Anne Frank diary?
tom moran
Mr.Keren had come up with:
For an excellent treatment of this subject, see "Denying the
Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory", by Deborah
Lipstadt, published by the Free Press, ISBN 0-02-919235-8.
Quoting Lipstadt:
In 1981, the Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation
submitted Anne Frank's handwritten diaries to the Dutch State Forensic
Science Laboratory of the Ministry of Justice to determine their
authenticity. The State Forensic Science Laboratory examined the
materials used--the ink, paper, glue, etc.--and the handwriting and
issued a report of some 270 pages. "The report of the State Forensic
Science Laboratory has convincingly demonstrated that both versions of
the diary of Anne Frank were written by her in the years 1942 to 1944.
The allegations that the diary was the work of someone else (after the
war or otherwise) are thus conclusively refuted." Furthermore, that
"despite corrections and omissions..._The_Diary_of_Anne_Frank_ [i.e.,
the published version of the diaries] does indeed contain `the
essence' of Anne's writings, and that there are no grounds on which
the term `forgery' can be applied to the work of the editors or
publishers of the book." <1>
Evidently Lipstadt's footnote:
1. Anne Frank, _The_Diary_of_Anne_Frank:_The_Critical_Edition_,
Prepared by the Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation,
edited by David Barnouw and Gerrold Van Der Stroom, (New York,
Doubleday, 1989) p. 166.
Moran comments:
Up to this day I have always been a little skeptical about revisionist
views on the authenticity of 'The Diary of Anne Frank'.
First and foremost I find discussion of it irrelevant to the Holocaust
controversy in that the diary doesn't say anything about any gas
chambers and such, it being only the story of a Jewish girl hiding out
from the Germans. I also find that it's more harmful to revisionism in
that so many people have been subjected to it and they would be
overwhelmed by the penchant to fall for something that gets so much
attention.
Now on reading this from Mr.Keren/Lipstadt/Critical Edition and not by
considering any revisionist material I have great doubts about the
authenticity of the diary.
First that the Dutch would have even gone through the trouble of doing
tests to show it was from the circa time.
Lipstadt says, "The State Forensic Science Laboratory examined the
materials used--the ink, paper, glue, etc...." but doesn't say
anything about its possible age. We have ink, paper and glue, each one
would have its own characteristics for aging and that would be the
number two determination. Anyone with 'connections' could come up with
the circa ink, paper and glue. And of course if it was a forgery meant
to be found the creator would go through the trouble of trying to make
it look authentic.
Say, when was the diary found anyway? Like in what year and under what
circumstances did it appear?
Lipstadt says the report is some 270 pages long and then it seems her
footnote says whatever she got from it is not from the report itself
but from a book on one page. "p. 166".
Then we have the quote from the book given by Lipstadt, ""despite
corrections and omissions..._The_Diary_of_Anne_Frank_ [i.e., the
published version of the diaries] does indeed contain `the essence' of
Anne's writings, and that there are no grounds on which the term
`forgery' can be applied to the work of the editors or publishers of
the book."
"despite the corrections and omissions"? Meaning that there are some?
And then we get, "and that there are no grounds on which the term
`forgery' can be applied to the work of the editors or publishers of
the book."
That certainly looks like the report is hedging on wording. Maybe
something else than authentic but not a "forgery". And then too, with
a big 'too', the passage singles out for exoneration "editors and
publishers" and not whoever came up with the diary in the first place.
In spite of possible reality that the diary wasn't written by Anne
Frank I still think it a mistake for revisionists to make a ado about
it.
After the Holocaust story falls then I would be inclined to say to
revisionists go ahead and get it.
Until then 'The Dairy of Anne Frank' is way too high profile and
involves the story of a little girl and too much in the minds of those
that are influenced by such things.
It has nothing to do with whether the Holocaust story is real or false
so why bother with it?
One big benefit to revisionism by the Dutch study is that it presents
a precedence for documenting the reality of other materials. Why and
how can do they do a forensic investigation on one thing and not
another?
Joseph Boegler
>Quoting Lipstadt:
But Anne Frank DID mention the gas chambers in an entry in
her diary in September 1942. She said they heard it on the
BBC. I believe that this entry is legitimate because the rumors
of the gas chambers were already circulating in September 1942.
>Now on reading this from Mr.Keren/Lipstadt/Critical Edition and not by
>considering any revisionist material I have great doubts about the
>authenticity of the diary.
I don't share your doubts, Tom. I've read the diary and I don't
believe that any man, even Anne's father, could have written
that stuff.
>First that the Dutch would have even gone through the trouble of doing
>tests to show it was from the circa time.
The Dutch went to all that trouble in order to silence those who
didn't believe the diary was authentic. The writing is remarkable
for a girl, aged 13 to 15.
>Lipstadt says, "The State Forensic Science Laboratory examined the
>materials used--the ink, paper, glue, etc...." but doesn't say
>anything about its possible age. We have ink, paper and glue, each one
>would have its own characteristics for aging and that would be the
>number two determination. Anyone with 'connections' could come up with
>the circa ink, paper and glue. And of course if it was a forgery meant
>to be found the creator would go through the trouble of trying to make
>it look authentic.
>Say, when was the diary found anyway? Like in what year and under what
>circumstances did it appear?
After someone snitched them off, the police arrived at the
annex and arrested the Franks. One of Otto Frank's employees, Miep
Gies, had been helping them by bringing in food and other supplies.
Miep was originally from Austria; she was sent to the Netherlands
when she was a child because she was suffering from malnutrition
after World War I and Austria was having a hard time taking care
of its people after the devastation of the war. Miep (she changed
her name) recognized that the arresting officer spoke with an
Austrian accent, so she told him that she was from Austria too.
This probably kept her from being arrested along with two of the
male helpers who were taken into custody.
The police told the Franks and the others in the annex to hand
over all their valuables. Then the arresting officer grabbed Otto
Frank's briefcase which was full of loose papers, dumped the
contents on the floor and put all the jewelry and other valuables
into the briefcase. After the police left, Miep grabbed up the papers
and kept them in a drawer. She knew that these papers were
Anne's writing. She said she didn't read them, out of respect for
Anne's privacy.
>Lipstadt says the report is some 270 pages long and then it seems her
>footnote says whatever she got from it is not from the report itself
>but from a book on one page. "p. 166".
>Then we have the quote from the book given by Lipstadt, ""despite
>corrections and omissions..._The_Diary_of_Anne_Frank_ [i.e., the
>published version of the diaries] does indeed contain `the essence' of
>Anne's writings, and that there are no grounds on which the term
>`forgery' can be applied to the work of the editors or publishers of
>the book."
>"despite the corrections and omissions"? Meaning that there are some?
Yes. Anne did two different versions of her diary. The original
diary was started when she was 13 - she got the diary for her
13th birthday. Then she heard on the radio that there was a
contest to find the best wartime diary, with the winner to be
published after the war. She wanted to get her diary published
so she began rewriting it. Miep Gies said on a TV documentary
that the other people in the annex helped her with the rewrite.
After the war, when Otto Frank came back to Amsterdam, Miep
Gies took him in and provided him with a place to stay for the
next seven years. She gave him Anne's papers which she had
retrieved from the floor of the annex and Otto set to work
organizing Anne's writings into a THIRD VERSION. He took parts
of version a (the original) and version b (the rewrite) and mixed
them all together, leaving out anything that he didn't like. This
was version c, which was published in 1947. There is no
indication of which version was used for which date,
and the reader has no idea that some pages have been
left out.
The Critical Edition is a huge book which has version a and
version b side by side on each page, along with version c, which
is the Diary of Anne Frank that most people have read.
After Otto Frank died, the pages that he had left out were turned
over and some of this material was incorporated into yet another
version. However, some pages have never been published. The
names of the people mentioned in the book have been changed
and some names have been left out.
>And then we get, "and that there are no grounds on which the term
>`forgery' can be applied to the work of the editors or publishers of
>the book."
>That certainly looks like the report is hedging on wording. Maybe
>something else than authentic but not a "forgery". And then too, with
>a big 'too', the passage singles out for exoneration "editors and
>publishers" and not whoever came up with the diary in the first place.
>In spite of possible reality that the diary wasn't written by Anne
>Frank I still think it a mistake for revisionists to make a ado about
>it.
>After the Holocaust story falls then I would be inclined to say to
>revisionists go ahead and get it.
>Until then 'The Dairy of Anne Frank' is way too high profile and
>involves the story of a little girl and too much in the minds of those
>that are influenced by such things.
>It has nothing to do with whether the Holocaust story is real or false
>so why bother with it?
>One big benefit to revisionism by the Dutch study is that it presents
>a precedence for documenting the reality of other materials. Why and
>how can do they do a forensic investigation on one thing and not
>another?
You are correct, Tom. The Diary of Anne Frank is not really
about the Holocaust. It is popular because it is the writing of
a young girl who was very intelligent and perceptive, but at the
same time she was a bratty teen-ager that other teen-agers
can relate to her. She hated her mother and wrote about her
relationship with her mother, which other young girls can relate
to. The diary is also a love story because she briefly fell in
love with Peter, a boy around her own age, who was hiding in
the annex with her. It is an excellent book in its own right.
It is a "forgery" only in the sense that she may have had
help in rewriting it and her father did some editing of it. Otto
knew what would sell and what wouldn't.
Daniel Keren
# After the Holocaust story falls then I would be inclined to say to
# revisionists go ahead and get it.
Irving predicted in 1990 that the Holocaust story will fall within
two years. And where is that nazoid pig now? Humiliated and exposed
for the filthy lying racist scum that he is.
Perhaps tommie wants to offer a date too?
# Until then 'The Dairy of Anne Frank' is way too high profile and
# involves the story of a little girl and too much in the minds of those
# that are influenced by such things.
Yes, well, some people find it sad that a totally innocent young girl
died in a concentration camp.
But for tommie moran, who declared that even one Jew in the world is too
much, it is a call for celebration. If tommie would have been at Belsen
upon liberation and seen the mounds of corpses, he'd be dancing with joy.
-Danny Keren.
Chris Jacobs
"tom moran" <t...@pacificnet.net> schreef in bericht
news:3e2ef984....@betanews.pacificnet.net...
>
> Mr.Keren had come up with:
>
> For an excellent treatment of this subject, see "Denying the
> Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory", by Deborah
> Lipstadt, published by the Free Press, ISBN 0-02-919235-8.
>
> Quoting Lipstadt:
>
> In 1981, the Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation
No. Daniel Keren did not come up with "Quoting Lipstadt:"
That was a line you added.
Here he only says the Lipstad book is "an excellent treatment"
Elsewhere he called it a source:
"As noted, the sources are Lipsdat's book and "The Critical Edition"
of Anne Frank's diary."
But he dit _not_ say this was an exact quote.
tom moran
Mr.Boegler has shown up with his usual scholary fashion:
I do have a few notes to comment on though.
