Archive/File: holocaust/usa/ihr raven.1094 Last-Modified: 1994/11/01 Article 17058 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!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: Pressac's book Date: Thu, 06 Oct 1994 02:48:57 -0400 Organization: University of Michigan Lines: 38 Message-ID:References: <36kqhl$sde@newsbf01.news.aol.com> <0FVZk0yNUUWH069yn@world.std.com> <36lmb0$b5b@access3.digex.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-03.dialip.mich.net greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote: > What is your evidence for this? I know that Pressac has said this, but in > the new book by Berenbaum et al (Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp?), > Pressac's bio contains the information that he was on the Klarfeld's > payroll as early as 1982. To save everyone the trouble, I'll post the quote and a full cite, since I happen to have the book in my lap. Jean-Claude Pressac is a pharmacist and an independent scholar working in La Ville du Bois, France. Since 1982, the work of Mr. Pressac has been promoted and supported on a documentary, editorial, and financial level by the Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, which has published in English the following works of Pressac.... (Yisrael Gutman and Michael Berenbaum, Eds., _Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp_, Indiana University Press in assoc. with the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1994, p. xiii) I'm not interesting in investigating this further, but perhaps someone else is. I would be interested in knowing exactly when Pressac made the split with Faurisson, but not interested enough to go looking for it, myself. :-/ Mr. Raven -- we last exchanged email three days ago, when I wrote you a long letter explaining again exactly why your analysis of Himmler's Poznan speeches was totally invalid. I haven't heard from you since. Please reassure me that you're not going to drop the issue. Not emailed to Mr. Raven, as per his repeated request. -- 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 17084 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Pressac's book Followup-To: alt.revisionism Date: Thu, 06 Oct 1994 07:32:09 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com In article , k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) wrote: > Mr. Raven -- we last exchanged email three days ago, when I wrote you > a long letter explaining again exactly why your analysis of Himmler's > Poznan speeches was totally invalid. I haven't heard from you since. > > Please reassure me that you're not going to drop the issue. > > Not emailed to Mr. Raven, as per his repeated request. I am not going to drop the issue. I am, however, still busy, and your message is quite long, as you might remember. I have saved it, and will respond to it asap. -- Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) For free information, write to: 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 + $1.00 shipping Article 17208 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!scripps.edu!misrael From: misrael@scripps.edu (Mark Israel) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: The Holocaust in history - 10/6 Date: 7 Oct 1994 18:18:53 GMT Organization: The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, California, USA Lines: 14 Message-ID: <3743ed$c36@riscsm.scripps.edu> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: struct.scripps.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes: > 10/6/46: Senator Bob Taft (R-Ohio) speaks out against the Nuernberg War > Crimes Trials, and throws away his and the Republican partyUs chances for > the presidency in the upcoming elections. Did Taft express doubt that the Nazis had committed genocide? If so, please provide an exact citation. And if not, WHAT'S YOUR POINT? -- misrael@scripps.edu Mark Israel Article 17217 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!news.hal.COM!olivea!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!cobra.uni.edu!sunfish!choover Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: The Holocaust in history - 10/6 Message-ID: From: choover@usd.edu (Christopher J Hoover ) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 19:11:49 GMT Sender: news@sunfish.usd.edu References: Organization: University of South Dakota Nntp-Posting-Host: sunbird Lines: 27 bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: >From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) >>10/6/46: Senator Bob Taft (R-Ohio) speaks out against the Nuernberg War >>Crimes Trials, and throws away his and the Republican partyUs chances for >>the presidency in the upcoming elections. >Strange, Dewey nearly beat Truman, so close that some papers actually >printed advance headlines for their morning editions declaring Dewey >triumphant. They're collector's items today. Not to mention the fact that the "upcoming" elections in 1946 wouldn't have even been presidential elections. Dewey/Truman was in _1948_. And, if memory serves me correctly, 1946 was the off-year election during Truman's administration in which the Republican Party actually took control of Congress (at least until the 1948 elections, or maybe 1950). Which makes one wonder just what the hell Mr. Raven is talking about. Going to demonstrate, once again, that a Holocaust revisionist historian is no historian at all. Chris -- Christopher J. Hoover choover@usd.edu University of South Dakota Disclaimer: standard It's *always* September, *somewhere* on the Net. Article 17218 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!news.hal.COM!olivea!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!cobra.uni.edu!sunfish!choover Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Pressac's book Message-ID: From: choover@usd.edu (Christopher J Hoover ) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 19:18:17 GMT Sender: news@sunfish.usd.edu References: Organization: University of South Dakota Nntp-Posting-Host: sunbird Lines: 27 greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes: >In article , >k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) wrote: >> Mr. Raven -- we last exchanged email three days ago, when I wrote you >> a long letter explaining again exactly why your analysis of Himmler's >> Poznan speeches was totally invalid. I haven't heard from you since. >> >> Please reassure me that you're not going to drop the issue. >> >> Not emailed to Mr. Raven, as per his repeated request. >I am not going to drop the issue. I am, however, still busy, and your >message is quite long, as you might remember. I have saved it, and will >respond to it asap. Maybe, while you're at it, we can talk historiography one of these days. Just a thought, Chris -- Christopher J. Hoover choover@usd.edu University of South Dakota Disclaimer: standard It's *always* September, *somewhere* on the Net. Article 17268 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!heifetz.msen.com!lpi.pnet.msen.com!user From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Pressac's book Date: Sat, 08 Oct 1994 14:37:43 -0400 Organization: Msen, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, MI (account info: +1 313 998-4562) Lines: 34 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lpi.pnet.msen.com choover@usd.edu (Christopher J Hoover ) wrote: > greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes: > > >k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) wrote: > > >> Mr. Raven -- we last exchanged email three days ago, when I wrote you > >> a long letter explaining again exactly why your analysis of Himmler's > >> Poznan speeches was totally invalid. I haven't heard from you since. > >> > >> Please reassure me that you're not going to drop the issue. > > >I am not going to drop the issue. I am, however, still busy, and your > >message is quite long, as you might remember. I have saved it, and will > >respond to it asap. > > Maybe, while you're at it, we can talk historiography one of these days. Chris, One of the things I brought up with Mr. Raven in that piece of email was your analysis of his (totally bogus) historiography. I believe I offered to email him the excellent article you posted that referenced the book your father co-authored; if I didn't, I make that offer now. So, if he's going to make a complete response, a defense of his (bogus) historiography should be one of his main points. Not that it's very defensible. Emailed and posted. -- 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 17275 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!newsflash.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!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: The Holocaust in history - 10/6 Followup-To: alt.revisionism Date: 6 Oct 1994 06:35 MST Organization: University of Arizona (BPA) Lines: 17 Distribution: world Message-ID: <6OCT199406352523@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... >10/6/46: Senator Bob Taft (R-Ohio) speaks out against the Nuernberg War >Crimes Trials, and throws away his and the Republican partyUs chances for >the presidency in the upcoming elections. That's as stupid as saying that Dewey lost because he had a moustache that reminded people of Hitler. You will note that Taft was not even the nominee in the end, that there was labor unrest in the steel industry, that there was racial unrest in the South leading to a Dixiecrat party, that there was fallout from the dropping of the atomic bomb (pun intended), and that there was lots of hoopla over the beginning of the cold war. Anything Taft may have said about Nurenburg has to be measured against all of the other issues of the day. In the end it was at best a small issue in the election. =========================================================================== daniel david mittleman - danny@arizona.edu - (602) 621-2932 Article 17289 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail From: mstein@access3.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Raven distorts Pressac once more (*yawn*) Date: 9 Oct 1994 00:45:20 -0400 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA Lines: 47 Message-ID: <377sh0$b00@access3.digex.net> References: <0FVZk0yNUUWH069yn@world.std.com> <36lmb0$b5b@access3.digex.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: access3.digex.net Not content to leave well enough alone after being caught distorting p. 181 of Pressac (he's run away from my challenge to submit his paraphrase to an independent panel of English teachers for comparison with Pressac's original text), In article , Greg Raven wrote: >In article <36lmb0$b5b@access3.digex.net>, mstein@access3.digex.net >(Michael P. Stein) wrote: >> Pressac is very interesting because he almost became a "revisionist" >> himself. However, he saw holes in Faurisson's arguments and investigated >> the matter himself. > >What is your evidence for this? I know that Pressac has said this, but in >the new book by Berenbaum et al (Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp?), >Pressac's bio contains the information that he was on the Klarfeld's >payroll as early as 1982. As AnnyA666@aol.com posted, Greg Raven (who, it must be remembered, is so intimately familiar with Pressac's book that he thought he was entitled to sneer at me, "If you were familiar with Pressac's work," and refuse to give me the page number I asked for) left something out of his post - that Pressac broke with Faurisson two years before he went on the Klarsfeld payroll. This was in Pressac's book. I am truly shocked that someone so familiar with the book as Mr. Raven could have overlooked that. Is Greg asking me to prove that Pressac is telling the truth about his state of mind? How does he expect me to do that? But I'll make a deal with him. I'll give him proof that Pressac is telling the truth the day Raven proves to me he's an honest, fair-minded individual who can and will objectively evaluate evidence for the existence of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz, or a Nazi plan or policy to kill Jews. Greg, what's your BEST EVIDENCE that you are both consistent and honest in evaluating the evidence for historical occurrences? Perhaps Mr. Raven could ask Dr. Faurisson what he thinks about Pressac's intentions before the break, and go by that. That is - assuming Dr. Faurisson will speak to Mr. Raven. You see, the night I had dinner with Faurisson, when Raven's name came up, Dr. Faurisson muttered the name and got an expression on his face that I usually associate with someone who has just stepped in dogshit. But maybe it was just that the Indian food didn't agree with him. As Bradley Smith might say, who can tell. -- 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 17337 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!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: Greg Raven, historian extraodinaire Date: 10 Oct 1994 00:42:10 GMT Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe Lines: 49 Message-ID: <37a2l2$ga4@agate.berkeley.edu> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu In article , Greg Raven wrote: >10/6/46: Senator Bob Taft (R-Ohio) speaks out against the Nuernberg War >Crimes Trials, and throws away his and the Republican party's chances for >the presidency in the upcoming elections. Alt.revisionism readers may be interested in the following, which I quote without comment. Richard Schultz ============================================ Senator Robert A. Taft, Republican, of Ohio, charged today at the Kenyon College conference of the heritage and responsibility of the English-speaking peoples that the verdict at Nuremberg was a miscarriage of justice which the American people would long regret. The Senator said that at Nuremberg, the United States had helped clothe vengeance in the forms of legal procedure. . . Senator Taft deplored the decree of death by hanging for eleven German leaders and for a twelfth who was tried in absentia. In a reply to a question from the floor, he contended that life imprisonment, "just as was given Napoleon," would have been sufficient punishment. . . . Professor [Harold J.] Laski [of the University of London Political Science department] challenged the consistency of the Senator's remarks, asserting that if it were proper judicial porcedure to send a man to prison for life in an ex-post-facto proceeding, it was equally proper to impose a more severe penalty. -- New York Times, 6 October 1946, page 1 REPUBLICANS CONTROL CONGRESS WITH 51 IN SENATE, 249 IN HOUSE -- LANDSLIDE RESULT -- Party Also Has Majority of Governors in the Nationwide Overturn -- New York Times, 7 November 1946, page 1 headline Senator Robert A. Taft, Republican, of Ohio, reviewing the election results, today declared that "for the first time in fourteen years the United States no longer is in a state of emergency." "The results of the election show that the American people definitely are opposed to giving an arbitraty central government the power and money to regulate their daily lives," he continued. "Under Republican leadership we can sit down calmly and work out the constructive measures necessary for peace, for full employment under private enterprise and for social welfare, while leaving the people free to run their own affairs." -- New York Times, 7 November 1946 Article 17354 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!torn!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!news From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Collins: Out of the Closet Date: Sun, 09 Oct 1994 21:52:02 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 87 Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <1994Oct05.234523.1724@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: greg-ihr.earthlink.net X-Newsreader: NewsHopper Demo In article <1994Oct05.234523.1724@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>, kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) wrote: >Right-wing columnist Doug Collins came out of the closet yesterday and >denied the Holocaust occurred. > >"I don't believe in the gas-chamber story," he said. "I don't believe >the six-million figure." Not believing that six million Jews died as a plan or policy of the Nazis is NOT the same as denying the Holocaust. >Collins, whose columns for the North Shore News are being reprinted by >a prominent anti-Semitic group in the U.S., claimed only one million >Jews died - of starvation and disease and not in gas chambers. The Institute for Historical review is NOT an anti-Semitic group. The IHR has no official position on the number of Jews who died during the Second World War. >Several of his columns have been reprinted in the journal of the >Institute for Historical Review. The Newport Beach, Calif., >organization is described by Nazi-fighters as a cornerstone of the >U.S. neo-Nazi movement. Poor description. The IHR has nothing to do with Nazis, neo or otherwise, on any organizational basis. If Nazis, neo or otherwise, or anyone else wishes to make use of the findings of our research, that is their affair. The IHR is non-political. >The group's publications include The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, >The Auschwitz Myth and Is the Diary of Anne Frank Genuine? > >"It is the headquarters for the Holocaust-denial movement," said >University of B.C. history professor Christopher Friedrichs. Again, false. The IHR does NOT deny the Holocaust. >"No serious historian would waste his time debating whether (the >Holocaust) took place. It's like asking if the First World War took >place." The IHR does not Rwaste ... time debating whether (the Holocaust) took place.S We investigate specific Holocaust related claims for accuracy. >Said Ken McVay, the Vancouver Island man who fights Nazi propaganda on >the Internet: "It's sort of hitting the big time of racism by >associating with these guys." False. This is an unsupported and unsupportable statement. >"The motive behind it goes back to Hitler-cleansing. They want fascism >to become respectable. To become respectable you must get rid of the >Holocaust." Utterly false. The motive is accuracy in reporting the historical record. The IHR rejects the implication that the truth leads to facism, just as it does the implication that falsehoods lead to other, non-facist forms of government. >Collins said he is not a member of the IHR, but attended one of its >conventions in 1990 to speak about his experiences as a Second World >War prisoner. The IHR has no members. During his speech, Collins made quite clear that he does not agree with all the positions taken by the IHR. >Said Dr. Robert Krell, president of the Vancouver Holocaust Centre >Society for Education and Remembrance: "It saddens me that in this day >and age of accessible factual information that what happened is >distorted for other means. We do not have to look far in our world >today to see the evidence of renewed racist assaults and genocides." Inaccurate and nonsequitous. The IHR is increasing our store of factual information, not decreasing it. The IHR is not knowingly distorting anything. REvidence of ... racist assaults and genocidesS has nothing to do with the work of the IHR. Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) For free information about historical revisionism, the IHR can be reached at: P.O. Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659 The IHR publishes a bi-monthly journal, The Journal of Historical Review Subscriptions are $40 per year (six issues) Article 17355 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!torn!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!news From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Debunk these exterminationist LIES! Date: Sun, 09 Oct 1994 21:52:06 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 35 Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <3710os$4e0@eis.calstate.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: greg-ihr.earthlink.net X-Newsreader: NewsHopper Demo In article , k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) wrote: >I've been waiting for a long time for someone who will actually >dedicate some time to discussing the issues with me, because it is >my firm belief that the only barriers to proving that Holocaust-denial >is a load of bull are dedication and time. All I want is one denier, >the more prominent the better, to commit to sticking to one topic for >as long as it takes to hash it out. That's all I need. > >And I'll have to keep waiting, because no one has taken me up on that >yet. (Though I'm still holding out for the possibility that Mr. Raven >will continue to discuss Poznan with me; I haven't yet dismissed the >possibility that his failure to respond is due solely to software and >network difficulties.) So wait I will. I am happy to see that that McCarthy does not explicitly call me a Rdenier,S as I am not such. However, it is misleading for him to claim to be waiting for a RdenierS to debate, when a non-denier, myself, has for months urged him and others like him to stick to the one simple topic I proposed. He and the others, of course, have not only failed to stick to the topic, they have, as far as I can tell, failed to respond substantively. If Mr. McCarthy would accept a single-topic discussion with me instead of a Rdenier,S he knows where to find me. Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) For free information about historical revisionism, the IHR can be reached at: P.O. Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659 The IHR publishes a bi-monthly journal, The Journal of Historical Review Subscriptions are $40 per year (six issues) Article 17356 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!torn!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!news From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Debunk these exterminationist LIES! Date: Sun, 09 Oct 1994 21:52:09 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 24 Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <3722sh$e1r@newsbf01.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: greg-ihr.earthlink.net X-Newsreader: NewsHopper Demo In article <3722sh$e1r@newsbf01.news.aol.com>, annya666@aol.com (AnnyA666) wrote: >In article , >k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) writes: > >< All I want is one denier, > References: <36u5pu$k1o@agate.berkeley.edu> <36vln2$nvi@newsbf01.news.aol.com> <3717bq$equ@access4.digex.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: greg-ihr.earthlink.net X-Newsreader: NewsHopper Demo In article <3717bq$equ@access4.digex.net>, mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote: >In article <36vln2$nvi@newsbf01.news.aol.com>, >AnnyA666 wrote: >>Funny thing about German...words like "exekutiert" mean exactly what they >>sound like. I've noticed that deniers take a powder when you bring up the >>Einsatzgruppe Reports. > > Actually, Greg Raven *is* willing to address them. He merely said a) >they were exaggerated (though he gives absolutely no evidence to support >this claim), and b) the fact that they list the murder of hundreds of >thousands of Jews is in no way evidence of a plan or policy of killing >Jews. (He did admit this was a fine point.) The lengths to which some people will go to misrepresent the revisionist position is breathtaking. You do not need to take my word for it that the Einsatzgruppen reports are exaggerated. Check what the reports claim to be the death toll, and check to see what Hilberg says is the death toll. You will see, I believe, that Hilberg does not believe that all deaths claimed by the Einsatzgruppen actually occurred. I have never said anything about plans or policy with regards to the Einsatzgruppen. My statements about plans and/or policies are related to the alleged gas chambers. Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) For free information about historical revisionism, the IHR can be reached at: P.O. Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659 The IHR publishes a bi-monthly journal, The Journal of Historical Review Subscriptions are $40 per year (six issues) Article 17358 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!torn!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!news From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Mass paperback edition of Pressac???? Date: Sun, 09 Oct 1994 21:52:14 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 25 Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <-54bk0yNU68E069yn@world.std.com> <1994Oct7.114055.23012@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de> <3780hc$c57@access3.digex.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: greg-ihr.earthlink.net X-Newsreader: NewsHopper Demo In article <3780hc$c57@access3.digex.net>, mstein@access3.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote: >In article , > wrote: >>Wrong. With the appearance of the mass-paperback edition, Pressac added >>several appendixes which dealt with questions of documentation, etc. Good >>stuff. > > Huh? When did this come out? I've been lugging that 11"x17" >hardcover of "Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers" to >the photocopier for nothing? I believe the hardcover edition was sent to libraries and research facilities. The RpaperbackS edition was the one sold to customers, from what I have been able to tell. Both editions are the same size. Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) For free information about historical revisionism, the IHR can be reached at: P.O. Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659 The IHR publishes a bi-monthly journal, The Journal of Historical Review Subscriptions are $40 per year (six issues) Article 17359 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!torn!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!news From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Mechanics of the hoax? Date: Sun, 09 Oct 1994 21:52:16 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 19 Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <1560600023@cdp> <1994Oct5.230447.30679@miavx1> NNTP-Posting-Host: greg-ihr.earthlink.net X-Newsreader: NewsHopper Demo In article <1994Oct5.230447.30679@miavx1>, bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Raskolnikov) wrote: >See Joseph Halow, Siegerjustiz in Dachau. Druffel Verlag, Berg am See, >> Germany. Halow was a young clerk at Dachau for the Americans and he tells >> it like it was. I think there is an English edition under another title. >> How is that for a start? The English-language edition was published by the Institute for Historical Review under the title, RInnocent at Dachau.S Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) For free information about historical revisionism, the IHR can be reached at: P.O. Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659 The IHR publishes a bi-monthly journal, The Journal of Historical Review Subscriptions are $40 per year (six issues) Article 17370 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!agate!maverick From: maverick@cork.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Vance Maverick) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Debunk these exterminationist LIES! Date: 10 Oct 1994 08:46:51 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 15 Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <3722sh$e1r@newsbf01.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: cork.cs.berkeley.edu In-reply-to: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com's message of Sun, 09 Oct 1994 21:52:09 -0800 In article greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes: > Aside from the fact that I cannot devote hours and hours to this debate, > McCarthy has described exactly what I tried to do, that is, state a simple > topic, and then discuss it. Neither McCarthy nor anyone else on this > newsgroup choose to stick to the topic. Now he wants to? He knows where he > can find me! Lest this start to look like Greg and Jamie shouting mere contradictory assertions, let me record what I saw as a lurker: far from "stating a simple topic", Greg stated an extremely broad topic (the entire Holocaust) with a crippling, silly restriction on the form of debate -- the infamous "best single piece of evidence". There's a big difference between a topic and a piece of evidence.... Vance Article 17404 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!torn!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!world!bzs From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Subject: Re: Debunk these exterminationist LIES! In-Reply-To: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com's message of Sun, 09 Oct 1994 21:52:09 -0800 Message-ID: Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Organization: The World References: <3722sh$e1r@newsbf01.news.aol.com> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 20:43:58 GMT Lines: 18 From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) >Aside from the fact that I cannot devote hours and hours to this debate, >McCarthy has described exactly what I tried to do, that is, state a simple >topic, and then discuss it. Neither McCarthy nor anyone else on this >newsgroup choose to stick to the topic. Now he wants to? He knows where he >can find me! What claptrap, you have devoted hours and hours to repeating over and over that you cannot devote hours and hours. Such transparent claptrap. -- -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 17499 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!swrinde!