Bellinger's Bullshit
Gord McFee
The list of Joe Bellinger's whoppers is a long one. But in the
interests of accuracy, it needs to be posted. This may seem like cruel
and unusual punishment, but Bellinger has proclaimed *himself* as "one
of the foremost experts in America on the Third Reich" and a "leading
expert on Judaism". Hence, he must be held to a higher standard than
the rest of us plebs.
Joe has proclaimed: "I have demonstrated over and over again that I am
capable of reasoned debate" (<5ataev$6...@juliana.sprynet.com>,
blac...@juno.com [Jan 7/97])
Here goes. Be forewarned - this is long. Additions are welcome, but
let's try to keep it under 1 MB!
Bellinger's assertions stand alone.
The *facts* are in curly brackets {}.
SELECTED BITS OF BELLINGER BALONEY
1. The Jews ran Nuremberg. {In fact, the Jews were not particularly
represented at Nuremberg. None of the prosecutors, defense lawyers,
judges or other main players were Jews.}
2. Torquemada and Poppea were Jews. {They weren't.}
3. Himmler was murdered. {He committed suicide.}
4. The Einsatzgruppen only killed partisans. {The Einsatzgruppen killed
mainly Jews, men, women and children.}
5. The British were responsible for the massacre at Lidice. {The
Germans committed the massacre at Lidice as a reprisal for the
assassination of Heydrich.}
6. Unarmed Jewish men, women and children were partisans and guilty of
"heinous crimes", for which they deserved to be shot. {They were
nothing of the sort. They were killed purely and simply because they
were Jews.}
7. The British threatened to turn Hoess' family over to the Russians.
{They made no such threat.}
8. Hoess' testimony was obtained by torture, even though he said it
wasn't, and he testified for the defense. {Hoess was roughed up a bit
when first captured in order to get him to identify himself. None of
his evidence was extracted by torture.}
9. Some group called DIN was responsible for any and all admissions of
Holocaust crimes by Nazis. {A pure invention.}
10. All confessions were obtained by torture, were plea bargains or
both. {More invention. There are no verified examples of this having
taken place.}
11. Two people lied because one said they met at 5:00 p.m. and the other
said they met in the afternoon. {No comment required.}
12. The Jews were deported to Russia. {The Jews were deported to
killing centers such as Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec, Auschwitz, Chelmno
and Majdanek. None were deported anywhere else.}
13. Joe Bellinger is one of the foremost authorities in America on the
Third Reich. {He couldn't find the expression "master race"
(Herrenvolk) in Hitler's _Mein Kampf_, and after two weeks of looking,
was unable to identify three of the people to whom Hitler dedicated the
book.}
14. No one was gassed at Natzweiler (Struthof). They all died of
natural causes. {The bodies were found, autopsied and proved to have
been gassed.}
15. The Allies forged parts of the Wannsee Protocol, yet Eichmann
admitted he wrote the same portions while he was drunk. {No comment
required.}
16. The Vilna-Kaunas region of Lithuania is actually Riga in Latvia.
{No comment required - check any map.}
17. When Himmler said "Jew", he meant "partisan". {When Himmler said
"Jew", he meant "Jew".}
18. The Einsatzgruppen reports also meant "partisan" when they said
"Jewish children". {The Einsatzgruppen reports broke down the people
murdered under headings such as: "Jews (men)", "Jews (children)", "Jews
(women)" and so on. Other headings were "partisans", "commissars",
etc.}
19. Documents - even though signed and authenticated -- are only
admissible in court if the author also testifies. {If this were true, a
lot of notaries would be out of business!}
20. Himmler's speech at Posen, in which he talked about the
extermination of the Jews, is faked, interpolated, forged and he was
also only kidding and exaggerating for effect. {The speech was recorded
and the authenticity of the recording has been established.}
21. Goebbels knew nothing about the extermination of the Jews, even
though he one of Hitler's closest confidants, and wrote about it in his
diary, because he didn't have direct command authority in the SS.
{Apart from the non-existent logic in such a statement, Goebbels' own
diary entries reveal that he knew very well what was going on (May 27,
1942, December 12, 1941. In addition, he was one of the most rabid
antisemites.) Interestingly, another "revisionist" (David Irving)
blames almost the whole thing on Goebbels!}
22. Goering, Kaltenbrunner, Streicher and the other defendants at
Nuremberg were martyrs. {No comment required. They were all convicted
in a trial much more fair than any they had been involved in during
their careers.}
23. Despite the testimony of camp prisoners, officers in the camp, and
the fact that food and water were readily available, and that Josef
Kramer refused to feed the inmates, Matt Giwer's drunken ravings to the
contrary are enough to prove that he did. {No comment required.}
24. Water cannot be sterilized by boiling. {No comment required.}
25. Joe Bellinger is not an antisemite. {One of his favorite jokes is
to call Jews in Auschwitz "Jew on a rope" (a play on words on the "soap
on a rope" commercials, as well as the Danzig experiments where the
Nazis experimented with making soap from human fat.)}
26. Albert Speer knew nothing about the extermination of the Jews. {He
was the second most powerful man in the Third Reich after 1942 and
admitted before his death that he had known or should have known.}
27. Joe Bellinger is one of the foremost experts on Judaism. {By the
way, according to Joe, the Talmud was written in Hebrew. By the way #2:
there are 18 blessings in the "18 blessings" (there are 19, one was
added later); the "18 blessings" are the standard "baruchas" that any
Jew who ever went to Hebrew School learns like a young Catholic learns
the catechism}.
28. Eisenhower ordered the murder of the German General Staff. {No
comment required -- based on a distortion of something Eisenhower said.
Ambrose & Bischof, _Eisenhower and the German POWs_, demolishes this
mendacious accusation.}
29. Murray "Abrams" was the originator of the idea for the Nuremberg
Trial. {It was Murray Bernays. There is no Murray Abrams, as near as
anyone has been able to discover.}
30. Nuremberg prosecutor Sydney Alderman was Jewish. {He was a Southern
Baptist.}
31. There was nothing wrong with the euthanasia program because the
families requested it. {The families did no such thing.}
32. In a recent thread "Memorial Day 1998" in response to Yale Edeiken's
comment that Bellinger was urinating on the graves of American dead, he
announced that they were fighting to protect British and Soviet
interests and that the U.S. had no "national interest" in fighting
Hitler, that this was "Churchill's specialty." {No comment required.}
33. Historian Henry Friedländer, being Jewish, is by definition not an
impartial source. (See also 48 below) {Apart from the revolting
antisemitism in such a remark, Friedländer is a highly respected
academic and his work has received universal praise.} The same applies
to the prison psychologist at Nuremberg, Gustav Gilbert. As Joe puts
it: "Thay [sic] lying little sneak and spy, Gilbert-the Jewish
[psychologist? Who cares what he said!"
<199805160605...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
34. Justice Michael Musmanno forfeited his title of "Justice" because he
presided at a trial of "German nationals." {No comment required. Judge
Musmanno was even respected by the *defense* in the trial. He stated
"The defense can introduce any evidence short of describing the lives of
the
penguins in the Antarctic. And if they can convince me the habits of
the penguins are relevant evidence to this case, then the lives and
times of the white-fronted creatures can also be admitted as
evidence." In later trials, the defense requested that "the Penguin
rule" be applied.}
35. Czechoslovakia was not a country when Hitler invaded it.
{Czechoslovakia was a country until Hitler invaded it on March 15,
1939.}
36. Hitler invaded Poland because the Poles refused to hold a referendum
over the Polish Corridor. {Hitler's own directives for the conduct of
the war rebut this nonsense.}
37. The gassing of 200 Poles was justified because they had been
convicted by a summary court and sentenced to death. {The Jews were
gassed to test the gas chambers - they included men, women and
children.}
38. The Nazis did not persecute Catholic priests in Poland. {Nazi
persecution of Catholic priests in Poland has been deplored by every
Pope since Pius XII.}
39. Muench "plea bargained." {He stood trial and was acquitted.}
40. Charles Coughlin was not an anti-Semite but just "a man of God."
{Coughlin's radio broadcasts in the 1930s were marked by their virulent
antisemitism and he was later rebuked by the Church.}
41. Göring was "tortured." {If so, Göring was unaware of it.}
42. The victims of medical experiments were convicted criminals who
"volunteered." {The victims of medical experiments in no way
volunteered, according to the Nazis' own records. Not only did they not
volunteer, but when some had the audacity to survive an experiment
(which should have "pardoned" them) they were subjected to further
experiments until they died. See _Concentration Camp Dachau_ }
43. Mengele was an innocent man falsely accused by Jews. {Mengele was
the doctor who made the ramp inspections at Auschwitz that determined
who was worked to death and who was gassed immediately.}
44. Partisans who fought against invading forces were "murderers."
{Given that the partisans fought occupying German military units, and
their activities were covered under the Hague Convention, they were not,
in general, murderers at all.}
46. The defendants at the Nuremberg Trial refused to come to
Kaltenbrunner's aid because they knew he was a scapegoat. He was also
an "ersatz substitute" for Himmler. {The defendants loathed
Kaltenbrunner because he was a typical bully goon, and because he could
tie many of them into the Final Solution. His signature was on hundreds
of documents ordering murders.}
47. Kaltenbrunner's two hemorrhages were brought on as a result of
severe blows to his head from one of his captors, and not from "fear" as
the allies "leaked" out to the media. {This is medically impossible.
Kaltenbrunner had a sub-archnoid bleed with no subdural hematoma. In
other words, as any doctor will tell attest, no trauma.}
48. Joe challenged the lurkers to support him. Jeff Kramer, bona fide
lurker, posted that he considers Joe "the most childishly transparent
liar in all the realms of Usenet". Joe's antisemitic, childish
response? "You must be Jewish." (See also 33 above)
49. The Summa of Joe's analytical approach: "I don't care what the facts
are." [<19971127210...@ladder02.news.aol.com>]
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org
Visit the Nizkor site
http://www.nizkor.org
ChuckF2323
Gee, and all this time, I doubted Bellinger's sincerity.
CF
Chuck Ferree
Please visit: http://forgottencamps.by.net
Also: http://remember.org./ The Cybrary of the Holocaust
Richard G. Philllips
Gord McFee wrote:
>
> The list of Joe Bellinger's whoppers is a long one. But in the
> interests of accuracy, it needs to be posted. This may seem like cruel
> and unusual punishment, but Bellinger has proclaimed *himself* as "one
> of the foremost experts in America on the Third Reich" and a "leading
> expert on Judaism". Hence, he must be held to a higher standard than
> the rest of us plebs.
>
> Joe has proclaimed: "I have demonstrated over and over again that I am
> capable of reasoned debate" (<5ataev$6...@juliana.sprynet.com>,
> blac...@juno.com [Jan 7/97])
>
> Here goes. Be forewarned - this is long. Additions are welcome, but
> let's try to keep it under 1 MB!
>
> Bellinger's assertions stand alone.
>
> The *facts* are in curly brackets {}.
>
> SELECTED BITS OF BELLINGER BALONEY
>
> 1. The Jews ran Nuremberg. {In fact, the Jews were not particularly
> represented at Nuremberg. None of the prosecutors, defense lawyers,
> judges or other main players were Jews.}
PHillips
What matters here is not whether the principal players were themselves
Jewish, but the sort of agenda they were following. that agenda was
most certainly a Jewish agenda.
===========================================================
>
> 2. Torquemada and Poppea were Jews. {They weren't.}
==============================================
Phillips
I have read that Torq either was a converted Jew or was descended from
converted Jews. Not that it matters a great deal.
============================
>
> 3. Himmler was murdered. {He committed suicide.}
>
> 4. The Einsatzgruppen only killed partisans. {The Einsatzgruppen killed
> mainly Jews, men, women and children.}
==================================================
Phillips
Are we to take it that the terms "Jews" and "partisans" were mutually
exclusive. Is it perhaps possible that there were quite a few people who
were both Jews and partisans.
=============================================================================
>
> 5. The British were responsible for the massacre at Lidice. {The
> Germans committed the massacre at Lidice as a reprisal for the
> assassination of Heydrich.}
=================================================
Phillips
they were not "responsible" for it but they did set in motion events
that resulted in it.
=======================================================
>
> 6. Unarmed Jewish men, women and children were partisans and guilty of
> "heinous crimes", for which they deserved to be shot. {They were
> nothing of the sort. They were killed purely and simply because they
> were Jews.}
==================================================
Phillips
Just what makes you so cocksure about their having been killed "purely
and simply" because they were Jews. I hope you aren't trying to tell us
that there was no such thing as partisan warfare on that front. there
was and it was vicious beyond your imagining.
==================================================
>
> 7. The British threatened to turn Hoess' family over to the Russians.
> {They made no such threat.}
===========================================
Phillips
Just how do you know this? Threats of that sort were very commonly used
and they worked beautifully.
======================================================
>
> 8. Hoess' testimony was obtained by torture, even though he said it
> wasn't, and he testified for the defense. {Hoess was roughed up a bit
> when first captured in order to get him to identify himself. None of
> his evidence was extracted by torture.}
===========================================================
Phillips
"roughed up a bit." where I come from that's called spin control. Hoess
WAS tortured. No amount of weasel words can change that fact.
===========================================================================
>
> 9. Some group called DIN was responsible for any and all admissions of
> Holocaust crimes by Nazis. {A pure invention.}
>
> 10. All confessions were obtained by torture, were plea bargains or
> both. {More invention. There are no verified examples of this having
> taken place.}
=======================================================
Phillips
(1) I was reading newspapers in 1946 and word got into them of the
jaw-busting and ball-kicking that was going on in the interrogation
centers.
(2) I will again cite the case of Hoess. It was all spelled out in the
book Legion of the Damned by rupert Butler.
(3) Arthur Butz in his book Hoax of the 20th century maeks mention of
137 cases of prisoners having been kicked in the testicles beyond
repair.
(4) Joseph Halow as a young man went to Dachau to serve as a court
reporter. What he saw going on so disgusted him that he quit and later
put his experiences in a book.
==================================================
>
> 11. Two people lied because one said they met at 5:00 p.m. and the other
> said they met in the afternoon. {No comment required.}
>
> 12. The Jews were deported to Russia. {The Jews were deported to
> killing centers such as Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec, Auschwitz, Chelmno
> and Majdanek. None were deported anywhere else.}
============================================================
Phillips
No, they were not DEPORTED to Russia, they were deported to the camps in
Poland. However a great deal of the comparative populaton statics is
accounted for by large-scale Jewish emigration: To America, to israel,
and to Russia.
========================================================================
>
> 13. Joe Bellinger is one of the foremost authorities in America on the
> Third Reich. {He couldn't find the expression "master race"
> (Herrenvolk) in Hitler's _Mein Kampf_, and after two weeks of looking,
> was unable to identify three of the people to whom Hitler dedicated the
> book.}
==============================================
Phillips
I rather think Joe will have his own version of that. I'll withold
judgement until I hear it.
=====================================================================
>
> 14. No one was gassed at Natzweiler (Struthof). They all died of
> natural causes. {The bodies were found, autopsied and proved to have
> been gassed.}
======================================
Phillips
Kindly produce the report of those autopsies.
====================================================
>
> 15. The Allies forged parts of the Wannsee Protocol, yet Eichmann
> admitted he wrote the same portions while he was drunk. {No comment
> required.}
>
> 16. The Vilna-Kaunas region of Lithuania is actually Riga in Latvia.
> {No comment required - check any map.}
>
> 17. When Himmler said "Jew", he meant "partisan". {When Himmler said
> "Jew", he meant "Jew".}
>
> 18. The Einsatzgruppen reports also meant "partisan" when they said
> "Jewish children". {The Einsatzgruppen reports broke down the people
> murdered under headings such as: "Jews (men)", "Jews (children)", "Jews
> (women)" and so on. Other headings were "partisans", "commissars",
> etc.}
>
> 19. Documents - even though signed and authenticated -- are only
> admissible in court if the author also testifies. {If this were true, a
> lot of notaries would be out of business!}
==========================================================
Phillips
The notarization can quallify a document for acceptance into the body of
evidence. However, the other side still has the right to demand the
apperance and cross-examination of the source.
==========================================================================
>
> 20. Himmler's speech at Posen, in which he talked about the
> extermination of the Jews, is faked, interpolated, forged and he was
> also only kidding and exaggerating for effect. {The speech was recorded
> and the authenticity of the recording has been established.}
===================================================
Phillips
Even if Himmler's words must be taken as meaning what you say they mean
they are not and cannot be by themselves proof that the intent was
carried out. At best they are only suggestive of intent. If you had
more solid evidnece of the mass executions then they would be
corroborative.
=================================================================
>
> 21. Goebbels knew nothing about the extermination of the Jews, even
> though he one of Hitler's closest confidants, and wrote about it in his
> diary, because he didn't have direct command authority in the SS.
> {Apart from the non-existent logic in such a statement, Goebbels' own
> diary entries reveal that he knew very well what was going on (May 27,
> 1942, December 12, 1941. In addition, he was one of the most rabid
> antisemites.) Interestingly, another "revisionist" (David Irving)
> blames almost the whole thing on Goebbels!}
==================================================
Phillips
Of all the Nazi leaders, Goebbels was most certainly the most
poisonously anti-Jewish. And most likely he must bear primary
responsibility for the Kristallnacht in 1938.
==============================================================
>
> 22. Goering, Kaltenbrunner, Streicher and the other defendants at
> Nuremberg were martyrs. {No comment required. They were all convicted
> in a trial much more fair than any they had been involved in during
> their careers.}
====================================================
PHillips
Those trials were NOT "fair" trials. Rather they might be likened to an
army court-martial. A little ceremony designed to put a veneer of
legality on a judgement arrived at beforehand.
======================================================================
>
> 23. Despite the testimony of camp prisoners, officers in the camp, and
> the fact that food and water were readily available, and that Josef
> Kramer refused to feed the inmates, Matt Giwer's drunken ravings to the
> contrary are enough to prove that he did. {No comment required.}
>
> 24. Water cannot be sterilized by boiling. {No comment required.}
>
> 25. Joe Bellinger is not an antisemite. {One of his favorite jokes is
> to call Jews in Auschwitz "Jew on a rope" (a play on words on the "soap
> on a rope" commercials, as well as the Danzig experiments where the
> Nazis experimented with making soap from human fat.)}
>
> 26. Albert Speer knew nothing about the extermination of the Jews. {He
> was the second most powerful man in the Third Reich after 1942 and
> admitted before his death that he had known or should have known.}
>
> 27. Joe Bellinger is one of the foremost experts on Judaism. {By the
> way, according to Joe, the Talmud was written in Hebrew. By the way #2:
> there are 18 blessings in the "18 blessings" (there are 19, one was
> added later); the "18 blessings" are the standard "baruchas" that any
> Jew who ever went to Hebrew School learns like a young Catholic learns
> the catechism}.
>
> 28. Eisenhower ordered the murder of the German General Staff. {No
> comment required -- based on a distortion of something Eisenhower said.
> Ambrose & Bischof, _Eisenhower and the German POWs_, demolishes this
> mendacious accusation.}
============================================================
Phillips
Eisenhower was one of those individuals upon whom the Gods of Fortune
(for reasons best known to themselves) chose to smile. This raised him
to heights far beyond what his modest talents would otherwise have
brought him.
Whether he did or did not order the murder of the German general staff,
I do not know. But I do know this: that by his complicity in the
deliberate starving of German prisoners, he disgraced the American
uniform.
=================================================
>
> 29. Murray "Abrams" was the originator of the idea for the Nuremberg
> Trial. {It was Murray Bernays. There is no Murray Abrams, as near as
> anyone has been able to discover.}
====================================================
Phillips
Does the NAME of the originator matter all that much?
=================================================
>
>
30. Nuremberg prosecutor Sydney Alderman was Jewish. {He was a Southern
> Baptist.}
=====================================================
Phillips
By birth or by conversion?
=======================================
====================================================
Phillips
I'm sure of just exactly what he meant, but it sounds very much as if he
was saying in advnace that he shits on anything the defense might bring
up. I always thought that judges were supposed to be impartial.
=======================================================
>
> 35. Czechoslovakia was not a country when Hitler invaded it.
> {Czechoslovakia was a country until Hitler invaded it on March 15,
> 1939.}
==========================================
Phillips
It was a country (or, more precisely, a political entity) but one that
never should have been created in the first place. Withess its recent
break-up.
=================================================================================
=============================================================
Phillips
Partisans "covered" by the Hague convention??? Now I'm not at all sure
of my facts here so correct me if I'm wrong. But I think the Hague
convention says that partisans are NOT entitled to be treated as
prisoners of war. The reason for this ought to be obvious.
===========================================================================
>
> 46. The defendants at the Nuremberg Trial refused to come to
> Kaltenbrunner's aid because they knew he was a scapegoat. He was also
> an "ersatz substitute" for Himmler. {The defendants loathed
> Kaltenbrunner because he was a typical bully goon, and because he could
> tie many of them into the Final Solution. His signature was on hundreds
> of documents ordering murders.}
>
> 47. Kaltenbrunner's two hemorrhages were brought on as a result of
> severe blows to his head from one of his captors, and not from "fear" as
> the allies "leaked" out to the media. {This is medically impossible.
> Kaltenbrunner had a sub-archnoid bleed with no subdural hematoma. In
> other words, as any doctor will tell attest, no trauma.}
========================================================
Phillips
Are you VERY certain that such severe blows could not possibly have
produced such a result. You're covering a lot of territory there.
=================================================================================
>
> 48. Joe challenged the lurkers to support him. Jeff Kramer, bona fide
> lurker, posted that he considers Joe "the most childishly transparent
> liar in all the realms of Usenet". Joe's antisemitic, childish
> response? "You must be Jewish." (See also 33 above)
===========================================================
Philllips
One hears that sort of thing on this NG and, having heard a sufficient
amount of it, soon learns to consider the source. I, as I'm sure you
know, was recently called a "moron." This from the very people who love
to call their opponents "irrational."
