthy I speak for no one but myself. Article 15842 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!schultz From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Mr. Raven, your May 4th myopia, incredibly, persists Date: 2 Sep 1994 15:51:42 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 22 Message-ID: <347hme$e87@agate.berkeley.edu> References: <33us3k$l5r@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu In article , Jamie McCarthy wrote: >I think the whole concept of "BEST EVIDENCE" is flawed, and I've >explained why in the May 4th reply, but you seem to have paid that >no notice. That's your loss; even your colleague Bradley Smith >sees the value of the concept of convergence of evidence. If you >don't, it only hurts your own credibility as a historian (not that >you have all that much to begin with). Actually, even Greg Raven himself has admitted, albeit indirectly, that he agrees with the concept of convergence of evidence as well. The only time he has brought himself to address the question of the "Best Evidence (tm)" for World War II, he gave a list of pieces of evidence. Further queries about why he gave a list instead of a single piece of evidence were met with the usual silence. -- Richard Schultz "It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?" Article 15866 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!uunet!world!bzs From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Subject: Re: Mr. Raven, do you want evidence in order, or in isolation? In-Reply-To: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com's message of Thu, 01 Sep 1994 23:24:00 -0800 Message-ID: Followup-To: alt.revisionism Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Organization: The World References: Date: Sat, 3 Sep 1994 02:51:28 GMT Lines: 126 From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) >I >believe that you and others have claimed that there is a mountain of such >evidence, yet when I ask for it you do everything but produce it. Oh bullshit Raven, you are simply a liar of the lowest sort. You've seen tons of evidence here, with references. You're simply a liar. The question is: Who do you think you are fooling? >Do you understand that a testimony >is not evidence? As far as you are concerned anything that proves you wrong is not evidence. What transparent bullshit, you have the mind of a petulant child. But what about, for example, the memos written between Nazi officers during the course of their duties and during the war that have been posted here dozens of times and are readily available in many books on the subject. Every time I mention this you ignore it. Well, lah-dee-dah. You are quite simply a liar. What bullshit, what unabashed and absolutely shameless bullshit. This entire revisionism thing is nothing but a willful, cheap hoax perpetrated to create controversy and earn people like Greg Raven a buck for themselves. It's a psuedo-intellectual form of geek show, those sideshows where people charge a buck a person to watch them bite the heads off of live chickens. Who do you think you are kidding? ================================================== "Since December 1941, for example, 97,000 were processed using three vans, without any faults occuring in the vehicles." Dr August Becker on 5 June 1942 to SS-Obersturmbannfuhrer Rauff ********** "Apart from that I gave orders that all men should stand as far away as possible from van during the gassings, so that their health would not be damaged by any escaping gases. I would like to take this opportunity to draw your attention to the following: Some of the Kommandos are using their own men to unload the vans after the gassing. I have made commanders of the Sonderkommandos in question aware of the enormous psychological and physical damage this work can do to the men, if not immediately then at a later stage." Dr August Becker on 16 May 1942 to SS-Obersturmbannfuherer Rauff ********** Einsatzgruppe C Standort Kiev In collaboration with the group staff and two Kommandos of Police Regiment South, on 29 and 30 September 1941 Sonderkommando 4a executed 33,771 Jews in Kiev. Ereignismeldung UdSSR, No. 101, 2 October 1941 ********** During my visit to Kumhof I also saw the extermination installation, with the lorry which had been set up for killing by means of motor exhaust fumes. The head of the Kommando told me that this method, however, was very unreliable, as the gas build-up was very irregular and was often insufficient for killing. Rudolf Hoss, Commandant of Auschwitz, on a visit to Chelmno on 16 September 1942 ********** "..the unfit go to cellars in a large house which are entered from outside. They go down five or six steps into a fairly long, well-constructed and well-ventilated cellar area, which is lined with benches to the left and right. It is brightly lit, and the benches are numbered. The prisoners are told that they are to be cleansed and disinfected for their new assignments. They must therefore completely undress to be bathed. To avoid panic and to prevent disturbances of any kind, they are instructed to arrange their clothing neatly under their respective numbers, so that they will be able to find their things again after their bath. Everything proceeds in a perfectly orderly fashion. Then they pass through a small corridor and enter a large cellar room which resembles a shower bath. In this room are three large pillars, into which certain materials can be lowered from outside the cellar room. When three- to four-hundred people have been herded into this room, the doors are shut, and containers filled with the substances are dropped down into the pillars. As soon as the containers touch the base of the pillars, they release particular substances that put the people to sleep in one minute. A few minutes later, the door opens on the other side, where the elevator is located. . . . Then the corpses are loaded into elevators and brought up to the first floor, where ten large crematoria are located. (Because fresh corpses burn particularly well, only 50-100 lbs. of coke are needed for the whole process.) The job itself is performed by Jewish prisoners, who never step outside this camp again. The results of this `resettlement action' to date: 500,000 Jews Current capacity of the `resettlement action' ovens: 10,000 in twenty-four hours." --from report entitled "Resettlement of Jews" written by SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Alfred Franke-Gricksch for SS-Col. M. von Herff and RF-SS H. Himmler, after inspection of Auschwitz camp on 14-16 May 1943. This excerpt from "Hitler and the Final Solution" by Gerald Fleming, ISBN 0-520-05103-3. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD Article 15871 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!casaba.srv.cs.cmu.edu!spok From: spok+@cs.cmu.edu (John Ockerbloom) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Mr. Raven, please answer some questions about Treblinka Date: 2 Sep 1994 22:08:12 GMT Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon Lines: 33 Message-ID: <3487oc$50r@casaba.srv.cs.cmu.edu> References: <33us3k$l5r@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: gs1.sp.cs.cmu.edu In article , Greg Raven wrote: >In article <33us3k$l5r@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) >wrote: >> Such evidence is posted here daily. It was explained to you at length >> that it is impossible to choose "the best piece of evidence" because >> there is no criterion which makes such a choice possible. It seems you >> are just not intelligent enough to understand this very simple matter. > >If this proof is so commonplace, please say which piece it is. Typically, >there are many pieces of testimony posted, but no proof, and certainly not >one that you are willing to claim as the BEST evidence. Your first sentence conflates "proof" and "piece" yet again. Either you haven't been listening, or you're arguing dishonestly. Care to post which piece you're willing to claim as the BEST evidence that World War II occurred? You were asked this a while back, and at one point you said it would not be too difficult to find such a piece, yet I haven't seen you post one. Why should anyone listen to your demands for proof, if you're not willing to make clear what your standards of proof are, and show that you apply them consistently? (For instance, to the question of whether "World War II" was fought.) These are not rhetorical questions. I'm interested in knowing your answer to the two questions I asked, and that others have asked before me. John Ockerbloom -- ========================================================================== ockerbloom@cs.cmu.edu CMU School of Computer Science, Pittsburgh PA 15213 Article 15973 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!panix!ddsw1!godot.cc.duq.edu!news.duke.edu!convex!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.intercon.com!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail From: mstein@access3.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: A challenge to Greg Raven Date: 13 Sep 1994 01:44:26 -0400 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA Lines: 23 Message-ID: <353e7q$biv@access3.digex.net> References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: access3.digex.net In article , Greg Raven wrote: >In article , golux@mcs.com (The only >Golux in the World and not a mere Device.) wrote: >> In addition to answering this BEST EVIDENCE (tm), could you also address >> your blatant misrepresentation of Pressac in regard to the Bo"ck statement? > >I have already supported my representation of Pressac's position on Boeck. Simply repeating your misrepresentation is hardly supporting it. I have asked if you would be willing to submit your interpretation to a randomly-chosen panel of, say, ten high school English teachers to see if they would support your text as an honest and accurate interpretation of Pressac's comments on Bo"ck. You have not responded. Are you ready to accept my challenge now? Would you care to wager some money on the outcome? Emailed to Mr. Raven. -- Mike Stein The above represents the Absolute Truth. POB 10420 Therefore it cannot possibly be the official Arlington, VA 22210 position of my employer. Article 16038 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!uunet!UB.com!pacbell.com!amdahl!netcomsv!netcom.com!codfish From: codfish@netcom.com (Ross Vicksell) Subject: Re: "Polish Historical Society" Message-ID: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) References: <1994Sep03.050330.2051@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> <352ei7$stf@casaba.srv.cs.cmu.edu> Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 07:02:24 GMT Lines: 49 spok+@cs.cmu.edu (John Ockerbloom) writes: >In article , >Greg Raven wrote: >>In article , codfish@netcom.com (Ross >>Vicksell) wrote: >> >>> Ken Mcvay (kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca) wrote: >>> (text deleted) >>> Irene Zdziarski >>> Stamford, Conn, Dec. 23, 1993 >>> >>> The writer is chairwoman, holocaust Committee, Polish Historical Society. >> >>I'm sure that what Mcvay meant to say is that "Irene Zdziarski" is put >>forward as the chairwoman of the Holocaust Committee of the PHS, as he >>certainly must know that this is a pseudonym. It's unfortunate but true that many revisionists are still in the closet. They have jobs, and families to support. >Er, despite the way you've got it presented here, the attribution you >quoted was provided by Vicksell, not McVay. (I'm willing to assume Actually, the attribution is the NYT's, not mine. Check it if you don't believe me: 1/1/94. >this was an honest confusion in reading Vicksell's article, which >quoted McVay's signature at the end even though there was no text of >his in the vicinity.) But I'm curious: since you seem to know, who is >"Irene Zdziarski" a pseudonym for? >Of course, don't let this distract you from trying to explain how the >Posen speech, which mentions more than once that the Jews are to be My friend Jack Wikoff is working on a piece about the Posen speech, which will presumably post when he hooks up to the net within the next couple of weeks. >exterminated, didn't really mean it. Or what standards you require for >deciding the trurth of historical events (like, say, the existence of >World War II.) Or... well, there are a bunch of unanswered questions pending, >actually, but if you've got a spare minute or two, I'd also find the >pseudonym question interesting. (Or, if anyone else knows, post away!) >John Ockerbloom >-- >========================================================================== >ockerbloom@cs.cmu.edu CMU School of Computer Science, Pittsburgh PA 15213 Article 16065 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: More about Rudolf Hoess Followup-To: alt.revisionism Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 21:51:38 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 157 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com RUDOLF HOESS Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Hoess is one of the most important witnesses to the "Holocaust," if not the most important. His affidavit and his testimony were quoted extensively both by the prosecution and in the judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. It was his testimony, and the later confirmation of its truthfulness, that laid the foundation for and validated the extermination story of Auschwitz. NAZI CONSPIRACY AND AGGRESSION (Volume VI, page 787. Translation of Document 3868-PS) "I, Rudolf Franz Ferdinand Hoess, being first duly sworn, depose and say as follows: "2. ... I commanded Auschwitz until 1 December 1943, and estimate that at least 2,500,000 victims were executed and exterminated there by gassing and burning, and at least another half million succumbed to starvation and disease making a total dead of about 3,000,000. This figure represents about 70% or 80% of all persons sent to Auschwitz as prisoners, the remainder having been selected and used for slave labor in the concentration camp industries." [end of quote] TRIAL OF THE MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS (Morning Session of Monday, 15 April 1946; page 396) "DR. KAUFFMANN: ... From 1940 to 1943, you were the Commander of the camp at Auschwitz. Is that true? "HOESS: Yes. "... Col. AMEN: I will omit the first paragraph and start with Paragraph 2 [of HoessU affidavit, the text of which is shown above]. "UI commanded Auschwitz until 1 December 1943, [etc.] ....U This is all true, Witness? "HOESS: Yes, it is." [end of quote] His testimony and affidavit have been heavily relied upon by "Holocaust" researchers from Raul Hilberg to Jean-Claude Pressac. Hundreds of histories, testimonies, and treatments of the Third Reich era quote Hoess to show the brutality and evilness of the Nazis. Visitors to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum are confronted with a plaque bearing HoessU words upon entering the Museum. We now know from the book LEGIONS OF DEATH that Hoess was beaten almost to death by Jewish members of the British Field Police upon capture and badly mistreated thereafter until he gave his "testimoney" and "affidavit." His wife and children were threated with deportation to Siberia. LEGIONS OF DEATH (Rupert Butler. Great Britain: 1983. Hamlyn Paperbacks; page 237) "Clarke yelled: UWhat is your name?U "With each answer of UFranz Lang,U ClarkeUs hand crashed into the face of his prisoner. The fourth time that happened, Hoess broke and admitted who he was. "The admission suddenly unleashed the loathing of the Jewish sergeants in the arresting party whose parents had died in Auschwitz following an order signed by Hoess. "The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pyjamas ripped from his body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where it seemed to Clarke the blows and screams were endless. "Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: UCall them off, unless you want to take back a corpse.U "... The party arrived by at Heide around three in the morning. The snow was swirling still, but the blanket was torn from Hoess and he was made to walk completely nude through the prison yard to his cell. "It took three days to get a coherent statement out of him. But once he started talking, there was no holding him." [end of quote] He also spoke of his mistreatment in his "autobiography," COMMANDANT OF AUSCHWITZ. COMMANDANT OF AUSCHWITZ (London: 1959. Weidenfeld and Nicolson; page 174. Recently re-released with additional material as DEATH DEALER by Prometheus Books.) "I was taken to Heide where I was put in those very barracks from which I had been released by the British eight months earlier. "At my first interrogation, evidence was obtained by beating me. I do not know what is in the record, although I signed it. Alcohol and the whip were too much for me. The whip was my own, which by chance had got into my wifeUs luggage. It had hardly ever touched my horse, far less the prisoners. Nevertheless, one of my interrogators was convinced that I had perpetually used it for flogging the prisoners. "After some days I was taken to Minden-on-the-Weser, the main interrogation center in the British Zone. There I received further rough treatment at the hands of the English public prosecutor, a major. "The conditions in the prison accorded with this behavior." [end of quote] Historians today are finally admitting that Hoess is an unreliable witness. The figures of dead he gave for Auschwitz are totally false. He swore that 2,500,000 people were gassed and burned at Auschwitz and a further half million died of disease for a total dead of 3,000,000. Today, the figure of dead claimed for Auschwitz is 800,000, a figure that is in danger of further downward revisions. Hoess also spoke of a concentration camp by the name of "Wolzek," which does not and never did exist. WHOSE HISTORY IS IT? (Christopher Hitchens. Vanity Fair, December 1993; pages 117) "... The revisionists sent me an article by a Frenchman named Robert Faurisson, which claimed that Rudolf Hoess, one of the commandants of Auschwitz, had been tortured by the British into confessing to a fantastic and unbelievable number of murders. UI declare herewith under oath that in the years 1941 to 1943, during my tenure in office as commandant of Auschwitz Concentration Camp, 2 million Jews were put to death by gassing and 1/2 million by other means.U This statement, specially mounted and