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: What Holocaust could be so proved? Followup-To: alt.revisionism Date: Wed, 12 Oct 1994 22:04:33 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 41 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com In article , k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) wrote: > Over the past few months, Mr. Raven has made it abundantly clear that > he will settle for one (or possibly two) pieces of evidence, and that > those alone must prove the Holocaust. Mr. Raven has defined the > Holocaust as inherently involving gas chambers, and he insists that > the evidence specifically address gas chambers. He has refused even to > look at evidence regarding a gassing of 900 Russian POWs, because they > weren't Jewish, and Mr. Raven has defined the Holocaust to deal > exclusively with Jews. As usual, my comments are being completely mischaracterized. I have NEVER said that I want to see the one piece of evidence that proves the Holocaust. I have said that I want to discuss the claim that there was a Nazi plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers, and that I want to discuss this claim by looking at the best evidence first. I do not define the Holocaust as a single event, or even as only those events that include gas chambers. I agree that a holocaust took place. What I am trying to get at is what comprises that holocaust? I contend that there is no evidence to support claims that homicidal gas chambers were part of the Holocaust. As to Keren's "evidence," Keren did not supply evidence, he supplied testimonies. Testimonies may support evidence, but they are not themselves evidence. Even if Keren's testimonies were evidence, my request was specifically for evidence of a Nazi plan or policy to exterminate Jews in gas chambers. Keren's testimony about a "trial gassing" of Russion POW is 'way off point. -- Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) For free information, write to: 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 17500 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Himmler's speech Followup-To: alt.revisionism Date: Wed, 12 Oct 1994 22:14:40 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 36 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com I fail to understand how so many people in alt.revisionism could be so interested in what I have to say about Himmler's speech of Oct 4, and yet have missed what I had to say about this earlier. I will not recreate the entire message, but briefly my point was this: There are only two ways to look at Himmler's speech, if you are looking for evidence that the Nazis had a plan or policy of exterminating the Jews in gas chambers, which as anyone knows who has been paying attention, is what I have repeatedly asked to discuss. The first way of looking at it is to see what it says, without comparing the speech to anything else. Himmler says some grim things, but he does not mention gas chambers. Thus, if this is the best evidence of the use of gas chambers to kill Jews, we see there is no evidence. The second way of looking at it is to compare it with other similar speeches he made at about that same time. In December of that same year, Himmler gave basically the same speech (yes, this so-called "secret" plan to exterminate the Jews was apparently either not so secret or not so much of an extermination that Himmler told audience after audience about it), only he was more clear about what was happening to the Jews. In this speech, which I have posted earlier and will not repost now, Himmler makes no mention of gas chambers, but does say roughly what is happening to the Jews. It is still grim business, but there are no gas chambers involved. Is this really what everyone has been in a lather about? -- Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) For free information, write to: 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 17502 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!world!bzs From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Subject: Re: What Holocaust could be so proved? In-Reply-To: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com's message of Wed, 12 Oct 1994 22:04:33 -0800 Message-ID: Followup-To: alt.revisionism Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Organization: The World References: Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 06:27:28 GMT Lines: 65 From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) >I do not define the Holocaust as a single event, or even as only those >events that include gas chambers. I agree that a holocaust took place. What >I am trying to get at is what comprises that holocaust? I contend that >there is no evidence to support claims that homicidal gas chambers were >part of the Holocaust. Here, a stunningly specific and clear excerpt from a report written by SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Alfred Franke-Gricksch for SS-Colonel M. Von Herff and RF-SS Heinreich Himmler describing gassing and cremation of Jews at Auschwitz after an inspection on May 14-16, 1943. Includes the estimate of 500,000 victims thus far. Now, unless you can prove this is somehow a forgery, or that somehow this report written by one Nazi officer for two other Nazi officers of the highest ranks and in the course of their duties was somehow fabricated or done under duress I think we are done. You may consider any other evidence as supporting, of course. But it is hard to conceive of a more convincing bit of evidence than the following internal Nazi government report prepared for themselves: -------------------- "..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 17512 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!ctp.org!not-for-mail From: jpark@eis.calstate.edu (John Park) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Himmler's speech Date: 13 Oct 1994 08:15:20 -0700 Organization: California Technology Project of The Calif State Univ Lines: 71 Message-ID: <37jiu8$sgc@eis.calstate.edu> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: eis.calstate.edu greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes: > I fail to understand how so many people in alt.revisionism could be so > interested in what I have to say about Himmler's speech of Oct 4, and yet > have missed what I had to say about this earlier. > Well, gee Greg. Going for many months between postings do make for a tendancy to wonder where in the world you are. > I will not recreate the entire message, but briefly my point was this: > I think you should recreate or repost earlier messages. There might be some flaky newsreaders out there. > There are only two ways to look at Himmler's speech, if you are looking for > evidence that the Nazis had a plan or policy of exterminating the Jews in > gas chambers, which as anyone knows who has been paying attention, is what > I have repeatedly asked to discuss. > Well, golly gee Greg. I thought you wanted the best evidence for the Holocaust, not use of gas chambers. I thought the Holocaust was a plan to exterminate the Jews and that gas chambers were one of the techniques used. It seems to you that Himmler saying more-or-less that they intend to exterminate the Jews is not evidence that they intend to use gas chambers. I suppose you then have agreed, by your silence, that there was a plan to exterminate the Jews. Good. Now, move on to the evidence that gas chambers were used. > The first way of looking at it is to see what it says, without comparing > the speech to anything else. Himmler says some grim things, but he does not > mention gas chambers. Thus, if this is the best evidence of the use of gas > chambers to kill Jews, we see there is no evidence. > See, here's the trap. Suppose someone submits evidence about gas chambers. Then you say "Ah, but the _best evidence_ for gas chambers has already ben submitted to me and it wasn't evidence at all. Yours must be a forgery." > The second way of looking at it is to compare it with other similar > speeches he made at about that same time. In December of that same year, > Himmler gave basically the same speech (yes, this so-called "secret" plan > to exterminate the Jews was apparently either not so secret or not so much > of an extermination that Himmler told audience after audience about it), > only he was more clear about what was happening to the Jews. In this > speech, which I have posted earlier and will not repost now, Himmler makes > no mention of gas chambers, but does say roughly what is happening to the > Jews. It is still grim business, but there are no gas chambers involved. > The so-called "secret" plan. Maybe Himmer didn't care who knew because he knew no one could stop them. "will not repost now." Why the hell not? Are you afraid of something? It must be that you feel your side of the story is unsupportable, that's what I think. > Is this really what everyone has been in a lather about? No. What has everyone in a lather is your failure to address the evidence submitted, to play fast-and-loose with the truth, and to use a double standard even more blatant than my rebellious sixteen-year-old stepdaughter. Answer the questions submitted to you time and time again. In addition, don't answer me. I do not have the resources or time. Answer J. McCarthy, Keren, etc. Deal with the May 4th post which they will be happy to repost. Answer how Himmler saying we will exterminate the Jews is not evidence of a plan to exterminate the Jews. Quit with the baby talk. Quit with the manipulative little word games. John Park jpark@eis.calstate.edu Article 17519 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!world!wmcguire From: wmcguire@world.std.com (Wayne McGuire) Subject: Re: Himmler's speech Message-ID: Sender: wmcguire@world.std.com (Wayne McGuire) Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die References: <37jiu8$sgc@eis.calstate.edu> Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 19:31:11 GMT Lines: 69 In article <37jiu8$sgc@eis.calstate.edu>, jpark@eis.calstate.edu (John Park) wrote: //Well, golly gee.... Let me give you some friendly advice. When you say "Well, golly gee" once, not to mention twice, you look like a moron. Could I please have a list of the works you are willing to discuss and defend in this newsgroup? Thanks. My list appears in another message. Feel free to query me about any of the works on the list. With regard to the Himmler speech, I just noticed some interesting relevant material in Mayer on pages 306-307. On January 25, 1942, five days after the Wannsee Conference, Hitler spoke the following words to Himmler: The Jew must get out of Europe. Otherwise we will get no European understanding. The world over he is the chief agitator against us.... All I say is that he must go away. If, in the process, he is bruised, I can't help it. If he does not leave voluntarily, I see no solution other than extermination. Now, this is interesting. Certainly the remarks indicate that the Nazi leadership had the extermination of the Jews on their mind as an option in the early forties. But it also striking that the better option in Hitler's mind in 1942 was migration, evacuation, deportation, or resettlement. According to Mayer, the Nazis did NOT have a deliberate plan in place for exterminating the Jews for as late as the late thirties or early forties. In fact, there is an abundance of evidence that nearly all along they wished to push the Jews out of Germany and Europe, not murder them. That is why they cooperated so closely with Zionists for years. According to Mayer, the Judeocide began in earnest when Germany's drive on the Soviet Union faltered, and all avenues of escape for Jewish emigration were cut off. How would you interpret Hitler's comment above, and do you have any informed and rational criticism of Mayer's thesis? Did the attitudes of Germans towards Jews in the thirties differ very greatly from the current attitude of Israeli Jews towards Arabs? High Israeli leaders have compared Palestinians to cockroaches and insects and wild beasts that need to be crushed. If Israel's back was against the wall and she was facing a military defeat, I have no doubt whatever that Israel would lob nuclear devices all over the Arab world, destroying as many tens of millions of Arabs as possible. I have even seen supporters of Israel on the net claim that Israel would try to destroy as much of the entire world as possible, including the U.S., with a doomsday device if she were facing a military defeat. The crimes of the Nazis were monstrous. How unique they were is another question. Marxists murdered many more innocent civilians than did the Nazis, and while it was happening leading lights of Western opinion like The New York Times couldn't have cared less. If there had been an appropriate response of moral outrage in the West to the crimes of the Soviet Union, it's quite possible that the Holocaust could have been averted. Once the green light was given to that mass murder, other mass murders were inevitable. According to Paul Johnson in Modern Times, Soviet Marxists helped provoke and set the standards for what later came to be known as the Holocaust. He makes a powerful case, one which I am willing to discuss with anyone here who has read his book. Article 17536 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.kei.com!uhog.mit.edu!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15 Followup-To: alt.revisionism Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 22:02:39 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 220 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com At 18:32 10/13/94 -0400, Jamie McCarthy wrote: >By the way, are you planning on mentioning Usenet happenings in the >Journal? We are planning some sort of article relating to revisionism and the Internet, yes. >> I thought I saw and responded to a couple of your replies to the Himmler >> piece. I don't keep a record of either incoming or outgoing posts, however, >> so I cannot repost anything. > >You're using NewsWatcher, right? > >You can set it up to point to a folder that you use to archive articles, >and do mass saves by selecting the articles in the newsgroup window and >just pressing cmd-S. It will then save each article that's selected out >to disk for later browsing. If you'd like more explicit directions, let >me know. I am using NewsWatcher over a serial connection, and this does not seem to work (I had tried it before you suggested it). Perhaps over a PPP connection, it does work. >> 1) the Himmler Posen speech does not >> satisfy the request for "best evidence" because it does not mention gas >> chambers, > >With regards to your first point, you have two alternatives. Either you >can accept proof of the Nazis' plan for mass murder that was carried out >in gas chambers in two parts (one to prove the plan, and another to >prove that it was carried out in gas chambers) -- or, you are insisting >that there be one single piece of evidence that proves all of the >following: (1) that there was a plan, (2) the fact that millions were >killed, (3) the fact that the victims were Jews, and (4) the totally >ancillary fact that the agent of death, in many cases, was a gas chamber. Any proof of the type I envision (remembering that there is alleged to be a mountain of proof from which to choose) would cover all the bases. Saying that the Himmler speech constitutes a "plan," and then introducing some other unconnected piece of evidence about some sort of gas chamber doesn't cut it. Remember, I am not trying to question or disprove all Holocaust claims, just the ones relating to the gas chambers. Therefore, the gas chambers are not "totally ancillary," as you state. What I envision happening is that someone, if not yourself, will admit a) there is NOT a mountain of evidence supporting Holocaust extermination claims (something which should be self-evident at this point), and b) "sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable," so to speak. >If the former -- if you will accept proof in two parts -- then I will be >happy to direct you to other pieces of evidence which detail the gas >chambers' role in the Holocaust. If you have evidence (not testimony, mind you) as to the role of the gas chambers, you should present that first. The Himmler speech has nothing to do with it. >But it appears that you are going to go with the latter, not the former >-- that you are going to insist that one single piece of evidence prove >not only the core of the Holocaust (the plan to exterminate European >Jewry) but one aspect of the _way_ in which it was done. I am NOT asking for a single piece of evidence that proves the "core of the Holocaust," as you put it. I am asking for the BEST piece of evidence that supports the claim that the Nazis had a plan or policy of exterminating Jews in gas chambers. >My question to you, then, would be: why? Why will you not accept >Himmler's saying "the Jews are being exterminated," if you _would_ >accept him saying "the Jews are being exterminated in gas chambers"? Trick question, right? Himmler never says that Jews are being exterminated in gas chambers, so I wouldn't accept that, either. However, not to put too fine a point on it, neither I nor other revisionists I know claim that the Nazis did not persecute a large number of Jews. I accept what Himmler said about Jews being exterminated (semantics aside for the moment) because, the way he describes it, that could be regarded as an accurate description of what is happening. >At this point, it seems that your choice of gas chambers is totally >arbitrary. Why does Himmler have to mention gas chambers and not, >e.g., the Einsatzgruppen, or the fact that Jews were being worked to >death at Auschwitz? What rationale do you have for insisting on this? My choice of the gas chambers is far from arbitrary. If you believe it is, then all you have to do is admit that there were no homicidal gas chambers, and then see how many of your so-called friends remain friendly! The gas chambers are NOT beside the point ... the ARE the point. >> 2) when looked at in the context of other versions of the >> speech given around that same time, we can see that Himmler was not talking >> about gassings of any kind. > >With regard to your second point, I still don't get what you're saying. >The snippet you posted from December 1943 was of Himmler talking about >his actions in villages, against what he referred to as "partisans or >Jewish commissars." He stated that, in these villages, he was killing >the partisans and Jewish commissars down to the women and children. > >Now, I guess your claim is that, because Himmler said in December that >he was killing Jewish commissars (and others) in villages, then in >October he could not possibly have been speaking of what was going on >in gas chambers in Auschwitz. Do I have that right? No. I am saying that what Himmler is talking about is the so-called "extermination" previously referred to. I agree that he COULD have been gassing millions in Auschwitz and elsewhere too, for that matter. But let's see some evidence of these gassings. That is the point. >Perhaps I don't understand what you meant by "other versions of the >speech given around that same time." Is it your claim that Himmler was >giving nearly the same speech, and simply chose to rephrase that part >slightly differently, keeping the same meaning? If so, you may be >a little confused. There were two speeches at Poznan, on the 4th and >6th of October. The excerpt from the December speech you quote sounds a >lot like a section of the October 6th speech, in which he asks "how was >it with the women and children?" and explains that they had to die as >well. But that's different from the October 4th speech. And it's the >October 4th speech that I'm quoting: "'The Jewish people will be >exterminated,' says every Party member, 'this is very obvious, it is in >our program -- elimination of the Jews, extermination, will do.'" >Different versions of the October 6th speech will provide insight as to >nuances of meaning in _that_ speech, of course, but will have no impact >on the October 4th speech. Well, we differ in our interpretations of this (off point) detail. I believe that Himmler's speeches of October 4 and 6, as well as others of the time (including the December speech), are variations on the same theme. The way I remember it, Himmler was giving the same basic speech to group after group. Because he was to some extent speaking extemporaneously, each version was slightly different in actual verbiage, but the intended message was similar, if not the same. This, however, is a minor point, as none of this concerns the so-called gas chambers. >Finally, I will address the other two points you made: that you might >argue that it's a forgery, and that, in your words, "even if it did >mention gas chambers, it would not be evidence, it would still be >nothing more than a speech." > >Regarding the possible-forgery argument: my response is, if you have a >case, make it! If you don't have a case, drop it. There's so much to >discuss that I have little patience for hints and innuendo. I merely mentioned this because others have brought it up. If and when we get some agreement on the gas chamber issue, we can discuss the ins and outs of Himmler's speech, if you wish. However, this is a pretty small detail, and not really worth discussing at this point. What I am saying is that even if the commonly-held version of Himmler's speech is completely accurate and genuine, it still has no bearing on the gas chamber issue. >Regarding speeches not being evidence, I have two replies. The first is >that, indeed, speeches most certainly are evidence that historians use >to evaluate what happened at some point in history. Christopher Hoover >wrote a marvelous discussion of how historians use oral testimony, and >he should know. His father, a professional historian, is the author of >the 1975 book _The Practice of Oral History_. Mr. Hoover has worked >with his father rather extensively, as I understand it, and is well >qualified to represent his views (and those of the co-authors of that >book). I will agree that "oral history" is a type of history, but it is hardly unimpeachable. I would be more inclined to accept an oral history about something of little import, or of something that could not possibly have any evidence. However, the construction and use of multiple homicidal gas chambers for the destruction of hundreds of thousands of human beings cannot be said to be such a trivial matter that no physical evidence exists. >The second reply to "speeches are not evidence" regards a comment you >made _after_ you said that speeches are not evidence, a comment which I >found truly interesting. While this doesn't directly relate to the >Poznan speeches, I found it very curious. I'll simply repeat what I >wrote on September 20th, and if you choose to reply, fine. > >> if there was >> evidence to support the existence of homicidal gas chambers, then this >> speech would support that evidence, > >Let me be sure I understand that sentence, Mr. Raven. You're saying >that, if I provide you with evidence that gas chambers were used to >kill Jews en masse, then Himmler's Poznan speeches would indeed be >corroborative evidence that would strengthen the evidence of the >gas chambers? No, because there is no linkage between the two. >Because you've previously pooh-poohed the concept of corroboration, >of "convergence of evidence" as the buzzword du jour has it. > >But now you say that Himmler's speech "would support" evidence of >gas chambers. That is nothing less than an affirmation of the >concept of convergence of evidence. > >So I'll assume you now accept that concept, Mr. Raven, unless you >tell me otherwise. "Convergence of evidence" is something else, as I understand it, which is to say that none of the so-called "evidence" is enough to stand alone, so one must prop it up with other "evidence" that is also not enough by itself. I reject this methodology. Let me give you a trivial example. If you and one hundred of your friends swore to me that there was a 15-story MacDonald's hamburger stand in your city, I would doubt your claims (even if I had never been in your city). However, if I had seen the building, photos of the building, or some other tangible, physical evidence of the building's existence, and then you or someone made a statement relative to this monster burger hut, it would be a fairly simple matter to evaluate your claim based on the actual evidence. -- Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) For free information, write to: 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 17540 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: The other Himmler Followup-To: alt.revisionism Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 07:25:38 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 57 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com May 1940 memo to Hitler: RI hope to see the complete elimination of the concept of the Jew through the possibility of a large-scale emigration of all Jews to Africa or otherwise in a colony;S Rout of inner convictionS the idea of Rphysical elimination of a people [must be rejected] as un-Germanic and impossible.S October 29, 1942 letter to Inspector General Richard Gluecks and Gestapo head Heinrich Mueller: REffective immediately, I authorize that the prisoners may receive food packages from their relatives. The number of packages that a prisoner may receive is unlimited. This order includes not only Germans but all other prisoners I Any SS member who takes away a food package from a prisoner will be punished with death.S November 20 (or 30?), 1942 letter to Gestapo chief Mueller in response to an announcement by Rabbi Stephen Wise of the American Jewish Congress and World Jewish Congress that the Germans were exterminating the Jews: RYou are to see to it that an investigation is carried out at once in all quarters to find out if there have been any such abuses, as claimed in the doubtless mendacious rumors disseminated in the world. All such abuses are to be reported to me on the SS oath of honor.S December 15, 1942 letter to camp administration chief Oswald Pohl: urges more raw vegetables in the camp diet to improve the inmatesU health. December 28, 1942: orders camp commandants to reduce the death rate at all costs. January 1943 directive to concentration camp officials: RThe responsible SS leaders are to see to it that, while we have to be hard and cannot tolerate softness, no brutality is to be allowed either.S February 16, 1943 memo from Brandt to Kaltenbrunner: RThe ReichsFhrer SS [Himmler] does not wish the transport of Jews from Theresienstadt because that would disturb the tendency to permit the Jews in the old peopleUs ghetto of Theresienstadt to live and die there in peace.S March 5, 1943 letter to Oswald Pohl: give serious attention to setting up a brothel at Buchenwald; trained workers must receive a salary; every man in camp must have the opportunity to visit the camp brothel once or twice a week. 1943-44: Fully supports extensive internal SS investigation of reports of murder and mistreatment of inmates in the camps. February 10, 1944 letter to HitlerUs secretary Martin Bormann: Majdanek commandant Herman Florstedt has been arrested because of the terrible conditions at the camp; Rabuses are being ruthlessly rooted out and remedied in a sweeping judicial action.S -- Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) For free information, write to: 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 17542 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!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: Himmler's speech Date: 14 Oct 1994 07:16:33 GMT Organization: Brown University Lines: 104 Message-ID: <37lb8h$4i8@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> References: <37jiu8$sgc@eis.calstate.