=====================================================================
>
> 49. The Summa of Joe's analytical approach: "I don't care what the facts
> are." [<19971127210...@ladder02.news.aol.com>]
=======================================================
Phillips
One man's "fact" is another man's fiction. We've seen enough "facts"
from your side to have learned to be very wary of them.
======================================
Jeffrey G. Brown
In article <01bd9024$94f44220$4ebd40d1@tavish-central>, Scott "I'll lie
about ANYthing!" Bradbury (doc_t...@bigfoot.com, phi...@phoenix.net)
wrote:
> You Nizkooks
> are noteworthy of quoting people out of context or attributing words to
> people that the person did not say!
If Poor Ol' Gutless Scottie can't show clickable links to posts in which
Nizkor volunteers atribute words to someone that the person did not say,
then he is just another goddamned liar and nothing more. (Of course, we
knew _that_ already.)
Now hop to it, Bradbury, and move your lazy ass and provide those links to
the posts that contain those falsified quotes!
> If you can't show the clickable links
> to each passage you contribute to Bellinger then you are just another g-d
> damned liar and nothing more! Not hop to it McFee and move your lazy ass
> and provide those links to the posts that contain those words!
If Poor Ol' Gutless Scottie can't show the clickable links to posts which
actually deny the murder of Soviet citizens by the Soviet regime -- as he
has alleged -- then he is just another goddamned liar and nothing more.
(Of course, we knew _that_ already.)
Now hop to it, Bradbury, and move your lazy ass and provide those links to
the post that contain those denials!
JGB
=====================================================================
Jeffrey G. Brown jeff_...@bigfoot.com
"What's going to happen?" "Something wonderful..." -- '2010'
John Morris
In <357a1a28...@news3.ibm.net>, on Thu, 04 Jun 1998 22:44:10 GMT,
gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
>The list of Joe Bellinger's whoppers is a long one. But in the
>interests of accuracy, it needs to be posted. This may seem like cruel
>and unusual punishment, but Bellinger has proclaimed *himself* as "one
>of the foremost experts in America on the Third Reich" and a "leading
>expert on Judaism". Hence, he must be held to a higher standard than
>the rest of us plebs.
Some minor clarifications, in the interests of accuracy:
>7. The British threatened to turn Hoess' family over to the Russians.
>{They made no such threat.}
The sole source for this claim is Rupert Butler's potboiler _Legions
of Death_ which Bellinger admits to not having read. There is no
indication in the text that the threat was made to Hoess nor that he
was aware of the threat having been made. If it was made: Butler's
book is a dramatization laced with inaccuracies and invented dialogue.
>8. Hoess' testimony was obtained by torture, even though he said it
>wasn't, and he testified for the defense. {Hoess was roughed up a bit
>when first captured in order to get him to identify himself. None of
>his evidence was extracted by torture.}
Butler, again, claims that the British took a full statement from him.
The only trial where this statemnt could have been entered into
evidence was in Hoess's Polish trial, but they took their own
statement from him.
>25. Joe Bellinger is not an antisemite. {One of his favorite jokes is
>to call Jews in Auschwitz "Jew on a rope" (a play on words on the "soap
>on a rope" commercials, as well as the Danzig experiments where the
>Nazis experimented with making soap from human fat.)}
The actual joke is this: "What do call a Jew hanged at Auschwitz? Soap
on a rope."
>29. Murray "Abrams" was the originator of the idea for the Nuremberg
>Trial. {It was Murray Bernays. There is no Murray Abrams, as near as
>anyone has been able to discover.}
The claim was that "Murray Abrams" originated the idea of charging the
defendants with the "Jewish charge" of conspiracy, a standard in
Anglo-American jurisprudence since the seventeenth century. In
practice, the conspiracy charge could only have effect if proved
against individual defendants as individuals.
>30. Nuremberg prosecutor Sydney Alderman was Jewish. {He was a Southern
>Baptist.}
He has since conceded that Alderman was not Jewish. That may change as
it so often does with his concessions.
>42. The victims of medical experiments were convicted criminals who
>"volunteered." {The victims of medical experiments in no way
>volunteered, according to the Nazis' own records. Not only did they not
>volunteer, but when some had the audacity to survive an experiment
>(which should have "pardoned" them) they were subjected to further
>experiments until they died. See _Concentration Camp Dachau_ }
{Rascher's high altitude and his cold water experiments could only
obtain results by autopsy}.
--
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
--
The Holocaust History Project is at http://www.holocaust-history.org/
The Nizkor Project is at http://www.nizkor.org/
The Einsatzgruppen page is at http://www.pgonline.com/electriczen/
Debunks
>Subject: Re: Bellinger's Bullshit
>From: John....@x-nospam-x.UAlberta.CA (John Morris)
>Date: Thu, Jun 4, 1998 20:22 EDT
>Message-id: <357b32f5...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>
>
>In <357a1a28...@news3.ibm.net>, on Thu, 04 Jun 1998 22:44:10 GMT,
>gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
>
>>The list of Joe Bellinger's whoppers is a long one. But in the
>>interests of accuracy, it needs to be posted. This may seem like cruel
>>and unusual punishment, but Bellinger has proclaimed *himself* as "one
>>of the foremost experts in America on the Third Reich" and a "leading
>>expert on Judaism". Hence, he must be held to a higher standard than
>>the rest of us plebs.
>
>Some minor clarifications, in the interests of accuracy:
>
>>7. The British threatened to turn Hoess' family over to the Russians.
>>{They made no such threat.}
>
>The sole source for this claim is Rupert Butler's potboiler _Legions
>of Death_ which Bellinger admits to not having read. There is no
>indication in the text that the threat was made to Hoess nor that he
>was aware of the threat having been made. If it was made: Butler's
>book is a dramatization laced with inaccuracies and invented dialogue.
>
>>8. Hoess' testimony was obtained by torture, even though he said it
>>wasn't, and he testified for the defense. {Hoess was roughed up a bit
>>when first captured in order to get him to identify himself. None of
>>his evidence was extracted by torture.}
>
>Butler, again, claims that the British took a full statement from him.
>The only trial where this statemnt could have been entered into
>evidence was in Hoess's Polish trial, but they took their own
>statement from him.
We will see about this later.
>
>>25. Joe Bellinger is not an antisemite. {One of his favorite jokes is
>>to call Jews in Auschwitz "Jew on a rope" (a play on words on the "soap
>>on a rope" commercials, as well as the Danzig experiments where the
>>Nazis experimented with making soap from human fat.)}
>
>The actual joke is this: "What do call a Jew hanged at Auschwitz? Soap
>on a rope."
>
>
Nazis ex[periemnted with making Jews from Jewish fat? I thought the Jews were
starving to death in the camps? How much soap could they get from skin and
bones? Make up your mind already! Which is it? However, he is the joke that
led to "my" little joke:
You will find it in Tom Segev's "The Seventh Million"--page 441:
"....Mount Zion was the holiest place in Jerusalem. One room, with a domed,
soot-blackened ceiling, was designated as a memorial to the victims of the
Holocaust. On exhibit in glass cases, alongside the memorial candles lit by
the worshipers, were various items that had survived the Holocaust-charred
Torah scrolls, the striped uniform of a camp inmate, metal canisters that
contained the gas used to murder the Jews, a lampshade said to be made of human
skin, and bars of soap purportedly manufactured from human fat. Yad Vashem's
leaders disliked the Holocaust Chamber on Mount of Zion. "In my opinion, what
is going on there is idol worship," said a Yad Vashem board member.
In another section, Segev clearly points out that the soap allegation was a
canard with NO basis in fact. There is also a photo of this soap and other
items of the Chamber of Horrors in the photo section of the book. Are you
feeling like the fool you are, yet?
>>29. Murray "Abrams" was the originator of the idea for the Nuremberg
>>Trial. {It was Murray Bernays. There is no Murray Abrams, as near as
>>anyone has been able to discover.}
Another distortion. The name was murray Bernays.
>The claim was that "Murray Abrams" originated the idea of charging the
>defendants with the "Jewish charge" of conspiracy, a standard in
>Anglo-American jurisprudence since the seventeenth century. In
>practice, the conspiracy charge could only have effect if proved
>against individual defendants as individuals.
>
>
Yes, well, now correct that error caused by memory to read Murray Bernays and
then come back to the group and attempt to defend your argument.
>
>>30. Nuremberg prosecutor Sydney Alderman was Jewish. {He was a Southern
>>Baptist.}
>
>
How do you know he never converted?
>>42. The victims of medical experiments were convicted criminals who
>>"volunteered." {T
They were. Even Luftwaffe personnel volunteered for some of these experiments.
In fact, people like Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, and "Citizen X"
were used for these other experiments. Cry over them if you wish.
Sonnyboy McTavish
Gord McFee <gmc...@ibm.net> wrote in article
<357a1a28...@news3.ibm.net>...
All I see is you saying that Bellinger said all of this. Why didn't you
supply the clickable links to all of the posts so we could see for
ourselves that Bellinger had in FACT said all that you claim. You Nizkooks
are noteworthy of quoting people out of context or attributing words to
people that the person did not say! If you can't show the clickable links
to each passage you contribute to Bellinger then you are just another g-d
damned liar and nothing more! Not hop to it McFee and move your lazy ass
and provide those links to the posts that contain those words!
Tavish
Debunks
>Subject: Re: Bellinger's Bullshit
>Date: Thu, Jun 4, 1998 20:33 EDT
>Message-id: <35773C...@earthlink.net>
>
>
>Gord McFee wrote:
DEBUNKS writes: First, I want to thank Mr. Phillips for replying to this, as I
had lost the post. Now-on to the Gefecht!
>>
>> The list of Joe Bellinger's whoppers is a long one
Your whoppers are longer by a mile.
> But in the
>> interests of accuracy, it needs to be posted.
From what I have read, your post is solid evidence of your own inaccuracy!
LOL!
>This may seem like cruel
>> and unusual punishment, but Bellinger has proclaimed *himself* as "one
>> of the foremost experts in America on the Third Reich" and a "leading
>> expert on Judaism".
WHich I am.
>Hence, he must be held to a higher standard than
>> the rest of us plebs.
This explains your own pitiful post.
>> Joe has proclaimed: "I have demonstrated over and over again that I am
>> capable of reasoned debate" (<5ataev$6...@juliana.sprynet.com>,
>> blac...@juno.com [Jan 7/97])
>> Here goes. Be forewarned - this is long. Additions are welcome, but
>> let's try to keep it under 1 MB!
>>
>> Bellinger's assertions stand alone.
>>
>> The *facts* are in curly brackets {}.
>>
You don't appear to know what a fact is.
>
>> SELECTED BITS OF BELLINGER BALONEY
>>
>> 1. The Jews ran Nuremberg. {In fact, the Jews were not particularly
>> represented at Nuremberg. None of the prosecutors, defense lawyers,
>> judges or other main players were Jews.}
>========================
Jews were calling the shots from day one, beginning with Morgenthau, Rosenmann,
Bernays, the American jewish COmmittee, etc. The policy of Nuremberg was
preordained by jews who were self-described as 'amicus curiae."
The suggestion made by Jews that they should participate actively as
prosecutors at Nuremberg and other show trials was excluded by the allies
because such participation would have appeared too obvious. Nonetheless, they
continued to work in great numbers behind the scenes and ALWAYS for the
prosecution. They were ubiquitous. THey scoured, searched, and dredged files
for "dirt" (H Ostrov would have been right in her element) they were
interrogators, the appointed "psychiatrists and pyschologists, who snooped
pried and distorted more than the typical Nizkook poster, if that is
imagineable! They beat the accused on numerous occasions, using deceit and
threats and intimidation to secure further "confessions." The recording of
Himmler's alled "Posen Speech" was found by a Jew who shipped it off
immediately to the Jewish research Center (Yiva Institute in Ny!) before it was
ever sent on to Nuremberg!>==================
>PHillips
>
>What matters here is not whether the principal players were themselves
>Jewish, but the sort of agenda they were following. that agenda was
>most certainly a Jewish agenda.
>===========================================================
>
>> 2. Torquemada and Poppea were Jews. {They weren't.}
>==============================================
>Phillips
>
>I have read that Torq either was a converted Jew or was descended from
>converted Jews. Not that it matters a great deal.
>============================
>>
Indeed. And I have since located the source which claims Poppea wasd a Jewess.
>
>> 3. Himmler was murdered. {He committed suicide.}
>>
Himmler was murdered by members of the Field Police, along with other SS
personnel brought to the same center for "interrogation." He was in custody
for almost 48 hours before he was eliminated. One of his captors and
interrogators was Chaim Herzog, later to become President of Israel.
> 4. The Einsatzgruppen only killed partisans. {The Einsatzgruppen killed
>> mainly Jews, men, women and children.}
>==================================================
>Phillips
>
>Are we to take it that the terms "Jews" and "partisans" were mutually
>exclusive. Is it perhaps possible that there were quite a few people who
>were both Jews and partisans.
>==========================
Indeed there were. Isaac Kowalski, a leader of the Jewish partisans, claims
that 1.5 million Jews were active in the Partisan Movement and another 1,.5
million Jews fought for the allies in uniform!
>>
>> 5. The British were responsible for the massacre at Lidice. {The
>> Germans committed the massacre at Lidice as a reprisal for the
>> assassination of Heydrich.}
>=================================================
>Phillips
>
>they were not "responsible" for it but they did set in motion events
>that resulted in it.
Yes, and this is what I wrote as well. They bear a share of the
responsibility. Gord's distortion is noted. (again)/.
>===
>>
>> 6. Unarmed Jewish men, women and children were partisans and guilty of
>> "heinous crimes", for which they deserved to be shot. {They were
>> nothing of the sort. They were killed purely and simply because they
>> were Jews.}
>==================================================
>Phillips
>
>Just what makes you so cocksure about their having been killed "purely
>and simply" because they were Jews. I hope you aren't trying to tell us
>that there was no such thing as partisan warfare on that front. there
>was and it was vicious beyond your imagining.
>=========================
In fact, Kowalski is proud of the fact that the Partisans USED children to
murder Germans! Therefore they share a moral responsibility in their
unfortunate deaths as well.
>
>> 7. The British threatened to turn Hoess' family over to the Russians.
>> {They made no such threat.}
>===========================================
>Phillips
>
>Just how do you know this? Threats of that sort were very commonly used
>and they worked beautifully.
>==========================
This was a matter of course and a commonly used tactic, and the British did
threaten to turn Hoess's family over to the Russians. The wife admitted so
herself.
>============================
>>
>> 8. Hoess' testimony was obtained by torture, even though he said it
>> wasn't, and he testified for the defense. {Hoess was roughed up a bit
>> when first captured in order to get him to identify himself. None of
>> his evidence was extracted by torture.}
>===========================================================
>Phillips
>
>"roughed up a bit." where I come from that's called spin control. Hoess
>WAS tortured. No amount of weasel words can change that fact.
>====================================================
Hoess certainly was tortured, unless one considers the following just "roughing
someone up a bit":
He had a flashlight shoved down his throat while about 6 hefty men from the
Jewish Brigade, comrades of Clark's, worked him over on a bench. Even Clark
finally became so alarmed that he had to pull them off of Hoess, as he thought
he might die from the beating. Later, a bottle of whiskey was poured down his
throat to add to his torments. Finally, Hoess "confessed" and signed his first
"confession" in English, a language he did not understand.
>>
>> 9. Some group called DIN was responsible for any and all admissions of
>> Holocaust crimes by Nazis. {A pure invention.}
This is no invention but it is a fact that these Jews, led by Abba Kovner (Who
appears in Segev's The seventh Million" had planned to murder 6 million German
civilians by poisoning the water supply in Germany!) Segev has a whole chapter
on this and a new book is soon to be published by another member of the band of
thugs and assassins. They have admitted to murdering as many high ranking
Nazis as they could find--most them people who could have shed knowledge on the
real facts surrounding the Holocaust. Thus, Heinrich Mueller disappeared, as
did Odilo Globocnik, Christian Wirh, and dozens of others. They also planned
to wipe out Eichmann's entire family unless he co-operated with the Israelis.
>> 10. All confessions were obtained by torture, were plea bargains or
>> both. {More invention. There are no verified examples of this having
>> taken place.}
>
>=======================================================
>Phillips
>
>(1) I was reading newspapers in 1946 and word got into them of the
>jaw-busting and ball-kicking that was going on in the interrogation
>centers.
>
>(2) I will again cite the case of Hoess. It was all spelled out in the
>book Legion of the Damned by rupert Butler.
>
>(3) Arthur Butz in his book Hoax of the 20th century maeks mention of
>137 cases of prisoners having been kicked in the testicles beyond
>repair.
>
>(4) Joseph Halow as a young man went to Dachau to serve as a court
>reporter. What he saw going on so disgusted him that he quit and later
>put his experiences in a book.
>==========================
And your sources are correct. Kaltenbrunner was also tortured, as was Hans
Frank, Julius Streicher, Has Fritzsche, Saukel, Ley (Who was driven to suicide)
Rudolf Hess (Tormented night and day and injected with drugs), Goering, who was
attacked in his cell by a guard), erich Raeder, etc etc. My torture article
deals with all of this in depth.
>========================
>>
>> 11. Two people lied because one said they met at 5:00 p.m. and the other
>> said they met in the afternoon. {No comment required.}
>>
I will have to post this article much more frequently. The proof of my claim
lies in the fact that not ONE nizkook tried to address it. LOL!
> 12. The Jews were deported to Russia. {The Jews were deported to
>> killing centers such as Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec, Auschwitz, Chelmno
>> and Majdanek. None were deported anywhere else.}
>
>============================================================
>Phillips
>
>No, they were not DEPORTED to Russia, they were deported to the camps in
>Poland. However a great deal of the comparative populaton statics is
>accounted for by large-scale Jewish emigration: To America, to israel,
>and to Russia.
>==========================
Actually, they were deported to both areas: Poland AND Russia. Hundreds of
thousands of other Jews fled to countries such as Romania and Hungary, Bulgaria
and wherever else they could sneak in, just as hundreds of thousands got into
Palestine.
>==============================================
>>
>> 13. Joe Bellinger is one of the foremost authorities in America on the
>> Third Reich. {He couldn't find the expression "master race"
>> (Herrenvolk) in Hitler's _Mein Kampf_, and after two weeks of looking,
>> was unable to identify three of the people to whom Hitler dedicated the
>> book.}
>========================
In fact, I NEVER looked. I asked McFee to post it. he wouldn't and there is
where it will stay.
>====================
>Phillips
>
>I rather think Joe will have his own version of that. I'll withold
>judgement until I hear it.
>==========================
Yes, I sldo insisted that Gord took this expression out of context. As he
never posted the quote or the page on which it was allegedly to be found, I
ignored it as more empty mouthing from the opposition.
>>
>> 14. No one was gassed at Natzweiler (Struthof). They all died of
>> natural causes. {The bodies were found, autopsied and proved to have
>> been gassed.}
>======================================
>Phillips
>
>Kindly produce the report of those autopsies.
>=========================
He has none. And I never stated they died of natural causes. I simply said it
would have been irration to send them from Auschwitz to Natzweiler, where a
"gas chamber" had to be constructed solely to gas a few commissars. I also
noted that these commissars were most likely criminals and if Dr Hirt REALLY
wanted theri corpses undamaged, all he had to do was give them a lethal
injection. The whole tale is grossly distorted and spurious.
The allies found dissected corpses in an Institute of Anatomy! How shocking!
>>
>> 15. The Allies forged parts of the Wannsee Protocol, yet Eichmann
>> admitted he wrote the same portions while he was drunk. {No comment
>> required.}
The Wannsee Protocol mentions nothing about killing people or genocide. The
notes were not made verbatim. All of the surviviparticipants agree there had
been bo talk of killing.
> 16. The Vilna-Kaunas region of Lithuania is actually Riga in Latvia.
>> {No comment required - check any map.}
>>
Another distortion. I posted a direct quote from ex-Jewish partisan Isaac
Kowalski on this along with a page number. Gord prefers to believe the liar,
edeiken.
>17. When Himmler said "Jew", he meant "partisan". {When Himmler said
>> "Jew", he meant "Jew".}
>>
That depends. 1.5 million Jews were partisans.
>18. The Einsatzgruppen reports also meant "partisan" when they said
>> "Jewish children". {The Einsatzgruppen reports broke down the people
>> murdered under headings such as: "Jews (men)", "Jews (children)", "Jews
>> (women)" and so on. Other headings were "partisans", "commissars",
>> etc.}
>>
These are all unconfirmed reports. They like to quote Jaeger as one of the
authors of these reports, but ignore that he was in custody in 1957, and there
died while in custody under mysterious circumstances. he NEVER verified the
authenticity of this report they are so fond of quoting.
>
>> 19. Documents - even though signed and authenticated -- are only
>> admissible in court if the author also testifies. {If this were true, a
>> lot of notaries would be out of business!}
>====================================================
>The notarization can quallify a document for acceptance into the body of
>evidence. However, the other side still has the right to demand the
>apperance and cross-examination of the source.
>====================================================
But this is rarely done with accused Germans. Survivors are sacrosanct.
>>
>> 20. Himmler's speech at Posen, in which he talked about the
>> extermination of the Jews, is faked, interpolated, forged and he was
>> also only kidding and exaggerating for effect. {The speech was recorded
>> and the authenticity of the recording has been established.}
>
>===================================================
>Phillips
>
>Even if Himmler's words must be taken as meaning what you say they mean
>they are not and cannot be by themselves proof that the intent was
>carried out. At best they are only suggestive of intent. If you had
>more solid evidnece of the mass executions then they would be
>corroborative.
>=========================
Nor do they serve as proof of gas chambers. My observations are valid,
however.
>=============
>>
>> 21. Goebbels knew nothing about the extermination of the Jews, even
>> though he one of Hitler's closest confidants, and wrote about it in his
>> diary, because he didn't have direct command authority in the SS.
>> {Apart from the non-existent logic in such a statement, Goebbels' own
>> diary entries reveal that he knew very well what was going on (May 27,
>> 1942, December 12, 1941. In addition, he was one of the most rabid
>> antisemites.) Interestingly, another "revisionist" (David Irving)
>> blames almost the whole thing on Goebbels!}
>
>==================================================
>Phillips
>
>Of all the Nazi leaders, Goebbels was most certainly the most
>poisonously anti-Jewish. And most likely he must bear primary
>responsibility for the Kristallnacht in 1938.
>==============================================================
I agree with tht, but there is no evidence he knew anything about mass
exterminations by gas.
>> 22. Goering, Kaltenbrunner, Streicher and the other defendants at
>> Nuremberg were martyrs. {No comment required. They were all convicted
>> in a trial much more fair than any they had been involved in during
>> their careers.}
>====================================================
>PHillips
>
>Those trials were NOT "fair" trials. Rather they might be likened to an
>army court-martial. A little ceremony designed to put a veneer of
>legality on a judgement arrived at beforehand.
>====================================================
I also said that they will BECOME martyrs due to the illegal methods used to
convict and execute them There is a difference. The allies set themselves up
for this.
>>
>> 23. Despite the testimony of camp prisoners, officers in the camp, and
>> the fact that food and water were readily available, and that Josef
>> Kramer refused to feed the inmates, Matt Giwer's drunken ravings to the
>> contrary are enough to prove that he did. {No comment required.}
>>
>> 24. Water cannot be sterilized by boiling. {No comment required.}
>>
This is baloney. Kramer did all he could to save as manyas possible in an
impossible situation. )ver 20,000 died after the British took over the camp
because they gave ill people untreated river water. Kramer, however, saved the
lives of 500 Jewish children in the camp. You never mention this.
> 25. Joe Bellinger is not an antisemite. {One of his favorite jokes is
>> to call Jews in Auschwitz "Jew on a rope" (a play on words on the "soap
>> on a rope" commercials, as well as the Danzig experiments where the
>> Nazis experimented with making soap from human fat.)}
Idiocy. TOm Segev admits this soap business is pure canard. It won't "wash",
Gord.
>
>> 26. Albert Speer knew nothing about the extermination of the Jews. {He
>> was the second most powerful man in the Third Reich after 1942 and
>> admitted before his death that he had known or should have known.}
>>
Speer was in charge of the Todt orgaization-not the Ss or the camps. Your
comment is foolish.
>7. Joe Bellinger is one of the foremost experts on Judaism. {By the
>> way, according to Joe, the Talmud was written in Hebrew. By the way #2:
>> there are 18 blessings in the "18 blessings" (there are 19, one was
>> added later); the "18 blessings" are the standard "baruchas" that any
>> Jew who ever went to Hebrew School learns like a young Catholic learns
>> the catechism}.
My knowledge embarrasses you, actually. Your fault, not mine.
>> 28. Eisenhower ordered the murder of the German General Staff. {No
>> comment required -- based on a distortion of something Eisenhower said.
>> Ambrose & Bischof, _Eisenhower and the German POWs_, demolishes this
>> mendacious accusation.}
>==========================
This is based on Butchers diary and Eisie's subsequent actions. IT is true.
>================================
>Phillips
>
>Eisenhower was one of those individuals upon whom the Gods of Fortune
>(for reasons best known to themselves) chose to smile. This raised him
>to heights far beyond what his modest talents would otherwise have
>brought him.
>
>Whether he did or did not order the murder of the German general staff,
>I do not know. But I do know this: that by his complicity in the
>deliberate starving of German prisoners, he disgraced the American
>uniform.
>==========================
>===============================================
>>
>
>> 29. Murray "Abrams" was the originator of the idea for the Nuremberg
>> Trial. {It was Murray Bernays. There is no Murray Abrams, as near as
>> anyone has been able to discover.}
>====================================================
>Phillips
>
>Does the NAME of the originator matter all that much?
>=================================================
>>
His name turned out to be Murray Bernays. I had erred as I went by memory
after returning the book tothe library.
>0. Nuremberg prosecutor Sydney Alderman was Jewish. {He was a Southern
>> Baptist.}
>=====================================================
>Phillips
>
>By birth or by conversion?
>=======================================
That is my question as well!
>
>> 31. There was nothing wrong with the euthanasia program because the
>> families requested it. {The families did no such thing.}
The families most certainly DID. Another nizkook lie.
One of the family names was Krauss.
>> 32. In a recent thread "Memorial Day 1998" in response to Yale Edeiken's
>> comment that Bellinger was urinating on the graves of American dead, he
>> announced that they were fighting to protect British and Soviet
>> interests and that the U.S. had no "national interest" in fighting
>> Hitler, that this was "Churchill's specialty." {No comment required.}
>>
It is recorded that the first thing Churchill did upon setting foot on German
soil was to urinate on the west Wall.
>> 33. Historian Henry Friedländer, being Jewish, is by definition not an
>> impartial source. (See also 48 below) {Apart from the revolting
>> antisemitism in such a remark, Friedländer is a highly respected
>> academic and his work has received universal praise.} The same applies
>> to the prison psychologist at Nuremberg, Gustav Gilbert. As Joe puts
>> it: "Thay [sic] lying little sneak and spy, Gilbert-the Jewish
>> [psychologist? Who cares what he said!"
>> <199805160605...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>>
>> 34. Justice Michael Musmanno forfeited his title of "Justice" because he
>> presided at a trial of "German nationals." {No comment required. Judge
>> Musmanno was even respected by the *defense* in the trial. He stated
>> "The defense can introduce any evidence short of describing the lives of
>> the
>> penguins in the Antarctic. And if they can convince me the habits of
>> the penguins are relevant evidence to this case, then the lives and
>> times of the white-fronted creatures can also be admitted as
>> evidence." In later trials, the defense requested that "the Penguin
>> rule" be applied.}
>====================================================
>Phillips
>
>I'm sure of just exactly what he meant, but it sounds very much as if he
>was saying in advnace that he shits on anything the defense might bring
>up. I always thought that judges were supposed to be impartial.
>==========================
One prominent person at this time in America referred to the judges as
"idiots."
>=============================
>>
>> 35. Czechoslovakia was not a country when Hitler invaded it.
>> {Czechoslovakia was a country until Hitler invaded it on March 15,
>> 1939.}
>==========================================
>Phillips
>
>It was a country (or, more precisely, a political entity) but one that
>never should have been created in the first place. Withess its recent
>break-up.
>==========================
And the state had already dissolved by the time the protectorate was created.
It was in a moribund state.
>=======================================================
>>
>> 36. Hitler invaded Poland because the Poles refused to hold a referendum
>> over the Polish Corridor. {Hitler's own directives for the conduct of
>> the war rebut this nonsense.}
>>
What I wrote is true, and thousands of Germans were massacred by poles in this
venture, unfortunately. Whoever they were, they acted contrary to Marshall
pilsudski's advice.
>
>> 37. The gassing of 200 Poles was justified because they had been
>> convicted by a summary court and sentenced to death. {The Jews were
>> gassed to test the gas chambers - they included men, women and
>> children.}
Stark says there were no children, and he says they were Poles AND Jews. In
fact, the whole scenario was fabricated and a lie.
There is NO evidence for this allegation whatsoever.
>. The Nazis did not persecute Catholic priests in Poland. {Nazi
>> persecution of Catholic priests in Poland has been deplored by every
>> Pope since Pius XII.}
They arrested only those wh were political activists and stirred up dissension.
Weren't the Gropi brothers similarly arrested here? And what of Father
Coughlin? you don't care for him, do you?
>
>> 39. Muench "plea bargained." {He stood trial and was acquitted.}
>>
He plea bargained and testified against others accused. he wanted to live.
>
>> 40. Charles Coughlin was not an anti-Semite but just "a man of God."
>> {Coughlin's radio broadcasts in the 1930s were marked by their virulent
>> antisemitism and he was later rebuked by the Church.}
He may have been both, I am not particularly interested.
> 41. Göring was "tortured." {If so, Göring was unaware of it.}
Goering was beaten.
>42. The victims of medical experiments were convicted criminals who
>> "volunteered." {The victims of medical experiments in no way
>> volunteered, according to the Nazis' own records. Not only did they not
>> volunteer, but when some had the audacity to survive an experiment
>> (which should have "pardoned" them) they were subjected to further
>> experiments until they died. See _Concentration Camp Dachau_
Yep, they were criminals. members of the luftwaffe also volunteered, but the
other experiments were conducted on people like Ted Bundy, John wayne Gacy and
Jeffrey Dahmer., Weep for them if you want.
>
>> 43. Mengele was an innocent man falsely accused by Jews. {Mengele was
>> the doctor who made the ramp inspections at Auschwitz that determined
>> who was worked to death and who was gassed immediately.}
Mengele was never convicted in a court of law ad the current accusations
against him appear to be grossly, indecently fabricated.
> 44. Partisans who fought against invading forces were "murderers."
>> {Given that the partisans fought occupying German military units, and
>> their activities were covered under the Hague Convention, they were not,
>> in general, murderers at all.}
>
>=============================================================
>Phillips
>
>Partisans "covered" by the Hague convention??? Now I'm not at all sure
>of my facts here so correct me if I'm wrong. But I think the Hague
>convention says that partisans are NOT entitled to be treated as
>prisoners of war. The reason for this ought to be obvious.
>====================================================
They weren't and they aren't. often they fought in countries distinct from
their homelands!
>=====================
>>
>> 46. The defendants at the Nuremberg Trial refused to come to
>> Kaltenbrunner's aid because they knew he was a scapegoat. He was also
>> an "ersatz substitute" for Himmler. {The defendants loathed
>> Kaltenbrunner because he was a typical bully goon, and because he could
>> tie many of them into the Final Solution. His signature was on hundreds
>> of documents ordering murders.}
Few would have wanted to associate with the SS under those circumstances.
>
>> 47. Kaltenbrunner's two hemorrhages were brought on as a result of
>> severe blows to his head from one of his captors, and not from "fear" as
>> the allies "leaked" out to the media. {This is medically impossible.
>> Kaltenbrunner had a sub-archnoid bleed with no subdural hematoma. In
>> other words, as any doctor will tell attest, no trauma.}
>==========================
>=============================
>Phillips
>
>Are you VERY certain that such severe blows could not possibly have
>produced such a result. You're covering a lot of territory there.
>==========================
What I wrote is TRUE. Upon capture he was spirited off to the infamous Tower
of London and worked over so badly there that he returned to Nuremberg a
physical and mental wreck. He was later worked over by a guard, mucb like the
one who attacked Goering, striking him numerous times about the head, thus the
hemmorhage....the allies attributed the two hemmorhages to "cowardice,"
>===========================
>>
>> 48. Joe challenged the lurkers to support him. Jeff Kramer, bona fide
>> lurker, posted that he considers Joe "the most childishly transparent
>> liar in all the realms of Usenet". Joe's antisemitic, childish
>> response? "You must be Jewish." (See also 33 above)
>
>==========================
Who cares what he thinks? I don;'t.
>=================================
>Philllips
>
>One hears that sort of thing on this NG and, having heard a sufficient
>amount of it, soon learns to consider the source. I, as I'm sure you
>know, was recently called a "moron." This from the very people who love
>to call their opponents "irrational."
>==========================
>
>
>> 49. The Summa of Joe's analytical approach: "I don't care what the facts
>> are." [<19971127210...@ladder02.news.aol.com>]
>=======================================================
>Phillips
>
>One man's "fact" is another man's fiction. We've seen enough "facts"
>from your side to have learned to be very wary of them.
>======================================
>
>
Of course Hilary snipped and took this out of context. it has no bearing on
the holocaust debate. More chicanery.
>> Gord McFee
>> I'll write no line before its time
>>
>> Visit the Holocaust History Project
Thanks for giving me the spotlight, Gord! You have done wonders for
revisionism!
Debunks
>Subject: Re: Bellinger's Bullshit (Another Nizkook Attempt to Smear Someone?
>Yes Indeedy!)
>From: "Sonnyboy McTavish" <doc_t...@DELETEME.bigfoot.com>
>Date: Thu, Jun 4, 1998 21:37 EDT
>Message-id: <01bd9024$94f44220$4ebd40d1@tavish-central>>> The list of Joe Bellinger's whoppers is a long one. But in the
>> interests of accuracy, it needs to be posted. This may seem like cruel
>> and unusual punishment, but Bellinger has proclaimed *himself* as "one
>> of the foremost experts in America on the Third Reich" and a "leading
>> the rest of us plebs.
>>
>> capable of reasoned debate" (<5ataev$6...@juliana.sprynet.com>,
>> blac...@juno.com [Jan 7/97])
>>
>> Here goes. Be forewarned - this is long. Additions are welcome, but
>> let's try to keep it under 1 MB!
>>
>> Bellinger's assertions stand alone.
>>
>> The *facts* are in curly brackets {}.
>>
>>
>> 1. The Jews ran Nuremberg. {In fact, the Jews were not particularly
>> represented at Nuremberg. None of the prosecutors, defense lawyers,
>> judges or other main players were Jews.}
>>
>>
>>
>> mainly Jews, men, women and children.}
>>
>> Germans committed the massacre at Lidice as a reprisal for the
>> assassination of Heydrich.}
>>
>> "heinous crimes", for which they deserved to be shot. {They were
>> nothing of the sort. They were killed purely and simply because they
>> were Jews.}
>
>supply the clickable links to all of the posts so we could see for
>ourselves that Bellinger had in FACT said all that you claim. You Nizkooks
>are noteworthy of quoting people out of context or attributing words to
>people that the person did not say! If you can't show the clickable links
>to each passage you contribute to Bellinger then you are just another g-d
>damned liar and nothing more! Not hop to it McFee and move your lazy ass
>and provide those links to the posts that contain those words!
>
> Tavish
>
>
Yale F. Edeiken
> "Richard G. Philllips" <rgp...@earthlink.net> writes:
> Gord McFee wrote:
> > 19. Documents - even though signed and authenticated -- are only
> > admissible in court if the author also testifies. {If this were true, a
> > lot of notaries would be out of business!}
> The notarization can quallify a document for acceptance into the body of
> evidence. However, the other side still has the right to demand the
> apperance and cross-examination of the source.
Exactly. And Bellinger says otherwise.
> > 34. Justice Michael Musmanno forfeited his title of "Justice" because he
> > presided at a trial of "German nationals." {No comment required. Judge
> > Musmanno was even respected by the *defense* in the trial. He stated
> > "The defense can introduce any evidence short of describing the lives of
> > the penguins in the Antarctic. And if they can convince me the habits of
> > the penguins are relevant evidence to this case, then the lives and
> > times of the white-fronted creatures can also be admitted as
> > evidence." In later trials, the defense requested that "the Penguin
> > rule" be applied.}
> I'm sure of just exactly what he meant, but it sounds very much as if he
> was saying in advnace that he shits on anything the defense might bring
> up. I always thought that judges were supposed to be impartial.
In the continental system, the judge leads in questioning witnesses. What
Musmanno meant was:
Prosecutor Horlik-Hochwald thought that I allowed Biberstein
too wide a latitude in presenting his defence. But considering
the gravity of the charges and, if convicted the solemnity of the
penalty this ex-minister of the gospel faced, I felt I could not
open the doors of defence evidence too wide. Thus, in addition
to allowing him maximum scope in introducing evidence on his
behalf, I ruled that the prosecution should exhibit to him, if he
desired to see it, all documentary evidence that had been
gathered in his case. Mr. Horlik-Hochwald protested: "I don't
know that the International Military Tribunal has ever ruled that
the prosecution has to submit documents which are in favour of
the defence."
I ruled: "If the International Military Tribunal did not so
declare, this Tribunal will declare that whatever the prosecution
has which is favourable to the defence must be submitted."
"If your honor please, I don't want to challenge this
statement. I only wanted to explain here that the International
Military Tribunal ruled, nothing else. I did not want ---"
"Well, if the International Military Tribunal said that,
this Tribunal overrules the International Military Tribunal,
because it is not in accordance with the principles of justice
that either side may withhold anything which may shed light on
the issues before the Court."
Biberstein took full advantage of the privileges accorded
him . . . .
Justice Michael Musmanno "The Eichmann Kommandos" (British
edition 1962); pages 193-194
Of course, you and the other liars will tell us that Musmanno did not run fair
trial.
> Partisans "covered" by the Hague convention??? Now I'm not at all sure
> of my facts here so correct me if I'm wrong. But I think the Hague
> convention says that partisans are NOT entitled to be treated as
> prisoners of war. The reason for this ought to be obvious.
It states exactly the opposite. The exact language has been posted here
many times. It states that partisans are to be treated as POWs.
> > 47. Kaltenbrunner's two hemorrhages were brought on as a result of
> > severe blows to his head from one of his captors, and not from "fear" as
> > the allies "leaked" out to the media. {This is medically impossible.
> > Kaltenbrunner had a sub-archnoid bleed with no subdural hematoma. In
> > other words, as any doctor will tell attest, no trauma.}
> Are you VERY certain that such severe blows could not possibly have
> produced such a result. You're covering a lot of territory there.
Read it again. Severe truama can cause an arachnoid bleed but not
without some other physical signs. Kaltenbrunner had none. Further he had a single
bleed, not two as Bellinger stated.
--YFE
The Holocaust History Project is at http://www.holocaust-history.org/
The Nizkor Project is at http://www.nizkor.org/
The Einsatzgruppen page is at http://www.pgonline.com/electriczen/
The Cybrary of the Holocaust is at http://www.remember.org/
Mark Van Alstine
In article <35776...@news3.enter.net>, ya...@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken)
wrote:
> > "Richard G. Philllips" <rgp...@earthlink.net> writes:
> > Gord McFee wrote:
[snip]
> > Partisans "covered" by the Hague convention??? Now I'm not at all sure
> > of my facts here so correct me if I'm wrong. But I think the Hague
> > convention says that partisans are NOT entitled to be treated as
> > prisoners of war. The reason for this ought to be obvious.
>
> It states exactly the opposite. The exact language has been posted here
> many times. It states that partisans are to be treated as POWs.
According to the Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of
War on Land, Annex to the Convention:
<begin quote>
Article 1
The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to
militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:
1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizeable at a distance;
3. To carry arms openly; and
4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form
part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."
Article 2
The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who on the
approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading
troops without having time to organize themselves in accordance with
article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents _if they carry arms openly_
and if they respect the laws and customs of was. [italics added]
Article 3
The armed forces of the belligerent parties may consist of combatants and
noncombatants. In the case of capture by the enemy, both have a right to
be treated as a prisoner of war.
<end quote>
Source: Reisman and Antoniou, _The Laws of War_, p.41-42.
Additionally, in regard to the responsibilities of the belligerent for the
treatment of POWs, the Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and
Customs of War on Land, Annex to the Convention, states:
<begin quote>
Article 6. The state may utilize the labour of prisoners of war according
to their rank and aptitude, _officers excepted_. The tasks shall not be
excessive and shall have no connection with the operations of the war.
[emphasis supplied]...
Article 7. The Government into whose hands prioners of war have fallen is
charged with their maintenance.
In the absence of a special agreement between belligerents, prisoners of
war shall be treated as regards board, lodging, and clothing on the same
footing as the troops of the Government who captured them.
<end quote>
Source: Reisman ans Antoniou, _The Laws of War_, pp.150-151.
[snip]
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line seperating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties--but right through every human heart--and all human hearts."
-- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard G. Philllips
Mark Van Alstine wrote:
>
> In article <35776...@news3.enter.net>, ya...@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken)
> wrote:
>
> > > "Richard G. Philllips" <rgp...@earthlink.net> writes:
> > > Gord McFee wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > of my facts here so correct me if I'm wrong. But I think the Hague
> > > convention says that partisans are NOT entitled to be treated as
> > > prisoners of war. The reason for this ought to be obvious.
> >
> > many times. It states that partisans are to be treated as POWs.
>
> According to the Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of
>
> <begin quote>
>
> Article 1
>
> The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to
> militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:
>
> 1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
> 2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizeable at a distance;
> 3. To carry arms openly; and
> 4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
>
> In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form
> part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."
>
> Article 2
>
> The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who on the
> approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading
> troops without having time to organize themselves in accordance with
> article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents _if they carry arms openly_
> and if they respect the laws and customs of was. [italics added]
>
> Article 3
>
> The armed forces of the belligerent parties may consist of combatants and
> noncombatants. In the case of capture by the enemy, both have a right to
> be treated as a prisoner of war.
>
> <end quote>
>
> Source: Reisman and Antoniou, _The Laws of War_, p.41-42.
>
> Additionally, in regard to the responsibilities of the belligerent for the
> treatment of POWs, the Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and
>
> <begin quote>
>
> Article 6. The state may utilize the labour of prisoners of war according
> to their rank and aptitude, _officers excepted_. The tasks shall not be
> excessive and shall have no connection with the operations of the war.
> [emphasis supplied]...
>
> Article 7. The Government into whose hands prioners of war have fallen is
> charged with their maintenance.
>
> In the absence of a special agreement between belligerents, prisoners of
> war shall be treated as regards board, lodging, and clothing on the same
> footing as the troops of the Government who captured them.
>
> <end quote>
>
> Source: Reisman ans Antoniou, _The Laws of War_, pp.150-151.
>
> [snip]
>
> Mark
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line seperating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties--but right through every human heart--and all human hearts."
>
> -- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillips
Item 1.
I direct your attention to the clause where it was stated that partisans
are to be treated as POWs PROVIDED they met certain conditions:
1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
> 2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizeable at a distance;
> 3. To carry arms openly; and
> 4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Are you VERY certain that the Russian partisans met ALL of those
conditions ALL of the time.
When you go around inspecting the world with white gloves you might
just possibly end up with a smudge here and there. You have lived much
too sheltered a life to be qualified to pass judgement on men who had to
fight under the conditions that prevailed there. When YOU have fought in
a army and seen buddies sent back alive but blinded and with their
"equipment" chopped off, when that seen taht several times and manage to
still conduct yourself in strict according with all the rules -- THEN
and only then will I consider you qualified to pass judgements on men
who have seen those things.
Do you have any idea of what partisan warfare was like, of what it can
do to the men who participate in it. do you know anything about our own
suppression of the Philippine guerillas in 1900, of the British wars
against the Mau Mau or in Malaysia, of the French war in North Africa or
our own war in Viet-nam.
So don't tell me how uniquely evil the Krauts were just becaue they did
not scrupulously follow all the Hague rules all of the time. Soldiers
are not choir boys.
Sara Salzman
In article <199806050153...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Bellinger's Bullshit
> >From: "Richard G. Philllips" <rgp...@earthlink.net>
> >Date: Thu, Jun 4, 1998 20:33 EDT
> >Message-id: <35773C...@earthlink.net>
> >
> >
>
> >Gord McFee wrote:
>
> DEBUNKS writes: First, I want to thank Mr. Phillips for replying to
this, as I
> had lost the post. Now-on to the Gefecht!
>
> >>
> >> The list of Joe Bellinger's whoppers is a long one
>
> Your whoppers are longer by a mile.
>
The same Mr. Bellinger who claims it was childish for me to state that I
had received more e-mail from lurkers than he has, responds to Gord's
eloquent list of lies with "Nyah nyah."
Sara
--
"Yeder aizel hot lib tsu hern vi er alein hirzhet."
(Every ass likes to hear himself bray.)
Yiddish folk saying
Mike Curtis
"Richard G. Philllips" <rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
This is from Phillllllllllllllllllips who has won't go to a library
and readily admits he is totally ignorant when it comes to the
holocaust.
>>Gord McFee wrote:
[snip]
>> Bellinger's assertions stand alone.
>>
>> The *facts* are in curly brackets {}.
>> 1. The Jews ran Nuremberg. {In fact, the Jews were not particularly
>> represented at Nuremberg. None of the prosecutors, defense lawyers,
>> judges or other main players were Jews.}
>PHillips
>What matters here is not whether the principal players were themselves
>Jewish, but the sort of agenda they were following. that agenda was
>most certainly a Jewish agenda.
Phillips would if he could connect the dots, but he can't. So why not
throw an unsubstanitated statement that will lead down into a strawman
assertion into a slippery slope argument?
[snip]
>> 3. Himmler was murdered. {He committed suicide.}
>>
>> 4. The Einsatzgruppen only killed partisans. {The Einsatzgruppen killed
>> mainly Jews, men, women and children.}
>==================================================
>Phillips
>
>Are we to take it that the terms "Jews" and "partisans" were mutually
>exclusive.
Because they weren't and you forgot the question mark at the end.
> Is it perhaps possible that there were quite a few people who
>were both Jews and partisans.
Perhaps?
>> 5. The British were responsible for the massacre at Lidice. {The
>> Germans committed the massacre at Lidice as a reprisal for the
>> assassination of Heydrich.}
>=================================================
>Phillips
>
>they were not "responsible" for it but they did set in motion events
>that resulted in it.
And your source for this is? (Phillllllllllllips doesn't use sources
folks.)
>> 6. Unarmed Jewish men, women and children were partisans and guilty of
>> "heinous crimes", for which they deserved to be shot. {They were
>> nothing of the sort. They were killed purely and simply because they
>> were Jews.}
>==================================================
>Phillips
>
>Just what makes you so cocksure about their having been killed "purely
>and simply" because they were Jews.
Phillips who hasn't read a lick of history is so emotionally
"cocksure" that they weren't. Based on what? We'll never know? After
all, Phillips doesn't research a thing himself.
> I hope you aren't trying to tell us
>that there was no such thing as partisan warfare on that front. there
>was and it was vicious beyond your imagining.
Phillips who hasn't a clue about the history is doing most of the
imagining. Where do the conclusions of one who admits his ignorance
come from?
>> 7. The British threatened to turn Hoess' family over to the Russians.
>> {They made no such threat.}
>===========================================
>Phillips
>
>Just how do you know this? Threats of that sort were very commonly used
>and they worked beautifully.
Because you say so? As an aside: Torture really does work also and it
doesn't always lead to lies. Chew on that one a while.
>> 8. Hoess' testimony was obtained by torture, even though he said it
>> wasn't, and he testified for the defense. {Hoess was roughed up a bit
>> when first captured in order to get him to identify himself. None of
>> his evidence was extracted by torture.}
>===========================================================
>Phillips
>
>"roughed up a bit." where I come from that's called spin control. Hoess
>WAS tortured. No amount of weasel words can change that fact.
Phillips, of course pretends he knows something about these events.
Actually he knows nothing about Hoess. What was Hoess in jail for
before the war?
>> 9. Some group called DIN was responsible for any and all admissions of
>> Holocaust crimes by Nazis. {A pure invention.}
>>
>> 10. All confessions were obtained by torture, were plea bargains or
>> both. {More invention. There are no verified examples of this having
>> taken place.}
>
>=======================================================
>Phillips
>
>(1) I was reading newspapers in 1946 and word got into them of the
>jaw-busting and ball-kicking that was going on in the interrogation
>centers.
This business is not a holocaust event. This has to do with the
Malmedy Trial. Also this business was investigated and found to be
false. But like Fergus you have been told this so often and given the
sources that by now you must know that "lurkers" are aware of these
sources. So who do you think you are fooling?
>(2) I will again cite the case of Hoess. It was all spelled out in the
>book Legion of the Damned by rupert Butler.
One book does not a case make.
>(3) Arthur Butz in his book Hoax of the 20th century maeks mention of
>137 cases of prisoners having been kicked in the testicles beyond
>repair.
This AGAIN was the Malmedy Trial is is NOT connected with the
Holocaust Trials. Also this business was investigated and found to be
false. But like Fergus you have been told this so often and given the
sources that by now you must know that "lurkers" are aware of these
sources. So who do you think you are fooling?
[snip]
>> 12. The Jews were deported to Russia. {The Jews were deported to
>> killing centers such as Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec, Auschwitz, Chelmno
>> and Majdanek. None were deported anywhere else.}
>
>============================================================
>Phillips
>
>No, they were not DEPORTED to Russia, they were deported to the camps in
>Poland. However a great deal of the comparative populaton statics is
>accounted for by large-scale Jewish emigration: To America, to israel,
>and to Russia.
How come no one noticed this huge influx of population? The US was
limiting immigration so how come this great influx wasn't noticed?
>> 13. Joe Bellinger is one of the foremost authorities in America on the
>> Third Reich. {He couldn't find the expression "master race"
>> (Herrenvolk) in Hitler's _Mein Kampf_, and after two weeks of looking,
>> was unable to identify three of the people to whom Hitler dedicated the
>> book.}
>==============================================
>Phillips
>
>I rather think Joe will have his own version of that. I'll withold
>judgement until I hear it.
Joe always has his _own_ version. It's called fiction based on
supposition.
>> 14. No one was gassed at Natzweiler (Struthof). They all died of
>> natural causes. {The bodies were found, autopsied and proved to have
>> been gassed.}
>======================================
>Phillips
>
>Kindly produce the report of those autopsies.
Actually, Phillips I produced Kramer's testimony of a gassing he
enforced at Natzweiler. You were so destroyed in that thread that you
didn't bother reading it. It is pretty bad to refuse to go to the
library and it is even worse to ask for material and then not read it.
[snip -- Phillips is getting tired for he isn't commenting on most of
this]
>> 19. Documents - even though signed and authenticated -- are only
>> admissible in court if the author also testifies. {If this were true, a
>> lot of notaries would be out of business!}
>==========================================================
>Phillips
>
>The notarization can quallify a document for acceptance into the body of
>evidence. However, the other side still has the right to demand the
>apperance and cross-examination of the source.
Which they did. You ought to read the Belsen Trial. I diod post quite
a bit of it. There is even a discussion on just this aspect. I'll bet
you ignored it. What else is new?
[snip -- I'm getting tired. :-)]
>==================================================
>Phillips
>
>Of all the Nazi leaders, Goebbels was most certainly the most
>poisonously anti-Jewish. And most likely he must bear primary
>responsibility for the Kristallnacht in 1938.
Responsibilty? For what? What was so bad about Kristallnacht?
>> 22. Goering, Kaltenbrunner, Streicher and the other defendants at
>> Nuremberg were martyrs. {No comment required. They were all convicted
>> in a trial much more fair than any they had been involved in during
>> their careers.}
>====================================================
>PHillips
>
>Those trials were NOT "fair" trials. Rather they might be likened to an
>army court-martial. A little ceremony designed to put a veneer of
>legality on a judgement arrived at beforehand.
Then why were so many not hung? Why not kill them all? You ought to
explain that. I'll bet you'll guess rather than substantiate anything.
[Darn, Phillips doesn't comment on the Belsen/Kramer stuff.]
[snip]
>> 35. Czechoslovakia was not a country when Hitler invaded it.
>> {Czechoslovakia was a country until Hitler invaded it on March 15,
>> 1939.}
>==========================================
>Phillips
>
>It was a country (or, more precisely, a political entity) but one that
>never should have been created in the first place. Withess its recent
>break-up.
Tell us why it was created. This ought to be good. It is WW1 history
but what the heck.
[snip]
>> 44. Partisans who fought against invading forces were "murderers."
>> {Given that the partisans fought occupying German military units, and
>> their activities were covered under the Hague Convention, they were not,
>> in general, murderers at all.}
>
>=============================================================
>Phillips
>
>Partisans "covered" by the Hague convention??? Now I'm not at all sure
>of my facts here
You never have facts, Phillips.
> so correct me if I'm wrong. But I think the Hague
>convention says that partisans are NOT entitled to be treated as
>prisoners of war. The reason for this ought to be obvious.
Citation? I know I'm grasping at straws for anything. Even if he's
right. Anything substantiated.
[snip]
>> 47. Kaltenbrunner's two hemorrhages were brought on as a result of
>> severe blows to his head from one of his captors, and not from "fear" as
>> the allies "leaked" out to the media. {This is medically impossible.
>> Kaltenbrunner had a sub-archnoid bleed with no subdural hematoma. In
>> other words, as any doctor will tell attest, no trauma.}
>========================================================
>Phillips
>
>Are you VERY certain that such severe blows could not possibly have
>produced such a result. You're covering a lot of territory there.
. . . the RSHA chief seems to have been miraculously blind to the ugly
reputation that he had earned abroad, figgering perhaps that Himmler
and Pohl would be blamed for both concentration camps and
extermination policies.
Some circumstantial evidence supports this hypothesis. En route to the
Wildensee hut, Kaltenbrunner asked one of his guides if he would act
as a contact man in Alt Aussee when the Americans arrived. Moreover,
in sharp contrast to his later behavior, he appears to have been calm
and collected during his intial interrogations. An interrogator
remarked that Kaltenbrunner was "neither arrogant nor submissive; he
appears staightforward and not unfriendly, a reasonable and
well-spoken man with a measure of self-assuredness." Kaltenbrunner
reportedly told Otto Skorenzeny, with whom he briefly shared a cell in
Wiesbaden in June 1945, that he had been interrogated by a British
history professor in such a way as to permit some optimism for the
future. . . . .[page 259-260]
If Kaltenbrunner harbored any illusions concerning the good will of
his captures, these were quickly shattered. After ten weeks of
confinement and rigorous interrogation in London, he was brought to
Nuremberg in September 1945; on 19 October [he was indicted].**
**Otto Skorzeny claimed that Kaltenbrunner had been locked in the
Tower of London and tortured daily, but had no evidence for this.
Significantly, he did not mention Kaltenbrunner's mistreatment in the
earlier version of his memoirs. . . . William Hottle, who, like
Skorzeny, had contact with Kaltenbrunner in the Nuremberg prison,
reported that Kaltenbrunner never spoke of physical torture, though he
had emphasized that the experience was "miserable."***
On 17 November 1945, three days before the trial was to begin,
Kaltenbrunner was rushed to the hospital with what was later diagnosed
to be a spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrage, which, as the prison
psychiatrist later specualted, might have been induced by rising blood
pressure owing to Kaltenbrunner's tension and agitation about the
impending trial. [page 261]
Source: Ernst Kaltenbrunner: Ideological Soldier of the Third Reich by
Peter Black, Princeton University Press, 1984.
[snip]
>> Visit the Holocaust History Project
>> http://www.holocaust-history.org
>>
>> Visit the Nizkor site
>> http://www.nizkor.org
Mike Curtis
Chuck Ferree
From Chuck Ferree
Richard G. Philllips wrote:
clips
> Phillips
>
> Item 1.
>
> I direct your attention to the clause where it was stated that partisans
> are to be treated as POWs PROVIDED they met certain conditions:
>
> 1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
> > 2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizeable at a distance;
> > 3. To carry arms openly; and
> > 4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
>
> Are you VERY certain that the Russian partisans met ALL of those
> conditions ALL of the time.
Chuck Ferree: phillips, stop fighting snowmen. You post with certainty, and have to eat your own words everytime.
Read this:
The German Soldier's Ten Commandments
[ Printed in Every German Soldier's Paybook ]
1.While fighting for victory the German soldier will observe the rules of chivalrous warfare. Cruelties and
senseless destruction are below his standard.
2.Combatants will be in uniform or will wear specially introduced and clearly distinguishable badges. Fighting
in plain clothes or without such badges is prohibited.
## 3.No enemy who has surrendered will be killed, including partisans and spies. They will be duly punished by courts.
4.P.O.W. will not be ill-treated or insulted. While arms, maps, and records are to be taken away from them,
their personal belongings will not be touched.
CF:>>>>Comment: of course the Germans, being prone to natural cruelty by the nature of their war and goal of ridding Europe of all Jews and other undesirables paid little heed to their own rules. Killing babies was
common, executing Jews as Partisans was just a good excuse to murder more Jews. Little girls and little boys, were not partisons, but they were murdered anyway.
CF
. . . From 1941 to 1944 the Wehrmacht did not wage a "normal war" in the Balkans and the
Soviet Union; this was a war of extermination of Jews, prisoners and the civilian population
with millions of victims. . . .
. . . [T]he Wehrmacht -- acting together with the SS and the police -- shot and burned
women and children, the ill and the old, transforming the land around German bases into a
dead zone. . . .
Wolfram Wette
5.Dum-Dum bullets are prohibited; also no other bullets may be transformed into Dum-Dum.
6.Red Cross Institutions are sacrosanct. Injured enemies are to be treated in a humane way. Medical personnel
and army chaplains may not be hindered in the execution of their medical, or clerical activities.
7.The civilian population is sacrosanct. No looting nor wanton destruction is permitted to the soldier.
Landmarks of historical value or buildings serving religious purposes, art, science, or charity are to be
especially respected. Deliveries in kind made, as well as services rendered by the population, may only be
claimed if ordered by superiors and only against compensation.
8.Neutral territory will never be entered nor passed over by planes, nor shot at; it will not be the object of
warlike activities of any kind.
9.If a German soldier is made a prisoner of war he will tell his name and rank if he is asked for it. Under no
circumstances will he reveal to which unit he belongs, nor will he give any information about German
military, political, and economic conditions. Neither promises nor threats may induce him to do so.
10.Offenses against the a/m matters of duty will be punished. Enemy offenses against the principles under 1 to 8
are to be reported. Reprisals are only permissible on order of higher commands.
Works Cited
Lord Russell of Liverpool, C.B.E., M.S. The Scourge of the Swastika: A Short History of Nazi War Crimes (New
York: Ballantine Books, 1957), pp. 239-240.
Wette, Wolfram. "A Legend Collapses: Hamburg Exhibition's Sombre Picture of Conduct of the War in the East" in
Kulturchronik, No. 4, 1995 (Bonn: Inter Nationes e.V., 1995), p. 13.
Last Updated: 5 February 1996
Return to the Third Reich Web Page.
Access David Dickerson's Home Page.
David Dickerson ddick...@igc.apc.org
copyright © 1995-1996 by David M. Dickerson.
All rights reserved.
This presentation is made possible by the nonprofit IGC Networks.
Mark Van Alstine
[snip]
> Item 1.
>
> I direct your attention to the clause where it was stated that partisans
> are to be treated as POWs PROVIDED they met certain conditions:
>
> 1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
> > 2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizeable at a distance;
> > 3. To carry arms openly; and
> > 4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs
of war.
>
> Are you VERY certain that the Russian partisans met ALL of those
> conditions ALL of the time.
Are very certain that they did not, Dick?
> When you go around inspecting the world with white gloves...
Dick, you have no idea what sort of life I've led. That you yet make
judgements without the slightest knowledge of what I have done or not is
simply pure prejudice on your part. Prejudice motivated by youyr bigotry
and racism. Prejudice motivated by the simple fact that your ego can't
take that I keep shooting down your incredibly ignorant screwball claims.
So go fuck yourself, Dick.
Steve Mock
Debunks wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Bellinger's Bullshit (Another Nizkook Attempt to Smear Someone?
> >Yes Indeedy!)
> >From: "Sonnyboy McTavish" <doc_t...@DELETEME.bigfoot.com>
> >Date: Thu, Jun 4, 1998 21:37 EDT
> >Message-id: <01bd9024$94f44220$4ebd40d1@tavish-central>
> >
> >Gord McFee <gmc...@ibm.net> wrote in article
> ><357a1a28...@news3.ibm.net>...
> >> The list of Joe Bellinger's whoppers is a long one. But in the
> >> interests of accuracy, it needs to be posted. This may seem like cruel
> >> and unusual punishment, but Bellinger has proclaimed *himself* as "one
> >> of the foremost experts in America on the Third Reich" and a "leading
> >> expert on Judaism". Hence, he must be held to a higher standard than
> >> the rest of us plebs.
> >>
> >> Joe has proclaimed: "I have demonstrated over and over again that I am
> >> capable of reasoned debate" (<5ataev$6...@juliana.sprynet.com>,
> >> blac...@juno.com [Jan 7/97])
> >>
> >> Here goes. Be forewarned - this is long. Additions are welcome, but
> >> let's try to keep it under 1 MB!
> >>
> >> Bellinger's assertions stand alone.
> >>
> >> The *facts* are in curly brackets {}.
> >>
> >> SELECTED BITS OF BELLINGER BALONEY
> >>
> >> 1. The Jews ran Nuremberg. {In fact, the Jews were not particularly
> >> represented at Nuremberg. None of the prosecutors, defense lawyers,
> >> judges or other main players were Jews.}
> >>
> >> 2. Torquemada and Poppea were Jews. {They weren't.}
> >>
> >> 3. Himmler was murdered. {He committed suicide.}
> >>
> >> 4. The Einsatzgruppen only killed partisans. {The Einsatzgruppen killed
> >> mainly Jews, men, women and children.}
> >>
> >> 5. The British were responsible for the massacre at Lidice. {The
> >> Germans committed the massacre at Lidice as a reprisal for the
> >> assassination of Heydrich.}
> >>
> >> 6. Unarmed Jewish men, women and children were partisans and guilty of
> >> "heinous crimes", for which they deserved to be shot. {They were
> >> nothing of the sort. They were killed purely and simply because they
> >> were Jews.}
> >
> >All I see is you saying that Bellinger said all of this. Why didn't you
> >supply the clickable links to all of the posts so we could see for
> >ourselves that Bellinger had in FACT said all that you claim. You Nizkooks
> >are noteworthy of quoting people out of context or attributing words to
> >people that the person did not say! If you can't show the clickable links
> >to each passage you contribute to Bellinger then you are just another g-d
> >damned liar and nothing more! Not hop to it McFee and move your lazy ass
> >and provide those links to the posts that contain those words!
> >
> > Tavish
>
> You will witness a Holy Day in Hell before that ever happens, Mr. Tavish!
Just a minute, Joe? Are you denying that you said any of these things? Go
ahead. Just say yes or no and lets play ball.
Steve Mock
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
Gord:
I must say Gord that any of these 'Bellinger-isms' so listed can be
readily addressed in toto by Joe in one swoop. Therefore, without further
delay, I give you Joe's summa of summa's as it were, and previously
proclaimed ('by' Joe) to the AR assembled, to wit, 'I NEVER LIE!' There
you have it Gord!
What need therefore have we of the now 53 years of cumulative
historical research on a world platform no less with regard to historical
input when we have Joe B. to not only set but, as an adjunct 'benefit'
thereby, correct the historical record therein! Joe no doubt uses a simple
Rx too for those bothersome issues where 'proof' of his assertions are
demanded of him from folks like yourself et al: he simply writes it, the
historical record that is, as he sees it! Saves much discourse and debate
in the process too!
On the real tough ones of course where the proof is so overwhelming
that only a fool would try to refute it, Joe has that covered too with the
now classic 'you will receive my response in due course.' I believe it was
Yale E. who addressed 'that' issue rather well some time ago. And it does
bear repeating since it was the AR '96 'Best Retort of the Year' winner when
Joe made the 'get back to you in due course' statement and Yale responded,
to wit, '....will that be before or after the lion lies down with the lamb
and the swords are turned into plowshares?' I loved it myself. To my
recollection, Joe never responded. I think Joe was busy telling trying to
convince none other then Bob 'De Mortuis' Whitaker to collaborate with Joe
on a treatise dealing with 'The Art of Bellowed Methane' AKA 'Sucking in the
Botched' but Whitaker, so I heard, was not buying a bit of it preferring
instead to keep doing his proffered Jacob Marley shtick 'sans' the chains
but 'avec' various methane mixtures of his own for any who would lend an
ear. Or eye as the case may be.
Doc Tony
Richard G. Philllips
PHillips
I believe it was a charge of murder or attempted murder. NO doubt about
it; the man was a roughneck.
==============================================
>
> >> 9. Some group called DIN was responsible for any and all admissions of
> >> Holocaust crimes by Nazis. {A pure invention.}
> >>
> >> 10. All confessions were obtained by torture, were plea bargains or
> >> both. {More invention. There are no verified examples of this having
> >> taken place.}
> >
> >=======================================================
> >Phillips
> >
> >(1) I was reading newspapers in 1946 and word got into them of the
> >jaw-busting and ball-kicking that was going on in the interrogation
> >centers.
>
> This business is not a holocaust event. This has to do with the
> Malmedy Trial. Also this business was investigated and found to be
> false.
============================
PHillips
OK. You have made the statement that it was found to be "false." So?
===================================================
But like Fergus you have been told this so often and given the
> sources that by now you must know that "lurkers" are aware of these
> sources. So who do you think you are fooling?
>
> >(2) I will again cite the case of Hoess. It was all spelled out in the
> >book Legion of the Damned by rupert Butler.
>
> One book does not a case make.
>
> >(3) Arthur Butz in his book Hoax of the 20th century maeks mention of
> >137 cases of prisoners having been kicked in the testicles beyond
> >repair.
>
> This AGAIN was the Malmedy Trial is is NOT connected with the
> Holocaust Trials. Also this business was investigated and found to be
> false.
========================================
Phillips
Again, you have made the statement that it was foound to be false. So?
==========================================================
===========================================
>
> [snip -- Phillips is getting tired for he isn't commenting on most of
> this]
=====================================
Phillips
If sneers could kill, I'd have been long gone.
===============================================
>
> >> 19. Documents - even though signed and authenticated -- are only
> >> admissible in court if the author also testifies. {If this were true, a
> >> lot of notaries would be out of business!}
> >==========================================================
> >Phillips
> >
> >The notarization can quallify a document for acceptance into the body of
> >evidence. However, the other side still has the right to demand the
> >apperance and cross-examination of the source.
>
> Which they did. You ought to read the Belsen Trial. I diod post quite
> a bit of it. There is even a discussion on just this aspect. I'll bet
> you ignored it. What else is new?
=============================================
PHillips
York, Jersey, Haven, Orleans, and Hampshire.
============================================
>
> [snip -- I'm getting tired. :-)]
======================================
PHillips
So, turn in. You're not doing me any favors by staying up past your
bedtime.
================================================================
>
> >==================================================
> >Phillips
> >
> >Of all the Nazi leaders, Goebbels was most certainly the most
> >poisonously anti-Jewish. And most likely he must bear primary
> >responsibility for the Kristallnacht in 1938.
>
> Responsibilty? For what? What was so bad about Kristallnacht?
=====================================================
PHillips
Apart from mobs raging through the streets and smashing Jewish shops and
businesses right and left, not very much.
=======================================================
>
> >> 22. Goering, Kaltenbrunner, Streicher and the other defendants at
> >> Nuremberg were martyrs. {No comment required. They were all convicted
> >> in a trial much more fair than any they had been involved in during
> >> their careers.}
> >====================================================
> >PHillips
> >
> >Those trials were NOT "fair" trials. Rather they might be likened to an
> >army court-martial. A little ceremony designed to put a veneer of
> >legality on a judgement arrived at beforehand.
>
> Then why were so many not hung? Why not kill them all? You ought to
> explain that. I'll bet you'll guess rather than substantiate anything.
=======================================================================
Phillips
Because although the trials could not possibly qualify as fair trials by
traditional Anglo-Saxon standards, it was important to maintain some
sort of impression that they could so qualify.
==================================================
>
> [Darn, Phillips doesn't comment on the Belsen/Kramer stuff.]
>
> [snip]
>
> >> 35. Czechoslovakia was not a country when Hitler invaded it.
> >> {Czechoslovakia was a country until Hitler invaded it on March 15,
> >> 1939.}
> >==========================================
> >Phillips
> >
> >It was a country (or, more precisely, a political entity) but one that
> >never should have been created in the first place. Withess its recent
> >break-up.
>
> Tell us why it was created. This ought to be good. It is WW1 history
> but what the heck.
==================================================
Phillips
This is going to be little better than educated guesswork, but I'll do
the best I can.
Reasons:
(1) To reward the Czechs who, though originally part of the
Austro-Hungarian empire and, on that score, nominally our enemies, were
favorable to the Allied cause.
(2) Because several of their nationals living in the USA managed to
exert the right kind of pressure in the right places.
(3) Becasue whereas the Czechs had a voice in the USA, the other
nationalities involved (e.g. Slovaks) did not.
=========================================================
Jeffrey G. Brown
In article <357866...@earthlink.net>, rgp...@earthlink.net ("Liar
Philllips") wrote:
> Mike Curtis wrote:
> >
> > "Richard G. Philllips" <rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> [...deletia...]
> > >(1) I was reading newspapers in 1946 and word got into them of the
> > >jaw-busting and ball-kicking that was going on in the interrogation
> > >centers.
> >
> > This business is not a holocaust event. This has to do with the
> > Malmedy Trial. Also this business was investigated and found to be
> > false.
> ============================
> PHillips
>
> OK. You have made the statement that it was found to be "false." So?
So, Richard G. Philllips is a liar. But everyone here knows that already.
This is just some additional confirmation.
> [...deletia...]
> > >(3) Arthur Butz in his book Hoax of the 20th century maeks mention of
> > >137 cases of prisoners having been kicked in the testicles beyond
> > >repair.
> >
> > This AGAIN was the Malmedy Trial is is NOT connected with the
> > Holocaust Trials. Also this business was investigated and found to be
> > false.
> ========================================
> Phillips
>
> Again, you have made the statement that it was foound to be false. So?
So, Richard G. Philllips is a liar. But everyone here knows that already.
This is just some additional confirmation.
Gord McFee
In <01bd9024$94f44220$4ebd40d1@tavish-central>, on 5 Jun 1998 01:37:30
GMT, "Sonnyboy McTavish" <doc_t...@DELETEME.bigfoot.com> wrote:
> All I see is you saying that Bellinger said all of this. Why didn't you
> supply the clickable links to all of the posts so we could see for
> ourselves that Bellinger had in FACT said all that you claim. You Nizkooks
> are noteworthy of quoting people out of context or attributing words to
> people that the person did not say! If you can't show the clickable links
> to each passage you contribute to Bellinger then you are just another g-d
> damned liar and nothing more! Not hop to it McFee and move your lazy ass
> and provide those links to the posts that contain those words!
Who's your new ISP, Doc?
ROTFL!
Gord McFee
In <357b32f5...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>, on Fri, 05 Jun 1998
00:22:59 GMT, John....@x-nospam-x.UAlberta.CA (John Morris) wrote:
> In <357a1a28...@news3.ibm.net>, on Thu, 04 Jun 1998 22:44:10 GMT,
> gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
>
> >The list of Joe Bellinger's whoppers is a long one. But in the
> >interests of accuracy, it needs to be posted. This may seem like cruel
> >and unusual punishment, but Bellinger has proclaimed *himself* as "one
> >of the foremost experts in America on the Third Reich" and a "leading
> >expert on Judaism". Hence, he must be held to a higher standard than
> >the rest of us plebs.
>
> Some minor clarifications, in the interests of accuracy:
Many thanks, John. Noted and corrections made. Version 1.1 will be a
beauty.
[deleted]
Gord McFee
In <35773C...@earthlink.net>, on Thu, 04 Jun 1998 20:33:36 -0400,
"Richard G. Philllips" <rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Gord McFee wrote:
> >
> > The list of Joe Bellinger's whoppers is a long one. But in the
> > interests of accuracy, it needs to be posted. This may seem like cruel
> > and unusual punishment, but Bellinger has proclaimed *himself* as "one
> > of the foremost experts in America on the Third Reich" and a "leading
> > expert on Judaism". Hence, he must be held to a higher standard than
> > the rest of us plebs.
> >
> > Joe has proclaimed: "I have demonstrated over and over again that I am
> > capable of reasoned debate" (<5ataev$6...@juliana.sprynet.com>,
> > blac...@juno.com [Jan 7/97])
> >
> > Here goes. Be forewarned - this is long. Additions are welcome, but
> > let's try to keep it under 1 MB!
> >
> > Bellinger's assertions stand alone.
> >
> > The *facts* are in curly brackets {}.
> >
> > SELECTED BITS OF BELLINGER BALONEY
> >
> > 1. The Jews ran Nuremberg. {In fact, the Jews were not particularly
> > represented at Nuremberg. None of the prosecutors, defense lawyers,
> > judges or other main players were Jews.}
> ============================================
> PHillips
>
> What matters here is not whether the principal players were themselves
> Jewish, but the sort of agenda they were following. that agenda was
> most certainly a Jewish agenda.
Sez who? Do you see Jews behind every tree?
> ===========================================================
> >
> > 2. Torquemada and Poppea were Jews. {They weren't.}
> ==============================================
> Phillips
>
> I have read that Torq either was a converted Jew or was descended from
> converted Jews. Not that it matters a great deal.
Then drop it. You're wrong.
> > 4. The Einsatzgruppen only killed partisans. {The Einsatzgruppen killed
> > mainly Jews, men, women and children.}
> ==================================================
> Phillips
>
> Are we to take it that the terms "Jews" and "partisans" were mutually
> exclusive. Is it perhaps possible that there were quite a few people who
> were both Jews and partisans.
No, we are to take it by the Einsatzgruppen reports that the
Einsatzgruppen killed mainly Jews -- men, women and children.
> > 5. The British were responsible for the massacre at Lidice. {The
> > Germans committed the massacre at Lidice as a reprisal for the
> > assassination of Heydrich.}
> =================================================
> Phillips
>
> they were not "responsible" for it but they did set in motion events
> that resulted in it.
Gee, Joe will be mad at you for disagreeing with him.
> =======================================================
> >
> > 6. Unarmed Jewish men, women and children were partisans and guilty of
> > "heinous crimes", for which they deserved to be shot. {They were
> > nothing of the sort. They were killed purely and simply because they
> > were Jews.}
> ==================================================
> Phillips
>
> Just what makes you so cocksure about their having been killed "purely
> and simply" because they were Jews.
Because the people who killed them said so.
> I hope you aren't trying to tell us
> that there was no such thing as partisan warfare on that front. there
> was and it was vicious beyond your imagining.
Go home and worry about it.
> ==================================================
> >
> > 7. The British threatened to turn Hoess' family over to the Russians.
> > {They made no such threat.}
> ===========================================
> Phillips
>
> Just how do you know this?
There is no proof for it.
> Threats of that sort were very commonly used
> and they worked beautifully.
Proof?
> ======================================================
> >
> > 8. Hoess' testimony was obtained by torture, even though he said it
> > wasn't, and he testified for the defense. {Hoess was roughed up a bit
> > when first captured in order to get him to identify himself. None of
> > his evidence was extracted by torture.}
> ===========================================================
> Phillips
>
> "roughed up a bit." where I come from that's called spin control. Hoess
> WAS tortured. No amount of weasel words can change that fact.
Hoess was not tortured. No amount of bluster and bullshit can change
that.
> > 10. All confessions were obtained by torture, were plea bargains or
> > both. {More invention. There are no verified examples of this having
> > taken place.}
>
> =======================================================
> Phillips
>
> (1) I was reading newspapers in 1946 and word got into them of the
> jaw-busting and ball-kicking that was going on in the interrogation
> centers.
It's a shame that you read them so long ago, you have forgotten the
contents.
> (2) I will again cite the case of Hoess. It was all spelled out in the
> book Legion of the Damned by rupert Butler.
A fraud.
> (3) Arthur Butz in his book Hoax of the 20th century maeks mention of
> 137 cases of prisoners having been kicked in the testicles beyond
> repair.
That lie was proven in court to be a lie. You have to keep up, Mr.
Phillips.
> (4) Joseph Halow as a young man went to Dachau to serve as a court
> reporter. What he saw going on so disgusted him that he quit and later
> put his experiences in a book.
Go home and worry about it.
> > 12. The Jews were deported to Russia. {The Jews were deported to
> > killing centers such as Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec, Auschwitz, Chelmno
> > and Majdanek. None were deported anywhere else.}
>
> ============================================================
> Phillips
>
> No, they were not DEPORTED to Russia, they were deported to the camps in
> Poland. However a great deal of the comparative populaton statics is
> accounted for by large-scale Jewish emigration: To America, to israel,
> and to Russia.
No it isn't. There are no records of this large-scale emigration. Be
the very first to produce them.
> ========================================================================
> >
> > 13. Joe Bellinger is one of the foremost authorities in America on the
> > Third Reich. {He couldn't find the expression "master race"
> > (Herrenvolk) in Hitler's _Mein Kampf_, and after two weeks of looking,
> > was unable to identify three of the people to whom Hitler dedicated the
> > book.}
> ==============================================
> Phillips
>
> I rather think Joe will have his own version of that. I'll withold
> judgement until I hear it.
He has already blown it. Get your head out of those imaginary 1946
newspapers and try to keep up.
> =====================================================================
> >
> > 14. No one was gassed at Natzweiler (Struthof). They all died of
> > natural causes. {The bodies were found, autopsied and proved to have
> > been gassed.}
> ======================================
> Phillips
>
> Kindly produce the report of those autopsies.
Find them yourself. In fact, they are coming to a web site near you
real soon now. (No, I will not mail them to you)
[deleted]
> > 19. Documents - even though signed and authenticated -- are only
> > admissible in court if the author also testifies. {If this were true, a
> > lot of notaries would be out of business!}
> ==========================================================
> Phillips
>
> The notarization can quallify a document for acceptance into the body of
> evidence. However, the other side still has the right to demand the
> apperance and cross-examination of the source.
Thanks for agreeing with me. Joe will *not* be pleased.
> ==========================================================================
> >
> > 20. Himmler's speech at Posen, in which he talked about the
> > extermination of the Jews, is faked, interpolated, forged and he was
> > also only kidding and exaggerating for effect. {The speech was recorded
> > and the authenticity of the recording has been established.}
>
> ===================================================
> Phillips
>
> Even if Himmler's words must be taken as meaning what you say they mean
> they are not and cannot be by themselves proof that the intent was
> carried out.
I never said otherwise. Read up on convergence of evidence.
> At best they are only suggestive of intent. If you had
> more solid evidnece of the mass executions then they would be
> corroborative.
That's what they are. There may be hope for you yet.
> =================================================================
> >
> > 21. Goebbels knew nothing about the extermination of the Jews, even
> > though he one of Hitler's closest confidants, and wrote about it in his
> > diary, because he didn't have direct command authority in the SS.
> > {Apart from the non-existent logic in such a statement, Goebbels' own
> > diary entries reveal that he knew very well what was going on (May 27,
> > 1942, December 12, 1941. In addition, he was one of the most rabid
> > antisemites.) Interestingly, another "revisionist" (David Irving)
> > blames almost the whole thing on Goebbels!}
>
> ==================================================
> Phillips
>
> Of all the Nazi leaders, Goebbels was most certainly the most
> poisonously anti-Jewish. And most likely he must bear primary
> responsibility for the Kristallnacht in 1938.
No problem with either statement, except that I would put Hitler and
Streicher in a tie with him on the anti-Jewish point.
> ==============================================================
> >
> > 22. Goering, Kaltenbrunner, Streicher and the other defendants at
> > Nuremberg were martyrs. {No comment required. They were all convicted
> > in a trial much more fair than any they had been involved in during
> > their careers.}
> ====================================================
> PHillips
>
> Those trials were NOT "fair" trials. Rather they might be likened to an
> army court-martial. A little ceremony designed to put a veneer of
> legality on a judgement arrived at beforehand.
Straight from a guy who has obviously never been within 20 miles of the
trial transcripts or any books on them. There are six excellent books
on the Nuremberg Trials. Read one.
[deleted]
> > 29. Murray "Abrams" was the originator of the idea for the Nuremberg
> > Trial. {It was Murray Bernays. There is no Murray Abrams, as near as
> > anyone has been able to discover.}
> ====================================================
> Phillips
>
> Does the NAME of the originator matter all that much?
Did I say it did?
>
> 30. Nuremberg prosecutor Sydney Alderman was Jewish. {He was a Southern
> > Baptist.}
> =====================================================
> Phillips
>
> By birth or by conversion?
Who cares?
> > 34. Justice Michael Musmanno forfeited his title of "Justice" because he
> > presided at a trial of "German nationals." {No comment required. Judge
> > Musmanno was even respected by the *defense* in the trial. He stated
> > "The defense can introduce any evidence short of describing the lives of
> > the
> > penguins in the Antarctic. And if they can convince me the habits of
> > the penguins are relevant evidence to this case, then the lives and
> > times of the white-fronted creatures can also be admitted as
> > evidence." In later trials, the defense requested that "the Penguin
> > rule" be applied.}
> ====================================================
> Phillips
>
> I'm sure of just exactly what he meant, but it sounds very much as if he
> was saying in advnace that he shits on anything the defense might bring
> up. I always thought that judges were supposed to be impartial.
Re-read it. He was saying he would give the defense tremendous latitude
in what they introduced.
> =======================================================
> >
> > 35. Czechoslovakia was not a country when Hitler invaded it.
> > {Czechoslovakia was a country until Hitler invaded it on March 15,
> > 1939.}
> ==========================================
> Phillips
>
> It was a country (or, more precisely, a political entity) but one that
> never should have been created in the first place. Withess its recent
> break-up.
Irrelevant.
> > 44. Partisans who fought against invading forces were "murderers."
> > {Given that the partisans fought occupying German military units, and
> > their activities were covered under the Hague Convention, they were not,
> > in general, murderers at all.}
>
> =============================================================
> Phillips
>
> Partisans "covered" by the Hague convention??? Now I'm not at all sure
> of my facts here so correct me if I'm wrong. But I think the Hague
> convention says that partisans are NOT entitled to be treated as
> prisoners of war. The reason for this ought to be obvious.
You should read up on it then.
> > 47. Kaltenbrunner's two hemorrhages were brought on as a result of
> > severe blows to his head from one of his captors, and not from "fear" as
> > the allies "leaked" out to the media. {This is medically impossible.
> > Kaltenbrunner had a sub-archnoid bleed with no subdural hematoma. In
> > other words, as any doctor will tell attest, no trauma.}
> ========================================================
> Phillips
>
> Are you VERY certain that such severe blows could not possibly have
> produced such a result. You're covering a lot of territory there.
If there is no trauma, blows could not have caused it. Speak to your
doctor (and, for once, I am not being flippant).
> =====================================================================
> >
>
> > 49. The Summa of Joe's analytical approach: "I don't care what the facts
> > are." [<19971127210...@ladder02.news.aol.com>]
> =======================================================
> Phillips
>
> One man's "fact" is another man's fiction. We've seen enough "facts"
> from your side to have learned to be very wary of them.
You have proven not a single one of them wrong. Think about it.
And then, go home and worry about it.
Richard G. Philllips
Mark Van Alstine wrote:
>
> ===============================
Phillips (previous)
> > I direct your attention to the clause where it was stated that partisans
> > are to be treated as POWs PROVIDED they met certain conditions:
> >
> > 1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
> > > 2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizeable at a distance;
> > > 3. To carry arms openly; and
> > > 4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs
> of war.
> >
> > Are you VERY certain that the Russian partisans met ALL of those
> > conditions ALL of the time.
>
> Are very certain that they did not, Dick?
======================================
PHillips
Burden-of-proof issue. You insist the Russian partisans were entitled
to be treated as prisoners-of-war. However, going by the Hague
convention which you and others have quoted, they are so entitled ONLY
if they met certain conditions. Therefore, I would say the burden is on
you to show that they met those conditions.
However, the whole discussion is so much nonsense. Hague convention or
no Hague convention, partisans are NOT going to be treated as POWs.
Therefore it is quite pointless to insist on how wicked the Krauts were
because exactly the same behavior was exhibited by
1)The Americans in the Philippines in 1900
2)the Brits in Africa and Malaysia
3) The French in Algeria
4) the Americans in Viet-nam.
===========================================================
===================================================
Phillips (previous)
>
> > When you go around inspecting the world with white gloves...
==========================================================
>
> Dick, you have no idea what sort of life I've led. That you yet make
> judgements without the slightest knowledge of what I have done or not is
> simply pure prejudice on your part. Prejudice motivated by youyr bigotry
> and racism. Prejudice motivated by the simple fact that your ego can't
> take that I keep shooting down your incredibly ignorant screwball claims.
=====================================================
PHillips
Correct, I have no idea of the sort of life you have lead. However, it
is permissible to make inferences from what you say. When you try to
make out how wicked the Germans were for dealing harshly with Russian
partisans, I am entitled to assume one of two things:
1) Either that you are a naif who has very little ideaa of what really
happens on a battlefield ... or else
2) You are a conniver who affects such ignorance for the tactical
advantge it brings you.
=======================================================
>
> So go fuck yourself, Dick.
===============================
Phillips
"Go fuck yourself." A superbly rational summing-up to a superbly
rational discourse of the type so esteemed by the Tribe of Abraham. I'd
be more than willing to oblige you except for one thing. I can't because
it's not that long.
=============================
>
Yale F. Edeiken
> Phillips (previous)
> > > I direct your attention to the clause where it was stated that partisans
> > > are to be treated as POWs PROVIDED they met certain conditions:
> > > 1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
> > > > 2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizeable at a distance;
> > > > 3. To carry arms openly; and
> > > > 4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs
> > of war.
> > > Are you VERY certain that the Russian partisans met ALL of those
> > > conditions ALL of the time.
> > Are very certain that they did not, Dick?
> Burden-of-proof issue.
Exactly. The burden is upon you.
Start presenting your "evidence."
> You insist the Russian partisans were entitled
> to be treated as prisoners-of-war.
No. The Hague Convention states that.
> However, going by the Hague
> convention which you and others have quoted, they are so entitled ONLY
> if they met certain conditions. Therefore, I would say the burden is on
> you to show that they met those conditions.
Wrong. They are to be treated in that manner unless it can be shown that
they did NOT meet those conditions.
The burden is upon you to demonstrate it.
> However, the whole discussion is so much nonsense. Hague convention or
> no Hague convention, partisans are NOT going to be treated as POWs.