>But Anne Frank DID mention the gas chambers in an entry in
>her diary in September 1942. She said they heard it on the
>BBC. ...annex and arrested the Franks.
Now I have to wonder why Anne Frank would have taken the option to go
off to camps in Germany if she had knowledge of gas chambers?
>The police told the Franks and the others in the annex to hand
>over all their valuables. Then the arresting officer grabbed Otto
>Frank's briefcase which was full of loose papers, dumped the
>contents on the floor and put all the jewelry and other valuables
>into the briefcase.
I have a little problem with that also. Why wouldn't the police have
kept the papers since one would think they would be interested in
knowing what they said. After all, the diary would have been evidence
against anyone protecting Anne Frank. Of course that tale would
explain how the diary came to survive.
I have no doubt about your recollection of the details Mr.Boegler but
I don't know if I necessarily believe in the accounts.
tom moran
<c.t.m....@hccnet.nl> wrote:
>No. Daniel Keren did not come up with "Quoting Lipstadt:"
>
>That was a line you added.
>
>Here he only says the Lipstad book is "an excellent treatment"
>
>Elsewhere he called it a source:
>
>"As noted, the sources are Lipsdat's book and "The Critical Edition"
>of Anne Frank's diary."
>
>But he dit _not_ say this was an exact quote.
Maybe you can straighten it all out as to who said what.
Daniel Keren
# Mr.Boegler has shown up with his usual scholary fashion:
#
# I do have a few notes to comment on though.
## But Anne Frank DID mention the gas chambers in an entry in
## her diary in September 1942. She said they heard it on the
## BBC. ...annex and arrested the Franks.
# Now I have to wonder why Anne Frank would have taken the option to go
# off to camps in Germany if she had knowledge of gas chambers?
Oh. You mean she was given an option?
You're beyond hope, tommie.
-Danny Keren.
tom moran
Moran had said:
>## But Anne Frank DID mention the gas chambers in an entry in
>## her diary in September 1942. She said they heard it on the
>## BBC. ...annex and arrested the Franks.
>
># Now I have to wonder why Anne Frank would have taken the option to go
># off to camps in Germany if she had knowledge of gas chambers?
Mr.Keren says:
>Oh. You mean she was given an option?
>
>You're beyond hope, tommie.
You say the Germans didn't give the prisoners at Auschwitz the option
of staying there to be liberated by the Russians or going to Germany
to be liberated by the Western Allies?
You say that Elie Wiesel is a liar?
Daniel Keren
# You say the Germans didn't give the prisoners at Auschwitz the option
# of staying there to be liberated by the Russians or going to Germany
# to be liberated by the Western Allies?
We were discussing the "option" of being deported *to* Auschwitz. It was
not an option.
As for Wiesel's testimony, as you must know by now - because I have responded
on it quite a few times - he explicitly writes that those who chose to leave
with the SS did so because they were afraid that the SS would kill all those
who decide to stay.
# You say that Elie Wiesel is a liar?
No, I am saying that you are a liar. And a very primitive one at that -
reposting the same silly, tired, boring lies ad infinitum.
Frankly, I don't see what you're hoping to achieve with this endless
lying. Maybe you're just waging a war of attrition. Maybe you're so
senile and stupid that you don't even realize what you're doing. I'd
give the latter option the higher probability among the two.
Poor old tommie.
-Danny Keren.
Joseph Boegler
I didn't quite understand what you meant by Anne Frank taking the
option to "go off to camps in Germany" until I read this post which
clarifies it. I got the following information from the Biography of
Anne Frank:
Anne and her sister Margo left Auschwitz in October on a
transport to Bergen-Belsen. Both were supposedly sick, and
the Red Cross said in a report that the women on this transport
were sick, but were expected to recover. (Bergen-Belsen had
a special section for sick prisoners.) The Frank sisters had
only been in Auschwitz for about 6 weeks or so.
The Biography of Anne Frank mentions that Otto Frank found
a Dutch doctor at Auschwitz who put him into the hospital and
he stayed there from early November until the Russians arrived
in January. The author says that Otto was too exhausted to
work at manual labor and that's why he got himself checked into
the hospital. No one knows the exact date that he went into the
hospital but it would have had to have been after the "gas chambers"
closed at the end of October because according to the True
Believers, the sick were routinely gassed.
Here's my guess as to why Anne and her sister were put on
a transport to Bergen-Belsen only a few weeks after they had
arrived in Auschwitz. I think that Otto Frank probably pulled some
strings, offering to pay money after the war, or maybe asking
the Dutch doctor who got him in the hospital to also help his
daughters get out of Auschwitz. (Otto had affection and respect
for his wife, but he was not head-over-heels in love with her. Anne
wrote about this in her Diary. His daughters would have come
first with him.)
Otto had been reading the newspapers and listening to the
radio while hiding in the annex. He would have known that
Bergen-Belsen was an exchange camp and that they had a
special section there which was filled mostly with Dutch Jews
who were considered suitable candidates for exchange because
they were either wealthy or Zionists who wanted to go to
Palestine. (The exchanges were made by sending Jews from
Bergen-Belsen to Palestine and returning German citizens to
Germany.) Otto was a wealthy business man and a veteran of
World War I. If he hadn't gone into hiding, his family would
have been sent to Bergen-Belsen for exchange, as many of
his friends in Amsterdam were.
However, according to the Biography, Anne didn't get into the
sick camp at Belsen. She was put into a temporary
camp that had tents instead of barracks. The sick camp
was for men with tuberculosis who had been brought from
the underground factories, and were not expected to recover.
After the tents blew down one night, Anne was transferred
to the women's camp, which was right next to the special
camp. Through the fence which separated the camps, Anne
saw some of her old friends that she had written about in her
Diary. The friends survived because the exchange Jews
were treated better than the others in the Belsen camp.
As for the option to go back to Germany, that didn't happen
until just before Auschwitz was evacuated in January 1945.
The last transport left on January 18th, and the Jews in the
camp hospital were given the option to get out of their sick beds
and join the "death march." Otto Frank wisely stayed put,
but Elie Wiesel's father joined the march. He made it to
Buchenwald, but died there because he was so exhausted from
the march that he couldn't stave off illness. Elie was only
17, so he survived the march and Buchenwald. He was
in the hospital recovering from a foot operation when he
opted to join the marchers to Germany.
Daniel Keren
[...]
# Otto Frank wisely stayed put,
# but Elie Wiesel's father joined the march. He made it to
# Buchenwald, but died there because he was so exhausted from
# the march that he couldn't stave off illness.
Obviously, your source for the fate of Wiesel's father is
his book. Do you remember the details of the father's
death, as reported by Wiesel?
-Danny Keren.
Kurt Knoll
kk
"Daniel Keren" <dke...@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:H2LDn...@world.std.com...
tom moran
Moran had said:
># You say the Germans didn't give the prisoners at Auschwitz the option
># of staying there to be liberated by the Russians or going to Germany
># to be liberated by the Western Allies?
Mr,Keren returns to say:
>We were discussing the "option" of being deported *to* Auschwitz. It was
>not an option.
>
>As for Wiesel's testimony, as you must know by now - because I have responded
>on it quite a few times - he explicitly writes that those who chose to leave
>with the SS did so because they were afraid that the SS would kill all those
>who decide to stay.
Really, we were discussing an option to be deported to Auschwitz? It
looks like I said, 'You say the Germans didn't give the prisoners at
Auschwitz the option ...'.
You say those who chose to go off to Germany, the home of the SS, so
they wouldn't be killed by the SS in Poland?
Moran considering Wiesel's account of being given an option:
># You say that Elie Wiesel is a liar?
Mr.Keren replies:
>No, I am saying that you are a liar. And a very primitive one at that -
>reposting the same silly, tired, boring lies ad infinitum.
>
>Frankly, I don't see what you're hoping to achieve with this endless
>lying. Maybe you're just waging a war of attrition. Maybe you're so
>senile and stupid that you don't even realize what you're doing. I'd
>give the latter option the higher probability among the two.
>
>Poor old tommie.
Well, nothing there to straighten things out.
Chris Jacobs
>
> Mr.Boegler has shown up with his usual scholary fashion:
>
> I do have a few notes to comment on though.
>
> >But Anne Frank DID mention the gas chambers in an entry in
> >her diary in September 1942. She said they heard it on the
> >BBC. ...annex and arrested the Franks.
>
> Now I have to wonder why Anne Frank would have taken the option to go
> off to camps in Germany if she had knowledge of gas chambers?
Which camps in Germany?
Are you claiming that there were gas chambers in Bergen-Belsen?
Joseph Boegler
Are you asking because you don't know and you want
information, or what? The only thing I recall is that the
father died from some illness, and that Elie expressed
relief that his father had died because he didn't want
to have to take care of him. I don't think this is a
suitable book for high school kids because of Elie's
attitude toward his father.
>><BR><BR>
Joseph Boegler
>Mr.Boegler has shown up with his usual scholary fashion:
>I do have a few notes to comment on though.
>>But Anne Frank DID mention the gas chambers in an entry in
>>her diary in September 1942. She said they heard it on the
>>BBC. ...annex and arrested the Franks.
>Now I have to wonder why Anne Frank would have taken the option to go
>off to camps in Germany if she had knowledge of gas chambers?
I answered this in another post in this thread.
>>The police told the Franks and the others in the annex to hand
>>over all their valuables. Then the arresting officer grabbed Otto
>>Frank's briefcase which was full of loose papers, dumped the
>>contents on the floor and put all the jewelry and other valuables
>>into the briefcase.
>I have a little problem with that also. Why wouldn't the police have
>kept the papers since one would think they would be interested in
>knowing what they said. After all, the diary would have been evidence
>against anyone protecting Anne Frank. Of course that tale would
>explain how the diary came to survive.
>I have no doubt about your recollection of the details Mr.Boegler but
>I don't know if I necessarily believe in the accounts.
Anne's diary was written in Dutch. Also, she alternated
between cursive writing and printing, as she wrote the
diary. The arresting officer had already established that
Otto Frank was German because he saw an army trunk in
the room, so he knew that Otto was a World War I veteran.
According to Miep Gies, who told it to Anne's biographer,
this made the Austrian officer more considerate of Otto.
He would also have known that the diary was written by
one of Otto's children since Otto Frank himself would have
written his own diary in German. So he knew that this
was the writing of a child, and he probably didn't think it
was important.
The person who "betrayed" the Franks also snitched on
the helpers. The two men who helped them were arrested,
but the women weren't, probably because Miep was Austrian
and so was the arresting officer. The part that is hard for
me to believe is that Miep claimed that she didn't read the
diary. She told Anne's biographer that if she had read it,
she would have had to destroy it because it implicated her
as the main one who had helped the Franks to hide.
No independent witness was present when the Franks
were arrested; only the police and Otto Frank were alive
at the end of the war to tell the story. Otto Frank may
have prevailed upon the Austrian officer to leave the
diary, after they had established some rapport because
of Otto being a veteran. Otto knew that Anne's ambition
was to be a famous writer and to go to Hollywood; he knew
that she was hoping to win a contest and get her diary
published after the war. He probably helped her to rewrite
it just for that purpose. So he might have downplayed the
importance of it to keep the Austrian police officer from
confiscating it, telling him that it was only the scribbling of
a child. Anne was barely 15 and was only 5 feet tall,
weighting 100 pounds. She could pass for a child.
Black Knight
When the Nazis found Anne, they acted like the Godfather-they made her
an offer she couldn't refuse.
Bruno
>
>
> -Danny Keren.
Philip Mathews
news:am857e$g4d$1...@news.hccnet.nl...
Oh God!
This ought to be funny!
--
Philip Mathews
"Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing
knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be
ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it."
Samuel Johnson
Daniel Keren
# Mr,Keren returns to say:
## As for Wiesel's testimony, as you must know by now - because I have responded
## on it quite a few times - he explicitly writes that those who chose to leave
## with the SS did so because they were afraid that the SS would kill all those
## who decide to stay.
# Really, we were discussing an option to be deported to Auschwitz? It
# looks like I said, 'You say the Germans didn't give the prisoners at
# Auschwitz the option ...'.
#
# You say those who chose to go off to Germany, the home of the SS, so
# they wouldn't be killed by the SS in Poland?
It's pretty simple. People usually choose the option which allows
them to live longer.
Even you should understand this (well...).
-Danny Keren.
Daniel Keren
# "Daniel Keren" <dke...@world.std.com> wrote:
## Obviously, your source for the fate of Wiesel's father is
## his book. Do you remember the details of the father's
## death, as reported by Wiesel?
# Are you asking because you don't know and you want
# information, or what? The only thing I recall is that the
# father died from some illness,
You don't remember the part about an SS officer violently hitting
his father in the head with a truncheon, while he was gravely ill,
do you?
I guess it's the same "selective memory", or shall we say
"creative editing", that expresses itself when "revisionists"
quote Wiesel to the effect that some Auschwitz inmates chose
to leave with the SS - but, er, ah, they "forget" to mention
that Wiesel writes that the only reason they chose this option
is their fear that the SS would kill everyone who said he wants
to stay?
Whether you're dealing with David Irving, the leader of the
tribe, or with the lowest foot soldier on alt.revisionism, you
can expect nothing but lies.
-Danny Keren.
tom moran
Moran had said:
>># You say the Germans didn't give the prisoners at Auschwitz the option
>># of staying there to be liberated by the Russians or going to Germany
>># to be liberated by the Western Allies?
Mr,Keren returned to say:
>>We were discussing the "option" of being deported *to* Auschwitz. It was
>>not an option.
>>
>>As for Wiesel's testimony, as you must know by now - because I have responded
>>on it quite a few times - he explicitly writes that those who chose to leave
>>with the SS did so because they were afraid that the SS would kill all those
>>who decide to stay.
>
>Really, we were discussing an option to be deported to Auschwitz? It
>looks like I said, 'You say the Germans didn't give the prisoners at
>Auschwitz the option ...'.
>
>You say those who chose to go off to Germany, the home of the SS, so
>they wouldn't be killed by the SS in Poland?
Mr.Keren just ignores the reply and repeats himself:
>It's pretty simple. People usually choose the option which allows
>them to live longer.
>
>Even you should understand this (well...).
The only thing you did there Mr.Keren is to repeat yourself.
Here, lets try it again -
You say those who chose to go off to Germany, the home of the SS, so
they wouldn't be killed by the SS in Poland?
You have some special reasoning (chutzpa) for why the SS in Germany
would have been any different than those in Poland?
Daniel Keren
# Here, lets try it again -
#
# You say those who chose to go off to Germany, the home of the SS, so
# they wouldn't be killed by the SS in Poland?
#
# You have some special reasoning (chutzpa) for why the SS in Germany
# would have been any different than those in Poland?
Once again:
If people are given two options, one of which is immediate death,
they will almost always choose the other option.
Think about it for a day or two. Who knows, there's always hope.
-Danny Keren.
tom moran
Moran had said:
>># You say the Germans didn't give the prisoners at Auschwitz the option
>># of staying there to be liberated by the Russians or going to Germany
>># to be liberated by the Western Allies?
Mr,Keren returned to say:
>>We were discussing the "option" of being deported *to* Auschwitz. It was
>>not an option.
>>
>>As for Wiesel's testimony, as you must know by now - because I have responded
>>on it quite a few times - he explicitly writes that those who chose to leave
>>with the SS did so because they were afraid that the SS would kill all those
>>who decide to stay.
>
>Really, we were discussing an option to be deported to Auschwitz? It
>looks like I said, 'You say the Germans didn't give the prisoners at
>Auschwitz the option ...'.
>
>You say those who chose to go off to Germany, the home of the SS, so
>they wouldn't be killed by the SS in Poland?
Mr.Keren just ignored the reply and repeated himself:
>It's pretty simple. People usually choose the option which allows
>them to live longer.
>
>Even you should understand this (well...).
Moran replied:
>The only thing you did there Mr.Keren is to repeat yourself.
>Here, lets try it again -
>You say those who chose to go off to Germany, the home of the SS, so
>they wouldn't be killed by the SS in Poland?
>You have some special reasoning (chutzpa) for why the SS in Germany
>would have been any different than those in Poland?
Mr.Keren repeats himself once again:
>Once again:
>
>If people are given two options, one of which is immediate death,
>they will almost always choose the other option.
>
>Think about it for a day or two. Who knows, there's always hope.
Kind of fits in with Hitler's statement about debating with Jews. You
offer up something and the Jew just repeats his initial assertion
without addressing the counter points.
What Talmudic lesson is that Mr.Keren? Chutzpa 101 or Chutzpa 201?
Another way of putting your reply is, 'The Jews figured they would be
killed by the SS bees in Poland so they decided to jump into the very
hive to save their lives.'
Joseph Boegler
There were rumors in the camp that the SS was going to
kill all those who stayed behind. That caused some to get out
of their beds and walk, but others didn't believe it. According to
the survivor books that I've read, the SS and the inmates were
getting along well, even drinking together towards the last
when the Germans knew they were losing the war. I've heard
several survivors speak at the Simon Wiesenthal Center and
all of them have at least one story to tell about an act of
kindness by an SS man. They knew what to expect from the
SS men, but the Russians were different. There were also rumors
and stories about Russian atrocities. There were many stories
(apparently true) about Russian cannibalism. The women feared
being raped by the Russians, and in fact, the Russians did rape
the female inmates at Ravensbrück, the women's camp, when
they liberated it. The SS knew about the Russians mutilating
the bodies of German soldiers on the battlefield and shooting
POWs. The Auschwitz inmates were given a choice: go with
these decent SS men, or stay behind and be raped, killed and
eaten by the Russians. That's why most of them went out into
deep snow and walked for miles - to get away from the Russians.
Daniel Keren
[...]
# The Auschwitz inmates were given a choice: go with
# these decent SS men, or stay behind and be raped, killed and
# eaten by the Russians. That's why most of them went out into
# deep snow and walked for miles - to get away from the Russians.
Now that's a fascinating theory. Care to point out the survivor
testimonies which support it?
-Danny Keren.
tom moran
Mr.Boegler had concluded his very good recollection:
># The Auschwitz inmates were given a choice: go with
># these decent SS men, or stay behind and be raped, killed and
># eaten by the Russians. That's why most of them went out into
># deep snow and walked for miles - to get away from the Russians.
Mr.Keren peeks out and squeaks:
>Now that's a fascinating theory. Care to point out the survivor
>testimonies which support it?
All you need, meaning all the world needs to know about the 'OPTION'
is what Elie Wiesel had to say.
Then we have hundreds or even thousands opting to leave with the
Germans, during a snow storm to march miles to get to Germany. Why
didn't they stay to get liberated by the Bolsheviks? Even Jews didn't
want to be taken by the Bolsheviks. If you were there Mr.Keren, you
would have been the first one out the door.
Daniel Keren
# Mr.Boegler had concluded his very good recollection:
"very good" by tommie's standards, but totally disjoint from reality.
### The Auschwitz inmates were given a choice: go with
### these decent SS men, or stay behind and be raped, killed and
### eaten by the Russians. That's why most of them went out into
### deep snow and walked for miles - to get away from the Russians.
# Daniel Keren wrote:
## Now that's a fascinating theory. Care to point out the survivor
## testimonies which support it?
# All you need, meaning all the world needs to know about the 'OPTION'
# is what Elie Wiesel had to say.
Wiesel said that those who chose to leave with the SS did so because
they were afraid that anyone who said he wants to stay behind, would
be killed (by the SS). That doesn't help your case.
Boegler made a statement about the considerations and feelings of the
Auschwitz inmates. Can he back it up with their statements? Can you,
poor old kook?
-Danny Keren.
Seneca
> tom moran <t...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
>
> # You say the Germans didn't give the prisoners at Auschwitz the option
> # of staying there to be liberated by the Russians or going to Germany
> # to be liberated by the Western Allies?
>
> We were discussing the "option" of being deported *to* Auschwitz. It was
> not an option.
That's not what you were discussing at all, Kerensky.
Anne Frank was already in Auschwitz BEFORE she went to a concentration camp
in Germany, as I'm sure you know. So when Tom Moran says,
>>>
Now I have to wonder why Anne Frank would have taken the option to go
off to camps in Germany if she had knowledge of gas chambers?
<<<
Clearly he is referring to the option to leave Auschwitz for a German camp,
not to be DEPORTED TO Auschwitz in the first place.
That is so clear in fact that I assume it must be the reason you deleted
that part of his reply from the parts you quoted. Twisty and sneaky as
usual, Kerensky.
>
> As for Wiesel's testimony, as you must know by now - because I have
responded
> on it quite a few times - he explicitly writes that those who chose to
leave
> with the SS did so because they were afraid that the SS would kill all
those
> who decide to stay.
That makes no sense at all, quite apart from the fact that Wiesel is famous
for spouting falsehoods over the years. (The "blazing trenches," remember?
"I saw it with my own eyes!" wrote Wiesel.) But I suppose it requires little
or no sense to satisfy one of the Holocaust faithful, eh?
>
> # You say that Elie Wiesel is a liar?
>
> No, I am saying that you are a liar. And a very primitive one at that -
> reposting the same silly, tired, boring lies ad infinitum.
Obviously it is you who are the liar and fraud here, Kerensky.
>
> Frankly, I don't see what you're hoping to achieve with this endless
> lying. Maybe you're just waging a war of attrition. Maybe you're so
> senile and stupid that you don't even realize what you're doing. I'd
> give the latter option the higher probability among the two.
>
> Poor old tommie.
That's sub-juvenile and childish. Is it really what passes for snappy
repartee in the Kerensky household? Be careful not to get your bubble gum on
the screen.
Seneca
Ken McVay
Seneca <noj...@thishere.net> wrote:
[...]