reproduced, is an important exhibit at the Holocaust Memorial. "I then got in touch with [Deborah] Lipstadt and [Christopher] Browning for their responses, which were surprising: UHoess was always a very weak and confused witness,U said Browning, who has been an expert witness at trials involving Auschwitz. UThe revisionists use him all the time for this reason, in order to try and discredit the memory of Auschwitz as a whole.U And Professor Lipstadt directed me to page 188 of her book, which is quite a page. It says that the stories about the Nazis making Jews into soap are entirely untrue, and it also says that while the memorial stone at Auschwitz itself lists the number of victims -- Jews and non-Jews -- at 4 million, the truer figure is somewhere between 1.5 and 2 million. Since Hoess was the commandant of the place for only part of its existence, this means that -- according to the counter-revisionists -- an important piece of evidence in the Holocaust Memorial is not reliable. A vertiginous sensation if you like. "UItUs the same with the soap story,U said Lipstadt. UI get protests from survivors, saying that I shouldnUt admit itUs not true, because it gives ammunition to the enemy. But IUm only interested in getting at the truth.U An old-fashioned concept." [end of quote] But as we have shown, it is not the revisionists who have used HoessU affidavit and testimony, but rather the traditional "Holocaust" historians. It is only through the efforts of the revisionists that we have begun to catch a glimpse of the true value of HoessU affidavit and testimony. In a meeting between French revisionist Robert Faurisson and Michael Berenbaum, an official of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in September 1994, Berenbaum admitted to Faurisson in front of witnesses that the Hoess quote on display at the Museum was misleading, and that it would be taken down. -- Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659 The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40 The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping Article 16075 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-04.dialip.mich.net!user From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: "Polish Historical Society" Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 12:25:07 -0400 Organization: University of Michigan Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: <1994Sep03.050330.2051@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> <352ei7$stf@casaba.srv.cs.cmu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-04.dialip.mich.net codfish@netcom.com (Ross Vicksell) wrote: > My friend Jack Wikoff is working on a piece about the Posen speech, which > will presumably post when he hooks up to the net within the next couple > of weeks. Hope it'll be better than the Wikoff reply you posted for him a few months ago. You know, the one where he was taken to task for actually getting _aerial photos_ of a camp to prove that Goeth couldn't have shot inmates from his villa balcony, without taking the trouble to simply read the book in the first place and learn that, at the time, he was taking the shots from his temporary villa on the other side of the camp? And wasn't that the same Wikoff who, upon having his disinformation attempt exposed, demanded that we provide proof that Goeth _could_ have taken the shots from the temporary villa, as if the burden of proof were on us not him? A charming character, Wikoff. Look forward to his explanation of "auszurotten - sprich also, umzubringen," since you, Ross, respond with silence when confronted with that quote. As does Raven, apparently. -- Jamie McCarthy Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu AppleLink: j.mccarthy "You seem to be selectively defining words to suit yourself, and then demanding that I accept your definitions." - Greg Raven, 8/26/94 "Do you understand that a testimony is not evidence?" - Greg Raven, 9/1/94 Article 16093 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: More about Rudolf Hoess Date: 15 Sep 1994 13:24:39 GMT Organization: Brown University Lines: 19 Message-ID: <359hun$hsq@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu X-ORIGINAL-NEWSGROUPS: alt.revisionism Before I respond to this, it would be helpful to know if Raven claims Hoess' autobiography was doctored, and if so, does he have any proof it was. -Danny Keren. Article 16095 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!netnews.summit.novell.com!netnews.summit.novell.com!langsvr1!mattk From: mattk@summit.novell.com (Kaufman M.E.) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Posen--the clearest admission Date: 15 Sep 1994 13:27:01 GMT Organization: Novell Lines: 36 Message-ID: <359i35$ke8@bird.summit.novell.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: langsvr1.summit.novell.com X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) wrote: : Is there anyone out there who believes that this speech is the best : evidence of the Holocaust extermination myth? Err, myth? Say what? Maybe in your mind. I have yet to see *anything* from Mr. Raven or any of the IHR flunkies that *proves* anything. If anything, their tireless efforts have *reaffirmed* the *fact* of the Holocaust, mostly due to their bungling and inability to disprove *anything*. Is this the best evidence of the Holocaust? No, not taken by itself, but it is an important part of the overwhelming mountain of evidence. And isn't this the guy that posted that testimony is not evidence? Is that the 'rules' by which the 'revisionists' (what a farcical name) evaluate things -- if testimony is not evidence, what then *is* evidence? Tell us Greg - do you deny Himmler said what was scripted here? What do you think he does mean - we get lots of innuendo and content-free analysis from you, but what exactly do *you* think Himmler meant? : Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) : Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659 : The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40 : The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping What's the netnews policy on advertising on the net? Matt -- It is, indisputably,|copyright 1994, mattk@summit.novell.com. All rights a fact. |reserved. Permission for reproduction by USENET and like |free facilities explicitly allowed. No other reproduction |rights are granted or implied. Article 16098 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Mr. Raven, please address your misrepresentation of Pressac Followup-To: alt.revisionism Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 08:04:43 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 12 Message-ID: References: <33hbmn$pch@access1.digex.net> <353cqk$ad2@access3.digex.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com Your yeomanlike efforts to sidetrack the discussion are noted, but I do not have time to engage in your meta-discussions and word games. Please supply what you feel is the best evidence that the Nazis had a plan or policy of exterminating the Jews of Europe in homicidal gas chambers. Then we can talk. -- Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659 The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40 The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping Article 16099 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: A challenge to Greg Raven Followup-To: alt.revisionism Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 08:07:07 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 38 Message-ID: References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <353e7q$biv@access3.digex.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com In article <353e7q$biv@access3.digex.net>, mstein@access3.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote: > In article , > Greg Raven wrote: > >In article , golux@mcs.com (The only > >Golux in the World and not a mere Device.) wrote: > >> In addition to answering this BEST EVIDENCE (tm), could you also address > >> your blatant misrepresentation of Pressac in regard to the Bo"ck statement? > > > >I have already supported my representation of Pressac's position on Boeck. > > Simply repeating your misrepresentation is hardly supporting it. > > I have asked if you would be willing to submit your interpretation to > a randomly-chosen panel of, say, ten high school English teachers to see > if they would support your text as an honest and accurate interpretation > of Pressac's comments on Bo"ck. You have not responded. Are you ready to > accept my challenge now? Would you care to wager some money on the > outcome? Your "challenge" seems to be nothing more than an attempt to sidetrack the discussion. Why not answer my challenge, posted many, many months ago, to produce what you feel is the best evidence that the Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers? Do you have any such evidence to support your position? > Emailed to Mr. Raven. Don't bother. E-mailed copies of your newsgroup posts are deleted without being read. -- Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659 The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40 The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping Article 16101 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: 130 days later, Mr. Raven accepts the challenge Followup-To: alt.revisionism Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 08:14:07 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 43 Message-ID: References: <355c39$lrd@eis.calstate.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com In article <355c39$lrd@eis.calstate.edu>, jpark@eis.calstate.edu (John Park) wrote: > k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) writes: > > greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote: > > > > > Second, those who like to quote this speech virtually always do so in > > > isolation of other speeches given by Himmler around this time, other > > > speeches in which Himmler made it abundantly clear what he meant in this > > > passage. By removing the context from the speech, the exterminationists > > > hope to convince the unwary that the "smoking gun" has been found. > > > > I believe your claim here, Mr. Raven, is that the _context_ is such that > > "the Jewish people will be exterminated" means something other than "the > > Jewish people will be exterminated." > > > > If Mr. Raven would be kind enough to provide the Himmler speeches to > which he refers, I believe this would be helpful if he wishes to convince > _anyone_ about his point. The use of "abundantly clear" by Mr. Raven > inclines me to wonder why the speeches are not provided. Could it be that > he is misrepresenting the context of Himmer's speeches given at this time? I did not provide any additional information because, as I have from the beginning, I want to make sure that I am not discussing some irrelevant document. However, someone has now claimed that this speech is the BEST EVIDENCE of a Nazi plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers (even though there is no reference to gas chambers of any type in this speech), so it looks as if soon I will be addressing some of the specifics. > If Mr. Raven does provide these speeches, would he be so kind as to also > provide a bibliographic citation so that others may independently check > the text and/or the translation. I will do this. -- Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659 The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40 The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping Article 16102 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: More about Rudolf Hoess Followup-To: alt.revisionism Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 08:17:36 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 26 Message-ID: References: <359hun$hsq@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com In article <359hun$hsq@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) wrote: > Before I respond to this, it would be helpful to know if Raven > claims Hoess' autobiography was doctored, and if so, does he have > any proof it was. If you read the item to which you claim you are prepared to respond, you will see that I make no representation that it was doctored in any way (which, of course, does not mean that it was not). If you read the item in question, you will see that there are two points I have made: 1) Hoess' affidavit and testimony have been instrumental in establishing the "Holocaust" extermination story, and 2) historians, scholars, and researchers are not claiming that Hoess' affidavit and testimony are not to be trusted. The conclusion that most normal people would reach from this information is that all the books and other materials that quote Hoess in support of their contentions about the "Holocaust" extermination story must be re-examined. -- Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659 The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40 The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping Article 16103 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Reports of Polish Underground About the Death Camps Followup-To: alt.revisionism Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 08:21:40 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: <357rk7$8jh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com In article <357rk7$8jh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) wrote: > The "Delegatura" in Nazi-occupied Poland served both as an > "underground government" and the Polish Government in exile. > From Poland, the Delegatura sent long reports about the > situation in the country. These reports also describe the > mass murder in the "Operation Reinhard" camps. While these reports > contain errors - which is understandable, as most were written > by people watching the camps from the outside - nontheless > they are an important source of information. > > (text deleted) > > This report, written shortly after Belzec began operaing, is not as > detailed or accurate as testimonies of people who were in the camp; > nontheless, it is an important piece of evidence about the early > history of one of the most horrible Nazi death camps. I find it interesting how camps other than Auschwitz, which used to be the main extermination camp in traditional "Holocaust" lore, are now gaining prominence as it becomes less and less possible to deny the truth of what actually did happen at Auschwitz, that is, no gas chambers, no open pits for burning bodies (alive or dead), and generally no mass exterminations. -- Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659 The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40 The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping Article 16104 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: "Revisionists" Quiet About Hitler?! Followup-To: alt.revisionism Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 08:24:43 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 39 Message-ID: References: <359iie$icv@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com In article <359iie$icv@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) wrote: > Strangely enough, our "revisionist scholars" are very quiet about > the quotes from Hitler posted here. > > Hitler expressed his desire to see Jews exposed to poison gas. > No one denies this. This is a mischaracterization of Hitler's comments. What Hitler was referring to (in Mein Kampf) is the poison gas in use on battlefields during WWI, not poison gas in gas chambers. > Hitler said in more than one public speech that the result of a new > world war will be the "annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe". > No one denies this. So? Hitler didn't want Jews in Germany. We don't deny this and never have. What's your point? > Surely, this must mean something, right? Hitler, after all, was the > absolute ruler of Nazi Germany. These two statements from him are > therefore very important. > > One would expect that they be addressed. One would also expect that they be properly quoted and referenced, which you have not done. Perhaps if you read Mein Kampf again, you will see your error. Or, are you claiming that this is the BEST EVIDENCE that the Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers? :-) -- Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659 The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40 The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping Article 16105 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!cobra.uni.edu!sunfish!choover Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: More about Rudolf Hoess Message-ID: From: choover@usd.edu (Christopher J Hoover ) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 14:49:29 GMT Sender: news@sunfish.usd.edu References: Organization: University of South Dakota Nntp-Posting-Host: sunbird Lines: 46 greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes: >His [Hoess's] testimony and affidavit have been heavily relied upon by >"Holocaust" >researchers from Raul Hilberg to Jean-Claude Pressac. [snip] >Historians today are finally admitting that Hoess is an unreliable witness. >The figures of dead he gave for Auschwitz are totally false. He swore that >2,500,000 people were gassed and burned at Auschwitz and a further half >million died of disease for a total dead of 3,000,000. Today, the figure of >dead claimed for Auschwitz is 800,000, a figure that is in danger of >further downward revisions. Hogwash. You assert that Hilberg "relied heavily" upon Hoess's testimony. You also seem to be asserting, in this last paragraph, that until, oh, the last few years, when all you revisionist "historians" chipped away at the numbers until they just _had_ to admit it, "official historians" subscribed to a strict orthodoxy that 3,000,000 died at Auschwitz. But there's a hole in your thesis large enough to drive a truck trough, Mr. Raven. Hilberg, in _The Destruction of the European Jews_, published in _1961_ (that's _33_ years ago, Mr. Raven), estimated Auschwitz Jewish dead at about 1 million. How could he have done this, Mr. Raven, if he had relied on Hoess as heavily as you claim? (One answer that leaps to mind is that you have no idea what sources Hilberg relied upon, Mr. Raven.) Further, Hilberg estimates total Jewish dead in the Holocaust at 5.1 million. If Hilberg published these figures in a _major_ work on the Holocaust in 1961, then how exactly can there have been an "exterminationist" conspiracy to shove the figures of 3 million dead at Auschwitz and 6 million total down our throats all these years, until those courageous and intrepid folk such as Faurisson and Leuchter came along to pull the scales from our eyes? I guess Hilberg's IJC masters must have been a bit less than vigilant, eh? Chris E-mailed to Mr. Raven, of course. -- Christopher J. Hoover choover@usd.edu University of South Dakota Disclaimer: standard It's *always* September, *somewhere* on the Net. Article 16106 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!kmcvay From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) Subject: Re: Mr. Raven, please address your misrepresentation of Pressac References: <353cqk$ad2@access3.digex.net> Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac Message-ID: <1994Sep15.180739.21152@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 94 18:07:39 GMT In article greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes: >Your yeomanlike efforts to sidetrack the discussion are noted, but I do not >have time to engage in your meta-discussions and word games. Please supply >what you feel is the best evidence that the Nazis had a plan or policy of >exterminating the Jews of Europe in homicidal gas chambers. Then we can >talk. Translation: Not only will I not address my deliberate misrepresentation of Mr. Pressac's work, or my lack of interest in reading anything anyone has to say about it, I also demand the right to remain myopic and completely ignore the joint response to my sophomoric "challenge." By doing this, I will lend credence to those who maintain revisionists have, after all, little of substance to add to these discussions. I also demand, in spite of the many responses pointing out how specious my behavior, the right to pretend, in spite of evidence to the contrary, that the Holocaust was _only_ concerned with homocidal gassings.. the fact that millions died through other means is trivial in the face of my contempt for UseNet's readers.. if I simply maintain the lie long enough, I will surely attract a few more idiots like Gannon et al to the Cause: the rehabilitation of Adolf Hitler and his murderous thugs, and the revival of the Nazi state. -- "Everything I do is done with the full knowledge of the Fuehrer." (Himmler, Heinrich. See Jochen von Lang, "Der Adjutant: Karl Wolff," Munich: Herbig, 1985, pp . 