A spirited defense. Followed, of course, by the usual "others did it, too"
approach.
How convincing. Every lawyer that has to defend a wife beater should
read it.
> > Dick, you have no idea what sort of life I've led. That you yet make
> > judgements without the slightest knowledge of what I have done or not is
> > simply pure prejudice on your part. Prejudice motivated by youyr bigotry
> > and racism. Prejudice motivated by the simple fact that your ego can't
> > take that I keep shooting down your incredibly ignorant screwball claims.
> Correct, I have no idea of the sort of life you have lead. However, it
> is permissible to make inferences from what you say. When you try to
> make out how wicked the Germans were for dealing harshly with Russian
> partisans, I am entitled to assume one of two things:
"Dealing harshly?" Why the circumloqution. They murdered them contrary
to the applicable laws.
> 1) Either that you are a naif who has very little ideaa of what really
> happens on a battlefield ... or else
"Battlefield?" Please name the military engagement that occured in Polany
Woods?
> 2) You are a conniver who affects such ignorance for the tactical
> advantge it brings you.
And you seem to be little more than an apologist for murder.
Alex Vange
Gord McFee <gmc...@ibm.net> wrote in article
<3588ab31...@news3.ibm.net>...
> Straight from a guy who has obviously never been within 20 miles of the
> trial transcripts or any books on them. There are six excellent books
> on the Nuremberg Trials. Read one.
Only leftist books are found in libraries and bookstores. Francis
Yockey was involved in the Nuremberg Trials and quit in disgust. After this
he wrote one of the greatest books ever written- Imperium. Is this book in
the libraries? Yockey was later arrested on a trumpt up charge and found
dead in his cell.
Richard G. Philllips
PHillips
Danny:
I'll tell you what we'll do. YOu tell Dick Phillips the way you think
the world ought to run and, when you are all finished, Dick Phillips
will tell you the way it DOES run.
Now this is what I would like you to do. Join some army that is fighting
a guerilla war, get deeply involved, form bonds with your buddies.
Then, as time goes on, watch while several of them are returned to their
unit, still alive but blinded and with their "equipment" chopped off.
Let this happen several times and we will then see how idealist Danny
Keren adhers to the letter of the Hague Convention.
In any case, I've had about enough of this quoting of texts and moral
posturing about what should and should not happen in a war by people who
have had little personal experience of the uglier realities of Life;
indeed, who have never so much as had their noses bloodied in a
corner-lot fight.
================================================
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
Gord/John:
Clearly an interesting scenario! When Joe's 'expertise' in being not only
the 'foremost
expert' on the NSDAP in the 'nation' AND combined with such 'expertise' on
Judaic history including no doubt the Talmud which Joe has debated in kind
with folks like Mike Stein no less, et al....well now, add to the formula the
rendered pronouncement that Joe 'never lies' and one is faced with a
formidable 'challenge' indeed!
One must pause to reflect on Joe's effect on AR's legions of lurkers
some of whom must hang on his every word as if rendered by the Burning Bush
itself. And the 'logic' of it all. You know, and switching to serious mode,
the Mizoc Ghetto for example where Joe 'knew' that the slaughter of those
women and children was nothing short of 'Hollywood' schlock. And said so! The
'proof' of course being the utterance itself. By Joe. In effect, albeit with
variation therein, 'In the beginning was the Word....and the Word being Joe
Bellinger! Three years of Dejanews tells the story.
Or the children themselves in re the Einsatzgruppen matter, if they at
least reached the walking stage, thereby representative of 'partisan
guerrillas' on Joe's pronounced fact (*not theory mind you but literal
'fact'---at least per Joe) that 'children were used as partisan guerrilla
fighters' and thus, as 'partisans', well, when caught, they were 'dealt with
accordingly.' Proof of such partisan involvement? Joe says so! Issue
resolved.
Otto Ohlendorf (*Commander, Einsatzgruppe 'D') of course was 'lying' in
his IMT testimony after being 'tortured' but when some of the group queried
Joe as to the noted absence of any visual effects of torture, Joe quickly and
'logically' countered that 'not all torture techniques can be readily
visible.' Ditto BTW for the Eichmann trial discussion where Eichmann was taped
24 hours per day both in his cell and in the Tel Aviv dock. But in that case,
Joe added the comment, 'what do you expect with the trial being held in Tel
Aviv?' German defense counsel notwithstanding. And so it goes.
So too, the BIG FIVE (1. forged 2. tortured 3. faked 4. lying 5.
exaggerating) coming up time and time again as proffered 'rebuttal' with the
'proof' of course being simply Joe's say-so which should, per Joe at least,
clearly suffice---after all---would the nation's leading authority on the
NSDAP and Jewish history to boot (!) make this stuff up? When then coupled to
the 'I never lie' admonishment to any pestering challengers, Joe 'has' to
wonder why these folks simply don't accept what 'is' and that is, Joe's word
should be sufficient! And no doubt the 'last' word from 'The Word!' There you
have it!
One last comment---and I will say this in all seriousness---while I am
the proverbial 180 in opposition to Joe's wares and hand waving
'pronouncements', I 'do' credit the fact that at least he does not hide behind
bogus shields (nyms acknowledged but we know who it is) and says his piece
regardless of ad hoc forum service, as it were, as a veritable punching bag
for said pronouncements which generally lack the requisite proofs in order to
be taken or discussed seriously. At least as a legitimate point of view backed
by 'other' then 'because I say so' or rhetorical bromides of expertise that in
a serious mode can obviously be discarded forthwith (*'leading authority'
claims....) as playing the fool and apparently relishing same in the
process.
Doc Tony
Gord McFee wrote:
> In <357b32f5...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>, on Fri, 05 Jun 1998
> 00:22:59 GMT, John....@x-nospam-x.UAlberta.CA (John Morris) wrote:
>
> > In <357a1a28...@news3.ibm.net>, on Thu, 04 Jun 1998 22:44:10 GMT,
> > gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
> >
> > >The list of Joe Bellinger's whoppers is a long one. But in the
> > >interests of accuracy, it needs to be posted. This may seem like cruel
> > >and unusual punishment, but Bellinger has proclaimed *himself* as "one
> > >of the foremost experts in America on the Third Reich" and a "leading
> > >expert on Judaism". Hence, he must be held to a higher standard than
> > >the rest of us plebs.
> >
> > Some minor clarifications, in the interests of accuracy:
>
> Many thanks, John. Noted and corrections made. Version 1.1 will be a
> beauty.
>
> [deleted]
>
Brian Harmon
> > trial transcripts or any books on them. There are six excellent books
> > on the Nuremberg Trials. Read one.
>
Utter Bullshit.
> Francis Yockey was involved in the Nuremberg Trials and quit in disgust. After this
> he wrote one of the greatest books ever written- Imperium. Is this book in
> the libraries?
Yes. You can also order it from booksellers on the net.
Amazon.com carries Imperium, by Francis Yockey:
Imperium
F. Yockey / Paperback / Published 1962
Our Price: $7.75 (Special Order)
In fact, they also carry Irving's books and several
things from the Noontide press.
The University of California has copies of the book
at four locations: UC berkeley, Uc Rivera, and UC Santa
Barbara. UC Rivera has at least two copies of the book
from different printings.
The Los Angeles Public Library has a copy:
Author Yockey, Francis Parker, 1917-1960.
Title(s) Imperium; the philosophy of history and politics.
Publisher New York, The Truth seeker [1962]
Paging 626 p. 22 cm.
Subjects Civilization, Modern 20th century.
This was what I found in five minutes of searching on
the Web. So much for "Only leftist books are found in libraries
and bookstores."
Got any other lies you'd like to try on us, Vange?
--
Brian Harmon <bra...@itsa.ucsf.edu>
====================================
Mark Van Alstine
> Mark Van Alstine wrote:
> >
> > ===============================
> Phillips (previous)
> > > I direct your attention to the clause where it was stated that partisans
> > > are to be treated as POWs PROVIDED they met certain conditions:
> > >
> > > 1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
> > > > 2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizeable at a distance;
> > > > 3. To carry arms openly; and
> > > > 4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs
> > of war.
> > >
> > > Are you VERY certain that the Russian partisans met ALL of those
> > > conditions ALL of the time.
> =======================================
> >
> > Are very certain that they did not, Dick?
>
> ======================================
> PHillips
>
> Burden-of-proof issue. You insist the Russian partisans were entitled
> to be treated as prisoners-of-war.
Yep.
> However, going by the Hague
> convention which you and others have quoted, they are so entitled ONLY
> if they met certain conditions.
Yep.
Therefore, I would say the burden is on
> you to show that they met those conditions.
Nope. Burden's on you, Dick, since you question it, to show they didn't.
> However, the whole discussion is so much nonsense. Hague convention or
> no Hague convention, partisans are NOT going to be treated as POWs.
Then it's a war crime, Dick. That's one reason why the Nazis were tried
for war crimes, Dick.
> Therefore it is quite pointless to insist on how wicked the Krauts were
> because exactly the same behavior was exhibited by
>
> 1)The Americans in the Philippines in 1900
> 2)the Brits in Africa and Malaysia
> 3) The French in Algeria
> 4) the Americans in Viet-nam.
Ad hominem tu quoque, Dick.
> ===========================================================
> ===================================================
> Phillips (previous)
> >
> > > When you go around inspecting the world with white gloves...
>
> ==========================================================
> >
> > Dick, you have no idea what sort of life I've led. That you yet make
> > judgements without the slightest knowledge of what I have done or not is
> > simply pure prejudice on your part. Prejudice motivated by youyr bigotry
> > and racism. Prejudice motivated by the simple fact that your ego can't
> > take that I keep shooting down your incredibly ignorant screwball claims.
> =====================================================
> PHillips
>
> Correct, I have no idea of the sort of life you have lead. However, it
> is permissible to make inferences from what you say. When you try to
> make out how wicked the Germans were for dealing harshly with Russian
> partisans,
The Nazis weren't "dealing harshly" with partisans, Dick, they were mas
murdering them.
> I am entitled to assume one of two things:
Nope, you aren't entitled to squat, Dick.
> 1) Either that you are a naif who has very little ideaa of what really
> happens on a battlefield ... or else
>
> 2) You are a conniver who affects such ignorance for the tactical
> advantge it brings you.
You are projecting again, DIck.
> =======================================================
> >
> > So go fuck yourself, Dick.
> ===============================
> Phillips
>
> "Go fuck yourself." A superbly rational summing-up...
Yup. You aren't worth the spit to talk to, Dick. You are an ignorant
irrational racist who doesn't deserve the blessings and priviliges of this
great country. So go fuck yourself, Dick.
> ...to a superbly rational discourse of the type so esteemed by the Tribe of
> Abraham.
See, Dick, you are a prejudiced asshole just like I said. I'm not Jewish,
Dick. But you _are_ an anti-Semite, Dick.
> I'd be more than willing to oblige you except for one thing. I can't because
> it's not that long.
That's because you have no dick, Dick.
Jeffrey G. Brown
In article <35795B...@earthlink.net>, rgp...@earthlink.net ("Liar
Philllips") wrote:
> I'll tell you what we'll do. YOu tell Dick Phillips the way you think
> the world ought to run and, when you are all finished, Dick Phillips
> will tell you the way it DOES run.
Uh huh. When did liars like Dick Phillips suddenly become founts of
universal truths?
> Now this is what I would like you to do. Join some army that is fighting
> a guerilla war, get deeply involved, form bonds with your buddies.
> Then, as time goes on, watch while several of them are returned to their
> unit, still alive but blinded and with their "equipment" chopped off.
> Let this happen several times and we will then see how idealist Danny
> Keren adhers to the letter of the Hague Convention.
Translation: Liar Philllips has given up on rules because not everybody
follows them. This, once again, is simply the
"but-Mommy-everybody-else-is-doing-it" excuse so beloved of
eleven-year-olds and racists.
> In any case, I've had about enough of this quoting of texts and moral
> posturing about what should and should not happen in a war by people who
> have had little personal experience of the uglier realities of Life;
> indeed, who have never so much as had their noses bloodied in a
> corner-lot fight.
Ah yes, the
'you-don't-think-like-me-therefore-you-don't-know-what-you're-talking-about'
excuse -- better known as the ad hominem attack.
Sara Salzman
In article <01bd9158$a30671a0$af30e6cf@default>, "Alex Vange"
<va...@i1.net> wrote:
> Gord McFee <gmc...@ibm.net> wrote in article
> <3588ab31...@news3.ibm.net>...
>
> > Straight from a guy who has obviously never been within 20 miles of the
> > trial transcripts or any books on them. There are six excellent books
> > on the Nuremberg Trials. Read one.
>
> Only leftist books are found in libraries and bookstores. Francis
> Yockey was involved in the Nuremberg Trials and quit in disgust. After this
> he wrote one of the greatest books ever written- Imperium. Is this book in
> the libraries? Yockey was later arrested on a trumpt up charge and found
> dead in his cell.
Prove it. And while you're at it:
On May 3rd, I posted the following questions for Mr. Vange.
Since then, he has dodged, obfuscated, lied, tried to change the subject,
and claimed that even though he has no facts, Hitler said it and it must
be true.
Once again, Mr. Vange. Answer the questions. Put up or shut up.
Sara
Subject: Re: Adolf Hitler: Prophet of Honor
From: cata...@concentric.net (Sara Salzman)
Date: 1998/05/03
Message-ID: <catamont-030...@ts009d42.den-co.concentric.net>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
[snip]
Perhaps Mr. Vange will be willing to respond with a direct answer:
Name the 5 largest newspapers in Germany prior to WWII
Name the owners of these 5 newspapers.
Provide proof that the 5 owners were Jewish; and that if so, that they
were involved in a conspiracy.
Simple questions. But then, I've never seen Mr. Vange respond to one yet.
Daniel Keren
"Richard G. Philllips" <rgp...@earthlink.net> writes:
# Danny:
#
# Now this is what I would like you to do. Join some army
# that is fighting a guerilla war, get deeply involved,
# form bonds with your buddies. Then, as time goes on, watch
# while several of them are returned to their unit, still
# alive but blinded and with their "equipment" chopped off.
# Let this happen several times and we will then see how
# idealist Danny Keren adhers to the letter of the Hague
# Convention.
All this is very interesting, but I posted nothing in this
thread, and I have no idea why you are addressing this
article to me.
-Danny Keren.
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
Brian:
It's not so much a question of lies Brian as it is matter of repetitious
imbecility's which Alex has been hawking and belching philosophical for some time now. I
once conjectured that Alex was quite possibly the protégé of Bob 'De Mortuis' Whitaker,
or vice versa, but the end analysis was that it made no difference because both engage in
such redundant imbecilic brayings as a matter of course. The record speaks for itself.
You may recall Brian that Alex's claim to meaningful discussion within AR was to
suggest that the electorate should be eliminated as non essential and indeed non
productive in the western democracies and, per Vange, what was needed in its place was a
'single strong hand' at the top.... . Sound familiar from another era perhaps? Yet, it
'does' fit in well with Vange's instant parroting and gnashing of teeth for and of the
rather unceremonial demise of Willis Carto's great hero and mentor, one Francis Parker
Yockey. Indeed, Yockey's 'Imperium--The Philosophy of History and Politics' (Carto's
Bible BTW) was a classic Mein Kampf in drag.
Yockey was himself an interesting character. Tossed out of the Army as a Section 8
in '43, to wit, '....sufferings of dementia praecox, paranoid type....marked delusions of
persecution, auditory hallucinations which involved prominent people in his delusional
system...' , Yockey went on to even greater 'triumphs' until his arrest in 1960 where he
was found to be holding 3 passports with 3 different names. Subsequently, doing a sort of
'mit uns' throw-back and 'me too' shtick a la Himmler and Goring, Yockey bit down on some
HCN and checked out forthwith. Lipstadt records that his last visitor in the can was
none other then Willis Carto.
Clearly, and you're right Brian, most all books, pro and con 'any' theme, can be
readily found if one only takes the time to look. Indeed, even AR was privvy to the
hawkings of the 'anniversary' edition of Joe Bellinger's mentor, one Arthur Butz and his
wares on how history 'should' read. Joe B. readily agreed. And said so! Of note however,
no discount was noted so it's of course questionable how the thing fared within AR and
just 'might' have been toppled for group attention when, you guessed it, the spam of
spams made its monthly run, to wit, and 'still' my AR personal favorite, 'Mother Teresa
As Mossad Operative.' Only 'Father Coughlin Speaks' gave the former offering any real
run for its money. In my view anyway.
Doc Tony
Brian Harmon wrote:
> Alex Vange wrote:
> >
> > Gord McFee <gmc...@ibm.net> wrote in article
> > <3588ab31...@news3.ibm.net>...
> >
> > > Straight from a guy who has obviously never been within 20 miles of the
> > > trial transcripts or any books on them. There are six excellent books
> > > on the Nuremberg Trials. Read one.
> >
> > Only leftist books are found in libraries and bookstores.
>
> Utter Bullshit.
>
> > Francis Yockey was involved in the Nuremberg Trials and quit in disgust. After this
> > he wrote one of the greatest books ever written- Imperium. Is this book in
> > the libraries?
>
> Yes. You can also order it from booksellers on the net.
>
> Amazon.com carries Imperium, by Francis Yockey:
>
> Imperium
> F. Yockey / Paperback / Published 1962
> Our Price: $7.75 (Special Order)
>
> In fact, they also carry Irving's books and several
> things from the Noontide press.
>
> The University of California has copies of the book
> at four locations: UC berkeley, Uc Rivera, and UC Santa
> Barbara. UC Rivera has at least two copies of the book
> from different printings.
>
> The Los Angeles Public Library has a copy:
>
> Author Yockey, Francis Parker, 1917-1960.
> Title(s) Imperium; the philosophy of history and politics.
> Publisher New York, The Truth seeker [1962]
> Paging 626 p. 22 cm.
> Subjects Civilization, Modern 20th century.
>
> This was what I found in five minutes of searching on
> the Web. So much for "Only leftist books are found in libraries
> and bookstores."
>
Alex Vange
Brian Harmon <bra...@itsa.ucsf.edu> wrote in article
<357982...@itsa.ucsf.edu>...
I never lie, but I stand corrected and surprised.
Richard G. Philllips
Gord McFee wrote:
>
> In <357920...@earthlink.net>, on Sat, 06 Jun 1998 06:56:30 -0400,
> "Richard G. Philllips" <rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Mark Van Alstine wrote:
> > >
> > > ===============================
> > Phillips (previous)
> > > > are to be treated as POWs PROVIDED they met certain conditions:
> > > >
> > > > 1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
> > > > > 2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizeable at a distance;
> > > > > 3. To carry arms openly; and
> > > > > 4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs
> > > of war.
> > > >
> > > > Are you VERY certain that the Russian partisans met ALL of those
> > > > conditions ALL of the time.
> > >
> > > Are very certain that they did not, Dick?
> >
> > ======================================
> > PHillips
> >
> > to be treated as prisoners-of-war. However, going by the Hague
> > convention which you and others have quoted, they are so entitled ONLY
> > you to show that they met those conditions.
>
> war unless they did not meet the conditions. So, you have to prove they
> didn't. Go for it.
>
> > However, the whole discussion is so much nonsense. Hague convention or
> > Therefore it is quite pointless to insist on how wicked the Krauts were
> > because exactly the same behavior was exhibited by
>
> Partisans were not to be shot out of hand. The Germans shot Jews --
> men, women and children -- and Bellinger claims that is because they
> were partisans and guilty of "heinous crimes". That is balderdash, but
> even if it were true, they were still not to be shot out of hand.
>
> While we are at it, perhaps you could be the first to enlighten me as to
> what "heinous crimes" were being committed by old men, women, children
> and babies.
>
> [deleted]
>
> > > Dick, you have no idea what sort of life I've led. That you yet make
> > > judgements without the slightest knowledge of what I have done or not is
> > > simply pure prejudice on your part. Prejudice motivated by youyr bigotry
> > > and racism. Prejudice motivated by the simple fact that your ego can't
> > > take that I keep shooting down your incredibly ignorant screwball claims.
> > =====================================================
> > PHillips
> >
> > Correct, I have no idea of the sort of life you have lead. However, it
> > is permissible to make inferences from what you say. When you try to
> > make out how wicked the Germans were for dealing harshly with Russian
> >
> > 1) Either that you are a naif who has very little ideaa of what really
> > happens on a battlefield ... or else
>
==========================================================
PHillips
None. I have however two things thst may be acceptable substitutes:
(1) A little imagination
(2) A refusal to swallow the official pap that is fed to us for the
purpose of conveying the impression that all the 'good guys' are on our
side and all the 'bad guys' are on the other side.
=============================================
Richard G. Philllips
Fergus McClelland wrote:
> and Belgian resistance wore arm bands saying "Resistance". Are you
> saying that for this reason they should have been shot? Remembering
> that they usually were.
>
> >When you go around inspecting the world with white gloves you might
> >just possibly end up with a smudge here and there. You have lived much
> >too sheltered a life to be qualified to pass judgement on men who had to
> >fight under the conditions that prevailed there. When YOU have fought in
> >a army and seen buddies sent back alive but blinded and with their
> >"equipment" chopped off, when that seen taht several times and manage to
> >still conduct yourself in strict according with all the rules -- THEN
> >and only then will I consider you qualified to pass judgements on men
> >who have seen those things.
> >
> >Do you have any idea of what partisan warfare was like, of what it can
> >do to the men who participate in it. do you know anything about our own
> >suppression of the Philippine guerillas in 1900, of the British wars
> >against the Mau Mau
>
> Speak to me of the Mau Mau Simbas Richard. "I was there" shortly
> afterwards. I had a Mau Mau longbow for years, now long lost. This was
> not a question of "wars" or even "war" at all. There was a small
> number of people who went around butchering other people - not just
> whites. When possible they were arrested. It was a small, dirty
> action, but I know of no evidence of British brutality. Hapana? Ndio?
======================================================
Phillips
You tell me that you "know of" no British brutality, and I tell you that
in a war of that sort, there is always going to be brutality of one sort
or another. And if you still insist there was none in Africa, then try
North Ireland on for size.
=======================================================================
>
> >or in Malaysia,
>
> Presumably you have heard of "the Iron Broom"? After you say what this
> term applies to; you can begin to discuss what the British did in
> Malaysia against your friends the communists.
>
> >of the French war in North Africa or
> >our own war in Viet-nam.
> >
> >So don't tell me how uniquely evil the Krauts were just becaue they did
> >not scrupulously follow all the Hague rules all of the time. Soldiers
> >are not choir boys.
>
> No, but they are not all butchers either.
> Tell me, while condemning the British in Malaysia and East Africa; why
> didn't you claim some British atrocities in Palestine?
===================================================
PHillips
NO atrocities but some extremely harsh methods of interrogation.
==========================================================
guano mucilious
Jeffrey G. Brown wrote:
> In article <01bd9024$94f44220$4ebd40d1@tavish-central>, Scott "I'll lie
> about ANYthing!" Bradbury (doc_t...@bigfoot.com, phi...@phoenix.net)
> wrote:
>
> > You Nizkooks
> > are noteworthy of quoting people out of context or attributing words to
> > people that the person did not say!
>
> If Poor Ol' Gutless Scottie can't show clickable links to posts in which
> Nizkor volunteers atribute words to someone that the person did not say,
> then he is just another goddamned liar and nothing more. (Of course, we
> knew _that_ already.)
>
> Now hop to it, Bradbury, and move your lazy ass and provide those links to
> the posts that contain those falsified quotes!
>
> > If you can't show the clickable links
> > to each passage you contribute to Bellinger then you are just another g-d
> > damned liar and nothing more! Not hop to it McFee and move your lazy ass
> > and provide those links to the posts that contain those words!
>
> If Poor Ol' Gutless Scottie can't show the clickable links to posts which
> actually deny the murder of Soviet citizens by the Soviet regime -- as he
> has alleged -- then he is just another goddamned liar and nothing more.
> (Of course, we knew _that_ already.)
>
> Now hop to it, Bradbury, and move your lazy ass and provide those links to
> the post that contain those denials!
>
> JGB
>
> =====================================================================
> Jeffrey G. Brown jeff_...@bigfoot.com
> "What's going to happen?" "Something wonderful..." -- '2010'
Note About Jeffrey Brown:
Note how gutless coward Jeffrey G. Brown drinks deep
from the scum pond of outrageous libel
defaming innocent persons with his ugly accusations.
Gord McFee
In <01bd9158$a30671a0$af30e6cf@default>, on 6 Jun 1998 14:46:38 GMT,
"Alex Vange" <va...@i1.net> wrote:
>
>
> Gord McFee <gmc...@ibm.net> wrote in article
> <3588ab31...@news3.ibm.net>...
>
> > Straight from a guy who has obviously never been within 20 miles of the
> > trial transcripts or any books on them. There are six excellent books
> > on the Nuremberg Trials. Read one.
>
> Only leftist books are found in libraries and bookstores.
Unbelievable. You may rival Moron in the denseness department.
Gord McFee
> Mark Van Alstine wrote:
> >
> > ===============================
> Phillips (previous)
> > > I direct your attention to the clause where it was stated that partisans
> > > are to be treated as POWs PROVIDED they met certain conditions:
> > >
> > > 1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
> > > > 2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizeable at a distance;
> > > > 3. To carry arms openly; and
> > > > 4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs
> > of war.
> > >
> > > Are you VERY certain that the Russian partisans met ALL of those
> > > conditions ALL of the time.
Jeffrey G. Brown
In article <357A02...@earthlink.net>, rgp...@earthlink.net ("Liar
Philllips") wrote:
> Gord McFee wrote:
> >
> > In <357920...@earthlink.net>, on Sat, 06 Jun 1998 06:56:30 -0400,
> > "Richard G. Philllips" <rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> [...deletia...]
> > > 1) Either that you are a naif who has very little ideaa of what really
> > > happens on a battlefield ... or else
> >
> > And what might your experience on the battlefield have been?
>
> ==========================================================
> PHillips
>
> None. I have however two things thst may be acceptable substitutes:
>
> (1) A little imagination
> (2) A refusal to swallow the official pap that is fed to us for the
> purpose of conveying the impression that all the 'good guys' are on our
> side and all the 'bad guys' are on the other side.
Translation: Liar Philllips is himself a 'a naif who has very little ideaa
of what really happens on a battlefield'. The rest is smokescreen, as
always.
Mark Van Alstine
In article <3584c3e3...@news.demon.co.uk>,
re...@nospam.perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland) wrote:
> "Richard G. Philllips" <rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Mark Van Alstine wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <35776...@news3.enter.net>, ya...@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > "Richard G. Philllips" <rgp...@earthlink.net> writes:
> >> > > Gord McFee wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> > > Partisans "covered" by the Hague convention??? Now I'm not at all sure
> >> > > of my facts here so correct me if I'm wrong. But I think the Hague
> >> > > convention says that partisans are NOT entitled to be treated as
> >> > > prisoners of war. The reason for this ought to be obvious.
> >> >
> >> > It states exactly the opposite. The exact language has been posted here
> >> > many times. It states that partisans are to be treated as POWs.
> >>
> >> According to the Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of
> >> War on Lans, Annex to the Convention:
> >>
> >> <begin quote>
> >>
> >> Article 1
> >>
> >> The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to
> >> militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:
> >>
> >> 1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
> >> 2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizeable at a distance;
> >> 3. To carry arms openly; and
> >> 4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and
customs of war.
> >>
> >I direct your attention to the clause where it was stated that partisans
> >are to be treated as POWs PROVIDED they met certain conditions:
> >
> > 1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
> >> 2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizeable at a distance;
> >> 3. To carry arms openly; and
> >> 4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and
customs of war.
> >
> >Are you VERY certain that the Russian partisans met ALL of those
> >conditions ALL of the time.
>
> To be realistic, it has to be doubted that those such as the French
> and Belgian resistance wore arm bands saying "Resistance". Are you
> saying that for this reason they should have been shot? Remembering
> that they usually were.
>
> >When you go around inspecting the world with white gloves you might
> >just possibly end up with a smudge here and there. You have lived much
> >too sheltered a life to be qualified to pass judgement on men who had to
> >fight under the conditions that prevailed there. When YOU have fought in
> >a army and seen buddies sent back alive but blinded and with their
> >"equipment" chopped off, when that seen taht several times and manage to
> >still conduct yourself in strict according with all the rules -- THEN
> >and only then will I consider you qualified to pass judgements on men
> >who have seen those things.
> >
> >Do you have any idea of what partisan warfare was like, of what it can
> >do to the men who participate in it. do you know anything about our own
> >suppression of the Philippine guerillas in 1900, of the British wars
> >against the Mau Mau
>
> Jambo Richard! Masuri sana?
> Speak to me of the Mau Mau Simbas Richard. "I was there" shortly
> afterwards. I had a Mau Mau longbow for years, now long lost. This was
> not a question of "wars" or even "war" at all. There was a small
> number of people who went around butchering other people - not just
> whites. When possible they were arrested. It was a small, dirty
> action, but I know of no evidence of British brutality. Hapana? Ndio?
>
> >or in Malaysia,
>
> Presumably you have heard of "the Iron Broom"? After you say what this
> term applies to; you can begin to discuss what the British did in
> Malaysia against your friends the communists.
>
> >of the French war in North Africa or
> >our own war in Viet-nam.
> >
> >So don't tell me how uniquely evil the Krauts were just becaue they did
> >not scrupulously follow all the Hague rules all of the time. Soldiers
> >are not choir boys.
>
> No, but they are not all butchers either.
> Tell me, while condemning the British in Malaysia and East Africa; why
> didn't you claim some British atrocities in Palestine?
Touché, Ficus.
Mark Van Alstine
> Gord McFee wrote:
> >
> > In <357920...@earthlink.net>, on Sat, 06 Jun 1998 06:56:30 -0400,
> > "Richard G. Philllips" <rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Mark Van Alstine wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ===============================
> > > Phillips (previous)
> > > > > I direct your attention to the clause where it was stated that
partisans
> > > > > are to be treated as POWs PROVIDED they met certain conditions:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
> > > > > > 2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizeable at a distance;
> > > > > > 3. To carry arms openly; and
> > > > > > 4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and
customs
> > > > of war.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you VERY certain that the Russian partisans met ALL of those
> > > > > conditions ALL of the time.
> > > 1) Either that you are a naif who has very little ideaa of what really
> > > happens on a battlefield ... or else
> >
> > And what might your experience on the battlefield have been?
>
> ==========================================================
> PHillips
>
> None. I have however two things thst may be acceptable substitutes:
>
> (1) A little imagination
That's called dementia in your case, Dick.
> (2) A refusal to swallow the official pap that is fed to us for the
> purpose of conveying the impression that all the 'good guys' are on our
> side and all the 'bad guys' are on the other side.
You just swallow the "unoffical" pap, eh, Dick? Sounds like you'll swallow
just about anything, Dick, if it supports your insane racists beliefs.
Richard G. Philllips
===============================================
PHillips
As I have posted several times, I DID believe the Holocaust and the rest
of the official line up until about 7 years ago. But I was young in
those days.
===================================================
Richard G. Philllips
Phillips
NO atrocities but very harsh interrogation methods.
==============================================
>
>
Mark Van Alstine
> Mark Van Alstine wrote:
> >
[snip]
> > You just swallow the "unoffical" pap, eh, Dick? Sounds like you'll swallow
> > just about anything, Dick, if it supports your insane racists beliefs.
> >
> > Mark
>
> ===============================================
> PHillips
>
> As I have posted several times, I DID believe the Holocaust and the rest
> of the official line up until about 7 years ago. But I was young in
> those days.
Then your Alzhheimer's kicked in, you embraced Scientology and faith
healing, joined the NRA, and started channeling dead Nazis, eh, Dick?
Gord McFee
In <357A02...@earthlink.net>, on Sat, 06 Jun 1998 23:00:41 -0400,
"Richard G. Philllips" <rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Gord McFee wrote:
> >
> > In <357920...@earthlink.net>, on Sat, 06 Jun 1998 06:56:30 -0400,
> > "Richard G. Philllips" <rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Mark Van Alstine wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ===============================
> > > Phillips (previous)
> > > > > I direct your attention to the clause where it was stated that partisans
> > > > > are to be treated as POWs PROVIDED they met certain conditions:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
> > > > > > 2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizeable at a distance;
> > > > > > 3. To carry arms openly; and
> > > > > > 4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs
> > > > of war.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you VERY certain that the Russian partisans met ALL of those
> > > > > conditions ALL of the time.
> > > =======================================
> > > >
> > > > Are very certain that they did not, Dick?
> > >
> > > ======================================
> > > PHillips
> > >
> > > Burden-of-proof issue. You insist the Russian partisans were entitled
> > > to be treated as prisoners-of-war. However, going by the Hague
> > > convention which you and others have quoted, they are so entitled ONLY
> > > if they met certain conditions. Therefore, I would say the burden is on
> > > you to show that they met those conditions.
> >
> > No, the Hague Convention said they were to be treated as prisoners of
> > war unless they did not meet the conditions. So, you have to prove they
> > didn't. Go for it.
Evasion noted.
> > > However, the whole discussion is so much nonsense. Hague convention or
> > > no Hague convention, partisans are NOT going to be treated as POWs.
> > > Therefore it is quite pointless to insist on how wicked the Krauts were
> > > because exactly the same behavior was exhibited by
> >
> > Not the point. The Hague Convention governed its signatories.
> > Partisans were not to be shot out of hand. The Germans shot Jews --
> > men, women and children -- and Bellinger claims that is because they
> > were partisans and guilty of "heinous crimes". That is balderdash, but
> > even if it were true, they were still not to be shot out of hand.
Evasion noted.
> > While we are at it, perhaps you could be the first to enlighten me as to
> > what "heinous crimes" were being committed by old men, women, children
> > and babies.
Evasion noted.
> > [deleted]
> >
> > > > Dick, you have no idea what sort of life I've led. That you yet make
> > > > judgements without the slightest knowledge of what I have done or not is
> > > > simply pure prejudice on your part. Prejudice motivated by youyr bigotry
> > > > and racism. Prejudice motivated by the simple fact that your ego can't
> > > > take that I keep shooting down your incredibly ignorant screwball claims.
> > > =====================================================
> > > PHillips
> > >
> > > Correct, I have no idea of the sort of life you have lead. However, it
> > > is permissible to make inferences from what you say. When you try to
> > > make out how wicked the Germans were for dealing harshly with Russian
> > > partisans, I am entitled to assume one of two things:
> > >
> > > 1) Either that you are a naif who has very little ideaa of what really
> > > happens on a battlefield ... or else
> >
> > And what might your experience on the battlefield have been?
>
> ==========================================================
> PHillips
>
> None. I have however two things thst may be acceptable substitutes:
>
> (1) A little imagination
It isn't. Try a little research, and you might get somewhere.
> (2) A refusal to swallow the official pap that is fed to us for the
> purpose of conveying the impression that all the 'good guys' are on our
> side and all the 'bad guys' are on the other side.
Who said that?
Brian Harmon
> > This was what I found in five minutes of searching on
> > and bookstores."
> I never lie, but I stand corrected and surprised.
So do you reject your claim that the "Jewish media" has
surpressed or otherwise made unavailable your favorite
books?
Contrary to what you said, all the titles you named
are easy to get at, both in libraries or from booksellers.
Richard G. Philllips
Mark Van Alstine wrote:
>
> In article <357A77...@earthlink.net>, rgp...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> > Mark Van Alstine wrote:
> > >
>
> > > You just swallow the "unoffical" pap, eh, Dick? Sounds like you'll swallow
> > > just about anything, Dick, if it supports your insane racists beliefs.
> > >
> > > Mark
> >
> > ===============================================
> > PHillips
> >
> > As I have posted several times, I DID believe the Holocaust and the rest
> > of the official line up until about 7 years ago. But I was young in
> > those days.
>
> Then your Alzhheimer's kicked in, you embraced Scientology and faith
> healing, joined the NRA, and started channeling dead Nazis, eh, Dick?
>
> Mark
======================================
PHillips
No.
====================================
Mike Curtis
"Richard G. Philllips" <rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Philllllllllllllllllips won't address stuff so I'll snip for brevity:
>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>
>> "Richard G. Philllips" <rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> Phillips, of course pretends he knows something about these events.
>> Actually he knows nothing about Hoess. What was Hoess in jail for
>> before the war?
>==============================
>PHillips
>
>I believe it was a charge of murder or attempted murder. NO doubt about
>it; the man was a roughneck.
You believe? You mean you aren't sure? Tell us who he murdered for,
Phillllllllllllips.
>> >> 10. All confessions were obtained by torture, were plea bargains or
>> >> both. {More invention. There are no verified examples of this having
>> >> taken place.}
>> >
>> >=======================================================
>> >Phillips
>> >
>> >(1) I was reading newspapers in 1946 and word got into them of the
>> >jaw-busting and ball-kicking that was going on in the interrogation
>> >centers.
>>
>> This business is not a holocaust event. This has to do with the
>> Malmedy Trial. Also this business was investigated and found to be
>> false.
>============================
>PHillips
>
>OK. You have made the statement that it was found to be "false." So?
OK. Then stop bringing up a false contention like it means something.
OK?
> But like Fergus you have been told this so often and given the
>> sources that by now you must know that "lurkers" are aware of these
>> sources. So who do you think you are fooling?
>>
>> >(2) I will again cite the case of Hoess. It was all spelled out in the
>> >book Legion of the Damned by rupert Butler.
>>
>> One book does not a case make.
>>
>> >(3) Arthur Butz in his book Hoax of the 20th century maeks mention of
>> >137 cases of prisoners having been kicked in the testicles beyond
>> >repair.
>>
>> This AGAIN was the Malmedy Trial is is NOT connected with the
>> Holocaust Trials. Also this business was investigated and found to be
>> false.
>========================================
>Phillips
>
>Again, you have made the statement that it was foound to be false. So?
OK. Then stop bringing up a false contention like it means something.
OK? And the next statement answers your "so":
>> But like Fergus you have been told this so often and given the
>> sources that by now you must know that "lurkers" are aware of these
>> sources. So who do you think you are fooling?
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> 12. The Jews were deported to Russia. {The Jews were deported to
>> >> killing centers such as Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec, Auschwitz, Chelmno
>> >> and Majdanek. None were deported anywhere else.}
>> >
>> >============================================================
>> >Phillips
>> >
>> >No, they were not DEPORTED to Russia, they were deported to the camps in
>> >Poland. However a great deal of the comparative populaton statics is
>> >accounted for by large-scale Jewish emigration: To America, to israel,
>> >and to Russia.
>>
>> How come no one noticed this huge influx of population? The US was
>> limiting immigration so how come this great influx wasn't noticed?
Philllllllllllips never answered this one. I think the "lurkers" are
probably convinced that this guy is a total waste of time.
>> >> 14. No one was gassed at Natzweiler (Struthof). They all died of
>> >> natural causes. {The bodies were found, autopsied and proved to have
>> >> been gassed.}
>> >======================================
>> >Phillips
>> >
>> >Kindly produce the report of those autopsies.
>>
>> Actually, Phillips I produced Kramer's testimony of a gassing he
>> enforced at Natzweiler. You were so destroyed in that thread that you
>> didn't bother reading it. It is pretty bad to refuse to go to the
>> library and it is even worse to ask for material and then not read it.
Phillips ignored the above and didn't respond.
>=====================================
>>Phillips
>> >
>> >Kindly produce the report of those autopsies.
>===========================================
>>
>> [snip -- Phillips is getting tired for he isn't commenting on most of
>> this]
>=====================================
>Phillips
>
>If sneers could kill, I'd have been long gone.
Your total lack of intellectual capacity to deal with these subjects
is showing. That's what is happening here. You simply haven't figured
it out yet.
>> >> 19. Documents - even though signed and authenticated -- are only
>> >> admissible in court if the author also testifies. {If this were true, a
>> >> lot of notaries would be out of business!}
>> >==========================================================
>> >Phillips
>> >
>> >The notarization can quallify a document for acceptance into the body of
>> >evidence. However, the other side still has the right to demand the
>> >apperance and cross-examination of the source.
>>
>> Which they did. You ought to read the Belsen Trial. I diod post quite
>> a bit of it. There is even a discussion on just this aspect. I'll bet
>> you ignored it. What else is new?
>=============================================
>PHillips
>
>York, Jersey, Haven, Orleans, and Hampshire.
Your total lack of intellectual capacity to deal with these subjects
is showing. That's what is happening here. You simply haven't figured
it out yet.
>> [snip -- I'm getting tired. :-)]
>======================================
>PHillips
>
>So, turn in. You're not doing me any favors by staying up past your
>bedtime.
Your total lack of intellectual capacity to deal with these subjects
is showing. That's what is happening here. You simply haven't figured
it out yet.
>> >==================================================
>> >Phillips
>> >
>> >Of all the Nazi leaders, Goebbels was most certainly the most
>> >poisonously anti-Jewish. And most likely he must bear primary
>> >responsibility for the Kristallnacht in 1938.
>>
>> Responsibilty? For what? What was so bad about Kristallnacht?
>=====================================================
>PHillips
>
>Apart from mobs raging through the streets and smashing Jewish shops and
>businesses right and left, not very much.
I didn't think you would find anything wrong with it. Your total lack
of intellectual capacity to deal with these subjects is showing.
That's what is happening here. You simply haven't figured it out yet.
>> >> 22. Goering, Kaltenbrunner, Streicher and the other defendants at
>> >> Nuremberg were martyrs. {No comment required. They were all convicted
>> >> in a trial much more fair than any they had been involved in during
>> >> their careers.}
>> >====================================================
>> >PHillips
>> >
>> >Those trials were NOT "fair" trials. Rather they might be likened to an
>> >army court-martial. A little ceremony designed to put a veneer of
>> >legality on a judgement arrived at beforehand.
>>
>> Then why were so many not hung? Why not kill them all? You ought to
>> explain that. I'll bet you'll guess rather than substantiate anything.
>=======================================================================
>Phillips
>
>Because although the trials could not possibly qualify as fair trials by
>traditional Anglo-Saxon standards, it was important to maintain some
>sort of impression that they could so qualify.
Your total lack of intellectual capacity to deal with these subjects
is showing. That's what is happening here. You simply haven't figured
it out yet.
>> [Darn, Phillips doesn't comment on the Belsen/Kramer stuff.]
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> 35. Czechoslovakia was not a country when Hitler invaded it.
>> >> {Czechoslovakia was a country until Hitler invaded it on March 15,
>> >> 1939.}
>> >==========================================
>> >Phillips
>> >
>> >It was a country (or, more precisely, a political entity) but one that
>> >never should have been created in the first place. Withess its recent
>> >break-up.
>>
>> Tell us why it was created. This ought to be good. It is WW1 history
>> but what the heck.
>==================================================
>Phillips
>
>This is going to be little better than educated guesswork, but I'll do
>the best I can.
>
>Reasons:
>
>(1) To reward the Czechs who, though originally part of the
The Czechs? There were Czechs?
[snip -- Phillllips didn't supply me with sourcing so his history is
worthless]
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> 47. Kaltenbrunner's two hemorrhages were brought on as a result of
>> >> severe blows to his head from one of his captors, and not from "fear" as
>> >> the allies "leaked" out to the media. {This is medically impossible.
>> >> Kaltenbrunner had a sub-archnoid bleed with no subdural hematoma. In
>> >> other words, as any doctor will tell attest, no trauma.}
>> >========================================================
>> >Phillips
>> >
>> >Are you VERY certain that such severe blows could not possibly have
>> >produced such a result. You're covering a lot of territory there.
>>
>> . . . the RSHA chief seems to have been miraculously blind to the ugly
>> reputation that he had earned abroad, figgering perhaps that Himmler
>> and Pohl would be blamed for both concentration camps and
>> extermination policies.
>>
>> Some circumstantial evidence supports this hypothesis. En route to the
>> Wildensee hut, Kaltenbrunner asked one of his guides if he would act
>> as a contact man in Alt Aussee when the Americans arrived. Moreover,
>> in sharp contrast to his later behavior, he appears to have been calm
>> and collected during his intial interrogations. An interrogator
>> remarked that Kaltenbrunner was "neither arrogant nor submissive; he
>> appears staightforward and not unfriendly, a reasonable and
>> well-spoken man with a measure of self-assuredness." Kaltenbrunner
>> reportedly told Otto Skorenzeny, with whom he briefly shared a cell in
>> Wiesbaden in June 1945, that he had been interrogated by a British
>> history professor in such a way as to permit some optimism for the
>> future. . . . .[page 259-260]
>>
>> If Kaltenbrunner harbored any illusions concerning the good will of
>> his captures, these were quickly shattered. After ten weeks of
>> confinement and rigorous interrogation in London, he was brought to
>> Nuremberg in September 1945; on 19 October [he was indicted].**
>>
>> **Otto Skorzeny claimed that Kaltenbrunner had been locked in the
>> Tower of London and tortured daily, but had no evidence for this.
>> Significantly, he did not mention Kaltenbrunner's mistreatment in the
>> earlier version of his memoirs. . . . William Hottle, who, like
>> Skorzeny, had contact with Kaltenbrunner in the Nuremberg prison,
>> reported that Kaltenbrunner never spoke of physical torture, though he
>> had emphasized that the experience was "miserable."***
>>
>> On 17 November 1945, three days before the trial was to begin,
>> Kaltenbrunner was rushed to the hospital with what was later diagnosed
>> to be a spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrage, which, as the prison
>> psychiatrist later specualted, might have been induced by rising blood
>> pressure owing to Kaltenbrunner's tension and agitation about the
>> impending trial. [page 261]
>>
>> Source: Ernst Kaltenbrunner: Ideological Soldier of the Third Reich by
>> Peter Black, Princeton University Press, 1984.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> Visit the Holocaust History Project
>> >> http://www.holocaust-history.org
>> >>
>> >> Visit the Nizkor site
>> >> http://www.nizkor.org
>>
>> Mike Curtis
>>
>>
Mike Curtis
Mark Van Alstine
> Mark Van Alstine wrote:
> >
> > In article <357A77...@earthlink.net>, rgp...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >
> > > Mark Van Alstine wrote:
> > > >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > You just swallow the "unoffical" pap, eh, Dick? Sounds like you'll
swallow
> > > > just about anything, Dick, if it supports your insane racists beliefs.
> > > >
> > > > Mark
> > >
> > > ===============================================
> > > PHillips
> > >
> > > As I have posted several times, I DID believe the Holocaust and the rest
> > > of the official line up until about 7 years ago. But I was young in
> > > those days.
> >
> > Then your Alzhheimer's kicked in, you embraced Scientology and faith
> > healing, joined the NRA, and started channeling dead Nazis, eh, Dick?
> >
> > Mark
>
> ======================================
> PHillips
>
> No.
Yes. Dick, you've forgotten already!
Mark
Chuck Ferree
From Chuck Ferree:
> > > > Mark Van Alstine wrote:
CF>>>>snips
>
>
> > > > ===============================================
> > > > PHillips
> > > >
> > > > As I have posted several times, I DID believe the Holocaust and the rest
> > > > of the official line up until about 7 years ago. But I was young in
> > > > those days.
CF:>>>>Hey, dick, I was young in 1945 too. My 21st birthday was June 30th, 1945. By then, I had seen five of the main Nazi concentration camps, and numerous sub-camps, (some of which were even worse than the main
camps) and in July of 1945, I went to Auschwitz for one week. Just turned 21. Please explain for us, how aging seven years had something or anything to do with your decision to switch from a believer in the
historical facts of the Holocaust, all true and proven beyond any reasonable doubt, to a racist, bigot, denier of various and sundry Holocaust details? And while you are at it, dick, explain for us, how Dresden has
any bearing on the Holocaust, and while you're at it, explain what the Soviets under Stalin and his pograms had to do with the Holocaust. Remember, dick, the issue here is THE HOLOCAUST ! Got the picture, dick?
Richard G. Philllips
Chuck Ferree wrote:
>
> From Chuck Ferree:
>
> > > > > Mark Van Alstine wrote:
>
> CF>>>>snips
>
> >
> >
> > > > > ===============================================
> > > > > PHillips
> > > > >
> > > > > As I have posted several times, I DID believe the Holocaust and the rest
> > > > > of the official line up until about 7 years ago. But I was young in
> > > > > those days.
>
> CF:>>>>Hey, dick, I was young in 1945 too. My 21st birthday was June 30th, 1945. By then, I had seen five of the main Nazi concentration camps, and numerous sub-camps, (some of which were even worse than the main
> camps) and in July of 1945, I went to Auschwitz for one week. Just turned 21. Please explain for us, how aging seven years had something or anything to do with your decision to switch from a believer in the
> historical facts of the Holocaust, all true and proven beyond any reasonable doubt, to a racist, bigot, denier of various and sundry Holocaust details? And while you are at it, dick, explain for us, how Dresden has
> any bearing on the Holocaust, and while you're at it, explain what the Soviets under Stalin and his pograms had to do with the Holocaust. Remember, dick, the issue here is THE HOLOCAUST ! Got the picture, dick?
=========================================================================
Phillips
IN a previous posting of yours, you declined to offer an opinion on the
occurrence of non-occurrence of Allied bombings because you felt it was
a "loaded" question. Might we not describe the thing you just threw at
me in pretty much the same terms: as a "loaded" question. It is as if I
threw at you something like:
"How could you, a man ostensibly in possession of his faculties, come to
believe in such a self-evident lie as the Holocaust?"
Anyway, I will try to deal with that bit of editorializing that you are
pleased to call a "question."
(1) What did my aging seven years have to do with my conversion from
Holocaustnik to revisionist.
It had nothing to do with it. The conversion OCCURRED seven years ago.
The period required FOR the conversion was something more like about 6
to 9 months.
(2) What bearing does Dresden have on the Holocaust.
I never claimed it had any. Revisionists cite it to point out that the
Allies were not necessarily whiter-than-white. to me it is only another
horror that happened in the war as horrors will happen in any war of
that size.
(3) What did Stalin and his pogroms have to do with the Holocaust.
Nothing, except that Revisionists feel it was monstrous that the
soviets -with a recent history like that behind them- were permitted to
sit in judgement on the defendants at Nurnburg.
Richard G. Philllips
Fergus McClelland wrote:
>
> "Richard G. Philllips" <rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Fergus McClelland wrote:
> >>
> >> "Richard G. Philllips" <rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Mark Van Alstine wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> In article <35776...@news3.enter.net>, ya...@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken)
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >Phillips
> >> >
> >> >Item 1.
> >> >
> >> >I direct your attention to the clause where it was stated that partisans
> >> >are to be treated as POWs PROVIDED they met certain conditions:
> >> >
> >> > 1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
> >> >> 2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizeable at a distance;
> >> >> 3. To carry arms openly; and
> >> >> 4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
> >> >
> >> >Are you VERY certain that the Russian partisans met ALL of those
> >> >conditions ALL of the time.
> >>
> >> To be realistic, it has to be doubted that those such as the French
> >> and Belgian resistance wore arm bands saying "Resistance". Are you
> >> saying that for this reason they should have been shot? Remembering
> >> that they usually were.
>
> you yet! So you realise what you have just said? Allow me to
> paraphrase it. Mr Mainstream says the Nazis were brutal. Mr Phillips
> says "Only to the normal extent".
======================================
Phillips
the Nazis WERE brutal and I never qualified it with any "only to the
normal extent."
==========================================================
Mr Mainstream says:"Much worse than
> the normal extent." "All right then," Says Mr Phillips, "What about
> Cambodia?"
> I know a bit about the Mau Mau troubles; you know nothing. I have
> lived in East Africa; you have not. I tell you there was no reported
> brutality to support your claim,
============================================
Phillips
YOu tell me there was no brutality and I tel you that I do not believe
you.
========================================================
and you change to another country
> about which you obviously also know nothing, otherwise you would at
> least get the name of the place right. To those in the Republic, it is
> "The North", to everyone else, it is "Northern Ireland".
======================================================
PHillips
If you want to make an impression on me you'll have to try something
besides pedantry.
========================================================
So, okay, let
> us try it on for size. The IRA started one of their drives for the 6
> counties in the late 60's, partly driven by the brutality of some of
> the Northern Irish police,
=====================================
Phillips
Ah, so there HAS been brutality in Norther Ireland. Q.E.D.
======================================================
and because they did not have full
> representation in voting, and there was some discrimination against
> Catholics in certain lines of employment.
===============================================
Phillips
I am not passing any judgements on the rights or wrongs of the
Catholic-Protestant feud. I am sayhing nothing more than that brutal
methods have been used in suppressing the CAtholic dissidents.
(something which you yourself have already admitted)
===========================================================
As the "Troubles" worsened,
> and the Protestants reacted, the British army was called in to protect
> both sides - but mostly the Catholics. As a friend of mine said, the
> Catholics used to come out of their houses and give him cups of tea.
> As the situation worsened, the army became a target, as it was
> considered that they were protecting the Protestants. There was some
> questioning which included "hooding", putting a man against a wall
> with a hood on, playing music through headphones, to make him confess
> to whatever. This was revealed very soon, there was a big fuss, and it
> was discontinued. Whilst there have been incidents where Irish people
> have been badly treated by soldiers, the opposite has also happened.
> Two soldiers, out of uniform, were seen taking photographs of an IRA
> funeral. They were set upon, dragged from their car and beaten to
> death. But, this is *not* a partisan war. It is a very small number of
> men on both sides and two hundred years of bitterness between them.
> There is no "fight for freedom", the freedom is already there. It is
> related to a civil war, but not a "freedom" war.
=================================
PHilllips
I'd say you've made my point for me.
=====================================
>
> >=======================================================================
> >>
> >> >or in Malaysia,
> >>
> >> Presumably you have heard of "the Iron Broom"? After you say what this
> >> term applies to; you can begin to discuss what the British did in
> >> Malaysia against your friends the communists.
>
> I see you do not know about Malaya either.
>
> >> >of the French war in North Africa or
> >> >our own war in Viet-nam.
> >> >
> >> >So don't tell me how uniquely evil the Krauts were just becaue they did
> >> >not scrupulously follow all the Hague rules all of the time. Soldiers
> >> >are not choir boys.
> >>
> >> No, but they are not all butchers either.
> >> Tell me, while condemning the British in Malaysia and East Africa; why
> >> didn't you claim some British atrocities in Palestine?
> >===================================================
> >PHillips
> >
> >NO atrocities but some extremely harsh methods of interrogation.
>
> Please detail them - and do give sources won't you.
==============================================
Phillips
I do not save newspaper clippings going back to 1947 but i am accustomed
to having my word taken.
==================================================================
>
> >==========================================================
Mark Van Alstine
In article <357CAD...@earthlink.net>, rgp...@earthlink.net wrote:
[snip]
> (1) What did my aging seven years have to do with my conversion from
> Holocaustnik to revisionist.
Alzheimers? Or just plain old misanthropy and bad dentures?
> It had nothing to do with it. The conversion OCCURRED seven years ago.
Did you fall off your ass, Dick? See the light, hear voices, that sort of
thing, Dick? If so,Dick, you might think about seeing a doctor. There are
meds that can help you, Dick.
> The period required FOR the conversion was something more like about 6
> to 9 months.
Did you have a hard labor, Dick?
> (2) What bearing does Dresden have on the Holocaust.
>
> I never claimed it had any. Revisionists cite it to point out that the
> Allies were not necessarily whiter-than-white. to me it is only another
> horror that happened in the war as horrors will happen in any war of
> that size.
"Go home and worry about it."
> (3) What did Stalin and his pogroms have to do with the Holocaust.
>
> Nothing, except that Revisionists feel it was monstrous that the
> soviets -with a recent history like that behind them- were permitted to
> sit in judgement on the defendants at Nurnburg.
"Go home and worry about it."
[snip]
Jeffrey G. Brown
> I do not save newspaper clippings going back to 1947 but i am accustomed
> to having my word taken.
Richard G. Philllips has proven himself to be an enthusiastic, if inept,
liar several times over.
Why would anyone take his word for anything?
Harry Katz
An anonymous piece of guano writes all over the place:
Note how gutless coward Jeffrey G. Brown drinks deep
from the scum pond of outrageous libel
defaming innocent persons with his ugly accusations.
What I note is that the anonymous coward who keeps posting this
cannot seem to find a single example of this "outrageous libel!"
Apparently, cowed by the truth, he can only repeat his lame mantra
hoping no one will notice his total intellectual bankruptcy.
--
Harry Katz
Hilary Ostrov
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998 00:11:03 GMT, in
<357f082...@news.demon.co.uk>, re...@nospam.perdrix.demon.co.uk
(Fergus McClelland) wrote:
>"Richard G. Philllips" <rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[snip]
>>==============================================
>>Phillips
>>
>>I do not save newspaper clippings going back to 1947 but i am accustomed
>>to having my word taken.
>
>Surely Sir, you speak with some vestige of a smile when you say this?
>Please to remember this newsgroup is about historical events. Indeed,
>I have seen you demanding drawings of buildings before you will
>believe what they are - yet you say your word should be taken? What
>puts your word above mine and everyone else's?
>
Very good point, Mr. McClelland!
>(Question for M(is)s O: will this go in the FMcCCoE?)
To be honest, Mr. McClelland, I haven't been following this particular
discussion very closely (Mr. "Philllips" is quite predictable in his
ignorance, I've found). But is there some reason you think I should
have?
As for whether it belongs in the FM Chart of Equivalents, that is
really for you do decide, is it not? After all, it is your chart, not
mine :>)
hro
=====================
Hilary Ostrov
E-mail: hos...@uniserve.com
WWW: http://users.uniserve.com/~hostrov/
The Nizkor Project http://www.nizkor.org/
Richard G. Philllips
Hilary Ostrov wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Jun 1998 00:11:03 GMT, in
> <357f082...@news.demon.co.uk>, re...@nospam.perdrix.demon.co.uk
>
> >>==============================================
> >>Phillips
> >>
> >>I do not save newspaper clippings going back to 1947 but i am accustomed
> >>to having my word taken.
> >
> >Please to remember this newsgroup is about historical events. Indeed,
> >I have seen you demanding drawings of buildings before you will
> >believe what they are - yet you say your word should be taken? What
> >puts your word above mine and everyone else's?
PHillips
Two things:
(1) On this NG I have sometimes been wrong, and I have sometimes been
inconsistent, and I have sometimes been obliged to back off. However, I
have never knowingly told a deliberate falsehood, nor will I ever.
(2) the second reason bears upon what we might call comparative
credibilities. The thing that I claimed --harsh interrogation methods
used by the British Army in Palestime during their occupation-- is
completely credible because it is a very common practice (indeed, almost
the USUAL practice) of armies fighting a war in which it is impossible
to tell friend from foe.
Contrast that, if you will with the thing you people are claiming: mass
execution by gassing of millions of Jews. Would you call that "common
practice?" Is there any precedent for such a thing in human history -
deliberate mass murder on quite that scale? Has your side so much as
been able to prove the existence of a murder weapon? Is there so much as
one scrap of evidence produced by your side that has not been seriously
called into question?
And THAT is what I meant by comparative credibilities.
==================================================
Jeffrey G. Brown
In article <358067...@earthlink.net>, rgp...@earthlink.net "Richard
G. Philllips" wrote:
> However, I
> have never knowingly told a deliberate falsehood, nor will I ever.
That is an out-and-out lie, and Richard G. Philllips knows it.
When Steve Mock offered to meet Philllips' demands for "original
construction details of an execution gas chamber", Phillips immediately
altered those demands, vastly increasing and elaborating upon them. He
started by asking for "just ONE" drawing. One month later, he was
insisting upon "details of the gas-tight door... specification and
placement of all motors, vans, ventilators, etc.... full electrical wiring
diagrams... instructions for use... procedures for maintenance and
troulbeshooting".
When this sudden change of heart was pointed out to Philllips, he made the
absurd claim that his demands were "exactly what they were at the
beginning".
Richard G. Philllips is, in short, a documented liar. He _has_ told a
deliberate falsehood, and can be expected to do so again in the future.
JGB
=====================================================================
Jeffrey G. Brown jeff_...@bigfoot.com
"What's going to happen?" "Something wonderful..." -- '2010'
*** Note: Emailed replies will be considered public domain. ***
Lachlan McDonald
Give it up Jefro, you're becoming embarrassing.
Debunks
>> You will witness a Holy Day in Hell before that ever happens, Mr.
>Tavish!
>
>Just a minute, Joe? Are you denying that you said any of these things?
>Go
>ahead. Just say yes or no and lets play ball.
STEVE MOCK
Steve, for a man who has always played dirty pool I see no reason why you
should change your basic game plan now. Everything I wrote was true and
factual.
>
Debunks
>Subject: Re: Bellinger's Bullshit<BR>
>From: "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo"
SNIP
Doc, how does it feel allying yourself to a team which is steadily losing
ground day by day?
Debunks
>Subject: Re: Bellinger's Bullshit
SNIP
Obviously Tony is in denial.
Yale F. Edeiken
Speaking of "denial" how about this:
"hello? antone out there 12-14 e-mail me. i am thirteen and . .
.well if you e-mail me at jbel...@sprynet.com you can find out more about me i
am a female."
--YFE
The Holocaust History Project is at http://www.holocaust-history.org/
The Nizkor Project is at http://www.nizkor.org/
The Einsatzgruppen page is at http://www.pgonline.com/electriczen/
The Cybrary of the Holocaust is at http://www.remember.org/
Yale F. Edeiken
> deb...@aol.com (Debunks) writes:
> >Subject: Re: Bellinger's Bullshit<BR>
> >From: "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo"
> Doc, how does it feel allying yourself to a team which is steadily losing
> ground day by day?
Naaah. Never. It's hard to lose ground to this:
steve mock
Debunks wrote:
In other words, you are admitting that you did say:> >> 1. The Jews ran
Nuremberg. {In fact, the Jews were not particularly> >> represented at
Nuremberg. None of the prosecutors, defense lawyers,
> >> judges or other main players were Jews.}
> >>
> >> 2. Torquemada and Poppea were Jews. {They weren't.}
> >>
> >> 3. Himmler was murdered. {He committed suicide.}
> >>
> >> 4. The Einsatzgruppen only killed partisans. {The Einsatzgruppen killed
> >> mainly Jews, men, women and children.}
> >>
> >> 5. The British were responsible for the massacre at Lidice. {The
> >> Germans committed the massacre at Lidice as a reprisal for the
> >> assassination of Heydrich.}
> >>
> >> 6. Unarmed Jewish men, women and children were partisans and guilty of
> >> "heinous crimes", for which they deserved to be shot. {They were
> >> nothing of the sort. They were killed purely and simply because they
> >> were Jews.}
And were therefore merely creating a diversion when you demanded that Mr.
McFee post citings as to where these things were said. Thank you, Joe.
As to whether your assertions are "true and factual", we are will familiar
with your belief that something becomes back because you say its fact, so I
won't even bother asking you to back them up.
Steve Mock
Debunks
>Subject: Re: Bellinger's Bullshit (Another Nizkook Attempt to Smear Someone?
>Yes Indeedy!)
>From: steve mock <sm...@veritas.nizkor.org>
>Date: Sun, Jun 14, 1998 12:25 EDT
>Message-id: <3583F994...@veritas.nizkor.org>
Of course not. You can't handle the truth. The turth is out there: you try
to avoid it.
David Gehrig
Debunks wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Bellinger's Bullshit<BR>
> >From: "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo"
>
> SNIP
>
> Doc, how does it feel allying yourself to a team which is steadily losing
> ground day by day?
Another confabulation from Blanche Debunks. Poor lad.
@%<
Gord McFee
In <199806140324...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, on 14 Jun 1998
03:24:19 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Bellinger's Bullshit
> >From: "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" <alom...@capital.net>
>
> SNIP
>
> Obviously Tony is in denial.
I would say the one in denial is you, as your latest case of "snip the
whole post and throw in a one-liner" demonstrates.
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Visit the Holocaust History Project
sm...@veritas.nizkor.org
In article <199806141939...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
> Of course not. You can't handle the truth. The turth is out there: you try
> to avoid it.
Don't even try to say anything substantial, Joe. It doesn't matter. Gord
McFee has compiled a rather extensive list of your past lies (to which I
intend to contribute as soon as I have time to look over my archives). Your
failure to address any of them will continually be noted.
Steve Mock
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
David Gehrig
Debunks wrote:
>
<< snip >>
>
> Of course not. You can't handle the truth. The turth is out there: you try
> to avoid it.
A particularly nice one. Yes, the "turth" is out there, all right, if by
"turth" you mean some strange muddle somewhat resembling "truth" and being
hawked by a revisionist idiot like Joe. Yes, this newsgroup is full of
revisionist "turth"s. Fortunately, there are others who can provide a little
_truth_... and when the two are compared side to side, it's not hard to tell
truth from "turth" at all.
@%<
Herman ten Klooster
Debunks wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Bellinger's Bullshit
Well, you are an expert on denial.
How's the braincell doing? Still in use by someone else?
--
\\¦//
(o o)
/==========================o00o=(_)=o00o==================\
¦ ¦
¦ *** reality is only for those who lack imagination *** ¦
¦ .ooo0 ¦
¦ ( ) 0ooo. ¦
\===========================\ (==( )====================/
\_) ) /
(_/
To reply to this message remove the obvious from my e-mail address.
I hate automatic junk-mail generators.