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu Wayne McGuire wrote: # According to Mayer, the Nazis did NOT have a deliberate plan in # place for exterminating the Jews for as late as the late thirties # or early forties. It's hard to say when exactly the decision to physically exterminate the Jews was arrived at. Personally, I think the idea was always there, but even the Nazis needed to pass some psychological barrier before deciding to kill millions of men, women and children. A truly remarkable document on this is the following speech by Frank, governor of Nazi-occupied Poland: Speech by Frank [Governor of occupied Poland], December 16 1941 [Documents on the Holocaust - Edited by Y. Arad, Y. Gutman, A. Margaliot, NY, Ktav Pub. House in Association with Yad-Vashem, 1981, p. 247, Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression - Washington, U.S Govt. Print. Off., 1946 Vol. II p. 634] --------------------------------------------------------------- One way or another -- I will tell you quite openly -- we must finish off the Jews. The Fuehrer put it into words once: should united Jewry again succeed in setting off a world war, then the blood sacrifice shall not be made only by the peoples driven into war, but then the Jew of Europe will have met his end.... But what should be done with the Jews? Can you believe that they will be accommodated in settlements in the Ostland? In Berlin we were told: why are you making all this trouble? We don't want them either, not in Ostland nor in the Reichskommissariat; liquidate them yourselves! Gentlemen, I must ask you to steel yourselves against all considerations of compassion. We must destroy the Jews wherever we find them, and wherever it is at all possible, in order to maintain the whole structure of the Reich... The Jews represent for us also extraordinary malignant gluttons. We have now approximately 2,500,000 of them in the General Government [Nazi occupied Poland], perhaps with the Jewish mixtures and everything that goes with it, 3,500,000 Jews. We cannot shoot or poison those 3,500,000 Jews, but we shall nevertheless be able to take measures which will lead somehow to their annihilation, and this in connection with the gigantic measures to be determined in discussions with the Reich. Frank's words reveal how, slowly, the Nazi policy changed from "resettlement" to "annihilation". # In fact, there is an abundance of evidence that # nearly all along they wished to push the Jews out of Germany and # Europe, not murder them. No, "nearly all along" is hardly accurate. # According to Mayer, the Judeocide began # in earnest when Germany's drive on the Soviet Union faltered, and # all avenues of escape for Jewish emigration were cut off. Is this what he writes? It seems rather strange, because the Nazis began killing every Jew they could find in the USSR immediately after they invaded it. The only ones spared were those who were used for forced labor, and these didn't survive for a long time either. # Did the attitudes of Germans towards Jews in the thirties differ # very greatly from the current attitude of Israeli Jews towards # Arabs? High Israeli leaders have compared Palestinians to # cockroaches and insects and wild beasts that need to be crushed. Can you give the exact citations to this? I recall such a saying was attributed to ex-Chief-of-Staff Refael Eitan, who is indeed a rather vulgar individual. I recall such a saying was also attributed to Begin, but he was talking about terrorists. BTW, I recall Eitan saying he was misunderstood and misquoted. Let's be careful with such attributions. While they might be accurate, we have seen Israel bashers lie very often. We have seen Bradley Smith, for instance, lie about Dr. Krakowski from Yad-va'Shem (Holocaust memorial center in Israel), quoting him as saying something he never said. Gannon also lied about various Holocaust historians, again quoting them as saying something they never said. So, if and when you see such quotes, I suggest you seriously try to verify them. # If Israel's back was against the wall and she was facing a # military defeat, I have no doubt whatever that Israel would lob # nuclear devices all over the Arab world, destroying as many tens # of millions of Arabs as possible. Ok, so you have no doubt. # I have even seen supporters of # Israel on the net claim that Israel would try to destroy as much # of the entire world as possible, including the U.S., with a # doomsday device if she were facing a military defeat. Assuming someone did post this, so what? Is he/she an official representative of the Israeli government? -Danny Keren. Article 17543 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!paris.ics.uci.edu!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Hilberg on the Einsatzgruppen (I) Followup-To: alt.revisionism Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 07:28:23 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 34 Message-ID: References: <36u5pu$k1o@agate.berkeley.edu> <36vln2$nvi@newsbf01.news.aol.com> <3717bq$equ@access4.digex.net> <37j8pc$l80@agate.berkeley.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com In article <37j8pc$l80@agate.berkeley.edu>, schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) wrote: > In article , > Greg Raven wrote: > > >You do not need to take my word for it that the Einsatzgruppen reports are > >exaggerated. Check what the reports claim to be the death toll, and check > >to see what Hilberg says is the death toll. You will see, I believe, that > >Hilberg does not believe that all deaths claimed by the Einsatzgruppen > >actually occurred. > Thus, Hilberg says the death toll was over 900,000, and the reports claim > that it was about one million. Offhand, I would say that this means that > Hilberg does not think that the reports were exaggerated by very much. > > May I suggest that if you are going to lie about the contents of a book, you > find a more obscure one? From the contents of your post, it would seem that you did not do what I suggested. I suggested you compare the reports with what Hilberg says about the reports, roughly. What you have done is compare what Hilberg says about the reports with what Hilberg says about the reports ... or have you really gone through each and every one of these reports, tallying up the Jewish death toll? You would have to have worked very quickly to have done this so soon after my initial posting. -- Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) For free information, write to: 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 17561 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!news.dfn.de!kfk.de!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!stepsun.uni-kl.de!uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de!informatik.uni-kl.de!stschulz From: stschulz@informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Schulz) Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15 Message-ID: <1994Oct14.154635.18638@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de> Sender: news@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de (Unix-News-System) Nntp-Posting-Host: isis.informatik.uni-kl.de Organization: University of Kaiserslautern, Germany References: Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 15:46:35 GMT Lines: 29 In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes: [Gas-chamber obsession - we already dealt with it, but Mr. Raven chooses to ignore it] |> "Convergence of evidence" is something else, as I understand it, which is |> to say that none of the so-called "evidence" is enough to stand alone, so |> one must prop it up with other "evidence" that is also not enough by |> itself. I reject this methodology. You must live in constant state of insecurity. Certainly the fact that a single unsupported piece of rock tends to move downward is not enough evidence for a general law of gravity. Propping it up with thousands and thousends of other examples of dropping items is not a viable methodology (especially if a small child cites "my baloon flew UP" - contradicting the vast majority of the other testimonies). So, how do you come to any conclusions? Almost everything accepted as fact on this planet is the result of many different observations, and most of these observations would not, taken alone, be enough to be considered a (juristic? common sense?) proof. Stephan -------------------------- It can be done! --------------------------------- Please email me as stschulz@informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Schulz) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Article 17578 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!zib-berlin.de!gs.dfn.de!gwdu03.gwdg.de!uroessl1 From: uroessl1@gwdu03.gwdg.de (Roessler Ulrich) Subject: Re: The other Himmler Message-ID: <33GTBG8F@gwdu03.gwdg.de> Organization: GWDG, Goettingen References: Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 20:25:34 GMT Lines: 9 greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes: [Out of context quotes deleted] Could you please use simple ASCII code. - Your "quotes" come in a questionable shape through the net, i.e. without references to your sources and moreover disfigured with "M-R"s etc. u.roessler uroessl1@gwdg.de Article 17579 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!zib-berlin.de!gs.dfn.de!gwdu03.gwdg.de!uroessl1 From: uroessl1@gwdu03.gwdg.de (Roessler Ulrich) Subject: Revisionist Practice Revisited Message-ID: Organization: GWDG, Goettingen References: Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 21:50:30 GMT Lines: 62 Revisionist theory is a bit shaky recently. - Bradley Smith said one key-subject would be 'no plan', while Greg Raven now said, that Himmler had some grim things to say about Jews in his Posen-speech. Though, it's still unclear, whether in Mr.Raven's opinion Himmler speaks about a plan to exterminate the Jews ("it's in our program, elimination (Ausschaltung) of the Jews and we're doing it, extermination (Ausrottung) is what we're doing."), and whether this plan was already implemented in the Nazi policy by october 1943 ("Most of you must know what it means when 100 corpses are lying side by side, or 500, or 1,000.") ... So let's have a glance at Revisionist practice instead : Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) writes: >9/26/88: 'The Christian News' reproduces a map issued by the International >Tracing Service (ITS) that shows Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, and Dachau as >concentration camps, not as death camps. The so-called death camps are >shown as being Riga Jungfernof, Minsk, Treblinka II, Chelmno, Sobibor, and >Belzec. For one thing, Mr.Raven posting this seems to admit, that there were 'death camps', i.e. camps with a killing-facility and the sole purpose to kill Jews there. Why should he otherwise think this quote interesting? But he'll surely deny this. The list of the death camps is incomplete though, but Auschwitz-Birkenau, and Majdanek were concentration camps - and death-camps in the same place. In Riga, Minsk, Chelmno (and Semlin in Yugoslavia) gas-vans were used. Treblinka II (Treblinka I was a forced-labor camp for Polish POWs), Sobibor and Belzec were the death camps of the Reinhard action. So far the quote isn't unreasonable. (see e.g. R.Hilberg: The destruction of the European Jews). >The accompanying article points out that at one time the >International Red Cross said that about 300,000 Jews died during WWII from >all causes. Now, the International Red Cross never said anything like this. In a small useful booklet (W.Benz (ed.): Legenden Luegen Vorurteile, dtv: Muenchen 1982), which investigates revisionist and other lies, two letters by the IRC to the former head of the Inst.f.Zeitgeschichte, H.Krausnick, are printed in facsimile (pp.108-111). Both letters state, that the IRC had never published numbers about Jewish victims during WWII, and would never do so. The number of 300,000 Jews mentioned above must therefore be fabricated, and the attribution to the IRC is false. It is interesting that these letters were written in 1955 and 1965. Krausnick subsequently published these letters as rebuttal of Neo-nazi propaganda. And the IRC keeps saying they never issued any estimate about the Jewish victims during WWII. In conclusion, Mr.Raven finds it somehow profitable to his reputation as "Revisionist scholar" to post here old lies, which were proved wrong for 30 or 40 years. u.roessler uroessl1@gwdg.de Article 17584 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu!miavx1!bpharmon Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15 Message-ID: <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1> From: bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Raskolnikov) Date: 15 Oct 94 01:10:10 -0500 Followup-To: alt.revisionism References: Organization: Miami University Lines: 80 In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes: > At 18:32 10/13/94 -0400, Jamie McCarthy wrote: > > Any proof of the type I envision (remembering that there is alleged to be a > mountain of proof from which to choose) would cover all the bases. Saying > that the Himmler speech constitutes a "plan," and then introducing some > other unconnected piece of evidence about some sort of gas chamber doesn't > cut it. Remember, I am not trying to question or disprove all Holocaust > claims, just the ones relating to the gas chambers. Therefore, the gas > chambers are not "totally ancillary," as you state. > > What I envision happening is that someone, if not yourself, will admit a) > there is NOT a mountain of evidence supporting Holocaust extermination > claims (something which should be self-evident at this point), and b) > "sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and > unreliable," so to speak. You've got to be joking. When you first appeared on this group, many months ago via Ross Vicksell, you made a claim just like this one: That no mountain of evidence supporting the Holocaust exists. I responded with a list of thirty-five volumes, taken from Miami University's very meager library. My response to you was there is a mountain of evidence, look at what I was able to find. You then changed your whole argument and said that 35 volumes is too many, and couldn't I just pick one or two documents. Ignoring, of course that this was (in essence) a retraction of your statement that no large body of documentation exists on the Holocaust. What followed soon after was the fabled May 4th posting, which you have never adressed. Would you like me to _repost_ the bibliography for you? At least then you'd know that there are lots of documents out there, even when one looks at a relatively unremarkable state university library. >>My question to you, then, would be: why? Why will you not accept >>Himmler's saying "the Jews are being exterminated," if you _would_ >>accept him saying "the Jews are being exterminated in gas chambers"? > > Trick question, right? Himmler never says that Jews are being exterminated > in gas chambers, so I wouldn't accept that, either. However, not to put too > fine a point on it, neither I nor other revisionists I know claim that the > Nazis did not persecute a large number of Jews. I accept what Himmler said > about Jews being exterminated (semantics aside for the moment) because, the > way he describes it, that could be regarded as an accurate description of > what is happening. !!!!!! So let me get this straight... The only part of the Holocaust you worry about is the gas chambers, and you accept all the rest??? I assume this is true since you agree that Himmler was talking about exterminating the Jews. > "Convergence of evidence" is something else, as I understand it, which is > to say that none of the so-called "evidence" is enough to stand alone, so > one must prop it up with other "evidence" that is also not enough by > itself. I reject this methodology. You reject the methodology of every historian and lawyer in the world. -- ======================================================================= Brian Harmon "We are most unfair to God: we do not allow Miami University him to sin.." Oxford, Ohio 45056 -- Friedrich Nietzsche --------------bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu-------------------------- Article 17585 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!pipex!uunet!world!bzs From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15 In-Reply-To: bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu's message of 15 Oct 94 01:10:10 -0500 Message-ID: Followup-To: alt.revisionism Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Organization: The World References: <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 1994 05:33:17 GMT Lines: 54 In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes: > > Any proof of the type I envision (remembering that there is alleged to be a > mountain of proof from which to choose) would cover all the bases. Saying > that the Himmler speech constitutes a "plan," and then introducing some > other unconnected piece of evidence about some sort of gas chamber doesn't > cut it. Remember, I am not trying to question or disprove all Holocaust > claims, just the ones relating to the gas chambers. Therefore, the gas > chambers are not "totally ancillary," as you state. Once again...(for about the tenth time, so he can make like he hasn't seen it for the tenth time and just keep lying): "..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 17587 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Franke-Gricksch "report" Followup-To: alt.revisionism Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 23:19:38 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com In article , bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) wrote: > Here, a stunningly specific and clear excerpt from a report written by > SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Alfred Franke-Gricksch for SS-Colonel M. Von Herff > and RF-SS Heinreich Himmler describing gassing and cremation of Jews > at Auschwitz after an inspection on May 14-16, 1943. Includes the > estimate of 500,000 victims thus far. > > Now, unless you can prove this is somehow a forgery, or that somehow > this report written by one Nazi officer for two other Nazi officers of > the highest ranks and in the course of their duties was somehow > fabricated or done under duress I think we are done. You may consider > any other evidence as supporting, of course. But it is hard to > conceive of a more convincing bit of evidence than the following > internal Nazi government report prepared for themselves: > (text deleted) Well, I guess it had to happen sooner or later ... the old F-G "report" bobs to the surface again. Before I respond to this, are you saying that this, finally, is the best evidence that the Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate Jews in gas chambers? -- Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) For free information, write to: 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 17588 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15 Followup-To: alt.revisionism Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 23:22:17 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 36 Message-ID: References: <1994Oct14.154635.18638@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com In article <1994Oct14.154635.18638@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de>, stschulz@informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Schulz) wrote: > In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes: > |> "Convergence of evidence" is something else, as I understand it, which is > |> to say that none of the so-called "evidence" is enough to stand alone, so > |> one must prop it up with other "evidence" that is also not enough by > |> itself. I reject this methodology. > > You must live in constant state of insecurity. Certainly the fact that > a single unsupported piece of rock tends to move downward is not > enough evidence for a general law of gravity. Propping it up with > thousands and thousends of other examples of dropping items is not a > viable methodology (especially if a small child cites "my baloon flew > UP" - contradicting the vast majority of the other testimonies). > > So, how do you come to any conclusions? Almost everything accepted as > fact on this planet is the result of many different observations, and > most of these observations would not, taken alone, be enough to be > considered a (juristic? common sense?) proof. I completely reject your analogy. Have you nothing substantive to say to support the claim that the Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in gas chambers? I know I have been asking for this evidence for months now, but until I get it, I intend to keep asking. Someone has to do it. -- Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) For free information, write to: 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 + $1.00 shipping Article 17597 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Was Hitler a great man? Followup-To: alt.revisionism Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 23:25:47 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 58 Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <1994Oct05.234523.1724@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> <37j09r$ko6@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <37lcg2$3qo@netaxs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com In article <37lcg2$3qo@netaxs.com>, btrosko@netaxs.com (Brian Trosko) wrote: > Danny Keren (dzk@cs.brown.edu) wrote: > : Raven, is the following quote from GEnie authentic or not? > : > : Category 15, Topic 4 > : Message 33 Fri Mar 13, 1992 > : G.RAVEN at 03:02 EST > : My only concern is in going after the > : facts. As such, I am not interested in defending Adolf Hitler to my dying > : breath. I will say, however, that he was a great man ... certainly greater > : than Churchill and FDR put together, and possibly the greatest leader of our > : century, if not longer. This is not to say that he was perfect, but he about > : the best thing that could have happened to Germany. > : > > Assuming the quote is authentic (and I have no reason to believe its not, > Mr. Keren...just covering the bases), I am bewildered. What did Hitler do > for Germany that was so great? Sure, maybe there was a unity of purpose > among the Germans who weren't being killed en masse, and maybe the > Fatherland did acquire large tracts of land, at least temporarily. But in > the end result, Germany suffered big time. Aside from large segments of > its population being killed by a government they had trusted up till > then, a large percentage of the German youth died horribly fighting a > futile, stupid war. Was the annexation of France really worth all the > casualties, expecially from a modern perspective? Additionally, as a > direct end result of World War II, half of Germany became a puppet nation > under the control of a hostile foreign power, and remained that way for > almost a half century. If Hitler was such a wonderful leader, why did > the course he charted for his country end up that way? A great leader? > How? Charismatic, I'll grant you (well, to the Germans), but great? Like I said, I have no real interest in defending Hitler. However, 1) he did pull Germany out of a deeper depression than America had, and he did it in less time than FDR. 2) The starting of the Second World War was the result of Britain and France declaring war on Germany, not the other way around. The transparency of their claimed desires for the autonomy of Poland is obvious. Therefore, the wars against France and Britain, while extremely regrettable, cannot be laid fully at Hitler's door. 3) Had not Hitler, virtually alone among the world leaders, accurately accessed the danger of Soviet communism, ALL of Europe would have been part of the Soviet Union, not just part of Germany (and the eastern countries). 4) Although there are some subjective factors involved, it must be admitted that Hitler did gain the confidence of his people in a way that no other 20th century politician did, to the best of my knowledge. None of this makes him good, of course, and I'm not certain that I would have enjoyed living in Nazi Germany, given my political leanings. -- Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) For free information, write to: 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 17604 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: The other Himmler Followup-To: alt.revisionism Date: Sat, 15 Oct 1994 08:10:34 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: <33GTBG8F@gwdu03.gwdg.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com In article <33GTBG8F@gwdu03.gwdg.de>, uroessl1@gwdu03.gwdg.de (Roessler Ulrich) wrote: > greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes: > > [Out of context quotes deleted] > > Could you please use simple ASCII code. - Your "quotes" come > in a questionable shape through the net, i.e. without references > to your sources and moreover disfigured with "M-R"s etc. I apologize. My messages appear normally on my (Mac) screen, so I assumed that everything was fine. I thought my software was supposed to translate "special" characters for easy digestibility by others, but perhaps that is only for other MIME-formatted readers. Does your newsreader support MIME? -- Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) For free information, write to: 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 17605 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!world!bzs From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Subject: Re: Franke-Gricksch "report" In-Reply-To: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com's message of Fri, 14 Oct 1994 23:19:38 -0800 Message-ID: Followup-To: alt.revisionism Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Organization: The World References: Date: Sat, 15 Oct 1994 21:28:37 GMT Lines: 51 From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) >Well, I guess it had to happen sooner or later ... the old F-G "report" >bobs to the surface again. Before I respond to this, are you saying that >this, finally, is the best evidence that the Nazis had a plan or policy to >exterminate Jews in gas chambers? Just respond or admit defeat. Stop playing these transparent and childish games. "..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 17606 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!world!bzs From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15 In-Reply-To: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com's message of Fri, 14 Oct 1994 23:22:17 -0800 Message-ID: Followup-To: alt.revisionism Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Organization: The World References: <1994Oct14.154635.18638@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 1994 21:30:12 GMT Lines: 54 From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) >I completely reject your analogy. Have you nothing substantive to say to >support the claim that the Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate the >Jews in gas chambers? I know I have been asking for this evidence for >months now, but until I get it, I intend to keep asking. Someone has to do >it. You've been handed it on a silver platter. But you retreat back into ``but is this the best single evidence'' bullsh*t and evade it. "..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 17607 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!world!bzs From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Subject: Re: Was Hitler a great man? In-Reply-To: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com's message of Fri, 14 Oct 1994 23:25:47 -0800 Message-ID: Followup-To: alt.revisionism Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Organization: The World References: <1994Oct05.234523.1724@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> <37j09r$ko6@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <37lcg2$3qo@netaxs.com> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 1994 21:42:18 GMT Lines: 83 From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) >Like I said, I have no real interest in defending Hitler. However, 1) he >did pull Germany out of a deeper depression than America had, and he did it >in less time than FDR. And then got Germany flattened. The "thousand year reich" lasted around, well, 12 years at most. Oh right that doesn't count, that was all someone else's fault. Ya know, I can hold up a gas station or liquor store and take all my friends out for a great night too, even unemployed. I suppose that if I end up in jail for it that shouldn't count, that's the police's fault, not mine, I gave them a great time. People like yourself operate on such a grade-school level mentality it's truly staggering. >2) The starting of the Second World War was the >result of Britain and France declaring war on Germany Yeah yeah yeah blah blah blah, Hitler was just a little angel and how dare anyone lay any blame, even some of the most earth-shatteringly pig-headed non-diplomacy the world has witnessed, at his feet? He knew what he was doing, he blew it, 50M or more people died, many of them the people he was claiming to aid (I'd say his fellow countrymen but he was an Austrian after all.) >Therefore, the wars against France and Britain, while >extremely regrettable, cannot be laid fully at Hitler's door. It's a little late for that, buck-o. You shoulda tried Berlin in late spring 1945, there wasn't a door to lay it at. Perhaps we can get a written excuse from the teacher for der Fuehrer. Hitler certainly believed in the "justice" of the battlefield, and he sure got it, in spades. It's unfortunate he had to drag so many people down with him. >3) Had not >Hitler, virtually alone among the world leaders, accurately accessed the >danger of Soviet communism, ALL of Europe would have been part of the >Soviet Union, not just part of Germany (and the eastern countries). Had there not been a winter in Russia in 1943... Gak. >4) >Although there are some subjective factors involved, it must be admitted >that Hitler did gain the confidence of his people in a way that no other >20th century politician did, to the best of my knowledge. Yeah, particularly in April 1945. It's unbelievable that someone can have such a puerile and adolescent view of the world as to believe this garbage. Hitler destroyed his country, got tens of millions of people killed including those he claimed to be helping. It didn't have to be that way. He could have sat down at the tables instead of rolling the tanks, etc. It's happened before and with much more intransigent situations. But, hey, we know what happened. Pride cameth before the fall, in a big, big way. You must be a product of an abusive father or something, hey, but he fed ya and kept the rain off your head, right? So what if he liked to put a red hot poker to your cheek when he was drunk, some things need forgiving... Yikes. -- -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 17632 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!newstf01.cr1.aol.com!newsbf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: annya666@aol.com (AnnyA666) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Himmler's speech Date: 16 Oct 1994 10:28:05 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Lines: 33 Sender: news@newsbf01.news.aol.com Message-ID: <37rd9l$f16@newsbf01.news.aol.