140ff) Article 16107 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!kmcvay From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) Subject: A challenge to Greg Raven: May 4th. Myopia lives! References: <353e7q$biv@access3.digex.net> Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac Message-ID: <1994Sep15.181606.21253@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 94 18:16:06 GMT In article greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes: >In article <353e7q$biv@access3.digex.net>, mstein@access3.digex.net >(Michael P. Stein) wrote: >> >I have already supported my representation of Pressac's position on Boeck. >> Simply repeating your misrepresentation is hardly supporting it. >> I have asked if you would be willing to submit your interpretation to >> a randomly-chosen panel of, say, ten high school English teachers to see >> if they would support your text as an honest and accurate interpretation >> of Pressac's comments on Bo"ck. You have not responded. Are you ready to >> accept my challenge now? Would you care to wager some money on the >> outcome? >Your "challenge" seems to be nothing more than an attempt to sidetrack the >discussion. Why not answer my challenge, posted many, many months ago, to >produce what you feel is the best evidence that the Nazis had a plan or >policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers? Do you have any >such evidence to support your position? Your May 4th. Myopia seems to be nothing more than an attempt to sidetrack the discussion. Why not acknoledge our joint response to your "challenge", posted many, many months ago, to get this discussion back on track? Not only have you ignored, to a degree beyond rational behavior, our response, but you have, in the intirim, been proven to be a blatent and consistent liar, as your Pressac debacle demonstrated (not to mention your amazing mental gynastics with regard to the Vanity Fair article, within which you openly lied about what Lipstadt et al had to say. >> Emailed to Mr. Raven. >Don't bother. E-mailed copies of your newsgroup posts are deleted without >being read. Having admitted, several times, that you not only do not read our responses in this forum, but also those arriving in your personal mailbox, your insistence that you are here to address issues looks ridiculous in the extreme. For that, I thank you, for you have done an enormous service to those unfamiliar with denial technique, and exposed yourself as a complete intellectual fraud. -- "Everything I do is done with the full knowledge of the Fuehrer." (Himmler, Heinrich. See Jochen von Lang, "Der Adjutant: Karl Wolff," Munich: Herbig, 1985, pp . 140ff) Article 16108 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!kmcvay From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) Subject: 130 days later, Mr. Raven still plays word games References: <355c39$lrd@eis.calstate.edu> Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac Message-ID: <1994Sep15.182201.21329@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 94 18:22:01 GMT In article greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes: >I did not provide any additional information because, as I have from the >beginning, I want to make sure that I am not discussing some irrelevant >document. However, someone has now claimed that this speech is the BEST >EVIDENCE of a Nazi plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas >chambers (even though there is no reference to gas chambers of any type in >this speech), so it looks as if soon I will be addressing some of the >specifics. I think it is clear, from the discussions here, and from history itself, that the Nazis didn't much care how they killed the Jews, so long as they died. Mr. Raven's continued word-game in this regard notwithstanding, that isn't going to change. By the way, does Mr. Raven admit that this speech was made by Himmler? If not, is he prepared to put up half the cash for voiceprint analysis? Really, Mr. Raven, is this the best the IHR has to offer? Are you _really_ representative of the intellectual level within that organization? Amazing.. a _senior_editor_ demonstrates how intellectually bereft the denial movement really is. -- "Everything I do is done with the full knowledge of the Fuehrer." (Himmler, Heinrich. See Jochen von Lang, "Der Adjutant: Karl Wolff," Munich: Herbig, 1985, pp . 140ff) Article 16109 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!kmcvay From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) Subject: Re: Reports of Polish Underground About the Death Camps References: <357rk7$8jh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac Message-ID: <1994Sep15.182449.21402@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 94 18:24:49 GMT In article greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes: >I find it interesting how camps other than Auschwitz, which used to be the >main extermination camp in traditional "Holocaust" lore, are now gaining >prominence as it becomes less and less possible to deny the truth of what >actually did happen at Auschwitz, that is, no gas chambers, no open pits >for burning bodies (alive or dead), and generally no mass exterminations. Unlike the Aktion Reinhard camps, which existed for no other reason that the extermination of human beings, Auschwitz was a labour camp as well as a death camp. That has always been clearly understood, Mr. Raven's misrepresentations and fantasies notwithstanding. -- "Everything I do is done with the full knowledge of the Fuehrer." (Himmler, Heinrich. See Jochen von Lang, "Der Adjutant: Karl Wolff," Munich: Herbig, 1985, pp . 140ff) Article 16110 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!kmcvay From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) Subject: Re: More about Rudolf Hoess References: <359hun$hsq@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac Message-ID: <1994Sep15.183225.21490@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 94 18:32:25 GMT In article greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes: >In article <359hun$hsq@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) >wrote: >> Before I respond to this, it would be helpful to know if Raven >> claims Hoess' autobiography was doctored, and if so, does he have >> any proof it was. >If you read the item to which you claim you are prepared to respond, you >will see that I make no representation that it was doctored in any way >(which, of course, does not mean that it was not). If you read the item in >question, you will see that there are two points I have made: 1) Hoess' >affidavit and testimony have been instrumental in establishing the >"Holocaust" extermination story, and 2) historians, scholars, and >researchers are not claiming that Hoess' affidavit and testimony are not to >be trusted. >The conclusion that most normal people would reach from this information is >that all the books and other materials that quote Hoess in support of their >contentions about the "Holocaust" extermination story must be re-examined. The conclusion anyone studying Hoess will reach is that his memoirs, court testimony, and associated statements not only agree with each other, but with other testimony and documentation as well. As Hoess pointed out in his memoirs, he couldn't even _remember_ what he said in his statement to the British, and that's that. Given the consistency of the Hoess writings and statements, and the remarkable consistency they hold with similar material from other Nazis, survivors, and Allied sources, it should be of no surprise to anyone, other than that collection of mentally challenged "editors" at the IHR, that folks continue to accept what the man had to say as valid. Perhaps, now that he's shot his wad with regard to Mr. Hoess, Mr. Raven will deal with his apparent inability to read, and then address our response to his challenge of so many months ago, his lies about Pressac, and his misrepresentation of the Vanity Fair article.... not to forget his "single best evidence" that WWII even happened... which he has yet to produce, and indeed, as he knows full well, cannot produce. Perhaps now he will respond to those who have asked him to provide the name of a single historian who has promoted his "single best evidence" theory of historic research by providing the appropirate academic journal citations.... But then, I doubt it, for, as Mr. Raven himself admits regularly, he doesn't read anything he doesn't agree with here... or in his personal mailbox. Myopia indeed. -- "Everything I do is done with the full knowledge of the Fuehrer." (Himmler, Heinrich. See Jochen von Lang, "Der Adjutant: Karl Wolff," Munich: Herbig, 1985, pp . 140ff) Article 16113 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-05.dialip.mich.net!user From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: More about Rudolf Hoess Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 13:32:32 -0400 Organization: University of Michigan Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-05.dialip.mich.net choover@usd.edu (Christopher J Hoover ) wrote: > Hogwash. You assert that Hilberg "relied heavily" upon Hoess's testimony. > > But there's a hole in your thesis large enough to drive a truck trough, > Mr. Raven. Hilberg, in _The Destruction of the European Jews_, published > in _1961_ (that's _33_ years ago, Mr. Raven), estimated Auschwitz Jewish > dead at about 1 million. How could he have done this, Mr. Raven, if he > had relied on Hoess as heavily as you claim? There are numerous other flaws in what Mr. Raven has shared with us. The main one is his overlooking Hoess' memoirs, in which Hoess explains how he got the 2.5 million figure that he testified to -- essentially, he had to go by Eichmann's figures, and Eichmann was wrong. He also omits to mention Hoess' memoirs, written under no threat, under no influence of torture, and with nothing that could possibly bribe him (he was sentenced to die). They have many stories that clearly spell out the gassing process -- both the fact that the gassings occurred regularly, and specific instances that weighed heavily upon Hoess' mind. But the most-curious thing is that Raven in another article backed down from discussing Himmler, and in this one offered his take on Hoess. I thought you were trying to get things organized by talking about one thing at a time, Mr. Raven. Why are you suddenly dragging Hoess into the ring? Please talk about Himmler's Poznan speeches. -- Jamie McCarthy Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu AppleLink: j.mccarthy "You seem to be selectively defining words to suit yourself, and then demanding that I accept your definitions." - Greg Raven, 8/26/94 "Do you understand that a testimony is not evidence?" - Greg Raven, 9/1/94 Article 16115 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-05.dialip.mich.net!user From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: More about Rudolf Hoess Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 13:55:59 -0400 Organization: University of Michigan Lines: 37 Message-ID: References: <359hun$hsq@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-05.dialip.mich.net greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote: > dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) wrote: > > > Before I respond to this, it would be helpful to know if Raven > > claims Hoess' autobiography was doctored, and if so, does he have > > any proof it was. > > If you read the item to which you claim you are prepared to respond, you > will see that I make no representation that it was doctored in any way > (which, of course, does not mean that it was not). If you read the item in > question, you will see that there are two points I have made: 1) Hoess' > affidavit and testimony have been instrumental in establishing the > "Holocaust" extermination story, You have been proved wrong on that point just a few minutes ago. > and 2) historians, scholars, and > researchers are not claiming that Hoess' affidavit and testimony are not to > be trusted. Whoa, double negative. Did you mean that? Please restate. > The conclusion that most normal people would reach from this information is > that all the books and other materials that quote Hoess in support of their > contentions about the "Holocaust" extermination story must be re-examined. Nonsense. Talk about Poznan, please. We'll deal with Hoess later (and I think Hoess has a lot of important things to say on the subject -- but we were just about to discuss Himmler, remember?) -- Jamie McCarthy Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu AppleLink: j.mccarthy "You seem to be selectively defining words to suit yourself, and then demanding that I accept your definitions." - Greg Raven, 8/26/94 "Do you understand that a testimony is not evidence?" - Greg Raven, 9/1/94 Article 16118 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!cobra.uni.edu!sunfish!choover Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Reports of Polish Underground About the Death Camps Message-ID: From: choover@usd.edu (Christopher J Hoover ) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 17:25:23 GMT Sender: news@sunfish.usd.edu References: <357rk7$8jh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> Organization: University of South Dakota Nntp-Posting-Host: sunbird Lines: 27 greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes: >I find it interesting how camps other than Auschwitz, which used to be the >main extermination camp in traditional "Holocaust" lore, are now gaining >prominence as it becomes less and less possible to deny the truth of what >actually did happen at Auschwitz, that is, no gas chambers, no open pits >for burning bodies (alive or dead), and generally no mass exterminations. Huh? I trust you can document this claim, Mr. Raven. While it's true that Chelmno, Majdanek, and the Reinhard camps are getting _more_ attention than they used to (Auschwitz getting the lion's share of attention because it _was_ the most significant), I challenge you to demonstrate, in the recent flurry of _new_ publications regarding Auschwitz, that _less_ attention is being paid to Auschwitz. Whoops...silly me. You don't have to provide _any_ documentation in this newsgroup until someone answers yours spurious "best evidence" question, even though you've had a reply sitting on your plate since May. What _was_ I thinking. Chris -- Christopher J. Hoover choover@usd.edu University of South Dakota Disclaimer: standard It's *always* September, *somewhere* on the Net. Article 16119 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!usenet.elf.com!news2.near.net!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: "Revisionists" Quiet About Hitler?! Date: 15 Sep 1994 18:08:16 GMT Organization: Brown University Lines: 30 Message-ID: <35a2ig$576@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> References: <359iie$icv@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu X-ORIGINAL-NEWSGROUPS: alt.revisionism Greg Raven wrote: # dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) ## Hitler expressed his desire to see Jews exposed to poison gas. ## No one denies this. # This is a mischaracterization of Hitler's comments. What Hitler was # referring to (in Mein Kampf) is the poison gas in use on battlefields # during WWI, not poison gas in gas chambers. Makes no difference. He wanted to see Jews exposed to poison gas. He later did what he wanted to do. It's as simple as that. If Raven could read, he would not slander me with "This is a mischaracterization of Hitler's comments". It was not. I said that he wanted to see Jews exposed to poison gas, and this is true. ## Hitler said in more than one public speech that the result of a new ## world war will be the "annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe". ## No one denies this. # So? Hitler didn't want Jews in Germany. We don't deny this and never have. # What's your point? The point is, again, that Raven can't read. Hitler used the term "annihilation". And he was talking about the Jews of Europe, not only those of Germany. -Danny Keren. Article 16120 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!usenet.elf.com!news2.near.net!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: More about Rudolf Hoess Date: 15 Sep 1994 18:15:27 GMT Organization: Brown University Lines: 13 Message-ID: <35a2vv$5n0@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> References: <359hun$hsq@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu X-ORIGINAL-NEWSGROUPS: alt.revisionism It's just impossible to get a direct response from these "revisionist scholars". I asked Raven if he believes that the autobiography of Hoess was doctored. He failed to answer. I still expect a reply. Note that Raven quoted from the autobiography, so I assume he thinks it's authentic and reliable. Is that so? If not, why did he quote from it? -Danny Keren. Article 16121 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!ceylon!news2.near.net!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Reports of Polish Underground About the Death Camps Date: 15 Sep 1994 18:23:35 GMT Organization: Brown University Lines: 12 Message-ID: <35a3f7$66r@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> References: <357rk7$8jh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu X-ORIGINAL-NEWSGROUPS: alt.revisionism Raven's response is insane. I post something about a different death camp (Belzec) and he concludes from this that I have doubts about what happened in Auschwitz?! Auschwitz was not the only death camp; there were others, like Belzec (a major death camp), and the fact that I mentioned it does not mean that I have any doubts as to what happened in Auschwitz. This is insanity, plain and simple. -Danny Keren. Article 16122 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!ceylon!news2.near.net!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Raven the Clown (was: Re: More about Rudolf Hoess) Date: 15 Sep 1994 18:39:27 GMT Organization: Brown University Lines: 23 Message-ID: <35a4cv$739@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu X-ORIGINAL-NEWSGROUPS: alt.revisionism Greg Raven wrote: # In a # meeting between French revisionist Robert Faurisson and Michael Berenbaum, # an official of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in September 1994, # Berenbaum admitted to Faurisson in front of witnesses Ah, you just have to love this Raven clown. This guy never fails to make an ass of himself. He's a real treasure. For some bloody months now, Raven keeps telling us - again and again and again and again - that witness testimony does not count. Actually, it's his major point; the argument he uses to reject what every person who was in the camps says is: "testimony is not evidence". So how come he relies on testimony of witnesses, when it suits his goals? What a funny guy. What a great "revisionist scholar". -Danny Keren. Article 16123 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-03.dialip.mich.net!user From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: "Revisionists" Quiet About Hitler?! Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 16:06:35 -0400 Organization: University of Michigan Lines: 137 Message-ID: References: <359iie$icv@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-03.dialip.mich.net greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote: > dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) wrote: > > > Strangely enough, our "revisionist scholars" are very quiet about > > the quotes from Hitler posted here. > > > > Hitler expressed his desire to see Jews exposed to poison gas. > > No one denies this. > > This is a mischaracterization of Hitler's comments. What Hitler was > referring to (in Mein Kampf) is the poison gas in use on battlefields > during WWI, not poison gas in gas chambers. You're quite the one to be talking about mischaracterization of peoples' comments, Mr. Raven! You're the one who mischaracterized Pressac's comments on page 181 of his book, then, when presented with his actual text and your distortion of it, you're the one who simply dropped it without having anything to say for yourself! You're the one who said that Lipstadt and Browning had "admitted that the Hoess statements are useless," when they have said absolutely no such thing. You're the one who told me that I'd admitted that there was no physical evidence of the gas chambers after I'd _explicitly_ said that I was putting that question aside to talk about something else first! Glass houses! That said -- I don't know if what you say is true, I haven't seen that section of _Mein Kampf_. I don't believe it's been quoted in alt.revisionism. Does anyone has that section of the book handy? I'd like to read what Hitler actually wrote. And was it in _Mein Kampf_ that Hitler made reference to "seeing Jews exposed to poison gas," or was it elsewhere? > > Hitler said in more than one public speech that the result of a new > > world war will be the "annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe". > > No one denies this. > > So? Hitler didn't want Jews in Germany. We don't deny this and never have. > What's your point? Hitler stated many times that he was going to annihilate the Jewish race in Europe. And you ask "what's your point?" You're seriously warped, Mr. Raven. > > Surely, this must mean something, right? Hitler, after all, was the > > absolute ruler of Nazi Germany. These two statements from him are > > therefore very important. > > > > One would expect that they be addressed. > > One would also expect that they be properly quoted and referenced, which > you have not done. Like they were on July 20, when Ken McVay posted Michael Shermer's _Skeptic_ article to the net? An excerpt from that article follows. But please, Mr. Raven -- don't forget to address Himmler's Poznan speeches. You finally chose to address them, 130 days after we'd presented them as an answer to your request for "best evidence." I do hope another 130 days won't go by before you reply again. I mean, really -- is all you have to say that Himmler was "vague" and "far removed" from the Holocaust, when what he said was "The Jewish people will be exterminated, this is very obvious, it is in our program." Doesn't seem very vague to me. Please respond re the Poznan speeches. From the _Skeptic_ magazine article: And, finally, there are the words of the Fuehrer himself. In Hitler's speech of January 30, 1939, he said: Today I want to be a prophet once more: If international finance Jewry inside and outside of Europe should succeed once more in plunging nations into another world war, the consequence will not be the Bolshevization of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe. In September, 1942, Hitler recalled: In my Reichstag speech of September 1, 1939 [above, wrong date here], I have spoken of two things: first, that now that the war has been forced upon us, no array of weapons and no passage of time will bring us to defeat, and second, that if Jewry should plot another world war in order to exterminate the Aryan peoples in Europe, it would not be the Aryan peoples which would be exterminated but Jewry. . . . At a public speech in Munich, November 8, 1942, Hitler told his audience (see Jaeckel, 1989 for this and above Hitler quotes): You will recall the session of the Reichstag during which I declared: If Jewry should imagine that it could bring about an international world war to exterminate the European races, the result will not be the extermination of the European races, but the extermination of Jewry in Europe. People always laughed about me as a prophet. Of those who laughed then, countless numbers no longer laugh today, and those who still laugh now will perhaps no longer laugh a short time from now. This realization will spread beyond Europe throughout the entire world. International Jewry will be recognized in its full demonic peril; we National Socialists will see to that. From his earliest political ramblings to the final Goetterdammerung, Hitler had it in for the Jews. On April 12, 1922, in a Munich speech later published in the Voelkischer Beobachter, he told his audience (Snyder, 1981, p. 29): The Jew is the ferment of the decomposition of people. This means that it is in the nature of the Jew to destroy, and he must destroy, because he lacks altogether any idea of working for the common good. He possesses certain characteristics given to him by nature and he never can rid himself of those characteristics. The Jew is harmful to us. Thirty-three years later, on April 29, 1945, at 4:00 A.M., just one day before his suicide, Hitler commanded his successors in his political testament to carry on the fight: "Above all I charge the leaders of the nation and those under them to scrupulous observance of the laws of race and to merciless opposition to the universal poisoner of all peoples, International Jewry" (Snyder, p. 521). How many more quotes do we need to prove the Holocaust--100, 1,000, 10,000? The convergence of evidence is overwhelming. -- Jamie McCarthy Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu AppleLink: j.mccarthy "You seem to be selectively defining words to suit yourself, and then demanding that I accept your definitions." - Greg Raven, 8/26/94 "Do you understand that a testimony is not evidence?" - Greg Raven, 9/1/94 Article 16134 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!gumby!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-05.dialip.mich.net!user From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: A challenge to Greg Raven Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 18:26:19 -0400 Organization: University of Michigan Lines: 32 Message-ID: References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <353e7q$biv@access3.digex.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-05.dialip.mich.net greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote: > Why not answer my challenge, posted many, many months ago, ...and answered many, many months ago... > to > produce what you feel is the best evidence that the Nazis had a plan or > policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers? Do you have any > such evidence to support your position? Ten pieces of such evidence, Mr. Raven, as you've known for many, many months now, and which you've been ignoring, and which you're still ignoring. Please address Himmler's Poznan speeches, Mr. Raven; they were the first piece of evidence presented to you many, many months ago, and you still haven't begun to discuss them. Unless you count calling Himmler "vague" a discussion -- it's not, it's a lie. He was exactly as precise as his audience required, which was pretty damn precise -- how vague was he being when he said "the Jews are being exterminated"? > E-mailed copies of your newsgroup posts are deleted without > being read. A strange practice for someone whose news connection is flaky. Why are you deleting these posts unread, Mr. Raven? -- Jamie McCarthy Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu AppleLink: j.mccarthy "You seem to be selectively defining words to suit yourself, and then demanding that I accept your definitions." - Greg Raven, 8/26/94 "Do you understand that a testimony is not evidence?" - Greg Raven, 9/1/94 Article 16135 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!usenet.elf.com!news2.near.net!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: More about Rudolf Hoess Date: 15 Sep 1994 22:54:35 GMT Organization: Brown University Lines: 24 Message-ID: <35ajbb$lci@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu X-ORIGINAL-NEWSGROUPS: alt.revisionism Greg Raven wrote: # We now know from the book LEGIONS OF DEATH that Hoess... We don't know anything from any book, unless there is some supporting evidence. The book might report the truth, but it is impossible to figure this out from Raven's article because he tells us nothing about the author and nothing about how the author got his information (was he there?). And, again, we are faced with Raven's big problem. He wasn't there when Hoess was questioned, therefore, he must rely on the testimony of someone who he claims was there. Perhaps Greg "Hitler was a great man" Raven will finally tell us: Does witness testimony count or not? Just a few days ago, he wrote "testimony is not evidence". Now, he relies on testimony. Perhaps we're dealing with a split personality here? -Danny Keren. Article 16139 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail From: mstein@access3.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: A challenge to Greg Raven Supersedes: <35aqmr$hla@access3.digex.net> Date: 15 Sep 1994 21:23:10 -0400 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA Lines: 80 Message-ID: <35as1u$ihl@access3.digex.net> References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <353e7q$biv@access3.digex.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: access3.digex.net In article , Greg Raven wrote: >Your "challenge" seems to be nothing more than an attempt to sidetrack the >discussion. My challenge was by no means an attempt to sidetrack the discussion. I think it's quite proper to investigate whether one of the people in the discussion is not being honest. I take your answer to mean you know quite well you'd lose, for quite obvious reasons. > Why not answer my challenge, posted many, many months ago, to >produce what you feel is the best evidence that the Nazis had a plan or >policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers? Do you have any >such evidence to support your position? Well, as I've told you at least twice before, the policy was to exterminate Jews, *simpliciter*. Gas chambers were but one means. Your attempt to bundle the goal and the means is another bit of dishonesty. But I do see you've dropped the "millions," which is good - the policy was to exterminate however many Jews were necessary to make the Reich "Judenrein" - there was no preset numeric goal; had there only been 100,000 Jews within the area controlled by Germany, that would have been the target number (eventually - they did decide to defer extermination of those who could provide useful slave labor). I've got an idea. Look, Greg, you wanted focus, right? Therefore you surely can't object to getting more focused, right? First, let's determine whether there was a policy of exterminating Jews, period. Once we settle that issue, we'll examine the evidence for whether any particular means were used to carry out the policy. Then we'll look at the evidence for the total number of deaths. Now there's focus! You wanted an alternate plan; there it is, and it's better than yours for meeting your stated goal of focus. I've said before that the best evidence is the fact that there is a convergence of evidence. That is, if there were an explicit extermination order signed by Hitler (e.g., "I order that all Jews be put to death in homicidal gas chambers once their usefulness as slave workers is at an end."), but *nothing else* - no testimonies, no other documents, no missing Jews, no suspiciously large concentration of crematoria, etc. - the lack of any support would lead me to conclude that the supposed Hitler order was indeed a forgery. It is the fact that there is so much independent evidence which converges on the same conclusion which forms the "best evidence" for the reality of the Holocaust. However, if you wish to look first at the single piece of evidence which does the most, on its own, to show that there was a policy to exterminate Jews, for the sake of argument I'll go with Jamie on the Himmler speech. But frankly, I think there are other documents which are all about as good. As I said before, it's rather like being asked to pick the "best" dollar bill in a wallet. So you have it from Jamie, and now from me. Tell us why, when Himmler said "extermination," he didn't *really* mean it. And remember - we're getting more focused now, which is what you wanted. So forget about specific numbers and gas chambers for right now - we'll get to them later. Just discuss whether the Himmler speech is or isn't evidence of a policy to kill Jews on a systematic and large-scale basis. Focus on that one thing - a policy to kill Jews on a systematic basis. >> Emailed to Mr. Raven. > >Don't bother. E-mailed copies of your newsgroup posts are deleted without >being read. However, quite often the posts seem to be unread. And if they are, how can you possibly know that they are copies of the newsgroup posts? Therefore I shall continue to email them. -- Mike Stein The above represents the Absolute Truth. POB 10420 Therefore it cannot possibly be the official Arlington, VA 22210 position of my employer. Article 16141 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail From: mstein@access3.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: The truth about Auschwitz Date: 15 Sep 1994 21:29:58 -0400 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA Lines: 21 Message-ID: <35asem$ivl@access3.digex.net> References: <357rk7$8jh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: access3.digex.net In article , Greg Raven wrote: >I find it interesting how camps other than Auschwitz, which used to be the >main extermination camp in traditional "Holocaust" lore, are now gaining >prominence as it becomes less and less possible to deny the truth of what >actually did happen at Auschwitz, that is, no gas chambers, no open pits >for burning bodies (alive or dead), and generally no mass exterminations. Of course, "denying the truth" is precisely what Greg Raven is in the business of doing. Since Greg Raven wants focus, let's just deal with one of the issues he raised. There are photographs of open pit burning in Pressac - *exactly* the kind of evidence Mr. Raven has elsewhere said he wants. Greg, what is your BEST EVIDENCE that these photos are forgeries or were taken someplace other than Auschwitz? -- Mike Stein The above represents the Absolute Truth. POB 10420 Therefore it cannot possibly be the official Arlington, VA 22210 position of my employer. Article 16144 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail From: mstein@access3.