>Anne Frank was already in Auschwitz BEFORE she went to a concentration camp
>in Germany, as I'm sure you know. So when Tom Moran says,
>
>>>>
>Now I have to wonder why Anne Frank would have taken the option to go
>off to camps in Germany if she had knowledge of gas chambers?
><<<
>
>Clearly he is referring to the option to leave Auschwitz for a German camp,
>not to be DEPORTED TO Auschwitz in the first place.
I can't help but agree, although I'm curious as to why someone felt
Ms. Frank had a choice with respect to being sent from Auschwitz to
Bergen-Belsen.
>That makes no sense at all, quite apart from the fact that Wiesel is famous
>for spouting falsehoods over the years. (The "blazing trenches," remember?
>"I saw it with my own eyes!" wrote Wiesel.) But I suppose it requires little
>or no sense to satisfy one of the Holocaust faithful, eh?
Are you saying that it would not be possible to have seen a blazing
trench?
One full of burning human fat, for instance?
--
"...the antisemite is immune to refutation from either facts or logic.
An antisemite has chosen to live in hatred, without regard to either
facts or logic." (Matas, David. Bloody Speech, p. 37)
The Nizkor Project: http://www.nizkor.org
Seneca
No, Tom isn't but the Holocaust faithful here are.
Chris, the Holocaust faithful claim there were gas chambers everywhere.
Every concentration camp, every farmhouse or shed, every van, truck or other
motor vehicle. German children had toy gas chambers to play with, and every
German bicycle had a folding portable gas chamber.
(Okay, so that's a little hyperbole. But gas chambers, gas chambers
everywhere are central to the whole Holocaust mythology. When in doubt,
assume a gas chamber. That's what Kerensky & Co. do.)
Seneca
Chris Jacobs
"Seneca" <noj...@thishere.net> schreef in bericht
news:yo7i9.40317$jG2.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Daniel Keren" <dke...@world.std.com> wrote in message
> news:H2LBt...@world.std.com...
> > tom moran <t...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
> >
> > # You say the Germans didn't give the prisoners at Auschwitz the option
> > # of staying there to be liberated by the Russians or going to Germany
> > # to be liberated by the Western Allies?
> >
> > We were discussing the "option" of being deported *to* Auschwitz. It was
> > not an option.
>
> That's not what you were discussing at all, Kerensky.
>
> Anne Frank was already in Auschwitz BEFORE she went to a concentration
camp
> in Germany, as I'm sure you know. So when Tom Moran says,
>
> >>>
> Now I have to wonder why Anne Frank would have taken the option to go
> off to camps in Germany if she had knowledge of gas chambers?
> <<<
>
> Clearly he is referring to the option to leave Auschwitz for a German
camp,
> not to be DEPORTED TO Auschwitz in the first place.
It does not matter what Tom Moran referred to, he is wrong anyway.
If he referred to being DEPORTED TO Auschwitz in the first place then he is
wrong because that is not an "option"
If he referred to the option to leave Auschwitz for a German camp then he is
wrong because then only gas chambers in the camp she went to would matter
and Bergen-Belsen had no gas chambers.
Philip Mathews:
Seneca
That isn't what he said or meant, Chris.
>
> If he referred to the option to leave Auschwitz for a German camp then he
is
> wrong because then only gas chambers in the camp she went to would matter
> and Bergen-Belsen had no gas chambers.
I know that, you know that, and Tom knows that. Only the Holocaust faithful
here believe that Bergen-Belsen had gas chambers. Tom was referring to their
belief, that's all.
Seneca
tom moran
Mr.Keren comes up with another beauty:
>Wiesel said that those who chose to leave with the SS did so because
>they were afraid that anyone who said he wants to stay behind, would
>be killed (by the SS). That doesn't help your case.
Wow, that's a doozy. You say that the prisoners opted to leave because
they thought if they didn't they would be killed so they took the
option of going to Germany where the anti-Semitism was that highest,
the place from where all the Holocaust was directed? You say they
would have figured they were safer going there in stead?
Boy, wow, Mr.Keren, your desperation leads to some real doozies.
Mr.Keren looking for some proof:
>Boegler made a statement about the considerations and feelings of the
>Auschwitz inmates. Can he back it up with their statements? Can you,
>poor old kook?
Seems like Mr.Boegler is very knowledgable on the subjects he comments
on. Everytime you(s) ask for some documentation and get it you only
come up with more doozies. Are you coming up with anything for what
you put out here?
Okay, you can commence your whining and sniveling now.
tom moran
Holy cow, mCvAy has actually come out and challenged a reply in stead
of the usual peanut gallery comments he usually makes:
>Are you saying that it would not be possible to have seen a blazing
>trench?
>One full of burning human fat, for instance?
Pits "full" of burning fat? Yikes.
Poor mCvAy, no wonder he bowed out of the fray years ago.
Hilary Ostrov
<Gx8i9.40421$jG2.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Seneca"
<noj...@thishere.net> wrote:
[...]
>I know that, you know that, and Tom knows that. Only the Holocaust faithful
>here believe that Bergen-Belsen had gas chambers. Tom was referring to their
>belief, that's all.
At his wits (using the word *very* loosely) end, having recycled just
about every denier drivel gambit in the book - and been soundly
splattered by the facts on each and every one - Seneca resorts to
"interpreting" Tom Moran.
"Revisionist scholarship". It is to laugh.
hro
=====================
Hilary Ostrov
E-mail: hos...@telus.net
WWW: http://www3.telus.net/myssiwyg/
The Nizkor Project http://www.nizkor.org/
Philip Mathews
news:yo7i9.40317$jG2.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Daniel Keren" <dke...@world.std.com> wrote in message
> news:H2LBt...@world.std.com...
> > tom moran <t...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
> > As for Wiesel's testimony, as you must know by now - because I have
> responded
> > on it quite a few times - he explicitly writes that those who chose to
> leave
> > with the SS did so because they were afraid that the SS would kill all
> those
> > who decide to stay.
>
> That makes no sense at all, quite apart from the fact that Wiesel is
famous
> for spouting falsehoods over the years. (The "blazing trenches," remember?
> "I saw it with my own eyes!" wrote Wiesel.) But I suppose it requires
little
> or no sense to satisfy one of the Holocaust faithful, eh?
And we're to believe that is a falsehood because an antisemitic fool, whose
ignorance about the Holocaust is manifest, declares it to be so?
> > # You say that Elie Wiesel is a liar?
> > No, I am saying that you are a liar. And a very primitive one at that -
> > reposting the same silly, tired, boring lies ad infinitum.
> Obviously it is you who are the liar and fraud here, Kerensky.
How is it that such foolish claims are "obvious" to you?
> > Frankly, I don't see what you're hoping to achieve with this endless
> > lying. Maybe you're just waging a war of attrition. Maybe you're so
> > senile and stupid that you don't even realize what you're doing. I'd
> > give the latter option the higher probability among the two.
> > Poor old tommie.
> That's sub-juvenile and childish. Is it really what passes for snappy
> repartee in the Kerensky household? Be careful not to get your bubble gum
on
> the screen.
It's an apt description for one of the most illiterate, uneducated, morons
ever to grace alt.revisionism.
Philip Mathews
news:3e592647....@betanews.pacificnet.net...
And poor Li'l Tommy demonstrates his persuasive powers for the peanut
gallery.
Philip Mathews
Who here has indicated Bergen-Belsen had gas chambers?
You'll just mutter any absurdity that comes into your head, won't you?
William Daffer
[snip]
>> If he referred to the option to leave Auschwitz for a German camp then he
> is
>> wrong because then only gas chambers in the camp she went to would matter
>> and Bergen-Belsen had no gas chambers.
>
> I know that, you know that, and Tom knows that. Only the Holocaust faithful
> here believe that Bergen-Belsen had gas chambers. Tom was referring to their
> belief, that's all.
And who ever said there was a gas chamber at Belsen?
whd
--
The discounting of anti-Semitism is itself anti-Semitic.
Evelyn Torton Beck
William Daffer
> "Chris Jacobs" <c.t.m....@hccnet.nl> wrote in message
> news:am857e$g4d$1...@news.hccnet.nl...
>>
>> "tom moran" <t...@pacificnet.net> schreef in bericht
>> news:3e3b92a0....@betanews.pacificnet.net...
>> >
>> > Mr.Boegler has shown up with his usual scholary fashion:
>> >
>> > I do have a few notes to comment on though.
>> >
>> > >But Anne Frank DID mention the gas chambers in an entry in
>> > >her diary in September 1942. She said they heard it on the
>> > >BBC. ...annex and arrested the Franks.
>> >
>> > Now I have to wonder why Anne Frank would have taken the option to go
>> > off to camps in Germany if she had knowledge of gas chambers?
>>
>> Which camps in Germany?
>>
>> Are you claiming that there were gas chambers in Bergen-Belsen?
>
> No, Tom isn't but the Holocaust faithful here are.
>
And now Seneca descends into baldfaced lying.
> Chris, the Holocaust faithful claim there were gas chambers everywhere.
> Every concentration camp, every farmhouse or shed, every van, truck or other
> motor vehicle. German children had toy gas chambers to play with, and every
> German bicycle had a folding portable gas chamber.
>
> (Okay, so that's a little hyperbole. But gas chambers, gas chambers
> everywhere are central to the whole Holocaust mythology. When in doubt,
> assume a gas chamber. That's what Kerensky & Co. do.)
Of course, Seneca won't be able to produce a single instance of
anyone claiming there was a gas chamber at Belsen, but that won't
stop him from repeating this claim. Why? Because Seneca's statements
have nothing to do with the facts.
whd
--
Of course, the first pigeon that shits on the statue will be
condemned as a Nazi, anti-Semite, bigot and Jew-baiting vandal,
suspected of having something to do with gas chambers, then tried at
Nuremberg and hanged as a war criminal.
Seneca, responding to Tom Moran's logorhea about a statue
to Anne Frank.
tom moran
<c.t.m....@hccnet.nl> wrote:
>It does not matter what Tom Moran referred to, he is wrong anyway.
>
>If he referred to being DEPORTED TO Auschwitz in the first place then he is
>wrong because that is not an "option"
We can eliminate that from needing any comment because that isn't what
was said. You should have read a little more closely in stead of
coming out expressing you didn't.
>If he referred to the option to leave Auschwitz for a German camp then he is
>wrong because then only gas chambers in the camp she went to would matter
>and Bergen-Belsen had no gas chambers.
Okay got it. They all took the option to go to Bergen-Belsen because
they knew there weren't any gas chambers there. Really?
Then you have to say that they knew there were some at Auschwitz which
with that knowledge they should have been more wary about going to the
land of anti-Semitism and headquarters of the final solution.
Say, have you been taking lessons from Mr.Keren?
Daniel Keren
# Chris, the Holocaust faithful claim there were gas chambers everywhere.
# Every concentration camp, every farmhouse or shed, every van, truck or other
# motor vehicle. German children had toy gas chambers to play with, and every
# German bicycle had a folding portable gas chamber.
Many survivors testified and gave depositions in the Belsen trial. Not
one said that people were gassed in Bergen-Belsen.
You're a low-life liar.
# (Okay, so that's a little hyperbole.
Oh.
-Danny Keren.
Daniel Keren
# I know that, you know that, and Tom knows that. Only the Holocaust faithful
# here believe that Bergen-Belsen had gas chambers.
Many survivors testified and gave depositions in the Belsen trial. Not
one said that people were gassed in Bergen-Belsen.
You're a low-life liar. Hell, you openly admitted that you lied on this
newsgroup.
-Danny Keren.
Daniel Keren
# Mr.Keren comes up with another beauty:
## Wiesel said that those who chose to leave with the SS did so because
## they were afraid that anyone who said he wants to stay behind, would
## be killed (by the SS). That doesn't help your case.
# Wow, that's a doozy. You say that the prisoners opted to leave because
# they thought if they didn't they would be killed so they took the
# option of going to Germany where the anti-Semitism was that highest,
# the place from where all the Holocaust was directed? You say they
# would have figured they were safer going there in stead?
I say - yet again - that whenever people are confronted with immediate
death, they will usually choose the other option.
Is that *really* so difficult to understand? I know you're very
ignorant and very stupid, but I hoped that even you would be able
to understand such a simple point.
## Boegler made a statement about the considerations and feelings of the
## Auschwitz inmates. Can he back it up with their statements? Can you,
## poor old kook?
# Seems like Mr.Boegler is very knowledgable on the subjects he comments
# on.
I guess that includes his blood libels against Jews? But anyway, if he's
so knowledgeable, can he back up his claim with testimonies of Auschwitz
survivors? So far, we have only seen evidence to the contrary.
-Danny Keren.
tom moran
Moran had said:
>># You say the Germans didn't give the prisoners at Auschwitz the option
>># of staying there to be liberated by the Russians or going to Germany
>># to be liberated by the Western Allies?
Mr,Keren returned to say:
>>We were discussing the "option" of being deported *to* Auschwitz. It was
>>not an option.
>>
>>As for Wiesel's testimony, as you must know by now - because I have responded
>>on it quite a few times - he explicitly writes that those who chose to leave
>>with the SS did so because they were afraid that the SS would kill all those
>>who decide to stay.
>
>Really, we were discussing an option to be deported to Auschwitz? It
>looks like I said, 'You say the Germans didn't give the prisoners at
>Auschwitz the option ...'.
>
>You say those who chose to go off to Germany, the home of the SS, so
>they wouldn't be killed by the SS in Poland?
Mr.Keren just ignored the reply and repeated himself:
>It's pretty simple. People usually choose the option which allows
>them to live longer.
>
>Even you should understand this (well...).
Moran replied:
>The only thing you did there Mr.Keren is to repeat yourself.
>Here, lets try it again -
>You say those who chose to go off to Germany, the home of the SS, so
>they wouldn't be killed by the SS in Poland?
>You have some special reasoning (chutzpa) for why the SS in Germany
>would have been any different than those in Poland?
Mr.Keren repeated himself again:
>Once again:
>
>If people are given two options, one of which is immediate death,
>they will almost always choose the other option.
>
>Think about it for a day or two. Who knows, there's always hope.
Moran returned to point out:
>Kind of fits in with Hitler's statement about debating with Jews. You
>offer up something and the Jew just repeats his initial assertion
>without addressing the counter points.
>
>What Talmudic lesson is that Mr.Keren? Chutzpa 101 or Chutzpa 201?
>
>Another way of putting your reply is, 'The Jews figured they would be
>killed by the SS bees in Poland so they decided to jump into the very
>hive to save their lives.'
Moran had said as to someone else of Mr.Keren's ilk:
># Wow, that's a doozy. You say that the prisoners opted to leave because
># they thought if they didn't they would be killed so they took the
># option of going to Germany where the anti-Semitism was that highest,
># the place from where all the Holocaust was directed? You say they
># would have figured they were safer going there in stead?
And yet again Mr.Keren returns to just repeat himself:
>I say - yet again - that whenever people are confronted with immediate
>death, they will usually choose the other option.
>
>Is that *really* so difficult to understand? I know you're very
>ignorant and very stupid, but I hoped that even you would be able
>to understand such a simple point.
What you're supposed to be doing Mr.Keren, in an adult way, is to tell
the reader how it would be that the Jews would have opted to go to
Germany, the homeland of anti-Semitism and Holocaust to escape being
killed in Poland. You can repeat yourself, ala what Hitler said,
again and again and it doesn't do anything to explain it. Like why
would the Jews think they would have a better chance at avoiding
"immediate death" in Germany.
Seneca
> tom moran <t...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
>
> # Mr.Keren comes up with another beauty:
>
> ## Wiesel said that those who chose to leave with the SS did so because
> ## they were afraid that anyone who said he wants to stay behind, would
> ## be killed (by the SS). That doesn't help your case.
Elie "I saw it with my own eyes!" Wiesel is a proven liar, a self-promoting
profiteer in Shoah business. He is despised for his fraud and profiteering
even by other Jews, isn't he? Doesn't Norman Finkelstein have a lot to say
on this subject about Wiesel? It certainly doesn't help YOUR case to use the
Weasel as a source.
>
> # Wow, that's a doozy. You say that the prisoners opted to leave because
> # they thought if they didn't they would be killed so they took the
> # option of going to Germany where the anti-Semitism was that highest,
> # the place from where all the Holocaust was directed? You say they
> # would have figured they were safer going there in stead?
>
> I say - yet again - that whenever people are confronted with immediate
> death, they will usually choose the other option.
But they WEREN'T "confronted with immediate death." No one who stayed behind
was murdered by the SS, were they?
You are trying to prove bullshit with more bullshit. All you have to make
the case that "those who chose to leave . . . were afraid [they] would be
killed" otherwise is the word of the known liar Wiesel.
That doesn't work, Kerensky.
Seneca
Daniel Keren
# What you're supposed to be doing Mr.Keren, in an adult way, is to tell
# the reader how it would be that the Jews would have opted to go to
# Germany, the homeland of anti-Semitism and Holocaust to escape being
# killed in Poland. You can repeat yourself, ala what Hitler said,
# again and again and it doesn't do anything to explain it. Like why
# would the Jews think they would have a better chance at avoiding
# "immediate death" in Germany.
If the options are:
1) Die right now.
2) Maybe die later.
Which would you choose?
I'm really trying here, tommie.
-Danny Keren.
Daniel Keren
# Daniel Keren wrote:
## I say - yet again - that whenever people are confronted with immediate
# death, they will usually choose the other option.
# But they WEREN'T "confronted with immediate death." No one who stayed behind
# was murdered by the SS, were they?
Many were murdered by the SS in the very last days. Read Czech's "Auschwitz
Chronicles". It will probaby be the first book you opened in your life.
But at any rate, what counts is what the inmates thought. The professional
liars tom moran and Boegler claimed that the inmates preferred to be with
the SS than with the Soviets. That's a lie; some of those who were given
the option to stay did join the SS, but only because they were afraid
they'd be murdered if they chose to stay. Whether they were wrong makes
no difference; moran and Boegler are still liars.
[some more drivel by the self-admitted liar and neo-Nazi propagandist "seneca"
deleted]
-Danny Keren.
Seneca
> The self-admitted liar "Seneca <noj...@thishere.net>" wrote:
>
> # Chris, the Holocaust faithful claim there were gas chambers everywhere.
> # Every concentration camp, every farmhouse or shed, every van, truck or
other
> # motor vehicle. German children had toy gas chambers to play with, and
every
> # German bicycle had a folding portable gas chamber.
>
> Many survivors testified and gave depositions in the Belsen trial. Not
> one said that people were gassed in Bergen-Belsen.
I'm glad to hear it. Was there any other facility in Germany or eastern
Europe that was not claimed to be the site of gas chambers, or was
Bergen-Belsen the sole gas-chamber-free oasis in a supposedly
gas-chamber-filled part of the world?
>
> You're a low-life liar.
You're still a nickel nose, Kerensky.
(I really have grown fond of that term, and it will probably stay as my
favorite rejoinder to Jews who engage in name-calling. I presume "nickel
nose" originated from the Jews' practice of carrying small change around in
their noses. Whatever, it's funny and I love it.)
Seneca
William Daffer
> "Daniel Keren" <dke...@world.std.com> wrote in message
> news:H2oHx...@world.std.com...
>> tom moran <t...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
>>
>> # Mr.Keren comes up with another beauty:
>>
>> ## Wiesel said that those who chose to leave with the SS did so because
>> ## they were afraid that anyone who said he wants to stay behind, would
>> ## be killed (by the SS). That doesn't help your case.
>
> Elie "I saw it with my own eyes!" Wiesel is a proven liar, a
> self-promoting profiteer in Shoah business. He is despised for his
> fraud and profiteering even by other Jews, isn't he? Doesn't Norman
> Finkelstein have a lot to say on this subject about Wiesel? It
> certainly doesn't help YOUR case to use the Weasel as a source.
>
Really? Does Finkelstein say that Wiesel is lying about this? Does
Finkelstein say that the Holocaust didn't happen? Because if he
doesn't (and we all know he doesn't) claiming him as an authority in
support of *your* argument that the Holocaust didn't happen is
misrepresenting Finkelstein.
But that's what Holocaust deniers do, misrepresent historical
evidence.
>
>>
>> # Wow, that's a doozy. You say that the prisoners opted to leave because
>> # they thought if they didn't they would be killed so they took the
>> # option of going to Germany where the anti-Semitism was that highest,
>> # the place from where all the Holocaust was directed? You say they
>> # would have figured they were safer going there in stead?
>>
>> I say - yet again - that whenever people are confronted with immediate
>> death, they will usually choose the other option.
>
> But they WEREN'T "confronted with immediate death." No one who
> stayed behind was murdered by the SS, were they?
>
> You are trying to prove bullshit with more bullshit. All you have to
> make the case that "those who chose to leave . . . were afraid
> [they] would be killed" otherwise is the word of the known liar
> Wiesel.
>
> That doesn't work, Kerensky.
Says the man who described the EG murder of 33,000 men, women and
children at Babi Yar as legitimate execution of partisans.
William Daffer
Another demonstration of what a lowlife schmuck you are.
> Seneca
>
>
--
If you're saying that Israel is now the greatest threat to world
peace, I agree with you. If you're saying Israel should have been
squashed at the beginning, I agree with you.
Seneca: giving us more reason why he should *not* be considered an
antisemite
tom moran
The latest in Moran's exchange with Mr.Keren who just keeps repeating
himself:
># What you're supposed to be doing Mr.Keren, in an adult way, is to tell
># the reader how it would be that the Jews would have opted to go to
># Germany, the homeland of anti-Semitism and Holocaust to escape being
># killed in Poland. You can repeat yourself, ala what Hitler said,
># again and again and it doesn't do anything to explain it. Like why
># would the Jews think they would have a better chance at avoiding
># "immediate death" in Germany.
Mr.Keren returns to repeat himself yet again:
>If the options are:
>
>1) Die right now.
>2) Maybe die later.
>
>Which would you choose?
>
>I'm really trying here, tommie.
Trying what Mr.Keren?
Ken McVay
Trying - in vain - to reach the vacuum between your ears, moron.
Gord McFee
There was never any doubt that Dr. Keren was trying in vain.
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Gord McFee
> "Daniel Keren" <dke...@world.std.com> wrote in message
> news:H2oGE...@world.std.com...
>> The self-admitted liar "Seneca <noj...@thishere.net>" wrote:
>>
>> # Chris, the Holocaust faithful claim there were gas chambers everywhere.
>> # Every concentration camp, every farmhouse or shed, every van, truck or
> other
>> # motor vehicle. German children had toy gas chambers to play with, and
> every
>> # German bicycle had a folding portable gas chamber.
>>
>> Many survivors testified and gave depositions in the Belsen trial. Not
>> one said that people were gassed in Bergen-Belsen.
>
> I'm glad to hear it. Was there any other facility in Germany or eastern
> Europe that was not claimed to be the site of gas chambers, or was
> Bergen-Belsen the sole gas-chamber-free oasis in a supposedly
> gas-chamber-filled part of the world?
Who said it was a gas chamber filled world? Why, Strawman Seneca did.
>> You're a low-life liar.
>
> You're still a nickel nose, Kerensky.
And you're still antisemitic trash.
Seneca
"Gord McFee" <gord....@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:3D8A76C2...@rogers.com...
PLONK.
Gee, I enjoy doing that to these empty-headed assholes.
William Daffer
Gord McFee is far and away your better in all things, he's
multi-lingual, smart as a whip and an all around mensch.
The fact that you don't know that and that you call him empty-headed
only redounds to *your* discredit. But then you've never been shy
about showing what antisemitic holocaust denying trash you are, have
you?
Philip Mathews
Not surprising, it's the most intelligent response you've been able to come
up with since you started here.
Gord McFee
The mark of the gutless.
> Gee, I enjoy doing that to these empty-headed assholes.
Strawman Seneca runs away.
Gord McFee
<Blush>
> The fact that you don't know that and that you call him empty-headed
> only redounds to *your* discredit. But then you've never been shy
> about showing what antisemitic holocaust denying trash you are, have
> you?
Whether he wants to or not. Pathetic.
William Daffer
[snip]
>> The fact that you don't know that and that you call him empty-headed
>> only redounds to *your* discredit. But then you've never been shy
>> about showing what antisemitic holocaust denying trash you are, have
>> you?
>
> Whether he wants to or not. Pathetic.
It is ever the way with these deniers. There's only two choices:
killfile all your opponents so that you don't, on a daily, demonstrate
basis how ignorant and illogical you are...
or ...
demonstrate on a daily basis how ignorant and illogical you are.
We should call it the _revisionist dilemma_: Which do you want to
be: Seneca or Tom Moran?
whd
--
Kurt Knolls enjoins us:
Bellow is your Gas Wagon Jeffery Enjoy.
Gord McFee
What a godawful choice.
William Daffer
And it's the only one they have!
whd
--
National Runt: speaking of himself?
Is this someone who is relevant?
Chris Jacobs
"Seneca" <noj...@thishere.net> schreef in bericht
news:ctji9.41279$jG2.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Elie "I saw it with my own eyes!" Wiesel is a proven liar,
I checked this proof, it works as follows:
Elie Wiesel says:
"He seemed to be telling the truth. Not far from us, flames were leaping up
from a ditch, gigantic flames. They were burning something. A lorry drew
up at the pit and delivered its load - little children. Babies! Yes, I saw
it - saw it with my own eyes ... those children in the flames. (Is it
surprising that I could not sleep after that? Sleep had fled from my eyes.)
So this was where we were going. A little farther on was another and
larger ditch for adults."
Message-ID: <2m4nbs$d...@point.mps.ohio-state.edu>
He did _not_ say he saw with his own eyes those where living children. He
will not have had the opportunity to properly check if they were alive or
already dead. If they were already dead Elie Wiesel was _not_ lying.
Faurisson says:
"A little farther on there was another ditch with gigantic flames where the
victims suffered "slow agony in the flames." "
http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/wiesel.html
Faurisson is lying here. A ditch with gigantic flames where the victims
suffered "slow agony in the flames." was not there and Elie Wiesel did not
say it was there.
What Elie Wiesel really said was:
" "Father," I said, "if that is so, I don't want to wait here. I'm going to
run to the electric wire. That would be better than slow agony in the
flames." "
So at that moment he thought people would be burned alive but he did _not_
claim he had actually seen it.
Seneca
His implication was very clearly that that's exactly what he had seen. Since
you have the book, or access to it, you know that he claims to have been
marched up to the blazing ditches himself again and again, but (apparently
by a miracle, God favored Wiesel or something) the line of victims stopped
before he got to the flames and he was never thrown in. Clearly he was
saying that live people were being thrown into the flames.
You are correct that in the first paragraph you quoted,
> "He seemed to be telling the truth. Not far from us, flames were leaping
up
> from a ditch, gigantic flames. They were burning something. A lorry drew
> up at the pit and delivered its load - little children. Babies! Yes, I
saw
> it - saw it with my own eyes ... those children in the flames. (Is it
> surprising that I could not sleep after that? Sleep had fled from my
eyes.)
> So this was where we were going. A little farther on was another and
> larger ditch for adults."
it does not specifically say "those children in the flames" were
alive, but that is the assumption any reasonable person would make for any
mention of "those children." If the phrase were "those children in the
field" or "those children in the house" you would of course assume LIVE
children unless stated otherwise. If the children were dead he would say so,
e.g. "those children's corpses" or some such thing, and nowhere does he
indicate that they were not alive.
His own reference to "slow agony in the flames," which you have quoted,
further shows that it is living people Wiesel was claiming were thrown into
the flames.
There can be no reasonable question about it: Wiesel is simply a bald-faced
liar. He claims to have seen something ("saw it with my own eyes") that he
didn't think would be questioned or disproven. And he was right, for a
while. Anyone could say anything about the Holocaust (Jews made into soap or
lampshades made from their skin, etc.) and as long as it was sufficiently
horrifying readers would believe it.
Seneca
Daniel Keren
The ignorant nazi and self-admitted liar is still posting his nonsense.
[...]
# His [Wiesel's] implication was very clearly that that's exactly what
# he had seen. Since you have the book, or access to it, you know that
# he claims to have been marched up to the blazing ditches himself
# again and again, but (apparently by a miracle, God favored Wiesel or
# something) the line of victims stopped before he got to the flames
# and he was never thrown in. Clearly he was saying that live people
# were being thrown into the flames.
The SS did burn people alive in Auschwitz and elsewhere. This is reported
in official correspondence of the SS; see for example
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/judwarcr.htm
The evidence has shown that this order was ruthlessly carried out in
the territory of the Soviet Union and in Poland. A significant illustration
of the measures actually applied occurs in the document which was sent in
1943 to the defendant Rosenberg by the Reich Commissar for Eastern
Territories, who wrote:
"It should be possible to avoid atrocities and to bury those who have
been liquidated. To lock men, women and children into barns and set fire
to them does not appear to be a suitable method of combating bands, even
if it is desired to exterminate the population. This method is not worthy
of the German cause, and hurts our reputation severely."
<end quote>
(folks, now watch the senile nazi kook start whining "this issue of
burning alive was *never* mentioned until I began posting about it!".
What a nazi retard).
There are also the well-known findings in Gardelegen, Thekla and
elsewhere, in which inmates were locked in buildings or barns which
were set on fire. There's no reason to assume that the Nazis didn't
also burn people alive in Auschwitz, which was the core of the
extermination machine - and witnesses have testified that this
indeed happened.
-Danny Keren.
Chris Jacobs
> Since you have the book, or access to it,
No, I just saw part of the book quoted by Ed Overman
Message-ID: <2m4nbs$d...@point.mps.ohio-state.edu>
Use the advanced search in google, there you can search on message-id
> and nowhere does he indicate that they were not alive.
Did you ever throw living children in flamepits?
Where they quit or did they make sound?
"Never shall I forget that night, the first night in camp, which has turned
my life into one long night, seven times cursed and seven times sealed.
Never shall I forget that smoke. Never shall I forget the little faces of
the children, whose bodies I saw turned into wreaths of smoke beneath a
silent blue sky."
No mention of the sound.
If he claimed living people were thrown into the flames he would have
mentioned the sound.
William Daffer
> "Seneca" <noj...@thishere.net> schreef in bericht
> news:k%Cj9.41173$1C2.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> Since you have the book, or access to it,
>
> No, I just saw part of the book quoted by Ed Overman
>
> Message-ID: <2m4nbs$d...@point.mps.ohio-state.edu>
>
He can't have seen it recently without considerable work. This post
was made *1994-03-15 08:22:20 PST*
Why is Chris Jacobs scouring the google archive for messages posted
*more than 8 years ago*? I mean, that's weird behavior, however you
look at it.
whd
--
<quote>
xganon, in 360dc87da7c02e27...@xganon.com, under the subject line:
"The Horror of the gas chambers", says:
It's too bad that they still don't do that. I would love to see most
of the oppressive Zion nazi regime and the rest of the Jew assasins
put there. For every non jew killed 100 jews should be slaughtered
like pigs. They don't belong there, the temples should be burned and
the people shot. They are all soldiers of zion and deserve one fate.
They are the chosen to die people. God has chosen the jews to be
persecuted and slaughtered. IT IS THE WAY
</quote>
Seneca
>
> "Seneca" <noj...@thishere.net> schreef in bericht
> news:k%Cj9.41173$1C2.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Since you have the book, or access to it,
>
> No, I just saw part of the book quoted by Ed Overman
>
> Message-ID: <2m4nbs$d...@point.mps.ohio-state.edu>
>
> Use the advanced search in google, there you can search on message-id
>
> > and nowhere does he indicate that they were not alive.
>
> Did you ever throw living children in flamepits?
> Where they quit or did they make sound?
No, I honestly cannot count that activity among my many life experiences.
>
> "Never shall I forget that night, the first night in camp, which has
turned
> my life into one long night, seven times cursed and seven times sealed.
> Never shall I forget that smoke. Never shall I forget the little faces of
> the children, whose bodies I saw turned into wreaths of smoke beneath a
> silent blue sky."
>
> No mention of the sound.
>
> If he claimed living people were thrown into the flames he would have
> mentioned the sound.
Chris, of course there was no sound. There was surely no throwing of babies
into blazing pits either; this was all a fiction invented by Wiesel. He
would undoubtedly have described terrible screaming if it had occurred to
him. He didn't mention any screaming of victims when he was marched up to
the blazing trenches either (and miraculously stopped just before being
thrown in), though it is reasonable to suppose that those in front of him
who (according to his story) DID go into the flames would have screamed. He
evidently just didn't think of it.
Liars often don't think of everything.
Seneca
Kurt Knoll
Germans used the famous gas wagon. They picked up a load of prisoner in
Gussen and gassed them on the way to Mauthausen. There they picked up
some more prisoners and gassed them on the way to Gussen. Many Time the
found the Prisoners to be death half way then they open the door and
dumpet the Prisoners in the nearby Ditch. On Must remember the highway
between Gusen and Mauthausen is a very Bussy Public highway so any
passerby can see what is laying in the Ditch. The distance between
Mauthausen and gussen is only 7 Kilometers of little over 4 Miles. I
wonder if Elie Wiesel has seen the whole thing ?.
Kurt Knoll
=======
"Chris Jacobs" <c.t.m....@hccnet.nl> wrote in message
news:ammchi$63r$1...@news.hccnet.nl...
Kurt Knoll
kk
"Daniel Keren" <dke...@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:H2w4M...@world.std.com...
Steven Mock
news:k%Cj9.41173$1C2.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> it does not specifically say "those children in the flames" were
> alive, but that is the assumption any reasonable person would make for
> any mention of "those children." If the phrase were "those children in
> the field" or "those children in the house" you would of course assume
> LIVE children unless stated otherwise.
I hereby declare you a complete and utter loon.
I know there's nothing profound about that statement, but I just don't see
where else the conversation can go after a comment as bizarre as the one
you make above.
Steven Mock
Daniel Keren
[To "seneca"]
# I hereby declare you a complete and utter loon.
He's totally nuts. Dementia, schizophrenia, or a combination of both.
Someone posted that "seneca" is in his 70's. You're looking at David
Irving 10 years from now (well, maybe 5 - at the rate he's going, he'll
get there faster than "seneca").
-Danny Keren.
Seneca
"Steven Mock" <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
news:Xns9292D121A4DB...@194.109.133.20...
> "Seneca" <noj...@thishere.net> wrote in
> news:k%Cj9.41173$1C2.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
> > it does not specifically say "those children in the flames" were
> > alive, but that is the assumption any reasonable person would make for
> > any mention of "those children." If the phrase were "those children in
> > the field" or "those children in the house" you would of course assume
> > LIVE children unless stated otherwise.
>
> I hereby declare you a complete and utter loon.
Great! Will there be some sort of ceremony?
If presents are to be awarded to me, I would really like one of those bars
of RIF soap, you know, the ones "made from pure Jewish fat." Preferably one
that has not yet been buried with full funeral rites, if that is not too
much trouble.
>
> I know there's nothing profound about that statement,
Oh, you are too modest by half. For sheer profundity I believe you have just
exceeded yourself.
Seneca
Philip Mathews
Pressac mentions the burning alive of children at Auschwitz.
Disregarding this matter of figures, the account describes a particularly
gruesome episode in the history of the extermination: that without
Zyclon-B. Even though it many sound shocking, death by gassing was used as
a relatively "humane" method of mass execution. The SS were so aware of
this that "special treatment" without gas was in their eyes wrong. The
anecdote taken from H. Langbein's _Der Auschwitz Prozess_, Volume 1, page
88, is by the author himself, speaking as a witness:
' In 1944 children were thrown alive into the big fires that were burning
near the Krematorien (and Bunker V). We heard that in the main camp and I
told the garrison doctor. Doctor Wirth refused to believe me. He went to
Birkenau to check. When I came to write at his dictation the next day, he
simply said, " It was an order of Camp Commandant Hoess". It was given
because there was no longer enough gas.'
In connection with this lack of gas there is a letter preserved by the CDJC
in Paris, ref. CDXLV-8 (copy) of 8th February 1945 (reasonable date in
view of the transmission delays), requesting the Italian alpine division
"Monte Rosa" to take the disinfestation ampules from American prisoners for
use in the fight against lice in Auschwitz, because Zyclon-B could no longer
be used for normal disinfestation purposes, the little available being
earmarked for extermination purposes.
Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers
p. 177
William Daffer
> "Chris Jacobs" <c.t.m....@hccnet.nl> wrote in message
> news:amn55j$r9e$1...@news.hccnet.nl...
>>
>> "Seneca" <noj...@thishere.net> schreef in bericht
>> news:k%Cj9.41173$1C2.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> > Since you have the book, or access to it,
>>
>> No, I just saw part of the book quoted by Ed Overman
>>
>> Message-ID: <2m4nbs$d...@point.mps.ohio-state.edu>
>>
>> Use the advanced search in google, there you can search on message-id
>>
>> > and nowhere does he indicate that they were not alive.
>>
>> Did you ever throw living children in flamepits?
>> Where they quit or did they make sound?
>
> No, I honestly cannot count that activity among my many life experiences.
>
Seneca has argued that the Nazis would not have used gas chambers to
murder Jews as it would have been easier just to shoot them. When
objections were raised to this claim that this method of murder had
profound effects on the murders, and that the Nazis' own
documentation discussed these problems, he argued that such
murderous activity should have had less effect on these soldiers
than the slaughter of cattle in slaughterhouses has on the employess
there.
Apparently Seneca has had some experience in mass murder since he
speaks with such confidence of what effects it has on such
people as the members of the Einsatzgruppen.
[snip]
whd
--
More and more every day, "the destruction of Israel" looks like the
only viable solution to the Middle East mess which from start to
finish has been CREATED by "Israel." I'm all for it. And I'm not even
Muslim.
Seneca: proving why he shouldn't be called an anti-semite.
Gord McFee
> "Seneca" <noj...@thishere.net> wrote in
> news:k%Cj9.41173$1C2.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>> it does not specifically say "those children in the flames" were
>> alive, but that is the assumption any reasonable person would make for
>> any mention of "those children." If the phrase were "those children in
>> the field" or "those children in the house" you would of course assume
>> LIVE children unless stated otherwise.
>
> I hereby declare you a complete and utter loon.
In spades, Steve.
Example: "The house burned to the ground. Those children still in the
house were not found until the next day."
Most people with a brain understand that "those children" are dead
without the word "dead" being specifically used.
> I know there's nothing profound about that statement, but I just don't see
> where else the conversation can go after a comment as bizarre as the one
> you make above.
As I said previously, this current breed of denier trash is by far the
stupidest yet.
Gassen Burnham
> "Seneca" <noj...@thishere.net> schreef in bericht
> news:ctji9.41279$jG2.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> > Elie "I saw it with my own eyes!" Wiesel is a proven liar,
>
> I checked this proof, it works as follows:
>
> Elie Wiesel says:
>
> "He seemed to be telling the truth. Not far from us, flames were leaping up
> from a ditch, gigantic flames. They were burning something. A lorry drew
> up at the pit and delivered its load - little children. Babies! Yes, I saw
> it - saw it with my own eyes ... those children in the flames. (Is it
> surprising that I could not sleep after that? Sleep had fled from my eyes.)
> So this was where we were going. A little farther on was another and
> larger ditch for adults."
>
ROTFLMFAO! So, someone walks among the intertwined, feces covered
bodies of the mythical dead jews and using some pre-determined bench
mark, unravells the mythical mangled mass of humanity and separates
all those under a certain age, places them on their very own truck and
conveys them to their very own tailor made crematory pit, lest the
adults influence them in some way!
I am sure you jewboys can manufacture a reason for them to do this???
Hop to it!
Kurt Knoll
"Gassen Burnham" <gassen...@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:2403f93b.02092...@posting.google.com...
This will take a little while they are already working on it. The
difficult part of it right now is it has the be believable and this is
not an easy one.
Kurt Knoll.
Chris Jacobs
[ ... ]
> Chris, of course there was no sound. There was surely no throwing of
> babies into blazing pits either;
I am not sure what you mean:
"it does not specifically say "those children in the flames" were alive, but
that is the assumption any reasonable person would make for any mention of
"those children." If the phrase were "those children in the field" or "those
children in the house" you would of course assume LIVE children unless
stated otherwise. If the children were dead he would say so, e.g. "those
children's corpses" or some such thing, and nowhere does he indicate that
they were not alive."
Do you mean there was no throwing of babies into blazing pits or do you
mean there was no throwing of alive babies into blazing pits?
> this was all a fiction invented by Wiesel. He
> would undoubtedly have described terrible screaming if it had occurred to
> him.
Of course it occurred to him. Many horror stories have sound. But he could
not use it for Night because he did not actually hear it.
> He didn't mention any screaming of victims when he was marched up to
> the blazing trenches either (and miraculously stopped just before being
> thrown in), though it is reasonable to suppose that those in front of him
> who (according to his story) DID go into the flames would have screamed.
> He evidently just didn't think of it.
He did _not_ say that those in front of him did go into the flames. He may
have assumed it at the time, but he did not say it.
"
"I'm not quite fifteen yet."
"No. Eighteen"
"But I'm not," I said. "Fifteen."
"Fool. Listen to what I say."
"
He listened. But he did not understand why. He did not know what the 'to be
killed' queue was and what the 'to work' queue.
What he mistook for a 'to be burned alive' queue was the 'to work' queue.
Chris Jacobs
" WITNESS: They threw them in alive. Their screams could be heard
at the camp. It is difficult to say how many children
were destroyed in this way."
I think this one is convincing, I see the sound.
William Daffer
You *see* the *sound*?
Um... You must have some good drugs! Well, you are in the
Netherlands, after all.
whd
--
In 3b9e...@news-uk.onetel.net.uk: David E. Michael expressed his
support for the bombers of Washington and New York, who in the course
of their terrorist acts caused the downing of at least 4 commercial
airliners and the destruction of two buildings with a greater loss of
life than occurred at Pearl Harbor, most of it civilian, said:
"I view it as an act of war against the liberal Establishment."
Allan Matthews
says...
> You *see* the *sound*?
Well, Mozart said he could hear colors. Why can't the opposite happen?
allan
--
allan_matthews[at]bigfoot[dot]com
=========================================
"Buddhism is not considered to be a religion"
- another Smeg Head Art 'gem'
=========================================
http://allan.matthews.name
Chris Jacobs
> it does not specifically say "those children in the flames" were
> alive, but that is the assumption any reasonable person would make for any
> mention of "those children." If the phrase were "those children in the
> field" or "those children in the house" you would of course assume LIVE
> children unless stated otherwise. If the children were dead he would say
> so,
> e.g. "those children's corpses" or some such thing, and nowhere does he
> indicate that they were not alive.
He uses the word "crematory".
According to Webster is
crematory = a crematorium
crematorium = a place for cremating dead bodies
"
We did not yet know which was the better side, right or left; which
road led
to prison and which to the crematory. But for the moment I was happy; I was
near my father. Our procession continued to move slowly forward.
Another prisoner came up to us:
"Satisfied?"
"Yes," someone replied.
"Poor devils, you're going to the crematory."
"
Does Elie wiesel not remember if he replied or his father?
Unlikely.
I think he means someone _else_ replied, not he, nor his father, but someone
in the _other_ queue.
Seneca
What "other queue"? Only one "procession" is mentioned.
And why would anyone say "you're going to the crematory"? The implication
would have to be that "you" are going to be burned alive. If "you" were
going to some other place to be killed (e.g., one of the dubious "gas
chambers") then THAT would be the place mentioned as a destination, "you're
going to the gas chamber."
So that rings utterly false, unless you believe that they were going to be
burned alive in the crematorium. I don't think anyone has claimed that, but
who knows? There have been so many different variations on these stories I
suppose anything is possible.
Seneca
Sailor
>
> This will take a little while they are already working on it. The
> difficult part of it right now is it has the be believable and this is
> not an easy one.
>
> Kurt Knoll.
You are good in English, Kurt. What could this mean:
Wiesel, the Nobel laureate declared: "Some events do take place but
are not true; others are, although they never occurred."
Beats me. Is he referring to the gas chambers? Or is he referring to
the existence of the HOLES in the ceiling?
Kurt Knoll
conversation.
Kurt Knoll.
========
"Sailor" <f...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:1f78ca48.02092...@posting.google.com...
William Daffer
> "Kurt Knoll" <kkn...@monarch.net> wrote in message news:<10328443...@critter.monarch.net>...
>>
>> This will take a little while they are already working on it. The
>> difficult part of it right now is it has the be believable and this is
>> not an easy one.
>>
>> Kurt Knoll.
>
> You are good in English, Kurt. What could this mean:
>
LOL|
> Wiesel, the Nobel laureate declared: "Some events do take place but
> are not true; others are, although they never occurred."
>
> Beats me. Is he referring to the gas chambers? Or is he referring to
> the existence of the HOLES in the ceiling?
You think Kurt is 'good in English.' It's hardly surprising that the
meaning of other obvious things would escape you.
whd
--
Gord McFee:
God the Father ordained the crucifixion of the Messiah.
Joe Bellinger:
And punished the *entire Jewish nation* for the sin of their
leaders in engineering the death of the Messiah by a decision of
their own free will, all predicted by Christ Himself.
[emphasis by whd]
Chris Jacobs
[ ... ]
> > I think he means someone _else_ replied, not he, nor his father, but
> > someone in the _other_ queue.
>
> What "other queue"? Only one "procession" is mentioned.
The procession was divided in two rows according to age:
not quite fifteen yet: right row
eighteen: left row
fourty: left row
fifty: right row
Elie Wiesel was not quite fifteen yet and went to the left row.
With the "_other_ queue" I meant the right row.
> And why would anyone say "you're going to the crematory"? The implication
> would have to be that "you" are going to be burned alive. If "you" were
> going to some other place to be killed (e.g., one of the dubious "gas
> chambers") then THAT would be the place mentioned as a destination,
> "you're going to the gas chamber."
No, it does not have that implication. It just leaves the method of killing
unspecified.
Stanley Jorsz
>
> "Seneca" <noj...@thishere.net> schreef in bericht
> news:QPHk9.54059$1C2.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
[ . . . ]
implication
> > would have to be that "you" are going to be burned alive. If "you" were
> > going to some other place to be killed (e.g., one of the dubious "gas
> > chambers") then THAT would be the place mentioned as a destination,
> > "you're going to the gas chamber."
>
> No, it does not have that implication. It just leaves the method of
killing
> unspecified.
Chris, does that really make any sense to you?
"You're going to the crematory" clearly puts "the crematory" as your
immediate destination. If you were being taken somewhere else to be executed
first, THAT place is the one that would be given to you as your destination.
No one who was being marched to the alleged "gas chamber" would be told that
he was "going to the crematory."
Let me suggest a different interpretation which is as simple and logical as
it is obvious: "You're going to the crematory" means you're going to WORK in
the crematory, i.e. as one of the prisoners assigned to the job of disposing
of corpses there. Not a very pleasant occupation to be sure, but hardly a
fatal one.
Seneca
Paul Magnano
news:<10328443...@critter.monarch.net>...
> >
> > This will take a little while they are already working on it. The
> > difficult part of it right now is it has the be believable and this is
> > not an easy one.
> >
> > Kurt Knoll.
>
> You are good in English, Kurt. What could this mean:
>
> Wiesel, the Nobel laureate declared: "Some events do take place but
> are not true; others are, although they never occurred."
That's a very interesting quote!
>
> Beats me. Is he referring to the gas chambers? Or is he referring to
> the existence of the HOLES in the ceiling?
I take it to mean that Wiesel is making excuses for his own fabrications. He
is saying that the actual facts don't matter, but that "some events . . .
are [true] although they never occurred." In other words, Wiesel is claiming
that some purely subjective "truth," his personal view of or feeling about
those historical events, is the one that matters even though in various
details it is false.
Or to put it more succinctly, Wiesel has been caught in many of his lies and
therefore says they weren't really important anyway.
Seneca
Sailor
>
> You think Kurt is 'good in English.' It's hardly surprising that the
> meaning of other obvious things would escape you.
>
> whd
> --
Which 'other obvious things', Meister?
And you DO have a spiritual flair! I am surprised.
William Daffer
> William Daffer <whda...@wabcmail.com> wrote in message news:<m3znu4m...@hellas.localdomain>...
>>
>> You think Kurt is 'good in English.' It's hardly surprising that the
>> meaning of other obvious things would escape you.
>>
>> whd
>> --
>
> Which 'other obvious things', Meister?
>
That the Holocaust happened, stupid.
> And you DO have a spiritual flair! I am surprised.
How would you determine that I had 'spiritual flair,' whatever that
means? And why should I care?
whd
--
Kurt Knolls enjoins us:
Bellow is your Gas Wagon Jeffery Enjoy.
Chris Jacobs
"Stanley Jorsz" <noj...@thishere.net> schreef in bericht
news:bDYk9.69308$jG2.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
[ ... ]
> Let me suggest a different interpretation which is as simple and logical
> as
> it is obvious: "You're going to the crematory" means you're going to WORK
> in
> the crematory, i.e. as one of the prisoners assigned to the job of
> disposing
> of corpses there. Not a very pleasant occupation to be sure, but hardly a
> fatal one.
>
> Seneca
In that case I would have expected that not those going to work there were
called "poor devils", but those who actually died.
The text would then have been:
You're going to the poor devils in the crematory.
But it is:
"Poor devils, you're going to the crematory."
Wayne Ferucci
Well, I guess you'll just have to ask the guy who said that for
clarification. :-)
>
> But it is:
>
> "Poor devils, you're going to the crematory."
That works for me. The dead are already beyond misery, but those who are
going to be stuck with the grisly work in the crematorium are "poor devils"
in any ordinary sense of that term.
Seneca
Chris Jacobs
"Paul Magnano" <noj...@thishere.net> schreef in bericht
news:6QYk9.69319$jG2.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
[ ... ]
"
"What are you writing?" the Rebbe asked. "Stories," I said. He wanted to
know what kind of stories: true stories. "About people you knew?" Yes, about
things that happened or could have happened. "But they did not?" No, not all
of them did. In fact, some were invented from almost the beginning to almost
the end. The Rebbe leaned forward as if to measure me up and said with more
sorrow than anger: "That means you are writing lies!" I did not answer
immediately. The scolded child within me had nothing to say in his defense.
Yet, I had to justify myself: "Things are not that simple, Rebbe. Some
events do take place but are not true; others are - although they never
occurred."
"
> I take it to mean that Wiesel is making excuses for his own fabrications.
Which fabrications?
> He
> is saying that the actual facts don't matter, but that "some events . . .
> are [true] although they never occurred." In other words, Wiesel is
> claiming
> that some purely subjective "truth," his personal view of or feeling about
> those historical events, is the one that matters even though in various
> details it is false.
Which details?
> Or to put it more succinctly, Wiesel has been caught in many of his lies
> and
Which lies?
Kurt Knoll
Once a Wiesel alway a Wiesel the name says it all.
kk
Wayne Ferucci
>
> "Paul Magnano" <noj...@thishere.net> schreef in bericht
> news:6QYk9.69319$jG2.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> [ ... ]
>
> "
> "What are you writing?" the Rebbe asked. "Stories," I said. He wanted to
> know what kind of stories: true stories. "About people you knew?" Yes,
about
> things that happened or could have happened. "But they did not?" No, not
all
> of them did. In fact, some were invented from almost the beginning to
almost
> the end. The Rebbe leaned forward as if to measure me up and said with
more
> sorrow than anger: "That means you are writing lies!" I did not answer
> immediately. The scolded child within me had nothing to say in his
defense.
> Yet, I had to justify myself: "Things are not that simple, Rebbe. Some
> events do take place but are not true; others are - although they never
> occurred."
> "
>
> > I take it to mean that Wiesel is making excuses for his own
fabrications.
>
> Which fabrications?
The things he says "are [true] although they never occurred." You would have
to ask Wiesel which fabrications exactly he was referring to.
>
> > He
> > is saying that the actual facts don't matter, but that "some events . .
.
> > are [true] although they never occurred." In other words, Wiesel is
> > claiming
> > that some purely subjective "truth," his personal view of or feeling
about
> > those historical events, is the one that matters even though in various
> > details it is false.
>
> Which details?
The details of the fabrications indicated above.
>
> > Or to put it more succinctly, Wiesel has been caught in many of his lies
> > and
>
> Which lies?
The fabrications indicated above.
Seneca
Chris Jacobs
"Wayne Ferucci" <noj...@thishere.net> schreef in bericht
news:T2Jl9.60119$1C2.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
[ ... ]
> > > I take it to mean that Wiesel is making excuses for his own
> > > fabrications.
> >
> > Which fabrications?
>
> The things he says "are [true] although they never occurred." You would
> have
> to ask Wiesel which fabrications exactly he was referring to.
Maybe I can look it up in Legends of our time. RU Groningen has it.
> > > He
> > > is saying that the actual facts don't matter, but that "some events .
> > > ..
> > > are [true] although they never occurred." In other words, Wiesel is
> > > claiming
> > > that some purely subjective "truth," his personal view of or feeling
> > > about
> > > those historical events, is the one that matters even though in
> > > various
> > > details it is false.
> >
> > Which details?
>
> The details of the fabrications indicated above.
>
>
> >
> > > Or to put it more succinctly, Wiesel has been caught in many of his
> > > lies and
> >
> > Which lies?
>
> The fabrications indicated above.
Exactly how and when has Wiesel been caught in many of his fabrications
indicated above ?
> Seneca
>
>
Seneca
I don't think many people believe his "blazing trenches, one for adults and
another for children" story anymore, Chris.
If he'd gone for "gas chambers" instead, obviously he'd be more believable,
at least for the time being. "Gas chambers" still enjoy a large following,
"blazing trenches" do not. I doubt Wiesel ever tries the "blazing trenches"
story anymore, and his loyal followers of course would not be rude enough to
remind him of them.
Seneca