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf01.news.aol.com In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes: >... Himmler makes >no mention of gas chambers, but does say roughly what is happening to the >Jews. It is still grim business, but there are no gas chambers involved. >Is this really what everyone has been in a lather about? The lathering, Mr. Raven, seems to be generated by your frantic attempts to backpedal furiously away from the rather unfortunaste public image theIHR has created int he past few years. After years of quesitoning nearly every aspect of the murder of millions of men, women and children during WWII, you suddenly announce that your only intention is to question whether of not there were homicidal gas chambers employing HCN in use by the Third Reich... . I have a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon in my desk: Calvin is asked on a test: What important event took place on December 16, 1773? He responds: "I do not believe in linear time. There is no past and future: all is one, and existence in the temporal sense is illusory. This question, therefore, is meaningless and impossible to answer." He looks at us and comments: "When in doubt deny all terms and definitions." You remind me very much of Calvin, Greg. It's a little late to be narrowing the terms of the argument, I think, especially in light of the volumes published int he past by the IHR, Noontide Press and Carto's organizations--not to mention the hapless imitators. I notice you guys are making no attempt to ensure that you are quoted correctly in publications like Instauration and Truth at Last...Free publicity is good publicity? Article 17639 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!newstf01.cr1.aol.com!newsbf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: annya666@aol.com (AnnyA666) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15 Date: 16 Oct 1994 11:11:03 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Lines: 28 Sender: news@newsbf01.news.aol.com Message-ID: <37rfq7$fkp@newsbf01.news.aol.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf01.news.aol.com In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes: >At 18:32 10/13/94 -0400, Jamie McCarthy wrote: >By the way, are you planning on mentioning Usenet happenings in the >Journal? >>We are planning some sort of article relating to revisionism and the >>Internet, yes. Oh, I hope you guys don't do that! Whenever you write about getting deniers online, every looney-tune wack-o crawls out of the woodwork and clutters up Cyberspace with half-baked conspiracy theories. Show a little responsibility, won't you.? If you let the worms out of the can, at least make an attempt to see that facts are presented correctly and untruths are rebutted. I've seen folks online who read JHR yet hold positions even you guys admit are false. Will you take responsibilty for that? A girl on Prodigy, for instance, regularly quotes IHR literature. She also beleives that the Protocols of the ELders of Zion are the truth and that Anne Frank's diary was written in ball-point pen. Of course you can't be responsible for her misinformation, but when you send out an invitation to your readers to come join the fun, you should try to keep things fair, don't you think? Article 17641 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!swiss.ans.net!news.dfn.de!gs.dfn.de!gwdu03.gwdg.de!uroessl1 From: uroessl1@gwdu03.gwdg.de (Roessler Ulrich) Subject: Re: Was Hitler a great man? Message-ID: Organization: GWDG, Goettingen References: <1994Oct05.234523.1724@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> <37j09r$ko6@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <37lcg2$3qo@netaxs.com> Date: Sun, 16 Oct 1994 15:34:42 GMT Lines: 48 greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes: >Like I said, I have no real interest in defending Hitler. However, 1) he >did pull Germany out of a deeper depression than America had, and he did it >in less time than FDR. What is your single best piece of evidence for this claim? 2) The starting of the Second World War was the >result of Britain and France declaring war on Germany, not the other way >around. The transparency of their claimed desires for the autonomy of >Poland is obvious. Therefore, the wars against France and Britain, while >extremely regrettable, cannot be laid fully at Hitler's door. What is your single best piece of evidence for this claim? >3) Had not >Hitler, virtually alone among the world leaders, accurately accessed the >danger of Soviet communism, ALL of Europe would have been part of the >Soviet Union, not just part of Germany (and the eastern countries). What is your single best piece of evidence for this claim? > 4) >Although there are some subjective factors involved, it must be admitted >that Hitler did gain the confidence of his people in a way that no other >20th century politician did, to the best of my knowledge. What is your single best piece of evidence for this claim? >None of this makes him good, of course, and I'm not certain that I would >have enjoyed living in Nazi Germany, given my political leanings. Your political leanings are unimportant here, yet they are obvious. Judging from the experiences with Mr.Raven's practice here, I don't expect him to answer only one of my four questions. >-- >Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) u.roessler uroessl1@gwdg.de "Das Fuerchterlichste ist, wenn platte unfaehige Menschen zu Phantasten sich gesellen." Article 17642 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!Germany.EU.net!netmbx.de!zib-berlin.de!gs.dfn.de!gwdu03.gwdg.de!uroessl1 From: uroessl1@gwdu03.gwdg.de (Roessler Ulrich) Subject: Re: The other Himmler Message-ID: Organization: GWDG, Goettingen References: <33GTBG8F@gwdu03.gwdg.de> Date: Sun, 16 Oct 1994 15:51:21 GMT Lines: 15 greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes: >I apologize. My messages appear normally on my (Mac) screen, so I assumed >that everything was fine. I thought my software was supposed to translate >"special" characters for easy digestibility by others, but perhaps that is >only for other MIME-formatted readers. Does your newsreader support MIME? No. Apparently the problem are the apostrophs. May be a question of the archaic equipment here in the German backwoods. >-- >Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) u.roessler uroessl1@gwdg.de Article 17644 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: Raven Can't Answer a Simple Question (was: Re: Was Hitler a great m Date: 16 Oct 1994 20:59:03 GMT Organization: Brown University Lines: 25 Message-ID: <37s46n$guh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> References: <1994Oct05.234523.1724@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> <37lcg2$3qo@netaxs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu Why is it impossible to get a straight answer from these "revisionist scholars"? Raven, did you post the excerpt below on GEnie? Yes or no? Can't you answer a simple question? What's the matter with you? Category 15, Topic 4 Message 33 Fri Mar 13, 1992 G.RAVEN at 03:02 EST My only concern is in going after the facts. As such, I am not interested in defending Adolf Hitler to my dying breath. I will say, however, that he was a great man ... certainly greater than Churchill and FDR put together, and possibly the greatest leader of our century, if not longer. This is not to say that he was perfect, but he about the best thing that could have happened to Germany. -Danny Keren. Article 17648 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!jobone!heifetz.msen.com!lpi.pnet.msen.com!user From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15 Date: Sun, 16 Oct 1994 19:51:10 -0400 Organization: Msen, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, MI (account info: +1 313 998-4562) Lines: 37 Message-ID: References: <1994Oct14.154635.18638@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: lpi.pnet.msen.com greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote: > stschulz@informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Schulz) wrote: > > > greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes: > > > > > "Convergence of evidence" is something else, as I understand it, which is > > > to say that none of the so-called "evidence" is enough to stand alone, so > > > one must prop it up with other "evidence" that is also not enough by > > > itself. I reject this methodology. > > > > You must live in constant state of insecurity. Certainly the fact that > > a single unsupported piece of rock tends to move downward is not > > enough evidence for a general law of gravity. Propping it up with > > thousands and thousends of other examples of dropping items is not a > > viable methodology (especially if a small child cites "my baloon flew > > UP" - contradicting the vast majority of the other testimonies). > > I completely reject your analogy. I think it's a very fine analogy. Why do you reject it, Mr. Raven? Would you give a brief explanation? Or will you simply reject it, without comment, leaving your readers to wonder what you're thinking? It's not a very noble debating style, to say "I reject this" and not elaborate. I'm sure it helps you insulate your belief system against the truth. But it won't win you many converts (except those who don't care about the truth in the first place). -- Jamie McCarthy Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu AppleLink: j.mccarthy "I am taking landpost's spelling as correct, I realize that is not risk-free" - Daniel Rice Article 17656 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.clark.net!landpost_ppp.clark.net!user From: landpost@clark.net Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Was Hitler a great man? Date: 17 Oct 1994 00:59:01 GMT Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc. Lines: 51 Message-ID: References: <1994Oct05.234523.1724@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> <37j09r$ko6@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <37lcg2$3qo@netaxs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: landpost_ppp.clark.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In article , uroessl1@gwdu03.gwdg.de (Roessler Ulrich) wrote: > greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes: > > >Like I said, I have no real interest in defending Hitler. However, 1) he > >did pull Germany out of a deeper depression than America had, and he did it > >in less time than FDR. > > What is your single best piece of evidence for this claim? The German Revolution. Greenwood. London 1934. > > > 2) The starting of the Second World War was the > >result of Britain and France declaring war on Germany, not the other way > >around. The transparency of their claimed desires for the autonomy of > >Poland is obvious. Therefore, the wars against France and Britain, while > >extremely regrettable, cannot be laid fully at Hitler's door. > > What is your single best piece of evidence for this claim? The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed. Hoggan. > > >3) Had not > >Hitler, virtually alone among the world leaders, accurately accessed the > >danger of Soviet communism, ALL of Europe would have been part of the > >Soviet Union, not just part of Germany (and the eastern countries). > > What is your single best piece of evidence for this claim? Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War? Suvorow. London. 1991?? > > > 4) > >Although there are some subjective factors involved, it must be admitted > >that Hitler did gain the confidence of his people in a way that no other > >20th century politician did, to the best of my knowledge. > > What is your single best piece of evidence for this claim? Ein anderer Hitler: Bericht seines Architekten Hermann Giesler. Munich > I think that Herr Scharping and Herr Gysi will be seeking other types of work, now that they lost they to Bundeskanzler Kohl. We're partying tonight Stasi boy! Tim McCarthy landpost@clark.net Article 17660 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!kmcvay From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) Subject: Re: Was Hitler a great man? References: Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac Message-ID: <1994Oct17.114059.24794@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 94 11:40:59 GMT In article landpost@clark.net writes: >> >Like I said, I have no real interest in defending Hitler. However, 1) he >> >did pull Germany out of a deeper depression than America had, and he did it >> >in less time than FDR. >> What is your single best piece of evidence for this claim? >The German Revolution. Greenwood. London 1934. Asked for a single best piece of evidence you offer an entire BOOK? >> 2) The starting of the Second World War was the >> >result of Britain and France declaring war on Germany, not the other way >> >around. The transparency of their claimed desires for the autonomy of >> >Poland is obvious. Therefore, the wars against France and Britain, while >> >extremely regrettable, cannot be laid fully at Hitler's door. >> What is your single best piece of evidence for this claim? >The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed. Hoggan. Asked for a single best piece of evidence you offer an entire BOOK? >> >3) Had not >> >Hitler, virtually alone among the world leaders, accurately accessed the >> >danger of Soviet communism, ALL of Europe would have been part of the >> >Soviet Union, not just part of Germany (and the eastern countries). >> What is your single best piece of evidence for this claim? >>Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War? Suvorow. London. 1991?? Asked for a single best piece of evidence you offer an entire BOOK? >> >Although there are some subjective factors involved, it must be admitted >> >that Hitler did gain the confidence of his people in a way that no other >> >20th century politician did, to the best of my knowledge. >> What is your single best piece of evidence for this claim? >Ein anderer Hitler: Bericht seines Architekten Hermann Giesler. Munich Asked for a single best piece of evidence you offer an entire BOOK? Really, Mr. Raven! By your own rules of "evidence," this cannot be permitted. Perhaps if you first offer your _single_ best piece of evidence, so we might understand your position better, we might then procede to consider a second or third, but surely your case cannot rest upon entire books? We loose focus this way, Mr. Raven - please put your entire books aside, and provide what has been requested. -- "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 17665 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!caen!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!news From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15 Date: Sun, 16 Oct 1994 22:27:57 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 28 Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <1994Oct14.154635.18638@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: greg-ihr.earthlink.net X-Newsreader: NewsHopper Demo In article , k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) wrote: >> I completely reject your [Stephan SchulzU] analogy. > >I think it's a very fine analogy. > >Why do you reject it, Mr. Raven? > >Would you give a brief explanation? > >Or will you simply reject it, without comment, leaving your readers to >wonder what you're thinking? As I mentioned from the very first, I will not be coaxed into long and pointless side discussions or metadiscussions. If you are Mr. Schulz have something substantive to say regarding the oft-alleged Nazi plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in gas chambers, then provide that. When you do otherwise, it tends to lead me to the conclusion that you have nothing substantive with which to back up your position on this matter. Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) For free information about historical revisionism, the IHR can be reached at: P.O. Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659 The IHR publishes a bi-monthly journal, The Journal of Historical Review Subscriptions are $40 per year (six issues) Article 17666 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!caen!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!news From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: My email to Mr. Raven re Poznan Date: Sun, 16 Oct 1994 22:27:59 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 32 Distribution: world Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: greg-ihr.earthlink.net X-Newsreader: NewsHopper Demo In article , k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) wrote: >On October 3rd, I emailed a long letter to Mr. Raven (200 lines). >The main topic was his comments on Himmler's Poznan speeches. > >On October 6th, not having received a response, I posted a short >article directed to Mr. Raven, saying: > >> Mr. Raven -- we last exchanged email three days ago, when I wrote you >> a long letter explaining again exactly why your analysis of Himmler's >> Poznan speeches was totally invalid. I haven't heard from you since. >> >> Please reassure me that you're not going to drop the issue. > >Later on the 6th, Mr. Raven responded on Usenet: > >> I am not going to drop the issue. I am, however, still busy, and your >> message is quite long, as you might remember. I have saved it, and will >> respond to it asap. I have now, in fact, responded, the title of the post being something like RHimmlerUs Oct. 4 speech, take 15.S Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) For free information about historical revisionism, the IHR can be reached at: P.O. Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659 The IHR publishes a bi-monthly journal, The Journal of Historical Review Subscriptions are $40 per year (six issues) Article 17667 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!caen!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!news.sprintlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!news From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Raven's May 4th. Myopia... Date: Sun, 16 Oct 1994 22:28:00 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 70 Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <1994Oct12.185450.18685@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> <37hrs8$4ho@eis.calstate.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: greg-ihr.earthlink.net X-Newsreader: NewsHopper Demo In article <37hrs8$4ho@eis.calstate.edu>, jpark@eis.calstate.edu (John Park) wrote: >I believe the original May 4th article listed 10 pieces of evidence >numbered 1 to 10. Mr. Raven was invited to discuss the first item and >then when discussion was done, proceed to the second and so on through >all ten. I do not remember seeing any "evidence" presented this way. The only multiple "evidence message I remember seeing was an early one of Keren's. >I suggest that the next reposting of this letter to Mr. Raven contain >only the first item with an invitation to discuss. The message should >make clear that this is simply the first item, that more remain. This may >assist Mr. Raven by cutting down his processing time >so that a response might be forthcoming in, say, 30 days rather than the >several months it has been to date with still no response. One item at a time would be nice. I don't care how many more remain ... that's up to you. >However, I do realize this gives him an out. He will ask if this is your >"best evidence." If someone falls in the trap, he will point out that the >"best evidence" is probably fake and, even if it is real, it's crummy >evidence because it doesn't mention __________ [fill in the blank]. The >claim will then be "You call this your best evidence and it doesn't even >fit the bill. The rest of your evidence is crap also, since this was your >best. I won't discuss any more with you because your best is rotten to >the core." Aside to Mr. Raven - sure sounds like a great way of >determining the "truth," doesn't it? You are overlooking a couple of very important points. First, it is often (and loudly) claimed that there is a mountain of evidence to support the Holocaust extermination myths, and that it is the best-documented event in history. I have studied this topic for a couple years now, and can truthfully say that I have seen neither hide nor hair of this "mountain of evidence." Because I am a fair-minded person, I don't need a "mountain" to convince me, I just need one piece. Thus, I ask only for one piece. I realize that this is somewhat restrictive, but if there is truly a mountain of evidence, then there should be no problem. If, on the other hand, there is not a mountain of evidence, then someone should come forward and say so. You see, this is but the first step in finding the truth. Either there is a mountain of evidence or there isn't. Now, if we were all together in a room with a big table and you could spread out samples from this mountain, it would be a different matter. But, having participated in this on-line discussions before, I know that it is very difficult to keep everyone on the same "page," so to speak. So, I ask that we look at one piece of evidence at a time. It seems only fair, and judging by the nearly total failure of others is this forum to provide "evidence" to support the claim that the Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in gas chambers, it would seem that my restrictions are well-founded. >What I really believe is that Raven has seen all the posts and will not >respond. This is because he really does know that the Holocaust occured. You are wrong explicitly and implicitly. I have not seen all posts. I have not responded to posts I did not see. I do know the Holocaust occurred, I just do not believe that it involved homicidal gassings. Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) For free information about historical revisionism, the IHR can be reached at: P.O. Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659 The IHR publishes a bi-monthly journal, The Journal of Historical Review Subscriptions are $40 per year (six issues) Article 17669 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!caen!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!world!bzs From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Subject: Re: Raven's May 4th. Myopia... In-Reply-To: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com's message of Sun, 16 Oct 1994 22:28:00 -0800 Message-ID: Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Organization: The World References: <1994Oct12.185450.18685@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> <37hrs8$4ho@eis.calstate.edu> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 06:20:34 GMT Lines: 513 From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) >It seems only fair, and >judging by the nearly total failure of others is this forum to provide >"evidence" to support the claim that the Nazis had a plan or policy to >exterminate the Jews in gas chambers, it would seem that my restrictions >are well-founded. Here, below, more for Raven to ignore and then, in a few days, type in that he's seen no evidence of homicidal gassing by the Nazis. Mr Raven, do you honestly believe you are fooling anyone? Are you really so deluded that you think just because you can type in the words above that they're not just laughable lies? I can type also: Mr Raven knows for a fact that homicidal gassings occurred by the Nazis as he denies above. He has seen incontrovertible evidence many, many times. Why does he then make statements like the above? Either he is insane, or he is seriously deluded, or perhaps he makes his living (or hopes to) from stirring up this controversy like some carnival huckster who knows he doesn't really stick the swords into the woman, but so long as the rubes will pay a dollar per each who is he to say otherwise? Take your pick. My opinion? He's a willful huckster trying to make a buck, and perhaps a little notoriety, from all this lying. As are several so-called "deniers" we've seen here. As P.T. Barnum once said: There's a sucker born every minute. Mr Raven has studied that sentence rather carefully, no doubt. -------------------- 1945 2 April Hitler dictates his will: ``Eternal gratitude will be owed to National Socialism because I exterminated the Jews in Germany and Central Europe''. -------------------- "..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. -------------------- "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 -------------------- 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 -------------------- ``On Wirth's instructions I traveled by truck to Lvov [Lemberg] and picked up a gassing engine there, which I transported to Sobibor...It was a heavy Russian gasoline engine (probably a tank or train engine) of at least 200 horsepower (V-engine, eight cylinders, water cooled). We stood the engine on a concrete base and connected the exhaust to the pipe conduit. Then I tried out the engine. To beign with, it did not function. I managed to repair the ignition and the valves, so that the moter finally started. The chemist, who I already knew from Belzac, entered th gas chamber with a measuring instrument to test the gas concentration. Next, an experimental gassing was carried out. I seem to recall that thirty to forty women were gassed in one chamber. The Jewesses had to undress in a shelter open at the sides, nothing more than a covered piece of wodded ground, near the gas chamber. They were driven into the gas chamber by ... members of the SS as well as Ukranian volunteers. When the women were locked into the gas chamber, I, together with Bauer, operated the engine. Initially the engine idled. We both stood next to the engine and switched from free-exhaust so that the gases were conducted into the chamber. At the suggestion of the chemist, I adjusted the engine to a certain number of revs per minute so that no more gas had to be supplied. After approximately ten minutes all the women were dead. The chemist and the SS Fuhrer gave the signal to switch off the motor. I packed up my tools and saw how the corpses were removed...'' SS-Unterscharfuhrer Erich Fuchs From: "Nazi Mass Murder -- A documentary history of the use of poison gas", Eugen Kogon, Hermann Langbein and Adalbert Ruckerl, ed., Yale University Press, 1993, pp 112-113. -------------------- 1945Testimony of Treblinka's second commandant, Stangl: [Quoted in "BELZEC, SOBIBOR, TREBLINKA - the Operation Reinhard Death Camps", Indiana University Press - Yitzhak Arad, 1987, p. 184]. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Michel [the sergeant-major of the camp] told me later that Wirth suddenly appeared, looked around on the gas chambers on which they were still working, and said: 'right, we'll try it out right now with those twenty-five working Jews. Get them up here'. They marched our twenty-five Jews up there and just pushed them in and gassed them. Michel said Wirth behaved like a lunatic, hitting at his own staff with his whip to drive them on... -------------------- Testimony of SS-Unterscharfuehrer Schluch, In the Belzec-Oberhauser trial: [Quoted in "BELZEC, SOBIBOR, TREBLINKA - the Operation Reinhard Death Camps", Indiana University Press - Yitzhak Arad, 1987, p. 70-71]. --------------------------------------------------------------- After leaving the undressing barracks, I had to show the Jews the way to the gas chambers. I believe that when I showed the Jews the way they were convinced that they were really going to the baths. After the Jews entered the gas chambers, the doors were closed by Hackenholt himself or by the Ukrainians subordinated to him. Then Hackenholt switched on the engine which supplied the gas... I could see that the lips and tips of the noses were a bluish color. Some of them had their closed, other's eyes rolled. The bodies were dragged out of the gas chambers and inspected by a dentist, who removed finger rings and gold teeth... -------------------- Testimony of SS-Oberscharfuehrer Kurt Bolender, In the Belzec-Oberhauser trial: [Quoted in "BELZEC, SOBIBOR, TREBLINKA - the Operation Reinhard Death Camps", Indiana University Press - Yitzhak Arad, 1987, p. 76]. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Before the Jews undressed, Oberscharfuehrer Michel made a speech to them. On these occasions, he used to wear a white coat to give the impression that he was a physician. Michel announced to the Jews that they would be sent to work, but before this they would have to take baths and undergo disinfection so as to prevent the spread of diseases... After undressing, the Jews were taken through the so-called Schlauch. They were led to the gas chambers not by the Germans but by the Ukrainians...After the Jews entered the gas chambers, the Ukrainians closed the doors. The motor which supplied the gas was switched on by a Ukrainian named Emil and by a German driver called Erich Bauer from Berlin. After the gassing, the doors were opened and the corpses removed.... -------------------- SS-Untersturmfuehrer Oberhauser on the death camp at Belzec [Quoted in 'The Good Old Days' - E. Klee, W. Dressen, V. Riess, The Free Press, NY, 1988., p. 228-230] ---------------------------------------------------------------- The camp of Belzec was situated north-east of the Tomaszo'w to Lemberg [Lvov] road beyond the village of Belzec. As the camp needed a siding for the arriving transports the camp was built about 400 meters from Belzec station. The camp itself was divided into two sections: section 1 and section 2. The siding led directly from Belzec station into section 2 of the camp, in which the undressing barracks as well as the gas installations and the burial field were situated... The gassing of Jews which took place in Belzec camp up till 1 August 1942 can be divided into two phases. During the first series of experiments there were two to three transports consisting of four to six freight cars each holding twenty to forty persons. On the average 150 Jews were delivered and killed per transport. At that stage the gassings were not yet part of a systematic eradication action but were carried out to test and study closely the camp's capacity and the technical problems involved in carrying out a gassing... At the beginning of May 1942 SS-Oberfuehrer Brack from the Fuehrer's chancellery suddenly came to Lublin. With Globocnik he discussed resuming the extermination of the Jews. Globocnik said he had too few people to carry out this programme. Brack stated that the euthanasia programme had stopped and that the people from T4 would from now on be detailed to him on a regular basis so that the decisions taken at the Wannsee conference could be implemented. As it appeared that it would not be possible for the Einsatzgruppen to clear individual areas of Jews and the people in the large ghettos of Warsaw and Lemberg by shooting them, the decision had been taken to set up two further extermination camps which would be ready by 1 August 1942, namely Treblinka and Sobibor. The large-scale extermination programme [Vernichtungsaktion] was due to start on 1 August 1942. About a week after Brack had come to Globocnik, Wirth and his staff returned to Belzec. The second series of experiments went on until 1 August 1942. During this period a total of five to six transports (as far as I am aware) consisting of five to seven freight cars containing thirty to forty people came to Belzec. The Jews from two of these transports were gassed in the small chamber, but then Wirth had the gas huts pulled down and built a massive new building with a much larger capacity. It was here that the Jews from the rest of the transport were gassed. -------------------- SS-Untersturmfuehrer Oberhauser on the death camp at Belzec [Quoted in 'The Good Old Days' - E. Klee, W. Dressen, V. Riess, The Free Press, NY, 1988., p. 228-230] ---------------------------------------------------------------- The camp of Belzec was situated north-east of the Tomaszo'w to Lemberg [Lvov] road beyond the village of Belzec. As the camp needed a siding for the arriving transports the camp was built about 400 meters from Belzec station. The camp itself was divided into two sections: section 1 and section 2. The siding led directly from Belzec station into section 2 of the camp, in which the undressing barracks as well as the gas installations and the burial field were situated... The gassing of Jews which took place in Belzec camp up till 1 August 1942 can be divided into two phases. During the first series of experiments there were two to three transports consisting of four to six freight cars each holding twenty to forty persons. On the average 150 Jews were delivered and killed per transport. At that stage the gassings were not yet part of a systematic eradication action but were carried out to test and study closely the camp's capacity and the technical problems involved in carrying out a gassing... At the beginning of May 1942 SS-Oberfuehrer Brack from the Fuehrer's chancellery suddenly came to Lublin. With Globocnik he discussed resuming the extermination of the Jews. Globocnik said he had too few people to carry out this programme. Brack stated that the euthanasia programme had stopped and that the people from T4 would from now on be detailed to him on a regular basis so that the decisions taken at the Wannsee conference could be implemented. As it appeared that it would not be possible for the Einsatzgruppen to clear individual areas of Jews and the people in the large ghettos of Warsaw and Lemberg by shooting them, the decision had been taken to set up two further extermination camps which would be ready by 1 August 1942, namely Treblinka and Sobibor. The large-scale extermination programme [Vernichtungsaktion] was due to start on 1 August 1942. About a week after Brack had come to Globocnik, Wirth and his staff returned to Belzec. The second series of experiments went on until 1 August 1942. During this period a total of five to six transports (as far as I am aware) consisting of five to seven freight cars containing thirty to forty people came to Belzec. The Jews from two of these transports were gassed in the small chamber, but then Wirth had the gas huts pulled down and built a massive new building with a much larger capacity. It was here that the Jews from the rest of the transport were gassed. During the first experiments and the first set of transports in the second series of experiments bottled gas was still used for gassing; however, for the last transports of the second series of experiments the Jews were killed with the exhaust gases from a tank or lorry engine which was operated by Hackenholt. -------------------- Professor Wilhelm Pfannenstiel, Waffen-SS hygienist, on a gassing at Belzec [Quoted in 'The Good Old Days' - E. Klee, W. Dressen, V. Riess, The Free Press, NY, 1988., p. 238-244] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- When I am asked about executions of Jews I must confirm that on 19 August 1942 I witnessed an execution of Jews at Belzec extermination camp. I would like to describe how I came to be there. During my conversations with SS-Brigadefuehrer Globocnik, he told me about the large spinning-mills that he had set up in Belzec. He also mentioned that work at this camp would considerably outstrip German production. When I asked him where the spinning materials came from, he told me proudly that they had come from the Jews. At this point he also mentioned the extermination actions against the Jews, who for the most part were killed at the the camp at Belzec... During this first visit I was taken to around by a certain Polizieihauptmann named Wirth, who also showed and explained to me the extermination installations at the camp. He told me that the following morning a new transport of about 500 Jews would be arriving at the camp who would be channeled through these extermination chambers. He asked me whether I would like to watch one of these extermination actions, to which, after a great deal of reflection, I consented. I planned to submit a report to the Reichsarzt-SS about the extermination actions. In order to write a report I had, however, first to observe an action with my own eyes. I remained in the camp, spent the night there and was witness to the following events the next morning. A goods train traveled directly into the camp of Belzec, the freight cars were opened and Jews whom I believe were from the area of Romania or Hungary were unloaded. The cars were crammed fairly full. There were men, women and children of every age. They were ordered to get into line and then had to proceed to an assembly area and take off their shoes... After the Jews had removed their shoes they were separated by sex. The women went together with the children into a hut. There their hair was shorn and they had to get undressed... The men went into another hut, where they received the same treatment. I saw what happened in the women's hut with my own eyes. After they had undressed, the whole procedure went fairly quickly. They ran naked from the hut through a hedge into the actual extermination centre. The whole extermination centre looked just like a normal delousing institution. In front of the building there were pots of geraniums and a sign saying "Hackenholt Foundation", above which there was a star of David. The building was brightly and pleasantly painted so as not to suggest people would be killed here... Inside the buildings, the Jews had to enter chambers into which was channeled the exhaust of a [100(?)]-HP engine, located in the same building. In it there were six such extermination chambers. They were windowless, had electric lights and two doors. One door led outside so that the bodies could be removed. People were led from a corridor into the chambers through an ordinary air-tight door with bolts. There was a glass peep-hole, as I recall, next to the door in the wall. Through this window one could watch what was happening inside the room but only when it was not too full of people. After a short time the glass became steamed up. When the people had been locked in the room the motor was switched on and then I suppose the stop-valves or vents to the chambers opened. Whether they were stop-valves or vents I would not like to say. It is possible that the pipe led led directly to the chambers. Once the engine was running, the light in the chambers was switched off. This was followed by palpable disquiet in the chamber. In my view it was only then that the people sensed something else was in store for them. It seemed to me that behind the thick walls and door they were praying and shouting for help. -------------------- Willi Mentz testifies about his days in Treblinka [Quoted in 'The Good Old Days' - E. Klee, W. Dressen, V. Riess, The Free Press, NY, 1988., p. 245-247] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- When I came to Treblinka the camp commandant was a doctor named Dr. Eberl. He was very ambitious. It was said that he ordered more transports than could be "processed" in the camp. That meant that trains had to wait outside the camp because the occupants of the previous transport had not yet all been killed. At the time it was very hot and as a result of the long wait inside the transport trains in the intense heat many people died. At the time whole mountains of bodies lay on the platform. The Hauptsturmfuehrer Christian Wirth came to Treblinka and kicked up a terrific row. And then one day Dr. Eberl was no longer there... For about two months I worked in the upper section of the camp and then after Eberl had gone everything in the camp was reorganized. The two parts of the camp were separated by barbed wire fences. Pine branches were used so that you could not see through the fences. The same thing was done along the route from the "transfer" area to the gas chambers... Finally, new and larger gas chambers were built. I think that there were now five or six larger gas chambers. I cannot say exactly how many people these large gas chambers held. If the small gas chambers could hold 80-100 people, the large ones could probably hold twice that number... Following the arrival of a transport, six to eight cars would be shunted into the camp, coming to a halt at the platform there. The commandant, his deputy Franz, Kuettner and Stadie or Maetzig would be here waiting as the transport came in. Further SS members were also present to supervise the unloading: for example, Genz and Belitz had to make absolutely sure that there was no one left in the car after the occupants had been ordered to get out. When the Jews had got off, Stadie or Maetzig would have a short word with them. They were told something to the effect that they were a resettlement transport, that they would be given a bath and that they would receive new clothes. They were also instructed to maintain quiet and discipline. They would continue their journey the following day. Then the transports were taken off to the so-called "transfer" area. The women had to undress in huts and the men out in the open. The women were than led through a passageway, known as the "tube", to the gas chambers. On the way they had to pass a hut where they had to hand in their jewellery and valuables.. -------------------- Kurt Franz testifies on his days in Treblinka [Quoted in 'The Good Old Days' - E. Klee, W. Dressen, V. Riess, The Free Press, NY, 1988., p. 247-249] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I cannot say how many Jews in total were gassed in Treblinka. On average each day a large train arrived. Sometimes there were even two. This however was not so common. In Treblinka I was commander of the Ukrainian guard unit as I had been in Belzec. In Treblinka as in Belzec the unit consisted of sixty to eighty men. The Ukrainians' main task was to man the guard posts around the camp perimeter. After the uprising in August 1943 I ran the camp more or less single-handedly for a month; however, during that period no gassings were undertaken. It was during that period that the original camp was demolished. Everything was leveled off off and lupins were planted... -------------------- Testimony of SS Oberscharfuehrer Heinrich Matthes about Treblinka [Quoted in "BELZEC, SOBIBOR, TREBLINKA - the Operation Reinhard Death Camps", Indiana University Press - Yitzhak Arad, 1987, p. 121] ------------------------------------------------------------------ During the entire time I was in Treblinka, I served in the upper camp. The upper camp was that part of Treblinka with the gas chambers, where the Jews were killed and their corpses laid in large pits and later burned. About fourteen Germans carried out services in the upper camp. There were two Ukrainians permanently in the upper camp. One of them was called Nikolai, the other was a short man, I don't remember his name... These two Ukrainians who lived in the upper camp served in the gas chambers. They also took care of the engine room when Fritz Schmidt was absent. Usually this Schmidt was in charge of the engine room. In my opinion, as a civilian he was either a mechanic or a driver... All together, six gas chambers were active. According to my estimate, about 300 people could enter each gas chamber. The people went into the gas chamber without resistance. Those who were at the end, the Ukrainian guards had to push inside. I personally saw how the Ukrainians pushed the people with their rifle butts... The gas chambers were closed for about thirty minutes. Then Schmidt stopped the gassing, and the two Ukrainians who were in the engine room opened the gas chambers from the other side. -------------------- Testimony of SS Oberscharfuehrer Erich Bauer [Quoted in "BELZEC, SOBIBOR, TREBLINKA - the Operation Reinhard Death Camps", Indiana University Press - Yitzhak Arad, 1987, p. 77] ---------------------------------------------------------------- Usually the undressing went smoothly. Subsequently, the Jews were taken through the "tube" to Camp III - the real extermination camp. The transfer through the "tube" proceeded as follows: one SS man was in the lead and five or six Ukrainian auxiliaries were at the back hastening the Jews along. The women were taken through a barracks where their hair was cut off. In Camp III the Jews were received by an SS man... As I already mentioned, the motor was then switched on by Gotringer and one of the auxiliaries whose name I don't remember. Then the gassed Jews were taken out. -------------------- Testimony of SS-Unterscharfuehrer Herman Lambert about Sobibor [Quoted in "BELZEC, SOBIBOR, TREBLINKA - the Operation Reinhard Death Camps", Indiana University Press - Yitzhak Arad, 1987, p. 123] ---------------------------------------------------------------- As I mentioned at the beginning, I was in the extermination camp of the Jews for about two to three weeks. It was sometime in autumn 1942, but I don't remember exactly when. At that time I was assigned by Wirth to enlarge the gassing structure according to the model of Treblinka. I went to Sobibor together with Lorenz Hackenholt, who was at that time in Treblinka... We reported to the camp commander, Reichsleitner. He gave us exact directive for the construction of the gassing installations. The camp was already in operation, and there was a gassing installation. Probably the old installation was not big enough, and reconstruction was necessary. -------------------- -- -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 17677 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!schultz From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Hilberg on the Einsatzgruppen (I) Date: 17 Oct 1994 13:54:03 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 47 Message-ID: <37tvlr$tj@agate.berkeley.edu> References: <36u5pu$k1o@agate.berkeley.edu> <37j8pc$l80@agate.berkeley.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu In article , Greg Raven wrote: >From the contents of your post, it would seem that you did not do what I >suggested. I suggested you compare the reports with what Hilberg says about >the reports, roughly. What you have done is compare what Hilberg says about >the reports with what Hilberg says about the reports ... or have you really >gone through each and every one of these reports, tallying up the Jewish >death toll? You would have to have worked very quickly to have done this so >soon after my initial posting. You made a very nive try at creative editing of my original post. I will repost here the relevant sentence that you deleted. >> Earlier in the same chapter, for example pp. 295-298, >> he quotes the figures from the Operational Situation Reports without >> questioning them. When Hilberg calculated the number of Jews killed by the Einsatzgruppen, he simply took the numbers that they reported themselves. Nowhere does he say that he considered the reports exaggerated. If he had considered them exaggerated, presumably, he would have given the method that he used to "correct" the figures. But he did not. The other part of your query, how I "tallied" the Jewish death toll, was also explained in my previous post. >> The first part of volume 4 of "Trials of War Criminals" is the >> "Einsatzgruppen trials." The prosecutors claimed that their >> entire case was based on the Operational Situation Reports. On >> page 427 (to give just one example) the number cited is "one million." >> This figure includes non-Jews (Hilberg's number is only of Jews. . . I simply took the number of murders ascribed to the Einsatzgruppen by the War Crimes trials prosecutors, who explicitly stated that they derived the firgures from the reports. But to some extent, this is all silly. You made a claim about what Hilberg said, namely, that he said that the Einsatzgruppen reports were exaggerated. I presented the evidence that he had said no such thing. All you have to do is rather than misread what I said is simply present how you arrived at your conclusion. This may be a little more difficult, I realize. -- 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 17679 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!schultz From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Was Hitler a great man? Date: 17 Oct 1994 14:06:12 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 14 Message-ID: <37u0ck$1lg@agate.berkeley.edu> References: <1994Oct05.234523.1724@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> <37j09r$ko6@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <37lcg2$3qo@netaxs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu In article , Greg Raven wrote: >Therefore, the wars against France and Britain, while >extremely regrettable, cannot be laid fully at Hitler's door. Yes, but what about the wars against Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Yugoslavia, Greece, and the USSR? Most of them were neutral, Germany had signed peace treaties with at least two of them, and I do not believe Germany formally declared war on any of them before invading. Richard Schultz Article 17685 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!news.duke.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!news.dfn.de!gs.dfn.de!gwdu03.gwdg.de!uroessl1 From: uroessl1@gwdu03.gwdg.de (Roessler Ulrich) Subject: Re: Was Hitler a great man? Message-ID: Organization: GWDG, Goettingen References: <1994Oct05.234523.1724@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> <37j09r$ko6@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <37lcg2$3qo@netaxs.com> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 15:45:26 GMT Lines: 52 Mr.Landpost now advertises his sources. In his opinion arbitrary books are "single best pieces of evidence": landpost@clark.net writes: ... 1. A fascist propaganda outfit. -It's at least in English: >The German Revolution. Greenwood. London 1934. 2. A retrospective piece of trash, not to say an anachronism: >The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed. Hoggan. 3. More anachronism - i.e. a chilly piece of cold-war phantasy written under a pen-name. The book bears as many traces of evidence as a snowball in hell: >Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War? Suvorow. London. 1991?? ^^^^^^ Indeed. 4. And a Biedermeier hagiography by one of Hitler's buddies: >Ein anderer Hitler: Bericht seines Architekten Hermann Giesler. Munich >> >I think that Herr Scharping and Herr Gysi will be seeking other types of >work, now that they lost they to Bundeskanzler Kohl. We're partying >tonight Stasi boy! Well, I do not. But Gregor Gysi is partying as well, he won his electorate in Berlin. BTW: Helmut Kohl and almost all of his christian-democrats MP voted YES, when the Bundestag recently passed the bill, which threatens Holocaust denial with prison up to five years. I'm rather sure, that Kohl would despise Mr.Landpost's opinions, not to say the complete person "Landpost". So I cannot understand Mr.Landpost's celebration of Kohl's success. >Tim McCarthy >landpost@clark.net u.roessler uroessl1@gwdg.de "Gewissen Geistern muss man ihre Idiotismen lassen." Article 17688 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!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: Was Hitler a great man? Date: 17 Oct 1994 18:50:12 GMT Organization: Mits BBS, Helsinki, Finland (40+ Nodes +358-0-4582066) Lines: 24 Message-ID: <37uh14$6fo@prime.mdata.fi> References: <1994Oct05.234523.1724@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: mits.mdata.fi In article , wrote: >I think that Herr Scharping and Herr Gysi will be seeking other types of >work, now that they lost they to Bundeskanzler Kohl. We're partying >tonight Stasi boy! Can somebody explain to me why Timboy is partying tonight? For Kohl? Is Timboy a devouted supporter of the Christiandemocratic party of Germany or what? An who is "Stasi" boy? Is Timboy partying with Stasi boy, or with his warm friend Mr. Kleim? Maybe Mr. Bergs comes along, too. And Mr. Smith. And they'll dance lambada together. Wow, what a jumping roomfull of brainless flesh! > >Tim McCarthy >landpost@clark.net -- Kari Nenonen - kauhunen@mits.mdata.fi - Skepsis r.y. Maavallintie 4 - Tel: 358-0-5636625 - Helsingin Scifiseura 00430 Helsinki - The Finnish Dramatists' Society - Wan.Her.Tiet.Kirj.N.H Finland - The Writers' Union of Finland - The International J.C. Article 17696 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!news.dfn.de!news.belwue.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!stepsun.uni-kl.de!uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de!informatik.uni-kl.de!stschulz From: stschulz@informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Schulz) Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15 Message-ID: <1994Oct18.003401.22528@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de> Sender: news@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de (Unix-News-System) Nntp-Posting-Host: isis.informatik.uni-kl.de Organization: University of Kaiserslautern, Germany References: <1994Oct14.154635.18638@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de> Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 00:34:01 GMT Lines: 61 In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes: |> In article <1994Oct14.154635.18638@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de>, |> stschulz@informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Schulz) wrote: |> |> > In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes: [He does not believe in the methodology of "convergence of evidence"] [My Example: physical laws are generated by generalizing _many_ examples] |> > So, how do you come to any conclusions? Almost everything accepted as |> > fact on this planet is the result of many different observations, and |> > most of these observations would not, taken alone, be enough to be |> > considered a (juristic? common sense?) proof. |> |> I completely reject your analogy. Have you nothing substantive to say to |> support the claim that the Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate the |> Jews in gas chambers? I know I have been asking for this evidence for |> months now, but until I get it, I intend to keep asking. Someone has to do |> it. I think that my comment is quite substantive (although it does not deal with the Holocaust directly). Before we try to look at the facts we need to agree to some common standards of _reasoning_, or we will never get any results. You need both facts (or axioms) _and_ an inference mechanism to find any conclusion. I think that "convergence of evidence" is a valid concept for every kind of proof except for mathematical proofs (which occur in a formalized environment and do not use evidence at all). Accumulating many different pieces of evidence and considering the impact of _all_ of these pieces is common among scientists, in the courts, and among every reasonable historian I have read or met. As I wrote before (and you choose to misinterpret my very clear sentence back then) I have nothing (either substantive or not) to say to support the claim that "the Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in gas chambers", because the Nazis did not have a "plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in gas chambers". They had a plan to exterminate (among others) the Jews. They used gas chambers as one of the _means_ as they tried to realize that plan. In addition to that, just in case you (perhaps) wanted to talk about "the traditional view of the Holocaust": There are pieces of evidence about this posted every day on this group. However, you either ignore them, dismiss them completly (didn't mention the gas chambers, "Ausrotten" does not men to exterminate, eyewitness testimony is no evidence...), or, like a parrot, ask "Is this the _best_ piece of evidence?", even though people repeatedly have told you that "best" is not a defined (or even valid) concept for pieces of evidence. If I didn't know that you are Greg Raven, the eminent and responsible historian from the well-know Institute of Historical Review, I could get the impression that you evade any attempt of a discussion... :-) Stephan -------------------------- It can be done! --------------------------------- Please email me as stschulz@informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Schulz) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Article 17697 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!waikato!comp.vuw.ac.nz!newshost.wcc.govt.nz!QUIRKE_A@ix.wcc.govt.nz From: quirke_a@ix.wcc.govt.nz Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Was Hitler a great man? Date: 18 Oct 1994 01:53:55 GMT Organization: Wellington City Council, Public Access Lines: 19 Message-ID: <37v9rj$msk@golem.wcc.govt.nz> References: <1994Oct05.234523.1724@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> <37j09r$ko6@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <37lcg2$3qo@netaxs.com> , Reply-To: quirke_a@ix.wcc.govt.nz NNTP-Posting-Host: ix.wcc.govt.nz landpost@clark.net writes: >The German Revolution. Greenwood. London 1934. >The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed. Hoggan. >Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War? Suvorow. London. 1991?? >Ein anderer Hitler: Bericht seines Architekten Hermann Giesler. Munich Heresay [sic], all of it ! - Tony Q. --- Tony Quirke, Wellington, New Zealand (email for phone no) "Give me back the Berlin Wall, give me Stalin and St. Paul. "Give me Christ or give me Hiroshima. "Destroy another fetus now, we don't like children anyhow. "I've seen the future, baby: it is murder." - Leonard Cohen Article 17706 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Response to golux Followup-To: alt.revisionism Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 00:27:23 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 144 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com At 0:10 10/18/94 -0600, golux@mcs.com (The only Golux in the World, and not a mere Devi wrote: >Perhaps you actually believe that asking for "one piece" of evidence makes >you a "fair-minded person." However, as you have repeatedly been shown, >what it really makes you is a bad historian (or no historian at all, to be >more accurate). History does not consist of single pieces of evidence. >No historical event can be demonstrated by reference to a single piece of >evidence. Witness your failure to provide a single piece of evidence that >World War II ever happened. We seem to have a major communications problem here. One more time, then, I am NOT saying that one piece of evidence will "prove" the Holocaust extermination claims. What I am asking is that any and all such evidence be presented one piece at a time so we can look at it in a deliberate fashion. >On a related point -- another example of your lousy grasp of >historiography -- you continue to insist that "testimony is not >evidence." Pretty clearly, you have never been near a courtroom, or even >a TV courtroom drama. Testimony of an eyewitness is the single most >probative kind of evidence possible. Much of our history consists of >testimony, often oral, often written down by subsequent historians. What >direct evidence do we have of the Peloponnesian Wars? All we have, >really, is Herodotus. Do you doubt the Peloponnesian Wars occurred? If >not, what is your single best piece of evidence that they did happen? Equally clearly, history is not decided in courtrooms, and neither is truth. The evidence in legal actions only resembles the truth and/or history to the extent that it helps the prosecution or the defense. The prosecution's task is to win the case. The defense's task is to obtain a not-guilty verdict for the client. Neither truth nor history need be involved. Eyewitness testimony, I think you will find, is NOT the single most probative kind of evidence possible. Witness the recent Israeli Supreme Court case of John Demjanjuk, in which six "eyewitnesses" claimed that Demjanjuk was the culprit. The ISC let Demjanjuk go because other evidence to the contrary was more compelling. Here in the United States, I believe eyewitness testimony must be corroborated by some form of evidence, or at the very least be backed up by other eyewitness testimony. However, if the eyewitness testimony conflicts with known facts (such as physical laws), then the testimony is discarded, not the known facts. As to testimony as it appears in TV courtroom dramas, one common dramatic tool is to get the witness to reverse himself on the stand, proving that the witness had erred or perjured himself earlier. In historiography, we are interested in determining exactly what happened, regardless of who is innocent or guilty. As for your challenge about the Peloponnesian Wars, this seems to be but another attempt to side-track the issue. Do you have substantive evidence to support Holocaust gassing claims or not? It would seem that if you had any, you would present it rather than try to shift the topic to something else entirely. >> I realize that this is somewhat restrictive, but if there is truly a >> mountain of evidence, then there should be no problem. If, on the other >> hand, there is not a mountain of evidence, then someone should come forward >> and say so. You see, this is but the first step in finding the truth. >> Either there is a mountain of evidence or there isn't. > >There is. But you insist on looking at each individual rock and saying, >"Well, this is a rock, not a mountain. Bring on the next rock." Do you >see why this is not a valid means of conducting *either* historical >research *or* a debate of any sort? Even a mountain must be climbed one step at a time, regardless of its size. And by the way, I never claimed that this forum was a valid one for conducting historical research or debate. In fact, antics of those who claim to believe in the Holocaust extermination myth make it obvious that if it were a valid forum, they would be doing even more to disrupt the discourse. >Greg, do you agree with the following propositions, and if not, why not: >1. There has been evidence that the Nazis had a plan to exterminate at >least the Jews. >2. There has been evidence that the Nazis had gas chambers built at >Auschwitz and other camps, with which they killed hundreds of thousands, >perhaps millions, of Jews and others. >Regardless of whether you agree with the evidence, or what it purports to >show, do you at least agree that it has been presented for consideration? 1. Your question is awkward. I can best answer it by saying I do not believe the Nazis had a plan to exterminate the Jews or anyone else during WWII. 2. Again, an awkward question, to which I will answer that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there was even one single Nazi homicidal gas chamber. Therefore, millions of Jews could not have been killed this way. As to your third, unnumbered question, I agree that materials have been put forth as proof, but that on examination these proofs have been shown to be unworthy of the name. >Next question: What is your single best piece of evidence that anybody has >ever claimed that the Nazis had a plan or policy to kill the Jews in gas >chambers? Let's be clear here: I want a piece of evidence showing that >someone -- anyone -- has claimed that the Nazis sat around one day and >said, essentially, "Hey, let's kill all the Jews in gas chambers!" You >see, Greg, as has been pointed out frequently to you, the "generally >accepted view of the Holocaust" has the Nazis sitting around saying, >essentially, "Hey, let's kill all the Jews!" and then going out and >shooting, starving, overworking and gassing them to death. The gas >chambers were a single method out of many by which the Nazis tried to >carry out their plan. Thus, when Himmler says "We are exterminating the >Jews, it is in our program," that shows the plan or policy; and the >internal memoranda and letters of the SS and others, and the eyewitness >testimonies of those who were in the camps, well those show the gas >chambers that formed a part of the execution of that plan. The >Einsatzgruppen reports show other aspects of the plan execution. > >What is it about this that you don't understand? And who has ever claimed >"The Nazis had a policy of killing the Jews in gas chambers"? I love this run-on questions. First, again I reject your attempt to shift the discussion to some other topic. Second, if you are saying that you have to "add" the "essentials" of what a "bunch of Nazis" said while sitting around, to something Himmler allegedly said, to some plainly false and/or impossible "eyewitness" testimony in order to prove your point, then in essense what you are saying is that there is no direct evidence to support the Holocaust extermination claims. Because this is so, why not simply admit it so we can go on? >But you have defined the Holocaust as the Nazi mass murder of Jews, many >of them in gas chambers, have you not? So if the "mass murder of Jews, >many of them in gas chambers" did not involve homicidal gassings...well, >what exactly DO you believe the Holocaust was, anyway? This definition of the Holocaust is not mine, it is just the starting point for the discussion. I do not want to get into a long discussion of what I believe happened during the Holocaust, so I will just say that many Jews were mistreated, some of them egregiously, some of them lost their lives as a result, and some Jews were killed just because they were Jews. However, this is an extremely complex situation with many nuances, and simply statements do not begin to cover the territory. I do not believe that the Nazis used gas chambers to kill Jews. -- Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) For free information, write to: 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 17708 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15 Followup-To: alt.revisionism Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 00:31:58 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 98 Message-ID: References: <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1> NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com In article <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1>, bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Raskolnikov) wrote: > When you first appeared on this group, many months ago via Ross > Vicksell, you made a claim just like this one: That no mountain > of evidence supporting the Holocaust exists. > > I responded with a list of thirty-five volumes, taken from > Miami University's very meager library. My response to you > was there is a mountain of evidence, look at what I was able > to find. > > You then changed your whole argument and said that 35 volumes > is too many, and couldn't I just pick one or two documents. > Ignoring, of course that this was (in essence) a retraction of > your statement that no large body of documentation exists on the > Holocaust. Disregarding the argumentative portions of this posting that claim I have changed my position, I ask you to put yourself it my place for a moment. Do you really think I haven't read volume after volume of Holocaust-related material? Do you really think I would make a blanket statement about evidence without having had some idea what I would be getting? Would you do such a thing? I certainly hope not! I even own a rather large collection of Holocaust-related books, and try to be familiar with all of them. Now, when I ask for best evidence, I am trying to avoid the impression that I am setting up strawmen that are easily knocked down. I am saying, "tell me what YOU think is the strongest evidence to support the Holocaust gassing stories." This allows you and others who believe these stories to respond with the most substantive evidence. It might be said that there is a risk that you and the others might turn up something of which I was not aware, but I welcome that, too. Either you will produce something I have already considered, which makes me feel better about the position I have taken on this matter, or you will turn up something new, at which time I will evaluate the new material and reevaluate, if necessary, the position I have adopted on this matter. > What followed soon after was the fabled May 4th posting, which you > have never adressed. As I posted early on, if you do not see my respond to a post, repost it to make sure I have seen it. You and the others refer to this only as the May 4th post. What's the matter, is there no evidence in it, so you have to refer to it by the date alone? If it is so important to you, repost it. How many times do I have to ask for this? Do you want me to see it or don't you? > Would you like me to _repost_ the bibliography for you? > At least then you'd know that there are lots of documents > out there, even when one looks at a relatively unremarkable state > university library. Asked and answered. However, I take this to mean that you do not have any one piece of evidence you consider to be the BEST. Thanks anyway. > >>My question to you, then, would be: why? Why will you not accept > >>Himmler's saying "the Jews are being exterminated," if you _would_ > >>accept him saying "the Jews are being exterminated in gas chambers"? Am I alone in seeing that there is a fundamental difference between these two statements? > So let me get this straight... > The only part of the Holocaust you worry about is the gas > chambers, and you accept all the rest??? > I assume this is true since you agree that Himmler was talking about > exterminating the Jews. You assume too much. As I have stated and restated repeatedly, I am trying to contain the discussion by looking only at the claims of Nazi gas chambers. > > "Convergence of evidence" is something else, as I understand it, which is > > to say that none of the so-called "evidence" is enough to stand alone, so > > one must prop it up with other "evidence" that is also not enough by > > itself. I reject this methodology. > > You reject the methodology of every historian and > lawyer in the world. As I have stated elsewhere, the study of history and the practice of law are only incidentally similar, and there are fundamental differences between the two that make it impossible to conflate them, as you have attempted to do. As for your representations about the way historians work, I know historians who do NOT work that way, and I respect their work, even when I disagree with their conclusions. Convergence of evidence is fine for witchcraft trials: it has no place in the search for truth. -- Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) For free information, write to: 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 17709 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15 Followup-To: alt.revisionism Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 00:45:10 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 57 Message-ID: References: <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1> NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com In article , bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) wrote: > Once again...(for about the tenth time, so he can make like he hasn't > seen it for the tenth time and just keep lying): > > "..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. I have seen your posting of this before. However, you have so far failed to answer my question about it, which is: Is this what you consider to be the BEST EVIDENCE that the Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in gas chambers? I hope your answer is "yes," because I have been waiting for months now for someone to quote the Franke-Gricksch "report" as "evidence." It is not in my best interest to do so, but I urge you to consider carefully your response to this question. -- Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) For free information, write to: 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 + $1.00 shipping Article 17711 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!schultz From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Response to golux Date: 18 Oct 1994 13:17:00 GMT Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe Lines: 47 Message-ID: <380hsc$c8a@agate.berkeley.edu> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu In article , Greg Raven wrote: >I do not believe that the Nazis used gas chambers to kill Jews. Then why do you demand evidence of a "plan or policy" to use gas chambers? Why not demand evidence for the *use* of gas chambers? If there were no gas chambers, then the question of whether there was a policy to use them is irrelevant. In fact, documentary evidence -- much of it from the Nazis themselves -- for the use of gas chambers to kill Jews has been presented here. You have not (to my knowledge) ever responded to any of this evidence in any substantive way. The questions you insist on dodging are not "side issues" or attempts to divert the discussion. They go directly to the heart of your claim above. If you make as preposterous a claim as you do above, then it is *up to you to prove it,* not for everyone else to disprove it. For example, you claim to be familiar with Hilberg's work. Your misrepresentation of what he said about the Einsatzgruppen makes me doubt that claim, but let that pass. He went to great lengths to document the details of what happened to the Jews of Europe, and much of his documentation is from what the Nazis themselves wrote. One example is the Jews of Salonika. He documented that they were transported to Auschwitz, and even found the discounted rate the train company gave for "group travel." He did not document their transport *from* Auschwitz, and came to the obvious conclusion -- they were not transported from Auschwitz because they were killed there. Now, if you believe that they were not killed there, it is up to you to demonstrate exactly what did happen to them. If you have some evidence, present it. My request for evidence is *not* an attempt to sidetrack the discussion -- it is an attempt to get you to provide even a particle of evidence for your claims. Several people have asked the same question, and it is the basic question: what evidence do you have that the Holocaust did *not* occur? It is a question that you have so far avoided answering, and it is telling that you avoid answering it. I can think of an obvious reason why that might be so. -- 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 17712 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!news.dfn.de!gs.dfn.de!gwdu03.gwdg.de!uroessl1 From: uroessl1@gwdu03.gwdg.de (Roessler Ulrich) Subject: Re: Was Hitler a great man? Message-ID: Organization: GWDG, Goettingen References: <1994Oct17.114059.24794@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 13:24:01 GMT Lines: 25 kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes: >In article landpost@clark.net writes: ... >Asked for a single best piece of evidence you offer an entire BOOK? >Really, Mr. Raven! By your own rules of "evidence," this cannot be >permitted. Perhaps if you first offer your _single_ best piece of >evidence, so we might understand your position better, we might then >procede to consider a second or third, but surely your case cannot >rest upon entire books? We loose focus this way, Mr. Raven - please >put your entire books aside, and provide what has been requested. I want to point out that it was Mr.Landpost - not Mr.Raven - who advertised here his books. As far I remember, Mr.Landpost was my invention. If he was Mr.Raven's double in the same place the bizarre identity of Mr.Landpost would be even more unbelievable: A rare case of coherence between the individual and the mind - dubious in the highest degree. u.roessler uroessl1@gwdg.de "Gewissen Geistern muss man ihre Idiotismen lassen." Article 17713 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uhog.mit.edu!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Franke-Gricksch "report" Followup-To: alt.revisionism Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 07:30:17 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 26 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com In article , bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) wrote: > > From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) > >Well, I guess it had to happen sooner or later ... the old F-G "report" > >bobs to the surface again. Before I respond to this, are you saying that > >this, finally, is the best evidence that the Nazis had a plan or policy to > >exterminate Jews in gas chambers? > > Just respond or admit defeat. > > Stop playing these transparent and childish games. I'll take that as a "yes," although you don't seem very certain of yourself. I will prepare an analysis of the Franke-Gricksch "report" and post it here in a couple of days. -- Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) For free information, write to: 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 + $1.00 shipping Article 17714 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uhog.mit.edu!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: What Holocaust could be so proved? Followup-To: alt.revisionism Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 07:32:27 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 35 Message-ID: References: <37o20e$j7f@newsbf01.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com In article , bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) wrote: > Whether or not some specific detail such as the use of coke which > SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Alfred Franke-Gricksch wrote in his report (a > parenthetical remark at that) to Himmler and von Herff is irrelevant. > > Do you suppose he was also fabricating to Himmler et al that Jews were > being killed by use of gassing, 10,000 per day (perhaps it wasn't > exactly 10,000, highly unlikely it was, but would that shed any doubt > on the thrust of what he was saying? I don't think so)? > > Can you think of any reason why Franke-Gricksch might write a report > to Heinrich Himmler and von Herff describing the success thus far of > killing about 10,000 Jews per day by gassing, 500,000 total thus far, > if something very like this WASN'T going on? If the Nazi govt did NOT > have a policy of doing this? Was this some sort of murder confession > by Franke-Gricksch to Himmler et al? Was he admitting he was doing > something very bad that would displease them when they read his > report? This should be fun. You obviously have no idea about the "source" of the Franke-Gricksch "report." I tried to warn you that you should check your sources before stating that you thought this to be the BEST evidence to support the Holocaust gassing myth, but no. You should enjoy my upcoming post on this matter. -- Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) For free information, write to: 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 17716 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!kmcvay From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15 References: <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1> Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac Message-ID: <1994Oct19.223332.13487@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> Date: Wed, 19 Oct 94 22:33:32 GMT In article greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes: >In article <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1>, bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu >(Raskolnikov) wrote: >> What followed soon after was the fabled May 4th posting, which you >> have never adressed. >As I posted early on, if you do not see my respond to a post, repost it to >make sure I have seen it. You and the others refer to this only as the May >4th post. What's the matter, is there no evidence in it, so you have to >refer to it by the date alone? If it is so important to you, repost it. How >many times do I have to ask for this? Do you want me to see it or don't >you? I have asked my system to repost this article, on the fourth day of each month, to provide you with ample opportunity to consider it. If it would help, I'd be happy to add an automated private emailing on the 4th. of the month as well, to help you locate it. -- "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 17717 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!kmcvay From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) Subject: Re: Response to golux References: Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac Message-ID: <1994Oct19.223715.13627@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> Date: Wed, 19 Oct 94 22:37:15 GMT In article greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes: >At 0:10 10/18/94 -0600, golux@mcs.com (The only Golux in the World, and >not a mere Devi wrote: >>Perhaps you actually believe that asking for "one piece" of evidence makes >>you a "fair-minded person." However, as you have repeatedly been shown, >>what it really makes you is a bad historian (or no historian at all, to be >>more accurate). History does not consist of single pieces of evidence. >>No historical event can be demonstrated by reference to a single piece of >>evidence. Witness your failure to provide a single piece of evidence that >>World War II ever happened. >We seem to have a major communications problem here. One more time, then, I >am NOT saying that one piece of evidence will "prove" the Holocaust >extermination claims. What I am asking is that any and all such evidence be >presented one piece at a time so we can look at it in a deliberate fashion. We seem to have a major communications problem here. One more time, then, I am saying that you have been presented with several pieces of evidence, and asked to consider them individually, one following the other. The original presentation, of course, appeared on the 4th. of May, and has since been both emailed to you (and receipt confirmed) and reposted here again and again. (It will be reposted here on the 4th. of every month, just to jog your memory.) -- "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 17719 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!jobone!heifetz.msen.com!lpi.pnet.msen.com!user From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15 Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 11:34:46 -0400 Organization: Msen, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, MI (account info: +1 313 998-4562) Lines: 87 Message-ID: References: <1994Oct14.154635.18638@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: lpi.pnet.msen.com Stephan Schulz pointed out that we accept the law of gravity as true, not because we see a rock fall to earth once, but because that observation is corroborated by hundreds and thousands of other similar observations. He pointed out that, while one can find exceptions to the law of gravity (helium balloons), the law nonetheless holds. We must therefore, he argued, not look at single instances, but at the mass of evidence as a whole -- and since objects fall much more often than they rise, we say that there is such a thing as a "law of gravity." This is a good example of how scientists and historians work. A bit simplistic, to be sure. It's not the kind of thing that will win anyone a Ph.D. But Mr. Raven has rejected scientific and historical methodology so completely that, in order to try to reach him, one must go back to very simple beginnings. So, Mr. Raven: The Holocaust is proved by a tremendous number of corroborating facts. No one fact is definitive, just like no one instance of something falling can prove the law of gravity. But taken together, the mass of evidence proves the Holocaust, just as it proves the law of gravity. And so, looking at single facts will be fruitless either way. No one dropping rock proves the case, so there's no point in examining only one rock. And no one fact about the Holocaust can possibly prove the murders of over ten million people. To arrive at a conclusion, we must examine a multitude of facts. > As I mentioned from the very first, I will not be coaxed into long and > pointless side discussions or metadiscussions. This is none of the above: it will not take long. It's not a side discussion, as the question of your methodology is _crucial_ to how and whether we may communicate. And above all, it's not pointless. The point is that you reject the methodology used by every scientist and historian worth his or her salt. Until and unless you accept it, we aren't talking on the same wavelength -- you're not engaged in the practice of science or history, you're practicing cheap sophistry. That's the point. In rejecting the analogy, you've effectively said that you accept that we prove the law of gravity by examining a multitude of facts. The question is, why should proving the Holocaust be any different? > If you are Mr. Schulz have > something substantive to say regarding the oft-alleged Nazi plan or policy > to exterminate the Jews in gas chambers, then provide that. When you do > otherwise, it tends to lead me to the conclusion that you have nothing > substantive with which to back up your position on this matter. There are many substantive things which you will not address, Mr. Raven, because you refuse to examine more than one piece of evidence at a time. How dare you accuse _me_ of not wanting to discuss anything substantive, when it is explicitly because of your bogus methodology that _you_ have not addressed more than one piece of evidence out of the deluge of facts and documents that are posted to this forum on practically a daily basis! And when you refuse to explain your methodology! And when, in refusing, you say that you don't want to get bogged down in unsubstantive matters! To use the vernacular -- that takes a lot of balls! Go ahead, Mr. Raven. Dozens of pieces of documentation have been posted to this forum so far this month, none of which you have addressed except the Poznan speeches. Go ahead and say something substantive about any of this documentation. I'll be happy to gather them together and email them all to you, to make it easy for you to do so. Keep in mind that continually asking "is this your best evidence?", as you've been doing so far, is not the slightest bit substantive. Go ahead -- start giving us substantive replies. I'm waiting. -- Jamie McCarthy Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu AppleLink: j.mccarthy "I am taking landpost's spelling as correct, I realize that is not risk-free" - Daniel Rice Article 17720 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!jobone!heifetz.msen.com!lpi.pnet.msen.com!user From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15 Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 11:35:49 -0400 Organization: Msen, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, MI (account info: +1 313 998-4562) Lines: 449 Message-ID: References: <1994Oct14.154635.18638@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: lpi.pnet.msen.com Mr. Raven has responded to my request, and has defended his comments about Himmler's Poznan speech. I have five main points: (1) Mr. Raven is being misleading about his methodology for examining each piece of evidence. (2) Mr. Raven is speaking unclearly about how gas chambers fit into his thesis, and needs to be more careful in his phrasing. (3) Mr. Raven is still wrong about testimony not being evidence. (4) Mr. Raven is insisting that gas chambers be addressed, without explaining why. (5) Most baffling and astounding of all: Mr. Raven has _admitted_ that the Nazis had a plan to exterminate the Jewish people. I also have a few minor points as well, but I will bring those up in a later article. (1) Let's begin with his demand that we look at each piece of evidence in isolation. Now, most historians work by considering evidence together -- they don't demand that each single document proves their thesis, when considered seperately from all the others. But Mr. Raven wants the "Holocaust mythologists" to prove the murders of millions of people, spread across half a continent and half a decade, with one piece of evidence. He denies that this is what he wants, but when it comes time to examine the evidence, this is exactly the methodology he uses. Let's look at this denial. First let's see how Mr. Raven has denied it before. A good example can be found just a few days earlier; on October 10th, Mr. Raven wrote: I have NEVER said that I want to see the one piece of evidence that proves the Holocaust. I have said that I want to discuss the claim that there was a Nazi plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers, and that I want to discuss this claim by looking at the best evidence first. Now let's see how he denies it in his most recent reply, on the 13th of October: I am NOT asking for a single piece of evidence that proves the "core of the Holocaust," as you put it. I am asking for the BEST piece of evidence that supports the claim that the Nazis had a plan or policy of exterminating Jews in gas chambers. But the actual methodology that he uses, when it comes time to evaluate evidence, is far different from what he claims in those two quotes above. I suggest that the reader not naively swallow what Mr. Raven _says_ his discussion technique is; rather, the reader should examine what that technique actually _is_ and make up his or her mind based on that. On April 26th, Danny Keren put forth a number of pieces of evidence. In his reply, Mr. Raven rebutted Dr. Keren's claims by arguing, in part: ...none of these pieces, by itself, would normally be considered definitive. (This can be seen in the very fact that Keren presented them all together, rather than relying on one or two.) Thus, what we are faced with might be called "adminicles," which Robert Faurisson describes thus: [T]he Exterminationists all employed the all-too-facile system of "converging bundles of presumptions" or again, as it was called in past times, "adminicles" (parts of a proof, presumptions, traces). Each of their alleged proofs, rather shaky, was supported by another proof, itself rather fragile. [irrelevant discussion of testimonial evidence deleted -JRM] In other words, the blind man leans on the cripple, aided by a deaf man. In the past, at the time of the witchcraft trials, judges made great use of adminicles and, in order to condemn witches and wizards, relied on a strange accounting method whereby a quarter of a proof added to a quarter of a proof, itself added to half a proof, are considered to equal a real proof.... This makes it clear that Mr. Raven wants to consider each piece of evidence alone. In his mind, any piece of evidence which does not prove his whole thesis "definitively" is an "adminicle," and adminicles are "crippled"; they are "a quarter of a proof"; putting adminicles together to reach a conclusion is "a strange accounting method"; they do not add together "to equal a real proof." To take a more recent example, namely the very article of Mr. Raven's to which I am responding, I had asked: ...if I provide you with evidence that gas chambers were used to kill Jews en masse, then Himmler's Poznan speeches would indeed be corroborative evidence that would strengthen the evidence of the gas chambers? Mr. Raven's reply was: No, because there is no linkage between the two. It is clear that Mr. Raven is not interested in seeing a linkage. As a matter of fact, Hoess' memoirs regarding the use of the gas chambers have already been provided to Mr. Raven as evidence. Elsewhere in those memoirs, Hoess writes of the time when Himmler first told him that Hitler had ordered the extermination of the Jews: Himmler greeted me with the following: "The Fuehrer has ordered the Final Solution of the Jewish question. We the SS have to carry out this order. The existing extermination sites in the East are not in a position to carry out these intended operations on a large scale. I have, therefore, chosen Auschwitz for this purpose. [...] The Jews are the eternal enemies of the German people and must be exterminated. All the Jews within our reach must be annihilated during this war. If we do not succeed in destroying the biological foundation of Jewry now, then one day the Jews will destroy the German people." (Rudolf Hoess, published in _Death Dealer: The Memoirs of the SS Kommandant at Auschwitz_, Steven Paskuly, Ed., Prometheus Books, Buffalo, 1992, p. 27.) The "linkage" between Himmler, Hoess, and the gas chambers is clear, but Mr. Raven has dismissed it as nonexistant before he has even had a chance to see it. Obviously, he wants Himmler's speech and the evidence of the gas chambers to each stand on their own. Not to beat this point to death, but: in this same article Mr. Raven rejected the notion that historians examine multiple pieces of evidence to arrive at a conclusion. This absolutely straightforward process is sometimes known as coming to a conclusion by the "convergence of evidence." His comment on that was: "Convergence of evidence" is something else, as I understand it, which is to say that none of the so-called "evidence" is enough to stand alone, so one must prop it up with other "evidence" that is also not enough by itself. I reject this methodology. After rejecting that methodology, one need only declare a thesis so specific that no one single piece of evidence could be "enough by itself." Mr. Raven has succeeded in doing this. His thesis is that there was a Nazi plan or policy to exterminate six million Jews in gas chambers. And as far as historians can tell, there never was a policy to kill Jews _specifically_ in gas chambers -- the policy was to kill them however possible, and gassing turned out to be the best way to do this, because mass shootings were bad for morale. (2) Mr. Raven's thesis has been presented ambiguously. His original phrasing was as follows: Provide me with what you think is the one or two best pieces of evidence that the Nazis had a plan to exterminate millions of Jews in homicidal gas chambers. Given that he intends to argue against such evidence, I think it's safe to assume that his thesis is that there is no real "evidence that the Nazis had a plan to exterminate millions of Jews in homicidal gas chambers." But as I stated above, it was not an intrinsic part of the plan to kill people specifically in gas chambers. Though gassing did turn out to be the most effective means of killing, that was not part of the plan or policy. To take a more modern example, one might ask whether the U.S. Government has a plan or policy to repel a possible Iraqi invasion of Kuwait with A-10 "Tank Killer" aircraft. Certainly the government is currently moving against such an invasion. But that particular model of aircraft, though it plays a pivotal role in the President's agenda, is nowhere mentioned in the President's announcements of our policy toward Iraq. Mr. Raven surely knows that the gas chambers were not central to the plan, else why would he ask? I would imagine that he's even aware of the decision-making process that resulted in the gas chambers being built. (The Nazis first discovered that the SS men who were ordered to participate in mass shootings became disenchanted with the prospect of shooting hundreds of people a day, every day. Providing them with large amounts of alcohol helped somewhat, but did not alleviate the problem. Then Jews were loaded into special vans whose tailpipes could be directed into the back of the van. That worked more successfully. Then the vans were gathered together into installations of "stationary gas vans," at Chelmno. Then engines were removed from captured tanks, and their exhaust was directed into specially-built chambers, at the Reinhard camps. Finally, Hoess determined that Zyklon-B would be more effective than engine exhaust, and built the gas chambers at Birkenau with that poison in mind. Far from gas chambers being planned from the start, their use evolved naturally, as ever-more-effective means of mass extermination became necessary. All of this is well-documented.) Indeed, Mr. Raven's own definition of the word "Holocaust" differs from his phrasing in his thesis. He defined the word for us as "the murder of six million Jews as a central act of state by the Nazis during the Second World War, many in gas chambers." In this phrasing, the fact that gas chambers are involved is a secondary clause, as it should be. And he himself has put a fine point on this difference in his most recent reply. He writes: I am NOT asking for a single piece of evidence that proves [the plan to exterminate European Jewry]. I am asking for the BEST piece of evidence that supports the claim that the Nazis had a plan or policy of exterminating Jews in gas chambers. In other words, Mr. Raven is not strictly interested in looking at evidence for or against the Holocaust. He's not interested in knowing whether the Nazis had a plan to exterminate European Jewry! Rather, he is looking for one single piece of evidence that proves not only the plan, which did exist, but that the gas chambers were _part_ of that plan, which doesn't happen to be the case. Perhaps I've been assuming, incorrectly, that Mr. Raven actually has discussion of quasi-important historical points in mind. It appears that this has not been the case: that he's had a red herring in mind all these months, and that I've been unhelpfully trying to provide him with something of more importance. If that is the case, I regret wasting so much of my time, and can only wonder why he will not address the topics that matter. (3) Mr. Raven still is confused about the role that testimony plays in the historical process. He still maintains that it is not evidence; at one point he asks for "evidence (not testimony, mind you)." In my earlier message, my comments on this topic were: Regarding speeches not being evidence, I have two replies. The first is that, indeed, speeches most certainly are evidence that historians use to evaluate what happened at some point in history. Christopher Hoover wrote a marvelous discussion of how historians use oral testimony, and he should know. His father, a professional historian, is [one of the authors] of the 1975 book _The Practice of Oral History_. Mr. Raven's response: I will agree that "oral history" is a type of history, but it is hardly unimpeachable. Impeachment is the process of bringing to trial. All evidence is "tried" by historians, because all evidence is evaluated for its validity and reliability. Thus no sort of evidence is "unimpeachable"; it is all "impeached" as a matter of course. If Mr. Raven has a case to make against oral history, then he should make it. He continued: I would be more inclined to accept an oral history about something of little import, or of something that could not possibly have any evidence. However, the construction and use of multiple homicidal gas chambers for the destruction of hundreds of thousands of human beings cannot be said to be such a trivial matter that no physical evidence exists. He here provides two criteria, one of which must be met before he will accept testimony. Why has he chosen these two? What's his reasoning? He doesn't offer any. Perhaps he should read the book co-authored by Chris Hoover's father, to determine whether real historians use similar criteria. Mr. Raven has no degree in history, and yet he offers only his unsupported opinion. Why should that count more than that of a historian, let alone four historians, who have years of study, research, and work in the trenches under their collective belts? His first criterion for acceptance of oral evidence -- matters of little import -- is bizarrely interesting. Why should historians play by one set of rules for small matters and another for large? Odd. It is worth noting the life of Huey Long is hardly of "little import" to any historian of 20th Century American politics. And yet, one of the most significant works on his life, T. Harry Williams' biography, is based entirely on oral accounts. In this particular instance, oral history is the "type of history" that wins Pulitzer Prizes. It is further worth noting that to the historian of Indian-White relations in the 19th century, the Minnesota Sioux War of 1862 is hardly of "little import." And yet, hardly a single significant historical work of that war exists that doesn't rely heavily on oral accounts, and rightly so. Of course, they also rely heavily on documentary records from federal officials, Indian Agents, missionaries, etc. -- but many of _them_ are based on personal impressions as well. In any event, oral and documentary evidence do not cancel each other out here -- they can be, and should be, quite complementary. Both documentary and physical evidence on the life of Huey Long exist. The same is true of the Minnesota Sioux War. By what historiographic authority would Mr. Raven presume to demand that oral testimony not be used in researching the historical record regarding these events? Or, if he would not make such demands regarding these two issues, then why is he applying a _different_ standard to the Holocaust? And his second criterion is telling. Mr. Raven is saying that he will not accept testimony unless it regards something "that could not possibly have any evidence." Now, of course, there is a fair amount of physical evidence for the gas chambers. The best of it, in my opinion, is the simple fact that the Nazis dynamited the Auschwitz gas chambers as the Russians approached. Why would they blow them up if they had nothing to hide? Why blow up only the homicidal gas chambers, and not anything else at the camp? But that act of destruction, and the dismantling of the gas chambers prior, removed most of the physical evidence that was there before. Does he expect there could possibly be any evidence for the gas chambers, after they had been blown up? What about the Reinhard camps' gas chambers, after they were dismantled? What evidence does Mr. Raven think there should be? If he will provide us with a list of evidence that should be there, but is missing, then his claim will have some merit. Otherwise, it would seem that he's merely latched on to an excuse. I hasten to point out that the reason that I have not provided physical evidence to contradict Mr. Raven's thesis, is that the thesis' central concern is the Nazi plan of extermination. Evidence for a single gas chamber certainly does not point to a plan -- if I had provided such, then I'm sure Mr. Raven would be the first to point that out to me! If his thesis were that the gas chambers did not exist, I would provide physical evidence (as well as testimony) that they did. (4) Mr. Raven has attempted to explain why he has singled out gas chambers for special recognition, but has done a rather poor job of it. I encourage him to try again. When I wrote: At this point, it seems that your choice of gas chambers is totally arbitrary. Why does Himmler have to mention gas chambers and not, e.g., the Einsatzgruppen, or the fact that Jews were being worked to death at Auschwitz? What rationale do you have for insisting on this? Mr. Raven responded: My choice of the gas chambers is far from arbitrary. If you believe it is, then all you have to do is admit that there were no homicidal gas chambers, and then see how many of your so-called friends remain friendly! The gas chambers are NOT beside the point ... the ARE the point. Apparently, Mr. Raven's criterion for determining whether or not a given facet of the Holocaust is fundamental, is what one's friends think if and when one denies it. Curious. But, very well -- what does Mr. Raven think Holocaust scholars would think of someone who denies, e.g., that the Einsatzgruppen slaughtered Jews because they were Jewish, or that Jews were being worked to death at Auschwitz? Surely historians would take an unfriendly attitude toward anyone who advanced those ideas, as well. And I suspect my friends would be a little suspicious too. So Mr. Raven's response brings us no closer to determining why he has singled out the gas chambers. Until he explains his reasoning, my stance remains that this is a totally arbitrary choice, included only to make his thesis so specific that no single piece of evidence could possibly suffice. This may seem to be quibbling, but I think it's rather important to determine exactly what Mr. Raven is requesting. And he, too, seems to want to resolve it; he writes: "If and when we get some agreement on the gas chamber issue, we can discuss the ins and outs of Himmler's speech." So we agree that he needs to address it. And, indeed, without the "gas chamber clause," Mr. Raven's thesis is easily disproved, as he himself has, amazingly, admitted. To wit: (5) Mr. Raven has agreed to accept that Himmler, in his Poznan speeches, is saying that the Nazis were exterminating the Jews! When I asked him: Why will you not accept Himmler's saying "the Jews are being exterminated," if you _would_ accept him saying "the Jews are being exterminated in gas chambers"? His response was: Trick question, right? Himmler never says that Jews are being exterminated in gas chambers, so I wouldn't accept that, either. However, not to put too fine a point on it, neither I nor other revisionists I know claim that the Nazis did not persecute a large number of Jews. Fair enough so far. But pay very careful attention to his next sentence: I accept what Himmler said about Jews being exterminated (semantics aside for the moment) because, the way he describes it, that could be regarded as an accurate description of what is happening. I'm not totally sure what the parenthetical comments about semantics refers to. Himmler's exact words, on October 4th, 1943, were: "Das juedische Volk wird ausgerottet," sagt ein jeder Parteigenosse, "ganz klar, steht in unserem Programm, Ausschaltung der Juden, Ausrottung, machen wir." This means: "The Jewish people are being exterminated," says every Party member, "it's quite clear, it is in our program -- elimination of the Jews, extermination, we're doing it." The semantics of that sentence are not especially confusing. Anyway, please note these exact words of Mr. Raven: "I accept what Himmler said about Jews being exterminated...that could be regarded as an accurate description of what is happening." I'm sure that Mr. Raven wants to go on to talk about the fact that Himmler did not specifically mention gas chambers. I'm sure that Mr. Raven believes this to somehow be a very important point. Unfortunately for him, it's not, except in his own mind. I've explained why that's so in points 1, 2, and 4 above. And I'm sure that Mr. Raven will attempt to explain away Himmler's comments later, as he has already done, by pointing to a speech in December in which Himmler makes reference to the killing of Jewish commissars and communists. But the fact remains that, on October the 4th, 1943, Himmler said that the "juedische Volk" -- the Jewish people -- were being exterminated. And the fact remains that Mr. Raven, having been backed into a corner, has accepted that Himmler said this. He has accepted that Himmler's saying "The Jewish people are being exterminated" "could be regarded as an accurate description of what is happening." And that, as they say, is that. Thanks go to Mike Stein and Chris Hoover for collecting articles, providing valuable insight and input, and contributing a few paragraphs' worth of the above text. -- Jamie McCarthy Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu AppleLink: j.mccarthy "I am taking landpost's spelling as correct, I realize that is not risk-free" - Daniel Rice Article 17721 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!sgiblab!wetware!kaiwan.com!DialupNewsWatcher!user From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Analysis of the Franke-Gricksch "report" Followup-To: alt.revisionism Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 08:24:34 -0800 Organization: Institute for Historical Review Lines: 174 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan009.kaiwan.com In response to my request for the best evidence that the Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in gas chambers, Barry Shein has presented the obviously fabricated Franke-Gricksch "Resettlement Action Report." Wow! . The F-G Report is considered by many (apparently including Shein) to be an extremely important document in making the case for mass exterminations. Gerald Fleming, for example, devotes an entire chapter of his book "Hitler and the Final Solution" to an evaluation of this document. . According to legend, the original document was supposedly found in Major Alfred Franke-Gricksch's career file by Eric Lipman, an officer with the War Crimes Branch of the U.S. Third Army (supposedly Lipman was tipped to its existence after finding a carbon copy of the document somewhere in Bavaria ). Lipman supposedly excerpted the Report from the document by making a typescript copy (that is, typing a copy in German from the German original). The carbon copy of the original was then turned over to the prosecution team at Nuremberg, while the original (according to Pressac) is now thought to be preserved in the National Archives Collection reference NA RG 238. However, the original seems to have become lost, and as of the middle of 1991 no one else has seen hide nor hair of it. . The American prosecution team at Nuremberg never made use of this document, which raises the question as to whether they ever received it, which in turn raises questions at to whether it even exists. . On Gerald Fleming's part, on February 19, 1991, Brian Renk requested a copy of the carbon copy of the original document from which the Report was allegedly excerpted. Fleming responded by sending a photocopy of the Report ONLY, this in spite of the fact that Fleming has claimed to have in his possession one of three carbon copies of the original document. . Fleming doesn't mention that the Franke-Gricksch "report" is but part of a larger document, and that is just one of the problems he has with this document. For example, in his book he fails to state that the document to which he devotes an entire chapter is nowhere signed by Franke-Gricksch. He also erroneously stated in a private letter to F-G's widow that her husband had signed this Report. He also avoids mentioning the peculiarities in the document (discussed below). He also finds fault with only one portion of the Report, and then goes on to quote Filip Mueller as an expert on the topic! Therefore, Fleming is ignorant of the true source of the document, and overlooks (conceals? misrepresents?) problems in the document in order to make his point. . Fleming does not let the F-G report off the hook completely, however. He states: "Franke-Gricksch's account of 'the execution of the Fuehrer-order," namely, the lowering of 'certain materials' into a large cellar room resembling a 'shower bath' and activation and release of 'particular substances that put people to sleep in one minute' is a fraudulent and cynical white-washing of death by gassing." . What we are left with then, is no original or carbon copy thereof, and the only evidence we have of this document's existence is the excerpted Report, the deficiencies of which I shall examine now. . Among of the most obvious things wrong with this "document" is the accidental use of English words in place of German words. Some of these anglicisms were corrected on the typescript copy, some where not. For example, on the first line of the report, "had" for "hat;" "der," the second word of line 2, typed over "the;" and on line 3, "hier" typed over "here." On line 8 of the second page of the report, the alleged copyist typed "had," but corrected it to "hat," only to begin the following word with "t" (evidently for "the") before catching that and typing the correct German definite article "die." Furthermore, in the final paragraph of page 1, the English participial ending "d" is twice typed for the German "t," that is "ausgestatted" for "ausgestattet" on line 5, which has been corrected, and "gebaded" for "gebadet" on line 9. Last but not least, the verb "kommt" is used twice with the same subject in the sentence beginning on line 6 of the third paragraph of line 1. . All that aside, any reasonable person reading this "report" would immediately suspect something is wrong. Where is this "house?" Where are the hollow pillars? What "certain substances are used? How is it possible to open the doors a few minutes after a lethal gassing when a deadly poison is supposedly still rampant in the air? How can the hair be cut off without first rinsing it of the poison gas? Just how big is this house that it has elevators for hundreds of dead people? Is it normal for large Polish houses to have ten large crematories? By what amazing physical property do fresh corpses burn particularly well? If it takes a modern crematory 2 to 3 hours to partially dispose of a human corpse, how can 10,000 corpses be disposed of in 24 hours with only 10 crematories? . Pressac says (on page 244), "On 28th June, following the handover of Krematorium III, the last one to be completed, Jaehrling calculated the overall throughput for the five Krematorien as 4,756 people in 24 hours, and sent this information to SS General Kammler in Berlin (Document 68). This official figure, coolly doubled when explaining operations to high-ranking visitors (ef. SS Major Franke-Gricksch's report above, giving a figure of 10,000 in 24 hours), had no basis in practice, and probably has to be divided by two or three to arrive at the true figure." . Pressac is also much less generous than Fleming regarding other aspects of the Franke-Gricksch "report." Among the points he notes in this report are: 1) The "large house" is actually Krema II at Birkenau. 2) There are not 5 or 6 steps into the Leichenkeller, but 10. 3) There are not 3 pillars inside the "gas chamber" but 4. 4) The "doors" cannot be closed when there is only one door involved. 5) There is no door to open "on the other side" because again there is only one door. 6) The lift does not take the corpses to the first floor, but to the ground floor. 7) There are not 10 crematoria furnaces but 5 three-muffle furnaces. 8) There were probably not 500,000 Jews in killed in May, 1943, and true number is somewhere between 200,000 and 250,000. 9) The capacity of Krema II was not 10,000 per 24 hours, but rather 4,756 for all FIVE crematoria combined, and even this is a theoretical output "that was never achieved in 1943, as proved by the Krematorium coke consumption." Pressac calls this claim "another Auschwitz SS propaganda figure passed on by Franke-Gricksch." . To make up for these deficiencies, Pressac follows his usual procedure of concocting an elaborate scenario in an attempt to preserve the desirable portions of the Report while shrugging off the ridiculous portions. . Even at this, Pressac misses some of the problems with this document. For example: 1) He fails to explain how the Sonderkommando members could have resisted the lingering Zyklon B gas as they went to work hauling bodies from the gas chamber, removing gold teeth, etc., only "a few minutes" after the killings. 2) Anyone visiting the ruins of Leichenkeller I can see that the four pillars are not hollow at all, but are solid, which would have prevented anything from being dropped down them. 3) Pressac fails to address the assertion that "fresh corpses burn particularly well." 4) Pressac ignores the Report's mention of a "special rail track into an area of the camp specifically set aside for this purpose." Although there was a rail spur into Birkenau, work was not begun on it until January, 1944. (This single reference, by the way, is enough by itself to show that this document is almost certainly a post-war forgery.) . Unmentioned by both Fleming and Pressac is the fact that nowhere in the report does it say that Franke-Gricksch SAW the process he describes. In fact, the report claims he was given a tour of the facilities and the process was explained to him. We know from the records at Auschwitz that Franke-Gricksch was there from May 14-16, 1943. . These are certainly remarkable characteristics for what Fleming, Pressac, and others advance as a simple transcription of a German original. A less trusting (or perhaps more scrupulous) interpreter would be well within his rights to suggest that this document was based on an English-language, not German-language, source. . In short, what we have here is 1) a carbon copy of a typed copy of a carbon copy of an original document, and this original document has never surfaced, 2) gross errors in the typed copy that would lead any scholar to suspect that the "Report" was not copied from a German document, but translated from an English original (that is, forged), and 3) several inaccuracies in the Report itself, at least one of which damns the Report as a forgery. . Ask yourself this question: with all the tons and tons of papers removed from Germany after the war, with all the code intercepts during the war, with all the intelligence activity during the war, why do exterminationists find themselves forced to refer to transparent fabrications such as the Franke-Gricksch Report to support their position? The mass gassing of millions of Jews (and millions of others) is no easy task, and would certainly leave behind some trace. Without this trace, the only conclusion is that it never happened. . Anyone interested in a fuller treatment of this document are directed to "The Franke-Gricksch 'Resettlement Action Report': Anatomy of a Fabrication," by Brian Renk, which appeared in the Fall 1991 Journal of Historical Review, page 261. -- Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) For free information, write to: 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 + $1.00 shipping Article 17730 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!ctp.org!not-for-mail From: jpark@eis.calstate.edu (John Park) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Franke-Gricksch "report" Date: 18 Oct 1994 10:26:53 -0700 Organization: California Technology Project of The Calif State Univ Lines: 46 Message-ID: <3810gt$gk9@eis.calstate.edu> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: eis.calstate.edu greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes: > Well, I guess it had to happen sooner or later ... the old F-G "report" > bobs to the surface again. Before I respond to this, are you saying that > this, finally, is the best evidence that the Nazis had a plan or policy to > exterminate Jews in gas chambers? > Hey Greg, I got an idea. Why don't _YOU_ find the best single piece of evidence for the Holocaust and then zap it? Why does the best piece have to be provided to you? Are you not a "scholar?" Do you not have "research skills?" See, what you do is this. You post a message in which you state your opinion as to the best piece of evidence for the Holocaust, quote it, and provide proper documentation. (Proper = sufficient information that someone so inclined could locate another copy of the document you are using.) Then you blow it all to pieces with devastating "analysis." However, someone else will come along and say that they have some other piece of evidence better than yours. You say great and proceed to subject it to "scholarly analysis" and discard it as being no good. And so the process continues. After all, you having been begging for the "best" evidence for months. Since, to your view, no one has properly provided the "best," I suggest you go get it and start the process. After all, it seems you are claiming the Holocaust didn't happen nearly to the degree claimed. Wouldn't it be reasonable for you to begin providing evidence for this? Wouldn't it be reasonable for you to blow apart the "bad" evidence of the other side? Why wait for the "best?" Why not just start? After all, Greg, one can look at your non-participation and wonder why. Then one realizes the non-participation springs from lack of evidence. One then realizes that Greg Raven will _NEVER_ engage in open debate without loads of conditions. Why not? Come on Greg, respond with point-by-point refuatations, cite scholarly analysis accepted by the historical community, give citations, but make sure you start off with your "best." How about say, the "best" evidence of WWII? Oh, BTW, respond to Keren's points, J. McCarthy's points, the May 4th message, etc. Don't respond to me. I just want you to respond to them. However, you won't. John Park jpark@eis.calstate.edu Article 17731 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-06.dialip.mich.net!user From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15 Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 14:42:16 -0400 Organization: University of Michigan Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1> NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-06.dialip.mich.net greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote: > As for your representations about the way historians work, I know > historians who do NOT work that way, and I respect their work, even when I > disagree with their conclusions. Convergence of evidence is fine for > witchcraft trials: it has no place in the search for truth. Name two historians who arrive at conclusions by examining each individual piece of evidence, without considering how they all fit together. -- Jamie McCarthy Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu AppleLink: j.mccarthy "I am taking landpost's spelling as correct, I realize that is not risk-free" - Daniel Rice Article 17732 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-06.dialip.mich.net!user From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15 Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 15:01:33 -0400 Organization: University of Michigan Lines: 60 Message-ID: References: <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1> NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-06.dialip.mich.net greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote: > > What followed soon after was the fabled May 4th posting, which you > > have never adressed. > > As I posted early on, if you do not see my respond to a post, repost it to > make sure I have seen it. You and the others refer to this only as the May > 4th post. What's the matter, is there no evidence in it, so you have to > refer to it by the date alone? No, there is too _much_ substantive information in it: ten documents and four points of contention. > If it is so important to you, repost it. How > many times do I have to ask for this? Do you want me to see it or don't > you? It's already been reposted four times, and it's been emailed to you twice. You have confirmed numerous times that you've already seen it. > > >>My question to you, then, would be: why? Why will you not accept > > >>Himmler's saying "the Jews are being exterminated," if you _would_ > > >>accept him saying "the Jews are being exterminated in gas chambers"? > > Am I alone in seeing that there is a fundamental difference between these > two statements? That wasn't the question. The difference is obvious. The question is: why will you accept him saying the one thing, but not the other? Please answer the question. > You assume too much. As I have stated and restated repeatedly, I am trying > to contain the discussion by looking only at the claims of Nazi gas > chambers. Speak precisely, Mr. Raven. I don't think the sentence above is what you really mean. If you want to look, quote, "only at the claims of Nazi gas chambers," I'll be happy to oblige you. My own starting point would be the descriptions of the gassing process as given by the commandant of the camp in his memoirs. In fact, I've provided one such description for you in the May 4th article. But I think what you really want to look at is this alleged plan by the Nazi government to exterminate people _specifically_ in gas chambers. As I and others have pointed out, the gas chambers were not an intrinsic part of the Nazi attempt to exterminate European Jewry; they arose as it became clear that no other means of murder was as effective. Please clarify exactly what you mean. -- Jamie McCarthy Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu AppleLink: j.mccarthy "I am taking landpost's spelling as correct, I realize that is not risk-free" - Daniel Rice Article 17733 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-06.dialip.mich.net!user From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: A triumvirate of evidence Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 16:02:57 -0400 Organization: University of Michigan Lines: 134 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-06.dialip.mich.net greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote: > As usual, my comments are being completely mischaracterized. > > I have NEVER said that I want to see the one piece of evidence that proves > the Holocaust. I have said that I want to discuss the claim that there was > a Nazi plan or policy to exterminate the Jews in homicidal gas chambers, > and that I want to discuss this claim by looking at the best evidence > first. Very well. I propose that the best evidence for the Holocaust is a triumvirate of evidence, which I present below. I take Mr. Raven's definition of the word "Holocaust," to wit: the murder of six million Jews as a central act of state by the Nazis during the Second World War, many in gas chambers. Note that this differs in a subtle but important way from Mr. Raven's phraseology above. In his definition, he makes it clear that gas chambers were simply the means by which the policy was carried out. In his quoted article above, he implies that the gas chambers were part and parcel of the plan. That is false. The plan was to exterminate European Jewry; the gas chambers turned out to be the best means of doing so, but they were not an expressed part of the policy. So: how best to prove that the Nazis had a plan to kill millions of Jews, and that many such killings were done en masse in gas chambers? Well, obviously there are two parts to that challenge: the plan, and the fact of the killings. To prove the plan, I present the first document of the triumvirate. This happens to be the same one we've been discussing all this time, the first document from the May 4th article: Himmler's speeches on October 4th and 6th, 1943, to SS officers and Gauleiter, at a place called Poznan. We've all seen this speech many times over the last few months, so I'll just review the "highlights": on October 4th, Himmler said: I am referring now to the evacuation of the Jews, to the extermination of the Jewish people. This is something that is easily said: "The Jewish people will be exterminated," says every Party member, "this is very obvious, it is in our program -- elimination of the Jews, extermination, will do." Note that this document is, by necessity, a transcript of a speech by a man holding a high position in the Nazi government. There is, as far as I can see, no better way to prove that a government intended one thing or another than to quote a high-ranking official in that government. And Himmler was second in command, taking orders only from Hitler. So these speeches by the Reichsfuehrer-SS, and especially those few "highlights" from them that have been posted to this newsgroup, must surely be some of the best evidence proving the Nazi policy, if not the best. I can hardly imagine better. The second document of the triumvirate is the fact that the gassings were occurring. For this document, I cite Hoess' memoirs, specifically the fourth document from the May 4th article: On the railroad ramp the Jews, who up till then had been under the supervision of the state police, were taken over by a squad from the camp. They were led by the head of the detention camp, in two detachments, to the bunker. That was what we called the extermination installations. The luggage stayed on the ramp, from where it was carried to the sorting area - called Kanada - between the buildings of the DAW [weapons factory] and the courtyard. The Jews had to undress near the bunker. They were told that they had to go into what were called delousing rooms. All these rooms, five in all, were filled simultaneously. The doors were hermetically sealed, and the contents of the cans of gas were dropped in through the holes in the ceiling provided for this purpose. Half an hour later the doors were opened; there were two in each room. The corpses were removed and taken to the ditches on tip wagons that ran on rails. Trucks carried the clothes to the sorting area. All the work, including help in undressing, filling the bunker, emptying the bunker, burying the corpses, as well as digging and filling up the mass graves, was done by a special detail of Jews who were housed separately and who, in accordance with Eichmann's instructions, were also exterminated after each big operation. Again, I've tried to come up with the best possible source for proving that gassings were occurring. And who better to serve as a witness than the commandant of the camp himself? He was obviously there; he was obviously in a position to know. He had no reason to lie, because his memoirs were written after he'd been convicted and condemned to death. Surely Rudolf Hoess was one of the best sources available -- if not the best. I can hardly imagine one better. The third document ties the first two together conclusively. The two by themselves do not prove that the gassings were a result of the plan to exterminate European Jewry. (True, Hoess does mention above that the killing of the Sonderkommando was "in accordance with Eichmann's instructions," but this isn't the strongest link possible.) To demonstrate the connection, I again turn to Hoess' memoirs, in which he makes it clear. Again, I point out that this evidence has been posted to this newsgroup before: Himmler greeted me with the following: "The Fuehrer has ordered the Final Solution of the Jewish question. We the SS have to carry out this order. The existing extermination sites in the East are not in a position to carry out these intended operations on a large scale. I have, therefore, chosen Auschwitz for this purpose. [...] The Jews are the eternal enemies of the German people and must be exterminated. All the Jews within our reach must be annihilated during this war. If we do not succeed in destroying the biological foundation of Jewry now, then one day the Jews will destroy the German people." Again, what evidence could possibly be better than this to prove this point? We want to demonstrate that the Auschwitz exterminations were the result of an order from above, expressing the desire to exterminate European Jewry; in Hoess' memoirs, we find his account of receiving exactly that order to do exactly that. So, again, this is surely one of the best sources available to prove the connection, if not the best. I can hardly imagine one better. Please address this triumvirate of evidence, Mr. Raven. Do you now accept that there was a Nazi plan or policy to exterminate European Jewry -- a policy that was carried out, in part, with gas chambers? Emailed to Mr. Raven, because I've posted a lot to the net recently and I don't want this important article to get lost in the shuffle. -- Jamie McCarthy Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu AppleLink: j.mccarthy "I am taking landpost's spelling as correct, I realize that is not risk-free" - Daniel Rice Article 17739 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!cobra.uni.edu!sunfish!choover Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15 Message-ID: From: choover@usd.edu (Christopher J Hoover ) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 14:16:43 GMT Sender: news@sunfish.usd.edu References: <1994Oct14.154635.18638@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de> Organization: University of South Dakota Nntp-Posting-Host: sunbird Lines: 92 greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes: >In article , >k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) wrote: >>> I completely reject your [Stephan SchulzU] analogy. >> >>I think it's a very fine analogy. >> >>Why do you reject it, Mr. Raven? >> >>Would you give a brief explanation? >> >>Or will you simply reject it, without comment, leaving your readers to >>wonder what you're thinking? >As I mentioned from the very first, I will not be coaxed into long and >pointless side discussions or metadiscussions. While the topic may technically qualify as a "metadiscussion," it is far from pointless. It speaks directly to Mr. Raven's credibility as a commentator on history. It demonstrates a tendency on Mr. Raven's part to attempt to stack the deck in his favor by pre-defining as invalid any evidence he may be presented. Let us review. Mr. Raven has repeatedly demanded a "single best piece of evidence," or, at best, two pieces. He has _also_ repeatedly conceded that this is not a valid methodology, maintaining that he requests just the one or two pieces because he's far too busy a man to address _all_ the documents that are posted in his general direction (though he _also_ maintains, curiously enough, that there is _not_ a "mountain of evidence" to support the factuality of the Holocaust). Then, when repeatedly presented with public and private replies to his "single best piece of evidence" demand, he insists that he's never seen the replies. Not satisfied, Mr. Raven further narrows what he will accept as evidence: in spite of a complete lack of legal _or_ historiographic precedent for such a belief, he insists that testimony is not evidence. When presented with substantive historiographic discussion of the legitimacy of oral history, he casually dismisses the opinions of accomplished professional historians in favor of his own, that oral history is only "a type of history"--not like it's _real_ history, or of any concern when great events are being addressed. Finally, he rejects the fundamental principles of corroboration and convergence of evidence--rejecting the notion that historians build their perceptions of historical truth by examing pieces of evidence in relation to each other. He rejects the notion that pieces of historical evidence can corroborate or support each other, or that they can be converged or synthesized into a cohesive whole. It seems that Mr. Raven thinks each piece of evidence must simply stand on its own for the _entire_ Holocaust, or it is invalid--this _despite_ his earlier insistence that he never intended "single best piece of evidence" to be a serious methodology, but instead a convenient shorthand for wading through the mountain of evidence presented to him (although, according to him, there is no mountain). Although he makes this claim, it is becoming increasingly clear that in _practice_, this is in fact the only "methodology" Mr. Raven will accept. Mr. Raven's approach to historical methodology is plagued by such internal inconsistencies; but more importantly it is plagued by an utter lack of resemblance to legitimate, scholarly historiography. Mr. Raven's severely limited understanding of historiography wouldn't hold up for five minutes under the scrutiny of, say, the editorial board of _The Journal of Modern History_. It is little wonder the _JHR_ isn't juried. But of course, Holocaust "revisionism" isn't really about historical truth at all. It's about politics, and ugly politics at that. The standards of proof demanded by Holocaust revisionists are nothing like the methodological tools of the professional historian, which are designed, at least, to help arrive at historical truth; the revisionists' standards are designed, instead, to keep their narrow agenda afloat. >If you are Mr. Schulz have >something substantive to say regarding the oft-alleged Nazi plan or policy >to exterminate the Jews in gas chambers, then provide that. When you do >otherwise, it tends to lead me to the conclusion that you have nothing >substantive with which to back up your position on this matter. If Mr. Raven is unable to recognize the substantive nature of the reply he has been given here in the last few months, there is, perhaps, little we or anyone else can do to help him in this matter. If so, this is most unfortunate, but we will continue to try.... Chris -- Christopher J. Hoover choover@usd.edu University of South Dakota Disclaimer: standard It's *always* September, *somewhere* on the Net. Article 17740 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.clark.net!landpost_ppp.clark.net!user From: landpost@clark.net Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15 Date: 18 Oct 1994 23:36:39 GMT Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc. Lines: 39 Message-ID: References: <37rfq7$fkp@newsbf01.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: landpost_ppp.clark.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In article <37rfq7$fkp@newsbf01.news.aol.com>, annya666@aol.com (AnnyA666) wrote: > In article , greg.ihr@kaiwan.com > (Greg Raven) writes: > > > >At 18:32 10/13/94 -0400, Jamie McCarthy wrote: > > >By the way, are you planning on mentioning Usenet happenings in the > >Journal? > > >>We are planning some sort of article relating to revisionism and the > >>Internet, yes. > > Oh, I hope you guys don't do that! Whenever you write about getting > deniers online, every looney-tune wack-o crawls out of the woodwork and > clutters up Cyberspace with half-baked conspiracy theories. Show a little > responsibility, won't you.? > > If you let the worms out of the can, at least make an attempt to see that > facts are presented correctly and untruths are rebutted. I've seen folks > online who read JHR yet hold positions even you guys admit are false. > Will you take responsibilty for that? A girl on Prodigy, for instance, > regularly quotes IHR literature. She also beleives that the Protocols of > the ELders of Zion are the truth and that Anne Frank's diary was written > in ball-point pen. Of course you can't be responsible for her > misinformation, but when you send out an invitation to your readers to > come join the fun, you should try to keep things fair, don't you think? ------------- Well, this is a first. An AOLer(in) flaming netters for bringing people onto the net. I think I've really heard it all now. Wow!! Tim McCarthy landpost@clark.net Article 17742 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.kei.com!eff!wariat.org!malgudi.oar.net!sun!oucsace!dspiegel From: dspiegel@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Dan Spiegel) Subject: Re: Response to golux Message-ID: Organization: Ohio University CS Dept,. Athens References: Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 00:17:15 GMT Lines: 39 In article greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes: > [deleted] > Witness the recent Israeli >Supreme Court case of John Demjanjuk, in which six "eyewitnesses" claimed >that Demjanjuk was the culprit. The ISC let Demjanjuk go because other >evidence to the contrary was more compelling. I submit that this is incorrect. I will stipulate that, unlike other distortions by Mr. Raven that have been proven here, I don't believe that this one was intentional. The reason Iwan Demjanjuk was released was based on "doubt". I challenge Mr. Raven to quote the part of the court's opinion that states that "evidence to the contrary was *more* compelling". While I believe that there was compelling evidence to the contrary, I must take issue with the word _more_. I also believe that the quoting of the word "eywitnesses" implies that Mr. Raven has some doubts either about their veracity or something, but I don't want Mr. Raven to strain himself on two issues at once. Maybe later we can ask him what documents or evidence led him to quote that word. > > [deleted] > >Greg Raven (greg.ihr@kaiwan.com) >For free information, write to: >Institute for Historical Review..... >--------------------------------------------------- >The Journal of .... >The ............. Mr. Raven continues to advertise impolitely. Hmmm, think he makes money off this? | -DS I speak for myself only. No unsolicited e-mail, please. | | Please do not use my name in any subject headers. | | Obligatory quote: "Sometimes one must cut off a finger to save a hand" | | -Po, lowly priest of Hunan province, Shao-Lin Master | Article 17745 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!world!bzs From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Subject: Re: Himmler's Oct. 4 speech, take 15 In-Reply-To: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com's message of Tue, 18 Oct 1994 00:45:10 -0800 Message-ID: Followup-To: alt.revisionism Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Organization: The World References: <1994Oct15.011010.31438@miavx1> Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 01:43:31 GMT Lines: 77 From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) >I have seen your posting of this before. What a git, he ignores it 20 times when he asks for evidence and then finally, after months, comes back with ``I have seen your posting of this before'' as if the repetition is annoying. Well golly-gee Mr Raven, maybe if you'd acknowledged it the last 20 or 50 times you decided, instead, to post how you've never seen any good evidence of homicidal gas chambers etc we wouldn't now have to be discussing how many times you've seen it! >However, you have so far failed to >answer my question about it, which is: Is this what you consider to be the >BEST EVIDENCE that the Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate the Jews >in gas chambers? I don't have to answer anything Mr Raven, you've got some evidence, have a ball, the issue is the evidence, not me. If you have something to add do add it. >I hope your answer is "yes," because I have been waiting >for months now for someone to quote the Franke-Gricksch "report" as >"evidence." Well I do hope it's something more interesting than you merely doubt its authenticity. There's certainly more where that came from, but if you just cast it all off as "forgeries all forgeries" then I doubt there's anything short of transporting you by time machine to Auschwitz which will convince you. But that's not the point, nobody cares what you are convinced of, really, we can't save your soul. Just so long as nobody else swallows your lies. Remember, Mr Raven, to prove something occurred one only really needs a few bits of good evidence. However, to prove it did not occur, you must disprove virtually every single bit of evidence (or at least so much so it ceases to hold together.) If I have 10 pieces of evidence and you find fault with five that's ok, the other five still prove it occurred, unless you can show they say the contrary. But certainly claiming some document is of questionable origin hardly proves anything other than that we can then go on to the next. If we should run out of such things then perhaps a point has been made. You have a tough row to hoe, Mr Raven. If I were you I would just get to it and stop wasting your and everyone else's time with this irrelevant bickering. Either you have a case, or you don't. Thus far it's quite clear that you don't. -------------------- 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 -- -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 17746 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!world!bzs From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Subject: Re: Franke-Gricksch "report" In-Reply-To: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com's message of Tue, 18 Oct 1994 07:30:17 -0800 Message-ID: Followup-To: alt.revisionism Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Organization: The World References: Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 01:45:07 GMT Lines: 16 From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) >I'll take that as a "yes," although you don't seem very certain of >yourself. I will prepare an analysis of the Franke-Gricksch "report" and >post it here in a couple of days. And then we can go on to the next. You will have to show them all to be unsupporting to make your point. -- -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 17747 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!world!bzs From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Subject: Re: What Holocaust could be so proved? In-Reply-To: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com's message of Tue, 18 Oct 1994 07:32:27 -0800 Message-ID: Followup-To: alt.revisionism Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Organization: The World References: <37o20e$j7f@newsbf01.news.aol.com> Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 01:51:14 GMT Lines: 49 From: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) >This should be fun. You obviously have no idea about the "source" of the >Franke-Gricksch "report." I tried to warn you that you should check your >sources before stating that you thought this to be the BEST evidence to >support the Holocaust gassing myth, but no. You should enjoy my upcoming >post on this matter. I never said it was the BEST (QUOTE PLEASE!), you said that in another one of your cheap and childish tricks and attributed it to me. But I do understand, because that is all you are made of Mr Raven, silly and transparent games which would hardly fool a small child. When we have looked at Franke-Grisch we shall go on to the next. Merely showing one piece of evidence is of uncertain origin is hardly a case, Mr Raven. You still must deal with all the rest. Or, even better, just ONCE show something even resembling evidence for your own point of view rather than making vague and inconclusive complaint about others' evidence. Like who masterminded this "hoax". Names, places, dates, not vagaries like "the allies" or "the zionists". People, there must have been people involved. Have you anything at all to say on behalf of your bizarre theories about the matter, Mr Raven? Or only endlessly play games with the evidence, discount every testimony a priori, claim every document is a forgery, etc. -------------------- "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 -- -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 17751 of alt.revisionism: Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Path: oneb!hakatac!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!world!bzs From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Subject: Re: Analysis of the Franke-Gricksch "report" In-Reply-To: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com's message of Tue, 18 Oct 1994 08:24:34 -0800 Message-ID: Followup-To: alt.revisionism Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Organization: The World References: