GOLDHAGEN slanders Germans
Ken McVay OBC
In article <677cc$a182...@news.comet.net>,
geo...@www.comet.chv.va.us (George F. Hardy) wrote:
>Very true, but such agressively anti-semitic posts do not help
>reasonable dialog -- just as Goldhagen doesn't.
I find the attacks upon Goldhagen's thesis interesting, if,
for no other reason, most of those attacking him haven't read
his book.
I confess that I have not completed the work, having finished
but a fourth of it. Having said that, I would have to ask the
obvious question: What is it in Goldhagen's thesis that "does
not help reasonable dialog?"
I would have to conclude, having read those first 110 pages,
that he has made the beginnings of a very strong, well
documented, case.
I would also have to conclude, from reading criticisms of his
work, that most of the critics haven't read the book.
Put simply, if I read him correctly, Goldhagen is saying that
the Holocaust was not aided and abetted by the German people
simply because the Nazis managed to brainwash them all, but
because antisemitism had been widespread in Germany for over
100 years, and what he calls "eliminationist antisemitism"
common since just before the turn of the century.
He does _not_ say that this condition was limited to Germans
and Germany, contrary to what many critics claim. He simply
concentrates on Germany, because that is where his thesis
takes him.
(I read a book last fall that documented precisely the same
type of antisemitism in France - the author's comment being
"The only thing that surprises me about the Holocaust is that
it didn't happen in France first." I note that no-one has
taken issue with this as they have with Goldhagen.)
>Let's accept that a very large number of Jews were exterminated
>by the Nazi controlled governments in various countries -- whether
>the exact number was 6 million or not does not really change the
>enormity of the crime.
True.
>Many others were also exterminated -- 5M Russians (includes all of the
>USSR), 2M Poles, 0.5M gypsies and 0.5M others. Almost 100% of the
>press relates only to the Jews. The Holocaust Museum in Washington
>D.C. pretty much ignores all non-Jewish victims -- with the exception
>of gypsies.
I didn't get the impression that the Museum "pretty much
ignores" non-Jewish victims, but confess I didn't spend long
with the exhibits. I simply didn't have the time. (I had
flown in to speak at the Research Center, and collected a very
nasty cold while I was in Washington, thus spending most of my
time there flat on my back.)
I certainly disagree with your press remark - the Bosnian
situation has been "page one" in newspapers and television for
years, and, I believe, received far more attention than the
Holocaust.
>The continued harping on the Holocaust is irritating. Who harps on
>the greater number of Ukrainians killed by Stalin? Or the exter-
>mination camps of the Japanese? or the concentration camps of the
>USA (Americans of Japanese ancestry)? Often it seems that there has
>been an hour on American TV for each Jew who died in the Holocaust.
>And the principle of "no Jew, no crime" seems to dominate the
>descriptions of the Holocaust. See, I am irritated.
The "continued harping" is also extremely painful for the
survivors, and for their families; I suspect that all of them
would much rather it all went away. Alas, because of the
organized attempt at Hitler-cleansing that features Holocaust
denial as its primary tenet, it will _not_ go away.
Perhaps the reason we do not hear more about Stalin's horrible
crimes is simply that no organized attempt to deny them
exists. Neither Stalin nor the Japanese brought the entire
machinery of state to bear upon the task of rounding up and
exterminating an entire ethno-religious group - Hitler and the
Nazis did precisely that with regard to the Jews. That is one
of the things that makes the event so unique.
Six million hours of television? Horsepucky. I hear this
complaint a lot, over in alt.revisionism - it is nearly always
closely associated with Nazi denial, and it is not true -
write to any television or cable broadcaster and _ask_ them
how much time they have devoted to the Holocaust during the
past year or two, and you will very quickly discover your
belief to be false.
For the past four or five years, and the past two in
particular, I have devoted enormous amounts of time to
Holocaust study and Holocaust education within the community.
Not once - NOT ONCE - have I seen the claim "no Jew, no
crime." Not ONCE have I heard someone within the Jewish
community make a statement like that, or express that general
idea. Does it happen? Perhaps, but it must be extremely rare.
During these past four or five years, I have probably read or
browsed through hundreds of books about the Holocaust. I have yet to
find a SINGLE reference to such a concept - excepting, of
course, Nazi literature from organizations devoted to
Hitler-cleansing, like the IHR, for instance, or Willis
Carto's Liberty Lobby, the National Alliance, etc.
--
The Nizkor Project (Canada) - An Electronic Holocaust Educational Resource
[Ftp] http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?
[Europe] ftp://nizkor.iam.uni-bonn.de/pub/nizkor/
http://www.almanac.bc.ca/ (Under construction - permanently!)......unlearn
Mike Curtis
kmc...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC) wrote:
>In article <677cc$a182...@news.comet.net>,
>geo...@www.comet.chv.va.us (George F. Hardy) wrote:
>>Very true, but such agressively anti-semitic posts do not help
>>reasonable dialog -- just as Goldhagen doesn't.
>I find the attacks upon Goldhagen's thesis interesting, if,
>for no other reason, most of those attacking him haven't read
>his book.
>I confess that I have not completed the work, having finished
>but a fourth of it. Having said that, I would have to ask the
>obvious question: What is it in Goldhagen's thesis that "does
>not help reasonable dialog?"
>I would have to conclude, having read those first 110 pages,
>that he has made the beginnings of a very strong, well
>documented, case.
I have trouble with his reliance on secondary sources. He doesn't seem
to validate those sources either. He trusts them. He even admits as
much on page 76:
"This brief history of antisemitism's evolution and character is
obviously not meant to be definitive, in the sense of presenting full
substantiation for its every assertion, as well as qualifications and
nuances that a longer treatment would include."
Isn't this the gist of his book though? Isn't he trying to suuport the
main part of his thesis here in chapter 2? It would seem to me that
this is where the substantiation needs to be done. It appears
Goldhagen got lazy and didn't think he needed to check up on the
secondary source material he uses. One would think that any historian
worth his salt would check on the substantiation contained in the
secondary sources. This he doesn't seem to have done. To my eye, it
appears that he uses selective antisemitic quotes from secondary
sources without really examining how prominent they were or whether
the readership of these old primary documents was very high. In light
of this he will still use the word "incontestable" while making the
claim I quoted from his book.
Whether or not his points are incontestable will be seen as reviews
and commentary comes out in the journals. I'm greatly disappointed in
the method and craft of Goldhagen, however, I do see some truth in
what he says from persoanl experiences in Germany and here. I also see
his claims fitting the 1620-1630 Puritan's and their views concerning
the natives. I can back up my contentions with primary sources however
and don't need to rely on secondary stuff exclusively.
Erhard Sanio
In article <4pekmg$s...@boris.eden.com>, Mike Curtis <mcu...@eden.com> wrote:
>kmc...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC) wrote:
>>I find the attacks upon Goldhagen's thesis interesting, if,
>>for no other reason, most of those attacking him haven't read
>>his book.
>>I confess that I have not completed the work, having finished
>>but a fourth of it. Having said that, I would have to ask the
>>obvious question: What is it in Goldhagen's thesis that "does
>>not help reasonable dialog?"
>>I would have to conclude, having read those first 110 pages,
>>that he has made the beginnings of a very strong, well
>>documented, case.
>I have trouble with his reliance on secondary sources. He doesn't seem
>to validate those sources either. He trusts them. He even admits as
>much on page 76:
>"This brief history of antisemitism's evolution and character is
>obviously not meant to be definitive, in the sense of presenting full
>substantiation for its every assertion, as well as qualifications and
>nuances that a longer treatment would include."
>Isn't this the gist of his book though? Isn't he trying to suuport the
>main part of his thesis here in chapter 2? It would seem to me that
>this is where the substantiation needs to be done.
I fail to see that Goldhagen missed to support the hypotheses he developped
in the previous chapters. When he summarizes, he does so after having quoted
a huge lot of research on the topic.
He could easily have presented more (i am thinking about Poliakov, Claussen,
and a number of others). Discussing any aspect of the history of antisemi-
tism, be it comparatively (as Katz, whom he quotes, does) or otherwise,
would have added pages, not weight to the book.
That is what he states in the sentence immediately subsequent to your quote:
: "Owing to the limited space available for treating this vast subject, it
culd not be otherwise."
The only thing I regret is the lack of a bibliography leaving the reader
to the exhausting task of following references back to the first on in the
appendix.
>It appears
>Goldhagen got lazy and didn't think he needed to check up on the
>secondary source material he uses. One would think that any historian
>worth his salt would check on the substantiation contained in the
>secondary sources. This he doesn't seem to have done. To my eye, it
>appears that he uses selective antisemitic quotes from secondary
>sources without really examining how prominent they were or whether
>the readership of these old primary documents was very high. In light
>of this he will still use the word "incontestable" while making the
>claim I quoted from his book.
Do you have any reason to doubt in the accounts made by the authors Goldhagen
is quoting? Please note that Goldhagen's actual research work has been done
in Ludwigsburg, Stuttgart, and other places upon what is in the center of
his research, namely acts and utterances of the perpetrators.
And I merely fail to see that the "secondary source material" is in doubt or
only anecdotal in the way you seem to indicate. The only flaw I could see
here is in widely ignoring the influence of the influence of the left wing
parties, trade unions and the left wing oriented part of culture and media,
which were dedicatedly opposed towards antisemitism.
Only, the after 1933 developments did not leave so many trace thereof so
that he may have a point in ignoring that aspect to some extent.
>Whether or not his points are incontestable will be seen as reviews
>and commentary comes out in the journals. I'm greatly disappointed in
>the method and craft of Goldhagen, however, I do see some truth in
>what he says from persoanl experiences in Germany and here. I also see
>his claims fitting the 1620-1630 Puritan's and their views concerning
>the natives. I can back up my contentions with primary sources however
>and don't need to rely on secondary stuff exclusively.
As far as I see it, the prelude may have been similar but not the outcome
in comparison of Puritans and German Rightwingers, even though the simi-
larities may be not occasional.
But assuming that Goldhagen himself would, in addition to his research into
the perpetrators of the mass killings, have done the work of Katz, Klement,
Pulzer, and well a dozen of others he quotes, would his account be more
trustworthy?
So, are the researchers mentioned above less to be doubted than Goldhagen
would be?
Further on, your comments ond method and craft in mind, did it escape to you
that Dan Goldhagen is a sociologist rather than a historian? Could you ela-
borate bit further which flaws you found in his method?
regards, es
Mike Curtis
sa...@netmbx.netmbx.de (Erhard Sanio) wrote:
Read his footnotes and his admission that I posted. He admits he
hasn't carried through in the most historical manner. The research hew
quotes is SECONDARY source material. He does better with primary
material when he gets into the Nazis in Chapter three. It is the early
stuff that is important to his thesis and he is weak on primary
materials. This is all I said.
>He could easily have presented more (i am thinking about Poliakov, Claussen,
>and a number of others). Discussing any aspect of the history of antisemi-
>tism, be it comparatively (as Katz, whom he quotes, does) or otherwise,
>would have added pages, not weight to the book.
It would have added proof that the the extermination thinking was
clearly a part of average German thinking. To my mind, he failed in
this claim to a great degree. By failing in proving this claim doesn't
make his theory wrong. He just didn't prove it. The aspect he wanted
to prove was that antiesemitism was a norm in all of German society
prior to the Nazis. This is the main gist of his revisionism. Chapter
Two was his most important Chapter to lay the basis for this claim.
His use of secondary material is very lame and may prove that his
theory isn't all that new. It really isn't. Many an historian has
already suggested such a thing. Goldhagen decides he will brow beat
the subject. I wonder why?
>That is what he states in the sentence immediately subsequent to your quote:
>: "Owing to the limited space available for treating this vast subject, it
> culd not be otherwise."
It's a poor excuse when that chapter was central to his theory. Sounds
like a cop out asking others to do his work for him.
>The only thing I regret is the lack of a bibliography leaving the reader
>to the exhausting task of following references back to the first on in the
>appendix.
I have two book marks. One for the notes which contain the source
material and one for my regular reading. I prefer footnotes over end
notes. But so what, right?
>>It appears
>>Goldhagen got lazy and didn't think he needed to check up on the
>>secondary source material he uses. One would think that any historian
>>worth his salt would check on the substantiation contained in the
>>secondary sources. This he doesn't seem to have done. To my eye, it
>>appears that he uses selective antisemitic quotes from secondary
>>sources without really examining how prominent they were or whether
>>the readership of these old primary documents was very high. In light
>>of this he will still use the word "incontestable" while making the
>>claim I quoted from his book.
>Do you have any reason to doubt in the accounts made by the authors Goldhagen
>is quoting? Please note that Goldhagen's actual research work has been done
>in Ludwigsburg, Stuttgart, and other places upon what is in the center of
>his research, namely acts and utterances of the perpetrators.
>And I merely fail to see that the "secondary source material" is in doubt or
>only anecdotal in the way you seem to indicate. The only flaw I could see
>here is in widely ignoring the influence of the influence of the left wing
>parties, trade unions and the left wing oriented part of culture and media,
>which were dedicatedly opposed towards antisemitism.
I'm only refering to the second Chapter. Do I have reason to doubt the
secondary sources? I doubt everything when I read historical accounts.
I trust no one. This isn't my primary area of history so I don't have
a buy in to this research. I handle history with primary source
material as a habit and I do not rely on secondary source material to
form my theories. I will use secondary source material as battling
thoughts.
>Only, the after 1933 developments did not leave so many trace thereof so
>that he may have a point in ignoring that aspect to some extent.
He does better after 1933 actually. He is very weak in the foundation
for his theory. This is only one man's opinion after all. I'm no body.
:-)
>>Whether or not his points are incontestable will be seen as reviews
>>and commentary comes out in the journals. I'm greatly disappointed in
>>the method and craft of Goldhagen, however, I do see some truth in
>>what he says from persoanl experiences in Germany and here. I also see
>>his claims fitting the 1620-1630 Puritan's and their views concerning
>>the natives. I can back up my contentions with primary sources however
>>and don't need to rely on secondary stuff exclusively.
>As far as I see it, the prelude may have been similar but not the outcome
>in comparison of Puritans and German Rightwingers, even though the simi-
>larities may be not occasional.
>But assuming that Goldhagen himself would, in addition to his research into
>the perpetrators of the mass killings, have done the work of Katz, Klement,
>Pulzer, and well a dozen of others he quotes, would his account be more
>trustworthy?
I'm not familiar with their work and as a reader I shouldn't have to
be. I think that is my point. As a reader reading about the Puritans
you shouldn't have to be familiar with Perry Miller, Francis Jennings,
Charles Andrews, Bernard Bailyn, and Samuel Eliot Morrison just to
name a few. The presentation should be new if the work is claimed to
be a revision.
>So, are the researchers mentioned above less to be doubted than Goldhagen
>would be?
Beats me. It's not my area of expertise. Trust is not at issue, method
is. Validation is also at issue. For a general reader should be able
to understand the research of prior works without having to go out and
read it. We aren't really given an idea what this prior research is.
What we get are quotes from secondary opinion that is NOT backed up by
primary material. It's just me, okay. It is not the way I would have
done it. Excuses of length are lame. It tells me he should have
narrowed his scope and worked on Chapter 2 as a book. I guess getting
into the real Nazi stuff after Hitler came to power was much more
interesting than proving the early stuff he claims is incontestable
.
>Further on, your comments ond method and craft in mind, did it escape to you
>that Dan Goldhagen is a sociologist rather than a historian? Could you ela-
>borate bit further which flaws you found in his method?
As a work of history it is flawed. At a work of socialogy it is
interesting. As I said, I find there to be reality to some of the
things he suggests. The human dark side is well represented in German,
French, and Russian antisemitism, hatred of the American Natives by
the colonists(they were the Devil's Children) and the antisemitism in
this country that still exists. In some cases we don't know it is
there until it has a chance to assert itself. There is much value to
this point in his work It seems to be very Jungian. Most of all his
work, good or bad has caused people to talk. The book, btw, was
released as a work of history/political science. He works as assistant
professor of government and social studies so I have a higher degree
of expectation from him than I would from a psychologist or social
scientist.
Mark Ira Kaufman
kmc...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC) writes...
> I find the attacks upon Goldhagen's thesis interesting, if,
> for no other reason, most of those attacking him haven't read
> his book.
I have observed the same phenomenon.
> I confess that I have not completed the work, having finished
> but a fourth of it. Having said that, I would have to ask the
> obvious question: What is it in Goldhagen's thesis that "does
> not help reasonable dialog?"
>
> I would have to conclude, having read those first 110 pages,
> that he has made the beginnings of a very strong, well
> documented, case.
>
> I would also have to conclude, from reading criticisms of his
> work, that most of the critics haven't read the book.
>
> Put simply, if I read him correctly, Goldhagen is saying that
> the Holocaust was not aided and abetted by the German people
> simply because the Nazis managed to brainwash them all, but
> because antisemitism had been widespread in Germany for over
> 100 years, and what he calls "eliminationist antisemitism"
> common since just before the turn of the century.
You are correct.
Their antisemitism can be seen in the posture of Adolf Eichmann, who
maintained that the extermination of the Jewish people is something that
ought to be done.
What Goldhagen did is reject the notion that such an attitude was held
by a mere handful of zealots. Instead, he insisted that such a form of
Jew-hatred was necessary in the German people themselves for the Holocaust
to have happened.
> He does _not_ say that this condition was limited to Germans
> and Germany, contrary to what many critics claim. He simply
> concentrates on Germany, because that is where his thesis
> takes him.
Again, this is an accurate depiction of his position.
> (I read a book last fall that documented precisely the same
> type of antisemitism in France - the author's comment being
> "The only thing that surprises me about the Holocaust is that
> it didn't happen in France first." I note that no-one has
> taken issue with this as they have with Goldhagen.)
I could not agree more.
Furthermore, I have not seen any criticism of Goldhagen's book which
has focused on the book's content.
Having read the book in its entirety, I can say that the truths contained
in this book are painfully self-evident. Perhaps their disquieting nature
is the reason that nearly all criticism has sidestepped his assertions and
instead fixated on a methodology which is alleged to be unacademic and
flawed.
The criticism, all of which is directed at his methodology, is especially
absurd when one notes the origin of the book.
From the book jacket:
His doctoral dissertation, which is the basis for this book,
was awarded the American Political Science Association's 1994
Gabriel A. Almond award for the best dissertation in the field
of comparative politics.
This hardly suggests sloppy research methods.
I urge all of you to do something that most of Goldhagen's critics have not
done.
I urge you to read the book and decide for yourself.
Mike Pelletier
In article <4phi75$a...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
Mark Ira Kaufman <aa...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
>
>kmc...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC) writes...
>> the Holocaust was not aided and abetted by the German people
>> simply because the Nazis managed to brainwash them all, but
>> because antisemitism had been widespread in Germany for over
>> 100 years, and what he calls "eliminationist antisemitism"
>> common since just before the turn of the century.
>
>
>Their antisemitism can be seen in the posture of Adolf Eichmann, who
>maintained that the extermination of the Jewish people is something that
>ought to be done.
>
>What Goldhagen did is reject the notion that such an attitude was held
>by a mere handful of zealots. Instead, he insisted that such a form of
>Jew-hatred was necessary in the German people themselves for the Holocaust
>to have happened.
Interesting that this topic should come up.
Recently, there was an article and a couple of letters published
in the Detroit Free Press about the deportation of Ferdinand
Hammer from the US as a result of the discovery of his position as
a guard at Auchwitz during the war.
Both letters to the newspaper seem to ascribe victim status to
Hammer, lamenting the fact that if he'd disobeyed orders, he would
have been shot by his commanding officers, and that he's not to
blame, the government of Nazi Germany is to blame.
What sprang immediately to mind, and from my fingertips as I composed
my own letter to the editor, was the fact that Krystallnacht was not
a result of government orders. Nor were there guns to the backs of
the crowd of politicians who stood up and cheered as Hitler shouted
"...[this] will result in the complete extermination of all Jews
in Europe!"
I think Goldhagen is right on the mark, and given those two examples,
you don't need to read a thick book to start to get an inkling of that
fact.
As for Hammer, if only the words of a Jewish scholar who lived
centuries before him -- " ... Better that you should be killed than
to commit murder. Who's to say your blood is redder? Maybe his
is redder" -- had reached his ears. He could have died an innocent
victim of the Nazi massacre, shot by his commanding officer, instead
of living out his life with the blood of millions on his hands.
-Mike Pelletier.
Gord McFee
In article <4phq2m$d...@valhalla.comshare.com>, Mike Pelletier
<mi...@comshare.com> said:
>Interesting that this topic should come up.
>Recently, there was an article and a couple of letters published in the
>Detroit Free Press about the deportation of Ferdinand Hammer from the US
>as a result of the discovery of his position as a guard at Auchwitz during
>the war.
>Both letters to the newspaper seem to ascribe victim status to Hammer,
>lamenting the fact that if he'd disobeyed orders, he would have been shot
>by his commanding officers, and that he's not to blame, the government of
>Nazi Germany is to blame.
Rubbish. There are lots of examples of SS who refused to obey orders in
this regard, or refused to serve in a death camp, and I am unaware of any
who were shot for it. Most were simply sent home.
>What sprang immediately to mind, and from my fingertips as I composed my
>own letter to the editor, was the fact that Krystallnacht was not a result
>of government orders. Nor were there guns to the backs of the crowd of
>politicians who stood up and cheered as Hitler shouted "...[this] will
>result in the complete extermination of all Jews in Europe!"
Right on the second point. Wrong on the first. The Kristallnacht was
ordered by the Government (Hitler, Goebbels and Heydrich) and was carried
out by the SS and the SA.
--
Gord McFee
.. I'll write no line before its time(gmc...@ibm.net)
-- MR/2 2.26 #331
Matt Giwer
gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
>In article <4phq2m$d...@valhalla.comshare.com>, Mike Pelletier
><mi...@comshare.com> said:
>>Interesting that this topic should come up.
>>Recently, there was an article and a couple of letters published in the
>>Detroit Free Press about the deportation of Ferdinand Hammer from the US
>>as a result of the discovery of his position as a guard at Auchwitz during
>>the war.
>>Both letters to the newspaper seem to ascribe victim status to Hammer,
>>lamenting the fact that if he'd disobeyed orders, he would have been shot
>>by his commanding officers, and that he's not to blame, the government of
>>Nazi Germany is to blame.
>Rubbish. There are lots of examples of SS who refused to obey orders in
>this regard, or refused to serve in a death camp, and I am unaware of any
>who were shot for it. Most were simply sent home.
As you know, all camp assignments of any kind were voluntary.
>>What sprang immediately to mind, and from my fingertips as I composed my
>>own letter to the editor, was the fact that Krystallnacht was not a result
>>of government orders. Nor were there guns to the backs of the crowd of
>>politicians who stood up and cheered as Hitler shouted "...[this] will
>>result in the complete extermination of all Jews in Europe!"
>Right on the second point. Wrong on the first. The Kristallnacht was
>ordered by the Government (Hitler, Goebbels and Heydrich) and was carried
>out by the SS and the SA.
Of course he lied to his diary just for the fun of it but you know
Goebbels was not surprised by it, he simply said that he was in his
diary.
I regret that does match the truth the great McFly wants to be true.
Mike Pelletier
In article <4pqogd$m...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>,
Gord McFee <gmc...@ibm.net> wrote:
>In article <4phq2m$d...@valhalla.comshare.com>, Mike Pelletier
> <mi...@comshare.com> said:
>>Both letters to the newspaper seem to ascribe victim status to Hammer,
>>lamenting the fact that if he'd disobeyed orders, he would have been shot
>>by his commanding officers, and that he's not to blame, the government of
>>Nazi Germany is to blame.
>
>Rubbish. There are lots of examples of SS who refused to obey orders in
>this regard, or refused to serve in a death camp, and I am unaware of any
>who were shot for it. Most were simply sent home.
This "if they disobeyed orders they'd have been shot" apology is very
commonly used, it's interesting to know that it's bunk. Could you post
some references?
>Right on the second point. Wrong on the first. The Kristallnacht was
>ordered by the Government (Hitler, Goebbels and Heydrich) and was carried
>out by the SS and the SA.
Thanks for setting me straight on that point. I was long under the
impression that it was a popular, mob-mentality kind of attack on
Jewish businesses legitimized in the minds of the mob by the
Nazi-sponsored boycotts and hate mongering.
-Mike Pelletier.
Horst Kleinsorg
On Thu, 13 Jun 1996 21:06:59 EDT, gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee)
wrote:
>In article <4phq2m$d...@valhalla.comshare.com>, Mike Pelletier
><mi...@comshare.com> said:
>
>
>Rubbish. There are lots of examples of SS who refused to obey orders in
>this regard, or refused to serve in a death camp, and I am unaware of any
>who were shot for it. Most were simply sent home.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Where is your prove for your statement?
>
>Right on the second point. Wrong on the first. The Kristallnacht was
>ordered by the Government (Hitler, Goebbels and Heydrich) and was carried
>out by the SS and the SA.
When do you folks ever learn the facts?
I hope you can read German. If not, get somebody to tanslate it
for you. It may be helpful to you waht you learn.
HK
_____
Luege vergeht, Wahrheit besteht.
--
>Gord McFee
Friedrich Christian Prinz zu Schaumburg-Lippe:
"DR. GOEBBELS. EIN PORTRAET DES PROPAGANDAMINISTERS". Berlin
1963. (ISBN
3-88741-140-4)
Arndt Verlag 2300 Kiel Postfach3603
Eine Million deutscher Soldaten - Seite 180
Goebbels sagte in einer Pressekonferenz waehrend des Krieges, an
der wie ueblich leitende Herren des Ministeriums und die
Verbindungsfuehrer der Wehrmacht, des Auswartigen Amtes und
anderer Dienststellen des Reiches teilnahmen:
"Meine Herren, machen wir uns nichts vor, die gegnerische
Propaganda hat sich auf zwei Dinge konzentriert - mit diesen
packt sie uns. Diese beiden Dinge heissen "Kristallnacht" und
"KZ". Beide haben mit dem Judenproblem zu tun und werden deshalb
so stark akzentuiert. Die gegnerische Propaganda wird bekanntlich
von Juden gelenkt. Alles andere verblasst daneben.
"Und das verdanken wir zum guten Teil dem schrecklichen Herrn
Streicher.
"Meine Herren, ich sehe, das einige von Ihnen lachen - hier gibt
es nichts zu lachen - uns wird das Lachen bald vergehen, wenn wir
nicht aufpassen und die Dinge so ernst nehmen, wie sie es
verdienen. Unsere Propaganda ist die einzige Armee, die bisher
immer siegreich war. Diese beiden Schlachten koennen uns aber
zum Verhaengnis werden und uns in der Weltoeffentlichkeit eine
Niederlage zufuegen,von der sich Deutschland nie wieder erholt."
"Ich weiss, was Sie sagen wollen: - es stimmt nicht, was die
Feindpropaganda sagt! Nun, ich bin auch davon ueberzeugt, dass es
nicht stimmt. Von allen zustaendigen Stellen der Reichsregierung
wird mir immer und immer wieder hoch und heilig versichert und
nachgewiesen, es sei nicht so - alles sei Feindpropaganda und
gelogen.
"Aber darum geht es mir in diesem Augenblick nicht. Ich bin fuer
die Propaganda zustaendig und allein dafuer. Und da kann ich
Ihnen nur sagen: die Welt ist auch bereit, Luegen zu glauben - es
kommt nur darauf an, von wem und wie und zu welchem Zeitpunkt sie
ihr serviert werden. Der Zeitpunkt allein ist fuer uns schon
unguenstig. Wir muessen als vorsichtige Propagandisten damit
rechnen, dass er aus sich heraus nicht guenstiger wird. Leider
muessen wir davon ausgehen, das wir in der Behandlung der
Judenfrage schwere Fehler begangen haben - Sie kennen
meinen Standpunkt."
Mir waren diese Ausfuehrungen des Ministers sehr ueberraschend.
Ich erinnerte mich an das, was ich im Zusammenhang mit der
sogenannten "Kristallnacht" erlebt hatte. Ich zitiere im
folgenden aus meinem vergriffenen Buch "Zwischen Krone und
Kerker":
+ + +
Im Herbst 1938 war ich als Redner in Schweden. Zunaechst in
Stockholm und dann in der Universitaetsstadt Upsala.
Waehrend meines Aufenthaltes erreichten mich die ersten
Nachrichten ueber die sogenannte "Kristallnacht" - und die
Situation war sehr peinlich.
Nach meiner Rueckkehr fand ich unsere Abteilung Ausland im
Zustand hellster Emporung vor.
Das Ziel der Abteilung war es, mit dem Ausland durch
Kulturaustausch in moeglichst gute Beziehungen zu kommen, und
dementsprechend war sie durch diese Ereignisse wie geschlagen.
Der norwegische Generalkonsul Elef Ringnes zitiert in seinem vor
kurzem erschienen Buch, dass er in jenen Tagen unsere Abteilung
aufsuchte, weil er wissen wollte, wie wir darueber dachten. Er
schildert, wie entsetzt die Referenten der Abteilung waren, und
dass er insbesondere auf meine Meinung gespannt gewesen sei. Man
habe mich geholt, und er habe mich gefragt, ob ich das
gutheissen wolle. Darauf hatte ich in Gegenwart der anderen
Herren unserer Abteilung gesagt: "Ich schaeme mich dessen fur
unser deutsches Volk!"
Ich bat um einen Termin beim Minister. Begruendung:
Schwedenreise. Dieses Mal, das wusste ich, wuerde er mich
bestimmt empfangen, denn er war sicher gespannt darauf, zu
erfahren, was man in Schweden ueber die "Kristallnacht" gesagt
hatte.
Schon in seinem Vorzimmer konnte ich feststellen, dass bei ihm
keine gute Stimmung war. "Graf Helldorf ist noch bei ihm", sagte
mir die Sekretaerin. Der Polizeipraesident von Berlin - seltener
Fall, dachte ich Ich wusste von den latenten Kaempfen zwischen
Helldorf und Himmler - und ich wusste auch, dass "der
Doktor" nicht mehr allzuviel von Helldorf hielt.
Als ich das grosse Arbeitszimmer des Ministers betrat, stand er
im Gespraech mit Helldorf an einem der drei hohen Fenster. Sie
unterhielten sich so intensiv, dass sie mein Kommen zunaechst
nicht bemerkten. Insofern war ich wohl ohne ihr Wissen Zeuge
eines fuer mich sehr interessanten Gespraeches. Ich merkte
sofort, dass es sich um die Ereignisse des 8. und 9. November
handelte, der "Kristallnacht" also.
Anscheinend war der Polizeipraesident zum Bericht bestellt
worden. Goebbels war sehr aufgebracht. Er hatte einen roten Kopf,
stark geschwollene Adern, und er gestikulierte heftig mit den
Armen. Immer wieder ging er ganz dicht an den Grafen Helldorf
heran - als wolle er ihn am Rock fassen. Helldorf, viel groesser
als Goebbels, sah etwas auf ihn herab und blieb ganz ruhig.
Goebbels sagte unter anderem:
"Das Ganze ist ein grober Unfug. - Sooo kann man das Judenproblem
auf keinen Fall loesen. So nicht. Man macht sie ja nur zu
Martyrern. Und dann? - Vor der ganzen Welt haben wir uns
blamiert, Helldorf. Aber bringen Sie das mal jenen
I d i o t e n da in Muenchen, jenen Dickschaedeln, jenen
Streicher und Genossen bei.
Jenen ekelhaften, schizophrenen Stiernacken!
Sagen Sie denen mal, was Politik ist. Davon haben die keine
Ahnung! Die schreien nur Revolution - und das heisst fuer sie
saufen, huren und haarstraeubende Dummheiten machen. Und ich? Ich
darf den ganzen Bloedsinn ausbaden, soll mit der Propaganda alles
wieder ausbuegeln.
Ein Ding der Unmoeglichkeit.
Wir werden unglaubwuerdig, wenn wir solche Sachen machen,
verstehen Sie mich?
Wenn ich jetzt der Welt gegenueber eine anstaendige Rede halte,
komme ich mir nach diesem Malheur wie eine alte Hure vor, die
eine Kirche baut!
Wer wird mir noch glauben? Wer, frage ich Sie! Niemand! Man hat
mir den Boden unter den Fusen weggezogen."
Er fasste sich mit beiden Haenden an den Kopf und schrie:
"Laecherlich haben sie mich gemacht! Der Ribbentrop mit seinem
daemlichen Rathfall konnte es ja nicht lassen. Scharlatan,
verdammter! Soll er doch hingehen, wo er hergekommen ist, aber
sich nicht um Politik kuemmern. Ich hasse den Kerl! Frueher hat
er mit dem Juden Weizmann Bruderschaft getrunken, jetzt will er
sich mit Antisemitismus den Reichsleiterrang erkaempfen. Herr von
Ribbentrop braucht Parteilorbeeren, verstehen Sie!?
Dann werden einige idiotische Gauleiter am Schnuerchen gezogen,
und schon ist ein Schaden angerichtet, den kein Mensch mehr
gutmachen kann.
Solange ich lebe, wird aber Ribbentrop nicht Reichsleiter,
verlassen Sie sich darauf! Leider hat Hitler einen Narren an ihm
gefressen.
Und was diese Geschichte fur Devisen kostet.
So paradox es klingt, Helldorf", fuhr er ploetzlich leise fort,
"wir konnten der gegnerischen Propaganda gar keinen groesseren
Dienst erweisen. Unsere Leute haben ein Dutzend Juden
totgeschlagen, aber fuer dieses Dutzend muessen wir vielleicht
mal mit einer Million deutscher Soldaten bezahlen! Verstehen Sie,
warum ich mich so wahnsinnig darueber aufrege? Nicht die Zahl der
Opfer ist entscheidend - nein, die Tatsache als solche! Helldorf,
fuer die Welt ist das eines der furchtbarsten Pogrome - und
dieser Tatsache muessen wir ins Auge sehen. Es ist zum
Verzweifeln, sage ich Ihnen!"
Dann gab es eine Pause im Gespraech. Anschliesend sagte Helldorf,
dass sich unter den am 9. November in Berlin Verhafteten auch
drei kommunistische Chinesen befanden, die, als SA Maenner
verkleidet, die Menge zum Pluendern aufgefordert haetten.
Eine Erklaerung fuer das, was ich zufaellig hoerte, habe ich nie
erhalten. Als mich Goebbels sah, verabschiedete er sich vom
Grafen Helldorf.
Dann hoerte er sich meinen Bericht an, er schien aber in Gedanken
ganz woanders zu sein.
Ich glaube, dass er zu niemandem so offen ueber die
"Kristallnacht" gesprochen hat wie zu dem Polizeipraesidenten von
Berlin. Mir sagte er nur noch, dass diejenigen, die sich an den
Pluenderungen und Mishandlungen beteiligt haetten, vor Gericht
kaemen und schwer bestraft wuerden, insbesondere, wenn sie
Parteigenossen seien.
Das ist auch in etlichen Faellen geschehen.
Sicher war Goebbels ein ueberzeugter Antisemit. Er hielt die
maechtigen internationalen Juden fuer die gefaehrlichsten Gegner
seines Volkes und den Einfluss der Juden auf das oeffentliche
Leben in Deutschland fuer viel zu gross.
Er war dafuer, entweder den deutschen Juden in anderen Laendern
eine neue Heimat zu geben - oder, aber ihren Einfluss ihrem
Anteil an der Bevoelkerungszahl anzupassen und ihnen ein
kulturelles Eigenleben zu garantieren. Jede Art von
Antisemitismus, die die Juden zu Martyrern machen koennte, lehnte
er prinzipiell und aus tiefster Ueberzeugung ab - sowohl aus
Gruenden der Menschlichkeit wie auch aus Gruenden der Politik. Er
wehrte sich daher zum Beispiel auch offiziell gegen die Forderung
[von Wilhelm Canaries = Moses Meyerbeer], den Judenstern als
Abzeichen einzufuehren.
Ich habe ihn im Laufe der Jahre natuerlich haeufig ueber dieses
Thema auch im kleinen Kreis sprechen hoeren und niemals eine
andere als diese Ansicht bei ihm feststellen koennen. Das gilt
bis 1939 - spaeter kam ich ja nur noch selten mit
ihm zusammen, und dann war von den Kriegsereignissen die Rede.
Dass er, der Propagandist des Reiches, keine Silbe ueber die
"Endloesung der Judenfrage" gesagt hat - fuer den Fall, dass er
davon wusste -, erscheint mir selbstverstaendlich.
Schon das geringste Eingestandnis von ihm in dieser Beziehung
haette gegen Ende des Krieges in bezug auf die Kriegfuehrung
propagandistisch verheerend, wahrscheinlich vernichtend gewirkt.
Ich habe nicht den mindesten Beweis dafuer, dass er
diesbezueglich etwas wusste, aber ich muss vermuten, dass dieser
stets vorzueglich informierte Minister jedenfalls mehr darueber
erfuhr, als wir. Sicher hat er auch Zusammenhaenge gekannt, die
wir wahrscheinlich nie erfahren werden.
Jener 8./9. November 1938, ueber den sich Goebbels zu Recht so
erregte, war politisch gesehen nach dem 30. Juni 1934 die zweite
und wohl die folgenschwerste Niederlage der
nationalsozialistischen Revolution. Vom verlorenen Krieg hat sich
Deutschland wieder zum Teil erholt, von der Behandlung der
Judenfrage nicht.
Was Goebbels Helldorf sagte, ging in schauerlicher Weise in
Erfuellung.
Ende: Zeitgeschichte 1
Matt Giwer
Mike Pelletier <mi...@comshare.com> wrote:
>In article <4pqogd$m...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>,
> Gord McFee <gmc...@ibm.net> wrote:
>>In article <4phq2m$d...@valhalla.comshare.com>, Mike Pelletier
>> <mi...@comshare.com> said:
>>>Both letters to the newspaper seem to ascribe victim status to Hammer,
>>>lamenting the fact that if he'd disobeyed orders, he would have been shot
>>>by his commanding officers, and that he's not to blame, the government of
>>>Nazi Germany is to blame.
>>
>>Rubbish. There are lots of examples of SS who refused to obey orders in
>>this regard, or refused to serve in a death camp, and I am unaware of any
>>who were shot for it. Most were simply sent home.
>This "if they disobeyed orders they'd have been shot" apology is very
>commonly used, it's interesting to know that it's bunk. Could you post
>some references?
>>Right on the second point. Wrong on the first. The Kristallnacht was
>>ordered by the Government (Hitler, Goebbels and Heydrich) and was carried
>>out by the SS and the SA.
>Thanks for setting me straight on that point. I was long under the
>impression that it was a popular, mob-mentality kind of attack on
>Jewish businesses legitimized in the minds of the mob by the
>Nazi-sponsored boycotts and hate mongering.
But it is another of the claims for which there has never been the
slightest evidence ever produced for it being a government operation.
You might ask for references on this one also.
Ken McVay OBC
In article <31c1933f...@news.annap.infi.net>,
h...@annap.infi.net (Horst Kleinsorg) wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jun 1996 21:06:59 EDT, gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee)
>wrote:
>>Rubbish. There are lots of examples of SS who refused to obey orders in
>>this regard, or refused to serve in a death camp, and I am unaware of any
>>who were shot for it. Most were simply sent home.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Where is your prove for your statement?
I suggest that you begin with Browning's "Ordinary Men," then
check Goldhagen's "Hitler's Willing Executioners." When you
have completed those, let me know.
Horst Kleinsorg
On 14 Jun 1996 13:31:18 -0700, kmc...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken
McVay OBC) wrote:
>In article <31c1933f...@news.annap.infi.net>,
>h...@annap.infi.net (Horst Kleinsorg) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Jun 1996 21:06:59 EDT, gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee)
>>wrote:
>
>>>Rubbish. There are lots of examples of SS who refused to obey orders in
>>>this regard, or refused to serve in a death camp, and I am unaware of any
>>>who were shot for it. Most were simply sent home.
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>Where is your prove for your statement?
>
>I suggest that you begin with Browning's "Ordinary Men," then
>check Goldhagen's "Hitler's Willing Executioners." When you
>have completed those, let me know.
>
McVay:
Why don't you just stay in alt.revisionism and keep slinging your
mudd and do your advertising?
You are only polluting the air here.
First tell us who is financing your Nizkor, then we perahps can
talk.
Chuck Ferree
Hey there Horst,
Been wondering where you've been hiding. Now I know. Better not mess
with Nizkor, they'll kick your old weary ass. As for where they get
all there money, that's none of your business, ole buddy. In your
argument, you say SS men weren't shot. Well some were and some were
not. I had an Austrian friend, I think I all ready told you about him.
He was a Col. and Battalion commander when the Nazis invaded Norway.
He told me many times, face to face, that he was always afraid to say
the wrong thing for fear of being shot by his own fellow officers. So
maybe this is a foolish argument. Many SS testified that they had to
follow orders or they risked death from other SS. I heard some SS say
that while under questioning by American officers in some of the
camps. Well, anyway. You owe me a letter. How about it?
Chuck Ferree
Matt Giwer
h...@annap.infi.net (Horst Kleinsorg) wrote:
>On 14 Jun 1996 13:31:18 -0700, kmc...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken
>McVay OBC) wrote:
>>In article <31c1933f...@news.annap.infi.net>,
>>h...@annap.infi.net (Horst Kleinsorg) wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 13 Jun 1996 21:06:59 EDT, gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee)
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Rubbish. There are lots of examples of SS who refused to obey orders in
>>>>this regard, or refused to serve in a death camp, and I am unaware of any
>>>>who were shot for it. Most were simply sent home.
>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>>Where is your prove for your statement?
>>
>>I suggest that you begin with Browning's "Ordinary Men," then
>>check Goldhagen's "Hitler's Willing Executioners." When you
>>have completed those, let me know.
>>
>McVay:
>Why don't you just stay in alt.revisionism and keep slinging your
>mudd and do your advertising?
>You are only polluting the air here.
>First tell us who is financing your Nizkor, then we perahps can
>talk.
Supposedly a synagogue is collected tax free contributions for Nizkor
even though Nizkor does not have tax exempt status.
Ken McVay OBC
In article <31c2fa3a...@news.annap.infi.net>,
h...@annap.infi.net (Horst Kleinsorg) wrote, in response to my
suggestion that he actually do some research:
[McVay]
>>I suggest that you begin with Browning's "Ordinary Men," then
>>check Goldhagen's "Hitler's Willing Executioners." When you
>>have completed those, let me know.
>McVay:
>Why don't you just stay in alt.revisionism and keep slinging your
>mudd and do your advertising?
>You are only polluting the air here.
Translation: "Please don't confuse the issue here by suggesting
I am not interested in the truth. Although it is certainly
true, others might notice, and wonder about my motives for
slandering Germans by suggesting that they were all barbarians."
>First tell us who is financing your Nizkor, then we perahps can
>talk.
Thank you for bringing that up, Mr. Kleinsorg. I am financed
by thousands of "just plain folks" who wish to support my
work. In Canada, they make their cheques payable to
Congregation Emmanu-El / Nizkor Project
and mail them to:
Congregation Emmanu-El / Nizkor Project
1461 Blanshard St.
Victoria, BC
V8W 2J3
In the United States, they make their cheques payable to:
SAN ANTONIO AREA FOUNDATION - Nizkor Fund
and mail them to:
San Antonio Area Foundation
Nizkor Fund
P.O. Box 120366
San Antonio, TX 78212-9566
Once again, Mr. Kleinsorg, thank you for asking. I trust this
open, public response will satisfy your query.
By the way, Mr. Kleinsorg... now that I have responded openly
and honestly to your question, perhaps you can tell us what
difference it makes who finances my work... you are still
slandering Germans, and the German military, and I fail to see
how my financing changes that.
Mike Curtis
h...@annap.infi.net (Horst Kleinsorg) wrote:
>On 14 Jun 1996 13:31:18 -0700, kmc...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken
>McVay OBC) wrote:
>>In article <31c1933f...@news.annap.infi.net>,
>>h...@annap.infi.net (Horst Kleinsorg) wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 13 Jun 1996 21:06:59 EDT, gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee)
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Rubbish. There are lots of examples of SS who refused to obey orders in
>>>>this regard, or refused to serve in a death camp, and I am unaware of any
>>>>who were shot for it. Most were simply sent home.
>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>>Where is your prove for your statement?
>>
>>I suggest that you begin with Browning's "Ordinary Men," then
>>check Goldhagen's "Hitler's Willing Executioners." When you
>>have completed those, let me know.
>>
>McVay:
>Why don't you just stay in alt.revisionism and keep slinging your
>mudd and do your advertising?
>You are only polluting the air here.
>First tell us who is financing your Nizkor, then we perahps can
>talk.
Well, Horst, did they finally kick you off CompuServe? Find there was
no where else to go to spread your denials of the Holocaust? Let me
explain something to you, Horst. This a place for "revisionists", I
call them distortionists, to spread their stupidity. Concerns about
the financing of Nizkor is available from the site. I suggest you
visit it for we have been through this off-topic subject that has
NOTHING to do with the Holocaust before. I suggest you build your ad
hominems elsewhere.
Mike Curtis
mgi...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:
>h...@annap.infi.net (Horst Kleinsorg) wrote:
>>On 14 Jun 1996 13:31:18 -0700, kmc...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken
>>McVay OBC) wrote:
>>>In article <31c1933f...@news.annap.infi.net>,
>>>h...@annap.infi.net (Horst Kleinsorg) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 13 Jun 1996 21:06:59 EDT, gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee)
>>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Rubbish. There are lots of examples of SS who refused to obey orders in
>>>>>this regard, or refused to serve in a death camp, and I am unaware of any
>>>>>who were shot for it. Most were simply sent home.
>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>>Where is your prove for your statement?
>>>
>>>I suggest that you begin with Browning's "Ordinary Men," then
>>>check Goldhagen's "Hitler's Willing Executioners." When you
>>>have completed those, let me know.
>>>
>>McVay:
>>Why don't you just stay in alt.revisionism and keep slinging your
>>mudd and do your advertising?
>>You are only polluting the air here.
>>First tell us who is financing your Nizkor, then we perahps can
>>talk.
> Supposedly a synagogue is collected tax free contributions for Nizkor
>even though Nizkor does not have tax exempt status.
This is the Troll who has to put his stamp on every thread no matter
what.
Jamie McCarthy
h...@annap.infi.net (Horst Kleinsorg) wrote:
> First tell us who is financing your Nizkor, then we perahps can
> talk.
http://www.almanac.bc.ca/funding.html
Posted/emailed. Followups to alt.revisionism.
--
Jamie McCarthy http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/
ja...@voyager.net Co-Webmaster of http://www.almanac.bc.ca/
Unless you specify otherwise, I assume pro-"revisionism" email
to be in the public domain. I speak only for myself.
Erhard Sanio
In article <31c2fa3a...@news.annap.infi.net>,
Horst Kleinsorg <h...@annap.infi.net> wrote:
>On 14 Jun 1996 13:31:18 -0700, kmc...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken
>McVay OBC) wrote:
>>>>Rubbish. There are lots of examples of SS who refused to obey orders in
>>>>this regard, or refused to serve in a death camp, and I am unaware of any
>>>>who were shot for it. Most were simply sent home.
>>>Where is your prove for your statement?
>>I suggest that you begin with Browning's "Ordinary Men," then
>>check Goldhagen's "Hitler's Willing Executioners." When you
>>have completed those, let me know.
>McVay:
>Why don't you just stay in alt.revisionism and keep slinging your
>mudd and do your advertising?
>You are only polluting the air here.
Kleinsorg,
your statements are not only stupid and an outrage, rather they are going
over the top.
When anybody is polluting the air here, it is you. Except one probably
mentally disturbed person and one bozo from New Zealand, nobody takes
your side, here (soc.culture.german), and most would be glad to see your
stupid and contemptuous drivel disappear better now than later. You would
do a favour to Germany which you assert to hold positive feelings for by
stopping your disgusting lies, false accusations, and slander. Rather you
choose to damage the image of Germany and Germans in the world exposing
yourself as a traitor just alike your idols Hitler and Goebbels.
It is for rights and dignity of all humans that some people take the
hard and disgusting work to collect and distribute refutations of all
the slander and counterfeit youthe and your henchmen are producing. We
all here owe thanks to Ken and other people from Nizkor that they
are fulfilling that good task. No wonder you hate them, not that
anybody expected otherwise.
>First tell us who is financing your Nizkor, then we perahps can
>talk.
Do you really believe any decent person could enjoy to talk to you? Get real.
Case Nizkor has financial problems they may feel free to report that
on the net immediately. I don't think I would be the only one to support
a collection.
A last thing, Kleinsorg: You owe me at least to explanations about
counterfeits of yours published on the net. Don't think I would forget
about.
regards, es
Chuck Ferree
Chuck Ferree wrote:
Where does Nizkor get all it's money? Well, me and my Chicago pal, the
same one what likes to bust knees, sent in under an alias (because the
cops want this pal) over $35 million, most of which goes to support my
other pal, McVay's high and fancy lifestyle. More where that came from
if the cops don't get Shorty first!
Chuck
Matt Giwer wrote:
>
> h...@annap.infi.net (Horst Kleinsorg) wrote:
>
> >On 14 Jun 1996 13:31:18 -0700, kmc...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken
> >McVay OBC) wrote:
> Supposedly a synagogue is collected tax free contributions for Nizkor
> even though Nizkor does not have tax exempt status.
That's none of your business either, twerp. The point is, what does
Horst care about Nizkor's resources? Is he gonna start sticking his
neck out too or remain behind the trees. Come on out, Horst. I miss
ya!
Chuck
Ken McVay OBC
In article <4pvcb1$d...@boris.eden.com>, mcu...@eden.com (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>mgi...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:
"Supposedly a synagogue is collected tax free
contributions for Nizkor even though Nizkor does not
have tax exempt status. "
>This is the Troll who has to put his stamp on every thread no matter
>what.
But he's our troll :-)
Let him explain this one:
In the United States, checks in support of the work of The
Nizkor Project should be made payable to:
SAN ANTONIO AREA FOUNDATION - Nizkor Fund
and should be mailed to:
San Antonio Area Foundation
Nizkor Fund
P.O. Box 120366
San Antonio, TX 78212-9566
Mr. Giwer is, as far as I can determine, a troller whose only
interest is in causing fights. While he can sound superficially
plausible, he has lied about what has been said in exchanges (while
accusing others of lying), refused to document claims, pretended not to
see posts which contain documented refutation of his claims (even when
they have been emailed to him), engaged in actual libel, and generally
conducted himself with such complete lack of intellectual and factual
integrity that there seems to be no point in taking the time to read and
respond. For detailed and documented evidence of this, please refer to
URL http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt
Matt Giwer
Chuck Ferree <chu...@rio.com> wrote:
>Chuck Ferree wrote:
>Where does Nizkor get all it's money? Well, me and my Chicago pal, the
>same one what likes to bust knees, sent in under an alias (because the
>cops want this pal) over $35 million, most of which goes to support my
>other pal, McVay's high and fancy lifestyle. More where that came from
>if the cops don't get Shorty first!
>Chuck
>Matt Giwer wrote:
>>
>> h...@annap.infi.net (Horst Kleinsorg) wrote:
>>
>> >On 14 Jun 1996 13:31:18 -0700, kmc...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken
>> >McVay OBC) wrote:
>> Supposedly a synagogue is collected tax free contributions for Nizkor
>> even though Nizkor does not have tax exempt status.
>That's none of your business either, twerp. The point is, what does
>Horst care about Nizkor's resources? Is he gonna start sticking his
>neck out too or remain behind the trees. Come on out, Horst. I miss
>ya!
Anything is my business, camp liberating fighter pilot. What did you
do, destroy the camp in order to save it?
But when I start soliciting contributions for personal gain he certainly
has a right to start asking questions.
Matt Giwer
kmc...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC) wrote:
>In article <4pvcb1$d...@boris.eden.com>, mcu...@eden.com (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>>mgi...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:
> "Supposedly a synagogue is collected tax free
> contributions for Nizkor even though Nizkor does not
> have tax exempt status. "
>>This is the Troll who has to put his stamp on every thread no matter
>>what.
>But he's our troll :-)
>Let him explain this one:
>In the United States, checks in support of the work of The
>Nizkor Project should be made payable to:
>
>SAN ANTONIO AREA FOUNDATION - Nizkor Fund
>
>and should be mailed to:
>
> San Antonio Area Foundation
> Nizkor Fund
> P.O. Box 120366
> San Antonio, TX 78212-9566
That is not an explanation. If you do not have tax free status
contributions to that fund will not be eligable for tax deductions. You
should make that clear.
Mike Curtis
h...@annap.infi.net (Horst Kleinsorg) wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jun 1996 21:06:59 EDT, gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee)
>wrote:
>>In article <4phq2m$d...@valhalla.comshare.com>, Mike Pelletier
>><mi...@comshare.com> said:
>>
>>
>>Rubbish. There are lots of examples of SS who refused to obey orders in
>>this regard, or refused to serve in a death camp, and I am unaware of any
>>who were shot for it. Most were simply sent home.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Where is your prove for your statement?
Well, Horst, there is a book called _Nazi Doctors_ that has two such
cases of SS refusing to do selections. These men were sent back to
Berlin for desk jobs.
[snipped the german]
Gord McFee
In article <4pvu3j$c...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, mgi...@ix.netcom.com (Matt
Giwer) said:
> Anything is my business, camp liberating fighter pilot. What did you do,
>destroy the camp in order to save it?
> But when I start soliciting contributions for personal gain he certainly
>has a right to start asking questions.
No thread is safe from the Giwer-troll. It must be the stench that
attracted him.
Mr. Giwer is, as far as I can determine, an obscene and pathetic troller
whose only interest is in causing fights. While he can sound superficially
plausible, he has lied about what has been said in exchanges (while accusing
others of lying), refused to document claims, pretended not to see posts
which contain documented refutation of his claims (even when they have been
e-mailed to him), engaged in actual libel, and generally conducted himself
with such complete lack of intellectual and factual integrity that there
seems to be no point in taking the time to read and respond. For detailed
and documented evidence of this, please refer to
URL http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt
--
Gord McFee
>>>>Rubbish. There are lots of examples of SS who refused to obey orders in
>>>>this regard, or refused to serve in a death camp, and I am unaware of
any
>>>>who were shot for it. Most were simply sent home.
>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>>Where is your prove for your statement?
>>
>>I suggest that you begin with Browning's "Ordinary Men," then
>>check Goldhagen's "Hitler's Willing Executioners." When you
>>have completed those, let me know.
>>
>McVay:
>Why don't you just stay in alt.revisionism and keep slinging your mudd and
>do your advertising?
Don't worry about McVay, butthead. Why don't you check out the sources?
>You are only polluting the air here.
Then take a hike, little man.
Matt Giwer
gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
>URL http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt
>--
>Gord McFee
>.. I'll write no line before its time(gmc...@ibm.net)
>-- MR/2 2.26 #331
>
========
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Not close inded! Keren bullshits again
From: mgi...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Giwer)
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 21:43:39 GMT
Hey, Keren! Where is your story about the Polish "spies" not getting
close this time?
" The second building [at Treblinka] consists of three chambers and a
boiler-room. The steam
generated in the boilers is led by means of pipes to the chambers. There
are terracota floors in
the chambers which become very slippery when wet ... All victims had to
strip off their clothes and
shoes, which were collected afterwards, whereupon all victims, women and
children first, were
driven into the death chambers. Those too slow or too weak to move
quickly were driven on by
rifle butts, by whipping and kicking...Many slipped and fell, the next
victims pressed forward and
stumbled over them. Small children were simply thrown inside. After
being filled up to capacity the
chambers were hermetically closed and steam was let in. In a few minutes
all was over. "
IMT XXXII - pp. 156-157.