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Raven admits he has no evidence of Hoess's torture Date: 15 Sep 1994 22:23:24 -0400 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA Lines: 84 Message-ID: <35avis$l0r@access3.digex.net> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: access3.digex.net In article , Greg Raven wrote: >We now know from the book LEGIONS OF DEATH that Hoess was beaten almost to >death by Jewish members of the British Field Police upon capture and badly >mistreated thereafter until he gave his "testimoney" and "affidavit." His >wife and children were threated with deportation to Siberia. Really, Greg! Butler's book is, after all, just testimony - as is Hoess's assertion that he was mistreated. Don't you have photographs of this mistreatment? A signed order to carry out this mistreatment? What? You don't have those? Aren't you the person who said that testimonies are not evidence? And the person who believes in presenting the BEST EVIDENCE first? So apparently by your OWN STANDARDS you admit that you have NO EVIDENCE that Hoess was beaten into his confession! How interesting, though, that in the same autobiography in which Hoess claims to have been beaten into a confession, he still repeats his assertion that there was mass murder at Auschwitz. If he was beaten into confessing, Greg, why did he write the book? If he was forced into writing the book, why wasn't he forced to leave out the part about being beaten? Very strange oversight on the part of those trying to fabricate testimony! >Historians today are finally admitting that Hoess is an unreliable witness. On the numbers, yes. Which historians admit his testimony about ordering gassings is not reliable? Name names and cite publications, including page numbers. >The figures of dead he gave for Auschwitz are totally false. He swore that >2,500,000 people were gassed and burned at Auschwitz and a further half >million died of disease for a total dead of 3,000,000. Bzzt. Another distortion by Greg Raven, though small beer compared to his prior whoppers. I reproduce the exact quote from earlier in Raven's post: >"2. ... I commanded Auschwitz until 1 December 1943, and estimate that at ^^^^^^^^ >least 2,500,000 victims were executed and exterminated there by gassing and >burning, and at least another half million succumbed to starvation and >disease making a total dead of about 3,000,000. He swore it was an *estimate.* Later he decided his estimate had been inflated, and lowered it - but even that was still an estimate. Hoess was a bad estimator. I am too, for that matter - ask me to estimate the number of people in a room, and I'm likely to be off by a third or more. Hoess later said he based this first estimate on figures he got from others, not really his own thinking. >Today, the figure of >dead claimed for Auschwitz is 800,000, a figure that is in danger of >further downward revisions. So? I'd still call that mass murder. I'd call 400,000 mass murder. Deliberate killing of 100,000 is mass murder. Don't you agree, Greg? Or do you think that while gassing 800,000 is mass murder, gassing 100,000 people could be just a little misunderstanding? Murder is murder, while numbers are numbers. I appreciate your yeomanlike efforts to try to convince people that if Hoess mis-estimated the numbers, his claim of murder somehow goes away too. However, I think most people can see what kind of game you're playing here. Heck, here in Washington, there was a gay rights march where the organizers estimated 1,000,000, but the Park Police estimated almost half that. On your logic, Greg, the march therefore never happened at all! But to repeat, Greg. Hoess's numbers are unimportant for the purpose of establishing murder; murder is murder regardless of the precise body count. I want an exact quote from a legitimate Holocaust historian - with full bibliographic information - which explicitly says that Hoess's testimony that he personally ordered and witnessed a gassing is unreliable. Have you got one? -- Mike Stein The above represents the Absolute Truth. POB 10420 Therefore it cannot possibly be the official Arlington, VA 22210 position of my employer. Article 16146 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail From: mstein@access3.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Raven wants proper citations! Film at 11! Date: 15 Sep 1994 22:57:01 -0400 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA Lines: 35 Message-ID: <35b1ht$n1d@access3.digex.net> References: <359iie$icv@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: access3.digex.net In article , Greg Raven wrote: >In article <359iie$icv@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> >dzk@brown.cs.edu (Daniel Keren) wrote: >> Hitler said in more than one public speech that the result of a new >> world war will be the "annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe". >> No one denies this. > >So? Hitler didn't want Jews in Germany. We don't deny this and never have. >What's your point? Is it your contention, then, that "annihilation" and "deportation" mean exactly the same thing? >> One would expect that [the statements] be addressed. > >One would also expect that they be properly quoted and referenced, which >you have not done. *guffaw* Greg, you wouldn't know a proper quote and reference if you fell over it. Your blatant distortion of Pressac's comments on Boeck's testimony on p. 181 (remember, you didn't quote any of Pressac's text, and refused to tell me what page it was on - I had to dig it up for myself) proves your hypocrisy on this issue. So, Greg, do you promise to start giving us proper quotes and references from now on? No more of those dishonest paraphrases? Why do I think that the odds of the Pope converting to Judaism are about a million times better? -- Mike Stein The above represents the Absolute Truth. POB 10420 Therefore it cannot possibly be the official Arlington, VA 22210 position of my employer. Article 16150 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!malgudi.oar.net!news.ysu.edu!yfn.ysu.edu!ah731 From: ah731@yfn.ysu.edu (Steve Butcher) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: 130 days later, Mr. Raven accepts the challenge Date: 16 Sep 1994 00:48:13 GMT Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH Lines: 32 Message-ID: <35aq0d$f0i@news.ysu.edu> References: <355c39$lrd@eis.calstate Reply-To: ah731@yfn.ysu.edu (Steve Butcher) NNTP-Posting-Host: yfn2.ysu.edu In a previous article, greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) says: > >I did not provide any additional information because, as I have from the >beginning, I want to make sure that I am not discussing some irrelevant >document. However, someone has now claimed that this speech is the BEST >EVIDENCE of a Nazi plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas >chambers (even though there is no reference to gas chambers of any type in >this speech), so it looks as if soon I will be addressing some of the >specifics. > Mr. Raven, as a mere lurker with no particular ax to grind and no wisdom other than the conventional to impart, I would like to ask you a fairly simple question. Why do you persist in asking for, and I quote: "the best evidence of a Nazi plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers," when, for as long as I've been lurking, no one has made the claim that there was "a Nazi plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers"? The claim that the Nazis intended to exterminate the Jews has certainly been made and, IMHO, overwhelming evidence has been provided to support this. Do you really believe that the specific means used to accomplish this are relevant? I am really curious about this and hope that you will favor me with a reply. Steve Butcher Math and CS University of Central Arkansas -- Article 16159 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!redstone.interpath.net!ddsw1!news.kei.com!world!bzs From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Subject: Re: "Revisionists" Quiet About Hitler?! In-Reply-To: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com's message of Thu, 15 Sep 1994 08:24:43 -0800 Message-ID: Followup-To: alt.revisionism Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Organization: The World References: <359iie$icv@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 04:39:32 GMT Lines: 25 From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) >> Hitler said in more than one public speech that the result of a new >> world war will be the "annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe". >> No one denies this. > >So? Hitler didn't want Jews in Germany. We don't deny this and never have. Ya know, call me simple-minded, but you would think that if someone like Adolph Hitler really meant that he wanted the Jews out of Germany that he wouldn't have said he will annihilate the Jewish race in Europe. This sounds like one of those Woody Allen absurdist comedy skits about some banana republic where the diplomat says something like ``when our glorious prime minister said that he intended to invade Glorbia and crush them underfoot what he *really* meant was he would like to visit their beautiful country soon and participate in the winemaking festival''. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD Article 16162 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news.unt.edu!hermes.oc.com!news.kei.com!ddsw1!golux.pr.mcs.net!user From: golux@mcs.com (The only Golux in the World, and not a mere Device) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: "Revisionists" Quiet About Hitler?! Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 00:03:07 -0600 Organization: MCSNet Services Lines: 61 Message-ID: References: <359iie$icv@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: golux.pr.mcs.net In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote: > In article <359iie$icv@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) > wrote: > > > Strangely enough, our "revisionist scholars" are very quiet about > > the quotes from Hitler posted here. > > > > Hitler expressed his desire to see Jews exposed to poison gas. > > No one denies this. > > This is a mischaracterization of Hitler's comments. What Hitler was > referring to (in Mein Kampf) is the poison gas in use on battlefields > during WWI, not poison gas in gas chambers. I tend to agree with this, based on the quotation posted earlier. If someone could repost it, I would like to confirm. However, he did say, basically, that he wished more Jews had been exposed to that gas in WWI (thus relieving him, perhaps, of the task of having to kill them later). > > Hitler said in more than one public speech that the result of a new > > world war will be the "annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe". > > No one denies this. > > So? Hitler didn't want Jews in Germany. We don't deny this and never have. > What's your point? I don't know what Danny's point was, but Hitler's point was clearly not directed at anything other than killing all the Jews in Europe. "Annihilation" is a pretty straightforward word. (Even without knowing the word from which it was translated, I am willing to bet that it wouldn't translate as "deportation" or "expulsion," which would be more appropriate if we wanted to take your interpretation on this particular quote. > > Surely, this must mean something, right? Hitler, after all, was the > > absolute ruler of Nazi Germany. These two statements from him are > > therefore very important. > > > > One would expect that they be addressed. > > One would also expect that they be properly quoted and referenced, which > you have not done. Perhaps if you read Mein Kampf again, you will see your > error. > > Or, are you claiming that this is the BEST EVIDENCE that the Nazis had a > plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers? :-) And here we see that Mr. Raven has recognized (or perhaps always known and merely finally admitted) that his "best evidence" criterion is a sham and a parody of true historical discussion. Why else the smiley face, Mr. Raven? Emailed to Mr. Raven. -- D. J. Schaeffer | The Todal looks like a blob of glup. golux@mcs.com | It makes a sound like rabbits screaming, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ and smells of old, unopened rooms. -- Thurber, _The 13 Clocks_ Article 16177 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!schultz From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Reports of Polish Underground About the Death Camps Date: 16 Sep 1994 14:13:19 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 22 Message-ID: <35c95v$o2s@agate.berkeley.edu> References: <357rk7$8jh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <35a3f7$66r@cat.cis.brown.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu In article <35a3f7$66r@cat.cis.brown.edu>, Danny Keren wrote: >Auschwitz was not the only death camp; there were others, like Belzec >(a major death camp), and the fact that I mentioned it does not >mean that I have any doubts as to what happened in Auschwitz. This >is insanity, plain and simple. I think that another reason why Auschwitz receives more attention is simply that in addition to being a death camp, it was also a slave labor camp, which means that there were more survivors of Auschwitz than of Belzec or Treblinka. Thus, if one were to go up to a concentration camp survivor and ask him about his experiences, the odds that he would start by saying "I was at Auschwitz" are much greater than the odds he would say "I was at Belzec". Thus, statistics alone can explain the relative amount of published material. -- Richard Schultz "an optimist is a guy that has never had much experience" Article 16182 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!news.duke.edu!eff!news.kei.com!news.byu.edu!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: A challenge to Greg Raven Followup-To: alt.revisionism Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 07:23:05 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com In article , k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) wrote: > greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote: > > E-mailed copies of your newsgroup posts are deleted without > > being read. > > A strange practice for someone whose news connection is flaky. Why are > you deleting these posts unread, Mr. Raven? 1) There is no sense in reading something to which I cannot reply, and 2) so far, the "responses" to my original request for the best evidence of a Nazi plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers that I have seen have not been responses at all, but rather attempts to divert the discussion to some other area. Why waste my time? -- Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659 The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40 The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping Article 16183 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!gumby!yale!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!news.duke.edu!eff!news.kei.com!yeshua.marcam.com!uunet!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Reports of Polish Underground About the Death Camps Followup-To: alt.revisionism Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 07:48:45 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: <357rk7$8jh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <35a3f7$66r@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com In article <35a3f7$66r@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) wrote: > Raven's response is insane. I post something about a different > death camp (Belzec) and he concludes from this that I have doubts > about what happened in Auschwitz?! > > Auschwitz was not the only death camp; there were others, like Belzec > (a major death camp), and the fact that I mentioned it does not > mean that I have any doubts as to what happened in Auschwitz. This > is insanity, plain and simple. Was it not you who, in your posting, described Belzec as "one of the most terrible Nazi death camps," or somesuch? If you study this matter, you will see that at one time or another, virtually all the major camps have been labelled the "worst death camp." Your reference to Belzec is clearly in line with this practice. -- Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659 The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40 The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping Article 16184 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!redstone.interpath.net!ddsw1!news.kei.com!news.byu.edu!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: A challenge to Greg Raven Followup-To: alt.revisionism Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 07:25:54 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 92 Message-ID: References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <353e7q$biv@access3.digex.net> <35as1u$ihl@access3.digex.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com In article <35as1u$ihl@access3.digex.net>, mstein@access3.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote: > However, if you wish to look first at the single piece of evidence > which does the most, on its own, to show that there was a policy to > exterminate Jews, for the sake of argument I'll go with Jamie on the > Himmler speech. But frankly, I think there are other documents which are > all about as good. As I said before, it's rather like being asked to pick > the "best" dollar bill in a wallet. > > So you have it from Jamie, and now from me. Tell us why, when > Himmler said "extermination," he didn't *really* mean it. > > And remember - we're getting more focused now, which is what you > wanted. So forget about specific numbers and gas chambers for right now - > we'll get to them later. Just discuss whether the Himmler speech is or > isn't evidence of a policy to kill Jews on a systematic and large-scale > basis. Focus on that one thing - a policy to kill Jews on a systematic > basis. And you accuse me of not paying attention! My request was for someone to state what he felt was the best evidence that the Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate Jews in homicidal gas chambers. You and Mr. McCarthy now say that you feel the Himmler Posen speech of 4 October 1943 is this best evidence. The text of this speech is along these lines: "I also want to talk to you, quite frankly, on a very grave matter. Among ourselves it should be mentioned quite frankly, and yet we will never speak of it publicly. Just as we did not hesitate on June 30, 1934 to do the duty we were bidden and stand comrades who had lapsed up against the wall and shoot them, so we have never spoken about it and will never speak of it ... "I mean the evacuation of the Jews (die Judenevakuierung), the extermination (Ausrottung) of the Jewish race. ItUs one of those things it is easy to talk about, RThe Jewish race is being exterminated (ausgerottet),S says one Party Member, RthatUs quite clear, itUs in our program Q elimination (Ausschaltung) of the Jews and weUre doing it, extermination (Ausrottung) is what weUre doing.S And then they come, 80 million worthy Germans, and each one has his decent Jew. Of course the others are vermin, but this one is an A-1 Jew. Not one of all those who talk this way has watched it, not one of them has gone through it. Most of you must know what it means when 100 corpses are lying side by side, or 500, or 1,000. To have stuck it out and at the same time Q apart from exceptions caused by human weakness -- to have remained decent fellows, that it what has made us hard. This is a page of glory in our history which has never been written and is never to be written, for we know how difficult we should have made it for ourselves, if with the bombing raids, the burdens and the depravations of war we still had Jews today in every town as secret saboteurs, agitators, and trouble-mongers. We would now probably have reached the 1916-1917 stage when the Jews were still in the German national body. "We have taken from them what wealth they had. I have issued a strict order, which SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl has carried out, that this wealth should, as a matter of course, be handed over to the Reich without reserve. We have taken none of it for ourselves I We had the moral right, we had the duty to our people, to destroy this people (dieses Volk umzubringen) which wanted to destroy us. But we have not the right to enrich ourselves with so much as a fur, a watch, a mark, or a cigarette, or anything else. Because we exterminated (ausrotteten) a germ, we do not want in the end to be infected by the germ and die of it ... Wherever it may form, we will cauterize it." There are any number of responses I could make. I could, as did Butz and Staeglich, point out the many problems with verifying the text of this speech as being accurate. I could also point out that on 16 December 1943, Himmler said: "Whenever I was forced to take action in a village against partisans or Jewish commissars -- I speak of this to you and only for you in this circle -- as a basic rule I also gave the order to have the women and children of these partisans and commissars killed as well ... Believe me, it is not easy to give such an order, and it is not as simple to carry out as it is to think through and put into words in a meeting hall. But we must always remain aware of the primitive and basic nature of the racial struggle in which we find ourselves." In fact, Himmler gave other very similar speeches during this period, and from looking at those other speeches we can tell he is talking about something quite different than the exterminationists would like to have us believe. However, the main point as it applies to this discussion is that this Himmler speech makes no mention of gas chambers. Therefore, it fails to satisfy my request for the best evidence. -- Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659 The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40 The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping Article 16185 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!gumby!yale!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!news.duke.edu!eff!news.kei.com!yeshua.marcam.com!uunet!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: "Revisionists" Quiet About Hitler?! Followup-To: alt.revisionism Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 07:51:40 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 14 Message-ID: References: <359iie$icv@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <35a2ig$576@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com In article <35a2ig$576@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) wrote: > Makes no difference. He wanted to see Jews exposed to poison gas. He > later did what he wanted to do. It's as simple as that. More wishful thinking. Please provide the exact words of Hitler that lead you to make this statement. -- Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659 The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40 The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping Article 16186 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!redstone.interpath.net!ddsw1!news.kei.com!news.byu.edu!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: 130 days later, Mr. Raven accepts the challenge Followup-To: alt.revisionism Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 07:38:16 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan.kaiwan.com In article , k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) wrote: > greg-ihr@earthlink.net (Greg Raven) wrote: > > Just to be sure that we understand each other, you are saying that this > > October 4 speech by Himmler at Posen as your BEST EVIDENCE that the Nazis > > had a plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers? > > I repeat myself: > Himmler's Poznan speeches are the "best evidence" of the Holocaust. > > Happy now? Yes. See my response elsewhere in this newsgroup -- Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659 The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40 The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping Article 16187 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-04.dialip.mich.net!user From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: A challenge to Greg Raven Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 13:04:28 -0400 Organization: University of Michigan Lines: 33 Message-ID: References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-04.dialip.mich.net greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote: > k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) wrote: > > > A strange practice for someone whose news connection is flaky. Why are > > you deleting these posts unread, Mr. Raven? > > 1) There is no sense in reading something to which I cannot reply, Nonsense. When my newsfeed goes down, as it occasionally does, I quickly ask friends to email to me any articles that I might find interesting. Just because I'm dumb doesn't mean I have to be deaf, too. > and 2) > so far, the "responses" to my original request for the best evidence of a > Nazi plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers that > I have seen have not been responses at all, but rather attempts to divert > the discussion to some other area. (A) How would you know, if you don't read them? (B) We've been trying to get you to address document #1, Himmler's Poznan speeches, for the last four months. If we've been talking about other things as well, it's because you've stubbornly pretended, for the last four months, that you haven't seen that document. > Why waste my time? Please begin wasting time by addressing the Poznan speeches. -- Jamie McCarthy Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu AppleLink: j.mccarthy "...just consider alt.revisionism a suburb of talk.bizarre and everything starts falling into place." - Steve Miller Article 16189 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-04.dialip.mich.net!user From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Reports of Polish Underground About the Death Camps Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 13:37:21 -0400 Organization: University of Michigan Lines: 38 Message-ID: References: <357rk7$8jh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <35a3f7$66r@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-04.dialip.mich.net greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote: > dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) wrote: > > > Raven's response is insane. I post something about a different > > death camp (Belzec) and he concludes from this that I have doubts > > about what happened in Auschwitz?! > > Was it not you who, in your posting, described Belzec as "one of the most > terrible Nazi death camps," or somesuch? If you study this matter, you will > see that at one time or another, virtually all the major camps have been > labelled the "worst death camp." Your reference to Belzec is clearly in > line with this practice. Belzec and the other two Reinhard camps were the worst to get sent to, because they had the lowest survival rate period. (I think; I haven't done the numbers, but I believe somewhat under 2,000 people escaped, with about 2,000,000 gassed to death.) They weren't internment camps, though, so at least death was quick, except for those poor souls who drew the duty of corpse-carrying, -burying, and -burning. Auschwitz was the worst overall, with more victims than any other single camp, but as an individual, all else being equal, your odds were a lot better at Auschwitz than at Belzec, Sobibor, or Treblinka. Not that Auschwitz had a whole lot of survivors. Given the many ways of defining "worst" (was it Mauthausen that had the unbelievably cruel and sadistic guards?), it's pretty much a given that "virtually all the major camps have been labelled the 'worst death camp.'" What would you expect? That minor camps would be called the worst? That major camps would be called the least bad? What were you expecting? Please stop changing the subject, Mr. Raven -- address Himmler's Poznan speeches. -- Jamie McCarthy Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu AppleLink: j.mccarthy "...just consider alt.revisionism a suburb of talk.bizarre and everything starts falling into place." - Steve Miller Article 16190 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news1.digex.net!access.digex.net!not-for-mail From: mstein@access.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: A truthful answer from Greg Raven! Date: 16 Sep 1994 12:34:51 -0400 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA Lines: 24 Message-ID: <35chfb$6rb@access2.digex.net> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: access2.digex.net In article , Greg Raven wrote: >In article , golux@mcs.com (The >only Golux in the World, and not a mere Device) wrote: >> Are you saying that you would consider a forensic report, a blueprint or >> photograph of a gas chamber, or an example of a Nazi gas chamber to be >> convincing evidence of the Holocaust? But how can the existence of a >> forensic report indicate a policy? How would a photograph prove any more >> than the words of the Nazi leadership? Can you explain how you arrived at >> your criteria, and why they are acceptable while other types of evidence >> -- testimony from eyewitnesses, for example -- is not? > >It is a moot point: none of them exist, to the best of my knowledge. In case anyone is wondering, this is actually a direct and accurate answer to the question which was asked; probably the most truthful thing Greg Raven has ever posted here. His criteria for acceptable evidence is indeed whatever doesn't exist, to the best of his knowledge. Were any of these things to come to light, he'd suddenly decide they weren't acceptable evidence either. -- Mike Stein The above represents the Absolute Truth. POB 10420 Therefore it cannot possibly be the official Arlington, VA 22210 position of my employer. Article 16191 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!uunet!news1.digex.net!access.digex.net!not-for-mail From: mstein@access.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Raven fights a strawman... Date: 16 Sep 1994 13:02:15 -0400 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA Lines: 75 Message-ID: <35cj2n$7q4@access2.digex.net> References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <35as1u$ihl@access3.digex.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: access2.digex.net In article , Greg Raven wrote: >In article <35as1u$ihl@access3.digex.net>, mstein@access3.digex.net >(Michael P. Stein) wrote: >> And remember - we're getting more focused now, which is what you >> wanted. So forget about specific numbers and gas chambers for right now - >> we'll get to them later. Just discuss whether the Himmler speech is or >> isn't evidence of a policy to kill Jews on a systematic and large-scale >> basis. Focus on that one thing - a policy to kill Jews on a systematic >> basis. > >And you accuse me of not paying attention! My request was for someone to >state what he felt was the best evidence that the Nazis had a plan or >policy to exterminate Jews in homicidal gas chambers. I have been paying very careful attention. You set up a strawman, as I have pointed out to you four times. You have consistently ignored that point. You said you wanted focus. Why are you afraid of my plan to bring even more focus? >You and Mr. McCarthy now say that you feel the Himmler Posen speech of 4 >October 1943 is this best evidence. I have been very explicit in saying *what* I think the Himmler speech is evidence of. Your attempt to distort my words is duly noted. >There are any number of responses I could make. I could, as did Butz and >Staeglich, point out the many problems with verifying the text of this >speech as being accurate. Are you then willing to accept Ken McVay's challenge to submit the tape to voiceprint analysis? >I could also point out that on 16 December 1943, >Himmler said: Could you also point out where he said it, and what your source is? Didn't you just complain about Danny Keren not giving a proper reference? Or are you going to revise that bit of history too? >[speech about "Jewish commissars" omitted] > >In fact, Himmler gave other very similar speeches during this period, and >from looking at those other speeches we can tell he is talking about >something quite different than the exterminationists would like to have us >believe. Is this, then, your best evidence that he didn't mean what he said in the 4 October speech? Are you saying this proves Himmler didn't know the difference between "Jews" and "partisans" or "Jewish commissars?" Of course, if he identified *every* Jew as a partisan, then a policy of exterminating partisans would ipso facto be a policy of exterminating Jews. Q.E.D. >However, the main point as it applies to this discussion is that this >Himmler speech makes no mention of gas chambers. Therefore, it fails to >satisfy my request for the best evidence. Is that your only objection? Do you admit, then, that it *does* show a policy of exterminating Jews? Why are you suddenly afraid of focus, the very thing you said you wanted, Greg? Emailed to Mr. Raven, who seems to claim he psychically knows whether or not it's a copy of a post he missed due to a flaky newsreader. :) -- Mike Stein The above represents the Absolute Truth. POB 10420 Therefore it cannot possibly be the official Arlington, VA 22210 position of my employer. Article 16192 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!uunet!news1.digex.net!access.digex.net!not-for-mail From: mstein@access.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: The most terrible death camp Date: 16 Sep 1994 13:15:53 -0400 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA Lines: 37 Message-ID: <35cjs9$8bc@access2.digex.net> References: <357rk7$8jh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <35a3f7$66r@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: access2.digex.net In article , Greg Raven wrote: >In article <35a3f7$66r@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) >wrote: > >> Raven's response is insane. I post something about a different >> death camp (Belzec) and he concludes from this that I have doubts >> about what happened in Auschwitz?! >> >Was it not you who, in your posting, described Belzec as "one of the most >terrible Nazi death camps," or somesuch? If you were half the historian you want us to think you are, you'd know that it was I. You should also be aware that my posting had a rather sarcastic bent to it. If you can't even keep posts on this newsgroup straight, why should anyone believe you're capable of keeping the events of fifty years ago straight? >If you study this matter, you will >see that at one time or another, virtually all the major camps have been >labelled the "worst death camp." Ho hum, yet another unsupported assertion from the man who griped only a day or two ago about Danny Keren's lack of citation in *one* post. Of course, "worst death camp" is a rather subjective term; it rather depends on the criteria used. If you are looking at total number of deaths, that's probably Auschwitz (though remember, the death tolls *are* all estimates). Highest *percentage* of deaths is certainly Belzec; most inhumane treatment could well be another (I have no information on this). -- Mike Stein The above represents the Absolute Truth. POB 10420 Therefore it cannot possibly be the official Arlington, VA 22210 position of my employer. Article 16194 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!kmcvay From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) Subject: Inexperience + Myopia = Raven References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac Message-ID: <1994Sep16.223008.28773@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> Date: Fri, 16 Sep 94 22:30:08 GMT Greg Raven, writing in response to Jamie McCarthy's comment that his practice of deleting email without reading it was strange for someone who claimed his news connection was unreliable, had this to say: >1) There is no sense in reading something to which I cannot reply, and 2) This begs clarification, Mr. Raven. Do you mean that you do not know how to use your mailer's R)eply function, or do you mean that you do not know how to respond to email via this newsgroup, or do you mean that you can't always reply via this newsgroup, because your connection is unreliable? Since email replies from you have been posted to this newsgroup, I will assume you do indeed understand how that process works - i.e. you can respond to email. If you mean that you cannot reliably post an article to this newsgroup, be aware that several sites (including mine, by the way) will transfer email messages to alt.revisionism. In the case of my system, all you have to do is send your article, via email, to "arevise@oneb.almanac.bc.ca," and my system will post your article for you. My system is slow to react, however, and other, directly connected (to the internet) sites will do the job more quickly. If you mean that you do not understand how to save and edit the email message, and turn it into a public article, then I invite you to describe your access site's features (mail reader, news reader, operating system or bulletin board software, shell access, etc.) so that we can explain things to you, using, of course, our single best evidence that our processes will be effective. >so far, the "responses" to my original request for the best evidence of a >Nazi plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers that >I have seen have not been responses at all, but rather attempts to divert >the discussion to some other area. Why waste my time? May 4th. Myopia is one hellacious disease! Like HIV, it propagates at an alarming level, and seems to quickly mutate into the more generalized June '94 Myopia, July '94 Myopia, August '94 Myopia, and, it seems apparent now, even September '94 Myopia! Either that, of course, or Mr. Raven is simply hoping that some of the lurking readers here are _real_ stupid, and don't understand the utter contempt with which he obviously views their intellectual capacities. Does the IHR have _anyone_ on board who can actually walk and chew gum at the same time, or is Mr. Raven truly the "best of the bunch?" If so, Holocaust denial is doomed by its own hand. -- "Everything I do is done with the full knowledge of the Fuehrer." (Himmler, Heinrich. See Jochen von Lang, "Der Adjutant: Karl Wolff," Munich: Herbig, 1985, pp . 140ff) Article 16198 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!uunet!news1.digex.net!access.digex.net!not-for-mail From: mstein@access.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: 130 days later, Mr. Raven accepts the challenge Date: 12 Sep 1994 12:19:27 -0400 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA Lines: 16 Message-ID: <351v2f$a49@access2.digex.net> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: access2.digex.net In article , Jamie McCarthy wrote: >greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote: > >> This whole "Posen speech" matter is interesting, for many reasons, of which >> I will deal with only a couple at this time. > >Please, deal with as many as you feel you need to deal with. You really should make him deal with ONE at a time, starting with his BEST reason why the Posen speech is not evidence for the Holocaust. Only fair, you know.... :) -- Mike Stein The above represents the Absolute Truth. POB 10420 Therefore it cannot possibly be the official Arlington, VA 22210 position of my employer. Article 16199 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!uunet!news1.digex.net!access.digex.net!not-for-mail From: mstein@access.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Is Greg Raven telepathic? Date: 12 Sep 1994 12:24:20 -0400 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA Lines: 16 Message-ID: <351vbk$afp@access2.digex.net> References: <1994Sep03.050330.2051@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: access2.digex.net In article , Greg Raven wrote: >I'm sure that what Mcvay meant to say is that "Irene Zdziarski" is put >forward as the chairwoman of the Holocaust Committee of the PHS, as he >certainly must know that this is a pseudonym. What is your BEST EVIDENCE that Ken McVay knows this? Do you now claim telepathic powers? (Come to think of it, what's your BEST EVIDENCE that it's a pseudonym?) -- Mike Stein The above represents the Absolute Truth. POB 10420 Therefore it cannot possibly be the official Arlington, VA 22210 position of my employer. Article 16200 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!news.Arizona.EDU!misvms.bpa.arizona.edu!dmittleman From: dmittleman@misvms.bpa.arizona.edu (Daniel Mittleman) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Posen--the clearest admission Followup-To: alt.revisionism Date: 12 Sep 1994 07:18 MST Organization: University of Arizona (BPA) Lines: 33 Distribution: world Message-ID: <12SEP199407181976@misvms.bpa.arizona.edu> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: misvms.bpa.arizona.edu News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.50 In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes... >This whole "Posen speech" matter is interesting, for many reasons, of which >I will deal with only a couple at this time. First, it is interesting that >it is put forth as proof of the "Holocaust" when, in fact, it is far >removed from what is often defined as the "Holocaust," and is remarkably >vague. Are we to believe that there is no better evidence than this of the >murder of 6 million Jews? >Second, those who like to quote this speech virtually always do so in >isolation of other speeches given by Himmler around this time, other >speeches in which Himmler made it abundantly clear what he meant in this >passage. By removing the context from the speech, the exterminationists >hope to convince the unwary that the "smoking gun" has been found. >Is there anyone out there who believes that this speech is the best >evidence of the Holocaust extermination myth? Yes. I will bite. I am not a holocaust scholar, but I have been reading this conference off and on for over a year. Of all of the evidence I have seen posted in this conference (obviously the evidence consists of reprinted statements by people as physical evidence doesn't transmit over usenet) I find this speech to be the strongest I have seen. I guess for me it is "the best single piece of evidence." I am very interested to hear your organized rebuttal to it. If there are other Himmler statements which give it context, by all means let me see them. If this speech means something other than what it has been purported in this conference to mean, but all means demonstrate that to me. =========================================================================== daniel david mittleman - danny@arizona.edu - (602) 621-2932 Article 16201 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!library.ucla.edu!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!schultz From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Posen--the clearest admission Date: 12 Sep 1994 17:04:48 GMT Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe Lines: 20 Message-ID: <3521ng$kql@agate.berkeley.edu> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu In article , Greg Raven wrote: >This whole "Posen speech" matter is interesting, for many reasons, of which >I will deal with only a couple at this time. First, it is interesting that >it is put forth as proof of the "Holocaust" when, in fact, it is far >removed from what is often defined as the "Holocaust," and is remarkably >vague. Are we to believe that there is no better evidence than this of the >murder of 6 million Jews? I thought that Greg Raven was the revisionist who had accepted, as a working definition for the Holocaust, "the systematic policy by the Nazi government to murder Jews, gypsies, etc." This might not be the exact wording, but I thought that the question of the number of Jews murdered is independent of the question about whether there was a Nazi government policy to murder them. And that the Posen speech is given as best evidence for the latter, not the former. But as for me, I am still waiting for someone to provide me with a single piece of "best evidence" that World War II happened. Article 16203 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!kmcvay From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) Subject: Is Greg Raven telepathic, or just lying again? References: <351vbk$afp@access2.digex.net> Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac Message-ID: <1994Sep16.230053.867@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> Date: Fri, 16 Sep 94 23:00:53 GMT In article <351vbk$afp@access2.digex.net> mstein@access.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) writes: >In article , >Greg Raven wrote: >>I'm sure that what Mcvay meant to say is that "Irene Zdziarski" is put >>forward as the chairwoman of the Holocaust Committee of the PHS, as he >>certainly must know that this is a pseudonym. > What is your BEST EVIDENCE that Ken McVay knows this? Do you now >claim telepathic powers? I have a much better question: What is Mr. Raven's single best evidence that I even _said_ that? Given that I most certainly did _not_ write anything about Irene Zdz~, it will be more than a little amusing to see how this "senior editor" can explain how, given his patent inability to keep track of who said what a _day_ or two ago, he should be believed in any respect with regard to his assertions about what folks said fifty or so _years_ ago.... Then, of course, there was his recent complaint about the Posen speech being posted out of context (i.e. without comparision to other Himmler speeches of the period), which is an amazing complaint from the man who flat _insists_ that we can only deal with _one_ document at a time. Talk about your double standards.... Pot. Kettle. Black. -- "Everything I do is done with the full knowledge of the Fuehrer." (Himmler, Heinrich. See Jochen von Lang, "Der Adjutant: Karl Wolff," Munich: Herbig, 1985, pp . 140ff) Article 16204 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!kmcvay From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) Subject: Re: Posen--the clearest admission (...of Raven's duplicity) References: <12SEP199407181976@misvms.bpa.arizona.edu> Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac Message-ID: <1994Sep16.230810.949@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> Date: Fri, 16 Sep 94 23:08:10 GMT In article <12SEP199407181976@misvms.bpa.arizona.edu> dmittleman@misvms.bpa.arizona.edu (Daniel Mittleman) writes: >In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes... >>Second, those who like to quote this speech virtually always do so in >>isolation of other speeches given by Himmler around this time, other >>speeches in which Himmler made it abundantly clear what he meant in this >>passage. By removing the context from the speech, the exterminationists >>hope to convince the unwary that the "smoking gun" has been found. Note the above well. Mr. Raven, who has, for month after month, insisted upon a "single best evidence" tack, now asserts that we must view this evidence IN CONTEXT. In other words, Mr. Raven asserts that, for HIM, and HIM ALONE, convergence of evidence is in fact the ONLY way to determine historical fact. For US, however, that is those who routinely catch him lying, misrepresenting facts, etc., for US, no such convergence may be employed. Mr. Raven, by your own rules, you cannot, under any circumstances, provide more than ONE SINGLE BEST PIECE OF EVIDENCE to deal with Himmler's speech.... unless, shudder the thought, you are an intellectual fraud and hypocrite of the highest order. >>Is there anyone out there who believes that this speech is the best >>evidence of the Holocaust extermination myth? > Yes. I will bite. I am not a holocaust scholar, but I have been > reading this conference off and on for over a year. Of all of the > evidence I have seen posted in this conference (obviously the evidence > consists of reprinted statements by people as physical evidence doesn't > transmit over usenet) I find this speech to be the strongest I have > seen. I guess for me it is "the best single piece of evidence." > I am very interested to hear your organized rebuttal to it. If there > are other Himmler statements which give it context, by all means let me > see them. If this speech means something other than what it has been > purported in this conference to mean, but all means demonstrate that to > me. Yes, indeed... and, given his own rules, upon which he has insisted without restraint (and, of course, failed to follow, but that's another tale...), he cannot employ but a single best piece of evidence in rebuttal. How he plans to weasel out of this little box, which he himself created, and still explain how "exterminate the Jews" means something other than "exterminate the Jews" should be quite entertaining... Remember, Mr. Raven - only your single best evidence please - leave your "convergence crap" at the door. Ah, the irony, the irony! (Quothe the Raven, "Nevermore!") -- "Everything I do is done with the full knowledge of the Fuehrer." (Himmler, Heinrich. See Jochen von Lang, "Der Adjutant: Karl Wolff," Munich: Herbig, 1985, pp . 140ff) Article 16205 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!gumby!yale!news2.near.net!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Posen--the clearest admission Date: 12 Sep 1994 17:33:46 GMT Organization: Brown University Lines: 16 Message-ID: <3523dq$ptd@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu X-ORIGINAL-NEWSGROUPS: alt.revisionism greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes: # This whole "Posen speech" matter is interesting, for many reasons, # of which I will deal with only a couple at this time. First, it is # interesting that it is put forth as proof of the "Holocaust" when, # in fact, it is far removed from what is often defined as the # "Holocaust," and is remarkably vague. It's really vague. All he says is that the Jewish women and children have to be killed too, in order to make this people "disappear from the face of the Earth". -Danny Keren. Article 16212 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!insosf1.infonet.net!convex!hermes.oc.com!news.unt.edu!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!usenet.elf.com!news2.near.net!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Reports of Polish Underground About the Death Camps Date: 16 Sep 1994 22:56:36 GMT Organization: Brown University Lines: 8 Message-ID: <35d7r4$38p@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> References: <357rk7$8jh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <35a3f7$66r@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu X-ORIGINAL-NEWSGROUPS: alt.revisionism According to the German "Institute for Contemporary History" and other sources, 600,000 people were murdered at Belzec. I think this makes it a rather terrible death camp. -Danny Keren. Article 16214 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-01.dialip.mich.net!user From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Greg Raven addresses the Poznan speeches -- kinda Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 16:22:36 -0400 Organization: University of Michigan Lines: 255 Message-ID: References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <353e7q$biv@access3.digex.net> <35as1u$ihl@access3.digex.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-01.dialip.mich.net greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote (to Michael Stein): > You and Mr. McCarthy now say that you feel the Himmler Posen speech of 4 > October 1943 is this best evidence. As we've been saying for the last four months or so. > The text of this speech is along these > lines: Greg, I'm going to replace your first two paragraphs with the text I uploaded ten days ago (did you see it? were you paying attention?). I find it useful to have English and German side-by-side. Ich will hier vor Ihnen in aller I also want to refer here very Offenheit, auch ein ganz frankly to a very serious matter. schweres Kapitel erwaehnen. Unter uns soll es einmal ganz We can now very openly talk about offen ausgesprochen sein, und this among ourselves, and trotzdem werden wir in der yet we will never discuss this Offentlichkeit nie darueber publicly. reden. Genau so wenig, wie wir Just as we did not hesitate am 30. Juni 1934 gezoegert on June 30, 1934, to perform haben, die befohlene Pflicht zu our duty as ordered and tun und Kameraden, die sich put comrades who had verfehlt hatten, an die Wand zu failed up against the wall stellen und zu erschiessen, and execute them, genau so wenig haben wir we also never spoke about it, darueber jemals gesprochen und nor will we ever speak about it. werden je darueber sprechen. Es war eine, Gottseidank in uns Let us thank God that we had wohnende Selbstverstaendlichkeit within us enough self-evident des Taktes, dass wir uns fortitude never to discuss it untereinander nie darueber among us, and we never talked underhalten haben, nie darueber about it. sprachen. Es hat jeden Every one of us was geschaudert und doch war sich horrified, and yet jeder klar darueber, dass er es every one clearly understood das naechste Mal wieder tun that we would do it next time, wuerde, wenn es befohlen wird when the order is given und wenn es notwendig ist. and when it becomes necessary. Ich meine jetzt die I am now referring to the Judenevakuierung, die evacuation of the Jews, to the Ausrottung des juedischen extermination of the Jewish Volkes. Es gehoert zu den people. This is something Dingen, die man leicht that is easily ausspricht. - "Das juedische said: "The Jewish Volk wird ausgerottet", sagt people will be exterminated," ein jeder Parteigenosse, "ganz says every Party member, "this klar, steht in unserem is very obvious, it is in our Programm, Ausschaltung der program -- elimination of the Juden, Ausrottung, machen wir." Jews, extermination, will do." Und dann kommen sie alle an, And then they turn up, die braven 80 Millionen the brave 80 million Deutschen, und jeder hat seinen Germans, and each one has his anstaendigen Juden. Es ist ja decent Jew. It is of course klar, die anderen sind obvious that the others are Schweine, aber dieser eine ist pigs, but this particular one is ein prima Jude. Von allen, die a splendid Jew. But of all those so reden, hat keiner zugesehen, who talk this way, none had keiner hat es durchgestanden. observed it, none had endured it. Von Euch werden die meisten Most of you here wissen, was es heisst, wenn 100 know what it means when 100 Leichen beisammen liegen, wenn corpses lie next to each other, 500 daliegen oder wenn 1000 when 500 lie there or when 1000 daliegen. Dies durchgehalten are lined up. To have endured zu haben, und dabei - abgesehen this and at the same time to have von Ausnahmen menschlicher remained a decent person - with Schwaechen - anstaendig exceptions due to human weaknesses geblieben zu sein, das hat uns - has made us tough. hart gemacht. Dies ist ein This is an honor roll in our niemals geschriebenes und history which has never been and niemals zu schreibendes never will be put in writing, Ruhmesblatt unserer Geschichte, denn wir wissen, wie schwer wir because we know how difficult uns taeten, wenn wir heute noch it would be for us if we still had in jeder Stadt - bei den Jews as secret saboteurs, Bombenangriffen, bei den Lasten agitators and rabble rousers in und bei den Entbehrungen des every city, what with the Krieges - noch die Juden als bombings, with the burden and with Geheimsaboteure, Agitatoren und the hardships of the war. Hetzer haetten. I'll let your third paragraph stand, as I don't have the original German at hand. > "We have taken from them what wealth they had. I have issued a strict > order, which SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl has carried out, that this wealth > should, as a matter of course, be handed over to the Reich without reserve. > We have taken none of it for ourselve. We had the moral right, we had the > duty to our people, to destroy this people (dieses Volk umzubringen) which > wanted to destroy us. But we have not the right to enrich ourselves with so > much as a fur, a watch, a mark, or a cigarette, or anything else. Because > we exterminated (ausrotteten) a germ, we do not want in the end to be > infected by the germ and die of it ... Wherever it may form, we will > cauterize it." Let's summarize what Mr. Raven is facing. Himmler has said that he is referring to "the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish people." It's clear that "evacuation" is a code word for "extermination" -- the German word for extermination, Ausrottung, has no other meaning when applied to human beings. And, Himmler himself defined the word for us in a speech two days later, saying "auszurotten - sprich also, umzubringen." That is, "to exterminate, in other words, to kill." Himmler has said that "it is in our program -- elimination of the Jews, extermination." Himmler has said that the Nazis had the "moral right" and the "duty to our people to destroy this people." "This people" clearly refers to the Jews. I would argue that "destroy this people" is not the best translation; the verb, according to Raven, is "umbringen," which never means anything else but "kill." So Himmler has said that the Nazis have the right and the duty to kill the Jewish people. > There are any number of responses I could make. And, I think you'll agree, they had better be damn convincing ones if you have any hope of explaining away Himmler's remarks. > I could, as did Butz and > Staeglich, point out the many problems with verifying the text of this > speech as being accurate. Ah, you could, couldn't you. But then you'd have to make a case. Either make a case for its being a forgery, Mr. Raven, or don't. It's not acceptable to say "I could argue X," and then expect that we treat you as if you _had_ argued X. If you want to claim that it's a forgery, make your case. If not, don't. And by the way, anti-revisionists on the net have put up over $1000 toward a voice-print analysis of that speech. If you really feel it's a forgery, you're welcome to put your money where your mouth is, pony up the remainder of the dough, and see what the lab results say. > I could also point out that on 16 December 1943, > Himmler said: > > "Whenever I was forced to take action in a village against partisans or > Jewish commissars -- I speak of this to you and only for you in this circle > -- as a basic rule I also gave the order to have the women and children of > these partisans and commissars killed as well ... Believe me, it is not > easy to give such an order, and it is not as simple to carry out as it is > to think through and put into words in a meeting hall. But we must always > remain aware of the primitive and basic nature of the racial struggle in > which we find ourselves." This must be the speech that you think will provide "context" that will demonstrate that Himmler was not really talking about Jews in his October 4th speech above. I guess you think that this December 16th speech will prove that Himmler was talking about partisans all along, or something. The problem, Mr. Raven, is that in his October 4th speech, Himmler very clearly was referring to Jews. "I am now referring to the evacuation of the Jews," he says, "to the extermination of the Jewish people." Why do you feel that a speech two months and twelve days later provides "context" for the first speech? That would be like quoting Clinton saying "we must invade Somalia" and then turning around and using a speech he made a year later about Haiti, and putting the two together to prove that Clinton was really talking about invading Haiti the whole time, that he never really meant to do anything with Somalia. That's nonsensical, Mr. Raven. Indeed, you've only dug yourself a deeper hole by bringing up Himmler's comment that the Nazis "must always remain aware of the...nature of the racial struggle." The _racial_ struggle. In other words, the struggle against the Jews. > In fact, Himmler gave other very similar speeches during this period, and > from looking at those other speeches we can tell he is talking about > something quite different than the exterminationists would like to have us > believe. ...like...? Don't dance around the point. If you have a case, make it. If you don't, you might as well not even bring it up. Take another shot at it, Mr. Raven: _what_ other speeches? And _what_ is in those speeches that tells us to hear "the Jewish people will be exterminated," and to understand something other than "the Jewish people will be exterminated"? Don't hint. If you've got something to say, say it. > However, the main point as it applies to this discussion is that this > Himmler speech makes no mention of gas chambers. Therefore, it fails to > satisfy my request for the best evidence. And this is the most astonishing point of all. Himmler has said, explicitly, that the Nazis are murdering the Jews. All of the Jews. They're exterminating them, wiping them out, it's their duty to kill the Jewish people. Himmler is the Reichsfuehrer-SS, the man second only to Hitler, the author of the war against the Jews, the one who orchestrated it all. The evidence is from a speech he's giving to fellow SS officers, to whom he has no reason to lie or be deceptive. It's simply a plain, honest evaluation of what the Nazis were doing to the Jews: killing them all, every single one, so that the Jewish race would vanish from the earth. And Raven stands back and says "this is not proof of what I asked for, because he doesn't mention _how_ the Jews were being killed." With this comment, Mr. Raven -- with your "main point" -- you have once and for all established that you are utterly without the capacity to be an objective, honest observer. You have made it plain to even the most callous reader that you are biased through and through, that you will twist and turn however much necessary to achieve what you see as tactical victories based on wordplay, not caring one bit about history or truth. And for that, Mr. Raven, I thank you. You've made my case better than I could ever have hoped to. But your own case -- you haven't made one at all. Your points were: 1- "I could point out that it might be a forgery." (So go ahead and make your case. That's what we're here for.) 2- "On December 12th, he talked about killing partisans and commissars, ergo on October 4th he wasn't really talking about Jews." (Totally illogical. If you really believe that logically follows, Mr. Raven, I wonder about your sanity.) 3- "Other similar speeches show us that the October 4th speech doesn't really mean what you think it means." (We asked you to explain this already; don't just repeat the same vague accusations over and over. If you have a case, make it.) 4- "Himmler doesn't mention gas chambers, so technically my challenge was not met." (This isn't a high-school debate. We're trying to get at the truth here. And the truth is that the Nazis had a policy to kill all the Jews. Period. You can't deny that.) Please try again, Mr. Raven. -- Jamie McCarthy Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu AppleLink: j.mccarthy "...just consider alt.revisionism a suburb of talk.bizarre and everything starts falling into place." - Steve Miller Article 16222 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!insosf1.infonet.net!convex!hermes.oc.com!news.unt.edu!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!cobra.uni.edu!sunfish!choover Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: More about Rudolf Hoess Message-ID: From: choover@usd.edu (Christopher J Hoover ) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 19:17:26 GMT Sender: news@sunfish.usd.edu References: Organization: University of South Dakota Nntp-Posting-Host: sunbird Lines: 60 greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes: >In article , choover@usd.edu (Christopher J >Hoover ) wrote: >> Hogwash. You assert that Hilberg "relied heavily" upon Hoess's testimony. >> >> But there's a hole in your thesis large enough to drive a truck trough, >> Mr. Raven. Hilberg, in _The Destruction of the European Jews_, published >> in _1961_ (that's _33_ years ago, Mr. Raven), estimated Auschwitz Jewish >> dead at about 1 million. How could he have done this, Mr. Raven, if he >> had relied on Hoess as heavily as you claim? >Really? If you read Hilberg, you see that he uses sources such as Hoess and >Gerstein very selectively, using the parts that support his thesis and >discarding those that do not. That's odd. As a matter of fact, I'm reading Hilberg right now, and I'd say he relies on a very broad and numerous range of sources (a fair amount of which can be found in the 44 IMT volumes). For instance, how, exactly, could he rely on Hoess or Gerstein to describe activities of the _Einsatzgruppen_? >He was forced to admit this on the witness >stand in the 1985 Zuendel trial, when, for example, he claimed not to have >used Gerstein as a source. When the defense pointed out that he had in fact >used Gerstein extensively, albeit selectively, Hilberg had to back down. >Only by attempting to interpret items out of context have the >exterminationists been able to support their case. You can, of course, document this. I'm just sure of it. From somewhere _other_ than the _JHR_, preferably. The casual reader may notice that Mr. Raven has wholly avoided the central point of my post, which is that while one of Mr. Raven's chief objections to Hoess is his inaccurate Auschwitz death estimates, Hilberg clearly does _not_ rely on Hoess in the least for one of the central issues regarding the Holocaust, that being the total tally of dead. Hilberg estimates Auschwitz dead at about 1 million, Hoess at 3 million. 1 million, 3 million. Not very close, are they? If Hilberg depended on Hoess anywhere near as much as Mr. Raven would have us believe, he would surely have used Hoess's numbers. Seeing as the numbers game matters so much to Holocaust deniers, wouldn't Hoess's numbers make the Nazis look even worse? Wouldn't they make Hilberg's case all the stronger? Well, then, why didn't Hilberg use them? I hold that the answer is simple. I believe Hilberg's purpose wasn't to make the Nazis look bad so much as it was to accurately depict what happened. Thus, his death figures are quite conservative. Hilberg is a scholar, and as a scholar, he apparently found Hoess's numbers to be unreliable (remember, they came form Eichmann--why Eichmann would overestimate is a whole separate issue), so he didn't use them. Which part of this don't you understand, Mr. Raven? Chris -- Christopher J. Hoover choover@usd.edu University of South Dakota Disclaimer: standard It's *always* September, *somewhere* on the Net. Article 16223 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!insosf1.infonet.net!convex!hermes.oc.com!news.unt.edu!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!cobra.uni.edu!sunfish!choover Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Reports of Polish Underground About the Death Camps Message-ID: From: choover@usd.edu (Christopher J Hoover ) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 19:30:40 GMT Sender: news@sunfish.usd.edu References: <357rk7$8jh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <35a3f7$66r@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> Organization: University of South Dakota Nntp-Posting-Host: sunbird Lines: 29 greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes: >Was it not you who, in your posting, described Belzec as "one of the most >terrible Nazi death camps," or somesuch? If you study this matter, you will >see that at one time or another, virtually all the major camps have been >labelled the "worst death camp." Your reference to Belzec is clearly in >line with this practice. Hmm. "One of the most terrible death camps." "The worst death camp." You don't actually believe these two phrases mean exactly the same thing, do you, Mr. Raven? Yes, Belzec was certainly a terrible place to be. But the prize of "worst death camp" is really of no consequence to me, or to the truth of the Holocaust. If Belzec, rather than Auschwitz, was "the worst death camp," Mr. Raven, does that mean that the Holocaust didn't happen? If, in turn, Treblinka, rather than Belzec, was "the worst death camp," Mr. Raven, does that mean that the Holocaust didn't happen? Why, exactly, does this even matter? Chris -- Christopher J. Hoover choover@usd.edu University of South Dakota Disclaimer: standard It's *always* September, *somewhere* on the Net. Article 16224 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!news.eunet.fi!prime.mdata.fi!mits.mdata.fi!kauhunen From: kauhunen@mits.mdata.fi (Kari Nenonen) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: A challenge to Greg Raven Date: 16 Sep 1994 19:53:32 GMT Organization: Mits BBS, Helsinki, Finland (40+ Nodes +358-0-4582066) Lines: 29 Message-ID: <35ct3s$jct@prime.mdata.fi> References: <34ho57$2kc@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: mits.mdata.fi In article , Greg Raven wrote: >1) There is no sense in reading something to which I cannot reply, and 2) >so far, the "responses" to my original request for the best evidence of a >Nazi plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers that >I have seen have not been responses at all, but rather attempts to divert >the discussion to some other area. Why waste my time? Are you trying to explain that your time is somehow important? Hah! You fuck. You and your time is "important" only here and only because you little piece of shit are an object of contemt and hatred. Don't you understand it? The world is launghing at you, Raven, really, most of the "aryan world" is laughing at you, you pathetic clown. If you ever came to any Nordic country and opened your dirty mouth in a public place you would be laughed to dead. >Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) >Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659 >The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40 >The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping -- Kari Nenonen kauhunen@mits.mdata.fi Maavallintie 4 00430 Helsinki Finland Article 16232 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!news.island.net!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!jobone!news1.oakland.edu!vtc.tacom.army.mil!ulowell!wang!uunet!usenet.elf.com!news2.near.net!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: "Revisionists" Quiet About Hitler?! Date: 16 Sep 1994 23:41:13 GMT Organization: Brown University Lines: 21 Message-ID: <35daep$58j@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> References: <359iie$icv@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <35a2ig$576@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu X-ORIGINAL-NEWSGROUPS: alt.revisionism I am currently not near a library, and can't take a look at "Mein Kampf", written by Raven's big hero, Adolf Hitler (who Raven described as a "great man" and "the best thing that could have happened to Germany"). I think Jamie McCarthy posted the relevant excerpt yesterday. But the point is moot. Raven agrees that Hitler expressed his desire to see Jews exposed to poison gas. So now he starts saying yes, but it wasn't that kind of gas, it was another kind of gas. Hitler also said, in a very well-known public speech, that if a new world war breaks out, the result will be the "annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe". The term he used was "vernichtung", a term that even the craziest "revisionist" will agree means "annihilation". Raven responds to this by saying that it's well known Hitler wanted all Jews out of Germany. It seems Raven learned to read in the same school in which Fred Leuchter learned engineering. -Danny Keren. Article 16236 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!news.eunet.fi!prime.mdata.fi!mits.mdata.fi!kauhunen From: kauhunen@mits.mdata.fi (Kari Nenonen) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Reports of Polish Underground About the Death Camps Date: 17 Sep 1994 00:47:53 GMT Organization: Mits BBS, Helsinki, Finland (40+ Nodes +358-0-4582066) Lines: 29 Message-ID: <35debp$k6j@prime.mdata.fi> References: <357rk7$8jh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <35a3f7$66r@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: mits.mdata.fi In article , Greg Raven wrote: >Was it not you who, in your posting, described Belzec as "one of the most >terrible Nazi death camps," or somesuch? If you study this matter, you will >see that at one time or another, virtually all the major camps have been >labelled the "worst death camp." Your reference to Belzec is clearly in >line with this practice. Another example of the ultimate stupidity of this Raven person. Even I, with English as my fourth language, can understand the diference between "one of the most terrible" and "worst". >Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) >Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659 >The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40 >The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping And why is this Raven character constantly advertizing IHR crap in his posts? At least in this side of Atlantic it's against the rules of usenet/internet. -- Kari Nenonen kauhunen@mits.mdata.fi Maavallintie 4 00430 Helsinki Finland Article 16239 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.cic.net!ddsw1!golux.pr.mcs.net!user From: golux@mcs.com (The only Golux in the World, and not a mere Device) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: 130 days later, Mr. Raven accepts the challenge Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 22:47:52 -0600 Organization: MCSNet Services Lines: 46 Message-ID: References: